The Very Last Show and Tell Blog

Well, the other day, Dr. Fletcher got Oklahoma! on my mind and since it is one of my good old favorites, I decided to use that one for my very last show and tell blog post.  Like Dr. Fletcher said, it was one of the very first musicals as we know it musicals so it is pretty old.  It is based off a play written in 1931 called Green Grown the Lilacs by Lynn Riggs.  Later, it was turned into the beloved musical by Richard Rogers and Oscar Hammerstein II.  Its first notable performance was in 1943 on Broadway and it was an incredible success.  It has been reproduced many, many times since then and continues to charm audiences today.

Oklahoma! is the story of a young farm girl named Laurey living in Oklahoma territory right after the turn of the 20^th century.  We meet the cowboy Curly McLain and farm hand Jud Fry who both have their hearts set on the pretty Laurey, Ado Annie her flirty best friend who “cain’t say no”, Will Parker the rope swinging cowboy, Ali Hakim the traveling salesman, and Aunt Eller Laurey’s (and pretty much everyone else’s) aunt.  It’s a story of two love triangles.  While Laurey and Curly both try to play “hard to get,” Jud (who is a little bit stalkerish) tries to go after Laurey.  On the other side of the story, there’s Ado Annie who is young and naïve.  Will Parker, who she promised to marry, has been away for a while at a fair competing in a roping contest.  When he returns after winning $50, he discovers that Ado Annie has fallen for a Persian peddler man (Ali Hakim) who she truly believes wants to marry her.  Unfortunately, Ali just wants one night at the hotel with her before he leaves town.  The play tells the story of how the two girls figure out how to work through their love triangles and end up marrying the right man.

The order of scenes in the first act is very notable.  There is a scene introducing each character and the story begins to develop before we really get to see much about the character of Jud.  All of the scenes are very light and happy.  The music is upbeat and playful.  A little over halfway through Act 1, though, there is a shift.  During the song “People Will Say We’re In Love,” there is a significant shift in the rhythm of the song after Curly leaves and Laurey continues the last refrain.  This segues into the first scene in Jud’s smoke house.  This entire scene has a darkness surrounding it and the music definitely reinforces that.  Curly and Jud sing the song about what Jud’s funeral would be like.  Jud tells a story of how a farm hand burned down a farm and the family that lived there when his affections for the girl weren’t returned.  When Jud is finally left alone again, the dark mood continues in his song “Lonely Room” where we see a bit more of who he is and his desires.  The dream sequence that follows that stays in the more serious place as well.  It contrasts all of the happy scenes introducing the characters and focuses in on how Laurey and Jud are actually feeling about things. 

The second noteworthy choice is sequence of the scenes in Act 2.  There is a very clear back and forth in the rhythm of the scenes.  It begins with the very lighthearted scene at the Box Social with laughing and dancing, then the auction scene where Curly and Jud bid on Laurey’s hamper—really bidding on her, then “All Er Nuthin’,” the song where Will and Ado Annie decide to either love only one another or not at all, then a scene with Jud and Laurey full of intense dialogue followed by the decision of Laurey and Curly to be married, then a scene where Ali Hakim shows Ado Annie how they say goodbye in Persia (a big kiss) and Will shows Ado Annie how they say hello in Oklahoma (an even bigger kiss!), last there’s a huge fight between Curly and Jud where Jud actually dies, and in the end Ado Annie and Will Parker come in with a humorous line to finish off the play.  There is an extremely obvious tension and release pattern between the scenes with Ado Annie and her men vs. the scenes with Laurey and hers.  Ado Annie, Will, and Ali’s scenes are all very amusing and comedic and the music in them helps to create that feeling while Laurey, Jud, and Curly’s are all very intense and dramatic with the music backing that up as well.  I feel like this story could easily be switched.  The way in which each story is told sets up how it ends up feeling.  The stories of Ado Annie and Laurey and their trouble with boys truly aren’t very different.  Ali Hakim could easily be portrayed as manipulating con man and definitely a villain taking advantage of a young naïve girl.  While if Jud had different music and rhythm in his lines, he could be portrayed as a sort of goofy and socially awkward farm hand that has his sights set on a pretty girl seeming far out of his reach. 

The Drowsy Chaperone

I was very confused by exactly what the question Dr. Fletcher was asking for this one, so I am going to do the best I can. 

Usually in those old fashioned musicals, there is a rather fluid rhythm and tempo from scene to scene with music blending one scene into the next.  I feel like if we were only analyzing the show within a show Drowsy Chaperone, it would have that sort of rhythm and tempo.  Looking at it as this particular script is written, though changes the rhythm and tempo completely!  Instead of it being about Janet and Robert, it is about the Man.  The first time I read it, it was really easy for me to get completely caught up in just the story of the play within the play, but I realize that that is a mistake.  I almost just ignored the Man at first.  Maybe when you are actually watching the show, the story of the man is a bit easier to focus on and see without having to delve deeper, but just reading it I just kind of tuned him out a lot of the time.  However, his inputs, interactions with the characters (even though they obviously do not interact back with him), and the quick stops and changes are very significant as well.  It changes the mood of the play to have many of the significant scenes abruptly interrupted.  I’m planning on using this show for Analysis 5, so I am going to be looking at these abrupt stops and interruptions much more when I begin to work on that a little bit more. 

Three Viewings

With this play, I had an extremely difficult time identifying something that united these as the same show.  There did not seem to be much connection between one monologue and another.  Other than the obvious fact that they are all talking about a funeral, they seemed pretty different to me.  As usual, though, I slowly started to pick up on something.  I knew that there had to be some sort of motif that connected these three very different characters.  All of these characters were talking about the funeral of someone.  With both Mac and Virginia, the funeral was for a person who was extremely close to the character giving the monologue.  However, in all three of the monologues, there is a very obvious disconnect between the person who has died and the person who is giving the monologue.  In Emil’s monologue, he often hardly seems to realize that he is talking about a funeral.  He is very caught up in his admiration of “Tessie” most of the time.  When he does mention Nettie, it seems extremely casual and not very respectful.  In Mac’s monologue, there is an even greater tension there because Nettie was her grandmother.  It should be a funeral that is sad for her.  However, she speaks of her grandma’s death rather casually as well.  Her focus is completely on obtaining that ring.  There is a switch at the end, though.  That is something that we do not see nearly as much with Emil.  Lastly, in Virginia’s scene, she is talking about her deceased husband.  This seems as if it should be a heart wrenching, very sad sort of scene.  But again, I just get this feeling of casualness.  I’m not completely sure why this exists in this play, but it stood out to me and puzzled me.

On the Verge

"Ladies, shall we whack the bush?" is a line repeated over and over throughout the play On the Verge.  And it’s what leads into my idea for the poster. My vision for the poster would be a thick jungle with a light watermark of a clock on it.  I would want it to not be very obvious that there is a clock involved.  The poster should suggest a journey or an adventure, not giving away the exciting twist of time travel, but merely hinting at it.  Maybe there would be a few of the objects that we see come up in the play scattered around, but I’m not sure about that part.  It’s hard to imagine it in my head.  I feel like this idea is not super crazy or innovative, but it is very fitting.  "Ladies, shall we whack the bush?" is the line I would want to use for the tag line.  It conveys that same idea of the jungle and adventuring, but also holds more weight to it than that.  These women have an incredible persistence and determination for exploring.  The desire to discover new places is the main driving force through this play.  They are not only discovering new places as in physical places, but also making discoveries about new places in time.  And they are not only whacking through trees, but whacking through confusion of new objects and phrases that they have never heard.  It paints a mental image of a thick and difficult web of something that they must plow through to find their way.  This is why I chose the image of the jungle to use for the poster.  It is the physical image of the words of my tag line.  I didn’t want to use the typical pictures of maps and adventurous looking women with umbrellas.  I wanted it to have a bit more ambiguity in it.  It leaves people who see it wondering what exactly it suggests.

Fires in the Mirror

I think that we would lose so much of the story by removing those monologues from the script.  When I first began to read the play, I just didn’t get it.  This was before I read the prompt from Dr. Fletcher and understood how the play was originally meant to be performed.  Also, I absolutely didn’t understand what the show was about.  Then I paused what I was doing and tried to figure out what the play was about.  When I began reading it again, it made much more sense.  And I think that there was so much purpose in Anna Deavere Smith’s choices to include the monologues that seemed more random.  It gives so much more insight into who the people actually are.  It takes the focus off of the issue of the riots and brings it into the deeper roots of where the ones involved, impacted by, or just observing the incident are coming from.

Hearing from the Lubavitcher Woman explains her perspective of the others.  It shows us that she doesn’t hate them, she just acknowledges that they are different.  Getting to know the Anonymous Girl doesn’t tell us any bit of information about the riots, but just more information on how they view different races.  Even “Big Mo” doesn’t focus in on the riots, but more on the culture in her world.  I think that these different random monologues are a very important sort of preface to introducing the serious issue of a boy getting hit by a car and a man getting stabbed.  It introduces you into the world that this play is set in rather than just plunging head first into these big issues.  If these parts were excluded from the plot, I think we would lose a large amount of the context that is a huge part of the story.

My Comments

Here's where I posted all of my comments, just to make it easier on y'all :)

http://emilielegethtr2130blog.blogspot.com/2013/04/water-by-spoonful-hudges.html?showComment=1365868692640#c8618873095987122145

http://emilielegethtr2130blog.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-glass-of-water-eugene-scribe.html?showComment=1365869012907#c7299457098883031133

http://thtr2130sh.blogspot.com/2013/04/noises-off.html?showComment=1365869407224#c260904325474009070

http://thtr2130sh.blogspot.com/2013/04/glass-of-water.html?showComment=1365873738963#c2652836829900031547

http://garrettstheater.blogspot.com/2013/04/detroit.html?showComment=1365874085755#c1915795708649258843

http://garrettstheater.blogspot.com/2013/03/noises-off.html?showComment=1365908018918#c4901945775149523307

 

Show and Tell Post #2!!

My Show and Tell post for this segment will be on Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine’s Into the Woods.  It was first performed on Broadway in 1986 and has been performed many, many times since then.  

Into the Woods is a cleverly written musical that combines several of the Grimm’s Brother’s fairy tales.  We see characters from Rapunzel, Jack and the Beanstalk, Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, and even some brief appearances from Sleeping Beauty and Snow White.  There is also a brand new story about a Baker and his wife desperately trying to start a family.  A witch comes to their home one day to inform them that the reason they can’t have children is because of a curse placed on the Baker’s family.  The five different stories intertwine with one another as the Baker tries to break this curse.  He journeys “into the woods” to collect “the cow as white as milk, the cape as red as blood, the hair as yellow as corn, the slipper as pure as gold.”  If he is able to return to the witch with those things in 3 days, the spell will be broken.  Each of the characters has a wish that the journey “into the woods” to try to fulfill.  For the most part, the well-known stories progress as we’ve always known them, but intertwine with one another in surprising ways.  Act Two presents and entirely new plot line, however, when the characters (who are all acquainted with one another at this point) are forced to battle the wife of the giant that Jack killed.

To think about the dramaturgical choices that Sondheim and Lapine made in creating this play is different from many others since much of the plot is based on little pieces of stories that already existed.  It is still an original plot, though, so I’ll look at it as its own world.  I noticed that there are some crucial parts of the stories that are not included in the script at all.  There are no scenes with Cinderella at the ball or Jack climbing the beanstalk and meeting the giants.  We don’t see Rapunzel or Cinderella meeting their princes.  These parts of the stories are told through their songs.  It’s easy to say that the writers left these parts out of the story because we already know all of that stuff.  However, I think that’s cheating a little bit.  All of the scenes, except for the first scene of each act, are set “in the woods.”  Therefore, it makes perfect sense that we would never enter the palace for the ball or climb up the beanstalk into the world of the giants.  We hear about those parts in the character’s reflections after their experiences.  The clever lyrics of the songs paint a very vivid image of what occurred.  Also, we are able to hear the impression and perspective of the characters.  We know their intentions and reactions to what happened.  That’s very different from hearing the original stories in the third person form in a story book.  This brings me to my next point.  The choice of including a Narrator is another very game-changing choice.  For the entire Act 1, much of the story is presented as a story book through the voice of the Narrator.  This makes perfect sense since these are all stories that many people relate to in that way.  However, there is a moment in Act 2 when everything changes.  The line between the Narrator and all of the other characters is severed.  Suddenly the characters notice him and he becomes part of the plot.  It’s a bit unsettling, which supports the rest of the play (especially Act 2) very well.  Many of the things that the audience thought they knew about all of these stories is completely shattered after their happily ever afters.  All of Act 2 constantly breaks everything that was ever known about the well-loved characters.  Incorporating a consistent, charming narrator throughout Act 1, then breaking that consistency as well throws the reader and the audience for a loop once again.