Show and Tell Post!!

My show and tell blog shall be about the musical, Fiddler on the Roof.  The music is by Jerry Brock, lyrics by Sheldon Harnick, and the book by Joseph Stein.  It has been performed many times over the years.  The original Broadway production was in 1964.  Since then, it has been done in London, Australia, and all over the world.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiddler_on_the_roof)

The plot begins with Tevye, a poor milkman, introducing his small Jewish village of Anatevka in Russia.  The year is 1905 and the Jews of Anatevka are very set in their traditions and ways.  Tevye is the father of five daughters and he and his wife, Golde, are very concerned with getting each of them married off—preferably to a well-off, Jewish man.  There is a matchmaker, Yente, who arranges all of the marriages in Anatevka.  However, Tevye’s daughters have different ideas than Yente.  In Yente’s opinion, for girls who come from a poor family, there aren’t as many options.  Tzeitel, the oldest daughter, is the first to arrange her own marriage.  She is in love with the poor tailor, Motel Kamzoil.  When they initially present the idea to Tevye, he is furious and against it, especially since he has recently arranged a marriage for Tzeitel with the old butcher, Lazar Wolfe.  However, with just a tiny bit of convincing, Tzeitel and Motel are engaged to be married.  Hodel, the second daughter, falls in love with an outspoken student named Perchik.  He also is not considered a good match since he is poor and leaving the village of Anatevka.  Eventually, Tevye agrees to this marriage as well.  Chava, the youngest falls in love with a Russian man named Fyedka.  This is, by far, the worst of all because he is not Jewish.  Tevye forbids it.  And when Chava goes behind his back and marries him anyway, he says that Chava is dead to them.  All of this is happening as the Jews all over Russia are being kicked out of their towns.  Eventually, Anatevka comes to this same fate.

One dramaturgical choice that Harnick makes is the way that Tevye speaks to God and to the audience.  The way that the music is arranged and the way that all of the other characters are frozen in time as Tevye does his monologues is very effective in isolating those moments.  This happens through the entire show with several different monologues in both acts.  These moments give insight into Tevye’s inner thoughts.  If Harnick had left these out, there would be much less depth to the character of Tevye.  Also, they show his relationship and devotion to God.  These are the moments where we see inside Tevye.  If we didn’t see this, Tevye would be nothing more than a man worried about money and his daughters marriages.  We would not be able to see why and how he cares about these things.  The play certainly could be written without it.  But it would tell a different story. 

Another choice that the writer made is the focus on traditions.  After all, it is the opening song.  In the first scene it is established that the characters rely on their traditions.  Without them, their lives are unsteady.  Very soon after that first scene, we see the three oldest daughters questioning the tradition of the matchmaker.  Later, Tevye wrestles with allowing Tzeitel and Hodel to marry the men that they love.  It goes against everything, yet he breaks the tradition by letting them.  Traditions are changed again at Tzeitel’s wedding when men and women dance together.  There are many traditions changed through the plot.  The very last scene shows them leaving Anatevka.  Their home is the most stable thing they’ve known through the entire play.  At last, even that is stripped away from them.  This focus on traditions shows that everything that they depended on—customs, family, home—is not as dependable as they once thought.

Hornby

I noticed a motif in Conduct of Life that I actually already mentioned in one of my previous posts.  However, I will elaborate on it a little more right here.  I noticed in many scenes either a physical or verbal conflict or argument.  There are the obvious scenes with Nena and Orlando down in the basement that are a larger struggle between two people.  But there are also scenes that take place upstairs that may seem strange or out of place since Fornes chooses to make the scenes so short and scattered.  However, they are very tied into the scenes happening downstairs.  There are little arguments between Olimpia and Leticia.  There are also some quarrels that happen with Leticia and Orlando almost constantly.  Then there are many emotional or unspoken conflicts or tension between two people.  Sometimes it is even just one person.  Orlando has a struggle just with himself.  However, it’s clear that all of these little conflicts tie the entire show together to focus in on the biggest struggle of all.

Another show that I chose to look at is Proof.  Maybe it is too obvious because it’s in the title, but the word or idea of proof is constant throughout the entire play.  Catherine, the protagonist of this play, must try to prove many things.  She must prove her own sanity.  She must find proof that her father is the author of the mathematical proof.  All of that centering on the actual proof itself.  I think that Claire also tries to prove her happiness in New York City, though she does not seem quite sure of that herself. 

While I think that the idea of a motif may be a bit more apparent when one reads the script and pays attention to detail, I do believe that it is noticed in the actual production.  But perhaps it isn’t quite as obvious because when you read a script, I think that the wording may be more clear than when you watch it with the distractions of characters, costumes, lights, etc.  While all of those things help to tell the story in a full production, it may be easier to spot a motif when you only see the script.

How I Learned to Drive

This was another play with some unusual dramaturgical choices.  I questioned the purpose of the Greek Chorus.  Why wouldn’t actors be cast in those separate roles?  I was especially confused with the Teenage Greek Chorus playing the part of the grandmother.  I don’t understand the purpose of the same person playing Grandmother and the eleven-year-old Li’l Bit.  I know that in the notes about the characters it is very specific about the Teenage Greek Chorus.  It recommends using somebody older who just appears to be young.  Vogel did not want the audience to be made uncomfortable by a very young girl playing the part of eleven-year-old Li’l Bit, since she is in that intense scene at the end.  However, she has to still seem old enough to play the grandmother.  Why would Vogel choose to make such complicated and detailed requirements rather than just casting different actors in each character?

I think the most obvious conclusion is that she wants to create more of a distance from Peck and Li’l Bit.  If each character had a specific actor for those parts, the audience might try to connect with them a bit more.  Since they are played by the Greek Chorus, they remain much more separated than if they were more individualized.  I think it also symbolizes Li’l Bit and Peck’s relationship as well.  They both, in an odd way, provide stability to one another.  While all of the other characters sort of move in and out of their lives day to day, Peck and Li’l Bit each give something to the other that they really need.  Even though, there is a constant strain on their relationship, that is something that the other characters choose to ignore.  So, it’s symbolic that those characters lose some of their depth by being interchangeable with others.

Conduct of Life

I noticed that there are several short scenes with little fights or scuffles.  They seem rather trivial in comparison to the very dark and heavy scenes that take place down in the basement with Orlando and Nena.  The first time I read through the script, I was puzzled by those scenes.  One of the scenes is the one with Olimpia and Leticia with Olimpia pretending to read.  Another one is the scene directly after that one.  It is the scene with Leticia and Orlando arguing about the strap for the suitcase.  Why does Fornes put so much into these short scenes?  Initially, I had trouble answering that question.  The more I considered it, though, it began to make more sense.

First of all, these simple quarrels are in contrast with the things going on downstairs in the basement.  I believe that’s on purpose.  I think that it shows that these little ridiculous arguments are continuing despite the horrible things that are happening.  Normal life continues upstairs.  It gives the illusion that life is somewhat normal on the surface, but when somebody digs deeper, there is actually much more going on below that surface.

Also, not only does it contrast the terrible things happening between Orlando and Nena, but it also supports them.  It fits in with the theme of the struggles that are common through the entire show.  There is conflict between Orlando and Nena, between Orlando and Leticia, between Leticia and Olimpia, and between Orlando and himself.  It is a common occurrence in the world of this play.  Having these shorter, lighter scenes breaks the tension a bit without leaving the theme of conflict that the other scenes have created.   It contrasts it, which draws more attention to it, as well as supporting it and upholding the world of Conduct of Life.