You Shouldn't Assume.

I guess I didn't learn all that much directly from class this week. I have started to think a bit more about something that was discussed a couple of weeks ago: How the author of Gut Girls is usually labelled a lesbian feminist in her bios, and whether or not that really has anything to do with her plays -- whether her plays can be seen as a comment on feminism on their own, or whether they become that by association.

I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I probably should have written everything down as I was thinking it beause I don't remember the half of it now, but here goes.

I have been wondering if what we do by presenting an audience with information like that beforehand is really a disservice: Whether we are influencing one interpretation of something over another, and -- if so -- if we have the right to do that. Or maybe the play is really just what we have perceived it as, that's the way it is, and nothing else. I'd like to think that we are unbiased and serve only to enhance the experience and not influence it. I don't think that that is the case, though. While this is a goal we may strive for, I don't think that it is entirely possible to present somebody with a particular idea relevant to what they will be seeing/hearing/reading without affecting how they will perceive it.

I'm not being very clear here, I know. So let me try to explain through the use of the infamous Example. Let us say that your friend was about to embark on the epic adventure of reading through the copious amount of pages that is Lord of the Rings, and you tell them before they begin that you had a hard time getting through it because of the long descriptions that go on for pages. This may be a detail that they might not have been inclined to notice intially; but, after having had it pointed out to them, it is something that they will be unable to get through the novel without beng constantly aware of because iit has been pointed out to them. The elephant in the room, if you will.

Maybe that isn't the best example. Let me try another: Say you saw a certain play before a friend, mentioned to them that, though the actor was very good, they had a particular quality about them that was peculiar (say, small ankles or a strange accent), and when the aforementioned friend attended the next performance of the play, they were able to focus only on said particular quality.

ANYWAY.

These musing brought me to another train of thought: Do authors/writers/directors/composers/etcetc really intend to create multiple layers of symbolism and possible interpretations in their works for us to sift through...or are they merely accidents and the results of searching for something to support our own opinions?

I am an English major, and something that I have been noticing as I continue through my years of education is that, no matter how many times you cover one piece of literature, each teacher or professor will bring something new to influence your interpretation. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing. Just curious.

Technology, the Unreliable.

My most exciting news of the week is that my adapter cable thingy that keeps my laptop alive died, taking with it the battery and my access to all things computery. What I've learnt from this ordeal is quite simple: Completing homework and activities for The Page and the Stage is quite difficult with limited access to the internet.

I did what I could, though. And now I am going to move on....after I make a note for further reference when it comes time to write my final paper: dependability.

This week in class we did some more presentations of plays and research we've done for them, followed by a discussion of each presentation. From this I learnt that sometimes, no matter how many people you have working on the play, they still will probably not be able to cover all of the informatical (yeah, I know it's not a word) bases that ought to be covered to please everyone's thirst for knowledge. For example, none of us thought to do any research on TB, which probably would have been smart.

Moral of the story: To remember that sometimes it is the little details that might mean the most.

I Like Those Shoes...

Well, tomorrow night -- or maybe it would be more accurate to say this evening, considering the time -- I will be attending "Frost / Nixon" at the Imperial Theatre in Saint John. I'm actually looking forward to seeing this, just because I've always found the whole Watergate thing to be pretty interesting. Hopefully my reflection will be posted soon after, and I won't forget anything too important in the meantime.

I guess that this will be a pretty short blog entry, and slightly more informal than normal as well.

This week in class we listened to a Task Force present their findings on "The Cripple of Inishmaan" -- which I am very much looking forward to -- and an Editorial Team present their Playgoer's Companion for "Frost / Nixon." Exciting stuff. What I learnt was a lot of background on "The Cripple," and not a whole lot else, besides the continuation of what I call the "Thinking like an audience" and "Thinking critically" processes.

Currently, I am waiting for the Task Force to hopefully finish fine-tuning the information they have posted on their Wiki so that the Editorial Team I'm on can take over. Hoping to get that done and over with as soon as possible.

Good night, and good luck.

Please Stand Back From The Yellow Line

I despise presenting things. Loathe. Abhor. Detest. Is that enough? Because I can keep going. I’ve been told numerous times that more people fear public speaking more than death. I can almost see why.

This week’s class involved presenting things, namely our Wiki on Frost/Nixon. Not overly enjoyable. I think that it went smoothly for the most part, and we had a decent conversation going on about the information.

The Task Force for Gut Girls presented their findings, as well, and I greatly preferred listening to their presentation than doing my own. But that is beside the point.

The point is that, with these presentations, we are still exploring the world of theatre in ways that most of us aren’t used to. And the more we have been talking about the transference of the script to the stage, the more I have begun to think about the smaller details of the script: the role of blocking, use of sets, the reason that the playwright chose the wording that s/he did for the dialogue.

I’ve always thought that putting a play together would be kind of chaotic, with only the script and the dialogue. Now I’m beginning to see that it’s really more like trying to put together a decently sized puzzle. You have the corner and border pieces to start with (the stage directions and dialogue) and then there are all of the middle pieces that hint at the larger picture (lighting, positioning, personal interpretation, etc). Staging a play doesn’t just start on the page, it takes root, too, in the imagination.

I’m seeing proof of this in the way I have begun to read scripts lately: considering the pieces carefully, and seeing my own take on the story playing like a film reel in my mind. And I know that we aren't supposed to use personal experiences to illustrate our points when it comes to the learning synthesis, at least I don't think we are, but the only time I can recall this happening to me to the same extent in the past would be in my Theatre Arts class in high school. As a final project we had to produce a short play with a small group of people. my group chose a 3-hander, Canon in D Minor, I think was the title. I remember becoming frustrated when it came time to start putting it together, because my group members hadn't thought too much about the dynamics of it, but I had a pretty clear picture of what I thought would be effective already mapped out.

But anyway.

This is a shorter blog post than my more recent ones, but it has given me a lot to think about and work with, and I have to say that I’m having a hard time putting words to my thoughts right now, so I may come back to this one later.