Show and Tell Post #3- Jesus Hopped the 'A' Train

One of the best plays I’ve ever read is Jesus Hopped the ‘A’ Train by Stephen Adly Guirgis. It was published in the year 2000 and has been produced in venues such as Center Stage (NY), East 13th Street Theatre (NY), and various other locations around the country. The first production was directed by the famous actor/director Philip Seymour Hoffman and it received lots of positive reviews. I want to say that the play can be found in our theatre library because I believe that’s where I got my copy from, but I’m not certain; it may have been Middleton. Regardless, one of the libraries should have a copy of the play. You can also find a copy of the piece at the following link . The play tells the story of Angel Cruz, a Latino man sent to prison for murdering a reverend who he believed was a colt leader. His layer/defense attorney, Mary Jane Hanrahan, doesn’t believe her client is worth the trouble and Angel does not want to be there, so they butt heads from the start. Due to the daily violence and hate thrown upon him, Angel gets sent to Riker’s Island sort of for protection, but what he gets is anything but. The island is isolated from society; if anything, its solitaire. Angel is allowed an hour outside on the roof every day and here he meets Lucius Jenkins. Jenkins is a black man on death row for multiple murders a.k.a. he’s a serial killer, but he’s converted. He’s one of those guys that’s found the light of God and changed, you know? Well, the two interact by sharing a smoke and from then on it’s history. Things are smooth sailing at first, just casual talk, but later shit gets personal. The two argue about God, faith and beliefs every day; Cruz thinks Jenkins is an idiot wasting his time but Lucius is set on saving the young man before it’s too late. The truth is revealed in all senses of the word throughout their interactions and over the days both men come to realize that they need each other. Unfortunately, by that time it is too late and Jenkins is sent off to Florida to be executed. Meanwhile, Mary Jane believes that her client is innocent and in the next trial she nearly gets him off the hook, until Cruz opens his mouth and screws everything up. There are a lot of critical choices that stick out in this play, one of which is Angel’s feelings on God. Quite frankly, he doesn’t believe in him and doesn’t believe he even exists, which is partially why he’s in prison. The man he killed (Reverend Kim) was a crooked man who brained wash his friend and basically turned him into a salve, that’s why Angel shot him. He wasn’t trying to kill the man; he actually shot him in the ass but the doctors screwed the operation up and Cruz was sort of the scapegoat. Cruz doesn’t believe there’s a God because God wouldn’t let this happen to him, God wouldn’t let that man con people out of their lives and God definitely would be there when he needed him. Ironically, he still prays and that’s actually what keeps him locked up- the little bit of prayer he has left. Another choice is the staging. I’d say %80 of the piece takes place in the two cages for each inmate on the roof. That’s really strange to do, I mean, how would you stage that? I’ve seen productions on YouTube that have the men on separate wooden platforms facing each other and others with cages surrounding the actors. When I presented this scene for directing, I used the mats and boxes to make that claustrophobic feel, but that’s a different story. Another key choice is what Guirgis decides to put on stage and what he just refers too, like the fact that Angel probably got raped before he was moved or that Valdez (guard) more than likely abuses his power and beats on Jenkins because he thinks he’s the scum of the Earth or Jenkins being executed. None of these are portrayed on stage, but we can assume they’ve happened. Duration also plays a huge role in the piece. Most of the play is dialogue, so when certain things are done or specific actions are made, they may get more stage time than others because everything is so locked in.

The Drowsy Chaperone

There’s a big difference between the show and the show within the show when it comes to Hornby’s elements. Two big differences occur in duration and rhythm. In the “play”, duration is pretty smooth. The script suggests that Man is nothing more than what he is (a man playing a record for the audience); essentially, he’s the narrator. He appears quite often through the show and his actions do effect the presentation, but he’s not part of the plot. On the other hand, the actors who are part of the musical are on stage a lot. I should probably watch the videos, but I feel like it’s safe to say that the songs get lots of stage time compared to the actual dialogue and Man. I agree with Man; musicals aren’t really about conflicts and solutions, they’re about music. I believe a song is sung in every scene and each one deals with a different situation. Then there’s the huge contrast in rhythm. In the musical, tension is constantly being built between characters (Janet calls off the wedding, Feldzieg is avoiding the thugs, Aldolpho gets bamboozled, etc.) until there’s a huge release at the end (everyone gets married except George and Trix, but we assume they live happily ever after in Rio too). Besides the spit scene and the Mimi scene, there really isn’t a release of tension and even those are filled with comedic tension. In the “play”, tension is built and then released by Man. He occasionally interrupts with comments/info, the record skips, he puts the wrong disc on the player and eventually, the power goes out just as the musical is about to end. If we talk of the piece as a whole, then Man is definitely the release of this play because of his interjections. Choice is big too. There are lots of motifs in this piece, along with a lot of parodies. Two strong choices in this piece are 1) Man breaks the fourth wall but the other actors don’t and 2) there’s tons of dramatic irony.

Three Viewings

In Three Viewings, the Green Mill was a common location in each of the three pieces. I thought about this while reading but talking in class really brought it to my attention. I had no idea that the town the characters reference was a real place. I know this isn’t right, but I sort of made everyone go to all the funerals in my head because I felt like at some point in time, these people interacted with each other in some way (sense they were all from the same place). It says in the stage directions that the pieces are connected, so I think everyone knew everyone; it was one of those towns. Something each piece has is discovery. For example, the audience discovers that Emil is a married man at the end of his monologue. The audience also discovers with the characters in the pieces, like when Mac finds out that she accidently killed her family and when Virginia realizes that her husband wasn’t as crappy as he appeared. I think it’d be easy to say this piece is about death, but I took it as a work on life. It’s true that the characters are dealing with the aftermath of deaths to friends/family/loved ones, but none of the monologues are really about mourning. I saw each one as a brighter day, more like the “yolo” foolishness that everyone is on. Each piece shows the results for the living because of the dead (which do suck for the most part), but the living are still living and things can get better.

On The Verge

The tagline for the poster would be “Progressing through Regression”. We talked about this a bit in class, but I think one of the biggest changes in the script is with the transition of the language the women speak and how it slowly starts to dwindle over time. By the end of the play, the only person still speaking “properly” is Mary, who continues on with the journey. That is significant to the script because it shows the world as it was, is and most likely will be. Overmyer portrays this idea that things do get better over time and that the world is improving, but at the same time it’s falling apart. It’s similar to what that guy in The Cabin in the Woods said; the problem isn’t that we’re so spaced out, the real issue is that we’re all too connected, especially in America. By being so close, people distance themselves from one another if that makes sense. Basically, people are always looking for the next big thing (hint, hint: On The Verge) and because of that they rarely value what they already have. Always looking for more, never satisfied, but I’m being hypocritical so my rant is over now. Image wise, I’d roll with something abstract. I really like the idea of a black and white spiral inside a clock on the poster and the outside of the clock could be scenes from the play like the jungle, the tundra and the yeti, the moon and snow, etc. Locations/time travel is kind of important in this piece and I definitely think that would capture attention. As for Mr. Coffee, we talked about this in class and I’m glad we did because him being “Death” never crossed my mind. I understood the Stock Market Crash reference but I thought he was just some other guy time traveling because when he leaves Fanny, Alex calls him Bebe Rebozo (Nixon’s boy). I could see him as “Death” or some sort of entity though; he’s certainly not from where the ladies are.

My Other Podium

http://yvettebourgeoisthtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/fires-in-mirror-by-smith_13.html?showComment=1366210571913#c4651012151563921475 http://yvettebourgeoisthtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/overmayers-on-verge.html?showComment=1366929899701#c189890852719603677 http://korn2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/i-noticed-few-similarities-between.html#comment-form http://yvettebourgeoisthtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-drowsy-chaperone.html?showComment=1367209331093#c20483379961482214

Fires in the Mirror

Well for starters, I’d tell them we can’t cut it because that’s the way Smith wrote it. It’s her piece; who are we to change it just because we can’t find its purpose, not to mention that scratching those sections would delete almost half of the play. That being said, the first section of the play is vital to the rest of the performance because it deals with the incident indirectly. The text of those first few interviewees not only give individual perspectives on life as a black and a Jew, but also sets the tone for where they stand at the present with each other and America. Tensions are high between the two groups because essentially, they are viewed as the same from outsiders of the community-outcasts. If you ask me, the first section shows both blacks and Jews as just people; normal, hardworking, everyday people who want to be respected and accepted. They also mention the significance being together. The most important part of this section is the fact that no one truly picks a side. They simply state who they are, what they believe and continue on. In the next section, everyone’s on a side whether they’re aware of it or not and the community is split. The second section is a lot grittier than the first, diving straight into the beginnings of the incident and its aftermath. If we start the play off like that, the audience would leave thinking that all of the Crown Heights residents were uncivilized creatures full of hate, rage and ignorance. The first part has to be there because it establishes everyone (involved or not) as innocent and rational. Both sides are struggling to not only rise, but to maintain their status in the community and although the second half presents us with the fruit of the piece, we have to cut through the peel first. The exterior may not be what we want, but it’s just as relevant as the interior.

Show and Tell Post #2- The Love Suicides at Amijima

So about a month ago I read The Love Suicides at Amijima for Dr. Sikes’s Theatre History II and completely fell in love with it. I mean, not literally fell in love, but I really liked it and that’s a lot coming from me because I usually don’t care for things. Anyway, the play was written by Chikamatsu Monzaemon and is believed to be a true story, although none of the “true” events have been confirmed. I couldn’t find an actual production history list, but its first performance occurred in January of 1721 and it has since been performed in multiple venues across the world as a popular Kabuki piece. I read a PDF file on Moodle, but the play can also be found at the link below. https://eee.uci.edu/clients/sbklein/articles/gender/LoveSuicidesAmijima.pdf Jihei and Tahei are competing for Koharu, a teenage prostitute. Jihei is a married man with kids while Tahei has no friends or family. What he does have is money, but Koharu avoids Tahei at all costs because she’s in love with Jihei. Later, Koharu meets a samurai who saves her from Tahei. They discuss several issues, including the topic of suicide. The samurai believes this is the source of Koharu’s depression and begs her to tell him all. Meanwhile, Jihei eavesdrops from outside. Koharu tells the samurai of the near miserable future, which will most likely be her death because she knows Jihei cannot afford her. She tells him of the pact the two made and then asks the samurai to basically substitute in for Jihei so that Tahei cannot claim her, to which the samurai agrees. Jihei hears this, becomes furious and attempts to kill Koharu right there. The samurai stops him and ties him to a pole; ironically, Tahei walks by later, sees his competitor helpless and beats on him. This all happens in Act 1, so as you can see, this is a very detailed play or I just such at summarizing. Either way, the story ends with the two lovers running off to Amijima (a temple) and committing suicide. Jihei stabs Koharu and then hangs himself from a tree, committing a frowned upon lover’s suicide. There are several dramaturgical choices that really stand out in this play, but it’s difficult to identify them at times because I don’t know whether or not these things actually happened. I don’t know the “original” story, so what I think is cool may just be how the story played out. Oh well. One choice that seemed noteworthy to me was the whole samurai thing. Not revealing that he was Jihei’s brother until late in the first act changed my perspective on the rest of the play. Magoemon criticizes his brother for pretty much throwing his life away over a pretty face and lets him know that his actions don’t affect just him. I sort of saw him as a guardian-angel figure, always over your shoulder but only interfering when necessary. Something else that stood out to me is the world of the play- apparently, love trumps all. The two lovers know they can’t be together, so they decide that if they can’t have each other, no one can. That’s pretty irrational to me, but then again so is love. Another example is Osan. Osan has been a good, obeying, loving wife and even she states that she’s losing her husband due to uncontrollable circumstances a.k.a. it’s not her fault. Jihei tells her that he can live without the girl, but he can’t live knowing that he lost her. I’m pretty sure this is a lie but she puts up with this fool-that’s unbelievable to me. Having the two main characters start off as poor is also an interesting dramaturgical choice. Again, different culture, different world.