A little over a year ago, I saw Eurydice performed live at ACT in Seattle. When I saw it, I wasn’t exactly sure how to feel about the play. It seemed so abstract, and while I walked away enjoying it, I didn’t necessarily walk away thinking “that was an amazing show”. I was expecting to feel the same after reading it, but for some reason, I found myself enjoying it increasingly more. I’m starting to think that maybe this was just a show I needed to see and read, something I needed to digest more than once. I’ve been thinking about the production more and more and realizing what a great show it was and is.
I think what impresses me the most about the show is the flow from scene to scene. I often think that plays with lots of short scenes become jumpy and would often serve better as a movie. However, this play makes it work. First, the set never changes. Also, for many of the “scene changes” the lights don’t change, people do no leave the stage; in fact, it appears that people have instead entered an already existing scene rather than starting a new one completely. This allows the play to seem continuous, as if it was in real time. So I guess if I was to say I learned something as a writing technique from this it would be that the flow of a piece from scene to scene can allow it to feel more real. Also, I think the lack of intermission helps it feel like it is in a more “real” time frame. The lack of intermission is also something that contributes to overall flow of the show.
I think another reason why I enjoyed the show more this time was that when I saw it live, I focused a lot on the technical aspects of the show. ACT was able to actually have a raining elevator that lowered from the ceiling. They also had these oversized strings that could be played like a guitar that connecter from the ceiling to the floor. Orpheus was able to play these whenever he sang something, they also used them to build the string house, even the father played them on occasion. Even now, I can remember a lot of the technical details, the costumes, the set, the lights, but I can’t necessarily remember the “play” itself. I don’t think I really listened to what was being said. I almost wish I could see the production in a smaller space, with less emphasis on the tech aspects and more on the words, story, and characters. Not that the actors weren’t exceptional at ACT, but the amazing technical aspects distracted from the acting and story for me. For me, this play is meant to be more simple and abstract, allowing the audience to really focus on the message.
Reading it, I really found myself focusing on the sections focused on the theme of forgetting and remembering. She shows multiple stages of memory loss (aka multiple stages of people in the underworld). There is the father, who has avoided the loss of his memory by continuing to read and speak the language of the living. There is Eurydice, who begins not understanding and slowly remembers, who would rather remember even if it made her sad. There is the grandmother, who has forgotten it all and yet walks about seemingly happy in her almost mindless state. The last is seen at the end, when Eurydice and her father wash themselves in the river for a second time in a desperate attempt to forget because it is too painful to remember. In this state, they cannot remember the pain they have experienced and “life” is more bearable. I loved this progression that she created, but that she incorporated the grandma as the last thing, as well as the most consistent. For me, she was a way of showing us that it is better to remember. She has forgotten, and she is alone. No one sees her, and the only people who talk to her are the ones who still remember. At least when you remember, you can be with the ones you love. At the same time, she is also something hopeful. That even if you forget, life can continue, no matter how strange or mindless it may be. At least you are living.
I always struggle with the decision of whether to read a play I have tickets for before I go see it. On the one hand, I want to be surprised. On the other hand, you almost always get more out of a production when you've already read the play. That said, you raise important, interesting objections here. Are the stage directions cool, pretty, poetic, and interesting on the page? Yes. But if the cost of them is a production where you're so distracted by the set and the tech that you lose the characters, the point, and the play itself, is that cost too high? Maybe yes. Keep it simple. Write well enough to sustain the play on a bare stage with no costumes or effects. This is good too -- maybe better.
ReplyDeleteFlowing scenes, no real breaks in between, no real scenes at all per se, no intermission, characters who wander in and out -- also a great approach and a practical, useful thing learned here. It works particularly well for a play with so much water and memory in it. Other ways you can mirror your theme in the pacing and placing of your scenes and progress?
That's awesome that you got to see this. It is too bad about the distraction of the set and technical, but understandable, especially as the dialogue is difficult to follow and might be even more so when spoken onstage.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of using the underworld and dead people to teach us about life and how to live it is an incredibly bizarre concept. I do think it applies to this play though. I guess the question to follow would be, what does this buy us, to use an opposite (death) to teach the audience or reader about something (life)? Does this type of framing help or hinder the message? I could see both ways... especially in a play as... interpretive?... as this one.
I often have similar reactions to such abstract plays, perhaps it is true that they just require more time and “digestion” to fully appreciate them. I found her division of the scenes quite interesting… They almost seem more like book chapters rather than set changes. Just as she toys with realism she toys with the structure of plays. Her scenes are more like “beats,” as you said in class. The set pieces, while AWESOME do seem a bit difficult to create. I would be so interested to see a production of this live. Something I particularly like about this play is how it can work with both an elaborate set (which I think can distract from the actual action/ dialogue taking place onstage, as it did for you in the ACT production) AND with a bare set. That is the beauty of theater. I do agree that audiences would get a lot more out of this play if presented abstractly because the entire concept of it is abstract rather than exactly as the script advises.
ReplyDeleteI think that this play is an excellent example of a play that is great for people who are studying play writing because it does focus on the technical elements. It is important for a playwright to make sure that these elements are realistically capable for a set. It is important to find this balance between the weird world and actions of a character and make them fit into the world of the play which needs to be realistically believable for the audience even if that believability is believing in a surreal. I'm jealous that you got to see this play in real life. After reading it, i feel that if i were ever to see it in the theatre i would be glad that i read it first, because it is so surreal and disjointed. I think that its cool that you saw the play where it seems from your description that the director took many of the technical elements extremely literally which is awesome, but i would be interested to see a play that didn't have all of that! I like that the set never changes, and i agree with you that this play works with all the short scenes!
ReplyDelete