Eurydice

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.

Dialogue, Day One

The first thing I noticed when reading through the dialogue was how different it was from monologue. I’ve gotten in such a mindset of the single character onstage being able explicate on anything and everything they are thinking that suddenly reading scenes where people are speaking to someone else, who are not revealing everything in such an obvious way, was a bit of a shock.

What I liked about all these scenes was that each set of dialogue expressed a clear relationship between the people involved. You could tell when someone was familiar with the person they were with, or if something was uncomfortable, even if they were once happy and now upset. What I also loved was how the way they spoke to one another no only reflected their current relationship or feelings, but also foreshadowed what was to happen. Once scene I especially saw this in was the dialogue from Closer by Patrick Marber. Here, we saw two different couples both talking about one person involved committing adultery. The dialogue was very choppy, it didn’t seem as if the people involved in each couple related to each other in any way. Marber separates the dialogue into short lines, with spaces in between them, even when one person is continually speaking. For me, this expressed a feeling of distance and separation, which was fitting for what was about to happen in the scene. Only in the beginning, when Larry has just come home and has no idea what Anna has done does he talk in long, put together sentences. Here, Marber does not separate lines, but instead keeps them together in one block. This is the only time where there is cohesion, at least for Larry. However, Anna stays in short, to the point sentences. She is uncomfortable because she has a secret: she is in love with Dan.

I also find the scene from Angels in America by Tony Kushner to be another great example of dialogue reflecting character relationship. Here, a married couple is growing farther and farther apart. The husband is in the closet about being gay, and the wife is addicted to Valium. Kushner shows this extremely well in not only the words themselves but the structure as well. When Joe first enters, hey seems very non responsive. He is reluctant to talk, because he is frustrated with his wife and not happy in his marriage. Also, he is keeping the secret that he is actually homosexual. But Harper is frustrated and wants to know the truth. She speaks in much longer sentences and larger chunks of dialogue. She is also always the person asking questions at first. But Joe won’t acknowledge what she wants to know, so their dialogue seems disconnected, as if they are not talking about the same thing. Once Joe does realize, he speaks more. He is suddenly quick to defend himself and the image he has of himself, whereas Harper doesn’t want to hear his excuses. She wants to hear the truth. At the end she expresses that she is having a baby. Joe asks if this is true and she says, “No. Yes. No. Yes. Get away from me. Now we both have a secret”. This one sentence expresses her frustration and the entire reason Joe and Harper have problems: both keep secrets. They no longer talk, they are no longer happy. There is no communication. Even in this scene, where Harper tries to confront Joe, nothing is really resolved and neither leaves happy or satisfied in any way.

It was nice to read dialogue again after dealing with the monologues. It showed the subtle nuance of how a conversation can say so much without saying anything. By giving an actor this foundation, the playwright can express the past, present, and even the future of characters in one simple conversation.

The Laramie Project and Vagina Monologues

So I find it extremely interesting to be reading both The Laramie Project and Vagina Monologues. I have seen performances in some way of both, but have never actually read the physical scripts. Especially with The Laramie Project, I found a sudden new connection to the show. Somehow, reading the written transcripts right there was so much more powerful than watching a movie, or seeing a (not so great) production. I found myself focusing on the religious aspect of the piece and how the different characters connected to God.

The way the religious theme was presented in this show was really interesting to me. It seemed to be the one thing all the characters had in common: they all believed in something bigger than themselves. Whether this influenced their beliefs on homosexuality or not was almost secondary to me. I, instead, wanted to focus on the connection. Almost every person mentioned God, but there are a few that I found most compelling. One was Aaron Kreifels who found Matthew. He never once mentioned his beliefs about homosexuality, but instead focuses on why God chose him, of all people, to find Matthew. And I loved that he said it was because God didn’t want Matthew to die alone. Now take this and contrast it to the monologue that Dennis Sheppard says when addressing Aaron McKinney. He says quite clearly that Matthew was never alone when he was out there. The entire time he had his closest friends: the beautiful night sky, the daylight and the sun, the scent of the pine trees, the wind, and most important, God. These two monologues happen so close together, and present a view that God was not only with Matthew the entire time but also guiding someone to his rescue. And while I understand that these words were originally spoken by a real person and not made up by a playwright, it almost seems as if it was pre-meditated and written to be a specific contrast. Here, I must congratulate the playwrights on their editing and placement of the texts. This was one instance where I really felt that had a powerful affect on the reader and how they thought about Matthew Sheppard’s time on that fence.

On that note of the writing and editing on the piece, I just want to touch on how impressed I was with the overall presentation of this production. I love that theoretically, all of the words spoken by individual characters, if listed consecutively, would end up being one giant monologue. Yet these playwrights perfectly ordered each block of lines, compiling them into scenes focused on specific thoughts or moments. That was really beautiful to me. In a lot of ways, the whole show reminds me of documentary filmmaking. The writers/editors are given piles upon piles of interviews and speeches and then set with the task of somehow editing it down to one coherent, powerful piece of art. Using the moments as a way to order the play was extremely compelling to me. It allowed for the play to feel as if it moved chronologically and yet, we were probably jumping all over time with these different interviews. But by making it seem chronological, the reader or audience is able to a) follow the story better and b) keep track of all the characters better. Certain characters appeared at certain times, depending on the nature of the moment, and we were able to associate those characters with that subject matter. I think then moving it onto the stage it is even more clear. Here we see different distinct attributes of people, they are physically before us, so having the visual and the thematic connection of a character to a moment allows for further clarity.

I congratulate Moisés Kaufman and the entire Tectonic Theater Project on taking large amounts of interviews, often in monologue form, and turning it into a comprehensive dramatic show. They allowed us to know and connect to the characters, to feel as if we were seeing dialogue and not monologue, and still feel a deep and relevant connection to Matthew’s story. Makes me want to read more by him J