It's difficult to express how I feel about a play like Eurydice. On one hand, I've always like the somewhat stylistic form of theatre. I appreciate theatre as an art form, not just as another representation of reality that the audience comes to see. However, I believe it necessary for an audience member(any audience member sitting in the theatre) to have some form of connection with the play. Whether it is identifying with someone's struggles with loss, disease, or isolation, a really good play--which, of course, is all subjective to the audience member-- will be able to nail down all of these points and more, allowing the audience member with AIDS, for instance, to view a character's struggles with the disease with that much more of a connection.
My problem with Eurydice was that there weren't enough points of contact for me as an audience member. I liked the way she adapted the play off of the Greek myth of two lovers, and I think she did it without being cliche and too "Romeo and Juliet-like". However, I think it was written so stylistically that you lost out on some of the possible points of contact for the audience. One example would be the father's death(twice). Now, in her introduction ,she had said that this play was adapted both from the traditional Orpheus myth we get from Ovid and the too soon death of her father. For a Greek scholar, for example, the adaptation from the Orpheus myth would have given them a point of contact. For someone who has just lost their father, there's another. But that seems to all get lost in the excessive stage direction--yes, i also take issue with that, although I appreciate the poetry that the stage directions seem to be sometimes-- and Wonderland-esque world that is the Underworld. Sentences are so disconnected and yet cyclical--the double mentions of the wedding, for instance, which is one thing I think was done well-- that we lost a lot of the fluidity that I think would make the audience be sucked in.
I can also definitely respect that excessive stage direction is an art form. Susan Lori Parks does it, as i'm sure other authors do as well. But I'm not a huge fan. It seems like she's telling us how to direct/act the show, when she really should be stepping back and letting the actors and directors do their work. One of the beauties of theatre, literature, and other things is it's ability to depend on the reader for its interpretation. A director wanting to center the focus on her dead father and nothing else, for instance, should and could be given the chance to tend the show that way, focusing on certain aspects at the expense of others. But Sarah Ruhl seems to try to force us how to costume, how to dress, how to act. It doesn't seem like there's any room for adaptation, and unless the director/ actor/ audience is going to see every moment of the play exactly as she does, I don't think complete success with this plays performance will be possible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I hear what you're saying here about the points of connection. The funny thing is, I loved the play because I felt connected to it. Not necessarily because it touched me as something that was a representation of an event in my life -- but more of a representation of an emotion I've felt.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, on stage direction. I agree that it comes off as something strict and impossible to follow. It's funny that you mention Suzan-Lori Parks. I thought the same thing while reading these stage directions. They're so familiar. Something that comes to mind is the stage direction (from one of SLP 365 Plays): "The sound of wind and whales forever." Of course, that's impossible. Especially since we don't want to keep the audience there for... well, forever. The trick, which is where the fun part of theatre comes in, is interpreting the directions. Making them mean something to the audience. Translating for this play, at this time, with these people. I think Ruhl allows for the same type of creativity and freedom. Directors and Designers can really go crazy with stage directions like these. Of course, the literal translation is next to impossible, but Ruhl isn't really about the literal here...
:)
So this, of course, is the trick with theater: how to make it work. How do you make your play be about something specific (the story and characters you're telling) AND about everything else too (the lives and experiences of everyone in the audience). The trick is not "allowing the audience member with AIDS, for instance, to view a character's struggles with the disease with that much more of a connection" -- that's easy. The trick is to allow an audience member struggling with, say, a messy house and a rambunctious kid and a dog who won't be housetrained to connect to someone's struggles on stage with the disease. The trick is to make the play be about whoever sees it, regardless of their personal situation. How do we do this? What plays/characters HAVE touched you despite being not about you really in any way? And how have they done so?
ReplyDeleteDitto the stage directions: how to make it work. Indeed, these seem more like poems than helpful, practical suggestions. Stage directions can always be ignored. We must always keep in mind, as playwrights, that directors will ignore our stage directions more often than not. Think too how much more interesting Shakespeare is for not having stage directions. Here, the playwright must know that these stage directions are usually unclear, impossible, or impractical. Why write them then? What is it buying her?
I thought your comments here highlighted very well your point of view. You are completely correct in saying you found a severe lack of contact points. I think that in my sleepy stupor I may have slipped right into the story like a drunkard at a loud party.
ReplyDeleteI guess I wasn't as hung up on the story itself because I had just read the myth. Something about knowing the story beforehand allowed me to take the entire plot much more easily than I would have reading it cold. I can see an audience member with no knowledge of the Eurydice myth being completely bogged down in the story and checking out before the characters got a chance to draw anyone in. I do think that regardless of the audience member, however, the father-daughter relationship is relevant to most.
You made some good comments about the stage directions. They are just as part of the play as lines are, but often people don't follow them. They are an interesting limbo area for directors and actors alike, but Ruhl does a good job of trying to lock down that loose end.