An Analysis of Theresa Rebeck's Loose Knit

Prompt: How did you respond to Theresa Rebeck's play Loose Knit? What moment in the play did you like the best and why? How would you describe your attitude or feeling toward Rebeck's representation or sexual relation and marriage?  What scene or moment in the play was least satisfying or troublesome for you and why? You should include images of Loose Knit or of Rebeck's or of the figures or situations similar to the themes of the play. Don't forget to embed links.

As part of Theater Appreciation, we were all supposed to go watch Loose Knit. Due to my busy schedule I was not able to go to see the play until the 17th of November. Still, I was thinking that since it was the last play, the actors and actresses might possibly act better. Even though I was bummed that I had to pay $10 this time (opposed to watching To Kill a Mockingbird where I got a free ticket), I thought it was worth it, especially since I was able to experience watching a performance in a thrust theater space. I was very impressed with this, and it really helped me enjoy Loose Knit a lot more.

This the view I had for Loose Knit. Although I was close, the characters would sometime face away from me due to the thrust theater space layout.

The play itself did not let me down either. I enjoyed the interesting story line and theme quite a lot since it is a theme I rarely see in stories. I found it very interesting how Lily would set up all her friends, and even her own sister, with a rich, soulless man that she thought was perfect. I also really liked the scene with Bob and Miles talking about how confusing girls were and how their social status related with their love lives; everything they spoke in this scene was true (in my opinion at least). However, I sometimes got frustrated at the times the women would get sidetracked from knitting and often start arguing. This is most likely because I hate hearing girls talk about girl stuff. This play showed a cynical view towards marriage and any relationships, and Rebeck showed that marriage and relationships are not necessarily needed to live a good life. It also shows that people are selfish and do things for their own self-benefit. From this play, I actually believe that I share some of the same views as Rebeck herself. I believe that relationships actually cause more problems and who needs a significant other when you have friends? I think Rebeck implies this same message at the end of this play when all the women settle their differences and enjoy themselves by doing what they got together to do: to knit.

The five women got together to knit, but would often end up doing something else (most of the time bickering about something trivial)

Overall, I thought this play was very well performed. I found that a lot of little things impressed me and, in my opinion, made the play better such as the setting, lighting and even the background music between scene changes. It showed me how little things like that can make such a difference in a play. From now on, I will be  sure to pay more attention to the things like these for both analyzing and entertaining purposes. 

An Analysis on SJSU's To Kill a Mockingbird

On Thursday, October 11, 2012, I went to see To Kill a Mockingbird here at our very own University Theater with a couple of friends not only for this class. I was excited because my floor mate, Johnny Ramirez, was in the play, acting out the role of Mr. Cunningham. Also, I had originally really liked the story To Kill a Mockingbird and the play reminded me of how much I loved it. I particularly enjoyed the scene with the Tom Robinson's trial and the fight scene with Boo Radley. These two scenes stood out the most to me for different reasons.

I personally felt the emotions the most during the trial scene - the sorrow from the children, the fury of Bob Ewell, and the panic-stricken Tom Robinson after jury verdict. The best part of this scene was Atticus Finch's concluding speech as he spoke out to the audience and jury about picking the outcome of the trial should be based on one's own conscious and the facts stated in the trial, not from one's social beliefs. This speech was very moving and it made me think: do we have problems like this today and what can I do to help stop it?

The trial scene made Atticus Finch stand out a lot more to me

I liked the fight scene because it incorporated a bit of everything that I like - action, horror, and comedy. It was hard to watch Jim and Scout walk around in the darkness with the knowledge that they were going to be attacked by Bob Ewell. I was curled up in my seat, pulling my shirt up to cover my eyes. The fight was very well choreographed and I was up at the tip of my seat, horrified, waiting to see how Jim and Scout would survive. I almost lost all hope when Bob Ewell threw Jim on the ground and broke his arm with his knife out. I almost leaped out of joy to see Boo Radley rush out of his house and save the day. Lastly, I found it funny how the sheriff, Heck Tate, decided to handle the situation with Bob Ewell's death; although he ought to serve justice, he made up another story to defend Boo Radley. Besides the acting during this scene, the dim lighting helped create a more mysterious effect; it added more excitement to the play.

It was funny to see Heck Tate see what actually happened in a different way in the fight scene

Overall, I really liked the To Kill a Mockingbird play and how they adapted it to be performed on stage. If I could change something about it to make the play even better, I would take out the narrator role of the older Jean Louise Finch. I thought her role was kind of redundant and it confused me when she interacted with the other characters in the play. Other than that, I really enjoyed the performance, especially Johnny's role of Walter Cunningham. He did amazing! 

My Contribution to the Creative Project #1

For Group 9's creative project, we wanted to teach the class about one our favorite plays. After sharing and discussing our thoughts and opinions, we decided that we would teach the class everything the needed to know about the book/movie/play West Side Story by teaching them through a PowerPoint Presentation.

We assigned the group various tasks to take care of, including information about the author/director of the book/movie/play, actors of the movie, how the story related to Romeo and Juliet and the theater aspects. My job was to give a general outlook of the story to those that were unfamiliar with the story. My job, in other words, is to put a summary of the story onto some slides and provide some pictures. I also gave a bit of a background of the Tony and Maria and a bit about the Sharks and the Jets.

We decided, after a long discussion, to make a presentation on West Side Story

This project seemed easy at first, but it far from it. We had so many topics that we wanted to do and it was very hard to narrow down the choices. Also, although there was Facebook and Google Documents as a form of communication, it was still hard to communicate when someone needed help. Other than that, the other problem was not procrastinating and surprisingly, watching the movie. It was difficult to sit down and do a project that seemed like it would take no time at all and with my dorm's internet problems, buffering the movie was very tedious.

However, by the end of the project, I would say it was worth the hard work and frustration. I learned a lot about West Side Story and about teamwork. In a way, West Side Story was almost like a history lesson; after looking into the making of the book/play/movie a bit deeper using "The Official West Side Story Website" and  Wikipedia, I found that the story was based off real conflicts that were happening at the time, like racism and gangs. By doing this project, I also learned more about the necessity for communication in a group project like this. For our next group project, I would definitely like to make sure that it is easy to get a hold of each other and meet up more often.

1935 "A Midsummer Night's Dream" Analysis

How do the performers differ from your idea of how the passage is played in your mind? I’m not asking you to evaluate the performance or explain how it should be performed. 

I am simply asking you to explain how the performance clarifies a meaning or message of the play that eluded you before you saw the performance. 

You may embed images from the movie or other images of Midsummer Night’s Dream as you find them. And you may embed links to references to the play or the movie that you find helpful in reading the text or viewing the movie scene. 

With many plays or books being made into movies, it may sometimes be hard to distinguish between right and wrong. Many directors of movies that were once books cut things out or change things up in order to keep the audience excited or to keep thing interesting. However, in the case of the 1935 version of A Midsummer Night's Dream, the director actually added significance to certain parts of the play that made the play overall more enjoyable and easier to understand. Surprisingly, the movie clarified some things that I did not really understand or brought up some things that I did not consider to be important.

The movie brought up how opposite Oberon and Titania actually are. The book never described how opposite they were but it was very apparent in the movie. Titania, encompassed by fairies, looked like someone that had dropped down from the heavens, wearing all white, and always smiling. Oberon, on the other hand, looked like he came straight up from hell, dressed in dark colors and surrounded by goblins. He never smiled and could only be made happy from one thing - obtaining the Indian child.

Oberon and Titania are shown to be very opposite in the movie

The movie also clarified many things that I understand in the book through the background music.  As Titania was introduced, there was a sweet, childish song that played in the background as all the fairies pranced along. When Oberon was introduced, there was a very evil-sounding song in the background as he approached Titania and demanded the Indian Boy. Through the movie, I felt all the emotions and laughed at the nasty pranks pulled by Bottom, the horror of the townspeople at the sight of Puck's donkey head, and the uncontrollable lust that Lysander, Titania and Demetrius faced after flower dust was sprinkled on them. The sound really did help express the emotion that the written words had failed to depict.

From the stated above, it can be said that the 1935 version of A Midsummer Night's Dream. I was surprised at how much better I understood the play, even though I barely understood any of the old, funky Shakespearean English. This movie was excellently made, especially for a movie from almost 80 years ago. If movies back then were made as well as A Midsummer Night's Dream, then I have a question - why are movies in this era so bad? Maybe we can learn a thing or two from the past about being a good movie director.

Prompt: In the late sixteenth and throughout the seventeenth centuries, English theater culture differed significantly from the theater cultures of France and Italy. Identify at least two different ways in which English theater culture differed from French and Italian theater. Give at least one reason for these differences.

Weirdly enough, before attending this Theater Appreciation class, I had never heard of anything relating to the culture of French or Italian theater. In fact, I was completely puzzled when I heard that there actually was theater culture in France and Italy, being educated from a school that mostly taught theater culture from the English and the Greek. After listening to a few lectures that covered some facts about French and Italian culture, I was curious why I was never introduced to them. The few plays that were written from the French and Italian playwrights seemed fantastic and from the sound of it, the over atmosphere was better - more controlled and focus. That brought up a question in my mind: How did English theater culture differ from French and Italian culture? 

Regarding the atmosphere of the theater, French and Italian theater were very different from that of the English. The English theaters were made of wood, and were often very disorderly and dirty. In fact, because of those reasons, many, if not all, of the theaters eventually burned down and people avoided them because of the diseases within the theaters. During plays, many other activities would be going on simultaneously. One would often see other attractions - sometimes illegal - such as food vending, prostitution, contraband a and bear baiting. That was simply because the English theater companies saw performances as a business and needed to keep the attention of the audience in order to entertain them and persuade them to come back.

The Rose Theater from the English Renaissance Era

The French and Italian theaters, on the other hand, had a very different atmosphere. The theaters were sponsored by the government and favored a more controlled and settled atmosphere. Consequently, the French and Italian theater turned out to be more luxurious in the process. There was no need for commercial enterprises during performances because of the government's funding. It was mostly the aristocratic class that went to the performances. 

France's Renovated Court Theater in Versailles 

Another difference in English theater culture and French and Italian culture is the number of plays written. The English, who looked at theater as a very competitive business, wrote many plays especially during the golden age of drama and theater. During this period, many fantastic plays were written by playwrights such as William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, Ben Jonson, Thomas Dekker and John Webster. The playwrights of the English mostly wrote with political objectives and commercial motives in mind. 

William Shakespeare - The Most Famous Playwright of the Golden Age

The French and Italians also made great plays although not as many as the English. Still, there were a few notable playwrights from France such as Pierre Corneille, Jean Racine, and Jean-Baptiste Poquelin, Italy also had great playwrights such as Ludovico Ariosto, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Pietro Aretino. The French mostly performed ballets due to the aristocrat's love for it and the Italians fell in love with operas.

Famous French Playwright Pierre Corneille

Overall, it is evident that there are differences between English Theater Culture and French and Italian Theater Culture. After researching Renaissance French and Italian theater culture, I hope that I can someday see a play written from this era of playwrights. 

Prompt: I want to know how you respond to the character of Medea. In class, I discussed how several of the characters responded to Medea, and sometimes, as with the Nurse, Aigus, and the Chorus, the response is complex--sympathetic and complicit but by no means happy. In your blog, identify two or three passages in the play that change your perception and attitude toward Medea, and then explain what you think about the ending, with Medea on her chariot pulled by dragons. Why does Euripides end the play in this manner? What is his reason for showing her "getting away" with the murders of her children, Creon, and his daughter? To help you clarify your own response to Medea, I urge you to insert images of Medea as you find them on the web and references to any commentaries on the play that you encounter.

After reading over Medea a few times through, I had mixed feelings for this wild, untamed-beast-like creature they call human. The first part of the play revealed her evil deeds that made her so reputably bad in my eyes. She gave up her everything by killing her father and her brother and fleeing from her hometown to be with Jason. Furthermore, Medea convinced the two daughters of Pelias into poisoning their own father. 

Medea is portrayed as a evil, soulless witch in the very beginning of the play

However, even though I can call her such a disgusting name, I feel bad at the same time. My view towards Medea changed in lines 17-130, when Medea takes the role of a high school teenager after a breakup, feeling hopeless and bitter as the nurse tries to make things better. She experiences great contempt for everything that reminds her of Jason, including her own two children. Medea's sorrow continues through episode 1 when she is talking with the chorus and when Creon banishes Medea from Corinth.

 

Medea expressing her sorrow to the chorus

Finally, during the Second Stasimon, my view towards Medea changed and stayed the same until the end of the story as she is reunited with Aegeus. Suddenly this once brutal, soulless woman is respectful and calm as she talks to Aegeus, King of Athens. With this section of the play, my opinion of Medea changed and had I been in the play, I would have helped her. The kindness that she displayed won me over and nothing could taint the perception that I had for her. Suddenly I was wanting her to scheme a horrible plan to kill Jason; I even thought the plan she devised was not brutal enough. I was pleasured by the messenger's message to Medea after the royal family was killed. I enjoyed Jason's rage vicariously through Medea and celebrated the ending of this play as I ran around my dorm room yelling, "SHE DID IT!"

Medea manages to change my opinion of her when she talks to Aegeus

I personally thought this was a very suitable ending for this play and I think Euripides ended the play with Medea flying away to Athens in order to prove a point. Euripides wanted to prove with Medea that no matter how much pain she caused to herself, it was worth the pleasure of getting revenge on Jason. All the pain that she suffered through motivated her more and more to get back at Jason and once she did, she was rewarded with glory and a golden chariot pulled by dragons.

I think that the Chariot in the end signified the completion of her task/revenge

Prompt: Contrast two forms of medieval theater with two forms of Japanese theater. What differentiates the forms in relation to philosophical, political, or aesthetic objectives? Why have Japanese theater forms endured so long while medieval theater forms have not endured so well into our own time?

After studying Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman theater, as well as Medieval and Renaissance forms of theater, it was time to move even more east to study ancient Japanese theater. What interested me in particular was Bunraku and Kabuki - two of the four styles of Japanese theater. Below, I will see exactly how different

Bunraku and Kabuki styles of theater are philosophically, politically, and aesthetically. 

Bunraku is a show performed by puppets that are manipulated by humans on a small stage. Each puppet is controlled by three puppeteers (the first puppeteer controls the eyelids, eyeballs, eyebrows, mouth, and the right arm, the second puppeteer controls the left arm only, and the third controls the legs). As the puppeteers are manipulating the puppets, the chanter (tayu) provides the voices of all the characters and the shamisen player presents music for a dramatic effect. Bunraku became popular in the late 17th century when playwright Chickamatsu Monzaemon and 

chanter Takemoto Gidayu worked together and created the Takemoto puppet theater in 1684 (Overview of Bunraku Puppet Theater). Many of these plays had themes based off of Buddhist and Confucian morals.  

Above: Performers are performing "Katsuragawa -Renrinoshigarami" at the National Bunraku Theater

Kabuki theater is a Japanese performance that with women performers. However, due to some moral issues, women were banned, which benefited the Kabuki theater by making the playwrights concentrate more on drama, rather than beauty. Even so, Kabuki theater had very elaborate costumes, and had many spectacular scenic effects. Kabuki, unlike Noh theater, was innovative and changed quite a bit and because of that, it was the most popular of the four types of Japanese theater. Performances were held on large stages and often involved a romance.

Kabuki Performers often wore very elaborate costumes

The main difference between Bunraku and Kabuki is the fact that Bunraku uses puppets while Kabuki performers did not. There are other differences, such as the theater space size, and costumes as well as the type of audience Lastly, Bunraku resists change while Kabuki accepts it. Bunraku theater was actually influenced by Kabuki theater, but it concentrated more on the story and drama rather than the characters.

Overall, these two types of Japanese theater interest me a lot. Hopefully, I will someday and go see one of these fascinating types of play.

Sources:

http://web-japan.org/museum/bunraku/about_bu.html

http://www.pref.osaka.jp/en/attraction/culture/bunraku/index.html

http://park.org/Japan/Kabuki/about/overview.html