show and tell post #1

For my show and tell Play, I read The Goat by Edward Albee. This play, also referred to as Who is Sylvia, was published in 2000, and produced for the first time in New York City on March 10, 2002. It premiered at the Golden Theatre, was produced by Elizabeth Ireland McCann, Daryl Roth, Carole Shorenstein Hays, Terry Allen Kramer, Scott Rudin, Bob Boyett, and Scott Nederlander. This play is written and can be found in many forms. I bought the play by itself, and also have read it from the Norton Anthology of Drama.

Where is Sylvia is about the almost too good to be true marriage of Martin and Stevie, and how tragically it shattered. Martin, a politician, admits to his best friend Ross of a love affair he is currently engaged in. He claims to love, more passionately than he has ever loved anything else, a goat, named Sylvia. However, he is still in love with Stevie, and can’t fathom how no one understands his position. Ross tell Stevie of the terrible news, the majority of the play is dialogue between Stevie and Martin as she forces him to explain himself, and is enraged as Martin puts Sylvia in the same love category as she. Their homosexual son Billy, who is constantly bothered for his sexual orientation, swings in a out of the scenes usually with disdain for Martin and a deep love for his mother. At the end of the show, Ross and Martin have it out, Billy and Martin make up and get too sexually affectionate for a father and son, and Stevie leaves the house only to return with a slaughtered Sylvia. Martin sees that his behavior is wrong only because of how deeply it hurt Stevie, but he claims to love Sylvia with all his heart and wishes someone would take his side and understand where he is coming from.

The way Stevie and Martin speak with one another stood out to me. Albee interlocks their dialogue, displaying how close they by having them finish one another’s sentences, and sometimes predict what the other would say or would actually mean rather. Even in the depth of their dispair, in the midst of Stevie’s rage Albee would have one of them subtly cracks a joke or refer to an old memory or inside joke. This was what kept me rooting for the salvation of their relationship no matter how crippled it had or would become. This showed how much Martin truly did love Stevie. This made the audience believe Martin was in love with his wife, and simply confused, rather than pin him with infidelity, beastiality, and filth. Another choice that stood out to me was the way Albee wrote in stage directions and actions such as (Stevie flipped over the table, or Stevie shattered a vase) and sometimes in the place of more dialogue. I felt like I could more deeply understand the inner conflict happening within Stevie. Just like how the first choice I discussed added a sense of familiarity and comedy, making what severity of the sin diminish, Albee’s detailed stage directions do the same. 

Vogel

How I Learned To Drive is a complex story involving several characters as part of the setting, but is mostly focused on the relationship between Peck and Lil' bit. I think Vogel chose to use a greek chorus because she didn't want to spend anytime acquainting the audience to a number of people, as it wasn't necessary to her plot, but she also couldn't tell that story properly with only two characters in it. The chorus signifies mother, grandmother, grandfather, aunt mary, and other small parts like the waiter. These characters make up the back story, and the current setting of each scene. The fact that these characters aren't exactly real in the way that Peck and Lil' bit are shows how unaffected those two are by their presence in their lives. Peck and Lil' bit are concerned with themselves and each other, neither of them honestly care about the opinions of the rest of their family, and not giving those family members substantial characters helps portray that.

Vogel also chose to tell her story out of order. I think she wanted the audience to see Peck and Lil' bit both in positive light, in order to really grasp their relationship without judging one or the other. Writing it out of order kept some of the bad out until the end, and made a sort of suspense to when the audience felt it necessary to pick a side. Regardless of what you watch or read, its natural to chose a character to favor. Obviously, Peck was wrong from the start, but Vogel did a good job of connecting him to the audience for as long as she could. I think she wrote this out of order because she wanted her audience to be faced with making their own decision about what they think should be considered morally correct. As opposed to making it an understood, almost forced opinion.

Fornes

      What stood out to me most about The Conduct of Life, written by Maria Irene Fornes was the pattern in which her characters spoke to one another and to the audience, and the rhythm of the dialogue. This play was harsh, dark, and to the point. It was full of outlandish disturbing information that was thrown at you so quick you almost always had to reread it to believe what your eyes skimmed. The story, in the way the characters behaved, was in a sense "all over the place". Every line spoke of something so full of vigor and emotion, but every line constantly contradicted the way a previous line made you feel as an audience member. In each line, no matter how long, the sentences were usually abrupt. The characters spoke in staccato and often said loaded sentences without a detail justification as to what they mean. They spoke bluntly, dry, and quick. They also flopped back and forth from dialogue between two or more people, to a monologue to the audience, and then back to conversation without warning, which made it hard to keep up with what was in the scene and what was inner dialogue. Leticia would say something to Orlando, then say something with an opposing message to the audience, then return to Orlando. The way the sentences were sequenced, and the order in which the characters speak helps create the vibe that Fornes was trying to create. The way she wrote her script made me feel uneasy, confused, and very much without control of the situation. Fornes writes about horrifying events and expects you to sit there and "let them happen" by reading them, because you dont have the power to stop the evil written before you.

      I think she named this play The Conduct of Life to open her readers eyes to the fact that to some people, this is considered normal and acceptable. That the conduct of life isn't a particular way of living around the entire world. What is right to me, may be wrong to someone else. Unfortunately, we don't have the power to ensure that everyone is living the "right" way and treated others the way they deserve to be treated. This being the title almost makes me upset that something as wretched and repulsive as what is written in this script would be referred to as the conduct of life. It makes me want to be a better person and fight for good conduct.