She makes this single staging suggestion:
So... what does this betray about her intent? It casts a rather wide net to implicate the behavior of adults, or figures of authority, and leave children out of the onstage mix. But let's give her some credit: doesn't this indict authority more than the citizenry? If the citizenry here can be said to be equated with children.
"No children appear in the play. The speakers are adults, the parents and if you like
other relations of the children. The lines can be shared out in any way you like among
those characters. The characters are different in each small scene as the time and
child are different."
Or is she saying that parents and relations indoctrinate children into a cycle of violence by remaining silent or arguing for silence?
It feels more like a text to be discussed as such, taken in by individuals, as opposed to a text written to be observed by a roomful of people. A poem in disguise.
3 comments:
I see where you're coming from on the poetry of the piece, but having seen its effect on people in the room on Friday, I can't discount it's power as performed.
The absence of children on stage in the abstract in interesting, but their absence on stage is palpable.
The bargaining in deciding agreed-upon-truth in the text is something to be dissected, but is almost heartbreaking on stage.
All of which depends on how the presenter breaks down the text.
My breakdown is here: http://is.gd/pJx2
Travis -
Thanks for sharing your work.
In 6, are those voices overlapping?
They aren't, I just kept the scenes (as printed) on one page for my readers.
http://vimeo.com/3901695
Post a Comment