Terrance McNally's Its Only a Play - Assignment Example

Terrance McNally’s It’s Only a Play ACTING Were the actors believable, given the requirements ofthe play? If they were believable, how did they seem to accomplish this? If they werent believable, what occurred to destroy believability? (As you discuss this, be sure to separate the performer from the role. For example, you can dislike a character, but admire the performance.) Answer Question 1 The characters in the play, were for the most part, believable in regard to the way I which the actors portrayed them. There were a few moments where there were breaks in character, a common occurrence, but the actors seemed to have stayed in character for most of the performance with little of the problems that sometimes occur in productions. Believability was high within the performance that I saw, with each of the characters blending into the production as if they were living life rather than being in a play. The exaggerations in the text were well performed, creating humor that was centrally located within the conflicts of the piece and most of this was accomplished by the actors. There was a moment when a line in the first act was given by Noah Mittman, playing Gus, that seemed to break the realism within the work. Much of his performance, while good, seemed to be a bit stalled in places. The character played by J. Nick Dickart, by the name of James, picked up the pace when it seemed to have fallen slightly short. The interactions between these two characters seemed to have some pacing difficulties which created a problem for me. While my interpretation may be inaccurate, their interaction seemed a bit strained and therefore did not fully meet the expectation of believability. 2. Identify the performers you considered most successful. Citing specifics from the production, note what they did well: particular gestures, lines, or moments. Try to describe their success clearly; for example, how did the performers voice sound? How did he or she move? How did he or she interpret the role? Answer Question 2 I thoroughly enjoyed the character of the producer, Julia, played by Ilasiea Gray. While imperfect the part seemed to reflect the imperfections of the character so that those moments that might not have been as believable pass for character flaws. The interpretation of the role made it seem natural to the theater, even in its naiveté, a position in which she ‘interprets’ theatrical phrases to members of the play as if they would not understand them. In some ways, it was easier to relate to her as she was somewhat on the outside of the theater looking in when she related to the other characters, which placed her in a similar position as the audience. As some of the humor was above the education of the audience, so too was the situation above her experience, thus making her more easily relatable. She was a space between the audience and the action of the other characters which eased the tension that can exist between ’theater people’ and those who only attend or help from the outside. While she was a producer, she was still not fully immersed or as experienced. 4. Acting is more than just a collection of individual performances. The entire company needs to work together as a unit (this is sometimes called ensemble): each actor must not only perform his or her own role but also support the other performers. Discuss how the performers re­lated or failed to relate to one another. Did they listen to each other and respond? Did any actor seem to be "showing off and ignoring the others? Answer Question 4 The one aspect of the play that seemed very successful was that the characters seemed to be in concert with one another and they were working together to make all of the scenes work. The actors were engaged with one another, each scene seeming to flow naturally with very few of those moments when an audience member will think about that fact that they were attending a play. The humor was designed with the concept of exaggeration and exploitation of the characteristics of those involved in the theater, thus the grandstanding that was done was in context and did not seem to be created with the intent of ‘performance’ over interactions between the characters. Even in the exchanges that were a bit awkward, as in some of the beginning work in the first act between Gus and James, because of the exaggerated nature of the script, it didn’t seem completely out of place. SCENERY 6. What information was conveyed by the scenery about time, place, characters, and situation? How was this information conveyed to you? What was the overall atmosphere of the setting? Did any colors dominate? How did colors affect your impression of the theater event? Answer Question 6 The scenery of the play was done very well, setting the mood for the time period in such a way as to clearly reveal to the audience both its timelessness and its general relevant period. The place was an upstairs room, a party going on downstairs, providing context for the characters through the dressing of the set, giving information about their social status and the way in which their lives provided for them. The set design was done well as it gave these meanings to the nature of the play, giving context to the action so that it was relatable to the audience. The tension of the play was also helped by the set, the dressing of the bedroom seeming to show the chaos in which the moments were being played. The colors were bold, their nature providing a the theater event a visual display that was glorious and spectacular, but in keeping with the themes presented in the work. LIGHTING 8. Describe the mood of the lighting. How was color and intensity used to affect mood? What other characteristics of light were used to affect mood? Was the lighting appropriate for the mood of each scene? Why or why not? Also, was the lighting realistic or nonrealistic? Were the actors properly lit? Could their faces be seen? Were light changes made slowly or quickly? How did this affect the play? Did it seem right for the play? Answer Question 8 The lighting of the play was not made in such a way to be extreme or over the top. The mood is set through what seems to be naturalistic lighting for a nighttime gathering of people in an upstairs room, although it is significantly clearer because of the nature of the play. The lamp light was an interesting touch and did not change the visibility of the rest of the work. At one point, during a dialogue given by James, the sentimentality of the moment is set through the lowering of the level of light, that moment given greater meaning by the indications of how the light is used. The play provides a subtle use of light, thus creating a more believable space in which the play can be experienced. Although a some of the exaggerations were punctuated by the use of light, the consistency was done nicely so that there was no shock value. TEXT 9. What was the text about? What was the author of the text trying to communicate to the audience? Did the author try to communicate more than one message? Since conflict is necessary for a dramatic text, describe the conflict within the text in the production you saw. Which characters were in conflict? Was there a high moment in the action when the conflict seemed to come to a head? Was the conflict resolved or not? How did you feel about its resolution or lack of resolution? How did the conflict seem to embody the meaning of the text? Answer Question 9 The story of the play was designed to be centered around the business of theater, making fun of and at the same time showing an appreciation of the art genre through mimicry and satire. For much of the play, I felt as if I was outside of a circle of friends who were discussing an inside joke as much of it obviously made light of historical aspects of the theater that required foreknowledge in order to understand the humor. Still, enough of the text was funny that it was enjoyable. The themes of the play revolved primarily around the narcissistic nature of theater and the dependency on the opinions of others to be granted value. These conflicting characteristics, which seem to be at the heart of the nature of the business, provide a rich resource for the comedic intentions of the work. As well, it comments on the nature of values as they relate to profession as these characters deal with the anticipation of the reviews. The bad reviews provide more fertile ground for exploring the nature of self esteem and criticism as blame becomes tossed about between the characters. As terrible as the situation is when the reviews are bad, the addiction that is held to the theater is proven as they plan their next event. While the conflicts in the play roll around as they banter between each other, it might be more appropriate to discuss some of the characterizations that were more antagonistic to the process. As an example, a friend of the theater and the people involved, who reeked of charm as if it was a perfume one could wear, said a line that framed the experience that the reviews were about to give. During a phone conversation in which the audience is privy to a discussion, he responds to the question of the quality of the play saying “gobble gobble”, which heightened the nature of the impending conflict. The ensemble, as it disintegrates into laying blame on one another seem to be a reflection of this sentiment, their work having not been successful as they round table blame and try to find a solution to something that had already occurred. When Frank says “Reviews are killing the theater” he sets the stage for the events that will follow. Read More