Through the almost entire time of the beginning of the first act, the characters in the play has been talking about the episode of The Simpsons. Though it seems that they are simply “talking” about it most of the time, this point where he starts acting Bart, I felt meta-theatricality. I was listening to them casually talking about and reacting The Simpsons, then the next moment they started showcasing their current situation along with their own personalities. This transition of the focus from them recalling/reacting the mysterious episode of the cartoon to their actual serious situation pulled me into this play very much.

It is sometimes hard to tell which part is the characters’ reality and which part is their reacting of the episode. As well as the original cartoon is a comedy, I suppose this play includes many comedy elements. At the same time, when they leave the shelf of themselves and play the characters of The Simpsons with sort of robotic way of speaking, the contrast gives me more bizarre feelings towards the story that they are telling.

Overall the play appears to be gloomy and also the main character Lyuba seems to be in the financial/class difficulty the same as Pishchik. However, it was interesting to me how Pishchik does not sound as serious about his situation. I wonder if this contrast of the characters are meant to play a significant role in the play. The character of Pishchik is portrayed as being optimistic with no solid reason. Later on, his financial situation actually turns a bit better, and this seems to be ironic and adds a sort of peculiarity despite of its dark theme.

From my perspective, as much as she has her lover and lives in this moment, these lines tell me that she is haunted by the lost of her mother. It is as if the cherry orchard, in other words her memory, ties her to her painful childhood. At first I was a little confused if she was happy or sad about her childhood memory in this nursery, particularly with the part “it is the same” and “nothing has changed”. However, I think what she means is that even though nothing seems to be different in the world, something significant, which is her mother’s death, has happened and completely changed her life. Also, “my purity” signifies the time of her life when she did not think that she could lose her mother or anything.

It is funny how this type of parenting seems common in Asian families. As an Asian woman with some Asian or Asian American friends, this sort of experience sounds too common. It is typical in an asian household for parents to convince children that certain things are bad with very dramatic explanations that tend to hold some truth. My friends and I have had at least one or two of these experiences growing up, even though we did not grow up together. Also, I found it interesting that in page 70 where White Person 1 and 2 talk about how drinking is bad the way they handle alcoholism is much different from how, generally, Asian cultures would.

I could not agree more with this and the lines before where she talks about some white men like Asian women because they think Asian women are submissive and naive. I cannot represent all Asian women, however, I myself have had such humiliating experiences a Japanese woman. As much as I love living here and the people around me, it is interesting how the longer I live here the more racism I face.

I like how the situation of the Kang and the chess game that the two customers are playing are paralleled. As Liu’s daughter falls down, as much as he is sincerely worried about his daughter, he must be concerned about the trade as well. If the daughter is not healthy at least enough to get pregnant and give birth, she cannot be sold. In other words, their lives will be “finished”. It is interesting that its seriousness of their situation is portrayed with the chess terms, instead of proving it directly.

As I have at least a little bit of idea about how much fortune-telling is part of their culture, I suppose these lines of the Oracle’s exhibits that their situation has gotten worse than the time the first act takes place. In the first act, they do not seem to want their fortunes told as the situation is already bad enough to make them not believe in such things. However, as the Oracle says “the more chaos, the better my business,” the people must be desperate to ask a fortune-teller for reading. Whether to have someone to tell them that it is going to be ok, or to simply have an idea that it is going to get worse and be prepared for it. This change over the time depending on the situation of their society makes sense as I believe that fortune-telling has always been connected human psychology as well.

It is interesting how Melissa plays the role of Antigone in the play yet her action as a person seems to be more of a mixture of the original Antigone and Ismene’s. She stands up for what she believes is right with pride, which is very similar to Antigone. However, instead of recklessly risking her own life as Antigone does in the play, she uses her voice and status to claim her point similar to Ismene. With Antigone’s toughness and Ismene’s sensitiveness, Melissa proclaim her pride as an Amandian, and the freedom and respect for her own people including Titus, using the audience’s support.

This is such a great saying as an actress which opened my eyes. As a theatre student and performer, I have done some readings about various acting styles and techniques. However, this is an eye opening expression particularly when playing a character who is from a different time. I believe that adaptation or historical plays including this play, can have a great impact on the current audience if they do not feel the event as it is merely historical instead as their own. For this reason, Melissa’s approach for playing Antigone can be fruitful not only for herself but also for many actors who play historical characters.

My interpretation is that whether they are of high or low class in society, each individual has their hidden desires. For Seymour, the plant was the trigger to actually take an action for his desire to get rid of the abusive boyfriend, Orin, of his crush Audrey. Audrey also says in the play that she blames herself for Orin’s death as she “secretly wished it”. Even Orin has his problematic hidden desire, which was not really hidden though, of hurting other people. At the end, their desires seem to destroy them.

While the story and the theme appear serious with a horror taste, this musical exhibits many comical aspects. There was the song Skid Row right before this scene in which characters sing how tough their life is. Then here, as the customer is paying a significant price for roses at their shop, the repetition in their reaction adds a satirical and comical touch.

When I scrolled down until the end and read this line for the first time, I was a little confused. I wondered why she says to “open” the curtains when the play is ending. I interpret that this line displays the contrast between the end of the play and the beginning of her freedom from darkness. The curtains will free her from her confusion and suffering in the maze of her life. I also imagined that by opening the curtains, she gives away the stage to someone else to start their show as she leaves the stage/life.

I think this is such an accurate expression for how we sometimes have no say over our mind to take an action on things. Our will cannot secure our actual actions. Particularly for those who have depression, this is what I believe happens more often and severely. The disconnection of their inner and physical selves also causes a bad cycle with which they start blaming themselves for not achieving what they want or need, which is what the playwright seems to be doing. Though that is not something they can always control. Later in the play, she lists her medications with its effects and side effects. I think it also indicates that just because her medications might help relieve her discomfort in the physical aspect, that does not mean they can fix the illness in her mind.

I believe that people normally would think taking care of their family’s life or death with respect if they love truly them. However, under the unstoppable and brutal power of Creon’s or the Argentine dictatorship, their conscience is blinded by its force. Nonetheless, as Argentinian women during the Dirty War stood up for their loved one who had gone missing, Antigona in this play supported what she believes is right.

At this point, part of me thought that this portrays Antigona’s resentful feeling toward her sister Ismene for not helping bury their brother yet claiming her credit for it. However, she later hopes, without envy, Ismene to escape from the death. As much as she felt rejected by Ismene, I suppose she still wishes her sister the best as family.

After Mansour says that they would be the wood to fuel the political conflict if the fire breaks out, which can be a very serious problem, Jaber is still confident that he can get himself out of the situation. As much as I understand that this is a serious political story, this line sounds funny and silly but at the same time shows that Jaber might be a clever man. Mansour is afraid that they could get themselves in trouble and die even by discussing the issue, whereas Jaber suggests that they should benefit from it.

This structure is compelling as the political tale is presented by the Storyteller, while there is also the audience who are listening to and are convinced by the story. As other classmates mentioned in their posts, this play seems to be Brechtian with a little more unique structure. The effect of the story is a parallel, the tale and the audience in the play, and the play itself and the audience.

He was forced to go along with the three soldiers by pretending to be their fourth comrade. Then here he wonders if he should leave, since he finished his part, but he does not think he should leave. At this point I thought he was insane or a hypocrite, however, considering how this play proceeds, this might be foreshadowing that he will be needed again.

I found the structure of the play, in which the characters introduce themselves and explain the situation interesting, particularly because I just learned one of the Noh plays in World Theatre II this week. This play and typical Noh plays seem to share some similarity that its clarification of the plot is often done by the characters themselves.

I like the structure where the actual story and the narrators’ conversations are shown within the play mainly for two reasons. First, it is interesting how the ones who narrate and invite the audience to the story are the playwright of the original production and the one of the adapted version of the production. Second, their conversation is usually casual and amusing and I guess that makes this play more familiar for the modern audience, while the theme and the setting of the play is quite serious. It makes us feel as if we are witnessing the event together with the playwrights.

Throughout most part of the play, George is portrayed as a young man from Paris with artistic background, who is purely in love with Zoe regardless of their difference in class or race, and who tries to save the slaves that have been working for the family. However, there are some scenes here and there that hint that no matter how nice he acts on the surface he still holds this discriminative thought. This line was just stuck in my head as this is such a disrespectful, inaccurate, and racist thing to say.

I really like this phrase as it is fascinating how our parents have such a big impact and influence on us whether we like it or not. I myself have the experience that I used to and still tend to believe my mother's mythology no matter how ridiculous it might sound. Now that I am older and living on my own, I have more opportunities to learn things or do my own research whenever I want to know something. However, I believe that in general what our parents taught us while growing up are such treasure that we can cherish even after their death, but at the same time they can haunt us the entire life.

This line indicates that he has been hiding things that he does not want anyone to see. I get the feeling that with this line, he is justifying himself for hiding his secret. It makes sense as it is revealed later that he has been having affairs with men behind his wife’s back. It is frustrating as even after his own daughter comes out that she is a lesbian later on, he still thinks he knows better about her or what is right or good for her while he cannot face himself or his own problems. At the same time, it is understandable that he tries to avoid the conversation with her about her sexuality as he probably has been through the same struggle of not being able to be open about their true selves.

Throughout the play, Woyzeck has been often described as insane by the other characters with words such as “haunted,” ”raving,” and so on. It can be easily observed how he has seen and said bizarre things, and has been acting irrationally, along with his behavior of always rushing to something. Compared to those scenes where he is rushing, this scene, where he attempts and succeeds murdering Marie, seems to be most calm. Yet, it is the eeriest scene in my opinion. Particularly this line. I imagine the man, who has been running from here to there working to provide for the lover and the child even under the harsh circumstances, where he is used for a scientific experiment and constantly mocked by his boss. Now he finally “slows down” and is talking to the lover face to face quietly whereas his motive of murdering her is boiling up inside. Because there have been a lot of crescendo in the play, the scene stood out to me the most.

I wonder if this fairy tale is the implication of Woyzeck’s life or human’s life in general. They see hopes and seek for a better life elsewhere yet it always ends up getting stuck in the same misery. If it is about Woyzeck, I guess the child of the tale never finding anything better is not only about financial, upbringing, or personal issues, but it also can be about social class or status that he can never run away from. The tale simply appears in this grandmother’s monologue, however, it seems to be subtly yet deeply related to what has happened or is happening in the play. If it is about human in general, I have a feeling that it is more about how human constantly seek for the meaning of life throughout their life, and how they always try to gain a better status, better money, or better life rather than facing the current issue that is in front of them is meaningless.

She seems to be a pathetic sociopath here and there in the play. However, this line and the whole monologue make me feel that she is simply lost in herself, or even sympathize with her. In my opinion, it is them to blame if they receive pain from the people whom they hurt as karma. However, it is pitiful that Miss Julie has been taught to be "someone" by her mother and father and she never got to find "herself." Because she had to be tough like a man. Because she had to have a proper education as a woman and to be in a high status. She seems, at least to me, to be desperate for appropriate human interaction and love.

Since the beginning of the play, Jean has been treating women crudely, particularly to his fiancé Kristen. Despite that, while he is telling all the sweet love story and future plan to Miss Julie, I doubt my insight for a moment for labeling his as a sexist. However, this line indicates that Jean is who he seems to be even though he does not start acting as a total misogynist until a little later on. I wonder what was the author's true intension for making this character as such a man. Is this from the historical background where women are much less respected? Or is this a way of making Miss Julie even more miserable than she is in the play?