This is a perfect example of why Petya is here. Petya acts as a voice of reason and of moving on. Their fate is already decided, even if it isn’t official yet. Peyta may be seen as a pessimist but I just think he is a realist. And this line: “you must face the truth at least once in your life” is just crucial. Very Chekhov to have an over arching line like this that can be applied to the audience so personally (at least I think?). I do see the timelessness of this play, even if it may not be my cup of tea.

Firs is quite an intriguing character to me. Clearly he is exemplary of the “past” and creates this connection to it. To have him as the only one left in the estate, forgotten by the rest of the family/employees, is symbolic of leaving the past behind. I have been wondering what the sound of “breaking strings” signifies. What I can come up with is “cutting ties” with the past in order to move on. I feel though, that these people have not totally moved on, so I am a bit torn at this ending. There are conflicts that haven’t quite been resolved that I feel are “loose ends” if we are going to keep this metaphor going. Is Chekhov arguing that we should remember the past as we move forward? Or, that we should indeed leave it behind? Maybe he has no true answer and the point of this play is to make us think about it…. I wonder.

Something we talked about in my Playwriting class was the reason for this white couple being introduced into this story about Korean-American identity. I feel like it is to illustrate the idea that White people take over every damn thing, even if it isn’t theirs. I would argue especially if it isn’t theirs. In the media and in theatre we see “token” people of color characters in predominately white plays ALL the time. Just to hit a diversity quota. I, as a white queer person, feel like I don’t get properly represented in the media properly or as often as I would like to see. So to be a person of color who is portrayed a fraction of the amount of times that white people are, of course it feels impossible to identify. It was also a very effective tactic to have the white people speaking in very generic terms. I don’t think this was even about the relationship conflict we see. While it is interesting, I think the takeaway Young Jean Lee wants us to have is that her narrative is taken over.

I had to watch this for playwriting. Here is the link if anyone is interested: https://youngjeanlee.org/work/songs-dragons-flying-heaven/ . Young Jean Lee is an absolute icon. Opening with the piece of filmed performance art is so utterly jarring. To watch someone get slapped over and over for “work” is quite an introduction to this play. It made me think of what defines art, and if we should do art that hurts our souls. This scene is so utterly degrading let I related to Young Jean’s determination to make it through. I have been there in my professional life, and it is not a great place. Sometimes determination without self worth can be so detrimental. This piece really is about the playwright and I love hope personal it is. THEN, the fixing of the hair while getting slapped, just beautiful. It is hard to even articulate words to describe how this made me feel, and I think that is the point. It is so heavy, and then we are enlightened with Korean-American’s comedic monologue, creating yet another “wait what the hell is going on” moment. This entire play is full of “what the hell is going on” but I think it is extremely effective in getting me to think about my own personal journey with my own identity. I walked away from viewing this on my laptop screen with new ideas on how I view my art, and myself and can’t even imagine what it would have been like with an experience actually in a theatre.

Knew it would come back "let's refrain from discussing affairs of state, shall we?" I think this is used in an extremely ironically, especially juxtaposed with the discussion of a girl being sold directly after this. I feel like the theme is that everything is political, even our "own" affairs. Can we really even claim our own affairs to be our own? Isn't everything interconnected to the social and political circumstances that we are living in? I think about what I would be like if I had different parents who were maybe conservative minded, would I be conservative minded? Politics are greatly affecting our day-to-day. This can also be seen in our covid protocols, greatly affecting us globally. I think these social forces at play really make us an intertwined aged (apposed to a free agent". I really feel like Lao She sets this in a coffee shop to show exactly that: we are all intertwined. I am thinking of a hypothetical situation where a friend asks that we don't talk about covid anymore because it is a bummer. My whole LIFE is covid right now, at least indirectly. Lao She has got me thinking to what extent am I just a cog in this politicized machine.

I have never seen an initial scene description this long, THE DETAIL.

Quite an interesting tactic to introduce us to this world of censorship through a silly Dr. Seuss-like nursery rhyme of some-sort. Understanding that this play takes place in a Tea house and hearing this line already makes me think of what role this setting has in a piece like this. A tea or coffee house now a days is a center of community that goes typically goes beyond the normal role of an eatery. It is a meeting place for important conversations, and I anticipate this will be the same throughout this play as well. I wonder how this censorship principle will be seen in this "hub" especially set in China. I anticipate this being a play about revolution. After reading ahead, I think this Prologue does a great job at bringing us into the world that is this tea house. Do you guys see this poetic introduction as an effective tactic? Or does it take away from the seriousness that is conversing about revolution?

THIS is quite fascinating. I wonder if this came from the playwright or the stage manager (notes from the first production). I think this element of an unbelievably huge plant that is hungry for humans is something that I feel would only work in a musical. This puppet is larger than life, and needs a soundtrack to match it. Maybe it could work in some sort of absurd work, but I am not entirely convinced. The plant is a character of it's own, and needs the vehicle of this huge puppet to help carry it. I do think this play is effective is suspending the disbelief if this plant not being human, and in turn humanizing it. I looked up a few videos on youtube of the plant operating, and I would definitely say the more money you have, the better. It works much more effectively when it is realistic.

I have always loved this song. The satire of a woman singing about wanting normal household things is incredible. This piece is typically done in an over the top fashion and I always appreciate it. The lyrics on paper are also fantastic to read. I mean singing a ballad about wanting a disposal in the sink, a washer, and a dryer is just very hilarious. I especially appreciate the line about the "big enormous twelve inch screen." If you weren't sure if this was satire, then this line really brings it home (it is just totally ridiculous). Reminds me of the episode of the office where Michael Scott has a few couples over for a dinner party, and shows off his 12" plasma flat screen tv. It is so small and hilarious to watch Michael so seriously bragging about it. This song gives us a look into Audrey's desires, and her motivations for pursuing a nerdy man like Seymour.

In discussing the 3 characters this play is supposed to be, I feel like they are needed for these dashed ("-") scenes. I think they would act as a sort of greek chorus for the show and allow these scenes to play out externally rather inside our main players head and just simply to the audience.

Who is she speaking to; who is you? I feel like there are two options. One, she is speaking to a lover who she cannot be with, forbidden love if you will, or an affair gone depressive and toxic and just terrible. Two, I see this as being the human that Kane longs to be. The person that she is "supposed" to be. This persona does not long to be in Kane's body though, and this is where the conflict arrises. Also, a few lines later, Kane asks if it's possible for a person to be born in the wrong body. I am wondering if Kane would have transitioned or been non-binary in another life. Such beautiful words to describe something aching so deeply inside of her.

This would definitely lead to the suicide note theory...wow...

I love repetition like this.

queer. icon.

I. Love. Sarah. Kane. I just had to read "Cleansed" also written by her, and I am so intrigued by everything about her writing style. "Cleansed" has a much more concise dialogue format, so this passage already has especially caught my attention. It has me thinking of the stage direction in "Cleansed": "A sunflower bursts through the floor and grows above their heads". While this line I am annotating from Psychosis isn't a stage direction, it is very interesting to see the same just lack for realism Kane has. There are no bounds to her imaginative imagery, and I am just encapsulated by this. I mean, "the ceiling of a mind who's floor shifts as ten thousand cockroaches" come ON. This is just bizarre and strange and I am already hooked into this story. I also have especial fondness of this opening bit right above my highlighted passage. We are already thinking of ourselves and what we offer as humans, and will not have a show to reflect on these instinctual and visceral responses we had to these prompts.

This and the following lines about wanting another coffee really emphasis the “bystander” role these men have in this scene. They are able to just hop out when they would like to because they are just role playing with Antigona. They are just playing characters in this conflict with Antigona, and are able to be removed emotionally. This makes me think of how these protesting women of Argentina are alone in their struggle. They show up, they are loud, but it feels like no one is listening. These bodies are still or identified or lost. This play definitively made me emotionally enough to continue looking into this conflict. It was insuring to hear of a group of people helping to DNA identify some bodies. I see this type of play that is not explicitly about the conflict as much more effective than a typical “propaganda play”. I would rather connect the dots myself so I can in turn be more invested.

I think it is quite interesting that we begin the play knowing that Antigona will hang herself. This raises the awareness of the audience, and honestly piqued my interest right off the bat. Even though I am familiar with the story on the original Antigone, this added a layer to Antigona that we do not get in Antigone. We know she kills herself from the get go, so in her retelling of the story, we can really understand what led to this horrendous circumstance. Not only does it raise the stakes of Antigona, but beginning this play with such a horrifying image is quite bold. Especially contrasted with Coryphaeus and Antinous casually chatting and drinking coffee on this very same stage. It most definitely portrays the by standing men and the government of the conflict in Argentina this play is referring to. I would be curious as to how this could be played out in a cage. I bet that would be an even more powerful image.

So many generic statements like this throughout the play that can be applied to so many other situations. This generic speak sometimes loses me. I definitely relate more when a character is dealing with a very specific problem and describing it in specific detail, then this can act as a metaphor for a problem I am dealing with in my life. This play's language loses me sometimes, in relation to generic phrases as well as some of the jargon surrounding the royals of the time and just this setting. Makes it hard to follow sometimes. Maybe that is the point...

Okay so we have the layer of the "players" in the story acknowledging that these circumstances are not alright. We also have an audience listening to the storyteller and players acknowledging that these circumstances are past turmoil, not something to be proud of. And we would also have an audience seeing this play "The Adventure of the Mamluk Jabar's Head". Political is an understatement. I think this tactic at surface level seems quite redundant, but is actually quite effective. Does the audience really need to hear these truths out loud? Sometimes, yes. What events surrounding us TODAY are not alright?

Very interesting dynamic to have everyone analyzing each others' character outloud. We have Begbick asking "How can you be such a materialist?" just before this, and then now this line : "This is a man who can't say no." It is honestly comforting to have the characters reaffirming the assumptions I am making about this man. It is quite a tactic to tell this story. I feel as if I am reflecting with the character. It is almost as if the fourth wall is broken, but they are speaking to each other and the audience is a bystander. In other words, I feel like a participant in the play and that my thoughts are just as crucial to the story as are the characters. I did not feel like this in realistic plays. I wonder what kind of theatre this is typically performed in, I think black box would be best.

This opening sequence is interesting, but quite frankly, very confusing! I am trying to picture the actions of that actors but many of them just seem far-fetched for the stage, or requiring makeup and special effects to simulate the blood or makeup. I do have the understanding that Brecht's Epic Theatre is extremely stripped down, so this would not be required. It would be up to the actor to show the audience with their actions what is happening to them in this sequence. I absolutely see the value in striping down the entire play to have the audience accept this world as it is. We may not see this bald spot, but through dialogue and action we will certainly know it is there. I think I am having a difficult time reading this after all of the realism and naturalism we have been reading. Directing a Brecht play seems like a monster, but a fun one.

I LOVE THIS.

Very powerful scene. I am FEELING for Wahnotee.

VERY important to note that George is played by a Black actor, and Pete by a Native American actor, or mixed-race actor. This is a moment where it would absolutely be easier to see a play than to read it. I keep having to switch up to the Character Descriptions to remember what race they are played by. The deliberate choice to have actors of color play historically white characters is genius. So powerful. And a very important challenge, and addition, to Boucicault's Octoroon.

A preface that I find extremely rare to be honesty. The casual tone Jacobs-Jenkins is speaking about race already is setting us up for a play that takes Boucicault's Octoroon and turns it on it's head. From this opening scene, to this very line, we are opened up to a world of questioning every damn thing. This line particularly struck me because it immediately challenges the stereotypes of slaves I have gained through my years of public school education. I have been in acting classes where characters that were slaves were written and read as extremely illiterate. And more importantly, many stories have slaves lumped into the one category of speech with NO diversity. This very simple direction in parenthesis challenged YEARS of a racist bias I had been carrying. Theatre is supposed to challenge you and give you a new perspective, this absolutely already did and I am on page 17.

I love that the final piece is Small Alison, Alison, and Medium Alison. What a beautiful moment of shared bodies but caught in different time periods of Alison's life. This is something you can only really capture with theatre. Each Alison had "rare" moments where they soared about their father, and the audience has seen quite a few. It must be amazing to be in a Theatre and see these three actresses aware of different life events, but carrying the same message and personality. This is the culmination finale that we needed. Thank you Fun Home.

This is an example of the theatre providing a tool of story telling that you absolutely do not get the same with film or TV. If this were to be done on a show, I think the words would just be blasted across the screen, or even across a blank screen. Here we get the "captions" delivered to us by our Protagonist. This has become an especially powerful too throughout the play, but this one really hit me. It gave us an outside perspective of Alison reflecting on a moment in her youth that created a LOT of turmoil for her. This really was a turning point for medium Alison, and this caption did an excellent job capturing the moment.

This element of wading into the water, along with many others throughout this story, really made me think deeply about what genre this play is. Probably being written in 1837, this play seems to be WAY ahead of its time. I did some digging and it seems that this is the first tragedy of its kind that focused on a working class protagonist. I feel as if this play has many absurd elements to it as well. The director in me wondering how the hell to portray this wading into the water, along with the hallucinations of Woyzeck. I could see this play being completely stripped and up to the actor to make the magic (in Poor Theatre fashion), and I could also imagine a company with a LARGE budget pulling out all the stops to utilize special effects, lighting, and incredibly detailed set pieces to portray this story.

This character named “Jew” seems like an extremely antisemetic troupe. I did some digging, and did find out that Bruchner was part of a group called the Young Germany Movement. This movement helped fight towards the Jews emancipation. While this is great, we all do know what happened about a hundred years later to the Jews. This Jewish character being the one to sell Woyzeck the knife he uses to murder his wife is extremely problematic. This character promotes stereotypes of Jews that lead to the murdering of 6 million Jews during the holocaust. If this play were to be done today there would need to be serious discussions over what to do about this character.

This line really moved me. I feel as if everyone has a moment in their life where they had to make a decision to leave something that others thought was a downgrade, when really it was the ultimate level up. I had the hardest time leaving my college when i was a year into my undergrad degree. It was not the right place for me. Many saw me "dropping out" as a bad decision, but this propelled me to grow and learn and move on to greater experiences. The fact that this simply put line can bring me back to this moment of my life is brilliant. People are ALWAYS looking for ways to see you fall.

From this point on you absolutely see the switch in demeanor from casual to "okay our boss is here button up". This code switching really emphasized this being a Naturalistic play. This happens in other plays sure, but actually having dialogue to represent this is especially important to telling a naturalistic story. I also would like to note that this dynamic of employer to employee is a gateway to seeing people's true colors. I wonder if this dynamic is very popular in the naturalistic movement of theatre, or this is just unique to this play. I wouldn't be surprised if it is common.