Okay yeah at this point, I'm really over The Simpsons references. I'd probably walk out of the theatre at this point just out of utter frustration of not being in on the joke. I'm sure Anne Washburn's intention isn't to isolate audiences but that is exactly how I feel right now. Maybe it's my fault for not watching The Simpsons but it just feels like far too many references for my liking, even if I did watch it. Maybe this serves some sort of purpose for the end of the play where the references tie together but right now I'm not interested.

I love when plays do this quirky thing of going really fast paced (or at least that is how I imagine this scene reading) and repeating each other and jumping on to the previous line's thoughts. Something about it wakes me up as a reader and as an audience member. This way of delivering lines intrigues me because it is the most unrealistic thing ever. It is funny because although they are repeating each other and picking up where the other left off, it never seems like they're actually listening to what the other is saying. All that to say that it is entertaining to watch, but as an actor, I struggle with this quirky type of dialogue.

I did this monologue for my BFA college auditions because it is the only "classical" monologue that genuinely spoke to me. They do not call Trofimov the "eternal student" for no reason. It is evident in this speech that he is an intelligent individual constantly searching for the truth and for answers as to why society has become the way that it is. Trofimov does not associate positivity with the orchard, and blames Russian "intellectuals" for the poor status of Russia. He is an idealist, he believes the solutions are within reach and not within reach at the same time. His curiosity reminds me of my own which is why I identify with him so much.

This is an interesting section to me. It touches a lot on gender dynamics within Russia and society, with Varya being quite demure and meek about her potential proposal. It is sad that she responds this way when asked about a proposal - one should be somewhat in good spirits when asked about this. There is a slight insecurity here along with a somber nature. I think the bee line is also a juxtaposition to the sadness she feels about the proposal.

This is so funny because my mom says the same exact thing about her Asian parents. She obviously loves her parents very much and is grateful to have them in her life, but they have certain values and expectations for their children. I think my mom says it in more of a lighthearted way whereas this seems more deliberate and like an actual psychoanalysis of Asian parents. Being that I was raised by my mom, who is from India but quite "Americanized" so to speak, I can only empathize with this sentiment that she expresses. I think my grandma is super cool, but my mom never fails to mention she wasn't always like that. I think it's fascinating how the way people go about their culture values changes from generation to generation.

Is this meta-theatricality? I would like to say that it is since the playwright is directly involved in the play. I love that it implements her own life and her own friends - it is always fun to see a playwright directly in their work much like BJJ was featured in his adaptation of The Octaroon. I think it is interesting to write down the exact lines of the prerecorded sound because usually, I have seen stage directions briefly describe the prerecorded sound rather than writing out the lines. I love a good "audience in dark" moment as well - adds a bit of mystery and establishes a certain ambiance.

This line is a recurring motif throughout the play. This reinforces the idea of censorship within China and Chinese theatre and loosely reminds me of the Wannous play we read earlier in the semester. It interests me that the number of signs has increased and the Chinese characters are enlarged. It is such a clear indicator of times of censorship in Beijing at this time. I think the fact that there are so many signs is supposed to be a visual stimulus to the audience as well.

I know the playwright states that the exact reason for having this prologue is to allow other characters to change into other makeup, but I find that many plays from Asia and Asian theatre in general embraces the idea of having a prologue. This section reminds me of Kalidasa's Shakuntala which also has a (comedic?) prologue between a stagehand and a director. I'm not sure if this prologue is meant to read like that, but I think it's a good way to get the audience invested in the story before it begins. I also enjoy the rhyming aspect of it - it adds a childlike quality to the performance.

Is this scene (or tableau rather) considered metatheacricality? They are discussing a play within a play, and there is a Stagehand character. I feel like this play could work in a Grotowski "poor theatre" model. I would want to see exposed wings and a plain stage to accommodate for the first stage direction. Because there are so many people on stage, it would not matter that the stage was bare as the audience would be focused on the "feverish activity" unfolding. I also am curious as to what the feverish activity would be.

I love a story that features a story-telling narrator. The Griots in certain African countries (particularly West African) were considered to be the tellers of oral history, so I think it is a great idea to have this character in the prologue. It is reminiscent of a Greek chorus to me in this context which I am sure was the intention being that Antigone is a Greek text. Beyond being the oral historians of West Africa, they were also poets, musicians, and even preachers. They are closely related to the spiritual world.

I feel like this song is one big projection of his feelings for Audrey. He gives her attention, compliments, everything - and she still stays with the dentist. Being that he names the plant Audrey II, I think it serves as even more of an analogy for his complex dynamic with Audrey. It's also interesting that he has to give the plant blood for it to grow much like later on when he only is allowed to be with Audrey because the dentist has been killed and fed to Audrey II.

I LOVE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS! However, as I've never read it on paper before and I'm already seeing that some of the character descriptions are a bit stereotypical and slightly problematic. I guess in a way it is okay in that the musical is supposed to be "tongue in cheek" and satirize many different things as stated in the author's note, but I think it also reinforces somewhat dangerous stereotypes. Then again, I think that is the point? I like that the descriptions are very specific and detailed, a lot of the time, especially in plays, it's just the age, gender, and maybe ethnicity.

This has been very painful to read thus far. I feel extreme sympathy and empathy for her. Being that I was slightly confused about the characters and how this would be staged, I looked up some background information about the play. I discovered that the play is semi-autobiographical in that Sarah Kane actually suffered from clinical depression herself, and committed suicide in 1999. Knowing this information makes the play ten times more palpable. It is upsetting yet fascinating as it gives insight on mental illness that was not as prevalent in theatre at this time.

This play reads like a long poem. I am slightly confused about how it would be performed. I know it is not a one-woman show as the cast says that it includes three people. Is this sequence of lines the other two people in the cast? Is she saying this to herself? Is it the voices in her head being manifested into characters? I think any of these options would be interesting to watch, but I wonder which specific one it is. Is the silence her silence or the silence of the potential other characters? Hopefully these questions will be answered as I read further.

This play starts with mockery and ends with mockery. In this line, it is crystal clear that this play has a deeper meaning, calling out the Dirty War in Argentina. The citizens felt betrayed, ignored, and mocked by their government, and were in constant fear. The estimated 30,000 people who were "disappeared" are mocked, even in their death by a government who did not recognize the value of human life. In the same way, Antigona feels that Polynices and herself are being treated the same way. This direct political link makes the play all the more palpable, and I am sure watching it in a theatre is extremely powerful.

I think this is such an interesting sequence of lines because I would argue that Antigona is only thinking with her heart and her emotions rather than her head. Even in the original PLAY, Antigone is clearly thinking with her feelings and not logic. If she was thinking with logic, she would probably be more like her sister, Ismene, and follow Creon's order. However, maybe she perceives her feelings as coming from her head since it is the order of the gods beyond Creon that the dead be given their final rites. In this way, Antigona is thinking with her head. Perception is so subjective, it is fascinating to see how it manifests in the different characters in the play.

As I was reading this, I remembered when I read and watched a performance of One Thousand and One Nights - an Arabic play from the Islamic Golden Age. The way that play was structured was as a collection of stories, and it dealt with similar themes about how certain people were supposed to conduct themselves in relation to the theocratic government and patriarchal standards of this society. It is nice to read plays from places other than Europe as it increases one's worldview, and shows how different places around the world operate. Because of that play, I came into reading this play with a better understanding of the world this play happens in.

This section is interesting to me for a number of reasons. It is important to note that this society is one that closely intertwines government and religion, making it even more dangerous to express political opinions as they are taken as religious ones as well. Theocratic governments have their pros and cons I guess, but the fact that so many people are concerned about whether or not their government is going to skin them alive for expressing opinions is pretty jarring. I agree with the Fourth Man for sure, but I do empathize with the other characters saying not to go overboard - especially the women who could potentially face more severe consequences for sharing their thoughts.

This line made me chuckle initially because I thought "why is he so fixated on fish? This makes no sense." Reading over it again, I am sure it is a metaphor for something, but I am having trouble figuring out what the metaphor is. Is he unhappy with his life because it is mundane and he has the same fish every day? What does this have to do with imagination? I feel like there is a deeper meaning to this that is going over my head. Clearly Begbick gets out of it that Galy Gay is self centered and only fixated on himself but I don't see that necessarily.

This line feels very Brechtian as Jesse is clearly stating what is happening, where they are, and the circumstances of the world they are in. He is certainly not announcing this for the benefit of the soldiers - they definitely know the situation at this point. However, the audience is just being introduced to the circumstances of the play, and could use some clarification before the rest of the plot plays out. Their goal is also established - restoring order. In just one line, the audience is up to speed with the prior events of the play, and are immersed in the world.

I am really digging the self-awareness, stream of consciousness nature of this adaptation. This reminds me of the Grotowski / Woyzeck discussion board post we did about keeping theatre unique and relevant. Nothing is more unique to theatre than the "aliveness" of it. If someone said this same line I highlighted in a film, maybe I would crack a smile. But hearing it live makes it funnier and more palpable. BJJ breaking the fourth wall with his candid, charming personality is what gives this adaptation a boost over the original. The audience feels like a character in the play as well, creating a more casual atmosphere, but not in a negative way. Naturally, one feels more invested in a story they are a part of, which is what BJJ accomplishes here.

THIS IS SO TRUE. I resonate with this so much as a woman of color. It reminded me of a time I wrote a short scene about a boy getting caught drinking alcohol by the decorative moose head on his wall on his prom night. I chose to make the character Indian simply because I am Indian. I remember writing it and thinking it was fun, silly, and light. The next day, one of my classmates said she admired how I was trying to combat stereotypes within Indian / South Asian families about drinking alcohol being taboo within the culture. I felt exactly how BJJ feels here. Sure, sometimes things do have other deeper meanings, but other times, it's just stream of consciousness, writing about whatever you want. People always try to put anything people of color do into a box to fit what they think we're trying to do, when really, sometimes, we're just doing whatever we want. Not everything has some super deep, profound, cultural meaning all the time.

Wow, now I am kind of confused. However, I think that is what Alison wants. I feel the internal conflict from her. I am getting the sense the nature of the relationship between her and her father is complex, especially with her pointing out that he had more affection towards his house than his actual children. It's interesting that in the recording, things just overall sound more positive / not a big deal. Reading it on the page like this though helps highlight the gravity of the situation.

I decided to listen to the actual songs while reading this script and it is quite hard to tell if Alison is saying this as a good thing or a bad thing. It is quite early in the play, but it seems like she has a strong connection to her dad so I cannot imagine it being bad. However, her tone of voice in the recording of the song does not sound necessarily happy or thrilled that she may be like her dad. From the creative team's note, I know that Bruce commits suicide, which leads me to think maybe Alison is having similar thoughts? Perhaps 43 is when Bruce passed / started acting differently.

Woyzeck comes off as quite pathetic in this scene for a number of reasons. The Doctor is taking advantage of Woyzeck's class / financial hardships and Woyzeck has no choice but to go through with it because he needs money. What's even sadder is in the scene preceding this one, Woyzeck and Marie have had their falling out. Despite this, Woyzeck still feels a responsibility to provide for Marie and requests money for housekeeping. One could view Woyzeck as pathetic in this scene, but I think he's somewhat of a good person for still taking on the breadwinner role to provide for his family.

This is one of the many moments of foreshadowing in this play. Marie does get stabbed by Woyzeck at the end of the play, but it is interesting that she says everyone, men and women, are going to hell. Perhaps this is a call out of her sin of infidelity, and Woyzeck's sinful behavior committing murder. Marie is self-aware, she knows she is betraying the man who goes out of his way to provide for her and her child, but she still acts in spite of this fact. This section could also be a reference to no character in the play being a particularly good person. They are all quite problematic individuals who have high chances of being sent to Hell based on their earthly behavior.

It is interesting to note that Miss Julie is not revealing her own feelings, but instead, fishing Jean's feelings out of him. This makes me think she is simply manipulating him for attention and validation rather than having genuine interest. It is kind of sad to watch this unfold. I feel like I've been reading Jean pour his heart out for pages while Miss Julie just teases him. I feel empathy for Jean as he is planning their whole hypothetical life together out while she says little to nothing. Intriguingly enough, he seems to have no problem spilling the beans while getting basically no verbal reciprocation. It was quite funny to me that Miss Julie asks Jean "Have you no feelings?" when he's been doing nothing but sharing them, perhaps at the cost of his life.

I think it is interesting and surprising that Miss Julie asks this because Kristin and Jean are around her every day. One would assume she would know if they were engaged or not being that she is around them all the time. Perhaps this highlights how oblivious Miss Julie actually is. She is playing into the stereotype of not paying any attention to her workers even though they provide her with all her basic needs and wants. Or maybe, she does know they are engaged and is trying to get under Kristin's skin / trying to take Jean for herself. Thus far, all of the characters seem to have different kinds of tension with each other, so it would make sense.