The play, "Time Stands Still," was written by Donald Margulies in 2009. The fact that the play was written so recently, and the information that you (Jenny) shared with us about your input into the production of your newest play, made me wonder how much say Margulies had in this production. Although I had an overall positive reaction to the show, there were definitely some weird choices, and I would've liked to hear what the playwright had to say about them. However, these choices were mostly acting-related, and I'd rather talk about the writing craft and techniques here, because I definitely paid more attention to that (the curse of this class!).
First of all, there seemed to be a lot of small talk written into the script. Now, I personally appreciate that and enjoy watching it (as long as it's done well...which it was). However, I couldn't help thinking about the conversation we had in class about condensing natural conversation, because a play is only one or two hours long and simply cannot include every little tangent and trivial conversation that people have in real life. I found...I think...that most of the small talk in the show was relevant because it helped add a sense of character and also gave the audience a clear idea of the relationship between the different characters. But, I also feel that these parts of the play were only interesting to watch and would be very dry to read on paper. I could be wrong, but I found myself wishing I had a script to follow along with, or to refer to after, so I could see how I would react to it in my own head, without the dynamic performances in front of me.
The second thing that really struck me about the show might have been (as I said) due to "weird" acting choices or choices made by the writer--I couldn't tell. This play had a cast of four, and as I watched, I found myself connected to three of them very strongly. I could identify with them, or at least believe that they were real and that their problems mattered. However, the fourth character, played by Alicia Silverstone, seemed very hollow...almost like a caricature. She was definitely written to be the most shallow of all of them (although, by the end, she contributed a great deal to the overall message of the show)--one character was a photographer, one character was a journalist (both traveled to war zones to document such atrocities), one was a photo editor of a magazine...and then Silverstone's character was an "event planner." This was meant to add an element of humor to the show. And it definitely did...but maybe a little too much. This was my problem with her acting/the character (it still remains to be seen which one of those was the root of the problem). Almost every single line that the party planner character said got a laugh from the audience. However, not every single thing she said seemed to have a "funny" message behind it! Either Silverstone played the character way to ditzy, or Margulies wrote the lines so that this character could bring little to no depth to the play. Either way, this choice bothered me--it doesn't seem realistic to have three serious, intense characters and one light, fluffy, vapid character.
As I said, there was a clear message behind the show, one that the party planner outright said to the audience: focusing only on the serious, the upsetting, the harrowing, may not always be the best way to lead one's life. The way in which Margulies communicated this idea was very effective, and by the end of the show, I definitely felt a tie to these characters and their stories (or at least, 3/4 of them). Although there were frustrations along the way, I'll take Margulies' message to heart and say that for the most part, I really enjoyed this play.
No comments:
Post a Comment