Reading Eurydice (and the interview afterwards) was a revelatory experience. The first revelation I had came when the interview did not contain a question about the character of the Mom of the lord of the underworld, yet it did contain questions about other symbols such as the raining elevator. Clearly there's some sort of symbolic transformation when Orpheus fulfills the Old Woman's needs and the lord of the underworld is reborn tall; however I'm really at a loss for what this symbol could mean exactly. However the play was still powerful to me, despite my lack of understanding. This for me as a writer, was a revelation. Unfortunately, my tendencies as an English Lit major do not transfer well to my creative writing. Too often I imbue my short stories with too much symbolic meaning; instead of portraying character change the trajectory of the story is marked by symbol change. Which, if you're not you know living in my head, can be a hard thing to catch onto, and you're left with nothing to enjoy about the story. However the symbolic change here is both visceral and intellectual––on stage the transformation of the Lord of the Underworld contains its own menace, he literally gets taller, more threatening, just as Orpheus's seduction has visceral impact. The effect is hightened on stage, but the symbols were powerful reading too, due to what they also represent (rape/seduction etc). I would like to learn to write a symbol that is also viscerally impactful the way these are.
Also of note is the use of the Greek chorus. Naturally, as this play is based on other Greek plays, it seems only normal that it has a chorus. However, it's clear that the author is playing with the idea of Greek chorus. This play seems required to make a good play with a Greek chorus in it, in order to make the play interesting, as the form is so borrowed and so old. Notice that seemingly it's hard to identify these as just "choruses" almost everywhere, including the interview, these choruses are identified "greek," inseparable from their source and clearly borrowed. On some level I think that anytime a modern play includes a chorus the play becomes on some level about how it uses the idea of a Greek chorus (Depending on the audience sure). Which is fine if you're trying to make a statement about Greek Choruses, or you don't mind your audience thinking about them and their historical use even if that's extraneous to your point. What I think would be more interesting is ways to subvert this form that might still serve the same theatrical purpose. Characters who begin speaking different voices on stage? Stiffly and frozen to indicate they are speaking from a different source? Documentaries of the action on stage to give that greek chorus like back story? Documentarians on stage? Furthermore, Ruhl discusses how playwrites tend to borrow forms. Which seems to be true given the prevalence of choruses in modern theater, but this seems unnecessary given Ruhl's creativity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The prevelance of choruses in modern theater? Really? Like what/where? Would be worth laying those out, comparing/contrasting them. I feel like nearly no one does this anymore, but of course I know what you mean -- it feels prevalent because it's so gimmicky, and when we get one, it's often doing roughly the same things. Not so though really I don't think. So worth further exploration. Indeed, here it works because she's (re)writing greek myth. What else do those stones add to and take away from this play?
ReplyDeleteThe good news here is that symbols are clearer to audiences of the theater than audiences of the short story. Because they (literally if you like) loom large. Because it's easier to direct the audience's gaze. Because they're more out of place. Rain in a short story might just be setting the mood, setting the scene, being a meaningless detail; it's so mundane it might not be noticed by a reader at all. But rain on the stage? Cannot be ignored.
Things to play with this week perhaps: choruses doing something else OR someone else being chorus-like, symbolism, BIG theater.
This symbolism you talk about is very interesting, for sure. As we briefly touched on it in class, it seemed that we were all a bit baffled by/unsure of why the nasty interesting man and Lord of the Underworld should be double-cast as well as the grandmother of Eurydice and the mother of the Lord of the Underworld. I seem to be sort of on the edge of grasping what Ruhl wants to say about these characters and their roles in the story because I recognize the power of such stage direction, yet, like I said, cannot quite explain it.
ReplyDeleteWhere you were very intigued by the symbolism Ruhl incorporates into her story, I was utterly impressed with her ability to write words that sounded like nonsense yet communicated so much. I think it speaks to Ruhl's originality and style that we can individually be so engrossed in just one aspect of the greater work that is Eurydice.
The thing about symbolism in theater is that its existance is not just up to the playwright, but the set designer or director or any number of people who are adding or working with what is written or not written in the script. As a playwright, I think that is both fun and scary.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I really liked the greek chorus. Besides their utilitarian point of fitting a classical Greek Theater model and assisting in the communication of exposition, they are characteros unto their own. They add humor and context. And the fact that play is already based on a ridiculous myth and the audience knows they are going to be faced with fantasy of sorts, the Greek chorus and all its unrealistic characteristics fits. I wonder how to stage the different ways of freezing/unfreezing characters on stage to create a similiar greeek chorus effect...without being confusing. Or what it would buy/lose as opposed to a greek chorus. Interesting ideas to play around with!