First, I would just like to say that I really enjoyed reading the story of Eurydice. It's been a long time since I heard/read it, so this was a good experience.
I also really enjoyed reading Sarah Ruhl's adaptation. One of the most distinctive things about her script is that the stage directions don't read like typical stage directions. Instead of having somewhat of a neutral tone, the stage directions are as if another person is speaking in the play. Here were a couple parts that really struck me. The first is in the beginning scene 1 in the second movement:
"The underworld.
There is no set change.
Strange watery noises.
Drip, drip, drip..."
Another part that I liked was in scene 2, third movement:
"She takes another step forward.
She hesitates.
She is all of a sudden not so brave.
She is afraid.
SHE LOOKS BACK."
And then, in the same scene:
"HE TURNS TOWARD HER, STARTLED.
ORPHEUS LOOKS AT EURYDICE.
EURYDICE LOOKS AT ORPHEUS.
THE WORLD FALLS AWAY."
Ruhl's lack of fear regarding CAPITAL LETTERS gives the stage directions a much greater sense of urgency and emotion. It is like she is really trying to shout across the divide between the playwright and the director/performers. It gives the story not only physical cues for how it should be performed, but it also provides the feelings that should be conveyed to the audience. Ruhl desires a sensory experience; the "drip, drip, drip" is evident of that.
Continuing in the vein of stage directions, it's interesting that Ruhl has such a fondness for wordless interludes--the brief scenes featuring Eurydice's grandmother, for example. She is clearly not a fan of having overly talky plays. She wants her characters to be physical, and so Eurydice has very active characters.
Overall, I really liked the motifs and imagery that Ruhl brought to the story with her script. Rather than having the "underworld" be fiery and dark, she keeps it the same as the "real world": wet and rusty. The ideas for the staging are strange and wonderful, particularly the raining elevator Eurydice enters the underworld in. I enjoyed the characters of The Stones; their contrarian attitude to the other characters was very entertaining. I was interested by how Ruhl focused so much on Eurydice rebuilding her relationship with her dead father--though it is understandable, given that the play is dedicated to the memory of Ruhl's father. The ending I found to be pretty disturbing--in death, all the characters are put into the stasis of lost memory.
One thing that kind of bothered me about this script is that the longer it goes on, the more the scene switches between the underworld and the real world. I think that this prevents the script from being very flexible for small performances, and I worry that it might jar the audience too much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Much for you to play with this week (or some week):
ReplyDeleteStage directions that shout across the divide. Stage directions that create urgency and emotion. Creating urgency and emotion on stage via not (exclusively) plot or character development or dialogue but by stage direction. Wordlessness -- characters who communicate without or beyond language. Creating a more sensory experience.
All interesting observations and fun, smart things to try out. The word of caution you offer at the end is important too though. If your play HINGES on a huge technical/set budget, if your play hinges on a scholar sitting down and puzzling out the secret meanings and symbols you've hidden in your stage directions, if your play hinges on people doing weird mime on stage for extended periods of time...well, then your play is probably going to have significant problems. So play with it AND figure out how to make it actually work too.
I wonder if she means for the stage directions to be read aloud, or simply to be portrayed by the actors. It would be really cool if the Stones said them I think, while the actor were either doing the same actions in the back, or with the stage empty before they enter. Being more of a technical person, I love stage directions. They are the only lines I ever get to play with. So a show like this, with directions that read more like poetry than a map, its especially exciting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the cutting back and forth between the two worlds; though perhaps if you were doing it poor theatre style with little to no set, it wouldn't be a problem. Maybe you could change the setting with lights only. oooh, that would be cool...
As mentioned in class, ultimately the scene design and stage directions are out of our hands as playwrights. During the premiere production, sure we may have a hand in it, but beyond that all we can do is trust the director to keep to the story with his/her own vision. However, your point on the urgency of her stage directions has brought me to the realization that even though we may not be able to enforce it so all productions follow your directions, you can still give them hints as to how it should be portrayed. The same goes with the scenery. Even if it's taken in a completely different direction, the initial setup you provide will guide them to the right feel of the show.
ReplyDeleteAs for your assessment of smaller production being at a disadvantage, I will have to just repeat the aforementioned sentiments.
I really liked your assessment of the stage directions. I found them so interesting, but I didn't really understand why. If you like that, can I suggest to you The Flu Season, by Will Eno. It is a story in which the Prologue and the Epilogue are actual characters in the play, and as the Prologue is telling the story, the Epilogue is coming in and changing/rewriting it as it is being told. It is such an interesting concept, and the stage directions run rampant.
ReplyDeleteI actually liked the way it switched back and forth from Orpheus in the real world, to Eurydice in the Underworld. I thought it was nice foreshadowing to show the overlap between the two, and alludes to her struggle of whether to go back to Orpheus, or stay with her father. It really shows the pull, and persistence of Orpheus.