Research on Location

Subject: Research on Location

The weekend before Thanksgiving break I was able to go on location to do research for my independent project. My topic is Renaissance Faire acting, and I was able to experience and partake in my subject, which was extremely rewarding. One discovery that I found and never noticed in the past – I’ve attended the faire for four years – was that even if one does not work at the faire itself, a visitor cannot help but act a part. I found myself speaking in an accent, a habit I picked up from my Scottish grandmother and grew out of years ago. I also found myself using greetings and expletives that subscribed more to the Renaissance time period rather than current times. I realized that when surrounded by actors everywhere – even the vendors spoke with accents and made bawdy comments to most customers seeing as they were wenches – it is nearly impossible to not become another character in another time. Renaissance festival is a liberating sensation where it is all right to become someone else for a day and give in to fantastical desires. And for you gamers out there, its almost as if you are LARPing for an entire day, even if you are simply a visitor. Its just unfortunate that we can’t all be paid for the people we become.

"No Day But Today"

Subject: "No Day But Today"

I have to say that the motion picture Rent was not exactly what I had expected. It began with a very moving rendition of "Seasons of Love" by the eight main characters on a stage. This was a nice touch, it was different but it means a lot at the end of the movie since the song has become the 'main' song for the movie. Along with this, there were a few other things that I didn't expect. The fact that many of the songs were moved around and sang out of order, the fact that some of the movie was just spoken rather than sang along with the fact that there were added scenes that were not originally in Larson's play.
Though there were these differences, I still loved the movie. I went into the theatre not too sure of what I was about to see. I wasn't sure if I was going to see something like The Phantom of the Opera or not. I was very impressed. The entire movie was not set to music, though most of it was, it was not completely done this way. As I have already said, the opening scene, which was filmed on a stage, was a very touching, moving scene. I think that feeling has a lot to do with not only the theme of love and acceptance but also the fact that this movie was made somewhat, as a tribute to Jonathan Larson. I feel that the visuals of New York and the ability to switch between scenes added a particular characteristic to the movie that is unavailable to the theatrical performance. I know that the ability to explain thoughts with clips helped me understand the movie. Particularly in the scene where Roger is on the rooftop singing alone. During this scene the fact that he has AIDS and how he got it is explained, not with words but with clips of how he and his junkie girlfriend found out. This was very effective and it made me as an audience member feel sympathy for Roger, because now I can see him in his agony not just hear about it.
I can also say that New York helped the movie. This gave a backdrop for it and it made it more visual. I was amazed by the fact that all of this was occurring on the streets in a city that we all have heard about. Along with the fact that the lines in this movie were written before September 11th and many of them have effects on the way that we see things as Americans. The big section that New York helps make is the scene after the concert where the crew sings and dances on the tables. Also, the New Years scene wouldn't have been complete without New York City. I think that the visuals made the movie, not that the script and the play aren't good; New York just helps them all to be better.
I think the one thing that I didn't like about the film has to be that it was an adaptation. It was not completely Larson's work. Though I think some of the things that Chris Columbus did with the movie helped it along and made me happy, I do feel like this was Larson’s work. The second part or the second act of the play was very different from that of the play. There were at least three scenes added that were not in the original, the office scene, the engagement scene, and the funeral scene. Though I liked the engagement scene, because it made such a statement in today's volatile political climate, the film should have been made without it. I think one of the most touching scenes of the entire movie had to have been the funeral of Angel. These was the epitome of the meaning of the film and the play--love and respect everyone--the meaning was seen very well when everyone stands while Collins sings Cover Me and they begin to sing Seasons of Love.
Overall, I really enjoyed the movie. I don't think that I have been touched by a movie quite like I was by this one. I know that sniffles could be heard throughout the theatre that I watched it in by the end. I also know that most everyone around me was in tears for the last image -the picture of Angel smiling- this was a very appropriate ending for the movie along with the music of all the characters singing No Day But Today.
--Michael

Film vs. Broadway

Subject:

Had we not heard and discussed Broadway’s RENT a week before the movie arrived in theatres, I probably would’ve enjoyed the film much more than I did. Please don’t misunderstand me – I thoroughly enjoyed the movie but the simple fact that the screenplay didn’t follow the script made me uncomfortable.

Now there were plenty of qualities that Hollywood brought to the film that Broadway couldn’t – for instance, bigger and better sets, the ability to change scenes, wardrobe, etc. while performing a single song, altering location, larger cast and all of the amenities afforded from a bigger budget.

At the same time, poetic license allows Chris Columbus to shoot the film and edit it according to his desires. He did a fantastic job with this through the first section (Act One) of the film – he followed the script as much as possible. After all, you have to have a little difference between the Broadway musical and the big screen simply for separation’s sake – if you want to show “the” RENT, just tape a Broadway production. However, this is not what Columbus wanted to do – he made it obvious that he wanted to make his own version of the production but remain true to the original feature.

He accomplishes this in Act One by using a majority of the popular songs (although some are out of order) and even removing the music to have the actors speak word for word lines from the play rather than sing. By the way, this implies the greatness of Larson’s work – his words are powerful with or without music and flow just as easily. These minor differences can be forgiven and make for a great show; but in Act Two, Columbus lost me.

By adding three scenes that weren’t in the original play, and forcing the addition of text that never were in Larson’s production, the idea of staying true to Larson’s RENT is thrown entirely out the window as Columbus marks his territory on the musical.

The scenes in and out of Alexi Darling’s office all the way through the civil union scene (making a blatant political statement) were completely unnecessary. Even Angel’s funeral sequence could’ve been left out – and we know this because they are not in Larson’s original production and his play still works – not only does it work, it is phenomenal, endearing, touching, and memorable.

Columbus also deletes the moments of voice recording from the caring (although sometimes annoying) parents of each of the characters. By doing so he leaves out an important aspect of the story – that although the kids cannot always depend on each other, they can always count on their parents (but refuse to do so).

Overall the film itself is a great work and by the end of it, there is hardly a dry eye in the house. Audience members of all ages, backgrounds, and beliefs leave singing the songs or at least talking about what they had just witnessed – however, this credit is due to Jonathon Larson and only proves his amazing talent. If anything, the only credit we can give Columbus is following the work to a point and then tearing it apart to make it something it is not.

RENT

Subject:

I loved listening to the soundtrack from Rent. I really love Broadway soundtracks anyway, and Rent only reinforced my love for that type of music. I really love the rock-feel that the soundtrack has. When I was listening to it, I was imagining the events that would be taking place while the music is being sung.

In the beginning, I saw the two men, who seem more like boys at times, in a run-down apartment, playing the Fender guitar, and screening their calls. I may have listened to the opening number about twenty times. I also saw the Tango Maureen, with the lesbian and the ex-boyfriend. I could see the facial expressions that Joanne would make after Mark made comments about things that Maureen does. For example, when he says “Has she ever pouted her lips and called you pookie?” and even though Joanne says “Never,” I can still see her in my mind making a face that says she just lied.

In short, I loved listening to the soundtrack and I really cannot wait to see the movie.

AIDS, Society, & "Rent"

I can say that Rent was a very different play. Though I only got to read it and listen to it, it was pretty good. I am still not completely sure what happed in it tough. I do know however that it has a lot to do with AIDS. I really am going to speak about this in my meditation. I think that the entire thought of AIDS in our world has changed over the past few decades. In the eighties, Americans felt that the disease was only a homosexual and a junky problem. Nowadays, everyone realizes that it originated from the homosexual population but that it affects everyone not just a few ‘select’ groups of people. Rent is a prime example of plays that have changed the way that people view social issues like this one. We as a country can thank those who wrote and stared in their play because it helped to change people’s minds about AIDS. Rent shows that even straight people who are not junkies get AIDS. This is a subject that people in my generation today view as an obvious observation. We all were taught in school and by our peers that AIDS is just a normal part of life nowadays, that it affects a lot of people. Even the government today is beginning to take a stand on the AIDS epidemic because it has become such a problem. Though I know this is a very short meditation, I know that this is the largest observation that I made. I usually make connections with politics in plays more than the artistic side to plays.
--Michael

Rent is fun to play with

I just happen to have the exact same setup that they were using to play guitar in the soundtrack, Fender guitar, Marshall amp. So, for my pre-class meditation I've decided to interpret the music with my guitar instead if the keyboard. It's rather simple to play along with if you just listen to the songs a couple of times. The solo's take a little bit but the riffs are totally cool. The music is really uplifting to play and stays in the major keys for the majority of the time so that helps to give the music some brightness.

Belated Post

Subject: I know this is late, but I thought I should get it out here.


I had mixed feelings about Fires in the Mirror. On one hand, she annoyed me with small actions, like her accent and facial expressions. On the other hand, I thought she did an excellent job with playing as many people as she did. The play, as a film, was interesting and educational for me.

I was very impressed with the way that she switched characters. To be able to do that is such a great talent that I can’t even imagine doing live. The information provided in the show really opened my eyes. I had no idea that there was such animosity between the Jews and Blacks.

I was also very preoccupied with the characters that she portrayed. I knew that they were real people and real interviews, but the whole time I was wondering how accurate she was with her depictions. I found myself not really concentrating on what she was saying, but rather trying to tune out her accents and wondering if the real people that she was playing were actually that way. For example, when she was playing the Islamic priest, I was wondering the whole time whether or not the real man plays with his cufflinks and has a sideways half-smile when he talks.

Other than just small annoyances, I thought that it was a very interesting production and I enjoyed watching it very much.

What Can't You Say About RENT?

Subject:

With excellent music, an interesting story line, and a host of fantastic reviews, RENT was not at all what I had expected – then again, I’m not sure exactly what I expected other then a good show, which definitely delivered.

I have a feeling that, had I not had the script in my hand and simply listened the music, I would’ve been captivated by the songs more then the story. The music was incredible – interesting to say the least, uncomfortable at times, but always an amazing harmony or musical wit that could combine and overlap the familiar with the new. Yes, the music definitely captured my attention.

In fact, the sounds were so overwhelming that I didn’t actually put everything together until I read the final page written about the playwright, Jonathan Larson. There were many thoughts that I agreed with in the play (“forget regret,” for instance), things that I disagreed with (“I can’t control my destiny”), and other things that are simply true (“no day but today”). And perhaps those are the things that make this performance so memorable – the drama that is within. Unfortunately for most, however, I feel that they enjoy watching these plays but forget its message soon after they leave the theatre – there are several things in this life that I know we take for granted and I don’t think many of us realize it until we have experienced those things, lost those things, or perhaps had those things given back to us. But even then, it is easy to forget.

To change the subject, I couldn’t help but notice a similarity between Into the Woods and RENT in the fact that both are done in two acts – the first act tends to be more jazzy, friendly, and upbeat while the second hits you square between the eyes with reality. The homeless people that wonder in and out of scenes tend to act as The Chorus of Euripides that sets the mood and only gains in strength as the performance continues (literally – the homeless RENT chorus grows in number each time they come out).

There are a few questions I have in regards to the play – why two homosexual couples (or at least one homosexual, the other bisexual) when most productions are content with one (is Larson making a point)? Why use Bohemia for any other reason than its political struggle? Why the emphasis on AIDS? Is this play from Larson’s own experiences or just a unique imagination? And, perhaps the biggest question of all, has the world changed so much in just nine short years?

Culture, Race, Religion, and Politics

When it comes to Fires in the Mirror, I am not sure what to think. The movie was strange I am not sure what it was supposed to be—a real movie, a documentary, or what? There were very few things that I was sure of about that ‘movie’ after I watched it. I know that it was all about the Jews and the blacks in Crown Heights during the early nineteen eighties. I know that there was a Jewish man who ran over a black boy and the blacks rioted in protest because, “Jews always get away with everything!” Then, in protest, there was a group of blacks who stabbed a Jewish student to death. There were many people who the author of the movie impersonated. Only one of the people did I know from today’s era. This was the Reverend Al Sharpton.

Out of the entire movie I was most surprised with the way that he was portrayed. I see him now as a political activist but I saw him then as someone who was just trying to stir stuff up. This movie brought him to me in a whole new light. One of the women that lived in Crown Heights told the author that she was afraid because the blacks that rioted were not from Crown Heights, they were brought in by Sharpton for a publicity stunt. I have been told a few times during my lifetime to not trust Sharpton at all and now I have reason to do this. I now see how he acts when it comes to right and wrong. I am not a racist by any means and I am a liberal who rests on the side of the blacks most of the time, but this time however, I have to rest with the Jews. I feel that Sharpton overstepped his bounds. I also lost almost all respect that I ever had for the Reverend.

This movie was politically charged and had a lot of deeper meanings to it. Though I am not sure what all of them were, I feel that if I were older at the time of the riots things would make more since to me. I was three years old in 1991 when the riots occurred. Many of the other students in the class might remember the riots being on the news but there is no way for me to do this. However, I can say that I was surprised by the movie and I was enlightened. It has changed my opinion of some of the political leaders of our time and it has opened my mind to the fact that sometimes some ethnic groups take advantage of the things that we, the whites, favor them for. I actually am making a reference to affirmative action. The actions of the blacks on this movie have made me really stop and reexamine my thoughts on our treatment of the African Americans in our society, as compared to the other racial and ethnic groups.

--Michael

This is not my official post for Fires in the Mirror.
The video reserve gods were not working in my favor today or this weekend for viewing the movie. I made 4 failed attempts to view the movie and every time it was checked out, with the final time by Dr. Everist. I will post the official meditation after viewing the video when it is available.

Resource Page for Fires in the Mirror

Subject: Fires in the Mirror by Anna Deavere Smith

Click on the title above for a link to research site, compiling source materials and relevant links for working on Fires in the Mirror.

Alternatively, type or paste into your browser the address below:
http://library.ups.edu/instruct/ricig/theatre275/smith.htm

The site is part of the academic resources at the University of Puget Sound.

Another Look at The Shawl

Subject: Another Look at The Shawl

My first reaction to The Shawl was the feeling of reading a modern day Chorus. The three characters' singsong voices and interrupting speech caused the same choatic stress that I felt when reading the Bacchae. However, when we were able to read the text out loud in class, I realized that the script was simply written very similar to a normal conversation. When reading the text for a second time, it was easy to interpret how inflections and pauses should be read. The Shawl forces the reader to put his or herself in the position of Miss A or John to decide whether or not John is actually psychic.

I struggled with whether I believed John to be psychic until I reflected on my second reading. I realized that he does, in fact, have psychic ability, but is afraid as to whether Charles would be accepting of his gift and thus why he lies. The cover-up John uses seems to be something he has been preparing to say for years, as if he knew what people would say when he spoke of his abilities and the doubt they held. Rather than look a loon and claim to really be psychic, it would be easier to simply admit that it was all practical reasoning. I believe that is why John was so willing to let Charles go. He knew Charles could not be right for him, because of his skepticism and therefore could easily say goodbye. Though all characters seemed to be at fault for trusting and their skepticism, it seems as though Charles is the most unaware of his situation.

Mimicking an American Catastrophe

Subject:

It is clear that Fires in the Mirror reflects the quarrels and racial tensions between two minority communities in a Brooklyn neighborhood. Race, gender, politics, religion, identity, justice, slavery, and power are the main themes explored in this play. Even though much could be said about these complex topics I would like to spend this time to analyze Anna Smith’s role in the play.

Anna Deveare Smith, an African American herself, is the heart and soul of this play. I believe the primary goal of the play is to award a voice to those unheard human beings in American society. Smith delivers this voice by mimicking nineteen different portraits including Blacks, Jews, mothers, fathers, and activists. Smith interviewed several diverse individuals involved in an American crisis and then mimicked them and their stories onstage in a very masterful way. The black and white stills and real footage videos add to the realism of the events depicted in this play.

By a simple change in costume, an adjustment to voice and a modification to attitude Smith, was able to convey the personalities of those who she probably felt had something important to say. Although it would be fair to assume that much exaggeration was put into all these different personalities to create the play aspect of it and a certain stylized dialogue, I did see uniqueness in all characters that made me reflect upon the different social groups that make up American society.

Why did Smith decide to impersonate all the characters herself when she could of used different actors for all roles? There is a certain symbolism I believe Anna Smith wants to create by using herself to act all characters. Fires in the Mirror looks at clashing cultures, community and individual disputes that create identity setbacks. Therefore, Smith mimicking all characters seems to suggest the equality of all humans. Anna Smith could also be signifying how the actions of individuals can affect other human beings particularly in their respective communities. A perfect example is when the character Norman Rosenbaum is referring to his brother’s death and says “When my brother was stabbed four times, each and every American was stabbed four times.”


Jimmy

The Fires Within

Subject:

Fires in the Mirror is an excellent representation of how two people (or two groups) can be a part of the same event and walk away with two completely different stories – this greatly resembles the experience of audience members of the theatre. The same event is witnessed by a crowd yet no one tells the same story; and what’s more impressive is the fact that the incident means something different to everyone.

As with the reenactments of Fires in the Mirror, we see that one small episode can leave people relying on nothing but pure emotion and it is this driving force that compels them to act (in one fashion or another) – just as the theatre can stir feelings within the audience.

I think that what makes this production so incredible is that Anna Deavere Smith plays nineteen different characters and plays each one so convincingly. Complete with accents, gender swaps, and even crossing racial and religious roles, she brings the anger and the rage right up in the face of the audience so that they will be driven to an emotional state of anger, justice, or at least outrage on one or both sides of the fence. And I feel that it is this understanding of both sides that Smith strives to attain; not to the point where we choose sides or that we reconcile what happened, but so that we do not forget.

I saw this come out in one character in the middle of the play – the female youth counselor who stated that “these kids are filled with rage” and that they don’t know who Hitler is no more than they know who Booker T. Washington or Frederick Douglas are. She ends by saying that we need to release the pressure or this will happen again – so the question then becomes, “what do we do?”

This production illustrates how easily the lines of the theatrical and the lines of theatre can be blurred. I found this to be a fascinating script and an even more enthralling performance.

PS - I also discovered that you know you’re completely into an emotion (or at least into character) if you’re spitting all over the place.

"Yerma" - Unplanned Acting?

Subject:Unplanned Acting?

During the recent production of "Yerma" (I saw the Friday night show) I kept thinking to myself how uncomfortable one of the actors looked on stage. I didn't recognize her, but heard rumors later that suggested it was the director. To be quite honest, for her being the director, I had somewhat higher expectations. Her crosses and mannerisms seemed awkward yet overplanned and were, at certain points, distracting. I spoke with two of the actors about their preparation for this play and I was told that the director had the cast perform a series of excercises in which actors were attempting to "walk around and look down like birds". I didn't know the actors very well so I avoided trying to pursue the issue further as I was clearly confused. Perhaps it's theatre lingo, I'm not sure. But I wondered from the two experiences how frequently such transitions happen. The One Act's are all directed by students, students I presume have acted. But is there not some form of superiority you place on your director to direct you towards the best character you can be for this particular production? And if such is the case, what if your director had to take on a role due to complications with the other actor, and performed below your expectations? This might not be beneficial to the topic at hand but it made me wonder, to what degree, the actor/director relationship inevitably effects the production. Certainly there are disagreements and hurdles to overcome, but even when I did theatre back in high school - I saw a community of people that spent perhaps too much time together one-up'ing eachothers ego boosters. It was a really fun time.

No Death!

For the remainder of the semester I want to try and remove the useless commentary and focus on the elements which will help prepare myself and others for the final exam.

Act 1: John persistently answers all of Miss A’s sentences or finishes them rather abruptly. More on this topic in class.

Act 2: John’s commentary is seemingly random. He’s always interjecting simultaneously. The girl at the shopping mart who gave John an account is magical.
Theme of the chapter: money, illness, or love.
John must be magic because not only can he predict everything everyone is going to say but he also knows the things that they do without them even knowing it, he’s magical…or just nosy.
This revenge against the dead is kind of a sadistic theme. In the game I play, once someone is dead that’s it…all bets are off and all losses are adopted. To fight against the “spirit world” is asking for what I refer to as a mind-f*ck. There’s no way to win because the only one to fight against is yourself.

“séance” – I had to look that one up to remember what it meant. A meeting of people to receive spiritualistic messages. Ok then. John: You invent a contact…some spirit medium.
That’s all you have to do. Greed fills us all. That’s why these guys want the fortune.

Act 3: “spiritual story” Boston shopkeeper in Boston, Samuel Hawks, tobacconist. The captain and Hawks who later becomes “I” fight to gut busting death.
Miss A is right, there is no mercy in the world (but only in the long run)
I don’t know what to think about the shall in Act 3.

Act 4: What is this ending? Maybe I just don’t understand but that was one of the weakest endings ever. “I do not know. That is all I saw.” Where’s the death? No Sex? I thought the consistent theme was that theatre needs violence, theatre needs action, suspense, and Death!

Good To Read, Bad To See

Subject: Good To Read, Bad To See

I walked into the theatre expecting to see a decent play on Thursday night, boy was I disappointed. I think the fact that we had read the play ahead of time had a baring on that, because I had already had a preconceived notion of what it was going to be like, and it wasn’t. Don’t get me wrong, there were a few good things about the production, but all in all, I dod not enjoy it.
I can honestly say that one of the things that I did not like about the play was the singing. My thought is if you are going to have a play where the characters sing, then you need to have actors and actresses that can sing as well. A few of the actors could sing, but the one in particular that I am thinking of, did not act very well at all. I think that the biggest problem I had with the play lies not in the way that it was played out but inside the actors themselves.
I felt that one actor in particular did not act well at all. I felt that this person was very uncomfortable on stage and that they just wanted to get it done and over with. This might have been true, but to make it a good performance, the audience should never know that.
However, I felt that the music was a very nice touch. I think that in my head that was the kind of music that needed to be played as you read the play. I applaud not only the composer, but also the performer, that was not an easy thing to do.
I felt that the most powerful character in the play was not Yerma, I felt that it was the old woman, played by Kathleen Campbell. I do realize that she has been on stage many more times than all of the students but I also know that in order for a play to do well, Yerma must be the most powerful character. In all reality, I just felt that the acting and the singing brought the production down so much that I was unable to enjoy the performance.
On top of all of this, the play made no sense. The audience around me didn’t understand it either. In fact one student sitting next to me right after the play said, “That was the weirdest freaking play that I have ever seen!” I think that speaks for itself. I thought that reading it and understanding it was doable, but I know that if I had not read it before had that I would have been as lost as the other members of the audience sitting around me. The way that the characters spoke made it hard to understand, though I know that this was the way that Lorca wrote it, it still does not make it any easier to understand.
All in all, the play to read was good. However, the play to watch, in the case of the performance at Austin College, was very disappointing. I still to this day am not sure what to say about this play other than I just did not like it.
--Michael

where are my friggin posts?

WTF!!! It must be my supreme lack of blog knowledge but I am more than certain that I have written 10 comments on people's posts, 6 posted meditations, and read many other posts. But I can only find about 70% of my work. WHAT GIVES?? Luckily I have saved a few of the posts and comments that haven't made it on but it has taken me several attempts (most unsuccessfully) to repost the work.

Dr. Everist, some foresight for next year: Remove the majority of the *technical* aspect of the course which requires students to utilize resources that aren't always available to them. As much as I wish the internet were a simpler source for providing schoolwork, let's just revert to the basics. Make a paper due on the day you want it due and I will never have any frustrations other than my own, but when factors out of our control come into play then it makes things friggin impossible to deal with. I am having similar dilemma with 1 other Economics course where the teacher wants everything turned in on the internet and, just my luck, it's hurting me there too.

Getting to my point: I spend more time thinking about and fiddlefarting around doing theater than I do all of my other classes combined and that includes organic chemistry, advanced accounting and upper level economics. Nearly all of us have slacked on the requirements for the course but this is supposed to be a Beginner Level Introduction to Theatre. Yes, we are in college but any other class with this type of writing work load would surely give credit as not only art but writing as well. Please, for future students of intro to Theatre, give them less writing, take the focus away from the internet because all that is doing is causing more trouble than it's worth, have in class quizzes, require a paper to be brought to class, but just use the internet as a secondary communication source. There, I've said my peace and hope I haven't offended. John Gardner.

A Sense of Wanting

Subject: A Meditation of Yerma

I waited this long to write my meditation on Yerma this week, because I wanted to see how my classmates responded to the play. Personally, I was extremely critical of it, however I thought maybe I was being too harsh about it all. Apparently I wasn't though. It seems fair to say that all of us saw something lacking in the performance. I went to see the Saturday production, which started shaky and generally remained shaky throughout. I had two major problems with the production: the acting and the singing.

In my eyes, Yerma was almost a psuedo-musical and, as we agreed in class, music was a key element of the production; it could make or break it. The composition of the music was well done - especially incorporating the folk twang and acoustic guitar - however the vocals were what threw me off so much. I couldn't understand why the actors chose to use traditional choral voices, rather than rougher, country-like voices; they seemed almost too trained for their characters. Christina Cornevin, the actress who played Delores, mastered her voice the best, I believe. Though she by no means hit all her necessary notes, she did not strain to sound perfect. Her voice fit her character beautifully. However, over all, the actors were not able to reach notes and seemed to break character when singing.

This was also portrayed in Yerma's facial expressions while she sang. There was one emotion that, though fitting for the character, was constant on her face. It seemed as if Ellen knew she needed to have emotion during the songs and knew the words to sing, however she never put the two together. Sometimes her hand gestures were fitting, - cradling an invisible baby in her arms was very effective - but overall I was disappointed with Yerma. I identified with her so much more in the book. I found myself pitying Juan and wishing a better life for him rather than Yerma, a thought never conceived while reading the text.

This fact was mainly due to Juan's acting and ability to truly take on his character. Renay really impressed me, and both Renay and Ellen's ability to scream so close to one another comfortably was no less than admirable. In my opinion, the performance I saw was carried on Renay's nervous but well acted shoulders.

(Author's Note: Please forgive my lack of technical terms when it comes to the vocals. I know little about music other than what my ear tells me.)