Catastrophe
Catastrophe seems to be quite an apt name when I consider that we are going to be doing staged readings of this… It consists of 4 characters: a director, an assistant, a protagonist and a lighting stagehand. The setting is that of a rehearsal. The cast and crew are putting final touches on the performance. There are two characteristics that are most notable to me and they kind of go hand in hand. There is very little dialogue, in that, the character’s individual lines are usually never longer than 5 or less words at a time. However, the stage direction is quite extensive. Often there is a direction for every new line and even multiple directions within some lines. This leads to the sense that there are more stage directions than lines and that, consequently, more is being said through physical language than through verbal language. Also, I don’t understand the end where it is first implied that there is no audience and that it is only a rehearsal, but then the stage direction calls for applause. Now, one could argue that “P” is imagining the applause but the stage direction doesn’t explain that. Really I don’t understand this piece much at all. I feel that it was written as an exercise for a class, which is the exact context that we are seeing it in.
posted by Mike @ 12:11 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
I completely agree with you in that the play is based more on acting then dialogue. For example, the part of the protagonist, even though he has no lines he is the object of focus and what he does and doesn’t do is the focus of the director and his subservient assistant. I think the emotion that is expressed with the dialogue is more evident when nothing is said rather than when the director yells out orders. Through all the pauses you can tell that there is a lot pondering and thought in all the pauses and I think that’s what the play is trying to get at. That staging a play has so much thought and experimentation with props that it can be interpreted and expressed in any way possible.
I wondered about the call for applause at the end of the play as well. I noticed during the staged readings groups did in class, no one actually applauded. Was anyone supposed to? Would it have been strange for the other group members to clap? Also, I think you are on target in your assessment that the nonverbal communication held greater weight in the play than the actual dialogue, especially, as Flora noted, the silent Protagonist, who had a very emotional part in Catastrophe.
I also found it interesting that there was so much stage direction and that the lines the characters were actually saying were quite short. You make a good point that there is more being said non verbally than there is being said verbally. We gain a lot of the meaning of the play through what the characters are doing as oppossed to what they are actually saying. This is why it was difficult for to fully grasp the play until my group and I began actually acting out the stage directions. I agree that the applause by the audience at the end was confusing since I thought that there was no one present in the seats.
It seems crazy to me to have an entire climax of a play in which the main character had no lines. The lack of dialog in the script is clearly the reason for all of the stage directions and make this play very interesting. I couldn't help to think about this being a only a portion of the script in which the scenes leading up to this play may help clear up some of the confusion. But as we discuss this in class and did research for the stage reading, the importance of the silence became clear.
I agree with you about the staged readings having the possibility of causing a catastrophe. You say that you didn’t understand the piece much at all, is this why you chose to interpret the way you did? I think that your group’s staged reading was the best overall. I really like how you made the text parallel lives of individuals that are just getting by in the world. How did you feel about the short, choppy dialogue? Do you think that more of it would have led to a less meaningful play? I think that if you had written this after your staged reading, you would have understood the text better, but your assessment was still pretty good.
I can see how you might think of this play as a catastrophe in itself but I implore you to look at the overall storyline and the emotions that the playwright is trying to elicit. In the eyes of Beckett the man on the box, the protagonist which can be any individual leading a life of oppression, is a martyr and not a victim of conformity and sacrifice. I truly enjoy the way our group chose to use a modern example of oppression.
Post a Comment
<< Home