Does Art Always Have to Have a Meaning? A Theater Journalist's First Green Room Interview Experience

This blog post has been inspired by something Richard Schechner, the director of Alexander Kasser Theater's 10th season's opening production "Imagining O", said to me. I was covering "Imagining O" for Baristanet, which led to my interaction with Mr. Schechner.

"Imagining O" is one of those plays that does not necessarily have a straightforward story line. This particular play more so prides itself with its little bits and pieces of dream imagination sequences. After the play concluded and I chatted with two of the cast members, I asked to meet Mr. Schechner. I was taken backstage to the green room where he was sharing notes of the night's performance with the cast. We were introduced and I asked to get a quote from him. He then told me to ask the cast anything I wanted.

I figured that now that I am a professional freelance writer and a college graduate actually working in my field, I was in a good position to do backstage interviews. I never did these back when I was a Montclarion staff writer. This was my first chance as a professional so I wanted to take advantage of it and do it right.

I turned to the girls. They were women of all different ages, so it being a female run show I was excited to interact with them all. They in turn looked thrilled to see me there, so I wanted to make a good impression. They asked me what I wanted to know, and I told them that they could tell me anything they wanted. I used this as an opportunity to let the performers just say anything they want about their experiences with no limitations. However, Mr. Schechner preferred that I ask them specific questions.

"Oh. Okay," I said, seating myself sideways at the nearest table to face the cast, who was eating their dinner on a leather couch in the middle of the room. Mr Schechner sat to my left facing them. My mind raced searching for the questions that I had been mentally asking throughout the production. So, I turned to my generic question, one that I had also asked the two cast members a few minutes beforehand.

"What message do you hope to convey with this performance?" I asked.

Now that I think about it, I think I often ask this question and ones like it. I like to get some insight from the performers based on their own perspective of the piece.

However, Mr. Schechner wasn't having it.

“There are no messages or morals,” said Mr. Schechner, “It is full of contradictions and about imagination.”

I actually used this for a quote in my article.

The cast asked me what I thought of the play. All eyes were on me and I felt somewhat unprepared, given that the play wasn't fully clear to me and once again I wanted to make a good impression.

I said, "Well, I'll be honest. There were times when I was lost." I felt a little hesitant to say that to their faces, actually turning around to place my pen on my notebook probably to subconsciously avoid eye contact. But that's understandable, right? To feel lost during an art piece?

Mr. Schechner seemed perplexed. "At what part specifically were you lost?" He proceeded to tell me to get the idea of messages out of my mind (I think this was when he said that quote.) and that the play was just a piece of art to watch. He then compared it to looking at a sunset or a thunderstorm.

"Is there a message in the sunset? Is there a message in the thunderstorm?" he asked me, awaiting my response.

A little dumbfounded, I shook my head and uttered a small, "No." I mean, he DID have a point...

But then a few days later I thought that there very well COULD be symbolic messages behind sunsets and thunderstorms!!

Since then my article was written and published, but this debate about artistic messages and lack thereof stayed with me. I always felt that art had its own interpretations based on the viewer. Art is used to directly or indirectly make a point, such as with use of symbolism and satire, two of which "Imagining O" incorporates.

I thought back to my college days (Ha! It's only been a year and a half and I'm already considering them "back to my college days.") during my junior/senior year when I took an Art of Drama course with one of my favorite professors and advisor, Professor Naomi Liebler. She enjoyed discussions and challenging her students, especially me because I often spoke up in class and she knew me from our advising sessions in her office. This same discussion came up when discussing a play and for some reason she brought up juggling. She claimed that juggling is an art form that has no meaning behind it and questioned what meaning it could try to portray. I retaliated by saying that juggling could be symbolic of keeping balance in the world or something like that.

I have always been a deep thinker, obviously.

Professor Liebler gave me a look. It wasn't, "Wow, you're absolutely right!" nor was it "No, you're absolutely wrong." It was an in-between confused, somewhat sarcastic and proud grin that said to me, "Really? You really think that? Come on, now!" She may have actually said those words, but she was mainly happy that I was thinking and willing to argue my point with her.

She gave me the same look another time when she said that drama is a genre and comedy isn't and I claimed that comedy is just as much a genre as drama is. I think she believed that drama has more depth to it with tragic heros and whatnot whereas comedy does not and is just there. However, I believe that comedy could have depth to it as well and if drama is a genre than why shouldn't comedy be? This was when she smirked at me, her head resting on her right hand as she sat before us. She then stated that she was reconsidering her claim.

So am I right in believing that all art has meaning or could certain things in this world exist without it? 

Is it even possible for things to not have meaning? Doesn't everything have a reason?

Great News to Share!!!

I got published in Baristanet!!! And what is it? A review of a Montclair State University Department of Theatre and Dance production!!!!

This is what I've been wanting all summer! I've wanted a job that would let me write about MSU's shows professionally since before I even graduated because I was leaving The Montclarion, and after searching for so long I finally found one! This is my very first post graduation theater review.

Thank you so much to the editor, Liz George, for giving me this awesome opportunity!

Okay. Let me calm down a little bit.

The play is A Streetcar Named Desire, which I expressed in a previous post that I was interested in seeing, and I did.

Here is my review. Enjoy. :D

Sexual Healing in the Octavio Solis Play, "Lydia"

A couple of weeks ago today in the L. Howard Fox Studio Theater at MSU I saw a play reading of Octavio Solis's Lydia performed by MSU's Acting majors for the New Play Festival. It is about a brain damaged teenage girl named Ceci Flores. The play explains how this happened to her while also showing how it has affected her bilingual Mexican immigrant family living in El Paso, Texas. She wasn't born this way, but I'm not going to spoil you by telling you why and how it happened. The audience hears her inner thoughts, but outwardly to the rest of the characters she is in a semi-vegetative state and doesn't speak. Ceci's mother, Rosa, hires a non-American maid from Mexico, Lydia, to help take care of her daughter when she is out to work.

I actually read Lydia for my first theater class in my first semester at MSU and the play reading was directed by the professor of that class.

When I first read the play a few questions rose for me and the live play reading rose the same questions and even more.

*CONTAINS SOME SPOILERS*

For instance,

The maid sleeps with Claudio, apparently a few times. Why?

This part came out of nowhere to me when I first read it. Claudio, Ceci's father, is mainly an angry guy and is pretty much abusive to everybody but Ceci, so Lydia tells him off for both accounts. Then she straddles him on his chair IN FRONT OF CECI.

It seems to add nothing to the plot or have anything to do with Ceci's story, so why is it there?

After seeing it performed, it made more sense to me and I realized that it was included in the play for not just one reason, but three:

1) Claudio misses Mexico - This idea came to me at the end of the reading through one of Rosa's lines when Claudio asks where Lydia is and she confronts him about his infidelity indirectly. She says something like, "You miss Mexico that much?" as if to mean, "Then go back." Claudio doesn't sleep with Lydia because he has an unsatisfying sex life with Rosa. We don't see them ever interact romantically, but if this were the issue she would've probably included this in her confrontation, unless she was too scared to. The real reason he cheats is that he misses the homeland he abandoned, appears clearly miserable in America, and Lydia, being the only character not an American citizen but a Mexican one, gives him the little connection he has to his home. A good majority of Claudio's lines are in Spanish, which makes this argument more evident.

Ceci states in her opening monologue that Rosa pretty much dragged Claudio to America with her. Rosa is "clerk for the County" and Claudio a short order cook. Claudio could have animosity towards his wife for these reasons, so perhaps romance with her isn't that satisfying after all.

2) Lydia's sexual conquests mirror Ceci's sexual desires - Ceci makes it no secret that she desires sexual contact. When I read the play I thought that the Claudio and Lydia sex was real, but the play reading made me question it. Ceci recites one of her inner monologues during this point and starts off by saying "I dream..." making me think that Ceci imagines this instead of it actual happening. During the play Ceci looks up to Lydia as her caretaker, so it would make sense to have Lydia perform the sexual acts that Ceci is imagining, as if she is experiencing sex through her. It would also explain why it happens right in the room with her.

But then future lines and scenes prove that this actually did occur, more than once, so this theory isn't very plausible but more disturbing considering that it is done in the same room as Ceci in reality.

Even so, why would Ceci imagine Lydia having sex with her FATHER though? Is it because her sexual life is that warped?

This kind of suggests that she is sexually attracted to her father, though this idea is never really explored much nor does it seem important to the plot. I didn't really want to go here because not only is it disturbing, I thought this was the only clue. However, while rereading part of the play, I came across an earlier scene when Ceci has a flashback (or it could be happening in real time) of her father singing to her and giving her a pair of pearl earrings as she "sleeps." Thereafter she asks "Oh what is this yearning inside? What does it mean?" It turns out that later on she discovers she just wants sex. Perhaps this is some kind of Electra Complex (female version of the Oedipus Complex).

3) It gives Rosa motivation to get rid of her - Ceci's love interest and cousin Alvaro patrols the border so he comes to take Lydia away. For the entire play Rosa and Lydia are friends and Rosa even offers to help Lydia get American citizenship. However, once Rosa finds out that Lydia has been sleeping with her husband, all of this goes out the window and she doesn't hesitate in letting him take her away. Chances are if the sex didn't happen or was revealed, Lydia would still be there with them.

Let's talk briefly about how Ceci is in love with her cousin.

Okay so Ceci is in love with her cousin Alvaro, which is actually a catalyst for plenty of the action in the play. Perhaps nowadays this wouldn't make sense or not be widely accepted, but the play takes place in the seventies. Back in older days it was more acceptable to marry your cousin, so this point isn't as far-fetched.


But basically the entire story surrounds the fact that Ceci just wants to have an orgasm.

Sure she is in "love" with Alvaro, but even Ceci herself towards the beginning proclaims the real truth: "I'm just horny!" Even though she is brain damaged, she still has the human sexual desire. As she dances with her cousin in one of the scenes, she apparently urinates. However, this is not how I see it. What she releases to me is the moisture of her sexual excitement, perhaps mixed with urination.

She finally does climax (or rather I think she does) in the final scene...

*SPOILER ALERT HERE!!!*

... and then she dies, which tells me that this was her goal the entire time. Right after it finally happens for the only time in her life, she is okay with giving up her spirit. Think about it. She dies through sexual pleasure and puts herself out of her misery with sexual healing. Maybe that was her plan all along! Maybe she actually wanted to die after climaxing!

In the final scene of the play Ceci puts her brother Miguel's (referred to as "Misha" by the rest of the characters) hand down her pants and he...masturbates her.

Let's recap this. First she's connecting sex to her father, then she connects sex to her cousin, now she connects sex to her brother. There's a pattern here.

During these few moments Ceci puts a pull tab in her mouth and swallows it.

But here's the thing...

Did Ceci commit suicide intentionally or was it an accident?

When I read the play I thought it was intentional to put herself out of her misery, and I actually thought that Misha did the same thing with her, but the way it was performed in the play reading made me think otherwise.

What takes place in the earlier scenes of the play is the "Chekhov's Gun" principle. This is based on a playwriting device utilized by Russian playwright Anton Chekhov. What it means is that if you see a gun in the first act, chances are it will be used by the third or fourth act. It's basically a foreshadowing technique.

The same rule is somewhat incorporated in Lydia. We see pull tabs plenty of times throughout the play as the family often drinks canned soda, beer, and place them in plain view. Claudio even throws one out of frustration. I remember them constantly mentioned in the script when I read it too. If you are familiar with Chekhov's rule, or the play itself, you know something is going to eventually happen with these pull tabs considering you keep seeing them. Other foreshadowing is that Misha looks inside of Ceci's mouth in the first scene of the play for no reason and Ceci puts other characters' hands down her pants in other early scenes. There is even a time in an early scene when Rosa shows concern that Ceci would cut herself with the pull tab Claudio drops on the floor, so she enlists Misha to pick it up.

So she puts a pull tab in her mouth as her brother masturbates her so it could be assumed that she did it on purpose. However, we must remember than she is a brain damaged girl that sometimes lives in a different realm than the rest do. Also, when a person is in a sexual ecstatic state, he or she may not think clearly then either. So technically Ceci is not in her right frame of mind for not one reason but two. She could've very well put her the pull tab in her mouth and swallowed out of sexual excitement and not thinking about what she is doing. Or maybe she is just so turned on in this scene that she put the pull tab in her mouth on purpose just for the dangerous sexual excitement it can produce.

On a side note, think about this too. This must've really messed up Misha pretty badly. This is how the play ends so we don't know how he reacts to this. Not only was he performing sexual acts on his SISTER, but she also dies afterward. How is he supposed to explain this to his family? Claudio beats him up earlier in the play for claiming to put a certain plot important dress on Ceci, so what's to stop him from doing it again? How is Misha supposed to live with himself after this?

So why is the play named after Lydia anyway?

Ceci is clearly the main character of the play. Everything circles around her. She obviously is the one that should have the title's namesake.

I questioned this when I first read the play and it still remains a mystery to me now. But let me take a crack at this. Maybe it's because Lydia is a catalyst for some action in the play, she helps unravel some family secrets, she brings change to the characters, she's a connection to Mexico, ...?

Here's something I don't understand about Lydia at all. Every time Ceci mumbles or shrieks something, Lydia is able to translate it into English for the rest of the characters with no problem. Nobody else understands how she has this ability, and frankly neither do I. She claims that she has something in common with Ceci, that the two of them share something, which kind of suggests to me that maybe Lydia's brain experienced some kind of trauma itself in the past. Whatever the reason, it is never really explained.

However, after analyzing while writing this piece, I think I got it.

Lydia represents Ceci's sexual self in the flesh simply because Ceci's sexual self is now only in her mind. From what I can tell, Ceci's only exposure to men in her life have been her father, her cousin, and her two brothers. The seemingly incest feelings she seems to have for these men isn't necessarily as disturbing when explained. It's just all Ceci knows. Since they are they only men she knows and quite possibly has seen in her life, this explains why they are the only men that are featured in her sexual feelings, fantasies, and activities.

It just so happens that these are the men who connect to Lydia sexually. Ceci's brother Rene has a sexual background that influences Ceci's life as well, but I'm not talking about him because his sexual self is a pivotal part of the conflict and twist. Rene lusts after Lydia, Misha falls in love with her, and Claudio has sex with her. Ceci observes all of this while her heart still yearns for Alvaro. Lydia experiences the sexual events that Ceci herself wants to experience, so that's why the two have such a connection.

You know, I didn't really want to do this since I feel like I always look at things through this criticism, but I have to say it again: Lydia is a feminist play. And it is one simply because Ceci, for a brain damaged young woman, is able to tap into her sexual feelings and take at least some control (depending on how you look at it) of both her sexuality and death by combining the two. After being dependent on everyone, especially Lydia, throughout the play, she finally takes matters into her own hands...and Misha's.

The MSU Peak Performances Student Production 2013-2014 Season!

Ladies and gentlemen, my first blog post after graduation! And what better way to celebrate than to showcase next year's theater season! :D

What? Did you think I wasn't going to care anymore because I graduated? ;)

I went to Sprague Library on campus yesterday with my dad and of course traveled to Life Hall to see if they had the list hanging up. Before I graduated and last I checked, the heading was there but the list itself was blank. But now, lo and behold, the lineup is up! :D

Normally the list consists of plays I have never heard of before, except for a select few. Out of this list I am most looking forward to A Streetcar Named Desire and 42nd Street. However, I am also anticipating the rest of the shows as well, to see what they are about. Not to mention the dance productions.

Looking forward to it!

Why Carousel is Totally Unfair to Billy Bigelow, its Main Character

(The following is my final column and favorite assignment I wrote for my Column Writing class from my Spring 2013 and final semester at MSU. My professor wrote some minor corrections on it which I have incorporated here and I also included my own changes. He told me that he liked the ending and to chose words that are appropriate for all forums. We were supposed to chose something we passionately disliked and to rip it apart, so that is the reason for my choice of words. Naturally I chose to rant about Carousel because my friends and I have been making fun of it ever since we saw it in Kasser last semester. I could've ranted about the musical in its entirety, but decided to take it a step further and discuss how unfair the writers are to Billy. Somebody has to stand up for the guy and take him down at the same time. I received a B- for this assignment. Enjoy.)

Carousel (1945) is a Rodgers and Hammerstein classic. The music is memorable, the dance sequences heartwarming. Too bad the storyline and characters are STUPID.

From my understanding Carousel is one of the first musicals about domestic violence yet a prime example of how horrible Rodgers and Hammerstein are at tackling controversial issues. However its main character, or anti-hero, Billy Bigelow, is the greatest victim because the writers put him into situations where he is doomed to fail because society just works that way.

Their manipulations go straight down to his gender and make his life terrible simply because he’s a guy. Billy is this flirtatious carousel barker that is quite possibly banging his dead boss’s promiscuous wife Mrs. Mullin and sets his sights on millworker Julie Jordan. Billy touches Julie and Mullin kicks her off the carousel. Now we can say that Billy broke the law because back then men weren’t allowed to touch women, and still aren’t really, but it’s safe to say that the catalyst for Mrs. Mullin’s actions is that she is just a jealous bitch. Billy argues with Mrs. Mullin and gets fired. Mullin returns to the story every so often to seduce him back but Billy refuses Mrs. Mullin because he is aware of her sexual intentions and is a “respectable married man” now - that hits his wife. This is where gender problems really take off. Billy marries Julie and stresses out because he’s jobless and can’t support his family. Why they got married then is beyond comprehension. It’s stated throughout that he hit Julie once out of frustration about this and everybody makes a big deal out of it, for good reason.

Men were always breadwinners, so his concern makes sense. Julie reveals to him that she’s pregnant with their kid and at the end of Act 1 he has this soliloquy song thinking about his future child. Once it dawns on him that he could have a daughter he starts to panic again, suggesting the idea that women need men to take care of them. He doesn’t seem to have any other skill besides his barker job with the ONE carousal in the area, so what else is he supposed to do? Rob someone?

That’s exactly what he and his sailor pal Jigger Craigin decide to do.

Thanks writers. That’s one point against you.

Another reason why it’s evident that these writers hate Billy so much is that Billy Bigelow is a New Yorker with attitude. They throw Billy’s New Yorker personality into a Maine population where everyone else is singing and dancing about how “June is bustin’ out all over.” Chances are if this musical were set in New York Billy wouldn’t stand out so much as a bad guy but rather blend in more with other people like him. Billy comes across as a jerk because the writers decided to make him represent the aggressive New York stereotype in a setting where everyone else does not.

After an agonizingly long and unnecessary group musical number opens up the second act about what a wonderful clambake they just had, Billy and Jigger try to pull off their heist. It goes wrong and Billy decides that instead of going to jail where he cannot look after his daughter, he stabs himself to death because apparently him DEAD would help her more. He goes to Purgatory and though Billy really doesn’t give a crap the Starkeeper decides to help him gain entrance into Heaven. The key is to get his daughter Louise, who is now fifteen, to accept a star he gives her and then he’s good. So that’s all it took to get into Heaven back then? Billy agrees and returns to Earth as a ghost.

Don’t worry. He screws this up too. He tries to talk to Louise and she freaks out so he slaps her. Julie comes out because she hears her daughter screaming. Then Louise states the most insulting line in the history of insulting musical lines: “Is it possible that when he hit me, it felt like a kiss?”

No. No it is not. That is a terrible lesson. But of course Julie stupidly justifies her daughter’s dumb conclusion by responding “Yes.”

It turns out that the kid has been ostracized because nobody liked her father. Gee, that’s shocking. So Billy shows up at her graduation and whispers encouragement. Oh and Julie accepted the star that Billy left on her front porch, so he’s all clear for Heaven now. Yay.

Writers, Billy did nothing to redeem himself so stop acting like he accomplished something. Not only do the writers set Billy up for disaster, they force him to make stupid decisions because of the stupid scenarios they create. He fails again and again and never fixes anything. The best part is he is not somebody we root for, but yet that is the perceived intention for the character.

But that’s okay. The music is still nice.

My Final First Montclarion Article of the Semester...

...and it's a double feature! :D

Look! My final semester as a staff writer for The Montclarion they include my middle name in the byline. Cool!

I took a photo of my one page feature as soon as I grabbed the brand new issue off the shelf!

A full page double feature! This is the first page of the Arts and Entertainment section of The Montclarion. I open up the section! :)

I am so honored to have come so far as a Montclarion staff writer for four years and am proud that something like this is the beginning of the end for me.

Here is a little behind the scenes story about these two articles and my feelings about them.

This semester the Arts and Entertainment section of The Montclarion got a new editor. His name is Jonathan and I love working with him. He is always on top of things and always gets back to me right away. Those are great qualities for an editor. In the past if a show was not playing anymore The Montclarion would not really want to run my story about it after the fact. Jonathan was okay with my Equus review, and I am grateful. I had been wanting to do this since last summer after all! I wrote it like a reflection as opposed to a review that suggests whether people should see it or not. Most reviews are just opinions pieces anyway so this was good practice for me. Upon receiving my articles and photos, Jonathan replied with "Did I ever mention that you're the best? Thanks for being on top of the game. I really appreciate it." and "You da best!" These definitely stroked my confidence.

Jonathan suggested that I could also do a story on an Equus cast member and since he is friends with some people in the show he would be able to organize an interview. I have done this for freelancing before so I agreed to it and asked who he had in mind. He suggested Taylor Dear, and I was proud to do the story about him. Why?

If you remember my background story about my review of Attempts on her Life from Fall 2012, I had a brief difficulty with the play at first. Taylor happened to have been in this show as well and I interviewed him after opening night to get a quote for my article. First I asked, "What do you want audience members to take from Attempts on her Life?", which he answered. Then I asked him something like, "How does a person GET Attempts on her Life?" meaning what should audience members do to accomplish understanding the play. This is actually one of the most difficult questions I have ever asked an MSU cast member considering its broadness and how ambiguous the play is and I could tell that Taylor struggled a tiny bit with it. However, he stayed with me and took the time to think about the question and answer it even though his friends were outside waiting for him. Now, this is not to say that other cast members would not have done the same thing, but because of this I have a lot of respect for the guy nonetheless.

This past Thursday as I walked down to the Student Center to get my copy of this week's issue, I was pretty nervous because 1) I stressed a little bit about these two articles because I wanted to do justice to them since I had planned it for awhile, worked on them throughout Spring Break, and am a perfectionist with my writing in general and 2) I had not seen my articles on The Montclarion website yet so I was wondering whether or not my article would even be there! I mean, I submitted the articles and photos in good time and Jonathan acknowledged them, plus I was told ahead of time that I was the feature full page article for the week, but this has happened to me before with The Montclarion so that was from where my concern was stemming. When I was about to walk through the door coincidentally Taylor was walking out with a copy in his hands. He told me that the article is great and thanked me. I immediately felt relief, grabbed my own copy, and took the picture up above, proud of myself.

It is because of reactions like Taylor's that I love my job and what I do.

Here are my articles:

Equus review

Taylor Dear Profile

Enjoy! :D

It is always so exciting to take your own copy of a freshly printed newspaper issue from the bunch and then open it up to see your article in it after much anticipation. I was shaking and very thrilled.

Equus is Finally Premiering this Week at Montclair State University!!!

You read me talk about it for like a year now, and now after weeks of anticipation, and some personal preparation on my part to get ready for it, it's finally here. The Department of Theatre and Dance's production of Equus premieres this week at Alexander Kasser Theater! :D

It's funny that when I was reading the book for the first time this past summer, I thought it would be staged in L. Howard Fox Theatre, but normally shows that are a big deal like this are staged in Kasser, so this makes sense. I am interesting to see how it is going to be performed and staged after trying to picture it for so long.

Since the beginning of my Spring 2013 semester, I've been seeing flyers and framed pictures of this all over the place, and every time I see it I get so pumped! :) There's always that one big show they advertise like this.

I've been looking forward to seeing this play by doing some countdowns up to this week and wondering what to expect (and if it is going to be what I am expecting), so we'll see if its theatrical nudity goodness pulls off a good show! I'm also bracing myself for any potential uncomfortable moments considering the subject matter.

I think I am going to brush up on the script again before I see it. I will also be reviewing for The Montclarion, so stay tuned! :)

For more information about Equus at MSU, click here.

To read my book review of Equus, click here.

Theater Musing Series

"Theater Musing Series" is actually a video series I created when I was a sophomore at MSU but just came up with a title for it now. These are a series of videos in which I was musing about something in the theater field and decided to interview someone from MSU to get more insight on it.

The "From the Vault" portion of the titles of these episodes so far refers to the fact that these are old videos that have existed before on Facebook and have just now been uploaded to YouTube. They are from specific blog posts on here and I had uploaded them to my Facebook page then because I didn't have a YouTube channel at the time. I had been debating about doing this for a while and so I finally decided to dedicate today to it. They are going to stay on my Facebook page, but I decided to upload them to YouTube as well to give them a broader audience. I might add to this series in the future.

As for my other Facebook videos, I may or may not upload them to YouTube as well. As for me continuing to upload videos onto the Facebook page, I am yet to determine this.

For my "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time" Facebook videos, click here.

For my "Theater Musing Series" on YouTube, click here.

Carousel Review!

(I sent this to The Montclarion to be published online, but they haven't done so
as of yet, so I decided to post this here in the meantime.)

Every semester has at least one Broadway classic delivered by the Department of Theatre and Dance. In Fall 2010 it was Sweeney Todd, in Spring 2011 it was Sweet Charity, Fall 2011 A Chorus Line, Spring 2012 Kiss of the Spiderwoman, and now, Fall 2012 we have Carousel, quite possibly the most original classic of them all. The department still continues to deliver these gems of shows to the best of its top-notch ability.

With a gigantic cast, beautiful music conducted by Gregory J. Dlugos and produced by the tireless orchestra, and memorable dance numbers, which is a majority of the show, choreographed by Mimi Quillin, Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Carousel, directed by Evan Pappas and brought to us by the Department of Theatre and Dance and John J. Cali School of Music, will be playing at the Alexander Kasser Theater until November 18.

The story is about a young innocent woman in late 1800s Maine named Julie Jordan, played by senior Haleigh Adams, who has caught the attractions of lead character Billy Bigelow, played by senior Christopher Cannon, an ex-Carousel barker who is down on his luck money wise. Charmed by how different and witty Julie is, Billy marries her, though proves that he is not the best of husbands by never finding decent work and hitting her once out of stress and anger. However, he shows that he has a heart of gold through his excitement for his future offspring when Julie reveals to him that she is pregnant. Because of this he discovers even more motivation to get some loot, but with the help of his friend Jigger Craigin (sophomore John Caliendo), his determination ultimately drives him to his downfall and he must try to make things right for his daughter Louise (senior Allison Steinberg), who engages in the ballet sequence of the musical. Carrie Pipperidge, Julie’s best friend (senior Brandy Kostick), and her betrothed Enoch Snow (senior Gabriel Rodrigues) provide a foil to the lead couple by being the comical duo whose troubles are not meant to be taken entirely serious. Throughout the musical you see that every single character has his or her flaws but also retains some redeeming qualities.

Audience members will really appreciate Carousel if they go for anything “cutesy,” for the songs and dances are cheerful and fun and the love stories are gushing with adorable moments. These can get somewhat overdone and a little too cute, but there are also very powerful depressing and heartbreaking moments to balance it out, mainly in the second act, for the way they approach the story of family love is very deep, leaving audience members in tears.

"The story has so many universal truths,” says Cannon, “It touches everybody's heart. I never felt so good to be in a show."

Cannon displays Billy’s suavity, anticipation, and desperation very well while Adams portrays Julie as a strong female character that takes a stand in her life and yet shows some restraint and composure to remain ladylike in society. The ensemble definitely puts a lot of hard work into their performances, for they do so much throughout the musical and steal the show with their constant stage time. In regards to special effects technique, one very great moment is how Carousel presents the afterlife with the use of smoke, bright lighting, and echoes.

From set to score, to gifted singing by the cast members, this version is a terrific one. Just like the characters share love for each other, you will fall in love with Carousel. For more information, please check out this website: http://www.peakperfs.org/performances/Carousel.

There are other things I want to discuss about Carousel that I have not in this review, so that might be another blog post.

Look at What I Just Received in the Mail! :D

I'm so happy and excited because I just received this in the mail today in very nice packaging after much anticipation:













If you remember from this blog post, Attempts on her Life by Martin Crimp has been one of my favorite plays on campus. To me it is difficult to find a copy of the script and I thought I wouldn't be able to read it because it is one of those rare gems, but then I found a great deal on BarnesandNoble.com! I am so proud of myself. I ordered it before Hurricane Sandy hit, so I think that's why it took longer for me to receive it, other than the fact that I set it for the longer shipping time, but it was well worth the wait! I consider this a birthday/Christmas gift to myself. :)




Here I thought the closest thing I would get is reading it at a library or borrowing a copy from someone. Now I have my very own copy!




For those of you who are curious about how the actual text is written (I know I was!), here's an example:













This is the first page of my favorite scene "Untitled (100 Words)". It is so amazing what people can produce with such a simply written script.




Here's something interesting. When I saw this scene, "Jungfrau (Word Association)", in the book, I didn't recognize it and figured that they just cut it out and thought maybe I was forgetting something but then I realized that it was replaced with the "Communicating with Aliens" scene that I saw and that the "Communication with Aliens" scene is missing from the book I have. I wonder why. Is there another version out there with the "Communicating with Aliens" scene in it or is this supposed to be the same thing? I wonder what the deal is with this. I wasn't aware that there were other different scenes. I was thinking maybe word differences but not necessarily scene differences. I'm interested in learning about the history of this play now. Why the scene change?













Well this kind of disappoints me though. I want the same version my school used. I think there might be other versions of this play and hoped that I was ordering the right one. I did see another book of it on the Barnes and Noble website, which could be the more updated one.




I just checked now as well. There are other copies of the seemingly newer version on Amazon.com and other sites (I saw a version with "Communicating with Aliens" in the Table of Contents on a Tumblr site actually). Looks like there are other versions I should maybe try to obtain. ;) I have to check who is in stock and which versions are which. It would be good to have the version I just received as well as the other one.




Then again, maybe the "Communicating with Aliens" scene is not that much of a loss to me and maybe it's a good thing to have a different version. It feels more intricate to have the original (if that is indeed what I have).




Everything else in the book looks pretty familiar and it brings back memories. I can't wait to read it some more and am glad to add it to my collection! :D




Well, I'm off to reading (and perhaps purchasing)!

First Theater Review for The Montclarion of the Semester and My Final Year at MSU! :D

You know, it is a tough world out there for us theater critics sometimes. It is sometimes difficult to plan on writing a review of a play and then sitting there watching it having no idea what is going on and what to put on paper. It's actually kind of nerve wracking when you have made a commitment and don't know how you are going to deliver when you have no feasible knowledge on which to base your critiques. It also does not help when your two companions joining you cannot provide any additional insight either lol. :P So what is a theater journalist to do?




This being said, the play Attempts on Her Life, which is playing until October 27, has been one of my favorites so far, and you will see why when you read my first theater review of the semester and my senior year here. I really love it. It is so unique and takes on so many ideas. I am so glad and grateful to have had the opportunity to see and write about it for The Montclarion. I love seeing my article published in there!




The more I thought about my confusion, the more I realized that I had much to say. This review is in my opinion one of my best work and I am very proud of it! Enjoy! :D

Peak Performances Update :)

The Department of Theatre and Dance 2012-2013 season lineup is now hanging in Life Hall!

Hey, look! There's Equus again!

The  pamphlet for the students productions are also available in the Alexander Kasser Theater. They are now stored in the newly added shelves instead of the table they used to be stored on near the Box Office. I believe you can also get them in other locations on campus or even in the mail.

For tickets to these shows and more, click here. This is another place where you can find the lineups of shows.

Throughout campus the shows are advertised with posters like these and more.

Department of Theatre and Dance Student Productions at MSU 2012-2013 Season Lineup

The Department of Theatre and Dance this season at MSU is a bit behind in advertising the student productions of this season, so I took it upon myself to personally get permission to help out and advertise the shows on this here blog. :)

The following is the lineup I was given by request. :)

Hey, look! There's Equus!

There you have it! Now you're informed! Enjoy the shows if you are able to see them! Also, look forward to some reviews of these shows written by me! :)

Frank Galati's The Grapes of Wrath Now in my Possession (Sort of)

I've been wanting to show you something. A few weeks ago I went to the library and found this book!

This is the script form of John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, written by Frank Galati, the one I saw performed at MSU! I had always wanted to read it, and now I am able to! It is actually a pretty quick read as opposed to the actual performance.

I told myself that if I ever got my hands on the script, I would find a particular part and take a picture of it, and that's exactly what I did.

Why this excerpt is relevant...

Isn't it great that this part showed up on a page that is easy to find? I looked for it the night I took it home from the library and found it right away!

I always wanted to find this part written in the script, and now I did it. Another thing I want to do is find this part written in the actual novel and take a picture of that.

I'm going to also see if I can find a copy of the script for myself to own as well. It brings back a lot of memories.

(By the way, in the script, it is actually written that the characters pronounce Rose of Sharon as "Rosasharn." This is something I always wondered as well.)

Stef's "So Good You Can't Put It Down" Book Reviews: Equus by Peter Shaffer

So far what anybody really knows about this play is that a troubled teenager went crazy one night and blinded a bunch of horses...

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I even decided to buy Equus from the Lacordaire Academy Book Sale:

 

That's right! I saw this hanging up in Life Hall awhile ago and decided to take a picture of it for this blog! Apparently, they will be performing Equus in the Spring 2013 semester, so I figured I'd read the play to prepare myself for it, since I very rarely read a play ahead of time on my own before I go see it. Now you have the honor to see me review both the actual script and if I able to, the Peak Performance for The Montclarion. I will write this review based on how I feel MSU will produce it and then down the line we will see if I am right.

BEGAN READING: May 20, 2012

FINISHED READING: May 21, 2012

This is one freaky play that makes for intricate theater (especially the final scene of Act 1, right before the blackout), so it's no wonder that Montclair decided to perform it this upcoming season. I can picture it being performed in Fox, for there is limited setting that can be accomplished with benches, which is actually what the script calls for. Equus includes lighting changes according to mood and flashbacks, background chanting and other sound effects, a singular setting that can incorporate multiple settings which don't require much set, and cast members sitting on the actual stage when they are not in a scene as opposed to going backstage, all of which I've seen happen in Fox before, so therefore I believe that is going to be the choice theater.

There are scenes in which the lead male character, Alan Strang, mimes taking his clothes off or actually takes off some of his clothes. Yeah, this is a Montclair Peak Performance production. There's going to be full-blown theater nudity in this, which is probably another reason why Montclair has decided to include it in the 2012-2013 lineup. If the script calls for it and other productions of this same show have Alan get completely nude, we're definitely doing it too. Chances are this production will be directed by Susan Kerner if this all plays out. However, both theatrical nudity and Susan Kerner productions have only taken place in Kasser, but we may yet be able to see it done in Fox. 

I'm actually going to bring what I learned in my "Major Film Genres" course from this past semester about the hard-boiled detective genre into this review. Martin Dysart, a psychiatrist who has issues of his own and is overworked, is approached by Hester Salomon to help troubled teen Alan Strang. Like hard-boiled detectives, Dysart is approached with an assignment and becomes more and more invested to get to the bottom of the case. The only difference here is we are told right away what has happened (1.2) and Dysart's task is to figure out why it happened and spends the whole play trying to use different methods, such as hypnosis, to get into Alan's psyche. He is trying to solve the case instead of cure Alan. To me, Dysart acts more like a detective than a psychiatrist, because the script leaves you in suspense about what actually happened the night Alan, ahem, blinded six horses with an ice pick. See, usually this is the punchline but here it is revealed when the play begins, getting it out of the way, so it therefore is a bunch of flashbacks and works backward. In normal mysteries, the "what" is discovered along the same time as the "why," but in Equus this is not the case.

The play is pretty much about a seventeen-year-old kid who worships horses. His mother, Dora, is religiously devout whereas his father, Frank, wants nothing of the sort. It is because of the conflict between his parents that Alan connects religious salvation to horses. However, Alan's thoughts and actions seem too psychotic for his mother to be the blame. I could see if Dora was a religious fanatic with him growing up, but from what I see all she really does is teach him biblical verses and the ways of the Lord just like any other religious mother would. In fact, in Act 2 Scene 23, Dora has a very interesting monologue about how she shouldn't be blamed for Alan's actions because she is a parental influence but rather Alan should because he is his own person. To me, Dora isn't to blame because she hasn't done anything abnormal when raising Alan to cause his mental confusion to happen. It's Alan's own perspective of religion and horses that drive him into such a frenzy.

When Alan was a child Dora bought him a picture of Jesus shackled in chains, which hung on the wall in front of his bed, but Frank replaced this picture in the same location with that of a horse looking at him. Alan's young mind connected the horse, Equus, with Jesus because the horse took Jesus's place in Alan's bedroom and they both wear chains, so ever since his childhood Alan was influenced by this, so it was his parent's doing after all, though it was his own perception of everything that caused his confusion and intense reactions. Dora tells him that God watches him all the time and it just so happens that the horses watch him as well, further connecting the horse to God. Christians believe God is in Heaven watching over us, but Alan physically sees the horses always watching him, making it more real for him and putting him under extra pressure. Next time you look at a horse (but ignore the teeth first) think about this. It's a majestic looking animal, so it's very understandable that Alan makes it his deity. 

Horses represent so much for this kid! They represent salvation, sexual expression, freedom, sensuality etc.! There's a whole argument here I can bring up about how sexuality and orgasms bring you closer to God because it gives you an ecstatic feeling of no pain and worry, pleasurable feelings you experience to make you at one with God (I actually read about this idea in an article and really like the analogy.). This is exactly what Alan experiences, but with horses! We can say that this is bestiality, because it's clear throughout the play that Alan is sexually aroused by these horses even though it is not blatantly told to us. It may seem gross at first glance, but if we connect his love for Equus to his love for God, and if sexual love and spiritual love are one in the same, it makes a lot more sense and seems less grotesque. To him, Equus IS God. I definitely think of horses differently after reading this play in this religious sense.

A good thing about this play is that even though Dysart and Alan go into philosophical rants, which are the poetic, somewhat confusing moments of the play, the rest of the play is pretty understandable. It flows well, the scenes being continuations from the previous ones as if they are chapters of a novel, so there is not a lot of pausing and you can understand the issues of the characters. One criticism I have about the play is how Shaffer incorporates Dysart's background story and connects it with Alan's. Normally I would appreciate this and think that the play is lacking if Shaffer left out Dysart's back story, but the thing is, I don't feel Dysart's story is needed in this particular play. Dysart comes to realizations of himself because of his interactions with Alan, but it doesn't' really contribute anything to the plot. Alan's story is interesting enough to keep the play flowing, deeming Dysart's story unnecessary, even if it is connected to Alan in some way. We are there to figure out what the deal is with Alan. In fact, we are at the edge of our seats waiting for the conclusion and Dysart's story, which is presented in lengthy monologues, just interferes and proves as a distraction from the center plot. Alan is the reason why people care about this play and the reason why they go see it. They care about Alan's story because his story is the catalyst and reason of the play. Dysart's story isn't what people care about and audiences may not even know about it going in or remember it coming out. Alan's story is automatically known. I could be wrong about this for I don't speak for the public, but what character is more interesting: the teenager who has been committed in a ward because he rides horses in the nude and has blinded six of them or his psychiatrist whose main focus is Alan and his marital problems come second to his work and are just thrown into the play as random additions? Exactly. Alan is the way more interesting character.

I can't conclude this review without talking about this: 

 

Isn't it kind of sad that my first exposure (pun definitely NOT intended) to this classic play was a nude ex-wizard? From what I remember, the girls of America went wild when they found out Dan Rad would be baring all for the Broadway production of Equus back in 2007. I never saw Daniel Radcliffe's production of Equus, but this is how I first heard of this play's existence and as I was reading the play I kept thinking about him in it. I'm sorry, but I do not picture Radcliffe pulling off Alan Strang well, who is actually a pretty rebellious jerk (Ha! I called him a jerk) of a character. We grew up with Radcliffe portraying the greatest literary hero of our generation, Harry Potter of course, so it's kind of difficult picturing him portraying such a tortured soul as Alan. I feel like Alan is too heavy of a character for Radcliffe, who played a lighthearted yet emotionally mature 10-year-old boy...who grew up in a wizardry school. I know he has the right to expand himself through all different characters, but a sarcastic brat like Alan doesn't seem to suit him well to me. I actually can picture Radcliffe pulling off the highly ecstatic frenzy parts, but not necessarily the snarky mocking remarks Alan makes to Dysart. From what I see, when actors are in the business for a while a trend they seem to inherit is portraying the same archetypal characters, so probably because Radcliffe is fairly new to the acting field, being in his early twenties, perhaps he has not yet found his archetype yet, which is fine, nor is it a requirement. I'm not suggesting that he totally failed at playing Alan but I am saying that there are certain parts I can't see him doing. 

The Harry Potter series was both a blessing and a curse for this guy. It was good that it established a career for him, but it's not good in the fact that we will always see him as Harry Potter and nothing else really compares. The same goes for a lot of child actors. However, his fans seemed to really appreciate his Broadway debut in Equus and still feel the same way about him in How to Succeed (Without Really Trying), in which he is currently starring on Broadway. At first I couldn't really see him singing and dancing either, but people told me he does very well in this musical and then I was really impressed with his performance on the Tonys, so I'd say he's doing well for himself and will continue to do so. The Harry Potter series proved to have been a springboard for him and a variety of roles.

Hey, you think that since Darren Criss has followed in Radcliffe's footsteps thus far, he'll be running around with horses in the nude sometime soon? Hey, just a thought. ;)

Anyway, all in all Equus is a very captivating read. I started this series off by saying that I am not much of a reader but I finished the book in two days, even with people talking around me, something that normally distracts me often, so that's saying something. It's a very small book without the intimidating bulkiness, so that helps. Reading it gave me chills. It's heavy and simple all at the same time, so yeah, I recommend. 

Okay, well there you have it. The very first installment of "Stef's 'So Good You Can't Put It Down' Book Reviews." This is what I take from Equus. I apologize for the length of this. I didn't expect it to be THAT long, so I will try to make my future installments a little bit more concise. I want my next one to be a classic, so I'm thinking Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen. Or, I might write about a fiction that I want to return back to. Already I'm slacking so we'll see. :)

MSU Website Makeover

Just today parts of MSU's website got a makeover. Can we please take a moment to look at the College of the Arts new homepage?:

Isn't it awesome?? When I clicked on it I was like "Whoa!" It's beautful! :D Click here to see for yourself. Click around. There are a lot of artistic changes. Arcadia is actually the background for a lot of the pages!

They redid a lot of the site. It looks really cool. Check it out! :)

My Very First Montclarion Article of the Year and Spring 2012 Semester and How it Helped me to Appreciate a Shakespeare Classic

Yes, this is an entry of my first theater review for The Montclarion in both the year and spring semester of 2012, AND my senior year, but this particular production got a reaction out of me, so I think I am going to write a "Reflections about..." piece about it as well.

Okay, so here's the background story to this article.

First off, I was never a big fan of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

We all know the story right? Two families in Verona, Italy are fighting and their teenage kids fall in love but then kill themselves. The End.

Okay, I know it's more complex than that, but it's annoying! Both Romeo (16) and Juliet (13) are so lovey dovey and gushy after just meeting each other at a party and planning to marry that night only a few days ago at their young age that it's just so nauseating to me. I know the balcony scene is the most iconic scene in any drama, but to me, it's not that great. It just drags on and is, you guessed it, gushy. The best part about any of the characters in this play is that they are Italian!

Another thing I don't like about it is that it is so overdone to the point where it's bland and medicore. It's the play to which most of us are introduced as children, so therefore, we grow up with it, see many different versions of it, and it's not very exciting after a while. There are also so many parodies of it. If one of the plots on a TV show is that characters are performing a play, most likely that play is Romeo and Juliet, as if there are no other options. Of course, when I was a freshman in high school reading the play for my English class, our teacher told us that freshmen are taught this play at that level because it's the simplest. Well, I guess it is. So I guess that's why it's used for TV? Maybe. I know that Romeo and Juliet is probably Shakespeare's most famous work, but it is just such a common play. It is always there.

But here's the thing. Given these reasons, I was really skeptical when I heard that one of the Peak Performances of Montclair State University for the 2011-2012 season was going to be Romeo and Juliet, and this goes way back to this past summer when I read about this season's performances on the school website. I'm just so used to Montclair presenting the most intricate of theater. You see the stuff I write about on here. When I was a freshman at Montclair, they performed Shakespeare's As You Like It and I appreciated that because you never hear about that play, so it was nice to actually see it performed and it was different! But Romeo and Juliet? That just seems like a step back from what Montclair normally offers. To me, Romeo and Juliet is a high school play, not exactly a college performance featuring college students majoring in the theater field, matching the same caliber as the other theater Montclair offers. When I first saw it on the website, I wasn't even sure if I wanted to see it considering my feelings about it. And I knew I would probably see it because my goal is to see every show presented by the Department of Theatre and Dance, so I was dreading it.

Fortunately, I was wrong about everything. :)

As time went on and I befriended people involved with the production, I grew more and more excited for it and them. Romeo and Juliet, now playing at the L. Howard Fox Theatre until February 19, is now one of my favorite Peak Performances since I began attending MSU. It has that Montclair flair. There's the play, but then there's something magical about it that just engages the audience. It just made me appreciate the play and story more. Granted, Romeo and Juliet themselves are still gushy and I still can't stand that, but that's to be expected so I am willing to look past it and accept it.

Want to know why I like this play so much? One reason is that thankfully they don't include that Romeo and Juliet theme "A Time for Us." I was actually expecting it and wondering if they were going to use it and I am so glad that they don't. It's a good song and piece of music, but there's something about it and how romantic and droll it is that just makes the play that much more depressing. Others are that the whole entire play is one gigantic "Peak Performance and its awkward sexual moments," the music and costumes much resemble our current time period so it is relatable, the acting and delivery of the performers helped me to understand the storyline better, the set is extremely simplistic, using black blocks and a ladder for instance, and at times it is actually pretty funny. For more reasons, check out my review here. Enjoy!

If you can, be sure to see this play before it closes to see what I am talking about! :D

Another reason why I liked this play is that it made me realize things about it that I had never realized before, but I will save those for another post.

Do Plays Need a Conflict? A Lack Thereof in Ferber and Kaufman's Stage Door

I wrote a brief article about Peak Performance's Stage Door for The Montclarion, but unfortunately they were unable to use it. I might post it as one of my lost articles on here. This piece is not the article. I wrote this essay for my blog and it is actually a lot more detailed than the article I wrote for the paper so I figured I'd post this one to give the play some written recognition.


After A Chorus Line, the next Peak Performance I saw on campus is Stage Door, a play written by Edna Ferber and George S. Kaufman. I had to see it for classes and actually read it in my "Introduction to Theatrical Medium" class. It is a very enjoyable play, but I have one complaint about it: There doesn't seem to be a conflict.

Stage Door takes place in a 1930s rehearsal club where young actresses live as they try to find work in New York. We follow the storylines of the characters, especially the lead character Terry Randall. Throughout the play we watch her struggle to keep a job and start her career as an actress. She then ends up getting a lead role with her boyfriend's help at the end. I'm happy for her, but that kind of bothers me because of its convenience considering her man, David Kingsley, is an agent who falls in love with her.

The answer to my question seems to be pretty obvious. Of course a play needs a conflict. Without a conflict there would be no story. Though we see Terry resolve her conflict, the play doesn't necessarily keep you at the edge of your seat until it happens. In Arcadia, the characters try to figure out if Lord Byron committed a murder and who the hermit in a painting is. All of the events throughout the play are clues working up to the ending when all is revealed. In Sweeney Todd, Todd's ultimate goal is to kill Judge Turpin for the negative impact he has had on his life. The audience questions whether or not he will succeed. In The Grapes of Wrath, the Joad family must find a way to California and make ends meet during the Depression. Will they finally settle down and find a place to call home or will they continue to bask in uncertainty? In The Rimers of Eldritch, the characters must determine what happened regarding Skelly Manor's death and much like in Arcadia the scenes are clues to find this out. In The Seagull and A Man of No Importance, the focus is more on character development rather than plot. The conflicts are more inwardly based rather than outwardly. Characters struggle with their own inner conflicts and relationships with others. Will they accept themselves and work out their issues or will they hit rock bottom? The one show that resembles Stage Door is A Chorus Line because both display people desperate for jobs on the stage and show you background stories of the performers that people don't normally think about. However, the difference is, in A Chorus Line, the audience doesn't know who Zach will chose for the job until the very end, so it gives them something to look forward to. Are we supposed to look forward to seeing if Terry gets an acting career by the end of the play? I'm sorry, but for some reason, that is boring to me.

These plays I mention have a purpose and a reason for their existence. They have stories to tell and they want the audience to share in the experience and suspense. The audience solves the conflicts with the characters if the characters and audience members have a strong enough connection. Stage Door doesn't give the audience much reason to care about the characters and plot from my perspective.

A play's solid conflict is the core of a story. Everything that happens in a story surrounds that conflict. In Stage Door, this isn't necessarily the case. My thing is that Stage Door is more like a reality show than a play with conflict. It isn't a play with a beginning, middle, and end, but rather a bunch of written moments documenting the lives of these women, especially Terry. It represents young women in their everyday lives trying to get jobs in the theater rather than being faced with one conflict to resolve (or not resolve) by the end of the play. It looks like a normal everyday setting and the characters are so natural with each other. It is written that way and the actresses portray it that way. This is actually a reason why I like the play. I like the natural flair it has. However, even though each of them have their own agendas, they don't seem to grow as characters much. They interact with each other, leave, and show up again. They go to their jobs and other appointments and seem like interesting individuals to get to know, but because everything is so sporadic and brief, the audience isn't given a chance to care about these characters as individuals, so therefore it is more difficult to feel for them in their struggles. Well, the audience does care if the women get jobs or not, but our hearts don't necessarily ache for them because there aren't much connections between the audience and the characters for this to be so, probably because there are so many of them. All of the characters blend in together, except a select few. You actually want to see this select few more because they seem very potentially entertaining, but you don't, probably because it would require more time and effort to incorporate it all.

If the girls don't get jobs, the audience doesn't feel heartbroken for them but rather say, "Well, that's life." It's not a big deal to me because people lose jobs and have difficult jobs all the time in everyday life, so it's not looked upon as a conflict for a story but rather as something that normally happens. People always work their way up in their careers. This makes the play very bland. The lead character Terry is also very bland and doesn't even change from beginning to end, so there isn't any character development either. She is given the chance to work in film as opposed to theater, but she refuses. In A Chorus Line, the audience learns about the different struggles the characters have endured, so therefore it is more heartfelt. Also, you get to know every character individually and share the journey with them as opposed to Stage Door when you only get to know Terry and share only her journey. Sure they try to show background of other characters as well, but Terry is the only one you truly get to know from beginning to end because her story is the only story the play really follows in-depth.

However, I still like the play regardless of this lack of conflict and powerfulness in delivery. I have a tendency to like plays and other mediums that involve groups of girls together. Madeline, a childhood favorite, The Crucible, and A Children's Hour are among some of my favorites. The fact that the women in Stage Door are very into theater is another reason why I enjoy it.

So the question I pose is, does a play absolutely need a significant conflict for it to be enjoyable?

Well, I guess not, because I straight up told you that I like Stage Door. But I guess what I am arguing is whether or not a play needs that energized spark in order for people to like it and ultimately leave a lasting impression. For example, when I saw Sweeney Todd in Kasser I felt a huge adrenaline rush because it was so amazing. When I saw The Rimers of Eldritch in Fox I felt numb, in a bad way because of the rape scene, but regardless it was still memorable because of how it made me feel. When I saw The Grapes of Wrath in Kasser, I felt numb, in a good way because it was magical. However, when I saw Stage Door, I didn't feel anything explosive like that. I felt relaxed and sat back and enjoyed it. I did the same thing when I saw A Chorus Line in Memorial, but I felt a better connection with that story.

Sitting back and enjoying a play in a relaxed manner isn't a bad thing. That's what plays are for, to relax and enjoy a show as a brief escape from reality. But the thing with theater and art too is it makes you come to realizations about life because of what it exposes, so in this way theater has two functions. Sometimes having such an emotional reaction from a play and therefore obsessing over it afterward, because you like it, can be exhausting, so I guess it's nice to not have every play do that to a person. Sometimes plays have to be tame to juxtapose the plays that are not. The contradicting of both types of plays helps them to stand out as artistic pieces and also helps audiences appreciate and enjoy both in the long run.

My First Montclarion Theater Review of Junior Year!

This photo was sent through MSU e-mail advertising the show

Friday night, October 21, I saw the Peak Performance A Chorus Line at Montclair State University. When I first saw it announced on the school website this past summer, I found it interesting that it would be playing in the Memorial Auditorium. I had just finished saying how Memorial Auditorium wasn't exactly used for school productions anymore, but I guess I was wrong. I really liked the use of Memorial Auditorium for this production because it is not often done anymore and I enjoyed the comfortable home community feeling it brings. It just seems like a very nice theater in which to perform and it was equally as nice to sit back and watch. In other words, it's not like Kasser, which is this huge, Broadway like theater. Memorial Auditorium belongs to the students and is their realm. I guess it seems the most school oriented than the other theaters on campus. I keep thinking that a good word to describe it is "quaint." A Chorus Line was actually the first musical I saw there since Wimzie's House Live (see page for that background story) and the first Peak Performance production I saw there as a student. It was nice to see a show performed there again besides organization performances and the Vagina Monologues.

Unfortunately, this article was published later than expected, but please enjoy my review about A Chorus Line! I really like how not much editing was done with it and the editor-in-chief told me that it is very well written, which made me very proud. I guess that shows that I am improving. A Chorus Line is actually one of my favorite MSU productions so far. I went by myself, sat towards the front on the side with not a lot of people around me, and relaxed. I was actually thinking about seeing it a second time, but was unable to. There was no intermission, so it was a nonstop two hours of pure theatrical enjoyment with laugh out loud moments, simple storylines, memorable songs, and everything in between! All in all, it is a very cute musical and I liked watching it.

My article made the print edition as well! I didn't expect this considering the show is no longer playing and was so happy when I saw it today!