A theatre comprises many people’s efforts, but people may have various interpretations to one theatre, no matter directors, designers, or even actors. So are audiences still able to comprehend the original meaning that playwrights want to express?
Shaw- What struck me as interesting was the discovery part of the play. If I may connect both readings, Sporre describes discovery as “the revelation of information about the characters” and this is precisely what happens when the Clandons discover that Mr.Crampton is their father at the lunch. I thought the play was going in a direction, prior to that lunch scene, more focused on the story of Valentine and his love interests and/or monetary situation with the landlord, and that the whole discussion about prying for information about their father from Mrs.Clandon was a supplement back-story to Valentine and his situation. I found this interesting because it was a very quick change for me to see a discovery alter the trajectory of the plot completely. So my question is did anyone else feel the plot go in a direction opposite where they thought it would go initially?
Sporre- Sporre’s views on formal and contextual criticism intrigued me because I immediately thought of how different the view of a play must be to a critic and to the average person. Sporre mentions several times that critics have a lot to consider when forming a critique, so in my mind formal and contextual criticism are different levels of critiquing in themselves. Is that possible? One would assume that solely looking at the artwork purely for its merit, which formal criticism asks us to do, will surely distance us from the motivations for said artwork. However, this angle would be much simpler for an average play connoisseur to practice. The contextual form of criticism is more complex because it uses the artwork itself as a basis for the interpretation of the writers’ intentions, the period in which the play was written and so on and so forth. So is it possible that the two forms of criticism are at different degrees of difficulty or are they just two different ways any critic of any caliber can choose to approach writing their own critique?
You Never Can Tell Questions:
Why does Phillip always refer to his “knowledge of human nature” as an explanation for everything that is going on around him? Does he believe that he knows everything about the way others think? Also, why is having a father so important during that time in England? Could having a father mean that you were educated better rather than being brought up by a single mother? And could Dolly’s rude behavior be Shaw’s way to show that children from a single-mother home don’t have the same education and manners as children that were raised with a father?
The Art of Theater:
I was intrigued by the theater for which Shakespeare wrote for that had no lighting except the sun. Would a play without the visual stimuli usually found in theater not be as good as any other play? Would a play without something so basic to us such as lighting, affect the quality of the play and how much emotion it could draw from us?
why didn’t the writer elaborate on either valentine’s or gloria’s past love life other than a quick mention of number?
In Act 3, does McComas threaten Mrs. Clandon to make the meeting or face that time’s version of divorce court?
I do not understand what Valentine meant at the end when he said, “I might as well consider myself a married man already” when Gloria and everybody around him was taken to the dance floor.
Why does the waiter start out as such a submissive character, get even more submissive when he sees his son, but suddenly “mans up” near the end when the opinion of Gloria commanding Valentine to marry her occurs?
Lawrenzo Lue
You Never Can Tell
The Art of Theatre
I would like to take Alina’s question one step further and ask if Shaw is saying something about children that are raised with no father. Can that play a big part in their erratic and sometimes rude behavior? Is Shaw sending a message about a single mother’s in society? As the main characters, what is their purpose to the story line?
I love that Sporre calls theater an interpretive discipline. He states that, “Between the playwright and the audience stand the director, the designers, and the actors. Although each functions as an individual artist who adds a specific form of artistic communication to the production, each also serve’s to communicate the playwright’s vision to the audience” (35). As a student that has been a stage manager, a hair and make up coordinator, and an actress in theater productions, I wonder what you all would say the most important type of communication is (i.e. the playwright, the designers, the actors). Do you think there is much room for each individual to add their own message/ artistic communication to the production? How so?
In You Never Can Tell, my question is as to what happens to Valentine and Gloria’s relationship following the events of the play (and, supposedly, their marriage). It feels as if the play implies that their marriage is not meant to last, based on various hints thrown out over the course of the play. Early on, Crampton states that he had seen many men marry out of desperation for money and that it had not worked out. This seems like a foreshadowing of the events to come, as Valentine makes the decision to get married that very same day, when he is broke and penniless, and he even admits as such. Another tell is when Philip addresses their relationship as Romeo and Juliet – the star-crossed lovers. It may mean that he suspects their love will not last and will end tragically. Aside from that, Valentine has said he has felt the same way about other women before – who is to say Gloria isn’t the only one naive enough to fall for him? His last name is even Valentine, like Valentine’s Day – perhaps that’s a hint by the writer that the character is willing to give his heart up to any pretty lady he sees. So, my question: Will the marriage really last or will it simply be a repeat of Crampton and Mrs. Clandon’s failed relationship?
For the Theatre reading, my question stems from where it is stated that the director is interpreting what the playwright has created. If the director’s interpretation is what is being presented on the stage and, thus, is the finished product that the audience will view, does that mean that the play truly belongs to the person directing it and not the writer? It’s almost as if the writer simply creates a guideline of themes and characters and such, and the director’s job is to work within that mold to actually generate the play. As we can see in film and theatrical works adapted from literature, such as A Streetcar Named Desire or The Great Gatsby, the interpretation of the director can be drastically different from what was in the original work. Within the theatre, are we truly ever seeing the creation of the playwright, instead of the director?
While we do see a relationship between Gloria and Valentine blossom, we also see Mrs. Caldon balancing a career and raising three children as a single mother. Is this play more of a love story or is it a critique of the common view held at that time: that a woman should be married with a family?
Esther Jungreis
Alina Pena
