Hello lovely world! While walking into the theater to view “The Bald Soprano,” I was hoping to view some authentic entertainment, rather than witnessing something similar to the Anthony Caro exhibit. Fortunately, the play had met my expectations and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I found “The Bald Soprano” very amusing and was surprised by how unpredictable it was. In my opinion, the acting was impeccable and it was inspiring to see how these actors were so engrossed in their acting. It’s as if nothing seemed more important to them than giving a vivacious and meaningful performance. I always find it scintillating to see how some people are so passionate and ambitious towards their work. Even though the play was quite hilarious and wonderful to view, I was completely perplexed by what occurred. The significance of this play escaped my mind due to the multifarious random gestures and nonsensical dialogue illustrated by these characters. With all the incessant yelling, outlandish stories, and long pauses of silence, the true meaning of the play for me was obscured.
Another unusual observation I identified was how the characters, primarily the male actors, were expectorating towards each other. Honestly, it was quite disturbing to see projectiles of spit shooting out from all over the place. In fact, I was worried I might get struck by it, since I was sitting close to the actors. Luckily, nothing of that sort occurred (phew!). Basically, everything seemed to occur so rapidly that I was unable to comprehend what was going on. I even noticed that the discussions the characters were having weren’t even remotely related to what was said previously. The characters just seemed to digress from the main topic and just began behaving as maniacs, similar to what took place in the God of Carnage. Also, how these characters made the most insignificant matters seem like the most important was, indeed, very comical.
I strongly felt that this play was trying to speak to a New York audience by trying to reveal the corrupt and volatile natures of the middle-class and upper-class groups. For instance, through the absurd behavior and speakings witnessed, Ionesco’s clever use of satire is clearly seen. Although some things still remain ambiguous for me, such as the sky on the floor and the upside down plates, I felt Ionesco was displaying to the audience the folly and vice of human nature and was mocking it. I say this because in the ending of the play, the Martins were substituted by the Smiths (play repeated with the Martins) to show the interchangeability of all the characters’ personalities. Furthermore, the fact that the men supported each other and the women stood up for one another exemplifies the erroneous aspects of certain strata of people, which was also conspicuous in the God of Carnage.
Unfortunately, due to these characters’ anomalous and childish behavior, I lacked the opportunity to relate to them. Nevertheless, I thought that these actors were making an attempt to speak to us when they turned around and looked at the rest of the audience. When the actors were staring at me and the other people, I felt as if they were scrutinizing the audience’s reactions (broke the “fourth wall”). For the most part, I believed that all the actors made an indefatigable effort to convey a message (still not completely known to me, yet) through their acting.
In conclusion, I greatly enjoyed the play, mainly because it made me laugh and that it showed the corruption of human nature in such an ingenious, yet subtle manner. Hopefully, if I am able to further analyze the “bizarreness” of this play and find out its true meaning soon, I will be more grateful towards it. Now that this play is over, I am very eager to attend the plethora of plays that await me in the imminent future 😀
