Churchill's A Number: Aspects of Cloning

The prospect of human cloning is still provocative for its social implications. What is gained from encountering the issue in the form of a play? How does the play work to engage us in thinking through the issue?

Churchill's A Number was definitely not one of my favorites this semester. I did not like the writing style (the lack of punctuation and capitalization at times, the way the lines lead into each other, no stage directions, no set description, no other information at all) and found it a little confusing. Even though the script says which clone the father is talking to, it gets confusing after a while. But it still manages to address the issue of cloning.

Sam Shepard and Dallas Roberts in A Number at New York Theatre Workshop.*

The play makes the audience think several issues regarding cloning. For instance, who would have someone cloned and why? The play does not specifically answer why there was cloning; the answer depended on who Salter was talking to. Salter blames the hospital for stealing DNA but it is later revealed that he chose to have the cloning done. However, the scientist who did the cloning created more than Salter ever imagined and he wants to sue the scientist. It is revealed that the original son was sent away, not killed, and the mother committed suicide, and did not die in a car accident with the original son. So, the audience never truly learns why Salter decided to have clones made.

Roberts and Shepard.*

Another issue that the play brings up is the identity crisis the original and clones would have upon finding out the others exist. When the play begins, Salter is talking to one of the clones who has just discovered that there are others. He is trying to figure out his identity- is he the original? How should he handle the fact that there are others of him. The original Bernard is very upset after learning about the clones and he, too, wonders about his identity and who he is. At the beginning of Act 5, the audience learns that the original Bernard shot the only clone of him that we see in the play (I think, I'll be honest, I don't quite understand who Michael Black is. Is he the original son that was sent away? Is he a clone that has successfully created his own identity? I just don't know who he is exactly, other than a character played by the actor who is everyone but Salter, so maybe the audience sees two clones. I don't know). It is in this act that the audience sees Salter trying to find out personal information about Micheal and learns that he has his own identity and is living a happy and successful life. In fact, Michael finds it a "delightful" piece of information about himself.

The Clockwork Theatre presents A Number starring Sean Marrinan (Salter) and Jay  Rohloff (everyone else).*

A Number makes the audience think about the social issue by never actually addressing the issue or giving solid information about it. The audience does not learn why Salter turned to cloning. It does not explore the idea of cloning. It doesn't even look very far into the idea of identity, or lack thereof, when cloning occurs. It doesn't even allow the characters to put their ideas into a full sentence. The audience is left hanging, meaning they have to conclude with their own thoughts, or at least explore where the play might be going or trying to say (or not say), kind of like with fanfiction. 

National Asian American Theatre Company's production of A Number with Salter played by  James Saito and the others by Joel de la Fuente.*

While there seem to be an abundance of what the play does not do, it is important to note what it does do. Churchill does not address or explore the traditional aspects of cloning, such moral and ethical implications of cloning. She explores how a person might feel upon discovering that there are approximately twenty more versions of you running around. The way the play is performed is also up to the director. There is no indication of how the lines should be read or how the characters feel. The actor and director are free to put emphasis on whatever they deem important to the play. Salter could be full of regret, scornful, full of denial, or he could be nonchalant about the whole thing. The meaning and focus is open for interpretation. 

Hollinger's Incorruptible as a Live Play

On Wednesday, I went to the opening of Incorruptible. While waiting for the performance to begin, the audience has a chance to examine the setting. The set was very simple, but definitely conveyed the idea of being in a monastery, without giving much away. When the play begins, it follows the play very closely with only a few minor changes.

The monks surrounding Jack to question him.*

The costuming was done very well as most of the characters were in robes and habits. However, Jack, Marie, and the peasant woman's costuming was chosen with the modesty of 1250 in mind. After Jack becomes a monk, he continues to wear pants which differs from the other monks, but needed in several scenes. Another interesting point to mention is that Martin and Charles had shaved their heads to make it look more authentic.

Jack, Olf, and Charles at the end of the play when Jack's eyesight is restored.*

The casting choice was exceptional as they all seemed to be into their parts. Olf definitely acted just as he reads in the script. Dakotah Myers, who plays Martin, really got into character and was a stand-out. He knew all of his lines and had the sneaky, money-loving characterization of Martin. Rustin Myers wasn't quite as believable as Dakotah. He pulled himself from immersing fully into the role. Jack was also removed from the play and seemed like he was acting at his part. Agatha, played by Mykaela Hopps, was another really good casting choice. The highness of her voice added to the insanity of her character.

Agatha.*

The fighting over Marie when Charles and Agatha believed her to be an incorruptible was not quite as funny as I imagined it would be. Instead of actually fighting over her, which would have been difficult, they just slid her back and forth across the altar. Another point that I didn't really like was when Olf first enters with the Jew. The characters didn't treat the burlap sack like it actually contained a person. Other than that, the play was just as hilarious to watch as it was to read. I also really enjoyed hearing the audience respond to the humor in the play. SVSU did an excellent job with Hollinger's Incorruptible.


* All images obtained from Google Image Search as I wasn't sure that cameras were allowed.

Brecht's Usage of Alienation Effects in The Good Person of Szechwan

Brecht is known for his use of an alienation effect, devices which break the illusion of realistic theater. Two of these in this play are direct address to the audience and the frequent songs or verse. Write about either or both of these as devices which break the sort-of-realistic frame: what do you make of this device?

SDSU's program.*

In Bertolt Brecht's The Good Person of Szechwan, he employs two specific devices in order to alienate the audience. The first one is having the characters directly address the audience. Almost every character in the play stops to share insight. In one of the later acts, he uses it to have Sun's mother illustrate past events. He uses this technique to make the audience forget that they are seeing a play.

Strawdog Theatre's portrayal when Sun and Shen Teh first meet.*

Reading the play makes it easy to forget that the characters are actually addressing the audience. The effect is that the speaker is providing the reader with privileged information for them alone. I have seen a couple plays that make use of this technique and find that it creates a similar feeling when performed. 

Strawdog Theatre's version of the wedding.*

The device provides a way for the author to share information without bogging down the play. Yes, it breaks the fourth wall, but it also gives insight into the plot. For example, it would be very time consuming to include scenes from the past that only explain quick bits of information, like Sun getting a job in the tobacco factory. I think when the device is used correctly, as in Brecht's play, it can be very insightful without bothering the audience.

Stanford University's version of The Good Person of Szechwan.*

The other form of alienation that Brecht employs is having the characters break into verse or song. I imagine it would be a little like a musical or Moulin Rouge (a much picked on example of characters randomly bursting into song and dance). Unlike the aforementioned technique, I did not enjoy this one. Even while reading, it is hard not to pay attention to the verse. However, when reading, I felt that it kind of cluttered the play.

Wang in Washington University's version of the play.*

The verses do not add much to the play and every time I saw them, I wanted to skip over it. Part of me thought it was a terrible way to try to include the Chinese setting. The Chinese are known for their verse, especially haiku. Instead of sliding it into the play, the inclusion of verse seems far too forced and unnatural. I think if Brecht had tried to stick to a form or tried to include it better, the effect would have worked. 

Shen Teh in Washington University's version of The Good Person of Szechwan.*

But, Brecht consciously tried to alienate the audience, so making the verse seem force may have just been a way to emphasize the fact that he wanted the audience to remember they were seeing a play. The unnatural feeling would probably jerk the audience out of the magic of seeing a performance as they try to think over what they heard and its importance to the play. Overall, I didn't mind the characters speaking to the audience as an alienation technique, but found the latter to sufficiently alienate the audience.

* denotes that all pictures were obtained from Google Image Search.

Corruption in Michael Hollinger's Incorruptible

Michael Hollinger's Incorruptible is described as a dark comedy about the Dark Ages, and it certainly has many elements of humor. As for corruption, there is plenty of that as well. Despite the fact that the play occurs in a monastery, no one is safe from corruption. In fact, Jack says it best on page 53: "I've done more sinning since I joined the church!" Despite the fact that he is a deceitful, Pagan minstrel, he is responsible for bringing the church back to its senses.

Jack being choked by Martin.*

The play begins with a church that is so poor, it cannot afford to help the community. In addition, the people are not allowed to pray unless they pay a penny for each pray. Perhaps this was the kernel of truth that prompted Hollinger to write the play as the Catholic Church had a similar system during this time. However, not only was the church unable to afford to help the community, it appears that Martin would find an excuse to not. Martin is the center of corruption in the story who ends up influencing the rest of the monks, including the abbot.

The cast of Carpenter Square Theatre's rendition, centered around the altar with the remains of Saint Foy.*

Martin leads the church astray, not even willing to bury a murdered man because of his religious beliefs. He is more focused on how he plans to run the monastery once Charles dies. They know that Saint Foy has not granted any miracles for them but do not conceive that it could be their faith or disrespect for her. When a convent receives the Pope's attention for having Saint Foy's remains, and conducting multitudes of successful miracles, Martin refers to them as a "second-rate convent run by a bunch of backwoods nuns (14)." They set out to find the truth.

The monks around Saint Foy's remains.*

Once they learn the truth, the monks set up a scheme to sell bones to churches while passing them off as saints. To their surprise, the "Saints" are producing miracles, while their own Saint Foy does not. They become some enchanted with making money that they lose count of the number of remains they sell-- John the Baptist had seventeen heads. Martin even tells Olf to dig up the remains of a dog in hopes of making a profit off of it. Then Martin receives a letter from the Pope, who he had been secretly contacting with promises of a true miracle: an incorruptible, stating that the Pope was coming. Martin and Charles entreat Brother Norbert, Jack, to kill someone for this purpose.

The monks leaning over a sack containing "Saint" remnants.*

The characters are fleshed out a little bit as Jack lies about his chastity; his fiance (I think it's the best way to describe her) has been coming frequently. Marie informs him that she is just a body to everybody in her life and that she doesn't know who's baby it is because her mother has sold her to the night. Felix's story about his fiance is brought to the forefront. Eventually, Agatha informs Charles that it was her idea to put the sawdust in the bread and uses the same rhetoric as Martin to describe the monastery.

Marie and suitor.*

Felix discovers that his fiance survived and is Marie. Agatha discovers that truth about the bones industry and the incorruptible scam and instead of exposing them, hopes to get a cut. They threaten to cut the girl in half, much like the Biblical story where the king was coming to cut the baby in half and discovers who the true mother is. Jack helps Felix and the pregnant Marie escape and then puts Saint Foy back on the altar. He has suddenly gained faith and his eye is healed. Charles understands and is overwhelmed as well. However, the two characters have realized their corruption.

We certainly have interesting timing as this past Sunday was All Saint's Sunday.

*All images obtained from Google Image Search

Waiting for Godot: Differences in Beckett's Play and the Mediated Version

What if anything is different in your appraisal of the play after watching (part of) the film adaptation?

When I read Waiting for Godot, I found it very unusual. It focuses on two men, Vladamir and Estragon, who are waiting for this mysterious man named Godot. They do not have a clear idea who he is or on the element of time. While waiting, they meet two other men, Pozzo and Lucky, who have a very interesting dynamic.

Vladimir, Estragon, and Lucky.*

After watching part of the film adaptation, I feel that there was some element of humor to the play. I had not really noticed it before, because I was so focused on the unusual character relations. Vladamir and Estragon play their lines off each other, which I had missed in the reading. When reading, I thought there was more animosity or at least rudeness between the two, but when you see it, it is really just two older men bantering with each other.

Vladimir and Estragon.*

I was very interested to see Pozzo and Lucky in the film adaptation because I did not really understand that situation. During the reading I was trying to figure out what was going on between the two, I even questioned if Lucky was actually human. After seeing the film, I'm not sure that I understand it better, but at least Lucky is human. Beckett wrote this after the Civil War, so I'm not sure what the relationship between the two is, since Pozzo is clearly an abusive master who plans on selling Lucky.

Vladimir and Estragon under the tree.*

The film adaptation allows for better understanding of how Vladamir and Estragon receive Lucky and Pozzo. While reading, I was not sure what to make of it, if they were happy to see him, nonchalant, or if they wanted to be rid of him. The film makes it appear that Vladamir and Estragon are intrigued by the situation, Pozzo is cunning, and that they might prefer being alone than remaining in that company.

The film makes Waiting for Godot seem less strange than it does while reading.

*All images obtained from Google Image Search.