How I Learned Drive was so interesting to me because it was one of the first plays we have read this semester in which I have actually liked the characters, including Uncle Peck. If the family's ridiculous and constant allusions to sexuality didn't lend themselves to such problems for Lil' Bit's development/ weren't so graphic it would be basic family sit com material. The author's production notes also refer to the important use of humor in this play to contrast with the heavy sexual themes.

I also found a lot of the metaphors and cultural references in this play interesting. I would have never realized that 60's music was so rife with pedophilia references, employing this lighthearted music during the dance scene where Peck and Lil' Bit interact from afar would have definitely heightened the sexual tension between them and also reminded the audience of the wrongness of the situation. Because learning to drive is the long running metaphor for Lil' Bit's experiences in learning about who she is, the automobile is an important symbol. I think this play explored the fascination men have with cars (something I have never really understand) in a very explicit way. When Uncle Peck erotically describes the car as "someone who responds to your touch- someone who performs just for you and gives you what you ask for-", he gives an interesting description of what the car can represent in a male world, and also gives the audience insight into what he is thinking, he is clearly preoccupied with sexual thoughts. Especially when in Lil' Bit's company. Sexism and gendered stereotypes are profuse in this play, in all of the different scenes and moments in time that the piece chronicles. I think this is why it is so satisfying to watch Lil'Bit shut Uncle Peck down in the hotel room, and then listen to her speak as an adult about "flooring it" into the future. Its immensely gratifying to see her leave all of it behind.

I found August Wilson's 1996 address to be powerful and innovative. His opinion of color blind casting completely reformed my concept of it. Color blind casting, with out deeper examination, seems to be a practice in place to ensure equal opportunities to actors of color. But Wilson's proclamation that " We want you to see us. We are black and beautiful" condemns the idea that color blind casting is an extension of equality, and asserts that it attempts to assimilate black people into white culture because blackness is some kind of undesirable quality.

The other part of Wilson's speech I found to be the most powerful was his statement that "The history of our bodies... is not for rent". It is an interesting way to look at the tradition of the telling of black history in America. Where is the line drawn between historical retelling and increasing awareness of the African struggle in America and the use of that struggle for dramatic/entertainment purposes. I hate to think that the marginalization of the African race is told through the theatre to engage audiences and win Tony's. But I can understand why Wilson would feel this way, especially if it is a story that is told by white actors and white directors who have no personal investment in the historical significance.

The historical marginalization of African Americans in America is what makes Wilson's story different than Arthur Miller's death of a salesman. I thought it was especially interesting to read Top Girls right after reading Wilson's play and speech. Although it deals with completely different time periods and a completely different struggle, I found the women's struggle to be so similar to Troy's and his family. Both plays examined how social roles and cultural mores change an individuals life course and make many things out of one's own control.

Krapp's Last Tape

Krapp's Last Tape, at four pages and one act, is so unlike the other plays we have read thus far. Devoid of the more complex production elements or literary/story devices that define other works, Beckett's "play in one act" is difficult to understand as a significant piece of theatre. I found that I best understood the concept of the play after reading the introduction to the work and Martin Esslin's The Theatre of the Absurd, which provided a systemic analysis of Beckett's technique.

What first resonated with me when reading the play was the extensive stage directions listed at the beginning. One page out of four pages is alot for stage directions! As I continued, I realized the play is virtually split between stage directions carried out by the character and his own words/ the words on the tape. But when did a play become all about the language or story? Because we read plays in this class it easy to forget that, but in actuality plays are meant to be seen. The actions carried out by the character on stage speak volumes to who he is and his history with out requiring language. I couldn't help but laugh that Krapp is directed to be "meditatively eating a banana". How does one meditatively eat a banana? Yet for a character who is so entranced in his own thoughts and memories, this action does not seem all that out of the ordinary. It just seems like something "absurd" that he might do. Absurd in that it is devoid of purpose, the definition used in understanding the Theatre of the Absurd.

Defining the Theatre of the Absurd as part of the "anti literary movement" of our time makes sense to me. It is defined as " a radical devaluation of language, toward a poetry that is to emerge from the concrete and objectified images of the stage itself... what happens on the stage transcends the words spoken by the characters" Krapp's Last Tape is a great example of this. Because many of the words on the tape and spoken do not make sense to the reader, it is Krapp's actions and expressions which create meaning and give the play a sense of action.

Symbolism of The Cherry Orchard

Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard has a seemingly endless revolving door of characters with very traditional russian names, but has a constant center with the lavishly described and hotly debated cherry orchard. The orchard is lovingly described by some of the characters, including by Lopakhin, who eventually destroys it. It is however, most treasured by Ravensky, the madame of the estate herself. However, it is no longer exactly an "estate", as Ravensky refuses to accept her current financial situation and holds on to the beauty of the cherry orchard as a relic of her idyllic and upper class child hood.It is in fact a relic of the past because it is essentially non functioning, no longer financially sustainable the cherry orchard must go.

The cherry orchard becomes a symbol that holds different meaning for different characters in the play. The different ways the character's view the cherry orchard is a synthesized version of the greater ideological conflict of the play. At its core, there is a disagreement between the old and the young, a struggle between modernity and the way of the Old Russia. The older characters Ravensky and Lopakhin view the cherry orchard positively, as a thing of beauty, and Lopakhin does not hesitate to describe it this way. He hopes that the new tenants of the land will enjoy the cherry orchard as he has. However, Trofilmov does not separate the cherry orchard from the memories of the "Old Russia" and the social structure that having the orchard perpetuated : serfdom. Trofilmov's views on the cherry orchard are in direct conflict with Ravensky's, while Lopakhin flirts with both ideologies. While he perceives the orchard as beautiful and Ravensky as kind and generous, his upbringing as a peasant has left a sour taste in his mouth and memories from which he wishes to break free. These three main characters use the cherry orchard as the grounding center for their differences.

Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest is an elaborate piece of satire for social commentary. In this way, it reminded me of Valparaiso, which I saw last week. While Valparaiso is a commentary/expose on our media saturated modern culture, The Importance of Being Earnest explores the often ridiculous formality and priorities of Victorian culture.

Wilde mocks Victorian conventions in a way that is amusing and pleasing to the reader. Contrary to the norm, Gwendolyn completely takes charge of Jack’s proposal to her. Refusing to be docile and sweet, she essentially proposes to herself while Jack ambles awkwardly through his proposal.

Lady Bracknell is a harbinger of all that is ridiculous about Victorian society and conventions of morality. Her inquisition of Jack is rude and superficial, prioritizing whether or not Jack smokes over his job or character. She projects that the misfortune of loosing both parents is somehow Jack’s own folly, and later in the play makes insensitive comments (albeit witty entertainment for the reader) about Jack’s own origins, which he can only explain as a train station in London. Even her tracking down of Gwendolyen and presumptuous entrance into Jack’s country home seethes with an irking self importance.

The play ending also reminded me of Valparaiso. It becomes almost a comedy of errors, where such strange coincidences and changes of events led of all of the characters to this place and this ending. Jack was never actually being fictive, everything in his life actually fit within the far reaches of his imagination. Valparaiso riffs on the theme that little mistakes can snowball into an incredibly humorous/ unlikely situation. And in true bunburyist fashion, both protagonists (Majeski and Jack) use these strange turns of events to escape their own realities.

I really enjoyed reading the interview with Kent Thompson because I feel like it really brought to light a lot of answers to questions about the play and touches on a lot of themes that should be important to the audience/reader. Right off the bat, Thompson says that he does not produce Othello often, and he only did so in 1994 under very specific conditions.

He said that he only produces the play in ASF's octagon theatre, which lends itself to a psychological clausterphobia that enhances the feeling of tension in the play. He states "when the play becomes grandiose or exaggerated, it deflates the actual pain of its tragedy". Immediately I thought of our class discussions of Medea, where

we believed that the spectacle of the fire dragon chariot and the bloody bodies of Medea's children was so ridiculous it was almost humor.

Thompson also gave some insight into the casting of Othello. He commented that most directors will not produce Othello unless they already have their Othello in mind. He doesn't believe that in this day and age Othello can be played by a caucasian actor.Thompson quotes "the challenge in casting Othello is to find an actor who can believably portray an extrordinary warrior-hero yet still be an outsider." Thompson's title character, played by Derrick Lee Weeden is handsome, warm and appealing. 6'3' broad and masculine, he exudes an aura of leadership and bravery. I think this is important for cultivating the image of Othello as a mislead hero, instead of a murderer.

{ photo from Alabama Shakespeare Festival}

Shakespeare's title character, Othello, is a stark contrast to the typical venetian. He is cultural and racial ( described as the "moor", "the thick-lips", and "a barbary horse" alluding to his dark skin color) outsider to the city of Venice, yet integral to the state as a soldier. Of the course of the play he is called on numerous times to deal with important state/security matters. His confidence and self assuredness in his abilities and adventures as a warrior serve him well at the beginning of the play. He is able to convince the Duke that Brabanzio is wrong, and that both Brabanzio and his daughter Desdemona loved him and invited him into their home to tell his stories. However, by the end of the play we see an unraveling of Othello's self assuredness as he bemoans Desdemona's perceived infidelities. He claims that his moorish heritage was of no appeal to Desdemona and she loves him no more.

I think that this shift in Othello's gives him more complexity as a tragic character. Not purely vengeful because of his wife's perceived wrongs, we see an undercurrent of emotional distress about his place in the Venetian society. I feel that adding this dimension to Othello's personality makes us more sympathetic to him. We are especially sympathetic when he learns that this was all a big mistake and manipulation by Iago, this is the element of recognition that Aristotle praises in a tragedy.

Before Othello takes his own life, his farewell speech reaffirms his position as both a valued member of Venetian society but also an outsider. Its particularly sad because although Othello's position in Venice came from his own prowess, he is still equally recognized for his racial heritage.