Breakin' the fourth wall

Before reading Skin of Our Teeth, after looking at the cover, I assumed it would be a typical suburban melodrama; I was so wrong. It definitely took me by surprise being inexplicable, random, absurd, and thought provoking at the same time. We are told as an audience not to read between the lines, and not to think too much about what it all means; however, this plot forces us to do so. The amazing element this play has, which probably keeps many audience members from walking out of the theatre, is comedic relief. I find this play, especially the beginning of Act 3, to be hilarious. One specific thing that entertains me personally is the actors’interaction with the audience.

The actors on stage, especially the one playing Sabina, repeatedly break character and speak to the audience throughout the play. They "break the fourth wall"(speaking directly to the audience or acknowledging them, including them in the situation) several times in the play. This is an excellent technique to keep the audience alert and intrigued during the performance. The way in which characters miss cues and mess up reminds me of another three act comedy that I love called Noises Off. I think it is ingenious the way in which characters come out of their character to state things such as, “I hate this play and every word in it.”  When characters come out of their comfort zone on the stage and break the boundary of the fourth wall, I think it is exciting and surprising. Lately, nothing has surprised me in the play because I never have any idea what to expect. When I predict something to happen, another thing completely different occurs.

That is probably why I enjoy this play; it is different and unlike anything I’ve ever seen before. I feel that the play would be entertaining to view live, sitting with an audience. I can only imagine the appalled and shocked reactions audience members suffered when it opened in 1942.

Expect the Unexpected

    The Skin of Our Teeth is a refreshing change from the plays we have recently read. I think it is safe to assume that it is not like any other play we have read in our high school career. The Skin of Our Teeth is a delightful change from the predictable themes found in Shakespeare's King Lear; which include violence, betrayal and an old man that lacks common sense. Once you read one Shakespearean play, they all begin to sound the same. After reading Lear, I am able to enjoy The Skin of Our Teeth's original comedic approach immensely. I appreciate the way Wilder address existentialism, a subject that could be considered serious with humor and entertainment. Wilder makes allusions to biblical characters like Adam, Eve and Moses. The Antrobus' celebrate their FIVE THOUSANDTH wedding anniversary. He throws in a dinosaur and a mammoth for what seems like no real reason. These features alone lead me to think what is the point of this play? What is the purpose of the incorporation of these ancient animals? Why is morality important? So I guess this is the affect Wilder wanted his play to have on the audience. Sabina said a line that stuck out that I think we all can connect with, "I don't know why my life's always being interrupted- just when everything's going fine!" In the play Sabina is referring to a flood ruining her affair with Antrobus; however, in life we feel that as soon as our life is going well and we are happy there's always a thought that it is too good to be true and it will be ruined soon enough. I think this play exhibits the idea that we never truly know what's to come or what's the purpose of life.

Irrational is the New Rational

  

While reading Thornton Wilder’s play By the Skin of Our Teeth one has to question the heavily used irrationality. At first I did not understand anything, but looking at it more than once gave me an idea. I believe that the play should not be taken at face value; that it simply has a deeper meaning. I think Wilder is trying to portray his belief that reality is not rational; that people's perceptions of the world around them are all different making nothing makes sense at all.

In the beginning of the play, the maid Sabina says that the play is supposed to be about all the troubles the world has gone through. As the play goes on, the audience can see that it does in fact show all the problems the world has faces. From Biblical references to Cane and Able (the story of the first murder), to the extinction of the wooly mammoth and the dinosaurs from the ice age, the play conquers every part of history that is recorded and references it in a hyperbolized manner to get it’s point across. But the question then comes down to: Why make a play about all of this? Why would you show this happening all at once? The answer is simple, perception.  

The reason Wilder goes about writing his play in such a manner with every problem the world has faced since the dawn of time, is to show the dramatization of history by people. In the first act, Wilder shows that all his characters speak in contradictions. This is strange at first, but when later looked at can be perceived as an attempt to show the back and forth thoughts people have toward historical events. People’s views constantly change of the world and no one person has the same view of it causing conflict, such as the contradicting thoughts in the play, throughout history. Wilder therefore hyperbolizes these events in the play to get his point across that in reality people are not rational. There is proof throughout history that people act in irrational ways for no apparent reason.

The Fool's Big Finale

The chorus, unique to Greek drama, is a band of people whose dominant role is to inform the audience of the developing emotions throughout the play. Played by numerous actors, this boastful crowd speaks in rhythmic verses, while assisting in keeping the forward momentum of the play. Sophocles demonstrates this idea throughout his tragedy, Oedipus Rex, employing the chorus as a means of motion, action and knowledge. They help to establish the facts behind King Oedipus as the tragedy unfolds. Throughout random scenes in the play, the chorus will systematically chime in their response, influencing the audience in a certain direction. Shakespeare uses this idea in The Tragedy of King Lear, but places the roles of the chorus in the characteristics of the Fool, an intelligent knave who follows and mocks the king’s every action. Though the Fool only has a small part, without his role, King Lear would lose a part of its tragedy and strength. The Fool's adds to the plays dynamtic, filling in faults of and confirming outside reactions on the actions of King Lear. The Shakespearean Fool’s informative songs, ironic jokes and judgmental remarks have a strong comparison to the purpose of a Greek chorus, persuading the audience’s emotions and confirming events of the tragedy.

Guns, Sluts, and Gandolf.

            Well, we just finished watching a movie adaptation of King Lear and I can give it a good “whoa”. In actuality, I enjoyed the film quite a bit. But my admiration doesn’t stem from a normal appreciation of cinematography.

            While I appreciated everyone’s favorite grey/ white wizard, I relished the silliness of some aspects of the film. I observed a good number of notable occurrences. One example is Goneril’s(or Regan’s, I forget which) hyper sexuality towards Edmound. During many a scene, she would be arched on her back in a suggestive manner, resembling more of a succubus or nymphomaniac prostitute than a queen. This was especially hilarious due to the fact that she was fairly unattractive. I thought we were watching King Lear, not the soft-core pornographic rendition “King Lear: lonely housequeens.” On a lighter note, I found Cordelia quite pretty.

            There was also a sense of anachronism throughout the movie. In one instance, the fool(who’s disappearance was forcibly interpreted by the director), appeared to wear a modern buttoned shirt. While Lear and his crew trotted round in their Middle Ages pajamas, the fool dressed like your average car salesman. Another anachronism was the use of guns. When we read Lear in class I figured, due to the primitive tortures and SWORD FIGHTS, that the play’s violence revolved around knights on horseback. I was apparently wrong. Besides every foot soldier armed with a Revolutionary War musket, our dirty boy Edmound decided to disarm his colt .45 pistol before dueling his brother. So you, ingenious Edmound, would drop your modernized high caliber pistol for a rusty rapier? Good for textual accuracy, idiotic under logical circumstance.

            Despite how silly the director decided to make certain details of the King Lear movie rendition, at least the key aspects of the plot remained true. Oh, wait… Where in the text does the fool get executed by a ragtag squad of amateur mercenaries? Nowhere that can be cited. Where does the text warrant Edgar to look like a bonafide house robber while killing his brother? Page… none(this however I liked). Where does the text make Kent such a creep? Every dialogue he participates in. Overall, the movie attempted to amplify the enjoy-ability  of the play. The director, however, forgot that he was dealing with Shakespeare and thought he had his hands on the next Pirates of the Caribbean. I give it a thoroughly enjoyed 3.5/5. 

Changing Fate

While reading Oedipus Rex, we learn that Oedipus’ predicament is a result of his tragic fate. An oracle reveals to Jocasta and Laius that their son will murder his own father and sleep with his mother. Their son is an abomination. Jocasta and Laius decide to give up their son in order to prevent a curse. In their attempt to avoid horrendous events, they actually make their family’s fate more attainable. Maybe if they never tried to get rid of their son, they could have prevented their supposed fate. If Oedipus knew his mother, how would they have possibly slept together? He also would not have killed his father if he knew him. Laius’s death occurred because Oedipus did not know he was killing his parent. Perhaps if Jocasta and Laius raised and kept a watchful eye on their son, nothing would have happened. I believe Oedipus’ family could have prevented their fate. If one goes to an oracle or any psychic, they may learn a fate. That fate can come true if the person exerts strong energy into that thought. Maybe I am being too analytical of the situation that is actually leading me to a spiritual thought, but it was probably possible for Oedipus’ family to avoid their unfortunate fate.

Oedipus Rex Rhymes With...

            From what I can gather from the introductory sentences of recent posts, there is a general consensus of timidity when choosing the more "tragic" tragedy. My opinion is a bit more biased. My vote would have to go to King Lear for one main reason: I fail to see what is tragic about Oedipus Rex.

           

             I do not mean to take away from Oedipus nor do I intend to offend any fans(it is a renowned literature masterpiece). However, I decipher the Greek classic as a situational comedy. Much of Oedipus' dialogue consists of self condemnation. His general lines evolve into more complex self suicidal conventions such as, "For whoever he was who killed that man would as soon kill me with that same violent hand"(146-147).  Oedipus would not hesitate to kill himself? Ironically brilliant and funny. Another point of non tragic irony is the concept of Tiresias. The man is helplessly blind. This is ironic because of Oedipus' ultimate self body mutilation(which I find hilarious due to my view of Oedipus as a self righteous hedonist) and comical because of the childish banter between Tiresias and Oedipus. This argument reveals important plot information, but seems better suited for a commercial or TV sitcom. Ultimately, Oedipus relies on his parental fiasco as the source of the play's "tragic" nature. I, however, fail to see tragedy in this. The shock value of the fiasco is Oedipus' mother son relationship, a relationship which bears its own sub genre in pornographic taboo. There are people out there who love this stuff and would immortalize Oedipus for all the wrong reasons. Oedipus Rex's resolution is also too tame. Coldly, I could care less about Oedipus and his sisters/daughters getting banished. It's ironically delightful.

           

             In contrast to Oedipus, King Lear is a sponge of sentimentality. From start to finish, Lear's characters serve as relatable and emotional outlets. Unlike Oedipus, which I felt was monotonous, King Lear was spontaneous and realistic. I remember feeling bad for Cordelia as she was disowned and discarded(to France of all places). I recount finding genuine humor upon learning the filthiness of the Fool. The intrigue I took with every character alone makes the play more tragic to me than Oedipus. Such is the scene where a blind Gloucester reunites with Edgar; I wanted them to have a "moment" and they simply didn't. That's tragic. Another instance is when Cordelia reunites with Lear and Lear suggests, "If you have poison for me, I will drink it"(4.7-82), in an attempt for retribution. Literally three scene later the two die within close proximity and closer love. Beautiful and tragic. The sentimentality I bore with King Lear's cast is what makes it the greater tragedy for me. If this explanation proves too cheesy, than the tragedy poll can be determined by hard statistics: the King Lear body count is 8(?) main characters compared to Oedipus Rex's lone "hair trigger" suicide mother/wife. Most kills wins.

           

PS to Mr. V.- Sorry for the late post. Memphis had gorgeous weather, smooth alcohol, and fine southern women. It didn't have wifi.