#play analysis

[keelpay]

https://x.com/amartinez_27/status/2043010524586319926?s=20

idk if you've been sent this but i thought it was a really interesting analysis of the sharks and mack's play!!

(tumblr goal video)

[allnumbb]

here’s a few of the play quotes that made me go “is moritz a trans girl???”

“to be you, ilse!” - moritz

this one is kind of self explanatory. you can interpret it differently, since moritz could just want the (apparent) freedom that ilse has away from her parents and school. but right before this line, moritz is trying to come up with a story to tell the angels about how he was a “real man” because he had sex with ilse, which he didn’t. he trails off, maybe realizing he doesn’t even want that, before having an outburst about how much he wants to be ilse. this could be interpreted sexually, like the touch me scene, but i think it applies more to the perceived freedom of ilse (especially if she is cross dressing during this scene) since she has escaped the constant gender conformity of their home.

“the court conjurer-in-chief took off the smallest of these heads and set it upon the queen’s body. and, behold, it became her extraordinarily well!” - moritz

this is from the headless queen monologue, when one of the (gender not specified) heads from the king is given to the headless queen. it’s interesting to note here that this is a story that moritz fixates on and romanticizes, so he may have also thought about this element and wished he could do the same; to put his head on the body of a girl and become her “extraordinarily well”.

“if i weren’t a girl, i’d kill myself. so that the next time—“ - wendla

moritz doesn’t say it, but i find it interesting that this line is included considering that moritz is the only one who commits suicide in the story. wendla saying “so that the next time—“ (before being cut off) implies that she would kill herself to be reincarnated as a girl. that especially applies to moritz, as he idolizes ilse right before his suicide, a part of him wanting to have her life.

[ponderingwithaly]

HPD & PTSD in A Streetcar Named Desire (1951): A Deep Dive into Blanche Dubois ⋆ ˚｡⋆

Hey guys... long time no see!

Anyways, I'm back from my trip and I'm going on another one in 2 days due to some family matters. Due to that and *cough* finals week... *cough*, I've barely had the time to write.

For this post, I don't have the brain capacity to analyze a song or create new original content (thank you finals week), BUT, I wrote a paper for my psychology class discussing mental health disorders present in A Streetcar Named Desire's Blanche Dubois.

So, for today's post, enjoy a brief (?) summary of my analysis of Blanche Dubois and why I think she's a embodiment of Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD) overlapping with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Let's get into it!

To start off with some context, A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) is a film adaptation of Tennessee Williams' original playwright (with the same name). In the story, we are introduced to the mysterious yet complex character Blanche Dubois, a typical southern belle from her hometown of Belle Reve, Mississippi. The plot follows her time staying at the home of her sister and brother-in-law, Stella and Stanley Kowalksi, in New Orleans.

It is clear throughout the progression of the narrative that Blanche isn't doing well mentally, and as the plot climaxes, we see the troubling origin of Blanche's distress: when she was 16, Blanche witnessed the suicide of her at-the-time husband. It can be inferred that Blanche's behavior could be a response to the trauma she experience in her youth as well as her own way of coping.

Now let's look at the symptoms, which I will be dividing into three categories: behavioral, cognitive, and psychological. Regarding behavioral symptoms, Blanche has a consistent pattern of being concerned over her appearance (i.e. avoiding bright lighting, degrading comments of her own looks, etc.). Additionally, she has a very flirtatious and sometimes seductive nature, and majority of the time, this brings inappropriate interactions in her relationships (i.e. the young paper boy). The final key behavior is her speech pattern. Blanche typically talks in a southern belle pattern for majority of the film. However, near the ending where she starts losing her grip on reality, her speech pattern drastically changes, and the southern accent completely goes away.

Most of the cognitive symptoms we see within Blanche seems to be related to her traumas. When she was talking to Stella about losing Belle Reve, it can be inferred that her way of thinking is distorted (i.e. accuses Stella of judging her when Stella wasn't displaying judgmental behavior at all). Blanche seems to experience flashbacks to her husband's suicide. There is a scene near the end of the film where she describes hearing the song Varsouviana Polka, claiming that the music would only stop once she heard a gunshot. This is the song that was playing when Allan (her husband) shot himself.

Psychologically, Blanche is a very emotional person, and the smallest trigger seems to have the ability to rapidly shift her mood or the emotions she's experiencing. She also appears to experience constant anxiety, especially about the way people perceive her. If she brings her looks into the conversation and doesn't receive the praise and validation she seeks, her mood negatively shifts very quickly.

These symptoms, as well as smaller non-noted details, is what leads me to believe that the most accurate diagnosis for Blanche is Histrionic Personality Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

HPD is a very controversial disorder diagnosis thanks to its supposed misogynistic contextual past. Regardless, seeing Blanche through the lens of these disorders, or mental health as a whole, shows a complex example of how different factors may combine after a traumatic event and manifest into personality disorders. It shows a very unique perspective of how a very real (despite controversial) disorder can affect an individual's life.

Anyways, I hope y'all enjoyed this slightly different post! I was very proud of how this paper come out and turning it into a more digestible post was equally as fun to write.

I'm gonna go start writing some additional posts to save as drafts now... see y'all next time!

[blooms-in-april]

Controversial take I guess, but I feel that Cyrano's giant nose (or giant nose equivalent ) is an important part of the storyline.

The entire Cyrano story revolves around him believing he is too ugly to be loved. And he has a reason for believing this! A rather big reason!As wrong as it is, people DO judge others based on appearance. Not fitting the socially accepted standard of beauty DOES impact how people treat you! Cyrano isn't simply building up his insecurities out of nowhere. He's not just a man with poor self esteem and anxiety. He's a man who does not and cannot fit societal beauty standards and it affects his life, specifically his romantic relationships.

When you take away the nose (or nose equivalent) you take away the conversation about how people who look different are treated differently. People argue that the nose is unrealistic- but the giant nose is just a rather on the nose theatrical example. People who don't fit the social standard of beauty do exist. And they do face struggles and rejections because of their appearance. And when you take away Cyrano's nose, Cyrano's REASON, I feel you take away a big part of the story's heart and power.

[waateeystein]

Analyzing Nick Dear's Frankenstein (and why we should move on to better play adaptations)

Alrighty y'all, its the long-awaited Nick Dear Frankenstein analysis post! This post is focusing specifically on Dear's characterization of the Creature, and why it negatively affects the play overall (plus some adaption theory added in for funsies). For additional context, I am an MFA candidate studying theatre, and I did this research and the accompanying slides for a project in my graduate-level theatrical criticism class. Basically this post is the text version of that presentation, with some of the slides included, and the fluff trimmed. There is a fair bit of academic jargon in here, but I tried to make it as accessible as possible!

And with all of that out of the way, the Nick Dear Frankenstein deep dive is under the cut! (And citations at the end.)

CW: Discussions of violence and SA.

Before I get into the script itself (which if you are interested in reading it, a PDF version is easily found on google), I want to introduce a fun adaptation theory which is specific to studying Frankenstein, called "Frankenstein Complex Theory." This theory comes from Dennis R. Cutchins and Dennis R. Perry in the introduction section to "Adapting Frankenstein: The Monster's Eternal Lives in Popular Culture." (A fantastic read that I recommend to anyone if your school or local library has it in circulation.) This introduction introduces the "complex" theory, as well as some really awesome ideas that get used and referenced by all of the authors included in the book.

Basically Cutchins and Perry assert that traditional adaptation theory is simple not enough to properly study Frankenstein and it's innumerable adaptations. One might also assert that Frankenstein itself is an adaptation, Mary Shelley published multiple editions of her story, and one could argue that the original story is an adaptation of other stories like "Paradise Lost." Linda Hutcheon, another academic in the field of adaptation studies who also wrote a fantastic book (cited at the end), talks about this idea of "palimpsestuous Intertextuality." I want to first argue here that the original text of Frankenstein and its adaptations (the "myth" of Frankenstein) are palimpsestuous.

And when I say the "myth" of Frankenstein is "palimpsestuous," its basically just saying that the "myth" (tall green guy with bolts in his neck who is mostly non-verbal, going around killing people mostly without rhyme or reason) is the predominate cultural narrative of Frankenstein's monster, rather than how he actually is in the book. All of the cultural ideas of what Frankenstein's monster is are this giant network which interweaves with itself, references and builds off itself, and constantly creates new things from these connections. The book and it's adaptations are not in hierarchy, one is not implicitly better or more important than another, they all work together to create our cultural narrative of Frankenstein's monster. Thus, palimpsestuous Intertextuality.

But what is this "Complex" theory I mentioned earlier, and what does it have to do with Nick Dear? Well, here is a helpful diagram!

Essentially, every piece of Frankenstein media every created, including Mary Shelley's original novel, are all part of the "Frankenstein Network." The complex, however, is personal, it includes anything from that network that you have personally consumed. Some people have a wider complex than others, but nonetheless, most of us have some kind of Frankenstein Complex (if you're this far in the post I'm assuming you have one lol.) I think Cutchins and Perry really popped off when they created this theory, its a fantastic way of studying/teaching adaptation.

But onto Nick Dear. Why did I just spend so much time covering adaptation theory and teaching you all a bunch of academic jargon? Well firstly, I spent a lot of time on that research for class and I wanted to share. But secondly and more importantly, my thesis for this entire post is that Nick Dear, whose goal with his play was to create an adaptation which humanized the Creature and sticks very close to the novel, created something that was unintentionally more a product of his personal complex and the palimpsestuous "myth" of Frankenstein's monster. He wrote a play that deeply mischaracterizes the Creature, and in turn uses violence and SA for shock value rather than substance.

And maybe this is a bold claim, but I think comparing the plot of the novel (from the creature's point of view) and the plot of Dear's play is a good place to start. And for your visual reference, I created a plot diagram for both so that we can compare the two side-by-side. (Thanks Freytag lol.)

The first thing we can notice about comparing the overall plot structure is that they are indeed, very similar. And this tends to be most people's reactions to seeing this play. That compared to most other Frankenstein media, it is super faithful to the book in terms of setting and characters and hitting important plot points. And I too want to praise Dear for that. I think he was extremely smart about what characters he chose to cut or combine, and the plot points he chose to include. I also personally love that despite the cutting of Walton's character, Victor and the Creature still visit the arctic at the end of the play. Dear made so many great choices with his play, but ends up squandering it his mischaracterization of the Creature.

But how is he mischaracterizing the Creature? Well first, lets look at how Shelley characterizes him in the book, specifically in terms of violence. I argue, that anytime the Creature kills someone in the book, it is a mostly equal/proportionate reaction to the violence done against him. His first murder his killing William, and the subsequent execution of Justine after he frames her for William's murder. All of this comes after Victor's initial rejection of the Creature, and rejection by multiple villages, the DeLacey's and the young drowning girl and her father. Killing William and Justine was his first retribution after all of the rejection and violence against him, which was initiated by Victor creating him and rejecting him in the first place. And this is his only planned revenge at that point, his next move was demanding that Victor create a female creature for him, with the plan to flee and live a peaceful life in South America (whether he actually meant what he said is up to interpretation.) His next murders only come after Victor destroys the unfished female creature. This is when the Creature kills Henry and then Elizabeth. Elizabeth (and arguably Henry) are Victor's partners, and the people he most personally loves. Killing them is direct retribution for Victor destroying the female Creature, who was supposed to be (at least from the Creature's perspective) the Creature's romantic partner. All of the Creature's direct murders are direct mirrors to Victor's transgressions against the Creature. William is killed for the initial rejection and subsequent exiling from society, Henry and Elizabeth are killed for the destruction of his future romantic partner.

Dear takes a different approach in adapting these murders. In his play, the Creature's first murder is not William, but is actually the DeLacey's. After being personally tutored by Father DeLacey for a significant amount of time, the eventual and fated meeting with Felix and Agatha arrives and the creature is rejected by them. Instead of going straight to Geneva, as he does in the novel, he first sets fire to the DeLacey's cabin, killing the entire family inside. To me, this feels like the first instance of spectacle and shock over actual substance. In both Shelley's novel and Dear's play, as the creature learns about humanity and war, he clearly has a distaste for violence and killing. And because of this, I don't understand why the Creature has such an extreme reaction to the DeLacey's, especially in this version where Father DeLacey shows him so much direct kindness, and it is Felix and Agatha specifically who reject him. Why would the Creature decide to kill them all? If Dear wanted to add additional deaths, why not just kill Felix and Agatha and spare Father DeLacey because of his previous kindness? This violence, to me, feels undeserved and does not mirror the violence done against him by this family. From a staging perspective, the visual of the house burning is actually a very impressive collaboration between the set and lighting designers on the giant stage of the National Theatre. But I question why this moment needs to be here, when the rest of the play and it's staging in the premier production already has so much beauty and shock and spectacle. This is also the first moment where I find the Creature unsympathetic, because this action seems overly extreme as a response.

After this moment, the murder of William is different but not too dissimilar in tone to the novel. At it's heart, it is still the Creature's first direct revenge against Victor. After this, our next big departure from the novel is when the female creature is fully brought to life, different to the novel where she is never fully given life. Victor killing her after she has been able to briefly live is a more extreme measure on Victor's part too, which by my own argument, may warrant a more extreme reaction from the Creature. And to be absolutely clear, Victor simply kills/dismantles her, and nothing more. As for the creature's reaction, Henry is a cut character in this adaptation, so we obviously don't see his death. Instead, the Creature kills Elizabeth, but in this version, not only does the creature kill her, he also r*pes her. This is my biggest point of contention with the play. To me, the subtext in Dear's version is that the Creature views both Elizabeth and the Female Creature as some kind of property, and when his property (the female Creature) is taken away by Victor, he takes Victor's property (Elizabeth) away too. Right before her death in the play, the Creature and Elizabeth actually have a really touching conversation, and they seem to genuinely bond. And so when the Creature eventually kills her afterwards, him r*ping her comes completely out of left field. The only explanation to me, is that despite empathizing with her, the Creature ultimately still views her as Victor's property, and needed to take her away from Victor in a way that was more than just taking her life from him. And honestly, it's a really gross interpretation of these characters. And I want to be very clear that I know depiction is not endorsement, and that I also believe there is a time and a place for depicting SA on stage, but this play was not the time nor the place. The creature simply killing Elizabeth is enough to get the point across, the SA seems to have been added for pure shock value, and again, spectacle. One could argue that this action done by the creature is part of his sexual awakening, just as he learns about other aspects of humanity. But again I believe this is not justified by the text of the play, and is written for pure shock value at the expense of another character, specifically a woman. I would call this misogynistic.

And these extreme reactions from the Creature in Dear's play seem to create this hyper-masculinized version of the character and the story. And I think that is a shame considering the original story was written by a woman, and Mary Shelley did a fantastic job of writing a story where the men can exist across a spectrum of masculinity, without needing to be this stereotyped version of hypermasculinity with a desire for sexual vengeance. I mean, Victor creating the Creature is a pretty clear metaphor for motherhood/parenthood, especially considering Shelley's experience with motherhood and the loss of her children and her own mother. And not to say that a cis man isn't capable of writing an authentic adaptation of a woman's story, but here, I think Nick Dear missed the mark, especially in regards to Elizabeth's death and his depiction of Creature/masculinity.

And I don't want to boil this down to, "Nick Dear is a man and therefore his adaption is automatically bad." Because I don't think that's the case, and I think that's an unfair assumption to make. What I do think, is that despite trying to make an adaptation that strove to humanize the Creature better than most other adaptations, Dear instead created an adaptation that fell into the overly-violent monster tropes of the greater Frankenstein Network of adaptations. In essence, Dear may have unintentionally become a product of his own "complex." And unfortunately, that subconscious influence may be partially why we get this interpretation of the Creature, and the unnecessary shock factors added into the story.

So where do we go from here? Chances are, if you see a theatre company putting on a production of Frankenstein, it's probably the Nick Dear version. This was the case for me last October when I accidentally attended a production of this script at a professional theatre company back home in Florida. My hope is that one day we can move on from this script, and find a Frankenstein play adaptation that humanizes the Creature in a way that most audiences (who probably have not read the book) are unfamiliar with, while also not resorting to shock value that dehumanizes the women in the story. My homework for myself beyond this research project, is to read more Frankenstein play adaptations, and specifically ones that are not written by cis men. I think the experiences of women, trans people and disabled people (or obviously any intersection of these communities and identities) could really lend themselves to new and exciting interpretations of the script that bring broader perspectives into context. If you have any suggestions of Frankenstein plays or playwrights who have written Frankenstein plays, I would love to check them out! I also suggest giving the National Theatre world premier pro-shot of Nick Dear's Frankenstein a watch, purely just for the design of the show. Costumes, set, sound and lighting are all really spectacular, and I would love to do an analysis of that aspect of the show one day.

Obviously there was a lot about this show I didn't cover (Cumberbatch, I know), I just wanted to cover the characterization of the Creature at a textual level, because to me that is the most glaring issue with this play. Please let me know your thoughts, and thanks for reading if you got this far!

Citations (I didn't do a great job of referencing these in-text, but all of these sources are great and I highly recommend checking them out!)

Cutchins, Dennis R, and Dennis R Perry. “Introduction- The Frankenstein Complex: When the text is more than a text.” Adapting Frankenstein: The Monster’s Eternal Lives in Popular Culture, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2018, pp. 1–19.

Dear, Nick, and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. Frankenstein: Based on the Novel by Mary Shelley. Faber and Faber, 2011.

Hutcheon, Linda. “Beginning to Theorize Adaptation: What? Who? Why? How? Where? When?” A Theory of Adaptation, Routledge, New York, New York, 2006, pp. 1–32.

Jones, Kelly. “Adaptations of ‘liveness’ in theatrical representations of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” Adapting Frankenstein: The Monster’s Eternal Lives in Popular Culture, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2018, pp. 316–334.

Pfeiffer, Lee. “Frankenstein: Film by Whale [1931].” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 24 Nov. 2023, www.britannica.com/topic/Frankenstein-film-by-Whale.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. 1818.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. 1831.

[buggy-beeps]

i’m currently working through an english essay about how the actor’s choices in othello impact the message of a line. my line’s not the strongest, but i’m happy with what i’m getting based off the blocking.

"The difference in movement between Quirshie and Msamati plays around with the idea of how power is controlled. Quirshie stays centered in the stage, giving him a grounding presence. It is his nonchalance about the situation that suggests he has control over the situation. However, it is this calmness that allows him to fade into the background. Msamati uses the fact that this is a performance and uses his stage presence, making large and frequent gesticulations and moving around the stage, to bring attention to himself, taking control of the scene. This suggests that feeling secure in power results in the loss of said power, allowing the power to be reclaimed by others."

[aliveandfullofjoy]

We must make the assumption that in the world of the play there are no accidents. Nothing occurs “by chance,” not even chance. In that case, nothing in the play is without significance. Correspondingly, the play asks us to focus upon it a total awareness, to bring our attention and curiosity without the censorship of selective interpretation, “good taste,” or “correct form.” Before making judgments, we must ask questions. This is the deepest meaning of the idea, often-repeated but little understood, that the study of art shows us how to live.

—Elinor Fuchs, “EF’s Visit to a Small Planet: Some Questions to Ask a Play” (x)

[falling-rhayne]

Be More Chill Is A Self-Aware Musical: A Conspiracy Thread

Note: I haven’t actually read the book yet, but I’ve watched the musical twice and have been pondering over the soundtrack for four whole weeks, so I have a lot of thoughts...

Okay, so in the intro song “More Than Survive”, Jeremy laments on about how he’ll never be the hero of the story. 

“Out of all the characters at school I am not the one who the story’s about...”

Which is like, a typical thing to say when you see yourself as the high school loser. Like, of course you think the story’s not about you. You’re not a popular kid. You’re wallpaper at best. But there’s something that always bugged me in the song. This line:

“And that’s not what I need right now. End scene. I hang a left and there’s--”

It may just be a quirky thing that Jeremy does, narrating himself like a writer would with their main character. I mean, he’s been narrating himself from the start, but at that point... At the point where he literally quotes words that can usually be found in a screenplay, well... That’s when shit got interesting for me.

Okay, so the song after “More Than Survive” is “I Love Play Rehearsal”, right? It’s a catchy song, and a great introduction to Christine’s character, but there are some parts of it that stand out for me. First of all, there’s:

“I love play rehearsal, ‘cause you’re equipped with directions and text. Life is easy in rehearsal, you follow a script, so you know what comes next.”

And, as someone who also has mild ADD, I relate to her on a spiritual level. Following a script is so much easier sometimes ‘cause you can stick to it and never get distracted by our own thoughts. You just go with it, and you know how it’ll all end. 

No fear. No anxiety.

Nothing holding you back.

But, get this...

Script = Squip

If you say Squip fast enough, it sounds like Script. I only recently realized this when I talked about the musical with a friend, who didn’t know what a Squip was, and said “I think you mean script?”.

It just hit me like a ton of fucking bricks.

Y’all might be thinking: “This is all just a coincidence! Squip doesn’t even mean anything! It’s just a fancy acronym for robotic shit!”.

Well, y’all might be right, but the last line of “I Love Play Rehearsal” kinda supports my lil’ theory:

“’Cause we’re here at play rehearsal. And it’s starting, we’re starting, it’s starting... Soon...”

The last word, “Soon”, doesn’t rhyme with the other words in this verse at all. It just comes outta nowhere, and kinda flows weirdly in the over-all song. Wouldn’t “now” be more appropriate? Because they’re already at rehearsal, aren’t they?

BUT IF YOU PUT IT INTO CONTEXT. WHAT’S COMING SOON? WHAT’S ABOUT TO HAPPEN? JEREMY’S ABOUT TO GET THE SQUIP.

And after he gets the Squip, not only does Jeremy become “the one who the story’s about”, but he also stops narrating himself. If you noticed the songs he sings after this, every time he tries to narrate himself, the Squip stops him.

JEREMY ISN’T ABLE TO WRITE HIS OWN NARRATIVE ANYMORE.

WHY?

BECAUSE OF THE SQUIP.

BECAUSE THE SQUIP IS THE SCRIPT.

This also explains why Michael gets blocked. If you noticed, every since “More Than Survive”, Michael has always been his own narrative.Chloe, Brooke, and Jenna enter Jeremy’s narrative because his locker is close to theirs. Rich bumps into Jeremy, and then has a conversation with Jake --  a convo related to what Jeremy overheard the girls gossiping about. And Christine? JEREMY FUCKING INTRODUCES CHRISTINE.

You know who he doesn’t introduce? At least, not voluntarily?

MICHAEL MELL.

Michael Mell writes himself into Jeremy’s narrative. He comes in out of left field, sushi and slushie in hand, introducing himself in a completely different melody. His song, his soliloquy, his fucking monologue “Michael In The Bathroom” is proof. 

No other song in the musical is named like this.

The whole title almost reads like a scene heading in a screenplay.

I might just be reading too much into this, but it almost feels like this song was something Michael inserted into the narrative. This is Michael’s POV. Because Jeremy’s drunk and his Squip is a lil’ out of it too. Michael has the time to insert his narrative into the story. FINALLY.

And the only other time Michael, or in another case Jeremy’s Dad, can insert themselves into the narrative is when Jeremy’s in a battle with his Squip. The only time the narrative is stalled enough for somebody else to enter with their POVs.

Because if the Squip is in control, the Script is back on track, and they’d have to force themselves into it again. Which explains...

“MICHAEL MAKES AN ENTRANCE!”