Things to look for in plays: 

• Title
• Characters
• Setting/Time
• Theme
• Tone/Mood
• Message
• Genre
• Audience
• Style
• Nationality
• Time Written
• Religion

Why does the scene have to be in the play?

Short essay. Short intro, 2 body paragraphs, conclusion.

• Exposition: Something explained in words rather than action.
• Point of attack: Where the action starts.
• Complication: Something that hinders the end goal that lead to the crisis.
• Reversal: When we find out that something is the opposite, changes, from new information.
• Conflict: Stops you from getting what you want, usually direct opposition. (Man vs man, man vs nature, man vs himself.)
• Rising action: The events leading to the crisis.
• Crisis: Usually with the climax, boiling point, where everything comes together/falls apart.
• Falling action: Conclusion, loose ends being tied up, resolution.

Mini essay: Selection of scenes: 

1. Why does this scene have to be included in the play?
2. Include quotations in each paragraph.
3. Identify the play, contextualize the scene, thesis of why is the scene in the play, body supporting, balance between the scene and the play.

Scenes: 1.2, 1.7, 1.8, 2.3, 2.6

Intro, 2 body para, 2 sentence conclusion.

Keep reading

In the article “The Case for Torture”, Michael Levin discusses how torture should be “morally mandatory” (1) when innocent human life is in danger and there is clear guilt. This text failed at being persuasive in every point of view. A large part of his argument is referencing admittedly unrealistic ‘what if’ scenarios rather than real world examples, there is little evidence presented outside of his own flawed logic and reasoning, and his complete dismissal of any potential counter-arguments towards his topic.

Over a third of the text in question is hypothetical scenarios in which terrorists take innocent life into their own hands, all of which have incredibly questionable validity. These feel like they were offered for no reason other than to induce emotion and possibly even alarm in the reader. One references a single terrorist hiding an atomic bomb in Manhattan only to be caught two hours before it is supposed to detonate, offering an ethical dilemma: should the criminal receive their right to counsel when there is a risk of detonation, or should that be stripped from them in favour of “subjecting them to the most excruciating pain” (2) until they give their torturers the information that they’re asking for? This, of course, assumes that the initially given option of simply giving the terrorist what they demanded in the first place isn’t at all reasonable once the terrorist is in custody. Levin admits within two paragraphs that this isn’t realistic at all, negating the validity of his example. He follows this admission with another wildly inconclusive example of a terrorist planting a bomb on a plane, assuming that a specialist in torture will just happen to be available and on said plane to neutralize the threat and wring the location of yet another imaginary bomb from him. The third example is nothing more than a complete farce of a scenario: a terrorist organization kidnapping a newborn baby, never mind the reasoning of why. Whose baby is it? Why are they taking it? The writer offered this example simply so that he could present the findings of his informally asking four mothers whether or not they would endorse the torture of kidnappers to get their newborns back. None of these examples hold any real merit in his topic and only distracted the reader.

Conveniently, this mentioned informal poll of his, no matter how flawed in its execution, is the only outside evidence given to support the entire essay. Everything else provided is the author’s own reasoning and logic from one point of view, with no credentials given to explain why his opinion should have any merit in the first place. Everything he mentions feels twisted and forced to support his opinion, or simply already is just that: an opinion. There are no direct references to exactly why torture is considered unconstitutional, only an indirect mention given only so that he can state that lives outweigh the constitution. No support is given as to why, possibly assuming that people will simply agree with this and move on. The same mention and dismiss tactic is used to hand wave away the claim of torture being barbaric. This paragraph ends with accusation of moral cowardice, an extreme version of the simple question “Why wouldn’t you do it?” He does later manages to offer a somewhat sound suggestion, arguing that terrorists have consciously revoked their rights while their victims have not. Had he focused more on this idea and backed it up with actual evidence, there may have been some validity in his argument. Levin speaks with authority, however none of the claims have any support that holds any merit.

When he addresses the other side, Levin doesn’t take any time to properly rebut them, simply dismissing them and moving on. He only minimally references counter arguments to his thesis in the first place, and every time it is to take advantage of it and offer more twisted logic and reason. In the statement “Torturing the terrorist is unconstitutional? Probably.” (3), he addresses the other side and even dismisses that he agrees with it in the first place, following it up with the suggestion that constitutionality shouldn’t matter in these cases. “But millions of lives surely outweigh constitutionality.” (3) He focuses on his argument and his argument only, weakening it significantly.

This could have been a great essay given actual research and acknowledgement of things other than his own train of thought. While the article argues for a very real moral issue, it is presented with unrealistic and fear mongering examples of terrorism, without any support from credible sources, and with complete dismissal to any view that isn’t that of the paper.

Answer the following questions in clearly written sentences, as a paragraph or series of paragraphs:

• What is the author’s thesis/main idea?
• How is the argument structured: what points are made to support thesis and in what order?
• How does the author support her opinion? What kind of evidence does she use?
• What conclusion does the article draw?

• Thesis: Theatre is dead.
• Argument: Very cyclical, propaganda-like statements that don’t actually say anything at all. The conclusions are decided and then minimal evidence is twisted to support them.
• No evidence. There’s just opinions mounted onto more opinions, supported by things that happened without mentioning the things that happened afterwards.

In the article “There is No Revolution, Televised or Otherwise”, Kristine Nutting argues that Theatre is dead, and that there is no room for post-revolution, or revolution at all, when it will be turned against the Theatre to kill it even more. Nutting expresses her opinion in this article with strong words and voice, leaving no room left for argument.

Theatre is dead, leaving behind no reason to revolutionize it. This is ideal for the industry, as “death is even more beautifully marketable than revolution because it can be modelled [sic] and posed” (86:2) for magazines. Gil Scott Heron is referenced, though the words being responded to aren’t quoted. It is stated that he is wrong and that the revolution wasn’t kept off of television, it simply never happened. People are too afraid to talk about ideas and the arts are dwindling and watered down. Nothing great moves on because mediocrity is what is rewarded. The shallow, forgettable empathy raised in simpler, safer plays is mocked and Nutting states that Theatre should be allowed to “die with the symptoms of late capitalism” (87:3) and “die with its white, upper middle-class audience–all over the age of 55.” (87:3) Anything that attempts to be more than safe is deemed offensive and having no worth. It calls the theatre out on producing play after play about “a white family and their dismal lives” (87:5). Theatre has become nothing more that “Art with a capital A, pretty art that means nothing” (87:5), and is something that nobody but the actors themselves enjoy for any reason deeper than how pretty everything was.

Nutting calls out our culture on reducing us to voyeurs at a peepshow, which is the only thing that is honest anymore. The article has several images and brief information from “Pig: A Peepshow of Forbidden Acts from the Farm” in sidebars.

The text is very cyclical but it always moves back to the primary conclusion of the article: Theatre is dead.

Page-to-Stage Essay

1500.

Identifies idea or theme. (Half the essay.)

Meet before Nov 18th.

Consider everything, but you don’t need to write everything.

Draft Nov 20th.

Final Nov 27th.

1. Exam: Saturday Dec 14th from 9-12.
2. Write technical review on a professional show: Costumes, makeup, props, set, lighting, sound.

In the article “American Space, Chinese Place”, Yi-Fu Tuan compares the ideals between American and Chinese homes and contrasts the American drive to hope for a better future with the Chinese drive to stay in one place.

the concept of home in American culture versus Chinese.

His essay encompasses the symbolism of space, or the area around ones home, and place, which is the immediate area that actually is ones home. 

His essay contrasts the strong ideals of Chinese “place” and “rootedness” with the American “space” and “wanderlust.”

The American “space” has perspective and views to the outside, reflecting their desire to look to the future.

The Chinese “place” is centered on what is inside its walls, displaying the dedication to one place and maintaining their current livelihood.

rooting them in one place.

Tuan implies that both “rootlessness” and “rootedness” have traits that can be admired and criticized, and that one or the other is often forgotten.

He also states that “space symbolizes hope; place, achievement and stability.”

Eng105: Week 7, Position Papers

In groups of three analyze the position paper “Friends with Benefits”

1. what is her thesis? Is it effectively expressed?
2. how does she organize her introductory paragraph? what kinds of strategies does she use?
3. where does she summarize the other side of the debate?
4. does she deal with counterarguments? is she fair to the opposition? why or why not?
5. how well does she use evidence? what kinds of evidence does she use (quotation, statistics, reasoning, facts, etc.)? what types of proofs (ethos, logos, pathos)?
6. identify her topic claims for each of the body paragraphs.
7. analyze the rhetorical situation of her paper. (see page 34.)
8. how does she organize her conclusion?
9. are there any problems with her argument? identify at least one.

1. Facebook provides an amplification of friendship but is not capable of replicating or replacing it.

“In other words, do Facebook friends- and the support we get from them- count?”

The thesis isn’t effectively expressed because, though alluded to and slowly strengthened throughout the essay, it isn’t cohesively stated until the end so you have to learn throughout what the focus of her argument is rather than simply being told, as you should be.

2. She initially uses a story without stating her thesis, appealing to emotions and not explaining why until the second paragraph. She hints at her thesis and asks the question behind it, but never actually states what her position is.

Par 1: anecdote
Par 2: explaining why she used the anecdote

3. She alludes to it throughout, and then summarizes a strong counterargument at the end.

4. I don’t feel that she rebuts properly, simply expressing both sides without actually proving or denying one or the other. It feels like the biggest topic of counterargument is more of an afterthought, rather than something that she properly addresses.

5. It’s everywhere. It feels as if it’s overkill: much of the evidence is helpful, and then much more simply drowns out the topic and begins to make it lose its meaning. Lots of quotations, a fair amount of reasoning, and mention of personal experience. An almost excessive amount of ethos, and some logos and pathos.

6. (4) Establishing what friendship means in each realm. (5) Friends online can be beneficial. (6) Isolation/loneliness (7) Self-esteem (8) Celebration/energization (9) counterargument (10) Shyness (11) Concession to counterargument

7. Topic: friendship on facebook. Angle: Is facebook positive for friendships, does it help amplify or replace it? Purpose: Facebook amplifies regular friendship and can promote a wider interest. Readers: facebook users and potential users. Older people who question it. Contexts: 

8. Awful conclusion. 

9. She doesn’t actually address anything, she just states sides and doesn’t really…do anything with it.

• Virginia in Berlin (industrial workers beating her)
• Everard and Monica (him confronting her about her lie)
• Rhoda reading the letter

Alice: Dear Rhoda, I must inform you of a matter of a desperate and urgent nature.

[lighting cue, changes from Alice to Rhoda, who is holding the letter]

Rhoda: We do not believe that Everard is who we have been led to believe.

Rhoda: Monica has just returned from a visit to the physician and he has informed us that she is with child.

Rhoda: It has come to our attention that Everard and Monica were engaged in a relationship in which he used her to sate his desires while he waited for you to open yourself to the idea of his supposed love.

Rhoda: We have strong reason to believe that Everard Barfoot is the father of Monica’s child.

Rhoda: Mary is appalled in the light of her cousin’s infidelity and we urge you to return to the school with immediacy so that we can settle this matter.

Rhoda: We are worried for you. Sincerely, Alice Madden.

(read 84-97)

1. amazing set
2. good levels
3. expected more comedy
4. not as edgy as expected
5. lots of real flame
6. darker than expected
7. irish comedy is not the same comedy we expect
8. monologues were too long
9. the toilet
10. nice that the stage could be abused/trashed
11. definitely enjoyable
12. wasn’t in the right head space
13. bbq didn’t burst into flame and was supposed to
14. quinn being murdered was great
15. *reminded of the merchant of venice?
16. odysseus and penelope were like gods
17. ‘suitably dingy’
18. balance of light and dark
19. monologues showed characters for who they were in a way
20. monologues were necessary
21. actors did a good job portraying characters
22. penelope was a very good actress - crying at the end
23. internal vs external struggle
24. changed between men focusing on penelope to men vs men
25. emotional rollercoaster
26. not expected
27. bad sight lines
28. couldn’t see penelope
29. amazing set design, but didn’t take the space into account
30. bad blocking
31. should ave been irish actors due to the manner of speaking
32. men are all bastards
33. quinn was most rounded
34. jfk bit
35. good acoustics
36. don’t know why penelope was drawn to the men
37. burns was in general really fucked up
38. very annoyed with the characters
39. expecting it to be a lot funnier
40. open to a lot of critical points - time period? why are they in a pool?
41. WANTED them to have the accents

1. overlooked that penelope was a person
2. trying to win the prize of Penelope
3. more about the competition
4. about how competition could break down a person
5. what the cost of a competition is
6. burns realizes too late what the cost was
7. realized that he could actually feel something for someone (murray)
8. driving factor was the impending doom of odysseus returning
9. deconstruction of four very evil/flawed people
10. four incorrect views of women
11. dunn: blaming problems on women, sex
12. fitz: need
13. quinn: invested in the idea of being evil
14. burns: invested in the idea of being good
15. distinguish between story plot and idea
16. question is how clear were those portrayed
17. real time on stage
18. very late point of attack
19. very little side story
20. central action is clear
21. human nature

1. need overlaid with selfish need and aggression
2. desperation
3. humour
4. irritating
5. displaced frantic energy
6. every character almost didn’t know what to do when the spotlight hit them
7. building tension
8. despair
9. why the fuck didn’t penelope know that odysseus was returning
10. dramatic/overdramatic
11. surreal
12. in limbo
13. study of the human condition
14. finally talking about what they actually feel rather than bullshit
15. psychological

1. no realistic relationship with time
2. relationship with the source text is more fluid and not realistic
3. there will be violence - the set tells us that
4. anachronisms
5. mix of genres

1. post modern
2. mixes high art with low art
3. she is a god to them
4. they’re trapped
5. food is all real food
6. spotlight
7. symbolic use of light on penelope
8. the sound is part of the world of the play
9. no power and yet everything works
10. where is the spotlight coming from?
11. how did they know when penelope was watching?
12. cheating a bit with the lights
13. things that appear on stage and what are they supposed to represent
14. hyper realism
15. metaphorical use of realism in a symbolic way
16. highly detailed set
17. less detailed gestures
18. elements of realism
19. elements of abstract/surreal
20. comedy spliced with philosophical/poetic pieces
21. absurdist

• what is the story that the play is telling?
• was the story told clearly?
• how clear is everything portrayed?
• what are the conventions?
• how do all these conventions go together?
• characters: were they interesting?
• were they believable?
• SHOULD they have been believable?
• what does the play want us to think?
• what are the rules?
• were they distinguishable?
• were each of them contributing something?
• think about the main idea of the play?
• acting?
• lighting design?
• set?
• ideas and the connections?
• how do you want to organize everything?

PROMPT SCRIPT

• title page
• key
• legend
• cast list - name/character/name/address/phone number
• crew list - “” “” “” “” “”
• props list
• rehearsal schedule
• costume list
• set list
• NEAT AND ORGANIZED
• ground plan with definition of placements
• colour coding is awesome