Still Life Essay, Research Paper
The scene of Still Life is in present clip, but the focal point of the drama is on the Viet Nam War epoch. Three characters address their experience in this clip epoch. Their experience is told in a documental manner. The characters are behind a long tabular array with images scattered everyplace, ashtrays, and H2O spectacless. They address the audience alternatively of a individual being when being interviewed. The interviewer does non include the inquiries being asked in the drama, which leaves room for tally on confusion when reading the drama and would likely be easier to follow piece in production. And it is believed that the drama is suppose to be every bit simple as possible.
It is suppose to be every bit simple as possible because of the given scene. A long tabular array with merely a few existent props needed, the slide projector and images. There aren T any extra props beside the H2O and the ashtrays. There are no flashback scenes where the full scene is changed. It is all in narrative told format. In a manner that is good because it leaves room for the audience to judge on who is the existent whacked character of all. Because so much attending is needed on the character s response the writer does non utilize a batch of props or any scenery alterations. And she keeps the clip puting on a individual twenty-four hours period to maintain the likely thought of impulse traveling.
The H2O and the ashtrays merely give a sense of the interview being combined with all three characters present. And in the book when read the image is given that all three characters are being interviewed all in the same room at the same clip. This is entire confusion. When reading, one gets caught on one character and focal points on that character. So the reader misses out on what the other characters have to state. Or they would hold to halt and reread to happen out what merely happened. There is a possibility that the writer interviewed the characters at different times, and decided to set all the parts together, as though they were taking bends replying the inquiries sentence by sentence. It is thought so because when Cheryl explains why she is so frightened of Mark, Nadine doesn T have a existent reaction to it. I m frightened knowing that I have to maintain my oral cavity shut & # 8230 ; I ve got nil else to make & # 8230 ; If I of all time told him I was scared for my life, he d freak out. If I of all time said anything like that, how would he respond? Would he acquire angry? What do you believe? & # 8230 ; I got excessively much to lose & # 8230 ; I don t wide area network na be entirely for the remainder of my life with two childs. And Nadine s reaction ; I ve ever understood how people could ache each other with arms. If you ve been hurt to the quick, and a arm s around, WHAP. I signed my divorce documents because last clip he came over, I knew if there d been a gun around, I d ve killed him. ( Act I Scene 8 ) It doesn t do any sense ; the characters do non hold any reaction to the other, which merely leaves room to theorize
that the interviews were done individually. It does add a turn to the documental manner, yet it makes sense if put in a drama production. It s non all excessively amusive merely reiterating what person replies to. But when in the production, there would likely be light focal points on each character as they had something to state, and when both are speaking, both characters would be illuminated. Like in Act I Scene 5 where Nadine and Cheryl. Nadine and Cheryl, for the first existent apparent clip they seem to hold a connexion. They both realize that their childs are of import, and that s where they likely can repair their errors that they made, by non allowing their childs make the errors they made.
The picks of characters are every bit good chosen. There is a immature twosome who has non truly had clip to believe things through as a twosome. Then there is an older lady who has purportedly been through it all and is much more educated on life than the younger two. There is so much discord in each of their lives it leaves feelings that they have no clip to pass on or hold a job communication. Mark, 28, has a immense compulsion with the war and the past. But most of it is focused on the war. His yesteryear is told through his alone aggregations of images with a slide projector, a piece of engineering that is used to stress the clip period being discussed. The audience truly does non see or hear of his life before the war except for the fact that his parents sent him, and now they regret it. Cheryl, besides 28, can t retrieve the yesteryear excessively good, yet she focuses merely on the hereafter. And Nadine notices her past and efforts to alter the nowadays for a better hereafter. To add to the soliloquies each character has, there is spice added into it. It is suggested that each soliloquy be produced like a musical wind rift, with exhilaration, raise in tone or pitch, and so brought back down to finish the soliloquy. Even better explained as an improvisation, where the character takes off into their ain universe.
The effectivity of the drama would be much more amusive or interesting if it were in a production. But when reading, focal point can be scattered throughout the book. There are no notes on whether to utilize illuming upon the phase in the book, which leaves the readers to decision that the drama can perchance be effectual in the dark, with merely focus on the projector, or with limelights on each character. When reading the focal point is taken off from an over all position of the drama, and focused onto one character. Whether or non that was the initial program of Emily Mann, writer of Still Life, confusion is brought about when focused on one character intermingled with others. Possibly if the book was separated at each characters line, comprehension would hold been easier and the drama would hold been easier to concentrate on the subject of the Viet Nam War epoch, with the protests, sex, drugs, and the after life of the Veterinarians.