23 June Play--> Arthur Miller's "After the Fall"

This play was one hot mess, and felt like it's how Miller got over his sense of guilt of possibly contributing to Marilyn Monroe's death. I wonder if it would have come off well as a film or a novel on some level, but as live theatre I just don't see it really working. The play is episodic, and takes place in the mind of the Miller figure Quentin, with characters from his life walking in and out of view. Some of the characters were clearly stage representations of people I'm aware of in Miller's own life, and others were not. It was not quite as scathing of Elia Kazan (whose dopelganger Mickey appears for only one scene, and then briefly as a recurring memory later) as I had anticipated, which may have been one of the reasons he accepted directing the thing. On the whole, however, it seemed to paint Quentin/Miller as this "upstanding" moral figure, who had been a victim his whole life simply by trying to do right by women who never seem to get enough of his love. His character is essentially struggling to accept and offer love again, by trying to work through these past incidents (there's also the minor sub-plot about naming names that would probably have made for a much more compeling topic, but I guess he already wrote that play, so oh well). It's hard to not be put off by Miller after reading this-->Quentin does not read as a sympathetic character, and is painted as an earnest man who never seems to showcase any character flaw except for his incessant talking and perhaps caring too much. And his quest for innocence for himself and for his relationships throughout the play just comes off as...boring? I suppose the problem is that there seems to be little sense of humility in the character, and the audience never really sees him do anything rash or, dare I say it, HUMAN, so there's no investment in watching to see if he redeems himself since he never seems to do anything wrong in the first place. He neglects his first wife because of his work, and his second wife Maggie--based on Monroe--is too destructive to accept the love he tries to offer her. But that affection seems disingenuous, undermined by the impression the audience gets that Quentin believes Maggie is just what he keeps telling her she isn't: a slut, dumb, used, etc. The fact is, Quentin seems to grapple with only the problems he manifests in his own mind by over thinking every relationship/incident in his life, and not the black-and-white situations staring him in the face that he had a hand in on some level. But maybe that's the point--to show the character completely devoid of this simple self-awareness. It may be a nuance that can only come out of seeing a performance. But I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket.

Some positive things: The ripple effect Miller achieved by having characters enter and say lines from scenes previously staged for the audience to reinforce the effect/hold Quentin's past had on him was really interesting, and took the play deeper in terms of a psychological journey into this character's mind, and gave a sense of frenzy that probably helps the pacing at certain points.

All in all, this play could have used a dramaturge when it was first being written. Sadly, back in 1964, that job title didn't really exist. It's a shame, too--it's Miller, so the writing isn't bad, necessarily. The play's just a bit overfull, and was exhausting to read, and I suspect would be exhausting to sit through. I know I said A View from the Bridge was depressing, but it was still a very good play. This, in comparison, feels preachy, self-indulgent and self-serving, and just...unimportant. The best two lines in my opinion are the final two pieces of dialogue between Quentin and potential lover Holga. That says something all on its own.

Monologues: 1 for Holga, a German woman in her late thirties, early forties, but not for me. Alas--it might have made the Fall worth it.

"The play's the thing..."

Last summer I got all ambitious and set out to read one play a day. Didn't happen. After spending a lot of time trying to dig up a decent monologue of a certain length for last week's audition, I was once again confronted by how dreadfully under read I am. I mean it. It's almost embarrassing. So this summer I'm going to try once again, and attempt to read one play for every day of the working week. This will hopefully expand my general theatrical knowledge, and assist in the finding of more useful monologues--though the young, female comedic continues to elude me. (Seriously: girls in their teens talk a lot and are sometimes funny when they're not talking about being molested or having an abortion, thirty-somethings are neurotic about men and potential spinsterhood, and older female parts are ornery. But a monologue that's comedic and written for a woman in her twenties: they don't seem to exist. For reals. What the hell? Why is no one writing these? We are real, damn it!)

Anyway, the stipulations of this self-imposed challenge is that I read five plays a week, Monday through Friday, and that I log/blog what I've read to prove that I have read it. I also cannot read a play I have already read (even if it's a different translation of something I've read before--doesn't count), though I can count plays I've never read the entirety of but have worked scenes from in various academic situations (yes: I should have read the whole play at that juncture, but I used to be a slacker--what do you want?). I can also read plays I read a long time ago but have, in fact, completely forgotten (it happens). My hope is to find one monologue a week<--and quite frankly, that's pretty ambitious, really, considering the ratio of male to female parts in plays to begin with, and then making sure it's actually a good, audition-appropriate monologue. I could go into what makes for an appropriate audition monologue right now, but I won't--because I have to start reading a play, and soon!

I began yesterday with A View From the Bridge by Arthur Miller. Boy, that was depressing. I really wanted to read Odets (Odets, Odets, Odets!) so I chose a play I had on me by an author with a similar voice. The overlying difference between Odets and Miller though is that while they both present characters who at times have to call into question their own idealism because of their "real world" circumstances, some of Odets's characters are actually successful in getting out and moving away from whatever may be plaguing them--or if they can't, by the end of the play there is usually a sense of renewed hope or drive (disregard Paradise Lost, please). With Miller, they're all pretty much doomed from the beginning. Still, there was a good monologue in this play--good for auditions for plays of that ilk--for someone my age, so I've already filled my quota for the week. Huzzah!

Today, another Miller: After the Fall. This play is terribly autobigraphical, even though Miller largely denied that when he wrote it, and it is supposed to suck. We shall see. If anything, I'd like to read his whole cannon this summer, as I'm really only familiar with All My Sons, Death of a Salesman, and The Crucible--those three standards. I have also seen The Misfits. Meh.