MY TWO BWST ENTRIES
WEEK 12 ENTRY SEMESTER 2 07
- Oct. 19th, 2007 at 1:33 PMOct. 19th, 2007 at 1:33 PMOct. 19th, 2007 at 1:33 PMOct. 19th, 2007 at 1:33 PMOct. 19th, 2007 at 1:33 PMOct. 19th, 2007 at 1:33 PMOct. 19th, 2007 at 1:33 PM
MY FICTIONAL REVIEW OF ARCADIA ON OPENING NIGHT!!!
Tom Stoppard's Arcadia was performed for the first time at the Australian Catholic University by some extremely talented literature students as directed by Michael Griffith, their lecturer. This play combined the genres of comedy, romance and mystery in a most entertaining manner.
Arcadia is a play set in two different timeframes but takes place on the same premises, Sidley Park, an old English cottage. In the 19th century, Thomasina (played by Jade Debski), an extremely intelligent young student lives there and is tutored by Septimus (played by Adam) who is friends with Lord Byron. Thomasina is the daughter of Lady Croom (played by Marie Backo) who is constantly annoyed with Noakes the butler (played by Lauren Banfield) about his gardening style. The 20th century characters include Hannah (played by Evana Jajjo), Valentine (also played by Marie Backo), Bernard (played by Adam Halgren), Chloe and Gus (both played by Bianca Tsimnadis). Hannah is interested in finding out about a hermit who lived there in the 19th century and Bernard is interested in learning more about the famous Lord Byron. As they continue to figure about bits and pieces about their respective subjects they uncover more than they expect about the past.
The performances of the actors and actresses were phenomenal. They delved into their characters and even those ploaying more than one character were able to transform in minutes from one character to the next. I could not believe that these were merely students. I was watching the very art of method acting: their costumes, vioces, language, gestures and facial expressions down to the very movement of their eyes was planned with such precision that they completely captivated the audience. I have never seen a theatre audience return to their seats so long before the intermission was over. The didn't want to miss a minute of this remarkable performance.
The set was as impressive as the acting. The set stayed exactly the same for both periods. There was a table of random objects from both centuries placed altogether. These objects included a laptop a globe, candles, a turtle and many other things. These remained unmoved as the play crossed over from century to century. The table acted as a connector and reinforced the idea that the events took place in the same cottage but in different centuries. It was simple to identify which period the actors were from through their costumes, make-up, language and even from the music played in the background. All confusion of the audience due to the constant flicking between centuries was cleverly avioded through all of these techniques.
The script was also very clear. Although dealing with very abstract mathematical and scientific theories, concrete examples were provided. For example, in order to explain the theory of heat moving only one, the simple example of tea going cold but never hot again is used. This is the typpr of simple language used which allowed for the pla to be enjoyed by people of all cultures and backgrounds.
This film was ingeniously written, directed and performed. I have never been so sure that I was witnessing a play that will go down in history as a pivotal point in English drama. Stoppard has combined elements of comedy, mystery, romance, science, history and art all into this dramatic representation.
I strongly recommend this play is worth every cent you pay for it, unlike some of the rubbish that has been playing at the same venue lately
Click to viewCOMMENT ON ROSALIE'S ENTRY
I think you played your character fantastically in the lecture and believe that you really understood the character and became her. Your entry as the character in Under Milk Wood describing your life is written so well. The language you have chosen and even the obvious lies you are telling as the character in your journal really do make sense. I think you're a fantastic writer and actress and in LJ and your performance in week 11 lecture you really show this.
Well done and keep up the hard work.
Thanks rosalie
Week 9 Entry Semester 2 2007
- Sep. 23rd, 2007 at 10:01 PMSep. 23rd, 2007 at 10:01 PMSep. 23rd, 2007 at 10:01 PMSep. 23rd, 2007 at 10:01 PMSep. 23rd, 2007 at 10:01 PM
How relevant do I think Orwell’s views on the abuse of the English language are to today’s society???
Well I'd like to start by saying that I think that this text is very relevant to the unit and believe we should have studied it in our first semester... Orwell has a very valuable lesson to teach to al literature students and even anyone who writes or speaks english for that matter which is quite a large proportion of the world. It's probably safe to assume as he does that the same abuse of language occurs in many foreign languages too. But like us they wouldn't notice until it was pointed out by a fellow like Orwell... It is interesting how long we can live in ignorence about such mistakes and this is probably half of the problem. People don''t know what they're doing wrong and so can't fix the problem. I will later explain (for those who haven't been enlightened by Orwell) just what I'm dribbling on about.
To the lit students:
I think that if you randomly pick up one essay from those that we have handed in to MG, over the last couple of years that we've been at uni, that you will be able to spot many instances where we have fallen into the traps that Orwell categorises as "dying metaphors", "operators", or "verbal false limbs", "pretentious diction" and "meaningless words". (Did I just do it then? "fallen into the traps"? YES I DID!!)
Anyway I'd like to (I almost wrote "make a note") TYPE in this space the warnings that Orwell provides to avoid this terrible type of Modern English writing that he detests and modern examples of the problem:
1) Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
“Life is short” What do we know that’s longer? The connotations have changed and we should use a better phrase according to the context in which we are using the phrase e.g. "take the risk" or "be ruthless" etc depending on what we want it to mean.
2) Never use a long word where a short one will do.
Use "obscure" instead of "incomprehensible" if this conveys the meaning you want.
3) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
“Bianca couldn’t complete her work because of the fact that she was sick”. If you omit “of the fact that” you are still left with the same meaning!!
4 ) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
How much better does it sound when someone says “I love you” instead of “You are loved by me”.
5) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivelant.
Use “meeting” or “date” instead of rendezvous
6) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
As Orwell says, even a minority can make a difference to the abuse of the English language that is taking place. Start with your own writing and hope that others are influenced.
Hope this all helps towards Orwell’s cause!!
NOTE: For anyone who is interested, the picture of the legend George Orwell at the top of this page is a hyperlink to his essay upon which this entry is based, Politics and the English Language".
Comment on Melissa's journal for week 9
I am glad that you spoke about the two passages that we analysed in the lecture. I also believe that the Ecclesiastes version is much clearer and simpler to understand. I think it's because the imagery used is not common to our world. However it is interesting to ponder if when that text was written whether the writer was using dying metaphorss... To us they are fresh because we don't use them but did they have the same effect on the people for whom they were written at the time?? I wonder....
- Location:INTERNET CAFE
- Mood: amused
- Music:RANDOM