Comedy Errors Play

Personally I would not recommend this play to a friend, the theater was extremely sketchy and the cheaply made props and sound effects were a major turn off. Another turn off was the story. I found it to be extremely creepy at times. Overall I would call the production a successes due to the fact that there were no major mishaps like missing or messing up a line.

I've been experiencing live productions for my whole life. My relationship with the performers was very strong. Usually, when I see a live production, I look for character development, change, and believability. Bingo:The Winning Musical did not change what I look for in a play, but it did give me a new experience for looking at musicals.

Seeing my friends and other students having fun and making me feel like I was up on that stage with them. There were two specific characters that really stood out to me, these two characters stood out to me because, they were full of emotion and energy through the whole night for all the shows. My favourite characters were Corny Collins, and Amber Von Tussle. I think the rest of the cast could have used more energy and used their emotions more because, through most of the show some people showed no emotion at all and had a straight face. In the opening number of the play everybody had energy and was happy with emotions. I think that was the best energy in the whole show. However, I get it the lights on the stage are hot and by the end of the night you get exhausted because you are using up all your energy. You got to fight through it either by staying hydrated, eating, or taking a rest on a break you must get through. Performing is a very hard thing to do, and while you are working your butt off some people in the audience think it's easy. Until they try and do it and find out the challenges and how hard it is to do the things we

I found the play to be far superior in comparison to the original film version as the movie's writing glorified modern American consumerism. A post war financial boom brought a great amount of advertising and promotion, and the movie was overflowing with blatant celebration of products. The presence of sexism as well of the obvious lack of racially diverse main characters, was a big problem for me in my terms of likability of the movie. The play was able to strip itself of the gaudiness/lack of diversity and that left room for a brilliantly crafted sub-plot with a well rounded cast and smartly written script.

The overall production helped clarify the plot of the story for me and gave me more clarity for concepts I did not fully grasp. Certain scenes I did not understand as well while reading such as the scene when Benedict is hiding from Leonato and Pedro was confusing as I read it, but seeing it be performed helped me see how the scene worked and also the comedic elements in the scene. I also struggled to understand that Beatrice and Benedict’s friends were tricking them into liking one another. I struggled understanding the deception that takes place in the story such as the scene in which Don Pedro discussed tricking Hero into falling in love with Claudio in Act one, Scene one:

The play of Our Town, had me on the edge of my seat the entire time. This play was one of the best plays that I have ever seen and it was definitely worth the price of admission. This was the best play that I have ever seen because most of the characters knew their lines and they did a marvelous job using the stage without any scenery in the background.

I had been to a few musicals near my hometown, but they were rather lackluster and not very well produced. This left a sour taste in my mouth when it came to amateur theatre performances, so I hesitated in buying tickets for Oklahoma!. When I talked to my teaching assistant, she persuaded me to give it a try because I might have a very different experience. I am glad that I went, because the performance was a very vibrant show that meshed the excitement of college students with the pioneer lifestyle of the great plains.

I will be honest with you I had a lot of trouble enjoying the play, like I said the dialect gave me trouble, plus my seats were not that great. I did however like the movie quite a bit, but I realize I am a product of a different generation as well. I have been brought up around TV and movies rather than plays

In conclusion, I thought this play was a great choice for me to see at the theatre. I was glad I went to see it because it made me realize that your opinion doesn’t have to be the most popular opinion. I need to stand up for what I believe in and that is what this play taught me. I do prefer a comedy over a tragedy and I am upset with the ending but I cannot complain because I enjoyed this play very

You can have the best set and the best director in the world and without good acting the play is bland and meaningless. Fortunately there was good acting in both of the acts. In Bourbon the main character Roy portrayed the stereotypical war veteran, always at a bar, drunk, and rambling about stories in the past. Best of all he did so in a believable manner, his age also helped reinforce the believability of the character. Ray portrayed the younger brother quite well, once again had the age to make it seen as if he was the younger brother to Roy. Ray played his character quite well looking up to his brother through out the Bourbon scene. Cletis was well played as well; this was a character that was supposed to look and act as a dorky character and Cletis did so flawlessly. The characters made the play feel as if they were not acting rather being themselves which made the play a lot more relatable, enjoyable and believable. In the Laundry act of the play Elizabeth was portrayed by a woman who was similar in age as Roy which helped keep the play’s realistic theme throughout the play. All of the actors did a great job with their accents and added that southern feel to the play. Acting is a vital part in all productions in pushing the setting and making the play seem

Shakespeare didn't have lights, or fog machines or expensive stage set ups. He didn't have women to act for him. This is what makes him so great. He was able to put on an entertaining show for people that made sense. He was able to make it so people would want to come and see his shows. Shakespeare kept the people coming back to his shows which was very rough considering the circumstances he had to deal with. He had to teach the actors their parts in only a matter of days and they had to

I enjoy comedies and I love many of the songs that were in the play so I could not help but laugh and sing along at times. The production was very good overall. I was uncomfortable with the strippers. The very suggestive dances and constant presence of the outfits were not necessary for the overall story. The females playing the strippers did a good job and did deliver in lines and lyrics. The actors did a very convincing job. The vocals were strong and the live rock band gave the show a punch. The small stage and limited seating at the Virginia Samford Theatre were strengths. The actors were close and you could see every expression. The size of the theatre helps pull you into the play.

Does a family always find their way back together and can a family bond be broken? In the Comedy of Errors by William Shakespeare he shows how a family comes back together even though the distance and the time spent apart. No matter how far a family bond won’t be broken.

The Comedy of Error is one of Shakespeare’s earliest pieces. Although the story itself seems to be a farcical comedy, a physical comedy without a deep meaning, his language makes every character to be vivid, and grants each of these characters a different personality, and reflects the relationship between different characters. His language creates an environment that the characters are not merely people on the stage, but actual human being in front of the audience in everyday life. Another element that makes his audience to care about the characters is the relativity the audience with the story. Here are the reasons to the statement above.

The Comedy of Errors, is a play written by William Shakespeare, which follows the lives of two sets of twin brothers, Antipholus of Syracuse and Antipholus of Ephesus and their slaves Dromio of Syracuse and Dromio of Ephesus: who were separated after birth and how they were all brought back together out of error. That error not only affects the lives of the men, but also their significant others specifically Antipholus of Ephesus’ wife Adriana. The error that all parties face signifies an overarching theme of time; every error that occurs would not have happen would it not be for time. The Comedy of Errors is a depiction of how time leads to misfortune in the lives of its characters.