Ideation Vs Script

of the The director, Larry Raben excellently executed the performance.The actors put their full heart and soul into the characters, the play moves smoothly, and the costumes were more than I expected. Because of the acting, design, and lighting this performance must be seen.

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

Before I watched the play, I expected it to be terrifying and nightmare inducing, using different dramatics elements to strike fear. I was unsure on how they’d effectively use minimal props and actors and the final scene where the wife and child died. I thought that the timing of the performance would

Overall it held my attention. The comedy injected into this play allowed for the more poignant messages to be driven home. I could relate to the respective arguments of the two men. It makes you

They all clearly worked very very hard to be able to accurately portray their characters effectively. One thing that really stuck out to me was Dayandra Leos portrait of Jean. I am able to say this because I personally know Dayandra and saw her in many high school production, but she fully became Jean. At times, I even forgot who she was, I forgot that she wasn’t her character. It was amazing. This also had to be one of her best performances that i've seen her do. She was completely believable and I was stunned by her. Another performance I found to be shocking was Matt Magaldi portrayal of Gordon Gottlieb. His entire monologue in the middle of the play was just so funny and honestly very well done. I actually believed that he was a horrible guy who sold organs and only cared about himself. The fact that the audience could be so close and still be fully immersed into the world is pure talent.

Everything was so realistic; however, I do feel as if reality was bent a little in some parts to enhance the humor. One of my favorite characters from entire play was the Bellhop. I love the sense of humor that he adds to the play. He argued with Saunders throughout the entire play. My favorite scene with the Bellhop was when he brought the tea up so that could attempt to get Tito’s autograph. For some reason, the Bellhop reminds me so much of one of my best friends. His humor and the way he carries himself just puts me in the mind of him so much.

I thought everything in this play was realistic and the actors did a good job of portraying their characters through vocal quality, movement and facial

To start, one of the many things that stood out to me was The Lady who was mysteriously present in every scene. Without lines until the very end of the performance, it was like she was watching and learning from the play simultaneously with audience. Initially, I couldn’t pinpoint the importance of her role in the production, yet along with

The play made me feel several emotions. For the most part, I sympathized with the majority of the characters. I especially felt an emotional attachment to Prior and Harper. Both of these characters needed to be taken care of, but they were ultimately abandoned. Harper seems confident that she will be fine on her own, but the thought of her being alone still saddens me. I was also happy to read a play that dealt with Mormonism. I grew up as a Mormon and I am interested when a piece of work addresses that particular form of Christianity. Mormonism is not addressed in theatre and entertainment very often, so I found that particular element of the play interesting.

    Something I really liked about the play was the way the author put dialogue it made the play have humor in it. For example when he put “kathy: oh yes please do go on. It's all so interesting about rocks and all” I thought it was funny because she really didn't want to know more about rocks.

The acting in the play was phenomenal. They used amazing facial expressions and great movements. The actors and actress were picked perfectly for their roles.They made it very believable and you could tell perfectly who was who. King George was very good and you could tell he loved his character and that made him very believable.

As an actor, I would say my experience with the play was challenging. The first challenge was being in multiple scenes. Being one character in one scene then go into another and portray a whole other person with different feelings and perspectives was challenging. My second challenge was opening to acting in general. At first, it was awkward for me to try to be someone else and I was uncomfortable with the emotions I had to portray. For example, when I had to yell at Mr. M when I was playing Thami in Claire’s scene, I was uncomfortable with the rebellious nature of those few lines because I have never really rebelled against someone of that age in real life. My third challenge was listening to the director. It was hard for me to be commanded

This play was so moving and touching, it represented life in general and how everyone should view it. The part that touched me the most was when death came and said to Everyman that he will take the pilgrimage of the soul and stand before God. Then, Everyman begs to be released and delay just one day, but death tells Everyman he has come for everyone and God has sent him. This moment moved me so much because, it is so true when the angel of death comes to take someone’s soul, even if that person begs to stay he will die. Also, nothing will matter at that time not your friends, family, and material possessions will be there for you, nobody can take the final journey

While there are features that are very likable about the presentation, overall, the play would benefit from more development. Unfortunately, it’s a challenging play to fully follow and grasp. It’s complicated by the idea of there being a play within a play. On stage this may not be an issue, but in a script, it’s difficult to follow.

I also thought there was a lot going on in the play at that at times it was hard to follow. I felt that there was just a lot going on and a lot of inferences that had to be made, which took away from the actors. I also did not like how it seemed that the scenes with the couples were supposed to be happening simultaneously and it seemed like the day was starting over every time a new couple would take the stage. I wish there was a more fluid way those scenes could have been run where you could see the Joneses dancing while the Smith’s were taking the breaks in between the argument. When the Johnson’s switched to the stage, I originally thought that it was a new day because at the end of the smith scene they were ordering dinner and the lights seemed dim. It wasn’t until Mr. Smith made the comment about making the salmon until I realized it was still that same day, just being shown from a different house. Again I wish there was a way the audience could have at least seen a small portion of the two couples simultaneously just to give the audience an idea of the time frame. Also I felt like half the time I didn’t really know what was going on or that I missed something. For example when Mrs. Johnson was so appalled that Mr. Johnson had gotten out of bed