Reefer Madness Summary

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

I thought it was too forced and the director tried too hard to portray hostility. They also changed the whole setting of the play which was another dislikable thing for me. I thought that a movie of the play could of gone a very different way and been quite

The director did a wonderful job with breaking through the lines of the audience and stage. I love to see the actors using the entire theatre and not just the stage, but if the play followed Aristotle’s rule of unity of space it would not have been possible to make this happen. I see the use of areas other than the stage helped organized the changes of scenes and the different stories that were going on within the play. The unity of plot defined by Aristotle was not followed either. This did not make the play less desirable, because I loved the complexity of the play.

This scene in the movie poorly appropriates a very famous scene in the play and the movie continues thereafter to make clumsy and indiscreet representations of key events in the play; one has to wonder why he made a movie that hinges on so many poorly executed key scenes.

The performance was extremely well executed. Both the puppeteers and the actors perfectly embodied their various roles. One might think that the unobscured puppeteers would make it hard to focus on the action, but by the end of the play I hardly noticed the puppeteers at all. The lip synching and body language of the puppets was so well done they seemed as though they were alive themselves. The actors were obviously extremely well-rehearsed and coordinated. Two puppets were each controlled

2. Answer: I find it harder to read the play rather than seeing it performed, the reason I say this is because when you read it you read everything including what all the

It was very interesting compared to some of the other productions I’ve seen. Understanding that it wasn’t a full-length play, but it was still done very well. I especially enjoyed “Narrators Gone Bad.” I felt it was very insightful. A lot of people don’t realize or understand the detail and time and effort that goes into storytelling. I enjoyed it. They did an excellent job and I really enjoyed it. I didn’t realize there were so many different ways to tell a story, but it makes sense. If you don’t tell a story with enthusiasm or in a tone that pertains to the story, it won’t be as enjoyable or exciting. Stories can be told in many different places, in school, in your home, they can be told anywhere in the world, and it’s

One aspect of the play that I loved the most was the demeanor of the actors. Actors and actresses are telling a story to the audience, but this crew truly gave life to a written piece of work. At first, I

The acting for the production as a whole was very believable, because the actors seemed

Overall, I feel the play was well written and the characters were very good with getting the point across most of the time. I would go see the play again just maybe get more of a backstory on what was going on during that

I thought my actors did a great job of preparing for it by reading the scene and gaining an understanding that they needed to properly convey the way the characters felt. What I thought needed work was their passion. At times it got boring, stagnant, and emotion lacking. It looked like they were content with just reading the lines. There was no movement, no eye contact, no emphases on words. This is the little stuff that makes plays great. If I were to redo the scene I would work on getting my actors to put more passion into what they were

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

Though the play was predictable at many times, it was fantastically ironic for all the characters involved and their objectives. It’s also easy to mistake this play as one that is created “just to entertain” because it is farcical. Nevertheless, there is a reason that a playwright creates a piece of work, whether it’s a personal experience, politics, social standards, etc. This play was created to talk about the issues of not communicating in

Although the music was good, it was often made it extremely difficult to keep up with the play. Specifically when the best friend called each time, I could only hear the ending of each scene with him. This was disappointing for me because I really wanted to hear how that played out. I really enjoyed the set of the play. It was much different than the other plays I have seen.

I saw the central idea of the play was how uncivilized we can be as humans. Two parents whose children got into a dispute met to talk and got virtually nothing accomplished. No one was empathetic with the others situation. The Novaks believed Alan and Annette’s son’s behavior was caused by their neglect and was the base of the problem. The Raleighs believed Michael and Veronica’s son was too sheltered and the altercation was not a big deal. For me there were no emotionally moving moments in the play as it was more on the side of a comedy. The way the characters dressed was a production element that reinforced the central theme. All four of the characters were dressed formally but did not act in that way for long. The