Seeing as this was a really important topic in class, I thought I might like to regurgitate and expand on what was discussed. What was realistic or nonrealistic (surrealistic would be a better word because nonrealistic isn't a word, but don't tell the book or it'll get it's posse of people with Ph.D.'s in stuff that don't matter to sic you [as a further aside, I used the word "sic" in this post and last post in two different ways. Go me!]) <----punctuation logjam - in this play was not a measure of how much I liked it, because it interwove realism and *sigh* nonrealism and outright told the audience to which it was being presented that, hey guys, this play is going to be a bit surrealistic sometimes and I'm down with that. What made it what critics would call to make you go see it "masterfully written" was the seamless stitching of recognizable, very relatable events for most people such as family strife and inner struggles with the inherent nonrealism that comes with plays to enhance the (...unity?) dramatic experience, such as the passing of time, breaking the fourth wall by addressing the audience, and having music and light cues. There are quite a few jokes in this post that may only make sense to me, but that's okay, I'm a unique glass unicorn...
...who pukes rainbows!
Pink fluffy unicorns dancing on rainbows. Furthermore, no unity enhancement.
ReplyDelete