MACHINAL+CRITIQUE

Natascha Perez Thea 2000 Farley Richmond 3/26/2017 Play Critique: //Machinal// Last Thursday, March 23, I went to go see the University of Georgia’s rendition of Sophie Treadwell’s Machinal.The play was based off of the real life trial of Ruth Snyder where an unsatisfied and suffocated woman living in an industrial male dominated world murders her own husband bringing about the question; if our happiness comes at the expense of others, should we let our fear of society stop us from gaining it? I feel like Treadwell did an excellent job rewriting the story of Snyder whilst allowing her message form Snyder’s trail and feminist ideology shine through at the same time. I also however believe that the transparency of Treadwell’s story line really is up to the actors who perform it due to its absurd expressionist style. The actors really had to bend their backs in order to effectively convey it due to its unconventional stage set up. Overall I feel like the subject matter absolutely seems worthwhile. I feel like the idea of humans in this industrial universe is a great analogy to our world.The question of whether it is better to be a cog and another tool for society by following its rules and social expectations is an amazing analogy that I loved from the beginning of hearing about this play.The main female character is relatable in that she is caught between what she wants to do and what she believes she is obligated to do in the beginning; get married. She later on is punished for her act to gain her freedom. It brings into question important ideologies of what is right and wrong if it makes happiness worth while to the individual. The idea of an individual versus the society around it and its expectations and laws is very beautifully explained and performed in the play. A bunch of my THEA 3500 classmates such as Eva Ramirez who was the main character (the woman) all did such an amazing job. The constant movement on stage must have taken so much energy I applaud them for their physical efforts. The style of the play held so much expressionism that the level of physical communication that each person had to perform on stage exceeded and very well interpreted the story of the play. I was able to follow what was happening in the play by every actor's movement. When Eva in the beginning had her own part where she was stuck as the woman contemplating whether she should get married to someone she doesn't love or not was brilliant because her physical movements conveyed her frustration and stressed state of mind before she made the decision to marry her husband. The supporting actors also did a brilliant job at setting up every individual scene. By helping move the blocks around to dancing to interpret the scene where Eva’s character would meet her love character before beginning an affair outside her marriage was really set up well in that the supporting actors were dancing with each other, conveying a public event and ball like setting. The physical production was really imaginative. Barely any props were used. There really was no set unless it was created by the blocks and the performers who carried out physical expressions in order to convey the setting. I liked the use of the blocks as walls, especially in the honeymoon scene when the woman hid in the bathroom and leaned against the blocks for support as she stressed and freaked out over what was to happen to her that night. The flower pot with the stones, and the vase of flowers, and the papers folded to look like newspapers were only a few of the actual little objects used to effectively describe the setting as well. Flashlights were also used to add focus to where the audience should look to see the story be guided through. Personally I did not like how the physical production was carried out. It was good, but not superb. I only say good due to the effect performances the actors on stage carried with them. The end scene where the woman would be put under the electric chair made no sense to me as I was confused on what was happening on the stage. The use of blocks in which Eva’s character was dragged behind in order to convey the termination part did not properly notify what was happening until the play ended in front of my eyes. There was no intermission so I did not have a chance to see how people felt or hear any comments during the show. However the entire eighty minutes really required everyone's attention due to the design and style performed so the audience really had to focus to understand what it was about. Overall Lukas T. Woodyards’ role where he kept saying “hot dog” in the beginning of the play really funny and the audience would always laugh. Overall I think the audience were at times a bit confused but enjoyed it due to the loud applause they gave in the end. They were very responsive that night. I would definitely urge my other friends to see this show after seeing it. It was not what I expected going in as it was way more expressive and versatile than I’d thought. However the overall message and performances by all of the actors were so good I definitely think it is worthwhile to go see. I always take the trouble of telling my peers to go see the show after I have enjoyed it, especially if I feel like it is worth seeing due to the message of the play and the effective performances of the actors. Honestly, with this play I liked the message, I just did not like the style that the playwright used. I haven't read the play, however by the way it was performed, I wasn't a fan of it. I loved the the plot, I just did not favor the way it was communicated by over used expressive style. When I go and see a show I like to sit back and relax and not have to focus too much on what is actually happening as I like it be up to the playwrights and directors job to create the show in a way that allows me to understand what is happening on stage without having to look left and right everywhere. This show required too much attention from me and although the physical performances by the actors were great, the use of flashlights and random movements and sounds in every corner only added onto my already bothered headache. I liked the plot and message that Treadwell meant to convey I'm just not a fan of how she did it. If her scripted play is the same and confusing to read I probably wouldn't read any of her other works because her style is just not my cup of tea. If I was really interested in a given play however, I would go to the ends of the earth and search out to read other plays written by the other authors.

Word File:

