There's a lot going on.

I agree with Maria, to an extent. Why can't they do both? (incorporate meaning while making it funny) because I think it's doable. Then again, Quincy makes a good point in his line under this because while I appreciate meaning, sometimes I just want to be entertained and not have to try and dig for anything deeper in a piece, though that's kind of a habit I developed out of concern that I'm going to "miss something". Does that make sense?

I like how they're still able to have fun and laugh despite being in the midst of an apocalyptic event -- it's admirable, given that I wouldn't expect a lot of people to be in good spirits during something like that, and I think that them trying to remember and "rebuild" that Simpson's episode help a lot since it's common ground for all of them. It's nice.

I feel like this “distracting of attention” is something that happens often in the family. Towards the beginning of the play, I’d notice that one character might pose a serious question, let’s say, just to have another character shift the conversation from said serious subject to something more light-hearted. Maybe that’s how they cope with difficultly? That said, I think that people still do this to this day (myself included) and I feel like a lot of this monologue hits on how people act in the real world, and maybe this play is supposed to help the audience look at themselves in order to “change for the better”, so to speak? I don’t know, maybe that’s a bit far-fetched.

Trofimov is so well spoken, especially compared to everyone around him. I just find it kind of funny because I’d expect the way he speaks to come from someone like Ranevskaya for example, because she’s of a higher class than he is – in other words, it’s pretty ironic, at least to me. With his intellect, I think he could help the family out a lot (like Lophakin is trying to do) but maybe his status hinders that in some way? Also, I’m responding to this as I’m reading, so I’m not sure if this changes or not but we’ll see.

This is only one line out of many, but I love how real and honest Young Jean-Lee is, in the sense that she doesn’t seem to be afraid of making people uncomfortable. She isn’t sugar coating her experience and I appreciate that because I believe that everyone needs to get comfortable with being uncomfortable. People have different life experiences, and sharing that, especially in a public place like a theater, can make others uncomfortable since it might be something that they haven’t experienced themselves, and it might be something that isn’t good. But that’s just how life is – it’s not always pretty.

I love the detail we’re getting right off the bat, not only with the beauty of the set itself, but how the audience enters the theater and are guided to their seats. Personally, I like when shows add something extra to the “house opens and the audience finds their seats” routine. I think it lets the audience’s experience begin even before the show starts – especially through the bit where it’s ideal for the audience “[to] be crowded together… to steep in this oppressively “Asian” environment for a long time…” This might raise mixed feelings for the audience involved, but I think it makes for an unforgettable experience. Personally, I know I mightn’t like being crowded together in that manner, but I can safely say that it’s something I won’t ever forget if I got to experience this.

This could be a stretch, but this particular line reminded me of Wannous’ play we read earlier because of the fact that they’re being told not to discuss “affairs of state” because it’s “not good at all”. Also, the tea house as a whole reminded of the cafe in Wannous’ piece because it seems like it’s a place to unwind and catch a break from all the chaos happening outside of the shop, if you will, so discussing the state affairs might disturb the peace the owners try to maintain within the tea house, and it could lead to severe consequences. (in my opinion).

I think this is so effective. I know that major events throughout history are important on their own, but I also like learning about the “ripple effect” said event had on people and places directly following it and even years afterward, because some of these events are so huge that we can still be feeling those “ripples” in our lives today. Even if it doesn’t/didnt directly affect us, we can notice how it affected those around us and those in the past, and note different things that happened as a result in that society, if that makes sense.

This read as kind of poetic to me. I find it interesting because I know some Greek plays (and Shakespeare, of course) have a poetic reading to them. I don’t think this is the way people would naturally talk, especially in a play that isn’t as old as the aforementioned Greek and Shakespeare plays. Point is, I found it funny that this part jumped from using “modern” language to suddenly reading this articulate section.

I’m sorry, but did he really think that would be a good idea? I get wanting to change up your style and/or look cool or something, but you know Audrey just got out of an abusive relationship (technically) and a part of her ex’s look was a leather jacket. To show up with that and ask her what she thinks about it was kind of ironic and probably felt like a slap in the face to Audrey. Then again, he probably didn’t consider how it would’ve come off. He also doesn’t seem like the type to do something as mean as that intentionally. He did say later he bought it to impress her so...

I love how this piece incorporates science fiction! I’ve never read or seen anything like this before (well, aside from She Kills Monsters, which has this fantastical element to it as well) and I’d love to see it live because it’s kind of hard for me to imagine how everything would look on stage right now. Like, who would think to put a carnivorous plant from outer space on stage, much less make it into a musical?

I can't imagine what she must've gone through, both internally/mentally and/or what she endured externally to get her to this point. I felt really bad for her while reading the play, and I also feel like she was very wise and self aware as well.

Knowing what I know now about Sarah Kane and her unfortunate death, as I’m going along and reading this play, I feel like it makes it so much more real and raw because it’s her sharing how she truly feels. I can also identify and relate to some of her feelings throughout this piece, and it’s a bit surprising because major themes in this play may not be tackled as directly in other works. At least, none I’ve seen or read, so I could be wrong. That said, I really admire her for being brave enough to share this.

I really liked how Antigona didn’t stop fighting until the end. I admire her drive, her passion and her perseverance despite people being against her. I think that she showed true strength by deciding to stand up for what she felt was right instead of giving up, regardless of the consequences she would face

This quote struck me because it’s so true, and chances are it’ll continue to be prevalent in society. I think it especially hits home with the article about the 30,000 who ‘disappeared’ in Argentina because it showed how the Argentine dictatorship was willing to torture and kill their own people without batting an eye, and when the women decided to fight back, they were met with violence as well. Those in power aren’t invincible and I think that’s something that goes over their heads a lot of the time since they feel like they can do with they want without any repercussions.

i feel like this is really good message to end the play on. Granted the society they live in might not be receive it well, but it's a decent message nonetheless. I think It can jar both the theatergoers and the characters in the play to action.

I know that Uncle Mu’nis is classified as the story teller here, but is it possible that he can be a mix of a Brechtian style character while also not Brechtian at the same time? I don’t know, but for me this detailed description seems too specific to Uncle Mu’nis to be an archetype, but on the other hand, as said before, he is the storyteller. The description the stage directions give don’t exactly fit the parameters of what I consider a storyteller to be, so I’m curious and a bit conflicted.

There’s no way she actually believes this… right? Of course she’s skeptical, which is understandable, but I would’ve thought that she’d know her husband regardless of the getup he has on. I get that they were kind of gaslighting her in order to convince her that Galy posing as Jip wasn’t her husband, so is she going along with it because she feels like she’s embarrassed herself? I was disappointed because she relented so quickly, especially when it seemed like she was coming close to exposing Mr. Galy.

I really enjoyed the use of simile here! It’s not something I see done often nor done as blatantly, but if/when I do, I find that it helps me put images to the words being spoken. Normally I’m able to imagine what a character is like based off of their interactions and descriptions given throughout the play (if any), so the use of comparisons here make it so much clearer. In other words, since I’m not seeing the play live, I get to “see” the character, if you will, in my mind’s eye.

I suppose it was kind of nice seeing this interaction and their “love knows no bounds” attitude, but I wonder if it would’ve been another case if Zoe was dark-skinned. I know her whole life would’ve been different if she was, but imagine if all of the circumstances were the same (her upbringing, etc.) leading up to this moment with George, except for her being light-skinned. Would he be as willing to marry her then? Would it be more of a secret affair? I can’t help but be curious.

This line kind of riled me up. I know that slaves were considered property and that they were bought and sold as if they were nothing more than a piece of meat in the supermarket, so reading that line made me want to argue with the character even though he isn’t real. He doesn’t own Zoe. Regardless of the percentage of black she is, she’s a human being and deserves respect. That said, I also have to keep in mind the fact that the period this play was based on is different than the period I was raised in. For me, even in a play, reading something like that isn’t pleasant

I can’t help but feel like Bruce might’ve been talking about himself here. He knew he was gay but was probably still ashamed, and I feel like if he learned how to get past the shame and life a live without having to put up a front while hurting those he loved, he could’ve been living in the “fine house” mentioned in the song. Maybe his marriage to Helen didn’t help all of the “shoddy pipes” and “piles of ruin and debris”, and as time went on the more he came undone, and the more all of those negative feelings festered, ultimately leading to his demise. Maybe I’m reading too much into it but maybe it’s possible.

I’m all for constructive criticism and I get why Bruce said that they can “make it better than a cartoon”, but I don’t feel like all cartoons have to make sense. Some can be chaotic and jumbled whereas others can be more put together and “linear”, if you will. I say that to say that I believe that if Alison really liked what she made, why try to change it? I guess if it’s for a grade that’s one thing, but I’m sure she put her best foot forward with that piece and it should be left the way she wants it. At least to me.

I mean, I can’t say that I’m surprised - I just wonder why he resorted to stabbing her as opposed to trying to talk things through with her or simply leaving her. Not that I’m trying to justify the murder! I just found the stabbing extreme is all. Also, going back to the play seemingly showing us how animals and humans aren’t so different, I think that Woyzeck gave into a sort of animalistic instinct to kill here (Which, in part, could possibly be due to mental illness?)

I noticed a few animal comparisons throughout the play and thought that Woyzeck himself might’ve been regarded as an animal (maybe because he’s poor and seen as less than), and I can’t help but feel like the doctor, especially in this scene, tends to examine Woyzeck as if he were conducting an experiment on an animal and watching its movements and/or how it responds to certain things. Then it’s like they make fun of him because of his response. Animal analogies aside, I wasn’t fond of the way the doctor and captain spoke about Woyzeck here. They might have more money, but money doesn’t buy class.

My first impression of Miss Julie was that she was pretty childish in a sense, and kind of a spoiled girl. However, getting to this snippet of exposition threw me for a loop because I never would’ve thought she grew up the way she did. I feel kind of bad because I judged her book by the cover and didn’t even consider that there was more to her that met my eye. That said, I appreciated the fact that she opened up and revealed something about herself because it helped me to humanize her.

Upon reading this description, I noticed that it reminded me of a channel I found on YouTube called English Heritage that has a series where they bring Avis Crocombe (a domestic servant who was the head cook at Audley End House in England during the 1880’s) back to life and use actors to reenact her day-to-day life. I say all of that to say that it helped me to have a more vivid view of the scene these stage directions are outlining, and I think getting to make that kind of connection, albeit unrelated and small, kind of piques my interest in the play a bit more, as odd as that might sound.