The first thing I thought of as I was scrolling through to the first post of the blog was that you wrote a lot. But after reading the first few, I sensed your passion and genuine interest in forms of theater. I am struck by the depth and complexity of your thoughts and the formality of your language paired with such casual words as “bleh.”
I also see the clear distinction between analyzing theater form and culture. Your writing shows me that you think primarily in terms of theater form. It sounds more objective than my own, yet more passionate and grounded in theater. I probably sway too much towards cultural critique, but if theater acts to connect people, to make them feel, then if we ignore culture, who gets to feel? This is probably both a difference in perspective and a difference in thinking style.
Molly you literally filmed a scene drunk. That’s freaking spectacular.
Hell House. I think the coercion in Hell House cannot be entirely separated from what happens in more liberal theater. I think that although the ideology is different and maybe less popular, the mechanism is very similar. For example, more liberal shows are in effect trying to “coerce” audience members to think in certain ways as well, and maybe these are seen as less so because they are preaching to the choir.
I can really see the effort that you dedicated to this class. You thought (and still are thinking, I would assume) so deeply about all of your ideas. Most of this I commented on as I read, but I hope it sometimes makes sense. Through this assignment, I was mostly just trying to understand the way that you think. It actually baffles me (in the best way) how what you wrote, sometimes so different from the way that I was thinking of these ideas at the time, even occurred to you with the same source material. Sometimes it took me a little more effort to wrap my head around, but you think in such a creative and different way that inspires me. I understand some things a lot more after reading your blog posts. Litlitlitlitlit.