Show and Tell blog #1

William Keith

Professor John Fletcher

Theatre 2130

16 February 2013

Proof

            The play I chose to write about is the play Proof. Proof was written by David Auburn and it premiered in May 2000, produced by the Manhattan Theatre Club. It transferred to Broadway at the Walter Kerr Theater in October 2000. This production had such well-known actors such as Mary-Louise Parker. The play won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 2001 and Tony Award for Best Play. Mary-Louise Parker also won a Tony Award for her performance in the production. The production of the play closed in January 2003 after a total of 917 performances. On March 23, 2013 a new production will open at London’s Menier Chocolate Factory. There was also a film version produced in 2005.

            The story focuses around Catherine, the 20-something daughter of a well-known mathematician. She has just recently had to put her father to rest after a long battle he had with mental illness. Robert, her father was a groundbreaking mathematician an esteemed professor at a University in Chicago. He lost his ability to work with numbers during his episode with mental illness. It becomes apparent that Catherine also has a talent for mathematics. It has flashbacks in the story explaining how Catherine dropped out of school to take care of her father when he was ill.

            Catherine then has to deal with her sister, Claire. Claire is her older sister that wants to take her to New York and try to take care of her. This is something that greatly bothers Catherine who would rather stay in Chicago. The story also is further complicated with the actions of Hal. Hal is a former student of Robert. Hal is trying to go through Robert’s old work to discover any breakthroughs that Robert might have made during his time off. He then discovers a proof that he believes was written by Robert. According to Hal, this proof is of great importance and is a major breakthrough for economic math. The main conflict is Catherine trying to convince Hal and Claire that it was really her that wrote the proof. This is further complicated because Hal and Catherine have become romantically involved. Catherine has to struggle with her own fears of falling into mental illness like her father and at the same time convince the others she wrote the proof.

            One of the main choices I find interesting is the playwright’s choice of the title Proof. The title has a double meaning in the play. It refers to the the “proof” that Catherine wrote about prime numbers. This proof is the main source of conflict in the play. Hal and Claire believe it was written by Robert, while Catherine says that she wrote it. The struggle for Catherine to prove that it was actually her that wrote it is the main plot point for the play. So David Auburn had a humorous play on words by naming the play Proof. It is significant because anyone who is unfamiliar with higher mathematics would assume he named it so because it refers to the struggle that Catherine goes through to prove that she wrote it. On the other hand, mathematicians can appreciate the title from a mathematic standpoint.

            I also find it interesting how Auburn chooses to use the character Robert in the play. The play opens with Catherine talking to Robert even though he has already passed. This is important because one of the main things that Catherine struggles with throughout the play is convincing herself of her own sanity. Using this conversation in the opening scene would allow the viewer to have the assumption that maybe she is in fact mentally unstable as her father was. It doesn’t give the viewer ironclad proof, but does allow it to be a possibility.

                                                         

Motif

In “How I Learned to Drive” the use of a car as a metaphor is a very important theme. With a title like “How I Learned to Drive” it isn’t surprising that this would be so. There are numerous scenes in the play that take place in a car whether Peck is teaching Li’l Bit how to drive or just them sitting together in it. Using a car in these scenes seems to mirror what is happening in the play as a metaphor. Learning to drive is a trial that many young people have to endure and is different for each individual. The experience of how someone learns this will reflect in how they drive. In this story Li’l Bits relationship with her Uncle Peck also influences how she handles herself in dealing with the opposite sex. So explaining in how she learned to drive in this context also explains how she carries herself as a woman because of her experiences. The playscript also uses car analogies to introduce the scenes throughout the play. The different ones used generally foreshadow what will happen in that scene. When it makes a reference to upshifting you can assume that there will be a plot advancement in that scene. It also has references to “the reverse gear”; in that case you can know that the scene will be a jump back in time.

          In every Star Wars movie made there is a use of the phrase “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.” The wording is never exactly the same or is it always said in the same tone. It’s used by a number of different characters throughout the entire series. It’s generally used in a situation that is obviously not going to bode well for the protagonist characters. The delivery of the line isn’t generally necessary to let the viewer know that something bad might happen, it just adds to it. The setting and mood of the scene already lets the viewer know that the characters might be in danger. It’s just another tool that the actors use to explain the situation from their characters view. 

How I Learned to Drive

Vogel uses the Greek chorus setup I believe to bring a sense of levity to the play. The opening scene might make an audience feel a little awkward. The entire play is revolved around a type of underage incest, which is a definite taboo. A major portion of the play is spent narrating and that was the purpose of Greek choruses in Greek plays. Using a so called “Greek chorus” and having music be a part of the play makes it somewhat like a musical. Using these elements might make an audience more at ease with the subject matter of the play. The entire intent of Vogel might be to make the play a parody of Greek plays. If this is the case, anyone with knowledge of Greek plays would find humor in the use of the “Greek choruses”.

          The way Vogel uses time in this play at first confused me. I couldn’t fully understand it until I finished reading the playscript. After reading the first scene and understanding the context, I felt somewhat disgusted. For the most part, the play goes back in time to tell of events critical to the story. You begin to understand slowly the context of the relationship between Peck and Lil’bit. Using this concept of time will keep the audience more interested as to why and how it started. If Vogel had just used time in a straight linear fashion the play would have had a different mood altogether. You would have immediately felt a sense of sympathy for Lil’bit and anger towards Peck. Instead as you go back in time to discover how it began and then jump to the end, you see it as a tragic romance. 

Conduct of Life

One thing I notice is that Fornes doesn’t fully explain the current setting fully. You can tell from the dialogue in the play that there is political and social unrest but it’s never explained in detail. They mention bodies in the street and throughout the play homelessness and hunger are discussed. There is one particular instance when they are discussing someone was killed and who will be replacing him. It obviously sounds like some kind of coup d’état. I think this is done to keep the story focused on the characters themselves. Fornes doesn’t want to distract the audience with outside influences. The audience would gain more interest in what’s going on in the outside setting of the play if more detail were given. Since political oppression and social unrest is a universal theme it wouldn’t be hard for an audience to see how those events would influence the characters themselves. In fact you can see that Orlando is directly influenced by the outside events mentioned. It is mentioned that he has to torture people, most likely for the government. It is also hinted at that because of this that he is as cruel as he is. Fornes didn’t give a name to the oppressor so that you would focus only on how unrest personally influences people. It made Orlando harsh and cruel, but this was not the universal effect. Nena, even though she had been through so many hardships was not broken. She still had hope in people and wanted to help those she cared about. Fornes wrote this during the cold war and most people in the world had been affected by political and social unrest someway. Audiences didn’t need names or details to have an understanding of how oppression affects its populace. Because of this the audience would be able to immerse themselves fully into the characters themselves.