In giving Not I another go, I am thinking a lot about the pacing that I had in relation to the pacing of others. In originally going into this work, I thought that the sentences were more slow and methodical, which is why I talked about the need to tell the story as being the force that is driving She to speak, to continue despite the noise and despite the implications that she is opening herself up to. I think that having been present for the original conversation might have really helped me in my interpretation of the text, as my pacing was so different from all of the others. I'd also like to explore further how the mouth works with the body despite the body's inability to move. I think that wile She may not be able to move her body, it should still be an active participant in the performance, even if it is just the intent to move that I have mentally. I know that if I actively think it, and try to instill it physically, it will read in my face and, hopefully, then read in my mouth and in my vocation.
On another note, I felt that the phasing in and out of speakers was beautiful. I thought that it really created a chaotic environment for the performer in that you had to really focus and be concrete in your knowledge of the text yet for the observer it was reminiscent of a symphony; words flowing in and out of each other, syncing and un-syncing as the performers went on. This was very intriguing as an observer.
One thing that I did not get to address in our conversation that day that I was really curious about was the religious aspect of it. I'm not sure if Beckett was talking about one religion in particular or if he was targeting experiences with a particular sect of believers. I think that we get hints in his choice of dress and in the nature of his speak about the religious, but I have not found a truly definitive answer as to what religion this is. I'd like to talk more about it today.
No comments:
Post a Comment