The Drowsy Chaperone is
a unique show because there is a show within a show! This also makes it different
to analyze. Hornby's element duration would differ if I were
analyzing the show-within-the-show Drowsy
Chaperone verses the as-is meta-show The
Drowsy Chaperone. If I were talking about duration in the as-is meta-show The Drowsy Chaperone, I would say that
the writer devoted the majority of stage time to the Man. The Man was not
speaking that much, but he remained on stage the entire time. So I would describe
the duration as extremely long in The
Drowsy Chaperone. Now, if I were to talk about duration in the
show-within-the-show Drowsy Chaperone, I
would say that duration is very short. Each plot and character gets a short and
equal amount of stage time. So suddenly, the analysis of the same Hornby
element completely differs depending on what aspect of The Drowsy Chaperone you choose to analyze. Another one of Hornby's elements that
will differ in this fashion is progression.
Speaking on the progression of the as-is-meta-show, I would say that it is
non-linear, because when the record skips, the play goes back a bit and repeats
over and over again. For example, when Tottendale repeats spitting in Underling's
face about five times! But speaking on the progression of the
show-within-the-show, the progression happens in chronological order. For
example, Tottendale would only spit in Underling's face once, and the show
would go on! As you can see, depending on what part of the show you analyze,
either Drowsy Chaperone or The Drowsy Chaperone, Hornby's elements
will differ. If I were a dramaturg, I would analyze the show as a whole because
that is how the authors intended for it to be shown, so the point is not to
analyze the show-within-a-show.
I had not thought about the duration of the two plays like that. You're right, the duration is completely different and I hadn't realized the amount of stage time The Man has compared to the rest of the characters that are within the play. That is also an interesting progression. It probably goes even deeper, that I can imagine this guy doing this almost every day, that this production could repeat over and over again in his head, and if he is anything like me, he could go back and repeat songs that just played.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree about the duration aspect of your post I wrote about similarly the same thing. Its cool because much of the time the man is just commenting and narrating what is happening which doesn't take much but he is on stage a lot.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about progression. The world meta play-within-a-play is subject to the character of the Man in the Chair, and the progression is greatly effected by his outside influence.
ReplyDeletei agree with what you said about both duration and progression. I think that without the man's presence in the show, the duration would definitely be split up more between the characters in the play. Also, with progression, i feel like the play would definitely be more linear if the man wasn't tampering with the record player the whole time. I also talked about this in my post about The Drowsy Chaperone. Good Job!
ReplyDeleteAgreed with duration. It is short with the play within a play and extended out when it is the actual show itself. I would actually prefer to analyze the show within a show because it is so difficult and challenging and presents obstacles, but I clearly enjoy a challenge and like to see what else I could muster up. :]
ReplyDeleteI think you did a great job of showing the differences in duration. The number of characters is a big reason for the variances. I feel like there is a lot more going on in Drowsy Chaperone than The Drowsy Chaperone, but I feel like the differences playing off each other make the show more interesting to watch.
ReplyDelete