Talley's Folly

[firstfrost]

After seeing the Lyric's Talley's Folly (we lost chenoameg!) I find that most of what I'm thinking about is differences/similarites to the dpolicar/chanaleh version. All the things I think about the play are still true - I still find Matt more sympathetic than Sally, the writing good, and so on. I found the Lyric Matt very like Dave's Matt, but the Lyric Sally much more different (both harder and more frightened, which meant I could maybe understand her a little more (though I guess having seen it once before helps with that), but like her a little less.). I wonder if this is because Matt's character (for me) is so tied up in the accents and voices?

The only thing that I really didn't like was the music during the Sally-confesses confrontration. My first instinctive reaction was "oh for God's sake, is that someone's cell phone?" Then I realized it was music from the bandstand (there's a line about it), but even so, it made my entire emotional reaction to that scene one of annoyance at the noisemusic as opposed to a reaction to anything going on on stage.

Comments

[desireearmfeldt]

Hm, I was almost about to say...well, not quite the opposite. But I think they had many flashes of strong connection, surrounded by a more isolated-from-each-other baseline, than you guys did. Partly because their Sally was more strongly closed off more of the time, but their Matt was also more...self-conscious? calculating? consciously playing for effect, rather than being naturally playful?

He did *also* play a lot more emotional on the parts where he's emotionally stressed; in general, both of them played everything with the gain turned waaay up. Not quite over the top, but getting there. Sometimes that worked well for me, sometimes it didn't.

[dpolicar]

I agree with pretty much everything you say here. Their Matt was _all about Sally_, all the time, in a very active way that wasn't necessarily very nice. Mine was always _aware_ of Sally, but in a much more "This is who I am, and I'm gambling you're gonna want that" kind of way.

[firstfrost.livejournal.com]

To start a subthread in the middle of this - what do people think the purpose of Matt's third-wall-breaking is? (clocking it in at 97 minutes, getting the dog noise, etc). To make it feel more like a reminiscence and less like something happening now? To give more weight to Matt as in control of the scene? I still don't quite know what to make of it, myself.

[desireearmfeldt]

On the meta-level, I think it was a) to give the actor a chance to show off in a monologue, and b) perhaps a way for the playwright to get going. (The first bit I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere in Wilson talking about writing the play; the second I'm pulling out of my butt.) :)

On a less meta-level, I think it's a light-hearted way of asking the audience to project themselves back to the historical period. (It also gets in some exposition, but nothing he couldn't--or didn't--get in in the body of the play, so I don't think that's really its purpose.)

Viscerally, it serves to make me fond of Matt, and to set a playful mood (but again, the rest of the play does much the same).

I don't know. Maybe it's not necessary. But I'm fond of it. (Which is odd, because I often have little patience with gratuitous gimmicks. On the other hand, I was much more accepting at age 10. :) )

[dpolicar]

I think it's mostly to establish the mood. This isn't going to be a dark, gritty piece. This is going to be a charming, uplifting, lighthearted piece. Go ahead and empathize with the main characters, we aren't going to kill them off on you or anything. It's safe.