A Number by Caryl Churchill

     In the play A Number by Caryl Churchill, the author addresses the controversial issue of cloning and how it can affect the people involved. In the work, Churchill exposes both sides of what can result from the cloning of an individual. While Salter's son Michael is a well established teacher with a family of his own, B1 and B2 have not been as lucky. B1 and B2 were both raised by Salter, until B1 was sent away and replaced by B2. This provided Salter with another opportunity to raise a child, reflecting upon his decision, stating that:

          “I didn't feel I'd lost when I sent him away because I had the second chance. And when the          second one my son the second son was murdered it wasn't so bad as you'd think because it seemed fair. I     was back with the first one” (1627).

     Unlike Michael who tells his father that he was “fascinated” when he found out what his father had done, B1 and B2 did not take the news as well (1627). Both B1 and B2 were raised by Salter, resulting in a much different childhood than what the reader is lead to suspect that Michael received. The men's differing reactions to being cloned is one aspect of the issue that must be considered. Before reading this play, I had never thought about what could result from cloning humans. While some may feel content with their creation, others may never feel like they belong and that by being cloned it has “damaged (their) uniqueness” and “weakened (their) identity” (1611). Although cloning does have many benefits, in that it would be beneficial to medical studies, it is a process that should be used only when necessary.

     I truly enjoyed reading this play and feel that I am now more understanding of all sides of this controversial topic. It is understandable why many are against cloning, but is difficult to dispute that the benefits could quite possibly override the negatives. After reading A Number and being exposed to both outcomes of the cloning of humans, I am more aware of what challenges it brings with it. I think a play is a brilliant way to address such an issue, because it allows the audience to see themselves in the characters position and decide for themselves what they would do in such a situation.

Incorruptible by Michael Hollinger

     Recently I went to see Incorruptible by Michael Hollinger be performed at Saginaw Valley State University. I had read the play prior to seeing it, therefore I was fairly sure that I knew what to expect. Although I did enjoy reading the play, I was pleasantly surprised by the added humor that came across when seeing it performed.

     All of the actors did a fantastic job, however, there were a few characters that stood out more so than I had expected. Both David Milka II and Samantha White did a great job taking over the roles of Jack and Marie. Even though the couple exchanges humorous banter within the text, there is a fair amount of physical comedy that is not as noticeable until it is seen live. One scene that stands out in particular is when Jack is forcing Marie to remain on the alter. Marie continues to try to run away, swinging at Jack every time he picks her up and places her back on top of the alter. I noticed that this scene received the most laughter and applause from the audience.

     Other aspects of the play being performed live that I thoroughly enjoyed were the set and the costumes. The production team members did a fantastic job with the designs of the elaborate set and costumes. I was especially surprised by how realistic the church looked. It was not simply a two dimensional back drop, but truly resembled what I had thought a church of that time to look like. The church was filled with intricate architectural details, including windows, hallways and moldings. The casts costumes were just as ornate, including the necklaces with crucifixes and prayer beads that the members of the clergy wore. These details show the effort that was put into the performance, resulting in another exceptional production by Saginaw Valley State University's Theatre Department.

The Good Person of Szechwan by Bertolt Brecht

     I found The Good Person of Szechwan to be one of the most difficult readings we have been assigned this semester. In the play, Bertolt Brecht takes a different approach by applying an alienation effect. Brecht does this by both having the actors directly address the audience and by frequently adding songs within the text.

     Although I do understand why Brecht chose such an approach when writing The Good Person of Szechwan, I found the play confusing and hard to follow at times. I feel that the songs added a limited contribution to the meaning of the text and at points had little to do with what was being discussed. I am also not very fond of musicals, which may have something to do with my feelings about the play, but I would be more understanding if I felt that it was beneficial to the work as a whole.

     Even though I did not enjoy Brecht's use of song throughout the play as an alienation effect, I did find the points at which the actors address the audience to be interesting. By doing this, the audience is able to get a better understanding of the actors personalities and the challenges they face, allowing the audience to reflect upon what is going on in the play as it happens. Brecht ends the play asking the audience “what would you suggest? What is your answer? Nothing's been arranged. Should men be better? Should the world be changed? Or just the gods? Or ought there to be none?,” leaving the audience to chose their own endings (651).

Incorruptible

     Although the play Incorruptible: A Dark Comedy About the Dark Ages by Michael Hollinger labels itself as a "dark comedy," a majority of the play is dedicated to making a statement about religion.  In the play, the church is having financial difficulties, causing its members to come up with new ideas on how to raise money.  Their greed begins as something that is harmless, however, it overcomes the men and turns into something much more dangerous.
     The play begins with Brother Martin charging the churches followers a penny to pray.  I did not find this shocking, because when I used to attend church, the pastor would pass around the collection plate every Sunday in hopes for donations from the members.  These small fees, however, are not enough and Jack helps provide Brother Martin and the abbot of Priseaux, Charles, with the idea that any human body could be passed as the body of a saint.  Felix tries to reason with Charles, reminding him that "this isn't why you renounced the world," but Charles responds by telling him that "if we fail in (our) mission, will it matter how noble we were?" 
     With their newfound idea, Charles is unwilling to let go of the possibilities and at one point even blackmails Jack into doing what he wants, casually stating that "A moneychangers murderer is still at large..."  Martin's greed has gone so far that he even suggests taking it one step further, by telling Jack that they must not continue "finding bodies," but instead should start "making them."  Jack cannot believe what he is hearing and states that he's "done more sinning since (he) joined the church!"  It is at this point where the play takes an interesting turn, as the characters are considering committing a sin which they themselves preach as being corrupt.