"ACTION" (SAM SHEPARD).   Term Paper ID:21753 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Critical analysis of one-act play, based on article by critic Gerry McCarthy. Style, theme, importance of actors, ambiguity, view of life.... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 3 sources, 8 Citations, MLA Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Critical analysis of one-act play, based on article by critic Gerry McCarthy. Style, theme, importance of actors, ambiguity, view of life. Paper Introduction: Analyzing one of Sam Shepard's plays can be an arduous task for even the most gifted scholar. Such a challenge has at times been welcomed, but seldom completed satisfactorily. The writings, the commentaries of various critics and numerous dramatists, speak loudly and repeatedly of the frustration in their attempts to name a central theme, to identify some congruency of idea or presentation, to unearth some logic and rationale in characterization, to find evidence of some wholeness in what these plays are saying. Shepard has written a one-act play called Action. It is a sterling success in that it very craftily conjures up questions, thoughts, and feelings about this whole notion of activity - its place, its presence (or lack of), its handling by characters in staged theater. It is less than successful in that it clouds and Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. McCarthy seems to believe that the author'sconcern with the performer's ability to play out the play must absolutelybe uppermost in the playwright's mind, and he presents this factor as sometype of special craftiness on the part of this author. at the heart of the metaphor is the experience of the actor... This point is significant because it points up one of themain problems with McCarthy's article - its quickness to assume, itstendency to overemphasize and to pull meaning out of nothingness. InAction Sam Shepard has once again proven himself to be "out of the flow"artistically, and, according to Gerry McCarthy, out in a good sense.McCarthy has taken Shepard's non-order, non-meaning play into his own handsand has made substantial arguments for substance and direction. The reader isforced to examine the notion of whether this playwright is serving up theartistic goods as brilliantly as McCarthy seems to think he is. He has a great deal to say about the relationshipbetween the actor and the playwright: He examines the experience he represents through actual problems encountered by the actor as he confronts his audience without the security of a consistent character, all the actor can experience is the enduring presence of himself and the other actors on stage, and the ever-present necessity of action to relieve the burden of existence (2). You'd know. The actor is an interpreter, a way, an avenue ofexpression. The problem with all of this is that one questions whether any amountof art or craft or creativity justifies pointlessness. Period.The line of thought, the intention of the piece, the "meaning" of the playis in the writing. Do theseparticular achievements of these two writers edge Action into theuppercrust of dramatic literature? The writings, the commentaries of variouscritics and numerous dramatists, speak loudly and repeatedly of thefrustration in their attempts to name a central theme, to identify somecongruency of idea or presentation, to unearth some logic and rationale incharacterization, to find evidence of some wholeness in what these playsare saying. We have certain - we can tell who's who. I'd know. Traditionally, this is not a concernof a playwright. They've returned to earth only to find that things are exactly the same (Shepard 172). Why could it not be evidence of their familiarity, their easewith each other? What is "it?" Are these things done for public reviewand consumption, or is it enough if this is just the writer's own privatemoment? 1-11.Shepard, Sam. Shepard's familiar use ofimage, momentum, nowness, shock and disconnectedness are all present andvery well accounted for. This, however, is something different from what McCarthy issuggesting. Levenson. There is nothing new and exciting here, and McCarthy certainly hasnot justified throwing out consideration of certain basic parameters justbecause Sam Shepard writes as he does. McCarthy states:, Both audience and actor feel the strain of trying to interrelate the events of the play (McCarthy 2). Look at this line of Liza as she attempts to locate their place inthe book: I've found it! Is there something in the dramatic activity putforth in this manner which can truly be seen or felt from the stage? It could involve anytype of director or performer. "Acting It Out: Sam Shepard's Action." Modern Drama. No onewould argue that a playwright has certain concerns he must address over andabove all else, i.e., character development, the performability of thework. Shepard has written a one-act play called Action. We can see. The "problems encountered by the actor" have never beena major consideration in a writer's script. McCarthy states: . This line brings us back to McCarthy's discussion. But why could this speech not suggest the bond among thesecharacters? His statement supports the notion that the writer almost hasan obligation to concern himself with the actor's ability to interpret,with the motivation or technique the performer chooses to use to justifysome particular moment or activity. Analyzing one of Sam Shepard's plays can be an arduous task for eventhe most gifted scholar. It is absurd:a man keeps breaking chairs for apparently no reason; a woman engages inthe unpleasantness of gnawing on her own arm; characters relate storiesthat don't "fit;" the entire cast passionately searches for a lost place ina book. . I mean with us, we know. Certain points, however, stand strong. New York: Bantam, 1984.Wetzsteon, Ross I. 1-15.----------------------- 1 New York:Bantam, 1984. Shepard has said of hiswork, "Once it goes off into the so-called meaning of it, then it'slost"(Wetzsteon 2). For the most part, thisnever happens. It supportsa criticism of Action which asserts that this play is visualizationexperienced by Shepard and Shepard alone. He appears to bypass certain basic truths about therelationship between playwright, actor and script. We recognize each other. Fool For Love And Other Plays. Some justification for me to find myself somewhere else (Shepard 186)? How available is this type of work to mostpeople? McCarthy attributes a certainamount of influence to the performer, and in this article that influenceseems to be overrated. Things areexactly the same; nothing's gotten better; nothing's gotten worse. Such a challenge has at times been welcomed, butseldom completed satisfactorily. We hear each other. We know each other's voices. He quotes one of Jeep's lines: Shooter, could you create some reason for me to move? Fool For Love And Other Plays By Sam Shepard. An issue worthy of equal consideration, however, now andalways, is accessibility. A playwright has the task of creating the art. And,if it can, for what purpose? Shepard himself has said, "Ithink it's a cheap trick to resolve things (Wetzsteon 6). Toronto: U Toronto P, 198-1. He identifiesthis an a prime example of the characters' sense of isolation andalienation. There is a great deal of support for Shepard and his playwrightingprowess in an article by Gerry McCarthy: "Acting It Out: Sam Shepard'sAction." Most of what McCarthy has to say here, most of what he isexplaining, appears to be thought through conscientiously and presented inan acceptable, scholarly fashion. This randomness appears to be Shepard's goal: there should be noexpectation of flow or narrative or intent. Shepard comments in the same interview about how many times he hasbeen asked where the ideas for his plays come from, and his response is, "Ithink explanation destroys it and makes it less than it is"(Wetzsteon 2). It is a sterlingsuccess in that it very craftily conjures up questions, thoughts, andfeelings about this whole notion of activity - its place, its presence (orlack of), its handling by characters in staged theater. (McCarthy 1) This work, though clearly abstract and impressionistic, cannotjustify half-thoughts and half-pictures by laying responsibility for itscompleteness on the actor's experience. By insisting thatparticular "actions" have so much depth and meaning, McCarthy is going offinto the so-called meaning of it and thus doing the opposite of whatShepard says he intended. Thecounter claims immediately surface: art is whatever it is, nothing more orless; there are no rules; artistic license has no boundaries.' There has always been merit to such a point of view, and there ismerit to it now. It is not. McCarthy comments on that line as follows: Shepard imagines moments of perfect stasis in which the actor has nothing to do, and is left to contemplate his presence within a space exposed to a generalized threat (McCarthy 3). This does not clarify; it muddles. Examine this passage as an example of McCarthy's tendency to go overthe top in dealing with the so-called meaning of it all. Works CitedMcCarthy, Gerry. In his statements concerning the play and its meaning,McCarthy appears to follow this lead. He believes that, to deal effectively with Shepard, he has to beas vague and as ambiguous as the playwright himself. Ed.Jill L. In Action, theaudience views/experiences two men and two women responding to events andsituations people deal with in everyday life. We know our names. That is, he forces meaning,interpretation and analysis where there is no meaning, interpretation oranalysis. The question remains. There is anoverwhelming sense of being lost, of feeling directionless. . Even to some? He is not changing anything related to intent or character; heis really not involved in where the play is going - just in taking itthere. He can and will be anything the character he is playingdictates. We know. There are instances, however, where hetakes certain liberties and his discussion assumes a position which leaveshim open to much debate. We respond (Shepard 184). Any well-written script mightbe open to numerous interpretations and approaches. Toward what end? Asalready mentioned, there is this meandering around, looking for something,searching out some sense, some remnant of order. We hear our voices. Some of this activity istrite, almost stale; some of it is anything but. All toooften, Shepard's plays suffer because of this "crossing over," this sort ofaimless lack of structure. This type of analysis/comparison invariably goes round and round.Shepard sees his work in a certain light which McCarthy agrees or disagreeswith, which the reader takes issue with, which completely refutes Shepard'sintent, and on and on and on. It is not necessary (oreven advisable sometimes) for the playing of a play to be connected to aperformer's experience. Question: In terms of the play's literary validity, are the problemsencountered by the actor an appropriate concern of the playwright? This line of Jeep's summarizes succinctly both the problems withAction and with McCarthy's commentary on the piece. McCarthy is equally fluent and supportive when he talks about thewhole air of disconnectedness and ambiguity which almost always hovers overShepard's work. It is less thansuccessful in that it clouds and diminishes the very images and effects itaims to create by virtue of its tendency to go nowhere. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.