On Friday, October 2nd I attended a Stage III production of The God of Carnage at the Beaudoin Theater in Siena Campus’ Foy Hall. Stage III productions vary each year, so plays performed over the years are not repetitive. In other words, Stage III could present any genre of play. Specific to the contemporary play presented by Stage III, God of Carnage was directed by Shayne David, a Creative Arts major at Siena College. The individual who wrote the God of Carnage is Yasmina Reza. Yasmina Reza was born on May 1, 1959 in France, and is well known for her contemporary plays. The play, which she received the most recognition for, was called Art, and it focused on three friends arguing about a piece of art. God of Carnage by Stage III consisted
…show more content…
The situation begins to crumble when Alan starts answering his cell phone to discuss a case with a client, as he is a lawyer. This definitely showed how people can be so disconnected; yet connected with the world. The client, someone from a pharmaceutical company, released a medication on the market with extremely severe side effects. Alan ensured the client that it was okay, and that the drug should not be taken off the market. In response to this Michael points out that it is wrong for Alan to care less about the drug and the impact it has, and brings up that as a general merchandise seller he does not have to deal with any situations like Alan. Tension is very evident between the two as the play goes on, until Michael brings out alcohol and they find out that they both had a “gang” as kids. Then, they defend each other when their wives try to insult them. This showed the battle of the sexes, and family …show more content…
There was a lot of bickering between the couples and spouses, which did seem very pointless. For example, right before the Raleigh family was about to leave, Veronica made an insult about the Raleigh’s son, and another argument ensued. The bickering that occurred reminds me of when I was a teenager in high school, and would argue with my mom. I would say something to my mom during an argument to piss her off, not caring how much longer the argument would continue, and what the result would be. Because of this, I wanted to leave the play fifteen minutes after it started. There was no point in watching it, as there was no point in the bickering that occurred in the play. I knew there would be no solution for who was at fault for the incident between their sons, as emotion was what drove the bickering. Each parent defended their child most of the time, and could not come to a solution because they did not know what happened between the boys. In reality, they should have had the boys talk about the situation amongst themselves, and come to good terms with one
The situation begins to crumble when Alan starts answering his cell phone to discuss a case with a client, as he is a lawyer. This definitely showed how people can be so disconnected; yet connected with the world. The client, someone from a pharmaceutical company, released a medication on the market with extremely severe side effects. Alan ensured the client that it was okay, and that the drug should not be taken off the market. In response to this Michael points out that it is wrong for Alan to care less about the drug and the impact it has, and brings up that as a general merchandise seller he does not have to deal with any situations like Alan. Tension is very evident between the two as the play goes on, until Michael brings out alcohol and they find out that they both had a “gang” as kids. Then, they defend each other when their wives try to insult them. This showed the battle of the sexes, and family …show more content…
There was a lot of bickering between the couples and spouses, which did seem very pointless. For example, right before the Raleigh family was about to leave, Veronica made an insult about the Raleigh’s son, and another argument ensued. The bickering that occurred reminds me of when I was a teenager in high school, and would argue with my mom. I would say something to my mom during an argument to piss her off, not caring how much longer the argument would continue, and what the result would be. Because of this, I wanted to leave the play fifteen minutes after it started. There was no point in watching it, as there was no point in the bickering that occurred in the play. I knew there would be no solution for who was at fault for the incident between their sons, as emotion was what drove the bickering. Each parent defended their child most of the time, and could not come to a solution because they did not know what happened between the boys. In reality, they should have had the boys talk about the situation amongst themselves, and come to good terms with one