Taking a modern view on traditional values, the play Big Love by Charles L. Mee integrates various views on love and how love relates to gender roles. The University of Texas at Dallas, under the direction of Shelby-Allison Hibbs, performed Big Love for two weekends in October 2015. The story takes place in an Italian villa off the coast, where three brides have just gotten off a boat from Greece to seek refuge. The brides, fifty total, fled to avoid marrying their fifty cousins in an arranged marriage agreement made by their ancestors. The play mainly focuses on three brides and their groom counterparts; each represents a different view on love.
Thyona, a self-sufficient feminist who absolutely opposes the idea of an arranged marriage, is …show more content…
Throughout the play, the brides are discussing the correlation between love and marriage and whether women should be independent and fend for themselves or let men control and abuse them. The grooms, however, argue over their role as men and whether they should be dominant and controlling or respectful and caring. The audience exhibits: Thyona ranting about how love is a mirage and just another way to silence women, Constantine explaining how women live to serve men, Olympia only concerned with her wedding gifts, and Nikos and Lydia trying to find a balance. Together the characters show the complexity of love, and how male perspectives often differ with female perspectives. Most importantly, the play does not push one topic over the other, but allows the audience to see all points of view. However, the brides who were selfish and unrelenting wind up guilt ridden, while the grooms who were abusive and passive wind up …show more content…
The best example of this is Thyona and Constantine. Their roles represent the radical opinions, and each actor successfully represented them. The true commitment from those actors led to an honest performance. The audience was engulfed and intently listening to them, even if they did not share the characters points of view. For example, the plotline about killing the grooms seemed irrational and extreme, but the actress portraying Thyona convinced the audience that murder was the only reasonable way out. Thyona’s frustrations and anger seemed very pure and honest, which represents Meisner’s idea of instinctual acting. She was acting from the heart and the brain, taking things moment to moment and not focusing on the end result. The role of Constantine is arguably the most controversial because his character is abusive and discourteous towards women. The actor portraying Constantine did a remarkable job; he did not underplay or forcibly act. His actions were deliberate and precise and his beats were truthful, which is what Stanislavsky preached. The accumulation of these acting techniques led to a completely believable performance. The audience could feel his commitment to the role and tell that he was living the part and not just acting. Thyona and Constantine’s performances contributed greatly to the shows overall success because they were instinctual and
Thyona, a self-sufficient feminist who absolutely opposes the idea of an arranged marriage, is …show more content…
Throughout the play, the brides are discussing the correlation between love and marriage and whether women should be independent and fend for themselves or let men control and abuse them. The grooms, however, argue over their role as men and whether they should be dominant and controlling or respectful and caring. The audience exhibits: Thyona ranting about how love is a mirage and just another way to silence women, Constantine explaining how women live to serve men, Olympia only concerned with her wedding gifts, and Nikos and Lydia trying to find a balance. Together the characters show the complexity of love, and how male perspectives often differ with female perspectives. Most importantly, the play does not push one topic over the other, but allows the audience to see all points of view. However, the brides who were selfish and unrelenting wind up guilt ridden, while the grooms who were abusive and passive wind up …show more content…
The best example of this is Thyona and Constantine. Their roles represent the radical opinions, and each actor successfully represented them. The true commitment from those actors led to an honest performance. The audience was engulfed and intently listening to them, even if they did not share the characters points of view. For example, the plotline about killing the grooms seemed irrational and extreme, but the actress portraying Thyona convinced the audience that murder was the only reasonable way out. Thyona’s frustrations and anger seemed very pure and honest, which represents Meisner’s idea of instinctual acting. She was acting from the heart and the brain, taking things moment to moment and not focusing on the end result. The role of Constantine is arguably the most controversial because his character is abusive and discourteous towards women. The actor portraying Constantine did a remarkable job; he did not underplay or forcibly act. His actions were deliberate and precise and his beats were truthful, which is what Stanislavsky preached. The accumulation of these acting techniques led to a completely believable performance. The audience could feel his commitment to the role and tell that he was living the part and not just acting. Thyona and Constantine’s performances contributed greatly to the shows overall success because they were instinctual and