Part Three
On Saturday, I attended the free reading of Columbinus by the American Theatre Project at the Performing Arts Center. The first thing I noticed about the writing was that the characters in the first Act were stereotypes of high school cliques. I think this was an effective stylistic choice, as it made the characters very general--at once more relatable to a larger group of people, and providing distance at the same time, as stereotypes rarely actually describe a single person accurately. I also liked the fast-paced dialogue. Each character spoke of different things that were important to them personally, making their voices distinct, yet much of the dialogue--in length and tone--was actually very similar sounding to me. It seemed to represent how, even though the character were assigned different categories (to embody different categories), they really were not all that different from each other. I thought …show more content…
It seems to be asking the question of “why?”, and it gives no solid answer. By exploring the characters of Loner and Freak in the first act, the play does offer some possible motivations for why the shooters did what they did, how their treatment, experiences, and personal difficulties could have influenced them, but their actions still remain extreme and incomprehensible. It does not seek to alleviate them of blame, but it does not condemn them as inherently evil either. In a way, the whole debate culminates in the argument of thirteen or fifteen. Like how the church group planted fifteen trees for the victims of the shooting and other people cut down two of them. But Columbinus does not say which number is right--thirteen or fifteen--it leaves the decision up to the viewer. The play does not tell the viewer how they are supposed to feel, a decision I will keep in mind as I continue my own
On Saturday, I attended the free reading of Columbinus by the American Theatre Project at the Performing Arts Center. The first thing I noticed about the writing was that the characters in the first Act were stereotypes of high school cliques. I think this was an effective stylistic choice, as it made the characters very general--at once more relatable to a larger group of people, and providing distance at the same time, as stereotypes rarely actually describe a single person accurately. I also liked the fast-paced dialogue. Each character spoke of different things that were important to them personally, making their voices distinct, yet much of the dialogue--in length and tone--was actually very similar sounding to me. It seemed to represent how, even though the character were assigned different categories (to embody different categories), they really were not all that different from each other. I thought …show more content…
It seems to be asking the question of “why?”, and it gives no solid answer. By exploring the characters of Loner and Freak in the first act, the play does offer some possible motivations for why the shooters did what they did, how their treatment, experiences, and personal difficulties could have influenced them, but their actions still remain extreme and incomprehensible. It does not seek to alleviate them of blame, but it does not condemn them as inherently evil either. In a way, the whole debate culminates in the argument of thirteen or fifteen. Like how the church group planted fifteen trees for the victims of the shooting and other people cut down two of them. But Columbinus does not say which number is right--thirteen or fifteen--it leaves the decision up to the viewer. The play does not tell the viewer how they are supposed to feel, a decision I will keep in mind as I continue my own