Monologue – Contemporary and Contrasting **

Monologue – Contemporary and Contrasting

BLOOD

Synopsis - 

Caneze meets Sully in the college canteen. The heat rises over triple chilli sauce in Nando's. She makes her move in the sweet smoke of a shisha bar. A touchpaper is lit. . .but neither of them bargained on the lengths to which her brother would go to keep them apart. Blood is a searing and heartfelt new play by the writer of Tamasha's Sweet Cider. Set among a Midlands Pakistani community, Blood is sparky, funny and heart-wrenchingly honest. A timely and contemporary story, this play cuts through political agendas and goes straight to the heart. It lets us into a world governed by links to family and clan, as much as fiercely individual wants and desires

*pic of annotated play* - pictures failed to upload will keep trying

Pros  - I like the play because it has a funny modern day element to it and it is about the things that two teens would do on a daily basis. It would be a good contrasting play as my contemporary play is more serious. I think it will be able to show different skills that I may have and how I can be versatile between completely different characters.

Cons – I do not feel as though this particular play is strong enough and will have an effect on the audience. I have noticed that I will need to analyse the monologue more thoroughly to get the impacting monologue that I need. It is also quite hard to make the text fit together as its not one full monologue it’s the paragraphs put together

CONFIRMATION

Synopsis - 

You're open-minded, aren't you? You're always willing to see someone else's point of view? Of course, you are. You always make decisions about what you believe based on hard evidence. Naturally. Or maybe not. 

Writer-performer Chris Thorpe and director Rachel Chavkin challenge the idea that we can really see the world through someone else's eyes, suggesting that even when we're presented with facts and information we tend to latch on to those that confirm beliefs we already have.

What's fascinating is how Thorpe and Chavkin put it to the test in an 80-minute show that makes the brain both hurt and buzz – and which struggles and then finds a theatrical form to explore whether it's possible to have an "honourable dialogue" with people we fundamentally disagree with. In the case of the liberal Thorpe, this means going to meet Jonathan Haidt, author of The Righteous Mind, a book about confirmation bias, and having conversations with a white supremacist and Holocaust denier.

It is challenging and sometimes electrifying stuff that cleverly puts questions and statements into the audience's mouths. And it sets itself up in an arena-style square space that hints of both a democratic forum but also a confrontational boxing ring. Confirmation is a show that lets nobody off the hook: not us, and definitely not Thorpe.

Initially, it all feels like a glorified, extended TED talk: it has entertaining number games that prove we look for evidence that confirms self-created rules, and song lyrics are invoked to demonstrate how they can be interpreted differently depending on your point of view. It's intriguing, but a tad dry. Gradually, however, as Thorpe starts to recreate the conversations he had with the bloke he calls Glen, a man of conviction and extremist beliefs, the show becomes dramatically charged.

Amid so much theatre that simply confirms its audience's liberal sympathies, Confirmation is that rare and valuable thing: a piece that makes you alert to your own selective use of evidence and doesn't slide into a fuzzy let's-all-listen-to-and-understand-each-other-better sentiment. Instead, Thorpe challenges himself and us to be aware of our own bias and retain our passion and certainty, while ensuring that it is under-pinned with real evidence.

*annotated pics of script* - pictures failed to upload will keep trying.

Pros – This play was performed very well when we went to go and watch it at Cambridge Junction Theatre there was one particular monologue within the piece that I took a particular interest in it was done so well that it made me want to give it a go also. I think it is a strong monologue as it has a strong message.

Cons – there are not very many cons, however I do think there could be a chance of acting it too over the top which is something I do not want to end up doing in the final piece but that does come with practice.



Choices 

These two monologues are my finalised choices in what I want to perform on the audition day for the unit. I feel they are very contrasted as one of them is humorous and the other quite strong and serious. The 'Conformation' monologue can show my skills as I need a very pronounced tone of voice to make sure the point of the monologue comes across whilst I perform it. I think it can show my stage presence in a positive light as I feel a very dominant stage presence is whats needed within this speech. Whereas when performing the 'Blood' monologue the whole scenario changes as its a more light hearted piece. It also shows the versatility within the script as I would have to imitate another character in the play in the monologue. They are both very unique plays and I have never heard of them being used before in an audition as they are fairly new releases.