"See What I Wanna See" Insight - Discussion — Page 2

"Just shows that what one person intends to say may not be what the other person hears. Or is one of them just flat out lying?"


Exactly what I meant, Broadway Girl!

See all of this volleying though is exactly what makes this show so great and I think exactly what LaChiusa wanted...

The interesting thing is that I don't think he sets out to make shows that are social commentaries. Of course he'd be the one to answer this. But I think he simply finds a story that speaks to him and he sets out to write a compelling piece that pushes boundaries. I actually got a ticket to Bernarda Alba and I'm gonna check it out once it opens to see what the final deal is. I'm slowly beginning to own more and more of his work. I just purchased a collection of his called Lucky Nurse and other short musical plays. I'm kind of interested in what this piece will be. It's based on seemingly mundane things. Certainly interesting.

um I never claimed you said anything. I was making a reactionary comment.

In my opinion, if there was a big lie it was the thiefs. He is the only one with the motive to lie. Realizing he's been caught, and he's killed people before, he figures he will go down in a blaze of glory. Lily has no real motive to incriminate herself in her husband's murder. Her story then I feel is the most credible. With the husbands, we don't know how good a psychic this woman is, and thus there could be some discrepancies in her story. Mary Testa certainly played her in a way that made her seem slightly incompetant. So if I'm looking for one solid truth I'm looking at the Wife's story.

I think that one can combine "She Looked At Me" and "No More" to surmise that Lily was plotting from the beginning an escape from her husband. So at this point Idina snaps, turns on her husband and then the thief turns on her. The thief leaves. Idina realizes that she certainly feels unclean. She realizes how her husband must feel. Thus, here's where the husband's story and the wife's story overlap. The wife would plead for her life, "Louie". The discrepancy here is that the husband kills himself first because their plan was to die together. However, Lily knows in her heart that she still had her hand on the stilletto and therefore assissted in his death. I think that because she thought she was a murderer she tried to kill himself, not because she promised such to her husband. Yet she fails to do so and leaves. Obviously the janitor will come now and finish Louie off.

That's what I think happens in R Shomon. Obviously it's neither correct or incorrect because there is no definitive answer. But I thought I'd play sleuth a little bit.

Actually the missing A actually happened when the real Rashoman premiered in America in the 50's. I think LaChiusa used that as a way to connect what the story of Rashoman is to his plot.


Actually they all have motive to lie. I think that's the point. The theif for glory, the janitor because he simply doesn't wanna get involved and he's IS involved. The wife lies for a different reason, not criminal but emotional. I think she has a bit of guilt for what happened. Let's just say for the sake of argument that the husband's story is what really happened. If I were a wife in 195- I would certainly lie to make sure that my honor was intact. I'd have to face my husband's family, society etc. I think saying that I was going to kill myself with my husband and I couldn't is a lot better than I'm a whore. So there is motive to lie and a big one. I would think that the REAL truth isn't one person's story. Ya know how people can experience the same thing and have different versions? Among all of those versions the truth lies. Some details didn't happen in one story while the same story left out things that another story has. I think all their stories combined make out what happened that night in the park. The problem obviouisly is the facts are too numerous to sift through.

Updated On: 2/22/06 at 01:24 PM

Shifting gears a bit, I'm curious to know what are some favorite lyrics of everyone's?

I love the lines "a roster that reads like the modern Titanic,Won't it be fun to watch them all drown. The mighty and weak sucked in and pulled down..."

Morito.

I bet if the title had been Hello, Gin, a lot of people would have gone to see it and been really confused.

It's actually... it's not like Company in that it just arbitrarily goes from scene to scene, it has a flow. The first act sort of spins in and out of itself, it's a poem brought to life. You find yourself revisiting words you've already read and emphasizing different things, taking it a different way. The second act is straightforward. I really liked the first act. It was very absorbing and suspensful. I liked the second act too, but it was more like, "Okay guys, we're going to have a musical comedy now!". Which is great, it was like you got two theater experiences in one evening :P

---

Well, not quite conventional musical comedy like Hello, Dolly! or something like that, but it was funny, had a straightforward structure, each character got a song to sing about themselves, and there was even an uplifting song for a big strong woman at the end. The subject matter, depth of the lyrics, and Henry Stram's part are what really elevated it though. Nobody ever talks about Henry Stram, I thought he was amazing.

---

Maybe LaChiusa is anti-A because of the little a that haunts his name.

I mean, you always see... MICHAEL JOHN LaCHIUSA

---

I thought Henry Straum's vocals added a wonderful depth and reality to his character in Act Two. We've come to expect certain things (musically, dramatically) from Marc Kudisch, Idina Menzel, Mary Testa, and Aaron Lohr, all of whom have distinct musical theatre voices. The contrast of Straum's voice, not having the edgy powerhouse belt that the others have, brought me into his story arc all the moreso.

Miss Elphie, I was first row too. It was a stunning experience. When Aaron Lohr waved threatened my best friend with that prop knife, I was completely entranced. LOL. Seriously though, the intimacy of those seats and the theatre itself really lent itself to the show. In my opinion anyway.

Yup, I can totally relate to that. I mean, those will be the best seats I will ever have to anything. Obviously, being on the stage is pretty much as close as you can get. It was deffinitely an experience everyone should have once.

Any good synopses out there for this?

---