Evaluation of the play, progress


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Evaluation of the play, progress

  1. 1. Louie Patrick Rosales February 14, 2013Effective Communication TTh 1:00 - 2:30 pm An Evaluation of the Play, “PROGRESS” Before I dig in to the requirement of this evaluation paper, I would like to vent myshort insights about the message of the play. (Apologies! I can’t help myself). So, let mestart this with how the play drives me to never quit making a stand to every single right,this nation has bestowed upon me, as a citizen, and as a person. I believe the coremessage of the play was the line stated by the Minister of Good Governance, “Thebureaucracy is thick, very thick. So you have to push, push, and push, without beingpushy.” It was paradoxically portrayed by the character of Marina Salcedo, who wassubmissive yet determined. A typical character of Filipinos and I think the audience hascome in to a realization about her journey (I hope so!). The play has urged the viewersto be affirmative especially when confronted with circumstances where the people whoare supposed to give service are succumbed by a sick system. Second, I would like to give reaction why the Little Boy production chose theshort story written by F. Sionil when the concept is no longer timely, and a lot of plays,films or, oral discussions had already portrayed the same story line. Young people arealready aware how many Filipinos were aggravated during Marcos regime. They couldhave chosen issues that would perfectly strike the anomalies of today. However, I haveconvinced myself that the play did not intend to re-condemn the Marcoses or itsgovernance but they wanted the audience to respond diligently in the event when theyare like toss in the air especially getting service from the government. I am definitelysure, a silly bureaucracy still exists today and the people looped in the sick system. Alright, I have to say that the play was effectively communicated. It was effectivethat the metamorphosis from a short story to a play was as lovely as a caterpillarbreaking off from her cocoon to spread her wings and fly as a butterfly. Let me start thiswith the non verbal cues showed by the actors of the play. Visually, the actors hadprecise movement of their eyes. I can see that their postures were well projected andacted depending on the mood of the scene. Facial expressions were splendid.Expressions from their faces drew natural sound. The whole body reacted the sameway as their lines. What I like about the execution of characters is: it appears as if theywere naturally moved by the progress of every scene especially the flower-characters(as I call them). There were seven of them who acted as the pushers of Marina’sdetermination to follow-up her promotion which never had progress for five years. Thisstyle of play has truly captivated my interest. It was really creative. The lines they throwwere exactly persuading to make Marina pursue her nitwitted dream. Those lines werewell-delivered that every word could really drive Marina to never let go of what she hadbeen waiting. Another thing, the play was really worth paying for because of its humor.Not only by the lines but primarily by how the actors executed the scenes. What madethe humor were the faces drawn from the actors’ faces. Hand and body movementswere just secondary but still, those helped so that the audience would laugh in theirchair. Lastly, what I appreciated about the play is Marina’s (main character) interactionwith the audience. There are some parts of the scene where she had to get near with
  2. 2. the audience and asked for a response. I think it was way awkward for a play but itcaught the attention of the rest of the audience especially those who were sitting in front(because Marina went in the middle part of the audience, and they all turned their headsto witness how Marina would act). The play was non-verbally creative and the actingshowed by the characters was not forceful but appeared to be gelling to their realpersonalities. The play Progress was naturally convincing. I have to believe it was, because ofthe words and language they use. It used the three languages that Cebuanos know andthe accent was very Filipino when speaking the English language. Using such accenthas even made the play humorous yet genuine portrayal. I like how the words or linesdelivered by the flower-characters because it was played in a funny way. I also like theway the words were pronounced because it reflects how Filipinos before are not sokeen about correct pronunciation such as the word journey, pronounced as jArnee.Next, the voice used by the characters was well managed. The volume of their voiceswas practically softened and amplified to give emphasis on the lines and words theydeliver. To cite one, when one of the flower-characters said, “This is long (low involume), very long (loud up)! Furthermore, the songs sung by the flower-characters areaccessory to the play which made the audience to stare on the scene when Marina hadto face the adversities of achieving her dream. However, the emotional content of thetone of the characters were a bit raw (though I should believe it may be intended thatway) because there were critical scenes when there has to be an outpour of sad anddown feelings. Anyway, like what I appreciated about the play is its humorous contentand it has driven the audience to learn instead of react only. Pausing, phrasing, andemphasis were just simply eaten by the actors especially by the main character and theactor who portrayed the Minister of Good Governance. Ultimately, the play Progress has collaboratively executed its performance in amanner where audience can understand and respond about it. Both in verbal and non-verbal language the actors have showed how a worth-watching play should be.