Set in an empty Greek amphitheater, this mad play within a play switches back and forth between ancient Athens and modern Broadway. A Greek actor and a writer are discussing how to end a play. Actors, including Doris Levine from Great Neck, Blanche DuBois, and Groucho Marx, pop out of the audience. Peppered with metaphysical and philosophical questions, the play skids along farcically until the actor and writer conclude that it lacks a beginning as well as an end.
Noted American actor, screenwriter, and filmmaker Woody Allen, originally Allen Stewart Konigsberg explored the neuroses of the urban middle class in comedies of manners, such as Annie Hall (1977) and Deconstructing Harry (1997).
This director, jazz musician, and playwright thrice won Academy Award. His large body of work mixes satire, wit and humor in the most respected and prolific cerebral style in the modern era. Allen directs also in the majority of his movies. For inspiration, Allen draws heavily on literature, philosophy, psychology, Judaism, European cinema, and city of New York, where he lives.
Woody Allen'nin yazmış olduğu bir piyes . Oldukça absürt olmasına rağmen insana çokca sorular sorduran hangisi gerçek, hangisi doğru kime göre falan ! okudukça hem eğleniyoruz hemde sorulara cevap ararken buluyoruz bu absürtlük içinde.Kesinlikle bir kafa karışıklığı yaratsada insan bu karmaşanın içinde mest oluyor yani demek....
ACTOR: […] The trick is to start at the ending when you write a play. Get a good strong ending and then write backwards. WRITER: I've tried that. I got a play with no beginning. ACTOR: That's absurd. WRITER: Absurd? What's absurd? ACTOR: Every play must have a beginning, middle, and end. WRITER: Why? ACTOR (Confidently): Because everything in nature has a beginning, middle, and end. WRITER: What about a circle? ACTOR (Thinks): Okay . . . A circle has no beginning, middle, or end - but they're not much fun either.
This satirical piece by Woody Allen which is about the process of writing a play and the definition of a play could be called post-modern literature as the writer talks about the borders of a play and puts his ideas in the mouth of characters, it's really funny that the playwright himself doesn't obey the rules and is writing a play with no beginning, no middle and no end. This type of author's presence is seen in postmodern literature a lot while the author makes the reader or the spectator pretty involved and leaves the space for them or let them read between the lines.
Self-deprecating humor galore. I read this for the first time aloud to my girlfriend and I stopped to laugh several times at the unpredictable absurdity of its plot. I've been in love with metahumor, thanks to watching Mel Brooks movies as a child. How can you go wrong with two character who are so desperate to finish a play, that they ask audience members for help? Well, you can go wrong in many ways, and Woody Allen did just that and more.
Woody is brilliant. The play is set up as a play within a play that deals with freewill, god, purpose in life, etc. either lightly or in a very deep way (I haven't decided yet). It was a really fast read, that was comical, and you didn't have to think to hard about it if you didn't want to.
Yazarın okuduğum ilk kitabı. Değişik bir tarzı var, Tanrı’nın olup olmadığı üzerine başlayan, oyunun içinde oyun oynanan, karakterlerin kendilerini mi yoksa başkasının hayal ürünü fikirlerini mi canlandırdığı belli olmayan sadece “hiçlik” ten bahseden bir çalışma diyelim…
Freewill, god, purpose in life... All of these in a play of a play within writer himself welcomes himself on the stage.Woody Allen's play is absurd, fantastic, crazy but completely solid.
A one-acter written for The New Yorker and subsequently published in 'Without Feathers' before receiving a separate script release by Samuel French. Allen's plays, especially after the mid-70s, have generally been dismissed as excuses for one-liners. And certainly humour is the primary purpose here, along with a very, very heavy dose of meta-humour. Yet in this case it's so breezy, pouring out of one of the funniest minds of the 20th century, that it's hard to complain.
The play is written in a high meta fiction style :).set up this play in a play nature. By creating a framework like a drama with in a drama Woody Allen tried to mock one's life by comparing it with a drama, where everybody thinks that he/she is a protagonist in a story/play/movie or any other crap which portrays a life. Yet another connection is that we always thinks that we are independent creatures and free thinkers, but the fact is that we are chained with so many factors, aren't we?(I am not referring to the entity 'GOD'). Yet another philosophy the author shares through this work is that life is a paradox, there is no end in our life. Even though that argument is debatable the method/tool he had used to establish this argument is one of a kind.
Crafty Woody Allen had dealt with these kind of philosophical questions in a witty manner. The characters in the book were 'cool' enough to accept the fact that they have only a fictional existence. This style of author's writing has a resemblance with V.K.N., a Malayalam writer, author of പയ്യൻ കഥകൾ Payyan Kathakal.(There may be many other pioneers in this kind of writing, but from my small reading experience I was able to cite V.K.N. only).
The size of book is very small and you can easily finish reading it in one sitting.
Esto es la obra que tengo que hacer para final de año con mi curso… Muy cuestionable pero al fin y al cabo es, primero, woody allen. Y segundo, es una sátira así que se entiende.
It seems like Allen wrote this one act on a series of cocktail napkin backs. It lacks character and humor and makes only the weakest gesture at profundity. This is the Allen who feels entitled to a cookie for mentioning Kierkegaard in a comedic film.