Showing posts with label ending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ending. Show all posts

Monday, April 21, 2014

Bringing Together "The Beaver Coat" - A Final Act for an Unfinished Plot (Final Draft)




 Brandon Q. Day and Stevan L. Hartman
            THE PROBLEM
After we (the class members- ourselves included- who seem to be pursuing careers in some area of science, as a whole) read The Beaver Coat, we were mostly quite disappointed with the ending. One reader said that he felt that nothing had been gained by reading this play; another reader had a problem with the fact that justice had not been served to the wrong-doer. Because of these reactions, my partner and I were drawn to this play with the idea of seeing if we could create a new ending for The Beaver Coat that might “fix” the play for us and our fellow classmates.
THE PURPOSE
What we hope to gain from this project is to see if an ending that provides closure and a sense of justice for the reader gets a better response from the audience. If some readers do not like our ending, but did like The Beaver Coat after we read it earlier in the semester, why? Will those entering the field of science react more positively to this new ending than those going into fields more abstract such as English and history? Dr. Sheehan talked about the two vastly different receptions of the play, as it was originally performed, and how one group absolutely hated it, while another thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. We want to experiment, and see whether adding a closing, final act with resolution would cause these groups to ultimately reverse their opinions. We will provide hypotheses on the outcomes of our experiment, and work together to engineer an ending that might be found suitable by the audience that didn’t fancy the original ending in order to show the disparity between the two groups of people. 
THE METHOD
Although we reviewed the idea, we did not like the idea of writing an entire final act for The Beaver Coat, simply because we cannot write in the exact same fashion as Gerhart Hauptmann. We believed that if we had attempted this, the audience would be more affected by the inconsistency of the two contrasting writing styles than the actual content and the reception of the new ending. We plan to create a “left-brain-friendly” ending that could be added to the end of the existing play. In other words, our proposed ending will not require any changes to any of Hauptmann’s original content.
 The final act will be centered on Mrs Wolff’s daughter, Adelheid, and her growing displeasure with her chances at actually making it into the spotlight, in addition with her growing teenage-borne rebellion.
After some feedback from the class, we have determined that the most effective method by which to deliver the content of our plot is to show a juxtaposition of two timelines, one featuring the progression of events in Hauptmann’s original version of The Beaver Coat, and the second, overlapping timeline will contain our addendum to the existing plot. The two timelines will be complete with links between the two, where we will visually show the viewer where our events fit into the original sequence of events. It will be complete with justifications and citations from the text that support the plot of the newly drawn-up ending.
                To gauge the opinions of the readers, we will take a poll of the class, who have presumably all read the text, requesting that they answer questions about themselves that will help in determining trends in the audience. We will also ask for their feelings on the new ending. Did you like the original play? Do you like the play more with the ending provided? On a scale of 1-5, how left brained do you consider yourself? Etc.
            Finally, the data will be collected and compared with our hypotheses, any trends and notable evidences will be discussed, all of which will also be presented on the board, if it is available by the time of the presentations. Otherwise, the polling will take place on-site, and the data compiled and presented to Dr. Sheehan at his earliest convenience.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Bringing Together "The Beaver Coat" - A Final Act for an Unfinished Plot



 Brandon Q. Day and Stevan L. Hartman

THE PROBLEM
After we (the class members- ourselves included- who seem to be pursuing careers in some area of science, as a whole) read The Beaver Coat, we were mostly quite disappointed with the ending. One reader said that he felt that nothing had been gained by reading this play; another reader had a problem with the fact that justice had not been served to the wrong-doer. Because of these reactions, my partner and I were drawn to this play with the idea of seeing if we could create a new ending for The Beaver Coat that might “fix” the play for us and our fellow classmates. 

THE PURPOSE
What we hope to gain from this project is to see if an ending that provides closure and a sense of justice for the reader gets a better response from the audience. If some readers do not like our ending, but did like The Beaver Coat after we read it earlier in the semester, why? Will those entering the field of science react more positively to this new ending than those going into fields more abstract such as English and history? Dr. Sheehan talked about the two vastly different receptions of the play, as it was originally performed, and how one group absolutely hated it, while another thought it was the best thing since sliced butter. We want to experiment, and see whether adding a closing, final act with resolution would cause these groups to ultimately reverse their opinions. We will provide hypotheses on the outcomes of our experiment, and present them on the board as well. 

THE METHOD
Although we reviewed the idea, we did not like the idea of writing an entire final act for The Beaver Coat, simply because we cannot write in the exact same fashion as Gerhart Hauptmann. We believed that if we had attempted this, the audience would be more affected by the inconsistency of the two contrasting writing styles than the actual content. So, instead we plan to outline the series of events that occur in our final act and tie each event back to instances in The Beaver Coat in order to prove to the audience that the events we come up with are not just “coming out of left field.” The final act will be centered around Mrs Wolff’s daughter Adelheid. The poster we propose will be a visualization of the sequence of events we propose, what we plan to accomplish with the proposal, and the results of our work. Finally, we are throwing around different ideas for creatively delivering the proposed final act. One idea was having Frau Wolff find Adelheid’s hidden journal, where she finds out she’s been betrayed by her daughter for her chance in the spotlight. Can you think of some other suggestions for a means of adequately delivering our proposed plot-line to the class?

Monday, April 7, 2014

The Physicists: MUAHAHAHAHA- Totally deserved it



            When I first read the ending, I was shocked, but after a few minutes, I was like “YEA! Go Mathilde von Zahnd! Mess up their plans! Show those physicists that they are the fools!” I accepted the ending even though it’s not like a regular comedic ending with unity at the end. The ending was filled with despair and no unity as all three physicists went into their own little soliloquy of who they were and walked back hopelessly into their rooms. I believe Mobius and the other physicists deserved such an ending. They tried to “save” humanity from destruction, but they did so in a despicable fashion. Although Mathilde von Zahnd is a bit of a nutter for believing in King Solomon, her actions were the punishment that the physicists deserved in the end.
            First off, all of them murdered a nurse. Even though these nurses were really working for Fraulein von Zahnd, they were still human beings. In act two, the physicists (Mobius, Eisler, and Kilton) finally toast to the nurses’ death. They decide to keep themselves (and their knowledge-filled minds) hidden in the sanatorium of Les Cerisiers in order to avoid the destruction of humanity so that the nurses will not have died in vain. Murder is already a morally wrong deed, but how dare they be so arrogant as to choose who dies in order to “save humanity”?!! It’s also ironic how they’re trying to save humanity, yet they themselves take human lives. I understand if they think some humans must be sacrificed for the “greater good,” but why couldn’t they have committed suicide? That’s a solution that would keep their knowledge/discoveries away from the outside world, and it wouldn’t involve murder of other people. They deserved a hopeless ending for their repulsive act of murder and believing they were doing it for a good reason.
            Secondly, Mobius definitely deserved such a miserable ending. I know, I know: he believes his discoveries will be the destruction of humanity, and he had to handle it himself. Well, that does NOT excuse him from being a good father and husband (at least in my opinion it does not). He put his poor wife thru years of hard work just to sustain him and his sons (that lazy bum). I believe if a person brings a child into this world, it is not only his/her partner’s responsibility but his/her responsibility too. He could have at least exploited two or three discoveries to earn some money (like Fraulein von Zahnd did) to give to his wife and kids. Mobius definitely deserved such an ending because he abandoned his responsibilities to financially support his family.
            In conclusion, the ending for the physicists was well-deserved for their despicable actions. Yes, I understand they were trying to do it to save humanity from being destroyed by Mobius’s discoveries. However, I don’t believe they needed to murder anyone or abandon their families in order to do that. Slightly going off in a tangent, in “21 Points to the Physicists”, it says, “Each attempt of an individual to resolve for himself what is the concern of everyone is doomed to fail.” Perhaps, if the physicists shared their concerns with the world, there might be a group of people that would side with them and spread their belief of preserving humanity. Also, if humanity IS all about destruction and using knowledge against each other, then maybe humanity deserves to go extinct for being so savage.

Monday, March 17, 2014

The Beaver Coat: Hanging Endings

Mrs. Wolf: "Well, I don't know…"

At the end of the Beaver Coat I felt like it just ended. There was some resolution but not as much as I was wanting. Most stories end nicely and resolve completely, so I wondered what the reasoning was behind leaving the ending open. For one thing, hanging endings generally make people feel uncomfortable and annoyed with what happened. If a movie ends abruptly many people are angry or confused as to what the whole point of the movie was without an ending. Doing a google search produced many movies that people thought had unsatisfactory endings which included Cloverfield, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, etc. Abrupt endings in stories leave people questioning why? What happened? One of the reasons I think The Beaver Coat ended so oddly was because it left us questioning "Will Von Wehrhahn ever catch Mrs. Wolff and Mr. Wulkow?" "Does Dr. Fleischer get brought before the court for what he believes and says?" Some of these questions can be answered with a bit of thought. First, Mrs. Wolff is a very crafty and industrious woman. She has hidden the money received from Wulkow for the coat, and no one can prove that the wood she has is anyone else's. So personally I think Wulkow and Mrs. Wolff are safe as long as they don't get caught for their poaching business. As to the matter of Dr. Fleischer, considering he is a good friend of Mrs. Wolff, and Mrs. Wolff is trusted by Von Wehrhahn, I think we can assume if Mrs. Wolff heard something negative she would discretely warn her friend. However, this is all speculation and I could be completely wrong. Maybe the reason for leaving the ending open was to provide a bit of suspense and curiosity for the audience. When performed in front of a live audience the ending would certainly cause the audience to discuss it even hours after seeing it. Perhaps Gerhart Hauptmann planned on making a sequel. Besides these ideas it does leave us very uncomfortable with many questions and only speculations for answers.
Are there any reasons you can think of that could contribute to the open ending? Write them in the space below.