What I liked about "He who says yes/He who says no" was that the boy did have control of hi life. His dissions affected his life. I also liked that breaking the "rule" lead to a good outcome. I thought it was a n interesting statment about how rules or customs sometimes aren't the best thing to fallow. There are better solutions if you use your creativity. What troubles me was the end of Taniko, "they stood together heaving blindly, none guiltier than his neighbor." I don't like the idea that the custom overruled the responsability of killing someone. Just because it's tradition doesn't mean that anyone should be okay with killing another. I guess it's fact that there is no guilt or remorse, makes life seem so unvaluable.
Posted by shar0243 at February 28, 2005 09:08 PMYour comments on killing without remorse is striking. I guess I still have The Death of the Kings Horseman in my ears. The "tribe" in that play was in a way forcing Elisan to take his own life, which is like killing him. It was just for a different reason.
Posted by: Cortney at March 2, 2005 12:09 AMI completely agree that it was a high point of the plays when the group decided to break the customs for a good cause. It shows that tradition must allow for innovation because the times and customs do change, no matter how strongly one clings to traditions. As for the line that you pointed out about "none guiltier than his neighbor," I actually really liked that line at an artistic standpoint; the wording is great.
Posted by: Alyssa at March 2, 2005 12:49 PMMy first comment is about breaking the customs. You said that sometimes this can be a good thing. Couldn't breaking the custom also be a bad thing? The custom is there for a reason, isn't it? And, it is founded on something that matters. Why would someone want to break a custom that was so rooted in his/her culture and important to his/her people? Just for the good outcome? Is there more that goes into the decision then just the outcome? Couldn't breaking one custom led to breaking others and have the potential to ruin the whole culture?
My second comment is about Cortney's comment. You say that Elesin was forced to take his life for a different reason but really wasn't it for the same reason. Both Elesin and the boy died because they were just following their customs.
Posted by: Marie at March 2, 2005 05:55 PMwhat's interesting to me is that you chose to look at brecht's theatre instead of brecht's theory. i can see that it really made you think, and through thinking, feel. do you suppose this would have been different if brecht-trained actors had performed this piece? would it mean less to you if you knew the boy was simply an actor?
Posted by: jon loveall at March 5, 2005 12:17 AM