Відео

Yes! Thanks for noticing! When the students asked me what version we were doing, I said, "It's not called 'And Then There Were Two'"!

@@michaelcorso8296How did they react?

The problem is, killing off all ten island inhabitants still doesn’t make it nearly the ending of the novel. For in the novel- during the conversation between Legge and Maine- the reader is faced with the apparent impossibility that none of the victims could have committed the crime. It’s a powerful, important moment. But with any adaptation in which that culprit confesses the crime to his last victim, that shocking impossibility can’t be experienced by the audience.

⁠@@lannypanlockI agree with you. If I were writing the play, Vera would hang herself. After that, Wargrave would address the audience using the words of his confession letter in the book. There would be a gap between Vera’s death and Wargrave’s confession to leave the audience pondering what happened.

@@dillondebruv8377 That’s a good approach, but I still don’t believe it takes care of the primary problem. For, even after Vera’s death- no matter how long a pause prior to the judge’s re-entrance- the audience is still not faced with an apparent impossibility. There still remain two apparently possible solutions, no matter how psychologically unlikely or unsatisfactory they might be: 1. Vera is Mr. Owen, and after killing off her last victim (Lombard) she has hung herself to complete the poem in her mad plan. 2. Lombard is Mr. Owen, who was outsmarted and killed by his resourceful last-intended victim, who in turn killed herself out of guilt, a sense of nihilism, or the hypnotic atmosphere. The details which eliminate these possibilities (the placement of the chair against the wall, the final presence of the gun that killed Lombard in Wargrave’s room bearing Vera’s fingerprints) are both accomplished by Wargrave AFTER Vera’s death. And though Wargrave can explain or even demonstrate those to the audience after her death, there would still be no moment when the audience experiences their inexplicability before they learn of the judge’s guilt. In the book, the impossibility of the situation is very clearly pointed out by the baffled Inspector Maine. “Now, sir, let’s take each of these cases separately. First Philip Lombard. Let’s say he pushed over that lump of marble on to Blore-then he doped Vera Claythorne and strung her up. Lastly, he went down to the seashore and shot himself. But if so, who took away the revolver from him? For that revolver was found up in the house just inside the door at the top of the stairs-Wargrave’s room.” The AC said: “Any fingerprints on it?” “Yes, sir, Vera Claythorne’s.” “But, man alive, then-” “I know what you’re going to say, sir. That it was Vera Claythorne. That she shot Lombard, took the revolver back to the house, toppled the marble block on to Blore and then-hanged herself. But that chair wasn’t found kicked over. It was, like all the other chairs, neatly put back against the wall. That was done after Vera Claythorne’s death-by someone else.“ That baffles the reader as much as it does Maine. And no explanation by Wargrave- even after Vera’s death- can provide that moment of royal audience bafflement.

@@lannypanlock You bring up a great point! Here’s a solution to the problem: After Vera hangs herself, a stage crew member (who is understood to be a stand-in for U. N. Owen) moves the chair. The gun is also brought out near Wargrave’s room. Then the audience is given time to come up to a certain part of the theater to vote on who they think the killer is. Most people (assuming they haven’t read the book) would either vote for Vera or Lombard.

@@dillondebruv8377 but that again brings up the question- and doesn’t clarify- the theory of a player outside of the ten. That is, I don’t think it would be clear to an audience that this stand in necessarily represented one of the ten victims. It’s a point raised (and more clearly resolved) in the novel in the very last lines of the pre-confession epilogue: Inspector Maine said: “And therefore, sir, there must have been someone else on the island. Someone who tidied up when the whole business was over. But where was he all the time-and where did he go to? The Sticklehaven people are absolutely certain that no one could have left the island before the rescue boat got there. But in that case-” He stopped. The Assistant Commissioner said: “In that case-” He sighed. He shook his head. He leaned forward. “But in that case,” he said, “who killed them?” To achieve the effect that the novel did- the dumbfounding sense of impossibility- the clues suggesting impossibility (the placement of the gun and chair) must be discovered and the apparent impossibility they create must be discussed. Whether prior to a flashback of the entire story (as in the 2017 Japanese film version), or in a separate scene after all of the deaths, an equivalent of the Maine-Legge conversation must be included. Perhaps it is not a dramatically sound idea, but I don’t think we can say that a mere confession by the judge- either prior to or after Vera’s death- achieves the novel’s startling effect of impossibility, without that impossibility first being called to attention. As it is in this video, it’s akin to explaining the method of a magic trick without the magic trick first being shown- indeed, that’s my best illustration of the distinction.

At the start we had some issues balancing the sound of gulls and surf to establish the island setting. The balance wasn't off in the theater, just on the video.

What’s up “my betrothed” 🥰

Nice job, Vera and Lombard!

Eh puis? Est-ce que la pièce a eu lieu?

Same but ours is in Feb 2021