This past Friday I went to watch Trestle at Pope Lick Creek with SA Ashley. While I’m not really what you would consider a theatre enthusiast, but in high school I did enjoy the drama productions that the drama department puts up. I think the Cornell PMA production of Trestle at Pope Lick Creek is very high quality, and it was really amazing to sit through the play and see the amount of work put into everything, from the set, to the acting, to the lights and artistry all around.
There are several things in the play that stood out to me. The first is how much drama and “extra” substance the actors had put into their acting. Everything is exaggerated, and though initially it was a little bit jarring (for example, did they really have to speak that loudly?), I think it’s very conventional for the actors to exaggerate their voices, expressions, and actions, especially in a play, and especially in a room of the size at Schwartz. I will say that it added to the drama, and it’s admirable how that level of energy and drama was sustained throughout the two hour long play.
Another thing that really stood out to me was the set. I thought it was really beautifully designed. The set consisted of four large wooden panels, two in the middle, one on the far left, and one one the far right. In addition, there were two large railroad trestle beams framing the two middle wooden panels. Each panel also has the trestle pattern painted on, and instead of it all standing completely upright, each panel was actually slanted a little bit–though each panel is perfectly rectangular, one edge of it would be balanced on a stack of plates. I think a lot of thought was put into the set design, and I think the addition of the stack of plates is indicative of that. For one, it adds detail, and for another, it could symbolize the uncertainty of the time period the play was set in, and it could symbolize instability that the characters felt.
The final thing that really stood out to me was the plot. I think for the most part, it felt incomplete. The ending didn’t feel abrupt by any means, but at the same time, it leaves the audience with a little bit of a question mark at the end. This makes me wonder whether or not that was exactly the playwright’s intention–perhaps that’s the message she wanted to portray about that time in history, or about life.
Overall, though, it was a very enjoyable play and I think it’s amazing how much work and effort was put into a production like this.
After all this time, I think I’m still conflicted about the end of this play. I remember that when we walked back, we didn’t feel as if the story ended (which could have been because the storyline wasn’t linear) but there was nothing else that could have completed the story.