Blood Brothers Essay

Within a Blood Brothers. Comp ar the billet of the teller in the Play Blood Brothers and consider how you Would present the bank clerk to an audience if you were the director. The dictionary exposition of narrate VT (a story) to tell, relate to give an account of (film, TV) to provide a rundlen commentary for narration n narrator n The tradition of narration came from the Greek emit. Their were thirteen people in the chorus each twaddleing and dancing. The chorus which served as the narrator, asked probing questions, and also gave great advice to the heroes.If there was any violence it was muchover narrated, and not presented for fear of aside block offing the audience. The purpose of the narrator is to let the audience know what is going on. reading is whizz(a) of the most important components of a story. The constitutions, plot, setting, and theme are also significant however the narrator sets the mood and also the pace of the story, as well as predicting what might happen when the narrator is omniscient. In Blood Brothers the narrator plays a variety of roles for example sometimes he is at a higher(prenominal) status than them and also is sometimes very(prenominal) forbid.The original Greek narrator was in a chorus which consisted of thirteen people, in the play Blood Brothers the narrator sang with the characters still he was much more involved and not separated, as the Greek chorus were. The Greek chorus usually stayed as pull up stakes of the chorus or on the side of the stage. They knew everything about the characters and sometimes they could see into the future like in Blood Brothers when the narrator was preparing the audience for what was going to come next in passim the play. They usually spoke the beginning and end of the play.He narrated the beginning of the play to set the video and at the end he was the last one to speak before they in Blood Brothers case this was just after the gibe died. In act 1 scene 1 the narrator is a storyteller. He also sounds, very negative in what he is saying as he says Brother parted from brother Wrenched asunder A rock candy in the place of a heart which is negative. His engender gave him away because she didnt mobilize she would be able to cope and also because of capital as well as her other septet children.I feel that the narrator is being very harsh because the way he says A stone in the place of a heart but she knew that she might be able to cope with one more children but not with 2 as its only her to look after them. I dont think its good that the narrator manipulates the characters minds as it is coming away from the tradition so I dont think thats a good report because as concisely as one thing changes they change everything. In this scene Act 1 scene 3 the shoes the shoes Whats wrong with them on. On the table take them offtake them off oh idol you never put new shoes on a table Miss Lyons. You never know what might happen. The narrator is forcing t he idea of bigotrys and it shed light ons the audience wonder if it will have any effects, as it appears to. Eventually he is also trying to enforce that as she was not very well amend and believe in superstition like that but as the educated ones know more and are better off so they dont believe in as much superstition as them. The narrator appears to be working in Mrs Lyons favour and against the mother.In act 1 scene 6 the narrator informs the audience he has also set up his plan on dogmatic the families, that the mother reminding the audience of the decision and is regretting giving her baby away, The debt makes it sound like its a melody deal and is also a metaphor, Paid those words are both cold. The narrator is also blaming the mother for giving her child away. I think that it is her fault for giving her child but at the end of the day she knew she wouldnt be able to cope with any more children so she had to do something.The narrators main role throughout the acquaint is to act as a constant monitor to us of the brothers tragic fate for example Shoes upon the table which is repeated throughout both acts of the show. In Act 2 scene 1 the narrator makes this scene especially eerie. The idea of the get being there all the time indicates something terrible might happen. Here he is contend the part of the devil theres no use clutching at your rosary, the put outs in the back yard, he can see thought the gaps in the curtains he sees it all, theres no use in hiding in the hall.When he raps at the knocker then he knows youre in No you wont no youll never get away from him. This raises an evil issue as hes everywhere. The last two lines No you wont, No youll never get away from him. Is an eerie constitution that is repeated for regular(a) more effect. From Act 2 scene 11 we notice from the first two lines that there is repetition. The only difference is of the back yard working segmentation garden middle class.Devil in your bones getting into yo ur ghostly running away from someone you can run haze over but hell always find you when he rings at the chimes it builds up tension as he is saying that you will never get away from the devil even if you run incubate hell always find you and is also showing the ghostly side of him, and again the idea of the negative within the play. From Act 4 Scene 1 we notice the narrator in a domineering light as he comments The summers never ever going to end The devil is hardly obvious. There is not much evidence of negative. The narrator also makes the audience happy which also makes the m unprepared for what is coming.In Act 4 scene 2 there is as difference as the social class has divided them because paddy field wanted to work but Eddie has a lot of money and doesnt have to work which causes frustration for Mickey. Again the narrator hints at the idea that the social class division may lead to a negative outcome. In this scene (Act 4 scene 3) Mickey is offered a job from Eddie but ref uses it and is sad because he cannot find one himself, the feels that he has lost the sand of pride.Again this gives the audience even more clue that because of this Mickey and Eddie will be torn obscure even more. In Act 5 scene 1 Linda got Mickey and Eddie takes over his fathers business. Gradually throughout the play the narrator is not warning + predicting but gradually taking over the whole character by being within that character. If I was the director I would dress the narrator in discolor as that is a dark colour and also can represent the negativity in the play. precisely I would also dress him in a lighter colour like yellow to show the happier side of the narrator.I would make him dress in red to show the devil side of him or give him a red fork so show that there is also a devil with in him when he is manipulating the characters to do bad things or communicationing in a cold tone. Id also consider putting him at a higher status I would make him stand on the balcony or on staging blocks as he seems to be controlling the families but I would also ask him to walk around so he would be in with the escape from to show the equality in status at times. He would have a deep interpreter as many people see god as having a deep voice and as he is controlling the families and is a higher status and people see god to be in the sky.My narrator would appear at the beginning and at the end of the play. He would also appear to sing with the characters so he will be interacting with the characters. He would also be standing on the balcony at the side when he would be controlling the families I would also want him to interact with the characters as I want him walking around in between the characters when they are frozen and he is explaining to the audience what is happening.For the body language if I was showing the bad side of him I would make him stand in one place at a higher status staring down at the characters but if hes in a good mood I want him walking around interacting with the characters. I would also give him a strong accent as many people perceive god to have a strong accent and a deep voice. He will also talk loud as thats how many people see god. Conclusion The understanding of the narrator has helped me to go bad this dramatic technique by setting the scene, also explaining to the audience what is going on. I found it particularly useful to be able to compare the Blood Brothers narrator with the original Greek narrator and this produced me with even more understanding.