Theatrical Adaptation

Meditation #5 -- Katie Marchant

I was very intrigued by the moral and sociological questions brought up in both acts of Lovers. The titles of the individual acts provoke some very confusing thoughts in the minds of the audience members. Why are the lovers who die at a very young age called “Winners” and why are the lovers who get to spend their whole lives together called “Losers”?

In my opinion the first act is more of a classic tragedy in that the main characters die in the end. But the title seems to say otherwise. “Winners” provokes a very optimistic, promising feeling in the audience. These lovers are predestined to die on the same day we meet them, several hours later, but the audience learns of this predestination in the middle of the act from the monotone narrators while the characters are still full of life. It is hard to comprehend that these very young people truly are “winners” in love when they tragically die “…due to asphyxiation as a result of drowning. ...” (Lovers, page 64) but in the end the audience comes to understand that indeed they do win because they die together, and in love.

The second act “Losers” provokes very negative, pessimistic thoughts in the audience. We expect the characters to fail in whatever romantic pursuits they embark on, but in “Losers” the lovers do get to spend their lives together unlike in the first act. Like the first act they do live up the acts’ title of “Losers” in that they are married and get to be together but they are not happy and essentially, the losers compared to the "winners" of the first act.

posted by Katie Marchant @ 11:00 PM