Man and Superman - Dramaturg's Statement

Without a doubt, the single biggest issue faced when dealing with this particular script is the majority of act three, known as "Don Juan in Hell". Long enough to be produced as a seperate play on its own, this segment does not contribute directly to the advancement of any sort of plot. On the other hand, if this segment is left out entirely, then the audience loses almost all of the philosophical rationale behind the main character, namely the ideas of a life force and a universal consciousness. I recommend that Don Juan remain in the show, as the play is very much a piece of philosophy. To cut Don Juan would be to neuter it into a light comedy of manners with no real meat. With that being said, cutting may very well be necessary (even within the main show), as few modern audiences have the patience to sit through such a long show (upwards of four hours if performed in its entirety). There are certain segments, notably some of the longer speeches that can be trimmed down with minimal loss of content, as many of the philosophy travels in a circuituous route, and can be arrived at much more simply. As a matter of fact, some current dramaturg's ascertain that at least two thirds of the entirety of the text can be pared away without impacting the story in a meaningful way.


Other issues you may run across concern the dramatic movement of the play, or more specifically, the potential lack thereof. Much of this play tends to be long-winded speech after long-winded speech. Staging must be carefully considered and utilized to keep the action fresh.


Also of considerable note is the character of Ann. Historically through the various runs of the play, she is a much disliked character, often to the detriment of the production, given that she is a leading lady. Sincere care must be taken with the casting of Ann, as she must remain likeable and relateable despite her rough and callous treatment of Octavius later in the script. Another character of worth mentioning is Tanner. Tanner is the absolute essence of a character being the mouthpiece of a (long-winded) playwright. As I mentioned before, many of the speeches run long and run often (many of them belong to Tanner). You've got to get someone in this role who can really get the intellectual energy of a speech crackling, and avoid the whole "rattling off a chunk of philosophy because those are my lines" schtick.

Further down the casting road, there is the issue of non-traditional casting. For this show, it is a perfectly viable option, as race, disability etc. are not germane to the show (with the exception of a few decidedly fit individuals). If produced at SHSU, this would be a good practice to implement for casting.


There are several different locales within the play, all of them distinctly different from each other, visually speaking. Minimalism is a valid approach here, and has been supported by several of my enclosed reviews despite Shaw writing nearly impossibly detailed descriptions of all scenes. This can be largely attributed to his love of the written word (especially HIS written word), rather than any intent of staging the show as the set is written. For instance, some of the action he has written for the Sierra Nevada is borderline impossible, even if one works with a stage of grand operatic proportions.