Critical Analysis of "The Good Doctor" By Neil Simon
I recently saw the production of “The Good Doctor” by Neil Simon The play was very well performed and followed Aristotle’s six elements of drama successfully. I am usually not that interested in attending plays but I actually found it be very entertaining and delightful to watch. The plot was executed nicely in the beginning of the play. I think that it gave the audience a good understanding of the direction in which the play was going since there were several short stories involved. The inciting incident was in the first scene of the play when “the writer” starts to explain what he wanted to do with his life as a child and instead starts having ideas for several different stories to write. However the climax of the story was harder to depict because each story had it’s own, but the play as a whole did not. The characters in the play were all adaptations of “the writer” Anton Chekhov’s fictitious stories. So, there were several different protagonists and antagonists in each story. However, the main protagonist was Chekhov himself because you are following his ideas and how he creates his characters. I found the theme to be easily recognized. In the final act of the play Chekhov is back to the original setting of him as a writer. He has decided that he doesn’t even remember what he use to want to be as a child because in fact, his life is exactly as it should be, a proud writer. Which also sends the message that you should be proud of your life and the direction you take. Before the play began I noticed the music playing in the background. It seemed to be very soft folk like music and tied it rather well with the set they had on stage. I noticed as the play began, it seemed to go well with the time the actors were portraying providing a good transition into the play. In the story “too late for happiness” the actors sang, which really helped portray the strong...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document