Sophia Burke

THEA 1013

Charles Monte

November 11th, 2018

Silent Sky

On November 8th, 2018 from 7:30-9:30 PM, I attended the SLCC Blackbox Theatre

production of A Silent Sky directed by Zac Curtis. This play, in short, was about the historical

figure Henrietta Leavitt (1868-1921) who made significant astronomical discoveries that forever

altered our understanding and scientific measurement of distance in space. This show consisted

of two acts with a brief 10 minute intermission between acts, where act one set up all the

background information of her getting into her work and act two showed her making her

historical discovery.

As an audience member, when you first entered the black box room, the first thing that

caught your eye was the floor painted with a beautiful galaxy. Then, looking around, there were

strings of lights hanging from the ceiling that, at first glance, were thought of to be aesthetically

placed, but later to be revealed to be stars. I thought this design was brilliant because it took a

simple set up and created a unique way to express ideas throughout the entire show. For

example, when Henrietta looked up at the sky, the lights lit up as the symbolize the night sky. Or,

when the characters were mapping out stars, a single light would light up as they announced the

new finding to symbolize the star.

The first thing I noticed when the play started was how much this didn’t seem like a play.

The dialogue between the characters seemed strangely real. In my experience in theatre, I notice

that actors often sound like they are reading off a script, as it would be the way they practiced
perhaps. However, this dialogue flowed naturally as if it were all real. The characters didn’t reply

to one another the second the other was finished, not even taking in what the other said. They

didn’t have an unnatural voice inflection to their statement, or any of the stereotypical theatre

dialogue. What I noticed was that the actors almost became their characters, and instead of

reciting memorized lines, they actually listened to what the other character was saying, took

maybe a second or two to think of a response, and replied how their character would. I felt like

this was powerful because it allowed us, the audience, to engage in the contract of pretending it

is all real even more.

I noticed this several times throughout the entire show, especially in scenes that were

significant to the plot. For example, in act one scene four when Henrietta and Peter were parting,

they confessed their love to each other before saying goodbye. In this scene, you could see

genuine sparkle in the actors’ eyes, as if they were lovers both in the show and in real life.

Glancing across the room, I saw other audience members clinging to the edge of their chair,

desperate for a kiss between the two. Mostly women, of course, but desperate for that love

connection climax. For me however, it wasn’t the kiss that made my heart melt, it was when

Peter said, “you’re the brightest object in my life, and we study stars.” The way the actor, Cole

Vigil, said this with such authenticity made my heart melt. Such a cheesy line, and yet the actor

made it incredibly romantic.

Speaking of their relationship, there was another powerful scene where Henrietta was at

home and Peter was away at ship. They were “talking” to each other via letter, and I feel the

actors did a wonderful job at portraying the emotions felt while writing to each other. At first, the

excitement from hearing from one another, expressing their saying of “afar but not apart.”

However, as time went on, you could see Peter becoming more and more disinterested. It wasn’t
until Peter addressed his letter with Mrs. Leavitt, rather than Henrietta, that it really hit us how

unattached he had become. For me, I felt my heart sink the minute Peter said Mrs. Leavitt instead

of his usual cheerful Henrietta. That shift in their relationship as lovers, to then professional

colleagues, was a creative way of doing so rather than coming out and explicitly saying they

were disconnecting.

One thing I would’ve liked to have seen more out of the play though was more of an

emphasis on Henrietta’s disabilities, such as her deafness and her sickness towards the end. As

an audience member who had no prior knowledge of Henrietta before the show, I was confused

by why the actor had a strange prop on her head with a matching one around her neck. It was

mentioned briefly at the beginning as a hearing aid if I remember correctly, but other than that,

you would never have known she was deaf.

I would’ve liked to have seen more of a struggle to communicate with hearing people.

For example, the actor’s speech was flawless, and I felt like it would’ve added to the story if

possibly the actress took on a deaf accent or asked characters to repeat what they were saying a

few times in the show. A disability like that is significant in one’s life, and I would’ve liked to

have seen more of how that impacted her day-to-day life in character interaction than a brief

mention of a hearing aid at the beginning. Otherwise, why even acknowledge it at all?

As well as the deafness, the sickness towards the end was also a little unclear. There was

a part where she said she wasn’t feeling well, then the characters were whispering to each other

about something, then the next thing I know she’s in a rocking chair saying she doesn’t think she

will make it much longer. I understand there must’ve been a desire to uniquely show her sickness

without explicitly saying so by any of the characters, but as an audience member, it was

confusing. What kind of sickness did she have? Where did it come from?
 After doing a quick google search, I found that this sickness was what contributed to her

deafness, making the entirety of the show up until that point, portraying her as deaf her whole

life, inaccurate. As well as that, her colleague Annie Cannon, portrayed by Yesenia Beltran, was

also deaf upon my google search. In that case, her character was also represented inaccurately.

I’m unsure whether this historical error was due because of the script, or because of the

production team, but I would’ve liked to have seen a more accurate interpretation of this work.

Especially as someone who is majoring in deaf studies.

Overall, I feel like the play was a major success. It was entertaining for being based on a

non-fiction story, and I especially liked the cast picked. The cast really made the show, allowing

the characters to really interact in a more realistic and believable way. As well as the actor’s, I

also really enjoyed the overall set up of the Blackbox like the lights symbolizing stars hanging

from the ceiling or the galaxy painted on the floor. I felt like they was extremely creative, and I

thoroughly enjoyed their contribution to the story and the overall aesthetic throughout the show.

I would’ve liked to have seen a more accurate historical depiction of the story though, as well

more acknowledgement on Henrietta’s disability other than sticking a prop on her. However, the

show was a great hit and I would definitely recommend it.