If we were to look at this play strictly from the fictional DC, I feel like a lot of the tension would be lost. There would be plenty of dramatic irony, sure, but the tense moments of "sudden" interruption would be completely lost. There would be no skipping record or phone ringing or strange supervisor coming in being creepy about liking musicals. Those moments portray tension, and they personally make me want to get back to the story of the fictional DC, though I do find them amusing.
Another thing is that much of the background information of the play would be lost if this were to strictly be the fictional DC. The Man tells us background on all these various "actors" and how they relate to their characters, possibly why they were casted. It gives better understand of what's going on in the play, such as Chaperone's song "As We Stumble Along" being totally about dealing with alcoholism and how she gets this huge, insane music number in each of the shows she's involved in.
One thing I could do without, however, is the ridiculous Nightingale song that's "from another play." I heard that and my jaw dropped because I was so jarred out of the setting of the actual play. But I suppose if you're listening to a record in your living room and put the wrong one on, you'd be a bit jarred as well. Again, adding more and more to the tension/release factor.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
On The Verge Response
The entire time reading this play, I was trying to figure out what the poster for it would look like. Designs are something I really enjoy (though, I must admit, I'm not very good at).
The tag line for this play was the easiest part for me. Throughout the entire play, the women are figuring out things from the future and hearing of things that they will enjoy later in the play and want to stay around. For the tag line, I chose a line that Alex says in scene five. "Everyone is a native of somewhere." The reason I'm choosing this line is because, despite each of the women talking about the time that they came from, each one finds home in the future, whether it be the 1950s for Fanny and Alex, or later on for Mary. It also applies to each of the characters they meet along the way. Everyone comes from somewhere.
As for the posters, I'm looking at them in terms of each woman, then one all together. I imagine one with one of Fanny's letters and a quill in ink next to it on one side, and a tub of Cool Whip with a spoon in it on the other. The letter could say something along the lines of "Dear Grover, I'm getting married again. I met a charming man in 1955. I wonder if you'd enjoy that age. The date of our wedding is (Insert date for play showings here in large print), Love Fanny" or something of that nature.
Alex's would be the rickety bridge with mountains in the background, then at the end of the bridge is the George Troll sitting on his motorcycle holding a 1950s style microphone out to her.
Mary's would be her walking away into a red sunset down a paved road wearing pants with her skirt lying in the road behind her, with her travelers pack and explorer's hat on her head.
The one with all three of them would be the three of them sitting around a fire, still in their 1889 clothes, with an umbrella leaning against one log chair, and an eggbeater against another, with a tent behind them and packs leaning against it. Yes, it seems typical, but from the other posters I saw, much of them are only silhouettes of the three ladies with a map in the background, holding the umbrellas and eggbeaters. This is slightly different enough to not be typical.
The tag line for this play was the easiest part for me. Throughout the entire play, the women are figuring out things from the future and hearing of things that they will enjoy later in the play and want to stay around. For the tag line, I chose a line that Alex says in scene five. "Everyone is a native of somewhere." The reason I'm choosing this line is because, despite each of the women talking about the time that they came from, each one finds home in the future, whether it be the 1950s for Fanny and Alex, or later on for Mary. It also applies to each of the characters they meet along the way. Everyone comes from somewhere.
As for the posters, I'm looking at them in terms of each woman, then one all together. I imagine one with one of Fanny's letters and a quill in ink next to it on one side, and a tub of Cool Whip with a spoon in it on the other. The letter could say something along the lines of "Dear Grover, I'm getting married again. I met a charming man in 1955. I wonder if you'd enjoy that age. The date of our wedding is (Insert date for play showings here in large print), Love Fanny" or something of that nature.
Alex's would be the rickety bridge with mountains in the background, then at the end of the bridge is the George Troll sitting on his motorcycle holding a 1950s style microphone out to her.
Mary's would be her walking away into a red sunset down a paved road wearing pants with her skirt lying in the road behind her, with her travelers pack and explorer's hat on her head.
The one with all three of them would be the three of them sitting around a fire, still in their 1889 clothes, with an umbrella leaning against one log chair, and an eggbeater against another, with a tent behind them and packs leaning against it. Yes, it seems typical, but from the other posters I saw, much of them are only silhouettes of the three ladies with a map in the background, holding the umbrellas and eggbeaters. This is slightly different enough to not be typical.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Three Viewings Response
This play was definitely interesting to me. Trying to figure out how each of the three monologues related to each other without speaking the names of the people who were saying them was cool for me.
One of the people that I noticed was involved in each of the monologues, though not in a major way, was Margaret-Mary Walsh. By the funerals she attended, I'm making the assumption that she is an older woman who's much involved with the community that all these funerals are held in. And yes, I do think they're all in the same community one hour outside of Pittsburgh as Mac says, since many of the same people are mentioned. The people mentioned don't seem to be the kind that would travel very far from home to go to a funeral or such.
Another thing that seems apparent in each of the monologues is that every character has lost their significant other. Though Emil was never married to Tessie, he still loved her. Mac lost her husband and children in an attempt to kill herself. Virginia lost her husband to heart disease. Only the funeral in Mac's monologue had nothing to do with losing her loved one, and Emil's only involved Tessie's funeral near the end.
Something else similar in the monologues is that each of the characters meet someone for a meal in a restaurant. However, it's never the same one. It's like receiving any sort of news is easier when you're chowing down on a burger. I feel like that's involved because it's familiar for every person. Everyone goes out to get a bite to eat occasionally, and it's a moment of comfort in a play that's centered around death and funerals.
One of the people that I noticed was involved in each of the monologues, though not in a major way, was Margaret-Mary Walsh. By the funerals she attended, I'm making the assumption that she is an older woman who's much involved with the community that all these funerals are held in. And yes, I do think they're all in the same community one hour outside of Pittsburgh as Mac says, since many of the same people are mentioned. The people mentioned don't seem to be the kind that would travel very far from home to go to a funeral or such.
Another thing that seems apparent in each of the monologues is that every character has lost their significant other. Though Emil was never married to Tessie, he still loved her. Mac lost her husband and children in an attempt to kill herself. Virginia lost her husband to heart disease. Only the funeral in Mac's monologue had nothing to do with losing her loved one, and Emil's only involved Tessie's funeral near the end.
Something else similar in the monologues is that each of the characters meet someone for a meal in a restaurant. However, it's never the same one. It's like receiving any sort of news is easier when you're chowing down on a burger. I feel like that's involved because it's familiar for every person. Everyone goes out to get a bite to eat occasionally, and it's a moment of comfort in a play that's centered around death and funerals.
Fires In The Mirror Response
Being a series of monologues that are seemingly unrelated, Fires In The Mirror is easy to get lost in and find the focal point of the play. However, without the beginning monologues, much of the impact of the play could be lost.
Before the "Lousy Language" monologue, we see pictures of racism and prejudice from both the black community and the Lubavich community. Angela Davis told of the way racism began in the race for colonization of European countries. Leonard Jeffries showed how racism was still very apparent in his life because of the way Roots was manipulated to be less of an impact for the black community than it really was. Letty Cottin Pogrebin told of the way that her mother's cousin, Isaac, survived the Holocaust because he didn't "look Jewish."
Each of these monologues shows the basis of racism or prejudice for the communities involved. Once we reach "Lousy Language," Robert Sherman applies the things we've already seen to the riots in Crown Heights. It's not directly applied yet; that comes later in the play. But both communities are mentioned in one monologue for the first time in the play. Without the previous monologues, this one wouldn't have as much of an impact. The descriptions of word use wouldn't have that basis of proof from the previous monologues to back it up.
These beginning monologues show snapshots into the lives of all the communities in Crown Heights so that a decision can be made without bias as to whether the driver of the car meant to kill the little boy or not.
Before the "Lousy Language" monologue, we see pictures of racism and prejudice from both the black community and the Lubavich community. Angela Davis told of the way racism began in the race for colonization of European countries. Leonard Jeffries showed how racism was still very apparent in his life because of the way Roots was manipulated to be less of an impact for the black community than it really was. Letty Cottin Pogrebin told of the way that her mother's cousin, Isaac, survived the Holocaust because he didn't "look Jewish."
Each of these monologues shows the basis of racism or prejudice for the communities involved. Once we reach "Lousy Language," Robert Sherman applies the things we've already seen to the riots in Crown Heights. It's not directly applied yet; that comes later in the play. But both communities are mentioned in one monologue for the first time in the play. Without the previous monologues, this one wouldn't have as much of an impact. The descriptions of word use wouldn't have that basis of proof from the previous monologues to back it up.
These beginning monologues show snapshots into the lives of all the communities in Crown Heights so that a decision can be made without bias as to whether the driver of the car meant to kill the little boy or not.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Water By The Spoonful Response
In Water By The Spoonful, there are two worlds. One of the physical variety, and one of the viral. In Scene eight, Elliot and Yaz discover the world that Odessa has created for herself to live in. A world where she isn't a crack addict, where she can write haikus and not worry about how bad she wants to relapse. Orangutan is there waiting for Haikumom, but she instead meets her relatives.
This moment is pivotal for the relationship between Elliot and Yaz. Yaz learns of his addiction to pain pills after having four surgeries on his leg from Iraq. She learns how he tried to deal with the addiction alone, and begins to feel bad for herself.
This moment is also important because it's shortly after Elliot has begun pushing the correct buttons to make Odessa relapse. Orangutan sees Haikumom online, but it's not actually Haikumom. She won't see Haikumom after this, not for a long time. It's that last moment of daily routine before everything begins to change in each of the worlds. Chutes&ladders learns more about Orangutan and they begin to become a real life friendship instead of only online. This scene is the pivotal moment of change for everything.
This moment is pivotal for the relationship between Elliot and Yaz. Yaz learns of his addiction to pain pills after having four surgeries on his leg from Iraq. She learns how he tried to deal with the addiction alone, and begins to feel bad for herself.
This moment is also important because it's shortly after Elliot has begun pushing the correct buttons to make Odessa relapse. Orangutan sees Haikumom online, but it's not actually Haikumom. She won't see Haikumom after this, not for a long time. It's that last moment of daily routine before everything begins to change in each of the worlds. Chutes&ladders learns more about Orangutan and they begin to become a real life friendship instead of only online. This scene is the pivotal moment of change for everything.
Detroit Response
Trying to figure out why this play could be called Detroit actually wasn't that hard of a stretch. When Frank talks about the neighborhood having its heyday nearly 30 years ago, it reminded me a lot of how the city of Detroit was at its high point in the 1950s. Since then, it has steadily declined (both the neighborhood and the city) so that things aren't as good as they once were.
In the city of Detroit, much of the economy was fueled by sports teams and vehicle factories. After the first interstate was built in the 1950s and '60s, much of the better off population moved to the suburbs of Detroit. This left the city itself to slowly decline and lose much of its luster.
The same thing happens to the neighborhood that Ben, Mary, Sharon and Kenny (Roger) live in. Frank tells Ben and Mary of what the neighborhood used to look like when he moved in. Kids went outside and played and built lemonade stands, everyone knew their neighbors and were friendly, and life just seemed like an episode of Leave it to Beaver. However, much like the city of Detroit, the neighborhood decline. Neighbors were less likely to acknowledge the people living in the house next to them. The thought of asking for a cup of sugar wasn't applicable in the more modern time. And people like Sharon and Kenny showed up in the area, causing what was already a delicate balance of self-sufficiency to burst into flames. Literally.
The name Detroit is given to this play because, like the deterioration of the city of Detroit, the characters' lives and neighborhood deteriorate until there's nothing left. Ben and Mary are having to live in a hotel. Frank comes to take his house back. And we don't even know what happened to Kenny and Sharon. It's all constantly falling apart.
In the city of Detroit, much of the economy was fueled by sports teams and vehicle factories. After the first interstate was built in the 1950s and '60s, much of the better off population moved to the suburbs of Detroit. This left the city itself to slowly decline and lose much of its luster.
The same thing happens to the neighborhood that Ben, Mary, Sharon and Kenny (Roger) live in. Frank tells Ben and Mary of what the neighborhood used to look like when he moved in. Kids went outside and played and built lemonade stands, everyone knew their neighbors and were friendly, and life just seemed like an episode of Leave it to Beaver. However, much like the city of Detroit, the neighborhood decline. Neighbors were less likely to acknowledge the people living in the house next to them. The thought of asking for a cup of sugar wasn't applicable in the more modern time. And people like Sharon and Kenny showed up in the area, causing what was already a delicate balance of self-sufficiency to burst into flames. Literally.
The name Detroit is given to this play because, like the deterioration of the city of Detroit, the characters' lives and neighborhood deteriorate until there's nothing left. Ben and Mary are having to live in a hotel. Frank comes to take his house back. And we don't even know what happened to Kenny and Sharon. It's all constantly falling apart.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Buried Child Response
With The Glass of Water and Noises Off!, it's very easy to tell that they are Well-Made Plays. Buried Child, however, throws readers for a loop. There's three acts--check--, there are things the audience sees that other characters don't know about--check--, but there isn't a distinct scene that encompasses the play and shows how it all relates together. Instead, as the entire play comes together, it becomes more and more confusing until the end when Tilden comes in holding the child, and it seems like everything has just blown up in pure confusion.
But everything that happens, though disturbing, could seem normal in some Norman Rockwell-meets-Rocky Horry world. The thing that catches our attention and shows us that the plot of this play is not so normal is Vince's girlfriend, Shelly. She acts as the audience on stage. When Vince and Shelly first arrive at the house, she says Vince should just leave because the man that is supposed to be his grandfather doesn't even recognize him. Later, when Vince comes back into the house drunk to oblivion as she's holding his uncle's wooden leg, she's basically done with life and just leaves.
Shelly seems to be the thing that stands out as different from this play. She gives us the perspective that we, as the audience, generally have. Such as "Why the hell is Tilden asking me/her to peel these carrots that apparently came out of a garden that doesn't exist?" And instead of what we would originally believe to be straight out of a Norman Rockwell painting, that vision, along with Shelly's is shattered as it becomes an image of infidelity, murder, and secrecy that is just plain creepy.
Is what we see what we get? I'm not quite sure. Is there a garden in the backyard or is it an empty pasture or a freaking torture chamber that we don't know about? It's all really frustrating, but it seems as though this play heavily relies on the ambiguity of it everything. The pretend garden, whether Ansel was a murdered basketball player or not, whether the farm was "flowing with milk and honey" as Dodge says. It's all left unsaid.
So I would say, no, this isn't a Well-Made Play. Everything is not as it seems because, well, we don't see a lot of it. And Norman Rockwell paintings will now haunt my dreams.
But everything that happens, though disturbing, could seem normal in some Norman Rockwell-meets-Rocky Horry world. The thing that catches our attention and shows us that the plot of this play is not so normal is Vince's girlfriend, Shelly. She acts as the audience on stage. When Vince and Shelly first arrive at the house, she says Vince should just leave because the man that is supposed to be his grandfather doesn't even recognize him. Later, when Vince comes back into the house drunk to oblivion as she's holding his uncle's wooden leg, she's basically done with life and just leaves.
Shelly seems to be the thing that stands out as different from this play. She gives us the perspective that we, as the audience, generally have. Such as "Why the hell is Tilden asking me/her to peel these carrots that apparently came out of a garden that doesn't exist?" And instead of what we would originally believe to be straight out of a Norman Rockwell painting, that vision, along with Shelly's is shattered as it becomes an image of infidelity, murder, and secrecy that is just plain creepy.
Is what we see what we get? I'm not quite sure. Is there a garden in the backyard or is it an empty pasture or a freaking torture chamber that we don't know about? It's all really frustrating, but it seems as though this play heavily relies on the ambiguity of it everything. The pretend garden, whether Ansel was a murdered basketball player or not, whether the farm was "flowing with milk and honey" as Dodge says. It's all left unsaid.
So I would say, no, this isn't a Well-Made Play. Everything is not as it seems because, well, we don't see a lot of it. And Norman Rockwell paintings will now haunt my dreams.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Noises Off Response
Being able to keep up with the script was really difficult. At points, it seemed like I was reading just to say I'd read it. But after finishing it and being able to mull over what I'd just read, it seemed easier to grasp some of the things going on in this play besides just the cues for audience laughter.
One of the motifs I found in the play was "breaking boundaries." Boundaries, in this sense, could mean multiple things. Staying in character is a boundary that is broken in the third act when the play they're performing is basically falling apart. Being in relationships with either multiple people or with people normally deemed inappropriate in our world is a boundary that is broken throughout the entire play. Selsdon undressing Dotty to find a contact is a boundary that furthers Garry's already very present anger.
We often think of boundaries in terms of "lines we can't cross so we don't screw up." But even if this play were to be one that broke the fourth wall instead of putting on the illusion of real life, the breaking of the fourth wall would be the breaking of a boundary.
As for a tag line, one word that comes up in the play the most often is "Sardines." My idea behind using this is that, though they are generally referred to as fish, sardines can also mean "describing any situation where people or objects are crowded together" ("Sardine"). This play seems to have the people and objects in a very sardine-like situation. In the second act, both the play in the script is happening "on stage" as well as the events back stage with the relationship drama. It almost seems as though the characters are both themselves and the character they're portraying, causing the perceived amount of people to double and begin crowding. This crowdedness drives a lot of the play to be portrayed as it is in the script.
"Sardine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
The Glass Of Water Response
While reading The Glass Of Water, it seemed difficult to discern who took on the protagonist roll. Throughout much of the play, I seemed led to believe that the Duchess was the antagonist, providing obstacles in nearly every aspect of the goings-on of the play. However, I do find myself leaning more towards Bolingbroke as the protagonist.
When we're first really introduced to Bolingbroke, we learn that he uses much of the events around him to further his desires throughout the play. Abigail is called by the queen to work for her? Bolingbroke will help fully get Abigail the job to give himself someone inside the palace to connect with the queen to further his political party, the Tories. Marsham kills Bolingbroke's cousin who is the current heir of his family's estate? No problem, he just became that much richer and had a higher influence with the queen. Bolingbroke needs to get the Duchess out of the power of position next to the queen? Using the knowledge he's collected from each of the characters, he informs the Duchess that she has a rival in loving Masham who is a higher lady of court, which gives him a chance to get a meeting with the queen for de Torcy.
Everything that happens in the play is furthered by the cunningness of Bolingbroke and his desires to further his party.
One could argue that this play wouldn't be possible without Masham since he is the cause of all the relationship squabble; however, he doesn't have much stage time with significant, plot advancing moments. He doesn't seem to be a strong enough, fully defined character to be the protagonist.
Another argument could be for Abigail as the protagonist, but much of what Abigail does in the play is a result of either her love for Masham, or instructions she received from Bolingbroke.
Therefore, I feel that Bolingbroke has the strongest chance of being the protagonist of this play.
When we're first really introduced to Bolingbroke, we learn that he uses much of the events around him to further his desires throughout the play. Abigail is called by the queen to work for her? Bolingbroke will help fully get Abigail the job to give himself someone inside the palace to connect with the queen to further his political party, the Tories. Marsham kills Bolingbroke's cousin who is the current heir of his family's estate? No problem, he just became that much richer and had a higher influence with the queen. Bolingbroke needs to get the Duchess out of the power of position next to the queen? Using the knowledge he's collected from each of the characters, he informs the Duchess that she has a rival in loving Masham who is a higher lady of court, which gives him a chance to get a meeting with the queen for de Torcy.
Everything that happens in the play is furthered by the cunningness of Bolingbroke and his desires to further his party.
One could argue that this play wouldn't be possible without Masham since he is the cause of all the relationship squabble; however, he doesn't have much stage time with significant, plot advancing moments. He doesn't seem to be a strong enough, fully defined character to be the protagonist.
Another argument could be for Abigail as the protagonist, but much of what Abigail does in the play is a result of either her love for Masham, or instructions she received from Bolingbroke.
Therefore, I feel that Bolingbroke has the strongest chance of being the protagonist of this play.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
How I Learned To Drive Response
The Greek Chorus used by Vogel seemed really effective to me. The focus of the play was on the relationship between Uncle Peck and Lil Bit, and if Vogel would have created separate actors for each one of the extraneous characters, there would have been a chance that the audience would have been slightly distracted. I know that, when I'm seeing a play, I try to notice every character on the stage. However, by use of the Greek Chorus (or modern, twisted version of it), we only have three voices and bodies to get used to, which gives the audience a chance to focus more on the interaction between Uncle Peck and Lil Bit. Where extraneous characters could have been added, by seeing a familiar face on screen, we can notice the little details between their interactions, such as the smiles and intense looks, which I often find myself looking for if I'm not needing to look at other characters to see how their reacting.
Vogel chooses not to show us the interaction with Bobby and Uncle Peck on stage, which could have shown insight into whether this was a common thing for Peck, or if it had just been with Lil Bit. We also don't see a character on stage with Peck, we only hear him speaking to Bobby as if he's right there. But what it does show us is how he would act when around someone else, despite that other person not being on stage. We also see the way Peck's emotions work, and how he doesn't want anyone else to know about the things he does with the younger family members. He says it's okay to cry when no one else is around, which he may be justifying for himself.
Vogel chooses not to show us the interaction with Bobby and Uncle Peck on stage, which could have shown insight into whether this was a common thing for Peck, or if it had just been with Lil Bit. We also don't see a character on stage with Peck, we only hear him speaking to Bobby as if he's right there. But what it does show us is how he would act when around someone else, despite that other person not being on stage. We also see the way Peck's emotions work, and how he doesn't want anyone else to know about the things he does with the younger family members. He says it's okay to cry when no one else is around, which he may be justifying for himself.
Friday, February 15, 2013
The Conduct of Life Response
As people, when we interact with others, we only get part of the story. We're not always blessed enough to understand another person to the fullest extent, and Fornes makes that very apparent with her writing style.
By giving us only the bare minimum, she forces us to think fast about what we're seeing. With the rawness and painfulness of this play, it's like having to make a snap decision in a crisis situation like a mugging or rape (which is a huge part of this play). Victims of violence and rape don't have a lot of time to think about their situation, and Fornes seems to want to put us in that same state of hurriedness and panic.
I think also that, if Fornes were to give us back stories on all the characters, it would change the entire meaning of the play. We do get a bit of back story for Nena, but if we were to get one on Orlando, our entire view of him would possibly shift, and maybe we would feel more concerned after Leticia shoots him. Fornes is painting a specific picture about her characters with these small snapshots into their lives. If it were to be altered, this play would take on a different meaning that may not be as impactful and difficult to watch.
The scenes that she does choose to show us are for a reason as well. We could have seen Orlando killing the man from headquarters, but instead we get to hear him describe it and get more detail than if we were to just see it. We also hear about the investigation going on about him, more information than we would have gotten if we'd just seen the killing. She gives us very specific information to keep with her painting of the characters. Fornes truly tries to make us feel a certain way about the characters that she paints for us with her abrupt and specific scenes.
By giving us only the bare minimum, she forces us to think fast about what we're seeing. With the rawness and painfulness of this play, it's like having to make a snap decision in a crisis situation like a mugging or rape (which is a huge part of this play). Victims of violence and rape don't have a lot of time to think about their situation, and Fornes seems to want to put us in that same state of hurriedness and panic.
I think also that, if Fornes were to give us back stories on all the characters, it would change the entire meaning of the play. We do get a bit of back story for Nena, but if we were to get one on Orlando, our entire view of him would possibly shift, and maybe we would feel more concerned after Leticia shoots him. Fornes is painting a specific picture about her characters with these small snapshots into their lives. If it were to be altered, this play would take on a different meaning that may not be as impactful and difficult to watch.
The scenes that she does choose to show us are for a reason as well. We could have seen Orlando killing the man from headquarters, but instead we get to hear him describe it and get more detail than if we were to just see it. We also hear about the investigation going on about him, more information than we would have gotten if we'd just seen the killing. She gives us very specific information to keep with her painting of the characters. Fornes truly tries to make us feel a certain way about the characters that she paints for us with her abrupt and specific scenes.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Trifles Prompt Response
I've sat here for a while trying to contemplate what a production of Trifles would look like with a minimalistic set, costume, and prop design, and I've come to the conclusion that it would lose a lot of the detail that's given to us in the play.
I realize that the dialogue is extremely detailed in describing things such as the frozen bread on the counter, the jars of jam, and the broken bird cage, but I just don't think description is enough for the audience. If I were to attend a production of this play with the minimalistic set up, I don't think I would be satisfied. I can honestly say that I'd be too busy trying to create the world in my head then paying attention to it.
In this story, the women are snooping around and finding all these little details about the house that the men didn't notice. Granted, the play is told from the perspective of the women, but I almost feel like we should treat the audience as one of the men, assuming that they won't notice or understand the details described to them. Seeing things like the quilting basket with the small box coffin and the destroyed bird cage would give the audience a chance to look more at the bigger picture of the play, as well attempt to find other details in the room that could pertain to Minnie Wright's arrest.
To me, an audience can be more engaged when they can see the items on stage already and try to piece them together for the story instead of having to imagine what the world of the play would look like and then try piecing the clues together. For lack of better words, it makes it more interesting and enjoyable.
In conclusion, no, I don't think the minimalistic set would work. Losing the physicality of a naturalistic set in a play this intrinsically detailed takes away a lot of meat of the play, even with the detailed dialogue.
I realize that the dialogue is extremely detailed in describing things such as the frozen bread on the counter, the jars of jam, and the broken bird cage, but I just don't think description is enough for the audience. If I were to attend a production of this play with the minimalistic set up, I don't think I would be satisfied. I can honestly say that I'd be too busy trying to create the world in my head then paying attention to it.
In this story, the women are snooping around and finding all these little details about the house that the men didn't notice. Granted, the play is told from the perspective of the women, but I almost feel like we should treat the audience as one of the men, assuming that they won't notice or understand the details described to them. Seeing things like the quilting basket with the small box coffin and the destroyed bird cage would give the audience a chance to look more at the bigger picture of the play, as well attempt to find other details in the room that could pertain to Minnie Wright's arrest.
To me, an audience can be more engaged when they can see the items on stage already and try to piece them together for the story instead of having to imagine what the world of the play would look like and then try piecing the clues together. For lack of better words, it makes it more interesting and enjoyable.
In conclusion, no, I don't think the minimalistic set would work. Losing the physicality of a naturalistic set in a play this intrinsically detailed takes away a lot of meat of the play, even with the detailed dialogue.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Overtones Response
To be honest, this play confused me a bit to where I had to go back and read certain parts of it multiple times to try and understand what was going on. It seems as though Hetty and Maggie are the personifications of Harriet and Margaret's inner thoughts, which gives is an interesting perspective on their characters.
Without the aid of Hetty and Maggie, it would seem like these two women we're friendly to each other while competitive at the same time.
It seems as though the rules for this play world are as strange as the personifications of the characters inner thoughts. Margaret and Harriet cannot see Maggie and Hetty, but at certain points, Maggie and Hetty can see each other and interact. For most of their contact, it seems that Maggie and Hetty don't address each other directly because they're behind their respective people acting as this inner voice. But once they rip their veils off, they approach each other and directly address each other. I think the writer used the veils over Maggie and Hetty's faces to keep them disconnected from each other, as well as symbolizing the deceit between Margaret and Harriet.
I think it is pretty obvious to the audience the points in which Maggie and Hetty actually interact, other than once or twice during the course of the conversation between Margaret and Harriet when they make some snide remark to each other.
For the most part, it seems that they absolutely stick to the rule that Maggie and Hetty aren't seen by Margaret and Harriet, and that Maggie and Hetty only interact after their veils have been removed (for the most part). When they do interact with the veils on, it gives us more of a sense of how much Margaret and Harriet actually hate each other.
Without the aid of Hetty and Maggie, it would seem like these two women we're friendly to each other while competitive at the same time.
It seems as though the rules for this play world are as strange as the personifications of the characters inner thoughts. Margaret and Harriet cannot see Maggie and Hetty, but at certain points, Maggie and Hetty can see each other and interact. For most of their contact, it seems that Maggie and Hetty don't address each other directly because they're behind their respective people acting as this inner voice. But once they rip their veils off, they approach each other and directly address each other. I think the writer used the veils over Maggie and Hetty's faces to keep them disconnected from each other, as well as symbolizing the deceit between Margaret and Harriet.
I think it is pretty obvious to the audience the points in which Maggie and Hetty actually interact, other than once or twice during the course of the conversation between Margaret and Harriet when they make some snide remark to each other.
For the most part, it seems that they absolutely stick to the rule that Maggie and Hetty aren't seen by Margaret and Harriet, and that Maggie and Hetty only interact after their veils have been removed (for the most part). When they do interact with the veils on, it gives us more of a sense of how much Margaret and Harriet actually hate each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)