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. 

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.