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.

Links To Comments.

One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six

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.

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.

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.

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.