Three Viewings

            The one thing that connected all these monologues was the location. All of the funerals from these monologues were in the same funeral home. All of the funerals were mentioned in the first monologue of the play. I expect most people who read this would make this connection. Other than this surface detail the only thing that I see that connects these monologues is the theme of their stories. All of the stories reminded me of a soap opera. I’ve never really watched soap operas but my take on them is that ridiculous things happen in common locations. I guess you could argue that a lot of stories are like that, but it was something about the tone of these monologues that reminded me of a soap opera. All of these stories are somewhat connected in an unassuming funeral home and city. The drama from these stories and the people involved all seem to be connected because of their tone. They all have these secrets that they can’t let be known because they know it will destroy them. The last one is slightly different because Virginia thinks there are secrets that will destroy, but it turns out to be a ploy to erase her debt. So overall I think the focus on secrecy and the drama that it causes is what connects these monologues on a deeper level. 

On The Verge

One idea for a promotional poster for this play I have would be an island that looks like a city during the 1950’s in America. It would make sense because of how the play starts out with them exploring supposedly “terra incognita”. The fact that it is actually a time warp and they end up in 1955 would also be covered by this poster. The tagline I would use for this poster be as follows; “Terra Incognita: Embrace the Future!”. The land they are exploring is repeatedly called “terra incognita” in the play. The meaning of terra incognita is “unknown land”. Even though they are charting through unknown time other than unknown land the term would still apply. The second part of the tag line is in homage to Alex saying “Embrace the Future!” throughout the play. It makes sense as a tagline because that is exactly what these ladies do during the play.

As for the question of whom this character Mr. Coffee is supposed to be. I can only guess that he is supposed to be a deity of some kind. I would assume he is supposed to represent God. His knowledge of both the past and future definitely gives the suspicion that he is a supernatural being of some sort. 

Fires in the Mirror

You should look at the first group of monologues in Fires in the Mirror as an introduction to the play. Since this is more of a documentary than anything else it’s introduction should be treated as such. The subject matter of the introductory monologues is an insight to the values and views of two different groups; Hassidic Jews and African Americans. These testimonials give us clarity on how the two different groups view things. It sets the tone for the play and allows the viewer to have an understanding of these groups. This understanding is necessary because of the event this play is about. The Crown Heights Riots were a terrible incident that to an outside viewer with no inside information would look upon it with a biased ignorance. Granted, the testimonials concerning the riots specifically do a good job of explaining the events from both sides involved, the introductory monologues go deeper. It allows the viewer to step back and take a view of the entire world through the eyes of these groups. It doesn’t necessarily explain or justify the behavior of the parties involved in the riots, but it gives the viewer a chance to have an understanding of the groups involved as a whole. Without this introduction the viewer will have less of an understanding of these groups and will be crippled by this ignorance to understand the story of the riots. 

show and tell post 2

            True West is a play written by playwright Sam Shepard. It was first performed at the Magic Theatre in San Francisco, where Shepard was the resident playwright. The world premiere of the play was on July 10, 1980. The production later moved to The Public Theatre in New York City where it starred Tommy Lee Jones and Peter Boyle. It was later revived by the Steppenwolf Theatre Company in Chicago where it starred Gary Sinise and John Malkovich in the leading roles. In 2000, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and John C. Reilly played the leads on Broadway; they were both nominated for the Tony Award for Best Actor in a Play for their performance. The production also was nominated for Best Play and Best Director (Matthew Warchus).

            The play takes place in California some 30 miles east of Los Angeles. The more immediate setting is a house in the suburbs. The story revolves around two brothers who are not on the best of terms with each other. There is the younger brother Austin who is a Hollywood screenwriter. Then there is the older brother Lee who is a drifter and a thief.  The story starts off with the two of them in their mother’s kitchen while she is away on vacation in Alaska. Austin is watching the house for his mother and Lee has come by to visit. Austin is using his time there to try and write a screenplay but is continuously distracted by Lee. Austin informs Lee that he must leave the house because a producer is coming to discuss a script Austin is writing. Lee buddies up with the producer, Saul and actually gives him an idea for a movie. Saul falls in love with the idea and decides to put Austin’s script on hold to work on Lee’s idea. Saul wants Austin to write the script for Lee but refuses. Lee then tries to write the script himself but eventually gets Austin to help with it. Austin only does so after he gets Lee to agree that he will take Austin with him to live in the desert. Their mother returns home and finds them working on the screenplay. Abruptly Lee decides that the script is a bad idea and abandons his deal with Austin. Austin attacks Lee and the play ends with the two toe to toe with each other.

            One choice I particularly enjoyed was the dynamic of the relationship between Lee and Austin. It’s a typical “good son bad son” relationship with Austin being a successful screenwriter and Lee being a drifter. Since Austin is the younger brother Lee still has somewhat of domination over him though. You quickly see that Lee isn’t unintelligent because he is able to sway the producer Saul to accept his story. It’s very easy to see the contrast between the two but also the similarities. The dynamic switches though when Lee’s story is accepted and Austin is the one in shame. Austin gets drunk and his mannerisms become similar to that of Lee’s. Then you see Lee lose his carefree mentality and has a uptight mood similar to that of Austin’s while he is trying to work on his story.

            Another choice I found interesting was how they referred to the father as “the old man”. This made it apparent that they had a very distant relationship with their father but they were still connected to him because they kept mentioning him. It became apparent that they felt obliged to help him but they also wanted to do anything they could to not end up like him. Also Lee and Austin’s behavior on alcohol seemed to bring the light why their father was in the current state he was in. 

Buried Child

Buried Child is a play filled with ambiguity. From the very beginning things are hinted at but never made certain. For instance, it’s never really made clear that there is a buried child until the end when Dodge confesses and Tildon brings it in the house. Even then it is never made certain why Dodge killed it except he said he “didn’t want it”. In his confession he made it sound as if he wasn’t the father saying that Halie and he hadn’t slept in the same bed for six years. He makes no mention of who the father might but Dewis’ presence implies that it might be him. This might explain the real reason he felt so awkward in the household when this subject was brought up. He definitely doesn’t react to the story as you think a man of the cloth would. I would think that a minister would be outraged if he heard a man make a confession that he killed his own child. This is an example of ambiguity that is never resolved which is strange in itself. 

Comments

Comment 1

Comment 2

Comment 3

Comment 4

Comment 5

Comment 6

Detroit

            In the play Detroit there are quite a few examples of ambiguity. One of the major examples is the truth about Kenny and Sharon’s past. They say that they met at a rehab facility and then became romantically involved. Shortly after that they tell a story about how they were at a nightclub in Atlanta and Kenny had an allergic reaction to caviar. This pokes a whole in their story about how they met in a rehab facility. They shrug it off by saying they realized sometime after that they had that random encounter in Atlanta. It is also hinted later on when Mary goes in the house and discovers that have hardly any possessions in their home. This is shrugged off by Ben because like Ken and Sharon said they were “starting over”. It’s discovered at the end of the play that they were lying and staying at the home illegally. There is also an example involving Ben and his connection with British culture. Sharon makes the assumption that he is British. This isn’t true but we find out later that he does spend a lot of his free time on a website called “brit-land”.

            An example of dramatic irony occurs towards the end of the play when Mary and Ben tell Frank that they might be moving to England and that Ben’s name is Ian. This is obviously not true but they get this idea from Ben’s avatar from the website “brit-land”. An example of reality check also occurs at the end of the play when Frank tells Ben and Mary the truth about Kenny and Sharon. He tells them that they were staying at the house illegally and that Kenny’s real name is Roger. Out of all these elements I believe ambiguity to be the most central to the play. The reason is because throughout the entire play, the truth of who they are is always in question but they are still accepted by Mary and Ben.