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. 

Spoonful of Water

In scene fourteen Elliot is once again confronted by the Ghost that has been haunting him the entire play. This time the Ghost actually attacks him, muttering the phrase “Momken men-fadluck ted-dini gawaz safari?” which means “May I have my passport back, please?” in Arabic. The ghost has been haunting him the entire length of the play, but this is the breaking point. It’s obvious that this is the ghost of an Iraqi he killed while serving in Iraq as a Marine. By the phrase that he mutters to Elliot it appears that he was an innocent citizen. You find out a few scenes before this one that Elliot became addicted to painkillers after being injured in Iraq.

The reason the Ghost confrontation was so climatic this time compared to all the others is because the stress and guilt that Elliot is under at this time. The woman that raised him has just died and his birth mother has just relapsed into crack-cocaine use. He blames himself for his birth mother’s relapse. The sadness and guilt that he is feeling at this point is higher than it has been during the plot of the play. This is why the Ghost actually attacks him at this point; Elliot is at a breaking point at this time. During the struggle between the Ghost and Elliot the Ghost touches Elliot’s face and studies him intently. The Ghost leaves after this and leaves Elliot in a panic. This made it seem like the Ghost was judging him and Elliot could not handle the guilt of his actions. This happened at this point because Elliot had not yet come to terms with what has happened to him. His grief, guilt, and addiction must be cured. 

Glass of Water

In The Glass of Water the protagonist appears to be Bolingbroke. All of the struggles and conflict that arise in the story happen because of his design. The romance between Abigail and Arthur are central to the plot, but Bolingbroke uses this to his own advantage. He doesn’t fit the stereotypical trend of a “good guy” protagonist, but his struggle for power is always present in the story. His motives do appear to be pure, one being that he wants to stop the war. It’s also clear that he has his own personal ambitions as motives as well. Him being introduced as one of the first characters you quickly see how important he is to the plot. Throughout the entire play he uses his influence to gain control in the royal court. His constant struggles with the Duchess are what drives the plot of the story. That being the case, it’s clear that the antagonist of the play is the Duchess. They are both opposing forces that are trying to gain influence over the Queen. Since Bolingbroke is casted in a more positive light than the Duchess, it is more likely that an audience would root for him over her. The ending of the play brings an end to their battle of wits with Bolingbroke gaining power and the Duchess losing hers. This being the wrap up to the promotes even further Bolingbroke’s place as the protagonist. 

Show and Tell blog #1

William Keith

Professor John Fletcher

Theatre 2130

16 February 2013

Proof

            The play I chose to write about is the play Proof. Proof was written by David Auburn and it premiered in May 2000, produced by the Manhattan Theatre Club. It transferred to Broadway at the Walter Kerr Theater in October 2000. This production had such well-known actors such as Mary-Louise Parker. The play won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 2001 and Tony Award for Best Play. Mary-Louise Parker also won a Tony Award for her performance in the production. The production of the play closed in January 2003 after a total of 917 performances. On March 23, 2013 a new production will open at London’s Menier Chocolate Factory. There was also a film version produced in 2005.

            The story focuses around Catherine, the 20-something daughter of a well-known mathematician. She has just recently had to put her father to rest after a long battle he had with mental illness. Robert, her father was a groundbreaking mathematician an esteemed professor at a University in Chicago. He lost his ability to work with numbers during his episode with mental illness. It becomes apparent that Catherine also has a talent for mathematics. It has flashbacks in the story explaining how Catherine dropped out of school to take care of her father when he was ill.

            Catherine then has to deal with her sister, Claire. Claire is her older sister that wants to take her to New York and try to take care of her. This is something that greatly bothers Catherine who would rather stay in Chicago. The story also is further complicated with the actions of Hal. Hal is a former student of Robert. Hal is trying to go through Robert’s old work to discover any breakthroughs that Robert might have made during his time off. He then discovers a proof that he believes was written by Robert. According to Hal, this proof is of great importance and is a major breakthrough for economic math. The main conflict is Catherine trying to convince Hal and Claire that it was really her that wrote the proof. This is further complicated because Hal and Catherine have become romantically involved. Catherine has to struggle with her own fears of falling into mental illness like her father and at the same time convince the others she wrote the proof.

            One of the main choices I find interesting is the playwright’s choice of the title Proof. The title has a double meaning in the play. It refers to the the “proof” that Catherine wrote about prime numbers. This proof is the main source of conflict in the play. Hal and Claire believe it was written by Robert, while Catherine says that she wrote it. The struggle for Catherine to prove that it was actually her that wrote it is the main plot point for the play. So David Auburn had a humorous play on words by naming the play Proof. It is significant because anyone who is unfamiliar with higher mathematics would assume he named it so because it refers to the struggle that Catherine goes through to prove that she wrote it. On the other hand, mathematicians can appreciate the title from a mathematic standpoint.

            I also find it interesting how Auburn chooses to use the character Robert in the play. The play opens with Catherine talking to Robert even though he has already passed. This is important because one of the main things that Catherine struggles with throughout the play is convincing herself of her own sanity. Using this conversation in the opening scene would allow the viewer to have the assumption that maybe she is in fact mentally unstable as her father was. It doesn’t give the viewer ironclad proof, but does allow it to be a possibility.

                                                         

Motif

In “How I Learned to Drive” the use of a car as a metaphor is a very important theme. With a title like “How I Learned to Drive” it isn’t surprising that this would be so. There are numerous scenes in the play that take place in a car whether Peck is teaching Li’l Bit how to drive or just them sitting together in it. Using a car in these scenes seems to mirror what is happening in the play as a metaphor. Learning to drive is a trial that many young people have to endure and is different for each individual. The experience of how someone learns this will reflect in how they drive. In this story Li’l Bits relationship with her Uncle Peck also influences how she handles herself in dealing with the opposite sex. So explaining in how she learned to drive in this context also explains how she carries herself as a woman because of her experiences. The playscript also uses car analogies to introduce the scenes throughout the play. The different ones used generally foreshadow what will happen in that scene. When it makes a reference to upshifting you can assume that there will be a plot advancement in that scene. It also has references to “the reverse gear”; in that case you can know that the scene will be a jump back in time.

          In every Star Wars movie made there is a use of the phrase “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.” The wording is never exactly the same or is it always said in the same tone. It’s used by a number of different characters throughout the entire series. It’s generally used in a situation that is obviously not going to bode well for the protagonist characters. The delivery of the line isn’t generally necessary to let the viewer know that something bad might happen, it just adds to it. The setting and mood of the scene already lets the viewer know that the characters might be in danger. It’s just another tool that the actors use to explain the situation from their characters view. 

How I Learned to Drive

Vogel uses the Greek chorus setup I believe to bring a sense of levity to the play. The opening scene might make an audience feel a little awkward. The entire play is revolved around a type of underage incest, which is a definite taboo. A major portion of the play is spent narrating and that was the purpose of Greek choruses in Greek plays. Using a so called “Greek chorus” and having music be a part of the play makes it somewhat like a musical. Using these elements might make an audience more at ease with the subject matter of the play. The entire intent of Vogel might be to make the play a parody of Greek plays. If this is the case, anyone with knowledge of Greek plays would find humor in the use of the “Greek choruses”.

          The way Vogel uses time in this play at first confused me. I couldn’t fully understand it until I finished reading the playscript. After reading the first scene and understanding the context, I felt somewhat disgusted. For the most part, the play goes back in time to tell of events critical to the story. You begin to understand slowly the context of the relationship between Peck and Lil’bit. Using this concept of time will keep the audience more interested as to why and how it started. If Vogel had just used time in a straight linear fashion the play would have had a different mood altogether. You would have immediately felt a sense of sympathy for Lil’bit and anger towards Peck. Instead as you go back in time to discover how it began and then jump to the end, you see it as a tragic romance. 

Conduct of Life

One thing I notice is that Fornes doesn’t fully explain the current setting fully. You can tell from the dialogue in the play that there is political and social unrest but it’s never explained in detail. They mention bodies in the street and throughout the play homelessness and hunger are discussed. There is one particular instance when they are discussing someone was killed and who will be replacing him. It obviously sounds like some kind of coup d’état. I think this is done to keep the story focused on the characters themselves. Fornes doesn’t want to distract the audience with outside influences. The audience would gain more interest in what’s going on in the outside setting of the play if more detail were given. Since political oppression and social unrest is a universal theme it wouldn’t be hard for an audience to see how those events would influence the characters themselves. In fact you can see that Orlando is directly influenced by the outside events mentioned. It is mentioned that he has to torture people, most likely for the government. It is also hinted at that because of this that he is as cruel as he is. Fornes didn’t give a name to the oppressor so that you would focus only on how unrest personally influences people. It made Orlando harsh and cruel, but this was not the universal effect. Nena, even though she had been through so many hardships was not broken. She still had hope in people and wanted to help those she cared about. Fornes wrote this during the cold war and most people in the world had been affected by political and social unrest someway. Audiences didn’t need names or details to have an understanding of how oppression affects its populace. Because of this the audience would be able to immerse themselves fully into the characters themselves.

Trifles

          A play is meant to bring a story to life visually. Props and costumes help bring context to a play that the audience would otherwise miss without them. It’s especially true when dealing with a play that is set in a different time period and unfamiliar setting to the audience. The play “Trifles” is set in a time period that is very different from the one we live in now. Without props and costumes to portray this setting accurately it would be difficult for an audience to fully grasp the setting. The dialogue itself gives hints to a different time period but it might not be blunt enough to fully explain this to an audience. If the audience is not aware of the setting they will not understand they story fully. You could rely on the actors to portray accurate speech and mannerisms but this could still be inadequate.

          There is also a lot of interaction with props written in the playwright. If actors in the play did not have these props to work with they would have a difficult time portraying their actions to the audience. I doubt it would be too difficult for experienced actors to work with a blank set, but the audience can only work with what they hear or see. If there was no set to portray the bleakness and emptiness of the house, the audience might not be able to immerse themselves in the story deep enough to appreciate it.

Overtones

          The rule pertaining to when or who can hear Hetty and Maggie in this play seems to be pretty straightforward. Throughout the play Hetty and Maggie both address their more cultured counterparts. When each one specifically addresses their counterpart only can that character hear them. They also directly address each other and when this occurs, only can they hear each other. Even though they directly address each other they never make it totally clear that they hear what the other is saying. There are only a couple instances in the play that the “shadows” we can call them actually vocally acknowledge what the other is saying. When Margaret states that she has been to Turkey to Harriet, Hetty openly accuses her of lying and in turn Maggie admits that it is a lie. It’s never made clear that this confession is acknowledged by Hetty or Harriet. There is a subtle hint that Harriet becomes aware that this is a lie and asks Margaret about Turkey. Of course Maggie tells Margaret to change the subject in fear of the truth being revealed and Margaret does so. There are many instances similar to this throughout the play that whether or not what Hetty and Maggie say to each other actually register with the other.

          It may become very frustrating for an audience to keep up with the dialogue of this play. They would have a hard time understanding who is addressing who if it is not executed well by the actors. Eye contact and body language would be necessary tools to portray whom each “shadow” is addressing. It would be quite confusing if Hetty was addressing Maggie but looking at Harriet. You could easily have the character playing the “shadows” lean in towards their counterparts when they are speaking to them to clarify.