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.