The Very Last Show and Tell Blog

Well, the other day, Dr. Fletcher got Oklahoma! on my mind and since it is one of my good old favorites, I decided to use that one for my very last show and tell blog post.  Like Dr. Fletcher said, it was one of the very first musicals as we know it musicals so it is pretty old.  It is based off a play written in 1931 called Green Grown the Lilacs by Lynn Riggs.  Later, it was turned into the beloved musical by Richard Rogers and Oscar Hammerstein II.  Its first notable performance was in 1943 on Broadway and it was an incredible success.  It has been reproduced many, many times since then and continues to charm audiences today.

Oklahoma! is the story of a young farm girl named Laurey living in Oklahoma territory right after the turn of the 20^th century.  We meet the cowboy Curly McLain and farm hand Jud Fry who both have their hearts set on the pretty Laurey, Ado Annie her flirty best friend who “cain’t say no”, Will Parker the rope swinging cowboy, Ali Hakim the traveling salesman, and Aunt Eller Laurey’s (and pretty much everyone else’s) aunt.  It’s a story of two love triangles.  While Laurey and Curly both try to play “hard to get,” Jud (who is a little bit stalkerish) tries to go after Laurey.  On the other side of the story, there’s Ado Annie who is young and naïve.  Will Parker, who she promised to marry, has been away for a while at a fair competing in a roping contest.  When he returns after winning $50, he discovers that Ado Annie has fallen for a Persian peddler man (Ali Hakim) who she truly believes wants to marry her.  Unfortunately, Ali just wants one night at the hotel with her before he leaves town.  The play tells the story of how the two girls figure out how to work through their love triangles and end up marrying the right man.

The order of scenes in the first act is very notable.  There is a scene introducing each character and the story begins to develop before we really get to see much about the character of Jud.  All of the scenes are very light and happy.  The music is upbeat and playful.  A little over halfway through Act 1, though, there is a shift.  During the song “People Will Say We’re In Love,” there is a significant shift in the rhythm of the song after Curly leaves and Laurey continues the last refrain.  This segues into the first scene in Jud’s smoke house.  This entire scene has a darkness surrounding it and the music definitely reinforces that.  Curly and Jud sing the song about what Jud’s funeral would be like.  Jud tells a story of how a farm hand burned down a farm and the family that lived there when his affections for the girl weren’t returned.  When Jud is finally left alone again, the dark mood continues in his song “Lonely Room” where we see a bit more of who he is and his desires.  The dream sequence that follows that stays in the more serious place as well.  It contrasts all of the happy scenes introducing the characters and focuses in on how Laurey and Jud are actually feeling about things. 

The second noteworthy choice is sequence of the scenes in Act 2.  There is a very clear back and forth in the rhythm of the scenes.  It begins with the very lighthearted scene at the Box Social with laughing and dancing, then the auction scene where Curly and Jud bid on Laurey’s hamper—really bidding on her, then “All Er Nuthin’,” the song where Will and Ado Annie decide to either love only one another or not at all, then a scene with Jud and Laurey full of intense dialogue followed by the decision of Laurey and Curly to be married, then a scene where Ali Hakim shows Ado Annie how they say goodbye in Persia (a big kiss) and Will shows Ado Annie how they say hello in Oklahoma (an even bigger kiss!), last there’s a huge fight between Curly and Jud where Jud actually dies, and in the end Ado Annie and Will Parker come in with a humorous line to finish off the play.  There is an extremely obvious tension and release pattern between the scenes with Ado Annie and her men vs. the scenes with Laurey and hers.  Ado Annie, Will, and Ali’s scenes are all very amusing and comedic and the music in them helps to create that feeling while Laurey, Jud, and Curly’s are all very intense and dramatic with the music backing that up as well.  I feel like this story could easily be switched.  The way in which each story is told sets up how it ends up feeling.  The stories of Ado Annie and Laurey and their trouble with boys truly aren’t very different.  Ali Hakim could easily be portrayed as manipulating con man and definitely a villain taking advantage of a young naïve girl.  While if Jud had different music and rhythm in his lines, he could be portrayed as a sort of goofy and socially awkward farm hand that has his sights set on a pretty girl seeming far out of his reach. 

The Drowsy Chaperone

I was very confused by exactly what the question Dr. Fletcher was asking for this one, so I am going to do the best I can. 

Usually in those old fashioned musicals, there is a rather fluid rhythm and tempo from scene to scene with music blending one scene into the next.  I feel like if we were only analyzing the show within a show Drowsy Chaperone, it would have that sort of rhythm and tempo.  Looking at it as this particular script is written, though changes the rhythm and tempo completely!  Instead of it being about Janet and Robert, it is about the Man.  The first time I read it, it was really easy for me to get completely caught up in just the story of the play within the play, but I realize that that is a mistake.  I almost just ignored the Man at first.  Maybe when you are actually watching the show, the story of the man is a bit easier to focus on and see without having to delve deeper, but just reading it I just kind of tuned him out a lot of the time.  However, his inputs, interactions with the characters (even though they obviously do not interact back with him), and the quick stops and changes are very significant as well.  It changes the mood of the play to have many of the significant scenes abruptly interrupted.  I’m planning on using this show for Analysis 5, so I am going to be looking at these abrupt stops and interruptions much more when I begin to work on that a little bit more. 

Three Viewings

With this play, I had an extremely difficult time identifying something that united these as the same show.  There did not seem to be much connection between one monologue and another.  Other than the obvious fact that they are all talking about a funeral, they seemed pretty different to me.  As usual, though, I slowly started to pick up on something.  I knew that there had to be some sort of motif that connected these three very different characters.  All of these characters were talking about the funeral of someone.  With both Mac and Virginia, the funeral was for a person who was extremely close to the character giving the monologue.  However, in all three of the monologues, there is a very obvious disconnect between the person who has died and the person who is giving the monologue.  In Emil’s monologue, he often hardly seems to realize that he is talking about a funeral.  He is very caught up in his admiration of “Tessie” most of the time.  When he does mention Nettie, it seems extremely casual and not very respectful.  In Mac’s monologue, there is an even greater tension there because Nettie was her grandmother.  It should be a funeral that is sad for her.  However, she speaks of her grandma’s death rather casually as well.  Her focus is completely on obtaining that ring.  There is a switch at the end, though.  That is something that we do not see nearly as much with Emil.  Lastly, in Virginia’s scene, she is talking about her deceased husband.  This seems as if it should be a heart wrenching, very sad sort of scene.  But again, I just get this feeling of casualness.  I’m not completely sure why this exists in this play, but it stood out to me and puzzled me.

On the Verge

"Ladies, shall we whack the bush?" is a line repeated over and over throughout the play On the Verge.  And it’s what leads into my idea for the poster. My vision for the poster would be a thick jungle with a light watermark of a clock on it.  I would want it to not be very obvious that there is a clock involved.  The poster should suggest a journey or an adventure, not giving away the exciting twist of time travel, but merely hinting at it.  Maybe there would be a few of the objects that we see come up in the play scattered around, but I’m not sure about that part.  It’s hard to imagine it in my head.  I feel like this idea is not super crazy or innovative, but it is very fitting.  "Ladies, shall we whack the bush?" is the line I would want to use for the tag line.  It conveys that same idea of the jungle and adventuring, but also holds more weight to it than that.  These women have an incredible persistence and determination for exploring.  The desire to discover new places is the main driving force through this play.  They are not only discovering new places as in physical places, but also making discoveries about new places in time.  And they are not only whacking through trees, but whacking through confusion of new objects and phrases that they have never heard.  It paints a mental image of a thick and difficult web of something that they must plow through to find their way.  This is why I chose the image of the jungle to use for the poster.  It is the physical image of the words of my tag line.  I didn’t want to use the typical pictures of maps and adventurous looking women with umbrellas.  I wanted it to have a bit more ambiguity in it.  It leaves people who see it wondering what exactly it suggests.

Fires in the Mirror

I think that we would lose so much of the story by removing those monologues from the script.  When I first began to read the play, I just didn’t get it.  This was before I read the prompt from Dr. Fletcher and understood how the play was originally meant to be performed.  Also, I absolutely didn’t understand what the show was about.  Then I paused what I was doing and tried to figure out what the play was about.  When I began reading it again, it made much more sense.  And I think that there was so much purpose in Anna Deavere Smith’s choices to include the monologues that seemed more random.  It gives so much more insight into who the people actually are.  It takes the focus off of the issue of the riots and brings it into the deeper roots of where the ones involved, impacted by, or just observing the incident are coming from.

Hearing from the Lubavitcher Woman explains her perspective of the others.  It shows us that she doesn’t hate them, she just acknowledges that they are different.  Getting to know the Anonymous Girl doesn’t tell us any bit of information about the riots, but just more information on how they view different races.  Even “Big Mo” doesn’t focus in on the riots, but more on the culture in her world.  I think that these different random monologues are a very important sort of preface to introducing the serious issue of a boy getting hit by a car and a man getting stabbed.  It introduces you into the world that this play is set in rather than just plunging head first into these big issues.  If these parts were excluded from the plot, I think we would lose a large amount of the context that is a huge part of the story.

My Comments

Here's where I posted all of my comments, just to make it easier on y'all :)

http://emilielegethtr2130blog.blogspot.com/2013/04/water-by-spoonful-hudges.html?showComment=1365868692640#c8618873095987122145

http://emilielegethtr2130blog.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-glass-of-water-eugene-scribe.html?showComment=1365869012907#c7299457098883031133

http://thtr2130sh.blogspot.com/2013/04/noises-off.html?showComment=1365869407224#c260904325474009070

http://thtr2130sh.blogspot.com/2013/04/glass-of-water.html?showComment=1365873738963#c2652836829900031547

http://garrettstheater.blogspot.com/2013/04/detroit.html?showComment=1365874085755#c1915795708649258843

http://garrettstheater.blogspot.com/2013/03/noises-off.html?showComment=1365908018918#c4901945775149523307

 

Show and Tell Post #2!!

My Show and Tell post for this segment will be on Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine’s Into the Woods.  It was first performed on Broadway in 1986 and has been performed many, many times since then.  

Into the Woods is a cleverly written musical that combines several of the Grimm’s Brother’s fairy tales.  We see characters from Rapunzel, Jack and the Beanstalk, Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, and even some brief appearances from Sleeping Beauty and Snow White.  There is also a brand new story about a Baker and his wife desperately trying to start a family.  A witch comes to their home one day to inform them that the reason they can’t have children is because of a curse placed on the Baker’s family.  The five different stories intertwine with one another as the Baker tries to break this curse.  He journeys “into the woods” to collect “the cow as white as milk, the cape as red as blood, the hair as yellow as corn, the slipper as pure as gold.”  If he is able to return to the witch with those things in 3 days, the spell will be broken.  Each of the characters has a wish that the journey “into the woods” to try to fulfill.  For the most part, the well-known stories progress as we’ve always known them, but intertwine with one another in surprising ways.  Act Two presents and entirely new plot line, however, when the characters (who are all acquainted with one another at this point) are forced to battle the wife of the giant that Jack killed.

To think about the dramaturgical choices that Sondheim and Lapine made in creating this play is different from many others since much of the plot is based on little pieces of stories that already existed.  It is still an original plot, though, so I’ll look at it as its own world.  I noticed that there are some crucial parts of the stories that are not included in the script at all.  There are no scenes with Cinderella at the ball or Jack climbing the beanstalk and meeting the giants.  We don’t see Rapunzel or Cinderella meeting their princes.  These parts of the stories are told through their songs.  It’s easy to say that the writers left these parts out of the story because we already know all of that stuff.  However, I think that’s cheating a little bit.  All of the scenes, except for the first scene of each act, are set “in the woods.”  Therefore, it makes perfect sense that we would never enter the palace for the ball or climb up the beanstalk into the world of the giants.  We hear about those parts in the character’s reflections after their experiences.  The clever lyrics of the songs paint a very vivid image of what occurred.  Also, we are able to hear the impression and perspective of the characters.  We know their intentions and reactions to what happened.  That’s very different from hearing the original stories in the third person form in a story book.  This brings me to my next point.  The choice of including a Narrator is another very game-changing choice.  For the entire Act 1, much of the story is presented as a story book through the voice of the Narrator.  This makes perfect sense since these are all stories that many people relate to in that way.  However, there is a moment in Act 2 when everything changes.  The line between the Narrator and all of the other characters is severed.  Suddenly the characters notice him and he becomes part of the plot.  It’s a bit unsettling, which supports the rest of the play (especially Act 2) very well.  Many of the things that the audience thought they knew about all of these stories is completely shattered after their happily ever afters.  All of Act 2 constantly breaks everything that was ever known about the well-loved characters.  Incorporating a consistent, charming narrator throughout Act 1, then breaking that consistency as well throws the reader and the audience for a loop once again.

Detroit

I honestly had completely forgotten that the name of the play was Detroit after I read the title.  I noticed it at the beginning and when I read the descriptions of the setting and the characters.  The first sentence that is in the script is part of the description of the setting.  It says “Not necessarily Detroit.”  So, that was confusing right off the bat.  I might have questioned it briefly when I read that sentence, but then I really did not think about it again as I read through the play.  Perhaps it is a mistake to forget about the title of a play as you read it, but I usually do.  It doesn’t often influence my take on a script.  However, this time I suppose I have to think about it.  Personally, when I think of Detroit (the city), nothing notable comes to mind.  I don’t actually know anything about it.  In fact, I have to take a little second to remember what state it’s in. (Oh right, it’s Michigan. I even googled it just to be 100% sure so nobody would laugh at me.)  I’m sure that there are some notable facts about Detroit, but I think that it’s intentional that nothing in particular strikes me about that city.  Maybe it’s so that the reader or audience is able to easily find their way into the world of the play.  Instead of having preconceived notions about the culture of a certain place.  I still don’t think that’s the whole answer, though.  Because the question still persists, why Detroit?  Why not Phoenix or Seattle or Baton Rouge.  What is significant about that place that isn’t for the others?  There is no mention of the setting in the entire script, so why on earth is it titled Detroit?  I feel like I have the right questions, but I can’t figure out what the answers are.  Even on Lisa D’amour’s website, it just says “a city that might be Detroit.”

Water by the Spoonful

Before the play begins, there is an extremely descriptive list of characters as well as an extremely descriptive description of the set.  There are some very intentional choices made in this script that truly transport the reader or audience to a different world.  The world that takes place online is more obviously different and unusual while the scenes at Subway and between Yazmin and Elliot seem much more normal.  At first, as I read the play, I absolutely could not make sense of how these two different story lines would ever combine.  When I began reading the play I read the descriptions of the characters, but when I actually got to the script part, I completely forgot that Haikumom and Odessa were the same person.  They are called by different names in different scenes.  I was actually so surprised and delighted by that when I figured it out again.  That is something that is interesting about reading a play, rather than watching it.  I guess I could have—should have—known that Odessa was Haikumom, but for some reason that fact did not stay in my head.  So, when I discovered it, it was fantastic.  It was almost like dramatic irony in reverse.  Something that would not happen for someone watching the play, but could happen for someone reading it.  In the very first scene where the realities begin to overlap, it was a bit surreal.  There was also the added element of the ghost.  So, not only are the worlds of online and real life intersecting, but also there’s a ghost that’s there too.  It created a moment where I found myself questioning whether it was Haikumom speaking or Odessa.  Who could hear one another in that moment?  Obviously Elliot was alone, but who was aware of one another in that scene?  It begins to show the two worlds colliding.  The online group quoting all of these cheesy slogans, in a strange way sort of narrates Elliot and his punching bag.

Noises Off

Wow, Noises Off is so crazy.  I once saw this play performed and it was very difficult to follow what was going on most of the time.  Keeping track of who’s who.  Especially since every person is playing two characters.  It is very difficult to keep track of whether they are acting in the play or if they’re acting in the play within the play.  Basically, it’s all pretty chaotic.  I was not prepared for how much more the chaos would be magnified by reading the script!  It is even more difficult to keep track of who’s who.  When they are calling a character one name, but it says a different name on the side of the page when they answer, I just found myself lost.  Because of all of the chaos and distractions, I initially found it a bit difficult to pin down a motif.  Then I just had Dr. Fletcher’s words that he said NOT to use floating around in my brain blocking out any other ideas.  I finally landing on repetition as a motif in Noises Off.  I guess it’s actually a bit obvious in some ways.  In all three acts, of Noises Off, we are seeing the same repeated Act 1 of the play that they are performing Nothing On.  If you continue to look though, this repetition is occurring on a smaller scale as well.  In certain scenes, it is happening as the characters strive to perform their play and must get their scenes right.  There is the repetition of the sardines always being an issue.  There is repetition in the backstage drama as well.  There are certainly twists and surprises, but there is a large amount of feeling like “Oh, here we are again!”  I think that this motif is one that continues until the very end.

Glass of Water

The characters in Glass of Water all play a very important and central role in presenting the plot of this play.  That makes it extremely difficult to narrow down just one protagonist.  It is relatively easy to figure out the antagonist.  The duchess makes it pretty obvious that her motives are not quite pure all of the time.  She messes things up in people’s communication with each other.  She convinces the queen of untrue things.  She behaves in very selfish ways.  And it’s just rather easy to figure out that she’s kind of the one blocking the way of many—well actually all—of our central characters.

 When it comes to the protagonist, though, I’m much more stumped.  Sometimes, I gauge who the protagonist in a play is based on how much time they spend on the stage.  I’m not really sure if that’s 100% correct.  I think it probably factors in to some degree, but that’s definitely not the only thing that makes a protagonist a protagonist.  And even if it was, it wouldn’t help me in this play because all of the characters have a pretty close to equal amount of time on the stage.  The character that I landed on, though, after much consideration was Bolingbroke.  It seems like much of the plot centers around his desires and his actions.  He is trying so hard to create peace between the two nations.  We see him planning his actions and understand his motives.  I feel like we get to know him more than some of the others.  Although, I do notice Abigail and Masham.  They are also extremely central.  They are affected in some way by every single decision that is made.  Some of the decisions affect whether or not Abigail will be able to have a place in the queen’s household.  Some of the decisions affect whether Masham will be caught after killing the laughing man.  And other decisions affect their love life. 

As far as protagonists go, though.  I’d have to say I’m a bit undecided.  I think that that’s alright though.  I think that the story is told through several different perspectives and that is part of what makes the plot work.  There aren’t really many ambiguities or revelations later in the play because we know what everyone is planning and thinking.  This gives much more dramatic irony and much less ambiguity, which is one of the defining characteristics of this play.

Show and Tell Post!!

My show and tell blog shall be about the musical, Fiddler on the Roof.  The music is by Jerry Brock, lyrics by Sheldon Harnick, and the book by Joseph Stein.  It has been performed many times over the years.  The original Broadway production was in 1964.  Since then, it has been done in London, Australia, and all over the world.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiddler_on_the_roof)

The plot begins with Tevye, a poor milkman, introducing his small Jewish village of Anatevka in Russia.  The year is 1905 and the Jews of Anatevka are very set in their traditions and ways.  Tevye is the father of five daughters and he and his wife, Golde, are very concerned with getting each of them married off—preferably to a well-off, Jewish man.  There is a matchmaker, Yente, who arranges all of the marriages in Anatevka.  However, Tevye’s daughters have different ideas than Yente.  In Yente’s opinion, for girls who come from a poor family, there aren’t as many options.  Tzeitel, the oldest daughter, is the first to arrange her own marriage.  She is in love with the poor tailor, Motel Kamzoil.  When they initially present the idea to Tevye, he is furious and against it, especially since he has recently arranged a marriage for Tzeitel with the old butcher, Lazar Wolfe.  However, with just a tiny bit of convincing, Tzeitel and Motel are engaged to be married.  Hodel, the second daughter, falls in love with an outspoken student named Perchik.  He also is not considered a good match since he is poor and leaving the village of Anatevka.  Eventually, Tevye agrees to this marriage as well.  Chava, the youngest falls in love with a Russian man named Fyedka.  This is, by far, the worst of all because he is not Jewish.  Tevye forbids it.  And when Chava goes behind his back and marries him anyway, he says that Chava is dead to them.  All of this is happening as the Jews all over Russia are being kicked out of their towns.  Eventually, Anatevka comes to this same fate.

One dramaturgical choice that Harnick makes is the way that Tevye speaks to God and to the audience.  The way that the music is arranged and the way that all of the other characters are frozen in time as Tevye does his monologues is very effective in isolating those moments.  This happens through the entire show with several different monologues in both acts.  These moments give insight into Tevye’s inner thoughts.  If Harnick had left these out, there would be much less depth to the character of Tevye.  Also, they show his relationship and devotion to God.  These are the moments where we see inside Tevye.  If we didn’t see this, Tevye would be nothing more than a man worried about money and his daughters marriages.  We would not be able to see why and how he cares about these things.  The play certainly could be written without it.  But it would tell a different story. 

Another choice that the writer made is the focus on traditions.  After all, it is the opening song.  In the first scene it is established that the characters rely on their traditions.  Without them, their lives are unsteady.  Very soon after that first scene, we see the three oldest daughters questioning the tradition of the matchmaker.  Later, Tevye wrestles with allowing Tzeitel and Hodel to marry the men that they love.  It goes against everything, yet he breaks the tradition by letting them.  Traditions are changed again at Tzeitel’s wedding when men and women dance together.  There are many traditions changed through the plot.  The very last scene shows them leaving Anatevka.  Their home is the most stable thing they’ve known through the entire play.  At last, even that is stripped away from them.  This focus on traditions shows that everything that they depended on—customs, family, home—is not as dependable as they once thought.

Hornby

I noticed a motif in Conduct of Life that I actually already mentioned in one of my previous posts.  However, I will elaborate on it a little more right here.  I noticed in many scenes either a physical or verbal conflict or argument.  There are the obvious scenes with Nena and Orlando down in the basement that are a larger struggle between two people.  But there are also scenes that take place upstairs that may seem strange or out of place since Fornes chooses to make the scenes so short and scattered.  However, they are very tied into the scenes happening downstairs.  There are little arguments between Olimpia and Leticia.  There are also some quarrels that happen with Leticia and Orlando almost constantly.  Then there are many emotional or unspoken conflicts or tension between two people.  Sometimes it is even just one person.  Orlando has a struggle just with himself.  However, it’s clear that all of these little conflicts tie the entire show together to focus in on the biggest struggle of all.

Another show that I chose to look at is Proof.  Maybe it is too obvious because it’s in the title, but the word or idea of proof is constant throughout the entire play.  Catherine, the protagonist of this play, must try to prove many things.  She must prove her own sanity.  She must find proof that her father is the author of the mathematical proof.  All of that centering on the actual proof itself.  I think that Claire also tries to prove her happiness in New York City, though she does not seem quite sure of that herself. 

While I think that the idea of a motif may be a bit more apparent when one reads the script and pays attention to detail, I do believe that it is noticed in the actual production.  But perhaps it isn’t quite as obvious because when you read a script, I think that the wording may be more clear than when you watch it with the distractions of characters, costumes, lights, etc.  While all of those things help to tell the story in a full production, it may be easier to spot a motif when you only see the script.

How I Learned to Drive

This was another play with some unusual dramaturgical choices.  I questioned the purpose of the Greek Chorus.  Why wouldn’t actors be cast in those separate roles?  I was especially confused with the Teenage Greek Chorus playing the part of the grandmother.  I don’t understand the purpose of the same person playing Grandmother and the eleven-year-old Li’l Bit.  I know that in the notes about the characters it is very specific about the Teenage Greek Chorus.  It recommends using somebody older who just appears to be young.  Vogel did not want the audience to be made uncomfortable by a very young girl playing the part of eleven-year-old Li’l Bit, since she is in that intense scene at the end.  However, she has to still seem old enough to play the grandmother.  Why would Vogel choose to make such complicated and detailed requirements rather than just casting different actors in each character?

I think the most obvious conclusion is that she wants to create more of a distance from Peck and Li’l Bit.  If each character had a specific actor for those parts, the audience might try to connect with them a bit more.  Since they are played by the Greek Chorus, they remain much more separated than if they were more individualized.  I think it also symbolizes Li’l Bit and Peck’s relationship as well.  They both, in an odd way, provide stability to one another.  While all of the other characters sort of move in and out of their lives day to day, Peck and Li’l Bit each give something to the other that they really need.  Even though, there is a constant strain on their relationship, that is something that the other characters choose to ignore.  So, it’s symbolic that those characters lose some of their depth by being interchangeable with others.

Conduct of Life

I noticed that there are several short scenes with little fights or scuffles.  They seem rather trivial in comparison to the very dark and heavy scenes that take place down in the basement with Orlando and Nena.  The first time I read through the script, I was puzzled by those scenes.  One of the scenes is the one with Olimpia and Leticia with Olimpia pretending to read.  Another one is the scene directly after that one.  It is the scene with Leticia and Orlando arguing about the strap for the suitcase.  Why does Fornes put so much into these short scenes?  Initially, I had trouble answering that question.  The more I considered it, though, it began to make more sense.

First of all, these simple quarrels are in contrast with the things going on downstairs in the basement.  I believe that’s on purpose.  I think that it shows that these little ridiculous arguments are continuing despite the horrible things that are happening.  Normal life continues upstairs.  It gives the illusion that life is somewhat normal on the surface, but when somebody digs deeper, there is actually much more going on below that surface.

Also, not only does it contrast the terrible things happening between Orlando and Nena, but it also supports them.  It fits in with the theme of the struggles that are common through the entire show.  There is conflict between Orlando and Nena, between Orlando and Leticia, between Leticia and Olimpia, and between Orlando and himself.  It is a common occurrence in the world of this play.  Having these shorter, lighter scenes breaks the tension a bit without leaving the theme of conflict that the other scenes have created.   It contrasts it, which draws more attention to it, as well as supporting it and upholding the world of Conduct of Life.

Trifles. A Blank Set?

Wow. The idea of turning the set and costumes of this show into a blank slate has me very torn.  I am a huge fan of any play set in a historic time period.  I love how it can transport you to a different time.  However, I definitely see a benefit of making it much plainer in design.  I have not seen very many plays that chose this method of designing the set and costume—the visible “world” of the play.  Actually I think I’ve only seen one.  But the one that I did see definitely didn’t make me feel as if anything were lacking.  It leaves much more imagination for the audience seeing the show.  They must fill in what this home looks like and see with their minds the quilt that Mrs. Wright was sewing.  The creating of the world of the play is left to the words in the script, the acting of the people, and the ability of the audience to use their imagination.  I think that the idea is fascinating!  A completely colorless and shapeless world could still tell the story well.

However, would I feel as if things are lacking?  Maybe I would a little.  I try not to let my personal preference alter how I think the production could work, but that’s difficult.  When there is a story that is set in a time period very different from the present, I believe that it makes the show more full when you get to feel as if you are stepping right into the room of the little farmhouse in the early 20^th century.  It could be a bit more effective in bringing the world of the play to the audience.  Seeing a rusty old birdcage and an unfinished quilt might make a story like this seem more real to the audience.  So perhaps a mostly black and white set would leave just a bit too much to be imagined.

Overtones

This play was absolutely intriguing to me.  I think it is such a great example to start off with to use Fuch’s methods of exploring a play as if it’s a different world.  The rules in this world truly are completely different from what seems “normal” to us.

There definitely were times that Hetty and Maggie said things to each other, which meant that they were aware of one another.  But it was difficult to understand why they didn’t seem to hear or notice each other at other times.  It’s quite clear that Hetty and Maggie are Harriet and Margaret’s “other selves.”  Hetty actually says it in the very first line.  I think that knowing the context of social norms when the play was written and first performed makes it even more interesting.  When I watch movies or read books written about this time period, I’m very amused by the way that people interact with one another.  People would usually say things with the utmost politeness.  However, it would be very evident to the person they were speaking to (as well as an audience or reader) that they are meaning a completely different thing.  I think that this is where the Hetty/Maggie idea comes in to play.  Hetty is the part of Harriet that can pick up on the subtle things going on in the Maggie part of Margaret.  The person Harriet is not completely unaware of what’s going on with Margaret (and vice versa), but in this case it’s shown through the more tangible character, Hetty (or Maggie.)  Also, Maggie is never deceived when Harriet says something that was definitely Hetty’s idea and responds directly to Hetty.  I like that we get to see the unspoken dialogue between the two, like “Hetty: I don’t believe you ever were in Turkey.  Maggie: I wasn’t, but it’s none of your business.”   But when Hetty and Maggie are talking to Harriet and Margaret, it seems like they don’t notice or hear one another as much.  Perhaps that is where we see the rules of the play?  Hetty and Maggie can communicate with one another, but completely do not notice when the other is talking to Harriet or Margaret.