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.