Comments

http://korn2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-drowsy-chaperone.html

http://yvettebourgeoisthtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/overmayers-on-verge.html

http://garrettstheater.blogspot.com/2013/05/fires-in-mirror.html

http://shelly2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/on-verge.html

http://cstromain.blogspot.com/2013/04/three-viewings.html

Blog Post 13: Three Viewings

THE LAST BLOG. keep in mind that these are out of order. If you want to see the posts on The Drowsy Chaperone, On The Verge, Next to Normal and Fires in the Mirror, keep scrolling

The first thing that I noticed in between the first two monologues was the common character of Nettie, who died at one hundred and three years old.  The first guy’s encounter with her was because he was his undertaker. Mac’s stole from Mrs. Nettie James in order to go see her grandmother.  This lead me to thinking that Mac stole from this innocent woman because she needed to go see someone from her past. She needed something from her family, but came to realize something much bigger that affected her much more (the death of her husband and kids).  Tessie’s funeral made Emil realize how much he loved his wife and how he ever so desperately needed to tell her that. Finally, Virginia realizes how much her husband loved her and how well he knew her. Love and loss are all connected here and unfortunately that means we have to lose in order to realize who loved us and who we love.

When I think of death, I think about crying and sadness. However, something else I notice throughout these monologues is that no one is really upset. They are too busy focused on doing other things or other parts of their lives that they don’t take a step back and really take that time to be upset. Emil focuses on another woman.  Mac is focused on stealing jewelry from other people’s funerals and then has to deal with her family’s death once again after trying to forget. And finally, Virginia is too busy worrying about the financial trouble she is in.  Although we have very different perspectives of funerals, they all sort of deal with it in a similar way: Not being sad.

Show and Tell #3 - Next to Normal

Yes, another musical is my choice for show and tell number three.  I was inspired to re-read this show after talking in class today about musical theater and our favorite moments. I talked about one of my favorite moments from this show, which is a dramaturgical choice that I will discuss later on.

This is a little show called next to normal, music written by Tom Kitt and book and lyrics written by Brian Yorkey. This show first started out about 15 years ago as a workshop called Feeling Electric starring Norbert Leo Butz. It moved to Off-Broadway in 2008 and then a year later moved to Broadway at the Booth Theatre. The orginal production starred Alice Ripley (Diana), Jennifer Damiano (Natalie), Aaron Tveit (Gabe), J Robert Spencer (Dan), Adam Chanler Berat (Henry), and Louis Hobson (Dr. Fine/Dr. Madden).  It won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 2010. However, it did not win the Tony in 2009 for best musical (it was beaten out by Billy Elliot). Ripley won Best Actress and Tom Kitt won Best Original Score. The show is now being produced all across the world.

Next to Normal is, in short, about a struggling suburban American family. Diana is a mother with manic depression. She had a son when she was young which is the only reason her and Dan got married. Eighteen months later, her son was killed. They had Natalie some time after and she is currently sixteen years old.  Throughout the play we see Diana interacting with her son although he is not actually there, however we don’t learn that until halfway through act one.  After a suicide attempt, Diana goes through electric shock therapy and forgets everything about her life. In act two, the family tries to bring back some of her memories and leaves out everything about her son.  However, Gabe keeps poking back at her trying to get her to remember.

Meanwhile, Natalie is feeling a bit ignored.  She’s your typical stressed out high schooler, up until four in the morning studying “three more chapters of calculus, a physics problem set, a history quiz and two pages on floral imagery in Flowers for Algernon which is like duh” (9).  She is an avid pianist, and as she rehearses for her big recital she meets Henry. Henry is a loser stoner type who tries to win Natalie over, and eventually does. However, Natalie becomes a stoner and steals her mother’s medication.  Eventually she goes into a downward spiral and Henry brings her back.

My absolute favorite dramaturgical choice in this show is a choice that Brian Yorkey makes.  Diana and Dan’s son’s name is not mentioned until the end of act two.   At one point, in the “It’s Gonna Be Good (Reprise)” Diana screams, “What was his name?” We see him on stage throughout the show but the one moment that literally assaults all of your emotions is when Dan finally accepts that he is there. In “I Am the One (Reprise)” Dan looks up and says “Gabe, Gabriel” as Gabe replies “Hi, dad.”  This is one of the most effective and powerful moments I’ve ever read/listened to and I cannot imagine what it would do for me when I see it live.

Another choice is the delayed point of attack with Gabe.  We see him throughout the first act and think that he is just a normal part of the family.  He interacts with Diana but we don’t realize that he isn’t real until the right before the song “He’s Not Here.”  Natalie and Henry are at dinner with the family and Diana walks in with a birthday cake for Gabe.  Henry says something along the lines of “I didn’t know you had a brother” and Natalie responds with “I don’t. He died before I was born.” We grow attached to Gabe because we think he’s real and it’s just such a shift and you get so confused that it’s so just “wow.”

This is one of the trippiest and inspiring shows I have ever read. It makes you think and I cannot even begin to express my love for it.  I highly recommend it to anyone with a fascination in psychology or how the mind works in the slightest. 

Post 12 - On the Verge

Yes, really this is my post 13, I think. Keep in mind that everything is sort of out of order at this point.

A poster for this play avoiding the main characteristics of the girls and what they have.... That’s difficult.  My first thought was sort of the stereotypical evolution poster. You know, the one that has the monkeys turning into the caveman who then turns into present day man? I would do a spin-off of that. I like the idea of showing the evolution of time, but I don’t exactly know how to do that. I think the tag line I would chose would be my favorite quote from the play. This quote is , “Prisoner in a Kaleidoscope” (29).   I think this is a good tagline for the show because they really are trapped, if you think about it. Yes they are moving throughout time and certainly are not stuck. However, they are trapped because they cannot go back to their home. They are trapped in Terra Incognita and will never be able to go back to Terra Haute. 

The Kaleidoscope is this strange new place. Going from the middle of the nineteenth century to a bright new place in the 1950’s is insane and such a culture shock. The 1950s are bright and fun and full of life and lights. It’s the time of poodle skirts and sock hops. So I think that might be more what my poster would look like. Maybe the evolution of pants that the girls wear? They start off in their traditional skirt from the 1800s and move to trousers and the poodle skirt. It shows the shift in time. Or maybe one girl would wear one of the three items of clothing. 

Blog Post 14: The Drowsy Chaperone

Yes, I know I'm out of order but here's my twelfth post but prompt 14.

One motif (progression), other than the monkey that the “man” points out,  I noticed was the fact that these characters used a false identity to gain something else for their benefit.  First off, Kitty and Janet were actors. They get paid to be someone else. Next, Drowsy easily tricked Aldolpho into having sex with her when she knew that he was specifically looking for Janet.  However, I guess this works out in the end because she prevented a potentially very dangerous situation.  And finally, Janet pretended to be Mimi whenever she wanted information out of her fiancé.  All of these situations were fairly harmless and playful but added the element of deceit and trickery.  I am curious to see more about how Aldolpho reacts whenever he finds out that “Janet” isn’t Janet.  It also baffled me a bit that Robert didn’t recognize his own soon to be wife. Yeah she was using an accent, but it shouldn’t have been that hard, but that is beside the point.

Secondly, duration played a huge part when it comes to Trix the aviatrix.  We see her briefly at the beginning of the show, however, she doesn’t come up again until the very end. Her role isn’t the most important during the bulk and action of the plot, but she ties everything together in the end.  In fact, I completely forgot about her until she popped back up, and I think that was the point. She’s clearly important because she helps marry four different couples and sends them on their honeymoon after a crazy tumultuous day, so in the end, she’s actually really, really important. 

Post 11: Fires in the Mirror

Yes, seemingly, the first 16 or so monologues don’t have anything to do with the riot itself. We sit here wondering how on earth a radio being turned on during a Sunday evening matters to a riot that tore a part a neighborhood even more than it already was.  However, these monologues give us so much insight. The whole purpose of this play, in my opinion, is understanding. There are so many sides and perspectives to the riot that it’s hard to know who is in the right and who is in the wrong, if anyone even is right or wrong. The black people learn why the Jewish community does what they do. They’re actions have meaning. The Jewish community can appreciate and learn from how the black community operates and what they believe.  In order to resolve any issues that Crown Heights has, it is imperative that the two groups have a basic understanding of how the other culture lives.

            It also allows the audience to see where these cultures are coming from.  I don’t know exactly how to relate to an orthodox Jewish person and I don’t understand rap music that well. But reading this, I understand why THEY are passionate about these things. I gain an understanding and have every bit of information I need to form an opinion. I hear all sides, and although there might be some bias, there will always be some bias. One of the monologues talks about how the Eskimos have 100 words for snow and how we have 100 ways of bias, and that is really hard to get away from, no matter what.

Comments

Comment One - Glass of Water

Comment Two - Buried Child

Comment Three - Noises Off

Comment Four - Noises Off

Comment Five - Water by the Spoonful

Comment Six - Detroit

Comment Seven: Show and Tell

Blog Post 10: Detroit

For one thing, while I was reading this play it occurred to me that I don’t think this play is meant to be staged. Although it can be (as evidenced by the production photos and production information in the play), it seems like there is too many stage directions that indicate to the readers something that might not play off to the audience.  The stage directions and casting instructions are also very ambiguous (not in Horby’s terms).  D’Amour often says, “you can do this, or this, or is she?” type of instructions that questions the character’s actions.

An example of ambiguity, in Horby’s terms, is that we don’t see the inside of the houses.  We can’t really get a feel of how these people live if we can’t see their furniture, or lack there of. For instance, Kenny and Sharon don’t have any furniture, but we do not see that.

An example of dramatic irony is that Kenny drinks, a lot, without Sharon knowing. If they both have such an addiction problem, including alcohol, then he shouldn’t be drinking. And he definitely should not be drinking behind his now-sober wife.

A wake up call moment that I noticed on earlier in the play happens in scene two.  Sharon calls out Mary on having a drinking problem. Now, she may or may not, but it does seem as though she drinks a lot throughout the play. Another, more obvious example, is when Mary and Ben are watching their house basically completely burn to the ground. This moment tells them that they cannot trust everyone that they meet. Neighbors aren’t always what they’re made out to be in movies.

I think ambiguity is the most central aspect to this play, because, after all, we don’t know anything about this couple (Sharon and Kenny).  We don’t know about their past, their names, their lives, their family, their jobs, and their financial situation. We know some details but they turned out to be lying a lot, so it’s quite possible that they lied about every single thing. Their lives are the definition of ambiguous.

Show And Tell Post 2: Asssassins

            My second show and tell post is about a show that I worked on during the first few weeks of classes last semester.  It is a show called Assassins written by Stephen Sondheim and John Weidman.  I reread it a few weeks ago because, in my opinion, it is one of the wittiest, smartest, and most well written shows I have ever read/seen. I caught some of this when I worked on it for two weekends, but when I read it again, it all made so much more sense and I fell in love with the show all over again.

            It was first performed in 1990 on Off-Broadway. It was on West End two years later.  The revival was performed on Broadway in 2004 starring big names like Michael Ceveris and Neil Patrick Harris.  A fun fact is, without ever being nominated for a Tony Award, it was nominated for and won best revival in 2004 without the show ever actually being on Broadway.  Theatre Baton Rouge did five performances of it the weekend of Isaac, and University of Southern Mississippi will be doing the show sometime this semester.

            Assassins follows the story of infamous assassins throughout American history starting with John Wilkes Booth and ending with Lee Harvey Oswald. This one act story actually gives purpose to the assassins and sort of makes you feel bad for them. For instance, Leon Czolgosz, assassin of President William McKinley, was made out to be a protagonist.  He has a monologue where he goes into detail about how hard it is to work at his bottling factory where he only makes $0.06 per hour. One of the final songs discusses why each assassin attempted our succeeded to kill their target. Some of their reasons include “the poor man’s pay,” for love (as shown by Squeeky Fromme loving Charlie Manson and John Hinckley trying to prove his love to Jodie Foster), for the South, and because Giuseppe Zangara’s “belly was on fire.” Some of the characters interact with each other and JWB seems to lead the way. Finally, at the very end, all of the assassins get together to try and convince Lee Harvey Oswald, the most famous assassin of all, to shoot JFK because if he does, then they will all be remembered.  Oswald gives their deaths purpose.

            One dramaturgical choice that Sondheim and Weidman made was to add a chorus. These chorus members played certain real life people, such as Emma Goldman, an anarchist, and President Gerald Ford.  This chorus also played a big part in showing how these assassinations affected the people of the United States. In the revival, they added a song called “Something Just Broke” which was the chorus members remembering exactly what they were doing the moment JFK was shot.  They were also talking to news reporters after Zangara’s attempt at shooting Roosevelt in the song entitled “How I Saved Roosevelt.”

            My favorite dramaturgical choice and character is The Balladeer. This character sings the story of the three main assassinations and tries to steer you away from them convincing you that what they did was right.  He sings the three songs called “The Ballad of Booth,” “The Ballad of Czolgosz” and “The Ballad of Guiteau.”  In “Another National Anthem” when the assassins are giving their reasons like mentioned earlier, he looks them each in the eye and says “You forgot about the country so it’s now forgotten you.”  He tries so hard to get through to these people and say that what they did wasn’t worth it because it didn’t change anything. 

            In the revival, they made a production choice that sent chills down my spine when I watched clips on youtube.  They turned The Balladeer into Lee Harvey Oswald right after “Another National Anthem.” They lit the scene up on Neil Patrick Harris in the Texas Book Depository as the tables turned and the assassins now tried to convince him. It was awesome.

Water by the Spoonful (Post 9)

Worlds collide in Water by the Spoonful, however, they do not literally interact with each other.  One moment that stood out to me, in particular, was found at the end of scene twelve on page 74 (on the kindle edition).  The stage directions state that a policeman points a flashlight on Orangutan and that bright beam ends up being seen in Yaz’s world.  We often symbolize the bright white light with going to meet our maker.  It is, essentially, an acceptance of death.  Yaz sees this white light and realizes that it is absolutely okay that Odessa has over-dosed because she will be okay.  She accepts and tells her to go and that she loves her, just to get those final words in.  The policeman is doing his literal job by waking up Orangutan who is sleeping on the train station platform.  Her acceptance is that she cannot be disappointed again and she realizes that she needs to move on from her past and accept that she does not need that family to be happy.

            The realities colliding indicate that no matter where these people are in the world they have a connection.  That connection will be there and it is mainly because of Odessa that these people are okay.  She might not have always been there for these people around her but she’s tried and she’s tried to make it better.  The light is the connection between the two places – Japan and Philedelphia.  These characters need a connection to keep their hope and spirits alive and their addictions dead.

Blog Post 7 (or in my case 8) on Noises Off

            A strange and obvious, but semi-overlooked motif would be whiskey. Alcohol can make you confused and all over the place and in this case that’s how these characters are acting all the time, whether or not they’re actually under the influence of the alcohol.  For instance, it is a driving force as to why Selsdon acts the way he does.  Also, it is a constant back and forth action backstage during the real second act of the show.  They were trying to keep away the alcohol thus trying to control the confusion.  But the whiskey was hidden everywhere. There’s no missing it because it will find a way to show up and screw these people over.  I know I missed quite a bit because reading stage directions is kind of hard, and, honestly, after the first few pages I sort of sped through it. 

The tag line I am choosing for this show is “You just do it.”  Like it was stated in this prompt, this is a show that cannot be too rehearsed or too refined because it will make it boring.  On page 74, Lloyd says, “Listen, I think this show is beyond the help of a director. You just do it.” There is only so much polishing you can do to this show because, like I said, the confusion and chaos is what drives the play and keeps the show going on and in their case, as cliché as it sounds, the show must go on. And that is how it has to be done

Buried Child

This play could happen in real life. The characters themselves are very realistic.  Everyone has seen or heard of (if not had) a drunken grandfather who lies on the couch and watches sports all day.  The setting is realistic. Heck, even Bradley has to be a huge illusion on stage. How on earth do you show a man without a leg on stage (unless you actually have an actor without a leg)? Honestly and unfortunately, things like incest exist. They are real issues that we don’t necessarily want to address. However, that doesn’t make it any less real in our world.

I think what makes this play different from Trifles, Glass of Water and Noises Off is that there is that level of ambiguity.  I need to read it again because I’m scared I missed out on some details.. I have no idea who the buried child is. As soon as Dodge didn’t know who Vince was, I was thoroughly confused.  The fact that people don’t recognize others is bizarre.  The only person that truly recognized Vince was Halie. Tilden thought that he was familiar but never outright said that Vince was his son.

The timing sort of freaked me out. Again, I could’ve missed some details.  I think that they said that Halie had her buried child six years ago. They buried a baby. Vince hadn’t seen his family in six years.  That means he couldn’t be the buried child because, well, Vince isn’t six years old. This open-ended question sets Buried Child apart from the worlds of the other plays.

Finally, something as simple as the characters not knowing where the corn from out back came from. Dodge and Halie said that they hadn’t planted crops in 30-some odd years. However, the corn was still there. Tilden picked it himself.  Did he plant it himself too and not tell anyone? No, because he said he just came across it.  It just sprung up with no explanation. What?

Blog 6: Glass of Water

In my opinion, the protagonist in Scribe’s Glass of Water is Miss Abigail.  From the beginning of the show to the end we sort of feel for her.  She is introduced as a working class girl so automatically we know that she’s not high and mighty and she is not superficial/self centered.  Whereas, the Duchess and the Queen are willing to sort of let go of the fact that a guy murdered someone so they can continue to fall in love with him.  I see Abigail as a Cinderella character. She’s a normal girl who gets a chance with a high-class man.  Her “evil stepmother and stepsister” control what she does without really knowing that her and Masham want to be together. But in the end they get to live happily ever after.

            However, Masham seems to be the character around which the plot is centered.  The three female characters love him. The glass of water itself has to do with his rendezvous.  He killed Bolingbroke’s cousin.  The action follows him and character choices do as well. Therefore, his conflicts and triumphs are more emphasized.  The duel is talked about often and ends up biting him in the butt but also works out well for Bolingbroke.  And his triumph with Abigail ends the play on a happy note. We want that happily ever after ending with him and the girl he actually loves.

            Although there might be a lot of protagonists and it can be argued that Masham or Bolingbroke could be as well, I used a process of elimination when picking my choice. I clearly thought that the Queen and the Duchess were too self centered and high and mighty for us to want them to succeed.  They’re already successful so why do they want more than what they already have? They don’t deserve Masham. Bolingbroke wasn’t the main focus on the love part of the plot, which is the main source of pathos to the audience. Finally, Masham comes in a close second to protagonist.  It’s mainly their love that I wanted to triumph in the end.

Show and Tell: The Laramie Project

            For my Show and Tell post, I read The Laramie Project. The play was written using moment work by the Tectonic Theater Project based in New York City.  The head writer, Moisés Kaufman and his team, consisting of recent LSU visitor Leigh Fondakowski and over ten others, visited Laramie, Wyoming after the tragic and brutal murder of a twenty one year old gay student named Matthew Shepard.  By utilizing interviews and journal entries by residents of the small town and the team themselves, Tectonic compiled a documentary-like play.  There is no dialogue. There are no interactions between “characters,” which are based on real people. It reminded me of how Elephant’s Graveyard was written and performed.

            The Laramie Project opened in February 2000 at the Ricketson Theatre by the Denver Center Theatre Company. It then moved to the Union Square Theatre in New York City. Eventually in 2002 there was a performance in Laramie. Now the play has been brought about internationally with performances in Canada, The UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.  In 2002 a film of the play was aired on HBO.  On the 11^th anniversary of Shepard’s death, a piece entitled The Laramie Project: Ten Years Later was written and debuted as a reading at over 150 theaters. 

            The first act introduces the town. There are interviews from various workers, students, etc.. We get an incite to the small town life of Laramie where everybody knows everybody.  One resident, Jedidiah Schultz describes the town: “A town with a strong since of community…a town with personality…Now, after Matthew, I would say that Laramie is a town defined by an accident, a crime” (9). They interviewed a wide variety of people, from sheriffs to college students to bar tenders to preachers of all types of religions, they hit every type of person in Laramie. We get to hear from Matthew’s friends, and see what type of guy he was like. Finally, towards the end of the act, we hear the description of how Matthew was found and the state he was in.  Act two got more reactions and opinions from the town inhabitants. We got more information about the two boys that murdered Shepard: Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson.  It also discussed Matthew’s life in the hospital.  The last act followed the trial of McKinney. He was spared the death sentence because it isn’t what Matthew would have wanted and the dad would have preferred McKinney wake up every day knowing what he did.

            The most obvious dramaturgical choice that the team made was not having interactions with each other.  It made the show really intimate.  I could picture the lights coming up on each individual person and I don’t know it would just be so real and empowering. It’s as if they’re one on one with you actually conducting the interview yourself.  The stage directions also aid in this. At one point they say that “this moment should feel like an invasion and should be so perceived” (46). 

            Another dramaturgical choice would be that various ensemble members play most people.  For example, the guy that plays Russell Henderson also plays Aaron McKinney.  Each person is a narrator as well.  This creates the sense of community and collaboration that Laramie is so well known for at the beginning of the play. Even after the tragedy, we see the town growing together as well as the country.  Matthew’s death had a huge effect on people all across the world as shown by the vigils in act two and so everyone came together as an ensemble. 

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laramie_Project)

Motifs - Horby Response

Every time we see Nena in Conduct of Life, she’s hidden, or covered. This portrays her clear fear that fills this poor girl. This strong and powerful image resonates with the audience because it is that powerful. The first time she’s introduced, she is wearing an “overlarged uniform” and then “gets away from him and crawls to the left” (51).  Later on Orlando enters the room thinking that she has escaped, when in all actuality she is hiding behind the boxes. Another time he assaults her, she’s fully dressed.  Her hidden body through her clothes and physical form is a recurring motif that represents and reflects her fright.

For the film motif, I’ll go with a broad and general one.   In the show Dexter, there’s a recurrence of Harry Morgan, Dexter’s dead father.  For those of you who don’t know what the show is about, it follows the life of Dexter Morgan, a blood spatter analyst for Miami Metro Homicide during the day and a vigilante serial killer by night, meaning he only kills those who are guilty of killing an innocent person but got away with it.  Harry enters the scenes when Dexter is questioning himself, and Harry attempts to lead Dexter onto the right path and follow “the code” in order to keep him out of trouble.  It’s easy to bring back Harry every now and then in order for Dexter to realize that he’s a monster and needs to control himself and stay true to what he is actually supposed to do.  The character development and evolution takes a while and after seven seasons, it’s still going on. Therefore if it were in a play or script, it wouldn’t have the time needed to really expand the life (or afterlife, rather) of Harry Morgan.

How I Learned to Drive

I’m not going to lie. I didn’t finish this play until about an hour ago, so about a week after we were supposed to have posted about it.  So, I was there the day we discussed it in class. Laine said something really interesting in class that stuck in my mind as I was reading the play.  Her idea about the “Greek” chorus was that they were her memories.  Her main focus was the story between her and Uncle Peck. Everyone else involved was just a memory.  People were blurred together and faces weren’t engrained into her thoughts. Why would they be? With something so serious and life changing, their faces seem so trivial. 

Another thing I sort of though about was that they were “Vampires.” If you’ve ever seen/heard the musical [title of show], you’d catch my drift here. Vampires are anyone who tries to get in your way or tell you that what you’re doing isn’t right or good enough.  So for example, when Female Greek Chorus explains how to drink a certain way or how Male Greek Chorus tries to convince Li’l bit that college doesn’t matter and that “she’s got all the credentials she’ll need on her chest” (1595). They get in her head and she has to fight them away.

I guess something that didn’t make sense to me was how people let this go on. There was a whole monologue with Aunt Mary about how her husband was constantly used by women and she knew that Li’l bit was doing the same. Her mother knew it was inappropriate for her eleven year old daughter to be spending so much time alone in a car with an older, married man.  I’m sorry but this sort of thing is not okay by any means and is beyond frustrating.  I couldn’t handle some of this play because I was so flabbergasted by the way people reacted and just sort of brushed this aside without doing anything about it.  It isn’t okay under any circumstance! I guess Vogel’s purpose of this was to really get people to think and be disgusted the way I was. Other than that, I have no idea why or how something like this could happen.

Conduct of Life

I think that one of the strongest dramaturgical choices in this play would be the constant (fade to black)s after every scene.  When we were first introduced to Nena and saw what Orlando was doing to her, the scene ended on a (fade to black) and I took a breath and went “Whoa.  That was really intense.” I don’t know if it would’ve had the same effect had the lights not faded as she screamed because we, as an audience, don’t know what happens next.  It’s up to our imagination. Does he continue? Does he beat her? Does he finish and then go about his business?  

However, Fornes chooses to end every single scene on a fade out.  Each scene is in a completely new place.  Clearly, the fade allows for a scene change, but there’s more to it.  When a blackout occurs, you know you’re in a new place; a completely new place.  You go from one scene to another, changing moods, situations, people, and everything. One moment Leticia and Olimpa are going over their grocery list and then BAM, black out and Orlando is raping a twelve year old again.  They seem like two different worlds, almost, and the black out takes you from one to another.

            I think the title is called The Conduct of Life because of the quote that stood out to me. There’s an episode of Family Guy when Peter is self-aware when he says something along the lines of how he always notices when the title of a movie is said in the script, and then later on mentions the phrase “Family Guy.” Well whenever I saw this quote, it was that moment.  Nena says, “I want to conduct each day of my life in the best possible way” (1495). It’s the over all message I took away from the play. Even when your life sucks, if you can find some sort of life and purpose then you’re set.  You can be happy. 

I'm trying to catch up on my blog posts. I'm so sorry!

Trifles Response

Personally, I hate simplistic and minimalistic shows.  This year, I went to my old high school’s production of Our Town, in which the students wore their school uniforms, mimed props and utilized regular furniture they found in the shop. I was bored to tears.  The props, costumes and additional features, to me, enhance a performance and add meaning and interest to the overall production.

However, I could see a simplistic show working in the case of Trifles.  Although I particularly wouldn’t enjoy it, the show is simplistic by nature.  There aren’t a lot of props and the costumes could sort of be timeless in a way, meaning a farm today could hold the same situation as to what would happen in 1916, when the play was written. 

On the other hand, I would stage the play with props and an actual setting.  Having a box as a chair and a piece of paper as a quilt completely takes away from the potential detail that could offer so much to the play.  For example, the dirty kitchen says a lot about how the house was kept. If you put a piece of paper as a dirty dish, you could think it was a towel or a knife or a salt shaker.  Mrs. Hale brings out a “fancy box” in the stage directions (342).  How would we, the audience, know that the box was fancy if it was a simple white box.  The elegance and fanciness of the box shows Mrs. Write’s appreciation, love and compassion for the bird.  The quilt that Mrs. Hale is re-stitching together was originally sewn poorly. How could we tell that the quilt was horribly stitched if we couldn’t see that actual quilt?  How horribly the quilt was stitched can say how nervous (or tired) Mrs. Write was (169-170).  The bird is especially the most necessary prop. Seeing the dead bird would actually make us feel for Mrs. Write.  The attachment to animals is much stronger than if we saw a piece of cloth tied up in a funny way to represent the bird.

So overall, I think that making the show minimalistic would take away from the detail that aids the motives of Mrs. Write. We’re more sympathetic towards Mrs. Write when we realize her motive but we can be more convinced it is her through the items surrounding the women.

Overtones Response

In Overtones the specific stage directions and characteristics of the four women easily aided in the visualization on stage while reading.  Although Harriet doesn’t see Hattie and Margaret cannot see Maggie, I do believe that the two inner selves can see each other.  Their catty remarks towards each other seem to spark their desires even more, thus edging them on to make their purpose for being there stronger and stronger.

            However, the situation could go either way, depending on how the director stages the show.  On one end, Hetty and Maggie could just assume that the other is there, but not be able to see or hear what the other is saying. The two inner selves never actually respond to each other, but it seems as if they understand what the other is trying to do.  An example of this lies on page 11 when Maggie says, “She’s taunting you. Get even with her.” 

 On the other hand, if the two could see each other, it would make their purpose a little stronger and their hate more intense.  I could see the two being nose to nose, attempting to rip each other apart emotionally, on page 17 in this bit:

Hetty: [to Maggie] I hate you!

Maggie: [to Hetty] I came for your gold.

Hetty: [to Maggie] I am going to make you and your husband suffer

Maggie: [to Hetty] He has forgotten all about you

One thing that stuck out to me that sort of broke the rules of Harriet and Hetty not seeing each other was at one point when they physically interacted with each other.  The stage directions state on page 5 that Harriet drapes a scarf on Hetty.  Clearly this indicates that the Harriet has to see her inner self in order to put the scarf on her.  This inconsistency takes away from the separation between the inner and outer selves. 

hello.