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.