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.