Final list of comment links!

1.     http://jennihigginsthtr2130blog.blogspot.com/2013/04/prompt-11-fires-in-mirror.html

2.     http://jennihigginsthtr2130blog.blogspot.com/2013/04/prompt-12-on-verge.html   

3.     http://jennihigginsthtr2130blog.blogspot.com/2013/04/prompt-13-three-viewings.html

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

5.     http://korn2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/on-verge.html

Final show and tell post: Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo

My show and tell play this round is Bengal Tiger at the Baghdad Zoo by, Rajiv Joseph. It was written in the early 2000’s and was produced for the first time at Kirk Douglas Theatre in Culvar, California in 2009. It quickly made its way onto many more stages including Broadway’s Richard Rodgers Theatre, and was honored with the outstanding New American Play award in 2008. I would consider this a play worth reading, I was impressed with the abrupt plot changes, and the way Joseph was able to incorporate the lines of the ghosts so congenially.

This play takes place in several different locations in Baghdad in 2003. In the first scene, American soldiers Kev and Tom guard the zoo, which is the home of the plays protagonist, the tiger. Tom took part in murdering Uday Hussein and cares only to regain possession of the golden gun and toilet he stole from him. Unfortunately, the tiger bites off Tom’s hand in the very beginning making that a difficult task to complete. Kev kills the tiger for eating Tom’s hand, and is actively haunted by him for the rest of the play, turning Kev entirely lucid and eventually sending him to the loony bin. Tom hires a translator named Musa who ends up connecting all the characters in the play. Musa has a loyalty to Uday, even though he raped and abused his little sister Nadia before his death. However, he is still employed by Tom and haunted by the ghost of Uday and his cowardice choices. The interactions between the living characters and the ghosts form the skeleton of this plot. The twists and discoveries come from inescapable and ever-changing fates that keep the characters in constant pursuit of one another, until there is nothing left.

This play is written from the perspective of many characters all branching from 1 of 3 worlds. There is the world of the tiger as an animal, there is the world of the living characters as humans, and there is a world of the dead characters that still linger and can affect the outcome of the given plot. This is something you realize once you start reading because the script flows quickly with no indication of who is talking to who or who can hear who, from the author. There is so much Joseph wants his audience to recognize and follow in such a short play, that its imperative for the reader to be able to connect with and bounce back and forth with from different perspectives, worlds, and lines of communication without getting lost. His choice to write the lines straight though with no side notes was clearly done in order to help us view the story the way he intended. Another choice that stood out to me was how powerful the ghosts were in regards to their affect on the other characters. Normally, one would assume the ghosts had no actual control because they weren’t alive, therefore, I believe Joseph wrote their actions to have consequences for a reason. The theme and message of this play has a lot to do with mind control; with how easy it is to loose, yet how necessary it is to have. Joseph uses the uncanny ability of the ghosts to control the characters and significantly manipulate their futures to reveal how the fragility of ones own mind. This choice reiterates the unifying principle of this piece and leaves the audience overtly aware of the power of the mind. 

Prompt 14: The Drowsy Chaperone

An analysis of The Drowsy Chaperone would read very differently from an analysis of its meta-show Drowsy Chaperone. To assume the only difference is that one story stands alone, and the other story is about a certain man repeating the original story would be incorrect. The playwright(s) intentionally made the script more difficult to follow by altering the already established elements of Drowsy Chaperone in order to unveil two completely different stories.

The two elements that stood out to me most in regards to a contrast between The Drowsy Chaperone and its meta-show were the use of sequence and progression. The playwright(s) could have easily had the man retell the story in the same chronological order, but intentionally had the record skip back and forth through time, and therefore changing the sequence in which Drowsy Chaperone was originally written. Changing the sequence of what the audience knows and when they know it alters the way in which they formulate their opinions on the play, and what message they take from it. Another element that I noticed was only found in Drowsy Chaperone and not at all mentioned in The Drowsy Chaperone was that of progression. The motif regarding baking, pastry chefs, and sweet treats was actively reiterated in the meta-show. As motifs are made to be discovered and tend to tie together loose ends of their plays, I couldn’t help but notice how drastically different it was for one play to have a clear line of progression that is not at all a part of the other. I don’t think the two plays are telling the same story at all, I think the playwright(s) intentionally overload The Drowsy Chaperone by overloading Drowsy Chaperone in order to leave us with a surplus of unanswered questions and ambiguous yet substantial connections. 

Prompt 13: Three Viewings

A relatively apparent connection between the 3 stories that make up Three Viewings, by Jeffrey Hatcher, is the common thread of sorrow seen within each character as they all deal with the loss of their loved ones. After reading all three monologues, we learn these protagonists know the same pain, and we discover the tragedies they once faced that justify their current actions and perspectives. I feel as though these characters are so similar in their individual circumstances, that there must be a more intimate likeness between the characters involved. A commonality so momentous, it holds the ability to connect the 3 on a level deeper than simply “people in mourning”. Emil, MAC, and Virginia didn’t just loose the person or persons that mattered most to them, they lost them abruptly, without any warning, and with no form of closure. Emil’s love was killed in a car accident, MAC accidentally killed her own family, and Virginia’s husband passed on before they expected, and before he could settle his financial affairs. The way in which these characters were separated from those they loved most is a small detail. Yet, it more thoroughly and deeply explains the coincidence of their similarities, and proves a stronger connection than what we may assume at first glance.

The first time I read Three Viewings, I didn’t at all understand what any of these people had to do with one another, yet I noticed the funeral theme and the fact that each character suffers from a great loss. I have now read this play 4 times, and have discovered many physical motifs and connections that explain why these monologues compliment each other. Which has brought me to an underlying theme found in the dramatic action of each character that I feel is the reason they are so deeply affected and suppressed by the fate that has fallen upon them. Emil, MAC, and Virginia have an untamable desire to control what is going on around them. The reason they were each left without the ones they love stemmed from their inability to let things happen and urgency to make things happen. For instance, Emil has to freakishly control when he should approach Tessie rather than just telling her his feelings and giving her the power, an act that may have saved her life if he had. These three monologues are together because the need to control got these characters where they are, and the inability to accept things further is what kept them there. Their similar actions produce similar consequences. 

Prompt 12: On the Verge

I want my poster to capitalize on the high levels of irony, ambiguity, and complexity that make up the skeleton of On The Verge by Eric Overmeyer. Therefore, I’ve decided to use the idea of a randomly placed, untraceable, collage of clutter similar to an “I Spy” or “Where’s Waldo” puzzle. Images that depict the many different environments, times, situations, and objects treasured through the notable experiences of these women will be arbitrarily placed together to paint the background of my poster. There will be a surplus of colors, themes, and memorabilia on display. Surely, I will highlight a clock, an umbrella, and a road to symbolize a journey, but will give no more insight to how or where that journey unfolds. I am particularly fond of Mr. Coffee’s character, and what he brings to the already surreal plot. I noticed that Mr. Coffee had a stronger relationship with Fanny than he did Mary and Alex and think that choice was made to encourage each person to be content in their own journey at their own pace; a theme I noticed throughout. Finally, to represent the God-like presence of Mr. Coffee, and the bold fantastical style in which the play was written, I plan on filtering the finished picture with a dreamlike fog. A subtle detail that hints toward surrealism and immortal content, giving the untrained eye little to no concrete information about the play, but merely suggesting an important feature to the world of On The Verge. The tag line that will sit boldly in the center of the poster, on top of the disorderly collage that basically serves as a picturesque analysis of the play, is “The Mysterious Interior”. A fragment that can adopt countless endings, 3 words with the potential of a thousand, a loaded phrase that means so much and nothing at all. 

Prompt 11: Fires in the Mirror

Fires in the Mirror by, Anna Deavere Smith is a collection of monologues told from many different characters in various locations, all of which on a particular side of the controversy we discover throughout. Smith speaks of a historical incident from the real world, therefore, risking loosing an unbiased audience to take her story for what it is. Smith gives us 13 monologues before ever mentioning what happened at Crown Heights, and she did so with intention. The characters revealed to us before the controversy came to light had their own stories and their own perspectives of what was to come. Smith gave her audience a chance to get to know these characters personally before addressing their stance of which most readers would soon disagree with. These monologues serve as a more intimate introduction of the characters in their world before any mentioning of the riots that affected ours. This way, we are able to see each character with a clean slate and an unbiased opinion on whose they are according to what we currently know.

These monologues justify the other side of the argument that is so hard to comprehend once you’ve formulated an opinion of wrong and right. Smith’s choice to connect us to characters on both sides of the equation allows us to understand the reasons behind some of their opinions and relate some of their actions back to certain things we learned about them before the riots came into play. Ultimately, the playwright did what she did for a reason. It is not our place to simply cut out what doesn’t immediately settle with us, rather it is with great pleasure that we dig up motifs, themes, and underlying messages in order to understand and appreciate what we’ve been given.  

links for comments!

References to my extra little posty posts (aka-judgments)

1.     http://jennihigginsthtr2130blog.blogspot.com/2013/03/prompt-8-buried-child.html?showComment=1366702274813#c1311692639591019984

2.     http://jennihigginsthtr2130blog.blogspot.com/2013/04/prompt-6-glass-of-water.html?showComment=1366702642021#c7796560470925301223

3.     http://jfletch2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/prompt-6-glass-of-water.html?showComment=1366704352936#c1504711594858917205

4.     http://korn2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/water-by-spoonful.html?showComment=1366704889190#c6980548567298223165

5.     http://korn2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/buried-child.html?showComment=1366705231364#c5996374759682408619

6.     http://korn2130.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-glass-of-water.html?showComment=1366705445080#c2307746608115811418

Show and tell post #2: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

I hereby show and tell Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolfe?  By Edward Albee. This play was written in 1961, after Albee had already attained fame, and proceeded to win the Tony Award for best play. This famous play made its debut on October 13, 1962, when it opened at the Billy Rose Theatre on Broadway. It has been and continues to be revived and produced rather frequently on the modern stage. Edward Albee’s work can be found through several mediums including textbooks, novels, and different sources on the internet. The version of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolfe that caught my eye was the most recent edition, revised by Albee for the 2005 Broadway revival, and published by New American Library.

This is a story about two highly dysfunctional couples, Martha and George, and Honey and Nick, who only came into each other’s lives through their jobs at a certain university. The plot takes place in Martha and George’s home within several hours between midnight and morning. I had a lot of trouble understanding this story, or even deciding whether or not Albee intended it to come across as a dream due to its absurdity. Martha’s father owns the university that employs both George and Nick. She and George spend the entire length of the play fighting like cats and dogs, and ruthlessly abusing one another. While Nick and Honey appear to be well off and in love at the start, but slowly reveal they are more like childhood friends that got married out of conformity, and view their union as boring imprisonment. The plot takes place in the living room, where the four of them drink scotch after scotch until their true identities come forth, and the skeletons hidden within reach the surface. The characters take turns loud capping one another without consent until there is no secret left untold, and no character left unharmed. By the end of the play, we know that Honey is an alcoholic because she knows Nick only married her because she got pregnant, and because she can’t bear the pain of the miscarriages that have haunted her. We can testify to the repulsive hate between George and Martha, and witness infidelity in both marriages and Nick and Martha attempt to have an affair in the kitchen with no concern for their spouses. Finally, we get an idea as to why Martha and George are both so unbelievably mentally unwell, as we discover the dark part in their past regarding the death of their only son. The story ends rather abruptly, leaving the audience almost in shock and probably wondering what the hell they just read.

Edward Albee makes the choice to add detailed stage directions, and vivid descriptions of how the characters should move, sound, and appear. This script is short-winded for the most part and quickly paced, the characters are not supposed to think before they speak. These stage directions and character clues help us as readers follow along without getting lost, and maintain the intended pace which keeps the shock value relevant. Another notable dramaturgical choice, made by Albee, is his incorporation of progression. Suspense and discovery bantered back and forth from start to finish, each time growing with intensity and importance, until all suspense was killed and there was nothing left to reveal. This made the story interesting and impossible to put down. Each time the suspense was reduced, something was revealed that connected you further to the script, which lead to another wave of greater suspense, and soon another significant revelation. This pattern is a common style found in the writings of Edward Albee, and has proved to benefit his career. 

Prompt 10: Detroit

The element of ambiguity pops up constantly from the moment Ben and Mary meet their neighbors, "Kenny and Sharon", to when they discover their real and unfortunate identities. Kenny and Sharon were a good time, and filled the empty friendless place in Ben and Mary's relationship. Therefore, Ben and Mary actively overlook a multitude of questionable instances that hint toward the fact that Kenny and Sharon are not who they said they are. They claim to have met in rehab, which is questioned at the end of scene 3 when they tell a story about "Hotlanta" that doesn't add up to their alleged timeline. They portray themselves as recovering drug addicts that are trying to start fresh and clean up their lives. However, through the way that they live and behave, often drinking beers and having no furniture after months of "progress", we find this hard to believe. D'Amour gives more apparent hints as the play goes on. For instance, when the women are out camping and Kenny continually talks bad about himself, "I'm and asshole, it's too late for me", we can assume there is something he is not telling us; something that will justify why he feels the way he does. D'Amour also works with the elements of dramatic irony, and bold checks of reality. An example of dramatic irony comes about toward the end of scene 6. The audience is aware of Kenny and Ben's deceitful plans to get drunk and indulge in immoral behavior with strippers. When Sharon and Mary arrive without warning, they assume their husbands missed them terribly, and believe they intended to watch soccer, which we know is a lie. Examples of "reality checks" are often made from Kenny and Sharon when they mention old habits "her problem was really freebasing heroin anyway". These comments are played out as jokes after they notice the shock and concern in Ben and Mary. Ambiguity, dramatic irony, and reality checks all contribute to the plot as it is written to abruptly twist right before the conclusion, leaving the audience feeling conflicted and fooled. After reading the play and experiencing the shock of the falling action, I feel that ambiguity is the most prominent and important element used by D'Amour as her objective would not have been achieved without the use of such.

Prompt 9: Water by the Spoonful

In scene 7, Odessa is meeting with with John to talk one on one, these two characters interact within one of the two worlds that connect to form the world of this play. One of those worlds surrounds the relationships among a group of recovering drug addicts that interact in an online chatroom. The other half of this world is the world that Odessa left in her attempts to get clean and become a better person. In this scene we see the cleaned up Odessa meeting with John to get to know him in order to eventually help him get off cocaine. Odessa is portrayed as a nurturing and respectable woman who makes it hard to believe she was ever on drugs. During this coffee date, the two are interrupted by Elliot and Yaz, who have come to confront Odessa and demand a large sum of money from her to contribute to Aunt Ginny's funeral. When addressing her son and niece, Odessa is portrayed in a darker light with a lot of baggage. This scene is the first time the two worlds coexist and create a jarring contrast to the way we begin to perceive Odessa. Hudes' reason for revealing the skeletons in Odessa's closet at this point in the play was to prove to John that even though someone can look like they have it all together on the outside, it doesn't necessarily mean that they do. Therefore, helping him recognize the severity of his own addiction, which changes his life fore the better, and instills in him a loyalty to Odessa, which is eventually what saves her life. It is important for Yaz and Elliot to enter Odessa's seemingly peaceful world at the time that they did, the story couldn't have continued without that interception.

Prompt 8: Buried Child

Buried Child, by Sam Shepard, portrays a seemingly realistic world at first glance. Although the story he tells us is disturbing and far from ideal, it is, for the most part, believable. We see a few days in the life of a broken, highly dysfunctional, family of farmers full of hidden motives, secrets, and shocking discoveries and events. It is easy for us to believe a family such as this one exists, regardless of how unsettling, a drunk, an amputee, an absent father, and a deceased son can all be viewed as realistic aspects of the world of this play. However, there are several key elements, most of them in repetition, that emulate an unrealistic plot. In some cases, these instances made me question whether or not the story would turn out to be a dream as they placed an "imaginary" vibe onto the planet of Buried Child. For example, the over abundance of corn that was never planted, yet somehow appeared on the farm, the fact that Tilden doesn't recognize his own son, the common thread of denial within Halie, Dodge, Bradley, and Tilden that justifies the awful way they treat one another, and their ability to have gone this long without discussing and solving the conflicts that have them bound to a life of misery. These questions are never answered, and continually present themselves throughout the story. Shelly seems to be the only sane character, by viewing the world of the play from her perspective, the audience is able to notice the surplus of irony, ambiguity, and complexity that defines the realistic world of this play to be unrealistic. Reading Buried Child  is an interesting experience, leaving you confused and deeply conflicted.

Prompt 6: Glass of Water

The protagonist in Eugene Scribes' The Glass of Water, is Masham. From the beginning of the play, we discover a beautiful and honest love between Masham and Abigail, and the objective of attaining a marriage between the two of them is the most prominent in the script. Although many other characters appear with many other objectives, tactics that work toward the union of the young lovers receive the most stage time. Scribe portrays both Masham and Abigail in a good light. We see both of them as respectable, likable, and hard-working characters, which automatically puts the audience on their side. We also see truth in their love for one another, and a constant effort from each of them to find a way to be together. This makes the audience, no matter the current issue at hand in the world of the play, concerned for the fate of Abigail and Masham and the success of their relationship. Both the queen and Duchess are in love with Masham and are after his hand in marriage. Without Abigail in the picture, we as the audience would see nothing wrong with this. They simply love an attractive, strong, enjoyable young man, it only makes sense that they would go after his heart. However, Scribe makes sure to establish a relationship between Masham and Abigail before ever releasing the feelings of the queen or duchess for a reason. In doing so, she allows the audience to become connected to Abigail and Masham, and form a loyalty to their relational success over anything that may try to destroy it. There is no question as to who is the protagonist, or as to which outcome the audience should be hopeful for. Scribe wrote this play so that even though the queen and Duchess aren't necessarily bad people, the audience detest them for even existing once we discover their plans to break up the beautiful union we have come to truly appreciate and support.

show and tell post #1

For my show and tell Play, I read The Goat by Edward Albee. This play, also referred to as Who is Sylvia, was published in 2000, and produced for the first time in New York City on March 10, 2002. It premiered at the Golden Theatre, was produced by Elizabeth Ireland McCann, Daryl Roth, Carole Shorenstein Hays, Terry Allen Kramer, Scott Rudin, Bob Boyett, and Scott Nederlander. This play is written and can be found in many forms. I bought the play by itself, and also have read it from the Norton Anthology of Drama.

Where is Sylvia is about the almost too good to be true marriage of Martin and Stevie, and how tragically it shattered. Martin, a politician, admits to his best friend Ross of a love affair he is currently engaged in. He claims to love, more passionately than he has ever loved anything else, a goat, named Sylvia. However, he is still in love with Stevie, and can’t fathom how no one understands his position. Ross tell Stevie of the terrible news, the majority of the play is dialogue between Stevie and Martin as she forces him to explain himself, and is enraged as Martin puts Sylvia in the same love category as she. Their homosexual son Billy, who is constantly bothered for his sexual orientation, swings in a out of the scenes usually with disdain for Martin and a deep love for his mother. At the end of the show, Ross and Martin have it out, Billy and Martin make up and get too sexually affectionate for a father and son, and Stevie leaves the house only to return with a slaughtered Sylvia. Martin sees that his behavior is wrong only because of how deeply it hurt Stevie, but he claims to love Sylvia with all his heart and wishes someone would take his side and understand where he is coming from.

The way Stevie and Martin speak with one another stood out to me. Albee interlocks their dialogue, displaying how close they by having them finish one another’s sentences, and sometimes predict what the other would say or would actually mean rather. Even in the depth of their dispair, in the midst of Stevie’s rage Albee would have one of them subtly cracks a joke or refer to an old memory or inside joke. This was what kept me rooting for the salvation of their relationship no matter how crippled it had or would become. This showed how much Martin truly did love Stevie. This made the audience believe Martin was in love with his wife, and simply confused, rather than pin him with infidelity, beastiality, and filth. Another choice that stood out to me was the way Albee wrote in stage directions and actions such as (Stevie flipped over the table, or Stevie shattered a vase) and sometimes in the place of more dialogue. I felt like I could more deeply understand the inner conflict happening within Stevie. Just like how the first choice I discussed added a sense of familiarity and comedy, making what severity of the sin diminish, Albee’s detailed stage directions do the same. 

Vogel

How I Learned To Drive is a complex story involving several characters as part of the setting, but is mostly focused on the relationship between Peck and Lil' bit. I think Vogel chose to use a greek chorus because she didn't want to spend anytime acquainting the audience to a number of people, as it wasn't necessary to her plot, but she also couldn't tell that story properly with only two characters in it. The chorus signifies mother, grandmother, grandfather, aunt mary, and other small parts like the waiter. These characters make up the back story, and the current setting of each scene. The fact that these characters aren't exactly real in the way that Peck and Lil' bit are shows how unaffected those two are by their presence in their lives. Peck and Lil' bit are concerned with themselves and each other, neither of them honestly care about the opinions of the rest of their family, and not giving those family members substantial characters helps portray that.

Vogel also chose to tell her story out of order. I think she wanted the audience to see Peck and Lil' bit both in positive light, in order to really grasp their relationship without judging one or the other. Writing it out of order kept some of the bad out until the end, and made a sort of suspense to when the audience felt it necessary to pick a side. Regardless of what you watch or read, its natural to chose a character to favor. Obviously, Peck was wrong from the start, but Vogel did a good job of connecting him to the audience for as long as she could. I think she wrote this out of order because she wanted her audience to be faced with making their own decision about what they think should be considered morally correct. As opposed to making it an understood, almost forced opinion.

Fornes

      What stood out to me most about The Conduct of Life, written by Maria Irene Fornes was the pattern in which her characters spoke to one another and to the audience, and the rhythm of the dialogue. This play was harsh, dark, and to the point. It was full of outlandish disturbing information that was thrown at you so quick you almost always had to reread it to believe what your eyes skimmed. The story, in the way the characters behaved, was in a sense "all over the place". Every line spoke of something so full of vigor and emotion, but every line constantly contradicted the way a previous line made you feel as an audience member. In each line, no matter how long, the sentences were usually abrupt. The characters spoke in staccato and often said loaded sentences without a detail justification as to what they mean. They spoke bluntly, dry, and quick. They also flopped back and forth from dialogue between two or more people, to a monologue to the audience, and then back to conversation without warning, which made it hard to keep up with what was in the scene and what was inner dialogue. Leticia would say something to Orlando, then say something with an opposing message to the audience, then return to Orlando. The way the sentences were sequenced, and the order in which the characters speak helps create the vibe that Fornes was trying to create. The way she wrote her script made me feel uneasy, confused, and very much without control of the situation. Fornes writes about horrifying events and expects you to sit there and "let them happen" by reading them, because you dont have the power to stop the evil written before you.

      I think she named this play The Conduct of Life to open her readers eyes to the fact that to some people, this is considered normal and acceptable. That the conduct of life isn't a particular way of living around the entire world. What is right to me, may be wrong to someone else. Unfortunately, we don't have the power to ensure that everyone is living the "right" way and treated others the way they deserve to be treated. This being the title almost makes me upset that something as wretched and repulsive as what is written in this script would be referred to as the conduct of life. It makes me want to be a better person and fight for good conduct.

prompt 2: Trifles

As I read Trifles, I found myself needing to go back and review stage directions and side notes in order to understand what was going on in the world of the play. I think stripping this piece of its detailed costume, prop, and set design would be possible, yes, but not beneficial to the audience. I don't find the script to be as interesting on it's own, nor do I think many of the unanswered questions or unfinished thoughts would be clear without tangible references. Also, if you simply read the play with no indication of the intended setting or timeframe, the characters would sound abnormal and "of a different time". The entire script is based around the everyday routine these men and women adhere to. So assisting the script with evidence of this daily routine would be helpful to those watching as they try to grasp the world of this play.