References to my extra little posty posts (aka-judgments)
Thursday, April 25, 2013
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.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
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.
Monday, April 22, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)