Show and Tell #1: After the Revolution

            The play I chose to read is After the Revolution by Amy Herzog, and was first written and produced in 2010. The play had its world premiere as a summer stock production in the Williamstown Theatre Festival, and was later transferred to an Off-Broadway run by Playwrights Horizons, where it opened in November of 2010 (Herzog 15). For this play, Herzog has received a John Gassner Award by the Outer Critics Circle, which awards new American playwrights (Playbill), and the New York Times Outstanding Playwright Award (Playbill). After the Revolution has been published by Theatre Communications Group, Inc., and can be purchased in a set along with 4000 Miles.

            After the Revolution is about the complex relationships and politics of the Joseph family, about ten years before 4000 Miles begins. The protagonist is Emma Joseph, granddaughter of Vera and Joe, and the plot follows her path to discovery and acceptance of her family’s Marxist past. The play opens with a family party to celebrate Emma’s law school graduation, where it is apparent that Emma has chosen to follow the family tradition of being a political activist. In the midst of her success with the Joe Joseph Fund and its ongoing bid to release death row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal, a soon-to-be published book reveals that Joe had sold American secrets to the Soviet Union during World War II. When her father, Ben, confirms that he has known this since his childhood, Emma is outraged that her entire family has kept her in the dark for so long, as both the reputation of the fund and Mumia’s life are at stake. Through conversations with her primary benefactor, her boyfriend, and individuals in her family, Emma realizes that her family’s history is bigger than herself, and that the only way to move forward is to accept it and take pride in her grandfather’s defiant actions.

            One interesting dramaturgical choice is that Joe Joseph, whose actions are the play’s central conflict, is deceased by the time the plot begins. One of Herzog’s production notes states that the setting is in “June of 1999: a year and a half after Joe Joseph’s death,” which means that the audience only has the characters’ personal thoughts, opinions, and memories to piece together the kind of person Joe was. After Emma researches Joe’s official trial, she learns “He flat out denie[d] committing espionage,” even though his family and now the whole world know that he was lying in court. Considering that the play revolves around the idea of family history and the secrets that emerge, it is interesting that the one person who can set the record straight is no longer present. Without Joe to personally defend himself against the allegations of treason, the characters have more freedom to express their opinions and theories on his political views. In addition to this, there is greater pressure on them, as Joe’s legacy is their responsibility to uphold.
           Another noteworthy dramaturgical choice is Herzog’s decision to end the play with Vera expressing her disapproval of all of Emma’s choices. After the build-up of deciphering how the Joseph family will recover from the scandal and once Emma finally accepts her grandfather’s actions and makes her final decisions regarding the future of the Joe Joseph Fund, Emma reads Vera her official public statement regarding the whole affair, only to learn that her grandmother “[doesn’t] agree with a lot of it.” Vera expresses that all Emma has done is “named [her] grandfather’s name,” implying that all of the personal development Emma made throughout the few months of the affair is nothing but superficial. Despite the entire plot revolving around Emma, it is Vera who voices the closing lines of the play, stating to her, “I love you and I’m sorry I can’t agree with you. But progress? I’m afraid not. No.” Instead of ending the play with Emma exhibiting contentment and personal accomplishment as is expected, Herzog chooses to keep the play open-ended, showing that the situation is not black and white, and is undeniably more complex than Emma can resolve with a simple speech.

Works Cited:
Herzog, Amy. 4000 Miles and After the Revolution: Two Plays. Theatre Communications Group. New       York, New York. 2011. Print.

4000 Miles

In this play, there really are no apparent plot points or stand out Major Dramatic Questions, but rather an array of scenes between Leo and some of the important females in his life, being his grandmother, his sister, his ex-girlfriend, and one of his dates. Despite there being no obvious pattern to the scenes, one event that is repeatedly brought up in conversations is Leo’s departure from his family and friends. Keeping this generic idea of departure in mind, it is also notable that Leo’s date abruptly leaves, his Skype call with his sister is cut short, his relationship with his girlfriend is concluded with a “Fuck you,” his best friend is suddenly killed in a freak chicken truck accident, and the play ends with Leo going to Ginny’s funeral, adding yet another sudden death to his life. Considering all of the “departures” that are included in almost every scene, a major motif present in 4000 Miles is the concept of endings. 

In the opening scene, Vera begins to mention Leo’s mother, saying “She’s been…” to which Leo instantly begins packing while saying “It was awesome to see you,” exhibiting that Leo’s first instinct when approached with an uncomfortable subject is to completely avoid the topic. In a later scene, Bec does almost exactly the same thing, after Leo approaches her with a kiss. She cuts him off and pushes him away, saying “I have to go,” to which Leo boldly points out that Bec has “turned [her] back on everything…we used to believe in.” In another scene, Leo avoids answering Lily’s plea for him to “come home” by awkwardly responding with “Yeah, I’m gonna hang up now, sorry.” Throughout Leo’s life, relationships, conversations, and even lives are abruptly ended, and while some of these endings are inevitable and up to chance, others are intentionally made so by Leo’s personal interference, or lack of.

Judith

     Considering the drastic change in Judith's demeanor pre and post-beheading, I think the major dramatic question is "Will Holofernes's murder alter Judith's control?" A major theme of this piece is the concept of control (control of fate, control of discussion, control of situations), and the shifts in control between Holofernes, Judith, and the Servant are what drive the plot forward. At the start of the play, Holofernes seems to dominate the conversation, as he makes bold statements that prompt Judith and the Servant to respond with their personal remarks, such as opening with “Tonight I want to talk about death,” and declaring “I have no sympathy.” His inherent power as a general is outwardly expressed, and his dominating voice in the conversation is understood by Judith and the Servant. Towards the middle of the play, the Servant seems to have power over both Judith and Holofernes, as it is she who is able to talk Judith out of her stupor and kill Holofernes by shouting “He is smiling! He is smiling!” Directly after the beheading of Holofernes, Judith loses all self-control and appears to be driven to madness, as shown by her personal observation of “I was a silly cunt there,” and her overwhelming desire to “fuck with him.” With this, Judith's temporary resignation of power puts the Servant in control of their relationship. Finally, the end of the play sees Judith with full control and power, as shown by her severe nature towards the Servant, demanding the Servant to “put [her] teeth against [Judith’s] shoe,” and to clean the bloody sword “with [her] hair.” Considering all of the power shifts that quickly occur throughout the play, Holofernes’s death certainly changes Judith’s physical, mental, and emotional control, as she transforms from an average woman, to an insane mourner, to a vindictive war hero.

'Night, Mother

     Although the question of "Will Jessie kill herself?" is evident throughout the entire piece, I do not think that this is the most important question to ask, as Jessie's headstrong approach to her suicide is unwavering. Jessie's relentlessness is apparent starting with her determined search for her father's gun, leading to her direct declaration of "I'm going to kill myself, Mama," and ending with her plea for Mama to "let [her] go," suggesting that for Jessie, the question of her suicide is not up for debate. Considering that Jessie’s stance on the topic of her suicide is unchanging throughout the play, I think that the heart of the Major Dramatic Question lies with Mama.

     To me, the purpose of the play is not to figure out if and why Jessie is going to kill herself, but to see if Mama will be able to talk her out of it. This question has better support from the text, as Mama’s changing tactics are apparent throughout the dialogue. For example, after hearing Jessie deliver the news, Mama starts offering to change aspects of their lives, such as proposing to forbid Dawson from “ever setting foot in this house again.” She then approaches the situation by sharing pieces of information to make some of the missing pieces of Jessie’s life fall into place, like admitting that her “daddy had fits, too,” and that Jessie “had a fit when she [was] five years old.” Next, Mama starts encouraging Jessie to notice some positive changes that she’s recently started making, such as being able to remember her daily tasks, and even being able to keep track of her lists. After none of these strategies change Jessie’s mind, Mama’s last hope lies in pleading for Jessie to wait, as she has “all night,” and concluding the night’s struggle by shouting “Please!” Because Mama’s emotions and thoughts throughout the discussion are continually adapting and evolving, the MDQ focuses on whether or not Mama will find a way to save Jessie, rather than simply asking if Jessie will kill herself or not.

I'm Commenting on Comments

Overtones: http://kamrink.blogspot.com/2013/09/overtones-response.html?showComment=1378763685706#c1540352032779111272

Trifles: http://haileysonnier.blogspot.com/2013/09/trifles-blog-post.html?showComment=1379123133175#c94444638362076398

'Night, Mother: http://bturn2130.blogspot.com/2013/09/night-mama.html?showComment=1379869821121#c2379440211910995415 

Judith: http://carolinehebert2130.blogspot.com/2013/09/hey-judith-dont-make-it-bad.html?showComment=1379871384329#c5675296976369429182

4000 Miles: http://tylerales1992.blogspot.com/2013/09/4000-miles.html?showComment=1380220894424#c6647624896396297114

'Night, Mother Redux: http://shequila2130scriptanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/09/night-mother-by-marsha-norman.html?showComment=1380400192247#c307353230118068695

Trifles

     When I first read Dr. Fletcher's prompt, I could not understand why anyone would propose that particular design concept for this piece. I (like many of you, I'm sure) imagined a quaint country home with a cozy living room and modest kitchen as the set, as this is how text suggests the setting is to be. Black boxes and minimalist props just don't seem to have anything to do with the story, characters, or play as a whole. On second thought, I realized that any average onlooker, be it a reader or the characters themselves, would naturally view the house as any basic twentieth-century farmhouse, with the appropriate domestic touches scattered around. But Minnie Wright only sees black boxes and plain white quilts. Her world is full of bleak nothingness, and the mounting torture of having all the colors and textures of her life stripped away by John is ultimately what compels her to kill him.
     I think this design proposal is brilliant, as it allows the audience and actors alike to experience the world through the perspective of Minnie Wright. Without all of the unnecessary fluff, the audience is able to more heavily focus on how troubled Minnie truly is and how miserable her life must be to consider murder, as there would be nothing else to be distracted by. While I believe an audience would be understanding of the concept after the play is over, the abstract surroundings wouldn't make sense at first and stir confusion, which is exactly how the characters approach the situation until Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale begin to decipher the true story of Mrs. Wright's life. Although the spectacle of detailed set pieces and intricate costumes would be lost, the production would gain an artistic approach that would bring the mystery of the story to an even higher level, providing an out-of-place puzzle piece for the audience and actors to use as a key to unlock the desolate world of the play's central character.

Overtones

     I believe that the two "inner" manifestations of Harriet and Margaret can both see and hear one another, as conversations between the two throughout the script would strongly suggest. Whilst reading the play, I envisioned the statements made by the "inners" to their respective "outers" as asides, with the remarks directed from Hetty to Maggie and vice versa being as real as any conversation between Harriet and Margaret. To me, Hetty and Maggie are the real characters, while Harriet and Margaret serve as stifled puppets being manipulated by their raw emotions. As Harriet states, she is merely Hetty's "subtle overtones."
    The level of communication between the two inners is apparent in the text, considering the script explicitly states that some of one inner's lines are directed towards the other. Not only do the bracketed directions provide evidence to this, but the content of the lines themselves indicate a true awareness between the characters. As the ladies are fully immersed in their conversation, the striking remarks between the inners seem to be emphasized at moments of weakness and personal insecurity. For example, when discussing John's fame, Hetty asks point blank "Are you telling the truth or lying?" to which Maggie quickly reassures that they are being honest, and when Maggie surrenders her true objective to Hetty, begging "Help us! Help me! Save us!", Hetty immediately takes note and orders Harriet's response not to "seem too eager." Considering that one inner can identify a weak point in the other inner's motive and tactfully attack, I gathered that both inner selves are both visually and aurally aware of each other.
     From an audience's viewpoint, the levels of interaction can clearly be identified simply by acknowledging if one actor is looking at or guiding their voice toward another. When reading the play, the stage directions and lines are the only tools the reader has to determine the "laws" of the work, but the physical parallels between the inners and outers, such as the shadowing during cake distribution, are equally powerful in text and in action, as it shows how closely the foils are intertwined. In the penultimate scene, the contrasting physicalities of Margaret and Harriet and Maggie and Hetty reinforce that the separate entities are still, in fact, separate, and that all four women have voices that are meant to be heard.

My First Post

Hello! And welcome to my Script Analysis blog! I can't wait for these pages to be filled with insightful and interesting inquiries about the plays we'll be reading and discussing, and to read about what everyone else thinks, as well. Hopefully I'll learn to properly navigate the vast and intricate world of online blogging, and I'll be a professional by the time the semester is over. But until then, see you at our next assignment!