The Glass of Water: http://jstaff6.blogspot.com/2013/10/glass-of-water.html?showComment=1382478078201#c913081102985486649
The Children's Hour: http://purplesummer2130.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-childrens-hour.html?showComment=1383678607567#c7638617040145802375
Love! Valor! Compassion!: http://haileysonnier.blogspot.com/2013/10/love-valour-compassion.html?showComment=1383575030543#c1788861302527204260
Eurydice: http://andreagracethtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/11/eurydice.html?showComment=1383685695082#c5779223648244947233
The Glass of Water Redux: http://2130michaelguillot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-glass-of-water.html?showComment=1383683357985#c8134511930800355232
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
The Children's Hour
*Just a warning that this is undoubtedly going to be a long post.
At first glance, The Children's Hour follows the basic "guidelines" for a well-made play, such as three acts, long exposition, and a secret-based plot. The differences lie within the plot itself, as there is little to no dramatic irony, there are no major reveals or curtain lines at the end of each act, and there is no expected obligatory scene. As for dramatic irony, the only real instance only lasts for a few moments at the beginning of Scene 2 of Act II, as Mrs. Tilford is speaking to Joe Cardin as to why he "must not marry Karen." This choice puts the audience in a more vulnerable position, as they discover the secrets and plot twists at the same time as the characters. In respect to the rising action, there are no curtain lines, as there are no major reveals at the end of each act. Although the main rising action focuses on the lives of Karen, Martha after Mary's accusations, the main climax of each act occurs during the middle of the act, such as Mary overhearing Mrs. Mortar's remarks on Martha, Mary telling her grandmother about Karen and Martha's relationship, Mrs. Tilford stepping in and taking action, and Martha's revelation and suicide. This dramaturgical pattern leaves for a much longer falling action and denouement, as more time is dedicated to following the character's reactions. With both of these dramaturgical choices in play, there is no real obligatory scene because there is nothing important that the audience knows and there is no climax to be built up to. Although this play follows the basic outline for a well-made play, Hellman's choices make the differences more plot-centric than format-centric.
As for this play's place in today's society, I believe that it is not a play that should be done until at least seventy-five years after every state in the country legally permits same-sex marriage. Say there was a play written during the 1930s in which the main plot focused on the social rejection and removal of African-Americans from a community. If this piece were performed during that time, it would no doubt be accepted as just a representation of the majority's mindset of that time and be written off as "just stating the facts." There is no doubt that racism continually exists in today's world, but if this play was performed in the future, it could be used as an educational tool to show future generations how horrible society's prejudices can be. With that concept in mind, I hope this play can one day be used to show future generations how horrible the treatment of LGBTQA members is and was, and to demonstrate the real-life consequences of society's harsh treatments. There are a few subtle lines that particularly got to me, as they are almost unnoticeable and are meant to be considered as "progressive thinking" or "reasonable" justifications but in actuality only perpetuate closedmindedness. One is Mrs. Tilford's declaration to Karen and Martha that "This-this thing is your own. Go away with it. I don't understand it and I don't want any part of it." I firmly believe that ignorance is the cause of most prejudice, and Mrs. Tilford's passive stance on the subject sets a much worse example than boldly exclaiming some sort of "punishment" or anti-gay remark. Another line is exchanged between Karen and Martha, when Karen comments that "Other people aren't destroyed by [accusations]," to which Martha responds, "They are the people...who've chosen it." This line goes almost undetected and simply put, it implies that homosexuality is a choice, which it is not. Although the play does show the real-life consequences of harsh words and hurtful accusations, it is because of the minor, unimportant lines that come from a homophobic mindset and time period that makes this play unproduceable in today's society, as its passive stance and blurred lines between right and wrong give conflicting messages to its audiences.
At first glance, The Children's Hour follows the basic "guidelines" for a well-made play, such as three acts, long exposition, and a secret-based plot. The differences lie within the plot itself, as there is little to no dramatic irony, there are no major reveals or curtain lines at the end of each act, and there is no expected obligatory scene. As for dramatic irony, the only real instance only lasts for a few moments at the beginning of Scene 2 of Act II, as Mrs. Tilford is speaking to Joe Cardin as to why he "must not marry Karen." This choice puts the audience in a more vulnerable position, as they discover the secrets and plot twists at the same time as the characters. In respect to the rising action, there are no curtain lines, as there are no major reveals at the end of each act. Although the main rising action focuses on the lives of Karen, Martha after Mary's accusations, the main climax of each act occurs during the middle of the act, such as Mary overhearing Mrs. Mortar's remarks on Martha, Mary telling her grandmother about Karen and Martha's relationship, Mrs. Tilford stepping in and taking action, and Martha's revelation and suicide. This dramaturgical pattern leaves for a much longer falling action and denouement, as more time is dedicated to following the character's reactions. With both of these dramaturgical choices in play, there is no real obligatory scene because there is nothing important that the audience knows and there is no climax to be built up to. Although this play follows the basic outline for a well-made play, Hellman's choices make the differences more plot-centric than format-centric.
As for this play's place in today's society, I believe that it is not a play that should be done until at least seventy-five years after every state in the country legally permits same-sex marriage. Say there was a play written during the 1930s in which the main plot focused on the social rejection and removal of African-Americans from a community. If this piece were performed during that time, it would no doubt be accepted as just a representation of the majority's mindset of that time and be written off as "just stating the facts." There is no doubt that racism continually exists in today's world, but if this play was performed in the future, it could be used as an educational tool to show future generations how horrible society's prejudices can be. With that concept in mind, I hope this play can one day be used to show future generations how horrible the treatment of LGBTQA members is and was, and to demonstrate the real-life consequences of society's harsh treatments. There are a few subtle lines that particularly got to me, as they are almost unnoticeable and are meant to be considered as "progressive thinking" or "reasonable" justifications but in actuality only perpetuate closedmindedness. One is Mrs. Tilford's declaration to Karen and Martha that "This-this thing is your own. Go away with it. I don't understand it and I don't want any part of it." I firmly believe that ignorance is the cause of most prejudice, and Mrs. Tilford's passive stance on the subject sets a much worse example than boldly exclaiming some sort of "punishment" or anti-gay remark. Another line is exchanged between Karen and Martha, when Karen comments that "Other people aren't destroyed by [accusations]," to which Martha responds, "They are the people...who've chosen it." This line goes almost undetected and simply put, it implies that homosexuality is a choice, which it is not. Although the play does show the real-life consequences of harsh words and hurtful accusations, it is because of the minor, unimportant lines that come from a homophobic mindset and time period that makes this play unproduceable in today's society, as its passive stance and blurred lines between right and wrong give conflicting messages to its audiences.
The Glass of Water
I have to
admit that this prompt is by far the most challenging I have yet to come
across, and that after thoroughly reading The
Glass of Water, I still haven’t found any significant places where there
was an out-of-place line or scene. The story seemed incredibly well put
together, and the plot was a whirlwind of secret after secret after secret. In
place of one particular scene or conversation, there is a mini-plotline that I
feel was not carried out or explained very well: Bolingbroke’s affiliation with
the Tory party.
Although it
is clearly apparent that this play was written primarily to entertain audiences
and did not set out to make any major political or social statements,
Bolingbroke’s mentionings of the Tory party are brief and unexplained, and do
not contribute to the central story in any noticeable way. The first account of
the Tory party begins with Bolingbroke exclaiming that “The Tory party was the
food I had been craving,” and goes on to briefly describe the power struggles
between his party and the Whigs. The next Tory mentioning involves Bolingbroke
divulging his plan to sneak the Queen his Tory paper, “which [he] slips under
the cover…” Other than those instances in the beginning of the first act, the
only other time Bolingbroke comments on the party is during the opening of Act
Three, when he converses with Abigail.
Bolingbroke informs Abigail that he “was busy with the ministry…,” which
confuses Abigail until he informs her that he was meeting with “The Tory
ministry. While this plotline explains Bolingbroke’s political and social
status in regards to Parliament and the Queen, it is not convincing enough to
be considered a solid dramaturgical choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)