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.