I'm Commenting on Comments: Part 3

House of Trials
'Tis Pity She's a Whore
Water by the Spoonful
Topdog/Underdog
Next to Normal
Next to Normal: Redux

House of Trials

            One of the supposed conventions found in House of Trials is the play’s poetic form, from its formatting to its rhyming couplets and verses. To begin with, the play is formatted in that of a poem instead of the usual format of printing line after line, which indicates the way that the lines are to be spoken and presented. The lines are supposed to flow and follow melodic patterns and rhythms as opposed to just being spoken aloud, and the majority of all Spanish Golden Age plays probably follows this convention. Another piece of evidence to attest for this convention is the play’s rhyming scheme, as some of the verses are rhymed and each scene ends on a rhyming couplet. For example, the first scene ends on Doña Ana’s line:

            “Love, since you tempt me with this destiny,

                 do not deny the rewards of this opportunity.”

Each scene ending follows this pattern, adding to the poetic form of this play.

            Another convention found is the characters’ hyperawareness of them being a part of a play, especially Castaño and Celia. In the opening scene, Celia comments on Doña Leonor’s monologue by exclaiming, “That’s great! A monologue in the middle of the night,” providing the first example of characters acknowledging their presence in a piece of theatre. Although this first instance is stated by Celia, Castaño is usually the one who speaks to the audience in this manner, as he has several instances of talking about the plot. For example, at one point he exclaims, “The plot thickens!” and although this is known as a common expression, its use in a play adds an extra element of the characters’ consciousness. Another example of this is Castaño stating that “the idea for a plot just struck [him],” which indicates that he is fully aware of the consequences of his actions in regards to the progression of the play. This convention is not one that is seen often in today’s theatre, but is something that is possibly a fad of the Spanish Golden Age. 

Show and Tell #2: Mud

The play I chose to read is Mud: a Play in 17 Scenes by the Obie-Award winning playwright Maria Irene Fornes. It was first written and produced in 1983, and the play saw its premiere as a summer stock production at the Padua Hills Playwright’s Festival in California with Fornes as its director (Database). Today, this play is frequently produced by University theatre programs and regional theatre companies across the country. Mud is most easily accessed through the North American Women’s Drama database (Database).

       The story follows three uneducated, mentally unstable housemates living in rural America, and the play follows the progression of their relationships and daily struggles. Mae is a housewife-like figure who lives with Lloyd, who is her mentally and physically ill “sibling with benefits.” Although Mae takes night classes in hopes of bettering her reading skills, she finds Henry and brings him into their home to help read a note from Lloyd’s doctor. Soon after, Mae decides that she wants Henry to move in with them, as she realizes she loves him and “wants [his] mind” (Fornes 21). This adjustment sparks much jealousy and hatred in Lloyd, considering Mae asks Henry to take Lloyd’s spot in her bed and suggests that Lloyd sleep on some newspapers spread out on the floor. The tension between the two men constantly mounts, as their health slowly deteriorates and the two grow more desperate for money, medicine, and caretaking. When the difficulties of living with Lloyd and Henry becomes too much, Mae decides that it is time for her to free herself from all restraints and move out in order to make a better life for herself. After Henry and Lloyd exclaim “Mae” for two pages in a variety of tones, Lloyd decides the only logical way to prevent her from leaving is to *SPOILER ALERT* shoot her (Fornes 52-53). The play ends with Mae declaring that she is a starfish. 

One interesting dramaturgical choice Fornes makes is the childlike structure, syntax, and vocabulary of the characters, as well as the inverse relationship Henry and Lloyd have in regards to intelligence. Especially in the first few scenes of the first act, there is a ton of repetition between Mae and Lloyd, and the sentences don’t really exceed more than four or five words. Exchanges generally go along the lines:

Lloyd: What do you learn?

Mae: Subjects

Lloyd: What is subjects?

Mae: Different things.

Lloyd: What things?

which really brings out the childlike ignorance found in both Mae and Lloyd. Another interesting occurrence regarding the language of the play is the inverse relationship Lloyd and Henry possess when it comes to speaking. In other words, in the scenes where Henry is more “intelligent” (and note that intelligent is in quotations), Lloyd’s lines seem to get dumber and vice versa. After Henry’s injury, he regresses to the repetitions and three-word sentences similar to those that Lloyd spoke in the first act, and in comparison, Lloyd seemed to be the more educated one. While all this is happening, Mae’s lines start to get more and more complex, displaying her newly-acquired literacy skills. 

Another interesting choice is the extended metaphors of a starfish and a hermit crab. In Act I, Scene 6, Mae reads a description of a starfish as a part of her lessons, and the passage she reads reflects the qualities that can be found in herself. For example, she states, “The starfish is an animal, not a fish. He is called a fish because he lives in the water” (Fornes 26). This can be interpreted to mean that she is not willing to define herself by where she lives or what her background entails, but she is working to make a better life for herself by getting an education. Further evidence for this metaphor can be found in the last scene, as her dying words begin with, “Like the starfish…” (Fornes 52). To go along with this, Henry and Lloyd are compared to hermit crabs in similar manners, as Mae reads, “…he lived in empty shells that once belonged to other animals” (Fornes 30). Although these metaphors do not really relate to the plot or characters in any other ways other than this, these were an almost unnoticeable touch to the complexity of the characters and their relationships with one another.

Eurydice

            The first take I have on this production centers around the quote, “How will you remember?” as much of the play focuses on Eurydice’s trouble remembering Orpheus and her father teaching her the ways of the underworld. This quote comes from the first scene in the first movement and is spoken by Orpheus when asking Eurydice what she can do to ensure that she will never forget how much they love each other. Although this quote comes from one of the more upbeat scenes in the play, the concept that evolves from this quote would place more emphasis on the scenes in which Eurydice struggling in in the underworld with her father trying to teach her “human” things. Her scenes with Orpheus in the beginning suddenly become more precious, as these are the only memories she has to cling onto. This concept also places a lot more emphasis on an individual’s mind rather than the characters’ relationships, as these relationships mean nothing once a person completely lets go and resigns to forget.

The second quote I would want to use is “I hope he finds you,” which comes from Eurydice’s letter to Orpheus’s next wife in the final scene. In the context of the play, Eurydice is telling Orpheus that she hopes a worm will be able to find him and give him the letter she has written, but this quote truly captures the essence of the play. For those already familiar with the myth, this quote would solidify their knowledge of the story and entice them to partake in a retelling of the classic tale. For those patrons who would go into the show blindly, it would foreshadow the most important aspect/scene of the production. Instead of putting an emphasis on Eurydice’s challenges in trying to remember the real world and her former life, this quote places more focus on the aspect of true love, specifically the idea that Orpheus’s devotion to her is what will set her free from the underworld. Therefore, the production would place more focus on hope and the anticipation of Orpheus reuniting with his wife rather than the frustrating aspects of Eurydice losing her memories and trying to hold onto the few she has.

Love! Valour! Compassion!

When this historian began analyzing The Glass of Water and The Children’s Hour, he or she most likely picked up on how each of these plays follow a systematic format and structure, almost as if the authors of these plays followed a “how-to” guide and just filled in the blanks with their storylines. From this, the worldview that could be gathered from this time comes from a mindset of order and perfect stability, as each scene and each act, especially those in The Glass of Water, seem to follow the same patterns and outlines.

            Love! Valour! Compassion! disregards all of these guidelines, and the worldview that can be gathered is that of which allows for creative freedom and originality. There are no set timelines, as scenes do not fall into a linear pattern, and although each act encompasses a weekend, the majority of stage time is spent over a few hours with the rest of the major events of the weekend being narrated at the end of each act. The play has no definite ending either, as the last line is spoken by John who simply states, “Anyway,” as he is about to jump in the lake with the rest of the men. With the mindset of “no rules” regarding dramaturgical structure or patterns, the capital- T truth that can be derived is one of individuality. Instead of holding societal standards in regards to a solid truth, each person derives their own truth based whatever is held most importantly to them. The capital-T truth that seems to lead the characters in this play is love and relationships, as this is the driving force between all of their interactions and exchanges throughout the play. Although God or human thinking might be the capital-T truth to one person, each person’s truth can be completely different from another’s, making the view of today’s world entirely unique and separate from those in the past.

I'm Commenting on Comments: Part 2

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

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.