Buried Child Response

Sam Shepard's Buried Child represents theatrical realism on the surface, but there are definitely elements that counter the presentational conventions of illusionistic realism.  The major incident that comes to mind is the idea that none of Vince's family recognizes him. For example, Vince enters the house and Dodge claims to have no idea who he is. It is even more unrealistic when Shelly asks Vince's father, Tilden, " Is he your son? Do you recognize him!" and Tilden responds, "I had a son once but we buried him." The way Shepard creates Vince's father, grandfather, and family to claim he is a stranger is surrealistic and counters the illusionistic realism the majority of the play portrays. A bit of complexity arises in the play when talking about the crops in the backyard. Sheldon claims that there is bundles of fresh corn out back, but Dodge and Halie say that there has not been corn out there since 1935. In the end of the play, Halie contradicts herself by saying, " I've never seen such corn. Tall as a man already. It's like a paradise out there." Shepard portrays multiple truths, causing complexity and creating a non-illusionistic view. Also, the attitudes and characteristics of the characters do not fully represent "a slice-of-life". What I mean by this is that every character has an extreme personality, creating a world that you do not see everyday. For example, Bradley has a wooden leg and sticks his hand in people’s mouths, Shelly screams at people she does not know, and Dodge drowned a baby. Those are just three examples out of the seven characters, but that already makes for quite an insane and surreal world. As much as Buried Child represents illusionistic realism, there are many elements that counter the presentational conventions. 

Noises Off Response

When thinking about a motif for Noises Off, the first idea that comes to mind is, "confusing". Though that is right along the lines of the motif, "miscommunications" which you could apply to every farce. So thinking deeper for a motif that others would miss on their first read-through would be, "baggage". What I mean by this is the characters do not stop talking of experiences they have had with one another, and in result, it influences every interaction they have with each other. The fascinating thing about Noises Off is that you see the relationships between the actors just as much as the relationship between the characters. It is obvious how much baggage each actor has, and how greatly it influences his or he performance in Nothing On. For example, Dotty, being in an unhappy relationship Gary, cannot stop crying on and off stage in the second act. Her experience with her cast mate greatly changes the way she plays Mrs. Clackett because there is so much more going on between her and Roger. Also, literally there is a lot of baggage because there are dozens of props that the actors constantly forget and get yelled at about. The motif "baggage" arises a lot because the characters cannot help but bring themselves and the relationships they have had with one another into their character in Nothing On. A good "tag line" for Noises Off would be, "And on we blindly stumble!" Lloyd says this line and I think it is the driving force of not only Noises Off, but also the play within the play, Nothing On. The major dramatic question asks whether the cast will get through the play. The actors accomplish this only by blindly stumbling through it!  

The Glass of Water Response

In The Glass of Water, it is hard to pick out the protagonist because there are many important stories going on at the same time revolving around different characters. Though if I had to choose, I would say Masham and Abigail are the protagonists together. I say this because The Glass of Water is, in part, a story revolving around love. What I mean by that is the major dramatic question is: Will Masham and Abigail be together? One might say that Bolingbrook is the protagonist because he gets the most stage time. But the majority of Bolingbrook’s problems revolve around the war which is not the prominent conflict in the story! So even though Masham and Abigail do not get the majority of stage time, I still deem them as the protagonist. Also Scribe makes it so the audience roots and feels for the couple. One way he does that is by portraying Abigail as just a poor, sweet jewelers assistant. We automatically feel sympathy for Abigail and want her to finally be happy with Masham. Determining the protagonist of every play you are analyzing is very important, but I get the feeling that it is not the most important order of business in a well-made play. The plot is a lot stronger than the character in most well-made plays, and in this particular play there is not one, but multiple secrets revolving around every character. Therefore I do not believe the play would have appeared differently if you looked at Anne, the Queen of England, as the protagonist. The majority of secrets are equally important, and I believe the majority of characters are too. 

Show and Tell Post #1

For my Show and Tell Post, I chose a play called, The Trestle at Pope Lick Creek. It is written by Naomi Wallace in 1998 and published in 2001. The play was first produced at Fourth Street Theater in New York, and later produced at New York Theater workshop and Actors Theater of Louisville. You can find this play online in the North American Women's Drama (http://solomon.wodr.alexanderstreet.com.libezp.lib.lsu.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/navigate.pl?wodr.1072).

The Trestle at Pope Lick Creek takes place in 1936 in a town outside a city. It revolves mainly around Pace Creagan, a seventeen-year-old girl, and Dalton Chance, a fifteen-year-old boy. Pace and Dalton spend lots of time at the trestle at Pope Lick Creek, where trains go by at a specific time each day. Pace, who has much control over Dalton, wants the both of them to run across the tracks right before the train comes. Pace has done this before with her friend Brett, though Brett did not make it across in time and was killed. When the day comes when they plan to run, Dalton chickens out and dares Pace to do it alone. Pace accepts the dare but insisted Dalton watch her run the trestle because she wants an eyewitness who can vouch for her that she did it. Dalton turns around to stop watching her. Pace calls out to him but he refuses, so she tries to run back, but she is never going to make it so Pace dives into the creek and dies. Dalton is put in jail for supposedly killing Pace. In jail, Brett’s father, who is a jailer, verbally abuses Dalton. Eventually Dalton is let free when he reveals what actually happened to Pace. 

The amount of note-worthy dramaturgical choice in The Trestle at Pope Lick Creek is extensive. One that really stood out to me was the way the play was in a randomized order. The play starts off with Dalton, in jail, seeing a silhouette of Pace and screaming at her. The second scene jumps back to Pace and Dalton first getting to know each other at the trestle. This non-chronological order occurs throughout the whole play. It jumps from the present to the past, and the play ends with an intimate scene at the trestle with Dalton and Pace, who is still alive. Wallace chooses to place the story in a randomized order because she wants to make the story more of a mystery. What I mean by this is that, knowing Dalton is in jail in the present time, the audience is trying to figure out from the very beginning what crime has happened, causing lots of ambiguity. If the play were in chronological order, the audience would know Dalton did not commit any crime because Pace died on accident. Suddenly, the mystery of the story would be taken away from the audience, because they'd have known Dalton was the "innocent guy" all along. Wallace's choice to put the play in a randomized order causes the audience to have much more uncertainty and therefore they will not figure characters as the "good guy" and the "bad guy" until the end.   Another fascinating dramaturgical choice would be Pace's death being presented with dialogue instead of the action. The audience is revealed to how Pace dies because Pace and Dalton speak back and forth about the incident, instead of them seeing Pace physically dive into the creek. Wallace chooses to use words instead of action because not only is it easier to stage but it prevents Pace's death from becoming the main idea of the play. Wallace wants the focus of her play to be on the relationships as opposed to the accident.  Wallace wants the audience to see the effect Pace and Dalton have on each other, instead of the effect of running across a trestle. So the way Wallace chooses to express Pace's death through dialogue between her and Dalton allows for relationships to be the emphasis of the play. 

How I Learned to Drive Response

When reading Paula Vogel's, How I Learned to Drive, the different Greek Chorus' startled me. Vogel chose to portray every character but Lil'Bit and Peck through the small chorus. Having done that, it effects the story because instead of it making it about Lil'Bit's relationship with her parents or herself, it brings the focus of the play to her relationship with Peck. Vogel chooses to portray Lil'Bit's Mom, Grandfather, and Grandmother with the Greek chorus because it is multiple voices as opposed to one. What I mean by this is that by creating a whole chorus to say these characters lines, Vogel is portraying these characters as being extremely influential and life changing to Lil Bit. For example, with many voices as Lil'Bit's mother, the audience gets the sense that Lil Bit has her mothers words repeating and repeating in her head all of the time. On another note, a dramaturgical choice that did not make much sense to me at first was the car references. What I mean by the car references are the introductions that break of each scene. For example, "Idling in the Neutral Gear" and, "Shifting forward from Second to Third Gear". I tried to relate each introduction to the scene that followed, but I could not seem to find a resemblance. After reading the whole play through, my guess is that these introductions serve as a reminder of what Lil'Bit has learned form Peck. It serves as a reminder that though he is her uncle and being extremely inappropriate, he taught her how to be in control, and taught her something that she would use for the rest of her life. I assume these references bring you back to main point and title of the play: How I Learned to Drive. 

The Conduct of Life Response

One dramaturgical choice in Maria Irene Fornes play, The Conduct of Life, that stands out to me is the reflection on society. What I mean by this is that Fornes' has each of her characters looking outside their own lives and commenting and observing the planet as a whole. For example, Orlando expresses on page 1492, " there's something malignant in the world. People take what is not theirs. I don't see hope." Fornes' chooses to allow a selfish man, like Orlando, to look beyond his own worries, and worry about the society he lives in. This dramaturgical choice has a huge effect on the story because it makes it relevant to the audience, not just the characters. The characters reflection on society forces the audience to contemplate what they are saying because the audience lives in it too. You can see this idea in action on page 1491, when Leticia speaks, " we take care of our pocket, but not of our country. We take care of our stomachs, but not our hungry." Though Leticia is only speaking this to Orlando and Alejo, she is commenting on an idea everyone in the theater would be familiar with. Fornes' dramaturgical choice affects the audience as it strikes a nerve in them to reflect on the world. On another note, the play is called The Conduct of Life because it shows people’s personal behavior of living. The play follows the journey of five characters self- behavior in life. Though it is important to note that the people around them influence the characters self-behavior. The Conduct of Life includes many striking and brilliant dramaturgical choices by Maria Irene Fornes that directly affect the audience and the story itself. As for the meaning of the play, the title could be interpreted many ways, but I believe it is to be interpreted literally. 

Triffles Response

Designing Susan Glaspell's, Triffles, as ultra minimalistic is a fascinating idea. I see where this director is coming from because I think this play has enough emotion and conflict that period costumes are not needed and could possibly distract from what is at the heart of the play. On the other hand, a minimalistic look could present problems and confusion for the audience. For example, the text implies that the play is set back in a time when women did not have a voice and worked solely in the house. The County Attorney emphasizes this culture by criticizing Mrs. Wrights lack of good housekeeping and also by Mrs. Wright worrying about her fruit becoming frozen. If historically appropriate costumes were to be used, audiences would automatically understand the culture and time period. Though, if the characters were in all black, the audience would not know what time period it was and therefore would be confused about some of the characters words and actions. Continuing with the abstract look, the director said she or he would use only simple, black blocks and chairs for furniture. This idea for the set would absolutely take value and meaning out of the play. The whole first half of Triffles presents Mr. Hale physically walking through the house and pointing out what he had seen the day before. The reality of this would appear to the audience if a naturalistic rocking chair, a naturalistic bedroom, and a naturalistic kitchen were set up. The audience has Mr. Hale to give them a visual image through words, but if the set does not physically reflect his descriptions, there will be no believability for the audience or the actor. An ultra-stripped down version of Triffles would allow the audience to focus solely on the people, but ultimately it would leave the audience feeling lost without any picture of what happened.