Last Show and Tell Post

            For my last show and tell post, I am analyzing the play called Big Mistake by Theresa Rebeck. Theresa Rebeck is most commonly known as the creator of Smash, the TV show. Three of her plays were on Broadway, and many showed Off-Broadway. Big Mistake is a one-act play written and published in 1999. The only account found of Rebeck's show being performed is when Ron Piretti directed it at Marymount Manhattan College.

            Big Mistake revolves around four characters. The whole play takes place in a bar. The show starts off with two male characters, Brian and Paul, two friends in their early thirties, who are in the bar. They are drinking and talking about past hook-ups in not a very respectful manner. Soon after Lorna and Annie, two friends in their early thirties walk in. They are chatting about past hook-ups when Lorna notices Brian, a guy she previously dated. They debate whether to escape the situation, but it is already too late as they notice Brian making his way over. Brian offers to buy the ladies a drink, and though they resist multiple times, he does it anyway. As Brian and Lorna start to chat, Paul comes over and starts to hit on Annie. Each "couple" is having conversing at the same time, but separate from each other. Brian and Lorna start to talk about their lives since the break-up and Paul tries to get to know Annie even though she is not interested. As the couples becomes extremely feisty with each other, Brian and Paul give a monologue about how confusing women are and it is followed with monologues from Annie and Lorna about how confusing men are. The play ends with Paul and Annie leaving to go on a dinner date and Lorna and Brian leave to go sleep together.

            One dramaturgical choice made by Rebeck is at the very beginning of the play when she notes, "Because there is so much hostility between the men and women for most of the piece, it is important that the actors play against that hostility with a veneer of politeness and social agility. This veneer is, of course, worn through rather quickly." It is not often that authors make a detailed note about how the actors should play their character. I think this is a smart dramaturgical choice on Rebeck's part because the dialogue in the script naturally gives the vibe of aggression, harshness, and argumentative. So, it is natural that the actors are going to automatically play it like that. Though since there is a note that they should play the opposite of the hostility, it will make for a much more compelling and complex show. It will make the characters three dimensional instead of just labeling all of them as "mean" or "bitchy". Another dramaturgical choice made by Rebeck is at the end of the play when Lorna and Annie are instructed to say their monologues at the same time, even though they say different words. The same situation happens with Brian and Paul's monologues. I think this is a very interesting dramaturgical choice because their monologues are of the same subject, but with completely different words. Also, it is important because it shows how it is not about the individual characters, but just about the men and then just about the women. It is grouping them together to get the message across about woman and men in general relationships. Big Mistake was a really entertaining play and I am definitely going to read more of Theresa Rebeck's work.   

Comments for LAST Blog Checkpoint

http://yvettebourgeoisthtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/fires-in-mirror-by-smith_13.html?showComment=1366677056749#c7781891074357220485

http://yvettebourgeoisthtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/three-viewings-by-jeffery-hatcher.html?showComment=1367694650875#c8087442699316648829

http://yvettebourgeoisthtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-drowsy-chaperone.html?showComment=1367695039832#c4155757783487396552

http://samcosby2130.blogspot.com/2013/05/show-and-tell-3.html?showComment=1367720497854#c5527023845924495508

http://blakesilviotrifles.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-verge.html?showComment=1367720740703#c5014259150520999307

Three Viewings Response

Three Viewings is not like any play I have encountered before because it only deals with three characters who do no interact at all. Each spends a very long time on stage and their stories all revolve around the dead, but they never actually see one another. One hidden common point of reference in each of the three monologues is in the coffin. In the first monologue, Tell- Tale, Emil shares his experience reaching into the coffin of Terri. He describes, " I smooth the crow's feet around her eyes. I do...what we do...to her yes, her lips. What we do is...we seal them". The second monologue, The Thief of Tears, also shares this point of reference, in the coffin. Mac describes in detail about how she goes to console the deceased person just to steal their jewelry. She describes, " I close my eyes, bite my lips, and the tears well up. I bend over to kiss Miriam good-bye...two pecks on the corpse on either side of the face." She takes the audience right into the coffin with her, just like Emil did. The last monologue, Thirteen Things about Ed Carpolotti, Virginia takes us into the same location, into her husband's, Ed's, coffin. She expresses while observing her deceased husband, " He's dead wearing bifocals and a hairpiece....the cufflinks shaped like bulldozers...All of his hair on these little white heads." All three characters share this common point of reference in the location of a coffin. It is not something one would easily pick up on in the script, but if you really look into it, you can see this location a commonality in all three monologues. 

The Drowsy Chaperone Response

The Drowsy Chaperone is a unique show because there is a show within a show! This also makes it different to analyze. Hornby's element duration would differ if I were analyzing the show-within-the-show Drowsy Chaperone verses the as-is meta-show The Drowsy Chaperone. If I were talking about duration in the as-is meta-show The Drowsy Chaperone, I would say that the writer devoted the majority of stage time to the Man. The Man was not speaking that much, but he remained on stage the entire time. So I would describe the duration as extremely long in The Drowsy Chaperone. Now, if I were to talk about duration in the show-within-the-show Drowsy Chaperone, I would say that duration is very short. Each plot and character gets a short and equal amount of stage time. So suddenly, the analysis of the same Hornby element completely differs depending on what aspect of The Drowsy Chaperone you choose to analyze.  Another one of Hornby's elements that will differ in this fashion is progression. Speaking on the progression of the as-is-meta-show, I would say that it is non-linear, because when the record skips, the play goes back a bit and repeats over and over again. For example, when Tottendale repeats spitting in Underling's face about five times! But speaking on the progression of the show-within-the-show, the progression happens in chronological order. For example, Tottendale would only spit in Underling's face once, and the show would go on! As you can see, depending on what part of the show you analyze, either Drowsy Chaperone or The Drowsy Chaperone, Hornby's elements will differ. If I were a dramaturg, I would analyze the show as a whole because that is how the authors intended for it to be shown, so the point is not to analyze the show-within-a-show.

Fires in the Mirror Response

As the dramaturg of this theater company, I am here to persuade you to rethink your decision about cutting the opening monologues of Smith's play out. There is a reason for everything in a script and the play would not be whole without every word. Smith chooses to include these couple of monologues in the beginning to preface the heavy subject of the Crown Heights riots. What I mean by this is that Smith did not want to start the play by jumping directly into the terrifying and grave deaths; she wanted to ease into it. Though it might be hard to see when you first read they play, these opening monologues do relate to the subject matter at hand. For example, in Static, the second monologue of the play, a Jewish woman tells a story about her religion. Though she says nothing directly about the Crown Heights riots, it is just as important and relevant. I say this because the racial divide between Jews and Blacks in the neighborhood is what caused the riots. So Smith chooses to include these kinds of monologues to show what it was like living as a Jew in the neighborhood at the time, which is extremely important and influential to grasp before hearing stories about the riots. Remember that in this play and every other play, nothing is a mistake; everything written was for a reason. The monologues in the beginning of the script, though you could not see their relation to the Crown Heights riots, share the circumstances and the environment that the riots occurred in. They paint the world of racial divide in Crown Heights, which is just as important as the story of the incidents themselves. So please, I beg you, do not start the play with "Lousy Language" because you will loose half of the message and purpose.

Links to my comments

Hey Dr. Fletcher! Here are the links to my 6 comments for Blog Checkpoint #2!

http://analysistrata.blogspot.com/2013/03/prompt-6-glass-of-water.html?showComment=1363650956610#c7948619548988634165

http://frequentingplays.blogspot.com/2013/03/noising-off.html?showComment=1363651514794    

http://yvettebourgeoisthtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/03/buried-child-by-sam-shepard.html?showComment=1363652117293#c1050249460992094088

http://yvettebourgeoisthtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-spoonful-of-water-of-by-hudes.html?showComment=1365705319700#c1448520711434507689

http://yvettebourgeoisthtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/detroit-by-damour.html?showComment=1365794904100#c3882102949624576520

http://yvettebourgeoisthtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/show-and-tell-post-2.html?showComment=1365888597542#c6357473323439137923

Show and Tell Post #2

            For my second show and tell post I am focusing on the play Grace written by Craig Wright. It was written in 2003 and has been produced a couple of times. In October 2004 the play premiered in Washington D.C. by the Wolly Mammoth Theatre Company at the Warehouse Theater. In 2006 The Furious Theatre Company produced Grace at the Pasadena Playhouse Carrie Hamilton Theatre. Most recently, Grace premiered on Broadway at the Cort Theatre in October 2012. The Broadway show closed only a couple moths later, but it starred Paul Rudd and Michael Shannon! You can buy a copy of this play on Amazon if you click on the following link: http://www.amazon.com/Grace-Play-Craig-Wright/dp/0810128993/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365884602&sr=1-1&keywords=grace+craig+wright

            Grace is a play revolving around a married couple in their 30's, Steve and Sara, who have just recently moved from Minnesota to Florida to start building and opening Steve's line of hotels. Steve and Sara are extremely religious, looking to God and believing in God for everything. Mr. Himmelman is an investor from Zurich, who promised to sponsor Steve's project.  Steve and Sara have a next-door neighbor named Sam. He is a wealthy man who lost his fiancé six months prior in a horrible car accident. Being neighbors, Sam, Steve and Sara get to know each other very well, and Sam and Sara begin to have an affair. As the affair goes on, so does the building of the hotels. Steve is now just waiting on Mr. Himmelman to wire the large sum of money to the bank so Steve can launch his business. After many months of waiting, Steve is informed the bank is selling the hotels because no money has or will be wired. Steve, overcome with emotion and confusion, wants to move back with Sara to Minnesota and start their life over. However, Sara expresses to him that he wants a divorce. Steve, catching on to what is going on between his wife and Sam, goes over to Sam's apartment, and shoots and kills Sara and Steve.

            One extreme dramaturgical choice in Grace revolves around sequence. Wright puts the very last moment of the story and makes it the first scene of the play. So the play opens with a gunshot and two dead bodies lying on the floor. From there, time moves backwards. The dead bodies, Sara and Sam, get up and the conversation had right before Steve shot Sam and Sara continues, still moving backwards in time. After this first scene, the sequence begins chronologically all the way till the end of the play. The last scene of the play ends with the same conversation that was going backwards in the first scene, and the last moment is Steve just about to shoot Sam and Sara. I think Wright chose to play with sequencing so foreshadowing and dramatic irony is created. Wright wants to give a taste of what happens to the characters in the play before the story begins because it lets the audience know what to look out for and what is of upmost importance. Another dramaturgical choice in Grace is that both Sara and Steve's apartment and Sam's apartment are seen on stage at all times. So, when a scene takes place in Sam's apartment, you see Sara and Steve working, interacting, and responding in their own apartment. I think Wright chose to do this to show two completely opposite worlds interacting.  Also, he does this to emphasize the transition of Sara and Steve together and Sam alone, to Sara and Sam together and Steve alone. This creates a lot of visual and emotional tension, which also represents the tension all of the characters are going through. Grace has now become on of my favorite plays, based on the brilliant dramaturgical choices and fascinating subject matter.  

Detroit Response

So, I think I am going to go for the more challenging question and tackle why D'Amour's play is called Detroit? My first assumption before reading it, which was soon proven wrong, was that the play was set in Detroit, Michigan. Though as you mentioned, it is especially odd because D'amour describes in the setting that the play is set "not necessarily [in] Detroit." D'amour follows that statement with: "However, we are in a 'first ring' suburb outside of a mid-sized American city." So, the city of Detroit could definitely qualify as being the setting. Having said all of that, I believe the play is called Detroit because Detroit is a city that suggests such concern over the economy like no other city. Detroit went from being a huge money- maker to one of the poorest cities in the country. It went from being extremely populated to extremely deserted. Money is a huge topic of conversation in D'amour's play. For example, the way Mary tries to present her home to her guests by showing off expensive foods. Also, the way Kenny and Sharon are beyond poor with not but two pieces of furniture in their house. When I think about the city of Detroit, I think about the economy and money. I think about the people who left Detroit because there was no money to be made, and the people who stayed in Detroit, who grew dirt poor. It also makes me think about how the people who stayed in Detroit after the economy crashed, probably stayed because it was their home. It was not about the money, but about neighbors and family. The title, Detroit, pertains to not only the financial state of the city itself, but also the community that once made up the city, and the community that makes up the city today. 

Water By the Spoonful Response

The second half of Scene eight is one part of Water By The Spoonful in which realities interact. In this part of the scene, Orangutan is online and Elliot accidently types into the thread, speaking as his mom, also known as Haikumom. Elliot starts writing personal questions, asking about what it is like be on crack. Orangutan immediately catches on that it is not Odessa writing, but someone else. Elliot, Odessa's son, admits that it is him. Orangutan then asks and comfort Elliot on his past overdoses and mentions that there are other online forums for pain medication users. As Orangutan continues, Elliot discovers that his mother shared all of his confidential information to her online friends, most of which Yaz did not even have knowledge of. Hudes has these particular realities intersecting at this particular moment in the plot in this particular way because this online website has been Elliot's mom's life for so long, and though Elliot knew of it, he did not know the extent of what was talked about. This moment reveals the point in which Elliot is fully exposed to the secret life his mom has been living, and the point in which Orangutan is exposed to the effects outside of the thread that she spends the majority of her day on. Hudes chooses to have the worlds intersect at this particular moment because in the moment before, Elliot fought face to face with his mom about how she was not there for him. So Hudes creates a climactic moment when, after a heated argument with his mother, he finds that she has been making him a story on a website. Suddenly, the place that Odessa, Orangutan, and many others considered their support system, is now what is hurting others and being ripped apart. 

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. 

Overtones Response

I have never seen or read a play like Alice Gerstenberg's, Overtones, in which each characters "alter ego" has its own, separate role and lines. I had to extremely concentrate while reading the play because I had to keep reminding myself that Margaret was only interacting and hearing Harriet, not Hetty, and Maggie was only interacting and hearing Hetty, not Harriet.  The "rules" of Overtones don't seem to be too strict. Most of the stage directions only specify who is talking to who, not who is seen.  The only exception is in the first scene, between Harriet and Hetty. A stage direction states, "From behind Harriet's chair Hetty rises slowly". This specific stage directions defines the rule that Hetty should be physically visible. Though besides this first scene, Gerstenberg allows for a lot of freedom for the production choices. One idea would be to not allow the audience to physically see Hetty and Maggie, but just hear them. I believe Gerstenberg encourages this choice by the use of Harriet's line, "Quick, put the veil on, or she'll see you shining through me," right before Margaret arrives. Even though Gerstenberg's stage directions to Maggie at one point read, " Glaring at tea things," the audience would still be able to grasp that action without it physically being done by Maggie.  Most importantly, whatever the director decides to do, the audience needs to understand that Margaret cannot hear Hetty and Harriet cannot hear Maggie. I believe, that is the main rule of Overtones because it seems by having these inside voices sharing how the characters really feel, Gertensberg is bringing up a quality that every person in society holds: thinking one thing, but saying another. Gerstenberg's Overtones is a complicated and intricate play but it offers much freedom in the way the director chooses to present it.

First Blog Post

Hey everyone!