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.