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.