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.