Show and Tell Post #1

The play The Crackwalker was written by Judith Thompson. It was first produced in 1980 and premiered at the Toronto’s Theatre Passe Muraille. It has been produced several times over the years and is quite well liked. My source for this play is The Norton Anthology of Drama Volume Two. Thompson usually allows her women character’s to be victims, which is relevant in this play.

The Crackwalker is about 4 friends who live in Kingston, Ontario and who are poor and, for the most part dumb. Theresa and Sandy are friends who are dating Alan and Joe. Joe has been known to beat and mistreat Sandy as well as disappear for days on end with no word of his whereabouts. Theresa is mentally retarded and Alan is infatuated by her. He marries her and they have a kid. However, due to the stress of being a father who loses his minimum wage job, Alan loses his mind and becomes depressed. In a fit of rage Alan strangles his baby to death. He then becomes solemn and much like the walking dead and goes to Sandy and Joe’s house. Theresa runs in afterwards holding the dead baby in a sack and begins to confess Alan’s crimes. Alan calls her a liar and throws her to the ground. He leaves with Joe chasing after him. Throughout the story there is an Indian man who is a drunk that Alan meets on the street. He is vulgar and gives Alan much angst and also insight as to what will happen.

One dramaturgical choice I liked is that of having the characters address the audience directly. It helps us to see the inner thoughts of the characters as well as to give us the back story of what is happening. We are able to build a relationship with the characters and to know what they are thinking. These are dumb people that we are dealing with, and they do not always articulate. However, when talking to the audience, we are able to see more clearly their thoughts. They share secrets they would not tell the other characters. This is seen when Sandy tells us that the baby is better off dead because the parents are not fit to take care of a child. Also it shows us how Alan feels something tearing at his brain, and how he can’t find happiness in the world. These dumb characters are hard to sympathize with, and the Soliloquies directed towards the audience help us identify with them. Another dramaturgical choice I found interesting was that of including the Indian Man in the story. The Indian Man is simply a drunk on the street that Alan meets.  I believe he is the driving force in Alan’s mind that tears at his dreams. Thompson means for him to be the symbol of the insanity that Alan feels. He is drunk, and therefore irrational, much like Alan. When they first meet his wrists are bleeding, but he asks for no help, much like Alan with his derangement. Alan is, at heart, a kind soul. However he cannot let people know this, because he will be picked on and called a queer (a serious offence in his culture). Instead, he is quite and goes mad. The Indian Man makes it clear as to what Alan is fighting. If we did not have the Indian Man, it would be harder to show what he is actually struggling with. Also in the end, the Indian Man throws up on Alan. Alan loses it. He goes mad.  

This play was interesting and I enjoyed it thoroughly. It provided good insight on a much poorer way of living. Poorer mentally, physically, and emotionally. 

Prompt 4 on Vogel

In How I Learned to Drive, Vogel uses a Greek chorus to help tell the story. The three members of the chorus play every character other than Uncle Peck and Li’l Bit. I think she chose to do this to emphasis that the only two who really matter in the play are indeed Peck and Li’l Bit. The other characters are simply helping the story along, much like a Greek chorus does in classical plays. Vogel is telling us that while these relationships between the other characters help shape the story, it is the relationship between Peck and Li’l Bit that really matters. I like the idea of there being a Greek chorus because it adds a new element and a more theatrical element to a very naturalistic story. It almost makes what’s happening in the play easier to stomach because we are reminded by the chorus that it is not real; especially when they randomly burst into song.

            Another choice Vogel makes that I found interesting occurred at the end when Li’l Bit sees Peck in the rear view mirror before the end of the play. I think it is interesting that Li’l Bit smiles at his appearance, because it shows her finding more of a comfort in him than being disgusted by him. To me, this helps the audience see that Peck is not a villain. He is a real person with a problem, and unless we are Li’l Bit, we have no idea how it really felt to go through that no matter how the story is told. I believe Vogel is telling us not to make any assumptions, even at the end. Our natural inclination is to hate Peck by the end of the play, but if Li’l Bit doesn't hate him, how can we? 

Prompt 3 on Fornes

In Conduct of Life, by Maria Irene Fornes, covers a topic that is considered a taboo by our standards. It is a story of a secret that is kept by an entire household, and one that few people know about in the world of the play. However, Leticia confides all of Orlando’s sins in one woman, Mona. One dramaturgical choice that stands out is not having Mona as a character. Leticia only talks to Mona on the phone, and we only hear Leticia’s side of things. This choice does well to show although it is a secret, anyone could know. If Mona were seen as a character, we would develop a relationship with her and then see how she is. However, because we don’t know her, we don’t trust her. She could be anyone and could tell anyone. It goes to show that no matter who actually knows nothing is being done to stop the injustice. Everyone, Mona included, is allowing this to happen to the poor girl in the cellar. I think that Fornes is also using this choice to reach out to the audience. Mona is the confidant. She is the confessional priest to which Leticia vents. Because only Mona and the audience can hear their conversations, I believe Fornes is telling us that we are Mona. We are the ones in everyday life who are not directly involved, and yet we are the ones doing nothing. We are merely bystanders to the things that happen in the world. Therefore, Mona is in a way the symbol for the audience. I believe the play is called Conduct of Life because we are expected to conduct our lives in a certain manner. We are expected to uphold a sense of pride and decency and most of all, responsibility. If we do not conduct ourselves in the right way injustices will occur. We must conduct our lives in the way that is expected.  

Prompt 2 on Trifles

I do not think this would be the best decision for a production of Trifles. It does, however, have benefits. By not giving the naturalistic visuals of what is being described in the play, the audience is forced to dedicate a lot more focus on what is being said. Without the detailed visuals, they must rely on the importance of the details of the dialogue. I believe that this enhances part of the message of the play. That is, the trifles are much more than just trifles. They are important and significant, much like the details in the dialogue. That being said, I do think that something is lost with a more theatricalized production of the show. It is a contradictory concept, because the visuals are quite important. While the details of the dialogue would be enhanced, you would lose the importance of what is being seen. The things we see on stage are the only things we know about Ms. Wright. She is never seen, so her items in the house are all that we know of her. When you take away those items, the story no longer becomes what is happening, but it becomes about the two women sitting on stage. They become the center of attention when in fact they should simply be aids to the story. While a more theatrical version with limited props and costuming could be justified on certain levels, there are flaws in the concept, for what is seen is indeed the fuel for the story. Yes an audience would have to focus more on the words, and use their imagination with the descriptions of the items, but we lose information on the most important character. Ms. Wright. This cannot happen. We must not lose what we know of this woman, because she is the changing force in the story. We must not hear what she was like, but see what she was like. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words.