Links for comments on Blog Checkpoint II

1.       http://samversiontwo.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-glass-of-water-response.html?showComment=1365878907836#c7001410813555463458

2.      http://samversiontwo.blogspot.com/2013/03/noises-off-response.html?showComment=1365879265228#c5505842358147382009

3.      http://mylittletrailofcrumbs.blogspot.com/2013/04/water-by-spoonful.html

4.      http://mylittletrailofcrumbs.blogspot.com/2013/04/damour-detroit.html?showComment=1365879991613

5.      http://georgianoelle.blogspot.com/2013/04/glass-of-water.html

6.      http://georgianoelle.blogspot.com/2013/04/noises-off.html?showComment=1365880992887#c2062639145456471388

Show and Tell Post #2

The play I chose to read is called Seminar by Theresa Rebeck. It is a comedy that premiered on November 20, 2011 at the John Golden theatre in New York City. It closed at that theatre on May 6, 2012. Seminar was well received and well liked, and received nominations as Best Play by both the Outer Critics Circle and the Drama League. Seminar is about four college students who decide to take a writing seminar with a highly praised man named Leonard. However, upon meeting Leonard, the group comes to realize that he is washed up, cruel, apathetic and insensitive to their needs. He is in fact a terrible teacher. In the meantime, Martin, the most reserved and most talented of the group, sees Leonard for who he really is, and refuses to show him his work. Throughout the play the students deal with rejection, love, hate, and many nights of complaining about Leonard. The play tells a story of dealing with emotions and pushing for success.
One dramaturgical choice that I liked was the choice to have the play almost entirely within one setting. The majority of the play takes place in Kate’s apartment, and Izzy and Martin stay there too. Even when Leonard teaches the classes, he teaches them in the apartment. I like this choice because it is a in which a person is supposed to feel comfortable. However, because there are all these other people there as well, there is no place in the apartment to be comfortable. Everyone is extremely vulnerable and unable to find the privacy they need. Even in their home. When Leonard teaches his class in the apartment, he feeling of hopelessness surrounds the setting even more. We see these characters in a place in which they should enjoy being. However, it is obvious that when Leonard is there, any feelings of safety are gone. Leonard has that ability to walk into any room and suck the life out of it. He can make a warm home into a cold ice box. I think it was important to see how the characters changed within the walls of that apartment. The place of safety became a place of regret and punishment. It changed the lives of five people. I think that is pretty powerful.
Another dramaturgical choice I liked was the choice to have Martin not present any of his work to Leonard. The other three young writers submit their work and are humiliated by Leonard. Martin, however, does not trust in Leonard, and therefore does not present anything. When I recognized this pattern, I wanted to know whether Martin was a good writer or not. We had no way of knowing because he had not turned in anything. However, at the end he finally turns in his work. Leonard praises it, which is a shock to everyone. This event changes the way Martin sees Leonard. Martin first is angry with Leonard liking it, and then he grows to understand why Leonard is such a messed up guy. The character we least expect to understand Leonard does. And it is because he likes his writing. They are bound together by their writing and that is when they understand. Rebeck’s decision to not show Martin’s writing is fuel for an even which changes how we feel about Leonard. Because Martin does not show his work right away, we side with him. We decide that Leonard does not deserve to see Martin’s work. Then, when he does show it, we see that even though he is a jerk, Leonard knows what he’s doing. Also, this shows a lot in character growth. Martin is weak because he cannot take rejection. That is why he won’t show his work. However, he is affected by this seminar group and by the teacher and so he finally shows what he’s got. It is a shift in character that fuels the rest of the play.

Prompt 10 on D'Amour, Detroit

I think there is a pretty simple explanation as to why the play is called Detroit. It’s stated by D’Amour in the description of the setting that the houses do not necessarily have to be in Detroit. They can be houses anywhere as long as they are in rundown subdivisions in the inner ring of the city. The houses are “fix me up” residences and non permanent homes. I think Detroit is more of a reference for how the play is supposed to look. It is a place that we know to be run down and no longer in its prime. It is a place of sorrow and poverty and desolation. That is what we are supposed to think of when watching this play. The sorrow and poverty of these characters stuck in a black hole of a place such as Detroit. This black hole could be anywhere. It could be anyone. Detroit is just easy for us to visualize. Also, I think there is an important allusion to the title at the end, when Mary says that the neighbors could be anyone. This is the same with the place. Just because it is called Detroit doesn’t mean it takes place in Detroit. Just because Kenny says his name is Kenny, doesn’t actually mean that’s his name. The idea is that these people could be anyone anywhere. This is the same with the title. The title simply gives a world in which to present these characters. An idea of the kind of life these people are living. By giving us something familiar to work with, like the conditions of Detroit, we are able to see these characters for who they really are. For instance, no one in Detroit would actually bring caviar to a barbeque. 

Prompt 9 on Water by the Spoonful

            I believe that a scene which shows the blending of two realities is scene 10. In this scene, Yaz and Elliot are at Mami Ginny’s funeral giving her eulogy. At the same time, we see Odessa in her home pouring out spoonfuls of water on the floor in her house. These two occurrences appear to be totally disconnected from each other.  However, they are in fact bound together not only by family, but by emotion. Odessa, for one is not attending the funeral. This is important because it shows that she does not feel comfortable in her sister’s shadow. The fact that her sister, who is seemingly perfect, is dead instead of her is unbearable for her to think about. We see Yaz and Elliot describing all the great traits about Mami Ginny and all the wonderful things she has done for her family and community. It is obvious that Odessa has not accomplished as much as her sister has. She has been a letdown to the family and will never be given the same respect as Mami Ginny. For every good quality about Mami Ginny, Odessa scoops a spoonful of water on the floor, reminding herself of all her mistakes with this one simple symbolic action. I believe this scene shows us that Odessa thinks she should have been the one who died, not Mami Ginny. As a result of this thought, she is heartbroken and depressed and regretful of her decisions. I believe this scene holds a lot of insight and importance in the play, especially in regards to how Odessa feels. This is, in fact, the first time we see regret from her past life. It is the first time the real Odessa is shown. Also, Elliot cannot get through the speech. I think this is important because it shows that Elliot considers Mami Ginny to be her real mom, which is a huge blow to Odessa. 

Prompt 7 on Noises Off

A motif that Michael Frayn uses in Noises Off is self-centered delusions. Each character in Noises Off is concerned with only his or her own desires and needs. The characters are all narcissistic and only care about what they want for themselves. Their self-centered motives cause a lot of problems in the world of the play, especially in regards to the production which they are trying to put on. The characters are so concerned with themselves and wrapped up in their own worlds that none of them are willing to go the extra mile and put in the effort necessary to make the play work. Instead, the characters impede the play’s progress by putting their individual needs first. The selfish attitudes of the characters are made obvious to the audience and seen clearly throughout the play. Selsdon is willing to miss his cue in order to continue his search for the bottle of whiskey, and in another similar instance Lloyd is more concerned with getting Brooke flowers than with helping the play run smoothly. At one point, Garry is swinging an axe at Frederick, which would clearly be detrimental to the play’s outcome. However, no one seems to actually care about the play more than their own personal problems. This continues throughout the entirety of the play, while the play within the play becomes worse and worse because of it.

A good tagline for this show would be “One moment they’re kicking you to death, next moment they expect you to come waltzing in with more sardines.” I think this line really explains the complete and utter chaos that is prominent throughout the play. To me it explains that there’s more going on than just the play that is being put on. It shows that things simply cannot be done correctly because of all the other nonsense that is going on with all the players. Even the fact that Mrs. Clackett, played by Dotty, is the one saying this ad-lib line is surprisingly appropriate. Dotty is the one who wants the show put on in the first place, and even she cannot overlook the developments that have happened between the players. All of the characters are so lost within themselves that they can’t even make the play what it is supposed to be. The entirety of the show consists of one big jumbled mess, and this line shows that quite well. 

Prompt 6 on Glass of Water

In Eugene Scribe’s The Glass of Water, many of the play’s characters are easy to identify with. All of the characters receive a significantly large amount of stage time, and in some cases, they are striving for the same things. However, I think the protagonist of this story is undoubtedly Abigail. Abigail is the character with which we can relate to the most because she never can quite get her way. In a sense, Abigail’s character is easy to sympathize with due to her underdog status throughout the show’s entirety. The audience does not expect her to achieve a reasonable position because of her rank in society, nor does the audience expect her to gain Masham’s love on account of her competitors’ status. We all want to fight for Abigail in hope of seeing her triumph.

However, I think the other characters play just as large of a role and are equally important to identify with.  The other characters assist by expanding upon the protagonist’s characteristics. Without the rest of the people in the court, Abigail would not be successful in her endeavors. One instance of this is when Bolingbroke uses what he has around him to further his needs in an attempt to attain peace, and in doing so he manages to help his friends succeed. Bolingbroke proves to be a great tool and is used to enhance the plot; he is the character that can be used as a helping hand.

Abigail’s struggle plays a crucial, central component to the plot in many ways as well. If she loses the battle for Masham, the fate of the English War would be altered exceedingly. Because the duchess is Abigail’s direct advisory, if the duchess succeeds and Abigail does not, the entire fate of the story changes. Also, Abigail receives the majority amount of stage time because she is used to bridge the gaps between the queen, the duchess, Bolingbroke, and Masham. Abigail directly affects the outcome of each of the character’s personal endeavors. Thus, she is the one who holds the play in place. The well-made play needs Abigail’s character to enhance each of the other characters on all levels. 

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.