Water by the Spoonful

I chose to focus on the scene in which Elliot and Yaz's world intersects with the online world that Odessa has established. I think this scene is the most important moment of intersection because it's the hinge in which the entire play precariously hangs from, essentially the inciting incident that changes everything. From a reader's standpoint this was really cool too because up until this point I had no idea where this play was going, I personally was really thrown off by the internet chat room stuff and found myself confused as to how it related to the play. Then realizing that these characters were all going to be connected both in and out of these two separate storylines I began to grasp the overall depth of this play. This scene also is the moment in which Odessa's secrets are revealed to the audience and the online characters. Up until this incident there really hasn't been much to link these two separate worlds together and now it's revealed that there is a direct connection and it has a much deeper meaning than the first few acts of the play would have you believe. I think the reason that this scene is here in the play is to serve as an explanation as to why Elliot has so much resentment towards his real mother Odessa. I also think that this was essential in deconstructing and then reconstructing initial character perceptions that both audience and characters have established. This scene also shows Elliot's is vindictive feelings towards Odessa and how he begins to put the wheels in motion that will basically send her back down the road to drug abuse. This is why this moment is crucial, because it's pivotal to the entire story in that it is essentially the inciting incident that then changes all the character's worlds in an instant.

Buried Child

Ok so when asked to pick out some elements that counter the perception of reality in the story, I couldn’t help but think about my initial response to the characters. I kept coming back to the surrealistic nature of the play and the emotions they triggered for me personally while reading. There obviously a level of ambiguity achieved while reading this because of the nature of the actions of some of the characters. I found myself confounded by them, but also intrigued as I continued to read. After I gave myself some time to let the story percolate I realized that I was trying to ground the characters in reality, but the very concept of the play was to mix the elements that are familiar with actions and responses from the characters that are not. I couldn’t help but think about Fuchs, and how she talked about imagining the world of the play. When thinking of the play in this regard I felt it added another layer of intricate detail to this play that I’d yet to conceive. I say this because, it seems as if in order to understand or view the world of this play that you have to imagine it only exists within the boundaries of the characters’ house, and that the world as we know it, doesn’t exist within the bizarre realm that they’ve created for themselves. I think that the environment itself is a major element of the story that counters the more overall illusionistic setting of the play, because once we see what goes on in this house we're introduced to very unfamiliar behavior, and personalities that go against the somewhat mundane setting in which we understand or relate to. Even the character Shelly is under the initial assumption that she'll feel at home as they approach the house. She quickly has this idea yanked out from under her so to speak, when the Norman Rockwell type concept of “The Great American Life” is replaced with the complete opposite concept when Shepard reveals his characters in their most intimate, and personal state of being. It’s at this point that the idea of reality comes into question and the portrait becomes that of a dangerously dysfunctional family, to put it lightly. Shepard doesn’t hold back in his portrayal of the surreal mixed with the real, it’s as if we’re put in the house through the character of Shelly as the voice of normality straining to stay sane within the realm of the abnormal. In my opinion this contradiction of elements helps to create an unnerving feeling or tension that continues to mount throughout the play and defines the story as a whole.

Noises Off

I really enjoyed Noises Off, I'm certain that I would thoroughly enjoy a production of Noises Off, but I have to say, I did not enjoy reading Noises Off at all. Simply due to the fact that too much of it's consistency of flow is completely lost in its fumbling textual format, and trying to read sight gag humor doesn't really translate well at all. It's a great play and well written it's just a lot to follow in it's subtle approach to borderline outlandish humor. Ok so enough of my critique,(way too sidetracked) on with my perception of motif within the play.
I really feel like the idea of physicality is a central motif within this play. There are so many moments within this play that are based heavily on movement, whether it be the characters missing their marks, physically abusing one another, breaking props and using props, there is just a lot of physical interaction in this play, and I think that it's done so well that we forget how much effort is going into all of the physical movement of the play. It actually becomes a part of the pace itself in regard to rhythm and tempo as well. For instance, the entire second act is established as a very tense, kind of "on-edge" fast paced tempo all due to the fact that some of the characters are trying to physically harm or hinder each other, while others are literally holding them back from doing so, and preventing certain disaster. This is a great example of how a motif can kind of structure or even dominate the pace of a play.
"Good Sardines, Bad Intentions." is my tagline for Noises Off. I'd say I chose this because it represents the absurdity of events based off of the importance of seemingly insignificant props and the ironically pivotal role they play within the story. The relevance of the plate of sardines is the perfect metaphor representing the amount of time and effort the people performing the play spend on being completely wrapped up in their own behind the scenes drama. The chaos ensues stirring up character envy, jealousy, and sometimes rage towards each other and when it all boils down to it, it's all based off of the equivalent of a plate of sardines.

Glass O Water

Initially when asked who I thought the protagonist in Glass of Water was I was more inclined to believe that the question was slightly irrelevant. I say this due to the fact that the play centers around several fairly likeable characters as opposed to just having one central protagonist. The play in its very nature presents a more lighthearted/farcical approach to character development, and gives us a chance to indulge ourselves in the story of several different characters, some of which we root for, and some we  don't. This also leaves one character (the dutchess) to pick up the slack and carry the mantle of antagonist. So, there in lies the question: If there is an antagonist then surely there must be a protagonist right?
So that being said I just couldn't really accept the idea of there being just one protagonist in Glass of Water, it just didn't seem to be the case me, but I knew there just had to be a way of determining this. Then after thinking about the question in regard to he amount of stage time, and overcoming of character conflicts I started to narrow down a selection within the list of characters. Then when taking into consideration that even though the majority of the characters wound up getting what they wanted it all came down to the cunning and savvy of one individual in particular who made it all possible. I had to choose Bolingbroke, I say this because he is the orchestrator of all the events that transpire, and the audience can easily back him as he plays his mind games with the Dutchess. Plus, due to the fact that there's hints of deceit from time to time we're not entirely sure that we can trust Bolingbroke. This makes for a level of ambivalence towards the audience in which an individual might want to root for Bolingbroke as a protagonist, but perhaps is unsure that one should root for Bolingbroke. Also just from a technical standpoint, if you don't have Bolingbroke in the story, you don't have a story....so there's that argument too.

Show and Tell Post # 1

For my show and tell I chose the play, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (hope this was acceptable). Anyway, the play is a  British drama based on the novel of the same name written by Muriel Spark in 1961. Which was later adapted into a play by Jay Pressen Allen. Since then the play has been interpreted into a film which debuted in 1969 with Dame Maggie Smith playing the main role of Jean Brodie for which she won the Academy Award.  All three iterations of the story shared international acclaim and continued to be successful even enjoying a stint on Broadway in 1966 in which Zoe Caldwell starred in the main role and went on to win the Tony Award for her performance. More recently the play has been making a bit of a comeback and in 2005, the novel was chosen by Time magazine as one of the one hundred best English-language novels from 1923 to present. In 1998, the ranked The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie #76 on its list of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century.

So the play takes place in Edinborough Scotland in the early 1930's and focuses on a teacher named Jean Brodie who is as she would say, "In her Prime". Miss Brodie is in her early 40's and has a over active sex drive that projects itself into her everyday teachings and personality. She is also an admirer of the fascist dictators Benito Mussolini and Francesco Franco in which she romanticizes their actions to her students. This becomes projected out to her pre-pubescent students as well, becoming a part of her everyday teachings essentially affecting the girls lives as well. There are four girls in particular that Ms. Brodie goes out of her way to "groom" them up into being little carbon copies of herself, making them emulate her actions and thoughts. This quickly becomes a problem when the school's head mistress Mrs. Mackay starts to pick up on the negative impact that Miss Brodie is having on her students. Eventually we come to find out that Miss Brodie is involved with a married man named Teddy Lloyd, who is her ex-lover and an art teacher in the senior section of the school. Mr. Lloyd is still very much obsessed with Miss Brodie, so much so that he paints portraits of her constantly in order to keep his passion at bay. Also, Jean catches the eye of music teacher/church choirmaster Gordon Lowther, in which she and the wind up spending a lot of time at his home in Cramond, a seaside village on the outskirts of Edinburgh. Throughout the whole affair Miss Brodie will sometimes spend the night with Mr. Lowther and keeps it a secret to everyone else. Mr. Lowther wants them to get married, but Brodie will not commit to him, this will eventually cause Mr. Lowther to leave her and marry the chemistry teacher Miss Lockheart. As the girls get older into their teenage years we see Miss Brodie starting to manipulate the girls into doing her will, in order to live out her own fantasies vicariously through them. Later in the play Miss Brodie trys to set events in motion that will entice Mr. Lloyd into  having an affair with one of her more "mature" students, named Jenny. Throughout this time she uses another student named Sandy to spy on  Jenny and Mr. Lloyd in order to eventually catch them in the act. However, it is actually Sandy, who has become very increasing spiteful towards Miss Brodie and Jenny (for her beauty), who eventually incites an affair with Mr. Lloyd. Eventually Sandy calls off the affair when she discovers Mr. Lloyds obsession with Miss Brodie is still intact. In the end we see that Miss Brodie's impact on her girls has basically started to claim lives when her most incorrigible student Mary Macgregor goes of to Spain in order to become involved in the Fascist uprising and gets killed on a train that is bombed by rebel forces. This leads to Miss Mackay's termination of Miss Brodie in which Brodie puts all the blame on poor Sandy by the end of the play calling her an "assassin" and storming out of the room. The play ends as it begins with a nun who we now know is an adult Sandy speaking with an American journalist recalling her memories of Miss Jean Brodie in her prime.

I honestly chose this play because I just saw the performance at the Shaver Theatre Weds night and I wanted to support our theatre department's production by saying some positive words about the play, that and well, it's the first play I've seen in quite a while :). Anyway, the performances were wonderful but honestly, I am kind of on the fence about this play. The subject matter is morally questionable, I'm not a prude, but I also don't agree with underage sexual abuse, consensual or not, it's not something I take lightly. So I find it hard to stomach a play about a character that instigates these actions amongst her highly impressionable female students. Anyway, that being said, I do think that it is important to note that Spark specifically chose to make these students very young to begin with because it sets up the creepy/morally wrong vibe throughout the show and it definitely gives the audience a strong idea of how twisted the adult characters both Jean Brodie and Teddy Lloyd are. I find this interesting because Spark could have strayed away from being controversial but instead opted to take the route that he know would affect the reader(eventually the audience) more personally and that shows how strong of an impact a dramaturgical choice can have.
Sequence is also important in this play because again, it establishes a time frame in which these events are happening. It's important to know when the interactions with Mr. Lloyd are happening with both Jenny and Sandy due to the fact that they were nine years old when the play begins. If the audience or reader is unsure of the age of these girls when he begins painting them and making sexual advances towards them then society might revolt against the play. It's interesting that just due to the fact that time passes and the girls are older, it becomes slightly more acceptable that they are being painted nude by an older man. Whereas had these events taken place only a few years earlier this book/show might have been deemed unsuitable for society consumption. This just confirms how important a writer's or playwright's choice to establish a time frame/sequence of events makes a huge difference in a play, especially when dealing with such strong subject matter.

Hornsby Patterns/Foreshadowing

In regard to Hornsby and how his idea of motif relates to Conduct of Life one of the blaring instances for me was the consistant character contradictions that make up the character of Leticia. This is a pattern that reoccurs throughout the play and I think this depiction of character is implemented by Fornes in order to establish a pattern of conflicting emotion and personality of this character to the audience. The reason I chose this to represent the idea of motif is because Fornes's choice to depict her characters this way sets the tone of the play so well and within itself creates a distance between the audience and the character that establishes the character as someone we can't invest our trust in.
Orlando is harder to figure out because we see many layers to his volitile personality and that is precisely why I chose to focus on Leticia in relation to motif and patterns. From the very start we hear Leticia making claims that she can't stand deer hunting and that she would save the innocent deer by stepping in front of a bullet for it. Later in the play she also claims that if she had money she would give back to the community and help those in need. This is another instance in which she contradicts her words when later we see her refusing to give her house maid money to buy a new cooking pot. Fornes establishes early on that Leticia's weaknesses outweigh her strenghts and this pattern repeats throughout the play. Fornes creates an interest in the character that makes the audience want to see where the story will take them. The pattern of character depiction resonates througout the play,  raises questions, will Leticia stand up to Orlando in the end?; Will Leticia make good on her word and protect this child from her abusive husband? This is why I chose character motif in response to our blog question.

As far as motif is concerned in other dramatic productions I've chosen to focus on Christopher Nolan's strategic use of foreshadowing at the end of the film Batman Begins. There are several films I could have chosen and honestly there are far better examples im sure, but I ultimately chose Batman Begins because there is a clear cut moment in the film that foreshadows events on the horizon. As an audience member watching the film for the first time, we've just sat down and have experienced a great comic book character origin story unfold before us and just as we reach the point of denouement the film and we think things couldn't get any better we're given a glimpse of something quite unexpected and an idea of things to come. Batman has just defeated the films antagonist and we come to a final scene between the Batman and Commissioner Gordon. The two exchange words and discuss things to come atop the Police Headquarters. As the conversation continues we see Commissioner Gordon hand Batman a new piece of evidence in regard to a new criminal menace in Gotham City. Turns out it's none other than the Joker who has left his calling card for the police. Granted this is a pretty straight forward example of foreshadowing, but I can't help to admire it because it just sets up so many possibilities for things to come.

How I Learned To Drive: The Post

Ok so, I'll jump on the, " I liked, How I Learned to Drive more, compared to Conduct of Life" bandwagon. Because honestly, even though the subject matter is very similar in both, Conduct of Life is so much harder to stomach in comparison to How I Learned to Drive. So in regard to Dr. Fletcher's first question(which we touched on in class today): I think it is absolutely paramount for a playwright to at times, remind the audience that indeed the overall message the reality is, we're still an audience in a theater watching a play. This is especially important when your subject matter contains characters that exhibit a socially unacceptable behavior. I might even be so bold and assume that this is why such a dramaturgical choice was made to depict a chorus that serves as a reminder of the theaters of old. This element of familiarity creates a general reassurance amongst the populace that even though the subject material is socially unacceptable (and for good reason) it opens the audience up to accepting the characters for who they are and not judge them souly on their actions. The addition of the chorus also sets the tone of the play right from the begginning and show the audience that it is ok to enjoy elements of the play, even when some of the character's actions are very inappropriate.
In response to Question 2: If I had to pick a moment in the play that seemed juxtaposed to the pattern established in the rest of the play; it would have to be the scene in which Peck takes cousin Bobby to go fishing. The reason I chose this scene in particular is because Vogel makes an interesting dramaturgical choice to stick this monologe within the play, just as the audience begins to get a sense of what the character of Peck is all about. After this scene you get the impression that he may not be an "ok" guy after all and you start to question why you had any empathy towards him to begin with(at least for me). Vogal creates a very powerful sense of dramatic irony in this scene leaving the audience to question what Peck's true intentions are and the result is a very subtle yet ambiguously tense situation. I think it's also important to note that Vogal chooses to take the chorus out of the picture(for the most part) in order to keep focus on the character of Peck in this scene. I think this choice puts the audience back into a more grounded mindset by taking the "play element" out of the scene and makes the mood slightly unnerving, especially towards the end in which we're given the impression that Peck may be planning to molest the boy. Obviously the subject matter here is cringeworthy, but I think it speaks to Vogel's writing talent that this play is more well received than oh, say, Conduct of Life for instance.