three viewings

One thing I found that's common within the script is that they all have more than one death within the monologue. As for the one point of common resonance within the play, I would say that they never truly get to say what they wanted to, to their loved ones (or not so loved ones) that they lost. One thought that resonated with me while reading all three monologues, was the feeling of inexplicable loss, and the inability to share their feelings with others. For example, Emil couldn't tell anyone how he truly felt because he had a wife, Virginia couldn't tell anyone the plan her husband had set up for her, and Mac couldn't tell anyone the pain she felt from losing her family, and the resonating impact her grandmother had on her. If anyone of them were to speak of it, they would either be judged, or have debts to repay.

 One thing that's the same but different between the three monologues, is how the dead helps the main characters out even though their dead. For example, Ed helps Virginia with the debts that are owed, Nettie helps  realize where her feelings truly lie, and the problems she has that she's created for herself, and Terri helps Emil to realize the impact words-unsaid can have on a person.

Streetcar Named Desire (Show and Tell )

Streetcar was written by Tennessee Williams, also known as Thomas Lanier Williams. This play was first opened on Broadway on December 3, 1947, and closed on December 17, 1949. The script itself won a Pulitzer Prize for Drama in 1948, and has since been made into several movie versions, and re-enacted by many throughout the days following its release.

 

 

In this script, an older Blanche visits her sister in NOLA due to circumstances that aren't truly revealed until the latter end of the story. While Blanche is staying in small quarters with her sister, Stella, and her husband, Stanley, she soon begins to woo Mitch, one of Stanley’s friends. After a good deal of time where Blanche does nothing but bathe, and have Stella wait on her, the truth comes out about why she's really in New Orleans. Stanley reveals that Blanche was all but run out of town after she was caught having intimate relations with one of the English students. In the end of the story after Blanche is raped by Stanley, and ultimately sent over the edge due to this trauma combined with her first young husband killing himself because she fount he was gay, Blanche is believed to have gone completely bonkers, and whisked away by the doctor leaving Stella, her new born, and Stanley all alone, and Stella unaware that Stanley actually raped Blanche.

 

 

Two choices that stood out to me was, the fact that Stella called the Looney-doctor when Blanche tried to tell her about what happened between her and Stanley, and the fact that the writer choose to show how attracted Blanche is to the younger men by her kissing the boy who was collecting the newspaper bill. In the beginning of the play, it was set to where Stella believe everything her older sister Blanche had to say, yet when Blanche says something that would affect the household of Stella, Stella quickly loses trust in Blanche's words. I was confused as to why Stella would be the one to call the hospital instead of Stanley since he despises her character so much. I think the fact that the writer included the part where Blanche kissed the newspaper boy really helped to show how Blanche is still devastated over losing her young husband, and how she feels as though she’s stuck in that same age and period in time.

Comments

#1- http://dontstopmemeow2130.blogspot.com/2013/05/fires-in-mirror.html?showComment=1367705898050#c4440746548759131732

#2- http://frequentingplays.blogspot.com/2013/05/viewing.html?showComment=1367706237397#!/2013/05/viewing.html

#3- http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5029293627620200755&postID=2112967462479745533&page=1&token=1367706840752

#4- http://dvibe2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/three-viewings.html?showComment=1367707105571#c8366925036723776295

#5- http://qgayle1.blogspot.com/2013/05/post-13-three-viewings.html?showComment=1367707281136#c1778056082717308962

#6- http://dorapereli2130.blogspot.com/2013/05/three-viewings-response.html?showComment=1367707468665#c1117667959693226202

The Drowsy Chaperone

I would say that duration and tempo would be considered two totally different things when analyzing the script in a musical way. I say this mainly because the writer is able to include more or less than usual when writing a script. Say for instance when they were first working on the script, they had a time limit of a hour. They would then have the choice of adding lyrics as a fast tempo to include all the background information, or any scene really, that's important to the script as a whole. They also have the option of slowing the music down to create a mood for the audience during a love scene. If they were to do this, they could take the man out of the play completely, and have the characters themselves sing all the information that the man says during the play. Of course, it would have to be staged a bit differently, but it is indeed possible. Another thing they could possibly do is change the typo according to the character. Say for Fledgling have a fast tempo to the music since he’s urgently trying to persuade Janet to not get married and continue to work for him. You could even have an offbeat tempo for Kitty since she’s kind of not all there.

On the Verge

I would make a series of posters.

One would have the tag line, "Vaya con dios," and there would be an oh-so-suave man dress in all white. However, instead of being an peach color, i'd have him more tan like.

For the second poster, the tag line would be. "There are two sorts of folks in this world. The sort you drink with, and the sort you eat with. Cannibals you drink with."
The background image would be foresty, with a path cut, and a blimp/airplane looking object hanging off the side of a cliff.

as for the last one, the tag line would be, "The splash of galaxies across the night sky always brings out the phenomenologist in me." As for the image, there would be objects floating in space. maybe a clock, a pilth, dates of times they crosses through, a motorcylce. You name it.

And i believe that Mr. Coffee is "The One", not necessarily our god, but the only being that "controls" everything.

Fires in the Mirror

If you were to take out the beginning monologues, you would essential be creating a different play altogether. The first monologues are there to give background information, and insight to the different way, beliefs, and traditions within the community. What Smith has managed to do in this script is to create a smooth transition from topic to topic, and give the people involved and affected by the event an identity. Take a look at the second and third monologues of the play, Static and 101 Dalmatians. In these monologues, the two different sides of the community have their own separate voice, their own stories to tell. For Static, you have a woman relaying a challenge she faced on Sabbath, and what she had to do to overcome it, even though she was viewed as stupid or ignorant by those who did not understand her culture. In 101 Dalmatians, he talks about how special people always told him he was, and then when he ventured past those peoples boundaries, he was viewed as nothing and treated as nothing. The final two lines of that monologue is:

“And then there’s a point when,

And then these two things come into contact.”

                These are very important to the script. It foreshadows the major event of this script that about to come up, and is the main subject of this play. If you were to just start from the middle of the script, you will have taken away the character's identity, and turned them into just another news story yet again. These transitions within the play allows the people to ease into the situation at hand and not have to face it all at once, without having any idea of how to take it. They would automatically choose a side, without knowing the way of the two different types of people involved. With that being said, I think the original sequence of events should be kept intact, and included with the rest of the play.

Detriot

Why Detroit? I think it's because of the crime and drug history that the city has. When you think of Detroit what do you see? What I see is suburbs with doors locked, windows closed, and the residents inside. Now, i may be wrong, but i don't think i am. I also think of neighbors that don't socialize, or know one another like many country towns in the south i've lived in. I feel like people up north have a habit of being consumed with their own lives, and not really worried about meeting new people, or interacting - nicely - with the residents within their community. In short, i believe it's called Detroit because that's a setting that could work within the script. Not only is it a city, but it's a well known city. For instance, if they play would have been called Walker, it probably wouldn't have worked for many reasons. One, not many people know about Walker. Another reason being that if you live in Walker, everyone knows who you are, and there's no chance in hell that you can lie about your name with your uncle living right down the road. Also, if try to break into the neighbors' house, there's a good chance that you'll end up with a limb blown off from a shot gun.

Water by the Spoonful

The scene i chose to write about is Scene 10. In the beginning the scene overlaps with three different people/locations: Odesaa, Eliot and Yaz, and Orangutan. Eliot and Yaz are delivering a eulogy at a funeral, Orangutan is at the bus station deabating on leaving, and Odessa is spilling water onto the floor by the spoonful. I believe the reason why all these scenes are combined is because all of the main characters of these scenes are accepting that they've lost something that they can neve get back. For elliot it is his mother figure, odessa it's her daughter, and Orangutan it's her birth parents. At this moment in the script, they are all thinking back to when they had, needed, or wanted the person they've lost or never had. It's causing them to need a realse from the pain it causes them. As you read on in the story, you find out who made the right decision towards what theu used/did to find that relase. However, in this moment it set up the script for the ultimate climax in this peice. By combing all three of the realities together, the writer was able to show that all three of these characters were going through something traumatic all at the same time. It also allowed for the writer to have one ultimate script in the climax instead of several all over the place.

Buried Child

If the reader isn't familiar with the actions of a dysfunctional family, they may be confused as to what, and/or why, the characters are behaving in such ways. If you look at dysfunctionality (I’m not sure if that's a word) from a medical stance, it's caused by a chemical imbalance within the human brain, resulting in an abnormal sense of the way of life. To make that more simple, they live by different rules; sometimes, no rules at all. Take the relationship between Tilden and his mom for example. They broke quite a few moral codes "sane" or "normal" families and people live by. If you look at it from a human sociology outlook, dysfunction within a family as a unit can be caused by one "unusual" incident between family members as a means of coping with the action(s), or the therein result of the action(s). I believe as a result of the relation between Tilden and Hailey, everyone – meaning Tilden, Dodge, Bradley, and Hailey – formed their own world within the physical play as a way to handle the offset of norm within their lives, and the secret they plan to take to the grave. Think about it.

When the play first starts off, you have Dodge ignoring most of what Hailey is saying, and Tilden who is in his own little world. When Vince and Hailey come into the picture, they too are ignored and shunned by Dodge and Tilden. It isn’t until Vince and Hailey embraces the psychotic ways of the other two men that they are allowed into Dodge and Tilden’s world. They first have to accept that off ways about them before they can interact with them. This allows for control in Dodge and Vincent’s worlds. They may not be able to control the actions of the people, but they can control the conversation, and whether or not to acknowledge the people around them.

They refuse to acknowledge any change in the world around them until they share their secret with all the people intruding on their territory. For example, at the begging of the play, Hailey said that there was nothing outside, just rain. However, Tilden was coming in with armfuls of corn and carrots. It isn’t until the end of the script after the cat’s been let out the bag, and the child has been dug out of the ground, that Hailey actually acknowledges the bountiful fields outside the window. Whether or not they are actually there, I’m unsure. However, she did come out of her own little world after she let her secret be known to the guest of the house.

In conclusion, I would say that this play is a mixture of truth & deception and realism. If there’s a word for that then it’s unknown to me. Truceptism. That’s what I would call it if it needed a name.

Noses Off

Motif: One motif that stood out to me was how they were treating each show like was the rehearsal. Of course in the first scene, it truly was a rehearsal, but for the second and third act, it wasn’t. For instance, in the last scene, you have Gary (Roger) stumbling back and forth over his lines, and worrying about a task that isn’t in his stage directions. Then you also have Dotty (Miss Crokett) saying whatever the hell she feels like, then telling Gary and Broke ( Roger and Vicki) to clean a mess, that shouldn’t be there in the first scene. This whole play just reads like a train wreck (obviously).

Tag lines: “It’s like a battlefield out there.” On the stage, there usually isn’t any direction – although Lloyd tires – to what the actors are doing. It’s like they’re incapable of focusing on the task at hand. They’re always either ignoring what Lloyd is telling them, or are missing their cues left and right. At one point, the phone is flying across the stage, sardines managed to get mushed, and no one’s delivering the right lines. Then off stage, you have a completely different battlefield area. We have everyone trying to keep selsdon away from any alcohol, Lloyd is trying to woo broke, all while Poppy is carrying Lloyd’s child. It all seems like a HUGE mess. Everyone’s gossiping about one another, sleeping around, and missing their damn ques. I feel like it’s the best statement out of the entire dialogue.

I also wanted to say: Yes, I know this was a comedy. However, reading this play really just bothered me. Maybe it’s the obsessive person inside of me that hates it when people don’t listen, or do what they’re told, I don’t know. But I didn’t quite enjoy this as other people did.

Glass of Water

I wouldn't say who is THE protagonist, but rather, who are the PROTAGONISTS? In my own personal opinion, I would say that Abigail and Masham are the two main protagonists in this play. The play mainly focuses on the struggle of Abigail and Masham to be together and get married, which is why I would choose them as the main protagonists.

When one would first being to read the play, they would think to themselves, “Oh, this must be about the hate-war thing going on between Duchess and Bolingbroke.” I thought that too at first, but then I thought to really think about all the details. The Duchess and The Queen both are trying to advance Masham, but on the other hand, The Queen and Boling broke both are trying to advance Abigail as well. In addition to this, you also have a love-plot between Masham and Abigail. Therefore, I would consider Abigail and Masham the main protagonist since almost everything happening within the story line and plot is about - or even just involves - the both of them.

 I also feel like these two characters are who Scribe wants us to root for; mainly for simple reasons. In this play, we have the usual young characters that are in love, but they have to fight through greatly opposing forces to finally be together. This romantic idea/ situation will (almost) always encourage the audience – or reader- to root for their happiness. It’s a daydream most people want or hope to experience, basically as a way of say their love for another person can endure and rise above any obstacle. On a side note, why would we want to root for a spineless queen, gambler of a man, or a woman that’s trying to encourage a great war? I could see the twist reasoning behind it, but as a general audience, we tend to go for those who are out for the “light” emotions rather than the “dark”.

How I Learned to Drive

I believe Vogel chose the Greek Corus to put an emphasis on just Li'l Bit and Uncle Peck's lines. With just the two of them portraying their lines solo, you pay more attention to the emotions of the lines, and the reactions between the two of them. It's kind of a way of centralizing the focous on just the two of them, yet still showing what everyone else was saying about them.

At first, i didn't understand why she chose to put the scence where she, Li'l Bit, was 11 towards the end. I personally prefer a chronilogical order to a play, mainly so i can keep track of things. When i got over my OCD tendencies, and after talking to a few people, i realized the strength of this choice. By doing this, she left us questioning the relationship between Li'l Bit and Uncle Peck. When did their relationship began? Who initiated it? Why didn't anyone warn Li'l Bit? Ect. This secene did alot of things. It answered our questions, showed us Li'l Bit wasn't naieve to her uncles feelings at all, and that she was partially to blame. It also answered the the question of "Where was her mother, and why wasn't she saying anything." her mother specifically warned her, and cautioned her, but Li'l Bit went anyway.

The Conduct of Life

One made choice that satnds out to me is how Fornes chose to make Nena sympathetically aware. In Scence 15, when Nena is talking to Olimpia, she makes the comment, "...And if someone should treat me unkindly, I should not blind myself with rage, but I should see them and recieve them, since maybe they are in worse pain than me." Before Nena brought this though to light, the audience viewd her as the sympathetic character. However, she took that assumption of her away from us. I fell as though she was bascially say, "it's not me you need to sympathize for, it's the ones who bring the pain onto me." The thought of it leaves me speachless because she refuses to pity herself, or for others to have pity on her. In that one sentence she proves not only to herself, but to everyone else, that's shes far stronger than what we think; she just knows that the only way to make him, Orlando, feel better is to sucum to whatever it is he wants. In a way, this also puts Orlando under her. Even though he believes he's the strongest of them all because he tortures, and rapes, and commands over all the women in the house, Nena's the strongest of them all because she accepts the problems and difficulties life has handed her, but does the best she can with them. Again, i'm just so speachless because she gives her character this remarkable strength with just one line.

EXTRA SPECIAL BONUS QUESTION!!!

I, personally, believe this is called The Conduct of Life because this plays shows different type of people and the way their lifes either intertwine, or effect one another.

Trifles (Much of what my brain feels like right now)

Prestatement: my brain kinda hates me right now, so if i confuse you, or anything like that, i'm sorry. It doens't want to help me convey my thoughts right now...

I think a propsal such as what has been suggested would really promote the imagination. Maybe it's just me, but i feel the need for detail. If i'm reading any type of story, i like to visualize what's being talked about. For instance, if someone said a birdcage, i would invision all of the bird cages i've seen before, and try to pick the best one that would fit within the play. I appreciate the story being heard, but i love the story being seen as it unfulrs.

If you were to do a production of Trifles in a manner such as this, you would gain an importance of dialouge, but you would loose the visual intellegence of a play. It would be the equivilance of me telling you the story by myself. Yes, you would focous on the words coming out of my mouth, and the movements i'm making, but your visual idea of the objects may differ far from the actual ojects, unless you know of the setting, have seen it before, and remember the details. The spectators aren't provided with the script (as it's been said man times over in class) therefore, they've no idea the ideal setting that is being provided, they only know the world of which they themselves have created for the play. So in less words, yes the director would accheive conveying the idea of the importance of the words and emotions over that of the visual details. but then again, that is the idea. right?

To answer the last question: Yes, i can imagine the production in such a way. How ever i feel it loose the details that are needed. Yes the character talk in depth of the detail but i feel as though visual aid is needed in some areas as to correctivly convey the idea/situation of what's going on. For instance, what if people have no idea what a quilt is, what knotting of a quilt looks like (i know i have no idea what the heck that means) or even what preserves are(maybe they're yanks, or french).

Again, my brain and i aren't in agreable terms right now, and that's all it's willing to help me say. Until again my friends! :D

Overtones *WARNING*: I sometimes spell worst than a 3rd grader.

Sorry, i know this is. . . well, really late. But hey! It's here! And that's what matters! Right?
BTW, sorry for some of the randomness, i'm on my 4th cup of coffee today......

Anyway, I fount this play to be very interesting. I kept forgetting that this play was written in, i think, 1913. The fact that they used different people to portray their primitive sides, or inner voices, was very creative (although probably common during these times). I'm used to there being prerecorded audio, but that's due to more advance technology. As i was reading the play i was able to visualize the preformance in my head, and if you ask me, the preformers did a nice job.

 The fact that only the culturalized selves was able to actually touch things made alot of sense. I think if i were to be watching the play as a spectator and everyone was just grabbing things, i would be so damn confused. I also understand the reasoning of Harriet and Margrett not being able to see their primitive selves. Well talk to ourselves, sometimes we even loose arguments with ourselves, but we never really physically see our "primitave"selves. So if Harriet or Margrett were to ever see/touch their primitive selves it would be weird, unusal, and just not true.

It was clear as the play went along that the cultured selves didn't listen to everything their primitive selves were thinking. How crazy would it be if they did? There would be a cat fight in the middle of a stage, not uncommon for us, but for that time period i think it would have been. Although, if i read right, i do believe that harry and maggie either physically touched one another, or talked agressivly. I think this was one of the "rules" bent/broken in the play. Other than that i think they stuck to the rules:

• cultured selves never see/touch primitive selves
• cultured selves keep composure, never showing their true behavior
• primitive selves behave as they please

I can't think of any other rules right now, but i know there's a couple more.

On a personal note, i kinda like reading/watching plays/scripts/movies/books based in this time period. It's kind of like todays world, just a seemingly more regal, ettiquite based time. Today, for instance, if you don't like someone (and you in the ghetto) you make it know, and they make it know they don't like you. I've only seen people play nice in more public, common situations. Like family dinners, weddings, or even in class (most of the time). Well, Hope you enjoyed reading my blog/opinion/analysis. Until next time! :D