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”.