Extra Show and Tell Post: One Flea Spare

One Flea Spare

By Naomi Wallace

            Naomi Wallace is a playwright, screenwriter, and poet.  In October of 1995, One Flea Spare was first performed in the Bush Theatre in London.  It made its American premiere in February of 1996 at the Humana Festival of New American Plays.  The play has gone on to win awards, including:  the 1996 Fellowship of Southern Writers Drama Award, the OBIE 1997 best play award, and more.  I found this play using the LSU database, where it redirected me to the Twentieth Century North American Drama website.

                  One Flea Spare is about a group of people quarantined during the Great Plague in London in the 1600s.  Mr. and Mrs. Snelgrave are prepared to flee to an area safe from the plague when two people are found inside their home.  This discover forces everyone in the household into a 28-day quarantine.  The Snelgraves are then left with two intruders, Bunce and Morse, to spend these 28 days.  The four of them are visited every now and then by Kabe who gives them information on what is happening around them.  The play follows their struggles throughout these days.  Wallace focuses on death, disease, social classes, and social discrimination. 

            Wallace’s dramaturgical choice to set the play during the Great Plague was really interesting.  After reading the play, I determined that Wallace wanted to raise questions of class and social justice.  I liked the way she did this.  She did not put the play in today’s time to show this, she put it in the high stakes time of the Great Plague in London.  By setting the play during the plague and quarantining the characters, Wallace is imprisoning them literally and metaphorically.  They are locked up in a house, but they are also locked into their class.  Wallace plays with the idea of class and mixes up the relationships of the classes.  She depicts children’s views on class structure through her character Morse.  Since the characters are quarantined, they are forced to interact with each other.  They discover things about one another that they would have never known or cared to know in a normal situation.  It creates an interesting dynamic in the play.

            The dramaturgical choice to include the character of Kabe gives the audience a little something to remember what the world is really like.  Although the four characters quarantined have to interact with each other, they do learn about one another.  It seems as though they are breaking down social barriers.  But, Kabe, their connection to the outside world, is a constant reminder that the real world is out there and in the real world they are social classes.  In these social classes, Mr. Snelgrave and Mrs. Snelgrave would not socialize with Bunce or Morse.  If Wallace had left Kabe out, then the audience would not see the real problem.  The problem is the strict social order and how it can be unfair and Kabe reminds the audience of that.

            One Flea Spare is a play about social class, epidemic, and bending gender roles.  Wallace’s choices all emphasize these themes.  Her choice of setting and her choice for Kabe both add to the theme of social class and barriers.  Even though the play is set in the 1600s, I can see its themes being relevant in years to come, which I believe makes this play very intriguing.  Wallace’s choices led her to a bold play raising many questions for the audience or reader.

Wallace, Naomi. One Flea Spare. Electronic Edition by Alexander Street Press, L.L.C., 2013. Web. 6 Dec 2013.      

Comments

Comment 1

Comment 2

Comment 3

Comment 4

Comment 5

Comment 6

Show and Tell Post: Wine in the Wilderness

Wine in the Wilderness

By Alice Childress

            Alice Childress is an American playwright, actor, and author.  Childress did not finish high school due to her grandmother’s death.  After she dropped out, she turned to the theater.  She wrote many plays, appeared in many productions, and even started an Off-Broadway union for actors.  In 1969, Wine in the Wilderness first appeared in Boston, Massachusetts on WGBH-TV as part of a series called ‘‘On Being Black.’’  I located this play by using the LSU database; it brought me to the Twentieth Century North American Drama website.

            Wine in the Wilderness focuses mainly on the characters Bill Jameson and Tomorrow-Marie, nicknamed Tomorrow.  The play takes place in Harlem during a race riot.  Bill is working on a triptych, which is a series of three paintings that come together to make one statement.  His statement is supposed to say something about “Black Womanhood”.  The first painting is of an innocent child, the second is of the perfect African woman, and the last one is planned to be of an ugly woman destroyed by today’s society.  Bill’s friend, Sonny-Man, and Sonny-Man’s wife, Cynthia, bring him a woman they believe will fit the last picture.  At first, Bill thinks the woman will be the perfect portrayal of the ugly woman.  As the night continues, Bill learns more and more about Tommy.  The next morning Tommy is made aware of why she is posing for the picture.  An argument breaks out.  Tommy says she is the perfect African woman, or the “Wine in the Wilderness”.  Bill discovers that his original statement is wrong.  He decides to instead focus on the beauty of black womanhood today and how the women are different, they are fighters, and they are independent.

            The dramaturgical choice to set the play in the middle of a race riot helped set the tone.  The play could have stood alone without including the race riot aspect.  Childress would have still been able to end the play with Bill discovering what true black womanhood was without the riot.  I think adding it into the play was a good choice though.  It helped to emphasize the issue of race, the struggle of the black woman, and the beauty of black strength.  The riot allowed the characters to be at their lowest of lows.  And this is good because it shows how even though things are still bad we can have the strength to get through it.  Tommy is enhanced by the riot.  Meaning that the riot allows her normal behavior to be a little amped up because of the recent race issues.  Childress’s choice to include the riot brought the play to another level, a level with a little more intensity, which made the play more interesting.

            The scene where Bill is discussing his “Wine in the Wilderness” painting to someone on the phone and Tommy is behind a screen changing is a strong dramaturgical choice to me.  Childress places the two characters in separate areas so they cannot see each other.  Tomorrow can hear Bill and she believes he is talking about her.  This creates dramatic irony.  We know that Bill is actually talking about the painting, but Tommy thinks he is talking about her.  This creates tension in the play and anticipation for the reader.  The reader is waiting to see when Tommy will find out the truth.  Using this dramatic irony, Childress sucks you into the play while you anxiously read on to see what happens next.  I thought this choice was strong because it shows the audience Tommy and Bill’s feelings in that moment.  We know that Tommy feels one way about Bill, but Bill currently does not feel that way about her. 

            Childress chooses to emphasize the power and beauty of black womanhood.  I think her choices directly enforce her theme in the play while keeping the audience hooked.  Race riots, dramatic irony, and wine in the wilderness all bring us to an interesting play. 

Childress, Alice. Wine in The Wilderness. Electronic Edition by Alexander Street Press, L.L.C., 2013. Web. 4 Dec 2013.

Water by the Spoonful Response

I chose the moment where Elliot is talking to Orangutan to show the two realities crossing.  There are two main story lines, that of the actual world and then the online world.  Yaz and Elliot appear in the actual world story line, while Haikumom and Orangutan make up most of the online world’s story.  These two worlds intersect when Elliot logs onto his mother’s, Odessa’s, computer.  She is logged onto a site entitled “RecoverTogether”.  He begins talking to a person with the name of Orangutan.  Elliot reveals his identity to the other online user saying that he is not Haikumom, but instead her son.  Orangutan goes on to say she knows about his struggles with addiction, even though it is not the same as his mother’s.  Throughout their conversation, Yaz is reading over Elliot’s shoulder.  As they continue chatting, facts are revealed to Yaz about Elliot’s past.  She learns that he overdosed three times.  This throws the two into a heated talk.  Yaz learns so much about Elliot in such a small amount of time.  I think this interaction of the worlds brings focus to the problems the characters have.  They are recovering but they have troubles talking about.  Elliot cannot tell Yaz about what truly haunts him, but he has no problem with an unknown online person knowing about his life.  It is hard to let the people you really know in sometimes.  This interaction emphasizes that.  It also reveals important things to all characters in the scene.      

Next to Normal Response

            Next to Normal is unlike any musical I have listened to.  The elements put into the musical make it interesting and complex.  Brian Yorkey and Tom Kitt worked really well together to make choices.  I really enjoyed their production of the song “I’m Alive” sung by the character Gabe.  The lyrics and the music create a certain tone for Gabe.  It paints a picture in the reader’s mind of what Diana sees of her son.  She sees him as a healthy, lively grown boy, even though he died when he was an infant.  Yorkey and Kitt’s choices to make Gabe a livelier character is interesting.  The music for “I’m Alive” is upbeat and the lyrics are obviously stating that he is, well, alive.  I like that they chose not to make his character depressing, but instead happy.  And that is because Diana sees him and it makes her happier.  It adds to the play’s complexity, which I find is one of the most intriguing parts of the play. 

            I also liked the rhythm of the last song, “Light”.  It has a release of tension that is held up in the entire play.  Throughout the play, the tension levels pretty much stay even.  There is no happy resolution at the end of the play, but there is a hopeful song and that is “Light”.  So the rhythm of this song shows the release of tension and the hope that everyone has for the future.  The elements picked out by Yorkey and Kitt provided a complex play that leaves the audience hopeful.

Topdog/Underdog Response

           There are two mirrors in Topdog/Underdog:  the Lincoln/Booth mirror and the con-game mirror.  The Lincoln and Booth mirror is quite obvious.  The two main characters share names with two people from one of the most famous American assassinations.  The audience should be able to catch onto this mirror easily.  Parks even emphasizes the mirror by making Lincoln’s job be an Abraham Lincoln impersonator.  In the end, this mirror is the most apparent because Booth kills Lincoln.

            The con-game mirror is a little harder to pinpoint.  The game mirrors the fake President Lincoln assassination that Lincoln acts out for his job.  Both the game and the performance are supposed to seem like honest things, but they are both just tricks.  In Three-Card Monte, the dealer and his helper set up a strategy or a type of performance that tricks the audience into believing what they are doing is truthful.  This mirrors Lincoln’s job because he is tricking people into thinking they are actually killing him.  The customers know they aren’t really killing him, but it does not make his job honest.  These two things mirror each other because they are coming off as honest, even though they are just tricks in disguise.

            I think both of these mirrors are in the play to emphasize the idea of honesty.  Lincoln wants an honest job, while Booth wants to stick with games of trickery to earn money.  Parks is constantly drawing the audience back to that theme of honesty.  The mirrors play a big part in presenting that theme.      

'Tis Pity She's a Whore Response

            If I had to make a poster for ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore, I would start by picking out a color scheme.  I would use black, red, and white.  These colors together make a strong statement.  The black and white contrast each other very well, and the red symbolizes the violence that is constantly showing up in the play.  Three images that would spark interest on a poster could be a broken wine glass, a letter with blood drops on it, or a singular drop of blood.  A broken wine glass comes from the poisoned wine.  A letter with drops of blood on it would be Annabella’s letter to   Giovanni.  And lastly, the drop of blood would symbolize all of the bloodshed in the play.   I picked three quotes that I think would show a little bit about the play.  The first quote comes from Giovanni on page 668, he says, “After so many tears as we have wept, Let’s learn to court in smiles, to kiss, and sleep.”  I like this quote because it shows that the play deals with love and tragedy.  The only problem is that it makes the play seem hopeful, when in the end there is nothing to hope for.  The next quote comes from Soranzo on page 674, he says, “Love’s measure is extreme, the comfort, pain, the life unrest, and the reward disdain.”  The play is all about how love can drive people to do crazy things and I think this quote embodies that.  And lastly, I choose another quote from Soranzo that appears on page 676, he says, “You are past all rules of sense.”  This quote is probably my favorite for the poster because it describes how everyone is a little senseless.  Ultimately, I would give the poster a dark feel that still shows a little bit of the twisted love story it is trying to tell.

House of Trials Response

Conventions of the Spanish Golden Age comedias are much different from other plays we have read.  Two conventions I picked out were the importance of honor and the breaking of the fourth wall.  These two conventions appear multiple times in House of Trials.  Honor seems to be mentioned on every single page.  As we discussed in class, honor for women is their sexual purity and for men it is keeping the sexual purity of their wives, sisters, or daughters.  It is mentioned so much, it seems like it would be something brought up in other Spanish Golden Age comedias as well.  The characters also break the fourth wall a few times.  For example, on page 103 Castaño says, “Let’s go and skip the cries of ‘alas!’ and ‘alack!’ that prevent our leaving and prolong the act.”  He is breaking the fourth wall by acknowledging that they are in a play.  This occurs a few more times throughout the play making it seem like it can occur in other comedias too.  These different conventions allow for many different plays than we have been reading.  Breaking the fourth wall and focusing on honor are two conventions that seem quite apparent in Sur Juana’s House of Trials.

Show and Tell Post: Fur

Fur

by Migdalia Cruz

            Migdalia Cruz is a playwright, screenwriter, and play translator.  She has written over forty plays.  Fur was first produced in the 1990’s.  I found this play on the North American Women’s Drama Database.

            Fur is about three people:  Citrona, Nena, and Michael.  It is a twisted love story between a pet owner (Michael), his beautiful animal trapper (Nena), and the woman he bought (Citrona).  There is a love triangle:  Michael loves Citrona, Citrona loves Nena, and Nena loves Michael.  Throughout the plot, the reader discovers new things about each character’s past and how they are all different from each other.  Towards the end of the play, the reader understands that the characters are all different, but they still all want the same thing:  love.  The play occurs under Joe’s Pet Shop in the desert of California, which is now under Michael’s care.  He buys Citrona from a carnival sideshow, and then hires Nena to trap animals to feed Citrona.  The story is pulsing with lust as each character waits to be with another character.  The play revolves around these eccentric characters and their feelings toward each other.

            The dramaturgical choice to keep Citrona in a cage the whole time is one that stuck out to me.  She is kept in a cage even though she is not an animal; she is just a furry woman.  Her entrapment in the cage reflects the entrapment of each character.  Each character is trapped in their own lust and agony.  The cage is a physical manifestation of the things that are holding them in.  Each character is consumed in lust, which keeps them from realizing that who they love will never love them.  The cage constantly being on stage creates a tension.  It is a metaphor showing that the bars are actually bars between each characters’ relationship with another.  They will never be able to escape to be with who they want to be with.     

            The second dramaturgical choice that stuck out to me was that the stage is slowly filling up with sand.  This choice is interesting to me because I have never read a play that did something like this, especially something that seems so challenging for production.  The stage filling with sand is supposed to show time throughout the play. As the play goes on, it gets harder and harder for the characters to move about the stage.  They are not trudging through mud, but it is a hassle to walk through.  The sand can symbolize the interference of the other characters in the others’ relationships, meaning:  Citrona stands in the way of Nena and Michael, Michael stands in the way of Nena and Citrona, and Nena stands in the way of Michael and Citrona.

            Cruz makes interesting choices.  My favorite part of her choices is that they connect to the production choices.  Her decision to include the cage and the sand also gives creative license to the production team.  These choices can bring about innovative ways to include a cage and the element of sand.  I am extremely curious to see what a staged production of this would turn out to look like.  Her choices not only allow for interesting production choices, but also for emphasis on aspects of the characters’ relationships.          

Cruz, Migdalia. Fur. Electronic Edition by Alexander Street Press, L.L.C., 2013. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.

Comments

Checkpoint #2

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5

Eurydice Response

           If I had to pick two quotes from Eurydice to appear on a promotional poster they would be:  “NO ONE KNOCKS AT THE DOOR OF THE DEAD,” and, “How does a person remember to forget.”  The first quote appears on page 239 whenever Orpheus is trying to enter into the gates of Hell.  As Orpheus knocks on the door, the stones yell this quote.  This quote would fit nicely on the poster because it ties directly to the plot.  The plot focuses on the story between Eurydice and Orpheus where the main plot point is Orpheus traveling to the gates of Hell.  This quote is mentioned right as he reaches the gates.  If this quote appeared on the poster, it would bring more focus to the love story between Eurydice and Orpheus.  With this quote, the director could take a “love conquers all” type of approach. 

            The second quote would offer up a different view for the whole play.  This quote is on page 245.  Eurydice’s father says this just after Eurydice decides to leave to be with Orpheus.  This quote would make the audience think more.  It brings up questions of memory, pain, and dealing with things moving forward.  This statement also brings more focus to Eurydice and her father.  The director could take this quote and turn it into a story about a father’s love for his daughter. 

            With both of these quotes, the director could turn it into a love story.  It could be a story about a love for one’s spouse or a love for one’s daughter.  The quotes would give the story two different spins, but either one would offer up more interesting decisions for other parts of the play. 

Love! Valour! Compassion! Response

A future historian looking at Love! Valour! Compassion! would not be able to pinpoint a capital-T Truth.  Throughout the years, capital-T Truth has evolved.  Long ago, Truth came from God, and then from human knowledge.  In this play, the Truth is unknown.  It is almost like there is a struggle between the Truth of God and the Truth of humans.  It is hard to find the Truth because it seems to sway between the two Truths.  Bobby discusses God on page 87, he says, “ I think we all believe in God in our own way.  Or want to.  Or need to.”  These statements show that there is no proof; Bobby is questioning the idea of God and its Truth.  But there is no real capital-T Truth when it comes to human perspective too.  In conclusion, I believe a future historian would have difficulties finding a Truth. 

            Unlike Glass of Water and The Children’s Hour, the well-made play structure is not apparent.  The only real factor in Love! Valour! Compassion! that translates to the well-made play structure is that it is in three acts.  It veers from the structure in almost every aspect.  The plot does not revolve around a secret and there is no obligatory scene.  The other plays we have read focus on plot, while this one focuses on the characters. 

            The capital-T Truth is up in the air.  Future historians would be unable to find one in this play.  They would have trouble even finding a type of structure to the play.   

The Children's Hour Response

Lillian Hellman follows a somewhat loose structure of the well-made play.  There are moments where Hellman veers away from the well-made play, which create very important dramaturgical choices.  The play adheres to the well-made play structure because it has three acts, suspense around a secret, rising climaxes in each act, secrets revealed, and dramatic irony.  The play revolves around one secret:  the truth about Karen and Martha.  The secret is finally revealed, not how it would normally in a well-made play, but it still counts.  It veers away from the well-made play structure because all of the loose ends are not tied up at the end, there are no just-in-time revelations, and no specific obligatory scene.  At the end of a well-made play, everything is tied up into a nice bow, but in The Children’s Hour, things seem to unravel.  Everything goes differently then what is expected:  Karen and Joe break-up, Martha kills herself, and Rosalyn does not get in trouble.  The revelations are too late.  By the time the truth comes out, Karen and Martha’s lives are already destroyed.  There is no specific obligatory scene that makes everything better.  The truth is revealed, but not in the way the audience is expecting.      

The Glass of Water Response

In The Glass of Water, there are a couple moments that do not conform to the structure of a well-made play.  This is so, because the translator had to add in some parts to the play to help the audiences understand what was going on.  Pinpointing these exact moments was quite hard, but I think I was able to pick out one potential moment.  The moment where Bolingbroke and the Duchess are conversing and then they kiss and slap each other.  It seemed a little out of nowhere.  I picked this moment because it does not advance the play; it instead adds “fluff” to the play.  Finding the second moment was even harder.  The second moment I picked was towards the very beginning when Masham and Bolingbroke are talking.  They are discussing war and politics.  I feel like this does not add as much to the play, since the focus is on everyone’s love.  I am not quite sure if this moment is one of them though.  It does explain a little bit of what is going on, but it still does not abide to the most important issue of the play.  Other than these moments, I feel that the play sticks to the well-made play structure.    

Show and Tell Post: Getting Out

Getting Out

by Marsha Norman

I wanted to find a play by Marsha Norman because I love the intensity and strong Major Dramatic Question of ‘Night, Mother and I was hoping to find something similar in style to it.  I found a play named Getting Out by Norman.  The play premiered in May of 1979 at Theatre de Lys in New York City.  I located this play through the LSU database. 

            Getting Out is about a woman named Arlene and her recent departure from the Pine Ridge jail where she served time for theft, prostitution, and murder.  Norman infuses her present scenes with scenes from Arlene’s past, when she called herself Arlie.  Arlie is what Arlene went by before she was released.  The script focuses on Arlene moving into her apartment after leaving jail.  But at the same time, Arlie is on stage portraying what happened in Arlene’s past, including:  when she was a child, before going to jail, and while in jail.  Norman leaves the reader with some blanks that are later filled in and others that are not.  The reader discovers that Arlene is a mother, but that she is not in contact with her child since the child was born in the jail and then immediately taken out of her care.  We discover the different relationships Arlene has after leaving jail.  We meet Carl (her ex-pimp), her mom, Ruby (her neighbor upstairs), and then Bennie (a recently retired guard from Pine Ridge).  This script takes the reader through Arlene’s first time out of jail, how she is dealing with it, and how others are helping her cope or not.

            The biggest choice I found interesting was that Norman established this dynamic of almost two different stories going on at once.  The first story she starts with is that of Arlene; the warden is announcing her release. Once the warden is through talking, we are abruptly taken to Arlie’s story where she begins by talking about killing frogs a long time ago.  The reader is constantly whipped back and forth between these two stories.  They are both part of the same story, but the way Norman presents it makes it sound like two different stories.  Arlie is the story of a woman before and during her time at prison and Arlene is the story of a woman leaving jail and restarting her life.  Arlie and Arlene, the same woman, are completely different characters.  They contrast each other and show how big of a change Arlene has really made in her life. Norman chose to put these two stories side by side instead of chronologically.  I think this enhances the contrast, it makes it stand out more than if it was done in chronological order.

            Another choice I found interesting was very similar to a choice Norman made in ‘Night, Mother as well.  She chooses to leave out some information.  She does not leave out enough to confuse the reader or make them question the entirety of the play; she leaves out just enough to add mystery or make the reader focus on what she finds most important in her play.  She leaves out specifics of how Arlie committed her crimes, how Arlie’s dad very specifically treated her, and so on.  I think this choice is very strong.  I believe Norman did this because she wants emphasis to be on how Arlene changed, not about her crimes or her father.  Of course her crimes and her father played in a role in making her into the woman she was, Arlie, but the play is about who she becomes, Arlene.

            Norman makes strong choices in Getting Out.  Her choice of the stories of Arlie and Arlene side by side is something I have never read or seen before.  I found it interesting and intriguing, but also a little confusing at times.  If staged, I am sure everything would just fall into place and help readers understand a little better.  Her choice to leave things out adds emphasis to other things that I believe are more important to the plot then those details themselves.  This play was just what I hoping to read about it.

Norman, Marsha. Getting Out [Electronic Resource] / By Marsha Norman. n.p.: Alexandria, VA : Alexander Street Press, 2004. Louisiana State University. Web. 25 Sept. 2013.

Comments

For Checkpoint #1

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6

4000 Miles Response

     The idea of missed connections is a motif in 4000 Miles.  The characters are constantly miss communicating and missing chances to clarify.  Leo is the worst of all of the characters.  He completely miss communicates with Bec.  He believes that their relationship is still in tact, but the truth is, Bec is fed up with Leo and his antics.  When Leo is talking to his adopted sister, their connection actually disconnects.  There is constant miscommunication between Vera and Leo.  Sometimes they have misunderstandings because Vera’s hearing aid is not in and other times it is simply because they do not understand each other.  There is an obvious missed connection between Leo and his parents.  His parents have no idea where he is or what he is doing.  There is a disconnect of some sort in almost every scene.  Vera disconnects from the world by taking out her hearing aid.  Vera and Ginny are disconnected personally from each other because they never actually see each other; they just call.  Missed communication, disconnects, and miss understandings are the root of 4000 Miles.  This motif is present in every scene.       

Judith Response

           The Major Dramatic Question of Judith is, “Will Judith reclaim her control?”  As the reader, we want to read Judith triumph.  This question allows the protagonist to grow and change throughout the process of the play.  From the beginning to the end, Judith gains the courage and the will power to regain her control from Holofernes first and then the servant. 

            Holofernes is the one in control at the start.  Judith stammers out her thoughts in submission to Holofernes.  She slowly gains control of the situation until Holofernes’ death.  She is taking control for her country.  Israel can once again hold the power instead of Holofernes. Next, Judith has to overcome the servant.  By the end, Judith is proudly standing on her own, powerful.  She not only stands for Israel, but she also stands for herself.  She stands strong on the stage by herself.  It is in that moment, the reader notices the change in Judith.  She went from doing and listening to what Holofernes and the servant said, to being the one in control.  Judith transforms before the readers’ eyes and answers the MDQ with, “Yes, I do have the power and control.”           

'Night, Mother Response

“Will Jesse kill herself?” could be the Major Dramatic Question, but it is definitely not an intriguing one.  I see two very interesting questions in the play.  The first is:  Will Mama ever understand Jesse?  And the second question is:  Will Jesse explain why she is committing suicide?  These questions offer up a much more dynamic way to look at the play.  Instead of focusing on the most obvious issue at hand, these questions allow the director to bring a deeper meaning to the play.    Asking if Mama will ever understand Jesse allows the director to bring focus to the relationship between the mother and the daughter.  This question gives new meaning to the play.  It makes the audience wonder about the women’s past and want to know what they are really thinking.  Asking if Jesse will fully explain why she is committing suicide also gives the director a way to focus more on the characters and their relationship.  I believe the main focus of this play should not be put on Jesse’s suicide, but instead on the mother/daughter relationship.  The play tells the story of these women’s lives.  It helps you to understand who they really are and how they have become who they are now.  Asking simply if Jesse will kill herself takes away from the women’s lives and focuses solely on her death.  The production would be much more interesting if the focus was on discovering whom the women really are instead of on the end of a life.

Trifles Response

Susan Glaspell uses such great imagery of items in her dialogue.  It can be argued if you need the items because they are so detailed or if you could do without them and just let the audience imagine them.  I respect the production choice for a minimalistic design because it makes the cast work even harder to help the audience understand what is happening in the play.  But, I have always enjoyed naturalistic design more.  It helps me grasp the idea of the play so much better than a minimalistic design.  With this script, I feel that a minimalistic design would be a risky choice that could end with a confused audience if they are not familiar with the play.  The play’s imagery just screams for a detailed set.  You need the rocking chair, the birdcage with the broken door, the fruit, and the elaborate box for the bird.  These props are all referred to multiple times and hold great importance in the play.  This play is a crime scene; the audience needs to be able to picture the room in their heads for what it is supposed to be.  The minimalistic design has the potential to let the mind wander too much.  The audience might picture things that are not even there and this could take away from the story at hand.  Choosing this minimalistic design could lead to new discoveries about the play though.  The feelings and emotions of the characters would be intensified.  Instead of focusing on the already detailed props, the focus would be brought to the characters and their lives.  The naturalistic design allows the audience to automatically take in what is happening, while the minimalistic makes the cast and audience think just a little bit more.  I would choose the naturalistic style, but I would also be curious to see what a minimalistic version of Trifles would be like. 

Overtones Response

After analyzing the play, I have determined that the “inner selves”, Hetty and Maggie, did not directly speak to one another.  They did however converse through their outer, physical selves.  Their physical beings, their more disciplined versions, took everything the inner selves were thinking and presented it in a much more graceful way.  This can be derived from the script because it is understood that Maggie and Hetty are inside their counterparts’, Margaret and Harriet’s, heads.  The inner selves cannot speak to each other because they are trapped inside of their physical beings.  Harriet and Margaret are so consumed with social acceptance that they are both missing out on things that they really want on the inside.  Sometimes their inner selves break through their protective social barrier to show a little bit more of what they are truly feeling.  In the beginning when Harriet and Hetty are conversing, Harriet becomes more emotional right before Margaret enters this shows that the inner selves can break the surface of Harriet or Margaret. 

I believe that the world of the play is staged mostly in Harriet and Margaret’s minds.  It is a mix of the physical and the mental worlds that these two women are living in.  They are together living in the physical world, but then they are each living in their own mental world.  The physical world is a place where status is extremely important.  Money is the driving force to power, popularity, and ultimately a happy life.  But different things run each of their mental worlds.  Harriet’s mental world, the world Hetty lives in, is full of anguish and jealousy.  Margaret’s mental world, also Maggie’s world, is a land that is starving and suffering. The physical world these women live in is their illusion.  Their real worlds are the ones that they live in where they love, aspire, suffer, and dream.  And these worlds come from within them.