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.