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.