Final Show and Tell Post

The play that you will be learning about today is called Fat Pig. Fat Pig was written by Neil Labute in 2004. It opened Off-Broadway at the MCC Theater in New York City on November 17, 2004. Since then, it has been produced thirteen times. Fat Pig also won the Outer Critics Circle Award. This play can be found  in Barnes and Noble or on Amazon. 

Fat Pig contains four characters. They are Tom, the guy who cares what others think, Jeanie, the demanding, witty bitch, Carter, the superficial asshole, and Helen, the fat pig. Tom, Jeanie, and Carter all work in the same place, an office of some sort. One day, Tom meets Helen at a restaurant, and she invites him to have a seat. Helen happens to be a rather large woman, so Tom is reluctant at first. He ends up having a lovely conversation with Helen, and they begin talking and hanging out often. Tom develops a liking for Helen, but wants to keep her a secret because he is embarrassed about her size. Carter ends up finding out about Helen, and publicizes Tom’s relationship by posting a picture of Helen in the office lobby. While all of this is going on Jeanie is under the impression that she and Tom are dating, so she blows a fuse when she finds out about Helen. Tom admits to leading Jeanie on, and tries to apologize, but Jeanie is relentless. When all is said and done, Tom falls in love with Helen. Will Tom stop caring what others think about his choices in women, and be with Helen?

One dramaturgical choice that the playwright makes is to make Tom a weak man. I say this because his intentions are good, but he ends up hurting both Jeanie and Helen in the process. He has issues with deciding if he is able to deal with the ridicule he may experience while with Helen. Regardless if he loves Helen or not, he chooses to be indecisive on being exclusively public with her, and asks Carter for advice. He is too weak to not care about what others think of his relationship with Helen. Another moment where he shows weakness, is when he admits to Jeanie that he lead her on because he wanted to stop her from nagging him. This shows weakness because had he been stronger, he would have been honest with her. This is interesting to me because Tom is the boss of both Jeanie and Carter, yet barely has the strength make decisions on his own life.

Another dramaturgical choice that the playwright makes is to never show Carter with a sensitive side. Carter is the guy that you shake your head at due to his disrespect and shallow morals. He comes across as a guy who never sympathizes with people, and constantly makes fun of others’ flaws. The one moment that the playwright had Carter open up, was about his mom. Carter’s mother happened to be fat, and he talked about how he told her she was fat to her face, and was embarrassed by her. I believe Carter was created to make Tom seem like a better guy. Tom is not nearly as shallow, but still has problems with being seen with the woman he loves, Helen. This choice is interesting to me because it showcases a decent guy who has his flaws, and pits him aside a man who clearly has no consideration for other people’s feelings.

Comments for Checkpoint 3

http://analysistrata.blogspot.com/2013/04/prompt-12-on-verge.html?showComment=1367340278387#c3364077524324700527

http://sstev31.blogspot.com/2013/04/post-11-fires-in-mirror.html?showComment=1367340697094#c789610971612481629

http://dvibe2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/three-viewings.html?showComment=1367341317103#c5286831580358737034

http://mylittletrailofcrumbs.blogspot.com/?showComment=1367342035966

The Drowsy Chaperone

This prompt confuses me a little, but hopefully, I address it correctly. The Drowsy Chaperone contained some interesting choices dealing with sequence and showcased irony beneath all of the comedy. In fact, the play gives off more than just a few laughs. For instance, I think I would consider there to have been bits and pieces of dramatic irony present. Kitty and the gangsters knowing about Feldzieg's plan to stop the wedding, although none of the other characters knew, was an example of that. I think Ms. Tottendale and Underling's relationship contain some irony because I would have never guessed that they would eventually have a desire to wed. By saying I would have never guessed, I mean there are no clues hinting at this in the scrript. I see this as things not being exactly what they appear because he is only shown as a mere servant that tolerates her amnesia throughout the play. 

As far as sequence goes, I think it’s important to create the fluidity of the play. The choice was made to open the show within the show with Ms. Tottendale and Underling discussing Ms. Tottendale ‘s dress that she enjoys. It was an introduction to the wedding through someone’s eyes who was not, initially, getting married. Right after, everyone is singing about the wedding. This hinted that the wedding was a big affair, and many were excited about it. Since it was just shown how excited the guests were about the wedding, I think it was important to show that not everyone was happy about it. To convey this, Feldzieg was speaking to Kitty about his dismay towards Janet leaving her career behind to get married. 

Three Viewings

I think a common point between the monologues is that several people and places recur in one of the other monologues. For example, Ed Carpolotti’s funeral was mentioned in Emil’s monologue once he found that Tessie was seeing Bill The third monologue is all about Ed’s life through his wife’s eyes. Emil also mentionned the Green Mill in his monologue, which we, the audience, find out is where Virginia met Ed in the third monologue. In Mac’s monologue Margaret Mary-Walsh was involved in the funeral. Also in Emil’s monologue, she is in attendance of the funeral.

A deeper thematic point in Three Viewings is that all three characters experience the loss of someone they love, and are left with something to comfort them, in the end. Emil is in love with a real estate agent, and, after she dies, is left with the pacemaker that was in her heart. This brings him comfort, although he never go to tell her how he truly felt. Mac lost her family by accident, but gained something else to comfort her. Her grandma died, and, at first, all she wanted was the tear-shaped ring. After realizing that all she truly wanted was closure, she gained it by relinquishing her grandmother’s ring to its rightful place, in her grandmother’s grave. Virginia lost her husband, Ed. After he dies, she is overwhelmed by all of the loans he had taken out to sustain their life. In the end, she is left with a list from her husband that not only provides closure and comfort for her, but also erases the enormous debt Ed owed. 

On the Verge

A good tagline for the poster for On the Verge would be “Mysticism. The spirit is not stolen. It is illuminated”. I chose mysticism because it is defined as the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality through direct experience, intuition, or insight. In the play, Mary, Fanny, and Alex trek through a jungle and experience new things and encounter new people. They, therefore, become aware of a new reality that they are not accustomed to through their direct experiences. I chose the second part of the quote because the women briefly spoke on why or why not they should engage in the use of a Kodak camera to document their new experiences. Alex says,”The spirit is not stolen.It is illuminated.(5)”. I think this line is significant because I feel all of the things that the women experience, being one with nature, meeting “natives”, and trying new foods, illuminates their spirits by giving them insight on on other people and a newfound “ultimate reality”. This is how mysticism and the last part of the line connect. 

The image of the poster would depict an open book. 

The book represents the journals that the women keep while on their journey. There are squiggly lines that represent the words. Inside the book, there is a jungle with several items that represent the femininity of the women. Said items are a dress, a bra, and the shorts that Alex wears under her dress. The dress and bra are hanging from different limbs of a tree.The shorts are lying across the saddle of a horse. There is a big camera that represents the women photographically documenting these events. Written in the leaves of the tree, is the tagline. This is what my poster would look like for On the Verge. I even took the liberty to provide a quick sketch below. :)

Fires in the Mirror

The first few monologues of Fires in the Mirror should definitely still be kept in the play because although they are not directly correlated to the Crown Heights riots, they still help the audience or reader to understand something about one of the opponents’ culture. It’s as if the audience gets a peek into the world of the Jewish or the Blacks prior to hearing each side of the story. This is also useful because it pulls together the similarities of the two. It reminds the audience that although they have distinct differences, they are both still human and have things in common. Also, these opening monologues each connect to each other from one topic to the next except the race changes. For example, Al Sharpton, a black man, speaks on how and why he started wearing his hair the way that he does. In the next monologue, Rivkah Siegal, a Lubavitcher woman, speaks on the importance of her hair and wigs to her. Both stories showed how each person equates something that means something to them to their hair. 

Another reason I feel the monologues should stay where they are because they ease the audience into the situation. Certain topics are hard to talk about, and can quickly spark controversy. By Smith cleverly delving into this issue by showing how both sides have things in common, it makes it less easy to quickly choose sides as far as right and wrong goes. Regardless, I’m sure people are more inclined to lean toward what they know, which is their own. However, I think the idea of first showing common ground makes the audience think a little more before being so quick to judge. The first few monologues should definitely stay.

Show and Tell Post #2

The play that I would like to share today is called Fences.  Fences was written by August Wilson in 1983. The setting is a “house set back off a small alley in a big-city neighborhood” and takes place in the 1950s. It was first produced at the Eugene O’Neil Theater Center in 1983. Fences hit Broadway in 1987 at the 46th Street Theatre. This production featured James Earl Jones and Mary Alice, among others. It has won may awards such as a few Tonys and the Drama Desk Award. It has since been produced again featuring Denzel Washington. You can find this play in Barnes and Noble’s Bookstore, online, or in your public library.

Fences shines a light on African American life in the 50s by revealing the struggles and secrets within the family. Troy Maxson is the father of the household, and the most aggressive, assertive character. He can be perceived as hot-headed and fearless. Rose Maxson is Troy’s soft-spoken wife of 18 years. She is 10 years younger than Troy and devotes herself to him because she sees an inner light in him. She is also so loyal to Troy because she fears what her life would be without him. She can be perceived as a pushover, but I, personally, think she has an inner strength. Troy was formerly a baseball player and experienced racism first hand, so he is overprotective of his son Cory. Troy is currently a garbageman struggling to stay faithful to his wife, and keep the household together financially. He also has this strong idea about cheating Death, and not being afraid of it. This is where the “fences” part of Fences comes in. Troy wants to complete building a fence around his yard to keep Death out. Rose wants the fences built to keep and protect what’s inside her house inside, and what’s on the outside, outside. Regardless, Troy ends up impregnating another younger female outside of the household, and leaves Rose to pick up the pieces. 

One dramaturgical choice that Wilson made was to not make Troy necessarily the bad guy. He shows Troy with the strength you would expect a black male to have in the fifties. By this, I mean Troy is showcased as a strong man that provides for his family, speaks his mind, and dominates the household. We, the audience, are introduced to Troy in a comfortable setting where he’s making jokes with a friend, and shows his softer, “good” side. It shows that he does have dimensions.  I think the choice to not make him a stand out villain was interesting because I definitely saw him as a bad guy after he admits to cheating on Rose. No matter how he tries to justify his actions, I see him as a bit of a villain and a bully.  Another dramaturgical choice that Wilson makes is to make Rose equally as strong, but in another way. She’s not mean and intimidating like Troy, but a sweetheart. Throughout the play, Rose is shown as a sweet, soft-spoken woman who puts her family’s needs before her own. When Troy confesses his infidelity to Rose, she finally reaches her breaking point. She becomes outspoken and says everything on her mind. At that point, she tells Troy that he lost a wife. I think this shows Rose’s strength because she was strong enough to deal with all of Troy’s baggage for 18 years, and strong enough to let him go. Also, Rose ends up taking care of Troy’s baby for him since the mother died giving birth. This exemplifies her strength because she’s so caring that she’ll mother someone else’s child just so it doesn’t have to grow up motherless.

D'Amour, Detroit

There are a few examples of ambiguity in “D’Amour, Detroit”. The mystery of why Sharon dreams about Ben, and not her own man is one example of ambiguity. Mary is clearly disturbed by it, but remains quiet. Another example of ambiguity is the mystery of where Mary gets her seemingly expensive and foreign foods for the dinner parties. Ben even questions Mary about the caviar when she mentions having it. 

I’m not so sure that dramatic irony occurs in this play. The entire time that the play was going, I learned new things as the characters learned new things. For example, I didn’t know that Ben wasn’t actually working on his website in his spare time. Apparently, neither did the rest of the characters. 

There are a few stand-out reality checks that occur in this play. For instance, Ben announces that after seven weeks of pretending to work on his website, he has nothing to show for it. He even confesses that he does not want to start his business anymore. Mary is shell-shocked while Kenny and Sharon see it as a positive thing. ANother instance where a reality check occurs is when Sharon confesses to Mary of her slip up of drug usage. Mary is surprised because she thought Sharon was doing so well with her recovery.

 The most important element of the three, I’d say, would be the reality checks. I say this because the reality checks break whatever truth we initially believed, and replaces it with the actual truth. For example, Kenny and Sharon come across as more sane and together than Mary and Ben, at first. Then, it seems that these two couples interacting with each other brings the bad out of all characters. We are broken out of seeing Kenny and Sharon as clean, sane people. This also occurs for the characters. Mary and Ben were blinded by their new neighbors, and acted as erratic and irrational as them. In the end, they lost their house due to the foolishness fueled by Kenny and Sharon. Their perception and reality of the odd couple comes crashing down after they learn the truth from Frank.

Water By The Spoonful

One moment from a scene where I see realities interacting is in scene 12. In this scene, Odessa has overdosed and Elliot and Yaz are trying to revive her. While they await the ambulance, Odessa’s physical body is in Yaz’s arms, but Odessa’s “spirit” is standing in the room watching everything. She thinks she is at the airport waiting for her next flight. Simultaneously, Orangutan is at the train station, in Japan, sleeping. As a policeman shines a light on Orangutan, “a radiant white light pours in from above” in Odessa’s house. After the policeman turn off his flashlight and Orangutan rises, so does Odessa. I think Hudes has these realities interacting because it highlights something that Odessa says earlier on in the play. She states,”A sober day for you is a sober day for me(43).” I believe this could possibly be an example of what she was referring to. I do not think sobriety was only attributed to the disuse of drugs, but, also, for the strength to gain independence from anything holding them back. This may seem like a stretch, but when Orangutan declined the help of the policeman and stood on her own, so did Odessa. I feel, spiritually or telepathically, Odessa drew from Orangutan. Orangutan’s strength gave her strength. I think this showed a tremendous amount of independence from both characters, and that is why Hudes chose to have these moments cross paths. 

Buried Child

I don’t feel that The Buried Child is in black and white or clear cut, as far as what is being conveyed. In this play, nothing is what it seems. For example, the play starts off with two spouses that appear to be relatively, sane. However, we, the readers, become aware that there is a secret. In this instance, The Buried Child starts off just as a well-made play is supposed to, but there are mass amounts of irony as the story goes on. For instance, Vince came across as sane as his grandparents, at first, but drank himself into a crazed state. He later appeared as a psychotic family member searching for power and a reason to be remembered. I say this because he was heavily disheartened when he realized his family did not recognize him. So, it is plausible that he, now, wants to gain recognition from them by stooping to their crazy level. Another instance that played a part in this compilation of irony was when it appeared that Vince may had been the “buried child” that was spoken about in spurts of the play. However, things take a drastic turn when Tilden comes into the house literally carrying the decayed body of an infant.

Some possible elements that counter the conventions of illusionistic realism could be the fact that Shepard’s created illusions were, more so, unrealistic. I say unrealistic because the madness that was created within the world of the play as not normal, even in the world of the play. For instance, within the family, everything that goes on seems relatively normal. Dodge, his wife, his children, and his grandchild make everything appear usual. However, Shepard has Pastor Dewis in that one scene to draw attention to the fact that the behavior in which the family exhibits, is not actually normal. He shows this by expressing his discomfort when things become tenser as the seconds go by.

Noises Off

A motif found in Noises off could be income tax. Throughout the play within the play, Phillip and his wife are terrified about Inland Revenue taking some of their money for not being in Spain, as they said they were. Any hint of tax or income tax gives Phillip a bad taste in his mouth, and cause him to run for cover. For instance, there’s this scene where Phillip, Vicki, and Roger are running frantically around the house, afraid that one of the others are either a criminal or a member of Inland Revenue. Phillip screams,” Tax inspector’s everywhere!” This shows the concept of income tax repeating. Another example of this is the fact that Vicki’s sole purpose in being there revolved around taking files on tax evasion. Thus, it constitutes as a motif. The unifying principle could be  HAVING A CHAIN REACTION. I say this because all of the characters’ actions were either the cause or effect for another person’s actions. For instance, Flavia sees Philip downstairs, with his trousers down, and drops the biscuit tin in shock ad pain. Meanwhile, “Vicki flees before him and takes refuge in the linen cupboard” (53).  This is how the chain reaction is created. One person sees another, and instantly reacts. One of the level one moments in the script could be the beginning. Specifically, the scene where Roger and Vicki were just talking and walking around the house. It was a slow scene where not much action occurs.

The Glass of Water

I feel the protagonists are multiple people. In The Glass of Water , Bolingbroke, Abigail, and Masham are protagonists. I almost considered Queen Anne to also be a protagonist, but I don’t feel the script was sculpted to create sympathy for her circumstances. The script, however, supports Bolingbroke, Abigail, and Masham’s story. They are tied together. Bolingbroke manipulates other characters in the play to achieve his super goal, therefore, making Abigail and Masham’s dreams come true. Overall, the play is about playing the game to get what one wants. All of the three that I have mentioned, conflicts and triumphs are equally receiving stage time. However, I feel Bolingbroke and Abigail may get a little more stage time because they interact with the Queen and the Duchess more, who are also central characters but do not request one to root for them, judging from the script. I think that Scribe wants the reader to root for Abigail and Masham’s love. I say this because throughout the play, Queen Anne and Duchess are manipulated to turn against one another so that Bolingbroke can get what he wants, and Abigail and Masham’s love can become legal and feasible. I , often, questioned Bolingbroke’s true motives. It seems as though he was on his own side the entire time, but didn’t mind helping his friends in the preocess, if he could. He creates plans and plays mind games effectively to get what he wants. The play would not have turned out with the conclusion that it did without Bolingbroke’s efforts. Therefore, Bolingbroke definitely deserves to be considered a protagonist, also. 

Hornby

In How I Learned to Drive, a motif in the script would be the line “You and the Reverse Gear”. This line is used as a title repetitiously for a few scenes. It is an indicator or foreshadows that the following scene would contain actions from the past. This repeated line connects the scenes together by making the choice to jump around in the story make sense to the audience. By placing this line, the audience can understand and follow the plot better. 

In the play Topdog/Underdog, Suzan-Lori Parks has a recurring action take place. The action is the practice of 3-card monte. This game consists of three cards, two of which are the same color. The object is to follow the different colored card as the hustler constantly moves and rotates places between all three cards. The main characters, Lincoln and Booth are both seen practicing their 3-card monte hustling skills, when they think no one is watching. They both also use a similar incantation  while shuffling around the three cards. The idea of this practice foreshadows that Lincoln and Booth are either going to commit their hustle on the street, or play against one another. Indeed, they play one another by the end of the play, and much is at stake. Parks used the motif of the practice of the card game to foreshadow and reflect what ties the brothers together, since they come across very different.

Topdog/Underdog (Show and Tell Post #1)

The title of this play is Topdog/Underdog. It is written by Suzan-Lori Parks. Topdog/Underdog was copy written in 1999, 2001, 2002. It is published by Theatre Communications Group, Inc., 520 Eighth Avenue, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10018-4156. It’s first production was July 22, 2001, at The Joseph Papp Public Theater/New York Shakespeare Festival. The first Broadway production of Topdog/Underdog was at the Ambassador Theatre on April 7, 2002. This play can be purchased on Amazon, in Barnes and Noble, or elsewhere online. 

Topdog/Underdog is about two brothers, Lincoln and Booth, who are both in their thirties living together. Lincoln is the older brother, and Booth looks up to him. They were abandoned by both of their parents by the age of sixteen and eleven. Their mom left Booth with $500 in a nylon stocking, and their dad left Lincoln $500. Booth referred to his as his inheritance. Ever since, the brothers have been trying to survive on Lincoln’s minimum wage job until Booth, later known as 3 card, begins to get into the 3- card monte hustle. This game consists of hustling people on the street by tricking them into choosing the wrong card out of the three.  Lincoln used to hustle and make a lot of money in the streets, but gave it up. The brothers struggle with coping with not knowing why their parents left. By the end of the play, suppressed feelings of their parents abandoning them comes to the light, and everything comes down to Booth winning a game of 3-card monte against his veteran brother, Lincoln. Both brothers put $500 on the line, which forces Booth to put up his “inheritance” money. When Booth loses, he completely crashes, and makes irrational decisions that he cannot take back.

One dramaturgical that Parks made was  to not include the parents in the play. Their was talk about Lincoln and Booth’s parents, but they never appeared in the world of the play. I think this choice was beneficial to the script because we, the audience, then only get to know the parents through their sons’ stories. This way, the audience never learns of the exact reason why their parents abandoned them. Although, there are hints of infidelity from both parties that affected the relationship.Based on knowing that both of the parents abandoned their children, one could assume that the parents did not love their children. However, Parks also makes it a point to add that both boys received a small sum of $500 from one of their two parents. This symbolizes that the parents didn’t hate their kids. It seems more so that they just couldn’t deal with their circumstances any more. Another dramaturgical choice that Parks made was to have the world of the play revolve around the 3-card monte scam. The play opens with a scene of Booth practicing his 3-card monte hustle. This game happens to be the ribbon that ties the brothers together. Lincoln use to be a part of the hustle, but quit. Booth wants to partner up with his older brother and get back in the business. When Lincoln refuses, at first, it’s no big deal. As Booth persists in the story, new conflict arises for him. It comes across as 3-card monte being the only thing to keep Booth grounded. Parks also chooses to have Lincoln, later on in the play, practicing his 3-card monte hustle after a very long intermission. She even states in the script that Lincoln is much better than Booth at it. When it comes down to Booth showing his skills to Link, he fumbles. It’s an indicator of how his life had become so uncertain after his ex girlfriend does not take him back. The last scene shows Booth and Lincoln playing their last round of 3-card monte together. Booth physically loses the game and his money, and in doing so, mentally loses his mind. The hustle and his inheritance was all he had, and Lincoln took it from him. Therefore, this choice helps unfold the story in a smooth manner.

How I Learned to Drive

I think that Vogel may have made the choice to have a Greek chorus versus having a different person play all of the other characters beside Peck and Lil’ Bit because, then, the audience will see that the story is mainly about the relationship between the two. Although this choice brings all of the attention to Peck and Lil’ Bit, I think this also affects the comprehension of who is who. Although I assume that the costumes for the mother, grandmother, grandfather and Aunt Mary become consistent throughout the play so that the audience can keep up, it makes the situation a little less clear as the setting changes. Due to the singing and the chorus taking on more than one role, I became confused on their purpose. For instance, at the end of the play, Lil’ Bit sits with Peck in the vehicle, but it says that the teenage Greek chorus says her lines. I’m not sure of the effect Vogel was trying to give since she still allowed Peck to deliver his own lines. 

Another choice that Vogel makes that confuses me is the fact that she had the teenage greek chorus play the grandmother. I would think that someone who is older would have been cast versus someone between twenty-one and twenty-five. I understand at some point the teenage chorus voices Lil’ Bit’s eleven-year-old voice, but why not cast Lil’ Bit younger or with a woman who is capable of passing for twelve? I’m sure there is a reason for this choice, but I have no idea what it is.  Then in the scene where Lil’ Bit is at the dance, the script says that Peck is marveling at her from a distance and it makes her uncomfortable. I’m wondering if he was literally at the dance setting up the tripod, or did she just imagine him. I ask this because the scene transitions to Lil’ bit and Peck’s photo shoot. Maybe when other guys look at Lil’ Bit, it reminds her of her Uncle staring at her body.

The Conduct of Life

Maria Irene Fornes makes the dramaturgical choice to not complete give an end to a scene that would show where the conversations led. Fornes would stage a dialogue between characters, and leave the audience wanting to know where that conversation or those actions went. It, kind of, leaves the audience to guess, and possibly be wrong, or just be confused. I attempted to connect the dots at where the scenes ended, but I feel I came up short, and, just ended up confused. One example of Fornes not giving an exact end to a scene was when Leticia decided to go see what was in the cellar. Later on, one realizes that she had to have seen the little girl, but Fornes chooses to start a completely new scene between only Orlando and Nena. I was literally waiting at the edge of my seat to see Leticia’s reaction of seeing the Nena, but Fornes chose to leave me hanging. I think this choice allows the audience to know less of the characters. By the audience only seeing Orlando rape a girl constantly, we just believe he’s a horrible person and deserves to die. I, personally, believe there’s no excuse for that, and he got what he deserved. However, if Fornes had extended the scene to him possibly crying and revealing his true motive and reasoning, the audience may have tried to possibly understand Orlando, and may have generated a form of sympathy. The play may be titled The Conduct of Life it shows how individual actions influence how others behave in life. For instance, Orlando being so aggressive and unfaithful caused Leticia to shoot him. She had had enough and snapped. 

Trifles

I think the proposal of Trifles produced with a minimalistic design is definitely feasible, and different, seeing as I had not pictured the play designed that way. The production would force the audience to use their imagination more to fully understand the importance of the items or trifles in the play. it also produces the ultimate focus on the words being said, more so, than what  the audience sees. This can be seen as a benefit or something the production would gain because it allows the patrons to individually personalize the set, and emphasizes the importance of hearing everything. However, the production would lose the significance of agency that Susan Glaspell chooses to use as far as her deliberate attentiveness to detail. Glaspell writes Trifles in a way that  requires the reader to notice the intricate details of the house. After all, the three men in the house are looking for evidence to convict a woman of murder, and the things they see, Glaspell also wants the reader to see. With seeing everything, comes the feelings that the characters may feel being in a certain environment. Basically, what is physically there, on set, helps create the tone for the audience, and helps that transition into the “world of the play” as Elinor Fuchs put it.  In closing, I cannot imagine a production of Trifles without the detail of the actual objects because those trifles play an important role in the telling and understanding of the story.

Overtones Blog

In Overtones, I think Alice Gerstenberg uses visual cues as a determinate factor of whether a character can be heard or not. For instance, Hetty and Maggie, Harriet and Margaret’s inner thoughts, if you will, are dressed in the same color gowns as their hosts. The only difference is that Hetty and Maggie’s attire is a a few shades darker than Harriet and Margaret. Margaret wears lavender whereas Maggie wears purple, and Harriet wears light green whereas Hetty wears dark green. Harriet can hear Hetty, and Margaret can hear Maggie, but Margaret can’t hear Hetty and Harriet can’t hear Maggie.       

The attire of the women’s primitive selves becomes interesting as they are dressed with a chiffon veil across their faces. They wear these veils until the very end of the play, when the women’s truest thoughts are arguing at one another. It’s safe to say that Hattie and Maggie cannot actually hear one another, but still attempt to be heard by speaking. This, I interpret, as a rule. Once the veils are removed, the thoughts, Hetty and Maggie, become stronger and attempt at communication. 

Harriet can definitely hear Hetty just as Margaret can hear Maggie, but they do not speak directly to their thoughts. Instead, they would think aloud in response to what the thoughts are saying. Margaret does not speak back to her primitive self, but Harriet does at the beginning of the play. Hetty is also not wearing a veil when it is just she and her host, alone. This is another rule of the play. Veils are not necessary unless someone else enters the room with their own thoughts. 

I feel the rules created within the play are consistent. Hetty and Maggie consistently say and do what they want throughout the play where Harriet and Margaret have to keep up a facade to cover their secret unhappiness with their lives. The playwright also kept consistent with the way that Hetty nor Maggie can physically touch things. They may reach for items, like Maggie with the cake, but never actually touch them. This is one of the things that convey to the audience that Hetty and Maggie are not physically there and, therefore, cannot actually partake in conversation. I thought Overtones an interesting play with clever tactics in showing what people feel versus what they do in different situations.