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.