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.