Show & Tell Posting #1 - Third and Oak: The Pool Hall by Marsha Norman

     Third and Oak: The Pool Hall is written by Marsha Norman. It was first published in 1985 by Dramatists Play Service. The first production of this play in one act took place in the Actor's Theatre of Louisville. A film was later produced for Turner Classic Movies by Gladys Nederlander, starring James Earl Jones and Mario Van Peebles. This play can be found as an electronic edition or in Collected Plays, published by Smith and Kraus.
    Third and Oak: The Pool Hall is a second part to Third and Oak: The Laundromat, but it also functions on its own. The play takes place in a "small and seedy" pool hall at three in the morning. The owner, Willie, is wanting to put the hall up for sale soon. A young husband and disk jockey, Shooter, who is also the son of the owner's best friend, comes into the hall for a visit. In the time to pass, much more serious conversation takes place, including talk of family, loyalty matters, secrets, happiness, and friendship. 
     One dramaturgical choice that I found significant is the integration of the game of pool into their conversation. From nearly the first moment Shooter walks into the hall, he tries to get a round of pool started. Time after time, Willie shuts it down before he can even begin. As an example, Shooter's first attempt involved opening his cue case. In the next line, Willie closes the cue case and tells Shooter to leave the hall. Shooter tries to get Willie to play a game with him, but he refuses. As the play progresses, Willie allows Shooter to take a few shots on his own. Eventually Willie proceeds to lines up the balls for him, gives him pointers, and, by the end of the play, he actually asks Shooter, "So are we gonna play or not?" The progression of the pool game parallels the manner of their conversation. Willie initially wants no part in it, then he begins to share information with Shooter, and eventually opens up fully and they enjoy the bond they share through Shooter's father.
     Another interesting choice Norman chose is the inclusion of the conversation regarding what Shooter likes to do. He says the only thing he enjoys is playing pool, although according to Willie, "pool just ain't his game." This conversation puts Shooter into a panic when he realizes there really isn't anything else he likes to do, the first vulnerability the reader has ever really seen from him in the course of the play. The vulnerability then leads into anger and defensiveness. The point when Shooter starts to show his true feelings seems to be a turning point within the play between Shooter and Willie. Following this, Willie starts to feel a bit more sympathy for Shooter, encourages him to set up a round of pool to play and gives him tips. Willie steps up to be more of a father figure than before, and "perhaps begins to feel a little of Shooter's pain."

My Comments

http://wellhithereyou.blogspot.com/2013/09/night-mother.html#comment-form

http://jenniferdownes.blogspot.com/2013/09/marsha-norman-night-mother.html#comment-form

http://paulina2130.blogspot.com/2013/09/overtones.html#comment-form

http://lo-graham-theatre.blogspot.com/2013/09/judith-by-howard-barker.html#comment-form

http://alyseiadarbyscriptanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/09/trifles.html#comment-form

http://alyseiadarbyscriptanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/09/there-were-moments-we-all-as-student.html#comment-form

4000 Miles by Amy Herzog

     A recurring pattern or motif in 4000 Miles is a sense of being disconnected. Here are a few examples involving Leo. He is detached from his parents. He goes on a months-long bike trip across the country and doesn't speak to anyone. He has a skewed view of real life: as someone said in class, he's so open-minded that he's closed-minded. Within this skewed view of life lies an equally skewed view of relationships. When he brings Amanda home from the club, they don't connect on any level, not even in the main purpose of a casual hookup. With Bec, he believes they have the most romantic, perfect relationship, but she sees nearly the polar opposite and asks to break up, and as for Ginny? They grew up together as siblings but still views her as just another girl. He refuses to believe that their kiss is what sent her into therapy. Complete denial and disconnect.
     The scene in which Leo smokes marijuana with his grandmother is one of the few that link connection and disconnection. They separate from the real world by getting high, but they talk about a lot of things that they wouldn't have talked about on their own. 
     An example outside of Leo and even the world of the play lie in the stage directions. Herzog gives a lot of free range for interpretation. A few example of these directions include:

• "Time: September of a recent year -- maybe 2007."
• "She reenters with coffee and a plate with a few breakfast pastries on it, maybe a couple hard boiled eggs." 
• "He is stopped by the sound of a sickening thud (and maybe something breaking?) in the direction of Ginny's apartment."

By taking this step back and disconnecting in a way, she allows the director to really delve in and show what is most powerful to him or her.

   

Judith by Howard Barker

    Judith by Howard Barker was quite the piece to analyze. Besides being thoroughly confused the first time through by the language, I found another major dramatic question besides whether or not Judith would kill Holofernes. The MDQ is, "Will Judith stand up for her country, Israel?" The resulting answer is yes. 

    The first step of answering this question is clearly when Holofernes' head was severed. Next, Judith was tempted by her slain victims body and nearly fell into her human lust. She was then "punished" for a while and couldn't move, but with the help of her servant, got her senses together and ended up standing up for her country in the end. 

    While it isn't much word-wise,  I feel this aptly expresses the MDQ. 

'Night, Mother by Marsha Norman

    While the MDQ question of "Will Jessie kill herself?" is acceptable, I feel that there is another one within the play. This question is, "Can Jessie convince her mother to accept that she is going to kill herself?" Much of the play consists of Jessie trying to show her mother how things are going to work while living alone, explaining to her what she has arranged and how to obtain what she needs. She asks a few final questions, and does her best to explain to Mama why she is going to off herself. Her mother pleas with her to stay, but in the end she still goes into her room, locks the door, and kills herself, answering the first MDQ. I believe this answers my proposed MDQ as well. Her mother screamed at her and tried her best to stop her, but after she heard the shot, she got on the phone and called Dawson, just as Jessie asked her to do. Her mother did not encourage her to kill herself (what mother in their right mind would), but she did take her last requests to heart, and I feel that this shows an acceptance of her death.

Trifles by Susan Glaspell

     Trifles is a one-act play written by Susan Glaspell in 1916. It is actually based on a real murder that Glaspell extensively investigated. The play takes place in a rural house, the home of the murder victim, John Wright, and his wife, Minnie Wright. The main characters include the county attorney (George Henderson), the sheriff (Henry Peters), Lewis Hale (a neighboring farmer, Mrs. Peters, and Mrs. Hale.
     I believe the idea of producing a minimalistic rather than a naturalistic version of this play would be extremely effective. I honestly think that with so many little props and doohickeys around the set, the audience and/or readers can be distracted. I know I was. By focusing mostly on the character's actions and emotions, I feel the play would be much more powerful. Especially so would be the part near the ending in which Mrs. Hale frantically tries to hide the box containing the killed canary. Rather than being distracted by the patterned quilt and her shuffling through all her clothes and her bag with this lovely little box, the audience could truly feel that anticipation of the approaching group and wondering why the bazooms this chick has been trying to defend this lousy woman. Guilt for not visiting her sooner? Maybe. But the fact remains, she's a sucky person because she killed her husband. I digress... If I were ever to direct this play, I would definitely assume the minimalistic approach. 

Overtones by Alice Gerstenberg

     Overtones by Alice Gerstenberg was quite the task to read. My brain found it tricky to switch back and forth between Harriet and Hattie and Margaret and Maggie on such short notice. This made it all the more intriguing, and I must say I was compelled to scrutinize it over again twice.

     I do believe that the "inner selves" see and hear each other. For example, Hetty says, "Yes, you are not. There are circles under your eyes." Maggie says, "I haven't eaten since breakfast, and I'm hungry." If there was any question as to if she was actually replying, in parentheses before Maggie's line, it reads, "To Hetty."

     Now, as you can see, the script clearly states that they speak to one another. But, there is no concrete indication that they SEE each other, though the "inner selves" see their "trained selves." This is shown in the first few lines of the play, where Hetty compliments Harriet on her appearance. 

     One of the things I found most interesting in this world created by Gerstenberg, is that one person exists physically as two beings. I can't imagine walking down the street and seeing two people, really only making up one person, while the inner personifications could communicate with one another, and their own human representations, but not with other human representations... *brainsplosion*. Only in the world of theatre does this work and make sense. (Which is part of the reason why I love plays!) The rule for this communication, in which inners can speak to each other but only their human, exists throughout the play. It's not spelled out specifically, so viewers would pick up on it in the same manner readers do: context. 

     Overall, I found this play utterly fascinating, and would love to see it performed.