Love! Valour! Compassion!

     First off, I would like to say I really disliked this play. It was so hard to follow who was saying what and to whom. The cutaways to the audience during the action on stage was extremely confusing. I feel that I may have enjoyed it if I watched it, but as for reading it, that's a big NUH UH. 
     Had the historian read Love! Valour! Compassion! after reading The Glass of Water and The Children's Hour, he probably would have been pretty confused. The play didn't really follow any pattern at all. The ending was not even definite. It was more just like a glimpse into these eight men's tangled lives. I think one of the biggest differences between this play and the two we read prior to it is the fact that the fourth wall is broken repeatedly. Rather than creating a world that only the characters live in,  McNally opens it up to the audience's world as well. I believe he does this in order to show that one can relate to the characters in some way or another and also to show that this is real life for some people.
     As far as inferences about the culture of our time go, the historian would see a major change in the acceptability of homosexuality. In the play, a same-sex couple is celebrating their wedding anniversary. This never would have happened in the times of The Glass of Water and The Children's Hour. Also, capital-T Truth lies within each man within God as well. At one point, a character has an aside about God's unconditional love, a truth that all or at least most of the men seem to acknowledge. They each have their own individual beliefs and idea, and these are just as true in this world.
     I have tried to make as much sense as possible, though my thoughts about this play are still really jumbled. I hope this post is understandable; I tried my best.
      

The Children's Hour

     The main way The Children's Hour strays from the form of the traditional well-made play is the way that the play comes to an end. Rather than the play coming to a nice, happy, everyone-wins conclusion, we get a suicide, resulting in the loss of a friend for Karen, and in addition to that the loss of Karen's lover, and on top of all of that, the little brat who started all this mess is still being protected by her grandmother! This is absolutely not the type of ending one would see in a well-made play. I believe this choice was made in order to show that chaos of this sort really cannot have a happy ending or easy solution. These's people had their entire lives and futures ruined, and that's just something that is irreparable. 
     I do think that the play could be performed today. The main course of the story does not revolve around Karen and Martha being struggling lovers but really centers on the discord caused by a terribly spoiled child. The only time we actually see a bit of truth in the lie is before Martha kills herself. She admits to Karen that she actually does love her in the way accused; that she has always been different but could never quite put her finger on what it was. All the rest of the play is focused most on the ruination of their lives because of a lie, not their same-sex relationship.

The Glass of Water

A well-made play follows a strict set of rules and arrangement guidelines. "The Glass of Water" written by Eugene Scribe adheres to these rules and guidelines to a T -- with the exception of two instances making up the "fat" of the play. These parts do not add to and are not necessary to the plot but are simply just there for reasons the translator only knows.

It was very difficult for me to find these bits that seem unnecessary to the script. The only thing my evidently weak spidey senses slightly picked up was at the very beginning of chapter three. Bolingbroke enters the Queen's boudoir to see Abigail. Rather than getting right down to business, he rambles on for a few moments about the Tory ministry but never gets in to any details with this. It has nothing to contribute to the plot. Right after he makes this brief mention, the play goes on, and Bolingbroke tries to figure out why he was summoned to the Queen's chambers. This is not necessary for the reason that no real information was gained from this little fork off the main road. Abigail does not even go along with Bolingbroke, agree and add to his conclusion that "it won't be long now" but shuts him down with the opposite: "On the contrary... it's a great deal further off than you think." 

I am very interested to find out the two parts that Dr. Fletcher found and whether or not mine is one of them. Looking forward to talking about this in class!

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.