One Glass of H2O to Rule Them All

For the most part, Eugene Scribe’s The Glass of Water perfectly embodies the form of the well-made play structure. There is a long exposition in which a secret that will drive the plot is revealed, a climax occurring right before the end of each act, and many obligatory scenes happening where the audience expects and sees certain things happenings. The many revelations the audience discovers throughout the play add for a high level of comedic effect. The point in the play, however, where the play strays from the well-made stricture, is in the final act. This act does not end with a completely beautifully tied ribbon. This is when the Duchess and Queen finally find out that the girl Masham loves dearly is actually Abigail. The Duchess and Bolingbrake have charmingly bitter, yet friendly banter with each other, and the Queen instructs Abigail to marry Masham. The Duchess has a husband to go to, Masham and Abigail can live happily ever after, and Bolingbrake achieved the peaceful state he always wanted, but the Queen is left, once again, with “…boring days…boring nights….a lifetime of boredom!” Following this self pity, the Queen notices a new guardsmen she finds particularly handsome and the audience can see a change in her disposition, due to the discovery of possibilities within this guardsmen. That is where the play ends. This leaves the audience with uncertainty of what will happen in the Queen’s future, thus the story does not wrap up perfectly with the audience’s awareness of the future of every character. This is where the play drifts from the well-made play structure. 

Caroline's Comments

http://theatre2130.blogspot.com/2013/09/night-mother-response.html#comment-form

http://theatre2130.blogspot.com/2013/09/trifles-response.html#comment-form

http://morgansthtr2130blog.blogspot.com/2013/09/night-mother-response.html#comment-form

http://andreagracethtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/09/4000-miles.html#comment-form

http://andreagracethtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/09/reflection-on-overtones.html#comment-form

http://morgansthtr2130blog.blogspot.com/2013/09/overtones-response.html?showComment=1380377889693#c1982886925261189622

4000 Miles Commentary

Amy Herzog seems to have taken advantage of motifs when writing 4000 Miles. A repeated pattern in the play that creates some interesting moments occurs in the recurring misunderstandings between the characters, particularly between Vera and Leo. There are many times in the play when one character thinks the other is talking about something completely different than he or she is. There are also times when characters search for words and cannot find the right ones to say. For instance, Vera often forgets the names of common things and just replaces them with “whaddayacallit.” This occurs frequently throughout the play. Some other missed communications happen in the conversation with Leo and Bec where they keep finding each other on totally different pages, metaphorically. I think this motif of missed communication could actually be a key to understanding the play. Although I’m still trying to wrap my head around this play, I think one of the play’s themes is about people trying to get through to other people and how difficult that can be sometimes. The motif does seem to shift slightly in the last scene. Although there is no obvious dialogue that leads me to believe this, there seems to be some mutual understanding in the subtext between Vera and Leo in the last scene where Leo is practicing his speech for Ginny’s funeral, a woman he never even met. I think Herzog was trying to convey something about how a person you never even met could bring you some perspective more than someone close to you.  

Hey Judith, Don't Make It Bad

I would first like to say that while reading Howard Barker’s Judith, I could not help but diagnose Judith with an array of mental illnesses. Though, I guess a mental illness in 2013 had many more names in biblical times, the time period the character of Judith is based in. When thinking about the major dramatic question of the play, there are many I think could serve the purpose of a production, but the one that might most effectively do this would be the question of “Can the connection with the Holofernes be strong enough to make Judith morally unable to kill him?”. When I say strong connection, I do not mean some romantic connection but rather some sort of intrigue that would have made Judith change her mind. Although Holofernes was ultimately killed, it was not by the hand of Judith so the answer to my proposed major dramatic would be yes. Of course, you could argue that she would have eventually killed Holofernes if the Servant wouldn’t have but that isn’t what the playwright wrote. Nothing Holofernes said was particularly flattering to Judith but he said some really profound ideas about death and about what’s actually honorable vs. what people think is honorable and I think all this insight made Judith want to stick around figure him out. She was intrigued or she wouldn’t have put off killing him for so long. She does, however; confess after Holofernes’ slain that, “I was. So fucking silly. Nearly fucked it, didn’t I?” but it’s always easier to judge our actions in hindsight rather than as they are happening, isn’t it? 

Night, Mother Response

Hi hypothetical director, dramaturg here to keep you on track.

 wholeheartedly agree that an important question of the script and one that our audience will keep firmly in their heads throughout the play is the debate of whether or not Jessie will actually kill herself. However, I think this will not serve our play best as the “major dramatic question.” I think solely focusing on the possibility of suicide could change the play into something Norman did not intend it to be, which would somewhat of a suspenseful show. From just a brief summary, the play may come across as suspenseful but the complexity of the exchanges between Mama and Jessie make it much different than that. The two get into issues like Jessie’s divorce, Jessie’s child, crime, the death of Jessie’s father and Mama’s husband, resentments never previously spoken about, etc. Sprinkled in between discussion of these deep-seated issues are Jessie’s instructions to Mama for how to take care of herself once Jessie kills herself. These instructions make up a good portion of the dialogue and I don’t think Norman added all that in just to have something for the characters to talk about. I think he made Jessie stress these things to Mama to give Mama the chance to change Jessie’s mind. This brings me to what I think would be a better major dramatic question for our production: “Can Jessie be convinced to not kill herself?” or more broadly, “Can a person be talked out of something they have made up their mind about?”. Shifting the question to this would engage the audience more in what I think Norman intended the audience to be engaged in, which is the dynamic relationship of Mama and Jessie and the strength of love. These are two people who have a deep physical connection having lived together for many years but as we find out in the script, their emotional connection was not always there. When I read the script, I couldn’t help but wonder if maybe Jessie and Mama could emotionally find some common ground, maybe Jessie wouldn’t feel so alone and feel the need to end her life. I am most interested in the play retaining the intent of the playwright and this shift in the MDQ would assist in that.