Prompt 6: The Glass of Water

     I believe the protagonist in this play is the trio of characters Masham, Abigail, and Bolingbroke.  The most protagonist character, in my opinion, is Abigail.  She seems the most innocent and pure and really does the least wrong of any characters throughout the entire play.  The only wrong she has done is lie to the Queen about the trio's intentions.  Masham is the second most noble of the trio.  Though his pride gets in the way and is part of the reason he kills Bolingbroke's cousin.  Bolingbroke seems to have the least noble of intentions in furthering Masham and Abigail's careers in the palace.  But his redeeming quality is that one of his intentions is to release the Duchess's pursuasive hold on the Queen. 
     Throughout the whole play, there is a struggle between the alliance and the forces that try to upset the goals of the alliance.  The Dutchess is the main enemy of the trio.  Every time she succeeds in setting the group back, I found myself rooting more and more for the alliance.  But this struggle between the Dutchess and the alliance seems to be most central to the plot. 
     Up to the near end of the play, it seems as though the conflicts of the trio get the most stage time.  As for who Scribe himself wants the audience to root for, I cannot say for I am not Eugene Scribe.  I found myself however rooting for the relationship between Masham and Abigail.  And subsequently, I found myself rooting for the alliance and their goals.  The main goal of the alliance that I found was most prevalent was the goal to make the Queen more independent from the pursuasion of the Dutchess.  However the idea of usurping governmental corruption is very interesting in me.  But the goal that I related most to was to have Masham and Abigail be together.  I pride myself in being a romantic so any form of true love finding its way speaks to me.

Prompt #2...finally.

For this hypothetical proposal of Susan Glaspell's Trifles, I feel it is very bold to go minimalist.  The script calls for a lot of nit-picky props.  It would be difficult for the audience to believe that a blank sheet of paper is a quilt that has different aspects to its design.  Also since the quilt is a big part of the lie that the women tell the men, it would be asking too much from the audience.  Then again I am an advocate of the more entertaining part of theatre that it should be enjoyable above all else.  I can see the significance of plays that have an underlying meaning that it is trying to get across, and you can certainly find such a meaning in this play however, I also feel that some plays were genuinely made for entertainment.  This is how I feel with this play.  And making the audience do the designers job for them does little for its entertainment value.  So yes. Very bold move going minimalist.

Having Trifles performed as a minimalist play would gain a better focus on the people like the director says but unfortunately would lose more by not having the "trifles" physically there.  For example, not having the quilt that Minnie made to show the differences in the knitting styles takes away from the women undoing the "queer knitting" and resewing it to look normal.  The abstract feel of the production would remain intact but would still seem cheap and sort of like bad pantomime.

I can imagine a play like Trifles being minimalist.  All of the critical information would remain.  It would just be in the dialogue.  But for me including the props and the costumes just makes the transition from the real world to the world of Trifles go more smoothly.

Prompt #1 Overtones

In the theatrical world of Overtones by Alice Gerstenberg, there are two women who have a hidden side to themselves.  On the outside they seem like cultured, upstanding women.  But on the inside  their true feelings and nature are personified with their primitive selves.  Now Gerstenberg explains that these women do not see their alternative selves but are able to hear them.  What is unclear is the if, when, and how the alternate personalities communicate with each other.  In the script, the alternates exchange dialogue, but we aren't sure how.  There were many theories discussed in class but the one that I agree with is that the alternates always are aware of each other despite the cultured versions being unaware of the other's.  However, the alternates are so focussed and intent on getting what they want that it seems only when someone brings up the subject of the alternates desires do they speak to each other.  An example of this is when Maggie tells Hetty that she is starving which is connected to what Margaret wants from Harriet; which is to get Harriet to sponsor John so that they can have money to eat.  But the playwright makes it seem in the beginning of the play that only the cultured selves are aware of their own primitive selves even though it doesn't explicitly say that the alternates can't speak with each other.

So now that the uncertainty of the script is explained, let's see how an audience would understand that: One, the two more forward characters are the primitive selves of the more polite characters and two, that only the cultured selves can hear them with the exception that the alternates can hear each other.  Well this is somewhat explained in the script as well that the actors portraying the cultured selves should show that they are aware of their alternates' presence but do not acknowledge their exsistence. Gerstenberg instructs the actors playing the cultured selves to not make eye contact with the primitives which should suggest that Hetty and Maggie cannot be seen by Harriet or Margaret.

Looking forward to posting on the other plays. I hope I made enough sense. 

Best,
Brady