Sierra's Thoughts of Others

http://dorapereli2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-drowsy-chaperone-response.html?showComment=1367707695337#c5387558869068351758

http://dvibe2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/three-viewings.html#comment-form

http://samversiontwo.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-verge-response.html#comment-form

http://yvettebourgeoisthtr2130.blogspot.com/2013/04/fires-in-mirror-by-smith_13.html#comment-form

The Drowsy Chap.

Oh goodness. Well, if I were to analyze a just the play itself I would look at duration because if you take out Man in Chair's lines, the focus would switch to Janet and Robert and the Major Dramatic Question would be: Will they actually get married? And therefore, scenes would strive to be longer and the plot to be drawn out. But in the play within a play, the writer's chose for the Man to be the main character and because of his increased amounts of stage time, the scenes of the actual play are shorter because it is not about The Drowsy Chaperone, but of the Man and his POV of the play he is listening to. The rhythm of the actual play verses the play within a play also differs because if it were just the play, the rhythm begins with a big opening number and intro of all the characters within the script, then the tempo decreases as the storyline unfolds. The tempo would then increase with each song being sung because the plot is thickening and keep increase till the climax which is Janet calling off the wedding. The play within a play does not begin with a big, blonde, and beautiful number. Instead the rhythm has not really begun because the Man is talking about his life and about this musical he loves to listen to. The rhythm actually picks up when the opening number of the show comes to life. Every time the Man speaks though, the musical drops and there is this rhythm of stopping and starting, just like in a tech rehearsal, where you don't know what will come next, but you pray to Jesus that you can make it through the next scene without someone calling, "HOLD." It would be much easier to analyze The Drowsy Chap. how it is instead of the fictional story because the Man is a choice, and an important one. He is the one who sets the pace and creates this dissonant flow that works for the show.  

Not Two, But Three Viewings

A common subject besides death obviously, is the element of surprise. At the end of each monologue there is a twist at the very end. In the first monologue we find out Emil is actually married. Mac does not steal her grandmother's ring, and Virginia's husband, Ed, leaves her a note that says everything he loved about her. I think the element of surprise is important to take note of because these all stories related to death, but I think it is actually about who these people who died left behind and how much their deaths effect them, so much that their loved ones surprise you. The element of surprise is clear in the duration of each scene. Emil is so focused on Tessie that there is no change when he starts to mention how everyone keeps calling her Terri until the end when he mentions this again, and the fact that his wife is sleeping upstairs. Mac's character comes off as this self absorbed drug addict that no one really questions why until she talks about how she killed her family. And Virgina is so involved with everything going on around her that her dead husband is the one to break her away from everything and helps her remember the good times. Also this chick May-Margaret is featured in every monologue, so she clearly serves a purpose, but what exactly? Maybe she is the one who links all of these stories together.

On The Verge...of killing myself

Image: A picture of inside the depths of a jungle. The jungle floor can be seen on the bottom and there are trees sprouting in different directions, an array of different characters/ objects from the play up in branches, crouching down on the floor, or hiding between the shadows of the branches and leaves. There are savages standing on the left side of the poster. An eggbeater laying on the ground off to the side, a yeti lurking in the shadows in the far right, a coffee pot balancing on a branch in the top right corner, Alphonse trying to climb up a tree, and Troll with his hands out to the sides in the back. Then there are words from the script etched into the bark of the trees, as if to show that there are slightly hidden.

Tag Line: Tone of Voice is Everything.

I chose this particular image for the poster to show the absurdity of how these women encounter all of these people or objects during their adventure throughout the jungle and how strange their world is, but intriguing at the same time. Each character has a purpose in their journey and the reason why I had them in specific places was to show how they encounter them. Some of them are not exact, such as the coffee pot. That is suppose to represent Mr. Coffee. But he is up at the top to be closer to the sky in order to symbolize another life, as if going up the heaven. And the words etched into the bark can be any huge word used within the script.

The tag line fits so well with the script because these women are constantly projecting out these large words and each word has a meaning. Just because they know such fancy words does not mean it can get them through anything, not even a jungle. But using a certain tone just might.

Reflections of a Flickering Flame

Although I am not a particular fan of the first ten monologues, they do serve a purpose. The reason being is that it is a choice to sequence out these monologues in this certain way. They are a background, a backstory, if you will, to what both sides of the crisis went through every day before the riots began. Some of the monologues are even symbolic. For example, the first one, Identity. The interview conducted is asking to define identity in their own words. But I believe it's underlining purpose is to identify the incident. Or the next one, Static. This one is a glance into the Jewish world. I think Smith started off with these so that the reader/audience would not be thrown into one side or another, but instead decide for themselves. What does identity mean to them? What if this had happened in their neighborhood? What kind pf daily activities do they encounter everyday? Smith gave a point of view from every side to help us think for ourselves. She could have easily just begun with Lousy Language and dived right into the whole story, what happened, who said what, etc. Presenting a background allows for a smoother transition, an actual peak at the climax, and ties everything together. Throwing such a intense moment within the first two minutes of a play gives you no room to go anywhere. Everyone is already angry, sad, depressed. It is also hard to get there, to feel you these characters if you don't know what it was like before. It almost becomes too much to deal with. And then it's like you have to pick a side right off the bat. Smith goes with a different approach of saying, "Here's what life was like before. Now look at the change." 

Noises Off

Michael Frayn is brilliant. With that being said, a central motif is interruptions. Each time Lloyd tries to continue on with the production of Nothing On, the doors won't open or close, Selsdon is no where to be found, Brooke loses her contact lens, Garry is struggling to get his point across, or Dotty cannot remember her what props to take off and what to leave on. The motif of interruptions actually ties in with what receives the most stage time which is the personal relationships between the characters themselves. This is interesting to note because it is not the actual script of the play within a play that is focused on, but characters. A tag line that compliments the motif would be "sardines" because every time the word sardines is mentioned, the word signals an interruption. For example, Selsdon's last line in Nothing On is, "a nice plate of sardines" but every time he tries to say it, he forgets which causes an interruption. Other points in the play is in Act One when Dotty cannot remember to take off the sardines or not. Then Garry interrupts the dress rehearsal to point out how the sardines are a pain in the ass. Or in Act Three when the sardines are everywhere and out of place, they mess up the flow of the show and help cause the train wreck at the end.

Glass of Water

-->

-->

Deciding who the protagonist would potentially be is difficult because each character mostly has equal stage time, so it seems as more a collaborative effort from every character. But I chose to delare Abigail and Masham as sharing the role of being the protagonist because of their relationship. Their relationship is constantly overrun by obstacle after obstacle. Abigail finally has been offered a position in the palace by the Queen Anne, so they can finally be together. Then Abigail loses that position because the Duchess claims she is not qualified. Then the Queen decides she can work as a lady in waiting afterall. Masham accidentally kills the dude who always laughs at him and Abigail convinces him that if he loves her, he will leave the country and never return, except he does and risks his life because of his undying love for her. It's like watching a ping pong tournament. They're together, they're not together, so on and so forth. They have the forbidden love thing going for them which helps gain the audience's sympathy vote and hoping that the two love birds will not travel down the Romeo and Juliet path, but make it out alive in the end. Delicious news! Masham and Abigail do indeed because The Glass of Water is a well made play and every well made play is suppose to have a happy ending.  What if this were not a well made play though? I’m curious to know what would happen to our star couple. Would Masham survive or be put to death? Would Bolingbroke have the heart or would it be some kind of Pirates of the Caribbean crossover where Masham is hung, but Bolingbroke actually has a sword for his feet to balance on while he comes to his rescue and the two of them and Abigail disappear into the night?