Show and Tell Post

I really enjoyed reading Alice Gerstenberg’s Overtones, so for my first show and tell post I decided to read another play written by her called Fourteen. Fourteen is a one act play written in 1920. The play is in public domain so it can be easily found online just by googling Alice Gerstenberg’s name. I used this website to read the play: http://www.theatrehistory.com/plays/fourteen.html. I could not find when this play was first produced or how often it is either; however, I did find that the play is being produced at a local restaurants in Queensland, Australia with the Play With Your Food Theatre Company. This particular company has chosen to perform a set a plays while their audience eats dinner. I think that in the case of Fourteen, it is fitting for the audience to be eating dinner while the characters are running around trying to make their own dinner party successful. More information about the Play With Your Food Theatre Company can be found here:http://playwithyourfood.homestead.com/index.html. 

Fourteen tells the comedic story of the makings of a dinner party. Mrs. Pringle has invited many esteemed guests to join her for dinner, but her plans are cursed from the start when one by one the guest lists seems to be growing shorter by the minute because of a nasty blizzard. In a hasty fashion, Mrs. Pringle, along with her daughter Elaine and her butler Dunham, try to salvage the dinner party by inviting more guests as others cancel in order to avoid having  an unlucky thirteen guests or avoid a preposterous seating arrangement of not having Mr. Pringle sit at the head of the table. After loosing Mrs.Pringle looses her cool and swears to never throw a dinner party again, The Prince of Wales shows up to take the place of her most influential guest Mr. Farnsworth, who can no longer make it. The Prince brings his body guard to dinner with him which makes the final count of dinner guest fourteen and perfect.  Mrs. Pringle ends the play by walking off stage with her daughter telling her “I always manage somehow to be the most successful of hostesses! Thank God for the blizzard!” 

When analyzing the script I found many dramaturgical choices but one that stood out most to me was the choice of not showing the dinner party guests.  I believe this choice shows that the focus is not on the actual dinner party or what guests show up, but rather the extreme work it takes to make a successful dinner party happen. This is a significant choice because we, as readers, are shown the chaos and confusion that unfolds before our eyes and that is not shown to the guests. We see the behind the curtain scenes in order to reveal what it takes to put on a good show or in the case of Fourteen a good dinner party. This choice makes the reader understand that there is a clear difference in what the guests see and what actually is happening or how the hostess actually acts when there are not around. Having the readers never meet the guests also leaves us without knowing whether or not the actual dinner was a real success or not. 

Another dramatical choice I found noteworthy would be the choice to have the inciting incident be the first lines spoken in the play. This kicks off the play on what we read to be a downward spiral into one messy dinner party or so we think. The first few lines Mrs. Pringle says to us explain that one person is dropping out of the dinner party so close to dinner time. This causes an uproar because there cannot be thirteen people at the dinner table for this is a bad omen. This is a significant choice to instantly jump into conflict because as the reader is thrown this information, so are the characters hit with it as well. This choice makes the reader have more compassion for what the hostess is going through and makes us understand how off guard the news has thrown her. 

My Comments

http://purplesummer2130.blogspot.com/2013/09/4000-miles.html?showComment=1380070082250#c8549290925185182769

http://jstaff6.blogspot.com/2013/09/night-mother.html?showComment=1380070021805#c6344468058812378602

http://marge2130fall2013.blogspot.com/2013/09/overtones-by-alice-gerstenberg.html?showComment=1380070509571#c7639384357032036079

http://purplesummer2130.blogspot.com/2013/09/night-mother.html?showComment=1380070822505#c8343475337611784102

http://jstaff6.blogspot.com/2013/09/trifles.html?showComment=1380071117472#c7161364730514336595

http://wellhithereyou.blogspot.com/2013/09/trifles.html?showComment=1380331049653#c6309212665401412244

4000 Miles

I believe a powerful motif in 4000 Miles would be one of disconnect. I choose this word because I believe every character has their own way of being disconnected with something or someone or has a disconnection with themselves. For example, I believe Leo is all of the above. He is disconnected from the world when he goes on bike rides for long periods at a time, he is also disconnected from his parents, and disconnected from reality because he believes he is connecting to his girlfriend when she believes they are so disconnected that they need to break up. For vera, we can see a disconnection between her and ginny, they only ever call each other and never just go see each other face-to-face. This personal disconnect pulls them away from each other. Vera also has a disconnect with her memory. She seems to always be forgetting the words she wants to use and instead using the word “Whatamacallit” to trigger her memory. We see that the motif of disconnecting is seen throughout moments between characters and is clearly expressed in the dialogue of the play. 

Judith

I believe the major dramatic question for Judith is, "Will Judith become the type of person she wishes to kill?" And i believe the answer to this is yes. She wants to kill this man but we must wonder, will killing him make her the killing machine she hates most. I believe the reason she begins speaking indignatly and crude towards the servant is because the power of killing Holofrenes made her into a monster like him. We can derive this from the script by looking at the language that Judith uses. Throughout the play we can see Judith's language shifting from more propper to cursing, but we see it greatest and more foul through the difference before and after she kills him.  Towards the end of the script Judith says ,"Well, it has to end at some time, love! But it's smell, in the after hours... Magnificence. (She laughs, with a shudder.)" (Barker 67).  I think this shows the audience how twisted she is after killing a man she could love. She at first regretted it but then is consumed by the power she feels and leaves a different women.  

Night, Mother

I think another Major dramatic question for Night, Mother could be Will Jessie get Mama to understand her decision and let her go peacefully? I believe this serves as a better choice for the major dramatic question (rather than the obvious will jessie commit suicide?)because Jessie has already made up her mind and answered that question before the play begins. She has planned for this day and has been wanting it for a long time now. We see that before she goes she wants her mom to be able to function after she leaves. She wants her to not blame herself and to have one last moment shared between only them to say goodbye. We see this when Jessie tells her mom “I only told you so I could explain it, so you wouldn't blame yourself, so you wouldn't feel bad. There wasn't anything you could say to change my mind. I didn't want you to save me. I just wanted you to know”(Norman 48). To back up why I believe Jessie wants for her mom to let her go peacefully is when she tells her “(Very calm.) Let me go, Mama”(Norman 56). These simple words are begging for her mom to understand and support her decision. We know that this major dramatic question is answered with no. When her mom just can’t let her child take her life and leave her there to pick up the pieces. 

Trifles

I think to propose this play in a minimalistic world with abstract/blank setting will take away how we feel when we see the items in question or when we first see the kitchen untidy and abandoned. I feel as though this version of the play can happen however in my opinion it would lose a piece of why the play hits you as it does. In the script the author tells you in details how things are suppose to look and what the objects look like that are handled. If we change those things we are changing what the playwright originally had wanted for a production and therefore change the mood of how it is interpreted. For example, the box that the bird is kept in should be an elaborate and beautiful box. The script says, " I expect this has got sewing things in it.(brings out a fancy box) What a pretty box" (Glaspell 4). You could argue that the box does not necessarily be pretty if the director were focusing on just the words, however if we are focusing on words AND emotion than that would change the fact that we need a pretty box. I say this because later in the script Mrs. Hale convinces herself that Mrs. Wright could not have killed the bird because of how she put it wrapped in this pretty box. She says, "She liked the bird. She was going to bury it in that pretty box"(Glaspell 5).  This statement means more to the viewers if they can see the box was beautiful and taken care of, rather than it being just a plain ole white box. Seeing the care of how the bird would be buried gives more emotion that having the audience imagining if the box were prettier. Though i would not like a production done in the minimal style for this play, that does not mean that it couldn't be done and still effect other people. I just believe that in doing so, the director is taking away something from what the playwright had intended. 

Overtones

When examining Overtones by Alice Gerstenburg, I believe the inner selves do see each other as seen on page 211 of the script Maggie speaks directly to Hetty and Hetty addresses Maggie as well as seen on page 213. Whether or not the inner selves can hear each other is up for interpretation. When the inner selves talk to each other they often do not answer what is being told by the other inner self, this only changes towards the near end of the play. You can defend the fact that they see each other by looking at the script and noticing the directional notes that are in parenthesis telling the actor who to address when speaking. You cannot however defend them actually hearing what the other is saying by the script alone because we are not specifically told so by the reacting of characters or the responses of what they say. 

To fully immerse yourself in the play you have to accept the rules of their world, in order to know some rules of the world one could look to director’s notes, character descriptions, setting descriptions, and stage directions. Directional notes would give hints as to whether a character is seen/heard in the world of the particular play. We know this because stage directions are instructions for the actor to follow that are written into the script so we know when that character moves or who he/she is addresses specifically. A person in the audience would know if a character is not seen because you would have to have Harriet never look directly at Hetty or notice her when she moves about and the same with Margaret and Maggie. The rules are quite consistent throughout the play that the inner selves are not seen by the other women ;however, again as to if they hear each other is unclear. The effect of consistency throughout the play makes it clearer for us to understand what is occuring in this particular world. I believe that the inner selves reveal what our true mind is thinking, we can hear our true mind and we listen to it ,but we cannot see this voice in our head as an actual being. We know that everyone has an unconsious (id) that is constantly thinking and taking in the world around us, telling us to do  something and not to do something, controlling our actions or at least swaying them in some way. However, no one can read your mind, people cannot communicate with the voice within our head which is why I believe that the inner selves cannot hear each other. I think they talk to each other as if we talk inside our head but still directed at a person. For example, If I am looking at someone and saying “you look nice” but in my head I am thinking “thats an awful top your wearing,” then I would still be looking at this person without saying it aloud so they could not hear me.