Next to Normal Post

In the scoring of the music, Kitt creates tension with faster and higher pitched noises. Most of the time these sounds happen in the music when Diana seems to be mentally unstable. The first song clearly shows this in is Who's Crazy/My Psychopharmacologist and I. There are spiraling sounds and quick shifts of melodies. These reflect Diana's mental state; she is spiraling out of control mentally. The music usually goes to this format when Diana is on the edge is her sanity, and when she seem to be okay, the music calms down to a smoother or more normal format of music.


I also noticed the difference in songs at the beginning and at the end. The first song that includes the whole family is upbeat, but is still tense. It gives a feeling of holding back, like there is a burden that needs to be lifted. Then it comes to a point where their voices overlap and the music intensifies and suddenly stops, leaving the audience with an uneasy feeling with no resolution. This reflects their feelings about their issues at this point. In the end, Diana finally has a song where she is relaxed. She has to go through the steps of treatment to reach a more sane state. Comparing the beginning and ending songs, I feel that Diana has made good progress. And it shows in her last song. The music is more controlled and calm. It is slower, but it feels more positive than her other songs. It is a release for her, which Yorkey makes clear in the lyrics, “But I’ll be free…I’ll take a chance on leaving…it’s time for me to fly.”

Checkpoint 3 Comments

http://stephanies-script-speculations.blogspot.com/2013/12/tis-pity-shes-whore.html?showComment=1386390500214#c871865207358307319

http://stephanies-script-speculations.blogspot.com/2013/11/house-of-trials.html?showComment=1386391887525#c9153064230002140813

http://themoniquemccain.blogspot.com/2013/12/tis-pity-shes-whore.html?showComment=1386480998023#c8067672409419268217

http://shequila2130scriptanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/12/next-to-normal-by-brian-yorkey-and-tom.html?showComment=1386481710450#c5545618071174580403

http://purplesummer2130.blogspot.com/2013/12/show-and-tell-blog-post-alice.html?showComment=1386482426437#c1764013304835569887

http://anonymouslyanalyzingampleautographs.blogspot.com/2013/12/next-to-normal.html?showComment=1386483220188#c855885620309562714

'Tis Pity She's a Whore Post

In this play, Ford shows many relationships that do not work or cannot work. Secrets often have the characters reaching for a goal that they cannot achieve. Giovanni and Annabella want to be with each other, knowing it is wrong, and have to find a way around their secret. Soranzo requests for Annabella's hand in marriage, in which Giovanni later ends their relationship to protect his honor. These are just the main examples of how relationships are attempted but cannot be fully connected.

With this observation, I think the poster should be two hands reaching out to each other. It would symbolize Annabella's hand and Giovanni or Soranzo's hand (or any couple's hands in the play) that want to make a connection but can't seem to reach far enough to touch. The color scheme should be dark colors to show deep passion and emotions. I see the woman’s hand having a black or red glove on. The protection of the glove shows that she is protected by a secret. Black, to me, is a color of death and red would represent blood or love/passion.

One quote that can go with this poster is, “Lost, I am lost.” Giovanni says this in the struggle of being in love with his sister and knowing it is wrong. Also, Soranzo quotes out of a book he is reading, “Love’s measure is extreme, the comfort, pain, the life unrest, and the reward distain.” The poster with this quote will show the yearning for love and the extremes that come with it when love cannot be satisfied. Another catchphrase for this production could be, “There’s mystery in that which time must show.” Richardetto says this when he questions Philotis about the truth of Annabella’s love for Soranzo. This foreshadows the reveal of Annabella and Giovanni’s secret.

House of Trials Post

When reading House of Trials, I noticed a few patterns. If I had to say what I thought comedias were just by reading this play, I would say that some of its conventions include love and breaking the fourth wall.

There is a bundle of confusion on who loves who and who knows who. There is a thick concentration on relationships and how these characters connect. We find out Dona Ana is trying to get away from Don Juan and really loves Don Carlos, who elopes with Dona Leonor, who Dona Ana's brother, Don Pedro, wants to marry...and so on...which all starts with Dona Pedro plotting to win over Dona Leonor hand in marriage. (Breath.) It all seems to revolve around love or the fight satisfy love.

Many times, the characters break the fourth wall and include the audience in on their side thoughts. It's as if the characters are speaking to us for our sympathy or understanding. For example, Celia says aside, "It's a good thing I heard about this now, because I've hidden Don Juan in her room." She already knows this, of course, but she says it aside to inform the audience. Also for sympathy, we hear Dona Ana say, "Oh God! What is this I hear? The same man I idolize is in love with Leonor." We hear several of their thoughts to inform us of their true feelings and plots.

Show and Tell Post - My Left Breast

My Left Breast was written by Susan Miller in 1970. It was produced a few times (in 1995 and 1996)by Watermark Theatre in New York City by unknown venues. It can be found here:
http://solomon.wodr.alexanderstreet.com.libezp.lib.lsu.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/getobject.pl?c.1174:2.word

This is a one-act, one woman play is done by Susan, herself. She starts off by briefly talking about the transition from having both breast to having to get her left one removed because of cancer. Her and her son, Jeremy are close and she speaks about how having cancer and this major surgery affects him too; because of his mom's struggle, he starts to feels as if he had an illness too. She clearly can't forget what he said when she first told him about getting her breast removed. He says, "I'm going to get it back for you!" (He was eight at the time). Throughout the play, she talks about her relationships with her family, her hardships with cancer, and her lost love life and being a lesbian.
Towards the end, she sums up her struggle with saying, "Goodbye Franny. Goodbye my friend. Goodbye my left breast, Goodbye my infant son. Goodbye my period. Goodbye 35. Goodbye old neighborhood. Your doctor says "It's Positive." Your lover says, "It's over." And you say goodbye to the person you thought you were." Even though these were not pleasant moments, she looks at all the positive things that are going well and realizes that her missing breast makes her heart a little closer to the open air and more vulnerable. She says, "I cherish this scar. It's a mark of experience. It's the history of me, a permanent fix on the impermanence of it all."

In her writing, Miller has a sort of sloppy style. Meaning, it is not the simple cause-and-effect follow through. Often times, she jumps from time to time. There are no stage directions or explanations that tell you that she has moved on to a new thought. You kind of have to figure it out for yourself. It is very out of order. She may be talking about her son when he was twelve, then she will jump to talking about Franny (her previous lover), then she will go back to Jeremy right after he was born. She touches on everything she wants to share, but it seems like she says it whenever it pops into mind with no clear transitions.
Another choice that Miller makes is when she shows dialogue for the other people she talks about. When she speaks about another person, she actually shares the interaction with the audience and speaks as if she were them. For example, Miller shares the time when the doctor suspected a health problem. She actually speaks as the doctor and herself, bringing back that exact moment:
He said, "What have you been told?"

"Fibroadenoma," I say.

"Well, I'm concerned," he said. "I want to biopsy it."
I like this choice of involving the other people. It doesn't make the play so one-sided. It gives some life of her world or the world of the play.

The Children's Hour Post

For the most part, I think that this play does represents a well-made play structure. The plot revolves around the "secret" that Mary makes up about Karen and Martha, along with the audience later learning Martha's secret. There is a long, chunky exposition. There are quick timing of entrances and exits and all that other good stuff. However, the things that depart from this structure are small but still make a difference.
For example, I don't feel like there was a logical resolution for everyone. Maybe Karen feels that she is going to be okay and have a happy ending down the line, after grieving for Martha; Mrs. Tilford says that she can't send Mary away and will endure Mary's bad behavior; and Martha has just ended it all. But Joe is left to staying in the dark about what the real truth is and hearing it from Mrs. Tilford.
Also, I don't think there is a just-in-time revelation. After Martha reveals her true feelings to Karen, she feels as if it is over for her now, and no one can end this situation but herself. Martha - "In some way I've ruined your life. I've ruined my own...I can't stay with you anymore, darling." Mrs. Tilford comes in just after the right time to redeem herself, and maybe Martha would have felt like she had a choice to stay then.
I do think that this is a play that could be done today. It would show the seriousness of the matter and the affects it could have on people when not handled with consideration and care to people's personal feeling and thoughts on the subject.

Checkpoint II Comments

http://stephanies-script-speculations.blogspot.com/2013/11/love-valour-compassion.html?showComment=1383706754587#c2248665366442570053

http://silencewillfallwhenthequestionisasked.blogspot.com/2013/10/childrens-hour.html?showComment=1383715899457#c711038361070547437

to be continued...

Love! Valour! Compassion!

First off, I will start off with my personal thoughts:

I won't say that I don't like this play (even though I really don't), but I will say that it was challenging. I was very confused for a while on the writing style he uses. Characters seem to jump in and out of scenes that they are not really in. It is only as I read a lot further that I realized lines do overlap from different scenes (and we are not warned). It also took me a while to find out who was who, and who was a couple or not a couple. It was stressful y'all.


This play is far off from a well-made play. Even though there are three acts, there is no secret the plot revolves around, no defined obligatory scene, no logical resolution, and there is no clear cause-and-effect moments; it is non-linear. It's kind of a slice-of-life play. Everything revolves around the relationships and encounters these men have during their summer holidays.

I think this historian would also notice these non-well-made play attributes. In contrary to The Children’s Hour, the historian would probably be shocked by how the acceptance of homosexuality is normal in this world.

The capital-T Truth in this world, I think, is their view of what they think feels right from their own perspective – modern era truth. The relationships vary in length and faithfulness. Arthur and Perry have been together the longest, Gregory and Bobby have a relationship that was tested by Bobby’s temptation with Ramon, and Buzz and John have some kind of desire for each other on their own. The Truth seems to come from human point of view, where a modern way of living is fully accepted.

Show and Tell Assignment 1

Fourteen by Alice Gerstenberg

Fourteen is a one act play, written in 1919, published in 1920. I couldn't really find any big productions of this play. I saw there were a view videos posted of the play but they seemed to be done on small levels, like high schools. This script can be found on many different sites. But this is the site I used:
http://solomon.wodr.alexanderstreet.com.libezp.lib.lsu.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/getobject.pl?c.728:2.word
This characters in this play are Mrs. Horace Pringle, her daughter Elaine and their butler, Dunham. The setting is at their home in New York in the dining room (some time in the 20s-30s). Mrs. Pringle is planning an important dinner party with the table set specifically for fourteen. She is very anxious about it because she knows she is inviting highly-spoken-of people and she wants to continue to impress everyone. Throughout the play she keeps bringing up, "I've such a reputation for being a wonderful hostess". In contrast to Mrs. Pringle wanting all her plans to work out perfectly, several guest decline their invitation at the last minute due to conflicts. This leaves Mrs. Pringle in dismay and agitation as Elaine and Dunham try to help her keep fourteen at the dinner party.

Instead of the play starting off with an introduction point, it immediately goes into Mrs. Pringle saying the one of the members from her dinner party will not be attending. Part of her first line is, "I don't approve of young men refusing dinner invitations at the very last minute." The plot is very quick with high tension levels. The actual time taken up in this moment is probably no longer than about 15 minutes. Within this time, the number of guest goes below, above and right back on track with the number they initially want to dine. I think the choice of starting the plot right in this moment helps the audience to feel and understand the urgency of the matter. It already feels last minute to have the reader begin at this point in the story. As I was reading it, I felt as if I were too late in the story, like I was behind in what was going on (last minute).

Another noteworthy choice is the fact that you (I, reader) also get frustrated like Mrs. Pringle does with the multiple changes in the number of guests. She says as the telephone continues to ring with approvals and disapprovals of invites, "Now what? Don't answer it! It's driving me mad-- ". I got more and more anxious about if they will end up with enough guests or not and if the most important people will be there. Mrs. Pringle keeps worrying about Elaine sitting next to Oliver Farnsworth (a very important guest), saying, "...just a match for you, Elaine -- and I was bound you should meet him and sit next to him at the table, and now I don't know when I can give you a chance like that again! I'm perfectly furious -- I'll never speak to him again!" Just when Mrs. Pringle has had it with everyone, the disappointing Oliver sends the Prince of Wales instead and she has changed all her previous comments into positive ones. I was very relieved, as was all the other characters, when fourteen guest did show up, and they even had a guest that was better than any other news. All fell apart quick and threw Mrs. Pringle for a loop, but surprisingly turned out better than just right in the last minute.

The comment place

http://kamrink.blogspot.com/2013/09/overtones-response.html

http://stephanies-script-speculations.blogspot.com/2013/09/4000-miles.html#comment-form

http://stephanies-script-speculations.blogspot.com/2013/09/judith_17.html

http://shequila2130scriptanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/09/trifles-by-susan-glaspell.html#comment-form

http://blessserene.blogspot.com/2013/09/overtones.html#comment-form

http://stephanies-script-speculations.blogspot.com/2013/09/trifles.html?showComment=1380398649341#c5790661707628911980

4000 Miles Post

For a while, it was very unclear to me why Leo is there. By the end, there still isn't a direct/clear reason for his appearance at Vera's place. Different people and situations are brought up during his stay but there isn't one specific event that gives him this excuse for showing up. However, I think all of them make one big reason for him to get away; or maybe even one event being the reason for the other that lead him to be at his Grandma's.
For example, a major touchy subject to Leo is when he kissed his sister. That discomfort and guilt probably lead him to want to do this biking trip with his friends to get away from his displeased family. Preparing for the trip he says that his girlfriend backs out on him because of school. This disappoints him too. Topping it all off, his friend is suddenly killed on the trip, leaving him with only the memory of how it happened. Not to mention that his used-to-be girlfriend Rebecca doesn't want to be with him anymore. And then, his Grandma's neighbor dies.
With all of these events occurring, I believe there is a pattern of, whaddayacallit, death. Or maybe just some kind of ending. Leo has to get over the fact that a relationship with his sister and family back home is damaged, somewhat over, because of what he did. He has to deal with the death of his friend. Also, the end of a relationship with Rebecca. And now, the end of his Grandma's closest friend. All of these relationships that mattered to Leo and Vera had to come to an end.
It seems as if Leo not only took a long journey physically to get to Vera's, but also a long journey mentally to be where he is now.

Judith Post

As I was reading through the first half of this play, I was very confused on the real reason for Judith being there. There is a lot of back and forth of if Judith is going to sleep with Holofernes or not, or if she even really wants to. From early on, I would keep asking myself what Judith wants from him and it continued to change. First I was thinking she wants to go there to speak about death so that she can show him she had a connection and he would like her back. At that point, the MDQ was will Holofernes accept her plea for another love companion.
Then I thought about why Judith would want someone who is so adamant about killing so many people. And why does Judith come at this time, so close to the battle? I then start to think that maybe Judith want to be a part of Holofernes's plan.
Then again, they go back to talking about love and Holofernes opens up to Judith. I think MDQ now is, will Judith change his mind about the battle?
After getting through the whole play, I realized that their declaring of love isn't the clearest but it is definitely no more now. Judith starts off as a widowed seducer who wants to connect with the soon-to-be murderer Holofernes to try to stop him from killing, but surprisingly ends as the murderer herself.
So I guess that real MDQ is, will Judith win the power for her people?

Trifles Blog Post

I think this proposal would be interesting to test. For all visuals to be neutral would mean for each audience members' mind to add it's own artistic elements. Just by reading me reading the play, I could already imagine what everything would look like and what color it would be. I can see how this can distract a spectator from the actual text. Sometimes it's more of scenery or visuals that catch someone's attention. If those fillers weren't there, then this would leave the audience to pay more attention and be captured by the text and message/story, or maybe even realize and understand what is really happening. After putting the image of a neutral stage in my mind and then going over the text again, I got a little more clarification on a few things. For example, I understood better the reason for the accusation of Mrs. Wright killing her husband when the bird was found with a wrung neck. At first I thought maybe Mrs. Wright had another personal problem and she killed both of them. Then when I took out all of the other distractions of how everything would look, the text became clearer to me quicker than it did before. However, I do believe that this staging of the play would take away creativity and something pleasing to the eye. But like I said previously it would challenge the audience to create different colors or images in their minds. It could either be really boring or really interesting.

Overtones Blog Post

 I think Maggie and Hetty represent the true colors, while Margaret and Harriet are the pride, hiding reality. Just by reading the script it seems as if Hetty and Maggie are mostly talking to themselves or just putting information out in the open. However, I do think that there are moments when they do speak to each other. But for the most part I don't feel like they can see/hear each other. The stage directions might say that they are speaking to each other but I think they are responding to each other because they are both thinking the same thing. It just happens to sound like they are speaking directly to one another in conversation.
 The only moment I feel like the two alter-egos see or hear each other is in the final goodbyes when they start with "I hate you!" In this moment, they both got what they wanted from each other and didn't even know it. And since they got what they wanted, it seems as if they are being extra nice to each other. The faker Harriet and Margaret are to each other, the stronger their inner selves are. And in that moment I felt that they could both sense that false interaction, therefore their inner selves could interact - like their true colors are showing through. I also feel like Maggie and Hetty are also fighting/speaking to Margaret and Harriet (Maggie to Harriet, Hetty to Margaret) in this scene. But, of course, Margaret and Harriet cannot hear the alter egos of the other person.