Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Prompt Eight: Love! Valour! Compassion!

And now for something completely different. We're several steps beyond 1934's Children's Hour with 1994's Love! Valour! Compassion!  In fact, you might even say we're in a whole different worldview, one where thoughts about capital-T Truths and consistent methods for representing that Truth are much changed. 

Suppose a historian centuries in the future reads The Glass of Water and The Children's Hour and concludes (rightly) that these plays emerge from and point to a worldview that affirms bright dividing lines between reality and fantasy, truth and illusion. Furthermore, these plays--by their very structure--seem to reflect a preference for order, cause-and-effect advancement, climactic (obligatory) scenes, and definite conclusions.

Suppose that this future historian then looks at Love! Valour! Compassion! Looking only at the structure and dramaturgical choices in the play, what conclusions about the worldview of the play's culture (USA 1994) might our historian draw? What is this culture's view of capital-T Truth and whether/how artists represent that Truth? What assumptions about theatre and drama seem to be inherent in this play that make it different than well-made plays and their offshoots? What is this play doing that's different from other plays we've read?

JF


Monday, October 21, 2013

Prompt Seven: The Children's Hour

Lillian Hellman represents one of many mainstream US playwrights who have capitalized (in a good way) on the basic well-made play format Scribe originated nearly 100 years before Hellman's Children's Hour.

My question: what do you see as some of the most significant departures from the well-made play form in this play? Identify them, explain how they're departures from well-made play norms, and persuade us that they're especially significant dramaturgical choices.

On a whole other level--and as an optional Question To Consider: while this play once held a solid place in the American literary canon of Great Plays, some feminist and LGBTQ critics have begun to see this as a problematic play for its attitudes toward same-sex female sexuality. To be sure, one can say the play is harder on those who would rush to judgment about lesbian people. It's also true that Hellman is merely reflecting the majority views of her culture.

At the same time, the "tragic lesbian"--a character who loves other women and tragically dies (usually of suicide)--is a well-worn trope in much 20th and 21st-century literature and theatre. It suggests that lesbian love is essentially some kind of incurable, tragic sickness that dooms the sufferer to isolation and an early grave. See, especially, the 1928 novel The Well of Loneliness. There's even a play that parodies that trope by a troupe called the Five Lesbian Brothers: Brave Smiles: Another Lesbian Tragedy.

The question, then: especially as we are increasingly aware of how homophobic attitudes may be contributing to suicides among LGBTQ people, is The Children's Hour a play that ought to be done today? Why or why not? Can you think of other plays that are technically good but that we probably don't or shouldn't produce today?

See you Wednesday,

JF

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Prompt Six: Glass of Water

On Wednesday, we talked about how in the well-made play all the dramaturgical parts fit together tightly.

For the most part, this is the case in The Glass of Water--except for two small moments. Two moments of the version of the script you're reading are not in Scribe's original but are instead slight changes by the translator.

Use your own dramaturgical spidey sense. See if you can identify a moment or small element of this script that doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the play. State your answer and persuade readers why the moments you located don't seem to fit.

The point here is for you to guess and defend on your own. No fair looking up "the right answer" in a book/Google/article!

JF