"Top" boys.....

I'm not going to lie, I got really bored reading this play. I liked it, and the ideas David Mamet had  put forth, but am just not very interested in this theme. I love Mamet's plays ( like Oleana), so I was very excited to become equated with this one. It was horrifying to see the relationships that exist in sales firms like the one here. It is such an ugly business, where everyone is for themselves only, doing anything to get ahead. They have to lie to their potential clients to make their money. Their world is based on manipulations and scams. Mamet explosively criticizes that sort of work ethics. But it is true that you have to be brutal and heartless in that industry.  I know I would never be able to do that, because that goes against by personal moral code.

Top Guys?

This play was completely confusing to me. I did not like the way it was written. The characters, I'm guessing, are supposed to be cutting each other off in their dialogue but it just didn't "flow well" to me. In top girls, many women were bickering back and forth all at once and it still seemed real and natural. I suppose this story was more so written to be performed. I'm sure it would be much easier to understand and work much better if it were actually coordinated and spoken out loud. I did notice that it was similar to Top Girls but instead with all males. This play was about being the best, or being "on top" and how having a way with words can aid that. Speech and being able to convince and persuade others is a large aspect to gaining success. Profanity was pretty prominent in the play, being introduced to the reader in the first few lines. The profanity in this play definitely took me by surprise. This is the first play that kind of pushed it with cursing. I suppose the profanity in a way added to the masculinity of the play. This play was not really my favorite, It was somewhat confusing to read and did not really interest me.

Glengarry Glen Rose blog

Glengarry Glen Rose was difficult to read with all of the broken and interrupted dialogue. To be quite honest I was completely confused. This play also had a lot of profanity in it, which is something we haven’t seen in most of the plays. It is also a cast of all men no females.

I feel as if his play would be easier to watch than it was to read. Just like the last two plays we read I guess this play can be considered Epic theatre because I definitely did not make any types of connections with any of the characters. Though, I was confused while reading it I can state that some of it reminded me of Top Girls. The idea of doing whatever it takes to be at the top. Capitalism fosters greed in this play just as it did in Top Girls. It is interesting to see it from a man’s perspective versus a female’s perspective as in Top Girls. I am pretty sure the men in the class will have a lot of comments to make on this subject.

A Confusing play

In my opinion, this play was very difficult to read. I believe that it would be easier to watch this play rather than read it. At times I was very confused and had a hard time distinguishing the meaning behind some of the dialogue. I also found that many of the characters represented a significant entity in society.
I thought that the entire play was a negative commentary on the effects of capitalism and greed. I felt that the Author of this play, Mamet paid close attention to human behavior which made the play very believable but still confusing.

And that's our life. That's it. Where is the moment?

David Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross, for all the hype that I feel surrounds it and him, was truly a let-down. The most that I could find to appreciate was how the piece felt so much more modern than prior plays we have read. Like Top Girls and True West, something in the dialogue and the settings gives the impression that the piece was written for television. While Ibsen, such as in Hedda Gabler, might have appreciated the pauses that characterized the speech patterns of the early twentieth century, Mamet manages to capture the overlapping nature of contemporary conversation, a concept that Churchill seemed to recognize and yet negatively associate solely with women.

However, the plot (if you can find it) left much to be desired. Essentially, four salesmen hate the company that they work for and are either trying to outsell one another or plot the downfall of the company. While such loathing of one’s employers is an easily relatable topic, I am afraid it cannot constitute an entire storyline, and if it can, Mamet does a terrible job of trying. The play does not seem to be isolationist theatre, however it is impossible to feel anything towards any of the characters. Moss and Roma are simultaneously obnoxious and oily; Levene is desperate; Lingk and Aronow are naïve and pitiful; Williamson and Baylen are (for lack of a better term) assholes. A majority of the dialogue, specifically when Moss or Roma speak, is repetitive or, worse, altogether pointless. The first act was conveniently to the point in setting up the characters, albeit Scene 3 was ridiculously difficult to read, but the second act, which was almost twice as long, was truly boring. In all honesty, I have no idea how it all ends, except that Roma is still self-deluded and intolerable. Overall, I prefer to think Mamet must have better work than this to have earned the reputation that precedes him.

Not Bad

I found this play extremely interesting. I liked following the different men and their interactions with each other. The style reminded me highly of Waiting for Godot because of the way there was very little movement written in the play. The characters and sets were also barely described. Not describing the characters at all left room for casting giving anyone a chance to be a character which I liked. I was never a fan of strict appearance unless it was necessary. The lack of description was a mixed blessing I think. The set designers could create whatever they wanted as long as it went with the location described in the brief phrase before the scene starts. However, the fact that it did leave so much room for creativity can sometimes be difficult because set designers can do whatever. The lack of action probably was to let the actors do what was natural to them which would then appear natural on the character.However, while reading it, the play sometimes seemed to be a little boring because in my mind the characters looked too stationary at times. Besides that, the play was cleverly written and the characters were "real" businessmen acting as corrupted businessmen would. The ending was odd though and left me on a weird note. I would have liked to see all of the story instead of just having it cut off like that instead of having to imagine it. Either way, I enjoyed the play, and I can live with imagining what happens after.

Talking the talk

This play is so refreshing from Top Girls the other week. I thought it was clever and interesting to read. Even though I said it was interesting, I did get bored at some parts. The fact that it was written like True West helped a lot. I liked how Mamet wrote the play. It was all about the talk between people, essentially the back and forth. It nice for it to be short since there was only two acts. I also thought it was peculiar that the second act was drastically long, but it was necessary for the climax of the whole play.

The characters were equally interesting because you could clearly tell who were the strong salesmen, the weak salesmen, and the people they resented. Levene just reeked of desperation and I pitied him the most. It was sad to see that he had a great career but then lost it from the bad streak and robbing the office. Moss was fun to read just because he was so good with his wording to back Aaronnow into possibly robbing the bank. Roma was also fun to follow. He was my favorite because of his elaborate sale to Lingk and how he improvised the whole Dr. Ray Morton out of air to make Lingk believe that he was actually doing something important instead of avoiding the whole situation.

The basic messages I got out of this play were the importance of how to talk and success versus failure in the business world. The importance of talking involves how to talk to people to persuade them that they need what the salesman is selling. That essentially determines the success or failure of the salesmen. If they can’t give a good speech or out-wit a person, they won’t be able to make a sale.

Costs of being "on top".

Ok, I definitely loved Churchill's idea to have different women from different centuries and having a diner together as one of the scenes. I thought it was a very cool concept. I liked the play, and i think it is sort of relative to today. But I do think that she exaggerated  to say that women that achieved success pay a cost of not having a family, only broken relationships. I do not think it is entirely true.  I believe it is possible to try to manage your personal life and career. Now, I do agree with the author in the fact that most of the successful woman do not have children. I think children deserve and ultimately receive a lot of sacrifice and limitless dedication. As a career oriented person ( at least right now), I do not plan to have children myself. Especially in this artistic industry, become I an actress,  a playwright,  a director, or all the above. However I do want  to continue to have a deep loving relationship in my life. I do think to love and to be loved in return is an essential core part of a happy life. Over all this play touches the most feminist issues that are still actual today. Like advising a young woman who is looking for a job, not to tell the potential interviewer that she is engaged ( because it is assumed that women have children right after getting married). There are many more aspects of an unfair battles of competing for the positions that men intend to have. I cant wait to talk about it in class.

Top Girls

This play was interesting in a lot of ways. I liked how it started it off with strong women from throughout different cultures. Gret was absolutely hilarious because I felt like she was so old and out of it, but she was a strong feminist at heart. I also liked Joan just because she got away with pretending to be the pope, I'm sorry but that is all sorts of badass. The first scene was obviously there to show the differences between submissive women and strong women who don't let men hinder their success. They were all very interesting women. I didn't think the whole play was going to be about Marlene and the positive/ negative aspects of her success. Her daughter Angie actually quite scared me at times. She was thick but murderous for something she would never achieve. I still wonder if she ended up killing Joyce. I honestly liked the fight in the last scene with Joyce and Marlene because that underlined the whole point of the play: the women who don't care for the power and those women that do. I loved Marlene's character for her ballsy ways and getting things done, but she didn't have anything else to live for, which in the end saddens me. She obviously won't be able to help Angie, much less take care of her. I would've loved to know what happened after the play ended.

Not a top Play

Top Girls was to me a very odd play. I enjoyed the first act because it gave the history of all these women, and they all had very interesting stories. Although, reading the lines correctly gave me a headache every now and then, and I think hearing it live would be ridiculous because everyone speaks over one another. I also had the problem of forgetting who was who because of how they overlapped one another and the dialogue never stopped. I also did not know if the women were alive or dead at first. It becomes apparent that they are dead, but I then I began to wonder where they were and why they were together in the first place. I also did not understand why the first act was in the play in the first place and why only Marlene appeared again, but the other women were never heard of again. Reading other people's blogs, I see that the first act was suppose to get the point across that women are better than men, but I still do not see that very well. The rest of the play was alright, but it was not the best. The fact the Marlene was Angie's mother was interesting, but not enough that I was engrossed in the play. I very bored with it at times and found myself skimming some of the pages because I stopped caring. I would have rather read a play about the women at dinner. They seemed way more interesting than Angie and her problem.

Top ladies, not mennnnn

In the play Top girls, by Caryl Churchill is very oddly written play. In the start of my reading, I was very confused as to whether or not the characters were actually alive on earth, or dead in another planet, honestly. There were so many characters that I also had trouble distinguishing who was who, and what roles they held. Also, while I was reading and the script progressed, I never quite understood the first act, why all these women were together talking about their past and all these lovers they had, and their dramatic stories. I thought it was odd to bring these women up and then drop them all over again. Then I realized its because as the play moved on, it kept displaying the same type of message, that men are ideally better than women. Women cannot be a boss over a man because that would be unacceptable, and women can only be so smart. I also found it very sad that Marlene gave her daughter to her sister, and her sister Joyce doesn’t even properly take care of her. She puts her down, treats her of dumb, and does not seem to love her as her own child. Overall, this play is creative but very special. I can’t quite say I enjoyed reading it… It was very long and kind of hectic and boring all at the same time.

Freud would have a field day with this one.

Caryl Churchill, through Top Girls, takes a blow at feminism that not even the existence of Sarah Palin could match. In Churchill’s mind, apparently, women in businesses are, more or less, jokes of society, whether they be power-hungry, child-abandoning, self-empowered women (such as Marlene, Nell, or Wynn) or scheming, slightly-stupid underage runaways (such as Shona or Angie). As a matter of fact, she takes stabs at womanhood in general with her stereotypical portrayals of the tragically-unhappy-with-her-predetermined-position-in-life, control freak Joyce (and Pope Joan) and the desperate, subservient housewife Mrs. Kidd (and Griselda). Following this theme, Nijo is irrationally accepting of her position as a full-bred prostitute, Isabella Bird is seen as eventually accepting her place as a housewife in the British Isles, and Dull Gret, who I would not be shocked to learn was Churchill’s disgusting attempt at a homosexual character, was both boorishly male-hating and only capable of occasional caveman-inspired outbursts of dialogue. The disgusting menstruation reference between Kit and Angie seems to be further evidence of Churchill's own self-loathing for her sex.

That being said in concerns to the subject matter itself, let me turn attention to her pretentiously specific speech patterns. I have never seen a playwright make such a deal out of overlapping dialogue as Churchill did in this. I can only think that this was saying that women are too busy speaking over one another to listen and get anything accomplished. Considering she was a successful female herself, I have to imagine this was a poor attempt at self-satire and not truly a social commentary on the inadequacies of women.

TOP GIRLS!

In Churchill’s Top Girls I found the relationship between the woman and their men in the beginning very interesting: all of the women are either historical, mythical, or fictional characters who suffered adversity to live the life she wanted. At the dinner table the conversation amongst the reveals instances of suffering and loss. Isabella's adventures hinder her from enjoying and forming close relationships though she experiences short periods of agony when she returns home between her travels. Nijo gave up three of her children because they were not the Emperor’s seed and was denied the privilege of seeing her father on his death bed. Gret lost children in a murderous invading army. Pope Joan pretended to be a man so long that she lost her female identity. She was stoned to death when a disastrous child birth was revealed. Griselda was forced to prove her loyalty to her husband by allowing her children killed and denying the privileges of her position. This scene points in the direction of where the play leads. I thought it was interesting how the author was able to incorporate the first scene with the theme of the entire plot.

FamILY

In this most recent play, I really loved it!!!! While reading this play, I noticed that in the beginning how much I was attracted to a particular character, Austin over Lee. I thought that Austin was a good person, and hard working. He seemed to have many good qualities such as him being diligent, creative, and the 'good son.' While Austin holds the better image, Lee is slowly ruining his character. He is the total opposite of his brother, and seems to only have grotesque qualities. He is fat, unemployed, a thief, and uneducated. While Austin has a job and the american dream life, Lee is the classic white hillbilly trash. I first thought that Lee was the most single annoying person that hangs around to annoy his brother, he's like the little pest outside, crickets. He doesn't seem to want to do anything other than complicate his brothers life. When Mr. Kimmer comes into the scene, and Lee walks in around six and interrupts their meeting, I was for sure that he was trying to ruin the business plan between Austin the the Manager. But I keep getting surprised when different events pop up and become successive. At first, I was very surprised that Lee and Mr. Kimmer went and played golf together, and I was even more surprised and pleased when the business deal between them kicked off. As the Western is the soul idea of Lee, and he being so uneducated and producing a better product than his Austin, becomes an unbearable thought for him. I though at this moment when Austin does not support Lee, that he was selfish and un-wanting for his brother to succeed. When this happens I can't believe it because in family, I think that people should support each other in order for happiness to be a acquired. As all this happened, then I realized that Lee is the brother that earned my respect, and the brother that deserved success and happiness the most. I really liked reading this play, because it was easy to understand and very entertaining.

Picasso's in town, isn't that incredible?

Samuel Shepherd’s True West had a “certain ring of truth” to it, did it not? The bitter sibling rivalry, life’s unfair ironies, the incessant background noises; True West is realism at its finest. Shepherd ensured the play would remain his own with exceptionally demanding and specific stage directions even going so far as to implicitly order that the director not take any sort of creative license in regards to the costumes or set design. Admittedly, I felt terrible for Austin’s regression of character, watching his insecurities manifest themselves in his own utter self-destruction. Meanwhile Lee clearly demonstrates issues of feeling abandoned, presumably by their alcoholic father, and acts out upon this feeling, all the while developing his father’s vice. While I found Lee’s inadequacies to be fueled by immaturity and self-pity, I could easily relate to the motivating factor in Austin’s demise, watching someone so miserably undeserving as Lee so casually receive the reward Austin had been so laboriously working towards his entire life. The minor absurdist element, the mother, was probably my favorite character for her unparalleled comic relief in what had otherwise turned from quaint, sitcom-inspired banter into a maddeningly tense exchange of drunken ramblings and misdeeds. I do admit that I found the character of Saul Kimmer frustrating, as I could not quite understand how he so easily allows himself to be fooled by Lee, even with respect to, if not especially because of, the slimy-Hollywood-agent stereotype. However, such a small suspension of disbelief is acceptable in such a notably fantastic piece, and I am truly excited to watch the movie.

True West

In life, some say that we are provided the opportunity to choose our own path. Others say that society and genetics set ones actions into motion. In True West, Sam Shepherd explores both of these ideas. He builds upon the idea that we are who we make ourselves. Then, in one exacting blow after another, he tears that narrative down by exposing the truth; that we are who we are and nothing we do can change that. Brothers, Austin and Lee, at first seem as different as two people could possibly be. Austin is the example of what happens when one applies himself in school, gets an education and works hard at his craft. He has managed to escape an alcoholic father and an uninvolved mother. Lee is the underachiever. He is the man who has let his past dictate who he is now. He hates his father but hates even worse, the idea that he has become him. As we see the brothers interact, we are first shown the ocean of difference that separates the two. Lee is tormented by his brothers success which he feels has just come to Austin with no real effort. Austin is jealous of the easy going life Lee seems to lead. Shepherd uses the desert, Lee’s former home to symbolize a wasted life. Their father has wasted away there and so has Lee. Austin pleads with Lee to take him to the desert. At that moment, we see Austin coming to terms with who he is. Lee tells him over and over again that the desert is not for him and that his place is right where he is. The standoff at the end is a powerful sequence in which we are granted to opportunity to think about who we are. True West is a manic tutorial in human behavior and the belief that we do not fall far from the tree.

A Deeper Meaning

True West by Sam Shepard was an engaging and generally easy read. At many instances in the text, I found myself trying to find a deeper meaning for many of the incidence that took place. I came to the conclusion that the entire play is a portrayal of an intricate power struggle. The characters, Lee, Austin, Kimmer, and Mom, are all very disconnected from the outside world, but play important roles in the shifts in power within the play. One of the first and most recurring examples of this is seen when Lee asks Austin for the keys to his car. At this point in the play, Austin is portrayed as the level headed brother who went to and “Ivy League” school, while Lee is portray as nomadic and frivolous. The car keys are a symbol of Austin’s independence and self –consciousness. Lee would like to acquire the same amount of independence that his brother has, but resents Austin for being more well off than he is. The second example of a power struggle is seen when Kimmer comes to the house to speak with Austin about his screenplay. Lee immediately finds a way to associate with Kimmer and he accomplishes this through a game of golf. After Lee is able to convince Kimmer to invest in his story idea, there is a complete shift in character roles: Austin becomes the irresponsible drunk, while Lee tries to concentrate on efficiently writing a script. Austin may be more intellectual in theory, but Lee is a master manipulator who knows how to work any situation to his favor. I found Mom’s character impartial and passive, which perplexed me to know end. I think that her character is portrayed in this manner to further highlight sheer dysfunction in the family structure.

The apple never really falls to far from the tree

Usually when a person despises another person it is because they can see a little of themselves in that person. This play reminded me of Spinning into Butter in the sense that the main character is never seen on stage. In Spinning into Butter the main character Simon was never shown just like “the old man” is never shown in True West. Yet his absence in his son’s lives is what causes most of the uproar between the two. Austin or Lee does not want to be like their father but are not strong enough to break the generational curse that he has on them. By the end of the play they both seek isolation which is what the desert symbolizes. “Going to the desert means officially abandoning the American Dream and the false hope it represents.”
In the past few plays we have read they all have involved “The American Dream”. I should say they involved “The American Nightmare”. These plays portray the image of everyone trying to achieve the American Dream because it is what is culturally acceptable, but in the end everything turns out all wrong. If I did not get any other message from reading these plays I have definitely learned that “Being you” and living within your means is what will truly make you happy. We cannot worry about trying to please our neighbors because in reality they are trying to please us.

True west was an interesting read. Some scenes were amusing but others puzzling. It was very funny when Lee returned home with a stolen television and he told Saul Kimmer that he “just got Austin’s color T.V. back from the shop.” Both of the boys later become drunk and everything becomes a competition to the two of them. They do some pretty hilarious drunken acts but it began to seem like they were acting a bit crazy. Austin started to express that he was tired of his boring life and would like to live free like Lee does but Lee only denies that Austin would be able to last trying to live like Lee. It was so funny when Austin tried to prove he can be bad and steals a bunch of toasters. Austin and Lee switched roles mid-play. Austin became the uncontrollable drunk and Lee the more mature acting one. Lee was just trying to write his own screen play and Austin was acting like a fool. There were very emotional times, the brothers were constantly fighting and yelling at each other. They were drunk and winey as well. I wondered about the mother, if she was crazy or not. She returned home to a destroyed house and had very little to say about it, her plants were dead, she thought Picasso was alive and at a museum giving out autographs, and her sons were killing each other and all the time she remained calm and tranquil. I found it all strange but amusing at the same time.

Normal People

I'm not going to lie and say that True West was my favorite play. In fact, I was bored with it sometimes. The play seemed more of a slice of life for the first half. The second half was more active which kept me interested at least. The brothers' argument and little contest kept me interested, and I was amused to see that Austin had indeed succeeded in stealing multiple toasters. Austin was my favorite of the two brothers at first just because he seemed more normal, but Lee never tried to hurt his brother like Austin did despite his harsh nature. Saul was a character that I found to be just a regular businessman that lost a bet, but it seemed to work out for him anyway unless he lied about the other companies. Really the brothers were two normal brothers with pretty normal problems. Austin had the heat and drink get to him in the end though. The mother came from nowhere and did not really do anything important. She showed up, didn't like her house, told Austin not to kill Lee, and left. I actually did not like her just because she did not seem to care that one of her sons could die. The ending was the one part I really liked and not because it ended. It left a feeling of suspense and tension, and it was sort of the only high point for me. I wish it could have kept going because I really want to know what happens next because it could go in so many different directions.

What is the TRUE west?

I really loved reading True West. The relationship between Austin and Lee is very entertaining. I found this story to also be very comical and full of excitement. I liked how in the beginning of the story Austin is the very calm and level-headed brother who is in charge of the house and taking care of the plants and in the end Austin totally loses it, lets all the plants die, and also loses the upper hand he originally had with his brother. It was interesting that both brothers envied the others life. Lee lived in the desert because he had to basically (not because it was exciting to do so) and envied (yet criticized) Austin's rich suburban life. In contrast, Austin craved his brother's exciting life-on-the-edge in the desert and looked up to Lee. I found it comical/ironic how Austin was so worried about Lee being around Saul and embarrassing Austin, and Lee totally ended up hitting it off with Saul. It was funny how unexpected it was for Austin and how angry it made him. One thing I found to be very interesting was the elusive definition of what "True West" really meant. Austin's true west was the suburban, modern-day west; Lee's true west was the romanticized, desert setting, west. The funniest part of the whole play in my opinion was the scene involving the stealing of the toasters and the making of toast. I thought it was hilarious how Austin felt like a real criminal by stealing peoples toasters and his spiel about how wonderful and important toast is. I thought it was so interesting how the play had elements of a classic western story. Near the end when they are in dispute with one another, they stare at each-other, challengingly, like two cowboys would. Also in the end when they circle each-other like Cowboys readying for a duel. Overall, I really enjoyed True West; It was extremely exciting and entertaining.

What the desert heat can do to a man

This play was absolutely entertaining. Austin and Lee are great characters. They both represent so many things. Austin being from the new world where Lee is obviously representing the old world. Austin is sophisticated, refined, and has his life together whereas Lee is borderline illiterate, steals, and has no solid footing. Lee represents the free soul though and Austin represents the perfect American life that boxes people in. I love foils and look for them in every play we read and these two are great examples. At first I thought Lee really did something to Saul because I couldn’t even believe that he sold his story to him that easily. He is definitely a character that gets under your skin until you can tell that he he’s genuine and he loves his brother. The references to the desert and the old man are very dominant to overall meaning and outcome of the play. The desert represents a place without boundary, which Austin craves. It is important to note that they both want what each other has like any typical pair of siblings. The old man reference means that they are just as doomed as his is because they both resort to drinking. Austin even makes another important point in the second act “Yeah, well we all sound alike when we're sloshed. We just sorta' echo each other.” It’s funny to notice the significance of two acts because the play is about two brothers. Although very different, they are the same.

Im afraid of MarthAAAAA!

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is my one favorite plays!. The plot is risky and fun, while keeping my mind in constant wonder and suspense for things to become clarified and the constant arrangements arguments. Also, the dialogue is extremely well thought out and written. With each character revealing each other's personal information, and always telling each other about their spouses/affairs darkest secrets. I feel that Martha and George's relationship is one of the main points of the play, and the one that I find myself attracted to the most. This play is filled with sarcasm, sex and alcohol all three giving this play a little touch that revolutionized the theatre in this generation onward.  Ithought it was extremely odd how Martha and George had an imaginary son, that they eventually had to kill off leaving martha so dependent of George in the end. I thought that Nick played a great roll also, showing how people use other people to climb in social, and profesionall statuses. Overall, the play was easy and enjoyable to read. In addition, I found that each act having its own tytle was very inventing and a good little quirk to the play, it not only gave a preview to the act but it also gave a highlight of the most important concept of the act. 

Who's Afraid of Edward Albee?

After reading Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, I can’t help but think that Edward Albee had lost all faith in humanity. Martha and George alternately come across as criminally insane and monstrously deceptive, while Nick and Honey seem altogether stupid and weak-minded. Not only do both seem perfectly willing to flirt with their married hosts, but Nick goes so far as to begin consummating the flirtation with Martha in front of her husband, which also demonstrates the irrational risks that Albee seems to believe the younger generation are willing to take. Albee depicts both Martha and Honey as delusional drunks, and it comes across as terribly misogynistic. George seems to be the smartest character by far, but he too acts delusional at times. It should also be noted that both marriages were made for advantageous reasons, which seems like a criticism of marriage that is only more relevant in modern society. I must admit, while intentionally ambiguous at times, the dialogue is fantastically scathing; as Nick points out, Martha and George are experts in their barbs at one another. Overall, the play is a microscopic examination of human flaws and the dynamic of human relationships.