Time is essence

Thornton Wilder’s Our Town is three acts dedicated to the dynamics of the city life in America. I absolutely love this play. It is so moving and teaches us all an important lesson. This play truly shows how to appreciate life, and not let it get by you before it is over. To take opportunity, and control ones like and just love to live was the message I got. Wilder really showed interest and made a point on two important things: relationships and time. Already discussing how time can steal life away from us, it also shows how all people take it for granted. Also, Seeing how this play was written in the 1930’s, it is amazing to see all the things that have carried over into this generation. such as in David Kelley’s television drama Picket Fences or the interactions between characters in Stephen King’s Needful Things. This play was so well written, always keeping me on edge and wondering what happened next. My favorite part of this production is just the simple fact that it has a valuable message sent out, and this message can be applied to everyone. 

Simple

I don't know. I liked this play, but at the same time I did not. It's weird. It did not have the usual drama or action or anything like that which is what I usually like and am used to. It was simple. I guess it threw me off a little because everything else we have read so far has had so much drama in it. This is was just so random to me. Anyway, at the same time I did like it because it was simple. There were no dramatic problems. It was just the way life went. The play was literally slice of life. We saw slices of these townsfolk's lives, and I liked. I realize that I am repeating myself, but I do not really have a good explanation for it. it was simple, but it still had meaning. The meaning was just to appreciate life more. However, it was not an over the top you must go out there and live your life to the fullest. It was a simple "hey you should be happy your alive" type of meaning. At least to me it was which was really nice. I was never a fan of things throwing their meaning into your face. I am a fan of subtlety.

Also, can I say that the stage manager is awesome? He was just so chill through the whole deal, and was just so natural. I also really liked how he filled in for other characters which amused me, and then became a character himself. He just seemed to flow and make the whole thing work. He also came off as a nice guy which is always a plus. He was down to earth, chill, and helpful. he was definitely my favorite hands down.

There's something way down deep that's eternal about every human being.

Thornton Wilder’s Our Town is three acts dedicated to the dynamics of rural America. Having been written in the 1930s, it is impressive to find a similar account of small town society as it is portrayed in modern times, such as in David Kelley’s television drama Picket Fences or the interactions between characters in Stephen King’s Needful Things. Grover’s Corners, the setting of the play, is a small town in the Northeast, filled with Republicans and Protestant Christians. I found it interesting to note that more of the town was indifferent to politics than religion, demonstrating the mentality that matters of faith are more important than government operations or reforms. The play also explores the theme of attraction, with the highly ambitious Emily falling in love with the risk-taking George. The underlying sexism is important, as demonstrated when Joe Crowell expresses his distaste at the idea of his teacher getting married or by the fact that George is elected President while the more academically-advanced Emily must accept the title of Secretary/Treasurer. The meta-theatrical element of Our Town can be seen in the character of the Stage Manager, whose multiple incarnations and ability to command other characters give him an almost God-like presence. I was thrilled when the Stage Manager gave me permission to go have a smoke at the end of Act I. Overall, Our Town reinforces an appreciation for life through its depiction of Emily and her short, yet happy, life and also through anecdotes concerning Joe Crowell and Wally Webb.

Time is of the essence

The structure and setting of Our Town was quite different from the other plays we have read in class being that the time span of the play covers years of experiences. I enjoyed the fact that it showed major milestones that occur in life and how quickly those moments pass us by. As humans we usually have no respect for time . This play helps the reader realize that all time is of the essence and that we should FEEL and embrace every moment and memory that were create in life because once it's gone , it's gone no turning back. I feel as if life is a much more enjoyable experience when we embrace each and every moment whether good or bad.

Our Town

I absolutely love this play. It is so moving and teaches us all an important lesson. I suppose I love this play so much because I fully believe in living life to the fullest and not letting opportunities just pass you by. I found the acts to be very nicely organized. The first act is about early life, the second about finding love and getting married, and the last about death. There is something so touching about the way Emily reflects on her life. Life is short and you really have to seize and appreciate every moment. I love stories that deal with appreciating life and inspire you to live to the fullest. I found a similar theme in the musical Rent: by the end of the story you realize that one of the most important things is to live for today and cherish your friends. We all need to realize that we do not have forever and we need to make the most of the time we have on earth. I truly love this play because appreciating life is something that is very important to me. This play emphasizes how important friendships and relationships are and how we must appreciate the people in our lives. Fun fact: My high school yearbook senior quote was "There's only us, there's only this; Forget regret or life is yours to miss. No other road, no other way, no day but today" :) Haha. Carpe Diem!

Victims of Time

I absolutely loved this play. There is nothing more important in life for everyone to understand that we are not immortal and that time goes by. We have a deadline and it's important to build relationships and enjoy what time has give us. Even though time throughout the play was a villain, it was a gracious one. Wilder did such a unique job writing this script.
I loved the role of the stage manager as he played the time keeper, but reached out the audience every chance he could. I also liked how the play was separated in three acts according to stages in life: daily life, love and marriage, and death.
Wilder capitalized on two important things: relationships and time. Already discussing how time can rob us of life, it also shows how all people take it for granted. After reading this, I was intensely nostalgic. As for relationships, every character formed one with another character. Be it neighborly friends, marriage, friends, school mates, or the milkman; their whole lives depended on the companionship of one another and to maintain that friendship.
At the end of reading, I bet everyone can agree that there is just something so timeless about this whole play.

Wilder's Wake Up Call.

I love this play!!! I like how it stereotypes our lives, and brings to light how  people just take it for granted, and just " go with the flow". Wilder sort of screams: wake up! He does so through Emily's character. in fact, the last act was my favorite. Emily philosophizes about life so greatly, and her love for it is sooo passionate, that she refuses to forget it. She is also talking about how life should be valued. I liked how the Stage Manager answered  her question of if humans appreciate their life while they are living, that only saints and poets do a little. It is very sad, but veeeeery true. The valuing and living the life to the fullest makes me recall Waiting for Gadot. I think Beckett there also wanted to wake people up from passive surviving, always waiting for something that would make their life better. But Gadot, what ever he may be, never comes; so the characters just wasted all the time they were waiting. In Our  Town Emily dies at an early age, and only then she realizes everything she had done wrong : she let her life just pass by in vain. This truly is a great play, that has definitely become my favorite this semester.

Out Town

I found Our Town to be a very interesting an intriguing read. I found that there were so many themes within the plot that caught my attention. There were many instances where I found myself analyzing the relationship between the characters and the message that the playwright is striving to portray. I think that one of the most important motifs mentioned is the importance of relationships between humanity. Even from the beginning of the play, the Stage Manager seeks to establish a relationship with the audience. The play’s titles assess the importance of community and companionship. I loved the fact that Wilder does uses the theatre in a realistic manner. Many of the scenes portrayed in the play are moments that would occur in real life: a milk man delivers milk, a family breakfast, two people fall in love. However, I found it interesting that the author sought to disconnect the audience from the theatre so that the message of the play would be ore prevalent.

"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.

Relationships

Third time reading this and it's still the same: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is my one favorite works of literature. The plot is racy and fun, while keeping my mind in suspense for revelations and arguments. Additionally, the dialogue is deliciously diabolical, with each character revealing each other's personal and professional information, and reveling in their darkest secrets. The play is truly more of a character-driven plot, which should make this play an actor's dream. For instance, who wouldn't want to dive in the craze, yet vibrant psyche of Martha, or the cynical and trapped soul of George? Martha and George's relationship is one of the main attractions of the play, and the one that I find myself investing in the most. Filled with sarcasm and empty with no child, their relationship captures my attention easier than Nick and Honey's relationship. Overall, the play felt very quick and was not a trouble third read. In addition, I found myself looking more at the revelation at the end when George reveals there is no son and then sings to Martha, "Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf?" The meaning behind the question (who is afraid of living life without illusions) became more profound this time around (and I still do not know why).

Crazy attracts Crazy

Sex, alcohol, drama! What better elements can make up a play? While reading this play all I could think was that crazy attracts crazy, and if only walls could talk. Every family puts on a public façade but I pray to God that when they get behind closed doors they are not as dysfunctional as Martha and George.

Martha and George both came from unstable childhoods so I would expect nothing less from them. They never dealt with or seeked help for the issues of their past so they operate the only way they know how.

In all honesty, Albee hit the nail right on the spot. This play was set in the 1960’s and we are in the 2011 dealing with some of the same issues. It is still true to today’s society. So many people continue to have unhealthy relationships because they are scared of what the next person may think of them.

Who's afraid of Martha and George?

I enjoyed reading this play, I found it very exciting and intriguing. It was somewhat hard to comprehend because of how absurd the events in the story were. I definitely see a connection between the two couples. Who knows if the younger couple will ever escalate to the level of Martha and George--hopefully not after what they've seen. The couples are kind of similar, though, the younger couple has a lot more going for them and they are much more successful in various aspects. It's almost like Martha and George helped show them what NOT to become (in a very outrageous way). The concept of the "games" they played was very odd. The names of the games were very interesting. I do not understand why Nick and Honey stayed in their company for so long. If it were me I would have left after the first "game". I can only imagine how weird and uncomfortable a situation like this would be. Another thing that I found quite intriguing was the title of the acts. For example, the third act referring to an exorcism, in which all of the evil is released or brought out into the open. This accurately describes the revelation of Martha and George's secrets and illusions in this act. As far as the song George sings at the end and the last line of Martha's, I still don't fully understand. The ending left me kind of puzzled.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf

In Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, and older couple George and Martha to use a young couple to fuel the anger that they feel toward one another. . I found the text both disturbing and powerful in many ways. I also found irony in the immaturity of George and Martha’s relationship. As the play progresses, the layers of the actual relationship are revealed, which actually made me feel sympathy for the couple and their situation. It seems that event though they do not have a cohesive relationship; they are joined on level that may be inexplicable to any normal couple. There are indeed, some positive feelings that make up their attraction, for example, the constant themes of the “child” and “death”. The “child” seems to be the engine by which the couple expresses their needs and desires. The “death” of the child signifies a milestone in their marriage that they were able to overcome. I also found interesting the relationship between Martha and her father. She reviles George for not impressing her father nor, but at the same time, she does reveal how much she loves and respect George. All in all, I just believe that the play is very well written an portray a picture of two people in a relationship built on the grounds of unresolved emotional baggage and anger.

Martha is affraid...

This play has made a deep impression on me. At first of course I was shocked by Martha's behavior (and George’s too sometimes), for it was soooo ridiculous. Martha is so brutal and careless of consequences her words hold, it’s almost funny, and at the same time annoying. She acts obnoxiously because she is very unhappy, and I think that she hates men. She even tells Nick “you are all flops!" after she sleeps with him. Her hopes and expectations did not realize in her life, and she blames it on her husband. But although I thought her character was terrible, I still felt sorry for her at the end when she was talking about her "son". I could not help but break down crying seeing how much she wanted and loved that illusion; a symbol of their marriage that George had to destroy because he had enough and she cheated on him. From the very begging I pretty much knew that the son was not real (from the point when they argue about his eye color), so it was not such a shock for me at the end when the truth was out in the open.But as I said I was still very emotional because of a sense of a compassion I had. I almost think that although Martha acts like she hates George, deep inside she is afraid to loose their marriage. Thats why she is so upset when he tells her that the boy is dead.  I am very intrigued by this play and now can not wait to find out more about it and about Albee tomorrow in class.

The fun and games of Virginia Woolf

I'm fortunate to have read this play before so reading it a second time helped me understand events a lot more. I love this play because of the deviousness of George and Martha. They obviously have a failed marriage so they take out their problems on innocent people. The night of the faculty party the victims happened to be the new biology professor, Nick, and his wife, Honey. Both of the couples are obvious foils of each other. I think how Albee wanted the audience to see the play was how two direct foils clash with each other. Both have dark secrets in their closet, but everyone does. Starting with Nick and George, Nick is the more successful version. Nick is athletic, good looking, promising in biology, and well put together. George is a failure, old, unhappy, and dealing with Martha. Martha is a full figured, loud, old, privileged, seductive, and an alcoholic. Honey is mousey, small, weak stomached, and less intelligent or witty. They both play on each other since they both clash. The result is the purging of dark secrets. The two most important ones I think are the fabrication of the George and Martha's son and then the truth about George and Martha's marriage. Both reveal alot about how those couples act. It's slightly depressing the whole thing, but Albee was clever and inventive with the entire play. I liked how the play was separated into games and how they got worse and worse with time. Overall, it was an intelligent and interesting play that was a complete page-turner.

Marxist Madness

Bertolt Brecht’s Mother Courage and Her Children is a shameless social criticism of the Capitalist system of economics and the tragic repercussions of war. German-born Brecht seemed to have felt alienated from both sides of the ominous Second World War that had begun brewing during the time period that this play was so hastily written. On the one hand, Brecht was clearly writing in response to the growing threat of the Nazis and of Italian fascism, attempting to warn the world of the bleak future that it was walking itself into. And yet, one could never accuse Brecht of being on the side of the Americans, as Mother Courage, with its decisive attacks on the Capitalist’s way of life, so clearly demonstrates. The titular character, Mother Courage, the driving force of the play, is symbolic of the greed that Brecht believes is at the heart of all Capitalism. Her three children represent the better human qualities (chivalry, honesty, and charity), while their tragic fates are metaphors for the negative effects of greed on the human heart, which in Brecht’s mind are inevitable in a Capitalist world. The chaplain is possibly my favorite character, as he is used by Brecht to demonstrate the hypocrisy of organized religion and wars fought in the name of “God”. Brecht’s style of theater is distinctive in its quick scene shifts, its thematic employment of small-scale musical numbers, and its rather one-dimensional characters, most of which are not so much good nor bad, but the literal personification of whatever it is that Brecht wants that specific character to represent.

The horrors of a war

In this play Brecht is strongly criticizes an idea of a war, and fascist ideology. He is talking about how everyone feeds off the war, so people like Mother Courage, Yvette and Chaplain use the war in trying to make a profit. To me it was a little depressing to read about all that, although I know its true. The war also turns human being into beasts. She predicted her children to die from their “good” qualities, but that does not destroy her will to continue on in that environment. Mother courage refuses to pay 200 galleons for Swiss and he dies. She cant bare a thought to lose money. And after all of her children are dead, she continues on with her “business”. To me its not courage, its madness, and  a complete loss of the sense of what is really important. It is a masterpiece. It shows how a war desensitizes people and makes them into animals that want to make a buck.    

Die Unglaubliche Mutter Courage!

The Incredible Mother Courage!

Mother Courage is a beyond incredible play. This is one of my favorites by far. I truly love how Bertolt Brecht captures the war in his play. This play gives such an amazing view of war and what it was like to live in the time of the war. “Mother Courage” may seem like a character without feelings and completely obsessed with earning money but I see that there is more to her than that. Brecht originally wrote the part for his own wife so I feel that he identifies with it more than it seems. His wife may be an actress but I feel that he wrote the part with many more motherly aspects because he probably had inspiration from his own wife’s motherly abilities. Yes, “Mother Courage” should have just gotten away from the war and saved her and her children’s lives but she didn’t therefore, she had to display courage in the way that she had to accept her children’s deaths quicker than most and move on with life. To some this may seem insensitive but it is really a courageous quality because she was hiding her pain and in the event of such tragedies it is probably one of the hardest things to ever do. I personally believe that Brecht created “Mother Courage” to be a courageous character and not the opposite.

Mother Courage

War is a topic that can be relevant in any society at any time. Just like many of the other plays we have read this play probably brought much controversy to the audience members but, a good play should spark some type of emotion. If this play was directed today a common link that would bind the audience to this play can be the topic of recession and survival. There are families that are killing themselves because they feel as if they cannot survive in this economy. The music in this play reminded me of a Greek chorus that is found in Greek plays. Also, because the play is epic theatre it eliminates all of the fluff and gets straight to the point. No elaborate scenes, props, lighting or costumes. This play in production would most likely rely solely on the acting. I believe that Brecht is more interested in getting the themes of the play across than with making it a magical piece of breathtaking art.

Brecht, Mother Courage

The author Brecht, who wrote Mother Courage is amazing! The whole time I was reading I was so infatuated by the text, that I had no problem concentrating. I felt that throughout this play, the true horrors of war were really shown and had great exhibitions of the reality of this time period. It was very heart felt to me, when this mother ends up loosing all her children.  Not only is she poor, slowly starving, yet one by one her children are ripped away from her, and brutally murdered. She looses a potential love affaire, a real chance at life, and all three of her children to the war. This story is not so shocking to me, I feel as though this whole play really reflects how disgusting and harmful violence is. In the end of this play, whole villages were burnt to ashes, people everywhere were starving…. Mother Courage even talks about how her daughter has a head full of lice, that is really how dirty this situation is. Not only did I feel that it reflected the hygienic situation well, this play spoke of the luting soldiers did, the raping of women, and even the battering of women. I thought that this is one of the few plays I was able to read, all the way through without being bored. I was constantly left wanting to know more, wanting to know if she would ever see one of her boys again, even though I knew in the back of my head they were done for. Such heroic characters, always sacrificing for someone else, the ultimate selflessness. This play is real, it reflects a real time period, and it is so well written, I loved it!