Show and Tell Post #1 - The Death of the Last Black Man In the Whole Entire World

     The play I chose for my first show and tell post is Suzan-Lori Parks' The Death of the Last Black Man In the Whole Entire World. It was written in 1990 and was originally produced at the Brooklyn Arts Council's BACA Downtown Theatre (Salem Press). Although popular amongst critics and scholars, Black Man has seen a very small amount of staged performances due to "defying traditional notions of plot, character, and structure, the work calls for a sizable cast of 11 actors, all of them black, and a facility on the part of the entire team to make sense of lines like 'do in dip diddly did-did'" (Chloe Veltman, 2013 San Francisco Fringe Festival). I found this play in Parks' anthology The America Play and Other Works. 

     The play opens with an overture, followed by five "panels", and closes with a final chorus. The central character in the play, called Black Man with Watermelon (BMWW), dies over and over again, each way representing a different way black people have died in the past. In the overture we are introduced to the chorus, including the characters Black Woman with Fried Drumstick, Lots of Grease and Lots of Pork, Yes and Greens Black-Eyed Peas Cornbread, and Queen-Then-Pharaoh Hatshepsut, among other characters who all represent definitive black stereotypes. In the Overture, BMWW dies by falling 23 floors out of a ship to his death. In Panel I, BMWW dies in an electric chair. In Panel II, we learn more about each of the stereotypes and that Before Columbus, the earth used to be roun (flat) but after Columbus added a /d/, the earth became round (round). BMWW drowns in a river. In Panel III, BMWW gets lynched. In Panel IV, Ham explains how the black race mixed and expanded, and then sells everyone off in a slave trade. In Panel V, BMWW remembers which foods he likes to eat. Finally, in the final chorus, everyone talks of documenting the past so the future will know how and why they exist. (I know that was really easy to follow so sorry if it got a little DUH, I know this already!!)

     The first dramaturgical choice that Parks focused on is repetition repetition repetition. I felt like I had deja vu throughout reading this play. Parks chose to use a variety of repetitions. The first type involves a character repeating a line of dialogue or phrase over and over again. An example is when BMWW says, "You: still is. They: be. Melon. Melon. Melon. Melon: mines.", or when ALL say, "Ham Bone Ham Bone Ham Bone Ham Bone." The line, "This is the death of the last black man in the whole entire world." is repeated often. A stage direction of bells ringing also pops up multiple times throughout the script. The second type of repetition is a section of dialogue between two characters being repeated: 

• (Page 127, The America Play and Other Works)
• Black Woman With Fried Drumstick: Sweetheart.
• Black Man With Watermelon: SPRING-TIME.
• Black Woman With Fried Drumstick: Sweetheart. 
• Black Man With Watermelon: SRPING-TIME. 
• Black Woman With Fried Drumstick: This could go on forever. 
• Black Man With Watermelon: Let's. Hope. Not. 
• (This section of text is literally repeated again. Not posting to save space.)

The third type of repetition is the reinforcement of an idea. The worl/world story is told over and over again by different characters, slightly varied each time it's repeated. 

     Why all of this repetition? As I was reading I began to discover a slight lyrical pattern to the text. There were also obvious places where rhyming with yourself or with another character was intentional. (I really hope this doesn't come off as offensive), but black people, especially during the civil war period, often used song to tell stories and communicate. Parks' choice of repetition and rhyme might have been a way to channel that lyrical way of telling a story. 

     The second dramaturgical choice Parks employed was the motif of death. Yes, obviously, BMWW dies over and over again. But through careful reading, I think I was able to grasp what Parks was weaving throughout her zany acid-trip of a script. Parks killed off more than just her main character. Parks killed off the idea of accurate, truthful history. She altered history by spanning thousands of years, including a character who's an Egyptian queen but setting her play in the present. Parks killed off the typical way of keeping track of history, suggesting instead to write something down and place it under a rock. The last scene is perhaps the most shocking example of this idea, when Yes and Greens Black-Eyed Peas Cornbread is telling everyone else, (he's speaking of keeping history here) "It will be of us but you will mention them from time to time so that in the future when they come along theyll know how/why they exist." I kept reading, but later went back and realized that that "them" is, dare I say it, white people!!! And even more shocking, "when they come along"! As in, Parks has written a world where white people do not yet exist. She has taken the foundation of history and flipped it on it's head. She has killed the idea of history in general.

     I apologize for exceeding the typical S&T post length, but hope that the long play title and character names, as well as my carefully thought out ideas and examples, make up for the few extra minutes you, Dr. Fletcher (and Jenny?) and any brave, patient students took the time to read. Thanks!!

4000 Miles

     I totally agree that an incredibly strong motif in Amy Herzog's 4000 Miles is disconnection. Vera's use of the term "whaddayacallit" (her disconnect with words and memory) and Vera and Leo's disability to fully communicate with each other are among many examples of "disconnect", but I am tempted to delve into another, more specific motif - Leo's failing relationships with women. 

     Leo has a handfull of women he is struggling with during the course of 4000 Miles. He can't stand dealing with his mother, Jane. "Jane and I are at a juncture where more talking is not better than less talking," and, "...if this is gonna be about calling Jane, and a last minute hellaciously overpriced plane flight for which she has to take a Valium because she's a phobic freak..." are two examples of Leo's struggle to connect to his mom. The fact that he refers to her as "Jane" and not as "mom" is alone a strong message of the space between them (space here meaning both figuratively and literally, Leo biking across the country, very far from home.) 

     Leo's relationship to Grandma Vera is another failing relationship. I mean, really, who smokes weed with the grandmother? And on top of that, who brings up their ex-girlfriend's "weird pussy"? But hey, who am I to judge? Maybe it's a northern thing... Anyway, Vera's preliminary excitement that Leo has decided to stay for a while slowly fades to distrust and annoyance. Vera begins to think Leo isn't being truthful about his money borrowing, and suspects Leo of breaking things and not telling her. It becomes muddled whether this is Vera's old age or the strain on Leo and Vera's relationship. 

     Leo fails, dare I say epically, with Amanda, his off-putting Asian fetish fulfilling pseudo-one-night-stand. First he calls her Amelia ("Who's Amelia? Ex-girlfriend?" Amanda questions), but then really turns her off with her fearing he's a communist like his grandfather. After being caught by Grandma V, Amanda offers her number, but Leo "probably wouldn't use it? So..." Smooth, Leo, smooth. Leo doesn't even try to be polite here, almost blatantly recognizing his own struggle with women. 

     After examining Leo's relationships I realize these could also all work as examples of the "disconnect" motif, but I think the focus on the women in Leo's life is important. Herzog only wrote one male into her play but chose to include three women that are parts of Leo's life. Micah, an incredibly important male in Leo's life, is talked about and brought up, but isn't a character seen on stage. Neither is Leo's dad, or grandfather, etc. I believe the number of men to women is important here. What did Fuchs say? "Nothing occurs 'by chance,' not even chance." 

Judith

"Oh, virgin! / Oh, widow and mother! / Oh, everything! / Fuck this! Hard going, this!"
     -The Servant, p. 61

     I feel like The Servant captured my feelings while reading this play quite well. At times I was confused, others I (thought) I understood what was going on, sometimes laughing, and sometimes feeling like I shouldn't be laughing when I was. 
     With that said, I think (using Barker's emphasis tool) the major dramatic question of Judith is "Will Judith, and by extension, the country of Israel, regain her power?"
     What led me towards this question was the hint given in the prompt and Judith's interactions with the servant. I found it ironic that the servant, not even given an actual name, held so much power in the play. Judith and Holofernes were engaging in a battle of wits, but the servant was keeping score in the background. Towards the beginning of the play, the servant had the most power, prompting Judith to say certain things to Holofernes, getting both characters to undress and become vulnerable, even giving Judith the sword to chop Holofernes' head off. For the first two thirds of the play, the servant is really in control. 
     However, once Holofernes is killed off, Judith begins her ascension to the top. Her country has already won due to Holofernes' death, but now Judith must regain power over her servant. There is a slight struggle, and Judith even needs her servant's help to become "unfrozen", but as soon as she is able to move again, she steps on her servant and takes control of the situation. Judith has her servant hack her hair off (the biblical story of Samson is ringing a bell here) and instructs her servant how to carry the head and how to walk with Judith. 
     Does Judith regain her power? Absolutely. "My body was but is no longer / Israel / Is / My / Body!" Judith exclaims. To break the two thoughts apart: 1) My body was but is no longer Israel, and 2) Israel is my body! In her eyes, Judith has become the physical manifestation of her country. She has become so enveloped in power that she believes she is the flesh representation of Israel. After her final words, the servant shows her respect to Judith and leaves the tent. The final image we see is Judith alone in the tent, before leaving. Judith is queen of the mountain, and revels for a moment in her journey to the top. 

Blog Comments

Overtones Comment

Trifles Comment

'night, Mother Comment

Judith Comment

4000 Miles Comment

4000 Miles Comment #2

'night, Mother

     At first glance, I think it's very easy to think that Jessie is the central character in 'night, Mother, and in turn explains the hypothetical director's MDQ. However, if you were to change angles and look at the play from Mama's point of view (or rather, look at Mama as the central character) I think a better major dramatic question would be, "Will Mama stop Jessie from killing herself?"
     For the majority of the play, Jessie really shies away from answering Mama as to why she wants to kill herself. To try and get an answer out of her, Mama employs a number of techniques. First she tries to remind Jessie of the "good times" by offering to make hot cocoa and caramel apples. Then Mama moves on to threatening to call for help, and repeatedly goes back to the phone, with diminishing efforts each time. Finally, instead of beating around the bush, Mama finally just asks why.
     "It has to be something I did," Mama says. And later, "...and I was here all the time and I never even saw it. And then you gave me this chance to make it better, convince you to stay alive, and I couldn't do it."
     Mama spends the length of the play trying to make herself comprehend why her daughter would want to kill herself. The ways she tries to figure this out moves the play forward, and as she progresses, he attempts get more and more desperate, ultimately physically standing in the way of Jessie.
     "I can't stop you because you're already gone!" Mama says at one point. Mama's struggle, in my opinion, is a much more interesting thread to follow than the answer to "Will Jessie kill herself?" Jessie has grounded herself into her decision, and it seems inevitable, almost more of a when/how/why will Jessie kill herself instead. I think focusing on if Mama can stop her is a much more interesting major dramatic question.

Trifles

     After reading Susan Glaspell's Trifles, I'm not sure that a minimalistic, abstract concept would work well for this play or even do the play justice. 
     As I was reading Trifles, a number of images stuck out to me. The haphazardly left house and kitchen in disarray was the first. As the audience eventually finds out that there is a murder investigation occurring in the Wright household, you get a feeling that someone left in a hurry (or in Mrs. Wright's position, was removed in a hurry). Another image in the kitchen that was talked about in detail by the characters was the dirty towel on a roller. An exchange about class levels and gender roles unfolds, and sets a tone that men are superior to women in the world of Trifles. The bread box and jars of preserves are also images that pop up time and time again. Both women are almost unsettled at the sight of bread out of the bread box (the horrors of an unkept kitchen!) and the jars of preserves seemed to worry Mrs. Wright more than the recent death of her husband.
     Other significant images are the bird cage, the sewing box, and the quilt and pieces of fabric, to name a few. Most, if not all, of these props are small yet vital pieces of the complete story. It's very difficult to image a staged performance of Trifles without these physical, literal objects on stage, as opposed to blank, abstract, neutral colored versions. 
     It's hard not to compare the two because we just read Overtones one or two days ago, but I feel you could absolutely get away with an abstract, bare stage, black and white version of Overtones. Although written in the early 1900s, it could be set in the here and now and be equally as compelling. It almost seems as though this hypothetical director is confused as to what show he is proposing. Overtones is definitely a play where I would want both audiences and actors to put their focus on the words and emotions. 
     The focus in Trifles seems to me to be more about understanding why Mrs. Wright killed her husband and the motive for the other women to protect her. Without critical props like the bird cage and sewing box, especially in the final scene, the scene would lose its power and purpose. I think going with a minimalist design would alienate an audience. This isn't a make believe, magical, fantasy show which requires an imagination. It does, however, require an understanding of what's going on in between the lines, which can only be aided and made clearer by the use of sticking to the stage directions and props/costumes listed. It would also make it more difficult on the actors. If you were in Harry Potter, would you want to act next to a dragon or pretend in front of a green screen? If I was in a production of Trifles, I would not want to pretend to see a dirty house, pretend to see a rocking chair, and pretend to be cold as I'm wearing simple black pants and a shirt. Having realistic props and costumes only helps the actors feel more comfortable and makes the entire situation seem more "real". I don't believe this is a type of show that could get away with a bare stage - it's just not written that way. There are too many instances in the play where it would almost seem ridiculous to an audience to see any actor reacting so vividly to nothing. 

Overtones

     In Alice Gerstenberg's one act entitled Overtones, I do believe that the "inner selves" of Harriet and Margaret do see and hear each other. While the levels of interaction grow from the beginning to the climax of the play, there are always subtle hints that the primitive selves are aware of and can hear/see each other. 
     When Harriet and Margaret are first seen together, we as readers only get to witness the inner selves talking to their physical forms. As the conversation starts to open up and formalities are gone, Margaret's motive for coming allows the inner selves to start to interact. The way the physical selves communicate reminds me of swelling waves. They start out calm, then the inner selves begin to talk to the physical selves (Hetty to Harriet and Maggie to Margaret), and as the conversation starts to escalate and enter a more sensitive, personal subject matter, or motive, the inner selves begin to communicate with each other. There are multiple conversational "bouts" that take place throughout the play, and after the small goal is achieved, whether it be Margaret sneaking cream into her tea or Harriet getting Margaret to ask her to pose for a painting, the inner selves become subdued and resort to talking to their counterparts again. 
     The majority of the play follows this pattern of conversational bouts - the inner selves beginning to see/hear each other as the dialogue heats up, and then fade as the heat dies down. 
     As readers, we gain insight into Gerstenberg's concept by her stage directions. We are able to see when an inner self is talking to its physical self or the other woman's inner self. An audience, however, does not benefit from seeing who's supposed to be talking to who. It is then up to the actor to convey through emotion and physical movement who they're talking to. Gerstenberg sometimes puts emphasis on what an inner self is saying to their physical self by either mimicking what the physical self is doing (when Maggie anxiously reaches for a tea cake as Margaret delicately takes a cake) or by obviously talking directly to a physical self (when Hetty leans in and whispers in Harriet's ear). With these two techniques an audience would have no confusion over who is talking to who. 
     The pattern above is briefly broken at the very end of the play, when Hetty and Maggie have their final confrontation. At this point I think all four characters can hear and see each other at the same time. At this moment Harriet and Margaret really reveal themselves and who they are, and the subtleties that previously existed are extinguished. Both women's true motives are revealed: Harriet's lust for Margaret's husband and Margaret's want of Harriet's money. Although the inner selves are speaking here, it's obvious that these statements aren't just inner thoughts.