The Children's Hour

    While Lillian Hellman's The Children's Hour definitely has very strong elements from the well-made play, she often deviates from this formula and adds her own twists and turns. ("Take that, Scribe!" Hellman probably thought as she wrote angstily about lesbians and the catty youths who agonize them.)

     One significant departure from the well-made play form in this play is the focus on character rather than plot. While plot is significant in this play, the characters of Karen, Martha, and Mary take precedence. The "tragic lesbian" trope is present, so the focus on character deviates from plot over character. This is a significant dramaturgical choice because Hellman is showing how one small girl's words can ruin a woman's life, even pushing her to the point of suicide. 
     Another departure is the substance of the obligatory scene. After the secret had been set (Mary telling her grandmother her teachers were engaging in some "unnatural" acts), I thought for sure that the obligatory scene would be Karen and Martha revealing that they did in fact love each other. However, Martha reveals her love for Karen, Karen reveals the feeling is, in fact, not mutual, and then Martha kills herself. Mrs. Tilford reveals she made a mistake in accusing them, but this happens too late. 
     A third departure I found is from the Just-in-Time Revelation. Mrs. Tilford swoops into the living room of the Wright-Dobie School, ready to beg for forgiveness because sweet little Mary made quite the blunder and, like, you guys aren't lesbians after all, lol, right?? But Karen gently lets Mrs. Tilford down with a polite, "Martha is dead." Whoops. Mrs. Tilford has come to apologize, but definitely not just-in-time. 
     I would even go so far as to say The Children's Hour does not end with a logical resolution. Mrs. Tilford asks Karen if she'll let her help her (Tilford help Karen), and if she'll write, and Karen responds vaguely and distantly. Mrs. T leaves, and the stage directions read "(Karen smiles as Mrs. Tilford exits. She does not turn, but a minute later she raises her hand.) Karen: Good-bye." Well. If that's not an ending that lacks logic and leaves you feeling empty, slightly confused, and wondering what just happened, I don't know what is.

     As far as if The Children's Hour should be performed today, I say, "Why not?" Yes, it is problematic, and an extreme case of what happens when homophobia pushes people to the edge, but I think it's an important piece of theatre. Reading this question I think of Leigh Fondakowski's The Laramie Project and the Ole Miss football team. Ironic that another play with gay themes is causing a stir. At the same time, imperative that it be performed. Obviously, it's a functioning great piece of theatre because it showed the need for it to still be performed. That's the whole point of that play! Like TLP, TCH could easily be done today. The need for it to be seen and the message it carries can only help extinguish homophobia and hate. 
     A "technically good but probably shouldn't be produced today" piece of theatre that comes to mind is Dutchman by Amiri Baraka. It was performed as part of LSU's lab season a year or two ago, and while important and necessary when it was first written and performed in 1964 during the civil rights era, today it seems dated and blatantly racist. It had no place being performed for a modern, 2012 audience. I rarely sit in a show and think, "What the hell am I watching and why is this being staged?" but I did then, the only answer I came up with being that experimental college theatre students love shock and controversy and were going for an "insightful, call to action" show. I guess. Yikes. 

The Glass of Water

     Unfortunately for me, my dramaturgical spidey sense failed me both while reading and after reading Eugène Scribe's The Glass of Water. 
     Fortunately for me, I was paying attention in class when we briefly discussed Water and the two odd pieces changed by the translator were made clear to me. 

     The first moment in the play that did not fit in with the rest was when the Duchess and Bolingbroke kiss and then slap each other smartly on the cheek. For the first two acts of Scribe's play, the Duchess and Bolingbroke are at each other's throats. They engage in a 24-hour armistice, where they complete small favors for each other, and then resort back to their sneaking, battle-like relationship. They are a threat to the other and are always competing in a battle of wits. And yet, after all of this back-and-forth-ness, they realize... they've been in love all this time? "You are the first man who has ever defeated me . . . and, if I were not already married, you would know no peace until I had wed with you," the Duchess remarks. They then claim the first and second privileges of husband and wife (a kiss and a slap, respectively) and then bow to each other and leave. Ok... A very strange moment in the play that was never even hinted at in the previous two acts. 

     The second moment in the play that did not seem to fit in with the rest was when the Queen looks out of her window and takes notice of the new, handsome guardsman. Again, what..? Looking strictly from a level of class perspective, a queen would never be involved or even take up an interest in a mere guardsmen. That aside, it just doesn't fit in with the rest of the plot. Why would the queen fall in love at the end of the play? Her story line should have ended when Masham and Abigail got together, and yet, the Queen has this odd wave of a love interest just as the curtain falls. While the bulk of Water fits together, this last moment definitely seems out of place in this otherwise well-made play.