Show And Tell - "Fat Pig"

I chose to analyze the play "Fat Pig" by Neil LaBute.  This play premiered in 2004 at the MCC theater in New York and has been a popular production ever since.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Pig).  

I chose the play "Fat Pig" because I had done a scene in this play in my Acting 1 Class here at LSU.  I played the role of Carter, an obnoxious co-worker of Tom's, who pesters Tom about dating a larger woman.  Tom is a young urban professional who has a bad track record of quickly losing interest in the attractive women he dates, so when he decides to go with a larger woman, Carter makes it a huge deal.  Although Tom may seem like a nice guy, he actually pretty shallow though. He values what his co-workers would think of him over what he truly feels about other women.  There is actually a co-worker that Tom had relations with, Jeannie, who sees him dating Helen as a personal attack.  This play has actually many parallels when it comes to men and women.  The men in Fat Pig are very objective, meaning they do not see people as people, but merely as objectives (they especially see women this way.) Carter, frequently tries to manipulate Tom while still trying to be the one in control of situations, for example, Carter says :" Do what you want. If you like this girl, then don't listen to a goddamn word anybody says. " The women however are not frail or dependent, they represent a strong gender. Helen reveals how empowered and assertive women have become in the last few centuries. Helen insists upon facing the truth before allowing a serious relationship to continue. This shows that the women will fight for what they want and will be strong enough to turn away if need be. Several lines indicate this but the one that stood out the most is when Helen said : "I love you so much, I really do, Tom. Feel a connection with you that I haven't allowed myself to dream of, let alone be a part of, in so long." 
       I think  a good dramaturgical choice was limiting the play to 4 characters.  Doing this allows the reader to develop a stronger relationship to the characters rather than having to keep up with the ties and emotions of several (quality over quantity.)  It was also smart to have the genders be an equal 2 vs 2 type scenario.  We get two types of characters on two types of genders.  There are the two volatile characters (Carter and Jeannie) then there are the more sensible (not totally sensible) characters (Tom and Helen.) This allowed the reader to take sympathy towards whichever one that seemed the most fit for them. For example, I chose Carter, because he is impulsive and says everything that comes to his mind (hehehe) :) 

Here is a link to the play if anyone would wish to read !
http://www.pennytempletonstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/FAT-PIG-FULL-PLAY.pdf

Fight Club (Please Dont Give me an F for this)

Ok, so I dont read many plays. It's just something I really never thought about picking up and reading. However, I read many books and watch many movies and I feel as if Fight Club is such a deep movie that I can go on for hours about certain poetic elements.

To start, when I first read Overtones and discovered that the two "voices" were only in the respective persons head, I immediatley thought of Tyler Durden in Fight Club.  The same way it's used in Overtones, I feel as if the entity inside of Tyler's head was the more pure/instinctual being that wanted the bet for himself and went with a humanistic instinct rather than trying to fit in the with the roles of society.  I love the theatrical mirror played here and I think that these two "scripts" can mirror each other on themes such as "disregard for social structure".

4,000 Miles

4,000 miles was by far one of the best plays we've had to read so far. As far as the motifs for this play, it is swarmed with them.  One of the motifs I noticed the most was the incompleteness of Vera's sentences.  This contributes to a theme of 4,000 miles when it comes to "miscommunication and the side effects of that".  There is also a motif as far as Leo trying to make out what his grandmother is saying.  There are over 50 instances where Vera says "whatchyacall it" and Leo responds perplexed like and even gets frustrated at times.  Towards the end of the play, Leo begins to understand what Vera means at the end of her sentences and overall the bond between these two characters strengthens due to effective communication.  Another motif was the pattern of Leo's attitude.  Leo constantly had a "idgaf" attitude and it pushed people away from him.  He lacks a lot of sympathy and has a hard time thinking past his own cares.

Judith

I feel as if Judith's MDQ was the question on whether or not Judith will carry out she and the servants "plan". Some may also argue that the question may be "what now? (After the assassination)". I think the "what now" question offers the reader more of an imaginative mindset. This is true because the question is almost half answered when the play ends. Judith is so key convinced that her murder of the general entitles her tonancertain power. Whether or not this is accepted by the public is open for interpretation. In my opinion, Judith seems to be a mix between mentally unstable and self afflicted which also opens another question on if she is fit to lead an empire (one that she has already entitled her self to due to the demanding dialogue used toward the servant).

Night Mother

Being a particularly morose play, I agree with the playwrights Major Dramatic Question, but would also intend to add something to it.  What seems clear is that the playwright means to generate sympathy for Jessie.Yet her act seems self-indulgent at best. We don't care deeply enough about Jessie to mind that she kills herself. On this point, in an odd way the play is reportorial. We are not inside the character's head and heart, but at a distance from both. At the same time, their roles as well as their language make the Mother the more sympathetic of the two women, to the extent they are comparable. So, summing this up, I think that another MDQ could be formed around the specific relationship between Jessie and Mama and whether or not this relationship couldve affected the outcome of the play.

Trifles

What kept me captivated throughout Trifles was the question we were all asking ourselves: What will they find next?  Murder mysteries have always been of interest to me especially the ones that don't take you down one simple road but rather keep twisting and turning and making you think that EVERYONE can be a suspect.  Although Trifles was a very short play, I feel as if it did a great job in keeping me guessing yet still developing the characters enough to understand where each one was coming from and how their own opinions were formed.  The only thing I would have to object in enjoying was the ending.  The fact that the women hid the bird from the Sherrif, makes me think that they are trying to justify murder as the right thing to do in her situation.  What TRULY happened under the Foster's roof was never clear because we were only hearing it from other people's point of view.  What makes me think Minnie did it out of mental insanity was how she handled herself when their neighbor came to use their phone.

Overtones

This play was mainly driven through exactly what the title of it suggests. Each main character (Margret and Harriet) had their own character in which these "split personalities" said things that the real character would never say in a civil society.  I liked this play for that reason alone.  It showed that society holds us up to be so proper yet inside we all have an instinct to the things we really want to say and the fact that society tries to constantly suppress that almost gives it a 1984 feel to our society.  I enjoyed drawing parallels to the non-tangible characters and comparing them to Smeagle/ Gollum in the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit trilogies.  The only difference being that Gollum actually says out loud what the other side of him is thinking vs. Margret and Harriet who are civil enough to keep those thoughts inside their head.