Wicked

I really enjoyed Wicked, by Winnie Holzman and Stephan Schwartz, especially since I had the privilege of seeing it on Broadway, which by the way, was an amazing production. I loved reading the play, but this is one of the types of pieces of writing where you have to see on stage to really understand how amazing it is. Perhaps my favorite part of Wicked is the twist that Holzman places on the characters. She takes characters like Glinda the Good Witch and the Wicked Witch of the West, as well as other classic personalities from the original Wizard of Oz, and morphs them into something totally unique. She sort of created a prequel to the Wizard of Oz, making paths for all the characters which leads them in the direction of their future roles. I really have not read many books, or plays for that matter, that do that sort of thing with their writing, so I especially enjoyed this twisting and contorting in Wicked. My favorite character in Wicked, was probably unsurprisingly Elphaba. I really got a kick of of Galinda though, who later decides to become just Glinda. But in the Wizard of Oz, Elphaba is really nothing but a menace and basically sets out to harm Dorothy, and she lacks any hint of remorse or humanity. But in Wicked, you get to see Elphaba develop and grow as a character. She goes through a lot of hardships, like being cast away by her "father" and considered a freak when she goes to school because she is, of course, unusually green. This play gives an explanation for why Elphaba turned out the way she did. She overcomes a lot in Wicked, and you get to see that a lot in her song "Defying Gravity", which is absolutely spectacular to hear in person. Elphaba really emphasizes what it is like to face adversity and to be different, while still managing to hold your own as you try to overcome your obstacles. I do think though, as much as I enjoyed this play, that it was rather disappointing how Elphaba ends up becoming the Wicked Witch of the West anyway. But that was sort of out of Holzman's hands, and regardless if she was an enemy in the Wizard of Oz, she was still a pretty "wicked" character. Wicked was, by far, the best thing we have read in Women's Studies, and I really think that regarding this play, Holzman truly outdoes herself.

Evita

I was really looking forward to reading Evita, By Andrew Lloyd Webber and Time Rice, because I am fond of Webber's Phantom of the Opera. I had high expectations before reading Evita, since I knew Webber's work was fantastic. Although I was not disappointed, I was not completely thrilled about the play in general. I did not really like Eva as a character upon first reading the play because to me she seemed overly manipulative and conniving by doing whatever, like sleeping around, to claw her way to the top. And to be honest, as the conclusion of the play, I still could not really stand her. She "seduces" Peron and manages to convince him that she could help make him to the top in Argentina. And I guess, really, she sort of does considering that Peron makes it to president of the country. And from that point on, I really saw Eva not just as a tricky character, but also as one who conflicted numerous times with those around her. It was pretty clear that the upper class (even those in France, Italy, and England) really did not take a fancy to her. Also after her conflicts with these aristocracies, as Che points out, Eva really does use the Argentina people to benefit herself. This was a big reason why I was not too fond of her, even though I really did not pick up on this until Che points it out. Eva promised she would engage in helping the people of Argentina, but when Che accuses her of instead using them to only her success, Eva become somewhat defensive and states that "there is no glory in trying to help the world from the sidelines". Although Peron adored her, and also the people of Argentina, I felt that Webber and Rice were attempting to depict the stereotypical woman; a woman that is manipulative and will do just about anything to achieve what she wants and maintain her success. Although I did not personally like Eva as a character, I do think that her dynamics really helped make the play and added to the story that Webber and Rice wanted. So overall, I really did enjoy Evita, although not as much as other plays we have read this semester in Women's Studies, and I think that the message the writers here are attemping to get across fits perfectly into this story.

Barriers & Rehana Mirza

Barriers, by Rehana Mirza, was something different for us to read, since it was a play that I definitely would not have picked up on my own. But nonetheless, I enjoyed it and would more than likely read more of her work in the future. Aside from Barriers, I was more so thoroughly impressed with Mirza herself. She is a Leopold scholar, a member of a prominent writer's lab, and the recipient of several very influential awards. She herself has a very impressive resume and I think her intelligence was definitely reflected in her writing. Barriers is about a Muslim family who expects their only daughter, Sunima, to come home and announce her engagement. The story is centered around that, but focused much on how Sunima's family must deal with their past betrayals and issues, which eventually boil over. Reading about the Mirza's story depicting the Muslim family, especially considering where our country stands today with Muslims today, was something I enjoyed reading and really gave me a little bit more insight. Since the play was focused around post-September 11th, it kind of depicts how this Muslim family is struggling to inherently be Americans. I was a little empathetic when reading Barriers, because I saw how what this family was going through was true and could cause serious tension and conflict among them. In my own community, I see how, even after so many years after September 11th, people are treating Muslims very differently and also very harshly. I feel like this family in Barriers is trying to overcome the now stereotype for a Muslim, while all the same still trying to keep to their ways. They seemed to me like they were trying to be American, without actually becoming American. It does not really make much sense, but when you really study that phrase, it does. Sumina's family is trying to cope with their own personal issues and "be Muslim", while still wanting to be American. So overall, I really enjoyed Rehana Mirza's Barriers, and thought it was most definitely one of the most well developed plays that we have read so far in Women Studies. I thought that her writing was an extremely in-depth play that not only captivated me as a reader, but also depicted some real life issues and problems that still exist within America today. I was very much impressed and look forward to pursuing more of her writing in the future.

And the Soul Shall Dance & Wakako Yamauchi

I was exited when we were assigned to read And the Soul Shall Dance by Wakako Yamauchi because I was interested to read a work from a Japanese author, since I find their work to have a little more meaning and theme then most others. Plus, it was a nice change from the writers we have currently been reading in class. I really like how Yamauchi focused on two Japanese- American immigrant families during the Depression because she was really able to draw me in as a reader based on the character dynamic she created with her wide range, and very diverse, group of characters. I also liked how she incorporated some of her own personal heritage into the story; to me that made the play more realistic and deep. My favorite family, which probably may not be a surprise, is the Murata family. This family was rather turbulent, but I felt like Yamauchi was able to balance out the whole family with each different character. The father remained as the optimistic one, while his wife Hana stayed the practical and wise one. I felt that both the mother and father greatly impacted their daughter, Masako. Another reason I enjoyed Yamauchi's work was because of the traditional Japanese proverbs. One of my favorite and most thought-provoking lines in And the Soul Shall Dance was when Hana tells Masako, "One has to know when to bend...like the bamboo. When the winds blow, bamboo bends. You bend or crack." In other words, or how I interpreted it, was that life will throw obstacles, complications, and changes your way, but the best way to deal with these differences is to "bend" or shape yourself instead of resisting what life throws at you. And in order to balance this loving and adapting family, Yamauchi included the Okas family, which are clearly not as susceptible to change as the Murata family. I didn't enjoy reading much about the Okas, but I really did feel as though their role in the play was immensely important to the play Overall, I absolutely loved how And the Soul Shall Dance incorporated those types of messages and Wakako Yamauchi is an expert at including these proverbs appropriately. I really enjoyed Yamauchi's work, and even more so enjoyed reading about how the trials and tribulations of Japanese-Americans, and hope to definitely be reading more of her work in the future.

Colorstruck & Zora Neale Hurston

Colorstruck, by Zora Neale Hurston, was a fairly intriguing play and I enjoyed reading it. However, being able to read the language and the way her characters talk was a skill I can definitely say I lacked. I found myself literally having to read most of the play out loud in order to understand and process what her characters were saying. But once I overcame the whole language barrier issue, reading the play became smooth and entertaining. But as much as I found Colorstruck to be entertaining, I found learning about Zora Neale Hurston herself to be much more fun. I had heard of some of Hurston's work, like A Raisin in the Sun, which I have not read, but watched. Learning more about Hurston as an African American woman helped me to better understand piece together in Colorstruck. For example, Hurston, unlike other African American writers during her day, choose to write more about black society, instead of primarily focusing on white oppression. Acquiring this piece of information led me to better understand Emma's character, and her jealousy of lighter-skinned women, like Effie. By adding this character trait into Emma, it makes the reader able to clearly see how Hurston slyly incorporates how whites can unknowingly oppress African Americans, just based on the color of their skin. Something that I really enjoyed about Colorstruck was the character dynamic, which I find most plays lack. Emma, for example, seems real and hardcore; Hurston does little to sugarcoat this character. She is basically a single, African American mom working a dead-end job for an upper white class family all so she can support herself and her daughter. That's the way many women today are living, and although Hurston wrote this play in the early 1900s, she hits the nail on the head when it comes to bringing to life a character that female readers can relate too. The only part of Colorstruck that I would name as unrealistic is when John comes along, seemingly better off and willing to marry Emma and take care of her. That specific part of the play, although I found it to be sort of heartwarming, is rare among real life situations, so I felt like it took away from some of the substance of her writing. But overall, I would name Zora Neale Hurston one of the most brilliant writers of her time and after physically reading some of her work, its no wonder that her writing has lasted throughout the years.

Oscar Wilde & A Woman of No Importance

I was pleased that we were supposed to read A Woman of No Importance by Oscar Wilde, since although I have not previously read any of Wilde's, I had heard great reviews of his work. I had also, in class, learned much about Wilde that I did not know before, like how he engaged in love affairs with men and was convicted of gross indecency and served two years hard time. Upon learned more about the history of the author, my opinion of A Woman of No Importance remained the same. After reading the play, I can honestly say that I enjoyed it; it definitely ranks with my top plays in this class. The plot of the story was really captivating; it was pretty much like one giant, mixed up love story to me and one that was so entrancing to read. Perhaps my favorite piece of Wilde's work is his diverse something that characters and how they communicate with one another. This biggest, and most amusing, contradiction I could find was between Lady Allonby and Lady Stetfield. These woman are pretty much in the same social circle of the aristocracy, and yet their views and opinions on men and how they should treat women are completely different. Lady Allonby firmly believe that men should treat women "as children", and how women deserve such treatment. She is sort of the anti-feminist of the group and I was intrigued that her character would socialize with Lady Stetfield, who possesses a totally different belief. She could be considered the epitome of a feminist; she discusses how men persecute women and women should be equal to their male counterparts. I just thought it was highly interesting how Wilde was able to depict his characters and really master their dynamics, making each their own. My personal favorite would probably have to be Hester, the witty girl from America. She houses no scruples when it comes to dissing the British, even when she's in their homes and she accurately makes comparisons between the English and Americans. She believes that Americans are more wholesome, and the British aristocracy are only concerned with scandals and the frivolity of life. It wasn't so much her views that made Hester my favorite character, but rather the manner in which she went about expressing them. Overall, Oscar Wilde's A Woman of No Importance was an extremely well written, easy read of a play and Wilde's diverse group of characters really shaped the story.

Getting Out

Upon reading Getting Out, by Marsha Norman, I was not very intrigued or pleased with the play as a whole. Although I have read some of Norman's works, like the Secret Garden, and have heard of others like The Color Purple, I was not pulled into her writing, much like I have been in other plays that we have read throughout the semester. I found Getting Out to be initially boring, although it was not terribly written and I still enjoyed the characters she had created. Arlene strikes me as someone who is easily looked over and brushed off, even though her character possesses some strength as a woman. She grew up pretty much in an unstable home, with a mother that engaged in prostitution and an abusive father, as well as siblings that did little to try and keep Arlene on the straight and narrow. Upon reading about her past, it was pretty much a given that her character would end up going down the wrong road and getting involved with the wrong kind of people, thus landing her in prison. It was all interesting to read, but I didn't feel like Norman left much to the imagination or attempted to divert the reader from the "oh, I saw that one coming" feeling. Everything in the play, and all of its characters seemed to flow, but in a rather boring manner. However, one thing I did like about Getting Out was how Norman showed that a woman, who isn't expected to amount to much and who is seen as travelling the same path for the rest of her life, can change all that. I wouldn't really relate it to second chances, but Arlene was definitely able to move on and seemingly make peace with her past as Arlie, the troublemaker. Norman, who I would credit as an amazing writer, also was able to best depict a character that isn't like most in other plays you read. There wasn't anything grand or spectacular about Arlene, and she didn't dramatically lose anything throughout the play (the only exception I would make would be Joey, since she wanted him back so that she could keep him from falling into the same place she had) because she did not have anything to lose. Norman's characters were gritty and real; there was nothing grandiose about them. And because of that I felt that Getting Out was what it was, although I personally did not enjoy the story overall.

The Bad Seed

The Bad Seed, written in 1954 by William March, was my favorite of all the plays we have read so far, mostly because I found myself on edge during the reading, anxious to learn more about the characters and reach the end. The characters, in fact, were probably my favorite part of reading this play since each once, whether or not they possessed a large or small role, were somehow significant and interesting all the same. Of course, probably the best character in my mind, was Rhoda Penmark, as twisted as it seems. It's not often when you read a story that the most evil character happens to be a child, of which you would expect to be the most tender and innocent. I found Rhoda's character to be incredibly unique; she seemed to possess no scruples whatsoever and acted much like a manipulative adult when it came to her intelligence and ability to kill, but at the same time, her character still had some hint of childishness in her since she murdered poor Claude Daigle simply because he won the award she thought she deserved. In The Bad Seed, another character that I came to like was Rhoda's mother, Christine. Christine suspected what her young daughter was doing and was in fact capable of, and at first, I believed she tried her hardest to "right her wrongs" in raising Rhoda and change the inherited evil that had been passed down to her daughter. But in the end, she did what I think only the most extreme of mothers would do and attempted to kill her daughter before committing suicide herself. This play is perhaps the prime example when it comes to "nurture versus nature", and how no matter how hard a mother tries, she cannot change what traits were bound to show up in her daughter. For example, because Christine's mother was a heartless murderess, no matter what or how Christine attempted to raise her daughter, that sadistic trait of being able to claim another life was bound to show up in her child at some point, and that point just happened to occur at a very young age. Like the saying, it goes to show how some people are more than likely born evil, and not made that way as they grow up, although how you are raised could most certainly also contribute to what kind of person you become. Either way you look at it, The Bad Seed was indeed a captivating play with an appropriate theme, and certainly considered something different during its time.

Trifles

Trifles was definitely a short, but still intriguing, play written by Susan Glaspell depicting a woman whose husband is found dead. I think this play sort of delved into how little unhappy things in a person's life could have them acting unpredicatable and allowing bad things to happen. In Trifles, Mr. John Wright turns up dead in his home, and his wife is found in a far-off state, sitting in a chair and simply pleating her apron as she's questioned about where her husband is and how he turned up strangled without her noticing it at all. Upon first reading, I had no doubt that Mrs. Wright killed her husband and I felt no pity about her being in her distant state and hoped she'd be carried off and served her justice. But then, when Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters are talking about what happened and the circumstances, my opinion began to change. They talk about her fruit and how Mrs. Wright would be uspet if something happened to that, then they talk about quilting, and then they talk about whether or not she owned a canary upon discovering a birdcage. Upon them discussing these simple and trivial things, it becomes more clear within Glaspell's Trifles that little, ordinary things cane play a major role in someone developing unhappiness, especially considering that Mr. Wright wasn't the easiest man to live with. With all these constant, boring things becoming the center of Mrs. Wright's world, and mixed with her hard husband, I felt that it was no wonder everything negative built up until it finally exploded, resulting in Mr. Wright's death. I know me personally, although I certainly wouldn't resort to killing, or having someone kill for me, can understand how simple things can build up, annoy, and only increase the frustration. Especially if your forced to be around them every single hour of every single day. So after reading Trifles, my opinion definitely changed. I don't think that killing her husband was the answer to ending her unhappiness, but I do understand how maybe Mrs. Wright thought that the only way to escape her unsatisfactory, simple lifestyle was to get rid of the true source behind it all. That sort of thing happens frequently in today's time, where women see ridding themselves of their partners to be the only solution to the world they cannot escape. So, overall, Trifles was very much an accurate description of how ordinary things can escalate into ultimate tragedy.

Medea

After reading Medea, written by Euripedes, I was sort of confused about some points within the play, but I attribute that primarily to the way the play was written. I must say first, however, that I overall really enjoyed reading Medea and found the whole story intriguing, despite my confusions from the writing. Although I liked the play and its theme, I absolutely could not stand the way it was written. It seemed to me that Euripedes chose to write Medea in a type of poem form. I felt personally that this poetic format sort of took away from the drama of the play. If it was written more like Lysistrata, it would have been more captivating and I feel that the whole point of the play would've been more obvious. Besides my issue with the poem format, I thought that Euripedes's intent was too display women as conviving, manipulative, and scheming individuals. Might as well throw heartless in there too, since he has Medea kill her innocent children just to cause Jason immense pain. That is another point in the play that sort of puzzled me. Why did she chose to slaughter her children, if they were supposed to be in exile alongside her? To me, I feel that that would have been able to cause the same amount of pain that Jason would feel. He is still losing his children, just in another way. And Medea would have been able to reflect a hint of humanity within herself if she had not murdered her children. Aside from those negative qualities that Euripedes chooses to represent her with, Medea is also able to use what I would call a "woman's natural charm" to convince Creon to allow her one more day before her exile from Corinth to secretly plot her revenge on him, the princess, and Jason. Aside from him, she also manages to convince a travelling man from another city to allow her refuge in his home, simply by promising to help him and his wife conceive a child. To me, the character Medea is the perfect representation of how the sneaky woman would be portrayed. Although I didn't really like her character, I didn't dislike her either. I could see how it would make sense for Medea to want to get back at her husband, who left her for a "better match". But on the same note, I think she definitely took it to the extremes. Killing the other woman and her father, not to mention her own flesh and blood, seems way over the top just to spite the man that betrayed her. But then again, this play would not have been nearly as entertaining if all this drama didn't happen.

Lysistrata

Lysistrata was the name of the woman in Aristophanes play that sought to end the wars between areas like Greece and Athens. Her brilliant solution to go about bringing peace involved gathering a group of women and having all of them, including herself, refrain from sex with their husbands. From first reading this play I assumed that the women choosing to forgo sex was intended to symbolize the supposed strength that women possessed over men, or that's what I got out of it at least. Even though, the more I read, it seemed that most of the women (from the few that agreed and pledged to her idea) Lysistrata recruited came up with far out ideas to avoid participating in her plan and run off to be with their husbands. I started to rethink my idea about the play reflecting the strength of women until, for example, I reached the part near the end of the play with Myrrhine and her husband, Cinesias, who was desperate to be with his wife again. Not only was it entertaining to read, but it only went to prove what I initially thought upon reading Lysistrata. Some parts of the play I found comical, especially the concept that woman refusing to engage in sex with their husbands could be enough to end a war, but it wasn't until after our class discussion that I understood that that was what the majority of what Lysistrata was intended to be. There was a part in the play that I did not quite understand and that was the scene when Lysistrata and the other women of her entourage enter some sort of temple and I assume they chose the reside there until their husbands could come to peace with other feuding nations. I just overall couldn't understand if staying in that temple was supposed to convey some sort of message or something, but that scene just didn't seem to fit and flow with the rest of the play. Also during that scene was when these choruses of men and women began speaking during the play, which I thought sort of increased tension and bitterness between the sexes, which, for me, added to concept of what the play was supposed to reflect. Overall, I thought that Aristopanes Lysistrata was a good, although probably not accurate depiction during its time of production, reflection of what a strong woman could be and even how one woman could bring an end to war by the simple act of refraining from sex.