Mercy Otis Warren's The Group is clearly not a play meant to be performed. Any company taking on this project would be doomed for failure. It lacks nearly every necessary component for successful theater. The lack of engaging dialogue and action does not serve to further an engaging plot. The setting is bland. And, the characters lack personality.
The action in a play is driven forward by a combination of characters' dialogue as well as characters' action. Generally speaking it is the action of a play that grabs the audience's attention and maintains their interest throughout the show. The Group fails as a means of typical theatrical entertainment because it fails to create a driving plot for the reader to invest their attention. While most plays undergo dynamic changes in action (explication, rising action, climax, denouement) The Group remains mostly stagnant. In fact in the end of the play, where Shakespeare would have put a sword-fight or an unexpected reversal full of fast paced action and dialogue, Warren maintains the dense, long-winded dialogue that she has used throughout the entire work.
A look at the setting of The Group is equally lackluster. Act 1 Scene 1 takes place in "a little dark parlor." The description here serves little more than to add a mood to discussion that will follow. Darkness accompanies secrecy or uncertainty. And, as follows, the characters are in a private debate regarding the American colonies. The parlor is meant to be any of a hundred similar dark parlors across the American colonies. Though setting Act 1 in a parlor does give it universality, it also leaves much to be desired as far as visual stimulation goes. Though the characters have been placed in the parlor, there is no action (besides topic for discussion) to suggest that they are in fact in a parlor. The designation of the location of Act 1 can be seen mostly as arbitrary. Act 2 Scene 1 is a little more specific. Warren places these characters in "a large dining room. The table furnished with bowls, bottles, glasses, and cards...In one corner of the room is discovered a small cabinet of books, for the use of the studious and contemplative." She then goes on to list off the books on the dining room's shelves. Just as before, this description of setting is intended much more to set a mood than to be an actual component of the action of the play. Exemplifying this idea is Warren's specific detail in describing which books to put on the shelves. Though Colonial theaters were undoubtedly smaller than modern standards, the idea that someone in the back row would be able to read the spine of a book on a shelf on stage is still far fetched. Warren chose books to represent the heritage of the characters in debate as well as demonstrate the sources of some of their ideas. Much like in Act 1, the setting here has little bearing on the development of the play and has little pertinence to an audience.
Just as Warren has failed by providing static dialogue and setting, she also fails to engage the audience (or reader) by depicting flat characters. Even the characters in The Group who represent real individuals are presented on page with one unwavering point of view. This is because the characters are not meant to be real people, but rather stereotypes that represent a group of people or a way of thinking. The two most obvious examples of Warren’s stereotyped characters are Hateall and Simple. In both cases, the name says it all. Hateall, is a character built around an ultimate faith in the British military and as violence as the answer. Other characters may push for a more peaceful solution but he hates all calling for “brutal force on quick destruction, misery and death.” Simple Sapling is an equally flat character. He describes himself using adjectives like “feeble,” “slender,” and “humble.” His concern with regards to conflict with the colonists is to “rural peace,” showing that he represents the lesser-to-do British man. Characters like Hateall and Simple are a good way of conveying stereotypes but lack all forms of humanity. These flat, character shells fail to meet the standard necessary for engaging an audience.
No colonists in Mercy Otis Warren’s time would have gone to see The Group. But this is not because of its lack of dynamic change, its bland, nondescript sets, or its soulless characters. No one would have seen The Group because it didn’t need to be put on in order for Warren’s point to get across. The Group completely fails as a work of theater, but as piece of political satire writing, it certainly hits its mark. The lack of change allows Warren to analyze the different British points of view on the American colonies laterally rather than worrying about any type of forward progression, giving a more complete vision of the current state of affairs. The settings and the characters are bland because they are not important. Their nondescript or stereotypical qualities make them universal so that Warren’s message applied to all the colonists. Warren’s message is the most important part of The Group and as such, it certainly stands out as the work’s strongest ingredient.
No comments:
Post a Comment