Trifles

I would not agree with the proposal. I'm not against the idea of abstract theatre or theatricalism, I just wouldn't choose to apply it to this script. To focus solely on the action of the play rather than the technical components highlights the meaning of a show. It emphasizes the characters’ intensions and usually some overlaying theme. While this play does have meaning, it is a meaning that would be reinforced with the use of costumes and props. Without them much of the story, in my opinion, would be lost. The action in the play is a direct response to the setting. The characters think, act, and feel the way they do because of their surroundings. To take that away, would strip them of their motives and of their evidence. So much importance lies in the props and in the set that it seems counteractive to remove them. Why rid the story of such pertinent information? While the story would still get across without detailed and specific set pieces, so much of a story can be told by color, condition, and style. I do like the idea of blank sets and simple props. It forces the audience to imagine the world of the play for themselves—making each experience more personal. I just wouldn’t chose that approach for this show. By only reading the script, I felt that I did not completely experience it. My imagination wasn’t enough to fill the uncertainties and unlike an audience, I had stage descriptions. Had I seen the messy house, the broken cage, what the women were wearing, and the condition of the quilt, I would’ve been much more engaged. There is a difference between a house and a home. There is a difference between being judged by a peer and by someone who is above you. These are details that would be revealed by set and costumes. To take away detail would be to deprave the audience of understanding.