MM+Machinal+Critique

 Mackenzie Marr

 Dr. Richmond

 THEA 2000

 27 March 2017

 Machinal Critique

  I saw //  Machinal  // on Friday, March 24, and I found the performance interesting. The expressionism in general was very well done, and while it easily could have been overplayed to make it a bit ridiculous, it really added to the piece. The opening scene in the office was among the most heavy-handed with the abstract style that was present throughout the performance. While it did a fairly good job of introducing the characters of the Young Woman and George H. Jones, it was on the overwhelming side. Many people were talking at once, which made it overwhelming to listen to. The scene fit the style of the overall production, and the mechanical movements introduced the theme that carried throughout the production of humans as machines. The boy who repeated “hot dog” throughout this scene was distracting and funny, and though I think this was the point, it struck me as odd and out of place.

  One of the most compelling scenes in the production was the one where the Young Woman, played by Eva Ramirez, talks to her mother about how she does not want to marry George H. Jones. There were so many interesting parts about this scene, like the way it introduced her distant yet interdependent relationship with her mother, and set up the problems they would have later on. The Young Woman executed this scene with a lithe grace that showed the deep disturbances lurking beneath the surface of her character. This scene was also a true beginning to the show’s exploration of the concept of marriage and independence, and introduced the tragic fact that Helen’s blood runs cold when her husband-to-be touches her. The motif of hands is also introduced here, as Helen works to keep her own hands pretty by protecting them with rubber gloves and laments the fact that George has fat hands. Also introduced is Helen’s idea that she wants a baby with little curls, which, when her baby is born without them, introduces the distant relationship between Helen and her daughter. This scene is so crucial to the show not just because of the exposition that occurs, but also because of the way it is performed. The expressive movements that Helen makes throughout the entire conversation with her mother worked wonderfully to add meaning to the words she was saying.

  The next several scenes are devoted to developing Helen and George’s relationship. I found especially interesting the feminist meaning imbued in their relationship, and the implied control that came from his always wanting her to draw the shades, even though Helen always wanted to look out the window. Also interesting in this segment is that even though Helen is clearly repulsed by her husband, he never seems to notice. This says a lot about their relationship, but also can be expanded as a way to view how marriage was viewed in the 1920’s, as more of a practical arrangement than a bond of love. Helen’s desire for freedom is most keen during this period, and it reflects the flapper desire to break free from the oppression of being a perfect woman.

  When Helen meets her lover, everything changes, and the style of performance shifts back to overlapping dialogue that occurs early in the performance. The scene in the bar where Helen meets her lover was an interesting representation of a bar, with everyone talking at once, but with the stylization of the play there was also a story being told, and that appealed to me. The cacophony stops when Helen decides to go home with him, however, and then the scene becomes more peaceful. The movements when they were laying together and talking were very reflective of amorous feeling, and it was clear through Helen’s voice and the way she moved that she felt free when she was hearing about Mexico. The Spanish phrase that the lover repeats, ¿quién sabe?, or who knows, is interesting for a number of reasons. First, because it plays into the idea that no one knows what will happen or who they should be, but also because Helen’s husband never knows that he has been made a cuckold, just like he never knows how much Helen abhors him. In this way, a—perhaps facetious—response to the question “who knows?” is “not George.” Helen becomes infatuated with her lover, although it seems to be more the idea of him, and his connection to freedom. They find themselves in a “little heaven” that is separate from the world of automatons that surrounds them.

  A striking symbol used in this play is introduced in this scene—the water lily that the lover gives to Helen. The lily is so intriguing because it follows the trio through the entirety of their intertwined lives. Helen receives it when she first lies with her lover, and it represents their affair, and the freedom it grants her. It also becomes a more permanent symbol of her freedom when she uses it to bludgeon her husband to death with the pebbles in the bowl. It is also connected to the betrayal committed by her lover when he writes that she had possessed the lily in the first place. It is so interesting because it becomes a symbol of both Helen’s freedom and captivity.

  The scene in the courtroom where Helen is convicted was cleverly staged; I especially thought that the same actress who played the mother played the judge, and emphasized the societal judgement that so heavily burdened Helen. It was also interesting that the priest that was with her after her conviction was the same actor as Helen’s lover, and emphasizes that he represents both her freedom and confinement.

  The final scene right before Helen’s execution was very moving, especially because of the emphasis provided by the lighting. A detail I especially liked was Helen’s flashlight that emitted a square light for the beginning of her soliloquy, that represented the oppression of mechanization and conformity that she had faced throughout her life, and as her thoughts turned to freedom the light softened. This change was very subtle, but really added to the overall feeling of her monologue.

