I would like to have this idea clarified. Is this saying that the "street" and "home" aspects of Chicana urban identities are developed separately yet remain under the urban Chicana "umbrella", or are these "street" and "home" aspects different expressions (dependent on social setting) of Chicana urban identity which developed as one?

This makes me think more deeply about the power of media I wondered about in the previous article. Now, I feel that the relationship between media portrayals and their real-world Latino counterparts are much more intricate than I previously thought. The real trauma and struggle experienced by Latinos is, in some ways, integral to their experience, therefore making portrayals of certain "inner city" scenarios in media inevitable.

A small comment to make: I could be wrong as I’m largely unfamiliar with musical theatre history, but is it common for musicals of the 20th century to have an impoverished, neglected, or otherwise abused character? I find that many musicals I encounter from the last century tend to have a primary character sing a song about how they desire a new beginning with X, Y, and Z in their life and how much better it would be than the X, Y, and Z present in their current circumstance. I do get the sense from this particular musical, however, that the character of Audrey is somewhat tongue in cheek.

I did some research and found out that the famous film adaptation of the musical changed the ending so that the humans won. I have absolutely no idea why the filmmakers would have chosen to do that from an artistic perspective. That alternative ending feels so divorced from the overall tone and structure of Little Shop of Horrors, and probably had far more to do with the general sensitivity of American audiences when it comes to endings. The original ending in the musical is a bit silly and cute (intentionally so), though I’m unsure what to make of the closing stage directions. As this play was put on Off-Broadway in the ‘80s, I’m not sure how they were able to visually wrap up the audience in the “jaws” of Audrey Two. Perhaps this was mostly done with lighting as opposed to any physical extensions of the set.

I felt that this play had a very unique rhythm to its dialogue. The characters speak in a way which isn’t entirely realistic. In some ways, I enjoyed this, as it seemed reminiscent of certain styles/playwrights we have read before and matched this play thematically. However, I did come to wonder if this was a deliberate choice, or if perhaps this play was translated into English from another language.

This opening stage direction section was intriguing to me as someone who is interested in becoming a playwright. I was once taught that, at least to make a script fit for submission (or more specifically, to increase the likelihood that a theatre company will read through your play), that stage directions should be kept direct and trim. Whenever I see stage directions like those which open this play, I am always fascinated to see how they function to serve the story and “set the stage” of the world. I believe that these stage directions are the perfect way to open this play. The most important section here I’d say is: “The audience should feel a kind of relaxation or even a kind of rapture… before they watch the play.” This provides the director with a creatively rich foundation, as this description provides opposite emotional states open to the director’s interpretation (the playwright even goes on to directly state that many elements of the scene-setting are up to the director).

I believe that this meta opening section is my favorite part of the play. For starters, these opening lines are what the thematic roots of the play are based on. BJJ is a “Black playwright”. His identity (or more specifically, the “need” for such label) is integral to his retelling of a long-dead White man’s play that deals with societal perspectives of Blackness. This leads into the partly humorous, partly sad idea the therapist presents of reworking such a play in order to soothe BJJ’s depression in a “fun” way. This connects to the other reason this section is my favorite: a subtle but scathing criticism of American mental healthcare.

This is another meta section which I thoroughly enjoyed. Deconstructing traditional dramatic structure within the context of this play (which itself is also a deconstruction of society’s relationship to Blackness) was rather brilliant, particularly when you consider that the “Playwright” character represents Dion Boucicault. Despite the somewhat nightmarish tint that these meta sequences possess, there is a good deal of humor to be drawn from how the pair flout theatrical conventions. They remove the power of the “moral” and the concept of “Act 4” by simply acknowledging it a frank and dismissive way. Upon completing the play, I found myself coming back to this idea the most, and I ultimately feel it was another means of critiquing Boucicault’s original play.

I found this section both intriguing and profoundly sad. My first thoughts in this final stanza were actually connected to “The Sopranos”, when during one of Tony Soprano’s fever dreams he begins saying “Who am I? Where am I going?”. Those lines are nearly identical to Bruce’s “Who am I now? Where do I go?”. The reason this connection between the show and this play stuck with me was because Tony and Bruce are both men who, for their own reasons, are incapable of escaping their vices, rage, and sadness. The idea of a Bruce as a “lost man” who ends up wandering into his own demise was a brutal and poignant metaphor as well.

What a terribly depressing thought. As a wife, she has sacrificed her life. “Bargains” are what her memories have become for her, as each and every day was spent trying desperately to keep her ugly relationship with a very ill man intact. Although I did sympathize with Bruce by the play’s conclusion, these lines do speak to how patriarchal societies condition women to simply put up with the ugliness of men because they expected to be the caretakers and peacemakers. Helen saying she “didn’t raise” Alison to give away her days like she did shows an attempt to break that cycle, and one can only hope that Alison was able to escape it(I believe that the play’s ending implies she does).

I was very intrigued and impressed by this play, and decided to do some research on the author/play. “Woyzeck” was left unfinished by Buchner, and was based on a real “Woyzeck” who was ultimately executed for murdering a woman. In Buchner’s original writings, the play was meant to continue with a court scene which would leave the play more in line with the real-life events. However, I find this ending to be the superior version of the two. The language of this play is oppressively bleak, to the point where I imagined the events to not be entirely grounded in reality. Every character in their own way is a caricature of negativity, reflecting Woyzeck’s mad paranoia. The image of him wading further and further out, perhaps endlessly, is a beautiful metaphor to close out this haunting story.

I find it interesting how Barker’s monkey represents Woyzeck. “A nothing, a mere nothing at all” is Woyzeck’s view of himself and the world. This view is exacerbated by his grueling living conditions as a poor soldier, and so, like the Barker’s monkey, Woyzeck dances and bends over backwards for those around him just to keep pressing forward. Agreeing to shave the Captain and only eat peas for the Doctor just to maintain his living was more Woyzeck’s “choice” than it was the Barker’s monkey to dance, yet they both mindlessly go about these tasks with no end in sight. The progression of this idea presents itself later in the play with the Barker’s horse when, after the animal “behaves indecently”, the Barker exclaims “… it’s a person metamorphosised.” Its wild actions being described as an escape from existing as “filth” foreshadows the play’s conclusion.

I found this sequence both incredibly entertaining and very insightful. Jean goes on with short monologues beautifully describing his view of her as being within the Garden of Eden, only for her to say "all boys steal apples." Then, he describes how sensational an experience it was as a poor boy being in such a grand building, and Miss Julie simply states "It must be a tremendous misfortune to be poor." As I touched on in my prior annotation, Miss Julie lacks a strongly established sense of self. These replies to Jeans outline how out of touch she is with, frankly, most people. Comments like these are why I felt that her sudden excitement to start a hotel was rather shallow. It had more to do with her wanting a different perspective than that of, as Jean put it, a hawk. That, to me, is the essence of this tragedy: Miss Julie wanted any other perspective than her own, and when her one available option was ripped from her, death became a viable alternative.

I have many mixed feelings regarding this section after reading the play. As I first read through (as this was still very early on in the story) this act of making her fiancé perform a trick like a dog seemed rather cruel and manipulative. While to a certain extent the nature of the act remains somewhat manipulative, upon finishing the play I don't view it as cruelly as I did. Miss Julie reads to me as someone who is more confused by her position in the world than possessed by a power trip (in a similar way to teenagers acting out to test their boundaries). Her desire to suddenly run off with a servant to start a new life supports this.