The repetition of the gunshot is particularly fascinating when contextualized by this theatrical event or game. This (almost) fetish to kill “Lincoln” and relish in the saving of the South is lascivious and dark especially when commodified as a mundane or fun action. This repetition forces us to question who are the ones who “pretend” shoot and who would actually commit a murder. In a manner similar to the Balcony are we the roles we pretend and eroticize or is it all fictitious? The characters of the Balcony had a certain resonance and proclivity to the characters they chose to perform and later become. The only real distinguishing factor between role and persona was the walls of the brothel which was meant for eroticism. Are we to assume that because it’s a payed attraction, there are not people who relish in the character of John (who stand for adoration of slavery)? It becomes difficult to differentiate where the boundaries are between real and pretend. The Lesser Known Lincoln is still experiencing hearing problems and other physical effects to the toy guns; juts because they are toys and this is an attraction does not belittle the pain he experiences as a result. Just because it is a game does not mean there aren't people who carry the sentiment of wanting to shoot Lincoln

Fefu’s cat is unlike the cats found in the other plays from this semester. The cat of Rhinoceros was killed by a stampede of rhinos. The cat in a Delicate balance was beaten by the owner sworn to protect it. Fefu’s cat is not a victim by some manifestation of abuse. Fefu’s compassion and generosity to feed the cat was ultimately returned with disgusting waste. Continuing to feed the cat out of fear (and simultaneously a preservation of a modicum of happiness from the beginning stages of their relationship) portrays this perverse nature of being stuck in something you do not want to do. The cat’s description contains physical prowess reminiscent of the conversation of strength from the beginning of the play. The cat controls the relationship and solidifies its position to keep returning to the house because Fefu feels obligated to keep feeding it. The combination of the cat’s description and the action of fear motivated feeding places Fefu in a role of subservience. It is important to notice that the cat is also male. Fefu searches for control in and amongst her female friends and is enraged when others attempt to definitively mark her as a “monster”. Her understanding of power is derived from the men within her life and thus she tries to emulate that in the relationships with the other women. She attempts to be the cat when she knows from the beginning, she is the one providing the food.

Julia in this moment presents a balance between inner (unrestricted) child and adult. Her reaction to Edna and Harry occupying her room is presumably a regression towards her attitude as a child. Rather than trying to mitigate her feelings with an older critique, Julia relishes in child demeanor to be truly heard. Her father questioning the cause of her hysteria is a direct byproduct of her actions. In this stage direction of arriving downstairs fatigued from the duress of the preceding night, we see Julia no longer embodies the child persona thus will less likely be heard by anyone. She is a balance between restriction and profound release. We learn from Julia that there are a multitude of factors that affect our imposed societal roles. It is an amalgamation of those ideologies that cultivate the omnipotent and oppressive construct. To be seen and to be heard, one must break from their designated role with the inherent risk of being seen as mad. One must then begin to question what is more important: being seen and heard with the risk of being ostracized or live habitually dissatisfied in a role with a modicum of respect or safety.

This action that Claire performs of disidentification with the term “alcoholic” forces the audience to question the validity of her statements (and subsequently those around her who misconstrued opinion as character). The difference between “alcoholic” and “drunk” is a matter of dependency, which Claire brings up in the following thought. Claire is not an alcoholic because she chooses when she will or will not drink. She (by her self-understanding) is not dependent upon alcohol. And yet she drinks to spite Agnes and to thrust her to this point of insanity which is toyed with as something erotic. Claire is the antithesis of her sister and performs actions and cultivates a persona in direct opposition. She is compelled to drink not for the feeling of alcohol but for the invigoration of spiting her sister. Claire is dependent upon her sister: living in their house, relishing on their news and relationships, drinking to play a role Agnes despises… Claire’s livelihood dependency on Agnes is synonymous to an Alcoholic with drink. I don’t believe the term alcoholic and drunk truly bother Claire. I believe her reason for this habitual act of disidentification and affiliation with terms and ideologies stems from her deep-rooted opposition to her sister. Agnes believes she is an alcoholic; therefore she categorizes herself as a drunk.

Sound becomes a critical component within the play and functions in a profound manner similar to that of legitimate dialogue. The reveal of the dumbwaiter occurs because of the sound within the wall. This reveal alters the hitmen’s perception of the room they are inhabiting: no longer are they alone. The sudden and jarring sound coming from an undisclosed and hidden location creates this strong emphasis of foreboding… why only now does the sound come? If another party had the entire time to use the dumbwaiter, why must this entrance occur in the argument between the two? Was this party listening in through the hollowness of the wall? We must also question why the initial reveal is not visual. With the secret hatch covering the dumbwaiter, there is still a layer of façade and masquerade which to a more ignorant party might be misconstrued as truth. The two men are aware of their career and the job they must perform, thus have visceral reactions to the sound. Not everyone would be quick to investigate the disturbance. The dumbwaiter’s arrival serves as a disruption of their initial ambience, in a way the final killing will do. (In that moment as well the sound of the toilet flushing becomes an indication of finality, the truth is revealed). This examination of the secrecy becomes commentary of the systems of power in which the hitmen are obliged to follow. To choose to investigate or blindly accept. The hidden space even with the sound is still invisible to the naked eye. Though they were not always aware of the dumbwaiter, it was always there. Power in its execution makes the intentional decision to make itself known. In a paradoxical manner those who have power, have the power to reveal their hierarchy and authority. Sound is revealing but still invisible to the naked eye thus imperceptible without the volition of another.

In this moment the audience is unintentionally mirroring the actions and sentiments of the Judge. The Judge (through his use of the apple metaphor) wants to provide the audience with a modicum of hope that he is not corrupted in his quest to definitively mark "good" and "bad". He reveals his arms are bare of any rot from the apple: the severing of the two halves was clear. The audience is forced to look at him (in his empathetic appeal) because he is looking directly at them. He is imploring them to pass judgment onto him in the way he is in room with the prostitute. For the audience however, there is no clear way to mark him as good or bad. We do not know who he truly is but rather his composed identity which is derived from this conceptual ideology of "Judgeness". The audience being forced to pass Judgement on a person they do not understand become commentary on the nature of Judgment and mirroring itself. A mirror is an imitation. If one were to look into a mirror they would see a reflection but be able to physically connect to what is beyond the glass. Same holds true for this moment of the Judge and the audiences' symbiotic relationship. Neither one can pass judgment for the act of mirroring belittles and diminishes the characteristics of what lies beyond. In context to the nature of the brothel, the men come to engage in powerful fantasies. The women play roles but begin to lose track of their required lines and actions. These men are not truly the roles they play but rather ideological conceptions of what their role might be. The brothel is an illusion in the way a mirror is... you can never truly achieve but you can imitate and fantasize.

For the audience I imagine this stage direction of powerful rhinos would instill fear and anxiety. This moment comes after Jean's transformation which creates this foreboding: you don't know why there is this case of "Rhinoceritis" and why people are electing to change. By hearing the rhinos rather than seeing them there is this tension that heightens the ending in which there is only Beranger left. A singular human to fend off the strength and omnipotence of countless Rhinos outside of his building. Hearing too, as a stage direction allows for the audience to conjure up their own images of what the Rhinoceros might look like... is it a true animal or is it somewhere lost between in metamorphosis? Additionally within a theatrical production sense, sound effects must be played through speakers located in multiple areas to provide this sound for the entire audience. This volume of noise and the quality of the sound itself being this monstrous roar, is frightening as the audience cannot tell how many there are and what the resolution will be... if there ever is one.

Every time a rhinoceros arrives Jean is criticizing Beranger. The first time the rhinoceros arrived Jean was ridiculing Beranger for his appearance and general attitude. The second time, Jean tries to dis-identify with Beranger by marking him as distinctly "other": alcoholic. This repetition (of the animal arrival in conjunction to the conversations of Beranger and Jean) creates an emphasis of tension; rather than having a singular enemy of the foreign animal in provincial France, there are enemies amongst the human ranks. There is no modicum of safety for large disturbances bring out the truth of character buried by artificial presentation. Beranger is not interested in the rhinoceros while Jean is: Jean's fascination with imposing assimilation (unto Beranger) and the rhinoceros displays his preoccupation with conversion and rationalization. He wants to know where the rhino came from and wants to change Beranger (because both present something different and dangerous to the sanctity of the city). This fascination could lead to his downfall. Beranger by contrast with his objectivity to the rhino is not interested in novelty and newness. He is not susceptible to appealing rhetoric. Jean's cruel treatment to his friend with the simultaneous arrival of the rhinoceros indicates the darker nature to fascination and unyielding beliefs .

After reading this stage direction I felt immediately implored to turn around to see if I was still alone in my bedroom. The idea of laughter being devoid of a body heightens the imminent sense of foreboding and impending doom within the text after the abrupt suicides. There is a real and visceral fear of not being able to pinpoint and confront an entity that has the omnipotence to evoke an emotional response. Similar to the conceptual ideas of "The Invisible Man" how can one differentiate isolation and illusion? I might very well see the characters on the chairs where as another might see only the chair itself. I imagine the audience would feel emotionally connected to the chairs (whether that be fear or something more "positive"): we have spent the duration of this play watching characters interact with space without tangibly getting responses to their actions and behaviors. With this ending there is a large sense of life endowed upon a minimalistic stage. How can we see and imagine and fear a full room whilst only looking at chairs? I believe that this moment also depicts the nature of existentialism in which humanity is confused and anxious in the face of an absurd world; in the way we fear something absurd as a theatrical prop with no actor.

Hamm in his habitual pessimism, aggression, and maliciousness towards those closest to him, is juxtaposed by his fondness and empathy towards the environment. Proclaiming the beauty of the naturalistic world outside the window, Hamm depicts his longing and aspirations for what is objectively far away. Constantly unappeased by the actions of Clov and the actions of his father…Hamm uses nature as a conduit to express his adoration for conceptual ideas. The beauty of imagination lies in the customization of it. When conjuring an image in our imaginations, we impregnate the image with our own ideals, likings, and specifications. We customize the world to what we want to perceive as utopian. Hamm in his description of the world is a representation of what he values whereas the other man is disgusted by the thought of inventing prosperity in decay. The corn and its yellow hue reminiscent of the sunlight Hamm clambers to in his attempts to enjoy the tranquility of the window. The sails… an homage to the sea breeze Hamm desires to hear. By observing these images when looking out of the window Hamm is able to detach himself from the despair of the human experience (the ashes the other man sees) and preserve a modicum of happiness. He values what cannot be tarnished; he values willful ignorance.

This moment for me deeply resonates with the Aristotelian conception of tragedy. Vladimir and Estragon are searching for salvation and meaning; an emotional connection to something to lift them from the barbarity of time and the human condition. They are waiting to die or waiting to live (dependent upon your perspective). In order to create meaning, humans have constructed the concept of religion in which we are bound to a higher power who will evaluate our choices — in the mortal realm — and sent us to salvation or suffering. We cling to this concept of a “God”, yet we don't know much about them. Our concept of higher powers are derived from human thought and bias within the texts and transcriptions we read; one does not know what “God” is and what is salvation/meaning. Here Vladimir and Estragon recognize the magnitude of their suffering. The pair realize they do not know Godot and do not know what he looks like or if he will ever come. Doomed to spend eternity waiting — as they forget their sufferings due to human memory and the passage of time— we are forced to watch them endure pain in searching for something that ultimately might never come or might never have existed. Tragedy arises when Vladimir and Estragon are forced to question their affinity in waiting for Godot. It is tragic to realize we place so much emphasis to create meaning in something that may never come to quantify or gratify our devotion. For the two it is the recognition in their lack of understanding of Godot that is tragic: is there true judgement after our human lives or do we cling to that conception to create meaning in suffering?

Preceding this moment Sabina asked the fortune teller who Hellen of Troy was. This reference to Greek mythology allows us to perceive the fortune teller as Cassandra. Cassandra was cursed to say true prophecies but have them never believed. In this way the fortune teller embodies the principle of "Theatrum Mundi" as her life and actions are dictated by the will of a higher power. The fortune teller had previously been telling fortunes on the board walk that no one believed. Additionally, the fortune teller is speaking directly to the audience and using her "established credibility" as a "fortune teller" to articulate that humanity is cyclical in its nature despite individuality. This act of speaking directly to the audience to involve them within the piece is another layer to the "Theatrum Mundi" as the distinct boundaries between real and theatre are blurred; the words of the fortune teller are not isolated to the fictitious narrative. Her words are derived from truth and the audience in this direct interaction is forced to recognize how their own lives are performative examples of the narrative she has articulated.

We proceed this line with Joan's almost courageous claim that there was a scream outside the house... that was not attributed to an animal. This is where we begin to see Harper divert the conversation to her favour whilst still depicting the secret insidiousness of this family. This line by Harper indicates that the town they are currently residing in is lacking classic attributes of what one might call a "pitstop". WIthout cafes or places to stop on their travels (for bird watching) travelers might turn to the hospitality of the members of the community. Or possibly retreat into the environment to search for resources or privacy, in which they are completely isolated. Both instances allow for the war to continue to continue in which there is a "right" or "wrong" as said by Harper. We learn through the phrase "don't expect" that there is a savagery in the attacks; victims felt safe under a facade of safety or tranquility. What could happen while bird watching? Should we always be on our guard that there is an "other" a foe?