I'm about halfway through the script right now - I read a little bit each night before bed. Here's a couple of thoughts so far. First, there are about 30 characters in the play, and they're all women. That's awesome. There's a lot of class differences explored in the play, which centers on an upper-class lady discovering that her husband has been cheating on her with a shop-girl/gold-digger. She gets all kinds of advice from her friends and from her mother, most of which consists of "oh just tough it out, don't confront him, he's just a man, they all go through this, he's just going through something, don't make a big deal of it, he'll get over it," etc. There are a ton of peripheral characters that put in their two cents on the issues as well - in one scene, the wife is in a changing room at a store, and the mistress is in the adjacent changing room, and the fitters keep bringing different outfits in for the women to try on - the wife doesn't like the flashy, sexy outfit, so they take it over to the mistress, who loves it and can't wait to try it on for the husband. The fitters and models all know what's happening before the wife and mistress discover they are neighbors, and all of them chime in after the confrontation to say how they would have done things different.
One of my favorite scenes so far involves two servant girls re-enacting the 'I want a divorce' conversation between the wife and the husband. It's important to the play to know how that conversation went, it was a fun way to get the servants perspective, and a great way to continue not having any men onstage.
There are parts of the play that are a bit dated and would be a challenge to put onstage exactly as written in the script - such as an early sight-gag where some women are at a spa and wearing mud-masks, and the 'colored maid' looks out from a back door and the stage directions specifically state that the audience won't realize that she's not also in a mud mask at first.
I'm interested to see how the story turns out - I doubt the wife and husband will get back together, since it doesn't seem like that kind of play. The one part where all the women seem to agree is that in the world of the play, women have to try to make men happy to get what they want out of life. They all have different ways of going about it, and some are a bit more jaded about the whole thing than others, but that seems to be what it comes down to. So, will the wife find a way forward that doesn't revolve around making a man happy, or not?
I'll update this post in a few days when I finish the play, and again when I see the play in February.
UPDATE: Finished the play last night. Still thinking about the ending, but not because it was profound or anything. Essentially, the first wife learns how to be vicious, and uses some sneaky tactics to get her husband back from the mistress/second wife. The message on the surface of the play appears to be that women have to put up with men's faults so they can get what they want out of life. It seems a bit bleak, but maybe that was the message that was most needed in 1937 America - or most viable, I suppose. As a play, I feel like it fails in today's world to fulfil it's potential. Even though there are dozens of characters in the play, all women, the entirety of every conversation and conflict is about the offstage men. Even though Mary (the first wife) is the onstage protagonist, her husband Stephen feels more like the central character. The narrative hinges on his actions offstage as much as on Mary's action/inaction onstage. I guess another way to look at how that's a problem is to apply the Beschdel Test to the play - yes there is more than one named female character, yes they talk to each other, but I'd have to give it a careful second read to determine if they talk about anything besides men. Maybe a handful of offhand comments about one of the women being a writer and going on a trip, but even that is in the context of a larger conversation about her marriage problems.
I'd like to think that maybe that's the point of the play, maybe, that it was an expose for women at that time about how crazy it is that their lives have to revolve around men. But I don't know - I don't have enough information about the context of the play or the life of the playwright, or who she and the play inspired, etc. to know if that's possible.
So, it'll be interesting to see how it's staged by a community theatre, and what the approach and reception will be.
UPDATE: Finished the play last night. Still thinking about the ending, but not because it was profound or anything. Essentially, the first wife learns how to be vicious, and uses some sneaky tactics to get her husband back from the mistress/second wife. The message on the surface of the play appears to be that women have to put up with men's faults so they can get what they want out of life. It seems a bit bleak, but maybe that was the message that was most needed in 1937 America - or most viable, I suppose. As a play, I feel like it fails in today's world to fulfil it's potential. Even though there are dozens of characters in the play, all women, the entirety of every conversation and conflict is about the offstage men. Even though Mary (the first wife) is the onstage protagonist, her husband Stephen feels more like the central character. The narrative hinges on his actions offstage as much as on Mary's action/inaction onstage. I guess another way to look at how that's a problem is to apply the Beschdel Test to the play - yes there is more than one named female character, yes they talk to each other, but I'd have to give it a careful second read to determine if they talk about anything besides men. Maybe a handful of offhand comments about one of the women being a writer and going on a trip, but even that is in the context of a larger conversation about her marriage problems.
I'd like to think that maybe that's the point of the play, maybe, that it was an expose for women at that time about how crazy it is that their lives have to revolve around men. But I don't know - I don't have enough information about the context of the play or the life of the playwright, or who she and the play inspired, etc. to know if that's possible.
So, it'll be interesting to see how it's staged by a community theatre, and what the approach and reception will be.