Two months into the semester and the drama school is already onto its third production. Luckily for them, however, haste does not necessarily make waste.
Sophie Treadwell was a successful journalist, playwright and women’s rights activist in the 20th century. One of her greatest works is that which USC’s School of Dramatic Arts is producing for a two-weekend run under the direction of Sabra Williams: “Machinal.”
The 1928 play is based on the true story of Ruth Snyder, who murdered her husband in 1927 with the help of her lover. She was the first woman to be executed by electric chair in New York. Treadwell’s “Machinal” is highly coveted in the world of theatre, particularly showcasing the dark and raw themes of expressionist theatre.
Despite the play being produced in McClintock’s minimal black box stage, the School of Dramatic Arts did not hold back on their set design. Immediately upon entering the theatre, I was told that women-identifying audience members were welcome to sit in the twelve seats arranged diagonally across the stage. Given the arrangement of the black box, it felt less daunting to occupy those seats than it may have in an auditorium setting, and in an attempt to get the full experience, I took a central seat at the end of the row.
The core of this piece is a fictional arrangement of events stemming from an actual affair and murder, however, this production provides a lucid display of the societal entrapment that women faced in the 1920s and can still face today.
The play opens in a business office as four supporting characters who never return to the stage beyond this scene begin conducting their respective counting, sorting, typing and telephone answering. All characters are dressed in muted gray clothing, although the choice of muted colors is hardly noticeable until USC Sophomore Hattie Ugoretz* (Young Woman/Helen Jones) arrives in a cherry blossom pink ensemble.
Almost immediately upon Ugoretz’s entrance the energy shifts. This young woman is the first person in the office to work against the metronome that has been ticking in the background and keeping the chaos of the office organized. From the moment she steps on stage, Ugoretz embodies a woman who may not know where her happiness lies but is certain where it does not: in the “fat hands” of a loveless marriage.
Ugoretz gives such a convincing portrayal of Helen Jones, who is based upon Synder, that not once did I feel that her somewhat unusual behavior was unwarranted. Instead, I found it puzzling that more women were not driven “mad” by the unfulfilled life set forth for them by society. You must marry a respectable man and have respectable (male) children and be a respectable mother, wife, caregiver — the list goes on. Love is as good as luck for a woman in a mechanical society.
The themes of the play felt clear and digestible, largely supported by the production’s audio effects and set design. The concept of a well-oiled machine is communicated immediately in the opening scene with the company workers in sync alongside the metronome. The theme of “keeping time” is also reflected in scenes with Helen Jones and her husband, as the two often physically match each other’s movements while verbally expressing emotional disconnect (largely stemming from the husband’s abuse). For the unhappy couple, it is the ticking of a clock that keeps them in time.
The set also led itself incredibly well to the production, as the darkness of the black box theatre echoed a similar arrangement for an expressionist play in the 1920s.
These successes of the play are accredited to the exemplary work of the production team — in particular, Zoelle Pierce (sound designer), Maya Channer (scenic designer) and Ellie Hermann (costume designer).
While most of the play’s set design lent itself to the production, there is one aspect that felt brilliant in theory yet perhaps a bit dull in practice: the arrangement of the audience.
It was undoubtedly a large creative risk putting several audience members in the middle of the stage, especially because there haven’t been any notable productions of “Machinal” that attempted this staging before USC. The cast did a great job of maneuvering around what could have been technically clunky as the audience blocked one side of the stage from the other. However, the seats in particular do not provide much flexibility in the type of body that may feel comfortable sitting in them. They spun nicely, so audience members could control which stage they were viewing, but they were quite small, and with minimal back support, you are essentially sitting on a cushioned stool.
It is also worth noting that the seats in the middle are largely inaccessible to anyone who may be in a wheelchair or have limited mobility. These audience members may still attend the show, however, the central seating is likely inaccessible, further limiting the person who may enjoy that perspective.
The last that I’ll say on this creative decision is that the middle section was limited to women-identifying audience members, and I couldn’t quite discern why. Other university productions have found creative ways of centering women in their production, as the play at large is addressing societal limitations put on women, so I suppose highlighting women audience members makes sense to some degree.
However, it may have been a more stimulating choice to allow audience members of any gender identification into the middle — particularly in the case of men, positioning them to feel as though they are in the story — catching Helen’s eye as she pleads for freedom and begs for their understanding. Diversifying the audience on the stage may allow for a greater widespread understanding of the feeling of societal entrapment that women know all too well.
With any experimental creative decision in theatre, there is going to be some tension. Whether it be out of preference or access, the seating layout may not appeal to everyone. However, I commend the production on their creativity in the spirit of the play’s message that enforced tradition hardly ever leads to freedom.
USC graduate student Tori Cooper wrote her senior thesis at the University of Arkansas on “Machinal” and shared her thoughts on the story after the cast took their bows.
“‘Machinal’ is so much more than a woman killing her husband just because she’s unhappy,” Cooper said. “I think it’s about a woman so desperately needing freedom in an oppressive male-centric society and I think that … everyone in [Helen’s] life failed her. No one really saw who she was.”
USC’s interpretation of the renowned play touches these themes with both care and force. The show is incredibly creative and exemplifies the versatility of theatre — making a play from 1928 feel strikingly relevant in 2024.
*Actors may differ depending on the performance. For more information about the cast, click here.
“Machinal” is playing through November 3 at McClintock Theatre (1010 W. Jefferson Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90089). Tickets start at $10 for USC students; $20 for non-USC students. For more information, click here.