In The Glass Menagerie, memory takes centre stage as Tom, the protagonist, revisits the events of his life in a search for the origins of broken dreams. His recollection begins at the dining table, a seemingly mundane scene where his mother bickers over proper eating etiquette. This moment, while ordinary on the surface, sets the emotional tone for the play, capturing how memory tends to fixate on and transform the mundane into something meaningful.
Tom’s fixation on this trivial yet emotionally charged moment underscores the essence of The Glass Menagerie—a meditation on memory and its haunting grip. This production brings this theme to life, uncovering how memory lingers, shapes, and distorts the past, and stays on in the present.
Set in 1930s Missouri around the time of The Great Depression, the production captures the tension between anxiety and hope. Amanda, clings to the dream of securing a better future for her children, Tom and Laura. Portrayed by Shweta Siddhu (ASP’25), Amanda exudes a mix of haughtiness and hopefulness, with moments of borderline comedic flair. Siddhu did a brilliant job delivering her lines with Amanda’s “Southern charm”. However, her portrayal of Amanda’s anxious energy, persistent confrontations, and deeply rooted delusions could have benefited from greater depth and complexity. Her long monologues sometimes felt overly animated, particularly due to her high vocal inflexions, and sometimes lacked the emotional build-up to make them feel truly alive.
Laura, played by Nischita Shekinah (UG’26), captured the character’s mix of gloom and quiet hope; she really was ‘blue roses’: sad, yet beautiful. The sequences of her recounting her first love and the blue roses felt magical. Laura’s marriage and goodwill were closely connected to her brother’s liberation and their mother’s fulfilment. Her dashed hopes not only crushed her aspirations but also disrupted the ambitions of those around her. The blue roses, which represent unreciprocated love and treachery in the play, are beautifully intertwined with Laura’s narrative, as well as represent the fractured dreams of both her mother and her brother.
However, the limp, a key part of Laura’s story, barely registers until her mother sends her to the store for butter. It felt a little odd to see it depicted so late into the play considering how central it is to her character. Laura’s glass menagerie, a central symbol in the play’s plot, came across more as a metaphor than as an actual object. The prop used to represent it was so unnoticeable that it was only perceivable when referred to in dialogue, or when its shattering is made audible through sound effects. Since the production aimed to closely emulate the original script, the metaphorical use of the glass felt inconsistent. The prop, while potentially effective as a metaphor, may have enhanced the experience of the play in certain ways. A more noticeable and tangible prop might have been more impactful, aligning better with the play’s intent.
The gentleman caller, Jim, portrayed by Aryan Mathur (UG’26), captures the character’s waning charm compared to his high school years. The portrayal of his interactions with Laura lacked the impact of betrayal, as Mathur’s charm and apparent innocence softened this aspect. This moment, being pivotal to the play, occurred toward the end of its lengthy runtime, which may have lessened its emotional intensity.
Akshat Goel (UG’24) as Tom stood out undeniably, and not just because Tom is the protagonist. Goel embodied Tom’s moral ambiguity, guilt, arrogance, inner turmoils and frustrations throughout the play, making his performance memorable. A standout moment for this character in the play is the argument with his mother, where Goel expresses Tom’s frustrations with his mother, and with his own state.
The set design effectively incorporated familiar elements from Ashokan furniture, like the couch from the Ashoka Centre for Wellbeing (ACWB) and red chairs from the campus around the dining table, creating a subtle sense of familiarity that bridged the distanced script for the audience. The use of light and music further enhanced this connection, particularly during the moments when Tom sat with the audience, helping transform aspects of the scenes to remove them from the domesticity of the house and to signal that the events unfolding were part of his memory. This breaking of the fourth wall repeatedly reinforced the idea that the play was grounded in memory.
In addition to the set design, the costuming felt thoughtfully aligned with the characterisation. For instance, Tom’s trench coat and suspenders reflect the era in which the play was set, while Laura’s white dress could be interpreted as a symbolic representation of her innocence. In the scene where Amanda interrogates her daughter, she is said to wear a mismatched coat with her skirt and a chunky bag in the script; this essence was clearly and evidently reflected in costuming as well, which furthered characterisation in subtle ways, and added greatly to the atmosphere and setting of the play.
Memory, often considered fragmented, takes on a more precise role in the play. This challenges the notion that memory is always fragmented, suggesting instead that it can be reconfigured and revised over time. The audience is prompted to wonder about this idea throughout the play, particularly as Tom recalls memories that may or may not be his own.
The Glass Menagerie was a classic adaptation of the original script, and maybe the adherence to a traditional approach may have left room for a more experimental or localized reinterpretation, especially in the context of Ashoka’s audience. Nonetheless, the production succeeded in evoking the bittersweet essence of the play, leaving the audience with much to reflect on about memory and the inevitability of human frailty.
(Edited by Snigdha Dhameja and Srijana Siri)
Comments