Consider scene 3 in the film The Glass Menagerie. How does the film's use of space convey the message that the Wingfield family have nothing of their own. In other words, how do the set and props reveal both economic and personal issues?

The play has been made into two major films: the 1950 version, directed by Irving Rapper and starring Kirk Douglas, and the 1987 version, directed by Paul Newman and starring John Malkovich and Joanne Woodward. This answer will examine the 1987 version of The Glass Menagerie.
In the third scene, the Wingfield family is sitting around the table enjoying dinner. The camera frames them all in a tight space, highlighting just how small the dinner table they are sitting at is. With the way mother is dressed, how she talks, and (at least from first glance) the elegance of the lampshades, it feels like the table should be much bigger, the type of long table you can see in the dining room of large mansions. As it is, the interior (for example, the pictures on the wall and the lamps on either side of them) makes it look a miniature version of such a room. It is as if they are trying to create the illusion they are rich. Add to that the dark lighting, and the room starts to look like the kind of dingy gambling bar that you might see in a Western.
Like that type of setting, the furniture only looks good at first glance. When the camera moves in, the audience can see holes in the lampshade and just how old everything is.
The saddest part is how the mother acts like they are a well-off and well-bred family. After dinner, for example, she brings in a tray of coffee, and they move to what should be (in the type of house that the mother wants to live in) another room but what is actually a space a few yards from the dinner table. Tom shows his disregard for his mother's pretense by holding the saucer in both hands and lifting the tea cup to his mouth.