Angels In America

            Human Identity is definitely considered in the drama Angels in America by throwing these characters into serious and frightening situations without giving them warning or the ability to defend themselves against it. Louis doesn’t know if he should stay in the relationship with Prior because of the AIDS Prior has recently obtained. Joe doesn’t want to admit to the world that he is a homosexual, but if he doesn’t he marriage with Harper is going to fall into unfixable pieces. Both of these characters are trying to figure out who they are and what exactly they stand for, but the struggle is almost too surreal for either of them to handle. By the end of act 1, almost every character is in denial of the seriousness they need to discover if they want to survive their problems.

I feel like the split screens used in Angels in America are perfect for what the author is trying to get across. He is trying to show two couples that are pitted against homosexuality in different situations and by comparing how they react to these situations the reader can understand more than just a single viewpoint. On one hand you have Louis and Prior are struggling with the former getting AIDS, Joe and Harper are struggling with a failed marriage and the fact that Joe is secretly gay. Both of these relationships are about to come to and end because of homosexuality and that is just sad. Why, solely on sexual orientation, does relationships have to end? It is a sad world where people leave others just because of hurt or betrayed morals. Louis and Joe both feel like they have their live under control until it all starts to fall apart at once and the split screens are a good way of capturing how everything is falling apart and how they handle it. I like how the author switches from couple to couple mid sentence; he doesn’t wait for the conversation to be over or at a checkpoint.

            I do not see Roy Cohen as a tragic character because of his insanely rude and evil demeanor.  Throughout the entire first act of the play all he does he show how he is above everyone he speaks to, including Joe. Even though he is offering Joe a very wealthy position, he still seems to be doing it just to do it. Like it doesn’t really matter to him, he’s still going to be rich and in power either way. I see him getting sick as a sort of poetic justice, even though I feel like at this point of the story he really hasn’t comprehended how horrible this experience is going to be. Roy still seems to think that he is in charge of his life and he needs to realize that the disease is in control from now on. When he is speaking to the doctor it almost made me cringe, even though Roy made some good points. Roy just still seems so arrogant and I feel like as the play progress and so does his disease, he is going to become less arrogant and more accepting of himself and more importantly, others around him. 

It's A Wonderful Life: A 1940's Radio Play

            I went and seen It’s a Wonderful Life at SVSU on November 30, 2011. It was co-directed by David Rzeszutek and Ric Roberts. I knew the story before I went in to see the play, so I kind of had an idea of what I was getting myself into. The only problem is that I wasn’t completely aware that this play was actually going to be performed as a radio play! So instead of the actors memorizing their lines, they stood up to mics, hardly moved, and read directly off of their scripts. While I do understand what they were trying to accomplish, an old fashioned feel with a 40’s type of innocent cheerfulness, but it just didn’t work when being watched. When I go to watch a play, I’m doing so with the understanding that I’m going to sit and enjoy a story that will be played out in front of my eyes. So when I sat down and started to watch It’s A Wonderful Life, I was seriously disappointed. I did not pay money to watch actors refuse to act! I feel bad saying this because the play was well performed for what it was, these actors would be perfect voice actors, but I just couldn’t get into a play that was just being read to me!

            I guess I should speak about other aspect as well, like the actual actors. I found it strange that professors and not students played the two main characters, George Bailey and Clarence the angel. This was interesting to me because I usually expect students to be acting for credit or to further their skills. The professors have already proven themselves so it seems a little unprogressive to have them be the two main characters. Nevertheless, both of these adults were great performers, their voices seemed right in character, since all I can judge are their voices because they didn’t act anything out!!! After going to a couple of plays at SVSU I am starting to recognize actors who are consistently in these plays It is fun be aware of these main actors, because it is fun to watch them grow as actors. One of the actors I remember specifically from Incorruptible when it was performed a couple weeks ago. He was very funny in the previous play and just as entertaining in this one. Overall though, I have to say that it would have been much easier for me to write about this performance if there was actually a performance. This radio play knock off was definitely not what I was looking for and I possibly should have picked a different play to go and see. 

The Good Person Of Szechwan

            Breaking the fourth wall in any type of entertainment, movies, television, even music, is becoming more and more common in our society, and Brecht’s The Good Person of Szechwan proves that this phenomena as been written into works much earlier than one might think. There are various moments in this play where a character speaks to the audience and there are many points where songs are sang for various lengths of time. I am okay with the characters of the play talking directly to the audience, I feel like it is a convincing way of letting that character get some thoughts and feelings out that he/she wouldn’t have been able to do with another character on stage. The thing that I do have trouble with are the songs. I am not exactly a fan of musicals, and while this could in no way be called a musical, the songs just seem completely out of place. While some of the songs do have meaning, like the song of the eighth elephant. This was an important song that showed how Sun is tame compared to the other workers, and how he feels separate from the working group. Then there are songs about Green Cheese and I have to admit these type of songs made me want to quit reading the drama all together. Brecht’s play is too serious to be adding in silly effects like song and dance numbers, it just doesn’t help the play do what it wants to do. With all of the issues about being a decent person, pleasing the gods, succeeding with what one has, the songs just don’t fit into that spectrum.

            One other thing that I wanted to discuss slightly, even thought it wasn’t one of the prompts, is the lack of a central main character. While on my first read I pictured Shen Teh as the main character, I started to see Wang as more or a main role, as well as the cousin Shui Tah, and the Three Gods who appear at most of the interludes. All of these characters are just as important as the next. I feel like the more I read this, the more Wang becomes the main character in my eyes. He is one of the only ones, if not the only one, in the play to have consistent contact with the three gods. This is really important, because the entire play is sort of about these gods trying to find a good enough person in the world. Wang may seem pitiful and manipulative, but he is trying to do the best he can with his morals and water selling business. I feel like Wang is a much more interesting character than Shen Teh as well, he is slightly more conflicted, while she is just too worried about making everyone else happy. 

A Number

           The way that Churchill devises his play A Number without almost any stage directions is masterful. The reason I am putting this type of narration in such high praise is because somehow the author has found a way to keep an audience invested and suspended in tension without spoon-feeding any of the plot or characterization. Even thought I was sort of confused throughout most of the play, I was glad that it wasn’t dumbed down just for the people like me who couldn’t keep up the first time.  The dialogue was so interesting that there was essentially no need to stage directions. The plot focused around these people conversing and there really are not any stage directions that would have furthered the story or characterization of these characters. You understand everything you need to about Salter, B1, B2, or Michael Black, mostly because the author wants you to be mostly in the dark about them. If the reader was to know everything about these characters, the story would be much more boring and predictable. You could learn a lot about the different ambitions from, say, how Salter talks with B1 or B2. He tells each son different stories and lies to both of them, obviously showing that he cares more about his relationship with his sons than being honest with people.

            I don’t think that the cloning idea is as controversial as the public makes it out to be. I have never been that up to date on the cloning situations, but it seems like a no brainer to me. While there are certain aspects that would seem beneficial (being able to pick gender of baby, being able to select attributes) there are too many things that could go wrong for it to be worth it. The clones being aware that they are clones is just a recipe for disaster. They would obviously become jealous of their own identity and not be able to accept that they are not completely unique, as is what I believed happened in A Number. When B1 figured out that he was not Salter’s only son, even though the other was cloned from B1, he acts out of jealousy and kills B2. This would not have happened if B1 was not aware that he was a clone.

            I also think that it is interesting to note how the play is structured beyond saying that there are no stage directions. Almost every conversation seems to start in the middle and it gives you little inclinations about what they said previous to the reader stepping in. This makes you feel like you’ve just stepped into the conversation as a third party, not as an all-knowing god like narrator. This makes the play seem much more believable than if it were an omniscient narrator. 

Incorruptible (Performed Version)

I went and saw Incorruptible at Saginaw Valley and I have to say it was very good and made me laugh throughout the entire play. This was a play that many people in our class probably knows I did not completely enjoy. I thought the story was forgettable and the importance just seemed a little shy of real. But when the play is performed, it turns into a much different medium: straight phsycial and witty humor. There were a couple things that I want to point out to be the reasons why this performance of the play was so exquisite.

            First, the actors were spot on. The actors playing Martin and Charles played perfectly off each other, timing their back and forth jokes perfectly. There were a couple times when I caught one of them messing up a line, but their improvisation was so good that the rest of the audience probably didn’t even notice. The Peasant Woman, who I quite honestly forgot about when reading the play, played a much bigger role in the stage version. She accounted for a lot of laughs, even making some jokes I was surprised to be told in a fairly tame play. The old woman made a couple sexual innudenos and while it seemed a little much for the lightness of the play, it made the crowd laugh harder than a lot of other tamer jokes. I went with a friend and she said that Olf was her favorite because he was the dumb, but lovable character. That just shows that this play has a different character for everyone, and it was impressive that almost all of the actors were fun to watch.

            Secondly, being in the audience instead of reading it alone in my room made a whole lot of difference. I don’t have the opportunity to go to many plays and I was very impressed with the way the play flowed. The intermission was no more than 15 minutes long, the set changes were quick and the play started right on time. The jokes were just plain funnier when the crowd was involved as well. There was a scene were Jack’s girl is being dragged away by Olf, and shes trying to get his attention as she’s sliding away. The crowd was roaring at this point and in turn, so was I. It also was interesting to be able to see the entire scene the whole time. There is a scene were Jack and his girl are speaking and Felix comes around the side of the stage and hides to listen to them. That worked well, because at first I almost didn’t see him out of the corner of my eye. It is the act of picking up on the little things they plan out that makes a performed play a much more richer experience than watching a movie or just reading the script by yourself.

            Thirdly, it was nice that I had read the play before hand. It was much easier to just sit back and enjoy the play since I had already discussed it full length in class. I didn’t have to worry about keeping plot lines straight or wondering which character was which, I could just sit back and laugh consistently. It’s nice when you can just enjoy watching something and not have to worry about finding a larger meaning. 

Incorruptible

            One topic that I thought was interesting in Michael Hollinger’s Incorruptible was the money issue that plagued the monks, no pun intended. Right from the beginning the main problem that Charles and Martin face is whether they are going to have enough money to keep their ministry open. This was an interesting take on a religious story, even if it is supposed to be a comedy. Even though dialogue is obviously comedic, the problems that this ministry is having is not funny, it’s quite real and serious especially for our protagonists. Both Martin and Charles go to great lengths, most of the time sinning against their religion, to obtain money and recognition from the pope. Neither of these men wants to go against their religion by asking for money out of the Peasant Woman, even though they want to give her free prayers. They also don’t want to fake a miracle, an incorruptible, but they go along with the plan even though it is highly sinful. They have realized that their survival was more important than their traditions and that says a lot about their characters.

            Another thing that I want to point out is the setting compared to what audiences would normally think of in terms of a comedy. The first choice probably wouldn’t be a place filled with monks, priests and peasants. One would expect some sort of goofy set of characters, but the audience gets these realistic people who have realistic goals: getting enough money to save their home even if it means doing what they never thought they would have to do. Religion, even though it is at the heart of almost all of the characters, does not play that big of a role in the meaning of the play. This is not really a very religious play; it’s more about faith, in religion or in humanity. Miracles might happen, but they probably wont. The only reason this play has one is because then it wouldn’t be a very entertaining play now would it?

            I thought that the end was expected very well. The whole play, there is dialogue going back and forth and the end just takes it to the nth degree. You have Charles and Martin constantly talking, and Marie, Felix, and Jack are all in the room as well trying to fix all of their problems. It seems like if one were to read this and not see it, it would be hard for the reader to keep all of the characters straight with each other. I am actually going to see this for one of my two plays, so it is going to be interesting to see how much different the play seems when I get to see the actors play it out. I think that I’m going to be able to keep every character straight once I can picture where on stage they are, because it is sort of difficult to do that when you are just reading it from the text. 

Waiting For Godot - Day 2

            I believe that the biblical references in Waiting for Godot were intentional, if not to shine line on some of the themes presented throughout the play, then just to keep the dialogue going while still keeping the audience on their toes. Maybe Samuel Beckett knew that critics would try to decipher the religious meaning, and that is why he included references of names like “Adam” and “Cain/Abel”. Godot is commonly compared to God and I feel like that is a legitimate argument. He always says that he is coming and these two guys wait every day and he never comes, even though they have undeniable faith in this stranger. This is so close to Christ and his followers it would be a disgrace to not at least mention it while discussing this play.

            This play could also be seen in a slight existentialist light because of the way all of the characters act toward each other. Even though dialogue is more plentiful than anything, they don’t seem to care too much about why they are waiting for hours on end or why a man with another man on a lease stop by. Both Vladimir and Estragon live their lives quite peacefully, never having to eat too much, never having to constantly use the bathroom, they just sit and wait and talk. Nothing seems to matter to them so in turn nothing does matter. They have created their own existential bubble, living without a care while still holding on to reality, even if it is as slight a hold as can be.

            I thought that the film adaptation was done very well, with talented actors and scenery that could only be used for this type of drama/film. The first thing I noticed about the film was that Vladimir and Estragon looked exactly how I pictured them to look, one tall, lanky and one small and stubby, respectively. I personally think that the actor who played Estragon was better than his counterpart. Estragon’s lines just read more passionate and less script-y… if that makes any sense. I liked the bleak scenery, how the sky is always a weird blue, not really ever turning into night. I feel like Becket’s point during this play was to use as little as he could and still say all of the grand things he wanted to say. This is impressive because while he is still speaking on humanity and its faith in mystery, he is also just letting two men speak their minds in a nonsensical and humorous manner. 

Waiting For Godot

            There are many moments in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot that seem both dark and humorous. One part that I remember specifically if when Vladimir and Estragon suggest that they hang themselves from the tree and the only reason why they don’t follow through with the plans is because they cannot find rope. While this is technically a really sad moment, it is funny because the audience knows that they are not going to hang themselves, they cannot leave the bench how are they going to do an action as complicated as hanging themselves? It is also sad because these two men have been going through these motions for so long that they are ready to resort to suicide just to get away from the cycle. Another somewhat funny theme is the repetition in the dialogue between the two men. Throughout the entirely of the play, Estragon says, “Let’s go” and Vladimir always answers with “We cant” because they are “Waiting for Godot”. Even though this an get slightly annoying since they say it multiple times in the play, I found it funny because even though Estragon knows the answer to his question, he continues to ask it hoping for a more appealing answer than the last.

            I feel like Beckett’s style is much different than Pinter’s because of the extreme abstractions. While Pinter was definitely using abstract theater to get across his themes about family, Beckett takes this to a whole other level. Waiting for Godot is nothing but abstractions. Vladimir and Estragon continue to speak back and forth very fast, usually not saying anything of much importance. Any word that comes out of their mouth probably doesn’t have much to do with the line 3 lines before. In Pinter’s play, even though the conclusion is out of no where and the characters do speak short, quick lines, Beckett’s dialogue just seems much more simple and relaxed. It’s as if this absurdity is not out of the norm for these two characters. Vladimir and Estragon go through this same scene every day, waiting for Godot and seeing Pozzo, Lucky, and the little boy consistently. It really makes you wonder how long this wait has actually been going on for. Has Estragon been struggling with his shoes for years? How long exactly has Pozzo been blind? Or will he regain his sight in time for the next day?

            I differentiate Vladimir and Estragon by the roles they place themselves in. Vladimir is the obvious leader, always having to tell Estragon that they cannot leave yet because they have to wait for Godot. It almost seems like Vladimir takes Godot much more seriously that his counterpart, even though neither of them actually leave when they suggest it. Estragon seems a little helpless in certain points of the play. When he tries to help Pozzo, then falls down himself, then pulls Vladimir down with him, it almost seems like Estragon is possibly a sort of comic relief. On the other hand, Estragon has just as much insightful dialogue as Vladimir, especially at the end when they basically switch lines from the first Act. 

Six Characters In Search Of An Author

I believe that the characters in Pirandello’s play Six Characters in Search of an Author are more than a cheap trick, but a way to discuss the meta fictional connotations between the actors and the roles they take part in.  Not only are the characters more important than the actors, those characters are aware of this and understand that they are different than the people who end up representing them. The father and stepdaughter are the two characters that seem to want to explain their position and why they cannot simply act out their story. They must live their story because they are the real characters, not just actors reciting lines. They know nothing but their story; they live the emotions that they feel in this situation forever and always. The actors and the director seriously cannot comprehend this because they can’t see that actors are different than the character. There is a distinct difference. Actors can take on multiple roles, putting themselves in varies mindsets to suit the situation. These six characters can only play one role, can only think in one state of mind, and can only be in one situation for the rest of their existence. They have no concept of any other way of life. What is reality to them is nothing but words on a page to the director. The argument goes in a circle, almost seemingly never ending.

I think that the characters meta fictional discussions are much different than other breaks in character like asides, soliloquies, or plays within plays, because those are tricks that help the audience see ironies and characterization only. When the characters in Pirandello’s play speak they are not breaking character, they are stuck in their character. So it becomes the character speaking about himself, not someone stepping aside and discussing someone else. A play within a play is used to debate the themes of drama, where these meta characters are used to debate the themes of character. Asides are characters who are still in character, but are discussing their situation, not themselves. These six characters are also still in character, but speak on themselves in self-examination, understanding that what they experience is their destiny and forever lasting. While I do agree that plays within plays and asides are very useful when the audience needs help in the middle of the play, these tactics are definitely not as interesting or important as the questions that arise with meta fiction. The fiction is just as important to understand as the story the fiction presents.

Long Day's Journey Into Night

I would say that the character in Eugene O’Neill’s play Long Day’s Journey Into Night that contributes most to the dysfunction in the Tyrone family is Mary, the mother and wife who is addicted to morphine. Not only is she already dysfunctional by being addicted to something as dangerous as morphine, she is ridiculously addicted, becoming more and more crazy and stoned as the night progresses. She prods every person in the house consistently, trying to push her hatred for herself onto others. Her most obvious victim is her husband, James. She tells him again and again that she disapproves of his thriftiness and his drinking. She even gets to the point of telling him that her marrying him was a mistake on her part because she wanted to become a nun and a pianist. This is hurtful stuff that she is only saying because she is stoned, but then again maybe it is the truth and the only reason she is able to say it now is because she is stoned.

She creates confrontations with her sons just as much as her husband as well. Mary constantly argues with her sons about drinking, even though they go right ahead and drinks in front of her nevertheless. She feels as if Jamie has wasted his life away with booze and prostitutes. She treats Edmund, her younger son, even worse by not accepting his tuberculosis. She doesn’t listen to the doctor Edmund went to see because he is cheap. Edmund tells her many times in the play that he is seriously sick but she keeps insisting that her has a normal cold. This is not a normal reaction a mother has when their child tell them he is sick. This is how powerfully motivated her life is by the morphine. She doesn’t completely approve of how her family had turned out, so she escapes by taking larger and larger doses of the morphine. This drug has turned her into a monster, a mother who can’t even help her sick son try and get better. She is more focused on running back upstairs, away from her family, back to the drug that will make her feel good in the moment but will never help her life become more than shambles.

I think that a lot of her depression stems from the baby that she lost before she gave birth to Edmund. Losing the baby meant that she had failed that round of being a mother. When she finds out that Edmund is seriously ill, she thinks that she is getting what she deserves by failing her previous child. If only her mind wasn’t being diluted by the morphine she continues to pump through her system, the she would be able to realize that it wasn’t her fault that she lost the baby and she needs to move on. If she could move on from the grief than it would be possible to kick her drug habit. I wouldn’t say that Mary is the most dysfunctional member of the Tyrone family, but she definitely causes the most trouble between the array of characters.

Pygmalion

I watched the film version of the play Pygmalion for my mediated play. It was a little different watching a play after reading a number of plays in class. I love movies, so I instantly was captured in the story, but the play does lose a little of its appeal when in movie form because the audience can still deduct that it was originally a play. The film is mostly dialogue between a number of people, most of the time in rapid timing. This is a play that just reads better than when you watch it as a film. The rapid fire dialogue is better suited for reading because you can imagine it as fast or as slow as you please while reading it. When you watch it, sometimes it is hard to catch certain lines and it can be a bit confusing, especially with Eliza’s accent in the beginning. I prefer the play version if not because of that, then because of the quality of the movie. I watched it on Youtube, and the quality was very shaky and bad. When I read this play I can imagine it in color and probably set in a more present setting. This helps familiarize me with the setting of the play, while watching the scratchy black and while version puts me out of the atmosphere.

I believe that Pygmalion is Henry Higgins’ play more than Eliza’s. Straight from the beginning he is portrayed as a know it all, but the fact is he does know more than the average person. Even though Eliza seems like the more dominant force in the end, he still ends up getting what he wants: her. Even though in the beginning all he wanted was to fix the puzzle that was this poor flower girl he has grown to like her more and more throughout the movie. If he had not have taken her on as his student than none of the events would have happened and that is why he owns the play. Eliza’s entire technique which she uses to manipulate everyone around her is taught to her by Henry. She was a poor beggar before he laid eyes on her, she would have continued to be a poor beggar if he didn’t have the generosity to help her. 

The Homecoming

           The battle between the sexes is a universal topic, and because of this mot plays will find themselves being thrown in this category. The Homecoming and The Cherry Orchard are no different in that they have strong female characters and strong male character who continue to clash throughout the plot. First, in The Cherry Orchard: Liubov, Anya, and Dunyasha all act like helpless women throughout the play and let men basically control them. Liubov does nothing to help save her home and Lopakhin takes it away from her. Anya is just out of it for most of the play, waiting for Trofimov to come and sweep her off her feet. Dunyasha is just being the servant, not trying to have a say in anything, she doesn’t have any guts. All of these women don’t take life very seriously and they don’t try to get in control of their lives until everything comes crashing down around them and that’s when they want to do something.

            In The Homecoming things are a little different. While Ruth is the only character, she holds more of a presence than any of the men combined. When she first gets to Teddy’s home she acts extremely shy and lady like, like she was going to turn out like the usual woman character, ready to give in to whatever the man tells her to do. But then things turn suddenly, and the next thing the reader knows Teddy is telling Ruth that she will have to “pull [her] weight a little, if you say. Financially” (Pinter 76). Her husband is basically asking her to go out and become a prostitute for the family’s sake.  At this point I figured that she would freak out in denial, but she does the opposite, she listens, and even asks about a “flat” that she would be living in. Lenny, Teddy’s brother, then reassures her by saying “you’d just pop up to the flat a couple of hours at night, that’s all” (Pinter 76). At this point the whole family is trying to get her to stay so that she can work the streets and she is defending herself as if she is proud to be a part of this. This isn’t some simple and gullible woman like in The Cherry Orchard, this is a female character who takes what comes at her and does what she wants, not directly what the guy wants. Ruth is a three dimensional character, even if I don’t quite understand her intentions or emotions at all. 

The Cherry Orchard

“You can’t ever go back to the past” is one of the most important quotes in Chekhov’s play The Cherry Orchard because it summarizes what most of the characters are dealing with throughout the four acts. The main character, Liubov Ranyevskaya, comes home after being away for years and she is astounded by how similar it looks from when she remembers it. Memories rush back immediately and throughout the whole play all she can talk about is how everything has been left the same, and how she remember all of the good times her family used to have. As a mother, she is supposed to be nostalgic about her family, but Liubov is overly reminiscent towards the house and she doesn’t really act too reminiscent about her family who she hadn’t seen in forever. I don’t have too much sympathy for Liubov for most of the play because she doesn’t do anything to help save her orchard, but I have even less sympathy for her seeing her care more about her house than her family. The past appeals to Liubov because it was when life wasn’t complicated and everything seemed to make sense. Before she lost her husband, her child, and before she began the destructive relationship with the guy from Paris.

           

            Another character that is reminiscent of the past is the family’s butler Firs. At first, Firs seems like just one of the many comedic character because it is described as being blind and all he does is spout out nonsensical comments. But once the play starts rolling you realize that he keeps talking about the old days when slavery was legal and how much he respected his master and how he wants to go back. Firs wants to go back to the days of slavery because that is all her knows. Everyone is nostalgic about the past and Firs is not exception. The last scene where everyone forgets about Firs and he spends his last moment’s alive sitting alone wondering where everyone is. That is why he wants to go back to the past, because in the past he was needed, he was possibly respected, and he knew what he was supposed to do.

            The need to go back to the past may seem the most important to the readers who read these themes and connect them to their own lives. That is what separates classic works from an every day story, something that connects with readers for generations after it is written. Chekhov must have known that the theme of remembering the past would be universal because that was probably just as huge of a theme in his day then it is in today’s drama. 

Hedda Gabler

Hedda Gabler

            Hedda Gabler by Henrik Ibsen can most definitely be seen as a modern work of drama, if not because of the setting or the plot, then because of the dynamic characters that help to deliver the themes with simple clarity. Hedda Gabler (preferably Hedda Tesman) is the title character and her qualities match up to the likes of a Hamlet or a Macbeth. Right from the beginning Ibsen write Hedda to be as unlikeable as possible, to get the audience to distain her immediately. This is to counter act the feelings that you will grow to have for Hedda as the reader starts to understand her position and why she might be unhappy. First things are first though, and in the first scene the first impression we get of Hedda is that she’s a control freak who can’t be satisfied. Hedda complains about there not being enough sunlight, she complains that her husband’s (George Tesman) aunt has left her hat on the table and even goes far enough to say it looked like it belonged to the maid. Add in Hedda’s gossiping and her fondness of getting other men besides her husband alone and she must be looking like a pretty sleazy character. Then the reader starts to find out why Hedda might be lashing out: she’s pregnant and in denial about it, she doesn’t actually like her new house, and as a matter of face she doesn’t even want to be married to George in the first place. When these facts come to light it is almost easy to sympathize with Hedda, even though she is still the same cynical woman that we met in the beginning of the play. We just know more about her situation and the context behind her life and that is why she can be seen as a sympathetic character, one that could be easily identified with any woman in our modern era.  I don’t think there is anything I would change from this play to make it more contemporary, mostly because readers need to realize that themes and lessons that stories bring us are universal and heed to no era in time.

            Hedda’s main problem is that she feels as if she has no control over her life and she desperately needs to have control or her sanity starts to slip. One main reason why the maid, Berta, feels as if she can never please Hedda is because Hedda is purposefully changing what she wants Berta to do so that she can have control over their relationship. No matter what Berta does she is going to be wrong because Hedda is being stubborn on purpose. Another event where Hedda realizes that she has no control over her life is when Eilert Lovborg, a friend and former lover of Hedda’s, gets extremely drunk and forgets about her friend Mrs. Elvsted. Hedda was trying to manipulate these two people into getting together and when her plan backfires she goes inward to herself and tries to understand why she isn’t happy with her life. The final straw is when Judge Brack blackmails her into doing his will for keeping fatal information about Hedda quiet. With this last action Hedda decides that there is no way she can fix the mess that is her life and she decides to end it with a “beautiful” death to the head, presumably. Why did Hedda kill herself? She ws heavily depressed throughout most of the play and that is another huge reason why she lashed out multiple times at innocent people. Hedda wanted to be lonely, by herself so that she could have some control, but she is cursed with being the center of attention and that just brings her more out of control.