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.