The Homecoming by Harold Pinter deals with a family of men. In this family of men, there are several dynamics of power in their relationships. The ultimate form of power is seen in the character of Max. Max is the patriarch of the family and considers himself to be one of the most powerful men in England. At the beginning of act one, he tells his son how he used to run around town with a man named MacGregors and how they received respect from everyone at the local bar. Max continues to show that he is the dominant male throughout the play by constantly putting everyone else down.
In spite of the fact that his brother Sam is a very successful chauffeur and earns good money, Max continuously makes fun of him for being "less than a man" in his opinion. He calls Sam gay because he doesn't have a woman and has never produced any sons. He also makes fun of Sam's job of being a driver. In Max's mind, the only job for a real man is the one he inherited from his father: running a butcher shop. Because his brother was not cut out for the job, Max sees him as less of a man and therefore as someone with less power.
Sam, for the most part, puts up with his older brother's abuse. I think he does this out of respect for Max. He sees Max as his ideal. In Sam's mind, Max had it all. He was a powerful and respected man who ran the family business and was married to a beautiful woman. Sam wants to be like his older brother, so he puts up with the insults because he secretly believes it is true. However, at the end of act two, we see that Sam has had enough of Max. I believe that the talk of setting Ruth up as a prostitute is what acts as a catalyst for this. Sam saw Max abuse his own wife and is appalled that this is happening again to Ruth. In a last, desperate act of defiance to get out of Max's power, Sam reveals his ultimate secret: Max's wife cheated on him with MacGregors. This final revelation causes Sam to collapse and we are unsure whether or not he is dead. Max does not seem concerned by this "secret" (the way Max talked about MacGregors, he probably told him to sleep with her) and is merely annoyed at the thought of having his brother's "corpse" on his floor.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
The Cherry Orchard
In the play The Cherry Orchard, there are several ways that the cherry orchard itself is linked to symbolism. However, the orchard symbolizes something different for every character. It is a different symbol to characters based on their position in life as well as what objectives they have.
To Liubov Ranyevskaya, the orchard symbolizes the past. It was where she grew up and she views it in a nostalgic way. In her mind, the orchard represents a time in her life when she was young and life was better. She views the orchard as a way to escape the tragedies of her life. By being in the orchard, she can forget about her son drowning, her lover taking her money, and that she is about to lose all of her assets. She seems to maintain the idea that if she is near the orchard, then she can focus on the good times of the past and forget the troubles of her life.
To Leonid Gayev and Firs, the orchard also represents a better past. Leonid sees the orchard and remembers when his life was better. When he did not have to worry about his sister getting into trouble or the money problems that their family faces. Firs sees the orchard as a link to his ideals as a butler. In the past when the orchard was a thriving business and made a profit, servants knew hoe to properly serve their masters and masters knew how to treat loyal servants. Firs himself seems to represent the cherry orchard. Throughout the play, he looks after his masters, all the while becoming more frail and less helpful until he finally dies at the end of the play.
To others, such as Yermolai Lopakhin and Petya Trofimov, the orchard symbolizes the future. Lopakhin sees the orchard as a path to wealth. If he tears down the orchard. he can use the land to build real estate and make a lot of money. Petya views the tearing down of the orchard as the end of an era, where slavery and class structures ruled, and the beginning of a more enlightened age where people have more knowledge.
The cherry orchard really symbolizes two ideas: past and future. Some characters saw it as a way to return to their good lives in the past. Others saw it as a way to bring them closer to the future.
To Liubov Ranyevskaya, the orchard symbolizes the past. It was where she grew up and she views it in a nostalgic way. In her mind, the orchard represents a time in her life when she was young and life was better. She views the orchard as a way to escape the tragedies of her life. By being in the orchard, she can forget about her son drowning, her lover taking her money, and that she is about to lose all of her assets. She seems to maintain the idea that if she is near the orchard, then she can focus on the good times of the past and forget the troubles of her life.
To Leonid Gayev and Firs, the orchard also represents a better past. Leonid sees the orchard and remembers when his life was better. When he did not have to worry about his sister getting into trouble or the money problems that their family faces. Firs sees the orchard as a link to his ideals as a butler. In the past when the orchard was a thriving business and made a profit, servants knew hoe to properly serve their masters and masters knew how to treat loyal servants. Firs himself seems to represent the cherry orchard. Throughout the play, he looks after his masters, all the while becoming more frail and less helpful until he finally dies at the end of the play.
To others, such as Yermolai Lopakhin and Petya Trofimov, the orchard symbolizes the future. Lopakhin sees the orchard as a path to wealth. If he tears down the orchard. he can use the land to build real estate and make a lot of money. Petya views the tearing down of the orchard as the end of an era, where slavery and class structures ruled, and the beginning of a more enlightened age where people have more knowledge.
The cherry orchard really symbolizes two ideas: past and future. Some characters saw it as a way to return to their good lives in the past. Others saw it as a way to bring them closer to the future.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Hedda Gabler
Despite the fact that it was written in the 1890's, the play Hedda Gabler deals with many aspects from contemporary society. The characters in the play all deal with issues that were present in society long before the play was written, and will continue to be present long after the play has become a classic. The issues that stood out to me as being contemporary were the issues with money, trying to secure a job, alcoholism, love, and even blackmail. These are all issues that we still see in society today, and I think that Hedda Gabler does an excellent job of depicting them in a way that we still understand today.
I liked how the issues arose in the play, because they tend to happen in the same ways today. Tesman has stretched out his finances and desperately needs the job as a professor because he has just bought his family a new home. I can see how easily this translates into modern society because of our declining economy and the struggle that people today have with providing for their families. Another of the issues that is easily recognisable in the play is the loveless marriage that Hedda is in. (Well, loveless for her. Tesman loves her but she does not love him.) Hedda married Tesman because he came from a family with money and could support her lifestyle. We see this all the time today. Celebrities, doctors, lawyers, someone with money instantly attracts the attention of others. When they are bad enough, these issues can lead to problems similar to Lovborg's: alcoholism.
There are definitely some things that would have to change if the play were to be changed into a contemporary setting. The roles of modern women have changed compared to when the play was written. Women today generally do not get married because they think it is time to do so. Hedda would probably not have married Tesman simply because she thought it was time to get married, even though she wanted to continue her single lifestyle. The underlying comments of Hedda's pregnancy would be more open today and she might have even dealt with the issue of whether or not to keep the baby. I think Tesman would have to aim at a wealthier job than a professorship to support Hedda's lifestyle. I also think that it would have been harder for Judge Brack to blackmail Hedda because of all the procedures that police go trough with evidence these days.
I think that Hedda is a very interesting character. That being said, she is also extremely unlikeable. She marries Tesman because she thinks it is time for her to get married and Tesman is the wealthiest applicant. She is mean to everyone around her and makes comments to put them down. I think Hedda does this because even she doesn't like herself and need that outlet to make herself feel better. Hedda tries to come between Thea and Lovborg. She does this because she is jealous that they actually do love each other and she feels that if she can't be like that, then they shouldn't be allowed to be happy together either. Hedda also tries to get Lovborg to committ suicide by shooting himself in the head because it matches her idea of a "free and beautiful" death that she can't give herself.
Overall, I enjoyed reading this play. However, I have to admit that I couldn't help but be horrified when reading about Hedda Gabler's actions and attitude towards others.
I liked how the issues arose in the play, because they tend to happen in the same ways today. Tesman has stretched out his finances and desperately needs the job as a professor because he has just bought his family a new home. I can see how easily this translates into modern society because of our declining economy and the struggle that people today have with providing for their families. Another of the issues that is easily recognisable in the play is the loveless marriage that Hedda is in. (Well, loveless for her. Tesman loves her but she does not love him.) Hedda married Tesman because he came from a family with money and could support her lifestyle. We see this all the time today. Celebrities, doctors, lawyers, someone with money instantly attracts the attention of others. When they are bad enough, these issues can lead to problems similar to Lovborg's: alcoholism.
There are definitely some things that would have to change if the play were to be changed into a contemporary setting. The roles of modern women have changed compared to when the play was written. Women today generally do not get married because they think it is time to do so. Hedda would probably not have married Tesman simply because she thought it was time to get married, even though she wanted to continue her single lifestyle. The underlying comments of Hedda's pregnancy would be more open today and she might have even dealt with the issue of whether or not to keep the baby. I think Tesman would have to aim at a wealthier job than a professorship to support Hedda's lifestyle. I also think that it would have been harder for Judge Brack to blackmail Hedda because of all the procedures that police go trough with evidence these days.
I think that Hedda is a very interesting character. That being said, she is also extremely unlikeable. She marries Tesman because she thinks it is time for her to get married and Tesman is the wealthiest applicant. She is mean to everyone around her and makes comments to put them down. I think Hedda does this because even she doesn't like herself and need that outlet to make herself feel better. Hedda tries to come between Thea and Lovborg. She does this because she is jealous that they actually do love each other and she feels that if she can't be like that, then they shouldn't be allowed to be happy together either. Hedda also tries to get Lovborg to committ suicide by shooting himself in the head because it matches her idea of a "free and beautiful" death that she can't give herself.
Overall, I enjoyed reading this play. However, I have to admit that I couldn't help but be horrified when reading about Hedda Gabler's actions and attitude towards others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)