Monday, September 26, 2011

Homecoming: Character Dynamics

A lot of the family relations in The Homecoming are concerned with power. Discuss how the power dynamic plays out between at least two pairs of characters.


The Homecoming by Harold Pinter is a play like nothing you would ever expect. The characters are all trying to dominate each other in a variety of different ways, except maybe Sam. Max uses threats and violence to exhibit his power. Lenny tells stories of his abuse to a women. Joey is trying to become a boxer and also tells a story about taking control of a woman. Teddy is subtly trying to gain control of his wife's actions and the situations that arise. Finally, Ruth is trying to gain control of all the males.
The Crescent Theatre's production of The Homecoming*.

The relationship between Teddy and Ruth is very dynamic because he is not as aggressive as the rest of the males in his family. Ruth, however, is. Instead of using force or violence to do so, she uses her sexuality. Not something a husband would want his wife to be doing. 

Ruth and Teddy in the Royal Theatre's production*.

When they first arrive at the house, he tries to get her to go to sit down and then to go to bed. Ruth will have none of it and easily asserts her power over him with the fact that she will do as she pleases, including taking a walk late at night. Teddy ends up going to bed and waiting for his wife to return home, a role reversal from most of the plays we have been reading. Lenny asks him a question about philosophy, which is the subject Teddy teaches, but he is unable to answer. Ruth tries to answer, though it draws attention to her sexuality. His intellect has been defeated by her sexuality. It is from this scene that Ruth starts kissing Joey and Lenny right in front of her husband, but he is powerless to stop her. He decides that they need to leave, but Ruth does not want to.
Ruth and  Joey on the couch in The Crescent's production*.
In the next scene, Sam reveals to Teddy that the latter was the favorite of both Sam and Teddy's mother. This could be because Sam and Teddy have a similar personality. They are both passive, allowing the rest of the men to have power over them. The audience also sees Teddy waiting for his wife, who is upstairs in the bedroom with Joey. When Joey, Lenny, and Max begin planning on keeping Ruth, Teddy does not have the power to stop them or Ruth. He leaves her future up to her and leaves, without asserting any influence, power, or authority over anyone; which may be why he moved and is seldom heard from in the family. 


Ruth, Teddy, and Lenny in the American Conservatory Theatre's production.*
Pinter uses Ruth and Teddy to show two different dynamics. Ruth has no problem fitting into the family where the main goal is taking power and having authority over another. She is able to use her sexuality as a means to gain control over all of the males, including getting her own three-bedroom flat, maid, and new wardrobe. Teddy, on the other hand, cannot take the power and assert his authority over anyone. He is forced to react to other's control, which drives him to cut his stay with his family short and leave his wife with his family to become a prostitute.


* All images were obtained through Google Images.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

The Cherry Orchard: Meaning Behind the Cherries

What does the cherry orchard symbolize? Is there a conflict between realism and symbolism?

Anton Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard is about an aristocratic Russian family who is losing their cherry orchard because they don't have the money to pay for it. We learn that the orchard is famous for its gigantic size but not for its production of cherries. Firs states: "Back in the old days, forty, fifty years ago, they used to make dried cherries, pickled cherries preserved cherries, cherry jam, and sometimes--" but when Liubóv asks if anyone knows how to fix them, Firs responds that "They all forgot" (353). This makes the cherries a reminder of the past, much like the aristocracy. Instead of being useful, it is a useless reminder of the past. The characters echo this as the family has not changed with the time and are focused on their past at the orchard. The cherry orchard allows these memories to be shared. 


Liubóv and Gáyev use the cherry orchard to remember their childhood. Trofímov uses the cherry orchard to remind Ánya of how the cherry orchard has always been reliant on other people's hard work, but never her family's. Other characters, such as Lopákhin plan on using the orchard for financial reasons, since the family will not. 
The Cherry Orchard by Boston University Mainstage (Dec. 2006)



The reader sees the orchard as the location as a place of change. The old have their traditional, idealistic view on the orchard, while the younger generation is ready to change with the time (and perhaps incite a future revolution in Trofímov's case). The orchard symbolizes the connection between the present and past. In the end the orchard is destroyed and the aristocratic family leaves in separate directions without a home to return to.

One set at the Singapore Arts Festival for The Cherry Orchard

The conflict between realism and symbolism would be the size. The cherry orchard subdivided into plots would still bring the family 25,000 rubles ($500,000) per acre, so one can only guess at the size of the orchard (352). In addition, realistic changes are happening to change the orchard as a homeless man wanders onto their property. 

A cherry orchard in bloom (found through Google Images)

Sunday, September 4, 2011

Hedda Gabler: Ibsen's Modern Drama and Today's Society

This play dates from the 1890s: in what sense can it be considered a modern play? To what extent does it speak to us now? What aspects of the play can be found in contemporary society--or is it largely a museum piece? What would need to change if a comparable play were written to address current circumstances?



Hedda Gabler, by Henrik Ibsen, was written in the 1890s, during the time when modern theater was emerging. Modern drama usually included subjects that challenged the audiences, "being controversial became the very condition for being modern" (Gainor 60). Like other modern plays, it challenges the audience with moral problems and dilemmas of the time. One problem is a class relationship and another is marriage, including the fidelity within it. Similar to his play A Doll House, Hedda Gabler focuses on the hypocrisy and inequality of the Victorian marriage, occurring at this time. Another feature in Ibsen's writing is the focus on social and psychological issues, seen through all the characters as Hedda manipulates them. Ibsen's plays are founded in the realism that was juxtaposed with modern drama. 


Diana Rigg as the title character (found by searching title in Google Images)


The play speaks to its current audience by showing the complexities of the middle class characters in the play. It also depicts the realism in Victorian marriages during the time. Ibsen shows the wants and desires of the characters along with the destructive effects of trying to attain them. The play also displays a picture of society during Ibsen's time. 




Hedda Gabler and Judge Brack by Alley Theatre. (Found through Google Images)


Aspects of the play can be found in modern society while still holding elements of a removed society. In any society there will be problems within a marriage. Hedda Gabler illustrates Hedda's unhappiness in her marriage,  Judge Brack's interest in Hedda, and Mrs. Elvsted's running away from the sheriff to Eilert Løveborg. Also, it is not uncommon to see women who feel trapped in their marriage, like Hedda does and Mrs. Elvsted did. In addition to these aspects is the idea of there always being a person who is manipulative in society; in the play it is Hedda, though Judge Brack tries to hold power over her. Along with these, the play also illustrates the exasperation of Løveborg at having lost his reputation (again) and his manuscript. The feelings he displays would still be felt by people in today's society. The play still speaks to the psychological and moral aspects from the 1890s to now. 


Alley Theatre's Hedda Gabler and Eilert Loveborg. (Found through Google Images)


If a comparable play were written today to address current circumstances, several changes would need to be made. Most writers back their manuscripts up on the computer and other drives, so the writer would need to explain how the only copy got ruined. Even if it is simply by stating that Løveborg preferred writing by hand. Another would be why Hedda did not decide to remain unmarried, as it is now acceptable for a woman to not married. In this case, she probably wound not have married someone she did not love. She would have either remained single or married someone else. Another aspect to change would be the issue of evidence after Løveborg's death such as-- DNA, gunshot residue, and that guns have to be registered (important for determining the murder and others involved). 


A playbill from American Airlines Theatre 's revival of the play. (Found by searching title in Google Images)


Gainor, J. Ellen. "Introduction." The Norton Anthology of Drama. Vol. 2. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2009.