How I Learned to Drive

Too Much Too Soon

The metaphor of learning how to drive in this play was extremely powerful and relevant to the chara cter Li’l Bit. This metaphor highlights Li’l Bit’s process of growing up. Each bolded title regarding driving, pertains to specific events in her life. The titles such as Shifting Forward from First to Second Gear, Idling in the Neutral Gear, and Vehicle Failure all represent different changes or phases Li’l Bit goes through.

I think that the most important of these titles was the one describing defensive driving. It ends with the phrase: Good defensive driving involves mental and physical preparation. Were you prepared? This pertains to how Li’l Bit was not properly prepared for the things that happened to her. At age 11 she was not ready for sexual activity to be thrust upon her by her uncle. At age 14 she was not ready for the bodily changes that she experienced. At age 18 she was not ready for college. Her entire life has consisted of growing up to fast and having to catch up to the things happening in her life. The interesting aspect of this is however, that much of the play consists of people trying to educate Li’l Bit. Much of the interaction between Li’l Bit and Peck is when he is teaching her how to drive or trying to prepare her for life situations. Similarly, much of her interaction with her mother and grandmother deals with them educating her about men and sex. You would think that with all of these people attempting to prepare her for life that she would be a little more ready for it when it happens to her. It seems as though this advice was just too little, too late or that her life experiences were too much, too soon.

Top Girls

Women in a Man's World

While reading the play Top Girls, I couldn't help but get caught up at first amidst the random characters and family drama. After allowing myself to process the play for a little while I realized that there is a lot more going on then just the random groups of people and conversations. The main theme of this play, as can be derived from simply the title, is women surviving in a man's world. All of the woman in Act I represent a different time period and therefore present different views and experiences on women's roles in their respective societies. Everything that they discuss about their successes and failures revolves around the men in their lives. I found it interesting when their attitudes did not blend together. When Griselda spoke of her relationship with her husband and how he tested her obedience by taking her children from her, none of them women understood her reasoning, apart from Nijo who was born as property of the emperor.

The different perspectives of these women lead up to the present time of Marlene and her recent promotion. Marlene has finally found success in the man’s world but it was not without immense sacrifice. The end of the play reveals that Marlene left her daughter behind when she moved away from home and it was because of this that she was able to find a job and be successful. This raises the issue of what is more important in women’s roles. Is career advancement more important than raising a child? If you asked Nijo, Griselda or even Gret who had ten children they would say that the women’s job is to raise the kids and serve their husbands. Marlene represents a changing of times but how much does change is too much?

Fences

"That shadow wasn't nothing but you growing into yourself. You either got to grow into it or cut it down to fit you."

Family is an interesting concept in many different respects. August Wilson uses his play, Fences, to explore certain relationships involved in the family unit. I think the most important relationship involved in this play was the father-son relationship. The quote above describes the idea of the cyclic patterns involved in fathers and sons. It says that the son has two choices. The first is to become their fathers. They can fall into the same tendencies and habits as their fathers and lead similar lives and have similar relationships. The other option that they have is to create their own way, or “cut it down to fit you”. This means that they can break away and become their own person and have different relationships. Troy speaks of his father once during the play. He spoke of how he was scared always scared of his father and his physical and verbal abuse. The experience that Troy describes tells of how he finally stood up to his father and lashed out in hatred against him. He leaves his father in hopes of avoiding the negative relationship. It is very apparent that Troy was not able to create his own life and he let himself slip into his father’s shadow. He had induced the same type of fear in his own children and created the same negative relationships. In the final scenes of the play, Cory is faced with the same decision to either let the shadow overcome him and abandon his father at his funeral, or to create a new way and pay his respects. I thought it was interesting that it was his family that convinced him to reject the shadow of his father and attend the funeral. The very thing that pushed him away was now the driving force that brought Cory back.

Over the Hill

Samuel Beckett's Krapp's Last Tape is overshadowed by the ominous theme of going “over the hill”. Krapp describes in his recording from his 39th birthday that he has reached the "crest of the wave" (334). This is quite possibly one of the most depressing topics in existence. The idea that your best days are behind you and that everything is downhill from that point leaves one with no motivation or drive to try in life. Krapp accepts this notion and it seems to dictate the rest of his life. It appears as though he has let the past 30 years go by without meaning. He lived his life as though he was over the hill and that no matter what he did, things would never be as good as they were. This leaves him feeling trapped in a life that’s going nowhere.

There is another aspect of the “over the hill” concept involved in this play. When people use the term “over the hill” they almost always use it in a humorous way. I think that this is true for parts of Krapp’s Last Tape. We see comedic breaks in the storyline in moments like Krapp searching for the tape, when he knocks over the box of tapes, and when he talks into the recorder while its off. I think that these moments lighten up the mood just enough to keep the audience from wanting to give up on the performance, just like Krapp has given up on his life.

The Cherry Orchard

Comedy or Tragedy?

I think that the most interesting part of The Cherry Orchard is the debate over whether or not it is a comedy or a tragedy. Not many plays are so complex that they can be classified on both ends of the spectrum. While reading the play, I was under the impression that it was a comedy. I simply could not take the characters seriously. There were so many times when I felt as though the characters were being so ridiculous that there was no way that they themselves were even affected by the tragic events that were unfolding. For example when Pischik is talking to Liubov about Lopakhin and also asking her for money, he falls asleep for a second in mid-conversation. Also the character Gayev was very comical. I don’t believe that they ever mentioned his age but it is assumed that he is rather old, and yet throughout the play he acts as if he is a child. The way he is treated by and responds to the butler Firs makes the reader believe that he is still a young boy living in his parents’ home. There is even a part where his own nieces have to scold him about his behavior. These comic elements took the focus away from the more serious events that were occurring in the play. I think that Anton Chekhov could have possibly done this on purpose to send a message to the audience to not take life so seriously. He wants the audience to see the tragedy but ultimately feel a sense of lightheartedness.

The Importance of Being Earnest

I enjoyed reading The Importance of Being Earnest. I admit that at times it was a bit "fluffy", as some critics have said, but I think that a little lighthearted comedy is important every now and then. Plays are meant to entertain and I think that this one would be very entertaining to see on stage.

One aspect that I found to be particularly comical was the fast moving plot. Both of the marriage proposals seemed completely out of nowhere and based off of nothing solid. The two characters met, one proposed, the other said yes and that was that. I understand that in a play, there isn’t enough time to give an entire background story of a developing relationship, however, especially in the case of Algernon and Cecily, they had only actually known each other for what seemed like a matter of minutes before they were declaring their love for each other. I think that this is a very important comedic element because especially in modern times, events like these would never happen. The fast pace of this play keeps the audience on their toes and although it isn’t an action play, the unlikely plot twists keep them entertained throughout.

I also found it amusing that I was relating to Lady Bracknell when she said, “I do not know whether there is anything peculiarly exciting in the air of this particular part of Herfordshire, but the number of engagements that go on seems to me considerably above the proper average that statistics have laid down for our guidance.” (273). Being a young adult, I would expect to feel more of a connection to Cecily or one of the other younger characters, however Lady Bracknell’s sarcasm and disbelief stated in this line dictated a lot of my same reactions. It is comical because I felt as though I could have taken on the role of the cranky old lady who is spoiling the fun of the younger foolish kids.

Modern Day Othello

In Phillip Kolin's interview of Kent Thompson, an interesting comparison was made between Othello and O. J. Simpson. Thompson talked about his first production of Othello and how it coincided with the O. J. Simpson murder trials. He said that this event attracted large amounts of people to the theatre because "they wanted to see a similar story written 400 years earlier." It is interesting to see a modern comparison to a historical story like Othello. Assuming that Simpson did indeed murder his wife and her friend, it makes you wonder if O. J. Simpson acted out in jealousy. Did he believe that there was a romantic relationship between his wife and this man? Also was there an "Iago" type figure in his life, trying to manipulate his emotions and spark jealous violence? In modern times this figure could have been the influence of drugs or alcohol. Just like Iago, these things tend to make people see things in different ways and imagine things that aren't reality. Perhaps, while under the influence, Simpson could have viewed an interaction between his wife and the other man as intimate or more than just a casual occurrence just as Othello did with Cassio and Desdemona briefly holding hands. These emotions could have lead to a similar violent end as in Othello.

This comparison raised a lot of the same racial issues that are present in Othello as well. In the case of O.J. Simpson, it was a black man being accused of murdering a white woman. This matches up exactly to the plot of Othello. This real life event seems to be evidence to the topics created by William Shakespeare 400 years ago.

"O, beware, my lord, of jealousy! It is the green eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on."

Jealousy is the main driving force of the plot in this play. Every character in this story is affected by jealousy in one way or another. In the case of Othello, Iago and Roderigo, jealousy was the motive for their actions. As for Desdemona, Emilia, and Cassio, they are either murdered or deeply affected by the jealousy driven acts. What interests me is why this one emotion trumps all others and is able to cause this much death and destruction. Why couldn't love save Othello from murdering his wife or loyalty stop Iago from betraying and manipulating his master.

Jealousy as stated in the quote above is the green-eyed monster. When I hear this metaphor, I think of a monster that is lurking in the "closet" of everyone's mind. It is always there but just not always acted upon. I think that the reason why jealousy can more easily take over one's actions is because it is much easier to believe. It is natural for people to doubt things that are good in their lives. In the case of Othello, it is much more believable to him that Desdemona was cheating on him than to believe that she was actually in love with him. When presented with what was thought to be evidence against her, Othello was all to eager to believe it because it could have possibly just enhanced his already present doubts about their relationship. The similar feelings occur with Iago. In this case there was no evidence of an affair between Othello and his wife Emilia and yet he still believed it to be true. Jealousy is the mode by which we make ourselves believe that our fears and doubts are reality. This "green-eyed monster" is ever present in our lives and as demonstrated in Othello, has the power to come out from the closet and direct our actions toward the destruction of others and ourselves.

Tragedy-Death of a Salesman

Tragic plays have been given their official definition by Aristotle with regard to the ancient Greek stories of Oedipus, Alcmeon, Orestes, Telephus and others. These tragedies consist of elements such as peripety, recognition, and pathos resulting in a sense of pity or fear for the protagonist. There is a strict pattern for these elements and as a result, not many plays can be considered tragedies. The question I would like to raise is whether there are any modern plays that could be considered tragedies? Can Aristotle’s ancient definition be applied to plays written in the 20^th century or are the times too different to be compared using the same guidelines?

Many would argue that Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman is a tragic play, but can it be classified as a tragedy in the terms of Aristotle? Arthur Miller gives his own guidelines on what makes a tragedy with regards to his Death of a Salesman. While not necessarily refuting Aristotle’s opinion, Miller does give tragedies a newer and modern twist. I think that in terms of Death of a Salesman these distinctions are unnecessary. Aristotle would have deemed this a tragedy because it has the following requirements:

Tragic flaw-Willy’s striving to be well liked

Peripety-Willy reprimands Biff for trying to Spite him and finds out that Biff only ever wanted Willy to be proud of him.

Recognition-Finds that in order to be loved by his family and to show them that he loved them and he needed to sacrifice himself for their well being

Pathos-Commits suicide

These are the main parts of the plot that are necessary for a play to be deemed a tragedy and they are all present. This shows that there still can be an Aristotelian tragedy in modern time.

Medea

The play Medea, ends in the murders of two sons by their mother, Medea, to get revenge on her husband. This result angered me because of the amount of indecisiveness that Medea had about carrying out the deed. She kept going back and forth about whether or not she could go through with it. If she had made up her mind and stayed with it the whole time it would be easier for the audience to accept it and pass it off as an act of insanity or just pure evil. The indecisiveness shows that Medea actually weighed both options and thought it through as a rational person would. After she reveals her plan to the Chorus, they reply saying, “You would not have told your plan to me unless you hoped I would dissuade you,” (69). I agree that she would not have told anyone of her plan unless she was having second thoughts and wanted to be talked out of doing it.

I think that a large part of her ultimate decision was based on the gender roles presented in the play. These roles were clearly laid out by Medea early on and they entailed concepts about how a woman’s main goal is to satisfy the men and to produce heirs for them. In the end when Medea is contemplating the murders of her sons, in a way she is contemplating whether or not she fits in with the gender roles. If she decided to spare her sons lives she would be giving into the role of the typical woman, protecting her husband’s heirs. Medea ultimately chose to carry out the deed to inflict emotional pain on her husband and deny her role as a woman.

Death of a Salesman

The scene of the flashback to when Biff visited his father in Boston had interesting and varied impacts on the people involved. When I first read it, I found it to be the turning point for Biff. He goes to his father for advice and guidance as he always did because he looked up to him as an idyllic figure. Then he arrives and finds that this man who he thought the world of had been lying to him and his family. At the beginning of the conversation he was confident in his father’s ability to right the situation that he was in but later he says, “He wouldn’t listen to you,” (95) referring to his teacher that flunked him. He no longer believed that his father could fix anything. Biff says to his mother that, “he knows he’s a fake”(42). To Biff this means that everything that his father had ever told him was a lie. All of things he had said to boost him up were false and he could not be the person that he was raised to believe he could be.

Looking over this scene again I found that it is not just the turning point for Biff. This point also defines the rest of Willy’s life. Willy’s life goal was to be well liked. In his mind, nothing else mattered as long as he was liked by the people around him. Once he lost the respect and adoration that his son had for him, he felt as though he could no longer be liked by others. In the latter parts of the play, Willy reminisces and has flash backs to the “better days”. These flashbacks lead up to this one scene. The past that he wishes to go back to are the days when he was still liked by people around him and loved by his family.

Fires In the Mirror

Accident, Justice, and Power.

The words accident, justice and power are all thrown around quite often throughout this piece. Their presence greatly outlines some of the larger themes that are being portrayed. Justice and accident go together in a lot of the monologues. Both the groups are seeking justice for crimes that were acted upon them by the opposing group. The Jews are insisting that the death of Gavin Cato was an accident in which case there would be no one to blame. However on the other side, the Blacks came up with a long list of who to blame and why. Whether it is the man who was driving the car or the Jewish ambulance that supposedly refused to help the boy or the Police who appeared to have done nothing to suppress the riots or help the victims. The main argument for the Jews is that it was a simple car “accident” and nothing could have been done to stop it. Does this mean then that there can be no justice? Is there no justice for the father who watched his son die? Is there no justice for the driver who fled the country to avoid the consequences of his “accident”? Whether the crash was an accident or not does not change the fact that justice needs to be delivered.

Power goes along with this theme also. This is because whoever has the power will be justified. The power held by the Jews was used to deliver what they believed was justice to the community. The monologues paint the picture of power in the community showing how the death of a black boy was a mere accident and that the death of a Jewish man was a malicious crime that required justice. Those in power had the ability to determine what could be defined as an accident and whom justice needed to be served upon.

Theatre 120

I accept the terms of the course...