elizabeths english blog: 2012

Thursday, May 24, 2012

My last Blog Portfolio

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

In drama masks can conceal characters’ true intentions, and transform them. In Hedda Gabler by Henrik Ibsen and Tennessee Williams’ Streetcar Named Desire, set design, dialogue, and appearance are employed to create masks for their female protagonists. Hedda masks her fiery nature with a cool feminine exterior which allows her to manipulate others yet still be imprisoned by social expectations. Blanche’s masks her past mistakes and resurrects her past glory to deny reality, representing the southern gothic.

In A Streetcar Named Desire Blanche keeps the lighting in the apartment low to mask her age and to create a romanticized version of herself, to deny her past.

In Hedda Gabler set design is also used to demonstrate a facaade. Hedda keeps the house dark to present a cool exterior to society, while contrastingly keeping a fire showing her the fiery self.

In A Streetcar Named Desire Blanche wears glamorous clothing in an attempt to recover her past glory and hide her past shame, representing the southern gothic.

Hedda dresses in aristocratic clothing like Blanche, to create a power over others, but wears loose clothing to mask the pregnancy that represents a traditional lifestyle that she rejects.

In A Streetcar Named Desire Blanche sings and talks to herself in a manner that contrasts to her situation demonstrating her ability to deny her current state.

Between Hedda and Tesman there is the dialogue motif of “think of that”and “I’m thinking” to demonstrate to her husband that she is a sweet housewife, but Hedda is actually much smarter than he sees.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

film vs play

Oleanna film vs. Play

I think watching Oleanna made all of the interruptions more effective. I think the actors were able to handle the script well. I had mixed feelings about carol, she seemed much more annoying when she followed him around the room, and complained that she was stupid, when you see an actual person just saying “I don’t understand” over and over, she becomes more detestable. However when she called him out on his hypocrisy and told him to let her talk and to stop “encouraging” her, I thought that had its merit and in the movie I had more sympathy for her. But hearing her talk about how all she wanted was “understanding” was much more annoying in the movie. I think facial expressions make her more detestable especially the loosely veiled smugness. I am wondering about the last image of boys throwing a football in the yard. I’m not sure why he included this, it reminded me of the last part of the play version of streetcar, and “the game is seven card stud.” It just zooms away from a severe situation back to a normal college campus, where boys throw footballs. I guess that could relate to the paradise of oleanna, a place that’s fun and joyful.

I found something interesting on Saumyas blog. She said that carol becomes a “highly manipulative strong woman,” and I think this is hard to define because of her group. Does Carol really transform or is she just the delivery system for her group? I think the movie visually highlights this by her change in costume. Nothing seems like she’s gradually reveals her intentions, its very much a before and after, in Act 1 she comes in a whiny, inarticulate, helpless student, then she comes back all business with an agenda. She doesn’t seem as emotional. Adrienne mentioned in class that she didn’t seem to be super self interested, she just did what she was told, followed protocol. I think this is right to a certain extent, she now has the support of a group and she wants to maintain loyalty, but I don’t think she really cares about such feminist issues. Watching the film I found myself getting annoyed with her lack of emotion during this part, her blank facial expression, her “I just want understanding” claim. She was angry with him because of her power over her in the first part, I think she just used her feminist group to gain leverage over him, and shame him in the name of protocol. To me she seemed dumber in the movie. In the book I was sort of impressed by her ability to take something out of context and use it to her advantage, I thought, “oh wow, maybe she’s not as thick as we thought.” But in the movie she seemed like she was regurgitating more, I guess. Her lack of emotion, makes it seem more like regurgitation of stuff the group told her, but lack of emotion makes her complaint justifiable, because its in the name of emotionless politic correctness.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

OLeanna Themes and two hateable characters

I think a major theme is the hypocrisy of the major characters and motives. For example John says education is just a “hazing process” of society yet he uses his education to level himself above carol, with big words like “paradigm.” He says that the student and teacher relationship is artificial, saying that the teacher is the one who knows and the student is the one who does not know is a false relationship yet he projects that relationship on to carol. He constantly interrupts her by affirming her, saying good yes the moment she starts speaking, he acts as though he is able to coax her towards the right answer, which he already knows. But when she disagrees with him he denies that it’s true.

Carol is also hypocritical, she comes in for help from her teacher and she ends up accusing him of sexual harassment, when he only tried to help her. He may have been to caught up in his own thoughts to listen to her but he certainly didn’t attempt rape. And she didn’t make herself easy to help. She just had emotional ranting about how she didn’t understand and started whining that she’s stupid. Well obviously she wasn’t going to understand better if she wasted the teachers time complaining of her own stupidity. She wants to pass the class he offers her an A and then she comes in with a sexual harassment charge. He did say that she had to return to his office repeatedly in order to get an A so he holds power over her. She shifted that power clearly with the harassment charge. But because she constantly refers to her group, its unclear whether she’s trying to “protect herself “ or just doing her what her feminist group would do. She’s actually being manipulative because she didn’t have to go to his room to threaten him with his charge if it was real danger she should have just given it to the harassment report collecting people. She doesn’t

Black mail him like a smart manipulative person does, she just goes in to see him and leaves screaming. What motive could she have besides being angry with the teacher and wanting to see him embarrassed and then walking into the room to rub it in his face? Or perhaps she doesn’t have a motive, she’s just the person who follows protocol, she does “all ways do what she’s told.” But the same could be said about Johns motives, why does move her grade up to an A and says he “likes” her? Why does he offer to spend even more time with her? I don’t think its sexual harassment he just wants to be “that teacher.” The kind who sees him in one of his troubled students and inspires them to like his subject, that whole cliché. Yet he fails miserably at it and constantly answers the phone before listening to her, especially when she’s about to tell him something big. He doesn’t listen at all, he just wants to play the encouraging cool teacher role for his own ego, I think. They certainly have this contrast she plays the role of person who enforces rules for the sake of it, seemingly with no practical self-interest but self-righteousness. And he plays the role of a teacher who is engaged and committed to his students, and questions the system, but mostly out of ego. I think the theme is the conflict and deadlock between these two ideas in today’s society.

Monday, April 16, 2012

The allusion of Oleanna

I looked into it and I realized that it was a Norwegian folk song. Threes a translation By Theodore C. Blegen which I looked at. It’s mostly about dreaming of a perfect place called Oleanna, where food and liquor are abundant and women work hard to provide for lazy men. It has an exaggerated optimism “I'm off to Oleanna, to lead a life of pleasure, a beggar here, a count out there, with riches in full measure.”

Below are lyrics that convey the subservient nature of women and presents the perfect mans world.

Support your wife and kids? Why, the county pays for that, Sir,
You'd slap officials down and out if they should leave you flat, Sir.

XVII

And if you've any bastards, you're freed of their support, Sir,
as you can guess since I am spinning verses for your sport, Sir.

XVIII

You walk about in velvet, with silver buttons bright, Sir,
You puff away at meerschaum pipes, your women pack them right, Sir.

XIX

The dear old ladies struggle, and sweat for us, and labor,
And if they're cross, they spank themselves, they do it as a favor.

In the first stanza it illustrates how men don’t have to be economically tied down to their family, they don’t have to do that work or have that responsibility. The second stanza discusses the less public side of a mans life, affairs and bastard children. The man doesn’t have to support his bastard children this allows him more sexual freedom with out consequences. Also it implies that the society of oleanna would not judge a man for such activities. In the third stanza it presents a man living a lavish lifestyle wearing “velvet” and “silver buttons” in oleanna every man is a king. In this stanza women in a servicing role is introduced, as they pack the pipes that men smoke “just right.” The fourth stanza presents women subordinating themselves to men in the most extreme way. The “dear old ladies,” grandma type characters, “struggle and sweat for” men, and punish themselves when they dislike their role.

But I also find that this lavish lifestyle that men have that’s provided by women can be negative for them. In this song all men are treated equally superior, regardless of their morality, social status, kindness etc. they are just lumped together with the rest of their gender and soak up their not hard earned rewards. They also don’t really have the power or responsibility that is associated with masculinity. They don’t have to support their family, which is easier, but providing for a family is one of the cornerstones of masculinity in society, and men no longer have this. The women also beat themselves for misbehaving. Here it makes it seem like men no longer have to enforce their rules because they’re already abided. But in reality men don’t abuse women for the women’s injustice, they can beat women out of compulsion or insecurity. A mans ability to abuse his wife is his way of asserting dominance and feel like a man in a brutish way. And seeing as this poem probably speaks to an immigrating male who is a “beggar in Norway” and could potentially have bastard children, he probably is more acquainted with brutish masculinity, and gives that up as well in Oleanna. The men of this poem remind me of Hedda, they are constantly cared for and live relatively lavishly but have no responsibility. There is a dual way to look at this folk song, which I think relates to the dual way to look at sexual harassment in Oleanna.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Heidi Chronicles and Detachment

I found an article on Heidi Chronicles that didn’t particularly like the play. It discussed how Heidi was always detached from everyone around her and despite the fact that time period is so essential to the setting, the culture of the eras weren’t really examined because of this detachment. I think that is definitely true, she is giving lectures during the play but thinking about the past, and during many of the events in the past such as the dance, the girl-power session, the TV interview, she isn’t entirely engaged. She acknowledges the detachment of feminism when she spoke about women “I thought the point was that we wouldn’t feel stranded. I thought the point was that we were all in this together.” When considering this idea of detachment I think I better understand the ending. The final image portrays Heidi having it all, but we don’t really see exactly how she gets there, it feels just kind of tacked on. It enhances the notion of detachment and lessens the pure satisfaction that the audience would feel at a clear happily ever after. I think Heidi remains detached as a sort of defense mechanism, she isn’t sure what she wants for a while and if she wants to keep her idealism she cant get too sucked into what her society is doing. Also I think the idea of having it all demands detachment. When you constantly have to juggle a career, a child, maybe husband, all of which you want to feel completely devoted to and fulfilled by, you will often have to prioritize and will feel guilty about giving less to one thing. Because women play so many roles they aren’t really sure who they are and they cant feel fulfilled in entirety. The article also compared Heidi, Scoop and Peter to Vegas comedians, who laugh at their own jokes but aren’t very funny. I must agree I didn’t find the play very funny and they do tend to “perform” to others because of their wit but their not really one of them.

Article:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4383792?&Search=yes&searchText=chronicles&searchText=heidi&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dheidi%2Bchronicles%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=2&ttl=507&returnArticleService=showFullText

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Heidi, Streetcar, Hedda

Scoop vs Stanley vs Lovborg

They all possess a power that women are drawn to yet put off by. Stanley’s animalistic power is thrilling to Stella and Blanche is unwillingly attracted to Stanley. Scoop is charismatic and Heidi is attracted to him for that, yet he is obnoxious and Heidi dislikes him for that. Lovborg was a free spirit and lively man, which excites Hedda yet she still wants to be able to manipulate him.

Class issues

In Hedda Gabler, Hedda’s aristocratic background puts pressure on her husband to make money. Hedda uses her background to manipulate people, she has friends and family constantly trying to please her, yet because of her background she is placed on a pedestal. With her aristocratic Background, and female role, she is powerful in a sense but still caged. In streetcar Aristocracy is an idea that has been abandoned or is used as a façade. Stella rejects her posh upbringing by marrying Stanley. Blanches uses her aristocratic background to mask her desires and insecurity, and to make Stanley insecure. In Heidi wealth is less significant than in Hedda and Street car, but it still plays a role. Scoop is very well off and he is materialistic, but he finds his life isn’t really meaningful. There is a motif of career success in Heidi Chronicles but money isn’t usually the focus.

The role of the past

Heidi holds onto past ideals of idealism and feminism, she eventually is rewarded for this. Because this play occurs over a longer span of time past and present aren’t as distinctly separated as they are in Streetcar and Hedda. In Streetcar the past of the old southern glory, and the new rougher south are conflicting. The old south has deteriorated demonstrated through blanches insanity, and is finally let go, shown by Blanches removal and Stella’s choice to remain with Stanley.

in the past Hedda was free to be an individual, but then she married Tesman and is now caged. This is interesting because part of the play is about the death of Victorian society, and the movement of a more liberated society. Yet Hedda’s past where she enjoyed the most freedom, she is moving backwards. Similar to Stella choosing Stanley, Hedda choosing Tesman is regressive in a sense. Except in Stella and Stanley’s case there is passion in Tesman and Hedda’s relationship there is none.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Portfolio

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Hedda as the Modern Woman

The article called Hedda the “international type,” which is interesting because her societal ideals constrain her so much. Her only purpose as a woman in her time and place is to be a wife, and this bores her and frustrates her. But because the play is essentially a character study of Hedda, her character and her struggles against her society can easily be adapted to any play relating to feminist issues. She’s bored she feels confined, she is quite a strong character and Tesman constantly patronizes her.

Her marriage with Tesman reminds me of Scoop’s marriage with Lisa. Hedda actually mirrors Scoop by settling for “a secure six.” She married Tesman, who provided financial security and some freedom. She also doesn’t want to have to compete with Tesman, and she is able to manipulate him to a certain extent but usually in a petty way. Scoop initially is able to be satisfied with a spouse who is a “secure six” as he gets to be the dominant one in the relationship, and he has a wife that looks up to him. But unlike scoop Hedda isn’t able to get this same satisfaction, because of her gender. Despite having the more dominant personality she still has to answer to her gender role. She has to be patronized by a man who has a weaker personality then she does, which creates a lot of boredom and frustration on her part, and gives her none of the power she craves. She has to be manipulative for her entertainment and small powers, for example getting annoyed with Tesman’s aunt’s hat and getting her to buy a new hat and her tempting Brack but not actually doing anything with him.

The article mentioned “she had nothing to take her out of her self not a single intellectual interest or moral enthusiasm.” Which I agree with but what are her options? We can see that all the female roles in the play revolve around taking a serving role. Her foil, Mrs. Elvsted is interested in being a muse and aid to Lovborg, which Hedda can’t honestly do for her husband. Tesman's aunt devoted herself to raising Tesman, and even Berte devotes herself to serving Hedda. Hedda is always put on a pedestal, people are always trying to serve her and please her. But they don’t let her feel empowered and they can never please her. She doesn’t want to be a servant or else she wouldn’t have married Tesman, but she can’t stand being a trophy either. Her hobby becomes manipulation and vicariously living through others.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Film vs Play

The end was the First distinctive thing that was different. In the book it ended with “the game is seven card stud” and in the movie it ended with Stella “breaking free” of Stanley. The movie accentuated Stanley’s more brutish aspects, particularly in his voice. When reading the book you don’t pick up on his harsh voice as you do in the movie. I think they made Stanley a bit more of the villain in this movie because they accentuated his brutishness and because Stella wanted to leave him. He no longer appears to be the passionate lover any more he appears to be an abuser more than he did in the book. In the book Stanley comforted Stella in a very sensual manner so his image of passion still remains. The fact that Stella thinks of leaving Stanley after Blanche is taken away in the movie shows that Blanche made her “wake up.” This really affects the way we see Blanche although she clearly seems crazy in the movie, her insecurity and antics have validity, because they make Stella more aware of the dark side of her relationship with Stanley. This adaptation made me so much more aware of the importance of Stella and the role of the supporting characters, as they heavily determine our perception of the main characters. I looked at this website called Theater folk that gave a very interesting interpretation of Stella. They refer to her dualistic nature, she is vitally important to Blanche and Stanley "To win is to have Stella on their side," but also "She lets Blanche push her around verbally and lets Stanley push her around physically. Both characters have control over Stella." She is often considered to be weak for this but, she has to make peace between two people she loves who rival each other and try to control her in different ways, but she is able to maintain "peace" between the characters for a while, which i think demonstrates of grace under pressure. "If Stella were weak and timid, she would have folded like a house of cards under the pressure of either side." The Theatre folk also discussed how Stellas choice of Blanche or Stanley was symbolic of her choosing illusion or realism, but those symbols are more dualistic and complex. Her choosing to remain in love with an abuser, who cheated on her by raping her sister while Stella was having his child, is naive and choosing the illusion of a good relationship. Blanche who is crazy, and lives illusion, has some realistic she sees that Stanley is dangerous and she tells Stella not to hang back with the brutes like Stanley, when she could have probably married some one who could provide better and was safer to raise a kid with.

In both the film and the book there is still that sense of lack of progress. In the movie he screams “hey Stella” again at the end, which repeats what he did before, its not a sensation that things have gone back to normal, they just feel regressive. The same effect is created with the “the game is seven card stud” it ends with a mundane line that was mentioned early in the play.

In terms of creating a lack of privacy the doors to the house were almost always kept open, in the film. You would see Stella and blanche sharing a moment and there would be some random extra in the background just walking by. The scene where Stanley advances on Blanche was interestingly adapted. The shattering of the mirror with Blanches face showed many things. Previously Stella said that Stanley smashed on the light bulbs on their wedding nights, this establishes that there are Sexual implications with Stanley’s breaking things. So the image of the breaking mirror implies that Stanley raped Blanche, with out actually showing it in the movie. The mirror represents Blanches vanity and material beauty, which Stanley shatters with his brutish nature. The mirror breaking could also demonstrate Blanches mentally breaking.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Set Design

Set design

I chose to have one set design for the flat because I want to enhance the feeling of being confined and uncomfortable. The entrance to the Kowalski flat is framed by two decaying pillars I tried to place the pillars between blanches bed and the poker table and on the border between the living room and the bedroom. I don’t really have walls for their flat, in stead tried to draw splintery bits of wood jutting our from the trim to suggest walls and their decay, the jagged pieces are reflective of Stanley’s personality and foreshadows violence. I situated the collapsible bed and Stella and Stanley’s bed against the same bit of wall, this will help show the divide between rooms but also show the conflict between Blanche and Stanley and sexual tension between them. I show the door to the bathroom on the right side of the house just to the left of the staircase, I don’t actually show the interior of the bathroom only the door because that’s kind of a ghost room. Eunice’s flat upstairs is a bit more covered up as most of the conflict occurs down stairs. It still has the decayed bits of wood to imply walls but there is less exposure. There is a window whose curtains can be drawn and a door, which can be shut; this slightly increased privacy will make it easier to emphasize the Kowalski residence. But also the visually more solid looking flat sitting on top of the more exposed looking flat will create the feeling of claustrophobia and vulnerability in the flat below. The staircase struggled to get right. Stairs are used through out the play so I had to put it very much facing the front but I also couldn’t block the view of the Kowalski’s house so I used a curved staircase which didn’t have any harsh angles to obstruct the view of the house. The curved staircase also had a tenderer feminine feel which contrast with the jagged wood splinters. In Stella and Stanley’s making up scene, conveying this kind of tenderness in contrast with the violence of the previous scene is essential, the stairs would help convey this. Lastly on the top of Eunice’s apartment I went heavy on the fancy gables, which can be symbolize how blanches presence there weighed down on everyone and, her romantic past is constantly weighing down on her. At about the same height as the gables I have silhouettes of modern buildings contrasting with the old fashioned romantic looking gables.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Stage directions

Blanche is portrayed as antsy in the stage directions. “Blanche sits very stiffly with her shoulders slightly and her legs pressed slightly together” (10) she is very controlled and innocent, the harshness of and roughness of the setting seems to be compress her. She suddenly “springs up and crosses to it and pulls out a whiskey bottle.” (10) She does this to avoid sitting still with her thoughts, this reminds of the Repression of a War Experience poem. The notion of the common and the tragic conflicting and trying to distract one self with the mundane action is presented but blanche takes it further. If she wanted to just distract herself she could have unpacked her suitcase or just taken one shot of whiskey instead of half the tumbler, in this case she is trying to numb her self with the alcohol and the way she springs up is impulsive and desperate, showing she is struggling to maintain control of herself and her image but also distract herself from her past.

Stanley’s portrayal also foreshadows his character he is carrying a “red stained package from the butchers.”(4) He seems almost like a hunter bringing back a fresh kill the way the package is stained, this masculine imagery enhances his brutish image, and implies carnivorous predatory image. Comparing the package to a kill it foreshadows how Stanley attacks blanche physically and attacks her facade.

Stella is portrayed as “gentle young women about twenty five with a background quite different from her husbands”(4) this reminds me of the feminist article on language, when we receive our first impression of Stella we just see her as some man’s wife. she is simply different to his background Williams doesn’t just say her background, I think this shows that she bases herself around Stanley and is a bit of a submissive character but a mystery is also implied about her. From exceprt I can understand why people don’t talk about Stella very much. Even in scene three when he is begging for her she still doesn’t seem powerful. “Her eyes go blind with tenderness”(67) She is the rock in the play and constantly takes a supporting role but I don’t see a power exuding fr

Monday, January 16, 2012

Light as a Metaphor

Chinese Lantern (Scene 11, pg. 116):

Stanley: “You want the lantern?”

[He crosses to dressing table and seizes the paper lantern, tearing it off the light bulb, and extends it toward her. She cries out as if the lantern was herself.]

· The lantern keeps Blanche from seeing herself aging. It creates an illusion of something beautiful, which she values highly.

· It highlights one of the themes in A Streetcar Named Desire: the denial of reality

· When Stanley rips off the Chinese Lantern, it increases the tension of the scene and the conflict between romanticism and realism. The lantern represents romanticism because it slightly conceals the reality of Blanche’s situation, and dims the indoor of Stanley & Stella’s house. The light represents the reality of the current situation, hence Stanley likes it because he is a straight-shooter. Stanley is realistic as he accepts himself for being common.

Blanche’s insanity (Scene 10, pg. 159)

[The shadows and lurid reflections move sinuously as flames along the wall spaces]

· The diction and imagery of light become darker and menacing when Blanche speaks of her past, such as when she is trying to contact Shep Huntleigh

· Light now has a destructive nature, and may have something to do with desire

· The flame of the candle represents Blanche’s desire to charm. In this scene, Blanche’s desire to charm turns destructive because her lies are revealed, and hence the light develops a backlash.

· Her desire to charm has gone to far and she becomes engulfed in lies.

Mitch’s desire to see Blanche in the light (Scene 9, pg. 144-145)

Mitch- “What it means is I’ve never had a real good look at you, Blanche. Let’s turn the light on here.”

Blanche-“Light? Which light? What for? [Fearfully]

Mitch- “This one with the paper thing on it”[He tears the paper lantern off the light bulb. She utters a frightened gasp.]

Blanche: “I don’t want realism. I want magic! Yes, yes, magic! I try to give that to people. I misrepresent things to them. I don’t tell truth, I tell what ought to be truth. And if that is sinful, then let me be damned for it! —Don’t turn the light on!

· Mitch feels that he doesn’t know the “real” Blanche because he has never seen her in a lighted room. In fact, Mitch complains that they never meet during the day, and only go to dimly lit places on dates. Blanche is self conscious about her aging. She feels she deserved to have romance that lasted in her youth. She may be appearing to correct the world with magic but she is also trying to correct her own mistakes and cope with the guilt of pushing her husband to suicide.

Lighting candles (Scene 6, pg. 104)

Blanche-“We have both been anxious and solemn and now for these last few remaining moments of our lives together---I want to create---joie de vivre! I’m lighting a candle.”

· The act of lighting a candle is desire-driven, and an example of Blanche’s passion. She has a romantic vision of life, and enjoys creating a sensual mood when with men, specifically Mitch.

· She wants to exemplify her charm, and lighting candles and speaking in French highlights this.

· She is aging and life is short; Blanche wants to use her charm to win over Mitch while she is still able to.

Cigarette (Scene 5, pg. 97):

Blanche-“Can you give me a light?”

Young Man- “Sure. This doesn’t always work.”

Blanche: “It’s temperamental? Ahh-thank you!”

· Williams is using the lighting of a cigarette to show how her own perception of beauty, and how she cannot accept the fact that her looks are temperamental, just as light is.

· Uses the act of lighting cigarettes to interact/talk with men, an “ice-breaker”. The light is her own charm, but its dim.

Sonnet and Street Car

I read on Adrienne’s blog on this poem and I disagree and agree with her. “So this poem is, from A Streetcar Named Desire point of view, living in the past. Nowadays, love is something practical, that follows a system- somewhere in the play it is said that Stella is following the usual pattern- find a guy, marry, have a baby. Blanche isn't, though.” Initially I agree with the idea that this poem shows “living in past” as it is adored by Blanche and Mitch because of their past. But I think some parts of the poem ring true to Stella and Stanley as well especially the parts on passion. I question the notion of modern love being “practical.” I think that Blanches relationship with a guy who was a “prince charming type” wasn’t functional because there wasn’t mutual sexual attraction, so in that sense it wasn’t practical. But Stella and Stanley, having a relationship driven by passion and sexuality, that is very functional, isn’t always practical. Both types of relationships have destructive elements and they are both driven by desire, though for different things.

The poem Sonnets from the Portuguese displays a perspective on love that can connect to the romantic and the realistic shows how the existence of love and passion transcend the state of society. The first thing to notice is that last lines of the poem are the ones engraved in Mitch's silver case. “ I shall love the greater after death.” Blanches appreciation for this line is a clear display of the Gothic, romanticism is found in decay and loss, it brings Mitch and blanche together. But this romanticism is severely undermined by Stanley’s rejection of Blanche due to her past, which is ironic because their romance happened mostly because they had similar pasts. Romance is considered here to be an illusion of the past and realism becomes more relevant. But despite the gothic elements of the poem, love and romance are still relevant to those characters that we would consider modern. “I love thee with the passion put to use, In my old griefs, and with my childhood's faith.” Doesn’t this apply to Stella and Stanley? In the famous “STELLAAAA!” scene, Stanley’s temper and negative emotions are used to express his love for Stella. And Stella returns this passion by taking him back which required her to be naively trusting of him to an extent. In the characters that represent realism, love and passion, exist just as the do in the gothic. No matter what sort of person the characters want or what vulnerabilities they have, both experience love’s intensity and backlashes. Love will continue after death and after societal change because it is a timeless universal force.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Language and Gender

Initially Blanche is compared to a Moth, in the stage directions, a very fragile, delicate beauty. Despite this beauty Moths are also considered an unwanted thing as the eat clothes and such, sort of how Blanche is not wanted in the house. Like a moth she isn’t a typical destructive force like Stanley but she usurps and invades in a more feminine way. The way Moths fly into lights could allude to the way she finds her self seduced, as a moth flying to a light or candle but in this process she is destroyed.

Blanche is often called a canary bird by Stanley, which has the same kind of delicate nature as moth but is specifically a domestic animal that only sings a cage. When Stanley advances on Blanche he calls her Tiger, but in a sarcastic manner to mock any feeling of strength in her and reassert his dominance as a man.

Stanley is also compared to an animal in his description. He is called a richly feathered Bird among hens. Which would make sense, as he is the dominant male in the Play, however “richly feathered” sounds a bit glamorous and ornate. Which seems like more of a description of Blanche and not at all like a description of Stanley. Whilst Stanley is very masculine he tends to get very annoyed when Blanche points out his lack of class or calls him a Pollack, he deflects this with violence or outbursts declaring his pride, he might be masking his more feminine insecurity with masculinity.

In the scene where Blanche first meets Stanley, Stanley asks to make himself Comfortable, when Blanche complains about not looking Fresh. The connotations of comfortable is something that pleases the individual it has nothing to do with appearance, it’s functional rather than aesthetic. Fresh has different connotations while it can please the individual to feel fresh; it has to do more with appearance. Fresh is often used to describe food or flowers, “those tomatoes were freshly picked” or “fresh cut flowers.” When those type of things are fresh they serve their function, (to be eaten or admired) but aesthetics to are equally as important as function in this case. When Fruit is start in to lose its beauty and become bruised it won’t serve its function, it will be tossed out. It becomes understandable why Blanche seems so is so obsessed by beauty and aging it determines her use and purpose as a female.