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.

The allusion of Oleanna

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.

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

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.

 

Portfolio

Coverage
http://elizengblog.blogspot.in/2012/03/hedda-as-modern-woman.html
http://elizengblog.blogspot.in/2012/02/film-vs-play.html
http://elizengblog.blogspot.in/2012/01/set-design.html
http://elizengblog.blogspot.in/2012/01/stage-directions.html
http://elizengblog.blogspot.in/2012/01/light-as-metaphor.html
http://elizengblog.blogspot.in/2012/01/sonnet-and-street-car.html
http://elizengblog.blogspot.in/2012/01/language-and-gender.html
Depth
http://elizengblog.blogspot.in/2012/02/film-vs-play.html
I chose this blog because I think I made good insight for this post, and I found some online research on Stella's character and I connected that with the film and play comparison.
Interaction
http://elizengblog.blogspot.in/2012/01/sonnet-and-street-car.html
In this one I wrote a blog commenting on Adrienne's Blog, I think I did that successfully because I got a good response from her.
Disscussion
 http://elizengblog.blogspot.in/2012/01/light-as-metaphor.html
This Blog recieved a  comment that made rexamine what i wrote and develop my thoughts
Xenoblogging
http://adrienne-hlenglish.blogspot.in/2012/02/music-in-heidi-chronicles.html#comment-form
I think I commented meaningfully on this blog and continued a discussion
Wild card
http://elizengblog.blogspot.in/2012/01/set-design.html
I liked the creative aspect of this assignment and I think I did well on it

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.

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.