The Absurdity of The Homecoming

(Photo of the Playwrite obtained in Google Image Search)

The Homecoming by Harold Pinter is possibly one of the most shocking and confusing plays I have ever read. I think this is a play that would be better to watch then to read the script, because it is very confusing and starting to read. Pinter’s play is very vulgar and sexual, and I feel as if these things might me humorous if acted out because the actors can take some of the edge off on how rude or nasty the line is.

Pinter’s play is an extremely sexualized power play between and all male family and a woman who has come to replace the last female member of their family. Ruth comes back to her original promiscuous self, before having married Teddy, and uses her sexuality as way to gain power over the men. This is an interesting take on female empowerment that I am not quite sure how I feel about.

One thing I do know for sure is Pinter’s The Homecoming borders is a drama of the absurd. Absurd plays portrayed its events not as a connected storyline, but moments and incidents presenting people as overwhelmed and bewildered creatures in an incomprehensible universe. (Harmon and Holman 2). There are several moments in The Homecoming that present this. Many times they deal with Teddy as he randomly stands by and watches as Ruth and his brothers get it on right in front of him. At one point the only thing he’s concerned with is that he doesn’t have a ride to the airport anymore. Max also becomes in the end unable to retain his power that he has unknowingly lost until the last moment. He becomes bewildered and helpless at the end, begging Ruth to give him his power back by kissing him.

The characters in The Homecoming often stand by or have conversations that are almost irrelevant or unnecessary digressions from the topic or the present issues, because they don’t know what to make of what is currently happening. These digressions interestingly though often reveal an inner look at their true characters. It is often what is not what is directly said there that is important.  

There many random and awkward pauses in Pinter’s script, which shows again just how bewildered and often helpless these characters are in this universe. Although, I wonder if different characters show different levels of inability to deal with their universe, because characters like Ruth and Lopakhin from The Cherry Orchard seem to be in perfect control of their universes. However, Ruth would not have been able to return to her true self without Teddy’s family and Lopakhin could not have gotten the cherry orchard without Libov’s inability to deal with her problems.   

Absurdity plays and interesting role in The Cherry Orchard as well. Each character’s fate is ultimately out of their control, it is all hindering on what Libov chooses to do. Seeing how Lobov is unable to deal with reality or her issues, she is unable to respond to her universe’s needs. Much like The Homecoming there really is no storyline, but in fact it is just characters attempting to handle and processes the changes that are happening to them.

This brings up some interesting questions about reality. How much are we really in control? And how much of our lives are us being bewildered in an incompressible universe?

The answers much like the closing to The Homecoming are left up for our interpretation…..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harmon, Harmon and Hugh Holman. A Handbook to Literature. 11^th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Practice Hall, 2009. Print.

Cherry Blossoms and Nostalgia: "The Cherry Orchard" by Anton Chekhov

                      Anton Chekhov, the playwrite

                         (obtained in Google image search)

“The Cherry Orchard” by Anton Chekhov is a very strange play that deals a lot with human psychology and paralysis. It is a meant to be a comedy and although there are several comic moments, the events of the play are not necessarily comical.

“The Cherry Orchid” follows the Ranyevskaya family and a menagerie of other characters all connected by this large mansion and a historic cherry orchard. The changing social environment in Russia, a five year trip to Paris, and a lack of current income have finally broken the failing fortune of Liubov Ranyevskaya. She cannot afford to pay the interest on this mansion, and so it and the cherry orchard are put up for auction.

A businessman Lopakhin, buys it, whose family ironically use to be labors for the Ranyevskaya family at this very mansion. He had reached success despite his humble origins and plans on destroying the orchard and carving up the land into vacation homes. An idea he pitches and offers to help that Ranyevskaya family do several times throughout the play, but no one listens to him.

The family loses their ancestral home and parts ways at the close of the play, and we do not know what happens to them after that. One of the lines that stands out in the play is at one point when Lopakhin, tries to give the family a reality check by telling them “You can’t ever go back to the past.”

Although each character in their own way would like to go back to the past, none seems to want to more than Liubov Ranyevskaya, who is the owner of the mansion.  The cherry orchard again and again throughout the play seems symbolize her childhood, which she misses greatly. She misses the old roles of Serfdom Russia. Or at the very least she probably wishes she could go back to before he son drowned. This would give her back her son as well as keep her from fleeing to Paris because she couldn’t deal with being in the place he died constantly, where she would further “waste” her money as she called it in Act 2.

Liubov would like to return to the past, to when this Mansion was her family’s and there was no questioning that, and because her choices have always been poor, she may even desire to return to her childhood, before she set on the path of losing her mansion and her fortune.

(Image obtained in Google Image Search of "The Cherry Orchard". This fits the symbolism of the cherry orchard for Liubov Ranyevskaya)

Gayev, her brother more than likely desires the same thing. He is in love with the memories and the nostalgia that this mansion brings. He was raised here and he seems to have no desire to leave this house.

The various servants that still live with the Ranyevskaya family are also saddened about losing their home, especially Firs, who has gone a bit crazy in his old age. He actually misses the past, where he was a serf for the family. He takes pride in the fact that he has stayed with his masters even after serfdom was outlawed by the Russian Czar.

Anya and Varya, Libov’s daughters would like to return to the past probably to be able to save their brother and to help their mother be happy. Varya, might try to find herself a different suitor, other than Lopahkin, who just plays around with the idea.

Anya interestingly, is the only member of the Ranyevskaya family who is eager to face this new mansion-less future. She is eager to go with Petya Trofimov, who she has fallen in love with back to his university so that he may finish his graduate degree.

Petya , Anya, Lopakhin, and Yasha, are the only members of the cast no paralyzed in some sense by losing this cherry orchard. Petya and Anya look forward to a future; we can only assume that has them together. Lopakin looks forward to further fortune and business ventures, and is thrilled to have possession of the cherry orchard. Yasha, the Ranyevskaya’s valet, gets to go back to Paris, which is what he wanted throughout the play. Their futures all seem to hold what they desire, and therefore are eager to leave.

But for the rest of the characters, whose futures are uncertain without the mansion, they are all timid and sadden at the close of the play.  Each of these characters long to return to the past, to a simpler time, where it seemed like, they would live forever in that Mansion overlooking the cherry orchard.

“The Cherry Orchard” has interesting themes of nostalgia throughout its pages. You begin to wonder what you would like to return to in your past. You want to return to a point when life was simpler, to a past lover, or to a family or friend that the future has drifted you from. Returning to the past is easy because it is certain, you know what happens, so you want to return because it is safe and you want to remember the feelings of the moments that have marked you life so strongly and made you who you are.

The difference between us and many of these characters however, is that we aren’t paralyzed by the past. We can move forward to the future, even if it is unsure.

(Obtained in Google Image Search of Cherry Blossoms)

Ibsen's Hedda Gabler is Still Relevent

Hedda Gabler by Henrik Ibsen is the second Ibsen piece I have read. My experience with Ibsen has been limited to The Doll House, which I was not a fan of.  I found Nora to be ridiculous and her epiphany at the end of the play to be too startling and to sudden for someone who lived her life as a ‘the perfect Victorian wife.’ I found that ending to be poorly written and as a result, I have not perused much further interest in Ibsen.

I am not overly impressed with Hedda Gabler although I find this plot to be more tightly constructed and complex, I again could not stand the main female characters. I am beginning to think making annoying female characters is characteristic of Ibsen. Despite, Hedda’s obnoxiousness, she is still reflected of certain aspects of modern society.

Hedda Gabler was written in the 1890s, but the main character whom the play is named for is hardly out of date. Hedda is very ambitious for herself and her husband George Tesman. Though it is doubtful she ever had any romantic feelings for Tesman( I believe she married him more out of connivance than anything else),Hedda’s ambition for him is not that different from modern ambition.

In this modern global society, you have to do so many things to become a Professor at a University, which is what Tesman ultimately wants. You have to ambitious to get to that position and Hedda pushes her husband as far as she can. Hedda is also ambitious for herself, having married Tesman she sees all the nice things she can get from it, like a new piano, an expensive house, an expensive honeymoon, a horse, and a high social life.

These pressures to have a lucrative job that affords you nice material goods like foreign cars, diamond rings, big houses, and expensive vacations still exists. Many people like Hedda will do anything to get these jobs for themselves or their spouses. For Hedda that means destroying competition and manipulating everyone around her to set her husband up with an easy promotion.  When it fails, she kills herself to save her husband any embarrassment and to avoid being black mailed.

The level of competition in Academia is also very current. It seems it is impossible to keep up with every trend and every new work published in any one discipline. So Tesman’s love of books is unsurprising.

Few things would need to change to make this play modern in my opinion. The fashion in the costumes would have to change, and some of the wording, like ‘calling’ on someone would have to change. Tesman’s job would certainly have to politics, but other than that, I do not see much need for changes.  

Hedda Gabler is old, but it is hardly a museum piece. It also has a bit of gender bending that is ahead of its time. It is clear in this marriage Hedda wears the pants, and her husband is merely a puppet for her to get what she wants. If Ibsen should be created with anything in this play, is the fact that character Hedda is ahead of her time.

Intro and Memorable Preformances

Hi! I’m Rebecca and I created this blog for an English Project for my English 338 course at Saginaw Valley State University.

This is going to be my Performance Journal, where I’m going to discuss various things from class readings to live performances I will see throughout this semester. I have not done very much blogging before; only briefly for another course assignment so this medium of writing and responding will be new to me as well.

I am very interested in theater and drama and have seen a lot of random performances over the years with my family. I have been to the Whiting in Flint many times and to several small community theaters. My most memorable performances would probably be the two Shakespeare performances I seen in Stratford Ontario in 2008.

My parents took me to see Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet as high school graduation gifts. These performances were memorable because it was the first time I had seen Shakespeare live and it is very different than the sad attempts we use to make acting it out in class. My opinion changed completely on Romeo and Juliet, having thought the play ridiculous and that much tragedy occurring to one couple over the course of a week was unrealistic. After seeing it on stage, I became totally absorbed in the star cross lovers and found myself crying during the final scene. This is a big thing, because I am not easily moved to tears.

That performance of Romeo and Juliet was interesting also in the fact that they started out in modern dress with guns for the first few scenes before going into traditional dress. By the end though, in the tomb scene they had once again returned to modern dress. The changes were so effortless though, that had you not been paying close attention to the characters, you hardly would notice because you were so absorbed in the passion of their performances.

Hamlet was also equally spectacular. Hamlet is my favorite Shakespeare play, so I was very excited to see it, and the actor performing Hamlet did not disappoint at all. Though they did nothing different about dress of set in this performance, it was amazing to see the play I had read through several times and loved being acted out with such passion.

I think what made these performances so memorable was the skill of the actors and I had never seen Shakespeare preformed professionally before. Once you see Shakespeare preformed live, your views of the plays are changed forever. They come alive and you are suddenly aware of the dept and the passion many of the lines and soliloquies have.

After Stratford Ontario, I was converted into a Shakespeare Nut, and have been devouring it as often as I can.  If only I had a few more hours in the day!