Question 2:
It was either after we had started watching the play, or
before we had started watching it, we were informed that on the actual play’s
brochures it said “no matter who’s side your on, you’re wrong”. What is meant
by this is that each character in the play is no better in their actions
throughout the play, they are intended to be painted in the same light. Taking
this into account I tried to watch the movie with this in mind, but to no
avail. I saw myself getting more and more angry with the character Carol and
her, what I felt to be, manipulations of Johns actions. Quickly I began to feel
like the guy quoted in Elaine Showalter’s article that said, “I nearly climbed
up on the stage to kick the shit out of the little bitch myself.” Definitely, it
was hard for me to see John as anything but the protagonist, and Carol as the
blood-boiling antagonist. Yes, I did see some of John’s mishaps in the play,
such as his disregard for education that it is “systematic hazing”; a view
which I am very much opposed to. But, I just could not get over Carol’s
manipulations and bending of the truth to achieve her goals, I mean she tried
to censor the books he was using. It was the last straw when she tried to
convict him of rape. If Mammot was trying to bring about the balance of
characters by having John beat the crap out of Carol at the end, I feel like he
built up the audience’s hatred of Carol’s character too much. The beating was
seen as more of a “way to go” moment rather than to bring the audience to a
less biased stance on the two characters. Unless you really scour the play and
pick out all of John’s faults, it is really hard to see the character’s
perspectives presented fairly. I mean I think John was missing the point on why
Carol was upset and tried to appeal to her by inciting his family rather than
the real issue, rather than apologizing for mocking the institution of
education. All this, though, is overshadowed by Carol’s actions.
Question 3:
This play is a great example of how authors reveal
characters be other means than words or actions. At the beginning the
character, Carol, is wearing baggy clothes, looking disheveled and like she
just rolled out of bed. Whereas John is in full suit, looking professional. It
is in this act, act I, that John was had the upper hand as an intellectual; his
clothing added to this position as it fit his intellectual rendering. Carol,
though, couldn’t understand the words he was saying and was seen as a failing
student; her dress in this act created the sense of, “no wonder she is failing
look at the way she is dressed. In subsequent acts Carol’s clothing start to
improve as she takes a more aggressive stance, and with this clothing change
comes a surprising improvement of her intellectual ability. It is as though her
changing wardrobe gives the audience a sense of the stance that Carol will be
taking, or what her personality will be. For example, in the third act she is
decked out in a full suit with her hair all slick, complete with her groups
“symbol” on her lapel. In this act she is using technical language and has a
surprising knowledge of the legal system, she is also a lot more aggressive and
militant so to speak. I feel Mammot, the author, is using Carol’s dress here to
set the tone or theme of the act, or paint a picture of the character’s
attitude within that is not explicitly stated. This contrasts John in
subsequent acts who get increasingly disshoveled, losing his stance of power.
In this play, in particular, the author is using dress to set the tone of the
act and show how the characters are feeling in their heads about their
situation; whether or not they are feeling confident or not, for example.
No comments:
Post a Comment