Friday, October 31, 2008
The Dramatists
We have finished with the dramatists for this semester's reading. Looking back on Marlowe, Jonson, Behn, Congreve and Gay, think about the themes the plays explore and speculate on why drama is or was the best medium for those themes--if indeed you find drama an effective way to present them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
All of our dramatist artists had a thing in common in that they liked to portray a deficiency in their respective societies. Drama is the best way to express these sentiments because the authors had characters to speak through, thus keeping the authors themselves from being labeled or indentified. For example, Oroonoko heavily regards colonialism, Christianity, and slavery in a testament to what Behn saw in society.
Furthermore, the Restoration works were very political in their satire. By dramatizing these themes, the authors were able to draw attention from their readers and contemporaries. The mere fact that we discuss them still says a lot about the historical nature of the works we've read.
Pretty much all of the dramatists use their plays in a satirical manner. They are usually pointing out a social issue by displaying it through themes such as love, greed, slavery, etc. I believe that these authors knew exactly what they were doing when writing their plays. It was important for the audience to see the sarcasm that was being displayed, rather than to just read it on the page. We were able to uncover many examples of satire in the play that refers to the social problems, but that was because we had a teacher to guide us through it. I think that if I had seen the play itself, I would have better understood the point that the author was trying to get across.
While thinking about how to answer this question, I realized an important common thread in the drama we read this semester...4 of the 5 plays, with the exception of The Beggar's Opera, at some point involve characters in disguise. Usually this disguise was related to some form of deception being wrought on other characters, whether it be literally or metaphorically. And even though Congreve doesn't employ disguises, his drama explores this theme as well. The stage allowed these authors to "play up" these visual elements in a way the written word alone cannot, and let audiences see deception in action.
Jamie,
I never even thought about the idea of using disguises as a theme. Good point! What were their reasons for doing this? Maybe it was a way of setting the characters off at a distance for the audience to be able to observe and make general connections without feeling directly accused. Or maybe it was meant to show the audience that society (especially political society) is not exactly what you think it is; it wears disguises in order to sway the people. This could definitely be applied today as well....Obama. Look at how many people fell for his disguise. Sorry, had to throw that in there.
Erin,
I think you are absolutely right when you suggest these authors are using disguises to reflect society. These writers, just as Chaucer did in several of his tales, are pointing out the tendency for humans to "shape" themselves into whatever form necessary to achieve their goals. The audience learns that nothing is necessarily what it seems, and simultaneously witnesses the extent to which vice can change people.
I have to disagree with you on the Obama comment, though...I think his authenticity is his biggest strength, and am ecstatic that America didn't get duped by the real deceivers!!
I'm going to reply to the two of you as it seems that you've hit the nail on the 'disguise' theme. Jamie, your assessment of Congreve and his inverse usage of disguise leads to what I used as my thesis on the last paper. This disguise, for many, can be considered sacrificial. I doubt that many of the characters (and my people in past and modern society as well) were as genuine as they could be, meaning their 'masks' consumed so much of them that there lacked personal touch. But conceding to the will of society: the way of the world, right?
PS- I love the partisan opinions!
The best thing I like about dramatic plays is that the author can implant his or her own opinions into the characters' lines and have them say exactly what the author feels. In a play, there are many opportunities for idealic interjections. In the plays we read, the authors tended to have their characters deal with real issues often in humorous ways. It seems to me to be a simple way to separate themselves from the issues they deal with in their plays.
Just wanted to correct my earlier comment...I said that Congreve didn't employ disguises, but I was actually referring to Gay.
Some themes in the past readings include, but are not limited to: love (and the things people would do for love-good and bad), slavery (even if the issue was only in the background), loyalty (to king, country, lovers...), greed (the limits and dangers of wealth), power (how it was used, abused, who had it and who didn't), government(how it differed from place to place), differences in culture (and how strange some cultures can be, using fictional traditions to point out the flaws in our own), etc.
I believe that drama was an effective medium and that there really was no other way that such controversial topics could've been approached. The authors each used drama as their style of writing these particular works because it was easier to portray characters a certain way and bring to attention certain topics and point of views that many of the readers could find offensive. Drama is meant to be emotional and...well...dramatic. It was perfectly okay to address things the way the authors chose to address them, while at the same time being able to say "it was the character who said it (or thought it), not me!" just in case someone questioned the authors' motives or had any doubts.
to jlamoureux,
i like how you pointed out that the authors could make the characters say whatever they want and incorporate their own opinions into their work. i mentioned this in my response, although in a slightly different way. i think that at the times that these authors lived, it was important and also advantageous for the authors to use their work to send out a message by tossing in a hidden meaning, so that we could "read between the lines".
This was the best medium,because these authors were critizing the power structure of their day. These authors were exploring themes dealing with the faults and flaws of the upper class. I like the way they told their stories, the hidden meaning causes the reader to have read beyond what is written on the page to get the true meaning of who and what they were critizing. They were the social commentaries of the day and being openly critical of some of the upper class people could have cost them their lives.
Erin
that was good, especially the part about the teacher guiding us through it. i think if i would have seen these performed live it would have been esaier for me to grasp the point they were trying to make, than reading it was. i like the way they were honest about the short comings of everyone not the just the downtrodding who may have down some of these thing to survive.
Post a Comment