Totally unrelated things
This past week, we had a visit from Jane's friend from Trent, Sarah G. A good time was had by all - more on that in a subsequent post. But during her visit, something came up that jogged my memory a bit. And it was just jogged again by probably the worst line ever written for a TV show. Allow me to explain:
The dialog in question, goes like this. Names have been changed because I can't remember the actual ones...
Mike: 'That's our job, Neal, to kill deamons'
Neal: ' No, Mike, our job is to fight evil'
Now there are two actors in the universe who can pull that second line off and they are Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellar. Neither of which, I can assure you are playing Neal. The sheer awfulness of these lines got me thinking, in a thankful sort of way, that when I was in Arts York we focussed on the classics. Like Ibsen. Ibsen's most famous play, 'A Doll's House' is probably my favorite. To say this play was controversial is an understatement. The original German lead refused to play the part unless the ending was changed (which Ibsen eventually did, though no one uses this altered ending anymore as it completely destroys the point of the play). The first time it was performed in Ibsen's native land of Norway, there was a riot.
Why did this play cause a riot? Well, people will say that it is because of the truly scathing criticism of the victorian conception of marriage, an ideal that was very deeply held. But a riot? No. In my opinion, that is not enough to do it. The trick is how the criticism is made. And it's very clever: In the first act, the audience is exposed to what appears to be a completely normal 'well mannered' play. Not much seems to be happening, but it's all quite pleasant. The doctor (Rank) clearly has a crush on the female lead (Nora), but the rules of propriety are generally followed and Nora appears the embodiment of the perfect, devoted wife for her husband (Torvald). The audience recognizes and and are deeply comforted this well written affirmation of their conception of marriage and love.
Then in the second act, this conception is systematically exposed as a complete sham. It becomes increasingly clear that Nora and Torvald (especially Torvald) play at being in love, but in fact barely know each other. The anger the audience feels at being faced with a very smart critique of a dearly held view is amplified 100-fold by the feeling of betrayal that comes from their having been sucked in to the first act. And Voila. A riot. 'A Doll's House' was lauded by some feminists as an effective argument for women's rights. But as Ibsen himself said, it wasn't.It's a human rights play. The 'play acting' nature of the victorian marriage is shown to be just as damaging to Torvald as it was for Nora, since neither of them get to know each other as people.
This effect was reproduced to a degree in modern times in another of my favorite plays: 'Oleana' by David Mammet (though, to my knowledge, no one rioted). In this case, the play is about a student who goes to see a university prof about a course that she is having trouble with. In the first act, they have what appears to be a normal conversation, he tries to help her out and she goes away perhaps unsatisfied but none the worse for wear. In the second act, she comes back, but this time from a position of strength - she makes references to having found her 'group' - and begins to expose the weird power dynamic that you didn't notice in the first act, but was nonetheless clearly there.
Anyways, I think I've rambled quite enough. :-)
The dialog in question, goes like this. Names have been changed because I can't remember the actual ones...
Mike: 'That's our job, Neal, to kill deamons'
Neal: ' No, Mike, our job is to fight evil'
Now there are two actors in the universe who can pull that second line off and they are Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellar. Neither of which, I can assure you are playing Neal. The sheer awfulness of these lines got me thinking, in a thankful sort of way, that when I was in Arts York we focussed on the classics. Like Ibsen. Ibsen's most famous play, 'A Doll's House' is probably my favorite. To say this play was controversial is an understatement. The original German lead refused to play the part unless the ending was changed (which Ibsen eventually did, though no one uses this altered ending anymore as it completely destroys the point of the play). The first time it was performed in Ibsen's native land of Norway, there was a riot.
Why did this play cause a riot? Well, people will say that it is because of the truly scathing criticism of the victorian conception of marriage, an ideal that was very deeply held. But a riot? No. In my opinion, that is not enough to do it. The trick is how the criticism is made. And it's very clever: In the first act, the audience is exposed to what appears to be a completely normal 'well mannered' play. Not much seems to be happening, but it's all quite pleasant. The doctor (Rank) clearly has a crush on the female lead (Nora), but the rules of propriety are generally followed and Nora appears the embodiment of the perfect, devoted wife for her husband (Torvald). The audience recognizes and and are deeply comforted this well written affirmation of their conception of marriage and love.
Then in the second act, this conception is systematically exposed as a complete sham. It becomes increasingly clear that Nora and Torvald (especially Torvald) play at being in love, but in fact barely know each other. The anger the audience feels at being faced with a very smart critique of a dearly held view is amplified 100-fold by the feeling of betrayal that comes from their having been sucked in to the first act. And Voila. A riot. 'A Doll's House' was lauded by some feminists as an effective argument for women's rights. But as Ibsen himself said, it wasn't.It's a human rights play. The 'play acting' nature of the victorian marriage is shown to be just as damaging to Torvald as it was for Nora, since neither of them get to know each other as people.
This effect was reproduced to a degree in modern times in another of my favorite plays: 'Oleana' by David Mammet (though, to my knowledge, no one rioted). In this case, the play is about a student who goes to see a university prof about a course that she is having trouble with. In the first act, they have what appears to be a normal conversation, he tries to help her out and she goes away perhaps unsatisfied but none the worse for wear. In the second act, she comes back, but this time from a position of strength - she makes references to having found her 'group' - and begins to expose the weird power dynamic that you didn't notice in the first act, but was nonetheless clearly there.
Anyways, I think I've rambled quite enough. :-)
posted by Derek at 2:12 PM
1 Comments:
Okay.
Post a Comment
<< Home