Final Blog Portfolio

Coverage:

Film Adaptation of Oleanna

Masks In Hedda and A Streetcar Named Desire

The Allusion of Oleanna

Themes and Motifs Of Oleanna

Hedda Gabler Essay Analysis

Depth:

Hedda Gabler Essay Analysis

In this post, I analyse a critical essay written about Hedda Gabler, and critique how it analyses the play. 

Interaction:

Film Adaptation of Oleanna

In this post, I counteract what Gautam says about the film adaptation of Oleanna failing.

Xenoblogging:

Theme in Oleanna (Gautam's Blog)

In this post, I disagree with the way that Gautam thinks theme is conveyed in Oleanna, and I challenge it.

Discussion:

Masks In Hedda and A Streetcar Named Desire

In this post, I agree with a comment made by Ms. Morgan, and I expand upon it.

Wild Card:

Loss

I don't really know how to explain this post. Just that something terrible happened to me last night, and that I had to write this out. Just so that I could cope with it a little more. 

Loss

Loss

I loved you.

You loved me.

Wait...did you?

You say you did..

But now... now you tell me you aren't happy.

You're not happy....with me.

You say that you are happy with me. Just not....WITH me.

I understand. You say we can be friends.

I say we are friends. I say that you are my best friend.

You agree. You say that being in a relationship doesn't make you happy.

But...you told me I did.

You...lied to me.

I promised you I would never leave.

But you took that choice away from me.

You say that you don't want to lose me.

But I can tell that I've already lost you.

I still love you.

And I hope, you still love me.

Oleanna Adapted To A Film

This last week in class, we watched the Oleanna film adaptation, and I'll be the first to say that I loved it. To be quite frank, I really hated the play. I found that the weird pacing and the constant interruptions bugged me, and that I couldn't get the tone from the text. I did enjoy some of the themes, but the fact that it was all dialogue made it too hard to visualise in my mind.

This all changed when I watched the film. Firstly, I think that the two actors played the characters of John and Carol really well. William H. Macy, the man who played John, is a personal favourite of mine (he's played parts in some of my favourite films) and while it scared me the role that he played in this, I think he did a fantastic job in portraying John. I believe that the actress that played Carol did a phenomenal job of portraying Carol, even if she did make me hate her, even more.

The fact that this was a film helped to change the fact that I couldn't visualise anything. By having the room shown to me, I was able to build a spacial dynamic between the characters, something that the play gave me no opportunity to do. The same worked for me, in the change of the clothes, and the way that Carol stood, which helped me identify the power shift a lot more easily. The disheveled appearance of John as the play moves on also helped with this.

However, the biggest shift from the play was with pacing. Having the two people actually saying the lines, and making it seem like a real conversation, instead of just voices in my head, made the dialogue flow in a much more effective way, and I really enjoyed it, this time around.

One of my classmates, Gautam, says in his blog, that the end of the film is a failure, because it slightly changes the ending of the play. I could not disagree with him more. The play and the film are not supposed to be direct adaptations. The role of the film, and the play, is to appear to the audience as something interesting to watch, not to translate 100%. By changing the end slightly, they have insured that the audience will think about the ending a lot more, because it creates a more open ending.You can read Gautam's entry here. Gautam's Blog

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I enjoyed the film a lot more than I did the play, because it made sense to me in the film medium.

Mask In Streetcar and Hedda

In the plays "A Streetcar Named Desire" by Tennessee Williams, and "Hedda Gabler" by Henrik Ibsen, we see masks used as tools to characterise the two protagonists, Blanche and Hedda, respectively. Both of these characters have come from lives that require them to be something that they are not. Blanche feels the need to portray herself as a much younger woman than she, so that she can feel accepted by the others. Hedda was pressured into being a son to her father, and she now uses that pressure as her mask, to make it appear as if she is a different person than she actually is. In both of these books, masks are used to help portray the pressures that society is putting on the characters, and how they deal with it. This is done through characterisation and through imagery.

Blanche uses the mask of her youthful dressing to hide her true self from Stanley and from Mitch.

Hedda uses the mask of her male upbringing to hide herself away from the pressures of being a woman in late 1800's Norway.

The Allusion of Oleanna

The tile of Oleanna alludes to the fact a 19th centurary utopian society named Oleana. This utopian society was in Pennsylvania, and was named after its Norwegian founder, Ole Bull, and his mother Anna.

In 1852, after a successful musical tour of the US, Ole Bull wanted to leave his mark in America . He bought 11,000 acres of land in Pennsylvania for Norwegian immigrants to settle. On this land, four main fiefdoms were developed, one of which was named Oleana. People flooded in, excited about the new, free land. The land was located in a valley between thick forests and they quickly realized the land was not suitable for farming. The community failed. By the middle of the 1850s the colonists all returned home or settled elsewhere in America .

I believe that this is an allusion to the fact that Carol is so obsessed with overthrowing the chains of oppression, even though they don't actually exist in this play.  A song was added at the end of the play, as an epigraph, which critiques the life in Norway, and was written to show the idealism felt by Carol in the play as well.

Again, I believe that it talks about how "grass is always greener" on the other side, and is used ironically here, to show how insane Carol is when she wants to try and find something more from the help that her teacher is giving her.

Themes and Motifs of Oleanna

In Oleanna, we see a couple of prevalent themes. These themes are all shown directly through the conversation, and carry a lot of weight, especially in today's society. These themes are as follows:

Communication:

The majority of this play is about the use of communication, and how it changes our perception of somebody, and our actions towards them. In Oleanna, communication plays a massive role in the pacing and setting of the scene. It doesn't work as well in the textual version of the play, as you don't have the same effect while reading it, but the use of interruption is one major role in this. Whenever John speaks to Carol, and as he is about to drive down a point, he is interrupted. Other examples of communication also include the teacher/student dynamic, the use of power in communication, which is shown through John abusing his power at the beginning, the use of ghost characters, and Carol's reliance on "the group" to put words in her mouth. Body language and intention also play a heavy role in the play, as they shape Carol's actions towards John in the second and third act.

Political Correctness:

Oleanna is very critical of the air of political correctness that was around in the 1990's. In this play, we see Carol feeling threatened by John, and she turns to her group, who I believe are a feminist activist group, for advice. They advise her that he is raping and assaulting her, even though he hasn't done anything that's anything like that. This makes the political correctness movement absurd, and points out the ability to misuse it for revenge or nefarious ends. 

Hedda Gabler Essay Analysis

In this essay by Weller Embler, which analyses the play of Hedda Gabler, by Ibsen, Embler states that he believes that Hedda is a tragedy, and one of Ibsen's purest. He says that Hedda's boredom, and her inability to deal with her husbands boring personality drives her to be discontent. I would agree with this, as we can see her boredom through her use of pistols as toys, and her constant need to meddle and mess with people. I would also agree that there is some merit to the fact that there is tragedy in this play, but I would not agree that Hedda is a tragedy.

Firstly, we see that that Hedda constantly lives her life to the fullest, and does whatever she wants, as a free woman. She eventually dies, which would typically be a staple of a tragedy, but the way that she dies isn't tragic at all, to me. I find that she dies free, and free of her repression, which, to Hedda, would be the ideal way to die. The fact that Hedda dies through suicide, and kills her unborn child, along with seriously hurting two people that love her very much, is rather tragic.

Another thing that I disagree with, and my classmate Gautam agrees with me on, is the fact that Embler says that the play is "a study of decay". He says that throughout the play, Hedda is slowly decaying. I would 100% disagree with this. Throughout the play, we see Hedda as a fairly static character, who simply doesn't care about what is going on. I disagree that anybody really changes throughout the play, and that, in fact, there are only two things that actually happen. The burning of the manuscript and the suicide at the end.

All in all, I feel like this essay had some good analysis of Hedda, and that it made some very good points. However, I don't agree with anything that it says, because I feel that he takes analysis without actually providing any context for it, or without looking deeper into the characters of the play.


A Note on Ibsen’s “Hedda Gabler”
Weller Embler
College English , Vol. 7, No. 8 (May, 1946), pp. 456-458
Link: http://www.jstor.org/stable/370462

Blog Portfolio Quater 7

This is the penultimate blog portfolio. This quarter, we spent the majority of time on three plays. These plays were The Heidi Chronicles, A Streetcar Named Desire, and Hedda Gabler. All three books were radically different, in both style and tone, but all had similar themes and messages.

Coverage:
Gender Descriptive Words in A Streetcar Named Desire

This blog entry describes the use of gender specific language in the play "A Streetcar Named Desire".

Poetry In Streetcar

This entry describes the significance of The Portuguese 43 in " A Streetcar Named Desire".

Poker And Bathing

This entry describes the significance of bathing and poker in "A Streetcar Named Desire" and how they characterise Stanley and Blanche.

Itallics In Streetcar

This blog describes the use of itallics in "A StreetCar Named Desire", and how they help define the style of Tennesse Williams

A Streetcar Named Desire Film Comparison

This blog describes the comparison between the film production of Streetcar, and the play version.

Streetcar Set

This blog post describes my own invention of a set for Streetcar, and how it would be used.

The Scoop On Scoop

This blog post talks about the character of Scoop, and how he acts as a foil to Heidi, in the Heidi Chronicles.

Scoop Vs Stanley

This post talks about the contrast and comparison between Scoop and Stanley, from "The Heidi Chronicles" and "A Streetcar Named Desire", respectively.

Hedda As Modern Woman

This blog entry is my response to an article written about Hedda Gabler. I very much disagreed with the article.


Depth:


I feel that the blog that I spent the most time on, and the one that showcases my abilities as an in-depth literature analyser is the comparison between film and play versions of Streetcar. I found that it led me to analyse different points, in a lot more detail than I would have if I had just watched the play.

Film Comparison

Interaction:
This article shows me disagreeing with what Gautam said about Hedda Gabler, and also disagreeing with his interpretation of the article.

Hedda As Modern Woman

Discussion:

Scoop Vs Stanley

This blog launched a discussion between me and Saumya over the negative portrayal of Scoop, and the similarities between him and Stanley.

Xeno-Blogging:

In this post, I commented on Saumya's interpretation of art in Heidi. I disagreed with some of what she was saying, but thought that she made some good points.

Art In Heidi

Wild Card:

This post is a short story that I've been working on, which is based on a recurring dream that I've been having recently. Its fairly graphic, but its been helping me to deal with it.

Dream

Dream

This is a little story that I've been working on. Its based on a recurring dream that I've been having recently. It does get a little graphic, so don't read, if you're squeamish.



My eyes began to open, my head feeling groggy and weak. This confused me, I didn’t remember drinking anything last night, and I would have remembered taking a sleeping pill. I thought about this for a moment, and then it hit me. I couldn’t see anything. My eyes were wide open now, and there was a blackness that scared me. It was right then that I noticed that something was covering my face. I reached up, horrified. Or at least, I tried to. As I raised my hands, a searing pain ran up arms. I couldn’t move my wrists, it was as if I had been handcuffed. I moved my arms, testing what was keeping them still. I HAD been handcuffed. My arms had been pulled behind me, and handcuffed through the back of the chair, which seemed like one of my dining chairs

My body went into shock. Why was I handcuffed? I didn’t have any enemies. I didn’t know anybody that would want me taken. I didn’t know any girls. Nobody would want me handcuffed.  What was going on? I began to struggle. My legs began to kick. My claustrophobia began to close in. I couldn’t see anything, and my arms were trapped. My chair was rocking now, my movements taking it from side to side. My arms were hurting, but I needed freedom. I need to get that mask off. I had to. It was right then that my chair fell over, and I slammed my head into the ground.

Sometime later, I woke. I could feel a sticky liquid on my scalp, sticking the mask to my head. Blood, I knew it. I felt woozy. I also noticed that I was sitting up again. Somebody had come and checked on me, while I was unconscious. I grimaced. It was right then, that the mask was pulled off my head. The pain, from the mask ripping away flesh on my head as the blood went away with it, burned, and I screamed in terror and pain. I was blinded as bright light flooded into my eyes, and I felt woozy, as if I had a concussion, which I was certain I did.

I felt a shove, and fell to my knees. My head rung, and I turned around, a grimace on my lips. A man was standing there, a pistol in his hand, and a balaclava over his head. He pointed it at me, with the .45 barrel staring me in the eye.

“Get up.”
I did so.

“Come here.”
I did so.


The man smiled at me. “Look, kid. We have a job to do. Your father sent us to get you to do something. We have permission to do whatever we want, until you do it. So you’d better listen up.” That was who was behind it. My father. The man behind all my misery. I nodded. There was something about this man that I recognised, but I couldn’t tell what. I would have to bear with him, until I could figure it out.

“Your father wants you to learn what its like to kill. So that you can get into the family business.” I knew that this was going to go bad, quick. I used to refuse to kill, back then. “We’ve got somebody here, a young woman. Nobody you know, your father needs her in the ground. We figured we would kill two birds with one stone.” He snickered at his extremely unfunny pun.
“Why don’t you follow me? And don’t think about running. Those handcuffs are set to explode. You make a break for it, and we’ll blow your hands off. This gave me pause. I needed my hands. Couldn’t really do much without them, could I? I fell into step behind the man, as he walked out of the room, and down what seemed to be a stone corridor.

His hand was clutched tightly around the pistol, as if he was nervous. Maybe he didn’t want anything to do with this either. I figured that this was the time to ask. “Who are you?” I stammered, my nervous teeth chattering together.
“You don’t want to know, kid.”
That made my fears worse. I did know this man.

We kept walking down the corridor, me stumbling a little, my head aching, and what seemed to be vertigo settling in. We reached a large wooden door, and the man pulled it open. He pushed me through, and I fell to my knees, grazing both of them. I stood up, stumbling to my knees, and felt blood dripping down them. I grimaced again, knowing that that wasn’t the worst of what was coming.

Still on my knees, I look ahead of me. There was a girl sitting there. She was about 5’7. Maybe four or five years older than me. She was gagged, but her eyes were wide in terror. She had long, blonde hair, which was grimy and tangled. She must have been in here for a while. Her eyes were blue, and she was quite a pretty girl. How could my father do this to somebody?

The man turned to me. “That’s her. She was giving your father some trouble. Snooping around, something about the college paper. He needs her gone.”

I shook my head. I wasn’t going to have a part in my father’s twisted games. I’d escaped him once, and I didn’t know how he’d found me this time. I wasn’t going to get back into this. “I’m not going to kill this girl for you.” The girl shrieked at this, or tried to, as her gag muffled it. The man smiled. “Oh. You’re going to want to, soon enough. Just to end it.”

The man nodded behind me, and I felt a massive pain in the back of my knee, as a large wooden object slammed into it. I cried out in pain, and looked down, my leg bent at an awkward angle. It wasn’t broken, I could tell that. But I couldn’t put weight on it. The man smiled at me. “Do it. Or it’ll get worse.” I looked at the girl, and I could see tears welling up in her eyes. I shook my head again, and again, the object, which I thought to be a bat, slammed into my leg. This time, from the front. I felt my knee crumple under the blow, and I bit down on my tongue in pain. Blood began to drip out of my lips, and I feel to the ground once more.

“I won’t do it. You’ll have to kill me.”

“Oh, you know we can’t do that, boy. Your father will kill us. And this girl still needs to die. So even if we killed you, we would still have to off her. Might as well do it yourself, and save yourself in the process.”

I shook my head once more.

“I admire your bravery, kid. But I can’t have any of that. Stan, take off his handcuffs. I don’t want to wreck his legs anymore. Let’s deal with his hands now. “

The man with the bat, standing behind me, chuckled, and removed the handcuffs from my wrists. I rubbed them, feeling the raw skin hurt as I touched it. I felt my hand being grabbed, and the man behind me saying, in a slight Irish accent, “Your last chance. Either you do it, or I’ll break your fingers.” That gave me pause. I needed my fingers for my job. Without them, I would be nothing. I told the guy to wait a moment. To let me stand, and catch my breath.

I stood, or tried to, as I had to catch myself when I tried to put weight onto my left leg. I looked at the girl. She couldn’t have done anything that awful. She was young. My father was evil. I couldn’t kill her. I turned to the first man, who’s name I still hadn’t figured out.

“I’ll do it.”

The girl shrieked again, and began to shake. I looked at her, sadness in my face. I had to do it. If I didn’t, they would hurt me more, and kill her anyway. I might as well come off ahead.

Hedda as "Modern Woman" response

The first part of the article that I tend to agree with is the fact that people say that Ibsen was writing Hedda as an "international" play, and to an extent, an "international"woman. I believe that Ibsen wrote Hedda as a modern day Norwegian heroine, and that it is only because of the way that the world was changing. It enabled people to make parallels between Hedda and their own societies, but I don't believe this was Ibsen's intention. I agree with the article, in that it is obvious that Ibsen wanted the play to be Norway-centric, due to the fjord references, the very Scandinavian appearance of Thea, and other factors. Hedda can appear to be an international woman, but I don't believe that was the intent of Ibsen, when he wrote the book.

What interests me more is the fact that the author constantly refers to Hedda as the "modern woman". I don't know how much I agree with this. Hedda seems to have some modern day thoughts, that the majority of women have now-a-days, but I disagree that this makes her a unique character. Throughout literature, we see women using their power to manipulate, and to better themselves. Hedda is simply another example of this. In As You Like It, we see Rosalind using her beauty and her power of Orlando to get what she wants, and we also see her expressing herself how she wants, although she does need to dress up as a man to do this.

Another example of a woman that uses her sensuality, and her mind, to manipulate men is Lady Brett Ashley from The Sun Also Rises. Brett manipulates Cohn, manipulates Mike, and manipulates Jake, simply because she can. She doesn't seem to get any feeling of success or accomplishment after doing this, she just does it. This is almost exactly like Hedda, who simply does things for the sake of it. When Hedda destroyed the manuscript, she did it simply to mess with Mr. Elvsted. Not to gain some self-satisfaction from it.

The author of this article, William Arthur, states that Ibsen has no heroines. I disagree 100% with this. Ibsen shows Hedda in a spotlight, and seems to make it as if she is a shining symbol of the woman. He doesn't make her a simple woman, but glorifies her, and idolizes her. All of the other characters do this, which makes it hard to ignore. It is as if Ibsen is TELLING us to worship Hedda.

In Gautam's blog, he agrees with this fact, but says that he feels as if Ibsen is portraying Hedda in a bad light. He says that he tries to make her seem as bad as he can, and says that he uses her to show the class struggle going on in Norway at the time. I disagree with that, and say that he glorifies her, and uses that as a way to show the fact that all fantastic people have a dark side.

I don't really like this article, because it seems that he doesn't support any of his arguments, and it kinda seems as if he is pandering to defend Hedda, without any basis for his arguments.

Scoop vs Stanley

Scoop Rosenbam and Stanley Kowalski are both characters from plays, The Heidi Chronicles and A Streetcar Named Desire, respectively. Both are portrayed in a negative light by the playwrights, and are used to show the negative sides of men. This is done in a variety of ways, and very different ones, from character to character.

Scoop is shown as a very analytical man, who rates everything, including women. He states at one point that Heidi is a perfect 10, but that he settled for a good 6. This shows the objectification that Scoop feels towards women. However, he does it out of habit, not out of any malicious intention. He is seen as rating bands, newspapers, and all sorts of other things, which shows him as simply being analytical, and not emotional.

This is a stark contrast to Stanley, who again rates women, but in a much more sinister way. He looks women up and down at the first chance he gets. He objectifies them, treats them like rubbish. Stanley treats women with malicious intent, even famously raping Blanche. This is completely different to Scoop, who it is possible to see as timid towards women.

Scoop is scared of what would happen if he was to date or even marry Heidi, he fears the inevitable conflict that it would bring for them, and knowing that it would make them less happy, he doesn't "make a move". This shows him to care about Heidi a lot more than is immediately obvious in the play. Scoop is very pragmatic, and does what he believes is best for the situation, regardless of its immediate impact, or its "moral" status.  Stanley is similar, in that he doesn't care what the action looks like, morally, but he doesn't take his time. Stanley acts on instinct, and through passion

To be honest, the way to look at the comparison between the characters is like this. Both are two sides of the same mindset. Scoop represents the analytical and calculating side of the male psyche, the side that will take care of himself, and will be pragmatic and cold, doing what's best for himself. Stanely represents the passionate and impulsive side of the male psyche, and represents men who are completely governed by emotion and impulse.

The Scoop On Scoop!

Me and Komali wrote this post together, the original being on her blog.

• Scoop is not the antagonist; he is a foil to Heidi’s character. They are similar in some regards, but very different in others. At Scoop’s wedding, he tells Heidi:Scoop: “But I couldn’t dangle you anymore. And that’s why I got married today. So.” Heidi: “So. So now it’s all my fault.”
  Scoop: “Sure it is. You want other things in life than I do.”
  Heidi: “Really, like what?”
  Scoop: “Self-fulfillment. Self determination. Self-exaggeration.”
  Heidi: “That’s exactly what you want.”
  Scoop: “Right. Then you’d be competing with me.”
  They have similar interests, but Heidi does not want to compete with Scoop.
• I think Wasserstein agrees with the concept of feminism, but does not agree with the hypocritical approach most women take in order to combat inequality of the sexes, which is by portraying men as evil or chauvinistic. Scoop is thoroughly an intellectual and often highlights Heidi’s ignorance and lack of awareness about herself or her surroundings. For example, in the scene where the two meet, Heidi is drawn to Scoop, but he is acting superior, so she chooses to play a game with him by lying about her name and why she is at the McCarthy convention. When Heidi says that she finds Scoop irritating, he says, “That’s the first honest thing you’ve said all night!” Even then, Heidi doesn’t realize what he means- he knows her name isn’t Susan because she is wearing a name tag that says “Heidi,” which Heidi has conveniently forgotten about.
• Scoop also says, “You are too eager to categorize.” This shows how others interpret feminists, who don’t consider the fact that people are multi-faceted. They believe all men are evil and chauvinistic, but in reality, they can have other sides to them- kinder personalities. Scoop’s way of speaking, from the beginning, shows his maturity, whereas feminists can come across as somewhat childlike. At Scoop’s wedding, he speaks about “life choices” and Heidi says, “I have not made them yet.” Like children, feminists at that time wanted to own everything, they felt that was the way to establish their strength. Wasserstein believes that is excessive and that they should grasp more “adult” ideas.
• I think the biggest message Scoop is used to convey is that men will settle, but feminist women always want more; they cannot be satisfied. They pass the limit and their argument for equality becomes invalid because they have already achieved it. Scoop is “willing to settle for a secure six” when he marries Lisa, but Heidi never marries because she refuses to accept anyone less than a perfect 10.

• What techniques does Wasserstein use to convey this message? Dialogue

“I don’t want women ever to think they have to have it all. I think that’s a revolting concept. It’s so false! Sometimes you’ll have some things, and sometimes you’ll have other things. And you do not need it all at once; it’s not good for you.” -Emma Thompson

A Streecar Named Desire Film Comparison

The play “A Streetcar Named Desire” was very similar to the movie version when it came to plot. I felt that the lines recited in the movie were exactly the same in the play. However, a main problem I had with the movie was the actors. The actors were not exactly how I had pictured them while reading the play, and I prefer the characters I imagined in my mind.

The emotion that I felt from the characters while reading the play was much more powerful than in the movie. For instance, when Blanche was about to be raped by Stanley in the play, there was a lot more of a build up and nervousness felt while reading. When I watched this scene in class, I didn’t think Blanche showed any emotions nor was scared whatsoever right before she was raped in the movie. Also, in our present society, the rape scene would definitely be shown. Our society has changed drastically since this movie was made, and in today’s media a scene such as this would be expected to be shown in full detail. I found this humorous in a strange way that things like this are expected to be shown in movies because that is what the media wants to see. Times have changed a lot and I am not sure if it is for better or for worse. People want realness in film now and want everything to be revealed and shown, no matter how extreme it may be.

Blanche was portrayed as very sexual in the movie, and I didn’t think she was as sexual in the play. In the play, I felt that Blanche was more of a snooty person and thought she was better than everyone else. In the film she didn’t give this feeling to me as the viewer, but I felt that she was more into her sexual encounters with men. Stella was older looking than I had imagined while reading the play. I felt that Stella was older looking than Stanley and she was very high strung when it came to her relationship with Stanley. From watching their relationship despite the bad acting, the viewer could tell that Stanley had Stella wrapped around his finger. One similarity about Stella in the movie and the play was her weakness. It was upsetting to see someone drop everything for a person that doesn’t appreciate you half as much as you appreciate them and this was the way that Stella and Stanley’s relationship worked. I was very surprising to see how good of an actor Stanley’s character was, especially for his time. Stanley was better than I imagined in the movie than in the play and was very good at showing his true colors that were described in the play. Stanley did a good job of making Blanche feel smaller than a bug and stepping on her whenever he wished, and was abusive to Stella and embarrassed her whenever he wanted to.

Streetcar Set

I chose to make my set design bare as I felt that the set is simply supporting of the characters, and not as important to the play as the dialogue. However, my set does have some important pieces in it. Firstly, the set contains no bed. I did this because we see little action taking place in the bedroom, and felt that by removing everything but the bed, I enabled the actors to have much more room to act, but also that it made the stage seem more sparse, something that I believe Williams would have liked to have shown about the Kowlaski household, to help emphasise the level of wealth that they felt.

The bathroom and the living room have quite a bit more furnishing, for two reasons. Firstly, these are the two rooms that have the most action in them, and by adding more furnishing that necessary to these rooms, I am able to give the impression that they are cramped, without restricting acting space. I did this through adding things like lights and making the table fairly large, so that it takes up the majority of the room.

My set design is based around having main focuses for the stage. The bathroom has the bath, the living room has the table, and the bedroom has the bed. These focuses give the audience a place to focus their attention, and by having these focuses we have a sparse but usable environment. These focuses also allows the actors to know where to stand, and mean that the action is easily concentrated in one area, which makes it easier on the audience, too.

Itallics In Streetcar

Tennessee Williams uses italics as a author would use imagery. He uses his italics to paint pictures for the reader of the play, in ways that most plays do not. Williams uses the italics to make sure that no small detail is left untouched by the reader's mind. He uses them to draw scenes through sound, scent and sight. He sets up mood and stage directions in ways that wouldn't be expected from a play script, but from a director.

First of all, Williams uses his italics to give us insight into the characters that, as a reader, we wouldn't get. Plays are mostly written to be watched, and through that logic, it is likely that we will never see physical attributes of characters, or how the playwright wanted them to be seen. This means that we lose some of the idea that the playwright had behind some of the characters. Williams makes it possible for us to see his every intention for what the characters looked like. This allows a reader, who hasn't seen the play, to understand what Williams intends to be seen on stage. This helps the reader to understand the play so much more, especially in a play that is as character driven as Streetcar.

Not only this, but Williams uses the italics to show what each character can smell, hear and see, something that makes the play more easily read, something which is integral to the way Williams presents the play. Not only does it help the play's readability, but it also helps a director to stage the play, how Williams would have wanted it to be. Again, this shows how much care Williams had towards his plays. He never directed a play, and therefore felt that by writing stage directions down in such detail, he was able to get across the message that he wanted to be seen by the audience, something which would have normally been difficult without directing the play himself.

Poker and Bathing

Poker in The Streetcar Named Desire is a symbol used in a variety of ways. Firstly, it shows Stanley as an alpha male. The first game of poker introduces us to the characters of Mitch, Stanley, Pedro and Steve. The poker games is shown as a time for the men to bond, and is the way that they are able to recreate the brotherhood that they had during the war.

An example of Stanley as an alpha male is first given when Stanley decides that they will be playing the poker game at Mitch's, without consulting with him first. When Mitch says this isn't possible, Stanley tries to stay in command by telling Mitch to bring beer.

At the end of the play, we see Steve say that the game is seven-card stud. This is significant because it is the very end of the play, and shows two things. Firstly, it shows that the men are unfazed by the happenings of the night.  The second effect of the line is that it pokes a little bit of fun at Stanley, in that it mentions a stud, which, when juxtaposed with what is happening between Stanley and Stella, shows Stanley's character to a tee.

As soon as Blanche arrives, Stella goes and washes her face, to help herself calm down. Bathing as a major motif is used when something deceptive is going on. Each scene where a lie is being told, or a deception being woven has bathing in it. 

Another thing that bathing does is show Blanche's vulnerabilities, in that when she is bathing, she opens up and sings to herself, which seems to free her from her issues. The same thing happens directly after bathing, where she is a lot less awkward around people afterwards, which shows that bathing is what makes Blanche feel free.

Poetry In Streetcar

Sonnets From The Portugese 43 is a poem by Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and details her undying love for her husband, Robert Browning. Through the sonnet, Browning mentions how she loves him, and lists a dozen different ways. She mentions that she loves him freely, and with undying passion. The love that she feels is un-inhibited by lies, and is honest. There is excessive repitition of the words, "I love thee", which helps to show the undying feelings that she feels towards her husband.

The poem lends itself to A Streetcar Named Desire in a couple of ways. First of all, Blanche. Blance had a fantastic love life, with a young man, who she married and loved to a massive degree. She thought he was sweet, handsome and caring, although slighlty effeminate. Up to this point, you can understand why Blanche thinks of Sonnet 43 as her favourite poem. It describes her love life perfectly. However, it takes a turn of the ironic once you see what she did to her husband. Upon finding out that her husband was a closet homosexual, she completely turned on her heel, and literally destroyed him emotionally. The irony of this is that the poem talks about unconditional love, where Blance does not have that trait.

Mitch, on the other hand, is a perfect mirror of who the poem is written for. He loves his dead girlfriend unconditionally. everything he does is either done for his mother, or his dead girlfriend. He still loves her, and carries a token from her, with a line from the poem engraved in it. This shows that Mitch is a pure character, who doesn't try to show his love, which makes him a genuine character. Blance, being an actress, is dramatic about this love, and uses it to make people like her, which shows the falseness of her character.

Gender Descriptive Words in A Streetcar Named Desire

In A Streetcar Named Desire, there is very gender-specific language used. These words typically describe the characters physical appearances, but also lend themselves to the character's personalities, too.

The two characters that I will discuss here are Blance and Stanley, who the story seems to revolve around.

Blanche is a old-South woman, who sees her self as very upper-class, and very respectable. She looks down on all around her, and thinks that she is better than everybody else. She is an outcast in the setting of New Orleans, and tries to fit into the society with little avail. She also seems to live in an idealized world. Below are 5 words that are used to describe her, and which highlight her character the best.

The first word that I chose describes her best is glamorous. Blance is shown throughout the play as an upper-class woman, who thinks of herself as living the high life. She is constantly changing clothes, as an actress would do, and she portrays herself as a diva would do.

The second word that I chose to describe Blance was liar. Throughout the play, Blanche tells blatant lies to people, to make other people think of her in a better light. This again lends itself to the idea that Blanche is an actress, and shows a public face, which is usually completely different to her real life. One example of these lies, and her manipulation of her sister, is on page 60, where she tells Mitch that she is a year younger than Stella, just to make her seem more important than Stella, and also to save face.

The third word that I would use to describe Blanche is lovely. Blanche has a beauty around her that makes her seem as if she is out-of-place in the rough town of New Orleans. This beauty adds to her character, and helps to show one reason that she lies so often, to protect herself from the harshness of New Orleans.

The fourth word that descibes Blanche best is delicate. Blanche is constantly needing to protect herself from everything, and is always feeling vulnerable in the harsh New Orleans. Her delicateness makes her appear in a way that makes the other characters pity her, something that she seems to thrive off.

The last word that I chose to describe Blanche is dainty. Again, Blanche has a sort of beauty around her that makes her seem fragile, and is what makes Stella and Mitch feel pity for her, and what makes them want to protect her from all the evils of the world. She uses this daintyness to get what she wants from Mitch, and to control everybody else she knows.

Stanley is completly different to Blanche. Not only is he a powerful, strong man, but he is dominating and violent. As a working class man, Stanley feels the need to control everything around him, and when Blanche tries to upset this, he begins to feel threatened.

The first word that I chose to describe Stanley is executioner. Blanche calls him this, while talking to Mitch, and that forshadows both what Stanley is capable of, and also how threatening of a person he is.

Secondly, I would use straightforward to describe Stanley. He doesn't mince his words. If he thinks something, he will say it, which helps to show that he is a powerful man, who doesn't care how his words affect people. This lends itself to the cruel side of Stanley's character, and the impulsiveness. 

Third, Stanley is described as a primtive. This again lends a theme of power in Stanley. When we hear the word primitive, we think of strong, short, hairy powerful neanderthal. This goes along perfectly with the large paragraph that we get at the beginning of the book to describe him.

Pride is another great descriptor for Stanley. Everything that he does is because of his pride. He feels threatened by the presence of Blanche, and feels that he will lose the power that he holds over Stella. He is very controlling, and takes great pride in being the "alpha" of the group.

Finally, I described Stanley as honest. As I said earlier, he doesn't mince his words. When Blanche asks him what he thinks of her, he tells her. He doesn't lie, he doesn't tell a half-truth, he just tells her the truth. And throughout the play we see this. The only time that he doesn't tell the truth is when Blanche is yelling about him.



Stanley: Executioner, straightforward, primitive, pride, honest