First off, let me say that the main reason I took this class was to get my writing requirement out of the way. However, after being in it for the semester, I would gladly take it just to enjoy the class. Cate is awesome, her approach to the class is very organized and she has awesome taste in music. The class is not difficult and some would say easier than other WR classes because you read plays instead of entire books!
To be successful in this class, do your readings, write your papers early, go to class, and this one is important, do NOT take cold medicine that might be drowsy before writing your papers. Seriously, you’ll have no idea what you wrote the next day. This class will help you really take your writing to the collegiate level by teaching you to take it a step further than previous classes have, it will teach you to ask, so what?
Really though, I enjoyed this class a lot more than I expected to and Cate is an awesome teacher, plus if you turn in your long papers, you get baked goods! Win!
Seeing the movie provided a much clearer understanding of the play. While reading it, I would often get lost in both Marat and Sade’s arguments and hearing them them presented differently made them a lot clearer to me. It was also nice to actually see how the play was set up with the bars and everything rather than having to try and from a picture for myself. The movie did make me view the actors of Sade’s play more as actual inmates of the asylum. I did not find any of the views expressed to be more compelling in the movie versus the play, I merely listened more to them in the movie.
If people called A Doll House a feminist play, what the heck do they think of Mrs. Warren’s Profession? In A Doll House Nora could barely fend for herself outside of basic day to day activities, in the final scene Torvald protests when she says she’s going to leave saying “but you know nothing of the world” to which she replies simply “I know”. This admission of no knowledge of things other than shopping and housekeeping is certainly something Vivie Warren would never have to say, she studied math at the University. Opposite of this, Frank seems to be the Nora character of this play, with his notions of love and seemingly frivolous actions, a sharp turn from Torvald’s money-mind seen in A Doll House.
Now, I don’t know if this was so much a response to Ibsen as it maybe was a different approach to the issue of feminism (assuming A Doll House to be a feminist play). Ibsen keeps Nora in the typical female role for the majority of the play while Vivie is out of it from the start. I think Shaw just takes a more direct approach to the issue while Ibsen fights it more subtly.
Hedda Gabler is the story of a wife, Hedda, and her writer husband, Jorgen Tesman.
The Tesman’s seemingly perfect world is disrupted by the unexpected return of an old friend of Jorgen’s, Eilert Lovborg. Lovborg’s return and publication of a new book in a similar field to Jorgen threaten his promotion to professor, hampering Hedda and Jorgen’s dreams of grandeur.
Through a series of deceptions Hedda manages to destroy lovborg’s second manuscript, eliminating her husband’s competition. However, this is not the end and a final twist keeps you guessing until the end.
The basic idea of the Templeton criticism is whether or not Ibsen wrote A Doll House for the purpose of addressing the issue of feminism or to offer a view into any persons struggle during these times. The essay opens with a quote from Ibsen denying “working consciously for the women’s rights movement”. Templeton however, takes the view that feminism is essential to the play for if you “remove the “woman problem” from A Doll House … what is left of the play? The only honest response is nothing,”.
In my opinion, A Doll House intentionally or not does involve feminism. Yes, the play is designed to be a look into life, however feminism was an active issue in life at the time the play was being written. Thus, intentionally or not, by providing a look at life, Ibsen is providing a look at feminism and how it impacts any individuals life.
The Doll House Backlash: Feminism, Criticism and Ibsen
Image Credit: Screen Rant
Were I to be a casting The Tempest I would choose Ian McKellan for the role of Prospero. I see everything about McKellan in his role as Gandalf to be fitting for my mental image of Prospero, from his flowing beard to rough robes and the staff he walks with. Also, thinking about his role as Gandalf I can’t help but think how Gandalf could change from benevolent mentor to fierce defender of his choices, often keeping other characters in the dark, much as Prospero does Miranda.
Well, I wasn’t quite sure if all the characters were up for grabs in this question so I decided to pick one introduced in act II, Trinculo. The first thing I immediately noticed was that his speech was wider in the book than Calibans on the previous page. To me, this indicates, without even reading that he will be one of the more verbose characters, tending to construct longer sentences. After reading the passage on page 37, “Here’s neither bush nor scrub… I will here shroud till the dregs of the storm be past.”, my overall impression of Trinculo is one of a wordy but rather silly character. He also seems to be very self-serving, using whatever he can find to his advantage, “My best way is to creep under his gaberdine…”. He crawls under Calibans cloak merely because there is no other shelter, rather than seeking other shelter somewhere else, and earlier he speaks of wishing he could charge people money to see “…this monster…”, Caliban, and laments that he is not in England to do just that.
The next thing that sprung into my mind was, wait a second, where did this guy come from? This in mind, I flip to the character list to see where he fits in and find that he is a jester, presumably from the kings ship that wrecked. The fact that he is described as a jester further reinforces that he is a rather silly character and also implies to me that he is someone used to being led, rather a leader. Jumping back a second, when we see Trinculo, Stephano and Caliban later ( page 63), Trinculo once again reverts into foolish behavior, rushing into Prospero’s cave and trying on clothing rather than doing anything seemingly productive. In conclusion, my first impression of Trinculo as a silly rather rambling character, not a character that I think will instigate many momentous events, but nonetheless, not someone to discount as for all his ramblings, he does at least seem well-spoken.