"Not rounding off, but opening out." Comment upon the way the writers deal with the ending in relation to the whole. In your answer you should refer to two or three of the works you have studied.
That phrase relates how the authors end the play, yet there is still a story to be told. In "Oedipus the King," Sophocles has the last scene being that Oedipus is cast out of Thebes by Creon. There are still many unanswered questions left. The authors end one story in a sense, but set up a new one in the process. Since Oedipus has just been exiled, the readers are left to wonder what happens to Oedipus. Does he just go and live in the mountains alone? Does he ever see his daughters again? The last time in the play that Oedipus sees his daughters is when they are "wrenched loose from his grasp" (Sophocles 1674). By ending the play with Oedipus being banished, Sophocoles lets readers guess on what happens to Oedipus or continue the story in their own way.
In "The Wild Duck," Ibsen also doesn't round "off, but opens out." In the end, readers are left to guess as to what happens between Hjalmar and Gina after their daughter dies. By the end of the play, it is implied that they "made up," but no one is sure. Ibsen opens up the story for readers to continue by leaving unanswered questions. What is Gregers going to do? What is going to become of Hjalmar and Gina? What is going to happen to the wild duck now that Hedvig is dead? Ibsen ends the play, but at the same times leaves it open.
In "Blood Wedding," Lorca does the same thing. He ends the play with Leonardo's and the Bridegroom's deaths. Although the play is over, the question is still left as to what is to become of the bride. The readers can again keep on guessing as to what is going to happen.
Just because the plays are over, does not mean that the stories are over. By ending the play, the authors leave many unanswered questions of things that happened earlier in the plays.
Showing posts with label Comparison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Comparison. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Wild Duck Journal #4
Readers are attracted to moments of intensity in a writer's work. By what means and with what effect have writers in your study offered heightened emotional moments designed to arrest the reader's attention?
In "Oedipus the King," Sophocles includes a lot of heightened emotional moments. He shows Oedipus in a state where he is going insane because of the prophecy. Sophocles also has a scene where it seems as if the prophecy about Oedipus did not come true. This is one of the "heightened emotional moments." "JOCASTA: / Bringing the MESSENGER closer. / Listen to him, see for yourself what all those awful prophecies of god have come to" (Sophocles 1042-1043). This shows how hopeful Jocasta is that the prophecy did not come true. Sophocles uses dramatic irony, because the chorus implies that the prophecy has come true. This causes the reader to be more interested in the play.
In "The Wild Duck," Ibsen invokes a feeling of pity in the reader. In Act 5, Relling tells Gregers that Hedvig kills herself, but to Hjalmar and Gina it looks as if the pistol went off. They let Hjalmar keep on believing this because it would keep him sane. Before Hedvig died, Hjalmar was angry and about to leave his house. After she died, he decided to stay with Gina. Her death brought them together again. This scene attracts the reader's attention more, because it is more dramatic then most of the other scenes.
In both "Oedipus the King" and "The Wild Duck," Sophocles and Ibsen have increased the readers' attention by adding more dramatic scenes to the play.
In "Oedipus the King," Sophocles includes a lot of heightened emotional moments. He shows Oedipus in a state where he is going insane because of the prophecy. Sophocles also has a scene where it seems as if the prophecy about Oedipus did not come true. This is one of the "heightened emotional moments." "JOCASTA: / Bringing the MESSENGER closer. / Listen to him, see for yourself what all those awful prophecies of god have come to" (Sophocles 1042-1043). This shows how hopeful Jocasta is that the prophecy did not come true. Sophocles uses dramatic irony, because the chorus implies that the prophecy has come true. This causes the reader to be more interested in the play.
In "The Wild Duck," Ibsen invokes a feeling of pity in the reader. In Act 5, Relling tells Gregers that Hedvig kills herself, but to Hjalmar and Gina it looks as if the pistol went off. They let Hjalmar keep on believing this because it would keep him sane. Before Hedvig died, Hjalmar was angry and about to leave his house. After she died, he decided to stay with Gina. Her death brought them together again. This scene attracts the reader's attention more, because it is more dramatic then most of the other scenes.
In both "Oedipus the King" and "The Wild Duck," Sophocles and Ibsen have increased the readers' attention by adding more dramatic scenes to the play.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The Wild Duck Journal #2
"What is drama but life with the dull bits cut out?" To what extent do you find this statement applicable in at least two plays you have studied?
I this statement really applicable in both "Oedipus" and "The Wild Duck." In "Oedipus," Sophocles shows just one day of his life. This is the day where he finds out that the horrible prophecy came true. This is just one day of his life that happens to have a lot of importance and drama to it. The play is just Oedipus' life with the drama. Sophocles isn't telling a story of one normal day. He is telling a dramatic day of his life.
In "The Wild Duck," Ibsen is showing "dramatic" days of Hjalmar and Greggers' lives. Ibsen doesn't show Greggers working at the mill or a normal day of Hjalmar. He decided to show the scenes of when Hjalmar first meets Greggers after years apart. He could have just as easily decided to show a normal day on the job. The fact that Ibsen decided to show this, shows that this is the characters' lives with the "dull bits" cut out to make a dramatic play.
In both "Oedipus" and "The Wild Duck," Sophocles and Ibsen have showed the interesting parts of the characters' lives. They have decided against showing the normal every day parts of the characters' lives. Instead they have shown the drama and the dramatic parts of their lives: in "Oedipus" the discovery that the prophecy came true; in "The Wild Duck" the meeting of Hjalmar and Greggers after years and their lives after that.
I this statement really applicable in both "Oedipus" and "The Wild Duck." In "Oedipus," Sophocles shows just one day of his life. This is the day where he finds out that the horrible prophecy came true. This is just one day of his life that happens to have a lot of importance and drama to it. The play is just Oedipus' life with the drama. Sophocles isn't telling a story of one normal day. He is telling a dramatic day of his life.
In "The Wild Duck," Ibsen is showing "dramatic" days of Hjalmar and Greggers' lives. Ibsen doesn't show Greggers working at the mill or a normal day of Hjalmar. He decided to show the scenes of when Hjalmar first meets Greggers after years apart. He could have just as easily decided to show a normal day on the job. The fact that Ibsen decided to show this, shows that this is the characters' lives with the "dull bits" cut out to make a dramatic play.
In both "Oedipus" and "The Wild Duck," Sophocles and Ibsen have showed the interesting parts of the characters' lives. They have decided against showing the normal every day parts of the characters' lives. Instead they have shown the drama and the dramatic parts of their lives: in "Oedipus" the discovery that the prophecy came true; in "The Wild Duck" the meeting of Hjalmar and Greggers after years and their lives after that.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Wild Duck Journal #1
"Visual action can be as important on the stage as speech." How far do you agree with this claim? In your answer you should refer to two or three plays you have studied.
I think that visual action is just as important on the stage as speech. Without both, the play would be pretty boring. In Oedipus, there are many scenes where the character would be talking and doing some sort of action. For example, there are a few side notes where it says that the character is doing something or other. "Helping a Priest to his feet" (Sophocles line 9), is one such example. The play goes on with Oedipus talking to this character.
There is also imagery. Throughout the play, there are phrases such as "clinging to your altars" (line 18). If an actor says these lines without acting them out, it seems really weird. If a person says "why are you kneeling?" and the person he/she's talking to is just standing and reciting lines, it doesn't look right. The person should then be kneeling. This shows how visual action is just as important as speech.
Similarly, in The Wild Duck, there are different actions in parentheses right next to the characters names: "Hedvig (making signals). Uh-uh!" (Ibsen 141). Again, the character should be making signals instead of just talking. Just talking would make the play a collection of monologues by characters. Having visual action in the plays makes it more interesting and the actor doesn't just have to stand there, but act out what they are saying.
Doing all the motions while saying the lines makes the play a lot more appealing to the audience. If the actors just stand there talking, then the audience will get bored really fast. Visual action will make the audience more engaged in the play. So, I think that visual action is just as important as speech.
I think that visual action is just as important on the stage as speech. Without both, the play would be pretty boring. In Oedipus, there are many scenes where the character would be talking and doing some sort of action. For example, there are a few side notes where it says that the character is doing something or other. "Helping a Priest to his feet" (Sophocles line 9), is one such example. The play goes on with Oedipus talking to this character.
There is also imagery. Throughout the play, there are phrases such as "clinging to your altars" (line 18). If an actor says these lines without acting them out, it seems really weird. If a person says "why are you kneeling?" and the person he/she's talking to is just standing and reciting lines, it doesn't look right. The person should then be kneeling. This shows how visual action is just as important as speech.
Similarly, in The Wild Duck, there are different actions in parentheses right next to the characters names: "Hedvig (making signals). Uh-uh!" (Ibsen 141). Again, the character should be making signals instead of just talking. Just talking would make the play a collection of monologues by characters. Having visual action in the plays makes it more interesting and the actor doesn't just have to stand there, but act out what they are saying.
Doing all the motions while saying the lines makes the play a lot more appealing to the audience. If the actors just stand there talking, then the audience will get bored really fast. Visual action will make the audience more engaged in the play. So, I think that visual action is just as important as speech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)