Scoop the Antagonist

p.168: Scoop is being introduced as someone who opposes Heidi. This is shown by the way he tells her what she is: ‘You’re being very difficult”. He then tells her what he thinks of her, “You really have one hell of an inferiority complex”. He puts her in a very defined spot by repeatedly using the word ‘you’ when addressing her. The first time he is introduced, he is portrayed as someone who has a fix image of her even though they have just met. It seems as though he tries to push her over the edge by insulting her and questioning her actions. The reason why he’s being so pushy might be that he is trying to get a specific reaction out of her, as it looks like he has a goal in mind when talking to her. Scoop uses words such as ‘obviously’ to define himself as someone who knows better than Heidi herself what she is like: “ I mean, you’re obviously a liberal, or you wouldn’t be here”. The way he talks to her is dominant and rude. He makes her feel inferior to him and makes himself stand out as the alpha male.  What is interesting is that whatever he does and says to her only makes her more attracted to him, which contradicts her feminist image. Scoop also commands Heidi around: “That’s bullshit. Be real. You’re neat and clean for Eugene”. After making her feel put on the spot by him, he directly insults her by saying: “I have absolutely no interest in you. You’ve been incredibly obnoxious and your looks are B-“.  Once she actually tries to make some conversation and is interested in what he says she asks him if he works for a paper and he responds: “Did they teach you at Vassar to ask so many inane questions in order to keep a conversation going?”, shutting her down one more time.

The way Scoop is introduced to the play makes him very well look like the antagonist, even though that doesn’t mean that there is certain chemistry between the two characters. Throughout the play he has the role of contradicting Heidi. They’re opposites, even if they might be in love. By making Heidi dependant of him, he ruins her image of a feminist, as she contradicts her own beliefs by being in love with him after he’s married and has kids. Scoop admires Heidi because of all the strength she puts into her beliefs but he would never marry her. He needs a woman that stays at home and takes care of the kids while he brings home the money and food.

Portrayed as the Alpha Male character who has no fears about walking up to a stranger, and bluntly questioning her is she had sexual intercourse. Scoop keeps Heidi on his hook, even long after his married life, using her as an escape goat once in a blue moon. Heidi too describes him as her “Bad habit who she is addicted too.” The interactions between these 2 characters are very limited, and they only meet by chance once in a blue moon through their friends. The contrast between the confident alpha male Scoop, and the reserved Heidi with an inferiority complex highlights the society in the post World War II era. Heidi is described to be a trivial women, while Scoop is a serious man. The scene where Heidi is unable to get a word in edge wise during the live studio interview in New York due to the intervention of Scoop and also Peter in her opinions. In this era female opinions were considered trivial and worthless, thus leading to the emergence of feminist humans led by Heidi (Humanist, as termed by her). Her lecturing of renowned female artists virtually unheard of today, mimics and mirrors her position in her life and society which she strives to change.

Wasserstein uses Scoop’s language to convey that women after World War Two had no power compared to men. The use of ‘you’ makes him look like he knows a lot about her and women in general. He pushes her so much with insults and swearwords, that she adapts her language to his’ and uses words such as ‘fuck’. The author makes Heidi and Scoop complete opposites, but by letting Scoop support the feminist beliefs in some ways he portrays and yet choose a woman who doesn’t give such demands, he put women in a light where men are more dominant than them. 

Real vs. Reel

Movie adaptations especially in flamboyant Hollywood of plays or novels are often very different as the director in question employs poetic license. He is trying to fill a cinema scope larger than life canvas and wants to entertain the audience and of course please them and in doing so make a big profit. It is a business venture and not simply a creative gesture. Playwrights and novelists especially of that era did not make as much money as movie producers and more often than not write for creative expression and satisfaction and write to express their views or opinions and not just a buck. They please themselves and are self indulgent and not audience focused (though this is a sweeping generalization).

Scripts that are written from a play or novel are often changed and the movie adaptation of A Street Car Named Desire are no exception. I wonder what Tennesse Williams thoughts on the movie would be and if he would feel is vision has been brought to life. Incidentally I felt Marlon Brando and Vivien Leigh were amazing in bringing to life these two complex, multi layered characters and the chemistry between them was electric.

One of the glaring changes from play to film were that Blanche first goes to the bowling alley instead of as in the play waiting at home for Stella to return. I am not sure why the director made this decision as I felt the original version was more apt and made more impact. After all Blanche sitting alone in the darkened shadows with close ups of her expressions as shadows fall on her face and her furtive visit to the closet for alcohol reveals her insecurity, nervousness, and instability of mind to the audience at large. Also the first meeting of Blanche with Stanley and Stella was at a public place, which simply allowed for the primitive, macho character of Stanley to be revealed which could have been done at home. However, on a cinema screen perhaps this scene without dialogue may have appeared to be slow and boring to the audience.

Another major difference in the play and film is where in the film Stella leaves Stanley with the support of Eunice. Whereas in the play the scene ends with Blanche being taken away with the guards and doctor/nurses of the sanitarium where she is committed. I felt this was a radical decision by the director to allow Stella to have the courage, fortitude and independence to make such a decision especially with a baby and no means of support. This does not match the theme of the play and seems incongruent, where both women are suppressed females simply putting up with their men despite bad treatment and desperately seek the security and support of a man despite this. In the movie Stella does not appear to be as much in love with Stanley as the play implied.

A play is written for a small set area of limited space and props whereas the film has the freedom of a larger scale canvas and plays upon this advantage to the hilt. Sound and lighting also differ and the camera takes us through the mind of the director or his eyes as he pans out wide angles, close ups and top shots. In the play by reading we are the director or in the actual play we are free to roam where our eyes choose within the confines of the set.