It's Just an allusion...

At first glance the prologue quotations in David Mamet’s play Oleanna seem to offer no parallels or significance to the play or direct comparisons, and that is what makes it such an interesting choice for Mamet, in that it allows the reader food for thought and musings. There is ambiguity and interpretation and provocation and his prologue choice in fact reflects his character development and his style of writing. There is realism in his work as in real life real people do not always expose their true emotions or intent and we are left wondering. The same can be said of his play that relies on acting and reading between the lines and not just the dialogue which has pause, false starts, unfinished sentences and down right rude interruptions.

However, on ponderings I have come up with the following interpretations on the allusions used :

The first prologue, The way of All Flesh, by Samuel Butler,

“ The want of fresh air does not seem much to affect the happiness of children in a London alley: The greater part of them sing and play as though they were on a moor in Scotland. So the absence of a genial mental atmosphere is not commonly recognized by children who have never known it. Young people have a marvelous faculty of either dying or adapting themselves to circumstances. Even if they are unhappy – very unhappy –it is astonishing how easily they can be prevented from finding it out, or at any rate from attributing to any other cause than their own sinfulness.” (Mamet 4).

The extract could almost be a patriarchal monologue straight from the superior position of professorial power of John to his ‘ child’ or student, Carol. The passage reflects his general feelings towards not just Carol on a personal level but on a broader level to the student body in the first act.  John preaches to Carol that she is overwrought of her lack of understanding in his classes and her low grades as she has been sucked in by the common school of thought and society dictates that she must do well in this environment or fail at large. Society tells us that the  annals and corridors of the prestigious school of learning are for the privileged few and they grasp at this idea as if the gates to University are the pearly gates of heaven. However, they are stupid mindless children who know no better just like the waifs who play in London’s alleys and do not miss fresh air. In fact the ivory tower they are ensconced in are not the real world but a fake illusion which they feel by succeeding in will bring fame and riches. Carol quotes from John’s book which she does not understand or grasp but reiterates John’s assumption that University is, “ virtual warehousing of the young”. (Mamet 12). This I believe though not fully explained in the play means that higher education actually does not allow free thinking or freedom of thought or creativity. It teaches robotic learning and so the system is in fact a joke as instead of nurturing and developing young minds it stunts mental growth and is more harmful than beneficial.  It is controlling and brain washing and produces ‘ yes men’ who follow rules rather than entrepreneurs who are pioneers. ( famous college drop outs like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs may well agree).  This “ garbage “ is shown when John tells Carol to stop looking at her notes but to think for herself, to give an opinion. However, Carol at this point is unable to do so as she desperately clutches to her notes as a crutch. This derision of the institution of college is far more directly marginalized by.

“Look the tests, you see, which you encounter, in school, in college, in life were designed in the most part for idiots. By idiots There is no need to fail them. They are not a test of your worth. They are a test of your ability to retain and spout back information. Of course you fail them. They’re nonsense “ (Mamet 18). 

However, instead of making Carol feel better John makes Carol feel more desperate and confused. Similarly the prologue quotation says that children will survive and adapt and attribute any happiness to their own failure and self worth and ability rather than the environment or system. They blame themselves in the alley as does Carol in these corridors. She is trapped in a windowless professors office unable to appreciate the beautiful day as she is wrapped up her grades which do not define her but is a burden and pressure which she happily accepts. She is angry with John that he insults her entering the college and has destroyed her hopes and aspirations by mocking what she has worked to achieve and overcome in terms of her social and financial background. Again reinforcement of these ideas is brought out in the first act by John who dominates and controls the conversation with describing college as “ hazing “ which is explained as “ Does it educate? In no sense. Well then, what is higher education? It is something-other—than-useful” (Mamet 21).  “  This leads us to why does Carol have this pressure and burden and I feel this can be summed in one word ‘Society’ which leads us to the second quotation.

“ Oh to be in Oleanna,

That’s where I would rather be.

Than be bound in Norway

And drag the chains of slavery”.

The above quote is an extract ( first verse ) from a satirical folk song originally in Norwegian. This obscure allusion refers mockingly to a perfect Utopian community ( Oleanna) in New Norway in Pensylvannia, America  as created by its founder Ole Bull in the nineteenth century .The community though at first flooded with settlers due to opportunity and free land eventually failed as the land acquired with immense forests in narrow valleys  were not conducive to farming and cultivation. Mamet alludes that the valleys of Oleanna are like the corridors of the university who lure with scholarships and great promises  but ironically does not  deliver or cultivate minds and students do not reap what they sow in a farming metaphor. You could say funnily enough that their minds cannot see the woods for the trees !!!  Ironically again students think their minds are free in college where in reality they are slaves shackled to the system that bounds them stripping them of power or rights or free will.

Society sets rules and expectations  ( college, married, good job, 2.5 children ), and if we deviate from this we cannot achieve acceptance. Carol by getting a possible bad grade feels she has failed in society and cannot come to terms with this failure and with self loathing she blames herself as she quotes her paper and exclaims in self disgust;

“ That’s right. That’s right. I know I’m stupid. I know what I am. I know what I am Professor. You don’t have to tell me. Its pathetic. Isn’t it ? “ ( Mamet 14). ( note: ironically she ends the play with “ that’s right “ with far more confidence than her non confident whimpering here ).

Carol is carrying a bag full of the burden of expectation on her tender young shoulders and she is drowning under those expectations.  ( though we will find out as alluded in the first quote she will not die but adapt).  She has been conditioned and has conformed. She carries further a chip on her shoulder that she does not belong in an elitist establishment due to her social and financial impediments and hence sits at the back of the class she feels unnoticed and unwanted. She is a victim of her own illusions and dreams that she has readily bought into. If she fails she will not be able to live her dream life in a perfect society. Ironically even John who pretends to be above the rules and despises rules and authority is also bound to it. His dream home, child’s future and marriage depends on the Tenure committee decision for his promotion  ( and at the end on Carol’s forgiveness and retractment ) as does Carol’s on her grades. Further, Carol does not have the ability to act or think like an individual as she hides behind society, tenure committee, her group ( possibly a feminist movement ) and even claims she has to tell the truth of her perceived sexual harassment not for her gain but for her responsibility to the other students and college. She also believes it must be true if they have accepted it as such. Strangely Carol wants to fit in as a “ paradigm “ of society ( though she does not know what that means) and through conflict there is a power shift where the teacher becomes the student divided by a desk that represents the power struggle.

In fact there can never be a perfect society like Oleanna and it exists only as an illusion or unattainable dream. We are all just trying to fit in and chase rainbows. Who is the victim in this play is opinion based but clearly empathy lies with the hapless professor who paid for his help and advice. In actual fact, John and Carol are alike and are both victims of that dream and their own insecurity which drives them. Mamet in a clever choice of allusions defines this theme.

Dexter, Gary. “How Books Got Their Titles.” Oleanna. Web. 18 Apr. 2012. <http://garydexter.blogspot.in/2009/04/62-oleanna-by-david-mamet.html.>

Blog Portfolio # 7 March 2012

Coverage


A Streetcar Named Desire

Till Death Do Us Part

The Role of Sounds in a Streetcar Named Desire

Unspoken Words

Lights, Stage Set, Action!

Real vs, Reel

A Scoop on Scoop

Two Men, Two Differing Styles

Beauty's Tragic Flaw

Zero-ing on Size

Depth

Till Death Do Us Part

This blog concerned a poem which was written on a lighter from Mitch's dead wife and also had significance for Blanche in 'Street Car Named Desire'. It was enlightening experience to be able to research the poem by Elizabeth Barret Browning, find out about her life and then analyze and relate it to the play. It was interesting experience to see how a real poem can influence a writer to incorporate it into a fictional piece of work and how that one poem can hold such meaning and significance for the protagonists. It gave me tremendous opportunity for in depth food for thought.

Research

"Sonnets from the Portuguese - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia."Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnets_f 

"How do I love thee? Let me count the ways. (Sonnet 43) Analysis." Shmoop: Homework Help, Teacher Resources, Test Prep. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2012. <http://www.shmoop.com/how-do-i-love-thee-sonnet-43/analysis.html>. 


Interaction

A Scoop on Scoop

Blogging is not simply writing your own feelings and thoughts in isolation as in writing a novel or a poem. What is so interesting about the world of blogging is that your commentary is being shared with an audience who is able to interact actively with you and others in a lively debate and discussion. This sharing of ideas and thoughts, hearing other view points, agreeing and disagreeing brings alive this social intellectual medium. In this blog post, Jorina, Wesley and I discussed and analyzed the role of Scoop in The Heidi Chronicles as a Antagonist or foil. Our interaction involved a debate with Jorina who stated, "Scoop is Heidi’s antagonist. He thinks with his hormones and is very overpowering", while I believe Scoop "acts as a foil to Heidi determining her action."


Discussion


Two Men, Two Differing Styles


My blog on the comparison with Scoop and Stanley invited some interesting thoughts and comments from Adrienne which I felt compelled to respond to. I look forward to the continuation of this discussion.


Xenoblogging - Comment Primo


Heidi the Protagonist - Kanchan


While Kanchan's blog Heidi the Protagonist was well written and all points relevant and agreed upon, I was surprised she agreed Heidi is a Humanist (as claimed by Heidi) and not a Feminist, instigating my comment primo on her blog to put forth my view point.


"Some really good points were made but i would like to add some thoughts. Heidi’s character is interesting because she seems a little confused. She joins a feminist group and befriends many feminists and yet declares herself to be a humanist. By definition a humanist is a person who focuses on human values and concerns. Heidi never in the play demonstrates any strong human value beliefs. Instead of fighting for real women’s concerns and rights such as female circumcision, violence against women, child trafficking or equal pay she spends her time fighting for a museum to give equal importance and display of the paintings of women artists. Further, her group of friends do not show the traits of true feminism when they succumb to the traditional roles of marriage and one even allows her boyfriend to mistreat her as she cooks and cleans for him.Heidi too allows Scoop to string her along for years without a commitment. She is also upset at Scoop’s wedding to Lisa revealing her hurt and frustration at his betrayal and yet she continues to love and support him. i wonder if Scoop had proposed to her would she have said yes and thrown caution to the winds as she gave up her independence and with it perhaps her ambitions. Perhaps these women do need to realize they can have it all not just at the same time as the saying goes.

I wonder though if Heidi and her values don’t change. At the end the desire to adopt a child out of traditional wedlock i wonder if this is a last ditch attempt to conform to the norm albeit without a man she loves, or is this a stay true to yourself rebellion against society to defy convention?

At the end of the day life is a discovery of finding out who you are so surely we all change along this journey of self discovery. Age and circumstance also changes a person so surely Heidi is no longer the same as the young naive girl at the start of the novel. Scoop changes when he leaves his paper to spend time with his children and even her gay friends attitude towards her changes. He tells her effectively there is a time to stop chasing rainbows and to grow up. Heidi finally comes of age and is comfortable in her skin. She no longer needs to change the world with the same passion or prove anything to the world, just being herself is the greatest victory of all."

Wildcard
Zero-ing on Size


Based on the article Dieting to the Extreme, I discuss societies perception of the perfect body leading to emotional insucurity and pressure to conform to societies standard's of beauty and fitness. 

Beauty's Tragic Flaw

Hedda as a “Modern woman” by Archer and “Ibsen’s Women” by Nazimova give their own view and interpretation of the characterization of Hedda Gabler, the female protagonist in Ibsen’s play of the same name. It is interesting to see the viewpoint from a male and female perspective and even more note worthy that Ibsen weaved a three dimensional female lead so intricately defined  and multi-layered reminiscent to Tennessee Williams  Blanche in “A Street Car Named Desire”. These extremely manipulative, highly strung emotional women toy with their sanity as they float in and out of reality highlighting the complexities of the female or indeed so as not to be sexist the human mind. They exploit their femininity and sexuality to the hilt and have little regard for the havoc they leave in their wake. Hedda’s hubris and self denial of situations she creates and then cannot handle represent her tragic flaw.

 Archer comments that though the play has a Norwegian feel to it with references such as the “fjords”, the play was written for an international audience and Hedda transcends her time period and becomes an “international type”. Archers’ commentary on the reference to Lovborg, “with vine leaves in his hair” which is an allusion to mystical mythology shows the mental state of Hedda. She escapes into a fantasy land where she can escape her boring socially acceptable life and run away with Lovborg despite not loving him or any other man. Hedda seems devoid of loving anyone or showing basic human compassion as seen by her marriage of convenience and how she leads Lovborg to his death without remorse and balks at Aunt Julie’s selflessness at caring for the infirm. However, Archer points out that Ibsen does not pass judgment on his heroines but simply “paints her full length with scientific impassivity”.He feels that the traits and tendencies are common in modern life and not just among women and reasons she suffers from the condition of hyperaesthesia (a pathological increase in sensitivity to stimuli) which  causes a “ morbid shrinking from all the gross and prosaic details of the sensual life”. He goes on to explain that she has no intellectual outlet and succumbs to social acceptance of a marriage she tolerates without the courage to break from conformity. It is debatable if Hedda is mentally ill or simply reacting to the shackles of her boredom and restraints as she toys with men for her amusement. She is caught in the myth of her beauty that attracts and sets her on a pedestal. She is distant and detached from those who attempt to get close to her and in turn they feel she is special and should be protected as Brack states, “you’ve never had to live through anything that really shakes you up” (244) and Miss Tesman who protects her from the funeral, “ These kinds of things aren’t for Hedda Tesman’s hands or her thoughts either”.(274). Hedda with no social conscience cannot give or receive love and has no moral code. She spends her time with her pistols as her hobby perhaps in a foreshadowing reminder that they are her only true friends who can relieve her of the suffocation of her life. She in fact pushes Lovborg to suicide as she feels this is an act of bravery and taking control and represents beauty to her warped brain. In fact she is devastated to learn he has not ended his life in a poignant way with a bullet to the head but was in the company of prostitutes with a bullet to his lower regions. Hedda burning the manuscript is symbolic of her killing her own child who she cannot raise with love. And finally on realizing that scandal may break and she has lost her husband to Thea she opts out using her treasured pistols and closing the curtains symbolically to her final act. She no longer can outwit her own manipulation which back fires on her and realizes that Brack’s  black mail control over her is the final nail in the coffin which she cannot endure. With death there is freedom and the dove in a gilded cage is finally set free.  She is the ultimate tragedy queen who takes comfort from her own misery and the misery of others. The question is, is she really a modern woman or a woman simply caught in the old fashioned attitudes of her time? Surely, Hedda in the generation of today could have lived a self sufficient independent life without the reliance of a man? Surely these pathological traits are not common place in modern life. Yes, women from time immemorial have used their beauty and sexuality to manipulate and control men and land a rich husband  but not commonly to the extent of ruining the life of others.

Nazimova also touches on this point and claims that Ibsen’s women like Hedda may not be recognized outside of the theatre but are everywhere. She feels characters like Hedda are real women not just heroines conjured in the imagination by the likes of Shakespeare and that Hedda has a little of all women in her. “She is weak and strong, capricious and determined , petty and powerful” Of course I agree to an extent all women are somewhat emotional and reactive but some manage to have self control and self worth. Hedda does not love or value herself and suicide is not bravery as she perceives it but cowardice. The real bravery would be to live her life and face her mistakes and take ownership for her decisions and choices. Yes as Nazimova points out, “the modern woman is more complex and lives in a more complex world” but she has now fought for equal rights and freedom and would not resort to killing herself or her child she would have fought to the end. While there is still female oppression, women have come a long way from the age of Hedda and their compassion is their strength not their weakness. If only Hedda could have realized this before pulling the trigger…….

Two Men, Two Differing Styles

Scoop  and Stanley in’ The Heidi Chronicles’ and ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’, both act as foils to their female protagonists respectively, Heidi and Blanche. And whilst they both play a supporting role in the two plays, they are very central to the story line as they determine the actions of their heroines.

Stanley and Scoop are very much a man’s man, unapologetically macho as they proudly display and play up their masculinity to the hilt. However, their approach is very different as is their relationship with their heroines. Scoop is educated and sophisticated and is romantically involved, albeit casually with Heidi. On the other hand, Stanley is uneducated ill bred, devoid of manners and sophistication and is not involved with Blanche (he is married to her sister), but the undercurrents of sexual tension disguised as disgust come clearly to the surface and end with Blanches rape. The two men move the story line along determining the outcome of the lives of the women, who though essentially strong and independent, allow the men to dictate their terms, showing that they succumb to their charms against their better judgment.

Stanley

The characterization of Stanley is thrust into the mindset of the audience at the onset of his entry by Tennessee Williams. As he walks into the room he is loud, obnoxious, drunk and blunt bordering on crudeness. Aware of Blanches discomfort Stanley remarks to Blanche, “I’m afraid I’ll strike you as being the unrefined type” (Scene 1). Ironically Stanley sees through the feigned lady like act of Blanche. He recognizes that they are essentially cast of the same mould. (He makes a sarcastic remark of the depletion of whiskey hinting at Blanches indulgence which is quickly rebutted by Blanche by her dishonesty that she rarely touches it). While Stanley is honest and upfront of his un-refinement, Blanche hides behind the mask of false propriety. The attraction is instantaneous but is camouflaged by insults and churlish remarks. Blanche though unwilling to admit it, is drawn to his raw charms and cave man like behavior. Stanley treats women as commodities to satisfy his every urge and wait on him hand and foot as shown by the treatment meted out to his wife Stella. He hides any softness and romantic notions behind grunts and growls displaying  a primitive animalistic approach to women, which lacks respect of the fairer sex.  On his first encounter with Blanche Stanley is described by Williams as; (Scene 1).

“Animal joy in his being is implicit in all his movements and attitudes. Since earliest manhood the center of his life has been pleasure with women, the giving and taking of it, not with weak indulgence, dependently, but with the power and pride of a richly feathered male bird among hens. Branching out from this complete and satisfying center are all auxiliary channels of his life, such as his heartiness with men, his appreciation of rough humor, his love of good drink and food and games, his car, his radio, everything that is his, that bears his emblem of the gaudy seed-bearer. He sizes women up at a glance, with sexual classification, crude images flashing into his mind and determining the way he smiles at them.”

Though Stanley’s encounter with Blanche is brief, lasting only a few weeks it has impact and bearing on the events of her life and lead to her sanitarium visit. Though their relationship is not of a romantic nature it is undeniably not without sparks or passions and leaves an indelible impression in the mind of the reader.

Scoop:

In contrast Scoop forms a casual long lasting dalliance with Heidi that culminates in friendship post his marriage to Lisa. Though both Scoop and Stanley are macho men that toy with women disregarding their feelings, their methodology is different in approach. On his first meeting with the self professed feminist Heidi, he is able to break her resistance and sleep with her through his wit and charm.  Not as crude or upfront as Stanley he employs his intellect and sophistication to break down the barriers she puts up as a front. As Blanche did before her, Heidi is dishonest and coy and believes herself to be in control but succumbs to him unwittingly like a fly in a Spider’s web. Scoop rates women with grades or numbers revealing that he regards them as disposable commodities that he sizes up in a similar but more educated manner to Stanley.  Again Scoop insults and derides Heidi and she is placed in the defensive position of addressing him with rebuttals to match his quick mind. On their first encounter where Heidi pretends to be Susan she is unable to fool or outsmart Scoop; ( 171).

Scoop; I like you, Susan. You’re prissy, but I like you a lot.

Heidi; Well I don’t know if I like you.

Scoop; Why should you like me ? I’m arrogant and difficult. But I’m very smart. So you’ll put up with me. What?[…]

Heidi; Actually, I was wondering what mothers teach their sons that they never bother to tell their daughters. […] I mean, why the fuck are you so confident?

Scoop; ten points for Susan.

 Though different in approach both men Stanley and Scoop play the same game with different rules. They confidently and with unabashed brutal honesty admit to their negative traits willingly, which unnerves the women who find themselves at a loss as they struggle with their own insecurities and web of deceit The women are drawn to the danger and risks which they find stimulating and exciting but this fatal attraction becomes their tragic flaw in an otherwise composed carefully rehearsed exterior. Ironically both men settle for women that do not challenge them (Lisa and Stella) leaving behind their real paramours proving that ultimately it is the men who cannot rise to the challenge when they meet their match in Heidi and Stella. This represents their one weakness in their otherwise over confident exterior. They act as foils to their leading ladies and protagonists and are often antagonistic and overbearing but, they still manage to make an impression in their lives.

A Scoop on Scoop

By definition an antagonist is the person whose every action is conducted against the protagonist. In contrast a foil is a character that has contrasting or complimentary characteristics whose actions affect the protagonist. The foil in fact may at times behave as the antagonist, side kick or somewhere in between.

In Wendy Wasserstein’s The Heidi Chronicles, the character of Scoop the romantic interest and best friend of the heroine Heidi in fact demonstrates the characterization of the foil. However, ironically the character may describe him as her antagonist in her feministic two dimensional out look on life.

Heidi believes herself to be the proverbial feminist who goes through life feeling that men are the great evil whose main life is to keep women in their place. She fights against conventions of being a traditional homemaker to become successful and independent in a devil may care attitude but often blames men for her failings. Ultimately single at forty she adopts a child as if this is the piece de resistance to tell the world; she does not need a man. To add to this she befriends a homosexual man, Peter who gives her a feeling of safety and comfort. The question is: is she fooling herself or the world? And ultimately does she hold Scoop responsible for stringing her along or is she responsible for her actions alone?

Ironically, her main fight for the cause of feminism is giving a platform to forgotten female artists when surely there are other more worthwhile causes in the plight of women. Further, interestingly Heidi tries to escape her troubles by leaving New York but is scolded by Peter who acts as her true confidante aka Peter and Heidi in the Swiss tale as opposed to the foil of Scoop. Peter, keeps Heidi grounded and reminds her of their bond and is frustrated at her weakness, “But obviously I can’t help you. And You can’t help me, So…”(238). Heidi’s weakness and hurt shows she is a normal woman with feminine wants and not a true feminist. This is highlighted in the confused women who meet for feministic sessions in scene 3 and yet reveal their insecurities such as Becky who acts as a slave to her ungrateful boyfriend.  In fact Heidi too is perhaps delusional in her longstanding relationship with her paramour and friend Scoop as stated by Susan, “My friend Heidi is obsessed with an asshole” (180).

On their first meeting she is drawn to Scoop but feigns indifference, which is simply a feminine ploy to hide her attraction. Heidi even pretends to be Susan forgetting her real name is written on her name tag. Scoop as her foil sees through her games and bluntly remarks on being called irritating by her with the response, “That’s the first honest thing you’ve said all night” (171). After all her indignity at his insults and her rebuttals (he rates her looks as B- and demeans her by calling her Heidella), she still leaves with him and Scoop clenches his fist in victory, as Heidi falls for his charms. Therefore for all her pretense of feminism as she scoffs at his off the cuff remark of her future domesticity, “No, I’ll be busy burning lingerie” Heidi acts like a typical woman and not the feminist she claims to be. Scoop calls her bluff and Heidi loses, forsaking her ideals by becoming the casual interest for Scoop.

Scoop ultimately does not marry Heidi and eventually settles for a six out of ten claiming she needs a ten out of ten and could possibly never settle. The truth is that feminists it may be argued never get to have it all, never find perfection and end up being unhappy as they spend their life reaching for unattainable goals. Scoop on the other hand cuts is losses and is more realistic in love, finding comfort a better alternative to true love or passion. The real burning question arises what if Scoop had asked Heidi to marry him, would she have said yes, tossing her feminism as she had at their first meeting. We will never know but I would guess yes. (The last scene alludes to this when Heidi states if she had married Scoop the marriage would not last.) Has Scoop acted as a foil in her long term plans by not committing to Heidi? Heidi is angry and upset at Scoop’s wedding as she has been strung along and now finally betrayed by Scoop despite his love for her (201)

Scoop; I’m sorry Heidella. But I couldn’t dangle you any more. And that’s why I got married today. So,

Heidi; So. So now its all my fault.

Scoop; Sure it is. You want other things in life than I do.

Heidi; Really? Like what?

Scoop; Self-fulfilment. Self-determination. Self-exaggeration

Heidi; That’s exactly what you want.

Scoop; Right. Then you’d be competing with me.

In fact Heidi and Scoop despite playing up their differences are peas in a pod and this likeness repels each other again as Scoop ends up as the foil pushing Heidi away. Her feminism has worked against her and Scoop ends up playing the more traditional role (despite his dalliances to retain his masculinity). In fact Scoop sells his successful magazine simply to fall into another avatar of a better father leaving behind selfish ambitions thereby playing the more feminine role to Heidi’s masculinity. At the end joking that they should try again romantically despite hurting Heidi he flippantly remarks, “You’re lonely and I’m lost”. This poignantly affirms how he has affected her life and his by being her foil in her plans. Unable to find true love in his marriage he is lost and in turn Heidi unable to find another man to replace Scoop adopts a child to fill the void that success and freedom and independence all the trappings of feminism cannot fill.

Perhaps Heidi should have been a true feminist, not fallen for Scoop and stopped him from being her foil. As Susan summed it up early on in the play, “You know, as your best friend, I must tell you frankly that you’re going to get really messed up unless you learn to take men seriously” (164). Never a truer word spoken…..

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.