Play

Denial is the refusal to admit the truth. It is the refusal to accept or acknowledge the reality or validity of a thing or idea. Many characters in The Iceman Cometh suffer from denial and false hope. O’Neill places these characters in the appropriate setting in which they are able to fantasize about their dreams. Amidst the drunken and misguided characters, O’Neill presents a few that the reader builds hope and sympathy for. Each character uses a pipe dream in order to be able to become blind to their downfalls and to reality.

In the bar setting, characters in Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh portray the theme of denial by embracing pipe dreams. Harry Hope is the elderly owner of a saloon and rooming house. The narrow five-story structure presents the ideal setting for self-destruction. The characters come here in order to “drink away their problems” (O’Neill 597). All of the characters in the novel come to Harry Hope’s bar as an escape. They manage somehow to “remain drunk and delude themselves”(Gagey 332), “with a few harmless pipe dreams about their yesterdays and tomorrows” (O’Neill 620).

They feel sheltered and protected from the real world while in the bar. They do not have to face reality here. “The dreamers have come to Hope’s because, ostensibly, they are failures in the outside world. What lies outside is a world without value, a hostile society to which no man can possibly belong, and from which they must take refuge” (Bogard 54). The characters deny the fact that there is a real world out there, in where they may succeed. They are much more content taking refuge in the bar, where they do not have to strive for or work at anything.

They can just wallow in their sorrows and drink them all away. Each character has a separate pipe dream to face. The pipe dream allows the character to live in a state of denial. It is a false belief or a false hope that the character holds on to. This is in order to blind them of reality. By embracing a pipe dream, the characters feel they do not have to face the bitter reality that confronts them. The pipe dreams make life tolerable for the time being (55). Rocky, the bartender at Hope’s bar, denies the fact that he is a pimp. Because he is a bartender, he believes he cannot be a pimp.

He blatantly disregards the fact that he takes money from two prostitutes and protects them as well. He says to one of the prostitutes, “‘What would you do if I wasn’t around? Give it all to some pimp'” (O’Neill 603). The sad fact that O’Neill presents is that Rocky truly believes that he is not a pimp. He has fooled nobody but himself, and doesn’t even realize it. He also holds a pipe dream of being able to open a bar of his own someday. Margie and Pearl, the two prostitutes, have pipe dreams of one day getting married. They are also living in a state of denial.

Margie says, “‘Anyway, we wouldn’t keep no pimp, like we was reg’lar old whores. We ain’t dat bad'” (603). “These characters live their life through blind eyes” (Orr 90). They refuse to see who and what they really are (91). These three characters deny who they are and refuse to accept it. Although they all have good qualities, they do not acknowledge their imperfections and overlook their unhealthy lifestyles. Ed Mosher, Harry Hope’s brother-in-law, was once a circus man. Pat McGloin was once a police officer. Piet Wetjoen was once the leader of a Boer commando.

Cecil Lewis was once the Captain of the British infantry. James Cameron was a Boer War correspondent. Willie Oban is a Harvard Law School alumnus. Joe Mott was once the proprietor for a Negro gambling house. Although these characters seem to be permanent fixations at Harry Hope’s bar, they refuse to acknowledge that fact. They all retain the pipe dream of shortly returning to their previous jobs. Joe Mott says, “‘I’ll make my stake and get a new gamblin’ house open before you boys leave'” (O’Neill 600). All of these characters see a very bright future up ahead for them.

They are all fooling themselves because their pipe dreams will never be realized. Their pipe dreams are just those, pipe dreams. “The key word is ‘pipe dream. ‘ It occurs a myriad of times during the course of the play from the mouth of almost every figure even when, as is usually the case, its existence is being vehemently denied” (Orr 89). Larry Slade is just waiting to die. This is his pipe dream, although he may not realize it. He thinks he has everything figured out.

He knows he will never amount to anything, and does not want to try. Rocky says, “‘S’pose you don’t fall for no pipe dream? Larry replies, “‘I don’t, no. Mine are all dead and buried behind me. What’s before me is the comforting fact that death is a fine long sleep, and I’m damned tired, and it can’t come too soon for me'” (O’Neill 591). Larry has nothing to look forward to. Death is Larry Slade’s pipe dream. “The alternative to the alcoholic pipe dream, the residue of the ideal as O’Neill conceives it, is death” (Orr 91). Larry, along with all the other drunkards, is waiting for Hickey to show up. Hickey rolls around about twice a year and indulges the drunkards by buying them free drinks.

The arrival of Hickey is awaited with great eagerness, not only because he has the money to buy round after round of drinks, but because he has the knack of encouraging a drunken camaraderie that the inmates of the saloon are too demoralised to generate of their own accord” (89). His arrival is highly anticipated by all of the characters, as it brings joy, spontaneity, and free alcohol. When Hickey finally arrives, he brings with him an unexpected attitude. All of the roomers are expecting free drinks upon Hickey’s arrival, but are disappointed. They are surprised to see that Hickey is a changed man. He has given up alcohol.

The reform of his character, announced soon after his arrival, comes as a complete shock to them and suggests an imminent confrontation. The hard-drinking narrator of dirty jokes appears to have turned into a moral crusader exhorting them to give up their alcoholic ways and make the effort to return to their former more productive lives” (89). When offered a shot of whiskey, he only drinks the chaser. He also discourages the others to drink. This new attitude stuns the roomers. Hickey walks into the saloon with a mission to challenge every single one of the roomers to face and crush their pipe dreams.

This brings about many arguments and fights. This is something the roomers do not expect to have to deal with and do not want to deal with. Hickey begins with Harry Hope. Since the death of his wife, Harry Hope has taken refuge in his bar. He has never left in twenty years. Hope constantly talks about his pipe dream of taking a walk and being able to leave his bar. He believes that if he would walk in public, people everywhere would recognize him because of his previous popularity in the community. The truth, though, is that Hope is terribly frightened about taking a walk and about having to go outside.

When trying to offer others an explanation to why he has been unable to succeed, Hope would provide an exaggerated story of almost being run over. Hope’s problem with denial lies in the fact that he believes he is somewhat famous. Hope says, “When I’d wave my hand, people everywhere would run to say hello to me” (O’Neill 614). He does not acknowledge the fact that he has rarely left the bar in twenty years. He still expects to be highly recognized by all of the townspeople. Hope’s true fear is not of passing cars, it is of having to face the reality that he is not as popular as he thinks, because of the alcoholic he has turned into.

Hope blinds himself from the truth” (Orr 88). The reader is delighted when informed of Hickey’s new attitude. He seems to have everyone’s best interests in mind. He is presented as the hero of the story who will “make everything better. ” Then, the reader comes to the realization that Hickey does not truly have everyone’s best intentions in mind. “Beneath Hickey’s evangelism is a hidden dimension which makes it apparent that the crusade is part of a strategy, at best a ruse to help reveal to the inmates a more fundamental aspect of their existence.

For Hickey expects each of them in turn to fail to come to terms with the outside world, and to return one by one to the backroom bar, dejected and defeated. It then becomes clear that Hickey is not the reformed salesman of the American Dream but something more sinister. The prophet of the ideology of individual self-help and success emerges as the very opposite, a harbinger of destruction who by his action unmasks the very ideology to which he appears to bear allegiance” (89). Hickey wants to crush their pipe dreams of a better tomorrow because he himself has already been forced to do so.

Hickey wants the roomers to make an effort to get over their pipe dreams only to allow them to see how difficult it really is. Hickey says to the roomers, “‘I know you’ll become such a coward you’ll grab at any excuse to get out of killing your pipe dreams. And yet, as I’ve told you over and over, it’s exactly those same damned tomorrow dreams which keep you from making peace with yourself. So you’ve got to kill them like I did mine'” (O’Neill 635). Hickey wants to rip off their masks and free them of the torture of hope (Bogard 57).

At the climax of the play, the reader is startled to find that Hickey’s new attitude has been brought about because of a death. Hickey killed his wife, Evelyn. He reveals the story of their marriage. Evelyn always forgave Hickey in spite of his frequent moral lapses. She deluded herself into thinking that every lapse was the last and Hickey would reform. This was her pipe dream. She chose to deny the fact that Hickey would never change. According to Hickey, the only way he could give Evelyn the peace she always wanted and to free her from her pipe dream of reformation was to kill her (Gagey 332).

He insists he committed the murder with love, not hate, in his heart. But suddenly, in the course of his recital, Hickey comes to the unexpected realization that he too has been deluding himself, that he really killed Evelyn because he hated her” (332). When Hickey realizes this, it becomes too much for him. Instead of facing the issue, Hickey denies he would have really killed his wife out of hate. He therefore excuses himself as being insane. Hickey says, “‘I was out of my mind. Evelyn was the only thing on God’s Earth I ever loved! I’d have killed myself before I’d ever have hurt her'” (O’Neill 640).

Hickey denies he killed his wife out of hate. In conclusion, in the bar setting, characters in Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh portray the theme of denial by embracing pipe dreams. Each of the characters in the play had a pipe dream to face. “The pipe dreams of O’Neill’s characters have the same function: they make life tolerable while the dreamers wait for Hickey or Death” (Bogard 55). The characters use pipe dreams in order to be able to become blind to their weaknesses and downfalls. They deny and refuse to acknowledge the grim reality that surrounds them. They are more content by drinking their sorrows away in Harry Hope’s bar.

From the time you enter the Falk Theatre, until the curtain rises and falls on the Stageworks productions of Picasso at the Lapin Agile, you are in for a treat. The play is an original work by Steve Martin with a running time of 90minutes, which feels more like 30minutes. Aside from the uncomfortable seating, this production is nothing short of wonderful. The Theatre has been transformed from a long movie Theater atmosphere to a quaint surrounding by means of risers that are placed directly on the stage.

The new seating divides the old Theater in half and allows for the actors and the audience to share the same space. Not only this atmosphere that makes it wonderful but also the performances, the direction, the design and the script. Set in France in 1904, the stage is a French bar called the Lapin Agile, with the action of the plot involving the characters who come into the bar and their relationship to time as well as each other. The script is an abstract look at the chance meeting of historical figures and the role these meetings will have on the future.

Perhaps one of the most attractive aspects of the script is its ability to ask the same questions of the audience that it does from one character to another. For example, the owner of the Lapin Agile, Freddy attempts to stump Albert Einstein with a mathematical problem that the audience couldnt have enough time to equate. This style of fast paced dialogue and action fills the entire script from the opening line, adding humor and wit which is only emphasized by the close attention to details.

In the set design, we first see the use of layering, with a large cyclorama that has been painted onto a piece of scrim to allow for a visual effect at the end of the play. The painting depicts a beautiful scene of sheep in a meadow in the fog, with a wall to epresent the interior of the Lapin Agile containing a painting of sheep in a meadow in the fog. On each side of this backdrop are doors: the entrance to the bar and the other the to the bathroom.

The emphasis on details can be noticed in the set with the signs that are posted on either side of the bathroom door, which swings freely when pushed. The door has a board on it the says OUI and when it is flung in the opposite direction it too says OUI a creative and pun intended wee wee. This is a subtlety in the stage design that brings the humor away from the actual text and into an unusual place, the set. Little things like these accentuate my appreciation of the production as a whole.

The lighting is also something that was exceptionally well done. The designers used a large amount of light with soft yellow and orange tones to give an overall feeling of warmth to the setting. The day moves from morning to night with the most drastic change at nightfall where the tones switch to blues and the star light shine across the cyclorama. It is perhaps the blocking from the director and the skills of the actors though that makes this performance so wonderful.

The technique of layering was used by both in how the actors are spaced throughout to allow for the focus to transfer effortlessly while maintaining a certain depth on stage. While some characters tend to dominate different sections of the script, it was the layering of the overall ensemble that gave strength to this performance. Another strength was the actors ability to relate to the current audience and find humor based on that. Each actor entered with enormous amounts of energy, making me feel as though this was opening night as opposed to closing night.

Every aspect of this production, from the blocking and the talent of the actors to the set design and the lightning, made it evident how much hard work and dedication went into this performance. Aside from the biographies in the program it was hard to differentiate between those actors who had previous stage experience and those who did not. No actor seemed to demand any extra attention while on stage and each worked effortlessly to portray a powerful stage presence. This production of Picasso at the Lapin Agile was very well done and all of those who were involved should be congratulated for making the show a success.

Moliere’s “The Imaginary Invalid” is a farcical play about a hypochondriac who is so obsessed with his health and money that he ends up neglecting his family. The story involves several different themes and plots within one family. A new interpretation of this 17th century play is now being performed at the Arts Club Theater; it incorporates some new changes and modernizations in addition to the traditional improvisation. Morris Panych has definitely succeeded in delivering a new, more comical version of Moliere’s final play. Moreover, the dominant theme of this play is body versus mind.

The play is about a wealthy, but stingy man who believes that he is constantly sick (Argan). However, there is an obvious doubt to whether he is really sick or if he is just imagining his illness. Therefore, the primary theme is Argan’s internal struggle of body vs. mind. This theme is developed throughout the play into smaller themes such as masculinity versus femininity, greed versus love, and death versus life. Two of the major changes from the text to the play are Argan’s degree of illness and his death. In the text, there are very few elaborate descriptions of Dr. Purgon’s treatment.

However in the play by Panych, there is no shortage of enemas and other “bathroom” related scenes. I originally thought this change was for comical purposes, but after some additional thought I questioned whether Argan was imagining his illness or if he really was ill. In the text, by not having too many bathroom scenes, Argan seems to be imagining his illness (thus, he is the imaginary invalid). In Panych’s stage version, Argan shows several symptoms of being ill; this definitely confuses the original play by Moliere. One of the original purposes of the play was to criticize, among other things, he medical profession in Moliere’s time.

Now, if Argan really was sick, does that mean that the doctors were correct in their analysis? No, it doesn’t. I believe that Panych intended to show that it was the doctors’ treatments that made Argan ill and eventually killed him. Another major change from Moliere’s version is Beralde’s gender and role in the play and in the family. Beralde is transformed into Argan’s sister, instead of his brother. Panych saw male versus female as a major theme. If you look at the structure of the original play, all the people who truly love Argan nd mean him well are female, except for Beralde.

In fact out of all the different characters who take advantage of Argan, only one of them is female- Beline (yet, even she has more traditional male characteristics than some of the male characters in the play). Therefore it makes more sense for Beralde to be a female in the play. Panych also changed Beralde’s role in the play. In the original version Beralde is the “man of passionate eloquence, resourceful valet, good father, master of revels, he is a foil for all the evils [in the play]: delusion, credulity, tyranny, and fear”(p110).

However, in Panych’s version, Toinette is the character who is responsible for putting an end to all the evils. She is the one who is responsible for exposing Beline as evil and she is the one who helps convince Argan that not all doctors are trustworthy by disguising herself as one of them. Therefore, Beralde’s role in the play is almost strictly comedic- she acts as a narrator. She is the first character the audience sees and hears; and, instead of being the stable brother, she comes out claiming that she is the crazy sister. Finally, the last major change is the exclusion of Punchinello Toinette’s Lover) from the stage version.

One of the major themes in this play is love. Everyone in the play, has someone to love; however, in Panych’s production the Toinette’s lover is excluded. There are two possible reasons for this. First, Panych might have decided that there were already too many plots and not enough time. Second, the maid is the heroine in the play- in the end she cures Argan of his selfishness, exposes Beline’s greed, and makes it possible for Angelique to marry the man she loves- and therefore instead of having a love, her purpose in life is to maintain order in Argan’s life. I believe that the second reason is the more probable one, out of the two.

Also, from seeing the stage version, it could be quite possible that Panych wanted Toinette to be in love with Argan. This theory may be justified by just looking at the scenes involving Toinette and Argan. In every scene in which they are together, they quarrel as if they are husband and wife or brother and sister. There are endless interpretations of what Panych really wanted to portray; was it about a man who imagined his illness in his mind and then used it to get attention from those around him, or was it about a man who was really ll and needed people to care for him?

Panych doesn’t make this clear in his version; therefore I walked out of the play feeling dumbfounded. This feeling did not overcome me after I finished the text version. It was obvious to me that in the text, Argan was only imagining his illness and that he was in dire need of attention. Argan has two groups of people surrounding him; one group (the doctors, Beline, the Notary) wanted his money and the other group (Angelique, Toinette, Beralde, Luisson) only wanted his love. The stage was quite magnificent at first and it definitely contributed o the mood of the play.

It had six doors on the right side and four doors on the left side; also, the right side was pink, while the left side was light blue. In addition to the many doors and different colours of the set, there were several different angles contributing to what was basically an optical illusion. The angle of the floor and walls made everything which was downstage appear as though it was bigger than the objects upstage. Argan and his “throne” (which was actually a big toilet) were placed in the middle of the stage; therefore allowing all the action to revolve around him.

The set was meant to symbolize the themes of the play. Pink is a colour usually associated with life, love, health, and femininity. Blue is associated with sickness, death, unhappiness, and (oddly enough) masculinity. I believe that this was a good idea in theory. The acting was superb, creative, and hilarious. I found that Panych selected a cast of actors who all work very well together and who are all very talented improvisers and comedians. I remember being very impressed by Ellie Harvie’s (Angelique) improvisation skills when she went out to speak to her “imaginary friends” (the audience).

She required some responses from a couple of audience members, who weren’t being too helpful, to explain how and where she met Cleante. The responses put her in Stanley Park, where she saw Cleante and immediately being attracted to Cleante’s fleshy left ear. This was probably one of the most successful scenes in the play as judged by audience response. As the play progressed some of the other actors, such as Ted Cole (Cleante), incorporated the audience members’ responses into his dialogue. He referred to his meeting with Angelique at Stanley Park in the scene where he and Angelique re improvising an opera in the second act.

All the actors worked very well with each other and produced many comical moments with the use of pure body language, facial expressions, and their gorgeous costumes. Toinette’s mustache that kept falling off her face when she was dressed up as a doctor is a good example of a comedic improvisation, especially when she stepped on it and yelled, “Cockroach! “. Another instance of good interaction between the actors came between Toinette and Angelique; when Angelique is describing her love for Cleante in the early part of the first act to Toinette.

Instead of letting her tone of voice be the only indicator of that she is tired of listening to Angelique’s rambling, Leslie Jones (Toinette) walks around the stage looking for any chore to keep her occupied while having to listen to Angelique. This provides the audience with several laughs and a better understanding of both of the characters on stage. The actors’ voices and actions were always clear; this was one of the factors that kept the audience involved and attentive at all times- not even once, did I not comprehend a word or action.

The acting was efinitely the most valuable asset of this play because of the interaction that occurred between the actors on stage. In addition to the brilliant stage and acting, the costumes and lighting further complimented this play. The costumes definitely had a 17th century look, but with a 20th century twist. Toinette’s dress was probably the best used throughout the play. At one point in the play, she hides several bags by standing over them and covering them with her dress. Beline’s costume was also quite amusing and it definitely also added to her evil character.

Her dress was ery different from the other actresses, which reinforced the fact that she was the only evil female character in the play. The lighting was also another contributor to the successful production. The lights didn’t change very often. When they did change it was for a purpose related to the play- whenever there was a soliloquy, all the other characters would freeze, and a spotlight would focus in on the character who was speaking. Also, in the beginning of the play there was a “shadow” act played out from behind the curtain.

For it to work, there was a light behind the actors (who ere behind the curtain) and their actions were reflected onto the curtain by the light. Besides the scenes involving fake turds and the scene where Argan shows us his buttocks, I thoroughly enjoyed my first experience in the theater. At times it appeared to be a stand-up comedy act, as late-comers were ridiculed by the actors and interaction with the audience occurred throughout the play. The play was well directed, acted, and produced and the audience response was tremendous- I was quite surprised that there wasn’t a standing ovation.

When the first production of The Cherry Orchard was performed on stage in Moscow, there was a significant difference of opinion between the author and directors. Chekhov strongly faulted the directors interpretation that the play should be preformed as a tragedy and insisted that what he had written was a comedy. The famous philosopher Aristotle defined a comedy as “an imitation of characters of a lower type who are not bad in themselves but whose faults possess something ludicrous in them. The misinterpretation of The Cherry Orchard could be mainly due to misunderstanding of the comic character. A “comic” character is generally supposed to keep an audience in fits of laughter, but this does not always have to be so. The sympathy and compassion the main character’s in The Cherry Orchard bring out in the reader should not blind them to the fact that they are virtually comic characters.

For example what character could be more ludicrous then a “typical” patrician like Gayev ,whose main characteristics according to Chekhov were “suavity and elegance,” turning to his sister and demanding that she should choose between him and a footman like Yasha? And is not the fact that Gayev became a “bank official” ludicrous, particularly since it is made quite clear to the reader that he would not be able to hold a job for even a month? Not to mention the love affair of Lyubov, ludicrous from it’s beginning to it’s tragic end?

In a letter to his wife Chekhov wrote that “nothing but death could subdue a woman like that. ” He also wrote that he saw Lyubov as “tastefully, but not gorgeously dressed; intelligent, very good natured, absent minded; friendly and gracious to everyone, always a smile on her face. Bloom 1999)” Is this the outward appearance of a women who by the end of Act II has “lost her life,” or in other words thrown it away on trifles? It is this that forms the ludicrous or comic essence of Lyubov’s character. True, Lyubovs character does have her tragic moments.

At the end of act four, Ania refers to her mother as to having been crying all morning. Lyubov also expresses a lot of stress from not having money, even though her actions do not show it. The main theme of the play can be generally taken to be the passing of the old order of Russian society, symbolized by the sale of the cherry rchard. Since Chekhov did not belong to the ranks of the Ranevsky family, unlike other authors who had written plays on the same theme, Chekhov wrote The Cherry Orchard without becoming personally involved.

He was able to see the the comedy of the whole situation and give it an artistic form of a play full of comic characters. Nothing was further form Chekhov’s thoughts then that his characters should spread a feeling of gloom or depression on his audience. Therefore the symbolism of the cherry orchard had nothing to do with it’s sale. All it expresses is one of the common reoccurring themes in Chekhov’s plays( Dimmond 1962) : the destruction of beauty by those who are utterly blind to it. ” All Russia is our Garden,” Trofimov says to Anya at the end of Act II.

Then he adds: ” The earth is great and beautiful and there are many wonderful places in it. ” Trofimov’s words are meant as a warning for all the Ranevsky’s in the world, a warning that can be understood everywhere. The Cherry Orchard is only a material object meant to symbolize many things; to Lopakhin is is only an excellent site for development, to Firs t means the cart loads of dried cherries sent off to town in “the good old days” and to Lyubov, it means a family history, which she herself never quite understands.

Every one of the many characters was carefully planned out to show some purpose in the message conveyed in The Cherry Orchard. Chekhov is able to show “the very core of humanity in even the most ridiculous of clowns in the play(Dimmond 1962). ” The importance of the use of comedy in the play conveys the importance of comedy in our lives. It shows the reader how the most ridiculous moments and decisions are probably the most important ones.

I loved this play! I never knew Shakespeare could have been this dark and deep. Every act was twisted with plots of deviance. Titus intrigued my reading, I loved his ability to stay true to what he truly honored and believed. This play was a true masterpiece between Good and Evil. Throughout reading this play I realized that in some deep way it was God verses Satan. In that the little boy whom I believe is to be God or Jesus verses Aaron, the Moor, who is Satan. Aaron is crafty and wicked to the core. His corrupt ways bringing down everyone he comes into contact with making him happier with every life he ruins.

The little boy is truly innocence and goodwill making no mistakes I see throughout the play or movie. He can be protrayed as God or Christ in that he never has a sinful act or thought in the play or movie. The boy also is like Christ or God in that in the movie he walks away with Aaron’s son and that is a sign of God saving His lost children from darkness and sin of this world. I know this a long shot but I really felt this in reading the play. I know Shakespeare did have some Christianity in his background; maybe this could be what he was conveying in a sense.

My favorite part of the play was the way that Lavinia stood up to the evil Goth Queen, Tamora in the woods in(Act 2, Scene 2, lines 60-163). An amazing display of courage from a little, frail young woman defending herself from a devil of a woman in Tamora. The words exchanged between the two are deep, piercing two-edged swords slashing through the hearts of each woman. I built a hatred for Tamora she like Aaron is the root of all evil. I know it would have been unlady like for Lavinia to physically attack Tamora; but I would have loved to see her try. The best chracter in the play would have to be Titus amazing wit and strength.

This man was truly unpredictable kept me on my toes throughout the whole play. Even though the ending of the play was the most digusting display of violence I have ever seen, but sheer brilliance. Never will I ever see revenge taken by cooking a human-pie and as a result shattering a whole family. The weakest character in the play in my opinion was Saturninus unable to make up his own mind and rule Rome. He looked to Tamora to plan act out the evil desires of his heart because he was not man enough to follow his evil intentions. Instead he enjoyed watching Tamora do the dirty work.

The only time during the play in which Saturninus shows any courage or sense of being a man is when he kills Titus;for killing his wife, Tamora. Question :What would have happened if Aaron’s son was killed? I feel if they would have killed Aaron’s son that they would have been haunted with Aaron’s spirit forever and all hell would have broke loose. Aaron had the kind of evil ability to destroy anything and everything. Keeping Aaron’s son alive also could play a part in that evil lives forever, but I like to think that his son would be the exact opposite of evil; maybe a black Jesus!

Act 1
In the fist act, Antonio is introduced as the Merchant of Venice.  A friend of him, Bassanio, desperately needs money because all of his money is on his ships and he wants to go to Belmont to visit the woman of his dreams, Portia.  Therefore he goes to Antonio to ask if he is willing to go to Shylock and ask him if he can have 3000 ducats.  Antonio agrees and goes to Shylock and explains that he has to pay it back within 3 months.  If he doesnt do this, he may cut one pound of his fair flesh…

Act 2
In Belmont, the casket bond proceeds: with two already rejected, news comes that Bassanio is at Portias gate.  Meanwhile, Shylock is left bewailing the loss of his ducats and his daughter that has run away with Lorenzo and the treasure.  Shylock doesnt like this at all because he really doenst like the Christians and Lorenzo is a Christian

Act 3
Jessica is now together with Lorenzo.  She is a Jew and hes a Christian.  Jessica is embarrassed to be a Jew is planning to change religion for Lorenzo.  Shylock is still looking for them and is very mad when he finds out that she has sold a ring, that was given to Shylock by his wife, for a monkey.  Meanwhile Bassanio is picking one of the caskets and takes the correct one; the leaden casket.  He may now marry Portia.   Because Antonio hasnt paid back the 3000 ducats he had lend from Shylock, Shylock may have one pound of his fair flesh.  Shylock takes it to court…

Act 4
Still in the court of law, Portia and Nerissa have disguised themselves as doctor and clerk.  Shylock wants his revenge on the Christians because they treat him like a dog and spit on him.  He wants his bond and the one pound of the flesh of Antonio.  Portia very smartly knows how to trick him by saying that it doesnt say in the bond that any blood can be spilt and that he has to take exactly one pound of the flesh.  No more and no less.  Shylock has to give up because he cant deny this.  Antonio is safe!  Bassanio has given the ring that he had got from Portia to the doctor and Gratiano has given the ring that he had got from Nerissa to the clerk…  They had said to their women that they would never give the rings away.

Act 5
Jessica and Lorenzo are romantically together and they are telling each other all these romantic things how much they love each other accompanied by music.  Then Portia, Nerissa, Bassanio, Antonio and Gratiano come by.  Nerissa and Gratiano start having a fight about the ring that he had given to the clerk (Nerissa was the clerk).  The same is for Portia and Bassanio who says he had lost the ring but later says he had given it to the doctor (who was Portia).  Then the two women explain that they were the doctor and the clerk and so everything had a happy ending…

The play “Oedipus Rex” is a very full and lively one to say the least. Everything a reader could ask for is included in this play. There is excitement, suspense, happiness, sorrow, and much more. Truth is the main theme of the play. Oedipus cannot accept the truth as it comes to him or even where it comes from. He is blinded in his own life, trying to ignore the truth of his life. Oedipus will find out that truth is truth, it is rock solid. The story is mainly about a young man named Oedipus who is trying to find out more knowledge than he can handle.

The story starts off by telling us that Oedipus has seen his moira, his fate, and finds out that in the future he will end up killing his father and marrying his mother. Thinking that his mother and father were Polybos and Merope, the only parents he knew, he ran away from home and went far away so he could change his fate and not end up harming his family. Oedipus will later find out that he cannot change fate because he has no control over it, only the God’s can control what happens.

Oedipus is a very healthy person with a strong willed mind ho will never give up until he gets what he wants. Unfortunately, in this story these will not be good trait to have. Oedipus goes on with his journey not knowing about what he is going to do next. Oedipus runs into some people at a crossing on this journey and quarrels with them to there death. After this, he goes along to a city named Thebes where he outsmarted a beast that was cursing the city. He received praise and joy. While gaining the trust of all that lived there he quickly became King of Thebes. The people loved him because he was such a great leader.

He was such a great king because he had a lot of love for his people and would do anything in his power to make them happy. As a result of this, Oedipus finds out that the city is in trouble unless the killer of their late king is found and punished. Little does Oedipus know that he is the killer of their late King or that the King was actually his father. Oedipus will strive for awnsers even though he has been warned not to dig to deep, for he will regret it. Being the stubborn person that he was, he forced everyone to tell what they knew about the Kings eath.

Forcing and forcing more, the King found out all about his childhood. He ended up with different parents after his mother abandoned him at birth because of the Oracle that they received telling them that there son would end up killing his father, which he did anyway. Oedipus’s mother has the same blindness that he has, she thinks that she can change fate. Oedipus was found to be guilty of killing the late King, also his father. His mother, now his wife, was proof that you cannot change fate no matter what you do. In disgust,

Oedipus physically blinded himself so he can never see what he has done again and banishes himself from civilization forever. Sophocles uses the word blindness in many different ways. He makes it a big part of the play. It is ironic that a blind person can see the future and the real meaning of life while Oedipus only sees what he wants to see and blinds himself mentally of what he does not want to see. Oedipus is a man ignorant to the true appearance of things. Towards the end of the play things change for him. Everything is too clear of what the truth is and he shows that e is a coward by trying to avoid his fate once more by blinding himself physically. “Oedipus Rex” was one of the greatest plays ever written.

The major themes in the play were outstanding and it makes you think about truth and how important and strong it really is. The way Sophocles uses the word blind in the story made it worth while. Piecing it all together made the play a lot more interesting than most other plays. “The truth will set you free” is a famous saying that Oedipus should have not listened to and should have not looked for.

Ironically, we do not assent to his words because they are exactly in the right, but because they are exactly in the wrong. By Act III, Richard III exhibits a pallet of personalities including the devoted brother, the witty wooer, and the loyal subject. We see that these almost Platonic ideals are tarnished black under the rule of Richard’s perfectly evil intent to manipulate. Lord Hastings, however, could not see until it was too late. The time to weigh the validity of the supernatural signs and omens in Stanleys dream had past.

Before his death, Lord Hastings misperceives the \”subtle, false, and treacherous\” Richard, and only saw the face (i. e. the theatrical abilities of Richard), not the heart (1. 1. 37). Why, then, do we nod at wrongness? The answer lies in the fact that we are plummeted into absolute awe. We have reached a catharsis of our emotions in response to the summit of Richards manipulative character, where Lord Hastings had actually believed that Richard was a man incapable of manipulating. Our response is a sign of assent because Lord Hastings is completely justified for trusting Richard and ignoring Stanleys forebodings entirely.

If Lord Hastings had the chance to relive his death scene, he would have two choices: to reiterate his regret for not listening to Stanley, or take a different course, and omit his regret. The study of this paper involves what types of justification Lord Hastings could offer if he had the opportunity to omit regret. His justification would necessarily contain an assessment of Richards compelling theatrical abilities. In other words, Lord Hastings would have to prove that Richard was too good of an actor for anyone to realize his acting.

Lord Hastings now carries the burden of proof on his shoulders. Lord Hastings would probably refer to the ideal representation of brotherly love Richard shows to Clarence. We are not safe Clarence, we are not safe, Richard says, probably placing his hand on his brothers shoulder while stressing we(1. 1. 70). In those words, Clarence felt warmth, despite the cold chains draping from his wrists; felt security, despite his insecurities about the reason as to why he was placed under arrest. The consolation apparently worked.

While one of the hired murderers tries to persuade Clarence into believing that Richard authorized his execution, Clarence simply brushes the idea from his shoulders, and retorts O no; he loves me and he holds me dear (1. 4. 234). Here, the leap from love to death, two seemingly opposite concepts, is too dramatic for us not to find some connection. The connection is the brilliance of Richards manipulation. Richard drove Clarence to believe that trust exists even after King Edward, his other brother, caused the imprisonment.

From that belief emerges the thought that he and Richard stood side by side against the deceit and immorality of the rest of humanity. In short, Richard psychologically presses Clarence into brotherly love, using deceit as his tool. Then death came. We were able to make Clarences death an accurate forecast (even without the support of Richards soliloquy), on grounds that death, or some other serious harm, inevitably follows from a love etched by manipulation. If one objected to this claim, then one must answer the question: why else would a person manipulate another person into love if the former does not look to cause some harmful result?

However, Clarence could not substantiate that claim, since he never even suspected the manipulative Richard in the first place. Hastings would identify with Clarence’s position, because both men were disadvantaged by the same darkness of not knowing. Thus, Lord Hastings, at the moment of his death, could justifiably refrain from feeling regret. He was not the only one to fall prey to Richard’s clever-tongued word play. Hastings’s quest for justification does not end at Clarence, however. Act I, Scene ii presents the dramatic change of Anne’s heart, going from the grieving and bitter widow to the confused and wooed prey.

Initially, the circumstances are against Richard’s goal to woo Ann and to ultimately slip the ring on her finger. He murdered King Henry and Prince Edward, whose death caused Lady Anne’s widowhood. Richard had his work cut out for him. However, Richard, self-absorbed in his ambition to ascend the throne shows indifference to the corpse of the dead king and begins courting Lady Anne romantically. Your beauty was the cause of that effect— Your beauty, that did haunt me in my sleep To undertake the death of all the world, So I might live one hour in your sweet bosom (I. 2. 21-124). The technique that Richard uses on Anne involves his feigned gentleness and persistence in praising her beauty. Richard implies that her beauty caused him to kill the prince. In other words, Edward’s death is Anne’s fault.

This tactic culminates in the highly manipulative gesture of Richard’s offering her his sword and presenting his throat to her. Now handed the opportunity to avenge her husband’s and father-in-law’s death, Anne responds \”[A]lthough I wish thy death,/I will not be thy executioner,\” probably feeling confused as well as wooed at this point (1. 2. 88-189). Thus, in light of the leap from Anne’s rancorous attitude to a mixed feeling of confusion and acceptance emerges another fragment of Hastings’s justification to refrain from regret. Yet, the sting of Richard’s manipulative character is not limited to Clarence and Lady Anne. It is a disease Richard intends to leak into the masses. After murdering Lord Hastings, Richard gains control over the court. His next political move is to manipulate the common people of England in order to pave the way to the throne. Accordingly, Lord Mayor of London becomes Richard’s next target.

The Lord Mayor portrays a citizen who believes everything a politician says, and is too optimistic to ascertain the holes in a story. Richard’s manipulative tactics have fully matured at this point, but he only needs to use little of its power to steer the Lord Mayor in his favor. Richard must manipulate the Mayor into believing that the death of Lord Hastings was deserved. What? Think you we are Turks or infidels? Or that we would, against the form of law, Proceed thus rashly in the villain’s death, But that the extreme peril of the case, The peace of England, and our persons’ safety, Enforc’d us to this execution? 3. 4. 41-46).

The Lord Mayor, like Clarence and Lady Anne, falls prey to Richard as he says \”[Lord Hastings] deserv’d his death,/ And your good Graces both have well proceeded,/To war false traitors from the like attempts\” (3. 4. 47-49). Anticipating potential opposition from the common people, Buckingham, the extension of Richard, expresses concern that the citizens \”haply may,/Misconstrue us in him [Hastings] and wail his death. The Lord Mayor assures him that \”[M]y good lord, your Graces’ words shall serve/As well as I had seen and heard him speak,\” and that he will tell all the citizens so (3. 4. 59-65).

The Lord Mayor’s gullibility contributed to the achievement of Richard’s political end more than Richard and Buckingham’s manipulation. However, Richard and Buckingham knew of the Lord Mayor’s innocence. Thus, Richard and Buckingham’s flagrant and suspicious lie, which a reasonable person would probably investigate, was not a slip on their part—it was merely a play on Lord Mayor’s innocence. Hence, Richard’s manipulation was still tactically crafted, in that he knew he did not have to use it in excess. Richard’s control over his manipulation strengthens Lord Hastings’s justification even more than the examples of Clarence and Lady Anne.

The control over manipulation implies that Richard would never let it become a self-destructive force. This study offered three ways in which Hastings could justifiably omit regret at his death scene. During his last breaths, Hastings says: For I, too fond, might have prevented this. Stanley did dream the boar and [rase] our helms, And I did scorn it and disdain to fly (3. 4. 81-83). However, a reliving of his death scene would give him the option to concede something along the lines of (minus the Shakespearean eloquence) \”I trusted Richard, and I am justified. ” From there forward, Lord Hastings would probably cite the above instances in which Richard thieved other characters of the \”subtle, false, and treacherous\” Richard (1. 1. 37). Those instances mark a submission to Richard’s manipulation, without the characters having any knowledge of such. Clarence, Lady Anne and Lord Mayor had justifiably trusted Richard, because of his theatrical ability to put on a straight face and veil his true heart. Lord Hastings could add himself to that list, instead of shaming his inability to realize Richard’s acting.

Nathaniel Hawthornes Young Goodman Brown” is a moral story which is told through the perversion of a religious leader. It is thick with allegory. In “Young Goodman Brown”, Goodman Brown is a Puritan minister who lets his excessive pride in himself interfere with his relations with the community after he meets with the devil, and causes him to live the life of an exile in his own community. “Young Goodman Brown” begins when Faith, Brown’s wife, asks him not to go on an “errand”. Goodman Brown says to his “love and (my) Faith” that “this one night I must tarry away from thee.

When he says his “love” and his “Faith”, he is talking to his wife, but he is also talking to his “faith” to God. He is venturing into the woods to meet with the Devil, and by doing so, he leaves his unquestionable faith in God with his wife. He resolves that he will “cling to her skirts and follow her to Heaven. ” This is an example of the excessive pride because he feels that he can sin and meet with the Devil because of this promise that he made to himself. There is a tremendous irony to this promise because when Goodman Brown comes back at dawn; he can no longer look at his wife with the same faith he had before.

When Goodman Brown finally meets with the Devil, he declares that the reason he was late was because “Faith kept me back awhile. ” This statement has a double meaning because his wife physically prevented him from being on time for his meeting with the devil, but his faith to God psychologically delayed his meeting with the devil. The Devil had with him a staff that “bore the likeness of a great black snake”. The staff which looked like a snake is a reference to the snake in the story of Adam and Eve. The snake led Adam and Eve to their destruction by leading them to the Tree of Knowledge.

The Adam and Eve story is similar to Goodman Brown in that they are both seeking unfathomable amounts of knowledge. Once Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge they were expelled from their paradise. The Devil’s staff eventually leads Goodman Brown to the Devil’s ceremony which destroys Goodman Brown’s faith in his fellow man, therefore expelling him from his utopia. Goodman Brown almost immediately declares that he kept his meeting with the Devil and no longer wishes to continue on his errand with the Devil.

He says that he comes from a “race of honest men and good Christians” and that his father had never gone on this errand and nor will he. The Devil is quick to point out however that he was with his father and grandfather when they were flogging a woman or burning an Indian village, respectively. These acts are ironic in that they were bad deeds done in the name of good, and it shows that he does not come from “good Christians. ” When Goodman Brown’s first excuse not to carry on with the errand proves to be unconvincing, he says he can’t go because of his wife, “Faith”.

And because of her, he can not carry out the errand any further. At this point the Devil agrees with him and tells him to turn back to prevent that “Faith should come to any harm” like the old woman in front of them on the path. Ironically, Goodman Brown’s faith is harmed because the woman on the path is the woman who “taught him his catechism in youth, and was still his moral and spiritual adviser. ” The Devil and the woman talk and afterward, Brown continues to walk on with the Devil in the disbelief of what he had just witnessed.

Ironically, he blames the woman for consorting with the Devil but his own pride stops him from realizing that his faults are the same as the woman’s. Brown again decides that he will no longer to continue on his errand and rationalizes that just because his teacher was not going to heaven, why should he “quit my dear Faith, and go after her”. At this, the Devil tosses Goodman Brown his staff (which will lead him out of his Eden) and leaves him. Goodman Brown begins to think to himself about his situation and his pride in himself begins to build.

He “applauds himself greatly, and thinking with how clear a conscience he should meet his minister… And what calm sleep would be his… in the arms of Faith! ” This is ironic because at the end of the story, he can not even look Faith in the eye, let alone sleep in her arms. As Goodman Brown is feeling good about his strength in resisting the Devil, he hears the voices of the minister and Deacon Gookin. He overhears their conversation and hears them discuss a “goodly young woman to be taken in to communion” that evening at that night’s meeting and fears that it may be his Faith.

When Goodman Brown hears this he becomes weak and falls to the ground. He “begins to doubt whether there really was a Heaven above him” and this is a key point when Goodman Brown’s faith begins to wain. Goodman Brown in panic declares that “With Heaven above, and Faith below, I will yet stand firm against the devil! ” Again, Brown makes a promise to keep his faith unto God. Then “a black mass of cloud” goes in between Brown and the sky as if to block his prayer from heaven. Brown then hears what he believed to be voices that he has before in the community.

Once Goodman Brown begins to doubt whether this is really what he had heard or not, the sound comes to him again and this time it is followed by “one voice, of a young woman”. Goodman believes this is Faith and he yells out her name only to be mimicked by the echoes of the forest, as if his calls to Faith were falling on deaf ears. A pink ribbon flies through the air and Goodman grabs it. At this moment, he has lost all faith in the world and declares that there is “no good on earth. ” Young Goodman Brown in this scene is easily manipulated simply by the power of suggestion.

The suggestion that the woman in question is his Faith, and because of this, he easily loses his faith. Goodman Brown then loses all of his inhibitions and begins to laugh insanely. He takes hold of the staff which causes him to seem to “fly along the forest-path”. This image alludes to that of Adam and Eve being led out of the Garden of Eden as is Goodman Brown being led out of his utopia by the Devil’s snakelike staff. Hawthorne at this point remarks about “the instinct that guides mortal man to evil”. This is a direct statement from the author that he believes that man’s natural inclination is to lean to evil than good.

Goodman Brown had at this point lost his faith in God, therefore there was nothing restraining his instincts from moving towards evil because he had been lead out from his utopian image of society. At this point, Goodman Brown goes mad and challenges evil. He feels that he will be the downfall of evil and that he is strong enough to overcome it all. This is another demonstration of Brown’s excessive pride and arrogance. He believes that he is better than everyone else in that he alone can destroy evil. Brown then comes upon the ceremony which is setup like a perverted Puritan temple.

The altar was a rock in the middle of the congregation and there were four trees surrounding the congregation with their tops ablaze, like candles. A red light rose and fell over the congregation which cast a veil of evil over the congregation over the devil worshippers. Brown starts to take notice of the faces that he sees in the service and he recognizes them all, but he then realizes that he does not see Faith and “hope came into his heart”. This is the first time that the word “hope” ever comes into the story and it is because this is the true turning point for Goodman Brown.

If Faith was not there, as he had hoped, he would not have to live alone in his community of heathens, which he does not realize that he is already apart of. Another way that the hope could be looked at is that it is all one of “the Christian triptych”. (Capps 25) The third part of the triptych which is never mentioned throughout the story is charity. If Brown had had “charity” it would have been the “antidote that would have allowed him to survive without despair the informed state in which he returned to Salem. ” (Camps 25) The ceremony then begins with a a cry to “Bring forth the converts!

Surprisingly Goodman Brown steps forward. “He had no power to retreat one step, nor to resist, even in thought… “. Goodman Brown at this point seems to be in a trance and he loses control of his body as he is unconsciously entering this service of converts to the devil. The leader of the service than addresses the crowd of converts in a disturbing manner. He informs them that all the members of the congregation are the righteous, honest, and incorruptible of the community. The sermon leader then informs the crowd of their leader’s evil deeds such as attempted murder of the spouse and wife, adultery, and obvious blasphemy.

After his sermon, the leader informs them to look upon each other and Goodman Brown finds himself face to face with Faith. The leader begins up again declaring that “Evil is the nature of mankind” and he welcomes the converts to “communion of your race”. (The “communion of your race” statement reflects to the irony of Brown’s earlier statement that he comes from “a race of honest men and good Christians. “) The leader than dips his hand in the rock to draw a liquid from it and “to lay the mark of baptism upon their foreheads”.

Brown than snaps out from his trance and yells “Faith! Faith! Look up to Heaven and resist the wicked one! ” At this, the ceremony ends and Brown finds himself alone. He does not know whether Faith, his wife, had kept her faith, but he finds himself alone which leads him to believe that he is also alone in his faith. Throughout the story, Brown lacks emotion as a normal person would have had. The closest Brown comes to showing an emotion is when “a hanging twig, that had been all on fire, besprinkled his cheek with the coldest dew.

The dew on his cheek represents a tear that Brown is unable to produce because of his lack of emotion. Hawthorne shows that Brown has “no compassion for the weaknesses he sees in others, no remorse for his own sin, and no sorrow for his loss of faith. ” (Easterly 339) His lack of remorse and compassion “condemns him to an anguished life that is spiritually and emotionally dissociated. ” (Easterly 341) This scene is an example of how Goodman Brown chose to follow his head rather than his heart. Had Brown followed his heart, he may have still lived a good life.

If he followed with his heart, he would have been able to sympathize with the community’s weaknesses, but instead, he listened to his head and excommunicated himself from the community because he only thought of them as heathens. “Young Goodman Brown” ends with Brown returning to Salem at early dawn and looking around like a “bewildered man. ” He cannot believe that he is in the same place that he just the night before; because to him, Salem was no longer home. He felt like an outsider in a world of Devil worshippers and because his “basic means of order, his religious system, is absent, the society he was familiar with becomes nightmarish. Shear 545)

He comes back to the town “projecting his guilt onto those around him. ” (Tritt 114) Brown expresses his discomfort with his new surroundings and his excessive pride when he takes a child away from a blessing given by Goody Cloyse, his former Catechism teacher, as if he were taking the child “from the grasp of the fiend himself. ” His anger towards the community is exemplified when he sees Faith who is overwhelmed with excitement to see him and he looks “sternly and sadly into her face, and passed on without a greeting.

Brown cannot even stand to look at his wife with whom he was at the convert service with. He feels that even though he was at the Devil’s service, he is still better than everyone else because of his excessive pride. Brown feels he can push his own faults on to others and look down at them rather than look at himself and resolve his own faults with himself. Goodman Brown was devastated by the discovery that the potential for evil resides in everybody. The rest of his life is destroyed because of his inability to face this truth and live with it.

The story, which may have been a dream, and not a real life event, planted the seed of doubt in Brown’s mind which consequently cut him off from his fellow man and leaves him alone and depressed. His life ends alone and miserable because he was never able to look at himself and realize that what he believed were everyone else’s faults were his as well. His excessive pride in himself led to his isolation from the community. Brown was buried with “no hopeful verse upon his tombstone; for his dying hour was gloom. “

The witch trials in Salem, Massachusetts in the early sixteen hundreds was a time of uneasiness and suspicion. Anyone could easily turn in his or her neighbor on the ground of witchcraft. Someone could merely say their neighbor’s spirit had attacked them during the night, which no man can prove. Nevertheless, as a God-fearing community, they could not think of denying the evidence, because to deny the existence of Evil is to deny the existence of Goodness, which is God.

The most important scene in the play was act two, scene three, here John Proctor is able to talk with his wife, Elizabeth, one last time. He decides that he will “confess” to the crime of witchcraft, thereby avoiding being hung. However, to accept what he said, the judge also requires him to sign a written confession which states that he confessed to the crime of witchcraft. Judge Danforth would post it on the church door, to use Proctor as an example to get other people to confess.

That upset Proctor greatly, because people would look down on him with disdain, and it would blacken forever his name. What was most important to him was to make a stand against the insanity of the town, for himself and for God, and using that as a last resort to make people aware of what was happening. This last stand for righteousness is an example of proctor’s great character and rationale. Arthur Miller wrote his play, The Crucible, a story about the Salem witch trials, and the panic resulting from it, as an allegory to show people the insanity of the McCarthy hearings.

He wrote it as an allegory so that, if tried by McCarthy, he ould say, “it’s just a play about the witch trials in Salem. How do you get this communist idea from it? ” The story illustrates how people react to mass hysteria, created by a person or group of people desiring fame, as people did during the McCarthy hearings. Arthur Miller, acting as a great visionary, warned us that if we did not become aware of history repeating itself, our society would be in danger. At the same time, he had to do this in a matter that would not get him arrested, hence the witch-trial mechanization.