In class we began discussing why Joshua seems to be inconsistent in his character. The question posed is: “Why can’t Joshua be played by a black man?” He claims in the beginning of the play, “My skin is black but oh my soul is white./ I hate my tribe. My master is my light./I only live for him. As you can see, / What white men want is what I want to be.” But later in the play Joshua can easily be interpreted as a slave who does not think his master is his light. At the end of Act I, he holds a gun up to Clive, and the audience can assume (or not) that Joshua kills his master. He not only doesn’t appear in Act II, but he is completely forgotten. Plain and simple, this is not consistent. So why does the playwright insist Joshua be cast as a white man? This opens a floodgate of questions for me. After much thinking, I have come up with a subtle and weak solution: Cloud 9 is consistent with it’s inconsistency. Our lovely matriarch in Act I, Betty, must also suffer the playwright’s intentions in casting, as she is played by a man. She claims in the beginning of the play, “I live for Clive. The whole aim of my life/Is to be what he looks for in a wife./I am a man’s creation as you see,/And what men want is what I want to be.” For me, this stimulates from an age-old argument that says only a man could play the perfect woman, because a man knows exactly what makes the perfect woman from his perspective. Betty strives to be the perfect woman as seen through a man’s eyes. I directly relate this to Joshua; that he wants to be the perfect ‘slave’ as seen through a white man’s eyes. This is something consistent in the play. And it turns out Betty does not honor her beginning statement either, she develops a crush on Harry and speaks on more than one occasion about running away with him. This is not a woman “who lives for Clive.” So it is that Churchill is consistent with both characters in their inconsistency. In the play’s senselessness everything makes more sense with this solution. As we discussed, Churchill breaks Aristotelian format, purposely drawing lines in the plot that never meet or even disappear. Churchill does as Betty says at the end of Act II, “But if there isn’t a right way to do things you have to invent one.” But I am left with one more question that the Consistent in Inconsistency Rule does not answer. By still staying consistent throughout the play (even if it’s with inconsistencies) isn’t she still following Aristotelian formats?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I like Beth’s idea about the consistency of inconsistency. I think too often we go to the theater or to the movies to see a nice and easily resolved plot that features characters with simple character arches. When we go see works that are unambiguous and neatly tied up in 90+ minutes, we usually go because we are hoping to escape from the world around us, which is anything but consistent.
This is, I think, one of the major themes of Churchill’s play: life is consistent only in that it will forever remain inconsistent. Joshua, Betty, and every other character in “Cloud 9” manage to contradict themselves, others, and their world with almost every breath. Yet, as Beth says, they manage to consistently be contradictive. Joshua doesn’t have one moment where his black and white elements are seesawing; the entire first Act is nothing but a warped parody on that back and forth motion of a beloved playground toy. This is of course applicable to the other characters as well.
For me, though, the inconsistency of character wasn’t the most annoying or distracting element of the play. Rather, I found myself growing more agitated as each character, both intentionally and unintentionally, did not hear anything that the other characters were saying. Entire scenes passed with characters talking at one another rather than to one another. Of course, returning to the consistency of inconsistency, this inability/refusal to listen was not present throughout the entire course of the play, only at select moments. And it definitely is real to life. How often do we talk over one another rather than carefully following the listening, speaking prescribed order?
Where does that leave us in terms of playscript interpretation? Should we just embrace Beth’s idea that the play is consistently inconsistent and nod our heads in acceptance (even when we don’t understand)? Do we have any other choice?
Honestly, I don’t think we do. I do, however, think that this play can’t be studied or even performed without an understanding of how it was crafted. I’ve played that impromptu game with the playing cards and when Beth mentioned that Churchill used that knowledge from that game, I felt like a light when on in my head. “Cloud 9” is a lengthier, more stylized version of that game. I wonder what would happen for audiences if the actors first played that game, impromptu style, and then went into the actual script of the play itself? I can’t help but feel that although that move wouldn’t remove the confusion of consistent inconsistency, it might make audience members (and actors, directors, etc.) realize that “Cloud 9” is a crazy play but it’s also a fairly accurate slice of life: the mother of inconsistencies.
Excellent points! Beth, your post made me think of something I hadn't considered before. I wonder if there's a way to read the first act as a sort of expressionist play. That is, I wonder if it doesn't express all of Clive's unreasonable assumptions and fears. I wonder if it isn't just that Clive wants to believe Joshua and Betty live only for him; that he fears being cuckolded or shot by his disgruntled servant; that he fantasizes about Mrs. Saunders; that he fears that his son might be gay, and fantasizes that he can humiliate Harry by spurning his sexual advances. So the first act is everything through the perspective of the colonizer.
Then the second act, in a different era, becomes more realistic in that it represents a shift in perspective. Everyone can be seen on their own terms, not just through the eyes of the patriarch in charge.
Good to note that the one thing that stands out is the constant possibility for things to change in unexpected ways. Does this make it a particularly hopeful play, do you think?
Also, that status game does make things very clear: note that a lot of the changes in Act I have mostly to do with shifts in power and control. Do you think that power is shared more equally in the second act?
Post a Comment