Was it Elesin's fault??????

One critical aspect of this piece that we did not discuss in class was the reaction of the Yoruba tribe once the ritual suicide was not accomplished by Elesin. The reaction could have been easier to comprehend if he decided by his own will that he did not want to complete the ritual. I constantly remind myself not to place judgement on their actions during this scene. Their response was another reminder in the cultural differences between this tribes paradigms and our conditioned way of thinking. Olunde's remark to his father when he realizes he is still alive gave me chills. Olunde says, "I have no father, eater of left overs." Can you imagine speaking to a loved one in that manner over a situation that was not entirely their fault. Which makes me further ponder this situation. Did Elesin have accountability in the failure to complete the ritual?

In scene five he pleads with Iyaloja. He states "I need neither your pity nor the pity of the world. I need your understanding. Even I need understanding. You were present at my defeat." She answers him in parables but later eludes to a statement she made in scene one. When Elesin selected a woman to take into the "bridal chamber" , she cautions him to make sure the seed he leaves attracts no curse. Elesin choice to select a bride for his sexual desire was not a requirement for his transition. Is it possible that in their spiritual realm, the gods werent happy with his choice? If he would have not made this choice and the events occured as they did, would the village still hold him accountable? This question will never be answered. What is certain is the severity, discipline and wieght that honour holds in this culture.


My next thought about this reading was the aspect of christianty used as a tactic by the British. I found myself utterly disgusted by the British disassembling their way of life for their own profit and using christianity as a tool to do it. However, Iam not oblivious to the thoughts that may have ran through my mind if I had knowledge that someone one in the community I was living was planning to kill theirself. What would any of you do? What would be your obligation now that you have (unlawfully) control of their way of life?

As a christian who considers myself more spiritual than religious, I struggle with this type of missionary conversion. I struggle with the racial implications they place on the portrayl of Jesus as the white savior with flowing blonde hair and blue eyes. These images painted that would cause Joseph to make a statement like, " Oh no, master is white man. and good christian. Black man juju can't touch master." For centuries, people have twisted and turned the bible to support whatever theory they want to support. It has been used out of context for all types of negative and corrupt gains. In this miseducation, a main theme is lost. The simple source is love.

Loving your neighbor, doesnt make you come to another continent and steal their land and break down their way of life? Love considers your fellow man in the way you consider yourself.

Love is patient and kind;love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way. It's not irritable or resentful; It does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all thing. So now faith, hope and love abide, these three, but the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:4)

In Your Free Time . . .

I know that right now, mid-production, free time seems as magical and impossible as unicorns. Nevertheless, a friend of mine showed me a couple of video clips that reminded me of discussions we'd had in class. You may have seen them before but, if not, these clips are quite funny. Both feature Hugh Laurie, with Stephen Fry in one and Rowan Atkinson in the other.

The first is a mock Shakespeare Master Class where they focus on the importance of language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL5aBB1ZPtE&feature=youtube_gdata

The second is a "minor" rewrite suggested to Shakespeare from his editor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwbB6B0cQs4&feature=youtube_gdata

If you have the time and haven't seen them already, enjoy!

Death and the Playwright's Intentions

It’s disturbing that Wole Soyinka wants to dictate the interpretations in his works. According to the author’s notes before Death and the King’s Horseman, he seems thoroughly engaged in the idea of bringing about an essence of sorrowful, musical transitions and metaphysical confrontations, while refusing to admit that his work is largely about how the Yoruban community is being corrupted.

This refusal to focus on themes of the environment might have to do with Soyinka’s upbringing. He has to write about a westernized Yoruban culture because that’s just the way it is now. These themes are a part of his life, and so he just writes in that mode without thinking about it. However, criticizing those with a different perspective is a flaw. All playwrights should be aware of the fact that their audience always has a right to an individual perspective. He cannot be angry when someone finds one theme more substantial than the ones he intended. Soyinka even went so far as to call those with a different perspective perverse.

This “perverse” writer of the introduction to his novel, Season of Anomy, thought that the book was about the west’s influence in African traditions. Soyinka didn’t want people to think this of Death and the King’s Horseman this way either. Yet, how could one look at Death and the King’s Horseman and not think that it was about the western world’s corruption of African tradition? The scenes are split up so that sometimes it is from an African perspective, with Elesin the focal character, and other times from a European perspective, with the Pilkings in focus. There is only one time that Elesin and Simon Pilkings talk to eachother, and that’s at the end. If Soyinka wanted us to solely focus on the metaphysical confrontations and “Threnodic” music, he would not add so much hope for Elesin in the women’s songs, and he would not focus half of the time on a seemingly atheist British man. The main reason for the sorrow in the play was the influence of this British man on the community. Therefore, it would seem obvious to blame the westernization.

Based on Soyinka’s goals as a playwright, he does not seem to use his tools very cleverly. Not only does he put down those that have spent time focusing on him (namely the writer of the introduction of his novel), but he also doesn’t clearly outline his plays in a way that benefits his motives of bringing out only an essence of Thredonic music and metaphysical confrontations. However, if he succeeded in this, the play would be flat. Soyinka should be grateful that he failed at making his play void of depth.

Where Have All The Men Gone?

A question that we briefly brought up in class pertaining to Come Down Burning by Kia Corthron was: where are all the men? Upon reading the script and watching the play, I immediately made the assumption that this is a feminist play; a play dealing with the lives of women and dealing with the decisions that woman are sometimes forced to make. Like the play, I left the men exempt. In doing this, I found myself discriminating against others based on sex, assuming that men "wouldn't understand the decisions of a woman in this situation". I will be the first to say that this is the wrong attitude and the wrong assumption. Perphaps a man would not be able to understand the significance of abortion, but at this point, I cannot understand those specific circumstances either. I also cannot understand what it is like to live in deep poverty or be disabled, both issues the women in Come Down Burning dealt with. So it would be ridiculous of me to assume that because men are not written into the show that men in the audience would not be able to relate. As suggested in the book "Women in American Theatre" by Helen Krich Chinoy and Linda Walsh Jenkins, I will acknowledge that men have been written out of the script Come Down Burning. And now I will attempt to write them back in.

There are a few men that we know of in the script based off of the character's talk of them. Bink mentions a man named Gary. As Bink asks Skoolie about a performing an abortion for her, Skoolie replies that someone needs to watch the kids in the meantime. "My Gary will watch 'em. He knows it got to be done." ( Scene 2, p 13). From this we can assume that 1. Gary is Bink's husband, 2. He understands her decision on the abortion and supports it, and 3. He is mature enough to watch over not only his children, but other's children as well. From these assumptions, it is safe to label Gary as a loving, understanding father figure. The script also mentions another man, Willie Joe's father. He is said to have left Tee and the children when Willie Joe was one years old, forcing Tee to move in with her sister. The man who got Tee pregnant is unknown. From this the assumption can be made that the men in Tee's life tend to run out on her. Another man mentioned in the script is Mr. Jim, Skoolie's and Tee's father who died when they were children. The script is specific to say that he worked for twenty-three years and left with "not enough pension to feed a flea." (Scene 2, p 12). But he could be painted as a hard working man supporting his family until his death. There are also several boys mentioned in the script, Willie-Joe, Tee's son, Jazzman, Tee's baby,Charlie Wilt, the cussing boy in Evie's class, and Jay, Bink's son. Willie-Joe is the only male seen onstage. Gary's father is also mentioned, as he is the reason Bink moved back to town, so that Gary could take over his hardware store. (Scene 2, p 11). It seems that the men who are mentioned by name are the men who are worth mentioning.

Although I do feel that Come Down Burning is a feminist play, I don't think it is a feminist play that men have no part in, which is how I originally felt. However, in taking a closer interpretation of the script, the men who are written in the script take away from the feminist aspect of the show. There are men written into the play as "good" men who are still around, and "bad" men who leave their wife and children behind. I think this makes another strong view on how men are intertwined with the decisions of women concerning abortion. The script almost punishes the family without a man with the loss of Tee's life, where the family that includes a patriarchy is blessed with the survival of Bink. Was this really the purpose of men in the script? Could this be another aspect of the play: that a man in the family is needed in order to survive; and that a female (Skoolie) attempting to replace the patriarchy is doomed to fail? If so, it would certainly change some views I have of the show, especially taking the feminist view into consideration.

ONLY English in America!

During our discussion of My Fair lady today in class the conversation took a real quick turn to people in America speaking other languages. We were not able to delve deeply into this issue and I thought it’s a good one to discuss, so I just had to vocalize my opinion. I am of the opinion that everyone in this country should learn this language.

If I should travel to a foreign country I would not expect them to learn my language, but for me to learn theirs. Is that such a hard thing to do? I understand many people come from all over to live here and to have the “American Dream” so should that not entail learning the language?

My best friend (whom ill call G) has a grandmother who is completely helpless because she does not know our language, she moved here in the early 60’s from Italy and never bothered to learn English. I don’t find this very safe if she should need an emergency. Her entire life she has lived with her family who had been schooled here and all speak English. I do know my friend has tried to teach her English so she could get around. She refuses saying it’s “her country now and thinks we should all know Italian”. She is living with my friend but is becoming a burden on the family but they are having a problem finding a home that can accommodate her language needs. They are in Southern New Jersey and have found some homes, but most are in NY state or NY city. That just opens a whole new can of worms with her and New Yorkers.

America is a melting pot of many nations, religions, and ideals. Can’t we have one thing in common?

Is Eliza Doolittle a Prostitue Archetype?

We really saw some wonderful presentations on "My Fair Lady" today. I would like to focus particularly on the remake which involved Eliza becoming a New York stripper. What I loved about the concept is that it creatively put the terms of the play in a setting that many Americans understand (or think they understand). However, I am really wrestling with the idea of Eliza Doolittle as a stripper or even a sex worker. I think this concept is riddled with pitfalls and may only serve to make Liza's character little more than a prostitute archetype. That being said I wonder if in the original version of "Pygmalion" and later "My Fair Lady" there is a concept of Eliza selling herself and selling out in order to elevate her status.
In Act II of "Pygmalion" and Act I Scene 3 of "My Fair Lady" Eliza tolerates an onslaught of insults and name calling from Higgins. For example Higgins says in both plays,"Pickering, shall we ask this baggage to sit down, or shall we throw her out the window." Thankfully Eliza retorts "I won't be called baggage when I offer to pay like any lady!" Eliza definitely stands up to Higgins when his insults become unbearable, but she decides to subject herself to his abrasive nature. She endures much of the unprovoked antics of Higgins because in the end she has an agenda of using his knowledge to help herself. However in her effort to improve herself is Eliza compromising too much of herself and thus becoming a prostitue archetype?
Honestly I would say at most Eliza Doolittle is a mini prostitute archetype. The screenwriters of "Pretty Woman" decided to distort the "Eliza Doolittle " figure into a mega prostitute archetype. She literally is a street walker. Besides occupational differences the main distinction between "Pygmalion" and "Pretty Woman is within the context of the relationships between the male and female characters. In "Pretty Woman" ,especially at the end, Julia Robert's character agrees to be rescued by Richard Gere's character. There is a feeling that the this character's only option was to be a street walker or the wife (or girlfriend) of her john. The dynamics of the male female relationships reduces the film to a "patriarchal mode of fantasizing woman'...." (Bernheimer, 220). "Pygmalion" and "My Fair Lady" don't have the dynamic of Higgins rescuing a whore but rather of Higgins demanding that his creation stay in her place. What makes Shaw's work more interesting is that there is the hint that Eliza having gotten what she needed from Higgins is now capable to go out on her own and create her own life.
There are different examples in the "Pygmalion" where it appears that Eliza puts up with too much from Higgins. However, what keeps Eliza from being pigeon holed to a prostitute archetype is that in the end she does have a sense of who she is and how to make it work for her. She even proposes to Higgins that she may use his trade secrets to gain employment with his rival. Basically there are several moments in Pygmalion where Eliza appears to have levels of self actualization. If we remake Eliza into a stripper or any other over sexualized character it minimizes the nuances of her development in the play.

If only I had a better title for This

I feel like there is an assumption being made that Higgins and Eliza made the most logical decision, therefore they are happy with their decision, and I don't see that. Also, I don't give anyone the credit of being completely logical in a moment of both intense emotion, and confusion, so I think if Higgins could conjure up anyway to tell Eliza to stay, he would of, but that was not the case. In my opinion, their final decision was not based on anything more than the fact that Higgin's couldn't of asked her to stay even if he wanted to. What I'm trying to get across is the concept that, though it was impossible for the two of them to be together, I feel both of them might never get over the fact that it didn't happen.
All this derives from Higgin's fascination with Eliza. Though argument can be made of what exactly his intentions are, Eliza is an attractive girl that is unlike any Higgin's has ever encountered, and for that reason he cannot put his finger on the finite reason Eliza astounds him. To me it has something to do with the fact of her wit and confidence, regardless of her lower class. Higgins created all of her that appeared prestigous, and high in social class, but he couldn't alter her persona in it's truest form. This made her a mysterious uncomprehendable toy almost to Higgins.
Eliza goes through a similar problem, except her dilemna is much less a controlled choice. Eliza wants Higgins to just cave in and say he wants her. That's why she puts up with all of his slanderous insaults, and disregard of her accomplishments.
In conclusion, I think both of the characters left the situation disatisfied but not surprised, but due to the unforgetable nature of their encounters together. I don't think they'll forget about each other anytime soon, though I also highly doubt they could of ever been together.