“The Importance of being Earnest” Response – What’s in a name?

As I read the play The Importance of being Earnest, I was continually humored in how much importance was placed upon whether the main character’s name was ‘Jack’ or ‘Earnest’:

-Starting out in Act I, Algernon is adamant in ‘Ernest’ first admitting that his actual name is ‘Jack’ and then completely explain why he has two different names. I found it very humorous how Algernon somewhat bribed Jack into telling him “why [he] is Ernest in town and Jack in the country” by calling him a ‘Branburyist’ and refusing to explain until Jack reveals himself (Page 252).

-I found it ironic that in Act I Gwendolen mentions to Jack how much she loves the name Ernest and that she would never consider marrying a man without the name Ernest.

-After Jack fakes Ernest’s death, it is interesting that he is extremely desperate to be christianed Ernest as soon as possible.

- In Act II, I also found it ironic that Cecily says it has always been her dream to love someone with the name Ernest, although it is truly her and Algernon that are engaged.

-Finally, in Act III when almost every conflict is suddenly solved upon the revelation that Jack’s name is actually Ernest, I was in complete shock and somewhat frustrated that a mere name could hold so much significance to the characters of this play.

Throughout the play, I was shocked as to how much importance was placed on a name; something we consider to be a mere label, not means of identity. In today’s society, nicknames (whether similar to your birth name or not) are extremely common. It is just interesting that, contrary to the play, going by a different name would never be the grounds for an upheaval or brawl in current times.

"Interview with Kent Thompson" Response

Throughout reading the interview with Kent Thompson, two of the choices he made while staging Othello really intrigued me:

-Firstly, I was initially surprised by the fact that Thompson chose to stage Othello on the smaller theatre at the festival. At first, I disagreed with his decision as I thought Othello, being the well known and popular play it is, should be performed on the largest stage possible as to allow more individuals to see it. After reading further, however, I came to understand why Thompson made this decision. Since Othello contains so much anger, jealousy, racism, and pain, I do agree that staging it on a smaller stage would make the actor/audience relationship more intimate, creating a more dramatic effect on the audience. With this in mind, I think it would be interesting to see Othello performed on both a large stage and a smaller stage to experience the differences first hand.

- Secondly, I found it interesting that Thompson decided to cast the roles of Desdemona and Iago with actors that were a bit older than usual. As I was reading Othello, I pictured Desdemona as a very strong, intelligent, and reasonable woman. Because of this, I completely respect Thompson for using an older actress to help emphasize these character traits. However, I am less convinced of the need to cast Iago with an older individual. Although I do understand that Iago’s age could have played a role as to why Cassio was chosen over him for the position, I feel that the persona of Iago as a deceitful and manipulative villain would not be portrayed as effectively with an older actor. While I was reading the play, I thought of Iago’s personality flaws as a result of ignorance, which allows me to more easily visualize his role being played by a younger actor.    

"Othello" Response

Throughout reading the play Othello, the makeup of the character Iago both intrigued and infuriated me. I was initially shocked by Iago’s evil motives and insincere promises and how effortless it was for him to betray everyone around him, yet still portray himself as a trustworthy man with good intentions. It somewhat stunned me that although Iago lied to and took advantage of almost every character in the play, no one but Roderigo questioned his motives until the end when Emilia fully revealed him. Although the fact that only the reader knows how much Iago is screwing everyone else over throughout the play adds a sense of drama, I feel like Iago would not have gotten away with manipulating that many people for that extent of time in a realistic situation.

Also, I found it interesting that towards the beginning of the play Iago stated that “these fellows have some soul, and such a one do I profess myself” (Act I, Line 56). I immediately interpreted this dialogue as a means of possible foreshadowing since I figured there would be no reason for Iago to blatantly point out that he has a soul if he had not yet done anything to make anyone question this. Clearly, by the end of the play Iago’s actions have made him be thought of as a soulless liar who should rot in hell. This dramatic shift confirms that Iago’s words at the beginning of the play were solely an attempt at preserving his innocent and honest demeanor for as long as possible.

"Poetics" Response

I found two points stated in Aristotle’s Poetics to be especially interesting:

-Firstly, the plays we have read (and seen) so far in this course have reflected Aristotle’s idea that a poet should report what happened, but more also allude to what is likely to happen. The audience is presented with clues throughout the plot that allow them to foreshadow future happenings of the play as well as possible events that could extend past the scope of the production. For example, in Death of a Salesman, the probability that Willy was going to kill himself grew greater and greater as the plot progressed. Similarly, as the events untied throughout Medea, the audience figured out that her sons, Creon, and his daughter would not end up alive, however it is curious to ponder the probability of Medea killing herself after the play ends with the dragon chariot. Personally, I would have predicted a quick suicide following the tragic plot.

- Finally, I agree that pity and fear play a significant role in the tragic act, since that’s what will drive an emotional reaction out of a previously indifferent audience. Aristotle explains that these feelings must be incorporated into specific events of the play in order to portray the correct emotion.  I did find it interesting that Aristotle mentions that the most effective way to do this is to have the “tragic acts come within the limits of close blood relationships” (p.93). I quote that sentence because I think it is interesting to consider how frequently events such as mother killing children or brother killing brother occurred in tragedies of the past. In my opinion, I was appalled at the fact that Medea killed her children, and am extremely grateful that these types of events are not as prevalent in contemporary theatre.

P.S. Happy 10/10/10!

"Medea" Response

After reading possibly one of the most shocking and depressing plays I have ever come across, my mind ventures in many directions and feelings of confusion, disgust, disbelief, and pity consume my mind. Although the obvious tragedies of the disgusting deaths of the king and his daughter and the gruesome and unnecessary murder of the children made up a large portion of the play's essence, I noticed other aspects of the play that aided in its overall dramatic effect:

1.)    I thought it was clever that the playwright incorporated societal ideologies of the time into the dialogue. Obviously at the time, and even still today, men and women were not viewed as equal beings. These differing roles were reflected throughout the play, with women repeatedly being described as weak and emotional burdens who were the husband’s possessions. In the middle of the play, Jason even mentions that “without the female sex, life would be trouble-free.” (Medea, Line 610) I thought that mentioning the extreme inequality between men and women of the time added an underlying layer of conflict, which was a nice added touch to a play with so much upfront, in-your-face conflict.

2.)    I also enjoyed the sense of irony that took place in the play. For example, after Medea pleads Jason to try to convince his bride that the children can live with them, Jason agrees, thinking that he is securing the wellbeing of his family. As we find out, this is the most harmful thing Jason could have agreed to do, since his bride is poisoned when Jason brings the children to come speak with her. Overall, the irony keeps the reader on their toes, forcing them to constantly question the relationship between the inner motives and actions of the characters.