A Raisin in the Sun Response
The vibe I got from reading this play was that of weariness, as Hansberry describes the set in her stage directions: “Weariness has, in fact, won in this room.” The Youngers have had a rough time and the condition of their house and constant fighting show it. I really liked reading this play because of its portrayal of hardship in low-income urban communities, which lets outsiders see into a world that they may be unfamiliar with, and showing them how easy they may have it compared to others who are not as fortunate.
Race is heavily emphasized in this play, and I remember the impact it had on me when I first read it in high school. It was how I first learned the definition of the word “assimilation.” I had never really been aware of assimilation of a concept, but after learning about it through the play, I realized that there were people all around me, including even myself, who are still trying to figure it out. While I cannot speak on behalf of all minority groups in America, I can offer my life experience. Being different from the norm in America is not easy, and can cause much inner conflict. Although I don’t really talk about it with other people, I often struggle with balancing my American identity and my Hispanic identity. While I don’t want to seem different from everyone else in my classes where often I am the only Hispanic person, I also feel guilty whenever I downplay my Hispanic-ness. I actually usually adjust my speech and personality to match whomever I am talking to at the moment—and the members of each group that I am apart of usually want me to be like them. The Younger’s struggle with deciding whether or not to assimilate and figuring out what that would mean for them is a struggle that is happening all over America, often behind closed doors. The play made me aware of how common this inner conflict is, and I have tried to be more sensitive to it ever since. It also made me think about race and poverty, and the unrest it can cause in the household as individuals are trying to express their frustrations with our society in a safe place.
Glengarry Glen Ross Response
Glengarry Glen Ross was a little bit hard for me to follow but I think I can see why it is regarded as such a good movie. The dialogue, while vulgar, was very sophisticated and the acting was top-notch. I found it difficult to watch because it has long scenes and was not very visually stimulating, and I tend to enjoy entertainment that is visually interesting to watch. There weren’t many scene changes that stood out and the film felt a bit monochromatic. This is understandable and fits the movie, however, so I support the director’s choices. The bland color palette of the film parallels how bland and dreary office life can be and is a good background on which to play the contrasting fiery exchanges between the main characters.
In addition to having a gray color palette, the morality in this film was also quite gray, which is part of the reason the movie is so interesting. All throughout the movie, I found myself changing my mind on who I was rooting for. The characters I thought were going to rob the office ended up not doing it and the guy I thought was an honest salesman ended up doing so instead. The movie made me think about how gray working that kind of job can be, and what otherwise good people would do under the right circumstances. My favorite scene was where Williamson realizes that Shelley Levene was the one who committed the robbery. I thought that Levene was going to be the only character I could trust but the look on his face said it all. I thought that Lemmon’s reaction to Spacey’s realization was one of the best acting moments in the film. I also really liked Spacey’s “will you go to lunch?” scene because I have never seen anyone so serious about lunch before. The sales and business worlds are completely unfamiliar territory for me, so it was cool to gain some insight by watching this very well-written film from a probably very well-written play.
Glengarry Glen Ross Response
Glengarry Glen Ross by David Mamet, written in 1984 is his Pulitzer prize and Tony award-winning play written in 1984, and as rightly said by a critic but would be definitely more appropriately titled as “Death of a F***** Salesman” because of the use of profanity. I saw the movie version, which was directed by James Foley and starred a power-house cast that featured, Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, Ed harris, Alan Aarkin, Kevin Spacey, Alec Baldwin and Jonathan Pryce. Based around the lives of a bunch of New York City salesmen, who work for a firm called Mitch & Murray, soon find their lives turned upside down, when their corporate office decides to send a fellow-salesman, Blake (Alec Baldwin), to talk to all of them regarding their sales specifically and the number of “closes” made by them ( however, I failed to see how what he said was “motivational”) – ultimately, putting a condition that would reward the highest number of closes (or the best salesman) with a new Cadillac and that the bottom two salesmen would be fired. Therefore, this sets some turmoil amongst the many, different salesmen, who choose to handle this situation depending on the threat they perceive this to be. Al Pacino as Ricky Roma, already the top salesman, doesn’t flinch a nerve because he is already on top of the sales board. On the other hand, Jack Lemmon as Shelly, having a sick daughter, and being an almost “dead-beat” after having worked many years for Mitch & Murray finds it essential for himself to find or resort to the leads for him to keep his job. With two of them so hell-bent on getting these precious “leads” (Jack Lemmon as Shelly and Ed Harris as Moss), with the others setting such a grim undertone, it is difficult to determine, who amongst them would have broken into the office to steal the leads, initially. This is left untouched by the author and director, when it is only revealed in the end – something, which is so unexpected and especially, the way in which it was revealed. But, obviously, having seen many of them plot or suggest this idea makes the audience completely aware of the fact that it would have to be someone from within the office to have stolen the leads from the office. Glengarry Glen Ross is characterised by a very fluid plot, which changes rapidly throughout the narrative, but never accelerates to become unrecognisable, with some great transitions. It all very instrumented. The character portrayals by each of the cast members is extremely well-done, Al Pacino as Ricky Roma, being my favourite! Although, If I’m honest, it was hard for me to sit till the end of the movie because of the pace it chose to take to further it, with so many stops in the middle, having a dialogue-intensive script and plethora of scenes (and f****). But the end doesn’t fail to surprise anyone, simply because of the way things turn out to be: so extreme. Kevin Spacey’s (as Williamson, the manager) voice has been stuck in my head from the end of the movie, when he is about to turn in Shelley after he realised that he was the one responsible for the burglary in the office: “Because I don’t like you” – all in all, Glengarry Glen Ross is a very iconic play written for its time simply because of its tone, premise and plot structure, but it specially struck a chord with me because of the wonderful performances given by the very memorable cast.
A Raisin in the Sun Response
A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry is a tribute and endeavour on the author’s part to write about instances, creating realistic portraits of African-American life. Set in south-side Chicago, it is a play that powerfully addresses so many issues relevant to the African-American experience in the 1950s – a massive precursor to what eventually became the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. A Raisin in the Sun, I would like to argue, is the portrayal and characterisation of the unrest that arose amongst Black people, as they were forced to be content with their inferior status, in pre-Civil Rights America. This idea is presented as a stark contrast by the author’s two, central characters: Walter and Mama Younger. Mama is content with the money she is getting from her husband’s life insurance and the house she buys with it in an all-White neighbourhood, not wanting anything more. This is intended by Hansberry to represent the views of an entire, older generation of African-Americans, who were just happy in their marginal place in American society, thinking about this oppression as some sort of privilege they were being entitled to, or were just too scared to speak up. On the other hand, Walter is representative of the new era of Black-American, who isn’t content with his place in the society in which he exists in, and wants to be better off, earning more money through his investment, living in a better house and having a better life. This inherent generational and aspirational rift is a key struggle that the author tries to highlight, where the Black identity comes into question and the real place and position of the race too. The second contrast that is made to resemble two opposite ends of a spectrum through the two characters of George Murchison, who is described to be a “fully assimilated Black man” as he is educated and has been charged to have disowned his African heritage and Joseph Asagai, a man who teaches, Beneatha (Walter’s sister) about her African ways and urges her not to assimilate to “White ways.” This spectrum is representative of the different ways Black people are made to define their own existence in a predominantly and powerful White society, either by conforming to the “norm” or vehemently and constantly being in protest against it. Therefore, playing on these kind of dynamics and positioning them in an individualistic narrative constructed on social issues, Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun has carved its place in literature as an honest and inspiring drama about the condition of Black-Americans before the Civil Rights Movement.
What I found to be the most appealing was the title of the play, taken from the famous Langston Hughes’s poem, which so wonderfully captures the tonal essence of this work:
“What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
Like a raisin in the sun?”
A Raisin in the Sun was a fascinating reading experience for me as I found the author’s voice to be so uniquely honest and serene as she lay the words down to her ingeniously written narrative. The emotions in her words transcended the pages and it becomes a deeply emotional, empathetic and sympathetic experience for any reader.
Inherit the Wind Review
The play starts off on a controversial topic which has plagued the growth of human society throughout the years. The main character Bertram Cates was jailed in his small southern town for teaching his students about Darwin’s theory of evolution. The political aspects of this play is interesting to me because of how the dynamics change when a person of power enters the play. The politician in this play was also a strong advocate for the bible and used his influence to alter the perception of Mr. Cates. Even to his own friend, Rachel Brown, he was able to make her question whether or not she helped her friend’s case. The power of politics takes on many forms and in this play it takes on the power of manipulator. The outside pressures continued when a prominent lawyer decided to defend Mr. Cates.
I am currently working to attend law school after a few years of work and an area of law that fascinates me has always been jury selection. The selection process is much more painstaking then Inherit the Wind portrays it to be. They also make it same like picking jurors are revolving doors that never can really stop. In reality every move made when determine the jury for a trail is calculated. From the people that get rejected to the people that make it, no one is just there for comedic reason. That is what I felt was happening in this play, they were selecting people to make the scene funnier. The play mocked a process that I believe is critical to every successful trail.
Raisin in the Sun review_Paul Ahn
“A Raisin in the Sun” is tad different from the plays we read before. It was strictly not about an event but about the hardship of the day to day life of living in the south Chicago harlem. It is about the reality and difficulty of making choices in order to move on into a better life. Mama, Walter, Ruth, and Beneatha all have their own dream which will bring them a better life. Mama and Ruth wants a better living condition that will bring their family closer and eventually set them on a better track. While Walter wants to invest in a liquor store which he believes will solve their future financial problems. Finally Beneatha, a smart and ambitious woman she is, wants to pay for her medical school tuition. Each of them has their own ideal outcome which in some sense is all a gamble because none of them know what will really happen until it actually happens.
During their dillema due to Ruth becoming pregnant Mama decides to move to a better (Mostly populated by white demography) neighborhood with the insurance money. It turns out the members of the community that they were trying to enter decided to give them a buy out payment so that they would stay out of their neighborhood, afraid that a black family would cause problems. This is the part where you can see that not only is it themselves that needs to be fought in order to better themselves but also battle the prejudice of the world. Outrageous at such demands but at the same time Walter who has lost large sum of the insurance money due to his friends scheme debates on taking the money. Again it shows the reality between giving into the reality or in other term, an easy way out, and trying to fight for whats right. But I believe even though I agree with the rest in saying that it is an outrageous thing what the white representatives did but in if I were in Walters position at the time I can’t say for sure that I would deny the money. At the time their future was bleak in term of the money they had left. They were not sure of the future. I keep repeating the uncertainty of the future because from what I read in the script I got the feeling that large part of the play was trying to portray the difficulty and the courage it would take in order for people to take a step forward into the unknown, and it is what a lot of the African Americans did during the time period in order move one step closer to fighting prejudice. The family could have just decided to receive the payout and use the money to improve their life or even move to another community with the money. But if they were to take the money, they knew that next if another similar thing happens they would already have done something similar to it will be easier to give in.
Glenngarry Glenn Ross review_Paul Ahn
Gah sales, I can’t say I’ve worked professionally as a salesman but I’ve worked at Emory telefund center (That’s where we call alumni and ask for donations) and the stress of calling and asking for a buy is just damn stressful. I always felt that in the two notoriously hard jobs, sales and customer service, the first one was the harder one. The reasoning behind it is that in customer service at least the customer comes to bother you but in sales you gotta go and bother them. As a person who does not intruding on others bubble sales job was just a pain in the bottom. When I realized what was going on in “Glengarry Glen Ross” I could relate to the stress the characters felt. Just as the movie contains a lot of profanity I understood why. The acronyms, when Blake flips the board and the acronyms come up I instantly felt stress. The emory telefund call center also had a similar acronym and to be honest it was very much all a load of manure. Some people were good at closing, and some people weren’t and no matter the acronym, that doesn’t change easily. It is not exactly a calculated and developed skill. The dialogue between Dave and George really felt down to earth for all regular office/corporate worker with their daily grind. It really connected with the last weeks “Waiting for Godot”. The dialogues were so real I really felt stress. When Shelley speaks to John the manager in order to get the better Glenngarry leads you can feel the desperation. His job is on the line, his daughter is sick, and the leads are trash. But what Kevin Spacey said also makes sense, he has his own family as well. Something goes wrong, his family is in trouble as well. But his move with the cash for the new better lead shows his not so straight personality.
Working under fear and duress I feel is not a good motivator. Now Ricky, as seen from his monologue which inspired the regular man to buy the land, has talent. When the set up robbery takes place Ricky shows as how it is. The old leads are useless and since Ricky has accomplished a lot, he had the right to complain. Shelly comes in happy since he closed a big sale, and tells his war stories. Ricky comments about how Moss is just an asshole who galores about his own sale but cannot be happy about his friend’s sale. All in all, their whole world seems like a mess. Their up and down depends on the sale so it is erratic and half of their sales are based on border line deceit. It is just chaotic. When Ricky’s client comes to get his money back the stress level goes up. From here on I can just tell that their business really borders on deceit (persuasion) and bafflement. Everyone is uptight because everyone is on the line. It even turns out Shelly’s sale is a bogus one and Ricky’s encouragement does not help.
It can be a messy world out there and the movie portrays it well.
A Streetcar Named Desire Response
A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams is a play written in 1947, which provides us with an insight into a lot of social issues or ideas, as they were perceived to be at the time – mental health, the idea of chastity, homosexuality, among the many others. But, most of all, the reason why this play has consistently been called the greatest play to have been written by any American playwright, is solely due to Williams’s genius in scripting a riveting narrative, which is interspersed with complex characters and resounding, associated instances, becoming his own, very unique interpretation of the human condition. The premise itself is very intriguing in the way Williams sets the tone for the intricate plot that he, later, conjures: a distressed (and later, even deranged) Southern belle, Blanche Du Bois, from Oriole, Mississippi comes to live with her sister and brother-in-law, Stella and Stanley Kowalski, after having lost her family’s ranch “Belle Reve” claiming to have been given a sabbatical from her job as a high school English teacher (when she was actually fired for having been in an affair with a student who was a minor). The cast that I saw on screen as Blanche, Stanley and Stella, couldn’t have been better-chosen, and each of their powerful performances have remained with me: forcing me to only remember Vivien Leigh as Blanche and Marlon Brando as Stanley. A Streetcar Named Desire, the film, mainly consisted of these extremely rememberable performances for me, which successfully stirred up the same emotions and portrayed the different scenes, Williams writes about in the play. Whether it was Stanley’s angry animal spirit or raw sexuality, which Brando could not have portrayed better or Blanche’s insanity spewed by societal misunderstanding and individual complexes that Leigh, so wonderfully captured, these convoluted characters are the reason A Streetcar Named Desire does have a powerful effect on anybody who watches it, and to whatever capacity he/she may choose to interpret it.
There are two themes from this movie that particularly hit me the most, which, coupled, became a central force in its appeal: human desire and flaw. None of the characters are perfect, everyone has flaws: whether it is Stanley’s drunken, violent self, Stella’s overbearing and submissive nature, or Blanche’s severe complexities that force her to the brink of insanity. The second theme, desire, is something all of these characters have in common as well. Individually, it was hard for me to decipher the objective of each character – as I found it be constantly evolving during the course of the narrative. While it was easy for me to identify the sense of desire – which is a quality, I perceived to be prevalent in anyone who has lived and lost. Wanting to “live again” is desire – it was difficult for me to exactly come to understand what each of the characters wanted. In my viewing of A Streetcar Named Desire, I think that the underlying meaning what Williams is trying to talk about is human desire being the largest flaw. It’s something that can make you an animal like Stanley, a mentally-troubled person as Blanche or conceited and overbearing as Stella. And what, I found to be the most memorable end, was that none of the characters got what they desired. This, I feel, is Tennessee Williams’s greatest ode to the human spirit.
Waiting for Godot Response
Waiting for Godot is unlike any other play that I have ever seen or read. While reading it, I was in a constant state of confusion. This is because, while there is an endless amount of dialog, there is very little actual conversation. The dialog consists of provocations of despair, recounts of recent activities, which Estragon cannot remember, and nonsense. It was imperative that I knew going into this reading, that it was an absurdist play and that I should not expect the conventional aspects of a story. If I had not known, I would have become quickly frustrated with the lack of a linear plot, character development, or comprehensive dialog. Given that I was not expecting these things, I was able to find the confusion that occurred comical and not frustrating.
The premise of the play is that two men are, have been, and will continue to wait for a man named Godot. However, it appears unlikely that he will ever come. At the end of each day, a boy arrives who delivers them a message. He tells them that Godot was unable to come to day, but he will undoubtedly arrive tomorrow. When the following night arrives, Godot has still not come and the boy returns carrying the same message. The men, Vladimir and Estragon, have confined themselves to the singular activity of waiting for him. All they do, day in and day out, is wait for Godot in the hope that one day he will show up, and everything will be better. There is nothing to do while they wait except try desperately to fill the time with meaningless words and activities. Multiple times they contemplate ending their boredom by hanging themselves. This plan is thwarted by the fact that they have no rope. They say that they will bring rope tomorrow so they may hang themselves.
While Waiting for Godot, was absurd and disjointed, it was a commentary on the mundaneness of life. It was slightly maddening to read in the moment, but extremely interesting to reflect on. I have often thought about what the meaning of life is, and to me, there really is no clear answer. We go mechanically from one day to the next, because that is what we are expected to do, and then one day, we just fade away. The theme of waiting is extremely pertinent. The only thing the men ever do is wait for a better tomorrow when Godot will arrive. Every night they are assured that he is arriving tomorrow. When tomorrow comes, he does not show up. He is always close, but never attainable. To me, this is a clear parallel to how many people never live for the moment. Everything I do is to work towards a better future. You are told to work hard in high school so you can get into a good college, work hard in college so you can get into graduate school, work hard in graduate school so you can get a good job, work hard at your job so you can get a promotion, and then another promotion. Nothing is ever about the present. It is always about a better tomorrow. The problem with that is, the nature of tomorrow is that it is always close, but never obtainable. The future will always be one step ahead of you.
Inherit the Wind Response
I very much enjoyed the story, Inherit the Wind. It is always heartening to read about people who are willing to put everything on the line and fight for what they believe in. The play tells the story of a schoolteacher, Brent Cates, who is on trial for teaching evolution to his students. The trail becomes a public spectacle because the attorneys involved are a 3-time-almost-president, Matthew Brady, and an extremely renowned lawyer from the North, Henry Drummond. It is also in the spotlight because the topic of the trial is one of extreme importance. The story takes place in a small, southern town called Hillsboro. The town, as a whole, is extremely religious, and the prosecuting attorney, Matthew Brady, is a hero to the people there. From the beginning, it appears obvious that the dependence has no chance of winning. The town, being so religious and so infatuated with Brady, is ready to hang Cates out to dry. Yet throughout the course of the trail, Drummond manages to sway much of the crowd. Although, in the end, Cates is still convicted, he is sentenced to no jail time and a fine of only 100 dollars. Because of this, the case is viewed as a victory.
It was impressive to watch Drummond sway the crowd against all odds. Even after every one of his witnesses has been ruled out, Drummond defeats Brady using nothing but the bible and Brady’s own words. I also enjoyed the argument that he used, that creationism and evolution could actually be telling the same story, just with different definitions of a day. In fact, the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day. Therefore, in the beginning, the length of a day could not have been determined by the rising and setting of the sun. I find this to be such a fascinating idea. I am particularly partial to science. I am not prone to accepting things without a mountain of evidence. I also like the idea of a force greater than us, what ever it may be. It was interesting to think about how science and religion can fit together.
The play is based off an actual court case from 1925, referred to as the Scopes Monkey trials. When I was researching the play, I learned that the act under which the schoolteacher was prosecuted, the Butler Act, was not taken off the books until 1967. That was stunning to me. It is hard to fathom that it was illegal to teach anything that contradicted creationism in public schools until that recently. In addition, when Scopes’ lawyer appealed to Supreme Court to overturn the verdict on the grounds that the case violated Scopes’ first amendment, his appeal was denied. Throughout the play I was repeated infuriated with the ignorance of everyone, especially of the people in power. America is a nation that is supposed to be built on equality and freedom of speech, press, and religion, yet it is riddled with ignorance and inequality. I found this play particularly poignant in light of the current election. America is on the brink of being governed by a person with no concept of equality and this play illustrated the importance of fighting against the ignorance of people in power.