Krapp's Last Tape

Krapp's Last Tape, at four pages and one act, is so unlike the other plays we have read thus far. Devoid of the more complex production elements or literary/story devices that define other works, Beckett's "play in one act" is difficult to understand as a significant piece of theatre. I found that I best understood the concept of the play after reading the introduction to the work and Martin Esslin's The Theatre of the Absurd, which provided a systemic analysis of Beckett's technique.

What first resonated with me when reading the play was the extensive stage directions listed at the beginning. One page out of four pages is alot for stage directions! As I continued, I realized the play is virtually split between stage directions carried out by the character and his own words/ the words on the tape. But when did a play become all about the language or story? Because we read plays in this class it easy to forget that, but in actuality plays are meant to be seen. The actions carried out by the character on stage speak volumes to who he is and his history with out requiring language. I couldn't help but laugh that Krapp is directed to be "meditatively eating a banana". How does one meditatively eat a banana? Yet for a character who is so entranced in his own thoughts and memories, this action does not seem all that out of the ordinary. It just seems like something "absurd" that he might do. Absurd in that it is devoid of purpose, the definition used in understanding the Theatre of the Absurd.

Defining the Theatre of the Absurd as part of the "anti literary movement" of our time makes sense to me. It is defined as " a radical devaluation of language, toward a poetry that is to emerge from the concrete and objectified images of the stage itself... what happens on the stage transcends the words spoken by the characters" Krapp's Last Tape is a great example of this. Because many of the words on the tape and spoken do not make sense to the reader, it is Krapp's actions and expressions which create meaning and give the play a sense of action.

Symbolism of The Cherry Orchard

Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard has a seemingly endless revolving door of characters with very traditional russian names, but has a constant center with the lavishly described and hotly debated cherry orchard. The orchard is lovingly described by some of the characters, including by Lopakhin, who eventually destroys it. It is however, most treasured by Ravensky, the madame of the estate herself. However, it is no longer exactly an "estate", as Ravensky refuses to accept her current financial situation and holds on to the beauty of the cherry orchard as a relic of her idyllic and upper class child hood.It is in fact a relic of the past because it is essentially non functioning, no longer financially sustainable the cherry orchard must go.

The cherry orchard becomes a symbol that holds different meaning for different characters in the play. The different ways the character's view the cherry orchard is a synthesized version of the greater ideological conflict of the play. At its core, there is a disagreement between the old and the young, a struggle between modernity and the way of the Old Russia. The older characters Ravensky and Lopakhin view the cherry orchard positively, as a thing of beauty, and Lopakhin does not hesitate to describe it this way. He hopes that the new tenants of the land will enjoy the cherry orchard as he has. However, Trofilmov does not separate the cherry orchard from the memories of the "Old Russia" and the social structure that having the orchard perpetuated : serfdom. Trofilmov's views on the cherry orchard are in direct conflict with Ravensky's, while Lopakhin flirts with both ideologies. While he perceives the orchard as beautiful and Ravensky as kind and generous, his upbringing as a peasant has left a sour taste in his mouth and memories from which he wishes to break free. These three main characters use the cherry orchard as the grounding center for their differences.

Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest is an elaborate piece of satire for social commentary. In this way, it reminded me of Valparaiso, which I saw last week. While Valparaiso is a commentary/expose on our media saturated modern culture, The Importance of Being Earnest explores the often ridiculous formality and priorities of Victorian culture.

Wilde mocks Victorian conventions in a way that is amusing and pleasing to the reader. Contrary to the norm, Gwendolyn completely takes charge of Jack’s proposal to her. Refusing to be docile and sweet, she essentially proposes to herself while Jack ambles awkwardly through his proposal.

Lady Bracknell is a harbinger of all that is ridiculous about Victorian society and conventions of morality. Her inquisition of Jack is rude and superficial, prioritizing whether or not Jack smokes over his job or character. She projects that the misfortune of loosing both parents is somehow Jack’s own folly, and later in the play makes insensitive comments (albeit witty entertainment for the reader) about Jack’s own origins, which he can only explain as a train station in London. Even her tracking down of Gwendolyen and presumptuous entrance into Jack’s country home seethes with an irking self importance.

The play ending also reminded me of Valparaiso. It becomes almost a comedy of errors, where such strange coincidences and changes of events led of all of the characters to this place and this ending. Jack was never actually being fictive, everything in his life actually fit within the far reaches of his imagination. Valparaiso riffs on the theme that little mistakes can snowball into an incredibly humorous/ unlikely situation. And in true bunburyist fashion, both protagonists (Majeski and Jack) use these strange turns of events to escape their own realities.