-------------------------------------------------
A play must challenge its audience, otherwise it is nothing more than entertainment. In what ways do two of the plays you have studied challenge audiences?
-------------------------------------------------
Some people appreciate going to the theatre or reading a play passively, in order to evade a reality that does not work in their favor. But is passivity the key to a genuine appreciation of a piece of literature? The key to answering this question is not simply by stating how two works are challenging but by analyzing why they were written in such a way that passivity is an improbable state of mind. In the context of this question, one can define a challenge as an objection or query as to the truth of something, often with an implicit demand for proof or as a task or situation that tests someones abilities. It would be interesting to see how two diametrically opposed plays fit both of these definitions. In that, the analysis of Shakespeares Hamlet and Williams A Streetcar Named Desire would suffice to explain how a play can challenge the audience intellectually, morally and physically.
Shakespeare is notorious for his extremely provocative plays, plays that tell a distorted story in order to avoid censure, and moreover, in other not to destabilize the social order. In a society where monarchy ruled and freedom of speech or at least literary freedom of speech was not a great priority, authors like Shakespeare tried effortlessly to conjure plots that would shock the audience and force upon the public a meditative state of mind that would push them to reevaluate the inner workings of society and of the hierarchy. In a play like Hamlet, where the characters main objectives are to climb the social ladder by pushing off anyone in their way, one can only hope that the immoral, unethical actions they put into place will shock the audience.
The beginning of a play serves as a portal for the audience to craft a strong bond with the characters on stage and to commence to process of relating the occurrences it might witness to current issues in each persons daily life. That is how plays like those of Shakespeare become universal. The topics he decides to talk about evoke a ubiquitous feeling of vicarious living. In that situation, the audience can only be challenged.
In the opening lines of the play, Shakespeare manages to create an eerie and ominous atmosphere. The author uses temporal elements to indicate to the audience the time at which the play takes place with the Barnardos alarmed exclamation, Whos there? This implies that it is nighttime and that it is hard to distinguish who is a friend and who is an enemy. In doing so, Shakespeare immediately challenges the audience. It is important to note that theatrical representations can take place at any time of day. For example, a play can deal with a continuation of scene that take place at night but be acted out in front of an audience in the early afternoon. As an attentive spectator, one automatically needs to focus on the all the little elements the author has meticulously hidden. In that, the spectator is immediately intellectually stimulated and forced to eradicate all aspects of reality to focus on the play itself. By starting off his play in the middle of the night, with the appearance of a ghost and with two relatively irrelevant characters, Shakespeare pushes the audience to pinpoint the key themes he will be exploring throughout the play: doubt, chimera and friendship. These are universal themes that can only speak to the audience and promote a very specific state of mind. If the audience is forced to picture the ghost of a dead King, especially at the time the play aired, one could only expect a small psychological uprising. Speaking of royal issues was frowned upon in Elizabethan England and Shakespeare skillfully manages to implant small references to his country by switching the country from England to Denmark for example. This challenges the audience in the sense that each spectator needs to decide whether he or she is ready to hear a subtle critique of the royal supremacy and that was borderline subversive at the time.
Another way this play challenges the audience psychologically and, in this case, morally, is the way Shakespeare presents the murder story. In itself, murder is considered to be a crime against humanity, one that goes against all rules of law and order and, at the time, against all religious principles. Claudius blasphemous act of killing his brother in order to gain control of Denmark touches the spectators not only to their very moral core but springs out a strong sense of frustration and anathema for this character. No sympathy is possible and if Shakespeare manages to create a character that elicits such strong feelings, it can only mean that the spectators themselves are apt to understand the bold emotive conversation the characters are having with them. If that is the case, the audience feels and feeling is the paradigm of challenge. When Claudius gives out his speech in Act 1 Scene 2, his dear character transpires as the epitome of hypocrisy, the role model for all shapes of corruption and serves as the vehicle of true mixed feelings. As a spectator, listening to a corrupt King make a speech in front of his court, a speech about political standing, sentimentality and newfound love all issues that arouse specific feelings can only champion an inner challenge. Do we want to believe? Can we accept that the royal head of a country could be so sullied by a never-ending thirst for power? Not only is this King fake but he is also responsible for a murder far beyond any human comprehension. The moral issue here is how far can one go in order to obtain the power and stability one wishes? And this is where lies the biggest challenge of all. The spectators are forced to plunge into their core being and to try to find ways in which their thirst for power has mirrored the horror of Claudius. Of course, one would only hope that none actually mirror Claudius act but the fact that Shakespeare announces such universal occurrences makes it highly improbable that the audience wont be touched or forced to let surface repressed memories. In that, the audience might be forced to look into the past and stir up a singular angst towards the future.
Whilst letting the characters penetrate our being, we cannot help ourselves but to be physically bothered by the incestuous tone of the play as a whole. Claudius and Gertrudes hasty marriage denotes ardent inconsideration for Hamlet, a lost teenager who has just lost his father. The audience is propelled into a completely different family dynamic. It is forced to eliminate the Hyperion and is stuck to deal with the bloat King. The unhealthy relationship Claudius has with Hamlets mother calls out to every single person sitting in the theatre watching the representation for three reasons. The first, the loss of a father. Each person will eventually have to deal with losing a parent and this brings the adult spectators back to their painful past and therefore challenges them to overcome the pain of having lost their father/mother and redirect their feelings towards appreciating the content of the play a very painful task indeed. Secondly, the remarriage of ones mother or father and thus, the acquisition of a new stepfather/stepmother. By evoking such a life changing occurrence, Shakespeare forces his spectators to rethink their relationship with their parents and this by adding scenes such as the second scene of the third act where Hamlet rejects his mother and puts Claudius on the spot. Do our relationships with our parents resemble that of Hamlets? Finally, and this is probably the most important one, the role of women in these kinds of situations. At the time, women were played by men, and therefore were not represented adequately a male actor cannot capture the female mind and sensitivity. Women are used as instruments in this play, as people who strive to sustain their social standing Gertrude for example or as people who turn their back on love because of a fatherly authority Ophelia is forced to reject her feelings for Hamlet because of her fathers orders. Acting in front of a female crowd who was trying to acquire more power, at least beneath the surface the actors are pushing the audience to reevaluate how women were treated at the time. Spectators are therefore faced with a social issue that challenges the very core of their social order. Do women really deserve to be treated the way there are in the play? And if this play is supposed to represent the deficiencies of the United Kingdom, what does it say of tolerance? Of respect and appreciation for the virtues of an individual, no matter what gender?
The role of women is a topic that will serve as a transition into the next work we will be viewing. Tennessee Williams A Streetcar Named Desire deals with fluctuating family dynamics and the promiscuous behavior of a woman, trapped in a place where she does not belong and forced to deal with a mild but serious case of delirium. There are three noteworthy aspects of this play that go back to the definition of what a challenge really is.
Comparatively to Hamlet, the protagonist of this play is a woman played by a woman. This very fact changes the whole dynamics of the representation and the audience is immediately faced with a realistic account of Williams work. The play oscillates around three main characters: Blanche, Stanley and Stella, all living under the same roof and forced to deal with day to day issues that make their lives difficult and, in Blanches case, chimerical. Tennessee Williams imagines the life of an ordinary, working class couple in New Orleans. The wife, Stella, is pregnant of a man who mistreats her, who is defined by Blanche as a primate. The audience is therefore forced to endure the hardships of a couple whose dynamics are not the most favorable and alluring ones. The perfect example of this idea is in scene three, otherwise called The Poker Night. In this scene, Williams portrays Stanley as the stereotypical abusive, domineering husband. One would think that an audience would be accustomed to stereotypes and therefore would not be touched to its very core. Nevertheless, director Liv Ullman decided to show this scene in a relatively graphic and oppressive way. When Stanley gives a loud whack of his hand on [Stellas] thigh, the audience feels relatively disturbed by the violent way Stanley treats his wife. The audience is subsequently challenged in the sense that the spectator will have to grow accustomed to an environment that caters to abuse and unethical treatment of women. Nevertheless, even if Stella lives in an environment that can only lead to auto destruction, she still crawls back to Stanley after his cry Stella! The audience is therefore challenged: why is it that Stella goes back to Stanley? This raises the fundamental question of why we are lured towards one person no matter what that person does and this is a scary yet unavoidable realization.
Even though Stanley has made a vow to stay faithful to Stella, he still shares a somewhat disturbing relationship with Stellas sister, Blanche. The interesting aspect of this relationship is that it highlights the similarities between two diametrically opposed characters. Blanche, the upper class woman and Stanley the animalistic, abusive, working class man. They will have a flirtatious relationship throughout the play and this shocks the audience. As a sister, shouldnt Blanche restrain herself from approaching the man her sister is in love with? What this does is create a sense of insecurity within the audience. If the people we think are the closest to us betray us, how are we supposed to trust anyone? This plunges the audience in a sort of existential crisis: will we end up alone in the end after a failed marriage and unhealthy family dynamics? But the betrayal is not the most oppressive aspect of Blanche and Stanleys relationship. The most shocking moment is the penultimate scene. Stanleys true nature comes out and leads us to the final rape. As a spectator, one has to deal with a rape on stage. In Liz Ullmans production, lights play a very important role in this scene. She captures the rape with screen shots. The light will be bright and then fades off, leading us to another position the two of them are in. We are supposed to watch the rape scene with knowledgeable eyes and accept that what is being played in front of us is the rape of a relatively innocent woman because no matter what Blanche might have done in the past, a rape is inexcusable.
Some might think that Blanche had it coming. In fact, Stanley even says it himself: Weve had this date with each other from the beginning! Blanche tries, throughout the play, to avoid her attraction towards an animalistic man, unworthy of her attention but her innate promiscuity blinds her into acting involuntarily flirtatious with her sisters husband. Blanche therefore is the ultimate challenge. The audience sees the sad hysteria of a lonely woman grow until that same woman is sent away to get some help. Blanche lives a life full of lies in order for her to feel like her existence is still worthwhile, like being touched by a man will rejuvenate her. Spectators will watch, unable to help, unable to say anything about what Blanche is doing to herself. This is where the spectator feels helplessness. He cannot do anything in this situation and is forced to watch a woman run straight into decadence and ultimately into a full scale delirium. In that, Williams teases the audience because only he has the control over Blanches actions and decisions.
All in all, we can easily see that our original definition of a challenge is applicable to both of these antithetic plays. The audience will be forced in both cases to arouse suspicion about the real truth that hides behind day-to-day activities and interactions and will have no choice but to test its abilities to deal with them. Shakespeare uses challenge in a universal way, in a way that will touch the audience no matter when the play is acted and Williams decides to touch fundamentally immoral topics to make the audience vulnerable. If the audience reacts to ethical, psychological, intellectual issues, then the playwright has succeeded in his task: he has conjured a piece of literature that calls not only to the audience but that also forces it to fall back into a meditative state, a state of mind that will only be stopped once the curtain falls, if were lucky.
Already have an account? Log In Now
5455