.– contextualizing August Strindberg’s A Dream Play and Anne Charlotte Leffler’s The Ways of Truth Erik Svendsen From Fadren to Antichrist M. Copenhagen is a play by Michael Frayn, based on an event that occurred in Copenhagen in 1941, a meeting between the physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg.It premiered in London in 1998 at the National Theatre, running for more than 300 performances, starring David Burke (Niels Bohr), Sara Kestelman (Margrethe Bohr), and Matthew Marsh (Werner Heisenberg). The Onomatopoeia Theatre Company's production of 'A Dream Play' by August Strindberg. Performed at The Gene Frankel Theatre in Manhattan, New York. A Play by August StrindbergThis is a Play Trailer for a production running at UTAS Annexe Theatre from August 8th through August 11th, 2007.SEE for more details.
Strindberg’s Miss Julie AndBeckett’s Waiting For Godot Essay, Research Paper
The motivationsand behavior of key characters in Strindberg’s Miss Julie andBeckett’s Waiting for Godot will be analyzed according to EricBerne’s method of transactional analysis. Eric Berne deals with thepsychology behind our transactions. Transactional analysis determineswhich ego state is implemented by the people interacting. There arethree possibilities which are either parent, adult, or child. The keycharacters in Waiting for Godot are Vladimir and Estragon. Vladimiris the more intellectual of the two and Estragon is more emotional.Their ego states are always shifting from minute to minute. In MissJulie the key characters are Jean and Miss Julie. Jean shifts his egostate according to his situation either to compliment the ego stateof the person he is talking to or to exploit the situation. In therelationship between Miss Julie and Jean their ego states interchangeas Miss Julie begins as the parent, then she falls so they are equalon the adult level and eventually she is on the bottom so Jean is onthe top as parent ego state.
People are madewith three basic ego states which are the parent, adult, and child.Some people have a dominant ego state and others are constantlychanging. All parts are necessary for a well rounded personality. Thechild is linked with intuition, creativity, spontaneity, drive andenjoyment. The adult is the rational, objective and logical sidewhich allows work to get done. This is the part of us that should beinvolved in difficult decision making because it weighs the pros andcons of the decision without bias. The parent is useful for actuallyraising children and for routine decisions that do not require thedeductive reasoning of the adult. A transaction can be eithercomplementary or crossed and at the same time simple or ulterior. Asimple complementary transaction would be any transaction where thelines do not cross. It could be a transaction between psychologicalequals; these transactions are gossip (parent-parent), problemsolving (adult-adult), or playing (child-child).
If the lines ofcommunication in the transaction are crossed, the communication willcease unless one of the participants alters their ego state tocompliment the ego state implemented by the other communicant. If theresponses of the people interacting continue to cross they will nolonger be communicating but instead there will be fruitless arguing.An example is “I can’t find my shoes do you know where they are?”response “why don’t you keep track of your things, you would loseyour head if it wasn’t attached”. The question was an adult onebut the response was parent to child so the lines are crossed. Therewas no positive that came out of the transaction and the conversationcannot be sustained.
Ulteriortransactions are more complex and more than one ego stat is involvedat one time by a participant. An ulterior transaction can be used totake advantage of a vulnerable ego state in someone else. An exampleis a car salesman sees a middle aged family man that appears to behaving some sort of a midlife crisis. The car salesman shows him anexpensive sports car and says ” young people love these flashycars, but you look like more of a Lincon town car type”. The middleaged man then turns around and buys the expensive sports car. Thesalesman’s comments were both objective observations that were madeby the adult. They could be received by either the adult or child ofthe middle aged man. If received by the adult it would steer themiddle aged man to a car that would be more appropriate and practicalfor him and his family. Instead it is received by the child which inthis case is dominant and vulnerable and causes the man to think “I’mstill young this is as much a car for me as it is for anyone”.
In Waiting forGodotEstragon and Vladimir converse on all levels with each other.Through the play they are killing time while waiting for Godot.Estragon realizes that their existence is stagnant and he has troubleremembering things because of the repetition. In the second act hedoes not recall what happened in the first act. For him, rememberingthe day before would be like trying to remember a specific rain dropin a rain storm. Godot, the unseen character represents a hope ofchange that is to come. Their meeting with him is always delayedwhich defers their hope, but does not extinguish it because theyagree to meet him again the next day. At some points they play witheach other, this is an effective way to kill time. An example of themplaying is when they are wondering what to do while waiting forGodot, Estragon comes up with the idea of hanging themselves.Vladimir says it will give them an erection and Estragon getsexcited. They play around giving reasons why the other should behanged first. Estragon says that Vladimir should be hanged firstbecause he is heavier and the branch of the tree might break. If itdoesn’t break for Vladimir there will be no trouble hanging him sothey will both be dead. Whereas, if Estragon is hanged first and thebranch supports his weight but is unable to support Vladimir he willbe alone. Vladimir is more likely to take a parental role thanEstragon. An example of this is when Estragon is attempting withgreat difficulty to remove his boots he asks for help. Vladimirlectures him by saying “Boots must be taken off every day I’mtired of telling you that. Why don’t you listen to me.”1
They alsoconverse on an adult to adult level. An example of this is in act IIthey have an abstract conversation about thinking. They come up withthe idea to question is to think and the road to enlightenment is apassive journey. Here is a portion of their adult dialog.
Vladimir: Whenyou seek you hear
Estragon: You do
Vladimir: Thatprevents you from finding
Estragon: Itdoes
Vladimir: Thatprevents you from thinking
Estragon: Youthink all the same 2
They meet a mannamed Pozzo and his slave Lucky. Pozzo is a rich man and Lucky is aformer intellectual who is no longer able to think. Pozzo isconstantly talking down to everyone, as he is firmly locked in theparent ego state. Almost every time Pozzo talks to Vladimir andEstragon, it is an independent speech because he always talks fromthe parent to child position and Vladimir and Estragon do not like torespond to him from the child level. When Estragon asks Pozzo anadult question which is why doesn’t Lucky put down his bags andPozzo ignores the question a few times until Vladimir tells him he isbeing asked a question. He eventually answers after talking down tothem a couple of times. Two examples of this are Pozzo saying
“Don’tinterrupt me. If we all speak at once we’ll never get anywhere”and “why couldn’t you say so before”3 . Waves 9 install crack.
In Miss JulieJean is the servant in the Count’s house. Throughout the playwhenever the Count is mentioned Jean shrivels up with fear and is inthe child ego state. Miss Julie, the count’s daughter is originallyis in a position of authority over Jean because he is a servant inher house. Through the course of the story a reversal of roles isseen. It starts with Jean being in the child ego state while talkingto Miss Julie to compliment the parent ego state that she talks tohim from. Miss Julie was a very passionate woman and often would grabone of her servants to dance with. A combination of factors broughtJean and Miss Julie together. Some of these factors are being in theright place at the right time, her fianc? breaking off theirengagement, her hormones and the atmosphere of a midsummer night.Once Jean has been with Miss Julie for a while he plays games withher to make her want to get with him. He does this after she wasteasing him sexually but would not let him kiss her. He senses astrong romantic child in her and he exploits this by telling her astory he made up about him seeing her from across the gate to theestate and he desired to be with her. He said that he slept under anelder bush because he had remembered it could be fatal but he did notdie, he only became very ill. He said he did this because he realizedbecause of their class difference he could never have her, and shewas a symbol of hopelessness of him ever climbing up from his lowclass. This story evokes sympathy and triggers her child which wantsto rebel against the established order that says they can never gettogether. This strategy works as Jean ends up sleeping with MissJulie.
In theirrelationship the tides turn from Miss Julie being the parent to thembeing equal to Jean being the parent. The ego states of Miss Julieand Jean will be looked at in chronological order as they rotate likeon a wheel where Miss Julie starts out on top but ends up on thebottom with Jean on the opposite side of the wheel. Miss Julie is ina position of power over Jean and this causes her to talk to him as achild from a parent’s standpoint. An example of this is when Jeanhas something in his eyes Miss Julie says “…sit down and I’lltake it out. Sit still now, quite still! (she slaps his hands) Come,obey me!” “Sit still, will you! There! Now it’s gone. Kiss myhand and thank me.”4
As they continueto talk their conversation drifts into that of psychological equalson the adult level. At this point they begin to discuss their future.Jean gives the idea of going away “to Switzerland, to the Italianlakes!…” so he could start a hotel and she could be “the pearlof the establishment”. Jean is telling her stories of how great itwould be as they discuss the feasibility of their budding plan. MissJulie, in response to Jean’s grand plans says “They seem to mequite sensible but – just one question. A big project like thatneeds a lot of capital. Have you that?” Jean says that she would beable to find a backer if she went with him. Miss Julie says “Icouldn’t. And I haven’t any money of my own.” Jean says “Thenour whole plan collapses.” As they rationally discuss Jean’splans they come to the conclusion that his plan is not possible toexecute because of their lack of funds. 5
After theirplans are shot down, Miss Julie pouts and becomes very childlike. Sheinstantly drops from the adult ego state into the child and thisprompts Jean to shift into the parent ego state. Miss Julie callsJean a servant and lackey. Jean responds with “servant’s whore,lackey’s bitch, shut your mouth and get out of here. You dare standthere and call me foul.” Miss Julie becomes submissive “You’reright. Hit me, trample on me, I’ve deserved nothing better … helpme out of this…” It is clear from preceding dialogue that Jean isnow acting the parent after Miss Julie has fallen from her greatheight in social standing and also dropped to a child ego state.Right near the end of the play, Miss Julie is very submissive andchildlike so Jean is very parent like with her. Unlike Miss Julie,Jean has not had an overhaul of his ego, but instead he just reactsto the ego states of the people talking to him. This can bee seen byhis response to the count “It’s Jean milord. Yes, milord. Yes,milord. Immediately. At once, milord. Very good, my lord. In a halfan hour.”6 He is still fearful and submissive towards the countwhile at the same time being authoritative from the parent ego statetowards Miss Julie. Miss Julie wants to kill herself but needs to betold to do so by Jean. Jean ends up giving her a sharpened razor andtelling her to go.
In conclusion,in Waiting for Godot Vladimir and Estragon are constantly shiftingego states from minute to minute. Sometimes they play like childrenand at other times they talk seriously on an adult level, and atother times they talk down to each other from the parent to child egostates. Pozzo is always talking down to everyone he comes intocontact with. Unlike Jean in Miss Julie, Vladimir and Estragon do notreadily shift their ego states to accommodate others such as Pozzo.Pozzo has no intention of doing anything but talk down to others,thus his conversation with Vladimir and Estragon starts and endsquickly because they are not on complimentary ego levels. Most timesPozzo talks it is an independent speech and seems he isn’t reallydirecting his thoughts towards anyone in particular. Vladimir andEstragon do not stay in one ego state for a prolonged length of time,but are switching at random. In Miss Julie, Jean and Miss Julie’sego states rotate like on a wheel where Miss Julie starts out on topas the parent but in the end the wheel has turned and she is thechild on the bottom. Jean is like a chamaeleon when it comes to whatego state he is in. He adapts to the ego states of the people he istransacting with. He does this so that their ego states arecomplimentary and conversation is allowed to flow. He alsomanipulates Miss Julie’s emotions by appealing to the romanticchild in her. It is Miss Julie’s fall from her high social statusand her consequent fall to a childish ego state that makes Jean adapthis ego. She starts out thinking she is better than Jean because heis her servant. As they get closer she feels he is her equal so shetalks to him as an adult from an adult standpoint. By the end whenshe has fallen from grace she feels so low that she is talking up toJean and wants him to tell her what to do. All the while Jean is onthe opposite side of the wheel that Miss Julie is on.
A Dream Play Strindberg Summary
End Notes
1. SamuelBeckett, Waiting for Godot, p 7
Fx-pcs-win-e software download. 2. SamuelBeckett, Waiting for Godot, p 41
3. SamuelBeckett, Waiting for Godot, p 20-21
4. AugustStrindberg, Miss Julie, p116-117
5. AugustStrindberg, Miss Julie, p123
6. AugustStrindberg, Miss Julie, p145
Bibliography
1. Berne, Eric.Games People Play. Grove Press INC, New York Thirtieth printing 1966.
2. Strindberg,August. Plays: One , Miss Julie . Secer & Warberg Limited, GreatBritain 1964.
3. Beckett,Samuel. Waiting for Godot. Grove Press INC 1956.
Ibsen And Strindberg – Hedda Gabler And Miss Julie Essay, Research Paper
'Compare and contrast the characters of Hedda Gabler and Miss Julie in the plays by Ibsen and Strindberg. Support your findings with comments on the writers attitudes to their characters.'
August Strindberg and Henrik Ibsen were both great playwrights of the 19th century, and both played a large role in the evolution of modern day naturalism/ realism. The plays I will be discussing are Ibsen?s Hedda Gabler, (1890) and Strindberg?s Miss Julie (1888). In Karen?s lecture on Strindberg, she told how the two playwrights were rivals in a sense, mainly caused by Strindberg?s attitudes on social issues- Namely his thoughts and theory on the role of women in society. Thus, I am lead to believe that Hedda Gabler was written by Ibsen as a direct retaliation to Strindberg?s Miss Julie, just as Karen believes that Strindberg?s The Father was written as a reply to Ibsen?s Ghosts. Although both plays end with the suicide of the leading character, the circumstances by which they occur are very different.
In order to take these plays in their full context, it is important to examine the lives of the playwrights and see just how much of their own thoughts, beliefs and feelings are reflected in their plays. I feel this is particularly important in the case of Strindberg. I was intrigued by Karen?s lecture on Strindberg, in particular the rise of his misogynist attitudes and his state of mental health. His attitudes are reflected in Miss Julie quite clearly. Strindberg believed that Women were a secondary form, which can be seen through reading his preface to the play. The translation of the play I examined was from the 'Drama Classics' (D.C) Series. I found a very interesting piece of writing in this version of the play; In an editors note, it is explained that the translation was based on the original text, and contained some rants which were not included in most published versions. The most interesting of these was a part in the preface which was not in the other versions, it reads as follows;
[There?s a view, current at the moment even among quite sensible people,
that women, that secondary form humanity (second to men, the lords and
shapers of human civilisation) should in some way become equal with men,
or could so be; this is leading to a struggle which is both bizarre and doomed.
It?s bizarre because a secondary form, by the laws of science, is always going
to be a secondary form....the proposition is as impossible as that two
parallel lines should ever meet.]
I find these comments quite astounding, and there are no shortage of similar comments in his preface. Karen explained how Strindberg also believed that when a woman was menstruating, it meant she was in an altered state of mind. In his preface, Strindberg gives this as one of the possible reasons behind Julie?s suicide. An understanding of these attitudes is vital to fully understand Miss Julie and make the connection between Julie and Hedda.
As I touched on earlier, Strindberg developed a hate towards Ibsen, as he saw him as a promoter of feminism. Karen spoke of Ibsen?s Ghosts, in which a woman spoke out against a dead man. Strindberg did not like this, as the male had no chance to defend himself. As a result, he wrote The Father. In this play, Strindberg makes all the female characters out to be dislikeable and narky. It is this which leads me to believe that Hedda Gabler was written by Ibsen as a reply to Miss Julie. I will attempt to display my reasoning behind this theory, analysing the title characters from both plays and demonstrating the writers attitudes being displayed throughout the play.
To me, Miss Julie seems to be a true ?Battle of the sexes? play, in which the male inevitably wins. Throughout the play, a power game is being played by Jean and Julie. The character of Julie is what Strindberg would describe as a ?half-woman?- that is, she does not know her place in society and tries to dominate a male. Strindberg?s preface touches on this issue;
'Modern feminists thrust themselves forward, selling themselves for
power, honours, distinctions and diplomas as women once did for
money.'
She is socially superior to Jean in that she is from an aristocratic family and Jean is her fathers servant. She tries to assert herself over Jean from the very start of the play when she demands that Jean dances with her. She even claims herself to be 'Fireproof' (D.C p.14). Julies power is clear as Jean endows her with comments such as ' I?d obey. Naturally.' (D.C p.9).
As the play progresses, Julie?s desires to be dominated break out, and Jean rises. Strindberg comments in his preface;
'His power over Miss Julie has nothing to do with the fact that he is rising
in the world; it is because he is a man. He is sexually her superior because
of his maleness, his finer sensibilities and his ability to take initiative.'
The pair both tell of a dream they have, which seems to be almost prophetic. Julie?s dream is that she is on top of a high pillar, and can?t get down again, but longs to be on the ground. She says if she did reach the ground, she would 'want to sink lower, lower.' (D.C p12). On the other hand, Jean dreams that he is lying under a tree and wants to be up, aloft, where he can see the horizon. The problem being that the first branch is too high, but he says 'I know if I can only reach it, I could shin up the rest like a ladder' (D.C p12). Jeans 'First branch' is of course Miss Julie. He longs to rise into a higher social class, and sees Julie as a means of doing so. The dreams correspond, as Julie longs to be dominated.
By the end of the play, Jean has complete dominance over Julie, he has progressed from lackey to wine drinker. He conquers Julie sexually therefore mentally to a point where she is actually pleading with him;
'Help me. Give me orders, I?ll obey like a dog. One last service:
Save my name, my honour. You know what I want to do, and can?t.
Make me, will me to do it, order me.' (D.C p.50)
Julie wants to save her name by killing herself, but lacks the power to make the decision. She is made to realise she is inferior to Jean, which is a direct result of Strindberg?s personal attitudes. She needs Jean to tell her to kill herself and even goes so far as to thank him for giving her the permission.
Strindberg?s Miss Julie is a direct depiction of his own thoughts. It is, in a sense, displaying Darwin?s ?Survival of the fittest? theory, The fittest being the male species according to Strindberg. It shows the dramatic rise of Jean, a servant, and it?s corresponding effects on 'Her Ladyship' Miss Julie, Who was powerful by way of her social status, but reduced because of her gender. There are definite similarities between Miss Julie and the title character in Ibsen?s Hedda Gabler. The main difference, though, is that Hedda does not ever allow herself to be dominated, and maintains till the end that she an equal to man. This is why I believe that Ibsen wrote Hedda Gabler in reply to Strindberg?s misogynist depiction of a gender war in Miss Julie.
Upon reading Hedda Gabler, (I examined three versions of this play, one from the 'Drama Classics' [D.C] series, an adaptation by John Osborne [Osborne] and a translation by Nicholas Rundall [Rundall]) I was struck immediately by the status Hedda held whenever she was on stage. As soon as she made her entrance, it was clear that she had all the power within the household. I could see that Tesman felt himself very lucky to have Hedda as his wife, and wanted to please her. Hedda seemed to me to be a very cold, snobby character. She does not possess a sense of humour, but rather a sort of conniving wit. She rudely commented on Miss Tesman?s new hat, and how she thought it was the maids. As a result, I came to dislike Hedda as she continues to have fun at the expense of others.
The reason, it seems, for Hedda?s apparent rudeness is the fact that she strives against the constraints of the narrow role society allows her (as we see in Strindberg?s Miss Julie) and wishes to satisfy her ambitious intellect. As it becomes a reality to Hedda that she cannot do as she desires, she becomes destructive. The daughter of a General, Hedda is a natural leader and does not easily fit the mould of a housewife. She emphasises this by constantly denying her pregnancy whenever Jorgen mentions it (that is, mentions it indirectly, eg. saying how she is rounded). She longs for control over everyone she comes in contact with. It seems to me the only reason she married Tesman was because she would have financial security as Tesman had an impending professorship, whilst at the same time still have the ability to dominate a dull academic. She gets power by manipulating her husband, and at one point even tells Mrs Elvsted; 'I want the power to shape a mans destiny'. This is clearly the opposite to Strindberg?s Miss Julie, where Julie had the desire to be dominated by a man.
Hedda becomes jealous of Mrs Elvsted?s relationship with Tasman?s rival Lovborg, which is intellectual and creates a 'child' in the form of a manuscript. I find it interesting how she gains power over Lovborg when he comes to visit. Lovborg recalls the past; 'Did you feel love for me? A flicker…a spark…for me?' (D.Cp.57), but this flirting does not have an effect on Hedda, even if she would like to respond, she spurns his advances, thus giving her superiority over Lovborg, much as she does with Judge Brack, her confidant. He tells how Hedda has always had power;
'And Hedda, the things I told you! Things about myself. No one else
knew, then. My drinking…days and nights on end. I sat there and told
you. Days and nights. Oh Hedda, what gave you such power? To make
me tell you…things like that?' (D.C p.58)
It is Hedda?s jealousy for Lovborg and Mrs Elvsted?s creative relationship which causes her to become destructive and destroy the manuscript, rather than see it back into Lovborg?s hands, with the ever powerless Jorgen believing she did it for his sake. As she is burning the manuscript she displays her resentment towards the relationship;
A Dream Play August Strindberg Analysis
'Look, Thea. I?m burning your baby, Thea. Little Curly hair! Samsung printer toner reset firmware fix patch.
Your baby…yours and his.
The baby. Burning the baby.' (D.C p.88)
A Dream Play August Strindberg Summary
I struggled to fully understand why she urged Lovborg to kill himself, but in this context I can only speculate that it was to further consolidate the end of the relationship between Miss Elvsted and Lovborg, of which she was so envious.
By the end of the play, Hedda has relinquished all of her power. Lovborg?s death backfired and Hedda ended up losing the dominance over Jorgen, as he and Mrs Elvsted devote their lives to resurrecting Lovborg?s manuscript and Mrs Elvsted hopes to inspire Tesman as she did Lovborg. Brack then establishes power over her through her fear of scandal, blackmailing her in a sense to agree to his terms of living. He could destroy her at any moment by releasing the information that the gun which killed Lovborg belonged to Hedda. She finds this thought unbearable;
'I?m still in your power. At your disposal. A slave. I won?t have it. I won?t' (D.C p.105)
So Hedda, unable to live under the control of others, plays a final tune on the piano before taking one of her fathers pistols and shooting herself.
Strindberg A Dream Play Pdf
Although both Ibsen?s Hedda Gabler and Strindberg?s Miss Julie ended with the suicide of the leading character, the circumstances by which the suicides occurred were most different, and particularly in the case of Miss Julie, the writers personal thoughts were prominent in the outcome. Julie ended her life after a deep underlying yearning to be dominated by Jean and in the end displays her inferiority by begging Jean to give her permission to end her life. This is unlike the circumstances in Hedda Gabler, where Hedda maintains her dignity and status to the very end. Unlike Julie, she cannot bear the thought of being under the control of others. This is why I speculate that Hedda Gabler could very well have been written by Ibsen in direct reply and contradiction to Strindberg?s Miss Julie. I am sure that Henrik Ibsen would have found a lot to disagree upon when it came to the ideas and philosophies contained within Strindberg?s Miss Julie, not to mention the plays preface.