As you read the end of A Streetcar Named Desire, think about if and how this play reaches any sort of resolution and closure. Keep reading the stage directions carefully and noting how Williams dramatizes internal psychological states through music, the play of light and shadows, and through dialogue. You might want to think about the following questions as you write your response to ANY aspect of the play, from beginning to end. Feel free to discuss your responses to the film version of the play.
1. What critique--if any--does the play make concerning gender roles? What do we learn about what it means to be a woman? To be a man? Is this a "feminist" play?
2. How are class differences treated in the play?
3. Why does the play end the way it does?
4. Does the play simply dismiss Blanche's need for fantasy? Or does it show us why fantasy may be necessary? Do any of the other characters struggle with or depend upon fantasy?
5. How is visuality important in the play? Think about the use of light, scenes centered on exposure, and Williams' techniques of staging. How does the gaze work in the play, especially between genders?
6. How does the play discuss and treat homosexuality? How do you read the fact that Blanche's husband kills himself? How is this event the central trauma of the play?
I'm pissed-off after reading the end, to be honest. I'm waiting to fully react on this until we get to discuss it in class, but I mean, really, what the hell...
ReplyDeleteSo, Mitch gets to treat Blanche like shit because she has had more than a trouble past, all while telling her she owes him sex, BUT she's not good enough to stay in the house of his mother? And Stanley gets to have a family, and a loving wife, even after he beats her, and oh yeah, possibly rapes and beats her sister? Then Mitch and Stanley basically fight each other... how in any way could this be considered feminist?
My only real thought is that I'm wondering over and over if Blanche went crazy because of the situation (living with her sister and Stanley), or if she went crazy because of everything on top of her past... was she trying to forget with such an intense desire that she managed to forget the difference between reality and fantasy?
I'm very interested to see how the film is laid out, I'm sure half of this will have been censored.
Throughout the play, I didn’t really see Blanche’s need for fantasy. Rather, it seemed like Blanche was just a troubled women who is trying to find ways to cope in such a messed up world. After losing everything and being alone, I’m sure a lot of people would do the same. Maybe Blanche lies and tries to make a perfect world, but everyone does that to a certain degree. Maybe Blanche’s views were completely real to her. Either way, I don’t think she went crazy. The ending completely angered me. They could have confronted Blanche in a better way and tried to help her instead of just sending her off with some doctor.
ReplyDeleteGreat point, Caitlin! Folks, keep up the blogging as we watch the film beginning tomorrow!
ReplyDeleteAnd great point Corrie--you posted at the very same time I did!
ReplyDeleteChrist... I tend to be drawn to evil characters in fiction -- The Judge from Blood Meridian, Frank from Blue Velvet, Satan in Paradise Lost -- but Stanley, my God! I want him destroyed, but only after being beaten and raped by other Stanleys. It's really the banality and realism of Stan that makes him so loathsome -- the everyday banality of the evil he so casually inhabits and which is so unlike the ecstatic/transcendental brand of evil I usu. (perversely) admire which Dennis Hopper brilliantly radiates after huffing his gas-mask -- the evil that inhabits and possesses its actor. Stanley, when attacking Blanche, is in full possession of himself, he hasn't been taken-over by some primordial force. But, as is made clear to us throughout the play, Stanley is all base appetite and animal instinct.
ReplyDeleteI read in the introduction that Williams was greatly influenced by D.H. Lawrence, and I think I would have assumed that anyway. Lawrence is responsible for one of the main sexual myths of modernism. Or anyway, I've come to think of it as a myth. His work develops a contrast between a sexless, intellectual Victorian leisure-class and a vital, animalistic working-class that maybe ain't so good at speechifying but sure know how to screw. His work romanticized what he called the "livingness" and instinctual aspect of poor people in contradistinction to the impotent elite. I aver that he was misguided in this and was fooled by the stultifying decorum and manners of the more aristocratic English. Sociological sex studies suggest that this is misguided... working-class folks are tired when they come home, after all. And yet, if Williams starts out with this typical romanticization, in the end, it comes closer to demonization.
I agree that the ending really is troubling in structural and psychological ways. The denouement creates no catharsis, only severe, desperate tension. Basically, the reader/theatergoer is left in a state of helplessness that mirrors that of Blanche. Not an enviable situation on any level.
The critique from feminism seems way too easy, given the fact that the two main male characters are basically rapists.
I agree that Stanley may not be on the top of my list for people to date my sister, but on the other hand he does represent something larger than merely an asshole. To me, he is a concrete symbol of the racial, social, and gender specific status quo that had settled upon this early part of American history. Yes, he merits number one spot on the male-pig hit list, but that I feel that that is what Williams is really trying to convey. These women, Stella and Blanche, are stuck in a world where they dont have many options of a better life. And thats just the way it was, or how society felt it was going to stay. I really think that Stella should be the one loathed in the book, and Blanche praised. Stella stays in the relationship with her maniacal husband, and just watches as her sister, yearning to improve her own situation, is deemed clinically insane. Sure, I can see where people might put all the blame on Stanley for inciting most of the drama, but can we really be empathetic with Stella for standing by and watching it all happen?
ReplyDeleteTyler - in a way isn't everyone to blame? Stanley, well, his exploits are very obvious. And as you've said, Stella too. We also can probably all agree that Mitch has a role in it as well, but I mean - as much as I hate to say it, doesn't Blanche have her own fault in her insanity? Maybe the play is more how the people around us influence us, but so do we...
ReplyDeleteOne obvious aspect of "A Streetcar Named Desire" that i really enjoyed was the metaphor present in the title. Although it is a somewhat simple and straightforward metaphor, it is one that carries a good amount of weight and explanation to the play. Each character is not merely driven by his/her desire, but carried by it towards a detrimental end. It is interesting where each character's desire takes them. Despite the fact that Stella is abused physically and verbally by Stanley, she is trapped by her desire for her husband; this leads her to disregard her sister's trauma at the hands of Stanley. Blanche's desire for praise and affection leads her not only to attract the twisted desire of Stanley, but also to ruin her reputation and thus ruin her chances of getting Mitch. Mitch's desire led him to fall for a fabricated image of Blanche. Stanley's desire for women and dominance led him to not only rape his wife's sister, but also to psychologically rape his wife. Each of these characters are on their own streetcar of desire, unable to change the course it it taking for them. Desire is something that motivates all human beings, and it can lead one to one's end if this desire is not kept it check. This play warned me to never let my desire overpower my mind and what i know to be morally right.
ReplyDeleteThe last two comments summed-up the additional thoughts I was thinking. Stuart's illustration of how desire equals suffering is, if I remember correctly, the point of Buddhism's second Noble Truth. Perhaps, instead of getting drunk and acting stupid, the characters should have all sat down in the lotus position and began meditating on the illusory nature of their anguish-causing desires. But, then again, that play would've sucked.
ReplyDeleteI would like to discuss the issue of homosexuality (at least that's what I got from reading about Blanche's first husband) that is present in the play. Tennessee Williams wrote this part in a a particular manner. By making this issue a minor part of the play, Williams seems to be implying that although we may hide controversial issues throughout society, they are still there. The people that are affected by this will always be aware of how society feels about them. We know nothing about this boy except the trauma that Blanche is left with. I read through it and got the impression that she always knew he might have been gay, but married her because it was necessary at the time. It is really inspiring that even so long ago there were people such as Williams that were willing to point out the flaws in the way that people handle those that may not be a cookie cutter copy of themselves.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to point to the gender roles when the poker game ensues. The boys are in one room, the girls in the other. They are both aware of each other and in their own ways, they are manipulating the power that they hold over the other. Blanche shows some skin, Stanley is yelling at her to turn the music down, Mitch is trying to catch a peek. It all seems very typical of the gender roles from that time period.
The gender spaces created during the poker game are interesting both for showing how genders interact homosexually, as pointed out above, but also for how gender behavior changes as the spaces are crossed and become heterosexual.
ReplyDeleteInitially, Williams typifies male-male interaction as the guys play poker and female-female interaction as Blanche and Stella interact in the bedroom. But these typical behaviors change as both Stanley and Mitch cross into the bedroom and create a heterosexual sphere. How each individual's behavior changes in the new heterosexual sphere reveals something unique about each character. Mitch, for example, assumes a new, more formalized personality as he interacts with Blanche. His tone softens. His speech (attempts) to become more eloquent. He generally acts more cordial and refined. Their exchange appeals to Blanche because it embodies traditional Southern courtship. And then Stanley enters! His interaction is much more dominating. His tone does anything but soften, and he shows no deference to the women like Mitch does. His behavior would certainly be considered less "refined" by traditional standards than Mitch's, which exemplifies his difference as an immigrant and explains the tensions between his actions/expectations versus Blanche's.
The main instance of class difference I noticed was between Blanche and Stella. Blanche must be more used to the wealth of Bell Reve than Stella since she has lived there longer. Stella has grown out of that luxury and is content to live on modest means. Blanche feels she must always look her best; she bathes three times a day, must always be powdered, and needs to hear people tell her she's beautiful. Her trunk consists of furs, costume jewelry, and dresses of gold. Stella seems to simply throw something on and go and her wardrobe consists of cheap dresses and maybe a couple hats. The costume designers for the movie were wonderful at conveying the difference in clothing between the sisters.
ReplyDeleteBlanche also brings their more privileged upbringing when she confronts Stella about her choice in a husband. She states that Stanley is common and that Stella could do much better. The idea of Stanley being a poor Polish immigrant is also brought up. I can picture the contrast between a young immigrant trying to make his way in America and this old Southern family. The interesting thing is that their family's way of living has now been reduced to that of a Polish immigrant. Blanche is no further in the world right now than Stanley is.
Also, as soon as she arrives at her sister's, Blanche immediately comments on how small and dingy their place is. Even though she is staying there rent free, she also manages to give her opinion on the bed she will sleep on.
This is the third time I've read "A Streetcar Named Desire." This is one of those plays/movies that I both love and hate. I love it because Blanche and Stanley are just iconic. Marlon Brando and Viven Leigh just have this charisma, that even after 59 years, the audience still feels. Not only that but, Viven Leigh does a wonderful job of being the southern belle and the the pathetic woman losing her mind. I think Leigh definitely encompasses the woman Tennessee Williams had in mind when she wrote this play.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I hate this work because (like others have pointed out) you have Stanley who beats his wife. You have Mitch who only wants to be with Blanche before he finds out her past with the boys, why she's no longer a teacher, and Belle Reve. Then theres Stella who, despite being pregnant, is willing to do whatever anyone wants whenever they ask her (example: going for Blanche's cokes, etc). Finally there is Blanche...on one had you love her because she encompasses everything that is feminine and southern. However, she is a manipulator and uses what she can to her advantage. For instance, when she and Stanley are discussing the papers of Belle Reve--at first she is sweet, charming and flirty, but when she realizes that it's not getting her what she wants she changes...suddenly she's manic, "bestowing" Belle Reve (and it's papers) into Stanley's "capable hands."
It's like Blanche says, "I know I fib a good deal. After all, a woman's charm is 50% illusion"
I think reality is what drove Blanche crazy. She is the poster child for fantasy, with all the costumes, fashion jewelry, and illuminating illusions. She never wants to be seen in bright lights because she doesn't want her real-ness to be seen. She hides her real emotions and paints herself in an "old-fashioned" light, so to speak, to prevent her real self from being known to the others. I think Blanche was mostly responsible for her demise for never coming to grips with the reality she entered when she came to Elysian Fields via the Streetcar Desire. Desire brought her in just as it took her out (she desired kindness from the doctor, maybe something more by the way she's entranced by him).
ReplyDeleteBlanche's refusal to lay all her cards on the table cost her the poker game I suppose. Elysian Fields is a place where everybody's business is everybody's business. There are no facades. Blanche's facade was her demise, and I have a feeling it always has been and always will be.
The same thing happened with her homosexual husband. He kept that a secret from Blanche, and when the truth was brought to the surface via an unexpected discovery, Blanche's facade fell, treating Allan like Stanley treated her. Allan then killed himself.
Williams may be saying facades are as evil as those who are intolerant of them. Maybe neither side of fantasy versus reality will prevail...maybe what is needed is a balance of both.
I have to agree with Tyler, Stanley is more than just an asshole who beats his wife and rape her sister. He is the very picture, almost carricature of the abusive man. He treats both Stella and blanche like shit, yet he still is the one who really ends up being the "winner" in the end. It is, for me, a play against women appearant weakness, let me explain: a woman reading that goes "oh my, I would never have stayed with that moron!" Yet Stella does. Women are shown as fragile and victims, possibly to actually trigger something in the mind of the female readers/spectator.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the movie I take back most of what I said about Stanley. For one thing Brando's performance was more of a tour-de-force than I anticipated. More importantly, Blanche was so annoying in the movie, esp. w/her grating voice incessantly babbling affectation and deceit, that I began thinking that a full frontal lobotomy wouldn't be such a terrible option. Thank you Stanley, for shutting up that hysterical broad.
ReplyDeleteI think the play and the movie both just show reality at the time. It doesn't over exaggerate how women were treated, it just lays it out more in the public eye than usual. I think this makes the audience more uncomfortable than we want to be because it is not some distant scene behind closed doors but rather right in front of us. The beatings imposed by Stanley are not unique only to him. Eunice and Steve have a good round upstairs, and I think it was to show how commonplace it was.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Blanche goes, I think she is insane from the beginning and Stanley pushes her over the top. She deserved a good long yelling at, I'm not sure about rape and beatings, but a few harsh words were definitely in order for that girl.
I just wanted to add that I enjoyed the use of lighting in the movie. I think the scene that exhibits this the most is when Blanche is standing in the dark, wearing her best dress and rhinestone tiara. She is standing in the shadows, talking to her imaginary party guests, when Stanley enters and immediately turns on the light, illuminating the room and washing away Blanche's magical world. I just found this scene particularly well done and wanted to share.
ReplyDeleteSo since I have yet to comment on this play I think I will start with how I felt at the beginning of the play (before watching the movie) and how I felt by the time it was over.
ReplyDeleteAt first when reading the play I didn't know whose side to choose. I couldn't tell if Stanley was just judgemental and violent or if he had a valid reason to bad mouth Blanche. I wasn't able to see through Blanche's lies and her ease in doing so. Generally I give people the benefit of the doubt so I was waiting for Blanche to prove that she wasn't the immoral person that Stanley believed her to be.
I was wrong. I soon realized that Blanche's dirty little secrets were in fact a reality, and it seems at though she had her story (lies) well thought out before arriving at her sisters house. She played the sympathy card with Stella and pulled the covers right over her eyes as she dramatically explained her encounter with loss (the estate and people who she cared for).
After finding out the facts about Blanche Stanley seems almost like the hero even after his violent actions, at least in my opinion. He reveals Blanche's dark past in a way which makes it seem like he is trying to protect Mitch and Stella from the deceitful Blanche.
Ironically at the end of the play Blanche becomes the victim (judged for her past & raped) and Stanley becomes the bad guy ( he rapes blanche, cheats on stella, and drives Blanche to the point of insanity).
It's ironic to me that the man who wanted to ruin Blanche and reveal her dark past to protect the ones he cared for becomes the man who desired Blanche to the point of rape, cheated on his wife, and betrayed his best friend.
At the end of the play I decided to take Blanche's side. Though a little looney, she undoubtedly becomes the victim and in doing so gained my sympathy.
Since there was concern expressed about my last comment, let me just clarify that it was hyperbole in the service of (dark) humor. I am not actually pro-rape (well, maybe Stanley still deserves a good reaming...) or pro-lobotomy.
ReplyDeleteAlso, since I'm already on here. I have to say that I was disappointed but not really surprised that the film version of the play portrayed Stella escaping from her relationship with Stanley. It had to do with the 'problem' we touched on earlier of the play's lack of hope or catharsis. It's not the kind of ending Hollywood could leave alone. And unfortunately, by not leaving it alone, they significantly screwed it up.
STELLA!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThis is certainly off the topic most people have been considering, but I couldn't help but notice while reading that throughout the play that Williams has slipped in some very intricate color play. The stage directions obviously point to this, Stanley and the men always arrayed in bright colors, being "gaudy seed-bearers" and Blanche, in soft colors because she is a "soft" person. I noticed, though, that Blanche has a preoccuption with white and with that white getting stained. When Blanche arrives, she is dressed all in white (resemebling a moth.) When she meets up with Stella she exclaims over the stain on Stella's "pretty white lace collar." When Stanley is pressing her for information about Bella Reve and asks her about the letters from her husband she dismisses them as only love letters yellowing with age. This implies that their whiteness is lost and their value, albeit still present, is disminshed because of their antiquity. Then, when Stella is pouring Blanche her coke Blanche screams at it foaming onto her "pretty white skirt" but is relieved when it doesn't stain. Finally, in the scene of the rape, Blanche is arrayed in a "somewhat soiled and crumpled white" evening gown. This is very much different from the immaculate white suit that she arrived in. Not only is she completely lost in her fantasy world, but she is "stained" and about to be further "stained" by Stanley. Williams has crafted a subtle undertone of foreshadowing that can be traced throughout the entire play of Blanche's actual through his use of the color white.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above statement, that was actually the comment I was going to post, about the staining of the dress and her crumpled look after the rape as compared to what she was described as in the beginning.
ReplyDeleteI didn't really understand Stella and Blanche's relationship, and how weird it was on the movie when they were getting all close into each other's faces like they were going to kiss or something. It was very odd to me, because their relationship was definitely not a normal one portrayed in the play, how Stella was sort-of an enabler of Blanche's acting out. I never would have directed them to have body language like that. Anyway.