Second Paper Narrativa

How the Wesker Trilogy assembles a social and political structure between the 30’s and the end of the 50’s?

A mighty piece this Trilogy done by the gorgeous author, Arnold Wesker. He finely knits together a large number of stories and he assembles them in a way that they are all interconnected. I will analyze later how he makes this able and how he uses all the characters to build this network. I will also picture the society of the time and bring up, with quotes of the book, the political situation in the context of the plays. I have found interesting the comparison of the three plays to see on which aspects they coincide, as well as analyzing internally each play.

First I will analyze ‘Roots’, the central pillar of the Trilogy that is built just using nearly three weeks of 1959. We are presented to a family, the Bryant family, in a rural scenario, exactly in Norfolk, a low-lying county in the East of England and has about one-thirtieth the population density of central London. We enter this scenario with Beatie, the daughter of the Bryan’s which has arrived from London, where she’s actually living and working, and casually she’s Ronnie Kahn’s girlfriend, joining one family with the Kahn family which we has been presented to us on the first play, ‘Chicken Soup With Barley’. It’s shown to be totally rural and with no amenities as we can see with Mrs Bryant and stage directions, “(on hearing a bus) There go the half-past-eleven bus to Diss – blust that’s early” (Act 2, Sc 2). We see how she knows which hour it is by the noise of the bus, showing there is no kind of distraction apart from the quotidian things, every day is the same, nearly anything changing. The anxieties of the rural society are brought up by these characters and I would say that apart from living and surviving one day more, they don’t have any concerns with what happens out of that ‘bubble’ in which they are living. Beatie, the central character of this play and one of the daughters of this family, says to her mother Mrs Bryant, “Mother, I’m talking to you. Blust woman it’s always me listening to you telling who’s dead. Just listen a second” (Act 2, Sc 2). Even when the daughter puts on music on the radio she is not interested in it and not even wants to listen to it, as well as being totally out of tune on what is modern at the time, for example when Beatie tells her, “My pick-up. D’you see it?” and she answers back, “I hevn’t touched a thing”. Mrs Bryant, representing the women of a rural area, is totally ignorant on how the World is evolving, nearly reaching the sixties. We also meet her sister, Jenny, just at the beginning, she, being young as her, is as ignorant as their mother, this is shown when, for example she asks Beatie about the strike in London and she’s amused by the fact of how was the city like “wi’out the buses?” (Act 1). Jenny’s husband, Jimmy also seems to be quite plain and distant from the reality outside the countryside, we see this in his words, “Beatie: Ever heard of Chaucer, Jimmy?; Jimmy: No; Beatie: Do you know the MP for this constituency?; Jimmy: What you driving at gal – don’t give me no riddles” (Act 1). Once he realizes that he’s totally unaware of the current political situation and feels attacked by Beatie’s questions he suggests that Beatie is mocking him with her questions. With all this examples we have drawn a little parallel with the reality that happens in the society of the first play, ‘Chicken Soup With Barley’, and compare them two and see the great differences in social nucleus of the same time.

As I said at the beginning, interestingly, Beatie Bryant is Ronnie Kahn’s girlfriend, and she’s gone home so that her family, in two weeks time of her arrival (the beginning of the play), get to know Ronnie after 3 years of them having started a relationship. We are all along the play meeting Ronnie although, not even at the end, physically. Beatie is all the time quoting him, nearly every two phrases she states she must say something that Ronnie taught her or told her once. For example, all the political insights in this play are brought by her, but, always quoting him, for example “Christ he say. Socialism isn’t talking all the time, it’s living, it’s singing, it’s dancing, it’s being interested in what go on around you, it¡s being concerned about people and the world. Listen Mother. It’s simple, isn’t it?” (Act 2, Sc 2). She introduces his character little by little, letting know aspects of him that finally the audience/reader piles up and finds out that the Ronnie she’s talking about, her boyfriend, is Ronnie Kahn, for example, “Frank: What do you say he is – a strong socialist?; Beatie: Yes; Frank: And a Jew boy?; Beatie: Yes; Frank (to himself):  Well, that’s a queer mixture then” (Act 3). Also she talks about her sister Ada and her husband Dave, which we¡ll meet afterwards, again, on the third play of this Trilogy, “Jimmy: Hev he got any sisters?; Beatie: One married and she live not far from here; Pearl: She live in the country? A town girl? Whatever for?; Beatie: Her husband make furniture by hand; Pearl: Can’t she do that in London?; Beatie: Ronnie say they think London’s an inhuman place; Jimmy: So ’tis, so ’tis” (Act 3). So, right from now we see how both ‘rural’ perspectives, the Bryant’s and the Simmonds (Ada and Dave) have the same perspective of the City, but we will look at this closely when talking about the third play, ‘I’m Talking About Jerusalem’. Much more political insights are shown as for example when Beatie quotes, again, Ronnie, “You know I’m right. Education isn’t only books and music – it’s asking questions, all the time. There are millions of us, all over the country and no one, not one of us, is asking questions, all taking the easiest way out. Everyone I ever worked with took the easiest way out. We don’t fight for anything, we’re so mentally lazy we might as well be dead” (Act 3) and here starts a confrontation between Beatie and her mother when she acuses her of not giving her the opportunity of learning new things and giving her a good education,  “Beatie: God in heaven Mother, you live in the country but you got no –  no- no majesty. Your mind’s cluttered up with nothing and you shut the world! What kind of life did you give me? […] You didn’t open one door for me. Even Ronnie’s mother cared more for me than what you did. Did you care what job I took up or whether I learned things? You didn’t even think it was necessary; Mrs Bryant: I fed you. I clothed you. I took you out to the sea. What more d’you want. We’re only country folk you know. We ent  got no big things here you know; Beatie: Squit! Squit! It makes no difference country or town” (Act 3). Here, we see two different perspectives, one of a countryside woman which hasn’t gone outside this rural nucleus and a young woman which has been living in both, urban and rural areas, and at this point she has returned from the city back ‘in time’ into her original rural environment and sees the clear difference. A good example of different life perspectives and how society really was. This quote finally takes me to the point in which the author introduces the title of the play into the speech. This time it’s Beatie, the main character, claiming “I got no roots. I come from a family o’ farm laborers yet I ent got no roots – just like town people – just a mass o’ nothin” (Act 3). I see this as a rebellious moment in which she’s enervated by the whole situation and she has distanced herself from her ‘real roots’ and sees a great difference between them in all aspects. For me, this plays shows us the readers or the audience the theme of ‘self-discovery’, how little by little Beatie discovers her self under Ronnie’s words, culminated by the moment in which she’s attacking her family for not giving her ‘roots’ and the comfort she needs at the moment, but that as she feels displaced from this scenario now, she can’t find. At this moment, seemingly quoting Ronnie, she discovers that what she’s saying is her’s, “I’m talking. Jenny, Frankie, Mother – I’m not quoting no more” (Act 3).

Now, jumping onto the next play of the Trilogy, ‘I’m Talking About Jerusalem’. Here we meet again with the Kahn family but, now the focus is seen under another perspective. The play starts with the arrival of Ada Simmonds and Dave Simmonds, together with the help of her brother Ronnie and mother Sarah, to the Norfolks, exactly to “the Shambles” (Act 1 Sc1), as Ronnie and aunt Esther, “ – the Shambles, a very inviting name” (Act 2 Sc 2), informs us. Ironically this word is synonymous of mess or disorder, just how their lives are here in the countryside. They have decided, as we see on ‘Chicken Soup With Barley’ on Act 2 Scene 2 Ada says, “When Dave comes back we shall leave London and live in the country. That’ll be our socialism”, to move to the countryside searching for the peace they can’t find in “our horrible industrial civilization. We hate the large, inhuman cities. Back to nature” (Act 1 Sc 2). With Ada and Dave we view the ‘rural life’ with a distinct perspective than the one we can see on the previous play, ‘Roots’. This couple are young urbanites which are literate and have a certain domain in political and social theories. They have both been involved in socialist movements, Dave even participated in the Spanish Civil War. Anyone understands how spontaneously, now, they just want to leave all of their political circles and forget about their life, convert into farmers and not getting involved anymore in any kind of political movement. They are visited by one old friend, Libby Dobson, and he says “two ex-communists! There’s nothing more pathetic! […] There is nothing wrong with idealism, only when it’s soft and flabby. Go home. Be good children and go home, because you’ll never make the beautiful, rustic, estate” (Act 1 Sc 2). They are again questioned and seen as ridiculous by their aunts Esther and Cissie, one of them claims, “that’s something I don’t understand. So where’s the ideals gone all of a sudden?” (Act 2, Sc 2). There is no one that understands their decision of moving into the countryside and leaving aside their past life. They can’t understand this immediate disconnection they’ve decided to take, they see it irrational. In my opinion, I can more or less understand them, they are absolutely disgusted by the fact that their ideals, followed by other people in the city, can’t see any result. Specially Ada, on the first play she claims “No more political activity. It’s always the beginning for the Party. Every defeat is victory and every victory is the beginning. I do not believe in the right of organizing people. And anyway I’m not sure that I love them enough to want to organize them. I’m tired, Mother. I spent eighteen months waiting for Dave to return from Spain and waited six years for him to come home from a war against Fascism and I’m tired. And Dave’s experience is the same – fighting with men who he says did not know what the war was about. The only rotten society is an industrial society. It wasn’t the Trotskyist or the Social Democrat who did the damage. It was Progress!” (Act 2 Sc 1). Because of what they have had to live, the part of politics which they have suffered, they now see it in another perspective, anymore as something that will help them. As she says, progress is the one involved in all the negatives and problems, the search of this ideals has been the cause of all battles and have taken the life of many. So for them, the solution is to move into the ‘anti-progress’, to the undeveloped countryside of the 50’s. This is the motive that moves this couple to try and forget their past life and start from cero in “an old house in the middle of the fields. A large kitchen in the house, the garden, and the end part of an old barn” (Stage Directions). They try really hard to find their place in this rural environment, Dave adopting a job as furniture manufacturer but, in my opinion, a ‘socialist’ action he makes, takes him to get fired from his working place, and this is when he takes home “some old lino the Colonel threw away. I saw it lying around in the shed. It’s been there for months” (Act 1, Sc 2), this is what Dave says to Ada when she asks him what was what he brought home. Taking something ‘abandoned’, in his opinion, from his employer, as if he had the right on taking something that he imagines the Colonel doesn’t want. When the Colonel realizes he goes to the Simmond’s house and this is their conversation, “Colonel: Good Evening. This is not a social visit, Simmonds. You’re making difficult for me. I’ve treated you well, Simmonds, haven’t I?; Dave: I’m very grateful but – ; Colonel: You don’t show it; Dave: I don’t know what you’re talking about ; Colonel: The lino, the lino!! That’s what I’m talking about. You’re and intelligent man and I didn’t expect you to lie. Still I don’t expect you to steal from me, but you did. In fact I don’t understand you at all. What did you come to the country for? It’s different way of life here, y’know. They’re a slow people, the country people – slow, but sound. I know where I am with them, and they know their place with me. but with you I could never – ; Dave: Never get the right sort of master-servant relationship?; Colonel: Yes, if you like. But you didn’t like, did you? You spoke to me as if I were a – a – ; Dave: An equal; Colonel: I don’t like it Simmonds. I’m not a slave driver, but I believe each person has his place. Listen Simmonds, I’ve got to sack you” (Act 1, Sc2). Here we see how Dave has been adopting a very socialist behavior with his boss, he hasn’t changed his idea of all person being the same, no social class differences, and this has been the error of going to countryside thinking that there won’t be any differences between people, that everyone is at the same level. He has acted as if he was the owner of all, as the Colonel, and this has taken him to loose the job. At this point what I asked to myself was, does Dave really forget all those ideals he claims to hate and repudiate? And my answer is no, a rotund no. He has tried to cover his inner ideals with this admirable and humble life, but his most profund thoughts have emerged with his inconscient actions, which he now regrets, “Oh my God! I feel so ashamed. Jesus, I feel so ashamed. Ada I’m sorry…” (Act 1, Sc 2). He apologizes to his wife as he has failed in leaving apart the political ideals. He has deceived her by bringing back what she most hated and the motive for which they seeked a new life in the country, to leave behind this kind of problems.

In this play we are constantly, with some images and commentaries of the characters that come in and go out of scene, going back to the other plays. In my opinion, this is the play in which it relates most and mentions more moments that are seen on the plays that come earlier. Some examples are, when they’ve arrived to the countryside for the forest time and Sarah says to the rest “You know, it reminds me of Hungary, where I was born” (Act 1, Sc 2). If you know the rest of the plays, we have already been told this information on ‘Chicken Soup With Barley’. Also, at the beginning of the second act Ada is told to be coming back home from visiting her parents in London, when Harry Kahn, Ada’s father has got worse, “Not well at all poor Harry. This is his second stroke” (Act 2, Sc 1) says Dave to his co-worker Sammy. When Ada meets her husband at home she tells him how is her Dad “The second stroke affected his brain. He didn’t recognize me at first. He was lying on his back. He kept shouting in Yiddish, calling for his mother and his sister Cissie. Mummy told me he was talking about Russia” (Act 2, Sc2). On ‘Chicken Soup With Barley’ this happens on Act 3 but, curiously, the part in which Ada visit them doesn’t appear, not even mentioned. This play is also linked with ‘Roots’ as it also mentions Beatie Bryant the main character of that play and that was Ronnie’s girlfriend, “Did you ever hear what happened to Beatie Bryant, Ronnie? The girl you wanted to change.” (At 2, Sc 3). As well as some ‘mirror’ imagery, on how it reflects something that had already happened in the past, for example, the characters of the removal men, how they are the ones that bring them and their things to the countryside and also the ones that will take them back to London, 2nd Removal Man says, “Like vicars aren’t we? Brought you into the world now we’re taking you out!” (Act 2, Sc 3). Also, politically, as Ronnie says, “Well, you’ve chosen the right time to return anyway. You came in with them and you go out with them” (Act 2, Sc3), he’s talking about the Labour Party leaders being in Parliament. Lastly the image of the ‘basement’ also curious that the Trilogy starts with ‘Chicken Soup With Barley’, placing the main action in a basement with all the Kahn’s and it ends also in a basement, Ada and Dave going back to London and going to live in a basement, “Curious, a basement! The man who started work singing ‘Linden Lea’ in open air returns to a basement” (Act 2, Sc 3). Finally, something interesting about this author, in general, is the way in which he introduces the main words, of the title of his plays, inside the text. In this case the word ‘Jerusalem’ and many aspects that you can relate with it, as when Dave claims “you call me a prophet and laugh do you? Well, I’ll tell you. I am a prophet. Me” (Act 2, Sc 3). As well as just at the beginning, a biblical reference, it’s Ronnie comparing Ada and Dave with biblical characters, “Water for these brave people, a well! A biblical well. I can see you Ada, like Miriam at the well and Dave will come like Moses and drive away the strangers and you shall love him” (Act 1, Sc 1). The word ‘Jerusalem’ is brought up first by Ada’s friend Libby Dobson when he says “I believe in Jerusalem […] You want Jerusalem? Order it with an iron hand-” (Act 1, Sc 2), in my opinion, I interpret this word, Jerusalem, as the dream, what Ada and Dave have being trying to achieve, converting their life into a countryside lifestyle, and the fact that the Kahn’s are actually Jews, from two different origins, Yiddish and Hungarian, but they are Jews, and Jerusalem being the holiest land for them as Solomon’s Temple is situated here and it’s important because it is where the manuscript that contained Moses Ten Commandments.

To sum up all the three plays, I will try to list all the points I see that they have interestingly in common and how they develop them. To start with I find really intelligent how Wesker is able to bond the three plays, basically, by just using one character, Ronnie Kahn. He’s the only character that appears in the three plays and he has in all of the an important part of the story line. In ‘Chicken Soup With Barley’ and in ‘I’m Taliking About Jerusalem’ he is one of the main characters that appears in all the plot, but in ‘Roots’, although he doesn’t physically appear, he’s one of the main pillars in the story, as the main character, Beatie, his current girlfriend along the plot, is all the time talking about him and she’s gone back home, basically, so that her family get to know Ronnie. He is the youngest character of all and this could be meaningful as he is also the only one that doesn’t change in all the years that pass from the 30’s until nearly the 60’s. I also find interesting the different scenarios and social combinations he uses in each of the play. He presents the first play, ‘Chicken Soup With Barley’ in East End London with urbanites; then for ‘Roots’ he uses a rural site with a farmer family, just introduces the urban ideals with their daughter having half of her heart on the city and the other half on the countryside. He develops their problems and their life inquiries to let us see the real picture of how life works. Finally, for ‘I’m Talking About Jerusalem’ he uses both, a rural scenario, but, a urban family. With this he shows how one thing doesn’t fit inside another one, by this i mean that each society must live in their environment if not, it is shown by this three characters, each in their different surrounding, that if you come from the city you must stay there and if you have grown up in the countryside, if you try to live in a very populated area as it is London, you won’t ‘survive’. Dave and Ada have exactly this ‘death’ when they venture searching for a ‘uninfected’ life on the countryside, but they fail, and finally they have to return to their roots. Also, I can draw some similarities with the names of the plays and it’s contents. When I read ‘Chicken Soup With Barley’ and thought about the story that is told I immediately thought of a family meeting, all eating some kind of soup that your grandmother may have done, and this is exactly what it is done in this play, as the Kahn’s are always together, discussing and having family fights, but always bonded together. For ‘Roots’ it’s absolutely clear, Beatie Bryant tries to take her Londoner boyfriend to where she comes from, to where her roots are, although she is betrayed by him, and he never reaches to know them, and she enters in cholera as at this point of the story she feels she has no kind of attachment with this people that are her family. Finally for ‘I’m Talking About Jerusalem’, with this one I use a little bit more my imagination. Before reading it I couldn’t find any kind of link, apart from the fact that the characters are Jews. But after taking a closer look to the text I found out that maybe, why Wesker used this name is to show that for the Jews, in this case we would say Ada and Dave, the Shambles are the holiest place in the World where they have to build up their life and grow up their children. That’s why the whole story talks and it’s set on the rural site and not on the urban site, because they are showing, talking, about their own Jerusalem, their own Holly place.

Academic year 2013/2014
© a.r.e.a./Dr.Vicente Forés López
© María Traver Boix
traboix@alumni.uv.es

Publicado en General | Deja un comentario

First Paper Abstract

FIRST PAPER

 

Subject : #35336 English Narrative in the 20th and 21st Centuries

Student´s name: Traver Boix, Maria

Title of the paper: ‘Chicken Soup With Barley’, a mirror to the social and political situation, of England and the World, from the 1930’s to the 1950’s

Author or topic: Arnold Wesker – Politics

 

Abstract: I am going to present a close reading of how Arnold Wesker has depicted the social and political background of a Jewish family in London between the 30’s and 50’s, together with references of the political situation of the whole World, which influenced the country’s (in-)stability. Dividing it in different paragraphs which relate each act with each time frame and quoting all the historical mentions.

Bibliography, URL’s

Auto-evaluation:

I think I have done quite a good work, looking closely on every little reference I could find on any kind of political insight, and then comparing it with the real historical context. I think I deserve between 7 and 8.

 

pastedGraphic.png

Academic year 2013/2014
© a.r.e.a./Dr.Vicente Forés López
© Maria Traver Boix
traboix@alumni.uv.es

Publicado en General | Deja un comentario

Second Paper Abstract

SECOND PAPER

 

Subject : #35336 English Narrative in the 20th and 21st Centuries

Student´s name: Traver Boix, María

Title of the paper: How the Wesker Trilogy assembles a social and political structure between the 30’s and end of 50’s.

Author or topic: Arnold Wesker – Politics and Society

 

Abstract: Wesker, very intrinsically, draws the english society of the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s using different kind of characters and scenes that bring the stereotypes and the kind of preoccupations that people of these times would have in a broad spectrum.

I have used these three plays to focus on different social backgrounds and compare the ideologies and problems that each nucleus had and how they affront them. But the curious thing that this trilogy has is that everything is done using one of the characters, Ronnie Kahn, as a linking bond for the three plays. He ‘appears’ in all the plays, although in one we can’t reach to meet him, but he is the one that moves the central action, although not being physically there. It also shows a general disintegration of the families that appear… this being reminiscent to the social and political break down of the England of the time.

At the same time approaching all of the plays to Wesker’s reality and even also the reality that ‘we’ are living now in the twenty first century.

 

Bibliography, URL’s

Auto-evaluation:

In my opinion, but at the same time being objective, I think I have approached these three plays with a good perspective and tried to bring to the surface the most important links between them, but never forgetting the themes which I focused on, politics and society of the context. I think I deserve something between the 7 and 8.

 

Academic year 2013/2014
© a.r.e.a./Dr.Vicente Forés López
© María Traver Boix
traboix@alumni.uv.es

Publicado en General | Deja un comentario

First Paper Narrativa

 

‘Chicken Soup With Barley’, a mirror to the social and political situation, of England and the World, from the 1930’s to the 1950’s

 

I am going to present a close reading of how Arnold Wesker has depicted the social and political background of a Jewish family in London between the 30’s and 50’s, together with references of the political situation of the whole World, which influenced the country’s (in-)stability. Dividing it in different paragraphs which relate each act with each time frame and quoting all the historical mentions.

 

On Act One we are introduced to the 30’s, specifically we enter in October of 1936 with the Kahn’s and it’s friends at the kitchen of the Kahn’s basement (typical of the time when the play was written as this was so that the scenery was cheap and affordable as well as bringing proximity with the audience, that’s why it was called Kitchen-sink drama). Henry says, “streets are packed with people […] they’ve got barricades at Gardiner corner” (Act 1,  scene 1) The slogan said to be is “Madrid today-London tomorrow” this makes reference to the Spanish Civil War that was in that moment bursting, which was backed by France, Italy and Germany, also referred to this in the text, Monty: “Germany and Italy are supplying them with guns, tanks and airplanes” (Act 1,  scene 1), meaning to the Fascist side in the war. All of them being on the strike which were called ‘The Hunger Marches’ in which people tried to draw political attention on the situation of the big unemployment spectrum, more than 2 million unemployed. As they remark, it is full of policemen and “Mosley’s blackshirts” (Act 1,  scene 1). Sir Oswald Mosley was the president of the BUF (the British Union of Fascists) who got it’s inspiration from the Nazi’s and on Italy but who never gained any seat in Parliament. It was a time in which minor parties started to gain popularity offering radical solutions for Britain’s economic problems, and as well as the BUF there was also the British Communist Party, it’s core being young intellectuals but the vast majority industrial workers. They gained one seat on 1935 and there inspiration came, obviously, from the Soviet Union’s leader, Joseph Stalin, the father of communism I would say. We get many more references to communism as when Monty says to have seen Harry “at Cable Street; he was waving the old red flag” (Act 1,  scene 2) as well, when Cissie tells the rest how a member of their Party gets on the barrow of a vegetable store and starts to quote Lenin’s letter, “Let us now remember the lessons of the Russian Revolution” (Act 1,  scene 2). Some of the characters do some kind of comments which may give the sense, to the audience or reader, of some kind of prediction of the Second World War as for example when Henry says, “So you don’t have to shout […] there’s going to be a big war soon, a Fascist war” (Act 1,  scene 1) and Monty also does a similar reference on Act 1, scene 2, “I bet we have a revolution soon. Hitler won’t stop at Spain, you know. You watch him go and you watch the British Government lick his arse until he spits in their eye. Then we’ll move in”. In both quotes they are true, Germany was at the time trying to expand their territory starting with the remilitarization of the Rhineland, reincorporation of Saar and annexation of Austria. Britain also getting involved as Chamberlain (the Prime Minister at the time) promised ‘peace for our time’ with the policy of appeasement, which failed once Germany tried to invade Poland, and the Second World War bursted, when this policy failed and war with Germany was inevitable, this was on 1939. Here the first act finishes, with lots of background information on our backs introduced by the characters of the play.

 

This second act is introduced by a stage direction which says, “Late April 1946 – the war has come and gone […] The working class in a little more respectable now, they have not long since voted in a Labour Government”. At this moment WWII has passed one year ago. Britain is totally bankrupt, although it appeared to be victorious. From 1940-1945 Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister and managed to be a great politician during the war but afterwards, although the polls were on his favor, definitely wasn’t re-elected, his way of governing was good but these qualities weren’t near the domestic politics needed at the moment. It is made reference to the government at that moment by Ronnie, “With a Labour majority in the House and two of our own Party members” (Act 2,  scene 1). Also, the industrial sector was neglected and outdated, and this affected the volume of production, this is shown in the text by Harry when he says, “Is it my fault if the garment industry is so unstable?” (Act 2,  scene 1) , this being said in the moment in which he has been fired. At this moment in the play the group which once fought all together for those socialist ideals is starting to shatter, the first one to show this repulse towards her past position is Ada, the daughter of the Kahn’s, “I don’t believe in the right to organize people. I’m tired, Mother. […] I spent eighteen months waiting for Dave to return from Spain and now I’m waiting six years for him to come home from a war against Fascism and I am tired. […] How many friends has the Party lost because of lousy, meaningless titles they gave to people? […] The only rotten society is an industrial society. […] What audacity tells you you can harbour a billion people in a theory? (Act 2,  scene 1) She also claims she’s moving to the countryside, “When Dave comes back we shall leave London and live on the country. That’ll be our socialism. No political activity”. This was a common dream at the moment, an obsession that society of the time had, to move to the countryside seeking for fresh air and new ideals, far from the city, leaving all the problems to the past. Her brother, still a fifteen year old young boy is in the moment of his life in which he wants to get totally involved in this progressive environment and mocks on her sister, “Ada and Dave are struggling in a tied cottage in the country. Ada suckles a beautiful baby. They are happy. Two Jews in the Fens” (Act 2,  scene 2) while her aunt, Cissie also claims they ara “Lunatics” (Act 2,  scene 2), another example of a still active character in the Party. It is shown that there are still strikes going on as Cissie says, “We’ve got a strike. Dilingers are probably going to lock it’s workers” (Act 2,  scene 2) by this showing again how the industrial sector is in decline and not giving work to people. Curiously both industries mentioned are clothing factories which show that once after the war there’s no demand of clothing anymore, maybe indicating that these businesses helped doing the uniforms of the army or that proportioned materials for the confection of the clothing’s of some active group in war time. Finally at the end of this act there is an attack to the government and/or society said by Ronnie, “Capitalist exploiters” (Act 2,  scene 2). It was a moment in which the country had received money from the Marshall Plan, intended for those countries which were suffering after the war so they could recover. Britain received exactly from this plan $2.7 millions from 1949 till 1951 that the Plan ended. As well they asked US for a $4 billion loan which they were granted with. With all this money they didn’t improve the industrial infrastructures, neither the country’s ones. The roads were neglected, no motorways until 1958, poor communication systems… It was a time of great national waste, of wasting the state provisions in, for example, maintaining the army, although there were budget cuts, while countries as US and Japan did not spend any money in this. The first politic to realize there was a problem was John Manyard Keynes, the chief economic advisor of the Labour Party, who warned the MP’s and gave the ‘Dunkirk Solution’.

 

 

The third act starts on November 1955, at the moment there’s a totally unbranched structure inside the familiar structure of the beginning. For example about Cissie is said that, “The trade union members retired her. She live on a pension, visits the relatives –  you know…”. (Act 3,  scene 1) Also, Bessie and Monty Blatt visit Sarah and Harry; Sarah asks if he’s still involved in the Party while Monty answers, “No, Sarah – I’m not still in the Party […] I haven’t got any solutions any more. Sarah, believe me. There’s nothing more to life than a house, some friends, and a family – take my word” (Act 3,  scene 1). Again, another character whom is totally out of any political involvement. They also talk about the past moments in which they were both involved in politics, Monty reveals to her many things that happened inside the Party which were unknown at the moment, “Did Dave ever tell you the way some of the Party members refused to fight alongside the Trotskyists? And one or two of the Trotskyists didn’t come back and they weren’t killed in the fighting either? And remember Itzack Pheffer – the Soviet Yiddish writer? Where’s Itzack Pheffer? everyone used to say. Well, we know now, don’t we. The great ‘leader’ is dead now, and we know, The whole committee of the Jewish Anti-Fascist League were shot! Shot, Sarah! In our land of socialism. That was our land. We didn’t believe the stories then!” (Act 3,  scene 1). Here we can feel the bad tempere in which Monty is saying this words to Sarah to make her understand why he doesn’t believe any more in those ideas in which some time before he used to give his life for. This was a common position at the time, people had lost their ideals, they didn’t believe any more in the people they used to do because of the past events. It was also the time were the Cold War was in its climax stage. There were world clashes between communism and capitalism, mostly on the Northern Hemisphere, as the Korean War, the Space Race… And Europe was still divided into two, the West and the Soviet bloc, this division also called the Iron Curtain. At the end, Ronnie the Kahn’s son returns from Paris where he was working as a cook (he had also dismissed his ideal of becoming a ‘socialist poet’). He comes back home totally disgusted with the ideals he once had, “I – I’m sick, Sarah!” (Act 3,  scene 2). He tells her mother why and what he feels, “What has happened to all the comrades, Sarah! I even blush when I use that word. […] I feel ashamed to use words like democracy and freedom and brotherhood. They don’t have meaning any more. […] I was going to be a great socialist writer. […] Didn’t it hurt you to read about the murder of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in the Soviet Union? […] I’ve lost my faith and I’ve lost my ambition. […] The family you always wanted has disintegrated” (Act 3,  scene 2). He follows by listing the actual position of all the characters of the play, “Dave and Ada in the Fens, and Prince working in a second-hand shop, and Uncle Hyme stuck smugly at home and Auntie Cissie once devoted – once involved – wandering from relative to relative. What happened to us? “ (Act 3,  scene 2). There is also a moment in which they make reference to the Hungarian invasion of the communist troops because of anti-communist uprisings, “I don’t suppose you’ve bothered to read what happened in Hungary” (Act 3,  scene 2) . He ends his speech by saying to her “You’re still a communist!” (Act 3,  scene 2), the word ‘communist’ used as an insult as he repulses them at this moment. Sarah, being the only character that still has the same willings, politically, as at the beginning, says, “So I’m still a communist! Shoot me then! I’ve always been one. When you were a baby and there was unemployment and everybody was thinking so – all the world was a communist. But it’s different now. Now people have forgotten […] You give them a few shillings in the bank and they can buy a television so they think it’s all over, they don’t have to think any more! Is that what you want? A world where people don’t think any more?” (Act 3,  scene 2). She strongly answers her son and at the same time she depicts the society of this decade because, for many the 50’s were a Golden Age, people were enthusiastic because the government was doing well in taking the country out of desolation, there was a economic and employment expansion, they transformed Britain’s social and cultural landscape but it was a society based on capitalism and consumerism, taken by the Conservatives, being Harold Macmillian the Prime Minister.

 

With this play Wesker tries to reproduce major problems of his time. He catalyzes Britain’s society with the Kahn’s family. Close to everyday life and with a common speech, he makes it understandable to every kind of audience. He can also, in this way, touch universal issues that happen along the plays contextual timeline, that at the same time is indispensable for explaining the characters life. Political disillusionment is very important for the whole play as it’s the root of the storyline. It is where everything starts and at the same time the result of every event in the 20 years setting. To this family it seems impossible to maintain any communication without placing it in a political context. It is also very interesting for me to study this play because it perfectly fits into a 21st century context. The Kahn’s could be actually a Spanish family living, for example, in Valencia. Wesker has done a gorgeous work capturing the basics of a family, and at the same time transmitting all their feelings and their anxieties.

Academic year 2013/2014
© a.r.e.a./Dr.Vicente Forés López
© María Traver Boix
traboix@alumni.uv.es

Publicado en General | Deja un comentario

Hola, món!

Bienvenido a Blogs de la Universitat de València. Este es tu primer post. Edítalo o bórralo y luego comienza a hacer blogging!

Publicado en General | 1 comentario