#151
Posted: 4/5/12 at 4:55pm
I am so glad to be reading the positive reviews for this production and for Ms. Parker. I've been a fan of hers since "Soul Food". She's quite a talented lady.
They've dropped the "Kowalski" from Stanley's name in new Streetcar revival — Page 7
#152
Posted: 4/5/12 at 5:02pm
I caught one of those in Provincetown. "Fugitive Roz Kind." Not great.
Poor Mississip. His next special material effort, "Suddenly, Suzanne Somers" was even less well received.
Poor Mississip. His next special material effort, "Suddenly, Suzanne Somers" was even less well received.
#153
Posted: 4/5/12 at 5:15pm
With a bit of research, I found another one of Mississippi Williams' forgotten gems: "The Rose Shampoo"
"Long live God!" (GODSPELL)
#154
Posted: 4/5/12 at 7:11pm
Tennessee Williams believed that ultimately Blanche is a survivor. In a recent interview with Emily Mann, she recounts asking Tennessee what happened to Blanche after STREETCAR and he replied 'she opens a very successful clothing store in the French Quarter while Stanley and Stella descend further into squalor.'
Michael, I believe Mr. Williams was being facetious or at best, playfully ironic. It is well documented that Blanche was based on his sister and I know you know what happened to her after the doctor came to pick her up. (For those who don't know, Williams' sister Rose was lobotomized against her will and spent the rest of her life in mental institutions.)
Stella's horror in the final moments (and obvious guilt over her self-serving refusal to believe Blanche's account of the rape) does not suggest that Blanche will be back for Christmas dinner someday, much less for some future triumph in the world of commerce.
Moreover, Williams often spoke of Blanche's "destruction" in later years and how she was an example of how fragile, beautiful people are crushed by the ruthless.
My admiration for Ms. Mann knows few limits, so if she says it, I'm sure it happened. But as I said above, Mr. Williams was not always the most reliable authority on his own work. His MEMOIRS are famous for their inaccuracies and questionable judgments.
Michael, I believe Mr. Williams was being facetious or at best, playfully ironic. It is well documented that Blanche was based on his sister and I know you know what happened to her after the doctor came to pick her up. (For those who don't know, Williams' sister Rose was lobotomized against her will and spent the rest of her life in mental institutions.)
Stella's horror in the final moments (and obvious guilt over her self-serving refusal to believe Blanche's account of the rape) does not suggest that Blanche will be back for Christmas dinner someday, much less for some future triumph in the world of commerce.
Moreover, Williams often spoke of Blanche's "destruction" in later years and how she was an example of how fragile, beautiful people are crushed by the ruthless.
My admiration for Ms. Mann knows few limits, so if she says it, I'm sure it happened. But as I said above, Mr. Williams was not always the most reliable authority on his own work. His MEMOIRS are famous for their inaccuracies and questionable judgments.
#155
Posted: 4/5/12 at 7:37pm
Has anyone has any success in locating a reading copy of Mississippi Williams' lesser-known play, "Crabs for a Summer Hotel"?
"Long live God!" (GODSPELL)
#156
Posted: 4/5/12 at 9:18pm
Yes, Doll! He wrote that one under the working title "I Left My Clothes at the Syphilis Hotel."
#157
Posted: 4/5/12 at 10:26pm
Thanks for that info. I'll check Amazon and see if it's available there.
"Long live God!" (GODSPELL)
#158
Posted: 4/5/12 at 10:52pm
Gaveston-- I don't doubt that he actually told Emily Mann that story either and what that indicates to me is that more than any other family member the character of Blanche is, consciously or not, really a projection of Williams himself and how he saw himself in the world. Mann was friends with Williams later in his life and though he was a life long depressive the story may well have been recounted at a time when Williams saw himself as something more of a survivor. as opposed to the lonely depressed man he was when he wrote the play. At any rate Mann didn't seem to believe his response to have been facetious and I do think it's partly influenced her direction of this particular production.
Updated On: 4/5/12 at 10:52 PM
#159
Posted: 4/6/12 at 9:04am
^Fascinating, MB. I like your take on this as it suggests that even an author's own sense of afterstory might change with time rather than be entrenched in a definitive stasis - and the same might be said about backstory and action as well.
#160
Posted: 4/6/12 at 2:06pm
Gaveston-- I don't doubt that he actually told Emily Mann that story either and what that indicates to me is that more than any other family member the character of Blanche is, consciously or not, really a projection of Williams himself and how he saw himself in the world. Mann was friends with Williams later in his life and though he was a life long depressive the story may well have been recounted at a time when Williams saw himself as something more of a survivor. as opposed to the lonely depressed man he was when he wrote the play. At any rate Mann didn't seem to believe his response to have been facetious and I do think it's partly influenced her direction of this particular production.
You are absolutely right, Michael, "facetious" was the wrong word. Although there is ample evidence in the play and the short story (by Williams) on which it is based that the character of Blanche was inspired by his sister, in his later years you are correct that he took to announcing "I *AM* Blanche DuBois." (Of course, all our characters are projections of us playwrights, but Williams went overboard claiming to be Blanche in his later years. It was the closest thing mainstream TV had to a drag show, Milton Berle notwithstanding.)
I'm sure he was, as you say, thinking of himself when he said what he said to Ms. Mann, thinking of how he had survived so many decades "covering the waterfront" (his expression to David Frost). But he was also rewriting the play for the umpteenth time when he died, so I don't know that he was always the best authority on or friend of his own play.
Exactly how was Blanche DuBois, given the mores of 1947 OR 1953, supposed to get herself out of the hospital, establish herself with no visible means of support and then find investors to give her the capital to open a shop? Stanley isn't some random psychopath; he and Mitch are very much examples of how the world treats Blanche DuBois. Her "successful clothing shop" is Williams' pipe dream (maybe literally).
What IS important is that she and Stanley are evenly matched in their battle for Stella's soul. Playing Blanche as utterly helpless or already defeated upsets the balance of the play.
Stanley's "trump card" is the baby. He is fertile and Blanche is not, and that makes all the difference in the end. Desire + fertility = life. Desire without fertility is a slow march to the grave. (In the world of the play. This isn't my personal opinion.)
You are absolutely right, Michael, "facetious" was the wrong word. Although there is ample evidence in the play and the short story (by Williams) on which it is based that the character of Blanche was inspired by his sister, in his later years you are correct that he took to announcing "I *AM* Blanche DuBois." (Of course, all our characters are projections of us playwrights, but Williams went overboard claiming to be Blanche in his later years. It was the closest thing mainstream TV had to a drag show, Milton Berle notwithstanding.)
I'm sure he was, as you say, thinking of himself when he said what he said to Ms. Mann, thinking of how he had survived so many decades "covering the waterfront" (his expression to David Frost). But he was also rewriting the play for the umpteenth time when he died, so I don't know that he was always the best authority on or friend of his own play.
Exactly how was Blanche DuBois, given the mores of 1947 OR 1953, supposed to get herself out of the hospital, establish herself with no visible means of support and then find investors to give her the capital to open a shop? Stanley isn't some random psychopath; he and Mitch are very much examples of how the world treats Blanche DuBois. Her "successful clothing shop" is Williams' pipe dream (maybe literally).
What IS important is that she and Stanley are evenly matched in their battle for Stella's soul. Playing Blanche as utterly helpless or already defeated upsets the balance of the play.
Stanley's "trump card" is the baby. He is fertile and Blanche is not, and that makes all the difference in the end. Desire + fertility = life. Desire without fertility is a slow march to the grave. (In the world of the play. This isn't my personal opinion.)
#161
Posted: 4/6/12 at 2:49pm
I agree, and think your observation is probably a more astute analysis of the play as a straight text. As you say, you often have to take the opinion of the writer (oddly enough) out of the equation and how Williams felt about the character 30 years later is in truth somewhat incidental.
But apparently, Williams also told a similar story to Clare Bloom, which is recounted in the book WHEN BRANDO MET BLANCHE, which does seem to indicate that (at least later in his life) he saw Blanche has ultimately triumphant.
Here's the Claire Bloom story, as recounted by Gore Vidal:
"The Bird looked at her suspiciously, then he said, 'Do you have any questions about the play?'
"'Yes.' Claire pulled herself together. 'What happens after the final curtain?'
"The Bird sat back in his chair, narrowed his eyes. 'No actress has ever asked me that question.' He shut his eyes, thought. 'She will enjoy her time in the bin. She will seduce one or two of the more comely young doctors. Then she will be let free to open an attractive boutique in the French Quarter?'
"'She wins?'
"'Oh, yes,' said the Bird. 'Blanche wins.'"
Vidal went on to describe Bloom's performance as having been superb, with her leaving at the end as if for a coronation.
But apparently, Williams also told a similar story to Clare Bloom, which is recounted in the book WHEN BRANDO MET BLANCHE, which does seem to indicate that (at least later in his life) he saw Blanche has ultimately triumphant.
Here's the Claire Bloom story, as recounted by Gore Vidal:
"The Bird looked at her suspiciously, then he said, 'Do you have any questions about the play?'
"'Yes.' Claire pulled herself together. 'What happens after the final curtain?'
"The Bird sat back in his chair, narrowed his eyes. 'No actress has ever asked me that question.' He shut his eyes, thought. 'She will enjoy her time in the bin. She will seduce one or two of the more comely young doctors. Then she will be let free to open an attractive boutique in the French Quarter?'
"'She wins?'
"'Oh, yes,' said the Bird. 'Blanche wins.'"
Vidal went on to describe Bloom's performance as having been superb, with her leaving at the end as if for a coronation.
#162
Posted: 4/6/12 at 4:37pm
First, Michael, thank you for the correction. Of course, Emily Mann is astute enough to know whether Williams was being facetious, as I put it. If she says he was sincere, I'm sure he was.
Also, thank you for the Vidal anecdote. Of course there are some who say Vidal is no more reliable than Williams after a certain age, but never mind that now.
Williams' response to Bloom raises at least a couple of questions in my mind:
Was his a clever way of getting actresses to play Blanche appropriately at the end of the play? Because of course Blanche should exit with the doctor as if she has finally won her struggle and is off to her safe haven at last! Because that's exactly what the crazy Blanche would believe (having already forgotten the little contretemps with the nurse). But I don't think there's anything in the text to indicate the doctor sees her as anything but a pitiable patient.
Or (and this is probably more likely) had Williams simply rewritten dramatic history in his own head? There's no evidence that Blanche is successfully seducing anyone but paper boys and grown men who want to abuse her. I don't see how she gets a dress shop out of that. Particularly not in an era when even women of means often had trouble getting credit in their own names.
In fact, Williams' fantasy rather negates his entire play. Maybe that's why he was rewriting it when he died. (I've always wondered what he was rewriting; maybe the pages are in the archives at the U. of Texas.)
Also, thank you for the Vidal anecdote. Of course there are some who say Vidal is no more reliable than Williams after a certain age, but never mind that now.
Williams' response to Bloom raises at least a couple of questions in my mind:
Was his a clever way of getting actresses to play Blanche appropriately at the end of the play? Because of course Blanche should exit with the doctor as if she has finally won her struggle and is off to her safe haven at last! Because that's exactly what the crazy Blanche would believe (having already forgotten the little contretemps with the nurse). But I don't think there's anything in the text to indicate the doctor sees her as anything but a pitiable patient.
Or (and this is probably more likely) had Williams simply rewritten dramatic history in his own head? There's no evidence that Blanche is successfully seducing anyone but paper boys and grown men who want to abuse her. I don't see how she gets a dress shop out of that. Particularly not in an era when even women of means often had trouble getting credit in their own names.
In fact, Williams' fantasy rather negates his entire play. Maybe that's why he was rewriting it when he died. (I've always wondered what he was rewriting; maybe the pages are in the archives at the U. of Texas.)
#163
Posted: 4/6/12 at 5:31pm
At the mention of those names, I want to threadjack momentarily to tell my favorite story about--well, about anything, really.
Williams and Vidal were in Rome (I think) and were out looking for boys to take home. Around 2 or 3 in the morning, having had no luck, Tennessee turned and said "Well, Gore, it looks like it's you and me."
To which Vidal replied "Don't be macabre."
Williams and Vidal were in Rome (I think) and were out looking for boys to take home. Around 2 or 3 in the morning, having had no luck, Tennessee turned and said "Well, Gore, it looks like it's you and me."
To which Vidal replied "Don't be macabre."
#164
Posted: 4/6/12 at 5:45pm
Seeing the play in production, I'm always freshly reminded of something obvious: Stanley does not consider his violation of her anything close to rape. "We've had this date from the beginning..." in part means, "I'm entitled. You're fair game. And (critically) "your sustained flirtation with me from day one invited and justifies this." That said, I've strongly disagreed with those who now characterize the attack as "date rape," especially when "date" added as modifier is intended to suggest the assault occurs within a socially approved context, after Blanche provided her imprimatur for some degree of intimacy. It is not a "date" that goes bad. It's a man cruelly exploiting a regrettable circumstance and committing a violent act on a woman. As in most rape, the violence is tied to a misapplication of power. To Stanley, Blanche is an obstacle to his authority in his domain, and as a rapist Stanley humiliates his obstacle to restore his dominant role in his home. This all came up with Baldwin and Lange, and Lange was appalled, justifiably, that some people saw it very differently.
Leaving the criminal definitions and sociological aspects out of the discussion, dramatically there's no persuasive way to play the rape as consensual sex, not and serve the existing dialogue and plot. The play disintegrates into a shallow tale of he said/she said, making Blanche a pathological liar who covers up a seduction, i.e. a woman who exploits being left alone with her brother-in-law rather than the opposite. (There goes the last scene's veracity and emotional power.) And yet, is Blanche attracted to Stanley? Of course. I've heard countless people use that fact as proof of consensual sex, when it's actually as irrelevant as a woman being told "your miniskirt provoked him." Blanche may feel the attraction in every encounter, but every fiber of her being resists Stanley.
Leaving the criminal definitions and sociological aspects out of the discussion, dramatically there's no persuasive way to play the rape as consensual sex, not and serve the existing dialogue and plot. The play disintegrates into a shallow tale of he said/she said, making Blanche a pathological liar who covers up a seduction, i.e. a woman who exploits being left alone with her brother-in-law rather than the opposite. (There goes the last scene's veracity and emotional power.) And yet, is Blanche attracted to Stanley? Of course. I've heard countless people use that fact as proof of consensual sex, when it's actually as irrelevant as a woman being told "your miniskirt provoked him." Blanche may feel the attraction in every encounter, but every fiber of her being resists Stanley.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
#165
Posted: 4/6/12 at 6:00pm
Regi, I don't believe threads belong to anyone, so there's no such thing as "thread jacking" in my eyes.
But if there were, you could jack my thread anytime. (And, no, I had no idea how that would sound until I typed it. I am leaving it in honor of Our Lord's day on the Cross. No doubt He could use a laugh.)
But if there were, you could jack my thread anytime. (And, no, I had no idea how that would sound until I typed it. I am leaving it in honor of Our Lord's day on the Cross. No doubt He could use a laugh.)
#166
Posted: 4/6/12 at 6:20pm
Very well discussed, Auggie. I hope I was clear when I broached the subject that there is no question in my mind that Blanche is raped in the legal sense and that Stanley should be prosecuted.
(And I agree that calling it "date rape" just confuses the distinction between legal definitions and tragic denouement.)
And she's certainly abused emotionally and psychologically, devastatingly so considering her already fragile mental state.
I never meant to imply the encounter was "consensual"; after all, she faces down Stanley over a broken beer bottle. When Blanche drops the beer bottle, she succumbs to the inevitable; she isn't winking and hopping into Stanley's arms.
But in the legal sense, we agree the victim bears no culpability for her suffering. In the tragic sense, however and whether the suffering be rape, murder or some other tragic fate, we understand that the sufferer has provoked his/her own fate because although his intentions were good, he lacked the knowledge to achieve a good result. (This is all laid out in Aristotle's Poetics, as I'm sure you know.)
Turning Blanche into a modern rape victim in the legal sense may be politically correct, but it denies her her rightful place alongside the great tragic heroes such as Oedipus and Hamlet. But that's not to say she meant to "hook up" with Stanley, no more than Oedipus meant to sleep with his mother.
I do think you go too far when you say Blanche resists Stanley "with every fiber of her being." Look at the trunk scene (Scene 2, I believe). Blanche assures Stella that she (Blanche) knows better how to handle men like Stanley and sashays off to grapple with her brother-in-law, feather boa swirling about her.
Blanche is both attracted to and repulsed by Stanley. And that leads to her tragedy. (Which isn't to say she ever literally intends to bed her sister's husband.)
(And I agree that calling it "date rape" just confuses the distinction between legal definitions and tragic denouement.)
And she's certainly abused emotionally and psychologically, devastatingly so considering her already fragile mental state.
I never meant to imply the encounter was "consensual"; after all, she faces down Stanley over a broken beer bottle. When Blanche drops the beer bottle, she succumbs to the inevitable; she isn't winking and hopping into Stanley's arms.
But in the legal sense, we agree the victim bears no culpability for her suffering. In the tragic sense, however and whether the suffering be rape, murder or some other tragic fate, we understand that the sufferer has provoked his/her own fate because although his intentions were good, he lacked the knowledge to achieve a good result. (This is all laid out in Aristotle's Poetics, as I'm sure you know.)
Turning Blanche into a modern rape victim in the legal sense may be politically correct, but it denies her her rightful place alongside the great tragic heroes such as Oedipus and Hamlet. But that's not to say she meant to "hook up" with Stanley, no more than Oedipus meant to sleep with his mother.
I do think you go too far when you say Blanche resists Stanley "with every fiber of her being." Look at the trunk scene (Scene 2, I believe). Blanche assures Stella that she (Blanche) knows better how to handle men like Stanley and sashays off to grapple with her brother-in-law, feather boa swirling about her.
Blanche is both attracted to and repulsed by Stanley. And that leads to her tragedy. (Which isn't to say she ever literally intends to bed her sister's husband.)
#167
Posted: 4/6/12 at 6:47pm
I absolutely agree, from an Aristotelian standpoint (therefore, most importantly) Blanche absolutely instigates her tragic fate. One might argue that her decision merely to remain in the Kowalski home past the point of no return, once she's become aware of its myriad psychological and physical dangers, constitutes an open invitation to her own crisis. I didn't actually post my take on the rape to contradict your argument, Gaveston, merely to augment the discussion. But you're correct, I believe, in reminding us that a modern, criminal definition of rape isn't useful in discussing the play's storytelling.
Revisiting STREETCAR armed with Marsha Norman's edict to playwrights that "an audience will lose patience with a protagonist who doesn't take action on his own behalf," I marvel at the ways Blanche does indeed seek to save herself. Her decision and evolving machinations to snare Mitch are coolly strategic despite being deeply moving; her efforts to secure Mitch's protective presence as a possible lifeline*, one she works hard to grasp, make her dynamic and not a doormat. And I'd argue that even her delusional call to Shep adheres to Marsha's dramaturgical dictum. Blanche is a great character in no small part because she's lost everything but never ceases to be resourceful, even trapped in the Kowalski home.
*Could she fall in love with Mitch? That's one relationship in the play that I can imagine a goldmine for new interpretation. We know she wants to "rest" with Mitch; but if an actress plays genuine romantic attraction, and decides that Blanche is "in love," are the stakes higher or when Mitch (who does seem to fall for her) rejects her? I never thought Vivian Leigh played anything beyond caring and affection toward Malden. In the Roundabout revival Chris Bauer was so much more attractive that John C. Reilly, we almost had no choice but to believe Richardson had lost a chance at man she might be falling for.
Revisiting STREETCAR armed with Marsha Norman's edict to playwrights that "an audience will lose patience with a protagonist who doesn't take action on his own behalf," I marvel at the ways Blanche does indeed seek to save herself. Her decision and evolving machinations to snare Mitch are coolly strategic despite being deeply moving; her efforts to secure Mitch's protective presence as a possible lifeline*, one she works hard to grasp, make her dynamic and not a doormat. And I'd argue that even her delusional call to Shep adheres to Marsha's dramaturgical dictum. Blanche is a great character in no small part because she's lost everything but never ceases to be resourceful, even trapped in the Kowalski home.
*Could she fall in love with Mitch? That's one relationship in the play that I can imagine a goldmine for new interpretation. We know she wants to "rest" with Mitch; but if an actress plays genuine romantic attraction, and decides that Blanche is "in love," are the stakes higher or when Mitch (who does seem to fall for her) rejects her? I never thought Vivian Leigh played anything beyond caring and affection toward Malden. In the Roundabout revival Chris Bauer was so much more attractive that John C. Reilly, we almost had no choice but to believe Richardson had lost a chance at man she might be falling for.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
Updated On: 4/7/12 at 06:47 PM
#168
Posted: 4/6/12 at 10:29pm
Auggie, in the porch scene after their date, when Blanche teases Mitch with French she knows he won't understand ("Voulez vous couchez avec moi?"), Williams' stage directions have her face the audience and literally roll her eyes after some coquettish remark that Mitch eats up like candy.
It's a jarring moment to me as a reader: almost a spit take in a script that seems above such vulgarities. But I think Williams is taking pains to make sure Blanche lets the audience know that her manipulation of Mitch is just that: a last-ditch attempt to secure her future.
So while I will "never say never" to the idea that Blanche cares for Mitch, I don't think the play's intention is that she fall in love with him.
That being said, she's not a monster. But if anything, I think she pities Mitch for his pretensions to chivalry and bumbling gentility.
No, Blanche lusts for teenaged boys, like the dead husband who married her but never wanted her physically. She can't keep her hands off them, though during the course of the play she reminds herself that she has to be "good". Otherwise, she would have married some nice widowed schoolteacher or vice-principal and settled down in Laurel.
(Re our discussion of rape, it's interesting to note that Blanche herself is a rapist, if only of the "statutory" kind. But I don't want to reduce her climactic encounter with Stanley to mere poetic justice. I think the play is better than that.)
I really believe what makes STREETCAR our greatest play is that Blanche's true tragedy is that she believes in ideals that not even she can attain, because ideals, by their very nature, are beyond the reach of flesh-and-blood human beings. The irony, of course, is that with "the Grey boy" Blanche actually had the ideal marriage she says she wants, all poetry and no sex. And she destroyed it!
It's a jarring moment to me as a reader: almost a spit take in a script that seems above such vulgarities. But I think Williams is taking pains to make sure Blanche lets the audience know that her manipulation of Mitch is just that: a last-ditch attempt to secure her future.
So while I will "never say never" to the idea that Blanche cares for Mitch, I don't think the play's intention is that she fall in love with him.
That being said, she's not a monster. But if anything, I think she pities Mitch for his pretensions to chivalry and bumbling gentility.
No, Blanche lusts for teenaged boys, like the dead husband who married her but never wanted her physically. She can't keep her hands off them, though during the course of the play she reminds herself that she has to be "good". Otherwise, she would have married some nice widowed schoolteacher or vice-principal and settled down in Laurel.
(Re our discussion of rape, it's interesting to note that Blanche herself is a rapist, if only of the "statutory" kind. But I don't want to reduce her climactic encounter with Stanley to mere poetic justice. I think the play is better than that.)
I really believe what makes STREETCAR our greatest play is that Blanche's true tragedy is that she believes in ideals that not even she can attain, because ideals, by their very nature, are beyond the reach of flesh-and-blood human beings. The irony, of course, is that with "the Grey boy" Blanche actually had the ideal marriage she says she wants, all poetry and no sex. And she destroyed it!
#170
Posted: 4/7/12 at 8:01am
Of course I completely agree, the script makes no case for Blanche falling for Mitch. It's a strategic reverse (gender-wise) wooing, and illuminates Blanche's survival instincts, for all the reasons I noted above. But in a world where new stamps are placed on every story restaged, I considered the impact of casting on the relationship, and can imagine more chemistry between the actors enhancing our root-for. One of the most painful moments in STREETCAR for any audience is Mitch's harsh rejection of Blanche. I always believe it's because it's human nature for us to want them to marry and live happily. Of course, we must accept that the marriage would likely disintegrate once exposed to the sun, for their courtship is based on narrowly defined connection, and desperation, mutual or otherwise, hardly a basis for any relationship, let alone a marriage. But audiences instinctively root for a positive outcome. It's those reversals, the turns against characters (brought on by character-generated action, of course), that make stories good stories, and because Blanche fights against Stanley and for Mitch, STREETCAR's remains a beauty.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
#171
Posted: 4/7/12 at 10:09am
All good and valid points, though I do think its worth remembering a line that Blanche says to Stella as they depart to go on their movie outing in Act 1: Blanche tells Stella that perhaps Stanley is 'what's needed to mix with our blood after the loss of Belle Reve." I think Blanche is (for someone so married to fantasy) shockingly self aware. I think she realizes the world she grew up in is gone, and while I agree there isn't much reason to believe Blanche has any real carnal feelings towards Mitch, I think her courtship with him is also something of a valid effort to assimilate, and make the best of the reality of where her life has led her.
Blanche is no longer young; there is no longer the gentility of the old south, and yet, here in this working class mechanic she is shown kindness and a kind of simple chivalry, that if we are to believe the truth about Stanley's stories about Blanche, is likely something she has not experienced in a very long time, and that no doubt makes her feel a glimmer of her girlhood appeal.
I don't think you can discount the power of that to any person, especially not someone so desperate for a life rope as Blanche. I also don't for a minute doubt that Blanche, despite her inclination for carnal trysts and young boys, probably came to New Orleans with the best of intentions to 'be good' and to leave those instincts behind her.
Of course, Blanche is ultimately a delicious hypocrite, which is what makes her fascinating, scary and relate-able and what makes the story so compelling.
But I think the loss of Mitch's affections means much more to her than simply the closing of a door to some kind of security. When Mitch turns on her and proves in his carnality to ultimately be no 'better' than Stanley or the young soldiers who camped out on her lawn for carnal favors, its the shocking proof that her fantasy of chivalry is cold stone delusion. That as much as anything sets up the madness that unfolds in the final scenes of the play.
Blanche is no longer young; there is no longer the gentility of the old south, and yet, here in this working class mechanic she is shown kindness and a kind of simple chivalry, that if we are to believe the truth about Stanley's stories about Blanche, is likely something she has not experienced in a very long time, and that no doubt makes her feel a glimmer of her girlhood appeal.
I don't think you can discount the power of that to any person, especially not someone so desperate for a life rope as Blanche. I also don't for a minute doubt that Blanche, despite her inclination for carnal trysts and young boys, probably came to New Orleans with the best of intentions to 'be good' and to leave those instincts behind her.
Of course, Blanche is ultimately a delicious hypocrite, which is what makes her fascinating, scary and relate-able and what makes the story so compelling.
But I think the loss of Mitch's affections means much more to her than simply the closing of a door to some kind of security. When Mitch turns on her and proves in his carnality to ultimately be no 'better' than Stanley or the young soldiers who camped out on her lawn for carnal favors, its the shocking proof that her fantasy of chivalry is cold stone delusion. That as much as anything sets up the madness that unfolds in the final scenes of the play.
Updated On: 4/7/12 at 10:09 AM
#172
Posted: 4/7/12 at 10:45am
"That said, I've strongly disagreed with those who now characterize the attack as "date rape," especially when "date" added as modifier is intended to suggest the assault occurs within a socially approved context, after Blanche provided her imprimatur for some degree of intimacy. It is not a "date" that goes bad."
That's not really what "date rape" means. Date rape refers to when the victim has an established acquaintance with the offender. It can still be violent and forceful. Because Blanche knew Stanley, it would fall under date or acquaintance rape no matter what methods he used.
That's not really what "date rape" means. Date rape refers to when the victim has an established acquaintance with the offender. It can still be violent and forceful. Because Blanche knew Stanley, it would fall under date or acquaintance rape no matter what methods he used.
Jimmy, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? It's almost 9 PM!
Updated On: 4/7/12 at 10:45 AM
#173
Posted: 4/7/12 at 12:06pm
I think we're on the same page about a date rape definition, i.e. it's both circumstance- (my use of "socially approved context") and acquaintance related:
"date rape n. forcible sexual intercourse by a male acquaintance of a woman, during a voluntary social engagement in which the woman did not intend to submit to the sexual advances and resisted the acts by verbal refusals, denials or pleas to stop, and/or physical resistance."
"date rape n. forcible sexual intercourse by a male acquaintance of a woman, during a voluntary social engagement in which the woman did not intend to submit to the sexual advances and resisted the acts by verbal refusals, denials or pleas to stop, and/or physical resistance."
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
#174
Posted: 4/7/12 at 12:23pm
Okay, that makes sense. I do agree that the discussion of "date rape" vs "rape" is not useful in any context (especially because often it is used to minimize a victim's experience).
To add more to the discussion, I've never seen a staging of Streetcar where the event is consensual, and I don't think I could buy such a depiction. Even if the play didn't show her physically resisting, I would not believe that the act was consensual. Even if Blanche was physically attracted to Stanley, that still doesn't mean that she wanted to have sex with him. Furthermore, consent refers to the specific moment. For instance, even if you have had consensual sex with someone, that does not imply consent for all future sexual experiences. That's the feminist view that I agree with, anyway.
To add more to the discussion, I've never seen a staging of Streetcar where the event is consensual, and I don't think I could buy such a depiction. Even if the play didn't show her physically resisting, I would not believe that the act was consensual. Even if Blanche was physically attracted to Stanley, that still doesn't mean that she wanted to have sex with him. Furthermore, consent refers to the specific moment. For instance, even if you have had consensual sex with someone, that does not imply consent for all future sexual experiences. That's the feminist view that I agree with, anyway.
Jimmy, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? It's almost 9 PM!
Updated On: 4/7/12 at 12:23 PM
#175
Posted: 4/7/12 at 3:58pm
I absolutely agree, guys. When I assigned students to write about Stanley's line, "We've had this date from the beginning," I was looking for a discussion of tragic probability and necessity (to use the Aristotelian terms); I can't remember a single student writing that Blanche "consents" to sex with Stanley.
From Stanley's literal point of view, flirtation is always an invitation to intercourse. What's more important is what the line means in terms of Blanche.
And I certainly agree with Michael that the loss of Mitch means more to Blanche than just the loss of a meal ticket. The physical security that Mitch represents is Williams' brilliantly contrived objective correlative for the qualities that Michael describes above.
But let's face it: Blanche is basically campaigning to replace Mitch's dying mother. I'm sure she understands that sex will be part of the bargain, but if she is "in love" with Mitch, Blanche becomes a less active character than she deserves to be. I think it's more important that she sees in Mitch something of a kindred spirit.
The birthday party loses none of its pathos when seen in that light.
(ETA we haven't mentioned how Mitch's interest in Blanche ratchets up the pressure on Stanley. Now Blanche has not only taken over his home, but threatens to co-opt his social circle as well.)
From Stanley's literal point of view, flirtation is always an invitation to intercourse. What's more important is what the line means in terms of Blanche.
And I certainly agree with Michael that the loss of Mitch means more to Blanche than just the loss of a meal ticket. The physical security that Mitch represents is Williams' brilliantly contrived objective correlative for the qualities that Michael describes above.
But let's face it: Blanche is basically campaigning to replace Mitch's dying mother. I'm sure she understands that sex will be part of the bargain, but if she is "in love" with Mitch, Blanche becomes a less active character than she deserves to be. I think it's more important that she sees in Mitch something of a kindred spirit.
The birthday party loses none of its pathos when seen in that light.
(ETA we haven't mentioned how Mitch's interest in Blanche ratchets up the pressure on Stanley. Now Blanche has not only taken over his home, but threatens to co-opt his social circle as well.)
Updated On: 4/7/12 at 03:58 PM
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95