What reflections or observations on this play do you have that you did not think of (or have the opportunity to voice) in class today?
Feel free to offer them here, or to expand, question, or push further someone else's ideas.
Also, for what it's worth, there has been a film version of this play (see picture at left).
Deadline: Saturday (2/12), midnight.
6 comments:
I think that the play despite the intriguing context was, overall, boring. The play, despite being written on the other side of the world followed the same pattern of the tragedies of Shakespeare, and did not vary too much from that general theme. Two people met and fell in love but could not be together and so they killed themselves. Despite the fact that in Japanese culture suicide was sometimes honorable, this play did not greatly differ from any other story of its genre. Furthermore, the play did not have the least bit of detail or subplot to present an interesting interpretation. The story viewed by the audience for which it was intended may have been good, it may even have been beautiful as Jihei does the one thing he can to save his honor by killing himself, though he ruins everything else including the murder of Koharu. I still cannot see this as anything but a tired repeat of a tired story line with few, if any, new lessons or points of interest for a modern audience.
I suppose something I wonder is the aftermath of those left behind. What did Osan and Jihei's children think of what happened? What do you think Osan did or how she felt? I would have liked to discuss that a little bit.
We also touched upon the idea that the Japanese culture that we were reading about was much different than our culture, and their views of suicide are much different as well. I would have liked to dug into this a little bit more, for example, how most of us could not wrap our heads around the idea that Koharu and Jihei just run off together instead of finishing off their lives. In today's modern society, it clearly would have been much different, as views of many things touched upon in the play are different (prostitution, divorce, etc.) so I would have liked to talk about the Japanese culture in general and why such ideas are so impossible to partake in.
I disagree with Maragaret about the fact taht this was a boring story that is basically a story about two people that kill themselves. I believe one huge aspect of this story is Koharu. She keeps her feelings hidden until just before the suicide. When she reveals that she wishes to be a Buddha, when she should know that at that time it probably was not a realistic dream. Women were not considered to be able to reach enlightenment. In the end we discover that she is not only a prostitute, but also a caring person who wishes to protect those that are like her. On what Alana stated, I would also like to know what happen after this story is told. If Osan was taken away by her father, who do the kids stay with? Did the servants keep them and what where the children's opinion? Also the story tells that this was viewed as a great love story, but which social class thought this? Was it the commoners who could relate more to this? If the more influental and rucher class heard this, would they mock them for such foolish thoughts? Of course this story does not make much sense to us, since we have grown up in a different time period, with a different culture.
Directing this toward Margaret, I didn't feel that the play was boring at all really. I think that I was able to connect more with the time period it reflected and the location more that I didn't have an Americanized view of it. The story may seemed like it did not have that much information or action but I think the purpose of the puppets and storyline is to engage the audience to think about the actual setting and exchanges between characters. It is difficult to display the emotions and every other aspect with simple puppets, but if I was sitting in the audience and it was performed correctly, later on I would think about the play in my head.
Like Margaret. I was never really touched by the play. I don’t really know to what level my lack of understanding the historical and cultural setting of the play affects me. I’m sure it must to some extent. What really struck me, however, is Chikamaysu’s understanding of what makes art. He speaks of the place between make-believe and reality. I don’t think “make-believe” is a term that belongs in a description of true art. Here’s another description of art that resonates better for me. I took this quote from BrainyQuotes.com. The speaker is Edgar Allen Poe:
Were I called on to define, very briefly, the term Art, I should call it 'the reproduction of what the Senses perceive in Nature through the veil of the soul.' The mere imitation, however accurate, of what is in Nature, entitles no man to the sacred name of 'Artist.'
Edgar Allan Poe
To be clear, I'm not sure Chikamaysu is a great playwright. It's a sense just creeping into my awareness so I haven't thought it out completely. But his view of art somehow fits into all this.
Post a Comment