Ppt. Arthur Miller PDF

Preview

Summary

Power Point sobre Arthur Miller pasado a word ...

Description

DEATH OF A SALESMAN (1949) ARTHUR MILLER. To me the theatre is not a disconnected entertainment. … It’s the sound and the ring of the spirit of the people at any one time. It is where a collective mass of people, through the genius of some author, is able to project its terrors and its hopes and to symbolize them. Arthur Miller, 1967. In Andrea Most’s words, “Arthur Miller became America’s most celebrated playwright with three important plays, All my Sons (1947), Death of a Salesman (1949),and The Crucible (1953), all of which are devoted to the demystification and unmasking of hypocrisy, artifice, illusion, and faith in false gods” (2007: 548) The play’s context is the immediate post-war period, characterized by material prosperity and a growing domestic and foreign paranoia as a result of the Cold War. Miller stated that the play contains autobiographical elements. For example, he used his uncle Manny Newman – a salesman – as a basic model for Willy. The Loman household resembles that of his own family at the time when his father lost his business during the Depression (Novick 2007: 101). What is being demystified in Miller’s play? The most obvious answer is the “success myth” associated with the US. As Julius Novick states, “America is famously the land of opportunity, the golden land, where anyone can make good, meaning money. But if anyone can, then everyone should, and what excuse is there for those who don’t?” (103) This is obviously Willy Loman’s problem (and that of his son Biff). As Novick underlines, for Willy Loman it is the world of business that is of uttermost importance. That is, Willy considers that the America of business and money “will validate him, that will bring him and his sons the money, status, and love that are so terribly mixed up in his mind. Part of Willy’s problem is that the business world to him is not just about making money: it is the context in which he expects to become, or imagines he is, ‘well-liked,’ a term that comes up over and over again, meaning accepted, embraced, a real American at last” (103, emphasis in original). As Benjamin Becker highlights, “In the United States, probably more than in other lands, high value is put on being well liked, being popular, making good, and doing big things” (1987: 197). These qualities, in turn, are considered positively in order to fulfill one’s American Dream. As Andrea Most states, “The American dream of material success is presented in this play as a con, a cruel deception that destroys the common man. Willy’s faith in this illusory dream leads to his own downfall and damages his family irreparably” 2007: 550). This is exemplified, firstly, by the fact that Willy is a salesman and his obsession with things (the car, the refrigerator, the recording machine, the Loman’s house. … It is ironic, for example, that once the house has been paid for, Willy has killed himself).

Consequently, the play has traditionally been read as the tragedy of a common man – as indicated by Willy’s family name ‘Loman’ (a ‘low man’). In other words, it is considered as “a high drama of a low man, an American tragic form, a critique of American capitalism” (545). The tragedy is underlined not only by Willy’s failure to ‘make it’ in the system; Bear in mind that at his funeral his son Biff states that is father “had the wrong dreams. All, all, wrong” (Miller 1961 [1949]: 110). Could this be read as an indictment of American capitalism and its lack of ethical values? However, there is a character in the play who becomes successful: Bernard. For Novick, “according to this play, real success can be achieved in America, if not by someone like Willy, than [sic] by someone like Bernard, through studying hard, being smart, and playing by the rules …” (2003: 107, emphasis in original). In fact, Miller stated in his autobiography Timebends: A Life (1970) the following: “The truth was, … that I had always lived in the belief that a good man could still make it, capitalism or no capitalism” (qtd. in Novick, 107). In other words, what Miller would be criticizing is the contradictions within capitalism and the misinterpretation and confusion between earning/deserving and stealing. Notice, for example, how the Loman men steal instead of earning or deserving what they want via hard work. In high school, Biff steals a basketball and later on a pen; Happy also ‘steals’ girlfriends’ and / or fiancées from his superiors ; the most obvious case is their father, Willy, who steals the money from the insurance company via his self-inflicted death. This is related to another main issue in Miller’s work: personal responsibility. That is, a question to be asked would be, to what extent is Willy (and / or Biff) responsible for his own life / destiny and that of others? Does he assume such a responsibility? Does he elude it? The issue of responsibility is partly associated with the play’s / Willy’s obsession with the past. The past has immediate consequences on the present, and this should be linked to the play’s context: the immediate post-war years, the horrors of the Holocaust … From this perspectives, a number of scholars have highlighted Miller’s Jewish origins and the fact that Jewish-American culture is “deeply concerned with the ethical and spiritual implications of everyday behaviour” (Most 2007: footnote 5, 560). Responsibility is also linked to the main relationship in the play, that of father – son. What is being examined via Willy and Biff’s relationship is the issue of inherited values. Thus, the Loman family works as a microcosm for the Republic, as a means of analysing generational differences and the influence of those inherited values / ideals. Stylistically, the play combines realism with expressionism, and this is already clear in the opening stage directions. This is related to the fact that Miller sees the stage and the house as Willy’s head. That is, what is being represented onstage are the workings of his mind. This is obviously linked to another contradiction present in the play, that of the past and present, but also of truth/ reality and illusion (Willy’s self-deception). Stylistically, the play combines realism with expressionism, and this is already clear in the opening stage directions. This is related to the fact that Miller sees the stage and the house as Willy’s head. That is, what is being represented onstage are the workings

of his mind. This is obviously linked to another contradiction present in the play, that of the past and present, but also of truth/ reality and illusion (Willy’s self-deception). All in all, it could be considered that Miller “condemns those who live within a world of illusion, those who manipulate illusion to ensnare others, those who lie, and especially those who lie to themselves. In each play, Miller dramatically rich central characters – Joe Keller, Willy Loman, Abigail Williams – whom he then critiques for the very theatricality that makes them so powerful on the stage” (Most 2003: 549). Works Cited Becker, Benjamin. 1987. “Death of a Salesman: Arthur Miller’s Play in the Light of Psychoanalysis.” American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 44: 3 195-209. Miller, Arthur. 1961 (1949). Death of a Salesman. London: Penguin. Most, Andrea. 2007. “Opening the Windshield: Death of a Salesman and Theatrical Liberalism.” Modern Drama, 50: 4, 545-564. Novick, Julius. 2003. “Death of a Salesman: Deracination and its Discontents.” American Jewish History, 91: 1, 97-107....