Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.04 AVERAGE
3.04 AVERAGE
dark
emotional
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
I liked the story, but it was not like what I thought it would be like. I thought the character of Julie would a strong and independent woman rather than someone who would be controlled by a man and later would commit suicide for him. It was another Romeo and Juliet play. So, there was not anything new in this play. But all in all, the play was very straight-forward and short, yet there was not exceptional about it that would make an original story.
I found Strindberg’s prologue -- in which he sets out the parameters for a new theater based on verisimilitude -- to be far more interesting and important than the play. Strindberg calls for theater that uses more solid and three dimensional settings, real props, less makeup, more natural lighting, plays without intermissions, plays that resist the usual three/five act structure, more subtle acting (slight improv, performing everyday routines on stage, the use of more facial expressions by actors), less stereotypical characterizations, better sightlines for theaters (hiding the orchestra, lowering the stage, removing box set obstructions), etc. In short, he predicts 20th century theater -- and even the cinema, to the extent that he suggests that set pieces and even actors not necessarily face the audience at times (that idea must have rattled some cages!).
The play itself was typical Strindberg: overly dramatic, talky, emotionally brutish, and a microcosm of his own strained mental state. I’d almost suggest skipping it and just reading the prologue!
The play itself was typical Strindberg: overly dramatic, talky, emotionally brutish, and a microcosm of his own strained mental state. I’d almost suggest skipping it and just reading the prologue!
As a play, it was quite different from anything I had read before. Perhaps this is what made it so enjoyable. Through it, many different forms of stage performance were explored (from ballet to monologue) Even the characters and plot itself are so open to suggestion in the beholders imagination because there are no definitive details.
In terms of exploration, it was certainly intriguing to see how Strindberg portrayed class, the whole ide of hierarchy and how this impacts on individuals not only due to their class but also their gender. For instance, the character of Miss. Julie is clearly quite high up in her household and has been born into aristocracy and money. Yet by the end of the play she has been reduced to something which is not at this level but is not clear enough to be labelled as lower. All of this openness leads us to question further, why is it that these perceptions of class and gender as identity are so set in stone when the reality is they are quite wide open as labels? And if they are so wide open to suggestion, so malleable to the viewer, why are they defined as labels at all?
Certainly a lot to think about. It reminded me in staging of plays such as An Inspector Calls or A Whistle in the Dark. Taking place in one scene, it seems it would be low cost and this could be beheld as denoting the worth of the text. But the text itself speaks so much about the above that there is no need for a set of a grand scale or a million different coloured lights. Instead, it is believable - these events are entirely possible and could have occurred in reality. That is what makes this plot line so discomforting and peculiar: We are those characters to a degree ourselves.
In terms of exploration, it was certainly intriguing to see how Strindberg portrayed class, the whole ide of hierarchy and how this impacts on individuals not only due to their class but also their gender. For instance, the character of Miss. Julie is clearly quite high up in her household and has been born into aristocracy and money. Yet by the end of the play she has been reduced to something which is not at this level but is not clear enough to be labelled as lower. All of this openness leads us to question further, why is it that these perceptions of class and gender as identity are so set in stone when the reality is they are quite wide open as labels? And if they are so wide open to suggestion, so malleable to the viewer, why are they defined as labels at all?
Certainly a lot to think about. It reminded me in staging of plays such as An Inspector Calls or A Whistle in the Dark. Taking place in one scene, it seems it would be low cost and this could be beheld as denoting the worth of the text. But the text itself speaks so much about the above that there is no need for a set of a grand scale or a million different coloured lights. Instead, it is believable - these events are entirely possible and could have occurred in reality. That is what makes this plot line so discomforting and peculiar: We are those characters to a degree ourselves.
Court et super bien. Avec des personnes que ont cerne très bien, je conseil pour les gens qui cherche des lecture courte à lire vite
emotional
tense
medium-paced
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Secondo libro che leggo per l’esame di Letterature Nordiche. È un’opera teatrale molto particolare, che ha come protagonista degli abitanti di una casa borghese. Infatti la vera protagonista potrebbe sembrare la Signorina Julie, la contessina, ma secondo me ciò che rappresenta questo testo è la volontà di salire o scendere dalla scala sociale.
Jean è il servo del Conte, il quale desidera diventare un nobile e farebbe di tutto per arrivare al suo obiettivo. Julie, invece, vorrebbe essere come le “persone normali”.
In generale, questo è un testo che con personaggi questionabili nelle loro azioni, perché soprattutto il comportamento di Julie ci può sembrare assurdo.
C’è però una critica implicita alla figura della donna: Julie, un “mezza donna e mezzo uomo”, non è ben considerata da Jean, che invece cerca una tipica donna.
Questa opera di Strindberg rappresenta sicuramente il suo pensiero verso la figura femminile ma non mi ha stupito molto.
Jean è il servo del Conte, il quale desidera diventare un nobile e farebbe di tutto per arrivare al suo obiettivo. Julie, invece, vorrebbe essere come le “persone normali”.
In generale, questo è un testo che con personaggi questionabili nelle loro azioni, perché soprattutto il comportamento di Julie ci può sembrare assurdo.
C’è però una critica implicita alla figura della donna: Julie, un “mezza donna e mezzo uomo”, non è ben considerata da Jean, che invece cerca una tipica donna.
Questa opera di Strindberg rappresenta sicuramente il suo pensiero verso la figura femminile ma non mi ha stupito molto.
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
emotional
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes