Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.04 AVERAGE
3.04 AVERAGE
I had to read this for my theatre history class. I didn't love it or hate it. It was just kind of meh. But nice and quick.
1 star for enjoyment, 4 stars for the questions it raises.
This is a tragedy without catharsis, and therefore (in my opinion) a suffocating tragedy. It is also very difficult to take seriously because of its blatantly obvious misogynist vibes. Strindberg was a famous misogynistic, AND he characterised himself as "Aryan". Thus, it is beyond laborious not to feel fury towards this play.
HOWEVER, what is quite surprising is that the reader (and quite unexpectedly the critics of the play's time) perceives Julie as the hero and sympathises with her more than with Jean. I find myself smirking at Strindberg's failure to hail Jean as the strong & adaptive one, the "hero" of the play. In the end, Julie is a more humane character than him.
Nevertheless, I found myself feeling a shadow of empathy for him in the end scene; we see the weaker part of him, the part of him that has been scarred by class, something of which I find can lead to an intriguing debate about the psychological effects of class, not only in the late 19th century, but also in our times.
As far as my thoughts & feelings towards Julie are concerned, I have nothing but empathy, admiration, and perhaps sadness for the lost potential of her character.
Anyway, I have gone on about this play for quite a bit. All in all, it is a good conversation starter, but not as impactful as A Doll's House.
This is a tragedy without catharsis, and therefore (in my opinion) a suffocating tragedy. It is also very difficult to take seriously because of its blatantly obvious misogynist vibes. Strindberg was a famous misogynistic, AND he characterised himself as "Aryan". Thus, it is beyond laborious not to feel fury towards this play.
HOWEVER, what is quite surprising is that the reader (and quite unexpectedly the critics of the play's time) perceives Julie as the hero and sympathises with her more than with Jean. I find myself smirking at Strindberg's failure to hail Jean as the strong & adaptive one, the "hero" of the play. In the end, Julie is a more humane character than him.
Nevertheless, I found myself feeling a shadow of empathy for him in the end scene; we see the weaker part of him, the part of him that has been scarred by class, something of which I find can lead to an intriguing debate about the psychological effects of class, not only in the late 19th century, but also in our times.
As far as my thoughts & feelings towards Julie are concerned, I have nothing but empathy, admiration, and perhaps sadness for the lost potential of her character.
Anyway, I have gone on about this play for quite a bit. All in all, it is a good conversation starter, but not as impactful as A Doll's House.
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Misogynistic play that feels the need to spell out its own symbolism to the audience. For all the hype of him being of the male specimen, Jean is not a likeable character in the end even with all the background info.
Disgusting views on women, as well as on male superiority. Boring and full of weird and unnecessary drama.
Tracked this down after seeing the 2014 movie adaptation.
My opinion of this play is complicated, because I can appreciate it while also acknowledging that the author's intent was complete shit. August Strindberg was an avowed misogynist, who wrote this play with the intent of portraying the titular character, who seduces her servant, as an example of how her gender is unstable, twisted, and simultaneously over-emotional and emotionally stunted.
I prefer to see this play as a class conflict:
My opinion of this play is complicated, because I can appreciate it while also acknowledging that the author's intent was complete shit. August Strindberg was an avowed misogynist, who wrote this play with the intent of portraying the titular character, who seduces her servant, as an example of how her gender is unstable, twisted, and simultaneously over-emotional and emotionally stunted.
I prefer to see this play as a class conflict:
Spoiler
Miss Julie is isolated due to her status as a countess, and Jean the valet is limited in his prospects by his own class. Over the course of a single night, they attempt to find a way out through each other: Miss Julie engineers her own fall through a tryst with Jean, while Jean attempts to get his employer's daughter to fund his dreams. Predictably, it ends poorly.
adventurous
challenging
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Gimme your bird so I can kill him we can’t take him on the road trip *murders bird*. Literally in the same scene, never mind no more road trip rip the bird though.
Inte direkt en favorit, var tvungen att läsa den på svenskan. För det första är jag inte så jätteförtjust i draman då alla beskrivningar försvinner och för det anda är jag verkligen inte förtjust i Strindberg. Den var ändå helt okej, den gick ju att ta sig igenom och eftersom den var ganska så kort så gick det ju snabbt. Jag kunde ändå inte undgå de värderingarna Strindberg har och varför handlingen går som den går. Det fanns dock en del intressanta symboler om man ville dyka lite djupare i dramat. 4/10.