You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
clss97 's review for:
Miss Julie
by August Strindberg
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.