Scan barcode
A review by menu89
After the Fall by Arthur Miller
Arthur Miller is the first playwright I am reading outside the allotted Shakespeare. I found the technique employed in the narration of events/dialogue in this play interest (although a little difficult to follow). I had a vague notion from the title that there might be biblical implications but since those parallels do not interest me, I will not pursue them.
One theme that struck out at me was of complicity and guilt. This was there throughout the first act. About who is guilty and for what reason, and how everyone is complicit. I saw him juxtapose the holocaust with other events in his life and the lives of others.
I felt that he other'd the women in his writing a lot. He focused on two male character (if i remember correctly) and these characters saved him (Lou who threw himself in front of the train to supposedly save his career and his brother who took up work so that he could go to school?) but all female characters seemed (to what?) deny him what he needed? But I think this ties into him not understanding women, or failing to treat them as actual separate entities, or at least that is what was established in the first act.
The second act furthers the story I suppose and tries to fix the lose end of trying to get out of the hopeless jumble of guilt associated to us via the past to arrive at a present where we can accept it and move on. I think this person "Holga" is a personification of this idea final idea, which is why she is brought in time and again as an ideal that Quentin wants to reach out to grab but doesn't feel like he can.
I don't really know if that was the intention of the author but those are some ideas that occurred to me whilst reading this play. I did feel like the ending was a bit vague and that the play lacked fluidity.
One theme that struck out at me was of complicity and guilt. This was there throughout the first act. About who is guilty and for what reason, and how everyone is complicit. I saw him juxtapose the holocaust with other events in his life and the lives of others.
I felt that he other'd the women in his writing a lot. He focused on two male character (if i remember correctly) and these characters saved him (Lou who threw himself in front of the train to supposedly save his career and his brother who took up work so that he could go to school?) but all female characters seemed (to what?) deny him what he needed? But I think this ties into him not understanding women, or failing to treat them as actual separate entities, or at least that is what was established in the first act.
The second act furthers the story I suppose and tries to fix the lose end of trying to get out of the hopeless jumble of guilt associated to us via the past to arrive at a present where we can accept it and move on. I think this person "Holga" is a personification of this idea final idea, which is why she is brought in time and again as an ideal that Quentin wants to reach out to grab but doesn't feel like he can.
I don't really know if that was the intention of the author but those are some ideas that occurred to me whilst reading this play. I did feel like the ending was a bit vague and that the play lacked fluidity.