LDJIN: Curtain Lines

Curtain lines play a significant role in plays because they end the scene and usually leaves the audience anticipating what will happen in the next act. In LDJN, curtain lines are especially important because the four-act play takes place in the same setting of the living room, therefore curtain lines determine the transition from one scene to another. Only act two is is separated into two scenes, whereas as the other three acts contain only one scene. I will also analyze how the curtain lines for the first and last act play an important role in the structure of the play.

The first act ends with Mary questioning Edmund "are you afraid to trust me alone?" and Edmund immediately denies that and quickly changes the topic by saying he will go down to help Jamie outside (50). The curtain line is a dramatic shift from the seemingly positive and loving family that was introduced in the beginning of the act. Furthermore, Edmund's obvious avoidance on the topic of Mary's dark past implies that the Tyrones experience deep trust issues. It foreshadows that the play will head to a downward spiral as past issues are gradually brought up.

Act two is interestingly the only act divided into two different scenes. I think the curtain line in between both acts can potentially signify why O'Neil decided to separate these two scene. Act 2.1 ends with Tyrone telling Mary, "[n]ever mind. It's no use now" (72). The curtain line indicates that James has basically given up on hope for Mary's permanent recovery from her morphine addiction. Therefore, it adds another layer of avoiding confrontation in the Tyrone family because to James, no amount of effort will bring back the old Mary to the family.

The last act of the play ends with Mary's line: "Yes, I remember. I fell in love with James Tyrone and was so happy for a time. " (179) The stage directions described Mary staring off into a dream-like state, demonstrating that she is completely detached from reality and is lost in her past. She's in this strange dream of trying to recall her past while her family are observing right in front her. The way she says that she "was" happy shows that in reality she is no longer happy or in love with James. There was truth in James' hopelessness for bringing her back, but in a way he is also responsible for her detachment because Mary no longer feels loved by James. I also found it interesting how the play ends with Mary recalling how much she loved James and that it began with Mary and James completely in love and affectionate with each other. The curtain line of the last act can indicate the cyclical nature of the Tyrones' love-hate relationship with each other as they struggle to face their bitter past while also defending their love for each other.

Long Day's Journey into Night: Act IV Stage Directions/Props

Stage directions played a key role in both Master Harold...and the boys and The Importance in Being Earnest in the development of characters in the play. In LDJN, the amount of stage directions far outweigh the dialogue in the play, thus indicating the importance of stage directions in shaping the dialogue of characters in the play. Stage directions in LDJN also reveal underlying character traits and how one reacts with body language as opposed to how one responds with verbal dialogue.  Two instances in Act 4 where stage directions played a prominent role in the interaction between character were when James switches off three light bulbs and when Jamie pushes the bottle of whiskey to his father and Edmund and they all pour a glass for themselves.

Then as if this phrase automatically aroused an habitual association in his mind, he glances up at the chandelier disapprovingly.

He clicks out one bulb.
(dialogue)
He clicks out another bulb.
(dialogue)
He turns out the third bulb, so only the reading lamp is on, and sits down again heavily. Edmund suddenly cannot hold back a burst of strained ironical laughter. Tyrone is hurt.
(154)

In the beginning of act four, Edmund approaches James in the living room in the dark where only one reading lamp is turned on. Edmund complains when James insists that he turns the light bulb off once he comes into the living room, calling him out on the absurdity of his miserly cheap-skate ways. After several petty arguments were made on his thrifty behavior, James decides to dramatically switch on all of the lights in the living room. This greatly amuses Edmund. After a while, James returns to the whole "you don't know the value of a dollar" talk and this "automatically" causes him to glance disapprovingly up the chandelier. This automatic reaction is also described as a "habitual association", reinforcing James' stubborn character that is resistant to change. The way he glances up at the chandelier is also hilarious because he was the one who decided to switch on the lights to prove Edmund wrong.

I also liked how James switch off the light bulbs one by one, which I interpreted as James gradually returning to his thrifty habits, suggesting that will never fully embrace change. However, I do think that James does deserve credit for at least trying to give into change, even though his attempts were inevitably unsuccessful. The fact that Tyrone was hurt by Edmund's laughter due to the absurdity of his actions, I think suggests that Tyrone genuinely tried to change for the better, but he is incapable of change because the poverty he experienced when he was younger has permanently shaped who he is in the present.

Jamie pushes the bottle toward him. He pours a drink without disarranging the wedding gown he holds carefully over his other arm and on his lap, and shoves the bottle back. Jamie pours his and passes the bottle Edmund, who, in turn, pours one. Tyrone lifts his glass and his sons follow suit mechanically, but before they can drink Mary speaks and they slowly lower their drinks to the table, forgetting them.
(178)

This passage of stage directions indicate the hopelessness for Mary's recovery shared by all three male Tyrones as they pour whiskey into their glasses. I think that since Jamie leads this drinking ritual, he is the one who feels most let down by his mother's continuing delusional behavior. James' act of not letting go of Mary's wedding gown as he pours a drink suggests that he still clings to the remains of their marriage, despite how he's given up for the "real" and loving Mary to return back to the family. Edmund also pours a drink, despite his consumption, further reinforcing his lack of hope and his transition to deeper pessimism. Tyrone leads the ritual of lifting the glass as his sons follow suit, which can refer to how Tyrone is the one who first exposed and passed onto his sons his drinking habits. The mechanical way in which they both follow their father can also reveal how Jamie and Edmund are inevitably influenced by their father, perhaps in his stubbornness.  However, despite the close homosocial bonds demonstrated through the pre-drinking ritual, Mary holds power over their actions because they immediately lower their drinks and instead direct their attention to Mary. Perhaps they haven't completely given their hopes up yet, but are still desperate for a miracle to happen...but at the end of the play Mary does not break out of her "dream" and she remains lost and detached from her family.

Long Day's Journey Into Night: Haunted by the Foghorn

The third act of LDJN finally gave me a bit of clarity after two long acts of one unknown after the other. There's definitely a pattern in the events of the play as bad memories from the past are gradually raked up, causing cycles of tension, confession, guilt, forgiveness, and many other feelings. I want to specifically discuss O'Neill's description of the characters as "the four haunted Tyrones" along with the motif of the foghorn in the play. I think both of these ideas are interrelated because they revolve around the characters' repression of the past and unwillingness to confront past issues. They are all essentially haunted by the past due to unresolved issues that occurred in the past. I noticed that Mary frequently talks about her convent days where she was youthful with vitality and beauty. Whenever she talks about the past, her eyes light up and she suddenly transforms to her former youthful self. However, not everything in the past was beautiful and dreamy. Mary constantly reminds James of how she's never had a real home and that they had one-night stands, stayed in dirty hotel rooms, which she claims is not a fit environment for her Jamie and Edmund to be raised in. A particular haunting memory she brings up is how sickly she was when carrying Edmund and that she regrets having another baby after the death of her previous son. These memories don't only haunt Mary, they are family issues that involve everyone else, especially Edmund because he feels as if he's responsible for his mother's current state of insanity and loneliness.

Not only is she haunted by the past, Mary's mention of the foghorn shows her unwillingness to live in the present: "It's the foghorn I hate, it won't let you alone. It keeps reminding you, and warning you, and calling you back." (101) Since the foghorn is a reminder of her current state and essentially a wake-up call, the fog can be seen as her drugged state when under the influence of morphine--which is described as being detached from reality. I think act three serves to show Mary's perspective of her struggle with the past and the struggle to recover from her morphine addiction. She claims that the fog protects her from facing reality because  "[it] hides you from the world and the world from you. You feel that everything has changed, and nothing is what it seemed to be. No one can find or touch you anymore." (100).  Mary's desire to escape from reality worries her family and they're all sad to lose the "real" Mary. However, they are also to blame for not giving Mary proper treatment, especially James who didn't take her morphine addiction seriously enough and insisted to give her a second-rate treatment.

Long Day's Journey Into Night Act I-II

After finishing the second act of the play, it's clear that the Tyrones are a dysfunctional and an inarticulate family. They seem to all have their own unique problems, especially Mary and Edmund. Mary and Edmund share the same frailty and habits of nervousness, whereas Tyrone and Jamie are stronger built with broad shoulders. Although Tyrone and Jamie are unmistakably similar to each other, they have the most arguments which is due to how Jamie doesn't fulfill his father's hopes of aspiring to be like his father--ultimately being a disappointment. I also think it's interesting how Tyrone and Jamie are actors because the Tryone family constantly try to conceal their feelings and avoid confronting their true feelings.

Stage business plays a critical role in the play because it reveals the characters' evasiveness in order to avoid confronting their family issues. In the beginning of the play, they seem to all get along with each other with the exception of a few arguments, but as family issues were revealed to the audience, they slowly avoided direct eye contact with each other and proceeded to change subjects. Characters would also often look out the window to escape the conversation or avoid a particular issue that was brought up from the past. Personally, I found it extremely frustrating how vague the dialogue was and how certain issues were brought up multiple times because they were not resolved the first time. However, it shows how the past leaves an indelible mark on their lives and I don't think Mary is to blame for dwelling on the past because the past inevitably becomes a part of your identity.

I also noticed that the beginning of the play had a more hopeful and optimistic tone but it gradually transitioned to a bleak and gloomy atmosphere where all hope seemed to disappear. Edmund's health is confirmed to be deteriorating due to tuberculosis and Mary seems to experience a relapse and became "detached", "aloof" and most of the time in "blank denial". I  do think that Mary's manic state of nervousness is justified because she's experienced awful things in her life and her loneliness is devouring her. Before reading act two I didn't really like Mary, but I started sympathizing with Mary after learning more about her past because her past has greatly affected who she is in the present.

Master Harold VS The Importance of Being Earnest: Costuming

Costuming is a key dramatic convention in both "Master Harold"...and the boys and The Importance of Being Earnest (IOBE) because it builds up characterization and reveals subtle details of a character in relation to other characters and the setting.  In "Master Harold"...and the boys, Sam and Willie are described as wearing white waiter coats, indicating their occupation as waiters in the tea room. Their job is to serve customers, but since there are no customers in the tea room, they have to obey the orders given by Hally and his mother. Although  both Sam and Willie are wearing waiter coats, Willie has his sleeves rolled up as he is kneeling and cleaning the floor, indicating that he is doing most of the labor work while Sam is reading comics.  Through costuming, Fugard is subtly showing different levels of power among the black waiters. Hally's costume of a neglected and untidy school uniform shows that as a white person, he has the white privilege of access to education whereas Sam and Willie do not. However, Hally costume description of "neglected" and "untidy" demonstrates underlying references to his loneliness due to the abandonment of parental figures, especially a father-figure. These significance of costuming in the play is that their appearances reveal subtle characteristics that can be viewed in hind-sight.

In IOBE, costuming reveals the superficiality of the upper class Victorian society because they prioritize one's appearances over one's character.  This emphasis of appearances over character helps reinforce the Wilde's satirical portrayal of the characters in the play.  In the play, Algernon is described as dressing flamboyantly, reflecting the elaborate dress of the upper class Victorian society and thus showing that he is complying with Victorian standards of fashion. Lady Bracknell's costume is also in flamboyant dress, which is not surprising because she is Algernon's aunt and they both share the same social status. In contrast to Algernon and Lady Bracknell, Cecily is not of the upper class Victorian society because she lives in the country and is described as wearing a "simple dress". The simplicity of her dress indicates that she is different from the upper class and Lady Bracknell notably scans over her dress and insists that she should dress more extravagantly and change her hairstyle. Therefore, costuming in IOBE emphasizes the superficiality of the characters who are ultimately concerned over appearances rather than character.

The One Act Play

Stepping a step back from the complex power dynamics under the Apartheid system, I will take a closer look at the technical conventions of the play, specifically the one act structure. Usually a conventional play would have a three act structure; the exposition and rising action in the first act, additional conflicts in the second act, and the third act where the climax is peaked at the beginning of act three.  But why did Fugard decide to write a one act play? I think the answer lies in the purpose of the play, to display the complex power dynamics under the Apartheid system and revealing the glaring discrepancy between reality/Apartheid and dreams/intellectual assumptions.

Since this play is not dependent on rising action, conflicts, climax, and resolution which is integrated into the classical three act structure, Fugard uses distinct stage directions and monologues to carry the momentum of the play. One thing particular that I noticed with a one act play structure is that there's no definitive climax or highlighted event that anchors the purpose of the play. I would argue that the kite episode could act as the "climax" but the following rising tensions surrounding the kite episode, especially between Sam and Hally, could be viewed as more significant.

Moving back to the stage directions, it's certainly imperative that the stage directions have to be precise and leave little room for interpretation because it is the only concrete indication of their character. For example Willie is scrubbing the floors (signifying his submissiveness), Sam is often quiet and contemplative (signifying his cautiousness since he is inferior to Hally), and Hally's sudden fits of anger and rage (signifying White privilege and the power to lash out whenever he wishes without taking any responsibility for it).

Mel Gussow: "It operates on two levels...."

On the front of the play's cover: 

"It operates on two levels: as the story of a loving but lacerating relationship between a black man and a white boy; and… as a powerful political statement about apartheid." - Mel Gussow from The New Yorker

Image Source

Mel Gussow's review, located on the very top of the play's cover, has more or less communicated the powerful message behind the seemingly simple interplay of men from different races, social status, and age. All of the aforementioned three factors are heavily tied under the branch of the apartheid system, with the Dutch whites on top and the black Afrikaans subverted beneath them. Gussow clearly illustrates this power dynamic through the phrase "two levels" because the black men are introduced as "leaning" and "on his knees" as opposed to Hally who enters the scene most likely on his two legs and with his back standing upright. I also noticed how Gussow refers to the play as a "story" demonstrates casual and ordinary atmosphere where the men are arguing about reality while at the same time using ballroom dancing as an escape into "a world without collisions". Stating that this playwright is a "story", in my opinion, undermines the "powerful political statement about apartheid". However, I always find myself oscillating between whether Fugard intended to emphasize the damaging internalized racism in the apartheid system or if he wished to develop a play with apartheid lingering in the background but the spotlight is on romanticized ballroom dancing and escaping reality. Both viewpoints seem equally plausible, but after experiencing the heavy underlying tones within the somewhat delusional play, I think Fugard is leaning more towards emphasizing the ramifications of apartheid on both the the ones who dominate and the ones being blatantly oppressed.

Another interesting view is how Gussow chooses to describe the men's relationship as a "loving but lacerating relationship". Once again, I am torn between to what extent their relationship is "loving" or to what extent it is instead more "lacerating". According to Merriam Webster, lacerating is to cut or tear deeply or roughly or to cause sharp or mental pain. When looking up the definition of Gussow's choice of word to contrast the loving aspect of their friend, I realize that apartheid may also be what brings them closer together even though it's not necessary "love". Sam found the need to become the father-figure for Hally since his biological father was an alcoholic and a cripple and failed to raise his son into a man, Willie refers to him as "Master Harold" to maintain the master-servant relationship, both Sam and Willie are conscientious of the race issues in apartheid but at the same time has the need to protect Hally. In a way, the lacerating dilemmas due to social apartheid paves the road for this unique bond between Hally, 17-year old "Master Harold" and Sam and Willie, Hally's loyal servants.