In his creation of two separate versions of The Octoroon, Dion Boucicault creates a rift in his attempted transatlantic nature of his work; while using his work to bring broader global issues, such as American slavery, to England, his changing of the ending for the British edition hurts the impact of the work in favor of financial success. Despite many problematic issues at hand in his original American script for The Octoroon, such as the stereotypical language of the black characters, as well as the casting of his white wife in the place of Zoe as a sort of faux blackface, Boucicault’s ending clearly shows some social critique of American racial perception. Because Zoe must face slavery because of her ancestors is black despite her apparent “whiteness,” she chooses to kill herself, refusing to place herself within one of the two racial binaries available in the American South. This ending suggests that Boucicault had some hope for the work to start a broader conversation about the roles of race and identity, which were ahead of his time, even in the North. Yet, this version of the play is still problematic, featuring racist caricatures and speech patterns for many of the non-white characters. This issue is prominent and possibily undercuts Boucicault’s subtext of identity and belonging at the heart of the play, personified in Zoe’s struggle for acceptance and eventual suicide. However, this American adaptation of the play shows some realistic recognition of racial problems, unlike the British edition, which glosses over the dramatic conclusion and chooses to wrap up the story on a cheap and artificial high note.
On the other side of the Atlantic, Boucicault drastically changed the ending for the British performances of The Octoroon, although the dramatic first three acts remain intact, creating a messy, confused conclusion which does a disservice to its subject matter by oversimplifying the intensely complex question of slavery and the owning of bodies throughout the American South. These significant changes seem to support the claim that Boucicault uses the play primarily as a means of financial gain, with the controversial issue of the titular octoroon’s representation as a sort of bait to get people to buy tickets and see his play. However, the subtext of The Octoroon, with Boucicault suggesting the triviality of Zoe’s one eighth as evidence for her subsequent purchase and owning, seems to go against the ease with which the English version of the play ends, with her marrying George. While this ending offers a small glimmer of hope, its over-romanticization of racial struggle in America acts as if these important issues of representation and equality are not a concern for English audiences, despite the major issues with Ireland at this time which are a major feature in mid-century transatlantic thought. By altering the conclusion and as a result, diminishing the apparent thesis of the play, Boucicault turns a potentially thought-provoking play into a safer, more accessible piece of entertainment, without challenging the world views of the British or highlighting their own racial prejudices, primarily against the Irish.
The dual ending of “The Octoroon” is definitely something I struggled with as well. When Boucicault changes the last scene of the play, he alters the entire meaning and interpretation of Zoe’s state as the octoroon from a complete control over Zoe’s identity to an obstacle in the road to her happiness. But, without this alternate ending, “The Octoroon” may not have played at all for English audiences – is it better to perform this “safer” version of the play rather than have no performance at all? It’s also interesting to look at the ending of “The Octoroon” in the context of our conversations this week about “In Dahomey”. Maybe Boucicault changed the ending of “The Octoroon” because he intended for entertainment and prioritized his success over political and social impact.
The dual endings of the play allow for a very particular analysis of theme and motive. The original ending, the tragedy of Zoe’s suicide, allows for a much more complete realization of the conflicts of identity and belonging — questioning the racial dynamics of American society. In comparison, the English ending very viscerally feels like a cheapening of the pain of Zoe’s situation. However, as we discussed in class, the audiences each ending was written for were very different. Both were keyed to make the most out of the audience they were written for. In America, the marriage of Zoe and George would have been impossible to show on stage (hence the poetics of her death) so a play with their marriage wouldn’t sell. Additionally, the play’s timing made the most of sensational news about race relations. The English ending then follows that same trend, marketing the story to what its audience will be willing to bear witness to. Profit was never not a motive, even in the fully realized American version, which could color interpretation of both endings. It might be enough, as we mentioned in class, to recognize that even through the lens of profit, Boucicault was thinking about racial categories and attempting to conceptualize their extremity in a public platform, forcing confrontation with the system in an uncomfortable way.
“which could color interpretation of both endings” =)