Category: Uncategorized

1.  Briefly throughout the film, especially in the beginning, we see other forms of music played which appear to be more authentically Irish.  Does the inclusion of other types of music mixed within scenes of The Commitments playing add dimensions to the culture of Ireland seeking definition at this time?
2.   How do the articles approach the ideas of “readiness”? Does the blunt statement that “The Irish , when all is said and done, are no black” show that their apparent ability to at some point be ready to enter modernity exclude them from any comparison with non-white oppressed peoples?
3. How does Onkey’s article directly show the issues of representation seen in both The Commitments as a novel and film?  Does the issue of minstrelsy, often adopted by Irish immigrants to America, complicate the broader social contexts of The Commitments and what it is trying to say about the potential to adopt an identity?

What does the lack of gesturing present in the movie do for the meaning of the original novel? Does it change the meaning? Or could this be exactly what Doyle meant with his book?

Where is the line between what is okay for Irish Americans to identify with (when it comes to African American culture), and where is too far? What about vice versa?

Final Paper Outline-Bonds

I posted a rough outline of paper if anyone wants a little more context for what I’m thinking about.

One of the things I appreciated about Cesaire’s version of “A Tempest” was his interpretation of Gonzalo. Gonzalo, in the original “Tempest”, was a kind-hearted old man who made sure to do his duty to his king and the princess. He was written as a charming optimist, meant to be lovable by all those who are not active evil-doers. In Cesaire’s “A Tempest”, this view about Gonzalo doesn’t change much – excepting one major point. Gonzalo is still a kind-hearted old man. And yet, in this play, he is explicitly made a white kind-hearted old man, who believes that white skin inherently means superiority. The first sign we see of this is when he’s discussing with the others he is ship-wrecked with about the possibility of the island having inhabitants. He wants to be careful to “civilize” them “properly”; he literally uses the term colonization. And again we see at the end of the play, Gonzalo makes an attempt to “save” Caliban with religion; but Caliban’s rejection of this action “forces” Gonzalo to leave him to the secular arm. This redefining of Gonzalo was, I believe, one of the most poignant parts of the play. It showcases the very dilemma that Ariel and Caliban are trying to force Prospero to face, but for the audience’s perspective. Gonzalo’s “kind actions” are not kind at all; they are a way of controlling those who he considers inferior to himself, under the guise of kindness and “civility.” He represents the white savior complex.

Some questions I had about Cesaire’s “A Tempest” were, why in the end did Prospero remain on the island? He was about to return to his home with his daughter, and to regain his kingdom. And yet, he didn’t. He stayed on the island in order to make sure that Caliban was not free. Why? What is the point of this change in the play?

 

I also wondered, why didn’t Ariel return to Caliban in order to help him escape as well? He bore only good-will toward Caliban, as evidenced by his warning earlier. So why did he not return to help Caliban also become free?

In Walcott’s interview with Bill Moyers he mentions Caliban from The Tempest. Walcott explains that Caliban is not talked about like Tarzan. He says the best poetry – besides Prospero’s speech – is spoken by Caliban in the end. For Walcott, this is where the greatness of Shakespeare is because he gives Caliban a musical language. Caliban learns from Prospero. Walcott provides Caliban from The Tempest as an example of his ideal of sharing rather than dependence between colonizer and colonized.

Césaire’s A Tempest offers a very different view on Caliban’s language. Caliban does not speak in beautiful poetic forms like in The Tempest. He tells Prospero “You didn’t teach me a thing! Except to jabber in your own language so that I could understand your orders” (17). Caliban uses his language to curse and spurn Prospero, while Prospero responds, “Beating is the only language you really understand” (19). In Césaire’s adaptation, there is no beautiful, shared language – there are only ugly words spoken between Prospero and Caliban. Prospero does nothing to teach Caliban, hiding his knowledge of science and magic from him and only sharing this with Ariel. Prospero’s language is the instrument which takes away Caliban’s freedom and it is forced upon Caliban to make him understand orders. The language Prospero and Caliban speak is not a true sharing because it is unwillingly done so.

Walcott said in the interview that he likes to focus on the present rather than his past. He was brought up in what he describes as a benign colonial situation, but the history of his family would not have looked like his present. It is a present and positive view which he brings to his writing, but it is also confined and tested by works like A Tempest, as Césaire challenges Walcott’s interpretation of the beauty of Caliban and his learned language.

1. In A Tempest, Caliban claims he is not as powerful as Prospero due to his magic, but also his technology. He even describes Prospero as having “white magic.” Are modern technology and magic the same in the play or is there a distinction?
2. Is Caliban’s insistence on physically battling Prospero for his freedom portrayed as noble or foolish in the play?

The Informer and Uptight both tell rather similar stories, yet the majority of our class found Uptight to be a better production than its predecessor. This is surprising to me not only because the opinion was almost universal among the class, but also because The Informer is praised by critics while Uptight is almost ignored. I believe that Uptight builds off The Informer in a critical way that allows the film to succeed in the modern era while its predecessor fails. The black revolutionaries in Uptight are nuanced and are historically framed in the time period shortly after Martin Luther King Jr.’s death. But the characters in The Informer lack nuance of opinion and blend together in a film that does not present much historical context to explain the situation of the characters.

The Informer divides the Irish into two main groups that are ultimately stereotypes of Irish culture. First there are the revolutionaries who are depicted as violent and unrelenting, shooting and killing whoever they deem harmful to a revolutionary movement that is not given any context. Then there are the rest of the Irish and Gypo, who are depicted as a crowd of drunks. Gypo is depicted as a complex character, but the people he associates with throughout his evening ultimately use him as a tool to consume more alcohol while he uses them as a tool to feed his ego in a strange drunken symbiotic relationship. The film’s choice to divide the Irish into sober revolutionaries and drunken manipulators furthers the stereotypes of the Irish being violent and drunk. Gypo serving as the protagonist complicates this perpetuation of Irish stereotypes because he serves as an intersection between the two groups of Irish in the film, and thus fits both the stereotype of violence and drunkenness.

Uptight on the other hand does not place its characters into crowds, and works to build arguments for black civil rights from a multitude of perspectives. At first glance, the film could be viewed as a conflict between violent revolutionaries and non-violent revolutionaries. But many of the characters intersect between the two perspectives, and voice opinions that are far more complicated than being solely violent or solely non-violent. Tank is a former member of the violent side who chooses non-violence in the wake of Dr. King’s movement, but is eager to change sides once again when he needs money. Teddy is a white man fighting for black civil rights that believe the two races must unite in order to defeat oppression. Clarence is gay and cooperates with the police, but also listens to various records by black artists, thus partaking in black culture without being a revolutionary. And one member of B.G.’s violent movement remarks that he wouldn’t have resorted to violence as a method of protest had whites not done it first. This blending of different opinions in Uptight gives each character a unique personality and perspective, thus making the ability for the audience member to stereotype characters in the film far more difficult. The nuance of political opinions in the film allows the characters to be viewed both as individuals and members of a group, which is why I believe the film is an improvement from The Informer; Uptight uses the plot line of The Informer to paint a narrative of the American black civil rights movement, but eliminates the elements of its predecessor that could lead to the stereotyping of its characters.

 

My first question is about the sea and the role it plays in The Sea at Dauphin.  We’ve encountered other stories of great losses at sea, in Riders and John Redding that seemed to speak to loss of place and community.  In this play, Afa remarks that the sea forgets.  How does that fit with the sea as we’ve seen it in those other works? Does the sea forget, or does it just not care?

In “The Schooner Flight” Walcott talks about naming and mimicry saying “we live like our names and you would have to be colonial to know the difference.”How does identity play into naming and memory and what pain can be stored in names as well?

How does the representation Creole in The Sea at Dauphin compare to other representations of dialect we’ve encountered? What (and whose) histories are encoded in language and its literary representations?

How do Afa and Shabine compare? Do both reflect Walcott’s identity and story in a similar way? What are their motivations to go to Sea? How does the play versus poetry/epic form reflect their main characters?

What do you make of the circularity of Sea at Dauphin? The play begins and ends with Afa preparing to go to sea. What does this suggest about the nature of the sea and Afa’s relationship to it?

How does Shabine represent torn identity? Do some parts of his identity come through more than others?