In our class discussions we have addressed the relationship between the setting and the action, between the environment and its inhabitants. One feature of Realist drama is that it attempts to show in an objective yet analytical manner the facts that comprise modern experience. In Act I of The Wild Duck, how does the setting relate to the characters and what they do? In what ways is it significant? Is there a particular line or passage that demonstrates what you think?
One or two paragraphs are all that's required, but of course feel free to write more if you have lots of thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
In Act I of The Wild Duck, I found the most significant role of the play's setting to occur during the conversation between Gregers and Hjalmar (starting on page 6) and the conversation between Gregers and his father, Hakon Werle (starting on page 12). It is interesting to note that not only are these conversations very revealing (and consequently sources of conflict for the characters), but they are both held by the fireplace of Werle's study.
I'm assuming there are a number of ways to analyze the significance of the fire in these two conversations. My first thought was that maybe the fire is a symbol for the emerging anger and passion stirring within Gregers, since both conversations led to Gregers questioning the integrity of his father and then ultimately leaving him. Similarly, the fire could signify the rising conflict(s) of not just Gregers, but the story as a whole.
Or, perhaps the presence of the fire is supposed to contrast with the frigidity that has developed between the characters, namely between Gregers and Werle; almost as if to provide the warmth which is lacking between the two. There are two instances where Gregers responds to his father coldly (bottom of p. 13, "[with a cold smile]"; and towards the bottom of p. 15, "[looks at him coldly]") and the juxtaposition of the burning fireplace is rather clever.
Melissa has made a very astute, interesting observation.
The lavish setting of the play's Act I, combined with the fancy feast going on in the background, contrasts sharply with the drawing room, where the servants are making arrangements for the guests. The carefree laughter of the well-off crowd in Werle's home, as provided for by the stage directions, is offset by the old Ekdal's shabby appearance who, as we find out later, once belonged to that crowd, as "he was once a lieutenant," and had fallen and been reduced to the servants' level. By juxtaposing the rich and the poor, the masters and the servants, and by emphasizing the gap between the two, Ibsen reports the reality of his contemporary society and its class structure.
The setting for Act 1 of The Wild Duck occurred in a study, a place for intense discussion and conversation among individuals, which was brilliantly lit by a fire place. The significance of the fireplace seemed to be a source of revelation and energy. There were several frank revelations about family matters. In my opinion, there were two such conversations between:
1. Gregers and Hjalmar about Hjalmar’s engagement and marriage.
2. Gregers and Werle about Werle’s roll in paying Hjalmar’s tuition for photography
and reasons for meeting Gina Hansen, his wife. The character of the father was
revealed through the conversations with Gregers.
Its significance was that it revealed the character type of Gregers, Werle and Hjalmar. For example, Werle remarked “What exactly do you want me to do for those people? When Ekdal as released he was a broken man, altogether beyond help … I‘ve put myself out as far as I possibly could…”
The description of characters - the flabby gentleman, near sighted gentleman - and type of language, and the separation of the rooms by doors present a deep social and hierarchical division among characters. Significant references were made to ‘Madame’, and ‘servants’
Act I really gets the audience involved with getting to know the characters. I found the descriptions of the settings to be secondary to how strong the dialogue was. I think that might have been an intention on Ibsen's behalf. Had the setting been overwhelming in description, we might not have been able to fully emerge ourselves in the richness of the speech. I do however think that the setting of the house and Graberg's office was extremely important. It happens that later on during the party being held by Hakon Werle is interrupted by Old Ekdal who has to pass through one of the main rooms where his son is socializing with the other party guests. Old Ekdal wasn't invited to the party. And while he passes through the party room his son turns to the fireplace so as to avoid seeing his father. Because of these intentional settings we are able to infer a kind of embarrassment that is felt by both Werle and Hjalmar (Page 11)It is these actions and settings that describe feelings and possible empotions more than words could.
The lavishly decorated study serves as a clever device to show the importance that wealth and societal standing have on the characters in the play.
The richness of the Werle's study; the fancy dress party full of chamberlains; the liveried servants, all serve as counterpoint to the shabbily dressed Old Elkdal; Haljmar in his borrowed dinner jacket and the family's "cheaply but comfortably furnished" studio.
The Elkad's fall from grace and the Werle's possible role in their dissolution would seem to be a central element to the play.
I happen to agree with Michelle, the dialogue between many of the characters are developed in a way that it is the only thing that the reader would focus on. You see how the characters each relate with one another and how meaningful the conversation may be to them. In Act I of The Wild Duck, one of the first conversations occur in Werle's study by the fireplace, and as many of my fellow classmates have pointed out, the significance of the fireplace setting one way or the other has an effect on the characters actions. I believe that the use of the fireplace represents how intense each conversation was that took place there. Which may allow the reader to pay close attention that particular scene. I do believe that the setting of a scene may play a very important aspect of that particular scene.
The rich elegant setting of Werle's home makes it evident that Werle is a man of wealth and power. This wealth and power is apparent because Werle is the one that financed Hjalmar's photography education and career. Although he is wealthy and has many fine furnishings in his home, his son was surprised about Werle using his money and power to help others (page 7 towards the bottom). There is also a great contrast in Werle and Edkal who were once friends. Mr. Edkal lives as a pauper and was not welcomed in Werle's parlor among his important friends. This creates a sense of mystery regarding how he lost his fortune and how Werle benefitted from his loss.
I agree with Michelle that Act I was really about letting the audience get to know the characters of the play. It is also about letting the audience learn about the play through the setting of the play. This scene takes place in a study, which is an important and serious location. This means that any conversations that take place their would be of importance for the most part.
It is through Act I that we get to learn about the characters background and personality. We learn that Werle is wealthy. It is his home that Act I takes place in. Act I illustrates the the theme of wealth vs. poverty. We see this theme illustrated by the characters of Werle and Edkal. Werle represents wealth. Edkal represents poverty, "old Edkal appears from the right in drawing room. He is dressed in a shabby overcoact with high collar, and woolen mittens. He has a stick and fur cap in his hand; a parcel wrapped in brown paper under his arm. Wears a dirty reddish - brown wigand has a gray wig." (p. 4)
like melissa, i to felt that the setting by the fireplace had a significance in both conversations. i didn't think that there was so much of a symbolic significance, however, i felt that the fireplace was important in reference to the movement of realism drama. by writing two important conversations that take place minutes apart from each other and in the same setting (near the fireplace), Ibsen may be trying to show how important things can happen in one place during a small slice of time. this goes against previous literature and drama, with long tales and big events that took plave over the course of a lot of time in many lavish settings. by having the conversations between Gregers and Hjalmar and between Gregers and his father, both take place in the same setting, Ibsen is giving something simple meaning and importance. he is showing the drama within two simple conversations by the same particualr setting, without making it a whole to-do.
A study is supposed to be a room set apart from the rest of the house, reserved mostly for reading, writing and private study. Therefore, I find it very interesting that Act I takes place during a party, yet the focus of the Act is not on the party itself, but on the past histories of the character, revealed through conversations in the study. I agree with Michelle that the fire holds these conversations together, but I also think that the study itself, and its purpose in the house create an environment not suited for a party but rather for the kind of conversations we hear in Act I. Characters escape to the study to break free from the restrictions they feel in the party. In sharp contrast with the easygoing conversations occuring in the party as it flows from room to room, the conversations in the study have an added sense of weight.
The act opens with Petersen and Jensen, two workers, fixing up the study while inside the dining room a toast is being given by Werle for Mrs. Sorby. Jensen and Petersen would not be able to converse in the dining room, yet the study, conveniently set apart from the rest of the house, seems to promote conversation, as they can let their guard down and take a breather before getting back to work.
The same is true of Gregers and Hjalmar. Inside the dining room, it can be assumed that they did not get to discuss what was really on their minds. Yet in the study, away from the guests of the party, we learn that these two friends have not seen each other in sixteen years.
When Gregers talks with his father, who moments earlier seemed perfectly happy chatting it up with party guests, we learn of the bitterness between the two, and the angst and distrust present in their relationship. During this conversation the party moves to the drawing room.
I would like to add to Francisco and others mention of how the play revolves around social class and money and also take notice of how the families interact with each other. In the first 30 pages Hakon Werle seems to have everything a man should ever need. However, he is without things that are necessary to true happiness, like a true family environment.
His life seems to be very unbalanced without a functional family. His son accuses him of inviting him down to the house to make things appear as though he has family support. He actually doesn't have the support of his son, and he lies to the only apparent relative he has alive.
In this Act, the Ekdal family seems to be the underdogs and the good guys, because they care for one another’s wellbeing and live to make the members of their family happy. Unlike Young Ekdal, Old Werle, who lies to his son, betrays his friends and cheats on his wife, is in a very lonely world. So lonely, that he is thinking of marring the help.
the relationship between the setting and those in it is one that gives the impression of a group who, because of their vocation, are well-to-do and able to afford such extravagance which has been described. the only members that seem estranged from this assignment are ekdal and his son, who are there without the proper approval of old werle. as eugenia posted, this provides the reader with a sense of classes and a certain role or expectation from society according to one's place in it. after a few pages i am already forming oppinions about the characters in relation to the discription of the atmosphere and setting. the conversations that are less personal (like the flabbly man) seem to be pedantic and fivolous only because i associate the setting as described with my existing idea of 'the rich'. we are told that the ekdals are not belonging to the rich any longer, so i have a different notion toward them, as well as werle's son who has removed himself from the home. the setting provides a platform for me to further my opinions about each character in relation to their vocation and fiscal worth.
As already pointed out numerous times, the audience is made aware right away in Act I of the status of Hakon Werle with descriptions of his study as being expensive and comfortable, and elegant drawing room and various lamp lighting, etc. Though not asked about Act II, one of the things I noticed, however, is how the setting for the Ekdal's is situated almost the same as the Werle's yet, of course, on a poorer level. Instead of a study, the Ekdal's have a studio; lamp lighting is replaced with natural skylighting; a fireplace on the same side is replaced with an iron stove; both have rear doors and the studio, though comfortable, is "cheaply... furnished and arranged." It's as though the Ekdal's setting shows how they were once where the Werle's used to be but are now in a lower status. Even Hjalmar's wife, who was a servant at the Werle's is no longer in that rich environment and now placed in a lower setting.
To move ahead melissa's analysis of the fireplace as metaphor, I'd like to point out that not only do the stage directions apply a fridgid diction to Greger, but also a caustic, inflammatory one to his father when, on page 14, he ['flares' up].
On a different note, I'd like to call attention to the two blind spots in the exceptionally well (& artificially) lit Werle home: the dinning room to the left, and the office to the right. Along with the presence of the curtains, or portiers (they are drawn, but have the potential to conceal), the blind spots add to the theme of blindness and secrecy which will soon be developed. Though we can not see into these two rooms, sounds do leak out: the toast, laughter & chatter from the dinning room -- and the music from the right, as the guests play, maybe a little to pointedly, a game of blind man's bluff.
Finally -- the only color designated in the decor is green -- the green shades on the lamps, and the baize-covered doors -- baize being the green felt used on pool, billiard and other gaming tables. I don't know if this means anything, however.
Adding to what has been a common thread throughout the blog, The Wild Duck is all about comparing and contrasting the characters and settings. We see the rich Werle’s versus the poor Ekdal’s and deeper, the individual juxtapositions within: Gregers and Hjalmar as old friends, Werel and Ekdal as old business partners, and Mrs. Sorby and Gina as mistresses of Werel. The same, as pointed out by Jolojams, is seen in the strikingly similar setups of their respective houses; almost like Ekdal’s house is the bootleg version of a great new movie – Werel’s house. The most intriguing aspect for me is the relationship between all the characters and the wild duck. I can’t really piece it together yet, but I’m sure it will become more apparent as I read on.
I personally agree with michelle and the few others that comply when they say that setting is secondary to the characters. The relatiobships that are established through the dialouge between Gregers and Hjalmar and later between Gregers and his father Werle are essential and quite informative. It revealed to me that Gregers and his father do not have a father\son relationship and the Gregers is quite suspicious of his fathers intentions regarding Hjalmar. Another point that caught my attention was during the conversation between Greger and his father Werle that Greger elludes to the fact that Werle was in some way involved with Hjalmar wife when she was their housekeeper. I also realize that social class plays a part in this novel as we see the fall of the Ekdal's family from high class to low class. I am anticipating the secrets that will come out throughout The Wild Duck.
All of the welcomed and invited guests are sitting at a table talking and sharing laughs while having dinner. In the study, there is beautiful and expensive furniture inside with a burning fireplace showing the wealth of Mr. Werle, and the people sitting at his table, "The study, expensively and comfortably appointed; bookcases and upholstered furniture." Old Ekdal is in direct contrast with the appearance of the study "...he is dressed in a shabby overcoat...a stick in a fur cap in his hand; a parcel wrapped in brown paper under his arm...," while trying to convince a servant to let him into Mr. Werle's study.
The appearance of Old Ekdal and the expensively furnished study shows the different levels of class.
Post a Comment