So let's start off by saying I did not really enjoy the play. It is to my understanding that most if not every person in our class did not enjoy the play. In my opinion, it didn't really go anywhere and it wasn't very entertaining. However, when reading the criticisms (I didn't know what criticism meant in this context so I looked it up. According to Google it is the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work.) of the play I began to think more about the inherent message behind the characters and events rather than the narrative's main story. When reading each criticism I had a hard time looking past my initial thoughts on how pointless the play seemed to be at first glance. I still hold that opinion however, each essay actually gave me ideas on what I should actually write on the AICE test. I was really at a loss for what I would even talk about on the test but this really helped.
Ok now that we got that out of the way, let me start by saying I don’t fully agree with any of the criticisms. However, I do for the most part like the approach Annette Petrusso took in her criticism of the play (I feel like I’m overusing the word criticism). I like the idea that Chance’s whole character arc and struggle is based upon the fact that he is denying his own reality. He comes back to St. Cloud in order to try to regain his former glory because deep down he knows that things have not worked out in his life the way he expected them to. Petrusso talks about how Chance is trying to create this false illusion of himself to the townspeople, he wants to make them think that he made it big, even though the “Princess purchased his clothes, the wad of money he flashes in act 2 is hers, and the Cadillac he drives is hers.” Essentially, he is in denial of how much a failure he truly is. He thinks that just because he signed the contract with Princess it will change everything. Sadly, he's used up all of his chances to truly make it big.
He’s too old to start now and Princess knows it. I would also like to point out that I do agree with Foster Hirsch’s assessment on the point of Princess’ character as she is “necessary only as a thematic reinforcement of Chance’s lust for success and his fear of growing older.” However, I would like to add to that and say that she also serves as Chance’s last chance to become a star. When she leaves for Hollywood after she finds out that her comeback was a success, Chance elects to stay behind and accept his fate. I disagree with Hirsch when he says Princess only represents Chance’s lust for success and fear of aging, I believe she also represents how much denial Chance is in but in the reverse. She sees herself as a failure, doomed to never succeed again. However, she turned out to be a huge success in her new movie. Chance on the other hand sees himself as someone who has yet to make it big but has the potential to be on top, to be the greatest. He thinks that one big movie with the Princess’ contract is all it will take for him to make it big. This shows that Chance is in extreme denial. He has no talent and no chance at making it big. I believe that Princess and Chance are supposed to mirror each other which brings me to the point about the mirror.
When Chance forces Princess to look in the mirror she can finally see clearly who she is: “Alexandra Del Lago, artist and star!”, Chance on the other hand is nothing. Alice Griffin says that the mirror is meant to show the difference between the two characters; however, I disagree. I believe the mirror is supposed to emphasize the amount of denial Chance truly is in. In a way the mirror breaks down the grand illusion he has created for himself, but it’s not the mirror that directly causes this. It is Princess that attempts to wake Chance up out of his dream world. Princess says to Chance: “But you? You’ve come back to a town you were born in, to a girl that won’t see you because you put such rot in her body” that she had to get a hysterectomy. Chance is still in denial even when staring himself straight in the mirror. I think this really backs up Petrusso’s claims that Chance is in denial of his life and how it has turned out.
Anyway, I enjoyed reading the essays and I really think they offered great perspective on how to better interpret the play and write about it for the AICE test. For the most part I believe the three authors had some similar opinions on parts of the play but the prompt forced me into finding parts from the two other essays that I, and therefore Petrusso, disagree with. The reason I picked Petrusso’s essay is because I thought it made the most sense without stretching the play too thin attempting to look for meaning. I agree with the main points made by each author but I found the way the other two went about backing it up to be unbelievable at parts. Ok well I’m pretty tired right now and I’ve been writing this for about two hours. Love you Scalia, hope you’re having a good weekend. Or week. It really depends when you read this.
Ok now that we got that out of the way, let me start by saying I don’t fully agree with any of the criticisms. However, I do for the most part like the approach Annette Petrusso took in her criticism of the play (I feel like I’m overusing the word criticism). I like the idea that Chance’s whole character arc and struggle is based upon the fact that he is denying his own reality. He comes back to St. Cloud in order to try to regain his former glory because deep down he knows that things have not worked out in his life the way he expected them to. Petrusso talks about how Chance is trying to create this false illusion of himself to the townspeople, he wants to make them think that he made it big, even though the “Princess purchased his clothes, the wad of money he flashes in act 2 is hers, and the Cadillac he drives is hers.” Essentially, he is in denial of how much a failure he truly is. He thinks that just because he signed the contract with Princess it will change everything. Sadly, he's used up all of his chances to truly make it big.
He’s too old to start now and Princess knows it. I would also like to point out that I do agree with Foster Hirsch’s assessment on the point of Princess’ character as she is “necessary only as a thematic reinforcement of Chance’s lust for success and his fear of growing older.” However, I would like to add to that and say that she also serves as Chance’s last chance to become a star. When she leaves for Hollywood after she finds out that her comeback was a success, Chance elects to stay behind and accept his fate. I disagree with Hirsch when he says Princess only represents Chance’s lust for success and fear of aging, I believe she also represents how much denial Chance is in but in the reverse. She sees herself as a failure, doomed to never succeed again. However, she turned out to be a huge success in her new movie. Chance on the other hand sees himself as someone who has yet to make it big but has the potential to be on top, to be the greatest. He thinks that one big movie with the Princess’ contract is all it will take for him to make it big. This shows that Chance is in extreme denial. He has no talent and no chance at making it big. I believe that Princess and Chance are supposed to mirror each other which brings me to the point about the mirror.
When Chance forces Princess to look in the mirror she can finally see clearly who she is: “Alexandra Del Lago, artist and star!”, Chance on the other hand is nothing. Alice Griffin says that the mirror is meant to show the difference between the two characters; however, I disagree. I believe the mirror is supposed to emphasize the amount of denial Chance truly is in. In a way the mirror breaks down the grand illusion he has created for himself, but it’s not the mirror that directly causes this. It is Princess that attempts to wake Chance up out of his dream world. Princess says to Chance: “But you? You’ve come back to a town you were born in, to a girl that won’t see you because you put such rot in her body” that she had to get a hysterectomy. Chance is still in denial even when staring himself straight in the mirror. I think this really backs up Petrusso’s claims that Chance is in denial of his life and how it has turned out.
Anyway, I enjoyed reading the essays and I really think they offered great perspective on how to better interpret the play and write about it for the AICE test. For the most part I believe the three authors had some similar opinions on parts of the play but the prompt forced me into finding parts from the two other essays that I, and therefore Petrusso, disagree with. The reason I picked Petrusso’s essay is because I thought it made the most sense without stretching the play too thin attempting to look for meaning. I agree with the main points made by each author but I found the way the other two went about backing it up to be unbelievable at parts. Ok well I’m pretty tired right now and I’ve been writing this for about two hours. Love you Scalia, hope you’re having a good weekend. Or week. It really depends when you read this.
No comments:
Post a Comment