Title | : | Broken Glass |
Author | : | |
Rating | : | |
ISBN | : | 0140249389 |
ISBN-10 | : | 9780140249385 |
Language | : | English |
Format Type | : | Paperback |
Number of Pages | : | 144 |
Publication | : | First published January 1, 1994 |
Broken Glass Reviews
-
Not, in my opinion, one of the best Arthur Miller plays, but interesting. Written in 1994 when Miller was 79, it takes place in 1938, at the time of Kristallnacht, in Germany, when persecution of the Jews under Hitler was really beginning to accelerate. In the US, people heard of these events and wondered if it were something to really worry about; was it really as bad as they say? Were children really being hurt? these are the Germans, with such high regard for the arts and culture! Windows were broken in Jewish shops. Broken Glass. And Sylvia Glassburg, reading the news with increasing concern, sudenly loses the use of her legs. Psychosomatic? The doc says he sees no physical reason for the ailment.
Sylvia's husband is a Jew, but a kind of ambivalent one about his fellow Jews. And himself. He's the only Jew in a prestigious firm and has worries that he will stand out as a Jew. He has had some physical problems as a result of the stress from work. And the Gellburg relationship, there's issues there, too. So the connection between the psychological and physical is a central issue. And world events and stress about them--as we are experiencing now--sometimes what we think the cause of our problems is a simple one, such as with our worries about health or money, but sometimes it might reveal underlying issues wiht our self-image, and relationships.
I thought the LA Theater Works production of this play was well done, but I was not that engaged with the story as with some of Miller's greatest works. The central conflict seemed fairly obvious to me as things proceeded, not as complex as some of his other plays, and I thought the very ending was less powerful than melodramatic, but maybe that's just me. -
The LA Theater Works production of this play was so good that I nearly gave the play four stars on the power of the performance, but when considering the material apart from the production, three stars seemed more appropriate. The story, hinging on how the combined psychological effects of both public events (Hitler’s rise and Kristallnacht) and personal relationships caused a psychosomatic trauma, was interesting, but like some of Miller’s other work, it suffered from an over abundance of melodrama. Not a bad play, but not necessary.
-
Yeah... I'm not sure what went on here. I get the effects of war etc but one minute she's paralysed, next she's trying to screw the doctor, then she's gone nuts?! I love the crucible by Miller but this one... I'm just not sure.
-
Frankly, I don’t get all the negative reviews. Have we read the same play? Have you read this play at all? Sure, the behavior of the characters was a bit... unusual, but what would be the point of writing a play where everybody’s acting like everybody else? I think this is one of Miller’s better plays. These characters are alive, you understand them, you root for them. I especially liked Miller’s take on how psychological can become physical if you neglect it for too long.
-
God damn this had so many zinger profound lines.
-
I liked the beginning of this play, but I think it went on too long.
-
Miller highlights the social bases of health, tying physical and sexual dysfunction to fear and political repression.
-
"I have this unconventional approach to illness," the doctor explains at one point. "I believe we get sick in twos and threes and fours, not alone as individuals."
Se nota que es una obra tardía de Miller: por fin hace decir a uno de sus protagonistas que es socialista. Desde John Proctor lo sabíamos, pero que el Dr. Hyman lo diga deja en claro el contexto histórico de producción de esta obra.
Todos los tópicos que estaban más o menos ocultos en sus obras de los '40-'60 se manifiestan: la responsabilidad moral (Sylvia hacia los judíos de Europa; Hyman hacia sus pacientes; Phillip hacia Sylvia y los judíos de Nueva York, etc.); la sexualidad reprimida, etc.
La recurrencia de la explicación psicoanalítica está bastante datada, sobre todo considerando que es una obra de 1994. Lo que Miller hace mediante el uso de la mirada psicoanalítica para explicar la parálisis de Sylvia como proceso de identificación de los judíos de Europa está clarísimo. La crítica que Miller pone en labios de Sylvia es, justamente, el punto central de toda su obra: la responsabilidad moral. Sylvia, paralizada y a los gritos se pregunta "por qué no hicieron nada". Sigue, a los gritos: mientras en las calles de Alemania ridiculizan a los judíos, rompen sus negocios, golpean a mujeres y niños, ¿dónde estaba Roosevelt? es la indignación y el miedo la que hace que Sylvia no camine. Eso y la frustración sexual de Phillip, su marido, un auténtico "self-hating jew", que está incluso más paralizado que ella por el miedo, aunque él sí puede caminar.
La figura del cristal es, tal vez, una metáfora moral: son los cristales rotos de los judíos de Alemania, pero también es el quiebre emocional y sexual de la pareja Gellburg. Philip ha vivido en un error, mirándose en el espejo (what is wrong with a jewish face, le dice Sylvia), mientras que Sylvia y el Dr. Hyman prefieren el cristal. La no-hipocresía (sobre todo con uno mismo), la transparencia. El espejo tiene un fondo opaco, no deja ver que hay del otro lado, no establece ninguna relación con el mundo, a diferencia del cristal.
-
I picked this one up in an armload of books from a library sale, like I tend to do once or twice a year... I thought, "huh... I've never heard of this one, and I love Arthur Miller plays! Let's do it!"
Now I know why I'd never heard of it. This play is terrible.
I was miserable reading this from the very first scene. Thankfully, the torture was brief because it's far shorter to read than the plays I love and teach yearly. This felt like Arthur Miller turning in a play he wrote the night before the deadline. Let's see if I can pull apart the problems:
- Terrible dialogue. Nothing crisp, nothing witty, all very first-draft and scattered. Far below standard.
- Flat, uninteresting characters whose motivations flip flop for no reason within single conversations. They are impossible to connect with, understand, or root for or against.
- The message is delivered in a very ham-handed way and is telegraphed far too obviously. There was plenty of opportunity given the choice to explore American Judaism during the beginning of the Holocaust, but I've read survivor accounts with more subtlety. The story should have felt more universal and timely than it did.
- The very last scene between Hyman and Gellburg had the best writing in the whole thing; clearly that's what Miller wanted the whole play to really be about, and it touches on a new shade of the central crisis amidst most of his work (the relationship between identity and honesty) but unlike his other plays, that idea didn't develop slowly throughout the work. It just dropped out of the sky at the very end. Again, this reeks of rushed writing.
- Gellburg may be having an identity crisis, but so is this play. It took me far too long to rule out the possibility that it was meant to be a farce. It's not. All the weird sex stuff? How did that belong??? Speaking of...
- The sexism. Oy vey. It may have been set in the 30s, but dude, you're writing it in the 90s. Do better.
Looks like this one is destined to go back to a library book sale. -
I expected so much more from this play.
-
One of Miller's more acclaimed plays, however it left me unfinished. The topics that are dealt with (i.e., mental health, domestic abuse, adultery, racism) were certainly hot albeit taboo topics when the play was originally written. However, Miller is a master playwright, as we see in his more well-known works (The Crucible, Death of a Salesman, and After the Fall), that can handle controversial topics with great deft. This play, however, never seems to come to full sense of itself. It is compelling and unnerving with an ending that is not quite satisfying, which I believe Miller wanted. However it just feels like there is something missing here, something that I just cannot put my finger on.
-
Identity. Persecution. Fear. Anger. Guilt. Hysteria. Paralysis.
Husbands. Wives. Nations. Races.
Written in 1994 about two couples swimming in the pool of religious/racial state oppression in 1938, this seems strangely relevant in 2020, as we grapple as individuals and as a people with dynamics similar to those that tore a paralyzed, terrified, guilt-ridden, angry world apart nearly 75 years ago.
This may be short, a "quick read", but it deserves lengthy thought and reflection, especially if it is to be performed. In the best tradition of Arthur Millerʻs other works, the characters are layered, and there are no easy villains or heroes, no easy answers, only the messy, ugly, beautiful reality of life. -
I have always wanted to feel very erudite and read Arthur Miller and now, dammit, I've done it. I read about half of Death of a Salesman and was just too depressed to carry on. But Broken Glass was more accessible to me and there is one particular moment of the play that is seared into my memory. Not because it's graphic or violent or anything else, but because it's a real howl of truth that Miller just nailed. Relevant today - shockingly so - if you want to delve into some Miller, I highly recommend Broken Glass.
-
Another play we had to read during my A-levels but one that stands out rereading it for leisure. Even while reading the lines, I could clearly picture the scene and how the characters interact with each other. While some choice words or metaphors in the play seemed bizarre to me, I was invested enough to look past it and enjoy the dialogue for what it was.
-
Nedenini bilmiyorum ancak bu oyundan oldukça hoşlandım. Karakterlerin soğukluğu, Hymen'in tavırları... Büyük ihtimalle kadının çok acı çekiyor oluşundan kaynaklı.:D
-
Second time reading this for my English exam. Storyline was slow and only liked Sylvia as I felt sorry for her.
-
Powerful psychological study of Jewishness, Nazism and paralysis.
-
The writing is excellent. Arthur Miller is incredible at writing realistic characters and realistic dialogue. It was easy to believe that these were real people and that this could really happen. The plot was also interesting. The mystery of discovering why Sylvia suddenly couldn't walk helped the plot move forward and it cause the audience to be intrigued enough to hold their attention. The one issue I ran into was that I didn't fall in love with any of the characters. They could have a happy ending or a sad ending and I wouldn't really care that much. I think it would be a very impactful play to see live. The actors would be able to bring out the strong themes of the play through the delivery of the lines and I think the audience would leave the show with a lot to think about. I think the staging would have to be very particular because of Sylvia's inability to move and because of some of the more intimate moments, but I don't think it would be too much of a challenge.
-
I have yet to understand whether Miller's purpose in writing the play was to offer a greater insight on the struggles of being a Jew at the time, or discuss marital & sexual conflicts or maybe both. Unlike "A view from the bridge" , this time round Miller has left me disappointed in the shaping & development of his characters as well as in their irrational and random actions. Somehow it left me cold and could sympathize or even get frustrated with none of the characters .
-
A quick and enjoyable read. One that is rather humorous yet holds fears and uncertainties of Jewish citizens. The main female lead was very scattered and I was left unsure about her feelings and emotions. As an audiobook it was a lovely little production. As a longer script there would have been potential for a deeper connection to characters.
I’d recommend to any Arthur Miller fans that are wanting a speedy read. -
"This is a Jewish woman's tone of voice."
This play be like "Hey, what if women are not hysterical but instead what happens is that her husbands don't know how to fuck them and also Nazis are fucking scary?" Miller misses some but he hits it out of the park a lot more. -
Another page-turner (or script turner?) by Miller.
-
My first foray into Arthur Miller and still my favourite.
-
Good performance and somehow the themes about American Jews response in the moment to the events in Germany seems more poignant two decades after high school.
-
I think this is Miller's most interesting play, though maybe not his best.
-
Read this for my Literature course — deep themes in such a short play.
-
The dialogue and insights on the human condition was incredible.