| Title | : | After the Fall |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0553141015 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780553141016 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 145 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 1964 |
After the Fall Reviews
-
Si todas las obras de Miller tienen o parecen buscar la catarsis, esta obra es la quintaesencia de su manifiesta necesidad de confesión y de obtener clemencia y, de forma más acuciante aún, de conseguir perdonarse a sí mismo.
Tras La muerte de un viajante, es mi preferida entre las cinco que componen el volumen de “Teatro reunido” de Tusquets. Me gustó el desgarro con el que está escrita, la sinceridad con la que trata los sucesos más relevantes de su vida y que marcaron el carácter de su obra teatral.
Es destacable el papel que solía destinar a las mujeres, …“¡Dichosas mujeres, cuánto daño me han hecho!”
… la severidad con la que es juzgada la naturaleza humana,…
“¿Habrá que achacarlo todo a las madres? ¿No hay madres que se lleven la insatisfacción a la tumba, que no quiebren la lealtad de sus hijos y se vayan de este mundo cargando con la culpa de lo que no hicieron?”“juzgo, sí, y además con severidad, cuando en realidad lo que siento es desconcierto”
… la relevancia que concede a valores como la fidelidad, la lealtad, la moral.
“tienes que decidir lo que sientes sobre un ser humano en concreto. Por un vez en la vida. Y entonces tal vez decidas lo que sientes sobre otros seres humanos”“tal vez, la verdad lo único que hace es matar... Entonces, ¿cómo hay que vivir ¿Una mentira viable? ¡Pero para eso se necesita una conciencia tranquila! O muerta. No ver la maldad en uno mismo..., ¡ahí está la fuerza! Hay que acabar con la conciencia.”
Es duro llegar al final de la vida y descubrir que todo ha sido una equivocación tras otra, …“La vida fue para mí como un caso pendiente de juicio… ahora pienso que, para mí, el desastre empezó realmente cuando un día levanté los ojos y me di cuenta que el estrado estaba vacío.”
… que uno mismo es el defectuoso, …“Quise enfrentarme a lo peor que me cabía imaginar: que era incapaz de amar “
… y, aunque alcanza a vislumbrar la clave, …“Al final uno debe abrazar su vida”
… no estoy nada seguro de que realmente consiguiera la paz consigo mismo.
No quiero terminar mi comentario sin hacer referencia al papel de Maggie, claramente Marilyn Monroe. No cabe duda de que la imagen creada contribuyó a la leyenda más caricaturesca de la actriz —su candidez e ingenuidad, su generosidad, sus inseguridades, sus desequilibrios…—, un retrato no exento de un sentimiento de culpa —“Tú lo que quieres es una mujer que cree a tu alrededor (…) un ambiente sin conflicto alguno, y tú campar a tus anchas colmado de elogios”— ni de espeluznantes reproches —“Un suicidio mata a dos personas, ese es su objetivo” —. -
I have decided to re-read or listen to productions of Arthur Miller's plays, many of which I have taught or seen produced many times. I'd never read this play or seen it, after heard it was interesting, but somehow self-serving, focused as it is in part on his relationship to Marilyn Monroe, with whom he had divorced two years previous to the first production of the play. I listened to an LA Theaterworks production over the last couple days, starring Anthony Paglia, who plays a lawyer stand-in for Miller, Quentin, reflecting on his loves and losses.
The play is a kind of memory play, where Quentin sits on an almost bare stage and returns to various memories of women in his life--his marriages, affairs, his mother--touching on the Holocaust, the McCarthy Trials, the Stock Market Crash, and other incidents. The controversial center of the play is the self-destruction of a show business idol, Maggie, to whom he is married.
Miller uses Quentin's most recent love affair, with Holga, set in the present, to examine his past. The structure of the play is remarkable, but the play is less compelling than other Miller plays that are less about him, in my opinion. A central theme is denial, both American denial and personal denial; in order to make a significant commitment to Holga, Quentin must face the ways he has been in denial much of his life, and comes to terms with his failures, his various "falls." Many reviewers and audiences disliked his portrayal of Maggie/Marilyn for various reasons, which I understand, but disagree it felt ultimately self-serving. The "Fall" of Eden for Miller, as in all of our own falls, seems to create the conditions for the possibility of conscious choices, for redemption.
I liked this play, find it intriguing, but I like The Crucible, All my Sons and Death of a Salesman, his masterpieces, much better. -
Quite possibly the worst play I've ever read, and please take into consideration that I went to college with playwrights and was forced to read their crap. Imagine Arthur Miller weepily masturbating onstage for an hour and a half.
This play was worse. Though similar.
I also don't care for this perpetuated image of Marilyn Monroe being a failure. As a child she was the victim of sexual abuse, abandonment, and neglect, all while growing up in dozens of foster homes. Of course she abused drugs! It made me feel like a voyeuristic pervert reading about her through his eyes (though cliché as his writing of it is). It's easy to pick on the dead when they can't defend themselves.
And had it not been for all the juicy Monroe scenes, no way would this play have been produced. It lacks action and originality. Read some of the dialogue aloud--sounds like a soap opera. But with Nazis and a starlet. -
Nope. Wasn't really a fan of this one. Very disjointed, confusing, hard to follow along. It all takes place inside one man's mind, so things jump around a lot. Characters are despicable, moody, and their choices seem illogical or at least inexplicable in this context.
-
Floored me. Here's me, on the floor. It haunts me.
-
Pretentious piffle from a likewise playwrote who damns
his far more talented movie star exwife. -
completely unputdownable, heartbreaking and fragile and aching and engrossing from the first page. it makes it even more riveting knowing that its about his (of course) complicated relationship with marilyn monroe. im desperate to see this acted, and im even more desperate to play the role of maggie. someone somwhere please, let me play that role.
-
December of Drama 2015, day thirteen
Well, it finally happened. When I picked out two Arthur Miller plays to read this year, I was consciously trying to avoid the one he wrote about his marriage with Marilyn Monroe. I'd forgotten the title of it. I chose wisely, initially: The View from the Bridge, and The Price-- except the volume of his work that I checked out (1964-1982) didn't have The View from the Bridge. So what did I substitute? The first play in the collection: After the Fall. Which, of course, is the one he wrote about his marriage with Marilyn Monroe.
Now, if only it had just been about that, it might have been more enjoyable. The first thing I noticed was the length: 129 pages, which probably translates to nearly a three-hour performance. It's bloated. He could really have jettisoned all the stuff about concentration camps and the House Un-American Activities Committee, considering he addressed that whole witch hunt more intelligently and obliquely in The Crucible, and tightened this up. Instead it's kind of half-baked, meandering, and ultimately kind of a bore that had me imagining audience members in the sixties falling asleep watching it, only to nudge each other awake when it gets to the Marilyn part. Now of course it's not that overt-- her character is 'Maggie,' a singer instead of an actress, just as Arthur's stand-in is 'Quentin,' a lawyer instead of a playwright, but the veil is very thin. You're left with a revealing portrait of Miller as a tortured, conflicted and uptight (although honest) individual, and one of Marilyn as a deeply damaged and depressed person. This was interesting, but it just went on too long. -
Some thought provoking quotes but mostly reminds me of ex's erratic, irrational, inconsistent ramblings.
-
Re-read this because I'm getting rid of it, it's not one of my favorites and there are no good monologues in it and my edition is a really dingy paperback anyway. That being said, I liked it better this second time I read it. It's still kind of wanky, Miller trying to analyze his relationship with Marilyn Monroe and decide whether he was really in love with her, or just wanted to save her, or just wanted to sleep with her, or what. There's some good stuff in here about that relationship and about communist witch hunts and stuff. But a lot of it seems like Miller acting like his problems are more important than they really are. I don't care that his psyche was tortured by his inability to listen to his wives. He seems whiny.
It's funny how some authors have really good early stuff and then later they get too complicated and personal and weird, and other authors are self-absorbed and complicated and overblown at the start, and then mature into better, simpler stuff. I think Miller was more of the former kind of writer. -
Miller's biased and fragile reminiscences of his emotional wives.
-
I can’t remember the last time a play was so infuriating,and I have some feelings about it. Aside from the fact that it’s a rambling, confused mess I don’t think I ever realized before what a problem Arthur Miller has with women. I’ve been in a Miller deep dive, reading several of his plays at once, and think I’ve officially lost respect for him and have some hot takes about this extremely thinly veiled biographical play about both his failed marriages, the second being to Marilyn Monroe.
I don’t mean that he hates women, but he seems so bewildered by them. Bewildered that they are human beings in their own right and don’t exist to reflect his greatness back at him in their eyes. He legitimately seems so hurt and sad that the women get fed up and are “ mean to him.”
He seems so confused that after he deigns to marry a woman and gives them the great honor of being their Husband he doesn’t need to do anything after that. He doesn’t care about their lives, or see what he can do to make them feel secure, or involve himself in family life. He can’t stand the fact that eventually the respect and affection leave their eyes when he does nothing to earn either.
He has the grievance that his women “turned from him in bed” making it seem like an unforgivable crime for a wife to not be physically intimate if she’s not feeling it. That by saying “I do” the women have granted him unfettered and unrestricted rights to their bodies. I know the 50’s were a different time but it’s so sad and made me want to barf.
It makes me look back at his other plays in a different light too. Linda, The wife from ‘Salesman’ is considered the perfect, wonderful, loyal wife. But she’s faithful and loyal to Willy, a man she’s smarter than, that cheats on her, that treats her like garbage to her face. There’s a huge Madonna/Whore complex going on in ‘The Crucible.’ Again, Elizabeth Proctor’s great act of forgiveness is to forgive an unfaithful husband. These are great plays and nothing will change that, but I look at them differently now. It seems like Miller’s ideal woman is one that stands by her man no matter how much he disrespects to her face and demeans her.
He wrote this play two years after Marilyn Monroe died. Marilyn was abused and abandoned and a child and was needy and constantly anxious. Marilyn was an alcoholic and addicted to pills. It was never going to be a good match but everything is how her behavior made him feel, how insecure her sexual past made him feel, not pity for the trauma she experienced. Everything, everything, everything is about him. How he was secretly embarrassed to be married to a glorified tart. Poor Arthur.
I used to think Miller a genius for Death of a Salesman and The Crucible. Now, I mostly think “what a baby.”
It’s not what one usually thinks of an American icon but there it is. That’s what I think of him. What a baby. -
I am a fan of Arthur Miller's plays; The Crucible is my favorite... I've read it many times and have seen it performed a couple of times. After the Fall is more of a 'mixed bag' for me. This play is clearly semi-autobiographical with the main character, Quentin, being Miller himself and the character, Maggie, is Marilyn Monroe. Miller incorporates the 'Red Scare' into this play (which I actually found very interesting) and he seemed to be at a point personally in which he was trying to figure out the reason he could simply not understand the women in his life and just why he couldn't seem to make any of his relationships work. This apparent soul searching, unfortunately, presented as self-important whining through much of the play. That being said, I loved the stage directions in this play and would love to see it performed. This is a play characterized by its scarcity... there is little scenery and the stage is mainly a wide open space. Quentin is speaking throughout the play to a 'listener' just off stage and the play takes place entirely in Quentin's mind... thoughts and memories... with various characters passing on and off the stage.
Although reading this play wasn't entirely satisfying to me. I would love the experience of seeing how a performance would play on stage. I liked this play.... I just didn't love it. -
Extremely dated. It's a product of its time, but that doesn't really stop it from being, at its core, misogynistic and confusing. Theatrically, the convention of staging the play in Quentin's mind was insightful and seemingly well-executed. (+1 star). But on the whole, this wasn't my cup of proverbial tea...
-
A cruel, thinly veiled portrait of Marilyn...
-
This was the play that convinced me I didn't like Miller very much.
-
Wow. Wow wow wow wow wow. I read this to get a picture of the inner workings of a cerebral narcissist.
And it's all there.
-Prodigy writer, put on a pedestal as a child, competition with sibling
-demands constant praise and admiration (narcissistic supply) from wife
-coldness, ignoring his wife at parties while flirting with other women. To Louise: "I don't sleep with other women, but I think I behave as though I do"
-subsumes wife into his own being - Quentin to Louise: "When you've finally become a separate person, what the hell is there?"
-values "social contract" over wife, always takes the side of others (ie Maggie and the cellist)
-gaslighting - telling Louise "Louise, I worry about you all day. And all night." (false compassion)
and, obviously, his intent to institutionalize Maggie
-obsession with power:
"Well that's power isn't it? To influence a girl to change her nose, her life?"
"Not to see one's own evil - there's power! And rightness too! - so kill conscience. Kill it. Know all, admit nothing, shave closely, remember birthdays, open car doors, pursue Louise not with truth but with attention. Be uncertain on your own time, in bed be absolute."
And, ultimately, inability to love. Quentin admits: "That's just it. That I could have brought two women so different to the same accusation - it closed a circle for me. And I wanted to face the worst thing I could imagine - that I could not love. And I wrote it down, like a letter from hell."
The post-war despair, the killing of conscience, beyond good and evil, all bundled up into one man - highlighted superbly and disturbingly with the concentration camp imagery.
Miller's guilt and self-loathing are on full display, but like both Louise and Maggie point out to him, awareness is not enough. He has to want to change his hurtful behavior. He has to want to love.
I knew I would sympathize with Marilyn's character but I found myself identifying immensely with Mary Slattery, too. I thought their marriage fell apart mainly because he cheated with Marilyn (and others, probably) but nope! He narcissistically abused/discarded her, too.
Some quotes from Louise that were so accurate they were scary:
"What is it? The moment I begin to assert myself it seems to threaten you. I don't think you *want* me to be happy."
"I don't intend to be ashamed of myself anymore. I used to think it was normal, or even that you don't see me because I'm not worth seeing. But I think now that you don't really see any woman."
"I demanded nothing for much too long."
"Look, Quentin, you want a woman to provide an atmosphere, in which there are never any issues, and you'll fly around in a constant bath of praise - "
------------
And some of Maggie's most insightful quotes:
"If I want something you should ask yourself why, why does she want it, not why she shouldn't have it...That's why I don't smile, I feel I'm fighting all the time to make you *see*. You're like a little boy, you don't see the knives people hide."
"When I walked into the party you didn't even put your arms around me. I felt like one of those wives or something!"
Re: wanting Quentin to stand up for her:
"When your mother tells me I'm getting fat, I know where I am. And when you don't do anything about it."
"But what can I do?"
"Slap her down, that's what you do!"
And, on their WEDDING DAY, when he let Elsie flirt with him and promiscuously hug him.
Him: "But what could I do?"
M: "Just tell her to knock it off!"
"you should look at me as if I *existed* or something"
(Louise said something similar, prompting his "letter from hell" quote ^)
Miller's supposed compassion is not backed by actions... "I hate seeing you writhing in pain"...but unwilling/unable to provide the love that would relieve the pain... "I just wish you could find some joy in your life."
----------------------------
Arthur Miller was a psychopath. Of course he was a genius. Perhaps he tried to love. He was simply incapable of the spectrum of human emotions and compassion. I do believe it took a certain amount of courage to write this play and admit his guilt and despair. His inner dialogue reveals a deeply unhappy man, proving that the blueprint of the narcissistic life does not in fact bring fulfillment. He writes of hope in regards to his final wife. Holga was Quentin's ideal "thick skinned" woman. From what I know about Miller's marriage to Ingeborg, while she seemed to be perfect to him and make him happy, he was still abusive. They had a son with Down Syndrome and Miller refused to see the child, demanding that he be institutionalized against his mother's wishes. How's her thick skin protecting her and her son from this overbearing, eugenicist, destructive, ableist, controlling, judgmental, anti-compassionate man? Apparently Daniel Day Lewis one day convinced the curmudgeonly, ancient Miller to visit his son, but by then it was too late...
----------------------
I was expecting, since this is all Miller's perspective, for Mary and Marilyn to be completely gaslighted out of existence in this play, painted as caricature "hysterical women." But no - their dialogue is completely rational and their arguments sound (with the exception of a few drunken rants from Marilyn). Miller just STILL doesn't see his errors fully, and still evidently bewildered as to how he could have ever done better. "This is exactly what I mean, Quentin. You are still defending it. Right now." (Louise)
His introspection is fatalistic, full of guilt, shame, self-loathing - with regards to ALL the relationships in his life, including family. There is a lack of resolution or repentance. Just a sad, defeatist recognition..."that's just how I am" attitude... with the intent to keep plowing forward, probably hurting more people in the future. Searingly insightful, but morally broken.
I agree with the critics that this play was exploitative of both Marilyn and Mary. Placing himself into the narrative of Marilyn's death revealed the deep guilt he felt - that he felt he in fact had killed her - but felt like a theft of very intimate details that no longer belonged to him.
I have to say I'm grateful to Miller for writing this play so honestly. It's more of an explanation than I've ever received from a cerebral narcissist before. It's given me immense perspective and, consequently, validation and sanity.
-------------------
"I mean, she's not your rib."
I, too, lived in a false Eden with a false Adam. It was always after the fall. -
When public/private values fall, there is doubt/guilt.
-
I thought this one was a little confusing.
-
خلال قرائتي لهذة المسرحية الرائعة تذكرت و تبادر الي ذهني علي الفور فيلم الرائع وودي الان الواجهة
الذي يتناول فترة القمع الامريكي لمجموعة من الكتاب و المفكريين اصحاب التوجه اليساري تم درجهم فيما يسمي القائمة السوداء لكتاب ممنوعين من النشر و الكتابة في امريكا حتي انهم كانوا يصدروا كتبهم تحت اسماء مستعارة و بشخصيات اخري و هي حقيقة تاريخية و كان ميللر من بين هؤلأ و ضمن هذة القائمة السوداء
هذا علي الرغم من نفي ميللر نفسة لاي ميول يسارية تماما كالمحامي بطل هذة المسرحية هذا و قد عرفت فيما بعد سر التشابة و هو ان المسرحية اصلا تعتبر اقرب الي سيرة ذاتية لميللر بطريقة ما و هذا ما عرفته من مقدمة الكتاب " عادة اقراء المقدمة و التحليل بعد ان اقراء الكتاب اولا" فوجدت في المقدمة بالفعل انها تعتبر الي حد ما سيرة ذاتية لتشبة البطل مع ميللر في عدد مرات زواجه و في الطفولة و ايضا شخصية ماجي و التي مثلت مارلين مونرو
المسرحية ان جاز لي ان الخصها في كلمتين فهي " عندما يحاكم الانسان نفسة" و هذا ما كان يفعلة كونتين بطل المسرحية علي مدار 290 صفحة او عندما اخرجت علي المسرح علي مدار ثلاث ساعات
المسرحية بها مجموعة حوارات غاية في البساطه و اكثر من رائعة خاصة في مشهدها الثاني او الفصل الثاني فعلي سبيل المثال في حديث مع ماجي يقول لها " هناك كلمة واحدة مكتوبة علي جبينك .. الان" يريد بهذا ان يعبر عن مدي بساطتها و عن انها لا تشغل بالها الا بالحظة لا تفكر فيما هو ابعد من ذلك و تؤكد هي الاخري هذا المعني بعد بذلك في صفحات اخري قائلة له " لا تحمل المستقبل كأنك تحمل فازة " كناية بالطبع عن شدة الحرص و لقد صاغ مع ماجي حوارات في بداية المشهد الثاني حتي ان القارىء يكاد يعشق ماجي من خلال هذة السطور ثم يبدء في سرد الاحاديث التي تبين الي ما آلت الية الامور حتي تقدم ماجي علي الانتحار
في موضع اخر و علي سبيل المثال من الجانب السياسي في هذا العمل اثناء وجودة في محاكمة يعبر عن الازدواجية الامريكية "كم زنجيا تسمحون لهم بالتصويت في دائراتكم الوطنية ؟ .. تري كم من ميولكم الاجتماعية او السياسية او العنصرية كان هتلر سيستهجنه؟" و هكذا لا تخلو المسرحية علي مدار جميع صفحاتها من الافكار العميقة و الاقوال جميلة ... هذا كله بجانب الواقعية التي تتسم بها معظم الاعمال الادبية الامريكية .. بعيدا عن اسلوب العظة و الانتهاء الي الفضيلة الحتمية في نهاية العمل كما هو الحال في القصص التقليدية
المسرحية باختصار شديد رائعة ولا ابالغ ان قلت انني انتهيت منها للتو و اريد ان اعيد قرائتها مرة اخري الان
--
http://reviewslibrary.blogspot.com/20... -
Quentin is a lawyer at a big firm. He has friends, a wife, daughter and a Communist past he is still trying to come to terms with. He constantly flashbacks to his childhood to hear his parents bickering and flashes forward to listen to his current lover discuss her fear of Nazis. In between we see Quentin's first marriage end, the disintegration of his second marriage to a famous singer, and the fear he and his friends feel when the firm demands that someone names the former Communists among them.
When I began reading this I was aware that Miller had caught a tremendous amount of heat for this play. I can see why. It is self-serving and egotistical in monumental proportions. He might as well have gone ahead and given the characters their real names: Quentin is Miller whining endlessly about truth, Maggie is Marilyn Monroe as the "quite stupid, silly kid." And the later lover, calm Holga, is Miller's then wife, Ingeborg Morath, the only female in the play that Miller doesn't portray as impossible to please. If Miller had simply written a play that had a little bit in common with his own life it wouldn't have mattered, but that he chose to write so transparently about his marriage, break-up and death of Marilyn so immediately after her death comes off as exploitation. -
‘After the Fall’ Explores the Moral Wreckage of the mid 20th Century
This year, I am reading or re-reading a number of Arthur Miller’s plays, since I have felt a lifelong connection given our shared roots in the University of Michigan writing program. Certainly, my career as a journalist and publisher is nothing like the worldwide fame Miller attained and his talent at capturing moral dilemmas from individual Americans and their families—to men and women caught up in global turmoil. Nevertheless, throughout my life, I've felt a connection with Miller as one tends to look at the trajectories of men and women who sprang from similar roots.
I had never read or seen After the Fall but was intrigued after watching a documentary about the life of actress Barbara Loden that was included in the Criterion edition of Loden’s
1971 drama Wanda, which also is available via Amazon. In that lengthy documentary, I found references to (and images from) the debut of After the Fall, since Loden co-starred in it and Elia Kazan directed it. I had to go back and read the play for myself.
As it turns out this is one of the pivotal plays in Miller’s life in which he cast an “everyman” talking with a “Listener” about the many ways his life has been marked by tragedy. Clearly that “everyman” was Miller himself and the play is a search for meaning, for clarity about moral responsibility and for a vision of some way to go on living.
In other words: Wow! This is one of Arthur Miller’s Big Plays.
Talk about a hurricane of personal, political and ethical crises all wrapped up in the life of one famous playwright and one famous director who worked with him to stage the play!
Miller began working on this play in 1961 around the time he and Marilyn Monroe were divorced. He kept working on it for several years until it eventually debuted in 1964, two years after her suicide. Meanwhile, six months before Marilyn’s death, Miller had married an Austrian photographer Inge Morath, who he had met while she and he both worked on Marilyn’s last movie, The Misfits (Miller as writer, Inge as a still photographer). So desire and betrayal and guilt were deeply woven into those relationships. On top of all of that, Miller had become immersed in the aftermath of the Holocaust, traveling to Europe with Inge (who had remained in Germany during WWII and thus perhaps bore some culpability). The two of them visited Mauthausen, such a searing experience that it winds up as a literal milestone in this play. While in Europe, Miller dug even deeper and wrote about ongoing Nazi trials for the New York Herald Tribune.
As if that was not enough trauma for anyone to withstand, Miller was still recovering from his own deeply scarring legal confrontations with the House Unamerican Affairs Committee (where he had refused to “name names,” but his friend Elia Kazan had given up names in the early 1950s). By the time of this production, Miller had found a way to reconcile with his old friend for the sake of this play, which Kazan directed. Like Miller, at that time, Kazan was falling in love with a young, blond actress, Barbara Loden, and Loden was cast in the part of Maggie (the Marilyn Monroe part) in that debut production of After the Fall, pointedly playing the role made up to look like Marilyn. Two years later, Loden and Kazan were married.
When headlines broke that Miller was coming back to the stage in 1964, after nearly a decade with no new plays, every theater critic in America was poised to judge this production. When they showed up for the first performances, they found that he had poured all of these larger-than-life “characters,” his roiling emotions and his agonizing sense of guilt onto an abstractly designed stage (typically staged as a largely empty space painted in dark colors with a death camp tower and several platforms on which the cast could appear and disappear throughout the play). When it debuted, the great Jason Robards played the lead role, a character called Quentin who obviously is Miller speaking in a kind of “first person” to a kind of therapist figure called “the Listener.”
Oh, and just to be sure he was transparently exploring all the dark recesses of his mind, Miller decided to add the scars from his childhood, when he had a complex and in many ways abusive relationship with his mother in particular.
The entire play unfolds as if the audience is invited to look inside the dark mind of the playwright and watch as memories of characters pop up across multiple levels on stage. A wounding experience with his mother suddenly shifts to a scene at Mauthausen, for example, as the main character tries to make sense of the forces that haunt him on a daily basis and that even make him question the value of continuing with his own life.
Perhaps this long background explains why a number of critics savaged the play when it debuted. They called it Miller’s attempt, after not having debuted new work for a number of years, to cash in on his celebrity marriage to Marilyn. They called it tragically self indulgent and even described it as tabloid fodder.
Not everyone hated the play, of course, and Miller's return to the stage after nine years marked the beginning of a vibrant 40-year “second wind” of work in theater.
Today, nearly 60 years after its debut, the play stands up as a fascinating example of one man’s struggle to come to terms with everything from abusive parents to the nature of evil on a global scale. I found it deeply engaging and wish that I had been able to see one of the revivals of the play.
While the play's subject reflects on the moral wreckage of the mid-20th century, the broader themes certainly are relevant in today's war-torn and climate ravaged world as well. -
The book starts off a little weak. The dialogue is strong, but the jumps between scenes, characters, eras is a little tedious to follow when one starts the play. However, as the story progress, Miller brings a little more cohesion to the overall story and focuses more on the two main character: Maggie and Quentin. This is an excellent work on the idea of how women bring man to his downfall. Quentin's life (and the play) is shaped by the women in it. His mother, his wives, a woman he meets abroad, all influence his actions. He tries to save each one, but in the end is accused of not loving them enough. In the end he is forced to save himself and by doing so, abandons each one. I found this to be an engaging play.
-
I didn’t care for this autobiographical-ish snapshot of Miller and his wives. He’s despicable, his wives are one- dimensional. Blech!
I requested this collection of plays from interlibrary loan.
I hate it when I reread plays that I didn't like either time!
Self-indulgent, overlong, complicated stage design and huge cast, pointless. This is from a collection of Miller plays I bought from TCL on 9.25.21. -
I decided to read this book for two reasons: 1.) Because I love Arthur Miller's writing, but also 2.) because I had to for an author study. This play was great. I gave it a four only because it was hard to keep track of what was going on sometimes and I found myself re-reading things a lot. But it is seriously great. Not my favorite Arthur Miller play, but I love it a lot.
-
Boy, you have to get real imaginative picturing this. I'm sure more can get across actually performed as it is a play but the idea is really unique and some of these characters are real heartbreaking. Not any tropes you might be familiar with. Worth a read
-
Epic, devastating - I love Arthur Miller.
-
Definitely a superb first approach to Arthur Miller's fantastic writing. Loved it.
