| Title | : | A View from the Bridge: A Play in Two Acts |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0140481354 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780140481358 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 96 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 1955 |
A View from the Bridge: A Play in Two Acts Reviews
-
مشهد من الجسر هذا ما نراه
من مكان بعينه ووقت بعينه
من حافز بعينه وغاية بعينها
من مسرح الواقع والتاريخ
من خلف ستائر نفوسنا المثقلة
من أمواج متلاطمة داكنة معتمة
مشهد فقط يمكن رؤيته
مهما امعنا النظر
لن تمنحنا الحياة أسرارها
ربما اكثر الناس قربا منا لا نراهم
من سجوننا الخرسانية والألوميتال
من قضبان الحديد التي احطنا بها نوافذنا
من لون الكحل العازل للضوء الذي طلينا به عيوننا الملتصقة بالنوافذ المغلقة
مشهد فقط
المهاجر الباحث عن لقمة عيش لاولاد يقاسون في بلاد طحنتها الحرب
الفنان الذي لا يجيد سوى الغناء والعشق
القادمون بعواطف جائعة
والمقيمون بحرمان متأجج
الشباب الهاربون من تأشيرة بوابة
يستنفد البحر قواهم
ويبقى حلم الروح في حب يجرف مراكب الأمل لشاطئ الدفء
يظنون الإنسانية أسرة أبدية
والذين كاد العجز يخمد شعلاتهم
يريدون الفرصة الأخيرة
ثمرة الغرس التي كادت تنضج
قبل أن يقطغها الغريب
الجسر الواصل يفصل بيننا
فالمشاهد لا تكتمل يا إيدي.. يا رودلفَو.. يا ماركو
مسكينة كاثرين الممزقة بين الراعي العجوز والهارب الفنان
مسكينة أحلام الغد بعالم طردت الغاشية إنسانيته
ولم تنفذه شعارات الديموقراطية
بياتريس تخلصت أم ترملت
أوليفيري شاهد لحظة النهاية عند الجسر ليروبها بصوت التاريخ الوقور الذي لا حيلة له سوي ان ينقل المشهد
كما يظن أنه رآه
آرثر ميلر كم كنت قاسيا على الغريب والمقيم
محمود مرسي جميلة هي رؤيتك الإذاعية
أخرجتها كأننا نراها
ونراك في اصوات الممثلين حمدي غيث وعزيزة حلمي وسناء جميل وفاروق الدمرداش -
La misma fuerza dramática que sus obras anteriores, la misma intensidad de sentimientos, la misma inclemencia ante la debilidad humana, el mismo encasillamiento de la mujer (esposa amantísima u objeto de perdición) y el mismo final justiciero. Pero si intentaba hacer un análisis de la delación a mí me ha parecido bastante pobre. -
Arthur Miller’s 1955 A View From the Bridge has the feeling of a Greek tragedy, but it’s set in working-class 1950s Brooklyn, in the Red Hook neighborhood with “a view from the bridge.” I heard it (again) this past couple days in an audiotaped version by the LA Theater Works, starring Ed O’Neill as longshoreman Eddie Carbone, who is married to Beatrice and also raising his eighteen-year old orphaned niece Catherine. The tale is in part narrated in the style of a Greek chorus by lawyer Alfieri, whom Eddie Carbone goes to for legal advice. At the end, the lawyer reflects on the nature of Catherine, in whom he still finds something to admire:
“Most of the time now we settle for half and I like it better. But the truth is holy, and even as I known how wrong he was, and his death useless, I tremble, for I confess that something perversely pure calls to me from his memory- not purely good, but himself purely, for he allowed himself to be wholly known and for that I think I will love him more than all my sensible clients. And yet, it is better to settle for half, it must be! And so I mourn him- I admit -with a certain. . . alarm.”
Miller said that he heard the basic account that developed into the plot of A View from the Bridge from a lawyer who worked with longshoremen, who related it to him as a true story. The play was first produced as a one-act, then developed into a (better) two-act play.
Eddie, in his zeal to raise Catherine, becomes what seems to his wife (and others) improperly obsessed with (as in borderline-“interested in”) her niece. It’s been an amusing cliché, I suppose, that fathers protect their daughters and have a complicated relationship with the boys that pursue them, but Eddie seems to cross over into dangerous territory. As Alfieri, in his truth-telling, chorus function tells Eddie,
“You want somethin' else, Eddie, and you can never have her!”
When Beatrice helps to bring two cousins (illegally) from Italy to live with them, and one of them, Rudolpho, falls in love with Catherine, Eddie doesn’t approve of his niece’s courtship with him. His obsession/jealousy spins out of control after Rudolpho asks Catherine for his hand in marriage, leading to tragic consequences. The great Red Hook dialogue, all the relationships, the aspects about immigration, the investigation of masculinity, all these things make it a great play, an American tragedy. -
Miller wrote over three dozen stage plays in his career and this one is considered to be in the top four or five. It first premiered unsuccessfully on Broadway in 1955 as a one act play. So Miller rewrote it as a two act play which premiered in London's West End in 1956. It's a tragic play set in 1950's New York City in an Italian American neighborhood in view of the Brooklyn Bridge. It's a story of family, love, jealousy, prejudice, immigration, all themes that still ring familiar with todays audiences.
-
مسرحية مشهد من الجسر لآرثر ميللر
متوفرة بالعربية على هيئة كتاب صوتي فقط
من أرشيف الإذاعة المصرية
https://archive.org/details/P2-dra-Vi... -
Although I didn’t agree with all that Eddie has done but I cant help loving his kindness and generosity with Catherine the daughter of his wife's sister that he adopted after she died
his fault was that he loved Catherine so much.
He says, "I took out of my own mouth to give to her.,I walked hungry plenty days in this city!"
he gave a warm welcome to his wife's Italian cousins(Marco and Rodolpho) when they first arrived. He opened his doors to them,and declared that it was an "honor" to have them at the house .
They are both very gracious for the hospitality. Marco tells Eddie that he has three children and a wife back home that he will be sending money to.....
Rodolpho, the young blonde brother, has no family and intends to stay in the country as long as possible...
Eddie thinks that Rodolpho is untrustworthy...
Eddie becomes jealous of the time he spends with Catherine he was looking for an excuse not to like him he supposes that Rodolfo is gay. the way he sing and dance, the fact that he can sew and cook....!
Eddie tells Catherine that Rodolpho just wants to marry her to become a citizen.....
For me this play raises a question,
Why someone would be generous?is it something he cant control,he is born to be so
And is happy that he helped others and need nothing from them…
Or is it because he can be proud that he has done good.and expecting other to appreciate it,would this person still be generous, when he wanna all the time hear how much those others are grateful for what he had done….
And in return obey his orders even if they are not convinced…
A symbolic action…
Marco challenges Eddie to lift a chair by one its legs with only one of his arms. Eddie can't do it.
Was this Marco's warning to Eddie? Was it a promise of violence, which Marco later
Did…?
-
"Just remember kid, you can quicker get back a million dollars that was stole than a word that you gave away."
....A lawyer narrates and advises characters in this tragic classic play of the 1950's set in a tenement not far from the Brooklyn Bridge.
....All is well with longshoreman Uncle Eddie, kind-hearted Aunt Beatrice and live-in niece Catherine....until the secret guests from Italy arrive and Uncle Eddie turns from generous and welcoming to jealous, difficult and self-serving resulting in disastrous encounters and dark consequences.
....Much intensity among intriguing characters!
(Was unaware Miller was married to Marilyn Monroe for 5 years)
-
It was only while half the way through this that I realized that I had actually read this once before, whilst in school. I can remember detesting this after my first read as it felt like a pointless story that took the reader nowhere. My second read has unveiled so much that I missed the first time! Perhaps it was my lack of maturity, but I definitely did not appreciate the complexities that were packed into this short tale. The nuances of human emotion and the focus on the human condition are so expertly and artfully dissected here that I can fully see why this has earned its status as a timeless classic.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06h93s1
Description: Martin Jarvis directs Arthur Miller's 1955 award-winning masterpiece. Recorded specially in the US for Drama On 3. Alfred Molina leads an all-star American cast. Universal themes of family, guilt, loyalty, sexual attraction, jealousy - and love - in a powerful story about illegal immigration that still resonates to our time 60 years later.
Miller's finest play. Italian-American neighbourhood near the Brooklyn Bridge, New York. 1950s.
Lawyer Alfieri (our narrator) confides to listeners there are cases where he can only watch as they run their bloody course.
Longshoreman Eddie Carbone lives with his wife Beatrice and her orphaned niece, Catherine, in a Brooklyn tenement. He has a love of, almost an obsession with, 17 year old Catherine. Beatrice's Italian cousins are being smuggled into the country. The family hide the illegal immigrants, Marco and Rodolpho, while they work on the docks. Eddie's increasing suspicion and jealousy of Rodolpho's developing relationship with Catherine ('he ain't right, he cooks, he sings, he makes dresses') eventually leads to betrayal and a tragic confrontation.
Just as we are nearing the end of these centenary celebrations hosted by Auntie, an flister points in the direction of Miller's insincerity and lines that just two days ago I would have looked on as strengthening, I now see as pieces of pissed-in Pampers posited on pathway in patters of precipitation.Daniel
"My oh my!" you are muttering among yourselves, "Bettie has lost the plot with that pained passage of P's."
The paradigm has shifted, that's what has happened, all those deep lines, the panoply he gave us, has paled into papery insignificance. Miller made a pretty penny by playing the parenting card.
"Most people ain't People," says Eddie Carbone.
Eddie Carbone Alfred MolinaDaniel
Alfieri Hector Elizondo
Beatrice Carbone Jane Kaczmarek
Catherine Melissa Benoist
Marco Reid Scott
Rodolpho Matthew Wolf
Louis Andre Sogliuzzo
Tony Andre Sogliuzzo
First Immigration Officer Andre Sogliuzzo
Mike Darren Richardson
Second Immigration Officer Darren Richardson -
I can't believe I just rated a school book read for academic purposes 5 stars. I first read it in class with my English teacher, I found it super boring and uninteresting. However, now that I have to revise it for my finals, I really took it seriously and read it in depth. I found out how this play fully captures me for the whole time reading and analyzing it. The characters, their struggles and problems are so easy to relate to.
Eddie and his hard-working life as a longshoreman who is a tragic hero who has developed so much as a character from the beginning of the play to the end, I think I have never seen such a big character development that is both obvious and subtle at the same time. I remember one amazing essay Miller wrote about Eddie that he is a 'Tragedy of a Common Man', Miller believes that 'the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were', and that it is not the fact that tragic heroes have been royal that makes them resonate with modern audience, it's the fact that they share the same problems as we do today, the same flaws fears and hopes. Alfieri, a witty lawyer who is like a chorus in a greek tragedy and who I personally admire his decision-making and reasons. Beatrice, a warm motherly housewife. Catherine, a rebellious young woman who is yet so innocent and naive when it comes to experiencing the real world. Rodolfo, a carefree blondie who sings, cooks and dances like a professional. Marco, the stereotypical Sicilian macho.
Let's start from my favorite character Eddie. I found Eddie's character so complex yet so simple. He is just an ordinary hard-working longshoreman who has a lovely wife and a niece who he is protective of, but it's more than just that. There are his immoderate love for his niece, his action and other themes that revolve around. As I said, it's complex. I know people say that his immoderate love for Catherine is obviously romantic, but call me weird, I also find it sensibly fatherly. He has a point, when he realizes that it's not right that Rodolfo (an Italian immigrant who escapes from Sicily and stays in his house to work in the States) to from no-where takes Catherine (his niece) away from him (overlooking him because he's not her father and doesn't respect him by asking her out without his permission). I understand that she's not his, not a belonging, not a possession, she will one day has to go and he has to let her. But, she is so young (I know that seventeen back in the fifties is considered to be an adult already) and naive considering her lack of real-life experience. She can do way much better, and that's exactly what Eddie says. He says that if she has to go, then go. But don't end up marrying someone the same class as them as he 'struggles' so much to pay for her to finish high school and learn Stenography and to get a good job maybe in New York (a better neighborhood) but she still ends up working at a plumbing company in the same kind of neighborhood and about to get married to an illegal immigrant who may or may not (we still do not know for sure) be after her American Citizenship. It's complicated, isn't it? We, as readers, have so many different views with the plot and the complex characters. I love it. I can't believe I just said that. But I really love this play. My friends are going to laugh at me. But whatever. I admit that I love A View from the Bridge, a school book, read for academic purposes, that all of my friends are dying to get over with. I think it really is that type of book that leaves me thinking... about the characters, about what happened next, about the real meaning of everything. Whether Rodolfo really loves her, and does there marriage last? What happens to Marco after Eddie is killed? Does he get sent back or get imprisoned in the States while his family starve back in Italy?
It's funny how I don't agree with everyone in my class that believes that Eddie is a homophobic and a creepy guy who loves his own niece. I found Eddie to be such an admirable character. He is a tragic figure. He is an ordinary man, who has ordinary flaws of letting go, of being selfish and greedy, who wants everything for himself. His actions within the play are completely motivated by his own desires, which yes is bad, because it is at the expense of others - it's selfish. However, humanity is selfish, we do things we want or like to do, it's a fact all of us can't deny. I cannot emphasize how much I love the last paragraph of the play in which Alfieri says:
Most of the time we settle for half and I like it better. Even as I know how wrong he was, and his death useless, I tremble, for I confess that something perversely pure calls to me from his memory—not purely good, but himself purely And yet, it is better to settle for half, it must be! And so I mourn him—I admit it—with a certain....alarm.
The paragraph is so simple. It is easy to understand yet it's so deep and meaningful. It sums up the whole play perfectly. It deals with the central conflict in A View from the Bridge, what is right and what is wrong morally and legally should be settled halfway. Being true to what you feel and fight for yourself, doing whatever you want and what's best for you without considering the expense of others, yes is quite admirable but to a certain limit; because people must act halfway to preserve the rules of community and the nature of law, you cannot go rob a bank to give it to the poor (like Robin Hood)because you think it's right morally to share the money to everyone because at the same time it's legally wrong. The same goes for this novel, Eddie's action is wrong morally and right legally. He 'snitches' on Marco and Rodolfo to The Immigration Bureau which he is doing the right thing following the law of the land but the wrong thing in terms of moral decency - betraying his own cousins. Irrationality is also how Alfieri defines acting wholly. The human animal becomes irrational when he acts fully on his instincts—just as Eddie does in the play.
I agree that what he did, snitching on his own cousins was really bad and crossing the line. However, I also understand his desperation to keep Catherine with him and his anger resulting from his stubbornness to accept other people's opinion or reasons and his selfishness to let go. Miller tries to show readers to see that what Eddie does is wrong, loving his own niece and betraying his own cousin. I also heard that this point is linked to Miller's personal life, when he was called to testify in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee to name names of communist sympathizers during the McCarthy Era. Miller, like Eddie, was faced with the problem of choosing to be American or not, to choose whether to name names of people who were doing unlawful acts or to follow the rules of law. However, Miller who was loyal to his fellow artists refused to name names but like Eddie he went against the cultural consensus at the time. Miller, in the play, has changed the scene — rather than the mass culture supporting the extrication of possible communists, Miller chose to script a community that accepted and protected unlawful people. The consequences and eventual repercussions of naming names, for Eddie Carbone, are drastic. Miller used this play to strongly condemn the McCarthy trials and those who named the names of innocent artists.
Therefore, I truly think Eddie is a good guy but who may have been carried away with his own feeling that he doesn't stop to look for a second how his actions affect others and himself. Nevertheless, if we look over the political aspect and into the familial perspective he reminds me of my father. He looks out for Catherine's sake, because he works hard to raise her into a young well-educated lady, she deserves better than a happy-go-lucky lad like Rodolfo. I have nothing against him, but in terms of marriage, Catherine should be more serious about what she's getting herself into and considering if he is good enough.. what's the rush? They practically go out for what? 6 months? I understand that she's trying to protect Rodolfo from getting 'snitched' and having to leave the States and her devastated and heartbroken. However, Rodolfo's lack of seriousness about life as a whole concerns Eddie, and I mean, whose parents wouldn't? Even if Eddie is not Catherine's father, but he is somewhat really similar, he raise her since she was young, he promised her mom to take care of Catherine on her deathbed, I mean there's a such strong connection between them that it's almost like father-daughter thing. Miller tries to make us think that Eddie loves Catherine more than just a niece, mentioning Eddie and Beatrice's sex life or lack thereof and making Beatrice looks like she feels the immoderate love and ultimately get jealous. I'm pretty sure if Beatrice is Catherine's real mother and Eddie is her real father; realistically, Beatrice should understand where Eddie's hate for Rodolfo is coming from and even go on his side. But, Miller attempts to mix up Beatrice's emotion and thought to spice up the play, he makes Beatrice a little jealous about her husband loving the niece too much, and make her acting all sad because they don't have sex at all for months. Sometimes in a play, I can feel that Beatrice does not really love Catherine that much, I can feel that she's trying to push Catherine away, persuading her that Catherine is a 'woman' now and can think for herself, and that she is not a 'baby' Eddie can control anymore. It's like her advice benefit her more (getting rid of Catherine and finally having Eddie to herself)than it benefits Catherine(to stand up for her rights). I personally think that parents would naturally look out for their child's sake right? And if the boy is no good they would come in and at least warn us? Like my father and mother would do that if they think whoever I love or going out with is not good enough, they will always come in and make it their business. Because actually, it is. They have the right to say whether they like the person we're going out to or not, whether their decision matters is another story.
Another fact that I am sure Eddie does not love Catherine more than a daughter/niece is because at the end of the play, instead of him accepting Catherine apology, he completely ignores her and turns to Beatrice and says 'Oh B' and Beatrice answers him 'yes, yes'. It's like a reconciliation, a repair of their torn relationship. The last minute of Eddie's life, he is reminded of who actually matters most - his wife. Of all the people, Beatrice is the only person who never leaves him and who constantly get dominated by Eddie but still stays by his side. By her saying 'Yes, yes', it's like she forgives him of whatever he does her wrong and it is emotional indeed. I was so in to the play at that moment!
Another point is that when Catherine asks him if she can work at the plumbing company and he is not happy about it because the company is in the same neighborhood; despite his protectiveness and despite the fact that he doesn't like the company, he stills lets her. There's a certain limit to his protectiveness. I think one of the most memorable stage direction Miller writes is somewhere here, I remember I read it and I can actually feel Eddie's emotion right out of the page. When Eddie sees Catherine's face after he denies to let her work at the plumbing company (this is one of the stage direction):
'After a moment of watching her face, Eddie breaks into a smile, but it almost seems that tears will form in his eyes'
Personally, I found the stage direction beautiful. I know that one of the key to understand the play is to read the stage direction, I have to admit it, I have never really cared despite how many times my English teacher tells me to do so. Now I know how much it matters. It shows the complexity of the character's emotion. You could look at it and think both ways. Eddie is in love with this girl, why is he this emotional if he doesn't love her romantically and more than just a niece. Com'on people! He loves her. But not in a pedophile way. He loves her like a daughter. He reminds me of a father-figure, I mean think about it, of course there must be a connection, a bond, love and care in the relationship if you stay and live with someone for so long. For instance, like Katniss and Rue. They know each other in the arena for what how long? 2 days? I can't even remember. But I remember the connection, the bond between them. As Katniss, when Rue dies, she cries. It's perfectly simple. When you are so close with someone, when you live with them, of course there's a emotional attachment. You feel like you don't want to lose them, you don't want to let them go. I understand that for Eddie's circumstance, it's not like Catherine is going to die, but by letting her go do the job or even marrying Rodolfo, it's like pushing her away when he loves her so much (like a daughter!). Imagine yourself in his place, I'm pretty sure I'm going to be acting like Eddie.
And oh my gosh. I nearly forgot to mention how much I love Alfieri. He is truly the best Greek Chrous ever. He is not only witty but straight-forward and clear. He is truly the so-called 'bridge' the title is referring. He was born in Italy but left since he was twenty five; therefore, he has one foot in Italy and another in America, the two culture's ideas of what's right or what's wrong are at war inside him. This makes the story interesting, when you can look at it two ways, and there are obvious reasons to prove either side of the story. It makes the argument more colorful and intriguing.
Wow, I realize how carried away I am with this review, it is so long. I hope I'll do well on my English Literature paper and have this much to say! -
ما هو سبب رفض إيدي لارتباط ابنة أخت زوجته كاثلين وذاك الشاب الايطالي المهاجرهل هو عشق أم حب تملك
هذا ما سوف تعرفه في مسرحية مشهد من الجسر
والتي هي من تآليف : آرْثَر مِلَر
وانتاج الاذاعة المصرية بطولة : حمدي غيث؛ سناء جميل؛ عزيزة حلمي؛ محمد السيع؛ فاروق الدمرداش؛ جمال إسماعيل
للاستماع للمسرحية -
Strange yet simple this story was not in the least amusing. I found it rather disturbing to be told the story of Eddie Carbone in such a manner, so I can only imagine the reaction I would have had if I had gone to the theatre to see it being enacted in front of my eyes. The appalling undertones in the play are the first thing I would like to draw attention to.
Homosexuality is ridiculed, I agree. But more importantly feminity is explicitly laughed at through out, even discouraged. The fact that Catherine is not allowed to wear 'heals' is an important example. It is thought of as a lowly thing for a man to stoop down to the level of a woman. The way the longshoremen laugh at Rodolpho when Eddie talks to them about him, their 'snikering' especially, very clearly sheds light on this matter. The fact that Rodolpho has mastered the arts, which are generally associated with women by his society, make him an object of dishonourable insults, especially at the hands of Eddie.
Another rather strange undertone that I came across was that of disregard following the very first encounter. Rodolpho is not acknowledged in the very beginning. All seem to nod for Eddie but none other than Rodolpho nods when he is introduced.
The idea of mixed affection or rather confused affection is present throughout. Catherine is both flattered by and afraid of the closeness she shares with Eddie. The very idea that Catherine knows what is going on and yet she decides to let it go on, even sometimes unintentionally fuelling the already blazing fire in Eddie's heart, makes one wonder what game is the woman playing. The fact that she says that she meant no harm, shows that she didn't mean it but she does realise it clearly that she caused a lot of it herself. This is clear from Beatrice's words 'We all done it.'
The idea of nonincestuous incest is also very unique. Catherine is not really Eddie's niece. Instead, she is Beatrice's niece. However, Arthur Miller plays ingeniously with the prejudice he knows the audiance will have against such a relationship. He uses it to build a case of this sort against Eddie. It is so amazing that even though one is fully aware that such a relationship, however wrong would not be incestual, still feels the right to blame Eddie of incestuous feelings.
The characterisation is wonderfully achieved and I almost feel like applauding the playwright on the amazing job. However, I found the play a little too distressing without reason in places. -
Δεύτερο θεατρικό έργο του Άρθουρ Μίλερ που διαβάζω φέτος (αλλά και γενικά), μετά το ��λασικό και πολυδιαβασμένο "Ο θάνατος του εμποράκου" που διάβασα τον Φεβρουάριο, μπορώ να πω ότι και αυτό μου έκανε πολύ καλή εντύπωση. Πρόκειται για ένα έργο διαχρονικό και καλογραμμένο, λιτό και ρεαλιστικό, γεμάτο αλήθειες και ανθρώπινα πάθη. Η όλη πλοκή κινείται με σταθερούς ρυθμούς και κορυφώνεται με μια κάποια ένταση μέχρι το τραγικό τέλος. Οι χαρακτήρες είναι απλοί άνθρωποι της διπλανής μας πόρτας, μεροκαματιάρηδες που προσπαθούν να τα βγάλουν πέρα και να αντιμετωπίσουν κάθε είδους δυσκολίες. Η γραφή είναι πολύ καλή, με φυσικούς διαλόγους και κάποιες λίγες περιγραφές των διαφόρων σκηνικών. Σίγουρα σαν έργο δεν είναι ευχάριστο, μιας και μιλάμε για δράμα, όμως είναι ανθρώπινο και κρατάει το ενδιαφέρον του αναγνώστη. Ευχαρίστως θα έβλεπα μια θεατρική παράσταση βασισμένη σ'αυτό.
-
" نفسي ومن بعدها الطوفان " وعلى نفسي السلامة لم يخب تخميني في تلك المسرحية فالعنصر الخامل طوال المسرحية الذي لايكاد يوجد إلا مشهد واحد أو اثنين لافتَين الأنظار نحوه كان هو الشيطان بعينه ماركو الذي من المفترض أن يكون الأخ الأكبر الواعي العاقل الذي يمسك بزمام أخيه الصغير إن هي أفلتت يوماً الناكر للجَميل والمعروف بغض النظر عن إشكالية الموضوع ولكن إيدي هو صاحب المنزل الذي استقبلهما فيه وتقاسم بيته الصغير المساحة معهما ووظيفته ووثق بهم وتركهم في منزله بأي حق يسمحا لنفسيَهما أن يديناه على ما فعله بل والأكثر تبجحاً لقد قتلاه قُبيل إسدال ستارة المسرحية !! أي جحودٍ هذا وكأنهم يتمثلان المثل الشعبي " خيراً تعمل شراً تلقى " .ماركو لم يحتمل عيش أبناء إيدي في سِربٍ آمن فأراد الجوع والتشرد لهما كما الحال مع أطفاله لقد لمح إيدي كثيراً لماركو بأنه لا يطيق علاقة أخيه الصغير رودولفو بكيتي ولكن ماركو كان يتجاهل كل هذا بل صمته هذا كان مبطناً بموافقة خفيَّة لما يفعله أخوه لينجح أحدهما على الأقل في الحصول على الجنسية مثال حي لحيونة الإنسان !!
إيدي الذي ربّى ابنة أخت زوجته أحبها في البداية كطفلة له اعتنى بها حتى ظن أنها دمية يمتلكها طوال العمر وحينما أتى من يهدد تلك الامتلاكية الكاذبة المؤقتة جن جنونه اختلط عنده كل شئ حتى أن حبه الأبوي قد تلطخ بأنواعٍ أخرى للحب أدنى بكثير .ندم ولكن بعد فوات الأوان لكن الأكيد الذي لاريب به مدى إخلاصه في حب تلك الملائكة كاترين .
كيتي الطفلة التي تحولت بين ليلةٍ وضحاها لامرأة ناضجة تريد أن تلبس الكعب العالي أن تفعل ما يحلو لها ولكنها أخطأت كثيراً حين ظنت زوج خالتها المُربي لها بمثابة الأب أن نصائحه هي مجرد تحكمات تافهة متسلطة .هو أحسن إليها وهي كانت سبباً في موته أكثر من مرة هذا لا ينفى فداحة فعل إيدي حين حاول تقبيلها وفداحة فعلها هي مع رودولفو .
أما رودولفو الماكر الذي يعرف من أين تؤكَل الكتف الطماع الجشع لما لم يملك أتمنى أن لا نقابل تلك الشخصية بحياتنا . بياترس المخطئة الأولى والأخيرة لاتضع البنزين بجانب النار وبعد ذلك تحزن من اشتعال المنزل !! لم تحافظ على بيتها مسها ضربٌ من الغيرة من ابنة أختها لاهتمام زوجها الأبوي بها في البداية خاف عليها أكثر مما كانت تخاف خالتها ودفع ثمن ذلك حياته .
المسرحية هنا نادرة لاشتراك الجميع في الخطأ فلا أحد معصوم أو ملائكي . -
This is still just...the best play. Trying to put my thoughts on it into words is essentially impossible, but I'll try anyway: to me, this is the text on American masculinity and violence, on the deep-seated effects of homo- and xenophobia, and of the necessity of an empathetic justice system. Seeing A View from the Bridge live is one of the greatest experiences of my life, one that I will hold onto for a long, long time, but the experience of reading the play, too, and digesting Miller's incisive stage directions, use of dialect, and the deep compassion he has for his flawed characters is one I savor as well. Sharing this play with my students has been such a gift.
-
Arthur Miller is worthy of worship.
-
میلر ، روایتگر بحرانهای آدمهای معمولی است. یک تراژدی آمریکایی درجه یک و متفاوتتر نسبت به مرگ فروشنده و همهی پسران من. میلر توضیح اضافه نمیدهد. میگذارد ما خودمان متوجه پیچیدگیهای کاراکترها بشویم و مدام باید منتظر کوچکترین ریاکشن از سوی کاراکترها باشیم تا بلکه اندکی به دنیای درون آنها راه پیدا کنیم.
چشماندازی از پل هم اثری است ، درهم تنیده با اصول اخلاقی و انگیزههای روانی و در نهایت مثل سایر آثار میلر، شکست و انحطاط و فروپاشی.
بسیار چسبید.
۱۴۰۰/۰۴/۲۸ -
4.5
This is the second play I've read of Miller's. The first was The Crucible, which I loved. I went into A View from the Bridge with few expectations; I picked it randomly off a library shelf with no knowledge of what it was about or what others thought of it. Honestly, the name Arthur Miller was the only reason I chose to read it.
I'm very glad I did.
The setting of A View from the Bridge is entirely different from that of The Crucible. The latter, as most of you probably know, takes place in Puritan New England. I think its inevitable association with the Salem Witch Trials (which is so iconic a part of our national narrative that it's almost folkloric) lends it a half mystical, half historical feel. On a literal level, The Crucible is incredibly unrelatable but familiar because its story is one that we've all heard. A View from the Bridge, on the other hand, is set in twentieth century Brooklyn. It's a grittier landscape, perhaps more starkly realistic - but the underground world of immigrants is not something over which we marvel in history class. It tells an unfamiliar story, but it's easy to empathize because, I think, of the magnified family focus (as opposed to an entire society). This may seem like a weird analogy, but I picture/feel The Crucible as a cold, dusty, expansive operating room and A View From the Bridge as a tiny living room with a fireplace that burns a little too hot.
Huge props to Miller for tailoring everything (dialect, tone, mood, etc.) to fit the setting and story. Some authors mold every situation to fit their own voice and worldview. Miller alters his outlook to fit the situation, so that all that exists on stage is the characters. No invisible playwright. I think this lends an elegance to his plays; drama's trademark short&sweetness pairs well with pure storytelling (as opposed to expounding).
I also found A View From the Bridge to be a whole lot more morally ambiguous than The Crucible. This may have to do with the fact that the latter was written with a clear political objective, while the former was not. Regardless, I couldn't tell you which character I thought was "right." It's one of very few works I find completely impossible to take a stance (a "side") on; right and wrong are so inextricably linked in each character.
Which brings me to my next point: characterization. I know I've spent the majority of this review pointing out the differences between The Crucible and A View From the Bridge, but at their cores, they are so wonderfully similar. There are some eerily similar lines ("I want my name, Marco."). Both are essentially observations of people and their psyches: their motivations, their fears, their thought processes, their biases, their hopes. In short, their values, and how they are either separable or inseparable from societal codes. Miller's works take truth, validity, and morality and ask how they should really be defined. Because when you throw the various human values (honor, tradition, obligation, love, etc.) into a pot, can you confidently pick out which are worth most?
I cannot, and it's frustrating, but it's also spectacularly relieving to know that there's always some uncertainty, that there's always a maybe and a possibility and another side to the story.
Edit: in all my waxing about similarities and differences, I neglected to mention some things. 1) On top of its character-studying, A View from the Bridge makes quite a bit of important commentary about the American Dream and what it really means. 1) I loved how generous Miller was with his stage directions; it made the play much easier to visualize. 3) I loved how subtly the story changed from the mundane/surface to the sacred/internal. 4) It's worth reading solely for lines like these:"Most of the time now we settle for half and I like it better. But the truth is holy, and even as I know how wrong he was...I tremble, for I confess that something perversely pure calls to me from his memory - not purely good, but himself purely, for he allowed himself to be wholly kown and for that I think I will love him more than all my sensible clients. And yet, it is better to settle for half, it must be!"
-
A View from the Bridge, describes the upheaval in the home of Eddie Carbone, a career longshoreman who lives with his wife, Beatrice , and her niece, Catherine , who has just been offered a secretarial job when the play begins. Conflict arrives in the bodies of Marco and Rodolpho, Beatrice’s cousins, newly arrived from Italy. The pressure that has been building in the household - as Eddie jealously disapproves of Catherine hanging around the streets in heels and complains that her new skirt is too short - only intensifies. Marco, who has come to America to send money to his wife and three hungry kids, is hardworking and respectful, so he and Eddie get along fine. But Rodolpho is blond and sings and dances and sews, and this makes Eddie uncomfortable, especially when Rodolpho fixes his attentions on Catherine. The connection Eddie and Catherine have is more affectionate than the one he has with his wife, who turns a blind eye to her husband’s obsessive interest in the girl.
It is one of those plays in which the emotional currents run underneath dialogue as it happened in real life in an age where feelings could not be shown, when words died before being uttered because verbalizing things was too dangerous. A play about work, immigration, love, desire and defeat. One of those roads to doom you are happy to walk as long as you can come back to reality once you close the book or leave the theatre. -
Extremely dark and mesmerisingly psychological. It was a tense and quick-paced play yet paradoxically, everything was happening with repetition and a feeling of stagnancy. Perhaps, most embodied by Eddies character. Miller makes Eddie a fixed medium and therefore, an avoider of change. No matter how often the wise narrator provides him with warning and prophecy, no matter how much hurt he can see in those around him, he still perseveres in his hatred and jealousy. Yet, though his feelings are fixed, his actions become more and more unstable allowing for his shocking exposure: kissing both Catherine and Rodolpho- is this is a sign of his curse upon them? his deeper, more sexual love for them? his suppressed thoughts seeping through his drunkenness? Miller leaves a lot open but I like that. Eddie is possibly the most fated, fixed and determined character yet our interpretations of his intentions are an ever-changing site of unpredictability.
-oh someone remind me to give this back to izzy at some point -
يضع أرثر ميللر بطله(إيدي) في موقف أخلاقي متأزم، فهو يضطره للأختيار ما بين موقفين، أحدهم يكشف عميقًا عن الأنانية المترسبة في شخصيه البطل الذي يناقض نفسه و مبادئه؛ حينما يهدد الآخر رغبته في شيء ليس حقه.
فيصبح البطل في صراع نفسي و تذبذب بين التمسح في عباءة القانون (الذي فيه مصلحة شخصية له) المعارض لصوت الضمير الإنساني أو اتباع الواجب الذي يخالف هواه.
النهاية مأساوية مظهريًا فالمصير الذي يذهب بمصدر الأنانية و الذات التي تخون نفسها، يقابله رخاء أثر ذهابه -حتى أشعار آخر- ، و من جهة فأن أولئك الآثمين الذين يلقون جزءًا من عقابهم في الدنيا هم قلة محظوظة.
الجسر كان لابد أن يكونه (إيدي) لأبناء وطنه إيطاليا المهاجرين لأمريكا (الحلم الجديد) كونه مقيم لكن هيهات يا إيدي كنت أي جسر!
على النفس ألا تطمئن أنها في مأمن من الأنانية المتضخمة التي تصيب النفس و تختبيء في مكامنها، و أخيرًا فأن المشهد كلما كان قريبًا كلما كان مخيفًا. -
incest isnt really my idea of a good time. the ending was pretty unsatisfying, i really wanted to see eddie suffer
-
A good little family drama set in Brooklyn in the 1950's. It didn't blow me away but I did enjoy it.
-
I really don’t have much to say about this play. I read it for English class so, once again, it felt really long and tedious even though it was only 70 pages. It’s not awful but the plot is pretty weird, and I felt like a lot of topics were brought up but not expanded on (ex: Eddie’s feelings regarding Catherine). Overall, not so bad because it was short but not very memorable.
-
This was a play I have to study for my GCSE English course, which include lots of good literature. I have never before read a play by Miller, nor read a play where I have been uncomfortable throughout my reading experience. I hated absolutely all the characters, excluding Alfieri, which I won't go into now. They all had it coming from them. That is, briefly, why I loved it.
-
Miller's plays though brief always have an intense effect. They tend to keep you on edge, expecting more with every new word and line. But I owe a great deal of the literary pleasure, I had felt while perusing this work, to the radio adaptation version with Melissa Benoist in it. It was intense, expressive, and just perfect.
As the writer of social plays, Miller often sought the psychological incentives which stood behind the social problems of America. Therefore, the best way to read through his works is to take into consideration both psychological and political elements. A View From the Bridge is no different; it is an indissoluble amalgamation of inner and outer realities spun together so well that I needed to put the play away, and think about it a little before writing this review.
At the beginning of the play, Eddie Carbone is introduced as a man whose love for his niece, namely Catherine, is great; yet, at the same time tinged with a dangerous eagerness of emotion.
In one significant passage, he cautious the latter as well as his own wife against the secret informants who gather intelligence about illegal immigrants, and convey it to the authorities. His input on the issue, at this stage, is clearly one of disgust towards such a class of people. Ironically, Eddie turns informant himself towards the end of the play in order to get rid of Rodolpho - a distant cousin to his wife, and an illegal immigrant from Italy, who threatens to carry Catherine away from the nest of her uncle.
Ever since their first meeting, Catherine and Rodolpho's chemistry was undeniable. The two got on so well together, which quite naturally led them towards a romantic relationship. meanwhile, Eddie's "unnatural" passion for his niece took the shape of an overprotective behavioral pattern forbidding her to wear certain things, to work in male-populated settings, and to go on dates with Rodolpho. The tension emanating from his refusal of the match only gets higher and higher with time, manifesting itself in his attempts to find fault with the young man, picking on him, and eventually informing the authorities of his illegal status.
Though Catherine and her young suitor remain oblivious to Eddie's motivations, his wife Beatrice sees through his disguises and defenses. Accordingly, she begins her desperate attempt to set matters right by warning Catherine against childish displays of affection with Eddie now that she is a young woman, and by encouraging her union with Rodolpho. At the same time, Eddie's incestuous affection becomes more than just an assumption in that it is backed up by his aloofness and refusal of any sort of sexual intercourse with his wife.
At one point in the play, Eddie makes poignant remarks about Rodolpho's appearance, suggesting that he is a homosexual man only desirous of marriage with Catherine to legalize his status. This invites us to ponder the social norms and the rigid gender roles, which expected men and women to look, dress, and behave in a particular manner. Otherwise, any individual who expressed his personal identity in a way different to that of the herd, which forms his society, would have been taken for a "weird" like Rodolpho. Not to forget the negative connotation which went hand in hand with homosexuality at the time, and which still does today in most countries.
However, this is the reading of a number of critics active during the latter part of the 20th century or early 2000s. Today with the slightly heightened visibility - rarely acceptance - of the transgender community, another reading is available to us. Many are the remarks made by Eddie to suggest that Rodolpho is not a born-male. He mentions at one point his high-pitched voice whenever he speaks loudly, his frail and small body, and his knowledge and familiarity with the art of making dresses. All of these points indicate and encourage the theory of Rodolpho being a transman. Catherine's appeals to him to "hold her and teach her" in an intimate scene suggest at the same time her acceptance of his situation. Whereas Eddie's behavior indicate the opposite kind of reception. The restrictions put on Catherine's dressing code by her uncle can also be read as the restrictions put on women at the time by their male counterparts in a largely patriarchal society.
At the end, Eddie dies by the blade of his own knife at the hands of Marco, whom he fights, and of whom he asks his "good name back" in a manner very reminiscent of Miller's John Proctor from The Crucible. Like Proctor, Eddie is delusional, favoring reputation over integrity, lying to himself and to other people. Eddie knows that he had lost his "good name" by betraying his own relatives. Therefore, he has nothing to ask of Marco and Rodolpho except forgiveness. But just like Proctor, he perseveres in the act of courting the outer world's opinion of himself, and denying any fault in his relationships with Catherine, his wife, or their relatives. Thus, he dies on account of a blow that he had inflicted on himself by a combination of narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy. -
I swear this is like an American Shakespearean tragedy and I love it. I love how the tension builds and how it evetually explodes. Miller makes you somehow hate Eddie but also pity and root for him at the same time, or is that just me? Also a brilliant insight into the life of Italian immigrants in NY at the time too.
-
who knew a book about an uncle in love with his niece was mandatory school reading
-
Sanırım bazı tiyatro oyunlarını okumak, izlemekten daha iyi; zihni özgür bırakıyor. Sahneye, dekora, oyuncunun kostümüne ve mimiklerine sıkışmıyor; oyuncunun sesini duyurmak için bağırmasıyla kırılmıyor cam. (buraya bir keşke: KREK'te bir oyun izleyebilmiş olsaydım...)
Okuduğum en güzel oyunlardan biriydi diyebilirim. Oldukça sade ve sürükleyiciydi. 2 perdeden oluşan oyunun ilk perdesinin sonundaki şiddet, dizi izleyen teyze misali "olm kaç ordan kaç geliyo dayak" diye serzenişlere sürükledi beni. (Ama Marco'ya ters gitmeyecektin Eddie! Çok pis yaptın.)
Oyunun sonunda, adeta narrator edasıyla sunulan avukat, yapmış olduğu yanlışı (Marco'yu göz göre göre salıvermesi) güzel bir savunma mekanizmasıyla, Eddie'nin arkasından tuttuğu "ihtiyatlı yas" diye, vicdani mastürbasyonunu yapmış. Acaba ne düşündü Arthur Miller? Zaten okuyucu Marco'yu haklı bulacak; bari biri Eddie'nin arkasından tuttuğu yas ile okuyucuyu Eddie'nin durumunu sorgulamaya itsin.
Ki itti de...
Aslında Eddie, aşkından düşünemeyen, ki aşkını farklı etiketlerle sümenaltı edip görmezden gelen, herkes fark etse dahi kabullenemeyen haliyle biraz sağduyulu yaklaşılmasını en azından edebi çerçevede hak ediyor. Ahlak, etik burada biraz yok. Adaleti sadece Tanrı dağıtır demişti bi de Arthur Miller.
Son sahnede, Eddie'nin, aşkının, hayatının ve oyunun son sahnesinde, Catherine'i tamamen kaybettiğini fark etmesiyle kendini bilerek ölüme Marco'nun kollarına salıveriyor. Burada, aşık insan bencilliği de var; vicdan azabı çektirme çabası.
Ama öldün be Eddie; değdi mi?
Son sahnede, Rodolpho'nun el öpüp helallik istemesi nasıl basiretsizliktir!? Adam öptü olm seni!! diye sarsmak istesem de başarılı olamadım. İlginç geldi böyle yapması. Harbici adammış; sırf Catherine seviyor diye, Eddie!ye bir şey olursa Catherine'i üzülür diye, erkeklik egosu taslamadan elini öptü. Helal olsun.
Elinden dikiş gelir, yemek gelir, şarkı da söylermiş.
Yalnızca, yeğenlerine açlıktan kemik suyu verildiğini söylerken içi cız etmeyecek kadar kösele yürekli. tü sana.
Neyse, heyecanlı bir okuma bitti be.
Sağol Pınar!
Buca-Bornova dolmuşunda bitiverdi vallıhi. -
Arthur Miller is quickly becoming a favorite.
Again, it is impossible to fully appreciate A View from the Bridge if you haven't seen it performed. After all, a play is written for that exact reason, to be performed. I watched a screening of A View from the Bridge performed at the Young Vic, directed by Ivo van Hove.
My favorite thing about this play is the amazing character development. By the end of it, the characters have completely evolved into other people. The loss of innocence and trust is obvious. I read somewhere that it is meant to have the feel of an ancient Greek tragedy, and that is spot on. Another thing I like about Arthur Miller, is how he adapts the language to the place that the play is taking place. I realize that is essential for any playwright, but it is something I appreciate nonetheless.
