"Nothing to be alarmed about. I finally decided, one morning, to jump out my window."
--Resurrection Blues, page 1
Sitting down to read this play, I had certain expectations about it since it was written by Arthur Miller. I'm familiar with his earlier works like Death of a Salesmanand The Crucible, and All My Sons, which are very serious realistic dramas. And I know that a lot of his later plays weren't very well-received, so I just assumed that he kind of stuck to a not-as-good version of his realistic style in later life which appeared out-dated and not very daring or innovative in contemporary theatre. Then when I read the first two sentences, I was shocked--Arthur Miller actually wrote a dark comedy! If this were one of his serious dramas, she would have said something much more depressing. But the contrast between those two lines tells you right off the bat this isn't going to be your average Arthur Miller play. True, he wrote a lot of plays that I haven't read, but from what I know of him he really seems to be experimenting in this play. For example, the whole presence of Jesus Christ throughout the play is definitely different. He normally stays very grounded in gritty reality; The Crucible was all about people believing themselves into spiritual things that weren't actually real. The idea that Christ appears to be returning to Earth and people react to it by trying to televise his crucifixion definitely takes this play into the realm of a black comedy that doesn't exactly play by the rules of realistic human behavior, which I think is a lot more popular now in theatre than it was in the 1940's and 50's, when Miller first started doing his thing. It's cool that in his 80's he was still going out on an artistic limb, even though this play feels a little preachy, especially toward the end. "Message-oriented" theatre in which plays deliver a very specific idea to an audience, like the fact that greed is what ultimately prevents the characters in the end from being saved, is kind of passé with a lot of contemporary playwrights, and that may be why this play got sort of mixed reviews. But the wonderful dark humor of it is what I think keeps it from being a throwback to Miller's heyday and brings it into the 21st century.
Comments (6)
Matt,
I agree with you, I when I picked this play up I figured it would be like Death of a Salesman. I really do like that he did something different with this play. I also have to admit that I think that the media or somebody at least, would react this way if the crucifiction happend today.
Posted by Sue | April 25, 2009 12:46 PM
Posted on April 25, 2009 12:46
I too found this different from the characteristic Miller that is usually read in classrooms. Miller took a turn with this play and kept the audience just as captivated as he always did, but he does it with such a light heart: no one in the play seems to care about anyone else's well-being. The survival of the fittest is at work, but perhaps Social Darwinism does not apply to Christ-figures. Regardless, the different side of Miller actually made me read through this play very quickly, merely because it was so very different and Charley was such a mystery.
Posted by Christopher Dufalla | April 25, 2009 1:08 PM
Posted on April 25, 2009 13:08
I agree also that this play was entirely different than all of Miller's previous works. However, the fact that it was so unique did not surprise me. He had to write for a new type of audience, one that would rather read an "obvious" novel rather than one that requires much thought. Don't get me wrong, I truly believe this novel forces people to think about the society in which we live, but he did it in a way without any subtle undertones.
Posted by Rebecca Marrie | April 26, 2009 8:05 AM
Posted on April 26, 2009 08:05
I agree also that this play was entirely different than all of Miller's previous works. However, the fact that it was so unique did not surprise me. He had to write for a new type of audience, one that would rather read an "obvious" novel rather than one that requires much thought. Don't get me wrong, I truly believe this novel forces people to think about the society in which we live, but he did it in a way without any subtle undertones.
Posted by Rebecca Marrie | April 26, 2009 8:06 AM
Posted on April 26, 2009 08:06
I agree. Dark humor does do well in today's society, so it is most likely its preachy quality that worked against it, as you suggested. As sad as it is, people are generally turned off when fiction, or anything for that matter, is too preachy. Its just a part of our culture and upbringing, I guess. At the same time, maybe people didn't like it because, in addition to being preachy, it was also a comment on the darker sides of today's society. No one likes to have his/her faults flaunted. Maybe people just couldn't take that aspect of it.
Posted by Jennifer Prex | April 27, 2009 12:37 AM
Posted on April 27, 2009 00:37
I actually think that preachiness is one of those things that weakens a work of art. I think plays and novels are much better when they start dialogue and spark debate than if they just deliver one obvious message that can't really be argued against. Anyone can agree that greed and corruption are bad; this play didn't seem to me like it said too much beyond that. Theatre especially is an art form where the audience is very much a part of the experience; plays should be blueprints in which the playwright and the audience should make meaning together. Theatre should start conversations, but not finish them. Anyone else have a strong opinion about this? Does anybody really like didactic drama?
Posted by Matt Henderson | April 27, 2009 1:58 PM
Posted on April 27, 2009 13:58