Harold Pinter:The Birthday Party(Comedy of Menace/Pinteresque)

Harold Pinter was born on 10th October, 1930 and died on 24 December, 2008.

His debut play is 'the room's came out in 1957 along with 'the birthday party'. With which we are concerned here.

His works were classified into three stages; Psychological, lyrical and political.

When in 1939, world war II broke out, which was lasted till 1945(Harold Pinter, 9-14 period of the age). He had put his experience in this play and so it is called 'comedy of menace/pinteresque' and for which he is indebted to Kafka(known for the trial work).

As it is said that one shouldn't see who is the driver of the car, but where the car is drawn and so focusing camera and the car, we saw the gradual detailing and opening road. Then suddenly the camera is focused on the street lamp, from which we see the narrowing down road.

We can read the multiple ways of road as not converging at one place, but by being isolated, going to establish different identities and destinies and so the last consequent image is focused on lamp, it represents hope and also as light is centralized at one place only, may be it is representing USA. If we read this in context of Art, Truth, Politics excerpts from the 2005 Nobel Lecture, then it is US AND UK, who are behind concealing their country's crime, with mediation of the authority the crimes are revealed with some limitation. When it comes to other country's all blame is hurled on them and each and everything is highlighted.

For example: Nicaragua where for forty years, USA supported Nicaragua state policy, which was then under Nomoza Dictatorship but replaced by Sandinistian government.

If we read this in characters in the birthday party, then here Stanley Webber, by being socialist is representing Gautemala and Nicaragua like small countries. While Mc Can Dormet and Goldbery USA AND UK.
Where such politicians coldly take such matters very easy and escape by saying that 'in such situations innocent people are being killed' and when disturbing questions asked by North Nicaragua Parish, they took it as usual.

In this collage, it starts from door. Door and knocking on it, is symbol of intrusion. It is a nostalgia of past.

The scene is the setting of this play, where the hatch separates room from kitchen. Petey is reading newspaper and Meg is asking him, what he is reading? And the conversation from Casual to absurd transforms. Where at last she asks that what he is telling of girl, she isn't concern about but a boy.

At last the scene ends at her going upstairs to wake up Webber Stanley and some noise is coming from upstairs, that is followed by Petey's expression as knowing everything but can't do anything.

As reading newspaper and knowing all the happenings of the world, but can't do anything as he can't do anything, at the cost of damaging himself.

While here mirror is also a symbolic representation of narsicism, showing object as it is and also reflecting the threshold between conscious and unconscious mind.

If we read Meg's character in this context then she herself assume Petey impotent of not giving her child, so she feels incomplete and the thing which is in her unconscious mind, keeps on surfacing indirectly in unpleasant manner. Where may be Petey is realizing and so not opposing Meg's attitude of dealing with Webber Stanley.

How it is that "an inability is an automatic suppression" that represses our voice and we're unable to defend ourselves though the situation seems unwanted or in another way it can be interpreted that perhaps Petey lacks the tendency of confrontation. He fears that if he will react against the lady, she may be retorting in ruthlessness and that would be an unbearable situation for him to handle.

But here a question arises though people don't like to discuss their deficiency, but there may be an another side of the coin, where you can accept the situation as it is and try to improve it. May be it will reward you your wanted benefits. The idea seems to be ideal and more time seeking but if one wants to, one can take this road also.

Stanley Webber's character as a ruffian, who claims himself to be an artist and Lulu his source of inspiration(as when she comes she opens all the doors of the house, which had been closed until now). But at times in his conversation his past gets reflect. From his conversation one can sense that he was once at a good position but perhaps it was snatched by someone or something and so he spits on Meg that: "You don't know who I was". In th birthday party, which is organised by Meg for Stanley, he is given a presence of Toy Drum by Meg(symbolically it is a mouthpiece). Where he beats at first in playful manner, but gradually becomes violent and mad, beating toy drum by hanging toy round the neck. So something is there, which he can't reveal and as a result it is killing him from inside.

When Lulu is coming, she is knocking the door but guessing there may be intruders, suddenly Stanley frightens and is in dilemma of what to do, If he can open the door or not.

It seems that something like this would have happened in his childhood so when anything alike as such is happening, it makes him to recall his past but then realizing the present situation, he is becoming normal.

Considering their straightforward and simple language, oral and non-verbal communication and symbolically characters reading then it seems that characters possess something as nostalgia/unconsciously kept in their mind, which is surfacing on and often in their present situation and the manner of communication is directed by all these factors, happened or happening in life.

Moving further with movie screening, we also see how the toy drum is gifted, which symbolizes a foreshadowing scene that in alike manner Stanley is going to be tormented by MC Can and Nat Goldberg. 

In this sequence of screenshots, the newspaper is torn up by MC Cann, in five equal parts. When it is torn up, it has a careful tearing sound, like the voices which are raised through news updates, won't be heeded. An intentional attempt for suppression or one can interpret as foreshadowy image. As both MC Can Dormet and Goldberg are going to interrogate Stanley.

Where they ask him one after another questions, without giving a person time to think of(torrenting of language) where the logic arguments, turn out in illogicity. Seems as an endeavour for intentional distortion of person's psychology, so in confusion, rather than protesting, he will succumb to the situation.

Where they ask Stanley, where is your wife, you killed your wife, she was waiting for you at porch to marry you. Which seems as inassociate questions and if reading through feminist perspective then the underlying meaning suggests that Stanley is a womanizer as Seargent Troy was in 'Far from the madding crowd'-Thomas Hardy. Where he may have tormented the womankind so badly, so now in the form of investigation, it is reflecting.

If analytically we see then, interrogation seems to be carried to get the truth from Stanley's mouth or some confirmation of the past revealed truth in front of Stanley, where may be though part of the gangster Monty's party, he gradually realised that It isn't ok to be here(As it happens in 1984 novel by Orwell, with one of his characters named 'Winston Smith' where though regardance with outer party, came to know about inner party and joins one of the members of the brotherhood organisation as believing it an organisation with kindred spirit, with his lover named Julia.

As he himself is morally righteous man, who can't be easily succumbed to any unwanted situation, is further tormented by the party to surrender and adore it. Same happens, after facing terrific situation of being alive eaten by running rats, rather than facing situation and coming out victoriously, he succumbs to and starts doing as he is expected to.

While in Stanley's case, Stanley being a rebellious, left that place and accidentally came in boarding house near Seaside London, occupied by Meg and Petey.  Here also he isn't spared as it is said that: "what we fear to confront, will be destined to encounter you soon". Likewise it happens with Stanley. 

In second act, in birthday party scence. The birthday party is being organised by Meg and also a gift is offered to Stanley, where though denied by Stanley, for this isn't his birth date the members like MC Can Dormet and Nat Goldberg are invited along with LULU. In between the ongoing party Nat Goldberg flatters LULU in his speech and got success in maintaining proximity with her.

Further discussing about LULU and MC Can further intimation, let's have a look on Stanley's confrontation. For Stanley Meg is a motherly figure(or as it seems something more to this) and LULU a symbolic character, involved in snatching him from his comfort and warmth(seeing in form of MEG).

Here we may have connection from Harold Pinter's background history. Where he is saying I love my mother but not the father as he is strict disciplinarian(representing a society{traditional one}) and may be this was suffocating for him. While his mother preferred modern way of living where individual preference for living is given prime importance.

We can only make some assumptions that perhaps the life of Stanley is somewhere contemplating Harold Pinter's life. 

In last frame studies of aforementioned collage, if we visualize then camera is one top, which is moving, focusing the room and Stanley's movements in the room. It seems from top a prison cell/cage when someone is trapped. This also is a foreshadowy image as indicating that something unusual is going to happen and it happens.

He is badly investigated by the two strangers and taken away from Meg and Petey's house. Where Petey being helpless and broken can't do anything rather than advising him "don't let them tell you what to do". Indicating don't succumb to the situation, it would be better if one can destroy one's life. If won't be literally destroyed but rather an uncontaminated soul will get released into the new and  free world.

Because surrendering oneself to any unreasonable and unpleasant situation is in itself a death. Which we can literally relate to absurdism, where without hope one has to live, for the sake of living not thriving and If opposed the established way of life, he would be sentenced to death, but in a way this death with suffice, rather than living deadly with tormenting soul.

In some of the scenes we only have seen the knob of the door but in last scence the entire door is opened,  and we can see it along with its frame. The thing is how one can interpret? In an early scene, when the door was knocked there was arrival of LULU: an inspiration for an artist. Who is coming through the narrowing door and opening the inside door with full aspirations. If reading in contradictory manner then the entire outside door is opened, which will narrow down as the artist, who symbolises the very notion of freedom of speech, is going to be curtailed and now there isn't any inspiration.

After taking Stanley away, none knows where he goes, besides Petey also answers Meg as Stanley is upstairs rather than saying the recent actual truth. But yes one can assume as Petey already known of the facts of the worldly matters, he senses something and so advising Stanley to contemplate so but can't say anything openly as his speech is already curtailed,  he can't speak anything, damaging himself.

Last scence of the movie by Freidkin.

As the movie is based on modern idea, an additional scene of the outdoor frames is highlighted. Where only one can see through the side-view of the car, the swirling visual images row houses, streets and then stopping at street lamp. At first the lamp is sharply brightening then it is becoming dull. While actually it has to be start from the boarding room, where the whole movie is situated because none of the elements of the movie, goes out of this room. Where the former scene seems to be vague and irrelevant with car drive.

The two scenes from LULU are omitted in th play, may be because the writer wants to directly apply the idea of marginalization and suppression of woman voice. Otherwise it would have been elaborated in traditional manner. A woman being raped, lodged a complaint and the judicial proceedings further. But it isn't shown. 

If feministic reading is applied and refering to the conversation between Nat Goldberg and LULU, then though Goldberg is seemingly shrewd, cunning and lustrous, it doesn't keep away LULU to be doubted. As if she was already with her boyfriend Adei and was living well-contented then why she chose to be with Goldberg. How the mind is shaped, rather than resisting and deciphering the difference, it is surrendering to superficial and shallow rhetoric? May be it is happening due to obsession like negative emotion. Where you have lost your deciphering sense and as a robot is given sentence, you're directed to and until and unless you're not completing that task, you won't be free from intruding clutches.

In another way it can be interpreted as having taken this matter in usaul manner(one of the modern characeristics)the writer decided to not to talk about as the matter and its happenings are much discussed, why to discuss more, until now people have understood, why such things are happening, what are the causes. Is it that only the man is to blame but not the woman? As rules are in favor of women. Or somethingelse is going on in the background.

Kafkaesque is associated with something, which is unknown to us and we're inevitably thrown into some situation. Where one has to see how to live in such complicating, distorting circumstances, which eventually leading to person's own realization. We have some examples of The Trial, Professor K, Metamorphosis, the hunger artist(where the protagonist serves others with his fake art, but eventually realizes that it was fraud).

Art, Truth anPolitics-Excerpts from Nobel Lecture 2005

When reading truth in citizenship and Art context then in Arts the truth is represented in elusive manner,  It can be necessarily either true or false. And also there won't we findany necessity to ask about the true or false concept.

There may be many interpretations based on experience, contemplation or specific point of view regarding drama. While being a citizen one has to ask what is true because it is a humanright and Harold Pinter remains to be a controversial figure for fighting for human rights.

Similarly it can be seen through Stanley's character, regarding the background history that he may have tried to voice his voice, considering it as a human right, but other capital forces tried to suppress his voice. Don't feeling wanted, he would have ran away from the place. Keeping authority in doubt, if something is revealed to him and as it is seen he is courageous, he will reveal everything and the entire elusive building would crumbled down.

While in politics they any concern with this truth even those won't dare to travel through that territory.  They will only consider their power and try to maintain power. Therefore they remain in this tapestries of lies. Which is actually facilitating their manipulative truth.

Critical Analysis of the play

It can be read through many aspects, feminist, arts, politics and truth, revolution, suexpression etc. We will discuss further at extent.

Conclusion

Thus we saw the film is based on pintereque, where the background history of the writer is aptly depicted in this film. Though many background things aren't clearly shown, but one can by guessing reach to its then happenings with some interconnected ideas.

Works Cited

• "A drama film: The Birthday Party". Directed by William Freidkin, 1968.
• Hardy, Thomas., "Novel: Far From the Madding Crowd", published in 1874.
• Orwell, George., "Modern Novel: 1984".
• Esslin, Martin., "The Absurdist Theatre".
• Deer, Harriet, and Irving Deer. “Pinter's ‘The Birthday Party’: The Film and the Play.” South Atlantic Bulletin, vol. 45, no. 2, 1980, pp. 26–30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3199140. Accessed 28 Nov. 2020.
• Pinter, Harold. “Art Truth & Politics: Excerpts from the 2005 Nobel Lecture.” World Literature Today, vol. 80, no. 3, 2006, pp. 21–27. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40159078. Accessed 28 Nov. 2020.

Samuel Beckett: Waiting For Godot(Existentialism)

Samuel Beckett: A 1957 play by Samuel Beckett, based on the term "The theatre of Absurd" coined by Martin Esslin.

Where he has written about how the play was staged on the stage in November, 1957 for 1400 convicts in penetiary.

The beginning and ending is similar in the play, concerning time and setting. The play is set in country side, on an isolated road, where there is a tree, a pile of debris, park, river.

The play is based on modern idea, it doesn't have anything like good and motivated characters, good plot, clever structure etc and so it is unsettling here.

As I have already discussed in "Existentialism part' that how the play is represented. We will only discuss here some of the essential things.

Both the characters; Vladimir and Estragon, representing Russia and France respectively. Vladimir seems to be representing ID, one of the psychoanalytical characteristics from Freud, Estragon ego and Godot superego.

Estragon's character seems to be trivial as always found to be obsessed in something, seems as thinking for something but actually he doesn't have any concern with. While connected with fascination rather than reality as when asked by Estragon for bible and gospels, he only talks about landscape and beauteous things, rather than  for reality.

He always craves for eating and so seeks from Vladimir to serve him with some food and also eats dangling carrot. If we see symbolically then carrot, from top is broad in shape, as the length increases, it narrows down/in another way it can be interpreted that the person who is eating resembles the structure and characteristics of carrot. Its upper part is sweet, while its inner portion is souring-bitter.

While we don't see anything as such in Estragon's character, for that further we have to read and try to make our understanding that much musive.

After the arrival of Posso and Lucky, when Posso orders Lucky to serve him with food and champagne, he is serving. Estragon stares only on food, while Vladimir casting glance once on Lucky and then on Posso and noticing there expressions. In literal manner, he is observing reality, while Estragon seems to be ignorant of or knowingly ignoring.

Thus they both live in hopefulness that the time will come, and we will have our own way from this absurdism. Where there is no purpose of life. Everywhere there is desert, barrenness, emptiness, shallowness, dryness, not a drop of water can be founded.

Can we regard this with lack of spirituality?
Result of perversive activities, where entire societal humanity is remaining in this way, when there is no way to get hope, then people turn to religion to get hope. Atleast people must have a purpose in life.

If we refer to Albert Camus: "the myth of Sisyphus" then it is one type of philosophy, where a man is bouldering the heavy stone upwards, it on and often roles down, but to find meaning and purpose in life, he has to do, though seems to be in futility.

If one is not doing this, then what he/she is suppose to do? Atleast it is giving satisfaction of doing something, rather than sitting idly and in that manner it fulfils the purpose.

Connecting Godot with Ubermensch as introduced by Freidrich Neitsche, then God is representing similar like character that how an overambitious man, when on the verge of achieving goal, perceive himself to be a God/superman/overman etc. Here the God is giving invisible hope to the two. As it is told by the boy that he is messenger of God, it can be assumed as such. It seems as a linear difference between illusion and realization. When one realizes that one is in illusion one can't live normally, but when the reality is wrapped with illusion at some extent one can live happily and hopefully.

If it is said that you have to only wait then one will get disappointed though wanted to make him survive, but he/she won't take much efforts for survival. But with realization, they will wait with when they would be dead.

Here God's elusive presence contributes in hopefulness and so they're able to thrive.

Deconstructive Reading of the novel-

By reading this movie deconstructively, it seems that it isn't following Aristotelian tradition for plot construction but written through modern lens. Where plot is developing on its own, where God seems to be a stimulation for furthering the plot but it just remains static as there is no arrival of God and God equalizes with hope only. But how long one can live in hope? So the God is exhibited as an illusion and thus it is justified lately that: "Noone comes and no one goes". Therefore the situation remains static as there is no stimulation  for doing activity. As it is described in 'the myth of Sisyphus' by "Albert Camus", the life is void of purpose because how long one can boulder up and down the huge stone meaninglessly as it isn't serving anything in return.

In brief it is breaking traditional philosophy, prescribed for creating drama and so it is open for interpretations(conclusions).

Conclusion

Hence it is already discussed in one of the tasks on existentialism but to elaborate further this topic, the analysis is written, relating with Freudian Psychoanalytical theories.

 My blog on "Flipped Learning: existentialism"(for reference)

Thus is the whole understanding for 'waiting for Godot' play by Samuel Beckett and also a bit of deconstruction in this.

Works Cited

"Absurdist Novel: Waiting for Godot", Samuel Beckett.

Camus, Albert., 'The Myth of Sisyphus'.

Derrida, Jacques., "Theory of Deconstruction".

Kagdi, Samiya., "Flipped Learning: Existentialism". 

www.samiyakagdi.blogspot.com

Virginia-Woolf-To-The-Lighthouse-Fluidity-Verses-Masculinity-1927

To the lighthouse, a modernist novel by Virginia Woolf, published in 1927. The author has tried to highlight the conflict between Victorianism and Modernism. How the former ideology represented by Mrs. Ramsay wants everyone to be alike as her; one must get marry, live happily, have children,  taking care of them and always confine to one's husbands beliefs. While on the contrary, the latter has individual identity, where the question of equality arises, why If a man can write and paint, woman can't? Why only woman is perceived as a home-maker? Why it shouldn't go with man's attitude? Why what man is doing woman can't do? Why there isn't exchangement of responsibilities, among women and men? Why any work is made fixed for an individual entity? Why there is no sharing attitude towards any kind of responsibilities, unbiased of gender pattern forum?

Fluidity&Masculinity

Lily's Dilemma in Woolf's to the lighthouse by Andrea Viola.

In this article Andrea Viola has tried to put such many characters like Lily. Lily who is struggling as said in To the lighthouse masculine perspective, with 'infidel ideas' masculinity in girlish heart, with which not only Lily is concerned but other daughters of Mrs. Ramsay too. Nancy and Rose aren't more present in nove but Prue who is occasionally present had to succumbed to death due to continuous obedience to her mother. Where she must be feeling, as if sacrifing emerging desires. While Cam connects her youth with nursery and Lily being adopted as a girl child, is being marginalized as not confining into Mrs. Ramsay's ideology.

Mrs. Ramsay had often emphasised on Lily, that her painting shouldn't be taken seriously as she seems to be contardicatory to Mrs. Ramsay thus a reason for shattering her own ideology. Which according to her is in a proper frame, this is how a woman must visualize herself through her husband eyes, rather than thriving into conflicts and creating more problems in growth of relationship. Therefore it is the ideal way through which a relationship can made to function(the husband : an engine, the wife : provider of all chemicals and essentials through which an engine can run), precipitating equilibrium, moderated sacrificing oneself's wishes and desires for another only to receive love from him.

While here it seems that Mrs. Ramsay expects  Lily should confine to her ideas rather than sticking to her self-established ideas, of fighting each and every odds, coming across as being a potential woman. She constantly fights against patriarchy and the concept of ministry figure of 'angel in the house' that will welcome many pitfalls and seems to be elusive and compel some to struggle for acquiring such kind of successes. But in contradictory it often reflects as though she shows she wants be an idealistic woman, by gaining equality between men and women but inside she likes, Mrs. Ramsay playing a mother character, consolidating an individual entity. Raising questions about the cherishing of embodiement in terms of art; art as artifact or art as memory!

These are all phases of her life, where we see in the end of the novel, how she has progressed as an artist though with setbacks from starting to an end. Which is connected with kunstleroman like idea.

She as a female character, is possessing such kind of tendency towards living life that it had influenced other members in family also. Where the others are urged to think of chivalry and other manliness adoptation, for which the men are but women are restricted to acquire. This is increasing the tension and so though pressurised by their mother not to act or react in such a way, they start making deferences between them and men persona. When in one of the scences in movie, Lily is lying underneath the sky and thinking about landscape, where one can read that unconsciously Lily is thinking to reestablish the society as per her preferences and perspectives, which isn't possible and if made possible, seeks sacrifice and constant effort. Where yes one has to become sea monstor(Leviathan) to overcome such fights and come out as a conqueror.

Therefore it isn't that being a female you can't struggle, but being a female you need strength of masculinity which includes the characteristics of leviathan, where you don't only have to learn how to live in society, but how to adjust at times, how to put any point forward, how by determining the aim in mind, one has to work for its progression.

Samuel Beckett: Play-Breath, interpretation

A Brief Introduction

 Breath is a very short stage work by Samuel Beckett, published in 1969. The length can be estimated from his detailed instruction in the script to be about 35 seconds. The play also has a background story, where Tynan a literary manager at the National Theatre in London, was devising Oh! Calcutta! and asked Samuel to write a brief erotic skit for an erotic review and Samuel agreed when he found that there are other contributors too but those are going to be listed anonymously in his writing.

Samuel Becket sent the postcard with the story to Tynan. But the story was altered to fit in with the risque nature of the revue by adding naked bodies to the bodies, suggesting that the work was about sexual intercourse. In one of his displays of anger, Samuel called Tynan 'liar' and a 'cheater', prompting Tynan to send a formal notice through his lawyer that the travesty for which he is claimed isn't due to him, but others are responsible. Getting him, Samuel decided, not to argue further.

The play by Damien Hirst. The scene is displayed with a systematic wrapped thing, of yellow colour, which generate in spectator mind a curiousity of what would be the purpose of the playwright to show something as such. But then moderating with patience, we move forward to see if any other things, by facilitating can highlight the essence of the play.

And gradually we see, some wrapped things, different types of trolleys, some kind of drugs, medicines, some air tight  boxes and scattered colouring papers(seems as a pile of rubbish: where people collectively throw their waste. In starting the scene has an expiration sound, followed by inspiration sound and if we symbolically interpret then It also suggests 'destruction' and then 'establishment'.

The play by Liana De Jourdan. It starts by highlighting the plain furnished floor of white(which seems to be mere a shade of sunlight at surface level) where the fruits and vegetables are scattered; banana, apple, cherry, cabbage,  onion, garlic, condensed milk etc(seems as all the things out from refrigerator as there is yet to find the existence of humanbeing, how one can find the existence of those things through which humans are retaining themselves. 

The scene commences with the sound of old stinging door(which isn't greased since long as someone is entering in old mansion unknowingly, happened to go there, and with awaiting eyes searching, if anyone there is existing in the house, accordingly to generate horror in spectator's mind and the mood of the scence, the sound is increased, leveled up and then decreased.

National Theatre School, first year technical production of Breath by Samuel Becket.

The scene first operate with dull lights with some wild sound of animal/any other wilder species where some empty metal cans and other littered things are highlighted scattered. Then gradually light's intensity is increasing and focusing upon center. From focus again it is decreasing and gradually fading away, with similar sound, voiced at first.

The scene starts from the blue smoke, upwards white. The white overpowers blue and evolving through bottom from red to light orange(Suggests imperialism and colonialism/first world war and second world war).

How all things are scattered on the floor, which shows that we humanbeings have evolved ourselves and  tried our best to evolve the nation, but what is the benefit of development, things are lying inanimately, without its usage. In similar manner the scene of the playing equipments are shown(As a boy/girl is exhausted by playing, so the things are lying in this way, he/she doesn't have even time to take things, and place those at their right place).

Similarly can be seen the light of destruction(As pollution has polluted the entire natural environment).

The touch of colonialism, post-colonialism, ecocriticism, environmental studies etc.

An experiment on Breath play by Samuel Beckett, interpreting through colonial perspective.

Works Cited

Barad, Dilip., "Interpretation Challenge:Breath:The Shortest Play", Dilip Barad's blog,  15th September, 2014. https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2014/09/interpretation-challenge-breath.html?m=1.

Adopted References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breath_(play)

http://www.openculture.com/2015/03/take-a-breath-and-watch-samuel-becketts-one-minute-play.html

"Breath", By Samiya Kagdi, Adapted from Samuel Beckett's Original play with the same title.

Flipped Learning: Existentialism

Existentialism

How to define existentialism?

Existentialism comes after the state of absurdism. Where a person find meaninglessness in life, though doing many things in life, but when come to realization about 'what we're for on Earth'? A person may try to interrogate himself/herself and suddenly took the countenance of what they until now did in their lives and when came to realization, they may converse with themselves 'as being futile until now, what will be now the purpose of living life'. 

At present the person's life is full of absurdity, despair, hopelessness, devoid of purpose.

For Example: Waiting for Godot-Samuel Beckett 

The surrounding seems to be full of piled garbage, the paved way is isolated, noone is walking in and around, just two are there, moving here and there.

A person named 'Gogo' sitting on mud pile, trying to remove boots from his leg, but unable to remove it, due to his age factor and felt weakness. Gogo and his partner are constantly shouting on each other, than deducing to understand each other but as they don't have nothing to talk, they're just talking about that past not fastness. Where Bible, a dream etc are discussed.

'Nothing can be done' is repeated for few times by both the characters and to divert their attention they talk about their past, in sharing manner. But it is also in futile as it is without purpose because what the Bible and its gospels will do now rather than hoping.

They went near the barren tree, which symbolizes barrenness and death of itself as well as of the characters as one of the characters define the very tree as dead and so Gogo says 'No more we be'. Similarly they talk about park, stone, river that we two along with th elements of nature, are waiting for GODOT.

Suddenly some voice came and they try to hide themselves, but at their surprise this is someone else named 'Podso'.

These all are waiting for Godot. Godot is presented in this movie in very weird manner, it feels to be something horrific, unusual and terrific but then abruptly the atmosphere transform into normal.

The Search for meaning

How to find the meaning amidst such meaninglessness 

With reference to discussion in online google meet class, we will see how the meaningless of the play 'waiting of Godot' is.

The essence of the play can be interpreted in many ways, that's why Martin Esslin said about this play that 'the significance of Waiting for Godot' was to be sensed by the audience at last and it may vary from person to person, won't be defined in a particular frame but it can be elasticity interpreted. When questions are presented, one rather than focusing on giving questions' answers, should ponder upon, what was the predicament, the person who have asked has seen, though it is meaningless.

So when such things are presented, it can be seen empathically through that person's situation rather than judging them through your own perspectives.

In the play there is uncertainty which can be seen in the ebb and flow, that occurs through hopefulness of repeated disappointment through the discovery of God.

Where yes a person waiting the whole day, for God but God never comes, goes and its awful(On contradictory in Birthday Party, some goes, some comes, yet it is awful) and gradually night falls and the same situation recurs day after another and the situation remains static.

Though the play seems to be simple and not embellished with ornamental language, but presented with brevity and wit that surfaces as per the character's characteristics, which one can clearly sense through the pointed dialogues in the play. So it has multiple meanings but it has  a limitation that the play can't be simplified.

Therefore the characters of the play, are constantly waiting for Godot to come, remaining in darkness, so that the God can give some meaning to their life as their lives have become absurd and unfortunately it remains till the end of the play, static(absurd).

Works Cited

Barad, Dilip., "Flipped Learning Network: Existentialism", Dilip Barad's Blog, 24 January, 2016.

https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2016/01/flipped-learning-network.html?m=1

"Waiting for Godot", By Samuel Beckett, from YouTube.

"Existentialism12: Meaning of the play", By Dilip Barad, From YouTube Channel(with the name title).

A Blog on existential crisis: https://samiyakagdi313.blogspot.com/2020/04/janeeyrebycharlottebrontte.html?m=1

ICT Workshop: Googlesites-Digital E-Portfolio

 

Google Sites_ Digital E-Por... by samiya

Postcolonial Eco Criticism: Sithanshu Yashaschandra-Tree Once Again

                        Introduction

Postcolonialism is integrated with ecocriticism as the aftereffects of colonialism. Which one can see firstly on colonized people's minds , and through them ongoing struggles, trying to come out from the clutches of colonialism. Amidst all these struggles, where striving to come out, one can see how ecology is badly affected by the colonizers and the colonized people( in striving for their survival) how some activists have played their parts to restore ecology, but criticizing in both manner; destructively and constructively.

What is Postcolonialism

Generally Postcolonialism is considered as "aftermath of colonialism". While it isn't so..It is something which has connection with Affect and influence of some process and that is why neoliberalism as connected with capitalism, is considered to be a constant process rather than an event and similarly it is connected with colonialism and imperialism.

When aftermath of colonialism many third world country people; living in South Asia, Latin America, Africa, Middle East etc, were forced to abandon their lands by the capitalists, they had to do so and their dispossession invited theft of their lands by colonial settlers.

For example-Mosop movement: Where Ogoni indeginious people, a group in Southeast Nigeria, were forced to abandon their lands. As their lands were oil-riched, multinational companies collaborated with indeginious military dictator and there was wide-scale destruction and on large-scale displacement.

Similar to this we also have an example from Narmada Bachao Aandolan, where also the similar kind of things happened.

As these commons are always targeted by capitalists, there emerging many questions of how to resist and accelerate their lives, as landless proletariat. For which Marxism is focusing on 'primitive accumulation' while Rosa Luxemberg is augmenting that Marx is presenting 'primitive accumulation' as a closed system, sufficient in itself that seems to be the early stage of capitalism. 

Later on her argument is proven true due to two reasons.

It provides deep historical connections between colonialism and capitalism.

It is ongoing/constant process rather than past event and it can't happen outside the area of capitalism but anywhere, where the areas are somewhat in development stage or somewhere where remnants of commons can be found.

As it is said that 'colonialism is a constant process' for which noone can deny.

Salman Rushdie's: Mignights Children is a good example of Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi(1774-77). A new way to colonize the country and it's people and inflicting them with cruel and brutal atrocities. Which we can see through Sameel Sinai's lens in this very novel.

One another example: When India got independence on 15th August, 1947. There was temporary happiness among people, there may be a few people, who may be sensing that colonialism, still going to prevail in one or the another form; like the country India was totally ruled by Right Wing people, where left wing people had no room. It is showing now after much struggle that somewhere such left wingers are given importance, which wasn't happening previously and we have many traces of history and may be from history some may have taken lessons that rigidity won't suffice with present time, if it is still practised it will lead you nowhere rather than to your own dugged gorge.

Considering it the constant process, can we take postcolonialism as temporal state of situation. Which fades in and fades out, like light without any orientation. If one wants to give this proper orientation then one has to work for.

Thus there are many things to be discussed but here as only concerned with postcolonial criticism, this seems to be sufficient. Where only one can get an idea of how eco-criticism can be viewed in postcolonialism.

What is Ecocriticism
Ecocriticism is something that happens aftermath of an event in form of its repercussions as in postcolonial context, we are seeing. How encroachment of land and collaboration of multinationals and concerned indeginiety authority, had caused wide-scale environmental destruction and large-scale displacement of poeple.
As the human resources, common property resources are utilized for industrial purposes, how it will harm the environment badly.

If we interpret this in another way then ecocriticism is what which is criticized to reestablish spoiled ecology, by writers and shapers of the society.

If seeing through ecofeminism perspective then what culture is to man, nature is to woman. While it is said that both the genders are pacing consciously in their lives and both are mortal but as man is considered to be artificial in respects of culture, woman by psychology, societally and physically is acutely adjusting herself into nature.

For Example: The bondage between a child and the mother. The nursing and care, he/she gets from his/her mother, father can't provide or it can be seen mere as a social construction.

In many Hindi movies repeatedly such things are shown. Somewhere the heroine has premarraige relations with her boyfriend, conceiving the baby but denied acceptance by the responsible person. Though abused but staunchly following her duties as mother(Kya Kehna, a movie example can be given/The Scarlett Letter).

Somewhere we see the opposite of ecofeminism also. As in one of the news I have read how the 10years old girl, having some amount from government for her midday meal, but it is also spent by her father, who is already married for second time and the girl child had to abandon her home. After calculating her father's intentions, she is able to lodge complaint against her father that what money she is to given, is taken by her father as the money is reflected  in her father's bank account.

Her father tried to ecofeminism her, but coming to realization, she reacted promptly and reasonably as she was able to understand her own situation.
Thus there is ecocritism on ecofeminism also that as nowadays though women are associated with nature, rather than denoting weakness, the nature is symbolizing strength and power from women's side.

How Postcolonialism is connected with Ecocriticism

As Postcolonialism suggests aftereffects of colonialism, it is deeply connected with ecocriticism. Which we're seeing in conclusion part of Ania Loomba's book on Colonialism and Postcolonialism. How encroachment of lands had invited mass destruction of people as well as of their native lands. The theory of capitalism is defined through feminist, ecological, patriarchal, historical perspectives.

Ecological Expressions

Sithanshu Yashaschandra's Poem: Tree Once Again

The poems tries to convey the importance of trees in one's life. How since civilization of humans, sawing, rasping and tip-tapping of ache brown wood trunk is practised. With further development and with advent of industrialisation only, manufacturers are benefitted from wood having as a raw material. While in mono/neo-lithic age people used wood for cooking and boiling water(For example: Frankenstein-where the couple are cutting and collecting wood for selling as well as a mean to satiate their own personal needs) nothingelse.

So the poem reads that how the tree was once a tree, but now it had transformed into writing table, dining table, radio stand etc. Which we're utilizing for our own benefits and facility. It seems as giving the feeling of interdependancy(Concerning Rosseau's point of view on self-repugnancy and the human must be natural/primitive like as with development in many human phases, a human has developed himself/herself and so the concept of inequality is there, which according to Victor Hugo was an idea mere to mock).

On another side, while refering the second last line of the same poem, it gives an idea of further development as development in any area is a constant process rather than one time's.

This animation by Steve Cutts also denotes the process of colonialism done by a colonizer.

The Pavagadh by Mehul Devkala is about how the town Pavagadh came into being. First the volcano exhumed under the Earth, out of caves emerged a man, he went to dwell the plains, settlements formed and so the towns. As a result Chapaner came into being. Then how it was besieged by Badshah Humayun and then after by Muhammad Begda. Then gradually how for industrialization purposes the resources of land were used.

For Instance
Established were big and gigantic cities(a result of industrialization).

Besieged were the foothills of pavagadh by companies and manufacturing thousands of cars(a land, colonization).

Despite such happenings the ongoing film in cinema hall was Mohenjo daro and was highlighting the history of before thousand years, where teeny weeny kinds of structures can be visualized in any pavagadh like place.

Vidroh by Kedarnath Sinh is personified through the nature; cotton, table, papers etc. How these things made from furniture is craving to go to their actual place.

For instance: Idly lying books in shelf say that we remember the substance of our roots, that was coming out from tree trunk and so we want to go there as those are calling us.

Nature is personified as imprisoned in man's world and trying to now get rid of and want to go where there belongings are.

Connection with Present Time

Seeing postcolonial-ecocriticism in present times, then in post covid-19 era, the aftereffects of lockdown due to Corona virus, were fruitful as well as harmful. Without the traces of humanbeings on the road, place, area or any corner, Laura and fauna were saved and preserved in very natural manner. Which wasn't possible, when humanbeings are out. 

While on the other side, due to imposed lockdown by the Goverment of India people weren't allowed to go to outside and so they weren't able to carry on their work further. Those who had enough money, would have definitely keep aside some amount as a capital(to run their business or firm forward) and they had to spent those money. Which actually can't be spent in this way. On the other side, we see the middle class people as well as the people belonging to lower class. The former will have to struggle a lot, to make themselves survive, while the latter class will easily get, what they desire for.

If seeing through the point of view of Covid19 disease handling being handled by Indian Government as well as in US by Trump. The former in respect of cases, is on number two, and the death toll of coronavirus is screaming at number-3. In latter case, it is at number-1 position. Concerning the latter issue, it was happened during lockdown period that Trump, the Prime Minister of America had become careless towards this sensitive disease and proclaimed the freedom of people that by placing belief in faith, they can congregate ik church and pray for their well-being, shows his inability to cope up with Covid19. 

How it seems when a responsible person, in whose hands there is the responsibility of country as well as the people of the country, reciprocate in this manner..Poeple won't place trust or faith in such kind of persona.

Perhaps as people lost trust in Trump, they chose Joe Biden to be their representative.

It is still remaining to see, what is going to happen in India's case .

Thus in post era, Trump was vehemently criticized by his own as well as other countries to place people in such dilemma and also we see as part of its repercussions, that more or less, people had to struggle a lot though taking prior precautions, due to ecological damage in nature as well as in their lives. In this was Postcolonialism is facilitating Eco-criticism.

Conclusion
Hence in this way we saw how postcolonialism and ecocritocism, both are connected with each other and how through ecocritical point of view one can read the aforementioned poems by various poets.

Works Cited
Loomba, Ania., "Colonialism/Postcolonialism: Conclusion", 3rd edition.

Yashaschandra, Sithanshu., "Tree Once Again".

Singh, Kedarnath., "Vidroh".

Devkala, Mehul., "Pavagadh".

Postcolonial Films: A film review on The black Prince by Kavi Raz

 

"From Dark to Light"
[Without his mother in Dark, with his mother in Light as his mother is the key to history]

These frames highlights, how Duleep Singh is removed from his mother and when raised under John Login, how at the age of 15 sent to England and is involved with Queen Victoria. He as a king and the palace. Where he has a hope to go to India(as displayed in last gif image).

The Black Prince is an international historical drama, set on 1849, screened in 2017, directed by Kavi Raz.

Duleep Singh a Sikh, who is the last king of Punjab area after his father, Maharajah Ranjit Singh. He was throned at five but as Punjab annexed with British India, the son was removed from his mother and put under the guardianship of British Surgeon, Dr. John Login.

At age of 'fifteen' he is sent to England, where relationship between Queen Victoria and Duleep Singh develops.

Eventually Duleep Singh is able to reestablish contact with his mother and as a result begins to reconnect with his culture of birth. Though trying to reclaim his kingdom in India, but continually thwarted by British Colonials.

Reunion with his mother 

Where Duleep's mother is emphasizing on the throne to be claimed as it is for him and how one can sacrifice one's right and develop a temparament to see someone snatching away his own property.

It only happens when one has become seer and in the name of religion abandoned everything. Such things doesn't matter in their lives.

Works Cited

"Postcolonial Films: The Black Prince", published in 2017, directed by Kavi Raz.

Mira Nair: Movie Frame Studies/Review of Reluctant Fundamentalist

The Reluctant Fundamentalist, a political thriller drama movie by Mira Nair, released in 2012, based on Mohsin Hamid unpublished novel(2007). This was highly flipped movie, but this movie received mixed critical views along with awards, which payed homage due to its addressing the efforts of tolerance and xenophobia.

                           

As it is based on the story of 9/11(September 11, 2001 attack) by Al Qaeeda coordinated four terrorist groups in America, it engulfed Riz Ahmed(Changez)who was innocent, unaware of and flowing with nature. 

Who was knowing, something unusual like this is going to happen...For which only he would be targeted as he is associated from the blind capitalists point of view to the very roots of terrorism. Though one tries to wash all the stains, but somewhere the deep Marks will remain. This is the reason the person though tried to wash hardly the stains, which were about to abuse/inflict him/her badly but its scars remain and it instigate you till your death.

May be that's why such people who belong to such belongings and traces, considering this not trying to evolve themselves as they know somewhere that though they would try hard, but they won't have fair escapism from their pasts and it will surface again and again.

On the contrary people are also of such tendency that they wouldn't like change and always remain in search of finding  faults in the persona, who have changed him/her.

Thus society plays a crucial in person's life. But one can't altogether blame society for everything. There is something to be played and seen from a person's side.

Riz Ahmed, belongs to Pakistani family, the family struggles with financial crisis but he gets scholarship to pursue his studies at Princeton college. When got job under Samson(a top wall street firm) he fell in love with Erica, a photographer. As when he encountered this incident in Manila, where he went for business, he is picked out and interrogated by American Federal Officials. We feel its repercussions in his relationship with Erica, where Erica finding herself responsible for her former boyfriend's death and exhibiting some intimate scenes of herself and Changez and due to this they had breakup.

After Visa expiration, Changez returns to Lahore. Where he is hired as a university's lecturer as departing foreign professors have left vacancies. Due to intrusion of Americans in Pakistan, Riz voices dissatisfaction and when founding Lincoln(a journalist from America in Pakistan), surveilling outside his office, he declares him to be a CIA agent and possibly recruited by Rainer.

Meanwhile Rainer is killed and Changez is blamed to be the murderer of Rainer and so when he is texting to his sister, Lincoln demands his phone, to be checked if he is truthfully texting his sister or not.

During this ongoing scuffle, Lincoln holds Changez at the gunpoint, uses him as a shield and in attempt to kill Changez, his brother is shooted and killed, in return Lincoln is wounded badly by the protesters outside and is quickly removed by CIA from the crowed, having learnt that Changez isn't involved.

In New York movie by Aditya Chopra and Yash Chopra. Alike John Abraham, playing the role of Mr. Sheikh, 1200 others are detained, among whom the common thing is religion.

Though Mr. Sheikh is trying to prove that he loves America but he is suspected on the basis of his clicking photos of world trade center, while he explains that as he is affiliated with architecture, he has to do but his arguments aren't moderated and he is further tormented by the Federal Beaureu investigation officials.

A similar prejudice and event we can see in 'the reluctant fundamentalist' movie by Mira Nair as Jim is also suspect on the basis of his religion.

As a lecturer, he is teaching in Pakistan but due to misinterpretation of the essence of the lecture, the students got him wrong and so it is simplified later on by Changez.

Thus to watch how a Pakistani is surviving in his most loved country. Where  people don't consider his love for the country but his religion and origination and allege him to be involved with Al Qaeeda terrorists' groups.

A Brief Review

Seeing the central character named Changez, who is a lover of America but thrushed to conceive him as a Pakistani. As it is said: "Not the whole river is tained, due to only fish's stains". But he is considered to be similar like terrorist group as Pakistan is notorious of having such conflicting and disputing credentials in her country. None knows who is going to pay the price of the thing, which they haven't committed.

"Looks can be deceiving, I'm a lover of Am Mira Nair: Movie Frame Studies of Reluctant Fundamentalist erica, although I was raised to feel very Pakistani"-Changez(Riz Ahmed).

In this manner, though an American by bringing up, settled in, loving its Culture but ultimately retained as Pakistani. Returning to Pakistan, having a job as a university lecturer, but there also he isn't spared and those historical traces recurred again in the form of Lincoln and Rainer. As it is said until and unless, you don't deal with the things, which disturbed you, it will keep on surfacing unwantedly and you're destined to give it farewell willingly or unwillingly. Same is confronted by Changez/Jim.

To be continued again...

Works Cited

"Postcolonial Film: The Reluctant Fundamentalist", released in 2012, produced by Mira Nair.

"New York", Directed by Yash Chopra and Aaditya Chopra, starring John Abraham(Mr. Sheikh).