Ibsen/Anouilh Compare and Contrast

Antigone Pastiche:
Anastasia: So why bother telling me?
William: Would you rather begin a marriage with lies?
Anastasia: I never would have found out. I loved him.
William: So what's next?
Anastasia: I'll go back home. Before the blizzard gets worse.
William: Don't be alone for Hanukkah, Anastasia. Pay a visit to your sister. It will be good for you.
Anastasia:Okay.
William: It's for the best.There will be other men. Marriage is sacred. No place for lies.
Anastasia: Okay.

Ibsen Pastiche.
Father: I wish you would stay with me. I'm been lonely all my life son, but especially now as I begin to age when the cold winter months set in. It would be nice to have someone around-
Son: You have Mrs. Jones.
Father: Yes, I do- I don't know what I'd do without her. She's lovely, smart, she brings a whole new light into the house- that's what I truly need.
Son: Well, then I guess you have everything you need.
Father: Yes, but I don't know if it can continue. You know what people will say about a woman like her. I may as well say, a man doesn't gain anything from it either.
Son: I'm sure a man of your status can afford the risk.
Father: Oh but what about her? She won't stand for it for too long- even if she did- with all the gossip- do you really think-



Comparison:
I agree that Anouilh was easier to work with. His style is very clear and it is more natural to mimic his crisp lines and tones. Ibsen, on the other hand, is a lot more inconsistent. His writing tends to be more choppy, often broken up with dashes which symbolize things the characters don't say. Anouilh doesn't tell things in chronological order because he wants to emphasize the characters motivations rather than the plot. Ibsen tells the story in chronological order, which should be easier to understand but reading Ibsen requires the audience to make a lot of inferences, which can make things confusing. Although characters motivations are important in Ibsen as well. Also Ibsen doesn't have any type of narration or Chorus and Anouilh does. Ibsen has the audience more submerged in the actual actions and events, focusing his main points and what's happening, and who is saying what, etc. Anouilh has a Chorus which makes the audience feel more removed from the actual plot, since that is not really his focus. Even more so, he has the Chorus break the 4th wall and speak directly to the audience, using a lot of metaphors. It definitely switches his focus to be more external than Ibsen.

The Wild Duck Journal #5

From what me and my group discussed about the Wild Duck and reading the articles about a tragedy, I didn't feel like The Wild Duck was a tragedy. It seems to have some of the elements of a tragedy but is also lacking in a few areas. Hedvig's death could definitely be called "undeserved suffering" and according to the article, that alone does not make it tragic. It's definitely sad, but I don't know if it's truly a "tragedy". It seems to lack a strong character that could compare to the likes of Hamlet, or Romeo, or Antigone. The closest thing I suppose is Gregers. Plus, as far as catharsis, or emotional cleansing, Gregers sort of realizes the way that he has hurt this family and that maybe his way of thinking and truth isn't right in all scenarios but then again he never comes out and says that. So I don't know if it's really "cleansing". And, it's not even his daughter that died. He ruined someone elses life.
It's interesting that it doesn't exactly seem to fit with the mold of "tragedy" since this play seems like it is more sad than Antigone because the person who dies is completely innocent and naiive and didn't even really understand the situation. She just died for no reason and no good or change really came out of it. Her parents marraige seems like it's worse and Gregers doesn't even really seem to understand any more than he did before. I feel that mostly it lacks a sense of relief and cleansing for the audience.

The Wild Duck Journal #4

"What if you, in a sacraficing spirit, gave up the dearest thing you own and know in the whole world?"
Gregers speaks with Hedvig when she is distraught about the possibility of her father not returning. And he asks her to get rid of the wild duck, which is the "dearest thing [she] own[s] and love[s]" for her father. I found this interesting since of all the characters in the play, Hedvig is the only child and so innocence is associated with her.Since almost everything that is unfolding, all the lies and deception, it all took place before she was even born. So she is actually the only one in the whole story who is truly innocent and free from fault. Yet she is the one who must "sacrafice". It seems to suggest that often times when people make mistakes, the innocent are the ones who end up being hurt.

Hjalmer's position is interesting because he tries to be the character without fault. He seems to legitimately consider himself the victim in the entire scenario. He's completely melodramatic even though he has hardly any hard evidence. And even though Werle has been helping him, now all of a sudden he has lost his "honor".  "That's a good name for it, "debt of honor"! But never mind. I shall repay every penny of it, with five percent interest." (190). Hjlamer has no money. He never even works at his own business. He calls himself the "breadwinner" when in reality, he sits around and does nothing. He has no means to pay off any money. Hjalmer speaks as though he's been completely duped and victimized but now he will work even harder to get his "honor" back. When really he's lazy and naive and working "tirelessly on his invention" is most likely not going to get him the money to pay back Werle. Gregers simply fuels his fire by telling him "You're the man I always thought you were". They are both delusional and have irrational conceptions of reality. Hjalmer is not a complete victim in this ordeal. And he tries to take the situation and twist it so that he comes out the hero. It's interesting how their perceptions can be so tainted.

The Wild Duck Journal #3

Quote 1: "No. Even the chickens have all the others that they were baby chicks with, but she's so completely apart from any of her own. So you see, everything is so really mysterious about the wild duck. There's no one who knows her, and no one who knows where she's come from either."
This quote is from Hedvig speaking to Gregers. The way that Hedvig describes the wild duck puts an interesting spin on it when she says "there's no one who knows her, and no one who knows where she's come from either". And basically describes the wild duck as being out of place and just different than the rest of the animals it's around. In this way, Hedvig could be the wild duck. She's somewhat out of place because of her age, she is the only child in the play. However, the adults banter back and forth and discuss fairly adult issues with her around in addition to her helping her mom with the photography business. She could feel very out of place. Also, since Ibsen has led to audience to assume that there is a possibility that Hedvig is not Hjalmer's daughter that could play into "no one knows where she's come from".
Quote 2: "Of course not. And I suppose it is your wife who manages here? 
"My general rule is to delegate the routine matters to her, and that leaves me free to retire to the living room to think over more important things." 
I picked this quote because it displays Hjalmer's completely delusional perception of himself and his and Gina's role in the family. Hjalmer thinks that Gina just does the mundane tasks and that he does all the big important things but in reality, Gina is running the family and running the business while Hjalmer basically does nothing. He is quite childlike in a sense that he seems to be completely oblivious to all that is going on around him. Gregers also seems quick to understand that Gina is the brains behind it all, yet even after Gregers mentions that Gina runs things, Hjalmer still believes that he does more important things. This definitely places Hjalmer in the "wild duck" position since he seems so completely submerged in lies and naivety that he doesn't even realize it.
Quote 3: "Yes, I am going to rescue that shipwrecked man. That's just what he suffered-shipwreck-when the storm broke over him. When all those harrowing investigations took place, he wasn't himself anymore. That pistol, there0 the one we use to shoot rabbits with-it's played a part in the tragedy of the Ekdals."
This caught my attention because the way Hjalmer describes Ekdal, he almost makes it sound like Ekdal is a "wild duck". He is completely oblivious to the fact that Gregers whole mission is to pull Hjalmer out of the "wild duck" position and bring him back up to reality. All the while, Hjalmer thinks that he is the one who is bringing his father out of all of this and saving him. Both men have life missions to "save" another man. It's interesting how Ibsen creates this image of a "wild duck" and many characters perceive others as being that wild duck, but yet none of them see themselves as the duck. So they're all circling trying to pull each other out of the lies when it seems as though they are all submersed in them in some form.
Quote 4: "Beg pardon-but it wouldn't be you who brought that stench in with you from the mines up there?" 
"It's just like you to call what I'm bringing into this house a stench."
This exchange between Gregers and Dr. Relling is interesting because again we see boundaries. Neither man will come out and say what he really thinks, and Gina as well in the conversation, but instead they use little metaphors and quick comments that are more underhanded. They all think they know the truth but no one ever actually speaks what they think. Relling seems to be accusing Gregers of bring a "stench" with him. It seems like he doesn't like the fact that Gregers has come back and his poking around in everybody's business. But Gregers obviously perceives himself to be very noble and doing the "right thing".
Quote 5: "All right, I'll tell you, Mrs. Ekdal. He's suffering from an acute case of moralistic fever." 
Relling talks about Gregers having "moralistic fever". I think what he means by this is that Gregers is all of a sudden decided that he has all these morals and that he can't let Hjalmer live in the lies anymore and that he has to do everything right and all of that. But Relling seems to be mocking him, a fever implies that it's temporary and all of a sudden Gregers has this "fever" about him. And also that he's sick, and pretty much implying that Gregers is just acting dumb and is just messing everything up. And that he should just let his "morals" go and move on without interfering in everyone's personal lives.

The Wild Duck Journal #2

"And there he sits right now, he with his great, guileless, childlike mind plunged in deception-living under the same roof with that creature, not knowing that what he calls his home is built on a lie." Gregers obviously recognizes the facade that he believes Gina to be putting on. By referring to her as a "creature" he devalues her and shows that he believes she is also in part to blame for this as well as Werle, whom he is speaking to. He perceives both his father and Gina to be manipulative while Hjalmer is innocent. He paints a picture in which Gina and Werle have conspired to "plunge" Hjalmer into their deception while he remains naiive.

"But what else could I do? I've put ads in the papers time and again."
"Yes, ads, ads-you see whwat a help they are. And of course nobody's been to look at the spare room either?
"No, not yet."
"That was to be expected. If one doesn't keep wide awake-Gina, you've simply got to pull yourself together."
This conversation between Gina and Hjalmer shows that Hjalmer perceives Gina to be irresponsible and inadequate. His tone is condescending when he sarcastically remarks "you see what a help they are" when she defends herself by saying she's been putting ads in the paper. And then again when he says "And of course nobody's..." his sarcastic, condecensing tone displays that he perceives himself to be the responsible one, while Gina just never does any of the jobs she supposed to be doing. He speaks to her almost as if she is a child.

Gina doesn't contradict Hjalmer but at the beginning of Act 2, before Hjalmer gets home, Gina is seen calculating the expenses and talking about running the photography business with Hedvig. She obviously knows that she is not childlike or irresponsible and in fact she is doing a lot of the work involved in keeping the family together while Hjalmer goes off to a fancy dinner party. Since Gina doesn't say this, she must perceive that Hjalmer can't handle it. She recognizes that Hjalmer has a false perception of himself but she allows it to continue and simply ignores it.

"Gregers- I don't believe there's a man in this world you hate as much as me" When Werle is speaking to Gregers he openly admits that he knows that Gregers perceives him as being a "bad guy" and a liar and a manipulator and he doesn't contradict him at all. He embraces what Gregers perceives him as and doesn't try to fight with him about it. He simply lets it go. However, Gregers doesn't seem to understand this since he still never specifically accuses his father of anything. He just goes up to that line and then backs down. So Gregers obviously perceives his father as being unable or unwilling to listen to it when in reality he isn't rejecting it at all.

The Wild Duck Journal #1

The most obvious boundary I noticed in Act 1 was between Gregers and his father. There is a lot of tension between him and his father. It seems as if Gregers has a struggle with his father and also an internal struggle with himself about trusting his father and how he feels about his late mother. He seems to dislike his father because of the way his mother felt, even though she has passed away. Even though some people think his father is a good man, like Hjalmer believes that his father has a heart since he set him up with a wife and a job, but Gregers still cannot trust his father and feels like his father is manipulating him. So the fact that he cannot trust his father becomes a boundary in their relationship. 

Werle seems to have his own boundaries, on page 130, he "looks for something on the writing table, seeming to with that Gregers would leave; when he fails to stir, Werle crosses toward the door." Ibsen makes it sound like Werle has some type of business to attend to with all his papers and his study but his son simply stands and refuses to leave. Even though Werle wants his son to leave he can't say it, so that becomes a boundary for him that it wouldn't be socially acceptable to cross. So he tries to get out of it by just heading to the door to leave. This shows Werle coming to a boundary and then trying to slip out of it.

The reader doesn't know all the details, but when Hjalmer talks to Gregers he speaks about his father going to prison, and so that could be a boundary for Hjalmer and his family that maybe their status in society has been affected by the legal troubles that his father has had. That could be displaying an economic or social boundary for their family. The fact that Ekdal went to prison, he obviously fell out of the business world that him and Werle were equals in. So now he has more economic and social boundaries than he used to.

In this time period obviously there was a lot of economic boundaries due to your class. Werle talks about his relation with Mrs. Sorby, "Yes, but I'm afraid it can't go on. The world is quick to make inferences about a woman in her position." (134). So he is discussing a couple of boundaries here. First of all, he is discussing the social boundary that it simply isn't acceptable to have a relationship with your employee. But also, economically, the world "is quick to make inferences", so the general public judges "woman in her position". So women of a lower class. So Ibsen displays that in this time period there were certain judgments about different classes and boundaries as to what was acceptable for a person based on which class you were in. 

Ibsen uses a lot of gossip and it's all very complicated. It's interesting because it creates an illusion as though the audience is almost a part of the action because you're constantly trying to figure out who said what and whether it's true or not and who is talking to whom.This could create boundaries because you may not know what is true or not. Or you may only be seeing part of the picture, which is what Gregers seems to imply that Hjalmer is doing.

Also at the dinner party, when Ekdal walks in and everyone sees him, a guest who didn't see is asking who it was and Gregers simply says "Oh, no one. Only the bookkeeper and somebody else" (128). And even his own son, Hjalmer, when asked if he knew him says "I don't know-I didn't notice-" The dashes show his hesitation. And both men have obviously come to a boundary where they feel it is socially inappropriate to mention Ekdal or make a big deal that he was just there even though it obviously is a big deal.

Antigone Journal #4

Haemon [pleading now]. This is all a bad dream, Father. You are not yourself. It isn’t true that we have been backed up against a wall, forced to surrender. We don’t have to say yes to this terrible thing. You are still king. You are still the father I revered. You have no right to desert me, to shrink into nothingness. The world will be too bare, I shall be too alone in the world, if you force me to disown you.

Creon. The world is bare, Haemon, and you are alone. You must cease to think your father all-powerful.

            The passage starts off with Haemon “pleading” with his father. Haemon’s tone is almost one of disbelief, he refers to it as a “bad dream”, and says that “it isn’t true”. This could establish that Haemon, although he sees these horrible things happening, he wants to believe in the goodness of his father. The goodness of the king, and the laws that he has always trusted. Haemon’s attitude of disbelief suggests that he doesn’t really want to question it, he wants the law to be right.

            Haemon says “we have been backed up against a wall”. The reader can’t be sure exactly who “we” is. It could be Haemon and his father, but “we” could suggest an entire group of people. Or, possibly, mankind in general. Mankind is stuck against a wall and forced to surrender. So, this could suggest that people are stuck and they are forced to “surrender” their personal beliefs and morals.

            However, Haemon argues that maybe man doesn’t have to “say yes to this terrible thing”. Haemon implies that his father is acting as if there is no other option, but that maybe there is another option. And sometimes a person should say “no” and not agree with what is going on if it is wrong.

            Haemon’s next lines repeat “you”, “You are still king. You are still the father I revered. You have no right to desert me, to shrink into nothingness”. The repetition makes it sound like he is trying to convince himself. Haemon is trying to convince himself that his father is still the ruler of Thebes, and still the good man that Haemon has always looked up to. He claims that his father has “no right to desert” him, and “shrink into nothingness”. His attitude that his father doesn’t have the right to not do anything, suggests that Haemon believes the lawmakers should enforce the power that they have and not act as if they can’t do anything about it. A government should not do nothing.

            Creon’s response is interesting when he says “the world is bare, Haemon and you are alone”. Creon suggests that there isn’t anything anyone can do, that it is straightforward. The word “bare” suggests a lack of substance. The world becomes plain, another indication that he is “backed up against a wall”. Creon also tells Haemon that he should stop thinking that he, Creon, is “all-powerful”. Since Creon represents a government, this suggests that a citizen shouldn’t believe that the government is all-powerful, that maybe the government doesn’t have power.

            The basic significance of this passage, if looked at from a historical point of view, is that it can easily be associated with the Nazi occupation of France and the place of the French puppet government. Haemon wants to believe in the goodness of the government, like many people during World War 2 wanted to believe that the government would act, wouldn’t let something happen. Haemon suggests that the government acts like there is nothing it can do, but really that “isn’t true” and they shouldn’t “surrender”.  That people don’t have to say yes to terrible things. This could suggest that basically, the French puppet government was acting like they were stuck against a wall and there was nothing they could do, but really they didn’t have to just say yes to something so terrible. They were still the government, they didn’t have a right to “shrink into nothingness”. However Creon, representing the puppet government, argues that the government isn’t all-powerful like people want to believe.

If taken in historical context, this passage seems to suggest that the French puppet government was being weak, they left the citizens alone and acted as if it was their only choice. They said yes to a terrible thing, the holocaust, and chose to act as if they were not powerful. Anouilh could suggest that people are alone, and one cannot rely on the government to fix the problems, because it isn’t necessarily all powerful, but should work to the best of their own ability to fight for what they believe in.