Analysis of Peter Shaffer's Play Equus - Essay Example

Peter Shaffer’s play Equus in its most basic is the story of a young man severely troubled by his religious inclinations and, as a result, committed a brutal crime against the animals he loved. The entire play takes place in Dr. Dysart’s office, the psychiatrist who has been charged by the court to discover the boy’s motivations in stabbing out the eyes of six horses that had been under his care. Through the various elements of the play, such as plot, language, form and structure as well as its context and other elements, Shaffer is able to bring about a deeply introspective examination into the modern world’s dehumanization effect and the continuing need for spiritual passion. Plot and Sub-Plot The plot unfolds like a high drama mystery, opening with an introduction to Dr. Dysart as he explains to the audience his feelings looking back upon the case that is about to be told. In this direct address, he illustrates the deep way in which the case of Alan Strang unsettled him personally and called into question his own approach and experience of life, thereby calling attention to a subplot even before the main play opens. From this brief introduction, the play then moves backward in time to a day when Dr. Dysart is approached by a court official personally requesting him to take the case of Alan Strang “because there is nobody within a hundred miles of your desk who can handle him” (Shaffer, 1973: 404). Within this first scene, Dysart makes the necessary connection between the typical human life on earth, in which we exist in a sort of timeless state of apathy, with the life of the horse to whom Alan Strang was so committed. While most of the play focuses on Alan Strang and the processes he was undergoing in his personal moral peril, it is this understanding developed by Dr. Dysart that emerges as the principle theme of the story – the idea that humans in the modern world have become very much like horses, “all reined up in old language and old assumptions, straining to jump clean-hoofed onto a whole new track of being I only suspect is there. I can’t see it because my educated, average head is being held at the wrong angle. I can’t jump because the bit forbids it, and my own basic force – my horsepower, if you like – is too little” (Shaffer, 1973: 402). Throughout the play, this understanding becomes clearer as it is examined from its first dawning in Dr. Dysart’s mind to its final conclusion in discovering Alan’s secret. Scene Two of the play moves backward in time to the day Mrs. Hesther Salomon visits Dr. Dysart to personally request his taking on Alan’s case as the details of it are too disgusting for her entire court and for most other doctors to treat with compassion. Before the boy enters the office, the only things Dr. Dysart and the audience truly know about him are that he blinded six horses in the stable he worked at in a single night and that he only answers questions with the musical ditties that accompany television commercials. As Alan is introduced, he does indeed refuse to answer any direct questions with anything other than a commercial ditty although this is not presented as the type of disconnected communication it was presented. Instead, the songs Alan chooses to respond with typically have some form of relevance to the questions asked of him, a fact that Dr. Dysart seems to understand and correctly interpret. Just before he sends Alan to his room, he asks the boy which parent won’t allow him to watch television, shocking Alan into a grudging acceptance of him as someone who might be capable of understanding. From this beginning, then, the story unfolds like an investigation. Dr. Dysart must discover a means of getting behind Alan’s blocking defense, singing his songs, and then get Alan to trust him enough to reveal the secret behind his actions. Through a series of games and tricks, Dr. Dysart brings about two major breakthrough sessions with Alan, each of which present new and troubling questions relating to the subplot of Dr. Dysart’s career ‘menopause’. In the first of these, aided by the clues that have been provided by Alan’s very religious mother and anti-capitalist father, Dysart discovers that Alan has transferred the religious lessons of his mother onto the image of the horse provided by his father and his experience of a live animal from a traumatic experience as a young child. Under hypnosis, Alan walks Dr. Dysart step by step through his midnight ritual celebration of the horse-god Equus, who he equates with Jesus and, through flagellation and other practices, is able to feel god within himself in an orgasmic celebration of the gorgeousness of God. A second breakthrough reveals the other side of religion, though, that of guilt, jealousy, judgment and condemnation. The night that Alan stabbed out the eyes of the horses began when he went on a date with Jill, taking her to an X-rated movie theater. At this theater, he runs into his father and realizes the human nature is present in all beings, including his father. Succumbing to his desire for Jill, he allows her to seduce him in the barn, but, because the horses know he is in there and, he imagines, know what he’s doing, condemning it as his mother had taught him, Alan cannot perform. In shame, he lashed out at the horses. In anger he stabbed out the eyes that would be always watching and in despair he sank into darkness. As Dr. Dysart discovers how to open up communication with Alan and thus discovers more about Alan’s religious transference from the far away abstract God of the Christians to the up close and personal God of the Horse, Equus, he becomes less sure of what he’s doing messing around with children’s heads. The night after he meets Alan, he dreams he is sacrificing children to the altar of civilization’s ‘norm’ with a growing concern for the valuable nature of what he is tossing away. When Equus asks Dr. Dysart “Do you really imagine you can account for Me?”, Shaffer is forcing the members of the audience to struggle with the question as well, making this subplot take on almost more significance than the main storyline. As Alan undergoes the process of ‘healing’ and ‘normalizing’, Dr. Dysart questions whether it is better to have this depth of emotional experience or to exist as he does, passionless, automatic, like a horse with a bit in his mouth and always afraid to attempt the jump. Visual, Aural, and Spatial Elements There are several specific instructions provided by Shaffer regarding lighting, costumes, sound and stage setting to ensure that the audience is provided a center seat as obvious observers, pseudo jurymen, responsible for the fate of this boy and forcing analysis. At the same time, these details help the audience with interpretation and author’s vision. Lighting There is inconsistent lighting throughout most of the play, specifically designed to provide different impressions of the various characters and the actions taking place. For example, every time Alan enters the active portion of the stage, the light brightens a bit. Even when he isn’t part of the action, any time he is being discussed by the other characters, a spotlight settles on Alan along the side of the active stage. This reinforces the audience’s concept that Alan is the most important part of the play and the focal point of everything that is to occur. For most of the play, the active area of the stage is given a dim light that is still able to reveal the inactive actors sitting like audience members around the exterior portion of the stage. Hesther Salomon, in her obvious concern for this young life and her compassion for his suffering, is always seen in a warm light. Likewise, Jill, the young woman who helps Alan secure employment with horses when she sees his interest and who attempts to give him his first sexual experience, and then is so understanding when he can’t perform, is also seen in a warm light. For both of these characters, this lighting element reinforces the audience’s impression that these women are truly warm-hearted and honestly care for Alan. Other than simple characterization, light also is directed so as to create a specific mood or evoke an emotional response. As Alan tells Dr. Dysart about his experience in the movie theater with Jill, the lights are directed to flicker and dim, just as they would if one had just stepped into a cinema. The stage goes black when Alan is stabbing out the eyes of the horses and only begins to lighten again when Dysart can be heard comforting Alan in his distress. As the light becomes bright, the audience comes to realize that Dysart has displaced Equus for Alan, he is a hero who has saved Alan from the beast, but Dysart is left to question the cost. This is indicated as the light becomes even brighter, but Dysart continues his questioning, giving voice to his confusion and laments the one thing he needs most – “a way of seeing in the dark” (476). Costumes The costumes used to denote the horses are given specific attention in Shaffer’s notes for the play. His instructions for the construction of the horse masks are fairly explicit: they are to be “made of alternating bands of silver wire and leather; their eyes are outlined by leather blinkers. The actors’ own heads are seen beneath them: no attempt should be made to conceal them” (400). At the same time, the actors playing the horses are instructed to put the masks on in plain view of the audience, carefully timed and watching each other. These directions highlight the importance of the horse metaphor for Shaffer in his social commentary – that each individual is trapped in the genes of his body and the reins and bits of his life, unable to see something better and restricted by the same from even attempting to find something should a suspicion of its existence be felt. At the same time, this equine nobility and human form inside animal helps to explain Alan’s transference and the change in his understanding of the communication between himself and the horses after Jill. Spatial Elements Like the costumes, Shaffer provides very explicit directions as to how the stage should be created. “A square of wood on a circle of wood. The square resembles a railed boxing ring. The rail, also of wood, encloses three sides. It is perforated on each side by an opening. … The whole square is set on ball bearings, so that by slight pressure from actors standing round it on the circle, it can be made to turn round smoothly by hand” (399). This unusual arrangement is also intended to accommodate all of the actors at all times, with an active square, box-like area and an outer, circular observation area, complete with viewing box in which audience members are invited to sit. This reinforces the concept of normalization as bringing the individual back within the accepted box-like stable in which most people live their lives are expected to stay as well as the contentious nature of this process when one has experienced something outside, in the greater sphere of existence. Sound Effects Shaffer takes particular care to outline what he calls the Equus noise. This noise is intended to warn the audience of the approach or presence of Equus the god. “I have in mind a choric effect,” Shaffer writes in the setting notes, “made by all the actors sitting round upstage, and composed of humming, thumping, and stamping – though never of neighing or whinnying” (400). This noise is directed to be loud or soft as the scenes progress, helping to create the mood of a soft, loving, graceful and powerful god in the early portions and of a more terrifying and frightful creation as Alan experiences his nightmare and when Jill takes him back to the stable. Another strong sound effect occurs in scene 19 when Dysart uses a pen to help hypnotize Alan. As he talks to Alan, he taps the pen on one of the rails surrounding the box, reinforcing the idea of the box’s perimeters and suggesting that this is a safe means of traveling out of the box. After four taps, though, the sound is replaced by a heavy metallic taped sound, forcing the audience out of the hypnotic state and into paying close attention to the next words that Dysart says, which are actually directed at the audience as if they were pre-doctorate students observing the case as it transpires. Language Language use is important throughout the play as it helps to indicate the experience and wisdom of each of the characters. Dysart, for example, is demonstrated to be a well-educated man as he relates his experiences to the audience. He describes his dream in graphic detail in complete association with the Ancient Mediterranean cultures he is so fascinated by. In this dream, he performs the ritual sacrifice in “a wide gold mask, all noble and bearded, like the so-called Mask of Agamemnon found at Mycenae” (407). He describes the ritual he goes through in terms of a druidic human sacrifice, with priests attempting to read signs for the future in the splashed patterns of the sacrificed children’s entrails. “I part the flaps, sever the inner tubes, yank them out and throw them hot and steaming on the floor. The other two then study the pattern they make as if they were reading hieroglyphics” (407). In addition to his references to ancient history, Dysart uses large words and lengthy sentences as a means of overwhelming his young client and of communicating as precisely as possible what he is attempting to say. In addition, he is a doctor within a seemingly very busy hospital with a full client list, indicating he is not only educated, but well respected in his field. This is also emphasized as he is sought out specifically by the magistrate to treat this case. However, this does not mean he is invulnerable to human emotions, doubts and constraints. As he talks about his experience with Alan and the upsetting dream that begins his doubts, Dysart’s language becomes more disjointed, with thoughts separated by dashes, pauses and becoming more fragmented. Alan’s language, when it is finally revealed, is tainted with the slang of the street. Before we hear this, though, we understand him only through his choice of television commercials to sing. In his lack of response to the doctor and his hostile response to the nurse in act 1, scene 4, Alan demonstrates a lack of formality and respect for authority yet equally feels a grudging respect for this man who seems so clever and a growing hope that some of his pain might be eased. This hope is expressed as Alan becomes more vocal, progressing through the almost completely non-communicative repetition of commercial jingles to monosyllabic short answers and gestures to the almost lyrical chant of his pseudo-Biblical genealogy of Equus under hypnosis and finally to full sentences in full awareness of what he is saying. As he talks with Dr. Dysart, he begins to reveal his personal communication style, a blend of the street and the lower middle-class kid. A particularly fine example can be found when he is describing his reaction to finding his father at the dirty movie theater. He describes his emotions as sorry, ”I mean for him. Poor old sod, that’s what I felt – hes just like me! He hates ladies and gents just like me! Posh things and la-di-da. He goes off by himself at night, doing his own secret thing that no one’ll ever know about, just like me. There’s no difference – he’s just the same as me – just the same!” (467). That this moment was unusually insightful for Alan is emphasized in his repetition of the phrase ‘just like me’. By doing this, he is remembering the epiphany this experience brought on him, that he was not unusual for having these feelings, that it was something he had in common with his father, to whom he thought he had nothing in common, and that every individual suffers the same kind of internal pain Alan had thought he alone suffered on those nights he refrained from his midnight rituals. It is not surprising that Alan includes slang language in his speech as his father’s speech is equally sprinkled with colloquialisms. His character becomes most clear, perhaps, in scene six, when a scene is replayed from the past in which Frank forbids the family to have a television. “I know you think its none of my beeswax, but it really is you know … Actually, it’s a disgrace when you come to think of it. You the son of a printer, and never opening a book! If all the world was like you, I’d be out of a job, if you receive my meaning!” (409). Several words in this statement reveal Franks lack of education and pride in promoting it as much as he’s capable. As a printer, he feels he has a close association with books, even if most of what he prints is, as Alan suggests, little more than advertisements. Substituting words such as ‘beeswax’ for ‘business’ suggests a weak attempt of levity with a lack of imagination in finding more recent or appropriate language. His grammar leaves something to be desired in statements such as ‘if all the world was like you’, suggesting that his association with books only goes as far as printing them rather than reading them. Finally, most of his statements are finished with the relatively meaningless, ‘if you get my meaning.’ His poor grammar and limited vocabulary make it necessary for him to constantly check to be sure his listener understands what he is trying to say, so much so that it has become a habit. While Dysart’s language is full of metaphors and allusions and Alan’s is sprinkled with lyrical description, Frank’s language is straightforward and to the point. He says what he means and doesn’t bother to polish his statements with deeper symbolism. Dora, Alan’s mother, provides the explanation for why her son has such a fine command of language despite his father’s contention that he won’t open a book. She was a teacher herself, indicating she probably had a better education than her husband, but is not affected by the streets as much as either of her men. Therefore, her tone is more formal than either of them, yet she remains associated with the lower class through her superstitious approach to religion. “But if you knew God, Doctor, you would know all about the Devil. You’d know the Devil isn’t made by what mummy says and daddy says. The Devil’s there. It’s an old-fashioned word, but a true thing … I’ll go. What I did in there was inexcusable. I only knew he was my little Alan, and then the Devil came” (452). Dora is capable of using metaphors and descriptive language but couches everything she says in terms of the Bible, striving to place Alan in the context of a possessed innocent and providing the audience with a beginning understanding of how such religious fanaticism found in Alan might have been developed. Contextualizing the play Before the play begins, most audiences are made aware of the fact that the play to follow is based upon a single piece of information regarding an allegedly true-life crime that Shaffer once heard about. He freely admits that he doesn’t know any of the details of the story beyond the one concluding fact that a boy stabbed out the eyes of a stable-full of horses. As he describes it, the friend who told him the story died before he could find out more information about the story and that he has been unable to find evidence of the story in the years since publishing the play. Therefore, instead of attempting to relate the story as it happened, Shaffer wrote the play as an attempt to make sense of this act, to explain what might make a boy commit such a crime. As has perhaps been made clear through analysis of other elements of the play, the play is heavily informed by the Christian religious tradition as well as the mythology of the ancient Greeks. The play illustrates that as Alan discovered that his God, as taught by his mother, was completely inaccessible, physically symbolized by his father’s removing the image of Jesus from the foot of his bed, he substituted the horse, and the power he remembered feeling from his childhood ride on the beach, for the figure of Jesus as a means of keeping his religious zeal strong in a more physical realm. His empathy for the horse he remembers, with the cream coming out of his mouth, is equated with the suffering of Jesus as he was covered in chains in his picture. This identification with the suffering of Christ is a significant element of the Christian tradition and has led, in some factions, to the types of practices observed by Alan in his worship of Equus: a recitation of names, flagellation and humiliation as a means of identification. Yet, by placing his god in the figure of a horse and then going to work at the stables, Alan is able to come into physical contact with the power and the beauty that he associated with the spiritual figure his mother had always talked about but had never been experienced. This is the idea behind his passionate midnight rides and illustrates the continued problem experienced by many in the modern society of a lack of experience in their spiritual observances and daily lives. Another Biblical story alluded to within the play is that of the fall of man. The Bible indicates that the first man and woman on earth were Adam and Eve, who were placed in the Garden of Eden where all of their needs were provided. They had been instructed, however, not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The moment they did, they suddenly realized that they were naked in the presence of their God and were ashamed. This is the same sequence of events we see occurring in the sex scene with Jill in the stables. Alan is coaxed into his Holy Temple with a girl and makes the attempt to participate in an act that he perceives as being somehow sinful and crass, especially ‘knowing’ that the horses can see and hear everything that is happening. This alludes to the idea that Adam and Eve know that there is nowhere they can hide their nakedness from their angry and vengeful God. When Alan can’t perform, it is not due to the shame of the act itself, but rather to the idea that he has somehow angered his god, making himself a laughingstock in the eyes of his lord and proving himself weak and imperfect, unworthy of his god’s affection and attention. His shame is the shame of original sin and it is a shame that he can never be free of. However, because his god is within physical reach, he is able to reach out and remove the eyes that promised to always be watching, always be judging and always be constraining upon his actions and thoughts. There is also reference to ancient mythology in the play as in Alan’s resurrection of a Latin name to identify his new local god, available to him personally wherever he goes. This alludes to the ancient traditions that recognized numerous regional and personal gods, who would oversee various elements of nature and be closely available to those who believed in them. Dr. Dysart reminds us of the Druidic practices that saw intimate connections between the accidental shape of a creature’s insides to the shape of events yet to come while his reminder to the audience of primitive people’s first experience with people riding horses from which the concept of centaurs emerged. Alan’s desire to be one with his horse alludes to the Jungian concept of the collective unconscious, in which we all wish to have the experience of connection to something outside of ourselves on a greater plane than the one we daily experience. This is the experience people have sought from religion from the beginning of time – some sort of communion between the individual and the greater being, whether that greater being is a natural god, an abstract concept, a metaphysical awareness or a horse named Nugget. Without this communion, passion cannot be attained, belief is only surface deep and experience is less than thrilling or inspiring. Dysart’s fascination with Alan is that this boy has attained this connection that so many have sought. It is true that this connection has brought him insufferable anguish, but he has experienced it. It was real for him in a way that has not been real for people since the dawn of the Industrial Age. Thus, Shaffer alludes to the issues of modernity and ultimately asks the questions: what has science really gained for us, what have we lost in the process and is it right and moral for us to refuse that connection to others simply because we can’t understand it ourselves? Form and Structure In its tendency to bounce about in time, from a now to a then, to a past even further back and back to a now, Equus is decidedly a non-linear play. It is also not naturalistic, occurring exactly as the events unraveled. Instead, the actors move in naturalistic ways to mime out those parts that are relayed regarding what happened, providing both the audience and the doctor with an understanding of what occurred as it was perceived and interpreted by Alan himself. Had Jill been telling the story, for instance, the scene in the stable might have appeared somewhat different. Characters, such as the horses, are instructed not to act out the animal part as if they were animals, but to allow their bodies to take on the natural characteristics of the horse as it might exist in their own frame. In other words, they are instructed not to bend over or hunch their shoulders in any way so as to give the impression of a four-legged animal, but are instructed to move their heads and their feet as if they were the animal with the remaining hindquarters invisibly existing behind them. This kind of presentation gives the impression of a centaur, half man and half horse, particularly as the masks are designed so as to allow the human head to appear through the horse mask. This reinforces the concept carried throughout the play of attempting to connect with something higher and nobler than ourselves. Another clue that the play is not presented in a naturalistic way can be found in the episodic nature of the scenes. As the play moves along, each scene can be said to represent a different part of the story. While all of them contribute to the story in some way, not all are helpful in solving the mystery of what might drive a boy like Alan to blind horses. Some merely exist to deepen the mystery, add new elements to it that must be solved in a later scene. This type of presentation serves to create suspense and build interest on the part of the audience as they must wait until the end to finally have their questions answered, always refining and changing the questions asked. As an audience, we are hooked on the story as soon as we hear of the bizarre crime Alan has committed and witness him answering questions with strange little commercial jingles. What has happened to this boy that he is reduced to such a state of miscommunication? What is he thinking when he answers questions with songs about gum, martinis or tea? The way Dysart goes about discovering the answers to these questions is as methodical and sneaky as the work of a detective in a mystery novel. Many of his tricks are tricks we, as an educated audience, are familiar with, such as hypnosis or the concept of a placebo pill; however, they are not necessarily tricks we might have thought of on our own or attempted to use in such a misleading way. Despite this, they are effective in bringing about the breakthroughs that are integral to an understanding of the play and serve to draw us further in as we attempt to discover the truth along with the good doctor. Throughout the presentation, Shaffer employs numerous different theatrical forms to try to convey his meaning to the audience. The first of these is the actor monologue, which is also often presented as a direct audience address. A good example of this type of use is in the opening scene of the play in which we see Alan and the horse Nugget in a tableau type image and hear Dr. Dysart speaking not to the other characters in the play, but directly to the audience itself. This technique allows the playwright to involve the audience in the action of the play from the very beginning, psychologically placing each and every audience member in the thick of the action, inviting them to analyze the case for themselves and see if they come to the same conclusions, appealing to them as fellow human beings and observers of human behavior to reassure him that his profession is not the hollow, empty, unfeeling thing he has discovered it to be through the events of this case. At the same time, though, this direct address to the audience does not expect any immediate answers or any real interaction between the actor on stage and the audience. In this respect, this address is a monologue, in which the actor is able to unburden his thoughts and feelings without needing to trust to anyone else to keep his own secrets, such as the fact that he has lost faith in his profession and its ability to help people. Through the many monologues delivered by Dr. Dysart, it becomes clear that he is falling apart as a psychiatrist as he begins to question the nature of humanity and its unmet need for a higher spiritual connection, a connection he is sure his profession drives out of the mind in its efforts to ‘normalize’ patients. Mime is another technique used to great effect throughout the play. As has already been mentioned in respect to the horses, mime functions to convey ideas and thoughts regarding the characters and what they’re representing far more effectively than the reality. For example, if real horses were used or any form of costumed horse designed to appear like a horse, the effect of the centaur connection would not be made. In a similar fashion, if the actors portraying horses simply acted like horses without the additional assistance of the masks, it might be difficult to determine just what kind of animal they were portraying. However, mime isn’t used only in the case of the horses. When Alan tells Dr. Dysart about what has happened and what he was doing and thinking at the time, he mimes out the actions taken. Through this unnatural representation, the audience is almost forced to bring their imaginations to bear and also to see how an unrealistic, unnatural god has brought about such a profound emotional reaction from this boy. Read More