Master Harold and the Boys and Hedda Gabler - Essay Example

Master Harold and the Boys, And Hedda Gabler The two plays, “Master Harold and the Boys” and “Hedda Gabler” are very much different from each other. But this is only at first glance. In actuality, both plays accurately represent the reality of human nature. At first glance, they may appear to be simple plays, but in reality, they both capture something that is very real, yet something that many people would deny to themselves. Both plays use structure to their advantage. The way they used the structure affects the mood and the flow of the play, and I noticed that how the playwrights structured their play allowed me to shift my focus between important details and events. “Master Harold and the Boys” by Athol Fugard revolves around three characters: Hally (or Master Harold), and his two African servants Sam and Willie. The play begins in a scene where it is raining in the afternoon, when Sam and Willie practice ballroom steps to prepare for an upcoming major competition. Hally, or Master Harold, arrives on the scene. He is back from his school. It would seem that despite Sam’s role as servant, between themselves, Hally and Sam stand more or less as equals, at least intellectually. Willie, on the other hand, who is less sophisticated than Sam, knows his place, and thus, Willie makes it a point to always call Hally as “Master Harold”. In this first part, we are first introduced to the characters and the setting, as the plot continues, we are gradually introduced to the dilemmas surrounding the lives of the characters. Sam and Hally talk about schoolwork, then proceed to discussing an intellectual topic on “The Man of Magnitude”. Then the scene turns to flashbacks when the three friends used to live in a boarding house. The timing of using the flashback is appropriate; it shows how structure can be used as an advantage. Hally remembers the time when Sam made a kite for him. Despite the fact that the kite was made from junk materials, Hally holds this memory dearly and feels warm at his reminiscing of the scene. Sam made the kite for him to cheer him up from being down because of his father’s drinking habits. To Hally, the flying of the kite would probably represent hope, which he so much needed in an environment that was centered on abuse, alcoholism, and racism. They then talk about Hally’s 500-word English composition. After this comes the scene that is the climax of feelings, on the ballroom dance floor, which is a “world without collisions”, that is actually a metaphor for life. Unfortunately, after this great climax comes the reality that Hally’s father will be returning from the hospital. Hally, as it turned out, has been holding back years of frustration, grudge, and pain, and unluckily for his two friends who are also his servants, Hally unleashes his bottled up emotions on them. Sam puts up with Hally’s attacks and finally gives in to Hally’s demand that Sam call him “Master Harold”. When Hally spit on Sam’s face, it is probably the signal for the end of their friendship. Here we fill the tension gradually fall, yet another tension rises. Maybe the gap between them will never be healed again. Hally, realizing what he had done, appears to look guilty at his action. He had lost control, and though it wasn’t really his servant’s fault, they were the ones who took the blow. The play ends, but for me, the echoes of its scenes still remain. With the situation still unresolved, I am on my toes waiting for what would happen next. Hally’s reaction is not out of the ordinary. His repressed feelings are actually eating him alive. The feeling of abuse, the feeling of frustration, and bottled-up anger are all destructive to a person if they are not released. As we have seen on the play, it is damaging to the person and to the one he loves. Yet, perhaps, it is not too late for the three friends. The release of Hally’s tension could be a turning point for a stronger, healthier relationship between them. The seeming realization of his fault, when he appears guilty and embarrassed at what he had done and dashed of into the rain is actually a good thing. The release of the tension is something similar to Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis, that is, repressed feelings are finally released. I believe their friendship still has hope. The important point is that the servants are not at fault, and Hally is not at fault either. They are both victims of their circumstances and they are only reacting according to their human nature when under stress. Although it is wrong to beat someone else, who can’t relate to how Hally would be feeling? If anyone is bottled up with hurtful emotions, then that person would most probably do the same thing and feel like hitting the nearest person. Though it might have been best if Hally released his tension in a more peaceful, less-damaging way, but perhaps in the society and in the context of the environment in which he was living in, a reaction like that isn’t one that would come easily into mind. The important thing is that despite the mistake, Hally actually felt the wrong in what he had done. Though it wasn’t plainly stated, you can sense it in his actions at the end of the play. Overall, I found this play enjoyable and insightful, and I deeply enjoyed the way the play is made alive by the dialogues. Despite the fact that today, we can’t really relate as strongly to the situation of Black and White discrimination than if we were born years ago, I could still appreciate the significance of the plot. With this, let’s start on the play “Hedda Gabler” by Henrik Ibsen. The plot is obviously different from “Master Harold and the Boys.” The focus is also very different. Where the environment in “Master Harold and the Boys” is one that is of abuse, racism, and alcoholism, the one in which the play “Hedda Gabler” happens in belongs to a higher class of society. Despite this difference, they are strikingly the same in what they are dealing with—the part of human nature that wouldn’t be easy for anyone to admit. They also use the same basic structure, except that Hedda Gabler doesn’t use flashbacks as “Master Harold and the Boys” did. The play starts out with Hedda Gabler returning from her honeymoon with George Tesman. Tesman is rooted in academic endeavors. He has good skills, though he is not really that brilliant. Hedda Gabler, as it turns out, doesn’t really love Tesman. She married him for different reasons. Eilert Lovborg, Tesman’s academic rival, appears on the scene. Lovborg is a drunkard, but is a genius at writing. Right now, he is recovering from his bad habit of drinking with the help of his wife Thea Elvsted, and thus he has written a best-seller in the same field as Tesman. Again, the characters are first introduced, and we are given an idea of the scenario. Next comes the rising action. Tesman considers Lovborg as a threat. As it turned out, Tesman was aiming for university proffesorship, and Lovborg could easily compete and win against him. Hedda Gabler also feels threatened, since without Tesman’s proffesorship, she wouldn’t be able to live the life of luxury that Tesman promised. Later, they discover that Lovborg doesn’t really intend to compete for the professorship because his attention is on writing the sequel to his best-selling book. Hedda Gabler is jealous of their success, and of Thea Elsted’s influence over the brilliant Lovborg. Tesman returns from a party. He had found and brought with him Lovborg’s manuscript of the sequel to the best-seller which Lovborg had lost while he was drunk. In despair, Lovborg confesses to Hedda that he had lost his manuscript. Hedda gives him a gun, suggesting that Lovborg, in his despair, commit suicide. Hedda has burned the manuscript because she believes that doing so will secure hers and her husband’s future. Here, we feel that the action is reaching its peak. News reaches them that Lovborg has indeed killed himself. With this, Tesman and Thea attempt to reconstruct the manuscript based on what they already know. Hedda, on the other hand, is horrified to hear that Lovborg didn’t die the clean death that she had imagined. Instead, his death was messy. The judge, Brack, reveals that he knows who gave Lovborg the gun, and it seems to be suggested that the judge will use it to blackmail Hedda. Perhaps he can use the information to make Hedda do whatever he wants her to do. Hedda leaves the others and enters her room. The play is ended by Hedda who shoots herself in the head. Again, like in the scene of Master Harold beating Sam, Hedda’s actions are not unrealistic. Her actions are very real, and although what she has done is not morally right, it is completely normal for a human being to do those things to satisfy her desires. She is haunted by fear and insecurity, as Master Harold is haunted by frustration, anger, and pain. Thus her decisions, though we know they are morally wrong, are simply reactions to her environment and her situation. Why she has done those things are actually logical and such things actually happen in the real world. In the real world, more often than not, it is not only what is rational that controls us human beings, it is also what is emotional. Fear and insecurity can serve as powerful drives for anyone to commit immoral acts. Just as Master Harold had lost control of himself, Hedda also lost control of herself. The difference in the character of Master Harold and Hedda is that the former is actually more human and feeling, while the latter really has a problem in the way she thinks. Master Harold, at least, seems to feel guilty and embarrassed at what he had done and at the way he had lost control. But Hedda is someone who goes to such means as suggesting for Lovborg to commit suicide and even burning Lovborg’s masterpiece! That is simply morally wrong. This is probably the reason why I like “Master Harold and the boys” better than “Hedda Gabler.” To me, I like the fact that Master Harold had a conscience. I could feel somehow that he was fighting his human nature. Yet for Hedda Gabler, I could only see a psychologically troubled woman. I believe the two plays are still similar in the sense that their characters are not really “evil”. Master Harold simply lost control in his frustration, and Hedda Gabler is simply psychologically troubled. Hedda Gabler is not necessarily insane in her decisions, since what she was doing—if it turned out the way she expected it to be—might actually be beneficial to their married life. She had reasons, and she acted on those reasons. It is human nature to fight for one’s interest, though I don’t really approve of doing so at the cost of another’s life. Again, Freud’s psychoanalysis is brought to my mind. We can see the negative effects of repressed feelings: anger, frustration, fear, and insecurity. They all destroy the person in the long run, and they should be released. Such repressed feelings should be brought into the open, instead of bottled-up and left to gnaw at a person’s humanity. Having to read and compare both plays has given me new insights and has provided the opportunity to appreciate plays even more. I realize that plays actually have the potential to make us reflect on ourselves. Especially for “Master Harold and the boys” which has helped me wake up to the reality that sometimes, people just can’t hold themselves back and may do things that will hurt even their friends. Such an act is not necessarily evil, but may just be a person’s reaction. I learned that plays can be very powerful. On the other hand, although Hedda Gabbler may be a good play, I can’t appreciate it fully as I do the other play. This is because I do not really approve of Hedda Gabbler’s actions. “Master Harold and the boys” on the other hand highlights friendship and companionship in a very negative environment. Despite the fact that the plays were written in a different situation and time than today, they both dealt with themes that are universal to all humans, and thus, people in our time today will still be able to appreciate such plays. The structure of the play helps to contribute to the mood and the flow of the story. Because of this, I believe they are really good plays. I noticed that both playwrights ended their plays in a haunting way. I guess this is also another way of utilizing structure to an advantage. By ending it in a way that is sort of hanging, they really leave an impression that will last even when the play has ended. Leaving the situation unresolved in “Master Harold and the boys” leaves me wanting to know what happened next and allows me to imagine what would happen next. On the other hand, Hedda Gabbler’s suicide leaves a lasting image of the reality of how this world can be unfair and twisted. Sources: Fugard, A (1982). Master Harold and the boys. Ibsen, J. (1890). Hedda Gabler. Read More