And 2. Yes, one of the themes of this play is the relation between “fiction” and “reality.” So, what was fiction here? And what was real? And why is it so confusing?
The Arts, The City, and Me: Encounters with New York
Professor Drabik – Fall 2014
And 2. Yes, one of the themes of this play is the relation between “fiction” and “reality.” So, what was fiction here? And what was real? And why is it so confusing?
I don’t know exactly where the split between fiction and reality exists in the play but I certainly believe that the director and actors were supposed to represent reality. Perhaps, the 6 characters represented the fantasy within the minds of the “real” actors? I’m not sure whether these characters were real appearance or whether they were fantasized by the actors.
I think that this question is so confusing because we already know that the entire play is fiction. As a result, figuring out what is real and what is fiction inside the fictitious play is very difficult.
I like the way you think Angelika, the 6 characters are the 6 actors “fantasy” in the minds of themselves. I think that the actors were real, while the characters were realistic in the people’s mind, so I guess that’s where it becomes fiction?
We can just call it realistic fiction! 😀
I agree with the previous two commenters. The line between “reality” and “fiction” is extremely blurred in this play. The entire play itself, of course, is fiction, yet what was “real” and was what “fake” within the world of the play? I personally found it hard to differentiate between the two (possibly due the play being in French).
One way I see it, is that the experience of the actors and the director was real, yet the actual story of the “6 characters” treaded on the line between reality and fiction.
We also cannot ignore the ending of the play, where the step daughter is shown to be laughing maniacally, yet with a sense of accomplishment. It was noted, multiple times throughout the play, that she was on a path of vengeance. Was the outcome all part of some overarching scheme of hers?
I definitely understand the feeling you guys are referring to. I was confused for the majority of the play trying to figure out what was actually going on, and asking myself the same question. I am positive that the blurring between reality and fiction was an intentional piece of the play and that we were supposed to leave confused. Perhaps it ties in with Manjekar’s question about the step-daughters plans? I like what we talked about today regarding the possibility of her working to fool the audience.
I would like to pose the same question that I posed today, though. Why should we draw a line between what is real and what is fiction? Just because something is fiction, doesn’t mean it can’t be real.