Mariya Morgaylo’s POV paper

§ December 18th, 2008 § Filed under Point Of View

In between the lines there’s something to relate to.
Art is a lens that distorts the world around us to reveal a truth that is otherwise overlooked. Sometimes this distortion merely presents this world bluntly and without embellishment to expose an unpleasant reality. At other times it utilizes symbolism and abstraction to force an onlooker to think, analyze, and push the limits of his comfort zone to realize something new. Georg Buchner’s “Woyzeck” and Henrik Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” propose two very different means of seeing reality and thus while the former conveys large-scale issues, the former is far more accessible to the 21st century audience.
Both “Woyzeck” and “A Doll’s House” were 19th century plays that became definitive of two polar schools of art: expressionism, in which the artist attempts to depict the subjective emotions that objects arouse in him ; and realism in which the artist depicts familiar scenes and events as they actually looked, typically in an effort to express a sociopolitical or moral message1. These plays take place over the course of two days and to an extent, portray the deterioration of a relationship between a man and his partner.  The effects they produced however are extremely different.
“A Doll’s House” is made up of three acts that take place in the same scene. The scene is described with minute details that entail not only what the set is decorated with, but also the exact location of each item, “A comfortable room, tastefully but not expensively furnished… in the left-hand wall a door, and further back a window. Near the window a round table with an armchair and a small sofa” (Norton,1508). In the same manner, the stage directions are very concise.  Ibsen often indicates the texture of voice of the characters as well as their motions on stage. There is very little room for an actor to personalize each character. As a result, the characters become very concrete and are difficult to reinvent with different actors.  A definitive example is when Torvald reaches for the letter Krogstad had written him, exposing Nora, “NORA: [With bewildered glances, groping about, seizing HELMER’S domino, throwing it around her, and speaking in short, hoarse, broken whispers,]” (Norton, pg. 1549).  Every motion is accounted for and defined.

“Woyzeck” was written in open form, so various theater interpretations adapted different scene sequences. For the purposes of this paper, I am using Dan Farrelly’s translation of the play as well as the scene sequence he provides; and I will be focusing on the three final scenes 23-25. Scene 23 has very sparse stage direction, indicating only that Woyzeck is alone, and at the end of the short scene he runs away. This leaves the actor a lot of room to personalize the Woyzeck through mannerisms and gestures. Woyzeck’s mood is open to interpretation because his tone of voice or attitude is not explicitly defined. The other two scenes are equally unspecific and provide little (if any) direction. Expressionism is an art form that seeks to depict the subjective emotions of the artist, Buchner attempts to do this without direction, and it would not be surprising if his message were lost in translation.
The dialogue in “A Doll’s House” is extremely expressive. The characters reveal their entire thought processes to the audience openly. Some of the lines are written in stream of consciousness, which puts the audience into the mind of the characters. I refer to my previous example, where as Torvald reaches for the envelope, Nora is thrown into fear, “Never see him again. Never, never… Never see the children either – them, too. Never, never. Oh, the freezing black water! The depths – down – Oh, I wish it were over – ” (Norton, 1549). This is revealing not only of Nora’s suicidal thoughts, but also of her frantic state of mind evidenced by the repetition and frequent use of dashes where her thought breaks off. This allows the audience to better understand her position. With every motive and thought on the table, there is little left for the imagination.
The dialogue in “Woyzeck” is much more terse and as a result, less telling of the minds of the characters. For the sake of the focus of the paper I will maintain my focus on the final three scenes. Here, there is ample use of stream of consciousness as Woyzeck realizes he has killed Marie, “The knife? Where’s the knife? I left it here. It’ll give me away. Closer, still closer…Marie? Hey Marie! Sshh! Quiet, quiet as death. Why are you so pale, Marie?” (Farrelly, 30-31).  The similar repetition and abrupt change in thought reveals the disturbed mind of our hero. Buchner does not indicate whether Woyzeck actually sees the corpse in front of him or if she is in his mind, yet another element open to interpretation. Unlike in “A Doll’s House,” the rare glimpses we get into the characters’ minds indicate particular significance. Woyzeck’s mind is deteriorating, and insight into his thought process is almost necessary to see that. On the other hand, Nora’s thoughts are exposed for the sole benefit of the audience, to provide a comprehensive character sketch. In both cases stream of consciousness exposes the mentality and emotional state of the character.
Because Ibsen meticulously details the motives and rationale of both Nora and Torvald, the play does not have a hero or villain. Both characters are imperfect and deserve both sympathy and criticism. Torvald in particular, softens towards the conclusion as he is on the brink of losing his wife. His genuine desperation to keep his family together allows the audience to better understand his position, “I see. There’s a gulf that’s opened between us – that’s clear. Oh, but Nora, can’t we bridge it somehow?” (Norton, 1555). The more the playwright describes the character, the more difficult it is to label him/her as merely a protagonist or antagonist. In “Woyzeck,” although the main character is a murderer, we understand his motives and drives, whereas the other characters’ thoughts are not described nearly as vividly. As a result, the audience has a hard time rationalizing their actions and may be rash to demonize them. This leaves the director a lot of room for creative license, where he may chose to make Marie, the Doctor and the Drum Major relatable or allow them to remain as antagonistic forces. These ambiguities might cause different interpretations of the work, so Buchner’s personal subjective view may not be conveyed.
The greatest difference between expressionistic theater and realistic theater is the former employs selective focus to express a subjective view. The more details and direction a playwright provides the more concrete and rigid the play will be, essentially providing almost any audience a single moral or idea. By leaving many gaps in both stage direction and dialogue, an author’s intention may be lost. Both actors and directors may have the option of personalizing characters by taste and the audience’s perspective may become skewed. Despite this, the ambiguities that come hand-in-hand with expressionism are extremely engaging to the audience because it is encouraged to actively seek out messages. Whether direct or not, both expressionist and realist works encourage an audience to rethink reality and convention.