rushthatspeaks (![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
rushthatspeaks) wrote2010-12-22 03:24
rushthatspeaks) wrote2010-12-22 03:24
Entry tags:
Arcadia, Tom Stoppard (365 Books, Day 114)
A witty pointed play, as Stoppard usually is, intercutting between the eighteenth century and the twentieth in the same room of the same English aristocratic house. In the eighteenth century, a young girl and her tutor bicker and work at mathematics, while the tutor carries on an affair with the wife of a minor poet; in the twentieth, academics pawing through the remnants develop entirely the wrong ideas about what happened in the eighteenth (a beautiful demonstration of the principle that, when in doubt, people tend to blame everything on Lord Byron).
The intercutting reminds me of Byatt's Possession, somewhat, in the way that it's both funny and sad to watch the academics fumbling about when we've seen what actually happened and know they're never going to get it right, ever; but the emotional dimension here is added in a way that Byatt did not do it, which is that the academics have some pointedly accurate information also. Thomasina, the young girl, is lively and snarky, sarcastic at thirteen and a mathematical genius at sixteen-- and we know from quite early when she dies and how, though not why, and it colors every time she steps on the stage. Most of the suspense comes out of this sort of thing, knowing the date of a death, or thinking we know, knowing the date of a marriage when that marriage does not seem very likely from what we have seen of the past. Eventually, of course, the whole thing ties itself in a neat knot, because this is Stoppard, whose precision is the greater part of his irony.
Thomasina and her tutor, Septimus, are the heart of the thing and the best of it. I particularly like a moment when he tells her that as Fermat's last theorem has been bothering the best minds in Europe for a hundred and fifty years, he had rather hoped it would keep her occupied until lunchtime. The early scenes with them are unmitigatedly delightful, and the two of them know it. Et in arcadia ego-- the phrase recurs, used by several of the principal characters, appearing as a Latin quiz, a sexual reference and a description of the state of living in an English country house: all very well, until you remember who it was said the phrase in the original. But Thomasina and Septimus are in a kind of Arcadia, one where he can talk the husband of his lover into liking him again whenever he wants to, one where she can revolutionize calculus before going out to play in the garden.
And yet I rather think that, touching and witty and brave as they are, they are overwhelmed eventually by the structure of the play, which does not allow anything gold to stay. I would like the whole thing better if it weren't so crystalline perfect in the way every single detail echoes back and forth through time, and Stoppard knows I'd like it better and doesn't want me to, which makes the play more admirable than enjoyable in the final analysis.
The fact that the playwright can make us care about things that are inevitable, predictable, in fact tragically foregone conclusions is what makes the play at least a minor masterpiece. He builds a thing so beautifully, icily, magnificently bitter that I am at a loss to try to describe it, and his point is that his characters-- and every human being-- deserve much better, and probably won't get it. But I can't stop wishing his characters could have a life outside their structure, because he is a genius, damn him.
The intercutting reminds me of Byatt's Possession, somewhat, in the way that it's both funny and sad to watch the academics fumbling about when we've seen what actually happened and know they're never going to get it right, ever; but the emotional dimension here is added in a way that Byatt did not do it, which is that the academics have some pointedly accurate information also. Thomasina, the young girl, is lively and snarky, sarcastic at thirteen and a mathematical genius at sixteen-- and we know from quite early when she dies and how, though not why, and it colors every time she steps on the stage. Most of the suspense comes out of this sort of thing, knowing the date of a death, or thinking we know, knowing the date of a marriage when that marriage does not seem very likely from what we have seen of the past. Eventually, of course, the whole thing ties itself in a neat knot, because this is Stoppard, whose precision is the greater part of his irony.
Thomasina and her tutor, Septimus, are the heart of the thing and the best of it. I particularly like a moment when he tells her that as Fermat's last theorem has been bothering the best minds in Europe for a hundred and fifty years, he had rather hoped it would keep her occupied until lunchtime. The early scenes with them are unmitigatedly delightful, and the two of them know it. Et in arcadia ego-- the phrase recurs, used by several of the principal characters, appearing as a Latin quiz, a sexual reference and a description of the state of living in an English country house: all very well, until you remember who it was said the phrase in the original. But Thomasina and Septimus are in a kind of Arcadia, one where he can talk the husband of his lover into liking him again whenever he wants to, one where she can revolutionize calculus before going out to play in the garden.
And yet I rather think that, touching and witty and brave as they are, they are overwhelmed eventually by the structure of the play, which does not allow anything gold to stay. I would like the whole thing better if it weren't so crystalline perfect in the way every single detail echoes back and forth through time, and Stoppard knows I'd like it better and doesn't want me to, which makes the play more admirable than enjoyable in the final analysis.
The fact that the playwright can make us care about things that are inevitable, predictable, in fact tragically foregone conclusions is what makes the play at least a minor masterpiece. He builds a thing so beautifully, icily, magnificently bitter that I am at a loss to try to describe it, and his point is that his characters-- and every human being-- deserve much better, and probably won't get it. But I can't stop wishing his characters could have a life outside their structure, because he is a genius, damn him.
no subject
no subject
It probably wouldn't be so lovely if it lasted, no. The loss of Eden turns the memory of Eden into the conception of Fairyland.
no subject
Now I want to dig The Coasts of Utopia out of my to-read bins.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I think there's a thing Stoppard's doing there, among all the other clever things, where he says in the long run we are all dead and all we did forgotten, the present as much as the past, us as well as them, and yet here we all are, we have this time right now when we are breathing, whatever is coming, which is always and inevitably death. So dance while you can in the light of the candle that's going to burn you, this is now and now is all there ever is.
And I think you don't see that when you read it -- you didn't, and I didn't when I read it before I saw it -- because it's only theatre.
no subject
You can't unstir jam from custard, says the play; but the theatre gives you a new bowl and spoon with each performance. Stoppard's perfect crystal is regrown each time it's played; and this time, maybe, somehow it will crack, not enclose, sublime.
Nine
no subject
no subject
And there is a filk I have stored somewhere that I must now find and post for you. *goes to root around*
found it!
http://marith.livejournal.com/242463.htm
no subject
There is the thing where the beginning scenes are still there, every time you open the book again, but that feels less strong, intended I'm sure but not fully what he meant.
I desperately want to see it performed now.
no subject
I also love the whole 'even in Arcadia thus' thing, like, even here things die. And then we get to keep seeing the play. On paper it's less like real life somehow (though I loved it as a play before I loved seeing it, just, in a different way).
And, this description made me cry a little :)
no subject
no subject
no subject
What did you think was the point of the presence of Val's young brother (? I guess he's a little brother), the small boy who criscrosses to play his past-era counterpart? From what I remember, the modern-day small boy is all but mute and has survived some trauma that's implied but not stated. Maybe the death of their parents; maybe something else. I felt oddly that it was important, but if there are further implications they never dawned on me. Not that they need to. He added to the story rather than detracting from it.
no subject
no subject
Nine
no subject
no subject
---L.
no subject
no subject
---L.
no subject
Then I read several that were gripping but had such awful events in them that I can't reread them and have stopped reading the family saga they are a part of. (Still Life, Babel Tower). Possession has a light-heartedness that doesn't seem to be matched by anything else of Byatt's that I've read enough of to have an opinion on.
P.
no subject
no subject
no subject
P.
no subject
no subject
P.
no subject
That scene where Thomasina burns the papers which would have made everything make sense to the people in the future *really* stayed with me. One never thinks, even when tossing things out in the throes of moving house, that historical people would have deliberately or casually destroyed the documents that would have told us the things we wanted to know.
And... I had such a crush on Septimus. I loved his relationship with Thomasina (and it didn't hurt that the actor playing Septimus was entirely gorgeous).