Thoughts, analysis, questions, ideas about Peter Shaffer's drama from AP Literature students.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Post #4 [after reading of the full play]
Write ideas, thoughts, analysis about the full play. Each journal entry/post should be 8-10 sentences. One of the four should be a critique of a scene from the drama viewed online.
When I finished reading Equus, I stared blankly at the back cover for about two and a half minutes. That is not an exaggeration; it took me some time to process what exactly I had just finished reading. The main takeaway I had from the book, specifically the last scene, is that I greatly sympathize with both Alan and Dysart's characters. Dysart has been missing any passion or desire in his life, and Alan was trying to fight these feelings because he felt that they were wrong. These two conflicts can be found in people all around the world at any given time. They are normal conflicts, even when presented in a confusing manner such as this story. Society, at least in this time and place, is about fitting into the mold, which is exactly what Dysart is trying to allow Alan to do by fixing him. However, by doing this, he has only done more damage to both Alan and himself. It is an absolutely tragic story. Olivia Tebsherany
Dysart ends the play the same way he begins the play: by expressing sympathy for horses due to the way they are confined. Dysart’s last two sentences are “there is now, in my mouth, this sharp chain. And it never comes out,” a direct reference to what he says in the first few lines about being “all reined up in old language and old assumptions” (10, 110). Dysart has never felt comfortable expressing his love for ancient Greek society, which makes him relate to the restrained horse. It’s also important to note that in both the case of Dysart and horses humans are the ones tying the restraints. There is tension in Dysart’s character. He does not only related to the horses being restrained; he, too, is guilty of being the one doing the restraining. His entire job is to take children who are “crazy” and help them be “normal.” This is something that he despises about himself, prompting him to dream about being forced to “sacrifice a herd of children” (17). Peter Shaffer (the playwright) uses the contrast between Dysart’s desire to be unrestrained and yet his perpetuation of restraints to convey the idea that passion gives meaning to life, but one cannot be passionate and be considered normal. - Gabi Sussman
After finishing the play, I had to stop and think about what I had just read. I really didn't expect it to end the way it did. I thought I wouldn't sympathize with Alan or Dysart at all, but I did. I felt worry for Alan because it seemed like both of his parents gave up on him, even his mom who seemed to be the only person who cared about him. I felt sorry for Alan because of the way he was looked at, and how badly everyone tried to change him. No one really tried to understand why he is the way he is, and why he did it. He was dismissed and considered crazy. I sympathized with Dysart because he seemed to be really unsatisfied with his life. He felt like he settled and he couldn't express his passions and desires in life. It took him meeting Alan and envying him to reflect on his own life, and where he went wrong. I feel like that's something everyone experiences at some point, and I found that to be one of the most relatable things from the play. Mari Shakishvili
I wanted to wait until I was done with the play to watch a clip of a scene from it, as I wanted to finish the play unencumbered by previous people’s interpretations of the piece. After finishing Equus, I watched a clip from the 1977 film adaptation of the final monologue where Dysart, here played by Richard Burton, comes to grips with the fact that by “curing” Alan, he is removing any individuality or spark of passion that Alan has. The film did a good job portraying the scene differently than the play yet still similar thematically. Dysart, like in the play, delivers the first bit kneeling over Alan sleeping. However, Dysart then delivers the rest sitting behind his desk staring directly at the camera. Keeping the camera close on his face was a smart directorial choice, as it makes the direct address feel more immediate and, well, direct. As Dysart continues his monologue, the camera zooms in, the lighting cleverly only illuminating half of his face, casting the other half in shadow and emphasizing his conflicted nature. What is most impressive is how Richard Burton does not once break his gaze, even as the camera zooms further in so that his eyes take up the entire frame. As he ends his monologue pleading to the audience for a way to see in the dark, the screen fades to black. This clip helped me understand Equus on a more thematic level. It is clear now that although Alan does go through some change while in therapy, it is really Dysart who has the largest arc of the play, as his misgivings about his practice are brought to the forefront by Alan’s case. The one thing I can not decide on, however, is whether or not Shaffer is condoning Alan’s crime. Obviously everyone in the play is appalled by Alan’s horse blinding, but the end of the play seems to suggest that current society is merely one that has different Gods to worship than the one that Alan inhabits, therefore implying that Alan is not morally wrong, but simply misunderstood on a societal level. Is Shaffer saying that the primitive, Greek, equestrian society is better than the soulless modern TV society? Or is he arguing that there needs to be a balance between the two? Ethan Karas
Finishing the play, it is apparent to me that Dysart is the main character of the play, and the dissection of his character is its main focus. As I have detailed in previous posts, his mind palace is the play’s stage, undetailed and limited to his memory. His journey is taken as a result of his drowning in “normal” life, with a failed marriage stifling him with issues ranging from his inability to have children, his lack of a sex life, and his complete disconnection from his wife (81). He seems motivated by the middle of the play to help Alan because of his stare and because of a quieter desire to understand the ecstasy Alan has availed himself by abandoning convention and embracing his version of divinity. The story’s symbols are critical to Dysart’s realization at the end of the play. Shaffer begins Dysart’s character analysis early with his dream of sacrificing children while beneath a mask that, despite granting him a ceremonial authority, covers his internal disgust (17). Connecting to the initial horse mask represented in the stage direction by cage-esque masks, the mask in the ceremony represents a suppression of Dysart’s will to embrace the abnormal. This culminates in the finale of the play, with his speech summarizing his realization. He realizes that his therapy strips his patients of their abnormalities down to a prescribed sense of normalcy. He yells that he will “take away his Field of Ha Ha, and give him Normal places for his ecstasy - multi-lane highways driven through guts of cities, extinguishing Place altogether, even the idea of Place!” (109). The dream, the mask, and his existential crisis culminate in his redefinition of normal and his place in prescribing it as a means of attaining happiness.
When I finished reading Equus, I stared blankly at the back cover for about two and a half minutes. That is not an exaggeration; it took me some time to process what exactly I had just finished reading. The main takeaway I had from the book, specifically the last scene, is that I greatly sympathize with both Alan and Dysart's characters. Dysart has been missing any passion or desire in his life, and Alan was trying to fight these feelings because he felt that they were wrong. These two conflicts can be found in people all around the world at any given time. They are normal conflicts, even when presented in a confusing manner such as this story. Society, at least in this time and place, is about fitting into the mold, which is exactly what Dysart is trying to allow Alan to do by fixing him. However, by doing this, he has only done more damage to both Alan and himself. It is an absolutely tragic story.
ReplyDeleteOlivia Tebsherany
Dysart ends the play the same way he begins the play: by expressing sympathy for horses due to the way they are confined. Dysart’s last two sentences are “there is now, in my mouth, this sharp chain. And it never comes out,” a direct reference to what he says in the first few lines about being “all reined up in old language and old assumptions” (10, 110). Dysart has never felt comfortable expressing his love for ancient Greek society, which makes him relate to the restrained horse. It’s also important to note that in both the case of Dysart and horses humans are the ones tying the restraints.
ReplyDeleteThere is tension in Dysart’s character. He does not only related to the horses being restrained; he, too, is guilty of being the one doing the restraining. His entire job is to take children who are “crazy” and help them be “normal.” This is something that he despises about himself, prompting him to dream about being forced to “sacrifice a herd of children” (17). Peter Shaffer (the playwright) uses the contrast between Dysart’s desire to be unrestrained and yet his perpetuation of restraints to convey the idea that passion gives meaning to life, but one cannot be passionate and be considered normal.
- Gabi Sussman
After finishing the play, I had to stop and think about what I had just read. I really didn't expect it to end the way it did. I thought I wouldn't sympathize with Alan or Dysart at all, but I did. I felt worry for Alan because it seemed like both of his parents gave up on him, even his mom who seemed to be the only person who cared about him. I felt sorry for Alan because of the way he was looked at, and how badly everyone tried to change him. No one really tried to understand why he is the way he is, and why he did it. He was dismissed and considered crazy.
ReplyDeleteI sympathized with Dysart because he seemed to be really unsatisfied with his life. He felt like he settled and he couldn't express his passions and desires in life. It took him meeting Alan and envying him to reflect on his own life, and where he went wrong. I feel like that's something everyone experiences at some point, and I found that to be one of the most relatable things from the play.
Mari Shakishvili
I wanted to wait until I was done with the play to watch a clip of a scene from it, as I wanted to finish the play unencumbered by previous people’s interpretations of the piece. After finishing Equus, I watched a clip from the 1977 film adaptation of the final monologue where Dysart, here played by Richard Burton, comes to grips with the fact that by “curing” Alan, he is removing any individuality or spark of passion that Alan has. The film did a good job portraying the scene differently than the play yet still similar thematically. Dysart, like in the play, delivers the first bit kneeling over Alan sleeping. However, Dysart then delivers the rest sitting behind his desk staring directly at the camera. Keeping the camera close on his face was a smart directorial choice, as it makes the direct address feel more immediate and, well, direct. As Dysart continues his monologue, the camera zooms in, the lighting cleverly only illuminating half of his face, casting the other half in shadow and emphasizing his conflicted nature. What is most impressive is how Richard Burton does not once break his gaze, even as the camera zooms further in so that his eyes take up the entire frame. As he ends his monologue pleading to the audience for a way to see in the dark, the screen fades to black. This clip helped me understand Equus on a more thematic level. It is clear now that although Alan does go through some change while in therapy, it is really Dysart who has the largest arc of the play, as his misgivings about his practice are brought to the forefront by Alan’s case. The one thing I can not decide on, however, is whether or not Shaffer is condoning Alan’s crime. Obviously everyone in the play is appalled by Alan’s horse blinding, but the end of the play seems to suggest that current society is merely one that has different Gods to worship than the one that Alan inhabits, therefore implying that Alan is not morally wrong, but simply misunderstood on a societal level. Is Shaffer saying that the primitive, Greek, equestrian society is better than the soulless modern TV society? Or is he arguing that there needs to be a balance between the two?
ReplyDeleteEthan Karas
Finishing the play, it is apparent to me that Dysart is the main character of the play, and the dissection of his character is its main focus. As I have detailed in previous posts, his mind palace is the play’s stage, undetailed and limited to his memory. His journey is taken as a result of his drowning in “normal” life, with a failed marriage stifling him with issues ranging from his inability to have children, his lack of a sex life, and his complete disconnection from his wife (81). He seems motivated by the middle of the play to help Alan because of his stare and because of a quieter desire to understand the ecstasy Alan has availed himself by abandoning convention and embracing his version of divinity.
ReplyDeleteThe story’s symbols are critical to Dysart’s realization at the end of the play. Shaffer begins Dysart’s character analysis early with his dream of sacrificing children while beneath a mask that, despite granting him a ceremonial authority, covers his internal disgust (17). Connecting to the initial horse mask represented in the stage direction by cage-esque masks, the mask in the ceremony represents a suppression of Dysart’s will to embrace the abnormal. This culminates in the finale of the play, with his speech summarizing his realization. He realizes that his therapy strips his patients of their abnormalities down to a prescribed sense of normalcy. He yells that he will “take away his Field of Ha Ha, and give him Normal places for his ecstasy - multi-lane highways driven through guts of cities, extinguishing Place altogether, even the idea of Place!” (109). The dream, the mask, and his existential crisis culminate in his redefinition of normal and his place in prescribing it as a means of attaining happiness.
-Patrick Ortiz