TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Arts

    Subtext: Conversations about Classic Books and Films

    Subtext is a book club podcast for readers interested in what the greatest works of the human imagination say about life’s big questions. Each episode, philosopher Wes Alwan and poet Erin O’Luanaigh conduct a close reading of a text or film and co-write an audio essay about it in real time. It’s literary analysis, but in the best sense: we try not overly stuffy and pedantic, but rather focus on unearthing what’s most compelling about great books and movies, and how it is they can touch our lives in such a significant way.

    Advertise

    Copyright: Copyright © 2020-2024 | (sub)Text | All Rights Reserved

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    Freedom and Authority in Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People” Sep 15, 2025
    Show notes

    In Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People,” two conceptions of communal health do battle. Dr. Stockmann’s is progressive, focused as it is on the vitality of the young, their new ideas, and the possibility of growth into a better future, even if that means encroaching on the powers that be. His brother’s is conservative, focused on the use of authority and ascetic self-restraint to preserve existing achievements and ideas. But once in conflict, these conceptions seem to reveal themselves to be competing forms of elitism, and expressions of contempt respectively for both past and future. Wes & Erin discuss whether there is a more nuanced conception of the common good available to us, and how it might be related to the sudden turn at the end of the play to the the role of education. Upcoming Episodes: “There Will Be Blood,” “Julius Caesar,” “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” Pre-order Erin’s forthcoming book “Avail” here: http://subtextpodcast.com/avail For bonus content, become a paid subscriber at Patreon or directly on the Apple Podcasts app. Patreon subscribers also get early access to ad-free regular episodes. Also from Wes: Curtain Times, a calendar of Boston theatre, classical, talks and readings. Follow:Twitter | Facebook | Website Transcript 0:19 Erin: or patreon.com/subtextpodcast. 0:32 Wes: In Ibsen's An Enemy of the people, two conceptions of communal health do battle. Dr. Stockman's is progressive, focused as it is on the vitality of the young, their new ideas, and the possibility of growth into a better future, even if that means encroaching on the powers that be. His brothers is conservative, focused on the use of authority and aesthetic self restraint to preserve existing achievements and ideas. But once in conflict, these conceptions seem to reveal themselves to be competing forms of elitism and expressions of contempt, respectively, for both past and future. Today we discuss whether there is a more nuanced conception of the common good available to us and how it might be related to the sudden turn at the end of the play to the role of education. This is Wes Alwan. This is Erin O'Luanaigh and you're listening to Subtext. So Erin, what do you think of that Stockman report? Do you think it's credible? 1:35 Erin: I believe it if I see it. And if these infusoria are. Yeah, I know, exactly. And they seem pretty microscopic. I just think it's all bunk. 1:45 Wes: I guess they were on the cusp at this time of believing in the little tiny creatures that we call bacteria as causes of disease. Or maybe, obviously a man of science like Dr. Stockman would believe in them, but not his father in law. He thinks it's the funniest thing in the world that anyone would believe in these things. 2:05 Erin: Well, the animals he deals with are much larger and you know. 2:09 Wes: At the tannery. 2:10 Erin: At the tannery, yeah. 2:11 Wes: Yeah. So I thought it was interesting that there are two important claims that I don't think are ever really justified very much or explored. One of them is by the mayor, his brother. That's the idea that it's going to cost $200,000 to repair the water system for the spa. And it sounded a little suspicious when he pulled that number out. I don't see him as trustworthy. And then at the end of the play in the community meeting, he says it's $100,000. So the number changes, which I think is meant to be a signal that we're not meant to actually trust that 2:47 Erin: I hadn't Realized it changed. 2:49 Wes: Yeah. Unless I'm. Unless I'm misremembering. 2:51 Erin: Well, what's even more. More suspicious is that he's talking about American dollars when they live in Norway. No. 2:57 Wes: Oh, did I say dollars and not kroner? 2:59 Erin: Oh, okay. No, you're good. 3:01 Wes: Well, it's an exact one to one. For some reason. It might be actually. I don't know. Sounds. Yeah. 3:10 Erin: How much is it? 3:12 Wes: Be funny if it were just a hundred dollars, but. Right, exactly that time. A hot dog costs 5 cents, but anyway. Actually, 5 cents would be a lot. 3:25 Erin: I know. 3:25 Wes: Probably even less in the late 19th century, but. Yeah. I'm not sure about Stockman's credibility. He does get a report back from a laboratory, an independent laboratory, confirming that there's organic. Decayed organic matter. So the water is polluted. But what does that mean? How polluted is it? How dangerous is it? We don't get a lot of specifics, and also we find out that Stockman has a lot of extraneous motives. There's an element of kind of vindictiveness and almost manic elation when he first opens that letter and reports it to others. It's funny because I tried to watch the Steve McQueen version of this. Have you ever seen that? The film version? 4:17 Erin: No. I was going to watch it and I thought I just couldn't. 4:22 Wes: It's well rated, but it's. And I didn't get through that much, but I thought it was terrible, specifically terrible for McQueen's acting and the way his choices regarding Stockman, where he tries to play Stockman in this very reserved way. It's almost like he's trying to enhance the credibility of Stockman, which is hard to do given the original play, because Stockman is often kind of in hysterics and. Or a bit manic or a bit grandiose. In one way or another, I'm gonna be the savior of the community or screw the community. So in one direction or another, there's a real question around him. He's not a sober personage, and McQueen tries to make him into this sober, melancholic, serious person. So not to dwell a lot on whether the water is really polluted or as polluted as Stockman says it is, because ultimately that doesn't matter. But I think we're meant to be a bit suspicious of Stockman or. I don't know, is there a real hero in this play? Is there a real protagonist? Because this story could have been told as a. And maybe this is what McQueen ultimately ends up doing with it. You could say this is a story about government corruption and here's someone standing up to it, and here's the very obvious hero of the story. That's not what Ibsen does here. He makes it a lot more complicated. 5:50 Erin: That's right. I would have been interested to see, but I haven't. I'll probably watch it later. But I would have been interested to see the BBC adaptation set in Scotland, I think it is. I wonder what liberties they take with that. 6:01 Wes: I watched a bit of that. I mean, I just watched like a minute or two, and it looks very good. I didn't end up watching it because it was deviate so much. 6:10 Erin: Yeah, that's what I. I thought it might confuse me, actually. 6:14 Wes: Yeah. Then I realized, actually, after looking at it a little bit again yesterday, it actually is probably quite true to the substance I see, and maybe truer than McQueen's film, which is based on an adaptation by Arthur Miller. 6:27 Erin: I think that's one of the things I wanted to talk about with the play, because you're absolutely right this time around. Reading it for the first time in a few years, I really thought Dr. Stockman is. I think, you know, you and I both now we receive media that we know. We're going to do a podcast on, sort of like through the other person's eyes. And I remember thinking that you would think that Stockman was manic and also that maybe the report was just bunk and he was making it up. So the McQueen adaptation is based on the Miller retooling of Enemy and. Which was supposed to be a parable about huac. And I think I had also mentioned that I had watched an adaptation by Ray set in an Indian town, in which the Stockman character. I forget what his name is in the film, but the guy who's supposed to be the Doctor is a hero fighting against the corruption of the town. And then there was a Jeremy Strong stage version, which was adapted by Amy Herzog, which I felt like I was the only person who had not seen that adaptation in New York. I know a bunch of people who saw it who all basically said that the speech of Stockman was retooled for that certain character. A lot. A lot of times you get characters taken out, I guess, or maybe something like a collapsing of Hofstad and Billing. And basically what all of these adaptations come down to, from what I understand when they're being used toward a certain end, is to make Stockman a straightforward hero and to use the speech as, you know, to sort of insert in the filling of the Stockman speech. Whatever political opinions they want, Stockman they think are sort of adapted to the time. And so from what I heard, the Herzog adaptation was very self consciously trying to invoke the present political moment and make a bunch of statements about. I don't know what particular political stance it was, but basically some critique of the Trump administration. You know, it strikes me that this play is so. It's treated so similarly to the way that Lear was treated in Victorian England, where they would do, you know, they would change up the ending so it wasn't so bleak. And Lear was just like this workshop for the playwright of the day to just use to kind of give it his own spin, adapt the ending in the way that whoever was retooling it saw fit. And it seems that that, like something about Lear and something about Enemy of the People inspire this desire to want to make things nicer or easier to swallow in some way. And I think Stockman is just such, ultimately such a difficult character to root for that people have this desire to go in and turn him into something that on the page he's really not. I mean, you could see him as being the villain of the play if you wanted to. I mean, not quite. I mean, everybody's terrible. There's no, there's no good character in the. But that's one of the problems is he's not the hero, it seems to me. 9:36 Wes: Yeah, I think it's a matter of people might want this to be the kind of play that it's not right with this straightforward hero resisting the system narrative. But, you know, in light of the fact that it's not that I was curious about, well, what, you know, what is Ibsen up to here? And I think, you know, we know enough about Ibsen to say that in some ways he's identified with the character of Dr. Dr. Stockman and even in his more intemperate moments, kind of shares some of these elitist condemnations that Stockman is going to make at the end of, well, a certain point in the play where he becomes disillusioned and becomes the enemy of the people. So here's what he said in a letter to the critic George Brandes. Well, here's one relevant quotation. What are we to say of the attitude taken up by the so called liberal press? I am more and more confirmed in my belief that there is something demoralizing in engaging in politics and joining parties. I, at any rate, shall never, never be able to join a party that has the majority on its side, Bjornson says the majority is always right. I, on the contrary, of necessity, say the minority is always right. I hold that the man is in the right who is most closely in league with the future. So very obviously identified in that quotation with the views of the Stockman character. He says in another letter that he's unsure whether it's a comedy or a drama. Here's another thing he said to Brandes. I'm still under the impression of the confusion and disturbance created by ghosts. So I had to write this new play, An Enemy of the People. It is a reaction against the mass hysteria, against the tyranny of the majority, against the lie which is enthroned in society. So I think there's a sense, and I think he basically admitted in a way that he is Stockman in a sense. So I thought, okay, so what is he up to here? Is he just so cantankerous that he doesn't know that Stockman comes across as a hysteric? Or is he just enjoying leaning into that idea and ribbing people? I think it's the latter. That he's approaching his own proclivities with some sense of irony and enjoying the fact, right. He gets to emit all this bile through Stockman. And it is partly against society and the sorts of people that he wants to criticize. And I think this sort of attitude actually pervades those plays of his that I've read. A certain amount of bitterness towards society. 12:18 Erin: That's certainly right. I think, too, he really flirted with social Darwinism for quite seriously for a while there. I think he later. Later changed his mind. But certainly there's an element of self parody. And he takes it as far as he can. What you've noted about the play being comic is key. That's really the only way to understand this play, I think. I mean, all of Act 2 is literally a farce. The mayor is hiding in a room. You know, it could be a bedroom comedy in a way. You know, with people running in and out and people hiding behind doors. It's so ridiculous. It's so over the top. And everyone, including Stockman, is over the top. And I think we're meant to laugh at some of the things that he says in the play. Certainly in the first scene. 13:00 Wes: This is what I was hoping for from McQueen, I thought. Cause I couldn't find any other real versions available on video. And I wanted to see. Okay, is this played in the way that I think it should be played? Is this some of the farcical quality of it and the over topness of Stockman. Yeah, and McQueen doesn't do that. I think in the other thing that I found is, and this is from the critical heritage, is that early adaptations in London are the earliest adaptation in the earliest production in English in translation in English. This is in London, 1893. They had this very oddly tall person play, Stockman, and they really amped up the comedic element. And this is what you, you know, the critics at the time. I think there's some disagreement about whether that should have been the case. Some critics really liked that a lot. Others found it questionable. I think that's a very good, that's actually a very good choice. As you point out. You were pointing out that there's a way in which it becomes farcical. 14:02 Erin: Well, it's a good visual symbol so that we immediately see that this man is self inflated, first of all. And second of all, a bit ridiculous and out of place. And I think that is important to signal, I mean, it can't be overstated how maybe a good word would be bilious, how biliously that Ghosts was received. I mean, how upset people got over that production. And you know, we mentioned a bit of this, I think in the Doll's House episode. 14:29 Wes: Well, remind me of that a little bit. Yeah. Cause I'm not. 14:32 Erin: People were horrified. I mean, it was a moral outrage. And this was the reason, I think, why people create that club or subscription service or whatever it was that allowed people to see Ibsen plays because he was considered so outrageous because of Ghosts. And Ghosts is, you know, it's such a funny play for people to have gotten so, so upset about. Like, I, I, I dislike ghosts the most of any of the Ibsen. I think I've read all of his plays and I, I, Ghosts is my least favorite because nothing happens. It's just people talking about something that happened a long time ago. And what happened a long time ago was this Mr. Alving had syphilis. And that's, that's the terrible, you know, this terrible thing. 15:13 Wes: I mean, is there not, is there any play in which someone doesn't have syphilis? 15:16 Erin: I, if there is, I don't want. Yeah, no, it's not really a play if there's no syphilis. But this was the play written immediately after Ghosts. And gosh,…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    (post)script: Post-Gatsby Sep 08, 2025
    Show notes

    Listen to more episodes of (post)script at Patreon. Wes & Erin continue their discussion of “The Great Gatsby”; the ongoing development of our approach to the discussions; Arnold Rothstein and the fixing of the 1919 World Series; Fitzgerald’s neighbors on Long Island, including Ring Lardner and Ed Wynn; the contemporary feel of the novel; the NYC movie-making scene in the early 20th century; Marilynne Robinson; and possibilities for the next episode, where because of a weird time warp we talk as if “A Woman Under the Influence” will follow “The Great Gatsby” when it has always already preceded it. Transcript 0:00 Erin: Welcome to Postscript, the subtext after show where we talk about things related and unrelated to the week's episode. This is Erin O'Luanaigh. 0:07 Wes: And this is Wes Alwan. So we just got done talking about the Great Gatsby. How do you think that went? 0:12 Erin: I think it went pretty well. I mean, there's always a lot more to say, unfortunately, and things that occur to me as I'm reading where I say to myself, gotta mention that on the show. And then probably I'll remember what those things are later. But I still think we got to a really good sampling. 0:26 Wes: I thought it went well. I wasn't as over prepared as I am sometimes. So listeners can give us feedback on what they like, but we were trying to figure out what works. So we're trying different approaches. So with this one, we decided to. We would start in medias res anywhere we liked, and we would roam about the text as we liked and not give too much synopsis, assume readers had read it and really talk less to the listener than to each other, and let the listeners be eavesdroppers. Eavesdropping on the eavesdroppers. That's an interesting way to put it. Eavesdropping on the conversation. And I like that. I think that works well. I hadn't thought through as many of the things that I wanted to think through as I have in some of the previous episodes, but I think that can work really well. Sometimes. Thinking out loud and not being too. Or thinking in the moment and not being too wedded to my notes and to some agenda. I come away from an episode like this feeling like I've learned something from you and from the whole process of being inspired with some thoughts and ideas as the episode goes on, which I like. 1:32 Erin: Yeah, I like that too. I always learn something from you, though, even if you have notes or whatever, you know, likewise. Unfortunately, I. Yeah, I rely far too often on the strength of my own memory, which can be really good, but there is a limit to it. 1:47 Wes: Yeah, no, that's the thing. You do have a great memory and I. I think I'd have a better memory if I weren't. 1:52 Erin: If you were more lazy like me and didn't do as much. 1:55 Wes: Well, the more obsessional you get and the more detailed, you know, like me trying to outline chapters. And it is actually better. I mean, I'm learning as we do this, like, what the best way to prepare for these sorts of conversations is because we have a limited amount of time and the quality of the podcast relies on our spontaneity. You can't be completely spontaneous and unprepared. So it's really. It's. 2:18 Erin: It's a hard balance. 2:19 Wes: It's hard. A hard balance. You know, you can kill some of the vitality. Thinking back to Myrtle again, can kill some of the vitality by overthinking it. But, yeah, if you're too spontaneous, then it's formless and you don't get a chance to really think through some of the things you might want to say about a book like this. There's so much to say. 2:39 Erin: Well, like, for instance, which it occurred to me after we had this kind of meta conversation while we were recording, I really wanted to talk more about the 1919 World Series. And then I was thinking. And then I was thinking, oh, I could just talk about that on the after show. That's what this is made for, for me to talk baseball. So the thing that I love about Wolfsheim's character is that he's supposed to be Arnold Rothstein, who was a real guy who really did fix the 1919 World Series, the Black Sox scandal, where Cincinnati Reds overtook the highly favored Chicago White Sox, then christened the Black Sox afterwards. But anyway, I just. I love the fact that that is the association that Fitzgerald wants us to make with the kind of person that we. Wolfsheim, is. Because the 1919 scandal represented, I think, a kind of a loss of innocence similar to the Kennedy assassination. I mean, and I don't want to overstate it, but this was the loss of innocence, I think, that led to the 20s in the way that the Kennedy assassination, or maybe in 68, like the student riots and the RFK and Martin Luther King assassinations kind of led to the late 60s and 70s. So I think it's important maybe that during all of these kinds of, like, I don't know. I have. I have a rough idea about this. I haven't really thought it through all the way, but the ways in which these eras of decadence are preceded by a loss of innocence is really important. So the Black Sox scandal really just kind of brought to light something that already existed in baseball for a long time, which is the idea of fixing things. The idea of gambling was actually part of baseball's culture from the beginning. But then once it became big business, and there was this idea of making baseball this hallowed institution with American heroes like Shoeless Joe, who Babe Ruth borrowed his batting stance from Shoeless Joe Jackson, who's considered the ultimate power hitter of his day. And Ruth modeled his swing after Shoeless Joe's. So this idea that when baseball was kind of overtaken by money and these magnates and this big business, that it was then somehow above reproach. And it was invested with all of these spiritual qualities. I mean, some of which are inherent to the game of baseball because it's a beautiful game and everything else. But, like, once people realized that there was this sort of, you know, money making opportunity, it became almost like Hollywood, where suddenly we have to have moral messages imbued in the movies and we have to make sure everything is quote, unquote, on the up and up. And really, of course, behind the scenes, it's just as rotten as it ever was. And then, you know, the veil drops. Anyway, sorry, I have just had that spiel trapped in my system and I needed to get it out. 5:13 Wes: But anyway, no, that's. That's good. When I was looking into the background this. I ended up pulling up a page, a Wikipedia page on Rothstein, right? You look at his life, and then he was gunned down early on. It's like a really kind of like a classic mobster type of lifestyle. And I thought, wow, I gotta read more about this guy. And then I scrolled down to see where he's been represented in film or tv. So I guess it was, have you seen Boardwalk Empire? Apparently he. 5:39 Erin: I haven't. 5:41 Wes: Okay. So I'm not sure how prominent a role he plays in that or what kind of role he plays in that. But anyway, yeah, it made me really want to learn more about what I thought was actually looking at his bio. Like, there's got to be a film, right? Someone's got to have done a film about this guy. And so that's when I looked down to all that stuff. But the other thing that interested me in the background to this is just the extent to which it's based on Fitzgerald's own life and he lived on Long island, and the new money people were actually like writers and Hollywood people. Not Hollywood people, but writers and film people. So Ring Lardner, who I thought, yeah, Erin must know who that is, because I don't. I've heard the name, but he was a short story writer and apparently he was highly thought of by Hemingway and Fitzgerald and others. And somehow he got rich doing it. I don't know, ended up in that community. But Blue Fields, Ed Wynn. Yep, these are people. I just don't really, you know, this is all new to me, all this stuff. So. 6:46 Erin: Well, Ring Lardner's expertise extended to baseball, and he was actually one of the, you know, his Accounts of the Black Sox scandal were some of the most famous accounts. And he in particular felt really betrayed by that instance. But, yeah, these were all personalities. Like, I don't know who would be the equivalent today. The only name I could think of is Maureen Dowd, though, you know, a columnist with a particular air about her or him, as is always the case in with Fitzgerald's friends, except for Zelda, with this particular panache writing for these top papers, it was really kind of like a golden age. The twenties of the column as an art form, maybe. 7:25 Wes: Interesting. 7:25 Erin: And a lot of these prose stylists, like Damon Runyon, for instance, who wrote these popular stories, there was an appreciation for the effort and the flair that actually went into those. 7:37 Wes: You're reminding me of the fact that the novel. I was surprised how contemporary the novel seems. Part of it is just these sorts of a mob character like Wolfsheim is just. That's a contemporary trope as well. It's not dated in any way, even though we might associate it with a particular era. It's part of our cultural vocabulary. But otherwise I was with all the cars zipping around, I thought, okay, I want to see. And they're going over the bridge, I think, is it the Queensborough Bridge that they go over? At one point, I wanted to see, all right, well, what do cars. I'm thinking, is it still Model T, Ford stuff, or is it more advancement? No, so it's. Cars look quite different by 1922. And I thought, they're talking about going to the movies or just reading the background. I was kind of thinking, God, it's amazing that people were getting famous for being in movies right before there was even sound. Or is there sound at this point? 8:31 Erin: Oh, absolutely. 8:32 Wes: And this was a hundred years ago. I'm just thinking. And yet the way the characters talk about all of this stuff, it just has the same quality as the way we would talk about it today. And then New York, what the kind of feelings that New York inspires. You know, there's that great scene going over the bridge where he describes that. Unfortunately, we didn't get to it on the regular podcast, but everything feels contemporary to me. It doesn't actually feel dated, even though the novel and the films based on it. Right. Are. The novel is an away period novel, and any adaptation of it will play that up. It feels so surprisingly contemporary. 9:06 Erin: It's important to know that, too, that. I mean, early, early Hollywood, the silents, people like Charlie Chaplin and Mabel Normand and all those great figures. Early Hollywood was not Hollywood. It was New York City, you know, it was an outgrowth of Broadway. There were a lot of studios in. Not a lot of studios, but there was, you know, there was movie making going on in New York. 9:26 Wes: Interesting. So I didn't know that. 9:28 Erin: Yeah. And then eventually it became, you know, transported to a place where you could have backlots with better weather and, you know, more controlled environment. But, yeah, you know, it's funny too. Like, I was thinking about. So one of the things I really hate about modern day Hollywood is just the nepotism inherent in so much of it, how so many of our young actors today are actors by right of birth. So it's interesting now how that Hollywood people maybe now are considered like, old money. I mean, you know, there's no grander name than Barrymore, you know, among the Hollywood elites. And, you know, so I just. I wonder how long it's gonna take for Drew Barrymore's kids to get into acting or. So it's interesting too, how, you know, just by having a certain staying power. Like, I wonder if all these East Eggers are, you know, kind of rolling in their graves over the fact that now the most exclusive parts of the Hamptons have been taken over by the younger generations who would have been West Eggers, all of these Hollywood people. The Gwyneth Paltrows. You know, people are always surprised to know that Gwyneth Paltrow is the daughter of a movie star in her own right. Blythe Danner? 10:30 Wes: Yeah, I had no idea. 10:31 Erin: Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, yeah, they all come from storied backgrounds. Just to say that our perception of old money or of that kind of aristocratic heritage really does change over time. 10:40 Wes: Yeah. And he says he loves the idea of rotating between essays, film poems and narrative literature. And then he talks about Marilynne Robinson having some essays. And I've always been a big fan of Marilynne Robinson. 10:58 Erin: Oh, me too. 10:59 Wes: How about you? Yeah. So the Death of Adam. Have you read that book and those essays? 11:04 Erin: Yeah, yeah, that would be great. 11:06 Wes: So, yeah, that will go on the list. That's a good idea. I think I put her name on the list, but it's good to be reminded. Like when I was brainstorming what essayists we would read. I mean, we could read a novel of hers as well, too, of course. 11:19 Erin: Yeah. Yeah. 11:20 Wes: And we do have some new patrons to thank. Elizabeth, Michael, Mary and Amor Amour has a Cupid as a profile picture. 11:32 Erin: That's great. 11:33 Wes: Could be Cupid himself. You never know. So, for our next episode, what are we doing next? 11:40 Erin: I don't know. That's a good question. 11:43 Wes: All right, let's find out. I'm already bound to a spreadsheet. It's not really up to me anymore. It's up to the spreadsheet. I guess we have some choice in this. Let's look at some of the possibilities here. Possibly A Streetcar Named Desire. No. Why not? 11:59 Erin: Oh, well, I mean, you know, eventually. I don't know if I could take that. So much American ness in that. 12:05 Wes: Yeah, that's a good point. Well, there's Billy Budd, Annie Hall, Graham Greene's Brighton Rock. 12:10 Erin: Oh, you know what I was thinking, though? 12:12 Wes: Or Ibsen's Hedda Gabler. 12:13 Erin: Yeah, right, right. Maybe we want to do. Maybe we want to stick to things that are more mainstream, like you said for the first ones. But I was thinking Woman under the Influence. 12:22 Wes: Yeah. Maybe we could do that. I don't think it matters. 12:25 Erin: Are you sure? Because I want to give us as much of a chance as possible. 12:28 Wes: You know, I think we should throw in, you know, wild card, off the beaten path stuff. 12:34 Erin: Okay. 12:34 Wes: Once in a while, even in the beginning, and. Yeah. Because that's been on my mind. So we should just do that next. 12:39 Erin: I know. Well, you know, it's just. It's one of those things, like, you think you're getting Mexican food, someone suggests Chinese food, and then you just have to think about Chinese food for a second, then you're in the mood for Chinese food. I don't know. Anyway, so I could adjust elsewhere, but since I just listened to our postscript episode where we mentioned that, I thought that was, like, the Mexican food that's on the brain now. 12:58 Wes: Okay. 12:59 Erin: Or the Greek food, as the case may be, for Cassavetes. 13:01 Wes: Ah, yes. 13:02 Erin: So, all right. 13:03 Wes: Good. 13:03 Erin: Great. 13:03 Wes: So let's do that. 13:04 Erin: Okay. 13:05 Wes: All right. Well, once again, thank you. 13:08 Erin: Thank you.

    Full show notes at the publisher

    The American Dream in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby” (Re-Release for 100th Anniversary) Sep 02, 2025
    Show notes

    Hard to believe that Subtext has been around for five years, and Gatsby for 100. To celebrate these anniversaries (and our hiatus in recordings for a long summer vacation), here’s a re-release of one of our early episodes (from November 2020).

    We all know this story, in part because it captures a period that will always have a special place in the American imagination. Prosperous and boozy, the Jazz Age seemed like one great party, held to celebrate the end of a terrible world war; the liberating promise of newly ubiquitous technologies, including electricity, the telephone, and the automobile; and a certain image of success as carefree, inexhaustibly gratifying, and available to all who try. And yet perhaps this fantasy is rooted in disillusionment, and a denial of inescapable social realities, including the impossibility of genuine social mobility. What do we mean when we talk about the American Dream? Is it realistic? Wes & Erin give an analysis of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby.”

    Pre-order Erin’s forthcoming book “Avail” here: http://subtextpodcast.com/avail

    For bonus content, become a paid subscriber at Patreon or directly on the Apple Podcasts app. Patreon subscribers also get early access to ad-free regular episodes.

    Also from Wes: Curtain Times, a calendar of Boston theatre, classical, talks and readings.

    Follow:Twitter | Facebook | Website

    Thanks to Tyler Hislop for the audio editing on this episode.


    Containment and Play in “Jaws” (Part 2) Aug 25, 2025
    Show notes

    What is it about the activity of play that might be dangerous? How do we accommodate our impulses, relationships, and communal strivings, without being consumed by them? Wes & Erin continue their discussion of Stephen Spielberg’s 1975 classic “Jaws.” Upcoming Episodes: Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People,” “There Will Be Blood,” “As You Like It,” “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” Pre-order Erin’s forthcoming book “Avail” here: http://subtextpodcast.com/avail For bonus content, become a paid subscriber at Patreon or directly on the Apple Podcasts app. Patreon subscribers also get early access to ad-free regular episodes. Also from Wes: Curtain Times, a calendar of Boston theatre, classical, talks and readings. Follow:Twitter | Facebook | Website Transcript 0:19 Erin: or patreon.com/subtextpodcast. 0:32 Wes: Okay, welcome to part two of our discussion of of Jaws. Erin had just got done talking about this really interesting parallel between the bombing of the shark and the bombing of Japan. I think we are going to ready to buy now. It doesn't undersells it the way I just put it. I've reached part two and so my energy level has started to falter. Sorry for underselling that. 0:58 Erin: No, no, no. That's what it is, unfortunately. 1:01 Wes: But now we are going to talk about Hooper and this might re energize us. Or at least me. 1:07 Erin: Because you're a big Hooper fan. 1:09 Wes: Yeah. What were you gonna say about the class element? Well, he's a little breath of fresh air. He's a little. Don't you think so? Richard Dreyfuss is just. Oh yeah, he's energetic in the way that Brody isn't. And funny. The novelist, the guy who wrote the novel. Benchley. Peter Benchley. Right. By the way. And I looked at the novel. It's not a great novel, put it that way. It's not a literary masterpiece or something. And then he wrote three screenplays and naturally it's a very different craft. And then Spielberg brought in someone else to rewrite it and in the end had a friend, I forget the name, someone with more comic chops. He said to this guy, eviscerate it completely. Redo it, and then put some humor into this. This is the kind of thing that happened to the Die Hard script as well, by the way. And it's one of the things that makes the movie really work. And I think it's probably a good. Really, it helps any movie, almost any genre, doing this sort of thing. But. 2:11 Erin: And the improv too, we should say, right, that they also improvised and wrote. Wrote it down and incorporated it the next day. So that was pretty systematic too. Yeah. 2:21 Wes: But, yeah, Hooper is a big source of comic relief, I think. Right. He has some pretty funny lines. 2:29 Erin: Yeah. 2:30 Wes: I know that's not the thing that you are ready to talk about, but. 2:34 Erin: No, no, I'm not really ready to talk about anything with him because I'm not sure what the class thing is really about there. I mean, we have, you know, one of the other things that Jameson article talked about. It was also kind of about the Godfather, so I only read part of it. But the three main characters also kind of represent like the three ages of man, you know, youth, maturity and old age. And they also seem to represent three different classes, though maybe Quint and Brody are more. You know, they come from such different worlds. But maybe that maps out to be sort of roughly the same class or Brody maybe a little bit. A little bit higher up than Quint. But what's the significance of. For instance, Hooper, you know, the moment that's really sticks out to me is him bringing two bottles of wine to Brody's house. Like, why is that? That's such a curious thing to do. He brings both red and white. What's that about? You know, he seems. He seems unspoiled and eager to please for being upper class. So thinking through this, maybe Hooper and Quint are both aligned in their sense of guilt. If we're. If we're agreeing that Quint has some guilt going on, Hooper maybe is guilty over his wealth. And maybe that's a motivating factor for him to go out and study these Sharks and just sort of confront, front, like create the conditions under which he would be wrestling with real danger, real stakes in a way that his wealth perhaps has insulated him from otherwise. And maybe the bringing over of the two bottles of wine is indicative of his, of that guilt and of his desire to please and to be generous. 4:10 Wes: You know, he doesn't bring over a box of wine and he doesn't bring over some fancy, schmancy, expensive bottle of wine, but he doesn't know which wine they're going to prefer, so he hedges his bets by getting one of each. Or maybe he doesn't know which wine is going to go with dinner or something like that, right? So he's sophisticated enough to know that a white will go with some dishes and a red will go with others, but he hasn't asked them in advance. And so it's at the same time, you can see it as something, the kind of thing a wealthy person would do in the sense that it's, right, he's spending more money than he might have, but it's also a bit. There's a down to earth element of it, right. It wouldn't be the, you know, if you showed up to another snobby wealthy person's party with two bottles and said, I didn't know which one to get, you know, that would probably would be seen as maybe a bit of an unsophisticated thing to do. But in this context, right, he knows that it's not. He does, I think he comes across as. He's right, he's a trust fund kid, right, and he doesn't have to work and this is his hobby. And he does come across, I think, as a bit spoiled, you know, and he's got all that fancy equipment that Quint makes fun of him for and he's a bit green in various ways and he doesn't want to take orders and things like that. I mean, I think also, you know, overall he's very charismatic, likable, likable character. But you do get the sense he's a rich kid. It's not done to the point of caricature. So he's a complex character and he's not turned into a villain because of that. But it's quite a contrast to Quint. And the other contrast there is, he is, right, he is representative of the scientific impulse or of curiosity, which is the thing that you ultimately, therapeutically, you want to replace fear with curiosity. The curiosity towards sharks, right? That's the better comportment towards them than fear. So you have these three different. 6:11 Erin: Hold on, I'm writing this down. Okay, okay, I'm joking. 6:15 Wes: Oh, sorry. Like, wow, this is really that good? 6:20 Erin: No, I mean more like teach me not to be afraid of things. Okay, thank you. 6:26 Wes: Easier said than done. But, you know, although I have had these moments, right, in therapy where you take the edge off suffering by moving into the position of curiosity. But, yeah, not easy to do. But you might see that as the journey for Brody. And he's very excited. It's one of the few times you see him excited in the movies. Excited when he blows up the shark. He's excited when Hooper shows up. You could see this as maybe this is the kind of thing that I could have done, but I didn't do something like that. But in any case, I was going to say three impulses represented in Quint, vengeance, perhaps in Hooper, scientific curiosity. In Brody, fear, resignation, depressiveness. Something like that. And in the end, so he's reluctantly invited by Quint to do the thing that he doesn't want to do, which is to destroy the shark. He's not really that into the idea of hunting down and destroying sharks, but he's forced in that position in the end. And he obviously gets a big thrill out. I guess not getting eaten is pretty thrilling. I don't know which is more thrilling, getting eaten or not getting eaten. 7:40 Erin: Yeah, well, they seem to have forgotten that Quint was just eaten because there's, you know, it's so, like a straightforward win at the end. 7:50 Wes: They don't shed a lot of tears. 7:52 Erin: No. 7:54 Wes: Before they start paddling home. 7:56 Erin: Exactly. Just high five each other. And Brody is like. Brody is also spitting out the bloody water. He has a taste of shark blood there. It's like the sharks get. Get gotten the taste of human blood. That just grossed me out watching that. That he's, you know, you could see the blood in the water and he's like. Has his mouth open in it and spitting it out. Oh, yeah. That has nothing to do with anything. Sorry, but I'm always just like. Much of that is Quint's blood. I wonder. Anyway, Kid. Flying through the air anyway. 8:31 Wes: Yeah. I mean, the shark has a lot of people in his stomach, right? 8:36 Erin: Yeah, yeah. 8:37 Wes: Blowing out all those people, but not whole people. 8:40 Erin: That's. That's the other sick thing about the shark that I meant to say. He doesn't eat the whole person. Like, he just takes bites here and there and he leaves. 8:49 Wes: He only likes certain cuts. Yeah. I'll have the filet mignon, please. Yeah. So curiosity. Weird. And scientific impulse. That's the thing that I was associating with Hooper. And so script might have made more out of this. Right. Because you got these three characters on the boat. You might have had Hooper pulling him in one direction and saying, no, we should tag it and study it. And he does tag the shark at a certain point. Right. He sneaks the tag onto the. The barrel or something. I don't know. Or onto the. That's what I thought Hooper was doing at some point. He's trying to do something scientific at the same time because I think maybe he thinks that they're not going to actually be able to kill it or something. But. So you could have made more out of this conflict and you could have had Brody pulled in these two different directions. I don't think it would have worked, of course, but that would have thematically done more and might have even added more tension in some ways. And Brody's arc, I don't think, is to go either the Hooper direction or the Quint direction, really. Although he does seem to get. Have overcome his fear of water in the end. But getting back to Hooper, because I think that's. Yeah, I don't think you had your full say on that, but. 10:04 Erin: Yeah, no, no, he just, you know, he's also done away with during that. During the final confrontation. So it really is just man versus Beast. 10:14 Wes: Yeah. 10:15 Erin: Not men versus beast at the end. The fact that he has that whole missed opportunity with the harpoon and the hypodermic needle or whatever it is, you know, and ends up being off screen for the final moments or the climactic moment. 10:32 Wes: He's always dropping critical things. You know, he drops the tooth. 10:36 Erin: That's right. 10:37 Wes: He drops the hypodermic. 10:40 Erin: Yeah. I don't know. There's some crucial way in which that that's not going to be the thing. It's going to be the gun. The gun and the. And the air tank, which got some heavy criticism in this house for its. Sure, shark wouldn't blow up that way. 10:55 Wes: Well, apparently he can't really blow up a tank with a gun like that. And also, why is he just holding it in his mouth? So I'm just gonna hold the thing in his mouth for that long. 11:08 Erin: I know. 11:08 Wes: I understand why they like that idea and wanted to make that work. But it's fun. It's fun to see the shark blow up in the end. 11:18 Erin: Yeah. 11:18 Wes: What else are you gonna do? I mean, it's. Is it. Is it just gonna die slowly of its injuries and sink to the bottom of the ocean. 11:25 Erin: Is that how it was initially killed? How it was, or rather how it was killed in the book? 11:30 Wes: I actually don't remember. I don't know how it's killed in the book. It's probably just shot. But yeah, I don't. I mean, the scuba thing is. I think that was Spielberg's idea. Yeah. 11:39 Erin: Tiring it out is how you do, how you deal with the sperm whale. That's the Nantucket sleigh ride. 11:45 Wes: The shark took a lot of bullets and a lot of harpoons, I think. I don't know that it would have really survived it. 11:52 Erin: Well, in the end, it's a group effort. I mean, I guess, you know, they get there by virtue of quintessential Quint's boat, though. He makes it so that they, you know, they can't contact any help. And then it's the tank, which is a. Which is a Hooper contribution, and he has the equipment that he puts on the boat and then the. Then the gun. So there's something of another elemental clash in the. I was sort of imagining in part one that the beach is about like the being on the borderline between elements, I suppose. You know, the fact that the shark is blown up with air, like air defeats water. The visible somehow, like defeating the. The obscured or the hidden and then, I guess, you know, science defeating nature or something. You know, all of these things, I think, are inherent in that tank idea. But it's funny that it needs the detonation of the. Of a gun. It's like hillbilly fishing or something. Like, just like shooting a shooting fish in the water. Anyway. 12:50 Wes: Well, he seemed to have the idea in the beginning that he was going to use his pole, which was pretty funny. 12:55 Erin: Right? Right. 12:56 Wes: I think they already knew how big the shark was at that point. Right. 25ft. 13:00 Erin: Right. 13:00 Wes: Actually, once caught a shark, deep sea fishing. 13:03 Erin: Wow. 13:04 Wes: Small shark, little baby shark. Like maybe four feet or something. But yeah, I'd gone out on this boat and I was very seasick and everyone around me was catching all these, like, red fish, I forget what they're called. And just having a great time, and I was catching nothing. I'm like, what's wrong with me? Why am I failing at this? Like, we're fishing in the same ocean. I'm not catching any fish. And then finally I got something on the reel and then I started. I'm like, this is pretty heavy. Start reeling it up. And then you see the shark coming out of the water and your first impulse is to. To like, okay, well, let Me go backwards on the real. I'm not reeling. And then. And then. But another part of you is like, this is the only thing I've caught all day, and it's probably the only thing I'm gonna catch. So he's coming up, bringing the shark up no matter what. 13:56 Erin: Wow. 13:56 Wes: And then, you know, got to take the picture with it and then threw it back. 14:01 Erin: Nice. 14:02 Wes: But it's a weird experience. Yeah. You have a feeling of being connected. I haven't done a lot of fishing, but. But in that moment, you know, you feel connected to something very primordial. It's almost a hypnotic quality. But. Yeah, I don't think you're gonna pull out a 25 foot. Sure, get the guns. 14:22 Erin: Yeah, it's gonna pull you out. 14:25 Wes: Right. 14:26 Erin: Right off the dock. 14:27 Wes: It's gonna pull you in. 14:29 Erin: Pull you in. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. To go back to the air tank for a second, I was also thinking about the floaties on the. On the beach. The raft, you know, the inflatable raft. And that great image of the raft being caught in the surf and, like, tumbling because the. The bite was taken out of it. Oh, my gosh. The dog. Okay, I did not know that a dog was killed in this film. That really upset me. That was. Oh, you could do anything you want, but don't kill dogs. Yeah, the dog is. 14:56 Wes: The dog was actually killed. 14:58 Erin: Yeah. 14:58 W…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Containment and Play in “Jaws” Aug 18, 2025
    Show notes

    We’re never told exactly how Martin Brody ended up as sheriff of a small beach community, despite his fear of the water. But his ultimate confrontation with the water, and the shark that inhabits it, have a fateful character that seems to implicate his own internal conflicts. Oceanographer Matt Hooper tells Martin that sharks are attracted to the “exact kind of splashing” human beings produce when at play in the water, and Martin himself seems to be distinctively lacking in the capacity for relaxing and letting go. What is it about the activity of play that might be dangerous? How do we accommodate our impulses, relationships, and communal strivings, without being consumed by them? Wes & Erin discuss Stephen Spielberg’s 1975 classic “Jaws.” Upcoming Episodes: Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People,” “There Will Be Blood,” “As You Like It,” “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” Pre-order Erin’s forthcoming book “Avail” here: http://subtextpodcast.com/avail For bonus content, become a paid subscriber at Patreon or directly on the Apple Podcasts app. Patreon subscribers also get early access to ad-free regular episodes. Also from Wes: Curtain Times, a calendar of Boston theatre, classical, talks and readings. Follow:Twitter | Facebook | Website Transcript 0:19 Erin: or patreon.com/subtextpodcast. 0:31 Wes: We never told exactly how Martin Brody ended up as sheriff of a small beach community despite his fear of the water. But his ultimate confrontation with the water and the shark that inhabits it have a fateful character that seemed to implicate his own internal conflicts. Oceanographer Matt Hooper tells Martin that sharks are attracted to the exact kind of splashing human beings produce when at play in the water. And Martin himself seems to be distinctively lacking in the capacity for relaxing and letting go. What is it about play that might be dangerous? How do we accommodate our impulses, relationships and communal strivings without being consumed by them? Today we discuss Steven Spielberg's 1975 classic, Jaws. This is Wes Alwan. 1:24 Erin: This is Erin O'Luanaigh. 1:25 Wes: This is. And you're listening to Subtext. So, Erin, I thought I'd ask you a question which may sound like it's not really to the point, but it's something that was on my mind from the beginning of the film, which is, what is Martin Brody doing in Amity in light of his. If you had to speculate, what is it that brought them there from New York City, from the big city? 1:51 Erin: That's a really good question because he talks about the fact that there's such a low crime rate in the town that it seems this town really isn't in need of a cop. And one wonders, yeah. What he does expect to do there and why. Why does this shark need a cop to kill it? I don't. I'm not really sure what. That's. 2:09 Wes: Suicide by cop. That's a new angle. Yeah. When he's, when he's walking out to go to work, she says, you know, be safe or something like that. And he's like, in this town, as in, there's no crime. And then we find out, right, he's just beset with all these petty complaints. And he is the person who's there to resolve all these minor grievances and nuisances, vandalism, the kids are karate chopping the white picket fences or people parking in the wrong place or something like that. We can imagine his job in New York was a lot more exciting. 2:42 Erin: Yeah, I found a quote from his conversation with Hooper, he says the crime rate in New York will kill you. There's so many problems, you never feel like you're accomplishing anything. Violence, ripoffs, muggings. The kids can't leave the house, you gotta walk them to school. But it Amity, one man can make a difference. In 25 years, there's never been a shooting or a murder in this town. 3:02 Wes: Wow, I didn't remember that. 3:03 Erin: It's strange. One man can make a difference in terms of. How do you make a difference when there's no crime at all? I know, yeah. What's he saving the town from? The shark, I guess. So they have to import their crime. 3:17 Wes: Right. And it's, you know, arguably it's imported from his imagination or something. It's like he, he willed it into being or something, you know. You know, given his fears, including fear of the water, Hooper at one point says, well, it doesn't make much sense for a guy who hates the water to live on an island either. And Martin. Yeah, I'm sure you're already nodding. It's only an island if you look at it from the water. One of the great funny lines in this film. 3:43 Erin: Yeah, that's the ultimate fenced in property. Yeah, an island. And that seems to be his children are his motivation. It seems to move away from New York and get them away from crime and then they're sort of his investment in the shark. So this is his picket fence. 4:02 Wes: Right. I think we can definitely speculate that the children are part of it. Right. So the first scene in the movie involves the young woman being killed by the shark. By the way, I'm sorry for lying to you. This is a lot gorier this movie than I said it was. It's been so long since I've seen it. This time was like seeing it the first time. But as usual, every time I watched one of these scenes, like shaking my head, seeing it through you, through your eyes. 4:29 Erin: No, I really enjoyed it. I haven't seen all of the film. I will say that the scene when Quint gets murdered by the shark, I had never seen. So I don't think they showed that in its entirety. They must not have. Right. If I saw it on TV, then I never saw that scene before. I thought it was kind of awesome. I don't know. 4:48 Wes: It's cool. Wow, cool. 4:51 Erin: It helps that the shark is so fake looking. 4:55 Wes: Yeah, yeah, that's true. 4:56 Erin: That's. 4:56 Wes: Yeah. But I was gonna say. So after that scene, we start with a very typical Spielbergian. Is that a Word type of beginning, which is a kind of vignette of family life. And it's imperfect in some way or another. Sometimes it's just imperfect in the usual way that families are imperfect. It's chaotic, but it's still very loving. And that's what you have here. And that's kind of a very similar beginning. In Close Encounters of the Third Kind, for instance, or in ET Right. Children of Divorce, you get a really kind of touching picture of family life. And maybe family life already had some sort of loss. So in this case, it does seem pretty idyllic, except that we get the smallest hints of conflict, right? So when he wakes up, the first thing that he says to his wife Ellen, or he's looking out the window and he says, it's a beautiful day. Instead of saying, oh, it's a beautiful day, he says, how come the sun didn't used to shine in here? It's almost like a complaint. And that's her opportunity to say, we bought the house in the fall. This is summer. So it's a great little way to deliver backstory. As a technical matter, we learn that they're new to the community. Later on, we learn that they'll never really be part of the community. Right? You have to be born on the island to be an islander. And that seems like that's Ellen's aspiration, right. She's asked, when will we be islanders? She gets that reply. In this first scene. It doesn't seem like it's much really his aspiration to be there. But you had mentioned the kids, and I thought this is. Yeah, this seems to be an important piece of the puzzle because in the Michael Cuts his hand, right? And then Ellen is very casually washing it off and telling him to go get a band aid, right? She doesn't put the band aid on for him. In the 70s, you got your own band aid. Just like you got to go play in the ocean without anyone watching you or, you know, the five year old on the swing, Right. I think one of the most horrifying things to a contemporary audience is probably like, the lack of child supervision. 7:03 Erin: I know. 7:03 Wes: And that's like one of the first things they ask when Ellen's like, see the K, right? The kids are already outside. They're asleep. And he's like, they must be in the backyard. So going back to the safety of the kids, right? There's this direct parallel between the young woman getting eaten by the shark and why? Because of typical horror movie trope, because of sexuality, right. There were adolescents at play and then she's running off to skinny dip with this guy. And then, of course, gets punished for it. But in the case of the children, it's a child at play, right? Child at play hurts himself. Play can be dangerous, but it's minor. And he's going to get patched up and he's going to go right back out to the ocean. And that's happening in the background while Brody is taking a call about this missing woman. So we immediately, you know, we're alerted to the idea that the safety of the children is something that's at stake here. And it's going to become more and more pressing. Right. It's why, in the end, Brody is going to have to take action when, I mean, it's part of it when, you know, Michael ends up in the hospital. 8:04 Erin: Right, yeah. That seems crucial because Quint and Hooper don't have stakes the way that Brody has stakes. So Brody is, you know, the fact of his whole family being relocated to the island gives him more of, I don't know, more of a sense of belonging in a way even than Quint, who is sort of so islander that he's, you know, Quint is this caricature of an islander who seems to have ingested all of the island's quirks and the things about it which make it a community with its own rules. A sort of exclusive place in a sort of lower middle class kind of way, but still a place where one has to break in. Quint's sort of so broken in that he's out. He's like a shoe worn through or something. 8:56 Wes: Good old Robert Shaw. He is almost worn through at that point. Right. He has a couple of years to live. 9:01 Erin: Yeah, exactly. 9:02 Wes: A couple more years of hard living to do. 9:05 Erin: Right. I know. I was thinking, like all the people in this movie I associate with other movies, like Roy Scheider. I associate with all that jazz, frankly. And that's my background talking. And Robert Shaw. I'm like, Henry, King Henry viii. Yeah, I'm like that. This is what would happen to Henry VIII if he was not a kid. 9:27 Wes: He's amazing in that. Yeah. Talk about a force of nature. I mean, he should have played the shark. 9:31 Erin: Well, he is the. I mean, yeah, they're all, all three of them is the shark. Right. Like, there's a reading where. Where each of the main trio is the shark. Roy Scheider looks like the shark in a bunch of shots. Did you notice that he has the, like the black eyes? 9:45 Wes: I never thought of that. Yeah, he is, you know, But I. I thought he is quite passive compared to Hooper and Quint, though he's often on the sideline. I mean, he. You know, the. He doesn't really come into his own until the shark is blowing up at the very end and then he paddles back. 10:01 Erin: Yeah, he doesn't speak very much. 10:03 Wes: That doesn't speak very much. And it doesn't shark, like, immediately stand up to the council people and the mayor. Right. Eventually he does. You know, he's forced to. Right. And let me hire Quint. Reluctantly goes out on the boat, is not happy about doing the chumming, is kind of getting ordered around. Hooper is making much more of a resistance to putting up much more of a fight with Quint in the movie and outside of the movie, him and. 10:29 Erin: Yeah, that's right. 10:31 Wes: He and Robert Shaw are fighting, which is great. I love that backstory where they just hated each other, sort of. 10:37 Erin: Yeah, sort of loved each other. Sort of hated each other. But, yeah, I just. I love this idea of, like, Dreyfuss just never shutting up, just constantly talking and getting on Shaw's nerves. 10:47 Wes: Yeah. 10:48 Erin: It's a totally different dynamic. But it reminds me of in Star wars when Alec Guinness paid Mark Hamill $20 to go away. 10:58 Wes: Here's your sword. Here's $20. Get out. But yeah, so just getting back to the. Because this is on. I mean, we're kind of. Yeah. We've worked our way back to the character Brody. What I think of as his passivity. He seems kind of depressed to me through most of the movie. And this whole first line is kind of part and parcel complaining. The sun is only just showing up. And we even get a hint of the idea that they'll never be part of the community. In this very scene, when he says, the kids must be in the backyard, and she says, an Amity. You say yard. And then he fakes a Boston or New England accent and then. And says, how's that? And she says, like, you're from New York, so there will always be New Yorkers, no matter what. They're never going to fully belong there. So I wanted just to continue a little bit the speculation about what might have brought them there. Right. Because I think in a contemporary Hollywood movie, I don't think they would be able to resist giving us more of this backstory because they would want to heighten the conflict. Right. Is there a conflict between the couple in the original script? Right. She sleeps with Hooper, and that's the way it is in the novel, which would have been disastrous for this movie. And I'm glad Spielberg got rid of that. Like this. 12:10 Erin: Yeah. Who would sleep with Richard Dreyfuss when you're married to Roy Scheider? It doesn't make any sense. 12:15 Wes: Well, in the novel, he's this like six foot two, blonde, buff guy. In the novel, you know, who also just happens to be a scientist. 12:24 Erin: Gotcha. 12:26 Wes: Yeah, no, that would not have worked either. But the contrast between Hooper and Brody and Quint is very, very important. But, you know, you can speculate, right? It could be, hey, this is too much for the kids. New York is unsafe. Let's go to a nice, safe little beach town. It could be being a big city cop is too stressful. It could be. You know, in some movies it would be, I shot that kid in the ass. Is that. What. Is that the Blazing Saddles thing? I shot someone. I had something traumatic in my police job. 13:01 Erin: Right. Well, something did. Something did happen. We know he has. He has scars, too. I mean, we all have scars, but those three have. Have visible ones. 13:11 Wes: This doesn't sound like his choice. It sounds more like what Ellen wanted. So you can imagine, she persuaded him to do this. She thinks being like this is like going, you know, let's go to the Hamptons. Let's do it permanently. 13:24 Erin: I don't know. I don't know. You know, I think in the quote that I read when he's talking to Hooper, he's given up. He's given up on New York. You know, it seems. It seems like a personal decision to have left because he felt it was futile to stay. So he traded one island for another. He's looking for a safe community for his kids. And it is interesting that he's. I think you're right that he's depressed. I never thought of that before. He's also. He's very, you know, he's so tan, which is kind of funny because that implies being out getting sun. Right? And instead he seems like this dark cloud. Like, you know, someone calls the shark the cloud over the seaside community. But he kind of seems like this dark cloud in the middle of this sunshiny beach environment. 14:13 Wes: Sits around in lawn chairs waiting for dolly. Zooms. 14:16 Erin: Exactly. 14:17 Wes: Waiting. 14:18 Erin: What a…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    The Door Slam Heard ‘Round the World: Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” (Part 2) Aug 04, 2025
    Show notes

    Nora Helmer begins Act I as a devoted wife to her respectable husband, Torvald, and a devoted mother to her young children. She ends Act III by walking out on all of them and closing the door behind her. The emotional distance covered in these three acts (representing a span of just a few days in the lives of the Helmers) makes Nora one of the greatest and most coveted acting challenges in the theater. How might we mark out a route between the Nora of Act I, the charming toy of the men in her life who seems to desire nothing more than the comfort and ease her husband’s recent promotion is set to provide, and the Nora of Act III, an independent woman willing to sacrifice everything in pursuit of her own self-determination? Wes & Erin discuss continue their discussion of Henrik Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House.” Upcoming Episodes: Jaws, Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People.” Pre-order Erin’s forthcoming book “Avail” here: http://subtextpodcast.com/avail For bonus content, become a paid subscriber at Patreon or directly on the Apple Podcasts app. Patreon subscribers also get early access to ad-free regular episodes. Also from Wes: Curtain Times, a calendar of Boston theatre, classical, talks and readings. Follow:Twitter | Facebook | Website Transcript 0:20 Erin: or patreon.com/subtextpodcast. Welcome to part two of our discussion of Ibsen's play A Doll's House. We're still talking about money. We're gonna be. We're gonna be talking about money the whole time. We're talking about how Nora has a different relationship to the future, shall we say, than Torvald does in her, as demonstrated by her relationship with money. I also, you know, I want to piggyback off of that and just say that Nora is aware as well of the power that her looks give her. And she's also aware that this is a finite power. So she's also investing, if you will, in the present. She talks about the fact that she might reveal the scheme of the loan to Torvald when she's old and has lost her looks. Do you remember that part? 1:15 Wes: Mm. But that's impossible. That'll never happen. 1:18 Erin: That'll never happen. You gotta love Nora's self confidence for all of her being a beggar. Oh, here we go. It's on 122. I found it. She says, yes, perhaps one day, many years from now, when I'm no longer as pretty. You shouldn't laugh. I mean, of course, when Torvald no longer admires me as much as he does now, when he no longer finds it amusing to have me dance for him, dress up and recite things. Oh, God, that is awful. Then it might be good to have something in reserve. And she breaks off. Oh, rubbish, Rubbish. That time will never come. She's smarter too, then about the present, about necessity, things that need to be done at this moment, the sacrifices that need to be made now for the future. And also, she's smart about the Ways to get things. So she. When she recounts to Christine the moment of her husband's diagnosis, she says to Christine, good Lord, don't you understand? He wasn't even meant to know how much danger he was in. I was the one the doctors came to saying that his life was at risk, that nothing could save him except to stay in the south and only four star hotels would do now, don't you think I tried to coax him at first. I talked to him about how lovely it would be for me to travel abroad like other young wives. I cried and I begged. I said he should please remember my condition. She's pregnant at the time, right? Is that it? I guess that he must be kind to give in to my wishes. And then I suggested that he could perhaps take out a loan. But then he almost went into a fury, Christine. He said I was frivolous and that it was his duty as a husband not to give way to me and my whims and caprices, I think he called it. Well, I thought, you've got to be rescued. And so I found a way out. So she acts the part of the frivolous wife. So she's been told he's going to die unless he goes. He's not to be told that he will die. So she has to find a way to get him to go without telling him, it's for your own good, it's for your health. So she plays the part of, well, I want nice things, I want my trip abroad, I want my time, you know, I want my vacant, my fancy vacation. She puts it in those terms, I want to take my frivolous, extravagant vacation and you better pay for it. And so I think this is evidence that she is aware of things. You know, in the last part, I think I pointed briefly to some evidence that she knew all along that her opinions were different from him. And I think that she was aware of. And in instances like these where she recounts him refusing to take out a loan, she obviously had a different opinion about him, about the idea of taking out a loan. And that's demonstrated by her actions. And I think she's aware of putting on the mask of the coquette, the alluring woman, and also at times putting on the mask of the high maintenance young wife who wants what she wants. All of these things are to manipulate him to do something either for his own good or for the sake of the children. 4:18 Wes: Yeah, I'm not sure if I completely agree about how aware she is of all of these things. She is making a dramatic Transformation. In the end, she's not aware of all the things that she talks about. In the end, she might be partly aware or unconsciously aware. It's a weird way to put it. Certainly the sprouts and the beginnings of awareness are there and I think they're enacted, right. They come out in the whole. The loan is not just about her loving him and wanting him to get better. It's about finding out who he is, I think. Right. It's not consciously that. And it's also about efficacy. Right. So she says at one point, right. See Christine, aren't I also capable of something? This was her big moment of individuation and efficacy. It was her way of asserting herself and being more than a doll, being more than this powerless thing in Torvald's household. But she's also aware that it puts her husband into a kind of debt, emotional debt. He doesn't like financial debt, but it also puts him into a kind of emotional debt. Just think how awkward and humiliating it would be for Torvald with his manly self esteem to know he owed me something. It would upset the entire balance of our relationship. Our beautiful happy home would no longer be what it is. And of course that's the whole point of this trajectory of events is to unsettle the balance of the relationship because the relationship is unsatisfactory. Is she aware that the relationship is unsatisfactory? Probably like most people. Yes and no. Right. You know, it's like she is and she isn't. She's in probably quite a bit of denial, but she's aware enough to get things going to the point of discovery. I don't know. Does that sound right? 6:05 Erin: Yes. No. I don't disagree with you and I don't think that these things are mutually exclusive. I mean, I think that she could be aware of the ways in which she's manipulating him up to a point. Right. And think that this is happiness. I mean, part of this idea is, or part of the idea of why she's doing the things she's doing is supposed to be out of this self sacrificial. She's trying to please him. She's trying to please him. Right. And that's a woman's job after all, isn't it? It's to be a wife, it's to be a mother, it's to not have an identity except in relation to these other people. So it's to not be an individual or a human being. It's to sure put on this little performance if that's what's going to make my husband happy, because that is the number one thing, is to make him happy and to make sure that everything goes smoothly. And she only discovers at the end of the play that she had not been happy all along performing for him. Right. So she knows she's performing for him, but she thinks that this is actually making her happy to exert herself for him in this way. She realizes at that point that she's only been cheerful, not happy on some deeper level. 7:10 Wes: Right, right. 7:11 Erin: But I think her awareness is more considerable than everything being on an unconscious level, or most things being on an unconscious level. She says to Christine, for instance, when she accuses Christine of being condescending to her, says, you're like the others. You all think I'm incapable of anything really serious. She's talking about serious work, but I think she's talking about something else there, too. She expresses, in other words, a frustration. 7:37 Wes: And this is why she basically brags about the loan. This is the serious thing that she did. She wants to counter Christine's perception. 7:42 Erin: Yes, I know what I'm doing. I have efficacy, too. I understand. You know, she understands enough to lie about the macaroons, for instance. You know, she understands enough to lie in the long term to Torvald about this loan. She knows not to tell him. 7:59 Wes: Yeah, I just don't think she fully. I don't think she understands why she took out the loan. She partly understands. Right. 8:07 Erin: Yes, I agree with you. 8:08 Wes: Right. So she understands that it gives her a sense of efficacy, but she doesn't, I would say. Right. As a psychoanalyst, the two main motivations for her in doing this are to this just the sense of efficacy that it gives her in the immediate moment and the fact that it sets in motion a chain of events which will lead to her own independence and individuation. Right. 8:31 Erin: Those are still secondary to the reason, which is he needs to go south to save his life. 8:36 Wes: Well, that's the conscious. That's the conscious motive. 8:39 Erin: Okay, I see, I see. 8:40 Wes: And that, I think, is true, but it's also only part of the equation. And in a way, the two unconscious motives I've given, I think, are more. Are stronger, in a sense, and the conscious motive just masks that. Which is not to say she doesn't love him and wanted him to get well. I think there's an apt quotation here, which is. It's a variation on the. Oh, these things are so hard to keep track of or get a hold of. She'll say later on, these kinds of transactions are so extremely difficult to keep track of. And she's talking about, she's saying to Christine that she doesn't know how much she has left to pay on the loan. But at this point, I think the play has paved the way enough that we can read the subtext of that, which is that transactions of love and honor are hard to keep track of. These are two different currencies. And Torvald in the end will say, well, no one would trade his own honor for love. Right? This is the non financial transaction that's really at issue in the play. Honor, independence, efficacy, autonomy versus love. For the sake of love. Would you trade away your independence, Torvald? No. No one would ever do that, Nora. That's what women do. That's what this is about. She sets in motion a chain of events where he is invited to appreciate that by being subjected to a situation where he has to make a decision, is he going to sacrifice his honor for the sake of love in the way that she has been forced to? She's inviting him into that position that she's experienced as a woman. Well, she's inviting him into that, into that position and inviting him to live up to his promise that he would be self sacrificing for her. And of course he can't do it. So she's right. So there's an unconscious motivation, I think, in the very beginning or before the play even begins, to expose him for the type of person he is. Some instinctual level. She knows something wrong is wrong with the relationship. I don't think she can articulate it, but she acts in such a way that it'll be articulated in the course of time. 10:56 Erin: Yeah, I love that, you know, in thinking through that, I wonder the extent to which these psychological questions, these unconscious motivations that you're pointing to are capable of coming to the fore in this play at this point, present moment, the moment of the play, only because it's been so long since Torvald's illness. In other words, the immediate, the conscious motivation is now so distant from the dramatic moment of the play. You know, we don't see Torvald as someone who was ever sick. And he has this distaste for Dr. Rank's illness, or for illness in general, I think as a result of the fact both that he did not know that he was ill. 11:37 Wes: Plot wise. What brings everything to a head is his promotion, because that's what makes Krogstad uneasy. He knows he's gonna get fired and so has to embark on his project of blackmail, which you know, will inevitably lead to the exposure of all this. And then. And then the real exposure, which is the exposure of Torvald. 11:57 Erin: Right. 11:58 Wes: For being the person, the type of person that he. That he is. 12:01 Erin: Right. 12:01 Wes: So this has all been hibernating, so to speak. It's unearthed by the promotion. So the happy promotion. Right. Which is going to bring them out of frugality and asceticism and austerity. Self denial, supposedly. And it's going to justify her extravagance. It's going to allow her to. Anyway. That, ironically, is the thing that brings it all down. 12:26 Erin: Right. She's finally going to be out of austerity. He has everything the way he likes it and hasn't been denied anything. So the austerity was being experienced only, it seems, by Nora. 12:36 Wes: Right. All of that in quotation marks. There's no. 12:38 Erin: Right, Right. 12:39 Wes: Well, to some extent, they've lived in austerity. If she's been making the presents out of paper or doing whatever it is she was, and they didn't have a proper Christmas tree the last. The previous year. But it's hard to tell, Right. Were they really that poor off or. Yeah, yeah. What's going on there? But in any case, whatever situation that they're in, she gets the brunt of it because she's on the allowance. 12:59 Erin: Right. And we're also made to understand that part of the austerity was as a result of Torvald refusing to take certain cases as a lawyer, which I think is very important. So in the previous part, you made this really great distinction between the kind of illness that Dr. Rank has and the kind of illness that Krogstad has, and that Torvald makes a distinction between these two. Torvald isn't even aware of himself as someone who has been physically ill in the past, nor is he aware of someone who is sort of morally ill, morally compromised. And I think that's key, that ignorance on those. Both on both those fronts that aligns him sort of with Krogstad and sort of with Rank. But one of the reasons it seems that they have not had much money is because of his refusal to take cases which he thought were improper. So in other words, to act as a lawyer for someone who he felt was guilty is that. So he stands as judge of these clients and if he, as judge, decides that they've done something that he doesn't want to associate with because he's very concerned about being contaged by other people's wickedness. 14:10 Wes: Yeah, he and Dr. Rank share that, by the way. 14:13 Erin: Yes, yes. And he believes in both in contagion and in genetic moral disease. We have to take his word for it when he says that Nora is a spendthrift at the beginning of the play because we don't know any better really. And also because he gives a genetic explanation for her being a spendthrift, saying that her father was one as well. But we n…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    The Door Slam Heard ‘Round the World: Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” Jul 29, 2025
    Show notes

    Nora Helmer begins Act I as a devoted wife to her respectable husband, Torvald, and a devoted mother to her young children. She ends Act III by walking out on all of them and closing the door behind her. The emotional distance covered in these three acts (representing a span of just a few days in the lives of the Helmers) makes Nora one of the greatest and most coveted acting challenges in the theater. How might we mark out a route between the Nora of Act I, the charming toy of the men in her life who seems to desire nothing more than the comfort and ease her husband’s recent promotion is set to provide, and the Nora of Act III, an independent woman willing to sacrifice everything in pursuit of her own self-determination? Wes & Erin discuss Henrik Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House.” Upcoming Episodes: Jaws, Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People.” Pre-order Erin’s forthcoming book “Avail” here: http://subtextpodcast.com/avail For bonus content, become a paid subscriber at Patreon or directly on the Apple Podcasts app. Patreon subscribers also get early access to ad-free regular episodes. Also from Wes: Curtain Times, a calendar of Boston theatre, classical, talks and readings. Follow:Twitter | Facebook | Website Transcript 0:19 Erin: or patreon.com/subtextpodcast. Nora helmer begins Act 1 as a devoted wife to her respectable husband, Torvald and a devoted mother to her young children. She ends Act 3 by walking out on all of them and closing the door behind her. The emotional distance covered in these three acts, representing a span of just a few days in the lives of the Helmers, makes Nora one of the greatest and most coveted acting challenges in the theater. How might we mark out a route between the nora of Act 1, the charming toy of the men in her life, who seems to desire nothing more than the comfort and ease her husband's recent promotion is set to provide, and the nora of Act 3, an independent woman willing to sacrifice everything in pursuit of her own self determination. Today we're discussing Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House. This is Erin O'Luanaigh. This is Wes Alwan, and you're listening to Subtext. So, Wes, just before we started recording, you mentioned that your cat really likes treats. 1:34 Wes: And 1:37 Erin: my understanding is you make her work for them. Is that right? Like you put them in little gold envelopes on the Christmas tree and you make her do the tarantella. 1:47 Wes: Well, she actually left me recently. She had a very stern talk with me. She was like, meow, meow, meow, meow, meow, meow. 1:57 Erin: And you were like, I don't understand you. It's like we're speaking different languages. And she was like, meow, you've never respected me. 2:04 Wes: Now we're strangers. You don't understand my species. And she slammed the door. Somehow she managed, with a little paws. It was the slam heard round the block. What is it? Who came up with this? The door slam heard round the world phrase? You've heard that? 2:27 Erin: No. 2:27 Wes: Some critic must have come up with that. Yeah, that's how the end of the play is often characterized. 2:32 Erin: Oh, that's great. Have you read much criticism on A Doll's House in preparation for today? Because I did at one point, many years ago. So we'll see how much I remember. 2:42 Wes: Not much. I just went and looked at contemporaneous criticism. I always find it fun to look at the critical heritage books. These are Routledge books. And this is One on Ibsen by Michael Egan. And basically they go through major works and then responses to those major works. So Doll's House, there's like. I read all of what was available, like an unsigned notice in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily News. So this is for the performance in England, which happened in 1889, I think a few years after he published it. And one thing I think I learned from reading on background is how important translation is to Ibsen. And he very quickly became much more than a Norwegian playwright. Right. He's Norwegian. Just get confused because Denmark and Norway were. Right. They were unified up to a certain point. But, yeah, so he started, you know, I think he made a big international splash eventually. And certainly this play, Doll's House, made a big splash in England and was the source of some critical controversy. I read something by Janet Achurch on the difficulty of being Nora that she published. She was the actress in that first English language rendition in London. And it's very typical actress talk like this took so much out. This is the hardest but most rewarding role I've ever had. And blah, blah, blah. And then William Archer, his, I think, first English translator, published a defense in a newspaper. I think it's to Clement Scott. But anyway, yeah, there's a critic, you know, who's very strongly anti Ibsen. And as you can imagine, this play caused some controversy, not, as you might think, because of the feminist message. I think I mentioned this to you when we last talked that I think it's Scott who's kind of offended at the idea that anyone would need to be lectured about women's rights in their day and age when it had been solved for 100 years, at least in England. Maybe in Norway you still have problems, but here in England, we don't need to be lectured. But then he goes on to. There's a typical objection to Nora's seemingly sudden transformation at the end of the play. So that's a sort of craftsmanship type of objection. There's an objection to him being too preachy. Art shouldn't be this preachy. But then there is the kind of moralistic objection to the horror of her leaving her kids behind. 5:14 Erin: Sure. 5:15 Wes: Which made me think of Medea a bit. I started thinking about Medea when I was rereading. I think I read this three times in preparation for this, and the third time took notes. I'm like, huh, this is interesting. This is. You know, there's a lot of differences, of course, and she's not a sorceress, she's just a Spendthrift. She does have the tarantella. Is that how you pronounce it? The tarantelle? 5:37 Erin: Tarantella, yeah. 5:39 Wes: Tarantella. But anyway, we can get into all that. But, yeah, that's my summary of the contemporaneous critical reaction. 5:46 Erin: My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, this is a bit hazy, was that it was actually a bigger scandal for her to leave her husband. I know there been differing reports on this, but it was a bigger scandal for her to have left her husband than for her to leave the children. Because of the way that Norwegian society was. I mean, the children are already kind of being raised by Anne Marie anyway. It seems they just, you know, they come in for Nora to play hide and seek with them and et cetera. Though it is noted she spends a lot of time with the children. More time than most mothers do. But it seems that the bigger scandal in the minds of certain critics, I thought, was leaving the husband. That isn't to say that, you know, maternal feeling didn't exist and that it was a bigger. Emotionally, it would have been more higher stakes for her to leave the children. But in terms of propriety and what society might have demanded, it was perhaps more scandalous for her to leave the husband than the children at that time. 6:43 Wes: Yeah, maybe it was in Norway. My impression from the English reaction was it was more about the. It was about both, but more about the children. So actually, now that I'm looking at this, I think it'd just be fun to give you a little bit of a taste of some of this criticism. Should we do that? So this is Clement Scott in Theater, the journal Theater in 1889. It is an unlovely, selfish creed. But let women hear it. Nora, when she finds her husband is not the ideal hero she imagined, determines to cap his egotism with her selfishness, which he takes to be vengeful. Pardon. She cannot grant humiliation. She will not recognize the frivolous butterfly. The Swedish Frou-Frou, the spoiled plaything has mysteriously become an Ibsenite revivalist. There were no previous signs of her conversion, but she has exchanged playfulness for preaching. So this is one of the more technical criticisms that she had too sudden a transformation, forgets all her responsibilities and does a thing that one of the lower animals would not do. A cat or dog would tear anyone who separated from its offspring. But the socialistic Nora, the apostle of the new creed of humanity, leaves her children almost without a pang. It is self, self, self. This is the ideal woman of the new creed. Not a woman who is the fountain of love and forgiveness and charity. Not the pattern woman we have admired in our mothers and our sisters. Not the model of unselfishness and charity, but a mass of aggregate conceit and self sufficiency who leaves her home and deserts her friendless children because she has herself to look after. 8:19 Erin: And is this guy the basis for the character Torvald or just. Is that just a coincidence? Wow. That's pretty incredible. 8:27 Wes: Yeah. So you get there's a more reasonable, nuanced. Some unsigned notices which are more reasonable. But you get the idea of what my general sense was. The thing with the children was more objectionable to this English response. But this was. I think this is six years after it came out in Norway. You know, I think there are significant differences. There were very significant differences at the time between those. Norway was a much more conservative culture at that point. 8:52 Erin: Sure. 8:53 Wes: Than England. Yeah. 8:54 Erin: Well, listeners will have to forgive me. My thinking on the play probably has been heavily influenced by a couple of people who I'll name in just a minute, but I have not read their writings on this in a very long time. I thought it would be actually better for me to kind of come in a little bit fresher because A Doll's House was my first Ibsen play and I know it a little too well or something. I don't know. I was worried about being too influenced by criticism on it. So I, in the past have read Hardwick on Nora, which I think I mentioned in our Hedda Gabler episode. I think we read a little bit from Hardwick on Hedda and Stella Adler's lectures on A Doll's House, which I really, really recommend. I think the reason why I read Ibsen for the first time and why I read this play first was because of Hannah and her sisters. Right. Because it's mentioned that Hannah plays Nora in A Doll's House and her mother says something about how it must be hard to act like Torvald's little chipmunk without making a total ass of yourself. Or I know that it's hard, you know, like she. She mentions something about making an ass of yourself, like it's difficult to play Nora without doing so. And then I remember having done a little reading about A Doll's House after, because I was curious the first time I had seen Hannah and her sister. The great acting challenge that playing Nora represents. I think that probably is then what inspired me to start reading Stella Adler on Nora, because I have a great many of Stella Adler's books, which I just really recommend. In general, she's kind of a hero of mine. But anyway. Yeah. So the question is. I mean, I suppose the big question of this play is how we link the Nora of the first act and the Nora of the third act together. 10:34 Wes: Yeah, good question. Yeah, good. 10:36 Erin: I believe that Hardwick. And this is why I didn't want to revisit it, because I thought it would be difficult for me to come up with my own answer to this. I believe that Hardwick identifies her innate freedom and sense of independence from the very beginning, as exemplified in her generosity, as being the sort of connective tissue. I noted a few places where she. I mean, she never tells Torvald about her sacrifice. And that, to me, is indicative of the fact that she is actually a little bit more. That the condescension between them goes both ways. And it reveals the fact that she was never comfortable enough to divulge her secret to him, to really have this. This open communication between them. And so she gets to kind of have this little secret that she's. I mean, it's a noble one, but that she's, in a sense, taken care of him, knowing that she's taken care of him, even as he believes that he's taking care of her in the confrontation scene between the two of them. We're reading from the Penguin Classics edition, A Doll's House and Other Plays, which is. I believe it's the first one on Amazon. When you search for A Doll's House. I like this translation quite a bit. It's translated by Deborah Dawkin and Erik Skuggevik. Excuse my pronunciation there, but anyway, so this is on page 185 in that edition. Helmer asks her, if religion can't direct you, then at least let me stir your conscience, for surely you have some moral sense. Or answer me. Perhaps you have none. And Nora replies, oh, Torvald, that's not easy to answer. I simply don't know. I'm in such confusion over these things. I just know that my opinion is very different from yours on such matters. So an indication that she's been disagree. She's actually disagreed with him all along and just has not felt comfortable enough to say so, or has just been lying to herself about these disagreements or hasn't been fully aware of them. So something in her, in other words, has kept her from sharing parts of herself with him. An innate distrust, an innate sense that perhaps he wasn't equal to being in this. This full understanding with her even before she was quite aware of that impulse in herself to hide it. She didn't know that she was hiding these things, but she was. 12:52 Wes: So it came out in Copenhagen in 1879, ten years before the British premiere. So I got that wrong. And then I forgot to mention, I also watched version that I actually watched was the 1992 BBC version with Juliet Stevenson. And I thought of this just because you were talking about how difficult it would have been to perform that part. And, I mean, it's an amazing version. Is there one you recommend? 13:19 Erin: No, I haven't seen one I like and I've never seen that BBC version. I think I saw the one with Jane Fonda ages ago. 13:26 Wes: Okay. 13:26 Erin: Which is a very loose, from what I remember, very loose adaptation of the play. 13:31 Wes: So check it out. I mean, I just. I think it's great. And they play Torvald more aggressively than I actually read him, but it works. And then I thought, oh, it's interesting how there's quite a range for how you might play the Torvald character, either accentuating his weakness or accentuating some of his aggressiveness. And it reminds me, we're going to read next time we're going to read Enemy of the People. Right? 13:53 Erin: Yeah. If you'd like to. 13:54 Wes: I don't know of a good. There's a movie version of that with what's his face. It's not Paul Newman or. 14:02 Erin: Oh, Steve McQueen. 14:05 Wes: Steve McQueen, yeah. But I don't know of any available. I couldn't find anything available, like, any rendition of the play that's easily available online, except for, like, you know, high school productions and stuff like that. 14:18 Erin: On Criterion, there's an Indian adaptation directed by Ray, which is quite interesting, though it really, I think, makes Stockman a far more straightforward hero. The assembly scene is kind of butchered, and then the ending is sort of butchered as well. So it's a much more straightforward. So it's sort of a disappointment, which I hesitate to say, because I love Ray.…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Anti-Mystery in “Picnic at Hanging Rock” (Part 2) Jul 14, 2025
    Show notes

    What happens, this film asks, when an event resists the imposition of order, stands beyond the reach of logic or even language? Wes & Erin continue their discussion of “Picnic at Hanging Rock.” Upcoming Episodes: Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House”; Jaws, Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People.” Pre-order Erin’s forthcoming book “Avail” here: http://subtextpodcast.com/avail For bonus content, become a paid subscriber at Patreon or directly on the Apple Podcasts app. Patreon subscribers also get early access to ad-free regular episodes. Also from Wes: Curtain Times, a calendar of Boston theatre, classical, talks and readings. Follow:Twitter | Facebook | Website Transcript 0:20 Erin: or patreon.com/subtextpodcast. Okay, welcome to part two of our discussion of Picnic at Hanging Rock. We just got done talking about the dangers of algebra and I don't need any convincing there. And I hinted at this in part one. I just want to talk about Australia itself and its status as a curious—what is it—cipher, which I think the film is working with. Maybe Hanging Rock itself is kind of a stand in for all of Australia, but I just, you know, I was reflecting on the fact that Australia is a kind of a nowhere. Its name is from the Latin Terra australis incognita, so unknown southern land. So I guess its southern ness is the thing that remains in the name of the place, but it's otherwise sort of unlocatable. It's of the west, and that it was colonized by the west, and yet it is not Western. It's not really east either. You know, it's sort of like too far east to be east. It's in the Southern hemisphere. So we have this topsy turvy quality to a Western sensibility in which February 14 is the height of summer. In terms of its landscape, you know, it's sort of tropical, but not really, and only on the edges. It has the outback, the bush, this arid landscape, which at the same time can't really be mapped onto the more famed landscapes in the Western imagination that are desert, like the Sahara or, you know, it has a sort of frontier quality, but it's not as recognizable or legible to us as, say, the American frontier, the American West. And it has this history of colonization, but it's as a penal colony. So that's kind of a whole other thing. Right? So we can say that, you know, this film has attracted a lot of comparisons to something like Passage to India, which in my mind has a far more legible colonial statement, in a way. Or it's far more. Right. Like we think of India, when we think of places that were colonized by England, we think of that place as being a place which has its own long culture, its own architecture, its own sense of itself, and this extremely lush, verdant, tropical place. And then we think of the British coming in, right, and trying to laminate on top of that some sort of something, you know, whereas. Whereas Australia just doesn't have, you know, it has obviously the aboriginal peoples, of course, but in the Western imagination, that there isn't that kind of easy parallel. We don't Think of Australia, you know, it's not the first thing that comes to mind when we think of any number of these categorizations that we have in the west of understanding either the parts of the world which are other from the west or the parts of the world on which the west has left its mark. And I think that the fact that Australia kind of stands outside of a sort of easy narrative really makes it this ideal place for a story like this, which I'm. Which I'm suggesting is a sort of anti. Mystery or which is deconstructing the mystery story. Because in the way. In a way that's kind of Australia's whole bag. That's Australia's whole thing. It's this thing that. That can't be classified, that can't be understood, that there is no language to encapsulate. And so what happens on Hanging Rock is kind of like, you know, that mystery, that central plot point, is kind of like Australia itself. Which then leads me to think about the kind of people who come to Australia and therefore the kind of people who end up teaching at a school like Appleyard College. Because of course, on the one hand the girls are these fascinating creatures because their teenage girls are kind of nuts and they're, you know, a lot of these girls are beautiful and they're wealthy and they're connected to nature and they're all, you know, at the bloom of youth and all that. But of course, in all of the. In every instance that is about a repressive school, of course, the most fascinating people are the teachers that are there because the teachers are in this bizarre position of being probably at best middle class and being thrust into this situation in which they have to provide for themselves by ministering to these girls who are very shortly going to entirely leapfrog over them. And yet they have control over these upper class girls in the environment of the school. And so, and, and that I think is complicated. Or further. Yeah, further complicated. That already fascinating relationship with this idea of Australia. Like, why are these women here? You know, like in England, of course they're there because they're English and they need a job, right. But in Australia it's like, how did you get here? What's your. Greta McCraw is Scottish, you know, and there's that shade of. Because it's a penal colony, you know, and Australians have embraced this largely. But, you know, there's that hint of, you know, even if you were born here and you didn't immigrate here, perhaps your family has this sort of Sordid history. What's your background? Why? How did you end up here? I don't know all of that to say, like the French teacher is a fascinating figure to me. McCraw is a fascinating figure, less so because she just seems to be very sour faced and very, you know, exactly the kind of person we would associate with the school. And Appleyard, too, is a fascinating figure. 5:50 Wes: I think it's a forbidding and in many ways alien environment. Don't forget the kangaroos, Right? And the koala bears and the. 5:58 Erin: Yeah, yeah, there's that koala in one species. 6:00 Wes: Lots of species we don't have. 6:02 Erin: Yes, yes, many unique, endemic. Yeah, but species that are not found anywhere else. 6:08 Wes: Right, right. We can go out west in the United States and have an experience in quite an alien landscape. But Australia takes it to a different level in some ways and it's more forbidding and more harsh and more remote. And so in that way, I think you're also pointing to more mysterious. So. Yeah. I think one wonders, given the history of it being a penal colony and people being exiled to this place, why have these girls been exiled to boarding school? Many of them are English. Right. Are they all English or. I mean, as upper class or are there any upper class Australian girls at that school? 6:45 Erin: I think Miranda. Yeah, I think Miranda. 6:48 Wes: Oh, she's, she is Australian, of course. Right? 6:50 Erin: Yes. And she, she has familiarity with the bush. 6:54 Wes: Okay, Right. 6:55 Erin: It's noted that she would probably survive. 6:58 Wes: So maybe I'm wrong. Are any of the girls English? Maybe they're all Australian. 7:01 Erin: Well, I think, I think what, what does it mean to be English in this circumstance? Right. You know, we have these colonial families, perhaps, perhaps largely military families, perhaps not. I'm not sure. My impression is in India they were largely either associated with the military or with the East India Company. In Australia, I don't know. But, you know, if you end up moving there and then raise a family there and then your kids are born there, are they Australian? You know, but there's that funny line. 7:28 Wes: I think I should backtrack here. I mean, is anyone really sending their English daughter to an Australian boarding school? I. Halfway around the world? 7:36 Erin: Perhaps not. I mean, one of the plot points, for instance, in A Little Princess, the Burnett novel that I mentioned, and others, is that the children of colonial parents in India were sent to England to boarding school because of the climate, which was thought to be not good for children. So many were separated from their parents, but in the, in the reverse direction when it comes to India, at least. And you would Think depending on what part of Australia they were in with the anxiety over malaria and various other things. I mean, maybe that's not a problem in Australia, but one could imagine, you know, if they thought heat would make you crazy or something like that, if you were a kid, then they would want to send you to a climate like England, rather send you out of Australia. And of course, England's the only place, so. Yeah. I don't know. 8:20 Wes: We get the sense though that Michael is English. He's the nephew of a colonial governor. 8:24 Erin: Yes. He's only been there for a few weeks, I think it said. Yeah. 8:28 Wes: And then he's leaving at the end. 8:29 Erin: Yeah. I love the scene with the party and the string quartet in the middle of the man made lakes in the middle of the bush. It's like, you know, talk about denial. There's just no, there's no beating that level of denial. It's really just classic English behavior. 8:50 Wes: Well, again, it's this attempt to use the natural landscape as a form of leisure. Right. Just like the string quartet, it belongs among those things. And that's what the picnic is about as well. Except that there are dangers. Classical music is a little less dangerous than going on a picnic at hanging rock. 9:11 Erin: That's right. Not to make too fine a point of this, then we can abandon the teachers if we wish. But I'm thinking about what you said with Ms. McCraw and this idea about algebra. I wondered too, what kind of education these girls are getting. Insofar as Sarah knows more than Mrs. Appleyard about poetry. It doesn't seem to be a good one. Insofar as they have that sort of really stupid looking calisthenics class that they're doing at the end or towards the end of the film. You know, I was thinking about the difference between Ms. McCraw and Mademoiselle de Poitiers in terms of the difference in the nature of instruction. So the French teacher's appeal seems to be that she speaks French and therefore she's just going to speak French to the right one. One doesn't need any kind of special training if one is French and just gets transported to an English school. Right. So something maybe about the naturalism of that or the sort of lack of instruction inherent in that instruction, which isn't to say that the Australian girls aren't being instructed properly or don't have to exert themselves to learn French. But the difference between the difference in those two intelligences and why those two particular ones end up on this trip together, why the One with a more natural intelligence doesn't end up being spirited away. It's just. It's a source of, I think, endless fascination for me. You have these two completely opposite women. I think I like Ms. McCraw quite a bit, and I love that actress. She has a great, intelligent face and 10:36 Wes: she has, you know, some of the best lines, I think. 10:39 Erin: Yes. Yeah. 10:40 Wes: But, yeah, it's a great contrast in characters. I think in both cases, though, we can wonder. I described the girls as exiled, not from England, but if you're being sent off to boarding school, you know, it is the thing to do. Right. And it's not necessarily a punishment, but one could ask, if it is like being sent to a penal colony, what did you do wrong? 10:59 Erin: Yes. 11:00 Wes: And then for the teachers, the question becomes even more relevant. Why would you leave France and go to Australia? Unless, you know, you really got yourself into some trouble. 11:10 Erin: Yes. Or some tragedy befell your family. Yeah, yeah. 11:14 Wes: And trouble. Trouble could mean a pregnancy that you gave up for adoption at that time. Trouble could mean a lot of things. But so. And Lumley. Yeah, I should have. Is Lumley English or Australian? 11:26 Erin: I think she's Australian. 11:27 Wes: I can't remember. McCraw, you said, is Scottish. Yeah. 11:30 Erin: Yes. 11:31 Wes: So at least in the case of McCraw and de Poitiers, what happened to them that, you know, had them end up at this school in Australia. Yeah. It's the kind of thing where you can, you know, if you got yourself into enough trouble and you're not going to do what Sarah did, what do you do instead? You just go halfway around the world and start over. That kind of feeling. Yes, that kind of thing. So you do might be something, but 11:54 Erin: without the hope, without the hopefulness of going to America. You know, like, this is part of the difference, too. You know, I think there's the narrative about America. You can go there and you can have a fresh start and everything's going to be okay. The narrative about Australia is like, you go there because you're guilty, and then what, you punish them? 12:15 Wes: Manifest destiny. 12:17 Erin: Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. 12:19 Wes: Foster's destiny. 12:20 Erin: Right. I mean, it's a lovely place, and I would love to go. And I just mean that there's no narrative about it that has to do with pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps or other obnoxious expressions. 12:31 Wes: So, yeah, I don't know if there's a. You know, the idea of a pioneer spirit, of course, plays a big role in the American psyche. 12:38 Erin: Yeah. There's the bushranger and the adventurer yeah, 12:41 Wes: but I don't know. It doesn't seem to mean the same thing in Australia. 12:47 Erin: That's right. 12:47 Wes: And that's why I mentioned Manifest Destiny. It doesn't. 12:49 Erin: Yes, exactly. 12:50 Wes: Yeah. What else do we want to talk about? I mean, there's Miranda's ineffable character or. I don't know how you would describe it. Dreamy and inscrutable maybe is a word I would use. 13:02 Erin: Yes. And her foreknowledge, or her. She seems connected to. I mean, of course, what she says about how she knows she's not gonna be here much longer could be related to other circumstances. In fact, she's this. In the book, the three that disappear are all senior girls. So, in fact, she's about to graduate. That's an element of it as well. 13:23 Wes: I mean, the film starts right, we have a girl's. There's credits. And as credits roll, a girl's voice. What we see and what we seem are but a dream, a dream within a dream. And that kind of sense of the unreal is pervasive. And Miranda, in a way, strongly exudes that. So I think we start out in Miranda's room. And there's flute music. And Miranda waking up looking very angelic. And having that kind of touched quality about her. It's a kind of self confidence, I suppose, that she exudes home with herself. Which I think you could. Could associate with class in a certain way. But it's not like adolescent youthful insecurity. She doesn't give that off. So maybe it's kind of a version of femininity which is fully at home with itself or something like that. As opposed to some more anxious form. And then I think Sarah looks back from a window, smiling at Miranda. There's a very loving relationship between them that one might wonder. You know, there's a homosexual element. Miranda is reading from Sarah's Valentine's card. Meet me love when day is ending. And at that point, actually, Miranda has just washed her face, but not dried her face, which I thought was q…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Anti-Mystery in “Picnic at Hanging Rock” Jul 08, 2025
    Show notes

    It’s Valentine’s Day in the state of Victoria, Australia in the year 1900. A group from a local girls’ school goes on an excursion to the foot of an eerie, vast geological formation called Hanging Rock. Three girls and one schoolteacher climb up to explore it. All but one are never seen again. This summary constitutes the essential plot but only the first act of Peter Weir’s 1975 film, based on the novel by Joan Lindsay. The remaining two acts concern the surviving characters’ struggle to make sense of what happened on the rock. Yet, sense is not what the film intends to deliver. Rather, it’s an anti-mystery that dismantles the nature of the mystery story itself—its love of solutions, its neat settling of the uncertainties that crime or menace introduce. What happens, this film asks, when an event resists the imposition of order, stands beyond the reach of logic or even language? Wes & Erin discuss “Picnic at Hanging Rock.” Upcoming Episodes: Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House”; Jaws, Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People.” Pre-order Erin’s forthcoming book “Avail” here: http://subtextpodcast.com/avail For bonus content, become a paid subscriber at Patreon or directly on the Apple Podcasts app. Patreon subscribers also get early access to ad-free regular episodes. Also from Wes: Curtain Times, a calendar of Boston theatre, classical, talks and readings. Follow:Twitter | Facebook | Website Transcript 0:20 Erin: or patreon.com/subtextpodcast. It's Valentine's Day in the state of Victoria, Australia, in the year 1900. A group from a local girls school goes on an excursion to the foot of an eerie, vast geological formation called Hanging Rock. Three girls and one schoolteacher climb up to explore it. All but one are never seen again. This summary constitutes the essential plot, but only the first act of Peter Weir's 1975 film based on the novel by Joan Lindsay. The remaining two acts concern the surviving characters struggle to make sense of what happened on the rock. Yet sense is not what the film intends to deliver. Rather, it's an anti mystery that dismantles the nature of the mystery story itself, its love of solutions, its neat settling of the uncertainties that crime or menace introduce. What happens, this film asks, when an event resists the imposition of order, stands beyond the reach of logic or even language. Today we're discussing Picnic at Hanging Rock. This is Erin O'Luanaigh. This is Wes Alwan, and you're listening to Subtext. So, Wes, I heard that when this film came out, it did pretty well on college campuses. But when I was a master's student at the University of Florida, I discovered that not all college students were enamored by the film. And there was a story that one of my professors told that the students at a screening of this famously rioted and threw furniture at the screen and it was covered in the campus newspaper that they were so upset, I guess, that the film had no resolution. Spoiler alert. That it had no resolution and they were so hoodwinked and maybe possibly drunk, I don't know. So I wondered if you had seen the film before. I think you were unsure if you had, and whether or not you ended up throwing any furniture or what your reaction was. 2:27 Wes: Yeah, no, it turns out I haven't seen the film. I knew of the film, of course, but I had not, it turns out, seen it. I didn't do a lot of research, but I knew going in that it was going to be. I knew the plot and I knew it was going to be unresolved. It would be interesting to have just gone into it completely fresh and to see if it would have Been disappointing under those circumstances, but no. Yeah, it didn't occur to me to be disappointed with the lack of resolution in the ending. And overall, I suppose the film has a kind of dreamy, surreal quality that I guess there's a few hints that there might be some sort of explanation as to what happened. So, for instance, the fact that Michael follows the girls, that there is a bit of suspicion cast upon him, but it's quite subtle and passing and not much is made of that. So I don't think the film builds up a lot of suspense, actually, about the mystery. 3:28 Erin: Yeah, I think that's right. I have the Criterion set, and a while ago I watched the documentary in which Peter Weir said that he was trying to prepare the viewers for the fact that there would be no resolution to the mystery through the tone and other clues. So, yeah, so it is. It is surprising. But this is a film that I. I saw when I was probably a little bit younger than the age of the girls in the film. So when I heard that, I was so shocked, that story. Because by that time, this had long been one of my favorite films. So I was surprised that anybody would go looking for meaning from this particular story or that kind of meaning. 4:06 Wes: How old were you when you first saw it? 4:08 Erin: I was probably 14 or 15. 4:10 Wes: Okay. 4:11 Erin: Yeah. This is one of my mom's favorite films. So she introduced it to me at the right time. Age that I was. It was like the perfect age, you know, the perfect girls, boarding school kind of age, to see this film for the first time and be really affected by it. But, yeah, to this day, it's one of my favorites. And I think it's possibly the best Australian film. I haven't seen every Australian film, but I think there's something here actually to do with the nature of Australia itself, which we might talk about. 4:36 Wes: All those poisonous snakes, all the things 4:38 Erin: that want to kill you. Yeah. But did you enjoy it? I'm just, you know, I'm curious about your reaction in a more general. 4:45 Wes: Yeah, I mean, I enjoyed it. I did watch it twice. So I guess the routine now is to watch it twice so that I'm not trying to take notes during the first viewing, which can interfere with the enjoyment. But I guess because I'm thinking about recording on it, I'm not as attuned to how much I like it or don't like it. I mean, I can't say it's no Mission Impossible. It's not like Tom Cruise is doing amazing stunts and there's things exploding. 5:14 Erin: Well, it's Very. It's a very. 5:15 Wes: Yes, it's an artsy movie. So. So in other words. Yeah. I'm not equipped to the kind of an. Maybe. Maybe this way to put it. I'm so. I've been so bludgeoned by popcorn movies that I'm not as sensitive to what's going on when I'm. 5:34 Erin: That's funny. 5:34 Wes: Looking at arts here movies. And I. I can appreciate them aesthetically, but. So I appreciate it. And in fact, I think the second watching, when I was taking notes, trying to look very carefully at what was going on, in a way, strangely enough, that was more gratifying that I watched them days apart and I didn't expect to have the second time be more pleasurable because then I knew it was gonna happen. I done. 6:01 Erin: Well, for me, it's. I had never really thought so deeply about the film before until preparing for this recording. Just kind of thinking through it because for me there's nothing to do but enjoy the movie. I mean, it's so beautiful. You know, there's not. It's just. It just sort of washes over you. I can't think of a more beautiful film off the top of my head. Maybe some Merchant Ivory films or something, but I'd say they're on par. 6:25 Wes: I have a complicated relationship to beauty, I think, but so does everybody. 6:31 Erin: Don't we all? Yes. Yeah. It's so gorgeous. And I think the film. I think I watched it at such an impressionable age and it made such a huge impact on me. It's like, embedded in my psyche in some strange way. So lots of images from the film, the birds collaged with Miranda's face and various other things are extremely. Or even just the opening credits with the rock rising from the mist. Like, that's like one of the main images from that. That time in my life, maybe. 7:01 Wes: And it is. What. It's 1975, so it's right there in my. My wheelhouse. 7:06 Erin: I know, I know. 7:07 Wes: 60s and 70s. 7:08 Erin: Yeah. I thought. I thought this would have. Be a crossover hit for us, but alas. Well, maybe we'll still have some. An interesting conversation here. But anyway, it's also sort of. I'm not sure if it's propaganda for or against poetry, but certainly poetry plays a big. Plays a big part in this film as well. You know, we have the character of Sarah. Well, you know, before I even get into that, I'm also curious to know because I was sort of polling people. Who do you think the main character is? 7:35 Wes: Yeah, I was thinking about that. A little bit, because we really were getting a few different stories. In some ways, Sarah seems to be the protagonist. In some ways. Michael Albert, of course, has his own arc. In a way, the strongest arc belongs to Mrs. Appleyard herself. So maybe it's an ensemble movie. Maybe we have multiple characters or I'm sure someone has said in an essay somewhere, ooh, it's the rock, it's hanging Rock is the main character. There's a lot of fading shots in this movie where you get one image overlapping another. Right. Maybe that's the main character. Just that transition, the collage itself. 8:21 Erin: Well, there's something to that. I think the film is really interesting. Interested in photography, oddly, and also in reproductions and images and mirror images. Something about the nature of the film itself seems. Seems to be thematic. But I was thinking about that maybe lack of a main character as somehow, I don't know, somehow an expression of this idea that the genre seems to me to be an anti mystery, for lack of a better term. So we have, you know, we have a movie that's acting as though it's going to be some kind of procedural crime drama and it just routinely dismantles those expectations. And I think we discover very soon that they aren't going to be solved or settled. But then we do get some, you know, one of the girls does come back and we do have this repeated effort on the part of the characters to solve the mystery. It becomes kind of a low key media sensation in the film. And I wonder if the fact that there is no locatable main thread or maybe the main character is Miranda who then just disappears. So then you're sort of dealing with a film in which the protagonist is simply gone and the film is trying to reckon where the story is trying to reckon with working itself out in a vacuum. Because this girl seemed to have been such a pivotal. She has a kind of cult of personality around her at the school. And so the film seems. 9:45 Wes: She might be the antagonist. 9:47 Erin: She might be. She might be. That's right, yeah. And you know, we think that maybe the police officer is gonna, you know, come in and have a disappointment arc, at least if he's not going to solve it. But you know, I was thinking about the mystery's association with a single protagonist or with the figure of a detective or someone who comes in and solves it all and figures out who the antagonist is. You know, like part of the mystery story seems to be about figuring out actually who the. Who the characters are and how to classify them. Right. So the Fact that it is an anti. Anti mystery, as I'm. As I'm suggesting. And the fact that the characters are all. All important and unimportant. Is this sort of an egalitarian film, in a way, is, I think, indicative of the fact that the Rock doesn't have a narrative that we can attach to it. It doesn't have the story, doesn't have something we could pull out and say this is the explanation. In the same way that we can't look among these people and say that's the most important person because that's the person that, you know, everything hinges on. 10:48 Wes: Yeah. Maybe it's worth just describing a few of the different arcs and broad brush, you know, what is Sarah's story? Sarah is an orphan and she's been separated from her brother Bertie, who turns out to be Albert. And some unknown benefactor far away is financing her attendance at this boarding school where she is quite out of place socioeconomically. Although we get an idea that there are probably other girls like her there as well. But she's certainly in the minority compared to all the posh, privileged girls she goes to school with. And she's got a defiant streak. She's not doing her work. She wants to compose poetry rather than simply read it from memory. It gets her held back from going to Hanging Rock to getting involved in that adventure where she could well have been one of the ones who never came back. Right. She would have followed Miranda to the very end, all the way up to, you know, sex Heaven or wherever they ended up going. Oh, boy. Floated up on a red cloud into. But 12:04 Erin: into the spaceship. 12:06 Wes: And so what happens to her? Well, she loves, you know, her and Miranda have this very loving relationship. And it's a bit asymmetrical, of course. Miranda has a superior position and it looks kind of pities and condescends in a way to Sarah. And Sarah seems to look up to and idealize Miranda. But then in a way, she's abandoned. Miranda tells her, look, find someone else to love because I won't be here much longer. And explicitly, she's returning to the fact that alluding to the fact that she's going to be moving on from the school, although one and read it as a prophecy. And this is the way Sarah later on reads it, is that Miranda knows she's not going to be coming back. This is after Miranda says, you'll have to come meet my quirky, funny family. I forget how she puts it, but one day you'll have to come visit my sweet, funny family for Yourself, which is a rather nonchalant way to put that to someone who themselves doesn't have a family. But she goes from that to the very abandoning idea. But you also have to find someone else to love. I won't be here much longer. And then Miranda does complete that abandonment. You know, if you want to read it on some level, as Miranda purposefully, like the Pied Piper meeting everyone except Edith, who's sensibly hysteric about sex, runs screaming down the mountain, she leaves Sarah behind and Sarah is once again abandoned. And not only that, Miranda's. Again, if we read Miranda's having done all this, it leads to the school being in big financial trouble and trouble otherwise, which means Appleyard has to crack down and kick Sarah out, which leads to Sarah's suicide. So you can see why I would want to frame this dynamic in terms of. So that's just one arc. I'm not going to go do them all. Maybe you can do the next one. We could do Appleyards or something next. But you see, the. That's one story, but it's not even the story. You couldn't say that that story, that Sarah's story. Right. Takes up a huge part of the film, or is the main thing in the film, because it's so evenly balanced between these other stories, But. 14:18 Erin: Yeah, that's right. That's right. I did some thinking yesterday about Sarah as a representative of the Romantic. The capital R romantic sensibility versus the Victorian sensibilities of the school. You know, we could think of Sarah as the antagonist to Mrs. Appleyard, or Vice versa, but we have these twin portraits that are featured semi prominently in the film, where Mrs. Appleyard has that prominent portrait of Queen Victoria in her office. I think it is. It looks like everything is so heavily upholstered in every room that Mrs. Appleyard is in, it's difficult to tell what the purpose of the room is. She has a portrait of Queen Victoria and it, of course, takes…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    “The Indian to His Love” by William Butler Yeats Jun 30, 2025
    Show notes

    Wes & Erin discuss “The Indian to His Love.” Upcoming Episodes: “Picnic at Hanging Rock”; Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” and “An Enemy of the People.” Pre-order Erin’s forthcoming book “Avail” here: http://subtextpodcast.com/avail For bonus content, become a paid subscriber at Patreon or directly on the Apple Podcasts app. Patreon subscribers also get early access to ad-free regular episodes. Also from Wes: Curtain Times, a calendar of Boston theatre, classical, talks and readings. Follow:Twitter | Facebook | Website Transcript 0:19 Erin: patreon.com/ subtextpodcast. 0:32 Wes: Hey, welcome to part four of our four part series on Yeats. For this part we're going to discuss the Indian to his love. Erin, were you familiar with this poem before reading it for today? 0:43 Erin: I was not. I was not familiar with this one. 0:46 Wes: Yeah, it's an early poem. He wrote it when he was 23. You don't see as much written about this. I had trouble finding anything really, but I didn't look that hard. But I was looking in, you know, collections of critical essays and things like that. 0:59 Erin: You mentioned you love this poem. So I don't want to say anything bad about it, but I will say that this, this is a bit of my nightmare vision of a relationship. It scares the crap out of me, this poem. 1:12 Wes: Yeah, well, I think it's meant to. 1:14 Erin: Yes, yes, yes, I think so too, at the end. Yeah, but. 1:18 Wes: But I was curious. I was wondering if you were going to think, oh, well, this is juvenile or something like, you wrote it when he was 23. Yes, yeah, I'm too ignorant. To me it's just a nice bump advanced enough to make the distinction. So anyway, but it occurred to me, okay, yeah, others might not think this is that great maybe, but yeah, Yeats 1:41 Erin: is one of the few poets to really take a whole lifetime to. It's the rare poet who writes his best work so late in his life. Right. So there's a sort of lifetime of apprenticeship and sort of like gearing up for that great work that has to happen. So ordinarily the poem of a 23 year old super famous poet would be, you know, a Keats or something like that. In this instance, it sort of. It sort of reads to me like juvenilia, because Yeats is such a slow starter, not in terms of output but in terms of greatness, you know. 2:14 Wes: Well, I really. I think the thing that grabbed me about this poem was the last two lines of the first stanza. A parrot sways upon a tree, raging at his own an image in the enameled sea. And I know you haven't read this yet, so you should read it in a Second. Second. But I just wanted to say that. That it's. It's those two lines that I think made this a poem that I always. That I, you know, I had a weakness for. Yeah. 2:36 Erin: What's the seed of so much to come, you know? So it's interesting to see it appear here. Like. Oh, he's really interested in birds and narcissism. Narcissism and enamel. And water, apparently, that doesn't undulate at all, even though it's the same. Anyway. 2:54 Wes: Guess it's a lagoon or something. Well, yeah. Why don't you read it before we say more? 3:00 Erin: Okay. The island dreams under the dawn and great boughs drop tranquility the peahens dance on a smooth lawn A parrot sways upon a tree Raging at his own image in the enameled sea. Here we will moor our lonely ship and wander ever with woven hands Murmuring softly, lip to lip along the grass, along the sands Murmuring how far away are the unquiet lands how we alone of mortals are hid under quiet boughs apart While our love grows An Indian star, A meteor of the burning heart One with a tide that gleams the wings that gleam and dart the heavy boughs the burnished dove that moans and sighs a hundred days how when we die our shades will rove When Eve has hushed the feathered ways with vapory footsole by the water's drowsy blaze. Yeah, it's hard to read. The lines are uneven, you know, in length, so the music is kind of a little jaunty. 4:04 Wes: Yeah. Very interesting images to begin with because the boughs are dropping tranquility, which I suppose they would normally be dropping. Fruit. 4:14 Erin: Yeah, I think fruit or blossoms. Flowers, depending on the season. Yeah. 4:20 Wes: So. Yeah. So what's being dropped is tranquility. And it seems to account for the smoothness of the lawn and the smoothness of the sea. The tranquility of the sea. Because for the parrot to be looking at the sea as if it were a mirror, it has to be still. Although I will say that only occurred to me preparing for this episode. I had always thought. I had always imagined this as the sea being raging as well. I was thinking of enamel, not as, like, shiny lacquer, but as like some kind of thickly painted brushstrokes. Thick brushstrokes on a canvas of a raging sea. And the parrot looking angrily into that sea and seeing himself in a more. In a less literal sense. 5:08 Erin: Ah. 5:09 Wes: So. Which is a weird idea to have, but I just hadn't thought about it very, very ever very carefully. And then. Yeah, but obviously it's something that's tranquil. The. The enamel, right. Is the. It's. It's. It's shiny enough to be a mirror that the parrot can see him, see himself in. 5:26 Erin: Yeah. There's this tension here between the natural and the sort of cultivated. Right. Because we have. The island is dreaming. We don't know of what. But I think that that self consciousness or that implication that the island has a kind of consciousness like this is almost. I mean, this is a sort of enchanted place. And then the lawn speaks to me of cultivation. You know, that's not a smooth lawn, is not a naturally occurring thing. And then we have this image of the, as you say, the still water so that the parrot can see his own reflection. But there's a self consciousness there. So there's this. The tranquility seems like this very thin enamel surface underneath which there's something going on here. And it's an un. 6:12 Wes: They might just be at a Sandals. There's no one around. 6:19 Erin: That's right. 6:20 Wes: They had a really nice resort. 6:21 Erin: That's right. That's right. 6:24 Wes: But yeah, the island dreams. Right. So I like that personification in the beginning. Although I guess one might think that's a little too cliched or something. Maybe that's why you might read this as a young poem, that kind of personification right off the bat. But I really like the image. It's dreaming in a way, and so it's conscious, but it's not fully conscious. 6:48 Erin: Yes. And it's not woken up yet, even though dawn has broken to sleeping in as well. Which is what you. 6:54 Wes: You. 6:54 Erin: What you can do with sandals if you don't have an early checkout. Just like this contrast between the natural and the cultivated. There's this contrast, I think, between tranquility and things which are not tranquil at all. I mean, we have raging is. You know, I'd imagine this is a loud parrot. This is an angry parrot. And yeah, maybe because he's not under the boughs getting tranquility dropped on him, but sitting on top of the bow, he's not the beneficiary of the tranquility. 7:28 Wes: Yeah, it really is a very sudden turn at the end of the stanza. It's all been tranquility and smoothness and peahens. And then we can imagine the swaying of the parrot. Right. Have you seen videos of parrots and how they do that swaying thing? So we can all imagine how they do that. It's not a Particularly violent image necessarily. But then, yeah, suddenly we have raging. He's seeing himself in the sea. And you know, we can imagine it like a dog seeing himself in the mirror and thinking another dog and getting angry at the other dog and barking, that kind of thing. 8:03 Erin: That's nice. 8:04 Wes: So it really speaks to kind of dynamic of narcissism involving entrapment in one's own image, but also an element of hatred. Because the image often becomes an ideal image to which one. Right. The real self can't live up to that ideal self. So the self that you see in the mirror is an ideal. And then I fall short of that and that's where the self hatred comes in. 8:31 Erin: I can't imagine looking in the mirror and seeing an ideal. But sure, I know what you mean. 8:37 Wes: So Narcissus. Yes. Narcissus can look in the. And because he's so good looking. 8:44 Erin: Yes. Must be hard. 8:45 Wes: He's gonna see. He's gonna see the ideal there and he's gonna neglect him, his real self until he dies. Because he's so enamored and entrapped in the. In the image. Right? Yeah. So for most of us, we can get what the ideal image is just an aspiration. It's what Freud called the ego ideal, or it's just that it's the person we want to be, it's the person we're striving to be. And then we in real life fall short of it. And so in that gap, conscience plays a role, but also self hate can kind of step into that gap. So if you took to go long to kind of say more about this whole narcissism thing, if you take someone who's really pathologically engrossed in that ideal image of themselves to the point where relatedness with others is. Is discounted, where does the element of. Of rage come in? Right. So if it's some for the failed narcissist, you see the rage come in with. With self hate. But maybe the way to put it is this. Well, there's the narcissism of minor differences. Right. Another Freud rage in animals is rage against. It's not really rage, but aggression against conspecifics. Right. So a lion hunting a deer. The aggression involved is not the aggression involved in that it would have towards a conspecific. Right. If it were competing for a mate, let's say. Then you see things that resemble anger in human beings. So we have to see a creature like ourselves in order to have this sort of rage. I'm really all over the place with this. I'm not explaining anything. I don't know. Not connecting all these threads together. The narcissism of minor differences suggest that we. There's special animosity between. From Russia to Ukraine, for instance, right now because of Putin's fantasy of being one with Ukraine. Ukraine is this part of Russia that has been lost and it must be brought back into the fold. And the way to do that is with violence. 10:54 Erin: The closer you are to something, the more conflict with that thing upsets you. It seems to be the. 10:59 Wes: Well, the more potential for conflict. 11:01 Erin: The more potential for conflict. Okay. Yes. 11:03 Wes: We make more demands on those who are like us. So for instance, Right. We make no moral demands on animals because they're not creatures who are self conscious like us. They're not like us enough. 11:15 Erin: Yes. 11:16 Wes: So we don't get mad when the dog cuts us off in his car, get attacked by a dog and bit. And I don't moralize it. But. 11:26 Erin: Right. 11:26 Wes: With human beings, to the extent that we think that we can get into the mind of another and that they ought to have certain attitudes towards us and that they're doing something wrong if they don't have that attitude. Right. That's where aggression comes in and that's where these very moralized feelings. Right. Aggression as a. And you did something wrong. 11:45 Erin: Yes. 11:45 Wes: Right. The closer we are or the more that we resemble another, the more potential there is to feel wronged as opposed to just saying, oh well, they're alien to me anyway and they don't matter to me. So yeah, let's point to the irony that the parrot is looking at himself in a calm, tranquil medium and yet feels rage at that calmness. So it's sort of. It foreshadows something a bit sinister. Right. In this paradise. I think. Yes, that's going to. That I think we're going to learn about as we get into the details of this very codependent relationship. 12:28 Erin: That's right. 12:30 Wes: Part of this is about the narcissism of lovers and getting trapped in a. With someone. Right. Who is just your mirror in a way. You love them because they are. They seem to be like you and an extension of you to the exclusion of the rest of the world. 12:47 Erin: Yes. 12:48 Wes: I think that's what's being kind of hinted at here. 12:51 Erin: Yeah. So I think what you're suggesting is the idea that they even share the same face. They murmur lip to lip, which could be one mouth. Right. The top lip and the bottom lip of a single mouth. Right. Or they're Murmuring into each other's mouths. 13:07 Wes: You're giving me an idea here that this is like the sixth sense. Like it's just. In the end, you find out it's just one person. 13:15 Erin: Yes, exactly. Exactly. 13:17 Wes: The Indian to himself. 13:20 Erin: That is his love, you know, what are they murmuring about? The point of it all? Like they would have nothing to talk about in this place. Because it seems like there's a level of cultivation here and also of self, you know, whatever we want to call it, like self consciousness. There's a level of. It's not self consciousness, it's dreaming. But that seems related to art. And the fact that this place is enam, like the sea is enameled around it means that there's something sort of constructed or, as I already said, cultivated. You know, the peahens dance. And though on first blush, that might not be. That might just be describing the way that they're moving, that can also be read as evidence of this kind of cultivation in which this whole place is not quite as it seems, or everything is about performance and. 14:04 Wes: Yeah. Or it sounds like we might be in a painting or an art object. 14:08 Erin: Yeah, yeah. 14:09 Wes: But the enameled part, right inside the 14:12 Erin: urn, the Grecian urn, though, there's some key hints. This is very, very different from the Grecian urn, of course, that is frozen at the point before, just before the moment of consummation, and also at a point of highest intensity. And I think it's significant that it's never really daytime on this island. One of the key things I noticed, right, it's dawn and then it's evening and night in the middle, instead of day, there's a sort of implied day, but we never get any description of full sun. So there's something that's either waxing or waning at any given moment about this place. It's never itself, which seems to me to be suggestive of the fact that it's an art object. It's not the actual thing, it's the mimetic. It's not the real or it's part of a dream. 14:58 Wes: Yeah. 14:58 Erin: Yes, yeah. 14:59 Wes: It's the dream that you're coming out of just as you wake up because 15:03 Erin: you've killed the person that you were stranded on the desert island with because you got on each other's nerves and couldn't take it anymore. 15:11 Wes: I mean, when the narrator says, here we will more our lonely ship. Right, so there's another little bit of a sinister suggestion there. Lonely and more makes me think of marooned. 15:23 Erin: Yes. 15:25 Wes: They were supposed to just be on a three hour tour. Luckily they had sandals. 15:29 Erin: All their clothes. Yes. 15:32 Wes: So this is a day excursion from the resort. It's not. But anyway. And now they're stuck together forever. 15:39 Erin: I knew this was really about the Skipper and Gilligan. Hence one needing to die. Yeah. 15:45 Wes: Wandering with woven hands, murmuring softly, lip to lip. Very romantic. 15:49 Erin: Not to me. 15:50 Wes: Great, if you limit it to part of the day. But it's kind of terrifyingly enmeshe…

    Full show notes at the publisher

    Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 18 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Fresh Air

    1

    Fresh Air Arts
    Twenty Thousand Hertz

    2

    Twenty Thousand Hertz Arts
    The Black Tapes

    3

    The Black Tapes Arts
    Snap Judgment

    4

    Snap Judgment Arts
    Here’s The Thing with Alec Baldwin

    5

    Here’s The Thing with Alec Baldwin Arts
    The NoSleep Podcast – Creative Reason Media Inc.

    6

    The NoSleep Podcast – Creative Reason Media Inc. Arts
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights