Lately in our classes, we have been reading Williams’
A streetcar named desire and Osborne’s
Look back in anger and I couldn’t stop
thinking why the figure of man was so violent as well as represented mainly by
anger. According to what we have been discussing, Osborne’s play was the
gateway of the concept of “angry young men” in which a group of novelists
addressed the discontent of the working class with the traditional British
society. However, it seems to me that as the concept of masculinity is tumbling
down, Look Back in Anger may be a response as to reinforce the
image of manhood that has been lost because of women.
In the aftermath of World War I, the lack of
man force in the working field caused that women were gradually taking part of
manly labors. This is how the role of women changed resulting in the increasing
participation of females in society as well as in a change of their behavior. In
Ernest Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises
we can clearly distinguish Lady Ashley who represents this change. Her excessive
drinking and sexual partner rotation are features that society has characterized
as belonging to men. Besides, she has control over her chaps’ emotions, thus
considering woman as not being helpless and weak figure anymore.
However, now is the turn of men.
In Look Back in Anger, Jimmy is the pure personification of anger and dissent towards his wife Alison. Jimmy’s resent couldn’t be more obvious. The fact that Alison comes from an upper middle class family really bothers this working-class man. That’s why he criticizes the lack of intelligence of his flat partners as to praise his own education in order to feel superior. This is the only thing he has in his favor. His lack of self-confidence and arrogant attitude are depicted through realistic and truthful domestic situations of daily life.
We can also draw a parallel between Jimmy and Stanley in A Streetcar named desire. Stanley’s manhood has been frequently threaten by Stella and Blanche Dubois since the latter is constantly referring to him as a basic man or even comparing him to an ape.
Both characters are shown as violent and angry with the purpose of gaining lost territory and reinforcing his sense of manhood that has been threaten by the female presence. The impassive role of their wives is nothing but the representation of the new acquired man superiority.
The angry young man, is it only a representation of social discontent? Do you think women contribute to this sense of anger?
As I was reading, Stanley and Stella immediately appeared on my mind too. When Alison left Jimmy I thought she had really made some progress and had broken the submissive women stereotype that would put up everything. For a moment I was even proud of her and her decision because she had finally seen the bigger picture and had realized that the environment they were living in was just toxic. I felt she was not going to be another Stella, and that she could be a strong female character, like Brett Ashley. However, it was too good to be true. When Alison appeared once again in her former flat I knew there was only one inevitable and rotten ending. Once again, women were portrayed as somehow weak and dependent of men, reason why I ended up hating both Jimmy and Alison.
ResponderEliminarWhile reading your post, my mind was sort of screaming this very chilean expression "everything fits chicken" xD (I apologize in advanced for saying that) but its true ! first we read "the fox", at the end of it manhood is returned by the death of a character having an "apparently" phallic symbol landing on her neck... its been that way throughout all the other novels. The aftermath of the war cause men to loose there manhood in different ways and in some of the readings they reflect that by being extremely aggressive towards women. The angry young man, Jimmy in "Look back in anger" such a resentful character but why always against women though? why cannot they be resentful towards anything else, is it that women are an easy target?
ResponderEliminarAs you already might know , I come from a VERY HIGHLY FEMNIST family and I understand your point. Female empowerment meant that been just "manly" was no longer synnonym of "man". Women were doing what used to be considered "manly" , thus these characters felt threatned. I think that both charaters are looking for a new definition of "man" , they are trying to find out what "been a man " really is... maybe that´s why they are violent, to see if violence will make them feel like " amn " again
ResponderEliminar