I am in a really weird situation now. I have a book that has some really deep thoughts concerning our life and our life style, but on the other hand it is so brief that I keep repeating all the time the same information. What is more with every entry I repeat the fact that I am repeating stuff, because I really do not know what else to write and I do not want to spend hours thinking what to write if only Mr.Healy and Mr.Kilduff are going to read it ... or maybe Tereza .... But still, Mr.Healy knows this, and understands it far more than I do, Tereza loves to read books so maybe first two or three entries convinced her to read it and Mr.Kilduff has about 30 blogs to read, so I doubt that my repetitive blog is going to give him more than reading that short 20 pages long play.
On the the other hand, this is my last assignment ever in literature so I will try to do it altogether now, all 5 entries, because I have covered some of those things or some of them are going to be pretty short. So let's start...
Sartre is one of those writers who need philosophy as a source for writing. Although some thoughts are not his own, but from other people, for example, Husserl's idea of a free, fully intentional consciousness and Heidegger's existentialism. However the existentialism that Sartre formulated and popularized is hiw own and original, but it is logical that there were many influences that helped him to formulate his perspectives. In his philosophical view atheism is taken for granted. Man is condemned to freedom, a freedom from all authority, which he may seek to deny but at the same time he will have to face it if he wants to become a moral being. The meaning of man's life is not established before his existence, it means that man has to create this meaning himself, he has to create and find his role in this world.
Early publications were mostly psychological studies for example: Outline of a Theory of the Emotions, The Psychology of Imagination, Nausea or the collection of stories The Wall and other Stories. Those works brought him immediate fame and success. They deeply express author's early existentialist themes. His most important philosophical work Being and Nothingness is his explanation of being. This work became the ground of modern existentialists. Even though he wrote many philosophical books he is best known for his plays: The Flies or No Exit.
...enough of official blah blah blah .... I doubt that you enjoyed reading this part. Therefore let me share with you my subjective perspective. So... A few days ago I watched an excellent movie called Gandhi. In the begging of this movie there was some kind of an introduction and I really loved some of those thoughts. It was saying something like that a life of one man cannot be showed in one story, because we cannot stress the importance of every single year, we cannot mention every single person that influenced his life and to what extent he was affected by people and events in his life. For this reason, in order to truly understand why he wrote it, what was the inspiration and what is the story behind I would have to know that person for a long time and he would have to tell me the whole story of his life with every single little tiny thing that has influenced him. However, in general we have to understand that this author and his works have deep philosophical background. The author used his believes and perspective on life that he obtained during his whole long life and we have to consider this when we are reading his plays or trying to understand his ideas or writing the assignment about his life and his plays. I am sure that in this case, it is not that important to know the background oh the author in order to understand ideas in this plays. I think that it is the same situation like with other philosophical books like Bible, The Prince or others because the content matters here, not the guy who wrote the content. The purpose of philosophical books is to share someone's perspective on some philosophical matter like life, human existence, afterlife or others... Therefore do not waste your time reading my blog or reading things about the author and focus on the deep content, because that is the thing that really can help you are it may broaden your perspectives.
_____________________________________________________________
But this is my blog so I will share with you my subjective perspective. I would say that there are no protagonist or antagonist, I really do not like the division "bad" and "good" side, and particularly in this case. I see this situation like this. All people, in this case those 3 characters, have miserable lives and they were behaving badly during their lives. However, I still would not put them immediately in the box with the sign "antagonists=bad people". Because they are locked in the room that may be considered form your point of view as a protagonist that is helping them to become good=antagonist. However, I would rather describe this situation like that the room is wiser lets say and do not have the same problems in life like those 3people therefore its purpose is to help those people to overcome their difficult situation in their lives by keeping them inside. So I would not divide this to "bad" and "good" sides or "protagonists" and "antagonists". I would prefer "wiser" that is teaching "more stupid ones". But yes, you do not have to agree with me, but I do not care...
I think that now (with this entry and those form before) I have said everything concerning characters, protagonists and antagonists and how they play off each other, so lets move on folks!
My reaction to the play & cool quotes...
Film...
--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itqN8th_lDs <--
This film (1954) is really authentic as everything was described in the play. The room looks exactly as was described in the play. Those actors were chosen according to the description that is in the play, however, I do not know if those actors were famous in France or not, because it is pretty old film and they are French. There is nothing that would be different than in the play. So it gave me nothing more than the play but it was not less than the play either. This is interesting situation, because always book or film is better. They are never on the same level. However, this play is in 1 room, with only 3characters and simple dialogue, so there was nothing to screw up I guess.
THANK YOU & GOOD BYE EN.LIT!!!
On the the other hand, this is my last assignment ever in literature so I will try to do it altogether now, all 5 entries, because I have covered some of those things or some of them are going to be pretty short. So let's start...
________________________________________________________________
Research the author...
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was born in Paris. As a job he became a professor of philosophy. With the help of the Institut Français he studied in Berlin also philosophy, namely thoughts of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. After teaching at Le Havre, and then in Laon, he was teaching at the Lycée Pasteur in Paris. Since the end of the Second World War, Sartre has been living as an independent writer. |
| "
A lost battle is a battle one thinks one has lost." |
Early publications were mostly psychological studies for example: Outline of a Theory of the Emotions, The Psychology of Imagination, Nausea or the collection of stories The Wall and other Stories. Those works brought him immediate fame and success. They deeply express author's early existentialist themes. His most important philosophical work Being and Nothingness is his explanation of being. This work became the ground of modern existentialists. Even though he wrote many philosophical books he is best known for his plays: The Flies or No Exit.
...enough of official blah blah blah .... I doubt that you enjoyed reading this part. Therefore let me share with you my subjective perspective. So... A few days ago I watched an excellent movie called Gandhi. In the begging of this movie there was some kind of an introduction and I really loved some of those thoughts. It was saying something like that a life of one man cannot be showed in one story, because we cannot stress the importance of every single year, we cannot mention every single person that influenced his life and to what extent he was affected by people and events in his life. For this reason, in order to truly understand why he wrote it, what was the inspiration and what is the story behind I would have to know that person for a long time and he would have to tell me the whole story of his life with every single little tiny thing that has influenced him. However, in general we have to understand that this author and his works have deep philosophical background. The author used his believes and perspective on life that he obtained during his whole long life and we have to consider this when we are reading his plays or trying to understand his ideas or writing the assignment about his life and his plays. I am sure that in this case, it is not that important to know the background oh the author in order to understand ideas in this plays. I think that it is the same situation like with other philosophical books like Bible, The Prince or others because the content matters here, not the guy who wrote the content. The purpose of philosophical books is to share someone's perspective on some philosophical matter like life, human existence, afterlife or others... Therefore do not waste your time reading my blog or reading things about the author and focus on the deep content, because that is the thing that really can help you are it may broaden your perspectives.
_____________________________________________________________
Protagonists and antagonists?
Well I talked a lot about characters and the style of this play before, so I really do not want to repeat again and again those things just to make this longer. Therefore I will just add few things. The most famous quote in this play and for sure the most famous quote of this author is "hell is other people". For this reason most of the people, as I am surfing on the Internet now, think that it is clear that the part "other people" proves that antagonists are people. That makes sense right?
But this is my blog so I will share with you my subjective perspective. I would say that there are no protagonist or antagonist, I really do not like the division "bad" and "good" side, and particularly in this case. I see this situation like this. All people, in this case those 3 characters, have miserable lives and they were behaving badly during their lives. However, I still would not put them immediately in the box with the sign "antagonists=bad people". Because they are locked in the room that may be considered form your point of view as a protagonist that is helping them to become good=antagonist. However, I would rather describe this situation like that the room is wiser lets say and do not have the same problems in life like those 3people therefore its purpose is to help those people to overcome their difficult situation in their lives by keeping them inside. So I would not divide this to "bad" and "good" sides or "protagonists" and "antagonists". I would prefer "wiser" that is teaching "more stupid ones". But yes, you do not have to agree with me, but I do not care...
I think that now (with this entry and those form before) I have said everything concerning characters, protagonists and antagonists and how they play off each other, so lets move on folks!
Think more about the definition of "good" and "bad" and how others see those 2 groups...
______________________________________________________
Time for a little break... The Existentialist Bikini (Pt. 2):
She is cute and seems intelligent as well, killing combination. Therefore I want to help her to promote her video for being such a killing combination and for talking a little bit about my topics ...
______________________________________________________
Repeating stuff pretty much again and again...
(I have darn difficult play for this LONG lit assignment, I should have chosen something terribly long with complicated story and thousands of characters because now I will be repeating so many things ... but that is life hehe...)
I know that we should look for some critical pieces that have been written about this work and then we should combine with our knowledge in order to ... to make some megamix? Anyway, as I am surfing on the internet I found out pretty funny fact.It seems that intelligent people that read this book consider precisely those ideas and they do not write any criticism and stupid people either did not read this book or did not understand anything so they rather keep their mouth shut. Because I found only analysis of the play, characters, Sartre's life, his perception of existentialist, but no criticism that would say this is bad or that should be like this.
I believe it is because, this guy did not write any story where if we changed some plot stuff it would not change the genuine meaning of this play. Those deep thoughts would still be there, and only for those thoughts this play is so popular around the world. Well drastically said, there is no story, it is just about thoughts, so there are almost no things to change because everybody cares about those thoughts. It is like with a comedy for example. If you really want a great comedy, you expect to laugh as much as possible, and if the comedy is like that you have to need to change some unimportant things concerning story or other things. Here it is the same situation but people expect from Sartre as a philosopher that he will give them something big to think about and he did a great job.
For this reason there can be found only descriptions of this play, autobiographies of Sartre, description of Sartre's perception on life and conventionalism, but I have cover those things already. So for more information read my blog once again and you will find everything that you need to know :) ... So I wish my classmates good luck with your entry, but I am going to sit in the garden in this nice sunny weather listen to some really chilling songs and think about Sartre's ideas...
_____________________________________________________
Despite the fact that I am sometimes angry that I have to do those entries because I have to repeat useless information in order to pass this assignment I am very happy that I had a chance to read this plays. Many of you I am sure are reading some lame story where somebody loves somebody, but it is lame love, and they are solving crappy things all the time so when you finish you say "Oh go dman it, at last I finished this pooh". However, I can say "Oh god damn it, at last I understand more...".
There were 2 main things for me in this play. The think that if you want to like this play you have to pretty much think about everything that our existence is all about. If you want to understand you have to ask yourself all the time, why do I exist, why do I make wrong things in my life, where is my life going etc. That is the most important thing for me, that this play is really forcing you to think. If you do not think this play is absolutely about nothing at all. Another very interesting thing for me was the fact that people are that stupid that they do crap, shitty and wrong things when they are alive, and this play shoved me possible scenario how it would look like after their death - and they would really would be solving the same things after their death I think.
That way or another, if you want read that book not this blog I beg you. I think that eventually the play is going to be even shorter than mine blog. So really do not read my blog and read that play it will take you + - 3hours I think and as I am saying in almost every entry - It is worth it!
Cool quotes: I will write those that I underlined while reading
1). "No mirrors, I notice...But damn it all, they might have left my toothbrush!" Garcin
--> That's what you need after you die?
2). "Sorry, sir...But all our guests ask me the same questions. Silly questions." Valet
--> That is the answer of Valet for the 1st quote. Yes, I bet all people that would go to hell would be that stupid to ask these kinds of questions. Because hat is all you need for salvation form hell... a toothbrush.
3). "It's those sofas. They are so hideous!" Estele
Yes, that is exactly what Katka Čechmánková would say in hell, that is what she would care about...
4). "I fear I am not good company among dead" Garcing
"...please don't use that word.It is so--so crude." Estele
Well if you even cannot accept the fact that you are dead, then you will stay there pretty long time before you reach the point that you can leave...
5). "How quickly he time passes on earth!" Este
She says this when she is watching the life on earth. My advice? Use the time wisely!
______________________________________________________Film...
--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itqN8th_lDs <--
The play No exit by J.P.Sartre is not set it any particular time period. It is the image of the afterlife and it examines the psychological and behavioural aspects of human characters. For all these reason I would say that this play is very universal - and for wide range of audience. You do not have to know anything about some historical periods in order to understand the genuine meaning of this play. All you need to do in order to understand truly is to watch carefully and take time to think about the situation that is displayed in this play. This play is not much of an action story, not much happens during the play. The play is more about dialogue and thinking beyond what is written - it is all about us (people) doing silly things, moaning all the time and living empty lives full of our own mistakes...and then moaning again after you die.
This film (1954) is really authentic as everything was described in the play. The room looks exactly as was described in the play. Those actors were chosen according to the description that is in the play, however, I do not know if those actors were famous in France or not, because it is pretty old film and they are French. There is nothing that would be different than in the play. So it gave me nothing more than the play but it was not less than the play either. This is interesting situation, because always book or film is better. They are never on the same level. However, this play is in 1 room, with only 3characters and simple dialogue, so there was nothing to screw up I guess.
Despite the fact that the film was ok, I would do it differently in order to have film that would be even better than the book. Because we are in the 21st century and at the same time I like modern art and new age perspective on art I would do some small changes in order to make it more interesting and different. Because of the special style of this play and because of the only importance of dialogues I would make the settings of the stage really simple. I want people to think during this film about what actors say - I do not want them to stair at some fancy furniture that is on the stage or to think about physical stuff that is some scene.
On the stage would be only 3 chairs in the center of the stage for those 3 characters and nothing else. The light would be concentrated in the center in the way that you can clearly see the center of the stage with those 3 chairs but surroundings would be in total darkness. This would cause people to completely focus on those 3 actors, nothing else would exist during this play. It is obvious, because the play is set after death in hell, so it would be really illogical to put some things around and arrange surroundings. Moreover I would not use any sound effects. The purpose is clear, not to drag audience's attention away. I want my audience only to be fully focused on what actors say. The purpose of this play is to think beyond what is written not to observe some fancy arrangement.
Regarding casting I would use unknown but talented actors even if I had millions to make this play. The reason is very simple. If we watch something with actors that we know from different movies or plays it affects our perception and we associate them with those characters from previous plays/movies. For example imagine Arnold Schwarzenegger playing Hamlet, I am sure it would be just disruptive to understand deep thoughts of Hamlet. To use unknown faces is really crucial in this play. In order to think about the genuine meaning of this play we cannot have biased opinion about those actors, we have to purely focus on what they say and how they interact. For this reason I would use some unknown, but talented and uncontroversial actors. So that people think about the message of the play, not about actors, their appearance or their previous roles.
Last but not the least I would dress those actors in a normal uncontroversial way. For men simple jeans and normal shirts and for women nicely looking but not provocative dresses. Basically I would use conventional and not controversial clothes in order to make them look nice but not too noticeably - not to drag audience's attention away.
The whole style of my film would be to make everything as simple as possible in order to create environment and conditions where the audience is thinking about the genuine message of this play. I want people to think beyond what is written so that when they leave the theatre they would look at some things differently. I believe that this would be the best way to present this amazing play No Exit by J.P.Sartre.
cheers
chris
_____________________________________________________THANK YOU & GOOD BYE EN.LIT!!!
