Sunday, February 1, 2009
SISTER ROSE AND COMPANY
One of the most interesting elements of “Our Lady of 121st Street” is that we learn about the characters in the play through the absence of another character – Sister Rose. All the characters in the play are united in their desire/need to be present at Sister Rose’s funeral. What we learn about the characters is via their reactions to her absence as well as her former presence. This occurs in the midst of the play’s serio-comedic tone rich with witty, multiple-layered, dialectical dialogue and quick changes of scene. Given the title of the play, does Sister Rose strike you as the play’s most enigmatic, well-developed character? Why or why not? Which character makes the deepest impression on you and why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have a hard time believing that Sister Rose is the most developed character in the play for two reasons. First, I feel that the characters in the play come to Sister Rose's funeral more for themselves than the actual deceased woman. Though they mention their sadness at the nun's passing, each of them seems to be more interested in the other guests than in the sister. For example: I think Rooftop views the funeral as an excuse to see Inez and Balthazar views it as chance to hang out with Rooftop. Secondly, and related to this perception of the character's predominant self-interest in the funeral, is the idea that the characters didn't actually knew Sister Rose very well. They all call her a good person but I think Balthazar sums it up the best when he says early in the play, "I wasn't aware of her history." Since Sister Rose isn't around to tell us or show us about herself we are relying on these characters to get to know her. This task becomes almost impossible when they know so little about her themselves. Additionally, as Velina pointed out, this could also be the reasoning behind only half of Sister Rose's body eventually appearing--the characters really only knew about half(or less) of the person that was Sister Rose.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I don't mind not knowing very much about Sister Rose. I see her less as a character than as a device. Because of the other characters' connection to her they also have tenuous connections to each other and that, as far as I'm concerned, is what the play is really about. In this manner, I find the title to be somewhat ironic. The play is named after Sister Rose and everyone's stated purpose has to do with Sister Rose and yet, in a way, the play is about everyone and everything else. The characters' relationship to the nun isn't really important because they all, seemingly, have a positive one. The play becomes interesting and dramatic because of the nature of their relationships with each other. The "Lady of 121st Street" is only the cover ( literally because it's on the title page and figuratively because it is everyone's stated excuse). The play is really about everyone else.
I agree with Lisa: the play is not so much about Sister Rose as the people she left behind. However, I think that we can glean some bigger meanings from this. First, that no two people may have the same feeling about someone. We read a lot of different ideas about who Sister Rose was, including that she was kind, that she was harsh and used a stick, that she taught people to ride bikes, etc. Everyone had their own view, just as everyone probably has their own view of my or you. I've never been to a funeral, but I bet that when everyone is repeating over and over how wonderful and sweet the deceased was, someone is dying to say "She was rude to me!" or "I thought he was kind of crazy!"
ReplyDeleteI found the mystery of why Rose disappeared very interesting. Who would steal a nun's body and dump it in the river? Perhaps another one of her students with a different perspective about her. I thought it would have been nice to have this explored, since it's a compelling question, but I understand why it's not- it isn't what the play is about.
I love the scenes with Rooftop and Father Lux. I like how Guirgus lets the characters fumble a little for what they're trying to say. Rooftop keeps asking Lux to clarify things, and the playwright lets the dialogue hang on a silly misunderstanding that makes the speech seem so realistic. No one knows exactly what they're going to say all the time, or understands exactly what someone is saying to them, especially these two characters, and the dialogue delighted me. I also liked that Rooftop felt the need for confession now, and that he had to confess
e v e r y t h i n g. It almost seemed like he was trying to purify himself for his meeting with Inez, or that Sister Rose's death had influenced him in some way.
I don't think that all plays have to have a huge moral or be revolutionary, but I honestly am not sure why this play was written, and why this story had to be told. Perhaps seeing it onstage would instill in me a sense of the grittiness and harshness of growing up in the inner city, but otherwise everyone's struggles seemed unrelated, just as everyone seemed slightly detached.
I agree that this play is an excellent study for character and dialogue, but the story is...well. Not really there.
I do not feel that Sister Rose is necessarily the most important character. To me she seems more like a MacGuffin, that is a plot device necessary to move the events of the play. Therefore, her real importance is in presenting motivation for the other characters to interact as they do in the play. It allows the audience to see a particular side of the characters that only results from them encountering each other and their memories.
ReplyDeleteI did not have a character that made a particularly deep impression on me. Rather, I enjoyed seeing the interconnections between all the characters. I liked being able to discern the shared history of the various characters. I found it interesting to see the histories of Balthazar, Edwin, and Rooftop. The main focus of these character's backgrounds really had nothing to do with Sister Rose though. They all faced their problems in their adult life. Maybe this is because of the absence of Sister Rose, and as we discussed in class, maybe they have only lived half-lives since like Sister Rose's half body.
I'm afraid this is going to be a complete cliche, but I'm going to go with it anyway. How well can we really know another person? Beyond that, how we can we really know a character, for whom the only information we have is that which the playwright, director, and actor choose to give us. And since our experience is only a reading, there isn't even a director or actor to weigh in. So even though Sister Rose doesn't actually make an appearance (sans the cameo by half of her dead corpse), I don't think we are really missing out on that much potential character development. In fact, I think we get a fuller perspective of her character, since it's unbiased by our actually seeing her. By learning about Sister Rose through how and to what end she influenced the people in her life, we get a truer sense of who she really was than we would if we saw her onstage, giving a monologue, for example. So she definitely is an important character in the play. That being said, however, I don't think she is the main character or the most developed character. She is almost more of a device through which we learn about each of the other characters.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not she is truly "in" the play, I really liked Sister Rose's character. I've never personally had any interaction with nuns, which is probably why I automatically jump to the stereotype when I see or think of one. Sister Rose, on the other hand, was real. I've never even thought before to picture a nun teaching someone to ride a bike, for instance. The image in my head of an old, greying woman in a long habit holding the back of a rusty Schwinn with training wheels and an awkward freckled boy perched on top really just seems like the start of a bad joke, doesn't it? But somehow, I was able to look past the image of Sister Rose as a religious figure and see her as a victim and as real person.
Beyond Sister Rose, I saw the rest of the play as an ensemble piece. Certain characters, especially Rooftop, stuck out for me as more interesting, but I felt that each person was equally important to get a feel for the neighborhood and the experience of 121st Street.
I don't think Sister Rose is the most developed character, but rather more of a Macguffin as Chris suggested. Sister Rose is the connective tissue that binds the work together. Half of the corpse appears for a deliberate meaning, one of which could be that we know half of the story, or these characters knew only half of sister rose and thus half of themselves perhaps.
ReplyDeleteZyckadelick said, "I like how Guirgus lets the characters fumble a little for what they're trying to say. Rooftop keeps asking Lux to clarify things, and the playwright lets the dialogue hang on a silly misunderstanding that makes the speech seem so realistic." So much good meat is here that can be interpreted in a different ways and reach different spectra of the audience. Consider one of the endearing opening scenes with father lux and rooftop:
Rooftop: What, I can't relate a little anecdote?
Father Lux: What you can do, sir, is confess.
Rooftop: Confess, huh?
Father Lux: Confess your sins. Yes.
Rooftop: Dag, you all business, aint'cha, Father?
Only a certain character reacts as Rooftop, or as a bottle-toting Balthazar in authority, etc.
This dialogue goes on to compare rooftop's floundering in this situational confession to hank aaron playing teeball and perhaps george foreman grilling out. I loved that Guirgis made it a central aim to make his characters as tragic as they are comedically flawed.
I think our memory is being toyed with, or at least our perception of it as it relates to the memories of Vic, Balthazar (though he readily admits he knew little), and others. Again, there was a bit of a murder-mystery tone at the beginning, although I felt as though some sort of mysticism had to be coming. It actually reminded me of a poem about memory, crime, and morality that we covered in contemporary poetry awhile back, by C.K. Williams, entitled "Blades." I can't seem to find an online version, nor is it an easy type, so suffice it to say CK the narrator presents us with the memory of stabbing a small girl at the age of 8 with a "broken-off car antenna." In it he describes the innocence of the act, in which he, as the attacker, was just as shocked and pained as the little girl, once he had realized what he had done impulsively. The girl isn't hurt except for a scratch, but the police are called to the scene. They take the girl in one squad car to the hospital and the narrator "in another to take to jail, only they really only took [him] around the corner and let [him] go because the mother and daughter were black." He then, in the next stanza, proceeds to tell us that in his social construct of his memory, he actually wasn't the one doing the stabbing, he was just there. He remembers specifically doing half of one act and half of another; that is, he remembers stabbing the girl and also seeing another boy attack the girl. While CK drops clues in the poem, our memory and sense of the incident is forever skewed. And it had to be skewed in the exact order that he did it. We needed to be placed in the crux of the conflict as someone with a real emotional stake in the memory, and then have this completely flipped in order to feel the sensation as the author wanted us to. CK never resolves the incident for the reader, perhaps to leave innocence and morality up to debate for future generations. I may be trying to intertwine a bit too much there, but I truly feel some threads exist. Although, as many have pointed out, the unresolved nature of the death draws us not to Sister Rose but to those around her.
I felt that Sister Rose was not most enigmatic, well-developed character unto herself because she isn't alive in the play. However, her character is the most developing one because of what each character in the play contributes in remembering or mentioning of her. I felt that she's based on the impressions. She becomes more and more enigmatic, yet at the same time, more distant and iconic as these characters try to grasp for meaning in what she did in their lives. These characters are lost, worn, and looking for meaning. What Sister Rose's death conjures up in them is that reflection of themselves. It stirs up their past of both good and bad. The mentioning that Sister Rose was found once on the street past out from being intoxicated, shows that she had flaws and was human like the rest of the characters. It's after her death in the more the character try to describe what her presence meant in their lives, the more they separate her flaws or body from the impressions and of her spirit. Memory becomes like a fog for these characters, and just trying to describe or grab what the can view from their initial feelings. The deep impression I had was by Rooftop. He's low scum and definitely has some sexual issues with women, because he just sleeps around so much. And after years of being in the dark and left by his wife, he tries to find some meaning and questions what he's been doing with his life. He seeks out forgiveness for the pain he caused. We see that redemptive spirit in Rooftop as we do for all of these characters. They all want to let go of that past, but only half of it is buried in the end.
ReplyDelete