Analysis of School for Scandal—A Well-Crafted Comedy of Manners
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Analysis of School for Scandal—A Well-Crafted Comedy of Manners Sheridan, Richard Brinsley (1751-1816), British dramatist whose work is considered the finest development of the comedy of manners in 18th-century England. It is a polite world of fashion but Sheridan makes its vices appear foolish by exaggerating them in humorous portraiture. His plot is usually from everyday life. He possesses excellent verbal talent and sense of theater. Sheridan’s School for Scandal is considered to be his masterpiece. It consists of a series of gossipy and fast-paced scenes that exposes contemporary foibles through the actions of the characters. It is an attack on artificiality of human behavior and sentiments. This play is remarkable for five features: Plot Construction, Characterization, Dialogue, Setting or Stage Craft, and Vision or Philosophy. Scandal: A young girl married to an old man who has money by which he keeps this young girl and others engaged. Lady Sneerwell makes fun of such marriage and that’s why she makes the plot. The plot is a conspiracy which deals with how to make a suspicion in the mind of Sir Peter to separate him from his wife Lady Teazle. Lady Sneerwell and her company run the school for scandal. During the uncle’s absence, they make such plot Wit: Wit means right thing at the right time. Caricaturing is a part of scandal mongering. One starts and other ends. True wit is from nature. And the intention behind such wit is to improve the person. For instance, the conversation between Crabtree and Sir Benjamin about ‘defining’ a woman shows wit at its best. Crabtree remarks that it is “the oddest countenance”, and “it is a collection of features.” Sir Benjamin tells it to be “an Irish front.” Repartee: It is quick but intelligent response. The conversation between Sir Peter and Lady Teazle is nice example of repartee. Damnation Scene: (Humor and Irony of Situation) – Act IV-scene IV 1. Plot Construction The plot is sequential arrangement of events or casual cause and effects. Events are arranged both sequentially and casually which makes the plot perfect. The plot of the play is interesting and well-constructed. Some people make a plot to break the relationship between Sir Peter and Lady Teazle. The plot is made by Lady Sneerwell and others which is executed by Joseph Surface by luring Lady Teazle. Lady Teazle leaves the old husband and makes love with Joseph. The plot is executed well but gets discovered at last. 2. Characterization Both Charles Surface and Sir Oliver provide contrast. They are rather caricatures. They are the puppets in the hands of the dramatist. They perform what their characteristics presented by their names. The characters of the play have their own significance by their names. Sheridan’s characterization draws upon the theory of Ben Johnson. He changes Ben Johnson’s theory. He makes one particular characteristic or weakness appear and plays on it. For instance, Joseph is totally exposed; there is no depth and roundness which provides humor. The humor is created by such characters because of their limitations suggested by their names. Characterization is caricature. Humor comes from the characters, their peculiar characters. Act-iv – curtain episode – is situational comedy. Major characters Crabtree: Crab can climb on the tree and can sting. He has qualities as his name suggests and he exploits and kills joy and all happiness by his witty remarks. J. Surface: He operates on surface level by leading superficial life. He is a scandal monger. He is a sentimental hypothetic, a most eligible bachelor. As Peter says, “a model for the young men of the age.” Charles Surface: He is an extravagant fellow. He contrasts with his brother Joseph. There is loyalty and sincerity in his character. He cares for his uncle. Lady Teazle: She is a simple character. She is from village and young who marries an old man for money and for living in London. 3. Dialogue Witty dialogues are crafted one after another quick and fast. And witty repartees provide humor. 4. Stage Craft Stage craft is very rare. It requires good direction and skilled playwright to manipulate it. In this play The School for Scandal, it is very well managed. No character is seen who has no role to play. The characters disappear as soon as the characters’ work gets over. The scene behind the screen and the damnation scene are well arranged in acts. 5. Vision There is no philosophy, simple fun in the play. The playwright delivers the message that we act foolishly as we are human beings then why punishment? Topics for Further Study Sheridan is a male writer who writes about marriage and women in School for Scandal. Research the role of women in London society. Do you think that Sheridan accurately portrays women? Is the marriage depicted in this play an accurate reflection of marriage in the late-eighteenth century? Sheridan's biography indicates that he made a lot of money from writing plays. Investigate play-writing and other theatre work as money-making ventures. How successful financially was acting? Or the writing of plays? Or owning a theatre" School for Scandal focuses on gossip and slander as a social disease. How serious a problem was slander in London society In your research did you find that Sheridan was using slander as a symptom of a more serious social issue? The eighteenth century was a..... Critical Essay #1 In this essay, Metzger discusses the merits of viewing a production of School for Scandal as opposed to merely reading the play. She also discusses the cultural problems—notably the anti-Semitism that is woven throughout the drama—that prevents a wider contemporary audience from embracing and fully appreciating Sheridan's work. I often tell my students that a play needs to be seen and heard to be properly appreciated. Reading a play requires an ability to visualize, and it is very difficult to manage this visualization without a careful scrutiny of the stage directions and some experience reading drama. This notion is especially true for Richard Brinsley Sheridan's, School for Scandal, which makes the reader wish for a fine production to view. In the fourth act when Lady Teazle and Sir Peter are each peeking out of their respective..... Critical Essay #2 Copeland reviews a Stratford Festival production of Sheridan's play. While finding the text as theatrical and resilient as ever, the critic was less than impressed with the production. As conceived by Robin Phillips, The School for Scandal displays a harsh and glittering world of exquisite beauty and viciousness, where sentimental sobriety—when genuine—is the only refuge from the savagery that lies in wait for vitality and virtue. Phillips has read the play as apiece of senous social criticism, with decidedly mixed results- his version of this classic comedy of manners is thought-provoking, visually stunning, but finally a failure. Sheridan wittily exhibits the machinations of the hypocritical Joseph Surface, who joins with the malicious Lady Sneerwell in a campaign of slander originally designed to obtain his uncle Oliver's fortune and the hand of the wealthy Maria by the..... Critical Essay #3 Clifford expresses disappointment at being denied the full pleasure of Sheridan'splay. Complaining of poor technical values and a general lack of enthusiasm, the critic feels that the play deserves better attention. To a writer a theatre like the Royal Lyceum is a magic box full of enticing possibilities—to all of which, almost invariably, you are denied access. To an Artistic Director, on the other hand, such a place must more often feel like a black hole—with row after row of empty seats that somehow, mght after night, have got to be filled. The theatre's understandable response to this has been to mount two classic comedies in repertory—a revival of their immensely successful production of Tartuffe in tandem with a new production of Sheridan's School for Scandal. This opened recently to an almost uniformly hostile press, which..... Critical Essay #4 In this uncredited review, a 1963 production of School for Scandal receives a favorable appraisal. The critic terms the play as "iridescently enchanting, contagiously amusing." The Shoolfor Scandal, by Richard Brinsley Sheridan, is a kind of dramatic harpsichord. It has surface vivacity rather than inner strength. It has elegance of style rather than profundity of substance. Thumped by realism's heavy hand, it would jangle and go mute; stroked with exquisite artifice, it enchants and amuses. The present import from Britain, top-star- ' ring Sir john Gielgud and Sir Ralph Richardson, is iridescently enchanting, contagiously amusing. Gielgud is Joseph Surface, the hypocrite as moral snob, a kind of holier-than-thou heel. Richardson is Sir Peter Teazle, a crusty, crestfallen bridegroom in his 50s, loving, but not loved by, young Lady Teazle (Geraldine McEwan), a predatory country kitten so..... School for Scandal | Introduction School for Scandal opened at the Drury Lane Theatre in London, England, in May of 1777. It was an enormous success. Reviews heralded the play as a "real comedy" that would supplant the sentimental dramas that had filled the stage in the previous years. While wildly popular in the eighteenth century, the play has not been as successful with contemporary audiences. One significant problem is the anti-Semitism that runs throughout the play. Post-World War II audiences are understandably sensitive to the disparaging remarks made about moneylenders, who were often Jewish. That the character of Moses is portrayed as honest and concerned is depicted in the play as an aberration. When Sir Oliver is learning how to disguise himself as a moneylender, he is told that he must ask 100% interest because it is expected that he must behave as an "unconscionable dog." But anti-Semitism is not the only problem with modern staging.