First: just for fun: a spoof of Death of a Salesman by that great old comedy group Second City TV. It's spoof and parody at the same time, as Fantasy Island, The Wizard of Oz, Star Trek, George Carlin and Jake Elwood of The Blues Brothers are all touched upon here. Most of the cultural jokes will probably not make sense to you—this is almost 30 years old after all. But imagine a time when television assumed its audience had the cultural background to make sense of such a bizarre satire.
Now: help me know what you all talked about in class today.
Period Two: what did you say—personally, whether you spoke up or not—about who the hero is of the play? The first person to answer, let me know what the class said, and others in the class can add to that.
Period Five: What do you, personally, think about the question of whether this is an anti-capitalist or anti-business play? And same as above: first person to blog, let me know what the class said, and others can add to this description as everyone blogs.
Finally. As a preview to Glengarry Glen Ross, look at the two clips below. It's a scene not in the play, but was added to the film adaptation by Mamet himself. It sets the stage well for both the subject and theme of the play. The company man, Blake, is played by Alec Baldwin (he plays the same guy, really, in 30 Rock: just a lot nicer and funnier); Levine is Jack Lemmon (in the new production on Broadway at this moment he is played by Al Pacino); Moss is Ed Harris; Aaranow is Alan Arkin; and Kevin Spacey is Williamson.
Remember: "Coffee's for closers."
"Always be closing."
See you guys tomorrow or more likely Thursday.
1. Most people said either that Biff is the hero or that there is no hero in this play. The argument for Biff was that he is breaking the cycle of failure in the Loman family. He’s the first person to realize what he really wants and what will really make him happy. We get the sense that he’ll now go work on a farm with some nice horses instead of suffering fifty weeks out of the year. Happy is still sleazy and doesn’t seem to have changed at all. What Willy did was not particularly heroic because Biff had admitted that he didn’t need a large some of money to try and become successful. Nobody needed him to commit suicide. Also, most people agreed that his suicide was more of an inevitable occurrence than a heroic act. It wasn’t some final act of immeasurable generosity and selflessness. It was more like Willy was just ready to die after so much disappointment and failure. Linda wasn’t really mentioned. On the other hand, some people argued that while Biff had a revelation about his life, he never really did anything heroic. It’s not necessarily heroic to simply realize what will make you happy. Also, there’s no way to be certain that he’ll really pick up his life and live well from here on out.
ReplyDeleteToday in class I thought we had a very honest discussion about who the real hero in this play is. There were many different points made, but I think that what it came down to was an argument between whether or not Biff was the real hero of the play. Many of us, including myself, said that Biff was the true hero of the play. I see Biff as the true hero because of all of the characters, Biff is the only one who finds himself by the end of the play. The entire play is a play of fake facades, fake dreams and fake ideas. It is a play about, as Cam said on an earlier blog, reality vs. appearance. Biff's entire life has been this. Ever since Biff was a child, Willy has been pounding into Biff's head that the only way of life, the only way to succeed and to live life was by financially being successful. He pounded into his head that Biff would be successful in life because he had all of the traits and qualities needed to succeed. And Willy does this because he himself believes it, as he has a false idea himself of success and life in general. So Biff goes out to "succeed" as Willy puts it, and he fails miserably. And still, Biff is our hero, because in his failure to succeed in Willy's definition, to financially succeed, he finds out who he truly is and what he wants in life. He knows himself and a life that will make him happy because he has separated appearance from reality. "We've been talking in a dream for 15 years." "I'm nothing, Pop. I'm just what I am, and that's all." "What am I doing in an office, making a contemptuous, begging fool of myself, when all I want is out there, waiting for me the minute I say I know who I am!" Biff comes into the light if you will, and he's the only character in the play to do so. He's the only character that makes any sort of progress for that matter. Many students in class today agreed with what I have said above(I think), but some argued that Biff is not the hero because while he does come to a realization, he has still failed throughout his life to actually make a life for himself. He has had multiple opportunities to make a life for himself and he has blown them all. He is, to simply put it and as he himself says, "nothing". Today in class we also spent a while discussing whether or not we see Willy as a hero through his actions in killing himself. Please correct me if I'm wrong anyone, but we all seemed to be in some kind of agreement that at first Willy's intentions in killing himself were heroic as they were for Biff, but that Willy doesn't understand fully when he is contemplating killing himself. He is still only focused on the financial success, he sees it as the only way to live and he sees Biff as a complete failure in obtaining this, which he has in fact failed in doing so. While he is providing money for Biff which I see as heroic and I think the class sees as heroic, he is still trapped behind all of the fake dreams, facades, and ideas. And then Biff explains to him everything I said above, and Willy finally understands. Since he finally understands, a great pressure or burden has been lifted off of him relating to the success of his boys, and he is finally at peace. He feels like he his task is done, a task that he doesn't realize until the end, when it has been accomplished. In the end, Willy kills himself not as an act of heroism, but because he feels he has done his job and he it is simply no longer necessary for him to be on earth and to live his life. So in conclusion, we came to the agreement that Willy is not really heroic or unheroic for killing himself, it was just the inevitable. That's what I took from class today and what my thoughts are, if anyone has any objections to what I said or disagrees feel free to comment.
ReplyDelete1. In class, most everyone agreed that the book was NOT anti-capitalist. The book is critiquing business and American society, but not necessarily the economic philosphy behind it. Erin pointed out that Miller was blacklisted because of this book, and we all agreed that this was due to extreme paranoia; not because it was blatantly anti-capitalist. Miller was pointing out how and why people can get stuck in their economic situation in a seemingly mobile society. I think that Miller is showing that it's not necessarily the capitalist system's fault but rather how the individual handles the system. From what our class discussed, I got the feeling that people agreed with the employer's statement that "business is business." Yes, it ruined Willy's life, but life is not fair.
ReplyDeleteI agreed that the play was not anti-capitalist. I think the play says that a society where everyone must go into business is bad, but not that capitalism itself is bad. I think Miller is saying that even though it may seem like you have to go into a certain line of work it is important to do what you would be best at, or enjoy the most. A capitalist society still needs carpenters.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with what Sam and Sohail said about class today. It was a good discussion and really interesting to get everyone's point of view on the book as a whole. I argued that I didn't think Biff was a hero. I think he's done things that could be called a bit heroic or that he has some small heroic qualities, but doing some heroic things doesn't make one a full hero. There weren't too many people in class who agreed with me on this, but it was nice to be able to discuss this and I can definitely see the argument as to how Biff could be a hero, though I still don't really fully agree or believe that.
ReplyDeleteLike Sohail, Sam and Molly said, I really enjoyed the discussion and Nat did a good job of mediating it. I argued that Biff was the hero, because although he may not have done anything to progress himself financially, he realized that what his father and his family had forcefully but implicitly pushed on him was to become a businessman. Biff realizes that he is no businessman, and accepts that so he can move on. I think this is very heroic. To admit failure but move towards success is the ultimate sign of heroism, even if it comes from such a broken character. We do not see Biff go on to become the next John Wayne, but I believe he does something great by just accepting a simple fact and moving on rather than the rest of the cast in this play.
ReplyDeleteWe pretty much all agreed that this was not anti-capitalist but rather was a critique of american society. Miller is simply stating that is important to do what one loves rather than look at the economic side of things. Although this is definitely a critique, I don't see it as an anti-capitalist one because Miller seems to be looking at the emotional side of business rather than the economic side.
ReplyDelete1. As the rest of my classmates have already said, the entirety of our class came to a relatively unanimous decision that while the play had it's moments in which it critiqued the capitalist lifestyle, the play as a whole was not anti-capitalist. We came to a separate agreement that while the themes of the book could be played off as anti-capitalist, in reality the play encompasses a different idea which was that people should pursue the job they would enjoy rather than the job that could, with no small measure of luck and skill, maybe get you rich one day. I personally felt that rather than criticize capitalism, the play focussed on the mindset that comes with capitalism and the issues that it brings.
ReplyDeleteI agreed with the class conclusion that the play was not anti-capitalist or anti-business. Capitalism has clearly worked for some people. One of the most successful characters in the play, Charley, got his success from being a part of capitalist society. I think the play is commenting more on the expectations that society sets up and society's belief that the only way to be successful is to follow the status quo set up by those expectations. I also think it's a commentary on how the American Dream causes some people to complete forget reality and how ridiculous people are when they put their faith into a dream rather than something real and how things can go terribly wrong when this is done.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cam in that Biff is the most admirable character since he is the only one who sees himself for who he is. I wouldn't necessarily call him a hero because he has yet to accomplish anything, but he is the closest to being a hero and he is by far the most respectable. He clearly was a failure at one point. He didn't achieve his dream, but what puts him on the path to becoming a hero is his realization of who he is and what is the best thing forward and making plans to accomplish that. I like what Cam said about how admitting failure but still moving towards success is a sign of heroism. I agree with that, but I also think that he has a ways to go before he's "made it."
ReplyDeleteYes, it seems that I must concur with everyone else from second period. I think that Biff is the hero of this play. To me, the biggest issue in this play was the question of what you do with your life in order to be a success, and I think Biff is the only one who resolved this question. While Willy is hopelessly tied to the world of being a salesman and the notion that success can only be measured in money and likability, Biff realizes that he is, in his own words, "a dime a dozen". He doesn't expect anything more of himself than he should. He is what he is and he does what he loves, which is to be shirtless in the great outdoors raising cattle and running ranches. I especially liked what Cat said today in class, about how a hero must go on a journey. By this definition, Biff is definitly a hero.
ReplyDeleteSounds good, folks! Fifth period, go ahead and say what you personally thought: I get that you agreed the play wasn't anti-business. Yet it seems to me that it is a critique of some aspect of American business: and though it may not be anti-capitalist, it certainly casts a jaundiced eye toward what capitalism can do to the individual. Second period, I'd ask you to consider, 1., not dismissing Biff so easily, for his change and "journey", as Jake quotes Cat, is extremely profound; and 2., to not dismiss Willy so readily either. Willy indeed still believes in the model that almost destroyed his family and, arguably, destroyed himself. Yet within that context, he did something extraordinary, it seems to me: he sacrificed himself so Biff could succeed. Is it relevant that Biff didn't ask for this? Is it important that Willy is still, arguably, deluded? He didn't change, that's true, and Biff did, which certainly points to Biff being the true protagonist of the play. Yet Willy did take the love he finally felt from Biff and gave it back, in his own tragic way.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this play is not anti-capitalism. I think it has more to do with one's individuals struggle in life then economy as a whole. However, it does speak about society by saying that some of the standards set by it can make a person follow empty lives where happiness is overcome by the need to succeed. Even though this play is heavily affected by economical issues, it does not go in depth about issues in the economy itself. I think that most of us agree that this book does not deal with the economy but with society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteLike my classmates have said, this play isnt critiquing capitalism it's criticizing the society that allows for the unequal gap between those who gain and those who lose. Like Jenny said, Miller really does focus more on what the norm was back then and what was expected of people back then rather than what the economy was like. I think he is also showing through the Loman family that even in a time where there was a huge economic boom and people like Charley and Bernard succeeded, no matter what you're still going to have people on the bottom who will continue to struggle regardless of what the economy is like.
ReplyDelete1) I hate to be repetetive, but like my classmates I agreed with the unanimous decision that this book was not anti-capitalist. Anna phrased it perfectly when she called it a "critique of American society". The fifty week work time and two week recess is encouraged by the American ideal that there is no success without money. If this were an anti-capitalist book, then the salesman who believes that it is more important to be well liked than to make money would be a protagonist. Willy is pictured as a pathetic mad man and his ideals are not proven to be correct. This story pointed out the flaws of our society and proved that we've lost track of the things that are important to life. I understand that capitalistic thoughts fuel American society and the need to succeed, but this book focused more on the horrible effects of failure.
ReplyDeleteI, unlike many of my peers, disagree that Biff is the hero. I found most of the characters in the play profoundly un-heroic. The two obvious choices for who the hero is are Biff and Willy. Willy spent his entire life being passive, pushed around and failing at all of his endeavors. Even his suicide was not climactic in any way. Many people said today that Biff is the hero because he goes through a journey. I didn't see this. He ends the play as the same man he is when it starts. He's going out west, and while we can hope it'll be permanent this time, who's to say, come spring, he won't come running home again? I felt like this play was about showing the audience a reality of life that exists in so many homes across America. We want a hero so that we can separate ourselves from the story. There is not hero of this story, and I think that is done very purposefully.
ReplyDeleteThe question whether the book was anti-capitalist or not was the least discussed question out of the three, since the part of the class that speaks came to a consensus that it was not anti-capitalist. I agree with this view. The question of whether Willy is fired because of his own faults or rather because of the faults of the American Dream (capitalism) was consistently raised in our first few class discussions about this play, but once we finished the play we knew that it was Willy’s own problems, whether his affair or inability to sell, that ultimately destroyed him. Howard’s treatment of Willy presents a point that can be argued that capitalism is the cause of Willy’s demise, but to me, at least, that fact only adds a log to the fire, and did not start the fire itself. Willy’s choices, not capitalism, caused the death of a salesman.
ReplyDelete1. I agreed with the class on this question. I do not think this play is exactly a commentary on anti-capitalism. I think that it is a commentary on the American society itself. The troubles that Willy and the family go through are an effect of capitalism, but their is a more direct connection with the American society. The play shows how American society pressures people into a careers with an outcome of riches. MIller wants people to understand that if a person goes into business hoping for a large income and will ultimately fail if he does not love it. Also Miller critiques the hierarchy in the business world. Howard became the boss of the company because of his father, and all he does is sit around around and play with his recording machine. On the other hand, Willy had to work himself into exhaustion without any kind of reward at the end. Willy was not up for the fight in this society and he would have been more successful if he had gone into carpentry.
ReplyDeleteI do not think the play is about anti-capitalism at all. I feel that the play focuses on peoples own goals and what they do to get there. Willy has know the business world is harsh. He has known that he hasn't been making the money to upkeep his house for years but doesn't quit. This isn't because the capitalist system is holding him down. Willy is the problem here. Willy creates an illusion in which he is doing fine; where if he keeps working for long enough he will become like the eighty-four year old salesman and revive himself. The characters in the play might not like the capitalist setting in this book but only because they don't fit into the capitalist world. The vision and main concepts to take away from this book turn in a different direction including dreams vs. reality.
ReplyDeleteI feel the play just emphasizes and critiques how capitalism and business influence our lives and how they sometimes lead us to believe in the idea of the American dream which isn't always attainable or fully true. We are driven by a materialistic world where we fall for advertisements like Willy and sometimes set high expectations we may not always meet. We care more about these things then ourselves or family. It cause tension in the Lomans as we saw and leads us either to succes or failure. Miller just shows us the flaws of capitalism and its effects on our daily lives..
ReplyDeleteI initially agreed with everyone in class that Biff is the hero of the play. I stated that he is the only character that manages to go from not knowing who he is and what his family is to knowing. Charley and Bernard already know, and the rest of the Lomans stay ignorant. But after Zoe's comments, I found myself agreeing with her somewhat. In a play with very little heroism indeed, we have to look for the least common denominator: Biff. Regarding the question about whether the play is anti-capitalist, I think Miller manages to keep a nice balance between things being Willy's fault and the system's fault, which lets the reader draw their own conclusion. For me, the play is not really about the abuses of capitalism, but about certain illusions that people have about life.
ReplyDeleteToday in class I argued that Biff was heroic, not for realizing that he had to be truthful to himself and happy to make a reasonable attempt to succeed, but that he was a hero for standing up to his father, who was his role model for a large portion of his life. I think it was impressive that Biff had the courage to stand up to someone, terribly flawed, as Willy was, that he loved so much. Regarding Willy, I felt that while he was paying Biff back for his confusion and pain caused by Willy, Willy did it in the same sort of thoughtless way in which he did everything else. Willy didn’t consider Biff’s emotional reaction to his death or any other factors he simply decided that Biff would benefit from the money and that he had to go.
ReplyDeleteSo adding on to Sohail, I think maybe there is a minute difference between being the hero of the play and actually being a real-life hero. So in real life no one would care that Biff basically put his pants on right and made an executive decision to break the cycle like most people said. This is always necessary in many story lines and real life. If one doesn't learn to put limits, people just stomp all over you and make you believe something else. It's been embedded for so long that suffering work is the way you make a living, with Happy as proof with his "work" speech. So Biff provides us a hope and inspiration. Yes, he had to stay because of his father's funeral, but we mostly had reason to believe he was going back to the farm to do what makes him happy. No one else in his family says or does what makes them happy but rather to please Willy.
ReplyDeleteOur class agreed that the play was not anti-business, but rather the pressure that that's the only way to be successful[or happy even]. Simply because Willy put his whole life into didn't make him successful. There are so many more factors that go into it. There are the factors of being well-liked to some extent and maybe he wasn't well-like as much as he thought. And then also how well you do your job, and by what we saw with Howard--he wasn't very good. So getting into business isn't always the way, so we shouldn't have such a close minded idea about it like Happy and WIlly.
1.Pretty much everyone in our class decided that the book was not anti-capitalist, but instead it was critiquing society. We also talked about the hero's of the play, and how nobody really fit the role very well. Willy's last sacrifice seemed rather like a way to escape than a noble sacrifice. Happy couldn't be the hero because everyone ignores him, and Linda couldn't be either because of the way she blinds Willy. This leaves Biff the role, but even he doesn't seem to do anything that fits the role.
ReplyDeleteWell it seems as though not much has been left for me to say. The play was not anti-capitalist, but more pro-morals, condemning the treatment of human beings as pieces of fruit when it comes to business. Overall, we decided that what Willy did was not in fact heroic, and that the real hero of the play was his son, Biff. Willy simply escaped, rationalizing his action as something that might benefit Biff.
ReplyDeleteYes I agree with Michael, most of our class did not think this play was anti-capitalist, we believe that the play was telling people to follow their dreams. Follow what you have a passion for, because if you do not have a passion for what you do, you will not succeed. And I did not think that there was a hero because everyone in the play was cowardly and nobody deserves the title of hero.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was a really interesting question, because we have never discussed a question like this before. I definitely didn't think that it was an anti-capitalism or anti-business. I think that's taking it a little too far. But I did bring up that Miller was blacklisted in class. So I thought it was a little ironic, and maybe there is a connection, that Miller who was accused of communism wrote a book that some may say is anti-capitalism.
ReplyDelete