Most Helpful Customer Reviews
16 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Pure Bergsonism, February 12, 2001
George Bernard Shaw was called, with good reason, the "English Nietzsche". Though Nietzsche was an aristocrat and Shaw a socialist, both cherished the dream of the superman and looked forward to the day when he would be realised. Both, however, were characterised by their mordant wit and intellectual cynicism, in which "Man and Superman" abounds. Shaw manages to compress a number of disparate themes into a relatively taut dramatic format, even throwing in a scene in which Don Juan, the Devil and a gang of anarchist brigands make an appearance. The central event of the plot involves the wealthy Tanner, a member of the "Idle Rich Class" making himself subservient to the Life Force and seeking the perfect woman to marry, who would guarantee him a very special offspring, his ideal, the superman himself. Though Shaw was not known to have read the works of Bergson at that time, nor to have been conversant with his vitalist doctrine of the Life Force, his use of the Life Force motif and the philosophical underpinnings of the play attest to a pure Bergsonism. The most delightful part, however, is the "Revolutionist's Handbook" at the end, which contains Shaw's most scandalous anti-Establishment jibes. For instance, "Do not do unto others as you would them do unto you. They might not have the same taste."
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Controversy?, September 6, 2006
Shaw has packed many high-level topics into this play, while at the same time keeping long portions of the dialogue fairly low-level. Two topics jump out most frequently: hell and enjoyment. His take on each respective topic is fresh, seemingly from an entirely new perspective.
In the third act, the characters' conversation stands out in a couple ways. The explanation of hell from Don Juan, the Statue, and The Devil's point of view is unique. From a Judeo-Christian standpoint, it reeks of blasphemy, twisting around the traditional views to show things as they really are: The devil finally gets to tell his side of the story; heaven is boring; anyone can go between the two afterlives whenever they please. What is interesting is that Shaw's hell can fit with the Judeo-Christian/Biblical facts, something that the blasphemy police certainly will not give any credence to or spend any time investigating. His idea that heaven and hell are created for those who are going there matches perfectly with Biblical theology. A person not living in the grace of Jesus would hate heaven just as much as a person living in his grace would hate hell. Biblical theologians would not agree (if one could get them to listen) that people can choose their own eternity, nor would they agree with the concept of non-believers enjoying themselves in hell, even if one could get them to voice their belief that they will be given over to all the desires of their flesh.
What is fascinating about Shaw's hell is just that idea - that if life is about your passions and enjoyment (namely, the flesh) then your afterlife will be personal to those same passions and enjoyment. At this point, the conservative Judeo-Christians would be sharpening their inquisition equipment in a fervent rage because much of the play speaks to that idea of personal enjoyment during life, specifically the English. Don Juan says that humans live to try to understand life more but later adds to that idea by saying that understanding only helps us to know that we are enjoying ourselves. Life then becomes the pursuit of enjoyment, and hell mimics that pursuit as a sort of eternal amusement park. In a statement that seems like a pre-response to his opponent's case, Don Juan then says that although he spent his whole life looking for pleasure, he never found it. If it could ever happen, it is that response which could appease the frantic theologians. The devil, being the father of lies has pulled the eternal wool over everyone's eyes, both the living and the dead, and has gotten them to abandon their real purpose.
Shaw's flirtation with both sides of the controversy is what allows this play such success. He angers both the proponents and opponents of Christian "myths" and then offers possible solutions to appease both sides.
Reviewed by Jonathan Stephens
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Don Juan, in the 20th century, January 5, 2000
In this title, G.B. Shaw outdoes himself. Not only does he manage to turn up with a Don Juan play in our modern day and age, which is full of cynicism, and doesn't give in to 'medieval' codes of behaviour, but he even manages to turn around the table. Here, the hunter becomes the hunted, forced to flee from his pursued/pursuer. Shaw includes in this play an ingenious conversation between the original 15th century characters, which not only explains about Don Juan's philosophy, but shines a new light upon our own lives, here and today.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
