Equus+Period+2

** Peter Shaffer ** Sir Peter Levin Shaffer, born on May 15, 1926, is an English dramatist, the author of numerous award-winning plays. Born into a Jewish family in Liverpool, Peter Shaffer is also the twin brother of another playwright, Anthony Shaffer. He was educated at St. Paul’s School in London, and he subsequently gained a scholarship to Trinity College, Cambridge, to study history. In 1950, Shaffer received a B.A. in History, and during the following year, under the pseudonym Peter Antony, he wrote //The Woman in the Wardrobe//, the first of his three detective novels. It can be noticed that Peter Shaffer holds a reverence for the structure and characters of the detective novel, a factor that is present in //Equus//. During World War II, Shaffer worked as a Bevin Boy coal miner, and he later took on a hodgepodge of jobs: Doubleday’s bookstore clerk, airline terminal helper, Lord and Taylor’s department store, and assistant at the New York Public Library. However, upon discovering his dramatic talents, he immediately threw himself into drama and writing. Shaffer’s first play, //The Salt Land// (1954), was presented on the BBC. Encouraged by the public’s enthusiastic response, he continued to write, establishing his reputation as a playwright in 1958 with the production of //Five Finger Exercise//, which won the Evening Standard Drama Award. When Five Finger Exercise aired in New York in 1959, it was equally well-received, granting Shaffer the Drama Critics Award. From 1961 to 1962, Shaffer incorporated his love for music into a stint as a music critic for London’s Time and Tide. In 1962, a double-bill of Shaffer’s high comedies, //The Private Ear// and //The Public Eye//, was staged in London. A year later, he wrote a screenplay for William Golding’s //The Lord of the Flies// with British director Peter Brook. //The Royal Hunt of the Sun// premiered at the Chicaster Festival in 1964 before moving to London’s National Theatre. In the 1970s, Shaffer wrote three major stage plays: //The Battle of Shrivings// (1970), //Equus// (1973), and //Amadeus// (1979). //Equus// won Shaffer the 1975 Tony Award for Best Play as well as the New York Drama Critics Circle Award. //Amadeus// won the Evening Standard Drama Award and the Theatre Critics Award for the London production. Several of Shaffer’s plays have been adapted to film, including //Five Finger Exercise//, //The Royal Hunt of the Sun//, //Equus//, and //Amadeus//, which won eight Academy Awards including Best Picture. Peter Shaffer received the William Inge Award for Distinguished Achievement in the American Theater in 1992, was appointed Cameron Mackintosh Visiting Professor of Contemporary Theatre at Oxford University in 1994, and was awarded a Knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II in the annual new Years honors (2001). ** Analysis ** __ Stage directions __ in //Equus// are extremely important to understanding the play. Shaffer has used a chorus to make sounds otherwise known as the Equus Noise. This is performed by numerous actors who hum, thump, and stamp to emphasize and illustrate the presence of Equus as a God. However, these actors never neigh or whinny, ensuring that they do nothing that would suggest the concept of a pantomime horse. The Equus Noise is first heard at the beach where Alan has his first encounter with a horse. It starts off faint, gradually escalating in a crescendo before it stops abruptly when Alan dismounts. In a sense, it can be seen that the Equus Noise is a force that Alan is drawn to. In addition, the Equus Noise is also heard in the sex scene between Jill and Alan. The Noise seems to be cautioning Alan as he enters the stables, described as a warning hum. Clearly, Equus is observing Alan’s actions with the opposite sex, and he is expressing his sharp disapproval. __ Lighting __ is a key factor in the entire scheme of the stage directions. As seen throughout the play, the lights are often described as warm, rich, dark, or cold. This can be interpreted as the following. The lights grow cold and darker when one is entering scenes that refer to Equus and Alan’s world or when Dysart is being affected by Equus’s sheer presence. This reflects the fact that the God Equus is dark, mysterious, menacing, and rather unforgiving. However, on the other side of things, when scenes are set in more natural settings, such as Frank and Dora’s house, the light is brighter and warmer to suggest safety and normality. A particular feature of the play that really stands out is the __ stage __, a square of wood set on a circle of wood. There has always been that one saying, “You can’t fit a square peg into a round hole.” This stage clearly demonstrates this saying. The square can be seen as Alan’s world (the “abnormal” world), and the circle can be seen as the “normal” world. It is the psychiatrist’s job to trim away the individual parts of Alan to fit him into the general, normal society. In addition, there are times when the stage symbolizes a boxing ring where Dysart and Alan fight mental battles, each trying to find the other’s weaknesses. Lastly, the set also bares a striking resemblance to a Greek amphitheatre, which links to Dysart’s passion for ancient Greece. Everything is carried about rather __ ceremoniously __. When the actors playing horses prepare to enter the stage, they move at the same time, lifting their hose masks high above their heads before playing them upon their heads. Everything is done in a precise, direct, graceful manner, exemplifying the ceremonial procedures. There is a ritual, complementing the careful preparation and precision of any religious ceremony. // Equus // is definitely a play regarding the __ concept of normality __. It questions exactly what is considered “normal” for humans to exactly what extent individuality can retain its “normal” properties. When a psychiatrist removes a person’s pain and abnormality, it can also be interpreted that he is removing certain parts of their individuality and passion. This brings up a key concept: passion. The psychiatrist, Martin Dysart, is referred to as God’s priest, the one in charge of removing parts of individuality and passion that are displeasing to God. After careful analysis, we decided that this play basically considers if psychiatrists should destroy a person’s passion and meaning to their life just so they can be considered normal. Is being normal really a good thing? Or, instead, should they live their lives with passion? The __ role of a parent __ is extremely important in a child’s development and their psychological make-up. //Equus// definitely brings up issues of exactly how much a parent influences a child and whether or not it would be partly due to them if that child were to be considered abnormal. Are children born with their own unique psychological make-up or is this created as a result of events and influences in their lives? This is, clearly, the nature versus nurture argument. In the case of Alan Strang, there are two entirely contrasting forces within his life. On one side, his mother has instilled within him the Christian religion and the affinity for horses. However, on the other side of the spectrum, his father is an atheist, fully against Alan’s actions with religion and horses. These two forces confuse Alan, clashing within him, each fighting for the dominant position within Alan’s life. Regardless, it can definitely be said that his mother has had the greater influence in his life, as there seems to be practically no relationship between Alan and his father. There is a clear __ parallelism with religion __ – Christianity. The horse on the beach is in chains. --> Jesus was taken to Calvert in chains. Equus is in chains ‘for the sins of the world’ and that he will ‘bear you away’ as ‘one person.’ o Chains --> the picture of Jesus on his way to Calvary was replaced by the picture of the horse. In the same way that this picture was replaced, Alan replaced conventional, normal religion with his religion of Equus, the “abnormal” religion. o ‘bear you away’ --> Bearing away from the normal world and arriving in a new world full of passion and the Equus religion. o When Alan was a child, Dora (his mother) once told him that when Christian cavalry first appeared in the new world, the pagans thought that the horse and its rider were one person. The stable is Equus’ temple. --> Jesus was born in a stable in the straw. These all work as examples to exemplify that Alan has bridled conventional religion upon a horse. Shaffer has created a world where Alan’s world is understandable and his crime comprehensible. ** Discussion Questions ** 1) What is the significance of the last soliloquy? How does this contribute to the meaning of the book? 2) “There is always some madness in love, but there is always some reason in madness” –Niche. Does this quote apply to the play, either directly or indirectly? How does reason (or lack there of) affect the reader’s connection with Alan? 3) What is the symbolism behind the removal of the horse poster? How does the dichotomy of the parent’s relationship affect Alan’s views? 4) How does the non-traditional stage affect the content of the play? How would you set up the stage to fully facilitate understanding? 5) What is Shafer trying to reveal about rituals? Are they constructive or caustic?
 * // EQUUS //**
 * Equus explores exactly what makes a person abnormal in the first place. Certain words and events are linked together to form a person and his or her beliefs. It is these certain words and events that make up, in this case, Alan’s being.
 * On page 62, we see a section that starts with the psychiatrist, Dysart, talking about exactly what normality is. He describes it as “the good smile in a child’s eyes,” but also as “the dead stare in a million adults. It both sustains and kills—like a God.” Clearly, the normal is innocent enough in children, but it can make an adult seem blank and devoid of life. It is enough to sustain a person and keep him/her alive, but is also works to destroy his/her individuality and simply makes him/her one of the million other average, predictable, normal people. Dysart compares the Normal to a God, and he describes himself as the God’s priest, using delicate tools to cut away “parts of individuality repugnant to this God.” This passage shows how, in a sense, the God of Normality finds individuality repulsive and is using Dysart (psychiatrists) to cut these parts away.
 * However, as we continue through the play, Dysart becomes increasingly confused about the boundary between normality and abnormality. Individuality and passion. As we know, Dysart himself leads a passionless, typical life, devoid of true pain and passion. Dr. Dysart’s bland and colorless life is endlessly exhibited and catalogued. Alan Strang, on the other hand, experiences passion in its extremity; a passion which Dysart not only lacks but envies. Alan has created a pain that is uniquely his and uniquely part of his survival.
 * This play shows how normal things, when put into a different perspective, can become considered abnormal. On the other hand, abnormal things, in different circumstances, can be considered normal. **