Written in French by Yasmina Reza, The God of Carnage premiered in
Zurich, Switzerland on December 8, 2006 and then was translated into
English and presented on stage in London in March 2008.
The plot of the satirical play centers on two married couples that are
meeting to discuss how to deal with the uncomfortable situation of
their kids having an altercation in a public park. One child has hit
the other with a stick, knocking out some of his teeth. The story
begins in the Vellon’s living room, the parents of Bruno, the child
who has been injured. The two couples, Annette and Alain Reille and
Veronique and Michel Vallon begin by discussing the incident that has
occurred between their children. At first, they add polite bicker to
keep the conversation polite and adult like. It isn’t long before you
begin to get a sense of the true character of each parent. Alain
Reille is a lawyer in the midst of a medical malpractice suit. He
answers his cell phone repeatedly during the parent’s conversation
adding to the growing discomfort in the room. Michel has just admitted
to throwing out Bruno’s sisters hamster out into the wild on it’s own
and the wives begin to take jabs at each other’s parenting skills.
It’s not long before you realize that this play is more about the
parents than the kids. The kids act as pawns for the parents and
obviously cannot be the one who is wrong in this matter. Yes, the
fight brought these parents into the same room but they lose sight of
the importance of doing what’s right for their children and embark on
pointing out as many character defects about each other that they can.
No one is safe. At first the couple work as a team against each other.
Then, it becomes each person is out for self. It is kind of funny how
they go from being proper and polite to full fledged name-calling. It
comes full circle when the daughter whose hamster has gone m.i.a calls
on the phone and her mother snaps back into the “mom” role to console
her. A telling line into the minds of the parents was this statement by Alain, Ferdinand’s father: “You see, Veronique, I believe in the God of carnage. He has ruled uninterruptedly, since the dawn of time.” Basically, he’s saying that he believes what his son did was morally correct.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article7079316.ece
Helen Rumbelow’s article, “Modern parenting is rubbish: let's change
it” addresses the effects of neglect by middle class parents of their
children. Parents have become less and less present in their
children's lives and have used television and computers as substitutes
for personal interaction. The article states that teachers are having
a tougher time teaching kids because parents aren't doing their part
in actual parenting. In place of teaching kids life lessons, parents
are taking the easy route of succumbing the child’s wants allowing
them to watch television or use their personal computer in the privacy
of their room creating isolation because the parents don’t have the
time or energy. The author writes, "Your job (as a parent) is to
show by example and through the exercise of proper authority how to
grow up.” This is not only an issue affecting the children but it
affects the parents as well by not interacting with each other to
continue to build and maintain a healthy relationship amongst them.
This is a short clip of the God of Carnage from pages 34 to 43 just to get a better felling of how the parents act and behave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDntkIVJRTk&feature=related
In God of Carnage the play starts off by two families meeting to talk about what Ferdinand did to Bruno whom was hit him with a stick which broke two of his incisors. The two families are actually talking about the issue more calmly than would be expected. Veronique and Michael tell Alain and Annette that Bruno’s teeth nerve isn’t killed completely and that there is still a chance they will in the future be able to put in another tooth.
What would you do as a parent if another kid broke two of your kids teeth on purpose?
The way Bruno’s parents handled the situation is unrealistic because if my child or even I had my teeth broken by another person I would be seeking vengeance not a peaceful agreement. When the parents are talking, they also switch to different topics every few moments. On page 5 Annette says, “Those tulips are gorgeous” and Veronique responds, “It’s that florist in the Mouton Duvernet Market. You know, the one right up the top.” Then Annette replies, “Oh, yes” and Veronique adds, “They come every morning direct from Holland, ten Euros for a bunch of fifty.” and so on. Who in their right mind will talk about how beautiful some flowers are when they have a more delicate issue at hand?
The parents of Ferdinand tell Bruno’s parents that Ferdinand doesn’t know the responsibilities he has come upon by hitting Bruno and isn’t willing to face them. Ferdinand’s parents aren’t the ideal parents a kid would want because he never is able to spend time with them because his father is always busy and Annette is mad at Alain.
Does hitting another person and not caring make you a savage?
http://kidshealth.org/kid/feeling/home_family/parents_fight.html
Both families fight with each other in the meeting even though they were there to talk about their kids not their personal problems. At the end they just sort of agree to disagree that the meeting was a bad idea and don’t resolve the issue they were there for.
In the link above it talks about how parents fight with each other and can’t make an agreement which is true in both the Reille and Vallon families. Arguments with silence are also show in the play in how Annette doesn’t tell Alain anything about his phone calls until the end when she can’t take it anymore and gets his phone wet. From the reading it was said that Ferdinand hit Bruno because he didn’t let him into his gang and also called him a grass. On a psychological basis perhaps Ferdinand hit Bruno because he asked for it but also it might cause his parents to get involve and stop being so distant from him with all their work.
Questions to Consider:
What would you do as a parent if another kid broke two of your kids teeth on purpose?
Does hitting another person and not caring make you a savage?
Was the meeting on the kids fighting or the parent’s marital problems?
What character do you believe is trying to solve the kids fighting problem the most?
What would you do to resolve the kids fighting problem?
How do you know what to do
as a parent?
Shouldn’t there be some sort of test you can take to see
if you’re ready or qualified?
Is Annette pregnant?
Amy and Anthony,
ReplyDeleteGreat work. This is a pretty crazy and brutal play with plenty of depth to plumb, and you've served up a good starting point.
When I first read this play, oddly enough, I didn't find it very funny. It wasn't until I had watched a few clips online (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYMrdxpZP9g, http://videos.sify.com/Premiere-of-God-of-Carnage-SIFY-watch-jeivMGggdfi.html -- I recommend watching both of these if only to get a basic sense of the performance) that I began to feel the satirical weight of the parents' discussion and their characterizations. Still, this satire doesn't overcome the serious gravity of the play but, as any good satire, performs to heighten not only the audience's emotional involvement in the work via a humorous counterpoint but also the semantic weight of the work. What I mean is that satire does not cast, usually, obliquity over its subject but pushes a situation -- political, rhetorical, or otherwise -- toward salience, from a point of view (or lens) that sees the situation from the outside looking in.
As we progress in our discussion, I'd like for you to think about the following: What is this a satire of? Are these characters archetypes of a sort, individual satires playing off type, so to say? And, lastly, what -- if you could choose only one point of contention -- are they arguing about?
When I first read the play, I found it pretty hilarious. Just seeing both of the couples fighting against each other, and then the males of each group turn on the females, etc, etc, was funny to me. Of course, however, it started off very serious and formal--both couples came together in discussion, seemingly void of the usual emotions you would see with, say, a similar situation between New York families--namely anger. But as the play progressed, along with the liquor's introduction and with pairings of enemies against their friends, the mood gets a bit lighter.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the entire plot, however, I feel that the play is a satire of normal, everyday human interaction with one another. In public, most people hide their true emotions behind a facade of happiness, politeness, or sheer indifference. In the public, business, academic, or what-have-you type of world, it is deemed more professional to act a certain way to fit in with a professional norm. For example, if two people bump into each other in the workplace or somewhere equally as formal, they would likely both apologize and move along with outward smiles. However, it could be that both of the people involved in the encounter are both harboring feelings of pain and anger towards the other person, but hide it in an effort to be professional or polite.
This play takes a situation such as the one mentioned, and breaks it down to its core--in having the couples conflict with each other, the truth really comes out: both of the situation of the young boys "fight" and of the hidden problems in each couple's respective marriage. In doing doing so, human nature in general is reflected from these couples argument, and through a delicate mix of comedy and drama, Reza accomplishes her revealing of human nature.
I feel that, overall, the real argument was based on the parents' marital problems, rather than that of the encounter between the two boys. Granted, the second inspired the first, but a great deal of time (and insults) was spent responding to tertiary arguments brought up from the primary one. When it came to Ferdinand hitting Bruno, though the true event is not made very clear to us (ironically, thought the fight arose due to the two boys, they were not seen anywhere in this play) that both boys were wrong to an extent. Thus, it is hard to determine whether each child is as savage as the other parent claimed about them.
If it were up to me, I would still try to settle this civilly, but I would not be a "phony" and hide my true emotions about the situation--I would just present them in a more mature and modified way. If I were one of the parents, I would realize that the argument has gotten completely out of hand-- and at the heart of the matter, there still remains two boys who have not solved their problems.
As per Annette, I didn't really pick up on anything that she was pregnant, other than the fact she kept vomiting. But then again, she kept drinking (often) towards the end of the play, and if she was conscious of her pregnancy, then I feel she wouldn't have.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis blog post responds to the question: what would you do to resolve the kids fighting problem?
ReplyDeleteTo resolve the kids fighting problem, I would place them on punishment. I would tell them that they would have to stop fighting if they want to have any leisure such as playing with toys, engaging themselves in outside activities, hanging out with friends and so on. I believe that once the kids have these types of rewards taken away from them due to their fighting issues, they are most likely going to stop fighting, or the number of times they fight will begin to decrease. In addition to their punishment, I will place them in an anger management class to help them learn how to deal with stress in a nonviolent matter. The kids should find this class entertaining, but if not, at least the class can help them become less physical towards others.
Answering the first question: If I had a kid, and someone punched my kid in the face so that 2 teeth went missing I wouldn’t be as nice as the parents in the play. And I would speak to the kid, not the parents.( without violence of course, but explaining that violence causes violence in return, in more understandable for the kid words, so that the kid would understand that if I see him close to my kid ever again his four teeth will go missing ).Totally wrong and immoral, I know. But I believe that with 11 year old that would work, and it is without any violence (only verbal explanation) from my side.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the question of what this satire is off, I think it is a satire of all of us. People try to seem better then they are. In the play parents, who think that they are so smart, so moral, so educated, end up acting just like their kids. In the beginning of the conversation these people try to act nice and concerned about their kids’ problems but at the end it turns out that neither of them is really concerned about the kids. Each of them is just worried about his own problems. The reason why this characters can not come to compromise probably is that all of them are arguing about different things: each one is defending his own beliefs about life. Veronique is arguing about fairness and moral standards, that s why she tries to appear to be more fair and concerned then she, in fact, is. Michael argues about his belief that life sucks anyways. Annette is upset about the fact that her husband doesn’t pay any attention to her, their kid and family life whatsoever. Allan believes in a “god of carnage” and obviously doesn’t feel like his son has done anything wrong. The play also represents the trivial marriage problems that a lot of families are going through: a lot of misunderstandings , including absence of understanding why they ever got married at the first place… so the prototypes of this characters seem to be the ordinary middle class parents.
While reading this play so many things were going through my mind, if this happened to my son would I be sitting here trying to be nice to parents that obviously don’t care or seem to have no remorse for what their kid did. Ferdinand is obviously a bad kid because his parents seem to be bad parents. An 11 year old shouldn’t have the choice to not apologize if he hurts someone. He should be made to say he is sorry whether he wants to or not. His parents feel Bruno is just as responsible as Ferdinand but Bruno didn’t hit their son, he called him a grass and no matter how offensive that was, it wasn’t physical so by hitting Bruno, Ferdinand definitely crossed the line.
ReplyDeleteAll the parents are out of their minds. They keep going back and forth from the issue at hand to arguing with each other. Though I wouldn’t be as patient with Annette and Alain Reille as Michel and Veronique Vallon, the Reille’s do have one thing right in thinking that the kids should work this out between them even if they have to be forced to do it. The Vallon’s shouldn’t be interested in talking to Ferdinand, they should talk to his parents and hope they are reasonable people that would care about what their son did and know if the tables were turned, what they would hope for.
I was filled with anticipation as I read thinking about it would get physical. They were on the cusp of getting there, calling each other names, mocking each other and was showing a complete disregard for how the other family felt. I really thought the Vallon’s frustrations would boil over and someone would get slapped, I kept reading and hoping but it never happened but it kept me reading with anticipation.
I did think it was crazy how you had wife and husband bickering at each other a lot. It almost as if the couples brought their own problems into the picture. I felt like the couples were accomplishing nothing by talking to one another. They were going back and forth with each other. Then they were going back and forth amongst themselves.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed how Alain constantly keeps picking up his phone and handling is work. I feel like the only reason he is there is because his wife dragged him there. He refers to his son as a "savage." You can tell how he doesn't really care and just wants to get out of there. He doesn't even walk away when he picks up his phone.
I agree with Nate in the sense that all the parents are crazy. I also thought it was funny how Alain and his wife said if their son was his the way Bruno was they probably would have handled it differently which is something I wouldn't say because and her Husband are being relatively nice about the whole situation. I liked this piece of work. I think it portrayed real life marriage and the bickering involved. It portrayed the father who is too busy to attend to his family. It also portrayed the craziness of parents.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm having a somewhat difficult time putting together a coherent thought here; perhaps it is due to all the papers I have to write ... so I apologize if this seems vague and/or inarticulate.
ReplyDeleteIn any event ...
I guess I sort of looked at the play as a conversation, well argument, between four self centered individuals who are so absorbed in their in their own importance that they fail to recognize their relationships between each other. Perhaps they don't really care to recognize the others at all. No one here seems to care what any of the other people opine--including the opinions of their spouses.
The argument happens because each person believes they are right. Agreement with another person is done only to ease tension, to take a side or to launch an attack, but not because they actually agree on anything. The argument isn't about anything or going anywhere (e.g. the rum, the hamster). There are some commonalities found between some of the characters at times, but these common grounds are just fleeting and insignificant.
The play, in my view, is a satire on conversation. You can substitute the children here (the reason for this conversation) and replace them with something else; politics for example, or a religious or ethical discussion. The conversation will, as it so often does, follow the same course as this one --it will turn into an irrational argument viz people arguing emotionally and not logically. This is really evident in political debate. It is just rhetoric without meaning, and the conversation always goes back to the proverbial "me". I think the play is just pointing out peoples seeming inability to communicate without rational thought due to self-importance.
I find this play to be pretty brutal in the beginning. Most children look at their parents as their role model. If the 11 year old is bad then his bad behavior is a resembelance from his parents. I dont think neither one of the parents in the play are responsible and have the qualification to be "good" parents.
ReplyDelete