Today, it's your turn to pick the topic. Comment upon your reaction to "The Beggar's Opera." Some possible issues: Do Peachum and Lockit seem any more immoral than people in other professions than theirs? How are the two central female characters, Polly Peachum and Lucy Lockit, alike and/or different? Do they have individuality, or are they merely "types"? What is the effect of the surprise ending of the play? Comment upon these or any other issue in the play, using a quotation from the text as a springboard for your remarks. Also, read the comment before yours, and respond to it briefly.
The ending of The Beggar’s Opera was way too random. The beggar and the player argue as to whether the play needs to have a happy ending, “this is a downright tragedy. The catatrophy is manifestly wrong for an opera must have a happy ending.” The beggar argues that if he allows Macheath to hang for his crimes it would set a moral to the play. This moral being that, “lower people have their vices in a degree as well as the rich, and they are punished for them.” In the end they decide to allow Macheath to return to his wives. And this is the only explanation as to why Macheath does not get hung. This action shoes a strange aspect to this play. It is almost as if it is being written as it is performed on the stage. Personally I find this quite clever. Hogarth has created a system for allowing whatever he wants to happen happens so that he does not have to explain the intricacies in the plot. Also, these sections allow Hogart to explain to the viewers what point he is trying to get across to them. His metaphors and imagery of lower class citizens acting like upper class are shown clearly to those in the audience who might have missed the subtleties.
ReplyDeleteKhalost
I agree with Khalost the ending was very random or I just didnt expect it to end that way. Asking the question does Peachum and Lockit seem immoral yes because they are judging when they aren't even doing right themselves. Its like they are being hypocrites. the moral thing is like khalost said is that lower people have their vices in a degree as well as a rich man meaning they deserve the same respect even if it does involve being wrong.I feel that Polly and Peachum are alike because she chose the same type of man her father is the same way her mother chose him. It was just funny to me that how could Peachum be so judgmental and not like Macheath. In my opinion I think there are "types" because you have the people who are hardworking, who are rich, and then you have the people who scam you so yes I feel there was certain types. I related to this story because people are still living like this now when parents want the best for the child but go about it the wrong way. I felt the ending through me off because of the fact you always have a happy ending and the two in love be together I just didnt expect him to live after all that had happened.
ReplyDeleteAs Khalost and bird91 both stated, Peachum and Lockit are both just as immoral as people in other professions as theirs. They are both immoral characters and we have a perfect example in scene ten. The two are sitting there discussing their “work” in a manner that is not professional. Then when Peachum say, “In one respect indeed, our employment may be reckoned dishonest, because, like great statesmen, we encourage those who betray their friends” Lockit does not tell him that His way of thinking is wrong. Instead he basically tells him to be aware of his surroundings when he says things like that. That little conversation right there shows how the two characters lack moral standards as people and we could only expect for it to reflect in their profession as well.
ReplyDeleteContrary to the two before me, I actually liked the ending. I thought that it was a funny way of ending it and kind of a diss to the “Opera ending” that is usually done. It kind of showed how stupid it is for there to always be a happy ending.
As for Lucy and Polly, they are both stereotypical characters. They remind me of today’s time’s professional athletes and their wives and mistresses. The wife plays as if nothing is going on and goes back to him in the end. The mistress believes they are the only one, other than the wife. Then in the end all these other women show up and say that they were with the athlete. I found this ending to be very amusing.
I agree with Khalost, Peachum and Lockit are just as immoral as anyone else in any profession. Peachum is a hypocrite, with a lack of any common sense on who he really is as a person. Polly and Lucy are just that, women in the play I wouldn't say that they had any type of special significance that would make them different from one another they are just regular women a type a housewife, they don't get to involved and don't even have a clue in life. The women are just wanting revenge and are love hurt, these two are ignorant and can't agree on anything trying to kill one another and then begging for Macheath's life. Khalost did a great job describing how he believed the play worked.
ReplyDeleteFladDayismyBday states some good points as well, Peachum and Lockit are lacking moral standards. The outcome of the play is kind of disappointing I wouldn't have mind if MaCheath would have had to fight for his life, but instead could return to his wives. This play was a little easier to understand and very easy to depict the relations of the spheres in the story of the lower and upper class.
So in conclusion, the bouncing around of ideas from these hyprocites was amusing, the story kept me on the end of my seat, but the ignorance and rash decisions made, and stupidity of the plot and no murder. This shows the morals of the rich, or the morals of anyone can vary no matter you race,social class.