메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국현대영미드라마학회 현대영미드라마 현대영미드라마 제21권 제1호
발행연도
2008.4
수록면
129 - 150 (22page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The argument that The Absence of War, a story about the political journey of George Jones, never gets beyond political fantasy, conveniently simplifies the political insight lurking beneath the surface. Although the play is very closely linked to the 1992 election, it is not just about the Labour Party’s election defeat. The struggle and eventual downfall of George, a central figure in the play, is a product of the increasingly faithless British political culture as much as his personal flaws, a plaguing self-doubt or a lack of the political killer instinct. In this paper, I argue that the very ‘deficiency of active interplay of political ideas,’ which was pointed out by some major critics as ‘dramatic weakness,’ constitutes, in fact, the crux of Hare’s dramatic intention to demonstrate modern British politics.
In The Absence of War, Hare’s powerful moral energy and political message come from the very sense of lack of the interplay of political ideologies, which is a creation of an increasingly homogeneous political climate and of ideological vagueness. What caught Hare’s dramatic imagination was the sense of apathy on the parts of politicians and the public, and the play provides a remarkable commentary on British social climates in the post-Thatcher period. In the play, the sense of loss and purposelessness is created shamelessly through the negative ways in which the election campaign itself is run. The excitement created by backstage campaign activities is well delivered, but is always juxtaposed with or countered by the awful destitution of any battle over ideology and the lack of political vision. The central question, ‘why has George failed?’ is left for the audience, who are invited to be the voting public in the play. George’s failure to speak his heart is, by all means, a product of the politics of impotence and artificiality to which the electors’ (the audience’s) potential compromise and silence has contributed. George’s final question is deliberately aimed at the audience, who are invited to contemplate their active role in history.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-842-014716857