After reading Rabindranath Tagore’s “Punishment”, I immediately made a connection to Feng Menglong’s “Du Tenth Sinks the Jewel Box in Anger”. Both pieces of work show a similar issue of utilizing the protagonist’s wife as a mean of resolution of an obstacle. Not only are the wives willingly to aid their husbands in overcoming of the hardship, but they go further into choosing death with the feeling of betrayal from their husbands.

In “Punishment”, in trying to protect Chidam’s brother, Dukhiram’s incident of killing his wife out of rage, “Chidam asked Chandara to take the blame on herself. She was dumbfounded. He reassured her: “Don’t worry – if you do what I tell you, you’ll be quite safe” (895). On the other hand, in Feng’s piece, the young master named Li Jia listens to a stranger’s advice and asks his wife Du Tenth to go with another man. “He has it in mind to take you in for one thousand taels. With that thousand taels I will have a pretext on which to call on my parents, and you, my dear benefactress, will also have someone to rely on, but I cannot bear to give up the affection I feel for you” (514). Both Chidam and Li Jia chose to capitulate their wives in order to prevail over obstacles.

The wives of each work also show similarities. Although both the wives are being used as a mean to attain a goal, the wives did not complain and did what has been asked. As Du Tenth said to Li Jia, “The man who devised this plan for you is truly a great hero. The fortune of the thousand taels will enable you to restore your position in your family, and I will go to another man so as not to be a burden to you” (514). With the exceptions of them after helping their husbands out of the hardships, they choose to die as they feel betrayed by their husbands.

Lu Xun’s “In The Wine Shop” and Tolstoy’s “Death of Ivan Ilyich” both share a connection of realism. The works focus on the unembellished lives of individuals who have dealt with difficulty. The two individuals that bear a resemblance are Ivan Ilyich and Lu Wei-fu. Although the circumstances of Ivan and Wei-fu are vastly different (Ivan agonizes over his illness whereas Wei-fu reminisces over past experiences), both characters highlight futility. An example is that Wei-fu has once taught Confucian classics to his pupils, but no longer cares for the true purpose of his teachings. When the narrator questions Wei-fu about it, Wei-fu replies with “their father wants them to study these. I’m an outsider, so it’s all the same to me. Who cares about such futile affairs anyway? There’s no need to take them seriously.” Wei-fu furthermore shows the meaningless progression of his life by the comparison of bees and flies – they always fly away but come back to the same spot. Wei-fu revisits the town and tells the story of his deceased brother and his neighbor’s daughter possibly to reflect on the things that have changed, and how he is still tormented by the past. In Tolstoy’s work, Ivan llyich also supports the idea of futility because he has been conforming to society his whole life, but does not realize what he should have done until he succumbs to his illness. A fundamental difference is that although Ivan Ilyich and Wei-fu are both unable to change, the narrator from “In The Wine Shop” keeps trying to move forward: “As I walked alone towards my hotel, the cold wind and snow beat against my face, but I felt refreshed.”

Despite their similar solemn tone, Lu Xun’s and Tolstoy’s works differ in point of view. The first-person point of view of “In The Wine Shop” and the third-person point of view in “Death of Ivan Ilyich” is very significant in getting their messages across. “In The Wine Shop” feels very personal; readers can sympathize with Wei-fu because they feel a connection with the thoughts of the narrator. “Death of Ivan Ilyich” on the other hand is not as sympathetic because readers know from the beginning that the protagonist was going to die. This detaches many readers from understanding the thoughts of the character.

Reading “Punishment” by Rabindranath Tagore I noticed that there were many similarities with “Incidents in the life of a slave girl” by Harriet Jacobs. Both authors select subjects with women who have cravings for freedom, both literal and spiritual, from their conventional roles. Tagore describes women in rural India who face tyranny from the religion and the society, and their search for freedom. In “Incidents in the life of a slave girl” woman slaves are exposed physically and spiritually to assaults, suffering and pain. As Jacobs says “Slavery is terrible for men; but it is far more terrible for women. Superadded to the burden common to all, they have wrongs, and sufferings, and mortifications peculiarly their own.” Jacobs describes suffering and tragedies of slave women and their search for freedom.

Both main characters are “slaves”. Religion and social rules limit the Indian woman in “dharma”. Chandara’s mouth is covered when she see her sister-in-law murdered. She has no rights, and is treated like a slave from her husband. She is an innocent woman facing a trial, justice system, and society that are against her.  Both Linda and Chandara are victims of physical violence. They suffer seriously from being deprived of human rights and protection. They both are not allowed to marry the person they love. Chandra is married with a man she detests, and Linda is forced to sleep with the master she hates. Chandara is “imprisoned” inside her house. Linda is seven year “imprisoned” in the attic of her aunt for seven years, and she is also locked up in an isolated cottage by Dr. Flint, so he can abuse freely with her.

However Chandara fights and frees herself from being limited in her household obligations as an obedient wife and with a false love. “She turned her heart and soul away from him” (896). She makes her own choice to free herself through death, rather than die living like submissive and humiliated woman. After too much suffering Linda is relieved to be free, and everything she went through in her life establish her as a woman of powerful intellect and profound sensitivity.

Throughout this semester, many of the stories we have read have depicted characters facing similar hardships and mistreatment. While reading “Punishment” by Rabindranath Tagore, I noticed the presence of these issues, and was able to link certain parts of the text to “The Chimney Sweeper” and “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass”. The beginning of “Punishment” describes the work life of Dukhiram and Chidam, who are brothers and two of the story’s main characters. Tagore says “They couldn’t come home for lunch; they just had a snack from / the office. At times they were soaked by the rain; they were not paid normal / labourers’ wages; indeed, they were paid mainly insults and sneers” (893). By saying this, Tagore describes the harsh mistreatment and abuses these men face at work. Unable to take lunch breaks, unfair pay, and soaking wet from the rain paints a clear picture of their awful and labor-intensive situation. This directly relates to the issues that the young boys in “The Chimney Sweeper” were subject to. William Blake portrays the mistreatment of Chimney Sweeps, as the narrator points out that he was sold by his family and slept in soot. In the text, Tom Dacre, who was a chimney sweep, dreams of being set free from this life of misery. The narrator evinces the feeling of being trapped by describing Tom’s dream when he says, “Were all of them locked up in coffins of black” (337). The chimney is described as a coffin, which further points out how these boys were working in conditions that caused them to feel isolated and neglected from the world around them. Both Tagore and Blake are able to describe the cruelty and harshness that characters faced from their labor-intensive jobs.

Next, Tagore’s depiction of Chidam’s character is similar to Frederick Douglass’ master in certain ways. Thus, his wife Chandara becomes subject to his mistreatment just as Douglass was to his master’s. When Chidam forces his wife to take blame for the murder of Rhada, he is seen as evil and controlling, which is similar to Frederick Douglass’ master. Tagore says that Chidam has “devilish clutches” (896). His wife began to hate him as “he taught he repeatedly what she should say” (896). Chidam’s controlling personality in this instance is similar to the Douglass’ master. As we learned from his narrative, Frederick Douglass describes that masters did not only have power over what a slave did each day, but also over their minds and how much knowledge they were able to have. He says “A want of information concerning my own was a source of unhappiness to me even during childhood” (236). Here Douglass describes the mental mistreatment of slaves, pertaining to the knowledge that was withheld from them because of their controlling masters. Chidam portrays a similar sense of mental abuse as he tries to control his wife’s thoughts and words.

Although I am sure there are many more connections to previous stories that we have read, these are a few instances that stood out to me from “Punishment”. Mistreatment that characters faced in this story is strikingly similar to that in “The Chimney Sweeper” and “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass”.

Read both Rabindranath Tagore, “Punishment” (volume E or anthology) and Lu Xun, “In the Wineshop” (link to text on blog). Choose one of the two short stories, and find a way to connect that story to another work we’ve read this semester.  You may see a stylistic issue that joins the two texts, a character who faces similar issues, or textual elements that differ from each other in important ways;  the type of connection you identify is entirely up to you!   In a blog post of 300-400 words, explore the connection(s) you see between the two texts. Please be sure to include quotations from both texts in your response.

First of all, the beginning of the film let me more clearly understand the furnishings and decoration of the house. The combination of the film and the description of the text in the book gives me a clear picture of the character’s position and the direction of the story. The first act of the film I saw the home servant of Tesmans, she and Miss Juliane Tesman began to talk about George Tesman and his new wife Hedda Tesman. Maid is very concerned about miss Rina, because she is sick. but Miss Juliane Tesman thought George Tesman needs Berta more than Miss Rina. From the look of Miss Julian Tesmans and Berta, I can know that they are very proud of George Tesmans, and they are surprised that he can marry a wife like Henda, they are proud of this family. When George Tesmans showed up, I can feel that he and his aunt’s relationship is very close, and he likes his aunt. When Tesmans tried to help her took the hat, he looked carefully, and it indicated George Tesmans is care and respect his aunt. Their relationship is really close, and the film screen made it more real. Henda started out trying to avoid meeting Miss Juliana Tesmans, but when she found Henda and talked to her intimately, she had to join their family chat. From the movie, I can understand the character of Henda more clearly. Her attitude is arrogant, the expression is disdain. Later, Henda pulled the curtains, where I can see that she and Miss Juliana have different views. Although Miss Juliana was very embarrassing, she kept silent and say nothing. In the family relationship of George Tesmans and Henda, Henda has the right to speak, and she is aggressive. The book has a very detailed description of the opening, but the picture of the film made that description more clearly and better presented in front of the audience. After the watch of film’s opening, I have a profound understanding of the story.

When reading Ibsen’s text of Hedda Gabler, the story seems to move rather smoothly. I get a clear picture of the characters and an understanding of what I think I’m supposed to be understanding. However, if not for reading the text first, I don’t think I would’ve been able to follow the film. Granted, one watching should understand the context but it just did not seem to jump out at me like the text. The text provides us with a relatively full picture of Hedda which I could just not find in the film. Hedda clearly has high standards, but the film lacks to point out how much of a factor Hedda is to Tesman. Tesman would go to great lengths to please Hedda, which we do see in the film; Hedda’s displeasure and what Tesman has done or is doing in an attempt to curb that displeasure. What is clear from the outset is Hedda’s ability to manipulate Tesman and even Aunt Julle.

What is also evident throughout the film is the more colloquial language being used. I’m not sure of the reasoning for that, but the language of Ibsen’s text reads more freely and allows the reader to concentrate on the story more so than interpreting the possible meaning of the text. Perhaps it was trying to emphasize the high class of the setting and to really paint a picture around Hedda. The free language of the text also frees up the ability for the reader to establish the relationships between the characters, while the more difficult conversation in the film either allows them more time to develop the characters before a relationship becomes clear or completely draws out the relationship for you.

I believe both forms serve their own purpose in the end. The text is meant to be up for interpretation so it can be altered and developed into what we see in this film. Films, on the other hand, are that writer’s or director’s personal adaptation of the selected text; something that will always be up for discussion in the world of films.

The opening of the play “Hedda Gabler” in both the film version and the written version were very similar. For the most part, the film kept much of the dialogue the same – borderline exact – as Henrik Ibsen had it. There were a few small parts that were omitted from the film version, like the part when Juliana Tesman (Aunt Julie) comments about the furniture having no slipcovers. Though it was a small part, it had affected how I first viewed Aunt Julie. In the written version, upon seeing the furniture had no covers, she had said to Berta (the maid) “What’s this now? Why have you taken all the slipcovers off the furniture?…Are they going to use this as their everyday living room?” Here she came across somewhat judgmental. There was an air of disapproval about her. Yet watching her in the film, I didn’t get any impression of that sort – instead she seemed extremely kind and caring and likeable, going out of her way to try and impress Hedda. Had I not seen how she acted in the film, there would have been a part of me that sympathized with Hedda because Aunt Julie had at first appeared critical of her.
Another way that the film was different was in how Hedda was portrayed. It wasn’t that she was portrayed any differently in the written version vs in the film – she still had the same arrogance, the same cold, unlikeable exterior. But in the film, it was a lot more embellished, which I think really helped add to how Ibsen wanted her character represented. For example, in the very beginning when Hedda wakes up and comes downstairs to where her husband and Aunt Julie are waiting, the written part describes her first encounter as her “entering from the left side of the inner room” and “extending her hand” to Aunt Julie. However, in the film version, we see Hedda come down the stairs, see Aunt Julie, and turn as if to walk away and completely avoid her. Aunt Julie catches sight of her, which is when she is almost forced to come in and greet her. Just the little things like that made Hedda’s true character become even more evident to me as the viewer, and added more dimension to her personality.

Hedda Gabler: Comparing the film to the text

I have always enjoyed watching the film versions of stories after reading them. In doing so, I find that it is quite common for directors to keep the same plot but tweak characters and the roles that they play throughout the film. After forming my own interpretations from reading the text,  it was interesting to see how certain characters were portrayed in the film version. After watching the film version of Hedda Gabler, I found certain character changes to have a significant effect on how I viewed the main character, Hedda throughout the story. The film did a better job at capturing her true emotions. It emphasized Hedda’s dishonesty towards men even more so than the text. Something that I did not fully grasp from the text was just how manipulative her personality was. Of course the text did describe her as cunning, but the film was able to truly shift my attention to this. In addition, while reading Hedda Gabler, I understood Hedda to be much younger than she seems in the film version. The text actually tells us that she is twenty-nine years old, whereas in the film she seems much older. From this information, I was more focused on her youth and beauty while reading. However, while watching the film I was more fixated on her influence as this dishonest and calculating character. Another significant change in the film version was the absence of Berta. Berta, the Tessman’s housemaid, was given a larger role in the text. In the film she seems to be much less significant. Overall I enjoyed watching the film after reading Hedda Gabler. It was interesting to see the alterations of the main character Berta, while forming new interpretations of the play as a whole.

Whenever a novel, play, or story is adapted to film, the outcome is always different. The picture product could be better or worse, with the entirety of the text being translated well. As I watched the film version, George Tesman came off as a very cheerful, loving man who wants to please both his Aunt Tesman and wife Hedda. He praised to Aunt Tesman about Hedda that she has become even more beautiful and filled out, an odd topic to mention to a family member. The film version does help visualize the play, allowing us to see the motions that Hedda goes through. Her hand gestures, facial expressions, and tone allow us to see that she is a self-centered and irritable woman. She is surrounded by Tesman’s family and friends, people who she can call “strangers.” The people that interact with Hedda seem to be on their toes. This is because of her status and elegance that is seen in both the play and film. Bertha shows this with her concern as to whether or not she’ll be able to satisfy her.
When Hedda made the comment about Aunt Tesman’s hat thinking it was Bertha’s, “Look, she’s left her old hat lying there on the chair” (788) in the play, the film version showed Aunt Bertha more hurt about the comment than the play. In the play, I interpreted Aunt Bertha not being so much bothered by Hedda’s assumption and tries to play off the misunderstanding politely, while in the film, her facial expressions tell a different story.  She had tried to impress Hedda, not wanting her to feel ashamed, only for her plan to fail.
Being that this was filmed in 1963, the overall setting of the living room was not reproduced well into film. In setting the scene, “The sun shines in through the glass door,” this however was not noticeable because the film is in black and white, making the scene look bleak, unlike a beautiful, sunny morning.