Here are the guidelines:
- Reading responses must be AT LEAST 250 words.
- Include your full name at the end of your comments. Unnamed comments will be deleted.
- From the "Comment As" drop-down menu, choose Anonymous, then click "Publish."
- Reading responses are due by midnight on Sundays, no exception.
While reading Anna in the Tropics, I found the actions of the characters to be much like that of a telenovela. This made sense considering that the characters were under the influence of the romantic novel. The power of Anna Karenina was interesting, uprooting deep seeded misgiving in all involved characters. Palomo says it best in Act 2 Scene 3 when he compares literature to alcohol, amplifying the preexisting emotions of those that partake in it. While much of the focus is on the forbidden desires of the younger characters, I appreciated that Santiago and Ofelia were able to reconnect thanks to the story. This helped to show that it wasn’t inherently destructive, cultivating a preexisting bond. Aiello’s article refers to Cheche and Juan as the main characters of the play, I don’t entirely agree with this since Juan seemed more like a “mentor” figure, facilitating the other characters actions while cheche was more of an antagonist, his ambition and resentment for the world around him leading to his detestable actions. I saw the sisters, Marela and Conchita, as the protagonists. Part of this of course comes from the parallels between the two women and the titular Anna. Conchita is able to better understand herself and improve her marriage while Marela faces the cruel reality of the world. That said, Marela seems to have a stonger resolve in the closing moments of the play, championing Juan by honoring his memory and encouraging Palomo to finish the story.
ReplyDeleteEnrique Perez
I enjoyed the steamy love triangle in “Anna in the Tropics”. The play reminded me of stories from the romantic period, but in play form. At times I thought some parts were very lyrical. I like how the female characters and Juan Julian, interpret literature in the play. Palomo says this quote that really stuck with me, “alcohol is prohibited in this country because alcohol is like literature. Literature brings out the best and worst part of ourselves….. If youre angry it brings out your anger. If you're sad, it brings out your sadness.” Instead of coping with alcohol, the characters in this play bring to life the drama they hear from the literature that is being read to them. In the article, Stephen Aiello compares Cheche and Juan Julan, “ the tabaqueria that supports the lives of all the workers, Cheché's view is that the sustainability and growth of the tabaqueria are being impeded by his co-workers' refusal to accept the reality of their present and future situations.” Cheche does have a point, his co workers are stuck in time and don’t want to abide to their present time. A scene that stood out the most for me was when Santiago, Ofelia and Marela are talking to each other. Santiago and Ofelia refuse to talk to each other so they use Marela as their messenger. I found it funny since the actors can here what they are saying to each other and let Marela know that they are aware. Ofelia says, “tell him hes a drunk, a theif and good for nothing gambler” . and Marela “she says -. Which is interupted by Santiago who says, “I heard.”Another thing that stood out in this scene was what Ofelia said to Santiago about he’s a theif. It goes back to what Ofelia said earlier in the play, “she has no choice. It's something she can't escape. That's why the writer describes love as a theif.” the theif is mysterious fever that poets have been studying for years” So bascally Santiago is a theif, and she is being loved again by Juan Julian…”“help her love again. Help her recognize herself as a woman all over again. She had probably known only one man was the husband. With a lover she learns a new way of loving.and its this new way of loving that makes her go back to the lover over and over again”
ReplyDeleteDanny Olivarez
Throughout the play, there seems to be no clear protagonist. Instead, Aeillo’s article points out there are “two central characters, Juan Julian and Cheche” (19). The two “opposing characters represent … dichotomy” (Aeillo 18). Juan Julian represents a romanticized version of the the cigar roller’s lives as well as older times. On the other hand, Cheche represents moderness. However, I felt surprised by how Palomo is not considered one of the central characters. Overall, Palomo is forced to respond ton Juan Julian’s actions. Furthermore, Palomo changes the most out of all of the characters. At the start, he hates the book the lector reads and despises Juan Julian. However, although he does not necessarily grow to like Juan Julia, he seems to respect Juan Julian’s job and what it means to be a lector. Even more importantly, he grows interested in how he is more passionate with Conchita. The audience can see this when Conchita points out he was staring at Juan Julian all night and remarks about him being interested in her lover. Finally, the audience sees the change Palomo has undergone when he reads Anna Karenina at the end.
ReplyDeleteLastly, I was also surprised by the ending. I was caught off-guard by how Cheche, instead of Palomo, kills Juan Julian. Palomo had more to lose because of Juan Julian instead of Chehce. The article does point out that Cheche is angered from losing a love interest due to a lector, Mildred and Marlena. Despite this, due to the parallels between Anna Karenina and the plot in the book, I had figured Conchita’s affair with Juan Julian would parallel further to Anna’s affair.
Zugay Trevino
Anna in the Tropics was just what I needed after being immersed in Margaret Edson’s Wit last week. It is a rich, passionate, tragedy with all the trappings of a Pulitzer Prize award winning play. I especially loved the way Nilo Cruz wove a tapestry with his poetic style to bring us a story of love, collisions, and traditions. It was like being transported to a simpler time in a world I never knew existed. I found myself longing to be a cigar roller and having Juan Julian reading to me and transporting me to Russia as he did the workers in Santiago’s factory. The characters in Anna In the Tropics were so expertly crafted that when it came to the various love stories within the play it was easy to get caught up in them. The love between Conchita and Palomo, and the love between Juan Julian and Conchita, are just a few examples of what drove the play towards its tragic end. It was equally as easy to hate the characters as well. From the outset we see the antagonist emerge as true villain in Cheche. Not only does he want to rob the factory of its rich customs and traditions by bringing in cigar rolling machines and do away with the lector, but he has an unnatural attraction to his niece, Marela. This play was so multi-dimensional that I must say, I did not see the twist coming when Cheche shot Juan Julian because quite frankly, I was expecting Palomo to be the murderer. It would be envy and jealousy that would be the catalyst for Cheche’s actions. After the murder it became more and more clear why Cheche would be the killer given that his wife was led away by a lector, his love interest is infatuated with a lector, and his idea for the modernization of the factory was also squelched by a lector. After reading the play I was compelled to look up the stage version and was not disappointed. The actors did a wonderful job of bringing the characters to life. This week’s play was a homerun for me and my favorite of all the plays we have read thus far.
ReplyDeleteJulietta Rivera
"...Cheché is at once a member of the family yet never really a part of it, which is only exacerbated by the presence of Juan Julian, who is accepted immediately." - Stephen Emilio Aiello
ReplyDeleteI think this sentence from Aiello's is a perfect explanation for Cheche's self-destructive behavior in "Anna in the Tropics." How can one love a family that never truly feels like a family?
Aiello then goes into further detail about the strange actions of Cheche, including crossing off pages of calendars before living them. This seems to hint that Cheche doesn't value life in any way. And every day is like any other. Just another day.
Is Cheche just naturally an unpleasant person? Or is he yet another character driven by life circumstances? As seen through the situations that are presented, there seems to be a mix.
In short, Cheche is driven by his emotions. He has already been hurt by someone who he thought he loved. He is further hurt by his own family, a unit where love is typically prevalent. I can say by experience that not receiving that not gaining that love from your own family is much more destructive than one would think. It's especially an issue when one is full of so much emotion, only to be continuously ignored.
I myself have been hurt by two groups of people who I considered family at different points. My blood family had always severe issues and I was often left alone because my lack of close relationships. After growing older, I was accepted by a "new" family who accepted me with open arms. For a while, I thought I had actually found that close unit who I can depend on for anything. A group who I could always go to when I needed help. It was short-lived, as it took me a few years to see the true side of this "family." I found myself hurt and left alone all over again. Now, in general, society as a whole causes me great anger. I don't act out in ways similar to Cheche. But I know what it's like to be hurt and ignored by people I thought I loved. I feel the world doesn't understand what issues this can lead to.
Michael McCormick
Anna in the Tropics, as Aiello states in the article, is very reminiscent of Tennessee Williams poetic approach to theater. However, while Williams’ poeticism is attributed to his use of stage directions to amplify the emotions of his characters, Cruz allows his characters’ dialogue to lay down the poetic structure of this play. I believe this is what allows this particular dramatic work to lend itself so well to a reading, rather than a staged production, comparatively to the other works we have read. Thus, I would suggest this work establishes a great case for the recurring discussion we have been witness to in this course; whether there is value in the reading of plays without a viewing.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to write briefly on a scene that I found very interesting, unfortunately I’ve scanned the play a few times over again and can’t seem to find the specific lines of dialogue. However, there is a moment in which one of the married pairs are having an exchange, if memory serves me correctly Cruz in this moment has the wife deliver a certain phrase which is then repeated by the husband with a slightly altered structure. I meant to compare this to the concept of hearing what someone is saying, but not necessarily listening to what it is they are saying; in many ways this is reflected in the characters’ various interpretations of Anna Karenina, those who allow themselves to be carried away by the words (Marela and perhaps Palomo) and those who cling to the specifics of what is being said (Ofelia and Santiago).
Beyond this, I believe this idea of being heard is integral to identity and is often reflected in, as Aiello labels it, the personal/social dialectic that Cheché finds himself caught in. Cheché yearns to be heard as one of the family, fully integrated, but he is so fully caught up in his “two-shored” perception of himself that it becomes his tragic flaw.
Joaquin Castillo Jr
Anna of the Tropics was a nice play to read, and it feels more romantic than most of the plays that we have read so far. I would not call it a romance, but it certainly did have romantic undertones to it. Out of all the characters in the play, I felt that Cheche was one of the more intriguing characters of the play. On the one hand, I felt that I could not help but sympathize with him to an extent. His desire to modernize the cigar factor was not completely unreasonable or unfathomable. Because it did seem that the factories sales were failing, and he just wanted to improve sales and production the best way he thought. Also, due to his insecurities with his wife leaving him for a lector and everyone being so enamored with Juan Juan, he might have felt he needed something to prove. Prove what exactly is up for debate. But I felt these feelings and motives did stem from insecurity. On the other hand, Cheche also proved himself to be the play’s antagonist. He had a rather bizarre infatuation with his niece, and a romantic one at that. The reveal felt sudden and a little too left field because I did not notice them earlier in the play. I would say this came from a deep desperation to be desired by another woman. The play also did its job as painting Cheche as a villain for trying to kill a tradition of those trying to keep it alive, for comfort or otherwise. This paints Cheche’s character as a sort of dualistic figure that I enjoyed pondering over.
ReplyDeleteMirella Martinez
Right from the start of the article, it’s admirable that Anna in the Tropics was awarded a Pulitzer Prize based on only a reading and not an actual viewing of the work. I guess it just goes to show that good playwriting can not only excel through a production, but as well as a simple reading of it. It’s as we discussed briefly in class, some of the plays that we have read are a journey within itself based on just reading it and not seeing it. The same case for Nilo Cruz’s work, I think language and dialogue is a strong facet here and just on that alone a reader may be able to mold out and envision who is speaking.
ReplyDeleteNot only does the work have a historical scope on the work environment of cigar factories and the threat of implementing machines, but romantic notions are weaved through the lines of dialogue. Romance is found between characters such as Juan Julian and Conchita (even though it’s an affair), but some of the actions/scenery reflect what is being read by Juan Julian throughout the play. For example, the setting of the play takes place in what I would assume is a hot and humid Florida, while the work that Julian reads takes place in Russia, which is cold and unlike Florida. This is a way of me saying that art imitates life in a way. Furthermore, the love of literature and the power of it and the longing for it is also noted in the play. Although Cheche shoots Juan Julian, I thought it was interesting in how the characters still wish to read from Anna Karenina and Paloma picks up where Juan Julian left off. This is undoubtedly a poetic end to the play.
P.J. Hernandez