Crit

I feel like the texts are talking about a different play. They made the play seem so interesting and likable. They had me fooled. None of them seemed to mention how the ending sucked and was almost nonexistent. In fact they barely touch upon the last scene of the play, or lack of. Strangely, they make Sweet Bird of Youth so interesting.

Sweet Bird of Youth could have had so much potential :( The summary at least seemed to showcase that. Upon reading it, it is boring, anticlimactic, and just barely scrapes in some kind of narrative. Worse, people paid money to see it on Broadway.

I suppose Crit #1 kind of best fits my view of the play.

“‘Absorbing on a superficial level’”

Although, I would have never Sweet Bird of Youth as a “Southern Gothic horror story.”  I feel like I agree with this one the best. This one recognizes that there isn't much to the Sweet Bird of Youth.

“The bird not only represents purity but. . . the male sexual organ. If the bird is a phallic image”

I like the point the author makes about that. That was a different take from the usual freedom and purity a bird has been represented as in previous stories we’ve looked at.  

Chance is one of Williams’s desperate dreamers, a good-looking small town boy whose ambitions exceed his talent. Like many Williams characters, he is trying to hold on to the fleeting (title drop) “sweet bird of youth.” I agree with this and it is also a good point.

The second text seemed to be filling in the gaps of this poor, loosely written drama. It seemed more like a summary but with key scenes left out, such as the scene with Boss Finley and his kids and information about the characters (which you would think would be mentioned in the story). Another example was “...but felt blocked by something. He only got as far as the chorus of a Broadway production of Oklahoma.” Oddly specific for this author to know when it wasn't stated in the text. This text felt more like a recap than a critique. It is mostly about Chance and [complaining] how he is selfish and too stubborn to accept the reality he is living.

Lastly, Crit 3 is pretty garbage as it seemed to wrong. The points were interesting as they weren't something I would've considered for this play. I think a lot of these points were a stretch.

“In one of the finest examples of Williams’s plastic theater the theme pervades not only the characterization but also the words and action, as well as the setting and sound. It is a forceful and compassionate drama of one decisive day in the lives of a man and a woman played out against a background of sleazy politics and impending violence in a small Southern town.”

This text went way out there, over analyzing this text. This text made the Sweet Bird of Youth seem like a whole different text. It totally hyped this play a lot. “The Cinderella story . . . our favorite national myth, the cornerstone of the film industry, if not of the Democracy itself.”

I completely disagree with this. I don't see it as any of that at all. I also wish the author expanded on this more.

“The Princess and Chance are among Williams’s best character creations.” Again, I disagree. Saying that is a huge insult. Unless Williams has horrible characters in all his works, making these two look like his best, in which case, says a lot about Williams. I doubt that's the case, though. Princess and Chance are poor excuses for characters. They didn't have any development and their quest and resolution was poorly executed. They came off more as whiny and weak characters in Sweet Bird of Youth. However, they were the best developed of the play.

Overall, I feel like this text just went way overboard about everything on the text. When really there isn’t anything in the whole play.

“Williams’s seventh sense of theatrical instinct is no-where so evident as in his reaching a note of high drama as the end approaches. He creates a magic that is so memorable it is forever associated with this play.”

Seventh sense? High drama? Magic is created? Oh my gosh where do I start?

“Despite its lyric dialogue, Williams thought of the action of this play as realistic, yet suddenly, just before the play ends, it shifts gears. The closing moments are nonrealistic and poetic. In the hotel room—and what can be more transient to reflect time passing?—Chance and the Princess sit side by side on the bed, directly facing the audience, ‘like two passengers on a train sharing a bench.” The metaphor is that of a train trip, a journey through life.’”

This is interesting that the author thought of it this way. I did not take it that way as I thought it as a lousy and lazy way to end the play like this. Chance is back to where he has started. He accomplished nothing!! I also did not think highly of the way this scene (or any other scene) was written.

Overall, I think this text tried too hard in attempting to create allusions that I am sure Williams didn't plan. (sorry Williams)