All My Sons Review
- Review Of Bastard - negative feelings. The word itself is negative in meaning, and that is the feeling I had as I...
- No Title - of her son could change the lives of millions of sons, she should not begrudge his life...
- Film Review: The Patriot - released. "The Patriot" is a historical drama focused on the American Revolution. The...
- Pierre Trudeau Book Review Biography - the general consensus is clear, "While he was Prime Minister, Trudeau was the most loved and...
- Mcclung - comment that Nellie acquired character traits from both of parents: humour from her Father, and...
Submitted by kurrupt2002 on 06/30/2008 05:21 PM
- Category: Psychology
- Words: 379
- Pages: 2
- Views: 33
- Popularity Rank: 1348
All My Sons Review
In the play "All My Sons" by Arthur Miller characters choose to lie in order to escape the reality. They are trapped in very difficult and trying situations where they are torn apart between family and real world, therefore living in constant self-denial and deceit. The story deals with three basic themes: the first one is the relationship between men and women, the second one is the materialism in the American society, and the third time is family relationship. In this essay I will be focusing on these themes and the two contrasting philosophies of two of the characters which throughout the play go against, and dig into each other.
This play has a moral, which is that there are more important things than materialism. Things such as honour; a feel for patriotism and love for each other; everybody is equal whether they be your best friend or a stranger. This view is the philosophy of Chris Keller in the play. However, Chris feels that even though his philosophy is right, nobody follows it and instead of the World being about respect and honour; it is about every man for himself doggy dog - selfish:
"This is the land of the great big dogs, you don't love a man here, you eat him! That's the principle; the only one we live by"
However the play tries to show that we shouldn't be like that, and we should be how Chris says.
Miller does this by leaving the philosophy of Chris until the end, when he proves it to be right. This is so the audience will leave believing in this philosophy. He does this by first of all showing us Joes philosophy:
"Im his father and he's my son, and if there's something higher than that I'll put a bullet in my head!"
So the audience will first hear this philosophy and Miller, at first, makes it seem that this one is true; however next Miller shows Chris' philosophy when Joe finds out that the philosophy he believed in caused the death of his own son and he did what he said he...
You must Login to view the entire paper.
If you are not a member yet, Sign Up for free!
