Jump to content

Talk:A Streetcar Named Desire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Removed from the main page (as unsupported speculation):

Stanley Kowalski is part of a long tradition of the American stage brute -- a working class oaf whose failure to grasp culture, and whose desire to cut through the pretension of the elite makes him something of a working class hero. (Think Ralph Kramden, Fred Flintstone, Al Bundy, and Homer Simpson.)

Perhaps the above is true. It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that it should be attributed to someone, as it's not easily proven on its own. Seems to fit better in a paper on the film and/or play, not an article. My $.02. --KQ—Preceding undated comment added by Koyaanis Qatsi (talk • contribs) 13:45, 4 August 2002 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Stanley can be seen as a "working class hero": he is ridiculed at numerous points in the play for his ignorance (viz. the "Napoleonic code") and shown to be more brutal than most people would accept in a hero. I think you were right to remove the reference. Oliver—Preceding undated comment added by 195.40.206.35 (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2004 (UTC)[reply]

i think the change in ending in the movie should be noted though i dont have the energy to do so now. --tom 01:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Me neither :) But talk about change in rape scene as well...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.144.133 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding links, Wikipedia: WikiProject Streetcars will be working on improving WP content regarding the streetcar and related articles. Vaoverland 21:29, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Um, really, the streetcar isn't that relevant. You might as well decorate a star wars page with links to famous wars. It's a title, and there is some symbolism (is that streetcar named desire still grinding along those tracks?) but it doesn't really need discussing. Inebriatedonkey 19:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I generally agree. The streetcar has definite symbolic relevance in the context of the play - but the sub-section for it here contains no such context, so it's just a digression. I think it could be worth mentioning if the section was made into an observation of the play's generally accepted themes, i.e., a few such symbols could be included as illustration of these themes. This section could incorporate the existing brief comparison with Chekov, you know? Maybe I'll give it a shot at some point, unless there is general disapproval of the idea. JustDerek 20:57, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

From Blanche Dubois

[edit]

The following was in the article Blanche Dubois; I changed it to a redirect to the play. Anybody want to merge it in properly? --Christopherlin 06:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blanche DuBois is a character in Tennessee Williams' A Streetcar Named Desire. Blanche is obsessed by her appearance, using it as protection against her age and looks. She is also a nymphomaniac and an alcoholic, again using it to hide behind. She is the sister of Stella, who is married to Stanley Kowalski. Stanley decides to delve into her past, discovering that she has lied. She used to be a prostitute at the Flamingo Hotel, out of which she was eventually thrown out. In addition to this, she was also sacked as a teacher of English for having an affair with a seventeen year old student of hers. She was married very young, but later discovered that her husband was a homosexual. On confronting him, he committed suicide. Blanche is haunted by the music she heard previous to his death (the polka) and a gunshot. She is later raped by her brother-in-law, Stanley Kowalski, which leads to her eventual downfall in Scene 11, when she is taken away to a mental asylum. It is thought that Williams used many attributes of his sister, Rose,when writing ASND. Rose had a pre-frontal lobotomy performed on her. Williams was haunted by the fact he could not prevent this operation.

If that has citations, sure. Could use a rewrite to eliminate excess verbiage and fix some awkward spots though. -nightfyre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.253.89 (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online version of the play?

[edit]

Does anyone know if SND is available as a free ebook somewhere? The author is dead so there is no copyright, right?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aphex~enwiki (talk • contribs) 11:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the novel is copyrighted and the United States copyright law states, "Copyrights currently last for seventy years after the death of an author, or seventy-five to ninety-five years in the case of works of corporate authorship and works first published before 1 January 1978." I couldn't find an ebook with the novel, either. Sorry. Sciurinæ 14:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stamp not qualifying as fair use

[edit]

After reading over {{USPSstamp}} I felt inclined to remove the stamp from the article, as it is being used to illustrate the play appearing in the stamp, as opposed to illustrating the stamp itself. Feel free to discuss if you disagree. ~ PseudoSudo 22:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons with Other Works

[edit]

coarse (but vital) hustlers and ethnics like Stanley-- who, despite the torn T shirt, is a successful engineer, not a laborer

Stanley Kowalski is an engineer? I really don't remember that and the wikipedia entry on Stanley says he is a laborer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.79.64 (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too lazy to find it right now, but there are several references to Stanley and Mitch having been in an engineering division/unit. Whether or not that is his current occupation is another matter. On another note, how do we know Allan is bi and not just gay? There is no reference to them having sex; in fact there is a reference against it to the effect that Mitch thought the most she had ever gotten from a man was a kiss. I believe it's during Stanley's revelations to Stella. I think he was hiding his sexual preferences by doing the socially acceptable thing and marrying a rich attractive woman. -nightfyre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.253.89 (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myth?

[edit]

This sounds exactly like the myth of Tereus & Procne and the rape of Philomela, minus the canibalism. Intentional? Mention it? - Psyno 07:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting

[edit]

Elysian Fields and Desire Street are not in the French Quarter, but in the Faubourg Marigny and the Upper 9th Ward/Bywater neighborhoods. Perhaps the setting should be changed to read "Downtown New Orleans", Downtown being any part of the city east of Canal Street, that is "down river", which also includes the Quarter. -- Leodmacleod 10:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFI ranking

[edit]

The lines "Stella! Hey, Stella!" and "I have always depended on the kindness of strangers" are respectively ranked #45 and #75 in the American Film Institute's list of the top 100 movie quotations in American cinema. This should be mentioned somewhere in the article, I think. bd2412 T 17:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, you'd put that on the A Streetcar Named Desire (film) article. This one's only about the play. -Leodmacleod 8:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Parody film?

[edit]

I'd like to remove this reference to a parody film, as it isn't cited and I can't find a mention of the play, actor or director anywhere on the Internet.

"A short, parody film was also made called "Living with Blanche." It centers around Blanche DuBois after she leaves the mental institution years after the original story. It stars Julia M. Blauvelt and is directed by Amy C. Lewis." Gingerwiki (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Section "Productions Now. (Please update)"

[edit]

I have completely removed this inappropriate section. Wikipedia articles are not blogs or crystal balls. Note also that instructions like "please update" and the other instructional comments are completely inappropriate in an article. When a production takes place, and if it is notable, it can be added to the performance history. Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Streetcar Revival in New Orleans

[edit]

This section is wildly inaccurate... I am renaming it to "Streetcars in New Orleans", fixing a bunch of errors, and adding a bit about the fake "DESIRE" streetcar that sst in the Quarter for tourists to photograph. In actual fact, the St. Charles line never stopped running, only Canal was revived, and there was only the most tenuous connection between that and Desire.

Over 50 years after the play opened, the revival of the streetcar system in New Orleans is credited by many to the worldwide fame gained by the streetcars made by the Perley A. Thomas Car Works, Inc. which were operating on the Desire route in the play, and have been carefully restored and continue to operate there in 2004 (though not on the Desire Street route.) Streetcars along the Canal Street in downtown New Orleans are up and running. Previously, the St. Charles Avenue line was in partial service due to damages sustained during Hurricane Katrina but as of January 2008, it is in full operation. Presently, though, there is merely a bus named Desire. Plans have recently been made to revive the streetcar line and funding was allocated for the project in the U.S. Department of Transportation's FY97 budget. However, the projected was halted prior to Hurricane Katrina and there is no word, as of yet, to when it will resume.

Requested move (2008)

[edit]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus. No convincing evidence was provided that the play qualifies as the primary topic at this time. No prejudice to a reconsideration of the move if evidence is brought forward.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that this should be the main page rather than the disambiguation page, because the adaptations were all based on this play. There was a discussion about this over ten months ago here: Talk:A Streetcar Named Desire. Gary King (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: I agree with Tassedethe and Joeldl that there is no rule or presumption that an original work is always the primary topic per se, but in this case this article is primary because, despite its misleading title, it is not about the play, but rather the work as a whole, including the play and all its adaptations. The articles about specific adaptations are derivative of this article and therefore not primary. Station1 (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Station1, in the context of this discussion, the word "primary" has a specific meaning. It refers to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Although the article about the play goes beyond mentioning its adaptations, that does not give it special standing. It is a fairly common situation affecting books, films, and songs. In such situations, a disambiguation page at the ambiguous title is even more desirable than usual, because the likelihood of incorrect links is very high. Just yesterday I disambiguated the incoming links to A Streetcar Named Desire and as I note below, half were wrong. --Una Smith (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is mainly about the play, and has some material about adaptations. This is exactly as it should be. Nonetheless, a disambiguation page at A Streetcar Named Desire seems preferable to an article about the play. Joeldl (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

The play is one of 5 entries on the disambiguation page and in my opinion the 1951 film is more likely to qualify as the primary topic. So let's see some evidence to support how the play is the primary topic per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Una Smith (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The movie is an adaptation, a variation of the original stage play. In some sense they are the same. By definition the play is primary. This article is not only about the original production and stage revivals but also the several movie, opera and TV adaptations. The separate film and opera articles are daughters of this article. The "(play)" in the article title is in fact misleading. Station1 (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I just disambiguated incoming links to the dab page. Result: of about 25 links, about half were to the play, and the dab page now has a few more entries. Incoming links to A Streetcar Named Desire (film) also need to be disambiguated, but that has to wait a few days because some links are via a navbox template. The database needs to "catch up" on links via templates. --Una Smith (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article views, November 2008:

So the article about the play gets about 50% of the views of these articles (and it looks like the disambiguation page needs its incoming links disambiguated). --Una Smith (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

My bad!

[edit]

In regards to an early undue undo; from User:AnEmptyCageGirl:AnEmptyCageGirl's talk-

-- A Streetcar Named Desire--

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from A Streetcar Named Desire (play). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

(personal note: I'm not really sure why you blanked content and then claimed to do something helpful, you might have been trying to help, but I'm going to be keeping an eye on you. If you do it again, I'm sorry, but I will be forced to report you to an administator.) --Leodmacleod (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I went back and checked, and I missed where you had added the link. I'm really sorry and kind of embarassed. My bad. --Leodmacleod (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tallulah

[edit]

"Selznick originally wanted to cast Margaret Sullavan and John Garfield". Actually, Williams originally wrote the play for Tallulah Bankhead, but she refused to do it because the script contained the word "nigger". see page 293 at http://books.google.com/books?id=18YjNB_BsqYC&printsec=frontcover—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.147.232 (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Musical

[edit]

Colin Ingram's production opens at the Donmar Warehouse, London on Tuesday 28th July 2009, previews from 23rd. See The Donmar's What's On page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelgreenx2 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The real streetcar named Desire" section

[edit]

As it is now, much of this section belongs in Streetcars in New Orleans, not in a discussion of this play. What about something more along these lines (or less).

== The real streetcar named Desire ==

Main article: Streetcars in New Orleans

The Desire Line ran from 1920–48, at the height of streetcar use in New Orleans. The Desire route ran down Bourbon, through the Quarter, up Desire, and back around to Canal. Blanche's route in the play — "They told me to take a streetcar named Desire, transfer to one called Cemeteries and ride six blocks and get off at — Elysian Fields!" — is allegorical.

The lines servicing the French Quarter were converted to buses in the early 1950s.[1] For many years, an original 1920's Perley Thomas streetcar from the St. Charles Avenue Line, No. 952, sat in the French Market proudly bearing the name "DESIRE" for tourists to stand in front of and photograph.[2]

  1. ^ Branley, Edward J. (2004).New Orleans: The Canal Streetcar Line. Charleston SC, Chicago, Portsmouth NH, San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, p. 68.
  2. ^ No. 952 was moved to San Francisco in 1998. 1923 New Orleans 'Streetcar Named Desire' No. 952 Market Street Railway

In any case, the current information about the Desire Projects and the St Charles and Canal St Lines, and the presumption that Williams was unfamiliar with N.O. streetcar lines, should be removed. LaNaranja (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections so I edited this section of the article. LaNaranja (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A Streetcar Named Success" section

[edit]

Not relevant to the play -- would better fit in the Tennessee Williams article. LaNaranja (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections so I commented out this section. LaNaranja (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes and Summary

[edit]

Quotes from a Streetcar Named Desire This novel shows a variety of characters ranging from crazy, intelligent, clueless, and aggressive and powerful. These characters include Blanche, Stanley, Stella and Mitch. Blanche and Stella are sisters. Stanley is friends with Mitch and married to Stella. Mitch has a thing for Blanche. This story is complicated with many things happening with the outrageous behaviors in different scenes. Blanche is a mentally psychotic character who comes to Elysian Fields, a two-story corner building on a street in New Orleans after losing her property at Belle Reve, her previous home which her family had for generations. A quote that explains Blanche in this story is when she first arrives and is talking to Stella. They are talking about Blanche losing Belle Reve and Blanche’s response was, “Well, Stella—you’re going to reproach me, I know that you’re bound to reproach me—but before you do—take into consideration—you left! I stayed and struggled! You came to New Orleans and looked out for yourself. I stayed at Belle Reve and tried to hold it together! I’m not meaning this in any reproachful way, but all the burden descended on my shoulders” (25). This explains Blanche perfectly because whenever Blanche is blamed for something gone wrong, she always finds a way to turn it around on people or avoid the topic. For example, when Mitch was asking about Blanche’s age, she turned the conversation away to how she had a love that turned out to be gay and she talked about Mitch’s sick mother. One person who could listen to the crap that Blanche would give her is Stella. Stella is Blanche’s sister. And for the majority of the first half of the story, Stella would take Stanley’s aggressive behavior including the poker night and Blanche’s bologna of stories. The turning point or real character triumph for Stella is when Stella and Blanche were arguing about why Stella loved Stanley. Blanche was referring Stanley as an animal and making animal references about him. Stella out of no where decided that day that she would stand up for herself. Blanche says, “A man like that is someone to go out with—once—twice—three times when the devil is in you. But live with? Have a child by?” (71). Stella replies, “I have told you I love him” (71). That is no screaming or telling off, but that was a huge step for Stella. One person who didn’t like Blanche from the start was Stanley. Stanley was an aggressive character who never took crap from anyone, especially Blanche. He knew she was full of herself from the start. For example, in the beginning, he interrogated Blanche because she had nice clothing and jewelry. But when Stanley got really fed up with Blanche, he decided to give her a birthday present. Blanche had just opened it and he started to explain what it is, “Ticket! Back to Laurel! On the Greyhound! Tuesday!” (111). I like that Stanley is real with Blanche, because then she knows that she is not wanted at their home. One person who accepted Blanche and loved her was Mitch. Mitch was Stanley’s friend playing poker and met Blanche that night. You could say they hit it off. He wanted to see her again and he did, multiple times. The one night after Mitch found out Blanche’s real age, he didn’t get mad or has an outburst, instead he replied, “You need somebody. And I need somebody, too. Could it be—you and me, Blanche?” (96). This proves that Mitch is a very excepting, and nice gentleman. The characters in this novel prove to be complex, and there is an abundant amount. This novel proved to be a intricate one with many personalities and so many different places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.27.177 (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Themes and Motifs' This section looks like it was copied from a cliffs notes. And reads like a sophmore essay. Anyone think it has a place here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.20.18.21 (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Setting

[edit]

Hi, I've never edited before, but I've studied this play for a long time, and this is inaccurate - The play occurs in the French Quarter, not the Marigny. At the end of scene 3 (the Poker Night) when Blanche comes outside to talk to Mitch:

Blanche: I'm not properly dressed.

Mitch: That don't make no difference in the Quarter.

This can be found in any copy of the play. Williams intentionally misused Elysian Fields, possibly because (according to its Wikipedia page) its "the final resting place of the souls of the heroic and the virtuous" which makes sense in the context of the play. Also, in the first scene, Stella states that the L&N tracks are outside:

Blanche:...Out there I suppose is the ghoul-haunted woodland of Weir!

Stella: No, honey, those are the L&N tracks.

The L&N tracks run on Canal st., which is in the Quarter, not the Marigny -

http://nutrias.org/exhibits/choochoo/page2.htm

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.254.85 (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vivien Leigh as Blanche in the Broadway production

[edit]

In this article, it is stated that Leigh starred in the London production. Now, I'm not sure whether she did or not, but I know she starred in the Broadway production, alongside Brando as Stanley and Hunter as Stella. Why does it say differently in this article? Egduf8 (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move request (2011)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

– This play is clearly the primary topic, as all items on the disambiguation page are basically just adaptions of this play. The Evil IP address (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE STRONGLY Absolutely and without question. — Robert Greer (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not obviously a primary topic. The 1951 film is comparably well known, and may be a more likely search or link target. The articles have a similar number of incoming links. Keeping this as a disambiguation page makes sure wikilinkers pick the correct target. – Pnm (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The fact that the play was first and the others were based on the play does not automatically make it the primary topic. I think at this stage the film probably has as much written about it as the play. The "first in time" argument should not be used as a surrogate of determining primary usage—many places in the world were named after Boston, Lincolnshire, but that doesn't make it the primary meaning of Boston. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion and criticism of plot summary

[edit]

The author of the plot summary appearing in January 2015 does not understand the play. It is amateurish in style, and misses "the point" over and over again. Blanche is vilified simply for being a troubled human being. I do not think that anyone has ever interpreted this play in that way. The play, in fact, has great empathy for the character of Blanche, and she is seriously mistreated by Stanley. She doesn't deserve to be raped, as punishment for her trifling, southern ways.

The plot summary begins by describing Blanche as "a fading, though still attractive Southern belle who clings to high-toned Southern customs of decorum." That is just a cliché without meaning, and should be taken out.

It goes on, "... Her pretensions to virtue and culture thinly mask her alcoholism and delusions of grandeur." Neither alcoholism nor delusions of grandeur are particularly meaningful in examining her character.

And what does this mean? "Her poise is part of a persona she presents to shield others (but most of all herself) from her reality, and also makes her still attractive to men." Huh? Seriously?

The next sentence sounds like a movie trailer for a cheap melodrama: "Blanche arrives at the apartment of her sister, Stella Kowalski, on Elysian Fields Avenue in the Faubourg Marigny neighborhood of New Orleans; one of the streetcars she takes to get there travels on Desire Street and its route sign displays DESIRE. The steamy, urban ambience of Stella's home is a shock to Blanche's nerves."

The next part sounds like a gossipy old woman: "Stella, who fears the reaction of her husband Stanley, welcomes Blanche with affection as well as some trepidation. As Blanche explains that their ancestral Southern plantation, Belle Reve in Laurel, Mississippi, has been "lost" due to the "epic fornications" of their ancestors, her veneer of self-possession begins to slip."

And it wasn't her "supervisor" who gave a leave of absence, it was the school superintendent: "Blanche tells Stella that her supervisor allowed her to take time off from her position as an English teacher because of her upset nerves, while in reality she was fired for having an affair with a 17-year-old student".

It is as though the author of this plot summary is part of the cultural condemnation of Blanche that is part of the story, part of the community of Laurel, and not really an observer of this very great literary work of art; the author of the plot summary is a person without any depth of understanding of the play or its characters, and relies completely on oft-heard, repeated clichés, not only about the play itself, but about the morality of the characters in the play.

The author of the plot summary goes on to say "... This turns out not to be the only behavior which has led to her leaving Laurel. A brief marriage marred by the discovery that her young husband, Allan Grey, was having a homosexual affair, and his subsequent suicide, has led Blanche to withdraw into a world in which her fantasies and illusions blend seamlessly with reality."

The author goes on to make inferences that are generally not accepted or else uses hyper-chiches: "...In contrast to the self-effacing and deferential Stella and the pretentious and intrusive refinement of Blanche, Stella's husband, Stanley Kowalski, is a rough, brutish, sensual blue-collar worker."

The author continues, making assumptions about the inner-workings of the characters and their motivations, which may be useful or fun in some other setting, but not in an encyclopedia plot summary. Fore example: "...He and Stella are deeply in love and a passionate sexual relationship is implied. Stella tolerates his primal behavior, which is part of what attracted her in the first place. Their relationship is volatile, argumentative, and heavily based on powerful sexual chemistry, something that Blanche finds difficult to understand".

And then there are many unimportant tangents for a plot summary, that do not inform the reader of anything worthwhile in such an article: "...Stanley reveals Stella's pregnancy to Blanche, who has already divined it, noting that her sister is "plump as a little partridge" and that it is "becoming" to her. It is intimated that Stella frequently leaves Stanley and retreats upstairs to stay with a friend, but has always returned."

The author proclaims that "...Blanche's arrival upsets her sister and brother-in-law's relationship dynamics and system of mutual dependence" but does not mention that Blanche is penniless and homeless, and has nowhere else to go.

And what does the author mean here, that "... Stella's concern for her sister's well-being emboldens Blanche to hold court in the Kowalski apartment, infuriating Stanley and leading to conflict between him and Stella." Blanche is not "holding court;" she is indeed, struggling to maintain her sanity under difficult and extreme circumstances. The author of the plot summary is seeing her through Stanley's eyes, not through the play-wrights eyes, nor the audience's eyes.

And again, we have the sensationalized tone of a movie trailer: "...Blanche and Stanley are on a collision course, and Stanley's friend and Blanche's would-be suitor, Harold "Mitch" Mitchell,[1] inadvertently joins Stanley in further destroying Blanche."

And the author of the plot summary has the next part wrong too: "Stanley discovers Blanche's past through a co-worker who travels to Laurel frequently, and he confronts her with the things that she has been trying to put behind her, partly out of concern that her character flaws may be damaging to others, as they were in Laurel, and partly out of frustration and disgust with her pretense. His attempts to make her admit to her past are cruelly direct, but Blanche has rationalized events in her mind."

Yet contrary to this plot summer, for all that the audience knows, Stanley repeats gossip that he has heard about Blanche, and he repeats this gossip to Stella, not to Blanche. Instead, he passively/aggressively presents Blanche with a bus ticket back to Laurel, without explanation, but indicating that he has become aware of her past.

There is no mention at all of Blanche's break-up with Mitch, whom she had hoped to marry; this was the most important scenes in the play, a climactic moment, when the truth about Blanche is finally revealed, and her fate is determined.

And now, here is the author of the plot summary's final observation: "While Stella has the baby, Stanley and Blanche are left alone in the apartment. In their final confrontation, it is strongly implied that Stanley rapes Blanche, resulting in her psychotic break. Stanley and a reluctant Stella have her committed to a mental institution. In the closing moments, Blanche utters her signature line to the kindly doctor who leads her away: Whoever you are, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers."

I think this plot summary is seriously flawed and does not even remotely describe what the play is about. I tried to tinker with the plot summary to make it better. But it was hopeless. Has this person ever even seen the play? Sure he has read a lot of other people's analyses of it, but repeating other people's opinions is not a plot summary. A plot summary is what anyone would see, who sees the play.

Since I could not repair this plot summary, I wrote a completely new one. In just a couple of hours after posting it, it was "undone" and put back the way it was. I was told to discuss my concerns on the talk page. I have done that. If there are no other comments, then I will feel free to make changes again to the Plot summary of the play "A Streetcar Named Desire."

I also have a problem with the section entitled "adaptations - film" that says: "It was noted by many critics that the 2013 Academy Award-winning Woody Allen film, Blue Jasmine, had much in common with Streetcar and is most likely to be a loose adaptation. It shares a very similar plot and characters, although it has been suitably updated for modern film audiences." I saw the movie "Blue Jasmine" and I noted that whole sections of dialogue were lifted directly from the play "A Streetcar Named Desire." So why say "Blue Jasmine" is a most likely a loose adaptation? It is more than "most likely." Obviously, whomever would say that failed to recognize the Streetcar dialogue in "Blue Jasmine" but noticed only a similarity in character and plot.

Also for this article, it might be mentioned that Woody Allen and Diane Keaton referenced a whole scene in the movie "Sleeper" to "A Streetcar Named Desire," in which Diane Keaton bellowed, "Stella" and Woody Allen proclaimed that he "has always depended on the kindness of strangers."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinbriar (talk • contribs) 06:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to preface this by saying that while yes, the previous plot summary was not the best, yours is hardly any better for various reasons.
My opinion on the matter of how Blanche is presented is that the play should stick to the facts of the story instead of trying to offer a specific point of view, which violates WP guidelines of WP:OR. So pretty much, you have a point, but your proposed solution is not desirable. (On an unrelated note, while the play does show empathy for Blanche, it also doesn't shy away from the ugly truths about her characters, as understandable as they might be. The plot summary should not shy away from that, yet you fail to mention that Blanche quite literally deceives Mitch.)
The news about Blanche Stanley relays to her/Stella is, yes, gossip, but they serve a purpose as hints towards the truth of Blanche's past.
I don't really understand your issue with the closing sentences. Yes, Stella leaves to have the baby, while Blanche is heavily implied to have been raped by Stanley. Blanche ends up getting committed to a mental institution.
I think you misunderstand what the purpose of the plot summary is supposed to be. All of the complaints I've seen basically amount to "The writer of this summary did not understand the play on a thematic level". Perhaps he didn't, but the summary should just stick to the facts of the plot and avoid trying to depict the characters/events in one light or another.
Also, sentences that begin with "But"? Using "We" (First-person, not second-person, but still not acceptable). At the very least, the previous summary avoided flubs like that.
I have no comment about the film adaptations section. Do with it as you please, as long as it's within guidelines. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 03:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summary, before I changed it, was an infantile thematic analysis, written in sensational, yellow journalistic, purple prose. (That is a joke, in case you don't get jokes). I took that out, and put in the plot. The grammer and wording that I used was good. The updates that Stick Man used to supercede changes were not good. It is a complex play. Stick Man says himself, in restoring some of the old text, to supercede my revised text, that he cannot remember the plot, and maybe should read the play again. Really? Maybe that would be a good idea. I would strongly recomend against writing a plot summary until one knows the plot. There has been no criticism of my plot summary; just snipes at my style, without being specific.

My comments about the film adaptations are from "A Streetcar Named Desire - play" article. I agree, that there is a lot more wrong with this article than just the plot summary. I think that this article, as I found it, would have Tennesse Williams "spinning in his grave ... " and would get a grade of "F" in any college English composition class. My purpose is to make this article better, to support the credibility of Wikipedia. In obstructing my efforts, Stick Man is actually undermining the credibility of Wikipedia.

You, Stick Man, told me to write down my criticims of the plot summary on the talk page. I did as you asked, spending a lot of time, energy, and effort to do so. And, you did not respond to a single point, but just continued your sniping at me, with nothing specific for me to reply to. Thank you very much. Now I know where you are coming from.

This is an example of what I removed, which Stick Man thinks is great: "...Blanche and Stanley are on a collision course, and Stanley's friend and Blanche's would-be suitor, Harold "Mitch" Mitchell,[1] inadvertently joins Stanley in further destroying Blanche."

Mitch, the "would-be" suitor, one of the 4 main characters of the play, pulled out of thin air, mentioned only in this place, and that he is "further destroying Blanche ..." Further than what? How is her destrcution taking place? This, also, is pulled from thin air, with no introduction. This is what Stick Man thinks is great writing.

I don't get it. Grinbriar (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Stanley demands to know what happened to Belle Reve, once a large plantation and home of the aristocratic DuBois family, due to being worried that he has been cheated out of an inheritance."

Come on ... this sentence is kind of ridiculous, " ... due to being worried ... " I don't think I should have to fix grammer as bad as that. I think the originial author should fix it himself. I notice that most of the text that has been retained is what I had written, and everything that stinks is what was already there before I modified it. So, at least we are making some progress. Grinbriar (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the play, "Belle Reve" is important because it demonstrates the background of the Dubois family in contrast to Stanley. In the play, the whole situation is handled very intricately. In the plot summary, to be brief, I mentioned it, as the "grand" home of Blanche and Stella. It has to mentioned briefly in that way, otherwise, a lot of the story will lose its meaning. Also, in the plot summary, you have to mention that when Blanche shows up on Stella's doorstep, she has no money and no where else to go, even though that is not immediately obvious; that explains why she stays even though she does not like it there. And when I said that she "depended on the kindness of her sister, Stella," that literally was a true statement, and also an allusion the the famous line " ... always depended on the kindness of strangers." An allusion is a reference that makes sense on its own, but has a deeper meaning, for those that recognize it. Obviously, Stick Man didn't get it. In addition, Mitch is the fourth character of the play, who deserves more than one cryptic mention. Without knowing about him, and the plans that he and Blanche had for marriage, the play doesn't make sense. Without knowing about Blanche's confession to Mitch about how her husband died, the play doesn't make sense. Blanche wants to get married, go away, and not be anyone's problem. That is also what Stanley wants. Yet he screwed up her plans, and her life, and his own marriage, permanantly. Why did he do it? Cruelty, a fact that Stella recognized, a fact that the audience recognizes. Without a little more about Mitch, the play doesn't make sense. In the play, all of the stories about Blanche are presented as "gossip." Stella even says, " ... gossip ... who cares about gossip?" Only at the moment of her break-up with Mitch, does Blanche admit all the stories are true. Stanley did not know the stories were true. But he spread them all around, even though it was against his own best interests, because he was sabotaging Blanche's efforts to go away and live on her own, and that is what he wanted most of all. Why? He was cruel and wanted to hurt her. Grinbriar (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Man took out the following:

One night during one of Stanley’s poker parties, Blanche comes in contact with Mitch, one of the poker players. His life is more sheltered than the others; he still lives at home and takes care of his sick mother. As they chat, we see that Blanche is flirtatious, friendly, and quite charming; they like each other. But the party ends when Stanley becomes angry that Blanche has turned on the radio, and he throws it out the window. Stella reacts in anger, and he beats her. Blanche and Stella take refuge with the upstairs neighbor, Eunice. When Stanley recovers, he cries out from the courtyard for Stella to come back, in the now iconic lines, which he bellows: “Stella, Stella, Stella.” Even though he has struck her, she responds to his cries, and returns to him.

Stella and Stanley’s powerful physical attraction is obvious, yet Blanche is bewildered that Stella would go back with him, after such violence. The next morning, Blanche rushes to Stella, and describes Stanley as a subhuman animal. But Stella is calm, even happy and assures Blanche that she and Stanley are fine. Stanley overhears the conversation but does not say a thing. When Stanley comes in, Stella hugs and kisses him, letting Blanche know that her low opinion of Stanley does not matter. (Stanley also takes note of this).

As the weeks pass, Blanche and Stanley do not get along under the same roof. Yet, Blanche has hope in Mitch, telling Stella that she wants to go away with him and not be anyone’s problem. Finally, Blanche confesses to Mitch that once she was married to a young boy whom she later discovered in a sexual encounter with an older man, and that her young husband had killed himself as a result of her harsh reaction. This story seems to touch Mitch’s heart. Mitch tells Blanche that they need each other. It seems certain that they will get married.

Later on, Stanley repeats gossip to Stella that he has gathered on Blanche, telling her that Blanche lived such a wild life in Laurel that she was practically thrown out of town. He then says that Mitch will not be coming around anymore. Stella erupts in anger at Stanley’s cruelty. But the fight is cut short, as she tells Stanley to take her to the hospital; the baby is coming.

Later, as Blanche waits at home alone, Mitch arrives and confronts Blanche with the stories that Stanley has told him. At first she denies everything. But then she confesses everything, in describing her deep loneliness, and her fear of death, and her refuge in “meetings with strangers.” She pleads for forgiveness, throws herself on his mercy, hoping that he may understand. But he is angry and humiliated, and finally rejects her. In a fit of hysteria Blanche screams “fire,” and he runs away in fright.

Later that night, Stanley returns from the hospital to get some sleep while Stella's labor continues. But Blanche is now delusional, dressed in an old faded gown, wearing cheap costume jewelry, and pretending to be departing on a trip with an old admirer. She disdainfully antagonizes Stanley. He sees that she is delusional but he feels no pity for her. Instead, he seeks to destroy her illusions. After a struggle, he rapes her.

... replaced it with:

Blanche's arrival upsets her sister and brother-in-law's relationship dynamics and system of mutual dependence. Stella's concern for her sister's well-being infuriates Stanley leading to conflict between him and Stella. Blanche and Stanley are enemies, and Stanley's friend and Blanche's would-be suitor, Harold "Mitch" Mitchell,[1] inadvertently joins Stanley against Blanche. Stanley picks up gossip about Blanche from a co-worker who travels to Laurel frequently and, out of frustration and disgust with Blanche and his desire to get rid of her, repeats it all to Stella. While Stella has the baby, Stanley and Blanche are left alone in the apartment. In their final confrontation, it is strongly implied that Stanley rapes Blanche, resulting in her psychotic break.

I think that Stick Man needs to do a little cleaning up of the plot summary. His plot summary stops right about where Blanche drops her love letters all over the floor, when the play has barely begun, the very second day of the story, as a matter of fact. Blanche arrived and upset the "dynamics" of their "mutual dependence" is not apparent to anyone who watches the play. In fact, what does this even mean anyway, even in "psyco-babble?" Plus, I don't think it is valid to psyco-analyze characters in a play, simply because they are "fictitious" characters, and do not really exist. Psycho-analyzing them is taking psychology way over the edge. If there is any psycho-analysis to be done here, it might be with regards to the author, Tennessee Williams. In any event, this has nothing to do with the plot line.Grinbriar (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I took the initial summary that YOU created, and simply made it read better [1]. I've given criticism of your writing already, I'm not going to repeat it. Go read MOS:PLOT.
"The plot summary, before I changed it, was an infantile thematic analysis, written in sensational, yellow journalistic, purple prose."
The plot summary, when I got to it after your initial attempt, was supposed to be a brief retelling of the events with no attempts made at any thematic analysis or sensationalist writing.
"This is an example of what I removed, which Stick Man thinks is great"
I should note that what you quoted is 1. Not something I thought was great and 2. Not even in the current plot summary.
Again, read MOS:PLOT (and maybe WP:OR, too). Yes, this is a significant play. No, it does not need a overly-detailed, lengthy, multiple-sectioned, analytic plot summary. If people want to know the finer details about this play then they should read it themselves and think about it on their own. I like how you want to make the plot summary better but the way you want to do it is not going to work. Try another way. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 22:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference play was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Requested move 18 April 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. There is sufficient consensus to move when accounting for the strength of the arguments. (non-admin closure) — SSTflyer 06:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONCEPTDAB. This article gets 59% of the pageviews, more than all other topics combined, even including the 1951 film adaptation, which is the only other topic that comes remotely close.[2] Understandably, it also predominates on Google Books, see for instance [3] vs. [4]. Additionally, all other ambiguous topics are adaptations of the play: as such, the play article contains a substantive section on the adaptations, including various versions with no articles, and not included on the dab page. As such it serves as an effective broad-concept article, giving coverage of all these related topics. As such, readers will be better served going to an article with coverage than a dab page.--Cúchullain t/c 19:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's another problem here as well. The moment the dab is no longer at the baseline, the dab bot stops working. No more notifications to anyone who mislinks. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Unlike searches for terms like Boston or Paris, in this instance there is a significant alternative (the 1951 film). I know that WP:OSE is not an over-riding rationale, but in this instance, when you look at other examples, when there are several alternatives, the main topic should be a dab page. Take a look at the dab for Phoenix. Clearly, the city in Arizona is the primary, but I think it would be a disservice to rename the dab page with a dab tag, and have Phoenix redirect to the city page. Even more so in this instance. Onel5969 TT me 12:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to inherent differences among the various subjects. Icarus of old (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The page views favor the play, and the Google Books search indicates that the play has received more serious off-Wikipedia coverage than all the films put together. It is quite obviously the primary topic by whichever metric we use. I am convinced by Cuchullain's argument that the article can serve as a broad-concept article too: since all the other disambiguated articles are invariably adaptations of the play, then this article will also serve as a de facto disambiguation page. Betty Logan (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pageview statistics seem convincing, if barely, but the Nominator's WP:CONCEPTDAB arguments convince me the most.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mostly as per Betty Logan. I'm especially convinced by the fact that all other articles are adaptations of the play and can be summarized briefly with links at the play's article. ~ RobTalk 13:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clear PrimaryTopic due to all other topics being derivative of the 1947 play by Tennessee Williams. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a small majority of page views compared with everything else, and also provides a great overview DABCONCEPT as the nomination points out.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm still not convinced that DABCONCEPT applies to the play. Shall we force readers to read the whole article about the play? Shall we force readers to rely on hatnotes or to read just the intro and then jump forward to other articles about adaptations (per WP:LEAD)? The statistics indicate that readers would rather much go for either the play or the 1951 film. Two-thirds can go to the play; one-third, to the film. Of course, the support votes might rebut that by using DABCONCEPT and stats, but stats of the play might increase a lot and may include readers who don't read the intro and then the whole article. George Ho (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page view stats for the play (this article) already *are* higher than all other topics combined. If they increase it's more evidence that it's the primary topic. Not sure I follow your other points: the article already includes information on the adaptations (including adaptations we don't have articles on), meaning it's essentially a WP:CONCEPTDAB now. I'll put it this way: with this article at the base name, readers looking for adaptions will find some information in context, with links, and a hat note to the dab page. With the dab page at the base name, thousands of readers are sent to a page with no content, including the majority looking for the play.--Cúchullain t/c 18:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has fame been a criterion for the primary topic? We have some objective metrics available to us so it is best to stick with what we can quantify. Betty Logan (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on A Streetcar Named Desire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Streetcar Named Desire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IS THERE ANY CRITICISM OF WILLIAMS FOR HIS RACIST PORTRAYAL OF A POLISH PERSON ?

[edit]

Has Williams been ever criticized for his creating "Stanley Kowalski" out of his desire to express his waspish racist attitude towards the Polish people? Has he ever been criticized for his creating one of the world's most hateful stereotypes of a Polish person? Also, has any one pointed out that the way "Stanley Kowalski" talks and carries himself seems characteristic rather of an Irish American person than a Polish American person? Or there has never been such criticism in the US and Britain? Does any one know? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.103.225.108 (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reference desk and you will not be permitted to edit this original criticism into Wikipedia. AGK ■ 08:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title "street car" or "streetcar"

[edit]

The first edition illustrated here is titled "street car" (two words) not "streetcar" (one word). It might be a grammatical anomaly, but shouldn't this be reflected in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justnigel (talk • contribs) 06:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Streetcar_Named_Desire&oldid=1252171257"