If you aspire to work in the American theater, it is essential that you have delved into the works of the big three: Williams, Miller, and O'Neill. I managed to hold off on the last one for as long as possible. Oh my goodness, O'Neill can be dreadfully boring. He is undeniably brilliant, but there's no escaping the fact that his plays can be a bit of a slog.

Take Desire, for instance. Picture these elm trees. Beneath them stands a house. And within that house, people are consumed by passion for one another, or desire, if you prefer. Do you get the picture?

But in all seriousness. If I were to actually see this play performed, I'd probably get quite into it. And although I might gripe a great deal after leaving the theater, while I was there, I'd be completely engrossed. Because despite being considered a work of realism, it is incredibly melodramatic. With elements like infanticide, forbidden love, and desire galore. And it's also highly symbolic, with the elms and the land representing deeper meanings.

So, I've read O'Neill. And I know I need to read more of his works, but there's a reason why his plays aren't performed as often as they could be: they're long and they can be boring. That being said, there's also a reason why he is constantly taught: he was incredibly prolific, he experimented with all the major styles of theater during his time, and he played a crucial role in introducing realism and expressionism to America.

When I was twelve years old, I used to think that "Desire Under the Elms" was a rather good piece of work. However, as time has passed, I have come to see the light and realize just how hilariously awful it truly is.

This play is so overheated that it has almost rotted. It tells the story of a Southern patriarch whose young and sexy wife gets pregnant by his son. In the movie adaptation, these roles are portrayed by Orson Welles, Sophia Loren, and Anthony Perkins respectively. Yes, you read that correctly.

Unfortunately, this is not even a guilty pleasure. It fails to deliver on any level, whether it be in terms of plot, character development, or overall entertainment value. It is a prime example of a work that tries too hard and ends up falling flat on its face.

Looking back, I can't help but wonder what I was thinking when I first saw it. It just goes to show how our tastes and perspectives can change as we grow and mature.

I cannot recommend O'Neill highly enough. However, this particular work isn't necessarily the one I would suggest starting with. In my experience with O'Neill, this seemed to have a bit more emphasis on action rather than psychology, and more focus on the plot than on the characters.

Nevertheless, it is still worthwhile reading.

The first line, "God! Purty!" immediately grabs the reader's attention and sets a certain tone.

The selected line, "I want t' share with ye, Abbie--prison 'r death 'r hell 'r anythin'! If I'm sharin' with ye, I won't feel lonesome, leastways." adds depth and emotion to the story. It shows the character's longing for connection and companionship, even in the face of difficult circumstances.

Overall, while this may not be the most典型的 O'Neill work, it still has its merits and is worth exploring for those interested in his writing.

Another masterful play was crafted by the renowned American author. He endeavors to position the plot elements and themes of Greek tragedy within a modern context. In a letter concerning his plays from this era, O'Neill declared that his objective was to "perceive the transfiguring nobility of tragedy, in as close to the Greek sense as one can comprehend it, in what seem to be the most ignoble and debased lives."

This pursuit of presenting the essence of Greek tragedy in a contemporary setting is a remarkable feat. It allows the audience to witness the universal themes of human nature, fate, and suffering in a new light. By placing these elements in a modern context, the author makes the ancient tragedies more relevant and accessible to a modern audience.

O'Neill's works from this period are a testament to his artistic vision and his ability to explore the depths of the human psyche. His plays continue to be studied and performed today, serving as a reminder of the power of tragedy to move and inspire us.

This is O'Neill's genuine perspective on Greek Tragedy.

In contrast, "Electra" comes across as trite and contrived.

O'Neill's work delves deeper into the human psyche, exploring the complex emotions and motives that drive the characters.

His take on Greek Tragedy is more nuanced and thought-provoking, challenging the audience to question their own beliefs and values.

"Electra," on the other hand, seems to rely on tired clichés and predictable plot devices.

It fails to capture the true essence of Greek Tragedy and falls short in comparison to O'Neill's masterful interpretations.

Perhaps it is because O'Neill was able to bring a modern sensibility to the ancient form, breathing new life into it and making it relevant for a contemporary audience.

Whatever the reason, it is clear that O'Neill's take on Greek Tragedy is a significant contribution to the genre and one that should not be overlooked.

Okay, I am a passionate lover of Eugene O'Neill's works. I consider it a great pleasure to have been the stage manager in an off-Broadway production. This production was in the genre similar to that of Harper Lee and John Steinbeck, with such rich and captivating writing. It was truly a wonderful experience. And at that time, it was also very nice to give my husband the role of the Sheriff in the off-off Broadway production. He did an excellent job, bringing the character to life on the stage. The combination of the great script and his performance made the whole production a huge success. It was a memorable moment for both of us, and I will always cherish this experience.

This edition was published in 1995 with the courtesy of the Royal National Theatre in London. However, it has been a long time since anyone borrowed it from the New York Public Library. The reason is that the person with the barcode scanner had to add it to the system.

Has Eugene O’Neill really become so unfashionable, except for his final tragedies? It would be sad if that were the case. Because these two earlier plays are truly compelling dramas. “Desire Under the Elms,” his first box office success, reaches a wildly melodramatic ending, which is driven by the doomed passions of a father, his third wife, and his youngest son. It even ignites a spark on the page. “The Great God Brown,” undoubtedly one of the playwright’s most experimental works, still challenges contemporary avant-garde directors as much as ever.

Both of these plays are like rocky epics, exploring the struggle to face life directly, the elusiveness of the truth, and the pain that comes with self-realization. In the latter play, this is further complicated by the use of masks. They offer deep insights into the human condition and are well worth rediscovering.

Love O'Neill.

However, I do not love this play.

It is a strange combination, a Phaedra-meets-Power-of-Darkness set in New England.

The speech in the play is even purposefully made to be colloquial, similar to that in Tolstoï's play.

As a dramatist myself, I understand the concept of borrowing ideas, and I'm not one to condemn it.

In fact, I'm rather shameless when it comes to stealing inspiration.

But when an outstanding dramatist like O'Neill steals from another outstanding dramatist like Tolstoï, I can't help but feel a sense of disappointment.

I had higher expectations from O'Neill, and this play just doesn't meet those expectations.

It feels like a missed opportunity to create something truly original and unique.

Perhaps if O'Neill had put his own spin on the borrowed elements, the play would have been more successful.

As it stands, it just doesn't quite hit the mark for me.

Let's be honest:

mostly, O'Neill is just a nutcase. I like him, but: nutcase.

He has these wild ideas and crazy antics that sometimes make you wonder if he's completely lost his mind. But that's also what makes him so interesting. You never know what he's going to do or say next. He's like a walking enigma, constantly keeping you on your toes. Maybe it's his unique perspective on life that allows him to think outside the box and come up with such unconventional ideas. Or maybe he's just plain crazy. Either way, I can't help but be drawn to his eccentricity. There's something about him that makes him stand out from the crowd, and I find that incredibly fascinating.

A play that vividly portrays the fundamental instincts that almost all humans possess in the world. These instincts include the instinct of desiring, which drives us to seek various things; the instinct of commanding, enabling us to assert our authority; the instinct of capturing, leading us to pursue and obtain what we want; the instinct of ruling, giving us the urge to have control over others; and the instinct of leading, guiding us to take the initiative. Desire is the most basic cause of grief among humans. Here, too, desire reigns supreme, while the rest are often overlooked and revolve around the theme of desire.

"Desire says the Buddha is the cause of the Grief, But how do one escape this binding vine of Love?" This profound statement makes us ponder how difficult it is to break free from the clutches of desire and the complex web of emotions it weaves. It forces us to question whether it is possible to find true peace and liberation in a world dominated by desire.

My favorite Bunuel work is not among his '70s surrealist films. Instead, it is his adaptation of Wuthering Heights from his time in Mexico during the '50s.

In this adaptation, the characters are completely at the mercy of their intense passions. These passions run extremely high and drive them to take actions that lead to irreversible and catastrophic consequences.

This play vividly reminds me of that film. The characters here are also highly unlikable, flawed, and overly dramatic. However, that is precisely what makes them so compelling.

I particularly liked his description of Abbie Putnam's round face as "pretty but marred by its rather gross sensuality" and her greedy eyes, which he described as "glowingly possessive."

But the men in this play are just as bad as the ladies. They are greedy and dimwitted. It was like the Jerry Springer show of 1850s rural New England, and I loved every single minute of it.

The combination of flawed characters, intense passions, and the resulting chaos makes this work a truly captivating and unforgettable experience.

The play was found in a paperback (Pb.) titled "Eight Great Tragedies" on page 350.

It was also discovered in a hardback (Hb.) called "Selected Plays of Eugene O'Neill".

In addition, it was present in another paperback, namely "Three plays by O'Neill".

These different editions and compilations provide various opportunities for readers and scholars to access and study the play.

The fact that it appears in multiple sources indicates its significance and popularity within the body of Eugene O'Neill's work.

Each of these publications may offer unique insights or interpretations, depending on the editorial choices and accompanying materials.

Whether one prefers the convenience of a paperback or the durability of a hardback, the play can be found and explored in different formats, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of O'Neill's dramatic art.