En klassiker is a term that holds great significance. It refers to something that has stood the test of time and has become a classic. Classics can be found in various fields such as literature, art, music, and film. They are works that have a universal appeal and continue to inspire and influence generations. A classic piece of literature, for example, may have a profound and timeless message that still resonates with readers today. It could be a novel that explores the human condition, a play that delves into complex emotions, or a poem that captures the beauty of nature. In the world of art, a classic painting or sculpture may be renowned for its technique, composition, or subject matter. It has the power to evoke strong emotions and leave a lasting impression on the viewer. Whether it's a classic symphony, a timeless film, or any other form of art, en klassiker represents the best of the best. It is a testament to the creativity and talent of the artists who produced it and will continue to be cherished and studied for years to come.

In a single midsummer night, this tragedy unfolds, presenting a fatal conflict between the noble Lady Julie and Jean, an ambitious servant. Central themes such as class differences, gender roles, and the power of instincts are intricately intertwined in a dense and conflict-ridden dialogue.

Julie, driven by a destructive urge for freedom, enters a fateful relationship with Jean. What starts as a seduction quickly turns into a power struggle. The social contrasts between the two protagonists erupt with full force: Despite her aristocratic background, Julie is insecure and unstable, although at times she emerges as the mistress. It seemed to me that mainly due to the lack of role models and reference persons, she doesn't know what place she can and wants to take in society. Jean, on the other hand, is aware of his subordinate position but seizes every opportunity to assert himself. Both dream of overcoming social class barriers, although deep down they know that they ultimately cannot realize their dreams.

Strindberg combines naturalism with symbolic elements. The contrasts between master and servant, between man and woman are emphasized through dialogues, through subtle hints in the characterizations, and surely also through the stage design. Especially the portrayal of Julie as an internally torn figure attests to a psychological study that was ahead of its time.

In my reading group, a different perspective was cast on the play, triggered by Strindberg's misogyny. Indeed, he depicts Julie as an unstable figure, at the mercy of her origin and gender, who ultimately fails. His writings outside of the drama also contain polemical statements about women, which reinforces the impression. But I think that the play can simultaneously be read as a sharp analysis of social constraints. Jean is equally trapped in his role, and the drama shows not only a personal tragedy but also the僵化的 social fabric that restricts men and women alike.

Nevertheless, I could no longer completely ignore the misogyny and had to adjust the evaluation accordingly.

So dramatic lol!

The events that unfolded were truly astonishing. It was as if a script had been written for a thrilling play, and we were all witnesses to it.

The characters in this drama played their roles with such intensity that it kept us on the edge of our seats. There were moments of joy, followed by sudden twists that left us gasping in surprise.

The emotions were palpable, and it felt as if we were part of the story ourselves. We laughed, we cried, and we were completely immersed in the drama.

As the story reached its climax, the tension was almost unbearable. We wondered how it would all end and what the final outcome would be.

In the end, it was a conclusion that we could never have predicted. It was both satisfying and unexpected, leaving us with a sense of awe and wonder.

Overall, it was a truly dramatic experience that will stay with us for a long time. Lol!

Meh.

It's just an ordinary thing. I read it for school, but it does happen to count for a BookTube-A-Thon challenge, which is to read a book in 24 hours.

This book didn't really stand out to me. There was nothing particularly special or exciting about it.

However, since it fulfills the requirement for this challenge, I guess it has some value.

I wonder if other people will have a different opinion of it. Maybe they'll find something in it that I missed.

Overall, it was an okay read, but not something that I would highly recommend.

But who knows, maybe it'll grow on me over time.

For now, I'm just glad that I was able to complete the challenge and move on to the next book.

In this text, we encounter a rather thought-provoking perspective. It presents an example from a man who views emotions as belonging to helpless individuals, death as an art, and comparison, not equality, as the basis of happiness. However, what really intrigues me are these characters to an excessive degree.

Interestingly, this is the first time I hear that menstruation is considered as a motive for one of the nine freedoms of death.

It makes one wonder about the various and often complex ways in which people perceive and interpret different aspects of life and death.

Could this be a reflection of a particular mindset or a unique way of looking at the world?

Perhaps further exploration into these ideas would lead to a deeper understanding of the human psyche and our relationship with such profound concepts.

It is truly a fascinating topic that leaves room for much speculation and discussion.

It's a bit confusing. The characters are incoherent and the conversation topics change at a dizzying speed. It really makes it hard for the reader to follow. The lack of clear character development and consistent themes makes the whole thing feel disjointed.

I really don't recommend this. It fails to engage the reader on a deeper level and leaves them feeling frustrated rather than entertained or enlightened.

There are so many other well-written works out there that offer a more satisfying reading experience. It's a pity that this one doesn't live up to expectations. Maybe with some revisions and more careful planning, it could have been a better piece. But as it stands now, it's not worth the time and effort.

Sharp and symbol-laden dialogue, exquisite pacing and naturalism are the hallmarks of this work. The nail-biting power dynamics keep the reader on the edge of their seat. However, there are some aspects that are both worrying and unclear. The ideas about gender and class seem to suggest certain beliefs that are anathema to me. From my point of view, having not extensively analysed or read about Strindberg, these aspects raise questions. It makes me wonder if there is more to these ideas than meets the eye. Perhaps a deeper exploration of Strindberg's works would provide more clarity. But for now, I am left with a sense of unease and a desire to understand more about the underlying themes and messages.

Gender and Society



Strindberg's play, Fröken Julie, which dates back to 1888, delves deep into the themes of gender and society in late 19th century Sweden. Despite its brevity, it packs a powerful punch when it comes to these topics, and that's why it achieved such prominence at the time. Even today, it remains one of the works for which Strindberg is recognized abroad, along with his other plays. However, I personally have a greater preference for his novels and stories, which are generally not translated into English or are out of print.



In Strindberg's writing, I sense a rather negative view of womanhood. Based on his life and this particular play, it seems that while he favors bright and capable women, he simultaneously believes that such individuals hate men by default. I suspect he had some不愉快的经历in his relationships with women that clashed with his own narcissism and sense of manhood.



The play takes place on a midsummer eve, when the daughter of a rich household, Miss Julie, has a powerful and fateful interaction with the manservant Jean. As the audience, we are exposed to a warped passion, seen through the prism of their imagined futures, a pulsating passion that is immersed in the magic of the shortest night of the year. Fate seems to be lurking in the room as the play unfolds. A recent film version from 2014, directed by Liv Ullmann, seems like an interesting follow-up to reading this play. However, an older Swedish film from 1951, starring Ulf Palme as Jean and Anita Björk as Miss Julie, is even more appealing to me. Reading or watching this play is truly a must for anyone interested in Strindberg as an author. Moreover, just like Ibsen, Strindberg has the ability to bring forward themes that are timeless. These issues continue to resonate in our modern society.

My first encounter with Miss Julie was not via the original play. Instead, it was through Patrick Marber's mid-century reworking, After Miss Julie, which sold out at the Young Vic in 2012. The next year, Yael Farber's smoky South African edition, Mies Julie, came along. Farber has since become one of the most thrilling directors in contemporary theatre, with hair-raising productions like Les Blancs and The Crucible.

Finally, there's an original "purist" staging of Miss Julie. Howard Brenton wrote a great play, In Extremis, back in 2007. I've had a soft spot for him since then. This fall, the Jermyn Street Theatre put on a Brenton-Strindberg double bill. First was This Blinding Light, which was a bit ho-hum for me. Then came Miss Julie, and it was completely different. The first 30 minutes had barely 5 lines of dialogue, but the precise geometry on stage was so gripping that I couldn't look away. The next 60 minutes took us through lust, regret, and some of the best analysis of class divisions in Western literature. The actors, especially James Sheldon as Jean, were outstanding.

I almost never read the playscript after seeing a play, but this one demanded it. Well done, Mr Brenton. Your version of Strindberg's epic polemic is as good as it gets.

It is difficult for me to evaluate this play.

When reading it, it excited me and even made me angry.

Strindberg has not become sympathetic to me, and now I look at the other "master dramas" in the edition I have very skeptically and will probably wait for a while before giving them a chance.

Nevertheless, the drama is of course well-written, and my reaction is also a sign of the possible engagement with the author and the content.

Perhaps with more time and a deeper understanding, my perception of Strindberg and his works may change. But for now, I remain cautious and reserved in my assessment.

I need to further explore and analyze the themes, characters, and language of the drama to form a more comprehensive and objective opinion.

Only then can I truly appreciate the value and significance of this work.

  "Whose fault is it?--What's it matter to us whose fault it is; I'm still the one who'll have to bear the blame, suffer the consequences."

In Miss Julie, the daughter of a count astonishingly condescends to have relations with a lowly servant. But what drives her to do so? Is it a spur of passion? The desire to fall? Hereditary influences? Or perhaps a reaction to her recently broken marriage proposal? The reasons for her behavior are indeed numerous and complex, and this very complexity is what endows the play with its great strength. Strindberg's naturalism distinguishes itself from Zola's. In fact, Zola criticized Strindberg's earlier play The Father in a letter for its 'abstract' characters. Strindberg, however, does not delve into great detail regarding circumstance, history, or anatomy. For him, a mere hint suffices. Once again, I believe this to be a strong point. After all, in real life, when are such factors ever explicitly presented to us?

While the intellectual content of the play, such as the struggle between classes, genders, and so on, may not be my topmost interest, the form of the play is truly wonderful. It consists of a single act and a single set. All of the drama unfolds interpersonally and psychologically, in close proximity and with high intensity. This unique form creates a captivating and immersive experience for the audience.

I really like a play with three characters:

Jane,

Julia,

and Christine.

Here, the playwright is talking about oppression, and it can be said that he has conveyed his meaning well.

I don't have anything else to say. My words are for the university seminars.

Of course, I have to read it several more times.

This play seems to offer a deep exploration of the themes of oppression and the experiences of the three characters.

It makes me think about how different people may face and deal with oppression in their lives.

I'm looking forward to delving deeper into the play and discussing it further in the seminars.

Maybe there are more insights and interpretations that I can gain from reading it multiple times.

I hope to have a more comprehensive understanding of the play and its significance.