Reza’s “God of Carnage” is a play set in modern day Paris that entails a meeting between two middle class couples, the Vallons and the Reilles, after their children get into a physical altercation with each other.  Reza explores the “bourgeois respectability” ideals that both the couples share and strive to maintain throughout the play by focusing on the artificial facades put up by them and the performative element in their interactions.The play is centered around the dynamics between the characters, especially Annette and the others, as their ever changing quality leads to conflict throughout the play. As the play is set in one of the couples’ home, the staging and the props become a defining feature and greatly contribute to these shifting dynamics. Reza illustrates the breakdown of the facades and the solidarity that exists between Anette and the others at various points in the play through the use of tulips as a prop, amongst others, to showcase her physically destructive nature and her questionable moral code.

At the beginning of the play, Reza presents Annette as an affable and courteous woman who is genuinely concerned about solving the situation peacefully, by presenting Annette’s attempts at befriending the Vallons through the use of the tulips and staging, alongside others, in order to showcase her apparent co-operative nature and values, ideas she is not able to maintain for long. Annette’s remark to Veronique, “Those tulips are gorgeous.” exemplifies the efforts that Annette puts in to befriend the Vallons, which could be a signifier of her friendly nature. However, this remark can also be representative of Annette’s shallow mentality, because of which she tries to develop an urgent allegiance with Veronique to solve the crisis as soon as she can without really understanding the gravity of the situation. Reza’s use of the tulips here demonstrates the initial facade of friendliness that Annette revels in. Nevertheless, the pressure of maintaining this facade gets to Annette quite soon as Alain becomes absorbed in his phone calls and the others remain fundamentally opposed to her. She starts to panic and pace the room which creates a very tense dynamic between the characters due to the small scale stage. Some time later, she vomits on Veronique’s art books after which Veronique reveals her true face by focusing all her attention on the books and exclaiming how the books were invaluable because they“ went out of print years ago” . Perhaps instigated by this reaction and realising that she cannot hold up the facade forever, Annette declares that Ferdinand wouldn’t have injured their child “without a reason” thereby adding to the uneasy dynamic between her and Veronique. Her initial amiable nature thus disappears and is replaced by her true self. The use of the art books by Reza contribute to the breakdown of Annette’s inhibitions by breaking down Veronique’s.The situation here truly represents Annette’s duplicitous nature, which shows itself with the slightest provocation. 

The use of one of the couples’ home by Reza as the stage creates a claustrophobic environment which helps the audience notice the dynamic shifts brought about by Annette’s changed demeanor when she returns after cleaning up, showing how she does not have the sense of morality she pretends to possess. The most significant instance where this idea is displayed is when Michel implies that their son’s reference to the Reilles’ son as grass may have been justified. Annette’s response that theirs “ is as well”  is a direct result of the flaring tensions that were arising between her and Michel due to being stuck in the small room for an extended period of time. This meaningless bickering also marks Annette’s weak moral code as it demonstrates how she is willing to insult someone else’s child in a tough situation which signifies how she can stoop very low when pressured. The development of this uneasy dynamic between her and Michel reveals how they are quite like children themselves, who argue aimlessly and in an unreasonable manner. Later, Annette’s remark that Michel “murdered the hamster” hints at the return of the facade that Annette had revelled in at the beginning of the play. Perhaps, she was trying to put it up again and claim moral superiority over the other characters. Nevertheless, this comment furthers the conflict between her and Michel.Here, Veronique agrees with her and reprimands Michel. At this moment, a brief allegiance forms between Annette and her over their shared disgust at what Michel did. For a brief moment, the dynamics shift pitts the women against Michel, but even as the women claim moral superiority, they aren’t any better than him. Reza’s careful use of the staging creates an environment that builds up tension and induces feelings of entrapment due to which the characters all reveal their true selves.

Towards the end of the play, Reza makes use of the alcohol to break down Annette’s inhibitions which lead her to revealing who she truly allies with and what she actually understands about the entire situation, which ultimately illustrate the significant changes that Annette’s personality goes through and the emergence of her actual nature. After drinking the rum, Annette seems to have lost all her reservations and begins to react impulsively. Reza uses the alcohol to portray Annette’s destructive side as she throws her husband’s phone in the vase of tulips exclaiming, “So there” after being infuriated due to his constant phone calls.  This incident reveals her hypocritical nature as Veronique and her were the ones arguing with Michel over the hamster’s death, an incident seen as a huge act of cruelty by them. Alongside, her casual dismissal of the matter, as she and Veronique go about laughing at Alain alludes to how she behaves like a child in tense situations. This incident breaks up the familial allegiance that existed between the couples, and momentarily, it is the men against the women. However, this does not last long as  Reza presents the final straw that breaks down all the false respectability ideals that the characters pretend to posses by Annette’s remark, “That’s what I think of your pathetic flowers.” to Veronique and Michel ,after tearing up the tulips, which contrasts strongly against what she had said at the beginning. By showing how Annette had put up a facade in the beginning where she appeared to be very agreeable, Reza comments on all the false image that all the characters hold up, as they all shared very similar ideals of “bourgeois respectability.  At the end of the play, the character allegiances are back to square one, with the couples pitted against each other. Ultimately, the readers are able to discern that Annette aligned herself with whoever agreed with her at that specific moment in time, not who was morally right. She also did not care about doing something to solve the situation, she just wanted a “quick fix”.

To conclude, it is apparent that one of the central themes in The God of Carnage is the hypocritical nature of the characters and their weak moral values, exemplified here by Annette’s character. Annette’s breakdown is caused by the lack of support that she receives by her husband due to his emotional unavailability and the lack of empathy that she receives from the others. Her breakdown shows us how facades can only be maintained for so long and that these “ideals of respectability” are of no use since all they do is build up an artificial exterior that cannot even resolve a conflict between children. Reza also makes a strong comment on the inherent nature of human beings to be unreasonable in tense situations and act like children, through the strategic use of the props and staging to aid in creating a pressurising environment that the characters have to interact in.

How do the extracts from The Great Gatsby explore the fundamental dichotomy between old and new money through social attitudes and values?

The Great Gatsby, written by F.Scott Fitzgerald, is a tale that explores Jay Gatsby’s futile attempts at trying to fulfill his version of the “American dream”.  By portraying details of Gatsby’s life and his untimely death due to the meddling of the upper class, the novel showcases the wide gap between “old money” and “new money”.The novel is loosely based on Fitzgerald himself and depicts that the idealised American dream is in fact unattainable as it tries to replicate past events in the present. The novel follows the chronological events of a summer with frequent interruptions with details of Gatsby’s life, presented as revelations made to the narrator. The novel is retrospective and uses analepsis. Fitzgerald employs the use of juxtaposition, symbolism and metaphors amongst other literary devices to showcase the contrast between the way the traditional upper class is perceived with how the nouveau rich are perceived. He also illustrates the importance of the customs and social behaviours prevalent within the upper class of the time that distinguish them from everyone else to construct a tale that presents the chasm between old and new money.

At the very beginning of the novel, the defining contrast that is present between the two aforementioned groups is established through the depiction of the houses characterising East Egg (residence of the upper class) and the houses present at West Egg (residence of the newly rich). The narrator: Nick describes Gatsby’s house in West Egg as a ” factual imitation of some Hotel de Ville in Normandy, with a tower on one side, spanking new under a thin beard of raw ivy” and the houses in East Egg as ” the white palaces of fashionable East egg glittered along the water”. Nick’s reference to Gatsby’s house as an imitation helps readers discern that the houses in West Egg are imitations of classy places but the class has not made it through the translation. The mention of raw ivy is quite significant as a symbol as it is usually associated with colonial aristocratic mansions with history. Here, a thin beard implies that all the construction is new and thus lacks historical value. Fitzgerald uses juxtaposition to contrast the living situations and thereby the lifestyle of both the classes, as the houses at East egg are presented as “white palaces’ immediately after. Ultimately, the disparity prevalent leads the reader to understand that even though Gatsby’s house was “colossal” it could not be seen as an equivalent to the houses in East Egg because it lacked class.

Later, Fitzgerald presents the attitude and behaviour shown by the upper class towards the newly rich by displaying the interactions that occur between them. Firstly, he depicts an interaction between Sloane, his wife, Tom, Nick and Gatsby. Here, Sloane’s wife “invites” Gatsby to dine with them, an invitation he hastily accepts due to his desperation to be a part of their class. However, as Tom soon clarifies when Gatsby is out of hearing range, “She doesn’t want him” and that “she has a big dinner party and he won’t know a soul there.” The reader understands the duplicitous nature of the upper class as they illustrate themselves as welcoming people but are quite the opposite. Alongside, it is also revealed that they value old connections over newly formed bonds. This is due to the fact that even though Sloane had a large dinner party, none would have known Gatsby there as they only interact with whoever they deem suitable in terms of class and not money. Through this interaction, the reader also understands that Nick would have been more accepted than Gatsby due to his family status even though he is not nearly as wealthy as him. A few scenes later, Fitzgerald also reveals that there are unwritten rules that “old money” follows by showing an interaction between Jordan and Tom. Jordan tells Tom that Gatsby is an Oxford graduate to which he replies by saying, “Like hell he is! He wears a pink suit.” The reader understands that even an innocent mistake like wearing a pink suit could be seen as a grave offence by the upper class. Through these interactions, Fitzgerald portrays the idea that there are certain rules that the upper class has been brought up with which they would never go against and that they never allow someone of supposed inferior birth to be a part of their group. These features make them appear quite a lot like cliques.

Towards the end of the book, while Gatsby awaits Daisy’s acceptance of going away with him, he speaks at length with Nick about the time he met Daisy. Here, Fitzgerald again presents the contrast between the newly rich and the upper class by juxtaposing Gatsby and Daisy’s house. Firstly, Nick while looking for cigarettes, describes Gatsby’s house as ” innumerable feet of dark wall” and the rooms in it as “musty”. The descriptions of the house are significant as it shows the reader that even though the house was enormous it had a dark quality to it as opposed to being a place that provided comfort. In addition to that, the fact that Nick remarked how the rooms were musty shows that Gatsby could not maintain his large estate well despite his wealth, at least in the eyes of Nick.  Then, as Gatsby and Nick continue to converse, Gatsby speaks about Daisy’s house. He remarks, “There was a ripe mystery about it, a hint of bedrooms up-stairs more beautiful and cool than other bedrooms”. This remark is pivotal to the readers’ understanding of the fact that the houses of the upper class could be distinguished from the rest as even though Gatsby’s house was very grand, it had a dark aura around it while Daisy’s house seemed ethereal. It also leads to the conclusion that being aristocratic was an experience which could not be had with wealth alone.

In conclusion, the fact that a central theme in The Great Gatsby is the clear distinction between new money and old money is exceedingly shocking because America as a democratic country is not supposed to have an “upper aristocratic” class as it is considered to be the epitome of a “merit based” system, wherein if someone works hard, they receive the benefits. The fact that all the houses shown are grand but have dissimilar qualities attached to them and that certain colours are not be worn amongst other values, show how being “old money” is an idea that cant be bought by wealth. The values and the presentation of old money as a clique showcases how the upper classes had long suppressed the lower classes and had continued to do so. It did not matter how much wealth someone outside the clique had acquired, they would never be allowed to climb up the social ladder. Eventually, all of these details make the reader question how merit based America really is.