Arcadia

A play with so many dimensions, so many levels, rather like a complicated fugue or dance, part whodunit, part budding romance, part farce. There's something shamelessly professorial about it which may be offputting to some: its baroque array of references to a wide range of subjects ranging from Chaos Theory to literary criticism to academic shenanigans in fast-paced volleys of dialog tupical of Stoppard challenge the audience to keep up. But this is not hot air, every word means something, even the most casual, flippant aside. Nothing is wasted. Witty, romantic, elegiac, a play for the discerning theatregoer. It's worth reading and re-reading. If you like to be challenged and edified in your theatre-going, go see it. Twice if possible.

Another reviewer began the review with this: "Arcadia is one of the most touching and enlightening works of literature I have ever read. The interweaving of ideas from physics, fractals, literature, architecture, history, psychology and many other fields of knowledge hidden in the play is just perfect." I agree with the sentiment. I adored the live play; saw it twice! I also read the play afterwards -- now twice, too. The reviewer I quoted, though, got bogged down later in the review of whether Stoppard is brilliant enough as Einstein or is just showing off. The play is not a Philosophical Inquiry of Great Rigor. The ideas, to me anyway, are like the proverbial unicorn story: see one (wow! is it real?; a couple folks see it: super-wow; but once everyone sees it: "so what? it's a horse with a horn in its head."). The delight for me was not in the "novel" ideas, but in the way in which they are used as another means of entertainment: much as characters in an Eric Rohmer (French) Film might discuss Kant's Synthetic A Priori. The characters are IMMENSELY entertaining and that they discuss philosophy or math just adds to what is entertaining about them -- specifically it adds variety. So you have the usual drama subjects, but more too. The main thing then is this: ALL is WONDERFULLY done and you derive your pleasure from all the very well-done VARIETY of fun and drama and topics ALL NICELY WOVEN TOGETHER, not hodge-podged at all.

With the release of "Guildenstern and Rosencratz are Dead", Tom Stoppard emerged as an original voice in a literary theater world already overpopulated by past geniuses. Applying a deft combination of law of probability, nihilistic philosophizing, and comely tribute to the rich inheritance of Shakespeare, Stoppard articulated a definition of human death that was powerful and, most significantly, uniquely in his own words. In "Arcadia", an unmistakable shot at greatness, Stoppard expands both his thematic concerns and billing of characters to artistically express his own sensitivities to human drama. A quick description of the play, that it involves thermodynamics, time-travelling, and the parallelism of lives being lived in two different time periods, is enough to raise a curious eyebrow from most anyone. Does the play succeed? Yes and no. The characters are a mixed bag of lively personalities and terrible bores. Septimus Hodge and Thomasina Coverly dominate the play as the most engaging characters given the best lines to speak. Their swordsman-like rapport on the algebra of determinism is rapt, and Stoppard's blending of the wonders of science in a literary world largely allergic to numbers game is a breath of fresh air. Concurrently, how future characters Hannah Jarvis and Valentine Coverly react to the characters Septimus and Thomasina as they discover their personalities through old letters and mathematical proofs is the genius of the play, since their discovery of the past allows the audience to see how lives go on even after death and participates with our own in the present. Unfortunately, this thematic concern of life after death is fumbled a bit by ancillary characters which are necessary to clarify thematic concerns and move the plot forward but whose characterization got away from Tom somehow. Ezra Chater is a vacuous air that takes up space, Lady Croom's purported sexual attraction to Septimus goes nowhere, and Bernard Nightingale is drawn too simply as a paperthin 'villain' meant to act principally as a foil to Hannah and Valentine's pursuit of the past without true pathos of his own. To be considered a masterpiece, all the characters have to be legitimate realizations in their own way and the characterization has to be tight as a drum. Stoppard sightsees too often with ancillary characters and the result is a slightly out-of-focus play. To critically speak, Stoppard's philosophy on life as presented in "Arcadia" bears too close a resemblance to Anton Chekhov and his theatrical masterpieces "Three Sisters" and "The Cherry Orchard". Chekhov's cleverness and wit is all over the pages of "Arcadia", and the result is a voice that is only half Stoppard's own. Stoppard handles Chekhovian dramaturgy beautifully, but the end result is not the dark energy of "Rosencratz And Guilderstern are Dead", which so painfully captures Tom Stoppard's own young voice in torment, but a sort of amalgamation between Chekhov [in the treatment of the past] and Ibsen [in the treatment of the future.] And if a playwright speaks principally through one or even two characters in his play, then Stoppard is most assuredly speaking through Thomasina Coverly. And yet her own philosophy and angst towards life, if we can attribute it to Tom Stoppard's own, is only a beautiful recitation of Anton Chekhov's genius sublimed with algebra, calculus, and physics. In conclusion, it's a welcome sound to hear the beauty of math and science being given their proper due diligence in a literary work instead of being lambasted as somehow apart and irrelevant to the human experience. Science has a lot of wonderful things to relate to mankind in the field of humanities. And it's also equally wonderful to see a playwright fully push the limits of audience patience, intelligence, and attention with sensationally dense dialogue reserved for the conversation halls of MIT. But the play as a play, as a tragedy, does not hit its mark of greatness due to the aforementioned shortcomings. It fails to decline from thinking to feeling, and in so doing, has no heartbreak to call its own.

Arcadia is a play that takes place at Sidley Park, a stately country home in Derbyshire. The play shifts back and forth between the early 19th century and modern day Sidley Park. The action in both time periods takes place in a bare room with a large table. In the 19th century, Thomasina, the daughter of the house, is working with her tutor, Septimus Hodge; there are books and Hodge’s tortoise. In the modern time, Hannah Jarvis, an author, is working on a book about the history of the gardens – or, more precisely, about the hermit-genius who lived in the 19th century gardens like a “garden ornament” or “pottery gnome”. She is joined by, among others, Valentine, a son of the house, and his tortoise. In each time period, people come and go and dramas unfold. But the room and table remain constant. As the play proceeds, everything from both time periods remains on the table. The table and its contents are period neutral, and, by the end of the play, the table has become quite cluttered with objects. There are striking parallels between the two time periods. Early on, questioning her tutor whether God is a Newtonian, Thomasina asks “[a]m I the first person to have thought of this?” (p. 9). In the modern time, Chloe asks her brother “Valentine, do you think I’m the first person to think of this?” (p. 77). There is humor. Valentine explains to Hannah how her tea is getting cold – by itself. “Your tea will end up at room temperature. What’s happening to your tea is happening to everything everywhere….It’ll take a while but we’re all going to end up at room temperature.” (p. 82). The modern day dramas involve the 19th century dramas – an attempt to sort out the past with meager historical evidence. There is poetry and duels; parks and a hermitage; heat exchange and Lord Byron. And, there is Entropy. As the play progresses, so does the chaos. Toward the end of the play, the distinct time periods begin to bleed into one another. They proceed at the same time and intertwine. Chaos ensues. The result is a fascinating, intellectual drama. Arcadia is a great read, and I hope one day to see it performed. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

This is an amazing, touching, and grand piece of work that deals partially with the great complex systems of entropy and how they touch our lives. True to subject matter (and the author's own conceit), the play lays out a variety of different intertwining threads (across two different time frames) that all collide at the end into one, grand ending. I have read many pieces by Tom Stoppard and this one is one of my favourites. It's a work of great complexity, but also of great humanity. It is a Stoppard play, so it is a play of ideas, but he succeeds very well here in bringing in an amazingly successful human element. The characters are well crafted and well rounded, with great dialogue all around. I can't place enough accolades upon this play. Bottom line: go out and read it now, especially if you like thermodynamics.

This was for AP English. Okay read.

One of Tom Stoppard's greatest plays. Arcadia zaps back and forth between the early 1800s and modern-day (1990s) England, with the same country house as backdrop. In 1804, 13-year-old math genius Thomasina Coverly is being educated by her tutor, a friend of Lord Byron. Keeping up with the times, Coverly's father has ordered the park-like grounds transformed into a wild Romantic/gothic setting. In the 1990s, two rival literary researchers trace this change through the family's historical papers, and try to figure out what it meant, with help from the modern Coverly family. But that's only the plot. Brilliant ideas, slapstick and repartee fly between the characters, so fast that it's a good thing you're reading the book and can stop and re-read: Wait! What did she just invent? Did he really just say that??

Arcadia should have been popular 10 years ago. Today it is more important that it be performed. It may be too late 10 years from now. Tom Stoppard writes like George Bernard Shaw were still alive. That came as a surprise to me. I looked into it: He wrote my favorite movie "Shakespeare in Love". To me Arcadia asks the question: " Can Chaos theory and fractals bring back the days of reason and the greatness of the British Empire?" To which I answer:" No. but that is no reason for us not to believe that we can fight for a future where we control the rabbits and not the rabbits control us." How can we believe in a genius named Thomasina or a fellow who grouses about grouses? Arcadia was written while the history was very much in flux; before Per Bak became the modern Darwin and gave nature a method for a purpose. A monkey biting a man and a girl in ashes...this play should be made into a movie. It's time travel sequences demand more than the stage can give.