Analysis Of Tennessee Williams A Streetcar Named Desire

Tennessee Williams once wrote “We have to distrust each other. It is our only defense…”(Williams). While this is not necessarily true, a form of that will be discussed here. Tennessee Williams was a Modernist writer, most of his notable works being between 1940 and 1950. It is difficult to fully understand his works. Shirley Galloway’s analysis of characters in Tennessee Williams’ A Streetcar Named Desire is flawed and one-dimensional, and illustrates this difficulty. To understand Williams, one must first understand his life. His first place of employment was his father’s shoe factory. However, this was not to be his career. His mother encouraged him unceasingly to become a writer, and he worked toward that just as unceasingly. His mother
However, contradictory characters, in the truest sense, are reprehensible, and absent from this play entirely. A character is not ‘contradictory’ simply because they have a series of conflicting beliefs. A character is contradictory when they hold and uphold beliefs, while also going against what they believe without having any reason to do so. Williams display of this difference is excellent. Of course, this difference in judgement of character is unique from person to person. However, one cannot disregard the beliefs and actions of characters when critiquing them, as Galloway seems to do. In fact, no scene in this play is mentioned by Galloway outside scene 10 and scene 2. Even then, the portrayals are inaccurate. Galloway states that there is no sexual tension between the main characters, Stanley and Blanche. But Blanche, knowing Stanley was married, spoke with him flirtatiously while he was half naked. In her analysis of scene 10, Galloway seems intent on abstractifying and justifying what is described in most society as rape. Some of her observations were correct. Regardless, she just doesn’t seem to understand the cinematographic impact that such a scene has today, let alone seventy or more years ago. It is simply baffling that someone could focus so intently on this one part of the scene, especially in such an extensive, character driven play. This is most especially true when such a scene brings nigh insurmountable future conflict between two characters. The scene really requires more