Caryl Churchill, “Far Away”, a play in three acts, Nick Hern Book, 2000, London.

 

 

Consuelo Hernández Rubio: Group B

 

      “Far Away” is a play where only three characters appear:

         -Joan, a young girl at first of the play and older later.

         -Harper: Joan’s aunt.

         -Todd: a young man with who Joan works when she is older.

    The play doesn’t show how the characters are. They show us, through their conversations, different themes.

    The play is constructed in three brief acts which seem not having connection between them. They happen in three different times:

      -The first scene sets in Harper’s house, at night.

      -The second act happens “several years later”

      -and the third act happens “several years later”.

 

    Joan is the character who connects the other two characters. First as a child and later as a young woman.

    In the first act, Joan is a visitor in Harper’s house (pag.9: Harper: “There might be things that are not your business when you’re a visitor in someone else’s house”). It’s at night and she can’t sleep. Then she starts to ask questions to her aunt about what she has seen. Her uncle “bundling someone into a shed” (pag.8), “there was a lorry” (pag.8), “I heard crying inside” (pag.9), “Why where the children in the shed?” (pag.11), “I could see the faces and which ones had blood on” (pag.11).

    Her aunt lies her to cover what her uncle is doing, but the secret is found out (pag.11: Harper: “You’ve found out something secret”). Harper explains to Joan that her uncle is “helping these people. He’s helping them escape. He’s giving them shelter” (pag.12: Harper), however, “He was hitting a man with a stick.” (pag.13: Joan).

    The author shows us a controversial point of view: Is Joan’s uncle really giving shelter or is he participating of genocide?.

    The second act has six scenes. Each one is in a different time (pag.16:1: “making a hat”; pag.18: 2: “Next day”; pag.20: 3: “Next day”; pag.22: 4: “Next day”; pag.24: 5: “Next day”; pag.24: 6: “A next week”), but all six scenes are in the same place where Joan, now grown up, and Todd work making hats.

    The difference between the scenes is what the hats are like (“more brightly decorated”, “big and extravagant”, “enormous and preposterous”, “new hats”).

    Joan and Todd talk about their work, the contracts (pag.19: Todd: “There something wrong with how we get the contracts”), the “management’s corrupt” (pag.21: Joan) and “what to do” (pag.21: Todd). Front this Joan thinks that if Todd came up with something (pag.21), he might lose his job (pag.23). Here, the author shows us the exploitation  of the working people.

     In the scene five, the hats “more enormous and preposterous ”are wearing by a “procession of….chained prisoners….on their way to execution”( pag.24). As Todd says: “the hats are ephemeral. It’s like a metaphor for something or other” (pag.25).

    Another time, the author shows us the genocide.

    In the third act Todd and Harper are in Harper’s house talking about a war which has encompassed the animals ( butterflies, wasps, “there were horses standing under the trees, and suddenly wasps attacked them out of the plums” (pag29: Todd), cats,…) as well the nations of the world.

    Through the metaphors, the horrors of the world are showed:

-pag.30: Harper: “cats….Did you know they’ve been killing babies?”, “In China.They jump in the cots when nobody’s looking”.

-pag.31: Harper: “massacre in Dar-es-Salaam”.

-pag.33: Harper: “waterbirds…always that terrible danger of being eaten” (by cocodriles).

-pag.33: Harper: “Mallards are not a good waterbird. They commit rape…”.

-pags.33-34: Todd and Harper: “You mean sweet little bambis?; You mean that ironically?; I mean it sarcastically.”

-pags.34-35: Todd: “I’ve shot cattle and children in Ethiopia. I’ve gassed mixed troops of Spanish, computer programmers…when my hands were full of blood….it was better than sex.”

-pag.35: Todd: “people hanging upside down by their feet”.

 

Opinion

 

    I think that the author has wanted that the reader or the spectator saw the horrors of the humanity: genocide, corruption, exploitation at work, violence, tortures, etc, through three different conversations and three different times, but joined between themselves through the same characters.

 

         In my opinion this play is very difficult to understand not only by these different situations but also by the strange metaphors introduced. It remember me “The animal Farm” by George Orwell where through the animals the author shows us the barbarises done by the humanity and “Ashes to Ashes” by Harold Pinter where it is showed too.