What do you think?
Rate this book
آه پدر،پدربيچاره،مامان تو را در گنجه آويزان كرده و من خيلي دلم گرفته
این نمایش پیچیده که در عین حال ترکیبی است از مضحکه و تراژدی عمدتا ذهن خواننده یا بیننده را بر 'گروتسک 'بودن شخصیت اصلی آن (مادام رز تپل) معطوف میسازد .نمایشنامه حاضر در قالب سه صحنه, بدون قطع, در هتلی در هاوانای کوبا میگذرد .
92 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1960
3 people are currently reading
283 people want to read
About the author
Arthur Kopit
57 books14 followersArthur Lee Kopit (born May 10, 1937, New York City) is an American playwright. He is a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist (Indians and Wings) and a three-time Tony Award nominee: Best Play, Indians, 1970; Best Play, Wings, 1979; and Best Book of a Musical, for Nine, 1982. He won the Vernon Rice Award (now known as the Drama Desk Award) in 1962 for his play Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mama's Hung You in the Closet and I'm Feelin' So Sad and was nominated for another Drama Desk Award in 1979 for his play Wings.[1]
Nine returned to Broadway in 2003 with Antonio Banderas as Guido and won two Tony Awards, including best revival; in 2009 Rob Marshall directed the film Nine based on Kopit's script, the principle cast consisting of Daniel Day-Lewis, Judi Dench, Nicole Kidman, Marion Cotillard, Penélope Cruz, Sophia Loren, Kate Hudson, and Fergie (singer).
Kopit attended Lawrence High School in Lawrence, Nassau County, New York.
Kopit attended Harvard University. His first plays were staged while still an undergraduate at Harvard University. Later, Kopit taught at Wesleyan University, Yale University, and the City College of New York. In 2005, Kopit donated his papers to the Fales Library at NYU.
Nine returned to Broadway in 2003 with Antonio Banderas as Guido and won two Tony Awards, including best revival; in 2009 Rob Marshall directed the film Nine based on Kopit's script, the principle cast consisting of Daniel Day-Lewis, Judi Dench, Nicole Kidman, Marion Cotillard, Penélope Cruz, Sophia Loren, Kate Hudson, and Fergie (singer).
Kopit attended Lawrence High School in Lawrence, Nassau County, New York.
Kopit attended Harvard University. His first plays were staged while still an undergraduate at Harvard University. Later, Kopit taught at Wesleyan University, Yale University, and the City College of New York. In 2005, Kopit donated his papers to the Fales Library at NYU.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
August 25, 2024
در بیشتر لحظاتِ طراحیِ مسیر تراژیکش نمایشنامۀ مهندسیشده و دقیقیـه. جذابیتش برای من جدا از چیزی که بهش اشاره شده و اون کاراکتر عجیبوغریب و گروتسکِ "مادام رُزپتل"ـه، بیشتر اتفاقاً خلق تصاویر گروتسکییه که کوپیت سعی داره اونها رو بسازه. "مرگ" توی این اثر شبیه دلقکییه که فقط تماشاگرا رو قراره بخندونه، چیزی که هم در صحنهی ابتدایی و خیلی پرجزئیاتتر در صحنۀ انتهایی باهاش مواجه میشیم؛ به خاطر همین برای من شبیه یه مضحکه و کارناوالیه که نویسنده قصد داره با ذهن مخاطبش بازی بکنه؛ همون کارناوالی که سروصداهاش رو گوشهوکنارهای نمایشنامه گاهی میشنویم.
June 26, 2011
زندگي دروغه عزيز من !كلمات نه،خود زندگي.با تمام زشتي ش درختاي سبزي پرورش مي ده كه آزارت مي دن و تو رو مي بره درست زير اونا،و وقتي تو سايه ش نفس راحتي كشيدي و گفتي (اوه خداي من،چه قشنگ) همون موقع پرنده اي كه روي شاخه ي بالا سرت نشسته فضله شو درست ول مي كنه وسط كله ت . زندگي همينه عزيز من، نه او چيزي كه به نظر مي آد
March 15, 2008
This play has a lot that I like in reading material: creepy sexual stuff, weird relationships with parents, strange, awkward characters, but the ending was a little more unresolved than I would have liked.
November 17, 2018
What an incredible play! I read this in high school. The absurdity of the play appealed to me. It was truly hilarious. Now, many, many years later, I begin to see much more depth contained within the play.
Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mamma's Hung You in the Closet and I'm Feelin' So Sad by Arthur Kopit opened on Broadway in 1963. It is considered a fine example of absurdist theater. As I read the play this time, the humor was stronger. Yet, the absurd aspects of the play's action took on a much different meaning for me. There was a purpose and a meaning behind the absurd elements written into the play. However, whenever one gets into the realm of "interpretation" one enters into subjective suppositions. Therefore, what I gathered from reading the play is purely my own interpretation. I know of no one else that has suggested these interpretations.
For twenty-five years I have been reading the works of Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung. Their approach to understanding literature in terms of myth has opened interpretive paths for me that I never saw before. This, then, is from where I got my ideas concerning the interpretation of the absurd elements in Oh Dad.
For me, Madame Rosepettle represents the Church. Her heavy-handed way of dealing with her son's contact with the material (secular) world I found to be an absurd exaggeration of the dogmatic blindness associated with organized religion. The rule is more important than the person for whom the rule was created.
Jonathan, Madame Rosepettle's son, represents Adam before the Fall. Jonathan struggles with his desire to be the obedient son while, at the same time, fighting with himself over his own desires. Jonathan's mother never refers to him by his real name. Instead she uses the various names of his father: Albert, Edward, Robinson. Jonathan does not exist as an individual for Madame Rosepettle just as the individual does not exist for the church. The individual must conform to the rules defined by the Mother Church. Port Royale, a city on an island in the Caribbean where the play takes place, represents the Garden of Eden.
Rosalie enters the play as an Eve figure, presenting temptation and a natural sense of human companionship, something not allowed by Jonathan's mother. Jonathan, fearful of turning away from his mother's demands, rejects Rosalie's advances in the most permanent of ways. He chokes the life out of her, not realizing that he is also condemning himself to the death sentence given to him by Madame Rosepettle with her restricting demands on his behavior.
I found it interesting that three of the play's characters' names referenced the rose: Madame Rosepettle, Commodore Roseabove and Rosalie. The rose is an ancient symbol of Christ.
In a play that seems to make no sense, in an attempt to find meaning, this is what I found. This is all subjective interpretation of a speculative nature. I do not contend I am right. I share this interpretation only as proof that whatever the relationship one has with the text being read, some effort at understanding must occur.
Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mamma's Hung You in the Closet and I'm Feelin' So Sad by Arthur Kopit opened on Broadway in 1963. It is considered a fine example of absurdist theater. As I read the play this time, the humor was stronger. Yet, the absurd aspects of the play's action took on a much different meaning for me. There was a purpose and a meaning behind the absurd elements written into the play. However, whenever one gets into the realm of "interpretation" one enters into subjective suppositions. Therefore, what I gathered from reading the play is purely my own interpretation. I know of no one else that has suggested these interpretations.
For twenty-five years I have been reading the works of Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung. Their approach to understanding literature in terms of myth has opened interpretive paths for me that I never saw before. This, then, is from where I got my ideas concerning the interpretation of the absurd elements in Oh Dad.
For me, Madame Rosepettle represents the Church. Her heavy-handed way of dealing with her son's contact with the material (secular) world I found to be an absurd exaggeration of the dogmatic blindness associated with organized religion. The rule is more important than the person for whom the rule was created.
Jonathan, Madame Rosepettle's son, represents Adam before the Fall. Jonathan struggles with his desire to be the obedient son while, at the same time, fighting with himself over his own desires. Jonathan's mother never refers to him by his real name. Instead she uses the various names of his father: Albert, Edward, Robinson. Jonathan does not exist as an individual for Madame Rosepettle just as the individual does not exist for the church. The individual must conform to the rules defined by the Mother Church. Port Royale, a city on an island in the Caribbean where the play takes place, represents the Garden of Eden.
Rosalie enters the play as an Eve figure, presenting temptation and a natural sense of human companionship, something not allowed by Jonathan's mother. Jonathan, fearful of turning away from his mother's demands, rejects Rosalie's advances in the most permanent of ways. He chokes the life out of her, not realizing that he is also condemning himself to the death sentence given to him by Madame Rosepettle with her restricting demands on his behavior.
I found it interesting that three of the play's characters' names referenced the rose: Madame Rosepettle, Commodore Roseabove and Rosalie. The rose is an ancient symbol of Christ.
In a play that seems to make no sense, in an attempt to find meaning, this is what I found. This is all subjective interpretation of a speculative nature. I do not contend I am right. I share this interpretation only as proof that whatever the relationship one has with the text being read, some effort at understanding must occur.
August 9, 2009
I can kinda see where this would have fit into my senior year AP English class in highschool, though I'm not sure what we would have done with it had we read it.
Being a props master right now and reading this, I feel for anyone who had to prop this show ever. On the other hand, what fun that must've been.
Being a props master right now and reading this, I feel for anyone who had to prop this show ever. On the other hand, what fun that must've been.
November 11, 2011
I read this the first time after it was first produced and published. I saw a production of it at that time that I really liked. Reading it now, I still like it, but it is very typical of the late 60s early 70s absurdist style, so it seems a bit dated. It reminds me of Christopher Durang, especially of his play, "Betty's Summer Vacation." The style has matured under Durang's hand.
September 18, 2008
One of my first directorial efforts ... and my Mom and Dad were in a production of this play, she was the ingenue, he was the corpse ... and I had the best time in the world working with my Madame Rosepettle ...
February 1, 2012
What a crazy play. We had to read this during honors English class in high school and I thought it was just silly. Imagine someone's mother having their husband stuffed by a taxidermist and carrying him around. Weird.
Read
August 4, 2007Yikes!!!! I did light patching for the actual play in college. Some crrrrrrrazy pleather corsets going on there. An intriguing, mature play in any case.
January 17, 2012
ناخدا – خانم ، شما قلب من رو فتح کردید … آن هم چه آسان
خانم – نه ناخدا ، تو خودت اونو باختی … اونم چه آسون
خانم – نه ناخدا ، تو خودت اونو باختی … اونم چه آسون
July 8, 2012
A very well made play. It actually started to read more like a book to me by the third scene. This psudoclassical tragifarce was definatley one of the most interesting things I have read.
January 20, 2019
I left stunned. Not from one event per se but by the entire story. I have more questions than I do opinion right now. Was Jonathan - Albert the truly insane one? Does the viewer/reader see the story through his eyes? Why am I left with a feeling that the mother is not as crazy as she originally seemed?
I am going to have to do some research to figure out how I feel.
Edit* I just did some research (I couldn't wait) on the history and some themes. I have come to the conclusion that yes, Jonathan is the insane one, but Madame is just as well.
Kopit has written what may be the most extreme take on the Oedipus complex ever (Oedipus Rex included). In fact, as I type this I realize you could easily see this play as a re-write of the Greek tragedy. I am ashamed that I didn't catch on to the symbolism of the minimal props. Man-Eating is the story behind the props.
As my review, I will say if this had not been written with such ridiculous and outrageous exaggeration it would have been too much. However, Kopit was able to at 23 years old create a story that does not leave one feeling things in any great quantity just thinking about what they have read and wondering "What does it mean?"
There is only one aspect I would like to point out that I think really illuminates Kopit's use of symbolism is the emergency ax, highlighted at the beginning of the play. This comes through as an obvious Deus ex Machina when Jonathan uses it to destroy what he believes ales him through the story. Clever on Kopit's part though I didn't realize the heavy Greek tragedy vibe until I started reading about the play has caused many metaphorical facepalms as in indignation at how long it took me to realize the obvious.
My final thoughts are: After you read this, give it a minute. Then read Oedipus Rex. I originally gave this three stars. I am bumping it to a four.
I am going to have to do some research to figure out how I feel.
Edit* I just did some research (I couldn't wait) on the history and some themes. I have come to the conclusion that yes, Jonathan is the insane one, but Madame is just as well.
Kopit has written what may be the most extreme take on the Oedipus complex ever (Oedipus Rex included). In fact, as I type this I realize you could easily see this play as a re-write of the Greek tragedy. I am ashamed that I didn't catch on to the symbolism of the minimal props. Man-Eating is the story behind the props.
As my review, I will say if this had not been written with such ridiculous and outrageous exaggeration it would have been too much. However, Kopit was able to at 23 years old create a story that does not leave one feeling things in any great quantity just thinking about what they have read and wondering "What does it mean?"
There is only one aspect I would like to point out that I think really illuminates Kopit's use of symbolism is the emergency ax, highlighted at the beginning of the play. This comes through as an obvious Deus ex Machina when Jonathan uses it to destroy what he believes ales him through the story. Clever on Kopit's part though I didn't realize the heavy Greek tragedy vibe until I started reading about the play has caused many metaphorical facepalms as in indignation at how long it took me to realize the obvious.
My final thoughts are: After you read this, give it a minute. Then read Oedipus Rex. I originally gave this three stars. I am bumping it to a four.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 25, 2021
.
«آه پدر، پدر بیچاره، مامان تو را در گنجه آویزان کرده و من خیلی دلم گرفته» عنوان نمایشنامهای است نوشتهی «آرتور کوپیت»، نمایشنامهنویس مطرح آمریکایی که درواقع با همین اثر مسیر شهرت برایش باز شده و وارد جریان حرفهای تئاتر در آمریکا شده است. من این کتاب را با ترجمهی «رامین ناصرنصیر» و «شهرام زرگر» و چاپشده توسط «انتشارات نیلا» خواندم.
نمایشنامه ماجرای زنی به اسم «مادام رُزپتل» را روایت میکند که دائما در حال سفر است و همسفرانش عبارتند از پسر هفدهسالهاش، جسد شوهرش، دو عدد گل گوشتخوار و یک عدد ماهی توی تُنگ که خوراکش گربههای خیابانی است!
نمایشنامه در سه صحنهی بدون قطع، در هاوانای کوبا اتفاق میافتد و یک ساختار سورئال و فانتزی دارد. داستان آن پر است از ایدههای هجوآلود، تصاویر گروتسکی و پوششی از کمدی سیاه نیز روی تمام اتفاقات، حتی وجه تراژیک اثر کشیده شده که جذابترش میکند.
ایدهی جسد توی کمد، گلهای بیاعصاب، شخصیتپردازی مادام رُزپتل سلطهجو و پسر درخودماندهاش که به کل با جهان بیرون بیگانه است، در کنار نگاه روانشناختی به شخصیتپردازیها و شکل روابط، از جذابیتهای این نمایشنامه است که جنبهی تصویری فوقالعادهای هم دارد و بارها روی صحنه رفته و در ایران هم اجرا شده است.
ترجمهی خوب �� روان این اثر نیز آن را به فارسی هم خواندنی کرده و خواننده میتواند خودش را کاملا در آن فضاهای دارک احساس کند.
خواندن این نمایشنامه برایم بسیار لذتبخش بود و پیشنهادش میکنم.
«آه پدر، پدر بیچاره، مامان تو را در گنجه آویزان کرده و من خیلی دلم گرفته» عنوان نمایشنامهای است نوشتهی «آرتور کوپیت»، نمایشنامهنویس مطرح آمریکایی که درواقع با همین اثر مسیر شهرت برایش باز شده و وارد جریان حرفهای تئاتر در آمریکا شده است. من این کتاب را با ترجمهی «رامین ناصرنصیر» و «شهرام زرگر» و چاپشده توسط «انتشارات نیلا» خواندم.
نمایشنامه ماجرای زنی به اسم «مادام رُزپتل» را روایت میکند که دائما در حال سفر است و همسفرانش عبارتند از پسر هفدهسالهاش، جسد شوهرش، دو عدد گل گوشتخوار و یک عدد ماهی توی تُنگ که خوراکش گربههای خیابانی است!
نمایشنامه در سه صحنهی بدون قطع، در هاوانای کوبا اتفاق میافتد و یک ساختار سورئال و فانتزی دارد. داستان آن پر است از ایدههای هجوآلود، تصاویر گروتسکی و پوششی از کمدی سیاه نیز روی تمام اتفاقات، حتی وجه تراژیک اثر کشیده شده که جذابترش میکند.
ایدهی جسد توی کمد، گلهای بیاعصاب، شخصیتپردازی مادام رُزپتل سلطهجو و پسر درخودماندهاش که به کل با جهان بیرون بیگانه است، در کنار نگاه روانشناختی به شخصیتپردازیها و شکل روابط، از جذابیتهای این نمایشنامه است که جنبهی تصویری فوقالعادهای هم دارد و بارها روی صحنه رفته و در ایران هم اجرا شده است.
ترجمهی خوب �� روان این اثر نیز آن را به فارسی هم خواندنی کرده و خواننده میتواند خودش را کاملا در آن فضاهای دارک احساس کند.
خواندن این نمایشنامه برایم بسیار لذتبخش بود و پیشنهادش میکنم.
January 18, 2022
This is one of the weirdest fucking plays I’ve ever read. But I loved it immensely.
A look at capitalism in the 50s in the form of a “Karen” and a creepy girl. I feel like a critique on the 50s that makes the way for the 60s
Mrs. Rosepettle was a genius character. As malicious as she was she’s only doing what she thinks is best because of the wrongs done to her. I loved her. Also witch? Maybe?
I liked Johnathan a lot too. The only slightly straight POV (in improv terms) perspective in a world full of absurd POVs. He provided a great lens for the audience to experience the other characters even in his own absurdity,
My favorite is when Mrs. Rosepettle is practically abusing the bellboys she remarks that’s she’s allowed because she is the tourist. I almost cried it’s so true that people with wealth are like this.
Johnathan is torn between two extremes- extreme shelter or extreme unshelteredness. But I think he wants something in the middle- on that airplane.
Also the cat eating fish… just freaky and hilarious. The whole setting felt like Adam’s family.
I’ve seen reviews viewing it also as a metaphor for the way religion shelters people. I like that a lot too
Linking this for me to read later: https://americanaejournal.hu/vol9no2/...
A look at capitalism in the 50s in the form of a “Karen” and a creepy girl. I feel like a critique on the 50s that makes the way for the 60s
Mrs. Rosepettle was a genius character. As malicious as she was she’s only doing what she thinks is best because of the wrongs done to her. I loved her. Also witch? Maybe?
I liked Johnathan a lot too. The only slightly straight POV (in improv terms) perspective in a world full of absurd POVs. He provided a great lens for the audience to experience the other characters even in his own absurdity,
My favorite is when Mrs. Rosepettle is practically abusing the bellboys she remarks that’s she’s allowed because she is the tourist. I almost cried it’s so true that people with wealth are like this.
Johnathan is torn between two extremes- extreme shelter or extreme unshelteredness. But I think he wants something in the middle- on that airplane.
Also the cat eating fish… just freaky and hilarious. The whole setting felt like Adam’s family.
I’ve seen reviews viewing it also as a metaphor for the way religion shelters people. I like that a lot too
Linking this for me to read later: https://americanaejournal.hu/vol9no2/...
May 24, 2024
“أوه، أبي، الفقير، ماما علقتك في الخزانة وأشعر بالحزن” هو عنوان مسرحية من تأليف آرثر كوبيت. تم عرضها لأول مرة في عام 1960. تدور أحداث المسرحية حول امرأة تحمل اسم “ماما” وابنها الذي يحمل اسم “جوناثان”. تقوم ماما بتعليق جثة زوجها في الخزانة، وتحاول إخفاء الأمر عن جوناثان. تتبع المسرحية مغامراتهما والأحداث التي تنشأ عن هذا الوضع الغريب.
في بداية المسرحية تقوم الام بالتدخل في مقابلة بين جوناثان وفتاة اغرم هو بها ثم تعرف من بعد ذلك ان الام "ماما" قامت باخفاء الحياة نفسها عن جوناثان ولا تريد منه ان يعرف العالم الخارجي وتظن انها تحميه بهذه الطريقة لانه تعرضت للخيانة من زوجها التي كانت تراه قبيحاً وتزوجته عند ٢٨ من عمرها.
في بداية المسرحية تقوم الام بالتدخل في مقابلة بين جوناثان وفتاة اغرم هو بها ثم تعرف من بعد ذلك ان الام "ماما" قامت باخفاء الحياة نفسها عن جوناثان ولا تريد منه ان يعرف العالم الخارجي وتظن انها تحميه بهذه الطريقة لانه تعرضت للخيانة من زوجها التي كانت تراه قبيحاً وتزوجته عند ٢٨ من عمرها.
November 7, 2023
Going to give this a quick oblivious review before i google the meaning and themes/symbolism here because I’m not smart enough
This was ok. It was a little slow for me and took me a couple tries to get into it. It was definitely weird and crazy but that’s the point. I loved the ending and the characters. That’s about it.
This was ok. It was a little slow for me and took me a couple tries to get into it. It was definitely weird and crazy but that’s the point. I loved the ending and the characters. That’s about it.
April 5, 2020
This is such a wild play. So many things are going on. I love the monologues and Madame Rosepettle is just wonderful. I'd love to see this live one day. I would totally direct this play.
May 11, 2021
Just. Terrible.
November 25, 2021
A big surprise for me after not taking Kopit very seriously. Actually one of the best plays I've ever read. Completely original, both hilarious and disturbing, and sad.
February 1, 2023
A very strange, surreal play, toying with the fun little adventure comedies of the 50s and turning it into something sinister and utterly inexplicable.
July 21, 2025
I’m so confused but I love the questions I have
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 6, 2017
what's wrong with the madame
August 5, 2011
Awesome -- I was moved after reading this to read his other work (I know the story and have the cast CD of 'Nine'), wish I hadn't started with 'Road to Nirvana' -- what a mess. Anyhow, 'Oh Dad, Poor Dad...' employs terrific absurdist elements (Mamma feeds cats to her piranha and travels with the corpse of her murdered husband) to lighten and accent his disturbing depiction of the overbearing, suffocating mother phenomenon (or myth, depending on your viewpoint...).
June 28, 2014
(Fireside Theatre Book Club Edition 1960 89pgs)
Wow! The play is twisted and dark. I would have loved to see Gingold and Pendleton in action.
Madame Rosepettle was a force to be reckoned with. Was it to protect her son or mere insanity? Or both? My imagination is running wild and wondering if a few of the characters only existed in Madame R.'s head or Jonathan's head? Heavy.
Wow! The play is twisted and dark. I would have loved to see Gingold and Pendleton in action.
Madame Rosepettle was a force to be reckoned with. Was it to protect her son or mere insanity? Or both? My imagination is running wild and wondering if a few of the characters only existed in Madame R.'s head or Jonathan's head? Heavy.
February 27, 2013
The character of Jonathan has his stuttering actually written into his dialogue and it's an-an-anoying. Just put in the stage directions that he stutters. It was kind of funny in a Love American Style meets Night Gallery kind of way.
Read
April 14, 2008really goo, absurd!!!
November 25, 2012
only read Oh Dad, Poor Dad
May 13, 2013
One wild and funny play with HUGE monologues for the main character, Madame Rosepettle.
October 18, 2019
What is the meaning of this?
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews