What do you think?
Rate this book
After the Fall
Quentin is a successful lawyer in New York, but inside his head he is struggling with his own sense of guilt and the shadows of his past relationships. One of these an ill-fated marriage to the charming and beautiful Maggie, who went from operating a switchboard to become a self-destructive star - a singer everyone wanted a piece of.
After the Fall is often seen as the most explicitly autobiographical of Arthur Miller's plays, and Maggie as an unflinching portrait of Miller's ex-wife Marilyn Monroe, only two years after her suicide. But in its psychological acuity and depth, and its brilliant, dreamlike structure, it is a literary, and not just biographical, masterpiece.
128 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1964
About the author
Arthur Miller
562 books3,434 followersWorks of American playwright Arthur Asher Miller include
Death of a Salesman
(1949), for which he won a Pulitzer Prize, and
The Crucible
(1953).
This essayist, a prominent figure in literature and cinema for over 61 years, composed a wide variety, such as celebrated A View from the Bridge and All My Sons , still studied and performed worldwide. Miller often in the public eye most famously refused to give evidence to the un-American activities committee of the House of Representatives, received award for drama, and married Marilyn Monroe. People at the time considered the greatest Miller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_...
This essayist, a prominent figure in literature and cinema for over 61 years, composed a wide variety, such as celebrated A View from the Bridge and All My Sons , still studied and performed worldwide. Miller often in the public eye most famously refused to give evidence to the un-American activities committee of the House of Representatives, received award for drama, and married Marilyn Monroe. People at the time considered the greatest Miller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 235 reviews
February 5, 2019
Si todas las obras de Miller tienen o parecen buscar la catarsis, esta obra es la quintaesencia de su manifiesta necesidad de confesión y de obtener clemencia y, de forma más acuciante aún, de conseguir perdonarse a sí mismo.
Tras La muerte de un viajante, es mi preferida entre las cinco que componen el volumen de “Teatro reunido” de Tusquets. Me gustó el desgarro con el que está escrita, la sinceridad con la que trata los sucesos más relevantes de su vida y que marcaron el carácter de su obra teatral.
Es destacable el papel que solía destinar a las mujeres, …
“¡Dichosas mujeres, cuánto daño me han hecho!”… la severidad con la que es juzgada la naturaleza humana,…
“¿Habrá que achacarlo todo a las madres? ¿No hay madres que se lleven la insatisfacción a la tumba, que no quiebren la lealtad de sus hijos y se vayan de este mundo cargando con la culpa de lo que no hicieron?”
“juzgo, sí, y además con severidad, cuando en realidad lo que siento es desconcierto”… la relevancia que concede a valores como la fidelidad, la lealtad, la moral.
“tienes que decidir lo que sientes sobre un ser humano en concreto. Por un vez en la vida. Y entonces tal vez decidas lo que sientes sobre otros seres humanos”
“tal vez, la verdad lo único que hace es matar... Entonces, ¿cómo hay que vivir ¿Una mentira viable? ¡Pero para eso se necesita una conciencia tranquila! O muerta. No ver la maldad en uno mismo..., ¡ahí está la fuerza! Hay que acabar con la conciencia.”
Es duro llegar al final de la vida y descubrir que todo ha sido una equivocación tras otra, …
“La vida fue para mí como un caso pendiente de juicio… ahora pienso que, para mí, el desastre empezó realmente cuando un día levanté los ojos y me di cuenta que el estrado estaba vacío.”… que uno mismo es el defectuoso, …
“Quise enfrentarme a lo peor que me cabía imaginar: que era incapaz de amar “… y, aunque alcanza a vislumbrar la clave, …
“Al final uno debe abrazar su vida”… no estoy nada seguro de que realmente consiguiera la paz consigo mismo.
No quiero terminar mi comentario sin hacer referencia al papel de Maggie, claramente Marilyn Monroe. No cabe duda de que la imagen creada contribuyó a la leyenda más caricaturesca de la actriz —su candidez e ingenuidad, su generosidad, sus inseguridades, sus desequilibrios…—, un retrato no exento de un sentimiento de culpa —“Tú lo que quieres es una mujer que cree a tu alrededor (…) un ambiente sin conflicto alguno, y tú campar a tus anchas colmado de elogios”— ni de espeluznantes reproches —“Un suicidio mata a dos personas, ese es su objetivo” —.
May 13, 2019
I have decided to re-read or listen to productions of Arthur Miller's plays, many of which I have taught or seen produced many times. I'd never read this play or seen it, after heard it was interesting, but somehow self-serving, focused as it is in part on his relationship to Marilyn Monroe, with whom he had divorced two years previous to the first production of the play. I listened to an LA Theaterworks production over the last couple days, starring Anthony Paglia, who plays a lawyer stand-in for Miller, Quentin, reflecting on his loves and losses.
The play is a kind of memory play, where Quentin sits on an almost bare stage and returns to various memories of women in his life--his marriages, affairs, his mother--touching on the Holocaust, the McCarthy Trials, the Stock Market Crash, and other incidents. The controversial center of the play is the self-destruction of a show business idol, Maggie, to whom he is married.
Miller uses Quentin's most recent love affair, with Holga, set in the present, to examine his past. The structure of the play is remarkable, but the play is less compelling than other Miller plays that are less about him, in my opinion. A central theme is denial, both American denial and personal denial; in order to make a significant commitment to Holga, Quentin must face the ways he has been in denial much of his life, and comes to terms with his failures, his various "falls." Many reviewers and audiences disliked his portrayal of Maggie/Marilyn for various reasons, which I understand, but disagree it felt ultimately self-serving. The "Fall" of Eden for Miller, as in all of our own falls, seems to create the conditions for the possibility of conscious choices, for redemption.
I liked this play, find it intriguing, but I like The Crucible, All my Sons and Death of a Salesman, his masterpieces, much better.
The play is a kind of memory play, where Quentin sits on an almost bare stage and returns to various memories of women in his life--his marriages, affairs, his mother--touching on the Holocaust, the McCarthy Trials, the Stock Market Crash, and other incidents. The controversial center of the play is the self-destruction of a show business idol, Maggie, to whom he is married.
Miller uses Quentin's most recent love affair, with Holga, set in the present, to examine his past. The structure of the play is remarkable, but the play is less compelling than other Miller plays that are less about him, in my opinion. A central theme is denial, both American denial and personal denial; in order to make a significant commitment to Holga, Quentin must face the ways he has been in denial much of his life, and comes to terms with his failures, his various "falls." Many reviewers and audiences disliked his portrayal of Maggie/Marilyn for various reasons, which I understand, but disagree it felt ultimately self-serving. The "Fall" of Eden for Miller, as in all of our own falls, seems to create the conditions for the possibility of conscious choices, for redemption.
I liked this play, find it intriguing, but I like The Crucible, All my Sons and Death of a Salesman, his masterpieces, much better.
January 13, 2014
Quite possibly the worst play I've ever read, and please take into consideration that I went to college with playwrights and was forced to read their crap. Imagine Arthur Miller weepily masturbating onstage for an hour and a half.
This play was worse. Though similar.
I also don't care for this perpetuated image of Marilyn Monroe being a failure. As a child she was the victim of sexual abuse, abandonment, and neglect, all while growing up in dozens of foster homes. Of course she abused drugs! It made me feel like a voyeuristic pervert reading about her through his eyes (though cliché as his writing of it is). It's easy to pick on the dead when they can't defend themselves.
And had it not been for all the juicy Monroe scenes, no way would this play have been produced. It lacks action and originality. Read some of the dialogue aloud--sounds like a soap opera. But with Nazis and a starlet.
This play was worse. Though similar.
I also don't care for this perpetuated image of Marilyn Monroe being a failure. As a child she was the victim of sexual abuse, abandonment, and neglect, all while growing up in dozens of foster homes. Of course she abused drugs! It made me feel like a voyeuristic pervert reading about her through his eyes (though cliché as his writing of it is). It's easy to pick on the dead when they can't defend themselves.
And had it not been for all the juicy Monroe scenes, no way would this play have been produced. It lacks action and originality. Read some of the dialogue aloud--sounds like a soap opera. But with Nazis and a starlet.
July 6, 2021
We conspired to violate the past, and the past is holy, and its horrors are the holiest of all.
After the Fall is unique within Arthur Miller’s oeuvre, both in structure and content. A man is seated on a chair on a stark set talking to a listener. As he narrates, the play unfolds in a series of flashback of his life. The life being narrated is obviously that of the playwright himself — barely concealed autobiography.
Quinten, the lawyer who stands in for Miller brutally accesses his life, his relationships with his ex wives, with his mother, with his friends. He wrestles with guilt, with the illusion of innocence, and with personal culpability. His doubt and guilt are almost tangible, as he remembers past failings with both the major women in his life and with friends he fears he failed.
In the first half of the play, Miller critiques not only his own life, but in a larger sense is dissecting the 20th century. The ‘29 market crash, the Nazi death camps, dropping the bomb, and the McCarthy hearings are all addressed through the lens of his own life and musings. Something that particularly struck me was that in addressing the McCarthy witch-hunts he doesn’t just take the standard position expected from a good liberal leftist. Yes he attacks the posturing little men who ran that circus, but at the same time explores the guilt of the Old Left who may have realized their culpability with Stalinism, and the guilt some felt for remaining silent about suspected horrors in service to a larger cause. He uses this to explain the reasons some people named names.
Of course, what this play is most famous (or infamous) for is its exploration of Miller’s relationship with and marriage to Marilyn Monroe, here portrayed as Maggie, a popular singer. The play was first performed only two years after her tragic death, and it was Miller’s exploration of their relationship that was hugely polarizing then, and to a certain extent remains so now. Miller was accused of ghoulish exploitation, and also of being self serving in how he portrayed the relationship.
While I found the last section of the play that concentrated nearly exclusively on their marriage weaker than its earlier parts, I did not view this as out of bounds. After the Fall is a strong, self-examining autobiographical play, and could hardly have been written without dealing with this famous relationship. Nor is it reasonable to expect a coldly objective treatment from the husband, or to expect him to be significantly enlightened beyond his times into what moderns consider acceptable attitudes. Miller judged himself harshly in his play, and I do not feel that portraying his failed marriage to Monroe as he remembered it invalidated the play, however uncomfortable it may be.
After the Fall is unique within Arthur Miller’s oeuvre, both in structure and content. A man is seated on a chair on a stark set talking to a listener. As he narrates, the play unfolds in a series of flashback of his life. The life being narrated is obviously that of the playwright himself — barely concealed autobiography.
Quinten, the lawyer who stands in for Miller brutally accesses his life, his relationships with his ex wives, with his mother, with his friends. He wrestles with guilt, with the illusion of innocence, and with personal culpability. His doubt and guilt are almost tangible, as he remembers past failings with both the major women in his life and with friends he fears he failed.
In the first half of the play, Miller critiques not only his own life, but in a larger sense is dissecting the 20th century. The ‘29 market crash, the Nazi death camps, dropping the bomb, and the McCarthy hearings are all addressed through the lens of his own life and musings. Something that particularly struck me was that in addressing the McCarthy witch-hunts he doesn’t just take the standard position expected from a good liberal leftist. Yes he attacks the posturing little men who ran that circus, but at the same time explores the guilt of the Old Left who may have realized their culpability with Stalinism, and the guilt some felt for remaining silent about suspected horrors in service to a larger cause. He uses this to explain the reasons some people named names.
Of course, what this play is most famous (or infamous) for is its exploration of Miller’s relationship with and marriage to Marilyn Monroe, here portrayed as Maggie, a popular singer. The play was first performed only two years after her tragic death, and it was Miller’s exploration of their relationship that was hugely polarizing then, and to a certain extent remains so now. Miller was accused of ghoulish exploitation, and also of being self serving in how he portrayed the relationship.
While I found the last section of the play that concentrated nearly exclusively on their marriage weaker than its earlier parts, I did not view this as out of bounds. After the Fall is a strong, self-examining autobiographical play, and could hardly have been written without dealing with this famous relationship. Nor is it reasonable to expect a coldly objective treatment from the husband, or to expect him to be significantly enlightened beyond his times into what moderns consider acceptable attitudes. Miller judged himself harshly in his play, and I do not feel that portraying his failed marriage to Monroe as he remembered it invalidated the play, however uncomfortable it may be.
December 24, 2011
Pretentious piffle from a likewise playwrote who damns
his far more talented movie star exwife.
his far more talented movie star exwife.
July 8, 2009
Floored me. Here's me, on the floor. It haunts me.
August 5, 2023
کل داستان توی سر کوئنتین، شخصیت اول داستان میگذره. آدمها در طول نمایش خیلی جاها ظاهر میشن و یه دیالوگی رو میگن و یه حسی رو منتقل میکنن و بعد میرن.
موضوع، دیالوگ ها و خط داستانی رو دوست داشتم، هرچند به خاطر پرش های زمانی و اینکه همه چیز در سر شخصیت داستان میگذره و حالت خاطره و خیال داره، یک مقدار دنبال کردن داستان نیاز به تمرکز و فکر داشت.
در کل مدت خوندن نمایشنامه به این فکر میکردم که "نوشتن" این نمایشنامه چقدر کار سختی بوده!
این اولین نمایشنامه ای بود که از میلر میخوندم. احتمالا بعدها دوباره سراغ بقیه اثارش برم.
موضوع، دیالوگ ها و خط داستانی رو دوست داشتم، هرچند به خاطر پرش های زمانی و اینکه همه چیز در سر شخصیت داستان میگذره و حالت خاطره و خیال داره، یک مقدار دنبال کردن داستان نیاز به تمرکز و فکر داشت.
در کل مدت خوندن نمایشنامه به این فکر میکردم که "نوشتن" این نمایشنامه چقدر کار سختی بوده!
این اولین نمایشنامه ای بود که از میلر میخوندم. احتمالا بعدها دوباره سراغ بقیه اثارش برم.
April 4, 2015
Nope. Wasn't really a fan of this one. Very disjointed, confusing, hard to follow along. It all takes place inside one man's mind, so things jump around a lot. Characters are despicable, moody, and their choices seem illogical or at least inexplicable in this context.
September 12, 2007
completely unputdownable, heartbreaking and fragile and aching and engrossing from the first page. it makes it even more riveting knowing that its about his (of course) complicated relationship with marilyn monroe. im desperate to see this acted, and im even more desperate to play the role of maggie. someone somwhere please, let me play that role.
December 14, 2015
December of Drama 2015, day thirteen
Well, it finally happened. When I picked out two Arthur Miller plays to read this year, I was consciously trying to avoid the one he wrote about his marriage with Marilyn Monroe. I'd forgotten the title of it. I chose wisely, initially: The View from the Bridge, and The Price-- except the volume of his work that I checked out (1964-1982) didn't have The View from the Bridge. So what did I substitute? The first play in the collection: After the Fall. Which, of course, is the one he wrote about his marriage with Marilyn Monroe.
Now, if only it had just been about that, it might have been more enjoyable. The first thing I noticed was the length: 129 pages, which probably translates to nearly a three-hour performance. It's bloated. He could really have jettisoned all the stuff about concentration camps and the House Un-American Activities Committee, considering he addressed that whole witch hunt more intelligently and obliquely in The Crucible, and tightened this up. Instead it's kind of half-baked, meandering, and ultimately kind of a bore that had me imagining audience members in the sixties falling asleep watching it, only to nudge each other awake when it gets to the Marilyn part. Now of course it's not that overt-- her character is 'Maggie,' a singer instead of an actress, just as Arthur's stand-in is 'Quentin,' a lawyer instead of a playwright, but the veil is very thin. You're left with a revealing portrait of Miller as a tortured, conflicted and uptight (although honest) individual, and one of Marilyn as a deeply damaged and depressed person. This was interesting, but it just went on too long.
Well, it finally happened. When I picked out two Arthur Miller plays to read this year, I was consciously trying to avoid the one he wrote about his marriage with Marilyn Monroe. I'd forgotten the title of it. I chose wisely, initially: The View from the Bridge, and The Price-- except the volume of his work that I checked out (1964-1982) didn't have The View from the Bridge. So what did I substitute? The first play in the collection: After the Fall. Which, of course, is the one he wrote about his marriage with Marilyn Monroe.
Now, if only it had just been about that, it might have been more enjoyable. The first thing I noticed was the length: 129 pages, which probably translates to nearly a three-hour performance. It's bloated. He could really have jettisoned all the stuff about concentration camps and the House Un-American Activities Committee, considering he addressed that whole witch hunt more intelligently and obliquely in The Crucible, and tightened this up. Instead it's kind of half-baked, meandering, and ultimately kind of a bore that had me imagining audience members in the sixties falling asleep watching it, only to nudge each other awake when it gets to the Marilyn part. Now of course it's not that overt-- her character is 'Maggie,' a singer instead of an actress, just as Arthur's stand-in is 'Quentin,' a lawyer instead of a playwright, but the veil is very thin. You're left with a revealing portrait of Miller as a tortured, conflicted and uptight (although honest) individual, and one of Marilyn as a deeply damaged and depressed person. This was interesting, but it just went on too long.
Read
June 13, 2020Wow. Wow wow wow wow wow. I read this to get a picture of the inner workings of a cerebral narcissist.
And it's all there.
-Prodigy writer, put on a pedestal as a child, competition with sibling
-demands constant praise and admiration (narcissistic supply) from wife
-coldness, ignoring his wife at parties while flirting with other women. To Louise: "I don't sleep with other women, but I think I behave as though I do"
-subsumes wife into his own being - Quentin to Louise: "When you've finally become a separate person, what the hell is there?"
-values "social contract" over wife, always takes the side of others (ie Maggie and the cellist)
-gaslighting - telling Louise "Louise, I worry about you all day. And all night." (false compassion)
and, obviously, his intent to institutionalize Maggie
-obsession with power:
"Well that's power isn't it? To influence a girl to change her nose, her life?"
"Not to see one's own evil - there's power! And rightness too! - so kill conscience. Kill it. Know all, admit nothing, shave closely, remember birthdays, open car doors, pursue Louise not with truth but with attention. Be uncertain on your own time, in bed be absolute."
And, ultimately, inability to love. Quentin admits: "That's just it. That I could have brought two women so different to the same accusation - it closed a circle for me. And I wanted to face the worst thing I could imagine - that I could not love. And I wrote it down, like a letter from hell."
The post-war despair, the killing of conscience, beyond good and evil, all bundled up into one man - highlighted superbly and disturbingly with the concentration camp imagery.
Miller's guilt and self-loathing are on full display, but like both Louise and Maggie point out to him, awareness is not enough. He has to want to change his hurtful behavior. He has to want to love.
I knew I would sympathize with Marilyn's character but I found myself identifying immensely with Mary Slattery, too. I thought their marriage fell apart mainly because he cheated with Marilyn (and others, probably) but nope! He narcissistically abused/discarded her, too.
Some quotes from Louise that were so accurate they were scary:
"What is it? The moment I begin to assert myself it seems to threaten you. I don't think you *want* me to be happy."
"I don't intend to be ashamed of myself anymore. I used to think it was normal, or even that you don't see me because I'm not worth seeing. But I think now that you don't really see any woman."
"I demanded nothing for much too long."
"Look, Quentin, you want a woman to provide an atmosphere, in which there are never any issues, and you'll fly around in a constant bath of praise - "
------------
And some of Maggie's most insightful quotes:
"If I want something you should ask yourself why, why does she want it, not why she shouldn't have it...That's why I don't smile, I feel I'm fighting all the time to make you *see*. You're like a little boy, you don't see the knives people hide."
"When I walked into the party you didn't even put your arms around me. I felt like one of those wives or something!"
Re: wanting Quentin to stand up for her:
"When your mother tells me I'm getting fat, I know where I am. And when you don't do anything about it."
"But what can I do?"
"Slap her down, that's what you do!"
And, on their WEDDING DAY, when he let Elsie flirt with him and promiscuously hug him.
Him: "But what could I do?"
M: "Just tell her to knock it off!"
"you should look at me as if I *existed* or something"
(Louise said something similar, prompting his "letter from hell" quote ^)
Miller's supposed compassion is not backed by actions... "I hate seeing you writhing in pain"...but unwilling/unable to provide the love that would relieve the pain... "I just wish you could find some joy in your life."
----------------------------
Arthur Miller was a psychopath. Of course he was a genius. Perhaps he tried to love. He was simply incapable of the spectrum of human emotions and compassion. I do believe it took a certain amount of courage to write this play and admit his guilt and despair. His inner dialogue reveals a deeply unhappy man, proving that the blueprint of the narcissistic life does not in fact bring fulfillment. He writes of hope in regards to his final wife. Holga was Quentin's ideal "thick skinned" woman. From what I know about Miller's marriage to Ingeborg, while she seemed to be perfect to him and make him happy, he was still abusive. They had a son with Down Syndrome and Miller refused to see the child, demanding that he be institutionalized against his mother's wishes. How's her thick skin protecting her and her son from this overbearing, eugenicist, destructive, ableist, controlling, judgmental, anti-compassionate man? Apparently Daniel Day Lewis one day convinced the curmudgeonly, ancient Miller to visit his son, but by then it was too late...
----------------------
I was expecting, since this is all Miller's perspective, for Mary and Marilyn to be completely gaslighted out of existence in this play, painted as caricature "hysterical women." But no - their dialogue is completely rational and their arguments sound (with the exception of a few drunken rants from Marilyn). Miller just STILL doesn't see his errors fully, and still evidently bewildered as to how he could have ever done better. "This is exactly what I mean, Quentin. You are still defending it. Right now." (Louise)
His introspection is fatalistic, full of guilt, shame, self-loathing - with regards to ALL the relationships in his life, including family. There is a lack of resolution or repentance. Just a sad, defeatist recognition..."that's just how I am" attitude... with the intent to keep plowing forward, probably hurting more people in the future. Searingly insightful, but morally broken.
I agree with the critics that this play was exploitative of both Marilyn and Mary. Placing himself into the narrative of Marilyn's death revealed the deep guilt he felt - that he felt he in fact had killed her - but felt like a theft of very intimate details that no longer belonged to him.
I have to say I'm grateful to Miller for writing this play so honestly. It's more of an explanation than I've ever received from a cerebral narcissist before. It's given me immense perspective and, consequently, validation and sanity.
-------------------
"I mean, she's not your rib."
I, too, lived in a false Eden with a false Adam. It was always after the fall.
And it's all there.
-Prodigy writer, put on a pedestal as a child, competition with sibling
-demands constant praise and admiration (narcissistic supply) from wife
-coldness, ignoring his wife at parties while flirting with other women. To Louise: "I don't sleep with other women, but I think I behave as though I do"
-subsumes wife into his own being - Quentin to Louise: "When you've finally become a separate person, what the hell is there?"
-values "social contract" over wife, always takes the side of others (ie Maggie and the cellist)
-gaslighting - telling Louise "Louise, I worry about you all day. And all night." (false compassion)
and, obviously, his intent to institutionalize Maggie
-obsession with power:
"Well that's power isn't it? To influence a girl to change her nose, her life?"
"Not to see one's own evil - there's power! And rightness too! - so kill conscience. Kill it. Know all, admit nothing, shave closely, remember birthdays, open car doors, pursue Louise not with truth but with attention. Be uncertain on your own time, in bed be absolute."
And, ultimately, inability to love. Quentin admits: "That's just it. That I could have brought two women so different to the same accusation - it closed a circle for me. And I wanted to face the worst thing I could imagine - that I could not love. And I wrote it down, like a letter from hell."
The post-war despair, the killing of conscience, beyond good and evil, all bundled up into one man - highlighted superbly and disturbingly with the concentration camp imagery.
Miller's guilt and self-loathing are on full display, but like both Louise and Maggie point out to him, awareness is not enough. He has to want to change his hurtful behavior. He has to want to love.
I knew I would sympathize with Marilyn's character but I found myself identifying immensely with Mary Slattery, too. I thought their marriage fell apart mainly because he cheated with Marilyn (and others, probably) but nope! He narcissistically abused/discarded her, too.
Some quotes from Louise that were so accurate they were scary:
"What is it? The moment I begin to assert myself it seems to threaten you. I don't think you *want* me to be happy."
"I don't intend to be ashamed of myself anymore. I used to think it was normal, or even that you don't see me because I'm not worth seeing. But I think now that you don't really see any woman."
"I demanded nothing for much too long."
"Look, Quentin, you want a woman to provide an atmosphere, in which there are never any issues, and you'll fly around in a constant bath of praise - "
------------
And some of Maggie's most insightful quotes:
"If I want something you should ask yourself why, why does she want it, not why she shouldn't have it...That's why I don't smile, I feel I'm fighting all the time to make you *see*. You're like a little boy, you don't see the knives people hide."
"When I walked into the party you didn't even put your arms around me. I felt like one of those wives or something!"
Re: wanting Quentin to stand up for her:
"When your mother tells me I'm getting fat, I know where I am. And when you don't do anything about it."
"But what can I do?"
"Slap her down, that's what you do!"
And, on their WEDDING DAY, when he let Elsie flirt with him and promiscuously hug him.
Him: "But what could I do?"
M: "Just tell her to knock it off!"
"you should look at me as if I *existed* or something"
(Louise said something similar, prompting his "letter from hell" quote ^)
Miller's supposed compassion is not backed by actions... "I hate seeing you writhing in pain"...but unwilling/unable to provide the love that would relieve the pain... "I just wish you could find some joy in your life."
----------------------------
Arthur Miller was a psychopath. Of course he was a genius. Perhaps he tried to love. He was simply incapable of the spectrum of human emotions and compassion. I do believe it took a certain amount of courage to write this play and admit his guilt and despair. His inner dialogue reveals a deeply unhappy man, proving that the blueprint of the narcissistic life does not in fact bring fulfillment. He writes of hope in regards to his final wife. Holga was Quentin's ideal "thick skinned" woman. From what I know about Miller's marriage to Ingeborg, while she seemed to be perfect to him and make him happy, he was still abusive. They had a son with Down Syndrome and Miller refused to see the child, demanding that he be institutionalized against his mother's wishes. How's her thick skin protecting her and her son from this overbearing, eugenicist, destructive, ableist, controlling, judgmental, anti-compassionate man? Apparently Daniel Day Lewis one day convinced the curmudgeonly, ancient Miller to visit his son, but by then it was too late...
----------------------
I was expecting, since this is all Miller's perspective, for Mary and Marilyn to be completely gaslighted out of existence in this play, painted as caricature "hysterical women." But no - their dialogue is completely rational and their arguments sound (with the exception of a few drunken rants from Marilyn). Miller just STILL doesn't see his errors fully, and still evidently bewildered as to how he could have ever done better. "This is exactly what I mean, Quentin. You are still defending it. Right now." (Louise)
His introspection is fatalistic, full of guilt, shame, self-loathing - with regards to ALL the relationships in his life, including family. There is a lack of resolution or repentance. Just a sad, defeatist recognition..."that's just how I am" attitude... with the intent to keep plowing forward, probably hurting more people in the future. Searingly insightful, but morally broken.
I agree with the critics that this play was exploitative of both Marilyn and Mary. Placing himself into the narrative of Marilyn's death revealed the deep guilt he felt - that he felt he in fact had killed her - but felt like a theft of very intimate details that no longer belonged to him.
I have to say I'm grateful to Miller for writing this play so honestly. It's more of an explanation than I've ever received from a cerebral narcissist before. It's given me immense perspective and, consequently, validation and sanity.
-------------------
"I mean, she's not your rib."
I, too, lived in a false Eden with a false Adam. It was always after the fall.
April 18, 2026
نمایشنامه پس از سقوط از آرتور میلر شبیه هیچکدوم از نمایشنامههای دیگهای که ازش خوندم نبود. یه داستان ساده و روایت مشخص نداشت و یکم فضای سورئالی داشت. تمامی مکانها و شخصیتها تو ذهن یک نفر به اسم کوئنتین اتفاق میافته. ما با یه زمان خطی هم طرف نیستیم و پرش زمانی زیادی داریم و همه چیز فقط یه مشت خاطره قدیمی هست که کوئنتین داره مرور میکنه و یه سری صحنهها رو تو ذهنش بازسازی میکنه.
در این خاطرات شخصیتهای زیادی میان و میرن ولی دو زن حضور پررنگی دارن:
ـ همسر اول کوئنتین ( لوئیز)
ـ همسر دومش (مگی)
مکالمات طولانی کوئنتین با این دو زن از بهترین قسمتای نمایشنامه بود.
تو این نمایشنامه کوئنتین که آماده شروع یه رابطه جدید شده، تصمیم میگیره گذشته خودش رو مرور کنه. با روابط عاطفی قبلی، شکستها، انتخابها و ... روبهرو میشه و تمام مدت در جستجوی درک عمیقتری از خودش و مسئولیتهاش در برابر دیگران قرار میگیره.
این نمایشنامه عمیق، بسیار شخصی و متفاوت بود ولی پیچیدگی و پرشهای زمانی زیاد و رفت و آمد لحظهای شخصیتها گاهی شلوغی زیادی ایجاد میکرد که راستش به تمرکز زیادی نیاز داشت. من حداقل تمرکز لازم رو تو این مدت نداشتم و خوندن این نمایشنامه برام لذتبخش نبود ولی نمیتونم بگم نمایشنامه بدی بود.
در این خاطرات شخصیتهای زیادی میان و میرن ولی دو زن حضور پررنگی دارن:
ـ همسر اول کوئنتین ( لوئیز)
ـ همسر دومش (مگی)
مکالمات طولانی کوئنتین با این دو زن از بهترین قسمتای نمایشنامه بود.
تو این نمایشنامه کوئنتین که آماده شروع یه رابطه جدید شده، تصمیم میگیره گذشته خودش رو مرور کنه. با روابط عاطفی قبلی، شکستها، انتخابها و ... روبهرو میشه و تمام مدت در جستجوی درک عمیقتری از خودش و مسئولیتهاش در برابر دیگران قرار میگیره.
این نمایشنامه عمیق، بسیار شخصی و متفاوت بود ولی پیچیدگی و پرشهای زمانی زیاد و رفت و آمد لحظهای شخصیتها گاهی شلوغی زیادی ایجاد میکرد که راستش به تمرکز زیادی نیاز داشت. من حداقل تمرکز لازم رو تو این مدت نداشتم و خوندن این نمایشنامه برام لذتبخش نبود ولی نمیتونم بگم نمایشنامه بدی بود.
September 6, 2022
I can’t remember the last time a play was so infuriating,and I have some feelings about it. Aside from the fact that it’s a rambling, confused mess I don’t think I ever realized before what a problem Arthur Miller has with women. I’ve been in a Miller deep dive, reading several of his plays at once, and think I’ve officially lost respect for him and have some hot takes about this extremely thinly veiled biographical play about both his failed marriages, the second being to Marilyn Monroe.
I don’t mean that he hates women, but he seems so bewildered by them. Bewildered that they are human beings in their own right and don’t exist to reflect his greatness back at him in their eyes. He legitimately seems so hurt and sad that the women get fed up and are “ mean to him.”
He seems so confused that after he deigns to marry a woman and gives them the great honor of being their Husband he doesn’t need to do anything after that. He doesn’t care about their lives, or see what he can do to make them feel secure, or involve himself in family life. He can’t stand the fact that eventually the respect and affection leave their eyes when he does nothing to earn either.
He has the grievance that his women “turned from him in bed” making it seem like an unforgivable crime for a wife to not be physically intimate if she’s not feeling it. That by saying “I do” the women have granted him unfettered and unrestricted rights to their bodies. I know the 50’s were a different time but it’s so sad and made me want to barf.
It makes me look back at his other plays in a different light too. Linda, The wife from ‘Salesman’ is considered the perfect, wonderful, loyal wife. But she’s faithful and loyal to Willy, a man she’s smarter than, that cheats on her, that treats her like garbage to her face. There’s a huge Madonna/Whore complex going on in ‘The Crucible.’ Again, Elizabeth Proctor’s great act of forgiveness is to forgive an unfaithful husband. These are great plays and nothing will change that, but I look at them differently now. It seems like Miller’s ideal woman is one that stands by her man no matter how much he disrespects to her face and demeans her.
He wrote this play two years after Marilyn Monroe died. Marilyn was abused and abandoned and a child and was needy and constantly anxious. Marilyn was an alcoholic and addicted to pills. It was never going to be a good match but everything is how her behavior made him feel, how insecure her sexual past made him feel, not pity for the trauma she experienced. Everything, everything, everything is about him. How he was secretly embarrassed to be married to a glorified tart. Poor Arthur.
I used to think Miller a genius for Death of a Salesman and The Crucible. Now, I mostly think “what a baby.”
It’s not what one usually thinks of an American icon but there it is. That’s what I think of him. What a baby.
I don’t mean that he hates women, but he seems so bewildered by them. Bewildered that they are human beings in their own right and don’t exist to reflect his greatness back at him in their eyes. He legitimately seems so hurt and sad that the women get fed up and are “ mean to him.”
He seems so confused that after he deigns to marry a woman and gives them the great honor of being their Husband he doesn’t need to do anything after that. He doesn’t care about their lives, or see what he can do to make them feel secure, or involve himself in family life. He can’t stand the fact that eventually the respect and affection leave their eyes when he does nothing to earn either.
He has the grievance that his women “turned from him in bed” making it seem like an unforgivable crime for a wife to not be physically intimate if she’s not feeling it. That by saying “I do” the women have granted him unfettered and unrestricted rights to their bodies. I know the 50’s were a different time but it’s so sad and made me want to barf.
It makes me look back at his other plays in a different light too. Linda, The wife from ‘Salesman’ is considered the perfect, wonderful, loyal wife. But she’s faithful and loyal to Willy, a man she’s smarter than, that cheats on her, that treats her like garbage to her face. There’s a huge Madonna/Whore complex going on in ‘The Crucible.’ Again, Elizabeth Proctor’s great act of forgiveness is to forgive an unfaithful husband. These are great plays and nothing will change that, but I look at them differently now. It seems like Miller’s ideal woman is one that stands by her man no matter how much he disrespects to her face and demeans her.
He wrote this play two years after Marilyn Monroe died. Marilyn was abused and abandoned and a child and was needy and constantly anxious. Marilyn was an alcoholic and addicted to pills. It was never going to be a good match but everything is how her behavior made him feel, how insecure her sexual past made him feel, not pity for the trauma she experienced. Everything, everything, everything is about him. How he was secretly embarrassed to be married to a glorified tart. Poor Arthur.
I used to think Miller a genius for Death of a Salesman and The Crucible. Now, I mostly think “what a baby.”
It’s not what one usually thinks of an American icon but there it is. That’s what I think of him. What a baby.
February 16, 2010
Re-read this because I'm getting rid of it, it's not one of my favorites and there are no good monologues in it and my edition is a really dingy paperback anyway. That being said, I liked it better this second time I read it. It's still kind of wanky, Miller trying to analyze his relationship with Marilyn Monroe and decide whether he was really in love with her, or just wanted to save her, or just wanted to sleep with her, or what. There's some good stuff in here about that relationship and about communist witch hunts and stuff. But a lot of it seems like Miller acting like his problems are more important than they really are. I don't care that his psyche was tortured by his inability to listen to his wives. He seems whiny.
It's funny how some authors have really good early stuff and then later they get too complicated and personal and weird, and other authors are self-absorbed and complicated and overblown at the start, and then mature into better, simpler stuff. I think Miller was more of the former kind of writer.
It's funny how some authors have really good early stuff and then later they get too complicated and personal and weird, and other authors are self-absorbed and complicated and overblown at the start, and then mature into better, simpler stuff. I think Miller was more of the former kind of writer.
June 20, 2016
From a purely objective stance, I thought it was well done. There are some incredibly heart-wrenching moments throughout it, especially towards the end of Act 2. It also provides a bit of historical insight into the Red Scare and the emotional toll it took.
However, I can't help but feel that Miller is exploiting Marilyn's legacy? Treating her mental illness as an obstacle for his personal growth so shortly after her death doesn't sit right with me (although it does provide a lot of interesting insight into their relationship).
However, I can't help but feel that Miller is exploiting Marilyn's legacy? Treating her mental illness as an obstacle for his personal growth so shortly after her death doesn't sit right with me (although it does provide a lot of interesting insight into their relationship).
November 6, 2014
Some thought provoking quotes but mostly reminds me of ex's erratic, irrational, inconsistent ramblings.
February 23, 2023
‘After the Fall’ Explores the Moral Wreckage of the mid 20th Century
This year, I am reading or re-reading a number of Arthur Miller’s plays, since I have felt a lifelong connection given our shared roots in the University of Michigan writing program. Certainly, my career as a journalist and publisher is nothing like the worldwide fame Miller attained and his talent at capturing moral dilemmas from individual Americans and their families—to men and women caught up in global turmoil. Nevertheless, throughout my life, I've felt a connection with Miller as one tends to look at the trajectories of men and women who sprang from similar roots.
I had never read or seen After the Fall but was intrigued after watching a documentary about the life of actress Barbara Loden that was included in the Criterion edition of Loden’s 1971 drama Wanda, which also is available via Amazon. In that lengthy documentary, I found references to (and images from) the debut of After the Fall, since Loden co-starred in it and Elia Kazan directed it. I had to go back and read the play for myself.
As it turns out this is one of the pivotal plays in Miller’s life in which he cast an “everyman” talking with a “Listener” about the many ways his life has been marked by tragedy. Clearly that “everyman” was Miller himself and the play is a search for meaning, for clarity about moral responsibility and for a vision of some way to go on living.
In other words: Wow! This is one of Arthur Miller’s Big Plays.
Talk about a hurricane of personal, political and ethical crises all wrapped up in the life of one famous playwright and one famous director who worked with him to stage the play!
Miller began working on this play in 1961 around the time he and Marilyn Monroe were divorced. He kept working on it for several years until it eventually debuted in 1964, two years after her suicide. Meanwhile, six months before Marilyn’s death, Miller had married an Austrian photographer Inge Morath, who he had met while she and he both worked on Marilyn’s last movie, The Misfits (Miller as writer, Inge as a still photographer). So desire and betrayal and guilt were deeply woven into those relationships. On top of all of that, Miller had become immersed in the aftermath of the Holocaust, traveling to Europe with Inge (who had remained in Germany during WWII and thus perhaps bore some culpability). The two of them visited Mauthausen, such a searing experience that it winds up as a literal milestone in this play. While in Europe, Miller dug even deeper and wrote about ongoing Nazi trials for the New York Herald Tribune.
As if that was not enough trauma for anyone to withstand, Miller was still recovering from his own deeply scarring legal confrontations with the House Unamerican Affairs Committee (where he had refused to “name names,” but his friend Elia Kazan had given up names in the early 1950s). By the time of this production, Miller had found a way to reconcile with his old friend for the sake of this play, which Kazan directed. Like Miller, at that time, Kazan was falling in love with a young, blond actress, Barbara Loden, and Loden was cast in the part of Maggie (the Marilyn Monroe part) in that debut production of After the Fall, pointedly playing the role made up to look like Marilyn. Two years later, Loden and Kazan were married.
When headlines broke that Miller was coming back to the stage in 1964, after nearly a decade with no new plays, every theater critic in America was poised to judge this production. When they showed up for the first performances, they found that he had poured all of these larger-than-life “characters,” his roiling emotions and his agonizing sense of guilt onto an abstractly designed stage (typically staged as a largely empty space painted in dark colors with a death camp tower and several platforms on which the cast could appear and disappear throughout the play). When it debuted, the great Jason Robards played the lead role, a character called Quentin who obviously is Miller speaking in a kind of “first person” to a kind of therapist figure called “the Listener.”
Oh, and just to be sure he was transparently exploring all the dark recesses of his mind, Miller decided to add the scars from his childhood, when he had a complex and in many ways abusive relationship with his mother in particular.
The entire play unfolds as if the audience is invited to look inside the dark mind of the playwright and watch as memories of characters pop up across multiple levels on stage. A wounding experience with his mother suddenly shifts to a scene at Mauthausen, for example, as the main character tries to make sense of the forces that haunt him on a daily basis and that even make him question the value of continuing with his own life.
Perhaps this long background explains why a number of critics savaged the play when it debuted. They called it Miller’s attempt, after not having debuted new work for a number of years, to cash in on his celebrity marriage to Marilyn. They called it tragically self indulgent and even described it as tabloid fodder.
Not everyone hated the play, of course, and Miller's return to the stage after nine years marked the beginning of a vibrant 40-year “second wind” of work in theater.
Today, nearly 60 years after its debut, the play stands up as a fascinating example of one man’s struggle to come to terms with everything from abusive parents to the nature of evil on a global scale. I found it deeply engaging and wish that I had been able to see one of the revivals of the play.
While the play's subject reflects on the moral wreckage of the mid-20th century, the broader themes certainly are relevant in today's war-torn and climate ravaged world as well.
This year, I am reading or re-reading a number of Arthur Miller’s plays, since I have felt a lifelong connection given our shared roots in the University of Michigan writing program. Certainly, my career as a journalist and publisher is nothing like the worldwide fame Miller attained and his talent at capturing moral dilemmas from individual Americans and their families—to men and women caught up in global turmoil. Nevertheless, throughout my life, I've felt a connection with Miller as one tends to look at the trajectories of men and women who sprang from similar roots.
I had never read or seen After the Fall but was intrigued after watching a documentary about the life of actress Barbara Loden that was included in the Criterion edition of Loden’s 1971 drama Wanda, which also is available via Amazon. In that lengthy documentary, I found references to (and images from) the debut of After the Fall, since Loden co-starred in it and Elia Kazan directed it. I had to go back and read the play for myself.
As it turns out this is one of the pivotal plays in Miller’s life in which he cast an “everyman” talking with a “Listener” about the many ways his life has been marked by tragedy. Clearly that “everyman” was Miller himself and the play is a search for meaning, for clarity about moral responsibility and for a vision of some way to go on living.
In other words: Wow! This is one of Arthur Miller’s Big Plays.
Talk about a hurricane of personal, political and ethical crises all wrapped up in the life of one famous playwright and one famous director who worked with him to stage the play!
Miller began working on this play in 1961 around the time he and Marilyn Monroe were divorced. He kept working on it for several years until it eventually debuted in 1964, two years after her suicide. Meanwhile, six months before Marilyn’s death, Miller had married an Austrian photographer Inge Morath, who he had met while she and he both worked on Marilyn’s last movie, The Misfits (Miller as writer, Inge as a still photographer). So desire and betrayal and guilt were deeply woven into those relationships. On top of all of that, Miller had become immersed in the aftermath of the Holocaust, traveling to Europe with Inge (who had remained in Germany during WWII and thus perhaps bore some culpability). The two of them visited Mauthausen, such a searing experience that it winds up as a literal milestone in this play. While in Europe, Miller dug even deeper and wrote about ongoing Nazi trials for the New York Herald Tribune.
As if that was not enough trauma for anyone to withstand, Miller was still recovering from his own deeply scarring legal confrontations with the House Unamerican Affairs Committee (where he had refused to “name names,” but his friend Elia Kazan had given up names in the early 1950s). By the time of this production, Miller had found a way to reconcile with his old friend for the sake of this play, which Kazan directed. Like Miller, at that time, Kazan was falling in love with a young, blond actress, Barbara Loden, and Loden was cast in the part of Maggie (the Marilyn Monroe part) in that debut production of After the Fall, pointedly playing the role made up to look like Marilyn. Two years later, Loden and Kazan were married.
When headlines broke that Miller was coming back to the stage in 1964, after nearly a decade with no new plays, every theater critic in America was poised to judge this production. When they showed up for the first performances, they found that he had poured all of these larger-than-life “characters,” his roiling emotions and his agonizing sense of guilt onto an abstractly designed stage (typically staged as a largely empty space painted in dark colors with a death camp tower and several platforms on which the cast could appear and disappear throughout the play). When it debuted, the great Jason Robards played the lead role, a character called Quentin who obviously is Miller speaking in a kind of “first person” to a kind of therapist figure called “the Listener.”
Oh, and just to be sure he was transparently exploring all the dark recesses of his mind, Miller decided to add the scars from his childhood, when he had a complex and in many ways abusive relationship with his mother in particular.
The entire play unfolds as if the audience is invited to look inside the dark mind of the playwright and watch as memories of characters pop up across multiple levels on stage. A wounding experience with his mother suddenly shifts to a scene at Mauthausen, for example, as the main character tries to make sense of the forces that haunt him on a daily basis and that even make him question the value of continuing with his own life.
Perhaps this long background explains why a number of critics savaged the play when it debuted. They called it Miller’s attempt, after not having debuted new work for a number of years, to cash in on his celebrity marriage to Marilyn. They called it tragically self indulgent and even described it as tabloid fodder.
Not everyone hated the play, of course, and Miller's return to the stage after nine years marked the beginning of a vibrant 40-year “second wind” of work in theater.
Today, nearly 60 years after its debut, the play stands up as a fascinating example of one man’s struggle to come to terms with everything from abusive parents to the nature of evil on a global scale. I found it deeply engaging and wish that I had been able to see one of the revivals of the play.
While the play's subject reflects on the moral wreckage of the mid-20th century, the broader themes certainly are relevant in today's war-torn and climate ravaged world as well.
June 25, 2026
Yes, Arthur, get messy with it!
June 8, 2023
I finished reading After the Fall on June 1, Marilyn Monroe’s birthday—and then felt like I had accidentally added insult to injury. It wasn’t enough for Monroe to have had an unhappy life and tragically early death, but then I had to go and spend her birthday reading a lousy play her ex-husband wrote about her, rather than watching some of her delightful film performances? I’m sorry, Marilyn!
Not that the scenes featuring the Monroe analogue (Maggie, a pop singer) are the worst parts of After the Fall. I mean, at least in those scenes the Miller analogue (Quentin, a left-wing lawyer) is earnestly engaging in conversation with another character, rather than delivering windy philosophical abstractions in direct address to the audience. Maggie also gets at least one line that struck me with a powerful force: “Quentin, I’m a joke that brings in money.” I think Marilyn Monroe expressed similar sentiments, and it sums up the sad position that beautiful blonde women often occupy in American pop culture. But I’m not even sure Arthur Miller realizes how powerful, how good a line of dialogue this is. After all, his idea of good dialogue is something more like “There is an angel, and night and day he brings back to us exactly what we want to lose. So you must love him because he keeps truth in the world. You eat those pills to blind yourself, but if you could only say ‘I have been cruel,’ this frightening room would open.”
The play is filled with such impenetrable speeches, as though Miller would rather be writing philosophical essays than words for actors to say. He also commits other mistakes that I thought a Great American Playwright would know to avoid: Quentin’s first wife is called Louise, and his beloved mentor is called Lou, and Lou and Louise share several scenes together in Act One. Don’t you learn in Playwriting 101 not to give names that are too similar to unrelated characters?
During the course of this overly long play, Quentin is wracked with tortured musings on guilt and innocence, yet condemns his intellectual mother for being dissatisfied in her marriage to a working-class man who mismanages her money; condemns Louise because she asserts herself and refuses to be codependent; and condemns Maggie for being needy, self-destructive, and overly codependent. I suppose the best thing I can say in this play’s favor is that Miller is willing to give Maggie that one good line and Louise more than a handful of good lines (“Quentin, I am not a praise machine! I am not a blur and I am not your mother! I am a separate person!”), but I don’t know how any twenty-first-century reader or viewer can come away from this play with sympathy for Quentin’s plight, rather than being firmly on the side of the long-suffering women that he so fails to understand.
Not that the scenes featuring the Monroe analogue (Maggie, a pop singer) are the worst parts of After the Fall. I mean, at least in those scenes the Miller analogue (Quentin, a left-wing lawyer) is earnestly engaging in conversation with another character, rather than delivering windy philosophical abstractions in direct address to the audience. Maggie also gets at least one line that struck me with a powerful force: “Quentin, I’m a joke that brings in money.” I think Marilyn Monroe expressed similar sentiments, and it sums up the sad position that beautiful blonde women often occupy in American pop culture. But I’m not even sure Arthur Miller realizes how powerful, how good a line of dialogue this is. After all, his idea of good dialogue is something more like “There is an angel, and night and day he brings back to us exactly what we want to lose. So you must love him because he keeps truth in the world. You eat those pills to blind yourself, but if you could only say ‘I have been cruel,’ this frightening room would open.”
The play is filled with such impenetrable speeches, as though Miller would rather be writing philosophical essays than words for actors to say. He also commits other mistakes that I thought a Great American Playwright would know to avoid: Quentin’s first wife is called Louise, and his beloved mentor is called Lou, and Lou and Louise share several scenes together in Act One. Don’t you learn in Playwriting 101 not to give names that are too similar to unrelated characters?
During the course of this overly long play, Quentin is wracked with tortured musings on guilt and innocence, yet condemns his intellectual mother for being dissatisfied in her marriage to a working-class man who mismanages her money; condemns Louise because she asserts herself and refuses to be codependent; and condemns Maggie for being needy, self-destructive, and overly codependent. I suppose the best thing I can say in this play’s favor is that Miller is willing to give Maggie that one good line and Louise more than a handful of good lines (“Quentin, I am not a praise machine! I am not a blur and I am not your mother! I am a separate person!”), but I don’t know how any twenty-first-century reader or viewer can come away from this play with sympathy for Quentin’s plight, rather than being firmly on the side of the long-suffering women that he so fails to understand.
January 20, 2012
I am a fan of Arthur Miller's plays; The Crucible is my favorite... I've read it many times and have seen it performed a couple of times. After the Fall is more of a 'mixed bag' for me. This play is clearly semi-autobiographical with the main character, Quentin, being Miller himself and the character, Maggie, is Marilyn Monroe. Miller incorporates the 'Red Scare' into this play (which I actually found very interesting) and he seemed to be at a point personally in which he was trying to figure out the reason he could simply not understand the women in his life and just why he couldn't seem to make any of his relationships work. This apparent soul searching, unfortunately, presented as self-important whining through much of the play. That being said, I loved the stage directions in this play and would love to see it performed. This is a play characterized by its scarcity... there is little scenery and the stage is mainly a wide open space. Quentin is speaking throughout the play to a 'listener' just off stage and the play takes place entirely in Quentin's mind... thoughts and memories... with various characters passing on and off the stage.
Although reading this play wasn't entirely satisfying to me. I would love the experience of seeing how a performance would play on stage. I liked this play.... I just didn't love it.
Although reading this play wasn't entirely satisfying to me. I would love the experience of seeing how a performance would play on stage. I liked this play.... I just didn't love it.
February 12, 2017
Extremely dated. It's a product of its time, but that doesn't really stop it from being, at its core, misogynistic and confusing. Theatrically, the convention of staging the play in Quentin's mind was insightful and seemingly well-executed. (+1 star). But on the whole, this wasn't my cup of proverbial tea...
June 13, 2015
Miller's biased and fragile reminiscences of his emotional wives.
April 1, 2023
A short play that is autobiographical in nature of Miller’s marriages, his guilt for not having ‘saved’ one of his wives, and Miller’s on going theme of the McCarthy years and Communism. Miller’s life theme of what would one do to save oneself is strong throughout the play. The play itself is presented in a style and flow of ‘stream of consciousness’ from the main character which makes it quite interesting. I think this play at the time of release was not accepted well due to the fact that major political influencers were disappointed in it.
June 5, 2024
مگی : اخلاق یعنی چی ؟
کوئنتین: گفت حقیقت
مگی : حتی علیه خودت ؟
کوئنتین : بله !
کوئنتین: گفت حقیقت
مگی : حتی علیه خودت ؟
کوئنتین : بله !
September 5, 2010
خلال قرائتي لهذة المسرحية الرائعة تذكرت و تبادر الي ذهني علي الفور فيلم الرائع وودي الان الواجهة
الذي يتناول فترة القمع الامريكي لمجموعة من الكتاب و المفكريين اصحاب التوجه اليساري تم درجهم فيما يسمي القائمة السوداء لكتاب ممنوعين من النشر و الكتابة في امريكا حتي انهم كانوا يصدروا كتبهم تحت اسماء مستعارة و بشخصيات اخري و هي حقيقة تاريخية و كان ميللر من بين هؤلأ و ضمن هذة القائمة السوداء
هذا علي الرغم من نفي ميللر نفسة لاي ميول يسارية تماما كالمحامي بطل هذة المسرحية هذا و قد عرفت فيما بعد سر التشابة و هو ان المسرحية اصلا تعتبر اقرب الي سيرة ذاتية لميللر بطريقة ما و هذا ما عرفته من مقدمة الكتاب " عادة اقراء المقدمة و التحليل بعد ان اقراء الكتاب اولا" فوجدت في المقدمة بالفعل انها تعتبر الي حد ما سيرة ذاتية لتشبة البطل مع ميللر في عدد مرات زواجه و في الطفولة و ايضا شخصية ماجي و التي مثلت مارلين مونرو
المسرحية ان جاز لي ان الخصها في كلمتين فهي " عندما يحاكم الانسان نفسة" و هذا ما كان يفعلة كونتين بطل المسرحية علي مدار 290 صفحة او عندما اخرجت علي المسرح علي مدار ثلاث ساعات
المسرحية بها مجموعة حوارات غاية في البساطه و اكثر من رائعة خاصة في مشهدها الثاني او الفصل الثاني فعلي سبيل المثال في حديث مع ماجي يقول لها " هناك كلمة واحدة مكتوبة علي جبينك .. الان" يريد بهذا ان يعبر عن مدي بساطتها و عن انها لا تشغل بالها الا بالحظة لا تفكر فيما هو ابعد من ذلك و تؤكد هي الاخري هذا المعني بعد بذلك في صفحات اخري قائلة له " لا تحمل المستقبل كأنك تحمل فازة " كناية بالطبع عن شدة الحرص و لقد صاغ مع ماجي حوارات في بداية المشهد الثاني حتي ان القارىء يكاد يعشق ماجي من خلال هذة السطور ثم يبدء في سرد الاحاديث التي تبين الي ما آلت الية الامور حتي تقدم ماجي علي الانتحار
في موضع اخر و علي سبيل المثال من الجانب السياسي في هذا العمل اثناء وجودة في محاكمة يعبر عن الازدواجية الامريكية "كم زنجيا تسمحون لهم بالتصويت في دائراتكم الوطنية ؟ .. تري كم من ميولكم الاجتماعية او السياسية او العنصرية كان هتلر سيستهجنه؟" و هكذا لا تخلو المسرحية علي مدار جميع صفحاتها من الافكار العميقة و الاقوال جميلة ... هذا كله بجانب الواقعية التي تتسم بها معظم الاعمال الادبية الامريكية .. بعيدا عن اسلوب العظة و الانتهاء الي الفضيلة الحتمية في نهاية العمل كما هو الحال في القصص التقليدية
المسرحية باختصار شديد رائعة ولا ابالغ ان قلت انني انتهيت منها للتو و اريد ان اعيد قرائتها مرة اخري الان
--
http://reviewslibrary.blogspot.com/20...
الذي يتناول فترة القمع الامريكي لمجموعة من الكتاب و المفكريين اصحاب التوجه اليساري تم درجهم فيما يسمي القائمة السوداء لكتاب ممنوعين من النشر و الكتابة في امريكا حتي انهم كانوا يصدروا كتبهم تحت اسماء مستعارة و بشخصيات اخري و هي حقيقة تاريخية و كان ميللر من بين هؤلأ و ضمن هذة القائمة السوداء
هذا علي الرغم من نفي ميللر نفسة لاي ميول يسارية تماما كالمحامي بطل هذة المسرحية هذا و قد عرفت فيما بعد سر التشابة و هو ان المسرحية اصلا تعتبر اقرب الي سيرة ذاتية لميللر بطريقة ما و هذا ما عرفته من مقدمة الكتاب " عادة اقراء المقدمة و التحليل بعد ان اقراء الكتاب اولا" فوجدت في المقدمة بالفعل انها تعتبر الي حد ما سيرة ذاتية لتشبة البطل مع ميللر في عدد مرات زواجه و في الطفولة و ايضا شخصية ماجي و التي مثلت مارلين مونرو
المسرحية ان جاز لي ان الخصها في كلمتين فهي " عندما يحاكم الانسان نفسة" و هذا ما كان يفعلة كونتين بطل المسرحية علي مدار 290 صفحة او عندما اخرجت علي المسرح علي مدار ثلاث ساعات
المسرحية بها مجموعة حوارات غاية في البساطه و اكثر من رائعة خاصة في مشهدها الثاني او الفصل الثاني فعلي سبيل المثال في حديث مع ماجي يقول لها " هناك كلمة واحدة مكتوبة علي جبينك .. الان" يريد بهذا ان يعبر عن مدي بساطتها و عن انها لا تشغل بالها الا بالحظة لا تفكر فيما هو ابعد من ذلك و تؤكد هي الاخري هذا المعني بعد بذلك في صفحات اخري قائلة له " لا تحمل المستقبل كأنك تحمل فازة " كناية بالطبع عن شدة الحرص و لقد صاغ مع ماجي حوارات في بداية المشهد الثاني حتي ان القارىء يكاد يعشق ماجي من خلال هذة السطور ثم يبدء في سرد الاحاديث التي تبين الي ما آلت الية الامور حتي تقدم ماجي علي الانتحار
في موضع اخر و علي سبيل المثال من الجانب السياسي في هذا العمل اثناء وجودة في محاكمة يعبر عن الازدواجية الامريكية "كم زنجيا تسمحون لهم بالتصويت في دائراتكم الوطنية ؟ .. تري كم من ميولكم الاجتماعية او السياسية او العنصرية كان هتلر سيستهجنه؟" و هكذا لا تخلو المسرحية علي مدار جميع صفحاتها من الافكار العميقة و الاقوال جميلة ... هذا كله بجانب الواقعية التي تتسم بها معظم الاعمال الادبية الامريكية .. بعيدا عن اسلوب العظة و الانتهاء الي الفضيلة الحتمية في نهاية العمل كما هو الحال في القصص التقليدية
المسرحية باختصار شديد رائعة ولا ابالغ ان قلت انني انتهيت منها للتو و اريد ان اعيد قرائتها مرة اخري الان
--
http://reviewslibrary.blogspot.com/20...
May 31, 2024
Accidentally read it again😭 It’s such a horrible play that I forgot all about it… I mean, it’s Arthur Miller, so what did I expect…
June 30, 2012
A cruel, thinly veiled portrait of Marilyn...
July 9, 2014
This was the play that convinced me I didn't like Miller very much.
July 21, 2023
After the Fall, an emotionally profound play, is clearly referencing the event that took place after Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden known as “The Fall”. With that event in mind, we are then taken into the world of Quentin, as he recalls his troubled past, including two failed marriages, and a life full of regret. When reading the play, I tried my best to find correlations between the play and the Biblical “Fall”. In the latter, it consisted of an idealistic world, a paradise, a world where innocence reigned, and evil was nowhere to be seen. However, sin entered the world, and not through its own will, but on the behalf of humans, who, in their own foolishness, became overconfident, and decided to not only disobey the one rule they were given, but to also think that they were above their own nature—that they could become tantamount in power to the very being that created to them.
Now, when we think to Miller’s play, we see Quentin, recalling his past memories with his parents, his siblings, wives, and wondering where it all went wrong. Whether he ended up realizing his folly or not is irrelevant, rather I think we should focus on Miller’s message. The connection between this play and the Bible is revealed through Quentin, as we see the cause of his dwindling relationships is two factors. 1) He is idealistic. His relationship with Maggie shows this, how, at first, they were truly in love. Maggie played the role of submissive wife, and Quentin, the role of domineering husband, but Maggie’s desires became more and more severe, as she became more demanding. Quentin’s second sin was not recognizing his own monstrosity. How he had an innate capability—just as everyone does—to commit atrocities, to do things for one’s own gain, and shockingly, through all of it, remain grounded in the idea that your innocence as remained untouched. This, Mr Miller seems to be suggesting, is human nature. It is cognitive dissonance, where it is easier to confirm your actions as either inevitable or justifiable through the correct lens—because it is easier to justify your actions than to change them—especially when your actions are a result of your very own nature. Quentin was guilty of this, but so was every other character in the play. And each made the same mistake as Quentin—justifying it to death, rather than admitting that they were wrong, and attempting to change their behavior. In the end, their own hubris was a deciding factor in their downfall—especially our main character, Quentin.
Overall, Mr Miller’s play is good. It gets confusing at times, but I think it’s somewhat intentional. The play is supposed to be Quentin’s scattered memories, and it is the reader/viewer’s job to sort them together, like a puzzle. Read a critically acclaimed, concurrent piece of literature, like Ulysses or The Sound and the Fury, that component of jumbled memories and scattered fragments are almost representative of the writing style during the time. Still, Miller’s play may have been arguably needlessly jumbled and confusing; however, I found it mostly tasteful.
4/5
Now, when we think to Miller’s play, we see Quentin, recalling his past memories with his parents, his siblings, wives, and wondering where it all went wrong. Whether he ended up realizing his folly or not is irrelevant, rather I think we should focus on Miller’s message. The connection between this play and the Bible is revealed through Quentin, as we see the cause of his dwindling relationships is two factors. 1) He is idealistic. His relationship with Maggie shows this, how, at first, they were truly in love. Maggie played the role of submissive wife, and Quentin, the role of domineering husband, but Maggie’s desires became more and more severe, as she became more demanding. Quentin’s second sin was not recognizing his own monstrosity. How he had an innate capability—just as everyone does—to commit atrocities, to do things for one’s own gain, and shockingly, through all of it, remain grounded in the idea that your innocence as remained untouched. This, Mr Miller seems to be suggesting, is human nature. It is cognitive dissonance, where it is easier to confirm your actions as either inevitable or justifiable through the correct lens—because it is easier to justify your actions than to change them—especially when your actions are a result of your very own nature. Quentin was guilty of this, but so was every other character in the play. And each made the same mistake as Quentin—justifying it to death, rather than admitting that they were wrong, and attempting to change their behavior. In the end, their own hubris was a deciding factor in their downfall—especially our main character, Quentin.
Overall, Mr Miller’s play is good. It gets confusing at times, but I think it’s somewhat intentional. The play is supposed to be Quentin’s scattered memories, and it is the reader/viewer’s job to sort them together, like a puzzle. Read a critically acclaimed, concurrent piece of literature, like Ulysses or The Sound and the Fury, that component of jumbled memories and scattered fragments are almost representative of the writing style during the time. Still, Miller’s play may have been arguably needlessly jumbled and confusing; however, I found it mostly tasteful.
4/5
May 6, 2025
اگر بپذیریم که تراژدی نوعی دادگاه است، در این نمایشگاه میلر خود را به قضاوت گذاشته.
نمایشنامه دو جنبه دارد، اولین جنبه کوئنتین است که در ذهن خود با مرور وقایع سعی در عیبیابی دو تجربه شکست خورده زناشوییاش دارد و جنبه دوم قضاوتی است که از مخاطبین طلب میکند. درباره معنایی که میلر در پی انتقال آن بود، مقالهای که در کانال تلگرامی محاکات @mohacut منتشر خواهد شد کفایت میکند و من چیزی برای اضافه کردن ندارم.
اما درباره تجربه نمایشنامه. بسیار سخت خواندمش و از آن سختتر فهمیدمش. به نظر اگر دیده شود بهتر است و الا بسیاری زمان میبرد تا بفهمید که چی به چی است.
نمایشنامه دو جنبه دارد، اولین جنبه کوئنتین است که در ذهن خود با مرور وقایع سعی در عیبیابی دو تجربه شکست خورده زناشوییاش دارد و جنبه دوم قضاوتی است که از مخاطبین طلب میکند. درباره معنایی که میلر در پی انتقال آن بود، مقالهای که در کانال تلگرامی محاکات @mohacut منتشر خواهد شد کفایت میکند و من چیزی برای اضافه کردن ندارم.
اما درباره تجربه نمایشنامه. بسیار سخت خواندمش و از آن سختتر فهمیدمش. به نظر اگر دیده شود بهتر است و الا بسیاری زمان میبرد تا بفهمید که چی به چی است.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 235 reviews