Death of a Salesman (1948)

contemporary american literature on a par with ancient greek tragedy ( )

Death of a Salesman is about Willy Loman, a traveling salesman who has worked hard all his life to create a legacy of greatness for his sons to emulate and build upon. This greatness rests not so much on education or cultivated intelligence, but upon a man's innate charisma which Willy believes can be parlayed into networking skills and a successful career (which in turn is measured by who you know.) However, neither of Willy's sons have lived up to his expectations and so the foundation upon which Willy has built his legacy bears examination. The inspection reveals cracks in Willy's ethics and is the substance of this American Tragedy. The idea of a father's legacy to his sons, more specifically the idea of the father doing his best to do what is best for his sons, was introduced in the interview with Michael Hackett, the director of The Man Who Had All the Luck and is a dominant theme in Death of a Salesman.

Whatever the original concept of Willy Loman's physicality was when Death of a Salesman was first written, the image has been "owned" by Lee J. Cobb since Cobb played Loman in the film adaptation in 1966. Since then, audiences expect a bear of a man, a brutish, forceful man to play the role; and if a director chooses to cast against the Cobb-type, criticism is sure to follow. In this regard, Stacy Keach does not disappoint. He is what the audiences want: a mans whose volume in voice is a measure of his will. Neither Keach or Jane Kaczmarck (as Linda Loman) are the most transparent of performers: Listeners will hear both of the actors before they hear the characters; but both actors deliver what the audience wants: assertive and emphatic performances.

Redacted from the original blog review at dog eared copy, Death of a Salesman; 05/08/2012 ( )

Arthur Miller's award-winning play, Death of a Salesman, has to be seen to be fully appreciated. Reading it will only get you so far.

Some of the subject material, and certainly the slang, peg it to mid-20th century America, and this gives an initial impression that what's to come may no longer be relevant. But once the larger portrait of Willy Loman starts taking shape, the story's timelessness is evident. ( )

I generally prefer romantic plays, thus this play is not among my favorites. However, I admire the play's brilliant structure and style. While its development of character and underlying exposition are reminiscent of Ibsen, Miller has imprinted his own approach in the drama. Going beyond mere dialogue he devised a complex mixture of present event, selective memory, and hallucination. The result is a bold new version of naturalism that is impressive. This play is great while presenting a world view that I personally reject. ( )

This play receives a lot of praise. I'm still struggling to see why. A play about a senile old man where nothing happens, there is no great dialogue, and there is nothing even slightly thought-provoking.

Praise it if you must. But honestly, this play is one of the worst ever. ( )