Hotel Sorrento: Australian Cultural Identity
Question: With reference to the stage play Hotel Sorrento explain how you were positioned to respond to the representation of individuals and/or groups of people in the play.
Hannie Rayson’s Play “Hotel Sorrento” explores the changing nature of Australian cultural identity. As a reader we are positioned to assess the contrasting views of characters who oppose ideas whether Australia has changed or not. Expatriates contrast with embracing Australians in order to show one of the underlying themes throughout the book. Meg is an Expatriate who has lived in London and represents the cultural cringe contrasting with Dick, A character of patriotism who is embracing being a part of cultural developing Australia. In the 1950’s Australia represented …show more content…
But to what extent is the issue the book discusses. Dialogue, is a key technique that is used to create characters and are what the audience relate to in order to respond in a certain way to identity ideas throughout the play. The reader is positioned to disagree with Megs views on Australia as Australians we don’t believe that we are what she makes us out to be.
Through Meg's expatriate eyes Rayson looks at the changes that Australian culture and identity has undergone over a ten-year period. Meg is the writer of Melancholy a book that seems to represent the way Australians are capable of producing great art, yet it receives great recognition overseas that the Australian society only have a limited capacity to transform or change. Which challenges the views of an Australian reader who don’t necessarily agree with ideas and values that Meg possesses. She is a high profile achiever and represents the role of the Artist in Australia and the cultural cringe. Meg sees’ …show more content…
By creating contrasting opinions through the characters the reader is positioned to reconsider or confirm their view on the matter. That is to what extent has Australia / Australian cultural identity changed. Through the dialogue at the large table argument primarily between meg and Dick, where meg states “fact is, in this country there is a suffocatingly oppressive sense that what you do as an artist is essentially self indulge. I went away. And now I’m back. Nothing has changed” Dick opposes this statement. “see I think you are wrong... in effect you’re dumping on the people who are actually trying to do things” meg believes “the point is I think that this so called cultural renaissance is actually about patriotism which makes people like you very defensive” dick replies with “that bullshit” and the argument continues on the discussion topic. Through the play before this event the reader has been positioned to take in both views from Meg and Dick siding to Dicks opinion as he doesn’t say harsh things about Australians. Rayson uses this scene in the play to reinforce Dick’s opinion is right and that Meg is in no position to write about or say that Australians haven’t changed. We are almost positioned to dislike Meg as her comments throughout the scene are irrational and almost insulting to some Australians. As fact is all Australians know clearly that
Hannie Rayson’s Play “Hotel Sorrento” explores the changing nature of Australian cultural identity. As a reader we are positioned to assess the contrasting views of characters who oppose ideas whether Australia has changed or not. Expatriates contrast with embracing Australians in order to show one of the underlying themes throughout the book. Meg is an Expatriate who has lived in London and represents the cultural cringe contrasting with Dick, A character of patriotism who is embracing being a part of cultural developing Australia. In the 1950’s Australia represented …show more content…
But to what extent is the issue the book discusses. Dialogue, is a key technique that is used to create characters and are what the audience relate to in order to respond in a certain way to identity ideas throughout the play. The reader is positioned to disagree with Megs views on Australia as Australians we don’t believe that we are what she makes us out to be.
Through Meg's expatriate eyes Rayson looks at the changes that Australian culture and identity has undergone over a ten-year period. Meg is the writer of Melancholy a book that seems to represent the way Australians are capable of producing great art, yet it receives great recognition overseas that the Australian society only have a limited capacity to transform or change. Which challenges the views of an Australian reader who don’t necessarily agree with ideas and values that Meg possesses. She is a high profile achiever and represents the role of the Artist in Australia and the cultural cringe. Meg sees’ …show more content…
By creating contrasting opinions through the characters the reader is positioned to reconsider or confirm their view on the matter. That is to what extent has Australia / Australian cultural identity changed. Through the dialogue at the large table argument primarily between meg and Dick, where meg states “fact is, in this country there is a suffocatingly oppressive sense that what you do as an artist is essentially self indulge. I went away. And now I’m back. Nothing has changed” Dick opposes this statement. “see I think you are wrong... in effect you’re dumping on the people who are actually trying to do things” meg believes “the point is I think that this so called cultural renaissance is actually about patriotism which makes people like you very defensive” dick replies with “that bullshit” and the argument continues on the discussion topic. Through the play before this event the reader has been positioned to take in both views from Meg and Dick siding to Dicks opinion as he doesn’t say harsh things about Australians. Rayson uses this scene in the play to reinforce Dick’s opinion is right and that Meg is in no position to write about or say that Australians haven’t changed. We are almost positioned to dislike Meg as her comments throughout the scene are irrational and almost insulting to some Australians. As fact is all Australians know clearly that