And Thus Spoke Blache
Chapters three and four were a pleasure because the reveal much about each of the characters. These chapters are significant because by the fourth chapter the readers knows enough about each character to be able to form an grounded opinion about them. In chapter four, when Mitch is talking to Blache in Stella's flat, we get a glimpse into Blanche's past when she tells Mitch how "the little [sincerity] there is belongs to people who have experienced some sorrow." (Williams 54) Blanche considers herself a sincere person, like Mitch, therefore this quote reveals that at some point in the past something tragic happened to her. This is quote brings up an interesting point, a point that I somewhat agree with. Through intimate dialog Tennessee Williams is able to share some of his views without preaching it to the audience. In these chapter we also learn more about Mitch and his problems, about Stanley and his drunken violent rages, about Stella and her obsession with and willingness to forgive Stanley. Classicism finally becomes relevant through Blanche's and Stella's quarrel towards the end of chapter four. Blanche's classist prejudice is revealed as she heatedly exclaims "Well-if you'll forgive me-he's common!"(Williams 71). We also learn about her 'gold digger' nature as she tells Stella about her 'chance run in' with Shep Huntleigh.
The premise of this story reminds me of the movie Gone With The Wind. In the movie, there is a rich southern lady, like Blanche, who leaves her home to go live with her sister and her sister's husband because the South's loss in the Civil War. Like A Streetcar Named Desire awkwardness ensues.
My question is: How and when do our own prejudices get instilled in us?
Okay, what is up with the hens? I noticed they were there in Stanley's description in one of the previous acts. They are also present Do they symbolize something or is calling other people hens and chickens a common thing in the United States? I am unsure as to whether this is a metaphor/ symbol or just a part of a culture I am not familiar with.
Blanche remains my favorite character in the play, but it is certainly not because I like her. It is because I find all the other characters so despicable. Blanche was the only reasonable person present at the poker table-husband-beats-pregnant-wife-scene. I agree with her that it was "Lunacy, absolute lunacy" (Williams 57). I am disgusted and repulsed at this absolutely repugnant scene. Honestly, I cannot stress how I hated it. It isn't even Stanley, the oafish Neanderthal that beats his wife, whom I so despise. No, the person whom I hold in the lowest esteem possible is Stella. Stella, the frivolous, idiotic, blind fool! Worse than the attacker is the stupid victim that comes back to him begging for more! Has she no self-respect? No survival instinct? No goddamn intellect? Or is it that she is a masochist? Does she think she's starring in a Fifty Shades of Gray novel? Wake up, you dimwit!
To calm down Blanche, who was terrified by this scene (and rightfully so), Mitch states "There's nothing to be scared of. They're crazy about each other" (Williams 61). This logic, to me, does not make sense. It's like saying, well that square looks nice on the floor because triangles can fly. The relationship between Stella and Stanley is not healthy. They've both got around the same intellect as hens! No, that would be an insult to hens. Hens don't punch each other when they know the other is carrying precious eggs. Hens are much more civilized than that, thank you very much. This is where my sad, sad connection will be made: There are several Stanleys and Stellas in relationships all around the world. The Stanleys abuse the Stellas, and the Stellas, even after running out, always come back to the Stanleys. The Stellas think they are being magnanimous and forgiving, but it is too much. They are just afraid of life without they Stanleys to provide things for them. I refuse to desecrate love by saying the Stellas love the Stanleys. Their relationship is much too twisted to be anything more than desire and fear. Perhaps these Stellas have some version of the Stockholm Syndrome. They are so used to being mistreated that at the slightest show of kindness they melt and go back to their captors and aggressors.
It's a pity. It truly is.
Plot Twists and Love Bits
I think Scenes 3 and 4 are remarkable for creating a shift in both plot and characterization. The whole abusive relationship twist was very unexpected and shocking to me and I can see how that incident furthered the characterization of all 3 major characters. Stanley, previously described as primitive and gruff becomes downright brutal and animalistic as he "stalks fiercely" and "charges after Stella" (Williams 57). Stella, meanwhile, exhibits all the symptoms of a beaten wife believing she is not "in anything I want to get out of" (Williams 65). Her blindness, already noted in previous scenes is accentuated, and one can perceive how the cyclical violence, forgiveness and Desire is self-perpetuating. Yet, most notably, Blanche evolves to become the most sympathetic character in the play. Her character becomes increasingly romantic as exemplified by her claim that "Sick people have such deep, sincere attachments" (Williams 54). Also, her flirtation with Stanley ceases, at least temporarily, as she engages with his friend Mitch. Furthermore, she attempts to instill some sense into Stella by affirming she "can get out" (Williams 65). Her transition from uppity, fanciful bimbo to sympathetic belle is remarkable. I would also like to note that Justice's comparison to Gone With The Wind is right on, in fact, the histrionic women of both works are played by the same actress in the big screen, Vivien Leigh (who definitely has a penchant for melodramatic roles). A connection I would like to draw is to popular singer Rihanna. A couple of years ago, her boyfriend, musician Chris Brown violently beat her, in something that became a scandalous ordeal. Notwithstanding, Rihanna returned to him and even collaborated with him musically. This bizarre, abusive relationship reminds me of Stella and Stanley.
Question: What character do you sympathize most with, if any? Why?
Desire Leads to Unhealthy Relationships
Scenes 3 and 4 were very interesting to read because it starts out with Stella actually standing up against Stanley`s will and pride. After a heated argument and Stanley smacking her, Stella cries out "I want to go away, I want to go away" (Williams 58). She actually leaves the house and at this point the reader starts to believe that her personality shifted and starts to hope that her submissive life is finally over. The reader is further surprised by Stanley`s reaction to Stella leaving him, as he burst out, "Stella! My baby doll`s left me!" (Williams 59). In this short part of Scene 3, the author pleases the reader by switching the character roles in the play. Suddenly, Stanley is the one running after Stella and having a taste of what it feels like to be submissive. However, the reader`s desire (notice how I used the word "desire" which plays a great role in the play) of this character twist remaining vanishes when Stella shockingly goes back to Stanley`s house in his arms a few moments later as the narrator states, "Lifts her off her feet and bears her into the dark flat" (Williams 60). From this point on, I personally lost all the hope I had of Stella realizing who Stanley really is. She proves her eternal submissiveness by running back into his arms even after being physically harmed. Later on, when Blanche goes into Stella`s room to question her action of coming back, Stella states, "People do sometimes. Stanley`s always smashed things" (Williams 64). This quote proves how strongly attached Stella is to her husband and how unhealthy their relationship is. Do you believe that their relationship is, in fact, unhealthy? This violence scene followed by a quick reconciliation reminded me of the movie "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" where the married protagonists enter into a gunfight conflict between each other, but moments later reconcile. Another remarkable passage in this section of the play is the mention to Desire. While talking to Stella about Stella`s relationship with Stanley, Blanche says, "What you are talking about is brutal desire -just-Desire!-the name of that rattle-trap street-car...[that] brought me here" (Williams 70). This quote reveals that desire is going to play an important role in the play, since it is the reason not only behind Stella`s unhealthy relationship with Stanley, but for Blanche`s visit. The fact that the author capitalized the word emphasizes its importance. Is desire going to keep coming up in the play and will it lead to a greater conflict?
Aaaand the symbols of colors are back, with the primary colors being a symbol for the guys' manlihood, and Blanche has on a dark red outfit when she speaks to Mitch (showing her real intentions).
The nature of the three main characters' relationships is further emphasized when Stanley first smacks Stella, and she is ashamed because "It makes me so mad when he does that in front of other people" (Williams 48) It is clear that it is an abusive relationship and Stella is aware that there is abuse, but deems as as routine.
We also gain a wee bit of insight into what haunts Blanche's past, through her reactions to Mitch's story. When he reveals that the girl he loved died, she has a "tone of deep sympathy", (Williams 54), as shown in the stages directions, which shows just how much she sympathizes with his situation, and she states that "Sorrow makes for sincerity" (WIlliams 54), because whatever sorrow she has been through, she now considers herself sincere (and while she even lies more than once when she says that she is "not accustomed to having more than one drink" (Williams 54), she can be VERY honest, such as when telling Stella about her feelings of deep despise towards Stanley).
There is a role reversal when Stella gets smacked by her husband, and Blanche rushes to Stella saying "Dear, dear little sister, don't be afraid!" (Williams 58). It shows yet another facet of Blanche, because although she has a few loose screws, she still has some protective sisterly instinct in her.
Gender roles are emphasized, even in the smallest details, such as when Blanche uses a "sheet of Kleenex and an eyebrow pencil for writing equipment" (Willians 68), which shows that, instead of being intellectuals (and having a pencil and paper to write with), women are expected to be suffering beauties (hence the kleenex, to wipe their tears, and eyebrow pencils, to look like dolls). On that same page, Stella states that Stanley payed her 10 dolalrs to "smooth things over", as if he is buying her, because she is moved by his wealth and his body.
I could connect these scenes to the movie Citizen Kane, because in both cases, lighting and blocking are strongly used to ellucidate the relationships between the characters, such as Stanley holding on to Stella while capriciously smiling to Blanche through curtains, or Charles Foster Kane looking down at his wife, casting a shadow upon her, showing his male dominance over her feeble ways.
These scenes had a much darker tone than the first introductory scenes. Do you guys think the tone is bound to get darker, or will things work out for EITHER of the characters? And if so, which character? Do you think Stella will finally leave Stanley? And if so, what would it take for her to leave for once and for all?
(So sorry for the verbose post, won't happen again!)
“Desire is the strongest card in the poker game”
The poker night of Stanley’s friend could be interpreted as life itself; Tennessee could have used the act of playing cards as a metaphor to indicate that in life we all are players. But, taking into consideration that the women weren’t playing could mean that men mostly control the game of life. In these scenes are interesting for the plot development, as they are many obvious color changes in the lightning, as also Blanche take another shower. Blanche seems to have a direct relation with the lightning as Stella mentions in the bathroom to Blanche: ” You’re standing in the light, Blanche!”(Williams 50) The connections that can be inferred from here is that, Blanche is becloud Stella’s life with the simple fact of Blanche presence. Later Blanche even mentions to Mitch: “I cant stand a naked light bulb, any more than I an a rude remark or vulgar action”(Williams 55) The light might be reference to the sexual tension/relationship of Stanley and Stella, as if Blanche would like to change their relationship or at least pretend she is not conscious about Stanley and Stella kind of relationship. This foreshadows the fight between Stanley and Stella demonstrating her dominance over her. I connect with the song “Try tonight” by Lana del Rey, which has the message to try again a relationship, I could totally see how this song fits perfectly on the opinion of Stella, as she always forgive him for everything Stanley does as if nothing has happened. The song has lines, as “I’m willing to try another way... He’ll try tonight” that connect to Stella’s thinking. I ask if the only thing Stella and Stanley have for each other is desire, or if they even loved each other in the past? If Stella is really in love with Stanley what is what keep her attached to him? Is desire stronger than volition?
"The let there be light"
While I stronlgy agree to Cecilia's connection that life is a game, men are mostly in control (based in Tennessee's portrayal) and I would even extend it to show that men are players, especially Stanley, I would have to disagree on her interpretation about Blanche's relation to light. I don'tbelieve that she is creating sexual tension between Stanley and Stella. For me, she want to be in the dark because it is the unknown. It is in the dark that creatures and secrets lurks, Blanche is already portrayed to the audience as mysterious since she comes out of nowhere where not even her sister knew about her. The light in the book is a reference to the truth whereas the dark is secrecy. This can be seen when Stella tells Blanche about her wedding night as "Why, on our wedding night - soon as we came in here - he snatched off one of my slippers and rushed about the place smashing the light bulbs with it." (Williams 64). Here one can comprehend that in the, secrecy of the dark they had some sort of intimate relation people don't know, however, if it happened in the light, everyone would be able to see.
I could relate the way Stella behaves toward Stanley to Lord of the Flies's begginning where no matter how bad Ralph treated Piggy, Piggy would always stick with him. Same applies to Stella which alwyas goes back to Stanley, both of course for very different reasons.
Two questions I raised in my head as I read the chapter where:
1) What secrets is Blanche trying to hide?
2) Why is Blanche hidding secrets even from her sister?
Dehumanizing- “The other side of Humanity”
Yes!!!! Now I can identify with certainty Tennesee William’s reverse personification!!! And he is untimely amazing in it!!!! Through strong imagery Williams shows how in truth Stanley is a very beastly man guided by his instincts, which drives him to be even more “beastly” as he is lead by his desires (Williams 72). This can be proven when multiple times Blanche refers to him as “an ape” when talking to Stella, and as a man that “was not made in God’s image” at the end of scene three (Williams 72). Notice Tennesee William’s use of the noun “ape” and Blanche’s claim that she believes that he is not made based on “God’s image”; Tennesee not only conveys the fact that Stanley seems to be inhuman, but as well emphasizes the idea that he is a negative influence to the sophistication and purity that the sisters’ DuBois have and share. Due to this dehumanization, one can say that Stella and Stanley are character FOILS, as it seems that Stella’s baby naïveness and submission accentuates Stanley’s strength and brutality.
This can be even more evident when Steve tells a joke to the boys on the poker table, and this joke seems to be a foreshadowing of not only what Blanche will refer to Stella at the end of act three, but as well probably a rape that has great possibility of occurring in the future. Steve said, “young hen comes lickety split around the side of the house with the rooster right behind her and gaining on her fast” (Tenessee 47). Funny that this is the second time that Williams uses the imagery of hens and rooster to describe Stanley’s personality with women. However, I would like to point out the use of verbs such as “lickety” and “gaining” which exactly, emphasizes this idea of a brutal and impulsive instinct, which consumes Stanley. However, could we say that this could be foreshadowing to a future rape? And if it were, would it be with Stella or Blanche? Why is Tenessee Williams dehumanizing Stanley? Is it this what it means to take the Street Car named Desire? To be led by your animal instincts? The name of this Act was Poker Night. Could it be that Tennessee Williams is trying to show this other animalistic side of humanity that leads us to being doubled-faced due to instinctive desires?
One huge connection I could make with this idea of dehumanization was with Golding’s Lord of the Flies. Secretly, I could see a lot of similarities between Jack and Stanley. Just like Stanley, Jack is interested in gaining power over the other people from the group to satisfy his savage impulses. In Street Car Named Desire, Stanley, is interested in gaining power from Stella and his poker friends in order to satisfy his sexual need, greed and wants. Furthermore, another connection I could see in these acts was with the characters of Anna Karenina by Tolstoy. Just like Dolly, in many ways Stella is similar in her attitudes. In the beginning of Anna Karenina, Dolly finds that Stiva (her husband) had an affair with their governess, and as a consequence Dolly said that she was going to move out of their house, just like Stella. However, at the end Dolly felt drawn by her husband’s charms and dramas, and accepted him back like nothing happened. This to me seemed awfully similar to Stella’s actions, who was beaten up by her husband, and, just as blind as Dolly, accepted him back due to the “love” she claims she had seen through his crying drama act, while in truth it is desire that makes these two characters accept their husbands, and not love.
IN the last question in paragraph 2, I committed a mistake, the question is suppose to be:
Could it be that Tennessee Williams is trying to show this other animalistic side of humanity that leads us to being doubled-faced?
Meat, Lies, Bathing and Lights
That’s exactly why I waited so long to post this blog; I couldn't wait to see people’s reactions! For some reason, I suspected Marcia would be the most shocked one… Wonder why…
Anyhow, after reading scene 3 I literally put the book down and just tried to make sense of everything. I was trying to comprehend Stanley. I wasn’t surprised at all that he beat his pregnant wife; it was actually his regret that confused me. It sounded like he truly loved her, which I had always doubted. I also was not surprised at all with Stella’s coming back to him after he beat her.
Gladly, this short time of reflection made me come up with a resolution to my puzzlement; during the beginning of the play, when Stanley threw raw meat at Stella, it was described that “She cries out in protest but manages to catch it; then she laughes breathlessly” (Williams 14). Similarly, after Stanley beat Stella, she first “cries out in protest” and leaves the house, but later she comes back to him, like she had managed to catch the meat; when this happens, it is described that they “come together with low, animal moans”, which, like the raw meat, indicates sexuality. So from that I was able to realize that their marriage is simply based on physical attraction. Additionally, because Stanley is such a possessive person, and Stella became a possession of his, the moment he felt he was going to lose her made him react the way he did.
What no one has mentioned and that I believe is actually imperative in scene 3, is that once more “light” and “bathing” come up as symbols. As soon as Stella and Blanche enter the flat during poker night, Blanche says: “I think I will bathe”, Stella questions: “Again?” and Blanche justifies: “My nerves are in knots” (Williams 48). First of all, Stella’s question indicates Blanche has been taking many baths, and Blanche’s justification reinforces my presumption that her baths symbolize the washing away of the secrets she may be carrying. In addition, in these scenes we become very familiar with the fact that Blanche lies constantly; as she pretends to be younger than she actually is and lies about her motives for visiting Stella. Now, considering the lights, it is once described that “Blanche moves back into the streak of light. She raises her arms and stretches, as she moves indolently back to the chair” (Williams 51). This demonstrates her wanting to call the men’s attention. In contrast, moments later, Blanche asks Mitch to cover the light bulb with a colored paper lantern because she “… can’t stand a naked light bulb…” (Williams 55), indicating the fear of her “true self” being revealed.
I could somehow connect Blanche with Marilyn Monroe, for the fact she looks like this charming, sexy woman who gets everyone’s attention, but also has dark and secretive personal issues which led her to self-destruction.
Have any of you guys noticed these symbols? Or more, perhaps?
(Oh, and sorry for the wordy post, I couldn’t help it!)
forgot to cite: “come together with low, animal moans” (Williams 60),
I must say that I was extremely shocked with the shift in characterization in Scenes 3 and 4. When Blanche and Stella arrived at the Poker Night, seeing that the men were drinking and entertaining themselves, I knew something was going to go wrong. It started with Stella, when Stanley demanded them to shut up and she stood up for herself by saying that "This is my house and I'll talk as much as I want to!" (Williams 51). In the two first scenes, Stella conveyed the idea that she was totally submissive to whatever Stanley said. Especially in the first couple lines of dialogue between Stanley and Stella; he throws a piece of meat at her and demands her to catch it. However now, she shows how she is not willing to obey Stanley's "orders". Then after a few times arguing, Stanley doesn't handle it anymore and hits Stella. After that scene, Stella "wants to go away" (Williams 56) to Eunice's apartment and leaves Stanley alone downstairs. And now comes Stanley's totally unexpected reaction. He starts YELLING HER NAME and says that he "wants his girl to come down with him!" (Williams 60). Stanley sounded so desperate, as if he had actually lost Stella. All of this makes me wonder if Stanley did loss Stella in the past and he doesn't want to pass through all of this again anymore. The way that he screaming his wife's name, seems that he is the one submissive to her, as if he is the one who can't live without her. The other person who revealed, in various aspects, a different façade was Blanche. First that when Stella was hit by Stanley, she is the one with the protective role, as she demonstrates by saying, "Dear, dear little sister, don't be afraid!" (Williams 58). She leaves her flirtation with Mitch aside and she goes help her sister. Even before Stella was hurt by her husband, Blanche would tell her to be cautious about Stanley and his actions, as she told "Stella to watch out, he's-" (Williams 57).
Then, after all of this, Stella decides to go back with Stanley and apologize him. So, after all he have done to her at that single night, she simple decides to forget it, and forgive him. At the next day, Blanche goes to her house and tries to understand why she went back with him, until she was inventing excuses to why Stanley acted the way he did in the previous night. I mean, even after calling her a hen, disagreeing with her on small details and hitting her, she decides to defend him (now she's the one defending her husband from Stella, and in the previous scenes she defended Stella from him - so she tries to be the protective one). Oh, come on! That made me dislikes Stella's character even more. One of my conclusions after reading these scenes was that the characters in this play tries to introduce themselves with a fake image about each one, and exactly now, when all of them are in a vulnerable situation, they release their inner personality. By thinking a little deeper, if all of them introduce themselves with fake personalities, then, all of them have some weak personality, meaning that deep deep down, they have a obscure past, in which each one is hiding it from each other. Stanley tries to maintain his sexist, womanizer and bossy image to show all how manly he can be. Blanche tries to present herself as a strong woman, who has really good flirtation skills, and then Stella. She tries to keep her image as the perfect wife and the protective sister.
Okay, so I have a doubt about the meaning of the sentence "Poker shouldn't be played in a house with women" (Williams 58). Mitch said it twice. Once right after Stella said that she wanted to go away and the other time right before leaving the house. Does it have a deeper meaning? Is it a foreshadowing? Motif? I don't know... I was just wondering about it.
This entire situation reminded me of Daisy Buchanan from F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel, "The Great Gatsby". It is clear that Daisy and her husband, Tom don't have a very healthy relationship. Her emotions towards him are always back-and-forth. At first he wants him, but then, she doesn't want him - she hates him - but then her love for him decides to reappear; she would always end up with him. I can really relate Daisy and Stella. Both of them are unstable and kind of submissive towards their husband. And they have an extreme variation of emotions for their marriage, as previous described for Daisy. Tom and Stanley are also very similar, if we were to compare personalities. They both try to convey their masculinity, and are brutal towards their wives. However, even though they demonstrate those emotions in front of everyone, they actually have real love feelings for their women. At the end, both couples ends up together.
- Will this drastic shift in characterization affect the play's future occurrences?
- After this event, will Stanley treat his wife in a better way?
Let me start with a brief comment: It was really nice and interesting reading your posts and viewing all of this different interpretations, reactions, connections and questions. I would like to respond, agree and disagree with each post, but that would take forever, so I will try to summarize my main points below.
I have to agree with many that these scenes are very strong and reveal a lot of key aspects regarding characterization. However, like Giulia and Marcia I was shocked and with Stanley’s act of violence towards Stella. It was a bit unexpected and at the same time the tense tone and heated discussion led to it. Right before being beaten, Stella confronts Stanley, “Drunk-drunk-animal thing, you!”, leading to an escalation in tension, which culminate in aggressiveness (William 57). Therefore, it wasn’t actually surprising, as Julia said. I also have to agree with Julia that Stella going back and forgiving Stanley wasn’t surprising at all, though it is completely unreasonable and unbelievable.
Nonetheless, I know this is contradictory, but the characters nonsense is explainable: it’s the Desire! In this play, the desire makes the character resemble irrational and instinctive animals, as Gabrielle pointed out. On page 72, Blanche utters a monologue on how Stanley is an animal and on the previous page states, “There’s something downright – bestial- about him” (Williams 71). This reverse personification, “animalization” is further heightened by alcohol, which might be said to remove the masks and reveal one’s true self. Thus, this play reminds me of “O Cortiço”, a Brazilian novel by Aluisio de Azevedo that belongs to Naturalism. Like “A Streetcar named Desire”, this novel portrays the decadence and deterioration of humans due to animalistic lust, which MUST NOT be confused with love (reiterating Marcia’s point).
In no any is Stella and Stanley’s abusive relationship about love. What is going on is a sick passion and addiction, which is described in Kesha’s “Your Love Is My Drug”. Stanley and Stella need to rehabilitate (which reminds me of Amy Winehouse’s “Rehab” and her tragic end caused by her addictions). Though that’s what they need to do, I don’t think Stella will ever leave Stanley under any circumstances, Sam, thus leading them to destruction, since their relationship is not healthy (literally and metaphorically) at all. Oh, Marcia, I am confident they have some psychological imbalance, not sure if masochism, but something along these lines.
Regardless of the absurdity of the whole situation, the characters around the couple are used to this and find it normal. Apparently, this is frequent due to the way Stella replies to Blanche on the following day and since Eunice states, “I hope they do haul you in and turn the fire hose on you, same as the last time!” (Williams 60). So, this scene repeated from the past and we will probably see it again throughout the play. However, Blanche is not used to this rollercoaster full of overturns and tells Stella, “I’m going to do something. Get hold of myself and make myself a new life! … But you’ve given in. And that isn’t right, you’re not old! You can get out!” (Williams 65). Stella is obstinate in changing the ridiculous situation, but will she be strong enough? How much she wants to do this? What was her purpose in visiting Stella in first place?
A Wild One
Scene 3 and 4 reveals the history between Stella and Stanleys's marriage. Stellas defense of Stanley's actions demonstrates how she has been through that situation before and forgived him. Scene 3 defines Staney and the villan and furtherly conveys Stellas as naive and a "push-over". THe common refrence to animals in this scene also furtherly creates the beast like image. The stage directions directs Stanley to when he calls to Mitch, for it not to be yelling or crying, but bellowing, as can be seen on page 56. Also the stage directions states "Stanley stalks fiercly through the portiers...""Stanley charges after Stella." (Williams 57). The authors choise of fiercly and charges reminds me of a lion, dashing after his pray, which in this context could be Stella. The author's use of animalistic imagrey also conveys Stella's defenselessness as once after he calls after Stella "They stare at each other. Then they come together with low, animal moans." (Williams 61) This seems like after a pray is attached by the predator, and it falls to the ground, moaning and pleading for mercy. In the wild however, there is no pitty. Of course, Stella forgives Stanley, as is insinuated before.
This scene also reminded me of Mryle and Tom's relationship. Both Tom and Stanley were drunk when they hit their wife/lover. Açso, they both forgive their man and come back to them. Although it's not explicit that Mrytle comes back to Tom, however when she sees a car and thinks its Tom she runs in front of it to see his, so it coveys the idea that she is "mad about him" as Mitch describes Stella and Stanley.
Sam, I also saw the resemblance to Citizen Kane and the way how directly after he hits his wife he regrets it. #teamKane
Did anyone else notice the animal motifs? Did any one find a animal comparison to Blanche? How do you believe the animal comparisons effect the mood of the text?