This thesis, "Sean O'Casey's Last Plays: A Celebration of Life, " is a study of O'Casey's five last full-length plays: Cock-A-Doodle Dandy, The Bishop's Bonfire, The Drums of Father Ned, Behind the Green Curtains, and Figuro in the Night. The focus of the thesis is on O'Casey's dramatization of man's spiritual environment and conflicts. My point of view is that O'Casey is presenting a very humanized religion of love. The plays are, in fact, morality plays depicting the struggle of the forces of good and evil for the soul of man. The first chapter of the thesis will analyse the religious nature of the themes in O'Casey's morality plays. Chapter two will discuss the relationship between the structure of the plays and the themes. Chapter three will attempt to show that O'Casey uses theatrical effects as persuasive techniques to convince an audience of the validity of his themes. Each of the five plays dramatizes the struggle between the true religion of life-worship and the false faith of the organized Church. The struggle is made concrete through the presentation of various conflicts. There is the conflict between youth and age, between sexual expression and repression, between love of life and love of money, between celebration and gloom, between freedom and restraint. At the centre of the conflict are two opposing priest figures. In Cock-A-Doodle Dandy, it is Father Domineer who fights against the joy and beauty offered by the Cock. Father Domineer wins when the Cock and his followers flee in search of a better land. In The Bishop's Bonfire, there is no escape to another life. Father Canon prevails over Father Boheroe, The Codger is banished, Keelin and Manus must live a loveless existence, and Foorawn is shot. In The Drums of Father Ned, on the other hand, it is the forces of good that are completely victorious. The mythical Father Ned and his followers completely defeat Father Fillifogue. In Behind the Green Curtains, we are once again in the real world in which the love, kindness, and joy that Beoraan struggles for are defeated by the cruelty and repression that Komavaun, the Church's lieutenant, advocates. O'Casey's conviction, however, that man can find salvation is presented in Figuro in the Night where the Figuro is triumphant over all the repressive elements of traditional beliefs. To explain his religion of life and love, O'Casey developed a structure of interlocking levels of farce, satire, fantasy, and symbolism to replace the traditional plot structure of the drama. O'Casey’s last plays have only the most tenuous of plot lines. Instead, the conflict is heightened by playing off one level of development against another in a dramatic counterpoint. Each mode of development uses its own techniques, develops its particular type of character, and clarifies its individual aspect of the theme. Although the levels are largely independent of one a other, each, adds contrasts and parallels to the comment made by the other levels to give density to the thematic statement of the plays. The second chapter of this thesis will attempt to show how each of the structural levels of farce, satire, fantasy, and symbolism work independently and how they are brought together into a thematic and theatrical climax. Finally, the thesis will examine the theatrical effects of the last plays. In these plays, O'Casey uses all the possible visual and sound effects of the theatre to make his themes convincing. Essentially, the visual effects of lighting, costumes, and sets distance the audience from the events of the plays. Whereas, the sound effects tend to involve the audience in an emotional response to the ideas of the plays, not the events. Thus the theatrical effects cause the audience to make an objective assessment of the theme of the plays and, at the same time, to take part in the celebration of life that is presented in the plays. / Arts, Faculty of / English, Department of / Graduate

This is a study of popular festive laughter in Sean O'Casey's drama. It argues that O'Casey's use of the strategies of laughter is an integral part of his political vision. The concept of festive laughter is derived from the theory of Mikhail Bakhtin, and is related, in this thesis, to the culture of low life in O'Casey's Dublin. Through a detailed analysis of O'Casey's plays, this study shows how the forms of laughter function to interrogate the hegemonic political, economic, and cultural discourses of the Irish society of his time. The Dublin trilogy counters the nationalist ideology and its constructions of history, while the later comedies focus on the issues of cultural domination and religious authoritarianism. This negative critique of the dominant order is accompanied, in these plays, by a celebration of the rich energy of popular, collective life, and its capacity to resist domination and to create an alternative society. The study concludes by focusing on the festive nature of O'Casey's theatre.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Sean O’Casey’s Dublin Trilogy travels through the Irish revolutionary period and explores how this environment created a revolutionary Dublin where armed militants struggled to overthrow the authority and privileges of their British oppressors. Seeking to remove the colonial authority that had oppressed the Dublin population for so long, these revolutionaries fought, killed, and died in their quest for an independent Ireland. In this struggle, groups of armed men can be seen employing tactics that would only lead to the continued oppression of other sections of the Irish population. By connecting the Dublin Trilogy to his autobiographies, in which he highlights the importance of family as a supportive unit for the Dublin poor, I propose that O’Casey, in the Dublin Trilogy, warns that these ideological reproductions would eventually lead to the continued subjugation of Irish women and other members of the Irish population outside of the masculinist, militant identity supporting the Irish independence struggle. / Includes bibliography. / Thesis (M.A.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2017. / FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection

The purpose of this paper is to take a second look at the leadership of General Douglas MacAurthur since the outbreak of World War II. In order to do this, it will be necessary to review the events in the general’s career through World War II, during the occupation of Japan, and the war in Korea. This study will consider also the reasoning behind many of the decisions and movements made by General MacArthur. This will mean a study of the general’s personal qualities and dominant characteristics in order to gain insight into the behavior which influence these moves.

The eye witnesses against MacArthur were members of the Truman Administration. Acheson and Marshall were the principal critics of MacArthur’s stand. Secretary Acheson testified that MacArthur had done a fine job in Japan and our allies agreed without policy there. Acheson replied to the alleged lack of policy by making a distinction between our policy and our war aims. Our policy in Korea looked to a unified, independent democratic government, but our war aim was to stop the attack on South Korea. Regarding the proposal that the United States take unilateral action if our allies did not support us, he said that our collective-security system could not survive if we took action other members of the system disapproved. He opposed the use of Nationalist troops on the grounds that it would weaken the defense of Formosa, and was complicated by other nations fighting in Korea that did not recognize the Nationalist Government. Finally Acheson denied that MacArthur was not allowed to issue battle communiques on the real military situation in Korea. However he felt that the General’s release of March 20 concerning truce negotiations gave the impression that the United States was speaking with two voices. Secretary of Defense George Marshall has a military point of view and at the same time a global picture of the situation. He believed that the Nationalist forces would not be effective in Korea. He testified that MacArthur’s removal was necessitated by his public disagreement with the foreign and defense policies of the United States. He made it clear that MacArthur had not violated any military policy, but he had made public his disagreement with it to such a degree that it interfered with the carrying out of that policy. All of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marshall testified, concurred in the relief of General MacArthur. General Bradley’s testimony was probably the most damaging to MacArthur. The principal point bought out by Bradley was that MacArthur’s strategy would involve us in the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy. He pointed out that we also had sanctuary since the Chinese did not bomb out ports and supply bases. He felt that a blockade would involve the ports of Hong Kong and Dairen, and therefore would not be tenable. Furthermore, MacArthur was not in agreement with the decision to limit the conflict to Korea, and his actions, Bradley said, jeopardized the civilian control of the military authorities. Both Generals Breadeley and Collins agreed that they would have to resign and speak out in case they were involved in a conflict in which duty and the best interest of the country could not be reconciled.

On April 11, 1951, President Harry S. Truman dismissed General Douglas MacArthur as Commander of United Nations forces in Korea. Since the dismissal, contemporaries of the Truman-MacArthur era and historians have tried to make sense of Truman's momentous decision to relieve one of America's greatest military heroes. While a great number of studies have devoted attention to the controversy, few if any have placed the Truman-MacArthur conflict within the context of the unprecedented militarization of American foreign policy that took place during the early cold war. This study departs from the traditional "blame-casting" that has dominated Truman-MacArthur scholarship in the past and concludes that General MacArthur was a casualty who was dismissed because he failed to grasp the global nature of the post-World War II American foreign policy agenda.Chapter One analyzes the literature dealing with the Truman-Macarthur controversy and illustrates why historical scholarship has failed to grasp the larger forces at work in American foreign policy while MacArthur was UN Commander in Korea. Chapter Two traces the tumultuous events of the controversy from the outbreak of war in Korea to MacArthur's April 11 dismissal. Finally, Chapter Three analyzes the Senate hearings that followed MacArthur's dismissal, illustrates the importance of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's testimony, and explores the broader, global issues the Truman Administration faced in transforming its foreign policy while General MacArthur failed to grasp the nature of this transformation. / Department of History

The dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur on April 11, 1951, from all of his commands by President Truman furnished the impetus for this survey of editorial opinion and reaction. The newspaper editorial opinion represents five major daily newspapers with broad geographic coverage of the State of Indiana, plus a wide range of political reaction to the topic. The editorial opinion is also representative ofea diverse socio-economic base.Of the five newspapers, the Evansville Courier was one of two that retained a consistently rational outlook toward the American scene during the Truman-MacArthur conflict. It took the position early that the Korean War should not be expanded, that the chance of an expanding war with China was to be avoided. The Courier expressed its dissatisfaction with the Truman foreign policy record, including the loss of China. It supported executive privilege and roundly attacked MacArthur.The Fort Wayne News Sentinel was very conservative, expertly vindictive, and at times somewhat irrational in its editorial opinion. At other times, its tenor was completely opposite. After fighting had been stabilized at the 38th parallel, it advised moving no further north,thus supporting limitation of the war. The News Sentinel supported MacArthur to the hilt and generally, deplored American negotiations and her "cringing" under Russian communism.The Gary Post Tribune's record in regard to the Truman Administration was that it had failed in its Far Eastern foreign policy and that the policy was unclear. It called MacArthur's dismissal unfortunate, but added that the move was supported in the interest of preserving civilian supremacy and the western alliances. Early in the Senate hearings, it applauded the conduct of those proceedings but as they ground on, pleaded for their end. Imploring its readers to rational thinking, the Post Tribune insisted "Cold Reason Must Rule" and deplored the fact that it felt that negotiation was becoming synonymous with appeasement.The Indianapolis Star's production of editorial opinion was prolific, in comparison to the other newspapers. The Star maintained a consistent conservative Republican approach to all issues. The Truman Administration was condemned for loss of the World War II "Pacific victory," for appeasement and defeatism, and for the formulation and execution of its Far Eastern foreign policy. Russia was seen as the real enemy of America, and early in the Korean War, military limitations were supported but later those same limitations were attacked vigorously. The concept of limiting the war was said to encourage further aggression. The Star advocated the protection of executive privilege, and as the Senate hearings progressed, informed its readers that no new information could be gained from the testimony.Of the five newspapers, the Palladium Item was the most reactionary and irrational. Although, at times, emotionalism and an occasional case of irrationality overcame the News Sentinel and Star, the Palladium Item made a steady diet of those "entrees." In describing the toll of American lives in the Korean War, the paper revealed its nature in the editorial, the "Truman Meat Grinder." Allies were seen as worthless and Truman as a "puppet" of England. The paper insisted that Truman's "hatchet-men" were trying to smear the General's character, because he was a "champion" against "traitorous" elements in America.The editorial reaction of the five papers was conservative and condemned the Truman Administration foreign policy, especially in the Far East. The Evansville Courier and the Gary Post Tribune presented well thought-out opinions based on a rational approach to the frustrations of Americans in the Korean War and adherence to the concept of limited war. The Republican newspapers, the Indianapolis Star, the Fort Wayne News Sentinel, and the Richmond Palladium Item, adhered to the Republican condemnation of the Truman Administration.