No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Barbara Garson’s controversial play, MacBird!, was written and produced during the Vietnam War era and Johnson administration. The satirical Shakespeare adaptation equates LBJ with Macbeth, the villainous tragic hero who murders his king in order to gain the Scottish crown. The implication that Johnson was responsible for the assassination of JFK created a fury of controversy among critics and the public, as well as the political leaders who were parodied. The play was first published and circulated in 1966 as an underground leaflet. In 1967, it was produced off-Broadway with a cast that featured actors Rue McClanahan, William Devane, Cleavon Little, and Stacy Keach, who won an Obie Award for his performance of the title role. The show launched the careers of these actors. Critics were divided in their reviews of the play’s literary merit, but all seemed to agree that the piece was shocking and significant because it flew in the face of patriotism and of reverence for presidential authority. At the time of its production, acclaimed theater critic Robert Brustein named MacBird! “the most explosive play” of the Sixties theater movement. This dissertation presents the history of the play, within its social and political setting, from its inception through its production and abrupt disappearance at the peak of its success, which coincided with the assassination of Robert Kennedy. Relying upon methodology that includes primary and secondary sources, as well as interviews with the playwright and others involved in the play, this work presents the publication and production history of MacBird!, public and White House response to the play, a contextual analysis under a feminist lens, and a final chapter on MacBird! as a precursor to feminist adaptations of canonical works, Sixties-era Macbeth adaptations, and the notable women whose work intersected in MacBird! MacBird! was a tremendous event in theater history; it belongs at the fore of adaptation studies, particularly Shakespeare and feminist adaptation studies; it is a prime model of performance as a political tool and therefore earns a central place in performance studies; and because it is an attack on patriarchal power and a rare example of a Sixties radical play written by a woman, Barbara Garson needs to be recognized among remarkable women of theater. / text

O principal objetivo deste trabalho é investigar a forma dialética presente em Exércitos da Noite, uma das mais reconhecidas e ousadas obras do romancista norte-americano Norman Mailer. Publicada originalmente em 1968, Exércitos é um relato pessoal do autor sobre sua vivência na Marcha sobre o Pentágono, manifestação civil que reuniu milhares de pessoas em Washington, em outubro de 1967, em protesto contra a política americana na guerra do Vietnã. O livro, dividido em duas partes, recria, na primeira, uma perspectiva ficcional dos eventos, em contraste com a segunda, na qual Mailer procura criar uma visão histórica sobre os episódios da Marcha, recorrendo, para tanto, a técnicas de reportagem e excertos da cobertura da mídia no período, num tom fundamentalmente ensaístico. Permeando toda a narrativa, há o explosivo contexto da vida norte-americana do período, com sua cultura hippie, a emergência dos movimentos civis e a queima pública das cartas de convocação para a guerra. A presente dissertação analisa este peculiar romance à luz de textos centrais das áreas de teoria literária e estudos jornalísticos, além de evocar outros autores que, como Mailer, fizeram parte de um grande contexto renovador do jornalismo literário nos anos 1960 e 1970 chamado, genericamente, de Novo Jornalismo, de origem norte-americana e repercussões profundas, inclusive no Brasil. Com tal abordagem, intento alcançar uma melhor compreensão acerca dos mecanismos ficcionais que sustentam e aproximam os discursos jornalístico e literário, nomeadamente na obra de Mailer, que o crítico do New York Times Alfred Kazin definiu à época como um \"diário-ensaio-tratado-sermão\", com Mailer desempenhando seu dileto papel ficcional de visionário da América. / The main purpose of this issue is to investigate the dialectic form on Norman Mailer\'s acclaimed and Pulitzer-winner novel The Armies of the Night: The History as a Novel, The Novel as History, first published in 1968 as the author\'s personal account of the March on the Pentagon, a peace rally that shook Washington D.C. for three days in October 1967 and gathered thousands of civilians on a protest against the american policies concerning the Vietnam War. The book, divided into two parts, recreates, on the first, a fictional perspective of the events, while the second intends to convey a historical view on the same context, by mixing reporting techniques, excerpts from the media coverage and essayistic interventions. Throughout the whole book runs the thread of the mythic north-american background of the period, with its hippie culture, civilian movements and burned draft cards. Drawing on key authors from the literary and journalistic studies, this work pursuits a better understanding of the specific fictional procedures shared both by journalism and literature, namely on Armies of the Night, Mailer\'s new journalistic piece, that the New York Times critic Alfred Kazin defined tentatively as a \"diary-essaytract- sermon\", with Mailer playing his favorite part of the American visionary.

Esta tese aborda o tema do impacto político e intelectual da Guerra do Vietnã nos Estados Unidos a partir da história da fundação e dos primeiros anos de existência do periódico Foreign Policy (1970-1977). A intervenção no Vietnã desencadeou uma intensa contestação na sociedade norte-americana em relação às doutrinas e práticas de Guerra Fria que, até então, eram amplamente aceitas. A crise foi tão profunda que as principais organizações de política externa, o sistema político, os consagrados membros do establishment e as bases ideacionais e intelectuais que sustentavam as práticas intervencionistas se tornaram todos alvos de profundos questionamentos e, muitas vezes, violentos ataques. A história da Foreign Policy reconstrói este processo a partir de um ponto de vista privilegiado, uma vez que foi esta crise que motivou a fundação de um novo periódico com a intenção de revisar a política externa norte-americana e reformular os paradigmas analíticos em relações internacionais. Além disso, diversos membros da Foreign Policy participaram de decisões da intervenção no Vietnã, quando ainda eram mais jovens, e assumiram ao longo da década de 1970 posição de destaque na elaboração de uma política externa menos intervencionista e militarista (o que desencadeia na participação deles no governo Carter) ou na constituição de novos paradigmas intelectuais em política internacional que transcendiam o tema da Guerra Fria, abordando a crescente interdependência e as novas questões sociais globais. Esta tese retoma desde a Guerra do Vietnã até as propostas de governo do presidente Carter e os novos paradigmas analíticos em relações internacionais a partir da trajetória de membros da Foreign Policy (Samuel Huntington, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Holbrooke, James C. Thomson, Joseph Nye, entre outros). A história deste periódico ajuda a compreender melhor uma conjuntura política decisiva nos Estados Unidos em que foram concebidos os germes da polarização política, da crise do establishment e de uma preocupação política com as consequências domésticas de uma economia cada vez mais interdependente e globalizada. / This dissertation focuses on the political and intellectual impact of the Vietnam War in the United States, based on the founding and first years of the existence of Foreign Policy Magazine (1970-1977). Intervention in Vietnam set off an intense dispute in American society regarding the Cold War doctrines and practices, which had been widely accepted until then. The crisis was so deep that the major foreign policy organizations, the political system, respected members of the establishment, and the ideological and intellectual bases that had sustained the interventionist practices all became targets of profound questioning and, frequently violent attacks. The history of Foreign Policy reconstructs this process based on a privileged vantage point, since it was this crisis that motivated the rise of a new periodical with the intention of reviewing American foreign policy and reformulating the analytical paradigms regarding international relations. Moreover, various members of Foreign Policy had taken part in the decisions to intervene in Vietnam, when they were younger, and during the 1970s assumed a position of importance in developing a less interventionist and militaristic foreign policy (which led to their participation in the Carter government), or in the creation of new intellectual paradigms in international politics that transcend the theme of the Cold War, focusing on increasing interdependence and the new global social issues. This dissertation reexamines the period from the Vietnam War to the Carter president proposals and the new analytical paradigms with respect to international relations based on the trajectory of the Foreign Policy associates (Samuel Huntington, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Holbrooke, James C. Thomson, Joseph Nye, and others). The history of this journal helps to better understand one decisive political juncture of the United States, wherein were conceived the seeds of political polarization, the crisis of the establishment, and of a political concern with the domestic consequences of an increasingly interdependent and globalized economy.

In 1974, President Ford began the arduous task of healing the wounds sustained by the United States during the Vietnam War. His controversial clemency plan gave those who had either deserted the military or those who evaded the draft the chance to earn their way back into American society. President Ford was willing to face this opposition to move the country closer to resolving an issue that was tearing the nation apart. In the applications to Ford’s Presidential Clemency Board, thousands of deserters and evaders reveal their motivations, and in doing so present a large body of evidence that contradicts the usual perception of the Vietnam “draft-dodger” and deserter. In the transition between the hardline anti-clemency position of President Nixon, and the full clemency position of President Carter, Ford took strong measures to achieve resolution, and the evidence herein could suggest a reappraisal of the Ford presidency.