DKVietnam

The Vietnamization of New Jersey & The Life and Times of Tulsa Lovechild: A Comparison On a basic level, the subject matter and setting of the two plays __The Life and Times of Tulsa Lovechild__ by Greg Owens and __The Vietnamization of New Jersey__ by Christopher Durang are essentially the same. Both deal with the 1960’s and 1970’s, as well as with the Vietnam War and its reprisals and effects on American society. Additionally, each play uses farce comedy to convey the authors’ attitude toward the subject matter. The most readily apparent differences between the two plays stem from the differing types of familial relationships they present. For example, the structure of the family depicted in __The Vietnamization of New Jersey__ is the epitome of a traditional, nuclear family unit in the style of “Leave it to Beaver”: mother, father, and two sons, all living together. Contrasting sharply with this iconic image of idyllic American life is Tulsa’s family: a single child, born to teenaged, hippie parents, her father killed at a young age in Vietnam and replaced in her mother’s affections by Stockton, someone who directly opposed his political and life views. However, despite the surface appearances of the two family structures, it is Tulsa’s family, the chaotic, disjointed, fractured one, that provides its child with the love and support she needs. For all that David’s family appears more cohesive and better suited to supporting and successfully raising a functional child, with both mother and father present, along with a brother and a live-in housekeeper, they ultimately fail him. This familial failure to adequately understand and actually care for David led in large part to his death: if any of the other characters had shown some concern for him or actually tried to talk to him about Vietnam and his personal guilt complex, they very likely could have swayed him from his self-destructive path. One key moment where this might have changed the play’s outcome was in the last few pages, when David first announces his intentions. He tells his mother that he plans to set himself on fire, and she simply replies “I see” before launching into greeting her younger son and inquiring about his school work. She never returns the focus to her older, overlooked, suicidal son, nor does she say anything more about the matter until he has already soaked himself in gasoline and is about to strike the match that will end his life, at which point she cries out, “NO!” However, she goes on to explain that, rather than suddenly realizing that she is about to lose her first-born child, she simply doesn’t want to have to clean up an additional mess inside the house. Ever obliging, David leaves to complete the nasty, dirty business of ending his own life outside, where he is overshadowed in death just as he was in life: the family pays more attention to the flashy fireworks Et set off than to the flames signaling the end of his life. In these two plays, Durang takes the idea of a traditional family and its traditional values and turns them on their ear, while Owens shows us that love and support can come from even the most unusual of circumstances. The most effective part in conveying each of the playwright’s approaches is the character of the mother. Differences between the two mother characters and their relationships with their children lead to huge differences in the children’s development, self confidence, and overall sense of balance in life. Although Ozzie Ann, from Durang’s play, and Sylvia, from Owens’ play, could both generally be described as unorthodox and somewhat flighty, Sylvia is still able to provide Tulsa with all the love and attention she needs to develop properly and become a functional, largely self-sufficient person. In contrast, Ozzie Ann seems unable to act as a parent and role model for her children in any way, instead largely relying on her housekeeper, Hazel, to provide direction and stability for her two sons and, to a certain extent, her husband and herself as well. This lack of true maternal involvement contributed to preventing David and Et from developing into mature, stable adults as Tulsa was able to do. Comedy is also used very differently in these two plays. Being a farce comedy, __The Vietnamization of New Jersey__ contains many elements and events that, although they may be humorous to watch, are really more bizarre than actually comedic. __Tulsa Lovechild__ relies more on interesting and amusing characters, and witty dialogue, and over the top scenarios (such as all of the characters winding up in Bob’s motel at the same time) to provide comedic relief. Similarly, __The Vietnamization of New Jersey__ deals with the Vietnam War in a much more heavy-handed manner than __Tulsa Lovechild__ does. Although a viewer might briefly lose track of Vietnam’s presence in Durang’s play, it is certain to rear its head again momentarily. Vietnam is the direct reason for most of the action in the play, from David’s change in character to Liat’s presence to David’s ultimate death. Vietnam is an intrinsic, and obvious, part of the play. Conversely, Owens is much subtler about his inclusion of the war. It is mentioned, and is the reason why most of Tulsa’s childhood was the way it was, from her father’s death to Stockton’s presence to her mother’s ideals. The important difference is that the war took place in her childhood, rather than in the present. Unlike the characters in Durang’s play, Tulsa has grown up and become more distanced from the war. Therefore, it is not nearly as prevalent in __Tulsa Lovechild__ as in __The Vietnamization of New Jersey__.