Specifications that use this resource:

Modern times: Literature from 1945 to the present day: exemplar student response and examiner commentary

Below you will find an exemplar student response to a Section A question in the specimen assessment materials, followed by an examiner commentary on the response. This resource is designed to support you in teaching the 'Modern times: Literature from 1945 to the present day' component of A-level English Literature A.

Paper 2B, Section A

Question

Examine the view that A Streetcar Named Desire fails because the relationship between Stella and Stanley is 'inconceivable'.

Band 5 response

It is arguable that Williams' representation of the very different characters of Stella and Stanley make their relationship unrealistic. Whereas Stella is an aristocrat from the Old South, clearly upper-class and well-spoken, Stanley is a second generation Polish immigrant, 'born and raised in the greatest country on earth and proud as hell of it' who uses working-class demotic language and is presented as the modern 'alpha male'. It could be argued that opposites attract, however it may be difficult for any audience – contemporary or modern – to really understand how these two characters not only got married, but ever even crossed paths.

Perhaps their relationship becomes less unbelievable when taking into account the historical, social and cultural context in which the play was produced and set, which seem to have created the perfect storm for this couple to have met. During the Second World War the social differences between the pair would likely have been diminished in such a time of upheaval; Stella coming to New Orleans for work and Stanley being a respectable soldier seems to have blurred the boundaries of their social divide. On the other hand, other audiences may still challenge the idea that the couple is at all 'conceivable' as Stanley's reaction to Blanche – whose social status is identical to Stella's – is extremely hostile, as is evident when he mocks her snobbish attitude and pretentious actions; 'You come in here and sprinkle the place with powder and spray perfume and cover the light bulb with a paper lantern, and lo and behold the place has turned into Egypt and you are the Queen of the Nile!' Meanwhile Blanche's equal dislike and prejudice can be seen as she frequently refers to him as a 'Polack' or 'ape-like'. So why is the relationship between Stella and Stanley not the same? Perhaps Stanley's dislike is partly insecurity; that Blanche will convince Stella that she has made a mistake and should return to her aristocratic roots. Ironically however, Williams suggests that Stella subconsciously likes the fact that Stanley is so different from all the Old Southern gentlemen back home; this seems evident in her confession to Blanche that on their wedding night Stanley 'smashed all the light bulbs with the heel of my slipper!' Blanche is horrified and asks if she 'Didn't run, didn't scream?' At this point Stella actually admits 'I was sort of thrilled by it.'

With this in mind, their relationship may be 'conceivable' in terms of their sexual passion. The fact Stella's pregnancy marks time visibly for the audience throughout the play is a physical reminder that is ever-present to show that the couple are sexually active. Furthermore, at the start of the play Stanley throws a package of raw meat at Stella, who catches it. This sexual innuendo foreshadows and physically connotes their passion and the fact that Stella catches it suggests her obsessions and transfixion with Stanley. For him, the action of bringing home the raw meat and throwing it around reinforces his primal, animalistic character.

One way in which it can be argued that the Kowalskis' relationship is genuinely 'inconceivable' is the infamous Poker Night scene where Stanley gets drunk and hits Stella, who seeks refuge with her neighbour Eunice. His animalistic violent nature is seen here and even recognised by Stella who calls him an 'animal thing'. He even roars 'STELL-LAHHHH!' and the stage directions indicate this sounds like a 'baying hound'. Yet upon hearing this Stella returns to him and they reinforce their sexual passion as they 'come together with low animal moans'. When Blanche goes to see Stella the next morning, she is shocked and horrified to see that they have had a passionate lovemaking session and all is forgiven. This is where, perhaps, a modern feminist audience may see the relationship as 'inconceivable'. The soap-opera like dramatic impact of the Poker Night seems like something from a television melodrama, and the fact that Stanley hits his pregnant wife and is forgiven so quickly seems questionable. Williams seems to suggest that Stella's sexual obsession with her husband means she ends up turning a blind eye to his violence. Perhaps some audiences just do not want to believe that domestic violence can be so easily ignored by everyone involved.

Stella's infatuation with Stanley poses more trouble in the final scene of the play when she chooses to believe Stanley over Blanche, confessing to Eunice that she 'couldn't believe her story' about the rape. This is again arguably evidence that their relationship is 'inconceivable' given Stella finds it easier to believe in Blanche's 'madness' than her truth, maybe in denial and through feeling life has to go on for the baby's sake. Contextually, you have to wonder what other choices a young woman with a baby would have actually had in 1947. However another question has to be, to what 'conceivable' extent is Stella's infatuation with Stanley so strong that she would choose him over her own flesh and blood, especially with such a troubling account of events totally in line with what someone of Stanley's character would do?

Therefore, it seems that while some audiences may prefer to interpret Williams' representation of the relationship as 'inconceivable', the social, historical and cultural context of the play in fact suggests it is more than likely.

Examiner commentary

AO1

A disciplined answer that serves well the ideas informing it. The conduct of the debate is assured both in overall structure and in the use of discussion 'markers' at key points. Technical accuracy is of a uniformly high standard; the vocabulary is particularly impressive, showing maturity and appropriateness in almost every sentence. The question is answered and focus on most of the key words is sustained. We do have to infer whether or not the play 'fails'.

AO2

Assertions are supported with direct or indirect reference to the text of the play. The words and actions of significant characters are foregrounded, even when contextual matters are under discussion (see A03). Quotations of varying length are well-chosen and skilfully embedded, and always accompanied by perceptive explanation and/or analysis connecting them closely to the text and to the argument. There is a secure awareness of the text as a play for the stage.

AO3

The candidate is fully aware of the play's various contexts and is able to discuss its 'reception' and impact on audiences, thereby enhancing the argument in no small measure.

AO4

The clash between cultures and the clash within marriage between two individuals – most of the time seen as representatives of those cultures – are thoroughly explored and so connect with the representation of one of the central issues of modern literature.

AO5

Alternative interpretations are investigated and expounded with understanding at a sophisticated level, with assurance and with perception. There is much evidence of a personal and considered response to the play and of a well-honed skill in constructing and conducting a balanced debate.

Overall

'This response would seem to fit comfortably into Band 5'.

Specifications that use this resource: