I'll start with something that I've been thinking about constantly lately that it's a play that either as a text but also the representations of it from films or performances through the years create an additional mythology on it. That has the difficulty that you have to be as clear as possible to remove those filters and read the play. This process is tremendously interesting because aspects are discovered that have either been overlooked or we wish we could see other things than what is there because of so many representations. Therefore two main aspects that exist overall in Tennessee Williams' work, which yes is realism but at the same time has strong doses of poeticism, in how he composes the scenes where he is not concerned with the absolute representation of reality but within it he puts descriptions where they magnify a situation and take it to a side reality and the other in relation to the work in particular is that there is a strong class reading of it. Blanche is representative of an old order. An old aristocracy and on the other hand Stanley is a working class second generation immigrant Polish man who has fought for America and through all of this he is offered the American dream and he grabs it. So we see a fall of the old order and the emergence of a new one with a different momentum more rational and pragmatic.

Describe the hero and if you encountered any kind of difficulties.

Personally I find it simplistic and harmless to represent a clichéd macho masculinity. Stanley is constantly referred to in the play by both Stella and Blanche as a commoner. What Dimitri Karantzas and I were discussing now in 2024 you understand that a masculinity that is abusive, intrusive, emasculating, wants to have power, is not necessarily embodied by a masculine-brutal. You can see this in a common man you have next to you and that seems to me to be more dangerous. That is, that we can now recognize this intrusive discourse in all its forms and not in one specific one.

What is it that hurts Stanley?

We start from two of his basic characteristics. One is that he is a Polish immigrant and that means he has been subjected to racism unimaginable as an immigrant in a pre-World War II America. This thing has clearly shaped him. Although he lives in a multicultural neighborhood with tolerance, we see that Blanche constantly belittles him as to his origins, and this awakens memories that he had theoretically overcome because he has renounced his old identity and declares himself a proud American citizen. A second characteristic that is difficult for us to read today while watching the play but familiar and readable to people of the time is that Stanley fought in WWII. His job was to disarm mines. The danger he faced was unimaginable. Also that war has left him with a post-traumatic stress. So the sense of danger as he formed it in the minefields is strong and uncontrollable. A landmine for him is Blanche who invades his home. Who by her appearance negates, nullifies and devalues everything he has accomplished. So there is a renegotiation of identity and when it has been constructed through past wounds then all these traumas come to the surface.

I'll tell you about their large audience that they both have a lot of traumas and wounds where their conflict takes place on top of that. Their main difference is that Stanley looks at reality for what it is and looks within it to find the edge. On the contrary, Blanche is precisely the reality she cannot handle and needs to create side interpretations of reality in order to survive.

Would you liken him to a modern-day immigrant?

I'm thinking he's closer to a second generation immigrant where he would vote for Trump in the upcoming election. He carries those additional characteristics. While he is Polish he likes to call himself an American and that of course means something. Of course it is also the fault of society for not accepting him but he himself is not doing anything to see the world in a progressive way. Also all his identification with the current discourse tends towards an absolutism.

First of all, by looking up S. Kowalski and reading letters and correspondence we find that he is the alloy of three people. His father, a colleague and an affair. All the characteristics of Stanley's anger and his outbursts are taken from his partner. Also the part of alcoholism, secret homosexuality, mental illness, and the class aspect is present in all his works is in some way common.

Does the clash of the past with brute reality still prevail in our days?

As a society we are in a transitional stage. I say this because if the issue of gender discrimination has been somewhat opened up in recent years, we see how easily voices of the past come out to defend something that goes to change the terms in which people interact with each other in terms of equality and accessibility against a patriarchal discourse. A discourse that belongs to the past is trying to critique a new discourse that is trying to find its footing and be positioned. We see this in the immigration issue where instead of the solution being a community approach to things and solidarity that understands and interprets the problem in order to solve it, xenophobic and racist voices that are certainly of the past are instead making their appearance.