The second obvious metaphor is the goldfish in the bag. At the end of the play, when they have arrived back at school, Carol ‘walk(s) along the street with the goldfish in her grasp’. The goldfish is again signifying the children, and the bag in which it is contained, Liverpool. The goldfish is trapped, but here there is a new element. The plastic bag is not a pleasant environment for the goldfish, but if you take it out of that environment it will not be able to survive; it will die. This is obviously how Russell felt about the children, though probably not in quite such simple terms. Whilst the society of inner city Liverpool is not the best for the children, if you take them out of the familiar environment and culture they know, they will no doubt flounder and struggle in the alien surroundings. While it is unlikely they should die, they will not prosper, as they will always be outsiders in a world that they do not understand and a culture of which they are completely ignorant. The symbolism is a means for Russell to expand his views on the situation of these children, and without it he wouldn’t have been able to express himself nearly so fully or extensively.
We gain probably our greatest insight into the children’s social and cultural background through their own behaviour and attitudes. The characterisation is so detailed and this characterisation so consistent that we cannot fail to get what we feel are valid, sincere impressions of the backgrounds of the children and the way they have been brought up, though doubtlessly some of their reactions are as a consequence to people’s behaviour towards them.
At the beginning of scene one the description tells us that ‘kids are pushing, shoving, rushing, ambling, leering and jeering.’ This gives the impression that the children are perhaps slightly rough in their movements and not terribly decorous, as all these verbs are quite vigorous and forceful. At the beginning of scene four the children are described as ‘excited’ and ‘lively’. They are obviously looking forward to the school trip as is natural but perhaps to a greater degree than normal because of the few times they have been out of Liverpool. As Mr Briggs says, ‘for some of them it’s the first time they’ve been further than Birkenhead.’ When the driver of the coach insists that Mrs Kay checks the children for chocolate and lemonade before letting them on the coach, Mrs Kay asks them to raise their hands if they have any, and all the children look back at her; ‘A sea of dumb faces and unraised hands.’ Then while Mrs Kay is telling the driver how ‘the kids with (her) today don’t know what it is to look at a bar of chocolate’ and ‘Lemonade never touches their lips’, all the children are ‘stuffing themselves with sweets and lemonade.’ Though when the driver comes back on the bus it all disappears. The children have no shame in lying to the teacher, even when the driver is so much affected by Mrs Kay’s talk that he gives one of the children money to go and buy as much lemonade and chocolate as he can. It is obvious that the children have been brought up to do whatever is necessary to look after themselves, even on a small scale such as this. This tactic is apparent again when Reilly and Digga order the ‘little kid’ off the back seat, where they want to sit. Mr Briggs tells the children before they depart that he’s ‘driven in (his) car behind school coaches and seen it. A mass of little hands raised in two-fingered gestures to the passing cars.’ When Briggs asks ‘But we won’t do that will we?’ All the children chorus ‘No Sir.’ But as soon as the coach pulls away, ‘Thousands of little fingers raise in a V-sign out of the windows.’ Defiance of a teacher whom the children neither like nor respect is not a rare thing at any school, but I know from my own experience that it would never have occurred to me to make obscene gestures out of coach windows; such behaviour would have been alien to my upbringing. In all likelihood, these children have seen their parents, their families use such gestures and have picked it up from there. It highlights the society of which they a part.
As the coach leaves the city, Digga and Reilly ‘light up’, and later when questioned by Briggs, Andrews reveals that he has been smoking ‘since (he) was eight’ and now, at the age of thirteen, he is unable to give up. I think this is one of the most poignant moments in the play; Briggs is faced with a thirteen year-old who can’t stop smoking, and who says that his father ‘belts’ him, not because he is smoking, but because he won’t give him a cigarette. This conversation that Andrews has with Briggs reveals a lot about his family background, and through that the social and cultural background. We learn that Andrews’ parents are not concerned that there son smokes, and that his father ‘comes round every now an’ then an’ has a barney with (his) mam’ and ‘then he goes off again.’ Andrews thinks that ‘he tries to get money off her (Andrews’ mother) but she won’t give it him though. She hates him.’ Andrews says, ‘We all hate him.’ After Andrews has said this there is a pause because Briggs doesn’t seem to know what to say. It is also revealed slightly earlier, when Andrews wants a cigarette from Reilly and Digga but can’t have one because he hasn’t got any money, that his mother is a prostitute. Digga says ‘your ma’s loaded’ and when Andrews disagrees Reilly says ‘Well she should be…all the fellers she picks up on the Parly.’ At this point we suddenly feel a real compassion for Andrews; he has no future and no stable family unit to fall back on. Russell reveals the dysfunctional and almost tragic background that Andrews, and doubtlessly some of the other children, come from in such a way as makes it more affecting. In the same scene it is revealed that Reilly’s mother is dead, when Reilly says, ‘Sir, I swear on me mother.’ and Digga tells Briggs not to believe him, ‘How can he swear on his mother. She’s been dead for ten years.’ Then Reilly tells Briggs that his dad works on the docks and ‘He hates it.’ When Briggs asks, ‘His job or the place?’ Reilly replies ‘The whole lot.’ With these sorts of backgrounds it is hardly surprising that these children are in the Progress class, and that they smoke, swear and behave the way they do, ‘like animals.’ Parents shape the people their children become, and their behaviour can influence a child more than they may know, as we see in ‘Our Day Out’.
In scene fifteen, at the café where they stop on the way to the castle, we see more of the children’s ‘animal’ behaviour. Russell simply describes the scene; ‘The counter cannot be seen for pushing, impatient kids…As the orders are shouted, the kids are robbing stuff left, right and centre.’ We get the feeling that the children are fairly proficient when it comes to shoplifting; ‘it’s the usual trick but the two men are falling for it- the kids point to jars high up, as the men turn their backs, so racks of chocolate bars disappear into eager pockets.’ Russell depicts the scene in a comic manner, as with the whole play, and as a result we don’t fell the need to condemn the children, especially as Mac and John, the two men who run the shop, put the prices up as soon as they see the coach full of children approaching, saying ‘We’ll milk this little lot.’ I suppose these children have had the survival instinct instilled in them from a very early age, and have learnt the most effective way of getting what they want, regardless of any unspoken moral codes of society, or maybe in their society the ‘rules’ are different.
We see this same disregard for authority when the children visit the children’s zoo and fall in love with the various rabbits, guinea pigs, gerbils and bantam hens. They know they are not supposed to touch them, as Carol tells Ronson as he strokes a rabbit: ‘’Ey you. Y’ not supposed t’ touch them.’ Ronson answers by ‘picking up the rabbit and gently stroking it.’ When Carol ‘reaches over to join him…he pulls it close to him protectively’, so Carol decides to get one of her own and picks up a guinea pig. A little later Russell says ‘More kids have followed Ronson’s example. Quite a few of them are clutching furry friends.’ A little later again Russell says ‘The animal pit is empty. The children have gone.’ The coach is just about to leave when an animal keeper flags it down and strides on board. He is shouting angrily, calling the children ‘animals’. He demands of the children, ‘Where are they?’ and ‘the kids look back innocently’. A moment later a clucking hen is heard and a bantam is revealed hidden under a child’s coat. The keeper demands the rest, and ‘There’s a moment’s hesitation before the floodgates are opened. Animals appear from every conceivable hiding place. The coach becomes a menagerie.’ But this failed attempt to appropriate the animals was about more than simply the children seeing what they wanted and taking it. If there is one thing that becomes apparent through the insights we get into the family lives of the children, it is how void they are of love and affection. This is why Carol ‘has her arm linked through Mrs Kay’s and is snuggled up to her’. She is looking for some affection, as the narrative makes obvious when stating, ‘They look more like mother and daughter than teacher and pupil.’ This is why the children took the animals; to have something of their own to love and care for. For me, this somewhat infantile, and quite comical deed revealed so much about the children. While they might put on a nonchalant, blasé persona, these remedial kids really do care that they don’t have a stable, loving family, and this is why they look to Mrs Kay as a mother figure, and why Mrs Kay doesn’t try and stop them doing so.
After they have visited the castle they go to the beach, and here we see the same desire of affection that was exhibited earlier. The children look to Mrs Kay as a friend, and this is demonstrated when the children are paddling with her in the water while Briggs sits on his own. Mrs Kay starts to chase Kevin and eventually catches him. Kevin ‘is hardly able to run because of laughing so much.’ Mrs Kay turns him upside down and ducks his head under the water. He starts to complain that he ‘might get a cold’ so Mrs Kay ‘reaches in her bag and produces a towel. She wraps the towel around Kevin’s head and rubs vigorously.’ Beneath the towel Kevin is ‘beaming and happy’. There is something extremely poignant and almost tragic about these children’s desperate need for love and attention, and how even something as small as having their hair dried with a towel by a teacher can make them vastly happy.
There are two key contrasting views of the children’s social and cultural environment in ‘Our Day Out’: the children’s perspective and the teachers’. The teachers are painfully aware of the children’s hopeless situations, while the children seem to be blissfully ignorant of the impoverished futures they are inheriting from society. We witness how events turn as Carol is transported from ignorance to awareness, and gains an adult’s perception of her true situation, though she maintains only a child’s understanding of her new insights.
Throughout the play we see the two conflicting approaches to teaching of Mrs Kay and Mr Briggs. However different their methods are, they are both, however, affected by the knowledge that the education of these remedial children is, in some degrees, futile. We just find that Mrs Kay is more openly conscious of it and readier to acknowledge it.
Mrs Kay has adapted her teaching style to these children; she has accepted the partial futility of teaching them, and instead just wants them to have fun. Mr Briggs on the other hand, doesn’t want to allow that the education system has failed these children, because if he does, the foundations of his training and the meaning he attaches to it, will crumble, as we observe when he and Mrs Kay have a some-what heated discussion at the castle. She tells him that ‘There’s no in point pretending that a day out to Wales is going to furnish them with the education they should have had long ago. It’s too late for them…We’re not going to solve anything today. Can’t we just try and give them a good day out?’ Mr Briggs replies ‘Well, that’s a fine attitude isn’t it? That’s a fine attitude for a member of the teaching profession to have.’ He doesn’t seem able to handle the notion that in this case education is meaningless; he has to go on fooling himself because if he doesn’t, his whole stability and security will disintegrate. He won’t allow himself to realise the truth until it is thrust in his face, somewhat painfully, when he has to prevent Carol Chandler from throwing herself of a cliff, because she cannot stand the thought of returning to Liverpool. She has had a glimpse of what she cannot ever hope to aspire to, as Mrs Kay is obviously aware of when Carol asks her, ‘if I started to work hard now an’ learned how to read…Well, d’ y’ think I’d be able t’ live in one of them nice places?’ and Mrs Kay pauses, and replies ‘Well you could try, couldn’t you love.’ Mrs Kay clearly doesn’t want to disillusion Carol, but nor does she want to lie to her and give her false hopes.
The irony is that while Briggs refuses to accept the truth of the matter, he also doesn’t believe that the children have any chance of succeeding. As he gets on the coach at the beginning of the play, he says to Mrs Kay, ‘You’ve got some real bright sparks here, Mrs Kay. A right bunch.’ and ‘There’s a few of ‘em I could sling off right now.’ He continues this sort of prejudiced behaviour towards the children throughout the play, and doesn’t credit them with any form of intellect whatsoever. When he is faced with a suicidal Carol, he seems unable to believe that Carol is being serious; he thinks she is ‘silly’ and tries to intimidate her into leaving the cliff. Carol refuses and he is surprised by her obstinacy, not really taking her seriously. But when he realises that she isn’t just attention seeking, it makes a very forceful impression on him. Briggs changes, he becomes softer and loses his school master persona. He treats Carol as a real person, rather than as just another working-class, remedial child. From this point he transforms; he takes the children to a fair and is photographed on the waltzers, the big wheel, eating candyfloss, and with a cowboy hat on his head, handing a goldfish in a bag to Carol. We assume this metamorphosis is permanent, but we later see how hard it is for Mr Briggs to forget the principles by which he has lived his life, both in the classroom, and doubtlessly out of it.
Until the scene on the cliff, we don’t realise how much Carol has been harmed by her social and cultural background, or how aware she is of the desperation of her situation. This knowledge almost led her to kill herself, and the question that Willy Russell is begging us to ask is whether ignorance is better than awareness, and whether Mrs Kay has done more harm than good by allowing the children one glorious taste of what they could never hope to have. She wanted to give them a good day out, but she also showed them the world that isn’t within the grasp of these children; she made them aware of what they haven’t got and could never hope to have, and Mrs Kay knows that as well as Carol does when she tells Mr Briggs, ‘Don’t be friggin’ stupid’ after he has suggested that if she works hard and gets a good job she could move to somewhere nice when she’s old enough.
When I read ‘Our Day Out’, I don’t see it as a fictional play, but as a window opening onto an unceasing society and a culture wholly different from my own. It doesn’t seem as if it is a story, but a documentary, and I think this extent of authenticity can only be reached when the playwright has direct experiences to draw on such as Willy Russell has. He has lived and worked in this society, so although the characters are entirely fictional, to some degree the story isn’t. The poignancy and intensity of the play is somewhat masked in places by the comedy, but we do catch glimpses of the hopeless, desperate situation these children are facing. As Mrs Kay says, ‘Ten years ago you could teach them to stand in a line, you could teach them to obey, to expect little more than a lousy factory job. But now they haven’t even got that to aim for…There’s nothing for them to do, any of them; most of them were born for factory fodder, but the factories have closed down.’ Throughout the play this is the underlying tone, and the subtle way that Russell conveys this message heightens the effect when it comes. This day out is simply an oasis; one day of fun out of their whole lives, and at the end of it we see how the glimmer of something bright and beautiful makes it all the harder to turn your eyes back to the grey and mundane.