When looking deeper into the fact that Miller has done this, one could say that in bringing in a man as socially esteemed and valued in the American society in a situation of personal anguish regarding immigrants has given the story meaning, not just as a story in itself but as something important that should be recognized by the outside world. Miller has attempted and in the most part succeeded in bringing the tragedy Italian immigrants faced after finally arriving to this, ‘ Land of Dreams’ and finding that the stories they had been told, the rumours they had heard may have been true, but with the only work available to them being ‘Pick and Shovel’, there was no way they would ever be able to access them. This was a subject that lay close to Miller’s heart; with both his parents being immigrants to America in addition to the amount of time he had spent working and also being connected with Italian families, he had seen a part of America that was not perfect and this was not something that, unlike most of the population, he wanted to sweep under the carpet and ignore. Miller felt he had to do something about it and because of his previous successes in the theatrical industry took this as the opportunity to further his career and try and illuminate the situation he cared about to the view of the public. Concerning the play and the situation Alfieri faced, Miller showed the world how even a man as successful and established as Alfieri is not bigger than a situation such as this.
This introduces the idea of fate and how it appears that amongst all the events there is a greater force at work that takes away the control of the outcomes of events from the characters and suggests that some things are just destined to be.
Arthur Miller was fixated with the idea of inevitability and this is supported by the fact the play was originally called, “An Italian Tragedy”. This traces to the idea of a ‘Greek Tragedy’, where in Greek times every tragedy followed the same course of ‘Introduction’, ‘Climax’ then ‘Resolution’, and in which, every one would contain a Protagonist, a Chorus and a death. Arthur Miller uses this genre of tragedy specifically for this outcome. He wishes that the audience should see the seriousness of the situation and a death amplifies this to a level that a fall-out or arrest wouldn’t. Miller fits Eddie into the role of the protagonist, going through all the motions of the central character and finally meeting his doom as he is supposed to. However it would not matter if it were the character of Eddie in this role because as a Greek tragedy the course of the protagonist will always run the same and no matter what decisions or courses of action Eddie took the outcome would always be the same and he would die. Alfieri, as the role of the Chorus, summarizes events that take place offstage and comments on the actions of the main characters bringing a more balanced, rational viewpoint to the actions of the impassioned characters. Alfieri develops the audiences understanding of theme and plot by occasionally updating the audiences knowledge of what is and has been going on.
Alfieri as well as being able to form relationships with the characters is able to form a personal relationship with the audience through speaking directly to them. He is further, trusted by the audience because of his status and the element of trust also, which being a lawyer brings that make his words more believable as the actual truth, than that which may come from the other characters.
The actual predestined situation of a Greek tragedy is something A. Miller planned to correspond with the events that he planned for the play. Miller makes the audience think about the extent to which humans are able to control events by enforcing the structure of tragedy where doom and death are predetermined and the characters in the situation have no control over the outcome, for one example, “This one’s name was Eddie Carbone”. Miller has used this line to show the universal sense the play is written in. This is supported in a quote from Arthur Miller where he says; “The common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as Kings were”. The fact that it could be anyone in the role of the protagonist enforces the idea that it is destiny in control of the character’s fates and that they are not the ones in control. Therefore, if this is true whatever happens death will foreshadow their every move and as it gets ever closer so does the climax; thus increasing the excitement, and in the end showing that fate is all powerful as even the competent and intelligent Alfieri is unable to prevent the tragedy that is to become of them.
Arthur Miller has chosen Alfieri deliberately as an intelligent man for many reasons. Firstly the articulate language and correct grammar he has picked up whilst being educated sets him apart from the other characters, “His eyes were like tunnels”.
Alfieri uses very poetic and eloquent speech, which segregates him from the general characters in the play, who are forced to use very direct and blunt wording because of their unlearned tongue. It is apparent to the audience that this difference between the ways in which the characters speak also affects the way they display their emotions and convey powerful thought. Through being an educated man Alfieri is able to delicately and subtly put his point across to a character, “To promise not to kill, is not dishonourable”. Apart from displaying Alfieri’s intelligence it also gives his words a scale of importance. For example where he speaking words that have just flown from his mind he uses these delicate similes and clever turns-of phrase that he is infamous for, however when he is forcing a point that has been repeated and repeated in his mind he is much more forceful and blunt. It is then that his language becomes similar to the other characters in the play and A. Miller uses this to add climax and an importance to his events. He is able to do this because the psychology behind losing your skill of tongue is that when you are so desperate and urgent that the recipient should understand and believe in what you are saying, it is automatic that you say it in the simplest form possible, so that there is no chance it is not understood. This is of course a subconscious action. Through this he is able to show the audience a depth that they will find intriguing and also accessible and allow the actors to show feeling and emotion not only through intonation and expression but through the difference in the language used, for example it would be much harder to portray anger in a deep and thoughtful sentence than it would be with a short sharp one.
At the time of Miller’s writing the play, and even now, there was and is deep controversy surrounding the ‘American Dream’. To some America was seen as a fresh, new nation that was full of hope: where the jobs were plenty and the money in good supply. It was a dream many people held close to them as a means of escape from the hard life they may have been living, and to the people who actually took the move it was a dream that was almost certainly shattered.
Arthur Miller opposed the idea that this false prophecy should be believed to the sole benefit of the American economy and tourist industry when it would disappoint so many, the majority being mainly Italians from barren backgrounds who had come all this distance to be told they were to start working the ‘pick and shovel’ and that there would be no stream of money or welcoming arms when they arrived. In addition to the fact that this was happening he felt it unjust that this issue was being ignored and the hardship they went through is amplified by the success and social difference of Alfieri.
The way of life Alfieri is living is so different to that of the general characters it provides a blunt contrast for his audience so that they are able to see the destitution the characters go through, which not only adds profundity to the story and an admiration of the characters and their real-life counter-parts, it also sheds light on the situation. Also by using Alfieri as the example of someone living the American life it gives the public a notion of how hard life is for them and perhaps persuade them to act upon it.
It is clear that the alteration of the ‘American Dream’ was one of his main priorities and this is recognized through out the play. However his negative views of the current way the ‘American Dream’ was perceived did not give him the ambition to destroy it all together. He wanted to fill the dream with hope and a real hope that could actually be experienced by those moving to the U.S.A. In using Alfieri he is not only playing a dual role in the Greek chorus/ character sense but also as an illuminator of the problems of immigrants and also as a giver of hope to those who wish to come to America. Miller provides this hope because through making Alfieri an Italian immigrant himself he shows that it is possible to be successful in America whatever your background. The success of Alfieri however comes at a price, “we settle for half, and I like it better”. It is only possible at the compromise to their culture and the adaptation to American life, which is in Alfieri’s eyes not so bad after all. The fact that Miller portrays the adaptation to American life shows the truth behind his promise. Rather than displaying every issue at a positive point of view in the Italian’s favour, he displays things as they are and in a sense this adds integrity to his words. In the way that Alfieri’s adaptation has had positive outcomes on his behalf, it is so that Eddie’s refusal to adapt brings on his downfall. The effect this has on the theme of the play is that it adds a lot more importance on culture and the importance it has to a nation.
Arthur Miller was born in New York City in 1915. His parents were both immigrants into the United States and after his father’s business collapsed he had to work as a warehouseman in order to save his fees to go to university. Miller experienced many hardships in life to get to where he was. Most of them he experienced in close proximity to the Italian/American world that ‘A View from the Bridge’ centres around, as did he also make connections with their family-concentrate concerns. When he did finally make his breakthrough into the world of theatre he was told about a story very similar to the one he writes on in ‘A View from the Bridge’ and decided he would shed light on the situation of the Italian community and the difficulties they and he have encountered. He brings Alfieri into the play as the view from the bridge. The view being one that he could see and wanted the American public at the time to see, also.
There are subtle and subconscious similarities between Alfieri and Miller and I think he used the viewpoint of Alfieri to indirectly express his own. For example, the dilemma Miller faces in creating the play is as such: to leave the play at a point where he is not yet an established playwright and has the great possibility of incurring negative feedback from the American public for tarnishing the ‘American Dream’ and uncovering a problem they wanted to be left as just that, or to produce the play and try and fix a problem that is obvious to him because of his past and ignore the risk of ruining the career at the thought of helping people, who in his mind, where just as important as the people he was putting the play to. The dilemma Alfieri faces is in whether to try and help Eddie not just as a lawyer but also as a friend. On one hand he can ignore the situation he knows is happening (such as Miller could have done) and keep the reputation he has worked all his life to obtain or he can try to interrupt, talk to Eddie and persuade him from what he knows will happen at the risk of scarring his reputation but helping a friend. Of course in the end he does not succeed in the path he chooses because fate interrupts however both Alfieri and Miller chose the moral path to go down and through showing this through such a man as Alfieri, Miller is setting the example for the American people to do the same.
