Our Day Out as a Genre of Social Realism.

One of the main elements of this play is the conflict that occurs between Mrs Kay and Mr Briggs. Russell has created two contrasting characters, both of which have extreme views towards teaching philosophies. Mr Briggs is the more traditional teacher and is the schools disciplinarian. Mrs Kay, the liberal teacher is described as the “mother hen”. Russell uses the conflict between these characters to show two very different, yet feasible views of the reality, which the children face. Mrs Kay thinks that she will “never teach them” and that she is in a job that is “designed to fail,” therefore she is willing to let them run around and enjoy themselves. In total contrast to this, Mr Briggs thinks that the “woolly headed liberalism” show by Mrs Kay is the cause of the “shambles” of the trip. H thinks that school trips should be organised and “planned”, and that the kids should be able to learn something. Personally I am unsure whether either of these characters have the correct view. On the one hand, Mrs Kay is correct in letting the kids enjoy themselves, however her slightly stereotyped view that they will always be “factory fodder” makes me doubt how good a teacher she is. On the other hand, Mr Briggs feels that the kids should be educated at all costs, but he feels that they should avoid the fun generated when on a school trip. As soon as it starts, he lays down the supposed ground rules, and throughout, tries to educate the kids, at the zoo and at Conway Castle. There are two extreme teaching philosophies here and I think that a mixture of both would suffice in teacher today. Even today, when kids go on a school trip, they do get excited and do not really expect to learn any thing, so I think that Mrs Kay has the right attitude with a trip. However the idea that anyone is destined to “fail” is not the kind of philosophy I would like for any of my teachers.

Carol Chandler and Ronson, realise that they are not going to get anywhere unless they attempt to change.  They do want to be afforded the opportunity to learn. For example, carol asks Mrs Kay if she started to “work hard now an’ learned how to read,” whether she could make something of her life. The audience is given a sense of pathos here, because Carol does realise she needs to make something of her life. However we Mrs Kay knows that she will not be able to change and will be stuck in her social situation for the rest of her life. Mrs Kay feels sympathy for Carol and in order to keep her hopes high, does not say anything to her. As a result of this, Mrs Kay is shadowing Carol from the harsh reality of her life. Similarly, Ronson, in an argument with Mr Briggs about the caging of bears, shows how he thinks that there is always an alternative. Mr Briggs says that if the bears have been locked up since they were young, they would know nothing about the outside or free life. Ronson disagrees, he says that they “must know.” I think Russell is using the bear as a metaphor for the kids. This is where the audience can see how although the kids are isolated in their city, like the bears are in their cage, they know about the kind of life they could be living. They, like the bears who “only kills cos it’s trapped” only do wreck things or behave in a certain way because they are “trapped”; essentially, the children are victims of their social circumstances.

Russell also adds certain elements of his own sense of humour to the play, such as when the children stop at the shop and zoo. Humour, in any play, is used to entertain and engage the audience, directly involving them in the play. In the zoo and shop scene, Russell gives an aura of dramatic irony to the play, because the audience can see that something funny is about to happen without the characters being aware of it. The comical confusion evident between Mr Briggs and Andrews and Mr Briggs and Ronson allows Russell to imply the serious nature and theme of this play. Mr Briggs thinks that Andrew’s father beats him because he smokes but Andrews says he does this because he “won’t give ’im none”. This highlights the social contrast between the generations of the two characters. The humour involved at the zoo with the animals and “setting them free” is used to provide entertainment. Children become attached to things and then want to take them home, even if they know that they do not belong to them. The use of humour shows the innocence or simple-mindedness of the kids because they think they “only borrowed them.”

Another element of the play, which develops, is the relationship between the kids and the teachers. It is evident from the play that the children have a very social relationship with their teachers. The hugging and cuddling, linking of arms by Mrs Kay and even the flirting by Reilly and Linda towards Susan and Colin respectively.  All these would not even have been thought about in the schools nowadays. This shows the differences in societies attitude as far as teacher-student relationships are concerned. Therefore making this element of the play seem rather farfetched.

I think Russell has managed to create a very realistic play, which tackles many complex issues involving social realism and the deprivation of children in certain societies. He manages to do this without making the play boring and stays true to the intentions of the play. He brings together realistic and probable situations based on the real life experiences he had whilst in his teaching career, and combines them with his humorous nature to create a believable, archetypal play.