The performance of Oil at the Almeida Theatre critiqued many subjects, including western feminism, imperialism, and the human desire to continue to advance, thus destroying nature and ourselves in the process. In order to critique these issues, the playwright focused on a mother and daughter throughout multiple generations struggling to survive as best as possible. However, the advancements that the mother takes for her and her daughter destroy their relationship(s). One of the most important questions I drew from the performance and the discussion is how do these issues fit together and what does it mean for our future, both in nature and with relationships? In the beginning of the play, the setting is in the 1800s without electrical lighting
…show more content…
When there, she was ratted out to her mother by a friend about her whereabouts. Her mother, being a political figure, bribed the Iranian woman and a terrorist group in order to find Amy. Again, there is the destruction of relationships between the mother and daughter because of a break in trust. In contrast to this broken bond, the Iranian woman is doing everything for her family. She, too, is taking bribes for a better life, but she is not breaking the ties with the people that rely on her to survive. She makes this point to Amy; although, because of privilege, Amy does not understand the lengths that the Iranian woman must go to in order to survive. In fact, here she pushes western feminism on her “friend” by saying that she has a choice to not take the money and do the “right” thing. The point is made that the money, however, is the only thing that will feed her blind mother and rebuild her home. Amy learns here that her logic—her life—cannot apply to the survival of others and critiques the commentary that western feminism makes on the power of choice. In reality, not everyone has a choice but to do everything they can to survive, much like her mother. Furthermore, by pushing western feminism ideas on her “friend,” she is imposing a sort of cultural imperialism similar to taking over oil control in foreign countries. She thinks it needs fixing when
When there, she was ratted out to her mother by a friend about her whereabouts. Her mother, being a political figure, bribed the Iranian woman and a terrorist group in order to find Amy. Again, there is the destruction of relationships between the mother and daughter because of a break in trust. In contrast to this broken bond, the Iranian woman is doing everything for her family. She, too, is taking bribes for a better life, but she is not breaking the ties with the people that rely on her to survive. She makes this point to Amy; although, because of privilege, Amy does not understand the lengths that the Iranian woman must go to in order to survive. In fact, here she pushes western feminism on her “friend” by saying that she has a choice to not take the money and do the “right” thing. The point is made that the money, however, is the only thing that will feed her blind mother and rebuild her home. Amy learns here that her logic—her life—cannot apply to the survival of others and critiques the commentary that western feminism makes on the power of choice. In reality, not everyone has a choice but to do everything they can to survive, much like her mother. Furthermore, by pushing western feminism ideas on her “friend,” she is imposing a sort of cultural imperialism similar to taking over oil control in foreign countries. She thinks it needs fixing when