What Goes Around Comes Around

One of my favorite things about this story is how everything comes back around in the end. The play starts out with Walter and Ruth arguing. At one point Ruth calls Willy Harris a “good-for-nothing loudmouth” (32) and then as you all know, Willy Harris ran off with the Youngers money. Early on in the story Walter is harassing Beneatha about wanting to be a doctor and then the play ends with Walter poking fun at Beneatha telling her to marry George Murchison. In the second scene Beneatha says “I’m not worried about who I’m going to marry yet – if I ever get married” (50) and then in the third scene Asagai asks her to marry him and move to Nigeria, where she wouldn’t need the money that Walter gave away.

Like Meagan mentioned, another good example of this is Mama and her plant. One of the first things Mama said was “Lord, if this little old plant don’t get more sun than its been getting it ain’t never going to see spring again” (40). The play then ends with the plant in Mama’s hands, on its way to the new home where it’s going to get planted in a garden and live a good life, just like Mama.

In the beginning of this, the entire family is desperate for money. Ruth tells Travis that she can’t give him 50 cents, although the value of money has inflated over the years that’s still wasn’t a lot of money. In the end, the family turns down Mr. Lindner’s offer for the second time, although they still don’t have a lot of money, they still have each other and a fresh start ahead of them; which is more important than material things like money, and a nice Chrysler with black wheels or a new Cadillac. I feel like these are the values mama wants her children to be instilled with. Throughout the book she’s constantly bringing up how her children are always talking and thinking about money and how much she doesn’t like it.

 

Questions:

What are some other examples of things coming around full circle that you noticed when reading or watching the movie?

One thing I noticed that was different about the movie was that the scene with Mrs. Johnson was left out. What are some differences between the book and the movie that you noticed?

15 thoughts on “What Goes Around Comes Around”

  1. Michael,
    I found your blog post very interesting! I was so focused on figuring out what the Younger family was going to decide to do with the house and the money while reading it, that your point with how many things came back around didn’t even go through my head. Your idea with Asagai with making his proposal to Beneatha is a prime example to support your claim because it went through stages like you stated in your blog post in scene two Beneatha says “I’m not worried about who I’m going to marry yet – if I ever get married” (50), then goes on and she gets proposed to in the last act. I also think that the example with Mama’s plant is definitely very significant with your main idea because not only is it ending with the plant (so that is already showing it was important during the play), but it was also symbolizing that they’re onto bigger and better things. Pointing out how so many things throughout the story ended up coming back towards the end was a really interesting concept.

  2. Michael,
    I found the positive ending quite pleasing as well! I’ve always loved movies, plays, books, etc., when they have happy endings. Something about the good energy of it that makes the reader feel satisfied with the story. I found that there was many differences between the play and the movie. In the film, Beneatha doesn’t cut her hair, viewers see Walter actually at work, the setting takes place in more than just the crammed apartment, there are bar scenes, and the bar is called ‘Kitty Kat Klub.’ After watching the movie and reading the play, I discovered the movie allows you to get a different outlook about the story. In the movie, Asagai’s body language towards Beneatha allows viewers to see his connection with her more. Seeing the play acted out and put into real-life scenes allows us to have a more detailed and thought provoking mindset.

  3. Excellent point, Michael!
    It is great that you bring up how Lorraine Hansberry brings certain aspects and characters full circle, or brings things back in the end that she puts in the beginning. I believe the most prominent example of character growth is in Walter, particularly as portrayed in the film. Walter seems to be hopelessly lost in his dreams of a better life for most of the text, and I think it comes off more so that way in the movie by having scenes take place in the bar. In scene one, Mama says “…That’s where brother get’s all these notions, I reckon. Big Walter used to say… ‘Seem like God didn’t see fit to give the black man nothing but dreams – but He did give us children to make them dreams seem worth while.’”(45-46) Here Mama kind of states a theme of her love for her late husband and how she wishes Walter would grow into the family man that his father was, which comes to fruition in the final scene of the play when Walter stands up for his family to Mr. Lindner. “And we have decided to move into our house because my father – my father – he earned it for us brick by brick. (MAMA has her eyes closed and is rocking back and forth as though she were in church, with her head nodding the Amen yes.)”(148) Here, Mama is approving of the man Walter has proven to be in this moment and she states it at the end to Ruth as they are packing up and leaving. “He finally came into his manhood today, didn’t he? Kind of like a rainbow after the rain…”(151) In this particular part of the scene in the movie, I felt that the interaction between Ruth and Mama was lacking in comparison to how I read the scene originally and saw it play out. For instance it says Ruth is “biting her lip lest her own pride explode in front of Mama” as she says: ‘Yes, Lena.’ However in the movie I didn’t feel that emotion at all from the actress, she seemed distant at that moment and quietly answered Mama. And the movie ends slightly differently than in the text, in that Walter is there with Mama in the end of the scene and watches from the hall as she turns around to grab her plant before leaving. This works for the movie as I feel it is a little more focused on Walter and Mama’s relationship in the film than the text. I feel that in the film they dulled Ruth’s role a bit, she seemed more of a secondary character than she felt in the play and they seemed to have reduced the scene where Walter and Ruth argue and then make up only to be walked in on by Mama down to nothing but a warm embrace at night in bed after Walter comes home from getting the money. By placing the scene where Mama gives Walter the $6,500 in the Kitty Kat bar, it changes the whole scene. It makes both Walter and Mama look more vulnerable. Why would Mama just be handing a wad of cash that big out at a place like that? It seemed out of character, to me, for Mama to even walk into a place like that. I felt that she still held herself to certain standards in the text. This scene also results in the heartwarming scene of bonding between Walter and Travis after Walter gets the money to be removed.

  4. Michael,

    I think you’ve done a great job with your blog post. I really like how you made the connection of the play coming full circle at the end. It is evident that the characters behave in similar ways at the end of the play. I also noticed that Beneatha acted a similar way in the last scene as she did in the first scene, which you made clear when you stated, “Early on in the story Walter is harassing Beneatha about wanting to be a doctor and then the play ends with Walter poking fun at Beneatha telling her to marry George Murchison”. Similarly, I felt that Walter acts as a bit of a bully towards her in this last scene as he does in the opening scene as well. Although the characters have progressed, they still show their unique personality traits.

    One of the differences that I notice between the script and the film is Beneath’s hair. In the script, she cuts her hair short when she is trying to impress Agasai with her African knowledge and heritage. In the film, this element is left out – her hair is short in the beginning. There is also a bit of a change in the film when Walter leaves after Mama tells the family about the house she bought. Mama follows Walter to the bar to take him home. A very drunk Walter explains to his mother that he cannot see a future, and this is when she trusts him with the leftover money. This scene is not present in the script. Overall, however, I feel that the film follows the script very closely.

  5. Hi Michael,
    I noticed several things coming full circle in the book. One of them was about the money; in the beginning they Younger family didn’t have money and in the end they lost the money which placed them right in the situation they were in before. Another one that was interesting was when Beneatha said she was never getting married but when Asagai “proposed” to her she wanted to accept it.
    Three differences I saw between the play and book was Beneatha’s hair, Kitty Kat Klub, and Mrs. Johnson; Beneatha doesn’t cut her hair, the bar scenes with Willy Harris, Walter Lee, and Bobo at the Kitty Kat Klub, and that Mrs. Johnson wasn’t present in the play.

  6. Some differences I noticed between the play and the book is that the movie shows Bobo, Willy, and Walter talking at the Kitty Kat bar. In the book, Beneatha takes off her African headdress and shows that she had cut her hair off but in the movie, she didn’t cut it. She also never tells Ruth the definition of an assimilationist. Another difference between the book and the movie is that when Ruth gets the call that Walter hasn’t been to work in three days, Walter was home in the book while in the movie Mama has to go to the bar and talk to him. Mama also gives Walter the money at the Kitty Kat bar in the movie. In the book, she gives it to him at home. The scene after Walter receives the money from Mama, he was supposed to have a conversation with Travis about what he wants to be when he grows up but it never happens in the movie.

  7. Michael,
    I agree that a lot of the play does come full circle in the final act and personally, I find this to be very satisfying. To come full circle is to complete a task, and the story has successfully done so. Although many things made this transformation from the money troubles all the way down to something as simple as Beneatha’s hair, my favorite aspect in the story is the one that remained constant: Beneatha and Walter fighting. They yell at each other in the first scene of the play and they’re still yelling on the very last page. Although Walter has matured and so has Beneatha, they still express their love and concern for one another the same way. The only change that really struck me was that in the movie Beneatha does not cut her hair. This disappointed me because her hair and it’s association with assimilation was a major aspect of the story, and a main issue between she and Asagai’s relationship, but perhaps this change wasn’t practical when it came to the production of the movie. I feel like the book portrayed the message of the story better than the movie, but the movie was great for the visual aspect of the story.

  8. Micheal,
    I was pleased when I read The ending. Upon finishing act II scene III, I was worried for the fate of the Younger family. Like you, I also noticed how everything connects. While there is character development, I noticed that the major traits of each characters remained true despite how toxic some of these traits are. For example, Beneatha and Walter’s relationship stays the same from start to finish. From the first time Beneatha’s character is introduced to the last page of the play, They are at each other’s throats. Another example of this is their financial situation. In the beginning of the play the Youngers had no money. Come the end of the play, they also are lacking in money as well despite getting a large insurance check. Some of the differences I noticed between the book and the play were Beneatha’s hair. In the book she cut it short to impress Assegai with her heritage. In the movie her hair is short from the start. Also, When the Youngers get the call that Walter hadn’t been to work the past three days, he isn’t home. In the book, Walter is home when they get the call.

  9. In my opinion the most apparent “full circle” was the family’s trust for Walter. All throughout the first act it is clear that the family’s views toward Walter’s ideas are negative. Although the reader might develop a sense of pity for Walter due to the fact that he doesn’t even get support from his family, this is clearly justified by the end of the play. Walter doesn’t have his family’s support simply because he hasn’t earned it, and his loss of the Younger’s money is a perfect example of why he doesn’t have his family’s support. The largest difference I noticed between the movie and the book is the short hair of Beneatha. In the book Beneatha’s hair symbolizes her freedom in a way in that her reasoning for cutting her hair was to practice traditional African ways of life. Beneatha is clearly one of the tougher characters in the book and this scene is great for her character’s image, however it was left out of the movie.

  10. Hey,
    I really enjoyed reading your final paragraph. Particularly because you bring up the part about Ruth not wanting to give Travis 50 cents. I do agree this come full circle because the story starts with no money, continues into the middle chuck of the play with the Youngers finally able to crawl out of poverty, only for them to be shoved back into their prison. It’s interesting also in the play that you brought up how Travis is being forced to see money as an issue at a young age. Although he seems pretty innocent and not immensely distressed at the start of the play, I understand the struggle of a family in need of financial help. I feel bad for Travis because his father, who promised him the world will no longer be able to provide that to his child because he blew it. Now Travis will suffer through his life playing with rats and not knowing what it’s like to run and play in a real backyard. Overall, I feel the fact that the play does end up in full circle is an additional sad note to a bad situation to a good family.

  11. Michael,
    One of the examples that you hi lighted was the idea of things coming full circle, or coming around in the end and kind of having closure or a happy ending maybe. I loved the example of Mama and her plant and that was for sure my favorite one. I think the plant was so important to Mama because even though her family said it was ugly and ratty looking, she still wanted to keep it going and water and nurture it. She said it reflected her, and that is true. You can see it in the way she worked so hard to care for her home, herself, and her family even if those things didn’t fit the idea of perfect or beautiful. Her and her family had a lot of character and spirit and I think that is a big part of what the plant represented in the book.

Leave a Reply

css.php