There were a few contrasts within
this play. Among the few that I found, my favorite one would be,
Von Wehrhahn. “…. And it’s as true when I say here, Mrs.
Wolff is an honest soul, as it is when I tell you with the same certainty, your
Dr. Fleischer is an extremely dangerous fellow.”
The judge is someone the public relies
on for truth, he is the man that decides if another man is guilty or innocent. In
this comedy, it is obvious that judge von Wehrhahn do not see good from evil. It
is described in the play that Mrs. Wolff is responsible for the theft of the
fire wood as well as the beaver coat. She is both deceptive and smart, and is
capable of covering up her tracks so well that no one suspects her of stealing.
However, Judge von Wehrhahn’s arrogance and ignorance has led him to believe
that Mrs. Wolff is both honest and trustworthy. He only wants to uncover and
arrest the sinister and the politically outlawed people in town and is
completely blind towards a criminal right in front of him. To me, this is
reflective of the foolishness of authorities in reality. Authorities are often so
sure of themselves that they would not consider anything but their own point of
view. They only cared about climbing up the political stairways to the top that
they would do anything to get there, even if it involves stepping on a few
innocents.
On the contrary, even though Dr.
Fleicher reads about twenty different newspapers and talks to many free
thinking people, there was not anything dangerous about him. He was not secretly
plotting a revolution or attack on the government. If anything, he was
portrayed as a loving father with a normal family and a friendly attitude. He
even turned pale when Mrs. Wolff mentioned being locked up in jail. However,
the judge is again lacking critical thinking when he assumes Dr. Fleicher is an
anarchist based on Motes’ sole opinions. This is again reflective of the authorities’
decisions towards policies that are defective because they refuse to consider
views that are less beneficial to them. Instead, they choose to claim views
that are more likely to be accepted by the public at large, stabilizing their credibility
in the process.
Speaking of judging people before really investigating them and only listening to one source, Mr. Motes is not seen too much in the play. He is talked about and that's how we get our perception of him. Could it be that our perception is wrong and based solely on the viewpoints of other characters? I guess the moral here is "don't judge a book by it's cover" or from what others tell you.
ReplyDelete