The play opens with Kitty and Edward in a seemingly happy and successful marriage. They have a new house and a newborn. They hold hands, lean on each other, make public displays of affection in front of friends. However, it is later revealed that Edward cheated on Kitty five years prior to the play’s present. There was no apology, no recompense, no (long term or notable) punishment, and therefore no justice for Kitty. Can an offense be forgiven by the offended without a sense of justice? The play suggests the answer is no. The unhappiness in her relationship surfaces with accelerating speed, as if once it is recognized as a shadow in the glow of a relationship’s “successes,” it becomes unavoidable. Perhaps, it is even as early as Kitty questioning the motif of sex in her friends’ (Rachel and Jake’s) conversation that this shadow begins to be noticed in the glow. Only Kitty questions if “[the friend’s] relationship is okay.” Edward takes a disbelieving stance of "do you think" which undermines Kitty's perception of the conversation. Because of the characterization of her own relationship, the question first appears to stem form genuine concern for her friends. However, she insists on what she interprets, suggesting a keenness for recognizing how unhappiness manifests in a relationship. How, if her own relationship is so happy? Kitty’s concern is steadfast and certain as she shows fascination for Rachel’s bitter tasting comment: “it is easy to make someone look stupid in a text.” The comment suggests that one accused the other of wrongdoing with a text as his/her evidence. Kitty's refusal to drop the question suggests a personal investment in the topic after her friends leave. Later events reveal that her personal investment is a sympathetic eye, one who would recognize the signs of cheating and looks for them having herself been cheated on. Kitty is correct in her interpretation that one is cheating on the other, establishing ethos for her later accusations on the topic of infidelity.
It isn’t until about halfway through the first act that Kitty begins to ask the same questions about her own marriage. When Kitty questions if Edward is cheating, her accusations conflict with his working dad, active father, loving husband characterization. However, she was able to recognize cheating in her friends relationship, which means she understands to some extent the signs of infidelity. Her evidence is speculative: she called him twice, he was out, he said he was with a work friends, he didn’t answer his phone, he was there for hours. Kitty does not use the word “again” in her accusations. She also does not ask questions that hint at a larger history of Edward cheating, but remain fixated on the single set of circumstances as if this is the time she catches him. His calm reactions, his unfaltering story suggests he is telling the truth. However, her accusations— in hindsight after seeing the entire play— are grounded in a larger trend which both the characters are aware of. Kitty’s questions stem from her observations, suggesting that in the five years, between the last time he was caught cheating and the time of these accusations, she has been looking for signs of infidelity. She does not trust her husband. The choice to confront Edward with this specific set of circumstances suggests that she holds the same certainty, if not more, than when she questioned Rachel and Jake’s relationship after they left, that yes, this time she caught him.
The ongoing frustration takes form as Edward dismisses the argument. Kitty screams at Edward across the kitchen: “you never apologize about anything.” It is not explicit in the scene what Edward should be apologizing for, but the use of “anything” suggests a long history of acts which warranted apologies. The observation being vocalized suggests she has not yet forgiven him, and will not until she receives at least an "I'm sorry." In a Christmas party game of Truth or Dare, Edward reveals that he cheated on Kitty five years prior, but denies cheating now. Kitty explicitly admits in front of the couple’s friends that she has never forgiven him, despite telling him she has. She demands empathy, but in the absence of an apology, seeks justice. Can justice exist without punishing the offense?
When empathy is denied, she cheats on Edward in an attempt to find her own sense of justice. She explicitly believes justice will come when he shows “empathy.” However, cheating— taking an eye for an eye— does not evoke empathy, but forces sympathy through shared misery. It is not enough that she too cheats, but that he learns what she has done, that he too loses trust and happiness in the marriage. She wants him to “know how [she] felt.” This is punishment, but is it justice? It is not standardized like the predetermined punishment of the state, but it is premeditated and personal. Kitty's cheating was no accident, but malicious. It begins when she actively accepts Tim's offer, an offer she previously denied because she is married. She does not show shame, but flaunts this affair by mocking Edward's denial back at him. She tells him she hadn’t checked her phone, that she was out with a friend. Her affair is malicious with the intent that Edward know exactly as she felt. However, there is an irony in punishing a behavior through that same behavior. Does the affair actually offer a sense of justice? If it does, is this actually justice, or simply revenge? Are they in some circumstances the same?
No comments:
Post a Comment