I have no problem with taking liberties with a play, as long as they fit with the times or enhance with finished product.
Having Gwendolyn get a tattoo on her arse was ridiculous and didn't do a thing to move the story along or give insight into a character. It was put in there for shock value or in a weak attempt to be daring and modern.
The tattoo did add one thing. It greatly increased Gwendolyn's motivation that her beloved have the name Earnest thus adding to the vital Importance of Being Earnest.
shareTatoos on young ladies in contemporary 21st-century US and Britain are increasingly common among all socioeconomic classes. If we were to consult the ghost of Oscar Wilde, I think he would find this additional little plot fillip hilarious!
http://www.cathouse-fcc.org/gifs-jpegs/teshimaya.jpg
I got to see a half of a lady's butt, which was one of the only interesting things about this film.
shareThe tattoo represents very well the fact that the innocent young Gwendolyn was not that innocent. As any of the characters were not innocent. That is what the play is about, the two male characters have double identities, and double behavior. Why not the girls and the auntie?
The outrage of the op over a tattoo points to that direction. If you are offended because you discovered this Gwendolyn has a tattoo, then the play have made fun of you.
I thought the same thing initially; however, some research turned up that in the late 19th century & early 20th century, it was fashionable for upper-class women to get tattoos. Winston Churchill's mother had one on her wrist. I believe it was a snake.
share[deleted]