The Controversy of “Friendship” The word “friendship” is a generic term, yet it is a topic with much controversy over its precise nature. Over the years, society has become misguided by materialistic and superficial values, and we’ve defined ourselves as “individuals” while disconnecting from everyone and everything. Friendship no longer carries significant philosophical importance to us because we live in a world where individualism predominates. Dawn Powell’s “Big Night” accurately depicts a time when all values are being overtaken by business values. The characters in the play all act with ulterior selfish motives, and Powell accentuates this theme of disillusionment through the dialogue and the characters’ interactions with each other. She encourages the reader to question the legitimacy of the characters’ “friendships” and makes the reader wonder, “Are Ed and Myra really husband and wife, or are they merely two different people using one another for their own gain?” This idea of “false friendship” can also be seen in the teachings of Greek philosopher, Aristotle. Aristotle knew the necessities of friendship, but also realized the different forms that friendship could take shape of. The characters of “Big Night” all together effectively represent a form of Aristotle’s friendship that is ultimately based on utility. Friendship is necessary to life and in a way, one can say the friends around us may define who we are. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he elaborately discusses three different kinds of friendship: friendship based on utility, friendship based on pleasure, friendship based on goodness. Friendship based on utility is when both people derive some benefit from each other. Aristotle describes this kind of friendship as shallow and “easily dissolved” (Aristotle 144). The second is friendship based on pleasure, where both people are drawn to the other’s wit, good looks, or other pleasant qualities. It differs from the friendship of utility in that those who seek utility friendships are looking for a business deal or a long term benefit, whereas the friendship of pleasure Aristotle describes is where one seeks something which is pleasant to them presently. Like the friendship of utility, this type of relationship is fleeting and target of constant change. Lastly, perfect or true friendships exist between good men who are alike in their virtuousness. These types of people are hard to come by and it takes a lot of work to have a complete virtuous friendship regardless of utility or pleasure. However, “such a friendship is, as might be expected, permanent, since there meet in it all the qualities that friends should have” (Aristotle 149). By using Aristotle’s method of judging friendships, it is quite obvious that the nature of all the relationships seen in “Big Night” all fall under Aristotle’s friendship of utility, starting with Ed and Myra’s relationship. From the start of the opening act, Powell gives numerous amounts of hints indicating that Ed and Myra did not have a stable relationship. It is apparent that Ed uses Myra constantly in order to gain favor of his clients by taking advantage of Myra’s physical attractiveness. He parades her like “a big show doll” (Powell 83) by convincing her to dress up for his customers and put on a sociable act as a loving housewife. At first it seems as if Ed is the only one using Myra for her beauty, and Myra is just trying to accommodate him because he is her husband. However, the “utility” relationship they both share becomes evident in the concluding act of the play when they reveal each other’s truths. Even during Myra’s time at Betsey Dale, Ed was already getting her to “hold [the customer’s] hands while” he got a “look-in with the customer” (Powell 94). It is also at this moment that the audience is able to figure out that Ed “had a big drawing account then,” (Powell 94) and Myra in turn uses Ed in order to get out of Betsey Dale and enjoy the luxurious life she thought she would have with Ed. In addition, Myra confesses that she made love to Jones the night before, and Jones ends up trying to calm Ed down by turning the business of the Fortune Stores over to Ed for 1933, which would mean a “half a million dollars worth of advertising a year” (Powell 98) for Ed. If Ed and Myra were to have a perfect friendship, Jones’ offer would have meant nothing to Ed because his relationship with Myra was in jeopardy. The fact that Ed immediately thinks about his business first over his terminating marriage reinforces the point that Ed and Myra did indeed have a friendship of utility all along. Aristotle states that friendships based on usefulness last only as long as the relationship is useful. Now that Ed was able to successfully obtain the Fortune Stores, he simply overlooks the fact that Myra cheats on him with Ed and dismisses it as if there was nothing to worry about. Accordingly, by running off with Jones, Myra has “no [use] going on with Ed” (Powell 102), thus discontinuing their relationship that was based all on utility. There are moments in “Big Night” when the reader is led to believe that true friendship could possibly exist among this group of selfish individuals. After Ed walks out on Myra, Jones continues his relentless pursuit to obtain Myra’s approval and hand by saying he would marry her in a minute if she was free. Dazed at first, Myra realizes that Jones never pretended to be anything but himself around her and thinks he appreciates her for who she is. Knowing that she and Ed no longer need each other, she accepts his sudden proposal, and the elements of an initial true friendship seem to be developing. However, like Ed, Jones is a businessman too and his values encourage him to use any of his attributes, whether it is his lofty business status or even Myra, to his advantage. To Aristotle’s dismay, Jones goes on to talk about how Myra could utilize her experience with the fresh buyers at Betsey Dale in order to “handle” (Powell 103) his competitors, and possibly “get [him] into the Riders’ Club twenty- four hours after old Vernay finds out” (Powel 103) Myra is his wife. The audience is able to clearly see Jones’ real motives in wanting Myra because in his mind, having an attractive wife would elevate his stature even higher and might even help him get into prestigious clubs he normally would not be able to get into. Similarly, Myra finds an opportunity to live her elegant lifestyle by being with a successful businessman like Jones and takes it on the spot without much thought.
Although Aristotle believes that a perfect friendship between people who are good and alike in virtue can exist no matter how rare it is, Powell seems to think differently. All the characters in “Big Night” in one way or another utilize each other in order to acquire their own personal gains. Ed and Fargo both try to befriend Jones in order to work with Jones and his Fortune Stores. Jones accepts Ed’s invitation in order to see Myra again. Even Chet Davies makes an appearance at Ed’s place in hopes of meeting Jones who could possibly back Chet in his own musical career. Some may say that Myra should be exempt from this overarching theme of utilization because she faithfully helps Ed in his attempt to “woo” his clients. Furthermore, her stage directions in the concluding act can be interpreted in a way that makes her seem heartbroken and devastated that Ed completely ignores her relationship with Jones after hearing that he would be making half a million dollars. Nonetheless, she too quickly bounces back and decides her best bet would be to run off with Jones and his wealthy lifestyle, making her guilty of establishing friendship based on utility as well.
What makes Myra different from the other characters in “Big Night” is not that she does not see people through their utility, but it is that she is the play’s tragic hero. Many readers mistake the protagonist of the play to be Ed because the play seems to be centered on him and his business. A protagonist in any literary work is the main character that the reader or audience empathizes with. Anyone can argue that people can empathize with Ed in his trying pursuit for success, but the main difference between Ed and Myra is the Ed is a static character and Myra is a dynamic character. Ed and his ideals remain the same throughout the entirety of the play. From the beginning, Ed is characterized as a trying advertising agent whose main focus is to make money using any means necessary, even if it is showcasing his wife. Even after he finds out his wife had cheated on him, his character does not waver because in the end, he made the sale even if it meant that his wife had to sleep with a client. This is the mentality Ed has throughout the play and this is how he ends up leaving the play as well when he tells Myra to “get all set for a big night” (Powell 100) with his other client, Friedman. On the other hand, Myra is the character that many would empathize with because of the predicament she is stuck in. She is treated as merely a tool to Ed when really she is the reason for all of Ed’s success with his clients. Friedman of the Friedman Company describes Myra as “one in a million” (Powell 18) when telling Levine, Ed’s boss, that he was favorable impressed with Ed. It can be inferred that Myra must have made some kind of impact at Friedman and Ed’s meeting together. Additionally, it is again because of Myra that Ed is able to get the deal with Jones. She is also the only character to recognize the relationship she has with Ed is simply based on utility, and she ends up taking matters into her own hands.
Ultimately, the choices that Myra makes at the end of the play make this protagonist the tragic hero of the story. The reader is able to empathize with Myra because she is only being utilized for her assets in her marriage with Ed. Therefore, when she decides to finally challenge Ed and leave him for Jones, there is a moment when the audience will be uplifted to learn that Myra will be able to lead a different and better life than the one she has with Ed. Yet, after understanding Jones’ true intentions of desiring Myra, the reader cannot help but feel sorry for her once again, solidifying her as the tragic hero of the play. It is important to realize that this does not change the reason why she decides to be with Jones. She still bases her choice on how useful Jones could be rather than Ed. However, the real tragedy is knowing that her only alternative choice brings her back to the same situation she was originally in with Ed.

Bibliography
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Joe Sachs. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing

Powell, Dawn, Michael Sexton, and Tim Page. Four Plays. South Royalton, VT: Steerforth, 1999. Print.