WHAT needs my Shakespeare, for his honoured bones,
The labour of an age in pilèd stones?
Or that his hollowed relics should be hid
Under a stary-pointing pyramid?
Dear son of Memory, great heir of Fame,
What need’st thou such weak witness of thy name?
Thou, in our wonder and astonishment,
Hast built thyself a livelong monument.
For whilst, to the shame of slow-endeavouring art,
Thy easy numbers flow, and that each heart
Hath, from the leaves of thy unvalued book,
Those Delphic lines with deep impression took;
Then thou, our fancy of itself bereaving,
Dost make us marble, with too much conceiving;
And, so sepulchred, in such pomp dost lie,
That kings for such a tomb would wish to die.
-- On Shakespeare, by John Milton
Friday, April 23, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
"A man may write of love, and not be in love"
There have been many thoughts rattling around in my brain since SAA (Shakespeare Association of America) 2010. Some of them finally coalesced into something perhaps coherent after attending James Shapiro’s lecture at the Folger this past Friday. Shapiro was lecturing on his new book, Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? I was already part way through the book, as I was able to pick up an advanced reader copy at SAA.
Despite the second part of the title, Shapiro isn’t actually interested in who. He’s interested in why and when. Why people believe in different authorship theories, and when it came to be that people started to believe that Shakespeare didn’t write the plays ascribed to him, as this wasn’t questioned until after 1850. So it’s a more recent phenomenon.
Shapiro points out that every non-Stratfordian argument is based on an autobiographical reading of the plays and poems. So and so had this happen in his life which is just like what happens in that play, etc. This frustrates Shapiro because it a specifically modern notion of authorship – literature as self-exploration. Early modern writing was not autobiographical, and therefore it is ridiculous to try and find clues about who Shakespeare was in his plays.
Shapiro made me and the rest of the audience laugh when he said that this view always made him think about an Elizabethan School of Writing. Kit Marlowe, William Shakespeare, and Thomas Kyd are sitting in a classroom. The teacher asks, “What have you got for us this week, Kit?” Marlowe responds, “Oh it’s this play called Tamburlaine about this Scythian shepherd who conquers the world.” “Hmm,” says the teacher, “Are you from Scythia? Ever been there? Know any shepherds?” Shapiro’s point is that literature does not have to be “Write What You Know.”
Shapiro quoted the 1593 poem Licia to illustrate this point: "A man may write of love, and not be in love, as well as of husbandry, and not go to plough, or of witches and be none."
One other point I found interested was Shapiro characterizing Shakespeare as a man of “unparalleled imagination.” He said that even though he wrote his thesis on Marlowe, he got bored pretty quickly. And yet, after teaching Shakespeare for years, he doesn’t think he’ll ever get bored with Shakespeare.
I was left thinking a lot about acting. How? Well there seemed to be a question coming up in a lot of the seminars I attended at SAA this year. Sometimes this question was asked outright, but sometimes it just seemed to be underlying what was said. It seemed to have a part in three seminars. Two that I observed: "Shakespeare and Theatrical Reconstructions" (much about the Globe and the Blackfriars Playhouse) and "Emotional Realism on the Stage", and of course the one I participated in: "Shakespeare and Systems of Rehearsal". In my seminar in fact, I was actually asked this question, and I’m not sure at that point I gave a very clear answer, because I didn’t have one until now. The question was How does studying Shakespeare and the early modern theatrical conditions help an actor today? Or even, does it at all? Is there a point to learning about this history? My answer was yes it helps, but I didn’t really have a complete answer to how it helps. But now I have two thoughts about it. The first is more something to throw out there, and a thought that I wished had been fully formulated during the conference so I could have brought it up during the Emotional Realism seminar:
A lot of the criticism and talk seems to have a Shakespeare vs. Stanislavsky feel, and I don’t think the two are incompatible or diametrically opposed. In fact, I’m curious about ways they connect. Is there a link between Patrick Tucker’s work with the Original Shakespeare Company and emotional realism/emotional memory? Tucker, in his book Secrets of Acting Shakespeare, argues that Shakespeare would put the actor in the same situation as the character in order to give the actor a shorthand for performance. This was necessary due to the lack of rehearsal, and the fact that actors were not given the full script to study (just cue scripts with only their lines on it). One specific example Tucker gives is Isabella in Measure for Measure. The actor playing Isabella would have had a script that ended with her (his) last line, so the actor would not know that the Duke was going to propose marriage. So when the Duke did propose marriage this actor would have been surprised and confused, and therefore, according to Tucker, Isabella was supposed to be surprised and confused. Presumably, this would only really work the first time an actor encountered a text. So the next time, the actor would use the memory of that first time and know how to play the scene? If Tucker’s theory is correct, is this not a sort of early modern version of emotional memory? Or is Tucker’s theory flawed because he is looking at it from a modern conception of acting?
My second thought was a more specific answer to the question of How does studying Shakespeare’s theatre help a modern actor? and it came to me while listening to Shapiro speak. Just like modern writers are taught to “write what you know”, so to are modern actors taught to use themselves in performance. I remember one actor friend telling me the motto of a prominent American acting school was “you are enough.” It seems to me that for writers to learn that writing was not always a self-exploration only opens the door for more possibilities, just as it would for actors to learn that there was performance before and beyond Stanisklavsky’s (or Strasberg's) methods. Shakespeare was a writer of “unparalleled imagination” and other writers can learn from that. So to can it help actors to learn that acting wasn’t always about looking on the inside, that they can also strive to be performers of “unparalleled imagination.” If a man may write of love, and not be in love, so too should a man be able to act in love, without ever having been in love. In one of the seminars someone quoted someone else, "Acting doesn't get better, it gets different." Learning about former/other notions of acting and personality can only give a modern actor more ideas, approaches, tools.
This also ties into a paper session I attended, "Shakespeare and the Extended Mind". There were three papers and they had to do with changing notions of cognition and how that is dramatized. Today we understand cognition neurologically. In the early modern period they thought that cognition was humoral. This obviously affects the way playwright wrote then versus how they wrote now. Then emotions were felt, expressed through the whole body. Today we understand them as occurring in the brain. An actor absolutely needs to understand conditions like this in order to understand how to approach an early modern text and an early modern character.
Despite the second part of the title, Shapiro isn’t actually interested in who. He’s interested in why and when. Why people believe in different authorship theories, and when it came to be that people started to believe that Shakespeare didn’t write the plays ascribed to him, as this wasn’t questioned until after 1850. So it’s a more recent phenomenon.
Shapiro points out that every non-Stratfordian argument is based on an autobiographical reading of the plays and poems. So and so had this happen in his life which is just like what happens in that play, etc. This frustrates Shapiro because it a specifically modern notion of authorship – literature as self-exploration. Early modern writing was not autobiographical, and therefore it is ridiculous to try and find clues about who Shakespeare was in his plays.
Shapiro made me and the rest of the audience laugh when he said that this view always made him think about an Elizabethan School of Writing. Kit Marlowe, William Shakespeare, and Thomas Kyd are sitting in a classroom. The teacher asks, “What have you got for us this week, Kit?” Marlowe responds, “Oh it’s this play called Tamburlaine about this Scythian shepherd who conquers the world.” “Hmm,” says the teacher, “Are you from Scythia? Ever been there? Know any shepherds?” Shapiro’s point is that literature does not have to be “Write What You Know.”
Shapiro quoted the 1593 poem Licia to illustrate this point: "A man may write of love, and not be in love, as well as of husbandry, and not go to plough, or of witches and be none."
One other point I found interested was Shapiro characterizing Shakespeare as a man of “unparalleled imagination.” He said that even though he wrote his thesis on Marlowe, he got bored pretty quickly. And yet, after teaching Shakespeare for years, he doesn’t think he’ll ever get bored with Shakespeare.
I was left thinking a lot about acting. How? Well there seemed to be a question coming up in a lot of the seminars I attended at SAA this year. Sometimes this question was asked outright, but sometimes it just seemed to be underlying what was said. It seemed to have a part in three seminars. Two that I observed: "Shakespeare and Theatrical Reconstructions" (much about the Globe and the Blackfriars Playhouse) and "Emotional Realism on the Stage", and of course the one I participated in: "Shakespeare and Systems of Rehearsal". In my seminar in fact, I was actually asked this question, and I’m not sure at that point I gave a very clear answer, because I didn’t have one until now. The question was How does studying Shakespeare and the early modern theatrical conditions help an actor today? Or even, does it at all? Is there a point to learning about this history? My answer was yes it helps, but I didn’t really have a complete answer to how it helps. But now I have two thoughts about it. The first is more something to throw out there, and a thought that I wished had been fully formulated during the conference so I could have brought it up during the Emotional Realism seminar:
A lot of the criticism and talk seems to have a Shakespeare vs. Stanislavsky feel, and I don’t think the two are incompatible or diametrically opposed. In fact, I’m curious about ways they connect. Is there a link between Patrick Tucker’s work with the Original Shakespeare Company and emotional realism/emotional memory? Tucker, in his book Secrets of Acting Shakespeare, argues that Shakespeare would put the actor in the same situation as the character in order to give the actor a shorthand for performance. This was necessary due to the lack of rehearsal, and the fact that actors were not given the full script to study (just cue scripts with only their lines on it). One specific example Tucker gives is Isabella in Measure for Measure. The actor playing Isabella would have had a script that ended with her (his) last line, so the actor would not know that the Duke was going to propose marriage. So when the Duke did propose marriage this actor would have been surprised and confused, and therefore, according to Tucker, Isabella was supposed to be surprised and confused. Presumably, this would only really work the first time an actor encountered a text. So the next time, the actor would use the memory of that first time and know how to play the scene? If Tucker’s theory is correct, is this not a sort of early modern version of emotional memory? Or is Tucker’s theory flawed because he is looking at it from a modern conception of acting?
My second thought was a more specific answer to the question of How does studying Shakespeare’s theatre help a modern actor? and it came to me while listening to Shapiro speak. Just like modern writers are taught to “write what you know”, so to are modern actors taught to use themselves in performance. I remember one actor friend telling me the motto of a prominent American acting school was “you are enough.” It seems to me that for writers to learn that writing was not always a self-exploration only opens the door for more possibilities, just as it would for actors to learn that there was performance before and beyond Stanisklavsky’s (or Strasberg's) methods. Shakespeare was a writer of “unparalleled imagination” and other writers can learn from that. So to can it help actors to learn that acting wasn’t always about looking on the inside, that they can also strive to be performers of “unparalleled imagination.” If a man may write of love, and not be in love, so too should a man be able to act in love, without ever having been in love. In one of the seminars someone quoted someone else, "Acting doesn't get better, it gets different." Learning about former/other notions of acting and personality can only give a modern actor more ideas, approaches, tools.
This also ties into a paper session I attended, "Shakespeare and the Extended Mind". There were three papers and they had to do with changing notions of cognition and how that is dramatized. Today we understand cognition neurologically. In the early modern period they thought that cognition was humoral. This obviously affects the way playwright wrote then versus how they wrote now. Then emotions were felt, expressed through the whole body. Today we understand them as occurring in the brain. An actor absolutely needs to understand conditions like this in order to understand how to approach an early modern text and an early modern character.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
39:38 Edward III
Day 39 of 38:38
BONUS DAY!
Edward III
So after completing the 38 plays of Shakespeare in 38 days, I have fallen behind on the bonus days. Well, that's life, I suppose. I might move on to one of these a week. More probable to be one of these whenever I have time. And thanks to SAA, I've got a brand new copy of Thomas Middleton's Collected Works to work my way through as well. But, one play at a time.
Surprisingly, I actually have both read and seen Edward III before. Chesapeake Shakespeare in MD did a reading of it for one of their Pub Night events, and then about a year after that I saw a fine production of the play at Washington Shakespeare Company. In performance, it's a viable play, and one that depends on the main actor to carry it off. WSC's lead was quite good and fittingly charismatic.
Prevailing opinion is that Shakespeare had a hand in writing Edward III, but that it was a collaboration. I think the notion of collaboration is obvious from the two completely separate actions of the play. The first half of the play is taken up with Edward's wooing of the Countess of Salisbury. But this story line is completely forgotten in the second half of the play, which deals entirely with war with France, a war in which the English are strong and victorious.
As for whether Shakespeare had a hand in it? Well, thou the verse is at times mundane, there were several echoes for me. First the play starts off like a poor man's Henry V. There is a conversation about whether the English monarch has a right to rule in France, even though he makes that claim through a woman. Then a snarky French ambassador enters, and the English King is defiant.
Countess and will your sacred self
Commit high treason against the King of heaven,
To stamp his Image in forbidden metal,
Forgetting your allegiance and your oath?
remember Measure for Measure?
Angelo It were as good
To pardon him that hath from nature stolen
A man already made, as to remit
Their saucy sweetness that do coin heaven's image
In stamps that are forbid: 'tis all as easy
Falsely to take away a life true made
As to put metal in restrained means
To make a false one.
King John For what's this Edward but a belly god,
A tender and lascivious wantoness,
That t'other day was almost dead for love?
This scene and it's rah! rah! speeches remind me of Richard's and Richmond's speeches to their troops in Richard III.
Richmond For what is he they follow? truly, gentlemen,
A bloody tyrant and a homicide.
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Countess
Favorite Male Character:
The Scots, David and Douglass are quite fun.
Laugh out loud:
Douglas Jemmy, my man, saddle my black horse.
King David Meanst thou to fight, Douglas? We are too weak.
Douglass I know it well, my liege, and therefore fly.
"That's what she said!":
Douglass Why then, my liege, let me enjoy her jewels.
How insulting:
King John those ever-bibbing Epicures,
Those frothy Dutch men, puft with double beer
Shakey loves his meta:
Countess No, let me die, if his too boistrous will
Will have it so, before I will consent
To be an actor in his graceless lust.
(we should note that 'will' is slang for 'penis,' and whether the Countess intends this double entendre or not is up to interpretation.)
Oh, misogyny:
Boys are silly:
Edward Ignoble David! hast thou none to grieve
But silly ladies with thy threatening arms?
Favorite Moment/Line:
BONUS DAY!
Edward III
So after completing the 38 plays of Shakespeare in 38 days, I have fallen behind on the bonus days. Well, that's life, I suppose. I might move on to one of these a week. More probable to be one of these whenever I have time. And thanks to SAA, I've got a brand new copy of Thomas Middleton's Collected Works to work my way through as well. But, one play at a time.
Surprisingly, I actually have both read and seen Edward III before. Chesapeake Shakespeare in MD did a reading of it for one of their Pub Night events, and then about a year after that I saw a fine production of the play at Washington Shakespeare Company. In performance, it's a viable play, and one that depends on the main actor to carry it off. WSC's lead was quite good and fittingly charismatic.
Prevailing opinion is that Shakespeare had a hand in writing Edward III, but that it was a collaboration. I think the notion of collaboration is obvious from the two completely separate actions of the play. The first half of the play is taken up with Edward's wooing of the Countess of Salisbury. But this story line is completely forgotten in the second half of the play, which deals entirely with war with France, a war in which the English are strong and victorious.
As for whether Shakespeare had a hand in it? Well, thou the verse is at times mundane, there were several echoes for me. First the play starts off like a poor man's Henry V. There is a conversation about whether the English monarch has a right to rule in France, even though he makes that claim through a woman. Then a snarky French ambassador enters, and the English King is defiant.
Countess and will your sacred self
Commit high treason against the King of heaven,
To stamp his Image in forbidden metal,
Forgetting your allegiance and your oath?
remember Measure for Measure?
Angelo It were as good
To pardon him that hath from nature stolen
A man already made, as to remit
Their saucy sweetness that do coin heaven's image
In stamps that are forbid: 'tis all as easy
Falsely to take away a life true made
As to put metal in restrained means
To make a false one.
King John For what's this Edward but a belly god,
A tender and lascivious wantoness,
That t'other day was almost dead for love?
This scene and it's rah! rah! speeches remind me of Richard's and Richmond's speeches to their troops in Richard III.
Richmond For what is he they follow? truly, gentlemen,
A bloody tyrant and a homicide.
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Countess
Favorite Male Character:
The Scots, David and Douglass are quite fun.
Laugh out loud:
Douglas Jemmy, my man, saddle my black horse.
King David Meanst thou to fight, Douglas? We are too weak.
Douglass I know it well, my liege, and therefore fly.
"That's what she said!":
Douglass Why then, my liege, let me enjoy her jewels.
How insulting:
King John those ever-bibbing Epicures,
Those frothy Dutch men, puft with double beer
Shakey loves his meta:
Countess No, let me die, if his too boistrous will
Will have it so, before I will consent
To be an actor in his graceless lust.
(we should note that 'will' is slang for 'penis,' and whether the Countess intends this double entendre or not is up to interpretation.)
Oh, misogyny:
Boys are silly:
Edward Ignoble David! hast thou none to grieve
But silly ladies with thy threatening arms?
Favorite Moment/Line:
Monday, April 12, 2010
Two Staged Readings with Charlene
Posting about 38:38 has taken up all my time lately, to the detriment of other subjects. I still need to blog about SAA last weekend, and I had a great trip to New York this weekend, but first I need to announce my current projects!
At the end of the month I will be appearing in two staged readings, and I'm quite excited about both of them.
ABSOLUTE AMY
Saturday, April 24
1:00pm
Jackie's Restaurant
8081 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
I will be playing Amy in a staged reading of John Morogiello's Absolute Amy. The reading is being presented as part of Amnesty International's Human Rights Arts Festival. It is about a young woman who, on the eve of her wedding, discovers that her fiance was a black site torturer. Catherine Aselford directs. The cast also includes Rebecca Herron, Nick Greek, Jeremy Brown, and John Morogiello. Morogiello's play Engaging Shaw is currently in production off-off-Broadway at the Abingdon Theatre!
THE TROJAN WOMEN
Thursday, April 29
7:30pm
Howard County Center for the Arts
8510 High Ridge Road
Ellicott City, Maryland 21043
I'll be playing Kassandra in a new adaptation of The Trojan Women by Patricia Montley. Cast also includes Sarah Levin, Melissa O'Brien, Alex Hewett, Ty Hallmark, and James Jager.
Artists are subject to change.
At the end of the month I will be appearing in two staged readings, and I'm quite excited about both of them.
ABSOLUTE AMY
Saturday, April 24
1:00pm
Jackie's Restaurant
8081 Georgia Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
I will be playing Amy in a staged reading of John Morogiello's Absolute Amy. The reading is being presented as part of Amnesty International's Human Rights Arts Festival. It is about a young woman who, on the eve of her wedding, discovers that her fiance was a black site torturer. Catherine Aselford directs. The cast also includes Rebecca Herron, Nick Greek, Jeremy Brown, and John Morogiello. Morogiello's play Engaging Shaw is currently in production off-off-Broadway at the Abingdon Theatre!
THE TROJAN WOMEN
Thursday, April 29
7:30pm
Howard County Center for the Arts
8510 High Ridge Road
Ellicott City, Maryland 21043
I'll be playing Kassandra in a new adaptation of The Trojan Women by Patricia Montley. Cast also includes Sarah Levin, Melissa O'Brien, Alex Hewett, Ty Hallmark, and James Jager.
Artists are subject to change.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
38:38 The Two Noble Kinsmen
Day 38 of 38:38
The Two Noble Kinsmen
Will I make it by midnight??? Yes, play finished at 11:39 PM. Two Noble Kinsmen felt similar to me with the other plays we have been reading recently. There is a sort of randomness and almost ridiculousness to the plot that we also see in Winter's Tale and Cymbeline and Pericles. But I did like Two Noble Kinsmen better than Henry VIII or The Tempest.
The one thing that really reveals to me the fact that this is a collaboration (and same with Henry) is the sudden appearance of massive amounts of stage directions. I mean, it's certainly not Shavian, but compared to the dearth of stage directions Shakespeare normally uses, it certainly sticks out.
I wonder how much Shakespeare was hearkening back to Midsummer as he was working on this play (presumably with Fletcher). We've got Theseus and Hippolyta, but I don't think we are supposed to think of them as the same characters. But we do have this silly men fighting over women plot, which echoes both Midsummer and Two Gents. The difference being that in this play someone actually dies.
So there it is. I made it through the challenge. 38 Shakespeare plays in 38 days. I'm going to extend this challenge for myself and over the next couple of days read Edward III, Sir Thomas Moore, and Double Falsehood (though for the record, let me state that I think the advertising of Double Falsehood as by William Shakespeare is more than a little questionable). I feel like I should have some deep over-arching thoughts, but I will save those for another post.
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Jailer's Daughter (at least until she goes all Ophelia on us)
Favorite Male Character:
Palamon (simply for the "I saw her first!" line)
Laugh out loud:
Jailer's Daughter I can tell your fortune.
You are a fool.
Famous Last Words
Palamon I do not think it possible our friendship
Should ever leave us.
"That's what she said!":
Jailer's Daughter My Palamon, I hope, will grow too, finely,
Now he's at liberty. Alas, poor chicken,
He was kept down with hard meat and ill lodging,
But I'll kiss him up again.
How insulting:
Shakey loves his meta:
There is a prologue and epilogue directly stating that the audience is about to see a play
Oh, misogyny:
Boys are silly:
Emilia Men are mad things.
Favorite Moment/Line:
Palamon Were I at liberty I would do things
Of such virtuous greatness that this lady,
This blushing virgin, should take manhood to her
And seek to ravish me.
The Two Noble Kinsmen
Will I make it by midnight??? Yes, play finished at 11:39 PM. Two Noble Kinsmen felt similar to me with the other plays we have been reading recently. There is a sort of randomness and almost ridiculousness to the plot that we also see in Winter's Tale and Cymbeline and Pericles. But I did like Two Noble Kinsmen better than Henry VIII or The Tempest.
The one thing that really reveals to me the fact that this is a collaboration (and same with Henry) is the sudden appearance of massive amounts of stage directions. I mean, it's certainly not Shavian, but compared to the dearth of stage directions Shakespeare normally uses, it certainly sticks out.
I wonder how much Shakespeare was hearkening back to Midsummer as he was working on this play (presumably with Fletcher). We've got Theseus and Hippolyta, but I don't think we are supposed to think of them as the same characters. But we do have this silly men fighting over women plot, which echoes both Midsummer and Two Gents. The difference being that in this play someone actually dies.
So there it is. I made it through the challenge. 38 Shakespeare plays in 38 days. I'm going to extend this challenge for myself and over the next couple of days read Edward III, Sir Thomas Moore, and Double Falsehood (though for the record, let me state that I think the advertising of Double Falsehood as by William Shakespeare is more than a little questionable). I feel like I should have some deep over-arching thoughts, but I will save those for another post.
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Jailer's Daughter (at least until she goes all Ophelia on us)
Favorite Male Character:
Palamon (simply for the "I saw her first!" line)
Laugh out loud:
Jailer's Daughter I can tell your fortune.
You are a fool.
Famous Last Words
Palamon I do not think it possible our friendship
Should ever leave us.
"That's what she said!":
Jailer's Daughter My Palamon, I hope, will grow too, finely,
Now he's at liberty. Alas, poor chicken,
He was kept down with hard meat and ill lodging,
But I'll kiss him up again.
How insulting:
Shakey loves his meta:
There is a prologue and epilogue directly stating that the audience is about to see a play
Oh, misogyny:
Boys are silly:
Emilia Men are mad things.
Favorite Moment/Line:
Palamon Were I at liberty I would do things
Of such virtuous greatness that this lady,
This blushing virgin, should take manhood to her
And seek to ravish me.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
37:38 Henry VIII
Day 37 of 38:38
Henry VIII
Okay, I have a confession to make. You all know how much I love, adore, and worship Shakespeare. That being said, this is a bad play. Shakespeare et al. have taken a story which has inflamed the imagination of multitudes of writers and made it completely boring. There's no sex, no intrigue, no flirting, no backstabbing. These fascinating and devilish characters are completely flattened in this story.
And yes, I can tell why. Clearly no one wants to piss off Queen Elizabeth. Even Anne Boleyn, a notoriously hated woman, is relatively noble in this play, simply because she was Elizabeth's mother and therefore has to be. But seriously, Shakespeare, did you really need money that badly? You must have. I mean check out this repeated white-washing of Anne
Suffolk She is a gallant creature, and complete
In mind and feature: I persuade me, from her
Will fall some blessing to this land, which shall
In it be memorized.
Cause no, that's not obvious at all...
And then Cardinal Wosley, though clearly against the King marrying Anne, still says "What though I know her virtuous / And well deserving?"
Lovell She's a good creature, and, sweet lady, does
Deserve our better wishes.
And I'm not saying that I think Anne Boleyn was the spawn of Satan brought about on this Earth to destroy England. But I will say that in this play she is worse, that is, she is boring. Even Cardinal Wolsey, as much the villain of the piece as anyone else, is a pussy.
Anyone want to try and argue anything positive about this play?
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Queen Katharine
Favorite Male Character:
Cardinal Wolsey
Laugh out loud:
Lord Chamberlain It seems the marriage with his brother's wife
Has crept too near his conscience.
Suffolk No; his conscience
Has crept too near another lady.
"That's what she said!":
Lovell O that your lordship were but now confessor
To one or two of these!
Lord Sandys I would I were;
They should find easy penance.
Lovell Faith, how easy?
Lord Sandys As easy as a down-bed would afford it.
How insulting:
Cardinal Wolsey You have as little honesty as honor
Shakey loves his meta:
Surveyor I would have played
The part my father meant to act upon
The usurper Richard.
Oh, misogyny:
Wolsey thou hast forced me
Out of thy honest truth, to play the woman.
Let's dry our eyes.
Boys are silly:
Favorite Moment/Line:
Henry VIII
Okay, I have a confession to make. You all know how much I love, adore, and worship Shakespeare. That being said, this is a bad play. Shakespeare et al. have taken a story which has inflamed the imagination of multitudes of writers and made it completely boring. There's no sex, no intrigue, no flirting, no backstabbing. These fascinating and devilish characters are completely flattened in this story.
And yes, I can tell why. Clearly no one wants to piss off Queen Elizabeth. Even Anne Boleyn, a notoriously hated woman, is relatively noble in this play, simply because she was Elizabeth's mother and therefore has to be. But seriously, Shakespeare, did you really need money that badly? You must have. I mean check out this repeated white-washing of Anne
Suffolk She is a gallant creature, and complete
In mind and feature: I persuade me, from her
Will fall some blessing to this land, which shall
In it be memorized.
Cause no, that's not obvious at all...
And then Cardinal Wosley, though clearly against the King marrying Anne, still says "What though I know her virtuous / And well deserving?"
Lovell She's a good creature, and, sweet lady, does
Deserve our better wishes.
And I'm not saying that I think Anne Boleyn was the spawn of Satan brought about on this Earth to destroy England. But I will say that in this play she is worse, that is, she is boring. Even Cardinal Wolsey, as much the villain of the piece as anyone else, is a pussy.
Anyone want to try and argue anything positive about this play?
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Queen Katharine
Favorite Male Character:
Cardinal Wolsey
Laugh out loud:
Lord Chamberlain It seems the marriage with his brother's wife
Has crept too near his conscience.
Suffolk No; his conscience
Has crept too near another lady.
"That's what she said!":
Lovell O that your lordship were but now confessor
To one or two of these!
Lord Sandys I would I were;
They should find easy penance.
Lovell Faith, how easy?
Lord Sandys As easy as a down-bed would afford it.
How insulting:
Cardinal Wolsey You have as little honesty as honor
Shakey loves his meta:
Surveyor I would have played
The part my father meant to act upon
The usurper Richard.
Oh, misogyny:
Wolsey thou hast forced me
Out of thy honest truth, to play the woman.
Let's dry our eyes.
Boys are silly:
Favorite Moment/Line:
36:38 The Tempest
Day 36 of 38:38
The Tempest
After working my way through Coriolanus, Cymbeline, and Winter's Tale, I have to admit, it's a bit of a relief to see how short The Tempest is. Not that I object to longer plays, but since I was in Chicago for four days for SAA, I'm working hard to get caught up on this project. Getting caught up is easier when the play is 90 pages instead of 130.
Sometimes we notice certain word repetitions more than others. While reading The Tempest, I couldn't help but notice the repeated use of the word "brave". Whether brave appears more than other words, I cannot say, for I know that I am attuned to that catching that word, since I know the phrase "brave new world" comes from this play and was waiting for it to come up. And while I was waiting to read "brave new world" many other things were characterized as "brave".
Miranda O, I have suffered
With those that I saw suffer: a brave vessel,
Who had, no doubt, some noble creature in her,
Dash'd all to pieces
Prospero My brave spirit!
Miranda Believe me, sir,
It carries a brave form.
Ferdinand the Duke of Milan
And his brave son being twain.
Gonzalo You are gentlemen of brave metal
Caliban That's a brave god and bears celestial liquor.
I will kneel to him.
Stephano O brave monster!
Trinculo Where should they be set else? he were a brave
monster indeed, if they were set in his tail.
Caliban He has brave utensils
Stephano Is it so brave a lass?
Caliban Ay, lord; she will become thy bed, I warrant.
And bring thee forth brave brood.
Stephano This will prove a brave kingdom to me, where I shall
have my music for nothing.
Caliban these be brave spirits indeed!
And, of course,
Miranda O brave new world,
That has such people in't!
My Shakespeare Lexicon gives the following meanings for brave:
valiant
becoming
fine, splendid, beautiful
to display bravery
to defy, to oppose, to bully
to make fine and splended
a display of valor, defiance, or threatening
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Miranda, by default
Favorite Male Character:
Prospero
Laugh out loud:
"That's what she said!":
Stephano Yet a tailor might scratch her wherere she did itch.
How insulting:
Sebastian A pox o' your throat, you bawling, blasphemous, incharitable dog!
Shakey loves his meta:
Antonio And by that destiny to perform an act
Whereof what's past is prologue
Oh, misogyny:
Boys are silly:
Ariel they were red hot with drinking
So full of valor that they smote the air
For breathing in their faces, beat the ground
For kissing of their feet
Favorite Moment/Line:
Miranda O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in't.
Prospero 'Tis new to thee.
I love the juxtaposition of optimism and cynicism, youth and age, the flowery poetry of Miranda and the simple statement of Prospero that undercuts her sentiment so efficiently.
The Tempest
After working my way through Coriolanus, Cymbeline, and Winter's Tale, I have to admit, it's a bit of a relief to see how short The Tempest is. Not that I object to longer plays, but since I was in Chicago for four days for SAA, I'm working hard to get caught up on this project. Getting caught up is easier when the play is 90 pages instead of 130.
Sometimes we notice certain word repetitions more than others. While reading The Tempest, I couldn't help but notice the repeated use of the word "brave". Whether brave appears more than other words, I cannot say, for I know that I am attuned to that catching that word, since I know the phrase "brave new world" comes from this play and was waiting for it to come up. And while I was waiting to read "brave new world" many other things were characterized as "brave".
Miranda O, I have suffered
With those that I saw suffer: a brave vessel,
Who had, no doubt, some noble creature in her,
Dash'd all to pieces
Prospero My brave spirit!
Miranda Believe me, sir,
It carries a brave form.
Ferdinand the Duke of Milan
And his brave son being twain.
Gonzalo You are gentlemen of brave metal
Caliban That's a brave god and bears celestial liquor.
I will kneel to him.
Stephano O brave monster!
Trinculo Where should they be set else? he were a brave
monster indeed, if they were set in his tail.
Caliban He has brave utensils
Stephano Is it so brave a lass?
Caliban Ay, lord; she will become thy bed, I warrant.
And bring thee forth brave brood.
Stephano This will prove a brave kingdom to me, where I shall
have my music for nothing.
Caliban these be brave spirits indeed!
And, of course,
Miranda O brave new world,
That has such people in't!
My Shakespeare Lexicon gives the following meanings for brave:
valiant
becoming
fine, splendid, beautiful
to display bravery
to defy, to oppose, to bully
to make fine and splended
a display of valor, defiance, or threatening
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Miranda, by default
Favorite Male Character:
Prospero
Laugh out loud:
"That's what she said!":
Stephano Yet a tailor might scratch her wherere she did itch.
How insulting:
Sebastian A pox o' your throat, you bawling, blasphemous, incharitable dog!
Shakey loves his meta:
Antonio And by that destiny to perform an act
Whereof what's past is prologue
Oh, misogyny:
Boys are silly:
Ariel they were red hot with drinking
So full of valor that they smote the air
For breathing in their faces, beat the ground
For kissing of their feet
Favorite Moment/Line:
Miranda O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in't.
Prospero 'Tis new to thee.
I love the juxtaposition of optimism and cynicism, youth and age, the flowery poetry of Miranda and the simple statement of Prospero that undercuts her sentiment so efficiently.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
34:38 The Winter's Tale
Day 34 of 38:38
The Winter's Tale
So here's what I want to know: How come The Winter's Tale and Cymbeline start with the exact same scene?
Oracles are notoriously ambiguous. You have to be extremely careful in interpreting them the wrong way. They are riddles. Therefore, I love how this play gives us the most straightforward oracle message ever known to man:
"Hermione is chaste; Polixenes blameless; Camillo a true subject; Leontes a jealous tyrant; his innocent babe truly begotten."
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Paulina
Favorite Male Character:
Leontes
Laugh out loud:
Autolycus Though I am not naturally honest, I am so sometimes by chance.
"That's what she said!":
Servant with such delicate burdens of dildos and fadings, 'jump her and thump her'
How insulting:
Leontes A gross hag!
Shakey loves his meta:
Perdita I see the play so lies
That I must bear a part.
Oh, misogyny:
Leontes women say so
That will say anything
Boys are silly:
Hermione a lady's 'verily' 's
As potent as a lord's
Favorite Moment/Line:
Paulina I say, I come
From your good queen.
Leontes Good queen!
Paulina Good queen, my lord, good queen; I say, good queen.
The Winter's Tale
So here's what I want to know: How come The Winter's Tale and Cymbeline start with the exact same scene?
Oracles are notoriously ambiguous. You have to be extremely careful in interpreting them the wrong way. They are riddles. Therefore, I love how this play gives us the most straightforward oracle message ever known to man:
"Hermione is chaste; Polixenes blameless; Camillo a true subject; Leontes a jealous tyrant; his innocent babe truly begotten."
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Paulina
Favorite Male Character:
Leontes
Laugh out loud:
Autolycus Though I am not naturally honest, I am so sometimes by chance.
"That's what she said!":
Servant with such delicate burdens of dildos and fadings, 'jump her and thump her'
How insulting:
Leontes A gross hag!
Shakey loves his meta:
Perdita I see the play so lies
That I must bear a part.
Oh, misogyny:
Leontes women say so
That will say anything
Boys are silly:
Hermione a lady's 'verily' 's
As potent as a lord's
Favorite Moment/Line:
Paulina I say, I come
From your good queen.
Leontes Good queen!
Paulina Good queen, my lord, good queen; I say, good queen.
35:38 Cymbeline
Day 35 of 38:38
Cymbeline
Shakespeare seems to be doing a lot with redemption and jealousy in these late plays. (Redemption also figures into The Tempest.) But you can especially see links between The Winter's Tale and Cymbeline. Both have irrationally jealous husbands who lose their faithful wives, only to regret their anger, and be reunited at the end of the play. But the different is, the end of Cymbeline feels much more hopeful to me. I think this is because Hermione is far more silent at the end of the play than Imogen is.
What I love about Cymbeline is its sheer randomness. Though I was correct when I supposed after Pericles this play would seem much more coherent. It does. But I hate it when I see a production and the director has cut Jove descending from the skies. The play is wacky, just go with it!
As far as redemption goes, I also find Cymbeline easier to be swallowed than Pericles. Both of them are plays where a lot of bad things happen and then the ending is joyful. But in Cymbeline the bad things are results of the silly actions of the characters, where as in Pericles they are just random acts. The characters in Cymbeline realize how stupid they've been and I suppose for me that makes the ending more believably enjoyable. Also, Shakespeare gives us hints of the redemption to come. The end of 4.2, Lucius "Some falls are means the happier to arise." The end of 4.3, Pisanio "Fortune brings in some boats that are not steered."
What I don't love about Cymbeline is its clunky exposition. Oy, that first scene. And then again, when we meet Belarius and the boys and he has that long soliloquy telling the audience exactly who they all are. A little too obvious.
PS. My single edition calls this play "The Tragedy of Cymbeline." To me, this is just further proof that we should banish all genre categories when it comes to the plays of Shakespeare. I guess if you are going off the definition of in comedy no one dies and in tragedy people die, sure, Cymbeline is a tragedy and Measure for Measure is a comedy. But I think this definition is inane. Plus, no one we care about in Cymbeline dies. Generally in tragedies we expect the hero to die. Not so with this play. (This whole question of genre has been floating around in my head since SAA. I had a brief discussion there about whether any one still thinks of the "problem plays" as "problem plays" or whether this designation has gone out of style. If not, it should. And frankly, thinking about it since then, I think all the designations are pointless. Think about today -- if you buy a complete or volume of collected works for any current playwright, they are never categorized into any sort of genre classification. Anyway, I have a lot more thoughts on this subject, but that's another posting -- or an article.)
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Imogen
Favorite Male Character:
Iachimo
Laugh out loud:
Posthumus The stone's too hard to come by.
Iachimo Not a whit,
Your lady being so easy.
"That's what she said!":
Cloten If you can penetrate her with your fingering, so; we'll try with tongue too.
How insulting:
Imogen His meanest garment
That ever hath but clipped his body, is dearer
In my respect than all the hairs above thee,
Were they all made such men.
Shakey loves his meta:
Posthumus Shall's have a play of this? Thou scornful page,
There lies thy part.
Oh, misogyny:
Posthumus Could I find out
The woman's part in me! For there's no motion
That tends to vice in man but I affirm
It is the woman's part; be it lying, not it,
The woman's; flattering, hers; deceiving, hers;
Lust and rank thoughts, hers, hers; revenges, hers;
Ambitions, covetings, change of prides, disdain,
Nice longings, slanders, mutability,
All faults that may be named, nay, that hell knows,
Why, hers, in part, or all; but rather, all;
For even to vice
They are not constant, but are changing still
One vice but of a minute old for one
Not half so old as that.
Boys are silly:
2nd Lord That such a crafty devil as is his mother
Should yield the world this ass! a woman that
Bears all down with her brain, and this her son
Cannot take two from twenty for his heart
And leave eighteen.
Imogen Men's vows are women's traitors!
Favorite Moment/Line:
In performance especially, I love the moment when Iachimo pops out of the trunk.
Cymbeline
Shakespeare seems to be doing a lot with redemption and jealousy in these late plays. (Redemption also figures into The Tempest.) But you can especially see links between The Winter's Tale and Cymbeline. Both have irrationally jealous husbands who lose their faithful wives, only to regret their anger, and be reunited at the end of the play. But the different is, the end of Cymbeline feels much more hopeful to me. I think this is because Hermione is far more silent at the end of the play than Imogen is.
What I love about Cymbeline is its sheer randomness. Though I was correct when I supposed after Pericles this play would seem much more coherent. It does. But I hate it when I see a production and the director has cut Jove descending from the skies. The play is wacky, just go with it!
As far as redemption goes, I also find Cymbeline easier to be swallowed than Pericles. Both of them are plays where a lot of bad things happen and then the ending is joyful. But in Cymbeline the bad things are results of the silly actions of the characters, where as in Pericles they are just random acts. The characters in Cymbeline realize how stupid they've been and I suppose for me that makes the ending more believably enjoyable. Also, Shakespeare gives us hints of the redemption to come. The end of 4.2, Lucius "Some falls are means the happier to arise." The end of 4.3, Pisanio "Fortune brings in some boats that are not steered."
What I don't love about Cymbeline is its clunky exposition. Oy, that first scene. And then again, when we meet Belarius and the boys and he has that long soliloquy telling the audience exactly who they all are. A little too obvious.
PS. My single edition calls this play "The Tragedy of Cymbeline." To me, this is just further proof that we should banish all genre categories when it comes to the plays of Shakespeare. I guess if you are going off the definition of in comedy no one dies and in tragedy people die, sure, Cymbeline is a tragedy and Measure for Measure is a comedy. But I think this definition is inane. Plus, no one we care about in Cymbeline dies. Generally in tragedies we expect the hero to die. Not so with this play. (This whole question of genre has been floating around in my head since SAA. I had a brief discussion there about whether any one still thinks of the "problem plays" as "problem plays" or whether this designation has gone out of style. If not, it should. And frankly, thinking about it since then, I think all the designations are pointless. Think about today -- if you buy a complete or volume of collected works for any current playwright, they are never categorized into any sort of genre classification. Anyway, I have a lot more thoughts on this subject, but that's another posting -- or an article.)
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Imogen
Favorite Male Character:
Iachimo
Laugh out loud:
Posthumus The stone's too hard to come by.
Iachimo Not a whit,
Your lady being so easy.
"That's what she said!":
Cloten If you can penetrate her with your fingering, so; we'll try with tongue too.
How insulting:
Imogen His meanest garment
That ever hath but clipped his body, is dearer
In my respect than all the hairs above thee,
Were they all made such men.
Shakey loves his meta:
Posthumus Shall's have a play of this? Thou scornful page,
There lies thy part.
Oh, misogyny:
Posthumus Could I find out
The woman's part in me! For there's no motion
That tends to vice in man but I affirm
It is the woman's part; be it lying, not it,
The woman's; flattering, hers; deceiving, hers;
Lust and rank thoughts, hers, hers; revenges, hers;
Ambitions, covetings, change of prides, disdain,
Nice longings, slanders, mutability,
All faults that may be named, nay, that hell knows,
Why, hers, in part, or all; but rather, all;
For even to vice
They are not constant, but are changing still
One vice but of a minute old for one
Not half so old as that.
Boys are silly:
2nd Lord That such a crafty devil as is his mother
Should yield the world this ass! a woman that
Bears all down with her brain, and this her son
Cannot take two from twenty for his heart
And leave eighteen.
Imogen Men's vows are women's traitors!
Favorite Moment/Line:
In performance especially, I love the moment when Iachimo pops out of the trunk.
33:38 Coriolanus
Day 33 of 38:38
Coriolanus
So I understand why theatres sometimes do Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra in rep. I mean, obviously, it is more or less a continuation of the same story. But I think it would work really well to do Julius Caesar and Coriolanus in rep. They seem to link really well thematically. Politics. Easily swayed mobs. People voting against their self-interests. Sounds like today, doesn't it? Even more so when you consider that the Tribunes gets the people to turn against Coriolanus by claiming that he will turn into a tyrant, that is take over the government and their freedom.
Brutus In this point charge him home, that he affects
Tyrannical power
Sicinius We charge you, that you have contrived to take
From Rome all seasoned office, and to wind
Yourself into a power tyrannical
Some things never change, I guess.
For me, in performance, it's much easier for Coriolanus to come off as a jerk. But on the page, I felt totally with him. The people are ridiculous, and he basically gets screwed. Then he does the nice thing and doesn't kill them all, and what happens? Another man throws and hissy fit and kills Coriolanus in a jealous rage. Seriously, Aufidius so clearly has a thing for Coriolanus. I really think this play has the most obvious homo-eroticism in all of Shakespeare's works.
Another thing about Coriolanus -- I think it would be easy to play him simply as a brute, a man of action, but he seems quite shrewd in moments. He sees right through those two nasty tribunes. When Brutus points out that the people have turned against Coriolanus because of the incident with the corn, he responds:
Coriolanus Why, this was known before.
Brutus Not to them all.
Coriolanus Have you informed them sithence?
Finally, I love this line of Volumnia's which reveals how important text work is. It is only by scanning properly that you will know the right way of delivering the line
thou barrest us
Our prayers to the gods, which is a comfort
That all but we enjoy; for HOW can we,
Alas! how CAN we for our country pray,
Whereto we are bound, together with thy victory,
Whereto we are bound?
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Volumnia
Favorite Male Character:
Sicinius and Brutus sure are bastards, aren't they?
Laugh out loud:
"That's what she said!":
How insulting:
Coriolanus for I do hate thee
Worse than a promise-breaker
Shakey loves his meta:
Coriolanus Like a dull actor now,
I have forgot my part
Oh, misogyny:
Cominius in that day's feats
When he might act the woman in the scene,
He proved best man in the field
Boys are silly:
Cominius And manhood is called foolery when it stands
Against a falling fabric.
Favorite Moment/Line:
Aufidius Know thou first,
I loved the maid I married; never man
Sighed truer breath; but that I see thee here,
Thou noble thing! more dances my rapt heart
Than when I first my wedded mistress aw
Bestride my threshold.
Coriolanus
So I understand why theatres sometimes do Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra in rep. I mean, obviously, it is more or less a continuation of the same story. But I think it would work really well to do Julius Caesar and Coriolanus in rep. They seem to link really well thematically. Politics. Easily swayed mobs. People voting against their self-interests. Sounds like today, doesn't it? Even more so when you consider that the Tribunes gets the people to turn against Coriolanus by claiming that he will turn into a tyrant, that is take over the government and their freedom.
Brutus In this point charge him home, that he affects
Tyrannical power
Sicinius We charge you, that you have contrived to take
From Rome all seasoned office, and to wind
Yourself into a power tyrannical
Some things never change, I guess.
For me, in performance, it's much easier for Coriolanus to come off as a jerk. But on the page, I felt totally with him. The people are ridiculous, and he basically gets screwed. Then he does the nice thing and doesn't kill them all, and what happens? Another man throws and hissy fit and kills Coriolanus in a jealous rage. Seriously, Aufidius so clearly has a thing for Coriolanus. I really think this play has the most obvious homo-eroticism in all of Shakespeare's works.
Another thing about Coriolanus -- I think it would be easy to play him simply as a brute, a man of action, but he seems quite shrewd in moments. He sees right through those two nasty tribunes. When Brutus points out that the people have turned against Coriolanus because of the incident with the corn, he responds:
Coriolanus Why, this was known before.
Brutus Not to them all.
Coriolanus Have you informed them sithence?
Finally, I love this line of Volumnia's which reveals how important text work is. It is only by scanning properly that you will know the right way of delivering the line
thou barrest us
Our prayers to the gods, which is a comfort
That all but we enjoy; for HOW can we,
Alas! how CAN we for our country pray,
Whereto we are bound, together with thy victory,
Whereto we are bound?
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Volumnia
Favorite Male Character:
Sicinius and Brutus sure are bastards, aren't they?
Laugh out loud:
"That's what she said!":
How insulting:
Coriolanus for I do hate thee
Worse than a promise-breaker
Shakey loves his meta:
Coriolanus Like a dull actor now,
I have forgot my part
Oh, misogyny:
Cominius in that day's feats
When he might act the woman in the scene,
He proved best man in the field
Boys are silly:
Cominius And manhood is called foolery when it stands
Against a falling fabric.
Favorite Moment/Line:
Aufidius Know thou first,
I loved the maid I married; never man
Sighed truer breath; but that I see thee here,
Thou noble thing! more dances my rapt heart
Than when I first my wedded mistress aw
Bestride my threshold.
Monday, April 5, 2010
32:38 Pericles
Day 32 of 38:38
Pericles
What an interesting play. I feel like next to Pericles, Cymbeline isn't going to feel random at all. This was another one on the short list that I had not read before. I also haven't seen this one yet. In these later plays, Shakespeare seems increasingly episodic. Thinking about Pericles and Cymbeline and Antony and Cleopatra, there feel like there are more shorter scenes, and scenes that jump around in place and time. He also seems to be seeing just how much he can get away with in terms of plot. Pericles and Winter's Tale seem to be a sort of opposite of Troilus and Cressida. In that play, we are specifically told that we will only see one small section of a vast story. In Pericles and Winter's Tale, Shakespeare is trying to cram the epic story entirely in to one play.
For those of you that have seen Pericles performed, how does it play? Is the ending overwhelmingly joyous after the unrelenting line of tragic events? Or do you find yourself unable to trust the ending, unable to trust the idea that everything will be okay in the end, that, if you will, alls well that ends well?
Also the fact that Antiochus's daughter spends her entire life being raped by her father and doesn't get rescued by Pericles, or anyone else, infuriated me. She has no name in the text, further depriving her of agency. The fact that she is identified only as Antiochus's Daughter, defines her solely by her relationship to her father, her incestuous relationship.
I also wanted to point out how Isabella could have used some of Marina's persuasive power.
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Dionyza (we get to have a bit of villainy)
Favorite Male Character:
Simonides (I think the scene where he pretends to bully his daughter is fun)
Laugh out loud:
Pericles Why, are all your beggars whipped, then?
Second Fisherman O, not all, my friend, not all; for if all your beggars were whipped, I would wish no better office than to be beadle.
"That's what she said!":
Simonides It pleaseth me so well, that I will see you wed;
And then with what haste you can get you to bed.
How insulting:
Shakey loves his meta:
Gower In your imagination hold
This stage the ship, upon whose deck
The sea-tost Pericles appears to speak.
Oh, misogyny:
Gower With whom the father liking took,
And her to incest did provoke.
Bad child, worse father!
Boys are silly: (Stick it to the patriarchy)
Simonides They are well dispatch'd; now to my daughter's letter:
She tells me here, she'd wed the stranger knight,
Or never more to view nor day nor light.
'Tis well, mistress; your choice agrees with mine;
I like that well: nay, how absolute she's in't,
Not minding whether I dislike or no!
Favorite Moment/Line:
Pericles O Helicanus! Strike me, honored sir,
Give me a gash, put me to present pain,
Lest this great sea of joys rushing upon me
Oerbear the shores of my mortality,
And drown me with their sweetness.
Pericles
What an interesting play. I feel like next to Pericles, Cymbeline isn't going to feel random at all. This was another one on the short list that I had not read before. I also haven't seen this one yet. In these later plays, Shakespeare seems increasingly episodic. Thinking about Pericles and Cymbeline and Antony and Cleopatra, there feel like there are more shorter scenes, and scenes that jump around in place and time. He also seems to be seeing just how much he can get away with in terms of plot. Pericles and Winter's Tale seem to be a sort of opposite of Troilus and Cressida. In that play, we are specifically told that we will only see one small section of a vast story. In Pericles and Winter's Tale, Shakespeare is trying to cram the epic story entirely in to one play.
For those of you that have seen Pericles performed, how does it play? Is the ending overwhelmingly joyous after the unrelenting line of tragic events? Or do you find yourself unable to trust the ending, unable to trust the idea that everything will be okay in the end, that, if you will, alls well that ends well?
Also the fact that Antiochus's daughter spends her entire life being raped by her father and doesn't get rescued by Pericles, or anyone else, infuriated me. She has no name in the text, further depriving her of agency. The fact that she is identified only as Antiochus's Daughter, defines her solely by her relationship to her father, her incestuous relationship.
I also wanted to point out how Isabella could have used some of Marina's persuasive power.
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Dionyza (we get to have a bit of villainy)
Favorite Male Character:
Simonides (I think the scene where he pretends to bully his daughter is fun)
Laugh out loud:
Pericles Why, are all your beggars whipped, then?
Second Fisherman O, not all, my friend, not all; for if all your beggars were whipped, I would wish no better office than to be beadle.
"That's what she said!":
Simonides It pleaseth me so well, that I will see you wed;
And then with what haste you can get you to bed.
How insulting:
Shakey loves his meta:
Gower In your imagination hold
This stage the ship, upon whose deck
The sea-tost Pericles appears to speak.
Oh, misogyny:
Gower With whom the father liking took,
And her to incest did provoke.
Bad child, worse father!
Boys are silly: (Stick it to the patriarchy)
Simonides They are well dispatch'd; now to my daughter's letter:
She tells me here, she'd wed the stranger knight,
Or never more to view nor day nor light.
'Tis well, mistress; your choice agrees with mine;
I like that well: nay, how absolute she's in't,
Not minding whether I dislike or no!
Favorite Moment/Line:
Pericles O Helicanus! Strike me, honored sir,
Give me a gash, put me to present pain,
Lest this great sea of joys rushing upon me
Oerbear the shores of my mortality,
And drown me with their sweetness.
31:38 Alls Well that Ends Well
Day 31 of 38:38
Alls Well that Ends Well
Helena is such an interesting character, so it bothers me whenever I see the play and she is boring, or weak seeming. Not only is she passionate, smart, and willful, but she is capable of holding her own against the sexual references of Parolles. Her only mistake is loving a stupid boy, of whom it is hard to gather much sympathy. I think the play works best when Bertram is played as extremely young. This is the only thing that helps make his behavior understandable.
I really enjoyed the NT Live production of this that I saw. I loved the fairy tale motif, I loved the fact that Bertram was portrayed as quite young, the Parolles was delightful, and I loved the big celebratory ending, with the "Oh Shit, what now" look from both Helena and Bertram.
I'm not sure if a lot of people pick up on this, but I've always felt that Parolles is key to the plot because the revealing of his true character parallels the revealing of Bertram's true character. Just as Parolles is caught in cowardice and lies before a crowd of soldiers and friends, Bertram is caught before the crowd of court. I think the play is best when both characters have moments of self-recognition, though I'm not convinced that even with that things end "happily ever after" and I don't think Shakespeare meant us to be. To me, the title is ironically trite.
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Helena
Favorite Male Character:
Lafeu
Laugh out loud:
Countess Well, sir.
Clown No, madam, ’tis not so well that I am poor, though many of the rich are damned.
"That's what she said!":
Helena Unfold to us some war-like resistance.
Parolles There is none: man, sitting down before you, will undermine you and blow you up.
How insulting:
Countess Wilt thou ever be a foul-mouthed and calumnious knave?
Shakey loves his meta:
Lafeu A showing of a heavenly effect in an earthly actor.
Oh, misogyny:
Boys are silly:
Lafeu These boys are boys of ice, they’ll none have her: sure, they are bastards to the English; the French ne’er got ’em.
Favorite Moment/Line:
Alls Well that Ends Well
Helena is such an interesting character, so it bothers me whenever I see the play and she is boring, or weak seeming. Not only is she passionate, smart, and willful, but she is capable of holding her own against the sexual references of Parolles. Her only mistake is loving a stupid boy, of whom it is hard to gather much sympathy. I think the play works best when Bertram is played as extremely young. This is the only thing that helps make his behavior understandable.
I really enjoyed the NT Live production of this that I saw. I loved the fairy tale motif, I loved the fact that Bertram was portrayed as quite young, the Parolles was delightful, and I loved the big celebratory ending, with the "Oh Shit, what now" look from both Helena and Bertram.
I'm not sure if a lot of people pick up on this, but I've always felt that Parolles is key to the plot because the revealing of his true character parallels the revealing of Bertram's true character. Just as Parolles is caught in cowardice and lies before a crowd of soldiers and friends, Bertram is caught before the crowd of court. I think the play is best when both characters have moments of self-recognition, though I'm not convinced that even with that things end "happily ever after" and I don't think Shakespeare meant us to be. To me, the title is ironically trite.
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Helena
Favorite Male Character:
Lafeu
Laugh out loud:
Countess Well, sir.
Clown No, madam, ’tis not so well that I am poor, though many of the rich are damned.
"That's what she said!":
Helena Unfold to us some war-like resistance.
Parolles There is none: man, sitting down before you, will undermine you and blow you up.
How insulting:
Countess Wilt thou ever be a foul-mouthed and calumnious knave?
Shakey loves his meta:
Lafeu A showing of a heavenly effect in an earthly actor.
Oh, misogyny:
Boys are silly:
Lafeu These boys are boys of ice, they’ll none have her: sure, they are bastards to the English; the French ne’er got ’em.
Favorite Moment/Line:
Sunday, April 4, 2010
30:38 Antony and Cleopatra
Day 30 of 38:38
Antony and Cleopatra
I learned a lot about this play back in 2008 when the Shakespeare Theatre in Washington, DC did the Roman Repertory: Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra with the same cast. As part of the festivities, they held an all day symposium where they had scholars come to the theatre and talk about the plays. One of the speakers I particularly remember was Sara Munson Deats. Incidentally, Deats was at SAA this year, in a session on Shakespeare and Marlowe, but I couldn't audit that one due to not being able to not attend the Theatrical Reconstructions session. Anyway, back in 2008 Deats spoke on the Private Sphere vs. the Public sphere in Elizabethan England. Deats talked about how in Elizabethan England the nuclear family replaced the extended family. The public sphere of business was the job of the husband and the private sphere of home and hearth, the wife's. Elizabethans had to reconcile this with the fact that they had a woman monarch. This public/private theme comes into play in Antony and Cleopatra, which can be seen as setting Roman virtues in opposition with Egyptian virtues, and the characters being torn between the two. (Roman: public, honor, duty, martial prowess, political power, reason, pragmatism, stoicism, coldness, masculine; Egyptian: private, love, sensuality, pleasure, passion, hedonism, warmth, feminine.) Deats argued that only in their deaths were Antony and Cleopatra able to find a balance between the two - by dying in high Roman fashion, by their own hands, but dying for love.
In my mind, I like to fancy that I am just like Cleopatra. But I know in reality that I am so ridiculously low maintenance in relationships that I will never come near her. ;-)
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Cleopatra
Favorite Male Character:
Enobarbus
Laugh out loud:
Enobarbus Or, if you borrow one another’s love for the instant, you may, when you hear no more words of Pompey, return it again.
"That's what she said!":
Charmian Well, if you were but an inch of fortune better than I, where would you choose it?
Iras Not in my husband’s nose.
How insulting:
Antony Triple-turned whore
Shakey loves his meta:
Cleopatra and I shall see
Some squeaking Cleopatra boy my greatness
I'th' posture of a whore.
Oh, misogyny:
Enobarbus But there is never a fair woman has a true face.
Boys are silly:
Octavius From Alexandria
This is the news: he fishes, drinks, and wastes
The lamps of night in revel; is not more manlike
Than Cleopatra, nor the queen of Ptolemy
More womanly than he
Favorite Moment/Line:
Enobarbus Age cannot wither her, not custom stale
Her infinite variety. Other women cloy
The appetites they feed, but she makes hungry
Where most she satisfies.
Antony and Cleopatra
I learned a lot about this play back in 2008 when the Shakespeare Theatre in Washington, DC did the Roman Repertory: Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra with the same cast. As part of the festivities, they held an all day symposium where they had scholars come to the theatre and talk about the plays. One of the speakers I particularly remember was Sara Munson Deats. Incidentally, Deats was at SAA this year, in a session on Shakespeare and Marlowe, but I couldn't audit that one due to not being able to not attend the Theatrical Reconstructions session. Anyway, back in 2008 Deats spoke on the Private Sphere vs. the Public sphere in Elizabethan England. Deats talked about how in Elizabethan England the nuclear family replaced the extended family. The public sphere of business was the job of the husband and the private sphere of home and hearth, the wife's. Elizabethans had to reconcile this with the fact that they had a woman monarch. This public/private theme comes into play in Antony and Cleopatra, which can be seen as setting Roman virtues in opposition with Egyptian virtues, and the characters being torn between the two. (Roman: public, honor, duty, martial prowess, political power, reason, pragmatism, stoicism, coldness, masculine; Egyptian: private, love, sensuality, pleasure, passion, hedonism, warmth, feminine.) Deats argued that only in their deaths were Antony and Cleopatra able to find a balance between the two - by dying in high Roman fashion, by their own hands, but dying for love.
In my mind, I like to fancy that I am just like Cleopatra. But I know in reality that I am so ridiculously low maintenance in relationships that I will never come near her. ;-)
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Cleopatra
Favorite Male Character:
Enobarbus
Laugh out loud:
Enobarbus Or, if you borrow one another’s love for the instant, you may, when you hear no more words of Pompey, return it again.
"That's what she said!":
Charmian Well, if you were but an inch of fortune better than I, where would you choose it?
Iras Not in my husband’s nose.
How insulting:
Antony Triple-turned whore
Shakey loves his meta:
Cleopatra and I shall see
Some squeaking Cleopatra boy my greatness
I'th' posture of a whore.
Oh, misogyny:
Enobarbus But there is never a fair woman has a true face.
Boys are silly:
Octavius From Alexandria
This is the news: he fishes, drinks, and wastes
The lamps of night in revel; is not more manlike
Than Cleopatra, nor the queen of Ptolemy
More womanly than he
Favorite Moment/Line:
Enobarbus Age cannot wither her, not custom stale
Her infinite variety. Other women cloy
The appetites they feed, but she makes hungry
Where most she satisfies.
29:38 Julius Caesar
Day 29 of 38:38
Julius Caesar
I love this play. Some people claim this play is "talky." I have always found it tightly plotted and very exciting both on the page and on the stage. I love the characters and their interactions. It would be incredibly hard to rank every Shakespeare play according to how I feel about them, but if I struggled through enough to create a top ten, Julius Caesar would for sure be on it.
But here's the aspect of Julius Caesar that gets lost for me in production -- the idea that these men of Rome, these Senators are highly invested in a equitable form of government. They believe it is better to give their lives than suffer tyranny. They are the American Revolution. Freedom is the word. This always sort of gets lost for me in performance. As an audience member I forget about this and get caught up in everything else. I would like to direct this play to see if I could keep that connection. But, I'm not sure if this idea gets lost in the play because of characters being played too nefariously, or if this, indeed, is the entire point. That these men start with noble ideas, and an iron-clad commitment to Freedom, and they lose this idea and themselves along the way. I suspect this is the case, in which case I would want to work to make that fall absolutely clear.
I just read this before heading off to SAA, so I was speaking to my travel mates about this play and specifically the character of Cassius. How interesting is it that Shakespeare gives Cassius the "who so firm but can be seduced" speech! This is the only moment in the play which reveals any sort of villainous and purposeful manipulation. Without it, Cassius is a man of strict principles, fighting to the death to defend those principles. This speech is what makes us Cassius's nobility. And for me, it someone questionably undercuts how deep the friendship with Brutus is. But as my friend Kavita pointed out, maybe it just demonstrates how much this means to him - that he is willing to use a friend, perhaps even sacrifice a friendship, and not just any, but his most important one, in order to achieve his goals.
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Portia
Favorite Male Character:
Cassius
Laugh out loud:
Octavius You may do your will;
But he's a tried and valiant soldier.
Anthony So is my horse, Octavius
"That's what she said!":
Portia Dwell I but in the suburbs
Of your good pleasure?
How insulting:
Murellus You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things!
Shakey loves his meta:
Cassius How many ages hence
Shall this our lofty scene be acted o'er
In States unborn and accents yet unknown!
Oh, misogyny:
Cassius And we are govern'd with our mothers' spirits;
Our yoke and sufferance show us womanish.
Boys are silly:
Decius But when I tell him he hates flatterers,
He says he does, being then most flattered.
Favorite Moment/Line:
Everything that Cassius says
also
Brutus Between the acting of a dreadful thing
And the first motion, all the interim is
Like a phantasma or a hideous dream:
The genius and the mortal instruments
Are then in council; and the state of man,
Like to a little kingdom, suffers then
The nature of an insurrection.
Julius Caesar
I love this play. Some people claim this play is "talky." I have always found it tightly plotted and very exciting both on the page and on the stage. I love the characters and their interactions. It would be incredibly hard to rank every Shakespeare play according to how I feel about them, but if I struggled through enough to create a top ten, Julius Caesar would for sure be on it.
But here's the aspect of Julius Caesar that gets lost for me in production -- the idea that these men of Rome, these Senators are highly invested in a equitable form of government. They believe it is better to give their lives than suffer tyranny. They are the American Revolution. Freedom is the word. This always sort of gets lost for me in performance. As an audience member I forget about this and get caught up in everything else. I would like to direct this play to see if I could keep that connection. But, I'm not sure if this idea gets lost in the play because of characters being played too nefariously, or if this, indeed, is the entire point. That these men start with noble ideas, and an iron-clad commitment to Freedom, and they lose this idea and themselves along the way. I suspect this is the case, in which case I would want to work to make that fall absolutely clear.
I just read this before heading off to SAA, so I was speaking to my travel mates about this play and specifically the character of Cassius. How interesting is it that Shakespeare gives Cassius the "who so firm but can be seduced" speech! This is the only moment in the play which reveals any sort of villainous and purposeful manipulation. Without it, Cassius is a man of strict principles, fighting to the death to defend those principles. This speech is what makes us Cassius's nobility. And for me, it someone questionably undercuts how deep the friendship with Brutus is. But as my friend Kavita pointed out, maybe it just demonstrates how much this means to him - that he is willing to use a friend, perhaps even sacrifice a friendship, and not just any, but his most important one, in order to achieve his goals.
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Portia
Favorite Male Character:
Cassius
Laugh out loud:
Octavius You may do your will;
But he's a tried and valiant soldier.
Anthony So is my horse, Octavius
"That's what she said!":
Portia Dwell I but in the suburbs
Of your good pleasure?
How insulting:
Murellus You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things!
Shakey loves his meta:
Cassius How many ages hence
Shall this our lofty scene be acted o'er
In States unborn and accents yet unknown!
Oh, misogyny:
Cassius And we are govern'd with our mothers' spirits;
Our yoke and sufferance show us womanish.
Boys are silly:
Decius But when I tell him he hates flatterers,
He says he does, being then most flattered.
Favorite Moment/Line:
Everything that Cassius says
also
Brutus Between the acting of a dreadful thing
And the first motion, all the interim is
Like a phantasma or a hideous dream:
The genius and the mortal instruments
Are then in council; and the state of man,
Like to a little kingdom, suffers then
The nature of an insurrection.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
21:38 Hamlet
Day 21 of 38:38
Hamlet -- The Bad Quarto
So, since I'm at the Shakespeare Association of America conference, I can't pull out my Arden edition of this play to consult, so forgive me if I misspeak (or just comment and correct me, or add things I'm missing ;-) ) For those of you who aren't scholars of the bard, just to catch you up, we have three texts of Hamlet: The first quarto (known as the "Bad Quarto"), the second Quarto, and the Folio. When you see Hamlet performed you are usually seeing a conflation of the texts from the Folio and the second Quarto. The first quarto edition of Hamlet is quite different from the other two texts and full of what seems to be textual mistakes and problems. This version, I would have said, does not get performed due to the "errors." But due to the academic interest in this version, there have recently been fully staged productions of the text of the first quarto Hamlet. The plots are practically identical between the different texts, what is different is the poetry and some of the ordering of the scenes.
Nearly all of the soliloquies are considerably shorter in the first Quarto Hamlet, and there will be a line that is identical to what we know, followed by a line that is completely different. For example, the line we know goes "To be or not to be; that is the question." The first quarto says "To be or not to be, aye there's the point."
Anyway, the first quarto is called the Bad Quarto for several reasons - it is a lot shorter, leading to the claim that things are missing, a lot of the logic of the speeches is missing, the syntax is weird, and the poetry many find to be inferior. Where did this text come from?
From what I recall there are two prevailing theories about the Q1. The first that it is a memorial reconstruction of the actual Hamlet play by Shakespeare. An actor with an apparently very bad memory tried to write down the entire play and had to approximate large chunks of it. The second theory is that the q1 is Shakespeare's first draft, based off of the Ur-Hamlet, or the name given to the supposed source play that Shakespeare based his Hamlet off of. Then, the theory says, Shakespeare rewrote the play entirely to what we know today.
But the Q1 Hamlet is ... weird. I know that's a completely subjective assessment. But the characters all seem underdeveloped. Their arcs don't make sense. The poetry is inferior. There is a lot of missing logic. Syntax is strange. Thoughts are unfinished. Several names are different.
So here's a totally crazy thought that I have no evidence for, and don't have the time to properly research. But what if the Q1 Hamlet IS the Ur-Hamlet? What if this text is not Shakespeare at all, but the text that Shakespeare based his version off of?
It's claimed that the Q1 version of Hamlet is some version of Shakespeare's writing, because, I suppose, there are many identical lines, and the plot follows the same trajectory. But Shakespeare's other plays also have extreme parallels with source material. But I would need to do further research on other source plays and Shakespeare's versions to see if there are direct line quotes as there are between the Hamlets.
One of the scholars at the reading noted that he thought the Q1 Hamlet was a superior text. I and my friends found this questionable. But, hey, to each his own.
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Gertrude
Favorite Male Character:
uh... don't have one
Laugh out loud:
Hamlet There's never a villain dwelling in all Denmark,
But he's an arrant knave.
Horatio There need no Ghost come from the grave to tell you this.
"That's what she said!":
Hamlet Upon your lap, what do you think I meant country matters?
How insulting:
Ghost that incestuous wretch
Shakey loves his meta:
Gilderstone In Faith my Lord, novelty carries it away,
For the principal public audience that
Came to them, are turned to private plays,
And to the humor of children.
Oh, misogyny:
Hamlet Frailty, thy name is woman.
Boys are silly:
Corambis Sum men often prove,
Great in their words, but little in their love.
Favorite Moment/Line:
Hamlet Why what a dunghill idiot slave am I
Hamlet -- The Bad Quarto
So, since I'm at the Shakespeare Association of America conference, I can't pull out my Arden edition of this play to consult, so forgive me if I misspeak (or just comment and correct me, or add things I'm missing ;-) ) For those of you who aren't scholars of the bard, just to catch you up, we have three texts of Hamlet: The first quarto (known as the "Bad Quarto"), the second Quarto, and the Folio. When you see Hamlet performed you are usually seeing a conflation of the texts from the Folio and the second Quarto. The first quarto edition of Hamlet is quite different from the other two texts and full of what seems to be textual mistakes and problems. This version, I would have said, does not get performed due to the "errors." But due to the academic interest in this version, there have recently been fully staged productions of the text of the first quarto Hamlet. The plots are practically identical between the different texts, what is different is the poetry and some of the ordering of the scenes.
Nearly all of the soliloquies are considerably shorter in the first Quarto Hamlet, and there will be a line that is identical to what we know, followed by a line that is completely different. For example, the line we know goes "To be or not to be; that is the question." The first quarto says "To be or not to be, aye there's the point."
Anyway, the first quarto is called the Bad Quarto for several reasons - it is a lot shorter, leading to the claim that things are missing, a lot of the logic of the speeches is missing, the syntax is weird, and the poetry many find to be inferior. Where did this text come from?
From what I recall there are two prevailing theories about the Q1. The first that it is a memorial reconstruction of the actual Hamlet play by Shakespeare. An actor with an apparently very bad memory tried to write down the entire play and had to approximate large chunks of it. The second theory is that the q1 is Shakespeare's first draft, based off of the Ur-Hamlet, or the name given to the supposed source play that Shakespeare based his Hamlet off of. Then, the theory says, Shakespeare rewrote the play entirely to what we know today.
But the Q1 Hamlet is ... weird. I know that's a completely subjective assessment. But the characters all seem underdeveloped. Their arcs don't make sense. The poetry is inferior. There is a lot of missing logic. Syntax is strange. Thoughts are unfinished. Several names are different.
So here's a totally crazy thought that I have no evidence for, and don't have the time to properly research. But what if the Q1 Hamlet IS the Ur-Hamlet? What if this text is not Shakespeare at all, but the text that Shakespeare based his version off of?
It's claimed that the Q1 version of Hamlet is some version of Shakespeare's writing, because, I suppose, there are many identical lines, and the plot follows the same trajectory. But Shakespeare's other plays also have extreme parallels with source material. But I would need to do further research on other source plays and Shakespeare's versions to see if there are direct line quotes as there are between the Hamlets.
One of the scholars at the reading noted that he thought the Q1 Hamlet was a superior text. I and my friends found this questionable. But, hey, to each his own.
-----------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Gertrude
Favorite Male Character:
uh... don't have one
Laugh out loud:
Hamlet There's never a villain dwelling in all Denmark,
But he's an arrant knave.
Horatio There need no Ghost come from the grave to tell you this.
"That's what she said!":
Hamlet Upon your lap, what do you think I meant country matters?
How insulting:
Ghost that incestuous wretch
Shakey loves his meta:
Gilderstone In Faith my Lord, novelty carries it away,
For the principal public audience that
Came to them, are turned to private plays,
And to the humor of children.
Oh, misogyny:
Hamlet Frailty, thy name is woman.
Boys are silly:
Corambis Sum men often prove,
Great in their words, but little in their love.
Favorite Moment/Line:
Hamlet Why what a dunghill idiot slave am I
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)