Reflections on "A Night of Shakespeare"

There was a certain amount of levity that hovered about the stage after the first performance, which allowed the following groups more lead way in making mistakes. So thanks to Romeo and Juliet for going first! However, it wasn't the levity that erased the memory of our lines from our brains. We rehearsed our lines quite a few times before the play without mistakes. I think that rehearsing on the stage might be more beneficial than simply memorizing dialogue, and would help in retaining dialogue more effectively; seeing that the actor must also consider the crucial aspect of blocking and positioning at the same time. If we were able to do that on the stage, the overall performance might have been more fluid and natural.

I realize this was just for class, and naturally, it was not taken as seriously as it could have been. I also think that the plays could have been much better, if we all had the time (most of us didn't) to rehearse on stage.

It was fun.

Macbeth, nuttin' but a punk

A prophecy foresees a situation to be undeniable. In other words, action is not neccessary on the invidual whose fortune gets told. Macbeth is a doldrum, akin to Saturninus in TITUS, who is destined to lead; but also to have no power. He vies for power at the hint of the possibility, like a lion being fed dead meat. Again, it seems that Shakespeare reveres women for their ability to make tough decisions - in this case, Lady Macbeth inspiring Macbeth to take action for the throne - as well as their uncanny ability to control a man's emotions and actions. Hamlet was moved to action by his mother's incest; Laerte's by her sister's virginity; Titus by Tamora's power and Saturninus by her sexuality; Othello by Desdemona's sexuality and her father and Iago by her choice of man and her virginity. In other words, the man may have the power, but it is only because he opresses the woman's innate power that men do not possess. As we are seeing in Persepolis (well, in Iran and other muslim countries, actually; but also in Persepolis), the woman is veiled. This usurps her authority by taking away her main powers, those of beauty and seduction. By creating flawed and weak male characters, Shakespeare shows a contrast of strength in women. This isn't to say that all of these choices were intended to do that, but I do think they were subconcious choices unknown to him.

After all, doesn't the average man think about sex every seven seconds? That's to be debated, but i'm still interested to know how long it took Shakespeare to write a tragedy.

Lear as a dying breed

Shakespeare's Lear seems to represent a dying form of government, one in which the individual is venerated above all; above the good of the people and the community. Lear, like Titus, is oblivious to anything going on that is not in his sphere of being. When chaos does break out, when his divided kingdom begins warring, he does not know how to handle it; because until then, the only allegiance he ever knew was to himself. So when it comes to saving his kingdom, he has no faithful followers, because he never put any faith in his people. Shakespeare seems to be criticizing the British monarchy by showing how it divides its people through their want of power and their lack of care for the good of one another. In effect, the selfishness, ignorance, and egotism trickles down from the head of the state to all of its citizens; not creating a strong bond between them, but rather dividing them by example.

All Shakespeare characters are longing or yearning for something as a result of their solitude. Hamlet is not so concerned with his mother's misdoing in marrying his uncle as he is with self-love and how her actions disagree with his own idealist philosophy. He doesn't truly know love, he only has a notion of what it's supposed to be. Romeo, dejected by his singular identity contrary to his family's, isn't looking for love so much as he's looking to forge his singular identity away from his family. It is self-love that inspires all of Shakespeare's characters, and is essentially, their greatest flaw. Tom Chaplin sings, "When we fall in love, we're just falling in love with ourselves." I think Shakespeare understood this, and also saw it as our greatest human weakness. This is not to say his texts don't bleed with want of love - in fact they are saturated with that sentiment - but he seems to suggest that a pure love is very hard to find. Furthermore, one cannot truly love someone else until they are completely self-aware. Unfortunately, all of his characters don't achieve that self awareness until they're dying. Maybe he's trying to say that love is both are greatest human achievement, and that is why it's also the most dangerous.

Englishness

This idea that Othello will infect Desdemona with his darkness reminds me of the same struggle that Henry Wilcox faces in "Howard's End," but in regards to class. The ultimate question posed in Forster's novel is: Who will inherit England? The fear for the beurgoisie is that the class structure will diminish, that the the legs of the golden chair upon which they stand will be broken out from under them, leading to an amalgamation of all classes. The power, then, will no longer be in the hands of the privileged few. This is the same fear that Iago and Desdemona's father have of Othello, that his infection of their species will cut the legs of power out from beneath them. Iago sees in his future a seat of power that he sees as his implicit privilege as a white male. Change does not come easy or without a fight. Furthermore,

I'm having trouble analyzing Othello too deeply, as I'm not sure where to go from here. This is probably all rehash and boring, but it is what it is.

SEXXXXXXXXXXXX is on my mind

At the end of class, you showed us the cover of Othello. First of all, I see envy in Iago's eyes as he watches Othello/Desdemona get freaky (Silkk, "Freak Me Baby"). Now I'm thinking that the hyper-educated/maybe-hyper-western white man is projecting his inadequacies, or his own ability to express his sexuality due to his social role, onto Othello. Because Iago is an Anglo-educated man, he sees sexuality as a base form of expression in a social context, but personally truly envies Othello's ability to woo Desdemona, as sexuality is inherent in every human being. For a man, sexual competency usurps all other types of power. Clinton was the leader of the leader of the free world, yet couldn't cage his urges to express that power. So Iago hates Othello because he is everything that he wishes he could be, noble and strong (both sexually and combatively), so he makes it his personal mission to destroy any man that is freer than he is. Maybe the fact that Othello is a condemned Moor is only a side-note in this play. Maybe it's more about the faults of white manhood than it is a sympathy for Othello's plight. Maybe it's self condemning, Shakespeare's attempt to expose his own insecurities, his own faults. Maybe there is a lot of Shakespeare in Iago. I sure as hell know that there is a lot of Patrick Bateman in me, no matter how hard I fight it. I'm beginning to feel that all of Shakespeare's works venture into the psyche of the male, and everything else is supplemental.

Blog self evaluation

Michael Madden
Dr. Paul Gleason
Shakespeare: Tragedies
12/10/08
URL: http://maddenshakespearetragedies.blogspot.com/
Blog Self Evalauation
This class began with a discussion on the “New Historicism,” so right from the beginning, there was no focus on the “Text-Self” sphere for me. This was not hard to discard, as I usually don’t react to a text based on whether it is pleasant to me or not. That way of looking at things provides no room for growth as an individual, and therefore seems useless to me, unless one is reading or watching something just for the joy of the experience. I’ve tried to look at everything I do in life - hobbies, work, etc. - and I’ve found that work is the only activity I do where I’m satisfied to simply be done with it. Whereas when I play tennis or write short stories, I want to be the best that I can be; I want to be better than the competition. So when I read, similarly, I want to read in a way where I can, not necessarily compete as in tennis, but at least be able to competently debate with my classmates. However, there is no way to debate with somebody about my feelings on a text. That would be for naught. To each his own. We all have are own personal responses to phenomena, but the only way to constructively and productively criticize a text is through an objective medium. That is, a text, when read with a group of people in academia, needs to be explored within in the context of it. This is not to say that talking about texts on a personal level is not great fun and cannot sometimes be a means to growing as a person, but it is to say that there is a lot more a text offers than a personal connection. After all, texts are meant for everyone.
As far as intertextuality is concerned, Shakespeare is fun to interpret through modern adaptations. As you’ve pointed out in class many times, he does not give much stage direction, so much is left up to the reader or director to discern. Looking at Luhrman’s adaptation in congruence with the text allows us to compare and contrast, then make a decision based on the text whether we believe that interpretation to be accurate or not. I found myself, as did everyone else in class, that Luhrman’s depiction was overwrought. While it may have been for good reason, as the movie is stylistic rather than realistic, there are yet other ways to adapt the players of the play. For example, Romeo does not come across as such a stalker in the text to me like DiCaprio does in the modern version. However, maybe Luhrman sees something that I don’t in Romeo, and now I’m afforded a point of view to make my own decision on his character.
Later, in blog post four, I examine Titus in relation to the three camps of satire that you introduced in class: parody, pastiche, and camp. I write, “it might be that [Shakespeare] was both condemning the tragedy for its overwrought plot structure but venerating it for its entertainment value at the same time.” If we did not look at Titus Andronicus compared with the Journey and Cher music videos, I may have simply overlooked the silly plot as a product of the time and not considered it to be nothing more than, as I wrote in blog four, “another great play by the greatest playwright of all time.” It is very hard to discern tone and style of the sixteenth century when we have nothing to compare Shakespeare to; traditionally, in our high school and undergraduate studies, Shakespeare is the only author we study arduously from that time. By looking at other texts or art, as we did with Titus, I felt that I had a much greater grasp on his intentions.
The most employed method of reading Shakespeare seems to be the third sphere, “Text-World.” In blog post five, I write “When [Aaron] regrets any good deed he’s ever done, it is not only hatred of the world that comes through, it is also self hatred; being brewed from his forced position (in life), which is immutable...” Here, I’m looking at both the socio-political condition for Aaron as a Moor in the 1500s, condemned as less than human by the Anglo race. Moreso, I’m contemplating Aaron’s psychology when he utters that prolific statement as it compares to his social and racial status. In this way, Aaron is very much a character that is topical for modern readers. Racism still thrives, as well as class structure. Looking at Aaron as simply an angry man being condemned for his wrong actions would be offensive to the roundness of his character. There is much more at stake than evil and good, there is cause and effect to be considered with Aaron; and Shakespeare conveys that.
Again, in blog post six, I am concerned with Hamlet’s psychology as it is concerned to his sexual health. I write, “He is, then, blinded with rage/dejection, and cannot see outside of his unitary (phallic) sphere of thought... man’s greatest weakness: his inability to converse with a woman without thinking about getting into her pants.” In this case, I am able to bring all three spheres into one. I personally react on my experience as a man, I use Irigaray’s criticism of Hamlet, but I’m also concerned with the affects the philosophical and religious ideologies of the sixteenth century had on his character. Furthermore, we can discuss Hamlet’s view of females contrasted with a female’s role in today’s society. Why does he treat Ophelia and his mother as if he has them in his best interest when all his interest is concerned with their sexual desires? It is a fascinating take on male psychology universally, but it also may be attributed to the limited view men had of women pre-enlightenment. Overall, this seems to be the way to look at text I’m most inclined, but also that which is most applicable to Shakespeare’s work.
To conclude, I’d rather look at a text as it pertains to world rather than worry about how I’m affected by it. Though I may judge my favorite books and pieces of art on that level, it is not productive to read a text that way; especially when the book is meant to be explored by a community. I feel that all texts should be realized for what they have to offer in a way that is applicable to both the larger group and the individual at the same time. Shakespeare is great in the aspect that his plays are both intrinsically concerned with the individual and the society as a whole, and the relationship between the two. Furthermore, there is plenty of modern adaptations that explore Shakespeare’s work, which allow the modern observer to gain a richer perspective on his work. Though he might be dead, he had a point of view that is still topical today. I really enjoy trying to figure out exactly what it was.

Hamlet observed

Irigaray writes that women's pleasure in life, and thus there use of language, is more diverse than man's "unitary, phallic pleasure." Due to this, she says, "he is unable to discern [her] coherence." This criticism can explain a lot about Hamlet. He does not have one scene in Hamlet where he speaks to female without a streamlined agenda, to belittle them for no other reason than their own sexuality. He is disgusted with his mother for having allowed herself to be penetrated by a man other than his father; therefore, he despises Ophelia as he projects the actions of his mother onto all females. He is not open to the idea that his mother might actually love Claudius or that they are compatible. He is worried only about the consummation of the two. He is, then, blinded with rage/dejection (depending on who's delivering the lines), and cannot see outside of his unitary sphere of thought. I think that Shakespeare touches on man's greatest weakness: his inability to converse with a woman without thinking about getting in her pants. And I can't say that we've evolved much, in this aspect, in the last few centuries. It is both the great pleasure and curse of being a man. Like Donnie Darko says, "What's the point of living if you don't have a dick?"

Entry 5, Aaron

In lieu of discussion in class, I want to look at Aaron more thoroughly. He is the only character in Titus that isn't flat. It maybe be attributed to the fact that he is the only character which has a history the reader is aware of that isn't in the text. Being a Moor, we all know that he would have been condemned in Anglo-Rome. This exposition that is assumed gives reason to his enmity for all in the world. When he utters that he regrets any good deed he's ever done, it is not only his hatred of the world that comes through, it is also self-hatred; being brewed from his forced position, which is immutable, by his white suprresors, as the heel nipping snake in their eden. Only he has no promise of a better life, or an after life for that matter. So why should any effect on his earth be of any consequence, when pity or hope has no place in it for him. Aaron is much more than a simple Moor in this story, which he at first appears to be; rather, his rage foils each characters' to be judged against, and it is only his that seems tangible to the reader.

4 - Titus

I think that looking at Titus through the scope of parody, pastiche and camp helps greatly in determining Shakespeare's intention, which would not have been taken into consideration otherwise, rather believed to be another great play by the "greatest playwright of all time." Though I still disagree with you that Journey's "Separate Ways" is camp, I think it's harder to define Shakespeare's first tragedy. It seems to have aspects of all genres which, in itself, might infer that Shakespeare failed miserably at his attempt, rendering itself campy. However, I believe that his play was a mix of parody and pastiche. The hyperbolous nature of the play - Titus's many sons, the extremely gory elements, the too-swift plot line - all lend itself to parody. But that isn't too say that Shakespeare wasn't impressed with his counterparts' productions or that he didn't have fun with this play. In fact, it might be that he was both condemning the tragedy for its overwrought plot structure but venerating it for its entertainment value at the same time. Can a piece of art not be both a parody and a pastiche at the same time?

Entry 3, Production Deisign/Direction

I think the choice by Luhrman to make a highly stylized film adaptation of a Shakespeare tragedy is a perfect marriage. The language itself is stylized, both in its poetry and its wit, and should therefore have the privilege of appearing as such. It is even more appropriate in modern times to do so, as many viewers are taking their cues from the acting, blocking and production design rather than the actual words (it isn't easy to follow the verse without the text in front of you). Other adaptations, like Titus aims at and achieves this mark as well, whereas the 90s version of Hamlet attempts to modernize the story but falls short; the film lacks style and color, its pallet being dark and monochromatic, in turn alienating the viewer instead of engaging him.

2 - Romeo's acting chops

A Partial Ode to Romleo
Tresses of golden light so quickly to shine down/
Cheeks of an angel's under locks like a crown/
Shall I compare thee to a doll, a Precious Moment?/
Each minute you're with me is such sweet atonement.

With that, I'm going to discuss Romeo's (Leo Caps) acting in his scenes with Thybalt (Johnny Legs). In these scenes, Leo Caps is able to convey many emotions: pity, anger, anguish, confusion and listlessness. His facial expressions are especially keen in his performance. He is able to show pity when he first pleads with Thybalt for peace, as he widens his eyes (puppy/prudence) to show his earnestness, then furrows his brow and speaks slowly and seriously to show Thybalt, that though he may seem like an incompetent 12 year old girl, he is ready to have a G2 peace conference. He expresses anger and anguish after Mercutio's death by shrieking unintelligibly and, as Angela pointed out (in class), channeling his role in What's Eating Gilbert Grape. Throughout his dialogue with Thyb, he is on the brink of crying, which conveys a certain desperation for truce; so after Mercutio dies, he languishes, his arms drawn to the side as on puppet strings, his hair in his face as on puppet strings, with two intense looking bloodstains on each side of his face; all to convey his helplessness, as Romeo, weary with guilt over the death of his friend, feels that all is for naught at this point.

"Shakespeare in Love" dir. John Madden

As women were supposed to be graceful and proper in Shakespeare's time, they were prohibited from doing things of a manly nature. Not only that, they were seen as inferior to men. Lady Viola's character is a representation of the socio-political gender role struggle that females faced in the late 16th century. The writers of the film address the acting issue in a comical way: in one scene Shakespeare grabs his male Juliet's crotch to straighten out his pitch, and many of the other males playing females (especially the nurse) look utterly ridiculous playing women. Ironically, the female playing the male does so with grace. Moreover, she must marry Lord Wessex for propriety's sake. While the film breezily pokes fun at the foolish austerity of the time, it also dramatically conveys the hopeless reality for Lady Viola.