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.