Sparing One Flea

Subject: Having only five characters, I never expected One Flea Spare to be so complicated and in depth; of course, I attribute this to my own ignorance of theatre, which I’m sure will be increased a great deal during the current semester.

I couldn’t help but notice a few of the things we had discussed in class, especially how the audience must imagine the unseen. For instance, Mrs. Snellgrave’s burned hand, which kept the entire audience guessing why she kept herself covered and even caused many to lean intently forward in their seats when she finally removed her glove; although the actress’s hand was in fine condition, the audience believed the performance and imagined a scarred, withered palm. The scenery, in and of itself, was quite simple (just walls, windows, a cabinet, and some chairs, and yet the same features acted as the inside and outside of the home.

While the play is said to be an exchange of power through an exchange of sexual favors, it seemed to speak well beyond this point. Secrets are what I’d label the play as – secret lives, secret desires, secret needs – sex was simply the vehicle in which these hidden things were brought to light.

I also saw a sharp comparison between Mr. Snellgrave and Richard III – both were powerful men who wanted so much; one desired a kingdom, the other improved status; both men longed for the women of their dreams and treated both as dogs once reality had set in; both men used and abused their power; both were confronted by their sins (Richard’s ghosts, Morse’s speech to Snellgrave); both struggle with their convictions and we never are sure if they actually resolve their internal conflict before their deaths.

The characters were fascinating as well – Morse representing innocence corrupted by experience and want; Kabe whose humor softens the overall tone of the play but his morbid humor and abuse of wisdom makes him a character that we’re not sure if we like or disapprove; Mr. Snellgrave who represents fervent want; Mrs. Snellgrave who represents need; and Bunze, who is the person of experience who manages to balance all of the traits of each of the other characters in a such a way that we can’t help but appreciate him – this is probably why he is the only character who really survives the plague and escapes London.

There is so much symbolism in the play and I would have to see it again just to make sure I saw everything, although I’m sure I would only compound the problem by seeing more than I had originally postured. While the play is dark and covers several harsh realities, I don’t think that a person couldn’t help but appreciate it.

On Actors (Alison Plunkett)

SEPTEMBER 27 - J. Alison Plunkett wrote:
Subject: The Theatrical Imagination, Chapter 8

It is sad, and hard to believe that women were restricted from participating in theatre for nearly 2,000 years, since some of the best actors today are women. However, the world has obviously evolved since then, and so has theatre. Acting has evolved from “heightened oratory” and “flamboyant public speaking” to naturalistic acting to eclectic modern theatre with alternative acting styles such as improve, clowning and transformations.

Actors, as well as musicians are forced to rely on talent that is intangible. It is difficult for actors to depend on intangible qualities that form their craft. Improving and growing as an actor is a difficult task. It takes an extensive amount of self-awareness and the ability to truly delve into the deeper parts of the inner self.

On Playwrights (Alison Plunkett)

SEPTEMBER 13 - J. Alison Plunkett wrote:
Subject: The Theatrical Imagination, Chapter 5

This chapter suggests that playwrights always write alone, however, this is not always true. It is common for playwrights to collaborate with one or more people, which can be a huge help to the frequent problem of writer’s block. This chapter says that playwrights, being products of their times, reflect on the perceptions and values of their particular time. This thought is not necessarily true. Many playwrights take themselves out of their time and place their characters in historical or even imaginary time periods. Through research and great knowledge of a specific time period, the playwright can then capture the perceptions and values of peoples in that time accurately.

Also, the play is not always about the plot. Sometimes the play is about the characters in the story more so than the plot itself. An example of this is Everyman.

On Theatrical Imagination (Alison Plunkett)

SEPTEMBER 6 - J. Alison Plunkett wrote:
Subject: The Theatrical Imagination, Chapters 1-3

Imagination is the artist’s greatest tool. With imagination, we can imagine how reality could be. Art then becomes about something that is imagines. Art has powerful values that can be useful, not only aesthetically, but functionally as well. The authors break down art for the reader by placing art in exact categories. Art cannot be so concretely defined. Much like institutions such as religion, art is something that must have only a working definition. Everyone has their own definition for art, none of which are exactly the same. Art has a certain flexibility that cannot be pinned down or squeezed into one category. Art manifests itself in many unique ways.

Drama is not always the imitation of human action. Drama can be something as simple as REAL human action. Chapter 2 states, “Plays are effective for conveying action, while the appeal of music is primarily emotional.” Plays are effective for conveying emotion through relationships that are conveyed through action. Music is primarily emotional, however theatre and the portrayal of the characters on stage is as well.

Richard III, The Actor

Richard III, the Actor.

As an experienced actor, one of the most difficult things that I had to do was to become the character that I was playing. I have to say that one of the greatest and most difficult characters to play would be Richard, the main character in Richard III.

Richard’s appearance and actions change throughout the play, the actor who takes on this role must be able to use the script and the words to his advantage to make the audience sympathize with him when it comes to Lady Anne as well as his deformity, but he also must make the audience realize, eventually, that Richard is power hungry and he sees nothing but the crown. This comes when the audience watches Clarence die and Richard become king. It is very important that the actor that takes on this role knows exactly what Richard wants to convey with each monologue and speech that he gives. Many of this monologues are very in depth and they could have different meanings if words are said differently and in different tones and with different inflections. This is another important thing to practice multiple times as an actor.

Most characters are easier to become than Richard because he is so different as compared to many other characters in theatre. He doesn’t care about anyone else besides himself. He is only out for himself and no one else. There is also no real history behind Richard to build a character with. Many other plays have a historical basis or a basis of a love story which makes the creation of a character easier. In this play, Richard is not historically based and he is not a character that fits in the norm which gives the actor who takes on the role an entirely new degree of difficulty.

All of these reasons are why many people want to play Richard and this is also why many people don’t want to play him. However, if an actor can walk away from the part of Richard and have done it well, that shows how truly great that individual is and this is also why many famous people have done the role, because of they can do it well, they will be held in higher esteem than they were before.

--Michael Breeden

Acting for Dummies?

Subject:

Any person seeking to become a world class recognized actor might want to pose as Richard III on their debut. Richard III, by William Shakespeare is the perfect example of how essential actors are in theatre. It demonstrates the way an actor can betray, confuse, and control the minds of the audience. There is no doubt that any director searching for an actor to mimic Richard would have to spend an extended amount of time.

The actor must be able to manipulate and deceive his own persona in order to portray the character of Richard. The actor must be able to dominate diction and language, because it is through the authority of this verbal communication that the audience will overlook Richard’s treachery and evil behavior at the beginning of the play. Richard is not only there to seduce Lady Anne or convince the people that the King was whom to blame for Clarence’s death. The audience must sympathize with an enigmatic and charming Richard at first, but as the play continues, the spectators ought to experience an unsettled relationship with Richard III. Once Richard becomes King the actor must make the audience realize the real “boar” and “hell hound” he is. In order for any actor to master this change he must study the psychology of evil minds.

It is vital that the artist rehearses Richard’s monologues over and over. It is through these monologues that the audience and reader admire Richard. By skillfull points of view, Richard is able to present his egotistical desires in a very sensitive way. A perfect example to look at is in Act I, scene I, where Richard states his evilness towards others because they troubled him due to his physical deformity. This monologue makes any reader feel some sympathy towards Richard.
Therefore, if you are an actor, you might want to think twice about choosing the role of Richard in William Shakespeare’s play.

Jimmy

Language Control

Subject:


One thing that stood out in Richard III is the use of language. Though some take language for granted as a simple means of communication, Richard III utilizes his command of language to influence, control and manipulate those around him to get what he wants. His empowered speech allows him to seduce Lady Anne. It also permits him to have Clarence thrown into prison. Also, he is able to keep the Woodvilles off track, blame the king for the death of Clarence, and have Hasting executed. He achieves all of this without putting himself in virtually any risk at all.


Matching Richard’s language use only ends violently for his competitors. When language fails him as a good defense, Richard reverts to violence and killing. His enemies end up dead after a word battle with him. The evil that Richard represents is frightening to me, personally. Knowing that someone that evil can control the English language so that people bend to his will is a scary thought.

Acting 101

Subject: Having never done any acting myself, I found this chapter to be quite interesting simply because it attempted to explain not only what an actor does in a production, but also how he auditions, prepares, and creates a character.

I had taken for granted the fact that actors have to audition in order to perform – while I knew there was a bit of a process in being accepted for a role, I never realized things were so complicated. From the original “cattle call” to call backs and readings, there seems to be quite a bit of pressure on the actor coupled with the stress of ever searching for the next job. It was fascinating to note that the concept of the audition is fairly new – to me, it appeared to be the most obvious form of “interviewing” an actor; then again, I’ve grown up in a generation of auditions so how would I know any different.

I also never realized that there were so many schools of thinking when it came to acting. I suppose the typical style that most people recognize is the Stanislavsky method, but others such as Grotowski or Suzuki (whom, I’m guessing, would be a big fan of Broadways’ STOMP) were notable.

It would seem as though the most difficult part of acting would be in the creation of the character; getting into the mind of who you’re playing, so to speak. From there, the actor must constantly be aware of how that character would react, what their motives would be, where their emotions may lead them and so on. All of this coupled with off-stage noise, audience distractions, and then blanking on a line makes the actor something more of a talking head – they, in fact, must become a separate individual (almost as though in multiple personalities).

Now how a person would create the character of Richard III is beyond me – how could someone be so ruthless, so conniving, so blatantly arrogant and keep their sanity as an actor is quite impressive; especially when you consider that the actor must actually be that individual for just a short period of time. I can’t help but wonder, has anyone ever played a character and gotten stuck “in character” or at least preferred that character to their own person? Could that person ever actually truly be the separate character or would the character simply be a mask? Just a thought.

The Great "Unknown": The Audience

Subject: The Great ‘Unknown’: The Audience

We all know what an audience is, but the important thing is, “What does the audience see?” As we spoke about in class a few weeks ago, many things in theatrical performances are for only one type of audience. Much like in the movie Shakespeare In Love, some people would understand the satirical jokes that were placed inside the movie and others wouldn’t. One of those jokes was when one character told Will that, “We don’t have time, speak prose.” Another was the design on the mug that talked of Stratford on Avon. The first of these is important because it shows that the movie is making fun of the fact that most people that read Shakespeare today, think that the language that he uses is really the way that the English spoke in Elizabethan time. Where, in all reality, this is just not the case. No one in there right mind would have spoken in rhyme on a daily basis. The second example shows that the directors wanted to poke fun at the fact that Shakespeare is now a very large part of our everyday culture, whether we realize it or not. We now could just as easily have a mug from Stratford on Avon as we could have one from Disney World.

Now, not everyone will understand either of those ‘jokes’ but some people will. This is what I mean when I talk about playing to different audiences. This can also be seen in the play, Trouble In Mind. In my opinion this play was written for two or more audiences. Obviously it was written for the blacks and the whites, but it was also written to show the feelings about the male gender and the female gender.
The audience gets undertones from not only the language and the dialogue, but also the stage directions. Wiletta is supposed to be a weak type of a character this symbolizes the race itself being weak compared to the whites that are around them. For another audience, however, this also symbolizes the weakness of the woman compared to the man. Manners, represents just the opposite, the strong, white, man.
The big thing also about this play is the fact that it was performed for the first time in the 1950’s, right in the big middle of the Civil Rights Movement. The fact that it was written and performed in this era, and that it was very blunt about how the white race perceived the way that that African Americans were treated, is the main reason that I and many others view this as a very two sided piece of work. Each audience ‘sector’, if you will, saw different things that they wanted to see. The whites saw the blacks in their place, weak and powerless, and the blacks saw reality for them. However, for all we, as white people know, they may have seen something entirely different.

This shows the great thing about theatre. Each member of an audience sees something completely different from what the person sitting next to them sees. Theatre is truly a frontier in a way. You can go anywhere and see anything that your mind will allow you to see and do. It is up to your imagination and you. This is why the Great ’Unknown’ is the Audience. No one really knows what anyone else understands or perceives, and there is no real way for someone to ‘take you by the hand’ and lead you to some ultimate meaning of any piece of work.

--Michael

Influence of an Audience

Subject: (I think I covered that in the title?)

The audience at any event has a pre-supposed expectation for what they are about to witness. In going to see a movie, they may have seen previews or critics’ reviews. As for seeing a play, it is possible that they have read the book it may have been based on or heard from friends about its content. In any case, audience members have some idea about how they will react to actions and events in the spectacle they are about to witness.

The culturally diverse backgrounds of the audience definitely structures how they view what is going on. Where one Christian might see witchcraft and evil, another Hindu might see free expression of self. What a person takes away from a play, movie, or any other type of art will vary according to their religious and political background. The most recent “documentary” made by Michael Moore created an uproar within the community around me. Personally, I think Moore is an idiot, and thus never saw his movie. My personal background in experience with Moore’s work swayed me from ever seeing a very controversial movie.

Every person has beliefs that influence their take on society. Audience members are a society in and of themselves, and the influence they have on one another will make or break any form of art.

9/19 - Announcement & Questions

Subject: Announcement and Suggestions

I talked about our reading assignments on Thursday, but I need to make a clarification regarding the the working schedule on the syllabus. Since I introduced the Levine article, we'll hold off on reading Chapter 6 of The Theatrical Imagination (on producers) until a later date. If you've already read it - great! Don't worry, we'll slip it into our schedule before long. Read Chapter 7 - on directors and directing - for Thursday's class, when we'll use Trouble in Mind as an opportunity to talk about the directors' craft.

So, to recap: for Tuesday, read Lawrence Levine on Shakespeare and Alice Childress' Trouble in Mind (both on-line as electronic reserves). For Thursday, read Chapter 7 of the textbook.

Consider the following questions as possible subjects for this week's meditation. You are not required to address these questions - they are suggested topics only.

What role does an audience's expectations - and cultural background - play in the theatre? Can a production appeal to popular tastes and also challenge, educate, or "uplift" an audience? How does a culturally or racially diverse audience affect this process?

The production team depicted in Trouble in Mind clearly wants to provide a politically charged experience. What are the challenges that artists face when embarking upon such a mission? What traps can they fall into? (For that matter, what does the title - "trouble in mind" - mean?)

Is it possible to encounter difference safely in theatre? Childress depicts deep and disturbing pitfalls faced by artists who hope - in an unequal world - to work as equals. Her play may (or may not) provide lessons we might derive from this fictional experience. Does it provide any hope?

For all of these questions, Levine's comments about the hierarchization of theatre - from a microcosm of democratic American society (with less cultural diversity) to a highly segregated spacial landscape reflecting cultural and economic differences - could clearly apply. Consider how to integrate him into our discussion of the play.

Wiletta's Fichtean Curve

Subject:Trouble in Mind, written by Alice Childress, takes the time to point out some inconsistencies in life, especially in the character of Wiletta, the star of stage and screen whose experience and wisdom far surpass the knowledge of any director, stagehand, or actor. Little does Wiletta realize, but it is her familiarity with theatre that eventually leads her to discover a fascinating point in her life.

As the play opens, Childress sets the audience up for the “normal” path of Wiletta’s Fichtean Curve, assuming the viewer thinks that this character is nothing more than a pompous know-it-all who refuses to listen to direction. However, as the reading of acts one and two progress, Wiletta’s heart and conscience begin to change – she realizes that she has essentially sold herself out to the theatre by playing these stereotypical “mammy” roles. Regardless of the characters played, she feels that she is always placed in a slave role; from the diction she uses to her soulful songs (melos) that can bring tears to the eyes of the cast, Wiletta comes to grips with the fact that she has done nothing more than reaffirm the black female role of servant.

Reaching the climax of the play through recognition of the situation, Wiletta bursts out in anger saying that she (her character) should refuse to send her son to be murdered rather than encouraging him to give in to the oppressor (which would be the ideal thing a slave should do – bend to his master’s will). Through role reversal, Wiletta becomes the dominant figure by striking out against the director in a justified rage; while the director claims to listen to her complaints, the situation reverts back to the situation represented in the play that is also echoed in life – the fact that a white man (the director) will never be and should never be compared to a black individual. In doing so, the conflict is resolved (so to speak) in a topsy-turvy manner by reestablishing the roles, boundaries, and colors that have always existed – as if to strike Wiletta at her very core and remind her that she is type-cast and forever trapped as a black female in her plays and in life.

While the play may not end on the most cheerful of notes, it does bring to light an important question: are we Wiletta? Do we play roles in life by following patterns, forms, and stereotypes? Are we ever really able to throw off the shackles of those labels? More importantly, how will react and what will we do when we decide that it is time for a change?

Audience to Audiences

Subject: Audiences of Audiences

The ever-present audience in Shakespeare in Love takes on a couple different obvious forms that both influence the plot line or serve as humorous devices throughout. I have always found that I subconsciously put myself in the audience’s position that is on stage. For instance, the other day I was reading a comic and found myself reacting to the scene as if I were there with the characters rather than realizing the dramatic irony the artist/writer intended. Again I did this in Shakespeare in Love, however a more humorous outcome was involved. In the instances of pseudo-homoerotic love between Will and Thomas Kent, I found myself thinking, “what if someone walked in on them?” Specifically during the boat scene in which Thomas is asking Will to describe his love of Viola and their faces are mere inches apart, I couldn’t help but laugh and wonder what the rower must be thinking. I think the director specifically picks up on this and almost alludes to the couple being caught later on by Webster. By the time the two kiss, I was almost in tears laughing at what the rower’s face might look like. What would he be thinking? Would he be disgusted due to the time period they were all living in? I was happy that this confusion was cleared up and the “audience participation” was brought in when the rower said that Viola “couldn’t have tricked a child” with her disguise. This audience to Will’s “natural” life is important in another such scene in which Webster spies Will touching Viola’s “buhbies” and then reports it. Though the consequences result in a much more dire situation than the first, the ever-present audience is still, well, present.

The second audience acknowledged in the film is portrayed more on film than the former and is spoken about constantly. The audience I speak of is Shakespeare’s audience, the audience that physically witnesses the first showing of Romeo and Juliet. Kirk had spoken in class about the honest portrayal of the audience in this film, so I expected much worse than what was shown. I visited the Globe Theatre a few years back and was told all the disgusting stories of bodily fluids released where the “poor” would stand, because people didn’t want to lose their places. I expected the raucous crowd to continue their taunts throughout the entire performance as was told to me during my tour, but it did not. However, I cannot blame the crowd for growing quiet once the stuttering Narrator began to speak so eloquently. I myself would become silent and amazed by such beauty and love even if I was a simple commoner as those before the stage were.

The most important audience member in this fictitious scene is of course the Queen who stopped the arrest of the numerous actors and, in the end, wrote the fate for the lovers. All bets were settled and her own critique of the play was spoken, though it is most improbable that the queen would ever sit amongst her subjects in such a lewd atmosphere even if to see arguably the most amazing love story and tragedy in history.

Lastly, the final audience that is only acknowledged once as I remember is the viewer of the actual film. There have been numerous films and plays using the “play within a play” scenario and Shakespeare in Love is no stranger to the constant Twilight Zone feeling it gives. Almost as if looking into a mirror reflecting a mirror, it seems the image is constantly doubling itself. This gives a strange atmosphere to the film, causing the audience to lean back sometimes and find a need to grasp their actual reality. When watching a play in a film, I almost get the feeling as if my reality is that of the audience portrayed. It was quite odd to suddenly realize that instead of being one of those women in their body crushing bodices, I was lounging in a t-shirt while staring at my roommate’s laptop. This was the time of computers and renaissance people, not ink and the birth of classics. I was the audience to the life of a fictionalized story while the same time an audience to my own life. I was caught judging myself through the judgment of an idol.


- Ani McCurnin

Catastrophe and Shakespeare in Love: Imitating Theatre

Subject:Catastrophe and Shakespeare in Love: Imitating Theatre

Both of these works we've looked at are similar in their most obvious sense: the fact that the plot entirely revolves around the production of a play. Interestingly enough, however, within Catastrophe, we see little of the presumably ongoing elements that compliment eachother in efforts to produce our current yet ambiguous definition of "theatre". Shakespeare in Love, however, goes as far as to show the entire theatrical process, which is both complete with production complications as well as reasonable historical accuracy. In doing this, Stoppard introduces both methods of play production seen in Shakespeare's time, as well as contemporary methods of film production. Strangely enough, the two approaches toward theatre production overlap significantly in respects to diction and plot. While some characters use different voices for the play production within Shakespeare in Love, the origin of their accent and diction are similar to that of the character within the film. Even moreso, the "inappropriate" nature of the two love stories also overlaps, as two young lovers both in play and film try to pursue their romantic interests in a created world in which such a relationship would typically be seen as impossible. Catastrophe, on the other hand, places emphasis on the spectacle aspect of theatrical production. For the entire play, the director focuses almost semiotically on the visual signs being transferred between the depicted character on stage and the audience. And accordingly so, it would be presumed that a director involved with the production of Catastrophe would spend a more significant portion of time in respects to the visualization of the protagonist as opposed to the other characters within the play.

Shakespearean mood

Shakespeare in Love is a relatively fictional account about the life and love of William Shakespeare. Not much is known about the “real” Shakespeare, therefore, Tom Stoppard had the liberty to include some ideas of his own to present William Shakespeare’s persona. But Shakespeare in Love is more than just a tale of one of the greatest writers of all time; it is about the greatness of theatre, the power of love, the magic of poetry, and the pain of life.
The film takes us to England 400 years ago where Queen Elizabeth I controls everything including theatre. We can see the spiteful Aristocrats and the dirty commoners begging for something to lighten up their day, something that will allow them to scream and laugh. What they wanted was entertainment. Philip Henslowe, the owner of the theatre, is intimidated by the theatre’s creditors to present a play and earn some profits. Henslowe immediately supplicates talented writer William Shakespeare to deliver a play. Love and lust towards Viola inspire young Shakespeare to transform Romeo and Ethel into tragic Romeo and Juliet. It seemed as if the people were anxious for entertainment. Even today humanity is desperate for entertainment to escape the troubles and pains of real life.
I believe the most interesting aspect of the film was its ability to convey a Shakespearean mood. We are immersed into this Shakespearean world of language, poetry, swordfights, dishonesty, romance, action, comedy, tragedy, and all the essentials that make Shakespeare so unique. Watching Shakespeare in Love lets the viewer appreciate even more the artistic and splendid style of William Shakespeare.

Jimmy

Shakespeare In Love: A Wealth of Knowledge

Subject: Shakespeare In Love: A Wealth of Knowledge

In all reality when we were assigned to watch the movie Shakespeare In Love, I thought that it was going to be a boring, sappy love story. Love story it was, as well as sappy, but boring, no. I have to say that the plot of the movie itself was very interesting. Whether it is true or not, the thought that it might represent the real way that William Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet is amazing. The actors in the cast I believe did justice to the movie and I believe that we can learn much from this as well, not only about the movie, but also about the theatre. The story itself requires that the audience assume that the two main characters have watched each other for a long time. If this is not assumed then the "Love" turns to lust. There would be no love in a late night hook-up after a man danced with a woman once, at a party that he wasn't even supposed to be at. The movie itself depicts actors on a stage. So the play is a play inside a movie. In this the audience gets some of the feelings that a theatre audience might get. Though there is no real theatre acting in the motion picture. There is also an aspect that the audience of the movie gets to get inside the mind and the thoughts of 'Will' because not only is he playing his thoughts out on the page and on the stage but he is also living that play with his new found lover. We, the audience, get to see all of this and it helps us in the understanding of the character that is William Shakespeare. Along with all of what we have seen, we also see, as a class what our textbook told us in the third chapter. We see Queen Elizabeth and learn that she had almost ultimate control over all of the theatre as well as everything else in England. Not only have we read about it, we now have a physical representation. Over all, the movie was ‘good’, not only as a movie for entertainment, but also as a representation of history, of the theatre, and of acting.
--Michael

Shakespeare in LUST?

Shakespeare in Love is an enjoyable movie, yes. It is very well written and acted by a respectable cast of actors. There is no doubt that most would categorize this movie as a “good” movie. I really did like it, but I had only one problem with it. My problem with the film is that the writers of the movie seem to generalize in their thinking that lust is the same thing as love. Lust and love, coincidentally, could not be more unalike.

When Shakespeare meets his “love” interest for the first time, he spots her from across the dance floor. Immediately he knows that he wants her to be his muse; the job description which basically entails sleeping with him a few times so he can write. He seems to become infatuated with her and her him. Infatuation and lust are the same things, and neither involves love. Shakespeare seems to be in love with his muse, but the only difference between his other love interests and his new one is that she is engaged rather than already married.

Judging from his past endeavors in finding muses, the problem becomes whether or not one can tell if he is actually in love or just using this new girl as a new and different muse. The play Romeo and Juliet seems to be taken almost exactly from the muse and her lover’s total experience in knowing each other. Whether or not Romeo and Juliet are in love is a whole other topic. However, Shakespeare’s “love” for this woman is mostly physical and the rest is because she adores his work. Shakespeare is not in love in this movie; he is full-blown lustful.

Med 2 - What Can Learn (From Shakespeare in Love)?

What can we learn about theatre from Shakespeare in Love? It would probably be easiest to point out everything in a long run-out sentence as follows: we can see that theatre is as cut-throat, every man for himself, sell your ideas to the highest bidder as any business ever was but that the play simply could not function if it were not so – each person (playwright, director, financier, etc.) has just as vital a role in producing the play as the actors who perform the show; interestingly enough, each one attempts to minimize the other’s talents or parts but yet they all realize that they cannot function without the other.

Actors can have their spats – inspiration can come from all sorts of places – titles are important – plays are an ever evolving organism (while being written or in its performance) – everyone involved becomes a family – performers really can come in all shapes and sizes – but most importantly, and above all, we can learn that a story, when well told/performed, can change the minds and opinions of viewers, can influence individuals beyond their wildest dreams, and can last an eternity when written on the hearts of the audience.

And since chapter five was about audience, we could also ask to which member of the audience was this movie tailored? Yeah, some may call it a chick-flick, but it does have quite a bit of action and adventure, a little history, and its comedic timing and jokes could only be caught by those who have some knowledge of Shakespearian plays. Basically, the movie was probably written for all to enjoy, but those who have a bit of theatre knowledge under their belts will be the individuals who can truly appreciate the movie for its quick wit, subtle humor, and deeper meaning.

Med 1 - Three Questions

Subject: After reading the first three chapters of the text, I couldn’t help but wonder about three specific questions that kept coming to mind. Question one comes from the first chapter where the author discusses how life imitates art and art imitates life (while the romantic would say that real art doesn’t imitate anything, but that’s a discussion for a different time). Anyway, if art and life are so entangled, could we not argue that life actually shapes art?

For instance, some of the greatest pieces of work would never have come about had life circumstances been different. Schindler’s List would’ve never been created had the Holocaust never occurred (you’ll have to excuse the rough example but it’s all I could think of at the moment). Theatre itself would not exist as we know it today had the church not resurrected it from the grave of the A.D. 398 Council of Carthage. It would appear that life does not necessarily imitate art, rather life actually molds and shapes the outcome of the artist.

Secondly, the idea of theatrical license is a wonderful concept, but how far can a director go before s/he creates a new bit of work that simply resembles the former play? In other words, does the director have the right to alter just about every little detail and then claim it for his/her own? Or would s/he still give tribute to the original playwright and simply say s/he is expressing himself in a new direction?

Finally, we simply cannot escape the notion of deception. Is theatre lying or simply a game? After all, we imitate (act out) some of our favorite scenes from movies, television, and plays, and we even have impersonations of our favorite professors – but I’ve never heard anyone say “Shame on you for doing such a good impression!” Do we scold our children for pretending to be pirates, soldiers, ballerinas, and all the things that they’re not but that make childhood fun?

On the other hand, if someone were to impersonate a police officer or act as a professor here at Austin College, that person might find them self in a world of hurt, if not in prison. To me, these are deceptions – a person who plays a part without the knowledge of the second party with the intent to do something other than the acceptable to/with the second party.

Theatre, on the other hand, creates a situation where both party members are aware of what is going on and the second party member accepts what is going on, knowing full well that s/he is being taken in by the whole process. Basically, the second party is conscious of the fact that they are being duped. (On a side note, does this then mean that the audience is just as deceiving as the actors who are doing the original “deceiving”?)

That’s my two cents on the subject – feel free to say, do, add or subtract whatever you like; thus ends my meditation number one.

9/13 - Questions to Consider

Subject: Announcement and Suggestions

Please note that, for Tuesday's class, you need to read Chapter 5 of The Theatrical Imagination only as far as page 185. Read the rest of the chapter for Thursday's class, when we'll discuss dramatic structure and Aristotle's Poetics.

Consider the following questions as possible subjects for this week's meditation. You are not required to address these questions - they are suggested topics only.

~ Consider the structure - not simply the content - of Shakespeare in Love and Samuel Beckett's short play, Catastrophe. How do these structures compare? What are the stylistic differences? What similarities can you discern?

~ Both Shakespeare in Love and Catastrophe depict the production of theatre - and the power of a theatrical moment. How do these depictions overlap, and how do they differ? What model of theatre does one or the other (or both) construct?

~ How would you characterize the experience of spectators in Shakespeare in Love? How many different sorts of spectator does the film depict and in what contexts? Can you relate to that audience's experience?

Not-So-Subtle Biases

Subject: Not-So-Subtle Biases

I find The Theatrical Imagination to be a surprisingly interesting textbook as of yet, using examples I can relate to (ie Rocky Horror Picture Show, Robin Williams, Sid Vicious, etc), however I find it to be very biased. Obviously given that it is a theatre book, it would naturally be bias towards the theatre arts, however I find it borderline ignorant. One line in particular stood out to me:

“Writers must be practiced in word usage including the rules of grammar, syntax, composition, rhythm, and rhyme, and possess significant communication skills and a large vocabulary.” (Pg. 25)

Though true that many writers must understand general rules behind all of these things, it is not necessary that an accomplished writer have significant communication skills and a large lexicon. It is helpful, but not necessarily obligatory. Just as in theatre, it is important to have a basic understanding of acting and history, but to some acting is a natural occurrence. Natural talent is constant in everyone, some more theatrically inclined than others. I don’t believe its fair to generalize all writers and then to claim that theatre is, in the perception that I believe is given, so much more difficult than becoming published.

I know that I am bias myself being a writer, but as an actress as well I feel I have some authority to claim that this textbook must be taken with a grain of salt, wouldn’t you agree?

- Ani McCurnin

Dangerous Historical Assumptions

Subject: An inaccurate historical assertion in our textbook, THE THEATRICAL IMAGINATION.

For passage in question (p. 48-9 of our textbook), click on the title of this post - it should take you to a separate blog, where I've posted the quotation at length and commented in detail, along with a bibliographic citation.

In brief, the authors make the questionable assertion that "it is not surprising" that dramatic art "has flourished in humanistic societies" that grant freedoms to the individual, "and has been suppressed by totalitarian or fundamentalist socities." If they are speaking strictly of REPRESSION, then their statement is more or less accurate. But they go on to cite Elizabethan England and France under the absolutist monarchy of the Sun King as examples of humanistic societies whose freedoms have encouraged theatre! Both of these empires carefully restricted theatrical arts; both recognized theatre's value in solidifying political power. And while totalitarian regimes certainly exert harsh and vigorous controls on theatre, they also celebrate it - particularly when they can control it, and control the audience's responses to it: take, for example, the Nazis' fondness for grand social gatherings whose endorsement of civic religion were tantamount to public ritual, or their enthusiasm for a rigorous (if flawed and reductionist) interpretation of Wagner.

My point is that this sort of off-handed historical equation is dangerous; certainly the warning flag appears when the authors assert that this sort of thing should be perfectly obvious. What is not obvious - but very interesting - is the extent to which theatre flourishes under repressive governments, and particularly those nation-states or social systems with Imperialistic aspirations. Tell Vaclav Havel (or Harold Pinter) that theatre only thrives in nations that value individualism and freedom. Consider that Hellenic theatre itself survives because of the imperial aspirations of Alexander the Great: everywhere he went, he built cities, and in those cities he (and those who followed him) built permanent theatres - the oldest theatres known. Contrary to Huberman & Co.'s notion, there appears to be an interesting association between emerging Empires and an embrace of theatrical entertainments and theatre as a cultural paradigm.

Is theatre counter-cultural, humanistic, or individualistic? Perhaps. It would seem at least to be Socratic, and a powerful source for revolution as well as more gradual forms of social change. But it can also be used with remarkable effectiveness as a means for social engineering, and we (who study the theatre) would forget this at our peril.

History is the interest.

Subject: One of the only new things that I learned was about the history of theatre.


In meditation on the first ninety pages of this greatly expensive theatre arts book I was very bored. Honestly I felt that most of what was said I knew already. Much of the material was common sense. Though some of the figures, dates, and statistics were interesting, it took me three sessions to read all of the way through it. I felt that some of the examples were beneficial and I felt that sections of the first three chapters were good. Much of the section, however, I felt repeated itself. I feel that most of the sections could have been summed up in a few sentences rather than a few pages. I also feel that most of the information we have already gone over as a class in classroom discussion. In meditation, I hope that the next section of reading that we have to do is more interesting.
It may sound as though I hated the reading. On the contrary, I enjoyed some of it. The sections that were interesting were those that spoke about the history of the theatre in Greece, and Rome and all of the things that had to be dealt with. I also enjoyed learning that the Christians banned theatre all together, this was an interesting fact. I was intrigued to find out that the Christians felt that theatre was evil and then turned around and used it for their own purposes. It sounds hypocritical doesn’t it?

Michael

Read Me

Welcome to the blog-based on-line discussion area for THEA 111 (Introduction to Theatre Arts), taught at Austin College in the Fall of 2005. This blog is designed to address issues and ideas relating to the definition of theatre, its distinction from other theatrical forms, and the art of perceiving, interpreting, and responding to theatre and performance texts.

(a) maintain respect for all participants at all times; when you wish to argue, make your point substantively, and be sure that you have made every attempt to understand the original post to the best of your ability;

(b) stay on topic; any and all connections are welcome (and on many browsers, you can include these connections in the form of hyperlinks or images), so long as they ultimately connect to the subject or discussion at hand;

(c) if you are a student in the course, BE SURE to keep a BACKUP COPY of any and all posts that you make; I would suggest that you compose your remarks in a word processor and simply paste them into blogger, as this host cannot guarantee the safety of data posted to its site;

(d) cite absolutely any and all sources for quoted or paraphrased material.

We'll make up the rest as we go along. Enjoy!

p.s.: For posts, 150 words is a minimum only. Use as many as you need to make your observations clear and complete.