Things Are Looking Up

This past play practice both relieved some stress I had about our play and added even more stress at the same time.  To the positive aspects first—the Genetian players were amazing.  They made my attempt at directing look like something a four-year-old would have done.  Now mind you, in my support I did lay down the ground works for the scenes, but our Genetian helpers managed to push us that extra step that I had been struggling with. 

It was a great practice.  Our helper—Joey—really showed us how to tap into our characters’ mindsets and how to emphasize the weirdness of the whole situation.  What was really great was that I was able to show her some of my own ideas for the scene and have her give me feedback on how to make them better.  I know that sometimes I can be a little bit my-way-or-the-highway, but I know when to step back and let someone more experienced throw in her two cents.   

Unfortunately—and here’s the bad part—we didn’t even go through the second scene.  It’s not even blocked.  A bit worrisome, though we do have a few weeks left.  Another bad part: I have to act.  Well, I don’t have to, but really it makes the most sense and it would eliminate some previous stress about getting a member from another group to play the parts I needed.  I’m going to have to play Chiron and Saturninus.  Neither have particularly big roles, but when this project started I knew in my head that I really did not want to act.  I have horrible stage fright.  Or, at least, I think I do.  For years I was an awful public speaker and even though I’m way better now I still have it in my mind that if I ever went onstage I would completely freeze up and forget my lines.  It’s all psychosomatic, I’m sure.

Anyway, working with the Genetian players was unbelievable helpful.  Hopefully we’ll be able to work with them at least once more because their support was invaluable.  I really think our play is going to be much better because of them.  

Othello's Points>Iago's Points

I kind of think social hierarchy in Shakespeare’s time is a little bit like some tests we just took in psychology.  For the tests, you got points for each question if the question applied to you (for example, you would get two points if you got 8-9 hours a sleep a night, but -3 points if you smoked).  In the end you totaled your points and ranked your total on a scale.  The higher you were on the scale, the better off you were (mentally, physically, psychologically…I’m not really sure what the test was getting at).  The point is Othello is kind of the same way.  In Loomba’s article she mentions, “Specifying who is part of the nation also entails identifying who may not be part of it, or who may be its ‘lesser’ member” (150).  In all actuality, Othello should be the lesser member of his society because of his race (and probably religion although that isn’t really mentioned in the play).  So (and here is where the psych test comes in) he would get negative points because of his race.  But the fascinating thing is that he has a high-ranking military position.  That gives him positive points.  To add to that he’s married to a white woman (more positive points) who has government ties (even more positive points).  So really, Othello almost ranks higher than some white men in his society.  But is he still considered the “lesser member?”  Apparently so.  Despite all of his “positive points” that would normally put him higher up on the social hierarchy, Othello is still portrayed as the typical “other outsider.”  Not all the play’s characters portray him that way, but Iago certainly does.  Perhaps that is Iago’s motive.  Othello is an “other” and yet he still ranks higher than Iago does.  In Iago’s mind, Othello’s should be the “lesser member,” but somehow he’s becoming more and more part of the nation—a nation that usually identifies itself as the opposite of the “others.”    

Blocking: A Director's Nightmare? Maybe a Little Bit...But We're Managing...Somehow

I really want to talk to the Genetian players.  Blocking this past Monday was a lot more difficult than I thought it would be.  First, I didn’t know what kind of props we had, whether we had lighting and sound, if the curtains would be moved—all things that would affect how I blocked out our two scenes from Titus Andronicus.  To add to this, I was missing a character (Chiron) so I had to fill that spot while still trying to direct my actors.

Okay, I suppose that’s enough griping for today.  My point is that basically what I said in my second sentence: blocking is hard to do.  It’s so easy for me to see how everything would play out in my head, but getting my actors to walk, stop, turn, and sit where I want them to has become more difficult than it probably should be. 

We somehow managed to block (roughly) the entire first scene, though we got barely anything done with our actual stage time.  As a homage to the movie Titus we decided to have Titus playing with toy knights as the scene opens.  Later when Chiron and Demetrius follow their mother into Titus’ house, they too will sit down and play with the toys.  Our interpretation of the play is meant to be comical—a parody in essence—but I feel this scene will make an underlying comment about the characters.  By having all three playing with the action figures, we’re showing the childishness that all display.  I’m sure that childishness will show up more in our version, as madness in Titus and stupidity in the sons.  To add to this, we wanted Tamora and her sons to have overly exaggerated movements (my actors have already decided on a signature pose for Revenge, Rape, and Murder—one especially looks like something out of The Karate Kid) to add to the ridiculousness of the scene. 

Because we don’t have a balcony for Titus to stand on and talk to Tamora, we decided to have Titus and Tamora yelling back and forth at each other through the doorway (invisible or actual, we’re not sure yet).  The rest of the scene is going to take place inside of Titus’ study.  There just isn’t any room on the other parts of the stage so we were forced to change the location of the conversation to inside instead of outside. 

My only hope is that my actors remember our blocking from Monday.  I’m relieved we’re going to get more stage time because I really think that will help us—just knowing how much space we have and getting a feel for the location.

Anyway, thanks for listening to me rant.  I’ve been involved in play productions before, but my role was usually that of writer so I never got much say in how it was performed.  I’m realizing now just how much work goes into a single scene of a play.  Hopefully by laying out my problems and accomplishments in front of myself, I can better figure out what my next step is in this whole directing process.  

Blog Paper

For most of my life, Shakespeare’s works have been part of a separate realm of literature.  They formed their own little “genre” you could say.  I knew about Shakespeare in grade school, but I don’t think I ever read any of his works until I reached high school.  I’ve always been a strong reader, and have no problems with most of what I’ve read in school or in my free time.  Shakespeare, though, I never really got a full grip on, mostly due to how it was taught to me.  My freshman year of high school we read Romeo and Juliet.  Just read it, no interpretation, nothing.  My sophomore year we started reading Julius Caesar, but only a quarter of the way through the play my teacher fell ill and had to miss weeks of school.  Our substitute was not interested in English and basically has us read it aloud in class with little to no interpretation of the text.  My junior year we didn’t even touch a Shakespearean text because it was an American literature course and obviously Shakespeare isn’t American.  My senior year we studied Othello and it was the first time we actually discussed the text.  Not surprisingly, out interpretation focused on the expected—symbolism and the role of race.  We spent a lot of time studying Shakespeare himself, but barely connected this knowledge with the writing.  Also that year we read Macbeth, but it was on our own time.  We were quizzed on the play, but never talked about it in class.  (Our teacher also attempted this style of teaching for A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.  It did not go over well at all.) 

And that, sadly, is the extent of my experience with Shakespeare.  No, I had never even picked up Hamlet before this class.  Why?  I can’t begin to explain why Shakespeare was so neglected in my high school, but as for me personally, well, Shakespeare was not on my list of fun free time reading.  I always felt the language was too daunting, and I had never learned to read more than what was just on the surface of the Shakespearean text.  Needless to say, my Shakespeare reading stage was pretty much at text-self, perhaps occasionally reaching text-text.  I knew I was capable of reading and writing at a much higher level, but just never got the opportunity. 

My blog entries for this class have been working strongly at a text-text stage, only occasionally lapsing into the text-self stage.  My very first blog entry focuses on looking at the movie Shakespeare in Love through a New Historicism approach.  I relate the play within the movie (Romeo and Juliet) and the movie itself to power struggles of Shakespeare’s time: “It is not surprising that the main events in William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet are set in motion by two conflicting patriarchs, Lord Capulet and Lord Montague. This plot detail no doubt stems from the society in which Shakespeare lived—one that was ruled by white men.”  I discuss how the women of this piece are in conflict with the white patriarchal society and that “In an act of rebellion, perhaps, both women fall in love with the one person they should not—Juliet with Romeo and Viola with Shakespeare. This direct defiance of the patriarchal rule carries over from Shakespeare’s world into his play.”  My September 25^th blog also falls into the text-text stage by addressing historical references within both Romeo and Juliet and Titus Andronicus. I wrote, “Romeo+Juliet, although portrayed in a modern setting, still maintains the Elizabethan language and the historically centered customs of that day.  For example, Juliet is still betrothed to Paris, even though arranged marriages rarely [occur] in America today.”  These kinds of comments fall into a text-text stage, but have the potential to reach a text-world stage if I had only chosen to expand more on a specific point. 

A few of my blog posts fall back into a text-self stage.  My blogs on the acting/directing process are mostly I-centered, but include some reflection on how our text(s) were translated into performance.  In my September 11^th blog I wrote:

“As we saw it, Paris believed that Juliet already belonged to him because despite the fact that they weren’t yet married, Lord Capulet had bequeathed her to him. At this point Juliet was already married and had no romantic interest in Paris; she wanted to avoid him entirely. To get this feeling across, we had Paris slowly advance towards Juliet as he spoke. We wanted him to get uncomfortably close to Juliet, to show the possessiveness of the character. Juliet, in turn, would react by moving away from him, showing her reluctance to even be near him.” 

It’s working at a text-self stage, but includes interpretations on translating a text from one format to another.  My other text-self blog entries also include hints of outside analysis, but never reach a text-text stage. For example, in my September 17^th blog I wrote:

“After today’s class on camp (and parody and pastiche) I’m hoping that some new ideas will come along.  I don’t really think Taymor’s version is campy; it’s more on the side of pastiche, if I have to label it.  Perhaps if I try to look at the work in another light I can find a vision of it that’s different enough from Taymor’s.”

The more I read and watch Shakespeare, the more comfortable I am working and analyzing the different texts.  I’m hoping that as time passes I’ll start working at a text-world level within the Shakespeare realm.  For most of my life I’ve been stuck in this mindset that Shakespeare’s works are entirely grounded in his century.  I’m realizing now that a lot of the themes and plot details in his plays can be seen in contemporary work and in aspects of our world today.  I think watching movies based on Shakespeare’s plays will help me move into the text-world stage.  Most of the movies we’ve seen have some sort of contemporary aspect, in the least that they were made into movies, and I’m hoping that this will help me start relating Shakespeare to the modern world.  As I wrote in my blog on directing (but can apply to any situation, I believe), “This will probably take more reflection on my part, but I’m confident that eventually it will all come together.”

Hamlet: Gertrude as a Stereotype

Despite Queen Elizabeth’s rule, Shakespeare’s time was a highly patriarchal society.  We can’t be sure whether or not Shakespeare himself supported this view, though many of his plays seem to.  Many of the movies we watched for class on both his life and plays reflects these same ideas, so someone must of thought he did.  In Shakespeare in Love we see Viola being ruled both her father and fiancée and oppressed by the society she lives in.  Romeo+Juliet portrays Juliet as a slave to her father’s will and, in some interpretations, to her own innocence and emotions.  But it is in the movie Hamlet that we are presented with a female character so strongly controlled and reliant on this patriarchal society and so conforming to stereotypical assumptions made about women.  So many of these assumptions can be seen in the first act.

The first scene Gertrude appears in is her husband’s funeral.  Except for her, (as far as I could tell) all the attendees were men, and she the only guest crying.  This goes along with the binary logic of language: male/female, reason/emotion, head/heart.  Because she is a woman, Gertrude shows emotion and is sensitive to the situation while all the “reasonable” men show no emotion at all.  We know from the play that Gertrude marries less than two months after her previous husband’s death.  We don’t know exactly why she married, but we can assume some things.  She most likely married for security, playing into the assumption that women must look to men for protection.  In a following scene with Claudius and Hamlet, Gertrude plays into the French feminist argument that women have two options: to speak, but speak as men, or to remain silent.  Though it’s not necessarily portrayed like this in the play version, in the movie adaptation Gertrude has few lines in this scene.  The ones she does speak are basically echoes of what her husband said before her.  Gertrude does not really speak in much more of the first act.  In the scenes we do see her she is often hanging on Claudius, kissing him or showing some kind of affection for him.  This relates to the French feminists connection between women’s sexuality and women’s language, and the idea that women are only defined by their sexuality.  The little we see of Gertrude at the beginning of this film supports these ideas because the audience has no choice but to define her by what we see—her sexuality. 

Although  there are certainly more examples later in the film (and play), it’s easy to see just by the first act how the character of Gertrude falls in the stereotypes formed by a patriarchal society.