I Should be Working on the Final, but...

I just had one more thought about the Laramie Project. I'm remembering the article we read about Jose Can You See? One of the main points of the article was that people took for granted that West Side Story was an accurate presentation of Hispanic Americana. I'm skeptical about that point, but it may well be that people took WSS that seriously. If that is the case, then why are we so reluctant to consider the possibility that the Laramie of the Project might seem like to be a real representation of the actual town of Laramie?

I think that, given that these words are the actual words of interviewed members of the Laramie community, it might be reasonable to assume that the audience would be disarmed by the power of their arrangement within the play. I'm not suggesting that this play is propaganda, but I am suggesting that as the motives of Kaufman become clear in the representations of the events, it might be possible that he is arranging the truth to suit his purposes.

That is not a criticism of the play. Every playwright manipulates the truth for a desired result. It is important, though, that you and I as an audience must be aware of it.

Laramie Project

I think everyone is making interesting arguments about the Laramie Project as a play. I think the Laramie Project does exactly what theatre should do; promote a change. Kaufman goes about it a different way though, instead of creating something from his own mind, he took an actual event and gave actual accounts from the people involved in the small town of Laramie. As far as acting in this show, I don't think I could. I don't think anyone can get into the mindset of the people that were effected by this story. These words weren't written, they were actual feelings. In this type of theatre though, your goal is to tell a story, not act the way you feel. I don't think you could just say these words and not have any emotion behind them though especially if you know the story behind Matthew Shepard.

babble babble

I wanted to talk about what happened in class today as well. I think I just have a really hard time expressing my feelings about this because I wrote the letter saying I would direct it. Honestly, I don't think I could ever direct this play. I stick by my statement that this play is not for the sudience to come in and feel sympathy for Matthew Shepard; sympathy never got anyone anywhere. I think the reason Kaufman and the rest of his company compiled this script was to drive people out of their cushiony theatre seats and into the senate, the house, and the streets. Seems like here in Louisville, we are only in the streets..maybe the same is true for Laramie. There's a definie split in our society as to which is more effective, lobbying or protesting. Some say both, but Americans are entirely too lazy to go through all that. :)
Seriously though, I just don't know if I could commit to using the Brechtian technique because I am not as badass as Mosies Kaufman, and am way too emotionally involved in these news stories. But then again, I don't think I would want someone who just did not care about the issues of GLBT to direct it either. I don't know..I never come to any conclusions in these posts.

The Laramie Project

If you guys couldn't tell, this play really got to me.

I was really interested when Jeremy talked about not being sure whether or not he could trust the writers or if it was a genuine reflection on the people in Laramie. We made it fairly clear that journalistic interviewing is different from theatrical interviewing. One thing that was said reminded me of something I saw on TV one time...I was watching this "documentary" about reality television (primarily MTV's Real World, Survivor and The Bachelor) and they were all talking about how they were so surprised by how they were depicted on their shows. A few of them even talked about how the producers (during their one on one face time) would egg them on with certain questions and telling them certain things in order to work up some tension or an emotion from them. Then they would edit the clips together to make situations appear worse than they actually were. I feel that we can all agree that reality television is not the best example of reality and I can totally see where there would be some truth behind the former reality stars saying that.

The Laramie Project seemed to be much more honest. There wasn't really a part that I read that stood out to me as something that could be fake or held back. I also got to thinking that these people who were interviewed would probably be more honest then not because (even though I have no proof of this) I would assume that they had to agree to it before signing anything. By essentially volunteering for this, I assume that they were prepared to be honest. Also, most people seem to have respect for the people in situations like this, especially when it hits so close to home that it would probably have been a huge deal on their emotions to try to fake it. It's sometimes hard to put ourselves in the minds of people like the ones depicted in this play when we haven't been there. But being one who has dealt with some traumatic deaths (including living in Boston and being in lock down at school during 9/11) I feel that it would be extremely difficult for me to lie or hold back in situations that would drag up so much emotion out of me.

Also, while looking up some stuff I came across this picture of Matthew Shepard as a baby...for me, it reminds me that this was a person whose family has to deal with this still and not just a case:

How much is too much?

I'm struck by the commonality of how much specificificity is called for by the playwright in alot of the last few scripts. Noh, of course, take this to such an amazing extreme the set is no longer up to the author. Beckett goes so far as to allowing only certain conditions in order to be permitted to stage one of those plays. There's a little more room for individual interpretation in Mother Courage as well as Raisin and even Ibsen detail the set to a very specific degree. Do the sets become another character- as with Krapp's tape player? If so, is the play's impact and "message" diminished by reducing the set's detail? I know I said in an earlier response that we can find great liberty in limitations, but I wonder how much is too much from a playwright in this matter...

Beckett

It's interesting to read a play by Beckett after reading a Noh play. In the Noh Theatre, everything is so specific and rehearsed by tradition so that if you did a play now it would be the same as it was hundreds of years ago. The same thing can be said of Beckett. He was very particular in who did his plays and to this day through a company he controls, from the grave, the when and how of his productions. This is both comforting and unnerving as an actor. With Beckett, you know how it is supposed to be, but there is little room for interpretation or for personal touch. It is what it is. As is with the Noh. In Noh, there is no "what I felt in this scene" or "move downstage a bit." It is all precise. Every pause in Beckett, every sigh, every crazy outburst by Krapp was written in for a reason. You may not know why he holds the Bananna *shudders* in his mouth for a moment but I bet Beckett does. It is certainly interesting for the audience to wonder and to figure out for themselves, maybe that is the job of the actor as well....

beckett and repetition

Zac mentioned the repetitive nature of Beckett's plays. I was thinking about it today when we were watching Krapp's Last Tape; the actor picked up, looked at, peeled, and ate the banana twice. He did it the same way each time, even though he was eating his second banana. As we talked about in class, parts of the play like this are comic relief; however, they are also a tad scary. There's also a lot of repetition in the stage directions as well as the dialogue he has with the tape and himself. The same is true for the play Meredith was in. The versions of Play I have seen have the actors do the first part and then repeat it all over again (as opposed to breaking it up). And, today, we talked about Rockabye, in which the actress repeats herself multiple times. Its all creepy, as we discussed in class, but why is it so eerie? 

Beckett's plays are like no others. I think his repetitive use of language makes the audience really think about the words. He is really trying to say something with these plays, and having the actors repeat themselves multiple times resonates with the audience. That, along with other elements of course, is what adds to the frightening nature of the plays. Its scary to HAVE to think about the loneliness and heartbreak that Beckett covers in his scripts. We human beings have been pretty successful at blocking those parts out.

Krapp's Last Tape

The interview that wouldn't play.

Beckett

In case anyone missed it, we actually did a Beckett play "Play" in Studio earlier this semester. I finally got the videos (had to split it in two parts) uploaded to the internet and thought that you might be interested. It's not the play we're studying, I know, but Beckett writes some interesting stuff. I tell you though, this was the most stressful show I have ever performed in. I have never been nervous for a performance until this one--I broke out in hives. Just a little tid bit.

It's a little less than 17 min. all togther. It might be kind of hard to understand at times, I included a link to the script for those of you who get really pulled in. (Play Full Text)

Pt. 1


Pt. 2

When I found out the fact that the Noh plays use only one set, the same set for every play, it made me think about how the playwright's job increases. With the set already pre-planned, the playwright is obligated to make sure that the text of the play creates the visual aspects of the story being told, as well as the story itself. I think it will show the mark of a wonderful playwright who cannot rely on an elaborate scenery to tell their story, but rather let the words of the play be the focus to tell the story. It is interesting how taking one aspect of theatre, like the set, can increase the focus of the writing.

Noh Theatre

I was really excited to see that we were going to be reading/discussing a Noh play. I learned about it a few years ago in Theatre History but haven't had much to do with it since. I am intrigued by the discipline of Noh and by how long it takes to be trained to do a specific part for it. I love to watch the actors glide across the stage nearly effortlessly all while the body and head never seem to move. I remember learning that you had to begin training at a very young age and were beaten with a stick by your instructor, usally the veteran of the theatre, until you had the right kind of posture for the specific role you were playing. Everything about Noh seems so delicate and precise, which I look at as comforting as an actor. You usually tend to avoid playing "emotions" but in the Noh, an expression of emotion can be the critical point in a scene. I would love to experience more with this kind of Theatre because I don't think you can get the full effect of it unless you see it live.

Spooky Stuff

Noh Theatre-
As I watched the video and read on the Noh Theatre, I found it to be kinda eerie! Don't get me wrong I found it very, very interesting but it left me with chills. The video more than the play. I paid close attention to the smallest detail to their movements and how much discipline it must have taken. Had I not read the play I wouldv'e really been lost. The video just expounded on my knowledge of the Noh theatre and visually I see now what the actors have to do. It's been said that they all have been taught since childhood and are not even considered a real NOH theatre actor persay until they are around 40. I was not surprised that the men play all the parts, but I would have really liked to have seen how the women move as opposed to the men. Would it have been the same or would there be suttle differences. All in all, the Noh theatre is very interesting and is filled with beautiful movements and stylized dancing and siniging, which is in still spooky to me but at the same time intriguing.

Don't Say Noh to Noh Plays

I, too, was puzzled and intrigued as we watched the Noh play in class on Monday. However, this experience did remind me of these plays' connection with Zen Buddhism. It is important for us to remember that one of Buddhism's key teachings is that only through the limitation of the emotions and self-control over pleasure can one reach enlightenment. This is why many Asian Buddhist cultures have such amazing craftsmanship ability; their worship involves self-discipline-a self-discipline that will produce excellence and ultimately harmony with the universe.

Zen Buddhism also emphasizes meditation as part of religious practice, and many Buddhist rituals are intended to evoke altered states of consciousness in the participants. Maybe that is the best way to view these plays. They are not necessarily intended to be representational of actual events or characters, although that may be part of it, but they are intended to evoke a new or heightened way of perception. Western minds have a hard time grasping this idea, because we are mostly unaware of when our consciousness is altered, but even in the West, we begin to grasp such ideas through yoga and similar practices.

So, let's be open-minded about the Noh plays, because they require an open mind in order to enlighten us.

Confusion

Okay I really had no idea what was going on in this play and I'm so glad I wasn't the only one. But I don’t think it was the translation I just couldn’t get the story line. I've just one question, was the movie suppose to help clear things up? At all? Because for me if it wasn't for the subtitles and the overview by Amy I would not have been able to partially keep up. I can understand the actors wanting to symbolize important parts of the play but I never got how the princess was in a jealous frenzy, until I was told about it. First of all she was just standing there, Second even if she were walking slowly maybe a bit more gesture would have helped, just a little, she was so still. However I do think that the rhythmic walking was cool, and because the music was so repetitive it must have helped out with staying in step. Crossing the bridge was suppose to indicate distance right or was it the walking very slowly and sedately the way how?


I read Meredith's post and some of the same questions she asked I thought up myself, but the main one that kept recurring to me was what happened to the sick princess/lady Aoi? The entire play was about the princess and her jealousy, what about the person who was affected by it. Did she die? Get better, become an invalid, did she get better and try to get revenge on Rokujo? What happened to this woman, it seems like she was a driving figure in the plot considering she was the cause of the princess's jealousy.

This is my first time actually reading The Colored Museum. Before the reading, I had only seen parts of episodes of the play from the made-for-tv version. I am really moved by the beginning episode entitled, "Git on Board" simply because the playwright invites the audience to become active spectators. The play gives voice to the stories that may have been heard but not given attention to. I believe this play is timeless and makes a statement to the audience,"We are here. This is our history, and you will know it.

Alright, I know that I sound like the total dunce in the class but Aoi No Uye was so confusing to me. It was short and sweet but I when I was done I just found myself confused. I wasn't completely sure who was who and if the princess ever was cured...or if she had died and if she was the ghost. I was completely lost.

I'm curious about how much the translation is to blame for my confusion. If you all recall, I was also completely oblivious when we read The Trojan Women, which was also a translation. This seems to be a common theme with me. I'd be interested in knowing how everyone else overcomes this or if I'm the only one that is having a consistent problem.

Episodic Theatre

In reading The Colored Museum, I am forced to reconsider a preconception that I've held regarding what I consider strong theatre. I've always been a bit prejudiced (maybe the wrong term to use in discussion of this play) against episodic theatre - I don't like Spoon River, or Galileo because these plays are basically chopped up into little vignettes. I prefer one story, even if it's complicated, to a series of chopped up events.

I am, however, beginning to see the value of this type of theatre. It certainly has a long history; one might even argue that The Trojan Woman is episodic theatre. I think that this style is especially useful to the playwright trying to make an activist point. Often, when we as playwrights get into a storyline, we lose our way in regard to overall theme. In those cases, and often powerfully, the story resonates more than the point we are trying to make. If, however, we desire to use theatre as a tool for social or cultural change, it might be important to simply craft smaller scenes that offer less complication and confusion to the viewer regarding our driving point.

The Colored Museum

The colored museum, I really don't know what to say. I think it was said in class that this play is realism but I'm not so sure. Time Warps, Cooking up black people in a pot and a girl laying eggs doesn't seem realistic to me. Anyway I think that this is a very interesting play, although it's a little crazy. And since I'm doing a visual response to this it made me think just how I would direct something like this. I've never actually wanted to direct any play but the colored museum just sparked my interest. To begin with I would consider the costumes, specifically Miss Roi's and Miss Pat's. For Miss Pat I don't know exactly what kind of stewardess costume I would choose. Should I go more modern with it? My version of the play dictates that she's in a mini skirt ensemble. This seems to me like a modern type of outfit. Not one that but it has to be pink. So should I follow directions or just go my own way completely. And then there's Miss Roi. I see a lot of flamboyant colors when I think of this character. And a feather boa around his neck or something. Or perhaps I should add a whole lot of jewelry. Necklaces and such. Lots of makeup and I don't know that's as far as I can see.
Putting this thing on stage, I don't know I can see like all of the exhibits lined up upstage and as it's each ones turn the occupants can step forward and do their parts. And step back to their places once they're finished. But that leads to a problem of props. If I did it this way then there would be a minimum of objects that I would use.
This play is fun to speculate on how it should be produced; now the only question is, to follow stage directions or not to follow stage directions.

Towards the end of class on Monday, one of the questions that was posed was "Do you think the play ends where it ends or can their be another story to be told after the Younger family packs up and leaves?" Some felt that once the play is over, it is over, that the drama happens within the play, for that given time of the performance, end of story. I happened to differ on the subject. I feel that when the Younger family packed up to move, the drama would be able to continue even after the play ended. The play did not end for me because I was left thinking, "What is to happen after this family moves to this particular neighborhood, especially during the time period they live in?"I believe that plays, like this one, are meant to stir up questions and encourage people to think about the society in which they live. A Raisin in the Sun does just that, even though the Younger family was not seeking to be leaders of the civil rights movement, they, in their own way, served as examples of how advancement in one's life can be made possible, no matter what race you are.

a hopeful play?

So often this week, we have asked if A Raisin in the Sun is a hopeful play. I just don't know if I can answer this question yes...or no. The Youngers overcome their specific experience of institutional/systematic racism with Mr. Lindner and the Clybourne Park Improvement Association. But what is to come? The Youngers assimilate, and after all of Beneatha's talk about "assimilationist Negroes!" Or do they? How do we know the answer? I know it makes me question the hopeful aspect of this play. But what's the alternative? Are all minorities supposed to struggle through the hard times to find the light at the end of the tunnel? Does this make us a stronger breed, more prepared for the feat of living in a society laced with racism, classism, sexism, agism, and any other "ism" out there? I know, as a woman, I struggle with strength and being independent, because it would be so easy to depend on a man to support me. But I do not want that. But I still want someone to take care of me, so long as I can take care of them as well. Is is possible to have both? Can we sort-of assimilate into the standards and expectations of whatever our sociological group is? How are American minorities supposed to bend and fit into the standards of their kind, as well as get what they want? Maybe Obama has the answer, I don't know...

Sand vs Rock

One other thing that strikes me about comparing Doll House to Raisin is the specificity of each family’s living condition and how that informs and causes the ultimate outcomes.
The Helmers live in comparative luxury- multiple rooms, an upstairs big enough for a party, servants to do the “heavy lifting” in raising children. There is, also, no extended family living in their home. The Youngers’ apartment- not house- has three rooms, none of which is a bathroom (!) and, as the family grew, generations came to live in this small dwelling, providing a shared parenting.
Nora’s shelteredness from her own self as well as the world at large came about directly because of the materialistic life she had always experienced. Because of this she has to abandon everything (including her young children) to find and create her own identity. Walter Lee, on the other hand, may need to get away from the physical reminders of his confined, cramped existence and get a drink every now and then, but even as the money that would have made such a huge difference in their lives is squandered, neither he nor anyone else leaves the home or the family.
To me the difference is this: the wealthy rulers of any society must be so concerned with the trappings and accoutrement of “success” that any personal identity becomes rooted in those things and, hence, is just as transitory. Conversely, the downtrodden of a society know what is truly important (i.e. family bonds, material things’ longevity rather than aesthetic function) and that causes them to not only survive such devastations but find the strength of character to thrive.

This ain't National Geographic!

I’m very glad we’re studying this play. As much as material or language may have been a challenge in past plays, this one will, I think, stretch our aesthetic sensibilities. It may take some “filling the blanks” with “leaps of faith” (yes, a mixed metaphor) but if we can come to understand Talthybius, the Friar, or even Nora’s need to abandon her children, the Yoruba-specific aspects of this play should feed and enrich the message(s) this play offers.
Though, obviously, Soyinka’s message here is the futility and tragedy of Western colonialization and oppression, I- because of recent life events- am most struck by the juxtaposition of views of death presented in this play.
Being conditioned by Protestant Christianity, I tend, as I believe most Americans do, to see death as a finality; the soul or spirit going to a “world” completely cut off from this plane of physical existence. It takes some effort for me to see the world which I actively perceive as existing parallel to this “spirit world”- though I very much want to believe that. Having lost my father a few years ago and, just this week, a close family friend, I wish Westerners had a cultural construct of the egungun, ancestral spirits looking out for us, still available for supplication and guidance.
Stepping over to this “spirit world” is seen as a great opportunity, as the opening scene celebrates, and giving one’s life to preserve others’ perhaps the highest honor; the exchange between Olunde and Jane illustrates this.
If I were to stage this I would, first and foremost, immerse myself in as much of the Yoruba cultural standard as practical (you can’t effectively tell any story if you don’t understand the symbolism employed). Using the opening to position the Eurocentric audience members as the outsiders surrounded by “the others,” I would have as much of the singing, dancing, drumming, and ceremony in the aisles and amongst the audience as would be coherently possible. Perhaps, also, scene 3 where Amusa and his men are being held at bay by the women. These scenes speak directly to and set up the poison of enforced cultural supremacy.
The other scenes would be, as we discussed, straightforward European realism. I believe Soyinka wanted white culturalists to see the humanity of the Nigerians. Telling this story wholly through Yoruban aesthetics would cause a European audience to look at the production as a cultural documentary, and overlook the human tragedy, a tragedy on the scale of the ancient Greeks.

Sacrifices

It's interesting when we experience something new or different. You question where it came from, it's reason for being, and ask what it accomplishes. Or you just sit back and enjoy it for what it is. For the missionaries in "Death and the King's Horseman, experienceing new things and embracing a new culture was very difficult.

The ritualistic giving of one's self up when the King dies is tradition. It is expected of the King's right hand man, his lead Horseman. The Yoruba look at this a s a natural part of life and a necessary part of their culture. The missionaries did not understand this a looked at the act as gruesome. For them, death is the end. For the Yoruba tribe, death is the beginning of something new and a way to keep close and remain one with the earth. 

It was interesting the way the two sides viewed the ceremony. For the Yoruba, it was a time of celebration. Elesin became one with the earth and was prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice and die just as his king died. The missionaries thought all of this was insane and ridiculed the Yoruba for their actions. 

I wonder if we, as people, would ever give our lives up for something that was dear to us. Soldiers do it everyday. For Elesin and Olunde, there was no second thought. They had a meaningful and profound relationship with nature and strong beliefs in their religion. They made the ultimate sacrifice and committed ritual suicide, knowing that if they didn't, the communities future could be in shambles. What would you do?

Gender Roles in "A Doll's House"

I know this isn't much but here's a little food for thought that I came across while working on my mid-term paper doing a character analysis of Nora Helmer.
Nora Helmer is a daughter, wife, mother and friend. She represents all of these roles placed on her by society within the confines of not only “A Doll’s House”, but solely in her own house during the play. In this character analysis I will look at the roles played by Nora and how gender relations and ideals affect her outlook on others and their view of her.
The play focuses on the way women are seen, especially in the context of marriage and motherhood. Torvald, in particular, has a very clear and narrow definition of a woman’s role. He believes that it is the sacred duty of a woman to be a good wife and mother. He also tells Nora that women are responsible for the morality of their kids. In essence, he sees women as both child-like, helpless creatures detached from reality and influential moral forces responsible for the purity of the world through their influence in the home.
The perception of manliness is also discussed, though in a much more subtle way. Nora’s description of Torvald suggests that she is partially aware of the lies inherent in the male role as much as that of the female. Torvald’s conception of manliness is based on the value of total independence. His desire of independence leads tot eh question of whether he is out of touch with reality.

A Doll's House - Ibsen and Stanislavski

We all know the mantra, "acting is doing"-attributed to Stanislavski, although I'm not sure he was the first to say this, and I was considering this phrase today. Something we discussed in class on Wednesday really struck me about this approach to acting. We were talking about the specificity of the stage directions in "A Doll's House," and as I thought about "The Method" and its connection to Realism, several interesting questions popped to mind.

Stanislavski is often a bit distorted in our modern context, and many have argued that this distortion produced a generation of actors who mumbled and staggered through performances, because they became obsessed with the "Truth in Acting" aspect of Stan's work, and didn't take to heart much of the technical aspects of The Method. It is, however, not an understatement to say that he has revolutionised an actor's approach to acting worldwide. We evaluate every stage performance we see now with the test of reality, and Stan is directly responsible for that.

What I find so striking is that Stanislavski was developing his method of acting in an era in which the playwrights were very nearly prescribing every minute detail that happened onstage. We noted in class that Ibsen even told us exactly how Nora was feeling at many moments during the play. No other possible interpretations should be considered, or at least we should infer that from the dictatorial demands placed upon the actor by Ibsen. How, then, did Stanislavski develop a unique and personal acting style in the midst of this prescribed emotion?

Perhaps the rise of Realism was the only movement that could have enlisted a Stanislavskian response. Perhaps by prescribing emotion and intention as well as movement onstage, Stan felt the necessity to make these prescribed reactions seem even remotely believable in front of an audience. I am sure that a number of factors contributed to the Method's development, such as the intimacy of theatres of the time period, but I think that perhaps those absolutely specific stage directions really prompted our good friend Stan to begin his quest for onstage truth. Stanislavski saw the connections between the old-fashioned stage directions (exit SL, e.g.) and the new ("is shocked"). He realized that both of these directions required "doing," and his Method springs out of that connection.

Restoration Comedy, contemporary morality, and representations of gender

Hmm, it surprised me that the story to which Jeremy was referring was about Sandra Bernhard, because I think of her as someone who is really supportive of women's rights in general. There's a link to this story on her own website, which has her refuting the claims about this performance.

What you're pointing out, though, is the difference in attitdues between Restoration England and the contemporary United States. We talked about how, in Charles II's court, the possible impending rape of Florinda in Aphra Behn's The Rover was a comic situation. Now, it would be very difficult to stage the play as a comedy because that scene is incredibly dark.

One thing that should be clear from this class is that each play offers its own interpretive challenges when thinking about staging, and how to deal with the rape scene is one of the main problems of producing this play for a contemporary audience. As we discussed in class, the conventions of "comedies of manners" rely on satirizing the behaviors and social gestures of the upper classes. Also taking into account that Aphra Behn was a woman and that women were allowed to perform these characters, it's interesting to note her take on the way men behave in that culture with regards to women. One can also look at how women circumvent the social roles to which they are relegated.

Another thing that's interesting about this play in its different attitudes toward sexual mores is its representation of prostitution as a legal and condoned activity. Note that Angellica is very public about what she does for a living and not ashamed of it, while Hellena is not content with the lifestyle of a nun because it requires her to be celibate. (And compare this with the implied attitudes about marriage and sexuality in Romeo and Juliet or West Side Story). One other thing to note is how women treat each other in this play, as compared to how the men treat them.

Getting back to the idea of self-representation vs. representation by someone who is not a member of the identity group being portrayed, I'm interested in whether you think Behn writes women characters who are more complicated than the others we've read so far. And are the men she writes more stereotypical than others? Is there a way that Blunt and Frederick's behavior in that scene is an indictment of the kind of behavior that is condoned in men? Are there ways in which she seems to be satirizing the men and empathizing with the women through her depictions of them and their interactions?

A Doll's House

The copy of A Doll's House that I picked up from the bookstore had a bunch of markings in it from a previous owner. I couldn't help but read all her notes that she had taken while studying the play. They were mainly her reactions to some of the lines stating how Nora was "ridiculous" "ignorant" and "shallow" while Torvald was "sexist" and "demeaning" I don't disagree with these accusations but I don't think that they are completely outdated either.

While we live in a society that supports equal rights and women have the same right as men, there is still a sense of women being weaker in their fields and some still hold the idea that women should always answer to men and for a man to give in to a woman makes him look weak and effeminate.

When I was reading, A Doll's House, this time around, I started thinking about what if you produced it and made it to where there was an underlying sense that Nora was intelligent and was putting on the act the entire time to appease her husband as opposed to just keeping a secret from him. How would the play be different if she was more intelligent than Torvald and was pretending to be the weak feeble minded wife to make him feel stronger and in charge--it would also add a twist to her finally getting up and leaving in the end. Rather than her just leaving to "find herself" she set off to lead a better life without pretending.

Another twist to the ending: I actually found an alternate ending (not sure if it was written by Ibsen himself or not) where Torvald makes Nora see her children one last time and makes her feel guilty for leaving them motherless all leading up to her staying. Imagine how different the play would be if that was the way that it ended.

Sarah Bernhard/Palin Rape Story

Thought you all might find this interesting...I mentioned it in class.

http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20081002/ten-people-bernhard-palin-5e343d7.html

The Rover and Soap Operas

So I was looking over the Rover and once i got the drift of what was going on, the only thing i could think of was that this play was like a modern day soap. I mention this in my letter to the playwright but i didn't go into as much detail as I'm doing now. You got the romance angle, Florinda and Helena falling in love and in Florinda's case with a man she's not suppose to be with. The Drama, Florinda having to marry someone one else and Helena's man cheating on her with a prostitute. Who isn't exactly faithful to him either. and Then there are the fights, caused by misunderstandings and the women and the men making assumptions. And the plot twists increases the problem. Like Florida almost managing to get married but is found out by her brother and thus dragged off. But in the end she does get married to the man she's in love with. Modern day elopement right there. Not to mention all the close calls that happen in the play like Florinda's near rape and Willmore's near Death at the hands of his angry lover Helena. The only difference between this play a typical soap is the fact that it actually has an ending, there are no loose ends and everything is basically tied up. Okay i know this was a little weird but it was the only was i could make a connection to this play once i started imagining the rover in this way it really started to click. Now if i could just figure out half of the words that they used I'll be doing good. To tell the truth I'm not sure which is worse tyring to figure out Shakespeare or trying to figure out the rover.

Soul Searching (quite long)

I’ve been struggling with my own reaction to the Sandoval-Sanchez article in class last week. I needed time to distance from my own self, I guess, and to evaluate why I had such a visceral, vehement outburst.
Partly, it was my bias against musical theatre. I appreciate and enjoy it and realize it can give voice to real experiences and even the human condition. Simply, though, I see it as neither an arbiter nor a polished mirror of society. I must, also, admit I’ve not been to a musical for a very long time.
That being said, the points concerning society and race in Sr. Sandoval-Sanchez’s article rang more than true for me. I did not want to say his points are illegitimate and this “uppity” non-whiter other should get over it and assimilate to the golden Caucasian standard. I have spent the vast majority of my adult artistic life living with and among black folks (yes, I know “African-American” is the preferred and enlightened term, but I’m a product of the 70’s and I operate out of the sociological definition) and I had enough humility to keep my mouth shut, listen with my heart and learn.
I understand, better than most white Americans, how subtly racism infests in the heart and mind and it certainly does not always manifest in classic “white supremacy” (e.g. the KKK, George Wallace, etc.). I am happily married to a beautiful, strong, proud black woman and am raising three “mixed” children in a society that has made great strides but still has much that needs to be addressed. I am more worried how to help my children straddle the false “racial divide” than whether some idiot racist thinks singing “America” to a Latino is tantamount to holding hands during a rousing chorus of “Kum By Ya.” But, I realize it’s the equivalent to someone saying to my wife “I just watched Roots. I’m so sorry for what you’ve been through and now I understand.” I would be angry, too, if I heard such dribble.
So, let me say this: we white males have to make a conscious, purposeful effort to find ways to perceive the world and our society outside of our cultural mind-set and standards. This is difficult. I’ve spent an adulthood noticing the emphasized absence of a large segment of our national history and society, yet I still become infected with the cultural supremacy this country operates on. This aesthetic applies to theatre material that is race- as well as gender-specific. Can I, as a man, truly do justice to a staging of The Trojan Women? Can I direct a truly resonant and authentic version of August Wilson? Women and “non-white others” are expected to understand the dominant culture; those of us of that cultural standard do not need to understand it, we just live it. There’s the difficulty. We have to relearn and that can be frightening and threatening.
But, we must make the effort. The world is becoming more and more “global” and the human experience is human and a byproduct of humanity- not of the false social construct of “race.”

Musicals, commercial culture and representation

Just a few thoughts from Monday's discussion:

First, it's interesting to stop and think about why people consider there to be a big difference between studying Shakespeare and looking at musical theatre. As we saw from Katie's presentation, musicals are really prevalent in the popular consciousness, probably especially since what's successful on Broadway often gets made into a movie, which reaches a very broad audience. Shakespeare is well known, of course, but we afford him different status-musicals are, potentially, "just entertainment," but many people think of older plays as something more worthy of serious study. I wonder why we make that "high art" and "popular culture" distinction? Isn't it all culture and part of history? Why is analyzing one kind of script more important than another? Alberto Sandoval Sanchez's book takes a cultural studies approach to the analysis of musicals, which is really another framework for examining a script.

I would encourage people to make room for critiques like this one in your discussions of scripts-be aware that different audiences will experience plays in various ways. But also, be aware that representation carries with it a certain degree of responsibility-how does a play represent a character or group with which the playwright isn't intimately familiar? This doesn't mean that you have to agree with everyone's analysis, nor that playwrights should stick to writing characters in their own identity groups. It's just that it's important not to shut down avenues of inquiry and critique based on identity without giving them some credence. Jose Can You See?: Latinos on and off Broadway uses the first section, entitled "Act One", as a way of critiquing commercial representations of Latino/a characters, and then goes on to examine work by Latino and Latina performers as alternatives to the reigning stereotypes. So, think also of how playwriting itself often serves as an analysis and critique of what came before.

Finally, here's just a little more contextual information with regards to West Side Story, to emphasize that what seems clear to us about how characters come across in that play wasn't always so evident. Broadway in the 1950s was part an parcel of a project that defined what "American" culture and identity were supposed to be. Film and television were big vehicles for that idea of the American dream, bringing it into people's living rooms, and were often exclusionary in their ideas about how people should look in order to participate. Consider these images:







The first is Margarita Cansino, whose father was Spanish and whose career began as a flamenco dancer on the Vaudeville circuit. The second is what happened when she became an "American" film star and sex symbol within the Hollywood system, Rita Hayworth. If one wanted to escape limitations and have a more successful career, serious changes had to be made in a person's image. If Cansino had stayed identifiably Latina, would she have been offered as many substantial "leading lady" roles and become such a legendary figure? So: people writing characters in Broadway plays were shaping the identities of actors and of audience members who emulated those actors. It is the legacy of this environment Alberto Sandoval Sanchez is resisting, some forty years later.

One final suggestion: does the excessive theatricality and "fakeness" of musicals allow us to recognize that these characters and situations are absolutely not real? That is, what about when playwrights work within a style of drama that presents characters as more realistic? Is it more difficult to recognize stereotyping? It's interesting to consider the function of theatricality in scripts in general. This will become a little more clear when we start discussing character in Brecht later in the semester.

Music and metre

I'm interested in this discussion that seems to be coming up about comparing the use of language in Shakespeare to the music in West Side Story. We looked at the beginning scene in class last Wednesday, and talked about how what is described through language in Romeo in Juliet is done all through music (with no lyrics) and dance in the Broadway musical. This really gives a sense both of how language itself can do so much work in defining setting, mood, tone and character, but also how Broadway musicals, especially beginning with Rodgers and Hammerstein and the advent of the "integrated musical," use song and dance to do much the same thing.

Just so you don't think I'm crazy with regards to Juliet's speech we've been discussing, here's part of the text, followed by how it's discussed in The Actor and the Text:

Gallop apace, you firety-footed steeds,
towards Phoebus' lodging! Such a waggoner as Phaeton would whip you to the West
And bring in cloudy night immediately.
Spread thy close curtain, love-performing night,
That runaway's eyes may wink, and Romeo
Leap to these arms untalked of and unseen.
Lovers can see to do their amorous rights
By their own beauties; or, if love be blind,
It best agrees with night. Come, civil night,
Thou sober-suited matron, all in black,
And learn me how to win a losing match,
Played for a pair of stainless maidenhoods.
Hood my unmanned blood, bating in my cheeks,
With thy black mantle till strange love grow bold,
think true love acted simple modestly.
Come, night. Come, Romeo. come, thou day in night;
For thou wilt lie upon the wings of night
Whiter than new snow upon a raven's back.

"The first word breaks the rhythm immediately: the first syllable of 'Gallop' has to be stressed.

This then sets up a kind of gallop in the rhythm of the whole, which is related to the racing of her blood, and the whole speech alternates between being quite violent and calm.

In quite a few other lines the first stress is inverted, thus making the first word remarkable.

This happens notably on 'Hood my unmanned blood' where the stress of the whole line is inverted until the last beat, so that the rhythm is underpinning her sexual arousal, and 'unmanned' becomes very specific (Berry 60-61).

Whether you understand the metrical and linguistic changes in the text to show Juliet's sexuality or simply her anxiety and impatience, the language itself says a lot about her character in that moment-that she wants it to be nighttime sooner, that she's appealing to the night itself to take over the day rather than talking herself into having more patience, etc.

Now consider that Richard Kislan, in his book The Musical, suggests that one should analyze the lyrical content of songs for their poetic value (meter, image, etc.) to understand how musicals are put together, and that this along with the musical qualities of songs reveals important information about character, situation and event. Here's the ensemble version of "Tonight" that happens just before the rumble. Like the opening scene, this is a "musical scene" that gives a lot of information about what's going on between the characters and what is about to happen. It reveals conflict and builds tension. But note Maria's part very closely:



So: what can you tell about Juliet from Shakespeare's text, and what can you tell about Maria from the lyrics and music she performs? Also think about Alberto Sandoval Sanchez's analysis of the character of Maria in terms of stereotypical ideas about Puerto Rican women. Does the music reinforce the conception of her as sweet and virginal as opposed to Anita's fiery Latina? And how does this compare to Shakespeare's illustration of Juliet's character? Are there ways to undermine the stereotypes that emerge in West Side Story in a contemporary interpretation of that musical for the stage? Just a few things to think about ...

West Side Story Vs. Romeo and Juliet

I know that West Side Story was based on Romeo and Juliet, but to compare the two just doesn't seem fair. I say fair because while the language and songs of West Side Story are fun and catchy, they don't compare to the rhythm and importance of Shakespeare's Iambic Pentameter. After delving into that style, I began to understand why it was written the way it was and what Shakespeare was trying to do with the style. I like Musical Theatre, don't get me wrong, but three is something more tragic in Rome and Juliet in that they both take their lives for one another. They make the ultimate sacrifice so that their families can live in peace for the years to come. Maria lives after watching Tony get shot, no one wants to see that! The songs are what keep people coming back to West Side Story. If gangs today were run like they are there, then I don't thing we'd be having any problems. I guess "gang wars" would turn into "dance off's" and everyone would go home happy. Also the way that people die in R&J is much better. You have your stabbing with Rapier's, secret death/love potions, and happy daggers. Now, if Maria had capped a few gang members after taking the gun near the end, I may have a different opinion about the show, but instead she doesn't and everyone becomes friends.   This is a bit of Iambic Pentameter (I think) I wrote comparing the two:

Compare the two, R and J, West Side Story.

Romeo Died, and then did Juliet.

Tony Died, but Maria was like "nope."

One had songs and cheer, the other erry'one dies. 

Musical Theatre is about Cash.

West Side Story

I wanted to comment on Romeo and Juliet, before we moved on to West Side story but didn't get the chance. But I will Comment on West Side Story it being a play derived from Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet. Having played the role of Tony is West side story I got to know the play up close and personal. I love this play not just because I got to play the leading male, but because the music helps tell their story; the dancing keeps it alive, and all three (acting, singing, and dancing) Kept the audiences attention. The ending was better only because the love birds didn't commit suicide. Although Tony was killed, Maria didn't kill herself. She very well could have with the gun firmly in her hands, but she didn't. That makes for a better ending. Not everybody has to die to make it a tear jerking love story. Ending still sad but not a total lost. When two people love each other as fast and as hard as they did there are bound to be some speed bumps; unexpected speedbumps. Their un-expected speedbump was the fact that Tony was killed. I guess thats a bit of a burnt bridge instead of speedbump.

Cicely Berry's chapter on "Structures, Energy, Imagery and Sound"

I'll post a document with my notes on Blackboard, but I want to draw everybody's attention to Obadiah's post about his lines from Hamlet. I'm going to use those as an example with the list of elements to look for in the text from Cicely Berry's chapter.

He hath, my lord, wrung from me my slow leave
By laborsome petition, and at last
Upon his will I sealed my hard consent.
I do beseech you give him leave to go.

1. Energy through the text: one thought leads to another, word to word, line to line, speech to speech; and the speeches always build. Look for ladders!

• In this text, look how "wrung" sets up what kind of leave Polonius gave to Laertes? Quick leave? Nope. Slooooooowwwww Leeeeaaaaaave.
• And the ladders from one thought leading to the next: slow leave (it took a long time), laborsome petition (and a lot of work), at last (did i mention how long it took?), upon his will (not because i wanted to) ... etc.
  

2. Antithesis: two ideas using words of opposite meaning in consecutive clauses; antithesis can come late in a speech and can happen between two characters.

• Seems like the antithesis doesn't really happen until the end of the third line with the words "hard consent." Even then, it is complicated consent because of all the pain it caused to give it. So antithesis allows for words and phrases to carry a lot of nuance and complexity.
  

3. Substance of the word—the energy of the word in relation to its meaning.

• see above: sloooooowwwww leeeeeavvvve; contrast this with: hard consent. The word beseech takes on some weight, also, because of all the long vowels. Seems like he's saying "pleeeeease give him leave to go so he will leave me the heck alone."
  

4. Discovery and movement of thought

• Try the exercise moving on punctuation, commas and all. This is where you see how long it takes him to get the sentence out. It almost seems like he's still debating whether or not to admit that he's decided to let Laertes go to France up until the moment I said seemed like antithesis--hard consent.
  

5. Nature of the image: the characters live where they find their images; images are extravagant and arise out of need.

• See Obadiah's post--the word "wrung" makes Polonius seem like a used washcloth, and "laborsome" makes him seem weary to me.

6. Argument and Emotion in Elizabethan thought

• Shakespeare was pre-Cartesian split! -- bodies and brains are not separate, but are often in conflict; the choice to let Laertes go despite the desire to make him stay creates a conflict in Polonius that affects him physically
  
• Everything fitted into a hierarchy -- note that the King is following the supposed hierarchy: the son is supposed to answer to the father; but the plays act out disorder in the great chain of being: here, the son has manipulated the father into giving him what he wants. But also: Polonius' need to make a choice in this moment comes from the fact that the King has asked him a question.
• Feelings are expressed in terms of argument, and are about something outside of the personal--you can tell how he feels about this choice, even though he doesn't say it. But also: this is almost more about his son than it is about him. "Look how badly Laertes wants to go to France! He must have a good reason for it, even if I can't figure out what it is ...
  

7. Word games and patterns-double meanings/puns, forms and patterns of words, repetition: there is delight in thoughts well-expressed.

• I don't know if this is intentional (who does?), but "upon his will i sealed my hard consent" could have double meaning. "Will" meaning Laertes' desire, but also meaning the document one puts together before one's death--and one might put a seal on a document with wax. By letting his son go to France, he feels like he is sealing his doom.
  

8. Structure of speeches

• argument is given at the beginning -- he hath wrung from me my slow leave

• thought is pursued with diversions into metaphor until the end -- all that hedging sort of re-enacts the wringing: on "and at last" you think he's done, but there's another twist "upon his will", etc.
  

• resolution ties in with the beginning -- i gave him my leave through all this labor, so please give him yours: i'm doing to you what he did to me.

• each individual thought refers back to the beginning and takes us closer to the end; the end refers back to the beginning. again, "he hath wrung from me my slow leave" and "i do beseech you give him leave"

So there's all that work being done even in just four brief lines!

Baz Luhrmann vs. Zeffirelli

We talked in class last Wednesday and today about how iambic pentameter in Shakespeare can itself be a useful tool of interpretation and analysis simply because it exists. I would suggest that even if you choose to stray from the meter really drastically to make the language seem more conversational and possibly more accessible to a contemporary audience, you've made a definite interpretive choice. The same is true if you choose to adhere to the meter really strictly. I wouldn't go as far as Cecily Berry does to call one way "fascist" and the other "populist," but one might seem to come across as more conservative and the other more resistant.

Also, as I mentioned in class, it's easiest to notice how the departure from meter shows what happens with a character when you actually speak the text several times through. You can feel the tension in your body between what the meter is "supposed" to be and what you have to do to make sense of the text. And it's important to remember, as Berry suggests, that once you are aware of all the linguistic rules of form in Shakespeare, and have recognized how they work in the text you are studying, you don't need to emphasize them. The awareness will stick with you, and that's usually enough.

Here are two different film interpretations of Romeo and Juliet. The first is from Baz Luhrmann's version, the second is from the 1968 Zeffirelli version. I chose clips that contain Mercutio's Queen Mab speech and the scene that leads up to it. Notice how differently they approach the language.





Also (since we're moving ahead to talk about a musical next) if you think of the language as being musical, you can imagine that speaking the words is akin to phrasing for a singer or musician. Here, for example, are two versions of "My Favorite Things" to show how varying rhythm can completely change tone and interpretation, and can be used to comment on the knowledge of how something is supposedly intended to sound:

Julie Andrews --



and John Coltrane --



There is of course pitch and tone and everything else to work with, but just changing where the notes fall in relation to the percussive elements changes everything about the song. There's that much room for playing around with the meter of Shakespeare, as well.

A new outlook

Alright Romeo and Juliet has never been one of my favorite plays , i could never get over the fact that they had to go and kill themselves in the end. However i really enjoyed going over the iambic pentameter with the different scenes in class. I've never done some thing like that before and it was an interesting experience for me. It was just a novel way for me to reread key areas in the script i also really liked the reading the play backwards. It really does help to see how everything is put together and how the play is going when you actually sit down and try to determine what cause in the play had what effect or vice versa.
Looking at the Romeo and Juliet in that way has helped me out a lot with resurrecting a little of my interest in one of the most famous of Shakespeare's plays.

This stuff really works!!!

So, I’m in the first blocking rehearsal for Hamlet. We’re doing what’s called “feeding lines” where an ASM or other actor stands behind you and quietly says your line to you before you say it out loud (this enables you to look at and respond more naturally to your environment and unencumberedly act on impulses). I have all of four lines in this particular scene so I’m just taking in words and repeating them, looking for relationships to manifest.
When I get the time I pull out my script and look at the lines I have. I’m speaking to the king about my son who is standing just behind me:
He hath, my lord, wrung from me my slow leave
By laborsome petition, and at last
Upon his will I sealed my hard consent.
I do beseech you give him leave to go.
I take a pencil and mark the iambic beats. I find every word follows a straight weak/strong pattern except for “wrung” and that screws up the regular rhythm for the remainder of the line.
This tells me I was pretty much beat down verbally by my son until I gave in. The regularity of all else leads me to think I keep a quite formal and proper reserve for the king but, as is a Dad’s way, I put a small guilt trip on my son for how far he was willing to go to get his way. (I’m good at that, as well)
Finding this pattern also helped immensely in getting the lines memorized. Even though it’s a very short passage, it’s a challenge for me to get Shakespeare’s lines down quickly. I pretty much had this by the end of that run through (don’t contradict me, Rocky).

Walking Backward in Another Man's Shoes

I have to say, I am blown away by how my initial ideas about a script can evolve and even leap off their original track after one of these classes. I think if I were to stage The Trojan Women now I would probably be most interested in- and even sympathetic for- Talthybius.
I keep driving home to my section students “all you have is the words on the page in front of you” when I ask about particulars in a script. Given that- and how the murder of a child is horrendous, obscene, and in no way forgivable- I feel pulled towards the struggle that must be going on in Talthybius’ mind. The idea of “choice” in our discussions is always tainted with a very modern sense of the word. I’ll again say he had a choice but his two options were horrid: 1) sell his soul, do his duty, and watch an infant be crushed or 2) try to hide or in some other way defend the baby and be killed in some wonderfully painful way and the baby still dies and the Greeks still enslave the women.
What would I do? I’d like to say I’d die rather than be an accomplice to a baby being made the brunt of such bigotry and hatred…but I might be as much as a coward as Talthybius.
As for today’s class, I went into it ready to throw the Friar to the wolves. He did perform a secret marriage and when he had the chance and opportunity to let it be known he lied by omission (and commission as well!). His speech in the final scene fell pathetically short in my mind to excusing his complicity.
Then we start going backwards and my sense of vengeance get turned inside out! In allowing Juliet to be alone, not forcing her out of the tomb, the Friar truly- and finally- gave Juliet her chance to be “all grown up” – even for a minute. Its more consideration than she would have received from her own family. I submit he very well may have absolved himself by this act and later confessing the whole train of events, but we didn’t finish analyzing the entire play. Who knows…its probably all Peter’s fault. :-)

Charles Mee's Trojan Women 2.0

Here is a link to Charles Mee's take on The Trojan Women. The first act is based mostly on Euripides, but he also uses Berlioz's opera Les Troyens. Notice that at the end of Act I, Hecuba sends Aeneas off to build a new Empire and get revenge on the Greeks. In the second act, Aeneas ends up getting sidetracked in Carthage and falls in love with Dido. An interesting side note: at the end of the story, usually Aeneas leaves to found Rome and Dido commits suicide. Charles Mee leaves the ending up to people producing the play.

Which leads me to another plot-related thought: how one chooses to end a play really influences its meaning. And another way to determine what the significant events of a play are is to look at its ending. How are things different in the end of Euripides' play than they were at the beginning? Initially, we know that Troy has been sacked and the men all killed. If you divide the play into three sections--let's call them Cassandra, Andromache, and Helen--you can identify what happens more easily. Cassandra is given to Agamemnon, Astyanax is taken and killed, Helen is not killed within the scenes of the play (and Greek audiences would have known the eventual outcome of that), the Citadel collapses, Hecuba goes off to be enslaved by Odysseus. How is it that those things come about? Are they inevitable? And what situation do they set in place at the end of the play? (There have been quite a few productions of this play over the past several years, and many of them raise the question of what invading a country and wreaking havoc on its people leaves in its wake. Can you see any way of staging it that might have an opposite effect and argue for the necessity of war?)

Also, I proposed this one reading based on the idea of a balanced argument existing in the play that examines questions of determinism and free will: who can choose to do what in this play? But, as Obadiah pointed out in his letter and Jeremy suggested in his comments about what choice the characters have--there are of course many other interpretations. Considering the fact that this was performed for an Athenian audience during the war with Sparta over who would control Greece, and Talthybius and Menelaus are not just Greeks but Spartans, a somewhat different reading of the events is also possible. It may be a critique of the Athenian act of invading a neutral island during the war, but it also might be suggesting that Athens was acting more like Sparta at that point in the war. How are Athenian values different than those of Sparta? One might imagine that--at a festival celebrating the city-state of Athens--Euripides was celebrating the values of democracy and reason over militarism and violence (remember Hecuba's line "Greeks! Greeks! You love war more than you love being human."). The play could be arguing that traditional Athenian values are better for the future of Greece than Spartan values are.

This information might lead you to stage an interpretation that sets up a parallel with the conflict in the United States between red states and blue states. What if this was a play staged by and for Democrats in which Talthybius and Menelaus were Democratic politicians visiting present-day Iraq and condoning violence and torture? What if it was warning Democrats against acting like Republicans when it comes to war, because the United States under Republican rule is akin to Greece under the control of Spartans? How would this influence your interpretation of the play's structure, events and outcome? And, again, how could you stage it to suggest the opposite interpretation: have the men's actions seem necessary and inevitable and be sympathetic to the audience?

The Trojan Women in a contemporary context

While reading this play, I had no idea how one would stage this tragedy in a contemporary context. With a directing background, I always try to think about how I would stage whatever play I am reading. This play stumped me though; probably because I was not quite sure what I was reading (yes, I'll admit it). After class the other day, I felt like I had a better grasp on what the play was about, and the background of Euripides definitely helped me get there. I wondered if there were any contemporary events that could parallel with the events of the play.
I knew nothing of sophism (with the exception of a Seinfeld episode, I think?) before class the other day. It reminded me a lot of Existentialism and the school of Sartre and the like. I went back to my contemporary philosophy notes to find some information that might help me out with this potential similarity. It just so happened that Sartre adapted a version of The Trojan Women. His version focused on the philosophy of Existentialism along with colonization and imperialism in Southern Asia.
I thought about Africa. After spending a month there this summer I find it hard not to do so. The countless civil wars and imperialism ran through my head as I thought about staging this Ancient Greek play in DR Congo, or Rwanda, or Sudan. I think these contemporary conflicts have a lot of similarities to the plot of The Trojan Women. The continent is overrun with the consequences of war, as is the setting in Euripide's play.

The Trojan War, etc.

I had a lot of thoughts after today's class. First of all, it occurred to me that if I am going to leave so little time to discuss certain elements of each play, I should give you as much background information as possible well before we discuss the play. So thanks to Jeremy for an excellent presentation on Euripedes and his role in Athenian drama, which gave us a lot to work with when approaching The Trojan Women. Here's some more stuff that might help you. First, this website is a very useful encyclopedia of mythology that will give you some background information about the play's characters. Second, here is some information about the Trojan War.

Here is what we discussed about the play's character lineages today, and what has happened before the play begins: Hecuba was the wife of Priam, King of Troy. Before the play begins, Priam and all of the men of Troy have been killed after the Greeks entered the city in a big wooden horse. This includes Hecuba's son Hector, husband of Andromache and brother to Paris, whose relationship with Helen angered Menelaos and instigated the Trojan War. Given that Euripides was using familiar Greek mythology, here, it is interesting to see how he deals with the re-telling of the story of the burning of Troy.

A couple of things that stood out to me as Jeremy was speaking today: this play was performed at the City Dionysia after a particularly contentious act by the Greeks. In Nicholas Rudall's introduction, he writes that

One year before the performance of The Trojan Women, Athens had invaded the island of Melos, which was greek but determinedly neutral in the war between Athens and Sparta, the Peloponnesian war. Athenian forces captured the island, put its men to death, and enslaved it s women and children. This barbaric act provoked the people of Athens. (3)

With that context in mind, and also considering that (as Jeremy pointed out) Euripides was influenced by sophist thinking that was skeptical about the possibility of knowing any complete truth, what meaning can we attribute to the plot of the play (or lack thereof) and how it is constructed? Also, what do you make of the fact that the location of the play was in a non-Greek country that had been invaded and its people enslaved? How does that knowledge influence your understanding of Talthybius and his entrance into the world of these mourning women?

Before class on Wednesday, try to outline in your mind (or on paper!) what the significant events in the text are. Make a list of what actually happens. Does each event seem inevitable, given the circumstances that precede it? Does it lead to other events that come after? Or do these things just happen to conveniently fall where they do in the plot?

Also, look closely at the Prologue between Poseidon and Athena. Then read from where Menelaos enters until his exit, focusing on the conflict between Helen and Hecuba in the middle of the scene. What does this argument represent? What is its outcome?

One other important thing that came out of today's class: there was a brief dispute about whether or not the major event of the play could be Hecuba's fall from queen to slave. This is a really productive debate to have, because it could determine how you might stage the play. When reading the play for production, if you decide that the story you want to tell is that of Hecuba's enslavement, the weight you give each scene and the outcome of each would be slightly different than if you think the most important event of the play is that Menelaus decides to take Helen with him to receive her punishment back in Greece. Does that make sense? I guess what I'm getting at here is: ultimately, what difference does it make how a plot fits together? And how can a theatre artist's analysis of a script influence its meaning?

Does this play build to a climactic moment, do you think? Are there a lot of complications? What would the point be after which everything changes? And does the ending offer any resolution?

Finally, how might you stage this play in a contemporary context? If you were going to direct it, where would you choose to set it, and why?

Okay, I think that's all I have to say for now. Please feel free to respond to any of these questions in comment form, or in the form of a longer blog entry! See you on Wednesday.

Euripedes' The Trojan Women

I have never been one for reading things written during the BC times without some sort of translation to “dumb it down.” The language is always so elaborate and extensive. The writers can go on and on for pages and only accomplish making one or two points. After a while of reading, I realize that I’ve been sitting here with my eyes going back and forth over the sentences and have absolutely no clue what it is that I just read and what I’m supposed to get from it. This is how Euripedes’ play, The Trojan Women, read for me. I found myself after a while having no real clue as to what they were talking about and only getting a broad sense of the fact that their city has been destroyed, families killed and that life was, simply, miserable and would be until the day they died. I glanced over to see how much more I had to read, and my heart sank just a bit.

I realize that I sound extremely pessimistic and whiny—my apologies. I do have an appreciation for where they are coming from and that theatre has been around a lot longer than just the past 100 or so years. I did some looking up for information about this play and found some translations and even some video clips of groups doing both Euripedes’ words and the translations which definitely helped in my reading of the play. Using these other sources helped me to follow along with the general idea of what was going on even without the specifics. Reading these words off the page does not give me anything emotionally. I understand that, “Ah me! ah me! What else but tears is now my hapless lot…” (Hecuba) is said out of her depressed state, but having to dissect those words so thoroughly eventually leads to a loss of emotion for the reader.

Reading it and watching it would convey two completely different ideas of this text. I’m certain that if I had the opportunity to sit down and watch it acted out in front of me by a talented performer who had done the research and had really delved into the character that my heart would be breaking.

I wrote this entry, obviously, before we have even had the opportunity to discuss the play in class. I have every intention of going into class with an open mind and hope that the presentations and discussions will open my eyes a little bit to what I’m missing while I just read it. I wanted to share my initial reactions.

Hello and Welcome!

The purpose of this blog is for our playscript interpretation class at The University of Louisville to communicate with each other about the plays we are reading this semester. But it's also to open our conversations to the public, in case anyone is interested in reading what we think and adding thoughts or questions to our class's work.

Anytime you see a post here that's from "playscriptinterp" it's probably from me, Amy Steiger. I am the professor for the course.

I'm going to start the blog by posting the description of the class from the syllabus:

Playscripts have a dual status in the world, since they can be examined both as pieces of literature and as blueprints for performance on a stage in front of an audience. While playwriting refers to how a play is crafted by a playwright to achieve a particular meaning or reaction, analysis is the opposite process: breaking a script down into its component parts to discover not only what it means, but also how it works. In many cases, for theatre artists, the process of analysis happens so we can put the play back together on the stage with a specific interpretation in mind. In this class, our primary goal will be to examine and rehearse various ways to approach play texts in order to interpret their meanings and imagine possibilities for staging them; but we will also touch on various theories used by scholars and critics when they analyze literature and other elements of culture for their social significance and meaning.

Because audiences, artists and scholars generally place plays into categories based on specific rules of shaping form and content to have a specific effect on an audience, we will learn some of those rules, and also examine how historical and cultural forces inform them. As we read the twelve plays on the syllabus this semester, we will ask questions about them from a number of different angles. We will look at each play’s content – what is the play about? What do you notice/see/hear/feel when you read it? What does it seem to mean? We will consider its form – how did the playwright put the play together to achieve that meaning? What is the shape of the play as a whole, and of each individual part? And we will research and discuss the play’s context – when and where was it written? Finally, we will imagine some possibilities for interpreting the play on stage, taking into account the people, events and circumstances of our own time and place. Why might it be important or compelling to stage this play in front of an audience today, right now? How might its meaning be different than when it was first produced?

We begin with Aristotle’s Poetics because, although it is certainly not the only text on playwriting and dramatic theory, it is the one most often studied as the foundation of European and American drama. We will analyze plays over the course of the semester using Aristotle’s rules, and will also discuss how each play sets up its own dramaturgical conventions that depart from the guidelines set out in the Poetics. We will also read other theories of how to understand plays and playwriting, some of which (like Brecht’s work, for example) directly challenge the concepts implied by Aristotle’s theories. Through comparing plays in different periods, locations, styles and genres (both original works and adaptations of previous scripts), we will look at how writing a play can itself be an act of interpretation, analysis and criticism of what has come before.

Selecting plays for a syllabus like this is a really tricky matter for me, because there are so many possible choices and I'm always leaving out something equally as important as the plays I have included. I have actually put more canonical plays on this list than I would normally choose, and I'm not entirely sure about that decision, but we'll see how it goes. (It's not lost on me, for example, that only two of the twelve plays on the list are written by women! Also, there is only one Japanese play, but nothing from any other Asian country or written by an Asian American playwright. And although I've included Alberto Sandoval Sanchez's chapter "A Puerto Rican Reading of the America of West Side Story," the lack of Latina/Latino plays is a glaring omission. There are lots more glaring omissions. This bothers me, but it's a huge world, the history of playwriting is long, and the semester is short. So I had to make some choices about which I am uneasy. Hmm ...) My hope is that while we use these plays to discuss the rules of playwriting and interpretation, we'll also examine critically the fact that these texts are frequently on lists of plays educated people read-why these plays? What is missing, here? And in what ways do these plays expand or limit ideas of what makes a compelling piece of theatre?

I'll leave off the critical articles that are included, for now. But here is the reading list for the class:

The Trojan Women by Euripedes
Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare
West Side Story by Laurents, Bernstein and Sondheim
The Rover by Aphra Behn
A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen
Death and the King’s Horseman by Wole Soyinka
A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry
The Colored Museum by George C. Wolfe
Aoi no Uye by Zeami
Krapp’s Last Tape by Samuel Beckett
Mother Courage and Her Children by Bertolt Brecht
The Laramie Project by Moises Kaufman and The Tectonic Theatre Project

Please feel free to ask questions or comment on what I've written here, and I look forward to some lively discussions this semester.