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.