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.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
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?
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.
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.
Monday, October 6, 2008
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
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.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
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.”
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)