Metre, Rhythm, and Rhyme; Oh My!

After scanning the article "Metre and Rhythm," I thought it was all review information. These are things that we are already supposed to know about Shakespeare, right? But after class on Wednesday when we connected the rhythm of Jaques' monologue with possible meanings, I found myself drawn back to the article for a more thorough review. My profound (or not really) discovery -it's not about defining the iambic pentameter, that's the easy part. It's about understanding the iambic pentameter; defining the reasons why it is in specific speeches, why it changes in other speeches, why it continues through several characters' speeches, or why it disappears completely sometimes. I have always known the language is our tool from a literary perspective, but now I am beginning to see why it is a tool from an actor's perspective as well. To know what a character says is one thing, to truly understand it is something different. The third-to-last paragraph in the article is what stands out to me the most:

"Always, while studying a part, go back at intervals to the metre, not to limit what you are doing with it, but to see what more shades of meaning are possible. Test your intention against the metre: small words which seem unimportant, in context with the stress take on different shades of significance, and enrich the meaning---or, rather shift the meaning. "

This is the basic "homework" of the actor. Studying the text exactly how it is written, and in Shakespeare's acting class, assigning special attention to metre, rhythm, and rhyme. But here is the controversy for me, the situation addressed at the end of the article: Should we completely obey the metre, embracing how verse should sound, or should we attempt to speak the language as naturalistically as possible, so as to keep in tune with a modern audiences' ear? Personally, I lean towards the latter, but the article points out that just because the language is spoken in a conversational method does not affirm the meaning of the language is understood, "for the meaning is so often made clear by the rhythm." So,which approach is to convey the many meanings of the text as precisely as possible? The article simply states we must find a decent combination of the two approaches. However, I don't see this being as simple as it sounds. Is it even possible?

As You Like It: An Examination of Shakespeare's Gray Areas

When I say "gray areas," I'm not talking about the gray matter that houses the mind of the playwright. Instead I'm referring to Shakespeare's straying from the often clearly defined/black & white elements that he uses in his plays. Here's what I mean:

As You Like It is not based on fact, so we can rule out its existence as a History. It most definitely cannot be classified as Tragedy because death does not occur in this play. And though there is a presence of perilous situations (Duke Frederick's banishment of Rosalind, Oliver's malicious, dogged pursuit of Orlando, Oliver being attacked by a hungry lioness), the storyline is devoid of what would be considered tragic circumstances. Perhaps it is a Comedy since it ends with a wedding, or in this case, several. However, it is not entirely fair to call it a Comedy either. There are consistent moments of comedy scattered throughout the play. But comedy does not dominate the premise. It is also wrong to combine the two and call it a "Tragicomedy." We can use scholarly terms and call it a "Romance" or even a "Dramady." But is that a sufficient classification for As You Like It? Also, was Shakespeare a man ahead of his time, creating a new form of play? Or did he simply stumble upon this brand of drama by accident?

Another confusion I have about this play is Shakespeare's definition of a type of character in this play. He succeeds in establishing the heros/protagonists/"good" people of the play; specifically Orlando and Rosalind. He also hits the mark accompanying them with loyal supporting companions or "sidekicks" by today's standards: Adam for Orlando, Celia and Touchstone for Rosalind. And adds strength to his story with the presence of subplots inhabited by dynamic characters such as Jacques, Phoebe, Silvius, Corin, Audrey, etc. Unfortunately his villains in this play lack the consistency of many of his other works. The villains of Shakespeares other Tragedies, Comedies, and Histories are clearly defined, that is, they are villains throughout their respective plays and show no remorse. Iago, Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, Richard of Gloucester, Aaron the Moor, Tamora, Claudius, Cassius, Edmund the Bastard, Don John the Bastard: All are bad people; villains to the end, showing no remorse for the evil actions they have performed. Yet, this trend is not evident with the so-called villains of As You Like It. The usurper Duke Frederick meets a priest in the forest and suddenly turns to Monkhood and life in a monastery. Oliver De Boys quite suddenly has a swift change of heart about his demeanor and his opinion and treatment of his younger brother after being rescued from a random animal's attack. So can call these men the villains? Or does their potential for and eventual turn towards Good make them simply adversaries/foils?

I have other concerns about Shakespeare's As You Like It which will be addressed in my "Letter to Bill." I certainly don't condemn the play. It is a pretty decent work of Mr. Shakespeare. Still, I do have some issues about its various inconsistencies. Hopefully I'm not alone in this.

Medea = Cunning

So here's the deal. Medea proved herself to be capable of atrocities since the days of Jason and the Argonauts. She left a trail of victims that included family members, royalty etc. So was it really a surprise that she killed her own children out of nothing but pure and unmitigated spite? No. The death of the children by the hands of their mother could have forseen the minute Jason decided to leave Medea.

By Arostotle's definition Medea is not a tragic hero because she essentially is not basically good and her fortune goes from bad to worse instead of from good to bad. Medea represents a more modern of example of the flaws of ambition and vindictiveness. Let's look of a modern day scenario that could mirror Medea's actions.

Imagine a young woman whose father's business is successful and competitive. This woman falls in love with a young upstart of a rival company. She proves her love to him by betraying her family and offering the rival trade secrets, etc. The woman leaves her family and marries the rival and helps him ascend into power by sabotaging higher ups in his company. Finally the couple establish themselves with a new company, and she fulfills her role as the appropriate housewife by having children for the man. Then out of nowhere the husband leave the wife to marry a CEO's daughter of an even larger company. So at this point the woman experiences extreme rage and kills her husbands new love, her father and their children.

I wanted to put the story in a modern context so that we could see certain patterns of behavior. First off, Medea's power within the realm of society is always linked up through a man. Whether it be her husband or father. So in betraying her father Medea actually made a power play. Her access to power would be more immediate through being a wife rather than being a daughter. After all she had a brother (at least one) who would have had more rights and then the wealth and power would be passed through the brother's lineage.
The murderous deeds of Medea before the start of Euripedes' play were all moves to increase Jason's power and by proxy increase her own. The children were not an object of maternal love but rather a way to cement her connection to Jason and her place within the society of Corinth. So when Jason leaves Medea the children lose their value. Everyone and everything to Medea is a means to an end including those closest to her.
Euripedes' play basically could have been written in the twenty-first century. The pattern of behavior where women only see their value and power throught their relationships with men is still present. When the intensity of this desire towards power out weighs reason we see these extreme murderous actions.

Medea-Murderous Ex-Wife or Tragic Victim of Circumstance

I find myself incredibly torn between my shock and disapproval at Medea's murderous rampage and the victimization of her by Jason, which I believe led her into an uncontrollable, semi-unconscious madness, where it can be argued that she was not of sound mind when she committed the atrocities.

To be clear, I don't condone Medea's actions at all. Murder of innocents is not a rational or justifiable means of solving one's problems, even committing revenge. But from an objective psychological and legal standpoint I can acknowledge that Medea was NOT in a rational state of mind when she committed these murders. Before Jason's betrayal, Medea, although unorthodox in her method, was a loyal partner of Jason, dedicated to being with him and keeping them safe. She made many personal sacrifices for his benefit. But because of Jason's deep seeded insecurities and paranoia, he kicks Medea to the curb and leaves behind his innocent children whose only crime was that they were the product of a regretful congress. Crushed, with her world turned completely upside down, Medea is transformed into a relentless machine that is more volatile, and vengeful than her her former self. Her intention was to destroy Jason by taking beloved things away from him: Glauce, his status, his reputation, his sense of security, his hope, and last but not least, his children. So why shouldn't she take his life to complete her vengeance? Why not even her own out of unfathomable sorrow? This is unclear to me. But what is clear is that one thing, and one thing alone consciously/unconsciously threw her into a state of madness and incited her towards this destruction: Jason's abandonment of her and their children.

It's true. Medea and Jason's romantic relationship was a train wreck waiting to happen. Jason probably could've avoided his eventually brutal and tragic circumstances by cutting his ties with Medea in the beginning, saving him and her much heartache, and their children from living a traumatic, devastatingly short lived existence. But when he continued that relationship with Medea, married her and had children with her, he entered a sacred bond that should not be broken by law of ethics and of course, the Gods. If it was broken dire, consequences would follow. He eventually did break the family bond, and severe repercussions did occur: he lost basically everything. Jason's weakness of character, cowardice, and lack of judgement is what inevitably doomed his family.

The moral ambiguity of Madea-madness or BRILLIANCE!!!

I'm afraid my blog may not be as academically sound as our previous blogger but I will do my best. I just finished re-reading Madea. (I read it years ago for an intro to theatre class) The common consensus among most average Joe's is that Madea is a crazy stone cold bitch. First of all, I love all media forms (get it Madea forms? lol) that approach morally ambiguous decisions. It's the same reason Ben Linus is my favorite character on Lost and and the same reason I love Noah Bennett from Heroes. These are characters that make the choices and do the things that others would not. Most of us hate them for it. The rest of us....well lets just say we appreciate the situation that they are in.
I was raised on the idea of black and white=good and evil. To me, while I was growing up, there was no grey area. Then I left home and realized why Mormon life is so naive. There is no black and white good and evil, there are only shades of grey. The simple truth that most of us do not want to accept is that under the right circumstances we are all capable of anything.
The situation faced by Madea is the loss of everything she has worked for since before the play began. She sacrificed everything for Jason. And what has he done? Jason spat in her face and tossed her out on the street.
The questions I pose to you (you know the story I don't need to reiterate it) is this: Was she justified in her revenge? Should she have taken it as far as killing the children? Did Glauce deserve to go the way she did? Is Madea to blame for Creon's death even though she didn't poison him directly? Is justice by any means necessary still justice?

Aristotle and the "Inferior woman"...well, yes and no.

In his "Poetics" Aristotle notes several trends in tragedies that, in his opinion are instrumental within the construction of the "well made" play. In some ways I agree with Aristotle; In other ways, not so much:

If we look at the basic principles of Aristotle's formula for the perfect tragedy and/or comedy, many of us would agree with the idea that Plot and Character are the top two most important elements within a play's structure. We could also concur that if we excluded the other four elements (Thought, Language, Music and Spectacle) from the makeup of the play it would be an incomplete work. It's true that Aristotle had some ingenius ideas about how to create "good theatre," and many of his ideas are still used today. However, there are several beliefs held by him that I consider outdated and rarely hold water in today's society.

I actually could go on all day about what I disagree with in the world of Aristotelian theatre. But for today, I wish to comment on Aristotle's view of the role of women in theatre during the Ancient Greek play festivals, and also, how In Part XV of the "Poetics," Aristotle comments on the role of women in tragedy: "...the character will be good if the purpose is good...even a woman may be good, and also a slave; though the woman may be said to be an inferior being, and the slave quite worthless. The second thing to aim at is propriety. There is a type of manly valor; but valor in a woman, or unscrupulous cleverness is inappropriate." Not only is he referring to women as inferior and useless, but he is also advocates the portrayal of them as valorless, mindless vessels for the will of Man; Not to mention his opinion of slaves as being lowborn, lesser beings, and his belief that slavery should be a part of the woman's identity. But as time progresses we see that the woman's role in theatre would evolve and that they would take on a stronger, more substantial role in the structure of theatrical performance, particularly in the function of their character; from the captivating, dynamic and strong characters created nearly a thousand years later by William Shakespeare all the way to the empowered women who form the collective voice of the Vagina Monologues written during the new millenium, women have FAR surpassed the expectations of Aristotle.

An abstract view of the moon-Reflection on The Rising Of The Moon

It is often said that history has a way of repeating itself. The age old war of battling oppression can be seen on every continent. Ones fight from oppression is often gruesome, long suffering and unthinkable to endure. When I think of oppressed people, my own heritage comes to mind. My mind creates imagery of slavery, Jim crow laws and the journey of African Americans for equality. I think of the genocide in Darfur and the hideous acts of hate that left thousands of Rwandan descendants broken, defeated and martyred. I was completely ignorant to the fact that a similar class struggle and status quo conflict ever occured between England and Ireland.

The seargeant and the ballad singer represent the thin line between whats legally and morally right. We all have our norms, mores and paradigms of the way we view the world. What one is passionate about may be a direct conflict with what is legally expected of them to do.

Two of the most profound parts of this play look at the concrete fact of: You never know where life will take you. The man says, "Its a queer world, seargeant, and its little any mother knows when she sees her child creeping on the floor what might happen to it before it has gone through its life, or who will be who in the end." This statement forced the sergeant to meditate on his own life and reflect on the fact that he could be the one uprising for freedom. Thus, creating his ethical/moral dillema and legal obligation. We can ponder all day about whether the right decesion was made. The piece illuminates how the sergeant questions himself at the end. His doubt shows a vulnerability to the audience and makes his feelings tangilbe. Its safe to say we all have felt that tug when choosing between two contradicting obligations.

My abstract eye leaves me asking every one this: What would you be willing to risk to stand for what you whole-heartedly believe in?