Friday, February 25, 2011
How 3 Henry VI is like the Star Wars Prequels
In both the movies and the Henry VI plays an incompetent ruler is the source of the central conflict. Chancellor Valorum in episode 1 and King Henry VI in all three plays. Chancellor Palpatine rises to power just like the Yorkists. First he declares the current ruler incompetent in Episode one, making himself chancellor. In Part I, the whole court already sees Henry as incompetent because he is too young to rule. This allows the Duke of Gloucester and Cardinal Beufort to take control of the kingdom.
In Episode II, the Chancellor creates a galactic emergency as an excuse to create a huge army, then he corrupts a powerful warrior to get on his side, and then, when he has all the power in the universe, he declares himself Emperor and uses the military and his Sith lord to destroy the Republic. The Yorkists operate in much the same way. In Henry the Sixth, Part II, Richard Duke of York is proclaimed protector of the Realm. Similarly in Part II, the rebellion of Jack Cade is similar to the Separatist movement that allows Chancellor Palpatine to create an uprising as an excuse to create a vast army to defeat them.
In Part III, York uses his army, along with his powerful sons to conquer the kingdom. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, like Darth Vader, is wholly committed to evil and will stop at nothing to destroy the Lancastrians. When the Duke of York dies, all three of York’s sons become consumed with desire for revenge and vow to conquer the kingdom to revenge their father. Richard, like Vader, is also deformed from his sheer hate. Although Shakespeare dramatizes Richard as being born with deformity, the Elizabethans viewed deformity as a sign of evil from birth.
In both the plays and the movies, the ambitions of individual people raise an evil empire, seeking power and revenge. Just as the Sith wished to revenge their exile from the Jedi council, the Yorkists wish to revenge the deposing of King Richard II a generation earlier. In addition Richard Duke of York’s seeks revenge for the Lancastrians proclaiming his father a traitor.
And like the Star Wars prequels, the worst atrocity of The Wars Of the Roses is the slaughter of children. When Clifford kills York’s 10 year old son Rutland, and when the Yorkists kill Prince Edward, it is clear that both sides have gone to the Dark Side.
The great communist writer Jan Kott described this play as a dramatization of people who manipulate the Great Machine of history, and either thrive with its help, or become ground up in it. Over the course of the evening, the audience sees the rise and fall of two noble houses, as well as a series of civil conflicts that cover England in blood. Begun this Rose War has.
--Paul Rycik, dramaturgy intern for3 Henry VI
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Intern Adventures in the World of Henry the Sixth Part Three
Before I begin my inaugural blog post, I have decided to introduce myself to the world of American Shakespeare Center Intern Blog readers. The new voice contributing to this blog belongs to the most recent intern of the ASC Education Department, Kimberly Lenz. I have only just begun working with the ASC Education Department as the Academic Resources intern but I am very happy to be able to share my thoughts, discoveries and work with all of you. In addition to my work here with the Education Department, I am also a graduate student with the Shakespeare and Performance MLitt/MFA program at Mary Baldwin College. I am currently in my first year with the program and look forward to a longstanding educational and working relationship with the community. I am originally from Long Island, New York were I received a Bachelor of Arts in English and NYS Certification to teach English to grades 7-12. I will be working primarily on sections of the ASC study guides during my first few months here. My first venture out into the blog world was inspired by the fates. After weeks of working a wide range of tasks, I was given simultaneous assignments related to Henry VI, Part Three by my Shakespeare Pedagogy class with Dr. Ralph Alan Cohen in the Masters Program and by the Education Department with the ASC. As a result, I have proudly spent the past ten days completely immersed in the world of Henry VI, Part Three. I’m sure for those of you out there who have worked on, in or around Shakespeare this is not the most impressive feat but this is actually a stark contrast to the fast-paced world of my first year as a graduate student in Shakespeare and Performance. I rarely get a chance to dive deep into a play nowadays and I relish any opportunity to really get involved with a text that I’m not performing.
I feel the need to preface my adventures with the note that I love this play. I read it for the first time this past fall as a part of my Gateway Shakespeare class. It was a play that would not be a part of our class sessions but was in the course reading. So, at the end of my first semester, my reading group sat down one cold winter evening to read a relatively obscure (to us) history play. Our expectations were tentatively optimistic as we had spent the past few months seeing Henry IV, Part Two at the Blackfriars Playhouse and had come to love history plays in general for it. We read through the play in about two hours, and once we had finished, I was completely elated. I talked about the play at length and went home spouting newfound dreams of some day playing Queen Margaret in my own fantasy performance of Henry VI, Part Three. Any woman who is willing to get her hands dirty (or bloody) to defend her husband’s crown and her son’s position is pretty amazing in my book. Needless to say, I was rather excited to have the opportunity to work in depth with this text and especially to create a few things that could help students realize the greatness in there, too.
Before the Winter Teacher Seminar began on February 4th, I was given the assignment to put together a few of the sections of an abbreviated study guide a teacher had requested from the Academic Resources branch of the ASC’s Education Department. So amidst my Teacher Seminar weekend I reread the play to find quotes explaining each of the characters for the “Who’s Who” section of the traditionally formatted study guide. I proceeded to engage in a specific type of close reading that I have come to call embedded exposition. I read the play again to myself in search of quotes like: “O tiger’s heart wrapped in a woman’s hide!” (spoken by York in reference to Queen Margaret in 1.4) to help explain each of the characters using only the text. Shakespeare’s original actors could only build their characters based upon what was said within the text, and through recognizing these moments we can learn how the original actors learned about their characters. For example, in the first act, Margaret’s husband, King Henry VI, introduces her first entrance by saying he will “steal away” to avoid her anger. Through this first entrance we as readers can sense her power even without an actress performing the lines with venom in her voice and blood on her hands. The text expands upon Margaret’s character more when she later taunts York, the attempted usurper, with a rag soaked in his child’s blood, before she stabs him to death and orders his severed head displayed for the town. Upon rereading it I recalled everything about the play that I had loved the first time around and then found so much more. I proceeded to read the entire play in search of embedded exposition and learned a great deal about each of the characters and their relationship. I also created a flowchart to help visually represent how all of these people were related to one another. The flowchart was exciting for multiple reasons, but mostly because it was my first attempt at such a diagram, and it really helped to see who connected to whom in the play. To prove my successful creation and hopefully to explain how those loyal to the House of York relate to one another, here is a section of my flow chart:
My 3 Henry VI week, progressed with an observation of an Actors’ Renaissance Season rehearsal. I sat in the back of the playhouse and watched in awe as a group of actors worked through scenes from cue scripts. The questions the actors asked one another about the text made me realize some of the important approaches to the play, and I was able to use their questions to build lessons. I thought if these were the ways the actors got into an understanding of the play, then they could be the best ways for students to follow suit. After observing the rehearsal and talking with a high school teacher who is working with the play at the moment, I began to put together some lessons that would take the ASC actors’ approach to the text and apply it to how a teacher presents the play. After a few days of reading, rereading and watching rehearsals I put together a few activities for teachers to use when working with this play and presented them to the graduate program’s Shakespeare Pedagogy class and discovered there is so much within this play to teach and pick apart and relish.
For example, the activity below came from the discussion while blocking Act One, scene two of Henry VI, Part Three on the first day of rehearsal. John Harrell (Edward), Benjamin Curns (Richard) and Jeremy West (York) were discussing how to move around the stage to clarify their dialogue and character relationships. Through their discussion, they brought up the element of familial competition within the brothers. After they staged the scene, the movements effectively revealed the sense of competition and dominance within the House of York at the beginning of the play. I created an activity that would emulate that same conversation with students so they could clarify for themselves what kind of family the Yorks are. Below is an effective lesson in exposition based off of the ARS rehearsal process I observed.
The above activity would take up about 10-15 minutes of class time but has countless benefits for students interacting with a Shakespeare history play, a few of them are:
1. Students get up on their feet with Shakespeare’s words. The American Shakespeare Center treats every play as if it is a play first and a piece of literature second. Acknowledging the play’s true form helps students grasp the meanings behind the words in their most viable form.
2. Every student is involved in the same choices the American Shakespeare Center actors had to make. These are relevant and practical questions that have accessible answers students can find with the text and their classmates.
I have come to the conclusion that every Shakespeare class should include a few days working with Henry VI, Part Three. I believe it is the best way to introduce students to the idea that history plays are not history lessons, but that they are great plots of the rises and falls of great men and women of England. This play includes the rise of one of the most infamous villains of Shakespeare, Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later King Richard III) and the fall of one of the most compelling female powerhouses in all of Shakespeare, Queen Margaret. Beyond these two characters, this play includes some amazing battles, fascinating court scenes and a glimpse into the England of the War of the Roses. This play is more than just a story of a King -- in fact the King is one of the least compelling characters you get to meet. Instead, Henry VI, Part Three is an intense and exhilarating glimpse into the world of vengeance, violence and the power of will. If you ever need a great Shakespeare read, take a few hours and explore this world. Or better yet, come down to the Blackfriars Playhouse and see the Actors’ Renaissance Season’s production, opening February 24th. I only saw a few hours of rehearsal, and I cannot wait for opening night! I hope the teachers out there consider adding this play, I hope every student gets to read Margaret, and I hope to see all of you at the Blackfriars for this amazing thrill-ride of a play!
(K.A.Lenz)
I feel the need to preface my adventures with the note that I love this play. I read it for the first time this past fall as a part of my Gateway Shakespeare class. It was a play that would not be a part of our class sessions but was in the course reading. So, at the end of my first semester, my reading group sat down one cold winter evening to read a relatively obscure (to us) history play. Our expectations were tentatively optimistic as we had spent the past few months seeing Henry IV, Part Two at the Blackfriars Playhouse and had come to love history plays in general for it. We read through the play in about two hours, and once we had finished, I was completely elated. I talked about the play at length and went home spouting newfound dreams of some day playing Queen Margaret in my own fantasy performance of Henry VI, Part Three. Any woman who is willing to get her hands dirty (or bloody) to defend her husband’s crown and her son’s position is pretty amazing in my book. Needless to say, I was rather excited to have the opportunity to work in depth with this text and especially to create a few things that could help students realize the greatness in there, too.
Before the Winter Teacher Seminar began on February 4th, I was given the assignment to put together a few of the sections of an abbreviated study guide a teacher had requested from the Academic Resources branch of the ASC’s Education Department. So amidst my Teacher Seminar weekend I reread the play to find quotes explaining each of the characters for the “Who’s Who” section of the traditionally formatted study guide. I proceeded to engage in a specific type of close reading that I have come to call embedded exposition. I read the play again to myself in search of quotes like: “O tiger’s heart wrapped in a woman’s hide!” (spoken by York in reference to Queen Margaret in 1.4) to help explain each of the characters using only the text. Shakespeare’s original actors could only build their characters based upon what was said within the text, and through recognizing these moments we can learn how the original actors learned about their characters. For example, in the first act, Margaret’s husband, King Henry VI, introduces her first entrance by saying he will “steal away” to avoid her anger. Through this first entrance we as readers can sense her power even without an actress performing the lines with venom in her voice and blood on her hands. The text expands upon Margaret’s character more when she later taunts York, the attempted usurper, with a rag soaked in his child’s blood, before she stabs him to death and orders his severed head displayed for the town. Upon rereading it I recalled everything about the play that I had loved the first time around and then found so much more. I proceeded to read the entire play in search of embedded exposition and learned a great deal about each of the characters and their relationship. I also created a flowchart to help visually represent how all of these people were related to one another. The flowchart was exciting for multiple reasons, but mostly because it was my first attempt at such a diagram, and it really helped to see who connected to whom in the play. To prove my successful creation and hopefully to explain how those loyal to the House of York relate to one another, here is a section of my flow chart:
My 3 Henry VI week, progressed with an observation of an Actors’ Renaissance Season rehearsal. I sat in the back of the playhouse and watched in awe as a group of actors worked through scenes from cue scripts. The questions the actors asked one another about the text made me realize some of the important approaches to the play, and I was able to use their questions to build lessons. I thought if these were the ways the actors got into an understanding of the play, then they could be the best ways for students to follow suit. After observing the rehearsal and talking with a high school teacher who is working with the play at the moment, I began to put together some lessons that would take the ASC actors’ approach to the text and apply it to how a teacher presents the play. After a few days of reading, rereading and watching rehearsals I put together a few activities for teachers to use when working with this play and presented them to the graduate program’s Shakespeare Pedagogy class and discovered there is so much within this play to teach and pick apart and relish. For example, the activity below came from the discussion while blocking Act One, scene two of Henry VI, Part Three on the first day of rehearsal. John Harrell (Edward), Benjamin Curns (Richard) and Jeremy West (York) were discussing how to move around the stage to clarify their dialogue and character relationships. Through their discussion, they brought up the element of familial competition within the brothers. After they staged the scene, the movements effectively revealed the sense of competition and dominance within the House of York at the beginning of the play. I created an activity that would emulate that same conversation with students so they could clarify for themselves what kind of family the Yorks are. Below is an effective lesson in exposition based off of the ARS rehearsal process I observed.
A. This activity will require three student speakers and everyone’s participation.During the Teacher Seminar one of the educators in attendance shared he was currently teaching Henry VI, Part Three to his high school class in Alexandria, Virginia. As he revealed his plans for the play and his students reactions I noticed how excited the staff and actors of the American Shakespeare Center were about it. I realized, over that weekend that the love for this play expands throughout our Shakespeare community and everyone wants to teach the next generation to love it just as much.
Characters involved in the scene:
York: Richard, Plantagenet, Duke of York, Rival to the throne of Henry VI
Edward, Later Duke of York and King Edward IV: Son and Heir to York
Richard, Duke of Gloucester: Son of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York
Montague: Marquis of the Divided House of Neville, Loyal to the House of York
Context: At the opening of 1.1 the sons of York compete with feats of brutality through displays of bloody swords and severed heads for the recognition of the father, York. The scene incorporates the court of King Henry with the entrances at line 50, King Henry VI is threatened by York’s forces and agrees to acquiesce to York’s advances with the caveat, “Let me for this my lifetime reign as king.” The scene concludes with reactions and outrage against King Henry’s choice of York as his successor. After the deal has been set, York and his sons withdraw to private contemplation. They rejoin us on stage with the previous scene’s events fresh in their minds.
Focus: The previous scene depicted each of the York sons competing for command of the room and recognition from their father. Read the scene below to see where each of the men uses their words to take command of the situation.
Directions for the class: As you read through the scene place a star next to any line in which one of the men seems to assert his power over the other with their words. Make a note of where each of the men should sit below. Watch how the scene plays out and see if you made the same choices as the actors.
Directions for the actors: There will be enough seats for each of you. As you enter please decide which seat your character deserves and take it (you may discuss this with one another before you sit but if you feel like there is a definite seat you deserve, take it). Where should the father sit? Which son should sit closest? Where should Montague sit? After you have taken your seats begin reading your lines aloud to the class. Try to highlight when you are taking command of the room with your words with assertive vocal choices. The first time you take command, put down the other men or simply assert yourself stand up. Take a step forward every time your character asserts him, chastises or cuts off another character or steals focus from the rest of the group.
Act One. SCENE II. Sandal Castle.
Enter RICHARD, EDWARD, and MONTAGUE
RICHARD
Brother, though I be youngest, give me leave.
EDWARD
No, I can better play the orator.
MONTAGUE
But I have reasons strong and forcible.
Enter YORK
YORK
Why, how now, sons and brother! at a strife?
What is your quarrel? how began it first?
EDWARD
No quarrel, but a slight contention.
YORK
About what?
RICHARD
About that which concerns your grace and us;
The crown of England, father, which is yours.
YORK
Mine boy? not till King Henry be dead.
RICHARD
Your right depends not on his life or death.
EDWARD
Now you are heir, therefore enjoy it now:
By giving the house of Lancaster leave to breathe,
It will outrun you, father, in the end.
YORK
I took an oath that he should quietly reign.
EDWARD
But for a kingdom any oath may be broken:
I would break a thousand oaths to reign one year.
RICHARD
No; God forbid your grace should be forsworn.
YORK
I shall be, if I claim by open war.
RICHARD
I'll prove the contrary, if you'll hear me speak.
YORK
Thou canst not, son; it is impossible.
RICHARD
An oath is of no moment, being not took
Before a true and lawful magistrate,
That hath authority over him that swears:
Henry had none, but did usurp the place;
Then, seeing 'twas he that made you to depose,
Your oath, my lord, is vain and frivolous.
Therefore, to arms! And, father, do but think
How sweet a thing it is to wear a crown;
Within whose circuit is Elysium
And all that poets feign of bliss and joy.
Why do we finger thus? I cannot rest
Until the white rose that I wear be dyed
Even in the lukewarm blood of Henry's heart.
YORK
Richard, enough; I will be king, or die.
Enter a Messenger
But, stay: what news? Why comest thou in such post?
Messenger
The queen with all the northern earls and lords
Intend here to besiege you in your castle:
She is hard by with twenty thousand men;
And therefore fortify your hold, my lord.
The above activity would take up about 10-15 minutes of class time but has countless benefits for students interacting with a Shakespeare history play, a few of them are:
1. Students get up on their feet with Shakespeare’s words. The American Shakespeare Center treats every play as if it is a play first and a piece of literature second. Acknowledging the play’s true form helps students grasp the meanings behind the words in their most viable form.
2. Every student is involved in the same choices the American Shakespeare Center actors had to make. These are relevant and practical questions that have accessible answers students can find with the text and their classmates.
I have come to the conclusion that every Shakespeare class should include a few days working with Henry VI, Part Three. I believe it is the best way to introduce students to the idea that history plays are not history lessons, but that they are great plots of the rises and falls of great men and women of England. This play includes the rise of one of the most infamous villains of Shakespeare, Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later King Richard III) and the fall of one of the most compelling female powerhouses in all of Shakespeare, Queen Margaret. Beyond these two characters, this play includes some amazing battles, fascinating court scenes and a glimpse into the England of the War of the Roses. This play is more than just a story of a King -- in fact the King is one of the least compelling characters you get to meet. Instead, Henry VI, Part Three is an intense and exhilarating glimpse into the world of vengeance, violence and the power of will. If you ever need a great Shakespeare read, take a few hours and explore this world. Or better yet, come down to the Blackfriars Playhouse and see the Actors’ Renaissance Season’s production, opening February 24th. I only saw a few hours of rehearsal, and I cannot wait for opening night! I hope the teachers out there consider adding this play, I hope every student gets to read Margaret, and I hope to see all of you at the Blackfriars for this amazing thrill-ride of a play!
(K.A.Lenz)
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Actor-Scholar Council 2/11/11
Last Friday’s Actor-Scholar Council focused on Look About You. Audiences may remember this show from the Bring ‘Em Back Alive two years ago. The play has had a special place in my heart because I formatted and annotated the script for that performance and, I also played a couple of small roles. The version in this year’s ARS is much more heavily cut, thanks to John Harrell, who plays Skink. In addition to John, actors Jeremiah (Prince John), Chris (Redcap), Miriam (Lady Marian Fauconbridge), Tyler (Sir Richard Fauconbridge, Porter), Paul (Henry II, Block), and Greg (Prince Richard) were in attendance.
The council started off with Ralph asking if any actors were confused about plot points. Look About You is a confusing play, one which he says, “takes the conventions of disguise to sublime heights.” To the actors, who work from sides, it almost seems like parts of the play are missing. An example of something they wanted explained is why the purservant laments the loss of a box. Scholars explained that Gloucester drugged the purservant to get the box, which contained a reprieve for the porter that Gloucester wanted to keep out of Prince John’s hands. Veteran actors call it the most confusing production since The Devil Is an Ass. John feels it was very hard to cut, and the initial read-through was illuminating because it made who was talking much clearer than on the page. Tyler ventured that an even bigger problem than the confusion was the “stage business”, and that some plot points happen offstage.
The actors had visions of audiences rolling on the floor with laughter, but they couldn’t tell, because the show is confusing and has so many characters in so many disguises, if they would really love it. There was a bit of a panic after the dress rehearsal, which had a small audience. Many felt concern that audiences wouldn’t retain disguise signifiers (such as capes and fake beards) long enough. Fortunately, audiences received it well, and there is only one time (when Prince John comes on as Gloucester after a long stretch) when it may not work. The actors grow more comfortable with the play as the run progresses; Miriam said that on February 10th, the show’s third performance, she felt that, rather than just actors trying to make their cues, relationships and moments had a chance to develop.
According to John, the original audience would have known a few things that audiences today don’t. They would have accepted that hermits who can tell the future live close to London. Most of them were somewhat familiar with the court of Henry II and the factions among his sons. The actors said that most of their understanding of this came from The Lion in Winter, so they understood about Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, but had questions about Gloucester. The Robin Hood in this play is very different from the image we have formed based on Errol Flynn, an actor said. This Robin Hood is very young, more than a boy but not yet a man, and so pure and virginal that he can woo Lady Fauconbridge and nobody worries about him doing anything improprietary. Like many other characters, he disguises himself in this play, which leads to a comic moment in which other characters say, “Goodbye, England’s pride” to him while he’s cross-dressing.
One thing we aren’t sure how original audiences reacted to is Redcap’s stutter. No other early modern plays have stutterers, said Dr. Ralph. Chris, who plays Redcap, says that audiences now don’t have the patience to listen to it. They just want him to finish the line or thought and feel sympathy; if he’s taking a line to an audience member and stutters, they always break eye contact. Perhaps the original audience didn’t have our compunctions about laughing at someone with a speech impediment. Chris had to cut back on the stutter because he realized it caused some of the story to get lost. He said it was the hardest thing he ever had to memorize because he memorized it with the stutter, found out he didn’t know the lines without the exact stutters, and had to go back and re-memorize without them. In delivering the last line of the play, Redcap doesn’t stutter, and his success surprises him. Audiences are happy for him, according to the actors.
At one point a sword fight takes place between Gloucester and Richard, who are friends but are in disguise at the time. The actors initially wanted something “stupid and simple” for the fight, but they made it comic. Partway through rehearsals Ben suggested adding some Matrix-style slow-motion moments. Then they included their swords getting stuck together like that scene in the movie Spaceballs. The money moment is when the two reveal their true identities to each other, especially since the audience could easily see through Richard’s disguise (as a random servant) the whole time.
The actors could have put more absurd things into the play if they had had more time. The scenes, being especially complicated, took up more rehearsal time than usual, and with the exception of “Come On Eileen” they had to pick quick and easy songs because they didn’t have time to do music. The drugging of the Purservant is a prime example because, while only 36 lines, the scene took over 90 minutes to work (the actors didn’t tell specifically why). The actors advise people to come and see the show now or in another couple of weeks, by which time they’ll have been able to add more absurd, zany moments. If you’ve already seen the show, you should come see it again. See if you can count how many times variations of the phrase “look about you” are used (there are at least 11). And don’t forget to listen to the podcast of this week’s Actor-Scholar Council, available soon on the ASC website.
The council started off with Ralph asking if any actors were confused about plot points. Look About You is a confusing play, one which he says, “takes the conventions of disguise to sublime heights.” To the actors, who work from sides, it almost seems like parts of the play are missing. An example of something they wanted explained is why the purservant laments the loss of a box. Scholars explained that Gloucester drugged the purservant to get the box, which contained a reprieve for the porter that Gloucester wanted to keep out of Prince John’s hands. Veteran actors call it the most confusing production since The Devil Is an Ass. John feels it was very hard to cut, and the initial read-through was illuminating because it made who was talking much clearer than on the page. Tyler ventured that an even bigger problem than the confusion was the “stage business”, and that some plot points happen offstage.
The actors had visions of audiences rolling on the floor with laughter, but they couldn’t tell, because the show is confusing and has so many characters in so many disguises, if they would really love it. There was a bit of a panic after the dress rehearsal, which had a small audience. Many felt concern that audiences wouldn’t retain disguise signifiers (such as capes and fake beards) long enough. Fortunately, audiences received it well, and there is only one time (when Prince John comes on as Gloucester after a long stretch) when it may not work. The actors grow more comfortable with the play as the run progresses; Miriam said that on February 10th, the show’s third performance, she felt that, rather than just actors trying to make their cues, relationships and moments had a chance to develop.
According to John, the original audience would have known a few things that audiences today don’t. They would have accepted that hermits who can tell the future live close to London. Most of them were somewhat familiar with the court of Henry II and the factions among his sons. The actors said that most of their understanding of this came from The Lion in Winter, so they understood about Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, but had questions about Gloucester. The Robin Hood in this play is very different from the image we have formed based on Errol Flynn, an actor said. This Robin Hood is very young, more than a boy but not yet a man, and so pure and virginal that he can woo Lady Fauconbridge and nobody worries about him doing anything improprietary. Like many other characters, he disguises himself in this play, which leads to a comic moment in which other characters say, “Goodbye, England’s pride” to him while he’s cross-dressing.
One thing we aren’t sure how original audiences reacted to is Redcap’s stutter. No other early modern plays have stutterers, said Dr. Ralph. Chris, who plays Redcap, says that audiences now don’t have the patience to listen to it. They just want him to finish the line or thought and feel sympathy; if he’s taking a line to an audience member and stutters, they always break eye contact. Perhaps the original audience didn’t have our compunctions about laughing at someone with a speech impediment. Chris had to cut back on the stutter because he realized it caused some of the story to get lost. He said it was the hardest thing he ever had to memorize because he memorized it with the stutter, found out he didn’t know the lines without the exact stutters, and had to go back and re-memorize without them. In delivering the last line of the play, Redcap doesn’t stutter, and his success surprises him. Audiences are happy for him, according to the actors.
At one point a sword fight takes place between Gloucester and Richard, who are friends but are in disguise at the time. The actors initially wanted something “stupid and simple” for the fight, but they made it comic. Partway through rehearsals Ben suggested adding some Matrix-style slow-motion moments. Then they included their swords getting stuck together like that scene in the movie Spaceballs. The money moment is when the two reveal their true identities to each other, especially since the audience could easily see through Richard’s disguise (as a random servant) the whole time.
The actors could have put more absurd things into the play if they had had more time. The scenes, being especially complicated, took up more rehearsal time than usual, and with the exception of “Come On Eileen” they had to pick quick and easy songs because they didn’t have time to do music. The drugging of the Purservant is a prime example because, while only 36 lines, the scene took over 90 minutes to work (the actors didn’t tell specifically why). The actors advise people to come and see the show now or in another couple of weeks, by which time they’ll have been able to add more absurd, zany moments. If you’ve already seen the show, you should come see it again. See if you can count how many times variations of the phrase “look about you” are used (there are at least 11). And don’t forget to listen to the podcast of this week’s Actor-Scholar Council, available soon on the ASC website.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Shakespeare in Love
Whether you love it or loathe it, Valentine’s Day is inescapable when it rolls around every February. And each year we are confronted with endless parades of Hallmark cards, enormous heart-shaped boxes of chocolates, giant bouquets of roses, and a non-stop stream of commercials for sparkly pieces of jewelry. Only through the purchase of one or more of these items, we are told, can a person prove their love and devotion to their significant other. Yet I beg to differ. On this most polarizing of holidays, it might behoove many a befuddled romantic to turn to the Bard when in need of some help. After all, could there be a more perfect combination than Shakespeare and love? Shakespeare has a great deal to say on this subject in almost all its myriad forms: romantic, jealous, unrequited, doomed, puppy, courtly…the list goes on and on. He created many of the most famous romantic pairings in history: Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, Katherine and Petruchio, Othello and Desdemona, Jack and Rose (oops – maybe not). Love shows up in some way in every single one of his plays, not to mention his sonnets, which are overflowing with love of the conventional and unconventional sort. According to www.shakespeareswords.com, the word “love” shows up 1962 times his plays. In short, this was a man who knew what he was talking about. First, however, a brief summary of this celebration of love:
In the beginning…
As with the other holidays I have examined on this blog, to find the origins of Valentine’s Day we must travel back to ancient Rome. This time, the beginning of spring was the cause for celebration among the pagan Romans, in the form of the festival of Lupercalia, a celebration of fertility and birth. And, once again, the early Christian church elected to overlay this holiday with one of their own, leading to a blending of Christian and pagan tradition. At the end of the fifth century A.D., Pope Gelasius declared February 14th to be St. Valentine’s Day. When it comes to the namesake of this holiday, however, the source is a bit of a mystery. At least three different saints by the name of Valentine are recognized by the Catholic Church today, and no one knows which of these, if any, is the patron saint of February 14th. One popular theory is that he was a third century Roman priest who performed secret marriages for young lovers, when it was outlawed for single men required for military service to marry.
Over the centuries, Valentine’s Day continued to grow in prominence and popularity. It was long thought that the first association of St. Valentine’s Day with romantic love dated to Geoffrey Chaucer’s Parlement of Foules (1382), when he wrote, “For this was on seynt Volantynys day/ Whan euery bryd comyth there to chese his make.” It’s more likely, however, that this verse refers to a date not in February but in May, honoring the marriage of King Richard II of England and Anne of Bohemia. The initial idea was planted, though, and many still associate these lines on lovebirds with February 14th. Just eighteen years later, in 1400, a “High Court of Love” was established on Valentine’s Day in Paris. This “court” dealt solely with love contracts, betrayals, and other romantic matters, and the judges were selected by women based on a contest of poetry reading. Shortly afterward, in 1415, the oldest known Valentine was written by Charles, Duke of Orleans, to his wife after he was imprisoned in the Tower of London following the Battle of Agincourt. By Shakespeare’s day, a tradition was firmly in place for celebrating Valentine’s Day as an occasion for expressing hidden or not-so-hidden affection.
A Renaissance Valentine
During the Renaissance, a common Valentine’s Day activity was for men and women to draw names from a bowl in order to find out who their “Valentine” for the day would be, a tradition dating back to the original Roman festivities. They would then wear the name they had drawn pinned on their sleeve (thus the expression, “to wear your heart on your sleeve”). In Shakespeare’s day, gloves, not flowers or jewelry, were the favored Valentine gift. A lady might approach her gentleman of choice and say, “Good-morrow Valentine, I go today;/ To wear for you, what you must pay;/ A pair of gloves next Easter Day.” The selected fellow was then required to send the lady a pair of gloves, and, if she wore them on Easter, he would know his romantic overtures would be further welcomed. If the lady was the superstitious sort, she might pin five bay leaves to her pillow at bedtime on Valentine’s Day in the belief that she would then dream of her future husband.
Of course, I couldn’t write about Valentine’s Day without including some recipes. Try this Stuart era recipe for Knotts and Gumballs – glazed cookies that can be made in the shape of hearts or, if you’re feeling especially ambitious, Celtic love knots. And as for that Valentine staple, chocolate, it was brought back to Europe from the New World by Spanish Conquistadors in the early sixteenth century, and it caught on quick. Yet its original form was as a drink, not as truffles or bon-bons. As a beverage, chocolate became highly fashionable and was originally a drink reserved for the wealthy. We may find a hint of what was to come, though, in this quote by Captain John Wadswroth, from his 1652 treatise Chocolate: or, an Indian Drinke: “And sometimes they make tablets of the Sugar, and the Chocolate together: which they doe onely to please the Pallats, as the Dames of Mexico doe use it; and they are there sold in shops, and are confected and eaten like other sweet-meats.”
Shakespeare + Valentine’s Day
Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 Romeo and Juliet.
When searching for suitable Shakespearean inspiration on Valentine’s Day, it is probably wise not to turn to his most direct reference to the holiday, spoken by Ophelia in Hamlet:
“Tomorrow is Saint Valentine’s day
All in the morning betime,
And I a maid at your window
To be your Valentine.
Then up he rose and donned his clothes,
And dupped the chamber door;
Let in the maid, that out a maid
Never departed more” (4.5.48-55).
Baz Luhrmann's 1996 Romeo + Juliet.
In the beginning…
As with the other holidays I have examined on this blog, to find the origins of Valentine’s Day we must travel back to ancient Rome. This time, the beginning of spring was the cause for celebration among the pagan Romans, in the form of the festival of Lupercalia, a celebration of fertility and birth. And, once again, the early Christian church elected to overlay this holiday with one of their own, leading to a blending of Christian and pagan tradition. At the end of the fifth century A.D., Pope Gelasius declared February 14th to be St. Valentine’s Day. When it comes to the namesake of this holiday, however, the source is a bit of a mystery. At least three different saints by the name of Valentine are recognized by the Catholic Church today, and no one knows which of these, if any, is the patron saint of February 14th. One popular theory is that he was a third century Roman priest who performed secret marriages for young lovers, when it was outlawed for single men required for military service to marry.
Over the centuries, Valentine’s Day continued to grow in prominence and popularity. It was long thought that the first association of St. Valentine’s Day with romantic love dated to Geoffrey Chaucer’s Parlement of Foules (1382), when he wrote, “For this was on seynt Volantynys day/ Whan euery bryd comyth there to chese his make.” It’s more likely, however, that this verse refers to a date not in February but in May, honoring the marriage of King Richard II of England and Anne of Bohemia. The initial idea was planted, though, and many still associate these lines on lovebirds with February 14th. Just eighteen years later, in 1400, a “High Court of Love” was established on Valentine’s Day in Paris. This “court” dealt solely with love contracts, betrayals, and other romantic matters, and the judges were selected by women based on a contest of poetry reading. Shortly afterward, in 1415, the oldest known Valentine was written by Charles, Duke of Orleans, to his wife after he was imprisoned in the Tower of London following the Battle of Agincourt. By Shakespeare’s day, a tradition was firmly in place for celebrating Valentine’s Day as an occasion for expressing hidden or not-so-hidden affection.
A Renaissance Valentine
During the Renaissance, a common Valentine’s Day activity was for men and women to draw names from a bowl in order to find out who their “Valentine” for the day would be, a tradition dating back to the original Roman festivities. They would then wear the name they had drawn pinned on their sleeve (thus the expression, “to wear your heart on your sleeve”). In Shakespeare’s day, gloves, not flowers or jewelry, were the favored Valentine gift. A lady might approach her gentleman of choice and say, “Good-morrow Valentine, I go today;/ To wear for you, what you must pay;/ A pair of gloves next Easter Day.” The selected fellow was then required to send the lady a pair of gloves, and, if she wore them on Easter, he would know his romantic overtures would be further welcomed. If the lady was the superstitious sort, she might pin five bay leaves to her pillow at bedtime on Valentine’s Day in the belief that she would then dream of her future husband.
Of course, I couldn’t write about Valentine’s Day without including some recipes. Try this Stuart era recipe for Knotts and Gumballs – glazed cookies that can be made in the shape of hearts or, if you’re feeling especially ambitious, Celtic love knots. And as for that Valentine staple, chocolate, it was brought back to Europe from the New World by Spanish Conquistadors in the early sixteenth century, and it caught on quick. Yet its original form was as a drink, not as truffles or bon-bons. As a beverage, chocolate became highly fashionable and was originally a drink reserved for the wealthy. We may find a hint of what was to come, though, in this quote by Captain John Wadswroth, from his 1652 treatise Chocolate: or, an Indian Drinke: “And sometimes they make tablets of the Sugar, and the Chocolate together: which they doe onely to please the Pallats, as the Dames of Mexico doe use it; and they are there sold in shops, and are confected and eaten like other sweet-meats.”
Shakespeare + Valentine’s Day
Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 Romeo and Juliet.
When searching for suitable Shakespearean inspiration on Valentine’s Day, it is probably wise not to turn to his most direct reference to the holiday, spoken by Ophelia in Hamlet:
“Tomorrow is Saint Valentine’s day
All in the morning betime,
And I a maid at your window
To be your Valentine.
Then up he rose and donned his clothes,
And dupped the chamber door;
Let in the maid, that out a maid
Never departed more” (4.5.48-55).
Baz Luhrmann's 1996 Romeo + Juliet.
Given that these lines are sung by a poor girl descending into insanity, they are not the most romantic of sentiments (however close this may be to many a single girl’s state of mind on Valentine’s Day). Luckily, Shakespeare has many more tender things to say on the subject of love. So, why not step away from conventional gifts on Valentine’s Day and return to the power of the word? In Shakespeare we find a compendium of all expressions of love – true, deep sentiments beyond any greeting card limerick. And while you might hesitate “to seek to quench the fire of love with words” (The Two Gentlemen of Verona, 2.7.20), the prudent romantic must also keep in mind that, “The more thou dammest it up, the more it burns” (The Two Gentlemen of Verona, 2.7.24). Therefore, instead, declare proudly,
“Then let me go, and hinder not my course.
I’ll be as patient as a gentle stream,
And make a pastime of each weary step,
Till the last step have brought me to my love;
And there I’ll rest, as after much turmoil,
A blessed soul doth in Elysium” (The Two Gentlement of Verona, 2.7.33-38).
Natalie A.
“Then let me go, and hinder not my course.
I’ll be as patient as a gentle stream,
And make a pastime of each weary step,
Till the last step have brought me to my love;
And there I’ll rest, as after much turmoil,
A blessed soul doth in Elysium” (The Two Gentlement of Verona, 2.7.33-38).
Natalie A.
Friday, February 4, 2011
The World Wide Web of Will Shakespeare
You could make the argument that the internet is geared toward people who want to save time, or for people with short attention spans. You could also say that this newfangled creation is no place for someone like Shakespeare. And, indeed, while searching for Shakespeare online, you might come across a version of his work that goes something like this, from Book-A-Minute Classics:
“Othello, by William Shakespeare
Iago
Your wife's cheating on you.
Othello
She is? (kills wife) Damn, she wasn't really.
THE END”
Presumably, this account is for those for whom Cliff Notes is too detailed. However, having recently become more aware of the role of digital education in bringing Shakespeare into the 21st century, I decided to follow up this discovery by looking into other ways Shakespeare is infiltrating the internet. Beyond the webinars and podcasts, the online courses and organizational education websites, beyond the multitude of searchable Shakespeare databases, and the hundreds of blogs dedicated to Shakespeare, there’s a lot (and I mean a lot) to uncover. There are online Shakespeare comics; there’s even a Shakespeare a.i. chat-bot (seriously). A person could spend hours chatting with this thing; it’s like a Shakespearean Magic 8 Ball. Needless to say, what I found was surprising, strange, sometimes befuddling, and sometimes exceptionally impressive.
For a fun introduction to this whole idea, check out the feature on the website of the Victoria and Albert Museum called “Inside the Renaissance Home.” This interactive set of pages allows you to investigate “Themes” and “Places,” as well as allowing you to “Explore” different items by moving them around and taking them apart. Many of the home fixtures are strikingly relatable, like a hanging mirror with a removable panel (to make sure your hair looks alright from the back, naturally), a cleverly designed folding chair, and an intricately decorated game-box with the pieces stored inside.
Follow this up with an engaging article on the subject from Edutopia, the educational foundation of that master of digital worlds, George Lucas. I also recommend checking out some of the YouTube videos discussed in the article, as YouTube is a whole other venue for modern Shakespeare lovers of all sorts to bring the Bard into new dimensions. A search for Shakespeare on YouTube yields 6420 results, and the array of music videos, original productions, homages, and parodies available, ranging from professional to questionable quality, is seemingly limitless.
This article, in turn, led me to Second Life, an online virtual world built around the interaction of avatars in simulated environments. Although I’m still undecided on how I actually feel about this whole concept, because, let’s face it, nothing beats seeing Shakespeare live and, well, not while staring at your computer screen, there is in fact an entire Shakespeare company based in Second Life. Known as the Second Life Shakespeare Company, this group uses animation technology to create realistic avatar movement in an entirely virtual theatre. So far, SL Shakespeare has staged full-ensemble, unabridged scenes from Hamlet and Twelfth Night using voiceover acting. Ina Centaur, the Visual Director of the SL Shakespeare Company, on some of the unique benefits, differences, and even similarities of virtual theatre to the real thing:
“SL Stagecraft is reminiscent of traditional stage tech, but rather than being a mere virtual representation of its original counterpart, it also contains components that may not be possible in real life. […] For example, gravity isn’t mandatory on SL; thus, other than for aesthetic reasons, there’s no need for complex systems of pulleys and such for Elizabethan special effects like flying across the stage. Weather and ambient lighting, especially relevant for an outdoor theatre, can also be perfected to a weathermonger’s dream. […] But, limitations with SL’s current avatar system prevent actors from conveying precise facial expressions or even syncing avatar lips to words live. […] And, let’s not forget the serendipity of crashing or power/connectivity loss on the user side—the virtual analog of falling asleep or suffering a heart attack in medias rea.”
Promotional poster for SL Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night
I have to say, though, that the mix of Shakespeare and the digital reaches whole new heights with Atomic Shakespeare. Good luck trying to figure this one out. Atomic Shakespeare claims to be an interaction of original text and audience behavior in order to produce new systems of Shakespeare’s words. I think (I think) it’s an attempt to take the free-thought associations the reader makes while perusing Shakespeare and then map them out in wacky charts. It’s sort of like Shakespeare for the mad scientist. If, for instance, you’ve ever wanted to examine a “molecular view” of the plays, then this is the place for you (this truly resembles a Shakespearean periodic table). The interactive element of this site involves being presented with a randomly generated passage containing certain underlined words, of which you select one. The site then searches for all other passages in Shakespeare’s canon containing that word, and from all of these you then pick another underlined word, and so on and so forth, until you have a collection of eclectic passages connected by these words which jumped out at you. Here’s my own contribution to this mind-bending project - make of it what you will. I can’t say this gave me a new, profound insight into Shakespeare…but it was interesting.
All of the above is but a Shakespearean drop in the ocean of the internet. Anyone with an interest in Shakespeare can share their enthusiasm with the world through this venue; it’s the ultimate equalizer. And these expressions of creativity can take the form of a virtual world or a video or a crazy science experiment. The internet’s a big place. Who knew?
Natalie A.
“Othello, by William Shakespeare
Iago
Your wife's cheating on you.
Othello
She is? (kills wife) Damn, she wasn't really.
THE END”
Presumably, this account is for those for whom Cliff Notes is too detailed. However, having recently become more aware of the role of digital education in bringing Shakespeare into the 21st century, I decided to follow up this discovery by looking into other ways Shakespeare is infiltrating the internet. Beyond the webinars and podcasts, the online courses and organizational education websites, beyond the multitude of searchable Shakespeare databases, and the hundreds of blogs dedicated to Shakespeare, there’s a lot (and I mean a lot) to uncover. There are online Shakespeare comics; there’s even a Shakespeare a.i. chat-bot (seriously). A person could spend hours chatting with this thing; it’s like a Shakespearean Magic 8 Ball. Needless to say, what I found was surprising, strange, sometimes befuddling, and sometimes exceptionally impressive.
For a fun introduction to this whole idea, check out the feature on the website of the Victoria and Albert Museum called “Inside the Renaissance Home.” This interactive set of pages allows you to investigate “Themes” and “Places,” as well as allowing you to “Explore” different items by moving them around and taking them apart. Many of the home fixtures are strikingly relatable, like a hanging mirror with a removable panel (to make sure your hair looks alright from the back, naturally), a cleverly designed folding chair, and an intricately decorated game-box with the pieces stored inside.
Follow this up with an engaging article on the subject from Edutopia, the educational foundation of that master of digital worlds, George Lucas. I also recommend checking out some of the YouTube videos discussed in the article, as YouTube is a whole other venue for modern Shakespeare lovers of all sorts to bring the Bard into new dimensions. A search for Shakespeare on YouTube yields 6420 results, and the array of music videos, original productions, homages, and parodies available, ranging from professional to questionable quality, is seemingly limitless.
This article, in turn, led me to Second Life, an online virtual world built around the interaction of avatars in simulated environments. Although I’m still undecided on how I actually feel about this whole concept, because, let’s face it, nothing beats seeing Shakespeare live and, well, not while staring at your computer screen, there is in fact an entire Shakespeare company based in Second Life. Known as the Second Life Shakespeare Company, this group uses animation technology to create realistic avatar movement in an entirely virtual theatre. So far, SL Shakespeare has staged full-ensemble, unabridged scenes from Hamlet and Twelfth Night using voiceover acting. Ina Centaur, the Visual Director of the SL Shakespeare Company, on some of the unique benefits, differences, and even similarities of virtual theatre to the real thing:
“SL Stagecraft is reminiscent of traditional stage tech, but rather than being a mere virtual representation of its original counterpart, it also contains components that may not be possible in real life. […] For example, gravity isn’t mandatory on SL; thus, other than for aesthetic reasons, there’s no need for complex systems of pulleys and such for Elizabethan special effects like flying across the stage. Weather and ambient lighting, especially relevant for an outdoor theatre, can also be perfected to a weathermonger’s dream. […] But, limitations with SL’s current avatar system prevent actors from conveying precise facial expressions or even syncing avatar lips to words live. […] And, let’s not forget the serendipity of crashing or power/connectivity loss on the user side—the virtual analog of falling asleep or suffering a heart attack in medias rea.”
Promotional poster for SL Shakespeare’s Twelfth NightI have to say, though, that the mix of Shakespeare and the digital reaches whole new heights with Atomic Shakespeare. Good luck trying to figure this one out. Atomic Shakespeare claims to be an interaction of original text and audience behavior in order to produce new systems of Shakespeare’s words. I think (I think) it’s an attempt to take the free-thought associations the reader makes while perusing Shakespeare and then map them out in wacky charts. It’s sort of like Shakespeare for the mad scientist. If, for instance, you’ve ever wanted to examine a “molecular view” of the plays, then this is the place for you (this truly resembles a Shakespearean periodic table). The interactive element of this site involves being presented with a randomly generated passage containing certain underlined words, of which you select one. The site then searches for all other passages in Shakespeare’s canon containing that word, and from all of these you then pick another underlined word, and so on and so forth, until you have a collection of eclectic passages connected by these words which jumped out at you. Here’s my own contribution to this mind-bending project - make of it what you will. I can’t say this gave me a new, profound insight into Shakespeare…but it was interesting.
All of the above is but a Shakespearean drop in the ocean of the internet. Anyone with an interest in Shakespeare can share their enthusiasm with the world through this venue; it’s the ultimate equalizer. And these expressions of creativity can take the form of a virtual world or a video or a crazy science experiment. The internet’s a big place. Who knew?
Natalie A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)