Sunday, June 28, 2009
Friday's Acting Class
What can I say? That was fun. It worked out so perfectly that Allen and I were the female character, Hermia and Helena and that Amy and Katelyn were Demetrius and Lysander. I thought it was especially funny that Allen is so much taller than me yet we had to play up the idea that he was a dwarf and I long legged. The scene overall came out as being very funny. I think Amy and Katelyn did a great job of bring some comedy to the scene, especially with the breaking off of the beard. Bravo, bravo.
Othello, Act V & VI
Looking at Act V of Othello, the thing that intrigues me most is Othello’s concern for Desdemona’s soul, even though he is about to murder her:
OTHELLO: Have you prayed tonight, Desdemona?
DESDEMONA: Ay, my lord.
OTHELLO:
If you bethink yourself of any crime
Unreconciled as yet to heaven and grace,
Solicit for it straight.
DESDEMONA:
Alack, my lord, what may you mean by that?
OTHELLO:
Well, do it, and be brief. I will walk by.
I would not kill thy unprepared spirit.
No, heaven forfend! I would not kill thy soul. (V.ii.26-34)
Why is Othello so concerned with her soul? I don’t think you can answer in any way other than that he is concern because he truly loves Desdemona. Though it’s so messed up, Othello has been forced to believe that he is imparting justice, the will of God on Desdemona. In some ways, he might think that he is actually saving her. As if she is damned to die, not because he wants to himself, but because he is a tool of justice—a soldier easily commanded like earlier with the Turks—and he is saving her soul since her flesh is lost to her sin.
I’d also like to explore the idea that Cassio’s name—Michael Cassio—was picked intentionally to bring up the image of Saint Michael, who was the saint to pray to on your death bed. When you died, he weighed your good sins versus your bad to see if you’d be allowed into heave. Traditionally, he was depicted with a set of scales and a sword, again invoking that image of justice that Othello thought he was carrying out. Certainly, Cassio is the character by which all the others are measured, and all the others do die. Only he and Lodovico are let on stage at the plays close.
As for Act VI, I really liked Robert's idea of having students construct an extra act as a means of punishing the bad guy because we don't know that Iago is dead. He's been injured, but he's certainly not dead. So, how would we punish him? Would the punishment fit the crime, and even, what are his crimes? I thought Robert's exercise would have been very engaging for a younger, perhaps high school class. It was a very interesting idea, and I especially like his Iago.
OTHELLO: Have you prayed tonight, Desdemona?
DESDEMONA: Ay, my lord.
OTHELLO:
If you bethink yourself of any crime
Unreconciled as yet to heaven and grace,
Solicit for it straight.
DESDEMONA:
Alack, my lord, what may you mean by that?
OTHELLO:
Well, do it, and be brief. I will walk by.
I would not kill thy unprepared spirit.
No, heaven forfend! I would not kill thy soul. (V.ii.26-34)
Why is Othello so concerned with her soul? I don’t think you can answer in any way other than that he is concern because he truly loves Desdemona. Though it’s so messed up, Othello has been forced to believe that he is imparting justice, the will of God on Desdemona. In some ways, he might think that he is actually saving her. As if she is damned to die, not because he wants to himself, but because he is a tool of justice—a soldier easily commanded like earlier with the Turks—and he is saving her soul since her flesh is lost to her sin.
I’d also like to explore the idea that Cassio’s name—Michael Cassio—was picked intentionally to bring up the image of Saint Michael, who was the saint to pray to on your death bed. When you died, he weighed your good sins versus your bad to see if you’d be allowed into heave. Traditionally, he was depicted with a set of scales and a sword, again invoking that image of justice that Othello thought he was carrying out. Certainly, Cassio is the character by which all the others are measured, and all the others do die. Only he and Lodovico are let on stage at the plays close.
As for Act VI, I really liked Robert's idea of having students construct an extra act as a means of punishing the bad guy because we don't know that Iago is dead. He's been injured, but he's certainly not dead. So, how would we punish him? Would the punishment fit the crime, and even, what are his crimes? I thought Robert's exercise would have been very engaging for a younger, perhaps high school class. It was a very interesting idea, and I especially like his Iago.
Othello, Act III
Alright, Act III of Othello! In this act I think you get a lot of Othello kind of descent into the stereotypes of being a Moor. He compares himself to a beast when he says, “Exchange me for a goat,” and the word nature it used repetitively. Othello says, “And yet, how nature erring from itself,” to which Iago says,
Ay, there’s the point! As—to be bold with you—
Not affect many proposed matches
Of her own clime, complexion, and degree,
Whereto we see in all things nature tends—
Foh! One may smell in such will most rank
Foul disproportion, thoughts unnatural.
But pardon me. I do not position
Distinctly speak of her, though I may fear
Her will, recoiling to her better judgment,
May fall to match you with her country forms
And happily repent. (III.iii. 244-254)
Here, Iago really pulls Othello back into his existence as an outsider, one forever strange to English society, the blackamoor. And Othello gives in, saying,
Haply, for I am black
And have not those soft parts of conversation
That chambers have, or for I am declined
Into the vale of years. (III.iii.280-3)
Looking at this act, you also have to deal with the idea of seeing is believing: “Give me the ocular proof”; “Make me to see’t” ; and “Now do I see ‘tis true” (III.iii.376,381&460). We talked about in class how ironic it is that Othello should be so quick to judge by sight, as he is made an outsider because of sight, because he is seen as black in a white-souled society.
With this act, you also have to deal with the handkerchief. Like we talked about in class, there are two stories associate with Othello’s obtaining the handkerchief. So, we have to decide which we believe. Personally, I think the story of the Egyptian giver is supposed to again represent Othello’s slipping into the role of blackamoor. Even if this fantastic story is real, the Othello from the beginning of the play would never have told it. He would have hidden this exotic story as a means of blending, yet here, be tells it outright and makes himself outsider to Desdemona and his society. There’s also something really disturbing about the idea that the handkerchief was dyed in the mummy of “maidens’ hearts” (III.iv.70). Even in death, they couldn’t escape patriarchy.
Ay, there’s the point! As—to be bold with you—
Not affect many proposed matches
Of her own clime, complexion, and degree,
Whereto we see in all things nature tends—
Foh! One may smell in such will most rank
Foul disproportion, thoughts unnatural.
But pardon me. I do not position
Distinctly speak of her, though I may fear
Her will, recoiling to her better judgment,
May fall to match you with her country forms
And happily repent. (III.iii. 244-254)
Here, Iago really pulls Othello back into his existence as an outsider, one forever strange to English society, the blackamoor. And Othello gives in, saying,
Haply, for I am black
And have not those soft parts of conversation
That chambers have, or for I am declined
Into the vale of years. (III.iii.280-3)
Looking at this act, you also have to deal with the idea of seeing is believing: “Give me the ocular proof”; “Make me to see’t” ; and “Now do I see ‘tis true” (III.iii.376,381&460). We talked about in class how ironic it is that Othello should be so quick to judge by sight, as he is made an outsider because of sight, because he is seen as black in a white-souled society.
With this act, you also have to deal with the handkerchief. Like we talked about in class, there are two stories associate with Othello’s obtaining the handkerchief. So, we have to decide which we believe. Personally, I think the story of the Egyptian giver is supposed to again represent Othello’s slipping into the role of blackamoor. Even if this fantastic story is real, the Othello from the beginning of the play would never have told it. He would have hidden this exotic story as a means of blending, yet here, be tells it outright and makes himself outsider to Desdemona and his society. There’s also something really disturbing about the idea that the handkerchief was dyed in the mummy of “maidens’ hearts” (III.iv.70). Even in death, they couldn’t escape patriarchy.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Thinking about Wednesday's acting
Wednesday was SO much better than Tuesday. I was so happy to get my Sly lines done. I chugged some Mountain Dew, as to provide Sly with his energy. But we also did that really fun exercise of walking around the room and being made to stop and speak our one line. I thought that was great! What really struck me was how willing we all were to do it, because less than ten days ago, when we first starting the acting class, I don’t think we’d have been able to do that. For me, I know I was so much in my shell the first two or three days that I couldn’t have done all that walking and yelling and whispering, acting like a flighty teenage girl while saying, “All life is silliness, when to live is a torment.” I can definitely see using that in a class, but only in a class that I’m already familiar with, a class that knows me as a teacher and knows it’s OK to be silly and get into it.
I was intrigued, too, to hear the excitement of the actors when Othello came up. What’s up actors, why so much love for Othello?
I was intrigued, too, to hear the excitement of the actors when Othello came up. What’s up actors, why so much love for Othello?
Wednesday’s Acting & Othello, Acts 1-2
Wednesday’s acting class didn’t go so well. It should have been my last day with my lines, but I just couldn’t do it. I don’t know—I just didn’t feel funny, or even extraverted enough to try to be funny. And I guess that’s a terrible excuse, but it’s true. The energy levels were down, and Sly just wasn’t as funny. It give me even more of an appreciation for what it is that the acting pros do, because they can’t think of it that way. The character’s not you. Even when your energy is down, your character’s energy is still your characters—if that makes any sense. Anyways, there’s tomorrow.
I have to be honest: When I was in high school, Othello was by far my favorite tragedy, if not favorite play of all. Now, though, I’m just not that into it. Maybe it’s because I’ve read it so many times. Indeed, it’s a play that can be studied as early as middle school and continues to be studied into graduate school, which means I’ve read at least—I don’t even know—four or five times. For some reason, too, I seem to compare it in my head to Titus Andronicus and find it less interesting. I'd certainly rather work with the character or Aaron than Othello, but that's a pretty flawed arguement.
Reading about race and religion in Early Modern England, though, really provided an interesting avenue for me to explore. Namely, in regards to “race” in the period, I am taking with this idea: “Sexuality, as well as color, binds race-thinking and religious imagery in the play…. Christianity’s concerns with purity, sexual purity in particular, are most often located in the female; patriarchal order thus depends on surveillance and control of women” (175).
Certainly the most interesting aspect of Othello, for me, is the connection between English nationhood and virginity. England was so afraid of being dehomoginized, and they projected that fear on to the bodies of white women, even the body of queen--especially the body of the queen. As Elizabeth was impenetrable, England was.
Anyway, without that background knowledge, I find it difficult to get into Othello. Having it, though, I thinking looking at sexuality is so interesting. Othello is always made to be sexually violent: “Even now, now, very now, and old black ram / Is tupping your white ewe” (I.i.89-90). It’s almost to say, now, now, very now, your borders are being infiltrated and your homogeneous society is slip, slip, slipping away.
I have to be honest: When I was in high school, Othello was by far my favorite tragedy, if not favorite play of all. Now, though, I’m just not that into it. Maybe it’s because I’ve read it so many times. Indeed, it’s a play that can be studied as early as middle school and continues to be studied into graduate school, which means I’ve read at least—I don’t even know—four or five times. For some reason, too, I seem to compare it in my head to Titus Andronicus and find it less interesting. I'd certainly rather work with the character or Aaron than Othello, but that's a pretty flawed arguement.
Reading about race and religion in Early Modern England, though, really provided an interesting avenue for me to explore. Namely, in regards to “race” in the period, I am taking with this idea: “Sexuality, as well as color, binds race-thinking and religious imagery in the play…. Christianity’s concerns with purity, sexual purity in particular, are most often located in the female; patriarchal order thus depends on surveillance and control of women” (175).
Certainly the most interesting aspect of Othello, for me, is the connection between English nationhood and virginity. England was so afraid of being dehomoginized, and they projected that fear on to the bodies of white women, even the body of queen--especially the body of the queen. As Elizabeth was impenetrable, England was.
Anyway, without that background knowledge, I find it difficult to get into Othello. Having it, though, I thinking looking at sexuality is so interesting. Othello is always made to be sexually violent: “Even now, now, very now, and old black ram / Is tupping your white ewe” (I.i.89-90). It’s almost to say, now, now, very now, your borders are being infiltrated and your homogeneous society is slip, slip, slipping away.
When Shakespeare Students Do Sing: Willow, Willow
When teaching Act IV of Othello, there are many possible points of discussion. To give just a couple of examples, a teacher might choose to examine Desdemona’s request to have the sheets from her wedding night put back onto her bed: “Prithee, tonight / Lay on my bed my wedding sheets, remember; / And call thy husband hither” (IV.ii.108-10). And later, in scene three, Desdemona instructs Emilia, saying, “If I do die before thee, prithee, shroud me / In one of those same sheets” (IV.ii.23-4). Examining these two references to her wedding sheets facilitates a conversation on the unanswered question of Desdemona’s virginity, as well as her faithfulness to Othello.
A teacher could also choose to juxtapose Desdemona and Emilia by examining Emilia’s speech in scene three:
Let husbands know
Their wives have sense like them. They see, and smell,
And have their palates both for sweet and sour,
As husbands have. What is it that they do
When they change us for others? Is it sport?
I think it is. And doth affection breed it?
I think it doth. Is’t frailty that thus errs?
It is so, too. And have not we affections,
Desires for sport, and frailty, as men have?
Then let them use us well; else let them know,
The ills we do, their ill instruct us so. (IV.iii.92-102)
Looking at this speech, what can we understand about Emilia in her relationship to her husband, and her relationship to Desdemona? Do these two female characters represent opposite sides to the same coin? In what ways are they similar, and in what ways are they different?
Looking at and discussing these pieces is a sound approach to teaching this act; however, this approach is mere discussion in a play that begs “ocular proof,” that demands “make me to see’t” (III.iii.77 & 81). Therefore, I’d like to present an exercise that, through the use of a visual medium, literally looks at the play.
Initial Discussion: Can anyone think of a play (or movie) that they’ve seen that has a song performed in it—not necessarily a musical, just a play that has a sort of musical interlude? What was the effect of the song on the play? Did it add an air of seriousness, or did is provide comedic relief?
The examples that pop into my mind all use songs as a means of comedy, like Family Guy, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and recently, Yes Man, starring Jim Carrey. All of these are comedies, though. Can anyone think of a movie that uses song in a more serious manner, perhaps to convey a darker mood?
With all that in mind, I’d like us to read a portion of Act IV aloud. I need three volunteers, one to read the lines of Othello, one the lines of Desdemona, and one Emilia’s. Read lines 7-58.
Having read that, let’s think about Desdemona’s song. There are only two places in this place where singing is utilized (this being the second), so why here? What is gained by having Desdemona sing this song?
Rather than thinking about the words of the song, though—as I know we are all so inclined to do—I want us to think about this visually. What effect, visually, does staging a song have on the audience? What’s different than if, say, Desdemona were to just say these lines?
Now, with all of this in mind, we’re going to create something ocular, something that we can see, rather than just read or hear. We’re going to make a music video!
Here’s how it’s going to work: As one group, you’ll be making one music video. Everyone is required to participate in the making of this video; however, there is no requirement as to how each of you participates. This is to say, you don’t have to sing if you’re uncomfortable with singing. Different aspects of a music video have to be met, though: 1) the words must be spoken or sung; 2) there must be some sort of physical movement, be it acting or dancing; and 3) there has to be some sort of music.
You have about fifteen minutes to discuss and decide how—if you were making a modern day music video—you would perform this song.
Things to think about: what tone or mood do you want your video to convey; are you performing the song in or out of the context of Othello; can you pick a single genre of music to perform this song within; do you want to just perform to song or could you incorporate other line from the play?
FEEL FREE to use anything in the room to assist you in the making of your video, especially the computer and the other technology in this particular classroom. And feel free to edit and amend the song as you see fit.
The poor soul sat sighing by a sycamore tree,
Sing all a green willow;
Her hand on her bosom, her head on her knee,
Sing willow, willow, willow.
The fresh streams ran by her and murmured her moans;
Sing willow, willow, willow;
Her salt tears fell from her, and softened the stones—
Sing willow, willow, willow—
Sing all a green willow must be my garland.
Let nobody blame him, his scorn I approve—
I called my love false love; but what said he then?
Sing willow, willow, willow;
If I court more women, you’ll couch with more men.
At the end of the fifteen minutes, you will stage your video, which I’ll record. And hopefully, tomorrow we’ll be able to actually watch and discuss our music video. If we can’t, then we can’t; but in a normal class, this would be planned out so that students can watch the music videos.
A teacher could also choose to juxtapose Desdemona and Emilia by examining Emilia’s speech in scene three:
Let husbands know
Their wives have sense like them. They see, and smell,
And have their palates both for sweet and sour,
As husbands have. What is it that they do
When they change us for others? Is it sport?
I think it is. And doth affection breed it?
I think it doth. Is’t frailty that thus errs?
It is so, too. And have not we affections,
Desires for sport, and frailty, as men have?
Then let them use us well; else let them know,
The ills we do, their ill instruct us so. (IV.iii.92-102)
Looking at this speech, what can we understand about Emilia in her relationship to her husband, and her relationship to Desdemona? Do these two female characters represent opposite sides to the same coin? In what ways are they similar, and in what ways are they different?
Looking at and discussing these pieces is a sound approach to teaching this act; however, this approach is mere discussion in a play that begs “ocular proof,” that demands “make me to see’t” (III.iii.77 & 81). Therefore, I’d like to present an exercise that, through the use of a visual medium, literally looks at the play.
Initial Discussion: Can anyone think of a play (or movie) that they’ve seen that has a song performed in it—not necessarily a musical, just a play that has a sort of musical interlude? What was the effect of the song on the play? Did it add an air of seriousness, or did is provide comedic relief?
The examples that pop into my mind all use songs as a means of comedy, like Family Guy, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and recently, Yes Man, starring Jim Carrey. All of these are comedies, though. Can anyone think of a movie that uses song in a more serious manner, perhaps to convey a darker mood?
With all that in mind, I’d like us to read a portion of Act IV aloud. I need three volunteers, one to read the lines of Othello, one the lines of Desdemona, and one Emilia’s. Read lines 7-58.
Having read that, let’s think about Desdemona’s song. There are only two places in this place where singing is utilized (this being the second), so why here? What is gained by having Desdemona sing this song?
Rather than thinking about the words of the song, though—as I know we are all so inclined to do—I want us to think about this visually. What effect, visually, does staging a song have on the audience? What’s different than if, say, Desdemona were to just say these lines?
Now, with all of this in mind, we’re going to create something ocular, something that we can see, rather than just read or hear. We’re going to make a music video!
Here’s how it’s going to work: As one group, you’ll be making one music video. Everyone is required to participate in the making of this video; however, there is no requirement as to how each of you participates. This is to say, you don’t have to sing if you’re uncomfortable with singing. Different aspects of a music video have to be met, though: 1) the words must be spoken or sung; 2) there must be some sort of physical movement, be it acting or dancing; and 3) there has to be some sort of music.
You have about fifteen minutes to discuss and decide how—if you were making a modern day music video—you would perform this song.
Things to think about: what tone or mood do you want your video to convey; are you performing the song in or out of the context of Othello; can you pick a single genre of music to perform this song within; do you want to just perform to song or could you incorporate other line from the play?
FEEL FREE to use anything in the room to assist you in the making of your video, especially the computer and the other technology in this particular classroom. And feel free to edit and amend the song as you see fit.
The poor soul sat sighing by a sycamore tree,
Sing all a green willow;
Her hand on her bosom, her head on her knee,
Sing willow, willow, willow.
The fresh streams ran by her and murmured her moans;
Sing willow, willow, willow;
Her salt tears fell from her, and softened the stones—
Sing willow, willow, willow—
Sing all a green willow must be my garland.
Let nobody blame him, his scorn I approve—
I called my love false love; but what said he then?
Sing willow, willow, willow;
If I court more women, you’ll couch with more men.
At the end of the fifteen minutes, you will stage your video, which I’ll record. And hopefully, tomorrow we’ll be able to actually watch and discuss our music video. If we can’t, then we can’t; but in a normal class, this would be planned out so that students can watch the music videos.
*Note: Since there are so few of us, we’ll just work as one group on one video. If it were a bigger class, there could be several groups making several music videos for this one song. And having different groups making different videos would facilitate a conversation on the different ways that Desdemona’s song can be interpreted.
Source: Susan M. Kochman. MTV Othello. Folger Shakespeare Library, 1998.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Interesting Primary Source
As I was researching for my lesson on Desdemona's song, I looked at some primary sources on music and singing. I found one—William Byrd’s Psalmes, sonets, & songs of sadnes and pietie (London, 1588)—that I thought was pretty interesting. It really has nothing to do with my exercise, but I thought I’d post it just in case anyone’s interested. 
* * *
At the very beginning of the book, Bryd has this page where he lists the "Reasons breifely set downe by th' author, to perswade every one to learne to sing." He lists,
First, it is a knowledge easily taught, and quickly learned, whether is a good Master, & an apt scholar.
2. The exercise of singing is delightful to Nature, and good to preserve the health of man.
3. It doth strengthen all parts of the breast, & doth open the pipes.
4. It is a singular good remedy for stutting & stammering in the speech.
5. It is the best means to procure perfect pronunciation, and to make a good Orator.
6. It is the only way to know where Nature hath bestowed the benefit of a good voice: which gift is so rare, as there is not one among a thousand that hath it: & in many that excellent gist is lost, because they want art to express Nature.
7. There is not any Music of Instruments whatsoever, comparable to that which is made of the voice of men, where the voices are good, & the same well sorted and ordered.
8. The better the voice it, the meeter it is to honor & serve God there-with: and the voice of man is chiefly to be employed to that end.
Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum [Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord]
Since singing is so good a thing,
I wish all men would learn to sing.
2. The exercise of singing is delightful to Nature, and good to preserve the health of man.
3. It doth strengthen all parts of the breast, & doth open the pipes.
4. It is a singular good remedy for stutting & stammering in the speech.
5. It is the best means to procure perfect pronunciation, and to make a good Orator.
6. It is the only way to know where Nature hath bestowed the benefit of a good voice: which gift is so rare, as there is not one among a thousand that hath it: & in many that excellent gist is lost, because they want art to express Nature.
7. There is not any Music of Instruments whatsoever, comparable to that which is made of the voice of men, where the voices are good, & the same well sorted and ordered.
8. The better the voice it, the meeter it is to honor & serve God there-with: and the voice of man is chiefly to be employed to that end.
Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum [Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord]
Since singing is so good a thing,
I wish all men would learn to sing.
* * *
So, that's Bryd's text. I also found this cool picture from John Dowland's The First Book of Songes or Ayers of fowre partes with Tableture for Lute (London, 1597).
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Response to Monday, June 22, & Acts 4 & 5 of A Midsummer Night’s Dream
Amy’s lesson on Act II, I think, was very effective. I’m all about any exercise that allows me to tear up magazines. More than that, though, I like the idea of having students compare their concepts of fairies to Early Modern England’s concepts. Since we’re really thinking about teaching high school or early college age students, having them think about how their lives operate in relation to the life, the reality, the society, from which the texts comes is great. So, what did I cut out of my magazine? My concept of fairies is intrinsically tied to nature. I think it’s interesting that we’ve been talking about natural vs. supernatural, because I see fairies as very much a part of nature, rather than being beyond the bonds of nature. In some ways, I think they represent the boundary between “civilization” and nature. For sure, when society and culture were more closely tied to nature, when humans were more so tied to the earth, fairies would have been easier to believe in. Anyway, back to what I cut from my magazine: a picture of two small girls in tutus dancing barefoot on green grass, two pictures of cats, a picture of some red spice, the word herbal, and some other stuff that I can’t really remember. What do we get from that? Like we talked about, for some reason we associate fairies with children, especially girls, so that’s the picture of the two barefoot dancers. The cats to me represent a crossing of the boundary between domesticated and wild, as they are house pets that never seem to loose their hunting and killing instincts. I don’t really know why I picked the red spice picture. Maybe it goes hand-in-hand with “herbal,” since the play depicts all these flowers and their medicinal value in the fairy world. Oh, yeah, and I ripped out a picture of some yarn, because it represents the domesticated, house life. Like we talked about, fairies sometimes crossed into the world most commonly through older women of the household. Anyway, I think the exercise really facilitated a conversation on fairies, and then using the concordance, we were really able to get a better idea of how the mythical creatures operate in Shakespeare’s play.
Then, we had acting class. We’ve all really been going for it with our lines, which is great. I like seeing Amy run through the forest—funny! It seems like we’ve been having so much fun with it. I know I’ve been having fun with it. I also REALLY liked the a-b-a-b exercises. That’s one that I’d really love to use if I were teaching this play. It gives the students a chance to interact with the text, and possibly come to see the humor in it. More than anything, though, especially if they haven’t read the play, performing this simple exercise gives them ownership over part of the play. As a young student, I think I would have been very excited, while reading the play, to come to a portion that I had performed for my class. If you can create a feeling of ownership, or cause students to feel investing in what they’re reading or writing, I think it really takes their work to the next level.
Katelyn’s exercise, I think, really excelled in the area of layers. Like she said, there are so many layers to Shakespeare’s play, and figuring out how to teach to the students who are on layer one and to those students on layer three or four is a daunting task. Her exercise did a great job of providing an easy way to teach those layers. Knowing Ovid’s story can only expand a student’s understanding of the play. While we were doing the exercise, I starting thinking about this: What if you had students read the Ovid story before they even started reading the play? Then, as you discuss Act I, you could talk about the two scenes and how the work. You could ask, too, what if Scene one and two were switched? I personal think this would be a really interesting adaptation of the first act. Having an understanding of Ovid’s story, the second scene could act as a framing story. Playing it that way, the story between Hermia and Lysander would be more striking. As the audience, when they are forbid to marry, we’d be suspended in a realm of fear, fear that they, too, would kill themselves. It adds tension, causing the audience to question whether or not this truly is a comedy. Framing it that way, tragedy looms in the air.
Acts IV & V:
A Midsummer Night’s Dream seems to come to a very quick end in Acts IV and V. We open with Bottom bossing Peaseblossom, Cobweb and Mustardseed abroud: Scratch my head; get me some honey; I need to get to a barber (IV.i.5-22). But then we just get Oberon, who says,
When I had at my pleasure taunted her,
And she in mild terms begged my patience,
I then did ask of her her changeling child,
Which straight she gave me, and her fairy sent
To bear him to my bower in Fairyland.
And, now I have the boy, I will undo
This hateful imperfection of her eyes. (IV.i.52-8)
These lines are really disenchanting. For one, Oberon labels his trick as “this hateful imperfection,” which causes me to question to humor of it all. More than that, though, it seems too quick, and it pulls me out of the world of the play. OK, so this was really just about you getting your way and getting Titania’s changeling? That makes it sound like you’re just a child in want of his toy. And later on in Act IV, everything is simply undone again. Theseus says,
Fiar lover, you are fortunately met.
Of this discourse we more will her anon.
Egeus, I will overbear your will;
For in the temple, by and by, with us
These couples shall eternally be knit. (IV.i.72-6)
This is just too easy. If this were a movie that I was watching, I’d say, “Yeah, it was entertaining, but the plot really fell apart there at the end.” There is this one shinning moment to my in Act IV. I really like that Dememtrius, Hermia, Helena, and to a lesser extent, Lysander, come to question whether they are back in reality or sleeping: “Are you sure / That we are awake? It seems to me / That yet we sleep, we dream” (IV.i.87-9). If nothing else, this causes us, the audience, to question—which is more unrealistic, all the Fairyland adventures or the idea that Theseus would simply “overbear” Egeus’ will because he’s so happy he’s getting married?
As for Act V, I don’t know. I honestly don’t see why they would choose to see Pyramus and Thisbe after just being married. Is it as simple as the fact that it is “brief” (V.i.58)? There seems to be a constant eye on the time, like we’re just trying to kill a little bit of time before we can hit the sack. They’re such in a hurry to get to bed, they won’t hear Bottom’s epilogue. I’m convinced: they just want sex. That’s all. The staging of Pyramus and Thisbe could be pretty funny, though. I saw a production in high school that made it hilarious by really playing up the use of a person as a wall and another as the moon.
And then Puck comes on at the end and says,
If we shadows have offended,
Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumbered here
While these visions did appear. (V.i.399-402)
In the 1999 film production of this scene, I remember thinking Puck was such a nice, jolly fairy at this point. Reading it this time, and thinking about the background of Robin Goodfellow, I really got the sense that Puck, here, is trying to trick the audience. For some reason, I kind of see him saying this while simultaneously pick pocketing an audience member.
Then, we had acting class. We’ve all really been going for it with our lines, which is great. I like seeing Amy run through the forest—funny! It seems like we’ve been having so much fun with it. I know I’ve been having fun with it. I also REALLY liked the a-b-a-b exercises. That’s one that I’d really love to use if I were teaching this play. It gives the students a chance to interact with the text, and possibly come to see the humor in it. More than anything, though, especially if they haven’t read the play, performing this simple exercise gives them ownership over part of the play. As a young student, I think I would have been very excited, while reading the play, to come to a portion that I had performed for my class. If you can create a feeling of ownership, or cause students to feel investing in what they’re reading or writing, I think it really takes their work to the next level.
Katelyn’s exercise, I think, really excelled in the area of layers. Like she said, there are so many layers to Shakespeare’s play, and figuring out how to teach to the students who are on layer one and to those students on layer three or four is a daunting task. Her exercise did a great job of providing an easy way to teach those layers. Knowing Ovid’s story can only expand a student’s understanding of the play. While we were doing the exercise, I starting thinking about this: What if you had students read the Ovid story before they even started reading the play? Then, as you discuss Act I, you could talk about the two scenes and how the work. You could ask, too, what if Scene one and two were switched? I personal think this would be a really interesting adaptation of the first act. Having an understanding of Ovid’s story, the second scene could act as a framing story. Playing it that way, the story between Hermia and Lysander would be more striking. As the audience, when they are forbid to marry, we’d be suspended in a realm of fear, fear that they, too, would kill themselves. It adds tension, causing the audience to question whether or not this truly is a comedy. Framing it that way, tragedy looms in the air.
Acts IV & V:
A Midsummer Night’s Dream seems to come to a very quick end in Acts IV and V. We open with Bottom bossing Peaseblossom, Cobweb and Mustardseed abroud: Scratch my head; get me some honey; I need to get to a barber (IV.i.5-22). But then we just get Oberon, who says,
When I had at my pleasure taunted her,
And she in mild terms begged my patience,
I then did ask of her her changeling child,
Which straight she gave me, and her fairy sent
To bear him to my bower in Fairyland.
And, now I have the boy, I will undo
This hateful imperfection of her eyes. (IV.i.52-8)
These lines are really disenchanting. For one, Oberon labels his trick as “this hateful imperfection,” which causes me to question to humor of it all. More than that, though, it seems too quick, and it pulls me out of the world of the play. OK, so this was really just about you getting your way and getting Titania’s changeling? That makes it sound like you’re just a child in want of his toy. And later on in Act IV, everything is simply undone again. Theseus says,
Fiar lover, you are fortunately met.
Of this discourse we more will her anon.
Egeus, I will overbear your will;
For in the temple, by and by, with us
These couples shall eternally be knit. (IV.i.72-6)
This is just too easy. If this were a movie that I was watching, I’d say, “Yeah, it was entertaining, but the plot really fell apart there at the end.” There is this one shinning moment to my in Act IV. I really like that Dememtrius, Hermia, Helena, and to a lesser extent, Lysander, come to question whether they are back in reality or sleeping: “Are you sure / That we are awake? It seems to me / That yet we sleep, we dream” (IV.i.87-9). If nothing else, this causes us, the audience, to question—which is more unrealistic, all the Fairyland adventures or the idea that Theseus would simply “overbear” Egeus’ will because he’s so happy he’s getting married?
As for Act V, I don’t know. I honestly don’t see why they would choose to see Pyramus and Thisbe after just being married. Is it as simple as the fact that it is “brief” (V.i.58)? There seems to be a constant eye on the time, like we’re just trying to kill a little bit of time before we can hit the sack. They’re such in a hurry to get to bed, they won’t hear Bottom’s epilogue. I’m convinced: they just want sex. That’s all. The staging of Pyramus and Thisbe could be pretty funny, though. I saw a production in high school that made it hilarious by really playing up the use of a person as a wall and another as the moon.
And then Puck comes on at the end and says,
If we shadows have offended,
Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumbered here
While these visions did appear. (V.i.399-402)
In the 1999 film production of this scene, I remember thinking Puck was such a nice, jolly fairy at this point. Reading it this time, and thinking about the background of Robin Goodfellow, I really got the sense that Puck, here, is trying to trick the audience. For some reason, I kind of see him saying this while simultaneously pick pocketing an audience member.
Monday, June 22, 2009
A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Acts 2 & 3 & Chapter 4, Natural & Supernatural
Helena saved Act II of A Midsummer Night’s Dream for me. Honestly, I found reading the first half of the act very tiring, as I was constantly looking at the notes to try to understand what the hell the fairies were saying. So, I thought that was difficult, but reading Helena’s lines, I couldn’t help but get into the act. I couldn’t help but think about the acting part of class and how much fun it’d be to play out these lines:
And even for that do I love you the more.
I am your spaniel; and, Demetrius,
The more you beat me I will fawn on you.
Use me but as your spaniel, spurn me, strike me,
Neglect me, lose me; only give me leave,
Unworthy as I am, to follow you.
What worser place can I beg in you love –
And yet a place of high respect with me –
Than to be used as you use you dog? (II.i.202-10)
OK, so it’s kind of messed up if you take it seriously. But all I can see is how funny it would be to stage these lines, especially how funny the use of one’s body could be as these lines are spoken. I’d love to see someone getting down on all fours and pretending to be Demetrius’ dog, and saying that they do it out of love for him. Hilarious.
I also thought the use of animal imagery was really striking in this act. There were hedgehogs, newts, spiders, beetles, worms, snails, and more. Above all, though, I thought the serpent imagery was really striking. We get conflicting metaphors, too. In scene one, in the fairy world, the snake imagery is seen as very positive. Indeed, a snake skin is Titania’s place of rest:
There sleep Titania sometime of the night,
Lulled in these flowers with dances and delight;
And there the snake throws her enameled skin,
Weed wide enough to wrap a fairy in. (II.i.253-6)
Later, though, we get a more disturbing snake image, and this time in the human world. Hermia cries,
Help me, Lysander, help me! Do thy best
To pluck this crawling serpent from my breast!
Ay me, for pity! What a dream was here!
Lysander, look how I do quake with fear.
Methought a serpent ate my heart away,
And you sat smiling at his cruel prey. (II.ii.151-6)
So, in the first of these two images, we see a very positive, protective snake. If I remember correctly, I had a teacher once who explained that Zeus was first depicted as a snake rapped around the mouth a large jar used to store food. As such, he was understood as the protector of life, which could certainly be understood here, as Titania sleeps and is protected in the shed skin of a snake. But in the human world of the play, the serpent is seen in its usual negative, Christian stereotyped light. I’m not certain of the meaning of Hermia’s dream, but I thought the contrast was interesting. We also get a snake when Titania’s fairies sing her to sleep:
You spotted snakes with double tongue,
Thorny hedgehogs, be not seen;
Newts and blindworms, do no wrong;
Come no near our Fairy Queen. (II.ii.10-13)
Why is the snake, here, in the fairy world, now perceived—like all the other animals in the song—as a threat to sleeping Titania? That I don’t understand.
In Act II, we also get the dialogue between Lysander and Hermia about lying together or not. Lysander vehemently argues for it, and Hermia against. And eventually, they decide to sleep, according to the stage direction, “separated by a short distance” (37). This dialogue, though, culminates in Act III when Hermia says, “Since night you loved me; yet since night you left me” (III.ii.275). I don’t know why but I read into this and see that Hermia attributes her not sleeping with Lysander as the reason for his abandoning her for Helena. Something about that really struck me as a read, especially thinking about modern day stereotypes about men and women, and the sexual expectations forced on women. I don’t know. Maybe there’s nothing to this, but I thought about.
In terms of acting out parts of Act III, especially after we’ve been working on master/servent relationships, I was struck by the way Puck speaks to Oberon, his master:
Believe me, king of shadows, I mistook.
Did you tell me I should know the man
By the Athenian garments he had on? (III.ii.347-9)
When I read this, I scribbled in the margin “challenges master,” which Puck certainly does. His words go so far as to blame his master for the mix-up. I just thought this interesting to note, especially with an eye on staging the play.
As for our reading in Chapter 4, Natural and Supernatural, I thought there were some interesting things. I especially like the discussion of weather, Bad Weather and Dearth. It was very reminiscent of today’s world, as we are struggling with climate change, and I thought the ties made between the weather and the unrest of English society were key. But the play offers its audience a way out of the bad weather: “Let us pretend, suggests the play, that bad weather is created by a fierce domestic quarrel among fairy rulers about the custody and rearing of a foster child” (268).
The section of fairy lore was also quite striking. I was especially intrigued by The Remains of Gentilism and Judaism, particularity when it was explained “That the fairies steal away young children and put others in their places: verily believed by old women in those days and by some yet living” (311). I can remember, when I was in a class on Christian mythology, my teacher explained that children who were misbehaving were sometimes believe to have been stolen and replaced by an evil version of themselves. They were stolen and replaced by fairies, as this source suggests. Rather than beating the changeling, as this source suggests, though, an exchange took place. For the return of your child, you would give the fairies pots. Not real pots, though. Instead, you would crack eggs in half, which provided two fairy-sized pots. You would place the allotted amount of pots around your fire place, and in the night, whilst asleep, the fairies would come for their pots and leave your good child.
And even for that do I love you the more.
I am your spaniel; and, Demetrius,
The more you beat me I will fawn on you.
Use me but as your spaniel, spurn me, strike me,
Neglect me, lose me; only give me leave,
Unworthy as I am, to follow you.
What worser place can I beg in you love –
And yet a place of high respect with me –
Than to be used as you use you dog? (II.i.202-10)
OK, so it’s kind of messed up if you take it seriously. But all I can see is how funny it would be to stage these lines, especially how funny the use of one’s body could be as these lines are spoken. I’d love to see someone getting down on all fours and pretending to be Demetrius’ dog, and saying that they do it out of love for him. Hilarious.
I also thought the use of animal imagery was really striking in this act. There were hedgehogs, newts, spiders, beetles, worms, snails, and more. Above all, though, I thought the serpent imagery was really striking. We get conflicting metaphors, too. In scene one, in the fairy world, the snake imagery is seen as very positive. Indeed, a snake skin is Titania’s place of rest:
There sleep Titania sometime of the night,
Lulled in these flowers with dances and delight;
And there the snake throws her enameled skin,
Weed wide enough to wrap a fairy in. (II.i.253-6)
Later, though, we get a more disturbing snake image, and this time in the human world. Hermia cries,
Help me, Lysander, help me! Do thy best
To pluck this crawling serpent from my breast!
Ay me, for pity! What a dream was here!
Lysander, look how I do quake with fear.
Methought a serpent ate my heart away,
And you sat smiling at his cruel prey. (II.ii.151-6)
So, in the first of these two images, we see a very positive, protective snake. If I remember correctly, I had a teacher once who explained that Zeus was first depicted as a snake rapped around the mouth a large jar used to store food. As such, he was understood as the protector of life, which could certainly be understood here, as Titania sleeps and is protected in the shed skin of a snake. But in the human world of the play, the serpent is seen in its usual negative, Christian stereotyped light. I’m not certain of the meaning of Hermia’s dream, but I thought the contrast was interesting. We also get a snake when Titania’s fairies sing her to sleep:
You spotted snakes with double tongue,
Thorny hedgehogs, be not seen;
Newts and blindworms, do no wrong;
Come no near our Fairy Queen. (II.ii.10-13)
Why is the snake, here, in the fairy world, now perceived—like all the other animals in the song—as a threat to sleeping Titania? That I don’t understand.
In Act II, we also get the dialogue between Lysander and Hermia about lying together or not. Lysander vehemently argues for it, and Hermia against. And eventually, they decide to sleep, according to the stage direction, “separated by a short distance” (37). This dialogue, though, culminates in Act III when Hermia says, “Since night you loved me; yet since night you left me” (III.ii.275). I don’t know why but I read into this and see that Hermia attributes her not sleeping with Lysander as the reason for his abandoning her for Helena. Something about that really struck me as a read, especially thinking about modern day stereotypes about men and women, and the sexual expectations forced on women. I don’t know. Maybe there’s nothing to this, but I thought about.
In terms of acting out parts of Act III, especially after we’ve been working on master/servent relationships, I was struck by the way Puck speaks to Oberon, his master:
Believe me, king of shadows, I mistook.
Did you tell me I should know the man
By the Athenian garments he had on? (III.ii.347-9)
When I read this, I scribbled in the margin “challenges master,” which Puck certainly does. His words go so far as to blame his master for the mix-up. I just thought this interesting to note, especially with an eye on staging the play.
As for our reading in Chapter 4, Natural and Supernatural, I thought there were some interesting things. I especially like the discussion of weather, Bad Weather and Dearth. It was very reminiscent of today’s world, as we are struggling with climate change, and I thought the ties made between the weather and the unrest of English society were key. But the play offers its audience a way out of the bad weather: “Let us pretend, suggests the play, that bad weather is created by a fierce domestic quarrel among fairy rulers about the custody and rearing of a foster child” (268).
The section of fairy lore was also quite striking. I was especially intrigued by The Remains of Gentilism and Judaism, particularity when it was explained “That the fairies steal away young children and put others in their places: verily believed by old women in those days and by some yet living” (311). I can remember, when I was in a class on Christian mythology, my teacher explained that children who were misbehaving were sometimes believe to have been stolen and replaced by an evil version of themselves. They were stolen and replaced by fairies, as this source suggests. Rather than beating the changeling, as this source suggests, though, an exchange took place. For the return of your child, you would give the fairies pots. Not real pots, though. Instead, you would crack eggs in half, which provided two fairy-sized pots. You would place the allotted amount of pots around your fire place, and in the night, whilst asleep, the fairies would come for their pots and leave your good child.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Thinking about my lesson, Parental Control
Reflecting on my second lesson, I think it was decently successful. I guess focusing on the Amazons and their importance to the play may have been more interesting, but the binary of marriage models stood out most to me in Act I. If it was done over two class period, maybe the lesson would work better. I’m really not sure. I did think it was effective because of its incorporation of a modern day television show and a period piece, both of which focused on the same thing. To me, that really demonstrated that Shakespeare is relevant, even to our potential high school students. But, attached at the hip to cell phones and facebook, how could Shakespeare ever be relevant? Well, he was playing with themes and ideas that we’re still dealing with—in this case, marriage and the role and impact of family on that institution.
Here are the citations for my presentation (not sure how to cite them):
Clark, Ron. Get Thee To A Wife!. Folger Shakespeare Library. June 2009 http://folger.edu/eduLesPlanDtl.cfm?lpid=598
Gibbons, Charles. A Work Worth Reading. Early English Books Online. Carol Grutnes Belk Library, Boone. June 2009
http://0-eebo.chadwyck.com.wncln.wncln.org/
Here are the citations for my presentation (not sure how to cite them):
Clark, Ron. Get Thee To A Wife!. Folger Shakespeare Library. June 2009 http://folger.edu/eduLesPlanDtl.cfm?lpid=598
Gibbons, Charles. A Work Worth Reading. Early English Books Online. Carol Grutnes Belk Library, Boone. June 2009
http://0-eebo.chadwyck.com.wncln.wncln.org/
Thinking about Friday, June 19
Response to Act I of A Midsummer Night's Dream: More than anything, Egues and his “privilege” stand out to me, which is why I chose to focus on that in my lesson. There are certainly other things to look at, but the concept of marriage depicted in this act seemed so overwhelming to me. I guess I shouldn’t focus on that, though, since my lesson works with it.
“But for the ordinary women in post-Reformation England, only one recognized path remained—marriage, motherhood, and eventually, perhaps, widowhood. The image of an institutionally sanctioned community of single women, headed by a woman, had been ruled out of order—except, of course, in the case of the queen’s household” (193).
So, let’s talk about Amazons. With some knowledge of Amazonians, Hippolyta’s character takes on a whole new meaning. She becomes so much more than she seems to be. Certainly, she is the most problematic of characters in this act. So, what do we make of her? I can’t answer that, but I think I can say for sure that she has to be thought about as more than a meek, quiet, insignificant character. She is, though, only given five lines in the whole scene. But she’s got to be worth more than the five lines. When is she on stage and when isn’t she? Does she interact with other character? If so, who, and how do they interact? Asking these questions affords the opportunity to think about Hippolyta as more than her spoken line, which she undoubtedly is. If she isn’t, then why did Shakespeare make her the conquered queen of the Amazon? Why not just Jane Doe?
Dr S’s exercise really got me thinking about this. With just the two props—a rose and a book marked The Law of Athens—there are so many possibilities. I’ve been thinking about one. What if the book of the Law of Athens was presented on the stage before any characters arrived, on some sort of distinguished podium? The book is open, white pages exposed. Therefore, we have the patriarchy established, or so it seems. Around this prominent figure, though, are growing some roses. And what color are these roses? You guessed it—red roses, so we establish the colors of the gender binary (Amy?). So this book is referenced throughout by the men, pointing out the fact that they have the power to do as they wish with these women; however, when the men aren’t looking, and Hippolyta is finished speaking, she remains onstage, and she playfully rips pages from the book (as Dr S suggested). More than that, though, she begins playing with the roses, which haven’t seemed important up to this point, and just as all but Hermia and Lysander are leaving the stage, Hippolyta passes a rose to Hermia, signifying that neither of them has had their femininity tamed. And in a way Hippolyta is passing the torch to Hermia, saying, “keep this alive. Your sexuality is yours. Don’t give it up to patriarchy.”
Alright, I’ve got to move on to Friday’s acting portion. One thing’s for sure, I was ridiculously nervous about performing my lines. And I wasn’t sure about all the acting when we first started. As has been suggested, we, the literature students, have to get ourselves out of our version of Shakespeare. That was (and is) tough for me, but the acting portion of class has been helping. Honestly, I’ve never really looked at Shakespeare in this way. I can remember seeing my best friend, Robbie, in A Midsummer Night’s Dream in high school and thinking it was hilarious, but I can’t remember ever thinking it was funny as I read it, and the same goes for most of the comedies. Trying to be Christopher Sly, though, the humor of his lines has become so apparent to me. He’s freaking hilarious, or he can be. It’s also really interesting to me how simple acting tools, like pausing, can change the meaning of what is being said, and this case, can add so much humor to simple line. Trying to play Sly only reaffirmed my love for him and his plot. Seeing Allen, too, has really helped me see the funny side to all this. Allen, you are genuinely hilarious.
Also, I really liked the exercise where we interchanged gender roles for the characters of Katharina and Petruchio. One of the most important subcontexts to The Taming of the Shrew is gender stereotyping and roles. I think we really see that best in the Induction, because we obviously know that Sly “wife” is a male page. That carries forward, though, and I so I think changing the sex of the actors playing Katharina and Petruchio brings something interesting to that discussion. I can certainly see myself using that exercise if I were teaching The Shrew.
“But for the ordinary women in post-Reformation England, only one recognized path remained—marriage, motherhood, and eventually, perhaps, widowhood. The image of an institutionally sanctioned community of single women, headed by a woman, had been ruled out of order—except, of course, in the case of the queen’s household” (193).
So, let’s talk about Amazons. With some knowledge of Amazonians, Hippolyta’s character takes on a whole new meaning. She becomes so much more than she seems to be. Certainly, she is the most problematic of characters in this act. So, what do we make of her? I can’t answer that, but I think I can say for sure that she has to be thought about as more than a meek, quiet, insignificant character. She is, though, only given five lines in the whole scene. But she’s got to be worth more than the five lines. When is she on stage and when isn’t she? Does she interact with other character? If so, who, and how do they interact? Asking these questions affords the opportunity to think about Hippolyta as more than her spoken line, which she undoubtedly is. If she isn’t, then why did Shakespeare make her the conquered queen of the Amazon? Why not just Jane Doe?
Dr S’s exercise really got me thinking about this. With just the two props—a rose and a book marked The Law of Athens—there are so many possibilities. I’ve been thinking about one. What if the book of the Law of Athens was presented on the stage before any characters arrived, on some sort of distinguished podium? The book is open, white pages exposed. Therefore, we have the patriarchy established, or so it seems. Around this prominent figure, though, are growing some roses. And what color are these roses? You guessed it—red roses, so we establish the colors of the gender binary (Amy?). So this book is referenced throughout by the men, pointing out the fact that they have the power to do as they wish with these women; however, when the men aren’t looking, and Hippolyta is finished speaking, she remains onstage, and she playfully rips pages from the book (as Dr S suggested). More than that, though, she begins playing with the roses, which haven’t seemed important up to this point, and just as all but Hermia and Lysander are leaving the stage, Hippolyta passes a rose to Hermia, signifying that neither of them has had their femininity tamed. And in a way Hippolyta is passing the torch to Hermia, saying, “keep this alive. Your sexuality is yours. Don’t give it up to patriarchy.”
Alright, I’ve got to move on to Friday’s acting portion. One thing’s for sure, I was ridiculously nervous about performing my lines. And I wasn’t sure about all the acting when we first started. As has been suggested, we, the literature students, have to get ourselves out of our version of Shakespeare. That was (and is) tough for me, but the acting portion of class has been helping. Honestly, I’ve never really looked at Shakespeare in this way. I can remember seeing my best friend, Robbie, in A Midsummer Night’s Dream in high school and thinking it was hilarious, but I can’t remember ever thinking it was funny as I read it, and the same goes for most of the comedies. Trying to be Christopher Sly, though, the humor of his lines has become so apparent to me. He’s freaking hilarious, or he can be. It’s also really interesting to me how simple acting tools, like pausing, can change the meaning of what is being said, and this case, can add so much humor to simple line. Trying to play Sly only reaffirmed my love for him and his plot. Seeing Allen, too, has really helped me see the funny side to all this. Allen, you are genuinely hilarious.
Also, I really liked the exercise where we interchanged gender roles for the characters of Katharina and Petruchio. One of the most important subcontexts to The Taming of the Shrew is gender stereotyping and roles. I think we really see that best in the Induction, because we obviously know that Sly “wife” is a male page. That carries forward, though, and I so I think changing the sex of the actors playing Katharina and Petruchio brings something interesting to that discussion. I can certainly see myself using that exercise if I were teaching The Shrew.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Parental Control and Act I of A Midsummer Night’s Dream
Brief Overview: For this exercise, we’ll talk about different models of marriage, one that seems more traditional and one more modern. To do this, we’ll look at a short clip from a present day television serious as well as a period piece, both of which examine the place of parents in their child’s marriage. And then we’ll look at a short excerpt from Act I of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, which deals with this issue and exemplifies the two binary models.
Rationale: The section of text that I’ve pulled out from A Midsummer Night’s Dream is important because, by looking at it hand-in-hand with a contemporary piece and an Early Modern piece, it demonstrates two things: 1) Shakespeare is not outdated! It allows young and potentially first time readers to see that Shakespeare is dealing with issues that are still very much alive and up for debate in today’s society, and therefore Shakespeare is still very much alive! And 2) the potentially subversive nature of Shakespeare’s writing, which is endlessly interesting. This piece demonstrates so well Shakespeare’s ability to simultaneously play with traditional and modern models in a way that is subtle yet subversive because of the way it causes his audience to question traditionally accepted modes of being.
Objective: The objective of this exercise is to get students thinking outside of their own time and culture. Hopefully, by coupling a contemporary piece with an Early Modern piece, they will come to understand that we in today’s society are not the only people that have thought about these issues, that some debates have been raging for centuries. Also, this will be done with the hope of developing a more in depth view of Shakespeare as a writer who is both traditional and modern.
Materials: This exercise requires that each student have a copy of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, preferably the same edition, as well as paper handouts. It also requires students who are willing to play along and act out some short pieces.
Works Cited: I didn't really cite anyone, but they idea came from reading an exercise on the Folger Shakespeare Library, so I want to give due credit. Here's the link to the exercise that was my inspiration: http://www.folger.edu/eduLesPlanDtl.cfm?lpid=598.
And the primary text came from EEBO.
Exercise:
So, let’s say you meet someone, you start dating, and they are just everything you could ever hope for. You know, you want to spend every waking moment with this person. You get nervous but excited at the thought of seeing this person. You finish one another’s sentences and thinks it’s absolutely adorable. All that crap, right? And you decide this is the person, this is the woman, or this is the man, that you want to marry, that you want to spend the rest of your life with. There’s just one problem: Your parents don’t really approve of this person. They say things like, “Well, it’s your life, honey, but we just think you can do better, you can find someone who’s better for you.” They even go so far as to say they won’t allow you to marry this person.
How do you react? Do you explode and say, “You know, this is crazy. I’m in love with this person, and that’s all that matter. I just can’t listen to you. I have to marry this person.” Or do you listen and accept you parents’ advice, knowing that they know what’s best for you?
Discuss
Now, I want to show a short clip from a MTV series, entitled Parental Control. I picked this series because it will soon be running its seventh season, so I think it’s safe to assume that it is a popular show on a channel that almost exclusively targets a young adult audience, which is also our audience.
http://www.mtv.com/videos/misc/355379/tablespoon-of-love.jhtml#id=1607136
So, what is this? It’s a dramatized version of what we’ve been talking about, right? These parents have completely taken over. They’re saying, “Who you’ve picked isn’t good enough, and we can find you someone better.”
But all of this seems kind of out dated, right? I mean, I care very deeply for my parents and I respect their opinions, but hell if I’m going to let them tell me who I can and can’t marry. Right?
OK, so now I want you all to take a look at the piece of paper labeled Gibbon. I want to have two of you come up and read this aloud. Now, I want one of you to play
the role of Philogus and one of you play the role of Tychicus, and this is a debate, so I want you two to really play this, argue it out and try to make your audience believe your side.
Have two students argue out the roles of Philogus and Tychicus. (See appendix one) You might need to stop them at times to make sure that what is being spoken is clear to those students who are listening.
Alright! So, what we’ve just heard was published in London in 1591 by Charles Gibbon. What does it tell us about the Early Modern period? They were discussing this same topic, right? Do parents have a say or don’t they? And there’s really no definitive ans
wer here, but I think it’s safe to say that Tichi represents a more traditional model of marriage—one in which children were considered the property of their parents to be given out at the parents’ discretion—and Philogus represented a more modern model of marriage, where individuals were given a chance to chose who they wanted to marry based on who they like, who they think best suits them.
OK, so let’s keep these two contrasting models in mind and move onto the first act of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Take a look at the second sheet that I gave you, the one with the dialogue on it. I want three of you to come up here and play that scene out. (For the sake of time, I’ve chopped some of Egeus’ lines.)
Have three students act out the roles of Theseus, Egeus and Hermia. (See appendix two)
So, now that we’ve looked at the period piece about marriage, what can we infer from this section of the play? A very traditional model of marriage is being represented, yes? It’s not only represented, though. It’d dominant, right? It seems that way because it’s the Duke and father, the two most socially dominant people on the stage at this time, who are both arguing for and thereby supporting it. But what else is happening here? If we look at Hermia rather than the Duke and Egeus, what do we notice? Shakespeare’s being pretty modern too, right? He’s giving a very modern alternative to their traditional model of marriage.
And what does this tell us about Shakespeare? He’s being pretty subversive, isn’t he? Yes, he keeps the traditional model, but he’s slipping that modern idea in there too. If nothing else, he’s entertaining new ideas and allowing his audience to entertain new ideas.
So, as you move from here and continue reading the play, I want you to think about how Shakespeare is mixing in the modern, ways that he’s being subversive within in his own time and culture. Ask yourself: How is he getting those modern aspects in there, and why is he? How is he challenging, not just the traditional model of marriage, but traditional ideas held by his culture in general. What other cultural boundaries do you think he’s pushing in this play?
* * * * *
Appendix One: Charles Gibbon: A Work Worth the Reading. London, 1591.
Philogus: There is old Cleanthes an ancient Gentleman, who is adorned with the affluence of fortune, for great possessions, as well as the excellence of Nature, for good properties. He has among many children but one daughter (yet a sister to every son). This maid is very desirous to marry, and has made her choice of such a one, as is both of a goodly composition of body, and of a godly disposition of mind. Yet as he is proper and well disposed, so he is very poor, insomuch as her father by reason of the baseness of his linage, and bareness of his living, will now allow of her liking, but hath appointed her another, which both by parentage and portion may countervail her calling and his contentment, yet nothing answerable to his daughter’s desire, because for his year he may rather be her father than her husband, which as he cannot be the first, so he is so far from the latter that she will rather be martyred than married to him, now in this case whether is the affection of the child to be preferred before the election of the father. (2-3)
Tychicus: This is as easy to answer as to ask: The Ten Commandments teach children to honor and submit themselves to their parents; therefore if they contract and couple contrary to their satisfaction, they rather rebel than obey them… This is sufficient to resolve you: Children cannot match without their parents’ consent. (5)
Philogus: Alas, you do not consider the innumerable inconvenience that be incident to those parties which be brought together more for profit than love, more for goods than good will, more by constraint than consent, nay more than that…. Is it possible that oxen unequally yoked should draw together?... You shall find that such a husband, is a hell to a tender virgin and that such a marriage is the beginning of all misery, and no doubt he that bestows his daughter no better, shall abridge her grief, by following her to the grave….There is no reason, but he and she that enter into that bond should make their own bargain, because it is they that must abide by it. (6-7)
Tychicus: You still continue your carnal positions, to confirm your opinion, as though the prescript rule of God’s book where to be impugned by the natural reason of man’s brain. If a man may give his goods to whom he will, he may as well bestow his children where he thinks best, for children are the goods of the parents…. You allege it is for good reason they should make their own bargain, because they must abide it; as though parents would seek the prejudice of their own children…. This argues that parents would dispose their children at their pleasure…. It is the property of parents, not to deal forwardly but fatherly with their children, and to bestow them not as they desire, without discretion, but as is most expedient with circumstance. (7-9)
Philogus: We ought indeed to obey our earthly parents, yet we must not dishonor our eternal father, for we are taught by the Apostle Peter “to obey God more than man” (Acts 5.29)…. For, “He that loves father and mother more than me is not worthy of me,” (Mat. 10.37). We ought to fear our natural parents, that have government of our bodies, yet we must be more afraid of our celestial Father, which preserves both body and soul, and is able to cast them into hell fire; whereupon I ground my argument, that if parents will proffer and impose upon their children such a match as tend more to profit than piety, more to content their greedy desire for lucre, than their children’s godly choice for love, as this man hath done to his daughter, neither they nor this maid ought to depend on their parents in this point. (13-14)
Appendix Two: A Midsummer Night's Dream I.i.20-66
Egeus: Happy be Theseus, our renownèd Duke.
Theseus: Thanks, good Egeus: what's the news with thee?
Egeus: Full of vexation come I, with complaint
Against my child, my daughter Hermia.—
Stand forth, Demetrius.—My Noble Lord,
This man hath my consent to marry her.—
Stand forth, Lysander.—And, my gracious Duke,
This man hath bewitched the bosom of my child.
…
With cunning hast thou filched my daughter’s heart,
Turned her obedience, which is due to me,
To stubborn harshness. And, my gracious Duke,
Be it so she will not here before your Grace,
Consent to marry with Demetrius,
I beg the ancient privilege of Athens:
As she is mine, I may dispose of her,
Which shall be either to this gentleman
Or to her death, according to our law,
Immediately provided in that case.
Theseus: What say you Hermia? Be advised fair maid.
To you your Father should be as a god—
One that composed your beauties, yea, and one
To whom you are but as a form in wax
By him imprinted, and within his power
To leave the figure or disfigure it.
Demetrius is a worthy gentleman.
Hermia: So is Lysander.
Theseus: In himself he is;
But in this kind, wanting your father’s voice,
The other must be held the worthier.
Hermia: I would my father looked but with my eyes.
Theseus: Rather your eyes must with his judgment look.
Hermia: I do entreat Your Grace, to pardon me.
I know not by what power I am made bold;
Nor how it may concern my modesty
In such a presence here to plead my thoughts;
But I beseech Your Grace that I may know
The worst that may befall me in this case
If I refuse to wed Demetrius.
Theseus: Either to die the death or to abjure
Forever the society of men.
Rationale: The section of text that I’ve pulled out from A Midsummer Night’s Dream is important because, by looking at it hand-in-hand with a contemporary piece and an Early Modern piece, it demonstrates two things: 1) Shakespeare is not outdated! It allows young and potentially first time readers to see that Shakespeare is dealing with issues that are still very much alive and up for debate in today’s society, and therefore Shakespeare is still very much alive! And 2) the potentially subversive nature of Shakespeare’s writing, which is endlessly interesting. This piece demonstrates so well Shakespeare’s ability to simultaneously play with traditional and modern models in a way that is subtle yet subversive because of the way it causes his audience to question traditionally accepted modes of being.
Objective: The objective of this exercise is to get students thinking outside of their own time and culture. Hopefully, by coupling a contemporary piece with an Early Modern piece, they will come to understand that we in today’s society are not the only people that have thought about these issues, that some debates have been raging for centuries. Also, this will be done with the hope of developing a more in depth view of Shakespeare as a writer who is both traditional and modern.
Materials: This exercise requires that each student have a copy of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, preferably the same edition, as well as paper handouts. It also requires students who are willing to play along and act out some short pieces.
Works Cited: I didn't really cite anyone, but they idea came from reading an exercise on the Folger Shakespeare Library, so I want to give due credit. Here's the link to the exercise that was my inspiration: http://www.folger.edu/eduLesPlanDtl.cfm?lpid=598.
And the primary text came from EEBO.
Exercise:
So, let’s say you meet someone, you start dating, and they are just everything you could ever hope for. You know, you want to spend every waking moment with this person. You get nervous but excited at the thought of seeing this person. You finish one another’s sentences and thinks it’s absolutely adorable. All that crap, right? And you decide this is the person, this is the woman, or this is the man, that you want to marry, that you want to spend the rest of your life with. There’s just one problem: Your parents don’t really approve of this person. They say things like, “Well, it’s your life, honey, but we just think you can do better, you can find someone who’s better for you.” They even go so far as to say they won’t allow you to marry this person.
How do you react? Do you explode and say, “You know, this is crazy. I’m in love with this person, and that’s all that matter. I just can’t listen to you. I have to marry this person.” Or do you listen and accept you parents’ advice, knowing that they know what’s best for you?
Discuss
Now, I want to show a short clip from a MTV series, entitled Parental Control. I picked this series because it will soon be running its seventh season, so I think it’s safe to assume that it is a popular show on a channel that almost exclusively targets a young adult audience, which is also our audience.
http://www.mtv.com/videos/misc/355379/tablespoon-of-love.jhtml#id=1607136
So, what is this? It’s a dramatized version of what we’ve been talking about, right? These parents have completely taken over. They’re saying, “Who you’ve picked isn’t good enough, and we can find you someone better.”
But all of this seems kind of out dated, right? I mean, I care very deeply for my parents and I respect their opinions, but hell if I’m going to let them tell me who I can and can’t marry. Right?
OK, so now I want you all to take a look at the piece of paper labeled Gibbon. I want to have two of you come up and read this aloud. Now, I want one of you to play
the role of Philogus and one of you play the role of Tychicus, and this is a debate, so I want you two to really play this, argue it out and try to make your audience believe your side.Have two students argue out the roles of Philogus and Tychicus. (See appendix one) You might need to stop them at times to make sure that what is being spoken is clear to those students who are listening.
Alright! So, what we’ve just heard was published in London in 1591 by Charles Gibbon. What does it tell us about the Early Modern period? They were discussing this same topic, right? Do parents have a say or don’t they? And there’s really no definitive ans
wer here, but I think it’s safe to say that Tichi represents a more traditional model of marriage—one in which children were considered the property of their parents to be given out at the parents’ discretion—and Philogus represented a more modern model of marriage, where individuals were given a chance to chose who they wanted to marry based on who they like, who they think best suits them.OK, so let’s keep these two contrasting models in mind and move onto the first act of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Take a look at the second sheet that I gave you, the one with the dialogue on it. I want three of you to come up here and play that scene out. (For the sake of time, I’ve chopped some of Egeus’ lines.)
Have three students act out the roles of Theseus, Egeus and Hermia. (See appendix two)
So, now that we’ve looked at the period piece about marriage, what can we infer from this section of the play? A very traditional model of marriage is being represented, yes? It’s not only represented, though. It’d dominant, right? It seems that way because it’s the Duke and father, the two most socially dominant people on the stage at this time, who are both arguing for and thereby supporting it. But what else is happening here? If we look at Hermia rather than the Duke and Egeus, what do we notice? Shakespeare’s being pretty modern too, right? He’s giving a very modern alternative to their traditional model of marriage.
And what does this tell us about Shakespeare? He’s being pretty subversive, isn’t he? Yes, he keeps the traditional model, but he’s slipping that modern idea in there too. If nothing else, he’s entertaining new ideas and allowing his audience to entertain new ideas.
So, as you move from here and continue reading the play, I want you to think about how Shakespeare is mixing in the modern, ways that he’s being subversive within in his own time and culture. Ask yourself: How is he getting those modern aspects in there, and why is he? How is he challenging, not just the traditional model of marriage, but traditional ideas held by his culture in general. What other cultural boundaries do you think he’s pushing in this play?
* * * * *
Appendix One: Charles Gibbon: A Work Worth the Reading. London, 1591.
Philogus: There is old Cleanthes an ancient Gentleman, who is adorned with the affluence of fortune, for great possessions, as well as the excellence of Nature, for good properties. He has among many children but one daughter (yet a sister to every son). This maid is very desirous to marry, and has made her choice of such a one, as is both of a goodly composition of body, and of a godly disposition of mind. Yet as he is proper and well disposed, so he is very poor, insomuch as her father by reason of the baseness of his linage, and bareness of his living, will now allow of her liking, but hath appointed her another, which both by parentage and portion may countervail her calling and his contentment, yet nothing answerable to his daughter’s desire, because for his year he may rather be her father than her husband, which as he cannot be the first, so he is so far from the latter that she will rather be martyred than married to him, now in this case whether is the affection of the child to be preferred before the election of the father. (2-3)
Tychicus: This is as easy to answer as to ask: The Ten Commandments teach children to honor and submit themselves to their parents; therefore if they contract and couple contrary to their satisfaction, they rather rebel than obey them… This is sufficient to resolve you: Children cannot match without their parents’ consent. (5)
Philogus: Alas, you do not consider the innumerable inconvenience that be incident to those parties which be brought together more for profit than love, more for goods than good will, more by constraint than consent, nay more than that…. Is it possible that oxen unequally yoked should draw together?... You shall find that such a husband, is a hell to a tender virgin and that such a marriage is the beginning of all misery, and no doubt he that bestows his daughter no better, shall abridge her grief, by following her to the grave….There is no reason, but he and she that enter into that bond should make their own bargain, because it is they that must abide by it. (6-7)
Tychicus: You still continue your carnal positions, to confirm your opinion, as though the prescript rule of God’s book where to be impugned by the natural reason of man’s brain. If a man may give his goods to whom he will, he may as well bestow his children where he thinks best, for children are the goods of the parents…. You allege it is for good reason they should make their own bargain, because they must abide it; as though parents would seek the prejudice of their own children…. This argues that parents would dispose their children at their pleasure…. It is the property of parents, not to deal forwardly but fatherly with their children, and to bestow them not as they desire, without discretion, but as is most expedient with circumstance. (7-9)
Philogus: We ought indeed to obey our earthly parents, yet we must not dishonor our eternal father, for we are taught by the Apostle Peter “to obey God more than man” (Acts 5.29)…. For, “He that loves father and mother more than me is not worthy of me,” (Mat. 10.37). We ought to fear our natural parents, that have government of our bodies, yet we must be more afraid of our celestial Father, which preserves both body and soul, and is able to cast them into hell fire; whereupon I ground my argument, that if parents will proffer and impose upon their children such a match as tend more to profit than piety, more to content their greedy desire for lucre, than their children’s godly choice for love, as this man hath done to his daughter, neither they nor this maid ought to depend on their parents in this point. (13-14)
Appendix Two: A Midsummer Night's Dream I.i.20-66
Egeus: Happy be Theseus, our renownèd Duke.
Theseus: Thanks, good Egeus: what's the news with thee?
Egeus: Full of vexation come I, with complaint
Against my child, my daughter Hermia.—
Stand forth, Demetrius.—My Noble Lord,
This man hath my consent to marry her.—
Stand forth, Lysander.—And, my gracious Duke,
This man hath bewitched the bosom of my child.
…
With cunning hast thou filched my daughter’s heart,
Turned her obedience, which is due to me,
To stubborn harshness. And, my gracious Duke,
Be it so she will not here before your Grace,
Consent to marry with Demetrius,
I beg the ancient privilege of Athens:
As she is mine, I may dispose of her,
Which shall be either to this gentleman
Or to her death, according to our law,
Immediately provided in that case.
Theseus: What say you Hermia? Be advised fair maid.
To you your Father should be as a god—
One that composed your beauties, yea, and one
To whom you are but as a form in wax
By him imprinted, and within his power
To leave the figure or disfigure it.
Demetrius is a worthy gentleman.
Hermia: So is Lysander.
Theseus: In himself he is;
But in this kind, wanting your father’s voice,
The other must be held the worthier.
Hermia: I would my father looked but with my eyes.
Theseus: Rather your eyes must with his judgment look.
Hermia: I do entreat Your Grace, to pardon me.
I know not by what power I am made bold;
Nor how it may concern my modesty
In such a presence here to plead my thoughts;
But I beseech Your Grace that I may know
The worst that may befall me in this case
If I refuse to wed Demetrius.
Theseus: Either to die the death or to abjure
Forever the society of men.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Acts 3, 4 & 5 of Taming
For Thursday, we were suppose to read Act 3, 4 & 5 as well as A Merry Jest of a Shrewd and Curst Wife. For A Merry Jest, I don't have much to say. Like we talked about in class, I definitely think reading it makes Taming seem less harsh, which is pretty impressive because Taming has some pretty intense moments. I'm also really interested in Shakespeare's dropping of the mother in A Merry Jest. Why is there no mother in Taming? We talked about that having the mother there gives motive to Jane or Kate for being shrewish, and without a mother, we can't really say why Kate is how she is. Well, maybe we can blame Bianca, but still, there's less of a direct answer. Dr S pointed out that mothers are very rare in Shakespeare's work, and when they are present, they are pretty nuts. I think having Kate have a mother would completely change the dynamic of who Kate is. I'm not sure that I would want to add a mother, but it's interesting to think about.
As for the acts we were supposed to read, I think Scene ii of Act III is one of the most difficult scenes for me to swallow. It's certainly a scene that makes me sympathize with Katharina. Like we talked about in class, the wedding day is the wife-to-be's day, and Petruchio completely strips her of that, and it's heart breaking. Kate says,
Now must the world point at poor Katharina
And say, "Lo, there is mad Petruchio's wife,
If it would please him come and marry her!" (III.ii.19-21)
And then there's the matter of his wedding garb and the condition of the horse he rides in on. I certainly think the horse is symbolic. But of what? I think the horse can be read as a serious threat to Kate, saying look how far I'm willing to go with this taming. Or I think it can be read as something that makes an idiot of Petruchio. He can't take proper care of his horse, which during the period would certainly be a reflection of his capabilities (or lack there of) as a husband. So, I think that can go either way. I prefer the second, I guess, just because I'm always looking for a way to save Kate and make Petruchio out to be the stupid ass (that he is).
While we're on the subject of Petruchio's horse, I guess I should say I thought Robert gave a very nice presentation. I thought the years of experience he has showed in comparison to my attempt to present a lesson. It was a great learning opportunity for those of us who have yet to teach, though. I think he did a really good job making it relatable to his audience of high school students. I can see them thinking the tricked out cars are hilarious, and that engages them, which is really what impressed me. Through something so simple, Robert found a way to hook them into a conversation about Petruchio and about how value is determined based on appearance. It was good.
I also really like Katelyn's lesson, because she was touching on some issues that really interest me. Do the clothes make the man or does the man make the clothes? And I've said man intentionally, because, as we notice in class, it's only the men in play who are able to visibly have disguises. I think that certainly comments, though, on the role of women in the period. They weren't wearing masks, but they were certainly putting on the proper face, the face society wants (Bianca) or doesn't want (Katharina) to see. It makes me sympathize with the women in the play, because at what point are they relieved from their disguises? Are they even?
And I guess that gets to Allen's lesson about what happens when the masks come off. I think it's interesting in Act V that characters are so easily transitioned back from their disguised self to their "real" selves; whereas, Sly's transition back to "reality" would mean being put back into a gutter. And I think that's why there can't be an epilogue. We don't need or want to see the disenchantment of Sly. We don't want to see him descend the social ladder. We like where he is, especially is we're a poorer member of an Early Modern audience, who is coming to believe that drunken tinkers truly can be transmuted into lords that "smell sweet savor and feel soft things." Back to Allen's lesson, though. I think Allen bit off a huge chunk by talking about disguises. It's so hard to talk about them because there is just too much to talk about. The whole play is about disguises. But I think Allen did a good job of it, and I think his lesson play would translate amazingly into a plan of attack on the play as a whole.
Anyway, I'm sad Taming is done and gone. It's my favorite!
Ah, I need to talk about today's, Thursday's, acting class. Things definitely got better today. I was nervous when I had to recite my line, but I managed, as we all did I think. Better than that, though, the acting out of the scene as a class was so much fun. I honestly can't remember the last time I had that much fun in class. Something about the fact that it's a comedy, that I could hear Ms M laughing as we ran around our makeshift stage, made me feel less like an idiot. In days previous, I've been to afraid of looking stupid to really go from anything, but that was the point of this scene. We didn't have the pressure of too many line (Thanks real actors!), so we were able to just try to be funny with our bodies, which was great fun for me. This is the first exercise that I can really say I want to use if I were teaching Shakespeare. There have been others that I'd consider using, but this one I really want to incorporate, because it just opens people up and allows them to let out the funny/ silly that's inside of them. I really think everybody has a funny side, it's just a matter of getting it out, and this exercise really did this for me. Great!
As for the acts we were supposed to read, I think Scene ii of Act III is one of the most difficult scenes for me to swallow. It's certainly a scene that makes me sympathize with Katharina. Like we talked about in class, the wedding day is the wife-to-be's day, and Petruchio completely strips her of that, and it's heart breaking. Kate says,
Now must the world point at poor Katharina
And say, "Lo, there is mad Petruchio's wife,
If it would please him come and marry her!" (III.ii.19-21)
And then there's the matter of his wedding garb and the condition of the horse he rides in on. I certainly think the horse is symbolic. But of what? I think the horse can be read as a serious threat to Kate, saying look how far I'm willing to go with this taming. Or I think it can be read as something that makes an idiot of Petruchio. He can't take proper care of his horse, which during the period would certainly be a reflection of his capabilities (or lack there of) as a husband. So, I think that can go either way. I prefer the second, I guess, just because I'm always looking for a way to save Kate and make Petruchio out to be the stupid ass (that he is).
While we're on the subject of Petruchio's horse, I guess I should say I thought Robert gave a very nice presentation. I thought the years of experience he has showed in comparison to my attempt to present a lesson. It was a great learning opportunity for those of us who have yet to teach, though. I think he did a really good job making it relatable to his audience of high school students. I can see them thinking the tricked out cars are hilarious, and that engages them, which is really what impressed me. Through something so simple, Robert found a way to hook them into a conversation about Petruchio and about how value is determined based on appearance. It was good.
I also really like Katelyn's lesson, because she was touching on some issues that really interest me. Do the clothes make the man or does the man make the clothes? And I've said man intentionally, because, as we notice in class, it's only the men in play who are able to visibly have disguises. I think that certainly comments, though, on the role of women in the period. They weren't wearing masks, but they were certainly putting on the proper face, the face society wants (Bianca) or doesn't want (Katharina) to see. It makes me sympathize with the women in the play, because at what point are they relieved from their disguises? Are they even?
And I guess that gets to Allen's lesson about what happens when the masks come off. I think it's interesting in Act V that characters are so easily transitioned back from their disguised self to their "real" selves; whereas, Sly's transition back to "reality" would mean being put back into a gutter. And I think that's why there can't be an epilogue. We don't need or want to see the disenchantment of Sly. We don't want to see him descend the social ladder. We like where he is, especially is we're a poorer member of an Early Modern audience, who is coming to believe that drunken tinkers truly can be transmuted into lords that "smell sweet savor and feel soft things." Back to Allen's lesson, though. I think Allen bit off a huge chunk by talking about disguises. It's so hard to talk about them because there is just too much to talk about. The whole play is about disguises. But I think Allen did a good job of it, and I think his lesson play would translate amazingly into a plan of attack on the play as a whole.
Anyway, I'm sad Taming is done and gone. It's my favorite!
Ah, I need to talk about today's, Thursday's, acting class. Things definitely got better today. I was nervous when I had to recite my line, but I managed, as we all did I think. Better than that, though, the acting out of the scene as a class was so much fun. I honestly can't remember the last time I had that much fun in class. Something about the fact that it's a comedy, that I could hear Ms M laughing as we ran around our makeshift stage, made me feel less like an idiot. In days previous, I've been to afraid of looking stupid to really go from anything, but that was the point of this scene. We didn't have the pressure of too many line (Thanks real actors!), so we were able to just try to be funny with our bodies, which was great fun for me. This is the first exercise that I can really say I want to use if I were teaching Shakespeare. There have been others that I'd consider using, but this one I really want to incorporate, because it just opens people up and allows them to let out the funny/ silly that's inside of them. I really think everybody has a funny side, it's just a matter of getting it out, and this exercise really did this for me. Great!
Thinking about Wednesday
Well, I guess the first think Wednesday was my lesson. We're supposed to think about the lessons that we've created and consider how effective they were. So, how do I think my lesson went? I thought it was OK. I was honestly a little scared going first, but I got lucky with being able to work with the Induction. I was lucky, I guess, but cursed too, because there's just too much going on there for me to cut it down to 45 minutes. I tried though, and the 45 minutes flew by. And there's only really one thing that I feel the need to amend. At the end of my lesson, Dr S asked why I chose to use the clip from the Matrix that I did. I guess I was kind of working backwards. I wanted to show the unreal world and then talk about how we got there. More specifically, Dr S asked why I didn't use the scene where Neo actually goes from one reality to the next. And now that I think about, I should have used that clip, because we were talking about the Sly plot, not the Taming plot. I wouldn't just show that clip, though. I think I'd rather show both. First, I'd show the clip of Neo making it into the new world and then talk about how Sly moves from one reality to the next and the implications of that move. But then, I'd show the clip that I did use, because it demonstrate--as I was hoping to show in my lesson--the necessity of the Induction for the audience's suspension of disbelief. Just like we wouldn't believe Neo's new reality if we hadn't been brought along with him into it, we wouldn't be able to believe the Taming plot without first being brought into that world through Sly and his plot. Anyway, I'd add that clip, and I think that'd significantly improve the point that I was attempting to make... I'm still interested, though: if you guys were staging the play, would you include the Sly plot? Why?
The afternoon session was... I don't know. I think I was pretty uncomfortable. I felt like the lines I'd picked were crappy, but I didn't know what else to do. I think the whole acting section isstill just feeling too forced to me. I'm not an actor, and I know that. I'll have to just keep trying, I suppose. We'll see how it goes.
The afternoon session was... I don't know. I think I was pretty uncomfortable. I felt like the lines I'd picked were crappy, but I didn't know what else to do. I think the whole acting section isstill just feeling too forced to me. I'm not an actor, and I know that. I'll have to just keep trying, I suppose. We'll see how it goes.
The Taming of the Shrew, Induction & Act I
“Frame your mind to mirth and merriment, / Which bars a thousand harms and lengthens life” (Ind.ii.26-7).
The objective of this exercise is to help student’s develop an opinion on how and why the Induction functions in Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew. In doing so, we will discuss several aspects of the Induction as well as the literary device it employs, the suspension of disbelief.
Before we go any further, though, the question must be asked: What’s so important about the Induction that a teacher would choose to spend class time focusing on it? The answer is, by no stretch of the imagination, a simple one. It’s easy, I think, to gloss over the Induction. Indeed, in the history of the play’s production, the practicality and effectiveness of the Induction have been debated. Especially when looking at film productions and adaptations, it’s easy to see how, rather than grappling with the issues presented by the use of an induction, the Induction can simply be omitted. No film adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew has included or incorporated the Sly plot.
However, the Induction of The Taming of the Shrew is essential to the existence of the play as a comedy. Without it, modern audiences especially are thrust into a reality that is unbelievable. The Induction functions as a doorway into the alternative reality that is the Taming plot. Indeed, Sly and his “wife,” Barthol’mew operate as a comedic model for the marriage of Petruchio and Katharina. For an audience that has seen the Induction, the “taming” of Katharina, the making of her into a proper wife, is no more real than the existence of Barthol’mew as a proper wife. Therefore, because of the allegorical ties between the themes and characters of the Sly plot and the Taming plot, the play’s comedic integrity becomes clearer.
Class Activity:
To start, I would like to ask: who can think of a film that takes place or is set in some sort of alternative reality? Discuss films and their alternative realities.
I thought about The Matrix, released in 1999, written and directed by Andy and Larry Wachowski, and starring Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne and Carrie-Anne Moss. (Note: I decided to use this film because I thought that it was appropriate for our class. This activity can easily be adapted to use a film that is more appropriate for younger audiences.) So, I’d like to show a clip from The Matrix:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuEd2GDvOKM&feature=related
OK, if we’re thinking about today, about sitting in his classroom, in our reality, what is unbelievable about this clip? Examples: The agent and Neo dodge bullets, Neo is struck by a bullet and is seemingly OK, Trinity is able to have a pilot program uploaded to her brain in a matter of seconds, etc.
This is all unbelievable, right? So, what makes us believe it? Why are we captivated by this film and its reality? Discuss.
We believe because the writers and directors of the film have constructed premises that allow us to believe. In The Matrix, we start out in a reality that is similar to the one that we recognize. Neo is Mr. Anderson, who has a normal job in a normal city. All of this is normal or somewhat familiar to us, therefore we believe. And since we’ve been grounded in reality, as the plot grows more and more fantastical and unbelievable, we, the audience, grow with it. Essentially, we are transported into an alternate reality, in which we believe that Neo has the ability to dodge bullets and learning to fly helicopters takes only a matter of seconds.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge coined a phrase to describe this transition from what we perceive as our reality to the alternate fictitious reality. In his Biographia Literaria (1817), Coleridge explains that there are “two cardinal points of poetry,” the second of which is “the power of giving the interest of novelty by the modifying colours of imaginations” (526). He goes on, saying, “So as to transfer, from our inward nature, a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith” (Coleridge 526). In other words, the suspension of disbelief is the ability of a fictional work to temporarily replace the premises of reality with those established by the work of fiction.
As we watch The Matrix, we replace the premises of our reality for those established by the film. In the same way that The Matrix grounds itself in reality and then continues on into its alternate reality, The Taming of the Shrew grounds itself and then moves forward into an alternative reality. As Neo’s seemingly normal life serves as an entrance into the new reality of The Matrix, the Induction functions as a gateway into the world of the Taming-plot. Indeed, the Taming-plot is only a play being performed for the transmuted tinker, Christopher Sly.
In The Taming of the Shrew, it is the Induction which primarily accomplishes the task of temporarily replacing the premises of the audience’s reality; it helps the audience to suspend its disbelief. As Christopher Sly’s reality is replaced, though indefinitely, the audience’s reality is replaced temporarily:
Am I a lord? And have I such a lady?
Or do I dream? Or have I dreamed till now?
I do not sleep: I see, I hear, I speak,
I smell sweet savors, and I feel soft things.
Upon my life, I am a lord indeed,
And not a tinker nor Christopher Sly.
Well, bring our lady hither to our sight,
And once again a pot o’ the smallest ale. (Ind.ii.63-70)
As Sly comes to believe that he is a lord, we, the audience, assimilate his reality and are, as he is, transferred into an alternate reality. As Maynard Mack has said, “We [the audience] awake out of our ordinary reality of the alehouse or whatever other reality ordinarily encompasses us, to the superimposed reality of the playhouse, and find that there (at any rate, so long as a comedy is playing) wishes are horses and beggars do ride” (142).
Discuss the ways in which the Induction helps to transplant audience members from their “ordinary reality” to the reality of the Taming plot.
Questions for Discussion:
If we understand that the Taming plot isn’t real, as Neo’s ability to dodge bullets isn’t real, how does that impact the way that we look at the Taming plot? Does it make it easier for us, as a modern audience, to understand the play as a comedy?
According to Victor Cahn, the Induction “thematically anticipates the heart of The Taming of the Shrew” (542). How would you say this is true? Thematically, how are the two plots tied? Consider the betting of the Lord and his hunting party on their dogs, especially the amount they wager, in relation to the bets placed by the husbands on their wives in the last scene of the play.
Supposing that there are character parallels, who might Sly prefigure, and who might Barthol’mew prefigure?
Taking into account the fact that stage does not reappear at the conclusion of the Taming plot, what staging problems might there be? Is this why most modern productions and all film adaptations have decided not to include the Induction?
If you were staging The Taming of the Shrew would you choose to include or in some way incorporate the Induction? Why or why not? What is added by including it, or what is lost by omitting it?
Works Cites:
Cahn, Victor L. Shakespeare the Playwright: A Companion to the Complete Tragedies, Histories, Comedies, and Romances. Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, 1996.
Coleridge, Samuel taylor. “Biographia Literaria.” Romanticism: an Anthology. Ed. Duncan Wu. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. 525-8.
Mack, Maynard. “Engagement and Detachemnet in Shakespeare’s Plays.” The Taming of the Shrew. Gen Ed. Sylvan Barnet. New York: Penguin Group, 1998. 141-3.
The objective of this exercise is to help student’s develop an opinion on how and why the Induction functions in Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew. In doing so, we will discuss several aspects of the Induction as well as the literary device it employs, the suspension of disbelief.
Before we go any further, though, the question must be asked: What’s so important about the Induction that a teacher would choose to spend class time focusing on it? The answer is, by no stretch of the imagination, a simple one. It’s easy, I think, to gloss over the Induction. Indeed, in the history of the play’s production, the practicality and effectiveness of the Induction have been debated. Especially when looking at film productions and adaptations, it’s easy to see how, rather than grappling with the issues presented by the use of an induction, the Induction can simply be omitted. No film adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew has included or incorporated the Sly plot.
However, the Induction of The Taming of the Shrew is essential to the existence of the play as a comedy. Without it, modern audiences especially are thrust into a reality that is unbelievable. The Induction functions as a doorway into the alternative reality that is the Taming plot. Indeed, Sly and his “wife,” Barthol’mew operate as a comedic model for the marriage of Petruchio and Katharina. For an audience that has seen the Induction, the “taming” of Katharina, the making of her into a proper wife, is no more real than the existence of Barthol’mew as a proper wife. Therefore, because of the allegorical ties between the themes and characters of the Sly plot and the Taming plot, the play’s comedic integrity becomes clearer.
Class Activity:
To start, I would like to ask: who can think of a film that takes place or is set in some sort of alternative reality? Discuss films and their alternative realities.
I thought about The Matrix, released in 1999, written and directed by Andy and Larry Wachowski, and starring Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne and Carrie-Anne Moss. (Note: I decided to use this film because I thought that it was appropriate for our class. This activity can easily be adapted to use a film that is more appropriate for younger audiences.) So, I’d like to show a clip from The Matrix:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuEd2GDvOKM&feature=related
OK, if we’re thinking about today, about sitting in his classroom, in our reality, what is unbelievable about this clip? Examples: The agent and Neo dodge bullets, Neo is struck by a bullet and is seemingly OK, Trinity is able to have a pilot program uploaded to her brain in a matter of seconds, etc.
This is all unbelievable, right? So, what makes us believe it? Why are we captivated by this film and its reality? Discuss.
We believe because the writers and directors of the film have constructed premises that allow us to believe. In The Matrix, we start out in a reality that is similar to the one that we recognize. Neo is Mr. Anderson, who has a normal job in a normal city. All of this is normal or somewhat familiar to us, therefore we believe. And since we’ve been grounded in reality, as the plot grows more and more fantastical and unbelievable, we, the audience, grow with it. Essentially, we are transported into an alternate reality, in which we believe that Neo has the ability to dodge bullets and learning to fly helicopters takes only a matter of seconds.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge coined a phrase to describe this transition from what we perceive as our reality to the alternate fictitious reality. In his Biographia Literaria (1817), Coleridge explains that there are “two cardinal points of poetry,” the second of which is “the power of giving the interest of novelty by the modifying colours of imaginations” (526). He goes on, saying, “So as to transfer, from our inward nature, a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith” (Coleridge 526). In other words, the suspension of disbelief is the ability of a fictional work to temporarily replace the premises of reality with those established by the work of fiction.
As we watch The Matrix, we replace the premises of our reality for those established by the film. In the same way that The Matrix grounds itself in reality and then continues on into its alternate reality, The Taming of the Shrew grounds itself and then moves forward into an alternative reality. As Neo’s seemingly normal life serves as an entrance into the new reality of The Matrix, the Induction functions as a gateway into the world of the Taming-plot. Indeed, the Taming-plot is only a play being performed for the transmuted tinker, Christopher Sly.
In The Taming of the Shrew, it is the Induction which primarily accomplishes the task of temporarily replacing the premises of the audience’s reality; it helps the audience to suspend its disbelief. As Christopher Sly’s reality is replaced, though indefinitely, the audience’s reality is replaced temporarily:
Am I a lord? And have I such a lady?
Or do I dream? Or have I dreamed till now?
I do not sleep: I see, I hear, I speak,
I smell sweet savors, and I feel soft things.
Upon my life, I am a lord indeed,
And not a tinker nor Christopher Sly.
Well, bring our lady hither to our sight,
And once again a pot o’ the smallest ale. (Ind.ii.63-70)
As Sly comes to believe that he is a lord, we, the audience, assimilate his reality and are, as he is, transferred into an alternate reality. As Maynard Mack has said, “We [the audience] awake out of our ordinary reality of the alehouse or whatever other reality ordinarily encompasses us, to the superimposed reality of the playhouse, and find that there (at any rate, so long as a comedy is playing) wishes are horses and beggars do ride” (142).
Discuss the ways in which the Induction helps to transplant audience members from their “ordinary reality” to the reality of the Taming plot.
Questions for Discussion:
If we understand that the Taming plot isn’t real, as Neo’s ability to dodge bullets isn’t real, how does that impact the way that we look at the Taming plot? Does it make it easier for us, as a modern audience, to understand the play as a comedy?
According to Victor Cahn, the Induction “thematically anticipates the heart of The Taming of the Shrew” (542). How would you say this is true? Thematically, how are the two plots tied? Consider the betting of the Lord and his hunting party on their dogs, especially the amount they wager, in relation to the bets placed by the husbands on their wives in the last scene of the play.
Supposing that there are character parallels, who might Sly prefigure, and who might Barthol’mew prefigure?
Taking into account the fact that stage does not reappear at the conclusion of the Taming plot, what staging problems might there be? Is this why most modern productions and all film adaptations have decided not to include the Induction?
If you were staging The Taming of the Shrew would you choose to include or in some way incorporate the Induction? Why or why not? What is added by including it, or what is lost by omitting it?
Works Cites:
Cahn, Victor L. Shakespeare the Playwright: A Companion to the Complete Tragedies, Histories, Comedies, and Romances. Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, 1996.
Coleridge, Samuel taylor. “Biographia Literaria.” Romanticism: an Anthology. Ed. Duncan Wu. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. 525-8.
Mack, Maynard. “Engagement and Detachemnet in Shakespeare’s Plays.” The Taming of the Shrew. Gen Ed. Sylvan Barnet. New York: Penguin Group, 1998. 141-3.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
