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.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
