THEA 142: Development of Dramatic Art I

A discussion of the origins and transformations of primarily Western theatre from its origins to the late 18th century, through texts, artists, and theorists.

Monday, April 30, 2007

life is a dream and so is my desire to be two weeks in the future

i really enjoyed the rhetoric in this play, however i am a sucker for Spanish writers(lorca, Marquez,etc). as a play it is a bit monologueish which are lovely but makes it hard to read through like some of the earlier Greek stuff we read. now as for the plot; well, we have ourselves a good old "overthrow of the old power by the younger generation" story going on here. The premonition is also another old one. its all over ancient and forgotten lore. What distinguishes this play is the language, the philosophy, and the ending. The language is terrifically beautiful and contained within the soliloquies are some quite poignant notes on the human condition. in addition, to tell the truth, the ending took me by surprise. what i cannot conceive of is how seigsmund, who has really known not but despair throughout his life has forged a merciful spirit. this is shown with his touching introduction (i dream of freedom yadda yadda yadda), then again with his final sparring of the king, which i could not believe.

Let's back stab just one more time, please. (Meditation 12)

When reading The School for Scandal, I got very vivid images running through my head of various plays, characters, and even some scenes from movies. For instance, when reading Act 5, scene 2, the only thing I could relate this to was Mrs. Helseth from Rosmersholm. For some reason all the exaggerations and the attempt to make the story sound more important and more entertaining that the truth actually is, reminded me so much of Mrs. Helseth when she explains Mrs. Kroll's experiences, or her experiences with Mortensgaard, and even with other people around the neighborhood. The way she talks about people, basically "back stabbing" them, is what happens in both The School for Scandal and The Misanthrope. In both plays they are doing just that--talking about someone and giving the idea that they have a deep down hatred of the person, but when said person is in their prescence, they are automatically their best friend. Which reminded me of the movie Mean Girls. They act like they are best friends, act like they like each other and would never do anything against each other, but then they talk about the other girls behind their backs and say things that are rude, and cruel. Much like in The Misanthrope when Celimene is saying horrible things about her friend, but when she arrives she suddenly becomes another person. Also like Sir Peter in The School for Scandal when he is talking about his wife to Joseph Surface while she is hiding, but when they are revealed to each other, he becomes a great husband and stands up to Joeseph Surface in her favor.
All the rediculousness of the play makes it that much more humorous to read. I think this is because it is a lot like real life. People talk about others all the time. It happens; everyone does it. But no one would expect the person they are talking about to be hiding behind a screen or in the closet. The slap-stick style of the play makes it more enjoyable to read and easier to imagine how it would be staged, and I think that is a major reason in why people, myself included, enjoy this play so much.

Meditation 12 - The School For Scandal

Title/Subject: The School For Scandal

I think this is my favorite play we have read thus far this semester. I don’t think I have ever found a play so clever with it’s wordplay before. I thought Shakespeare was funny, and I laughed at The Misanthrope, but this play was ridiculously hilarious.
The exchanges between most of the characters are just absolutely outrageous. Mrs. Candour talks about how it’s not just the people who make up the gossip that are ‘bad’ people, it’s the ones who spread it – then she goes on to try and get gossip abut Surface’s brother. As soon as Snake leaves for the first time, the characters left on stage immediately begin talking about him. I’ve actually probably done this, so it’s funny and a little disconcerting to observe it from the outside. I also love the implications of a woman having sheep children – I’m not sure I get the whole joke, but I do get that someone put their foot in their mouth.
This play is simply amazing, from the way Richard Brinsley Sheridan uses the names of the characters to the ultimate revelation of the play - Lady Teazle was only pretending to have an affair because everyone else was doing it. I usually find it amusing to watch adults act like high schoolers, and this play is no exception.

School for Scandal postage

reading this play, i can certainly see the ties to other comdies of manners like missanthroppe and oscar wilde. However, I noticed something different durring this read. as you may have noticed, most of the characters are horrible people, hippocrites, gossips, and liars. Sheridan's wit and humour make the play very readable and entertaining, but i kept thinking that with the characters and content contained in the text, the play could just as easily be written much darker. Take Becket's Godot, for instance, the words and characters can have us as an audience laughing hysterically all the way up to the point we realize the bleak dark world that the play is conveying.

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Meditation 11 4-25-07

I really enjoyed reading The Misanthrope; it was very amusing and beautifully written. I thought that it was an intriguing translation and I am glad that we got to read the “good one,” I am not sure I could have stomached the play though another translation. I thought that it was an easy and enjoyable read because it was all in verse and because it was so humorous. I suppose verse isn’t always easy to read, in fact it took me a little while to get into it, but once I caught on the play was a very smooth read.

The interaction between the characters is similar to college students today. The petty fights, the gossip, the hierarchy, and the fight for the beautiful girl all seem to coincide with college life. I found it amazing that a play written about life so long ago could relate so perfectly with life today. I have been able to sort of relate to plays we have read this year, but none so far have been as accurate to contemporary living as The Misanthrope. I think this just goes to show that theatre is based off a real life story. Theatre is essentially life; the players are just choosing to play a different character from their own.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Misanthrope

In this play the characters seem real, and conflicted. I saw Philinte as the voice of reason, trying to get Alceste to have some common sense. You can't always tell the truth, one cause society is built on a set of lies and by doing so will cause society to fall apart, two because men have failings and because alceste is man he of course has the same failings. Also Alceste has to choose between his quest for complete and total honesty or the love of the most hypocritical woman ever. The gradations between characters in this play makes ever idea pop up more in the conflict that ensues from the huge amount of difference in characters and goals. The way Moliere crafts the characters really gets the message across, however this play doesn't really have the nicely tied ending that most Moliere plays have.

Blog 11

This play was very unique. I actually could relate to it, sort of. The people in this play seemed to behave like everyday people that you would meet in real life. There is always an instance where someone doesn’t like so and so’s hairdo or something petty like that. You can see these situations happening throughout this play. People talking about someone behind there back, more than one guy fighting over a girl, or someone not liking another person over something little and meaningless. Which in the end, it is these things that ruin relationships. Most of the time the girl that is being fought over either doesn’t realize it, or doesn’t actually like the guys fighting over her. It seems very complicated, but in reality it is simple. There is no sense in getting worked up over petty things in life, and you shouldn’t allow them to bother you.

Life is a dream

Thought I had already published this:

Life is dream reminded me of not only the matrix, but also the book neuromancer by william gibson. Due to the dreamlike quality of the alternate realities in which each of the main character's live. In life is a dream Segismudo lives in a prison so for him the real world is a dream, and in his first interaction with it he acts as though it were a dream doing things that are only ok in dreams. Same goes for the matrix when neo first gets explained that the world he lives in isn't real he start to attack people and scream this isnt real. In neuro mancer case when he becomes uncrippled, starts to try to do things that will mess himself up, unfortunately there is a safety mechanism that makes it so drugs cannot affect him. the ending in neuromancer is very dreamlike as well - "And one October night , punching himself past the scarlet tiers of the Eastern Seaboard Fission Authority, he saw three figures, tiny, impossible, who stood at the very edge of one of the vast steps of data. Small as they were, he could make out the boy's grin, his pink gums, the glitter of the long gray eyes that had been riviera's. Linda still wore his jacket;she waved, as he passed. But the third figure, close behind her, arm across her shoulders, was himself." This dreamlike quality to the world and the lifes of the main characters is what all these creators were trying to broach through different art forms.

Meditation 11

I found this particular play to be a little more amusing than some of the plays we have read this year. It has aspects that many of us can relate with to our daily lives - namely, all the petty fighting. Isn't it great when you make a giant scene and drag a fight out over something completely stupid??? It seems like everyone is fighting in this play. At first everyone likes each other, then they nitpick and start noticing all the little things they don't like about each other. Some of their social graces are a little off - notice the way Alcaste treats Oronte at the beginning of the play. Basically, "I don't want to be friends with you because your poetry sucks!" The best part is when his rudeness comes back to bite him in the ass when Oronte files a lawsuit against him. Before that happens, he goes off and insults his love interest - this guy has no idea how to treat people. Karma wins again, as they wind up apart at the end of the play.

The Misanthrope

The first thing I noticed about The Misanthrope is how much more empathetic the characters seem than past plays we have read. This story and plot are much more identifiable with the readers than many of the other plays we have read where everyone ends up dead or an entire community goes on sex strike. Finally, a play for the social class that is most likely to read/see it.

From what I can tell, this play embodies the themes of hypocrisy and bluntness. It is apparant that the lead character Alceste is honest, brutally honest. Any possession of tactiful honesty is not present in him. His good friend Philinte, however, seems to possess the kind of disposition that Moliere portrays as the most desirable to have. Celimene's hypocrisy is exposed at the end, leading everyone to judge her as unworthy of their time. Even Alceste, who goes as far as to forgive her leaves when she reveals her true feelings toward him. This play most likely was a response to the kind of situations/types of people Moliere was observing at the time.

Meditation 11

This play was interesting to me. It reminds me much of real life. People are going behind each others back to try and get what they want, which in this case, along with most instances, is a member of the opposite gender. I know many times in my life I have seen people go behind their friends back to get what they want. In this play though, I would not consider everyone to be friends. What was funny was in the end no one ended up with anyone. This is almost exactly like a real life situation. How many times have we seen several guys fighting over one girl, but in the end none of them end up seeing her and she ends up dating someone completely different? I know I can count several times that has happened to some of my friends. I especially liked this play because it was not a fairy tale ending like many plays and movies we have read or seen, so it was unexpected.
I really liked this play and the other Moliere play I have read before, Tartuffe. Both these plays were funny and had an unexpected ending. Based on that judgment I would say that I like Moliere and the way he writes. It keeps me interested because I have no clue what is going to happen next.

Meditation 11 - Polarity of Characters

When reading The Misanthrope, I could not help but realizing the polarity of the different characters. It seemed to me that two of the main characters fit into two stereotypes – they were either harsh and inappropriate or rational and insightful.

The two most obvious examples of characters from The Misanthrope that are complete opposites are Alceste and Philinte. Alceste fills the role of the brutally honest yet improper character. He passes judgment (often harshly) and scolds other characters for their faults. Examples of this can be found regarding his brutal critique of Oronte’s poem and his scolding Arsinoé for her offer to improve his rank. In both of these examples he behaves in an unappealing and offensive manner, but Alceste justifies his behavior by saying that it is more important to be brutally honest than politely deceiving. This contrasts directly with Alceste’s friend, Philinte. In the very beginning of The Misanthrope, the audience is made aware that Alceste and Philinte have very different views regarding socially acceptable and moral conduct. Unlike Alceste, Philinte believes that discretion should be used in public. He accepts the fact that humans are not perfect and therefore knows that it is tactless to scold others for human flaws. Philinte demonstrates this compassion and acceptance of faults on many occasions throughout the play – including his review of Oronte’s sonnet and his conversation with Eliante regarding Alceste’s behavior in front of the French Marshals.

Therefore, one can see that Alceste and Philinte are extremely different. Alceste fills the role of the loud, viciously honest front man. He is the title character that unforgivingly criticized everyone else. On the other hand, his good friend, Philinte, is more of a background character because he never gets terribly involved in the action of the play. Philinte is patient, understanding, and loyal; he demonstrates an understanding for discretion and politeness. In general, these two characters are polar opposites. They demonstrate very different values and personalities, yet they also seem to balance one another’s characters.

misanthope-addison

so, as for most translated plays the first thing i thought was "i wish i spoke french". i hate reading rhyme in translation, not that i don't appreciate the work of the translator, but know things are being altered and I'm missing out on some wordplay.
anywhoo, alceste as a character rather annoys me instead of making me laugh. i certainly admire is frank honesty. his idealism is certainly something I myself am constantly subject to. however, his total scorn for society is so completely over the top; he just sound whiny and angsty and whatever respect one has for his idealism is defeated by his love for Celimene. This manufactured love is the most shallow of all the relationships in the play. when people extend one another kindness in greeting, there is no shame in that. The gossip and backstabbing displayed is quited detestable, but his falling in love with a woman that embodies all that he hates makes him just pathetic and difficult to sit through.

When Karma bites back

I absolutely love this play. I love the play on words and the irony that is built into it. It really reminds me of dramatic shows like "Dawson's Creek" or some soap opera. The intense relationships between characters and the humor in most of the lines was a great addition to the play. I especially loved the part when Celimene is talking about Arsinoe, basically saying bad things about her behind her back, but then as soon as she shows up, she acts like they are best friends. Straight from Mean Girls, in my opinion. I also loved the first Act when Oronte is reading his sonnet and Alceste is telling him what he truly things of the sonnet, saying that it was a rediculously horrible sonnet, and my favorite line of the whole play "Oh, blast the close; you'd better close your face" (Act 1, lines 333-334). Every time I read over this I can just see someone completely playing up the humor in this scene and it just sounds funny in my mind. The ending is absolutely wonderful when the letter that Celimene wrote and the truth about her other feelings are exposed and no one ends up together like one would expect. Out of all the plays we have read, this one is by far one of my favorites!

Meditation 11 - The Misanthrope

Title/Subject: The Misanthrope

When I sat down to read The Misanthrope, I wasn’t too excited. Then I started talking to Liz about it and she told me it was a comedy, something I wasn’t aware of. She told me it was reminiscent of commedia dell’ arte style, which fascinates me. That’s a term I’ve always heard in theater classes, but no one ever bothered to explain it before this class.


I asked Liz if she wanted to read the play out loud together, each of us playing different characters, so we could stay focused and get it done. While we were reading, I realized that we found some of the same parts funny, but we found a lot of different things funny as well.


Some of the things that made me laugh may have had to do with the translation – I’m not sure Morliere would have used terms like ‘willy nilly’, but the point that the modern words made was still entertaining. I also found the honesty Alceste was trying so hard to maintain entertaining, because he was being offensive but thought he was doing the right thing. I also found it funny that Oronte admitted that the poem he wanted Alceste’s opinion on so badly he only spent about 15 minutes on. No one writes good poetry that quickly! Philinte was so willing to say he loved it – I saw a lot of class/status play throughout the play as well.


What I think I’m attempting to say is that I originally didn’t think I was going to enjoy this play, but I did. It wasn’t as hilarious as I thought it was going to be, but it was clever. I’m very glad I got a chance to read it.

Friday, April 20, 2007

Life is a Dream vs. Oedipus Rex

In class we were asked to compare Life is a Dream to The Tempest or some other play we read. Therefore, while reading Life is a Dream I tried to think of all the plays we have studied in this course and how they might compare to this week’s piece. I found that my mind kept going back to Oedipus Rex. Of course, I could see similarities between Life is a Dream and other Shakespearian plays like Hamlet because of the prevalence of revenge. However, in my mind Oedipus Rex seemed to parallel even more than any of the others.
I feel that Life is a Dream reminded me of Oedipus Rex for two reasons. The first and most evident is the interconnectedness of the characters. In Oedipus Rex, Oedipus unknowingly encounters his birth father and kills him. Then, he continues to travel back to his place of birth – back to his home palace – and marries his own mother. This reflects the complex web of relationships between the characters in Life is a Dream. For example, in the beginning of the play, Rosaura finds herself where Segismund is held captive. Segismuns is only visited by one man – Clotaldo, Rosaura’s father. This network continues to get increasingly complex as the play progresses. In addition, the insestual relationship between Oedipus and his mother is paralleled in the relationship between Astolf and his cousin, Stella.
The second way in which Oedipus Rex and Life is a Dream are similar is the way in which fate affects the plots of the two plays. In both works, the kings learn that the heir to their thrones will grow up to fulfill horrific prophecies. In return, both kings take drastic measures to prevent such fate. In the legend upon which Oedipus Rex was written, King Laius is told Oedipus, his son, will kill him and marry his mother. Therefore, Laius decides to send him away. In Life is a Dream, King Basil learns Segismund will be cruel and reckless if allowed to become king. Therefore, he tells the kingdom that the child was stillborn, and he instead locks the child up in solitary confinement (visited only by his tutor, Clotaldo). Granted, Oedipus ultimately fulfills his fate whereas Segismund essentially disproves it. However, the plots of the play are affected by kings who attempt to defy the predicted fates of their sons.

Overall, I feel that Life is a Dream is an amazing play – probably my favorite play we have read this semester. With an intricate plot and a surprising ending it was a fun play to read, and I imagine it would be amazing to watch. However, the connected characters and the notion of fate made me see how similar this play is to Oedipus Rex.


Thursday, April 19, 2007

Life is a Dream

After reading Life is a Dream the first thing that I thought of was the movie Vanilla Sky. Both Vanilla Sky and Life is a Dream are both similar stories, which leads me to believe Life is a Dream must have been inspiration for the movie. Both of the stories have a character struggling to understand if life is a dream or not. One major difference between the two is that Segismudo has an idea that he may be dreaming, while Tom Cruise’s character is confused and doesn’t know. Also in Life is a Dream and Vanilla Sky both stories have a happy ending. In Life is a Dream Segismundo become the king and marries Estrella, and Tom Cruise gets fixes the glitch in his dream life. I found this play to be the most entertaining play so far; I find that the idea of living a dream life most interesting.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

life is a dream

Life is a Dream reminds me both of "The Tempest" and As You Like It ."Rosaura is alot like Rosalind complaining and dressed like a man.Many of the lines remind me of a fool wise but silly "before your birth you did by heavens decree."Like all good plays it messes with our perception of reality it also reminds me of Dr. Caligaran.

Dreaming life away...

Reading Calderone's Play Life is a Dream was very refreshing. The plot twist at the end, and the differences in the characters was a great change from all the same characters we have read in the Greek Tragedies. There is one question I have to ask: What would you do if life really was a dream? This takes me back to Everyman. He knew what was ultimately going to happen to him. What if you knew what was going to happen, what if everything around you wasn't real, but was leading you towards your death. What would you do?
In all honesty, I must confess that I was incredibly confused for the first part of the play and I had to go over it a few times to understand what was going on exactly and how each character was related. On the other hand, after I figured some information out, I thought this play was ironically funny. The way each character is related is astounding, and the way the relatins are realized is great, like with the sword being the reason, much like with Electra how she realizes its her brother by his hair, or by his foot prints. I also love the aside comments that show that what just happened is very important, and will eventually effect the whole story line.

Life is a Dream

Wow. I have to admit, so far this play ranks among the top of my favorites that we have read so far. I know it was suggested that we compare this play to others, but to be perfectly honest, I think this one is fairly unique. Granted, the overall idea/plot of having an aire to a thrown that is being hidden goes back to the stories of Zeus eating his children to stay in power. But there were many twists to this plot that make it quite original. The idea of Sigismund being king for a day to test his ruling abilities (which totally isn't fair since he is kept in a castle with his only contact as Clotaldo, his teacher and prison guard) was a biased, yet still good idea. Of course Sigismund is not going to have a very good idea how to handle nobility if he has lived in a prison his whole life. Still, the king DID give him that chance, when he could have kept him in the tower or killed him altogether. After he is returned to the tower, Sigismund goes through this huge introspection where he pretty much talks about Solipsism, a very Matrix-like philisophical idea. For me this was a change in the pace of the play. All this plot going on, and then Calderon decides to take a brief few minutes or so to talk about a vague idea. Very effective.

There is so much plot and intricate side stories that its hard to mention them all, like with Altofonso and Rosaura and Estrella. You know, now that I think about it, this movie is set up very much like Snatch and 4 Layer Cake, and other movies of that sort. Many stories that seem unrelated that all come together at the end.

Speaking of the end. This play seems like it is going to be a tragedy throughout its entirety, but the end just goes ahead and does yet ANOTHER plot twist. The king gladly gives up his crown, the two lovers finally get to marry, the rightful aire is now king, and everyone lives happily ever after. EXCEPT FOR THE VERY SOLDIERS WHO ALLOWED THIS ENTIRE UPRISING TO HAPPEN WERE PUT TO DEATH FOR TREASON! wtf? Don't give me wrong, I like the ending because its different. But still, its just a little bit disconcerning, which is partly why I like this play so much.

Meditation 10

This was possibly one of my favorite works we have read this year. It kept me interested especially in act two when Segismundo goes wild. It was a good strategy to make him believe he was just dreaming instead of actually ruling by giving him drugs. I also liked how the ending was unexpected because I know if that was me I would have been very upset with my father.
I agree with others when they say it seems like a Greek tragedy rather than more recent works so I will compare it to something else. While this may be a stretch, this play reminded me a little bit of the Movie Shrek. In both the movie and this play there is a character that is held captive because of basically nothing they did. When they are given a chance to live the normal life they show their true insides. Princess Fiona chooses to go with the short prince when she and Shrek have a misunderstanding. In Life is a Dream, Segismundo acts somewhat like a tyrant when he gets the chance to rule. What was more similar in these works was the ending. They both had a “fairy tale” type ending. This is what made Life is a Dream different from the Greek Tragedies. In the play, Segismundo and his father re-unite and when he becomes king, he marries, and in Shrek the princess drops the short prince and marries Shrek despite their original misunderstanding. This was an obvious stretch on my part, but I really couldn’t think of any particular work that this reminded me of, and it’s overall storyline was somewhat similar to Shrek.

Blog 10

Life is a Dream is very unique, yet interesting to me. Even though I find this play different from anything we have read, I find it hard to compare it with other plays. One major subject to this play is that you are living a life that is actually a dream. Therefore it is not real; your life is just a figment of your imagination and is only in your mind. That being said I feel that Life is a Dream can be compared to The Matrix. In the Matrix you go through life assuming everything is real, but in actuality you are in a tube with wires in your head feeding your mind incorrect information. You are part of a make believe world artificially created. Segismund realizes after he wakes up that the life he was living before was pointless. The same point is made in The Matrix when Neo is awaken and brought to the real earth. The life Neo was living was pointless and had no purpose other than to make him believe he was actually living.

life as a dream

I found this play to be interesting enough, and very much in the vein of the plays we have recently read in class. The writing style reminded me of shakespeare, with the characters and plot development and all. Of course, the dialects and words weren't exactly shakespearean - no "wilt" or "henceforth" did appear to jump out at me while i was reading this particular play. I noticed that this play really grabbed my attention, as opposed to some of the other plays we've read - I seemed to really care about the characters, as though I knew them. The story regarding the sword was particularly intriguing as well, and for reasons i'm not entirely clear on reminded me of the sword in Harry Potter. (Don't ask).

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Meditation 10 4-18-07

I found Life is a Dream interesting because it is unlike anything we have read this year. In trying to compare it to other things we have read this year, I found that it was more similar to all of the Greek tragedies than the more recent plays we have read from medieval times or from Shakespeare. It was similar to the Greek tragedies because it a distant play about royalty and watching other people that have a higher rank than the common person suffer, as well as it is written in mostly monologues with some rapid dialogue and a lot of references to the Greek gods.

However, it resolved itself in a better fashion than most of the tragedies we have read do; it wraps up all nice and tidy, Segismund chooses to be kind instead of seeking revenge upon his father, which I think is a unique quality to the plays we have read this year. Everything we have read has shown us characters who strive to do what will help them raise their status the most or what will help them out, Oedipus blinds himself so he doesn’t feel the pain, Prometheus seeks revenge on those who imprisoned him, Hamlet avenges his father’s death, Prospero imprisons his banishers, everyone seeks revenge to give themselves to upper hand in the end. However, Segismund doesn’t. I think that because he has truly suffered and has come to understand and accept his suffering as part of life that he can not wish that upon another human being. I think that he has discovered after waking up from his dream that he thought was life that the world is already a harsh and bitter place, but you aren’t making any progress or living a productive life if you don’t wake up. I think he realized that life is not worth living unless it is lived awake and alert of the real world, putting someone into a dream is letting them off the hook and allowing them to live an easy life hidden from the pain and experiences of the world. Segismund is admirable because he has awoken from his dreamlike state and come to understand that there is a world other than what he has known and he has accepted it and learned how to deal with it.

I didn’t so much enjoy reading this play as I did thinking about living in the clouds and waking up from a dream after I was through reading. It really sparked some thoughts in me about how I see life and how I deal with my problems and how people I know do the same. I really enjoyed the thoughts that Caldrone has inspired from his writing, so in retrospect, I really enjoyed reading Life is a Dream.

Is Life A Dream, and are we all figments of one person's imagination?

Life is a dream, and one is constantly creating explanations for the stimulations one experiences. It seems that Segismund spoke profound words: “And now experience shows me that each man dreams what he is until he is awakened” (II: i). Does one sleep among the clouds that take form from thoughts to mutate into a reality? It’s definitely a disconcerting thought; I have criticized a friend for feeling that he is always in a dream, bound to wake up at any moment. It seemed too detached from life; yet if life is a dream, then it is less painful to be at ready for the brutal wake up. Perhaps. I just can’t believe how philosophical this play is. Waking Life must have been influenced, or at least it is continuing the discussion.
Segismund is an interesting hero- I really rooted for him, especially since he wooed me with his poetic admirations, but I got anxious at his inability to step from his grief. He is a flawed hero; his fury is justifiable since he was deprived of so much of his “natural privilege”. His actions are abhorrent though, since one can no longer side with a man who continues to be as vile as he was predicted to be. That is why his decision in the end to forgive all injustices is so extraordinary. It is a such a contradiction to so many Greek play finales; the insistence that fate is unavoidable is completely foiled, because Segismund decided to shape his own clouds as he saw fit. He went against the stars (even though he married one). However, I don’t want to say that the Greeks were not aware that this was possible- I think they just wanted to underline the plays with self-fulfilling prophecies: it was the action to avoid the prophecy that caused the prophecy more often than naught. Segismund puts it perfectly: “What Heaven decrees and God writes with his finger…never deceives or lies. They only lie who seek to penetrate the mystery and, having reached the it, use it to ill purpose” (III: iii; 289). By the way, I wonder if Thomas Dumas was inspired by this play when he wrote Man In the Iron Mask.
I think all these characters were incredibly human- full of desires, follies, and acts of compassion and profundity. Especially Clarion, he spoke when he wanted and when he died- in an eery Everyman way- spoke his last words to say that one cannot hide from death: “no hidden path is safe from the inclemency of fate; and so, although you flee from death, yet you may find it quicker than you expect, if God so wills” (III: iii; 287). I was quite sad that Clarion died; it felt a little pointless, but it made the play a little more intense; however, I don’t feel like any of the characters felt bereaved at his death. I guess he was just a lowly servant, but ironically he was the only one who refused to play the game of the classes. He was definitely the Harlequin- he was funny and clever. He also avoided work and was a bit of a coward. I guess this is the little epitaph honoring him: You were funny and lovable Clarion; you were also wise beyond all the people surrounding you- you lived past the ridiculousness other insisted on living in. And you made fun of it. A tribute to your memory!
Anyways, I loved the play for many reasons and the last one I would like to mention is the strong female characters; especially Rosaura who defied gender. I know Shakespeare did this, but I feel that Calderon took it to another level. Rosaura became ambiguous, or maybe more appropriate, ambidextrous. I mean ambidextrous in that Rosaura became both sexes, not just defined by what she was wearing at the moment; she embraced her whole, complete genders and therefore so much more powerful: “I must become three things today at one- passionate, to persuade you: womanly, to ply you with my woes: manly, to gain honour in battle” (III: iii; 284). She was not a character related through men, she was a character with her own ambitions and scruples. I loved her. That is what I feel Shakespeare fails in: he does not create female characters that have an existence beyond their relationship with the men around them. They exist vicariously through men.
Well, I’m going to wrap this up (I swear!). It was a good play. I would like to see it performed in fact.

Meditation 10 - Life is tragic

Title/Subject: Life Is A Dream

I know that Kirk had mentioned comparing Life Is A Dream to The Tempest or something else we’ve read lately, but as I was reading it I saw a lot of similarities between it and the Greek tragedies we read at the beginning of the year.


At the beginning of the play we meet Segismund, who is in prison and seems to have been in prison for a very long time, if not for his entire life. This immediately made me think of Prometheus Bound, where Prometheus is sentenced to being chained to a rock for eternity. One huge difference beween the two is that Prometheus gave light to the humans and basically pissed the other gods off, but we are not sure of Segismund’s crime when we meet him, and neither is he.


The sword Rosaura has that Clotaldo eventually recognizes reminds me of the rocker that Oedipus Rex’s mother sees at the end of Odeipus Rex that causes her to realize the man she is married to and sleeping with is actually her son. There is all kinds of backstabbing and deception that ties the plot together, another staple of Greek tragedies. I also felt that there wasn’t going to be a happy ending to the play, just like I do whenever I start a Greek tragedy (That’s to be expected for a tragedy, though). There is also similarity between Life Is A Dream and Amphitryon – trying to convince characters that they are simply in a dream, not living what is going on around them.


While I am sure there are more than one ways to look at Life Is A Dream in comparison to The Tempest or any of Shakespeare’s other plays, I think it is more obviously comparable to a Greek tragedy.

Sunday, April 15, 2007

The Mysteries

So this is going to seem a little bit overdue to everyone else, but I didn't get to attend the weekend thing for a choir trip, so here is my post about The Mysteries!

Although most of the movie was a drama, I found it very interesting how they included absolutely obvious comedy in it also. Even some of God's lines were funny, which just proves to show that most people believe that God has some kind of sense of humor. But despite all the humor (which really helps you interested in a five and a half hour play) one of my favorite parts of the play was a dramatic one. The Abraham story. Magnificently told. It made me really wonder if I could do such a thing, if I had the kind of faith and capability to take my own son's life for God. I am pretty sure I would write it off as insanity of myself if I ever even thought God would ask such a thing of me. And that got me thinking.

How could Abrahama even consider doing such a thing? Was this easy for him? Wouldn't he also rather think that he is just going insane than take his own son's life? Did he even think of that?

Right when I am asking all of these questions, all of them are answered. Abraham had just flipped his son over, and began raising the axe or hatchet over his head. It paused and showed a slight close up of Abraham. His expression made me think "He is insane. That's it. He's gone completely nuts." Tears were streaming down his eyes, but he wasn't crying. I think the only way that he could do what he thought was right was to trick himself maybe. If he thought he was insane, then it would easier to do God's bidding. Let's be honest, that is the same with all of us, right? Who really WANTS to do the right thing? Do you want to sit and talk with the smelly kid? Or (especially as a college student) give 10 percent to help others? I don't know, I am just trying to provide an example that we can relate to.

As a closing statement, let me really help you understand what kind of effect this part of the movie had on me. I was eating pizza at this particular part of the movie, and after having stuffed my mouth with meatlover's pizza, I was of course vehemently chewing. As soon as I saw Abraham's face, though... I put the pizza down, stopped chewing, and lost any kind of awareness as to what was going on around me. Everything I mentioned in my previous paragraph ran through my head in less than a second.

I attribute this profound moment to both the playwright understanding how to arrange this moment to really slap the audience across the face, and the actor who utilized every opportunity to make the audience empathize with him.

So anyway, that is why the moment in the Abraham story is my favorite part of The Mysteries.

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Hamlet vs. Everyman

FINALLY! Blogger decided to agree with my computer!

In class, we were asked to compare Hamlet to Everyman. However, when I was reading Hamlet, all I kept thinking about was how very different the two plays are. To me, the prevalence of death and the focus on a single character are the only consistencies between the two works.

Like I said, I found that both works seemed to be focused on one person’s point of view. In Everyman, the plot revolves around Everyman and his search for a companion. In Hamlet, the story concentrates on the Prince Hamlet and his efforts to avenge his father. If both of these stories were written as novels, they would be told from first person point of view.

Another similarity between the plays is the awareness of death and the mortality of the main character. In Everyman, Death the character comes to Everyman to tell him that he has sinned and will die. This appearance serves as a reminder to the audience that Everyman is indeed human and will pass on. From this respect, Death parallels to the ghost of King Hamlet in Shakespeare’s play. King Hamlet, after being murdered by his brother (now King Claudius), appears as a ghost to his son and asks him to seek revenge for his death. In both instances, these deceased characters (who are both supernatural) speak to the main characters about deaths and dying.

Therefore, Everyman and Hamlet can be considered similar plays for two reasons – they both focus on telling a story from one particular character’s point of view, and they both use supernatural beings to remind the main characters of their own mortality.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Meditation 9

When comparing Hamlet and Everyman there are many things that come to mind that are similar and different. The main part of Hamlet and Everyman is obviously that death is mentioned. Death is not only mentioned but it plays a big role and is throughout each play. Death is known to be unavoidable. That statement is true for all people though. The difference is that Hamlet and Everyman knew how they were going to die. They were told how they were going to die and that there death was unavoidable in that way.
A main difference between Hamlet and Everyman is the storyline and the way each person dies in their play. Hamlet is about a man who has a messed up life. His uncle kills his father and then proceeds to marry his mom. That doesn’t happen everyday. While Everyman on the other hand is just that, the play is about “everyman.” The main character has to deal with everyday things that each person in life has to deal with. Yes those things can be difficult at times, but Hamlet definitely had it worse.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Hamlet by JD'

“To be or not to be that is the question” is not in my mind the greatest part of Hamlet,because It is an over simplification. In fact I think that it is an over simplification is one of the key messages of the speech. Hamlet wishes he could end his confusions, but he can’t be sure that in ending his life things will be easier. Who’s to say there is not another place with more problems to deal with? He’s searching for finality and can’t find it. He is attempting to distract himself from his real problems the “little” things which make up one’s life. The average person does not wake up and ask “life or death?” but rather how am I going to deal with life. Hamlet is betrayed by his friends and family .If he just killed himself it would not be an interesting play.At the end of the play Hamlet tells Horatio"If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart, / Absent thee from felicity a while, / And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain / To tell my story."The story is clearly more than “Hamlet chose death.”One of my other favorite set of lines in Hamlet is shortly after “to be or not tot be in Act 3, Scene 1
HAMLET Get thee to a nunnery: why wouldst thou be a
breeder of sinners? I am myself indifferent honest;
but yet I could accuse me of such things that it
were better my mother had not borne me: I am very
proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offences at
my beck than I have thoughts to put them in,
imagination to give them shape, or time to act them
in. What should such fellows as I do crawling
between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves,
all; believe none of us. Go thy ways to a nunnery.
Where's your father?
This to me is where the action picks up again where Hamlet deals with his problems and at the same time avoids them.A nunnery is both a whore house and a cloister because Ophelia is either to good for him or another betrayer. He can’t or won’t decide but either way she needs to leave because he can’t fully understand her or connect with her because he lives in ambiguity. He doesn’t know what to classify himself as. The real question of Hamlet is What to be, and who he/we are whether we can change or control it.That is the truly universal question we deal with everyday identity and what we want or can make our story be.

Hamlet v. Everyman

The plays have one theme in common they both deal with death. But Everyman never really contends whether or not he should commit suicide would it be better than the life he is living. Everyman doesn't wonder why he should stay alive, rather he is wondering why he has to die. Both of the main characters die, but there ways of getting there are different. Everyman is followed around by different virtues until when he reaches his grave at which time a majority of them leave. Hamlet is killed in a plot by a ursurper to the throne who wants him out of the way so that he can rule. Everyman is a story about the different virtues of mankind and how your good deeds will help you in the afterlife. Hamlet is showing moral corruption in a royal family. Which play is more fun to read and most likely watch(I haven't seen everyman on stage or in a movie) Hamlet. Because the world around us is so messed up that this seems pretty everday, and you know shakespeare wrote it...which doesn't hurt seeing as though he created half the english language.

Monday, April 09, 2007

Hamlet vs Everyman

I see some similarities between Hamlet and Everyman but the most common comparison I found in the play was that they both talked a lot about death. In Hamlet there are plenty of examples of death by all the people that are killed in the play. Also, in the play Everyman, Everyman has to face his own death. I think another key theme in the plays is fate. In Everyman it is much easier to see that he sees that his fate is that he will die. In Hamlet fate is seen in a different way, he sees that his fate is to kill his uncle for killing his father. Hamlet is told to kill his uncle by his father’s ghost and from then on his fate is known. I had a hard time connecting the two plays on a deeper level than just what I saw on the surface, but I still saw similarities between them.

similarites between Hamlet and Everyman

In comparing the two plays, I found a few differences, but the ones that really jumped out at me were the concepts of death and abandonment. It goes without saying that Hamlet is a play full of death - hell, the main character even dies. The story isn't directly telling you that it is a process of death like Everyman did, but the reader/audience can probably infer that that is the road down which Prince Hamlet is headed - toward his own death. Meanwhile, Everyman, from the beginning, is about one man's journey towards death, and the audience follows along until the aforementioned death of everyman.

I also found abandonment to be an issue in both plays. It is certainly way more clear in Everyman, the way all of his friends, upon learning he is dying, start leaving him. In Hamlet, it's more of a concept of everyone turning against him and/or dropping like flies as the story progresses. I mean, when your friends die, part of the grieving process is anger - it's rather normal to feel abandoned by them, even if they didn't actually mean to die.

Meditation 9

The plays Everyman and Hamlet can be compared if one really puts their mind to it. Both plays talk about death early and often. In Hamlet, the whole play is virtually about revenge by means of death, and in Everyman the whole work is talking about Everyman the character going to his grave. Also, in both plays the main character (Hamlet and Everyman) realize that their fate is going to happen and there is nothing to they can do about it. Everyman realizes he is going to die and tries to get people to come along with him, but no one wants to go to his grave with him. In Hamlet, the main character, Hamlet, wants to seek revenge on his uncle Claudius, for killing his father. That is Hamlet’s whole purpose throughout the play. He performs a test on his uncle (having travelers re-act his father’s death in front of Claudius to see how he reacts) to attempt to prove his guiltiness. From the beginning, Hamlet knows what his job is because of his father’s ghost that tells him to take revenge.
These plays also talk about outside worlds intervening. In Hamlet, there is a ghost that comes and talks to Hamlet. In Everyman, God tells death to go and tell Everyman his fate. Both of these situations occur at the beginning of the works and influence what the main characters will do throughout the rest of the writings.

Hamlet vs. Everyman

Hamlet and Everyman hold key similarities and also very distinct differences. The main difference I see is the playwrights' purpose for writing the play. Everyman is clearly a morality play, which means its main goal is to influence people to think a certain way or about something (here it is most likely the church's point of view). Hamlet seems to be a bit more complicated with its plot. This effectually does two things. One: It places characters and story in a place that is not quite so emphathetic towards the reader. Two: It highlights the faults of men and interrogates the loyalty of relatives and friends.

However, these two plays do, in two different ways, try to point out that dishonesty, bad deeds, and corruption lead to a terrible life. Everyman does this by making the feelings of the microcosm a generalization. This in effect brings the issue eye-to-eye with the reader. Hamlet points out the same mistakes and follies by the misfortunes of his characters. This plot does not seem quite feasible, so it gives a hyperbole effect that relays the information quite well: Do you want to end up like this?

These two plays are revelieving very similar truths, they just do it in two very different manners.

LInk between Everyman and Hamlet

While Hamlet and Everyman encounter similar themes within their context, I do not believe they are comparable on a much larger scale. Due to the problems that are more internal in Hamlet's case, and in Everyman, they are more physical. Hamlet struggles with life and death, betrayal, guilt, and numerous other Shakespearean attributes. Like Ann said in her meditation, I think she made an excellent point when she was talking about kinship, fellowship and good deeds, in reference to Everyman. I have read Hamlet before and seen it performed on stage, it makes much more sense when it is actually being performed before your eyes, the characters come to life and take on a shape of their own, obviously. The staging allows readers to understand some of the themes more clearly, like darkness and it's metaphorical meaning. Shakespeare, in general, is overplayed and overrated, but I have an odd fondness for Hamlet, I can't tell if it is because of the complex characters or the ingenious plot, but I love Hamlet.

Sunday, April 08, 2007

I believe there could is a way to relate, and even compare Hamlet to Everyman. Take, for instance, the fact that Everyman is faced with problems. Hamlet is as well, obviously. Yes, there are major differences between the problems that each of them face, but if we are to compare the works as a whole, than this would be a logical place to start. Then, we could look at each problem that Everyman is faced with, and compare them with Hamlet's.
First, Everyman is faced with Death. It could be compared to Hamlet that he is also faced with Death many times throughout the play. His Uncle killed his father in order to marry his mother. Ophelia kills herself after he has gone insane. Hamlet's mother, Gertrude, is murdered by poison. Hamlet kills his uncle in a fencing match, and eventually, like Everyman, faces Death himself.
Another character from Everyman that could be compared with Hamlet is Fellowship. In Everyman, Fellowship vows to be there with Everyman until he is asked to follow in the journey of Death. Fellowship then declines. In Hamlet, his two best friends could be compared to Fellowship. They are there for him until they are sent in to England with Hamlet after Polonius' death. It is then that they are given the task to kill Hamlet, and they decline. They do not go through with their task.
Kinsmen in Everyman could be compared to Hamlet's mother. She is there for him, loving him and taking care of him. Yet at the same time she is a very confusing character about whether or not she actually believes Hamlet when he tells her that he isn't crazy. So in a way, she is like Kinsmen when she shows the "fake side" of her personality, making it so she is not truly all-together with Hamlet.

Hamlet's Advice

What can Hamlet elucidate for us on life? As he says "every man hath business and desire"- he acknowledges that his story is just one man's story; but this is representative of every man, since every man has a story. Hamlet is an every man story, although his story is specific. Shakespeare takes his story and makes it into an allegory for all the issues we each ma go through. The famous to be or not to be soliloquy is a perfect example of this: Hamlet asks why we should go through the pain and strife of life if we could eaxily make our own death. What is our motivation to live amid so much suffering? This is a fundamental question to human nature- by being each day we are choosing to live; this is not an insignificant choice. Hamlet, though, has his own purpose, his own drive- he is living for revenge. He is almost a self-proclaimed martyr, wallowing in the injustice he feels is his duty to make right.
What's interesting is that Shakespeare allos a peek into most of the characters' attitudes and concerns. Especially the antagonist Polonius. He questions the worth of his repentance, a repentance ornamented with the paraphenalia of his sin: crown, throne, wife. It is on the same issue that these two characters are struggling; yet they have different responses. They both recognize the difficulty of living especially with malicious deeds afoot. Hamlet asks the very sme question asked by Everyman: why was I ever brought into existence? Of couse, we must rememeber: though Hamlet struggles with issues that are universal, his story is quite specific and not all of us feel anguish at being alive.

Meditation 9 - Comparing Everyman and Hamlet

Title/Subject: Comparing Everyman and Hamlet

I can see a few similarities between Hamlet and Everyman. I feel that Hamlet does have a few instances where there are obvious morals that the audience is at least supposed to recognize – the speech Polonius gives Laertes before he set sail is full of advice that would have been relevant then and could still be seen as relevant today – clothes are important to make a good impression, borrowing and lending money are both bad ideas, etc. Hamlet also gives kind of backwards advice to Ophelia when he is insulting her in Act 3, Scene 2 and Ophelia gets advice about Hamlet from her father and Laertes. I realize that it’s not necessarily advice from God, like the morality plays might have been seen as, but there are still morals portrayed throughout the play.


I also find a similarity in Everyman and Hamlet being deserted. Everyman is deserted by Kindred, Cousin, etc. while Hamlet is betrayed by his mother, Ophelia is brainwashed into not wanting to be with him, even his friends Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are won over by opposing forces.


The plays are obviously different, but would a morality play have drawn as big of an audience as Shakespeare’s plays did during his time? Probably not. Maybe this is almost a updated version of a convoluted morality play.

Meditation 9 4-8-07

I don’t think that Hamlet and Everyman are similar at all. I don’t find the problems that Hamlet encounters relatable to every man. I enjoyed reading Hamlet because it was an interesting plot, with twists and turns and I enjoyed watching the relationships between all of the characters develop. However, I do not see how Hamlet and Everyman are relatable; Everyman faces challenges that are common to every man, such as Fellowship, Good Deeds, Beauty, Kinship and Knowledge. These are common problems that the human society must face and fight to do well in this world. While Hamlet encounters more abstract problems that are not common to every man. It isn’t too often that one experiences the pain of their Uncle killing their father then marrying their mother. I believe that the story of Hamlet is more prone to be a distant tragedy that one can only relate to through, “Wow I am glad my life is not as screwed up as theirs.” I don’t think the common man experiences the pain and suffering, revenge and horror that Hamlet has to go through and therefore I don’t find it comparable to Everyman.

I really enjoyed reading Hamlet though because it was a very interesting story to evaluate the character’s responses and plans for revenge and their interactions with other characters. I found the choices that the characters made far from those that you would expect; I never would have expected Hamlet to pretend he is crazy in order to throw everyone off his trail, or for him to bring in a theatre troupe to reenact the murder of his father in order to draw a confession from his uncle. I also thought that the change in the relationships between the characters was an interesting part in plot development. How the King changed his feelings toward people once they didn’t have any use to help him in his desire for raising his status or hiding the murder and challenging all who accused him of murder or incest. I think Hamlet is a really well constructed play because it stays interesting throughout the whole play; there are always plot twists and surprises to the characters that keep things moving.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Mysteries

Personally I felt that the series of plays were very informational. I liked seeing a lot of the major events from the Bible being reenacted. I would like to see the same series of plays shown today and compare the differences. The mysteries we watched were from the eighties if I am correct, and I think it would be good to see the mysteries performed today in 2007. The picture, scenery, performance, characters, props, language, would all be different and maybe somewhat the same. The main thing that I would see being different is the dialogue and the form of language. The humor behind the characters and there lines would be used differently. Overall I liked seeing the stories of what happened being performed in front of me. Most of them were exactly how I imagined them happening in my head which was interesting to see. Hopefully there will be another mysteries showing from today’s time.

The mysteries

I enjoyed The Mysteries. It is something I did not really know what to expect coming in and watching a play all day, but it was better than what I thought it was going to be. Part of it that interested me the most was the fact that they told the entire story of the Bible basically. This interested me because I knew all the stories they were talking about. I did wonder to myself, however, if I would have enjoyed it as much if I did not know the stories before they were told on stage. I think that would make it harder to understand.
My favorite part of the play was when the people from hell came and grabbed actors, audience members, and even the camera man and threw them into their “hell.” This was a funny situation that really kept me into the play instead of being so serious all the time. Moments like that were what made the play for me. Another example of simple comedy that kept me interested was when the “blood” from the sheep was spilled for sacrifice. I would have never thought to do that. It was a genius idea. While the play would have been better if it were more current (background, machinery, etc), I really enjoyed watching it and found it very informative about what a theatrical production would be like where the audience just doesn’t sit in an auditorium.

They Mysteries - 8

Many of my classmates have expressed their distaste for the video of the three plays. However, I must say that I actually enjoyed watching the Mysteries. Even though it was a video recording, I believe the plays came to life on screen and told a series of familiar stories from the Bible in interesting and new ways. Through the use of the surrounding audience members and an abstract set, I feel that the three plays did a great job of engaging the audience and their imaginations.
In watching the Mysteries, one would immediately notice that the stage on which the actors perform is surrounded by audience members – many of whom sit/stand on stage within arm’s length of the actors. The actors were even moving and performing with the audience during the performance. Multiple times throughout the play, actors would go up to members of the audience and speak to them or joke with them. At one point an actor even jokingly pulled a bra out of his pocket pretending it was the woman’s in the audience. In watching this interaction, I realized that the closeness of the audience was not merely for the sake of acoustics. I saw that the audience was moving and responding to the play. They were no longer spectators, but witnesses; they were in the action, and not just outside of it. I became fascinated with watching how the audience responded and interacted with the actors; and I saw that having the audience so close to the performers served to engage them in the action more so than if they were just sitting off stage.
In addition to engaging the audience physically through interaction, I felt that the Mysteries plays engaged the audience mentally through the abstract set. Before I saw the video recordings, I did not expect to see an abstract portrayal of biblical stories. However, after seeing the plays I understand that by leaving the set somewhat abstract and simple, the audience can therefore envision the religious stories as they see fit. The nativity scene where Mary gives birth to Jesus is an example of this. In this scene Mary simply takes out strips of cloth from under her shirt and folds them up to look like a baby. This is unlike the typical nativity scene with a manger and a baby. However, I understand the simplicity of this portrayal really lets the audience imagine the birth as they believe it to be, and not just watch someone else’s interpretation. In other words, the abstractness of the set helps to engage the audience’s imagination, instead of just presenting the audience with an elaborate setting.
All in all, I believe that the Mysteries plays were very entertaining. However, more than entertaining, they were engaging. The performers and crew did an excellent job of involving the audience physically as well as stimulating their imagination.

Mysteries

The most fascinating element of "The Mysteries" included the experience as a whole; the atmosphere of being in the performance and interacting with the actors was inevitable. The intimate space provided an excellent means for this. Dialogue used by the actors was astounding and surprisingly good at capturing the audience's attention at the opportune moments. Due to the length of the production, it was crucial to untilize the emphasis of certain words and phrases to help the audience understand certain importances within the show. The physical closeness and setting of the performance really added to the experience as a whole; I can only imagine what an amazing experience it would have been to actually be there. Another interesting part of "The Mysteries" was the usage of actors who were constantly changing roles. It takes a talented actor to move from one character to the next and maintain a consistency within each role. Altogether it was an interesting experience which I was glad to have the opportunity to take part in.

Mysteries

The most striking thing about the mysteries for me was the interactions with the crowd. Which creates a relationship that few actors get to create between themselves and the audience, when the actors who were going to play demons decided to sign on they were probably like, "We get to drag audience members into a hell mouth?" " Awesome." The point at which the little kids throw sponges at the con artist, until it was mentioned in class I didn't realize it but they were throwing stones at him. Which is a weird juxtaposition, but a rational one for a period in which they believed that time was circular and they were living everything over. And of course there were plants every once in a while but it didn't matter because it was still fun. Especially the guy who was wearing the clip on tie, when it came off and he tried to escape, priceless. It was a true moment of inspired improvisation, oh my tie fucked up why not escape? But the moving of the crowd to make way for characters and the ability of the actors to pop up anywhere at any moment makes this play a play you have to pay attention to.

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

The Mysterious Realms of the Theatre and the Divine

THE MYSTERIES

I really liked The Mysteries. It was incredibly artistic and very spiritual for me, even without a Christian faith. I liked the set, which was simple and big, but it had so many details and contraptions; when God said "let there be light" and lit the whole area with lanterns and lamps, they were like stars which continued to flicker throughout the whole show. Noah's ark was particularly creative and practical; I liked how they used umbrellas and their voices to imitate the animals. I liked how modernity and tradition where involved in the set and costumes; like the soldiers dressed as construction workers, and then the opening to hell being that claw thing you would see on construction machinery. I wonder if there is a correlation with the "bad guys" using machinery, especially construction machinery and costume; maybe the man-made construction is man-made destruction. Or maybe I'm being too pessimistic.
I loved the music, it really made the scenes and decided the emotion. It was jazzy, with saxophone solos- and not lame ones either; pink floyd style rock, which was just so chill and transcendent; culturally influenced music (Northern English), especially with the songs with singing. Oh goodness, I think that I could have enjoyed the music just by itself, and actually, is it recorded anywhere? It really brought the scene to the intensity it needed to be at, it started the scene with the emotion it needed, it created the humorous mood, it was just great.
The acting was phenomenal. I mean, it was so real; it was just being, not acting. I loved that the old actress, the one who played Noah's wife and older Mary established her role as a comedian- she was just so unconventional and really funny. I can't stand that older actresses tend to be forgotten in the U.S. It was just wonderful, every actor understood their character, and each character became a person; the actors made these biblical characters into real people, of flesh and blood, of suffering and joy, of terror and release. I just can't explain to you who I felt when I saw Abraham struggling so much with sacrificing his son for God- I never could feel Abraham's pain, but only see God's cold selfishness. Abraham became to me a man, a man who loved too much (I know that sounds soooo corny and cliché). But for real. I understand now: God pushed him to that epiphany of his entire capacity for love beyond himself, and that's why it was necessary that God stop him. All Abraham needed to know was the extent a human could feel. It must have been an amazing experience to be able to release Isaac from death; it must have been the most incredible, most divine experience. I know the actors felt it. I know it because I did (maybe not in its entire grasp). However, I'm a little skeptical about the actor who played Jesus. Of course, I recognize that this is my opinion and if I learned more about his interpretation, I might realize that I feel different. I don't feel like he was compassionate enough- I have always imagined Jesus as an incredibly compassionate person. Jesus didn't really look and connect with each actor when he gave them bread, it didn't feel like he was giving his body with his full commitment and sincerity. Nor did he do a very good job of washing people's feet- he didn't even bother to wash the bottoms. I mean, they had taken such care throughout the whole play to not rush scenes and really extract all the significance of actions. And he was almost too cruel when he condemned people at the end; but i guess he was supposed to be God, and perhaps not just Jesus. Also, I was a bit critical of the biblical interpretation, only because I could hear certain doctrine which I don't entirely advocate. Especially with the doom's day, he told the women they could only be saved through motherhood and wifehood, like Mary. I don't agree with that. I think all beings have the capacity of being "saved"- but that's not entirely relevant. I was just disappointed. But I did like all the other actors and their roles.
Anways, I really like The Mysteries. It was incredibly artistic and spiritual for me, even without a Christian faith.

The Mysteries

I believe that being in the audience for the performance of The Mysteries, would have been an incredible experience. Having the actors that close and being a part of the play itself is a wonderful way to experience theatre.
The most memorable part of watching the performance for me, beisdes the hideous fashion, was the part when the Demons came from the Hell mouth and took the actors that were sitting in the audience, and then turned to the actual audience members. They added a lot of comedy to the performance, as well as the intensity that is meant to be there.
The other part that really caught my attention was in the Passion. The actors really caught the intesity of the story, and you could see that the tense feelings between the actors had also spread into the audience members who couldn't turn away from the show. When the cross was taken through the audience, you could see them trying to move as far away from it as possible. They didn't want to interrupt what was happening. But you could hear them laughing, as did many of us, while the men were nailing Jesus to the cross. Why would they add that humor in at that hurtful time? As we discussed in class, it was to keep the audiences attention, and perhaps because they could have that humor in there. Now people are more cautious about what is said in the Passion plays, but then, it was possible to mix comedy and drama together in such an important play.
I also loved the picture that you get when the world is turning behind the thrones, with God overlooking it all. It really gave a powerful image to the audience. It was very creatively done.

Meditation 8 4-3-07

I really enjoyed watching The Mysteries because the performance was a very unique one. I thought it was really interesting that the play moved around the theatre, in and out of the crowd, using audience members, talking right to them and bringing them into the action. It would be a wonderful experience to be a member of that audience because it is such an uncommon type of performance and it makes you become part of the show. As I watched the audience members face and reacted to the different scenes and statements made in the play. For example, how at the end of the first play the audience was all dancing with the cast in celebration and mingled in and out and was completely comfortable and aware of the situation, while during The Passion, while Jesus was carrying the cross people felt bad to be in the way and were rushing out of his way and apologizing for being in his path, they also seemed frightened and uncomfortable to be a part of that scene. The different ways that the audiences react is so interesting to watch as it changes from scene to scene and person to person. I think the audience at the Mysteries is a major character in the production, they fill the room with emotion and provide an example of what it is like to actually be there and a part of the show, but have no idea what to expect so their reactions are not controlled as the actors would be. I really enjoyed watching the audience as much as watching the play itself, because they were basically one of the biggest influences to the mood of the play.

Monday, April 02, 2007

Reactions to The Mysteries

This production of The Mysteries really captures the community-feel that these plays no doubt would have possessed. I rather like how Christ comes to represent the humble population of workers that performed these plays. In class we discussed how these plays were probably done with the Church’s permission. I think that even if this was so, the plays still seem to mock authority. All the kings are presented as foolish pagans.

I like the idea of sticking it to the man, but I am slightly uncomfortable with the anti-Semitism and disgust for Muslims. I learned in another class that it was not uncommon for the original productions to be followed by a massacre of Jews. The constant references to and swearing by “Mahound” by evil authority figures suggest a strong abhorrence of Islam. This is not surprising considering that many Christians viewed Islam as a heretical form of Christianity.

Musings on The Mysteries

Once I was able to overlook the horrific 80's hair and clothing seen throughout the audience, as well as the 80's video quality, this performance of The Mysteries was spectacular. I was fascinated by the way they staged things around the audience - it must have been a very intimate setting indeed. The set itself was also impressive; I was almost frightened at how high up the angels were! The use of mirrors for light was wonderful, and produced the needed celestial air for that particular scene. I was also surprised by the difference in dialects between the characters. Their style of speaking was so different and interesting to listen to!

I found the portrayal of some things to be different than other versions of these stories I'd heard. For instance, the idea of hell being in a sewer was something I'd never thought of, though it was indeed clever. The other thing that intrigued me was Adam and Eve being trapped inside what appeared to be a hamster's exercise wheel down in hell - definitely not a concept that ever crossed my mind, but amusing nonetheless.The final scenes were also very impressive to me. The giant spinning earth behind Jesus and Mary and God was incredibly trippy - i would imagine that the actors would not have been able to watch it too long without being dizzy! Despite that, it was an incredible addition to an already marvelous set.

mysterious post

I quite enjoyed the production myself and i loved the dialogue within the play. in particular, if you pay attention, the kinds of internal ryming, tonal inflections, and speech rythems changed for certain characters and certain speeches within a characters dialogue. which makes me curious as to how the dialogue actually sounded in its original middle english as opposed to what we heard in the play.
on another note, I absolutely admired the staging. by continually keeping the audience moving around for the different scenes and continually having them closer to the action, even taking part in it, created a more deeply moving expierience. I would even say it makes the expierience more authentic as a religious cerimony which gets brings it closer to the original intent of the plays and the theatre.

Lord Addison

Sunday, April 01, 2007

Meditation 8 - The Mysteries

I’m not sure what my opinion of The Mysteries is. Obviously at the time it was an important dramatic development, but watching it in class – especially watching a tape recording from the 80s. All of this leads to not being impressed, at least for me.
Just like in the case of the Greek tragedies we’ve been studying, I can recognize the importance of them, but I am still unenthusiastic.


At least in the case of these pieces of work, I was able to see a performance. That has helped me understand why they were so important – I really love what the National Theater did. I feel like they broke a lot of preconceived notions about religious theater – a black angel, nudity, etc. I enjoyed a lot of what they used, like Carol said – everyday items like tools, hardhats, painter’s overalls. I realize that of course it wasn’t the same when they were originally performed, but I think that they were similarly stirring in their place in time.