med. 12

As I said with Moliere, Sheridan should cut down on all the over the top fighting too. Don’t get me wrong, I liked it and it was very funny, I just think it would have been good without being over the top. All the gossip and backstabbing were funny, but there is already too much of that in reality for me to enjoy too much of it in a play. I like to try and make comparisons that relate the real world to the world that playwrights create for us, but I also enjoy to have reality suspended so that I can be in a different world, not be in high school again. The dialogue between the characters was clever and funny, most of the characters were ridiculously funny, and the plot was entertaining, but I think that when plays try to be too outrageous they lose their ability to connect with the audience. Its hard for the audience to suspend the reality if they can’t connect with the reality that Sheridan is providing for them.

med. 11

I really liked that this play was written in verse. A lot of language is hard to read in these plays, but I think that verse makes it much more pleasing to the ear. I also liked how there was so much conflict, but sometimes it seemed kind of unnecessary, like high school girl drama. I don’t think that because of all of the conflict that it makes it like real life. On the contrary actually; the seemingly chaotic fighting makes it much more unrealistic, but I think that Moliere achieved what he intended to in this play. I think Moliere wanted to create a slapstick comedy that gave energy to the audience through chaos, so that the audience would, in turn, give energy back to the cast members. All in all, I think he did a good job. As I said before, the verse was nice, and the play was very funny. I just wished Moliere would have calmed down a bit with all the fighting

med. 11

I really liked that this play was written in verse. A lot of language is hard to read in these plays, but I think that verse makes it much more pleasing to the ear. I also liked how there was so much conflict, but sometimes it seemed kind of unnecessary, like high school girl drama. I don’t think that because of all of the conflict that it makes it like real life. On the contrary actually; the seemingly chaotic fighting makes it much more unrealistic, but I think that Moliere achieved what he intended to in this play. I think Moliere wanted to create a slapstick comedy that gave energy to the audience through chaos, so that the audience would, in turn, give energy back to the cast members. All in all, I think he did a good job. As I said before, the verse was nice, and the play was very funny. I just wished Moliere would have calmed down a bit with all the fighting

med. 10

Life is a Dream is definitely one of the better plays I’ve read this year. I don’t think it’s a good comparison to Shakespeare or anything, but I do think it is a good comparison to some of the Greek tragedies we read in terms of dialogue and the overall feeling that things are not going to turn out well by the end of the play. Luckily, I was wrong. I liked that Segismund decides to not avenge his father at the end of the play. The play reminded me of Amphitryon in that both Amphitryon and Life is a Dream are putting their characters in dreams even though they believe it to be real. All of the deception and scheming were also very reminiscent of the Greek tragedies that the class has read this year. This is one of the special plays where a person dwells on it for a long while after they read it. I know I found myself wondering if life really could be a dream.

med. 9

I could see a few similarities between Hamlet and Everyman, but not many. The first would have to be Death in Everyman and dead King Hamlet in Hamlet. Both come to the main character as a warning to prepare for a large undertaking. In Everyman it is to die, and in Hamlet it is to take revenge for his father’s death. Both protagonists are abandoned by almost everyone they encounter, the exceptions being Horatio and Good Deeds. Indecisiveness would also be a similarity between the two, with Hamlet not being able to decide whether he should kill Claudius or not, and Everyman putting off his death and not wanting to die alone. I think the closest comparison would be when Hamlet is giving the speech with Yorik’s skull, and Everyman is finally faced with death. Both come to terms with what they have to do and realized at that moment that death is very real and very frightening. Now that I really think about it, these two plays really do have a lot in common.

med. 8

I really liked The Mysteries; I thought that it was ahead of its time as a production as was its content. I think my favorite part of it was the scene with Abraham and Isaac. It was definitely the most touching scene I saw in The Mysteries, even more so that the Crucifixion scene. I realize that the very point of the Abraham-Isaac scene was to parallel the Crucifixion, but I just felt so much worse when Isaac was going to die than when Jesus was going to. I think it might be because with Jesus its easier just to vilify Rome and the guards who are joking as Jesus is dying, as opposed to just feeling sorry for Abraham. I had read that story in the Bible, but the effect isn’t the same, mainly because you don’t hear what Isaac is saying to his father before he is about to die. Another scene I liked was the End of the World scene, when Satan and his demons were dragging people to hell, but I think that most people liked that scene because of the broken tie.

med. 7

Lysistrata is the dirtiest piece of literature I have ever read. It has fart jokes, sex jokes, shit jokes, dick jokes, and every other sense of dirty humor you can imagine. Simply put, all the makings of a good comedy, but in order to have a truly great comedy, it has to be staged well. First of all, I would keep the stuffed genitalia, as well as finding other phallic symbols randomly placed in different scenes. I would put the first scene with Lysistrata near a fountain where the women soak their feet, wash their clothes, etc. Women would enter the stage from all sides, even having some ridiculous entrances, like a trap door, or falling. The fortress would consist of a cardboard wall, because I think that fakeness would add to the humor, and the place where the women chorus and men chorus argued would be two risers behind a kind of tower, so that the people can be seen but the risers cannot. The only way for the comedy to be captured at its fullest would be to get over the top actors for punch lines and stone faced straight men for the sarcasm. This play would be so much fun to do.

med. 6

I thought Dionysus was a bit of a bastard in this play. I think that though he came to Thebes for a good reason, this play shows in its fullness the Gods’ abuse of their power. I feel that as a God, Dionysus should exercise some self control, instead of humiliating, and then murdering Pentheus. I thought it was a little harsh to do that just because people called your mom a whore, and to top it all off, he turns Pentheus’s grandpa into a snake. I am not sure if Euripedes wanted the reader to feel sorry for Dionysus and not like Pentheus, but it had the opposite effect on me. I ended the play feeling that Pentheus, as arrogant as he was, was a victim in unfortunate circumstances (though none so unfortunate as when he was in the tree). I think that Dionysus, while having the right to be angry, was petulant and childish.

Med. 5

This is one of the saddest stories I have ever read. It was too much sorry for a man who truly didn’t deserve it. He was a jerk when he killed Laios, but he didn’t act any differently than any other member of royalty would. There was so much discussion in class about how wrong it was to try to find out things that someone shouldn’t, how ignorance is bliss. I only agree with that to an extent. I agree that someone shouldn’t go to the oracle and ask their future; in that respect, ignorance is better. I don’t agree that people should be left in ignorance about their own past. Oedipus had every right to know what he did, however painful it was. He’s a man who absolutely cannot go without knowing, which can be admirable, only in this case it turned out to be disastrous. I think what truly caused this tragedy was when Laios received the Delphic Oracle. I believe that if he had not received her, none of this tragedy would have happened. If someone asks for their future, it will come to pass, but who says that asking doesn’t change it. Maybe he Laios would have had a different fate had he not asked about it. Maybe Oedipus would not have killed his father had he not asked the Oracle what would happen when he went to Thebes. No one can ever know.

med. 4

I liked Euripides’ Electra better than Sophocles’ Electra. In Euripides’ version, the characters are much more like real people. In Sophocles and Aeschylus, everyone seems to rely on fate to guide their choices for them, while in Euripides, they decide what to do based on logical thought and choice, even though the results seem illogical. Orestes is by far the best character. His telling Clytemnestra that he’s going to kill her and there’s nothing she can do about it is some of the best dialogue I have read in a play. I felt kind of bad for Clytemnestra because she made some good points, but Apollo decreed that she had to die, so more power to Orestes. Orestes and Electra both got their revenge, which was all well and good, but Orestes ended up getting taunted by furies. Electra, to me, seems like a much more subtly strong character. She seems to whine, but ultimately betters her situation by convincing Orestes to kill Electra.

med. 3

In reading Agamemnon, the most prevalent theme is revenge. Revenge drives the plot, and eventually ends it. It is similar to much of Greek Theater in that respect. I think what it reminds me of most is Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Both plays are driven by scheming and plotting for the sole purpose of taking revenge on someone who wrongs them. In Agamemnon, it’s Clytemnestra on Agamemnon. In Hamlet, it’s Hamlet on Claudius. There is one major exception to this comparison though: the main characters. In Agamemnon, I found Clytemnestra to be a villain, plotting against a man who did not wish to harm anyone, but was forced to by the Gods and pressure from his army. She was by any definition (except literal), a horrible bitch. Her affair, her manor of taking revenge, and especially the act itself, paints Clytemnestra as the real antagonist of this play. Hamlet on the other hand is seen as the protagonist. He is not plotting to kill his uncle, but rather plotting to find out whether he should. The fact that he is going to murder his uncle eventually is justified in the minds of the audience, whereas the audience roots against Clytemnestra. Maybe the two aren’t so different after all, but in the way that the authors portray them, it is clear which character that people should root for, and which they shouldn’t.

i dont know how this got left out

One of the more curious aspects of the Electra’s that I found was the relationships between the children and Clymnestra. The act that begins this whole tragedy was the slaying of Clymnestra’s daughter. However, following Agamemnon’s departure she treats her children terribly. Orestes has been forsaken and Electra, while her fate varies between the three stories, has also been made a prisoner by her father’s murder. So, it appears that Clymnestra, in truth, cares little about her children. If this the case, then Clymnestra’s actions are completely unjustified, for if we are asserting revenge as a form of justice then one of the major factors in the delivery of this justice is motive. If Clymnestra’s motives were impure then she is most certainly an evil character. Despite her claims to be avenging her daughter, her actions are even further sullied by her affair with Aegisthus. Also she states that if Agamemnon had not returned with a mistress the she might have not murdered them. This indicates that it was not an act of revenge, but of jealousy, which certainly is not justified grounds for killing them. In short, Clymnestra has her own gain in mind in killing Agamemnon. She has reigned in her husband’s absence and I believe she has no intention of relinquishing that position with his return. As we had mentioned Clymnestra might embody what the Greeks though of as the danger of the feminine and reading further into her actions, I believe, solidifies that fear.

Meditation 12 - The School for Scandal

I dunno if I've posted this one already... but whatever... I've enjoyed readin gmany of the plays we've studied this semester. However, rarely did I find myself laughing or at least genuinely entertained throughout each entire reading. Yes when I was reading The School for Scandal it was like I was watching a modern movie. I could see the events unfolding each one before the next, andI was anticipating each character's next move. Perhaps that is why it is one of my favorite plays - it kept me entertained from start to finish. Personally, I loved reading Act IV, scene 3 - the scene where both Lady Teazle and Sir Peter are secretly listening to Charles and Joseph's conversation. I constantly found myself laughing at the absurdity of the situation. Perhaps this laughter was not a result of word jokes but instead of discomfort. After all, sometimes laughter can be used to phychologically remove an audience member from the action of the play. In this case, maybe I found the scene so funny because I was using laughter to remind myself that it is not real. Nonetheless, I found the plot of the play reminded me of the game "clue." It is as if no one could trust anyone else. This was even confirmed at the end when even Snake, Lady Sneerwell's accomplice, is bribed to turn against her. The entire play lives up to its name The School for Scandal since no one can be trusted and everyone is a suspect of backstabbing.

Title/Subject:

WHO STILL NEEDS CRITQUES OR MEDITATIONS

Okay so with the chaors of the thunderstorms finals poor planning etc I still need a few more crtiques on both sides of the equation if your in the same boat please email me back at artpoet@gmail.com it's Julia D'Ambrosi by the way but please
DON'T use my school email.

The Bacchae Meditation 6

The concept of the play The Bacchae is obviously ignorance is bliss. It’s was pretty funny that Dionysus a God, was just walking around with all the common people and checking out how life was in another perspective. This really reminds me of how I was when I was in elementary school. Whenever the teacher was out of the class room I run around act stupid do whatever. The second I saw her coming back though my butt was in my chair pretending to do work. The people in the play have it bad they don’t know that Dionysus is watching them. If my teachers in elementary school had seen what I did when they were gone I would have gotten in a lot of trouble. Ignorance is bliss fits with Dionysus because if he gets his revenge with the help of the people with out them actually knowing he was watching.

Meditation 12

To me this play is very similar to The Misanthrope, because the whole play is so similar to my life right now. The play surrounds around the characters telling each other stories, just like I do everyday with all of my friends. This play much like The Misanthrope also made me thing back to high school gossiping. It gossip in the play is like coming back to school on a monday after a wild weekend and everyone telling their story about how crazy they got.

Meditation 1

Meditation 1 Theater background

Before taking this class I had very little prior knowledge of theater, how it was presented, who presented, where, when or anything. Basically the only thing I had done that involved with theater was read some Shakespeare plays in high, which did not go into very detail. I have actually seen one play though, when I was in New York I saw “Jackal and Hyde”, but at the time I was ten I don’t remember much and probably didn’t understand much when I watched it. When I came into the class I was not aware of how in depth the writing of the plays were, and I still am a little confused when reading the plays. I am the type of person that reads words in one way, so it was hard for me to understand a lot that was going on, but I think I have gotten better from the first time I came to class.

Oedipus Rex Meditation 5

Oedipus Rex Meditation 5

In the play Oedipus Rex I believe that the major theme of the play is fate. It seems like it should be easy for Oedipus to make the right decisions, but as the play goes on he doesn’t and harsh consequences come from his actions. I do not understand why Oedipus would still sleep with his mother even after a messenger has told him who she really was. It makes no sense to me why you wouldn’t want to know for sure before you did something so wrong. I Oedipus had made the better choices I believe he would still think he was an adopted kid and no one would be dead. It just seems odd to me that the play ended the way it did when I my opinion should not have even happened.
Dionysus Meditation 6

You bitch!

In School for Scandal, I cannot get over how horrible everyone is to each other - backstabbing, two-timing, bitching, gossip and hypocrisy riddle every page of this play. I don't mean to be cliche, but I don't know what else to compare this play to save for high school. A good example would be Mean Girls as well - the way all the girls are in little groups bitching about each other's flaws, even though they have the exact same ones. Regardless of how screwed up things are from being passed through the grapevine, things all end well for everyone - well, they at least end fairly - everyone learns the truth about Joseph's intentions, Lady Teazle is caught cheating on Sir Peter, Sir Oliver ousts Snake, and consequently, Charles and Maria reconcile. So everything ends as it should, despite all the chaos.

The Error of My Ways

Title/Subject: Meditation 6

Euripides is completely guilty of creating a seriously deficient deity. In the final and most dismal scene of The Bacchae, Dionysus remains completely indifferent to the suffering he has caused the mortals Cadmus, Agave, and Pentheus. Even the faithful Chorus acknowledges his ill deeds when they divulge, “I grieve with you, Cadmus: your daughter’s son has justice now, but so much grief for you” (Sc. 6, pg. 57). This is significant because throughout the play the Chorus shows nothing but the utmost fervor and devotion for the god. Yet something clearly gives when Agave appears on stage still unaware of the slaughter and the Chorus refers to her as pitiful and poor. Dionysus is ignorant of his injustice until the very end stating finally, “If you had understood your mortal natures…you would now be in blessedness” (Sc. 6, pg. 60). The sight that follows indicates that it is the god who refuses to understand the natures of mortals as Cadmus and Agave say their goodbyes. Their mutual suffering unites them in a way that Dionysus cannot even begin to comprehend. They will endure while he just comes out looking like a merciless a-hole.

The first time I read The Bacchae last spring I was stunned by the insolence of the human characters. How could they deny this amazingly powerful and appealing god? Why was Pentheus such a little prick when the truth is right there in front of him? I just assumed he was bitter because the ladies were having a good time in the woods while he was in town having to deal with two silly old men. Now I know I was taken in by Dionysus’ charms just as the women of Thebes were. I was drunk with love for this audacious figure. I praised his violence as just and satisfying. For I felt that nothing could be “nobler than to hold a dominating hand above the bent head of the enemy” (4th Chorus, pg. 37). I lament that it has taken me several readings to realize that these poor characters are not my enemy at all but my kindred. The ways of the Divine are mysteriously cruel and there is no solace save that which you find in other mortals. Euripides subverts the supposedly splendid quality of Dionysus to reveal that humans are capable of something far beyond the gods’ facilities: compassion.

A School For Scandal Meditation 12

Using Moliere as the only example of classical French Restoration style would be a disappointment to the era. While I believe Moliere is one of the key comedic writers, others like Sheridan deserve recognition as well. In "A School For Scandal", the over the top play is complete with gossip, drama, lies, seductions, and most of all, scandal. In short, all of the elements to create an outstanding performance. The play is completely atypical of French Restoration, chock full of farce, physical comedy and situational irony. With ridiculous characters like Lady Sneerwell and Lady Teazle, one cannot help but laugh hysterically at the outrageous circumstances. "A School For Scandal" does an excellent job of setting an example for other French Restoration comedies and playwrights. Before reading Sheridan, I had it in my mind that the only playwright of the restoration period was Moliere, while he was a trailblazer of that style, he was not the one and only. I am glad I was presented the opportunity to expand my horizons and try a new farcical comedy, which was thoroughly enjoyable.

Amanda Mims' Meditation #12

In A School for Scandal, I developed an incredible dislike for Lady Teazle. With all of the gossiping and adultery that she commits it’s amazing that she herself isn’t committed. Its women like that, and yes I know it is just a play, but it is women like that that ruin things for intelligent women who actually are educated and concern themselves with things that are not of the material world. She is self-absorbed and incredibly materialistic and reminded me a lot of, I hate to say it but, Paris Hilton, but in the 18th century instead of the 21st. I mean it’s really just sickening how she acts. However, I also give the woman kudos for using what she had to manipulate the situation to get what she wanted. So it may be mildly unfair of me to call her uneducated, because she’s not dull, she’s has to be bright for being as sly as she is.

Amanda Mims' Meditation #11

mis·an·thrope: person who hates or distrusts humankind

I could not agree more with Alceste’s point in The Misanthrope that he makes about society, and how one of mankind’s worst flaws is hypocrisy. I am saying this while being guilty of being a hypocrite myself, but it is a valid point that is made. It is easier to criticize someone else’s mistakes or false steps or anything like that rather than your own. People say that the things that bother you the most in other people are the attributes that you don’t like in yourself. It is one thing to dislike a person for seeing in them characteristics that you do not like in yourself, but it is quite another to dislike mankind as a collective whole because YOU contain typical traits of mankind that disgust you. That is not mankind’s problem; that is your problem. Granted we are raised in a society in which it is hard to trust people and so it becomes so easy to distrust mankind as a whole. Especially after having a couple of experiences in which a single person lets you down, its hard to trust again and it’s even harder to want to trust again. However, I personally think the hardest thing to be is not the one that distrusts humankind but to be the eternal optimist and to trust everyone. Yet being the one that does trust people and believes in the best may very well be worse purely due to the fact that you are almost always continually let down by those around you. Both the misanthrope and the optimist are wrong because it is not right to assume that all people act the same, or even all people act like you do. I think that is where both stray, the misanthrope and the optimist are both wrong in their beliefs of society because there will always be those people who seek out those that they can take advantage of, and there will always be those people that will always seek out those that they can help. I think that to survive in today’s society you have to find a happy medium between the misanthropic view and the optimistic view because either way you are not seeing the world or yourself for what you really are and before the state of humankind can be fixed it is necessary to fix yourself.

Amanda Mims' Meditation #10

Life Is a Dream, to begin with is probably one of my favorite titles of a work because there are so many days were you just kind of wander through them, not really realizing who you are or what you’re doing, mostly you just exist. I believe this is what happens to poor Segismund every day of his life. He is forced to just be, chained and held prisoner due to a bad omen on the day of his birth. When give what I would call a “trial run” to see what kind of king he would be he fails miserably and they have to put him into a drug induced sleep in order to safely return him back to his prison. And when Segismund awakes he is told that the entire day was actually just a dream that he had by his jailer. Calderon really focuses on the philosophy of the time, mainly that of Decartes, about how life might quite possibly only be a dream, how there is a fine line between life and dreams, and also how we might dream ourselves into existence. The question of whether or not life is a dream and the dream philosophy lead to one of Rene Descartes’ most famous quotes, “I think; therefore I am.” You see he concluded logically that because he could think and even pose the question of whether or not he was living life or whether or not he was dreaming life clearly meant that he in fact was alive. However, Segismund does not think, he does not have to think because he is a prisoner, a captive, being chained and kept in a tower. So the real question I pose is what part of his life is the dream, does he even exist at all, because he doesn’t think and so logically following he cannot be. So in the end King Basilio gets his way, Segismund does not exist at all.

Amanda Mims' Meditation #9

Everyman one of the best known morality plays from the Middle Ages; Hamlet is one of the best known Shakespearean tragedies, but both being the best known from their era is not where the similarities between the two plays stop. Shakespeare was a playwright that was constantly influenced by many things, Greek and Roman tragedies and comedies as well as plays from the Middle Ages. While reading Everyman each character had what I recognized as a counterpart in Hamlet. Take for instance King Hamlet, he returns as a ghost to tell his son of the wrong that was done and how he must be avenged. The ghost is so similar to death, sent to Earth with a message, a message that ends up sending the one that was told on a journey, The journey in Everyman made by Everyman is very similar to that made by Hamlet; once one leaves there is no return. The Fellowship that Everyman approaches supports what is happening, just as Horatio supports Hamlet’s decision to avenge his father’s death. However, when asked to accompany Everyman, Fellowship quickly flees the scene. Hamlet and Horatio have a similar relationship to that of Everyman and Fellowship; he’s there to back him up until it actually comes down to it and then he’s just too afraid. So both men, Everyman and Hamlet, conclude that blood is thicker than water, but in both plays even the kin refuse to help or see the other side. In Everyman the kin ask, no beg, to be excused. Hamlet attempts to talk to his mother, after talking with the ghost again, to confess her sins but again blood actually is not thicker than water.

Amanda Mims' Meditation #8

I’m not going to lie, I was not at all looking forward to spending an entire Saturday watching a ridiculously long movie; I was however looking forward to the free food. Interestingly enough though I found The Mysteries to be quite entertaining, and actually found some sort of pleasure in spending a Saturday cooped up in Ida Green. I was mesmerized by Lucifer. Reading back over that it makes me sound somewhat like a Satanist, but the man who played him was so talented and brought such a different side to someone that I was brought up only hearing about how he was a fallen angel, a heretic, and just all around a really bad being. However while watching The Mysteries I was drawn in by his charm and his humor and how sly he was in situations. But this all makes perfect sense when talking about the devil, even as displayed in the Adam and Eve scene in the Garden of Eden, Eve was sucked in by his charm. He is a master at commanding attention and manipulating to get his way. I also was envious of the comedic timing that Lucifer had all throughout the show, comedy is much more difficult than people think—timing is the most important thing, and his was perfect. I found it so odd that to me the Devil was the comic relief because typically the source of all evil isn’t too funny.

Amanda Mims' Meditation #5

I absolutely love Oedipus Rex; it’s like a Greek soap opera. It is filled with murder, marriage, suicide, incest, and deceit. Oedipus is the epitome of a tragic hero; he is his own worst enemy. However the entire time I was reading it all I could think of was how many different ideas it had inspired, all based on this horrid, yet somewhat intriguing myth-- most notably, Freud and his theory of the Oedipus complex, when little boys fall deeply in love with their mother. But then again Freud was crazy and had a strange obsession with his own mother; does that make Freud equal to Oedipus? Freud believed that everyone was fueled on sexual desire and was motivated by their own sexual desires, even if it’s not that obvious. So was Oedipus driven by his sexual desires, his lust for his mother, or was he simply fulfilling a prophecy he was trying so hard to avoid? I believe that by trying so hard to avoid something he actually fell right into the trap. His destiny was set for him, since day one. You cannot go around attempting to avoid your own fate. Oedipus was made to believe that he had freewill, allowed to leave and try and be the better person, however from the second the prophet spoke those words the tragic chain of events was set into motion. He had no choice, no say in his life or his decisions and single-handedly destroyed his entire family, everyone that loved him and caused his mother/wife/lover to commit suicide and in the end he himself had to gouge his eyes out so that he could stand to live with himself.

Amanda Mims' Meditation #2

If I were staging Prometheus Bound I would have mostly just an empty stage, except for Prometheus chained to his rock downstage to either the left or the right and have a scenic backdrop displaying the Greek land. The set would be kept simple as not to distract from Prometheus and the pain and suffering he is going through. The costumes would be elaborate and colorful, particularly for the Daughters of Oceanus in billowy costumes to show that they are free like the Sea. I really think that simplicity is key for all aspects in the staging of this play. I think that the bare stage would allow for the audience to better connect with Prometheus because it is more of a one on one experience. I think that simplicity would give a more intimate feeling between Prometheus and the audience and I think it would be very beneficial to the story as a whole. Prometheus is alone in the world and so it would be very fitting for him to be isolated on stage, in some sort of untouchable area, possibly raised, so that his isolation was not only seen by the audience but also felt by him through his words and inability to act. Isolation is something everyone can connect to because there is always sometime during someone’s life in which they feel as if they are an outsider and alone and so it would be easy to connect with him. There is always that one social situation in which people feel as if they are alone while still in a room full of people, which is exactly what Prometheus would be—completely alone.

Hamlet: my final post, WOOT!!

What I feel gripping me about Hamlet is the comedy within the tragedy. The games that are played in both word and deed. For instance, we have the grave digging scene, the classic skull in hand moment, it’s not often we think of something like this as a great place for some comedy to take place. Also, the constant in and out with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, mostly because this is where we see Hamlet particularly fuck with what we think is madness. We can never know whether he is really mad. It may just be a guise or he may only be somewhat crazy (that is to say only north northwest, “when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw”). It is this crux that allows hamlet to be interpreted in so many different ways. We don’t know just where he ever is mentally. In sooth, we may not even know whether the apparition of the ghost was real. This whole concept is particularly crucial because, for what we know, Hamlet is obsessed with knowing the Truth.

The Misanthrope

This play seemed to be very funny to me because it makes me think back to when I was in middle school. The play reminded me of when I was young and girls were talking bad about girls and other dumb gossip that most people should not have ever cared about. It seemed so childish to me two guys fighting over one girl, and the girl going back and fourth with whom she wanted to be with. I really loved the part in the play where Alceste told Oronte his honest opinion about his poem and Oronte was angry with him. Oronte seemed so childish to me also, if you don’t want to hear anything negative about your work then why ask? When I was younger I never wanted to hear anything negative about what I did but now I don’t mind because it makes me do what I am doing better.

Blog 6

The play Dionysus is very creative in the way everything worked out for his revenge. Since he is a god, he would be recognized by a lot of people and wouldn’t be able to fulfill is need for revenge. One of the key points to this play was that Ignorance is Bliss. Dionysus was able to roam and mingle among the people, or mortals, without being noticed as a god. Since he was not considered to be a god and acted as just another normal individual, Dionysus was able to do and see things that he would have never experienced. He got to see hoe people act in front of other people. He is used to how people act in front of him because he is a god. I think that the people being ignorant to the fact that they were in the presence of a god was a good idea to have a story around.

Blog 5

Oedipus Rex is a play that I was actually interested in; not that the other play’s were not interesting. There is one thing that sticks out that I had trouble understanding. When reading the play and seeing the plot unfold, I realize that when ever something bad happens it is whenever Oedipus Rex causes it. He himself is responsible for his own actions. Even when he hears his fate, he doesn’t check to see if the women he is about to sleep with is his actual mother. After hearing something as weird as that, I would have to get to know the women as much as I could so that I could be sure that she wasn’t my mom. Maybe my thinking is unreasonable but to me that seems like something that would be mandatory for me. On the other hand maybe Oedipus doesn’t mind the whole mother son relationship thing.

Blog 12

This play is very similar to Misanthrope in the sense that each one has a lot of gossip. I like to think that everyone enjoys each other’s company and has no problem with one another. Honestly, that is not the case at all. You are not going to please everyone. When it all comes down to it, an individual who talks about you behind your back is usually jealous. That person envies you. In order to make themselves feel better they talk down about you to other’s so that they will feel the same way. It is a very sad mindset, and I admit to doing it sometimes. The only defense for gossiping is you don’t realize you are doing it. It is like an unconscious act of jealousy. Some people do these things on purpose and I truly feel sorry for them, but without people who feel the need to talk about you, then how will you know how important you are?

School for Scandal

I think I am finally starting to understand what Kirk meant when he said that this play was "indicitave of its time period, but the way in which we access it can be universal." Obviously the idea was that misfortunes dealing with higher class society (which usually results in death) and the lower class society (which often is just comical, but can also lead to death) must not have been as prevelant. This leads us to be able to infer that, although still relatively sparse, a middle class seems to have been growing. No longer is the separation between peasants and noblemen as great as it once was. An expanding merchant class allows for different situations in everday life. For the plays of lowerclass, its all about finding food, shelter, and clothing. With the powerful people, it was all about who can get to be the most powerful and stay in power. This new middle class, however, begins to set a new precedent by living life not too differently than the way we live it today. This is your basic soap opera, only all of the rumors are fake.

In high school I performed in a production entitled "Rumors." It was a comical play, with MANY of the same elements that a School for Scandal had: heads popping out left and right, people JUST missing the person talked about by a split second, telephone effects, and more. This play obvsiously is the persona of its time period, but that doesn't limit its effectiveness of empathy over time.

Meditation 12

This play cracked me up. Much like my meditation over Misanthrope this play really reminds me of a real life situation, for the most part. Many times in my life I’ve heard stories about what had happened latest. When I read the play it seemed sad that basically all these people did was tell stories, but when I thought about it, what dominates our conversations at the lunch table or as we walk from class to class? It is usually about someone else, and it is usually something we did not hear from the person themselves. Many times I’ll catch myself listening to the story and getting caught up in it, then a few days later it turns out to be just a rumor started. When reading I like to think that we are nothing like this play at all. In reality however, our lives are almost a copy of this play except for some over exaggerations.

Meditation #12 -- Katie Marchant -- School for Scandal

The one word that sums up this play would have to be “ridiculous”. It is so sad that these people have nothing better to do than talk about everyone around them, including those who they consider their friends but what is even sadder is that I can not say that I haven’t ever done something like this. This play basically sums up my high school experience. I never knew exactly what the latest gossip was but it seemed like every day there was some new rumor circulating about who slept with who and who threw the best party the weekend before and who had gotten totally hammered at that great party and slept with the person who had just been mentioned as sleeping with someone else! Amazingly, this all sounds very similar to what is happening in School for Scandal! But one difference between my high school and School for Scandal was the fact that the men were almost more involved in the gossip than the women. In high school it seemed like the guys didn’t really care all that much about everything the girls were talking about. I also loved all of the exaggerations about events that had happened. Like we were talking about in class, it is so funny how the characters exaggerated the same things that real people do! It was so funny to read the back and forth lines when they were talking about the screen incident because as a reader you get so wrapped up in line after line of people contradicting each other. The scenes with dialogue like this were so much more fun and easier to read.

Katie Marchant -- Meditation #10 -- Life Is A Dream

I really did enjoy reading this play, it is interesting to compare the writing the writing style of Calderon, a Spanish playwright, to the English playwrights we have been focusing on. I like how similar the styles are even though the culture in the two countries is very different. I really liked how Calderon worked in the love and relationships aspect of the story without making them the major plot of the play, like some of the others we have read. It gets kind of boring after a while when the entire context is about who is whose lover and what they have been doing. In Life Is A Dream there is the plot of Segismund seeing Estrella and falling in love with her but the more important plot is how he is convinced that it was all a dream. I did some research on Calderon and learned that he was a priest; I think that is part of his life may have influenced some of the themes or ideas in Life Is A Dream. The idea that a person can make their own future out of their dreams and aspirations and that honor and loyalty are very important virtues to have could stem from his faith.

Katie Marchant -- Mediation #9 --Hamlet vs. Everyman

The major similarity that stuck out to me in reading Hamlet and Everyman was the journey that both men are sent on by a figure that is not real. For Hamlet this journey is to avenge the death of his father and in my opinion to find himself. For Everyman this journey is to find someone who will accompany him on his journey to death and to help him discover who he really is and the reason Death has come for him. Both of the characters seem unprepared for this journey and look for people to go along with them. Their problems both lie in finding people who are loyal to them and trust them. Hamlet finds this support and companionship in Horatio, his friend from school. Everyman looks for this support from many different people but finally finds the companionship he wanted from Good-Deeds after everyone else has turned him down. To me this need for companionship and support shows the weaker sides of these men and helps the audience relate to characters that the audience may feel like they can’t relate to because they are better or higher in the social class.

Katie Marchant -- Mediation #8 -- The Mysteries

I really did like The Mysteries, once I got over the fact that I had to sacrifice an entire Saturday to sit in a dark room to watch some 6 hour movie.
I found the choices that they made about staging and the effect of having the audience literally in the middle of the action very interesting. Because I was raised in a Christian church and learned all the typical bible stories from preschool on to high school I found it very intriguing to see the stories I know so well played out before me in a dialect that was hard to understand and with jokes that sometimes were lost on my American ears. I have done Christian themed musicals like Godspell and Joseph and as a child had the leads in church pageants with titles like A Star is Born where I literally played a star. The difference in these plays and The Mysteries to me is how these stories are presented. There are no musical theatre-esque production numbers, the actors are dressed in either period costumes or modern day clothes, they take the time to interact with the audience and because the material for this work is well known the audience feels comfortable interacting with the actors. I really liked the things they used as set pieces like the cherry picker lift for God and the tractor claw as the mouth to hell. I also really loved the rotating world that was revealed to the audience near the end of the production. Because the scale of the production up to that point wasn’t so grandiose this reveal was quite unexpected and impressive.

Katie Marchant -- Meditation #7 -- Lysistrata

I think that there are some very interesting things that a director could do with Lysistrata. One thing that could make this show hard to produce is the type of actors needed to successfully pull It off. Because of all of the jokes and sexual innuendos a director must cast actors who can pull off that level of comedy and the type of actor who can pull that off has to be a pretty good actor which makes a really great show to watch. This play requires actors who can express the comedy without losing the drama within the comedy. There are many times though out the play where a character will say a line that is very comedic to the audience but in the context of the show the other characters do not find it funny. Another thing that would be interesting for a director to play with is costuming and time period. It would be very cool to see this show done in a completely modern setting, no masks, women playing women, the whole bit. I think that it has some ideas that could have some weight in today’s society. The ideas of women taking a stand and speaking up for what they believe in is very poignant and lots of women today feel like hey should be able to express their views fully.