So I wanted to talk about the two plays I saw this weekend, Macbeth and The Tempest. Cassandra and Averill already covered the Grassroots Shakespeare Company production of Macbeth pretty well, and Averill compared it to The Tempest. So I figured I would share my personal experience and what it taught me, more than differences in the productions themselves.

First off, I loved Macbeth. I actually went twice, the second time because I told my roommate about it and she wanted to go. The inter-activeness of the play really brought it to life. I didn't even mind that it was freezing and I stood for 2 hours. The second time I cheated a little bit, because I knew what would happen, and stood right in the center of the groundling area against the stage(the spot where the actors messed with the groundlings the most). I'm really glad I got to go twice, it was a completely different play because there was a different crowd. And the second time(on closing night) they even brought out the "Queen of England" to try to please her with their performance. Lines that I thought were scripted turned out to be the actors playing off the audience, and times when I thought the actor was making a side joke and messing with the audience turned out to be actual lines. I could see that the actors were really having fun with it. And they were awesome at reacting to whatever the groundlings threw at them. Literally, the girl next to me threw a piece of bread at Macbeth... And he ate it.

Going to see the Tempest at the Pioneer Theater was a completely different experience. Not better or worse, just different. The stage felt so disconnected and far away(because it was). And the actors seemed like they were pretending the audience wasn't there. If anything had happened in the audience, I get the feeling the actors would have just plowed on and pretended nothing happened. It felt like I was observing events through a window, rather than being a part of them. Of course there's nothing wrong with a serious, formal play, but after being yelled at and spit on the night before, I had a hard time staying awake in a dark room with the stage a football field away.

Both productions were extremely well done and did what they intended to do. I just tend to lean towards the informal, Shakespearean way of doing things: "Let's throw stuff at the groundlings and get people involved." After all, we learn from doing, not seeing. For example, my war cry improved tenfold this weekend.

I haven't done this before, so I figure I'd give it a try..

In our group discussion during class I brought up the idea of costuming and staging in The Tempest, especially the feast scene where a table full of food disappears from before Alonso and company and there are misshapen spirits and fantastical beings. I was wondering how they would have accomplished these things in the Renaissance and how the production we are going to see this weekend might do it differently. I didn't do much research because I wanted to use this blog a bit creatively and focus more on how I think it could be done.

The stage directions for the banquet read:
Thunder and lightning. Enter Ariel like a harpy, claps his wings upon the table, and, with a quaint device, the banquet vanishes.
In class, we talked about possibly having the table full of food lifted up into the air and out of view. That's possible for a production today, but in the Renaissance the typical place for these performances was the Globe Theatre, which is outdoors, and has no roof to hoist a table up to. For Shakespeare's time I picture someone out of sight making loud banging noises for thunder as shadows were made in whatever lighting they had to represent lightning. There could have been a long, thin table, so that the feast could appear large and appetizing. The table could be stationed over the trapdoor so that when Ariel hits it with his wings it folds in the middle and falls down through the trapdoor and out of sight.
There are many other ways it could have been done. The only thing we get from the text is that a "quaint device" was used. My footnotes indicate that the word quaint meant something different in those days, and that it was some sort of mechanism or person designed to make the banquet disappear with a blend of "imagination, skill, and elegance."

When the spirits and strange beings perform, we get these descriptions from the text:
Enter several strange shapes.
"Who would believe that there were mountaineers,
Dewlapped like bulls, whose throats had hanging at 'em
Wallets of flesh, or that there were such men
Whose heads stood in their breasts" -Gonzalo
There's more description here than there are with many other fantastical things in The Tempest, which potentially makes it harder for productions to live up the Gonzalo's words and Shakespeare's original plan for this play. With this I am mostly curious to see if the production we go to this weekend will include these people with heads in their breasts and fleshy throats, or if they will simplify the spirits for convenience's sake. I hope they keep it in, because I am really curious to see how it would be done.

I know I don't have much experience in planning and creating things like this, I've always been on the observer side of things. So I could use your input. How do you think people from the Renaissance could have pulled this off and made it a thing of spectacle without any kind of modern special effects? And what are you hoping to see this weekend?

As we're getting into The Tempest, there is a storm and a shipwreck and there are at least three separate groups (that I know of so far) that are stranded on the island. It seems odd to me that the very first thing someone in each group did was assume that everyone else was dead, and then look to see what they could gain from the situation.

Commonality of wrecking a ship
"Every day some sailor's wife, the masters of some merchant, and the merchant have just our theme of woe. But for the miracle-I mean our preservation-few in millions can speak like us." -Gonzalo
This quote suggests to me that shipwreck, and death and loss resulting from shipwreck, was very common in Shakespeare's day. In a brief history of Bermuda, there are four historic shipwrecks documented from 1500-1699. Which means there were many more that were not written about, obvious from the map here. So it seems like the characters of The Tempest were somewhat justified in thinking that anyone not with them must have perished. But there does seem to be some other reason why many of them gave up hope so quickly.


Let's all assume everyone's dead
Ferdinand: 
"The ditty doth remember my drowned father."
Alonso:
"My son is lost."
Sebastian:
"Milan and Naples have more widows in them of this business' making than we bring men to comfort them."
Antonio:
"'Tis as impossible that he's undrowned as he that sleeps here swims"
Trinculo:
"I should know that voice. It should be-but he is drowned, and these are devils."


What do we stand to gain?
Ferdinand:
"I am the best (highest ranking) of them that speak this speech (Italian)."
Ferdinand assumes the king, his father, is dead. And therefore assumes that he is now king.
Gonzalo:
"Had I plantation of this isle... and were the king on 't... I would with such perfection govern, sir, to excel the Golden Age."
Antonio (to Sebastian):
"My strong imagination sees a crown dropping upon thy head."
Sebastian (to Antonio): 
"As thou got'st Milan, I'll come by Naples. Draw thy sword. One stroke shall free the from the tribute which thou payest, and I the King shall love thee."
If the king, his son, and any witnesses are dead, Sebastian becomes king and Antonio gains his love and freedom from tribute.
Stephano:
"Trinculo, the King and all our company else being drowned, we will inherit here."
This quote pretty much sums up all the others. Stephano, a butler, believes that everyone higher ranking than him is dead, and plans on inheriting what would otherwise go to men above him.

The coat of the King of Naples.
 (What all these men were after)

Can't get any higher than the top
It's interesting to note that, though he believes his son to be dead at first, the king, Alonso, eventually finds hope and goes out to "search for [his] poor son." He is the only character who doesn't have anything to gain from the death of another. Since Alonso is already king, no one else's death would be beneficial to him, so he hopes his son lives. All the other characters have something to gain from the death of others, and so give up hope much more quickly. Sebastian and Antonio even go so far as to try and kill the King and Gonzalo so that they can be in higher positions of power when they return home. I'm sensing some Macbeth parallels here...




If I only had a brain.. or a conscience.
The case of Antonio and Sebastian stands out from the others. While all the other ambitions of characters rely on fortune, or misfortune, granting them the death of a superior, Antonio and Sebastian's ambitions must be taken by force. It is easy to justify taking power when the men before you were killed by nature, but it should not be so easy to justify killing for gain. Shakespeare's characters, however, seem to be burdened very little by their consciences. When speaking of murder Sebastian asks, "But for your conscience?" To which Antonio basically replies, 'I haven't got one. Nothing bothers me.' His justifications for the murder of the king are reminiscent of Berowne of Love's Labour's Lost justifying his pursuit of women. If they can put enough words together, then they can justify their actions to themselves. Sebastian's conscience seems to be won over, as he replies, "Thy case, dear friend, shall be my precedent." So these two men, who seemed so lighthearted and upright, justify murder and treason in less than five minutes.


Is Shakespeare's comment here that ambition is more powerful than moral conscience? That man will kill to get gain? And that those who don't bring themselves to murder are just as ready to accept the death of another if it benefits them? If so, who's death do you stand to gain from? Ever thought about it?