Reflecting On Our Class Event
Reflection.. Reflection....
I have a hard time summing up events like Friday's. I just can't seem to get what I think into the right words. Yet, here goes nothing. Our Engaging Shakespeare event was easily the most fun I have ever had with a class project, and I feel like I have gained so much from the event itself and everything leading up to it. I was also really impressed with the projects from the other groups. I guess I can talk about each of those for a bit.
First off, I thought the event planning group did a fantastic job of getting everything organized and promoting our event and our class. They found a perfect room (I loved our stage!) and I was really impressed with the website that was put together and how smoothly J.J. and Austin ran everything that night. I am anxious for all the final products to be online!
The art group did a great job with their display, everything was organized really well and I could see that people enjoyed looking at their artwork. I was impressed by the number of pieces of art they were able to create in such a short time, and they were all really good quality! Their idea of each making lesson plans and then swapping and doing each others' was neat, too, because it's more authentic making sure someone else can understand and interpret where your lesson plan is trying to lead them.
I really enjoyed the sound effects and different voices that the audio group used in their rendition of Hamlet. The "(Character Name) Dies" parts are comical to read in the scripts, but it's even more entertaining in audio form. Although I think some groaning and dying noises would have been fun. I didn't get a chance to ask them at the show, but I'm curious about how they decided what lines to cut and what to keep. I'm interested to maybe listen to the whole thing and find out how much the theme or tone of the play has changed compared to other productions just based on what lines they kept and cut out.
I was impressed with the number of plays that the music video group was able to incorporate into their project and how seamlessly all of those plays fit together. I completely agreed with the point that Kara made about how Shakespeare is so much more than love stories, and the things he talks about are real and still apply to us today.
Now I might be a little bit biased, but the documentary was amazing! It was so well done. There's really not much else to say besides that they did a great job. Although if they had stuck around our rehearsals a bit more they would have caught a ton more hilarious things on film. But maybe it's good that things worked out the way they did... Anyway, what I payed attention to of the documentary as I was trying to forget how nervous I was about going up on stage, was fabulous.
And now, for my project! Lover's of Shakespeare! I am so glad that I chose the group that I did. We put so much hard work into our mini-play, and it was all worth it. It's so neat for me to be able to look back at how all the pieces fell together and we ended up with our final product. I never realized just how much effort and creative energy goes into doing something like that. Every single person in our group had so much to contribute. And it made me so happy every time the audience laughed at some little joke or line that was my idea, even if I wasn't the one delivering it. Even though I was the youngest in our group and probably had the least experience, I learned just how much I had to give when Romeo died by 5 Hour Energy Drink, Hamlet got his hat thrown at him, Ophelia exited with a splash, and I entered via boat. Unfortunately Juliet objected to death by lightsaber.. I guess what I'm saying is that I have always somewhat undervalued myself. But in this it was very easy for me to see just how much I did contribute along the way, and it was really wonderful to have a group who took my ideas seriously. I feel like I have grown a lot, as a Shakespeare student and as a person, through just doing things the way Shakespeare wanted and putting on a show.

Meeting the Learning Outcomes
I'm almost positive that our final project fits into all of the learning outcomes, but I'll try to include some other examples as well.
Since writing the midterm post, my Shakespeare literacy has continued to increase. We read King Lear, which was another first time read for me this semester. I watched the 2010 movie version of The Tempest (which I didn't much care for, so decided against posting about) and also re watched the Kenneth Branaugh adaptation of Hamlet on my own. Seeing Hamlet after reading it again and being in the middle of my project group's different interpretation of it was a neat experience.
I have also gained depth in my Shakespeare literacy through Analyzing Shakespeare Critically. Woo! I had a lot of analytical posts before the midterm interview and continued that by finding motifs and imagery in King Lear. I also took what I have learned through analyzing Shakespeare productions and applied it to a different genre when I posted about the Savior of the World production I went to over Thanksgiving break.
Engaging Shakespeare Creatively took up a large majority of my time dedicated to this class. Which is great! Before this semester I never would have thought that I could pull from, condense, and add to one of Shakespeare's plays to make a 5 minute script that still made sense. Before this semester I had never memorized a single line of Shakespeare, now I have my part of a 15 minute play memorized, and I ended up accidentally memorizing most of Gabe's lines, too! I got to act Shakespeare on stage and on camera(through the documentary). It has been such a good experience for me and I have grown so much closer to Shakespeare's works through my personal interaction with them.
I also got to Share Shakespeare Meaningfully because I engaged it creatively. Just as it happened with the Grassroots Shakespeare Company version of Macbeth, my excitement and enthusiasm for what I was involved in got the people around me interested in what I was doing. Except this time it was even more meaningful to me because I wasn't getting my roommate excited about a production of Macbeth someone else did, but I was sharing with my friends my excitement for something I was personally involved in creating. I would regularly come home from play rehearsals and tell my roommates about some crazy new gag we came up with, or rant to my best friend about how much fun I was having. So it was that much more meaningful when each of my friends who came to the event told me how much they liked our play (or at least, that's what they said!). I am sure that this will event will become a bond between those who experiences it, and I am so glad to have been able to associate Shakespeare with a fun and entertainment, as well as give it meaning, and hopefully I have impacted the people around me's opinion of Shakespeare for the better.

As a last note, in the midterm interview the two things that I needed to work on were self directed learning and some more concise posting. Excluding this post of course, I did make an effort to keep some of my thoughts more concise and organized. I also tried to self-direct my learning by revisiting old topics and focusing on things that interested me throughout multiple plays. One of those was animal imagery, which I first posted about with The Merchant of Venice, and later revisited with the monster motif and predator comparisons in King Lear. I also followed up on a post I had done with Winter's Tale about Greek Mythology (specifically Oedipus) when I drew comparisons between King Lear and the same topic.

So there you have it. The end of another semester. Brother Burton, I would just like you to know that this has been by far my favorite class this semester. I have truly enjoyed it. Thank you for pushing us to learn on our own terms and helping me take my Shakespearean education into my own control. I'll miss this class.

And now, to end this blog the only acceptable way it could be done,
Hakuna Mutata. It means no worries.
-Martina

 "It is as if Shakespeare wished to portray a world in which most men and women are beasts, and only the exceptional few [are fully human]."

—G.B. Harrison

King Lear is no exception to this generalization. There are a number of animal images and metaphors in the text of King Lear which directly relate characters to beasts, making them seem less than human. In at least 25 instances animal imagery is applied, including references to wild geese, bears, monkeys, crabs, snails, goats, horses, and many dog breeds. However, the most pointed and vicious of the animal imagery seems to be directed at Goneril and Regan. In Act 1 Scene 4, Lear says to Regan, "Detested kite! Thou liest!" A kite here is, sadly, not something you fly in the wind on a nice summer's day. A kite is a bird of prey that feeds on small land animals and fish. Already in Act 1 Lear is suggesting that Regan's lies are cold and calculated, to take advantage to smaller, weaker prey like himself. In Act 3 Scene 4 Lear extends the metaphor to include both Goneril and Regan when he despairs at having fathered "those pelican daughters." Pelicans are another bird who live off of fish, snatching them out of the water when they feel the most secure. If Goneril and Regan are the kite and pelican, then Lear must be the fish. His daughters have beaten down on him and taken advantage enough to make him feel small, weak, and fish-like. They hunt and prey on him, and then tear apart his flesh with "sharp-tooth-d unkindness, like a vulture" (Act 2 Scene 4). What might be the most tragic part is that Lear, like a fish in the water, felt safe and secure when he divided his kingdom between his daughters. He never saw their cruel, sharp beaks coming.

Birds aren't the only mean animals that Goneril and Regan can be compared to. They are also likened to serpents and tigers, which are not only both predators, but both animals are hunters which are known for their slyness and quickness. Goneril lies in wait, hidden beneath her confessed love for her father, until she strikes Lear "with her tongue, most serpent-like, upon the very heart" (Act 2 Scene 4). The serpent simile is suited for Lear's unfaithful daughters. Most of the time you never see a snake until it's within striking distance. They blend in with their environment to survive and surprise their prey. Similarly, Goneril and Regan hide their true intentions from Lear by blending into their surroundings, doing and saying what is expected of them and decieving their father. As soon as they are close enough to strike, and are secure in already having what they want, Goneril and Regan reveal their true, serpent-like natures in the way they treat their father. By the time Lear realizes who it really is that is slithering in the grass at his feet, it's too late for him to retreat. His daughters strike and he falls because of his misplaced security and trust.

Just as we saw before in the Merchant of Venice, human nature is better understood when compared to that of animals. Animal imagery helps us to gain a clear picture of the emotions, characteristics, and actions which are meant to be portrayed. In this instance, it helped clarify to me what terrible, awful daughters Goneril and Regan were, and how stupid Lear was for trusting them.

Check it.

This class has ruined me for theater. There, I said it. Seriously though, before this semester I was just a naive girl who went to plays to hear a nice story. Now I analyze stage design and creative intent.

Last Saturday my Dad was still in town for Thanksgiving so we went with my aunt and uncle(who live in American Fork) to the LDS Conference Center Theater to watch Savior of the World. Many of you have probably seen it before, but I hadn't, so I'll give a quick summary. It was about Christ(obviously), so it worked really well as a Christmas message, but I thought it was really unique because it focused more on the events before and after Christ's life and on all the miracles and people of great faith that had to be strong for things to turn out the way they did. It opened with Zacharias and Elizabeth wishing for a child and the opportunity for Zacharias to burn the incense in the temple, then they showed Mary just before she was betrothed to Joseph. The play followed the story lines of those two couples throughout the first act, which ended with the shepherds visiting at the birth of Christ. After intermission, the second act opened with the stone being rolled in front of Christ's tomb and followed the story of the apostles and Mary Magdeline encountering the resurrected Christ and Thomas' struggle with faith when Christ does not immediately appear unto him. The play ended with the apostles promising to "feed my sheep" and running off to preach, as well as with a song.

While it was different for me to find myself thinking critically for a play that wasn't in Shakespearean, biblical language can be almost as foreign at times. But I did notice some really neat things that I don't think I would have if I weren't in this class. Firstly, the set was really amazing, and played well with the division between heaven and earth and how the two interact. The lower level had different arches and entryways that could be used to make the set feel like lots of different rooms or one big marketplace, and the floor had different sections which could rise and change, and even open to reveal a rocky peak, that made it really diverse. The upper level was like a bridge between heaven and earth, where any number of angels stood watching. Behind all of it was a backdrop of the sky which could change from night to day and even showed the new star at Christ's birth. I particularly enjoyed watching how many angels there were at any given point during the play. They would quietly come and go, some standing, some sitting. There would be sitting angels in odd numbers, always, because (I learned in a drawing class once) odd amounts of things are more visually pleasing. Whenever an angel came down to appear to someone on earth, they would go down a staircase in the back(that I probably wasn't supposed to be able to see) and come through one of the arches, then be struck with a bright white spotlight. I thought the way the did it all was really neat. The angel Gabriel spent a lot of time at the center of the upper level watching over Mary and Joseph, and later the apostles. It seemed like they were suggesting God always watching over us in the form of having angels overhead. Another thing was the amount of angels present at different points in the story. As you can see from the pictures, at Christs birth there are at least thirty of them and by the end of the play there are none. The theme I pulled from that was that heaven was very involved in the events surrounding Christs life, but now that he is gone we have to rely on his teachings and our own faith, rather than having everything given to us.

The other neat thing that I wanted to talk about was the portrayal of Christ. They never once showed his face. In the first act he doesn't appear except as a baby doll. In the second he is sometimes a voice from nowhere while the actors seem to see him, and sometimes a figure in all white with a hood up and his back to the audience. It was a weird way to portray Christ in a play that focused on him, but once I got used to it I really liked it. It put the focus less on Christ as an awe inspiring being(which he is, of course) and helped me to realize the amazing people and great trials of faith that happened surrounding his life. It helped me see how brave and faithful Mary was, and what a genuinely good person Joseph was for accepting and loving her still. It helped me to sympathize with Thomas' frustration and applaud Mary Magdeline and Peter for their leadership and courage. And, ultimately, all of their stories come back to Christ and their faith in him as their Savior. So, without once trying to interpret the character of Christ, Savior of the World taught me so much about who he is and the effect he has on people's lives.

I'm sorry this isn't very Shakespeare related, it's just what I really felt like writing about. And it seemed relevant at least in the sense that I wouldn't have loved this play so much if I weren't involved in this class. I'll be sure to post about the gruesome and bloody, non-uplifting King Lear in my next post this week.:)

I think Shakespeare was a fan of Greek writings. Oedipus the King in particular. I posted earlier in the semester about parallels between Oedipus and Perdita from Winter's Tale, and the recent blinding of Gloucester in King Lear brought my mind back to Sophocles' masterpiece. A lot of really interesting parallels can be drawn between Gloucester and Oedipus.
Although Oedipus blinds himself out of shame and Gloucester is blinded by an enemy, both find that they see better without their eyes. Gloucester reflects on the uselessness of eyes when he says, "I have no way and therefore want no eyes; I stumbled when I saw." Similarly, the blind prophet Teiresias declared to Oedipus, "thou hast eyes, yet see'st not in what misery thou art fallen, nor where thou dwellest nor with whom for mate." It is interesting that until Gloucester looses his eyes he does not realize that he has been mislead and mistreated his son, Edgar; and, upon realizing that he has killed his father and married his mother, Oedipus promptly blinds himself and his eyes become opened to the true horror of what he has done. Losing physical sight equals finding moral insight. Perhaps the message is that we can't truly look inward and find our faults until we stop focusing on everything else going on around us. Once Gloucester and Oedipus loose their sense of sight, they have nowhere to look but inside and at their own faults.
Another parallel between the two characters is their children. Antigone is faithful to Oedipus, her father, and wanders with him after he blinds himself. Edgar, likewise, is faithful to his father and leads him, though somewhat connivingly, when Gloucester cannot see for himself. Edgar even saves his father's life my not allowing him to jump off a cliff. The interesting thing about these faithful children is that both have been wronged by their father, but are still faithful to him. Antigone is the daughter of a messed up, incestuos marriage, and only days before Gloucester was sending hunting parties to kill Edgar. This is also seen in the Cordelia, who loves her father, Lear, even after he disowns and banishes her. Lear, as a foil of Gloucester, can be seen as metaphorically blind to the manipulations of his less loyal children. All three of these "blind" men needed exceptional circumstances to make them change their ways, and were fortunate enough to have children who could help them see the light. The fact that none of these faithful children had to loose their eyes to find a respectful, honorable way of life is comforting. Perhaps if we look inside ourselves and strive for a recognition of good before we have reached rock bottom we can avoid losing sight in a gruesome and bloody way.


Just a side note, I learned in my World Civilization class a few weeks ago that Roman actors, when portraying Oedipus the King, were actually expected to gouge their own eyes out on stage. Just makes me thankful to live in a slightly less bloodthirsty culture today.

So, as a Production Group, we had our first read through of a very premature script on Friday. Can I just say? It was a blast! I'm so excited for this group! Though not quite as excited as Averill always seems to be.:) Here's a look at Eric reading some of Hamlet's lines. Quite dramatically. Sorry for the terrible quality, as it was done with a phone. And make sure to turn the sound all the way up!

I'm also going to try to get this up on our group blog, so check it out!

Since we just got the group blog set up today, I'm sure no one is paying much attention to it yet. But I did throw up a quick researching post. So go check it out.
http://loveslabours232.blogspot.com/