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

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.:)

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!

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?

While I was unsure before about whether or not Shylock is villain or victim in The Merchant of Venice, upon closer inspection, the BBC "Theatre in Video" production seemed to be leaning towards villain. Shylock's character is dressed in all black, and the actor chosen was shorter than any other. Whether intentional or not, the visual difference between Shylock and other men sets him apart from them, and the black clothing suggest evil or darkness. Maybe even a 'black heart'. In the climax of the play, the court scene, Shylock and Antonio are placed much more closely on stage than I would have pictured them. The producers seem to be saying, "look at this man, he can stand a foot away from a good man like Antonio and demand his life." Villain. The physical closeness of the characters, and Antonio's friends intense pleadings with Shylock, reveal a heartless and unforgiving man.

The themes of mercy and justice were also extremely emphasized in the film. Shylock refuses to have mercy on Antonio, saying he wants justice to be fulfilled. Portia(disguised as the lawyer Balthazar) tries to convice Shylock to take his money and leave. The actress helped me to better understand the theme in the way she softly, almost pleadingly, encouraged Shylock to show mercy. But when the tables were turned and Shylock was the one in need of mercy, the judge spared his life before Shylock could even ask. The judge said it was "the see the difference in our spirit." So once again Shylock is the villain, the one who showed no mercy and asked for justice. It was the judge, by Antonio's request, who portrayed the Christian concept of mercy when he could have dealt Shylock with justice.

So there you go, Shylock is the villain and he got what he deserved. Right?

Oh.. poor guy..

Some other things that I noticed about the production:

Antonio(right) saying goodbye to Bassanio(left) with
Portia(disguised as lawyer) listening in.

• It was set up like a stage production, but obviously for a movie viewing audience. The actors talked too softly for a play, moved around too much, and interacted with the camera.
• I like that all the [asides] that weren't to another character were directed at the camera. It formed a connection between me and the character, like they were confiding in me as a viewer.
• The setting was very minimalistic, but the costumes were extravagant. Called attention and focus to the actor.
• Camera angles usually focused on speaker, but sometimes captured powerful emotions in listeners
• Shylock's daughter, Jessica, didn't have a Hebrew accent. This is a foreshadow of her running away with a Christian and not identifying herself with the Jews.
• The women in the court scene were not very well disguised as men. It emphasized the gullibility and ignorance of the men for not recognizing them.

Last Friday my roommate had a boy over at our apartment and they were doing homework together. He started humming a song I vaguely recognized but couldn't quite place. Of course, I couldn't rest until I figured out what it was. Turn's out it was the song "When You Believe" from The Prince of Egypt. So of course that dang boy got the song stuck in my head and I had to go listen to it. Then I had to listen to it again, and again, and again. Needless to say, I've been listening to the Moses and the Hebrews leave Egypt since last Friday. I ended up finding an awesome video with the song put to a compilation of the movie. As I watched this video again and again (and was overheard singing it in the shower), I started thinking about the power of song, and how a well acted (or animated) scene and a good song can elicit emotions from us and make an experience more memorable. As you watch this video, pay attention to how it makes you feel, and maybe consider how different it would be if you were simply reading the words.

It's also pretty cool in context...

So why in the the world am I talking about this on my Shakespeare blog? Well, I've been thinking as I read Love's Labour's Lost about the production of Winter's Tale we went to and the fact that Shakespeare is meant to be seen, not read. That play was so different on stage than it was in my book. I was more connected to the characters, more invested in the plot, and better able to understand the humor. And the songs were awesome. There's a line in the beginning of Act 3 of Love's Labour's Lost that says:

BOY[sings] Concolinel


My footnote says that the word "Concolinel" is unknown, but is perhaps the first word or title of a song. So you're probably saying "so what?". Well, I don't know. I can't know, because all it is, is a word, not even lyrics to a song. What if the song sung by that boy is something as important to the plot as the song above was to its movie? Shakespeare wrote this boy to sing a song and I will never know what it sounded like. What else are we missing out on by simply reading the text? Moses's animated sister and wife singing about their faith in miracles had a real impact on me, now this boy singing Concolinel will never have the chance to do that.

So, answer me this: What are we missing out on when we only read the text of Shakespeare's plays? And, conversely, what are we gaining from experiencing the greatest literature of all time in a way it was not meant to be experienced?