e_juliana: (method to madness)
[livejournal.com profile] hecubot asked: Please to blog about Shakespeare. A favorite production you worked on as either actor or director.

To be honest, I've only ever acted in one Shakespeare, Measure for Measure and assistant-directed one Shakespeare, Richard III. Both my high school and my college did no Shakespeare (ridiculous!), and the gestalt in my MSP group was mostly toward modern dramas.

So! I will instead blog about Shakespeare and text and my favorites.

I took as many Shakespeare courses as I could in college (enough to get a double minor in English and history). I have read every single Shakespeare play and sonnet. (I can't seem to get through Venus and Adonis or The Rape Of Lucrece to save my life.) I've seen most of the plays performed, either live or via the BBC productions. Of course, I have my favorites, the ones that stick in my memory, the ones that shaped my worldview.

Richard III. The play can definitely be classed as libel, and yet Richard is one of the most powerful characters ever. He is an arrant sociopath (much like Iago), and is yet so bloody charming that the audience can't help but to fall in love with him a little bit. "Was ever woman in this humour wooed? Was ever woman in this humour won?"

Queen Margaret (Mad Margaret) makes her most powerful appearance in this play, as well:

Thus hath the course of justice wheel'd about
And left thee but a very prey to time,
Having no more, but thought of what thou wert
To torture thee the more, being what thou art.
Thou didst usurp my place, and doest thou not
Usurp the just proportion of my sorrow?
Now thy proud neck bears half my burthened yoke,
From which, even here, I slip my weary neck,
And leave the burthen of it all on thee.


Shakespeare is also showing off his mad skillz with language and its tricks - anaphora, hendyadis (which is most used in Hamlet), stichomythia, etc. It's a pleasure to read, and an absolute pleasure to seen done well (or to do well).

Love's Labour's Lost. It's a problematic play, in that it's heavy on the meta and the in-jokes and is therefore difficult to perform now. I still enjoy it, because it's just... fun. (It's more fun when you're reading the Arden edition and have the in-jokes laid out for you.)

Much Ado About Nothing. I prefer this version of the star cross'd lovers trope (as opposed to Romeo and Juliet), because Claudio does exhibit youthful stupidity (and frankly, Hero should kick him to the curb), but he isn't acting in solitude - he listens to his trusted friend and sets a course of action that the Duke must approve of (for which I frown at you, Don Pedro. You should have better manners). Plus, Beatrice and Benedick! A woman not settling, but having a clear idea what she wants out of a relationship and demanding to be treated as an equal.

Romeo & Juliet does have a few saving graces, primarily Mercutio. Shakespeare famously said that he had to kill off Mercutio before Mercutio killed him.

Macbeth, I go back and forth on. It's fascinating (and so gawthik!), but it's also a little hard for me to take. It's bloody as fuck, with no real line of redemption. (I do not consider Malcolm or Donalbain to be sympathetic, and I have a problem with the blatant "James! Hurrah!" meta-text.)

Henry V. Despite the nationalistic overtones, I quite like this play. "For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother." One of the best parts of the play, for me, is the culmination of the journey we saw Prince Hal undertake in Henry IV, Parts 1 & 2. Hal, though he professes to be a simple man when he is courting Katherine, is actually a quite complex character who cares deeply for the state and his people.

Hamlet. Ah, Hamlet. I don't know that any other play has been written about as much as Hamlet. So much prose has been spilled in analyzing the melancholy prince, and people are forever finding new ways to attack the text.

I love Hamlet because how I relate to the play has changed every time in a reflection of my own personal journey. I love Hamlet because you can make an entirely new play every time, thanks to the length of the play and the existence of multiple versions. (The most common are First Quarto, Second Quarto, and First Folio. There are also Folios 2-6, generally understood to be performance notations.) I love Hamlet because it is one of the most challenging roles an actor can hope to undertake in her or his lifetime.

Hamlet-the-character, however, I have less patience with. At least, currently. I have a directorial précis that outlines How I Feel about the character, and I frankly don't have much patience for him at this point. (I'll write up the précis later.)


Shakespeare himself, I don't have much of an opinion on. I refuse to enter in to the Great Authorial Debate - my personal theory is that he wrote the plays himself, some with massive collaboration, some mostly by himself. I think it's clear that he was a complex and canny man, as well as a veritable sponge of mass culture. He certainly understood how to appeal to the widest market, from low comedy for the groundlings to complex moral debate for the gallery. He also knew how to stay alive and afloat in a rather drama-hostile environment.


I could seriously expound for days, and one of my very favorite games is casting various Shakes plays with... whomever. Simpsons characters. Bandom. The Founding Fathers. Whatever. But Shakespeare, like any theater, is best expounded upon in person, with a drink in hand. So, next time you see me at the bar, ask me about Shakespeare. I promise you'll be entertained.
e_juliana: (method to madness)
How could I resist this?

When you see a Shakespeare quote in a journal, post one in yours.

My favorite of Macbeth's speeches (done extremely well in Slings & Arrows Season 1, by the way):

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
e_juliana: (mad NNW)
I have to ask myself that every time I start geeking out.

I haven't paid my BFA off yet, and I dislike school, but man, I would have fun. Especially if the course was heavy on practicum and modern interpretations.

Tarry, rash wanton....
e_juliana: (method to madness)
A friend linked to this essay on another board: A New Sith, or Revenge of the Hope: Reconsidering Star Wars IV in the light of I-III, © Keith Martin 2005

The opening sentence reads:

"If we accept all the Star Wars films as the same canon, then a lot that happens in the original films has to be reinterpreted in the light of the prequels. As we now know, the rebel Alliance was founded by Yoda, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Bail Organa. What can readily be deduced is that their first recruit, who soon became their top field agent, was R2-D2."


He then goes on to discuss the very real possibility that Chewbacca was also a top field agent for the Rebellion, and that there are layers upon layers of interaction that we haven't seen before. The scariest thing is that this isn't a cracked-out theory at all - it's completely supported by the movies I have seen. I know Lucas had absolutely no intent to make R2 & Chewie master spies, but it seems that he has anyway (looks like the asspulls prequels were good for something).

Unfortunately, the essay has had the effect of forcing me to put Revenge of the Sith at the top of my Netflix queue, just so I can see precisely what he's talking about. Remind me to stock up on Fernet before I attack that one.

However, the essay has also had the effect of making me think about characters and they will often take on a life of their own, either as the author is trying to put them to the page or as the public observes and assimilates them. I've heard my writerly friends complain about particularly lively characters, and I've had the experience of trying to direct a character that is refusing the interpretation I've put on it. (I've also had the experience of an actor refusing my interpretation, but I've hidden those bodies well.) Even the greatest English playwright had that problem, for as John Dryden said, "Shakespeare showed the best of his skill in his Mercutio; and he said himself, that he was forced to kill him in the third act, to prevent being killed by him." Mercutio does fairly leap off the page, swaggering and heckling. I can think of two other Shakespearian characters that are akin to riding the tiger - Falstaff and Richard III.

It's one thing to love an actor in a role - it's a very different thing to purely love the character, and to watch that character take life on its own.

What is that? Why does that happen? I'm seriously asking for your takes here, y'all.

Profile

e_juliana: (Default)
e_juliana

December 2011

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
1819 2021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 08:52 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios