Twelfth Night and Comic Cross-dressing

Found at http://www.listal.com/list/drag-king

Dr. Burton brought up an interesting point today how many of Shakespeare's comedies have cross-dressing in them. I was wondering about that myself. I had the opportunity to read an article/blog on Shakespearean Cross Dressing on Yahoo! Associated Content. The author of the said blog theorizes that women dressed up as men in order to become actors in that day, thus making the tangle of genders in plays like Twelfth Night even more distressing. I honestly don't know whether this idea has any merit, although it's interesting to think about. The writer did not have any sources to back up this theory, so it could just be a shot in the dark.
What does everyone think?

Looking at Shakespeare's Portrayal: Richard III, Villain or Not?

One thing that really intrigued me about this play was just how bloody Richard's hands were. He would stoop at nothing to gain his ends. I wondered if that was really the case, or if Shakespeare dramatized his morally repugnant character to become larger than life.  

I thought I would look into this a little deeper, to see what the truth might be. So far, the Britannia Encyclopedia said that the evidence for Richard's murders of his brothers and nephews was "based on purely circumstantial evidence." 

I also read up a little in a book called History of the Life and Reign of Richard the Third. In my opinion the book is pretty biased, but it gives a much kinder representation of Richard than Shakespeare. Some of the evidence it gives to disassociate Richard from the young Prince Edward's death is the location of Richard in northern England at the time, as well as Richard's pledge of support to the young prince. 

Honestly, either way you put it, he probably was responsible for some of the ill that happened during his reign. He definitely stood in the position of the most benefit for the majority of the murders. 

However, I think it's important to note that, through no fault of his own, Richard III's rule served to help reunite England.

Live Amateur Performance or Professional Video?

In a fit of whimsical curiosity, I asked my roommate and her boyfriend to act out the infamous scene already shown in this blog (see previous entry).
I figured it might be interesting to see what a couple of college students could bring to this play that Ian McKellen couldn't. The answer: humor. Seth's (my roommate's boyfriend) performance made an already creepy character take on a third dimension. Chelsey, my roommate, is a theatre performance major from Weber State, and she made a point of acting exactly as she would expect Lady Anne to act.
Plus, since they were in actuality a couple, it changed the whole dynamic of the scene. When Richard/Seth told Lady Anne he belonged in her bedchamber, I was about to roll on the floor (from laughter of course).
The result was a slightly soap opera-ish performance, nix props that just get in the way. But it really helped cement in my mind just how the scene could work.
(Incidentally, Chelsey and Seth continued to talk in Shakespearean English long after they finished the scene. I may have helped Seth discover the blooming poet inside!)

Courtship as Richard III Sees it

One of the things that intrigues me most about this play is how Richard is received among the women. We know that he is deformed, so there must be a pity factor there. He is also eloquent, which is the bane of the female sex. We are so easily convinced... at least in this play we are.
In class, my group talked a little bit about Richard's smooth talking Lady Anne into marrying him, her husband's murderer. As I experience a tendency to veer back toward my main focus of perspective, I like to look at Lady Anne's character. What has she experienced that exposes her and makes her vulnerable to Richard's charms? She seems to be a passionate person, and as we know, passion can go both ways. Perhaps, for all her volatility, she is not as intelligent as she sounds.
I found this clip of the Ian McKellen version that shows one interpretation of Richard's abilities:

So tell me what you think? Is she stupid, or just overwhelmed with grief?
More on this later!

Making Decisions

Well, Dr. Burton did say we needed to devise some kind of schedule for the rest of the semester. And while I like to plan ahead, I also like to have some wiggle-room. So I have devised a schedule for next week that will serve as a kind of model for how this thing is going to go. I'll make revisions as a I need to, and I will add major things in, like attending performances, or making my own performance.

Jan. 24, Mon: Read Richard III background, Act I
            Blog: Connect the history to the play.

Jan. 26, Wed: Read Acts II and III
             Blog: find interesting facts from play. Formulate ideas about characters.

Jan. 28, Fri: Read Acts IV and V
              Blog: optional

Goals: To make connections with the history, understand the play, and determine the characterization.

So that's the breakdown, and I think it will work for the other plays I read!

Shakespeare's Own WWE Smackdown: Laertes vs. Hamlet!

I find, being a list-maker, that blocking out my ideas in a list format is just so much more useful to my own learning and edification. Plus it's easier for others to read.
So, while I was reading the last act of Hamlet, I noticed that Laertes and Hamlet have a lot of similarities in situation, but the results were somewhat different. I have been told before that Laertes is Hamlet's literary foil. So I decided to map it out to see just how that actually works in the play, and especially in the last scene.

Amendments of the original plan

So I realized I don't need to do quite as much reading as I originally suspected. (Thank goodness!) As a result, specificity might do me some good. The other plays by Shakespeare I wish to read this semester, in addition to Hamlet, are Twelfth Night, Richard the Third, King Lear, Macbeth, and the Tempest.
So there's some clarification. Mostly for my own benefit so I don't bite off more than I can chew...

"Thought is free" but education is not

Learning about Shakespeare is kind of double-edged sword. You learn a lot about literature and all that good kind of stuff, but you really start to think in that elevated kind of language, not to mention you start to see everything as some kind of innuendo. Ok, maybe not. But I'm grateful for the opportunity to plan how this course is going to go for me.
So here goes:
Goal 1: I really want to focus on the genres of Shakespeare that I have taken for granted in the past. The only history I ever read of his was Julius Caesar. I also want to read some of his better known plays that I've never read, like Macbeth, King Lear. For a total, I want to read about 12 of his plays. I also want to read at least three works based on those plays from a different perspective (like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern with Hamlet).

Goal 2: I want to watch as many of the films for the plays and adaptations as I can. Probably won't reach all 15, because of time constraints, but it's worth a shot. For three of the movies, I then want to write a film review (because I have done it before and it really helps!) as if I were going to submit it to a newspaper.

Goal 3: Okay, two things. #1: perform a lesser known monologue for some friends or the class. I have a roommate that is a theatre major and she can maybe help me a little bit. And #2: Write a narrative of some kind for a Shakespeare play from a minor character's perspective.

Goal 4: I want to research theories about perspective, especially in drama. I will share as much as I can about what I learn on my blog, both informative and entertaining content. If I write a blog I am particularly proud of, I might even post it on my facebook status.

So here it is, and I promise to abide by what I've written as best as I can!

A Matter of Perspective

Having now read the first few acts of Hamlet using a couple of different methods, I have stumbled upon something that I find really interesting about Shakespearean plays. Characterization is completely up for interpretation. We deduce all that we know about characters by the script of the play. When the play is performed, the actor is given a wide range for the portrayal of their character.
I have had the opportunity of viewing the Mel Gibson version of Hamlet, as well as the Kenneth Branagh version in high school. During that class, we also read the play called Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead and watched the corresponding movie. I found the switch in perspectives extremely refreshing in my understanding of the play.
When you are reading a play, you look at perspectives constantly, because the dialogue, the strongest aspect of the play, is always in the speaker's point of view.
While reading Hamlet this time, I want to focus on the perspectives of all of the relevant characters. In Acts II and III, I really wanted to focus on Ophelia's perspective. What is she thinking and feeling, seeing a former lover and friend go completely bonkers (apparently)? One can only guess that she is experiencing a vast amount of confusion. On top of that, her brother and father assure her that Hamlet is only flirting, while everything Hamlet does points to the contrary. So she's being pulled in all these different directions.
I also tried to see things from Polonius' view. That was somewhat enlightening, because it gave a real emphasis on his relationship to Ophelia as a father. On the other hand, it's really hard to delve too deep into Polonius' character because, well, he's a pompous windbag.
During the end of the third act, I focused more on the perspective of the Queen, and what she must be thinking and feeling. The reader can gather that she lived in wilful ignorance of Claudius' misdeeds; even though she is innocent of the actual murder, Hamlet accuses her of murdering his father by giving her love to Hamlet I's murderer. That has to be hard to swallow for someone who probably isn't used to that kind of treatment from her children. And it is apparent that she genuinely loves Hamlet in the expression of her concern for him, although it is maybe not manifested in the best way.
That being said, I feel I have developed a deeper understanding of what Shakespeare wanted to accomplish with these disparate characters and their roles within the play.

Here is a link to a clip from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, essentially summarizing their view of Hamlet's situation: Click HERE

10 Unexpected Reasons Why Shakespeare and I Get Along

Every English speaker forms their relationship with Shakespeare throughout their early lives. For myself, I stayed pretty neutral towards Shakespeare until my senior of high school when we read several of his plays. I have had opportunities to read more of his work on my own and in classes since then. Every time I am struck by things I like.

Here are some of them:

1. He has an “earthy” sense of humor. Some matrons that might unknowingly quote some random Shakespearean might blush to know what was really meant by it. It took me some time to get in the mindset, but pretty much all of Shakespeare’s common dialogue is innuendo. And, immature as I am, I find it funny.

2. He’s not afraid to go big. I mean look at Hamlet, or Romeo and Juliet. Half the cast dies, and the other half live out their lives in contented regret. Not everyone can get away with that.

3. He treats his women well. Ok. Some of the time. But he really does give them more humanity than other writers of his time, which I have to appreciate, being a woman and all.

4. Sometimes the little guy triumphs over the big guy. We Americans sure have an appreciation for the underdog. For instance, Othello is the big guy in charge, and Iago is the little pee-on. Who goes crazy and kills his wife? Not Othello. No, he is carefully manipulated by the servant he trusted. As despicable as Iago is, you can’t help admiring his crafty ingenuity.

5. The guy is one big romantic. I don’t know how much of that stems from his money-making tendencies, but still. Talking about undying love never hurt anyone.

6. Some of his characters have attitude, with a capital A. He really allows his womenfolk to be quite sassy. So entertaining!

7. He knows how to put in the action. Yes, his characters do a lot of talking, but there are plenty of fight scenes in any of his plays.

8. He makes up his own words. How cool is that! If he can do it, then maybe I can….

9. He understands the important stuff. I’m thinking of the theme of redemption in Winter’s Tale.

10. He rhymes better than a rapper. You never feel like he was really stretching the rhymes. It sounds almost natural. Jealous Eminem?