Prospero's master plan... or is it Ariel's?

As we continue to read through the Tempest, Prospero is looked at as the mastermind and ultimate power behind the plot and the island. Yet, as the play progresses it is left to ask if Prospero is really calling any of the shots. It really seems as if his sidekick, Ariel, is really the one causing all the action.

   In the beginning, Prospero asks Ariel:

"Hast thou, spirit, perform'd to point the tempest that I bade thee?"

   Then, Ariel responds "To every article." and describes in detail the fierce storm.

This seems to have Prospero's plans written all over it. However, did he plan out any of the rest?

   After assuring Ariel's servitude to him, Prospero tells her simply:

"Go make thyself like a nymph o' the sea: be subject to no sight but thine and mine, invisible to every eyeball else. Go take this shape and hither come in't: go, hence with diligence!"

That's it. No special instructions except to make herself like a nymph and invisible. What she does, however, is quite a bit more, such as leading an enchanted Ferdinand into a soon-to-be-enchanted Miranda. For this, Prospero says:

"At the first sight, they have changed eyes. Delicate Ariel, I'll set thee free for this."

and then questions if this is really the best plan:

"They are both in either's powers; but this swift business I must uneasy make, lest too light winning make the prize light."

Then later Prospero seems to be watching over all when before Ariel saves Gonzalo and Alonso she says:

"My master through his art forsees the danger that you, his friend, are in; and sends me forth- for else his project dies- to keep them living."

Yet, after she wakes them and is confident that they are safe, she says:

"Prospero my lord shall know what I have done: so king, go safely on to seek thy son."

These points lead to me questioning if Prospero really knows what is going on. If he could really see the danger of Gonzalo and Alonso, then wouldn't he have seen what Ariel did? Why then was she going off to report? Does Prospero really tell Ariel backstage exactly what he wants her to do, or does he just tell her general acts? Maybe Ariel just goes the extra mile in everything in order to get freed for her service. Either way, I don't think Prospero knows exactly what he's doing, but is sometimes sitting, waiting for Ariel to act and will then respond to however her actions pan out.

Macbeth - Live!

It's not about Last Friday Night, but about last Saturday night. No, I didn't go to a raving party, but to a production of Macbeth put on by The Grassroots Shakespeare Company. Not as awesome as Katy Perry? I would disagree. And no, I'm not a nerd, it was simply an awesome production. Here are some highlights:

Lights!

The company tried to keep it as realistic to the times as possible, so they kept everything simple - a.k.a. a lot of things that Shakespeare would have had access to. This included the 'mood lights'. Now, I don't know that he would have had light generators, but there were three light settings: regular white, regal red, and royal blue. This separated the play into simple scenes: the normal everyday conversations, the murder and death scenes, and the dark night scenes. Pretty simple, but really easy to follow.



Camera!

So... there really weren't any cameras. However, there was some gaming. Little Fleance was caught sneaking out his little handheld gaming device. Or should I say her gaming device. Trying to keep it realistic, they had males playing female parts and females playing male parts (even though they didn't have female actors during Shakespeare's time). This lack of technology didn't slow the actors down though as the play became more about the audience than about the grand performance of the actors. And it worked. The audience was much more interactive as they booed Lady Macbeth and cheered on Macduff as he fought. They hid Fleance from the murderers and shook hands with the actors as they were titled to new positions. This production didn't use cameras to provide a physical separation. They literally jumped right in!





Action!

As for action, all I have to do is send out the reminder that it was Macbeth. Of course there was action! It would be interesting seeing a production of Macbeth without any. That would produce a very short play... However, fortunately there was some and it kept things moving along and once again produced some laughs, cheers, boos, and general comments from the groundlings. Interestingly enough though, the actors were able to play off of that - using the cheers to buoy themselves up, trying to hide the pointing fingers when they asked who could have killed the king. The actors' actions played off the audience's actions, proving a direct interaction between the two.




Reading Shakespeare's Macbeth, people can forget the personal aspect of this play. What The Grassroots Shakespeare Company reminded me was the fact that Shakespeare was writing for the audience. He wanted them to gasp in fear at the terrible deed of killing a king, laugh at the drunk porter, feel a sense of triumph as Macduff triumphs over the evil Macbeth. This play was written to give the audience their own personal journey through the story, and let me tell you - Macbeth leads you through one heck of a journey!

'Tis a matter of opinion

So we're off reading The Tempest now, and I have to admit, I'm more intrigued in the story line than into analyzing it. I think it's because of the Tempest's amazing scenes that you simply have to imagine in order to understand what is going on. Unlike Love's Labour's Lost where the whole play seems to happen in one little area of a forest, the Tempest spans over a whole island that has the intrigue of being a shipwreck island. Now, as I was reading, I decided to actually get a feel of this island through looking at it through the characters' eyes.

We seem to have some conflicting views though.

Adrian: The air breathes upon us here most sweetly.

Sebastian: As if it had lungs and rotten ones.

Antonio: Or as 'twere perfumed by a fen.

             

Gonzalo: Here is everything advantageous to life.

Antonio: True; save means to live.

Sebastian: Of that there's none, or little.

Gonzalo: How lush and lusty the grass looks! how green!

Antonio: The ground indeed is tawny.

Sebastian: With an eye of green in't.

So what's up? Are they on two different islands???

It sure seems like it...

I think this just shows the difference between characters. Those with the cup half full, and those who choose to see it as just plain empty.

So here's my list:

Optimistic:

Gonzalo

Alonso

Pessimistic:

Antonio

Sebastian

We'll have to continue on and see who ends up the happiest!

Friend or foe?

So, after having finished reading the text as well as viewing a movie production of Macbeth, I was intrigued by one of the liberties the movie director (Patrick Stewart) took with the production that made me think twice about Macbeth.

In the movie, the three witches didn't appear as the normal pointy-hat, ugly, babbling old women. Instead, the witches were living among the normal crowd disguised as nurses. This brought them into a much more prevalent role as every time a dead person was rolled by, you saw at least one of the witches.

Now, how does this relate to Macbeth?

In Macbeth's final battle with Macduff, he states that he will never give up, though the witches' prophecies had doomed him. Then, in the movie, he has Macduff beaten and is about to stab him (causing Macbeth's victory), but is stopped by the image of the witches. Seeing them, a look of resignation comes over his face and he halts the blade. Then, as the witches' images fade, you hear a knife stab and an audible moan.

This made me think of another play I've been studying, Oedipus the King.

In this play, Oedipus is told at birth that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Then, to avoid this, his mother sent him to a far away land. Long story short, trying to escape these prophecies, he leaves his 'real' parents and travels far away. This leads him to kill his actual father and marry his mother.

The main theme in this play is that you cannot avoid your fate. Because of Oedipus' 'tragic flaw' of arrogance, he was destined to do these things and could not fight against it.

So, it made me think of Macbeth being like Oedipus. Destined to a pre-determined fate of the gods. Destined to kill Duncan and in turn be killed by Macduff to ensure that Fleance his own destiny. It made me wonder if in the movie he stopped because he finally decided to accept his fate rather than continue to fight against it.

Now, I personally don't share these beliefs of fate, but I wonder if Shakespeare was borrowing from Greek literature and once again bringing up these questions to be asked.

Again with the acting...

So, just as Hamlet has a play within a play, so does Love's Labour's Lost. However, this time it is different. It is no longer glorified, but utterly ridiculed.

I find it funny that Ferdinand's crew makes fun of the actors in the play. It is just like the Princess and her ladies were making fun of Ferdinand and his men for trying to act like Russians. I see it as an un-official play followed by a formal play - and both are ridiculed. The Princess of France said about the men's attempt to play them:

   "So shall we stay, mocking intended game, and they, well mock'd depart away with shame."


Then, in the middle of the play with the Worthies, Dumain and Longaville ridicule Don Adriano de Armado's acting when Don Armando says:


   "I am that flower,-"


And Dumain and Longaville respond with:

   "That mint."
   "That columbine."


This is really meant in mockery as mint was thought of as the lowliest of plants, always to be tread on, and columbine represented foolishness as was also mentioned in Hamlet and in one of my previous posts.

I just find it funny that those who were playing are now making fun of those in the play. Maybe it makes them feel better about their own acts of foolishness by making fun of another's.

Introducing... Macbeth

Now, I'm not going to be talking about these Macbeths...

but about these Macbeths...

 

   Yep... pretty bloody, I know. But, what can you expect from a play that is centered around murder?  

Some interesting things about this play:

The word "blood" or "bloody" shows up 36 times in the play. Some of these quotes stating it more than once.

This play begins with a war and ends with a war. 

There are three significant murders plus the murder of an entire family (minus one) and a suicide.

This play is thought to be cursed, causing members of the production to call it "the Scottish play"  backstage rather than referring to it by name.

This is truly an action-packed play and it will be my pleasure to cover it over the course of the next month. This will include my thorough reading of it and my listening to an audio recording. I will also be watching a video of it, though I am not sure which one yet. There have been many productions of Macbeth through the years (some amazing, and some critiqued as not so amazing), yet one has been noted to stand out as one of the greatest productions. That is the production directed by Rupert Goold - starring Patrick Stewart and Kate Fleetwood. It is more of a modernized production that can easily be accessed online (see link below). However, through viewing the first scene, I believe that this movie must be watched on Halloween (or in preparation for it) seeing as it left me light-headed after the first 5 minutes. This should be congratulated, though, as I believe from simply viewing the first two scenes, that it has truly captured the nightmarish mood that Shakespeare was searching for.

So there you have it. More to come on Macbeth. But before I go, I just wanted to add- for those men who think that Shakespeare is beneath their manliness- to give Macbeth a shot. I'd say that if you like action and violence, I think you'd be pretty satisfied with this play.

To view a summary of all the action, check out SparkNotes at: http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/macbeth

To view the totally wicked production of Macbeth directed by Rupert Goold, good luck, and check out this link:

   http://video.pbs.org/video/1604122998

or for a short preview, check this out:

              

What's in a name?

Clowns.

Those ever-entertaining, forever-loved characters.

      Reading through Love's Labour's Lost, we are introduced to a character named Costard, who, we are told, is a clown. Our previous encounter with a clown in A Winter's Tale, however, simply refers to the clown as 'Clown'. Why the difference? Why did they give one clown a name and not the other one? Pondering this question makes me think of another character created by Shakespeare: Juliet Capulet, who we all know asked the question "What's in a name?"

I ask the same thing.

      What is it about Costard that makes him worthy of a name? What is it about the Clown in A Winter's Tale that dooms him to remain without one? Is it simply that Costard needed to be accused by Armado, which would require a name to make sure that the audience know it was truly Costard who is being accused? Yet, couldn't Armado simply (though nothing by Armado is simple) have accused Costard without using his name? Couldn't he have said something like-

   'The one caught in this act- of which I have beforehand made reference- in the which I will now simply refer to as the act of which he has commited; for it is truly him which I have had sent to thee by way of this most highly esteemed man, by the name of Anthony Dull- a man of good repute, carraige, bearing, and estimation- who has delivered and graciously brought forward this aforesaid man; this low-spirited swain, this base minnow of thy mirth, this unlettered small-knowing soul, this shallow vassal whom I have caught in the act- who has been caught with a woman...'

That would pretty much point to none other than the clown, Costard. So... if the audience clearly knows who is being accused here, then why the need for his name?