Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Embodiment of honor

1 Henry IV, Death and dying, Tragic hero, Uncategorized

The embodiment of honor, the hero Hotspur is celebrated by the King in the first scene, who wishes that he was his son, instead of the cowardly son he has. Hotspur is a character who shoots and asks questions later. He is brilliant for his sense of honor and backbone, not one to run away from a fight. It is almost unfortunate to see him die at the hands of Prince Harry. Hotspur becomes a one-dimensional character who is a great warrior, but falls to the more all-around character, Prince Harry. This scene is not the only scene where Shakespeare kills off a similar character  in this way.

Laertes, a master fencer, is killed by Hamlet in a fencing duel. I thought that was ironic and showed that even though Hamlet isn’t the fencing expert because he was more well-rounded he was able to win the fight. Hamlet doesn’t win the fight to the death but does make it hard for Laertes and does show that he has some skill in fencing. Hamlet kills Laertes finally by scratching him with the poison sword Laertes sets up for him. Hamlet only kills Laertes by mistake.

Hamlet doesn’t need to kill Laertes, though. Laertes was merely a bystander, an obstacle in order to get to the King, who was Hamlet’s real target all along. I think Prince Harry really needed to kill Hotspur and it was especially important that he did. Once Hotspur was defeated by Prince Harry, Harry is able to live up to his promise early on that he would become a better character one fit to be the King. With this military defeat he take a step closer to becoming King and increases his military experience.

My only concern was that both characters– Hamlet and Prince Harry– got really lucky considering that Laertes and Hotspur were really good at what they do while the heroes, Prince Harry and Hamlet weren’t specifically strong at fighting as their counterparts are supposed to be. I think it’s the heroes’ ability to do more that sets them apart and shows that they can survive. These heroes can do everything possible to survive. I did find it appalling that Hotspur died the way he died. Hotspur is the definition of an honorable man. In the face of defeat, he proudly rode off and fought. He showed true valiance. I admired Hotspur for this; a smarter general would have conceded defeat and try to retreat. He didn’t, he took his family’s problems upon himself and the fact that his father wasn’t able to support him was upsetting. I did feel sorry and upset that Hotspur died. I saw it as a necessary death for Prince Harry to develop as a character but Hotspur was the hero at the beginning of the play only to become the villain at the end.

Scene Staging in The Winter’s Tale

Stage techniques, The Winter's Tale, Uncategorized

In a number of the plays we’ve read this semester, we’ve seen Shakespearean characters take part in scene staging. One of the earliest examples of this was in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, with Bottom and the craftsmen piecing together a performance for Theseus and Hippolyta. Other cases of scene staging, however, have not been so explicit. For instance, in Measure for Measure, when Lucio coaches Isabella during her first meeting with Angelo, he acts much like a stage director would: providing guidance to his “performers.”The Winter’s Tale is no exception to this pattern of scene staging. In the play’s closing scene, we can see some of the previous strands of scene staging arise–especially with regards to Paulina. Orchestrating Hermione and Leontes’ reunion, Paulina takes on the role of  director in the final scene of The Winter’s Tale.

Continue reading Scene Staging in The Winter’s Tale →

Reflection of Scene Study 7: The Winter’s Tale

Uncategorized

exit pursued by bear

When approaching this scene we, as a group, had many decisions to make. Some of them included: how we planned to portray the scene (whether it be completely tragic or have some comedy), where to shoot the scene (setting was important), how we intended on displaying a man being eaten by a bear. Before beginning to make any concrete decisions, we first had to read the scene multiple times to completely grasp the importance of the scene as well as to correctly interpret the characters within the scene.

After much discussion, we came to the conclusion that it was important to display the change in the play from tragedy to comedy. In order to commit to this portrayal, we created a comical-based scene. We began the scene in a dark place to represent the tragedy that was about to occur along with the sadness that preceded the scene, which led to the giving away of Perdita. The Mariner immediately begins the scene by stating that “the heavens with that we have in hand are angry/and frown upon ‘s.” This expresses how dark and stormy the clouds became upon entering the scene, and to our luck it was looking as if the “heavens” were “angry and frown[ed] upon ‘s” as well. Despite the cold and wet weather, we thought it would be perfect for the scene for us to go to the docks by the FDR drive to perfectly portray this scene rather than to create a fake prop. While running through the lines at the dock, we all began to have an even greater understanding for the scene. We were basically in the shoes of the characters created by Shakespeare. Placing ourselves in such a tragic setting, it became rather simple for us to get into character.

When approaching the Bear portion of the scene, we thought it would humorous to use a teddy bear to display the tragic, yet comical event. It seemed to be the perfect way to transition into a comedy. Instead of showing a person getting ripped to shreds, we also decided it would add to the scene to add a cartoon clip of a Bear chowing down on a man. Once we completed the transition, we thought it would be wise and, in a sense, metaphorical to move to Baruch’s campus to shoot this last portion of the scene. On campus the lights were brighter, and the it seemed as if there was no storm outside. This was done to express the change from a dark play to a play which has lightened up a bit. With a clown being introduced, we were able to portray his surprise of finding a baby with money. The shepherd and clown both saw this child as a gift since they suddenly became rich along with gaining a baby girl. Besides the clown displaying how happy he was to have riches, the clown also shared the news that he was the one who witnessed Antigonus getting brutally demolished by a bear. We saw this as Shakespeare’s way of blatantly telling his audience that this is going to become a comedy.

Through this scene study, we were able to get a sense of what it’s like to play a Shakespeare’s characters. We also had the opportunity to gain a full understanding of the scene and realize where the room of interpretation lies.

At least it isn’t raining…

Death and dying, King Lear, Tragedy, Uncategorized

As we discussed in class, it seems almost cruel that Shakespeare should show us one moment of harmonious justice only to tear it apart one moment afterwards. The entirety of the play seemed to be leading up to that triumphant moment when the true daughter would be reunited with her repentant father.

In the fairy tale version of this story that I grew up with, father and daughter are reunited in the end–after the father experiences a revelation as to the meaning of filial devotion and the dangers of excessive pride. (Here is a link to the various fairytale versions of the “how much do you love me” story http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/salt.html) In the link you can see how parallel King Lear is with the German “love like salt” tale.  Except for the tragic ending, where father and daughter die.

Now to get back to my original question, why? I think Shakespeare wanted to write a play that was more in the fun traditional Greek tragic style–where, you know, everyone dies and eyes are gouged out (think Oedipus, Antigone or The Trojan Women). What makes this play so especially tragic is that for all the constant grinding forward from bad to worse, we keep being tricked into thinking the horrible events have plateaued, or at least that there is room for optimism.

Edgar is one of the main vehicles for this unwarranted optimism. For example, in act 4 scene 1 right before he finds his disfigured father he says: “…The lowest and most dejected thing of fortune, /Stands still in esperance, lives not in fear: /The worst returns to laughter…/The wretch that thou hast blown unto the worst/ Owes nothing to they blasts.” This is incredibly painful to read a second time around because we know just low, dejected and wretched a thing fortune can make of man. It’s like something a vaudeville act; “well, at least it isn’t raining.”

Sweet optimism makes the bite of bitter fortune that much sharper. I cried when Lear carries Cordelia’s body out, maybe because I identified with the father daughter relationship. Maybe because nothing is more painful to me than the idea of a father suffering the loss of his child, of a father’s heart breaking. Perhaps Lear’s death was actually an act of mercy on Shakespeare’s part. To let him live after witnessing his daughter’s death would have been the cruelest punishment.

I suppose Cordelia had to die to show the audience how serious a crime it is to take unadorned love for granted. A father who takes his children for granted commits the greatest sin of all, throws away the most precious treasure. If Lear alone had died after his redemption it would not have been such a tragedy. He was elderly and in those days such a long life was a rarity, therefore it was not so unnatural for him to die.  But it is a a complete disruption of the natural order for an old man to bury his young daughter. Not only was she young, but beautiful and unendingly good. That is where the tragedy lies. 

I don’t think I have fully answered my own question, except to say that any other combination would not have been thoroughly tragic, and that is why Cordelia had to go.

 

 

Hotspur…The son that the King always wanted?

1 Henry IV, Character types, Uncategorized

Probably one of the most aggressive characters to play within Shakespeare’s King Henry IV Part 1, Hotspur’s “hot headed” demeanor is one of the most intriguing and entertaining factors of the entire play. It is almost like a New  Year’s Eve countdown reading a scene with him in it, as the audience just waits for the inevitable moment when the soldier would lose his temper and lash out at who is within a 5-mile radius of him. Maybe that is the characteristic the drew King Henry towards him in the first place. While his son Hal had more of a laid back and intellectual savant type of personality, Hotspur’s aggressive nature was an attractive character trait for the King who knew that in order to rule you must have the will to act at all times.

Yet, what if King Henry did have Hotspur as a son? I believe that Hotspur would not have had the lazy and relaxed type nature of Hal, but would have been a very hyper and willing soldier who’d jump into action at the very first sign of disturbance or an altercation. At first I believe that King Henry would have appreciated Hotspur’s dedication to be the best, and probably would have promoted him to the highest rank of military order. But there is a down side to this alternative scenario; as I believe that while the King would have been proud of his soldier-like son; his life span would have also been shortened. Hotspur’s lust for power would have eventually boiled over to the point in which he would take action towards King Henry and take over the throne. It is a situation in which a character’s position does not change his personality, but only reveals it to a hire degree. Though King Henry did kill his uncle Richard in order to take over the throne himself; so therefore I guess he and Hotspur would’ve have still obtained that “like father, like son” quality.

The True Villain of The Story (Mystery Solved)

Hamlet, Tragedy, Uncategorized

Within the story of Hamlet one is introduced to a grown man who is distraught and immature due to the death of his father, the late King Hamlet. Once Prince Hamlet is introduced in the story he is overly sarcastic and brooding, which he has all the right to be due to the recent death of his father. To tack onto the feelings of anger and despair the young prince has to now witness his mother  (Queen Gertrude) enter into a relationship with his uncle (King Claudius), which would drive any son who loved his father as much as Hamlet did mad. Yet, this man did not attempt to look within the perspective of his mother and begin to ensue hatred upon her. This hatred is not due to the fact that she married Hamlet’s uncle, no that would not be enough anger to fuel the hatred that Hamlet possessed, but it was a result of the happiness that he saw from his mother once she was with Claudius. The way she looked at him was probably a way that Hamlet wasn’t accustomed to when his father and her were together. His father being the soldier that he was, most likely never opened himself up enough emotionally towards the queen for her to have such a connection. Therefore there love was probably a facade within their own eyes, and the only thing that truly linked them together emotionally was that of their son. Prince Hamlet’s first interaction with the ghost of his father was the downfall of the young man’s life,  and in hindsight one of the most evil acts committed within the play. His dead father, who one could not clearly tell was from purgatory or hell, set his son in motion to not only lose his life, but go crazy in for process. Telling this man who is clearly not a soldier capable of killing willingly, but a student who uses his mind more than his fist, to kill his uncle who the ghost “assumes” killed him is an act of villainy unto itself.

I utilized the word assume due to the fact that the events the ghost tells Hamlet has no proof to validate it being true. Yes, maybe there was poison being used and it was poured down the ear of the late king, but the killer’s identity is only a figment of the dead’s king imagination. It is King Hamlet’s only logical choice, but as prince Hamlet has shown throughout the play, the logical choice is not always the best one. One must look at the play and look at how the events unraveled to the very end, for it is within the slightest details that the truth is revealed and that the true killer is unmasked. Prince Hamlet’s anger toward his mother while misguided was correctly placed, because I believe that she did love Claudius, and the only way she could have been with him was to get ride of the independent variable, which was her husband. Queen Gertrude was the true killer in this play, and I believe that Shakespeare has hidden this assumption within his literature for centuries. I believe she was the one who poisoned her husband, and Claudius knowing the situation took the pressure off of her and set himself up to be the bad guy. Though he was only the Macbeth to the Queen’s Lady Macbeth like tendencies.  It is no wonder that the poisonous cup was ingested first by her, for karma has a clever way of coming back to where it all began; and it all started with her. She tricked Hamlet, the people of Denmark, and even her dead husband, but she couldn’t deceive fate. To quote Shakespeare himself “frailty, thy name is woman.“

Acting lessons in Shakespeare

Hamlet, Uncategorized

In Act 3, sc. 2 of Hamlet, the young Hamlet offers acting lessons to the Player of  the “Mousetrap” performance that shed light  on much more than the theater prowess of the prince.  These directions reflect the different acting that goes on in the play, whether it is Hamlet “acting” crazy, the Queen “acting” like a good wife or Ophelia “acting” on her father’s behalf. These varieties of acting fall into the repeating idea that truth can be bated with lies and doing kindness with pain.  The duplicity of acting is reflected in such plans as Hamlet’s concocted play and his utter blunt reveal to his mother of the wrong committed against her  first husband, his father.

The lines

” Be not too tame neither, but let your own discretion be your tutor…For anything so o’erdone is from the purpose of playing whose end, both at the first and now, was an is to hold, as ’twere, the mirror up to nature, to show virtue her (own) feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and nature” (3.2  17- 26)

shed light on the purpose and pattern that Hamlet himself applies to his performance of lunacy. In his acting, he reveals not only the crime of his uncle, but the nature of his two friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern,  the acting of Ophelia upon her father’s wishes, and the performance of his mother as the widowed Queen. It is to his madness that each of these relationships and actings respond and almost seem to bring an extreme that would not have been otherwise unearthed if it was not for Hamlet.

It is especially significant when considering that ideas like truth/lies and pain/kindness are opposites. Yet they are necessary to bring out the other within the play.  These opposites are necessary for the other to exist and can actually bring out each other, like the opposite characters of the play and the different forms of acting that thread the play.

Welcome to the Shakespearean Scenes Blog

Uncategorized

The header is from a drawing of an early Shakespearean scene:  the figures represented are Titus Andronicus and Tamora, Queen of the Goths, wearing anachronistic costumes–the scene is early Rome, but Renaissance styles intermingle with more historically accurate togas.  Shakespearean staging has always been imaginative and not literal, and students in ENG 4140 this semester will have an opportunity to create their own images as they enact and upload a selected group of scenes from the plays we will study this term.