Category Archives: Costumes and props

Autolycus: The Wolf [Him]self

There is a great deal of talk talk about bears, lions, and other beasts such as wolves in The Winter’s Tale, but by the second half of the play, we realize that the only wolf we are going to meet is Autolycus. This is not to say that this rogue is simply an antagonist, though. He is a highly complex character who falls somewhere in between the realms of good and bad: the realm of mankind.

To start, it is important to mention that the name Autolycus means “The Wolf itself” and has an extensive background in Greek mythology. In short, the mythological Autolycus was the son of Hermes and the grandfather of Odysseus.  He is said to have been a great thief who had the gift of never being caught.  It is interesting that this is the meaning behind his name, especially after we see him stealing fleece at sheep-shearing festival.  In addition to this, he calls people “the herd” (4.4) after he completes this task.  As we all know, wolves typically prey on sheep, and therefore, the sheep tend to fear them. This fact of nature would normally lead us to believe that Autolycus is evil and wishes to cause the people harm. Yet this is not the case. The people (or the “herd”) don’t fear Autolycus because he’s not really hurting anyone with what he’s doing. It is more likely that he deems these people “the herd” not because he wishes them harm, but because he is extremely clever and cunning and can constantly outwit and win these mindless sheep-like individuals over with his charming personality.  It should also be noted that prior to this festival, Autolycus has been stealing sheets. There is an apparent sexual connotation here that brings to mind it the issue of Leontes, who thought Hermione was sleeping with King Polixenes. This links the latter half of the play back with the first and gives us reason to believe that Autolycus is a foil of Leontes. Autolycus uses his “profession” to his advantage and sparks a comedic element in the play, while Leontes is suffering the consequences of his false accusations and represents the tragic aspect of the play.

Autolycus appears in disguise several times (as peddler at the sheep shearing festival and later as a nobleman), tricks nearly everyone he comes in contact with by picking their pockets, and also captivates them through bawdy songs which are often about marriage, love, and sex. Shakespeare has presented us with a highly seductive character, which is likely one of the reasons why audiences and the people around him in the play seem to take a liking to him so much. His behavior is anything but honorable and he often speaks and sings crudely, but his songs are still expressed in a way that is artful and appeals to the senses and interests of his audience, and his deeds are almost overshadowed by his skillful wit and honesty with the audience.  Autolycus might bring to mind Milton’s interpretation of the devil in Paradise Lost; though he is acting immorally and takes on different forms, we cannot help but also feel some sort of sympathy for and attraction toward him as a character. It helps that he really conveys the plight of the working class and shifting times on a larger level.  We can see through his description of himself (4.4, 95-102) and also his actions that sometimes he works, sometimes he steals, and sometimes he begs.  It is clear through many of the plays we have read (especially through Measure for Measure and King Lear, in my opinion) that Shakespeare was aware that life was not easy for most people living in 17th century England. It was a struggle to put food on the table each day, but Autolycus makes light of the situation through his humor, and would therefore be appealing to and appreciated by this large portion of the population.

In addition to this, when we learn that he used to work in the court, it becomes evident that he also serves as a link between the royal world and the pastoral world.  He isn’t your typical member of the bourgeoisie. Autolycus always masters every situation he’s in and he is a jack-of-all-trades.  He is not unlike Falstaff in terms of his wit and general competence; there is no doubt that he is in control and very aware of what is going on around him. I might go so far as to argue that Autolycus is what the every day workingman might dream to be.  He is admirable in that he makes the best of his situation and doesn’t seem to be suffering, though he goes about it in a less than admirable manner. Even so, his character gives a sense of hope to the working class poor in the audience in Shakespeare’s time, and even today.

Through all of this, it becomes quite difficult to characterize Autolycus as a predatory wolf. He is always honest about his intentions from the start. He never presents them as honorable, and although his intentions aren’t pure in any sense of the word, they are not really “evil” either. His crimes are what we would consider relatively petty, especially when juxtaposed with the crimes of King Leontes.  And we cannot forget that Autolycus’ actions eventually lead to reconciliation and harmony at the play’s end. It is undeniable that he is a complex character who is difficult to define explicitly, but we might all be unified in the notion that in all of its mystery and chaos, Act 3 scene 3 was setting us up for the entrance of a character of this nature. Through Autolycus, laughter and joy are brought into a play filled with tragic undertones, and beyond all of the fantastical elements we are presented with on stage, we finally meet a character that is truly human.

Clowns, Skulls, and Melancholic Musings: Group 3 Critique

Savage Chickens- Hamlet

Satirical Summary of the gravedigger scene

The graveyard scene in Hamlet is one of the most iconic moments of the play often referenced out of context, and as a result many of its important details go missed.  As a group, our initial meeting focused on planning and logistics.  We wanted to do Shakespeare’s work as much justice as we possibly could in light of our modest situation, and what became readily apparent was that even if nothing else was available Yorick’s skull had to be used as a main prop. Something that we all felt as a profound truth in this experience is that Shakespeare’s plays were certainly meant to be seen, heard, and performed. There is undoubtedly so much more to be learned from playing one of his characters instead of simply reading the lines.  As fortune would have it we were able to use an area of the Baruch Performing Arts Center that allowed for ease of filming, the sound of our voices to carry well to our amateur filming apparatus, and also for our characters to be positioned in a way that we felt truly made the scene come to life.

Reid by far had the most challenging task in portraying Hamlet; a character whose tendency to branch into soliloquy made his portion of the scene the lengthiest and most long-winded.   His task in our practice readings, and finally in the ultimate performance was preventing the words from melding together and becoming a drone. His use of vocal inflections and varied expressions, a result if his familiarity with the piece, brought the character to life, making what could have been a boring recitation into a worthy theatrical effort.

For Nolan, embodying the character of Horatio really helped him to understand the importance and significance of this character. Horatio was the one person that Hamlet had full trust and confidence in. Where every other relationship he has falls into disarray, the one he has with Horatio stays constant and cordial. This certainly allows the reader to delve further into the mind of Hamlet, but for the actor playing Horatio this effect is even more profound. Horatio has very few lines in the gravedigger scene so he has plenty of time to observe and ponder Hamlet and his sudden return to Denmark. He’s the first individual to truly see the changes that Hamlet experiences, the first person to understand the implications of what actions are to come, and the last person alive to see how these necessary events unfold.

Karina was fascinated by the depth provided by a character that is so often glossed over.  She jumped at the chance to portray the comic relief, whose few lines and small role held so much life and character and spoke volumes of the tone and mood of the play itself.  It was a very different experience seeing a character portrayed, and being the character yourself. Speaking his jokes, singing his songs, ‘sitting in his grave’ added a layer to the play that reading lines in a book failed to provide.  The gravedigger provides exposition from an outsider’s point of view, he is a common man who faces death not with melancholy or petulance, but with rationality and realism.  As Hamlet stated “the hand of little employment hath the daintier sense” (5.1.70),and after digging an imaginary grave for seven minutes it is easy to see why humor and honesty would be necessary to make the most of the gravedigger’s vocation.

One thing for sure, it is very easy to see how easy it is for Shakespeare’s work to be represented differently in each production. Lines and scenes can be interpreted differently by different directors and actors causing these variations. We each had different ideas of what the scene would look like and it was especially fun having the opportunity to let the scene flow forth from each of our minds into physicality. We got to collaborate and create a shared organic vision for the scene, and share this interpretation with others.

Variations of the scene in film (Mel Gibson vs. Kenneth Branagh):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbxMhvcxJJc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXixlEy5Gfc

Exploration into the importance and properties of Yorick’s skull

Pianist’s dying wish: human skull used in performance


King Lear and the emptiness of appearances.

King Lear opens with Lear disowning his favorite daughter for her honesty and rewarding the empty flattery of her older sisters. Lear also rejects Kent, a loyal man who seeks to help Lear realize his error. Shakespeare examined the problems of valuing the appearance of the virtues and morality in many of his plays. Angelo in Measure for Measure and Macbeth are examples of powerful men who display the appearance of virtue but are secretly great criminals. Lear goes mad rather than face the truth that his daughters’ protestation of love was only empty flattery. Lear as a king holds the appearance of virtue but acts in a manner that directly opposes morality. It is only when he ventures into the heath with the Fool and Kent and is faced with the storm that he begins to understand the world as it really is. The irony is that the play’s most moral men all end up on the run in the heath. Each holds an appearance that is at odds with their character. They hold the likeness of the mad and the poor while the wicked live in opulence.

Shakespeare Fashion Craze: Royalty

The repetition of a particular metaphor type in a William Shakespeare play can signify and complement a theme of the play.  In Henry IV Part 1, the repeating metaphors that stand out to me relate to dress and wardrobe.  In a play that is concerned with the crown and the role of royalty, dress metaphors are especially appropriate when considering that a king can simply “wear” the crown or be the crown.  Specifically, does the occupation of the throne automatically make every action of a king royal or does the content, the spirit or the motive of the act define royalty?

This observation is why I liked Prince Henry at the end of the Act IThe idea that, “when  this loose behavior I throw off,”  is like him suggesting that he can change his roles like his clothes and throw off that tattered jacket of adolescence for a more appropriate garb. ( Act 1, Sc. 2, 213) Instead of taking the title or royalty and the responsibility that comes with it, Henry shows his understanding of what royalty is by doing the exact opposite. Rather than take it for granted that all of his actions are seen under the guise of the crown, he does the dastardly and goes in cahoots with thieves. He’s taking to defining royalty on his own terms rather than adhering to the expectations of others.

In a plot line where the occupation of the throne seems to be on the mind of anyone with any relation or claim to the throne, it is interesting to see a character who is not crazy about the responsibility of the crown rather than be dazed by the glory of the title and instead opts to con everyone into accepting whatever he wills to deliver as long as it is not thievery. It’s almost like a plot of a Guy Richie movie.

The visual elements of Midsummer.

The tone and feeling of the play are heavily affected by the visual representations of the characters in Midsummer Night’s Dream. In particular the depiction of the character Bottom is a very important element of each performance. Looking at different pictures online show various representations of the character.   Even with the same dialogue these visual depictions and the way the actor performs will create drastically different experiences.

Professor Berggren mentioned the portrayal where Bottom is shown with a tremendous phallus. How different is Bottom’s dialogue when given with the distraction of a giant waggling penis rather than just the implication of one? This is part of the magic of the theater in that each run of a play can be an entirely new experience. Each of the major characters in the play have the potential to present themselves entirely differently depending on the visual design in a way no regular reading can depict. Does anyone have one version they consider more valid than others? Any more thoughts on the visual experience of theater?

A more comedic take.

Too normal?
More animal-like. Could have done without the image of Judi Dench sexing up this donkey; but we all suffer for art right?