As You Like It By William Shakespeare

As I have found out through several sources, during Shakespeare’s time, there existed no copyright laws. Playwrights went about to different theatre companies, viewed shows, and stole ideas, many times putting their own spin on the stories. Shakespeare belonged to a theatre company, there was the same “crew” of actors for most of his shows, and he was included among the actors. He wrote for his actors and for his surroundings (set, audience, what have you).

Having given this to precede my perspective upon this play, As You Like It, I will now share what I have seen over the past three and a half weeks working as part of the crew with Shakespeare in the Vines in Temecula.

As I continued to listen closer and closer to the text, which is cut and what I am basing this “review” off of, it sounded sad. I know that this is not a tragedy since the rule for a Shakespearean Tragedy is that someone (or everyone) must die. However, I understood this almost as a Drama. I know that this text is considered a Comedy, and since Shakespeare enacted it this way, that would be the most common way to play it; a satire, if you will.

However, we can rightfully read this dramatically since Shakespeare took this idea from another playwright, Thomas Lodge, who shown it as a drama, Rosalynde, and twisted it into a comedy for his company (http://www.enotes.com/shakespearean-criticism/like-vol-69).

If I were to direct this play, I would choose to produce it as a drama. I do not think, that even with the given text of Shakespeare’s that is preserved, it would be far fetched to do so. I think that the given circumstances would stand for it:

• Oliver fighting tooth and nail to have his brother killed and leaving him to be brought up as a peasant whilst their younger brother profits from gentlemanly schooling.
• Duke Frederick banishing his own brother, Duke Ferdinand, into the Forrest of Arden to live amongst the wild so that he can further his own profit and wealth.
• Duke Frederick banishing his niece, Rosalind, because the people consider her a better person than his own daughter.
• Rosalind feeling the need to test Orlando’s love disguised as a man because she is most likely afraid that his love is a falsity (“Not true in love?” Act III Sc. iv; “It is not impossible to me if it appear not inconvenient to you…” Act V Sc. ii).
• Celia leaving her comfortable life as the Duke’s daughter because her love for her cousin is more important to her than love for her own father.

Thoughts?

Chapter 36: Beth’s Secret

*Note: You will not understand or follow this entry without having some knowledge of the story Little Women. 

“I don’t know how to express myself and shouldn’t try to anyone but you, because I can’t speak out, except to my Jo. I only mean to say that I have a feeling that it never was intended I should live long. I’m not like the rest of you; I never thought of being married, as you all did. I couldn’t seem to imagine myself anything but stupid little Beth, trotting about at home, of no use anywhere but there. I never wanted to go away, and the hard part now is the leaving you all. I’m not afraid, but it seems as if I should be homesick for you even in heaven.” –Beth, of Little Women (489)

Words written by Louisa May Alcott 1947 as published by Grossel ad Dunlap, Inc. 1996

This monologue is the most touching in the 1949 version of the film and the most heart-wrenching part of the 648-page book. I have not seen the 1994 version of this film, though I will set out to do so soon. However, I do want to touch on the monologue as it is written by Miss Alcott herself.

These pages are the most heart-wrenching part of the novel because it marks the understanding of a young woman who is passing away. She represents so much to the family. To Mr. Laurence a peace to his heart having lost a granddaughter years before and finally contended in her comfort to him. To Laurie an untouched flower in a garden full of untamed bushes. To Meg a comfort to her leaving, knowing that Marmee is taken care of. To Amy the picture of elegance that she carries with her to cherish when she goes away. To Jo she is an anchor in the simplest of terms.

Beth is so much more than what I can truly describe here, having only read the book once. She is the peace that everyone wants to be. She is the calm that we all long for. She is as content as we all hope to be. She is a character that represents all humbleness.

In the 1949 taping of this film, Amy is the third eldest, played by Elizabeth Taylor; Beth is represented as the youngest, played by Margaret O’Brien. In the book, Alcott lists these two sisters in the opposite positions. There are a number of reasons one could analyze as to why the director, Mervyn LeRoy, would choose to cast Beth as the youngest. Some may like to think that these profound moments of a youngest daughter may provide a deeper impact upon his audience.

This is not the direct case, however, LeRoy wanted, specifically, O’Brien to play this part. She is visibly younger and this would be portrayed in the cast. I cannot see any other from this time that I know of giving this role, this monologue (which is edited to the moment portrayed in the film as all novels are), the justice and elegance which O’Brien did.

Amusement from the Hamlet Rehearsal Process

06/03

“ This is going to sound wrong, but if I were casting the players, I would cast a group of midgets.” –Me during the blocking of the Play within a Play

“You guys are like the ambiguous gay dudes.” –Paul in reference to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

06/05

“You’re hoping your sister has not already been besmirched.” –Paul to Johnny describing the dialogue just before Laertes’ departure.

“I’m already paranoid as s***; you DON’T wanna mess with me!” –Alex/Hamlet

“Occasion smiles upon a second leave.” –(Johnny)Laertes
“You’re right.” –Eric/Polonius in reference to his very long monologue he didn’t realized was placed there.

“Can we stand behind mocking him when he says, ‘To thine own self be true’?” –Kassy/Ophelia

“The time invites you, GO.” –Eric/Polonius

“[Romeo and Juliet] is one stab away from a comedy.” –Paul/Director

“What better way to get consoled…” –Paul/Director
“…than to get consoooled.” –Casey/AD

“If your life had a face, I would punch it.” –Casey/AD

06/09

“Look, I’m like FDR; you can’t see my legs!” –Paul/Director, when covering up with a blanket when we began rehearsal.

“Paul, you make a really good creeper.” –Casey/AD

“Eddie, are you the only one not in this scene? Go stand next to the pretty brunette over there.”   -Paul/Director, telling Eddie/Fransisco, who in turn went and stood next to Seferino/Marcellus

“We’re going on to five-two; if you’re dead, you’re excused!” –Jessy

06/16

“What the FIE!” –Casey/AD, in reaction to (Johnny)Laertes jumping into Ophelia’s grave.

06/21

“…historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-pas/ historic/ tragical-his… Oh, f*** it.
For the law is of writ and the liberty, these are the only men.” –Adam/Osric standing in for (Eric)Polonius

“Why were you pushing me?! OOOHH! You were ACTING!” –Alex/Hamlet to (Kassy)Ophelia while rehearsing his harassment toward her during the Play within a Play.

06/22

“He did comply with … his dig… his DUG before he SUCKED it. –Alex… Hamlet

“You but(t) dally!” –Kassy/Ophelia

“HE said it! I just EMPHASIZED it.” –Kassy/Ophelia

“They’re butt dallying and he said ‘Come again’! hahahaha!” –Kassy/Ophelia

07/14 (“Pick Up” rehearsal)

“Seems, madam?! I know not seems… I’m not a seamstress; I only know threads.” –Alex/Hamlet

Creative Conversation

Today at work, I was asked to defend my involvement with theatre and acting. Two Rwandan students asked me to explain how I can pretend to be something that I am not, or be a part of something that does this. I told them that it takes a lot of work and as an actor, we put life in a fictional character and walk away from it at the end of the day. I noted that there are so many techniques and theories, there is no way to sum up acting in one conversation.

They said: “Machines are for programming; we are humans, how can you say you have an ‘off’ switch’?” (Referring to one technique I have encountered where people will be backstage/ off camera as themselves and then become their character on demand). I said this was one technique and not everyone did this, but that it’s not about being programmed, but pretending to be the character because this is your job. This is a process and you don’t become something overnight and you are not becoming something in real life that you aren’t.

I gave a brief explanation of method acting because they brought up that being an actor was dangerous and people shouldn’t do it; especially when there are ‘couples’ roles involved in what you are doing (this, I will explain in more detail later). I said that just because you are a method actor, does not mean you go to extremes and become your character in real life. I told them that an extreme example would be Heath Ledger with his role in Batman; how many theorize that it was his methods that led to his tragic death. Their response: see you shouldn’t do that. I told them, “No, you shouldn’t do the extreme, that does not mean that all actors use this method nor that ones who do live out their characters; usually it is more characteristics and habits (walking patterns, hair, clothes, etc.). These things do not change you as a person.

They were particularly dismissive of any couples roles. They asked about having personal issues with your opposite or others in the cast; people who were married; people who take advantage of the situation and manipulate the other into a relationship with them during the rehearsal process or the shoot. I told them that these are all personal choices that actors make. Actors have to put personal issues aside, or give up their role. Spouses usually have a say in it and don’t mind because they understand that this is make believe and if they trust one another, it doesn’t matter. And usually, professionals don’t get engaged in relationships with one another in the midst; however, if they choose to, it is up to them to spend time with one another outside of the set or rehearsal time.

They brought up some valid points about choices we make as actors and I had to think about it to answer so that they would understand. Their objection kind of upset me. Not because it matters what their opinions are, but because it makes me wonder what other Christians and non-believers think about Christian involvement in the industry. I have thought about this a lot, but more about my limits, not thinking that I was living a lie in participating. Please post comments, objections, opinions, etc. I would love to hear it…Well, read them.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

In my directing class we have to choose two scenes to direct and have our fellow actors in the theatre program volunteer for us. For my second scene I chose a scene from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead because A.J, one of the guys who agreed to be in my scene, had asked me to. I had to read it over my Spring Break, and told him that I would let him know. I was nervous because I was having a difficult time following it. However, I found it quite amusing when I thought of him and his roommate, Sam, doing a couple of the scenes; the thought was just so hilarious.

We do two showings per scene, one on our own, then after the first showings our professor (theatre director) gives us suggestions and pointers, then we do them again. This play has been fun to read and I was so excited for my first showing. I was not expecting much of a response from KJ, our director, but I was pleasantly surprised by her encouraging words. She told me that I did a good job with it and that she was impressed by the way that I handled the scene.

We did “The Questions Game;” I will be posting a video of it after we do final showings after April 19^th, and you will see why I was so excited bout this scene. My challenge and notes for our next showing is to really capture the Postmodern worldview that this play was born out of. There is a place where the game is “paused” and Guil asks, “Where’s it all going to end?” We were playing it as a casual question to his friend, Ros. However, KJ told me that I should not be afraid to flip; though this is a comedy, there are places to turn the tone. That is one of them.

In between tech week for Macbeth (ironically enough, all of us are already involved with Shakespeare this semester), classes and full work schedules this week, we are going to work this scene. I am not worried; actually, I am still quite excited to see where this scene will go. I hope that I remember to record it and post the video for you in a couple of weeks!

Atonement

Disclaimer: If you have yet to see this movie, just know that there may be pieces of this entry that will spoil the film for you.

Director: Joe Right

Writers: Ian McEwan (novel)
Christopher Hampton (screenplay)

Director of Photography: Seamus McGarvey
Steadicam Operator: Peter Robertson

Atonement is about a girl, Briony (Saoirse Ronan-13, Ramona Garai-18, and Vanessa Redgrave-older), who sees something that she does not quite understand. She testifies that her family’s long-time friend and servant, Robbie (James McAvoy), has sexually assaulted her cousin, Lola (Juno Temple). He is put into prison and as England’s involvement in WWII begins, he is given the option of sitting in prison or fighting in the war. He chooses to fight. Briony’s lie has not only ruined Robbie’s future, but it has also separated him from her sister, Cecilia or C (Keira Knightly). They had fallen in love and when they both decided to admit that to one another, they were separated by the lie her sister told. They sought out ways to be together, they were shunned by her family… When Briony finally recognized what she had done, she spent the rest of her life trying to make it right. Robbie spent the rest of his life trying to get back to Cecilia.

The Cinematography really pulls the story along. Color and camera shots really make it alive. The steadishot in the evacuation at Dunkirk is the one that really draws the most attention. That is the scene that really struck me the most and the aspect that I will probably spend the most time on in this entry after I talk about the element of story and how it works out in this film. The best part of the cinematography in this movie is that it is real, it is honest. I respect and enjoy good cinematography as that which makes me forget that I am in a movie instead of completely focusing on making it a cool film and showing me all the cool tricks you can do with it.

McGarvey really nailed it when he talked about how he and Wright saw the honesty in this movie. They wanted to portray truth, “Joe and I are very clear that cinematography must be in service of the story.  With the unfettered imagination, meaning can just explode and proliferate.  So we wanted to keep in line with the script’s insistence on no adjectives, keep things clean as a whistle, very clear and with unfiltered light,” (McGarvey, http://incontention.com/2008/02/22/the-top-10-shots-of-2007-part-two/) emphasis added.

Iwan McEwin, the author of the novel, had really taken a wonderfully complex concept and developed it into an amazing story. The element of story itself is what drives this along. Briony has told a false story that killed Robbie and C’s chances with one another. She has written stories most of her life. She has written her last story to atone for her lies. The question is whether or not she has atoned for her sin. The novel, or this element, plays as a character in throughout the film. The powerful message expresses Briony’s desperate reach for her sister’s and Robbie’s forgiveness.

I think I enjoyed this film so much because it has such an unconventional structure. I like when I actually need to be engaged in the film in order to follow it throughout. The trick is the production team’s ability to keep me engaged… Success. The structure builds each section via dialogue: forward, back, forward, switch POV’s, forward to present. It’s quite an interesting presentation.

Now, the steadishot at Dunkirk… Joe Wright, the director and the DP, Seamus McGarvey went to Peter Robertson and expressed their idea for this shot. There would be no editing, it would be one shot, and it would last five minutes. I watched behind the scenes footage with Wright and McGarvey talking about this shot, it was finalized after two days of work and choreographing. 1 day, 1000 extras, 4 takes. There would have been more takes, but the fourth was the last, and the one that was used for the final edit of the movie. Robertson passed out after finishing this last take.

This shot tells us si much about Robbie and the experience he is having throughout this war. “It is essentially Robbie’s nightmare that the camera describes, restlessly moving around a scene… The uninterrupted flow of images drift in front of our eyes like a hallucination from the Bosch painting or, in the case of the dying horses, like the contorted images from Picasso’s Guernica. The shot, unedited, has the power of a real nightmare with its bizarre associations,” (Robertson, http://www.steadishots.org/shots_detail.cfm?shotID=298).

The reality of the nightmare, the intensity of the lie, the snowball affect that eats away possibilites are engaging as we watch these men waiting in the evacuation at Dunkirk. Throughout the shot, we see the moment from the perspective of a soldier, and much of the picture is seen from Robbie’s point of view. It’s a beautiful moment in the film as a whole and is followed up by Robbie’s realization of everything simply slipping away.

Measure for Measure II

Act III scene i. Isabella

“O you beast
O faithless coward! O dishonest wretch!
Wilt thou be made a man out of my vice?
Is’t a kind of incest to take life
From thine own sister’s shame? What should I think?
Heaven shield my mother play’d my father fair!
For such a warped slip of wilderness
Ne’er issued from his blood. Take my defiance!
Die! Perish! Might but my bending down
Reprieve thee from thy fate, it should proceed:
I’ll pray a thousand prayers for thy death.
No word to save thee!”

This is the monologue I’ve chosen for my first Shakespeare audition on Tuesday. CBU is doing The Tragedy of Macbeth next semester, along with The Taffetas for the musical. This entry, however, is to talk about Shakespeare.

I have always enjoyed watching Shakespeare, reading Shakespeare, watching Shakespeare scenes, analyzing, etc. I never thought I would loathe so much to work on one monologue. It has most definitely been a love hate relationship these past few days. I’ve enjoyed analyzing just how important understanding the iambic pentameter is. I mean, it is a whole different meaning without really saying it correctly.

I must say, I have a new found appreciation for everyone who has performed any play of his. I will most definitely be more gracious to those I am watching perform it from now on. At the same time, however, if you are going to perform it, please do so with a willingness to wrestle with your text!

Measure for Measure

Last night I enjoyed watching a group called A Noise Within perform. They were great to watch, the play was Measure for Measure and the setting was present day. Usually I am immediately turned off by groups or even movies (such as Romeo + Juliet) that place Shakespeare plays in present day. This was a shocking delight, however, there were many points when I forgot that it was being placed in present day.

The whole thing just ran together very well. Costumes were well done, skirts for the nuns that actually reached past the ankles, attitudes that displayed a clear understanding of the words being expressed… I could go on and on about the things that were actually done with elegance and class that I missed out on in watching a certain group do Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet this past summer.

One thing that I will say, however, is that Isabel, though brilliant and very clearly expressed, seemed to be forcing a few of her moments. Particularly those which called for tears. I can understand that, though. It is difficult to fully express the emotions scripted, even if one is fully committed to their character.

Afterward, we had the rare opportunity to sit in on a Q&A with these talented actors. This was also a good chance to see how well we as an audience did based on the questions we were asking. There was a mutual understanding of what this play meant to us and the actors. It is a contemporary play written over 400 years ago.

Shakespeare was ahead of his time in his writings. One of the actors expressed that Measure for Measure was considered a comedy simply because everyone was still alive at the end. Shakespeare also broke the mold by writing about the realities of life, not simply expressing fantasy for entertainment on the stage. That is why, the group said, this was so easy to put into a modern setting, because it is full of modern problems.

The actress who played the role of Isabel also shared her connection with the play. She drew our attention to the marriages in the end: “They weren’t the most romantic and obvious marital situations that we are used to. They sucked. But that’s real life, isn’t it?” I thought that this was an interesting element to point out. Though it is the most obvious because it’s the ending, it wouldn’t be something to dwell on as a typical audience member. That is why it was the theatre classes and artists that stayed.

Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw

This was the first play that I had the opportunity to act in and I loved it! It was so amazing to be on the other side of the production. Though I had not had much experience before, having only been tech with Godspell and an Assistant Stage Manager for Oklahoma!.

I had the opportunity to see how God is going to use me and other friends in this industry to show people His Kingdom. Spending time with the other actors outside of rehearsal and in between shows was a great experience. I loved hearing their stories and where they came from and what brought them here. It’s amazing to learn how much every actor or theatre affiliated person has this connection where we just understand one another and can talk with one another at a level that others just don’t get. It’s nice to feel that sense of connection and belonging.

The play itself is a fascinating story. Taken from Greek ideals, a man is determined to remain a bachelor all of his days as a professor of proper English. When a young woman catches his interests in his own skills, he is then set on creating the perfect woman for… no one. He is too stubborn and prideful to admit his interest in her and even when he has the chance, he refutes his own feelings with defense. She, on the other hand is not to be trifled with. Once she realizes her own power as a woman, she turns her back on her professor and joins every other woman in London with marriage and good standing in society. Though her professor had good standing, he repudiated any good manners. His pupil felt differently about manners, since she had the ability to become a part of the middle class form the streets, she would become like all the rest, with a few alterations here and there.

Liza Doolittle did not mind thinking herself as a woman on top. She had the manners of a middle class woman, but was willing to live as a middle class man. She stated that she would marry Freddy, though he had not asked her, and that she would support him since he was not brought up to work. George Bernard Shaw was quite the deviant for his time, having written the play in 1913, he would have knocked the socks off of any audience with his radical views of a woman’s capabilities and determinations. The ideals that his words brought, as well as a few other questionable situations in the play (a woman living with two men without any label or standing), cost him audiences since the play had been banned in several places throughout Europe shortly after its release.

Understand that these questions within our own society are not new. Many Christians wonder about men and women living together, though the world has decided that it is a perfectly acceptable, if not necessary thing, for a couple to go through as a stage in their relationship. The question of becoming the ideal person for someone, many girls are trying so hard to find their identity in any man that will give them a look for more than a moment. They question their value and give in to whatever he requests just to hold on to any dysfunctional relationship. Liza was willing to put herself in that situation, even though it was under different circumstances. She even says at the end that she was such a fool for groveling at Mr. Higgins’ feet for the slightest bit of affection, though it was not given her anyways.

There are so many things that this play brings up that make us think about our own culture and the ties that we have, even with the early 1900’s. The questions and frustrations, the morals and class separations; they’re not new, but just put off in a different manner. Some writers, directors, actors, and other artists in different areas of history are not afraid to fight the system. They were open about the failures of society, even when everyone else was not and used these very mediums to escape them. If you asked me, I would say that bringing realism into the arts was never a new thing, but the label is new, so we think that we came up with it.

Much Ado About Nothing

This is the third or fourth Shakespeare play that I have read. Having recently changed to a double major with Christian Studies and Theatre, I decided to start reading plays, Shakespeare was the first set of plays I could get my hands on.

It seems that the brilliant author knew and stuck to two or three themes: betrayal, love, and ironic situations. This play focuses on the betrayal of friendship and marriage. John the Bastard is a heartless accuser who throws Hero onto the pit without so much as a trial. If I were a part of the situation, I should have plagued him to explain what he was doing outside of Hero’s window that gave him the opportunity to see the intimate interaction that he said took place.

Claudio is too quick to accept his friend’s accusation. I understand, John was close to him and any hurt that he brought upon him was out of brotherly affection. However, Claudio chose to marry hero, what prompted his decision? If it only took one accusation to turn his affections from her, did he really trust her love when he asked for her hand in marriage? If there was so little, and almost no, trust from the beginning, what would lead to his desire to marry?

Hero seems to care very little about anyone. She judges her cousin, Beatrice’s desire for Benedick and hopes that he will not give in to his affections for her cousin. Why would Hero want to take away from her cousin’s happiness? Even having heard this, Beatrice is only shocked that Benedick loves her and pays no head to Hero’s response to the fact. Later on, we have a glimpse of how much Beatrice still cares for her cousin because after Benedick declares his love for her, she swears she will not love him until Claudio, the man who rejected and caused the death of her cousin, is dead by his hand. She wants to restore Hero’s honor. Crazy.

I guess that is the way things were in Shakespeare’s day. Perhaps it was not so normal that a man would accuse a woman of dishonoring herself and her fiance; or if it was, Shakespeare meant to make it known and understood that his plays were not just stories, but situations that people needed to stop “sweeping under the rug.”

It seems like we like to do this now. When we get uncomfortable with a situation or a person, we avoid them or just don’t talk about it. Interesting connection, there really isn’t anything “new under the sun.”