Revelation: Hamlet is the Lion King.
1. The King is killed by the hand of his brother
2. the King's brother becomes the new king, and takes the king's wife as his own
3. The King appears to his son as a ghost, telling him that he must revenge his father's death and take his rightful place in the throne
4. Hamlet kills the king out of revenge.
Of course, many more characters die in Hamlet... plus, Simba doesn't accidentally kill a couple people along the way.
After listening to the audio version of Hamlet, I've got to say I am soo done with hearing musical interludes between the scenes. They started really bugging after about the second or third. But besides that, I really loved the dramatizations of the lines. The words were spoken slowly, and I could clearly hear every word. But sometimes the pauses were so long that they left me holding my breath, waiting for the next line to come. My favorite part was Ophelia, who did a great job of playing a frail character with a thin voice, who has a nervous breakdown halfway into the play. Her little songs were so creepy, they gave me the chills. There was a use of sound effects: trumpet heralds, swords clanging, and a special musical motif for when the ghost appears. There was also the sound of heels tapping every time some one entered or exited. I found it to be useful at first, but superfluous later, as the narrator redundantly announces an arrival or exit. More useful for transitions were when they would begin the sound of the voices of the approaching characters, slowly growing until their arrival was announced. For example, when the queen approaches, crying because of Ophelia's death, you can hear her as part of Claudius and Laertes' conversation.
Overall, I found it hard to focus on the words if I was not doing something with me hands, so by the end of it, I found my whole house to be spotless from the compulsive cleaning. It certainly would have gone faster with a reading, but I was glad for the opportunity to multi-task. :)
On Saturday I saw The Merchant of Venice performed by the theatre for young audiences. It was done in a theatre-in-the-round in the basement of the hfac. All the little kids, and anyone who wanted, could sit in taped-off trapezoids around the center, as they witnessed the actors walking right in front of them and between them. I thought it was very effective in getting the children involved in the story, as some of the language was simplified and they used child volunteers to play some of the minor characters. The production was based on the idea that this same story could happen anywhere, to anyone, which is why it was set in andalaysia and stratford between culins and codmims (I think). I was impressed by a sort of prelude they set up for the kids: they acted out a playground scene in which various of the characters were teased, and addressed the audience with ghe idea that they could see this anywhere, in any place - the same way they could see a scene similar to this play occuring at school, at home, on the street, or in andalaysia. I wish I'd had the opportunity to be exposed to something like this when I was a kid. Looking around at the audience, I noticed attentive children's faces, fixed on the action in front of them. A valuable experience for them, even if they couldn't understand everything. My expectations before seeing this production, of course not really considering the fact that it would be geared towards children, were that the themes of race and intolerance and murder would be the main themes. But of course, the morphing of those ideas into a modern relation - bullying - certainly made the play more accessible for children. It almost made a kissing scene and the whole 'pound of flesh' thing seem out of place...
The main idea I was considering for research when I read the Merchant of Venice was anti-semitism. Shakespeare makes Shylock look like a hard-hearted beast who wanted to exact revenge regardless of pleas for mercy. He gains money through "thrift," and loves his money more than his own daughter. It basically plays into classic Jewish stereotypes of the day, that all Jews are money-lending cheats who subvert the economic system for personal gain. But as I looked through Italian sources, I found this blog in Italian that discusses Shylock as a deeper character. Of course, we know that Shakespeare does not create 2D characters. The writer makes the really good point that Shylock is really exacting his revenge because he has suffered a lifetime of criticism and discrimination from Christians. This monologue in Italian shows us a side of Shylock that reveals his anger and contempt for Christians:
Maybe Shakespeare was making a comment on the treatment of the Jews by Christians, and their hypocrisy in the matter. Antonio may have felt he was doing it for a reason, but as Shylock points out, he repeatedly disgraced him in public and "voided your rheum upon my beard and foot me as you spurn a stranger cur " and called him a "mis-believer and a cut-throat dog."
I'm really excited about the Merchant of Venice, because it's set in Venice, where I just visited on my study abroad! I've never read this one before, and after my experience with Henry V, I was sort of hoping that there would be a little Italian somewhere in the play. Sadly, I was disappointed. So instead, I looked for other ways to connect my love of the language and my studies in Shakespeare. I foundan Italian show that summarizes Shakespeare's plays in Italian:
There was a 2004 production of The merchant of Venice that was dubbed over in Italian. Here is the scene where Bassanio chooses the lead box to win Portia:
At first it feels like watching some kind of Spanish soap opera (The Italian is so quick I can barely follow it), but then Bassanio's monlogue seems just... prettier. It is after all, Shakespeare's beautiful words in a very beautiful language.
Here are some pictures of my experience in Venice!
Inspired by Cortnie, I thought I'd attempt a character evaluation of Henry V, as he seems to be the most important character. Shakespeare doesn't create 2D characters, so I thought it'd be interesting to give a sketch of my impressions of him. Here's the textual evidence:
Act I, Scene II: The king's speech on tennis balls, "When we have march'd our rackets to these balls, / We will, in France, by God's grace, play a set / Shall strike his father's crown into the hazard." Henry shows that he has grown up, and he can talk with all the power and force of a real king.
Act III, Scene VI: the king needs to execute his friend Bardolph for stealing from a church. "We would have all such offenders so cut off... / for when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the / Gentler gamester is the soonest winner." Here's where the ambiguity in Henry's character shows through. He shows his kingly ability to stick to the rules, regardless of personal matters, but is he a robot to not be moved by his friend's death? That's one reason why I like the 1989 version of Henry V.
Act III, Scene III: speech at Harfleur, in which he threatens the town with rape on multiple instances. I think it's really interesting that the two sides of Henry's character grow further apart here. He gives a rousing and heroic speech to his men, encouraging them to fight for a good cause: "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; / Or close the wall up with our English dead." But then he immediately afterwards gives a terribly threatening speech to the town's governor. Almost comically, the governor comes out to say, 'Well, we can't defend ourselves, so dispose of us as you will.' Is Henry's cause really just? Surely he was answered in the affirmative in Act I when he asked, "May I with right and conscience make this claim?"
But if you had doubts about Henry's audacity and strength of heart before, he shows us further his ability to keep trudging on, when he tells Montjoy that though his troops are "much enfeebled," and they do not seek a battle, they will still face it if needs be. Act III, Scene VI.
The issue of the king's just causes, and Henry's role as king is developed further when the king disguises himself to hear the men's opinions on the war. Under disguise, Henry suggests that the king's "cause being / just and his quarrel honourable" when he is rebutted by a common soldier who claims, "That's more than we know... or more than we should seek after." The idea that the entire decision of every man's death in this war seems to weigh heavy upon Henry's head in this moment, as he reacts with anger, insisting that the king cannot answer for every one of his subjects, for "if the cause be not good, the king himself hath / a heavy reckoning to make."Act IV, Scene I.
Henry laments his lot in life as king when he gives his speech saying, "Upon the king! Let us our lives, our souls, / Our debts, our careful wives, / Our children and our sins lay on the king!" He laments such responsibility with the only reward as ceremony. Yet earlier he assured the soldier that the king would not rather be anywhere but on that battlefield that night. How does Henry resolve this dilemma? He never gets the opportunity to make a reckoning with it, because his problems are solved with victory. But if he had faced defeat, how would he have dealt with the weight of responsibility placed on him by a common soldier? This is probably why, after the battle at Agincourt, Henry bestows the soldier, Williams, with a money reward, most likely out of relief not just from the tension of the battle, but from the risk of having to face a problem he may have found unsolveable.
Henry is said to have been 'immortalized' by Shakespeare, like in this video. I wonder how much of Henry's personality is fabricated by Shakespeare, and how much of it was real?
The OED. I found that reading King Henry was a whole lot easier with the help of this bad boy, easily accessible through the library website. The Oxford English Dictionary helped me out with words like:
Solus - alone
Shog off - go away
Puissance - power, might, or strength.
I also just have to take a moment and admire Shakespeare's sneakiness, and his genius. Act II, Prologue: "three corrupted men... / have for the gilt of France, - O guilt indeed! / Confirmed conspiracy with fearful France."
No one seeing the play performed or listening to the words would notice his play on words. Maybe there is a sort of relationship Shakespeare is building between him and his readers.
The OED defines 'gilt' as a gilt plate, gilding or a thin layer of gold, or gold money.
I finally got a hold of that movie I mentioned before, and I found it very interesting. In the very beginning, "Prospera" (Helen Mirren) describes to Miranda how she used to be the wife of the duke. The duke died, and the dukedom was given to her. And her brother decided that the sorcery she'd been up to was good for slander so that he could get a hold of her position. She says something like, "He knew that others of my sex had died for much less," referring to witches burned at the stake. What I think is interesting is that I think Shakespeare died in 1616, which would have been a century before witch-hunts were in full swing.
The other thing I noticed was that Caliban was played by a black man, really making people grit their teeth when Prospera says, "What, ho, slave!" Caliban is obviously a primitive and weak creature, one who fears Prospera's power. It plays on the emotions a bit when in the end, Prospera gives him a disapproving look and he walks out of her cell. Man, just steppingo n feet, right and left! They've officially hit on race, and gender. There's not much more a modern interpretation of Shakespeare can take.
My favorite part was the music, because I remember thinking while I was reading the text, "I wonder what this song would sound like?"Ariel sings his tunes in a sort of eerie way, constantly changing keys. Fitting for the eerie and chilling feeling he is supposed to give to those who hear. Even the epilogue was sung by a woman (don't know if it was Helen Mirren or not) during the credits. That one reminded me of 'Across the Universe,' the tribute to the Beatles. The guitar in it was slightly Beatles-esque.
So, I was totally about to put up a post complaining that King Henry is the most boring man who ever lived, and I saw that pretty much everyone else was having the same problem. I decided that for me, if I'm watching a movie, even if the beginning is hard to follow, I can actually sit through the whole thing and pay attention. And basically, once I gave it a chance "HENRY V" (1989) was the coolest! It totally got me interested in what was going on. I recognized Christian Bale as a little boy, and IMDB'd it. Plus, Kenneth Branaugh gives some seriously chilling speeches:
This one's right in the beginning:
And this one is the most famous of the play:
I noticed in the movie that they kept calling king Henry by Harry - I suppose it is a nickname - and I did some research, and found out that Falstaff refers to him as 'Hal' in 'King Henry IV.' This change in his name may be on purpose, to demonstrate the change that takes place in Harry between the two plays. Henry V grows into his own, and begins to speak and act like a king, rather than the youth he was in the other play.
So I was browsing in the library for a hard copy of King Henry V, and found a couple of interesting titles on Shakespeare that seemed to suggest there was a question of his authorship in some of his works. There were titles like: "Who Were Shake-speare?" and "A Rose by Any Name," discussin the possibilities of Shakespeare and ghost writers under the name, considering the many ways it was spelled, and with the different types of handwriting we have in evidence. Some have scanned photos of the different types of handwriting:
PS, I also saw some titles that suggested a little of Shakespeare's legacy, including plays about his life:
There's also a super helpful library website page that helped me research Shakespeare:
HBLL website>subject guides>Good stuff>Shakespeare
I especially liked the world Shakespeare bibliography online; it didn't always have the pdf right there, but it'll give you a bibliographic reference for articles you can look up from their original journals or databases.
I found one article that was all about Prospero's powers in relation to his books, called "Authority and Illusion: The Power of Prospero's Books" by David Adamson for the Comitatus journal of Meideval and Renaissance studies.
Now that I've finished reading The Tempest, I thought I'd look back at the play and think of it in terms of Shakespeare relating to Prospero. I felt like Prospero represented this wise steward over all of the other characters, not only because he had power over them all, but because he exhibited traits belying a loving and forgiving master. I wonder if maybe to an extent, Shakespeare felt the same way toward his works as Prospero does towards Ariel and his other subjects.
Ariel: ...Your charm so strongly works 'em, / That if you now beheld them, your affections / Would become tender.
Prospero: Dost thou think so spirit?
Ariel: Mine would, sir, were I human.
Prospero: And mine shall. / Hast thou, which art but air, a touch, a feeling / Of their afflictions, and shall not myself, / One of their kind, that relish all as sharply / Passion as they, be kindlier mov'd than thou art?
(Act V)
Prospero has a certain human passion toward the people under his power, even if they have wronged him in the past. And just as Shakespeare said goodbye to his works after this play, so Prospero says goodbye to his power and his spirits at the end of this play:
Prospero: ...Then to the elements / Be free, and fare thou well! Please you, draw near.
(Act V)
Because I saw this connection, I thought the epilogue was especially moving:
"Now my charms are all o'erthrown / and what strength I have's mine own..."
It includes the audience by telling them that they are keeping him captive in "this bare island by your spell," which may be the island on which the play is set, or it may well be London, where Shakespeare is kept unless we give him the "gentle breath of yours my sails / Must fill, or else my project fails, / Which was to please."
The weight of Christian mercy implored shows us a Prospero, or a Shakespeare, that is not only a master, but a vulnerable being behind his powers.
We talked in class today about how Shakespeare has influenced today's society, and how some phrases which were coined by him aren't necessarily attributed to him. On Mallory's Vlog, she points out the possibility of Shakespeare origins in "looks that kill." And vice versa, the way some people will 'quote from the bible' something that is not actually in the bible. I found this website that lists a group of Shakespeare sayings that were coined by him, even ones as simple as 'love is blind:' Shakespeare phrases
I figured before diving into Shakespeare I should do some sort or preparation for the task ahead. I wanted to make sure that I got a plot overview, so that I would know what is going on in each act, and know where the storyline is going so I don't get lost. So, I found this shortened BBC half-hour claymation version of The Tempest, before I started reading the actual text. It's pretty funny:
It also has subtitles, so you can see the text below as it is being read. I think when you see something performed, as opposed to just reading it, you pick up cues from the actors (or pieces of clay) that you wouldn't necessarily glean from the text. I noticed a couple of spots where I wouldn't have been able to really tell what was going on, but because I had seen it, I could picture it. Like the beginning of act 2, when Sebastian and Antonio are making fun of their peers, including the king, it was hard to keep track of who was talking. But seeing it acted out, and knowing which voice belonged to which face made it a bit more clear.
My first experience with Shakespeare was in sixth grade, when I tried out for the role of Juliet in our middle school's Shakespeare festival. I got the part, and loved playing it. But I never got to see the whole play, because our director arranged it so that we were playing a sequence of his plays, shortened to fit within a single performance. I've read Romeo and Juliet once as a requirement, and King Lear and Othello once each for a class. Besides that I have only heard about, read about, and seen performances of the other plays. I in fact have never seen or read some of his more famous works like Macbeth and Hamlet.
Sad, I know, but here's my chance to change all that.
Normally this is the thing you ignore before you start reading the syllabus but since this class is centered around the course objectives I suppose I should plan how I'm going to achieve them. Here are the course learning objectives, and my plan for achieving them.
1.Gain “Shakespeare Literacy.” Demonstrate mastery over fundamental
information about Shakespeare's works, life, and legacy
a.Breadth (knowledge of a range of Shakespeare’s works)
*When it comes to choosing which works to study, I want to focus mainly on the works I have not already studied before, which is why I suggested The Tempest for our first play.
b.Depth (more thorough knowledge of a single work)
* If I have the opportunity to choose one play to focus more on, I'd love to go into more depth with Othello, because I only studied it for one class period once, and would love to learn more.
c.Performance (stage and screen)
* Maybe as part of the final project, or a group project along the way, I'll be able to perform something related to Shakespeare, hopefully something musical because I love to sing.
d.Legacy (history, scholarship, popular culture)
* This is a goal I'm making for my blog posts. I want to explore the many ways Shakespeare has influenced our culture today especially, being Shakespeare aware.
I've been away on a study abroad to Italy, and apparently a movie called The Tempest came out while I was gone. I'll have to see this one:
2.Analyze Shakespeare Critically. Interpret Shakespeare’s works critically in their written form, in performance (stage or screen) and in digitally mediated transformations. This includes
*These two are actually my favorite part about literature, being able to analyze the work critically, which is why I so loved my class on writing about literature. It's just the research part that blows. With a research paper due this semester, I don't think I'll have a problem finding opportunities to do this...
c.Application of literary theories
*I've sometimes had trouble with research in this area. I'll find theories and not know where to start, and then load myself up with too much research and my paper ends up losing its voice. I plan on attempting to remedy this in my writing so that I can put my own ideas into my paper. I'll start out with just reading the text with a certain framework in mind.
d.Analysis of digital mediations
Seeing The Tempest movie might be a good start for this...
3.Engage Shakespeare Creatively
a.Performance (memorization, recitation, scene on stage or video)
*well if I get an opportunity to perform as part of the final project, this might also work out. But if not, I can always do a recitation, which for some reason seems less challenging to me.
b.Literary imitation
*I've recently started writing sonnets, inspired by some of Shakespeare and John Donne's work. I'll share some on this blog.
4.Share Shakespeare Meaningfully. This includes engaging in the following:
a.Formal Writing. Develop and communicate your ideas about Shakespeare clearly in formal and researched writing.
*ha, good thing there's a paper assigned.
b.Informal Writing. This mainly means through regular online writing
*the whole point of this blog.
c. Connecting. Share one’s learning and creative work with others both in and outside of class.
*definitely need to read and comment on others' blogs in my class, as well as share any insights I have in class.
So, to sum up, here are my goals:
1. look for ways that Shakespeare has influenced modern life, as well as the legacy he created in his own day
2. read and see a ton of Shakespeare plays
3. write a bomb research paper
4. perform something Shakespeare related: either as part of an act for the final project, or something musical.
5. Share my insights and thoughts on my blog, and comment on others' blogs.
