Typically, I am not a reader of fiction and so it would be safe to predict me not to pick up a drama while searching for my next great find at Barnes & Noble. In the past when I have attended a play, I assumed that the performance safely mirrored the playwright’s intention, with the exception of budget and acting skill. Never did I realize just how much interpretation could affect the outcome of the play… until our discussion on Trifle’s.
When asked to rewrite the play in modern day, I doubted myself and my submission before I even started blogging about it. There were many people who suggested that having a modern day chauvinist would not be likely or acceptable. I myself, felt as though there was more chauvinism in today’s society than should be ignored. But the deeper into this I dove, I began to feel as though either position standing their ground resembled the closed mindedness of the men and women in the play. Stereotyping the stereotype and not allowing it at all; or overstating the stereotype and shining a bright flood light over it were only 2 of the many perspectives that we witnessed come out of this drama in our class discussions.
I had to grow to become comfortable with my own interpretation of it as well as feel open to the many other sides that were suggested. I think it was great to see all of our creativity evolve in those of us who wished to explore it and appreciate everyone’s independent ideas as they made me realize that interpretation is much bigger than budgets and casting.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
"The Piano Lesson" by August Wilson - Part 2
Maretha was a character missing in the piano lesson discussion; Andrew brought up a good point when he mentioned that part of Berniece’s lesson was that her past is what makes her who she is and being a part of that is good for Maretha. Until then, I hadn’t given it much thought but that comment got me thinking… what was Berniece trying to keep Maretha away from??
When I first read Berniece ordering her daughter to go to her room or demanding that Doaker get her away from the conversaion, I dismissed it thinking, ‘this is just a mom who is agitated that her trouble-making brother is back in town’. Now I see there was more to it…
Many of us made the connection that Maretha was doing things for Berniece that Berniece used to do for Mama Esther, but I wonder how Mama Esther treated Berniece after Papa Charles died. Did Mama Esther become domineering, in an effort to feel control over her pain. Or did she take a more passive approach, isolating herself from the family as well as society? Either way, it could have molded Berniece and how she would parent Maretha in the future.
I have to ask, what kind of things was Maretha dealing with while her mother was so busy dealing with “piano issues”? Maretha seems like she could be the speaker in “Hanging Fire” (p650), and the name above the door her mother is locked behind is, "The Piano".
When I first read Berniece ordering her daughter to go to her room or demanding that Doaker get her away from the conversaion, I dismissed it thinking, ‘this is just a mom who is agitated that her trouble-making brother is back in town’. Now I see there was more to it…
Many of us made the connection that Maretha was doing things for Berniece that Berniece used to do for Mama Esther, but I wonder how Mama Esther treated Berniece after Papa Charles died. Did Mama Esther become domineering, in an effort to feel control over her pain. Or did she take a more passive approach, isolating herself from the family as well as society? Either way, it could have molded Berniece and how she would parent Maretha in the future.
I have to ask, what kind of things was Maretha dealing with while her mother was so busy dealing with “piano issues”? Maretha seems like she could be the speaker in “Hanging Fire” (p650), and the name above the door her mother is locked behind is, "The Piano".
"Hamlet" by William Shakespeare - Part 2
I think I read the first four pages before saying to my friend, “what does this mean? I have no idea what I’m reading.” To help me comprehend the dialogue, I bought a used copy of Kenneth Branagh’s filmed version, the first ever full-text film of Hamlet. I considered the words of Charles Lamb (mentioned on p1045), said to be one of the great analytics of Shakespeare, warning of the limitations of watching a performance of this great work, “When the novelty is past, we find to our cost that, instead of realizing an idea, we have only materialized and brought down a fine vision to the standard of flesh and blood. We have let go a dream in a quest of an unattainable substance.” But considering Lamb quoted that at the turn of the 19th century and this is my first (21st century) serious attempt to understand 16th century dialogue, I took the chance anyway.
I should consider myself lucky to have gotten my hands on the movie at all since it was filmed in 1996 but was not released to DVD until 2007, and even then only by the push a movement who made it a reality. If it is even possible for Hamlet to be a page-turner upon first read without the aid of the video, then I find it hard to describe the intensity of watching Branagh’s interpretation of it while reading my text at the same time. It is likely that not heeding Lamb’s 19th century warning at that time would have been detrimental to the experience, but as for me in today… following that advice would have left me clueless.
I should consider myself lucky to have gotten my hands on the movie at all since it was filmed in 1996 but was not released to DVD until 2007, and even then only by the push a movement who made it a reality. If it is even possible for Hamlet to be a page-turner upon first read without the aid of the video, then I find it hard to describe the intensity of watching Branagh’s interpretation of it while reading my text at the same time. It is likely that not heeding Lamb’s 19th century warning at that time would have been detrimental to the experience, but as for me in today… following that advice would have left me clueless.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
"Hamlet" by William Shakespeare
Though I read some Shakespeare in high school, this is the first time I have read him where I was the least bit interested (I know). I can say that the hint of understanding I gained from reading this has me hooked.
I loved the suspense of wondering if he was ever going to pull out his madness and when I found out it was in his plan to act so, I thought the way Shakespeare wrote him was incredibly eloquent. The monologue on pages 1362-63 stunned me. The shock he portrayed at how the actor could show so much emotion “For Hecuba!” and how he ached over how much more the actor would show had he been acting out the death of his father was very emotional. Shakespeare reached out to his audience at that time, relating to those who suffered far greater difficulties in real life. This moment was exemplified by the first part of Act III / Scene 2 where Hamlet gave an acting lesson to the actors (later taking over their lines on stage). He attempted to transcribe his emotions burried in his own heart from the pain of his father’s death through the actor. But how well did Hamlet speak the very things we wish we could say about our own angst, yet can not find the words? The play within the play was a great connection, once again, to the audience, made even more intense by Hamlet not trusting the actor to deliver his intensity as well as he could himself.
I loved the suspense of wondering if he was ever going to pull out his madness and when I found out it was in his plan to act so, I thought the way Shakespeare wrote him was incredibly eloquent. The monologue on pages 1362-63 stunned me. The shock he portrayed at how the actor could show so much emotion “For Hecuba!” and how he ached over how much more the actor would show had he been acting out the death of his father was very emotional. Shakespeare reached out to his audience at that time, relating to those who suffered far greater difficulties in real life. This moment was exemplified by the first part of Act III / Scene 2 where Hamlet gave an acting lesson to the actors (later taking over their lines on stage). He attempted to transcribe his emotions burried in his own heart from the pain of his father’s death through the actor. But how well did Hamlet speak the very things we wish we could say about our own angst, yet can not find the words? The play within the play was a great connection, once again, to the audience, made even more intense by Hamlet not trusting the actor to deliver his intensity as well as he could himself.
"The Piano Lesson" by August Wilson
I am not at all familiar with reading drama and I did my best to picture the play on stage in my mind as I was reading this but I guess my mind is too conditioned to imagine real life taking place as I read fiction. I have a feeling adjusting to this is going to take some practice. One thing I noticed as I read was the tone of the characters; the intensity of their emotion was effectively expressed in my mind’s ear. The confrontation between Berniece and Boy Willie at the of the first act was very loud and emotional and when the scene ended, it took me a minute to acclimate to the abrupt silence.
I did have a tough time getting to know Doaker on a deeper level. I guess he would be considered a good supporting character because we are not as intimate with him as we are with Berniece and Boy Willie. This did disappoint me a little because the introduction to his insight through the poetic monologue expressing the metaphor of the train (p1214-15 and how people keep leaving where they are at to solve their problems. It was a surprise to see he had anything to say at all and I was hoping to see more “lessons” come from him. But he wasnt the only surprise lesson in this drama, Boy Willie's lesson to Berniece (1254-55) about how to believe and push through rang in my own life. And Wining Boy's lesson on how to appreciate what you've got while you have it (1221) was just as important. It was dramatic that the "misfits" of the play had any lessons to teach at all.
I did have a tough time getting to know Doaker on a deeper level. I guess he would be considered a good supporting character because we are not as intimate with him as we are with Berniece and Boy Willie. This did disappoint me a little because the introduction to his insight through the poetic monologue expressing the metaphor of the train (p1214-15 and how people keep leaving where they are at to solve their problems. It was a surprise to see he had anything to say at all and I was hoping to see more “lessons” come from him. But he wasnt the only surprise lesson in this drama, Boy Willie's lesson to Berniece (1254-55) about how to believe and push through rang in my own life. And Wining Boy's lesson on how to appreciate what you've got while you have it (1221) was just as important. It was dramatic that the "misfits" of the play had any lessons to teach at all.
Friday, June 19, 2009
"Trifles" by Susan Glaspell
There were many things worth writing about in this drama based in 1916; to start: ‘who do you sympathize with as you are interpreting the characters?”
I felt obligated to balance the 1916 scales of justice myself by considering women’s suffrage issues such as: what rights a man would have had in this situation at that given time, domestic violence, the inability to speak against your husband, justice and empowerment found in circles from women resisting the way they were treated. Clearly they lived in a difficult time, governed by male dominance.
Mrs. Hale - strong, smart, loyal, feeling responsible for not being “there” for Mrs. Wright when she first sensed something was wrong, belonging to a community of women that had to stick together in order to emotionally and physically overcome - pieced together the crime scene herself and became the judge, jury, and prosecution -- unbeknownst to the inevitably unsuspecting men of that time and setting.
As a director interpreting this, what else is there to consider? What about an ambiguous interpretation so that the audience is faced with more dilemma in choosing a side. Or even a stronger case for sympathizing with Mr. Wright (thanks Andrew). In the “Trifles Discussion”, I rewrote the plot in a modern day setting, showing an abused wife who murdered her husband. The victim, once again, was a woman. Where is the creativity in re-spinning what has been done hundreds of times in modern box office? Even worse, it assumed my audience was unsophisticated and would be more challenged by “bigger, modern-day drama” rather than offering a unique interpretation of what was already written. The adjustment I should have offered instead was my unbiased perspective or simply an unexpected interpretation of sympathizing with the villain, Mr. Wright. Afterall, who was more "right" between Mr. and Mrs. Wright?? And whose right is it to decide.
I felt obligated to balance the 1916 scales of justice myself by considering women’s suffrage issues such as: what rights a man would have had in this situation at that given time, domestic violence, the inability to speak against your husband, justice and empowerment found in circles from women resisting the way they were treated. Clearly they lived in a difficult time, governed by male dominance.
Mrs. Hale - strong, smart, loyal, feeling responsible for not being “there” for Mrs. Wright when she first sensed something was wrong, belonging to a community of women that had to stick together in order to emotionally and physically overcome - pieced together the crime scene herself and became the judge, jury, and prosecution -- unbeknownst to the inevitably unsuspecting men of that time and setting.
As a director interpreting this, what else is there to consider? What about an ambiguous interpretation so that the audience is faced with more dilemma in choosing a side. Or even a stronger case for sympathizing with Mr. Wright (thanks Andrew). In the “Trifles Discussion”, I rewrote the plot in a modern day setting, showing an abused wife who murdered her husband. The victim, once again, was a woman. Where is the creativity in re-spinning what has been done hundreds of times in modern box office? Even worse, it assumed my audience was unsophisticated and would be more challenged by “bigger, modern-day drama” rather than offering a unique interpretation of what was already written. The adjustment I should have offered instead was my unbiased perspective or simply an unexpected interpretation of sympathizing with the villain, Mr. Wright. Afterall, who was more "right" between Mr. and Mrs. Wright?? And whose right is it to decide.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Interpretation Project: Part III
I needed to take a picture of a “Help Wanted” sign in a gas station. My plan was to approach the cashier and nicely ask if I could put the sign (I bought) in their window and take a pic for my school project. Of course, being the courteous person that I can sometimes be, I went into this elaborate explanation of what the movie was for all the way down to the detail of who wrote the poem (don’t ask.). What I hadn’t planned on (as if I’d planned on anything past my blah, blah, blahing and nice smile… hey. It usually works for me, ok?) was the cashier asking me how a help wanted sign in their window related to a Robert Frost poem…
My idea was to show choices and compare how one can choose to work in a less-than-ideal environment or get an education. But how could I say that to the guy who is working behind the register? Of course, my poor planning led to an embarrassing rejection (which I have to say, I am not the most equipped to handle) and sent me back to the drawing board. Lucky for me, there was a fine old chap smoking outside of the one down the street who didn’t seem to care if anyone walked into, out of, or crashed landed on top of his establishment. His response to my newly adjusted pitch, “just as long as you put the sign up yourself.”
My idea was to show choices and compare how one can choose to work in a less-than-ideal environment or get an education. But how could I say that to the guy who is working behind the register? Of course, my poor planning led to an embarrassing rejection (which I have to say, I am not the most equipped to handle) and sent me back to the drawing board. Lucky for me, there was a fine old chap smoking outside of the one down the street who didn’t seem to care if anyone walked into, out of, or crashed landed on top of his establishment. His response to my newly adjusted pitch, “just as long as you put the sign up yourself.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)