There hasn’t been much activity here lately, I am to blame of course. There’ll be more activity from now on… so let’s start a little discussion. Inspired by some things I saw while surfing the internet, I’d like to ask my readers:

Who is responsible for Romeo and Juliet’s deaths?

Don’t forget to back up your answer with a strong argument. Was it Friar Lawrence who created the plan to fake Juliet’s death? Was it their parents’ for their feud? Was it Romeo who was too quick to judge? Was it the entire city of Mantua for locking their gates to the messenger with the letter to Romeo? Or perhaps it was the Prologue who revealed the end at the beginning, and the characters naturally can’t stray from what he has to say.

I have a feeling it was Colonel Mustard, but I’ll put my two cents in a little later. Let’s get the ball rolling with an answer to the question…. Whodunnit?

SparkNotes is a source for information used by students of all ages, teachers too! Generally teachers don’t encourage students to use SparkNotes, Cliff’s Notes, etc. since these resources are most often used in place of reading the text rather than a guide to be used in addition to the text. This is a big company devoted to helping people understand literature better, so think of my surprise when a friend pointed out that their facts are a little screwy.

A friend brought to my attention that their facts page has the climax of the story in an unexpected place. The plot structure listings are odd to me. What do you think?

RISING ACTION · Macbeth and Banquo’s encounter with the witches initiates both conflicts; Lady Macbeth’s speeches goad Macbeth into murdering Duncan and seizing the crown.

CLIMAX · Macbeth’s murder of Duncan in Act II represents the point of no return, after which Macbeth is forced to continue butchering his subjects to avoid the consequences of his crime.

FALLING ACTION · Macbeth’s increasingly brutal murders (of Duncan’s servants, Banquo, Lady Macduff and her son); Macbeth’s second meeting with the witches; Macbeth’s final confrontation with Macduff and the opposing armies

So the climax of the play is in Act II… and then there are three acts of falling action? Shakespeare knew better than that!

A simplistic way to look at the plot structure in a tragedy is that the protagonist gets closer and closer to their objective as the story progresses until the climax (in a comedy the protagonist gets pushed further away from their goal until the climax). By that model, the climax of Macbeth is the fight between Macduff and the Scottish King.

And I don’t think that “Macbeth is forced to continue butchering his subjects to avoid the consequences of his crime” at all. He continues murdering so that he can ensure his royal position, not primarily to avoid the consequences of his first murder.

I sent an message about this by clicking on the “Report an Error” link at the bottom of the Macbeth facts page. You should too! We don’t want faulty information on such a widely used resource.

So, Sparknotes, please fix this! Mr. Shakespeare was not silly enough to have a play with over half of it as falling action.

Remember to keep your eye out for things like this. You can’t always trust what’s published online or even in print.

Student’s essays on this play will be a little different from now on, won’t they?

Midsummer can’t just be popular because it’s easy to read, or the clear story, or the comedy, or the magic… can it? Directing the show is presenting me with some interesting challenges, but unlike those I’d associate with other plays by Shakespeare. The storytelling is so wonderfully clear. The three distinct plots are entertaining and are woven together in such clever ways. But I think what I really find fascinating are the individual characters. An earlier conversation about the crazy bunch of character sparked the question, “Did Shakespeare intend to create characters that parallel the various parts of the human psyche?”

Who knows? I’m directing the show so I should probably have an answer to that. I don’t know what Shakespeare intended, but I know how the show affects me. The more I think about it, the more I feel that the different characters are the real charm of this play. Shakespeare writes these characters in very distinctly different ways. We have the heavily structured, ordered world of the court: Egeus pushing his clearly defined agenda with a dimplomatic Theseus upholding the law. The lovers, with many similarities, each can display a different form of love – or lust. The fairies demonstrate their very un-human nature in very lyrical, metaphoric language; the conflict between the powers that upsets nature (they affect nature as nature affects humans). And the mechanicals – each carrying their own trademark, shall we say, “challenge.”

I find it difficult to communicate here the real breadth and scope of the types of people that Shakespeare has written in this show. It begins with the language, but continues and develops with the characters physicality and personality. The challenge of a creating a really strong Midsummer is the very strong ensemble it requires. It’s not a show that less talented actors can be given a small part and not be noticed. My vision for my production is that every single character within the story is a very unique person different than the others around him or her but they all work together as a tight-knit ensemble. And each ensemble in each of the shows subplots can work with each other as a part of a larger ensemble.

With a cast of 14 and most actors doubling as another role I hope to achieve this kind of different ensemble. A chorus that does not talk and sing and dance and look the same but are all different and yet work together seamlessly. I’ve seen productions where the characters sort of blend together and others where some are very defined. Especially with the mechanicals, whose comedy depends on it. Too often the fairies and the court are rather bland.

It’s an interesting challenge for acting or directing. I think it’s what makes this show so much fun for those both onstage and off. Thanks Mr. Shakespeare!

No one can seem to make up my mind about it. People debate, scholars pontificate, directors interpret but there is no consensus…

Does Hamlet know Polonius and Claudius are listening in?

Specifically, when he’s delivering the “To be or not to be” speech. Or does he figure it out later in the scene. If so, when?

I’ve heard it argued that Hamlet knows that Polonius is a crafty spy (he employs Reynaldo to keep track of Laertes’ actions in France) so Hamlet might suspect that Polonius is watching, or maybe overhears the previous conversation about the plan to plant Ophelia there. But this would mean that the soliloquy is not a soliloquy at all. He’s “acting crazy” for the unseen old men.

The alternative is that Hamlet doesn’t know they’re there and he delivers to the audience some of his thoughts on death. I feel that the speech loses something if it’s Hamlet acting for the hidden auditors. It seems to me that if Hamlet realized it later on in the scene — sometime before “where is your father” — it would be more dramatic.

So what do you think? Does Hamlet know he’s being watched from the start, or does he realize it later? And what evidence do you have in the text? In performance it could probably work either way and still be interesting.

Discuss!

In a lot of articles and interviews with people who are creating scholarly, theatrical, or other artistic products of or based on Shakespeare’s works there seems to be a common question: “What do you think Shakespeare would have to say about what you’re doing?”

The common answer is something to the effect of, “I think he would have approved because Shakespeare was all about creating and updating art and finding new and creative ways of entertaining…” Or, “I’m sure he’d like to see his plays being taught in this manner…”

Whatever the reply is, the interviewee is quite sure that Shakespeare would have approved of his or her work.

What makes them so sure? What do we REALLY know about Shakespeare, the man, that gives us clues to his opinions on art or education or more specifically on the interviewee’s efforts? Isn’t it just as silly to try to determine what Shakespeare’s intended to tell his audience with his plays, or how he intended them to be acted? Sure we can find “clues” and pose theories that may seem very likely with all the evidence pointing in a certain direction, but we weren’t there and we just don’t know for sure.

Not that I like to bring politics into the mix, but the whole thing reminds me of the Republican presidential candidate debate in the Ronald Reagan Library on January 30th of this year. The final question given to each candidate was, “Would Ronald Reagan endorse you and if so, why?” The first three answered “Yes, of course!” and gave their reasons. But then Mike Huckabee said that he thought it would be arrogant to assume so, and that he didn’t know if Reagan would, “But I endorse him.”

So he was being clever with his words. I won’t tell you any of my political sympathies in this blog, but when it comes to art, you may have noticed I’m rather opinionated. It is rather presumptuous to say that Shakespeare would have agreed or supported the work being done. The work is being done, rather, to support Shakespeare. I love Shakespeare, therefore I read/act in/direct/blog about his works, etc. When it comes down to it, Shakespeare’s works are public domain – freely available to everyone to download, read, hate or enjoy, and then do anything you want with it.

If ever I’m interviewed and asked if Shakespeare would support my work, I’d say “Who knows? But I support his work — without it I wouldn’t be doing [whatever it is I'm being interviewed for].”

By textbook Shakespeare I mean a history lesson exploring the time that the play is set in as well as learning about the audience mentality during the era when the plays were written and first performed. We can also say a historicist production.

If the title of this post sounds like I’m going to tell you how to do it – that’s not what you’re going to get.

My purpose is rather to explore its validity in modern theatre. Today, Shakespeare’s plays function as two very different things: Literature, and a play script. The former is an end product, the latter a starting point – raw material on which a theatrical production is built upon. Literature is often dissected to find the authors intent, inspiration, any philosophical messages or themes, allegories, allusions, similies, metaphors, symbolism, foreshadowing, and all that generally for the purpose of figuring out what the author was really trying to communicate. A seemingly objective process, but everybody’s different interpretation turns it into a rather subjective work.

Theatre, on the other hand, has its number one priority as — in my opinion — entertainment. Yes, you can comment on politics, society, etc. (and I’m ignoring most absurdism but I’m concentrating on the more common forms that we’re used to seeing) but those are secondary priorities in most cases. What comes first in the plays we like best is telling a good story, and telling it well. Theatre is full of plays about the most important episode of the lead character’s life (or end of).

Since Shakespeare has become such a huge literary figure, it’s very easy to lose focus when producing a play. Before I go on, I must say that I DO think it is almost essential to understand as much as you can about the raw piece of work that you can. Find the meaning of every word, discover how the play would have been understood 400 years ago, realize the significance of certain plot events to an Elizabethan/Jacobean audience. BUT when all is said and done very little, if any, of that work will be seen by the audience of the production. What might be seen is some work in drawing parallels. For example, if Shakespeare’s audience viewed such-and-such event THIS way, then we’ll have to stage it like THIS so that a modern audience will understand the weight of the situation.

After all, we don’t really go to the theatre to learn about history. I love learning about history, but it’s not why I go to the theatre. I want to see a good story told well. And if I learn in the process, cool. If not, fine. Good theatre has to be relevant today somehow. We can’t just dig up a play – by anyone – and say “it’s a classic, let’s do it.” There are plenty of blockbuster plays from not even 50 years ago that are no longer produced because they were such a product of their time that they would be incomprehensible to us today. Shakespeare’s power, I believe, is that the plays are extremely adaptable to play in front of a modern audience. We’re not necessarily showing how they were originally staged. Instead we present them (with minor alterations) to tell the story that will resonate most with the hearts and heads above the butts in the seats. They are about the human experience and today and tomorrow will still find truths that we can relate to.

As they are in your Arden, Riverside, Pelican, or other edition the plays are pieces of literature. The footnotes and introductions often explore what those words meant 400 years ago and how the play was received by a 16th or 17th century audience. If we today tried to put such a historicist production onstage I have no doubt that not too many people would enjoy it. Theatre is about the now. It’s an opportunity for catharsis – you can’t get that from a textbook history lesson.

The Shakespeare Geek has asked yet another interesting question that got me thinking quite a bit. “What do you think Hamlet’s relationship was with his father?” and later says, “… I think much of Hamlet’s hesitation comes out of a fear to acknowledge his true feelings about his dad.” The following is mostly in response to the aforementioned post.

Whether or not Hamlet Sr. was a loving and affectionate father, it’s hard to say. Perhaps he was lacking some tenderness toward his son, but I have no doubt that Hamlet had the utmost respect for his father as a person and as a king.

Look at how Hamlet compares his father to Claudius:

So excellent a king, that was to this Hyperion to a satyr

That’s a huge comparison there. His dad is a sun-god and his uncle is a sex-mongering goat man. Hamlet’s comparison here illustrates that he has the most respect for his father and none at all for his uncle.

so loving to my mother That he might not beteem the winds of heaven Visit her face too roughly.

If King Hamlet wasn’t a tender father, he certainly was a very loving husband — at least in Hamlet’s eyes. These words describe the marriage as very caring, very gentle. Back to Hamlet’s relationship with his dad…

If [the ghost] assume my noble father’s person,

Noble isn’t just there because he was a king, or an extra word to fill the pentameter line. If Hamlet calls his dad noble, he thinks that of him in this case. I don’t think there is any irony here. I think you’re starting to get my point. Skipping ahead to the “closet scene,” look at how Hamlet describes his father in the picture he shows to Gertrude.

See what a grace was seated on this brow:
Hyperion’s curls, the front of Jove himself,
An eye like Mars, to threaten and command,
A station like the herald Mercury
New lighted on a heaven-kissing hill,
A combination and a form indeed,
Where every god did seem to set his seal
To give the world assurance of a man.
This was your husband.

And her current husband is nothing but “A slave that is not twentith part the tithe Of your precedent lord.” I’m quite convinced that Hamlet didn’t have a bad relationship with his father. Maybe he feared him some, but not because his was horribly distant or cruel, but because he was a powerful, stern, yet respectable man and king.

As for Hamlet’s hesitation because he’s working out his feelings for his father, I don’t agree. As you can see from what I’ve already said Hamlet is quite clear on how he feels about dear dad.

Hamlet – in his mind – isn’t so much hesitating as being careful. He needs to some time to show the court that he is mad so that he will not be thought of as a threat to the king. He then uses the players to be absolutely sure of Claudius’ guilt. Hamlet wants to be king after (“He that hath [...] Popp’d in between th’ election and my hopes”) and he can’t afford to be wrong about anything. So when Hamlet find Claudius praying, it is really the first time they have been alone together. No is his chance to kill him. But Hamlet doesn’t just want to kill him… he wants to send his uncle’s black soul to hell. The man must be punished, not just released from his Earthly body.

But then Hamlet mistakenly kills Polonius. After this he is sent off to England so his revenge is delayed again (“How all occasions do inform against me.”) But he realizes now that the only way to be revenged is to stop being so careful, and just DO IT.

O, from this time forth, My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!

Hamlet gets back, gets in a fight with Laertes over Ophelia’s grave, and is challenged to a fencing match for “sport.” At this point it’s rather unclear what Hamlet’s plans are toward his uncle, but he’s only been back for a day it would seem. Ever respectful Hamlet’s plans are delayed until after the match. He’s not about to say no to the wishes of the king and his mother I suppose. Maybe he was planning on killing Claudius that night.

But Hamlet ends up mortally wounded, and his mother is poisoned. Laertes tells him “Thy mother’s pois’ned. I can no more—the King, the King’s to blame.” So Hamlet kills Claudius for killing his mother.

Hamlet isn’t procrastinating, and he’s not unsure of whether he should revenge based on his feeling for his father. He is instead trying to carefully plan (“thinking too precisely on th’ event”) so that he can be king after the treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain is sent to hell.

In King Lear, the sisters Goneril and Regan are often seen to be rather… evil. They do after all turn away their father from their houses. But each time I see it I’m a little bothered by the portrayal. It seems to me that they are resigned to be cruel from the start after they get their land from dear papa.

I’m interested in seeing the sisters plead with dear dad to come to his senses about how many knights he needs, not cruelly deny his demands. I’m always more interested in seeing someone fight for what they want from someone, especially a loved one. It’d be far more moving to see the sisters fight with their father to realize his folly until the point where he runs off into the stormy night… and then give him up as a lost cause. Not before. They might not be the best people, but they surely have some respect for their father as well as hope for his wits.

It seems to me that Lear’s daughters are not quite as wicked as we sometimes see them, but rather in Lear’s mind. Sure, they do some pretty crazy things later on, but that arises AFTER they give up on their father. Then their ambitions and jealousies can take hold of them.
Has anyone else seen productions on stage or screen of Lear with “evil” sisters? And have you seen it a different way? And reading the text alone how do you perceive their actions?