Diversions

My, but can time fly.  It’s been over two weeks since my last post.  I haven’t run away from our beloved poet William S., only diverted away temporarily.  I made an attempt to read Othello, but after dragging myself through the first Act, I realized my mind was a bit over-Shakespeare-saturated and needed a serious dry-out.

So, where have I been?!  Well, I’ve been spending a great deal of time meditating with Buddha.  Consulting with Freud has been distracting as well.  Pulled out my entire Into to Philosophy course I completed last year and got reacquaited with some of the old chaps.  It’s been quite interesting and there’s no doubt folks out there will bear witness to these mind waves among my future posts. 

Stay tuned, I’ve recently reunited with Willie, had a couple a hot dates and a post about The Tempest is on the way…

Reveal your manifestation please…

Once again, Issac Asimov helps bring up interesting insights while reading his take on Shakespeare.  At the beginning of his analysis of Twelfth Night he writes: “Twelfth night is the twelfth day after Christmas-January 6…The day is also called Epiphany, from the Greek work meaning ‘manifestation’.”

In psychoanalysis, the word manifestation pertains to conscious feelings, ideas and impulses that contain repressed psychic material.  With this definition in mind, one or two thoughts pop up.

During the last act of this Italian comedy, Orsino, after learning of Cesario’s true identity says: “If this be so, as yet the glass seems true,/I shall have share in this most happy wrack./[To  Viola]Boy, thou hast said to me a thousand times/Thou never should’st love woman like to me.” (Act 5)  Now, why is Orsino still calling Viola a “boy”?  I myself was suspect that Orsino had been attracted to “Cesario” since the beginning of this play the way the Duke favored his new boy within a mere three days of his being in the Duke’s service.  Valentine comments on this, and it’s only the first Act: “If the duke continue these favours toward you,/Cesario, you are like to be much advanced: he hath/known you but three days, and already you are no stranger.” (Act 1, scene 4)

Back to Act 5, now that Cesario has been revealed as the woman Viola, the Duke can let his love flow freely.  He has the best of both worlds.  He can love Cesario without controversy because “he” is really a woman, so it’s okay!  That seemed to manifest itself quite nicely for Orsino.  When sharing his bed with Viola, the name Cesario is sure to come into play as the Duke imparts himself in his last lines: “For we will not part from hence. Cesario, come;/For so you shall be, while you are a man;/But when in other habits you are seen,/Orsino’s mistress and his fancy’s queen”

I think Orsino’s previous flowery over self-indulgence for his “love” Olivia was simply over-compensation to cover what really manifests inside his lusting heart.

If you want love, you’ve got to suffer.

Orsino…now there’s a man that would drive me nuts.  This man wallows in the “love” he holds for the untouchable Olivia.  It seems though, that Orsino is enjoying his suffering.  His excitement for love lies in the chase.  If loving Olivia was not a challenge, Orsino would not be interested.  If Olivia suddenly turned her love attention to Orsino, I’d bet he would run the other way…fast.  The woman must remain on that out-of-reach pedestal for Orsino to remain interested. 

The Duke did however slip in a touch of reality when within his wallowing he says “O spirit of love, how quick and fresh art thou,/That notwithstanding thy capacity,/Receiveth as the sea. Nought enters there,/Of what validity and pitch soe’er,/But falls into abatement and low price/Even in a minut. So full of shapes is fancy/That it alone is high fantastical.” (Twelfth Night A1.sc1.9-15)  Within these lines it does seem that Orsino is aware that his love depends on the power of his imagination.  Is it love or the idea of being in love?  I believe Orsino is actually in love with himself and his idea of romantic love.

Love can also have quite the leveling power as Orsino points out in the first few lines of the above quote.  Someone who goes into love with high esteem can quickly find themselves robbed of this high value as it “falls into abatement and low price”.  With these ideas of the self-destructiveness of love, why do we keep running so fiercely toward it?

O bloody hell!

How great is this. Right when I’m studying Macbeth, the CT Repretory Theatre at UCONN just happens to be putting on a production of it. Done in traditional style and time setting, the use of the color red and its bloody motif were exploited to their full potential.

The first appearance of Macbeth himself in Act 1, Scene 3 as he and Banquo are returning from their recent battle, our “hero” dons a red colored tartan. Banquo pales in comparison in his earthy browns. Lady Macbeth’s first appearance is even more impressive. Her brilliant blood red dress is simple in style, but slaps you in the face with impact. With huge bell sleeves and a trail behind her about two feet she appears to be dripping wet with blood as she reads the letter from her husband. Moving into Act III, as Macbeth and his Lady appear as King and Queen, both are carrying even more layers representing this color of extreme passion. Our lady now wears the same red tartan as her husband’s over her drippy dress while her King now wears an exquisite regal bloody red robe over his. The only time these two do not appear wearing red is the scene when Duncan’s dead body is found. Both Macbeth and his Lady have changed their garments to hide the bloody evidence. They both almost look like they’re in disquise. It’s easy to lose them among the chaos without their trademark color.

Further along in Act III, Scene 4, after Banquo is murdered, his ghost appears covered in blood. The effect is great and extremely creepy as you watch blood dribble off the actor’s lips. Makeup had an easy time with this scene opening a full bottle of theatrical blood and simply pouring it over the Banquo’s head causing pure chaos–loved it!!

When King Macbeth later enters into battle half-crazed with the stress mounting up against him, the warriors on his side were all uniformed in red (representing hell, evil), while the opposing warriors seemed to be dressed primarily in browns and greens with Macduff wearing pale blue (heaven?).

Blood was represented with sound too. Live drums were piped in and used to set moods. Sound and music can be narratives in and of themselves and during battle scenes, this was highly effective. As stress increased, so did the loudness and intensity of the drums. As Macduff and Macbeth were reaching the climax of their battle, the drums felt like a loud, ominous heartbeat, perhaps symbolizing the lifeforce of Macbeth’s blood flow and the inescapable doom of it being stopped…soon.

As I watched some of these intense scenes, I would occasionaly scan the audience in the intimate semi-circle theatre to catch expressions on patron’s faces. During one of these scans, I noticed a number of people also wearing red. I then had my own memory of earlier that evening. While getting dressed, I myself initially pulled a red blouse out of my closet to wear. However, after realizing the amount of sequins on this particular blouse and the distraction big sparkles can have on actors in a play, I substituted it for the always cool, eternal favorite black. Funny how I did have the color red in my subconscious though.

Last and perhaps one of my favorite uses of red was the very last scene after Macduff beheads Macbeth. Macduff appears back on stage carrying a bloody burlap bag containing Macbeth’s “head”. After his final speech hailing Malcolm King of Scotland, he takes the burlap bag and impales it onto a stake. From where I was sitting, the sack of theatrical blood sounded like flesh being punctured and all that glorious red passion oozed down the spike as the company left the stage.

Blood with all it’s beautiful, passionate color symbolized the guilt that stained the consciences of Macbeth and his Lady hounding them to their deaths. You too can be witness to this bloody frenzy. This production runs until this Sunday, March 4th. Check out www.crt.uconn.edu.

Mainstream England in the early 17th century?

One can say studying Shakespeare is like studying the essences of humanity. The works contain both the simple and complex polarities than maintain our universe. A favorite approach to my studying Shakespeare is to peel back the layers of these plays discovering the parallels within that can be applied to and performed in any time setting because of the basic humanistic drive behind them.

Now, my current studies have started with Macbeth…hmmm…It’s been twenty years since I first read this play, and I must say, I’ve got mixed feelings about this one. I do believe I hold a love/hate relationship with this play. I had a tough time at first getting through the first couple of Acts. This play seemed so superficial. Layers are there, but they’re a bit difficult to find at first. One the surface, my initial response is the compare this play to a mainstream, hyped-up Hollywood film that relies on the simplicity of violence and chase scenes to satify its audience. As in films, motifs do appear in this play, the most obvious being that of blood. But this play does not contain sub-plots like other Shakespeare works. It contains a single direct line of action throughout adding to the simplistic feel. If a playwright was holding a mainstream audience in their mind as a focus, this simplistic approach would make it easier for everyone of their mainstream audience to comfortably sit through the entire play without getting disinterested or lost. I’ve also come to understand that this is one of Shakespeare’s shortest plays…more simplicity.

It may seem like I’m Macbeth-bashing, but I did say there are some layers; one or two of which I plan to address in my next Macbeth post. There are actually some logical hypotheses to why Shakespeare kept this play so straighforward. Some of the ideas lie within the history of Shakespeare’s contemporary world at the time of its writing. It seems that our beloved playwright was totally kissing up to the crown of England writing Macbeth in the manner he did. According to Issac Asimov in Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare, this tragedy was commissioned by James I of England for the event of the visit of Christian IV, King of Norway, who was also James’ brother-in-law. James I of England was also King James VI of Scotland, his mother being the infamous Mary, Queen of Scots. Macbeth is the only Shakespeare play dealing with Scottish history, so it seems this was done to honor the current King of England’s Scottish background. Another way of honoring this King shows up in the very first scene. James strongly believed in witchcraft and considered himself quite an expert even writing a treatise on demonology. James was responsible for the death of hundreds of men and women accused of witchcraft as this King was obsessed with the threat that witches could pose on him and his reign. Shakespeare continued this idea of evil by making the wyrd sisters grotesque as James would have expected. However, hidden within the ramblings of these “evil” beings Shakespeare wrote in double meanings and truths hidden in riddles (not unlike King Lear’s fool–ah, ha–a layer!). Continuing with kissing up to the king, Shakespeare made sure the character of Banquo always remained honorable. Apparently, James had traced himself back to the man in Scottish history represented by the character Banquo.

Like his plays, Shakespeare the man can also be paralleled and compared with different times and settings in history. Just as when Macbeth was written, what is seen today within mainstream tv and film is controlled by the people who are footing the bill. We say we have freedom of speech, but how much freedom does one really have if what they say and/or write depends on pleasing who has the fattest checkbook?

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!