Do Now:
- Pick up a copy of "Forget the Footnotes."
- Pick up a copy of your literature anthology
- Consider this, "Why have Shakespeare's writings remained so popular over the centuries?" Be prepared to discuss.
S.W.B.A.T.:
- Reflect on their original understanding of Shakespeare.
- Distinguish between Elizabethan entertainment and modern entertainment.
- Predict reasons for the timelessness of Hamlet.
Today’s Agenda:
- Distribute materials for Hamlet.
- Discuss the assignment parameters and expectations.
- Begin reading "Forget the Footnotes."
- Discuss annotation expectations.
Homework: Shakespeare...background - Due Tuesday, 9/3/13
On Friday, you received a packet, "Forget the Footnotes," with background information about William Shakespeare. Your assignment is to read the packet and decide one aspect/topic to discuss. Because I would like for everyone to share his/her blog on Tuesday, I'm asking for no more than two students to write about any given topic. Please keep in mind, you can select a topic addressed in the packet as a starting point and add your previous knowledge or expand to the topic by researching additional information. In addition, you can disagree or criticize with the position/topic addressed.
* I understand that laptops have not been distributed, yet. If you don't have access to a computer, the assignment can be handwritten. But, please make your best effort to get set up for our blog A.S.A.P.
Assignment specifics:
- Respond to (reflect, agree/disagree with, speculate about...) a topic addressed in your Shakespeare packet.
- Responses must be a minimum of 250 words and must include specific quotes from the article.
- Unless you are the first student to respond, address a comment made by one of your classmates. (What you choose to address from your classmate does not necessarily need to be directly related to your topic of discussion.)
- As always, follow the conventions of standard written English. (This is a formal, published piece of writing for an academic class. Pay attention to grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc. No abbreviations!
In response to the topic transvestite theatre and boy actors, men preferred other males to play Juliet in the play Romeo and Juliet was really shocking to me because, I witnessed females act the role of Juliet and felt the softness of their voice when they sang and the way their body language is definitely much more smoother than a male would perform. The article expresses “ Old timers would fondly recall a boy Juliet as being the definitive portrayal of the role; no women could possibly play Juliet as well.” I disagree and strongly believe that females voices are much softer and preferred in modern time. The play Romeo and Juliet is romantic and should be between a male and female, similar to Adam and Eve. I am not against gay marriage or a male or female being gay, but i’m used to seeing a male and female kiss and be romantic towards one another, so i would find it much more comfortable for a male and a female to have lust for one another. I was speculating about why male’s played the female part in the first place, and thought maybe there wasn’t as much female actresses to play the role. Cited on Procon.org “Gay marriage has been legalized in 13 states.” Signifying that maybe watching the male play the role in Romeo and Juliet may become more common because gay couples are legal and more comfortable with expressing themselves publicly, besides Romeo and Juliet a was originally male and male before.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chyquan because now a days many are use to seeing a man and woman showing romance and feeling you would not normally see between two people of the same gender. However times and views have changed and a growing population admit to their sexual orientation and not feel any kind of shame or guilt. On the contrary I disagree with the idea of women playing the female roles because back then, in Shakespeare's time, men did the roles for the purpose of entertaining others and the money so the ideas of being homosexual are not very addressed considering that was a topic that was not meaning to be shared in public. But since we live in the 12th century it is common for open homosexuality. Moreover,the article emphasizes, "an Elizabethan contract which asserted that once a couple is were engaged they were as good as married and thus could do anything they like." this results to explaining that any married couple is a couple no matter what outside sources claim. I do not find that there is a single thing wrong the idea of all men performing a play. Even if women play female roles, it is still a play regardless of who is who. once again agreeing with Chyquan, it is a matter of an individual's comfort level
ReplyDeleteResponding to the topic of the excavation of the globe theater, I found it surprising that many depictions of the building were shown as octagonal or hexagonal. Regarding the excavation of the actual building it was stated, “The Globe looks like it might have had twenty sides, because it took that many to make the theatre look circular.” This only serves to deepen my curiosity as to why the artists of the time depicted it with fewer sides as opposed to the actual look or an even more rounded version. I believe that the people who rebuilt the Globe theatre after it burned down in 1613 were right to do so on the same location as the original. A piece of architecture that holds as much significance as the Globe theatre shouldn’t be left after an accident similarly to how in the modern day if a building such as a school were to be demolished it would be replaced or rebuilt rapidly due to American societies’ need for an education system. I agree with Chyquan that in the modern day a female voice is preferred over a male’s. This helps highlight the differences in modern and past culture. What surprised me most was the fact that after the theaters closed they were forgotten about and built over. For a building integrated so deeply into society it seems to have been forgotten about very easily. This seems to express the decline in the importance of plays to society whereas through the period afterwards it also seems as though plays were still integrated. The excavation of the globe theatre will allow us a vague glimpse into its vast history and help us understand that of it’s playwrights as well.
ReplyDeleteTo start off I agree with Chyquan in saying that it was shocking to find out that some people preferred men in female parts. We are used to females in female parts because of the way it is today so it is weird finding out that someone preferred males in female parts. In response to the topic the globe excavation, it is shocking and unbelievable how they can find reminisce of a building that was burnt down then torn down. After being torn down, the area was turned into another building and a parking lot which would have covered up the area. Also as Andrew Gurr, leading expert on Shakespearian stage, states “The idea was that a theatre should be round, but the Elizabethans couldn’t build circles with timber, and they couldn’t afford to use brick, so the globe was a many-sided polygon”. Additionally It was fascinating to find out how no one had any idea what the theatres really looked like until after the expeditions of the globe and rose. Originally, they had all believe that they were hexagons or octagons not many sided polygons. Also the Rose theatre had items inside which was quite interesting because one happened to be a human skull. As Andrew Gurr explains “… it was found lodged in one of the walls of the stage area. It may have been part of a primitive building ritual” This was confusing because I had assumed that in London in the 1600s sacrifice rituals had ended.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about the Elizabethan Stage the first thing that I noticed was that the atmosphere of playgoing was much different then than it is now. Now at a play and other performances you are expected to be silent unless you are clapping which is only done at the end of an act, or the entire play or performance. Back then the playgoers clapped and responded to the performance they were watching. As Peggy O’Brien says the experience was “a cross between the NCAA finals and a Madonna concert”. If any were to act like that at a play today they would be kicked out of wherever the performance was being held. I also found it interesting how creative the managers got with advertising. Because they were not allowed to advertise in traditional ways they needed to find a way to advertise the plays. They did this by holding the plays in taller buildings, then raising a flag depending on the play being performed. Black was for tragedy, white for comedy and red for history. At first I was wondering why these were the colors chosen but these colors make sense. Black and white are generally used to show contrast and red is a color that grabs the eye’s attention. I was also amazed at how quickly the actors were able to learn their parts. As someone who has played a major role in a play, rates of eight hundred lines per day are unbelievable. Finally, I agree with Vishal that it is surprising that artists depicted a building that is designed to be round as having as few as six sides.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about some of Shakespeare's life, I noticed that there were constant gaps of information about him. The information that can be gathered about him are far from each other, and the amount of information in Shakespeare is few. His religion is assumed to be Catholic, but that is only because of his mother's decent, but at the same time, Catholicism was deemed a dangerous religion, so He may have adopted another faith. In addition, besides being an actor and playwright, what other occupations he had taken up is unknown, speculation ranges from Shakespeare once being a gardener, a lawyer, or even a soldier, based on what is revealed in his plays. Also, there is a confusion in Shakespeare's marriage, in the church register, he is marrying an "Annam Whateley de Temple Grafton", but the bond of marraigge written the very next day reads "Anne Hathwey of Stratford." Speculation has gone on, questioning if Anne Whateley is the original lover to Shakespeare and Anne Hathwey is A women that his parents wanted him to marry. This isn't as far-off as it first may seem, because Shakespeare was 18 when married, and he would've needed his father's consent. But, in retort, both Sam Schoenbaum and Peter Levi, Shakespearean Biographers, present that " "Whateley" is probably a scribal error for Hathaway." This speculation is as likely as the first, as record has it that a public announcement of Shakespeare's wedding was announced only once, whereas the norm would be that it would be announced three times every Sunday. This may signal that the wedding was hastily arranged, and a misprint of a name more likely. Finally, I agree with Adam, It is amazing how quickly actors could memorize there lines, compared to now, where I would expect an actor playing the main part of a play to memorize their lines in about a month.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chyquan and Anthony that it was shocking to read that men prefered to have other men playing female roles in Shakespeare's plays and specifically Romeo and Juliet. Also I agree with Chyquan that its more efficient to have a female playing a female role in Shakespeare's plays because of their feminine posture and way of communication compared to a brutish male playing a female role. But what shocked me the most was the lack of specific information on Shakespeare's plays. Such as when the play was written and first performed. The article Chronology states “Its impossible to say with certainty when a Shakespeare play was written or first performed”. It is very shocking why don't they have the specific dates and other specifics you would think writing that are as famous as Shakespeare would have dates of when it was written and performed. But it does make sense that they do not have that much specific information or that they lost it and did not care because it took time for Shakespeare's plays and writing to get famous. In the beginning he was famous to a degree but not as much as he is today so the specific records to the plays were not kept and guarded as much as they are today so they were lost. Now we the observers of Shakespeare's fine, legendary writings pay the price for the early observers of Shakespeare's writings laziness of keeping fine detailed records of this legendary writers plays and writings. Amen.
ReplyDeleteIn the Elizabethan Stage part, I found it interesting that in the productions there were no producer or director. This must take a lot more time and much more talent than how theater is today. Another thing that I found interesting was that theater was denounced by the Puritans. Even though it was denounced(by politicians as well) there were still many people who went to see these plays, it shows that theater had a very large following,and because of this large following i wonder is there were any religious leaders that went to the plays even if they thought to have a "stimulus to whorish lust". Another thing to point out is that Shakespeare's words have many meanings, it depends on how one interprets the words, someone may think a certain line has an evil meaning, and another person may think it has a mean that can be related to god. It just depends on the interpretation of the words. And to end I disagree with Chyquan on the fact that Romeo and Juliette should be played between a man and a woman. I disagree with that because that is a story about love. love doesn't just happen between a man and a woman. It happens between two women and two men just like between a man and a woman. I think that in a play like that it really shouldn't matter which genders play the role, the only thing that should matter is if the audience feels the love connection between the Romeo and Juliet.
ReplyDeleteIn agreement with Gavin, I found it intriguing that in Shakespeare plays there were no producers or directors. So much, that I took the time to search what the job titles, “Producer, and Director” entail. After doing so I became aware of, that most of a producer’s or director’s job description could have been accomplished by Shakespeare himself. Yes of course the job descriptions mention a few things that might be outrageous for only one person to take care off, but I would like to keep in mind that theater its self has evolved into something different from its ancestry. In addition to the whole “male playing a female role”, I’m pretty convinced that there must have been some reason for this that unknown. However, to take into consideration that it’s more natural for a human to openly except love between male and female. Mainly due to how most historical and yet famously fiction love stories are always between male and female.
ReplyDeleteIn the writing, Forget the Footnotes! And Other Advice, by an unknown author, it is said that the Puritans were in charge of the Elizabethan parliament during the time of Shakespeare. From prior reading of The Scarlet Letter and the Wikipedia article of the Salem Witch trials, the Puritans appear to be similar to the modern day's ultra-conservative social group, where the members absolutely refuse to change their ways of life to adapt to the changing culture around them, and instead try to force the old ways on the the young populace in the attempt to extend the life of the old culture that cannot continue to exist in the changing world. Another similarity to today's world is that the ultra-conservatives are in the legislative section of the government, slowing down the progress of the nation via laws and regulations. For example, the Puritan majority in the Elizabethan parliament didn't approve of the theater, so they enacted laws to hinder the activity of the new entertainment source, as they considered it a diversion to religious worship and a stimulus to “whorish lust”. As many people have said before, there were parts of plays in where there was romance between two actors, in which both were the same gender, which could explain their disapproval. In 1644, they succeeded in shutting down all the theaters. Unlike the Puritans, today's ultra-conservatives' campaign against the Internet have not resulted in its demise, which is good or bad depending on how you view the world. But that's a digression for a later time. In short, the Puritans of the Elizabethan era and the ultra-conservatives of today are very similar in many ways, although different in terms of success.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete