Romeo and Juliet

My first introduction to Shakespeare goes like this:

I was about 4 or 5 years old, and like most children I suppose, I was very impressionable. One day, while my cousin was baby-sitting me and my sisters, she found a music box in my parent's closet. It was just a plain music box: One of those old-fashioned ones that you wind up and you can see the gears moving, with a comb-like metal piece that makes notes as the gears rotate. Only the words "A Time For Us, Romeo and Juliet" were written on the inside. As she wound it up, the sad music started, and she began to tell us the story.

A long time ago, there was a boy and a girl who loved each other, but they couldn't be together because their families were enemies. They had a plan to run away and get married, but the plan didn't work. She took a potion that made her fall asleep, and when the boy found her, he thought she had died. So he poisoned himself because he couldn't live without her. When she awoke, she found him dead, and so she shot herself in the head. And they lived happily ever after in heaven.

My cousin told me it was a true story, so that made it even more captivating. Shakespeare as told by a 9-year-old. This was my first introduction to Shakespeare, but it was my first introduction to love and death, too. That music box became my and my siblings' shrine to love. We found a rose and put it inside the box, and as it dried out, the smell became intertwined with the story. We put pictures of our parents on their wedding day inside. I even found a pretty feather once, and put it among the gifts.

This is the exact song in the music box, but it was a plain, rectangular box. I like the Boxing Match in the background. Nice touch with the wordplay of boxing and boxes. Oh wow, quit playin'.

Review of Cymbeline!

Shakespearean Observer

Pasadena City College, CA  **   Tuesday, June 2, 2009  **  English 78B  **  Professor Bonilla

Cymbeline Opens the 2009 

Repertory Season at 

Theatricum Botanicum

By: Patrick Covarrubias

Staff Writer

     On the last afternoon of May in Topanga, California, the celebrated Will Geer Theatricum Botanicum opened its 2009 Repertory Season with a performance of William Shakespeare’s romance Cymbeline, directed by Ellen Geer. Under Geer’s direction, one of Shakespeare’s final plays, written towards the end of his career, was brought to life with a sprawling and diverse cast of about thirty, including professional actors from the Actors’ Equity Association, a beautifully natural and rustic setting, and an aura of traditional Shakespearean theater and presentation.

      The production was able to capture the wide range of genres that the play requires, as Shakespeare’s late romances have the most developed characters and complex plotlines. From the romantic plight of Imogen and Posthumus, and the wager that the mischievous Iachimo makes with Posthumus thus instigating the sequence of events, to the cautionary tale of the ambition of the Queen and her son Cloten, to the story about the ignorance and arrogance of King Cymbeline, it is clear that Shakespeare reprises his earlier themes in plays, and the production translates this undoubtedly.

     Always tinged with humor, the mood of the play is helped with the cast of many characters that capture the devious and manic energy so written. Even when some of the more difficult language spoken by the actors was lost on the unprepared audiences’ ears, the actions and feelings of the words spoken by actors helped to convey the deeper connotations of tragedy, comedy, mischief, malevolence, and triumph. 

     The most stunning aspect of the Theatricum’s main stage is definitely the outdoor amphitheater, with the various trees, gardens, and hills serving as the natural background for the stage of Cymbeline. The naturalistic setting allows for very beautiful and pastoral scenes that are traditional in Shakespeare’s plays and themes. The set and staging areas were able to capture the natural lighting of a late spring’s afternoon, and aside from the appropriately chosen music played through unnoticeable and strategically hidden speakers, the atmosphere of both the Theatricum and Cymbeline was idyllic.

     The highlight of the play is during the final act, in which a live battle takes place between the more rough-around-the-edges British and the more refined and ordered Romans. As Posthumus is passionately lamenting his betrayal of Imogen, the two opposing

Cont. on Page 2

Cont. from Page 1

armies enter slowly from opposite ends of the stage, building tension, until a very energetic fight between natural and ordered, barbarian versus civilized. The hills behind and around the stage allow the action to reach from far away to right in front of you. The intimate 299-seat amphitheater is transported to a time early in Britain’s history, complete with fitting musical choices and detailed costuming.

      Standout performances are Thad and Willow Geer (pictured) as Cymbeline and his daughter Imogen, who evoke a relationship similar to that of King Lear and Cordelia. Aaron Hendry’s hilarious and crowd-pleasing portrayal of Iachimo is a lighthearted take on the potentially malicious role, because he responsible for much of the grief in this play. An interesting and well-received directorial choice was to cast two women in male roles: Earnestine Philips and Samara Frame as Belarious and Arviragus, respectively. The association and addition of femininity augments the value of the themes of kinship and the “simple country life” in juxtaposition to the devious and overly ambitious ways of the city. Much like the setting of the theater itself suggests, the feeling one walks away with is that it is probably better to get out of the city more often, in order to appreciate humanity among nature, rather than against it.

      Driving through the winding highway of Topanga Canyon on an early Sunday afternoon, one would hardly take notice of the Theatricum Botanicum’s entrance, hidden among the trees and hills just north of Santa Monica. Upon entering, it feels like walking through a secret hideaway, almost like entering the enchanted forests of A Midsummer Nights’ Dream. The gardens of the area attract butterflies and hummingbirds that just may be Shakespearean faeries, and an easy-going and peaceful attitude is hard not to catch. The Theatricum Botanicum, created by Will Geer as a safe-haven for actors and performers that were blacklisted during the McCarthy Era, and the concealed grounds convey a feeling of escape from the everyday. It is one of the most enjoyable ways to see a live production of Shakespeare.

     Cymbeline runs every Sunday at 3:30 PM, until September 27th. Also running this season in repertory are Julius Caesar, opening June 6th at 8:00 PM, The Cherry Orchard on June 27th, A Midsummer Night’s Dream on July 4th, and The Miser on July 25th. Ticket prices range from $10 to $30, with discounts available for seniors, students, Veterans, and children under 12.

Box Office: (310) 455-3723              

1419 N. Topanga Cyn. Blvd., Topanga, CA

http://www.theatricum.com

Macbeth - The Weird Sisters

So I finished reading Macbeth this last weekend and I recognized that the traditional image of three witches standing behind a giant cauldron, saying spells, and putting various bewitched items in it to make some kind of potion, most likely comes from Macbeth! Not counting Lady Macbeth who is bad ass, the Weird Sisters are probably my favorite characters in the play. 

Anyhoo, I remember watching one of the Harry Potter movies awhile ago, and when I read Act 4 Scene 1, something in my memory was triggered. I didn't realize at the time, but one of the songs that appears in the movie uses Shakespeare's words. It's a cool and spooky little song, and I think it's worth posting.

Double, double, toil and trouble.
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Double, double, toil and trouble.
Something wicked this way comes!

Eye of newt and toe of frog,
wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
lizard's leg and owlet's wing.

Double, double, toil and trouble.
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Double, double, toil and trouble.
Something wicked this way comes!

In the cauldron boil and bake,
fillet of a fenny snake,
scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
witches mummy, maw and gulf.

Also, having read all the Harry Potter books, I squeezed my mindgrapes and remembered that there is a wizard band called The Weird Sisters that appears in the books. Cool! I think this is a picture of them.

King Lear Assignment - Nothing

*This is also a first draft on my ideas about 'Nothing' in King Lear. After class today, I'd like to revise a couple of ideas. Also, in class, there was an interesting question brought up that I'll address later: Why is it that the 'mad' men of this play are the only ones who speak the straightforward truth and reason? At one point, Tom of Bedlam is considered a philosopher by King Lear (who goes crazy, but that's part of the point, and I'll explain later).

Follow the metaphor of “Nothing” in the play. What comes of nothing that begins this play? How does it affect the development of one of the major themes within the play: madness, blindness, epideictic language of praise, authority, or identity?

            In the early Young Man sonnets, Shakespeare writes purely epideictic and praises his love object, to the point of idealizing and turning a blind eye towards any flaws love object may contain. As Shakespeare writes more sonnets, there is a progression from the idealized and flowery language of the early Young Man, into the more honest and brutal language of the Dark Lady sonnets. The turning point is in Sonnet 130—“My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun”—when Shakespeare has abandoned the purely epideictic language of praise, in exchange for a more honest approach. Shakespeare also begins to appear in his own work, as the subjectivity of the poet is included in these later sonnets. This is illustrated in Sonnet 130, because the quality of confessing and revealing the true appearance of his love object, Shakespeare is also revealing his non-traditional, yet realistic relationship to the object—Gone are the platonic boundaries of Petrarchian love poetry.

            The development of epideictic language of praise in “King Lear” is expanded upon, but it is mostly criticized in this play. The main critique is that it is ultimately a flowery way of saying “Nothing”. In the play, King Lear wants to leave his kingdom to his daughters, but in exchange, he wants to be eulogized with epideictic language. Of his three daughters, two of them, Regan and Goneril, don’t really have love for King Lear, but they have no problem exclaiming such love for him:

Goneril:            “Sir, I love you more than words can wield the matter;

                        Dearer than eyesight, space, and liberty.

                        Beyond what can be valued, rich or rare,

                        No less than life; with grace, health, beauty, honour” (1.1.53-56)

Here, Goneril speaks of a love that cannot be described by the normal senses, of a love that cannot be put into words—mainly because the love she has for her father doesn’t exist—her flowery language is thus a fancy way of saying nothing. As opposed to the way Cordelia describes her love for her father: “What shall Cordelia speak? Love and be silent.” (1.1.59) Perhaps Cordelia lacks a way with words, and clearly her tacit ways are some of the cause of the great tragedy in King Lear, but it is because Cordelia—whether she knows it or not—wants to prove a point to King Lear that he is foolish to want validation for a love that doesn’t exist. Only God can Present, to make something come from nothing – the problem of representation, being an imperfect form of presentation. King Lear performs blasphemy when he demands that something come out of nothing, as only God can create. He cannot demand that something materialize if it does not exist, the love of his daughters. Words don’t mean anything, and this is a lesson Lear must learn.

            He rejects Cordelia’s straightforward answer by saying “Nothing will come of nothing, speak again” (1.1.90), and this is true, but it is also false. It is true in that a declaration of love will NOT magically manifest itself when there was no love to begin with, i.e. the absent love of Regan, Goneril, and even Edmond in regards to Gloucester. It is false as well, and Cordelia needs to prove this to her father, that something can come from nothing, and that is in her attempt at teaching Lear a lesson, by giving him a non-answer—a denial—when he seeks validation/eulogy/epideictic language he expects from his daughters. Cordelia is proving that something can indeed stem from nothing, and this is tragedy and catharsis.

            Another aspect of the play that is developed is madness, as well as blindness. When Edgar becomes Tom o’ Bedlam, he loses his rational thought in exchange for nothingness—“Enforce their charity. ‘Poor Tuelygod, Poor Tom.’ That’s something yet, Edgar I nothing am.” (3.3.177). By claiming to have nothing, he is able to descend to the level of madness that King Lear embraces and Gloucester flirts with. Blindness is explored, when Gloucester is blind to the sincerity of Edgar, who joins him in poverty as Tom, and blind to the manipulation of his bastard son Edmond. It is only when Gloucester is literally and ironically blinded, that he does become ‘unblinded’ to the fact that his son Edmond has betrayed him, and that Edgar is the truly honorable one. 

Merchant of Venice - Rough Draft on Question #3

How is Shylock used as a scapegoat for the plot of this play? That is, how does Shylock allow for the comic end of this play?

            The play is centered around contracts, deals, bonds, agreements, legal matters. The problem here is that nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions. The solution is absolution through the law, selfishness prevails, being acquitted. The problem with the law is that it is not real justice—it is corruptible by man. The winner is he who has the quickest wit to see and make loopholes, a woman???

            Portia doesn’t want to reject her suitors, because she wants to remain polite, and so the test works out in her favor—She gets lucky and doesn’t have to reject anybody. Once her limits are gone, however, she gets to show how she is smarter than men! Without her father’s rules, she proves to be more capable of saving Antonio and out-witting Shylock.

            The test of a true Christian: virtue to be humble, to give all –“to hazard all he hath” (LEAD)—rather than pride, arrogance (SILVER), self-doubt, and giving in to desire (GOLD).

            Antonio and Bassanio don’t want to repay, or never planned on repaying Shylock. They end up getting off on a technicality. Bassanio takes advantage of Antonio’s love for him, and uses him to gain “fortune” to woo Portia in style.

            Shylock who is determined to hell that he will make them pay, that he will FINALLY get people to take responsibility for their actions backfires in his exploitation. He is guilty of trying to usurp God’s power, rather than to be a true Jew and to show faith in his endurance of grievances.

            Shylock is likened to THE DEVIL in this play

Shylock, who has made a seemingly concrete deal, is defeated by a loophole, a technicality. Read the fine print, basically.

Shylock who represents trying to exploit the law for revenge, or justice, taking advantage of the legal system of men to usurp God’s privilege of vengeance, is punished.

Shylock is the Debbie Downer. He is defeated by a technicality.

1.3.142-157

“If you repay me not on such a day,

In such a place, such sum or sums as are

Expressed in the condition, let the forfeit

Be nominated for an equal pound

Of your fair flesh to be cut off and taken

In what part of your body pleaseth me”

He was too caught up in vengeance, and his adherence to law (which is on his side) that his downfall was on a legal technicality. A loophole was the deux ex machina that allowed for such a villainous character to fall.

A woman has outsmarted the villain—a man. But only by claiming to be a Man.

A woman has command over the law, over he who had claimed authority and revenge over man. By attempting to usurp God’s privilege of vengeance, a woman has usurped man’s command over law and reason.

Christian’s blame Jews for the death of Jesus. Anti-Semitism is condoned, Shylock is a complete villain, save for pieces of humanity—3.1.49-55 “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions . . . ? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die?”/ his ring for his wife—but is too enamored by revenge. It’s NOT greed!

Antonio is a symbol of all who have done Shylock wrong, as he is an Anti-Semite, he wants revenge on everybody. If Shylock succeeds, it sends a clear message to Christians.

A scapegoat – got off on a technicality, just like Portia’s suitors—she trusted in the rules, and all men who chose wrong, followed the rules:

2.1.15-22

“Besides, the lott’ry of my destiny

Bars me the right of voluntary choosing.

But if my father had not scanted me,

And hedged me by his wit to yield myself

His wife who wins me by that means I told you,

Yourself, renowned Prince, then stood as fair

As any comer I have looked on yet

For my affection.”

2.7.76-77

Morocco

“Portia adieu. I have too grieved a heart

To take a tedious leave. Thus losers part.”

King Lear & Cordelia (In Progress)

*I'm not finished with my thoughts on this matter, but I wanted to get something out about this subject. I'll come back when I have more insight. 

       

  Is it better to try to please somebody and to compliment, to border on "lie", or is it better to remain honest, but run the risk of sounding insulting? The ultimate choice of Cordelia is much the same that Shakespeare made when writing his sonnets. At first, he wrote epideictic language to flatter and to idealize his love object in the poetry. Much like King Lear in the beginning of the play, he is "blinded". Later on he decides to be more honest, evident in Sonnet 130--"My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun"--at the risk of sounding insulting, but it reveals that he cares more, because he is more honest and he's done with lying.

          But in this story, it IS better to try to please somebody, rather than to be purely honest and tactless. If Cordelia's answer is seemingly the cause of the tragedy in King Lear, then the question is WHY????

"Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave

My heart into my mouth. I love your majesty

According to my bond, no more no less."

"You have begot me, bred me, love me.

I return those duties back as are right fit--

Obey you, love you, and most honour you. 

Why have my sisters husbands if they say

They love you all? Haply when I shall wed

That lord whose had must take my plight shal carry

Half my love with him, half my care and duty.

Sure, I shall never marry like my sisters..."

Here, Edgar echoes Cordelia's conundrum:

4.1.1-4

"Yet better thus and known to be contemned

Than still contemned and flattered. To be worst,

The low'st and most dejected thing of fortune,

Stands still in esperance, lives not in fear."

Midterm

This is the essay that I wrote for the midterm we had to turn in last class. I basically rewrote the question I did for I Henry VI, but I go into more detail. I also included some ideas that we discussed in class last week. Okay!

Midterm: Who Deserves Authority?

A Validation and Challenge to Traditional Gender Hierarchy

            The Traditional Gender Hierarchy, as illustrated by Robert Fludd in Utriusque Cosmi Historia, is a recurring motif that makes several appearances throughout William Shakespeare’s plays. In the engraving, one can see that a true order exists: God above Nature, and Nature above Man. In plays like The Taming of the Shrew and I Henry VI, Shakespeare explores another aspect of the hierarchy that relates to the traditional gender roles of the Elizabethan Era and how one comes to possess the authority to ruler over another. Shakespeare examines the differences between men and women and the stratification between these sexes—both validating and challenging the supreme sequence—when he writes about Joan la Pucelle’s rise to power in the wake of the king’s death in I Henry VI.

            The opening of I Henry VI presents England in uncertain times following the death of beloved monarch Henry V—a captain-less ship. During the funeral, tensions mount between Gloucester, who eulogizes the dead king and wants to keep the States best interests in mind, and the corrupt Winchester who believes “The Church’s prayers made [Henry V] so prosperous” (1.1.32), and that he should thus take over the rule of England. Here, Shakespeare reveals a glimpse at the dissension that leads to a disruption in the normal hierarchy because of the so-called “vacuum of authority”, or lack of clear leadership. The status of England is not helped by its fickle leadership—the ‘War of the Roses’ between the Duke of Somerset of the Red Rose and the Duke of York of the White Rose—which leads to a vulnerability that allows France to advance and gain some authority, thanks to a woman. Obviously, a new era of blurred hierarchical lines is on the cusp of emerging, that starts to ignore the established rules of the time.

            Joan arrives in France with a promise to return Charles the Dauphin to his rightful place as King, and she is able to quickly assert her authority over the weak-willed men of France by besting him in combat, by otherwise winning the men over with her charm, and by claiming that her authority resides within some divine source—it seems that to make up for the fact that she is not a man, she resorts to a high power to still retain some authority. The question of whether Joan uses her sexuality for her endeavors are purposefully ambiguous, and both enemies and allies constantly challenge her purity—Talbot calls her “Pucelle or pucelle” (1.7.85).

            Joan’s actions are startling for the fact that she is a woman impersonating a man, and it is no wonder that she is looked down upon and even feared for her nonconformity: she is usurping the natural order of things and subverting man’s authority. Rather than remaining a reflection of man, she is attempting to place herself in the Sun’s place, and she almost gets away with it. Shakespeare challenges the Traditional Gender Hierarchy, much in the same way he does with The Taming of the Shrew, by creating a strong willed, independent woman. Like Joan, Katherina attempts to conquer men with her biting wit and demands equality, but they both ultimately fail. As a punishment for attempting to overthrow the authority of men, Joan is burnt at the stake, but not before she is humiliated and completely dehumanized at the hands of the English who view her as nothing less than a monster—York: “Break thou in pieces, and consume to ashes, Thou foul accursed minister of hell” (5.6.92). The only thing that makes Joan so evil is the fact that she is crossing gender and social boundaries, by assuming the identity of a man. This is Shakespeare’s way of validating the gender hierarchy.

            Joan and Winchester are a symbol of a ‘New Way’ of rule. No longer does authority and victory lie with the powerful and brute forces of Men, but rather with the cunning and opportunistic ways of those who usurp their way to authority. When the traditional and chivalric Talbot dies in battle, not by being overcome by the opposing side, but because of the internal struggle in his own country that delays him aid, it is a sign that the ‘Old Way’ of winning is no longer effective. The English have joined the French and have decided not to act in straightforward and mighty justice, but in strategizing and deceiving. Talbot is a victim of the “Vacuum of Authority”, because without a clear male leader, chaos reigns, and anything can happen.

            At the end of the play when Charles gains his land back and a temporary peace with the Regent of England, some sense of order is brought back to the men. Joan’s attempt has failed and she is punished for her ways. However, there are cracks in the foundation of peace at home that prophesize civil unrest: Suffolk has found a way to influence King Henry VI’s new wife Margaret—“Margaret shall now be queen and rule the King” (5.7.107)–and she succeeds in claiming an undeserved spot in royalty where Joan has failed. This is because Margaret doesn’t attempt to subvert the authority of man as obviously as Joan or Katherina, but rather in the manner of Bianca. Margaret finds herself in the position to claim authority over her husband almost by accident, and it is Shakespeare’s ultimate judgment that suggests authority only fully rests in the hands of men who are able enough to wield such power. Yes, Henry VI deserves power and so do Charles and York, but that doesn’t mean they have the authority that goes along with such a title. The lack of authority at the head leads to a distorted hierarchy, which allows even women to rise up and take control, and it might as well belong to those who are capable.