Final Blogging

And so another semester comes to a close. I've really enjoyed everything that we were able to put together over the course of the semester. So, to wrap things up, I've prepared one final blog post.

Engaging Shakespeare

I thought the event was very successful. I wasn't able to stay the entire time, but between rehearsals and everything, I was able to see all of the projects. I was really impressed both by how much time my classmates were willing to devote, and how much talent they were willing to share. I think the whole came thing together really well, especially given the amount of time the class had to put it together. 

I feel like an audio-recording is not necessarily the most presentational final project, but I was glad that the audience was into it enough to ask questions about it. I think that, as far as presentations go, the play, the music video, and the art groups were a lot more engaging than we were able to be, simply because of the nature of our project. I'm not maligning our project (I actually think the final product turned out really well, so shout out to Amy and her willingness to be our sound-editor), but I think that it would have worked better under different circumstances.

How have I gained Shakespeare literacy?

I think making the audio recording of Hamlet helped me to really understand the play in a way I hadn't before. We really had to decide what the essential themes and ideas were, and how to effectively convey them in a very short period of time. I also reached a deeper understanding of the characters. Well, no. With Hamlet, that might not be quite accurate. It's more accurate to say that I am now able to look at the characters through multiple different lenses. I don't think a single one of them has a concrete motivation, and in doing multiple close readings of the script, I was able to consider who these people really were. I know that they're fictional, but that doesn't mean that they're one-dimensional. Even characters like Claudius, who seem really one-note and token, have the capacity to be extremely complex.

Because of my acting background, I was very eager to get into the character's heads. Initially, it was just Polonius, because he is the character I voiced. But as I read the script over and over and over, I found myself trying to understand all of the characters we worked with, even the ones with fewer lines and apparently more direct motivation. I found that I could imagine scenarios in which Claudius is the hero and the Ghost is the villain. I could imagine scenarios in which Hamlet was the villain. I could imagine scenarios in which Gertrude was a tragically sympathetic character. I don't think any of these ideas are wrong, because so little in the text is explicit.

The most important thing that I learned was that these characters didn't live in a vacuum. They had whole lives before the play started, and just because they weren't laid out doesn't mean they aren't important. Trying to figure out these character's lives and who they really are has proved endlessly fascinating, and it makes me appreciate Shakespeare's genius so much more than I did. 

How have I analyzed Shakespeare critically?

Although we haven't read a ton of new material since the midterm, I tried to be on the lookout for opportunities to analyze Shakespeare in interesting ways. I think my favorite post was about eye-gouging as an appropriate punishment for treason. In that post, I tracked down a book about treason laws and punishments during Shakespeare's time, and I found that eye-gouging was actually fairly tame, compared to what could have happened. I also did a textual analysis of Edmund's Bastard speech from King Lear.

How have I engaged Shakespeare creatively?

I put a lot of focus on engaging Shakespeare creatively since the midterm. I wrote two posts on costuming, the first about The Taming of the Shrew and The Winter's Tale, and the second about Hamlet. These were the blog posts I had the most fun coming up with, because they tied into something that's interesting for me. I like to look at the ways that costumes are used in movies and TV shows and onstage. Very rarely does someone say "Yeah, just wear that, whatever." Clothes are used to make statements about characters, and it was fun to explore how I would do that. 

How have I shared Shakespeare meaningfully?

I focused a lot on global sharing, because I fundamentally don't really get it. I haven't received much feedback (except from my husband, but I wouldn't call that global), but it was an interesting experiment. I wrote an online review for King Lear, as well as a review for Hamlet. I think that the Engaging Shakespeare event was also a very good way to share Shakespeare. An audio recording isn't necessarily the most presentational project in the world, but we've also put our audio recording on YouTube. At least theoretically, people from all over the world could listen to it. It currently has three whole views, so that's exciting.

Overall, I tried to be very cognizant of reaching the learning outcomes. Blogging twice a week for six weeks doesn't leave a lot of space to get really in-depth, but I think that in the time I had, I was able to do a lot. I was able to learn a lot. I have to say a big thank you to both of my groups (blogging and final), because this never would have worked without them.

An Alternate Reality

As a follow-up to my last post, I was considering the character of Claudius. Specifically, I was considering whether there was any possible way his character could be viewed as sympathetic. I think there is, but it hinges on a lot of things that you don't see onstage or in the text.

In examining the character of Claudius, we must consider the following questions:
- Why did he kill his brother?
- Why did he marry Gertrude?
- Why did he want to kill Hamlet?

As far as Hamlet (the character) is concerned, Claudius is a traitorous, power-mad villain. However, we see from the beginning that Hamlet doesn't know the full story. He isn't even aware that his father was murdered until the ghost appears and tells him.

Even though he doesn't know everything, the entire play is told from Hamlet's point of view. Our perceptions are colored by his biases and preconceived notions. We know nothing, except what Hamlet tells us. What if Hamlet is lying? What is Hamlet is wrong? What if Hamlet's real reasons for vengeance aren't as noble as they seem?

Imagine, if you will, a loveless and abusive marriage. The brother watches from the sidelines as the woman he has long loved is battered and maligned. She is forced to bear a child to provide the kingdom with an heir. That child grows up and is just like his father - selfish, cruel, egomaniacal. The brother continues to watch, powerlessly, as father and son continue to sap the woman of everything she has to give. She's miserable and contemplates suicide. The brother knows that he has to take action. But what can he do? If they run, they will be followed. Murder, it seems, is the only choice.

In that scenario, Claudius would not only be a sympathetic character, he would be a hero. I'm sure there are countless books and movies with this exact plot. It's basically the plot to the Princess Bride, only Wesley let Humperdink live (and there are tons of articles on why that was a bad idea) and Humperdink and Buttercup never had a kid. But it's got the jerky royal figure who treats his royal significant other like crap, and the lifelong true love stepping in to save the day.

I'm not necessarily saying that I think that Claudius is a saint. I just think that we too-easily dismiss him as the token bad guy with no redeeming characteristics. No one is one-dimensional. Plus, Hamlet isn't what you would call nice or respectful to his mom. I don't care how upset you are - nice people do not call their mothers "adulterate beasts" unless those mothers are crack addicts who left said nice people at the bus station after giving birth to them. For that reason, it wouldn't surprise me if Hamlet (by this time, a thirty-year-old man) had a habit of not treating his mother with respect. Additionally, children usually pick up on how they're supposed to treat their mothers from their fathers. Plus, this was the 16th century, before anyone realized that women were people.

Again, I'm not saying that Hamlet and his dad were definitely the real bad guys. I'm just saying that I can envision a semi-plausible scenario in which things are not what they seem.

Global Sharing With Hamlet

As a final follow-up to The Taming of the Shrew and King Lear, I've posted a Goodreads review on Hamlet. It can be found here. Maybe this will be the time where I get validation from someone other than my husband.

Writing this review was interesting, because reviewing begs the question "Was it any good?" I feel like most people would say "It's Hamlet. It has to be good. It's a classic." My answer is somewhat different: It depends on who's reading it.

Hamlet is, moreso than any of Shakespeare's other plays, a blank canvas. Almost no one has a clear motivation or objective. When we read the play ourselves, we see reflections of ourselves.

When I first read Hamlet this semester, I saw Hamlet as an under-developed manchild who never had an adult relationship with his father. I thought that he was stuck in the phase where you think that your parents are perfect and immortal and superhuman. I also thought that he was using his father's death as an excuse to justify his inappropriate behavior. I still think that's a valid interpretation. That being said, I don't think I would have seen the character that way if I hadn't known a person who was just like that. I inserted my own consciousness into the character.

The text allows readers to project their own psyches onto the characters. If you're a woman with kids who is working through her second marriage, I think it's more likely that you would view Gertrude sympathetically than if you were someone whose mom married some rich guy as soon as the divorce to your dad was finalized. Either one of those people could play the character, and they would likely play her in drastically different ways. One would strongly identify with and like the character, and the other would despise the character. Neither is wrong, because Gertrude is such an ambiguous character. I think everyone in Hamlet is incredibly ambiguous, and I think that's the genius of the writing.

Friday Blogging Part II

Once again, I forgot I was supposed to blog today. And, once again, I don't feel like I have a whole lot to discuss.

The final project recording of Hamlet is going well. We currently have at least one take of each scene recorded, so even if something goes horribly, horribly wrong, we'll at least have something to present. We're meeting on Saturday (4-6 in the recording booth) to fine-tune and add sound effects and the like. I actually think this could be a relatively decent final project. I'm especially happy with how each character has a distinct voice. I think that's really important for the clarity of the piece.

I also feel like I'm understanding the play in a deeper way. Over the past few weeks, I've read our cut script probably six or seven times. When I played Ophelia, I focused largely on my own lines. I made sure I understood my lines and the scenes I was in, but I didn't care as much about the greater narrative. I knew the plot, of course, but I didn't take the time to read and try to understand the other roles (partially because we only had like six weeks to throw the production together). I had to be cute and heartbroken and crazy and dead. Now, I feel like I'm getting that kind of familiarity with the entirety of the play.

Referencing my previous post, I've not received any responses or comments on my Lear review on Goodreads (except for from my husband, who apparently liked it). I'm continuing to reach out, but I'm discovering that most people on the internet don't want to talk to a complete stranger, even if it is about a shared interest.