After doing extensive research from description of William in the lost play, I did a quick drawing of what I imagine the great William the Conqueror to look like.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
William the Conqueror in a visual way
After doing extensive research from description of William in the lost play, I did a quick drawing of what I imagine the great William the Conqueror to look like.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Love's Labour's Lost--1940 style
Sorry for my absence! I was really occupied with getting ready for my very first Jiu-Jitsu competition which was on Saturday. And it paid off because I got second place in my division :) Boo-yah!
I really, really love going to live performances of things. Music, art, theater, whatever. I love it. So going to see BYU's performance of Love's Labour's Lost was super fun! Plus I got to go with one of my awesome mission companions, Katherine, which made it even better :)
I'll start with my favorite things about the performance...I thought the idea of setting it in 1940 was a little weird at first but in the end I thought it merged with Shakespeare really well. Especially after reading the director's story about how her grandparents had met during the war and how they had an introduction similar to Biron and Rosaline. Their witty encounters and sharp banter ended up endearing them to each other--just like in the play.
I LOVED the fact that during the intermission they had a dance and let the audience be involved. That was probably the best part, because I love dancing :) And dancing was such a big part of that era. It helped keep the audience in the right time period. And it was hilarious because the actors stayed in character when they asked people to dance. Costard asked this girl to dance and she kind of shrunk into her seat a little bit and he was like, "HA!" in this really funny/obnoxious way and grabbed her hand and took her to the stage.
And the live band was AWESOME!
The set was great. I really liked the simplicity of it because I think it allowed the focus to be on the characters and their interactions. The idea of having the characters look at "mirrors" while facing the audience was genius. I think it helped accentuate the aspect of dramatic irony in the play. This play was full of scenes where the characters only had their limited perception of events while the audience could see much, much more. For example, the entire scene where, one by one, the men all admitted their love for the ladies the audience could see that Biron was actually in love, and that he was watching the others as they divulged their secret admiration, but each character thought they were alone. Another example was when the ladies switched wardrobes before the men arrived in their Russian costumes. We knew that they weren't the right girls, but the men had no idea. The mirrors helped represent the limited perception of the characters.
Ok, now for the things I didn't like so much. I really, really did not like that the script and dialogue was split up among so many people. It made the play so confusing! I had just read the play and I was even confused. It was so hard to follow who was who and who was in love with who and it took me like half the play to realize that they weren't just taking forever to introduce the main characters; it felt like there weren't really main characters. Their parts had been split up so much and since I had just read the play I was like, "Oh, that girl is Rosaline cause she just said her lines....no wait, that girl must be her....wait, who is Rosaline?? There are like ten girls saying her lines!" It was just confusing. And it made it harder to become emotionally invested in the characters because half the time I was battling exasperation with having to try to follow so many people.
But overall I liked it and it was a fun experience :)
I really, really love going to live performances of things. Music, art, theater, whatever. I love it. So going to see BYU's performance of Love's Labour's Lost was super fun! Plus I got to go with one of my awesome mission companions, Katherine, which made it even better :)
I'll start with my favorite things about the performance...I thought the idea of setting it in 1940 was a little weird at first but in the end I thought it merged with Shakespeare really well. Especially after reading the director's story about how her grandparents had met during the war and how they had an introduction similar to Biron and Rosaline. Their witty encounters and sharp banter ended up endearing them to each other--just like in the play.
I LOVED the fact that during the intermission they had a dance and let the audience be involved. That was probably the best part, because I love dancing :) And dancing was such a big part of that era. It helped keep the audience in the right time period. And it was hilarious because the actors stayed in character when they asked people to dance. Costard asked this girl to dance and she kind of shrunk into her seat a little bit and he was like, "HA!" in this really funny/obnoxious way and grabbed her hand and took her to the stage.
And the live band was AWESOME!
The set was great. I really liked the simplicity of it because I think it allowed the focus to be on the characters and their interactions. The idea of having the characters look at "mirrors" while facing the audience was genius. I think it helped accentuate the aspect of dramatic irony in the play. This play was full of scenes where the characters only had their limited perception of events while the audience could see much, much more. For example, the entire scene where, one by one, the men all admitted their love for the ladies the audience could see that Biron was actually in love, and that he was watching the others as they divulged their secret admiration, but each character thought they were alone. Another example was when the ladies switched wardrobes before the men arrived in their Russian costumes. We knew that they weren't the right girls, but the men had no idea. The mirrors helped represent the limited perception of the characters.
Ok, now for the things I didn't like so much. I really, really did not like that the script and dialogue was split up among so many people. It made the play so confusing! I had just read the play and I was even confused. It was so hard to follow who was who and who was in love with who and it took me like half the play to realize that they weren't just taking forever to introduce the main characters; it felt like there weren't really main characters. Their parts had been split up so much and since I had just read the play I was like, "Oh, that girl is Rosaline cause she just said her lines....no wait, that girl must be her....wait, who is Rosaline?? There are like ten girls saying her lines!" It was just confusing. And it made it harder to become emotionally invested in the characters because half the time I was battling exasperation with having to try to follow so many people.
But overall I liked it and it was a fun experience :)
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
My Maturing Love of Shakespeare
As I keep reading Shakespeare more and more, my respect for him just grows so much! His talent is so impressive. I really love being able to read his plays for my class because it opens up his world to me. In high school I read the common plays that everyone is familiar with, like Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet. I think we read Julius Caesar as well. But I had NO IDEA what a gold mine the rest of his works are! Right now I'm finishing off the gem Love's Labour's Lost. To be honest, I don't know if I'd even heard of this play before my Shakespeare class but I love it! Love's Labour's Lost is super witty and lively. It's so great! I really love Shakespeare's gift with working the language and it is super evident in this play with all the wordplay between the characters. For example, I find Ferdinand's receival of the ladies especially amusing. It just shows how Shakespeare was able to take something simple and make it dynamic.
FERDINAND
It shall suffice me; at which interview
All liberal reason I will yield unto.
Meantime receive such welcome at my hand
As honour without breach of honour may
Make tender of to thy true worthiness:
You may not come, fair princess, in my gates;
But here without you shall be so received
As you shall deem yourself lodged in my heart,
Though so denied fair harbour in my house.
Your own good thoughts excuse me, and farewell:
To-morrow shall we visit you again.
This part just gets me! It's so funny! Because he could have just said, "Well, you can't come in my kingdom. Have a good night and see you tomorrow." Which would have been more fitting considering that he's actually being pretty rude by not allowing them to come inside. After all, they've just traveled all the way there from their kingdom and he's not even giving them the hospitality of inviting them in. He makes them stay outside! But I love the irony of his language because it is so flowery and warm to contrast the situation. "As you shall deem yourself lodged in my heart..." Haha. How kind of him, the sweet king.
I think this double meaning stuff is something I might want to experiment with. Shakespeare wasn't the only one that loved wordplay and double meanings. I really love Latin people and as I've become more familiar with the Mexican culture, I've realized that they LOVE this type of stuff. They love when words say one thing and then have some hidden meaning behind it. (This passage of the play isn't quite the ideal example, but this thought just came to me). Anyway, in my Spanish class the other day, my teacher was showing us some Spanish wordplay. She showed us the word inestable and it's definition no estable (unstable) but how it can also mean la mesa de Ines en norteamerica (Ines' table in North America). Haha :) Hm, it's not as good when you have to explain it, but the point is, wordplay is fun. Probably why it has the word play in it.
FERDINAND
It shall suffice me; at which interview
All liberal reason I will yield unto.
Meantime receive such welcome at my hand
As honour without breach of honour may
Make tender of to thy true worthiness:
You may not come, fair princess, in my gates;
But here without you shall be so received
As you shall deem yourself lodged in my heart,
Though so denied fair harbour in my house.
Your own good thoughts excuse me, and farewell:
To-morrow shall we visit you again.
This part just gets me! It's so funny! Because he could have just said, "Well, you can't come in my kingdom. Have a good night and see you tomorrow." Which would have been more fitting considering that he's actually being pretty rude by not allowing them to come inside. After all, they've just traveled all the way there from their kingdom and he's not even giving them the hospitality of inviting them in. He makes them stay outside! But I love the irony of his language because it is so flowery and warm to contrast the situation. "As you shall deem yourself lodged in my heart..." Haha. How kind of him, the sweet king.
I think this double meaning stuff is something I might want to experiment with. Shakespeare wasn't the only one that loved wordplay and double meanings. I really love Latin people and as I've become more familiar with the Mexican culture, I've realized that they LOVE this type of stuff. They love when words say one thing and then have some hidden meaning behind it. (This passage of the play isn't quite the ideal example, but this thought just came to me). Anyway, in my Spanish class the other day, my teacher was showing us some Spanish wordplay. She showed us the word inestable and it's definition no estable (unstable) but how it can also mean la mesa de Ines en norteamerica (Ines' table in North America). Haha :) Hm, it's not as good when you have to explain it, but the point is, wordplay is fun. Probably why it has the word play in it.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
"You got me monologuing!!"
NEWSFLASH: This just in from our reporter on the scene...of the archives...at that one really old place...
The archivists have just revealed a portion of a speech they believe came from a play written by William Shakespeare. The subject of this play? William the Conqueror! Dun da duhhhhh!!
"O that I had never seen such darkness
In my tender infancy. Such a life
Would have overcome weaker men than I.
To think I might have been born a shepherd;
Whose only role is to watch young lambs play
In their peaceful fields, his hardest task to
Protect his flock from wandering wolves.
I confess, at times my heart longs for such
A dream as this. To see those peaceful fields.
But I fear my soul was not shaped for a
Shepherd. When I feel that fierce burning in
My veins to render my will on those who
Seek to take what's mine, to defy--"
And that's as far as they've uncovered. How exciting! What kind of character would have spoken lines like these?? I guess we can only wait to find out...
Ok, writing like Shakespeare is super hard. I do not know how he managed to be such a writing genius!
But I did my best to do iambic pentameter. I'm not sure if the unstressed-stressed all works out, but whatever. I threw some imagery in there and some alliteration and wah-lah! There you have it. For my folio.
The archivists have just revealed a portion of a speech they believe came from a play written by William Shakespeare. The subject of this play? William the Conqueror! Dun da duhhhhh!!
"O that I had never seen such darkness
In my tender infancy. Such a life
Would have overcome weaker men than I.
To think I might have been born a shepherd;
Whose only role is to watch young lambs play
In their peaceful fields, his hardest task to
Protect his flock from wandering wolves.
I confess, at times my heart longs for such
A dream as this. To see those peaceful fields.
But I fear my soul was not shaped for a
Shepherd. When I feel that fierce burning in
My veins to render my will on those who
Seek to take what's mine, to defy--"
And that's as far as they've uncovered. How exciting! What kind of character would have spoken lines like these?? I guess we can only wait to find out...
Ok, writing like Shakespeare is super hard. I do not know how he managed to be such a writing genius!
But I did my best to do iambic pentameter. I'm not sure if the unstressed-stressed all works out, but whatever. I threw some imagery in there and some alliteration and wah-lah! There you have it. For my folio.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Brainstorming, Round 1 A
Ok, I think that a history play with William the Conqueror has a lot of potential. We've got the big hero (or villain), potential for some great pump-up speeches, character development, etc. Especially cause I found out that William became a duke when he was only about 8 years old and there was a LOT of chaos around him as he was growing up and maturing as people were feuding around him. And remember the illegitimate birth around 1027ish...
Then when he became king of Normandy and conquered England in the Battle of Hastings in 1066, he had to deal with treacherous English lords and political marriages and all that good stuff.
So plot development. Maybe the play could open with Duke Robert, William's father, leaving to go on his pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Before he left, he made the Norman magnates (I don't really know what that word means...I'm assuming its like the Norman lords around there...yep. Just dictionary.commed it. I'm right.) swear fealty to William, even though he was an illegitimate son. Then, Robert ends up dying on his way back. I'm not exactly sure how we could show the time change and growth of young William. Maybe have a scene where he finds out his dad died and he's recognized as the duke. And then...have snippets of plotting lords trying to kill him or something and his narrow escapes...so I feel like this act would be dedicated to William's growth and taking on the responsibility of being a duke. Seriously, there had to have been a lot of growth. Men were getting killed in his sleeping chamber and his uncle had to hide him in peasant's houses to keep him from being killed!
Act 2 - Conquest? Of his own lands? Yeah, I don't know when this should all take place...but let's include his political marriage to Matilda of Flanders in 1050 that helped him out.
Act 3 - Conquest of England? Battle of Hastings? Apparently King Edward of England decided that he wanted William to be his successor in 1051. So maybe Shakespeare would have portrayed him as the hero after all.
I don't know. Shakespeare was way better at writing this stuff than me. Somehow in Henry V he managed to have the battle as the pinnacle point in the play but then also managed to end with some romantic cuteness. I'm not sure how we should work it with William.
And...to tie in Nickson's African story, maybe we could have an act during William's character growth and conquest stage where he gets cocky like the hyena and loses the battle because of it. But he's able to learn so he doesn't make the mistake again and is able to conquer England. I think it works :)
Then when he became king of Normandy and conquered England in the Battle of Hastings in 1066, he had to deal with treacherous English lords and political marriages and all that good stuff.
So plot development. Maybe the play could open with Duke Robert, William's father, leaving to go on his pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Before he left, he made the Norman magnates (I don't really know what that word means...I'm assuming its like the Norman lords around there...yep. Just dictionary.commed it. I'm right.) swear fealty to William, even though he was an illegitimate son. Then, Robert ends up dying on his way back. I'm not exactly sure how we could show the time change and growth of young William. Maybe have a scene where he finds out his dad died and he's recognized as the duke. And then...have snippets of plotting lords trying to kill him or something and his narrow escapes...so I feel like this act would be dedicated to William's growth and taking on the responsibility of being a duke. Seriously, there had to have been a lot of growth. Men were getting killed in his sleeping chamber and his uncle had to hide him in peasant's houses to keep him from being killed!
Act 2 - Conquest? Of his own lands? Yeah, I don't know when this should all take place...but let's include his political marriage to Matilda of Flanders in 1050 that helped him out.
Act 3 - Conquest of England? Battle of Hastings? Apparently King Edward of England decided that he wanted William to be his successor in 1051. So maybe Shakespeare would have portrayed him as the hero after all.
I don't know. Shakespeare was way better at writing this stuff than me. Somehow in Henry V he managed to have the battle as the pinnacle point in the play but then also managed to end with some romantic cuteness. I'm not sure how we should work it with William.
And...to tie in Nickson's African story, maybe we could have an act during William's character growth and conquest stage where he gets cocky like the hyena and loses the battle because of it. But he's able to learn so he doesn't make the mistake again and is able to conquer England. I think it works :)
Friday, March 2, 2012
Brainstorming, Round 1
Ok, just a thought.
History Play about William the Conquerer. That was a big deal in English history, right? And it could culminate in a battle like Henry V. Before he conquered England, he was known as William the Bastard. (Edmund flashbacks, anyone?)
Questions:
Would Shakespeare have made William be the hero or the villian?
...need more research...
History Play about William the Conquerer. That was a big deal in English history, right? And it could culminate in a battle like Henry V. Before he conquered England, he was known as William the Bastard. (Edmund flashbacks, anyone?)
Questions:
Would Shakespeare have made William be the hero or the villian?
...need more research...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)