Ariel the puppet, Prospero the puppeteer.

My favourite costume in the production was saw of The Tempest by the Pioneer Theatre Company, was definitely Ariel's.

Like I mentioned earlier, I really enjoyed the steampunk elements of the costume that added some quirky mystery and fantasy to her character. But what I liked most was how it functioned in relation to her being like a puppet in the hands of Prospero.

At the natural joints of her body, elbow and knees, there were gold wrappings that were sort of like a hinge. I imagined her the whole time being like Pinocchio where the puppet can only move strings that are attached to knees and elbows and probably the head.

Julia Motyka who played Ariel, showed distinct movements like a puppet on strings but always moving first at those hinges. Almost like those barbies too that have arms the move at the elbows.

What a fantastic representation of how she is used by Prospero, her puppet master. He controls her in a fashion that will get him what he wants. The picture below is particularly poignant of that where we see him using magic to bind and tangle her up. So brilliant!

I also noticed where the set had rope riggings on the sides of the stage as part of the boat, Ariel would often be amongst them when performing magic to the characters in centre stage. It was so clear to me that she was being controlled by some greater force to perform such magical acts.

steampunk steampunk steampunk!

Did you guys love it? The whole art set for The Tempest was definitely inspired by steampunk art.
Steampunk in relation to art, incorporates a lot of brass, iron, leather and wood. It often has a Victorian-gothic sort of feel and incorporates elements of fantasy, science fiction and contraptions that produce steam.

In the production we saw of The Tempest, I saw a lot of steampunk: the floating lanterns, the bike attached by strings, ariel's costuming and also Prospero's cape. These small little elements gave a cool feeling of being some sort of fantastical place. Notice all of the things I mentioned are of the magical world rather than things associated with Gonzalo, Alonso and the other shipwrecked men.

 

I mean come on, look at all that brass, leather and gadget goodness. 

a Machiavellian Prince.

Professor Gideon mentioned 'The Prince' by Machiavelli in class last week. I actually just read this in my history of theatre class.

What Machiavelli considers the perfect prince are qualities that are pretty morally questionable for us who do not have such responsibilities as someone in the royal court.

Here are some of the qualities of a successful Prince according to Machiavelli:
-He uses power, strength of character and knowledge to get what he wants.
-He makes the most of a situation -turning it into his favour.
-He rules by fear, not love.

I feel that Prospero fits the Machiavellian ideals of a prince. He has a lot of control of what happens to the plot and really uses his powers to better his own situation. I looked this topic up online and there seems to be some debate to this argument; that Prospero resembles the Machiavellian prince. For how much of a part Prospero plays in the events of the play, his control far outways anything else that might go against this argument. Prospero is a cunning man and who knows what he wants and how to get it. He uses Ariel to get this and of course his own magic.

Wedding photography.

Below are a couple photos I have taken of couples. That's what I like to do in my spare time. Photography.

After initially sitting with the couple and figuring out how they interact together, with me, in front a lens and what they generally want from their photographs, I get a good feel for how and who they are.

When photographing weddings, everybody knows how beautiful the whole day can be and also how stressful it can get. Regardless though, the couple is madly in love and whole day is pretty magical.

Looking at Katherine's marriage to Petruchio, I wonder how a modern photographer might photograph them. At this point, Kate has been silenced by even the prospect of being married and not turning out to be an old maid, however she is not completely 'tamed'. Petruchio not only arrives late to his wedding but he is also wearing fool's clothes. Here are a couple dramatic representations on stage and in art of "the happy couple"

 

From a photographers point of view, I would shoot them probably in nature to soften the mood a little bit. With only buildings and sharp edges in the background, it might only illuminate the rigidity between them. I would also try and mask any awkward positions or lack of creativity from them (because they are not exactly swept up in love at this point), by using soft lighting and also tactfully positioning the camera so that we don't see any space between them or awkward poses.

transformations

I can't help but look at this text (as I always do) in some sort of feminist way. I'm sorry!

But because this is so evidently a comedy, I can't help but think that Shakespeare didn't really think that women should be so submissive to their husbands and the inequality so prevalent in a marriage.

In the banquet scene Lucentio and Hortensio banter on who has the most obedient wife. When we see that Katherine obeys her command promptly and then proceeds to tell everyone in the room more about a wife's submission to her husband, it is a stark contrast from the fiery outspoken Kate we read of at the start.

I think this is more of a commentary of what men would have hoped the relationship to be more reminiscent of rather than identifying actual truths that Shakespeare believed. Being a comedy, this seems to be more of a farcical way of showing how men want to be treated in a marriage and for women to engulf the sweet natured, soft spoken, obedient and submissive character we often see in entertainment. (I should point out that I am talking about a submissiveness that overshadows all self thought and intellectuality or choices)

I am starting to believe that the literal taming of the shrew (Katherine), is not entirely a good thing. That thought to be continued...

Death by drowning.

I am a big lover of the beach and being in water. Living in Utah would be significantly better if there was a beach nearby. However I think of drowning as possibly one of the worst deaths. Some might disagree here, but drowning to me is in the very top of terrible ways to die that I can think of.

It caught me when Gonzalo says:

Now would I give a thousand furlongs of sea for an
acre of barren ground, long heath, brown furze, anything.
the wills above be done! But would I fain
die a dry death.

I found this picture that shows all the different deaths in England in one year. With so little deaths being drowning or 'accidental threats to breathing' as the picture puts it, why are we so concerned about drowning whenever we go to a beach or we see children in water? There are typically 3X the amount of deaths on the road or in transport accidents!

Still though, this opening to the play, with the threat of death near, adds an aspect of spectacle and fear. Inciting this early on, I would say that an audience would not really know what to expect for the rest of the play. Usually something so dramatic might be the climax of a play or film and the dramatic question is: Will they survive this storm?? But if this is only the first scene in The Tempest, then of course they will! No one dies in the first scene. It's an interesting element to add so early on to the play.

Elizabeth Taylor? nah.

 I watched Zifferelli's 1967 version of The Taming of the Shrew that has Elizabeth Taylor as Katherine.

I thought she was an interesting pick because she is/was so well known for her beauty and sexuality. This part calls for neither and brought on a new element into the performance. She seemed to be more of a tease to her husband and cunning- like all along she knew exactly what she was doing to annoy him.
Her charm really came out in juxtaposition with other frightfully annoying female qualities that were all heightened and rather ugly. Overall though, I really think her beauty sort of betrayed the character that was written.

In comparison, a very modern day telling of this play '10 Things I Hate About You' is similarly based on Shakespeares writing although it is all said in modern day speech.

This Katherine played by Julia Styles, represents a different and more subtle kind of shrew however I think her demeanor and natural looks are more how the part should be played.
Styles has a very dry sense of humor and really only talks to entertain herself or put down others around her. In contrast to Elizabeth Taylor's performance where she is extremely attention grabbing and quite hysterical, Styles compliments a more modern shrew as discussed in my previous post.

The modern woman as the shrew.

I'm looking at how Katherine -the shrew, really may not be such a shrew in our modern days.
Her most prominent characteristics are:
-witty
-quick tempered
-sharp tongue
-intelligent
-independent
-angry (unhappy?)

That list of qualities I see in Katherine, definitely portray the sort of modern day feminist that we see today who is independent, working and successful. Sort of the feminist view on females these days, where a woman can be smart and successful without the aid of man. Katherine seems to have some sort of anger on her shoulders that stops her from being happy and a more functional human being as everyone see's it however. 

Petruchio: Come, come, you wasp, i’faith you are too angry.

Katherine: If I be waspish, best beware my sting.

Petruchio: My remedy is then to pluck it out.

Katherine: Ay, if the fool could find where it lies.

Petruchio: Who knows not where a wasp does wear his sting? In his tail.

Katherine: In his tongue.

Petruchio: Whose tongue?

Katherine: Yours, if you talk of tales, and so farewell.

Petruchio: What, with my tongue in your tail?

Even just in this excerpt from act 2, you can see her biting tongue and that she does not back down to men. When this was written, women were particularly susceptible to a man and would have been much more submissive as a social norm. Nowadays, I see women like this everywhere. I would even venture to say that I am like this myself. Not exactly snarky or rude all the time, but definitely not ashamed to say what I think in the presence of males.

Perhaps, to some extent, today's everyday girl, is comparable to Shakespeare's Shrew.

Males funnier than females?

In Love's Labour's Lost, I was thinking about how much of a comedic role all the male characters play. Their language might be considered poetical and maybe farcical and I would venture to say that most of the female roles are not as comedic at all.

SO my question is are boys funnier than girls? Did Shakespeare think this when writing the play? But this is not just an issue of Shakespeare's time. Today, it is hotly debated about modern comedians and whether women really play a role in this environment.

Off the top of my head I can list the following female comedians:

Ellen Degeneres

Tina Fey

And male comedians:

David Letterman

Conan O'Brien

Jay Leno

Jimmy Fallon

Jerry Sienfield

..Not to mention the main characters in shows like
The Office or Arrested Development are also male. Even though Shakespeare was writing hundreds of years before us, I'm still not surprised that males have more comedic roles in his plays and particularly Love's Labour's Lost.

This video gives some more interesting insight. Just ignore the end...

The Taming of the Shrew

First of all, I had to look up in a dictionary what a shrew is. Somehow I just never really new the exact meaning of the word.

Shrew: A woman with a violent, scolding, or nagging temperament; a scold.

And then I found out that it is also this heinously ugly mouse.

A woman being compared to a household pest? A little condescending me thinks.

Missionaries and The Oath

I used to serve food at the MTC and found out that fresh little 19 year olds are pretty awkward after being set apart. Before they’re even out in the field. It’s like whenever I would hand them a plate of food and be conversational, they weren’t quite sure whether they should talk to me and be friendly back. I could see that it wasn’t the same with the male servers.

It just got me thinking- how the King and his lord’s vowing not talk to girls unless it is “necessity”, is similar to how LDS missionaries interact with girls. At first, it seems like the King and his lords are not allowed to be seen talking to women at all. Difficult. So, to be a little more practical but still placing precautions and restrictions, they allow contact with females if necessary.
Maybe girls can relate to this post more but regardless, the whole situation is pretty funny in home wards. 

Hamlet and I.

Sorry for my blogging hiatus! I'm one of the students Prof. Gideon was talking about being the worst and needing to catch up. Nonetheless, let me make one last post on Hamlet and relate a similarity between himself and I.

Hamlet clearly, was pretty bad at making decisions. He waited until other forces made him make decisions and often they were delayed. Killing Claudius is the pending question of the whole play: will Hamlet kill Claudius? It takes him a long time to finally decide to do so after having numerous opportunities and even seeing his mother killed.

Like me, I have waited and waited to blog and then suddenly the day has gone by and I haven't done it. Even when I was deciding to come to BYU, I deferred for a year and then finally decided to come over to the States. Then when I went back to Australia for the summer, I couldn't decide on whether to come back again and all of a sudden the following Fall semester had gone by and I still hadn't got on the plane yet. Alas, I'm here now. In a country that snows 2 and half months before winter starts and I'm still deciding whether to keep my summer dresses in the front of my closet.

Hamlet and I don't like to make decisions.