Shakespeare and children with Andrew Walner

I have actually been talking to one of my old drama teachers in Australia. He helped me a lot with a Shakespeare monologue I was using for an audition to get into a performing arts school. And his help worked! I got in and spent a year at the Victorian College of the Arts before coming to BYU.

While on the phone, Andrew and I spoke mostly about the teaching of Shakespeare in primary schools (I think Americans call it primary school too? grade 1-6 is primary school), as that is what he does during the week. He also teaches at a community theatre program for children on Saturdays. My little sister used to go to it a few years ago too.

What I tried to offer to the conversation was my interpretation of how Shakespeare has effected me this semester alone. While the text is often difficult, there are so many resources that help to understand and interpret the meaning of such language. Andrew is a strong believer that even children at the age of 8 can read Shakespeare and it can be just as compelling and understandable as Harry Potter.

I shared with Andrew my experience of reading the Tempest and how it was difficult for me to enjoy reading The Tempest when a lot my classmates enjoyed it more-so over The Winter's Tale. However, after seeing it on stage over the weekend, my mind opened up to the magical elements and the relationship of characters. Seeing it on stage, everything became much clearer and less wordy for me. I mean Shakespeare was meant to be seen and not read right?
Andrew also told me how he once taught The Tempest to a group of 14 year olds in high school. Instead of keeping the names of Miranda, Caliban etc, they changed them all to names from Harry Potter so that they could more easily identify with the characters and 'act' out a couple scenes with Hermione in mind for Miranda and Albus Dumbledore as Prospero.

shakespearebot.com

I tried to have a conversation with this thing..

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...