text:
Essays related to any theatrical production, whether it be plays, improvisation, musicals, operas, or staged readings.
The Cautious Necessity of Nudity in Film, Television, and on Stage
As a director of both film and stage, I have directed several scenes involving nudity and simulated sex scenes. I find them completely justified, and would argue that they play a vital role in the art we produce and consume.
As Hamlet says:
"…the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the
first and now, was and is, to hold, as 'twere, the
mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature,
scorn her own image, and the very age and body of
the time his form and pressure."
In other words, one of the primary purposes of art forms like television, film, and theatre, is to reflect nature as we artists see it, and as it really is. Some people — perhaps you — want their art as pure entertainment, and only require it to distract and entertain. These people want relatively mindless entertainment that doesn't ask much of them, and is escapist enough that it doesn't bear any resemblance to their own lives — or even any real lives on earth. This kind of entertainment is often considered wholesome and family friendly. Yet, some of this work transcends the mundane and blithe entertainment some families love, and actually educates and enlightens its audience. This brand of wholesomeness can be found in the work done by Pixar. It obviously has no nudity or swearing, and yet, it is smart and thought-provoking. Movies like Wall-E ask its audience to think about the earth, and how we treat it, and mildly condemn our sedentary consumerist lifestyle. What's more, it does all of this without the use of very many words. Like the later Pixar film, Up, Wall-E allows the viewer to watch action unfold and tells its story wordlessly, trusting in the intelligence of the audience, and in its own ability to educate AND entertain. Movies like this don't need to be encumbered by sex or violence to keep our attention, but still appeal to the unique feelings and emotions that make us human.
Those films are special, and although ostensibly being "children's movies," they have mass appeal to many adults. This is mostly because they can present kid friendly characters and scenarios in a way that is very adult, and can be fun and entertaining, while still be thoughtful and satisfying to older people.
However, sometimes it's necessary for the subject matter to get more adult and portray mature themes only appropriate for people of a certain age. If the purpose of playing is to hold a mirror up to nature, that means that sometimes we must be unwavering in our depiction of humanity, and show our lives as they are, not as some Disney movie paints it. The reality is, sex and violence are two of the most enduring facets of human life. It seems that as long as humans roam the earth, they will inflict violence on one another, and they will have sex with one another. The very future of humanity depends upon the latter. As we know, money is the driving force behind the actions of many people, but sex has proven to be an even greater and more compelling motivator. It's human nature, after all. We are all hardwired to procreate, and this is, and perhaps always will be, a determining factor in the choices we make in life. How could an art form pretend to portray real life, and hold a mirror up to nature, if it didn't attempt to portray sex on screen or on stage?
When I direct a play, and it has nudity and a sex scene, I am extra vigilant about how I portray those moments on stage. If you consider how uncomfortable sex scenes on screen may make you feel, imagine live theatre, where two naked people could be simulating sex just a few feet away from you. In such a case, it is even more imperative that a director pay careful attention to how they are depicting such intimacy. Personally, I make sure that the nudity is never gratuitous, but is not afraid to show the actor fully and unflinchingly. When directing a sex scene, I pay careful attention to the power dynamic in the relationship. That doesn't mean one character doesn't dominate the other, but I try to get at why that is, and how that looks. I direct the scenes to be very realistic, while also artistic and with a slightly lyrical quality. The audience should be pulled into the action, but at the same time, have a vague awareness that they are watching art unfold. That they are watching a glorious illusion, and that these are artists making art in front of them. As a director, I enjoy that duality. It makes the experience meta, and the art can exist as a sort of reality AND like a painting in an art museum. You can be sucked into the painting, but will never totally forget that you're in a gallery, and there are other paintings on the wall, all around you.
Some directors don't want any fourth wall. They actually seek to demolish the device, and strive to create art that is so hyper-realistic, you actually think you are in the room, experiencing exactly what the characters are experiencing. The film directors Lars von Trier and Abbas Kiarostami are unflinching in what they show on screen. They believe that a film should be as close to real life as possible, and often eschew the trappings and tricks of filmmaking. Their films are truly examples of Cinéma vérité, a sort of documentary style cinema, where directors attempt to capture the darkness and grittiness of real life. In France, the spirit of the French New Wave, in the 1950s, '60s, and '70s was a revolt against the traditional old school Hollywood style that had come before. The classic Hollywood film was the embodiment of wholesome, symmetry, clean, neat, and orderly, and the stories weren't messy and always ended happily and conveniently. These movies never had any nudity, of course, and the love and violence were G-rated. The French New Wave was an avant garde revolt against all things pleasant and orderly. The films were often hand held, and they were lovingly chaotic, messy, graphic, non-linear, and violent. These directors sought to rip down the fourth wall, and sucked the viewer right into the action. Not surprisingly, the films often contained graphic nudity and depicted simulated sex scenes. These directors wanted to show the vagaries of life, and refused to settle for some syrupy sweet and contrived story that bears little resemblance to actual life.
The primary reason why many writers and directors include nudity and sex in films, play, and tv shows is that it's a part of real life. Why should we show fist fights, but shy away from murder and death? Why should we show love and attraction, but abstain from showing where those urges lead? Human beings have sex. A LOT of it, and most of it is not for the purpose of procreation. Why would we not depict something that consumes most of our minds, most of the time, and has driven men to murder, started wars, and ultimately led to each of us, from the lowliest born to the most royal King? Sex is what got us here, and it's apparently what's getting us through.
Finally, many people feel more invested in a story which they can relate to, and one which depicts a sort of avatar of themselves. Usually, we either see two people we want to be, OR we see two people who could be stand-ins for us. When people see nudity on screen, there are many different reactions. No offense, but some more prudish people have a reaction like you do, and are disgusted and repelled by what they see. They see such depictions of flesh as gratuitous, and can't find any justification for why it would be included in any form of entertainment. Some are religious, some are moralistic, and some just aesthetically object to the practice. Many feel that sex scenes are off-story and tangential, and pollute an otherwise good story. When done poorly, I completely agree with this sentiment. All sex scenes — like violence — should be motivated by the character, and serve the overall story arc of the plot. Sex should never be gratuitous or salacious, just for the sake of shock value. It should have purpose. Realistically, the type of person likely to be offended is becoming more and more infrequent in society, as more of us have become desensitized to such cinematic and stage devices. Currently, many people demand such verisimilitude in their shows and films.
Without a doubt, for some, the inclusion of prurient material is sexually stimulating, and a draw to the work. These people seek out certain productions for the purpose of seeing sex and nudity. It may come as a surprise, but this group of people is small in number, and doesn't adequately represent the average viewer.
For many of us, it's rather something in between. I'm not interested in going to see some movie and being forced to endure some gratuitous sex scene with non-simulated penetration and graphic displays of flesh. To me, that's not artistic. That's porn. If I want to watch porn, I'll simply go on the Internet. However, for the majority of people, the inclusion of nudity and sex adds to the art and reality of the experience. It makes the moment more realistic, and allows for the audience to be sucked in even more to the story. When we see two actors naked, they are vulnerable and reveal much more of themselves than we see when they are clothed. There is something unique and special about those moments, and it endears a character to us in a way unlike any other. When we see two actors engage in sex, we somehow buy into their characters more, and we feel more compelled to believe what we are seeing. People like to see people, flaws and all, and this moment of intimacy reveals a lot about people. Just like we often enjoy seeing actors improvise, or the camera to be placed in jarring documentary-style positions, we also enjoy seeing the story and actors laid bare. There is nothing more "behind-the-scenes" than human nudity and actors engaged in simulated sex.
Graphic sex and violence have no place in your children's entertainment, and if you find it there, than something is seriously wrong. Children shouldn't be treated as mindless drones, but we should be mindful of their ages, and what is appropriate for them to see. Family entertainment is all a bit bland and mindless to me, but I see its worth. Personally, I prefer stuff like Pixar, which is family friendly AND thought provoking. It is entertainment that is both socially conscious and responsible. It manages to get my mind moving, and do so without the use of graphic sex and gratuitous violence. And that's great. BUT there is a time and a place for more mature elements in modern entertainment. A show like Game of Thrones is excessively violent and depicts graphic nudity and sex. AND IT SHOULD. That is the kind of art it is. For us to buy into this world of Westeros, we need to see something we can relate to. Additionally, since it is an analog for the middle ages, it is necessarily as violent and filled with sex as that lurid time in our history. We shouldn't have to watch some Disneyfied version of George R.R. Martin's instant classic, and be subjected to G-rated tales of ribaldry and action. The show depends upon its graphic depictions of sex and violence. Earlier this season, many fans of the show were turned off to a scene which ended in one of the beloved characters being raped by a monster of a character. In this particular case, the door closed, and we didn't actually see the encounter, but briefly hearing it was enough. Many people were outraged at the sexual brutality a male character inflicted on a weaker and powerless female character. Meanwhile, for years these same people had watched people naked, dismembered, burnt, tortured, and massacred, but this was apparently the straw that broke the camel's back. None of this would have been possible had it not been for the graphic and unflinching nature of the show. Was it the right decision or not? Had the show gone too far? IT DOESN'T MATTER. It went there, and it generated a lot of discussion, and invariably raised awareness about rape and sexual assault. Like all good art, it generated a discussion, and that's something a lot of other films and shows can't do. And that was all about something we DIDN'T see. Seeing all the graphic stuff before made THAT moment even more traumatic. It wouldn't have been half as impactful had we not seen such graphic sexual acts prior.
Nudity and sex have their place in society's modern art. It is our right to see life depicted as it really is, not through some Disney lens or some antiquated story about a Prince saving some damsel in distress. We are born into this world naked, and we spend a good deal of time in such a state. We spend hours of our lives having sex, and the very idea consumes many of us, for much of our lives. There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be seeing sex depicted on screen or on stage. Does it belong in your daughter's saturday morning cartoon lineup? No, of course not. But that is family friendly programming meant for THEM, and all the other graphic sex and violence is meant for US. If you are somehow getting them confused, I would suggest you look into the monitors and control settings on your computers and television. Nowadays, there is plenty of software to filter out inappropriate content for children. I would suggest you look into it.
Having said all that, I think there is probably too much sex and nudity in film, television, and theatre today. And I say that because I recognize that a lot of the time, the sex is not justified, and is included solely for the purpose of titillating and attracting an audience. More recently, I have felt like Game of Thrones injects too much gratuitous sex, and does so in order to entice in an unmotivated and prurient way. This betrays self-indulgence, lack of restraint, and appeals to the lowest common denominator in its audience. As I said earlier, sex and nudity should be like lines of dialogue, and serve the overall arc of the story. They should ALWAYS feel absolutely justified, and motivated by the action in the script. Characters are not mere play things to get naked at will, but should do so for viable and demonstrable reasons that make sense to them. An actor should always be able to justify why they are taking off their clothes.
Near the end of the original Terminator film, we see a sex scene between Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor, and I would argue that it is one of the most justified and motivated sex scenes ever included in a movie. We are seeing the culmination of love that had been building between these two characters, and it is the very embodiment of humanity, with all its organic hopes and dreams, in the face of this soulless machine that was pursuing them. It was so tender and loving, and it necessarily contrasted the mechanical menace that was hunting them, and the uncertain fate that awaited them. Sure, it was a rather cheesy '80s sex scene montage with tasteful nudity and a synthesized score underneath, but it was also a much needed glimpse of humanity and vulnerability in a relentlessly violent and merciless story. Furthermore, it is the moment in which the imperative character John Connor is conceived, making it epic and vitally important for the future of the human race, and integral to the Terminator story arc. In many ways, it is rather an "Immaculate Conception." In a movie full of termination, this is the very opposite…that of conception and rebirth. This is the perfect example of a film where the nudity and sex are completely motivated by the script, and help tell a more meaningful story. There are countless examples of television shows, plays, and movies that have similar moments of sex and nudity. It's a part of life, and therefore, a part of art. That being said, we need to demand more from our artists, and keep them honest. Using sex and nudity recklessly demeans the art form, and reflects poorly on those of us who are trying to use it artfully.
The biggest complaint besides its excessive and gratuitous inclusion, is the way it is depicted. Since first appearing in film and on stage, sex and nudity has been predominantly represented by women, who have had to bear the weight of the act for far too long. The completely disproportionate number of women who get naked, versus men, is a direct result of the patriarchal nature of the movie business and our society, and sadly reflects how much men still control the production and consumption of entertainment. Women have been objectified for far too long, and as responsible artists, it is up to us to stand up for what is right, and bring more parity to the industry. If we expect our women to bare their bodies, we should have no compunctions about asking men to do the same thing. Next to its over-representation in art, sex and nudity need to be far more equal among the sexes. But to condemn it all as obscene and unnecessary is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It more than has a place in the art of today. We just need to be more responsible in how and when we use it.
Posted in Art & Culture, Film & Television Reviews, Political Essays, Theatre Criticism & Commentary and tagged Film, Gratuitous nudity, Intimacy Director, Nudity, Nudity in Film, Nudity in Television, Nudity on Stage, Onscreen nudity, Sex and Nudity, Television, Theatre on February 16, 2020 by Amuseofire. Leave a comment
Art May Be Its Own Reward, But Artists Need to be Paid
Art is its own reward.
As Shakespeare once said about mercy:
"It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown."
Now don't get me wrong. For those of us who make a living in the arts, we want to be fairly paid for our services. Many of my colleagues and I resent the fact that so many artists are not paid for their services, and are expected to 'suffer' or 'starve for our art.' Many in Congress and in the greater public believe that because we love what we do, we naturally would do it one way or another, and ultimately for free. And the sad thing is…that's true. We do it for free every day. But for those of us who make our living off our art, it isn't enough. We have bills to pay. We have rent and mortgages. We have families, and need to put food on our tables as well.
The difficult thing about having a career in the arts is that because nearly all of us began painting with our fingers, or sat through piano lessons, or dabbled in writing bad poetry, or maybe even landed the lead in the high school musical, we all think — to some extent — that we are artists. And you wouldn't exactly be wrong. But you wouldn't exactly be right either. Everyone has an artist within them, and all of us are capable of expression. To live a life of art is to love wildly, and to throw yourself into whatever you do. As human beings, we make art every day. No one should be denied the right to consider themselves an artist, and to put as much beauty into the world as they possibly can.
For some, art is a hobby. And that's okay. Your mother may take art lessons, and enjoy painting on the side. Perhaps you've taken an improv class, and get a thrill every time you perform in your local improv troupe. And what community would be complete, without its share of committed amateur actors performing regularly in community theatre shows?
Yet, for those of us who make our living in the arts, we must not be confused with those who dabble. We must not be confused with those who have full time jobs, and enjoy creating art on the side. That is not to say that their efforts are any less than ours, but only that we have dedicated our lives to our craft, and spent countless hours — and money — becoming the artists that we are today.
I have three university degrees in theatre. I have worked in the business for well over 30 years. I have been in over 200 productions, and directed nearly 50. I have designed sets, and lights, and worked countless hours building scenery and hanging lights. The writer Malcolm Gladwell once said that to be an expert in any field, you must have spent at least 10,000 hours solely dedicated to the deliberate practice of your field. I have spent well over that many hours in the theatre. I have been doing this practically non-stop since I was six-years-old. I am an artist.
For me, art is a way of life. I have spent my life in pursuit of a dream. I have spent my life creating art, and constantly evaluating and reevaluating myself as an artist, and evolving in my craft. You see, that is the sign of an artist. There is nothing wrong with performing show after show, and getting a high off performing for your peers. But what separates the professional artist from the amateur, is that the artist must constantly evaluate, evolve, and hone their craft to perfection. Of course, there is no such thing. I mean, perfection in the way that Plato meant it, and how we as human beings aspire to it. We must allow themselves to be vulnerable, accept honest constructive feedback, and evaluate how effective our art is, and how we can always strive to be better. It takes hours and hours of self-reflection, and the kind of time and resources that others may not have. Or desire to give.
For those of us in the arts, we must be paid for our many hours of service to the field. This is not just a hobby for us — this is a way of life. I would never say that someone wasn't an artist who creates art. But I would say that for many of us, we have committed every fiber of our being to making great art, and constantly having to reinvent ourselves as artists — and as people. We 'suffer' for our art, because it allows us to never be complacent, and always working to get better, and to produce more. It is not an easy or romantic life. It perhaps knows more hardship and rejection, than triumph and reward. Yet, we know no other life, and cannot imagine doing anything else.
There is art for art's sake, and art is its own reward. But for those of us who make our living at it, we appreciate your support in helping us continue. By supporting the arts, you are blessing your lives with what we endeavored to create, and you are blessing us with the means to continue putting more beauty out into the world. By all means, keep creating, and sculpting your own piece of wonderment for this planet, but never confuse what some may do for free with what so many do for food. Because like you, we would do it for free. But we still need to pay the bills.
Please support the arts and pay your artists. ❤
Posted in Art & Culture, Miscellaneous, Political Essays, Theatre Criticism & Commentary and tagged 10 Thousand Hours Rule, Art, Art as Commerce, Art for Art's Sake, Art is Evolution, Art is its Own Reward, Art vs. Artists, Art vs. Profit, Artists, Arts Funding, Malcolm Gladwell, Paying Artists, Professional Artists, Supporting Artists on October 12, 2016 by Amuseofire. Leave a comment
Shakespeare vs. Mozart: Who Impacted Society More?
Jon Ferreira's Answer to the Quroa Question: "I believe that Mozart gave humanity infinitely more than Shakespeare. Is Shakespeare's fame an accurate reflection of his merits? He has many more Google results."
Shakespeare & Language
I think that most of the other people who responded to this question did a good job demonstrating just how much Shakespeare has contributed to our society — primarily in the way of vocabulary and language. Shakespeare's timing contributed a great deal to his legend, due to the fact that he was writing at a liminal period in the history of the English language, specifically in the malleable and fluid early years of Modern English. His invention of words, coining of phrases we still use today, clever use of dialogue and soliloquoy, extensive literary and Biblical allusions, masterful use of meter and verse, and brilliant employment of figurative language and metaphor, are just a few of the many ways Shakespeare innovated the English language, and passed down a legacy we have inherited and continue to use today. There can be no doubt that no other writer has shaped language as impactfully as William Shakespeare. His works have also inspired countless writers since. We still use his language and expressions today.
The Threads of Genius: Mozart vs. Shakespeare
As great as Mozart was, his genius is understandably more limited and less ubiquitous than Shakespeare. You could say that Mozart changed music, and influenced every composer after him, but finding the traces of Mozart in all the various genres of music today is more challenging, and certainly his influence on classical, baroque, etc. is easier to chart a trajectory. Finding remnants of Mozart in rap, for instance, might be a little harder to do. Mozart was a necessary stepping stone, which fundamentally changed music and furthered the art form, but it has splintered and evolved and changed so dramatically in the years since. He was unquestionably a musical genius, and unparalleled in the field, but his influence is necessarily less impactful and felt in our everyday lives, as Shakespeare's demonstrably is. For example, Shakespeare phrases and words are still uttered by humans every day all across the world. The impact he had on language is unmistakable, and far easier to see the legacy. If anything, Shakespeare doesn't get enough credit for all that he did. He truly does deserve the high praise and adoration he gets. Mozart may be unparalleled in music, but even though music is important to a lot of people today, we don't need it to live and communicate. Mozart touched the arts, but Shakespeare has cast his shadow everywhere — through our language, science, art, psychology, and much more. His fingerprints are EVERYWHERE!
Literature Before Shakespeare
The Renaissance was a time when human enlightenment reached new heights not seen since the classical Greeks and Romans. In literature, England had seen Geoffrey Chaucer — often considered the father of English literature, and he had gone far to give voice to his characters and create colorful archetypal roles. The major works of the time are Edmund Spenser's 'Faerie Queene' and Philip Sidney's 'Astrophil'. The real Renaissance was born in Italy though, and grew out of the productive and verdant period of the late Middle Ages. Before Shakespeare, Italy had its own literary genius in Dante Alighieri, author of the masterpiece, The Divine Comedy (1308-1320). In the late Middle Ages, the overwhelming majority of poetry was written in Latin, and therefore accessible only to affluent and educated audiences. However, Dante defended using the vernacular, and he himself would even write in the Tuscan dialect for works such as The New Life (1295) and the aforementioned Divine Comedy; this choice, although highly unorthodox, set a hugely important precedent that later Italian writers such as Petrarch and Boccaccio would follow. As a result, Dante played an instrumental role in establishing the national language of Italy. Dante's significance also extends past his home country; his depictions of Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven have provided inspiration for a large body of Western art, and are cited as an influence on the works of John Milton, Geoffrey Chaucer, William Shakespeare, and Lord Alfred Tennyson, among many others. In addition, the first use of the interlocking three-line rhyme scheme, or the terza rima, is attributed to him. So Shakespeare was not the first person to revolutionize his country's language and innovate freely, but he was unique in how he portrayed his characters. His characters were unusually human and frail, and preternaturally self-introspective. We take it for granted today, but many scholars argue that Shakespeare didn't just capture the human condition better than any other writer, but that he actually shaped and crafted it. What we take for granted today, might actually have been the Bard's invention.
Style & Substance: Writing a Character From the Inside Out
Although many people new or unfamiliar with Shakespeare might think his language fancy and unapproachable today, for its time, it was actually quite accessible. It was still elegant, lyrical, and ornate, but it was also muscular and digestible. Before Shakespeare, literature was very florid and characters were written from the outside. Often the poetry or the use of the third person made characters distant and stylized. They spoke very self-consciously, and it often came across as impersonal and obtuse. In the ancient Greek and Roman plays, the characters were much more expressive and emotive, but they were often tied to their own hubris and the will of the gods, that their introspection was minimal as well. Chaucer's characters were colorful and well sketched, but they were never like real people that you could touch or feel. Their thoughts were prosaic, and did not reach to great depths.
Shakespeare changed all that.
How Shakespeare Shaped Our Psyche & Conscience
Shakespeare changed and shaped the modern psyche more than any other writer in history. His characters spoke eloquently, but also naturally. They asked questions all of us human beings ask, and contemplate mysteries and life's riddles much in the same way we do. Shakespeare created introspective characters that contemplated their place in the universe, and struggled with their very existence. They were still animals, as we still are today, and caught up in carnal and primitive games of ambition, jealousy, anger, lust, love, etc. but also governed by insightful and rational brains, capable of great honor or deplorable acts of carnage and sin. The Renaissance was an age still ruled by the all powerful Church, superstitions about nature and necromancy, vested in the concept of fate and fortune, and wedded to unenlightened views of medicine, particularly the concept of the Humorism, a system of medicine detailing the makeup and workings of the human body, positing that an excess or deficiency of any of four distinct bodily fluids in a person—known as humors or humours—directly influences their temperament and health. The four humors of Hippocratic medicine are black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, and blood, and each corresponds to one of the traditional four temperaments. Conversely, as these rather primitive superstition, witchcraft and devout Christian belief intermingled, there was also the emergence of a new and rational thought. It was not quite the Age of Enlightenment yet, but humanity was beginning to reason more, and science was beginning to shape human behavior. Shakespeare captured all of this.
Shakespeare characters were not only one dimensional characters on a page or pretty poetry to read, but were three dimensional, and asked hard questions of themselves and each other. They contemplated their place in the universe, and were wracked with guilt and shame, as they were forced to see themselves as they truly were, and forced to face the consequences of their actions. The characters were all deeply virtuous and noble in their own small ways (even the "bad guys") and they were all deeply flawed and petty in other ways (even the "good guys"). Perhaps for the first time in history, Shakespeare had created flawed and inconsistent characters who were capable of good and bad deeds, and who resembled us like never before.
Shakespeare's characters were all capable of great insights and triumphs, no matter what their station in life. Often the lower class servants were the most wise and empathetic. Kings were allowed to fall, and peasants to rise. Shakespeare was concerned with the human condition, and was truly egalitarian in how he handed out brains, compassion, mercy, empathy, nobility, etc. The good and the bad, the smart and the dumb, the lazy and the ambitious, the comic and the tragic, could all be found spread out throughout his casts, in the high court and low valleys. Shakespeare also employed high brow humor and low brow humor to diversify his cast, and to appeal to a wide audience. That is why Shakespeare was unquestionably the most popular playwright not only today, but in his day….he was accessible to everyone. Shakespeare's demographic was the breadth of humanity.
There's a reason why Freud was inspired by Shakespeare to use themes and tropes as the basis for some of his psychoanalytical research. Shakespeare's plays explore the full range of human emotion and practically every philosophical and Epistemological argument and question a human could ask in a lifetime. Nobody does it better than Shakespeare, and many scholars believe that he asked questions and raised points in ways never explored before. He gave his characters a voice, and subsequently, gave us a voice too. Hamlet became not only every troubled youth and goth/ intellectual kid out there, but a young man grieving a father, a confused boyfriend manipulating his girlfriend, a son angry and hurt by a thoughtless mother, a loyal friend to one and a deadly viper to others. Hamlet was us, and despite all his flaws, we cannot help but love him, and claim him as our own. Even his "evil" characters like Macbeth, Richard III, and Iago are infinitely charming and funny, and can't help but ensnare us in their traps. Shakespeare wrote human beings, with all their flaws and foibles, strengths and triumphs, highs and lows, humor and stoicism, and every other trait that makes a man.
Shakespeare is more than deserving of his reputation. Not only did he practically invent and innovate a good portion of our language, he defined what it was to be human, and gave voice to our questions, thoughts, and emotions in a way that had never been done before. He helped shape our modern psyche.
Posted in Art & Culture, Literary Criticism, Social Commentary, Theatre Criticism & Commentary and tagged Artistic Legacy, Cultural Legacy, English Language, Influence on the World, Larger Impact, Mozart, Mozart vs. Shakespeare, shakespeare, Shakespeare's language, Societal Impact, World Genius on October 24, 2015 by Amuseofire. Leave a comment
Seeing Bad Theatre, Reading Good Reviews, & An Audience In the Dark
One thing I find frustrating about being a director with an MFA and two other theatre degrees, and over 30 years of experience in the field, is accepting the assumption that the audience is always right. I know that may sound bad, but it's really not as harsh as it sounds. You see, I accept that an audience can enjoy whatever they want, and that is their right. I simply question whether an audience always knows exactly what they're seeing, and what the alternative might be. You see, in some areas, more often than not, an audience enjoys what we put in front of them, and they generally come away satisfied. That's great! Every theatre company from big to small can feel good about themselves, and have their work praised and validated, and an audience leaves happy! And on its face, there shouldn't be anything wrong with a theatre group feeling rewarded for their hard work. Because, let's face it, every production takes tremendous time and effort, and everybody works hard. I don't deny any theatre company that, no matter how poor I think a production is. But is hard work enough? The truth is, you can work extra hard, and still produce a failure of a show. If a show is terrible, but the audience enjoys it, is it possible the audience is wrong? Is quality determined by popularity? Surely there's plenty of Oscar winning films out there that flopped, and movies like The Fast and the Furious franchise that have raked in over a billion dollars. Few people could argue the latter is worth calling high art, but it is very popular. Is it patronizing to think that an audience doesn't know any better? If they like a show, isn't that enough to call it a success? It's not that I don't think it's valid an audience enjoy a play I think most would consider poor, only that I think if they knew how better choices could make it great, they would be blown away and enjoy it a hundred times more. I think we owe it to an audience to show them the difference between good theatre and poor, and demonstrate that both can happen at any level, whether amateur or professional. Great shows can come from anywhere…and so can bad.
Regardless of what level a play or film is at, we must hold it to high standards, and take responsibility for educating our audiences and holding critics accountable. We can't rest on our laurels and accolades. True artists are never satisfied with their work, and continually challenge themselves to get better and refine their process. Many amateurs don't possess that level of self-evaluation and labor intensive self-improvement. For some, the craft is a fun hobby, and nothing more. But no matter what level you are at, we can all benefit from evaluating our process and final product.
The thing is, an audience's default is pleasure and satisfaction, but that's often because they don't always know the alternative. Most viewers aren't savvy in filmmaking or play production, and don't understand how movies and plays are crafted. They may be impressed with bad choices, because they don't know what good ones look like. More informed choices often come with seeing a lot of different types of theatre, and being exposed to high quality work on Broadway and various regional theatres. It means being exposed to a lot of good and bad productions, and learning to tell the difference. Many have only seen bad shows though, and they literally may not know what they're missing.
Imagine an art lover who had only seen the amateur oil paintings of George W. Bush and stick figure sketches. To him, Bush must seem like a Picasso, but compared to Rembrandt or Vermeer, Bush might as well be painting fences. I would argue that many audiences eat up inferior shows because they don't know what a good production of those plays would look like. It's easier to accept what is in front of you, than compare it to a theoretical production in your mind, or even a wonderful production of a different play you saw in New York last year. People in an audience see what's in front of them, and take it at face value, failing to compare it to other shows they've seen, even far superior professional ones. People generally want to be kind, and look for the best in what they see. Since they don't know how to evaluate or articulate the bad, it's easiest to latch onto the good. People are very forgiving, and easily dismiss things that might have been confusing or bothersome. The fact is only compounded by the fact that many amateur or small town professional theatre audiences are made up of family and friends. As one might expect, these people are built in fans, and they're most likely going to enjoy whatever they're watching. Yet, audiences that have seen high quality plays AND poor plays should not hesitate to compare the two. Although they're at totally different levels, audiences should be weighing the pros and cons of both productions. What worked about the professional show that isn't working in the amateur one? What makes the one more effective than the other? How is this amateur show better than the last professional show you saw? It works both ways.
If I find the sometimes hollow enthusiasm of audiences to be frustrating, I find local theatre critics to be even more infuriating. Often, they surrender all credibility when they enthusiastically recommend every show, and haven't a bad or critical note to give. Every review is glowing and serves the theatre company and ticket sales, but does a disservice to the viewer and the artists. Audiences go in having read wonderful reviews, and their expectations are fulfilled. They are primed and prepared to enjoy the show, and they are exempted from having to think about it critically. The overly generous reviewer doesn't want to offend anyone, and chooses to applaud every choice he or she may see. In small towns or big cities with tight theatre communities, everyone is friends, and they all travel in the same circles. They may think it's best not to rock the boat, but it's unfair and dishonest, and it does more harm than good. An actor needs to hear what didn't work in their performance. A set designer needs to hear why the set wasn't functional. A director needs to read why certain choices they made come off silly and ineffective. Critics are the people that keep us theatre people honest. I'm not going to lie and tell you it was always easy to read bad reviews, but they were almost always helpful in some ways. It holds artists accountable for their work, and allows them to change their mistakes, and make better choices next time. Art doesn't happen in a vacuum, and theatre critics are part of the final phase in creating a work of art. They are the evaluative phase, and are often overlooked, at the artists own peril. We need critics and reviewers who have the courage to stand up and give honest evaluations. Not cruel or unhelpful ones, but honest constructive criticism and valuable feedback. This false praise is everywhere, and I've found it in small towns and big cities all across this country. It does a disservice to the work, the artists, and the audience.
I rarely go to see shows or films I'm uncertain of these days, for the very fact that I'm often disappointed. Sadly, having enthusiasm, passion, and dedication aren't enough to make good plays. You also have to have talent, technique, training, skill, and ability. It actually takes a lot to produce a good play, or to direct a high quality film. It means making risky and artistic decisions, and not just settling for childish and amateur choices. Great art pushes the boundaries and asks questions of its audience, and doesn't seek easy answers. It attempts to look at the world in new and unusual ways, and always aspires to be new and original, while also paying homage to everything that came before. Amateur shows can often be about saying lines, getting the blocking right, and having fun. And there's nothing wrong with that. That's what most school and community theatre is all about. But filmmakers claiming they're creating high art, while making cheap and disingenuous hack jobs, and theatre troupes lavished with praise for mediocrity, do a disservice to those of doing quality work, and with years of training and experience. Why? Because many people will accept that a mediocre play is as high quality as a good one, and not be able to recognize the difference. Naturally, if the two were compared side by side, anyone could tell the difference. As it is, amateurs are sometimes lumped in with professionals, and the high quality work is seen as no better than the inferior work. This is insulting to those of us with degrees and decades of experience in the field. There is a difference in the work. There's nothing wrong with a community theatre doing amateur work, and being proud of that. It's when they think that it's more than that, or critics and audiences praise them as being at a level perhaps higher than they're at. If they're doing high quality work as good as a professional company, then they should absolutely be praised for it. They should also consider going professional, if they're that good. But it's important to keep things in perspective. We can watch our kid's Little League game and think he did a great job, but nobody thinks his team could play the Red Sox at Fenway next week. It's important to praise all the good we see, but always put it in context of all that we've seen before. The important thing to remember, is that the professional theatres aren't always doing the best plays and the amateur companies aren't always doing the worst. Sometimes they will surprise you. Some of the best plays I've seen in the past five years have been community theatre shows. Great art comes from great artists, wherever they may be.
In some ways, the audience isn't always right, and it's not their fault. If all that they'd ever eaten was chuck steak, they wouldn't have any idea how much better filet mignon is. I don't necessarily blame an audience for that. If more people want to see some mindless action movie over a more artistic and well written drama, I understand. My argument is that that action film doesn't have to be mindless. It could be like the Bond film Skyfall or the thriller, The Usual Suspects. Both films are action packed and thrilling, but also artsy, intelligent, and moving. We can show the audience that there is a better way. Unless an audience has the experience and savvy to be able to tell good theatre from bad, we must hold even the most intermediate artists up to higher standards. That doesn't mean hold a community theatre play to the same high standard as a Broadway show, but recognize that the amateur show is just that, and try and evaluate it more appropriately. That also means that reviewers need to actually do their job, and honestly evaluate the effective and poor choices the company made. That's the only way they'll grow and learn. When we permit bad theatre to remain unchallenged and celebrate its mediocrity and amateur choices, we are doing it a disservice, and not raising the stakes for them to improve and get any better. With the exception of maybe a grade school play, no show should be exempt from constructive criticism and honest feedback. Sometimes it's hard to hear, but that's how artists grow and evolve.
Just as actors and theatre people need to learn how to make better choices and more artistically viable decisions, an audience needs to learn how to be a discriminating audience. Sure, the number one goal of any show should be to entertain. By that measure, most any play performed succeeds in that. But a piece of art should be so much more. They may find a play amusing, but are they seeing a play at the funniest it could be? The scariest? The most thought provoking? We'll never know, because art is subjective, and it's not always easy to choose what makes one show the "best" if that's even possible. However, it is pretty easy to put two shows next to each other, and choose which one is better, because one makes better and more effective choices. You can compare the show Breaking Bad with the some other poor quality show about drug abuse, and instantaneously see that BB is artistic and clever, whereas the other is contrived, cliched, and tired. You can see all the design choices in BB are inventive and improve the overall quality of the show. Every choice seems to be cohesive and serve the overall vision of the show. A good play does that too. Having a serious play interrupted by a silly or ridiculous costume or prop completely erases all the good will you had built with the audience, and wipes away any prior good choices. Inexperienced or inferior companies will make random and arbitrary choices, which often conflict and don't serve the cohesion of the play. This is often because they don't know any better. Audiences need to be educated in what makes a good play or movie, and it's helpful for us professional theatre artists to help them by leading talk backs, publishing articles, giving backstage tours, promoting critical reviews, leading panel discussions, providing lecture series, offering classes, and generally producing high quality shows so that there is a proper measuring stick.
No matter what level of theatre you are at, we can all benefit from better theatre and more accountability. No one deserves a free pass, and we can only make theatre more enjoyable and credible, when every production is held to high standards.
Posted in Art & Culture, Film & Television Reviews, Theatre Criticism & Commentary and tagged Amateur Theatre, Bad Films, Bad Theatre, Community Theatre, Glowing Reviews, Inexperienced Audiences, Mediocrity, Nice Critics, Poor Theatre Choices, Unsophisticated Audiences, Untrained Theatre People on August 25, 2015 by Amuseofire. Leave a comment
The Mirror Up to Nature: Sex & Nudity On Stage & Screen
Graphic sex and violence have no place in your children's entertainment, and if you find it there, than something is seriously wrong. Children shouldn't be treated as adults, not should they be treated as mindless drones. We should be mindful of their ages, and what is appropriate for them to see. Family entertainment is all a bit bland and mindless to me, but I see its worth. Personally, I prefer stuff like Pixar, which is family friendly AND thought provoking. It is entertainment that is both socially conscious and responsible. It manages to get my mind moving, and do so without the use of graphic sex and gratuitous violence. And that's great. BUT there is a time and a place for more mature elements in modern entertainment. A show like Game of Thrones is excessively violent and depicts graphic nudity and sex. AND IT SHOULD. That is the kind of art it is. For us to buy into this world of Westeros, we need to see something we can relate to. Additionally, since it is an analog for the middle ages, it is necessarily as violent and filled with sex as that lurid time in our history. We shouldn't have to watch some Disneyfied version of George R.R. Martin's instant classic, and be subjected to G-rated tales of ribaldry and action. The show depends upon its graphic depictions of sex and violence. Earlier this season, many fans of the show were turned off to a scene which ended in one of the beloved characters being raped by a monster of a character. In this particular case, the door closed, and we didn't actually see the encounter, but briefly hearing it was enough. Many people were outraged at the sexual brutality a male character inflicted on a weaker and powerless female character. Meanwhile, for years these same people had watched people naked, dismembered, burnt, tortured, and massacred, but this was apparently the straw that broke the camel's back. None of this would have been possible had it not been for the graphic and unflinching nature of the show. Was it the right decision or not? Had the show gone too far? IT DOESN'T MATTER. It went there, and it generated a lot of discussion, and invariably raised awareness about rape and sexual assault. Like all good art, it generated a discussion, and that's something a lot of other films and shows can't do. And that was all about something we DIDN'T see. Seeing all the graphic stuff before made THAT moment even more traumatic. It wouldn't have been half as impactful had we not seen such graphic sexual acts prior.
Nudity and sex have their place in society's modern art. It is our right to see life depicted as it really is, not through some Disney lens or some antiquated story about a Prince saving some damsel in distress. We are born into this world naked, and we spend a good deal of time in such a state. We spend hours of our lives having sex, and the very idea consumes many of us, for much of our lives. There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be seeing sex depicted on screen or on stage. Does it belong in your daughter's saturday morning cartoon lineup? No, of course not. But that is family friendly programming meant for THEM, and all the other graphic sex and violence is meant for US. If you are somehow getting them confused, I would suggest you look into the monitors and control settings on your computers and television. Nowadays, there is plenty of software to filter out inappropriate content for children. Sex and nudity are inescapable parts of human life, and if we see it in the morning every morning, we certainly have the right to see it on screen and on stage every night. The mirror up to nature, indeed.
Posted in Art & Culture, Fanboy Interests & Conventions, Film & Television Reviews, Social Commentary, Theatre Criticism & Commentary and tagged Decency, Game of Thrones, Graphic Sex, Gratuitous nudity, Obscenity, Onscreen nudity, Sex in Movies, Sex on Stage, Simulated sex on July 25, 2015 by Amuseofire. Leave a comment
Was Hamlet intelligent?
Answer by Jon Ferreira:
Hamlet was a student at Wittenberg, and is home on leave for the funeral of his father and subsequent marriage of his mother and uncle. We get the impression that Hamlet is presumably, a very strong student, a promising mind. and a very capable scholar with a bright future ahead of him.
Antic Disposition
We can deduce that Hamlet is intelligent based on his level of subterfuge and ability to manipulate those around him. As soon as he meets with the ghost and learns of his uncle's crime, Hamlet sets about on a path to discover the truth, and if need be, act swiftly and with justice. His clever plan for eliciting the truth is to 'put on an antic disposition' by which he will act 'strange or odd' and play at being mad. In the guise of madness, he may have more latitude to test theories and push people, since they will be less likely to act against him, and instead give him a wide berth. A valid question audiences must ask themselves is if Hamlet is simply just acting mad, or whether he really is. If he's only acting, he is very convincing. It's likely a mixture of both.
Mad Encounters
In his mad state, Hamlet gets to work pestering, assaulting, and provoking various people around him in an effort to get at the truth. Hamlet sets various traps for Polonius–verbally outwitting the meddlesome and obsequious lapdog. Hamlet purposely ensnares Ophelia in mind games meant to confuse and disorient her –not likely out of outright cruelty, but for the sake of his uncle and Polonius, who are eavesdropping nearby. Hamlet wants the court to know how mad he really is, and especially his uncle. He is particularly cruel and rough with Ophelia. When his school friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern arrive at the request of the king, they are greeted with derision and mockery by Hamlet. Ultimately, their complicity and plotting with Claudius to spy on Hamlet end up killing them, as Hamlet turns the tables on their betrayal. Hamlet assaults his mother in her bed chambers and continues his charade of an antic disposition, but he is also clearly in pain as he confronts her incestuous marriage, and condemns her betrayal of his father and lecherous union with his uncle. Hamlet is purposefully rough with her, leading Polonius to betray himself behind an arras, and inviting his own death at the hands of Hamlet (who thinks it's Claudius hiding). Throughout the play, Hamlet uses deception to trick the people around him into working for him and giving him clues to unravel his mystery. This clever maneuvering is part of what make Hamlet intelligent.
The greatest indicator that Hamlet is in fact, supremely intelligent — if not a genius — is the complexity and depth of his thoughts. During the encounters above, Hamlet displayed a clever wit and ability to make puns, use figurative language, and construct riddles to further confuse the other person. His madness disorients them, and his arguments alarm them. In his conversation with Claudius and R& G he used calm and rational language, while tricking them into his linguistic traps and forcing them to betray more than they intended. Conversely, in his arguments with Gertrude and Ophelia, Hamlet abandons reason for pure unbridled emotion. He pleads, he yells, he chides, he scorns, he bargains, he condemns, and he becomes cruel and physical. Earlier when Hamlet commented on his mother's hasty marriage, he said: 'Frailty, thy name is woman!' It's clear to see from this sentiment, combined with the cruel use of rough and physical violence and his willingness to use caustic verbal abuse, that Hamlet has deep-seated anger and aggression towards women, and a very low opinion of them.
Hamlet's Speeches
As clever as his dialogue can be, it is in his speeches (monologues and soliloquies) where Hamlet allows us to glimpse his active mind, the profundity of his thoughts, and the haunting poetry of his soul.
The first examples of his probing mind comes in the 'To be, or not to be…' speech, when towards the end Hamlet wonders:
"For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time,
The Oppressor's wrong, the proud man's Contumely,
The pangs of despised Love, the Law's delay,
The insolence of Office, and the Spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his Quietus make
With a bare Bodkin?
' Who would these Fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered Country, from whose bourn
No Traveller returns, Puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of us all,"
In his clever linguistic style, Hamlet asks rhetorical questions, that he will then answer. He is engaging in a Socratic dialogue and using a dialectic to have a conversation with himself, and present both sides of an argument. This compare and contrast (this vs that) device is one employed throughout Hamlet and all of Shakespeare. He asks who would choose to suffer in a life of misery when he can put an end to things by taking his own life. He then answers why not, speaking of a fear of not knowing what's after death. He make an analogy to a traveller traveling abroad to an unexplored and undiscovered country, which no one has ever returned. The very though cripples the will to kill oneself, and convinces that person to endure whatever ills they know about, rather than travel somewhere that could be worse. Artfully, Hamlet ends with the famous line: 'Thus Conscience does make Cowards of us all.' This means that our gut feeling and inner voice will ask questions regarding the safety and wisdom of jumping into something, which inevitably only serves to frighten us into resistance. This is the most famous speech in any play, and may be the most recognizable piece of text in the English language. It is lyrical and captures the sensitive heart of the young prince, while also speaking in expressive metaphor and simile. He contemplates profound questions of human existance and life after death. His sentiment is something we've all undoubtedly thought about at one time. His humanity is self-evident.
Other brief examples of shrewd insight include the line, 'There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet shows maturity and his characteristic rational mind to reason that events, people, objects, etc. have no inherent value — they are neither good nor bad — and it's all how you look at it. Context therefore plays a vital role in assigning worth and value judgments. The glass is both half full and half empty, depending on how we look at it.
Hamlet's Quiet Acceptance
In a moment of transcendence, Hamlet reasons, "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." suggesting that man's life on Earth and his relation to the universe and understanding of Heaven are concepts too large and unfathomable for a mere mortal to comprehend. Hamlet seems to take comfort in surrendering to God and nature to determine whatever path he must take and whatever fate befalls him. At this late point in the play, Hamlet has accepted what he must do, and has adopted a sort of mystical Zen attitude above his uncertain future.
Another example of Hamlet's progressive and enlightened calming and accepting demeanor can be seen in the following speech:
"We defy augury. There's a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, 'tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come—the readiness is all. Since no man of aught he leaves knows, what is 't to leave betimes? Let be."
Hamlet makes a profound and mature observation that God determines all things, even the death of a small sparrow. He continues, saying that everything will work out as it is destined. If something is supposed to happen now, it will. If it's supposed to happen later, it won't happen now. What's important is to be prepared. Since nobody knows anything about what he leaves behind, then what does it mean to leave early? Let it be. The speech is an elegant commitment to the Elizabethan idea of fate and everyone's proximity to fortune. Hamlet upholds the idea that it is silly and unproductive to worry about fate, since it going to play out as it must. Perhaps the most profound sentiment in this short speech comes at the end, when Hamlet cleverly points out that nobody knows what happens after they die, so if they die early, how can they miss what they don't know is going to happen. It's clever rhetorical ideas like this that demonstrate Hamlet's dry wit, clever debating skills, fierce intellect, and ability to turn a phrase and use language on many different levels.
Goodnight Sweet Prince
One of the reasons the character of Hamlet has been so enduring and resilient through the ages is the dialectical and contradictory nature of his personality. Hamlet is at once both noble and brave and depraved and cowardly. Perhaps we can all see ourselves in Hamlet's debilitating funk and Sisyphean procrastinating time loop, where he is struck dumb in his tracks, paralyzed with fear and unable to move forward or step back. Although he wants to believe in the ghost is his dad, he has a rational mind, and he simply doesn't know if he can trust his senses. He is skeptical, and for good reason. The ghost is asking him to commit the heinous crime of regicide by avenging his father's death. If he is wrong, he will have made a grievous error, and will pay with his life. Hamlet is about as indecisive as they come. This is a very good indicator of a large brain capacity. Hamlet is a cool and calculating rational mind, but since arriving from Wittenberg, he has been subjected to a wealth of emotions: grief, anger, betrayal, indecision, doubt, incredulity, rage, and many more. He is now ruled by mercurial forces, and he is unbalanced. His rational mind is battling his unbalanced emotions. On top of that, it is pretty clear he is suffering from at least a mild mental illness.
Hamlet is one of the most compelling characters because he is us. Many scholars consider the influence of Hamlet's character on mankind as being a major contributor in shaping the modern human psyche, with his sophisticated inner life, thorough introspection, ego, humility, emotional regulation, and other factors that make us uniquely human. Hamlet asked questions we've likely asked at one point in our lives. He is faced with a terrible choice, and we must watch it rip him apart inside. He is a good young man, and shouldn't have been put into this situation, but the Elizabethans loved their revenge tragedies, and Hamlet had a duty to avenge his father's death. That's an unbearable thing to ask a young sensitive intellectual student, who otherwise wouldn't hurt a fly.
Like Sherlock Holmes, Hamlet is one of the most probing, inquisitive, sensitive, profound, cerebral, meticulous, enigmatic, and clever minds in all of Western literature. His enduring legacy is that he struggles so hard to be a good man and do the right thing, but we must helplessly watch as he completely unravels and plays at an even deadlier game. Hamlet makes numerous mistakes throughout the play, and at points, his hysterically emotional and erratic behavior leads directly to tragedy and bloodshed –he singlehandedly kills an entire family — Polonius, Ophelia (Hamlet was a major contributing factor, along with her father's death), and her brother Laertes. Hamlet's cruel and abusive treatment of Ophelia and Gertrude is hard to watch, and hard to reconcile with the sweet and sensitive young scholar we know is hurting profoundly inside. And yet, Hamlet is our everyman (albeit royal, smarter, and wealthier than most of us!). We are allowed to empathize with his grief and anger at his uncle, who brought his world down upon him. He's a kid who misses his dad, and is estranged from a mother who dishonored the memory of his father by committing a revolting act of impropriety, and crawling into the bed of her brother in law. It might as well be incest, as far as Hamlet is concerned. Part of the strength of the play is that we see all of Hamlet's objectionable behavior described above, but have to accept them as the inevitable flaws of a deeply troubled young man. We know too much of the rational thinker and sensitive man to disown our protagonist now. By the end of the play, we are vindicated, when we see a Hamlet who has passed through the fire and come out the other side, brave, resolute, and possessing a steady calmness and quiet acceptance. He knows what he must do, and puts his faith in God and Providence to deliver him to his fate–a destiny he has no control over anyway. With steely resolve, we witness the cerebral schoolboy transform into an elegant instrument of revenge, and though mortally injured, he manages to fatally wound Laertes and run his uncle through with his sword. He must also witness his mother die in the fray, In an instant, two entire families are extinguished, and Fortinbras is left picking up the pieces. As Hamlet lay dying he utters his final words: 'The rest is silence.' Appropriate last words for a character who has the most lines of any character in the canon with 1495. He practically speaks for the entire span of the show. He's finally achieved his purpose, answered his questions, and accepts the inevitable silence of his own death. After Hamlet passes, Horatio sends him off with: 'Now cracks a noble heart.—Good night, sweet prince, And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!—' Hamlet's flight towards Heaven gently parallels the fall of the sparrow — both agents of Providence.Hamlet is the sparrow, of course, and where he once fell, now he is lifted to his salvation.
Posted in Art & Culture, Literary Criticism, Theatre Criticism & Commentary and tagged antic disposition, Hamlet's IQ, hamlet's madness, Hamlet's Revenge, shakespeare on May 7, 2015 by Amuseofire. Leave a comment
How did Shakespeare know about the activities in the royal court?
We all know that Shakespeare had a vivid imagination, and much of the details of royal intrigue undoubtedly sprung from his genius mind. Furthermore, Shakespeare was evidently a voracious reader, and more importantly, he was a purposeful reader. He mined historical accounts, literature, and plays for plot lines and the details and protocol of court etiquette. With a few exceptions, Shakespeare did not invent the plots of his plays. Sometimes he used old stories (Hamlet, Pericles). Sometimes he worked from the stories of near-contemporary Italian writers, such as Boccaccio—using both popular stories (Romeo and Juliet, Much Ado About Nothing) and lesser-known ones (Othello). He used the popular prose fictions of his peers in As You Like It and The Winter's Tale. In writing his historical plays, he drew largely from Sir Thomas North's translation of Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans for the Roman plays and the chronicles of Edward Hall and Holinshed for the plays based upon English history. Shakespeare was unscrupulous when it came to stealing from his predecessors and contemporaries, and he often took the lead from them.
Finally, Shakespeare was familiar with the Royal Court because he had been there, on several occasions. And sometimes, the court came to him. Throughout his life, Shakespeare was greatly indebted to the patronage and support of royal and noble personages; his royal patrons were Queen Elizabeth and King James I, both of whom greatly loved the drama. The virgin queen used her influence in the progress of the English drama, and fostered the unmatched genius of Shakespeare. Shakespeare was supremely attracted to Elizabeth and her Court, and proved a faithful servant. He was, in addition to being a genius, an opportunist, and was unyielding in his self-promotion and solicitation of support for his theatre company.
According to historical fact, Shakespeare first performed two comedies before the Queen in December, 1594, at the Royal Palace at Greenwich. By that time, Shakespeare had only written five of the thirty-eight plays he would write in his lifetime. Over the course of his career, he would go on to perform as an actor or appear as a playwright before Queen Elizabeth, and later, James I, dozens of times. Undoubtedly, he studied the inner workings of the royal court, and incorporated it into his writing.
Shakespeare may have been a commoner, but he held a very important place in Elizabethan society. He was an actor-playwright, and part owner of the hottest theatre in town. In a time when the average distractions were bear-baiting and catching the plague, theatre was THE entertainment source for both commoners and royalty. Everyone went to see plays! Shakespeare was the hot young writer, and was in popular demand. His status skyrocketed from commoner to darling artist of the court, complete with a royal patronage. He was no ordinary commoner. He had access to the crown, and it all ended up in his plays.
Posted in Art & Culture, Literary Criticism, Theatre Criticism & Commentary and tagged Elizabethan England, Queen Elizabeth, Royal Court, shakespeare, Shakespeare's language, Shakespeare's Royal Knowledge on May 4, 2015 by Amuseofire. Leave a comment


Rikke has been telling visual stories since the spring 2012. She has worked with documentaries in the fields of directing, filming and editing. She is studying at the Danish School of Media and Journalism and is currently working as an intern for Danish Documentary Production.


text:
Former prime minister Julia Gillard publicly backs Hillary Clinton for 2016 US President
AS Hillary Clinton starts campaigning, she's received some words of encouragement from a friend who knows how tough it can be as a woman in a country's top job.
Caroline Zielinski
April 14, 2015 - 3:37PM
Friends ... Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and former Australia's Prime Minister Julia Gillard have always been supportive of each other. Picture: AFP/ William West
Greg Hunt makes astonishing RATs claim
Fresh push to make Australia a republic
'Dangerous': ScoMo unleashes on anti-vax MP
JULIA Gillard has thrown her support behind presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, tweeting her congratulations to the newly announced candidate for 2016.
The former prime minister and former US secretary of state have long since supported one another by condemning the sexism they both experienced — and continue to experience — during their political careers.
Congratulations & my very best wishes to @HillaryClinton as she gets started on her historic presidential campaign JG pic.twitter.com/uBGOwchlZs
— Julia Gillard (@JuliaGillard) April 14, 2015
Ms Clinton formally announced her candidacy for 2016 presidential nomination yesterday, ending two years of speculation by releasing an online video with her intentions.
Last year, Ms Gillard said she would "loudly barrack from the sidelines" if Ms Clinton decided to run for office, which would not only impact the US, but also have a "huge global impact".
I'm running for president. Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion. –H https://t.co/w8Hoe1pbtC
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 12, 2015
Ms Gillard also said that electing Ms Clinton as president would send a powerful message to terrorist group ISIS that subjugation of women would not be tolerated.
"Of the things that are being fought over in this security situation, pivotal to them is women's rights and women's roles," Ms Gillard said.
"[Isis] is a philosophy that has at its core the subjugation of women.
"So to be able, in the world in which we live today with those security challenges, to see a great democracy elect a woman to lead it would be a real statement.
"[Isis's philosophy] is anathema to everything I believe in and it's anathema to everything Hillary stands for."
Fighting ISIS ... Julia Gillard said that electing Ms Clinton as US president would send a powerful message to terrorist group ISIS that mistreating women is wrong. Picture: News Corp
Ms Clinton is also no stranger to sexist tirades. During her last presidential election, Ms Clinton was called "emotional" — that classic put-down of "hysterical" women — or not emotional enough by male politicians, media and the public alike.
Some other sexist moments include author Marc Rudov also saying: "When Barack Obama speaks, men hear: 'Take off for the future.' And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, 'Take out the garbage.'"
US television personality Glenn Beck added to the fray, saying: "She is like the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean?", and that, after four years of a Hillary Clinton presidency, "[won't] every man in America go insane?", while US radio host Rush Limbaugh memorably commented: "Will this country want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?"
Sexist tirades ... During the 2008 presidential run, Hillary Clinton experienced a huge amount of sexism. Picture: AP Photo/Susan Walsh
Ms Clinton has similarly supported Ms Gillard, who, as the first female prime minister of Australia, was subjected to an unprecedented level of sexism during her tenure as leader.
Speaking on ABC's 7.30 program last year, Ms Clinton condemned the "outrageous sexism" experienced by Ms Gillard, saying that the behaviour that was directed at Ms Gillard by other political members "shouldn't be tolerated in any country".
Ms Clinton was particularly perturbed by the insults meted out by the then Coalition opposition, but stopped short of directly criticising Prime Minister Tony Abbott for his involvement.
"I'm referring to the way her political opponents characterised her," Ms Clinton said.
Support ... Hillary Rodham Clinton has consistently spoken out against the "outrageous sexism" Julia Gillard experienced during her tenure as prime minister. Picture: AP Photo/ Seth Wenig
"The menu at that famous event, that was in print, about a prime minister who happened to be a woman. Some of the language that was used in debate or by the Parliament, out of the Parliament, but still in the political to-and-fro."
(The menu incident — at a fundraiser for the then high-profile Liberal National Party candidate, Mal Brough — involved the inclusion of a dish called "Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Quail — Small Breasts, Huge Thighs & A Big Red Box", on the dinner menu).
"I don't have a problem with anybody — man or woman — contesting anyone's position, anyone's policy, taking a person to account, but doing so in a way that I thought depersonalised the very personal, that demeaned, just didn't seem to fit the Australia that I have come to know.
"As a woman and as someone who knows that double standards still exist, I thought it was regrettable that was injected into Australian political debate."
Ms Clinton also described the former prime minister's famous misogyny speech as "striking", saying Ms Gillard "did go chapter to verse" in her 15-minute passionate rebuke of the sexism directed at her, telling Mr Abbott that: "I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. I will not. And the Government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever."
Ms Clinton has similarly supported Ms Gillard, who, as the first female prime minister of Australia, was subjected to an unprecedented level of sexism during her tenure as leader. Picture: Scott Barbour/ Getty Images
In her 2012 speech, "Her Rights at Work", writer Anne Summers said the way Ms Gillard was treated amounted to the worst political persecution of any Australian prime minister to date.
Summers referred to myriad incidents which denigrated Ms Gillard not only politically, but sexually, personally and professionally during the course of her prime ministership.
Summers called out mainstream media for referring to Ms Gillard by her first name, citing headlines prominently featuring "Julia" — disrespectful treatment never meted out to any other prime minister.
In defence of Gillard ... Writer Anne Summers poses with former Prime Minister Julia Gillard before the event 'Anne Summers Conversations with Julia Gillard' at Melbourne Town Hall. Picture: Walmsley Stuart Cas
The level of vitriol against the former prime minister extended to pornographic cartoons, images and language never before directed at an Australian leader, with thousands of comments including sexually suggestive images and crude, sexual and even violent language when talking about Ms Gillard.
In one instance, a Kevin Rudd backer said "we need her to bleed out" when talking about taking Ms Gillard down. Another example includes David Farley, CEO of the Australian Agricultural Company, calling Ms Gillard an "unproductive old cow".
But Summers' main point was that in any other workplace role, a woman experiencing similar treatment would have grounds to sue under the federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984.
"I think we can easily conclude that any discrimination against Gillard on the grounds of her sex has occurred in the course of her "employment" as CEO of Australia.
"We should all be worried about this vilification of our first female prime minister," Summers concluded.
The Health Minister has made a bold claim about what would happen if rapid antigen tests were made free to everyone.
The Australian Republic Movement's chair Peter FitzSimons has presented a compelling argument in favour of Australia ditching the monarchy.
Scott Morrison has slammed a rogue Liberal National MP's calls for parents to stop vaccinating children as "dangerous".

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl