Shakespeare and Sylvia

The blog prompt dealt with Richard the Third's decline; what led to his misfortune and downfall. However, I found Richard the Third to be a very boring play that I was glad to have finished. So, for this blog post, I will instead focus on a passage from Shakespeare's tragedy Julius Caesar that interested me.

In this particular passage, Cassius is speaking to Brutus about his lack of what I believe is self-esteem. Cassius believes that Brutus cannot see himself as he really is. Cassius says:

And since you know you cannnot see yourself
So well as by reflection, I, your glass,
Will modestly discover to yourself
That of yourself which you yet know not of. (1.2.69-72)

This quotation at first caught my attention because of the usage of reflection, and the word glass. I believe that in this quotation, Cassius thinks that he can help Brutus see his true identity; Brutus has things that he does not know about himself that Cassius can clearly see. In this quotation, Cassius compares himself to a mirror.

I believe that this is an extremely powerful metaphor, but it raises some questions. The metaphor achieves its goal because the reader will be able to easily understand what Shakespeare is writing. Especially in today's society, we depend on mirrors to show us how we look. My only question in regards to this comparison is this: do mirrors truly convey who we are as a person? Cassius seems to indicate that indeed, mirrors reflect your deeper personality; after all, he knows things about Brutus that Brutus does not know about himself. But in my experience, while mirrors are great at showing you your appearance, your appearance is only one part of your self-image. I question as to whether mirrors can accurately portray who you are-how can a mirror reflect your passions and whether or not you are a nice person?

But before I get too sidetracked, as I reread this quotation, it reminded me of Sylvia Plath's poem "Mirror". In this poem, Sylvia expresses the idea that the mirror reflects the truth of who we are. She expresses this idea in the following lines:

..................I have no preconceptions.
Whatever I see, I swallow immediately.
Just as it is, unmisted by love or dislike,
I am not cruel, only truthful-- (1-4)

While Plath's poem seems to back up Cassius' statement that he reflects Brutus' personality accurately, by stating that the mirror reflects the image without distortion based on emotion, I still question whether a mirror can accurately be used to judge oneself. I also place this uncertainty on Cassius' remarks as well-can he accurately depict Brutus' personality? I guess time will tell.

Productions of Titus Andronicus

Although the acting wasn't fantastic in all of the film clips we saw in class last Thursday, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Titus Andronicus performed. Because I am a visual learner (I learn best by seeing things), it really helped me to understand the play. I think there were positives to both of the productions we saw. Let me explain.

The first series of clips we watched came from the BBC's production of Titus Andronicus. While the acting was not impressive, these scenes reflected a more realistic setting. I do not remember the specifics of the scenes we watched, however I know I was disappointed by the lack of facial expressions. As some of my classmates brought up in class, Lavinia showed little sorrow or pain, even once her hands were chopped off and she was mutilated. I understand that Lavinia could not speak, so her communication was limited. But she still could have showed facial expressions. I did like the realism of the scenery-which seemed to better portray what the Roman world would have looked like.

The second series of clips contained drastically better acting, but with a price. While I found these film clips more interesting, I was bewildered by the setting. For example, I could not understand the opening scene of the child playing with the action figure. And while the scene with the soldiers' marching choreographed was entertaining and visually powerful, it did not match the picture I had in my head when I read the play. I think Lavinia's acting in this production was much better-the actress used lots of facial expressions and body language to express her pain and sorrow. The one thing that I wasn't a fan of when it came to the portrayal of Lavinia's character was the usage of branches to replace her hands. Now I understand that there could be symbolism and meaning behind the choice, but all I could think of when I watched that scene was the movie Narnia and how the trees came alive. Lavinia's branch hands reminded me of magical worlds, and detracted from the empathy and horror at her demise that I think Shakespeare wanted the audience to feel.

When it comes to critique of productions, I think what matters is how closely the portrayals reflect the pictures we have in our heads when we read the play. Regardless of how spectacular a production might be, if it does not somewhat match up to how we thought the play would be, we will not be truly satisfied. I liked the setting of the BBC production better than the second because it matched what I thought it would be. And I liked the acting in the second production better because when I read of Lavinia's torture, I pictured vivid facial expressions-like the ones the actress in the second production showed.

Well, thats all I have. Please feel free to comment.

Sympathies

While reading Shakespeare's tragedy Titus Andronicus, we were asked to keep track of which characters aroused our sympathies, and if our sympathies changed at all while reading.

At the beginning of Titus Andronicus, I felt bad for Tamora. She and her sons were held as captives by Titus Andronicus. If that weren't bad enough, her eldest son is sacrificed despite her pleas. Tamora begins her pleas, crying:

Stay, Roman brethren! Gracious conqueror,
Victorious Titus, rue the tears I shed--
A mother's tears in passion for her son--
And if thy sons were ever dear to thee,
O, think my son to be as dear to me! (1.1, 104-108)

Titus Andronicus in this scene appears as an evil and insensitive man. He doesn't seem to be phased by Tamora's begging. He responds to her request:

Patient yourself, madam, and pardon me.
These are their brethren whom your Goths beheld
Alive and dead, and for their brethren slain
Religiously they ask a sacrifice.
To this your son is marked, and die he must
T' appease their groaning shadows that are gone. (1.1, 212-126)

Tamora's son must die in order to please the citizens of Rome, who are mourning for those who died in battle. Due to their religion, which is not specified, there must be a sacrifice. The eldest son is chosen to fulfill this need.

Contrary to my sympathy for Tamora's situation in the beginning of the tragedy, I soon began to see her as a villian instead of a victim. In Act 2, Tamora's sons Chrion and Demetrius express their lust for Lavinia. Aaron catches them fighting, and comes up with a solution: rape her in the woods (2.1, 115-119). Aaron takes this plan to Tamora, who agrees and voices her opinion:

And had you not by wondrous fortune come,
This vengeance on me had they executed.
Revenge it as you love your mother's life,
Or be ye not henceforward called my children. (2.3, 112-115)

Instead of trying to stop her sons, Tamora encourages them, saying that if they do not seek revenge she will disown them. Chrion and Demetrius take her words to heart, stabbing Bassianus (Lavinia's husband). Lavinia responds to the actions, stating "Ay, come, Semiramis--nay barbarous Tamora, / For no name fits thy nature but thy own." (2.3, 118-120) Lavinia then begins to plead, trying to appeal to Tamora as a fellow woman. Tamora refuses to listen, "I will not hear her speak. Away with her!" (2.3, 137)

Once Tamor refused to help Lavinia, and instead condems her to be raped and mutilated by her sons, I quickly lost any sympathy for her. Instead, my sympathy fell on Lavinia, who is most certainly the victim of that situation. However, I can't help wondering if, and this is merely speculation, if Titus Andronicus had spared Tamora's son, would Tamora still allow her sons to sexually assault Lavinia? Is Titus Andronicus' behavior in the beginning of the tragedy part of the reason Lavinia is hurt?

I don't know what would have happened, but I do know that I no longer am sympathetic for Tamora. Will my sympathies change again as I continue to read? Time will tell, and I will keep you posted.

Will Kemp or Will Shakespeare: That is the Question

I apologize that the title is corny-ridiculously corny. And I need to give proper credit to Shakespeare, because my inspiration for the title was his famous line in Hamlet "to be or not to be, that is the question".

Well, now that that's over with....

I was amazed by the descriptions of Whitehall in chapter 1 of Shapiro's book A Year in the Life of Shakespeare. The amount of detail Shapiro is able to present-about the many different rooms and the paintings on the walls-especially the portrait of Edward the 6th, which influenced Shakespeare's work.

Shapiro contrasts the majestic qualities of Whitehall with Shakespeare's hometown of Stratford Upon Avon. Shapiro's description of Stratford as a "drab backwater, devoid of high culture" astonished me (25). All I could think of when I read about Stratford was my visit to the town in high school. My recollections of being hustled through Shakespeare's house because we got lost in the meuseum (which you walk through first) are filled with noise, chaos, tourists, and lots of different cultures. In fact, in our brief visit to Shakespeare's house, we met a group of French students. It's amazing to me the changes that took place between Shakespeare's Stratford Upon Avon, and my visit in 2008. I'm not surprised that there were changes, in that large time span I certainly hope a town would progress. It just makes me wonder if Stratford Upon Avon would have turned into a tourist attraction had Shakespeare not been as successful. What would have happened to Stratford Upon Avon without Shakespeare? Would the town have ceased to exist, or would it simply be another English town today? We'll never know.

One of the topics that most interested me in Shapiro's book was the argument between Will Kemp and Shakespeare. In particular, I found it amusing how sure Will Kemp was (when they first started working together) that he would become the most famous of the pair. Shapiro writes

Shakespeare was emerging as an important playwright and poet. But at
that time their reputations were easily overshadowed by Kemp's. There
could have been no doubt in Kemp's mind in 1594 when he and Shakespeare
became fellow sharers, or even in 1599 when his fame was at its height, who
would be remembered as the greatest name in Elizabethan theater. (38)

What struck me most about this particular paragraph was how wrong Kemp was. My high school read various Shakespeare works, and I have read more in college, but Kemp's name wasn't mentioned until this semester. It seems that Kemp's belief that he would be the most famous Elizabethan actor and or name was very incorrect. Shapiro, in the closing of the first chapter of his book, states that without Shakespeare, we wouldn't know Kemp's name: "If not for Shakespeare, Kemp's legacy and verbal style would be long forgotten." (42)