For Thursday: Julius Caesar, Act V (try to finish!)

No questions today, but do try to finish Julius Caesar for tomorrow's class. We'll write about something interesting in this act which may (or may not) have to do with your Paper #2! Remember that the paper is due on Tuesday instead of tomorrow, so we can finish Julius Caesar first. If you need the assignment, it's a few posts down from this one.

Here are some ideas to consider as you read:

* How does Shakespeare depict the warring armies in the final act? Do they seem like the powerful, god-like heirs of Rome? Or just a bunch of teenagers scrapping in a schoolyard? 

* In Act 4.3, Cassius and Brutus have what sounds like (or could be performed like) a lovers' spat. They literally seem to be breaking up, though in the end, they patch things up and watch Netflix (well, not quite). How does 5.1 continue the love language between them? What IS their relationship with one another?

* In Act 4, Antony was becoming a second Caesar--arrogant, tyrannical, and indifferent to the life around him. Does Act 5 redeem him, or does he harden into the very Caesar they were trying to kill in Acts 1-3?

* Are the deaths of Cassius and Brutus comic or tragic? Are they cathartic? Or even poetic? In a play of great speeches, do they get some good ones in the end?

* How does the conflict between fate and free-will get played out in Act 5? Do we feel that the characters were doomed to meet this fate? Was the soothsayer's prolocation, "beware the ides of March" meant for both Caesar and the conspirators? Or were the events of Act 5 the result of their own tragic decisions?

* Why does Antony seem to change his tune about Brutus at the very end of the play? Is this another act of theater, as when he eulogized Caesar in Act 3? Or is this meant with sincerity/tragedy?

For Tuesday: Julius Caesar, Acts 3 & 4

NOTE: Sorry for the delay--I meant to post this on Tuesday but somehow never did! But you still have plenty of time to read and respond! 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In Caesar's famous death scene, he suddenly turns to Brutus and utters the famous words, "et tu, Brute?" (And thou, Brutus?). This is the only Latin in the play and stands out, almost jarringly so. Why do you think Shakespeare does this? Doesn't it break the suspension of disbelief for the audience, since all the characters are supposed to be speaking Latin all along? Why do you think Shakespeare found this effect irresistible?

Q2: In his famous speech in 3.2, Antony protests that "I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,/Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech/To stir men's blood" (131). Does Antony persuade the crowd because he is more a "man of the people," who speaks a common, emotional language? Or is there another reason his speech proves so persuasive?

Q3: Related somewhat to the above, why does Antony decide to go against Brutus and stir up the people against him? What is his 'end game' in rousing them to a bloody frenzy? Is he tragically ignorant of the consequences of his actions? Or is he even more manipulative than Cassius? 

Q4: How does Brutus began acting and/or speaking more like Caesar in Acts 3 and 4? Why might he do this? Does anyone notice his change of character?

Q5: Where do our loyalties lie by Act 4 of the play? Are we supposed to sympathize with the slain Caesar now, and his surrogate, Antony? Or are we firmly in the camp of Brutus and Cassius? Or no one at all? How does Shakespeare artfully manipulate--or alienate--our sympathies?  

For Tuesday: Julius Caesar, Act Two

NOTE: In class, I said to read Acts 2-3, which you are more than welcome to do, but since we're still just starting the play, I think we'll need the entire class to discuss Act 2. We'll deal with Acts 3-4 next week (since we won't have class on Thursday, and that will give you extra time to read two acts as well). 

ALSO: If you get a chance, take a look at this review of the RSC production from 2012 that we started to watch in class. It talks about why they chose this setting and lens to examine Julius Caesar, and whether or not the critic feels they succeeded: https://gerryco23.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/the-rscs-african-julius-caesar-not-stones-but-men/

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: In Tragedy: A Very Short Introduction, Poole reminds us that "But there is a more political aspect to the living dead…they embody values, ideas, and ethics that challenge the present and obstruct the future. The living dead are by nature conservative, if not reactionary…they insist that the world remain as it was for them" (Chapter 3). How does this play show us that Rome is haunted by the ghosts of the dead, which limits the actions and decisions of those still living? Who in the play might be considered the "living dead," numbly rehearsing the myths of their forefathers?

Q2: When Portia confronts her husband after the meeting of conspirators, she exclaims "No, my Brutus,/You have some sick offense within your mind,.Which by the right and virtue of my place/I ought to know of" (69). Do you think Brutus has been poisoned and manipualted by Cassius and company? Are they maniuplating his thoughts and ambitions? Or is the "fate" he was destined to walk all along? How much is he acting of his own free will?

Q3: In Act 1, Cassius bemoans modern-day Romans, since they "are governed with our mother' spirits/Our yoke and sufferance shows us womanish" (39). Even Portia echoes this lament, saying "how weak a thing/The heart of woman is!" (89). Yet how does Shakespeare characterize the few women in the play so far--Portia and Calpurnia (both wives of the rival men). Are they stereotypical portraits of feminine weakness? Do they emasculate their men just as Rome is (according to Cassius) emasculated by womanish values?

Q4: Though Brutus is more than willing to strike down Caesar, where does he draw the line? Why does he feel this line is ethical and important? Do the others agree with him? Do we agree that though willing to murder a rival, he does so for the right reasons? Or is this another instance of right vs. right (according to Poole)? 

For Thursday: Julius Caesar, Act 1

NOTE: Read Act 1 for Thursday, but no questions this time around. Just try to enjoy the Act and your increasing fluency and comfort in Shakespeare's language. We're going to watch some of Act 1 in class so we can see how some modern versions of Shakespeare decide to stage his work, and help us see the politics going on behind the words. 

SOME IDEAS TO CONSIDER AS YOU READ...

* Cassius makes a famous speech on page 21 (Act 1.2) with the phrase “the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars.” Taken in context, what is he trying to say about fate and human action?

* What is Brutus worried about in Act 1? How does Cassius have to “woo” him to his side?

* Why isn’t Caesar shaken by the Soothsayer’s warning? Also, what do you think he means by calling him a “dreamer?”

* What does Caesar men when he dismisses Cassius in favor of “fatter” men? Why does he fear/distrust him?

* How is this opening act very theatrical, or meta-theatrical? How are the various characters trying to stage themselves to the audience (both their audience, and ours)?

* Why does Casca make his speeches in prose unlike everyone else around him? Why don’t the others speak prose with him (or he speak verse with them)?

Paper #2: First Time Tragedy, Second Time Farce

English 3213

Paper #2: First Time Tragedy, Second Time Farce

“Risk is intrinsic to all performance, but where tragedy is concerned, the sense of risk is written into the text itself as something to be embodied, encountered, endured by anyone who reads, witnesses, or performs it, no matter how gifted or ham-fisted” (Poole, Chapter 7).

INTRO: As Poole notes above, there is a great risk in performing tragedy—because we might not ‘get’ it. It might fail, the actors might fail, and we might simply laugh that what is supposed to be horrific or moving (bathos instead of pathos). As Poole also notes in Chapter 6, “There’s a good case for laughing at the pretensions of tragedy when it’s not the real thing.” Many scenes in Shakespeare’s tragedies veer close to comedy, not because they’re telling jokes, because they’re so difficult to perform or imagine. This is especially true with over-the-top characters like Richard III, who sometimes seems to embody a cartoonish violence (“off with his head”), or many characters in Julius Caesar, whose events and language are ripe for parody. So does Shakespeare want us to cry or laugh? When might he stretch the tragedy too far—on purpose? Or when are we just unwilling to take the risk, and laughter is the easy way out?

PROMPT: I want you to examine TWO SCENES (either one from both Richard and Caesar, or two from one play) that you feel have the potential for parody. Meaning, we’re not sure whether to be moved to laughter or to tears/emotion. Why is this? Is it in the plot, the relationships, the context, or the language? What is the “risk” this scene demands of its actors and the audience? How could it be performed/understood tragically, and how could it become a joke? Should it? Is this scene an attempt to bring comedy into an otherwise serious moment? Or are we just taking the easy way out by laughing? Try to avoid an obviously funny scene (with someone making jokes, etc.) and look instead at a scene that has the potential to go either way. But make sure to tell us which way you THINK it should be performed; which way makes the most sense dramatically?

REQUIREMENTS:

• CLOSE READING: Just as with the last paper, don’t summarize but analyze: show us what you see in the language. Don’t rely on the plot to make your points.
• THEORY: Use Poole to help you make connections and point out things which are otherwise difficult to explain/examine. Poole can help!
• DUE DATE: In a little over two weeks, on Thursday, October 30^th IN CLASS. We’ll approach your scenes in class, so bring it with you!

For Tuesday: Poole, Tragedy, Chapters 6 & 7

NOTE: Read as much of Chapters 6 and 7 as you can, and consider some of the ideas below. We'll write about ONE of them when you return next Tuesday, or some combination of some of the ones below. 

* What does Poole mean when he suggests "first time tragedy, second time farce?" Why does repetition kill an audience's sense of tragic potential?

* If comedy is tragedy that happens to someone else (to paraphrase Mel Brooks), why doesn’t the entire audience laugh at every tragedy? What makes it ‘work’ even though the comedic potential is always there?

* Is tragedy just a stylistic thing? Or as Poole asks, “Does it all depend on how it’s told”? What would that mean in Shakespearean terms? Just iambic pentameter? (You might think about the story he tells from Chekhov)

* Why might comic relief be an important part of tragedy (and not just to take pressure off the serious moments)? Why does Shakespeare always have some comic moment in his darkest plays, such as the murder scene in Richard III, or the Graveyard scene in Hamlet? Could these scenes also be tragic in their own right?

* If plays are all about words/speaking, why are the silences equally important—especially for Tragedy? How does Shakespeare do this in his plays, that you’ve seen?

* Related to this, what does Poole mean when he writes, “Breaking the silence has become a modern way of thinking about tragedy”?

* Why might the role of the ‘messenger’ be one of the greatest tragic roles of all time? And why do all tragedies employ this device—of someone who has to report of a tragedy that happened off-stage?

* Why does the ancient Greek mask of Tragedy (with open eyes and mouth) represent an important theory or message of Tragedy? How can this empower artists writing in the wake of events like 9/11?

* Why is sound in general so important to Tragedy, meaning the sounds other than speech? How do plays take advantage of other aural mechanisms? Think of movies as well.

For Tuesday: Richard III, Acts 4 & 5

NOTE: Try to finish the play for Tuesday, but at least read Act 4, since that will form the brunt of our discussion. I'll also bring in some context about Elizabeth I to help us appreciate the play--and Q2 below. 

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: Has Richard changed by the last two acts? Is he no longer the sinister, yet charming, and almost humorous character he was at the beginning? If so, what might have accounted for his change of character/persona? Or do you see him as a consistently evil character throughout, with no real growth one way or the other?

Q2: Considering that Elizabeth I was queen while Shakespeare wrote most of his plays, including Richard III, how might the strong queens in the play, notably Margaret and Elizabeth (!), be meant to flatter her? Where might we see lines and passages that show that Shakespeare was trying to be empathetic with her position as a female queen in a world of men? In other words, how might knowing Elizabeth I was listening have inspired Shakespeare to put certain words in their mouths?

Q3: We get a terrible echo of the Richard/Anne scene in Act 4.4, when Richard woos Elizabeth for the hand of her daughter. How does Richard repeat some of the same language and rhetoric from the earlier scene, and is he as convincing to Elizabeth, or the audience, here? Why does she agree to go along with it? 

Q4: Since Richard comes to power only in Act 4, and is dispatched in Act 5, do we really get a sense of catharsis with his death? Do we feel that justice has been served and the play is 'cleansed' of his presence? Should we see him slain as we see Claudius and others die on-stage in Hamlet? Or by not having him die on-stage, does this avoid the cruder aspects of revenge? 

Q5: What do you make of the long procession of ghosts that suddenly appear at the end of Act 5 to curse Richard and praise Richmond? In a play that seems grittily realistic, is it strange to suddeny get shades of Hamlet and Macbeth? Do you feel this makes artistic sense, or is it sort of too over-the-top to be believable? If you were a director, would you cut this part of the play, or is it theatrically (or cathartically) effective? 

For Thursday: Richard III, Act 3

For Thursday's class, read all or as much of Act 3 as you can, which documents Richard's ascent to power, despite not having much popular support. No questions this time, but we'll have an IN-CLASS RESPONSE when you come to class. But here are some ideas to consider as you read:

* Why does the young Duke of York and the Prince mock Richard in 3.1? How does he respond to their jokes at his expense? Why do they act so differently than most other men in the play?

* We see Richard start to act like a king in Act 3, both in public and private. Based on these actions, what kind of king will he be? Should the Citizens in Act 2 be worried?

* This play uses dreams in several scenes, usually people who have dreams of Richard killing or threatening them. Why do you think Shakespeare keeps using this device? And does anyone take them seriously?

* In general, how do most of his peers regard Richard as a serious candidate for the throne? What seems to influence their decision? 

* Notice how many people start taking Queen Margaret's words from Act 1 seriously. Why do they regard her as more truthful now than then, when they dismised her as a "lunatic"?

* How does Act 3 play with the idea of acting and staging scenes for an audience--both the audience in the play, and the audience watching the play? Why might these meta moments (though nothing as explicit as The Mousetrap from Hamlet) be important?

* Shakespeare sometimes has very small scenes interrupt the flow of his story, often with very insignificant characters. 3.6 is one such scene, a single speech made by an anonymous Scivener (scribe). What do you think is the purpose of this scene? Could it be cut without much notice? 

* At the beginning of 3.7, Richard has Buckingham try to stir up popular support for Richard. But no one takes the bait. Even when he plants a few 'supporters' in the crowd to cry "God save King Richard!" this isn't much to-do. Why do you think this is? How might it relate to the scene in Act 2 with the Citizens and their opinions of the monarchy? 

For Tuesday: Richard III, Act 1.4-5, and Act 2

NOTE: Q1 is a repeat from the last set of questions, since we didn't get to touch on it at all. So if you didn't answer them last time, you can take a shot at them now if you like. 

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: In another scene reminiscent of Hamlet, the Murderers come to kill Clarence in Act 1, scene 4, but have trouble going through with the act. Why might some of their fears--and Clarence's attempts to dissuade them--echo some of Hamlet's misgivings in his play? What IS the consequence of enacting a just revenge (since Clarence IS guilty of murder himself)?

Q2: Shakespeare brings women to the forefront of this play, from Lady Anne to Queens Elizabeth and Margaret, and the Duchess. Sort of related to Q4 below, how do the women tell a different story--and focus on different details--than the men? Why might Shakespeare be keen to let them tell part of the story, and what does it add to Richard's plot of revenge and ambition?  

Q3: All of Shakespeare's plays are about acting in one way or another, and this is certainly true of Richard III. Besides the scene with Lady Anne in Act 1.2, where else do we see him acting/performing for others. Is his 'role' consistent throughout the play, or does it change depending on the audience? Do people generally believe his act? And if someone doesn't, who and why not? 

Q4: Unusually for a play about kings and queens, Shakespeare shifts the action to the common people in Act 2.3, with a short scene between "citizens." How does he portray the common citizens, and what language do they speak? How does their view of the play contrast with the upper classes? In other words, why might it be a very different story if THEY were telling it? 

For Thursday: Richard III, Act 1 (as much as you can, anyway!)

From the Royal Shakespeare Company's 2007 production 

NOTE: Here is a link to the Folger Shakespere's On-line, which has a slew of information and links about Richard III. One thing I recommend is listening to the play as you read it. The Folger has a link to the Audio Edition here, and you can listen along as you read, hearing the actors give life to the lines, which can really help you visualize the scene and the characters (and understand the emotion). You can also DOWNLOAD the text for free (the Folger version) if you don't have the book. https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakespeares-works/richard-iii/

Read as much of Act 1 as you can, though at least try to get through Scene 3 (though scene 4 is a lot of fun). Answer TWO of the following as always:

Q1: Hamlet was based on legend and vague history, whereas Richard III uses real historical characters and settings. Even though Shakespeare's audience was closer to this history than we were, they wouldn't know all the ins and outs of it (especially at a time before history classes and paperback books!). Given this, how does Shakespeare try to teach us a little history as we go? Why is it not strictly necessary to know the history of Richard III to appreciate this play (and how does Shakespeare make this possible)?

Q2: Richard's famous speech that opens the play, "Now is the winter of our discontent/Made glorious summer by this son of York" is almost as well-known as Hamlet's "To Be, or Not to Be." What makes this speech so stunning and a favorite of actors everywhere? What does it allow the actor to do or perform, and why is it shocking for the audience, given that these are the very first words in the play?

Q3: In Act 1, scene 2, Richard sets out to woo Lady Anne, whose husband and brother he has killed (and she knows it). He has the audacity to confront her in the church AND to try to woo her to her face. Not surprisingly, she's pretty pissed about it. But he gradually wears her down, and by the end, she's actually entertaining his suit. What makes her begin to thaw? How does Richard use language and poetry to press his suit? Do we begin to believe him at any point, or is it always clear that he's playing a dastardly role here?

Q4: In class on Monday, and even last week, we talked a bit about Ophelia's 'mad' songs, which are a kind of confession and indictment of those around (especially the men). Queen Margaret also makes a long, 'mad' speech attacking all those around her in Act 1, scene 3 (starting on page 55--line 195), after which she is dismissed by Dorset: "Dispute not with her; she is lunatic" (59). Why might people mistake this for madness? What is she accusing them of? And what makes these lines so powerful (indeed, Richard only gets a few lines in the entire time). 

Q5: In another scene reminiscent of Hamlet, the Murderers come to kill Clarence in Act 1, scene 4, but have trouble going through with the act. Why might some of their fears--and Clarence's attempts to dissuade them--echo some of Hamlet's misgivings in his play? What IS the consequence of enacting a just revenge (since Clarence IS guilty of murder himself)? 

For Thursday: Poole, Tragedy, Chapters 4 & 5

For our next class, try to read Chapters 4 and 5, but at least read 4, since any of this might give you some ideas for your Paper #1 assignment. They'll also help us decompress after reading Hamlet and figure out just what, exactly, we read! 

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: On page 59, Poole writes that "Tragedy represents the conflict not of right against wrong--which is melodrama or simply justice--but of right against right." What do you think he means by this, and how might tragedy reconcile the "dangerous" aspects of philosophy with the more practical, particular aspects of theater? 

Q2: Aristotle championed the idea of a hero having a "fatal flaw" (hamartia) which caused them to create tragedy unknowingly, through a series of ignorant actions. Why might this ultimately be dramatically disappointing for an audience? Why do we want (or need) our tragedies to show people making decisions willfully, and with all the facts at hand (even if they misinterpret them)? Or in another sense, why is it simply more fun to have knowing heroes? 

Q3: Many writers and thinkers, such as Sigmund Freud, believed that tragedy is cathartic because it shows us who we used to be, and who we still are, beneath a cloak of civilization. Or as Poole writes, "tragedy shows us what we are missing" (51). What do they mean by this, and why might tragedy be more a kind of wish-fulfillment than a moral corrective?

Q4: On page 65, Poole suggests that "it is the relation between pain and our ideas about it that tragedy seeks to explore." Why is pain such an important subject for tragedy that has attracted writers such as the Greeks and Shakespeare? How might pain (like ghosts) be a taboo subject that only tragedy can properly deal with? And why is it always the pain of "other people" that interests tragedy?