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?