Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
Salon.com: Terrorist attacks are not unique to our age. Near the end of 1605, a group of radical, disenchanted Catholics plotted to overthrow the British government by blowing up the House of Lords, killing King James I, and wiping out the nation’s religious leadership, which had in recent generations become Protestant.
10 comments:
Julian Goldman
said...
In the past when I’ve discussed Shakespeare, I’ve only really discussed the text of the play, but now that I read this article, I realize I’ve been looking at Shakespeare as if he was in a vacuum. I think one of the interesting things about theater, and art in general, is that it is inevitably a response to what is happening in the outside world, or at least what is happening in the artist’s life, to some degree. I think that says something about the way humans use art. We use it as a way of processing and discussing the world around us. I think I’m always aware of that to some degree, but I know I tend to often be more consciously aware of the beauty and appearance than the message or context of the work. I don’t really think one is more important than the other, but they are both part of the art, and I think it is important that neither aspect is forgotten. Because of that, I found this article quite interesting, as I knew about the Gunpowder Plot and I know Macbeth and King Lear fairly well, but I never knew about how the plot lined up with the writing of the plays. I will definitely be keeping that in mind next time I read/see Macbeth or King Lear.
All the comparisons that James Shapiro made to today’s contemporary problems simultaneously confused me and clarified some of the situations. I just did a presentation on Macbeth in my foundations of drama class, and we only talked about the gunpowder plot a little bit, because neither me or my partner realized how much it influenced Shakespeare. I also didn’t realize that scholars like Shapiro were able to know exactly what year Shakespeare wrote his plays and if he was clearly influenced by a modern event. I want to know how Shapiro was able to get that information, was he just linking the Gunpowder plot to all the Macbeth lines about “equivoaction”? Or was it something more definitive than that? I think our view of Shakespeare is extremely skewed because of his world-renowned, never-ending legacy. We just constantly feel like he was always great and always will be. In reality, Shakespeare did a lot of brown nosing, most scenes written in Macbeth were to please and entertain James (before he became king.) James was really interested in witchcraft, thats why the three witches were created in the first place.
I can honestly say that I had not thought about the current events that were occurring at the same time Shakespeare was penning his masterpieces. I think that I frequently divorce Shakespeare from history because in my education he has always existed in a kind of untouchable bubble. In my mind his plays were all written at the same time and the same environment, which is simply not even close to true. It’s stupid of me to think that he would not be affected by the current events of the day like we think of any 20th century playwright being affected. As a dramaturg one of the first questions you ask “When was this play written and what was happening at that time?”. 1606 was a very tumultuous year and that would certainly affect someone like Shakespeare. I also think that I think of terrorist attacks as a modern phenomenon, but they aren’t.
I would have never though to place a Shakespeare in piece in the context of the time it was written to make it relatable to a modern audience. So often when producing historic plays, we spend a great deal of time trying to make the text interesting or relevant for a modern audience, but is it possible that is was always relevant and we made it irrelevant by forgetting to do our homework? I also find it extremely interesting to think of the evolution of Shakespeare’s plays and how over time certain event would have affected his plot lines and his writing. Part of what makes this so fascinating to me (and perhaps could make a huge impact for future producers of Shakespeare) is the cyclical nature of life and humanity. The problems that Shakespeare identifies are fundamental troubles that humanity has been struggling with for hundreds of years, and we have yet to come up with a positive solution. Does this mean that there is no solution or that we are looking at the problem the wrong way? Or is the problem not a problem at all but rather a state of being in the world that cannot be changed?
As a fan of Shakespeare, it’s always very interesting to learn about the historical context of his work. A lot of people assume Shakespeare is out-dated, or boring, but I disagree. I think there are quite a few of Shakespeare’s plays which have universal messages, and which can be adapted for modern audiences. With this added insights about the Gunpowder Plot, it is easier to recognize themes of revolt and division within his works. Insights such as these allow modern directors the ability to better translate, adapt, or simply portray Shakespeare to a modern audience. Everyone today has a basic understanding of terrorism, so if you can convey that message in what is happening in the play, it’s going to really click. If you present Shakespeare as a show set in the 1600s, about things that are exclusive to the 1600s, only the history buffs in the audience are going to be able to relate. But if you stage these texts in such a way that modern parallels can be found, then not only do you have a successful Shakespeare, you also may have converted a few people into true fans.
This is by far the most interesting article posted on this cite, and i really enjoyed reading it. I have read many book on this time period in England, and while it wasn’t much about Shakespeare, his name always came up at some point. The battle between the Catholics and the protestants was a long and bloody battle, the fact there were various attacks planned that didn’t succeed dose not surprise me. As Humans we have been fighting about religion for as long as we have recorded history. In England, the 1600’s was a time of religious change and upheaval, while it did spread to other countries England lead this Protestant and catholic war. It seems only logical that the gunpowder event would have effected shakespeare work. If, we assume he was the actual play write, much like todays playwrights, his writing would have been effected by joy events in his community and country.
The title of this article has it all. Terrorists, vehicular manslaughter, much beloved movies with Billy Crystal in them, and some Shakespeare thrown in to please the highbrow readers ashamed to reveal their hidden fascination with the former three topics. The article itself, while lacking in vehicular homicide and Billy crystal, is no less engrossing. James Shapiro, a Shakespeare scholar from Columbia University, talks about the fascinating year (for England, at least. I can't say the same for Uzbekistan) that was 1606. Terrorism, religious turmoil, a national "identity crisis," the plague, all coalescing in a perfect (shit)storm. The article is ultimately a lengthy, informative description of how this bananas year, 1606, spurred the writing of some of the most influential plays ever written. I myself do not have the historical knowledge needed to summarize this article, but I do have the ability to tell you that it's worth reading.
People hurting each other isn't new. People being frustrated with their government isn't a modern phenomenon. As soon as society progressed past the point of pure subsistence farming, and "ordinary" people were able to begin to acquire wealth, they began to feel entitled to more say in how the people in charge were using it.
I'm equally as sick of the people who are all "Shakespeare's the worst and totally not relevant anymore at all" and those who think Shakespeare is gospel. Like most things, such dualism leaves a vacuum in the middle, that sweet spot of a Shakespearean production that is well chosen for a company's contemporary audience, well-reasoned and critical in its interpretation of the work, and also understandable to the non-Shakespeare aficionados watching. The reason I am and will always be a proponent of continuing to produce Shakespeare as often and as differently as possible is that the universal familiarity with his work enables a production to use the text as a tool to create a well-argued thesis in a production.
It is fascinating to learn about the socio-political context that surrounds some of Shakespeare’s most famous works. Before reading this article I had heard about the Gunpowder Plot but I had never associated it with the Bard or being fodder for his writing. Shapiro’s investigation paints this dramatic turn of events as almost a saving grace for the playwright, as he had been under the gun to create fresh and exciting works that still felt as current as those of his younger peers. The conflicting viewpoints that existed in Shakespeare’s own family resonates deeply in his works produced that year, as in all three the divisions between good and evil aren’t necessarily as clean cut as one would have liked, lending itself to an ambiguity that feels much more akin to our everyday lives and experiences.
There are a lot of theories out there about Shakespeare. Did Shakespeare really exist? Was Shakespeare more than one person? This idea that Shakespeare’s writing was effected by a plot to blow up the king seems to be one of the more plausible theories. How could it not? When we look back on history, everyday life is affected by terrorist attacks and other events. I’ve never been a huge fan of Shakespeare – or history. But understanding the events in history surrounding Shakespeare’s writing could help us understand the plays. More so, it provides insight into the writing, the characters, and even the settings of his works. I can honestly say that I don’t remember studying any of this when I took my Shakespeare class at U of M. We spent more time talking about the symbolism of the moon in one of his plays than the history behind the play. Maybe if we studied more behind the story, I would have liked the class and Shakespeare more.
10 comments:
In the past when I’ve discussed Shakespeare, I’ve only really discussed the text of the play, but now that I read this article, I realize I’ve been looking at Shakespeare as if he was in a vacuum. I think one of the interesting things about theater, and art in general, is that it is inevitably a response to what is happening in the outside world, or at least what is happening in the artist’s life, to some degree. I think that says something about the way humans use art. We use it as a way of processing and discussing the world around us. I think I’m always aware of that to some degree, but I know I tend to often be more consciously aware of the beauty and appearance than the message or context of the work. I don’t really think one is more important than the other, but they are both part of the art, and I think it is important that neither aspect is forgotten. Because of that, I found this article quite interesting, as I knew about the Gunpowder Plot and I know Macbeth and King Lear fairly well, but I never knew about how the plot lined up with the writing of the plays. I will definitely be keeping that in mind next time I read/see Macbeth or King Lear.
All the comparisons that James Shapiro made to today’s contemporary problems simultaneously confused me and clarified some of the situations. I just did a presentation on Macbeth in my foundations of drama class, and we only talked about the gunpowder plot a little bit, because neither me or my partner realized how much it influenced Shakespeare. I also didn’t realize that scholars like Shapiro were able to know exactly what year Shakespeare wrote his plays and if he was clearly influenced by a modern event. I want to know how Shapiro was able to get that information, was he just linking the Gunpowder plot to all the Macbeth lines about “equivoaction”? Or was it something more definitive than that?
I think our view of Shakespeare is extremely skewed because of his world-renowned, never-ending legacy. We just constantly feel like he was always great and always will be. In reality, Shakespeare did a lot of brown nosing, most scenes written in Macbeth were to please and entertain James (before he became king.) James was really interested in witchcraft, thats why the three witches were created in the first place.
I can honestly say that I had not thought about the current events that were occurring at the same time Shakespeare was penning his masterpieces. I think that I frequently divorce Shakespeare from history because in my education he has always existed in a kind of untouchable bubble. In my mind his plays were all written at the same time and the same environment, which is simply not even close to true. It’s stupid of me to think that he would not be affected by the current events of the day like we think of any 20th century playwright being affected. As a dramaturg one of the first questions you ask “When was this play written and what was happening at that time?”. 1606 was a very tumultuous year and that would certainly affect someone like Shakespeare. I also think that I think of terrorist attacks as a modern phenomenon, but they aren’t.
I would have never though to place a Shakespeare in piece in the context of the time it was written to make it relatable to a modern audience. So often when producing historic plays, we spend a great deal of time trying to make the text interesting or relevant for a modern audience, but is it possible that is was always relevant and we made it irrelevant by forgetting to do our homework? I also find it extremely interesting to think of the evolution of Shakespeare’s plays and how over time certain event would have affected his plot lines and his writing. Part of what makes this so fascinating to me (and perhaps could make a huge impact for future producers of Shakespeare) is the cyclical nature of life and humanity. The problems that Shakespeare identifies are fundamental troubles that humanity has been struggling with for hundreds of years, and we have yet to come up with a positive solution. Does this mean that there is no solution or that we are looking at the problem the wrong way? Or is the problem not a problem at all but rather a state of being in the world that cannot be changed?
As a fan of Shakespeare, it’s always very interesting to learn about the historical context of his work. A lot of people assume Shakespeare is out-dated, or boring, but I disagree. I think there are quite a few of Shakespeare’s plays which have universal messages, and which can be adapted for modern audiences. With this added insights about the Gunpowder Plot, it is easier to recognize themes of revolt and division within his works. Insights such as these allow modern directors the ability to better translate, adapt, or simply portray Shakespeare to a modern audience. Everyone today has a basic understanding of terrorism, so if you can convey that message in what is happening in the play, it’s going to really click. If you present Shakespeare as a show set in the 1600s, about things that are exclusive to the 1600s, only the history buffs in the audience are going to be able to relate. But if you stage these texts in such a way that modern parallels can be found, then not only do you have a successful Shakespeare, you also may have converted a few people into true fans.
This is by far the most interesting article posted on this cite, and i really enjoyed reading it. I have read many book on this time period in England, and while it wasn’t much about Shakespeare, his name always came up at some point. The battle between the Catholics and the protestants was a long and bloody battle, the fact there were various attacks planned that didn’t succeed dose not surprise me. As Humans we have been fighting about religion for as long as we have recorded history. In England, the 1600’s was a time of religious change and upheaval, while it did spread to other countries England lead this Protestant and catholic war. It seems only logical that the gunpowder event would have effected shakespeare work. If, we assume he was the actual play write, much like todays playwrights, his writing would have been effected by joy events in his community and country.
The title of this article has it all. Terrorists, vehicular manslaughter, much beloved movies with Billy Crystal in them, and some Shakespeare thrown in to please the highbrow readers ashamed to reveal their hidden fascination with the former three topics.
The article itself, while lacking in vehicular homicide and Billy crystal, is no less engrossing. James Shapiro, a Shakespeare scholar from Columbia University, talks about the fascinating year (for England, at least. I can't say the same for Uzbekistan) that was 1606.
Terrorism, religious turmoil, a national "identity crisis," the plague, all coalescing in a perfect (shit)storm.
The article is ultimately a lengthy, informative description of how this bananas year, 1606, spurred the writing of some of the most influential plays ever written. I myself do not have the historical knowledge needed to summarize this article, but I do have the ability to tell you that it's worth reading.
People hurting each other isn't new. People being frustrated with their government isn't a modern phenomenon. As soon as society progressed past the point of pure subsistence farming, and "ordinary" people were able to begin to acquire wealth, they began to feel entitled to more say in how the people in charge were using it.
I'm equally as sick of the people who are all "Shakespeare's the worst and totally not relevant anymore at all" and those who think Shakespeare is gospel. Like most things, such dualism leaves a vacuum in the middle, that sweet spot of a Shakespearean production that is well chosen for a company's contemporary audience, well-reasoned and critical in its interpretation of the work, and also understandable to the non-Shakespeare aficionados watching. The reason I am and will always be a proponent of continuing to produce Shakespeare as often and as differently as possible is that the universal familiarity with his work enables a production to use the text as a tool to create a well-argued thesis in a production.
It is fascinating to learn about the socio-political context that surrounds some of Shakespeare’s most famous works. Before reading this article I had heard about the Gunpowder Plot but I had never associated it with the Bard or being fodder for his writing. Shapiro’s investigation paints this dramatic turn of events as almost a saving grace for the playwright, as he had been under the gun to create fresh and exciting works that still felt as current as those of his younger peers. The conflicting viewpoints that existed in Shakespeare’s own family resonates deeply in his works produced that year, as in all three the divisions between good and evil aren’t necessarily as clean cut as one would have liked, lending itself to an ambiguity that feels much more akin to our everyday lives and experiences.
There are a lot of theories out there about Shakespeare. Did Shakespeare really exist? Was Shakespeare more than one person? This idea that Shakespeare’s writing was effected by a plot to blow up the king seems to be one of the more plausible theories. How could it not? When we look back on history, everyday life is affected by terrorist attacks and other events. I’ve never been a huge fan of Shakespeare – or history. But understanding the events in history surrounding Shakespeare’s writing could help us understand the plays. More so, it provides insight into the writing, the characters, and even the settings of his works. I can honestly say that I don’t remember studying any of this when I took my Shakespeare class at U of M. We spent more time talking about the symbolism of the moon in one of his plays than the history behind the play. Maybe if we studied more behind the story, I would have liked the class and Shakespeare more.
Post a Comment