Shades of Grey in Shakespeare Behind Bars

One of the first lessons we learn as children is the difference between good and evil. We’re taught these concepts from very young ages with Disney movies and fairytales that present us with characters that fit easily into categories of either “good” or “evil.” Some people never get out of this frame of thought. Some people always view good and evil as a black and white concept, when this is not typically the case in the real world. The character of people in the world cannot be defined by black and white ideas of good and evil, but by shades of grey. This is a hard thing to understand or to accept, especially when regarding people who have committed heinous crimes. But I think what makes Shakespeare so enduring is that he understood these shades of grey. Shakespeare understood and explored human nature so extensively in his plays, and that’s what makes them so resilient with time.

Shakespeare Behind Bars was a fantastic exploration of this aspect of Shakespeare’s writing. The film, while documenting a prison’s production of Shakespeare’s The Tempest, also served as an intensive character study of modern prison inmates who have found resonance in Shakespeare’s plays. I thought it was really interesting how the documentary wasn’t so much an account of the production of the play, but an account of the inmates’ experiences with the play and with Shakespeare’s characters. Criminals are regarded in our society as the lowest of the low, but this documentary made the bold assertion that though Shakespeare is typically considered a high-brow form of art for the educated and elite parts of society, prisoners and criminals have the most tangible understanding of Shakespeare’s plays.

I also thought it was really telling that the focus of the documentary wasn’t on the inmates struggling to understand Shakespeare. Actually, from the point of view of the audience, these inmates seem to thoroughly understand and connect with Shakespeare’s characters very rapidly. This emphasizes that though Shakespeare’s plays are associated with high-brow culture, at the time Shakespeare wrote them he geared them toward the lower classes. One of the prisoners even says that a prison production of Shakespeare is especially fitting since actors during Shakespeare’s time were considered thieves.

I was also really affected by the documentary’s broaching the inmates’ crimes, and the subsequent treatment of these crimes. Most of the crimes committed by these inmates, inmates who the audience is consistently rooting for, are really serious and disturbing crimes. The documentary doesn’t downplay their seriousness in any way, and it doesn’t try to hide their crimes either. But somehow you still feel for these people, and you find it hard to believe that they ever did these heinous things that they’ve been convicted of. That’s where the shades of grey come in. The audience is able to see these people as real people with potential to do good in the future. Though they have done evil in the past, they are not entirely consumed by evil. Shakespeare’s characters reflect these qualities in the inmates in this film, which is why this documentary is such an effective character study of these inmates. The prisoners are forced to face their own demons as they learn about the characters and roles they are taking on for the play.

Volpone: A Modern Cast

This week for my rumination I decided to choose my ideal cast of Volpone from actors and actresses that are living today. I'm sure the ages of these actors aren't too ideal, but I think they fit well in the roles anyway. I’ve listed them below, with my reasons for casting them... and I've made a handy graphic, too!

VOLPONE: Michael Gambon

Michael Gambon plays Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series, so this choice might seem strange. However, I recently saw Gambon play a guest role in a British television show as a greedy, older man, and it actually fit him really well. I feel like Volpone is pretty snarky, and I think Gambon would be capable of bringing just the right amount of dark humor to the table as money-obsessed, hedonistic character.

MOSCA: Jesse Eisenberg

Hopefully most people who have seen Eisenberg in last year’s The Social Network understand why I chose him for this role. Mosca was really interesting to me, because I feel like he was so convincingly loyal and obedient to Volpone until he made a complete turn-around to betray him. I feel like Eisenberg has the acting chops to pull off Mosca’s deceitfulness and duplicity. What I love about Eisenberg is that his physical appearance makes him seem very young and harmless, but as we’ve seen in The Social Network, he can overturn all of harmlessness with a single look.

CELIA: Amy Adams

Celia struck me as a woman who is resolute and firm in her morals. However, she is also ultimately subservient to her tyrant of a husband, so there needs to be a balance of strength and surrender with Celia. I think Amy Adams could pull this off well.

VOLTORE: Daniel Bruhl

Daniel Bruhl played a German soldier in Inglorious Basterds, and I really like him for the role of Voltore because he is really diplomatic, well-spoken, and pleasant in Inglorious Basterds yet it is also clear that he has ulterior motives and he is not the good guy he makes himself out to be.

CORVINO: Michael Fassbender

I picked Fassbender for Corvino because I honestly just want to see Fassbender play an unapologetically vicious character. I would have chosen him for Volpone, but I felt like Volpone needed to be older. Fassbender’s got the look and the acting chops to play Corvino, as evidenced by his roles in Inglorious Basterds and Jane Eyre.

CORBACCIO: John Noble

John Noble is really good at playing mentally unstable fathers – he played the insane Lord Denethor in Lord of the Rings series and he currently plays mad scientist Walter Bishop in the television show Fringe. Noble is just generally good at playing the kooky old father figure who is completely disconnected from reality and subsequently hurts his son(s).

BONARIO: Joshua Jackson

I’m cheating a little bit here, because Joshua Jackson plays Noble’s son in Fringe, but I can’t get the image of him as Bonario out of my head. Just like Noble is good at playing insane father figures, Jackson is adept at playing sons with father issues in both Dawson’s Creek and Fringe. Jackson’s got a friendly face that would fit well with Bonario’s hero qualities, but can also portray the agony of being rejected by his father very well.

Utopian Occupations

I’m probably not making an unfounded assumption in saying that as college students, the main point of our education is to get a job. Not just any job, either, but a moderately competitive and well-paying job. We go to school to avoid jobs that consist of menial labor – factory jobs and craftsmanship jobs like carpentry, metal work, and working with fabrics. Ironically, these are the jobs or “crafts” that are encouraged and available for workers in a Utopian society. I think this aspect of Utopia alone illustrates the drastic differences between the perfect world proposed by Sir Thomas More and the ideals we hold today.

I found it particularly interesting that every member of Utopia was responsible for doing agricultural work at one point in his or her life. In fact, agriculture is even integrated into their schools. Children learn about agricultural theories and practices as a part of required education. All citizens must work on farms for a minimum two years of their lives before they are rotated out into cities.

This is entirely different from the way our society has progressed. Agriculture is an underappreciated industry. While every Utopian citizen has experience working on a farm, many Americans have little to no experience with farms or the agricultural world. This is particularly ironic since agriculture is responsible for one of our main staples as human beings: food. We have an Agricultural college at our school, but people who get educated in agriculture are not looking to become menial farm workers – which are the positions that More’s Utopia emphasizes.

This goes to show that More focuses solely on occupations that provide a measurable usefulness to society, and all of these occupations are not ones that our society emphasizes today. Our collective mindset is to support ourselves, and though many of us might want jobs where we contribute to the community in various ways, I’m going to assume that very few of us want to contribute to the community in something as menial and necessary as carpentry or metalwork.

It makes sense on paper, to emphasize these necessary jobs first, especially under More’s Utopian model. However, it’s very problematic to our current society. The idea of two years work on a farm followed by another “craft” such as wool-work being the extent of my occupation for the rest of my life is devastating to me, just as it is devastating to many other college students. We’re taught to chase success (usually defined by wealth) and to “follow our dreams.” I feel like ambitious people in our society fall into two categories: “lucrative” work or “meaningful” work. This is oversimplified, and probably not true for everyone, but I feel like our individualistic, capitalist society directs us one of these two ways: to make a fortune or to make a difference. And generally, we don’t think of carpentry or linen-making as either meaningful or lucrative. So while, in theory, Utopia has the premise of being the happiest and most peaceful society ever, to many Americans it reads like a living nightmare. I’m not making any declarations on which ideas are right or wrong, but I will assert that with the way I’ve been conditioned by our society, More’s Utopia is not somewhere I’d like to live.

A real, handwritten letter! - The effects of internet withdrawal

Dear Aster,
If you haven't talked to me in a while, its probably because my life got so busy that I had to give myself a self-imposed partial ban from the internet. Horrifying, I know, and also extremely difficult! There's only so much limiting of internet usage possible, especially considering I'm taking an online class. I'm at the very least trying to keep myself off Facebook and from documenting every moment of my life on my personal blog. I think I'm going through withdrawal, and I don't know what that says about my internet habits. Probably bad things.

It's 67 degrees here today in Newark, DE - though I hear it's 75 at home. I feel like you are always one-upping me with glorious weather. I'm going to a concert in 2 weeks (Brand New), and I wish you were coming! I also wish I was going with you to all those music festivals over the summer, but take awesome pictures from me and make tons of friends!

I don't know if I told you, but I ran in an election for the programming board of my school for Vice President of Advertising - surprise, I got it! That probably should have been my first piece of news, huh? Oh well. I am going to be super busy next year, but it will be worth it.

You should really come visit soon - they just built a Chipotle! If not, I guess I'll see you this summer.

Miss you!

Love,
Karen Dieso

God & Politics in the 17th Century

Reading the selection of political readings this week in our study of historical context, I was interested - but not surprised - to see the importance and prominence of Christianity in the political discourse at the time. This is in sharp contrast the political language we’re used to in modern America, where religious ideas are tread pretty lightly when discussing our political system (for the most part, with the exception of a few religious radicals). These reports and opinions were written well before the idea of a separation of Church and state really cemented itself anywhere in the world, and it is interesting to see how visibly religion mingled with the ideologies of political leaders and commentators.

In the report on Charles I trial and execution, Charles I makes a great effort to paint the picture of the sinners (his opponents, the people who are putting him on trial) versus the good and faithful Christian leader. In a speech he gives directly before his beheading, Charles I says, “…what sin you bring upon your heads, and the judgments of God upon this land, think well upon it; I say think well upon it before you go further, from one sin to a greater.” Understandably, Charles I was probably in a panic at this point, scrounging to say anything that might make his executioners hesitate. However, I think it’s really interesting that he explicitly threatens them with retribution from God himself if they go through with the execution. This goes hand-in-hand with the notion of the time that God gave kings the divine right of ruling. Charles I is using that idea to plead his case, but the rebels that are overthrowing him are unaffected by it. I think this probably indicates something of the progressing political ideas of the time, that the divine right of kings might have been falling to the wayside in lieu of a justified overthrow. Despite Charles I’s guilt-tripping of his people, they still cry “Justice, justice, justice!” when he is killed.

Political thinkers of the time are definitely still focusing on religion, though – just not necessarily in the way that the British monarchy might want them to. While some men still twisted religion to the benefit of the nobility (see: Robert Filmer), writers like Milton and Gerard Winstanley use religion to challenge and question the practices of the monarchy and nobility. John Milton asserts that “all men naturally were born free, being the image and resemblance of God Himself.” He uses this idea to protest a tyrant imposing himself upon a people, since all people have liberty. Milton believes that the people should be able to judge a leader and have the ability to “choose him or reject him, retain him or depose him.”

Winstanley uses religious principles to protest the ownership of land. According to Winstanley, the nobility are withholding “the freedom of the earth” from the poor. He states that “True religion undefiled is this, to make restitution of the earth, which hath been taken and held from the common people by the power of conquests formerly, and so set the oppressed free.” Winstanley uses religious ideas to make a case for making land available for public use, against the main interests of the nobility.

More Close Reading! - Capitalization in Donne's "The Flea"

When I read that this week would give me an opportunity to ruminate on any of the readings in the past five weeks, I found myself relieved. In the past two weeks with the close reading assignments, I’ve really gotten a clearer understanding of the texts we’ve been studying. I found the differences between the Norton and the manuscript versions really interesting and eye-opening. The manuscript versions of some of the poems can definitely be read completely differently than the Norton Anthology’s versions, due to spelling and capitalization alone. When we had to close read and respond in 75 words or less, it was really hard for me to limit myself – I felt like I had so much to comment on! I’ll take this week as an opportunity to ruminate on this and compare the differences between a manuscript version and a Norton anthology version of a poem – specifically, “The Flea” by John Donne.

The Norton Anthology version of “The Flea,” written in a type of English we’re (more) familiar with and using conventional capitalization and grammar rules, comes across as a very tongue-in-cheek, sexual poem. In reading this poem, I found myself the most concerned with the sexual implications of Donne’s use of the flea. In this poem, the flea contains both the blood of the narrator and his lover, mingled, so the narrator pleads with his lover to spare its life. While there are also mentions of sin and marriage (or a thereof), I got the impression that Donne was brushing these ideas off – sin and marriage don’t concern him and his lover.

However, in the manuscript version, selective capitalization has made me second-guess this. Both “Sinne” and “Maydenhead” (or virginity) are capitalized, as well as “Marriage,” “Parents,” and “Sacriledge.” I feel that capitalization usually implies some sort of respect or importance for the word being used, implying that Donne is not as cavalier about these ideas as he implies. Is Donne actually anxious about these ideas and how they fit into his actions with this woman? In the poem, Donne is really anxious that his lover will kill the flea? Donne expresses concern that if she kills the flea, she kills the both of them. Is Donne worried that the ideas of “Sinne” and “Marriage” will catch up with their affair? Will they both eventually have to suffer the consequences?

The word “flea” is also capitalized, though not consistently throughout the poem. In the first stanza, flea is lowercase when Donne says, “And in this flea our two blouds mingled be.” However, in the second stanza, Donne capitalizes “flea” when equating it directly with him and his lover. He states, “The Flea is you and I.” I think that this implies that Donne’s capitalization of words implies importance. When he is referring to the flea as an actual flea, he doesn’t capitalize, yet when he directly equates the flea with him and his lover, a relationship between two human beings, he capitalizes the word.

Cruel Time in Shakespeare's Sonnets

            Going into the reading this week, I was interested in what elements connected each individual sonnet to the overall lyrical sequence, whether through motifs or narrative. Shakespeare’s sonnets read differently from the sonnet sequences we’ve studied previously in that the narrative of the sonnets is much looser and open to interpretation, but the themes and motifs of the sonnets are very central to the sequence. In the sonnets about the beautiful man, the most noticeable motif is time.

Time is not necessarily an original topic of poetry during the period in which Shakespeare was writing. Naturally, most societies in history have had some grasp of time and how it affects us. Shakespeare’s sonnets are interesting, though, because there is a distinctive negative connotation associated with time. Words used to describe time include “devouring” (1063) and “sluttish” or slovenly (p. 1066). These terms not only personify time, but they personify it as sloppy, cruel, and relentless.

When Shakespeare is degrading time, he is usually connecting time with its negative effects on beauty and youth. For example, in Sonnet 60 he states, “Time doth transfix the flourish set on youth / And delves the parallels into beauty’s brow” (p. 1066-7). At first glance, Shakespeare seems disturbingly obsessed with youth and beauty, and one might think that he might be a little superficial. Is he really that terrified of wrinkles? Not quite. I think Shakespeare’s obsession with beauty and youth has less to do with the aesthetics of both ideas and more to do with Shakespeare’s fear of death. As the sonnets progress, they shift more towards the idea that poetry can preserve beauty. Shakespeare’s opinions of time and aging are so inherently negative because, as evidenced in these sonnets, Shakespeare views time as a ticking countdown to make a mark on the world. He is encouraging that man in Sonnet 3 to produce heirs not for the sole purpose of beauty, for the purpose of making your imprint on the world last, ultimately leading back to Shakespeare’s fear of death.

This is supported through the metaphors Shakespeare uses to discuss the motif of time. Shakespeare uses seasonal metaphors to depict the progression of one’s life, beautiful summer being the prime of one’s life and cold, dead winter representing the end or decaying of one’s life. For example, in Sonnet 12 Shakespeare writes that “When lofty trees I see barren of leaves/ Which erst from heat did canopy the herd / And summer’s green all girded up in sheaves / Borne on the bier with white and bristly beard” (p.1062). Shakespeare also compares life to the progression of a day. Also in sonnet 12 he describes “brave day” and “hideous night,” and goes forth to describe the effects of aging such as “sable curls all silvered o’er with white” (p. 1062). Time is also described as possessing a scythe, painting a decidedly negative picture of time by associating it with death. It appears that Shakespeare’s gripes with time are wholly focused on the fact that time eventually brings death.