Creative Engagement- My new favorite adaptation

      One of the things I don't like about online classes is how little you get to know about your fellow classmates.  For instance did you know that I was the youngest person ever to climb Mt. Rushmore?  Also I hate how easy it is to lie to everyone.
       I'm a huge video game/comic book nerd, and that something that pretty much everyone (teachers included) knows in my other classes.  So i thought I'd take an opportunity to bring in some of my hobbies with this post about a different type of adaptation.

Rumination-Reaction to Shakespeare Behind Bars

*I was going to do this one on another adaptation, but I decided to save that for my creative engagement.  So if you like comics, keep an eye out for that later this week.*

Okay I’ll admit it; I went into Shakespeare Behind Bars expecting some sort of a feel good documentary about the power of the arts (you know what I mean the kind that seem to do nothing but take away the power of the arts by preaching about it).  So I queued it up on Amazon and started watching.  I was absolutely floored.

Everything was just so dramatic.  I almost felt like I was watching a dramatic film and not a documentary.  The emotions behind each of the actors, these fallen and in some cases disgusting human beings, who somehow you grow to root for.  My first big shock came when Sammie told us what he was locked up for.  The whole time I was expecting a bunch of white-collar crimes, maybe some breaking and entering at most.  Instead we get a tear filled account of a man who felt trapped by the people in his life and who lashed, destroying someone he cared about (no matter how unhealthy the relationship he did care about her).

Then everything else follows.  Child molesting.  Double Homicide.  Cop Killers.  Drug Dealers.  Rapists.  This men have not done wrong, they have done evil.  There is something corrupted, broken inside of them, and they are dying to try and fix it.

And that’s what Shakespeare Behind Bars was all about for me.  It was using the classic plays as a channel through which these men could achieve a deeper understanding of themselves.  Each role went to someone who could relate to the motivations of the character and through attempting to live with the character they begin to learn to live with themselves.

I’ve always been fascinated by villains.  They are almost always the more interesting characters in movies, TV, literature, videogames (see: Iago, The Joker, GlaDos, etc.).  Yet we never root for the villains, not completely.  Yeah we don’t want the Joker to die, because he is the most interesting character in the movie, but we also don’t want him to beat Batman.

In Shakespeare Behind Bars, we are presented with a cast of caged villains.  On the surface, we shouldn’t give a damn about whether they enjoy performing Shakespeare.  They broke the law, they committed heinous acts of violence, they have killed and maimed people.  Yet I still wanted them to win out.  I wanted to see the play go off without a hitch.  I wanted Sammie to be let out.  I wanted Rickie to stay out of trouble and be given the chance to do Shakespeare again.

Shakespeare Behind Bars, both as a program and a documentary, do the Bard proud.  They show the humanity within people, they show us that men can sometimes be more than the sum of their actions.  Most of all Shakespeare and the documentary remind us that these are still men.  Human beings.  Ones who have made horrible mistakes, but they are still human beings.  This touch of the human is something I have always admired in the antagonists of Shakespeare’s plays, and I enjoy them all the more in this documentary.

Creative Engagement- Casting Volpone The Movie

            This one is easy because its something I do on my own on a regular basis.  Eventually when I am reading a book or play, I start to think about who has the acting chops to play the parts.  So with out further ado, I give you my selections for the main roles in Volpone.

Volpone-Alan Cummings

This was probably the hardest one of all.  Johnny Depp is too dark, Hugh Jackman is too likeable, George Clooney is too relaxed.  In the end I choose Alan Cummings because he has the look and the guy can act (when he isn’t being a royal pain about how much he’s getting paid and all that.)

Mosce- Andy Serkis

Although I considered more than one Lord of the Rings Alumni, it had to go to the creepy man behind Gollum.  Just look at those eyes, a fly if I ever saw one

 

Nano- Peter Dinkling

No I didn’t pick him because he’s the only actor that I know who could physically fit the role (there are plenty) but because he is the best one out there.  Go watch “Game of Thrones” you’ll see why.

 Voltore- Ben Kingsly

He might be a little old for the part (depending on the rest of the casting) but Sir Ben Kingsly is one of the best actors out there (both stage and screen) and the man looks like a vulture with out any make up what so ever.  Can you say “win-win”?

 

Castrone- Dwayne Johnson

Because The Rock is great in everything, even if he is a eunuch in this one.

 

Corbaccio- Joaquin Phoenix

He might have more than one screw loose upstairs, but Joaquin a sight to behold when he’s on form.

Bonario- Sam Worthington

His name means ‘good’, meaning we need someone with looks, muscle, and heart.  To me Sam Worthington (who has proved himself to be more than just a pretty face and an action star) is perfect for this role.  Also acceptable would be The Rock

Corvino- Brandon Lee

Because this is all fantasy anyway, I’m going to drag someone back from beyond the grave to play this part.  Brandon Lee died while filming a movie called “The Crow.”  I think the rest is pretty self-explanatory.

Celia- Rachel McAdams

Celia is described as being extremely beautiful so as far as I am concerned the only choice would be Rachel McAdams.  I don’t know if she has the acting chops necessarily, but my God is she beautiful.

I hope this was as entertaining to read as it was to write.  Any suggestions or ideas, let me know in comments.

Staging Volpone

            While reading Ben Jonson’s Voplone, I made a conscious effort to try and imagine a stage setting for the play.  The setting of any modern play is always a challenge due to time and space constraints and often time you have to rely more on imagination than anything else.  I would have two general set lay-outs, one for the houses, and one for the out side areas.  This will allow for easier changes between scenes.  For the houses, Volpone’s house would be the base.  I would have it decked out in extravagant, over the top decoration.  Gold, jewels, fine art, and beautiful furniture would cover the stage.  The second house, Corvino’s, would still be nice, yet it would lack the gaudy nature of Volpone’s.  Achieving this would simply be a matter of removing some of the decorations from Volpone’s house and rearranging the furniture.

One of the biggest challenges for modern theater is with the number of actors they can hire.  As it becomes harder and harder to make a profit on a dramatic play, the number of actors producers are willing to hire dwindles (for this reason that fact that “O, Beautiful” which is currently showing at UD is a pretty big deal as it has a cast of almost 20 people).  In order to deal with this real world concern I would have the same actor play Voltore, Corvino, and Corbaccio.

As far as costume design goes I would have each persons wardrobe represent something about the character.  Volpone, which means fox, should have furs on, along with his gaudy jewelry, some of which should be vulpine in shape.  Mosca, which means fly, should be played by a small, flitting actor with a high voice.  I would put large spectacles on him to magnify his eyes, giving him the impression of being his namesake. Voltore, Corvino, and Corbaccio are all carrion birds (vulture, crow, and raven respectively) and their dress should represent this.  Black garb, decorated with feathers and dark jewelry.

The actors I would cast would have to have physical characteristics like to the animals they are meant to represent.  Volpone should be physically fit and with vulpine features as well as facial hair that would convey a wily nature.  Mosca, as I indicated above, should be small with a high-pitched voice who moves rapidly from place to place on the stage.  Volture should be tall and thin, with a darkly haughty air about him, Corvino should be small and shrill, Corbaccio should be squat and nervous (all of which convey the nature of their namesakes).

I’m having a hard time imagining Peregrine (probably because I keep seeing a Hobbit in my head), but his name meaning traveler would indicate to me that he should have some sort of walking stick with him as a prop at all times.  However, I’m going to leave him and the Would-Be’s to you guys as sort of challenge.  Who would you have play them (description or the name of a real world actor is acceptable) and how would you dress them?

Impossiblity of a Utopia

If one thing struck my while listening to the Prologue and reading Utopia, it was the part dealing with the slaughter of animals.  In Utopia, the citizens are not vegetarians, yet they do not slaughter animals.  This is due to a fear that it would cause those of the society to become less compassionate.  Much like in another Rumination I read, I saw some commonalities with another piece of work.  In my case it came from Ursula K. LeGuin’s, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.”

            “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” is a short story that describes a utopian society, Omelas.  The first few pages are all description, there is no war, there is no religion to divide people, sex is not frowned upon, drug use is allowed but no one ever gets addicted.  Everything is completely, implausibly perfect.  The suddenly the tone shifts dramatically.  We are taken into the basement of a building and shown a child.  This child is forced to live in a closet, fed gruel everyday, made to live in its own feces, and no one is ever allowed to do any kindness to it.  Everyone in the city is forced to go see the boy and they are told that if anyone where to ever be kind to him, their entire civilization would come crashing down.  Some are able to accept this.  Some are able to live on in willful ignorance of what is really going on.  Mean while others are slowly but surely souring to Omelas because of what they have seen.  Eventually all of these pack up their stuff and take the road that leads north out of the city.  They are the ones who walk away from Omelas.

            A very similar scene is playing out in Utopia.  The people, instead of killing the animals themselves, have their slaves do it somewhere away from the town.  By doing so they feel some sort of vindication of the guilt over allowing the animals to be slaughtered.  So long as they don’t have to see it or do it, it might as well not have happened.  This is the same sort of willful ignorance that keeps the wheels of Omelas going, and it is yet another proof that a Utopian world is not possible.  If this is a preferential system, then it must be meant for the whole world.  If the whole world is a Utopia, then where will the slaves go to slaughter to animals?

            This is all not even mentioning the existence of slaves.  How can any civilization claim to be a perfect Utopia when one class of men reigns over another by any reason other than popular consent?  Are the slaves willfully put into their subservient condition in order to fulfill the needs of the greater populous?  If not, then it is no Utopia.  Even with consent, it is hard to view any civilization claiming to be a Utopia as more than a sham.

Letter To Students

Dear Students,
       I witnessed a very disturbing occurrence today as I attempted to cram for a Roman History exam.  Now, having been a student an UD for almost three years, I am quite familiar with the man known as "Kirkbride Jesus."  You know him too, the one who stands on South College near Kirkbride Hall and informs us all that we are on a sex and alcohol fuel slip and slide to hell. (Obviously he has never taken one of Professor Sidebotham's exams, hell isn't a place you go when you die, its available Monday, Wednesday, Friday from 1:25-2:15.)
       However misguided I believe him to be, I respect the man's right to free speech, but what I saw and heard over the last few says, today in particular, shocked me.  I watched as he and his lackeys (for I can think of no other word for someone who so willfully ignorant) planning a coordinated attack (verbal, of course) on students.  This followed by a particularly hate filled diatribe about screamed out at my peers as they rushed to and from class.
      I have to wonder, why?  Why is he so hell, or rather heaven, bent on telling me that everything do and believe is wrong?  Its funny really.  The pathetic ramblings of a man without the common decency to live and let live.  I'd laugh, if I didn't want very much to cry.
      Its horrible to see something meant to be positive twisted in such a way.  Sure there are plenty of amoral people at UD, but the majority of them that I've met, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Atheist alike, are generally good people.  So what does KJ think he is accomplishing?  other than letting us know that Jesus loves him more than us, the answer is nothing.
      I look forward to a day where all can be left to live and let live, but until then, I'll just turn my iPod up louder and move to my own beat.

-Nick Lugo

Has Journalism Really Changed That Much?

            Based on the prologue video I had formed a few expectations about what I was going to be reading.  I expected the origin of journalism, probably spanning from an unrecognizable beginning into something vaguely resembling what we have today.  I expected a focus on personal feelings, rather than any sort of objectivity (objectivity which is arguable at best and entirely absent at worst today).  Instead I found something that bears a striking resemblance to modern journalism.

            Journalism comes down to the practice of spreading the news of events to people who could not be there.  Much like letter writing, it serves the purpose of creating a conversation between two absent parties, the difference being that while letters are meant for two specific people, an article is meant for one person to converse with the masses.  The problem most people have with journalism today is that publications and news channels a like seem to be more concerned with ratings and readership than spreading the truth.  Articles are laced with bias and everything is sensationalized.  Turn on any program, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, they are all equally guilty in this (but some are more equal than others if you catch my drift).

            One would think that going back to the origins of the thing would present us with journalism at its purest form, something untainted by modern problems with journalism.  You can imagine my surprise them when the first piece of early journalism I read was a play by play account of the trial and execution of Charles I.

            Now I’m not saying this shouldn’t have been news, it clearly was.  The death of the monarch, the over throw of the established order, all of this was vital information that might not have reached the masses where it not for these written accounts.  Yet I can’t help but wonder how much modern journalism really has strayed from its origins.  Were the good old days really that good?  Or are O’Reilly and the rest of the gang just keeping with what works?

            Moving on to the portions written by Filmer, Milton, and Winstanley, I cannot help but wonder how wildly these pieces where really read.  They seem to serve as what we might call an Op-Ed piece today, but where they as widely available as the accounts of the monarchs execution?

            So while I came into this weeks reading expecting to see the glory days of journalism, when the writer reported the truth minus any sort of sensationalist garbage.  I got a bit more than I bargained for.  If the origins of journalism lay in the reporting of executions and revolutions, how much fault can we truly find with modern journalists doing the same?  In my opinion the answer is “a whole hell of a lot,” that we should constantly strive to be better than our forbears and not languish in mediocrity and the status quo, but maybe that’s just me.  What do you guys think?