For the Love of Benedick

I had the opportunity to see Much Ado About Nothing on Friday and was very impressed by the quality of the acting. It was my first experience of a production by UVU and I really enjoyed the twist of the director in setting the story in Mexico. I think that it allowed for a more humorous setting because the scenes were open for interpretation.

This may seem strange but my favorite character from the written version of the play is not the same as my favorite character from the actual play. I love the written character of Beatrice. She is very strong, well spoken and quick witted. However, Benedick really stole the show with his character. I love how he involved the audience and pushed his character to the absolute limit. It seems that Benedick really understood his character and understood the freedom that comes from interpreting Shakespeare.

I am a little conflicted in my feeling about Dogberry. I don't know if I was impressed by the actual performance or if the German accent wooed me with how it presented such a conflicting character display. I don't want to go on a tirade about Hero and Claudio so I'll leave them out of this post. =) Overall, I was very impressed by the talent of the actors and by their interpretation of their characters.

Reviews on Much Ado and Touchstones Poetry

I have not been to a play in about a year. Going to "Much Ado About Nothing" refreshed my thoughts that the theater is an awesome place to spend an evening. I love the high energy that abounds, not only in the actors, but through the audience as well. There isn't a way, at least for me, not to be affected by the in you face talent. I thoroughly enjoyed going to a play and I have promised myself to go to more plays,concerts, etc.

Even though I enjoyed the night of theater, I had mixed emotions about their version of the play. This particular play has been one of my all time favorites of Shakespeare, so I feel a little protective. I have to keep reminding myself that Shakespeare didn't write it just for me,but for everyone, so I should expect it to be able to shift and absorb other people and their ideas. I did think that having Leonata as Hero's' mother worked well, because I think a motherly protection and a Fatherly protection can run on an equal length. I also thought it was interesting that Don Johns character was changed to a women, it gave it a more triangle approach to the play, even though I still like the idea of a bastard brother rather than a bitchy sister. I also had blah feelings about the Dogberry character being played by a women, for some reason I think it comes off as more real when a man plays an "ass" than when a women plays a "burrow". The character I had the most problems with, was whoever was playing Hero. In the wedding scene when Claudio is creating shock and dismay for everyone else on the set Hero is staring at him like he is a salesman lecturing her at a insurance seminar. I don't mean to be critical...never mind, I think my whole review is critical. I think I'm just grouchy because my brain hurts from all my finals. Truth be told, I think overall the play was well done. Benedick didn't miss a beat, even when some kid fell off her chair onto the set. I also liked the few minutes of talk back, especially when someone mentioned about how the Spanish words set off the metric balance of the play. My question is can a Shakespeare play smell as sweet when his words are changed? For me there might be some perfume to it, it just won't smell as unique.

It is too bad for the people who didn't come to the Touchstones poetry reading. For one thing there was food served! For another there was poetry read! Maybe it's my mood today, but I had mixed feeling about the poetry reading as well. Some read a little fast for my taste, as if they were shy about their creations. In my opinion poetry should be read like it's written. If a poem is soft and calming it should be read that way; if it is strong and shocking then they should read it to us with strength and passion. I had to read most of the poems they read over again to even get a glimpse of what they were trying to get across with their poems. My favorite poet was the one who memorised his poem, it was also my favorite poem of the group I don't have the book with me, but I think it was called "Splinters of the Jawbones Daughter" I felt it was one of those poems we discussed in class that had multi -levels of meaning. The short stories were read a little better than the poems were. I must admit there is lot of talented people here at UVU and I'm actually really proud that we have the Touchstone program, I think it is great, because it searches out for those who have something to say.

Much Ado About 'The Performance'

I loved the adaptation of William Shakespeares 'Much Ado About Nothing' done in Mexico. The actors were funny and did the characters justice. Two things in particular that I disliked and likes. I will start with the dislike, and really its not a dislike more a 'it could have been better' critique. Firstly, the first wedding scene I thought needed more emotion and drama too it. Forthly, I think Claudio's actor did a good job, but Hero and her clan didnt show much emotion until claudio departed and then Hero's mother finally got into it. Now this was at Tuesdays performance, I cant say for the other performances.

Now for the likes. Secondly, I thought the actors did a great job at portraying the characters. Fifthly, Dogberry was great. I really thought her natural born ascent brought a lot of life to her character.Lastly, I loved the character Benedick and the actor. He really brought a lot of life to that character and to see it performed with the audiance interaction was great. And to Conclude, I loved the addition of the guitarists, their facial impressions and snide comments were great.

Over all I loved this rendition of the play. The actors brought life and individuality to the charatcters, and producer's view were carried out very well.

For the love of Benedict!

I took my two little brothers to the play Thursday night. Overall I really enjoyed it. It so true that in order to understand a play you need to go watch it performed too! I watched the movie a week or so ago and understood it better. Nothing compared to watching it live though. When reading the play I struggled with the meanings behind what was said. The play really helped me to understand what was going on. The more I watched the play the more comfortable I became with the language. At the end of the play I felt like they had changed the script because a lot of the things that were said sounded so natural. For the most part I liked the cast. I got a little bugged at Claudio. Most of the time his acting didn't seem natural to me. I thought he was better at being sad than at being happy and excited. Don John (I think it was Juanita) was not my favorite. Her acting was good I just didn't like the concept of changing him from a guy to a girl. It was a little weird to have that sexual tension with Claudio. Benedict and Beatrice were awesome! I thought they were a good balance for each other in their acting. They were both very strong and natural in their acting. I loved the scenes where they overhear that they like each other. They did a really good job. I liked that Benedict interacted with the audience. He came and sat down next to my brother. My brother was pretty embarrassed.

Claudio

I went and saw the play on Friday and after seeing I couldn't help but feel sorry for Claudio. In class we pretty much down talked him but now I really don't really see him as a idiot just a victim. Sure he accused Hero of being unfaithful in public, but take inconsideration of the situation. He was tricked rather convincingly and think about it, it you saw your fiancee with another man you would be ticked and more likely to act irrationally than rationally. Also in that day and age I get the feeling that if you where accused of a crime you where guilty until proven innocent.

Also some of you got after Claudio for accepting to marry Leonato's niece, but after reading and see the play if makes more sense as to why he did that. Since Claudio had falsely accused Hero he had a duty to put right the wrong that he had done, also because of this false accusation he had not only tarnished Leonato's name but also his. To remedy these problems a wedding would be most acceptable, also doing this would silence the towns people and their talk and put the families back in good views with the people. Now after really understanding the situation I don't really see what the problem is.

Much Ado...Well what I saw of it.

Because newborn babies tend to mean little sleep for their parents I only saw half the play owing to the need to watch my new nephew while my sister slept. However, what I did see of the play left an impression. Overall I feel positive about it and if I had seen the rest of it I am sure I would have enjoyed it. The sets were beautiful, I enjoyed the music, and setting it in Spain was an interesting idea. As far as acting goes I had a few scruples because I am not a fan of overacting or of slapstick comedy and I felt this play had both. Granted you have to make your actions and facials big when on stage but I felt it was overdone in places particularly the scene where Claudio, Don Pedro, and Leonata are staging a conversation for Benedick to overhear. While I thought Benedick's reactions perfect and hilarious, I felt the other three were overdone. I though portraying Don John as a woman was an interesting take on it and it a lot of senses it worked very well. However, I felt the actress sometimes over did it a bit and I disliked that. I loved the Watch they were hilarious, though I sometimes missed their lines because they rushed. On the whole however I enjoyed my limited viewing of Much Ado About Nothing.

Finals Lunch on Thursday

Hi friends! Elizabeth and I wanted to have a little celebration on Thursday in honor of everyone surviving finals in one piece and with most of our sanity intact. We are bringing lunch, drinks and dessert on Thursday to enjoy during our final in the computer lab. Please bring your appetite and your mad final-taking skills.

Thanks, Jaree and Elizabeth

The play experience

I really enjoyed the play, Much Ado About Nothing. My favorite parts would have to be Act 2 scene 3 where Benedick is being tricked about Beatrice's love for him and the part where Claudio is at Hero's grave. These parts didn't stick out, to me, in the reading as much as they did in the play. The verbal battle between Beatrice and Benedick is what I really loved in the book but seeing the other parts performed brought alot more entertainment. The setting in Mexico was kind of neat with the occasional spanish word in the script. Overall the acting was good, especially in the main characters. I didn't like Don Juana or Conrade's acting; they didn't seem to make the word's real. But I really liked the background music being played by two guitarists. And the fact that the stage was right at our feet. I'm use to seeing a play where everything is set on a stage away from the audience. I'm really glad I went to see this play performed.

Much Ado About Nothing

Overall I thought the play was enjoyable. There were many aspects of the play that they portrayed differently than I had imagined. Obviously the biggest difference was the change of setting to Mexico. I didn't find it distracting but found it rather creative. In the beginning I was aware every time they said spanish words but as the play moved on I didn't even notice it, kind of like subtitles in a foreign film.

Of all the characters, I liked Benedict the most. With a combination of his mannerisms and his plain ability to act, he definately shinned out the most. In my mind, he was the most like I imagined. He definately played the role as the comedian and got me laughing a few times. Benedict's dialogue flow was also very impressive. He seemed to be the most able to keep up with his script.

Like others have said, I also felt Beatrice did very well. For whatever reason, I felt that her and Benedict had great stage chemistry. I almost feel like they mirror eachother, not in their individual characters sense, but also in each person's ability to perform. I think they were both equally yoked in talent. When I read the book, Beatrice was my favorite. The Beatrice in the play, though played well, didn't however reach the expectation that I was expecting. Then again, competing with someone's imagination is difficult so I don't hold it against her.

I wasn't impressed with Claudio's performance. He did alright, but I couldn't help compare my him to Benedict and Beatrice who I thought did well. I thought his tempo, like that of Don John, didn't fit the characters from the play.

I felt quite a contrast in my feelings towards some elements of the play vs. others. Characters for example, Benedict I felt was played extremely well, I felt similar emotion for his character in the live action play as I did when reading the play. Not the same for some of the other characters, some I felt indifferent towards when watching the play (Beatrice), others I disliked (The Friar). I think it really depends on how you felt they should be portrayed when reading it, and how that stacks up to how they are played and whether you can adjust your opinion based on what you observed. For me in the case of the friar, I felt like the actor was reading directly from a script when saying his lines, that and the manner in which he spoke was obnoxious, kind of that cadence so many people take when reading Shakespeare just because it uses that old style language (thou etc).
Tempo was a large part of hit or miss for me. The tempo of the lines read really added to the humor at times, made it too silly at other times and made the play unrealistic and hard to follow some of the time. In this way the play was frustrating for me to watch because it was so enjoyable at some moments and at others the opposite.
The song sung by Claudio was the most interesting part I found. In my copy of the play, a side section talks about how the song sung at the grave is not always credited to Claudio. Meaning it could be his servants or another that actually sings it. For me, this is a huge impact on how you feel about a large part of the plays message by the end. In the live production we saw, Claudio singing at the grave did a lot for gaining sympathy for his character, afterward it becomes more of a happy ending for things to work out for him. That scene was staged quite beautifully, I really enjoyed watching it unfold live. But I wonder how I would have felt had it not been Claudio that sung the ballad. I most likely would have detested Claudio more had it not been he who sung the song.
I did enjoy the alteration of characters to fit a female mold. Don "Juana" was very interesting. I felt she recited her lines little too arrogantly, but I mainly enjoyed it because it highlighted the possibility of how differently characters can be portrayed. I had only read the first two acts before seeing it. I enjoyed and got more out of the parts I hadn't read yet... I felt that says a lot about how a large part of my enjoyment was based off what I expected and not what I was absorbing from the play. Overall pretty good experience, it really makes me want to see more productions to see different renditions.

Much Was Done to Nothing

Utah Valley University’s version of Shakespeare’s Much A Do About Nothing was very interesting. Having the play set in Mexico was a very interesting approach. The guitar players helped set the mood along side the very detailed set. I think that the set was beautiful and I absolutely loved the little fountain I thought that was awesome.

The costumes were distracting. I felt like there was a good concept, but they were just distracting, I thought Don Juanna’s dress was really beautiful. I liked the red and black colors for her, but she didn’t really mesh with all the rest of the characters and I am not sure if that was done on purpose, but I thought it was out of place.

The guitarists were really hilarious. The guy was way funnier than the girl, but they made a good team. I think they were a great touch. The acting was unbalanced there were more girl characters, but the men were much stronger actors than the women. I thought the girls acted really young. At times I felt like I was watching a high school show. There was absolutely no depth to the characters other than Beatrice. The actresses playing Hero, Margaret and Ursula were all dull there was not any character development. I thought that there was not a lot of character development.

Beatrice was pretty funny. I was not sure how I felt about her at the beginning of the play, but when she came out during the scene where Hero and Ursula are discussing Benedicts feels was when I really started to connect to the character. I thought she was really funny from that point on. I loved that she was so comfortable in her own skin and just was not shy. She did a good job.

Benedict was hilarious. I think that there was a lot of character development. He was one of the actors who I think really understood Shakespeare. This knowledge allowed him to really take a new interpretation to the lines. He made the character his own and he wasn’t trying to reinvent. Claudio is the most annoying character to begin with. I thought the actor acted really young. He portrayed the character as a teenage boy, although there were a lot of characters that portrayed their characters very young. Hero was as dull as ever. The character is written without a lot to go off of, but that is why it makes it an acting challenge to make something of a character that hasn’t been given very much. I did not particularly care for Dogberry, only because the actor in the movie version is so amazingly hilarious that I can’t have another actor top his performance. The really tall guy who was a watchman played his character really well. He was in the background a lot and he was not a forgettable character at all. That is a sign of a talented actor, someone who can make an unforgettable character when the character is not a lead.

Overall I thought that the play was entertaining. I am a harsh judge when it comes to acting. I think that actors need to know all the details about their characters and I don’t think that man of these actors did a lot of character development. Chemistry was really strong from Benedict towards Beatrice. I thought it was truly believable. I would not have chosen to set this play in Mexico, but that is what is so great about Shakespeare it is timeless and it is open to interpretation. I do think that there are times where interpretation is taken too far, but in this case I think they executed their interpretation well. 

Thursday Night - Much Ado About Nothing

Hey everyone. Yes, the blog is pink, in honor of romantic comedy, of course.

There is a performance of Much Ado About Nothing next Thursday night, Dec. 10, at 7:30, and there is a "talk-back" session afterwards, so we will be able to ask questions and talk with the director and performers. It should be a lot of fun.

But...I need a head count because it is selling out fast. If there are 10 or more of us, you can all get 2 dollars off the student price, which is regularly 7 bucks. Seeing a play for a fiver is a pretty good deal. I know that Thursday won't work for everyone, but I'm hoping it will work for most of us.

Please comment on this post ASAP and let me know if you are in or out.

Thanks!

The Gift of a Memory

Everything the father did for the boy is evidence of his love for his son. Helping him pull out the splinter, minimizing the pain with a story, and the bestowing the splinter as a gift all manifest the father's affection. It seems as if the father's affection is sealed in time with the gift of the splinter. The boy couldn't remember the 'tale' but he remembered bits and pieces of what happened. For example, he remembered the story the father used to comfort him. I think that the physical gift of the splinter led to him remembering his father's affection during that time. Thus, the gift acts as an important symbol. It acts as a symbol of the father's love for the boy and the device that helps the boy remember his love. The affects of this gift is apparent with the boy as he later helps a girl with a splinter.
I similarly don't remember too many stories from my childhood. However, one common element in all of my fragmented memories are the feelings that I felt. Just as a scar acts as something I can see and touch, physical things helps me remember my experiences from the past. Likewise the boy uses his metal splinter to remember how he felt about his father.