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.

on the gift

There is something about Li-Young Lee's simple manner of writing in The gift that adds to it's beauty, because I felt Lee was saying how much something so small can transform you and you don't realize it immediately, like his poem itself. In the last stanza the speaker talks about how the gift was just a gift - it had meaning to him as a child only because of the act of receiving and not any personal view he applied to it at the time. Through looking back he realizes in treating his wife how much more it means to him now, and he realizes that the real gift wasn't the iron sliver - but a tenderness his father planted on him through experience. It's a very personal poem and judging from what others have wrote from it it seems everyone can relate to it in some way. It inspired me to read a little on Li-young Lee's family history and I must say it is very interesting. http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Lee.html

Some Thoughts on "Woodwork"

Well, the break is almost over and I hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving.

The poem that I have been dwelling on the most is "Woodwork," and what Daniel said about poetry often beginning in a single moment. I believe that moments are what our memories are built off of as well. The stronger the moment is, the more vivid of a memory it becomes. In "Woodwork" the first part of the poem relates the moment in which the speaker has a kind of revelation of the mortality of his father. The speaker's father takes on ghost-like qualities as he is working with wood. And then when the father passes on, it is the woodwork that retains the essence of the father.

In the second half of the poem, the speaker looks to the tools and the senses of "color, scent, and shade" that have been saved, and uses them to carve and "woodwork" his memory of his father. The last stanza of the poem talks about memory as something we can "groove," "level," and shape.

The mimetic words used in the poem create strong visualiztion and the sounds of wood carving. When I read words like "ripped" I could hear the high whine of a saw blade cutting through a plank of wood, with sawdust flying through the air. And in the second stanza I could hear the "grinding gravel." In that same stanza I also felt like there were some ghostly qualities being forshadowed with the words "a stair's creak," mostly because creaking stairs seem to be a part ghost stories, but that might be me stretching a connection. I think that the use of auditory words is important to the poem, because woodworking includes a lot of auditory sounds, and words that involve the sense perceptions make the poem real as I read it.

Well thats about all I have to say. I like the poem. I actually like studying a poem written by our teacher. It's cool.

Given Something to Keep

I read "The Gift" several (really like ten) times. The more I read it the more it really did open up for me. On the surfaces it is about a boy whose father pulls a splinter from his hand. The boy grows up and does the same for his wife. Really though this poem is so much more complex. I really don't think "The Gift" in the poem is that the father was able to relieve the sons pain by pulling out the splinter. In the second stanza it talks about he fathers hands and how they were measures of tenderness laid against his face. Then it says the flames of discipline he raised above my head. These 4 lines really give a look into their relationship, outside of that one moment. The father was loving and caring with his child but when discipline was needed it was used. I would consider my father to be the exact same way. We are the best of friends but he keeps me in line. I think the gift that was given to the son was the gift of love. Through example the father was able to teach his son how to real love and care for someone. The son then reciprocated that love back to the father in a very innocent way by kissing his father. When he grows up he expresses that love to his wife in a more complex way. Taking care of her.

Building A Bridge To Do

I have been really interested in learning about poetry. I have always loved poetry, although I have not always understood it. When I read poetry I feel the need to be emotionally involved and attached.  I struggled a little with these last poems interpreting their meaning. It was hard to become emotionally involved when I am not exactly sure what I am reading. I did love in the poem "The Bridge" the lines that say "To throw himself into threat roiling water and test the reality of his arms and lungs" I really loved these lines. They are filled with such emotion. The instinct to help others who are in need. 

It kind of goes in the opposite direction of Waiting for Godot. Something had to be done in "The Bridge" and it was accomplished unlike in the play where the two main characters stood around waiting for life to come. I wonder if Vladimir or his pal would have forgotten the reality of their arms and lungs and gone after to face the threat of the roiling waters. It makes me sad to think they probably would have done nothing. I am thankful this character in "The Bridge" forgot about himself and completely focused on helping others. 

"The Gift," "The Bridge," and "Woodwork"

Happy Thanksgiving everyone. The tooth pull and subsequent recovery knocked me out a bit more than I had anticipated, but I'm emerging from the warm cocoon of blankets and medication just in time to wish I was allowed to chew. Think of me when you are chewing turkey.

Jillian started us off pretty well with her interpretation of "The Bridge." One reason I chose this poem is because of the way it resonates with the other things we have been reading this semester. In one sense, this poem is about the experience of Arthur Peavahouse, but in another sense, it is about why we tell stories, and how we try to find truth in our own experiences even when we have to tell "the lie that stands for truth." First, you need to look up any words or references you don't know. If you don't know what "fulsome" means, or what "crappies" or "sloughs" or "roiling" denote, you might have some trouble. Once you have all of the words comfortably in hand, here are a few things we might talk about: What are the two words alluded to in the second line? Why does Jones wait until the end of the poem to let us know that there was a child that could not be saved? What clues does Jones give us throughout the poem that this story may not actually be "real"? What parts of the story seem to be based on real experience? And, perhaps even more significantly, how does real and imaginary experience blend together to stand for something meaningful? What is working metaphorocally in the poem? How do the line breaks work? How does sound contribute to the poem's meaning? Are there any symbols? Any of this is fair game for discussion. The poem takes some work, but it's quite a rewarding one, I think.

Poetry often begins in a single moment, or even a single image. I happen to know that in "Woodwork," the moment from which the poem emerged is described in the fourth stanza; it was a moment where the poet was working in the woodshed with his father. The sawdust covered them, turning them white, and as the poet saw his father turn ghostly, he glimpsed his father's mortality. My interpretation of Part I of the poem is that even after the speaker's father is gone, traces of him linger in ghost-like ways. You can decide for yourself why this might be, or what this means, but pay attention to the way the poet uses sound in the poem in ways that could be considered mimetic or even onomatopoeiac. here are some other things to think about: How does the second part of the poem differ from the first? Why are the two parts numbered? How does woodworking turn into a metaphor in the second park? Can any comparisons be made with "The Bridge" in terms of the way we shape experience in order to make it bearable, in order to live with it? (Okay, that was really awkward for me, so just talk about whatever you want!)

"The Gift" is, at least in part, about the way experience joins the past and present, how we pass on what we learn and who we are. It is also about the complexity of relationships. What do we learn about this father-son relationship from reading the poem, and how does the experience with the father inform the later experience with his wife? Is the splinter a symbol? What is going on with the "christening" in the last stanza? What does the title mean to you? What is "the gift" in the poem? During the procedure, the speaker's father tells him a story to distract him from the knife and the the pain. Is this important in the poem? Li writes in what could be called a deceptively simple style. The words are not difficult to understand, but htere are multiple layers of meaning, and the poem really begins to open up when read carefully and in light of all we have been learning about poetry.

Well, that is more than enough to think about. Have a happy Thanksgiving!

Going out on a limb with "The Bridge"

I am kind of nervous to voice my thoughts on this poem because I think I may be radically off base. Not with my opinion of it which is, that it is a melancholy story that tells so much but leaves you feeling lonely. At the same time it reminded a little of The Things They Carried in that it had little contradictions throughout the whole thing. It starts with "These fulsome nouns, these abbreviations of air/Are not real, but two of them may fit a small man" then later "the false name of a real man" and finally "Many times I have thought everything I have said/ Or thought was a lie, moving some blame or credit". It is this last line that makes me think that this may be the speakers story if it is true at all. It was the speaker who was jumped into the water to save four people but only ended up saving three. Perhaps he gives themself an alias, attributes the story to someone else behind because the truth is too much. This is speculation of course but that is the impression that I got.

The Things We Carry

I can't help but agree with Elizabeth, that we might be taking our grade into our own hands by blogging with no prompt. =) It's also dangerous to theorize about an author's intent when that author is your own teacher, but I also live on the edge and welcome the 'constructive danger.'

I am incredibly moved by the emotion these poems evoke in me. I am fortunate enough to have my father still with me, but the intent and purpose of the poem is not lost on me. "The Gift" and "Woodwork" both present a very particular theme: that experiences and especially memories are often translated via our senses. It never ceases to amaze me, the extent of experiences that we, as humans, are emotionally able to contain and in turn process through our senses: the smell of grandmother's linen closet, a favorite uncle's boisterous laugh, the pinch of an annoying brother. These sensory experiences translate into memories and often imprint themselves in our souls more deeply than we may ever imagine. These become the experiences that we carry with us and which hold us more firmly than any other.

In "The Gift" the speaker mentions that he doesn't remember the story his father told him during his ordeal, but he "hear(s) his voice still, a well of dark water, a prayer." Li-Young Lee must understand the relation between our experiences and our senses even more deeply than I am able to explain. The speaker goes on to mention that a viewer might have witnessed that seen and thought that a man was "planting something in a boy's palm." Isn't that exactly what was happening? Perhaps not a seed, but something was being planted, those "measures of tenderness" and the "flames of discipline" were forever planted in the speakers memory.

I was more deeply impressed by "Woodwork" with the choice of vocabulary; those low, harsh verbs. The sheer masculinity that is conveyed through the text makes the absence of that source of strength, the father, more keenly felt than that of "The Gift." The loss seems somehow more acute because of the power that is behind every vowel and consonant: "grinding gravel," "lock click," "spun smooth." The father is a very powerful presence in this poem and the loss of that presence becomes tangible and adds a fragile quality to the poems conclusion. I can't help but wonder what occurrences make the "grains of memory" smooth; what helps the past become flush?"