This program has shown to be an incredible outlet for these men to have a temporary escape from their unfortunate circumstances. As we've learned through the film, the men's involvement in these plays serves as not only a distraction from their own lives, but also as a tool in self-discovery, personal growth and deeper healing. I definitely think that The Tempest was a good choice due to it's theme of redemption and forgiveness. Hearing the inmates explain how the story and characters helped them better understand and deal with their lives led me to consider what other plays I thought might show to benefit their personal journeys. I am especially interested in considering works that are not by Shakespeare, and therefore read and interpreted on a more direct manner. I am not very well versed in plays and literature of that genre, so I wanted to pose this question to the class.
What other plays do you think would be appropriate for these men to study and perform? Do you think that eliminating the Shakespearean writing style would change the overall experience for the men? I'm intrigued to hear if anyone thinks the Shakespearean writing style plays a significant role in the men's experience, and if so, could the same benefits be received if they used a work written in common English style?
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Does It Matter That It Was Shakespeare's The Tempest?
I cannot begin to explain how thoroughly I enjoyed the film, Shakespeare Behind Bars. The amount of topics that I could ruminate about are unparalleled to any of the weeks’ readings this semester. In trying to stay within the realm of discussing literature as a focal point, I ask you to consider this: Does it matter that they’re studying Shakespeare? And, if so, how or why does his work, The Tempest, play such a crucial in the reception and reaction by the inmates?
I began asking myself if these men would be able to achieve the same purpose, and levels of self discovery, had they been using any other plays by any other authors. Was it Shakespeare that was guiding their breakthroughs? Was it the specific plot line of The Tempest that held such a deep connection for these men? It’s hard to say that Shakespeare's words united these men in the healing they were seeking.
Perhaps it’s the escape from reality becoming enthralled in a role provides. Instead of focusing on getting through one day, just to repeat the same motions again the next, these men are able to occupy their thoughts with the lives of the characters they emulate. I realize all of the men express how their participation in the play causes them to relate with, and reflect on, experiences from their own life; however, I believe that this deep self-reflection is the inevitable result of their condition as prisoners. This is not to say that certain themes and motifs present in The Tempest do not trigger specific emotions in these damned men. I just think it wise to put into perspective the mental and emotion state irregardless of delving into the words and stories Shakespeare provides.
I should disclaimer the fact that I have not read The Tempest, and therefore cannot wholly dismiss the possibility that this particular play has a profound connection and unique impact on these men. My suggestion is that it may not be Shakespeare’s words, or The Tempest’s characters and plot lines, that are serving these men in such an incredible and profound way. I believe that it is the opportunity to escape their lives. To, if even for a brief moment, believe that they are actually the characters they are portraying, and to, if only momentarily, feel the thoughts they are reciting as if they were constructed by their own words.
One of the men had said that to be redeemed is the single greatest thing in the world. To be redeemed for what he’d done is all he’s wanted during his time in prison. Playing the roles of any character serves as a chance to feel redemption. When they take on the role of the characters, they are no longer themselves, and therefore they are no longer the individuals that have actions for which they long to be redeemed from.
I also think that being left alone with your thoughts in such a mentally and emotionally battering situation can cause an individual to think of themselves, their experiences, and their lives in a sort of heightened ego-centric way. Their days are mostly spent thinking about who they are, what they believe, what they feel, how they got there, how they’ve grown, etc. This constant focus on critical self-analysis, and understanding themselves compared to the world, could reasonably affect their interpretation, reaction and utilization of studying a play and it’s characters. From this notion, it should be no great surprise that each of the men found a way to relate to The Tempest. I do not think it should be automatically accepted and assumed that the significance of the men’s experience was majorly due to the content or context of Shakespeare’s The Tempest.
I began asking myself if these men would be able to achieve the same purpose, and levels of self discovery, had they been using any other plays by any other authors. Was it Shakespeare that was guiding their breakthroughs? Was it the specific plot line of The Tempest that held such a deep connection for these men? It’s hard to say that Shakespeare's words united these men in the healing they were seeking.
Perhaps it’s the escape from reality becoming enthralled in a role provides. Instead of focusing on getting through one day, just to repeat the same motions again the next, these men are able to occupy their thoughts with the lives of the characters they emulate. I realize all of the men express how their participation in the play causes them to relate with, and reflect on, experiences from their own life; however, I believe that this deep self-reflection is the inevitable result of their condition as prisoners. This is not to say that certain themes and motifs present in The Tempest do not trigger specific emotions in these damned men. I just think it wise to put into perspective the mental and emotion state irregardless of delving into the words and stories Shakespeare provides.
I should disclaimer the fact that I have not read The Tempest, and therefore cannot wholly dismiss the possibility that this particular play has a profound connection and unique impact on these men. My suggestion is that it may not be Shakespeare’s words, or The Tempest’s characters and plot lines, that are serving these men in such an incredible and profound way. I believe that it is the opportunity to escape their lives. To, if even for a brief moment, believe that they are actually the characters they are portraying, and to, if only momentarily, feel the thoughts they are reciting as if they were constructed by their own words.
One of the men had said that to be redeemed is the single greatest thing in the world. To be redeemed for what he’d done is all he’s wanted during his time in prison. Playing the roles of any character serves as a chance to feel redemption. When they take on the role of the characters, they are no longer themselves, and therefore they are no longer the individuals that have actions for which they long to be redeemed from.
I also think that being left alone with your thoughts in such a mentally and emotionally battering situation can cause an individual to think of themselves, their experiences, and their lives in a sort of heightened ego-centric way. Their days are mostly spent thinking about who they are, what they believe, what they feel, how they got there, how they’ve grown, etc. This constant focus on critical self-analysis, and understanding themselves compared to the world, could reasonably affect their interpretation, reaction and utilization of studying a play and it’s characters. From this notion, it should be no great surprise that each of the men found a way to relate to The Tempest. I do not think it should be automatically accepted and assumed that the significance of the men’s experience was majorly due to the content or context of Shakespeare’s The Tempest.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Wild Card: Thinking Beyond The Office.. Considering TV Shows That May Provide Equal, or Stronger Connections.
As I began browsing through the various ruminations and wild cards posted by the class this week, I noticed there's a strong prevalence of connections, and references, to the TV show, The Office. I believe many in the class, including myself until now, internalized Professor Calhoun's mention of using The Office as a point of reference while reading, as him suggesting that the show could be closely paralleled to Jonson's Voldone. This is not to demean, discredit, or deny the connections or similarities explained by those who wrote on this topic; however after reading the rumination by Daniel Kolitz entitled, "Volpone, and the Modern Sensibility,"I realized that there are other TV shows that, in my opinion, could be much more closely related to this play.
After coming to this realization, I went back to Calhoun’s prologue and saw that he only mentioned The Office in terms of the show’s use of dry humor- specifically, how that might be interpreted if read as a script-as a reference to better read, and understand, the play’s use of irony and sarcasm. I am sharing this revelation I had because it drastically altered the types of connections I had been making between the play, and it’s characters, and relevant examples I saw in our modern world.
Those of you who may have ruminated about connections to The Office in any way: I am BY NO MEANS looking to correct you, or make you second-guess the points you’ve made- quite the opposite actually. I just thought that if any of you had used The Office as a primary reference while reading- because, like me, that’s what you thought the prologue meant- then you may also find it valuable/insightful to reevaluate the play, and it’s characters, with this new perspective of the possibility of there being a multitude of TV shows, and movies, that may more appropriately parallel your interpretation.
I know that as I read the play, and brainstormed different ideas for my rumination, I kept trying to decide who each of the characters would be in The Office; or what schemes, or interactions, were reflective of something I could expect from an episode. As you can tell with my resulting rumination, I didn’t end up using any of the connections I found with The Office because I kept coming to the conclusion that I didn’t view any of the show’s characters as morally flawed as those from the play.
Yes, Dwight is peculiar, calculated, power hungry, sneaky- but immoral? Willing to con others for monetary gain, or personal amusement?
Yes, Jim is often manipulative over Michael Scott, and cunning in his practical jokes toward Dwight- but villainous? Willing to allow his gulling of a person to result in their grief, or demise, for his personal gain?
Yes, Angela is unpleasant, judgmental, insensitive, unfaithful- but void of all empathy? Willing to exploit the weakness in others to the extent of suggesting, or allowing, those they’re exploiting to compromise their relationships with their loved ones?
The unifying answer I found for all of those questions was: No. I saw certain similarities, but not enough that I felt confident in defending. I didn’t feel completely confident in the connections I was making, however I continued to think using The Office was an ideal way of understanding the story. If you shared in a similar experience, than I think you would greatly benefit from considering the play on it’s own right now, and opening your mind to other TV shows that better-suit how you understood the characters and story.
After reading the rumination I mentioned above, I realized that shows like Seinfeld and It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, serve as much closer comparisons for me. Both of these shows have countless examples of thoroughly flawed individuals acting on, and participating in, immoral behaviors at the certain expense of others, for the simple benefit of themselves. I can think of a multitude of different scenarios in which the characters of both of these shows would display the character traits, and personal motives, reflective of those written by Jonson. The stark difference I find in comparing the play to either of these shows as opposed to The Office, is the fact that in the latter show all of the characters are shown to reveal an inner-goodness that underlies all of their seemingly negative qualities; while in the former shows all of the characters are meant to be perceived and received as the morally-flawed individuals their actions reflect. On this basis, I agree with Daniel’s suggestion: that Seinfeld, and Always Sunny, are supreme modern-day references to Jonson’s Volpone.
Do you agree with this connection between the play and these two TV shows? What TV shows, or movies, do you find as a solid point of reference when reading Volpone?
After coming to this realization, I went back to Calhoun’s prologue and saw that he only mentioned The Office in terms of the show’s use of dry humor- specifically, how that might be interpreted if read as a script-as a reference to better read, and understand, the play’s use of irony and sarcasm. I am sharing this revelation I had because it drastically altered the types of connections I had been making between the play, and it’s characters, and relevant examples I saw in our modern world.
Those of you who may have ruminated about connections to The Office in any way: I am BY NO MEANS looking to correct you, or make you second-guess the points you’ve made- quite the opposite actually. I just thought that if any of you had used The Office as a primary reference while reading- because, like me, that’s what you thought the prologue meant- then you may also find it valuable/insightful to reevaluate the play, and it’s characters, with this new perspective of the possibility of there being a multitude of TV shows, and movies, that may more appropriately parallel your interpretation.
I know that as I read the play, and brainstormed different ideas for my rumination, I kept trying to decide who each of the characters would be in The Office; or what schemes, or interactions, were reflective of something I could expect from an episode. As you can tell with my resulting rumination, I didn’t end up using any of the connections I found with The Office because I kept coming to the conclusion that I didn’t view any of the show’s characters as morally flawed as those from the play.
Yes, Dwight is peculiar, calculated, power hungry, sneaky- but immoral? Willing to con others for monetary gain, or personal amusement?
Yes, Jim is often manipulative over Michael Scott, and cunning in his practical jokes toward Dwight- but villainous? Willing to allow his gulling of a person to result in their grief, or demise, for his personal gain?
Yes, Angela is unpleasant, judgmental, insensitive, unfaithful- but void of all empathy? Willing to exploit the weakness in others to the extent of suggesting, or allowing, those they’re exploiting to compromise their relationships with their loved ones?
The unifying answer I found for all of those questions was: No. I saw certain similarities, but not enough that I felt confident in defending. I didn’t feel completely confident in the connections I was making, however I continued to think using The Office was an ideal way of understanding the story. If you shared in a similar experience, than I think you would greatly benefit from considering the play on it’s own right now, and opening your mind to other TV shows that better-suit how you understood the characters and story.
After reading the rumination I mentioned above, I realized that shows like Seinfeld and It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, serve as much closer comparisons for me. Both of these shows have countless examples of thoroughly flawed individuals acting on, and participating in, immoral behaviors at the certain expense of others, for the simple benefit of themselves. I can think of a multitude of different scenarios in which the characters of both of these shows would display the character traits, and personal motives, reflective of those written by Jonson. The stark difference I find in comparing the play to either of these shows as opposed to The Office, is the fact that in the latter show all of the characters are shown to reveal an inner-goodness that underlies all of their seemingly negative qualities; while in the former shows all of the characters are meant to be perceived and received as the morally-flawed individuals their actions reflect. On this basis, I agree with Daniel’s suggestion: that Seinfeld, and Always Sunny, are supreme modern-day references to Jonson’s Volpone.
Do you agree with this connection between the play and these two TV shows? What TV shows, or movies, do you find as a solid point of reference when reading Volpone?
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
How Would the Ocean's Eleven Films Be Received During Jonson's Time?
What this play provides is avarice at it’s purest form. Each of the characters are flawed by not just their desire to acquire greater wealth, but by the lengths they will go to, and actions they are willing to take, in order to gain their financial desires. It is not that the reflection of greed in men is so startling- it’s the implications these actions have on the characters in the end. Jonson wrote this play with the intention of reflecting these characters greed as something to be looked down upon.
My question rests in whether or not these actions themselves are so vile, or if the way they are delivered in this play’s context are? Take the Ocean’s Eleven films. When we watch greed, corruption, stealing, lying, disguising oneself so to gain monetary surplus, we generally celebrated the men who did this. Due to the intricacy of the plan we watch unravel, we find excitement in theft. But when we watch Volpone and Mosca plan and execute ways of tricking people so to gain money, we find it appalling.
Does anyone truly believe that ANY of the characters involved in the Ocean’ Eleven heist were in dire need of money? Quite the opposite in the case of Danny Ocean who, portrayed as a man who has pulled off enough heists in his past, undoubtably has a comfortable amount in the bank.
What I’m saying is that the audience’s interpretation of who should be vilified is the direct result of Jonson’s personal thoughts of “greed.” He wants everyone to look immoral, so he makes them seem evil, sneaky, unlikeable, etc.; and if we didn’t get his message by the characters’ interactions, he made sure to have them all be punished in some way at the end. What we see in the Ocean’s films are characters’ being portrayed as cool, suave, charismatic, sexy, funny, likable, clever, intelligent, etc.; and if we didn’t get the message by the characters’ interactions, the movie ends with everyone of them getting away with the heist and making an exorbitant amount of money.
Perhaps we view these acts of avarice different in the Ocean’s films because it is a group of people conning and stealing from a large institution (Casino.) Maybe it’s because it appears that no one is directly being hurt or victimized by the groups’ actions. Essentially I just see a stark difference in how an audience is meant to perceive the immorality and con-artists, and that is the direct result of the playwright, or screenplay writer’s, intention.
A final thought I have on this topic... do you think the celebration of con-artists seen in the Ocean’s films would have been well-received during Jonson’s time? Is this type of screenplay the reflection of a more socially accepted and more deeply rooted prevalence of avarice in modern society?
My question rests in whether or not these actions themselves are so vile, or if the way they are delivered in this play’s context are? Take the Ocean’s Eleven films. When we watch greed, corruption, stealing, lying, disguising oneself so to gain monetary surplus, we generally celebrated the men who did this. Due to the intricacy of the plan we watch unravel, we find excitement in theft. But when we watch Volpone and Mosca plan and execute ways of tricking people so to gain money, we find it appalling.
Does anyone truly believe that ANY of the characters involved in the Ocean’ Eleven heist were in dire need of money? Quite the opposite in the case of Danny Ocean who, portrayed as a man who has pulled off enough heists in his past, undoubtably has a comfortable amount in the bank.
What I’m saying is that the audience’s interpretation of who should be vilified is the direct result of Jonson’s personal thoughts of “greed.” He wants everyone to look immoral, so he makes them seem evil, sneaky, unlikeable, etc.; and if we didn’t get his message by the characters’ interactions, he made sure to have them all be punished in some way at the end. What we see in the Ocean’s films are characters’ being portrayed as cool, suave, charismatic, sexy, funny, likable, clever, intelligent, etc.; and if we didn’t get the message by the characters’ interactions, the movie ends with everyone of them getting away with the heist and making an exorbitant amount of money.
Perhaps we view these acts of avarice different in the Ocean’s films because it is a group of people conning and stealing from a large institution (Casino.) Maybe it’s because it appears that no one is directly being hurt or victimized by the groups’ actions. Essentially I just see a stark difference in how an audience is meant to perceive the immorality and con-artists, and that is the direct result of the playwright, or screenplay writer’s, intention.
A final thought I have on this topic... do you think the celebration of con-artists seen in the Ocean’s films would have been well-received during Jonson’s time? Is this type of screenplay the reflection of a more socially accepted and more deeply rooted prevalence of avarice in modern society?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)