Creative Engagement - Shakespeare Behind Bars

In Shakespeare Behind bars, it was interesting to see how closely the inmates seemed to connect with the play, often reflecting bits of themselves passionately through their characters. During personal interviews, many of these inmates revealed what they had done that landed them in a prison setting and many of them became both emotional and remorseful. For me, their words came off as very truthful and their feelings appeared raw.

However, in many sociology and psychology courses, we learn that recidivism (resorting back to crimes) is incredibly high amongst released inmates. Similarly, many studies show (sadly) that it is unlikely for an inmate to be behaviorally reformed while in prison (though they may undergo serious religious/faith reformations).

Which position do you guys feel holds up more? Did the men in this video appear to be remorseful and reformed? If so, did their participation in the Shakespeare program perhaps aid this? Or do you stand behind the statistics and studies? Let me know what you think!

Rumination: Shakespeare Behind Bars

When reading an original Shakespearean play, it is important (if not entirely necessary) to take into consideration the small writing in the margins. Often, these clarifications tell us how a character spoke their dialogue (was it sarcastic? bitter? whispered? laughed?) They can also give us a feel for the emotion behind the words (if a line is said by a character followed by the stage direction of "storming out the door" we can tell that the dialogue was very emotional and intended to offend or insult). While these stage directions and voice clarifications help enhance a reader's interpretation of the play, physical performances of the plays often stray from these directions, changing their meaning. In "Shakespeare Behind Bars," several slight (and perhaps unintended) changes to the play's portrayal have altered its meaning and tone.

For example, when viewing the performance of the prison inmates during their lines of dialogue, it is hard not to notice the way they intensely elevate the volume of their speech. In many instances, they are almost yelling their lines. Perhaps this is reflective of their own personal experiences within prison: participating in the play may be the only time throughout their incarceration term that they feel that they have a voice. Do they yell their lines because they are caught up in the excitement of finally being heard? 

Typically in performances, actors are encouraged to speak their lines clearly and slowly as to avoid appearing "babbling"to the audience. However, many of the inmates say their lines very quickly, establishing an air of anxiety in their words. This slight change in tempo gives Shakespeare's play a different tone than originally intended for the text  - however this tone change does not harm the play's effect; instead, it offers a different view of a famous text. The anxiety in the speech of the inmates also brings an air of passion into their dialogue. This passion may very well be fueled by their emotional stories about how they became incarcerated. One man, who spoke about having a very tumultuous romantic relationship with an ex-wife appears to allow his feelings of frustration, loss, and guilt into his performance. In this way, perhaps Shakespear behind Bars is more reflective of real life than the original text is.

Rumination: Sarcasm in Volpone

When performed, written text often takes on a different meaning. Subtle literary references to character, sarcasm, and judgmental undertones become exaggerated in theatrical productions as to convey the meaning to the audience. For example, someone who is hinted at in the text as being overly materialistic may appear on stage in ridiculously gaudy attire. Similarly, a character who is hinted as secretly being a homosexual may take on a voice or stance on stage that is stereotypically indicative of being gay. While the text version of these productions are often more difficult to navigate through when looking for these subtle elements, they are rewarding in the sense that these elements are seen in their raw form. A deeper reading of texts such as Jonson's "Volpone" can help its readers to grasp onto some of these elements that can often be overlooked in reading - particularly the element of sarcasm, which is often difficult to convey through text.

When being tried, Celia is quoted as saying that "And heaven never fails the innocent." While perhaps these words were meant to be hopeful, they are loaded with sarcasm and come off as mildly humorous to the reader. They tie into our current day sayings about how the "good guy" always finishes last. Perhaps Jonson, the author, intended to use her words as a commentary on the way that heaven, God, and even our own society and governments DO fail the innocent. This scene however, is not the only place where sarcasm appears throughout the text.

In one scene, when Volpone makes his entrance Voltore cries out that "here's the ravisher, the rider on men's wives, the great impostor, the grand voluptuary!" but later goes on to change his position when he instead suggests that perhaps torturing Volpone would prove his sickness to be valid. When first reading this, I took his words literally and was very confused. However, a further investigation into the text showed that he was sarcastically suggesting the idea of torture - a suggestion that changed the air surrounding the situation and made other characters in the scene uneasy.

Taking into consideration later sarcastic references to wealth and old age, one can view Jonson's work as pretty humorous. To me, his writing is almost that of a comedy when you examine the spitfire dialogue between characters.

Rumination - Self vs. The Collective Whole

While reading "Utopia" by Sir Thomas More, I could not help but feel uneasy about the constant debate over what matters more in life: personal freedom or protection & fairness. It is common to hear the saying "life isn't fair" but if it could be . . . should we strive for it? Are we selfish for craving freedom and individuality when we know full well that we could end a lot of human suffering by giving up this piece of ourselves? How much should we sacrifice? Essentially, is one person more important, less important, as important as the collective whole?

"Utopia" hits on several of these questions. Speaking to More, one of the characters presses that "... as long as you have private property, and as long as money is the measure of all things, it is really not possible for a nation to be governed justly or happily. For justice cannot exist where all the best things in life are held by the worst citizens; nor can anyone be happy where property is limited to a few, since those few are always uneasy and the many are utterly wretched" (Utopia 543). Here he is arguing that anything held private by an individual that is not shared with the community can only harm said community. He attributes the loss of  justice to the idea of private property and seems to suggest that as long as money is used to fuel the economy and settle debts, happiness is unachievable. However, this leads me to wonder: what kind of happiness does he mean? Is he referring to the raw "happiness" that you feel walking barefoot through the woods as you think to yourself how perfect it feels to exist today? Or is he referring to that overwhelming happiness that you feel when you breathe a sigh of relief now that your upcoming exam has been pushed back for a week?

All of this debate brought me to re-read a few sections from George Orwell's 1984, which is famous for it's portrayal of government as being overpowering and restrictive of personal freedoms. In several instances, Orwell uses the dialogue between his characters to argue that when people choose protection over freedom, they lose a part of themselves and become almost zombie-like. Speaking of the community in chapter 5, he writes that "until they become conscious, they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious"(Orwell 5). In this way, the community is seen as powerless. Not only did they surrender their personal freedoms for the collective whole, but they also relinquished control of their fists.

A later Science Fiction interpretation of Orwell's "1984"and More's "Utopia"named "Little Brother" attempts to continue raising these issues but in a more realistic setting. Among countless other things, "Little Brother" comments on the use of "EZpasses" and pressures it's audience to recognize the danger in allowing the government to monitor and track your every move. (Upon first reading this I thought it was a stretch - until this week when I received a 130.00 ticket in the mail from my spring break trip to South Carolina this year. Even though I was not actually caught speeding - I'm from Jersey, I can't help myself - I was given a ticket because the time elapsed between one EZpass scan to the next was considered too short for me to have been going the speed limit). Anyway, all three texts raise similar issues. I find it interesting how many years this same storyline/argument has been going on in literature, society, and government without resolution.

Wildcard - A Sign From Above

The letter I SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN last year to the boy's who lived below me at Montclair State University. They will never know the extent of my sleep deprivation  . . . 

:)

Rumination - Lady Anne Halkett, A Gender/Religion Commentary

While reading Lady Anne Halkett's work from The Memoirs, I couldn't help but pick up on the many references to gender and religion of the time period - both subtle and direct.

The passage beings"this gentleman came to see me sometimes in the company of ladies who had been my mother's neighbors in St. Martin's Lane, and sometimes alone, but whenever he came his discourse was serious, handsome, and tending to impress the advantages of piety, loyalty, and virtue" (1764). In her description of his discourse, Halkett attributes the gentleman with not only masculine characteristics and adjectives, but with personality traits such as piety, loyalty, and virtue. These attributes make him masculine, but also make him almost godly. The traits of "piety, loyalty, and virtue" have religious undertones and are each expressed directly in the bible. It just so happens that these traits that are typically used to describe a "good Christian" are here used to describe a "good" man. In this way, we see religious expectations and expectations of manhood intertwined.

However, masculine roles are not the only ones commented on in this passage. Halkett later writes of these traits when she admits that "these subjects were so agreeable to my own inclination that I could not but give them a good reception, especially from one that seemed to be so much an owner of them himself"(1764). In this way, we see her embracing a typical female role as she engages in servitude to the gentleman. This can also be taken as suggestively religious if we take into account the way the man is deified by the adjectives used to describe him.  Through this lens, perhaps her servitude to him may be representative of a "good Christian's" servitude to God.

Creative Engagement - Laura Thatcher Ulrich

I was inspired by the video blog for this week that began with the question: how much historical context can be seen through diary entries? How much of it is valid, applicable, or of interest to us? This led me to comment on a movie that I watched for a history course, "A Midwife's Tale" by Laura Thatcher Ulrich.

Laura Thatcher Ulrich created the film “A Midwife’s Tale” in order to provide an introspective view on life for a typical woman during the 18th century. Her work focused on analyzing and making a visual representation of the diary of Martha Ballard, a midwife who lived during the time period. A lot can be said about the time period and women's role in society at the time by looking at the text. For example, all of Ballard's diary entries are incredibly short, direct, and to the point. Her sentences are often grammatically flawed, lack verbs, and have tense disagreement. There are repeated misspellings and improper capitalizations. This careful examination of her writing may suggest that women during the 18th century were not as well educated as men, or at least not provided with the same learning opportunities. This lack of education is seen through her writing skills and can be broadly attributed to other women of the time period. 

Focusing more on the actual content of her diary entries, we see that almost every day she writes about falling ill or the sickness of a child. These entries directly parallel historical facts that disease and illness dominated the 18th century and was essentially inescapable. Her diary captures this historical fact and records it in a more personal context. Similarly, we see that most of her entries describe her role in helping these ailing friends and family members - suggesting that women's roles at the time were that of helpers who engaged in servitude and healing.