Theater 101: Prison edition

If there's anything independent productions have taught the world of entertainment is that sometimes a cast of completely unknown actors can give a mind-blowing performance. Such performers can be seen in anything from movies, music and plays. In today's world people see in these cast of unknowns the opportunity to shed new light to the material being performed. As part of an assignment for our english class we where asked to listen to an episode of the podcast This American Life. Said episode (hosted by Ira Glass, and mostly narrated by Jack Hitt) revolved around the concept of a production of Hamlet by a cast of unknown actors. The twist however centered around the fact that the play was not being performed by legitimate actors, but by inmates from a high security prison.

As the podcast began, I could not help but feel a mixed sense of amusement and confusion regarding the concept of a group of convicts performing Shakespeare. At first I thought that combining his delicate mastery of the English language with performances given by criminals would only result in disaster. However I was both deeply impressed and surprised with the level of comprehension they managed to gain from the play.

The podcast manages to give the listener an interesting and never heard before approach to the world that lies beyond the prison walls. TV shows and documentaries illustrate prisons as danger filled corridors where dread and violence loom at every corner. However, little is heard or seen from the eyes of the people who inhabit it. Many of the inmates inside feel confined not only by the walls and bars within the prison but by other men around them. As described by Big Hutch, it is an environment controlled by a hierarchical system: the strong take advantage of the week, much like a killer whale prays on smaller fish. They feel that in order to fit into the archetypical prison mold they must be tough and remain to themselves. However even they know that this is not the solution. The theater program at the prison aims to create a healthy program in which the prisoners can open up and interact with other people better in a de facto rehabilitation program

As a secondary objective, the podcast manages to give the listener a deep analysis the mind of a convict. The actors manage to identify with Hamlet beyond its lines and the pages of the play. Such an example of this understanding can be seen in James Ward and his role of Laertes. Before becoming involved in the much glamorized "thug life", Ward describes himself as being a Church man who gave his life a turn for the worse in order to gain himself a reputation and be liked by others. After being locked up and involved in the play, he felt that he was perfect for playing Laertes. He identified with the character since "[Laertes] was very angry, violently angry and i can identify with that and can play him very well because I've been playing that role my entire life." His connection with the character encouraged him to give a performance that managed to impress Hamlet-aficionados such as Hitt himself.

The narrator, Jack Hitt, states early into the episode that he is no stranger to Hamlet, having seen many forms and adaptations from around the world. I, on the other hand, have little to no experience whatsoever regarding Shakespeare's tragedy, having not even finished it. However the portrait given by Hitt and the convicts is a deeply interesting and complex one. Not only do they manage to break it down the tragedy to its simplest form, while retaining the core essence; they make the listener identify and understand the actors and the character better than any movie or theatrical adaptation.

We meet again...

So far I have read three analyses regarding the importance of Hamlet by several renowned philosophers and writing. The latest one in this analytical saga is authored by non other than Sigmund Freud, a man whose very name is practically synonymical with psychology. Freud takes a psychological approach to Hamlet instead of the more common literary interpretation. Reading this I could not help but reminisce about my philosophy course last year. I have dealt with the Austrian's texts in the past. When I say "dealt", I mean it in its most respectful form, I loved Freud and his beliefs, I just found it rather difficult to digest. However it is time to see whether the seeds planted a little over a year ago have blossomed.

In a very Freud-esque manner, Hamlet's psyche is immediately described as being handicapped by doubt, preventing him from acting. Other essays dealt with this issue and addressed it in an almost identical fashion to the one Freud uses. However he takes into consideration Hamlet's ability to act, rather than his inability to so, unlike other writers before him have failed to do so. To prove his point he brings up Polonius' murder, an unforeseen act caused by a sudden outburst of rage. What he believes handicaps Hamlet is not his methodological reasoning nor his intellect, but his conscience reprimanding his murderous thoughts. His conscience plays such an important role in controlling the prince's actions that it actually manages to suppress his hatred and anger towards his uncle. I believe that by doing this Freud is reminding the reader that Hamlet is indeed as human as any of us and despite his appetite for revenge, he cannot bear pollute his conscience with the atrocities of murder. In this sense Hamlet, relinquishes any thought of becoming a man like his uncle Claudius, who murdered his father in cold blood.

Freud's analysis is also rich with a healthy dose of Shakespeare fan service and facts which may help the reader understand the play better. Freud believes that both Macbeth and Hamlet take heavy inspiration in the death of his father and his 11 year old son Hamnet, both written shortly after said events. Now if you wouldn't be alone if you think that it is no mere coincidence that Hamlet and Hamnet sound strikingly similar. Both Freud and myself belief that his son's death played a pivotal role in the development of the play and the significance of Hamlet trying to avenge his father. It may be that Shakespeare was trying to cope with his both his father's and his son's death by writing a play, but as Freud simply puts it, its his own interoperation.a

Samuel Who?

Ah, another philosopher I have never heard of, how delightful. This time time around its Samuel Johnson, a man whose name bears no resemblance to any type of military ordnance. However the man's name is irrelevant, as well as my familiarity with him. This my friends, is once again about Hamlet. Now, for a couple of entries, I have discussed why I find Hamlet and the eponymous character so fascinating. However little have I discussed the play's legacy in literature. Johnson's essay focuses on Hamlet's importance at a literary level while addressing the play's most important aspects

There is no denying that Hamlet has played a pivotal role in modern literature. Johnson acknowledges this legacy formed upon Shakespeare's piece is mostly due to its complexity and variety. He believes that one of the play's greatest charms is the spontaneity it has, such as characters appearing every other scene. As I read the play, I paid little to no attention to the character's entrances and exits. While I can't identify with Johnson here, I have to admit I was startled by Laertes' unexpected return following the death of his father. 

It appears Johnson, much like myself is most interested by the prince's duality. In order to accomplish his goals, Hamlet believes that the only way to hide his intentions is to deceive others through his behaviors. Through a mask of madness, the young prince 

hopes to avenge his father's death. Why madness you may ask? I wish I could answer that myself. Like Johnson I find that feigning madness is a rather useless and often cruel attempt at disguising his murderous objective. By acting like a madman Hamlet is not only making the labor of killing his uncle harder on himself but also brings forth collateral damage to those around them. With each passing scene hamlet arouses both sorrow and suffering to those close to him, such as Ophelia and Gertrude.

Johnson however seems to believe that Hamlet is not the main actor here but rather an "instrument rather than an agent". I believe that he interprets the prince as being a mere pawn who tries in vain to manipulate his surroundings into that which sees fit. If he is not in control of the situation then who is? When I read the essay I immediately associated this lack of control with destiny, silently pulling the strings behind the play's events. When I read Macbeth as part of last year's English course, it was clear that destiny was a recurring theme in the tragedy. Could this be the case with Hamlet? Johnson seems to believe so, referring to "the untimely death of Ophelia, the young the beautiful, the pious." This statement seems to draw heavily on the common interpretation of destiny, being the hidden power believed to control what will happen in the future. But was this really Shakespeare's idea, questioning once again the presence of destiny in a world driven by free will? Or is Johnson just pulling a Hamlet and over thinking the situation?

Planes and (In)action

Before reading his critical essay of Shakespeare's Hamlet, I have never previously heard of Northrop Frye. If you dropped his name in a conversation and I would have no idea the subject in question was a theorist. In my geeky mind, a military plane would come to mind upon hearing it. However I found his analysis of Hamlet to be both interesting and thought-provoking. Frye's essay focuses on the profound contrast between a person's character and their actions. However throughout the analysis he discusses whether someone's actions forever reflect who he/she is. To assess this question he uses both Hamlet and his nemesis Cladius and the relationship between their character and actions.

Many people argue that Hamlet is a play about a young man's struggle to avenge his father's death. In le man's terms, Hamlet is a story of revenge. However I believe that the play is not about the action but the events leading up to it. While reading Shakespeare's piece, it is hard no to notice how Hamlet would often begin to deliver every single thought that ran through his mind. The young prince breaks down the task he is given (killing his uncle Claudius) and ponders on how he will do it, the consequences and even hypothetical scenarios where he could accomplish it. However this is also his greatest weakness. Due to his obsession to over think the situation, Hamlet is constantly impeded to act.Claudius can be considered to be Hamlet's foil in this case. After watching Patrick Stewart delivering the king's lines in the 1996 adaptation of the play, I believed I could certainly understand the character better. The king of Denmark is haunted by guilt following his actions, much like Macbeth in the eponymous play. However while Claudius is certainly capable of acting he is incapable of thinking before doing so. In this sense both are great men with an equally great potential for doing amazing things, however they are incapable of doing so. Frye compares them to "a titanic spirit thrashing around in [a] prison." 

However I believe that Hamlet has greater potential than his uncle. The young prince's motive to act (or not to do so) centers around the fact that he believes in honor and justice not just revenge. Claudius on the other hand acts upon pouts of greed and his lust for power.As part of the text, Frye dissects what is often considered the thesis of the play: the famous "to be or not to be soliloquy." When I read the soliloquy I immediately considered life and death being the center of the discourse. While Frye does indeed discuss those topics inn his analysis, he brought forth one that I previously overlooked: freedom. When the titular character begins to ramble about suicide I would have never considered it as being a metaphor for said topic. Frye believes that the soliloquy is indeed about Hamlet pondering whether he is capable of deciding things for himself without becoming "just another ghost."

The Wasteland

For quite some time I have been an avid fan of the post apocalyptic setting, be it in movies, video games, books, etc. While some may find the lackluster and bleak nature of such tales off-putting, I, on the other hand, am helplessly drawn into the wasteland. Where some people may only discover death, famine and pestilence among the ravaged environments of the setting, I often see the little glimmers of life and hope shining through the desolate landscape. When I heard we were to read The Road as part of the course, I rejoiced. Having heard of the book and the subsequent movie based upon it for quite some time now, I figured I would be right at home within the pages of Cormac McCarthy's tale.

The Road by American author Cormac McCarthy, is a novel narrating the struggle of a man and his son to survive in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Both the boy and father remain anonymous throughout the book, perhaps helping the reader embody the characters and become more involved in the events of the plot. both characters are driven to walk for miles each day with the sole purpose of survival. However the attitude of both characters seem to differ. The child has apparently grown up in this ravaged America and remembers very little of the life before the catastrophe. In a way both characters are two sides of the same coin: society/civilization. The father is the embodiment of society before the event, and how he is coping with the aftermath. He finds himself rather lost in the wasteland and there is little keeping him alive. What is compelling him to survive however, is keeping his boy safe and the basic instinct to survive. The boy on the other hand is an allegory of society born after the apocalypse, struggling to survive in this new setting.

The presence of ash in the book is hard to ignore. From this one can begin to get clues as to what happened  that left Earth in such a state of despair. I can only infer that the event that wiped out most of humanity was either a nuclear war or perhaps a celestial body hitting our planet. From the former one can assume the ash, the darkness and the gray snow are the effects of nuclear winter that will envelop the planet for years to come. The asteroid theory also might explain this phenomenon. The impact from a rather large celestial body would cause particles of dust to rise up to the atmosphere, covering the earth for years, causing impact winter. The presence of seared trees could also be explained by the subsequent heat that would be produced from the impact of an asteroid.

When the book opens up, the first three sentences manage to capture the reader's mind into the desolation:
"When he woke in the woods in the dark and the cold of the night he'd reach out to touch the child sleeping beside him. Nights dark beyond darkness and the days more gray each one than what had gone before. Like the onset of some cold glaucoma dimming away the world."
From the get-go it is apparent that some cataclysm has has devastated the world, leaving the ash badlands. However the event is never fully fleshed out and it is left to the reader to figure out what left the world in ruins. Here we are introduced to the protagonists, waking up in the middle of a forest. The cold darkness referred to in the text might be a symbol for the ever present melancholy the world is now engulfed in. It is apparent that as time passes the situation doesn't improve, but in fact becomes a more difficult task to survive. As a result each day one finds less and less hope among the ash covered wasteland. McCarthy's use of the word glaucoma is an interesting one. Glaucoma is a condition of increased pressure within the eyeball, causing gradual loss of sight. From this definition one can assume that McCarthy is referring to God gradually turning his sight away from humanity, leaving us helpless in the darkness.

Lost in Darkness: An In-Depth look at "The Great Gatsby"

F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic, The Great Gatsby, can be best described as a story about how a dream can destroy person's life. As he concludes the book, he manages to summarize Jay Gatsby's life in a couple of sentences, as seen below:

"And I sat there brooding on the old unknown world, I thought of Gatsby's wonder when he first picked out the green light at the end of Daisy's dock. He had come a long way to this blue lawn, and hist dream must have seemed so close that he could hardly fail to grasp it. He did not know that it was already behind him, somewhere back in that vast obscurity beyond the city, where the dark fields of the republic rolled on under the night. (180)"

Despite Nick Carraway, The Great Gatsby's narrator and main protagonist, being the titular character's only true friend, it is clear that he never understood the mysterious individual. In the opening sentence, Fitzgerald uses the words "brooding" and "unknown world" in a figurative way, referring to Gatsby. His usage of the word brooding (showing deep unhappiness of thought) refers to Gatsby's life, always filled with disappointment, sadness and suffering he had to endure all his life. However by comparing the character to the world, he could be referencing his complex personality or perhaps his larger than life attitude. 

Much like the reader in the beginning of the novel, Nick is filled with wonder upon the symbolical meaning behind the green light, piercing the darkness with its green glow. Despite later on in the book the light's origin is revealed (Daisy's dock), its true significance is never revealed. Gatsby leaning out and attempting to reach it could be seen as both a romantic gesture towards his love or a manifestation of his dreams and expectations. 

As a character Gatsby had to overcome a lot of obstacles in order to become who he is, the opulent and flamboyant protagonist. Despite being so close to achieving a place in Daisy's heart, destiny always was one step ahead. This misfortune is what made him who he is: a dream that turned into an obsession, an obsession which transformed James Gatz to Jay Gatby.  It is interesting to note that Fitzgerald describes Gatsby's lawn as being blue, however after a little researching he may be referring to Kentucky blue grass. This type of grass is particularly known for being of higher quality and having an appropriately high cost. The grass could be seen as an obscure symbol for Gatsby's fortune or the extents he goes to transmitting his wealth to others.

As one reads the novel, one might wonder whether Gatsby knows that Daisy is out of his reach, and has been for a very long time. Nick shamelessly says this in a way that compares Gatsby's life to the city laying in "vast obscurity". Before he came to fulfill his dream of being unimaginably rich, no one knew who he was. This also applies to Daisy, and her memories she had with Gatsby, leaving him nearly forgotten in the dark corners of her subconscious. It can be said that by seeing how successful Gatsby became, her newly formed image of him brought back the feelings and recollection of Gatsby.

The Downward Spiral: A close reading approach to "Coming Through Slaughter", Part II

When one is already at the top one can't help but wonder: how far can you fall? Buddy Bolden, a renowned jazz performer from the early 20th century lived life constantly asking himself this, as evidenced by the passage below:

"What do you want to know about me Webb? I'm alone. I desire every woman I remember. Everything is clear here and still I feel that my brain has walked away and is watching me. I feel I hover over the objects in this house, over every person in my memory - like those painted saints in my mother's church who seem or always have six or seven inches between them and the ground. Posing as humans. I give myself immaculate twenty minute shaves in the morning. Tap some lotion on me and cook a fabulous breakfast. Only meal of the day. So I move from the morning's energy into the later hours of alcohol and hunger and thickness and tiredness. Trying to overcome this awful and stupid clarity. (100)"

The main theme behind Michael Ondaatje's Coming Through Slaughter is the rise and fall of jazz-great Buddy Bolden. As a very successful and influential musician in the New Orleans new age jazz movement, Bolden quickly succumbed to the high stake, fast paced lifestyle that came with fame.  Despite being renowned and famous, in reality he lived an empty life. However what he really regrets is his inability to maintain a stable, long-term relationship. To make up for this lack of love, he fills in the emotional void in his life with empty, meaningless sex with prostitutes and one night stands with complete strangers. Additionally both of his relationships explored in the novel become a complex love triangle. The reader learns early in the book that Bolden married Nora Bass without a formal registry or ceremony. When he left Storyville in hopes of keeping a low profile he also managed to shatter the one stable relationship in his life. Despite loving his wife, he cannot help but remind himself of Nora's past as an escort, which sometimes drives him to insanity. This can be evidenced when Tom Pickett comes into his barber shop. The pimp begins to taunt the jazzman of how he used to sleep with his wife. Bolden snapped and violently mutilated Pickett's face with a barber's razor. While lying low, Bolden began an affair with Robin Brewitt, who despite loving Buddy would not marry him and stay true to her husband.

From the get-go it is quite clear that Buddy's lifestyle has extinguished his will and stopped being himself. The way he compares himself to a saint, symbolizes that Buddy Bolden has become a legend, a mere myth even to himself. To others, including himself, he is this mysterious and greater-than-life character while in reality he is vulnerable and driven borderline insane. He no longer feels he inhabits the body of New Orleans' greatest jazz musician but has become overshadowed by his musical alter ego. This demigod description is further accentuated by him stating "Posing as humans". One can't help but wonder, when does Buddy Bolden, the man ends, and when Buddy Bolden, the legend begins.

While he performs as a jazzman in the cover of Storyville's dark, prostitute-ridden alleys, Bolden works a day job at a barbershop. As a barber, he feels the individual under his blade become vulnerable, wincing at the very thought of someone else, a stranger handling their appearance. According to him, vanity is every man's weakness. However, Bolden himself shares this defect, seeing how he shaves his face to perfection for 20 minutes each morning. Seeing how he sprays lotion after a clean shave further accentuates his vain mannerisms.

As stated beforehand, Bolden lives a very empty lifestyle to the point that his eating patterns reflect this. His lack of energy during the late hours of the day could be the result of his little food intake and massive alcohol binges. The emotional pit of nothingness that lies at the bottom of Bolden's mind, is the result of a downward spiral caused by fame. Despite Bolden knowing that he is living through a personal hell, he acknowledges that this is now his reality.

Peace of Mind: A close reading approach to "Coming Through Slaughter", Part I

Michael Ondaatje's novel, "Coming Through Slaughter", based on the life of jazz legend Buddy Bolden, narrates his rise to greatness and mysterious disappearance. The following passage takes place before the jazzman's disappearance:

"Shell Beach Station. From the end of the tracks he watched Crawley and the rest of the band get on the train. They were still half-looking around for him to join them from someplace even now. He stood by a mail wagon and watched them. He watched himself getting onto the train with them, the fake anger relief on their part. He watched himself go back to the Brewitts and ask if he could stay with them. The silent ones. Post music. After ambition. (39)"

As the scene opens we can see Buddy observing his bandmates board the train from a distance. His position at the end of the tracks suggests that he wants to remain incognito from the band, or in a larger sense the entertainment business. Ondaatje's use of vague words such as  "half-looking" and "someplace" show that his fellow band members show no particular interest or distress regarding his absence. However this might not bother Buddy in the very least, since he is trying to escape his erratic lifestyle that now defines him.

In the next sentence we can judge by his new position (next to a mail wagon) that he has either moved to a place, closer or farther away. As Buddy continues to observe the band, the reader can't help but become a part of the battle raging within his mind. His mind is divided between the decision to remain within the world of jazz and to escape into a more quite, calmer lifestyle. The former side of his mind appears to be living an illusion, judging by the phrase "the fake anger relief on their part". The reader can infer that his mates show a forced, if not fake liking towards the cornet player, while hiding their true feelings from him. However, the latter presents itself as a calmer future, due to the absence of negative emotions and lies the band brings to Buddy. 

As the passage draws to an end, the reader is given three phrases that summarize Buddy's struggle: "The silent ones. Post music. After ambition.". The way the sentences are presented in reverse chronological order reflect Buddy's life: from his beginnings as an aspiring jazz musician, his subsequent hiatus from music, and finally ending with his disappearance.

Hidden Behind Innocence: Symbolism in "The Great Gatsby"

Since its publication in 1925, symbolism has been considered as one of the most important themes in the renowned novel, The Great Gatsby. F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel contains many of these representations which have been given a considerable amount of attention by scholars and experts. The most prominent symbols include the green light in Daisy's dock and the glaring eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg. However the true natures of these symbols has been wildly debated. As a part of a group discussion, we have been looking at less prominent and more obscure things that could be viewed as symbols. 

The symbol we found within the pages of the novel is the puppy Tom Buchanan gives Myrtle near the conclusion of the second chapter. When Myrtle asks her lover for a puppy, she asks specifically for a police dog. This is rather ironic, seeing how the police stands for righteousness and justice, qualities that an extramarital affair lacks. The dog's breed, an Airedale terrier, further strengthens the connection to the themes mentioned beforehand. This is due to the fact that this particular breed has been used as a popular police dog since the beginning of the 20th century. As for the puppy itself, it might also be considered pure and innocent, further adding to the irony of the gift.

The relationship between Myrtle and her puppy mirrors that she has with Tom. When she first got the puppy, she already was planning to keep the dog in their NYC apartment, far away from her husband George. Similarly both of them hide their affairs from their respective spouses. Furthermore the way Tom treats her lover brings to mind a master-pet relationship. However this can be seen with both Daisy and Myrtle since he controls them constantly, often showing little regard towards the way he treats them. An example of this is seen at the end of the second chapter when Tom violently attacks Myrtle, breaking her nose, after she drunkenly taunts him with his wife. 

As the reader digests the symbolism behind the puppy, it becomes increasingly clear that the animal also serves as a characterization vehicle. When Myrtle asks the man selling the puppies the sex, Tom barks at her with the phrase "It's a bitch". This simple sentence defines Tom as a character, having a crasse, if not vulgar personality behind his actions and dialogue. While the term he uses to describe the sex is correct, the way he says it brings to mind the vulgar sense of the word.

Besides serving as a characterization vehicle, the puppy also helps the plot unravel and conclude with Gatsby's murder. Tom's lover is killed in a hit-and-run, committed by non other than Daisy. When George scours through Myrtle's belongings he finds a dog collar wrapped in tissue paper. The collar confirms his assumption that Myrtle was indeed cheating on him and leads him to believe the she was killed by her lover. This event leads us to the conclusion that sometimes even the little things in life define the course of destiny.