Prospero's Control

The love between Ferdinand and Miranda is rather suspicious, in my opinion. For one, they have only seen each other once, before falling madly in love. Of course, love at first sight comes to mind, but their love seems to be a desperate, all-consuming embodiment of a rather unhealthy obsession with the other person. Miranda’s innocence and naivety is another aspect of her immediate love that makes the sincerity slightly unbelievable.

She says herself, “nor have I seen 

More that I may call men than you, good friend 

And my dear father. How features are abroad 

I am skilless of” (3.1.50-53).

This declaration could attest to the pureness of her love, but for me, it simply reads as a rushed willingness produced from her inexperience. She’s alone on the island, confined to the company of her father and the savage beast she calls Caliban, but as soon as she sees Ferdinand, she automatically knows that what she feels is love and that she must speak to him and ask for him to marry her, regardless of what her father has said.

“I am your wife, if you will marry me. 

If not, I’ll die your maid. To be your fellow 

You may deny me, but I’ll be your servant 

Whether you will or no” (3.1.83-86). 

Her desperation and somewhat pathetic readiness to throw herself at his feet leaves me wondering whether this is all genuine, or a fabricated emotion that plays right into Prospero’s ultimate design. 

Even as Prospero is secretly watching the interaction between Miranda and Ferdinand, he comments aside “Fair encounter

Of two most rare affections! Heavens rain grace 

On that which breeds between ‘em” (3.2.74-76). 

I couldn’t help but suspect that he had some sort of hand in speeding this odd courtship along, perhaps by enhancing their feelings for one another. He makes it clear at the end of this scene that he is not very surprised by this turn of events. He planned their meeting and contrived their feelings for each other in order to advance his own personal agenda and I can’t help but wondering if he is in complete control of the two young lovers.

Water everywhere

Water is no doubt a central image in Shakespeare’s, The Tempest. In fact the play begins with a shipwreck at sea. But, aside from the cliché representation of water as a cleanser or baptismal, Shakespeare uses the image of water to represent the cycles of rebirth. Prospero, who was usurped, summoned the sea storm by threatening Ariel. The storm and the restlessness of the ocean, represents the chaos, the anger and the problems that are to come with the less than merry crew.  In fact Miranda’s fear for the lives of the sailors in the “wild waters” (I.ii.2) causes her to weep, which further signifies and foreshadows of the future tears that will be shed. It also represents the beginning of birth. Birth is (not from personal experience) supposed to be painful and unpleasant. There are many complications that can develop and fears that doctors and patients have alike during a birth. When the Mariners entered wet and bothered by the others, who did not know how to help prevent the ship from sinking, were given almost a blessing from the sea to be the, “doctors” that try to reassure the family that everything is going to be okay, but they need to do their jobs. They, (the mariners) at that one moment, were able to speak down to the nobles and do whatever they can to stop the problem and bring, “peace” back to the ship. But aside from the birthing imagery, the water also represents rebirth through death.
When first exiled with Miranda, Prospero suggests that he could have drowned the sea with his own tears when he cried over his lost dukedom and his past.  "When I have deck'd the sea with drops full salt" (1.2.18). Again, his past is dead and with the past threat of him almost dying Prospero, must find another life and identity. The death of the past Miranda and Prospero, gave birth to the new versions of the characters. Furthermore Ferdinand, upon hearing Ariel's song, knows it refers to his father's certain drowning:
Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes;
Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange (1.2.20)
Ariel's song leads Ferdinand to believe that his father has drowned and is lost to him forever. Not only that, but the song suggests that his body has been transformed into something unrecognizable. Giving  the further image that now that everyone and everything is dead, you must renew yourself. The water is no longer just a symbol of death, it had renewed them to find something different about themselves and to continue to live. Each of the characters are slowly learning that their fate in the island cannot be relied upon the fact that their past will eventually help them. Instead each of the characters must learn to find their own lives and their own ways to live through this tragedy and become something better.

such stuff as dreams are made on

In looking at the Tempest, I want to focus on one passage that I found particularly striking. Prospero says to Ferdinand in 4.1:

    You do look, my son, in a moved sort,
    As if you were dismayed. Be cheerful, sir.
    Our revels are now ended. These our actors,
    As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
    Are melted into air, into thin air;
    And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
    The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,
    The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
    Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve;
    And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
    Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
    As dreams are made on, and our little life
    Is rounded with a sleep. (4.1 146-158)

Many of the prevailing themes and considerations of the play are crystalized here. The diction is quite telling: “dismayed,” literally, the negation of “may,” from Old English mæg, of Germanic origin meaning “to have power,” or, of course, recalling the month of May (named for the goddess Maia), a time of rebirth and awakening. So Ferdinand looks as if he were powerless, asleep, as it were, to May. And he is indeed spellbound by Prospero’s magical sway. “The revels are now ended,” recalls the disrupted feast of the King, and also the revelers Stefano and Trinculo. Of course “revel” also has a theatrical dimension that resonates with the other language of the stage present in his wordplay. Prospero goes on to say, “These our actors...were all spirits,” calling to mind the theme of the relation between the spiritual and material worlds, “and / Are melted into air, into thin air.” Here the diction reminded me of Hamlet’s “too too solid flesh,” and indeed a similar theme is emerging here (Hamlet 1.2 129-130). In the next line, it’s further elaborated in the difficult description of the “baseless fabric of this vision.” Here we’re asked to imagine a fabric, something of a very tangible, material nature, as if it were a nothing, nothing, that is, that we could touch or feel or see in the usual sense of the words. A thing of the substance of a vision, and also a suggestion that it is “baseless” not only in its lacking a foundation, but also in that it is not of the baseness of this “lower world” in which our earthly destiny is played out (3.3 53-54). Indeed he goes on to list the things of this world, even “the great globe itself,” (again a passing allusion to the theater), and tells us it shall all dissolve—again, recalling Hamlet’s lines, “resolve itself into a dew” (Hamlet 1.2 130). It shall “like this insubstantial pageant faded, / Leave not a rack behind.” The Norton text glosses “rack” helpfully as “wisp of cloud.” But “rack” has several meanings that illumine many thematic threads in the play. It was at one time used to mean “shipwreck,” which of course is quite pertinent to the drama; then of course there’s “the rack,” as in the torture devise—this hints at Prospero’s torture of Caliban and the other two rogues who get a taste of it soon after this passage; but “rack” can also refer to a cut of meat (recalling the theme of revelry) and the process of drawing off wine (the latter usage comes from the Provençal raca meaning “stems and husks of grapes, dregs”). And to go back to the Norton’s gloss, “wisp of cloud” resonates with the theme of the “tempest,” and the relation between Ariel and other spirits to the forces of nature and fate. Prospero concludes his meditation with a line that really sticks with one, “We are such stuff / As dreams are made on, and our little life / Is rounded with a sleep.” This brings to a point the thematic concerns of the “baseless fabric” of the spirits and our nature as beings who are essentially asleep—it reminds one of his words to Miranda earlier in the play, which I would suggest can be read not only literally but also as metaphor, “thee, my daughter, who / Art ignorant of what thou art” (1.2 17-18). He seems to be suggesting that our nature is to be asleep, to go about our lives, reveling on this great globe, in a world of things with distinct contours and lines, when we are, at the same time, of the stuff that dreams are made of. And so in death one sleeps, a movement of return, return to what one is. To sleep, perchance to dream...

Resolving the Social Order in The Tempest

Because most of Shakespeare’s comedies use marriage as a symbol of a harmonious and healthy social order and The Tempest does not, I was intrigued by the ways in which he uses conflict to reach, one assumes without finishing the play, a resolution. In Shakespeare’s comedies, misunderstandings erupt, blocking situations are used and conquered, and at the end, love triumphs and marriage sets everything right. The social order is restored.  Although The Tempest is considered a romance rather than a comedy, social order is an important aspect of the play, both in terms of the explicit conflict of the play (Prospero’s fight to become Duke of Milan again) and in terms of the play’s constant exploration of the master-servant dialectic, especially when the dynamic appears unsettled or discordant. Prospero creates a masque that will describe to the couple the importance of marriage versus love and lust.

Just as Shakespeare seeks to resolve the conflict of his lost dukedom through the marriage of his innocent daughter Miranda with the Duke of Naples’ son, Ferdinand, the masque uses social and dramatic associations of marriage, and underscores them heavily with the seriousness of the masque.  In doing this, a sense is created that, even though the play’s major conflict is still unresolved, the world of the play is beginning to heal itself. The fact of marriage itself, as it is presented in the masque, is enough to settle the turbulent waters of the story.

The masque begins with a pastoral description by Iris, Goddess of the rainbow and messenger of Juno, starting the show with color and beauty.  Iris declares to Ceres (Greek Demeter, Goddess of agriculture, growth, prosperity and rebirth) that they are there for “A contract of true love to celebrate” on the “blest lovers” (4.1.84,86). Once Ceres ensures that Venus and Cupid are not involved (because they are the gods of lust, not conjugated marriage) and Iris confirms “they to have done/Some wanton charm upon this man and maid,/Whose vows are that no bed-right shall be paid/Till Hymen’s torch be lighted,” we know that Prospero’s insistent theme in the masque is to have them legally wed before any sex take place between them.  Just as the queen of all gods blesses their marriage, she also blesses the children that will come from their union.  Instead, he explores marriage as part of society and family. Juno, the symbol of marriage and family life in Roman mythology, descends declaring, “To bless this twain that they may prosperous be/And honoured in their issue” (4.1.104-105).  In so doing, marriage is subtly glorified as both the foundation of society and as part of the natural order of things, given the accord between marriage and nature in Ceres’ speech when she says,

CERES:  Earth’s increase, and foison plenty

Barns and garners never empty,

Vines with clust’ring bunches growing,

Plants with goodly burden bowing;…

Scarcity and want shall shun you,

Ceres’ blessing so is on  you”

(4.1.110-113,116-117). 

Thus, Prospero has managed to communicate to Ferdinand that his virginal daughter will be his only after their legalized marriage ceremony while blessing their union and, with that union, social order is restored.

The Human Desire to Obtain Power: A Look into The Tempest

Throughout dramatic writing, the character’s internal desire for power often creates a large amount of the drama involved within the work. Shakespeare’s dramatic works are no exception to this rule. Many of Shakespeare’s characters are drawn to immoral actions by this tempting appeal of power, including Claudius in Hamlet, Macbeth, and many more. In The Tempest, the theme of power takes on an extremely central role as many of the character’s become consumed by the idea of achieving influence in society. This play therefore uses the isolated setting of an island to highlight and intensify the depiction of this strong human desire-- the desire to obtain power at all costs. 

In 3.2, we see that Caliban has a problem with surrendering to the power of Prospero, and is willing to help Stefano and Trinculo in their plan to destroy him. Caliban says, “As I told thee before, I am subject to a tyrant, a sorcerer that by this cunning hath cheated me on the island” (3.2.40-41). Here, we see that the tension between master and servant arises when there is an abuse of power, and the servants feels like the master has overreached their boundaries. Caliban takes his master’s tyrannical actions as an invitation to rise against his power. He therefore believes that by obtaining power for himself, he will have more influence and control over the establishment of justice in society. 

While Caliban’s desire to achieve power is rooted in his vengeance towards Prospero, Antonio and Sebastian are characters who are simply consumed by the glory associated with achieving power. They want power for the mere sake of controlling the government of the island, and not having to bow down to Alonso and Gonzalo’s rule. There are essentially resistant characters who do not handle authority well. In 2.2, they immorally plot to kill Alonso and Gonzalo as a means to open the way for their own social climbing. In 2.1, Sebastians says, “But for your conscience” (in reference to Antonio’s immoral actions to gain more power). In response,  Antonio says, “Ay, sir, where lies that? If ‘twere a kibe/ ‘Twould put me to my slipper; but I feel not deity in my bosom...” (2.1.272-274). Here, we see that Antonio does not care about the moral implications of achieving political power, and feels no remorse for taking advantage of the power Prospero granted him. Instead he expresses his desire to obtain a greater influence in society at all costs. This example shows us that even those characters with power have a lust for more. Power therefore has an addictive component, and tends to blind the characters of their moral obligations to themselves and others. 

So far in The Tempest, power struggles have been extremely prevalent and morality has been absent in many of these power-hungry characters. While characters, such as Caliban, have some background motives driving them to immoral action, other characters merely allow themselves to become consumed by their internal desire to obtain power. By setting this play on an island, Shakespeare therefore creates the ideal, confined space in which the truth and tragedy of human desire can be exposed.

Macbeth Play

I went to see the Macbeth play on Thursday night, and I was actually surprised by how it was performed based on seeing the set that day in class. I thought that what they decided to do with the three witches was strange. I did not see it as being that done that way. They almost seemed possessed, and it was actually a bit disturbing. I also was not a fan of what they did with Banquo’s ghost. They had him come out in a black outfit with spots of a pinkish color, what I am assuming was supposed to show blood, but really it was just odd looking.

I did not really like the fact that they seemed short on cast members. I could tell when a character was killed off, Duncan for example, and then that cast member was back later on in the play dressed as a soldier. The one thing that was bothering me was that it was ok that they needed to re-use cast members, but they at least could have made them look a little different. That guy in particular looked exactly the same. If I was not familiar with the play, I might have been confused by this and that is not how people want to feel at a performance.

The one thing that I did enjoy was the modern twist and the use of the guns. That was perfect and kept me intrigued! I also liked that the cast walked through the aisles for some parts, it made me feel as though I was getting a full experience and I never really knew what to expect there.

The woman playing Lady Macbeth was FANTASTIC! She looked just as I would have pictured her to look. Her heels were a bit high, and I was always watching to see if she would lose her balance…I know…terrible of me to think…but she was great!

The only “mistake” that I picked out was with the sliding door in the back of the stage. Often the performers would go in and out through there and a few times the cast was supposed to close the doors together (2 cast members, one on each door)…and a few times the door was not closed evenly, so the audience was able to see into that back room, and often I was able to see the different people moving about in the back, and that was a little distracting.

Overall, the play was nice… I would not pay the $18 or whatever it was to see it but the student price was reasonable, and I would recommend checking it out if you have the time and are looking for something to do. I am curious to see other students opinions about the performance.

Macbeth: directed by Paul Kassel

Going to see Macbeth performed here in New Paltz was a very cool experience. In his Director’s Note, Paul Kassel says that “the production will bring you into a violent, intense, supernatural world, showing a man succumbing to the evil around and inside him” and it truly did. In my last post, I wrote about the Weird Sisters. It is my belief that they do not represent evil, but are simply meant to represent The Fates. In this version of Macbeth the Weird Sisters were represented as an evil that “permeates the fabric of the world” (Kassel), so I was very interested to see whether I would be convinced of this interpretation or not.

 With the suspension of my belief, this aspect of the play was very well done. I would especially like to commend the light designer, Salvatore Nicosia, for doing such an amazing job of setting the mood of each scene and the sound designer, Mark Weglinski for making me jump out of my seat. Throughout the play the shadows that played across the stage lent an eerie feeling to acts without the Weird Sisters, representing them in another form. When the Weird Sisters were on stage, albeit through the possession of other characters, their voices lent an otherworldly power to the scenes. This, combined with the darkness, clouds, and shadows created a sort of “spirit of evil” that was very believable.

              In this version of Macbeth I would say that the Weird Sisters do represent evil, but I think the play was changed in crucial ways to create this appearance through the possession of characters and the added lines the Weird Sisters speak, along with the lighting and sound effects. In Kassel’s version of Macbeth, evil in connection with the Weird Sisters saturates every scene while the version we read in the Norton gives them a more observatory role. Still, in Shakespeare’s version it seems to me that Macbeth creates his own evil, either by believing the Weird Sisters or by disrespecting them into creating this fate for him.

However, I do have to note that I think this interpretation of the Weird Sisters is very befitting for what we are going through here in the 21st century. The sneakiness of terrorism, and the fact that we sometimes do not know our enemies from our friends is a concept very relevant to our time. So, although I do not believe this "evil is everywhere" idea was central to Shakespeare in his writing of Macbeth it is central to our understanding of present situations and is therefore a very appropriate amelioration to make to a modern version of the play. 

The Tempest

• After reading through Acts III and IV, nothing really caught my attention to blog about, but I have a few comments. While witnessing Ferdinand's love for Miranda, it is almost forbidden by Prospero, the two continue talking behind her father's back and the audience discovers Miranda's name means 'admiration', I found this to be very interesting and cute! It is nice knowing Shakespeare packs meaning behind his characters names. 
• Moving into Act III scene ii, while the lords wander around the island with Caliban in a drunken state. Although unimportant, there decision is to kill Prospero and overthrow his authority. Immediately after reading this I thought of Richard III, Prospero and Richard were two different characters but shared the same reputation with the public. I of course am not a fan of Prospero but I think Richard was a better villain that Shakespeare created! He kept the play entertaining, Prospero needs the help of Ariel to carry out his evil schemes. In a way, Ariel is relate-able to Richard because of her sneaky actions and nobody can see her! 
• The opening of Act III scene iii describes yet another plot of murder. Antonio is desperate to kill Alonso, Sebastian is also involved in this plan. They noticed Alonso is getting exhausted from the excessive walking around the island and analyze this as opportune time to pounce. After encountering Ariel and her spirits, Alonso decides to drown himself while Sebastian and Antonio decide to pursue the evil spirits of Ariel. As a side note, Shakespeare re-uses the names Sebastian and Antonio in this play from Twelfth Night. I was wondering the significance behinds these two names and why Shakespeare insists on using them again. They also have identical relationships in both plays, they stick together in a close-knit friendship. 
• After reading though Act IV, I noticed that the ship-wrecked people are always encountering bad luck, they are presented food and Ariel takes it away, then in Act 4, they are presented clothes and it vanishes. I am starting to tie together the 7 deadly sins. I am aware one of them is gluttony and another is greed. For them to overeat the food presented to them is gluttony and stealing the clothes is greed but it could also be sloth. Maybe they were too lazy to make their own clothes and stealing was a lazy way out. 

The Tempest : Tragedy, Comedey, Definitely Both.

Act four has started to really show me why the play is falling under the category of a tragi-comedy especially after we discussed this in class on Friday.  I can see the marriage between Miranda and Ferdinand starting to play out, as Prospero has finally decided to hand off his daughter in the beginning of Act Four.  Prospero says to Ferdinand,  “If I have too austerely punished you, Your compensation makes amends, for I have given you a third of mine own life” (VI.I. 1-3).  This is very interesting me though because as the footnote states, usually a father would denote that his daughter would be half of his life, but instead she is only a third.  This definitely says a lot about Prospero as a character but that would be a different post.  I am curious as to whether the marriage will end up playing at the end of the play especially because of the enhanced amount of “magic” being done by Prospero and Ariel.  I see in Prospero’s comment to Ferdinand later on that he could possibly be foreshadowing a downfall in the situation between the two by telling him, “Look thou be true.  Do not give dalliance to much the rein” (VI. I. 51-52).  I would like to hope that things will in fact work out for Miranda and Ferdinand but like I said since there is a lot of wizardry and witchcraft occurring I cannot be so sure. I feel that some sort of trick is going to be played on the two of them but I hope the ultimate ending of the play will end up with the two of them being able to consummate their marriage.

In the sense of tragedy at the end of act four scene one we can see almost some sort of tragic ending for Stefano Trinculo and possibly even Caliban.  As one of our reading questions address, what is the stage direction that has seemed to infer what the fate of these characters is?  We see at the end of the act with a few lines left to go, the stage direction says “cries within” right after the “spirits in the shape of dogs and hounds, hunting them about” into some sort of cave or mountain (page 3106).  These cries definitely to me signal that the men are dead which could be the tragic ending for some of the characters.  I don’t know if I necessarily like the outcome, because I do not believe the Caliban should have been killed even though he was plotting to kill Prospero.  There was something that was something about Caliban’s bitterness that I felt really suited his character and was appropriate being all the torture that Prospero put him through between all the work he performs and the amount of credit he actually receieves for it.  Neither Miranda nor Prospero ever give Caliban the respect that he deserves, maybe because of when he tried to "rape" Miranda in the past and shows no remorse, but either way I beleive some thanks should be given to him for his work (II.II. 348-351).   Not that I am saying murder would be an acceptable revenge plan, but it is something that Caliban felt he needed to do, unfortunately his plan was not carried out.  I recognize that although it is not a main character that loses his or her life, it is still a life that is possibly lost, three to be exact.  I am not certain that they are dead but I think it is pretty clear that this might have been the outcome for the men.  As one can see there clearly is a fine line between the idea of tragedy and comedy and the two really mix together which makes the story line much more enjoyable.  I think the idea that tragedy and comedy put together also really demonstrates our reality because the two are always occurring concurrently rather than independently.

A Play Within a Play

In Act 4 we find a play within the main play of The Tempest. This tactic is used in several other works of Shakespeare and in every instance there is some significance in what occurs in this mini play in respect to the main play as a whole. In Act 4, Prospero charges his helper Ariel in putting together a group of spirits that will put on this play for Miranda and Ferdinand who are going to be married.

The players in this performance are the ancient mythological gods Iris, Ceres, and Juno. The Norton describes these gods as Iris the goddess of the rainbow and messenger of Juno, Ceres the goddess of agriculture, and Juno the goddess of women and the queen of the gods (3101-3102). These three goddesses come together in front of Miranda and Ferdinand to commend them on their upcoming nuptials, but within their congratulations is a common forewarning message of Prospero. He warned Ferdinand that he cannot consummate/ have sex with Miranda until after they are married or the wedding is off.  Iris mentions that they thought Venus and Cupid had enchanted the couple by giving them lustful thoughts that they almost acted upon but that their presence has sent both of them away (lines 94-101). After that, Juno and Ceres sing a song of blessing upon the couple to ensure that their marriage be a fruitful one, that they should never want, and be filled with passion and love for each other  (lines 107-117). Iris, later on brings forth other nymphs that dance to celebrate the "contract of true love" (line 133). It is this last line which hints to the fact that this love is a contract that will help Prospero gain the lands that were once stolen from him. Now that the two will be married, he will once again be a powerful man in Naples.

This play is technically a rouse created by Prospero and his helper Ariel. Since he uses these important figures in this play, it establishes ethos, making the play believable to both Ferdinand and Miranda. This also in a cunning way reinforces the idea that they should not succumb to the ways of Venus and Cupid, and should stay chaste until they are finally married.

A Game of Chess

Of the plays we have read, I would probably consider The Tempest to be my least favorite. As I finished the reading, though, I did pick up on one interesting thing that I thought would be good to bring up. I think the fact that Ferdinand and Miranda are playing a game of chess at the end of the play, in Act V, is quite interesting. There has to be a reason why Shakespeare chose to have them play a game that requires the capturing of a king. The game somewhat parallels the story because at this moment in the play, Prospero has “captured” the king. The game is symbolic because he has gotten Alonso right where he wants him. He tricked him and, in a sense, reprimanded him for what he did to Prospero in the past. In this, he has gotten Alonso’s son to fall in love and promise to marry Miranda without the king’s own knowledge. This was smart of Prospero, for Alonso will most likely not argue or show to be unsupportive. After being so upset at the thought of having lost his son, he is more likely just to be happy that he is still okay. 

What began as a tumultuous storm at the hands of Prospero, has become a series of strategical moves.  Prospero has managed to maneuver the various people around the island just as chess pieces move across a board at the hands of a skilled player. He has made all of his moves and successfully done what he set out to do. 

I find it interesting that Shakespeare chose this game to be the one Ferdinand and Miranda would be revealed playing by the end. It is impressive that one scene in the play can have so much meaning and foster a better understanding of the play altogether. Did Shakespeare just happen to choose chess, or was the game meant to symbolize what I have discussed? These things are what make literature and writing so intriguing. This is especially true due to the lack of information and the almost mysterious ways of Shakespeare.

Macbeth New Paltz Production

Prior to seeing the play, I had set my expectations fairly high. After having class in the Mckenna Theater, I was intrigued by the Professor and was interested in seeing how his vision of the play would pan out on stage. Perhaps my expectations were set too high, but unfortunately I was a bit disappointed. I am definitely a tough critic when it comes to productions and movies and things, so that definitely was a factor.
Firstly, I would not go as far as to say that I thought the acting was bad, but I didn't by any means think it was great either. I didn't feel any real connection with the characters. The actress who played Macbeth, though, I thought did very well. She really seemed to take on the roll and her acting was believable. I could feel the emotion and understand what was going on not only through her words but through her body language and expressions as well. I thought the actor who played Macbeth did a good job, but it was hard for me to connect with him as Macbeth because I actually recognized him as a classmate from another english class about a year ago. It was a small class of only nine students or so, and he was one of those classmates you remember. He just stands out in my mind. Throughout the play, I had a hard time separating him from the classmate to the actor. Perhaps this fact made my whole opinion of the play a little unfair and biased.
Aside from the acting, the overall production did not seem to do the play justice, in my opinion. I didn't dislike it entirely, but there were a few things that bothered me. I noticed that they did remove a few aspects of the play, but that is reasonable. The main thing that I didn't like was the absence of the witches. This semester was my first time reading Macbeth, but for me, the witches are just absolutely central to the play. The idea of these random characters being suddenly possessed just did not do it for me. I felt like there were so many instances where someone would suddenly be possessed for one line and I was just so confused. The absence of the witches made the play seem very untrue to the play. I understand that not all productions of plays are going to be exactly the same and each one is an interpretation by someone but I just did not connect with this one.
The last thing I did not like was the fact that there were so few actors. The characters that died in the beginning of the play ended up coming back as different characters later on and I found that to be very distracting. I wish they had enough actors to make sure that no faces would be "recycled" in a sense. It happened a few times, but the one that bothered me the most was the fact that the actor who played King Duncan returned as a soldier in the end. I feel that Duncan is just too strong of a character to return as a soldier. The actor's importance as Duncan made his face especially recognizable so when he returned as someone else, I found myself disappointed.
Overall, I am glad that I saw the  production because I believe it is important to see different interpretations. It helps me to better understand my own interpretation of the play a lot more clearly. Although I had a few complaints, overall I would say that the cast and production team did well and created a worthy show.

Two Trusts

MacBeths lines spoken to himself when he is considering killing Duncan struck me as particularly odd. This whole idea of double trust seemed an odd expression, so much so that it distracted my reading. What did Macbeth mean, "double trust"? Are there different kinds of trusts? It seems that within the context of the play there are. In context, Duncan places his trust in MacBeth for several reasons; MacBeth is an old friend, as indicated by the start of the play. MacBeth has thus been a loyal servant, a good soldier. We have no reason to think that Duncan thinks anything other than high thoughts about the titular character of the play. Then there is another sort of trust, the trust between host and visitor. Particularly in high society, social grace and protocol are very important. One does not go about murdering ones guests. Duncan there for will have his defenses down.

While this phrase is interesting in its own right, it also illuminates a thread that I perceived running through out the play. The idea of different kinds of trusts seems to point to different kinds of duties and commitments. How are ones duty's as a husband different that ones duties as a lord? How are the two ranked? Is there an over lap. If Shakespeare is suggesting that something is amiss, at its root it seems to come from one stepping outside the realm of ones duty, a usual trope in the Shakespeare play. This seems to suggest that Shakespeare is not an advocate of change, but in fact in favor of the societal status quo. Given what we've learned about Shakespeares biography in class, this view seems to hold. He was writing for the royal audience, after all. However it was very interesting to see such a firm apparition of this role in this text.

Lady Macbeth

This is the first time I am reading Macbeth and I had no idea how much I would enjoy reading it. The play is very similar to Richard III but I think that Lady Macbeth adds a little twist to the plot. I was struck by how she was more evil then Macbeth. Lady Macbeth makes him feel like less of a man when he thinks about not killing King Duncan stating “When you durst do it, then you were a man; And to be more that what you were, you would/Be so much more the man” (1.7.49-51). She wants Macbeth to know that in her eyes her was more of a man when he wanted to kill Duncan and he must do it to be a real man. She clearly gave him the kick in the rump he needed to enact the murder of Duncan. One of her best examples which highlights keeping a promise is when she says:

“...I have given suck, and know

How tender 'tis to love a babe that milks me./

I would, while it was smiling in my face,/

Have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums/

And dashed the brains out, had I sworn/

As you have done to this.” (1.7.54-59)

Her words are gruesome and bold because as a mother she is basically saying she would kill her child to keep a promise. To even think about using your child as an example is awful especially when you think of a moment that is supposed to be so tender turned into something so ugly. You have to wonder, would she really do it. Lady Macbeth's speech shows how ludicrous she truly is and it makes me wonder why she is so intent on instigating Macbeth. Does she want the power as Queen? Her words and actions reveal her as one of the most powerful women Shakespeare has created in one of his plays. Unlike the docile female characters, Lady Macbeth has a voice and she wants it to be heard.