Marcin Roncancio.
The opportunity we were given in speaking with Rodney about Shakespeare’s plays from the actor’s perspective was definitely one of the best learning experiences I’ve had in this class. I came away with such a broader view of the elements that go into theater, and all the details in the text that sometimes seem to be hidden to the casual reader of Shakespeare’s plays. I knew that cadence, meter and rhyme were always important, for example, but who would’ve guessed the spitting mad hint of tone in alliterative plosive consonants? I knew that over hundreds of years many things could be edited out of works, but I never guessed how much, what in particular, or the reasons why. The difference in values across cultures and eras is a fact, but I never considered it much in terms of comparing the plays; the difference in ages in many of the female leads and the meaning of that, or the attitudes of the protagonists and whether the reader sympathizes with them from the outset–these are things that change when values change. I loved this day because of the preconceptions it did away with, and the shifts in my perspective towards some of my favorite plays it brought about. I now look forward to rereading a few with a new experience and actively reading for at least a few of the clues revealed from the actor’s perspective.
Penelope was a brilliant play that I enjoyed mainly from an academic point of view. I think I sat there in the theater and counted as many elements and forms of symbolism as I could. I was honestly shocked at the baseness and vulgarity that absolutely permeated the play, but it interested me because I could find meaning in it. From the beginning the first thing I think everyone noticed was the appalling choice of costumes. Perhaps I don’t have an answer for that, but I do have a theory for the reason three wore robes and Quinn did not. Except for Fitz, I believe, at one point or another, the robe would come off, usually at a time when the character would be figuratively baring themselves, revealing their motives, their thoughts… Quinn, though he was an unappealing character in his unapologetic harshness, was irrefutably the loudest and the most commanding of the four men. He held no mask, no pretense, therefore it makes complete sense that he would not wear a robe for the majority of his time on stage. It is even more interesting to think that when the time for his speech came he did the opposite of what the others had done, and he did employ different personae, he did take on false roles to try and woo Penelope, and in the process, he is killed. In stark contrast, Burns sheds his costume and sheds his meek and beaten down persona for his final, powerful speech in which he reveals the core of his character. The aspect of the play I have described is one among many that I found interesting and clever, but in the interest of being brief, I will mention only the use of the two ladders, one of which rested against the platform where Penelope stood during the very last scene that was never touched or mentioned by anyone in the play, the obvious use of height as a symbol, the use of lighting and the mood projected by the actors during their soliloquies… All brilliant elements that either consciously or subconsciously made it into the minds of the audience members and added a richness of depth to the play as a whole.
