New York City and the Arts

Kevin Wang
Response to Shakespeare and Penelope
I didn’t really know what to expect for the Shakespeare Workshop because I’ve never had any experience with acting. However, I found that the Shakespeare workshop our class attended was both entertaining and informative at the same time. Rodney Gutierre, the acting professor, was very knowledgeable in the subject and his humorousness kept the class laughing throughout our session. From our class, I learned a lot of things that I’ve never known about in acting such as iambic pentameter and rhyming couplets. I learned that acting really does play a large role in the production of plays; the way an actor stresses particular words can create totally different meanings and affect the whole play. This is illustrated when a certain phase was said in many different ways, and what I originally thought was a romantic line transformed into an aggressive sexual advance and then into an angry rant. This further exemplified the importance of acting in bringing to life the words on the page.

The play Penelope was also very captivating and entertaining. The play opening caught my attention because it was set in an alternate reality that had no connection with the real world or the novel’s world; I knew that it was no longer a play that was strictly following the storyline of the Odyssey, but going off in it’s own direction. Throughout the play, a lot of diverse themes were introduced such as love and friendship, and revenge. However, I felt that I couldn’t really understand all of what the play was saying; much of the ideas expressed in the play was very philosophical. I felt that some parts of the play was not really meant to be entirely understood; people could interpret it in many different ways. I felt Penelope was a superb portrayal of the human condition.

Anthony Margulies

Prof. Judith Jablonka

MHC 100

11/11/10

Theater

How Does One Learn About Theater?

My exposure to theater in my life has been brief and insignificant. The last time I took part in a play was in fifth grade when I played the role of Squanto at our Thanksgiving Day feast. Since then, I have never partaken in any form of serious acting. This is not to say that I do not like theater though. I very much enjoy watching theater and until recently, I never really understood what goes into making a play. However, after participating in a class conducted by Rodney Gutierre and seeing the performance Penelope, I was able to comprehend and understand the problems facing a theater production, as well as the hard work that goes into making such productions, in a much clearer manner. Part of this is do to my age and my grasp of knowledge presented to me, but also simply seeing and observing what it takes to make a play and get the lines right really did help in my new understanding.

During Rodney’s visit we did a few run-thru’s of Shakespeare’s work. Rodney did not fail to point out every single sexual innuendo that Shakespeare made, which surprisingly was a lot. Just having Rodney translate the old English into new English showed that Shakespeare must have had a very high libido while writing his plays. On multiple occasions there were normally three of 4 sexual references within the lines. For example, flowers standing straight or limp, the soul feeling rigid or soft etc… Personally I had some experience with Shakespeare and that he had included a lot of sex in his plays, but never had I been exposed to, nor knew about how much sex Shakespeare had in his plays. Rodney’s knowledge of this was invaluable in gaining a new perspective on Shakespeare as a whole. The social issues he confronted by making sexual innuendos were at the time unheard of. Had he outright explained what the lines were, he most likely would have been hanged. Instead, he managed to spread his message using deceitful techniques that avoided censorship.

One of Rodney’s greatest points during the lesson was when he asked us to interpret the lines of Shakespeare. So we read them pretty unanimously and he asked us “what type of mood we felt those lines were?” Again, fairly unanimously we said they were romantic, and excited. Then, however, to our surprise, he asked a few kids to read the lines in as sultry a manner as possible. Suddenly the seemingly common language took on a seductive and sexy tone to the point of almost being prurient. Even more fascinating was when Rodney had these same lines be read in a scared and horrified manner. Again, just like before, the lines took on a whole new meaning, no longer sexual or romantic, but fearful and grotesque. This to me was the most amazing part of Rodney’s visit. He showed how interpretations of lines could affect a play in drastic ways.

Never before had I considered that how you interpreted the meaning of just one line could affect the entire outcome of a play. If it weren’t for Rodney, I would have just assumed that everyone read Shakespeare the same way as the person next to them. This however is false. In fact everyone interprets the tone and mood of Shakespeare’s works differently and, this leads to different interpretations of what his work means. One person might see sex as the central message, while others might see fear. One person might read a line and think it is common and romantic, another might read it and think it is sultry and seductive. This concept in Shakespeare, and theater as a whole was entirely new to me and it opened my eyes in a way I wasn’t expecting at all during Rodney’s visit. If there’s one thing I wish to really thank him for it would be helping me to realize that theater is open to interpretation and that there is no one set way of doing something. Anyone can read a line anyway they want and they can subsequently act it out however they want. This is what enables theater to have so many varieties of the same play, and it was something I had never quite connected the dots about before Rodney’s visit.

After gaining my new insights into what it takes to actually interpret and act out the lines to a play, it was time to see this in action. Penelope at St. Ann’s Warehouse was an interpretation of the last book of the Odyssey. It is set in a fairly modern time frame yet still included the traditional elements of the story. In the chapter of the book that this play featured, the suitors are trying to win Peleope’s hand in marriage while her husband desperately seeks to make his way home and kill all who threaten to take his wives’ hand in marriage. This reflects Odysseus’s journey home to claim his wife again before she remarries. While the overall mood of the play is quite sad, after all you’re hoping the entire time that Penelope will wait for her husband, there is a lot of anger, surprise, laughter, and excitement that had to be interpreted and infused into the play. This is where Rodney’s lesson seemed most prevalent.

Throughout the play, the character of Dunne, albeit fat, depressed and lonely continuously serves to interject comic relief into the story line despite the depressing situation that the characters are in. For this to be effective, the actor playing Dunne, Denis Conway, had to precisely interpret his lines in a manner that would serve to create this comic feeling. While he could have read in a monotone and depressed fashion, instead, by saying his lines in an enthusiastic and even cocky manner he is able to interject the sarcasm and irony the play needs.  Similarly, the character of Quinn also serves to interject some stark realism into the play as well as comedy. Played by Karl Shiels, Quinn is the cockiest of all the characters and yet he is just as depressed and lonesome for Penelope’s hand. Despite this depression, Quinn manages to make his presence known on stage by hiding his depression and pursuing the idea that, despite the fact that he is aging, he thinks of himself as twenty years old. Overall it took a correct interpretation of the lines these men had and how to properly present them that enabled them to have the comedic effect that was intended for the characters. Only by participating in and listening to Rodney’s lesson was I able to realize this.

Theater is not as simple as it sometimes appears on the surface. Thanks to Rodney Gutierre’s visit I was able to gain a new appreciation for what it takes to actually put on a play. It’s not about just reading lines, anyone can do that. It’ about presenting those lines in the manner that best suits the play your doing and the actors of Penelope exemplified this very well. Only by interpreting the meaning of lines correctly can one truly present them properly, and thanks to Rodney, I now understand this better than ever before.

Mariam Kirvalidze

I really enjoyed the Shakespearean talk by Professor Rodney, especially because I love Shakespeare and admire theater.  The speaker was rather radical in his thoughts about scholar editors who try to fix Shakespeare’s lines but end up skewing the lines because they themselves don’t really know what the play is trying to say.  I agreed greatly with the speaker in that the act is intolerable and it is as if one were to draw over a great painter’s work to make it more viewer- friendly.  Besides that, the speaker was also hilarious and I suspect it is because I am unfamiliar with blunt, British humor.  The scenarios he made for the class to act out were very clever as well.  Two of my talented classmates went up and said the same lines over but as if they were in different situations.  I believe the real situation was that a man was trying to seduce a woman and she was running away from him.  I wish I had enough guts to volunteer and act but I didn’t and I was definitely thankful he didn’t volunteer me.

More Recently, our class saw the production of “Penelope”.  Before I saw it, I thought the play would involve Greek Mythology, as I knew Odysseus was involved in the play.  However, the play was based in a modern setting, in a backyard with a pool and a grill and a Television in the background as well.  Personally, I dislike when stories are put in different time settings but this is just a matter of taste.  I think that the idea of so many men dying for one woman would have been better based in a more romantic time period. Besides this, I really liked the play because it was so unlike anything I had ever seen.  The beginning was very humorous with the clever conversation between Dunne and Fitz and Quinn in the hotdog scene also added to the humor. I think scenes like this and the one where Quinn kept changing into jovial costumes acted as comic relief, which I think was necessary for the number of monologues that really put me in a more somber mood.  I especially liked Fitz’s speech.  He spoke of finding love in each other (between him and Penelope), but this was a love that I hardly hear of- simply a love between humanity that serves to comfort and console.  Fitz referred to this love as faceless love and this makes sense to me because I saw Fitz as too old to be a physical match for Penelope.  The play ended very abruptly after the youngest boy also gave a speech.  I had hoped that because he seemed to fascinate Penelope in what he was saying, she would save them all after all by marrying him. But, this reality was too unrealistic and Odysseus was back.  Thus, I was a little disappointed by the ending but this may be simply because I’m a sucker for happy endings.

I have not seen many theater performances in my lifetime, but I thought Penelope was one of the best I have ever seen. Between the themes, acting, and storyline, I thought it was a great production. The language of the story was so beautifully written that listening to the actors speak was an art in itself. What caught my attention in the beginning was the humor of the four suitors. The play was funny throughout the entire performance, which I think was important because although many deep themes were dealt with, if no humor was present I think it would have lost many viewers. Some themes I noticed were love, friendship, hope, freedom, competition between males, how to confront death, courage, and trust. I liked how the playwright included many symbols on the stage that just brought the story together. For example, when Quinn is cooking the sausage on the barbeque and the four suitors get on the topic of if it were the last sausage, I thought of it representing the last suitor left for Penelope. When the suitors make their speeches to Penelope, I was able to tell they weren’t legitimately in love with her, but she represented freedom to them, and they wanted that most of all. The long speeches that were said by the suitors did not distract me or take me away from the play, but pulled me into the deep meanings behind their words. The use of the microphone made their voices seem to come from elsewhere. To me, it felt like the words were coming from my conscious and I was the one being philosophical. I think that is a very important aspect of this play. It was extremely engaging, which I think is important for any play. But this play was different because it dealt with deeper life themes than most other plays really get to. Penelope was a modern take on The Odyssey, but not modern enough where we could relate to it completely. How absurd the play was with them being in a swimming pool with a ladder where they can escape, and Quinn’s rapid costume changes made us not get so absorbed into their story which I feel was important. Not getting absorbed in the plot because it was so strange, made us get involved in the feelings and deep themes instead. The performance messed with our emotions making us laugh and become really deep back and forth often. The sudden juxtaposition of feelings between Quinn’s costume change to his sudden death startled the audience and brought things to a quick, powerful ending. The ending with the flame on the barbeque left my heart pounding and me feeling vulnerable and left to leave the theater thinking about everything that I just experienced. If that is not a successful play, I don’t know what is.

I thought Rodney’s Shakespeare workshop was a great experience. His quirky personality kept the class’ attention and I think his accent also helped with that too! =) I really liked the exercises he did when he would bring two actors to the center and tell them to read the script with whatever situation he told them in their mind. They would have to read the words angrily, flirtatiously, or with sadness. By doing this, we were better able to understand the meaning behind Shakespeare’s words. I found it very interesting how different each of the editions of his works were from one another. I didn’t realize how much the English editors had changed Shakespeare’s writing, and some of their changes drastically affected his intended meaning. When Rodney explained how Shakespeare included things for the benefit of a play and not as literature, I understood how these changes were wrong in every way. His interactive exercises with the class made Shakespeare a lot more interesting from a dramatic perspective instead of the literary perspective that I have been exposed to my whole life. Rodney made Shakespeare seem very second-nature. When he gave out the opening lines to different plays, we instinctively projected the first word of our sentence to grab the attention of the audience the way the actors did at the Globe Theatre. I liked knowing that we naturally were doing things the same way Shakespearean actors did them. It made me feel more connected to Shakespeare’s works, where before they intimidated me and I did not always understand them. Rodney helped with that a lot and I really enjoyed the time the class had with him.

-Nicole Lennon

Izaya Abdurahmanov

I thought that the Shakespeare session with the British professor was highly entertaining and educational. Never before had I been taught how to act nor have I ever analyzed Shakespeare through the perspective of an actor. I’ve always had to analyze Shakespeare, or plays in general, through a literary point of view for any English class I had so this was a rather interesting and eye opening experience for me. I liked how funny the professor was and how he made the text in the plays more understandable by summarizing what the characters are saying with a joke. Overall, I liked the session and I learned about various interpretations of acting out certain scenes of Shakespearean plays.

The Penelope play was also an enjoyable experience. I thought it was pretty interesting how the play was focusing on the perspectives of the suitors in The Odyssey. When I read the book in high school, I hated the suitors because the story was about the struggles of Odysseus and how he just wanted to get back home to his wife. However, this play actually made me sympathize with some of the suitors because it made me see how their lives were wasted trying to win Penelope over. There were many themes such as the meaning of love that were explored, which also were very interesting. I found the play to be really entertaining with all the occasional silly conversations the suitors had as well as the part with the costume changes. However, the monologues were rather long and I completely spaced out through all of them. Fitz’s monologue was just a bunch of mumbling to me, which I could not concentrate through but apparently Penelope seemed to like it. Aside from that, the play was rich in meaning and it had an interesting twist on the Oddysey.

When the play “Penelope” first began, I wasn’t sure if we were really watching a story based on The Odyssey. The props were modern and the man in pink Speedos reassured me that this could not be a story of Odysseus and Penelope.  As the men began to mention the “prize” and Penelope herself, I began to feel more at ease. I enjoyed their humor, sarcasm, and mocking tone. They were clearly four suitors who disapproved of one another. Quinn was clearly the bully out of the four men, but it was his clever plan for the men to support each other and combine their talents that underlined the main theme of brotherhood in the play.

I thought the acting was a success, especially during the monologues. Although the monologues were themselves very lengthy and the actors were clearly trying to be all theatrical even as their lines dragged on, their acting didn’t sway and they remained powerful in their words and actions. I thought Dunne’s monologue was silly and a failed attempt at charming Penelope. Fitz’s was evidently sincere and philosophical. Quinn’s was undoubtedly overdone, but truly hilarious. Burns’ was saddening and emotional, but easily relatable. Overall, the monologues were unnecessarily lengthy but Dunne’s and Quinn’s monologues brought back my enthusiasm for the play. I liked the sudden noises and light changed that the play threw in, such as the siren and the flaming barbeque grill.

Penelope seemed like a detached robot the entire play, mainly because she didn’t say one word. I figured the play wasn’t about her, but rather the philosophy of competition, brotherhood, and the fight for love.

As for the Shakespeare afternoon, I had trouble understanding much of what the host was talking about, because of his British accent. I generally have stage fright, so I didn’t volunteer to act. I liked that we didn’t just read from the script, but that the host stopped us to correct us with our pronunciation and emphasis on certain words. He was very knowledgeable in not just the lifestyle of Shakespeare’s time, but also in many of Shakespeare’s works. I was highly impressed. Our host was barefoot and forward with many topics some people squirm at, so he was clearly trying to connect with his audience and relate to us on a personal level. He kept us on edge with his jokes and made us ponder about the effect of even minor aspects of acting on the entire meaning of a play.

-Polina Mikhelzon

….choose the Theater category.