Whew! It's over! The hard work, frustration, and anxiety of weeks of preparation, line memorization, and blocking rehearsals has culminated in the performances to remember. I'd say we did Shakespeare justice last night.
I had the honor of playing O. Thello, a N.Y. Police Department Homicide Division Captain. Besides the obvious, I believe I brought as much passion to the role as any real actor who's ever portrayed this controversial character. Our director's vision was to modernize Othello so we put a Law and Order spin on it. Our premise was pretty much in line w/the original work:
Captain O. Thello has two detectives, Iago (originally from Narcotics), and Cassio, who both want in in her department. O. Thello consults her top, Senior D.T. (detective) Desi Santiago. Santiago logically pushes for Cassio and O. Thello follows her advice. This pisses Iago off royally and all his true evilness and ugliness comes pouring out. He recruits A.D.A. Callia to help him fabricate and manipulate the system, in order to bring down Santiago, who dumped him years before, and O. Thello. Iago's idea is a perfect vehicle for Callia. She is willing because she secretly has the hots for Iago. Most importantly, he promises to get her the advancement and prestige she has been yearning for.
First, the dastardly duo bring down Santiago on a bogus rap. O. Thello tries to convince Santiago to fight for her name, but to no avail. Then, Iago works on O. Thello, pouring poison into her ear regarding Santiago, convincing O. Thello that she had been foolishly trusting someone who really was dirty and corrupt, Santiago. Finally, with Santiago out of the way, Callia and Iago go in for the kill, confronting Capt. O. Thello with the same accusations and false evidence. O. Thello, of course, is innocent but the evidence is there. As O. Thello is being confronted, Santiago walks in. Iago intended for both to be arrested at the same time so he lured Santiago down to the office under the guise of meeting to discuss her 'crime'. Thanks to the lies and doubts swirling around in O. Thello's mind, all she believes is that Santiago set her up to fall too. So, O. Thello, in a fit of rage and thinking she's got nothing to lose, shoots and kills Santiago. This is better than what Iago had planned for. He seizes the opportunity to be the hero (and completely cover up his lies) and immediately shoots and kills O. Thello. Unfortunately for him, Iago had no idea that Cassio had been doin' some digging of her own when Santiago went down. Cassio learns that Iago and Callia are dirty. But before she has a chance to warn O. Thello, the captain dies. When Iago shoots and kills the captain, Cassio shoots and kills him. Cassio becomes the hero, placing Callia under arrest.
A classmate got a peek at our script and her advice to me was to "bring it". I highly doubt I could have touched Fishburne's version (especially when I'm saying things like "Stripper Ripper"!), but I did want to bring just as much passion to the role. The tale of Othello (both W.S.'s and ours) is a passionate tale of trust and what we believe. Nothing should stir the flames of the soul more in any human being than when one's trust or beliefs are abused or manipulated. This is why I wanted to play the role (besides the obvious). I believed I could reflect that passion, that painful dissolution of trust Othello suffered, and fell, under. My kids said I did okay, but I just need to work on my dying! Critics! I think I did okay, barring the fact that I forgot a whole lot of my lines! All in all and nerves aside, it was a pleasure, W.S. to add my name to the annals of the esteemed (and not so esteemed) actors who have interpreted that role. If I had to do it all over again, would I? Yeah, I'd just make sure to do a better job with the death scene!
Friday, November 21, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Women and the Evil Men Fear
In the beginning there was a guy named Adam and his girlfriend Eve. These two walked around naked all day, hanging out in an exclusive garden where their nudity wasn't an issue. There was just one stipulation to this life of freedom and carefree leisure - nobody touch the fruit off the big tree in the center.
Well, as we know the story, Evie listened to the snake, gave Adam the apple (who knew just as well not to eat it but did anyway!), and the rest is, as they say, biblical history (or folklore for all those who don't buy into the Bible tales, not that there's anything wrong with that!).
Well, I like to stir the pot whenever the spirit hits me. So, I was thinking, let's examine what the snake said to ol' Evie that convinced her to go against a direct order in the first place. I figure, an insight into what buttons that snake actually pushed in Eve's brain could be the key to what it is about women that men fear.
Yeah, I said it! Men fear women. Why else would we have been subjected to being burned at the stake or drowned in Salem, MA? Why else would the Catholic church have taken away our right to preach the gospels we're supposed to respect, love, and model just like them? Why else would a Muslim woman have to cover herself with the veil lest she "be a temptation" and distract man from his ultimate objective - constant, dedicated worship of God? Why else would we still be, since the dawn of humanity, the universal victims of the most heinous and degrading treatment any human being should ever endure - rape and abuse?
Not male bashing. No femi-nazi hate here. Just rational, intellectual discussion of a consideration of a concept to explain why women are feared and thus sexualized and objectified - STILL - in this day and age.
So, in the NIV Bible, the translation I found (Gen. 3:1-6) of this little story goes like this:
Now, the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" (v3)
Well, the serpent goes on to tell her that she won't die. God just said that, he says. The real truth is that her knowledge would increase regarding life and good and evil, and God didn't want her/them knowin' all that God knew. So the woman ate the apple, and, well, you know the rest.
So, what did the serpent do? Some say it deceived Eve but she knew what was going on so how could there have been deception? The serpent told her the truth - that she would have knowledge the equivalent of God's. That equaled POWER in her mind; power she felt she could handle; power she wanted. Therefore, she went for it.
This is why women are evil and thus feared - because of the power within us and the power we want as human beings. Men know how corrupt and deadly they can be with power. Hell, we've been experiencing it since the dawn of time! Imagine that corruption and deadly force in the hands of a woman then! Scary, i'nt it?! That is why Lady Macbeth and the Weird Sisters (the witches) were such impacting forces in the play. That is why women have not totally gained the power.
Yeah, we've made advances, burned bras, and gained a whole lotta ground. But we still got a long way to go. Until we are no longer sexualized, until we no longer have to manipulate him or play on his weaknesses to get what we need or what, until we no longer have to fear for our advancement, security, and position in whatever world we occupy, until we don't have to hide our beauty and strength behind veils of any kind, we will not truly nor completely have the power. And we shall continue to be feared rather than respected. Personally, I prefer the respect. But I'll take the fear until men wise up.
Well, as we know the story, Evie listened to the snake, gave Adam the apple (who knew just as well not to eat it but did anyway!), and the rest is, as they say, biblical history (or folklore for all those who don't buy into the Bible tales, not that there's anything wrong with that!).
Well, I like to stir the pot whenever the spirit hits me. So, I was thinking, let's examine what the snake said to ol' Evie that convinced her to go against a direct order in the first place. I figure, an insight into what buttons that snake actually pushed in Eve's brain could be the key to what it is about women that men fear.
Yeah, I said it! Men fear women. Why else would we have been subjected to being burned at the stake or drowned in Salem, MA? Why else would the Catholic church have taken away our right to preach the gospels we're supposed to respect, love, and model just like them? Why else would a Muslim woman have to cover herself with the veil lest she "be a temptation" and distract man from his ultimate objective - constant, dedicated worship of God? Why else would we still be, since the dawn of humanity, the universal victims of the most heinous and degrading treatment any human being should ever endure - rape and abuse?
Not male bashing. No femi-nazi hate here. Just rational, intellectual discussion of a consideration of a concept to explain why women are feared and thus sexualized and objectified - STILL - in this day and age.
So, in the NIV Bible, the translation I found (Gen. 3:1-6) of this little story goes like this:
Now, the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" (v3)
Well, the serpent goes on to tell her that she won't die. God just said that, he says. The real truth is that her knowledge would increase regarding life and good and evil, and God didn't want her/them knowin' all that God knew. So the woman ate the apple, and, well, you know the rest.
So, what did the serpent do? Some say it deceived Eve but she knew what was going on so how could there have been deception? The serpent told her the truth - that she would have knowledge the equivalent of God's. That equaled POWER in her mind; power she felt she could handle; power she wanted. Therefore, she went for it.
This is why women are evil and thus feared - because of the power within us and the power we want as human beings. Men know how corrupt and deadly they can be with power. Hell, we've been experiencing it since the dawn of time! Imagine that corruption and deadly force in the hands of a woman then! Scary, i'nt it?! That is why Lady Macbeth and the Weird Sisters (the witches) were such impacting forces in the play. That is why women have not totally gained the power.
Yeah, we've made advances, burned bras, and gained a whole lotta ground. But we still got a long way to go. Until we are no longer sexualized, until we no longer have to manipulate him or play on his weaknesses to get what we need or what, until we no longer have to fear for our advancement, security, and position in whatever world we occupy, until we don't have to hide our beauty and strength behind veils of any kind, we will not truly nor completely have the power. And we shall continue to be feared rather than respected. Personally, I prefer the respect. But I'll take the fear until men wise up.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Perils of Authority - King Lear's Take
The perils of being a parent are that your best intentions are often mislaid, especially when you have more than one child vying for your attentions and affections and your wisdom may not always be wise. Allow me to explain.
As the oldest of seven, I have had a bird's eye view of my mother's relationship with each of us. It is apparent that, like most parents, she has favorites. These would be the youngest daughter and her sons. For these three, mother has been most helpful, supportive, and attentive. I once questioned her about it. Her reply was that she didn't see the remaining four of us as needing her assistance quite as much. Basically, we other four were more independent and therefore mother let us fly (and fall) alone. Mother wasn't trying to neglect any of us. Her decision to be more attentive to the neediness of the younger three stemmed from who cried loudest. They were the squeakiest wheels, and thus they get greased, much like Lear's Goneril and Regan.
Without attempting to make a supposition as to what Lear was feeling/thinking, it has been suggested that his was a "narcissistic" and "prideful" character in regard to his relationship with his daughters. One loved him truly and honestly. The others (as children will do) 'loved' him for what they could gain. And yet he dismissed the true love, blinded by the empty love.
In going mad was this the end result of aging, of the broken heart of a loving father who recognized his faux pas and yet was overly self-judgemental in deeming himself too late for redemption?
Parents, rulers, those in authority are in a tight position. We never can please everyone. We never are capable of 100% of the time making the best decisions. And often when we decide incorrectly, we determine it a sign of weakness to acknowledge our shortcomings. As one in this position, we cannot be weak. But is it not more a sign of weakness to not acknowledge our flaws and seek forgiveness/restitution when necessary?
As the oldest of seven, I have had a bird's eye view of my mother's relationship with each of us. It is apparent that, like most parents, she has favorites. These would be the youngest daughter and her sons. For these three, mother has been most helpful, supportive, and attentive. I once questioned her about it. Her reply was that she didn't see the remaining four of us as needing her assistance quite as much. Basically, we other four were more independent and therefore mother let us fly (and fall) alone. Mother wasn't trying to neglect any of us. Her decision to be more attentive to the neediness of the younger three stemmed from who cried loudest. They were the squeakiest wheels, and thus they get greased, much like Lear's Goneril and Regan.
Without attempting to make a supposition as to what Lear was feeling/thinking, it has been suggested that his was a "narcissistic" and "prideful" character in regard to his relationship with his daughters. One loved him truly and honestly. The others (as children will do) 'loved' him for what they could gain. And yet he dismissed the true love, blinded by the empty love.
In going mad was this the end result of aging, of the broken heart of a loving father who recognized his faux pas and yet was overly self-judgemental in deeming himself too late for redemption?
Parents, rulers, those in authority are in a tight position. We never can please everyone. We never are capable of 100% of the time making the best decisions. And often when we decide incorrectly, we determine it a sign of weakness to acknowledge our shortcomings. As one in this position, we cannot be weak. But is it not more a sign of weakness to not acknowledge our flaws and seek forgiveness/restitution when necessary?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
