Lauren's final project progress
I believe that I am making a lot of progress on my project. I had actually already read and seen A Walk To Remember before, but I reread it for this project. I noted scenes that I would like to adapt – they were important to the plot, etc.
I went to the author’s site and got information on him, his life, and A Walk To Remember. I then found reviews of the book and movie, both good and bad. I have finished reading and going through the research I’ve complied. I will be re-watching the movie and writing the essay/adaptations the rest of this week.
Meditation 13
For my final project, I collaborated with Katie to research Neil Simon and a few selected works of his. One of which, "Barefoot in the Park," I will be focusing on especially. This week I am looking at a few different monologues for my performance selection, I have narrowed it down to a few from "Barefoot in the Park," but I am still not certain yet. My main focus is finishing my research on "Barefoot in the Park," I am almost finished though. We have been writing a paper with both of our research combined to contribute to biographical information on Neil Simon and his selected works. With "Barefoot in the Park" I am especially focusing on the adaptations which originated from this play.
Project Update -- Katie Marchant
Taylor and I are jointly writing a research paper on Neil Simon and two of his most well known works,
Barefoot In The Park and
The Odd Couple. For my section I have written a biography of Neil Simon and am starting to write a history of the adaptations of
The Odd Couple. Taylor will post about her section of the paper. My section is coming along well and I feel very confident in where I am progress wise. I have found some very good information online and at the library. I hope to finish the first draft of my section by Thursday so I can revise and edit on Friday. Over the weekend Taylor and I will combine our sections and rehearse the monologue that Taylor will perform during the final on Wednesday.
Progress report.
I believe our group has made excellent progress with our semester project. All we need is to finish the script, and once that is done, it will be smooth sailing after that. All that is left is the actors will need to memorize their lines, we will need costumes and props and everything else needed to put on a show, and we all have to write our papers. Once the script is written we will all meet together to discuss it and talk about our papers, and then we will meet a few days after that to finish our project. My group is doing great!
clarification
As a follow up on what I just posted, I would like to clarify that I was unable to attend a meeting because of one act rehearsals. I also would like to say that I think once we smoothe out the bumps in the script I think it will be somewhat quicker and easier. But we ARE doing good work, and I enjoy the group! :)
Semester Projects # 13
Our group is making slow but steady progress. Unfortunately I was unable to be at the last meeting where we assigned scenes to be written. I initially planned on being partnered with Sam to help him write his scene. Then I had another idea. What if one person did not participate in the writing process? This one person could then read the scenes written by the group members and make sure the play develops and progresses logically. I thought I could be this person. I told my idea to a few members of the group, and they approved that we could use an unbiased third party to edit and correct any inconsistencies in the plot. This would be easy for me because I had not begun to write the script.
Now I am just waiting for the scripts of all the scenes. I have received a few, but I really do not want to begin to work on them until I read the entire play front to back. I figure the best way to do this is to read everything in context. After I read the play I will make suggestions and discuss them with the group. That way we can collectively decide to make any changes that we all see fit.
Then I think we can start to address details of the play including staging and costumes. We might even discuss physical characteristics we would look for while casting each of the characters. We could also talk about the changes we made in the fairy tales and why we felt these were appropriate for our adaptation/ collaboration. Then we can start to plan the presentation and possible visual aids that we might use. All in all, I think we are making good progress and heading in the right direction.
project progress JD'
I have written 3 scenes and an introduction for my adaptation of Measure for Measure named You’re All Equally Wrong- Measure for Measure Converted to Currency. I have also written an introduction for explaining my project. I am worried because I fell behind on blogs but my project is going well. I feel like it is both further along and more behind then I expected.
My intro really explains how I feel about the play and provides a focus. I had been unable to connect my adaptation with my problems with some of the critical interpretations I had read. But I feel I finally successfully did this. I still need to justify my individual choices. I already have this in my head but I just need to write it down .I have been taking note of changes this whole time however so this should be easy.
My largest concerns are punctuation and grammar and the part about previous adaptations. I am also worried about citations. I have read at least 20 works about the play but I have not yet written about previous staging and interpretations. This should be the most difficult writing I have left .
Lauren's 12 Meditation
Last week’s blog was about some of my feelings regarding Shakespeare and adaptations of his work, so now I’d like to talk about the One Acts. Of course I’d like to tell everyone that was involved that they did an amazing job, but I also realized a few things while watching my friends and classmates prepare for the One Acts.
Many people think that the hardest part of being in a show is being on stage – at least, I know many people who are not involved in theater think that. I did, before I became involved in theater. They have to memories lines and blocking, give each performance their best effort – it’s trying and exhausting. But I think that many people often overlook the part of the director – cutting plays, blocking plays, staging plays – even simply castings plays can be difficult.
I’ve adapted a full-length play into a One Act once before, my freshman year. It was quite possibly one of the toughest things to put together so that it makes sense and flows together. I’ve also had directors in the past who were not good at this at all, therefore the show wasn’t half as good as it could be.
I think that all the directors did a very good job with their One Acts. I felt like all the shows made a lot of sense and I was drawn in by each of them individually. Each director took their text and adapted it to the actors they cast, the requirements for their class assignment, and other restrictions like the stage, etc.
I, for one, am very impressed with everyone that was involved. Again, good job, you guys!
11-22-06 #12
Contemporary Shakespeare is an integral part of the progression of Shakespeare. After the discussion in class on Monday about the production of Shakespeare, I learned that when it was originally performed, it was done in contemporary dress; to reflect that day and age with their story. I think that performing Shakespeare in today’s society should be done in a more contemporary setting to hold steady with past production history. I also think that it was originally done to relate to the audience and to tell a story that they can understand. Often times today audiences who see a performance of Shakespeare that is done as a historical production lose sight of the meaning behind it. With the language and the dress and the location, people can easily get confused about what is being said and what is actually going on if it is not performed well. So I think that it is important to present Shakespeare to a society in a current adaptation more often than in a historical format. When watching contemporary movies with the original Shakespearean text, I often don’t even notice that it is not a familiar speak because I can relate to the actions and the way it is being said. I think more people in society will be able to respect Shakespeare’s stories and understand what he is trying to say if it is presented in a way more graspable to people today.
Meditation 12
During class we were discussing the various adaptations that have come from Shakespearean shows. A few mentioned were movies like “She’s The Man”, “10 Things I Hate About You”, and other productions which basically follow Shakespeare’s plotline but place the character in modern settings. But there are other films like Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet, or Richard III which take Shakespeare’s lines, almost exactly, and incorporate them into a new time period and I thought that was an interesting take on Shakespearean adaptations.
When people in the class were talking about the different types of Shakespearean shows they had seen and performed I thought of a production that my school did for One Act Play two years ago. It was called “Shogun MacBeth” and it was a kabuki stylized show complete with elaborate Japanese costumes and white make-up with very defined, dark facial expressions. It was such a stylized form of performing that it made me think of Shakespeare in a whole new light. The two dimensionalness of the characters only added new perspectives to the complexities of Shakespeare’s original characters. Like I said in my last meditation, the amount of creativity that people can incorporate into adaptations is infinite. The possibilities are endless.
The Benefits of Modern Shakespeare #12
Shakespeare is one of the most well-known playwrights of all time. People of all ages and even various ethnicities and races are familiar with his work. A large portion of this is due to the fact that his stories and plays are still being performed today. Some of these performances are attempts to recreate Shakespearian theatre exactly as an audience would have seen it during the sixteenth century. However, modernized adaptations are also extremely popular on stage as well as on screen. I think that these modern versions of Shakespeare’s work help keep his brilliant scripts and stories alive. Not that I think Shakespeare will ever cease to be performed; but I do believe that by adapting his work, audiences are allowed to reconnect to his plays.
Many people believe that adaptations stray away from original Shakespearian theatre. I used to be such a person. I thought that by presenting a play written by Shakespeare it would be appropriate to recreate the experience from start to finish, with Elizabethan attire and English accents. However, I now see that modern adaptations allow modern audiences to relate to the stories of Shakespeare’s plays. An example of this can be seen when analyzing the film Ten Things I Hate about You with Julia Styles and Heath Ledger. This movie is basically the exact plot from William Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew only set in a modern day high school. Because of this change of setting and circumstance, I was able to actually relate to the characters Kat and Bianca much more than I would have been able to had the movie been set in the Elizabethan period.
Ten Things I Hate about You is one of the many examples of Shakespeare’s work set in modern times. I think that it illustrates how modernizing his plays can sometimes help preserve them. That’s why I believe that performing one of Shakespeare’s plays in its original form may be interesting from a historical perspective. But it is through the production of modernizations that we are able to recreate the same emotional responses and experiences for the audience.
missed one acts
I was busy helping my friend rebuild his fence after a storm, sorry I couldn't come to one acts I'm sure they were excellent. So lin this blog I will be talking about what i plan to do in regards to a final project.I plan to write an adaptation of mine own, I'm thinking of doing an adaptation of either one of shakespeares plays, or adaptation one of my favorite books into a play. I think either one would be enjoyable, and challenging. Shakespeares a little over done however, so it will be my fallback if my favorite story cant be adapted.
Its a story by harlan ellison, and I hope I can pull it off. I dont have the writing chops ellison does, but no one on earth really does. So hell why not give it a shot? I don't like depending on other people this way, it will be all my fault if I fail.
So onward with the project!!
Violence
Shakespeare has a lot of violence in all of his plays. All of them. Including Richard III. Well, what would you expect from a play about a guy trying to get the throne from his family? That he’s just going to ask them? No. He’s going to fight for it, even if it means killing both his brothers, his nephews, his wife, and his friends. So it comes to no surprise that this man was the most hated person.
But when you think about it, how sensitive are we to this type of violence? I know back in the “olden days” they loved violence, especially live executions. Has it changed now? Not exactly. I mean, sure we don’t have live executions anymore, but we still have movies and video games in which there is a lot of death, blood, gore, and whatever other term would be appropriate for this situation. But we don’t think to ourselves “this isn’t real” like we would when seeing Richard III. We don’t stop and say “oh, that’s not what is really happening. He’s not really bleeding.” No we don’t, but I believe that is because we are so into the show, into the game, into the movie, that the thought of it being fake never crosses our minds. We are too busy trying to understand what is going on to worry about whether or not it’s real. A show like Richard III is not going to change our views on violence. Even after seeing multiple versions of the show, I still have the same perspective on violence in movies—as long as the good guy wins, or there is a good story line, then I am hooked. When there is violence in a movie, I don’t think about the realism. I’m too busy thinking “Oh, the good guy has to win! He has to beat the bad guy and be the hero of the movie! SHOOT HIM!”
I know that with video games, the person playing knows that the game is fake, and going to a movie I know the movie is fake, too, but at the same time, the first thought in my mind when seeing a Shakespeare show is “what the crap is going on?” not whether or not it’s real.
11-17-06 #11
I think that Looking for Richard, was very helpful in explaining what all went on in Richard III. I think that Al Pacino used the research and studies he did for the film well to help explain what is behind Richard III and to help convey just what it is about. The intertwining of the research and rehearsal and character analysis with the production helps to convey the story Shakespeare was telling. I really liked the way that Pacino went to London and did research on Richard and how the development of the character went into this film. He would discuss every act and what is going on and then go into what the characters are feeling and what they desire and want from each act; then in faded into the important parts of the play. I particularly enjoyed the cast read throughs in which they translated their lines into contemporary language to express what the character was feeling. I think that it is important to show things like this as to help comprehend what Shakespeare really means. I find it difficult to just pick up and read Shakespeare without perusing every line to find what it means. So seeing in preformed, rehearsed and researched really helps to decipher the meaning behind the words, to find out the intentions of the character by seeing it preformed live help me to understand what is going on. I think Looking for Richard is a very useful tool in helping to teach Shakespeare and helping people to respect and understand the beauty in his writing and to learn from it- and even to be able to apply to their lives. I think Pacino showed a new side of Shakespeare and why it is important to study and learn from; he conveyed the idea that life isn’t just about what we understand and know, but about delving deeper into what we don’t understand to grasp new concepts and better ourselves. His desire to understand Richard III shows us that we should yearn to understand and surround ourselves with new knowledge and a desire to discover new things about life and not just settle for what we already know.
I was so very confused by all the different characters and how they were related to each other in Richard III. So here is my understanding of all of the characters, how they relate to each other, and my opinions of the main characters. I am going to begin by listing the characters by how they are related to each other then I will go back and explain some of my opinions on the main characters.
According to
http://nfs.sparknotes.com/richardiii/characters.epl the characters are related as follows: King Edward IV, Richard and Clarence are brothers. Their mother is the Duchess of York. Queen Elizabeth is King Edward’s wife and she has four sons; Gray and Dorset from a previous marriage and the young princes (Edward and the Duke of York). Rivers if Queen Elizabeth’s brother. Queen Margaret is the late King Henry VI’s wife. Lady Anne is the wife of the late Prince Edward (the son of King Henry and Queen Margaret) who was killed before the play begins. Buckingham is Richard’s right-hand man in all of his schemes. Richmond is part of the Lancaster family who was dethroned by the Yorks. Richmond gathers an army and defeats Richard in the end. There are other lesser characters that I will not go on to describe. Wow… I am still confused even though I didn’t include the other characters that pop up occasionally!
Here are my thoughts on Richard, Lady Anne and Buckingham. I believe that Richard was a very lonesome and misunderstood man. He feels that he must prove himself worthy in the eyes of others because of his physical disabilities and his way of making himself worthy is to work his way to the top by killing anyone in his path. I feel that he does this because it is the only way he thinks that he can gain worthiness but in reality he is making himself more and more unlikable. I don’t really understand why Lady Anne agreed to marry Richard when she knew that he was partially if not solely responsible for the death of her husband and father-in-law. Was it simply because she felt that she needed protection and she believed that Richard could offer her that? I suppose that times were very different then and a woman really did need a man to survive in the world but I think that she probably could have found someone else who wouldn’t wind up killing her in the end. Buckingham is a very interesting character. Is he helping Richard simply because he wants to get ahead or because he truly believes that Richard has the right to the throne? I don’t believe that he is truly as cold-hearted as Richard. I think that he was simply taking advantage of a way to get ahead and didn’t realize how far Richard would take things.
Meditation #11
As I was reading “Richard III”, I got a clear picture in my head of what the film would be like. It would be a serious production with melodramatic actors, almost no comedy, it isn’t meant to be a humorous show, but during class today, when we watched the clip of “Richard III,” it seemed to be mocking the seriousness of a Shakespearean play. The way Richard was dancing up the stairs and singing to himself after he wins over the woman he loves, by professing his love for her over the body of her dead husband, in a morgue. That scene in itself is darkly humorous, but compiled with the direct speeches into the cameras and the dancing; it provided audiences with a new perspective of Shakespeare.
While I was watching Looking For Richard tonight, it occurred to me how many different varieties of adaptation are available for one play. Al Pacino created a great documentary about Richard III, actually meant to be an educational film, it told the story with interjections from the cast and crew. Also, filled with commentary by literary analysts and random surveyed citizens, they gave their own thoughts on the play. “Looking For Richard” really showed the different approaches that could be taken with such a stylized show. It reminded me of Baz Luhrmann’s take on “Romeo and Juliet”. He used the dialogue and just set it in modern times, a stylized show taken to a new time period, just like Richard III was taken to the time period of World War II to aid the plotline.
Julia D blog
In “Looking for Richard” there is a lot of talk about sharing a love of Shakespeare with the masses. Before I go any further I should say I am not sure of my opinion but for now I’ll argue against the idea of sharing the passion. I am not a football fan my father has tried his best to instill this passion in me but I find myself seesawing between being bored and overwhelmed. There are brief moments when I understand and actually enjoy the game but on the whole it doesn’t seem worth it. I am not saying my father should stop watching football or that he’s dumb for enjoying it. I just have other interests furthermore if someone tried to simplify the game so I could understand it the game would be loosing some of its complexity and beauty. On the other hand continually pausing a game on the television to explain every action instant replays and challenges kill the suspense and spirit of the game.
Looking for Richard tries to share a passion, to do so its edits, it narrates it even changes a line,( G to C) and switched settings. Yet Compared to other versions of Shakespeare “Looking for Richard is very conservative. “Ten Things I Hate About You” changes language setting and plot details of “The Taming of the Shrew. “No Fear Shakespeare” a written adaptation goes so far as to modernize the language and cliff notes if it can be called an adaptation summarizes the plot with bare bones descriptions. If we take out what makes Shakespeare odd and challenging and transform it to familiar then what makes Shakespeare distinct what is really of value. Shakespheare often took his plots from other stories. So if the plot is all that stays perhaps he deserves no credit at all .Furthermore reading cliff notes is a lot like seeing the answers at the back of a math book as opposed to every step of the work done to get that answer. On the face value just seeing the answer seems easier. But to really understand the answer you have to no the process and understanding the math is a lot easier with the work in front of you than with just the answer. In movies it’s considered acceptable to show a person get on a bike at there house then one second later show them put their bike on a rack by the grocery store. This is a simpler version of this event then showing the person ride past numerous houses, nearly hit a cat and pedal for 20 minutes but the edited version presumes more knowledge then the unedited. By this logic I think the easiest way although time consuming to understand Shakespeare is to see it in it’s most complete form possible on stage every scene acted in Elizabethan language.
But then I see it from the other side. My first experience with Shakespeare was a Wishbone version of the Tempest. It definitely edited it certainly took artistic license in casting a dog as Ariel and the show cut in and out from the play and the adventures of a boy in the 90’s with his dog. But because of that version when I went to see the Tempest in 4th grade (still cut some for time) I understood the play. I didn’t get every line but I understood more than I would of and really enjoyed the show.
I give credit to the Wishbone version for providing me a basic understanding of the plot of “The Tempest” and thus an entrance into the world of Shakespheare. Understanding the plot wasn’t what made me love the show but it let me put my focus elsewhere into appreciating the characters and the puns.
On a separate point in response to one British man in the movie saying that the British understood Shakespheare more because they had a greater culture knowledge and experience in the arts. I don’t think I enjoyed the “Tempest” because of what I knew of Shakespeare and art but because of what I didn’t know. I was to ignorant to have Bard-phobia. I was young enough that not getting every word of a conversation (which I agree with Al Pacino is an obsession which bogs many people down) seemed normal. I really liked “Looking for Richard” because in the end it seemed to come to the conclusion that Shakespeare is never straight forward. Even professional actors and scholars don’t know things, debate things, and get confused. I think Al Pacino’s line “everyone gets and opinion” and the scholars admittance of “I don’t know” were great examples of that. Shakespheare is about exploration scientists love precision artists possibility.
Thus it’s good to get a basic understanding of the plot, it’s good to do research as long but you can’t stop there. That’s not a play It’s a lot like football there’s a certain amount of players set innings(or acts) given roles but the structures not the game it’s people maneuvering within that structure that’s the beauty of football, the chaos between the lines.
Romeo and Juliet Were Too Young To Fall In Love, Anyway! - Lauren's 11 Meditation
Lauren Chiodo – meditation 11
I dislike Shakespeare. This is not a secret. I know that it is practically taboo for someone who has any interest in the theater to dislike Shakespeare, but I do. I hate acting out his work, reading his work, and trying to understand his work. I even dislike watching his work being performed.
I always laugh when Romeo and Juliet die. I found
Richard the Third to be funny as well, not an unnecessary bloodbath. Even Shakespeare’s most dire dramas are lost on me. I’m not sure what this says about me as a writer and actress, but it’s true.
Some people like to see adaptations of Shakespeare. I am not opposed to them, of course, but my favorite Shakespearian adaptations are the updated kind. I’m not talking about taking Shakespeare’s words and injecting them into a modern time, place, and with modern people. I’m talking about taking one of Shakespeare’s works and changing it to fit the time.
Some such adaptations that come to mind are
Ten Things I Hate About You, a movie from 1999 that stars Julia Stiles and Heath Ledger; or
She’s The Man, a more recent movie starring Amanda Bynes and Channing Tatum.
TTIHAY is a loose adaptation of
The Taming of the Shrew and
She’s The Man is another loose adaptation of
Twelfth Night. I enjoy these adaptations because they make Shakespeare’s work relatable. Watching
Romeo and Juliet makes me glad that I was never as dumb as those kids. I know that most of Shakespeare’s works are meant to be dramatic, but I find them ridiculous. The way the people act and interact in his works is so completely different from how society works today. It’s almost unfathomable.
Richard 3
Who gave Al pacino the chance to make a Richard 3 movie!!!!! And also why did he cast wynona ryder, her accent was horrendous as was her acting, it made me depressed to see that this movie was actually made. Al pacino played a decent richard 3 and I guess the documentary was interesting in parts, like seeing british people spout out bullshit about acting. Did they just talk to hear themselves, did they like their voices that much? It was depressing to see these supposed experts in their crafts just..just waste breath.
Anyway I didn't really come to understand the play any more because of this documentary, I felt that a lot of it was self serving and slightly retarded. but thats just me.
Censored
One of the main themes of the FTP was that it was “uncensored”. This theme was also brought into the movie, but as a whole theme for each situation in the movie. The painting, the shows, even the work programs had the theme of being “uncensored”. This, however, was not carried through, for anything.
The painting that Diego Rivera did in Rockefeller center was a censored project. When Rockefeller went to Diego with his project, he told him to paint anything, as long as he saw the sketches first. After he saw the sketches, Rockefeller told him to start painting. But after Diego was through, Rockefeller noticed that what was painted was not what Diego had originally given him. Rockefeller ordered him to repaint it, but Diego refused. In this sense, the painting was censored because Diego was not allowed to draw whatever he wanted, and when he did, Rockefeller got very upset and told him to take it down. I don’t think it is fair to censor something like that, because it is the painter’s vision, not Rockefeller’s, and the way he expressed himself may not have been the way Rockefeller wanted him to, but what he painted was what he wanted to express. I think the only reason why Rockefeller was upset about the painting was only because of the communist-like portraits in a non-communist country.
The shows that were being performed at this time were also censored. The Beaver musical, the one that was made for children, was thought to be a communist show and was pulled after it had just gotten started. The Cradle Will Rock was also pulled when they closed down the theatres and if anyone performed the show, they would be out of a job with the government. By closing down all the theatres, however, many people were out of jobs. The FTP was the only reason why many people had jobs in the first place. Olive never would have had a job if she never went to talk to the FTP. Programs as such were a great source for jobs, but they were also censored. They could only take a number of people, and they had to have all the requirements in order to get a job. The programs were censored also because they were looking out for communists amongst the group, and if they had even the slightest hint that someone was, they would either close the program completely, or make cuts in the number of people allowed to work.
Diego Rivera's Mural # 11
In the movie “Cradle Will Rock,” Rockefeller hires Diego Rivera to paint a mural on the wall of his building. However, after Rockefeller and Rivera had finalized the terms of the agreement, Rivera changed his original sketches and painted controversial issues and communism. Rockefeller, therefore, refuses to accept his work and has the painting destroyed. Some people think that he had no right to destroy art. When this was discussed in class many people thought art is a public property and belongs to everyone. However, I think that in the case of Rockefeller and Rivera, this was not the case. I feel that Rockefeller had every right to declare the work unsatisfactory and have it destroyed.
When making a business transaction, all parties involved must come to some sort of agreement. There is a stage in the process that involves defining the terms upon which the agreement or trade is made. In Rockefeller’s case it was a painting in exchange for a large sum of money. Rockefeller agreed to pay a certain sum in exchange for a certain kind of painting. As is the case in any bargain, both sides of the exchange are obligated to fulfill the requirements. If one person changes the deal or fails to meet the conditions then the contract is void. This is exactly what happened. Rockefeller saw that Rivera was not painting according to the agreed-upon sketches. Therefore, he refused to pay Rivera for the mural.
Another reason why I think Rockefeller had a right to destroy the work is because the wall upon which the mural was painted still belonged to Rockefeller. He can do anything with his wall or his property that he wishes. Just because Rivera painted on it does not mean it belonged to him. If an artist paints on the side of a building at his own free will, it does not mean the building belongs to that person. The fact that Rockefeller destroyed the mural was probably fairer to Rivera than if he had kept it. If Rockefeller left the painting there without paying Rivera he would essentially be benefiting from Rivera’s service without fulfilling his part of the bargain. Therefore, I think that Rockefeller was not wrong for smashing the mural because Rivera did not meet the requirements of the deal and because the wall still belonged to Rockefeller.
11-10-06 #10
So I think that Diego Rivera should have followed what he said he was going to do. And that Rockefeller was not wrong in destroying the work of art. The piece was supposed to be American encouraging work of art and Rivera’s showed much support to his communist roots. It was not an appropriate thing for him to paint in such a building at such a time where people feared communism. He should have stayed true to what he told Rockefeller he was going to do. And again, I think Rockefeller had all right to remove the painting, he owned the wall it was on, and he decided it was what was best for the people. He didn’t need people getting upset with him for having a painting of such controversy in his building. The same goes for all art of the time, it was an important project to support the arts, but at the same time the artist should respect who is paying them to do what they want for a piece and to support their country. Art for art sake is a good thing, but when it addresses such issues as communism during red scare times, I do not believe it is appropriate. Art should have been done in a positive fashion and not to frighten citizens. Art for art sake is a very integral part of the art because it creates movements and new types of art and expresses ideals. But there is a place and a time for every work, and some are just not appropriate during times, for instance terrorist supported paintings would not be appropriate well anytime, but especially around 9/11. Art needs to be done to be appreciated, and therefore an artist needs to know their limits when painting for someone else.
Meditation 10
During Monday’s class discussion, the possible villain of “Cradle Will Rock” came up. Hazel Huffman, portrayed by Joan Cusack, was suggested as a possible antagonist to the story. Yet, throughout the entirety of the film, the American government appeared to be the cause of the problems experienced by the Federal Theatre Project. Characters like Hazel Huffman may have contributed to the government’s goal of terminating the Federal Theatre Project; but she did not single-handedly mastermind the takedown.
Also, I found it increasingly difficult to feel sympathy toward any character who was so determined to unravel the threads of the organization who supported her financially and turn her back on her co-workers based on unfounded suspicions. I felt this way especially during the scene where she returned to work and her co-worker told her about the budget cut due to her testimony. Even though she didn’t originally intend for this to occur, she told the government that there were “communists in the system” so therefore they would obviously try to weed them out. She seemed so shocked when they all shunned her publicly at work but she did the same thing to them when she made her testimony, which was broadcasted on the radio. I just did not feel her character was worthy of sympathy since her situation was entirely self-inflicted.
The character of Hazel Huffman did seem to embody many of the feelings experienced by Americans at that time. They had to decide whether they wanted to risk being accused of being a “communist” or just jump the gun and be the accuser of someone else. Katie made the comparison between the Red Scare and the current situation of Americans being unpatriotic or “un-American” if they do not say the pledge of allegiance. This movie also reminded me, as I stated in class, of the Salem Witch Trials. People who potentially did nothing wrong were being hung based on false accusations, just as the people of America were being black-balled during the Red Scare; which provided the motivation for Arthur Miller to write “The Crucible”.
Meditation #10 -- Katie Marchant
I feel that the political unrest in Cradle Will Rock can directly correlate to the political unrest in today’s society. In the 1930s through the 1950s the majority of the country was obsessed with the fact that in US could possibly be taken over and turned into a communist nation. The government was actively searching for what they considered “traitors”, people how had political views that were not the “norm”. Today our government is also searching for “traitors” in almost the same way. After 9/11 there was a huge patriotism push and anyone who opposed this push was considered to be a traitor and an enemy of the American democracy. In a way the government in the time of the Communist scare was saying that people who supported communism were not being patriotic but as Cradle Will Rock showed us the government was probably chasing the wrong people. The people they should have been concerned about were probably the rich and those in high society because they had more than Communistic ideals, they had the money to support the Fascist dictators of other countries. We can still see this political unrest today in that if the government feels that someone is a traitor or an enemy of the US they can have their phones tapped or be imprisoned. The government should probably be more concerned about the choices they are making with finances and security than if some group of protesting college kids in Austin are having un-American ideas.
Sit down! You're rocking the cradle! - Lauren's tenth meditation
Out of all the films we’ve watched this semester, I think that I have enjoyed
Cradle Will Rock the most. As I said in last week’s meditation, I have always been fascinated with the time period the movie was set in, the Great Depression. I’ve found some facts online about the movie that I think are interesting.
I had never heard of
Cradle Will Rock before this class, but it received many nominations and awards when it came out in 1999. It was nominated for a Golden Palm at the Cannes Film Festival. Emily Watson was nominated for the British Supporting Actress of the Year award at the London Critics Circle Film Awards in 2001. It was also nominated in 2000 for the Best Ensemble Cast Performance at the Online Film Critics Society Awards. Bill Murray was nominated for the Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role, Comedy or Musical, in 2000 at the Satellite Awards.
At the Istanbul International Film Festival in 2000,
Cradle Will Rock won the People’s Choice Award in the International Competition. In 1999, director Tim Robbins won a Special Achievement in Filmmaking award from the National Board of Review, USA. The movie also won two awards at Sitges – Cataloniain International Film Festival in 2000 for Best Film and Best Director.
In the first scene we see where Olive is sleeping in the theater, we see that it is supposed to be Fall 1936, but the movie in the background says that Italy is about to invade Ethiopia. Not only did this invasion place in October 1935, Ethiopia was still known as Abyssinia at this time. The three other most noticeable places where the historical timeline has been changed for dramatic purposes is the fact that the Rockefeller mural was destroyed in February 1934; the first performance of
The Cradle Will Rock took place in June of 1937; and Hallie Flanagan testified in front of Congress in December of 1938.
The final piece of information that I found interesting was the business aspect of
Cradle Will Rock. The estimated budget for the movie was $32,000,000. The opening weekend of the movie in the US in December of 1999 yielded $93,988.
Not only is
Cradle Will Rock a good movie, it is also an interesting movie in what it deals with and all the details behind it. Wikipedia.com said, “While the original production of
The Cradle Will Rock was stated to be ‘The most exciting evening of theater this New York generation has seen’ (MacLeish, Cole 2000), many critics did not feel the same about Robbins’ reproduction of the event for film.”
I, for one, did enjoy the movie very much. Was it as earth shattering and ground breaking as the original play? No, but it was still well done.
Citations
“Internet Movie Database”. 7 Nov 2006.
“Wikipedia”. 7 Nov 2006.
Joan Cusak - "Bad-guy" or misunderstood?
In my last meditation I discussed how movies often distort history or events to tell a story. It is not always bad, but just one of the side effects of writing a script for a movie or play based on historical truth. One such change in history is the biased representation of an antagonist. In almost every movie, historical or not, there seems to be a clear cut bad-guy and a good-guy. The good-guys are always moral and innocent to some degree. The bad-guys usually are evil or deceiving in some way. However, in the movie Cradle Will Rock, I noticed that the person who could be considered an antagonist, Joan Cusak’s character, Hazel, didn’t seem to fill the roll as a bad-guy.
I really made this distinction towards the end of the movie. As the plot of the story began to fall into place and the relationships between all the characters came together, I realized that Hazel was one of the main people that was causing problems for the Federal Theatre group. But although I saw her as a troublemaker, I didn’t get the feeling she was an immoral, stereotypical bad-guy. Towards the end of the movie in the scene where the announcement is made that the project had been shut down, I almost got a feeling of sympathy for her – a feeling that is usually never associated with bad-guys. I am not saying that I condone her actions or think that she was right for going to the government reporting communist behavior within the program. However, I think that in the movie Cradle Will Rock, Hazel’s character was portrayed with complexity such that the audience could see that her intentions were not purely evil. Her character is developed slowly and with care so that the audience can see that she is human. She has doubts and even experiences loneliness and fear. I found it unique to see the antagonist of the film be depicted as a human with emotions, and not just a “bad-guy.”
Factual events in entertainment
The movie “Cradle Will Rock” is a true story. The events that happen are true, the dates of the events are true, even what was said during the court with Hallie Flanagan and the House Committee on Un-American Activities are directly taken from the stenographers notes during the actual trial. The scene at the end when the actors performed the show in front of the stage at the theatre was a true event.
The performers were forbidden to perform at the venue they had originally scheduled to perform at. They decided to change theaters, and instead of performing the entire show on the stage and losing their jobs, they chose the writer, Marc Blitzstein, to perform the show. He was to perform the show entirely by himself, reading all parts, explaining the stage directions, and singing all the songs. After the first line of the first song, however, Olive Stanton rose from her seat and slowly started singing the song. Quietly at first, and then eventually going full voice. As the show progressed, each of the actors stood and did their parts, improving the moves in front of the stage and using the aisles.
Another part that was true was the “death” of the Federal Theatre Project. In the movie we see the two students carrying the ventriloquist dummy down the street in a coffin with a sign behind it saying how long it had “lived” for. In this sense, they are carrying the memories of the FTP to it’s grave, and all the baggage that came with it. Once they turn the corner, they leave the past setting, and enter into the modern day Times Square.
From this I got that they were showing that no matter what they’ve had to go through to get there, theatre is still alive, and will forever be alive because of the people who will risk everything to perform. I also got from this ending that theatre may not have been the biggest thing during the setting of the movie, but now, on Broadway, theatre is booming. Everyone knows about theatre, about Broadway, and about the famous actors and actresses that have performed in various shows. Because of the FTP, I believe theatre is going stronger than it ever could.
11-3-06 #9
Cradle Will Rock brings up more than just the telling of a historically story. Not every historical film is entirely accurate; in fact, most are modified to fit the story rather than the truth of what happened. I think that is perfectly okay. It is not a requirement that a film about the Great Depression be entirely accurate unless it is to be used for educational purposes. A story about history is generally using the story of what happened to convey a point or a message in a way that people can relate to. Cradle Will Rock tells the story of people who are looking for work and all come together on the project The Cradle Will Rock. The characters must decide to do what they believe is right when the union tells them they cannot perform after funding for the FTP was revoked. The characters show that you should promote what you believe is right, like performing a play with a message that they support, even if it means losing your job. I believe this movie was not made to tell the story of the production of the play, but to convey a point and support the point that you should stand up for what you believe in no matter the cost. A historical movie is not about telling the story about what happened, and that is why in many cases it is the recount of one person that no one has ever heard of and their story, with a message. People can relate to things that have happened in the past, they know about them and they may have been involved or know people who were, the history just gives people something to relate to in the story. I think that the use of history to convey a point is a good idea and that it is perfectly okay to revise true history to fit the story.
Changing History for Cinematic Purposes #8
In class on Monday, Kirk asked the class how we thought movies dealt with history and historical events. This brought up an interesting point that I had never really considered. To what extent do films accurately portray facts in history? How far from the truth will movies stray to appeal to the audience? Where can we draw the line in terms of an exciting movie that is historically false versus a boring movie that is truthful? And more importantly, do filmmakers have a right to change the truth in order to tell a good story?
When Kirk first asked this question, I was rather upset to think that movies dealing with history would blatantly disregard fact to make a movie. I have always found movies to play a very influential role in shaping public opinion. Therefore, I have always thought that movies should live up to this role and portray fact as accurately as possible. Then, as the class discussion progressed, movies like Titanic and Pearl Harbor came to mind. I started to wonder, how responsible for public opinion can we really hold movies. In Pearl Harbor, for example, the focus of the story is on the love triangle between three fictional characters: Rafe McCawley, Danny Walker, and Evelyn Johnson. I know that when I went to see this movie, I didn’t really expect to learn about the ins and outs of the December 7th attack on Hawaii. I went to see whether Josh Hartnett or Ben Affleck would get the girl. However, in seeing such a movie I came out with a better understanding for people’s lives at the time. I came to the realization during this discussion that movies are not meant to inform the public as much as to entertain them. That is why documentaries attract a completely different crowd than chick flick’s do.
I guess this discussion brought it to my attention that movies aren’t necessarily made to teach. And if this is true, then why can’t filmmakers use certain events from history to tell an intriguing story? The public’s knowledge or lack thereof should not stop Hollywood from producing entertaining movies. After all, there’s a reason movies don’t claim to be “based entirely on a true story.”
Meditation #9 -- Katie Marchant
One thing that really interested me about Cradle Will Rock is how there are multiple stories that are intertwined to where we can possibly see characters from one of the other story lines in the current scene. The major story lines are: Olive Stanton, whom we meet in the very beginning of the film; Hazel Huffman and Tommy Crickshaw; Rockefeller and Diego Rivera; Welles and Houseman, their actors and patron; then there is the story line that crosses almost all of the others, the Margherita Sarfatti story. This film crosses all the barriers of social class and economic background at a breakneck speed that shows how the people of the time were feeling because of the politic situations.
It is kind of confusing to me to try to recreate the story in my mind. I know what happens in the end but it is the order of events that mess me up. This story is a very powerful one and having all of these different stories shows the audience how many people were affected but the Federal Theatre Project and by the Red Scare. Something that really affected me was how Joan Cusack’s character, Hazel Huffman, was so scared by the fact that there were communists within the FTP that she testified against them but she continued to work at the Federal Aid office because she was more scared of not having a job and becoming one of the people on the other side of the desk.
I am not by any means a history buff but from what I know and have read about this period of time, Cradle Will Rock does an excellent job of portraying the chasm between the economic classes and the general feeling of the time. Even if all the events are not exactly factual this film gives its audience something to think about and makes them want to learn more.
Historically Speaking
One of the main reasons why people go to the movies is for entertainment. We all go to see how many cars Jean Claude can blow up in a span of two hours, or how long it takes for the guy to realize that he really is in love with the girl and he has to go save her. Typical story lines. No one figures, however, that they are going to the movies to see a historically correct film.
Not many films today are even historically correct. Titanic, not true; Pocahontas, not true either. But who is to say that these films cannot be shown because they are not entirely true? No one can. The audience is the reason the shows make all their money, so their strategy is to get as many people to go see the show as humanly possible. But how will they do that, one might ask. Well, just look at the Titanic. Look who is in the movie.
Leonardo Dicaprio. They’ve pulled in all the teenage girls who are “ga-ga” over him. And Kate Winslet? Here come the boys! Again, the entertainment factor has taken control due to the actors that have been cast in the movie. Not to mention the fact that there is a very steamy love connection that happens during the movie!
Yes, all the drooling teenagers have arrived to see the movie. But why this movie? Why make a movie about something that killed so many people? Entertainment and the chance to make people aware of the past. I know I wasn’t aware that a gigantic boat sank in the middle of the ocean forever and a year ago. It had never been brought to my attention until the movie came out. The story isn’t entirely true with the fact that there wasn’t a young woman named Rose, or a young man named Jack. In fact, I have heard that Rose was really a very young girl. But what do I know? I wasn’t there. Well, technically I wasn’t there. I was at the movie version, not the historical wreck itself.
In the end, the movie producers and directors, and even the studios themselves, have the right idea about movies from the past. “Based on a true Story.” That is shown at the beginning of every “true” story. But the word ‘based,’ what does that mean? A name, a town, a dog, a cat, anything that could draw it to the historical event. But no one really cares, as long as there are attractive stars on the screen becoming that character and just entertaining us!
I Hope This History Never Repeats Itself - Lauren's 9th Meditation
I’ve always been morbidly fascinated with the Great Depression. I’ve never been able to understand it, but I’ve always been interested in it. Maybe because I feel like it’s something that I know I will probably never witness – this really is something I’ll only learn about in history books.
I was very impressed with Cradle Will Rock. Like we were talking about in class, many historically based movies downplay the actual history they’re telling. I did not find that true with Cradle Will Rock. Especially after reading the book experts we got from Kirk, it seems like Robbins and company went to extra lengths to make the movie, but make it pretty accurate as well.
I realize this is a true story, but many times true stories can become completely different stories when the go form history to the screen. I think that the resources Robbins and company had played a huge part in helping make this movie as exact and realistic as possible. The autobiographies and biographies gave them something concrete to work with, and perspectives of the same situation seen from different eyes. They also had a few people who could still recollect what had happened during this huge point in American history. All of these mostly first hand accounts were talked about in the book, so I assume they were used in the construction of the movie as well.
I thoroughly enjoyed Cradle Will Rock and the stories behind it. I wish more historically based movies took this much care with the real story that they’re
