Nothing was the Same

Author and critic, Joe Nickell, once said, "No two things are ever constructed or manufactured in exactly the same way." I believe that this quote is perfectly embodied by my experience with Shakespeare's plays in this class. The most noteworthy endeavors of this class were those that allowed me to discover the many interpretations that Shakespeare's works evoke. Through our viewing of A Midsummer Night's Dream at Pearl Theatre, in-class performances of Shakespeare's most storied scenes, and through my group's performance of the rude mechanicals' production, I realized that no two depictions of Shakespeare would ever be alike. It may only take one word or one line in a given scene, for a viewer to discern their own meaning of the play. For instance, while rehearsing my part as Pyramus in the rude mechanicals performance, the following prudently spoken line by Lysander struck me, "A good moral, my lord: it is not / enough to speak, but to speak true" (5.1.115-116). From this line, I conceived my own meaning of the play, which was the importance of using our words shrewdly. In fact, it reminded me of a quote once pronounced by Plato, which my father often repeated to me as a child, "Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something." Evidently, the rude mechanicals were fools that abused their opportunity to speak well and put on an acceptable play for Theseus, Hippolyta, Demetrius and Lysander. Instead, characters such as Quince were caught up in their drunkenness and characters like Bottom were caught up in their egos. Thus, my understanding of that line contributed, in its own way, to the greater meaning of the scene and perhaps the entire play. The meaning that I found, personally, was that we should speak, act and love with intention rather than for the sake of speaking, acting or loving.

 It was my preparation for my role as Pyramus in the rude mechanicals' rendition of Pyramus and Thisbe that made me realize the distinct interpretations of Shakespeare's plays. When I first took on the role of Pyramus, I recalled that I was not only Pyramus but Bottom as well. Certainly, it would be difficult to balance the conceited interjections of Bottom with the stately and composed demeanor of Pyramus. Like an experienced athlete preparing for a tough opponent, I decided that I would "study film" so that I could perfectly portray the stately poise of Pyramus while capturing the arrogant behavior of Bottom. After watching the scene performed by the Baron's Troupe of Mummers, I took notes on their casting of Pyramus: confident, jumpy, arrogant in their portrayal of both Bottom and Pyramus. Then I viewed the scene as performed by Shakespeare in Detroit and continued my notes on Pyramus: egotistical in his presentation of Bottom, truly immersed in Pyramus' dignified character. Quickly I exited that video and opened another. Still, a new presentation of Pyramus/ Bottom as a comedian. By the time I finished and scanned my notes, it seemed that I was to be five different characters. These videos, presented below, had expressed the most contrasting qualities of Pyramus, making it nearly impossible for me to decide the most accurate representation. Indeed, I had run straight into a wall. Was I to be a comedic Pyramus? A somber Pyramus? Or perhaps a combination of the two? 

Through this process, I learned that there was no template for a portrayal of Pyramus, or Bottom for that matter. Instead, each actor allowed Shakespeare's commanding words to influence their attitudes, actions and intonation. Thus, I decided that I would do the same. Ultimately, this decision proved a more fulfilling experience while rehearsing and performing on stage. Instead of feeling confined in the walls of certain emotions and actions, I let the the words determine my temperament and the role naturally came to me. More important than my experience on stage, though, was what I learned from rehearsing my role and "studying film". This lesson was that no two interpretations of Shakespeare were the same, which is the very beauty of his work. The same scene or line or word can have different meanings for different people based on experience, exposure and our frames of mind; I discovered this, more intimately, in the classroom s with the various interpretations of my classmates. In fact, this message can be extended to everyday life as we are all different, a truth that results in different opinions, experiences and actions. This uniqueness is what prevents a dull world, similar to that of George Orwell's renowned novel "1984", and creates an unpredictable world full of opportunity.

 In sum, taking this course taught me a great deal about intonation while reading, performance in theatre and ultimately the gravitas of Shakespeare's work. However, I believe that the most important lesson that I learned regarded uniqueness and individuality. Undeniably, an actor is assigned to certain roles and emotions, but an actor also shines through his role to make the presentation unique. Therefore, the manner that I initially went about studying for my role was incorrect because I was trying to be someone else. This is why Shakespeare's work continues to please, because its messages apply to us all in so many different ways, which spawns an expression of our true selves within the realm of his works.