Shakespeare Week 3

If I am being honest, as exciting as our production of Much Ado About Nothing is, I feel as though the whole process is going rather slowly. I know the outcome (hopefully) of this will be a very well performed Shakespeare piece, in just under the six weeks have left to rehearse. But, as each rehearsal goes on; it hasn't yet began to really come together.
    I understand that this is a big project and we all want to make it as good as we possibly can, but like I said, being honest, it hasn't yet began to pick up. Which leads me onto saying how this week (week 3) it seems as though I don't have an awful lot to write to you, because I didn't feel much was achieved.

However, saying that, our scene was blocked this week which has helped to really bring the scene to life. To begin, I see the scene as just a group of friends whom have set out, specifically, to set up there friend. This, slightly more old-fashioned approach to 'setting two friends up together' wouldn't really happen nowadays, but it still would to a certain extent. For example, I know my friends certainly wouldn't hold back from telling a guy if I liked them. So in that sense, the situation in which myself, Donna and Frankie all have to act out doesn't seem to wildly absurd. However, being that type of friend,  I wouldn't say was quite like my personality. I agree that I can be loud, and fun but I can also be quiet and fairly unconfident. Which makes me want to create Hero as such a loud, good-fun and boisterous character purely to really push myself.
In this scene, Hero most definitely takes the lead and so therefore I know that I have to be the loud and playful one of the scene purely because the scene would have no leader without the character of Hero; and the scene would become rather repetitive and possibly boring. Yes, it'll all be a matter of myself, Donna and Frankie all bouncing off one another and incorporating the banter between us all. Mentioning the others in my scene, makes me point out that this could be rather difficult as I would politely say that Sophie, Donna and Frankie aren't the closest of friends on the course. Which brings slight tension to the group which will be interesting ha! I don't mean this in a rude way, its just something I have noticed with being with them for a year etc. So saying this, I feel it more my job to pick up the group and the scene and begin to stir up the playfulness and banter of the scene- which is probably out of my comfort zone- but I like a challenge.

With that said, our scene was blocked today! And the layout of the scene is very clever! We have the use of three black boxes and a smaller black box painted and designed to look like a toilet. The toilet is situated SL and to the right of the supposed 'portaloo' sits three stacked, black boxes which creates the divide between Beatrice in the loo and the other three characters. We, myself Donna and Frankie remain to the right of the portaloo and a continuation of our blocking simply consisted of a more natural take. We can move freely, with the space of SR. Which is another reason why I need to make Hero so big and bubbly; to save the scene from staying in one place on stage!
      With this blocking process completed, we ran through the scene fully. I felt really confident to run this today because it wasn't the entire class watching. We had just Phoebe and Joe sat down watching, as well as Sally. I think for me, confidence wise, less of an audience makes it feel a whole lot less daunting; plus I am good friends with Phoebe so it just felt a lot more informal. Plus I was also in a good enough mood to be able to pull off the 'banter/loud' side to Hero that I so, desperately want for her to have. So running this scene was quite good fun, we had a good mix of running the scene and messing around at the same time which again made it more informal; which meant I felt a lot more comfortable experimenting with Hero's personality.
    So all-in-all, today's practical went really well and I came out of lesson having a good image of how I want Hero to be and also ways in which I can embody this.


My next two Shakespeare sessions consisted of a continuation of blocking, and this included my first scene. This scene is with Frankie, Donna and Nathan. As a whole, I am quite excited to start working on this scene because I've not really had the chance to act alongside Nathan, whom as the character Isabelle, is married to. I only have about three lines in this scene, so the blocking was fairly simple. Myself and Donna start the scene with setting up the drinks bar for the disco (i.e. the masked ball.) which is quite good fun as we can sort of just amuse ourselves throughout the scene. My only real blocking for this scene is to, at one point, go over and stand with Nathan. But apart from that, this scene, for me, is one I can almost just float about; which is a slight relief as to my role in my 'Hero scene'.
    We then had all scenes blocked, so began a full-run!!




















These are the notes which I took whilst watching the run through. All of the notes I have taken are small things in which I noticed when watching the scenes, and I have sent them onto those in the scene so it gives them something to work on. Making the notes also helps myself, as I can then start identifying what things I don't like on stage, and ensure that I don't do the same etc.

We covered a lot of voice/language work today with the Shakespeare pieces. We were each give a 'Shakespeare insult sheet' and had to combine three insults and speak these to our partners. This was just a fun exercise but it gave us a good insight as to a few more words that Shakespeare uses, and I can imagine it was extra helpful for those playing our Beatrice and Benedick's, as they are always insulting one another in Much Ado. This exercise also made us try out more emotions in what we were saying, for example we had to say our insults aggressively, panicked, joyful and in love. We then had to perform bits of our scenes to Karen, our voice lecturer, for vocal feedback. Annoyingly, my group didn't get a chance to perform, which is something I really wanted to do because I understand my vocals are the weakest part of acting as I am always being reminded to use better diction and project more. Instead, she did briefly remind me to focus more so on the use of the iamic pentameter as she overheard me using it incorrectly.
      With that said, I went home to look into it all more. And bizarrely I noticed on the bus home, that the bus voice monitor uses the same concept as iambic does. It says something along the lines of "your next stop will be: ..." but I noticed how it emphasised certain words quite significantly, for example 'next' and 'stop' were heavily emphasised, I suppose to make it clear what the next stop is. They also emphasise the name of stop, especially its two words, such as 'Waterlooville Precinct.' It emphasised each of the syllables in both words, which meant the words itself sounded really clear, audible but also abnormal because noone says them that broken down. I can only presume Shakespeare used the iambic for the same reason as FirstBuses do; to make the audience pay attention to what was being said. Shakespeare's plays were meant to be heard, hence the expression "to hear a play." I quite like the thought that they went to 'hear' a play rather than to go 'see' or 'watch' a play, in which is what we do now. 'To hear' a play, meant that the audience would never be watching the action on stage. You would very often have the 'groundlings' -those who stood throughout the show, causing chaos. If they got bored of listening, they would start to walk around, talk, shout, throw things and very often have sex and drink. You would also have to entertain the 'royalty' of that time.  The lords room was the name of which were considered the 'best seats in the house.' You'd have those of the highest hierarchy/royalty sat here. But I endeavour to disagree with them being the best seats. The lords room was, as you can see in my drawing, situated facing the other audience members. So they couldn't see the stage, all they did was be admired and looked up to by the 'peasants' that were the groundlings and others. So it was Shakespeare's mission to find a way to keep all of his audiences entertained. So he used Iambic Pentameter. It made it much easier for the audience to understand what was being said, and the rhythm of it makes it much nicer on the ears, which again was in aim to get the audience to listen. From looking more into the language of Shakespeare, it goes without saying that he avoided any thing of the ordinary. I have earlier spoke about how I reckon he was Protestant because everyone else was Catholic, which allows me to see that he goes against everything everyone else did at the time. For example he has written Much Ado About Nothing in prose, going against everything else he's used in previous work.
    A quote that features on the front of the scripts we were given reads "How is it possible that Shakespeare understood the human heart so well?"  This also backs my point up of how different Shakespeare was to the rest of his era, which meant he really stood out. (See image below.)

Script.

Also on the front cover shows two small masquerade masks. (See image on the right.) This, on the surface, could simply relate to the era. Most people would recognise the masks and relate it to the Elizabethan era, or an era of a similar time period. Shakespeare lovers may see it in relation to the fact he has included a masked ball in Much Ado itself. However, I interpreted it in a much deeper and innovative way. Perhaps its a kind of metaphor about love. In the original versions of Much Ado, Claudio and Hero fall in love at the masked ball, despite being masked and not being able to see one anothers facial features. Which, to me, says that Shakespeare believed in loving a person not just for their looks and beauty. He wrote Claudio and Hero to fall in love at the ball, which backs up my point simply. 'What does Claudio love except her external beauty?' Contradicting myself once again, but that is all that he loves, "In mine eye she is the sweetest lady that I ever looked on." But Shakespeare's tells us, through his story, that the young and innocent love in which Hero and Claudio have both fallen for, is fatal. Claudio is quick to believe Borachio's and Don John's trick and is quick to drop Hero because of this. But this helps Benedick and Beatrice grow closer, so a tragedy helps the love of another. And after the whole Claudio and Hero tragedy is resolved at the end, Claudio could then finally be seeing Hero's true beauty as a person, for perhaps the first time, as he begins to see her innocence. http://www.gcseguide.co.uk/much_ado_about_nothing.htm

Shakespeare Week 4

After, last week, researching more into Isabelle, I started this week with a much better understanding of her character; which meant when we began blocking/running this scene today, I felt a lot more confident.

However, saying that, I can't make her anywhere near as loud and boisterous in this scene as I had both researched and anticipated. This is due to the simple fact that it's technically not my scene. Frankie and Nathan lead this scene as Beatrice and Leonato, which means as the character of Isabelle, I am more of a side-stage character whom is there to chip-in every now and then. This scene has worked out really well so far, but its given me the challenge of calming down the characteristics of Isabelle. Instead, I experimented with more subtle movements/gestures that will ooze confidence and loudness, without having to say or do anything extravagant.
As an example of one that I tried out: I want her costume to be some flared, baggy trousers or some 70's-look baggy jeans; and these will help me with my gestures. There is a large amount of time in which Isabelle is just stood around, listening and reacting to the scene. She, at a few points during the scene, is holding a beer bottle but I often put this down- which again helps with this particular gesture. In these occasions, she will stand with her two hands in her back jean pockets. To me this is seen as a very casual standing position; but I've looked more closely to this in terms of reading body language.

Hidden palms could well be seen as a sign of discomfort, nervousness or could also been seen in someone who is lying. For me, these are nothing in relation to Isabelle's situation. Although, continuing the research, I uncovered information on 'downwards facing palms'. Downwards facing palms gestures authority. With this, I can match it more closely to how I first planned Isabelle to be. She is authoritative, in my eyes, so this fits well. It also fits well because its subtle, her body language is open so already it reads confidence; as the chest space is clear of nervous hands etc. With the hands in the back pocket, you tend to stand quite central (feet hips width apart) which also reads confidence, in comparison to standing with your feet crossed and one thigh overlapping the other.
http://lonerwolf.com/body-language-palms-and-thumbs/

The rest of this session was taken over by scenes in which I don't feature in which was a nice break. To fill this, I worked hard on learning my lines. I've found writing down my lines as I go, the easiest way. I did this over and over, each time adding the next paragraph into it etc. Once I'd tackled about half the amount of lines I have, I got Frankie to run them through with me; each time going back to the beginning when I got them wrong.
In the end this became a rather repetitive system, but I found it very useful.

Tuesdays and Thurday's session was then taken up with understanding my main character, being Hero. I didn't get round to going into so much detail as I did with Isabelle, which is annoying as Hero is the character that I can really delve into and work properly with. My first impressions of her, was mainly that she was this quiet character; as in all the Much Ado About Nothing versions I have seen, she is a fairly unimportant character. She is, I have seen in the past, a character very much dampened down by her cousin Beatrice, whom easily overpowers Hero. But in contrast to all of that said, she actually needs to be shown as the loudest one of the group~ Hero, Margaret and Ursula. Which I guess is why I was casted as her, because I'm definitely not the loudest female in the cast. So for one, she has changed significantly to how I first viewed her. So today, when not on stage I just tried being her but being loud and funny and excitable. I got Phoebe to watch us do this run through, and she pointed out moments in which I need to keep up the excitable persona, as I apparently drop it a lot during the scene. I start the scene with such a high energy level, that I think I struggle in keeping it up throughout the whole scene.
So I went off to look into my lines more, and pick out points that I can focus on bringing up the energy again.
So firstly it would have to be: "No, truly Ursula, she is too disdainful, I know her spirits are wild and coy as haggards of the rock."  This has probably got to be my most lively line in the scene as it signifies the beginning of the 'game' in which we are playing to fool Beatrice.
"Oh god of love!" Here, I've got to bring the energy up, and this is purely to keep the scene running smoothly with the right amount of energy.
"No, not to be odd from all fashions..." I tend to drag out this line too much which is said to lower the energy of the scene, so saying this quicker with a bit more power than I have been will, again, help pick the scene up.

These were my main focus points that I worked on, and when running this scene to Phoebe again, she could see the improvement and it also helped the others to bounce off the energy that I repeatedly brought to the scene.
I can tell Hero needs an awful lot of work done to her, because even with the short times I've rehearsed her infront of the class, I'm not quite getting the hyped reactions I wanted. I knew this character would a challenge for me as she, admittedly is quite different to me. But it's already proving a good challenge for me!!

Once again, I dived into trying to further my understanding of the language of Shakespeare, but this time I focussed it mainly on the words of Hero. My main focus point today was one of my favourite lines of hers which would be "But nature never framed a woman's heart of prouder stuff than that of Beatrice." In modern translation, for me it reads that nature never made a heart that was as proud and tough than Beatrice's. I started off saying this line with some cruel tone, as I had originally thought that this was another of her negative lines towards Beatrice. But, Hero is actually being honest. She says that she has never met anyone with a heart such as a Beatrice's which proves Hero's innocence and kindness towards her cousin.I now try to slow down this line. I emphasise the word 'nature' by dragging it out and I add a slight empathetic tone to it. I emphasise the words 'prouder' and 'stuff' as that is the main subject in the sentence. And I try to make Beatrice the main point of the sentence, by making the 'trice' of the word in a higher pitch.  This again, paints Hero in a different light for me. I remember worrying that she was going to be a too-big character for me to play, as I class myself as fairly quiet, however the more I understand of her, the more I can relate her to myself. She has a good balance of keeping quiet and standing her ground; which I know is something I have, because of the way I have been brought up. She is kind hearted and is well-liked. The things she says throughout this scene mainly, flow off the tongue with some ease. Its nice to the ears and easily understood which I think Shakespeare might have done on purpose in order to paint Hero as the 'hero' of the play, the kind one that, has it all.   I see her, as a bit without a backbone which is where her subtle dominance helps her out mostly. The times in which she does show her dominance gives off a element of 'sass' in her, which so far has been quite good fun to play- "and truly I'll devise some honest slanders to stain my cousin with- but majority of the other scenes, she lets everyone else do the work.
But, for me to reiterate her backboneless personality at times is shown through silence. When Claudio publicly embarrasses her, she has nothing to say. In a sense, she took on the 'you will be ruled by your father' line too seriously, and is allowing Claudio to rule/walk all over her. She is perhaps a little too kind, for one not to say anything at the public shaming wedding debacle and two to happily take Claudio back at the end of it all. Apart from that, Shakespeare has kept her quite quiet in terms of letting us into the world of Hero, which again could be a involuntary way of proving she is 'ruled by her father' so therefore she is kept as quite a secretive character because of her strong, overruling father.
The quieter side of her is shown through her lack of lines throughout the play, although she takes the lead in her main scene, against the other four main characters she has the least amount of lines. For example, in act 2, scene 1 she has one line but the rest of the time she is busy reacting to what the other three (Beatrice, Isabelle and Leonato) have to say. This takes me onto her relationship with her father. I have, before, said that her father is probably quite dominant over her because of her not having a mother to help bring her up. "I trust you will be ruled by your father" proves this, he will rule her in which suggests Leonato perhaps doesn't want Hero to marry because she is, to him, very much a 'daddy's girl.' Currently, we have blocked this scene without any notice towards the fact that Nathan is playing Hero's father so I hope we can later incorporate that into our piece.
http://www.shmoop.com/much-ado-about-nothing/hero.html

Shakespeare Week 1

Today was one of the first sessions in which we furthered our research into Shakespeare, specifically his well-known, comedic play 'Much Ado About Nothing.'

     William Shakespeare was born in 1564 to a successful, middle-classed glove maker in Stratford-Upon-Avon, England. Shakespeare's father, John, came to Stratford with the profession of a glove maker. He later met and married Mary Arden, whom the daughter of a wealthy family. (There isn't an awful lot of information on the marriage itself apart from the knowledge that it would've been a Catholic service due to the fact Queen Mary I was reigning at the time.) In this era and many before and after, it was almost unheard of for the woman to have jobs. The only 'work' they would be expected to do was house cleaning, cooking, washing etc.

Rumours have it that both his parents possibly had little knowledge in reading and especially writing. (As you can imagine, neither of these would be needed, specifically, when 'glove making' etc.) This information is decided purely on the fact that both Shakespeare's parents owned signatures of images instead of written words. John used a design of a glovers compass while Mary used a running horse. From John's signature I presume that horses were something large in Mary's life, which links well to the fact she came from a well off family who most probably owned many a horses and would've quite possibly been brought up with them.
This wasn't something that downgraded there social status at the time, unlike something that could happen these days for example, as John went on to become the 'Boroughs ale-taster' (thanks to the fact that Stratford had a good reputation of its ale-brewing.) He became known for this 'position' in a few other boroughs which awarded him free education at the Stratford Grammar School, which leads us more onto Shakespeare; as the free education was taken by him. Shakespeare attended a grammar school but ironically this is as far as his education went.

Moving more onto Much Ado About Nothing and college sessions. I studied this play in my English Language at school. I very much fell in love with it at the time, and although oblivious to wanting to take drama further, I very much liked the story line as we got to understand it more. I feel at quite an advantage already because I know the play very well, after studying it so in depth at school, and watching it a good few times. I know the characters and the story line etc, so I'm very much looking forward to actually working towards performing it, especially because I have never studied Shakespeare in acting before now.
      Apart from that, we started out by watching a 1980's (contemporised) version. David Tennant and Catherine Tate brought Shakespeare to life whilst bringing it more 'to home' with thanks to it being a contemporary version. I feel at a large advantage of doing this very play for GCSE English at school, we studied an exam on it so we had to delve into an awful lot about characters in order to know it well enough. This more modern version was interesting to watch seeing as I was most familiar with the Kenneth Brannagh and Emma Thompson version; a more dated version (a recreation of how Shakespeare purely intended.)
     Today's session we began work on the language of Shakespeare; which proved an awfully lot harder than I had anticipated. Our first exercise to do with language was simply to study some of the more bizzarre words that feature in the Shakespearean language; for this we were given a sheet. Since then I have looked into more of these words and discovered quite a few have been picked out and used in songs.

For example, Mumford and Sons have used a few various quotes and words in songs of there's. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH3t0fatneI, The song itself, Sigh No More, is very much drawn from Much Ado About Nothing. "Sigh no more ladies..." saying how, us, ladies should 'cry no more.' To me the song comes across like an inconsistent man, very much like how both Claudio and Benedick come across throughout the course of the play; with Benedick suddenly turning madly in love and Claudio, the opposite, falling out of love. Many of the lyrics are taken straight from Much Ado About Nothing (MAAN) for example: "Serve God, love me and mend" which is Benedick speaking to Beatrice (Act 5, Scene 2.)
"Oh man is a giddy thing" (one of the final lines to the play) said by Benedick himself (Act 5, Scene 4), means, to me, a referral to the natural, human tendency to being so unpredictable and inconsistent, as well as fickle and unsure about oneself etc. Which links well to the lyrics before, "My heart was never pure, you know me, you know me" Sounding more like a guilty apology as though one has understood how much of a 'giddy man' one has been? "My heart was never pure" (Mumford and Sons lyric) this closely links to MAAN however it is not a direct line which proves the fact Mumford and Sons have used Shakespeare and Much Ado very clearly as 'musical inspiration' for songwriting.
      I am a big fan of Mumford and Sons, there folk-like sound comes as a relief to the very same(y) pop music we hear on repeat every Sunday for the charts, and with further discussion as to how we are setting our version of MAAN (possibly a festival enviroment?), I think it would be really good to have Mumford and Sons, Sigh No More, to feature. 'Attention to detail' etc...


Shifting down to the slightly more exciting part of the rehearsal process would be our first 'read through' and casting! The read through was really interesting as we could start to draw up on more about our characters and the context in which they live in (what happens before their scenes etc, and what other characters think of them if mentioned in other scenes.) However saying that, now being casted as Hero in Act 3, Scene 1, I didn't get an awful lot of new information. Which was most probably be due to the fact I was simply reading through and not annotating anything particularly key within the script. But I am excited to play Hero, as she was the character I knew I wanted to try with. She is most like me, and although that may be becoming a sort of 'type-cast', I feel most comfortable there. Louise, from Road, was perhaps a slightly more introverted me; and Rachel, from 13, was the loud, more confident me. So Hero is a more 'me' type character, she has the passion in her as well as the very friendly side to her. She goes out of her way to set up her cousin with a guy (Benedick) which shows the friendly side to her as well as the more cheeky and playful side to her which appears only briefly in this very scene. She plays the leader to all of this 'false, sweet bait we lay' (Hero Act 5, Scene 4) ((a slight trick played on Beatrice to make her believe Benedick loves her.)) So it shows the more fun side to her, which dramatically disappears in one of the final scenes in which she is 'shamed publicly' of having sex with another man...Before marriage!! I know little about Hero herself and from only week 2, I am looking forward to delving more deeply into her and finding more about her. Especially her background, as there is no known information about any background stuff for any of the characters; which can only mean Shakespeare intended this, most likely on purpose.

Hero, the name itself, comes as a bit ironic to me. Hero; "a person, typically a man who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements or noble qualities." The 'google' definition proves accurate, and could link to anyone from Superman to a stranger saving someone's life. Although, Hero in MAAN, saves noone; and actually is the only one who really suffers. Claudio 'shames her publicly' which ruins her, and her love for him- all due to the trick in which another character sets up, to fool Claudio into believing Hero has cheated on him. Annoyingly I can't work out the meaning behind naming Hero, hero purely because it doesn't fit. She is no hero in the play, I suppose she could be seen as a hero as she sets Benedick and Beatrice up together; and from their perspective as well as ours as the audience, that could be seen as heroic as because both Beatrice and Benedick are so against the thought of love. Hero could be more of a metaphor, however. Hero's are known for saving others, but not necessarily get saved themselves. Shakespeare may then have written Hero as a really lonely character, whom deep down needs saving. Which could be why he (Shakespeare) makes such a big story out of her meeting Claudio and the dramatic alter break-up etc; because Claudio is someone who will, theoretically, 'save her'.
     This new analysis of Hero, the character, has made me see her in a more in depth way. I now understand that she hides her feelings and not that we know her before the play, I can now see she has suffered; very much like we all have throughout our lives. In a sense, I see her more like myself now. She is a reasonably quiet character and although she knows how to stir up a bit of fun (specifically in the scene in which I am playing her) she is seen as a lot more reserved than her cousin Beatrice. This may be because she doesn't appear an awful lot during the play, however the way she has kept her 'suffering' a secret, links her more closely to my personality. I would much rather keep things to myself and not let those surround me know my problems etc. And again, this leads into another reason in why Claudio becomes more of the 'saviour'/'hero' of the play.
 
Returning back to language, we focused mainly, today, on translating our scenes into 21st Century English language. Which actually proved really interesting. I began with the start of Hero's scene in Act 5, Scene 4 (pg.  39) :

"Good Margret, run to thee parlour; 

There shalt thou find my cousin Beatrice

proposing with the Prince and Claudio.

Whisper her ear, and tell her I and Ursual

walk in the orchard, and our whole discourse 

is all of her; say that thou overheadst us, 

and bid her steal into the pleached bower,
where honeysuckles, ripened by the sun,
forbid the sun to enter- like favourites, made by proud princes, 
that advance their pride against that power
that bred it. There will she hide her,
to listen to purpose. This is thy office; bear 
thee well in it, and leave us alone."

Script work

With this section of my script, we had to translate it into language that technically made more sense to us (with the help of the internet if need be: nofearshakespeare.com) And not to blow my own trumpet, but I managed with translating this monologue without using the website provided to us; which I was pleased with as it proved to me I understood the piece a lot more than I had expected of myself. I get that the piece is all about 'laying false, sweet bait' out for Beatrice in order to trick her into thinking Benedick loves her. It's basically a very old fashioned way of setting someone up with a guy (things have dramatically changed these days!!) The, now, translated version of this piece evolved into:

"Good morning Margret, run to the living room, there you'll find my cousin, Beatrice, talking with the Prince and Claudio whisper to her, and tell her myself and Ursular are walking in the garden and that our conversation will be about her. Tell her you heard us, and that she should go and listen. Tell her to hide where the honeysuckles ripen in the sun. There she will listen to us talking. This is your job, do it well and leave us to do ours."

Festival Attire

Suddenly, to me, the piece seems to make a lot more sense. It has a better flow to it as well, because I understand it so much more. This exercise was extremely useful and it almost seems a shame we won't be performing with this translated language as the story really seemed to tell itself more due to us being able to understand it more.
Although saying that there, was discussion, today, about the location and context in which we plan to set our performance of Much Ado About Nothing. Sally had the idea of setting it in a festival-type environment. We knew we wanted to set it in a more contemporary location as this will enable us to make it our own. I think the festival location is perfect! We had discussions on how the piece includes a band in which Don Pedro leaves and is now trying to get back into the band. Don John is the festival organiser with help from his daughter and cousin. Other characters will mould into this story-line also, however these are only brief ideas. Alongside these character ideas, we have costume ideas discussed; which would consist of the stereotypical wellies and long shirts, necklaces, sunglasses and colours etc (like seen in the picture on the left.) Much Ado About Nothing is very much about social status, with the soldiers reaching down to the maid used in the trick against Claudio. This is something that is compulsory to include in our version purely because it has such a big impact on the original play itself.
     To show this, in the David Tenant and Catherine Tate version we have just recently watched, all the soldiers wore different navy uniforms. For example, a more middle-located in the soldier ranks would be Benedick himself: in the image on the right, Tenant (playing Benedick) is wearing a red sash.
Soldiers wore a sash across one shoulder when in battle, it was used for the men to wipe there bloody (literally) hands on. So the red sash was usually worn by those 'on-the-front' soldiers. Blue, worn by Claudio (played by Tom Bateman ) shows another hierarchical status. To me, Claudio, seems of a lesser status than Benedick is, but going by the sash's, blue is worn by Royal Signals- of a higher rank than Benedick. 

Claudio: Blue sash

Benedick: Red sash

With social statues being so important in the play, for our festival-styled piece, those less high up characters in the play; such as the maid, would become, simply a festival-goer and none more. Whereas those characters with a higher status, such as Leonato, would be dressed in a more business-like costume; instead of the stereotypical festival attire as he would become one of the many festival managers/organisers.
      Other thoughts that went towards the idea of setting it at a festival was discussed by my small group; consisting of myself, Frankie, Donna and Sophie- forming the four characters of, myself as Hero, Frankie playing Margaret, Donna playing Ursula and Sophie playing Beatrice (in Act 5, Scene 4.) This scene is, in some sense, the game scene. Hero and Ursula set out to trick a hiding ("like a lapwing, close to the ground to hear our conference.") Beatrice into thinking Benedick is highly in love with her. In the Tennant and Tate version, this is done in the main halls of the play. Beatrice is looped up into a harness (as is mis-identified as a painter??) In the 'Shakespeare Re-done' version, it all happens in a toilet...which gave us the idea of bringing in a port-a-loo (very fitting for the festival location I think. ) Beatrice would be sat on the toilet, and the girls (Hero, Margaret and Ursula) then perform the scene, with the knowledge of Beatrice being in the toilet. It's important to see Beatrice's reaction to this scene as it adds to the comedy of it all, so if the door of the toilet was to be left open, Beatrice then can be seen by the audience. Small reactions will really help to add to Sophie's creation of Beatrice, and whilst getting too into discussion about the whole festival idea; suggestions of Beatrice using toilet roll as her prop to show her reactions and emotions could work very well. For example when she gets really into listening to the conversation happening outside, she unwraps all the toilet roll (as a sign of pure engrossment?) When Hero starts to speak less well of Beatrice, she could drop the toilet roll, leading it to roll out of the cubicle and further on stage.
   These, currently, are just ideas and in the midst of all discussion. However I do really think highly of the idea, it fits well and it makes the prospect of tackling Shakespeare a lot more appealing thanks to the fact we are contemporising the setting.

Thursday came as a more relaxed session; set back in our groups (Frankie, Donna and Sophie) we ran through the lines and briefly looked at the meaning of what we were saying.

Introduction to Shakespeare's language

I know understand the, fully, the beginning of my scene but I know it will help me if I continue to translate it. Its really important with Shakespeare to understand it, and as Sally said: "if you don't understand it, nor will the audience." I hope to have the time to properly translate and begin to understand my lines now that we've been casted but today we simply read through them and lightly dusted the meanings; which to me meant nothing as the proper meaning of something is always, always hidden.


We also spent a session looking at the Shakespearean language and managing to wrap our heads around it before we dived straight into trying to understand it. To begin with, we looked at what the four most common words meant:
Thou
Thee
Thy
Thine

Firstly all four of these words are translated from an emphatic Greek and Hebrew personal pronoun. http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/thou.html An archaic form that was familiar in the Shakespearean time, hence the major use of it in his works.
We were taught that 'thou' and 'thee' were both words for 'you', so first person. And 'thy' and 'thine' were words for 'they're', so plural.
In slight contrast to this, 'ye' is always a word used for 'you'. But I'd say more commonly 'thou' and 'thee' are used. We also learnt Shakespeare's word techniques, which consisted of learning about the Iamic Pentameter etc. But firstly, we were given a variety of worksheets of information on the language of Shakespeare.
These taught us stuff such as 'assonance' which is very regularly used by Shakespeare. Assonance is "when the vowel sounds of two consecutive words are the same but don't rhyme." A good example of the use of assonance in Much Ado About Nothing, that I picked out would be "No, the world must be peopled." ~Benedick [Act 2, Scene 3.]
Rhyming is another popular technique of Shakespeare and the easiest example of this that I found would be "If loving goes by haps, some cupid kills with arrows, some with traps." ~Hero. As you can simply see, 'haps' and 'traps' are the two rhyming words.
Iamic Pentameter confused me easily. From what I learnt today, it is a:

"A rhythm of five de-dums, like a heartbeat. this is the basic rhythm Shakespeare uses. He writes like this for a reason: to make the groundlings listen. (The groundlings were those whom stood in the theatre, they were usually the rowdy crowds that often didn't pay much attention to what was happening on stage.) It gives the language momentum and a beat which is pleasant on the ear. When a line fits neatly into that rhythm it sounds nice to say it and speeds along. Always beat out a line when you speak it out loud- make it fit." Much Ado About Nothing Learning Resources, www.digitaltheatreplus.com

Shakespeare's technique worksheet

So I get that it's every other word that needs the weight, but it's actually a lot harder than it seems. To me, when practising this at home now, it feels far too stylised. With some research though, it does say that you aren't meant to perform Shakespeare in a naturalistic form, because of the fact that the Iamic Pentameter sort of doesn't allow you too, unless, that is, if you completely go against the rules-which we are not. I can sort of already tell that I am going to have some difficulties with this, but that's the whole point of it all!! I can see that there was a real reason as to why Shakespeare used this, and that's mainly to ensure that the right words are getting the most emphasis. It also gives the actor more of an understanding of the character, if you supposedly look into the iamic's of the lines. This is something I will have to look into further into the project, but currently it's quite exciting to find out more about the language and the use of it. Two other points for the use of Iamic that were breifly mentioned in today's session was:

•  To help the actors learn their lines more easily
• To allow the actors to get through their lines quickly (which I gather would be in order to stop the audience getting bored. If boredom struck, the audience wouldn't keep quiet like us civilised persons do, they would often start causing a riot. Throwing stuff on stage, shouting and very often having intercourse.)

We were also briefly introduced to, apparently, the three main points of the Shakespearean language. The three consist of: 

Pros - like a story, fills the page.

Iambic Pentameter worksheet.

Blank verse - which is the use of iamic pentameter. This kind of formal pattern of rhyming words is called a metre, which is where the 'pentameter' originates from, which explains why blank verse is iambic. 

Verse form - End words rhyme. 

Shakespeare Week 2

Our re-creation of Much Ado About Nothing is now picking up in speed as we have all been set our characters and have all had at least one chance to run through scenes/lines with Sally to really understand our characters and the plot more.

Today's lesson mainly consisted of independent rehearsing whilst Sally finished off the group work she had started last week. This meant that we were missing various people from my group throughout the session. To begin with I ran through my lines. Reading and re-reading them, I have found, my best learning mechanism. And so each read through I became a lot quicker on my lines etc. Honestly, I don't think I made the best use of my time as I was aware that I still wanted to translate the rest of my lines but didn't. However, to go against that, I do, now, feel really quite confident on my lines. I've not reached the 'scripts down' stage but I am definitely on the way to that.

Today, being Tuesday's session, I was casted as another character. Coincidentally going by the name as Isabelle. The character of Isabelle was been widely changed from the original character Antonio. Antonio was written as Leonato's elderly brother and Hero's uncle, as well as being Beatrice's father. Antonio, in the Tennant and Tate version of Maan, was changed into an Isabelle but remained Beatrice's mother which obviously still makes her Hero's auntie. Isabelle is the wife of Leonato.
Sally has discussed how she wants us two, myself and Nathan, to play an old, hippy-type couple. As husband and wife, we will act as the two festival managers; in keeping to the festival setting we have decided. We want to make these two characters as eccentric as possible to help build up the picture of these characters being festival managers. We sort of want to create them into past-hippies; whom have really lived the hippy life throughout the 80's etc and who now manage the festivals for the younger generations of themselves. As parents to Hero, it would make sense that Hero is also very hippie-like which helps add to our whole festival setting.

So someone who is Isabelle in one would closely be Jennifer Saunders who plays Edina Monsoon in an award-winning comedy. Saunders plays a drink/drug lover who's aim remains to stay 'young and hip'. She's twice divorced and is extremely eccentric and almost fully relies on the care of her daughter as she goes on living life in the so wild she has been (she's middle-aged)  so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAfmM06pVUw Here is a YouTube clip of all of the Absolutely Fabulous 'best bits.' Jennifer Saunders throughout this clip is extremely quick and witty. Her humour is dark and sarcastic; and as many people call my humour sarcastic also, I find her extremely funny. I want to create Isabelle like Edina purely because this would prove a big challenge for me because although I don't see myself as shy but others would say I'm quiet: which comes as the complete opposite to Edina and my creation of Isabelle. 

        From this brief description of Edina, she already fits Isabelle's character beautifully. I can already tell that Isabelle is going to be more a challenge for me to play purely because I want to make her as outgoing as I can. Nathan, as Leonato, will be doing the same to Leonato so it will work well but I want to be able to create my character into a very similar Edina. This will have to be done mainly by her costume, make-up, hair as well as gestures- as Isabelle has very little lines. The lines she does say however, I might try with a loud, boisterous, slightly cockney accent. I want her to be just like Edina purely because I want to make her into a stereotypical festival-goer. Plus I want the challenge of this character; despite only have three lines. 

So, I noted down some small things I want Isabelle to be doing when she's not a big part in the scene: 

In the image above, you can see notes I've made about how I want to create Isabelle. So as said above, I want her to be similar to the Absolutly Fabulous character, Edina whom is loud, eccentric, wild and funny- and possible high on drugs too- as this is the sort of stereotyped festival-type of person. Where Isabelle has little lines in the scene we are focusing on, Act 2, Scene 1, I want her to always be doing something that would naturally fit her personality. My main priority for Isabelle would be that she's smoking in this scene (preferably a cigarette but if need be we can lead the audience into a false belief she is possibly smoking a joint?) This will always give her something to do and that could be something that takes her attention away from the scene when she's not 'needed' as such. Returning back to the stereotype of a festival-goer, I'd want Isabelle to take her time smoking the cigarette and really enjoy it. As though, for the 'hard core' festival people, smoking is a et away from the real world and obviously music helps them with that also. 

A slightly more Edina characteristic would be that Isabelle is painting/ filing her nails, apply lipstick, re-doing her hair (fluffing it up), or re-adjusting her outfit. These sprang to mind purely because I can make them into large movements. So for example, filing her nails could be done with her (sat upright) but sprawled out, with her hand movements (of the left right and motions) being really large and drawn out. (Sort of like if you imagine the arm movement of a violinist.) Or another example could be when she's 're-adjusting' her hair, arms could be waving around her head until eventually her hair seems positively hippy-like in the formation of a messy, messy ponytail or bun. I don't mean to sound like these are things typically someone of a louder nature would do, but you wouldn't nessecarily come across a shy and timid person, fluffing up there hair so boldly. 

Costume wise I want it to shout LOUD AND BOLD (with, of course, the hippy style to it!!) Coincedentally, this character will probably turn out to be very similar to a character I played in '13' by Mike Bartlett. Rachel, the character, was a rioter. She was extremely politically based and fully believed that rioting and protesting was the way forward in getting 'our' voices heard. I dressed Rachel as a hippy, as she had so many of the right beliefs and morals in her. She wore baggy, flowery trousers that floated around her legs. A long, white (with patterns) vest top with a colourful best underneath (the colour clashing with the trousers.) She wore a long and thick knitted cardigan also. To really make her character she wore lots of necklaces and bracelets, rings, earrings etc etc. With big, clunky boots. Similarly this is how I want to dress Isabelle. But probably spice things up more than Rachel did. 

To fully understand Hero and what she says, I further translated her lines in Act 1, Scene 2; in which she is tricking Beatrice into the fact that "Benedick is sick in love with her." 

"See Beatrice run over like a little bird to hear our conversation/ Then we go near her so that she hears every word of the false bait we lay for her/ O God of love... But nature made a woman's heart as proud and as tough as Beatrice'. There is speck and disdain in her eyes and these sparkling eyes dispise of everything they look upon. She values her wit more than anything else. She is so in love with herself/ It's true whenever she meets a man, no matter if he is wise, noble etc. She changes around all his good qualities to look bad. If he has a fair complexion, she'll say he's too pretty and so could be her sister. If he's too dark, the only reason is that nature must have spilled some ink while drawing his foolish face. If he's tall, she'd say he's a spear topped with and odd face. If short, she'd say he were an were an oddly carved miniature. Talkative, he is weathervane. And if silent he's technically a block that cannot be moved at all/ no it's certainly not comendable. If i said something she would laugh me out of myself... So Benedick should conceal his emotions for her, like a fire that gets covered up, and let him waste away. It would be better to die that way/ No instead I'll go to Benedick and advise him to fight his emotions. I'll make up some fake rubbish about Beatrice and ruin her reputation so that it shall 'empoison' his liking towards her/ he is the only man worthy in Italy, apart from my dear Claudio of course/ Tomorrow, then everyday after that. Come choose what I should wear for tomorrow/ If so you never know where love can come from. Cupid gets some lovers with arrows, some he uses traps."

Cupid.

Above and in the image you can see my translation of the rest of Hero's lines; and now seeing them in understandable English; the whole meaning of the scene changes. I get, now some of the lines that she says, especially like "If it prove so then loving goes by haps, some cupid kills with arrows, some with traps."  When first reading this, before translating it, I had no idea what it was meant to mean. I understood the words such as 'cupid' so I guessed that it was clearly something to do with love which means it could only have been about Benedick and Beatrice. But now, after translating it, it reads that 'if it prove so, that we have tricked Beatrice, then one never knows where love comes from. Cupid catches some with arrows (the stereotypical Cupid icon) and some with traps' i.e. the traps being myself and Ursula.

This new knowledge especially applies for her second long monologue in which she speaks of all different types of men, and how they wouldn't be suitable for Beatrice. At first I was really confused as to what it all meant, as in the script I own (a Shakespeare Arden copy) it is very punctuated so, when I first read it; I couldn't understand what each comma meant. I also found it hard to bring the meaning into each new sentence, and then to change the topic in the next etc.  Now that I can see what it all means, I tried running it through (aloud), with a quick pace to make it witty, and it made a whole lot more sense!! As soon as it was translated I knew the pace should be quickened. With all this said, and now that I feel I am beginning to understand Hero; I am also starting to like her. As said earlier, were Hero is also quite a loud and excitable character she will be a challenge for me- purely because I'm not naturally like that. I was also worried about how well our group will take Shakespeare, as all we've ever done is contemporary work.  I tried looking further into her lines, this evening, to begin to properly understand her: In a lot of her opening lines in the scene, she is very much taking the lead by planning what her and Ursula shall say when Beatrice enters. It's quite clear that she isnt doing this in a over-dominant way, but she is definitely placing herself higher up in this whole 'game.' I think this could be because Hero's mum is never introduced nor mentioned throughout the whole piece. For this reason, I can only assume that perhaps her mother left, or died. Arranged marriages was the only way for marriage in the Elizabethan times, so it was very likely Hero's mother was forced to marry Leonato, however contradicting myself, divorce was very rare: so perhaps death to Hero's mother proves the best possibility. Which could also explain as to why she is never mentioned, so perhaps a very recent death?
    However, I was earlier saying Hero has that dominant streak in her, which isnt obviously seen, but this could be because she's been brought up by a single parent. My parents divorced when I was little, so a single parent life has been all that I know, and I no way am saying that they are weaker or do a worse job at raising children up...but I do mean that I think it has a massive effect on the children itself. For me, its made me really quite dominant and I will stand my ground if need be, and I am not a big fan of men who think they lead in the relationship. Whereas my sister will happily go along with anything and will stay quiet, but it has all had a big effect on us. Which is why, with Hero being brought up by Leonato alone, has most probably taught her to big herself up a bit. If she was quiet and took the back seat, chances are she would be bullied for being brought up by a single father (as it wasnt popular.) She was also, probably, brought up to be ruled by her father, "I trust you will be ruled by your father"~Isabelle to Hero [Act 1, Scene 3.] and so she feels if she stands her ground a bit more, she will perhaps get away with being 'ruled by her father.' I still don't think she is overly dominant, but the way she is instructing both Margaret and Ursula on what to do and say when Beatrice enters, proves she has the dominance to keep things her own way-but not in a spoilt way. An example of her dominance could be: "Whisper her ear...Our talk must only be of Benedick..." The two words in bold highlight the main emphasis in which the dominance is seen, its subtle but definitely noticeable. She also has the most to say during the scene, she rambles on with a couple of long paragraphs of speech and sort of leaves Margaret in the position that she has nothing to contribute by the end of it.


But seeing some scene's being blocked today, it's really working well. I saw the first couple of scenes being blocked today and Sally has incorporated a lot on the show, as a group, we have all just gone to see. The show being The Curious Incident Of The Dog In The Night Time.

The show is all about an autistic, 15 year old boy Christopher. He sets out to find the murderer of his neighbours dog. With Christopher being the narrator of the play, it is all set out in the life of someone living with autism. So watching it as an audience member, it is almost very high maintenance just to sit and watch; with all the actors busily doing Berkhovian-styled physical theatre sequences, and the staging technology goes wild and the volume of the sounds is raised to beyond a comfort level... But all-in-all it has to be the best thing I have ever seen on stage. The influences Sally has got from watching this is the use of the physical theatre during the 'disco'/masked ball scene in MAAN. Today, we began blocking this scene. All we managed to block today, was a short, choreographed sequence that is festival-relevant. Originally we were all going to do different movements, but we changed this so that we all do the same movements at the same time. Our sequence is miming having a drink, dancing, smoking and taking a selfie (in which we all use our phones in our left hands.) I think, with more practise, this sequence will look really effective; especially when we all master doing it in time! Also in this section, we have a meaningful walk which shuffles around the line formation in which we start in. The first walk, in which we all do with the music, brings Lewis and Phoebe forward. Lewis and Phoebe play Beatrice and Benedick in one scene, so it makes sense that they have a short physical theatre sequence to represent this. On the second walk, Donna and Joe are moved to the front, and with them playing Hero and Claudio in one of the other scenes, there sequence also shows their love.
    The walking scene was influenced by the very busy scenes in The Curious Incident. Unfortunately I can't find a clip of the train station scene in which is something we want to try and achieve. However, the scene had all the actors pacing around the stage in certain walking sequences. The staging technology adds to the atmosphere, as does the loud music. But due to the walking being so purposeful it made the scene so much more frantic (frantic as an adjective, not Frantic Assembly ha!) As we are setting ours in a festival location, we want to create this exact business into our scenes; so this scene is a big influence of ours.

Christopher at the train station

Also, in the show, they used large white boxes which acted as the only props throughout the entire show (slight exaggeration but these were the main props.) These boxes were used for nearly everything that featured in the play. For example they were used to represent suitcases during the train station scene.At one point, Christopher becomes too overwhelmed with the business of the train station, he goes and hides in and on the suitcases at the station. As more and more people come to collect there suitcases, he is left laying on just the middle block (see image on the right.) For our version of Much Ado About Nothing, we are using large black boxes as our props/our prop cupboards. For example, as we are at a festival, we will always have one that acts as the cool box for all the alcohol. Like the white boxes, our black ones all have hinges on so we can store props inside. This 'cool-box' will be used by nearly all of the other actors so it will be a consistent part of the play. It also changes the stereotypical, going off to stage to bring props on stage for the next scene; which I think is great because it makes our piece more contemporary.

I can already tell it's going to be a really interesting take on a very worn-out Shakespeare piece, and it'll be really exciting to watch it progress into something of a very modern take!

Researching classical plays: Much Ado About Nothing

'Much Ado About Nothing' was written by the famous play write William Shakespeare in 1598; 'Much Ado About Nothing' (MAAN) is a comedic play best known for "the merry war between two couples." [Much Ado About Nothing, The Arden Shakespeare.] "It combines elements of robust hilarity, with more serious meditations on honour, shame and court politics"  This play offers a variety of light and dark to life and love; and it is seen to be so truthfully written that matters today seem still relevant to the words he wrote back in the 15th century. Especially in the context of social harmonies, gender status and "the desire to love and to be loved"; which all so happen to be subjects I will talk about later. 
    From the brief bits of information I already know about the play, I can already say that it has a lot of relevance to both a contemporary style and audience; but we shall see...

Staging: ·         

Shakespeare's plays, and any other sort of theatrical performances back then, had to be versatile. Unlike our shows now, the Elizabethans were not privileged (slight metaphor there!) enough to have indoor theatres. Therefore all plays were performed in outdoor performance halls, which became of the name 'the theatre'.  This was the more common performance space in which Shakespeare's plays were performed in, such as Much Ado About Nothing, however some were performed in Inn's or castles as entertainment for the Royals. But more importantly they had to be versatile in the fact that these shows (MAAN)  were performed in 'The Globe.' 

'The Globe' got its name through the Hamlet (a Shakespeare play) quote, "All the world's a stage." The world, as I hope you know, is of a circular formation. It is a globe. So if 'all the world is a stage' it made sense to create these 'outdoor playhouses' (now known as a theatre) in a circle around the stage; to create the illusion that the audience represented the world, which was situated around the stage. This takes me back to how MAAN  would've been extremely versatile; the actors had to ensure they entertained all sections of the audience at, pretty much, all times. The image, on the right, is a sketched diagram of The Globe. 

So starting at the top (literally) we had what was called the tower. Here gave home to the canon that was sometimes used as well as a church bell. The church bell came as most useful, back in the day. Set was hardly ever used, so the sounding of a church bell helped the imagination of the audience. If a wedding, the bell would be rung and it would help paint the wedding scene in the minds of the audience. For example, the bell would've sounded in Act 4, Scene 1 of Much Ado About Nothing, which is the scene in which Claudio and Hero go to exchange vows. The bell would've also been used as a mean of telling the time, again for the audience picture night or day etc. This might have been used in Act 3 Scene 1 in which Beatrice heads to the 'orchard' to listen to Hero's and Ursula's 'false bait' they lay about Benedick loving Beatrice. The bell could be rung as she enters the 'orchard' as a means to signify afternoon; allowing the audience to picture a warm, sunny afternoon etc. The canon, which as already mentioned, also lived up in the tower. The canon isn't used during MAAN at any point; however it would be a clever touch if you included it into a recreation of the play as it has had a big effect on the life of The Globe. The canon, famously known to be fired during a performance of All is True. A piece about King Henry the eighth. As King Henry entered the ball, various canons were fired as a grand entrance for the royal highness. The canon fired but the sparks from this caught alight the thatched roof. There was no such thing as fire extinguishers nor a fire brigade so the original Globe burnt down. Accounts read that only few men happened to help put out the fire, but that was only them throwing their cans of ale over it; in the hope it would put it out... 
The Balcony would be where those of a Royal kind would sit. The balcony is situated directly opposite the audience pit; almost like proving the point that the Royals were very much above everyone else; including the actors-both literally and physically. 
Although saying that, the Heavens where placed above the Balcony as it really was believed that Gods, angel, fairies etc were above all-so that includes the Royals. The heavens, as sort of already give away, is where the fictional characters were lowered from; so this included the Gods. Possibly in MAAN the Friar could be lowered from the heavens purely because any religious teacher were seen as very well respected and therefore, for this act of respect, a lowering from the heavens would seem suitable. 
The opposite to the heavens, would become the Trap Door. The trap door acted as hell (but strangely was never called that.) The trap door was the entrance 'door'for again, all fictional characters, but all of the evil nature. If you're a Shakespeare fan you'll know the witches from Macbeth would arrive from here. In MAAN it would make sense if Don John arrived through the trap door, purely because of his bad nature; but he plays human, so therefore he can only enter through the main stage doors.
The main stage doors are the exit of the tiring room, which we know as the backstage area. This got its name as you would go and change your 'attire' in this room. There isn't anything too exciting to tell you about the tiring room, it only gets as exciting as a backstage area we know today. The main stage gave home to the pillars which were so often used in MAAN. Both Benedick and Beatrice would've used these pillars, the four that stood at the four corners of the stage, during both scenes in which they discover the other is "sick in love"  with them. Its important to see the reactions of Beatrice and Benedick in both of these scenes as they are the main pull in the scene being comedic. So in the original staging of the play, these pillars would be used to allow the two characters to move around the stage, one to be seen by the whole audience, and two to be able to create a really energetic scene, with Benedick and Beatrice racing around the pillars as Hero, Ursula, Claudio and Leonato continue "laying the false sweet bait"  for Benedick and Beatrice. 
      Nowadays the pillars would be seen as an inconvenience to the directors and audiences, whereas Shakespeare used them to his advantage and really made use of them to capture the comedic sides to both Benedick and Beatrice as well as many other characters that feature in his other plays. 

You then had the Yard. It was one penny to stand in the yard, and these were the hardest members of your audience in which you had to keep engage. Standing for a long 2 hour and more long Shakespeare play, possibly in the rain with an awful view of the stage meant these audience members would become distracted quicker.

Othello and the moving walls

In more modern recreations of the play, I have seen the pillars being changed into walls. The walls were situated half way across the stage, and with the staging being rotational, they acted in the same way as the pillars did in the original staging. David Tennant, in this modern version still gave off the same effect with over-hearing the "false sweet bait" Claudio and Leonato laid for him about Beatrice's love to him. If I were to recreate this, I would use the staging in which I saw used in Frantic Assembly's version Othello. In this performance, Othello created a sequence off falling in and out of the of the moving walls. The moving walls created a drunken effect to the scene which fitted well with this Othello version which was set in a pub. Anyways, the moving walls in my modern creation of Much Ado About Nothing would act as Benedick and Beatrice's pillars. The walls had crevasses in which allowed the actors to hide in but still be seen by the audience. Which means that Beatrice and Benedick could hide in these, in perhaps the setting off a pub or a house; but from here they could still hear and react to the entire peice. The Othello use of the moving walls was really, visually pleasing. It gave the play a lot more energy and excitement as the physical theatre moments made every move around the moving walls have more meaning. I would give both Beatrice and Benedick physical theatre sequences in this section, also, purely because I fell in love with how effective it looked on stage. 

Shakespeare's performance style would be most closely linked to a conventional style; and by this I mean he wrote things that suited the 'suitable and agreed standards' of that day and age. As far as I know, he wrote about nothing too controversial (however we shall see in the social/political section of this assignment.) 

         

   

Social
Socially the play is rife. It is full of social statues that would've been seen as extremely important back in the Elizabethan era. Shakespeare never lived a 'well-off' lifestyle, he only had the freedom to an education thanks to his father winning an award for free education. This era specifically was reigned by Queen Elizabeth I, the sixth ruler and the last ruler of Tudor. Back then she was considered the best monarch, with thanks to her and the 'Golden Age' the more creative approach to life was introduced such as Shakespeare. The big dilemma, however, was brought up by a protestant protester named John Knox;

"it is more than a monster in nature that a woman should reign and bear empire over a man." 

This statement is questioning the ability and the right for a woman to be reigning the country. Woman's rights were very limited then, it was seen as our job, and our job only to stay at home and care for the house, do the washing and cooking etc. However, many would disagree with Knox purely because Elizabeth was seen as a 'different kind of Queen.' She experienced a lot throughout her reign that perhaps changed things for woman; but plainly speaking, I believe even the existence of a positive, and good female reigning would've no doubt changed things for the woman then. She transformed our so, poverty driven country into a striving place to live in, all in the 45 years she reigned over a male-dominated country. However, I believe Shakespeare has both subtly and cleverly used Queen Elizabeth I into Beatrice: Elizabeth refused to marry. She believed that if she were to marry, she would be seen as a weaker Queen and therefore the power she had put behind the name of 'women' would disappear instantly. I gather back then this would've been seen as almost insane, but a part of me believes Shakespeare had a more open-mind and understood the Queen's reasons and possibly agreed with them; unlike the population at the time. "Just, if he send me no husband, for the which blessing I am at him upon my knees every morn and evening" [Act 2, Scene 1] Beatrice speaks here of how grateful she is that God has not sent her a man. It isn't obvious, but the strong and independence that comes with her characteristics proves that her beliefs lie similarly to that of the Queens; she would not marry in risk of making herself appear weak...So it's no wonder that Shakespeare wrote Beatrice in such a fiery, dominant and independent way; she did an awful lot for England at the time and it leads to me to say that, clearly, Shakespeare saw her as a big influence on him whereas many others at the time were still looking down on the fact she was a 'woman reigning!' 
    

Blue against the black. Much Ado About Nothing male characters.

Costumes in the original performance of Much Ado About Nothing would've been taken from influences of the time in which they were written. In the very original performances it is very possibly that the male characters whom were seen as good (the likes of Claudio, Benedick etc) wore blue with there soldiers uniforms. And those seen as evil (Don Pedro) would wear black. These colours already represent social importances; because simply, looking at the colour blue we see a more positive and happier colour in comparison to the colour black. In the military, then and now, our men wore/wear blue sashes as a mark of pride and to honour their positions in the military; and this is something that is brought into the modernised version in which features Catherine Tate and David Tennant. In this modernised version, a blue sash (I am linking this to the blue colours that might have been worn in the very original performance) is worn to represent those men situated higher up in the infantry. A red sash being the opposite, in which would be worn by those 'on-the-front' men. In this modern version, Claudio wears the blue sash and slightly contradicting myself, this could represent the fact that the story is mainly based on him and his love for Hero; therefore he should be seen as the hero and most liked male character of the play. Which leaves us with Benedick in the red sash, proving to us that his role in the play is slightly less important than Claudio's but he still plays a big part in it all; as do the 'front-line' soldiers do. 

More smartly dressed example.

As I have made a large point of, social status/importance in MAAN is a large aspect. This is most definitely an aspect in which I would want to carry over to a modern creation. For this I would possibly think of setting it in a college environment. College (less than school) is still very much about looking good and fitting in. School is the worst contender for this, but for the storyline to fit better; college age range works better. Like in the picture above, we sort of have two male groups; the good and evil, as such. For this to work, I would create them by there sense of fashion. So at college we have the 'chavs' who rock up in full Nike tracksuits, then you have the opposite with the guys who wear smart looking shirts/t-shirts. These would form our two male groups, showing, quite visibly social statuses. Being un-stereotypical, the nike tracksuits would be of the lower social status, it could represent, also, the lower range of money income. Don Pedro would be one of the nike tracksuits guys. The smart/casual dressed guys would be formed from Claudio, Benedick and Leonato etc. The well-dressed approach shows they are perhaps more 'cool' in the college environment. 

Nike Tracksuits

This is only a brief example however, already I hope you can see the difference and how that MAAN would really work in a college enviroment purely because there is so much you could do basing it simply on just costumes. 














Political


Typically, Elizabethan era plays were most commonly played and performed in the 'Inn-Yard' theatre which would usually be situated in the yard (garden) of a local inn. The inn-yards could be said as the original theatres; to some extent. These yards were later then converted in playhouses. But the inn-yards were really for the less well off persons of that time as these performances were inexpensive simply because they were performed in pub gardens. These performances usually only held up to 500 people but they satisfied the socially less privileged of them all. Plays that were performed in the famously-known Globe Theatre were watched by a much larger audience capacity of 1,500; and these (excluding the yard, see heading Staging) were watched by the more middle and upper-classed popularity simply because these were the types of people whom could afford to go and watch (or should I say 'hear') a play. Returning back to Much Ado About Nothing, with the inn-yards being first used as a performance space back in 1420; it is almost certain that MAAN was performed in these spaces. To me this highlights, again, how open minded Shakespeare must've been in that era. Being the writer of MAAN, he would have given permission for it to be performed in the inn-yards (which were known more for the less well off audience types to attend) which, getting to my point, meant that he simply wanted his plays to be seen and liked by all. For him it wasn't a problem that he showed it to the lower-class, and as a guess I could see this being as a bad mark against Shakespeare's name from the upper-classed. It being almost like a cool student going over to make conversation to one of those weird kids; and the cool kid being mocked for doing so...? So perhaps the upper-classed looked down and badly upon Shakespeare at times? 

An example of a 15th Century inn-yard

Politically it is known that Shakespeare included a lot of this subject (politics)  into his plays; understandably as it was and still is such a relevant thing that surrounds us still. As far as I can recall, all of Shakespeare's pieces are set out of England; and that was to avoid any direct political insults and also to avoid criticism which would lead to a bad reputation. His plays told more fantasised versions of the recent past (his recent past that is) and how that affected or effected the present they had when writing the plays.


Politically, Much Ado About Nothing doesn't have much to do with the politics in which were happening at the time. Which makes it hard for me to perhaps incorporate this into a more contempoarised version. However, the friar wouldn't really need to be such an important character and could even be replaced by an un-seen Prime Minister or someone of a high up status, as the friar is in the original. This would make the modern version more relevant for a modern audience. With that said, you may still be wondering how the friars role could be slotted into a Prime Ministers role; however I would change Benedick and Beatrice around into a gay couple. Therefore, similarly to the friar, the Prime Ministers agreement to same sex marriages allows the marriage to go forward; as does the friar during the original. This way, it becomes extremely relevant to the modern day we live in. It would also bring in another audience type; those whom are for gay marriage or in support of the new gay marriage laws. 

Irrelevant annotation for you: "Nothing" back then meant the females genitalia, and to me I see the title to be a reference to Shakespeare's political views; as though it was a way for him to 'on the surface' tell the world that this play wasn't really about anything, 'nothing'. But, to those whom 'look deeper' will understand what the play is really about. 






Economical
At the beginning of Queen Elizabeth I's reign, England was in a very poor state; this was thanks to financing the wars of Philip II. We were also suffering a hatred towards Spain, which, all-in-all left the civilians living in a very poor world. Beggars and vagabonds became the most common way to live your life; Vagabonds are people without a home, whom 'wonder from place to place', without a job. Vagabonds became the thing to be purely because of the sudden lost of money throughout the country; but also due to the new found unlikeness towards the religious houses of Henry VII. With Elizabeth stepping up to the throne at this economically tough time, the business of 'woollen cloth'. (And as much as we take woollen jumpers for granted now; we have to give it credit for getting us back on our (as a country) feet again!) Cloth was most popular with the middle and upper-class of the time. Architecture also flourished in this time period which, again, was popular with the middle and upper class. Tin and copper mining began around this time also. Inns in London were beginning to be used to train lawyers in. The iron industry also flourished. Jobs were becoming more popular to have, after the period of vagabonds, and it was the time of farmers; blacksmiths, bakers, basket-makers, glovers (like Shakespeare's father) and many more. Over the time of all these new things beginning, and jobs becoming more popular, London grew massively economically. Elizabeth had a major hand in all of this, she stirred on the mining and in a way helped greatly in the advertisement of the silk, the copper etc. But as well as she did do, it was never seen as enough. Nor was it really, ever enough. London in 1500th's had no postal service, no fire brigade (hence the burn down of The Globe could never be stopped nor prevented!) religious houses were kept as hospitals after the wars and battles that occurred before her reign, so the demand for actual religious places was high too. Robbery and violence had stayed rife after the period of the beggars and vagabonds (understandably, as robbing foods etc is indefinitely a lot easier than finding the money to pay for them.) Tobacco became popular so money was yet again an issue, and with the cost at three shillings seeming very cheap to us nowadays, it equalled to 3p which was (brace yourselves) a fair bit of money spent. However, it was the raids of battle ships during the battle of Manila; in which we defeated Spain and Portugal. Our 'men' stole whatever items they thought had a possible market on them. Most famously a large pot, which was filled with spices, pearls, silk, silver and gold in which, of course, was given straight to the reigning Queen as a gift. As you can now see, England started off in a very bad, poverty-driven place at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, that is. We (England) had our rise and falls but with the reign of the strongest, most famously historical Queen, we are, I guess where we are now. 

The economy, in which, undoubtedly plays a part in the original of Much Ado About Nothing, could revolved around the costumes and accessories in which feature. 

Original Beatrice costume 

Focussing purely on Beatrice for the requirements of this assignment; I have inserted an image of sketches in which would've been the designs of Beatrice's costume. The blue features here again, like mentioned under the Social heading, which again proves that her role is of some great meaning to the play; and perhaps even more so than Benedicks-as in my earlier analysis he wears red because he isn't written down as the plays hero. So the blue shows off her status, and that both she thinks she's largely better than Benedick but also the fact that Shakespeare has written her to be better than him. Moving back on topic, her costume was made out of silk (or something to resemble silk.) This tells me that the whole play and all the characters in which feature in it, are more upper-class than they are middle-class. Silk was pretty much brand new at the time of the plays release, which like anything, undoubtedly meant it wasn't cheap. Shakespeare most purposefully gave Beatrice a silk dress to highlight that these people were well off enough to afford such luxury's. He's done it subtly enough for us to notice that it was in the full intention that these characters were made to be of a high disposition. This would also be well represented through the maid's costume. 

The costume of a maid perhaps (right)

The maid, on the right, is wearing, coincidentally, both red and blue. But focussing this more on the economical issues; her costume was most probably made of cotton. There is no real information I could find in which told me directly cotton was the cheapest material however the discovery and use of cotton has been used since 4500BC. And with that information I can only gather that at the time of Shakespeare and Much Ado About Nothing cotton was most probably the cheapest material. With this said, the cotton costume material for the maid represents her economic status in the play. Clearly she is a lot less 'well off' than any of the other characters in the play; in comparison to Beatrice's silk, blue dress. 


Economy wise, my modern version of Much Ado About Nothing would again be showed through the likes of costume. For example the maid would be in a costume that could be seen as 'cheap'. For this, she could simply be wearing the non-branded clothes that are seemingly 'un-cool' in a school/college environment.The opposite of this would be Leonato's costume, which would be something of the more smart/casual look I mentioned earlier on. Similarly with the likes of Don Pedro, he would be wearing the nike tracksuit. All of this would help subtly prove the economic statues throughout the play.





Cultural
Culturally, the Elizabethan era really flourished. Especially in the likes of festivals and celebratory days that have stayed the same for us in this day and age:
(Between) 3rd February- 9th March: Shrove Tuesday was celebrated. This is typically (I say 'typically' like I was fully aware of this) an Elizabethan festivity. It was a very much loved festival and although it's not widely celebrated nowadays, most of us don't decline to excuse to have pancakes! Running through the city of London was tradition on the Tuesday itself-which as you can expect did cause violence in, sometimes, our beloved theatres. 'Cock throwing' was the most popular of all events on this day, which included tying a a cockerel to a post and throwing stones at it until it died. However, as horrendous that sounds, it was done as an act to prove the past. The rioting especially was to cleanse the city of the past and well... the cockerel was a patriotic act as a cockerel represented France. 

Wassailing in action

24th December: Christmas eve of course! This was the time for them to decorate (not at the beginning of November like a neighbour of mine!!) the houses with holly and ivy; which is no doubt what gave the song influences. Christmas eve was also the time to sing songs, songs more than carols that we know today. And unlike us, the Elizabethans would have drums and other instruments to accompany them. This occasion especially, wassailing would happen- wassailing is an ancient way of Christmas carolling, or so as we know it today- at the same drinking 'plenty and merrily'. 

Culturally, it's really hard to find a way to include this into my contemporary version. Especially because our cultural relevance a today are completly different to how they were back in Shakespeare's time. Also because Much Ado About Nothing doesn't have any obvious cultural references it would be hard to incorporate this and include this into my modern version. However, contradicting myself, simply just making the piece contemporary would naturally give the piece its own, modern cultural aspects purely because of the modern school environment, gay marriages etc. 

Religion
During the Elizabethan era there were two main religions; one being Catholic and the other Protestant. And as you may already be able to guess, they didn't bode well. In the early 15th Century, everyone practised Catholicism. One of the main teachings of Catholicism in the 15th Century was:

"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus."

This meant that if you were any of the below, you were considered not worth saving:

• A Muslim, Hindu or Buddist. Or another member of a non-Christian religion
• An Atheist (non-believer in any religion)
• Or if you were another member of another Christian denomination

So, the Catholic teaching could be seen as rather 'tough'. Things like this prompted a change in religion, which became Protestant. Because they were two 'rivalling' religions they had their differences, for one, the protestants believed that the Bible is a full information guide as to how the Christians behaviour must be measured- the Bible is something that they have to follow utterly and completely. Whereas, simply putting it, the Catholics, yes agreed that the Bible had such importance in their religion however they believed that just the Bible alone to follow, was not enough. Whereas the Protestants thought it was; and you can see where the disagreement lays. 

With Shakespeare being under the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the chances are likely that he was Protestant seeing as that is whom she followed. However, his parents were most likely Catholic, due to being a different generation etc. (This is still an on-going debate however.) And some brief information that has been released because of this debate is that researchers believe that Shakespeare was secretly a Catholic. From my point of view, that would make sense as his parents are said to be both Catholics and it is rather hard to talk your parents out of forcing you to be a Catholic. I personally believe he was protestant, and to my disappointment I have no real evidence for my statement despite my repeatedly mentioned fact that, to me, Shakespeare was a very open-minded man. I see a lot of his history as possibly rather controversial at the time in which he was living which lead me to believe that living to the expectations of the people around him didn't matter to him. So had has an open mind, he wasn't glued to living to the rules of his era, he could see more than just the world he was guided through. So therefore, it wouldn't surprise me if he were Catholic, if that's something he felt was the right way forward he would've stuck to it- but it contradicts my point that his Catholicism was kept a secret, but I link that back to him "avoiding criticism and a bad reputation." 

With Shakespeare being around at the time of a very religious reign; it would make sense for all his characters (specifically in Much Ado About Nothing) to be very religious; however now knowing the play well, I can't see religion in the characters, as obvious as you could in say other plays of his. However, I focus my point on the whole sexual and false circumstance that is the maid playing Hero in order to fool Claudio of her cheating on him (the night before there wedding may I add.) Relating to this to the chastity ring, a Christian ring which would be worn for the entire period of being un-married, this was to show that you've not and will not have sex before exchanging vows. This act would've been greatly looked down upon; it was seen as a sin from the Churches point of view. The Christian teachings of sex before marriage follows: "But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband". This teaches that sex can only happen when you have 'your'e own husband or wife'. With this teaching, it makes it clear that 'Hero's' act of wrong doing was such a sinful act. And although this wrong doing was all fake under Hero's name, Don Pedro still committed a sinful act and therefore proves my earlier point of him being seen as a more 'evil' character; who goes against God and the religions in which they were living in during their era. 

Religion back in Shakespeare's day was really, very important. It still has its importance nowadays but it's a lot less hidden from our day to day lives. It's again, not another large aspect to the original version of Much Ado About Nothing, but it could become a much larger part to my contemporary version purely because of the gay marriage which would become Benedick and Beatrice. Religion, then and now is quite highly against this so I could really, majorly incorporate religion into all this. Perhaps Don Pedro could be one of the main characters against the 'gay marriage' in which would feature in the play; which spurs him into tricking the 'Claudio' equivilant etc. 


To conclude, I can possibly understand in a lot more detail that Shakespeare was truly a legend in Theatre and English studying to this day. Everything about him has a meaning and it is all told in various pieces of his. I still don't understand how a contemporary audience wouldn't enjoy any of this, but it would be the same if someone were to talk about Albert Einstein... 

Much Ado About Nothing was of course very relevant to the time period in which it was influenced, written and released in due to all of those factors. However, it is still extremely relevant: love and marriage for one, woman are not looked down upon for not marrying and it isn't seen as anything compulsory. Woman have so many more rights now-which is great! Someone as powerful as Queen Elizabeth isn't so rare now, we have had people like Margaret Thatcher whom ran as Prime Minister, and although not overly liked, was still a female prime minister!! This powerful and independent female role has made Beatrice such a well-liked character in the play purely because she is so relevant to the ever-changing society we live in. She stands her ground about marriage and men especially and I'm sure many females could relate to her fully nowadays. Religion has always been relevant, throughout all era's and although it isn't a major pull in the play itself the subtle mentions have there relevance's. We haven't stuck to sex before marriage as being 'sinful' however our religions still highly believe this and that the act in which Don Pedro committed would still be seen as shameful to the Christians of this day and age. And finally social statuses, which is probably most relevant now. We live in a fully socially correct world. Everyone has to be of a certain status, almost like everyone has to be equal but not at the same time. Schools, I think have the toughest social status levels going; you've got the more popular students, the middle-ish students and then the un-cool students. And with these set levels, it is seen as very un-cool to be at the lowest level. Therefore, we grow up believing we have to be of a certain way in order to be at the top of the levels. We have to have the top class phone and branded shoes etc. And similarly like Much Ado About Nothing, people would do anything (i.e. the maid having sex) to raise themselves up the social chart.








Introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Ado_About_Nothing]

Staging: (http://bloggingshakespeare.com/how-did-they-stage-eavesdropping-in-much-ado-about-nothing )

Economical: http://faculty.tnstate.edu/smcurtis/Elizabethan%20Economy.htm

Political: http://www.william-shakespeare.info/william-shakespeare-biography-elizabethan-theatre-playhouse-inn-yards.htm

Culturally: http://www.carelpress.co.uk/shakespeareplays/twelfthnight/assets/Festivals.pdf

Social: http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/religion-elizabethan-england.htm