Weight and theatre...

<p>paying:</p>

<p>Thanks for the thoughtful response. It is much appreciated.</p>

<p>Let me see if I can address a few of your points.</p>

<p>Yes, what I had in mind (in a fleeting thought) was that the entire Jewish community in Fiddler could be made up of AAs and other minorities, and that the Russians be white. That would add a bit of a bite to the script, especially in areas of the US where anti-Semitism is relatively rare but racism against blacks is fairly common. The KKK robes is an interesting twist. I would probably not do that, myself, because I like sublety, and I think that would be condescending to the audience. But that's just my taste. Others might make the other decision and do so with great success.</p>

<p>I'm afraid I don't agree that it's the same thing to insist on casting Jews in Fiddler as it is to exclude non-whites in order to maintain the symbolic illusion. Jewishness may have some tendencies towards certain Mediterranean/Levantine physical characteristics, but I'm sure you're more aware than I that these tendencies are mild, and exceptions are legion.</p>

<p>Let me thank you for introducing a new factor I had not considered. I have become so accustomed to local high school theater where I live, and the fact that it is serious theater for serious performers, most of whom intend to go on to college to study their craft, that I forgot that not all communities are like mine. In some communities, surely, the theater-going audience would not spend much time trying to figure out the symbolism. In those cases, NTC makes sense.</p>

<p>Once again, I agree that, if the director felt it necessary to cast only white people in the play and the school is only 1/3 white, this was a VERY poor choice of plays. Simply ridiculous!</p>

<p>On to Shylock.</p>

<p>"Merchant" is a very, very difficult play to produce these days for several reasons. First, Shylock is clearly a villain and says and does villainous things. Second, there are a number of clearly anti-Semitic comments that are wince producing. The trick, and I believe it's an all-but-impossible trick, is to get the audience to see the play the way Will's audience would have seen it.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the fact that Jews had been banned from England for 300 years prior to "Merchant," the fact that no one knew any Jews who would confess to practicing Judaism (there was a community of "converted" Jews on the road to the Rose and Curtain theaters that Will would have known), the fact that Jews had been reduced in England to something very like the boogeyman, and even the fact that a physician to the Queen had been executed a few years before for attempting to poison her, and had then confessed to being a Jew, is unknown to modern audiences. Even those who know it have a hard time "feeling" it.</p>

<p>I believe that, had Shakespeare been born in the 19th century, he would have been Sigmund Freud. His genius has many facets, but I believe that one of the most important facets is his ability to break with the thinking of his time (a rare thing, that) and postulate environmental reasons why people are the way they are. You see this especially in one of his early works, Richard III, when he opens the play with a speech that turns the Medieval concept of deformity upside down. Richard isn't deformed because he's evil. The ill-treatment from others that he has received because of his deformity has made him evil.</p>

<p>The role of Shylock is in the same Shakespearean tradition. In essence, Shylock was an answer to Marlowe's "Jew of Malta," which can hardly be equaled for its virulent anti-Semitism. Shylock is how he is because of how he's been treated, and Will implies that this extends to Jews, in general. In context, "Merchant" is a gigantic slap in the face to the anti-Semites.</p>

<p>But, man, TRY getting all this across to a modern audience!!! </p>

<p>Anyway, this was a very long-winded (sorry) way to get at a point: I don't think "Merchant" works very well in that way, anymore. Rather than being an attack on anti-Semitism, it appears to a modern audience to be virulently anti-Semitic. I don't know how to fix that. I've toyed with the idea of producing "Merchant" as a play-within-a-play, cutting in scenes from The Jew of Malta to provide a contrast, but I've been unable to figure out how to do that without turning the production into a rather dreary, intellectual exercise.</p>

<p>Would Shylock and his daughter work as African-Americans or Amerinds or Hispanics? Probably not. The trick is to figure out HOW to make it work.</p>

<p>[Note: A really brilliant actor in the role of Shylock can get some of this across. I've seen it. An average actor can ruin the play, entirely.]</p>

<p>Here's a link to Carnegie Mellon's senior showcase--this includes both acting and MT majors:
<a href="http://www.cmushowcase.com/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cmushowcase.com/&lt;/a>
This is this year's senior class</p>

<p>Tarhunt, if my post was thoughtful, yours was brilliant. Thanks for teaching me much! Shakespeare and Marlowe can only be understood relative to what they might have believed about Jews, whether they knew any, under what circumstances (converted, hidden). That there had recently occurred in England a dr. accused poisoning their queen, and that the dr. confessed to being secretly Jewish ABSOLUTELY transforms my thoughts about the "pound of flesh" scene. (Sidenote: I've read that today's Queen Elizabeth of England called in Britain's Jewish ritual circumcizers -- mohelim--rather than use her regular palace doctors for her own sons. I guess everyone prefers a specialist, but that is real TRUST! I have no idea what Princess Diana did for her boys --and she didn't ask me, either :)</p>

<p>It is absolutely difficult to present Merchant of Venice well today when people either share or are clueless to both historic and recent antiSemitism. You are so right that it would be more consistent with Shakespeare's approach to dramatic tragedy to see Shylock as the victim, not perpetrator. The actors who play it well express this tension. Personally, I thought Robert deNiro did a fine job because he made me feel how much Shylock felt "cornered" by the events as they unfolded, and so lashed out. </p>

<p>I know that there are curricula for h.s. students to prepare them before they read Merchant, but I think they "tell" rather than "show." For a moment, I imagined you staging Merchant in an all-day workshop format, in which some history is taught to the audience beforehand, the play is shown, and then there is discussion. But that may be too teachy-preachy. I can see by your other thoughts (play within a play, or slice-ins of Marlowe scenes) that you are thinking more theatrically and less educationally to express what all this means today. I have no answer, except to say that I'm sure you're asking yourself the right questions. The problem is in my thoughts, and if I come up with anything new, will write again. It is a worthy and ambitious idea for a production, espec with rising antiSemitism worldwide (Europe, midEast) at the same time American audiences (even Jewish kids) enjoy much acceptance so don't understand the tension anymore.</p>

<p>As to the OP, hey, do you see what an interesting thread is coming from your original concerns? Appearance, weight, race, casting questions are very lively topics in MT. So, I won't hijack your thread anymore, in case you can get some more feedback on the concerns in your OP.</p>

<p>paying:</p>

<p>If you're interested in more, here's a link to some info on Rodrigo Lopez, the Queen's physician.</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Lopez_(physician%5B/url%5D)"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Lopez_(physician)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Tarhunt, paying3, et al:</p>

<p>This has become a fascinating discussion, reminiscent of the old cc.com MT thread, wherein the conversation flowed freely, not confined by topics. There was some virtue in that approach.</p>

<p>I agree with you, Tarhunt, about the importance of symbolism, including race, when race is the essence of the dramatic question. Othello would make no sense whatsoever if Othello were not black and Desdemona and Iago white, or at least members of rival ethnic groups. Shakespeare understood the rage that arises in men when one of “their” women crosses the line and makes the beast with two backs with a man from the perceived enemy. We’re most familiar with it in America in terms of race, but it happens everywhere in the world: Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq. Iago’s other target (and perhaps his real one) is Desdemona, and his twisted scheme is to manipulate the man he hates into killing the woman he wishes he could have had. Racism and sexism are inextricably linked, as Shakespeare knew only too well.</p>

<p>Any casting scheme that respects this fundamental psycho-social dynamic in the text might work, a Bosnian Othello in a Serbian world, or a Shiite Othello in a Sunni world, for example. But you’re right, indiscriminate non-traditional casting will confuse the audience and destroy the story.</p>

<p>Similarly in The Merchant of Venice, Shylock and his daughter and Tubal must be members of The Others, however that is defined by the dominant culture. They could be black in a white world, or white in a black world. But in a situation like paying3’s, where the school is as diverse as she describes, I think I would try to create The Oppressors and The Foreigners with costumes, so that the students would understand through playing the roles that ethnic hatred comes in all colors.</p>

<p>More about Shylock tomorrow.</p>

<p>AlisMom is right, we sent that photo out with other materials about the school. It's not posted on our website, and it should be. I'll try to get that taken care of on Monday.</p>

<p>Amazingly enough, just a few minutes ago, the New York Times posted a story about a sorority at DePauw University (not to be confused with DePaul). Here's the link:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/education/25sorority.html?hp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/education/25sorority.html?hp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Oh wow, to read that is just shocking...</p>

<p>I'm astonished how America has became so shallow in this day and age...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Oh wow, to read that is just shocking...</p>

<p>I'm astonished how America has became so shallow in this day and age...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>One of the more galling aspects of specializing in any sort of behavioral psychology is that fact that, somehow, so many people assume that human beings change. They don't. Or at least they don't over any kind of measurable history to date. Culture changes, which changes behavioral norms, but people don't change.</p>

<p>To me, there are two issues here. The first is that the female students of DePauw were not being attracted to this sorority because of its "geeky" reputation. The implication is that being associated with this sorority carries a social stigma that many young women wish to avoid. And that says a lot about what these young women feel is likely to be an attraction or turn-off for others, doesn't it?</p>

<p>The second issue is that the national office took the action that they did. Obviously, they thought it was some kind of business necessity to change the sorority's image with DePauw females. This would indicate that they didn't think the current "brand" could be turned to their advantage.</p>

<p>So, when we talk about "this day and age" as being different from others, I think both of these issues suggest that it is not so different, at all, no matter how much we think it is.</p>

<p>Sorry OP. I've hijacked this thread enough. I apologize for furthering that.</p>

<p>bump...i found it thanks!</p>