Plot Summary
Act I:
The curtain opens on the bedroom of Figaro, the king’s valet and his fiancée, Suzanne. Figaro measures the dimensions of the room while Suzanne notes that the Count Almaviva has placed their new room conspicuously close to his own. She believes this to be indicative of his intentions to “take her virtue” before her husband, as is his right by nobility. Figaro, a trickster in the first play of the trilogy, resolves to prevent this by tricking the count somehow using his wit.
Suzanne and Figaro go out, enter Dr. Bartholo and the housekeeper Marceline. The doctor holds a grudge against Figaro for tricking him in the previous play. Marceline is in love with Figaro and has a document which would force him into marrying her should he fail to repay a sum of money that he owes her (she is considerably older than Figaro). Enter Suzanne (the doctor exits), who has a short “argument of manners” with Marceline before Marceline exits.
Enter the Page Cherubin, who the audience soon discovers is in love with basically all the women in the palace. After professing this love verbosely, he reveals that this infatuation has gotten him into trouble as the Count caught him in bed with the gardener’s daughter (Fanchette) and has resolved to dismiss him. As he finishes telling her this, Enter the Count.
Upon the Counts entrance, Page goes and hides behind a large chair. The count propositions Suzanne for sex, but she refuses and he is interrupted by Bazile, who comes noisily down the hallway. The count hides behind the chair where the page is hid, and the page moves quickly to the front of the chair and hides underneath one of the countesses gowns. Enter Bazile who tells Suzanne of the Page’s love for the countess, enraging the count who reveals himself. The Count resolves again to dismiss the Page and, in reenacting the scene in which he discovered the page the previous night, accidentally reveals the page hidden underneath the gown. Angered, he resolves to send the Page into military service.
Figaro enters with the countess and wedding guests from the village in “holiday attire.” Figaro says that he wants to begin the wedding ceremony immediately “in praise of the count’s virtue” in agreeing to dismiss his right to have sex with Suzanne. The Count convinces them to delay the ceremony and privately resolves to help Marceline to marry Figaro.
Act II:
In the Countess’ bedroom, Suzanne informs the Countess of the Count having solicited her for sex. Enter Figaro who informs them of a new plan to prevent the Count’s intentions: he will hatch a rumor that the Countess has taken a secret lover who will attend the wedding, meaning that the count will have to allow the wedding so that he can confront her lover. He leaves, the Countess and Suzanne hatch a plan in which they will tell the count that Suzanne has agreed to his suggestions. They would then dress the Page in one of the Countesses’ dresses and send him out to meet the count as Suzanne. Enter the count while they are dressing the Page in a gown, they hide him in a closet and the Count is immediately suspicious. Discovering the closet is locked, the Count demands to know who is inside of it and when he turns to get a hammer to break the door down Suzanne sneaks into the closet and the Page jumps out of the window. The Count discovers Suzanne in the closet and momentarily believes them until the gardener comes up to tell the Count that he saw a half-naked man jump out of the Countesses’ window and into the bushes. Figaro says that he was that man, revealing to the count his plan to start a rumor about his wife’s fidelity. At this point, Marceline and the doctor enter with the Judge Don Guzman and inform Figaro that his trial is set to begin.
Act III:
At this point, the Countess urges Suzanne to inform the Count that she will agree to have sex with him. The Countess says to tell him that she will meet him after the wedding, and then the Countess will go disguised as Suzanne. This pleases the Count, but he then overhears her saying to Figaro that she is only agreeing to his advances so that Figaro will have a better chance in the upcoming trial.
The trial begins, and Figaro is forced to explain that the reason he has no surname is that he was kidnapped as a young child. After the Count has ruled in favor of Marceline, she recognizes a birthmark on Figaro, revealing to her that Figaro is actually her son. Then, Enter Suzanne, carrying enough money to pay back all of Figaro’s debt (a gift to her from the Countess). The gardener, who is Suzanne’s wife, reveals that he will no longer approve of Figaro and Suzanne’s marriage because he is illegitimate.
ACT IV:
Figaro asks Suzanne not to meet the Count on the night of their wedding, and she agrees. When Suzanne tells the Count's wife that she does not plan to meet the Count, the Countess points out that she needs Suzanne's help so she can try to win back her husband's love and loyalty. Both Suzanne and the Countess write a note to the Count called "A New Song on the Breeze." The note asks the Count to meet Suzanne under the elm trees. The note is sealed with a pin from the Countess' dress. During the double wedding ceremony, Suzanne passes her note to the Count. When Figaro sees the Count reading the note, he does not know it is from Suzanne. After the wedding ceremony, Figaro notices Fanchette is upset and realizes she is upset because she lost the pin used to seal the letter (written by Suzanne and the Countess) that the Count asked her to give Suzanne. Figaro becomes very upset and thinks that this letter means Suzanne has already slept with the Count. He decides to go to the elm trees to secretly spy on the Count and Suzanne.
ACT V:
When Figaro arrives at the meeting place of Suzanne and the Count, he gathers a large group of men and plans to expose Suzanne and the Count in order to shame the pair and have good reason for a divorce. Suzanne and the Countess enter disguised as each other. Suzanne knows Figaro is watching and she is saddened that he would doubt her loyalty. When the Count enters, he and the Countess (in Suzanne's disguise) go off. Figaro, thinking the Count just escorted Suzanne away, goes to Suzanne (who is disguised as the Countess). When Figaro recognizes his own wife's voice, he is very much relieved. Suzanne is upset that Figaro would think she would cheat on him, and Figaro agrees that he was being ignorant and he and Suzanne kiss. When the Count re-enters, he thinks Figaro is kissing the Countess (because Suzanne is still in her disguise). When the Count takes control and arrests Figaro, Figaro goes along and pretends he was going to have an affair with the Countess. At this, the Count plans to force his wife to come out of the pavilion and make her admit her guilt in front of everyone. Instead of the Countess coming out, Fanchette, Marceline and Cherubino come out. When the real Suzanne (still wearing the Countess' clothes, but her face is no longer concealed) comes out, the Count still believes it is his wife. The "audience" (consisting of Fanchette, Marceline and Cherubino) begs the Count to forgive his wife. When he refuses to cooperate, the real Countess and Suzanne reveal their true identities. This is when the Count realizes he has been horribly tricked. The Count begs for his wife's forgiveness, and she agrees. The play ends with Suzanne and Figaro happily married and very wealthy.
Authorial Biography
Born Pierre-Augustin Caron on January 24, 1732, his name was later changed to Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais when he married his first wife, Madeleine-Catherine Franquet. Beaumarchais was the son of bourgeois watchmaker Charles Caron and became an apprentice to him at the age of 13. Beaumarchais mastered his father’s craft so well that, at the age of 21, he invented a new mechanical device for pocket watches that permitted the construction of small, flat timepieces in place of the bulky, spherical ones. The invention made him famous in the scientific community, earned for him the title of “Watchmaker to the King,” and assured the prosperity of his father’s watch making business for years to come. From that notoriety, he was able to establish himself as a personage of consequence at the court of Louis XV, even becoming music teacher to the king’s daughters.
His first wife, Madeleine-Catherine Franquet, was met in his father’s shop. He acquired his title as well as some wealth from her estate in Beaumarchais, Brie after her death. By now he had bought himself into power, as was customary.
Much mystery shrouded his first and second wife’s death, as they were sudden and shortly after marriage, yielding wealth.
He was taken to court after the death of his business partner, too whom he had accumulated a debt of 15,000 francs. His partner, however, had signed a written document releasing the debt. The heir, however, challenged Beaumarchais and the legitimacy of the document. Beaumarchais was stripped of his title, but because he had so aptly outwitted the court from taking his money he drew the attention of the king, Louis XV. Beaumarchais then became a spy, revealing traitorous activity in the country.
He was involved in both the American and French Revolution as an arms dealer. Though his deal with the now “United States of America”, his deal with France was less successful. He had arranged for 60,000 muskets to be acquired from Holland for the French Revolution. The deal fell through, Beaumarchais was exiled to Germany, but returned to die a fulfilled Frenchmen in Paris on May 17th, 1799.
He was married three times: 1) Madeleine-Catherine Franquet in 1756 (died 1757), 2) Genevieve-Madeleine Warebled in 1768 (died 1770), one son (died at the age of three in 1772), and 3) Marie-Therese Willermwlas in 1786 (divorced 1794; remarried 1797).
Historical Period/Playwriting Movement that Produced the Play
The Marriage of Figaro was written in 1775-1778 but was not staged until 1783. The script is an attack on aristocracy and is based loosely on Beaumarchais’ life. The playwright uses slight deviations of names to comment on his enemies, and the ending monologue was censored because of its affront to aristocracy.
Figaro mirrors Beaumarchais in that he is a lower class individual, triumphing over the lords and aristocracy.
Beaumarchais re-introduced laughter to French comedy and the stage after a long absence. The Marriage of Figaro has its roots in vaudeville and drame bourgeois and could be categorized as “comedy of intrigue;” the use of satirical observation and traditional comic stereotypes are the things which give this play its lasting presence. It was considered a revival because something like this hadn’t been done since Shakespeare.
Dramatis Personae
Count Almaviva: Governor of Andalusia
The Countess: his wife
Figaro: Count’s valet and steward of the castle
Suzanne: Countess’s principal maid and engaged to Figaro
Marceline: Housekeeper
Antonio: Head gardener uncle of Suzanne and father of Fnachette
Fanchette: daughter of Antonio
Cherubin: Count’s principle page
Bartholo: doctor from Seville
Bazile: music master to the Countess
Don Guzman Brid’Oison: a judge
Double-Main “Clawfingers”: lawyer’s clerk secretary to Don Guzman
An Officer of the Law and Clerk of the Court
Gripe-Soleil: young shepherd
A Young Shepherdess
Pedrillo: Count’s huntsman
Servants, Peasants, Women and Girls from the Count’s estates
Production History
The Marriage of Figaro opened March of 1784 at the Comédie-Française, where it ran for one hundred performances, but it wasn’t accepted with open arms at first. Beaumarchais completed the first text in 1778, and, when Louis XVI read the manuscript in 1782, he banned it from being performed on the stage because it “mocks everything which ought to be respected in a Government,” said the king. Luckily, Marie-Antoinette and the Comte d’Artois persuaded the king to allow a private performance; this performance took place in 1783 in Gennevilliers, France. But, before the play could be opened to the public, the king demanded that it be censored.
In 1786, Mozart adapted the play into a four act opera entitled Le Nozze di Figaro, and, since then, the opera has been performed innumerable times. LSU’s School of Music performed the adaptation in April of 2011.
When performed in 1803, Madame de Hausset criticized it as a “replete with indecorous and slanderous allusions to the Royal Family.” Another comment said that it “spread the prejudices against the Queen through the whole kingdom and every rank of France.”
Annotated Bibliography
Citations:
Beaudmarchais. The Figaro Plays: The barber of Seville, The Marriage of Figaro, The Guilty
Mother. Trans. Graham Anderson. Bristol: The Longdunn Press Ltd, 1993.
• The text for the play The Marriage of Figaro and the other plays in the “Figaro trilogy.” Original text by Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, translated from its original French by Graham Anderson, former Head of Modern Languages at the University College School, Hampstead.
Cox, Cynthia. The Real Figaro. London and Southampton: The Camelot Press Ltd, 1962.
• Biography of Figaro, told in the narrative style by Cynthia Cox. It includes details of his life from his early life, his life and involvement with the French aristocracy, his life as a writer, his involvement in both the American and French revolutions, His work for the French crown as a spy, and his work as an arms dealer to the American colonies and his demise following being declared an enemy of the Revolution.
"The Marriage of Figaro." The Oxford Dictionary of Plays. Ed. Michael Patterson. Oxford University Press,
2005. eNotes.com. 2006. 2 May, 2011
http://www.enotes.com/odp-encyclopedia/marriage-figaro
- Production History Information. Lists notable performances
"Pierre August Caron de Beaumarchais." Encyclopedia of World Biography. Detroit: Gale, 1998. Gale
Biography In Context. Web. 4 May. 2011.
- Biographical excerpt containing highlights of Beaumarchais’s life. Used to reference and perspective.
“Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais.” International Dictionary of Theatre. Vol. 2. Gale, 1993. Gale
Biography in Context. Web. 29 Apr. 2011
- Biographical excerpt used for extracting years, and life in context of Beaumarchais’s plays.
Brucknew, D.J.R.J.R. “Figaro outwits the count, but without a single aria.” New York Tiimes 1
May 2005: E5. Gale Biography In Context. Web. 29 Apr. 2011
- Review of “Marriage of Figaro” performance in Florida; commenting on the how the original format of the story still wows audiences without song. Also praises cuts to the script.
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Caldrón de la Barca: Life is a Dream
https://xythos.lsu.edu/users/awagu16/lifeisadream/awagu16/Life_is_a_Dream.html
The Weir by Conor McPherson
Authorial Biography
Conor McPherson was born in Dublin, Ireland on August 6, 1971. The Irish playwright was educated at the University College Dublin, where he studied philosophy, literature, and psychology. McPherson is known for his “amazing gift for storytelling,” often expressed in monologue form. Whether monologue or ensemble, his writing uses “understatement, indirection and contained tenseness” to serve his “uncanny gift for getting inside the minds of the characters he creates” (Brantley qtd. in Wood). McPherson’s plays are linear in narrative and movement in a way that seems better suited to the novel than the stage. (Haughney,Paul, Cormac O’Brien, and Josh Tobiessen. “Struggling Toward a Future: Irish Theater Today) McPherson has written Rum and Vodka, The Good Thief, This Lime Tree Bower, St. Nicholas, The Weir, Dublin Carol, Port Authority, Come on Over, Shining City, The Seafarer, and The Birds. McPherson is also a writer and director for films. He wrote Endgame and directed I Went Down, The Actors, and The Eclipse. Among many other achievements, McPherson was awarded the Evening Standard Award, George Devine Award, Critics Circle Award, and Laurence Olivier Award for The Weir.
The Weir: Plot Summary
The Weir begins in a small, rural bar in Ireland. It is evening and Jack (a mechanic) and Brendan (the owner of the pub) are discussing various events of each of their days while having a few drinks. Weather, family, horse racing; the conversation is a friendly one, but covers every topic imaginable. Eventually, they begin to gossip about Finbar, a successful, local businessman ; apparently, he has sold the Nealon home to a young woman from Dublin. The two find this impressive since the house has been empty for several years and Jack tells Brendan that Finbar plans to come by the bar to introduce them to the girl later in the night. Although there are no “real” hard feelings between any of the men, Jack disapproves of Finbar’s interaction with the woman because he believes it makes the rest of them appear desperate, not to mention that Finbar is a married man. Regardless, both men look forward to meeting her. A little later, Jim (Jack’s assistant) enters the pub and follows in the footsteps of his pals; he gets a couple of drinks and joins in on the conversation. He speaks of his day too, but the talks turn back to Finbar and the female once again. Jim confirms the beauty of the girl and tells the other two how attractive she is which leads to a collected suspicion. The men continue to drink and smoke (Jack) as they wait for their expected guests. Not too long after, Finbar and the woman, Valerie, enter the bar. Once everyone introduces themselves, all five begin to drink. For a while, the topic of interests is Finbar’s financial status (which a large chunk of seems to have come from his diseased father) and his intentions with Valerie. It starts off as a friendly, poke-fun-at talk, but turns swiftly once tension is built and the men become arrogant. Once everyone is calm, the men show Valerie some old photographs of themselves, the town, etc. Then, they talk about the weir and how it relates to the house that Valerie has just bought. Brendan speaks of the fairy road that runs beneath the home and from here, the stories begin. Jack is first; he tells the story of Birdie, a well-known, widowed woman in the area. She was sort of a practical joker, even at a young age, so no one took her very seriously. He explains that one day, she heard knocking on the door of the home, but when she went to open it, no one was there. At first she thought it was just someone playing a joke on her, getting her back, but it continued to happen, daily. Her daughter Maura could hear it too, but whenever she asked her mother if she wanted her to answer the door, Birdie would tell her not to worry about it, that it was nothing. Jack explains that she (Birdie) never told anyone of the knockings and that he discovered the happenings through Maura. The women later had a priest come by to bless the house and from that day on the knocking never returned….until the weir was going up. He concludes his story by telling the listeners that he too believed the house was built on a fairy road, which isn’t a road at all, but instead “a row of things”. After a few laughs and more drinks, Finbar starts a story. It’s about a young girl who fell down a flight of stairs and claimed she saw a man on the steps and could hear voices sometimes, like children outside her window and other delusional things; it shares some similarities to a later story as well. As usual, once Finbar is done, the group drinks again and Finbar goes on a rant about several things. He is cut off by Jim, who tells another supernatural tale. This story is different because it actually “happened” to the story teller; it starts off with Jim at a funeral with one of his friends, Declan. Declan leaves to go get something while Jim waits for him and a man walks out of the church towards him. The stranger tells him that Jim is standing at the wrong grave and that the man they were burying should not be buried at that spot. Jim is hesitant, but goes along with the man and they walk to a little girl’s tombstone. The man claims that this is the correct place, strokes the grave, and then walks back into the church. Jim continues his story, saying that to this day, the mother of the young girl never truly forgave him because the man that spoke to him that day had a reputation for being a pervert AND he was dead. What Jim saw that day was just the soul or something of a troubled man who wanted to her buried by an innocent child. This overwhelms everyone in the bar, so much so that Valerie needs to go to the restroom. Brendan tells her that it’s broken, but he’ll gladly take her into the house, which he does. While the two of them are gone, the rest of the men argue amongst each other for who started the foolishness that caused Valerie to be upset. They each blame each other, and when Valerie and Brendan return, they all apologize. She doesn’t accept their apology because she genuinely believes that there is nothing to apologize for; she has enjoyed the entire night and each of the three stories. In fact, she even begins to tell a story; her story is personal and it’s true, however, this isn’t revealed until the end. It’s about her daughter, Niamh, and the fallout from her death. Valerie loved her; she speaks of the nightmares she used to have and how she was scared to be alone without her mother and father. Then the mood shifts and she tells the men how she made a promise to her daughter, to be there to see her swim…but she couldn’t make it, she was late because of work. When she did get there, kids and parents were crying and an ambulance was there. A woman told her that Niamh hit her head in the pool and they were working on reviving her, that she was going to be ok. But she wasn’t. In a matter of moments, she was gone and all Valerie got a chance to do was give her a final hug. The funeral of course was hard and so was living without her baby, but one day, the phone rang. She didn’t answer it, but it rang again, so she did and on the other line was Niamh. The first word she said was “Mammy,”; she thought she was at nana’s and she wanted someone to come and get her. Valerie dropped the phone and ran to the car instantly and drove; what’s worse is she knew that she was going to be there and she cried the entire drive. Ever since then, her relationship with Daniel (husband) has fallen apart and she still struggles with the idea of the loss being solely her fault. What started out as a playful activity to pass time grew to be serious. After hearing this and realizing that this fiction is indeed a fact, the men express their sympathy. She thanks them all for their support and they began to bond again. Not too long after this (after more drinks too, of course), Jim leaves with Finbar and Jack, Brendan and Valerie continue talking. Brendan has not told a story all night and will not because Valerie opens the door for Jack to tell another tale. She asks questions like if he has kids, is he married, why he’s alone, etc. and he answers her with a love story. He tells her of a time when he was young, once when he loved and how he took advantage of the girl. All he wanted was sex; he didn’t write her back, didn’t want her around the house, etc. How he failed to treat her right and how he knew what he was doing was wrong. He tells her that at her wedding, she looked at him like he was just another guest; no passion, no hate, just that empty, fake stare and that devastated him. He couldn’t even go to the reception. He walked to a bar in the rain and this barman, a complete stranger, fixed him a sandwich. That meant something to him; a guy who knew nothing about him who he had never met before cared and wanted to help. He claims that he regrets it every day and has felt terrible about it every day of his life since. He also states that this isn’t a ghostly tale. Valerie and Brendan lighten the room up by switching the topic. The play ends with Valerie, Brendan and Jack walking out of the door, discussing Germans.
The Weir by Connor McPherson
Historical Period
The Irish culture has revolved around story telling and folklore for hundreds of years and this tradition has been very active in the pubs across the country. McPherson uses this tradition sensationally in The Weir to capture the essence of traditional Irish culture. The pub is an important part of Irish society because it is not only a place to drink, it is also where patrons come together to tell stories and discuss a limitless range of topics. Folklore and story telling has began to decline in present-day Ireland as a result of technological advances and a lack of enthusiasm for tradition. McPherson is able to successfully pay homage to what is seen as the epitome of Irish culture; which is story telling in a rural pub.
The modern Irish theatre traces its beginnings back to William Yeats, Lady Augusta Gregory and Edward Martyn in the late 19th century. Their style concentrated on Irish folklore and tradition including plays about family life and social issues. This theme has been kept for the most part to the present day even with the addition of numerous theatre companies since Yeats and Gregory’s Abbey Theatre. One issue that has been seen in modern Irish theatre is the lack of plays in the Abbey theatre by female playwrights, which has caused some discontent especially in the 1990s. Regardless, Irish drama and playwriting has continued to flourish while keeping in touch with its roots in its national culture. Audiences continue to be amazed and captivated in Ireland and around the world
Production History
The Weir was written by Conor McPherson in 1997, and was first performed at The Royal Court Theatre Upstairs in London on July 4, 1997. It was also performed on Broadway at the Walter Kerr Theatre from April 1 through November 28, 1999. Other performances include Dublin in 2008, Belfast in 2004, and most recently Washington D.C. in 2011. The play has received much praise and was voted number 40 in a poll by the Royal National Theatre, London, of the most significant plays of the 20th century. It also won the Laurence Olivier Award for Best New Play in 1997.
Characters
Jim: man in his forties who works with Jack at his mechanics shop. He enters the play having just driven around his elderly mother. We can see the softer side of this man through his actions toward others.
Jack: Older gentleman, in his fifties, who owns a local mechanics shop. He is familiar with the town, the bar, and the people. He is single and has an addiction to cigarettes. . . and sometimes booze. Because he knows the town well, he knows the gossip. He is a bit wary of Finbar giving the town's newest resident, Valerie, a tour of her new home. He doesn't think it appropriate that a married man carry out such a task when Jack, as well as others in the play, are single and willing.
Brendan: Young bar owner in his thirties that also owns the land surrounding his establishment. He rents, for lack of a better word, his surrounding land to tourists during tourist season. He is kind and very willing to do whatever it takes to make others happy. For example, he insists on going to his own home to retrieve a bottle of white wine for Valerie because he doesn't have any in the bar. A sweet, young gentlemen that seems to have a good head on his shoulders.
Finbar: A man in his late forties, Finbar is boisterous and somewhat cocky. He enjoys flaunting the things he does, escorting Valerie around the town for example, and owns a local hotel. He is married and seems to still have an immature heir about him. He enjoys the company of the other characters but he and Jack like to lovingly take hits at each other. These subtle insults and jokes give us a better understanding of how different Finbar is from the rest. He has material things and the others make do with what they have.
Valeria: New to the town and excited about all of the possibilities it has to offer. She is currently renting a place to live from Finbar. She is young, beautiful, and has a brave spirit. . . something that is seen in her desire to hear more ghost stories from the men. She has recently lost her young daughter who drowned one year earlier. She tells this story after we hear about the ghosts that plague the town.
Works Cited
Headrick, Charlotte. "Ireland: between history and memory." evergreens.edu. Thomson Gale, 2004. Web. 3 May 2011.
Blackwell, Amy, and Ryan Hackney. "Ireland's Rich Folklore Heritage." netplaces. The New York Times Company, n.d. Web. 3 May 2011.
"The Weir." Internet Broadway Database. N.p., 2010. Web. 3 May 2011.
Love's Last Shift by Colley Cibber
Colley Cibber :
Born November 6th, 1671 on Southampton Street near present day Bloomsbury, a “suburb” of London, this man, noted as restless, impulsive, and gifted, he began acting at the Theatre Royal on Drury Lane around the age of 18. He started out as a spear carrier and with a couple years of work inched his way to more prominent roles within the theater. His first play, Love’s Last Shift, premiered at the Theatre Royal in January 1969. He also acted in his own written work along with his wife and mentors of years past.
Later on in his life, Cibber became a popular comedian, he continued to wrote and adapt plays, and became a successful businessman. He also gained the title of Poet Laureate, a position appointed by government where the bearer is expected to write poetry for government events. He was a bit of a gambler and was often suspected by his peers and enemies of being involved in shady business deals. He died in London around December of 1757.
Summary:
Loves Last Shift begins with Loveless, who has just returned to Town after 10 years, talking to Young Worthy about his travels. Loveless originally left because he got bored of his wife, Amanda, whom he now believes dead. In the meantime, Hillaria and Narcissa discuss their wedding plans with Amanda. They both plan to marry one of the Worthy brothers, but not the one Sir William, Narcissa’s father and Hillaria’s uncle, intends for them. Upon hearing of her husbands return, Amanda plots to seduce him as a mistress in order to prove to him that he still loves her. Older and Younger Worthy also plan their weddings to the women of Sir William’s household, being obstructed by Sir Novelty Fashion, a flirtatious man of the Town who has an angry mistress of his own. Everything works out however, with all the young lovers marrying their love. Sir William is unhappy at first, since his daughter marries Young Worthy, who does not inherit his father’s estate, but he soon is talked down. He did not agree for them to marry, but was tricked into it with the help of the lawyer. Loveless realizes he does indeed love his wife, and agrees to go back to her. Sir Novelty ends up alone, and Young Worthy’s servant, who compromised a maid in Amanda’s household, marries the maid. Everything works out with much comedy in the meantime.
Dramatis persona
Loveless: Married but then grew tired of his wife, Amanda, and left to wander about and squander his money for 10 years, leaving him poor, and starving, causing him to have returned home to England at the opening of the play.
Snap: Loveless’ servant, tells it like it is, having put up with Loveless’ antics for a long time, and tends to behave much like his master.
Young Worthy: An old friend of Loveless’, who Snap used to work for, wooer of Narcissa, but considered unworthy to wed her by Sir William.
Elder Worthy: brother to Young Worthy, wooer of Hillaria, inheritor of his father’s estate, the man Sir William wants to marry Narcissa.
Hillaria: Niece of Sir William, wooed by Elder Worthy, friend of Amanda and cousin of Narcissa, has a sharp tongue that she uses on Elder Worthy to hide her feelings.
Narcissa: Daughter of Sir William, wooed by Young Worthy and Sir Novelty, inheritor of her father’s estate, friend of Amanda and cousin of Hillaria.
Amanda: Wife of Loveless, still mourning his abandonment, recent inheritor of her uncle’s estate, has a plan to woo her husband back to her arms.
Sir Novelty Fashion: A flirtatious man in Town who dresses over the top in the latest fashions and flirts shamelessly with Narcissa despite having a long-term mistress.
Sir William Wisewoud: the knight Loveless mortgaged his estate to, father of Narcissa and uncle of Hillaria. He has offered the future husband of Narcissa quite a dowery, and intends for her to marry Elder Worthy.
Mrs. Flariet: A long-time mistress of Sir Novelty, jealous of his affections for Narcissa.
Sly: Servant to Young Worthy who assists in Amanda’s plan to woo back Loveless.
A lawyer, assorted footmen, servants, porters, maids, etc. to the various aforementioned characters
English Restoration
There was a Civil War in England in the year 1642. As a result, King Charles I was decapitated and Charles II was exiled to France. Oliver Cromwell successfully toppled the English monarchy, and he ruled England for the next 11 years. England was then referred to as the Commonwealth, and Oliver wanted to hand the kingdom over to his son Richard Cromwell. When Richard Cromwell proved that he could not bring the various factions in England together peacefully, he was forced to abdicate his position, and Charles II was asked to come back and rule England in 1660. Charles II reinstated the monarchy.
When Oliver Cromwell ruled, the nation was under heavy Puritan rule. Theater was outlawed during this time. However, Charles II became accustomed to French theater while he was in France. Thus, he reinstated theater when he regained the throne. English Restoration started around 1660 and ended around 1694.
During this period, women started acting. Previously, little boys played the roles of boys because acting was so sinful that it defiled women. However, Charles II enjoyed watching French actresses, and women were allowed to act in England. Each actor or actress mastered acting as only one stock character. Stock characters were stereotypes of the day like rich woman, rake (player), and fop (flamboyant man). Rehearsals for each play lasted for two weeks.
The theater itself had a proscenium arch. Sometimes there were backdrops used a wing and shutter system in order to change scenery. The scenery was always painted in perspective. Costumes usually were contemporary clothing. There was no realistic acting. Overall, English Restoration Theater was very similar to Commedia del Arte in style and acting.
Love’s Last Shift premiered in January 1696 at Christopher Rich’s Drury Lane. It was a huge success for the company and the actors involved. Fifteen productions of the play are known from 1700-1710. Since accounting and recording of this time period is unreliable and incomplete, many estimations of production numbers are speculative. For Drury Lane, Love’s Last Shift became a stock comedy piece and was performed once per season for decades. In the period of 1715-1720, rival companies also began to pick up the comedy, producing it a total of 23 times. From 1721-1730, forty six appearances were seen from Drury Lane and Lincoln’s Inn Fields. From 1731-1740 London’s theatres acted Love’s Last Shift sixty nine nights. In 1736, Cibber’s son and daughter starred in a Drury Lane production of the comedy. 227 performances of the play are known, but because record keeping was unreliable, the total is probably higher.
The Croxton Play of the Sacrament
Group Members: Elizabeth Cowan, Jennie Garland, Sophie Mauffray-Howell, and Jordon Corbin
Plot Summary
The vexillators (vexillators are banner-bearers in a mystery play, sort of the “narrators”) begin by giving a short summary of the play:
In Aragon, Jonathas offers Aristorius (a Christian merchant) 20 pounds and some merchandise in exchange for a consecrated host (the flesh of Christ). Aristorius refuses Jonathas unless he agrees to pay 100 pounds. Upon paying the requested amount, Jonathas, and his accomplices begin to “test” the host by pinning it to a pillar, then boiling it in a cauldron of oil, then putting it in an oven, which later explodes. The image of Christ appears to the Jews, and they repent of their sins.
The vexillators then issue a warning to the audience, pleading with them to never doubt Christ. The vexillators announce that the play will take place in Croxton, and the play proper begins.
Aristorius proclaims his successes as a merchant, and he thanks God for allowing him to sell his goods throughout the land. A priest enters, and he affirms Aristorius in his successes, allowing how he will do whatever is in his power to aid him. Jonathas enters, thanking Mohammed for all the many things he possesses. Then he speaks of his discussions with Jason and Jasdon about how ridiculous it is for Christian men to “beleve on a cake;” In other words, the consecrated host. Jonathas, Jason, and Jasdon have expressed desires to desecrate a host in the name of their god, so they discuss ways of procuring one.
They visit Aristorius, to an effort to buy the host. Aristorius resists until Jonathas agrees to pay his higher asking price. Aristorius is afraid of being caught stealing the host, but Jonathas convinces him, telling him to go out into the night. Aristorius gives the priest wine, to help him fall asleep; he steals the host, and delivers it to Jonathas.
The Jews, now including Malcus and Masphat discuss what they think Christians believe, and decide it is heresy against their god. The four Jews decide to stab the host to see whether or not it will bleed; and it does. Jonathas is terrified upon seeing the blood, so the Jews decide to boil the host in a pot of oil for three hours. Jonathas tries to throw the host in the oil, but it clings to his hand. He becomes even more afraid, and announces that the host is hurting him now. He tries to get rid of it by dissolving it in water. The remaining three Jews find him, and suggest pinning the host to a post, so they may be able to pull Jonathas away from it. As they put this plan into action, they pull his arm off, and the host still remains attached to his hand. Jonathas announces he can take no more of this, everyone is to return to their chambers, and everyone is ordered to keep their actions a secret.
Colle and Master Brundiche enter, and they have a lengthy conversation where it is revealed that Master Brundiche is a crooked physician, often making his patients ill again just to treat them for their money. Master Brundiche asks Colle if there is anyone nearby in need of his services. Colle tells Master Brundiche about Jonathas’s predicament. Master Brundiche approaches Jonathas avidly seeking to treat him, but Jonathas sends him away.
Jonathas orders the others to remove the nails from the host and cast it in the cauldron. Upon casting the host into the cauldron, the oil turns into blood, and it begins spilling over the top. Jonathas then orders them to heat the oven, and cast the host in it. The oven oozes blood and begins to writhe until it explodes. After the explosion, an image of Christ appears to them.
Christ pleads with them, asking why they despise him so much. He blames them for their desecration of his body both now, and in the past (the sins of their forefathers). He says he will still be merciful to the Jews, ever after they sinned against him in such a blasphemous way. They each repent of their sins, and Jesus tells Jonathas his hand will be restored if he dips it into the cauldron of his blood; Jonathas does so, and his arm is indeed healed.
Jonathas confesses their sins to the Bishop, and the Bishop orders them to take him to the image of Christ. After the Bishop addresses the image of Christ, he is transformed back into bread. The Bishop praises Christ for a few moments, then a singing procession escorts the host back to the church.
Meanwhile, Aristorius feels guilty and confesses his sins to the priest, they all go to the Bishop to ask for forgiveness.
Everyone meets in the church, where a sermon is delivered. The Jews convert, and basically go through all the Rites of Christian Initiation. The Jews proclaim their belief in the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. Thus ending the play.
Authorial Background
The author of Croxton Play of the Sacrament is unknown. The play was written in England during the mid fifteenth century. At this time, the church was marked by intolerance and segregation. The Catholic Church also harbored strong anti-Semitic feelings. These feelings of anti-Semitism were especially relevant in Bury St. Edmunds, where it is thought the play was originally performed. Jewish people were expelled from Bury St. Edmunds in 1190 following a series of accusations that the Jews were martyring people who were not a part of the Jewish community.
Historical Background
The Croxton Play of the Sacrament was written not long after 1461 when the play takes place. Although this is a medieval play it does not fit into any particular mold or genre of medieval performance. The play is often listed as a saint’s play but the absence of a saint makes this hard to stand by. However the play does share the same concerns of saint’s play such as miracles and conversion. Through extensive historical readings it has been decided that the play was most likely written for and directed towards the merchants of the region of England that the play refers to. This same region of England was most likely the location of it’s original performances. Research on fifteenth-century East Anglican society and a deep investigation of the text shows that these original audiences were made up of Norfolk merchants “and those familiar with the daily commercial and religious practices of those merchants.” The play may have its own unique style but it remains “typical thematically of the culture that produced it” (Medieval Studies at Cornell).
Dramatis Personae
Vexillators 1&2: Men who carry banners from the wings and announce the play
Episcopus: The Bishop
Aristorius: Christian merchant who Jonathas tries to buy the host from. In some ways he resembles Judas, because he sells Christ’s body to the Jews.
Presbyter: A Priest named Isoder. He is Aristorius’ chaplain.
Clericus: A clerk named Peter Paul who is a part of the deal when Jonathas tries to buy the host from Aristorius.
Jonathas: Jewish merchant that asks Aristorius, a Christian man, to let him test the host to see if it is really the body of Jesus Christ. “The first Jew, Master”
Jason: “The second Jew”; coconspirator of Jonathas
Jasdon: “The third Jew”; coconspirator of Jonathas
Masphat: “The fourth Jew”; coconspirator of Jonathas
Malchus: “The fifth Jew”; coconspirator of Jonathas
Brundyche: Doctor known for his drunkenness and debauchery. He enters with his servant, Colle, for a moment of comic relief when the host is stuck to Jonathas’ hand.
Colle: Brundyche’s servant who airs all of his dirty laundry in a very gritty monologue.
Production History
Miracle Plays / Mystery plays are a form of medieval drama that came from presenting the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. Developed in the 10th Century, Mystery plays were a common occurrence until the sixteenth century, reaching their peak in the fifteenth century. The plays in time were moved to church yards and market places so that many people could see them on festival days. In 1210, the pope banned members of the clergy from acting on a public stage thus the supervision and control of the plays passed into the hands of the town guilds. When this change occurred, many aspects of the production of the play changed as well. The plays were spoken in Latin, but the guilds changed the language of the play to the common vernacular. Scenes that were not from the Bible were inserted. The production became more dramatic. Characterization and details of the characters became more important.
Since the plays were arranged in festival order, each guild was responsible for producing a certain play for the current festival especially for the feast Corpus Christi which lasted from sunrise to sunset. On this day, each guild had to produce a certain episode for that day. Using simple costumes and props guild members who were paid actors performed on stages equipped with wheels so that after a production that stage could be wheeled to the next show location. Actors were sometimes fined for bad acting and showing up late. The production soon became comical at times and developed into profitable outlets for guilds regardless of the festival season. Named after the town that they were performed in, Miracle plays were broken into production cycles. The principle English cycle of the plays were the York Plays (1430–40), the longest, containing 48 plays; the Towneley or Wakefield Plays (c.1450, in Yorkshire); the Coventry Plays (1468); and the Chester Plays (1475–1500).
Bibliography
Bale, Anthony. "Programme Notes: Croxton Play of the Sacrament." January 2010. Thynke Byggly Theatre Company, University of London. 1 May 2011
This is a show suggestion, in which the director asked for historical-to-present day relevance to be represented by Anthony Bale. Bale views it as "a mistake to see the Croxton Play as anti-Jewish propaganda." Bale, instead, suggests the play can be viewed as a modern interpretation of the still unresolved issues between nations. Though the Jews in this play are obviously portrayed in a poor light, they are not completely virtuous either. Instead of considering the beliefs the Catholics truly consider to be sacred, they openly mock a tradition without bothering to learn the meaning behind it. Bale suggests this is an example of co-misunderstanding between two groups; though the play is grossly anti-Semitic as a whole, it is also an example of intolerance from unexpected points of view.
Erler, Mary C. "Spectacle and Sacrament: A London Parish Play in the 1530s." Modern Philology (1994): 449-454.
This article is about conversion plays, and how vital the roles of the converts were to the church. Plays including the characters: St. Longinus, a blind knight in tradition, that Jesus healed when his blood anointed his eyes; St. Mary Magdalene, and St. Paul, were often recorded as having special actors hired to play their roles (450). Later, the article mentions the directions Christ gives Jonathas if he wishes to have his hand restored in Croxton Play of the Sacrament, which is to plunge his hand in a cauldron of his blood. Erler compares this to the moment Longinus is healed when he receives the anointing of Christ with his blood, and recalls Jonathas’s story as one of the indirect convert.
Lampert, Lisa. "The once and future Jew: Croxton Play of the Sacrament, little Robert of Bury and historical memory." Jewish History (2001): 325.
This article suggests the desecration of the holy host in Croxton Play of the Sacrament is intended to be a literal reenactment of the Passion of the Christ. In having the Jews desecrate the holy host, the audience receives the notion that the Jews are “forever crucifying Christ,” perpetuating a popular mindset of the time, that the Jewish people are perpetually plotting against Christendom (235).
Maltman, Sister Nicholas. "Meaning and Art in the Croxton Play of the Sacrament." ELH (1974): 151-164.
This article is a Sister’s defense against those who say the play merits nothing of artistic value. Though she agrees that portraying the Jewish population as evil is not favorable, she asks the readers to look at the complicated format the play itself is written in, and to appreciate the art in the structure of the play. She says the play is written in such a way, that it mimics the traditions and rituals of the Catholic Holy Week liturgy, without directly saying “this is a dramatization of the Holy Week liturgy (151);” a feat she feels should be appreciated.
Stevens, Martin. "The Theatre of the World: A Study in Medieval Dramatic Form." The Chaucer Review (1973): 237-8.
This article cites the Croxton Play of the Sacrament as an example of a medieval conversion play in which the text does not follow the typical structure of the genre (238). A conversion play typically features a protagonist who struggles with sin, but eventually “converts” to God’s ways (237). Martin writes about the play’s inability to stand next to other works written during this, and maintain artistic credibility.
Normington, Katie. Medieval English Drama: Performance and Spectatorship. Cambridge: Polity, 2009. Print.
In this monograph, Katie Normington discusses the aspects of medieval life and the impact they had on the dramatic literature of that time. She focuses on the idea of ‘spectatorship’ as it relates to Drama of Enclosure, Drama of Inclusion, Drama and the City, Drama in the City, Fixed-Place Drama, and Indoor Drama, which are all types of medieval drama. In addition to touching on how the different types of drama were viewed and in what context, Normington also discusses the impact of social hierarchy, religion and feelings of nationality on these different types of literature. The book notes that there were great feelings of segregation in the church not only between different religions but also between different sexes and social classes. Another thing that is very important to note about medieval English drama is a very strong sense of nationalism. In the time spanning from 1000-1550 over thirty different rulers held power in England. While not all of them were well liked, during this time the people of England gained their identity as a country as well as a sense of pride to go with it.
Beadle, Richard, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Medieval English Theatre. Cambridge, England: Cambridge UP, 1994. Print.
The Cambridge Compainion to Medieval English Theatre focuses on the main components of medieval drama. The book delves into the different play cycles in medieval literature and explains characteristics and commonalities within each cycle. It also touches on Morality and Saints’ Plays. The common theme in almost all of these is that good is rewarded while evil will be punished. The book also noted that although scripts of the dramas are still around, there are few historical records to give insight into the artistic context in which some of the plays were done. The author notes that without such context, it can be difficult to know what genre to place a particular play under.
Monday, 2 May 2011
BUG
BUG
Tracy Letts was born on July 4, 1965, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He is the son of author Billie Letts and actor Dennis Letts. He was raised in Durant, Oklahoma and eventually moved to Dallas in the early 1980s when he began his acting career. He was cast in Jerry Flemmons’ O Dammit, and eventually moved to Chicago at age 20. He has been a member of the Steppenwolf ensemble since 2002 and is still an active member. He has written 5 plays, with August: Osage County, winning a Pulitzer Prize in 2008.
Bug premiered in London at the Gate Theatre on September 20, 1996. Following its run in London, the play premiered in the United States at the Whoolly Mammoth Theatre in Washington D.C. around March/April of 2000. The play received numerous awards including 4 Lucille Lortel awards in 2004, for outstanding play, Director, lighting design and sound design. A film adaptation was made in 2006.
1. What kind of similarities can be drawn when comparing Bug to Killer Joe?
2. It is important to note the constant use of drugs throughout the play; to what degree do you feel this impacted the events that played out during the play?
3. What percentage of Peter’s claims do you believe were true? For example, his claim that he was programmed with Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombings, and his claim of being tracked by the government.
4. The term “bug” is used in nearly every sense imaginable throughout the script. What is the significance of this in your opinion? Is it the depth of the term’s symbolism or its many different possible meanings?
5. Do you believe that Dr. Sweet was really a doctor who performed tests on Peter? If not, then give your opinion about what you feel he was.
6. How does Peter use fear to trap Agnes into his own paranoia? One example to look at would be his use of her abducted child as proof that he is correct about his conspiracy theory. Try to find other examples as well.
7. What do you feel is the overall theme of the play? If there are multiple themes then explain how they interact with one another.
8. Why did Peter finally go completely insane after meeting Agnes? He had been paranoid for many years and had the opportunity to find numerous other women to be “matched” with. Why was Agnes different and why did she end up being the catalyst for this insanity to finally climax?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)