Noah
Breslauer
Everlasting
Over the past four
centuries we’ve remembered and cherished a select few examples of greatness. We
look back on leaders, visionaries, revolutionaries, and writers that made a
difference in the world in which they lived and can fairly be said to still
make a difference in our own. . William
Shakespeare was not only famous as he lived and produced, but is a writer whose
impact is still felt today, some 20 generations later. We welcome and
reintroduce his plays into our academic and daily lives. At the outset, his
stories can be adapted in a multitude of ways, allowing them to be
reinterpreted over and over, so that each generation can find its own context
and meaning. Subsequently, Shakespeare’s language permits adaptation and the
differentiation in analysis. Most notably, what makes many of his plays, like Hamlet, unique is his capacity as a
writer to balance simplicity and complexity.
The
castle in Elsinore: a guard platform-that is, a raised surface. This
is the direct scenery that Shakespeare gives to the play, not exactly what most
would call imagery. Non-descript scenery in Hamlet
allows for much more freedom of adaptation. Maybe this has changed with time,
but Shakespeare provides no notes advising us where specifically or when each
scene is taking place. Modern playwrights add significant detail about where,
when, along with the stage direction and other things that help the director
and actors prepare a scene. This, they believe, helps the audience understand
the characters’ emotions, and the meaning intended by the play. It seems likely
that Shakespeare’s sparse direction actually enhanced its chances of being
reproduced and adapted. By allowing directors to stretch creatively without
changing the dynamic of the plot, Shakespeare facilitates his stories being
told over and over again. Hamlet has been able to adapt to our contemporary
setting as well, while still being original. Without those tiny details it is
easy to refurbish a play. Simplicity erases boundaries.
Shakespeare’s language is
rhythmic and it flows like poetry from one line to the next. It is meant to be
heard and spoken. Reading and immediately understanding Shakespearian language
is daunting. His work is complex. The dialog is intricate. Reading a line over
again is not unusual to extract its meaning. Since it is complex and difficult
at times it makes for more opinions and interpretations. “Thus conscience does
make cowards of us all” truthfully told by Hamlet in his famous monologue, is
one of the many examples throughout the play where reading a line once doesn’t
quite capture the many ways of deducing the meaning. Some might argue that it
means thinking can cause you to be inactive; while others might say that
listening to your conscience along with other people can contradict each other
making you a coward of your own thoughts. Many pieces of literature that have
survived usually question the human mind, making us analyze the text. When we
do this, we come up with different interpretations, allowing us to discuss and
argue the text’s meaning. Religious literature is a good example. The Torah, the
New Testament and the Koran are all big books that we interpret to find meaning
in our daily lives. Each audience, indeed, each generation of audiences, can
reinterpret the story for itself.
Hamlet
is a powerful story, but with a simple reoccurring theme, revenge. The plot is
confusing at first glance, but can be refined and made sense of in a short
summary. Hamlet shows that a simple
story can make a complex and powerful point. Hamlet teaches that a truly great book or play has complex
characters that make the themes and ideas more intriguing. Hamlet’s soliloquy
in act III scene I begins with the immortal line “To be or not to be, that is
the question…” In Hamlet, this line
literally describes to be alive or to be dead and or kill myself. Philosophy
has infinite interpretations to the quote. It is perhaps THE single, most
famous line in all of English literature because it deals with, maybe one of
the most influential questions of all: what is the nature of life and death?
This has to do with the idea of comparing and contrasting two polar ideas, life
and non-life, or death.
But Shakespeare did not
create these tensions. Our philosophers
have had these ideas for thousands of years.
Socrates, For example, Plato’s Allegory of The Cave plays with our ideas
of reality and displays with the question of, are we really alive and seeing the world as it truly
is, or are we basically dead creatures with a mere blinded perception of
reality? “Carpe Diem” or “seize the day” tell us to live each day to the
fullest as if it were our last. These stories, lines and quotes like these are
remembered for so long because they deal with the ideas of living and dying.
That is partly why Hamlet has survived for so long, because “to be or not to
be” is the most analyzed idea in human history, life and death. Hamlet
delivered these ideas with simplicity and power.
Noah Breslauer
Playing
a Role
“Waiting
for Lefty” was an original play, written and performed during the great
depression. There is something quite strange about theater being produced
during an economic downfall such as that.
In 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt made “The New Deal” a popular part of his
candidacy that lead to his election. It mainly gave hope to Americans that more
jobs would be created. This lead to many federal projects being born like the
Federal Theater Project. The federal Theater Project would create jobs for many
artists and actors. It was the largest and ambitious effort put forth by the
Federal Government to have theater performances in the US. In Franklin D.
Roosevelt’s first term he appointed the WPA (Works Progress Administration) to establish
four arts-related projects called Federal Theater Project One. This includes
the Federal Theater Project (FTP). The FTP lasted for four short years, dating
from 1935 to 1939 when its funding was shut down by Congress. By October 1935,
1,000 actors had been given work. This number increased as The FTP got more
publicity. Some may wonder why the funding was cut if it created more jobs.
Political Controversy between Democrats and Republicans had much if not all to
do with this.
Questions
arise when the government funds a project like this. A question that every
American thinks about is, how much should the government play in our daily
lives? People debate if providing jobs and paying wages are really our
government’s role in our society. When a government funded group of Democratic
actors and playwrights, perform plays about very left-wing ideas, the question
rises, is it propaganda? Does The FTP become propaganda, when the government is
paying the bill? Or are these actors and playwrights just doing what they do
best- entertain?
The
role of our Government has been debated over since the constitution was formed.
The general consensus is that Republicans did not, and still don’t want the
government to be involved in our daily lives and Democrats, the opposite.
Republicans might have noted that the government shouldn’t intervene with the
creation of jobs, paying wages, etc, which is exactly what happened when the
FTP was created. Not only this but the plays that were produced and performed
had extremely “left-wing” ideas, such as, “Waiting for Lefty” written by
Clifford Odets. This play provoked many democratic ideas of creating civil
unions, and standing up to “the man”. This play became widely known and hugely
popular throughout the states. So is it propaganda? Some definitions of
‘propaganda’ would suggest that it is propaganda, saying that the plays were
wrongly determining the role of the Republican Party
paid for by the opposite political party. Others might say absolutely not, the
government was not forcing an opinion on anyone. The plays were stories of
hard-working Americans, spreading no rumors, or false ideas. Sadly the answer
to this question is most likely determined by a personal political party. Our
vision is impaired by our own ideas and the media that surrounds us.
