An Actor's Point of View

I had another fantastic interview, this time with the famous
Ann Bosler, my mother. She was a theatre major at BYU long ago and continued with a career in acting on stage & film. Ever since we discussed in class the imagery of Shakespeare's words versus the importance of stage art, costume, etc. I have been very interested in looking at the performance aspect of A Midsummer Night's Dream and what it lends to the audience and the actors. I thought I'd interview my mother, since she played Titania in A Midsummer Night's Dream.

When did you play the role of Titania in A Midsummer Night's Dream?

Around 1979-1980. It was a performance off campus at the Lighthouse Repertory Theater.

Do you think performing in a Shakespeare play added to your knowledge and understanding of Shakespeare? How so? Definitely. Performing Shakespeare gives you a much greater understanding of the characters. Acting a part, and watching others around you doing the same, forces you to understand why each characters says what their saying. With that knowledge, then your challenge as an actor is to make the words sound just as they should've sounded coming out of the mouths of those characters. 

Did you do research to prepare for the part of Titania? And/Or what advice did the director give you on the role? I didn't do much actual research because was an imaginary character. I did "scan" the lines/perform "scansion" on my lines, which is writing the iambic pentameter accents over all of the lines so that I could figure out what emotional state the character was in. For example, in Hamlet Hamlet's lines are often skewed from iambic pentameter to echo his depressed/insane state of mind.

My director (John Huntington) was responsible for my approach to the mythical character of Titania because of his specific vision for the play. He wanted Titania to be "art nouveau"--flowing costumes, ethereal yet earth, dark and libido driven, very passionate but not overtly animalistically sexy. 

Were there certain themes the director consciously highlighted in the performance?

Mainly the obvious theme love & romance. The actors approach was based on "realness" not a stagy dramatization.

Do you feel that the visuals (scenery, costumes, etc) were necessary in carrying the overall tone of the play? The director mixed the "art nouveau"with a minimalistic approach. We had almost no scenery or props. The bed Titania laid down to sleep on was just a pillow. Because the scenery was minimal and modern, the costumes were essential. Titania and her fairies were draped in flowing, loose material. Usually Titania and Oberon have the typecast of blonde, and light skinned, but me and the man cast as Oberon were dark skinned, dark hair which added a different feel to the fairies. 

Do you think A Midsummer Night's Dream is more of a romance or comedy?

Romance, definitely--especially from an actor's point of view. The romance pulls on the heart-strings because you feel for Helena.

Did you have any personally comical moments while performing? (hint hint!)

Hmmm..whatever do you mean??! Yes, this classified as my "most embarrassing moment " of my life!  When I was supposed to be asleep and waiting for Bottom to wake me, I experimented with a relaxation exercise that would be so real that my eyelids wouldn't  even flutter so the audience could tell I wasn't asleep. It worked! I fell asleep! What's more is that I was supposed to wake up at the musical cue which they played three times to no avail. Finally the "comic" fairy came onstage and pretended to trip and fall on me to wake me up! I woke up and the whole experience threw me so that, although I didn't forget my lines, I got through the following scene in half the usual time!

Should Shakespeare be read so that it is obvious it's written in verse?

I was trained to perform the lines according to the scansion and I believe that can be done without it sounding stilted and so you can't "hear" the verse.  I'm not a fan of the modern actors who perform the lines with such a modern cadence to make it sound real, that they give no respect to the unique iambic rhythm form in which it was written. Performing Shakespeare is NOT like performing just any other kind of script.

What did you do to make the experience of seeing Titania and reading Titania different?

Well to be honest, I didn't have much to base that on. I don't think I ever saw a performance before I did the part--it was before VCR's!

What other Shakespeare characters have you portrayed? What were the similarities and differences in performing those characters?

I was also in As You Like It and played the shepherd girl who falls in love with the shepherd boy--I don't remember her name. I found myself leaning heavily on the director's vision both times--in fact the two characters were a lot alike.  The director wanted me to play her as a "pastoral"character--earthy, simple, naive to her physical power and charm, sexual but innocent. 

My thoughts:

• I remember learning about "scansion" but I have yet to have practiced that with any of Shakespeare's plays I have read so far. I think I will try that with the next genre we read--Tragedy--since I'm sure the characters emotional states won't be the most stable. 
• I'm interested in her director's different approach to A Midsummer Night's dream because reading the play I wouldn't think "Scenery: minimalistic". I would tend to lean towards over the top, but then I can see how that would be too much paired with the rich with imagery dialogue of the play. 
• Ever since I saw the question on Ian Mckellen's StageWorkMckellen  I've been interested to ask more actor's the question of whether Shakespeare should be read so that it's obvious it's written in verse. At first, I thought that question was an obvious no, but I thought my mom's answer was very interesting--"Performing Shakespeare is NOT like performing just any other kind of script." I agree with her that there is needed respect to be given to the art form of Shakespeare's words, but I think there also needs to be a balance of executing them in a cadence the audience understands. 
• Although my question "What did you do to make the experience of seeing Titania and reading Titania different?" was going in a different direction, my mom's answer shedded some slight on something I would have never really thought of. How often did people, let alone actors, get to see performances of Shakespeare's plays--even just 30 years ago? How much of an actor's portrayal now is based on what they have already seen of Shakespeare? Not to discount them, but I think since Shakespeare is easily reachable on YouTube, Netflix, etc. that performances now are much different. Seeing Hamlet performed the same way over and over again forces actors to take more creative liberty with the characters and add their own twist, or go in a completely opposite direction. Does this take away from Shakespeare or add to it?  
 

 

Thank you to my mom, Ann, for taking the time to answer my questions and for guiding my interest into specific directions.

A Midsummer Night's Dream Review

I decided to watch the movie before I read the play so that I could get the characters straight. Just reading the introduction to the play made my head spin with all the different characters and their lovers. Now when I read Demetrius I think "oh yeah, Christian Bale!", or Bottom--the very funny Kevin Kline. Kevin Kline did an incredible job with the character Bottom--hilarious, arrogant, but with a tinge of innocence. 

The movie didn't stay very closely to the script, although I think most of the lines were directly from the play. I think it was a smart move to shorten the dialogue because, although their words are very poetic, the characters are can be quite winded. The movie had its funny moments but until the last scene of the play I would've categorized it in Romance rather than Comedy. But, like I said, that was until I saw the last scene where Bottom and a buddies act out the play of Pyramus & Thisbe. That was the most comical, and in my opinion, the best scene of the movie! The movie ended on a lighthearted, romantic, magical note that made the whole experience simply enjoyable. I don't think you could get as much out of A Midsummer Night's Dream without seeing it performed because the visual aspect seems necessary to the overall theme of the play.

Four and half stars for staying true to Shakespeare's vision of love and comedy, creating impressionable scenery and great characterization. It's too bad Hollywood thought it was necessary that the young couples be naked ALL THE TIME. It doesn't show anything, but still, they're naked a lot. 

I just interviewed Ian Mckellen!

I just came across a gem! There is a website called Stage Work Mckellen where you can hold your own interactive interview with Ian Mckellen about Shakespeare and Richard III. How cool is that?! You can ask him questions like:

Is the play Richard III historically accurate?

Why is the play so popular?

Should we have sympathy for Richard?

But before he'll answer you, YOU have to give him your response to these questions. He also gives his own critique and interpretation of speeches and stage and film renditions of the play. Ian Mckellen as a Shakespeare professor! He explains that his version of the opening speech in Richard III  was shortened for film purposes, and that words were put that Richard said in Henry VI part 3, like we talked about in class yesterday. You can find the screenplay Ian Mckellen wrote, with more notes, at www.mckellen.com or click here for a direct link his screenplay.

If you're not interested in Richard III, you can also ask him questions about Shakespeare like:

Should Shakespeare be read so that it's obvious it's written in verse?

Is it ridiculous to make 14 year-olds study Shakespeare?

Was Shakespeare interested in politics?

If what I wrote didn't make much sense, here's a video that explains Stage Work Mckellen.
.

• How does it serve the play and the study of Shakesepare? I think this site is an excellent source for those studying Richard III. Ian Mckellen provides an interpretation of the beginning speech and gives you and opportunity to ask questions about it. He also offers other versions of the speech on film and stage for you to watch and compare yourself. The questions about Shakespeare in general are a little more tailored to Ian Mckellen and his career, so it's not the best resource for Shakespeare overall. 
• How well does it use available media? It links to videos, texts, and many other resources. Just the format of the site in general makes use of all sorts of media. 
• Will this reach audiences? Referring to the literal answer to this question I'm not too sure about this, since I don't think this site is marketed very well. It was by chance that I came along and found it. Will is reach into the lives of those who do happen to find it? Yes. It combines popular culture, modern references and historical references.
• Is it just a gimmick or is this a substantial contribution to the study of Shakespeare? I think this is a substantial contribution to the study of Shakespeare. Just like our blogs, this is a way to learn about Shakespeare through someone elses eyes! Ian Mckellen is passionate about Shakespeare, and he really does know his stuff. I think this would be a perfect media to use in a classroom setting to get students involved and interested in Richard III and Shakespeare.

 Now take a look at this site! It's a unique resource about Shakespeare through the mind of someone who knows a thing or two about him, to the say the least.

Richard III Review

Tonight I watched Ian Mckellen's Richard III. It's set in 1930 England, undoubtedly paralleling Richard with Hitler. I think this was such a creative and insightful way to shape the play because it sends the message that yes, Shakespeare may have over-dramatized Richard, but sadly enough we have allowed leaders like him in our day rise to power with a bloody trail behind them. 

The movie was captivating and some actors put an interesting twist on their characters--like Robert Downey Jr. playing a alcohol, drug and sex fiend Lord Rivers. That was...interesting, because Lord Rivers didn't seem very important to me while reading the play. Some lines showed up in different scenes and some murders were different, but over all it stayed pretty close to the script. One thing I did not understand was the rating: R?? Why? My husband seems to think that it's because it showed blood. I think it's safe to say that it didn't live up to the R rating. Dr. Burton mentioned to me in class that it was probably some marketing ploy, I'm assuming, to make Richard III seem more dramatic. Ian Mckellen succeeded, by far, in bringing the soliloquy of a guilty conscience in Act V Scene III to life. While reading it I couldn't exactly understand the frame of mind Richard III was in, but his performance made his struggle with guilt very clear.

I give this movie 4 stars based on how true it stayed to and how well it portrayed the original Shakespeare text. It didn't receive 5 stars from me on the basis that it after watching the movie, I didn't feel like there was much more that I gained from it than if I had only read the text. Shakespeare does so well in making the characters come alive, and the movie made some of the characters more tame than my mind did while I was reading. That was a disappointment.

Richard is Satan so Shakespeare was probably Mormon

I now understand what Bevington was talking about when he said that Shakespeare took the liberty to condense history in Richard III. So far, If I understand correctly, within a couple of days Richard has murdered his brother, proposed to Lady Anne (he killed her husband and father-in-law within a week I'm guessing since the scene takes place next to a fresh corpse), King Edward IV died, Hastings has been beheaded, three men have been sentenced by Richard, and Prince Edward has come to take the crown. What a week!

Richard's ability to manipulate Lady Anne into marrying him is very puzzling to me. After reading the scene I was not convinced by the dialogue that he had succeeded in seducing her, there had to be something else going on. I was very curious to see if viewing a performance of the scene would change my mind, and lo and behold Mandy posted the clip!

But I still don't think there was any romance in the scene. I see pity, fear, and selfishness on both their parts. Mandy, David and I discussed via IntenseDebate that women during that time in history were only powerful through royalty or their husband's title. While self interest is a motivator for Richard, it could be a motivator for Lady Anne, as well. I also think that Lady Anne knew well the evils Richard had done and could do and she saw this "giving in" as a way to protect herself. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, right? Also, does anyone else notice how pitiful Richard is in that scene? How much of that is an act and how much of that is a glimpse into the pathetic, cowardly man he truly is? I have to admit that this makes me think of the scripture about Satan in 2 Nephi: 24--

16They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and shall consider thee, and shall say: Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?

1. This evil, crippled man destroys so many lives, manipulates people into throwing away their principles, exudes greed, and with one lie after another climbs his way to rule a kingdom? By no means do I intend for this to be a sermon, but it's something to think about.