Right, I am going to have to blog very, very, very quickly today as my internet is being incredibly tempremental and could die at any second. During the quick period that I have taken to research the productions of Faustus, (googled the reviews and 'sage history') I can now tell you a little about the productions of it.
Historically, according to the University of Warwick's English Literature dept (they have a Faustus database- impresive or what) the earliest productions of Faustus were between 1594-1597. Lord Admiral's men were the theatre troop that put it on at the Rose theatre- so there you have it Faustus at its earliest. Little is recorded about the production in Faustus' early years, I guess there wasn't a buzzing industry of arts critics in the 16th and 17th centuries. However following a revival in 1602, Faustus was on the stage for a long period during the 1600s. According to wikipedia in one 1932 production, two devils actually appeared on the stage! (Someone obviously had a really good sense of humour!)
Following links from the warwick website there are some reviews of productions of Faustus in the 20th Century, unfortunately there isn't access for non-Warwick students/ staff, I might see if I can look in the Times archives and comment later (when I know I have a secure internet connecion) on what they have said.
The most recent production of Faustus was this year. The play was staged at the Globe Theatre in London for the first time ever in its history. Unfortunately, it wasn't particularly well met by the criticis, Brian Logan from the Guardian wrote, "You leave feeling you have plumbed the contents of the theatre's wardrobe department, not the depths of the spiritual abyss." (Guardian, 24 June 2011) Logan picks up that a problem with the production is that, "The horrors to which he has pledged his soul, meanwhile, are weakly represented by Arthur Darvill's Mephistopheles, and by a Lucifer wearing silly facial hair."(Guardian, 24 June 2011) It may very well be that Arthur Darvill wasn't convincing, but then I have always thought that Mephistopheles was meant to be the subtle messenger of hell- not obviously evil or horrific, but a character that possesses a greater gold over Faustus as the play progresses.
Charles Spencer's review in The Telegraph is equally critical of the production, he describes Paul Hilton's Faustus as, "vocally underpowered" and says that Arthur Darvill is "woefully miscast as Mephistopheles"
Anyhow, better go now as I think the internet is on its last legs, just wanted to also mention that I saw the RSC's version of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' down in Stratford at the weekend- my favourite Shakespeare production yet
Links to reviews (tried to get The Independent one too but internet wasn't coopertating)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2011/jun/24/doctor-faustus-review
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-reviews/8597343/Doctor-Faustus-Shakespeares-Globe-review.html
Sunday, 30 October 2011
Saturday, 15 October 2011
The Other Side of the Argument... or is it? (13/10/2011)
Not really blogged for a while so thought I was over due a post. This past week we have been examining the question 'How far do you agree that Faustus has fallen in grace by Act iv?'. When I initially wrote the essay on Thursday afternoon I decided to be non-controversial and agree with the question. However, when I went out of the room to discuss my work with Mr. Francis I realised that actually I completely disagreed that Fautsus had fallen in grace at all- I just wasn't confident in taking a stance that completely opposed the question. I'm going to use this blog to explain my actual position, and the one that I will take in June if the question comes up again.
The crux of my argument that Faustus doesn't fall from grace by act iv is basically that he was never a nice person to begin with. My understanding of 'falling from grace' is that one has to be in a morally superior position at the start and a much lower position by then end. If we look at Faustus however, he is clearly presented as an arrogant, obnoxious, aetheistic, rude man in act i. Plainly, this is not in any way, shape, or form a morally superior position. The Faustus in scene one is not at all the sort of man that anyone would particularly like to meet. If Faustus' characterisation in scene i is contrasted with his character in scene iv a definite change can however be spotted. Faustus is meeker, he has lost his arrogance and in many respects could be regarded as helpless e.g. his dependence on Mephi. The sharp edges of Fautsus' character in scene one have been worn down over the years follwing the selling of his soul and actually it could be argued that Faustus hasn't fallen from grace because his experiences have actually graced him with tiny little bit of humility.
Another point, although I've been told not to get hung up on it, is that 'fallen from grace'- like it or not- does have religious connotations. At the tiume that Faustus was written all of Christendom (and the H.R.E where the play is set) would have understood 'fallen from grace' to be falling from the will of God. I may be being pedantic but Faustus sells his soul in the first act, let's face it you can't show that you disagree more with God than that. Case closed by act one, not act iv, surely?
Or maybe not. The phrase 'fallen from grace' is ambigious, and as I've already pointed out my understandings of it lead to the question appearing quite frankly irrelevent/pointless. I don't think Fautsus falls from grace by act iv, if he does fall in the semantic sense it is in act i, otherwise he does not. There is however a character change in Faustus which is noticeable as the play progresses. His ambitions die. I may not like Faustus, but I would be mad to deny that it is his ambitions that are the life force behind the character. By the time that the play reaches act iv, they have been erroded away and replaced by melancholy acceptance that Fautsus is not destined for greatness but to act as a servant or jester- to entertain others. At least at the start of the place Fautsus has an interesting albeit despicable charcter, by Act iv he is completely void of any of the spark he once had. It's funny but the audience really do get to see the devil suck Faustus' soul from him through the play. I'm not sure whetehr this change in character can be called a fall from grace but whatever it is it is noticeable and it does happen to a large extent.
The crux of my argument that Faustus doesn't fall from grace by act iv is basically that he was never a nice person to begin with. My understanding of 'falling from grace' is that one has to be in a morally superior position at the start and a much lower position by then end. If we look at Faustus however, he is clearly presented as an arrogant, obnoxious, aetheistic, rude man in act i. Plainly, this is not in any way, shape, or form a morally superior position. The Faustus in scene one is not at all the sort of man that anyone would particularly like to meet. If Faustus' characterisation in scene i is contrasted with his character in scene iv a definite change can however be spotted. Faustus is meeker, he has lost his arrogance and in many respects could be regarded as helpless e.g. his dependence on Mephi. The sharp edges of Fautsus' character in scene one have been worn down over the years follwing the selling of his soul and actually it could be argued that Faustus hasn't fallen from grace because his experiences have actually graced him with tiny little bit of humility.
Another point, although I've been told not to get hung up on it, is that 'fallen from grace'- like it or not- does have religious connotations. At the tiume that Faustus was written all of Christendom (and the H.R.E where the play is set) would have understood 'fallen from grace' to be falling from the will of God. I may be being pedantic but Faustus sells his soul in the first act, let's face it you can't show that you disagree more with God than that. Case closed by act one, not act iv, surely?
Or maybe not. The phrase 'fallen from grace' is ambigious, and as I've already pointed out my understandings of it lead to the question appearing quite frankly irrelevent/pointless. I don't think Fautsus falls from grace by act iv, if he does fall in the semantic sense it is in act i, otherwise he does not. There is however a character change in Faustus which is noticeable as the play progresses. His ambitions die. I may not like Faustus, but I would be mad to deny that it is his ambitions that are the life force behind the character. By the time that the play reaches act iv, they have been erroded away and replaced by melancholy acceptance that Fautsus is not destined for greatness but to act as a servant or jester- to entertain others. At least at the start of the place Fautsus has an interesting albeit despicable charcter, by Act iv he is completely void of any of the spark he once had. It's funny but the audience really do get to see the devil suck Faustus' soul from him through the play. I'm not sure whetehr this change in character can be called a fall from grace but whatever it is it is noticeable and it does happen to a large extent.
Sunday, 9 October 2011
Things aren't looking great for Fautsus (4/10/2011)
Last week Mr Francis asked us to consider the question, 'How does Faustus fall further in act 4?' I'm going to quite with my usual waffle at the start of blog posts and just get into answering that very question.
It is obvious even from the chorus that begins act 4 that Faustus has completely abandoned his ambitions, "of power, of honour, of omnipotence" that he presented in act one. Instead Faustus is content to be "feasted 'mongst his (Charles V) noblemen". No longer does Faustus crave to control the whole world as a kind of God, he is happy to settle for "fame spread forth in every land". In this sense, Faustus' character has fallen further in act 4 because the very ambitions that drove him to sell his soul to the devil (the ultimate sacrifice) are no longer present in him making the decision seem completely pointless. At this point I'd like to point out that I think, Marlowe was being very clever in his choice of Charles V as the Emporer that Faustus meets. Charles V was a man who fulfilled many of the ambitions that Faustus once held, controlling the majority of the discovered world at the time of his reign as King of Spain and Holy Roman Emporer. Marlowe's choice of Charles V to star opposite Faustus in this scene would therefore suggest that he was trying to emphasise the difference between Faustus' old ambitions and what he prepared for in scene 4.
Further evidence of Faustus falling in Act 4, can be found in the way that he suddenly discovers humility, declaring himself, "far inferior to the report men have published (of his skill with magic)". It is strange in a sense that Faustus loses his arrogance, a negative character trait, after he sells his soul to evil as one might have expected him to seek further into his ungodly character traits shown at the start of the play. I think that Faustus acknowledgement that his skills actually aren't that great as well as the fact he recognizes he is not equal to Charles V, "...nothing answerable to the honour of your Imperial Majesty" show that he has lost faith in himself, which in itself surely evidence that he has fallen further.
Interestingly enough, throughout the scene the people that Faustus meets become of gradually lower and lower status. Faustus initally, uses his sorcery to please Charles V by summoning the spirit of Alexander the Great, yet by the end of [4.2] he has been asked to summon some grapes for a Duchess. The difference in status between the individuals is obviously great, one is one of the greatest King's ever and the other a mere woman. However it is the difference in the tasks assigned to Faustus that show a real marked difference, summoning the ghost of Alexander the Great seems much more complex then conjuring up some grapes. It is almost as if by the end of Act 4 not only have Faustus' ambitions faded but also his fame has too.
Very quickly, I would just like to finally point out that throughout scene 4 it is Mephistopheles that does the actual magic, Faustus merely tells him to do so. If one reflects back to the beginning of the play Fautus himself managed to summon Mephistopheles yet it seems that even though he sold his soul to the devil to become better at magic, his use of magic has actually decreased. A bitter irony. Note also, Faustus crying out to Mephistopheles, "Help, Mephistopheles!" when a rogue man pulls Faustus leg off (really didn't get what was going on there- literal or figurative?). It strikes me that Faustus' reliance on Mephistopheles to do everything for him is arguably further evidence of his fall as he is no longer able to do anything for himself.
It is obvious even from the chorus that begins act 4 that Faustus has completely abandoned his ambitions, "of power, of honour, of omnipotence" that he presented in act one. Instead Faustus is content to be "feasted 'mongst his (Charles V) noblemen". No longer does Faustus crave to control the whole world as a kind of God, he is happy to settle for "fame spread forth in every land". In this sense, Faustus' character has fallen further in act 4 because the very ambitions that drove him to sell his soul to the devil (the ultimate sacrifice) are no longer present in him making the decision seem completely pointless. At this point I'd like to point out that I think, Marlowe was being very clever in his choice of Charles V as the Emporer that Faustus meets. Charles V was a man who fulfilled many of the ambitions that Faustus once held, controlling the majority of the discovered world at the time of his reign as King of Spain and Holy Roman Emporer. Marlowe's choice of Charles V to star opposite Faustus in this scene would therefore suggest that he was trying to emphasise the difference between Faustus' old ambitions and what he prepared for in scene 4.
Further evidence of Faustus falling in Act 4, can be found in the way that he suddenly discovers humility, declaring himself, "far inferior to the report men have published (of his skill with magic)". It is strange in a sense that Faustus loses his arrogance, a negative character trait, after he sells his soul to evil as one might have expected him to seek further into his ungodly character traits shown at the start of the play. I think that Faustus acknowledgement that his skills actually aren't that great as well as the fact he recognizes he is not equal to Charles V, "...nothing answerable to the honour of your Imperial Majesty" show that he has lost faith in himself, which in itself surely evidence that he has fallen further.
Interestingly enough, throughout the scene the people that Faustus meets become of gradually lower and lower status. Faustus initally, uses his sorcery to please Charles V by summoning the spirit of Alexander the Great, yet by the end of [4.2] he has been asked to summon some grapes for a Duchess. The difference in status between the individuals is obviously great, one is one of the greatest King's ever and the other a mere woman. However it is the difference in the tasks assigned to Faustus that show a real marked difference, summoning the ghost of Alexander the Great seems much more complex then conjuring up some grapes. It is almost as if by the end of Act 4 not only have Faustus' ambitions faded but also his fame has too.
Very quickly, I would just like to finally point out that throughout scene 4 it is Mephistopheles that does the actual magic, Faustus merely tells him to do so. If one reflects back to the beginning of the play Fautus himself managed to summon Mephistopheles yet it seems that even though he sold his soul to the devil to become better at magic, his use of magic has actually decreased. A bitter irony. Note also, Faustus crying out to Mephistopheles, "Help, Mephistopheles!" when a rogue man pulls Faustus leg off (really didn't get what was going on there- literal or figurative?). It strikes me that Faustus' reliance on Mephistopheles to do everything for him is arguably further evidence of his fall as he is no longer able to do anything for himself.
Sunday, 2 October 2011
Jennystopheles on Mephistopheles Act II Scene III 29/09/2011
Sorry for the title, I'm all out of inspiration for today's blogging sesh. I'm only going to do one blog for both of Thursday's lessons as they were both focused on the same scene [2.3] .
Today, I'm going to blog about Mephistopheles again, in a kind of gathering-my-thoughts kind of way in preparation for the essay writing we're going to do on Thursday.
It was raised, last Thursday, that the relationship between Faustus and Mephistopheles may have in part a homoerotic tension between them,
This lead me nicely on to another observation about Mephistopheles. He patronises Faustus because in fact he is smarter than Faustus. The man who claims that his "common talk" is "sound aphorisms"[1.1] must ask Mephistopheles about things he wants greater knowledge of, "But tell me, have they all one motion, both situ et tempore?"[2.3]. Moreoever, Mephistopheles has the power to deny Faustus the knoweledge he craves and knows just how divert Faustus wishes into Mephistopheles' wishes for example exchanging the idea of a wife with the idea of concubines. The language of intelligence, latin, has often been used as evidence to illustrate Faustus' amazing brain power yet Mephistopheles uses the language too, "Per inaequalem motum respectu totius"[2.3] Yet Mephistopheles doesn't use latin to show off as Faustus does, he doesn't use the language flamboyantly in order to make the audience feel belittled in fact his matter of fact use of the language in some sense belittles Faustus for making so much fuss about it. Ultimately, the gist of what I've been trying to get at in this blog post is that whilst Mephistopheles might not be that sweet little devil he was in act one, in scene two it is definitely Mephi who is pulling the strings.
Today, I'm going to blog about Mephistopheles again, in a kind of gathering-my-thoughts kind of way in preparation for the essay writing we're going to do on Thursday.
It was raised, last Thursday, that the relationship between Faustus and Mephistopheles may have in part a homoerotic tension between them,
(Mephi) "I tell thee, 'tis not hald so fair as thou"I can see why some people might think this if you take what Mephistopheles says on a literal level. That said, I think he is actually being quite sarcastic and droll with Faustus. Once Faustus has sold his soul to the devil in [2.1] Mephistopheles starts to change the way that he treats Faustus. No longer is he the sympathetic little devil warning Faustus 'oh how horrible' hell is. Instead, he is dry, "Think'st though heaven is such a glorious thing?", and unaccommodating, "Move me not, for I will not tell thee". As a result in this character shift and Mephistopheles perhaps feeling he can actually show his real attitude to Faustus I would say that he is taking the opportunity to mock the stupid man who thought selling his soul was a good thing.
This lead me nicely on to another observation about Mephistopheles. He patronises Faustus because in fact he is smarter than Faustus. The man who claims that his "common talk" is "sound aphorisms"[1.1] must ask Mephistopheles about things he wants greater knowledge of, "But tell me, have they all one motion, both situ et tempore?"[2.3]. Moreoever, Mephistopheles has the power to deny Faustus the knoweledge he craves and knows just how divert Faustus wishes into Mephistopheles' wishes for example exchanging the idea of a wife with the idea of concubines. The language of intelligence, latin, has often been used as evidence to illustrate Faustus' amazing brain power yet Mephistopheles uses the language too, "Per inaequalem motum respectu totius"[2.3] Yet Mephistopheles doesn't use latin to show off as Faustus does, he doesn't use the language flamboyantly in order to make the audience feel belittled in fact his matter of fact use of the language in some sense belittles Faustus for making so much fuss about it. Ultimately, the gist of what I've been trying to get at in this blog post is that whilst Mephistopheles might not be that sweet little devil he was in act one, in scene two it is definitely Mephi who is pulling the strings.
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
Was Marlowe just 'clowning' around? (excuse the pun)
 |
| Struggling for laughs... |
Mr Francis has asked us all to blog on one of the comedy scenes ( Act I, scene iv) in Dr Faustus. The scene could act as a bit of comedic light relief (LOUIS SAYS HI) ..bit of irony there... between the scenes were Faustus first meets with Mephistopheles and the scene where he signs his soul over to the devil. Or the reason for the comedy scene may have been to build up tension, making the audience wait to find out what happens to Faustus.
The scene is one of light hearted exchange beteen a "clown" character; a formulaic character that can be seen in many plays written during the Elizabethan period and Wagner- Faustus' servant. The exchange is meant to be humorous with multiple lines that play on words:
Wagner: Sirra, hast thou no comings in?
Clown: Yes, and goings out too, you may see sir.I'm not going to lie, I don't find this very funny at all and to be quite frank the idea of an audience finding this hysterical is quite strange. The need for the scene is very strange too, it just doesn't quite fit with the serious nature of the topics that Marlowe explores during Dr Faustus. Perhaps this humour was genuinely funny in Elizabethan times and the audience did find it funny, it is fairly obvious too so even an uneducated man would be able to appreciate it. One theory that I have been pondering is that the very unfunny formulaic humour shown in this scene is all part of Marlowe very cleverly belittling his audience. At the moment, I am very much a fan of the idea that Marlowe is using irony left right and centre in Dr Faustus to satirise the beliefs and hostilities that people had in those days. Whilst appearing to be a very conventional play with a message that the audience would undoubtedly appreciate -don't sell your soul to the devil- Marlowe's own 'atheistic' beliefs suggest that the play is just one great piece of irony. Perhaps, what might have made Marlowe laugh when he wrote this scene was actually that people would find this funny when it so clearly was not to an educated man like himself. Then again, he might have actually valued this humour, in which case he has just gone so far down in my esteem.
Thursday, 22 September 2011
Satan 20/09/2011
In the second lesson on Tuesday we were asked to draw a picture what we believed the devil to look like. This was part of an effort to introduce us to Mephistopheles, the miniature devil that acts as the intemediatry between Faustus and Satan to broker a deal for Faustus to sell his soul. Interstingly though, Mephistopheles really challenged the class's ideas about how a devil should act, he is a sympathetic and even warns Faustus against selling his soul. All of this talk of devil's got me thinking about the way that the devil is presented in different religions. Obviously, the Christian faith teaches that Lucifer is a fallen angel that rules as the overlord of hell. But what do Islam, Judaism and Buddhism have to say about the devil?
In Islam, the devil (Iblis) is a great deciever. He is a jinn, created from smokeless fire by God. The Islamic story of the devil goes that Iblis refused to bow before Adam (humanity) as God desired him to. He deliberately disobeyed the will of God causing him to be cast out by God. Iblis is seen in Islam as being the enemy of humanity, not the enemy of God. It is aim to try and tempt human beings into sin and away from God so that when resurrection day comes and Iblis is cast into the fires of hell, all of those that he has decieved will be cast their too.
Interestingly enough, Judaism does ot have a concept of the devil like Christianity does. This really surprised me as it is one of the three Abrhamic relgions. Instead mainstream Jews consider the devil to be "the adversary" which translates directly from the hebrew word ha-satan. Wikipedia states that the reason why the devil is viewed as an adversary or prosecutor is because of the need to recognize God as the ultimate judge.
Buddhism's devil-like figure is Mara. Mara is the thing that tempts people, even Buddha himself. He tries to make things that are bad seem good as well as distracting people from their tasks by making other things seem more appealing, it is Mara that causes procrastination (somewhat ironic as I am on facebook at the same time as writing this). Buddhist's view Mara not as a separate entity but as part of the mind itself, something that must be overcome in order to lead a spiritual life.
Buddha battling Mara...
In Islam, the devil (Iblis) is a great deciever. He is a jinn, created from smokeless fire by God. The Islamic story of the devil goes that Iblis refused to bow before Adam (humanity) as God desired him to. He deliberately disobeyed the will of God causing him to be cast out by God. Iblis is seen in Islam as being the enemy of humanity, not the enemy of God. It is aim to try and tempt human beings into sin and away from God so that when resurrection day comes and Iblis is cast into the fires of hell, all of those that he has decieved will be cast their too.
Interestingly enough, Judaism does ot have a concept of the devil like Christianity does. This really surprised me as it is one of the three Abrhamic relgions. Instead mainstream Jews consider the devil to be "the adversary" which translates directly from the hebrew word ha-satan. Wikipedia states that the reason why the devil is viewed as an adversary or prosecutor is because of the need to recognize God as the ultimate judge.
Buddhism's devil-like figure is Mara. Mara is the thing that tempts people, even Buddha himself. He tries to make things that are bad seem good as well as distracting people from their tasks by making other things seem more appealing, it is Mara that causes procrastination (somewhat ironic as I am on facebook at the same time as writing this). Buddhist's view Mara not as a separate entity but as part of the mind itself, something that must be overcome in order to lead a spiritual life.
Buddha battling Mara...
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
'American Gothic' 20/09/2011
 |
| American Gothic c.1930 |
During the first lesson today, we were shown a number of paintings and pictures which were considered to be 'gothic'. I chose to talk about one in the bottom corner that really caught my eye. Although I didn't know it at the time, this picture entitled "American Gothic" is actually incredibly famous. Painted by Grant Wood in 1930 the picture depicts a man and supposedly his daughter standing outside a house made in the 'Gothic Revival' style. When I initially described the painting, the impresion that it had on me was that it was trying to convey the: miserable, religious and austere life of the puritan 'founding fathers' of America. What really made the painting have a gothic feel about it for me is the chilling expressionless faces of the two characters depicted. It really made me think of historic events such as the Salem Witch Trials and the much more fictional epic film that is, Sleepy Hollow.
After doing some research into the painting (I'm not going to lie the research was limited to Wikipedia) I discovered that the painting was not as old as I believed it to be. I think I put a date on the picture as being set at somepoint in the 1600s, but actually the painting was set in the 1800s. How can you tell? The tunic that the woman is wearing.. apparently. This may sound pretty dull to most of you but this sadly did interest me, appealing to my history nerd side.
The man in the painting, was actually the artist's dentist in real life. I think this shows the artist's sense of humour- turning an everyday frightening character into a supernatural gothic one!
Another interesting fact about the painting is that the woman in the painting is meant to be the man's spinster daughter, not his wife. It is ambiguous as to whether this was originally the artist's intention but apparently the woman who posed for the painting was embarassed to be presented as being married to a man twice her age.
Thought I'd end this post with a bit of humour. The characters in 'American Gothic' make an appearance in the Rocky Horror picture show. See if you can spot a certain man and woman...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)