the golden vocal cords of Richard Burton

Richard Burton's interpretation of Marlowe's Dr. Faustus was not as bad as i thought it was going to be. The production was typical of the period, pretty cheesy, but the acting was quite good. Burton as Faustus was the perfect fit. His voice commanded the same level of respect that i thought Faustus would if he were a real person, and Burton breezed through the heavy diction as if he was actually making a deal with the devil.
i was surprised by how the movie was able to keep my attention because i struggled to get through the play. Marlowe's language, though beautiful and whatnot, really came alive with Burton's fantastic ensemble in a way that was absent when just reading the text, but i could not get over the music that followed Elizabeth Taylor. it was very annoying. i also did not understand the point of making her role silent. Taylor was a great actress and she could have brought more to the table other than just her starpower and beauty. Also, i did not fully understand her role at the very end; was she Lucifer or was Helen of Troy damned to hell
The movie's special effects were comical, but given the time period of its release i am not surprised. i actually thought they very well placed and not as lame as they could have been.

Richard Burton's "Doctor Faustus"

Richard Burton’s “Doctor Faustus”

            I would imagine that putting on a production of “Doctor Faustus” would not be easy for many reasons.  I think that Richard Burton was ambitious for making “Doctor Faustus” into a film, however I was not particularly impressed with the choices that Burton made.  Perhaps this is just because I pictured the play very differently when I read it in my head. First of all, the film was significantly more dramatic than I think that Christopher Marlowe had intended. There were many dramatic pauses that I was not expecting. When I read the play, I also did not picture the role of Helen of Troy to be as central as it was in the film. Although Elizabeth Taylor is beautiful and definitely contributed greatly to the financial success of the film, I do not think that it was Marlowe’s intention to make Helen of Troy a main character in the play. However, I did find that Burton’s use of music whenever Elizabeth Taylor was in the scene was a very interesting yet annoying touch. Every time Elizabeth Taylor on film, annoying music would play and get more and more annoying every time she appeared.

            Overall, I did not particularly enjoy Richard Burton’s production of “Doctor Faustus,” however I think that a lot of it had to do with the fact that I did not even really enjoy reading the play very much either. 

Dr Faustus Movie

What an impressive production for the 1960's. I am used to watching old movies about mythology and laughing at the "cheesy" special effects, which usually take away from the movie's purpose. Not only were the effects in this film advanced for its time, but they also only were used in the production of a play (which of course are historically meant for the stage, not set).
This movie gave me a better understanding of the term "Renaissance Man." I could better see how Faustus was on the "cutting edge" of his time. His thoughts and actions hint at change within man and change within the current social system, and in particular the clergy. Those scenes were fun to watch.

Doctor Faustus Movie

While I’m usually one to enjoy cheesy movies, Dr. Faustus really rubbed me the wrong way for several reasons. Most of all, it suffers from the same problem as Roman Polanski’s version of Macbeth in that its greatest weakness is the script’s strict adherence to the original text. In order to keep from being nothing but a filmed performance of the play, it has to make itself as visual interesting as possible. Essentially, it is limited to having no identity beyond how it presents itself visually. However, while Macbeth succeeds in this regard by appropriately juxtaposing its more abstract visual elements with mundane ones, Dr. Faustus doesn’t have a single set that isn’t excessively dressed and garishly lit. In the scene at the graveyard, for example, there is no sense that this is an especially sinister place because the previous scene took place in a shadowy room decorated with skulls. There’s no sense of Faustus’ descent into his dealings with the demonic because every set from the very start is equally menacing.

Tartuffe

I found the relationship between trust and morality in Tartuffe to be interesting. Orgon and Madame Pernelle’s perception of Tartuffe as a moral ideal lead them to trust him even more than their own family members. Also, the play as a whole seems to be a satire of the Church’s influence over the French government, and its ability to manipulate the government to its own purpose under the guise of religious authority.

Tartuffe

I really enjoyed reading Tartuffe. When I first started to read the play, I was surprised to see that it was written in a rhyming pattern. The rhyme was one of the reasons why this play was so different than the previous plays we have read up to this point. Eventually, I got used to the rhymes and I actually enjoyed the style of writing. I also thought that this play was very entertaining and I thought the character of Madame Pernelle was pretty funny.
 I was glad to read this play after reading Everyman and Doctor Faustus because I feel like the tone of those two plays were very somber and focused on teaching morality to their audiences. However, I thought Tartuffe was refreshing because it seemed as though entertainment was one of the goals of the play also.

Tartufee

This play was my favorite,it was a whole lot easier to follow.The fact that the language was a rhyming Rythem it kept me engaged and much more focus into reading this play. I found the theme and sitting very different and a big turn over from how the previous plays were. The characters were also ecstatic especially the mother. Her character caught my attention the most and I really enjoyed it.

Tartuffe

I found this play to be very enjoyable, although not as funny as Lysistrata. The rhyming couplets made for  an easy and enjoyable flow of dialogue and movement in the play. I found the rhymes to be even more impressive given that the play was originally written in French.
The subject of the play I found to be intriguing. As a more liberal person, I'm always open to hearing social criticisms, whether past or present, and having grown up in a Catholic family, I found this play to be especially informing and entertaining. Although I was not surprised to read that the play was not open to the public.
What most surprised me in terms of its comedic style was its use of sarcasm, something that I did not know was being used as much in this time period.
Overall, I found the play to be very well-written and enjoyable.
Something I found especially interesting was reading about one recent interpretation of the play in which Tartuffe is portrayed as a genuine person, rather than a hypocrite, but is still persecuted by the family. I would definitely be open to seeing that production of the play.

Tartuffe

I really enjoyed this play. The rhyming language was a nice change from the previous play we have read, and it seemed to flow very easily in my mind while reading. I was also nice to move away from religious themes and into a more twisted, unpredictable story. The characters were very comical, especially the mother, so this play kept me interested while I was reading. I also like how the moral of this story isn't about being good in goods eyes, but rather to trust those close to you and not to get caught up in status. Orgon dismissed the opinions of his family and close friends and stayed stuck in his own ways. It's interested though to think about the fact that what if Orgon had been right about Tartuffe. Sometimes few people are able to see the good in the other. The Moral of the story than would have been opposite if it had turned out that Tartuffe was how Orgon and his mother thought he was the whole time. Was he necessarily wrong and deserving of punishment for believing what he thought was right and not changing his opinion based on others?

Dr. Faustus video

I have to say that I did not enjoy this video. I felt like everything was overdramatized and far too cheesey, and therefor hard to get into and take seriously. I felt as if each scene was drawn on too long, and my interest would be quickly lost. However, it was a good dramatization of the play itself. I felt as if the actors really embraced their characters and gave me a genuine depiction of feeling and emotion. It was cool to see life put into the play. Perhaps it is my own preferences against the language of medieval theatre which cause me to not like the movie rather than the movie itself.

Mideval theater

This film was very interesting.I learned a lot about Mideval theater that I did not know. All the different festivals and the way they conduct there stage plays I found very outstanding.I would love to experience one of the plays up close and person such as the ones shown in the film. Most of their plays involvs a lot of drama and comedy, and I would love to experience those type of plays with all the drama and espeally. I thought the language was kinda rough but wouldn't be to bad to follow.But it diffenitly was a good and informative film.

Doctor Faustus Movie

I did not really enjoy this movie. I thought that the video was more about showing the relationship between Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton than presenting the actual story. It seemed as though there were many times when Taylor's character appeared unnecissarily. I was also confused as to who her character was and why she did not have any lines. The production of the movie was very nice though. The sets looked very authentic. I thought the scene at the Vatican was very well done. The movie did not really help with my understanding of the play, but I do understand that this is a very challenging play to translate onto stage and the screen.  To be fair, I did not enjoy the original version of the play, so I did not have very high expectations for the movie version.

Doctor Faustus

I really did not enjoy this movie. It did help me to understand the play a little better, and it certainly illustrated the action better than reading the play, however I found it to be way too intense to the point of being awkward. The scenery was really the only redeeming quality of the play for me. The costumes were amazing, and all of the props and backgrounds were extravagant. The director's interpretation, however, I did not like. I felt like I spent half of the movie waiting for the awkward pauses to be over. Several times, I had to hold myself back from rolling my eyes while wishing for it to just move on already. While Elizabeth Taylor is an amazing actress and was absolutely stunning, as Professor Parent mentioned, the music that played when she came on stage was really horrible. Richard Burton was also a great actor in this film, but I just had trouble connecting to him. I wasn't symapthetic nor against him, I honestly did not care what happened to him as a character. I thought that the message of the play is still relevant, but I did not like this interpretation of it. If I were a movie-goer and I was watching the movie by choice, I think I would have a hard time sitting through the whole film.

Tartuffe

I loved this play. I especially enjoyed the writing style. At first I thought I would be annoyed by the rhyming and it would make the play seem kind of cheesy, but I quickly realized that it kept up the flow of the play as the rhyming couplets would overlap across characters during intense discussions, and it added to the humor. I also thought that this play is extremely relevant in modern times, to the extent where in my head the plot kind of reminded me of the movie Wedding Crashers. Madame Pernelle's character was the stereotypical mother-in-law, and I enjoyed reading how batty and cruel she was. She came off as one who would seem clever and well-respected, if not because she actually was, but because she forced others into treating her that way, but in the end she was the last one to stick up for Tartuffe. Her treatment of her handmaid was really funny, and I laughed out loud when she randomly slapped her and called her a slut. My favorite character was, of course, Dorine. This character was really well developed and acted as a perfect comic relief to the families ridiculous absorption of Tartuffe. She was sensible and clever and spoke exactly my thoughts as I watched the play unfold. She called out Orgon for being an idiot for accepting and believing in Tartuffe, but I was especially impressed by how she handled the interaction between Mariane and Valere. Those two were so childish and ridiculous, especially Mariane, and it was a huge relief when Dorine finally stepped in and made them admit they were both wrong and had a plan already formulated. Finally, I found Tartuffe to be a huge creep. When he was first spoken about it was easy to see that he was a fraud, however the scene with him and Elmire made him out to be extremely intense and weird. Definitely not someone I would want in my house.

Evan Koehler; video post--Dr. Faustus video

Seeing Faustus performed is different than reading it. I thought the Greek goddess figure had an importance in the movie that wasn’t there in the book. I found the morbidity of the play and its cinematic interpretation to be on par. I hate to say this, but I enjoyed reading the play more than seeings its visual. I think that largely has to do with the movie director’s interpretation; however, I do not think any movie or theatrical performance would fall me well. The play is particularly wicked, and I think because of that it fails in a way. While the play is definitely expressive and macabre, the play lacks a reason to follow. There’s no reason to like Faustus (nor any character, for that matter), so I was struggling to maintain interest. The play is negative from the beginning until the end. Maybe, if enough money were thrown at it and the language made more digestible,  a movie of Faustus could be made that isn’t totally bad. There were scenes in the movie---a battle on horseback, Faustus shaking a skeleton---that I do not remember in the least bit. This is probably because I haven’t look at the play in a while. Burton’s acting performance was strong and, while I did not picture him in his exact performance, I found the role well-acted and genuine. There is a strong absence of God in this play; he appears, but the the largest power is in invested in the hands of the devil---something I find interesting as it does not glorify god in the customary fashion. 

Medieval Theatre

I found this movie to be very informative and entertaining. I had little knowledge about Medieval theater and that these play festivals even existed. I found it interesting that the actors got so close to the crowds. The audience was able to to experience the play up close and personal, and the actors were very interactive with them. I am not sure that I would enjoy seeing these plays live. I don't really like listening to the language of Medieval theater, and being that close to the stage would make me uncomfortable. However, it was nice to watch plays being performed rather than reading them.  Medieval plays seemed to be full of drama and comedy. At least the plays that the movie showed had a lot of comic relief intertwined with drama. Overall, the movie was a nice addition to the class.

day long plays and such

i found the movie to be incredibly boring, but it was also informative, i guess. day long religious plays would not be my idea of an enjoyable experience. although it was pretty impressive that we have such detailed accounts of the staging and props, but i just cannot get over the fact that these performances would last an entire day or longer. what is the point of such a long play other than to bore the audience to death? i did enjoy the similarities the pageant wagons had to mardi gras and the fact that people of that time were resourceful enough to use common items in order to enjoy themselves. i am quite curious how people were able to stand on the play route all day without wanting to leave.

i thought it was interesting that some people can actually make a living off of merely translating old english language into modern vernacular. it would seem to be a bit easier to translate english as opposed to a foreign language but still quite difficult. overall, i am ready to move on from this time period.

Tartuffe the ignorant

It seems as though this play could very easily be set in a modern film. It's story seems banal for our time, a plot that has been done many times before and is ultimately predictable. This said, I did very much enjoy this play and the characters contained within. The stupidity of Orgon was almost too frustrating. It is very much how I feel about people with blind religious beliefs who, to me, seem incredibly ignorant despite the facts right in front of their face. I wanted so desperately to reach within these pages and shake Orgon out of his spell. In the end all was well and for this I was not to pleased. I felt that for all his stupidity, Orgon deserved to lose everything.

Tartuffe

I found it very interesting, but very effective, that Moliere built up the characters Mme Pernelle, Orgon, Elmire, etc before introducing Tartuffe on page 523. We can somewhat gauge how each of the characters will respond to the brash remarks and wicked demands of Tartuffe. For example, one of his first lines is "Cover that bosom, girl. The flesh is weak, and unclean thoughs are difficult to control. Such sights as that can undermine the soul." I think this quote sets the tone for Tartuffes character much quicker than the earliest lines of the other characters.
This play was also long but easier to follow than the other couple with more "Old English" type text. I am excited to learn about our next historical topic and how its topics relate to what influenced this play.

Tartuffe

“Tartuffe” was the first play that I’ve read this semester that I sincerely enjoyed reading all the way through. Not only did I find it funny and entertaining, but I also think that Moliére had many things to say and critique about society in this play, which I found fascinating. Moliére depicts society as if they are gullible and easily manipulated, which is why I can imagine that this play was controversial during its time.

            I also found that Moliére had the most interesting life out of all of the playwrights that we have read about. Going from a family attached to the court, to a “prisoner of debt,” Moliére had many unique life experiences that undoubtedly come through in his plays. It is also interesting that Moliére also acted in his own plays, and DIED on stage (such a dramatic way to go!). On a different note, I have noticed that a common feature among playwrights is that they go to university with the intention of studying something else, but eventually end up writing plays.

            One thing that I would like to learn more about in class is the process of translating plays. Although “Tartuffe” was originally written in French, the translator did a beautiful job of creating prose with great fluidity and rhythm. I wish that I had read the play out loud because I think that would have created an entirely different experience for myself. 

Medieval Theater

I found the movie to be entertaining. It was certainly more enjoyable to watch examples of Medieval Theater and Mystery Plays than it was to read about it in the text book. It gave interesting examples of plays and we got to see some of the plays that we are reading come to life as they were acted, or even spoken on stage. I found that hearing Everyman spoken was more enjoyable and more easy to understand than it was to read it. There was a lot of dialogue that I didn't quite understand while reading it, but I got a better idea by hearing the emotion and connotation of the actors.

I also thought that it was interesting to see the pageant wagons and how they are still influential in England today. It was especially fun to see how closely related this is to Mardi Gras. Having the actors in such close proximity to the audience must also make it more realistic and easy to get involved with the drama unfolding for the audience members. Finally, I found it cool to hear about how the craft guilds influenced the plays that were put on. It made a lot of practical sense to have the fishermen in charge of a certain scene and the butchers in charge of another simply because they had the right props. It was such a simple and productive solution to a problem that faces a lot of prop and set managers on plays who have to run around to find certain objects. It also got different members of the community from all different experiences and backgrounds together to work on a common goal.

Medieval Plays

I found the Medievel Plays Video very interesting. Although they are pretty cheesy, I do enjoy watching them because they do give a lot of information. I thought the fact that plays were done on wagons and they rolled around telling the story was the most interesting part of the movie. Especially because it was just Mardi Gras Season. The similarities between these plays done on wagons and the floats and krewes that make up Mardi Gras are very shocking! Something I've noticed about the krewe members is that they are like characters too. Their costumes are larger than life and in vibrant colors, and they seem to be portraying a character and acting a part while they hand out beads, which is similar to a charcter in a play done on a wagon.

"From Sanctuary to Stage"

Despite the fact that this video was a bit corny, I found that many aspects interested me and grabbed my attention. In particular, I enjoyed learning about the role of the guilds in medieval theatre.  It makes perfect sense that the guilds were in charge of different plays based off of what props they had in their possession. For example, the Butchers dealt with the death of Christ, the Pinners dealt with Christ’s crucifixion, and the fisherman dealt with Noah’s Arc all because they had the materials to make up the play.

I also thoroughly enjoyed watching and learning about the community plays and festivals that are reenacted in New York. It was nice to actually see the visuals of how the plays were produced and how popular they once were. The usage of wagons allows the audience to have an intimate relationship with the actors, and the plateau where the acting on the ground took place brought the audience even closer to the actors. Like we discussed in class, these plays possess a clear resemblance to Mardi Gras. Just like Mardi Gras, these plays have an element of production and thorough entertainment.

It was also fascinating learning about the role of a dramaturge in a production. Although old language does not interest me, I see the value in having a dramaturge help with the production of old plays in order to ensure the quality and authenticity of the dialogue. 

Tartuffe

So far, I've liked Tartuffe more than any other play we've read this semester. I found the characters unique, and witty, and interesting. The story line and zest in the text, and the boldness of each individual reminded me of a Shakesperean play. I also thought some of the charming absurdities that took place were very similar to happenings in The Three Musketeers which makes sense because they were set in similar time periods and locations. 

While Tartuffe was long, it kept me on my toes and excited me. I liked that the characters mocked and taunted each other, and even left the audience/reader confused at times as to who could truly be trusted. While the end was obviously a little cliché, it makes sense that Moliére casted the King as such a controversial play's hero (for arresting Tartuffe).  Overall, I found Tartuffe to be exciting and filled with material and characters way ahead of the plays time.

Medieval theater video

The video on medieval theater was very interesting, especially given the fact that we watched it right before Mardi Gras break. The York cycle plays had an obvious influence on contemporary carnival traditions. The floats may not be as religious today, but the entire Mardi Gras season is a celebration that finds its origins in the Catholic church calendar. 

After watching the video on the York cycle plays, I wanted to see if I could notice more similarities while at the parades. Instead of just screaming and throwing my arms around for beads (although I still did do this), I actually focused on the titles of the floats and the decorations covering the floats, noting how they fit into the context of the parade in general, and the other floats in front of and behind it. 

Like the York cycle plays, the Mardi Gras parades do tel a story, although not nearly as exact or drawn out as those religious performances from the medieval ages. The themes of the parade are evident and the messages, just like in the York cycle parades, are clear. 

Medieval Plays

When I think of Carnival season, I think of New Orleans and Rio. What I did not know is that Carnival is celebrated all over the world, especially in Europe. I was looking through an album of Carnival posted on usatoday in hopes of finding some cool Mardi Gras pictures from New Orleans. None existed. The album was from all the parades in Rio and across Europe, and these pictures from Europe reminded me of all the "parades" from medieval theatre.
I was also interested in how influencial the church was to theatre. The fact that the church essentially forced theatre out of existence and then brought it back in order to bring more people to the church is somewhat ironic. I would like to know at which point theatre became completely separate from the church, but my guess would be that it was as soon as theatre became a business. Additionally, the parade plays were all biblical stories that most everyone could relate to. I also think that as relgions diversified and people became less familiar with the bible, theatre began transitioning into a business.

Evan Koehler Tartuffe response.

Tartuffe is very sophisticated for the 17th century. The dialogue is realistic (to the degree that dramatic dialogue can be), the characters are specific and organic; the issues are modern. The ending was absolute garbage, but, even so, in some cheap way, it’s redeeming. I did not believe Orgon’s early zeal for Tartuffe was unbelievable (in the exact meaning of the word) and the disrespect of the servants was something I found unbelievable and unrealistic as well. I found the sporadic rhyming entertaining and impressive; the play has realistic dialogue, but there’s still well-placed and timed lyricism going on. The play is definitely paternal, but the female characters---especially Dorine and Elmire---have power and are important in the plot’s advancement. I keep finding temporal problems in plays (It might be that I’m looking for them now), but I found one with regard to the proposed wedding’s planning. These don’t really bother me when I’m reading, but there could be some annoyances if I were watching the play. Or maybe the other way around. There’s a huge problem---which I already alluded to---with regard to the ending, which I’m guessing is the most cited of this play’s parts. The ending does a disservice to play; I really balked when I read the ending. I understand that messages like those (the moral, religious, ethical messages) are part of virtually all plays prior to the 20th century, but the ending is the most important part of written art and I keep remembering how bad the ending was

Medieval Theater Move - "From Century to Stage"

   The film From Century To Stage provided a lot of background and history regarding the evolution of theater. While we had discussed it in class, until this semester I was not aware of the strong link between religion and theater. In retrospect, the connections make a lot of sense especially in regards to the texts that were written in each respective time.
    My favorite part of the film was when they described early theater as events "greater than a sum of their parts", that bound the community closer together. They also mentioned that theater is a phenomenon that forms bridges between past and present cultures. I think that these are both fundamental and truthful statements, and are the reason why theater has endured as a lasting form of art.

Evan Koehler; video response (York video)

Thursday’s video reminds me of the fact that I do not like the acting that takes place on a stage. This is random and unwarranted, but when I was watching the medieval performances in the videos, I felt uneasy and nervous watching the actors. The acting is too loud and affected (I understand the obvious problems of acoustics and sound range), but I look for a reality in theatre and I do not find it. Plays like Everyman and Dr. Faustus are important historically, but---and I’m saying this as a lover of art in any form---if theatre wants to be as important as it once was, aged material like this shouldn’t be played. The language is distracting and hard to understand. On a less negative note, learning about the cycles in York and New England helped me realize the effect theatre has off the stage. I do not think of Theatre as something that can interact with things off stage, so I found the video’s comments interesting and novel. The outdoors plays are probably more popular in Europe (especially in England, I assuming), so the lack of appreciation for poetry’s off-stage influence I had could deal with living in the United States. I would never have thought that I would be saying this, but I’m somewhat disappointed that the chorus is leaving from the plays. I enjoyed the lyricism and found the singing a positive part of the theatrical viewing experience. The chorus gives a “spectacle” feel to the plays, which is more entertaining and easier to watch.

Dr. Faustus

This was a very interesting play. I was intrigued by the moral dilemma that Dr. Faustus found himself in. It may have appeared to be a very easy decision for any of us to make, but not so for Faustus. His inability to do the right thing in this instance is fascinating. He was presented with so many opportunities to and yet it seemed almost as if his hand were forced.

Dr. Faustus

I really enjoyed the message behind this play. It was much like that of Everyman in the sense that the message was very religious, yet could be applied to more general, non-religious idea of morality. I found to poetic language of Dr. Faustus to be more difficult, and less fluid, to read than the prose of Everyman. However, both stories were intriguing and easy to understand. It is interesting that the main character in Dr. Faustus did not fear God or his afterlife. He was unsure about whether he was making the right choice to sell his soul to the devil, but he made that decision for 24 years. The moment that Everyman was told that he was going to be going to hell, he did everything he could to repent his sins to God. Perhaps this is a reflection of a movement away from the Church. Also, Dr. Faustus was no longer allowed to repent his sins at the end, which goes against rules of Christianity. This play was much more controversial in morality than everyman was. None-the-less, they both offered very strong moral messages.

Doctor Faustus

This play was challenging to read and I’m afraid I didn’t enjoy it. The language was difficult to interpret, just as last week with Everyman. Dr. Faustus is also a longer play so it was difficult to stay focused and to decipher what was happening the whole time. Also, I didn’t enjoy the tome of the play. It felt less like a play and more like a religious-toned lecture or sermon. It felt as though Marlow was simply trying to force a lesson.

I feel like this play does reflect the typical modern outlook on what the medieval times were. We generally think of this as a dark, disease-ridden time, where the church held a very suppressive power. Even though there was a great deal of art during this time, I think this play reflects the more stereotypical view of medieval times. It doesn’t feel artistic; it feels over bearing and dark, and not in a thought-provoking way.

In my opinion, thought it’s difficult to decipher and not an enjoyable read, Dr. Faustus still applies in modern times. It hits such timeless themes as feeling incomplete in life, and the general idea of good versus evil, that it is still relevant.

Dr. Faustus

I enjoyed Dr. Faustus, more than I expected, and more than I enjoyed Everyman. I admit that it took me a few pages to get used to the prose, but after it became very enjoyable to read.  What interested me was the portrayal of a man who relishes in doing what he knows is wrong (although he does at times seem sorry). I was very intrigued by Dr. Faustus’ adventures across Europe and how he used his dark magic. Perhaps I was intrigued like the scholars by his knowledge and powers, interested in what he was going to do next, while knowing all the while the horror that lay in his future.

            As stated, I found the plot entertaining, but I am also curious as to how the play was performed. It seemed there were numerous instances in which special effects were needed, and I am also interested in seeing the costumes of the demons and devils.

            Overall, I thought the play was very good. I appreciated the poetic language, and found it much more fluid than Everyman’s prose (probably because there was more dialogue). I also found the play entertaining and intriguing. 

Doctor Faustus

 
This play was my least favorite play that we have read so far. I did not know what type of language to expect in this play, but the language used was very hard to understand. Even after rereading each line I still found it difficult to take any meaning from some of the dialogue. At some points I was confused as to what was happening in the play. I also found it interesting how much the presence of magic and the supernatural influenced the play.

One thing I found interesting about this play was the portrayal of Doctor Faustus. Faustus was the main character for the play and his thirst for knowledge was clearly not the right path. Even though there was a theme of morality, when I compared Everyman and Faustus, I “rooted” for Everyman more than Faustus to repent. Even though Everyman made his repentance at the very end of his life, I felt like he learned more of a lesson than Dr. Faustus. Faustus had opportunities to repent and he also willingly sold his soul. I felt that the morality message was better conveyed in Everyman than Dr. Faustus, because I felt little sympathy for him in the end.

Doctor Faustus

            I am looking forward to the class discussion about this book because I don’t feel as if I understood or took away what I was hoping to, particularly because I had such a difficult time with the language. I know the beauty of the play is there, so I am going to appreciate my classmates’ perspectives of this play. I don’t think that the language was any more difficult than Everyman, however because Doctor Faustus was significantly longer my attention span did not come through for me in the end. I was also unable to read the play for the second time due to a difficult past couple of days, so I plan on getting through my second reading in the next few days.

            All things considered, I did find that the playwright, Christopher Marlowe, had a very interesting life that is undoubtedly reflected in his work. Particularly, it interests me that Marlowe was supposed to be studying ministry, but instead produced plays such as Doctor Faustus about hell and demons. While the play was definitely used to scare the public, Marlowe used a tactic in which he exemplified to the public what not to do that I would imagine was very controversial during its time.

            From what I could decipher about Faustus himself was that despite his ingenuity, Faustus felt that his life was incomplete—an I think that almost everyone can relate to this flaw in Faustus. Everyone wants to do more and be more than they are, and Faustus was so desperate that he felt a though a short life full of trickery and dark magic would be more fulfilling. 

Dr. Faustus

    This was definitely not my favorite play. I found it long and complicated to read (it could have been different if I were watching it). While the concept, which we discussed with Everyman, could be very interesting, I had a really hard time following all of the travels and agreements that were made in the play. I liked that Everyman occurred over a much more condensed period of time and in one setting.
   At the beginning of the play, Doctor Faustus finds himself discontent with more traditional forms of knowledge, and seeks to learn magic. I found this idea to be very interesting and exciting. However, from there, the play grows very dismal. I know that the play was written in a time period that was very against magic, and the point of Doctor Faustus was to educate, not entertain. However, I'm not sure that these values translate very well to modern day beliefs.

Dr. Faustus

Interesting that our discussion from last class about some lines in Everyman translate perfectly into part of Dr. Faustus. BID mentions that this play was written just before the death of Marlowe, and it certainly seems like the playwright had death in his sights. I particulalrly liked Evan's last comment, "I do not think this play was intended for entertainment, and I also believe its goal was to do nothing but scare and teach" because I too agree with him. I could not find a deeper meaning or moral that the play was attempting to teach or make example of, and nor could I find how this play was in the least bit entertaining. If an attempt was made to somehow exploit an area of the German university system/education, or the church's function, or the good vs evil parity of magic, or the hierachal fuedal system,  I could not find it. Then again, this was a tough, long, read, and I could hardly wait to get done and begin studying for Christine's accounting test. A last note was that I found it interesting how both Beelzebub and Lucifer are used in the same play. From previous classics courses I have been told that they are the same person - the "devil" - so it was hard for me think of them as different people. I should look into the use of those names as some outside research.

Evan Koehler; Dr. Faustus

I read this aloud (like the last one) largely because I have a problem with the old English (in understanding it). I did not feel the end of the play accomplished well what Marlowe wanted. I did not think the play glorifies the power of god well enough (regardless of someone's spiritual beliefs, the catholic church puts all power in god). There is powerful statement (with some of the most morbid and lucid imagery I've ever read) with regard to the power of hell; the devil and his adjuncts are somewhat spell-binding in their composition and a strict testament to the strength of sin in capturing a person. I had a hard time reading this play, also, because of the timing. I think I understood that Faustus is awarded 24 years of what he wants and the play doesn't accommodate that. Obviously, because of a necessity to have a reasonable playing time, the play cannot run that time----but, even still, I found the structure too jumpy and there was no inclusion of information that would have explained what he was doing or would have done in some period of time. The magic included---the building of the castle for the emperor, the horns, the horse who turns to straw---is particularly interesting to me because they are demonstrations and evocations of things that are fantasy-like and acceptable now as entertainment. I did not find this particularly pleasant to read; I do not think this play was intended for entertainment, and I also believe its goal was to do nothing but scare and teach. 

Everyman

I think the largest thing I noticed about Everyman was the language. This is primarily because, though beautiful, it made it difficult for me to follow the play. Even after re-reading it I don’t feel as if I’ve fully grasped all the content.

The moral of this story was very clearly presented. I’m not sure how I feel about this overt message in the play. I suppose how it was performed could affect my opinion but it seems like it is either so obvious that it looses it chance to make an impact by forcing the audience to explore it or simply direct and therefore simpler to connect to and understand.

Personally, I did not enjoy this play. I did appreciate the ornate language and can see how valuable this play is. However, the difficulty of the language as well as the very serious tone made it hard to really have fun reading.

Ancient Greek Theatre

We had already discussed a lot of what was presented in the video, but it was still very interesting. I found the focus of Greek culture on drama to be very interesting. The resources that had to be devoted to constructing the massive performance areas, the importance of viewing the plays, and the plays central role in religious life. 

I also enjoyed seeing clips of performances of some well known Greek plays. Though I have read some Greek drama throughout school I have never seen any performed. However, I did not love the performance of Lysistrata presented. Mainly because I did not connect with the actresses, if found there interpretation of the characters caused them to remain characters and not turn into people I could related to.

Greek theater video

            I found the video to be cheesy, yet interesting. The fact that the Greek hillsides could fit twenty thousand people was extremely impressive. I was also interested in how closely drama and religion were linked in the Greek culture.

            Hearing about the Dionysian festivals was also intriguing. Hearing how they let all of the prisoners free during the festivities made me wonder what effect letting all criminals free for Mardi Gras would have on the city (it probably would not turn out as well).

            The other striking fact was that the Greeks were so enamored with the theater. It was a centerpiece of their culture. Today, mass media and movies have replaced the theater as the main form of entertainment. I wonder if there are ways to reverse this, or at least to make theater more easily accessible to the masses. 

Everyman

            Everyman was a little bit more difficult to read than Lysistrata. I also thought it was more boring. There was not much stage direction, and the dialogue was long and hard to follow at times. I think the moral of the story was also too obvious to be effective; although I can understand why it had to be obvious it was being performed to the uneducated medieval masses.

            The story itself was quite repetitive, and fairly boring. Following Everyman around as he is abandoned by all of his companions was boring enough that by the end of the play, I did not really care what Everyman’s fate turned out to be.

            Although I did not enjoy the play, I do respect the unknown author for his ability to write lyrically. The rhyming was impressive and the language used was obviously elevated and elite.

            I am curious to know how the actors performed such a piece. From the reading, it didn’t seem that any stage scenery was needed. The dialect of the play seemed as if it would be difficult to follow if one was only listening and was not able to read along also. I am also curious as to how the rulers felt about the moral of the story (if they ever even saw it performed). For the play speaks poorly of riches and wealth, and anyone who thought that such things could grant them eternal salvation.

            Overall, I was not a fan of the play, but I do see the artistic value in the work and why it has been influential and famous throughout the history of western drama.

Everyman

Reading “Everyman” was indubitably a different experience for me than reading Lysistrata. For one thing, the comedic aspect was definitely lacking in this play, however this was necessary because of the somewhat serious tone, and because of the valuable underlying message. “Everyman” is a play that really makes the audience question their morality, and perhaps even frighten them into being better individuals. I think that the author intended to write this play as a wake up call for his or her society and what it was turning in to. I appreciated that the author of the play really tried to keep the plot as simple and minimalistic as possible in order to make sure that the message of the play would hit the audience members square on, without much thought or “reading in between the lines.” Without a doubt, the message that idealizing goods and materialistic possessions will not help you in life (or afterlife) is particularly imperative in today’s society where the world revolves around technology. Another stand out theme to this play is that in the end a man will only end up with his good deeds. I would love to see a modern version of “Everyman” in which the companions that Everyman encounters would be true for contemporary society.  

            Although I did enjoy “Everyman” as an allegory, the play was almost a little too direct and simplistic. I am still waiting to read that play that really makes me think about the intended messages of the playwright.