Review Me Twice - For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide by Ntozake Shange

This week, Alex chose us a play, which I like.  Plays are a little different than our usual pick and they can be really fun.

Ok, so I didn't like READING For Colored Girls.  It was confusing and hard to follow and no one had names, they had colors, which is a little hard to keep track of when you're reading.  It's also a lot harder to imagine faces.  The whole title of this play is, For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When The Rainbow Is Enuf.  And all the woman in the play are wearing a color of the rainbow, which I think is cool.  But, again, not helpful when reading.

This play is very visual, so that's why I'm telling you not to read the play.  That's right, I am telling you NOT to read something.  Go SEE the play, or at least watch the movie that they made out of the play, which I did, and it WAS very good.  It was powerful and moving and made your heartbreak and showed you all the social commentary that Shange was trying to convey.

It's a WONDERFUL play, and I think it's very well done, you just don't get nearly as much out of it if you read the play.

I enjoyed this a lot more than I thought I would. After learning about Ntozake Shange and what a passionate activist she is (which is great, you should fight for what you believe in, but usually those types of people make okay writers at best, because they're too focused on the message, not the story) I was concerned, but she tells great stories in this play.

I actually liked the colors-instead-of-names bit. I like that it makes the characters more of an everyman (everywoman, I guess) and I'm terrible at keeping track of characters' names when reading anyway, so it was helpful to me.

However, I do agree with Cassy that this play is probably better watched than read. I know that Ntozake Shange liked the movie version (the Tyler Perry one) but she said she wasn't sure she'd call it a finished movie... just something to keep in mind if you choose the film over the live version.

Why You Should Watch The Movie

This week, we're reading For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide by Ntozake Shange.  It's a play that we read, but you'll hear more about that later.

Today, I'm here to tell you, watch the movie.  Now, that may be counter-intuitive since this is a book blog and we, pretty much always, recommend the book before we'll ever recommend the movie.  But plays are a horse of a different color.

Plays are meant to be watched.  They're written to be watched and there is so much more than you can glean from a play if you watch it being acted.  When you read a play, all you're really reading are the lines.  When play writers write plays, I'm sure they have SOME sort of vision when they write (and you can see hints of that vision in the stage directing), but the point of the play is for it to be interpreted by the actors and the director and the set makers.

If you've ever read a play, you'll notice that they're short (certain bards excluded, of course), for the most part, and that's because it's nothing but lines.  Nothing but the dialogue.  And this allows you to get multiple interpretations of the same thing.  And they're all right.

Shakespeare is the fastest example on reimaginings.  10 Things I Hate About You?  Shakespeare (The Taming of the Shrew).  West Side Story?  Also Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet.  I had Clueless on here earlier, but that's not Shakespeare, as was pointed out to me by one of our readers! Thanks, Artie Moffa).  They have all been repurposed and reimagined and repackaged.

Plays can also be a little hard to understand if you don't have the visual to go with it.  Plays are MEANT to have the visual, so sometimes, the dialogue itself doesn't give up what you need it to.

So, go ahead.  Watch the movie.  It's the only time I'm going to tell you to do so.

By Its Cover - Richard II by William Shakespeare

Welcome to a special edition of By It's Cover.  BY IT'S ACTOR!!!

Really, let's face it, there are a million and one covers to Richard II.  Annnnndd, since it's 10 PM the night before this post is due to go up and neither I, nor Alex, has actually written up the BIC, it probably means we're not really looking forward to it this week (because there are a million covers... and they're all kind of boring.)  So this week, I'm just posting a bunch of pictures of actors who have played Richard II (mainly because there's no one around to stop me.)

Alex may join in if she likes with any actors I missed... or maybe actresses.

This is Ben Wishaw.  He played Richard II in a very recent BBC version of the play.

Derek Jacobi played Richard II in 1970.  Probably a little old for the part, but very distinguished, nonetheless.  He was also on an episode of Dr. Who in 2007.

Mark Rylance portrayed him in 2003.  Again, Richard was very young, but I'm getting the feeling Hollywood is missing that point... as they usually do with these kind of things.

Waaaaiiiit a second, that's a girl!  Indeed it is!  Fiona Shaw (AKA Aunt Petunia), played Richard in a 1997 version of the play.  I don't know if it was any good, but it's certainly an interesting take on the whole thing.

At the risk of sounding lazy, I'm only going to add that Cassy did a great job and I have nothing to add!

Review Me Twice: King Richard II by William Shakespeare

Reading about history - history I'm not well-versed in, anyway - and reading Shakespearean English: two things I'm not usually terribly excited to do. That did not change over the course of reading this play, but I didn't hate it.

Whenever I read something by Shakespeare, I either read about the history behind it - like with this one - or I read a detailed plot summary. It sounds like cheating, but really, it's allowing me to pay closer attention to the language than to the details of the plot (because I already know them). Remember what I said about translating while reading when we discussed Le Petit Prince last month? Reading Shakespeare is a lot like translating, unless you get one of those versions that's "translated" for you (and therefore isn't in the right meter, doesn't rhyme, and is basically useless). So it's helpful to know the story outline in advance, so you can be sure of what's happening. (Honestly, Cassy messaged me at one point to tell me she knew this guy had just died, but the manner in which he died was uncertain. Those are the kinds of problems you run into with Shakespeare sometimes.)

A play that starts with two guys having a financial dispute before the king doesn't seem like it's going to get much better... but then they challenge each other to a duel, and off we go! Of course, it takes an age and a half to get into the tournament, but then things get a little more interesting, and... well, I told you the ending yesterday, since it's based in history.

So all in all, I liked it, but it's not a brisk and simple read by any means. But who expects Shakespeare to be that?

I was discussing this book with Alex the other day and talking about how I had to catch up on the books for the blog.  My exact words to her were, "Hopefully, I'll breeze right through Richard II."

I should know that one never breezes through Shakespeare, but it didn't take me LONG.  The thing with Shakespeare is, that even after four years of high school, four MORE years of college (where I majored in English) and another five years of reading for my own personal enjoyment, Shakespeare never got easier to swallow over the years.

Did I dislike the play?  Well, no, because we all know my obsession over English history (and this beings the Tudor reign.)  It was enjoyable, but a lot of times, I miss what's going on.  I often read summaries or at least the history behind it so I know I didn't miss any important plot points.

And, you know, Shakespeare is one of the most famous writers ever for a reason.

"Then thus I turn me from my country's light

To dwell in solemn shakes of endless night."

I mean, COME ON!!  Who can write like that anymore?  It's this awesomely beautiful rhyming couplet about how a guy is super depressed that he's being banished from his country.

Over all, I enjoyed the play, but it is Shakespeare, so it's not exactly light reading.

Who Was King Richard II?

King Richard II of England is, obviously, the king central to the plot of Shakespeare's King Richard II, much like how King Henry V showed up in King Henry V and there were a couple of characters named Romeo and Juliet in Romeo and Juliet. Funny how that works out.

But who was King Richard II? Unlike Romeo and Juliet, he was a real guy, and I'm going to tell you about him.

Richard was born in 1367. He was the son of Edward, the Black Prince. Edward was the first Prince of Wales to never become king, as he died only a year before his father.

You may also remember him as this guy,
from A Knight's Tale

So, Richard's grandfather (Edward III) passed the throne directly to Richard, because of the deaths of Edward the Black Prince (Richard's father) and Richard's older brother (Edward of Angouleme, at the age of four). Richard's coronation was July 16, 1377, when he was ten years old.

His first major challenge as king came in 1381, in the form of the Peasants' Revolt (also known as Wat Tyler's Rebellion). It was mainly caused by the many problems that arose from the Black Death in the 1340s, high taxes caused by the Hundred Years' War, and issues with the local leadership in London. Richard successfully met with rebels and defused the tensions, coming out on top. (For fun, go ask the nearest 14-year-old when they last saved a country from a peasant uprising.)

In 1386, the threat of a French invasion grew, and - to be succinct - Parliament dealt with the situation. Richard was upset by their actions, because it stepped on the toes of his royal prerogative (which he put a lot of store in). This is just a humble book review blog, so I won't outline the finer points, but just pretend it was like a bunch of high school girls and their drama over who gets to decide whose house the sleepover will be at... except with more bloodshed and political discourse.

"He's so pathetic. Let me tell you something about King Richard II. We were best friends in middle school. I know, right? It's so embarrassing. I don't even... Whatever. So then in eighth grade, I started letting John of Gaunt rule, who was totally gorgeous but then he moved to Indiana, and Richard was like, weirdly jealous of him. Like, if I would blow him off to hang out with the Lords Appellant, he'd be like, 'Why didn't you call me back?' And I'd be like, 'Why are you so obsessed with me?' So then, for my birthday party, which was an all-Parliament pool party, I was like, 'Richard, I can't invite you, because you're the king.' I mean I couldn't have a king at my party. There were gonna be members of Parliament there. I mean, right? He was a king. So then his mom called my mom and started yelling at her, it was so retarded. And then he dropped out of the throne because no one would talk to him, and he came back a few years later to reclaim the throne, and he was totally weird, and now I guess he's on crack."

The Lords Appellant (great band name?) took over control of the government, but - long story short - Richard took it back by 1389. For eight years, he did a good job, took care of business, and led peacefully. But in 1397, his apparently bottled rage at the Lords Appellant exploded, and he took revenge on them, executing or exiling most of them.

"Frenemies forever!"

This is where Shakespeare jumps in to tell the story in his play (so, you know... spoiler alerts, to the extent that there can even be spoilers for literature which has been around for centuries and is referenced just... everywhere) which covers the last two years of Richard's reign (1399-1400), which historians refer to as Richard's tyranny.

When John of Gaunt (Richard's highly influential uncle and adviser since before his reign began) died, Richard disinherited the previously exiled Henry of Bolingbroke, John of Gaunt's son. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with forces that quickly grew in number, with the intention to claim the throne for himself. Anticlimactically, Henry won and deposed Richard, who died in captivity the next year (murder being the likely cause).

Richard gets a bit of a bad rap, because he had two really bad years where he wanted basically everyone dead, and those are the two years Shakespeare immortalized in literature. But hey, Richard was a big fan of the arts and cultivating the cultural image of royalty, so he probably wouldn't have been too upset, I guess. His reign was, in fact, the period of time where English became a literary language, making Shakespeare's popularity possible in the first place. (Richard's time was the same as Geoffery Chaucer's time, if that's any indication.)

He also appeared in A Knight's Tale.
Someone please just tell me I'm not the only one who LOVES THIS MOVIE.

Anyway, Henry of Bolingbroke became Henry IV, which you may realize is the title of two of Shakespeare's plays (Parts 1 and 2). That's because King Richard II was the first of a tetralogy (like a trilogy... but with four parts), which ends with Henry V, who is - as you may have guessed - Henry IV's successor.

Favorite Shakespeare Play

Because we're reading one of William Shakespeare's plays this week, and because he wrote so darn many of them, we're picking our favorite Shakespeare play!

It will come as absolutely no surprise to anyone who knows me that I loved the Royal Shakespeare Company's version of Hamlet, given that David Tennant and Patrick Stewart are my two favorite actors, and they play Hamlet and Claudius / The Ghost, respectively.

I didn't really like Hamlet much until I saw this version. The characters are all just... terrible people. (Okay, I'll give Ophelia a pass, because I don't think her terribleness is really her fault. It's mostly Hamlet's fault.) Also, I had to read Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead in a theater class I disliked, and I didn't know Hamlet that well, so the two of them frustrate the hell out of me, even now that I know what's going on.

Side note: If you've never liked/understand the whole "alas, poor Yorick / I knew him" scene, you should watch Tennant do it. It's just great. And you can see from this still, although they kept the words verbatim the same from the original, the set and costuming are a contemporary update, and it works just... so well.

I had to read about a million and one Shakespeare plays in high school.  And then I became an English Major in college and read about 101 more.  So I've read a LOT of Shakespeare (Surprisingly, I have not read this week's pick, Richard II)

Over the years, I've always been more of a fan of his comedies, and in that realm, The Taming of the Shrew has always been one of my favorites.

I know that it's really terrible in terms of Women's Rights and all that (She was a fierce, independent woman and let herself be cowed by a man who married her for the money.)  But, I just really like Kate.  You don't get a lot of women, period, in Shakespeare, but to have a female that has such a HUGE effect on the story line and play?  Well, that's part of the reason I just really liked the play.

Plus, Kate completely SCHOOLS the women at the end of the play, which I thought was kind of cool.  The male kind of takes a backseat to Kate, which is a big deal when we're talking late 1500s Shakespeare.

10 Things I Hate About You is a modern adaptation to this play, and I pretty much LOVE that movie.  I mean, Heath Ledger singing?  What is not to love (plus, a really young Joseph Gordon Levitt.)

By Its Cover: The Laramie Project

I hadn't scrutinized this cover very carefully before I read the play. If you had asked me, while I was reading it, what the cover looked like (and didn't let me peek), I would have said it was blue and had white condensed text. While technically correct, that doesn't cover the meaning of the image presented on this cover.

Had I looked carefully at this image before reading it, I would have said they chose it because Matthew Shepard was found on the side of the road.

Without giving away one of the best parts of the play, I can tell you that Matthew Shepard's father made a statement at the trial of one of his son's killers. In that statement, he talks about how Matthew was not alone on the side of the road like everyone said he was. (He had his old friends of nature like the sky and wind, and God.) This image encompasses that idea quite well, and is probably the real reason it was chosen.

 

 

I think it's beautiful and pertinent, and - like the story - it is both simple and deeply complex simultaneously.

 

I did not have the same cover as Alex.  This is what mine looked like.

 

 

It's dull, it's boring and it has absolutely nothing to do with the text.  I'm pretty sure it's from this one company that mass produces plays (cheaply), so none of them have fancy covers.  They all look like this, but maybe with a different colored cover (I had a couple that followed this pattern in college.) 

 

You can tell that these books are meant to be used by actors and actresses and such to learn their lines and not meant to be the forefront to the general public (which... is fine because, honestly, I don't really think the cast NEEDS fancy covers.  They probably just want to learn their lines.)

Review Me Twice: The Laramie Project

I mentioned yesterday that one thing I like about reading this play is that it has less stage direction. The only notes I recall were about different parties going sotto voce (meaning they keep talking in the background, but very quietly so the focus is on the next person speaking), and a few mentions of important dramatic cues like lights fading on a character.

If you aren't familiar with the Matthew Shepard murder, the beginning of the book can be confusing (or a good lead-in, if you're a patient reader, dropping a few hints but saving the meat of the explanation for later). Although Matthew Shepard was attacked when Cassy and I were 11 and 12, I did remember enough to know what was going on.

I think Kaufman and the Tectonic Theater Project did a good job of finding (1) key players in the story (the young man who first discovered Shepard; one of the first responders; the man at the hospital who did the press releases; two very different-minded religious leaders in Laramie) and (2) representing the different viewpoints and ideas of the varied group of people who make up the town. They also, from what I can tell, did not bother Shepard's family, and made every effort to be respectful of everyone involved.

I like that the story is told in the voices of real people. It's like what Max Brooks did with World War Z, except non-fiction.

Here's the thing about plays:  They're meant to be seen.  This is probably the only time that I will recommend you go pick up a movie or go see the play as opposed to reading the actual content.

The Laramie Project is one of those plays that this rule is even more pertinent than most plays.  Most plays you have a set number of characters and so that makes it pretty easy to follow along on what's happening.  The Laramie project has a ridiculous amount of characters you need to follow, and it's incredibly easy to lose track of whose who.  When you WATCH it, however, you recognize the faces, so it's not bad at all.

After reading this play, I picked up a copy of the movie (it had Joshua Jackson in it, so auto-awesome.)  I'm glad I did, because there were a lot of powerful moments that you don't get from reading the play.

It was well written, though, and respectful to what was going on.  It also, surprisingly, didn't show off all religions as evil.  It showed both sides to religion.  The Baptist minister was a jerk, but the Catholic Priest was the best.  He held the vigil for Matthew, and was the only church leader to do so (both Baptists and Mormons opting out.)  He basically said, "It was right, and you should do what's right."

I, unlike Alex, don't remember this happening as a kid.  But you learn a lot from it.  For instance, the Angel Action started with Matthew Shepard.

Often, they come to funerals that the Westboro Baptist Church comes to (or any other protesters, but we all know WBC is the worst), and they stand in front of the protesters and block their view with giant wings so that the families can have privacy.  Romaine Patterson (a good friend of Matthew's) started it at McKinney and Henderson's trial.  (On a side note, here's a list of awesome ways people (peacefully) protest the Westboro Baptist Church, many of these things stemming from the Angel Action.  If you look close, there's even a sign that says "Hate is not a Syracuse Value" which was on a sign in Laramie.)

It's a good play, but you should really WATCH it, rather than read it.  And make sure you have a box of tissues when you do.

Reading Plays

Even as an English major who enjoyed reading, I had a very difficult time in the theater class I took in undergrad, where all we did was read and understand plays. The main problem was that I didn't find the selected plays particularly interesting (Ubu Roi? Seriously?) but many students also found it difficult because plays are different from novels.

Dialogue

One big difference is that the majority of a play is conveyed in dialogue. I'm sure there are novels out there that attempt this, but the vast majority do not.

Personally, I find this difficult because I tend to skip over reading who is talking. You can usually understand, based on context, who is talking, because there typically aren't a lot of characters sharing the stage. But when there are, or voiceovers get involved, it can get confusing if you don't actually hear the different voices speaking.

Stage Direction

Usually, if a play has been republished to be read by the average reader, a lot of this is removed. The technical terms might be omitted or "translated," and much of the emotional, directional, and positional instruction is reduced to a line or two here and there. But it's still important to keep track of it, because you don't have a narrator telling you, "He approached her from behind, startling her." He just shows up and starts talking, and you're left to understand why she was startled.

Exposition is Presented Differently

In a novel, the narrator can spend chapters explaining who this character is, how he's related to the others, what his personality is like and what his motivations for his actions are. In a play, the character just shows up and you have to figure all this out for yourself based on what he and other characters say and do. For some, this is easier to follow; for others, it's more difficult. It is harder to write, though, because a novelist can write, "He always wanted to open a restaurant." A playwright shouldn't have the character tell all his friends/family, "I've always wanted to open a restaurant" because they should already know this about him. Maybe a monologue is in order in this particular situation, but that can still come across as patronizing to the audience. It has to be worked in smoothly.

Visual Cues Aren't... Visual

Plays are meant to be seen and heard and experienced in person. Sure, you can read a stage direction like "she flies into the air mysteriously" but it doesn't have the same impact as watching an actress mysteriously float upward. The page might tell you that a man is dressed to the nines and has a pompous swagger, but without watching him do it, your brain is entrusted to remember that character trait every time you read his parts. A novel can remind you over and over again: "He swaggered into the room like he owned the place and said..." "Displaying his typical holier-than-thou demeanor, he..." "She detested his excessive show of wealth but she couldn't deny that under that egotistical outer shell, he must..." Plays don't do this for you, unless you're watching them.

Favorite Play

I know, it's the favorite play of everyone and their cat right now, but I love this play. It's beautiful, it's moving, the songs stick in your head like cement... I love everything about it. I first fell in love with it when I saw it performed by a local high school. I have never been more impressed with a theatrical production (and I've seen shows on Broadway). It was incredible.

And I can't name another play that I would be willing to sit and watch if all the characters were standing still at microphones the entire time. (If you're confused, no, most presentations don't do that. But I have watched the one where they did that and it was still amazing.)

The book, on the other hand... let's just say my goal is to finish it before I die, and I don't think I'll make it. To be fair, I am trying to read it in French, which makes it a bit more difficult, but come on, M. Hugo... we really don't need that detailed a description of the layout of the home of the abbe. If you jump into that book expecting to hear about Jean Valjean and how he's inmate 24601 right off the bat, you will be disappointed. You have to get through endless pages about someone barely related to the story told in the play. Be ready for that.

There are just... so many plays that I like.  Rent is unmistakably wonderful and the music is beautiful.  I saw Hello, Dolly in High School and made me irrevocably fall in love with it and its wit and humor.  But, in all the years I've been going to see plays, there is one that never ceases to capture my heart.

I first saw Proof when I was in college, and it was wonderfully done.  They only had a one room set, but the actors were amazing and the play was right up in your face.  It was a very intimate setting, enough that you felt like you were IN the play.

It's told in a series of flashbacks.  The play starts with Catherine talking to her father, only to find that she's talking to his ghost.  We continually see flash backs to her father's life.  He was a mathematical genius, but one who eventually went crazy.  She's afraid that she's inherited not only his genius  but also his crazy.

There is this one, powerful, amazing moment when we think that her father has gotten his smarts back, his sanity, his life, only to see it come crashing down in an instant.  It was that moment that made me love the play, that wonderful, heartbreaking moment.

If you get a chance to see it, I highly recommend it.  Also, see the PLAY not the movie.  The movie doesn't do it enough justice.

Author Bio: Moises Kaufman

This week, we'll be reviewing The Laramie Project, a play about the murder of Matthew Shepard, created by Moises Kaufman and the members of Tectonic Theater Project.

Kaufman, after deciding that he wanted to work on a project about the Shepard murder, presented the idea to his theater group. They all went to Laramie, Wyoming to interview everyone they could. Those interviews became The Laramie Project; Kaufman used the words of Laramie residents themselves to represent the town and the events surrounding Matthew Shepard.

For those of you who don't remember, in 1998, two young men picked up 21-year-old University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard in a bar, drove him out into the country, and beat him severely, leaving him to die. Shepard was found, taken to the hospital and died a few days later. The attack sparked national debate about hate crime laws, because Shepard was gay.


Kaufman also write Gross Indecency: The Three Trials of Oscar Wilde and 33 Variations, about a musicologist's investigation into Beethoven's decision to compose 33 variations of a basic musical theme.

The Laramie Project opened in Denver, then moved to New York, and was brought to Laramie in November 2000 (shortly after the two-year anniversary of Shepard's death). It was adapted to a film directed by Kaufman in 2002.

His theater group, Tectonic Theater Project, has a website you can check out here, and you can find them on Facebook or follow them on Twitter.