The Iraq Wars Lecture

The Gulf Wars

Iran - Iraq war

Iran was taken over by islamic fundamentalists
The government was neutral rather than being controlled by one muslim group
USA funded the Iraqis to avoid the spread of islamic fundamentalists
The Berlin war came down in 1989 and soviet union dissolves
American focus then shifts from Europe to the middle east

The more oil that's produced reduces the price of it which ruins the economy which is why the wester world wants to control the oil flow

Invation of Kuwait
Saddam Hussein accuses Kuwait of stealing Iraq's oil
He demanded 2 billion dollars
He blamed kuwait for the overproduction of oil
George Bush did nothing to prevent invasion and in 1990 Iraq forces attacked

Saddam Hussein was a dictator was a right wing military dictator with a secular façade

America had an oil deal with kuwait so america went to the UN and posed economic sanctions on Iraq

Operation Dessert Shield

after 9/11 the war on terror was declared

This house is going to be in a stable area of the region housing american troops after operation Desert Storm.
Pro american base in Jordan

5. SHAKESPEARE TODAY

Analysis of contemporary Shakespeare Productions with reference to live/filmed performances i may have seen. I should comment on what i notice about them and how they differ from what i know about the original performance conditions of Shakespeare's work

This post is written based on my watching of...

...Othello, 1989, The Other Place, RSC Stratford-Upon-Avon, The Young Vic (Recording)
Henry VI, 2012, Donmar, All female cast (Live)...

in comparison to the research i've conducted on Shakespeare and his productions in the Elizabethan Era

Technology, Staging, Acting and Audiences, 

In both of the productions i watched technology played a minor part. They both employed basic artificial lighting allowing them to create night/daytime scenes with greater ease. The actors of Othello were mic'd making projection not particularly necessary. The revolution of technology made the production of props and costume a lot easier and affordable so there were a number of detailed props and set that most likely wouldn't have been possible in Shakespeare's era.

They were both set indoors as opposed to in amphitheatres like The Globe, however, there were indoor theatres in Shakespeare's time, despite them being a fairly new concept, so this could be considered a similar aspect of the productions. Henry IV was staged in thrust similar to the Globe's many production in the Elizabethan era, however, Othello was Proscenium though this was different as it was filmed. By filming the production there is a new found sense of intimacy and for scenes like Iago's (played by Sir Ian McKellen) monologues, he can break the 4th wall and stare directly into our eyes through the camera. There's also a range of possibilities in volume as Iago tends to whisper "aside" lines expressing the duality to such a well known villain in a revolutionary but somewhat familiar way.

As Henry IV was performed with such a small audience, there was a heightened sense of intimacy and actors could play with volume to an extent but still had to fill the room. The cast of both productions were mostly classically trained drama school alumni and so had developed a repertoire of skills including naturalism which of course actors in Elizabethan plays did not.

Audiences have dramatically changed and the art form itself is completely different. Henry IV even employed physical theatre which is abstract theatre and definitely wouldn't have featured in an Elizabethan production however dance was commonly be incorporated which can be seen as origins of theatres development.

Society

Society has changed and therefore have a number of aspects of Shakespeare's plays. Othello is now often, if not always, played by a black actor and female characters are often, if not always. played by a woman (though i have heard in some cases that directors have subverted the traditional roles.)

Contemporary directors are known to make any number of artistic choices when exploring Shakespearean texts, they look to approach the work from/at a different angle and tell the story in a way that it hasn't been told before (seeing as it has been told the same way internationally for hundreds of years.) An example of this could be when Phyllida Lloyd/Harriet Walter's all-female cast Placed the play "Henry IV" in a women not only subverting the gender but also switching up the class of the characters, the setting of the play and the time period the story takes place in. It was fresh, exciting, gripping and incredible to say the least. Shakespeare's original Henry IV would no doubt have been a lot more grave and serious as the all female cast found comedy through irony of the gender decision. Part of what was so captivating about this performance was the political stance and strong feminist outlining message which completely juxtaposes the original text. If i'm being entirely honest, seeing a production of the same play as Shakespeare intended after watching that performance at the Donmar would have likely proved boring, the unjust and outdated politics of Elizabethan theatre may have even angered me from the patriotism to the misrepresentation / mistreatment of women.

Trevor Nunns, Othello was definitely a lot closer to the original productions but this was set during the american civil war and Othello (as well as Bianca, interestingly) were played by people of colour, as opposed to the original production. In the all female Henry IV production the artistic casting decision is more of a granted fact than a political message seeing as Othello was in fact a Moor. The idea of someone putting on make-up to darken their skin is now something completely politically incorrect. Similar to the Henry IV show, if I were to watch the original Othello production i would most likely find it offence. As mentioned in the previous post i'm also unsure as to weather Othello was played with sincerity or not but Willard White played Othello in a much more naturalistic manor which in turn built pathos for the character. I feel that the original portrayal of Othello may have been somewhat minstrel-esque.

It is said that Literature is a reflection of the society in which it is written in and since the Elizabethan era it can be said that quite a lot has changed therefore the art form of theatre has changed. Despite this, there are a number of things relevant to a Shakespearean audience that still resonates with audiences today. Themes such as jealousy, pity, fear, joy etc. and how they are so well communicated through William Shakespeare's writing is probably why his works are still so popular 400 years later.

4. THEATRES, ACTORS AND ACTING IN SHAKESPEARE’S TIME

What were the theatres or "playhouses" of Shakespeare's plays like?

The City officials didn't like the disruption theatres caused so most theatres were built outside the boundaries of council control. Theatres were categorised with animal baiting arenas, brothels and taverns in Elizabethan entertainment/pastime 

Indoor Theatres
Indoor Theatres were smaller than outdoor theatres and held mere hundreds as opposed to thousands.
They were often built in pre-existing buildings and were a more expensive to view than outdoor shows. They offered artificial lighting as well as windows (natural lighting).The stages were also smaller creating a more intimate setting than the amphitheatres but making it a lot more difficult to perform battle scenes.

In terms of the cast/actors, until 1609 indoor theatres were only used by boy companies (aged 7-early 20s.) These companies came from choir schools and only played once a week as opposed to the adults companies who performed every day. Post 1609 adult companies began working in indoor theatres which is a trend that stuck and became the mode (as it is now).

The audiences of indoor plays were largely more educated, wealthy and of a higher social class, contrary to outdoor theatre audiences. It wasn't uncommon for Shakespeare's company and other groups to put productions on in palaces for royalty which was obviously quite a different experience to performing to London's drunk and unruly working class. Indoor theatres had more music, extravagant props (more intimacy = more attention to detail), and more speeches than acting. You could imagine that this would be a totally different and new experience/challenge for actors as there is less of a need for explicit performance. They essentially took a step towards what would later be known as naturalism.

When working as part of The Kings Men (adult company), Shakespeare would have used both The Globe (outdoor theatre) and The Blackfriars (indoor theatre) and put on well known plays in both performance spaces.

Outdoor Theatres and The Globe

Ampitheatres and playhouses like the Globe were cheaper and great in the summer were largely out of use through the winter months whereas indoor theatres would operate all year round. They all had an open sky. "The Theatre" was built by a man named when Shakespeare was around 12 and still living in Stratford. It was one of the first of many structurally, with a central exposed yard surrounded by three tiers of sheltered seating and a raised stage. Shakespeare's company the "Lord Chaimberlains Men" were one of many groups to perform at the famed theatre when it was first built, it was then reconstructed to form a bigger playhouse just south of the thames (now named the globe) which the Lord Chaimberlains Men company held shares in. The Globe opened in 1599 and hosted some of Shakespeare's most famed works. The Globe burned down during a performance of Henry Viii and a new second Globe was built on the same spot and eventually opening 1614. 

How were plays staged in these playhouses?

The Globe employs the most common and earliest used type of stage in western theatre, the thrust stage. It was popular amongst ancient greek theatres in the 6th century, most playhouses at the time and even theatres now. I think this style is popular because there is a greater intimacy between performer and audience and of course a greater audience capacity meaning more money.

The stage itself was more often than not completely bare, (similar to Grotowskis methods) putting pressure on playwrights such as shakespeare to create vivid imagery through text and moreover the actors to convey the writing and make the story / the world of the play more believable. An object or prop would only be on stage if it was absolutely necessary to the plot. Scenery was minimal or often non existent, this was also probably due to lack of finances and the fact that plays were often temporary to either be toured or replaced. Directors had the option of sending actors on from the heavens or the hell (the trap door below the stage). Exits and entrances aside from this were in plain view of the audience.

Plays had to be versatile as they were often toured between a number of different spaces such as outdoor theatre's, indoor theatres, royal palaces, courtyard. This resulted in shows where only the necessities were used by directors in terms of scenery and props.

Special Effects
Special effects were used but only sporadically as it was often expensive (for equipment and operators). Stage combat and battles on stage weren't uncommon. Most of the work in terms of special effects were illustrated through language by the writers and actors of Shakespeare's day, however there were certain effects that were in fact possible, to the amazement of an Elizabethan audience who firmly believed in witches and magic. Audiences in fact looked forward to seeing special effects and hearing music as a part of their over all theatrical experience. There wasn't exactly a wide variety of effects they could make either. Most of the effects were based on the creation/illusion of a storm. (a popular convention in Shakespeare's plays)

The Creation of Thunder Storms
Drums were beat off stage/ a cannonball was rolled across the floor of the heavens. If the theatre was lucky they might have a thunder machine which worked on a similar concept (a wooden box balanced like a see-saw with a cannon ball rolling from end to end producing the sound of thunder.) Lightning flashes were made by throwing a flammable powder into a candle flame, the powder would create a flash mimicking that of lightning. Lightning bolts were created by machines called swevels. A wire was fixed from the roof to the stage, a firecracker was fixed to the wire and lit on que. The firecracker would shoot from the top of the wire to the bottom, making sparks as it descended.

Smoke
A lot of theatre companies used smoke as an effect for magic or fire. Actual fire was rarely used due to the buildings being fade of flammable materials such as wood or hay. They could produce a variety of colours in smoke including black, white, yellow and red.

The Danger of Special effects 
Special effects were potentially dangerous which is evident in the burning down of The Globe in 1613 during a performance of Henry VIII. Many ingredients used to create special effects smelt bad such as sulphur (produces a smell commonly likened to that of rotten eggs) and saltpetre (a substance made from dung. Both of these substances were used to make gunpowder used in performances.

When the Witches in Macbeth conjure their spells ("fog and filthy air") It is likely that the theatre would have been filled with putrid if not dangerous smells

Who were the actors of Shakespeare's plays and did the experience of being an actor then, differ from the experience of being an actor today?

Society / Morals

Only males were allowed to be on Elizabethan stages meaning that female characters were played by men and boys which is interesting seeing as being transgender/homosexual was far from accepted in that society. I mention homosexuality because these boys playing girls would've had to kiss men playing their characters husband/love interest. I wonder why drag/homosexuality was completely acceptable in a theatrical setting but not at all in general society. People of colour also obviously weren't allowed anywhere near theatres meaning that white actors would play roles such as Othello raising questions of the writers intentions. Did Shakespeare mean for Othello to seem relatable and gain audience empathy or did he paint the message that Moors are savage, mentally unstable murderers who will bring about tragedy. Seeing a white actor playing this part in that social climate would definitely prove interesting. I wonder if Othello was played so as to build pathos or played satirically. In 1822 a soldier on guard duty shot the actor playing Othello saying "It will never be said in my presence a confounded negro has killed a white woman" making me question the politics of certain shakespearian theatrical decisions. 

Projection

Of course amphitheatres are still used and performed in today but in the elizabethan era there was no form of amplification and outdoor performing was the norm making good projection a fundamental aspect of acting. Actors would not only have to battle with the natural ambience but also the bumbling spectators whilst reaching back to audience members in the thousands. The popularisation of Indoor theatres meant that actors were less inclined to shout for miles and they could access more hushed tones which became even more apparent with the much later modern technology of screen acting.

Training
Actors were often expected to be able to fence on stage, sing songs or play instruments and perform challenging acrobatic dances as well as act to (what was considered then) a high standard. Training would often start as a young boy. Most actors would join a company as an apprentice and be mentored by a senior actor. Nowadays actors apply for Drama Schools" where they pay large sums of money to spend a number of years "training" and are then be dumped back into the industry with no experience, and lacking opportunities.

Casting
Women were playing female roles around Europe but in England boys still played roles such as Ophelia and Desdemona and men playing older female parts (often comic roles played by a popular comedian/clown.) Some actors were renowned for playing certain roles which led to characters being written for particular actors such as Much Ado's Dogberry being written for renowned actor at the time William Kemp as he was so good with physical comedy. In this respect not a great deal has changed. Elizabethan audiences looked forward to seeing big names/their favourite actors perform, much like today where terrible actors such as John Travolta are payed huge amounts of money to play roles badly.

Companies

Theatre companies drastically varied depending on money and where the company was working. Most companies were based in London or other cities with high population, but companies did tour England or sometimes even nearby countries such as Germany or Holland. A wealthy company performing in a theatre might've had 8-12 seniors and 3-4 boys, a number of hired men (to play insignificant roles), stage hands, tiremen (who helped actors change costumes) and some musicians. Companies were formed under the patronage of a monarch or nobleman, such as "The Queens Men" or "Lord Chamberlain's Men". Nowadays it's much easier to start a theatre company and driven young thespians such as Daisy Ashby-Hawkins can start a theatre company with a less serious name. A name such as Pie Face Theatre.

Preparing For a Part

Whereas now an actor would thoroughly research their part, look into physicality/voice choices, action their scripts etc. an actors job in Shakespeare's day was simply to know lines and cues

Payment

Most company worked using a shareholder system and sharers earned more than hired men. Shakespeare was a sharer of the Chamberlains Men and later the Kings Men. There was more money in London so actors would get paid more for performing in the city however there was also a lot more competition. This still stands today and is why most of the big/popular theatres are located in the capital (e.g. The National Theatre, Donmar, Young/Old Vic The Royal Court Theatre etc.)

Costume

Actors typically wore modern (at the time) attire, and lead parts would wear beautiful clothes as a reflection of their status. At the time, clothes reflected status and were therefore an important part of theatre. Costumes were often a major investment for the theatre companies as they could be transported easily if toured unlike other aspects of theatre we take for granted today. Companies would buy second hand clothes from real-life nobles (royalty, highly ranked figures in society etc.) On the other side of the scale, smaller parts may have worn their own clothes. In a year a company would spend an approximate equivalent of £35.000 on costume. Actors often left each other clothes/costumes in their wills showing just how valued they were.

If the play called for it (was set in ancient Greece or Rome) characters may have worn a simple toga but the costumes generally weren't at all historically accurate. 

When portraying women actors would wear simple, ordinary clothes and more importantly wigs, which determined a lot about the character in terms of class and age. This was shown through the colour of the wig (e.g. grey or blonde) and style (e.g. more fashionable hair-styles or less fashionable hair styles)

Make-up

Similar to costume, make-up helped convey the character and therefore convey the story. Black facing was common for actors playing Moors (Othello) which now would be considered racist, however black people were far from having any rights so this was normal to society. At the time it was considered that desirable women were pale and make-up reflected this in desirable female characters such as Juliet. Presumably this idea existed as paler women hadn't been labouring in the sun as the lower classes did. This ideology exists in places like Cuba and juxtaposes the modern western trend of women wanted to look darker. 

A white face, red cheeks and a blonde wig made a boy a beautiful young woman. Crushed pearls or sliver were often put in make-up to create a shimmering effect. This was popularised by the rise of indoor productions and emphasised by candle-light.

Some records show that people (early make-up artists) were hired to paint the actors faces but they most likely, more often than not did it themselves.

3. SHAKESPEARE'S LONDON AND ELIZABETHAN AUDIENCES

What was London like in Elizabeth times and who were the people attending the theatre?

LONDON

What was it like in London?
Despite already being great for it's time, London was continuing to grow... a lot. Between 1550 and 1600 the population went from around 50,000 people to 200,000. The city was expanding and every available space was being built on, which still applies even now where councils are running out of space (in terms of land) and having to build upwards. London was horrifically overcrowded with visitors describing streets as "dark and narrow",  making it subject to the quick spread of plague (especially in the summertime) In 1593 around 10,000 people died of the plague causing all of the theatres to close.

Why was Shakespeare in London?
As previously touched (in question one), Shakespeare spent a lot of his working life in the city of London. London was and still is where you'll find large audiences and quantities of money/consumerism. Around 20.000 people went to theatre each week, it was firmly a part of english culture. Even the crown endorsed theatre pushing money and legal support into (mostly just London based) theatre companies. Between 1603 - 1613 Shakespeare's company performed at King James' court around 15 times a year. London was clearly the central hub for theatre and money making in general.

Where did Shakespeare live/work and why? (roughly 1590 - 1613)

• The London parish of St Helen's (mid 1590's) - It was close to The Theatre and The Curtain
• Paris Gardens, Bankside, South of the river Thames (1598-1602) - It was near The Globe
• Silver Street (around 1602) - Once he was famed and wealthy, he rented this house off of a rich French family who made luxurious expensive hats.

London Landscape incl. the globe (top right)

AUDIENCES

Audience attention spans
As so many people attended theatres plays had rather short runs before they were replaces. In the space of 80 years around 3,000 new plays were written simply to attract crowds. Much like todays industry (especially in the film/tv industry) violence, music, special effects and comedy was used to keep the audiences attention. It was especially important to keep audiences happy in these times as if they weren't they would militantly make their points heard.

Who Attended Theatre?
Generally, a mixture of different people. More men attended than women especially in the lower classes but this isn't unexpected in such a society. In some theatres diversity was richer than others but the globe was quite good and rightly so seeing as it had the capacity to hold around 1,500 people. Royalty didn't really attend public theatre but theatre companies and actors would sometimes be summoned to perform at the courts of Elizabeth the first and James 1.

Class and Money
In terms of pricing, Shakespeare's audiences (at the globe) would have been pretty diverse for it's time though, there was still a strong sense of segregation between classes in terms of where in the theatre they would be placed. The working class (e.g. tradesmen) may have been able to attend on occasion but the lower classes (which made up a substantial proportion of London's populous) could barely afford to eat, let alone go to watch theatre. The upper classes most likely would have regularly attended theatre as a social event. To simply stand in the pit it would cost one penny (nearly an entire days wage). To be seated in the Galleries it would cost 2 pence. To be placed in the Gentlemen's room's it would cost 6 pence and The Lords' room 1 shilling (12 pence).

A Swiss doctor, visiting from Basel commented on the pricing and his experience of the globe saying.

"Anyone who remains on the level standing pays only one English penny: if he wants to sit, he is let in at a farther door, and there he gives another penny. If he desires to sit on a cushion in the most comfortable place of all, where he not only sees everything well, but can also be seen then he gives yet another English penny.In the pauses of the comedy food and drink are carried round amongst the people and one can thus refresh himself at his own cost." - Thomas Platter

Audience members may have drank ale (at the lack of availability of clean water) or snacked on fruits and nuts. Excavations have resulted in the discovery of cutlery, oyster shells, bottles etc. pointing towards the notion that theatre audience consisted mostly of the rich and wealthy. Other theatres such as the Blackfriars held fewer people but ultimately cost a lot more (basic tickets started at a sixpence, and the super rich could buy tickets at the side of the stage for 2 shillings)

The Globe Theatre layout

Audience Behaviour
Audiences were a lot more unruly in comparison to todays silent, respectful spectators. They were loud clustered and prone to distraction from the drama off the stage.

"You will see such heaving and shoving, such itching and shouldering... such care for their garments that they be not trod on... such toying, such smiling, such winking, such manning them home that it is a right comedy to mark their behaviour" - Stephen Gosson (1554 - 1624)

I feel that theatre was more of a social event than a form affair where people would drink converse and argue rather than attentively watch and analyse. It must have been pretty irritating for the real theatre enthusiasts to pay attention whilst such ruckus surrounds them. Audiences would clap for heroes and boo/hiss villains much like the modern day pantomime. It was common to have thieves attending theatre events as it was one of the rare social events that brought the rich/poor together which thieves obviously saw as n opportunity.

2. SHAKESPEARES LIFE AND BIOGRAPHY

Research Shakespeare's life, ensuring you include information about his origins, family, relationships, the world he lived in and questions surrounding his work.

(the most accurate portrait of Shakespeare though it was probably biased in terms of flattery)

• Where was he born? - Stratford Upon Avon, Henley Street
• Where was he from? - He grew up in Stratford until he was old enough to marry and it was here that he spent the first five years of his family life with his wife Anne Hathaway.
• What was it like? - As written in the previous blog life was pretty simple.
• What was Stratford Upon Avon like? - Seeing as stratford upon avon was a town/market town there was more of a sense of community. It was based in a farming area of the midlands.
• How big was the town? - compared to a modern town it was a generally small town but it was considered as a central hub and quite busy, even after the population reduction due to the page.
• How many inhabitants? - About 1000 people lived there.
• What surrounded it? - farmland, forests etc
• Who was his family? (mum, dad, 2 older sisters that didn't survive infancy, three younger brothers and two younger sisters one of which who didn't survive infancy)
• What were his relationships? (women, men, people he worked with, his kids)

Birth - April 23, 1564 (or within a few days previously) as this is when he was baptised
Siblings - He grew up as the oldest of his surviving siblings (Gilbert, Richard, Edmund and Joan)
Parents- His father (John Shakespeare) was a leatherworker (specialising in soft white gloves) a prosperous businessman. His mother was Mary Arden of the well respected Arden family. His father became the bailiff of Stratford (essentially the town mayor) but then left the public eye.

When he was still a baby the bubonic plague killed about 200 of Stratford's population

Schooling

He was attended a grammar school at the age of seven and most likely put in a class of boys all different ages to learn to read, speak and write in Latin. They also learnt to memorise and perform historic stories which was probably Williams first experience of the theatrical arts. The school days would last from sunrise to sun set which was around 7 to 5. Shakespeare himself often mentions/references fastidious school masters and is said to have not enjoyed school very much though there isn't much evidence of this being true. Similar to most other boys, it is likely that he left school aged fifteen and never attended university.

When his father left his position of bailiff William worked in his fathers glove maker shop.

He lived in a big house but didn't have any food on the table.

Married Life
In late 1583 (aged 18) Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway, a local farmers daughter. Most men in this era were married at the age of 20 but shakespeare most likely married early as Anne Hathaway was 3 months or so pregnant with their first child, Susanna. He had two more children (Hamnet and Judith) twins who were most likely met with controversy and speculation from a world very much behind on medical knowledge. Shakespeare spent a lot of his time in London which was 100 miles away.

Later life
From about 1590 to 1613 Shakespeare practically lived in London and was supposedly a well known actor. He was also a playwright which is assuredly what cemented his name in history and made him a household name even 400 years after his death. He wrote about 40 plays including Henry VI which was performed at the Rose Theatre in 1592 which was excavated  and is currently/open to the public for historical reference. Shakespeare was actually a poet and in 1609 he published a book of 154 sonnets (a classically Italian poem form also known as "little poem") a lot of these poems were also romantic and more to it directed towards a male opening speculation to homosexuality/bisexuality.

Like his father Shakespeare was also a businessman (part owner of a theatre company and The Globe Theatre.) Making money solely from acting, writing and running a theatre company.

After 1613 Shakespeare spent more time back in Stratford-Upon-Avon. He died at the age of 52 (not seen as too old for the time and life expectancy) on the 23rd of April 1616. He is buried in Holy Trinity Church in Stratford-Upon-Avon where it is said that his head was taken by grave robbers, most likely for medical research purposes as he was famed for having a great mind.

My personal ideas surrounding his work

Shakespeare stole/adapted  a number of his story/play ideas. He took his stories from classical art either directly (e.g. Othello) he also wrote a lot of his tragedies in accordance to greek tragedy conventions (Aristotle's theories), his narratives are also often very similar to figures/stories in latin art, Italian folk tales etc. It wasn't looked down upon at all to take said ideas and adapt them and in a sense it isn't or shouldn't today. In context of modern day art and pop culture i would compare what Shakespeare did with older outlines and structures to what artists like Kanye West does with sampling, taking art and creating something original and new from it.

1. WHAT WAS LIFE LIKE IN ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND?

The Time Traveler's Guide to Elizabethan England (what life was like for the poor in the countryside of Elizabethan England)

• 1558 - Elizabeth was just crowned queen
• Life expectancy was around 40
• There were no distractions; it was a world of nature and basic necessities.
• People were fearful of the woods as it was mysterious dark and gloomy.
• There was no no sense of domestication, just pure wilderness.
• There was a massive divide between the rich and poor.
• Anything could happen in the wilderness.
• They lived in simplicity and survival
• Life was rural and wild. They worked and lived outdoors because there was nothing to do indoors.

This era was known as "England's golden age", Elizabeth the first was on the throne and the land was largely dominated by the rich and powerful enjoyed by these privileged few in the countryside many people were poor and faced a number of hardships on a daily basis.

About a quarter of England consisted of wild moors heaths, hills and wastelands which were considered as dangerous. There were no roads only trackways and paths. The Elizabethan people saw the terrains we would call scenic and beautiful as horrific and terrifying.

Living Conditions

Dotted around the countryside are small thatched cottages, some nearly hundreds of years old. It was common to see around 7 or 8 people living in these cramped spaces

It's constantly dark indoors, there are no lamps or light sources so you'd most likely go to sleep and wake up in complete darkness. Candles were expensive and poor families couldn't afford light, something we take for granted today!

The houses are extremely basic, just a single room and an earth floor. In the middle of said room would be a fire, almost permanently lit. Smoke would fill the room with only a hole in the roof and the windows (that were essentially just holes in the wall). There was no glass and only a shutter so they would let in cold quite easily. To prevent heat escaping the holes were as small as possible but the winter months still must have been nothing short agonising. The only possessions a common family would have were maybe pans, spoons, ladles a basket and a bench. They would more often than not sleep on the floor unless they were lucky enough to have a thin straw mattress. 

As there was nothing providing distraction and it was often too dark to see people paid attention to the smaller details in terms of hearing be it the fire, the wind or the outside world. 

the cold stuck so deep into them 

their flesh was eaten with vermin

and corrupt diseases grew on them

-City of Norwich, Orders for the poor.

Work

Elizabethan society worked much like a caste system, life in general was strictly divided by the class in which you were born into. 

Yeoman - might rent/own their farms and employ workers.

Husbandman - Rents the land that he works on.

Labourers - simply work on other peoples farms.

Because of the poor indoor conditions people spent most of their time outdoors. Working, playing or simply passing time.

As a poor person working in the countryside your options are very limited, your best bet is to go to farm offering your services as a labourer to yeoman and husbandmen. If you are lucky they might not only give you a job but also let you stay in a barn. Work starts a sunrise and ends at sunset. A days work is worth one Groat/a fourpence (2.1 grams of silver around the size and shape of a 20 pence coin) which can buy probably you some bread and butter a day. some meat/fish or ale by week because water was unsanitary. Simple things like getting married and having children often wasn't possible simply because they couldn't afford food.

Life in the English countryside for the poor, was a real struggle to survive.

Before Shakespeare

• The Reign of Henry the eighth marked the end of the medieval period in Britain and the beginning of the Early Modern Period.
• The church became separate from the state and there was a transition from a medieval society into a more capitalist society
• Henry the eighth became the head of the church in order to divorce his wife and re-marry. He transferred the great wealth of the monasteries to the state. He executed anyone who failed to comply with his demands. He died but the "Head of the Church of England" remained with the royalty, even now the queen is head of the church.
• After Henrys death his son takes over (Edward Vi), changing the english church to protestant before dieing of tuburculosis. 
• After Edward Vi came lady jane grey who reigned for 9 days before being executed by Mary (Bloody Mary) who executed and persecuted protestants accross england earning said informal title.
• Elizabeth (protestant) came after Mary, as she had no heir, and was obsessed with keeping peace and everyone being civil. She inforced what is now known as one of the first police states.

The General world

• It was a quickly developing stage in history
• It marked the end of the tudor period and the beginning of the Stuart period.
• It was a period of creative energy fuelled by a revival in interest and admiration for classical culture (Greek and Roman) this rung true in the fields of Art, Science, Literature and Philosophy.
• Existing beliefs were questioned and nothing was taken for granted
• It was a chaotic, constantly changing, turbulent time
• Infant mortality rate was high.
• During this period the Americas and west indies were discovered. The beginnings of slavery
• Information at the time was controlled by monk.
• Printing companies were made and information began being shared across languages cultures etc. making knowledge more accessible.

The World Into Which Shakespeare Was Born.

• Shakespeare was born in Stratford, England.
• Shakespeare was an example of how people were able to transfer between classes and become rich when born poor for example.

Population

England wasn’t nearly as populated in 1564 as it is today which was evident in the general landscape. The year before (1563) there was a plague outbreak (the black death) killing around 20,000 people in London and 75-200 million in Europe. It killed 30%-60% of Europe’s population and reduced the world population from around 450 million to 350 million.

Entertainment

As mentioned prior there wasn’t much to distract the common man from their harsh every day life. There was next to no entertainment in the countryside but closer to the city (London). Men would go to the market fairs, talk, play basic games (draughts, chess) bowl etc. Women would gossip and do communal activities such as sewing or spinning. Proper entertainment such as jesters, sports, jousting etc. were only available to royalty and the rich/wealthy. Because of the lack of entertainment rumours gossip and superstition was popular as it proved such an effective pass time. There was a lack of privacy and everything was public.

Religion

The two prevalent religions were Catholic and Protestants. This civil war burned brightly throughout this era leading to a number of deaths and executions on both sides.

Protestantism is a form of Christianity which originated from a movement against what was thought to be the errors of the catholic churches. They believed that the bible is the highest authority, that Christians are pardoned for sins if they simply have faith in Christ and that they should be the highest authority in society.

During the 1560’s Catholics began to drift into conformity. The two universities were purged of Catholics. It is fair to say that they weren’t the mainstream belief of the time. Bloody Mary was a militant Catholic ruler. Elizabeth believed that everyone would be able to practice their faiths as they will.

Superstition

Elizabethans commonly believed in Witches (including flying brooms, potions and old crones/an old woman who is associated with magic). They also believed in luck superstitions such as sneezing, peacock feathers, spilling salt and pepper, touch wood ladders and black cats). This was most likely due to a lack of scientific knowledge and a lack of education to the vast population. Around 247 people were burned for "witchcraft" all without a doubt innocent. People who didn't believe in superstitions, witchcraft, devils etc. were deemed insane. 

Medicine

Not much was understood about the human body and medicine in general in the 1650s. A lot of "knowledge" in the field was adopted from superstitions and religious beliefs. Illnesses were believed to be punishments from god and anyone attempting to heal people were accused of interfering with gods will. This ideology is still present in certain groups such as the amish and mormons.

Toothache: take a candle and burn it close to the tooth so that the worms that are causing the troubles will fall out

Evil spirits in the head (headaches): Cut a hole in the head to let the evil spirits out

General illness - show love to god and drink holy water

CHARACTER

Much Ado About Nothing

-By William Shakespeare

My Character: LEONATO

Before the start of Term / My initial approach to the script

-

My first step in approaching the script was to go straight ahead and read through the script. I didn’t understand a lot of the play but I got an idea of what the

In preparation for rehearsals and to help me gain a greater understanding of the script I watched the David Tennant/Catherine Tate 2011 staging of Much Ado About Nothing that was put in modern context, similar to ours.

Leonato Analysis 

(Based on my interpretation of the script and the portrayal by JONATHAN COY)

·      He's  a bumbly character which shows through both the text and Coy's interpretation.

·      He's often seemingly comfortable (in terms of physicality) most likely as the majority of the play is set in his house.

·      He's quite old.

·      He's humorous though this is sometimes through the audience laughing at him rather than with him.

·      He's humble despite his high status.

·      He's inquisitive and a lot of the time wants to understand what's happening around him.

·      He's jolly and seems to take pleasure in seeing others/his guests happy.

·      He's accepting and welcoming of outsiders.

·      He's powerful and respected by everyone around him.

·      He's commanding and able to take control of a situation.

   He's generally warm and welcoming but he has the ability to switch and be very serious when necessary.

Accent Work
I started out by picking up significant sounds that are pronounced differently in the accent partly based off of my own knowledge (having muslim family friends) and some youtube videos.

·      w = wh

·      I + ee

·      d = t

·      V = F

·      A= ah

·      O = ohh

·      R’s are rolled

·      L’s are placed at the back/sides of the tongue rather than the tip

·      T’s are said with the middle of the tongue rather than the tip

I struggled to roll my R’s and sometimes I slipped into a Russian accent out of habit but after a while I trained my mouth not to and learnt avoid it. I also watched a few you tube videos of arab accents and noticed that the R roles are softer and less prominent than that present in a Russian accent.

My pronunciation of vowels began to sound Italian at one point but I avoided this simply by learning to strengthen my mouth and engage certain muscles that I don’t so much usually.

My primary reference for my accent was actually a YouTube clip, originally intended as a comedy sketch video. In it the speaker impersonates a number of Arab caricatures such as a Sudanese government spokesperson and a Syrian school teacher.

Initial Notes on Physicality

I first envisioned Leonato somewhat feeble from old age and perhaps his earlier years (maybe he was a soldier himself). He is definitely older than the other characters (e.g. soldiers) and not as physically fit/capable.

My Character in Relation to Others

• Who i openly like: At the beginning Leonato likes everyone but is probably, to some extent, annoyed/irritated by the american visitors.
• Who i secretly like: Most of his affection is consistent outwardly and inwardly.
• Who i openly dislike: Though short lived Leonato expresses some discontent towards hero out of shame after the accusations that she was not loyal to her husband on her wedding day. He then recognises the princes, Claudio, Margaret and Borachio as the true perpetrators. By the end tho only person he does make amends with is Don John
• Who i secretly dislike: Once again he is quite consistent in who he likes and who he does not, there is not much secrecy to his affection although he does pretend to like the "villains" in accordance to the Friar/Benedick's plot.

Who is my enemy: Leonato is somewhat of a loved character throughout the play and although he may have disliked people at certain points it's a stretch to say anyone is/was an enemy.

Who is my family: Hero (daughter), Beatrice (niece), Claudio (son in-law), Benedick (soon to be nephew in-law), Antonio (brother)

Who are my friends: Friar Francis, Dogberry (though often an annoyance to Leonato there are moments where the two characters seem quite close or at least thankful for each other),

Who are my acquaintances: The Soldiers, Margaret (maid), Ursula (maid), Don Pedro (guest), Don John (guest), Borachio (guest), Conrad (guest), Balthasar (guest), Verges (Dogberry's deputy), Watchmen (guards)

(In Script)
Beats/Moments/Thought changes = l
Poetic features
Objectives/Action the script so i know what i'm doing to the other person on every line

What people say about my character

"Your worship" (your followers) - Dogberry

"Sir" - Dogberry/Don John/Benedick

"Fatherly and kindly" - Claudio

"Signior" - Dogberry

"Noble sir" - Claudio

"I praise God for you" - Dogberry

Leonato is a highly held figure in society and is respected as a superior by everyone except the Friar as he's a member of the church and arguably socially higher than Leonato in the context of Shakespearean english values.

What i say about myself
He doesn't directly reference himself but some of his lines say a lot about him and reflect his character

Leonato is respected yet humble and thankful, this is interpreted through Leonato's patience and generosity with/towards dogberry.

He is commanding when he needs to be, this shown towards just about anyone in front of hime when he's angry or emotional.

Given circumstances - In the original play Leonato is governor of Messina and a unifying character meaning that he's linked to all of the plots and characters in some way or another.

My journey through the play

• Leonato invites the soldiers to his house
• Claudio and Hero's relationship develops, i eventually have to facilitate their wedding
• Somewhere in between, Leonato also helps in pushing Beatrice/Benadick together
• At the wedding Hero is outed as sexually impure shaming his family name
• Leonato essentially disowns Hero but clings on to hop by agreeing to the Friar and Benedicks plan to prove the whole incident is a mistake.
• The plan works, the dilemma is resolved and Leonato stages the wedding once more. This time the wedding goes through and the villains are discovered.

9 Questions

Who am i?
Leonato - Muslim, Arabic speaker, businessman

Diary Entry

Today (as most days now are) was not all that eventful but we get what we're given here. My daughter and niece are well so i thank god. There may be a new deal with an american company on the horizon so hopefully there's new wealth around the corner which we can put into renovations or treating my family. In these hard times a little can go a long way. The war rolls on and we roll along with it, hopefully it ends and they bring home what and who they left with. I think Hero has her eye on a certain young soldier so maybe it's time to save for a possible wedding? A little celebration may be just what this place needs.

What Time is it? (year, season, day/night)
90's decade (precise year unspecified by director)
There is no reference to the season in the play but it was originally put in Autumn/Winter
It is set over an unspecified timescale but most likely a few days

Where am i? (each scene)
The set is Leonato's house so he is essentially at home but his home is also the wedding venue. Throughout the play the house feels seemingly relaxing and festive.

In the context of our 90's adaptation the setting is a mansion/palace in the middle east on desert terrain by an american army base. It is hot, dry and sandy.

In Shakespeare's original context Messina is a bustling port city. The men returning from battle would most likely have viewed the place as a deserved respite from war. Messina is essentially an idyllic setting away from the dark realities of the war elsewhere. Leonato's house is perceived as beautiful by the reader as it's romanticised by the characters but this could simply be drawn in comparison to the savage setting of the war.

What surrounds me? (people/things)
I am surrounded by family, friends, american soldiers and local watchmen (guards)
There is a war going on in the background

What's happened to me before the scene starts? / What happens after it ends?
Before - Leonato hotly anticipates Hero and Claudio's wedding.
After - The wedding is celebrated, Don John is persecuted and in the near future i'm assuming that Beatrice and Claudio get married.

What's my objective (by scene, Super objective)
First Scene
To get the wedding venue ready and presentable
To kindly dismiss dogberry and verges
To quickly resolve the issue of the "arrant knaves" before the wedding starts

Second Scene
To assist Hero and Claudio's marriage
To make a seemingly unhappy Claudio, happy
To understand/come to terms with the controversy regarding Hero's purity/virginity
To grieve my loss of reputation
To punish Hero
To salvage any hope that the situation can be resolved

Third Scene
To assist the Friar and Benedick in their plot to find/punish the true villains
To fool Claudio into thinking grieving Hero's false death
To expose the true villains
To once again respectfully dismiss Dogberry and thank him for his work/dedication

Fourth Scene
To find and punish Margaret as a villain
To arrange and the second wedding attempt (whilst keeping the secret of the "new" bride's true identity
To consent to Beatrice and Benedick's engagement
To make Claudio remorseful for his mistakes
To oversee Hero and Claudio's second marriage (successfully this time)
To deal with don Pedro and move on from everything
To kindly encourage the visitors to leave

Super Objective - To maintain mine and my families reputation whilst facilitating other character's relationships and happiness.

What are my obstacles?
Hubris - It may well be a condition of the society but Leonato prides himself too much on his reputation.
Jealousy and people spreading rumours.

What do i do to get what i want?
Encourage romantic relationships (Claudio/Hero, Beatrice/ Benedick)
Reward people's work (Dogberry and the other soldiers)
Be forgiving (the Villains, the Princes, Claudio and Borachio)
Leonato is generally just nice to everyone (He shares his wealth)

Personal playlist (my character's journey)
Only One - Kanye West (wedding, family etc.)
Family Matters - Chance the Rapper (the second wedding)
Daughters - John Mayer

Celebrate - Anderson .Paak (melancholic celebration) resolving the broken relationships)

Wars In The Middle East Since 1990

There have been 25 wars/conflicts/uprisings/protests etc. in the middle east since 1990 the most notable being The Gulf War (40,000-57,000 casualties) The Iraq War (109,032-650,726 casualties) and The Syrian Civil War (250,000-470,000 casualties)

The Americans and British have been involved/contributed in all of these conflicts (led by George Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Barack Obama and David Cameron.) Western involvement in said wars is massively controversial and often debated even today. Recently there was debate in the parliament concerning the decision to green light bombings in Syria, which was approved and ultimately led to the deaths of a number of innocent men, women and children. Arising from these conflicts and "the war on terrorism" is a global villainization of Muslims carried out through media outlets (Fox News/The Sun), Hollywood (American Sniper, Iron Man 3, Zero Dark Thirty) politicians (Donald Trump, David Cameron) festering hatred through fear. This hatred leads to dehumanisation justifying anti-refugee and pro-murder attitudes because "it's okay if it's foreign people in a far away places to die on a regular basis but as soon as it's a british life, it's now a tragedy. This ideology is fundamentally wrong and hugely harmful to the well-being of humanity but i feel as though this issue is too deeply woven into society and it seems ever increasingly harder to uproot.

The Gulf Wars Lecture

2 August 1990 - 28 February 1991

(2003 Invasion of Iraq)

1. Iran = Islamic fundamentalist
2. USA fund Iraq to prevent the spread of Islamic fundamentalism
3. Berlin Wall falls November 1989
4. Soviet Union dissolves 1991
5. Shift of international interest from Europa/Russia to the Middle east

Invasion of Kuwait

In July 1990 Saddam hussein accused Kuwait of stealing Iraqi oil and demands $2 billion in repayment. He Blamed Kuwait for the over production of oil thus the fall of oil prices internationally therefore poverty in Iraq. Iraqi troops threaten Kuwait who dismiss/ignore said threats. The US (George Bush) took no action to prevent invasion and in August 1990 Iraqi troops attack Kuwait.

International Response to Kuwait

• The UN posed economic sanction on Iraq if they didn't withdraw
• USA feared over their oil supply as Iraq held 20% of the worlds oil supply
• Un passed "Operation Desert Shield if Iraq didn't withdraw

Operation Desert Shield

• 250,000 USA would move into Saudi Arabia if Iraq didn't withdraw b the deadline
• ODS would become Operation Desert Storm: Kuwait would be forcibly liberated
• Egypt and Syria join to fight against Iraq and Britain back USA with 45,000 troops
• France are reluctant to support and Germany only provide financial aid
• 16 Jan 1991 - USA + coalition launch a military assault against Iraq

Highway Of Death

The Highway linking Kuwait and Iraq was used first by the Iraqis to invade Kuwait in 1990 and then the US in 2003. 1,400 and 2,000 vehicles were hit or abandoned

• Bush declares the gulf war is about peace, unity and justice for all
• Un place further economic sanctions on Iraq
• Dec 1998 - Uk and USA bomb suspected nuclear production points. The operation was a failure.

War On Terror 

• 9/11 takes place and an international war is declared on terror and any state supporting terrorism.
• The event was used by the US to justify any action needing to take place
• in 2001 Us invade al-Qaedas training camps.
• The Taliban regime is removed but Bin-Ladin is not captured and in 2004 the Taliban regain strength despite UN and NATO action.
• As one war ends another begins

In 2003 the US/Britain invade Iraq and Saddam Hussein is captured 

By 2004 the UN had removed sanctions on Iraq.

Gulf War Syndrome (PTSD)

Gulf War syndrome is a multi symptom disorder affecting veterans an civilian workers of the Gulf War. Symptoms include fatigue, muscle pain, cognitive problems, rashes and diarrhea. Around 250,000 of the 697,000 veterans who served in the war suffer from the symptoms listed. It is reported that veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars may also suffer from GWS. Very little is known about the illness but it is said to have been caused by not only trauma but also a certain mixture of chemicals but so little concrete knowledge is known about the syndrome it is hard to treat. Many sufferers and people working within the war zone are said to have been exposed to oil and smoke from burning oil wells, swarms of insects and consequently pesticides and high powered microwaves used to scramble enemy communications which are all said to be sources of the problems. 

Animal Study - Meerkat

I chose the meerkat because like leonato they stand tall overseeing everything. They are welcoming and friendly unless met with hostility in which case they can be vicious and territorial. Meerkats also dwell in hot climates as Leonato does and as a result of it are comfortable in the sun as opposed to the visitors. They're somewhat temperamental creatures

bearing sharp claws used for digging burrows and digging for prey. This is remnant of leonato in that he is mostly friendly but potentially vicious as seen in the initial wedding scene.

Off Text Improvisation task (Self and Peer Assessment)

On the 12th of April (rehearsal 7) we performed our improv scenes to the rest of the cast and dissected/discussed them in fair detail. My counterpart (Adjei) played leonato with great convection and i can really see that he's starting to feel comfortable in character especially with the accent which has hugely improved looking back at the first rehearsal. It's clear he's done a lot of work on his characterisation. His scene looked at the interaction between Leonato and Friar Francis (Imam Farhouk) and it was brilliant. The pair captured the comedy almost perfectly whilst staying truthful which Jack rightfully said is the key to performing a comedy succesfully. The comedy of the scene arrived through the clash of characters in Leonato's focus on family/religious tradition (with mention of hijabs and extravagant chandeliers whilst the imam/wedding planer (in the context of our play) was focused on contemporary fashion/style saying that the wedding dress should be more revealing and that Chandeliers are "sooooo 80's". There were moments when they played to the comedy of the scene a bit much which made it clear as an audience member how important it is to be truthful and meet the comedy via said truthfulness.

My scene depicted Leonato conferring with the soldiers on their plans in terms of security for Hero's wedding night. I feel like the scene was all in all successful and we played to the truthfulness of the characters quite. It was nice to explore my relationship with dogberry a bit and look at the comedy through that. Upon receiving feedback from the class Jack commented on my physicality becoming clearing showing that i am an older gentleman but still of high social ranking which i'm quite happy with. Lily also mentioned that my relationship with the soldiers was accurate and effective in that i showed how i didn't really want to be around them or further to it "relying" on them but i needed their assistance and was grateful for it. I enjoyed this exercise and i feel it will definitely improve my scenes with the soldiers and Dogberry having a more established and rooted relationship between us.

Directors Notes 4/26

Projection, clarity, muscularity, volume and diction

Energy and pace

Make bold, confident decisions 

Balance the space and find good sight-lines

Play the antiphasis (Key to performing Shakespeare)

Be strong and confident on our exits and entrances (both when and where)

Personal notes

Enjoy the humour a bit more and find a stage where i have a high enough status that i can laugh at myself.

Start to think of the play in terms of atmosphere (wedding scene, outside (accusations), second wedding)

Analysis of Adjei's interpretation (of Leonato)

It's been amazing watching Adjei's development of his portrayal of Leonato over these weeks of rehearsals. He has gradually become more and more comfortable within his character on stage by opening himself up to suggestion/direction and actively working on receiving constructive criticism.

It was clear in the first few weeks that he hadn't done too much work on his script/character as he dropped quite a few moments of comedy and didn't seem to be too familiar with the narrative, this however began to change as the rehearsal process progressed. As he began to understand his character arc and his circumstances (previous and present) his characterisation dramatically improved, his performance became less internalised and he developed stronger relationships with the characters around him. Of course it is difficult to know what is going to happen in a scene and perform it numerous times whilst acting like it's completely new news but it needs to happen nevertheless. I feel that being involved in the mafia run may have aided him in the sense that it made the text somewhat feel fresh but he unfortunately was unable to attend said session.

As his understanding of the plot/text improved so did his accent. I think self-consciousness and lack of research proved a hinderance in the opening stages but he picked it up as the weeks passed, i do however feel he could've done more to make his accent more natural whilst maintaining that same diction and clarity.

Especially seeing as Adjei opened the play, saying the very first line, he held the audiences full attention and you could tell if he was fully immersed in his surroundings or not. As an audience member and a human being you learn detect when someone is being truthful or not and with something as alien as a middle eastern dessert his job was a lot harder. When he truly believed his surroundings, so did the audience which set the scene and energy of the rest of the play. Our Michael Chekhov exercises definitely had an effect on the cast and i could clearly see how it aided Adjei and resulted in a much more truthful performance, particularly in the opening scenes.

In terms of physicality, Adjei was strong from the start, he used his advantage in height to almost lean over his peers displaying higher status in a lax and natural manor. He managed to command the stage whilst maintaining a sense of innocence and welcoming. The only thing i could say needed to be improved upon was his physicality in relation to others, how he might loosen up around family and be more regimented around employees/soldiers. He stayed quite consistent throughout his half of the play and it would've been interesting to see some developments or different sides to his character.

Another interesting thing about observing Adjei's Leonato was seeing how we influence each other. I learnt a great deal from watching Adjei and my perception of Leonato changed. I realised quickly that the comedy of the character is often at his expense rather than of his intention, in this sense there is occasionally a sort of naivety and senile clumsiness about him. At the beginning i feel he played too much on the innocence and naivety of the character and lacked the sense of wisdom and experience. This changed the dynamics of scenes and how other characters treated, although it became better towards the end i feel like it still could've been improved upon.

Personal Evaluation

I admittedly wasn't as strong on my lines from the start but i was strong on my contextual knowledge and my research. I had done work on my accent/voice, previous circumstances, physicality, objectives and actions prior to the first rehearsal which showed in my performance and characterisation. I found learning the lines themselves quite a challenge, i believe this was down to the combination of old english and the application of an Arab accent.

Throughout the process i received a lot of positive feedback but not as much criticism as i would have liked. My accent especially was well received but I think this may have been more so due to my relationship with the cast, having already been friends, they were generous in their responses to my performance.

I find it difficult to project regardless but having to project in the accent proved a huge challange. L's, TH's and R's proved incredibly hard to sound when on voice and i found myself going over certain lines a number of times such as

"Brother, you know your office. To be father to your brothers daughter and marry her to young Claudio"

I realised as time went on that the primary difficulty in perfecting my accent was that my mouth and the muscles surrounding it have (over 16 years) developed to cater to an English, Londoners accent. To truly engage with this accent i would have to speak arabic in order to strengthen certain muscles before going back to english. In the time frame we had this wasn't possible but i now understand the depth f preparation needed to jump into a role such as an arab businessman/uncle. I think by the end of the process i had somewhat adjusted to the accent and the performance in the new theatre i felt comfortable however outdoors in Brighton i felt stretched and a little shouty. 

I felt that we didn't spend as much rehearsal time as i would have liked to on the second half of the play however i should have taken upon myself to arrange outside of school hours. Despite certain scenes not being as thoroughly rehearsed i felt like they were fresher which heightened the energy of said scenes such as my entrance just before the second wedding. There is a sense of excitement to that scene which i feel may have been worn down by over rehearsing it.

I didn't pay too much attention to my physicality in the initial rehearsals but once i was able to put my script down i immediately began to explore and feel what it would be like to be this person in this surrounding. I found it difficult to find a compromise between authoritative and somewhat senile in comparison to the soldiers and watchmen but i found balance as the weeks went on. In the final performance my mum commented on my posture which was a choice but upon reflection perhaps it was the wrong choice, or perhaps that i didn't dedicate to the choice enough.

I really enjoyed the final performances especially as they were all so different. The first showing in the New Theatre was filled with friends/peers, which was incredibly fun as all of the comedy was well received and the audience were somewhat more comfortable/expressive than the other two. Seeing as the majority of my scenes are somewhat solemn and serious i feel that the almost over-energetic crowd almost worked against me, the second performance however worked in my favour. It was a bit more of a challenge, the comedy wasn't as well received in some places and we had to feed more energy into certain scenes. This audience was a lot more perceptive and i feel the second half scenes had a much greater impact on them. The Brighton Fringe performance was completely different to anything i've done before and i really enjoyed the challenge. Granted it was difficult to project above the ambient noises and conveniently scheduled rock band performance i feel that there was a fantastic energy from both cast and audience. Never, in my short career, i think has Peter Brooks teachings of community through theatre been so relevant. I look forward to the Stratford-Upon-Avon performance and seeing what i take away/learn from that experience.