Shut Up Shakespeare

Do you know somebody by the name of Shakespeare? That was a trick question. Even if a person has never read or seen a play by Shakespeare, they still know his name. William Shakespeare has a large collection of works, so there's something for everybody. In the modern world, it is not uncommon to remake a previous work of art into something new; such as rebooting movies like Superman into Man of Steel or bands doing cover songs of one another. Shakespeare's works are no exception. His plays have been made into all sorts of different breeds of entertainment. Besides plays, Shakespeare's work has been created into movies, songs and television shows. With all of these options, it's hard to find something original. However, if I was being paid to go see a Shakespeare play, I would go to the Romeo & Juliet play put on by Ballet Arizona. 

Romeo & Juliet from Ballet Arizona

My main reason for this particular production is that the whole story of Romeo and Juliet is "told" through dance. The dancers never speak, so they rely purely on their body movements and the accompanying orchestra to illustrate their emotions. While Shakespeare plays are known for their extensive language, it is the lack of language in this particular portrayal that makes it stand out among others. The performers never even speak their names, so it is up to the audience to really dive deep into the performance to get a good understanding of what is going on. For example, when Juliet is saddened about marrying Paris, she puts on a dance that moves towards Paris but always tries to find a way to distance herself from him, which indicates to the audience that she only does so because her parents tell her to but would still like to marry someone else instead.

Romeo and the House of Montague ready to fight the House of Capulet

Another reason to see this rendition is because it combines two classic European art forms together: ballet and theater. To experience a Shakespearean play is highly valued in and of itself. A classic ballet holds a similar social value. Therefore, the combination of two high-class arts in a Shakespearean matter is an experience all to its own that can not be recreated so easily. Those that enjoy theater will appreciate the performer's methods of storytelling without speaking and those that enjoy dance will applaud at the dancers' gracefulness and carefully choreographed moves. 

Although this production has already passed this year, there is a chance they will put on the performance again in the future. Ballet Arizona had put on this play back in 2013. However, the play was never put on again until February of 2017. I was lucky enough to actually attend the one that was held in 2017. So why am I telling you this if the play already passed? It's a great experience overall, even if you aren't a Shakespeare fan. For those that can't really understand the language of Shakespeare, then this performance is perfect. The live orchestra played perfectly, the dancers were all in sync, and the story was told very well for not having any speech at all. So, I recommend that you keep an eye out if Ballet Arizona ever decide to put out this production again in the future. 

His Last Scene But Not My Last Post

When you think of poetry, it is people like William Shakespeare and John Donne that are the cause behind your prejudice in thinking poetry is short yet over-complicated and cannot be understood. Here is where you're wrong. In John Donne's poem "This is my play's last scene" from his 19 Holy Sonnets, the meaning can be easily deciphered from the poets strange language. A good read-through of the poem and just about anyone can see that the poem discusses the idea of death. He speaks of how his body and soul are disjointed as his soul rises to heaven and his body remains in the earth. If that isn't clearly someone dying then I have no idea what else it could be.

The first four lines paint how he is approaching his eminent death:

"This is my play's last scene; here heavens appoint

My pilgrimage's last mile; and my race,

Idly, yet quickly run, hath this last pace,

My span's last inch, my minute's latest point"

Even the title gives away the meaning of the poem here. If it's the last scene of a play, then that means the play is ending, just like his life. However, like many good poets, he reiterates his point in multiple ways. He speaks of how his "pilgrimage" is in its "last mile". His journey is coming to an end. His "[life] span's last inch" is upon him. The next two lines are clear yet again on how death will "unjoint" his body and soul. 

While, the first part of this poem is clear, the next two lines caused me a bit of confusion. Lines seven and eight read:

"But my'ever-waking part shall see that face

Whose fear already shakes my every joint"

I assume his "ever-waking part" refers to his soul, since ever-waking basically means always awake. However, I had trouble discerning what the "face" is. One thought I had is that his soul will see his dead body's face, because he says that the "fear already shakes [his] every joint". Another possibility that crossed my mine is that he will see the face of death himself. Perhaps he fears death or believes death to have a terrifying face. 

The final six lines continue on how his soul will rise to heaven and his body will remain on earth. He also adds how his sins will "fall", which I think means that his sins are forgiven. He finishes his poem with the line:

"For thus I leave the world, the flesh, the devil".

Overall, I feel the poem gives off a feeling of relief as if he is grateful that his time had finally come. There is no sense of sadness or fear that he is dying; more like contentment. It is a relaxing viewpoint that his soul will ascend into heaven. The language is what gives me this feeling. It isn't so much the word choice that makes him seem content, but rather the lack of word choice. He never uses words with negative connotations other than gluttonous death, fear, hell, evil, and devil. Despite these words being present, the surrounding language negates any negative feelings that may arise. For example, when he mentions "gluttonous death" in line five, he mentions in line six that he will "sleep a space". Here, instead of being fearful or saddened that death is coming for him, he is more at peace that he will be able to sleep. If he wanted to instill fear into the poem, he could've mentioned how death would be dragging his soul down to hell or that he will never be able to rest easy again. However, we get the opposite, thus eliminating any feeling of sorrow or regret.

I really enjoyed this poem. I feel that it wasn't too hard to comprehend, but still offered enough complexity to be torn apart in greater detail and illustrate a deeper meaning than what appeared on the surface.

This Isn't the Garden

There are very few artists who can capture the meaning of hell better than Hieronymus Bosch. Bosch has depicted hell in various ways, but they all contain a similar feeling of dread and panic. One such example is in a triptych he created called The Haywain Triptych. This particular piece holds many similarities to his more well-known triptych called The Garden of Earthly Delights. However, the Haywain is more narrative than the Garden.

To begin with, the left panel starts from the top with God throwing out the angels who betrayed him. As they fall, the angels turn to insects. Next, God creates Eve from Adam's rib. This particular scene bears very similar resemblance to the Garden in that God appears to favor Eve more than Adam as he lays helpless on the ground. After that, Adam and Eve meet the serpent under the tree and partake in the fruit. Finally, an angel casts Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden. Looking at Eve in the final scene, she appears to be looking left at the next panel and is worried about what's to come.

The center panel most likely represents the modern world. Here many scenes of sin occur. There is murder right on the ground, a man who would appear to represent the sin of gluttony sits on the bottom right corner, and a cluster of peasants who are grabbing every shred of hay they can off the wagon to represent greed. Very clearly, God is portrayed at the top of the scene; however, only the angel is looking up at him from atop what appears to be a wagon of some kind. Everybody else is ignoring God, thus putting more emphasis on the sin aspect of the modern world at that time. Also, the wagon-like object appears to be moving towards the right panel. Oddly enough, there is a mixed scene between the middle and right panels that occurs on the right side of the middle panel. Here, humans appear to be morphing into animals and other strange beasts. The metamorphosis of the humans further illustrate how mankind is losing God and becoming more like the beasts that posses no God. Plus, the human-beasts appear to be pulling the wagon and humans into the next scene.

The right panel, just like the Garden, is Bosch's interpretation of hell. All kinds of pain and suffering are depicted here. From a man being impaled by a spear to a two-legged fish creature devouring another man, all sorts of paranoia are present. Towards the right side of the panel, it would appear that animals are building a home or shelter as if to tell the humans that hell is their home now. Surely, this piece would strike fear into the hearts and minds of faithful Catholics during Bosch's time.

Characteristics of Those Who Hold More Power Than You Do

Machiavelli's The Prince provides a fairly useful outline to what Machiavelli believes to be the ideal leader. To begin with, Machiavelli's first characteristic of a good leader is that he (or she) should be feared rather than loved if only one option is available. Personally, I feel that to be loved would be a more effective method of leadership. Creating fear in your subjects could lead to the development of radicals among the people that could potentially take action against you. On the other hand, if you are loved by your people, than there should be no reason for the people to revolt. As long as your rule is just, then the people can live in peace without the paranoia that their leader could chop off their heads at any minute because they forgot to bow when he or she walked by.
Next, the second characteristic according to The Prince is that a leader should have the support of his people. This is true. If you don't have people to rule over and command, then you are not a leader; you are just a deranged person trying to order people around that could care less about you.
The third attribute is that a leader should hold or at least appear to hold good virtues. I agree with this. Even if it's a lie, the easiest way to gain support from the people is to display how your actions match with your subjects' thoughts and beliefs. If the people believe your rule to be justifiable, then you have successfully gained trust in your subjects.
Characteristic number four is to never rely on outside military forces. This is true to a certain degree. If the outside forces come from an allied kingdom then there should not be a problem using them. However, your personal military should be deployed first and foremost. Outside help should come as a last resort. Mercenaries, however, should never be deployed since they act on the basis of a paycheck rather than loyalty.
Machiavelli's last and most important characteristic (in my opinion) of a successful leader is to have intelligence. No matter what the leader is in charge of, they will need intelligence to be successful. To possess the ability to think of a clever solution to any problem at any moment is what separates the successful leaders from those that end up dead.

Looking over all of these characteristics, I can't say that I can really think of a contemporary leader that fits the bill. To be honest, I don't really pay attention to contemporary leaders, so I can't really think of anyone. However, my boss fits the description fairly well. She definitely instills fear in me and my fellow coworkers, but we still support her demands. She at least appears to hold good virtues since we all work in the food department of a retirement home. I've never seen her rely on outside help to get things done that we could do ourselves, like fixing a broken refrigerator. Plus, she does hold quite a bit of knowledge to gain the position that she has now.

If I could create my own ideal leader, I would believe he or she would possess these characteristics:

• Has a decent degree of intelligence
• All leaders need intelligence to make acceptable decisions
• Is accepting of change
• Change happens all the time, so the leader must be ready to face any new challenges with an open mind
• Leaves personal matters out of the leadership position
• Personal business should not interfere with a leader's duty. He or she should always consider the needs of the people over his or her own personal agenda
• Is capable of making allies
• A leader that only makes enemies has never heard the saying that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and will find themselves being faced against an enemy alliance
• Has a strong military force
• Any successful leader will have enemies and a strong military will make anyone think twice before attacking the kingdom

Since I don't really pay that close attention to leaders, I can't think of someone that fits my ideal leader. If I had to choose someone, I suppose Barack Obama could be one. He does possess intelligence and is accepting of change as seen in his LGBT support. I don't remember his personal life ever interfering with his job. As the United States president, he was at least successful in retaining the allies that America had before his office. Lastly, there are very few military forces that can rival the might of the United States military. Therefore, Barack Obama would have been my ideal leader. However, I don't follow politics heavily so any other actions under his administration that could convince me otherwise that he was an ideal leader are not known by me.