Today's leading gentlemen and ladies realize that we presented quite an array of information pertaining to 18th century drama, but we managed to develop a few conclusions. So here's your cue to respond. Perhaps you were more favorable towards to one topic than others, so we’ll offer several questions you can respond to.
Linking 18th century drama to contemporary drama turned out to be a successful discussion that hopefully enhanced your understanding of the material. South Park, Dave Chappelle and Saturday Night Live were notable examples. We concluded an advantage of setting satire in a fantastic world, or creating characters that were so ridiculous, is they couldn't be confused with direct reality.
Do you think direct political commentary is more effective in producing change, or whether the more artful political commentary like Vision of the Golden Rump is more effective in changing the political world?
Does the fantastic world allow for the political statements to be taken seriously, or does it diminish the real world connections?
Is a direct political statement more effective, or does it fail to catch the attention of its audience? Why?
The class also tried to identify the role of women in theater. Theater relieved some of imposed gender boundaries in reality and allowed for gender transgression. Women were able to act, deliver prologues and epilogues, declare themselves capable of writing speeches and wearing breeches. Politics were frequently addressed in theater even by women. We questioned the intention of David Garrick when he wrote Percy's prologue and The Maid of the Oaks epilogue both spoken by women. Was it meant to be satirical or advocate women’s freedom of speech? We concluded that women did indeed provide a different kind of perspective of politics (as if they were a “fly on the wall”, but it was still most likely for humor.
Do you think the epilogue or prologue reinforced or encouraged permeable gender boundaries? Was it effective for you personally or did you want to throw an orange/clementine?
Do you think it was a step forward at all in favor of women? After all, some women figures did become valuable contributors to theater.
We presented one of the celebrities of this time, Sarah Siddons. Sam intended to track some of the development of the celebrity and of the role of so a renowned figure in drama while considering her popularity with the heightened level of competition for spots in the two sanctioned playhouses of the late C18. She had a rocky start and left London to act in some lesser known places, and when she finally returned she had obviously become a more skilled actress and spent years in the public's favor, as the huge amount of contemporary images of her suggests. It was concluded that we may not always really understand a celebrity because of how the media portrays him/her. The handout of images proved how the “media” of 18th century were irregular with their portrayal of Sarah Siddons.
Does anyone have comments they didn't share or didn't think of until later about the presence and effect of images of celebrities today?
6 comments:
Jumping off from the comments made about Sarah Siddons as a controversial figure, I immediately thought of the ever-interesting Lady Gaga. From her outrageous costumes to her loud and statement making music, she stands as a prominent example of someone who has created social and political controversy. Her costumes spark both confusion and delight within her fans, but also receive deep opposition and scorn from those who disagree with her openly-stated political stances. Her presence in the music and social world, has furthered the message of self-acceptance and self-love. She stands as an image of confidence and strength in being different, an incredible feat in a society of judgment. The question I raise here is whether or not it is possible for a person defined as presenting a "celebrity image" be universally recognized and accepted? What qualities would that person have to have?
In response to Molly's questions, I don't think there is one figure or image that can be universally accepted. People have such varying degrees of opinions and values that I can not see the possibility of universal acceptance. I also think that is demonstrated in the eighteenth century with the many depictions of Sarah Siddons. People had varying views of her.
Furthermore, I want to comment on the effects of political commentary in various settings. It is hard for me to decide which presentation of political commentary is more effective. Real world and fantastic representations each have their own advantages. Their effectiveness depends on the audience. For example, the separation from real world as seen in the Vision of the Golden Rump allowed for extreme exaggeration and a relatively harsh depiction of the villians. Some people probably loved this and found it hilarious; whereas others, even if they believed in the political message, would have found it distasteful.
Just a note about Prologues/Epilogues: they serve as a marketing device for the play in question. It's worth noting that "Percy" is written by a woman (the "Miss Moore" mentioned in the footnote on the first page): Hannah More.
I feel as though both direct political commentary as well as artful political commentary effect changing the political world, but in different ways. I feel as though direct political commentary is effective in seeing the political world as it actually is, rather than the way politicians want you to see what is happening. Direct commentary strikes openly at politicians and against what they are doing. These direct comments do not try to hide what people want politicians to know they think of them, rather they are straight forward and attack what they do not like about the political happenings of the time. In today's world, we see these types of political attacks on news channels such as MSNBC and the people who are brought in to talk describe the good and bad aspects of today's politics, generally leading to arguments between the two sides.
Artful political commentary is a way to tell people who do not listen to the news or any such programs what is happening in the political world. In today's political movement, there are programs such as SNL which provide a view of the negative side of politics. These sketches are meant to target a very different audience than something similar to a news report. The Vision of the Golden Rump does this also in the sense that it targets people who are attending plays and the theater but it is in a funny, entertaining way rather than someone simply lecturing to people what they do not agree with about the political situation of the times.
I feel as though the two different styles of political commentary both work in changing the way people see their political leaders, but they generally target two different audiences. One way of trying to get the word out to people is not going to work for everyone or attract everyone's attention, so having multiple ways of showing the problems of the current political rulings is a need.
I agree with Westyn in respects to both forms of political commentary having their uses. I feel though that the fantasical forms of commentary are becoming more outdated though, for good reason. To begin, more recent generations, in general, do not wish to take the time to figure out the artful statements. They expect to get their message instantly, preferably with as little work on their part as possible. The more direct the connection, the faster they can move on to the next.
While creating the artful form helps the creator from getting in trouble with directly bad mouthing someone, it also could cause the audience to miss the connection. The actions taken may be fantasical, but having the characters (such as the ones in Vision of the Golden Rump) would more likely leave the audience behind in the joke.
I'm not trying to say people nowadays just aren't as smart as the people back then. It's just, there are different priorities than there were back in the 18th century. Viewing plays is a much less popular form of entertainment. People today prefer higher forms of rechnology and the most instant gratification possible.
It really surprised me how much celebrities of the 18th century, like Sarah Siddons, actually share with celebrities of our time. Molly certainly addressed that with her example of Lady Gaga. Anne's post for this topic states, "It was concluded that we may not always really understand a celebrity because of how the media portrays him/her." This is currently the case for Lady Gaga and most definitely was the situation for Sarah Siddons. Just because you see a picture or read something in print doesn't make it factual. The handout of images we received in class just goes to show us that the media wants the audience to see her in a certain way (in this case, maybe send a message to women that they should mimic the style of Sarah). Images of celebrities today have a much stronger effect simply because we now have the technology that makes the media hard to ignore. Everywhere we turn, TV, radio, internet, magazines, etc. all portray celebrities in a positive or negative light. Unfortunately however, the media has discovered that the negative portrayals earn the most dollar amount. But also as a result, the celebrity receives more attention and adds to "the heightened level of competition."
Post a Comment