For one of the three options that follow, write at least 15 sentences in an original, new, fresh, imaginative, entertaining, and creative way:
- Write a review of the play. Please don't say the same things someone else has said. Find your own unique voice and point of view. Be creative in your use of words.
- Choose a line from the play, write it out, and explain why this line is important to the play as a whole, the plot, or character development.
- Introduce us to you art history period. Write about some of the defining characteristics of the style you will be studying. Post a picture as an example of what you are describing.
I respect originality a lot.
Andrew Park
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
Prompt #7
According to the play "Much Ado About Nothing", it was an interesting storyline. The whole story followed the style of a romantic comedy. It's romantic because a majority of the lines talk about love and marriage. There was also a combination of romance and humor. One example was naming Don John as "John the Bastard". It shows that Don John was the main antagonist of the play. The play had a funky beginning because Leonato and the rest of the people in Messina were confessing over nothing. That plot made it confusing at first until reaching the point where love comes to life. The turning point was what brought intensity in the play. It's where Don John and his henchmen seemingly have succeeded in spoiling Hero and Claudio's wedding. It also caused the play to face towards a tragic direction. The play's comedic style made a turnaround at the falling point. It's where Don John's minions were captured, Hero was presumed as dead but later revealed as alive by Leonato. It revived the romance between Hero and Cladio along with Beatrice and Benedick. Don John has fled to avoid being revealed as the culprit. At the end, Don John's escape has failed. As the weddings occur, Don John is awaiting trial. However, it is unknown what happens to John the Bastard up to this point.
Isabelle Carson
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
For my art history project I will be researching the Gothic time period. Gothic art began in Northern France out of Romanesque art and eventually spread all throughout Europe. It lasted from the 12th centaury to the 16th centaury. And is classified by three sections; early, middle, late. Gothic art includes architecture, sculpture, fresco, stained glass, illuminated manuscript and panel painting. Artists brought realism and a more natural humanity to art in their work. Iconography was also used more in this time period. Stories and figures from the New and Old Testament influenced Gothic art greatly. The Virgin Mary was very popularly used. Artwork emphasized Christ’s human suffering and vulnerability. And usually exposed his chest to show the wounds of his passion. Saints were also shown more frequently. The word “Gothic” was originally used as a synonym for “Barbaric” in art. Many popular Renaissance artists view Gothic art as “monstrous and barbarous disorder”. The fashion of the Early Gothic period was more elegant, sophisticated and simpler than the Romanesque period. In the Late Gothic period, fashion changed quickly into use of stiffer fabrics. Link to a painting by Gothic artist Robert Campin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CampinVeronica.jpg
Elena Wagar
ReplyDelete3 per.
For the art history project I will be researching Romanesque. Romanesque art refers to the art of Europe from approximately 1000 AD to the rise of the Gothic style in the 13th century. Romanesque style was the first style to spread across the whole of Catholic Europe, from Scandinavia to Sicily.Romanesque art was also greatly influenced by Byzantine art. Metal, enamel, and ivorywork were very popular. Most Romanesque sculpture is pictorial and Biblical in subject. A great variety of themes are found on capitals and include scenes from the life of christ. The purpose of the sculptural schemes was to convey a message that the Christian believer should recognize wrongdoing. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Stavelot.Triptych.jpg
Lily Kristjanson
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
Much Ado About Nothing was the first Shakespearean play I have seen. I was extremely impressed with the detail and quality of the set. For being such a small theater, I wasn't expecting such a detailed and realistic setting. I found the fact that they incorporated real water to be a unique touch. I also enjoyed the fact that the play took place in a fifties/sixties era. I felt this modernization kept my attention and made the play more relatable. I would have enjoyed the play a bit more though if the lines had been modernized as well. To me, it seems unrealistic that people of that era would speak in such an old way. I also have a difficult time following Shakespearean language. Even though we read the play, I still found myself lost from time to time. From this, I also became confused with a few of the smaller characters. I found the acting of Benedick and Beatrice to be most humorous. Not as much by the lines of these characters, but by their body language and gestures. Overall, I would say that my first Shakespearean play was a good experience.
Chris Root
ReplyDeletePer 4
The topic I will be researching for the art history project is Rococo. Rococo is also referred to as "Late Baroque", is an 18th-century artistic movement and style, which affected several aspects of the arts including painting, sculpture, architecture, interior design, decoration, literature, music and theater. The Rococo developed in the early part of the 18th century in Paris, France as a reaction against the grandeur, symmetry and strict regulations of the Baroque. Rococo artists opted for a more jocular, florid and graceful approach to Baroque art and architecture. Rococo art and architecture in such a way was ornate and made strong usage of creamy, pastel-like colors, asymmetrical designs, curves and gold. Unlike the more politically focused Baroque, the Rococo had more playful and often witty artistic themes. Rococo rooms were designed as total works of art with elegant and ornate furniture, small sculptures, ornamental mirrors, and tapestry complementing architecture, reliefs, and wall paintings. The Rococo additionally played an important role in theater.
Gracie Legg
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
The play "Much Ado About Nothing" was interesting. I liked it much better than the opera. But it was not quite as good as when we saw A Servant of Two Masters. I thought it was really cool how they used actually real water for the lake/ ocean part of it. The acting was really good. You could tell the actors really knew what they were doing. And the audience really enjoyed it. I was not expecting it to be as good as it was. It surprised me how small the theater was too. I didn't realize that it was going to be that little.I thought that the make up that was done on all of the actors was done very nicely. And they were actually funny too. The play made a lot more sense than the opera did. I would actually tell people to go see this play because it had all different kinds of emotions involved in it. I cant imagine someone not enjoying this play. They did a really good job with the lights too. It was very interesting. And the sounds effects were good. Everything that was happening was just made very clear. And it was really nice to see that everyone was doing what they were supposed to be doing!
Brandon Penoyer
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
I went into the theatre housing Much Ado About Nothing with high expectations. Not only was it Shakespeare's work, but it was also a fairly entertaining read that I was told was even better during live performances. Needless to say, my expectations were all met and exceeded. The actors seemed to enjoy performing as much as I enjoyed watching, which helps a play a great deal. The era chosen was more modern than I expected, including a flair of old venetian masks during the dance. Other than those costumes, they were all set in the 20th century, with pure white military uniforms to leather jackets that were popular around the 60s and 70s. The set was also a fairly surprising design choice, being set next to port, long masts reached over the height of the railing that made the back of the stage, and a small water area leading back to the "sea" also made the atmosphere more intriguing. All in all, it was surprisingly good, and I'm more than happy I got to see it.
I thought "Much Ado About Nothing" was much funnier than I had expected. Just reading the play in class did not give it justice to the comedy involved. I also believe that reading the play in class did not really help with understanding the play. I recognized the names of characters but I had trouble keeping up. I don't think I fully understood the play beforehand, but I was able to figure it out as it went on. The theater was also not what I had expected. All of the theaters we had been to before had been quite big with large, extravagant sets. This theater was much more intimate, which I think made the show more involved. I liked the simplicity of the set; it put most all of the focus on the actual actors and what was happening. I was also surprised at the age of many of the actors... Most of them seemed to be much older than I thought, and the one boy, Conrad I think, looked so young. I thought the play was very fun to watch, it seemed much more real than most plays. I think it was because of the intimacy of the theater. Also the chairs were quite uncomfortable, so that made sure I didn't fall asleep. Overall I thought the play was very well done! It was very easy to understand what was going on in every scene.
ReplyDeleteAs I was walking to the theatre, I was thinking that, even though Seattle Shakespeare is a really talented troupe, the performance wouldn't be as funny or be as skillfully acted as the performance I saw a recording of. Once I walked in, I was stunned; the set was so beautifully done. Never before have I seen such intricacy. Then the performance began. The play started off slowly, but once the actors got into it, it became quite enjoyable. I really liked the physical comedy, like Benedick falling into the pool and pulling the starfish off of himself. I feel like the actors could have been more goofy, not so serious. After all, the point of the play is that everyone is freaking out about nothing. Some people might have found it tedious or a poor display of such talented people, but if everyone had been a bit more like Dogberry, putting more emphasis on the jokes, the play would have been more fun. I only laughed a couple times, and I wish it could have been more. The version I watched before was a bigger laugh, and I wasn't even there. Seattle Shakespeare hasn't lived up to my expectations for Shakespearean comedy (I saw Love's Labour's Lost last year). I'd give this performance 4 stars.
ReplyDeleteArthur Gulledge
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Much Ado About Nothing, was about so much more than the title suggests. The story picks up quickly after the war is over, and everyone is happy. I found the story to be confusing, but that was just because it had many unnecessary characters, like Dogberry, and even Bennedick or Beatrice. They could have been omitted, and the story would just be about Hero and Claudio trying to fall in love while the maids conspired against them. The presentation also threw me off, as I though the play should be performed as it was written, not in a beach somewhere in the 1950's. I like things as they were, so I'm getting tired of all the performances we go to that set it in modern times. It's good that they mostly use the old script, but it always feels off to me when the actors are speaking Shakespeare in a 1950's Navy uniform. The set was surprising, as having a divider to block off half of the stage is risky, but it was used well to simulate the depth the boats have in the back. I liked how they dressed up the set to make it look like a ball room or a church, with as simple as a few flowers on the bridge. From where I was seated, it was hard to see the river on the opposite side, but I could make out that something was happening over there. Not many productions would allow real water, so I was surprised that there was not like a trickle or stream, but a foot or more of water. The acting is always great, but it felt rushed, as some actors spoke really fast, and it was hard to understand what they meant by their words. Sometimes an actor would speak, but then pause for a second, and it felt like they forgot what they were to say, and it was difficult to tell if this was intentional or not. The audience must not have read the play before, because we read all the jokes in class, and I didn't laugh at the play. I liked this a little less than the previous performances, but was very good overall.
Arezu Abdollmohammadi
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
For the art history project, my topic is Realism. Realism is representing something in life that is accurate. The time period for realism is 1850 to 1910. Realism represented everyday life truthfully. Realism started as a reaction to the Romanticism time period. A leader of the Realism time period was Gustave Courbet. He was a french painter who made bold statements through his pieces of work. He even caused some controversy in his artwork. He addressed social issues and supposedly painted people who were considered vulgar, such as lower class and working conditions of the less fortunate. There is a painting by him called Young Ladies of the Village painted in 1851. The painting is of his three sisters out for a walk in the valley near the village. (couldn't find a way to attach the picture on here). Also realism influenced literature because writers began to write more freely about society and life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChris Reed
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
Much Ado about Nothing was honestly dreadful to sit through for me. I came into it thinking it would be sort of like A Servant of Two masters, but it wasn't. I guess I just set my expectation too high and came back unamused. Although the set was quite exquisite, the acting was just mediocre. I was unable to get into watching it because the entire time I was extremely aware that I was sitting and watching people talk. The funniest part to me was watching the actors try and fake cry, I used to pull better stunts than that when I wanted to get my older sister in trouble. I just wasn't intrigued for the majority duration of the play, and for that reason I would give it a below average.
Ashley Glinn
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
While we were reading the book in class, I expected that the performance was going to be dull and boring. However, after seeing Much Ado About Nothing today, I was completely wrong! Walking into the theater, I was immediately drawn back by the stage set. From the yachts in the background to an actual pond of water that ran from the back of the set to the fron, the stage brought the performance to life, and I felt as though I was actually in another time period and location. I abosolutely loved the 50's twist that they had put into the perfomance, from the short wavy hair and knee length dresses on the girls, to the classy suits that the men wore to accompany the fashion of the era. At first, I was really confused as to who each actor was playing, and I felt left behind with the Shakespearan language. I wish that they could have maybe modernized the script a bit more to make it more audience friendly, but overall I found the performance to be full of humor and each character brought a certain spark to each scene. The Shakespeare Company has definitely caught my attention and I hope to attend more of their performances in the future!
Joey Keating
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Walking into the play my first reaction was that the theater was very small. It was almost uncomfortable. But because the theater was so small it made the play more realistic. Instead of sitting 20 feet above and 30 feet away, you were up close and personal with the actors. This was great because it allowed the audience to see more of the actors facial expressions and understand more of there feelings. I also enjoyed how the play was done without the use of microphones. The actors were able to project their voices better and it gave the audience a better understandment of how they were feeling emotionally. Also, this was the first time I had ever been to a play by Shakespeare. I was very impressed by the thought and detail given in the actors speech. Although at times it was difficult to understand what exactly they were saying because of the chosen speech. The actors did a great job portraying their conversations as well. They moved about the stage with confidence giving the crowd a better understandment of what was going on. In the end Much Ado About Nothing was a play that was not to be missed or overlooked.
Conor Grasso P3
ReplyDeleteThis was an intense play as far as the acting went, and i wasn't expecting such vibrant emotions from the actors. While it had comedic parts to it, some of the scenes, like when Claudio rejected Hero at the wedding, were very intense and kinda awkward to watch people have huge crisis's a few feet in front of me. Nevertheless i thought the acting was very good, maybe just a little bit too much raw emotion for me. At first the 50's setting but the Shakespeare dialogue was confusing but i got used to it. i still think they should've modernized the script so it would fit better with the setting. The stage was interesting too, despite feeling like i was in the middle of a dramatic event a lot of the time i liked how close the seats were to the stage, I felt a lot more involved with the actors and you could see the minor details of how they act better, versus when you can just see the general motions they make in the upper balcony. The stage itself was really cool especially the water, and like Arthur said they were very creative with the use of depth in the background. I understood the play fine unlike a lot of people who said it was confusing, but i can still understand why it would confuse some people. Overall i thought it was a good performance, maybe with a setting that didn't quite work the way it was supposed too.
Mallori Lindberg
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Going into the play Much Ado About Nothing, I was expecting it to be very serious and sort of blunt, although it was completely opposite. My first reaction of the play was how realistic everything was, the water and set made it captivating the whole time. Especially being a small theater, it was nice to be that close to the set and cast. I liked that they modernized Shakespeare's writing of the play, it was easier to understand and follow. Also the 70's touch made it more fun and interesting to watch. My favorite scenes were the two when Beatrice and Benedict were hiding while listening to conversations about their potential lovers, although they didn't realize they were being set up. Those scenes were very humorous to watch from the audience because you could see all the actors reactions and sides of the conversations. I was shocked that Benedict actually got in the water and was soaked head to toe, that was funny! I thought the whole set was put together very well, towards the end as the girls were putting the candles in the water as the music was playing made the whole scene very realistic. The audience felt as if they were right there and that the event was actually happening. The actor's emotions and expressions seemed to be over the top sometimes, they were all extremely into their parts. The ending was cute, I liked the style of music and dance they had. Overall I thought the play was done very well. It was sometimes hard to follow because of the Shakespeare text, but going over scenes in class really helped my understanding too. It was a good experience and I hope we see similar ones in the future!
Laney McFarland
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Much Ado about nothing, really stood out to me for its outstanding performance. I loved the Seattle Shakespearean company, it was full of brilliant actors who portrayed there characters very well. The actor who stood out to me the most was Beatrice, during the picnic scene. It was good old fashioned humor, the kind that's priceless to watch. The use of scenery was brilliant, it was very versatile. I also enjoyed the music, I love listening to jazz. I found myself walking out of the play humming the song. Watching the play really made the story line clear to me, i finally understood how each of the characters are related or connected. Overall i enjoyed the play alot!
Payton Tirrell
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
I enjoyed the play, a lot actually. When we read it in class I thought it was gonna be bored and start falling asleep. But as soon as it started I was focused and it had my attention from beginning to end. It was a very good performance but in my opinion it was not as good as The Servant of Two masters. The Servant of Two Masters was more entertaining to me because it was more modern and they referred to current events. That's a choice that not every cast will make. I liked the fun and happy feel that the performance had about it. I did find at times that I didn't know what the actors were saying but that was just how the play was written. Even when I didn't know what the actors were saying I still knew what was going on because of our discussions in class. Since we read the play in class it made it easy to know what was going on because they followed the script exactly. When reading the play in class you couldn't tell it was a comedy but the acting made it a comedy. I think they did a very good job with the small stage space they had. I would definitely see this play again in fact the only complaints I have about the performance is the seats being uncomfortable. It was a top notch performance and I would recommend it to anyone and everyone.
Sean Rankin
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Much Ado About Nothing, was very entertaining to watch. The actors for the most part, did an excellent job conveying the humor. I really enjoyed the music at the start it expressed happy times very well. The play was a lot easier to sit through than the opera or even The Servant of Two Masters because we were really close to the stage. I felt that when you are closer to the stage its better because you can pick up little things that might be hard to see like facial expressions or props. Benedick and Beatrice did a good job you could feel the tension and double meanings of everything they said. I really enjoyed the humor especially when dogberry and verges were questioning conrade. I think the comedy challenged you to think compared to The Servant of Two Masters which used pop culture jokes that were easy to understand. As far as acting I think that Hero and Don Pedro did an excellent job they were very loud, confident, and clear and expressed emotion, and humor with ease. This is probably my favorite of the performances that we have gone to so far.
When I walked into the theatre I was amazed about how small it was and how close we were to the stage. This made the play more personal especially when the actors walked through the audience and disappeared through the back door. This always kept the audience engaged in what was happening. I was also impressed about how the actors made the small stage work in their favor. And the few actors were hiding off to the side during important conversations to eves drop on them was funny because they were always falling into the water. I really liked how the back of the stage was set up, with the boats in the water where you could also just see the top. It was a good way of showing how the water was set down below the bridge. The comical part of the play still confused me because I couldn't understand what they were saying but I could barley get the jist of what they were saying. Some parts I had no idea what was happening and who was talking to who. These types of plays are very difficult for me to follow because of the langue they use. But they are still enjoyable for me.
ReplyDeleteAustin Stenberg
DeletePeriod 4
Maiah Swigert
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
The play "Much Ado About Nothing" actually surprised me a bit. For the past few weeks I was thinking it was going to be semi boring and that I wouldn't necessarily understand what they were talking about (because...Shakespeare). But when I saw it took place in the 1950's--making it more modern, I got really excited. And the words that the actors used were more modern so I actually understood the plot line. I thought that the actors did a really fantastic job, though I thought the performance was a bit cheesy. But who doesn't like a good cheese? I would definitely recommend people see the play, it was done quite well.
Tristan Liebrock
ReplyDeletePer 3
Looking back on today’s show I can say that it was by far my favorite Shakespeare show I’ve either been to or that I’ve read in school. Now the reason I say this was because Much Ado About Nothing was my first comedy show of Shakespeare’s that I’ve read, but if you asked me if I could have predicted that from just our reading of the script in class I would have said no. Now after I’ve seen the show I realized that Shakespeare actually did write some plays that didn’t end in death. But that’s not the only reason I like today’s show. The biggest reason why today’s show stood out was the acting, each actor showed a type of enthusiasm in how they portrayed their character that really brought them to life, for example look at Benedict and Beatrice, how they acted together was like they have been doing that for years, or even Dogberry, he brought more comedic relief to the play that was a great way to lighten a sad act. Also the set was amazing, the fact that they had a “pond” to allow the actors to use made the set so versatile that they never had to change the set.
Bryia Madison
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
Much Ado About nothing was surprisingly entertaining. The characters all came to life and some in ways that I did not expect. Beatrice was as sassy as I thought and Claudio was as lovesick as I expected. However, Dogberry was interpreted in a way that I didn't understand. I couldn't figure out what they were supposed to be. When they first appeared on stage they looked to be checking the levels of something but I didn't understand what or why it was necessary. Then, when they started talking to the Chef and what I presumed to be a waitress, I honestly had no idea what they were supposed to be. I got that they were being some type of police force, keeping the community in order, but past that, I was lost. Also, he kept calling his assistant his neighbor and making references to her being lesser than him and yet she still swooned. That made me confused and also disappointed. Overall, I thought the play was charismatic and creative.
Byron Murray
ReplyDelete10/27/13
Period 4
I was really impressed and pleasantly surprised by the play “Much Ado about Nothing”. What I found the most enjoyable was how the actors dressed up in a different style than the time period that Shakespeare wrote it in. Another aspect that I also was surprised by was the sound track that they added to the play and having a person actually singing a song on stage. By having the play put in a different and more modern setting it helped me understand it a bit better. It also made the play more interesting because the play no longer was in the same setting that everyone else always performed it in. The play also seemed kind of like something you would watch on TV if you were really bored or into weird shows instead of a live play. The music in the play really set the tone and the atmosphere for all of the scenes which is something new and cool for a Shakespeare play and almost makes it seem like something different. All in all I believe that the play was pretty good and I was impressed by it. Every aspect that went into the play seemed to fit the story and make it extremely better than the book. This would be one of the few plays that I would suggest someone watch if they had nothing else to do.
Alison Mowry
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
In the play, "Much Ado About Nothing," I didn't expect for the actors to be so intense and show so much emotion in their performance. I really enjoyed the first scene because it was as if they were actually having a good time dancing and passing the beach ball back and forth. I didn't see it as acting more than personal enjoyment. I also loved how close we were to the stage. Sometimes in the bigger theatres it's hard to see when you're sitting higher up, and today I felt more intrigued and interested in what was going on. Something that I didn't quite like about the play was the setting. During the last performance which was the opera, I was really amazed at how realistic the setting was and really enjoyed the atmosphere, but in much ado about nothing I felt like it didn't seem as realistic. Although I wasn't as excited about the setting, I thought the lighting was done very well. It always transitioned nicely according to what time of day it was in the story line. Although there were still some parts that I didn't quite understand, seeing the play actually being acted out made the storyline more clear than when we read the play in class. Overall I thought the actors produced a really good performance, and the mixture of emotions, lighting, humor, singing, and dancing made it an enjoyable experience.
Ashley Barnett
ReplyDeleteP.3
I thought that the play tonight was very nicely done. They elegantly captured Shakespeare’s sense of humor in a modern way that kept its original text but was still entertaining as of today. I enjoyed how this play stuck very closely to the original text and plot and didn’t alter or improvise and of the lines like in A Servant of Two Masters. Watching this play I felt like if could have been performed like that in the Shakespearian era. I also really enjoyed the small intimate setting I could easily see the facial expressions of the actors and it really added to the overall performance. I also liked how they walked up and down the aisles of the audience that was a fun way to extend their stage. This play house was my favorite out of the other two we have been to. Also I think Dogberry made a lot more sense when you got to see him in person instead of just reading his lines. I also thought Benedick and Beatrice were really funny they were defiantly my favorite characters in the play. Their lines were a lot more humorous acted out than just read. This was my second favorite play out of the three. In my opinion it was very well done for Shakespeare.
Alex Rees
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
The play "Much Ado About Nothing" was interesting. The modern twist of the play was something most of us could relate to. This play had a setting in the 50's judging by the dresses and the bright colored lipstick. But I found it interesting that the play was still in Shakespearian language. I wondered why did that. Saying if they were trying to make it modern they would make it traditional english. But I could still understand what was going on. The setting behind it was something that fit in very well with what was going on in the play and how the modern twist worked with the setting. Having sailors be around a sea side dock and ship masts in the background worked very well. Also how the bar and grill was named Mesina. All and all the play was good! I enjoyed watching it, and it had its moments being funny but also very serious. Especially at the part where the daughter "dies" and Lianardo flips out. It had a good scale of funny and seriousness to it.
Abbey Folsom
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
Art History 1
Baroque
My art history period is Baroque. The period began around 1600 in Rome and spread to most of Europe. The success of the Baroque style was due to the encouragement lead by the Roman Catholic Church which decided at the time of the Protestant Reformation that the arts should relate to religious themes in direct and emotional involvement. The artistic style is exaggerated motion and clear which is interpreted to produce drama, tension, exuberance. The period has a lot of sculpture, painting, architecture, literature, dance and music. The painting style features exaggerated lighting, intense emotions, release from restraint and a kind of artistic sensationalism, but did not really depict the life style of the people at that time. Baroque sculptures include dynamic movements and energy of human form, for example a sculpture that spiraled around an empty central vortex. The architecture of the period emphasized bold massing, colonnades, domes, light and shade, “painterly” color effects and bold play of volume and void. This includes monumental staircases and a presence of chamber or throne room or a state bedroom which were copied at a smaller scale in aristocratic homes. The theatre evolved from the Mannerism period to become a multimedia experience, which started with the architectural space. Most of the technology that is used in Broadway or commercial plays was invented and developed during the Baroque era.
Jace Brandmeier
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
First off, I have to say that I haven’t read anyone else’s reviews. So this is my own personal opinion. Before we got to the theater I thought that the play was going to take place on the little stage in the middle of the center house. So I was glad to find out that there was a theater underneath. When we first walked into the theater, I was amazed at how small it was. But that was kind of cool because there was really no need for microphones, and it was like you were right there. But I thought that the seats in the theater were a bit cramped and that the temperature was bit warm. Once the play started I thought it wasn’t too bad. It was cool to see how they used the one single set to represent all different kinds of scenes and scenarios. I thought that the characters went right along with the play that we read. I thought that all the actors did a good job and I didn’t find any problems with it. I thought that dogberry was the funniest character, and thought his character was pretty goofy. There were some other funny parts but I thought that the first play was funnier. But I did like it better than the opera, mostly because I could understand what they were saying. Overall I thought that the play was pretty good but the theater seating was too small.
Joshua Scheck
ReplyDeletePeriod3
I was very pleased with the play Much Ado About Nothing. I really enjoyed how they introduced a sort of modern day adaptation to the play because I was expecting something typical of the Shakespearean Era but this intrigued me. At least in my opinion, the best part of the modern day adaptations were the clothing. It just made me feel like I fit in because I saw clothing that was very familiar to me. Although the book was quite boring to me, the play itself was quite entertaining. The reason why was because I’m not really one that would heavily visualize what’s going on while reading. Also the Shakespearean English is quite odd and it’s really hard for me to understand everything that’s going on without a visual aid. Another thing I enjoyed about the play was how it was quick paced because I do feel very sleepy if something is super slow like the last opera we watched. Something I didn’t really enjoy was the theater itself because it was very packed and small. But I guess it did allow me to see everything a lot closer. It kind of felt like you were there in person watching the whole plot unravel which is a quite unique experience. I disliked how the play seemed like it was read right out of the book because I was wishing for more improvisation. Meaning that it didn’t flow seamlessly because they had modern day adaptations with old English and they didn’t bring up any modern day culture references. It was a comedy but not a great one. Overall, I thought the play was quite enjoyable and I’m hoping that we go to more comedies!
Mimi Gerhardt, Period 4
ReplyDelete"Much Ado About Nothing" was confusing and hard to follow when reading it in class, so I'm so happy we were able to go see it performed. When we got into the Center Theatre, I expected a stage as big as the one from "A Servant of Two Masters", but to my surprise, it was much smaller! Although the performance was kept small, they surely had a lot of detail on their set; they even had a water setup, which I found really neat! When the play started, I was almost confused and wondering if I was in the right theater because of the way they staged Shakespeare's play was so much different what I expected. The modern twist was a bit odd, in my opinion, because they were using Shakespeare's language (for the most part), so I just found it useless to change Messina to a resort and casino. However, the way they added different props to change the scene was interesting and creative to me. The lighting was really well done also. The scenes were drastically changed just by the flick of a switch, and that ceiling filled with lights surely weren't there just for show! I found it somewhat hard to follow who was who at the beginning, because I had planted a completely different image in my head of who looked like who and the set. After I figured out who was who, it was easier to follow and was more enjoyable for me. I thought the actors showed so much emotion, as if they were actually their character, and I loved that enthusiasm. Overall, that made the play more interesting and delightful. This show wasn't my favorite out of the three we've already seen, but I did love being able to experience the play outside of the books.
Spencer Read, Period 4
ReplyDeleteThe play itself was even more confusing to the book, for me. Everybody spoke so quickly, I couldn't understand them. Not to mention that 90% of the words they spoke are not in my vocabulary. However, I did see some very good traits to the performance. I found it impressive how all of the scenes managed to stay on one set. I also thought that the characters were very open. I know, it is their job to be professional actors, but even so. When a character was alone on the set, and had to look off into the distance, as if speaking to themselves, they did a very good job. Instead of staring blankly into the distance as an ordinary person would, the actor would look directly into the faces of the audience, so as to make the audience feel like the character's conscience. This was very engaging, as an audience member. We (the audience) were the voice in his/or head that he/she spoke and conversed with. I also found that the actors were well-chosen. A man large in stature, who is a strong, noble type who is Benedick. A strong, young, tender-hearted looking man for Claudio. Perhaps one of the best choices of an actor was the actor chosen to be the male singer on the set. He was a youthful, funny character, who was put in humorous situations, but he also had a very nice voice for singing. I thought that the play, though confusing at times, was very well done, and well fit for any audience.
Jessica Bruce
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
I found the play to be very enjoyable. I really appreciated the set. I liked how they incorporated a real pond into the set. It was something I had never seen before. I also appreciated how the actors actually got in the water and got wet instead of it just being there for decoration. I was also impressed that the cast used the same set throughout the entire performance. They made it work and the absence of a bunch of set changes helped me to focus more on the actors.
I also enjoyed the time period this play was set in. I think that the time period worked really well with the play and added more dimension to the script. I thought the costumes were fun and I liked the beach scene in the beginning.
The actors were very talented and their facial expressions really made the play great. During Hero's funeral Claudio actually looked like he was crying. I also really enjoyed Beatrice's facial expressions especially when she was talking to Benedick. I found myself laughing not at the words but at the smug half smile on her face instead.
Madison Ferris P4
ReplyDeleteMuch Ado About Nothing was surprisingly wonderful! From the second I walked into the theater, I felt like the play was intimate. I love how small the theater is, it gives a close feeling, like you're right up in the action with the actors. My favorite part of the entire play was the candles the girls put on the water off the tray. The candles were so beautiful reflecting the water, I couldn't get over it. In that, I also was shocked that there was a ton of water in the theater in the canal! I've never seen that before in a theater, I would think that most wouldn't allow that. I also really loved Leonato! I thought he was the best actor in the whole play. He did a great job and showed a whole range of emotions from very happy to extremely angry. All of the characters played their part very well, and got into their unique roles. Another thing I loved, was the constant changing of costumes. Sometimes it felt like every time they came out, they had changed. Especially all the girl characters. They changed dresses many many times. each dress was intricate, beautiful and looked old time like. One thing I wished is that they would of changed sets.I know they added details to change the scene, but I think the scene could of been more ornate and changed at least once. But it was a good first time for me at a Shakespeare play!
In comparison to Macbeth, the only other Shakespeare play that I've seen, Much Ado About Nothing was much more upbeat and positive. Yes, there were some fake tears and some tense moments shared between characters but in general, this was a happy play. The attitudes of the actors and actresses perfectly encapsulated the character they each played. Beatrice in particular was super sassy and was the perfect fit for the role. Benedick was also played exceptionally well, with all the humorous remarks and the 'watery' soliloquy. Also- the close proximity of the audience to the stage added to the experience. You could see facial expressions, parts of the set, and smaller entrances/exits much better. All those things made the performance more enjoyable. The only thing I was a little unsure about was the 50's theme. I didn't think it enhanced the play, maybe it made it al little easier to sit through but not very. I think it would have been better if they had stuck with the original time frame. And if they had modernized the script like the No Fear Shakespeare version, the 50's theme would have worked more.
ReplyDeleteReflecting on the play today, I can't quite tell how I feel. I haven't seen many plays in my life so I don't have much to base my opinions around, but I've given it my best shot.
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning, I was surprised by the small size of the venue, which was cool and made the area more personal and intimate which is important in a play with a slightly confusing plot line. Having an up close clearing understanding of the play helped make it more enjoyable. At first, Beatrice seemed to be talking with so much more passion and sound than the others. I'm not sure if that was because of her role, or the others hadn't fully delved into the play yet, but she seemed to take the stage during the first few scenes especially. I was able to follow the plot easily, which was somewhat difficult while just reading it, and that was very entertaining. The 50's theme made it fun to watch and I wonder if Shakespeare would have thought they did him justice. I think the choice to change the time period and theme so drastically was a bold move, but it was fun to see considering we are living in 2013. Overall, I was impressed with the acting for the most part. Some sexual comments and scenes made me feel slightly uncomfortable and crossed a few lines, but that's entirely my opinion. I also felt a tad weird when Hero was crying for what seemed like forever, while some of the men were yelling and cursing against her without even knowing what the truth was yet. That scene as a whole was very intense, and I felt like no one in the audience was moving. So in that sense, they did a great job conveying emotion, and sometimes conveying emotion is uncomfortable. I am glad we got to see this play and am thoroughly happy with what I saw today!
Desirae Lopes P3
ReplyDeleteMuch Ado About Nothing lived up to it's name. There was so much fuss over nothing! I enjoyed the simplicity of it. The actors simply read their lines and acted how they felt. It was very funny to see scenes being acted out with humor that was not read with humor. An obvious example of this is when Benedict was overhearing Claudio and the prince talking. Also, it helped that all the actors were attractive. My interest was pulled by the intense facial expressions of Claudio. I was always eager for him to come back on stage. The character of Dogberry was executed perfectly! I could see the humor that I couldn't find by reading the play. His character was one of the only ones who made me laugh. I was surprised about how much I cared for Benedict by the end of the play. I thought at the beginning the play was about Claudio and Hero but it's actually about Benedict and Beatrice! This play was the best performance we have seen so far.
Grace Nelson
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
I didn’t expect to like Much Ado About Nothing as much as I did. My friends had seen this play and thought it leaned on the boring side but I found it delightful and hilarious. I didn’t expect the Seattle Shakespeare Company to put the play in a 50’s type feel. I thought that by doing that it made it much easier to understand also it made it very interesting. Reading this play in class was a little tough for me because I think understanding Shakespeare is quite difficult, but by watching the scenes acted out I could follow along much better. Also, I didn’t realize before how this play goes from happy to intense to tragic and then to happy again. My two favorite characters in this play were Bennedick and Beatrice. They were both so sassy and I loved it. I think they were definitely creating most of the laughs in the audience. Beatrice almost reminded me of Lucille Ball in her mannerisms. I wasn’t too fond of Claudio, I thought he was a little winer baby. I really liked the end of the play when the mood was light and everyone was dancing. I thought that was a good way to end the play. I would for sure go see this play again, I found it very delightful. I saw a preview for the new Much Ado About Nothing movie starring Nathan Fillion from Castle, I would like to see that and compare it with the performance I saw today.
John Ross
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
I thought "Much Ado About Nothing" was much funnier than I had expected. Just reading the play in class did not give it justice to the comedy involved. I also believe that reading the play in class did not really help with understanding the play. I recognized the names of characters but I had trouble keeping up. I don't think I fully understood the play beforehand, but I was able to figure it out as it went on. The theater was also not what I had expected. All of the theaters we had been to before had been quite big with large, extravagant sets. This theater was much more intimate, which I think made the show more involved. I liked the simplicity of the set; it put most all of the focus on the actual actors and what was happening. I was also surprised at the age of many of the actors... Most of them seemed to be much older than I thought, and the one boy, Conrad I think, looked so young. I thought the play was very fun to watch, it seemed much more real than most plays. I think it was because of the intimacy of the theater. Also the chairs were quite uncomfortable, so that made sure I didn't fall asleep. Overall I thought the play was very well done! It was very easy to understand what was going on in every scene.
Noah Manns-Taylor
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
I was kind of disappointed in "Much Ado About Nothing" because I had expected it to be quite a bit more entertaining. Even though we read it in class I still couldn't really understand most of what they were saying and I thought the navy theme where everyone was some sort of tourist vacationing in the tropics was a bit strange. The play did for sure have some funny parts, and I only say this because I heard other people laugh, I got maybe 1-2 of all the jokes in the play and actually cracked a smile. The rest was just trying to keep up with what was going on, even though I should have known, and trying to follow along with what was happening currently. I obviously know the overall theme or idea of the play and what was happening, but everything but the largest plot developments were a complete loss on me while watching them act it out. The actors didn't portray at all how I imagined the characters we read in the book, and it seemed like they sort of missed something big. Don Pedro and Don John were supposed to have been at war with each other, so why were they in the same uniforms and why was Don John greeted as a friend or hero? That part was the most confusing to me, because in the book Don John and Don Pedro were in a war against one another, yet in this play it seemed they were brothers-in-arms. If i hadn't read the book beforehand this play would have been completely lost on me. However I won't say i'm sad I went, I think its interesting to see books I've read acted out, however I feel that this play could have been done significantly better.
Jacob Dear
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
For my art history project, I drew the Medieval Period. This period extended over 1000 years in Europe. Medieval is such a wide range of of art, from early Christian art, to Migration art, to Byzantine, to Romanesque. The styles include, but not pertaining too: sculpture, illuminated manuscripts, stained glass, metalworking, architecture, literature, philosophy, and fashion. At the time when the regions were in the process of becoming nations/ cultures, each had its own distinct artistic style. Through the heritage of the Roman Empire and the icon of the Christian church and artistic culture of northern Europe to create one of the most important art periods in history.The characteristics of this art period, is the use of religious subject matter, important figures are larger than others, stiff looking figures, fully clothed, serious emotions, flat or 2-D, and the backgrounds were one color. The Medieval art displays large amounts of vivid colors, no use of perspective, and the large importance of having religious insights.
Nativity- Chapel of the Appiano Castle (Italy) 1100's
Ilya Bauer
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
Much Ado About Nothing as words on a page was just plain boring. I cant say I'm the smartest kid so reading a work written by Shakespeare, in Shakespearean, to a Shakespearean audience, I have to say is quite difficult. Not only is the comprehension of what exactly is going on in the play hard to grasp but jokes and lessons that Shakespeare throws in to entice his audience either go right over my head or trip me up. So sitting in class, already bored out of my mind, trying to read the play but failing to grasp any of the concepts provided happens to fail in interesting me to the actually performance.
Now Much Ado About Nothing on stage is truly an all together different experience. Having actors, who obviously understood the play unlike me, brought the scenarios to life. Now I cant say that I could understand everything that was going on but at least I could pull a few things together using the body postures, facial expressions, and voices changes of the actors. They're portrayal of the story made the funny scenes more comical, such as the scenes with Dogberry, as well as making the distraught scenes more intense.
The first half of the play, I have to say, was the better half. It was more lively, and entertaining. While the second have was way too intense for my liking. Some of these intense moments were a little awkward and kind of wished they weren't so drawn out. I also cant say I liked how it ended. The ending sort of lives what happens to Don John opened ended and part of me wishes that he got some sort of punishment. But over all I surprisingly enjoyed the performance. I would also say that it was better than the first because even though it wasn't as funny, it was a lot more structured and ran a lot smoother.
Riley Schroeder
ReplyDeletePer 3
I enjoyed seeing Much Ado About Nothing today. It was a very funny play, and i enjoyed the time period that the Seattle Shakespeare Company chose to set it in. The acting was all great between when they were speaking and their body language added to a lot of the humor. The small things like one of the men leaning in and staring at a girl as she left, or the many times they were "sneaking" and it was painfully obvious that no person could miss them. Things like the sneaking were very funny and added to the humor that they were trying to convey. One of the other parts i found particularly funny was Dogberry. The actor did a terrific job of acting really goofy without overdoing it. All the actors played their parts very well, but he just stood out from all of them to me, and he was probably my favorite part of the show. The time setting was another part that i enjoyed. The outfits were great and the music was done in a way that it made sense to both the setting and still held the context from Shakespeare. Another thing was that the play definitely made more sense seeing it in person as opposed to reading it in class. I know it was said that it's one of those things that you have to see for it to be funny, but i was getting bored with the reading in class and didn't find the play particularly engaging. This gave me some lower expectations for the play than the previous shows we have seen, but that made for a nice surprise when the scenes made more sense. While i did enjoy the show very much, my favorite of this year will still be A Servant of Two Masters.
Julia McMichael
ReplyDeletePer.3
I really enjoyed the show! I liked how they put a modern twist on the storyline. I thought that the set was the perfect size and served each scene well. It was very clever to add the river on the set, it really added to the setting and also helped during comedic scenes. I also thought that they did a great job adding comedic elements that I would have never imagined in the play. At the beginning I loved how they had them playing in the water and tossing the ball around, it really made you feel like you were there and a part of the play. It was hilarious when Bennedick was snooping on conversations and fell into the water. Also when Beatrice was snooping and she hid in the boat and they purposely threw food on top of her. From where I was sitting in the second section you could easily see the actors snooping and listening to others conversations. Even though it was very suttle because there was so much going on onstage it was very well done. Some other funny touches were the Playboy magazine and Verges carrying the sexual book. They did a good job of adding in just the right amount of comedic relief. I also really enjoyed the Jazz music during the play. My favorite song was during the funeral when they were putting candles in the water, the music was so soft, and pure and it fit the scene perfectly. The choreography in this play was also fantastic. I really liked the dance at the end! Overall I thought it was an amazing play and the best performance I think we have seen so far.
Sophea Thach
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
The play Much Ado About Nothing was interesting! I thought the play would be more funny and realistic in times now. Just because that's how the first play was. But this play was more serious in its acting. The setting was so realistic, much more realistic than the opera we went to. The lighting was good as well making it obvious when something bad is happening, when it was night time, etc. I do wish though that when the scene changed that the setting would change also. Like when someone was supposed to be sneaking into Hero's room, there should have been a setting for that. I barely understood the play, especially when people of the older audience kept laughing at something the actor/actress said. When I read the book it was hard to understand already and seeing them act it out was a bit easier although I know I still didn't understand it quite as well as I thought I would be able to. Although I think the play was interesting, it was boring in some parts. I didn't think that what people were laughing at, was funny at all. I do like that the actors and actresses really put their all into the play! They were all very into their characters and that's what I liked.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKristina Lebakken
ReplyDeletePer. 4
I liked "Much Ado About Nothing" equally as much as the first play we saw which I didn't think I would. I was surprised at how much I actually enjoyed this play. The play made it way easier for me to understand. I really did not understand what we were reading in class. And when we preformed our scenes in class we definitely did not put in the emotion to the scenes. I was surprised because the play was way more funny than I had expected. I loved the scene where he fell into the water. I didn't think that the actor would actually dunk his whole body into water. The other scenes I liked were when Beatrice and Benedick were getting tricked into thinking that they loved one another. Along with the funny parts there were the sad parts which were acted out, I thought very well and felt very real. I like this play because the actors made it easy to follow. I also liked that it was set in the 1950's because the costumes, and music were fun. The set was also awesome with the water, and sailboats in the background. I also really liked this theater. I liked that it was small and you could see everything, and that the actors were so close to you. It was cool that they would walk up the isles to exit, so they would walk right by people in the audience. Overall I really enjoyed this play, it was fun to watch, and I actually understood for the most part what was going on.
Mack Ohnemus
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
At the end of intermission, I was talking with Mrs. McCord about what we thought of the play so far. One thing she said that stuck with me was that we can understand the play well because the actors understand the play. This is especially important with Shakespeare, as it is very difficult to comprehend. From just reading this play in class, we were not able to fully understand it, if at all for some people, but bringing the pages to life in a performance is extremely helpful. Especially to visual learners like myself. It also helped that this performance was set in the 1950's, rather than in Shakespearean time. During Intermission, I was also talking with one of Mr. Schindler's old students, who I also know from technical theatre last year. He was talking about all the things he noticed wrong in the show - tech wise. He noticed that one of the lights wasn't working as well as it should have been, as well as some shoes being black when they were suppose to be white. Me, not even seeing these things. I was too busy focusing on the actors, they were just so engaging to the plot and the audience.
Taryn Riegel
ReplyDeletePer 4
Romanticism was a time period during the 1800's. It came shortly after the classical period. Romanticism is known to be considered a revolt of the classical era because of their many differenced. The classical era had a lot of structure involved which is completely opposite to the romantic period. Romanticism had art that feature a lot of inner emotions and ideals like a strong faith in humanity, connecting with ones inner self, going back and connecting with nature, and nationalistic pride. An example of a painting that reflects this art period is "Wanderer above the Sea of Fog" by Caspar David Friedrich. This painting features a single man who is gazing off into the distance of the sea. It looks as though he is thinking or contemplating something. What makes that a romantic quality is that he is in solitude which could mean he is connecting with his inner self. Another quality is that the man is overlooking the sea, which is a connection to nature. It is done with oil paints which was common during the romanticism era. Here is a link to the painting: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Caspar_David_Friedrich_032_(The_wanderer_above_the_sea_of_fog).jpg
I thought the acting in the play was very good and well put together. However, I did get bored while watching it. I thought it was funny how Beatrice and Benedict were rude to each other in the beginning, but once they found out the other loved them then they realized they actually were in love! I think I had different expectations of the play after we read the book. Even though I found it boring at times, the play was good and I did like it. I think that everyone forms different story's in their minds while reading a book, so we always expect something different before we go to see the play. But I think that's usually a good thing, because I usually like the plays more after I've seen the real thing. I also liked all of the affects used in the play. I like the music they played, it always seemed appropriate. And I liked how at Hero's "funeral" they put the candles into the water. Its the little things that give meaning to something, and I thought the play was well put together overall. I think I would have enjoyed it more if it had a little more humor but other than that I thought it was good!
ReplyDeleteSarah Porter
ReplyDeletePer 4
To be honest, I wasn’t really sure what to expect of “Much Ado About Nothing”. Reading the play in class, I didn’t totally understand what was going on during some parts so I kind of hoped seeing the play would help it to make more sense. While I definitely understood the plot better after having seen the play, I still found it slightly hard to follow. The idea of setting the play in a completely different era, such as the 1950s, is very creative and could have the potential to make the play appeal to a more varied audience. However, given that it is still a Shakespearean play with a Shakespearean script, the difference between the older speech and the newer setting was confusing, and almost slightly awkward. And since the script was written so long ago, it was hard to actually get most of the jokes being told by the actors, as opposed to “A Servant and Two Masters”, where their jokes were more modernized, while still for the most part sticking to the original script. That being said, I thought that the acting itself was very good; the actors knew what they were doing, and they definitely got into their characters. Also, I was impressed with the complexity of the set and props. In general, since I am not really a huge drama fanatic, I thought “Much Ado About Nothing” was pretty good, but I had a hard time truly enjoying watching it.
Michael Stiles
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
I was very surprised how the play "Much ado About Nothing" went. I wasn't sure if I would like the performance but I would have to say it was way better then the last performance we went to. I only fell asleep once and that was when things went slow between acts. I liked how everything was small and close up in the theater. With the last performance I couldn't really see from the balcony level and looking up and down between the subtitles and the actors was far too annoying but with much ado I was actually able to understand what they were saying. I liked how the stage was so close up to the audience and I found it really cool when the actors looked into the crowd and even walked through the aisles. I am really excited for our next performance of the tristan effect.
Mano Barkovics
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
For my art history project, I will be introducing the Italian Renaissance Era, one of the beautifulest and culture changing time. This significant cultural change began in Italy in the 14th century and lasted until the 16th century. Even though a new era has began, Italian culture and society largely remained Mediaeval. The Renaissance was only becoming more popular in the late 14th century. Naissance in French means born/birth, so Renaissance means rebirth from a Greek culture. There were many cultural achievements throughout these centuries. Italian Renaissance paintings and sculptures were famous all through Europe, especially the ones that were made by Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Botticelli,.Titan, Domenico Ghirlandaio and many more. The Renaissance began in Tuscany and centered in the cities of Florence and Siena. It later had a significant effect on Rome, which was ornamented with some structures in the new beautiful all'antico mode, then was largery rebuilt by the popes which they gave the churches more breathtaking ceiling paintings and architecture designs. Once the Italian Renaissance peaked in the 16th century, which made the ideas and ideals of the Renaissance endured and even spread into the rest of Europe, thus gave the ability to Northern Renaissance and English Renaissance to form. I'm really looking forward to work with the Renaissance age, because it always fascinated me and in my opinion the Italian Renaissance was the best time to live in and experience the changes and new styles in art, literature, and architecture.
Taggert Rose
ReplyDeletep.3
For my project I will be studying the Romantic era. Romanticism was an artistic, literary, and intellectual movement originating in Europe during the late 18th century. It was partly a reaction to the industrial revolution and also a revolt against some of the norms from the Age of Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution. This movement was against turning nature into a mere science. Romanticism showed itself most in the form of arts like music and literature. However, it also had an important influence on historiography, education, and natural history. This era’s emphasis was on imagination and emotions rather then science and facts. Artwork from this era often captured landscapes or incorporated trees, plants, people, and so on. One example of this is a famous painting by Caspar David Friedrich called “Morning in the Riesengebirge”. In this photo we can see the sun glowing over the hills in the background of eastern Saxony. A cross sits upon what looks to be the highest peak in the landscape. We could either infer that the artist was religious and wanted to incorporate a cross into this painting, or it could mean the picture was painted true to life and a cross actually sat at the top of that mountain. Here is the painting “morning in the Riesengebirge”: http://facstaff.uww.edu/carlberj/216/cdf3.jpg
Evyn Anderson
ReplyDeleteP4
The art era that I will be researching is Medieval. Medieval art is very vast and includes a lot of different types of art in a lot of different places over a long period of time. Some examples of the different pieces of art are sculptures, paintings, mosaics, stained glass, and frescoes, a special type of wall painting. Medieval art most commonly revolved around religion, more specifically, Christianity. Many of the original pieces in this era were very expensive and went to or were a part of the church. One material that was constantly and consistently used in medieval art is precious metals. Gold, lapis lazuli, and gold leaf were used in paintings and mosaics. It was apparent to the people of the medieval era that these expensive elements could be of greater value in the future.
Campbell Gunnell
ReplyDeleteperiod 4
i thought they play was very good. it was interesting and they had a good idea making the play in a more modern setting. however i did not particularly love how the dialogue stayed the same as in the original story. many of the words felt out of place and it was just kind of strange. i ether had to ignore the setting or interpret the wording in my head to make the play fit together in my opinion. so that was kind of a downside, however other than that i thought it was a great play. i particularly loved the setting, they put a lot of effort and detail into it and i thought it was good. Dogberry was extremely annoying in my opinion but i think that was how it was meant to be so that's all good.
Katie Daniels
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Much Ado About Nothing was surprisingly entertaining to me. Out of all the plays and operas we have seen, this one was my favorite. Walking into the play, i noticed what a small area it was, and how we were up so close to the actual stage. I really liked being so up close and personal with all the actors preforming, and it made the experience so much better for me. I was very impressed with how real the stage was and how the lighting was changed depending on the mood of the scene. How different lights and simple props were brought out made the play even more real. The water being used, with the boat in it added to the stage was nice as well, it added to the drama, and in the scene with the candles being lit it added emotion to the scene as well as the tree, and plants. I was also very impressed by the singing and the musical side of the play. The emotion put into the singing and the facial expressions showed how the preformers really knew what they were doing. The story line of the play being acted out i understood much better than i did the book as well. However, the play was an enjoyable experience for me.
Robert Hawley
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
Much Ado About Nothing was an exceptional display of talent. From the cast to the crew behind it all, it was an amazing performance. Every aspect of it was very well crafted. The actors were great, but one stood out to me. The singer (I forget his name, if he had one at all) was an amazing addition to the roster. He set the stage so many times with his fantastic singing, and it's one of the most memorable parts of the show in my opinion. I really was surprised by how small the stage was, but what was even more surprising was how well set up and put together the stage was. The props and the pond scene were astounding. And the lighting was incredible! I could scarcely imagine how much money they put into light bulbs and electricity for that stage. One of the things that I really felt held the play back though was the small stage. Imagine if they had a stage as large as The Daughter of the Regiment's, it would of been even greater!