4 comments about Don Juan.

1. To call someone a "Don Juan" today is to call him a womanizer, or if you're willing to be a bit more generous in your interpretation, a smooth-operating romancer. That was the beginning and end of my knowledge of all things Don Juan until about two years ago when I first saw the legend of Don Juan performed on stage. It was then that I learned that "womanizer" only begins to scratch the surface of the character, and that Don Juan is in fact an unrepentant libertine who undoes women at every opportunity and then moves on to his next target with the clearest of consciences and without so much as a glance backwards.
   
   Recently, I was reminded of that play and that in turn has spurred an interest in reading the various interpretations of the Don Juan story. The most well known are the original 1630 play by the Spanish playwright Tirso de Molina; Moliere's version that followed a few decades later; a 19th century play by another Spanish playwright by the name of Jose Zorrilla; and Byron's unfinished magnum opus.
   
   An English version of Tirso de Molina's play has been hard to come by, so my reading of the many Don Juan's began with Richard Wilbur's translation of Moliere's work, and it proved to be a thoroughly enjoyable starting point. Moliere's play wonderfully balances wit and at times even rollick with deeper, empathetic moments, such as a powerful scene in which Don Juan's father denounces his son for his baseness and for his disregard of his family's noble legacy, which Don Juan knowingly cheapens through his morally corrupt lifestyle. As for Don Juan himself, there is no deed that is too wicked. As the play opens, we learn that his most recent conquest was a certain Doña Elvira, a nun whom Don Juan, under promise of marriage, beguiled into leaving the convent and breaking her vows. When Don Juan sets his eye on his next seducee, Don Juan's explanation of why he can no longer bear to be with Doña Elvira only adds impiety to his already impious deed, and it's a wonder that God does not make a dark smudge of Don Juan right then and there. Yet despite Don Juan's utterly contemptible acts, Moliere does not make him entirely unsympathetic. Don Juan may be a monster, but he's one that possesses the gifts of charm and eloquence, and we can't help but to find him fascinating. His defense of his actions, and by extension of his immorality, is brilliant and perverse and deeply seductive all at once; his discourse on hypocrisy is sharp and scathing and tempts us, not entirely without success, to reconsider his moral abrogation against the backdrop of society's insincerity. For all his deplorable acts, at least it can be said that Don Juan is true to himself, even in the face of terrible consequences.
   
   As for Richard Wilbur's work in translating Moliere's play, I'm always somewhat reluctant to comment on the quality of a translation. For one, the very reason that I'm reading a translation is that I'm unversed in the original language, and second, I rarely fully read multiple translations of a given work. When there are multiple translations available, I generally read a few passages in each and compare them to find which one speaks to me more. In the case of Moliere's Don Juan, that translation was Wilbur's; the language is vibrant and modern and free of the stodginess that I encountered in older translations. If you're interested in reading Moliere's Don Juan, which I wholeheartedly recommend, then this I believe is the translation to go with.



2. This play is a treat to read, and I can't wait to see it performed. Moliere, however, must share the spotlight with the translator, Richard Wilbur, who shows an elegant flair for conversational prose. The contemporary American reader lives in a land of waning religiosity, yet one in which theocracy is ironically gaining influence in national politics. It is in this context that we have to smile, if not laugh, when Don Juan says,
   
   "It's no longer shameful to be a dissembler; hypocrisy is now a fashionable vice and all the fashionable vices pass for virtues. The part of the God-fearing man is the best possible role to play nowadays, and in our present society the hypocrite's profession has extraordinary advantages. It's an art whose dishonesty always goes unchallenged...The hypocrite, by means of pious pretenses, attaches himself to the devout, and anyone who then assails him is set upon by a great phalanx of the godly...The true believers are easily hoodwinked by the false...I can't tell you how many men I know who, by means of a feigned devotion, have glossed over the sins of their youth, wrapped themselves in the cloak of religion, and in that holy disguise are now free to be the worst of scoundrels!"
   
   Amazon's rules prohibit me from disclosing the ending, though it has been known for some 331 years, but I will tell you that it leaves Don Juan's valet, Sganarelle, wondering how he'll ever get his back pay.



3. "What a fine creed that is! So far as I can see, your religion consists of arithmetic." --said to Don Juan by his valet, Sganarelle

   Richard Wilbur won the National Book Award, the Pulitzer Prize, and he has served as Poet Laureate of the United States. His translation of Moliere's once censored comedy, Don Juan (1665), successfully conveys to English readers not only the words but also the humor of the original. For his translation, Wilbur wrote an insightful Introduction explicating the play's moral subtleties.

   The play's renowned French comic dramatist, Moliere (1622-1673), previously authored Tartuffe (1664), a comedy lampooning religious hypocrisy. However, Tartuffe offended pious sensibilities to the point that performances of it halted prematurely. As observed in Wilbur's Introduction, Moliere may have hoped to placate religious militants opposed to Tartuffe with a comedy about a young, wealthy, atheistic, amorous scoundrel that gets his just punishment in hell.

   However, if placation of religious scruples partially motivated Moliere to select the Don Juan character, his intention failed. The comedy outraged the pious, forcing him to make cuts after the first performance. Like Tartuffe, Don Juan closed early although it was a box-office success. Wilbur suggests that the primary reason it offended is its moral ambiguity. For although Don Juan gets his just punishment for his wickedness, mockery of orthodoxy is just below the surface of the plot.

   For example, in Act 1, Scene 1, orthodox beliefs are implicitly put on a par with superstition when Don Juan's valet, Sganarelle, reports that his master "doesn't believe in Heaven, or Hell, or werewolves even." In Act 3, Scene 1, Sganarelle asks if Don Juan believes in Heaven, Hell, and the Devil, to each of which he makes plain his disbelief. Finally, Sganarelle asks if he believes in the Bogeyman, and he answers, "Don't be an idiot." Sganarelle then objects, "Now there you go too far, for there's nothing truer in this world than the Bogeyman; I'll stake my life on that." Thus, Moliere casts a nincompoop as an apologist of orthodoxy.

   Another offensive characterization is the pious Poor Man in Scene 2 of Act 3. He is an idiot living alone for ten years in the woods praying for the prosperity of those who give him alms while he himself lacks "a crust of bread to chew on." Don Juan suggests that he worry less about others and pray to Heaven for a coat. Offering him a gold coin, Don Juan says, "Here it is, take it. Take it, I tell you. But first you must blaspheme." The Poor Man replies, "No, Sir, I'd rather starve to death."

   Perhaps most offensive is Don Juan's explanation of why he has decided to become a religious hypocrite in Act 5, Scene 2. Being a hypocrite will make it easier to hide his misconduct and make obtaining forgiveness easier by repentance if found out. Moreover, being the hypocrite will enable him to accuse his enemies of impiety, thereby stirring up against them "a swarm of ignorant zealots."

   Thus, in Moliere's Don Juan, nothing is sacred, and Richard Wilbur's translation captures every outrageous bit of it. Buy it, read it and laugh!




4. I had no intention of reading a romance type novel, I dont even read them and I happenned to pick this up , just to pass the time while I waited in line. I was mesperized and laughing by the time I was at the front of the line. I putt back the book I was going to buy and bought this. You wont be disappointed. Perfect reading for a cold snowy night!

5 comments about The Ultimate Improv Book: A Complete Guide to Comedy Improvisation.

1. This is the best improvisation book I have come across because it actually has instruction and rules about improvisation. It's not just a list of improv situations and games - it's a real "how-to" and "why" and "what appeals to an audience" book. I teach improvisation and even though other books are great resources, this one is a front runner just because of its instruction aspect of the whole concept of Improvisation.



2. ANYONE and EVERYONE involved with the Canadian improv games should own this book. Teams who are just starting out, teachers who are thinking of starting a team, and players who have been improvising for years can all benefit from the information. Great skill-developing games, lists of characteristics, genres, and so on to help teams practise, and conprehensive descriptions of each game. Outlines dos and don't of improv. I love this book more than life itself.



3. If you are interested in becoming a "player" or coach with an improv team or troupe - this book is all you will ever need. It is organized for easy action and understanding. It is almost always hands-on, explains each technique with real-life examples and never misses the mark. It is like buying a teacher's manual and includes an awesome training schedule and system for whipping any group into a great improv team. I highly recommend this book. I have used it to take 2 teams to the Canadian Improv Games national finals in Ottawa! Buy it!



4. I had thought that this book would be a good guide for beginner or experience improvisors to improve their skills; however the book is written with advice on how to start an improv team at a high school and has a great deal of focus on competiting in the Canadian Improv Games (two areas i was just not intersted in). The chapters are very short and try to drop in every improv term without going into depth on any. The book does have a nice list of exercises and suggestions at the end, but many again focus on performating them with younger improvisors and some descriptions weren't complete enough to attempt to use them.

   This book would probably be most helpful to someone who is already very familiar with improv and who wants to teach it to high school students. But for the sake of those you are teaching, seek out more complete references like those by Viola Spolin.




5. Edward Nevraumont and Nicholas Hanson's Ultimate Improv Book provides a complete curriculum in 24 class-length units, covering the basics of improvisational skills, comedy basics, and improv work. Games and skits lend to honing skills as well as putting on productions.

1 comments about Breaking the Rules: The Wooster Group.

1. For the last 25 years, The Wooster Group has been one of the most influential and important experimental theatre groups in the country. They have managed, along with such contemporaries as Richard Foreman and Robert Wilson, to redefine the boundaries of what theatre is and what it can do while all the while having a wonderfully fun and zany time. This book not only gives in-depth analysis of seven of the group's pieces, but also manages to record the feelings and personalities of the group members through the countless interviews and dialogues represented. The result is a terrifically informative book which captures much of the unique collaborative process that goes into each work, each one a theatrical "explosion" of visceral excitement. However, like all experimental theatre, it is terribly difficult to really represent theatre that is not based on standard written texts; a production of the Wooster Group must be experienced first-hand in conjunction with this book to really appreciate what the troupe has achieved. Any reader must also recognize that although this is the only text devoted solely to the Soho performers, it is, at the time of this review, twelve years old and does not represent the current productions but rather the processes and experiements, constructions and deconstructions, odds and ends that led to what they are today.

No comments about Theatre: Choice in Action.

5 comments about King Henry IV, Part 1 (Cambridge School Shakespeare).

1. The young Hal and his instructor in the art of living the good life , Falstaff cavort through the first half of Henry IV as if life were going to be one long , irresponsible entertainment. The dramatic transformation of all of this , and Hal's casting off of Falstaff, and moving to kingly responsibility will come in the Henry IV Part II.
   What is present here throughout is the tremendous richness of Shakespeare's imagination in his creation of character, and inventiveness in language , in his ability to create so many different moods and feelings.
   'Falstaff' is one of Shakespeare's most beloved characters, and one of the great figures in the Comedy of world literature.
   Enjoy.



2. I am actually reviewing both Parts One and Two with this since they should be read together.The reason why I enjoyed these plays so much is because we see Falstaff in both of them. He is my favourite Shakespearean character - big, bawdy, rough, a liar and a cheat, but again we know what he is right from the beginning, and Shakespeare keeps him so true to character. These plays are a bit different from some of the other histories. There are more comedic parts in them for one thing. The plays are certainly used as a medium for introducing young Hal (who will become King Henry V). We see him as a young man, and watch him grow and see the influences that his society and the people in it have on his development. He doesn't appear to be growing up well according to his father because he is so irresponsible. King Henry IV was not England's strongest ruler. He was haunted by his guilt over the death of his predecessor, King Richard II. In Part Two, comedy still plays a big role, and we still see Falstaff's influence on young Hal until the shocking moment of Falstaff's death. The best part about Part Two though is the deathbed scene between old King Henry IV and his son Prince Henry. The play leads us to "King Henry V". Prince Hal does finally grow up and he becomes a very strong leader. Actually King Henry Iv, Parts one and two should be read before King Henry V. It is the correct sequence and we see Prince Hal grow and mature.



3. Henry IV remains one of my favorite Shakespeare plays, even though the tragedies and comedies get far more attention and seeming appreciation than do the histories. As an English major, I examined Henry's (Hal's) character, and I focused on his development from a somewhat foolhardy young man into a self-assured, even manipulative prince. It is hard to say which of these Hal truly is, or if he is a little bit of both.
   
   At the beginning of the play, Hal spends his free time cavorting around with his friend Falstaff (who provides all of the laughs in the play and is cited as one of the best comic characters in all literature). In the first act we already see hints in Hal's sololiquy that he may not be as carefree as we are led to believe, and that he might betray friends like Falstaff to be the prince that he is expected to be. Read on in "Henry V" to see just how much of a polished politician Hal becomes--his battle cries and his "once more unto the breech, dear friends" is masterful in its persuasiveness and ability to induce his countrymen to fight.
   
   Hotspur serves as a nice counterpoint to Hal in "Henry IV." Hotspur is the hothead and Hal makes his decisions calmly and rationally. This almost inhuman rationality comes into play again in "Henry V" and makes you long for the seemingly carefree Hal.
   
   All in all, "Henry IV" is a great read and quite an interesting character study--I highly recommend it!



4. In Part One of Shakespeare's "Henry IV," the titular king tries to defend his throne from a rebel army led by the hotheaded Hotspur, who has a long list of grievances about the king's treatment of his family, the Percys. Hotspur has allied himself with several principal figures including his uncle the Earl of Worcester, his brother-in-law Mortimer the Earl of March, Lord Douglas the Scot, and Owen Glendower, a Welsh chieftain with a vivid mystical imagination -- he is so egotistical that he insists an earthquake that occurred the day of his birth was a divine proclamation of his importance -- and a desire to usurp all of Wales from the king.

   While he is preparing for war against the rebels, Henry IV laments that his own son Henry (Hal), the Prince of Wales, is a shameful libertine living the high life in London and consorting with a gang of scurrilous miscreants. Indeed, Prince Hal's idea of fun is robbing people, and his best friend and accomplice in this activity is Sir John Falstaff, who turns out to be not Hal's peer but a middle-aged man. In a character transformation of an abruptness that can only be described as magical, Hal becomes a serious young man determined loyally to defend his father's kingship from Hotspur's assault after he receives an earnest lecture from his father about the dangers of acting irresponsibly as a public figure.

   Not enough can be said about Falstaff, who is undoubtedly one of the most richly realized characters in literature. He is fat, lazy, cowardly, yet boastful, but not in the same way Owen Glendower is -- Owen really believes what he says; Falstaff is just trying to make himself look better than he actually is, but fools nobody because he prevaricates and embellishes without bothering to remember his previous lies for the sake of consistency. You probably know somebody like this in real life -- especially if you're ten years old. Falstaff's piquancy, in fact, so outweighs the stature of the other characters that his absence is sorely felt in the scenes in which he does not appear.

   Most of all, Part One of "Henry IV" is a play of contrasts personified by Prince Hal and Hotspur, who incidentally is also named Henry. In their confrontation on the battlefield, it seems unlikely that Hal, who wasted many of his best days living as a rake, could conquer a seasoned warrior like Hotspur in a swordfight. But there wouldn't be much of a tale to tell if not to show Hal triumphing after his resolution to change his weak habits, and the play ends with the conviction that, despite his past mistakes, he would make a noble king himself.




5. This is the play where the Percy rebellion begins and centers around the Achilles-like Hotspur. Eventually, Hotspur (Henry Percy) and Prince Hal (Henry Monmouth - later Henry V) battle in single combat.
   
   We also get to see the contrast between these young men in temperament and character. King Henry wishes his son were more like Hotspur. Prince Hal realizes his own weaknesses and seems to try to assure himself (and us) that when the time comes he will change and all his youthful foolishness will be forgotten. Wouldn't that be a luxury we wish we could all have afforded when we were young?
   
   Of course, Prince Hal's guide through the world of the cutpurse and highwayman is the Lord of Misrule, the incomparable Falstaff. His wit and gut are featured in full. When Prince Hal and Poins double-cross Falstaff & company, the follow on scenes are funny, but full of consequence even into the next play.
   
   But, you certainly don't need me to tell you anything about Shakespeare. Like millions of other folks, I am in love with the writing. However, as all of us who read Shakespeare know, it isn't a simple issue. Most of us need help in understanding the text. There are many plays on words, many words no longer current in English and, besides, Shakespeare's vocabulary is richer than almost everyone else's who ever lived. There is also the issue of historical context, and the variations of text since the plays were never published in their author's lifetime.
   
   For those of us who need that help and want to dig a bit deeper, the Arden editions of Shakespeare are just wonderful.
   
   -Before the text of the play we get very readable and helpful essays discussing the sources and themes and other important issues about the play.
   
   -In the text of the play we get as authoritative a text as exists with helpful notes about textual variations in other sources. We also get many many footnotes explaining unusual words or word plays or thematic points that would likely not be known by us reading in the 21st century.
   
   -After the text we get excerpts from likely source materials used by Shakespeare and more background material to help us enrich our understanding and enjoyment of the play.
   
   However, these extras are only available in the individual editions. If you buy the "Complete Plays" you get text and notes, but not the before and after material which add so much! Plus, the individual editions are easier to read from and handier to carry around.

No comments about Theatre in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology.

1 comments about Acting: An Introduction to the Art and Craft of Playing.

1. I bought this book on a whim, having given up my acting career after my last stint in rehab, thinking it would be fun to look back on the fond memories I had while in "the biz." I was shocked and amazed at how inspiring and uplifting this book was. Kassel clearly knows what he's doing. I even traveled all the way to New Paltz to see him perform in "URINETOWN: THE MUSICAL." Oh, he was spectacular! I am very happy to say that I'm taking classes and hoping to get back on track real soon! Maybe I'll even apply to New Paltz!

No comments about The House of Blue Leaves and Chaucer in Rome.

No comments about Idea to Script: Storytelling for Today's Media.

3 comments about Oliver Stone's USA: Film, History, and Controversy.

1. Oliver Stone is one of the most brilliant and provocative filmmakers working today and in this book we get a great taste of the debate over his work from both sides of the field. The book as a whole is very readable and never boring. Stone fans (like myself) and Stone bashers alike will get a good kick out of this book. The essay and responses to critics that Stone writes are fascinating, informative and speak to the free intellectual spirit and as in his great movies, Stone comes out as a man who really is aware of how the world works. I admire his writing here because it is an encouragement to people to educate themselves and read and do their own research and open their eyes. This book can be provocative intellectually and generally. The critics of Stone here also make some points, but not strong enough in my opinion, Stephen Ambrose comes off as a false historian who does not look at historical events from more than one angle or opinion. Stone easily dismisses his weak attacks. There is also a great deal of good dissection of the Stone films mentioned here which range from "Salvador" to "Nixon." Rock enthusiasts will like the article dealing with Stone's film on Jim Morrison, "The Doors" and Stone's own comments on Morrison and his music. The most provocative articles are those on the two most fiery political films Stone has made, "JFK" and "Nixon." These are provocative pieces because Stone challenges our views of official history and dares us to look behind the veils of the news, historians and some writings. This is not just a book for film buffs or Stone fans and critics, it is a book for people who enjoy good, smart debating and dissections of intellectual arguments. I enjoyed it because it is a breather for people looking for a really smart book. And yes, film buffs should definately read it because it deals greatly with how movies handle fact and fiction and it has important things to say on the role of the cinema in society and art in general. A fascinating, provocative and enjoyable book.



2. Oliver Stone slandered an innocent man in the film JFK. The greatest film critic of all, Pauline Kael, said Stone was a lousy screenwriter, and she's right. And Oliver Stone's response at the end of the book to Gerald Posner's book on the JFK assassination CASE CLOSED (that proves convincingly that Oswald was a lone gunman) is just absurd!! Every sin Stone says Posner committed--and in fact did not commit in most cases--Stone committed a million times more in JFK! I've rarely seen greater hypocrisy than I saw in Stone's Posner piece. If you want to read about an irrational, paranoid, egomaniac, go ahead and read this silly book.



3. Since "Salvador" in 1985, Oliver Stone has kept humorless historians, political journalists and right wing reactionaries flinching.

   "Platoon" (1986) was the first motion picture that actually depicted the lives of the "grunts" fighting in Vietnam, completely oliberating the absolute stupidity of John Wayne's jingositic film of "The Green Berets" in 1968.

   "Born On The Fourth of July" portrayed the pain and suffering of many Vietnam vets returning home to a society that seemed callous and indifferent.

   In 1991, Stone became the first commercial filmmaker with any clout to take on the morass of details surrounding the Kennedy assassination.

   Can a man who makes movies based on historical events actually be classified as an historian?

   That seems to be the fundamental question surrounding "Oliver Stone's USA," a fabulous new book, edited by Brent Toplin.

   The first section of the book is devoted to a series of essays, both pro and con Stone, from writers like David Halberstam and Steven Ambrose (who writes a particularly nasty piece on "Nixon").

   The book's second section gives Stone a chance to respond to the critics and that he does eloquently (noting at one point that neither Stephen Ambrose nor John Wayne ever served a minute in combat).

   The volume of attacks on Stone for "JFK" from political pundits like George Will, Alexander Cockburn, Tom Wicker et al may have been prompted by the knowledge that Stone reaches more people with one showing of his films that they do writing a lifetime of columns.

   "Oliver Stone's USA" is a book that should be read by anyone who has an interest in both the power of motion pictures and the dark side of recent American history.