CoNTeNt Le@Rn1Ng

I have learnt that through the lectures and tutorials, I now am able to discover the messages and context of plays and dramas. Before this, reading or watching a play was never of my interest; in fact I would close the text or turn off any programs on plays if I see one.

It all started with the play Oedipus Rex that we read for the course. I found that the play created by Sophocles has a deep allegories and agendas although we merely imagine the play when we first read it. Well, I did search for Wikipedia information on Oedipus before I read the play itself, but when I have read the play all the way through, I find that the play has more variety and also mysterious compared to the synopsis from Wikipedia. Therefore, now I will try to read the actual plays before I searched the translated versions; in case the play is totally cracking my head. The most important aspect from the lectures and tutorials is the discussion of the storyline of the drama. This is because when the lecturer (Dr. Edwin) and tutor (Mr. Harold Poong) review the dramas, we learn that the meaning of the drama itself does not entirely lie on what we read on the surface; there are ironies, hidden agendas and mysteries propelled in every sentence. The discussion is very useful in our studies on dramas; as the interpretations are subjective, we can voice out our own opinions and interpretations because everyone thinks differently towards the play being studied. All these are related and helpful as we are major in English and minor in Literature, therefore, we could be the only ones having the widest thinking sphere in these field ;p Although we have learnt much of conventional term of interpreting and use the dramas from our lecturer and tutor, that will not just restrict how I would look at play with the schemata and skills I have. I could come with any new alternatives, new interpretations undiscovered before perhaps? Or new ways to teach students how to look at dramas and plays from a different perspective and easier way to understand and decipher the texts.

From what and how I have studied drama in this course, I am confident that I would be able to adopt and adapt the skills that I have learnt for future lessons if I were a teacher. I would adapt Dr. Edwin’s skills of interpreting dramas. He does not just depend on delivering surface messages lay on the paper; he also connects the elements of the drama with other aspects, like relations to religion, history, society and myths. The way he relates them mesmerizes me, as I thought reading dramas is just about how to act them. Indeed, there are more than meets the eye with dramas and plays. The more we relate and discover, the more wonders and awesomeness we could find how unique the writers have created their masterpieces. I would adapt these skills while teaching literature lessons, even though the text might be simple, but I would try my best to look on the text by any alternative way, widening the horizon of reading.

Anyway, I still have some questions in my head even after the lectures and tutorials: would I be able to study and interpret dramas and plays to the full extent? (coz y’know, Shakespeare’s masterpieces are totally head-cracking, I prefer those of Greeks arts and contemporary issues like Kee Thuan Chye’s. oh, by the way, I also enjoyed reading The Big Purge by Kee Thuan Chye) Hahaha… or lol… well, that does not matter. I am sure that I would be able to solve these problems when I really get to it; as the sayings say “practice makes perfect”. I believe I can learn pace by pace, as knowledge will always expand. Yes, I would need input from anyone, I am not perfect, but I can improve myself. There will always someone better where I can learn from. Maybe when I further my studies, or learn from other colleagues at school, or the fastest source, the Internet. Why not?

Macbeth

When Dr. Edwin said that we were to watch the movie version of Macbeth during our class, I was thinking of the movie version we had watched in the Student Access Centre (SAC) in IPTI. I thought it would be the same movie, but instead it was a totally different version of Macbeth play. The first version that we watched earlier in the teachers institute was more to stage-like performance, whereas the second version that we watched in DKAP B3-08 was more to a real outdoor setting. The first movie version was more to shadowy and dark setting; and showed only the speaking characters at once, whereas the second version that we watched was in ‘daily-living’ setting where any characters could appear at the time a character speaks or uttering soliloquy. Although both movie versions were made in about the same era, the first version appeared to be clearer and better in production although it was more like stage performance. And the most memorable thing is that the first version was easier to understand than the one we watched in DKAP B3-08. The second version, although made in a real living setting and dynamic-moving character, the characters seemed like they failed to show accurate expression according to the scripts, utterances and soliloquy. Only Lady Macbeth seemed to quite impressive of the way she feared the ghost and sleepwalking. The main character, Macbeth himself looked quite static in movement and I would say, “this man is not a good actor”. The fighting and war seemed fake as well. I mean, what were the other warriors doing merely standing like trees watching Macduff and Macbeth fighting to their death? The fighting and war (in my opinion) was supposed to be very deadly, full of hatred, revenge and intention to slash the opponent’s head! The soliloquy and aside were not directed well too, as the soliloquy and aside were in slow paces while the characters who were acting them did not quite follow the flow of expression. The three witches, however, were quite fine in the way they were performed and portrayed, but it was out off because they were supposed to disappear in the air, not walking on the beach. Moreover, the language in the movie was quite difficult to understand as it was entirely linguistically reversed, what more if uttered. It is more convenient to read the scripts from the book itself; better in presentation of intentions and actions. I would say, reading the play is better compared watching the play. No offense, but for me, it truly is ;p

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Last two weeks, we watched the movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age, a movie made based on the history of England. From what I have observed, the story is written based on the Brechtian plot. Being the Virgin Queen, Elizabeth was seemingly the same as Oedipus, having the pride before she falls. Yet, in the end, she regained her strength and rose again against the Spanish conquerors and enemies. There is one thing that attracts me about the Elizabeth character. Her pride indirectly seemed to have protected her in all situations, including the attempt to shoot her dead. Yet, she survived and regained her stance. Also, her plans had made England achieved the victory although her kingdom was totally at weak. She used the elements of the thunder storm as the contributor of England’s victory against the huge Spanish Armada. Another is, although she had been very proud of her position, she treated everyone well (except when she was dipped in anger); of her assistant maid, Elizabeth (Bess) and voyager, Raleigh. The movie has a strong implication that one shall rise again despite the fall he suffers. Another unique implication said by Elizabeth was, “I am the Virgin Queen, but I am your mother, the mother of England”. She was also a determined and brave queen, willingly to join the war to defend her country, together with all her minute field of armies. Although she had assistants for ruling and war missions, Elizabeth was an intelligent planner as her plan of using the thunder storm worked well against the Spanish enemies. The language of the movie was of old British spoken language, and a little bit of Spanish conversations. Eventhough the language used was quite confusing as it was of reversed structure, but the meaning and content could be understood well. Overall, it was a nice historical movie; interesting and deep in meaning.

Teiresias

I like the way the Greek myths are presented; full of mystic power of the Gods, Kings and prophets. Teiresias is a prominent character in Greek mythology, a blind prophet born of the shepherd Everes and the nymph Chariclo. There are lots of myths that include Teiresias in the episodes of oracles and prophecies, for he is the one as the messenger and also predicts the future. One of the plays that we have learnt, Oedipus Rex (King Oedipus) by Sophocles, also has Teiresias as one of the characters who injected the turn in the Oedipus’ fate. Teiresias had known that Oedipus was the murderer of King Laius, previous King of Thebes; and for he was sighted for the prophecy, he did not want to tell King Oedipus of this. After being forced to reveal the truth, Teiresias showed the downfall of Oedipus to the King himself, fulfilling the prophecy.
Teiresias, though never really appealed to be the main character, had been foretold as very wide in knowledge and sight, although he was blind physically. A phrophet of Zeus, Teiresias had participated in the seven generations of Theban. The facts of Teiresias really amaze me; of how he lived and events he had encountered before he becomes the great prophet. One myth is that he was blinded by Athena after he stumbled onto her bathing naked. From this myth, Teiresias was said to gain the ability to understand birdsong, after his mother begged for mercy and Athena sympathized by giving him the ability. Another unique myth is that Teireias was the only human who actually had transformed into a woman after being punished by the goddess Hera after harming the mating snakes. The continuum of the event gifted Teiresias the foresight and seven lives; a gift of pity from Zeus after Teiresias was blinded by Hera, accusing Teiresias of lying. Although it was hurting for him, he had been upheld for his gift.
Teiresias was the only person who had lived the life of man and woman, sighted and blind, therefore he had the vast knowledge and experiences. Although he was given the ability to see the future, Teiresias never directly told his visions, but rather were foretold in riddles, like his prophecy of King Oedipus. This reminds us that although we might see a person as a weakling, he might have things that we are not capable of having and doing. Teiresias can be a good example of a strong character; he does not have any properties in hand, blind and old, but his knowledge is beyond everyone, thus he is very well-respected and not to be offended.

Oedipus Rex

Greek mythologies entirely have their stories with the connection between the Gods and their people. We have studied the play by a pioneer writer of Greek, Sophocles, entitled Oedipus Rex (King Oedipus). Based on the Aristotlian plot, the story is about Oedipus, an heir of a Theban king, returned to his own kingdom and being the King after murdering the previous king, his father, King Laius. A prophecy had stated that Oedipus himself would be the murderer and husband of his own mother, although through all the events, Oedipus was blurred as he thought that he was from the line of Polybos, King of Corinth. Towards the end, he realized all the prophecies were true, after he was revealed as Laius’ son himself. One great impact from the story tells that one shall fall from the pride he has. Sophocles had made a good but rather a taboo expose of the Oedipus complex; a son would dream of taking the role of the father and become the husband of his own motherIn the play, Sophocles had shown that the taboo was not impossible, by showing Oedipus marrying the queen, his own mother after killing the king. Another is the appearance of Teiresias, a mystical blind prophet of Greek mythology. In the play, Teiresias appeared as a prophet who reveals to Oedipus that Oedipus himself is the murderer of the king and he actually had already married to his own mother. Sophocles has also used the theme reversal of fortune and element of fate (moira) to illustrate Oedipus’ pride as king and downfall as the blind beggar. The use of the character Teiresias had a strong impact on Oedipus’ life, bringing his pride to face downfall. At the end, the queen, Iocaste, killed herself after realizing that the king was her own son. Oedipus too, blinded his own eyes, unwilling to bear the sins he had done as the king.
Although the storyline is interesting, one would feel that the language of the play is entirely confusing. This is because the sentences are of reversed and look like riddles rather than direct conversations. Also, the choices of words used are of dual meaning, true on the surface meaning as well as the deep meaning of it. For example, Oedipus says, “I know that you are deathly sick; and yet, sick as you are, not one is as sick as I”. Here, Oedipus knows that the Theban are suffering of the plague; physically sick, but not sick as he feels; sick of the burden as the king to see his country facing the plague. Also, there are ironies in the play, such as when Oedipus says, “Until now I was a stranger to this tale, as I had been a stranger to the crime.” He states that he is not involved in the murder, but in the end, it will be revealed that Oedipus himself is the murderer. The name Oedipus itself means “swollen foot”, as Oedipus once a baby was tied at his foot ready to be killed but survived. Throughout the play, we can see lots of terms from the Greek language, like the prologue, antigone, ode and exodos, representing the stages of the play.

Working on the Drama Script

When we were assigned to work on writing a script for our course, I quickly browsed my mind for any attractive and creative ideas for the short drama. I had never written a script before, especially for a merely fifteen-minutes-long drama. Together with my group members, Ziham and Amir, we discussed about a suitable short drama for the lower secondary, but in the end, we could not finalize any ideas.
I was pacing back and forth in my room at one night, and suddenly (if not luckily), I got an idea of a story of a kampong boy. The story was like this: a boy is raised in a poor family; the father has passed away and lives with his mother. He gets to join the school football team (as he is active in sports) and asks from his mother to buy a new pair of football boot. His mother, who depends on the selling of kuih and nasi lemak cannot afford to buy one, tells him he would not get one in an instant. The boy sulks, and does not talk to the mother for days. One day, after he returns from the school, he finds a football boot bought for him and he joys; he wants to thank his mother but he cannot find her. He was sleeping in the evening when his uncle comes and tells him that the boy’s mother was hit by a hit and run accident. They rushed to the hospital just for the moment witnessing the mother exhales the last breath. Typical Malaysian story, isn’t it? First, we put the name of the boy as Jason, but after revising, a typical Malay boy should not be named an English name, and we called him Karim. Other characters were also changed into very archaic, ulu characters. There were some errors made, but those did not matter because we wanted to focus on the storyline, and editing could be done later.
There are some criteria that we have considered for writing the short drama. First, the drama is for only fifteen minutes. Secondly, it is meant for the lower secondary level, so the language should be simple and the story should not be complicated for them to comprehend. We tried this first draft, and duhh… the response we got was “Yawnn…” from Dr. Edwin.
Therefore, we tried to work on a new script. This time, we did a story that centers on the theme of remembering one’s family root. The story goes like this: a family who always went for vacations in foreign countries decides to go back to the village, for the next vacation. It is the wife’s suggestion, as they have never returned to their village since they got married. Besides, it would be a new experience for the children to enjoy a kampong life. The father shows the things he played and did during his childhood, and the kids like them very much. One day, the father shows his children how to play the wau; a kite in Malay language. While playing, the children ask him why they have never returned before. He explains that he wants to return to where he was raised, his own root, and says to the children that they should never neglect the importance of the family. One important significance in the drama is that the wau represents oneself; no matter how high the wau flies, it is still tied to the string that holds it. The wau signifies the bond in a family, no matter where we are, we should never forget our family root.
Writing a shot drama really teaches us to work on the plot and theme very well; too simple would be dull and too complicated would be de-motivating to read. Now that we have learnt the tips, we tried to make the second story consequential and capture the readers’ eyes to the end. Well, at least there are some twists in the second script, and we hope we would get positive responses so that we could continue without any rejections.