Re-imagining of The Tempest

I think an interesting perspective for the movie would be from a Greek student's eyes. For one, the country Philip and Miranda take vacation in is Greece. Secondly, they decide to take refuge on a Greek island with the native Caliban--a very idiosyncratic and arguably crazy figure--for their sole company (aside from Aretha, Nino, and the occasional tourist). I think a Greek would interpret or construct Philip as a character more. I think a Greek immigrant might be confused with why a successful job making millions and a marriage with an actress and a typical kid would drive him to insanity like it apparently did in the movie we watched in class. To me, there would be an event,perhaps someone passes him up for promotion and his wife cheats on him with this character, that drives Philip to the edge. That would explain his hatred and his desire to run away. Then, I think the ending ends much more drastically (and closer to the play) as Philip works to lure his ex-wife and former coworker into some plot of revenge. Ultimately, he may forgive them or he may not, it would depend on the specific person reimagining the play. I for one don't think Prospero would spare them.

The Tempest Movie

I think some of the integral differences between the original play and the movie are the addition of Aretha onto the island (perhaps an Ariel replacement, though she creates no magic), and the fact that they voluntarily put themselves on the island. Instead of a usurpation of power, Phillip faces a relinquishment of responsibilities as he supposedly feels crushed under the weight of American Culture.  Thus the focus of the play becomes less about vengeance and power and transcends into the realm of self-discovery. The trip to Greece started as a means for Phillip to find himself, relax, and unwind. Yet it turned into a semi-permanent reprieve from a domineering boss and unfulfilling marriage. Rather than being forced onto the island, Philip willingly goes with his new found love, and begrudgingly brings Miranda. Some may say that they were forced indirectly by the contract; however, they chose the island  and when to go. Nobody put a gun to their heads. These change the dynamic of the theme entirely.
Next, the reasons for Phillip's (and eventually his wife's) slow mental derailment stems from work. Phillip perpetually hates his boss while his wife doesn't work to begin with and finds solace in acting again. This disparity creates a commentary on the ideals of America. Some play too much and burn out while others work too much and face the same fate. The concept of balancing life between work, self, family, and leading a stable life becomes a central issue. For Mama Day, the theme always focused on history and past lessons, while in this movie, the main topic seems to be finding yourself in the hectic culture that progressively becomes more and more material. It's about taking a step back and finding oneself amidst the chaos.

Shakespeare and Mama Day

            As I mentioned in class, I really do not perceive much in the way of direct connections between The Tempest and Mama Day. The correlation between the works resembles mostly magic and being trapped on an island. The other perceived connections between characters and plot lines maintain no justification and oftentimes are stretched correlations.

            I find that reading Mama Day as a loosely adopted interpretation of The Tempest does however allow the reader to focus on the parallels and emphasizes their importance in the recreation. At first, the island Mama Day lives on remains linked to the mainland through the bridge—a disparity from Shakespeare—however, when the storm finally sweeps through Willow Springs, the island becomes isolated. This post-storm isolation reiterates the disassociation from reality those on the island must live through. George especially loses touch with logic, sensibility, and his true character while living on the island. The similarities between the storms and islands and their integration to the plot as well as their symbolism play dynamic roles in the readings of both texts, and the parallels help us acknowledge that exact importance in Mama Day.

            Finally, magic and conjuration (both good and nefarious forms) continuously acts in both Shakespeare and Naynor. While Ariel is presented as a very powerful (though not all powerful) entity, Mama Day becomes depicted, to the islanders, as an almost divine prophet. However, in actuality, Miranda’s powers are very limited and she never explicitly conjures magic. The use of magic in both works brings the readers attention to Mama Day’s abilities and how magic affects the island.

Prospero

In The Tempest, by William Shakespeare, Prospero seems to puppeteer almost all of the actions of the other players. First, he employs the magic of Ariel to crash the ship and then scatter the shipwrecked members throughout the island, so they cannot contact each other. His basic plot seems to focus simply on becoming the Duke again. However, as the play progresses, and the King’s son falls in love with Prospero’s daughter, a perhaps deeper plot unveils itself. I think that Prospero’s original intentions were to only regain his position as Duke and come out of exile on the island, yet eventually, Prospero recognizes the potential outcome with the budding romance between Ferdinand and Miranda and works to capitalize on their love. Ironically, Prospero brushes off the questioning from the other characters at the end and labels the events he has orchestrated as simple coincidence.

            To the reader, Prospero has many contrasting qualities.  At first, he seems selfish and hell-bent on redemption and regaining what is his, which retains a negative connotation for the reader. Then, the reader realizes the nature of the illegitimate Duke of Milan and begins to almost sympathize with Prospero because they fully comprehend his struggles. This empathy continues as Prospero helps propagate the marriage for his daughter. Even with the reader’s growing sympathy towards Prospero, he comes off as a bit of a fool throughout the entire play because of his awkward dialogues with his daughter, the king, and Gonzalo. He perpetually begs Miranda to listen despite her attention, and then he blatantly and awkwardly shakes off the questions of the king and Gonzalo at the end. Contrastingly, Prospero coordinated an elaborate plan to recapture his Duchy, thus exemplifying his intelligence. 

Character Development

In chapter twenty, Ginny finally emerges as an active character, capable of shaping her own destiny. This scene, in which Ginny reprimands her father for his reckless behavior and drunk driving, exemplifies Ginny’s frustrating and chaotic struggle for control of her life.  Until now, each character abuses Ginny’s dependence and her desire to satiate everyone’s wants. Throughout the novel, Ginny has silently worked to maintain her relationships with each character as well as to keep everyone happy, despite the fact that subconsciously she was not happy herself. It seems that Ginny always frantically picks up the pieces of Larry’s rampages, Rose’s outbursts, and Caroline’s apathy. No one but Ginny really cares about the others’ feelings, thus Ginny is solely left to care for everyone. Ginny perpetually lives in a state of fear. Fear of her father. Fear for Rose. Fear for everything in her life she cannot control. Yet finally, a sense of empowerment and self-fulfillment washes over Ginny. She takes a stand with her father, foreshadowing perhaps her future actions with him. This passage is integral to the development of Ginny as a character because it demonstrates her internal tension and serves as the manifestation of her struggle for control. Before this scene, Ginny refuses to raise her voice, passively allowing other characters to manipulate her, use her, and emotionally torment her. However, in this scene, Ginny actively asserts herself, thus finally exerting some mode of control over her situation. Ginny becomes a dynamic character, who is now capable of affecting those around her, rather than always being affected. 

Subplot to Plot Parallels

When considering the similarities and differences between the main plot of King Lear, and the subplot with Gloucester, we can see (pun intended) that the experiences of one correlate to the experiences of the other, thus exemplifying the parallels. For example, the notion of blindness, which was epitomized with Gloucester losing his eyes, propagates itself throughout the play and the reader then begins to notice Lear's inability to "see" the obvious truths as a result. The blindness almost seems to result from old age and then permeates their existence. I find it interesting how Gloucester and Lear are both incapable of recognizing some of their closest friends and family. Gloucester is unable to recognize his own son in disguise and Lear is unable to recognize Kent, a trusted friend and advisor in disguise. While yes, being in disguise does supposedly conceal their identity, it is ironic that they cannot even identify their own friends and family. This illustrates their blindness in the sense that Gloucester, though actually being blind, still has trouble identifying his son's voice, and in the case of Lear, he cannot recognize Kent.

Both literal and figurative blindness affect Lear and Gloucester. Through the parallels of the subplot with Gloucester and the main plot with Lear, we can acknowledge the symbolism of the blindness. While physical blindness definitely affects Gloucester and arguably Lear with age, it juxtaposes with Lear's metaphorical blindness and his inability to see how his daughters manipulate him. Thus the development of the obvious blindness in the subplot illustrates the blindness in Lear.

Lear's Fool

I perceived Lear's Fool to act as a juxtaposition to many of the characters, Lear especially, throughout his time in the play. The Fool disappears after Act 3, right as the plot truly starts to develop between Lear and his daughters, and Gloucester and his sons. I believe the Fool disappears right about at this time because his purpose has been served. Shakespeare seems to employ the Fool in order to exemplify the King's state of mind as well as to enunciate the disparities between wisdom and title. Ironically, the King is a supposedly "wise" and respected individual, yet he rages without acknowledging logic. This notion continues with the Fool, who, despite being named a fool, acts extremely wise and intelligent. The juxtaposition of the King and the Fool illustrates the false importance of titles within the play as well as the misleading connotations of perceived wisdom.

While the Fool frequently employs songs and circular speeches when speaking with the king, his meanings and intentions can often be ambiguous. However, his inherent wisdom remains obvious, especially when compared with the King's deteriorating mind.