Hamlet...

Like any other epic movies, I would be thrilled even before I watch them. The moment I caught the name Mel Gibson, the first thing that popped into my mind is 'Great! It's gonna be awesome!'. Plus 'Hamlet' is one of the great masterpieces wrote by Shakespeare, and the play is truly a wander. I even sat at the front row during the movie session.
The movie was great. Everything from actors, settings, costumes and playwright are simply great. But one thing that makes the movie kind of boring is that the languages used are too classic, plus there are no subtitles (at least if it has subtitles as hearing impairment, it's going to be much more understandable). But alas, the movie did left some impression on me.
It starts with the death of Hamlet's father, which causes Hamlet to isolate himself. One day, someone tells Hamlet that he saw his father's ghost. Several other men also claim that they saw the ghost too. As Hamlet faces the ghost himself, he then found out that the murderer of his father is his own uncle who now marries his mother and become the king of Denmark. He swears to take revenge. In order to carry out his plan to avenge his father, he acts like a madman. In the end, as his uncle attempt to murder him by putting poison into his wine, his mother is the one who actually drinks the wine. After her death, all the truth about his uncle's wicked plans are unveiled. Tragically, all of them die, with Hamlet being slashed by a poisoned sword.
The movie is much like Oedipus Rex, both are tragical. The existence of mystical elements in both titles; Oedipus Rex with prophecies and Hamlet with ghost, somehow bring out the fact that nothing evil can be hidden. And I somehow enjoy the movie myself..

Strengths and Weaknesses...

As I finished my simulated teaching, I realize my own strengths and weaknesses during teaching. I realize that I have good voice projection. Once I give instructions or read the texts given in the lesson, the 'students' seem to understand and give cooperation and reaction, even to the students who sit at the back of the class. As for having loud and clear voice, it is a bonus in order to control the class. Students must always be called out as it will prevent them to be distracted. I always use the questions such as 'understand?' or 'can you do that?' all the time to make sure the students do hear me and are paying attention to me teaching.
My weakness are that I sometimes fail to construct appropriate exercises or I make slight grammatical errors during teaching. I need to look up for interesting and appropriate exercises for my lesson. And I also need to practice my speech in order to reduce my errors.

--- Ugh...this looks like somehow I'm flattering myself...---

Simulated Teaching...

It's simulated teaching yet again.. A good thing about simulated teaching is that, it lets you experience teaching (even though I'm actually teaching my own course mates, whom are quite uncooperative) to prepare ourselves for the real thing. Truth be told, if we find it is difficult to teach our own friends, believe me, it's going to be much more difficult to teach real school students.
Through simulated teaching, I am exposed on how to construct good exercises, how to control the class, strategies in teaching, and so on. Luckily I get to watch others before my turn to teach. From there I get to find ideas on how to teach my own lesson.

I decided to teach characteristics based on the play "The Ring". For my set induction, I ask the students whether they ever had an imaginary friend before. Then I ask them if they do want to have an imaginary friend, how do they want that friend to be? For example, tall, hairy, dark, kind, scary, etc. Based on the answers given, I then introduce them to the term "characteristics". After that I give them the extract from the play along with 3 activities.

A flaw that i made regarding the activities given is that the first and the second activities are almost the same, that the different levels are not really visible. I should have made the second activity harder. Nonetheless my third activity was said to be interesting (I am sort of proud of it too.. a little). But one thing that came across my mind is that, Miss Kasthoori only commented on my activities. What about my style of teaching? Was it good, was it bad? I guess I can only know from my peer evaluations..

Elizabeth the Golden Age

When I knew that we were going to watch "Elizabeth, the Golden Age", I was thrilled. To tell you the truth, I have watched the movie once and I do not mind at all to watch it again because the movie is AWESOME! The movie simply took my breath away. Great actors, majestic and breath taking display of history, plus being an epic freak myself, the movie easily became one of my favourites. It is one interesting way to teach people about history, without looking through history text books. At first I wondered, why do we have to watch this movie? I thought we were going to watch Oedipus Rex movie or something. At least there are connections with the plays we are learning. As we watch the movie (me for the second time), I felt there are relevance in watching the movie in relating it with Oedipus Rex play. Elizabeth is a ruler, so as Oedipus. And there is also irony in the story. In the beginning of the movie, Elizabeth says something like "I only punish people for their crimes, not their beliefs", when the advisors tell her to banish the people who still believe in orthodox teachings. But when the evidence to the conspiracy to assassinate Elizabeth between Mary, Queen of Scots, Jesuit group in London and King Phillip, found, Elizabeth is forced to punish Mary by death. Even though Mary is clearly found guilty, Elizabeth could not bring herself to agree to the punishment. During the execution, she grieves and pleads for the execution to stop (not to the executioner, but merely to her attendants). This shows the irony of Elizabeth not wanting to punish the crime committed by Mary, even though she once said "I only punish people for their crimes, not their beliefs", and even though she herself almost got killed during the attempt. Elizabeth also believe in prophecy, so as prophecy is portrayed in Oedipus Rex play. Elizabeth confides in her astrologer, Dr John Dee who predicts that his art shows that two empires will go to war. However, he cannot predict which will triumph over the other, leaving Elizabeth to ponder her fate and that of England. Unlike Oedipus, Elizabeth fights for hope and chances for success, as Oedipus runs from his fate. All and all, Elizabeth the Golden Age is really awesome. It made me stop and think, about the courage and strength possessed by a single woman who actually rule an entire kingdom herself.

Teiresias...

Teiresias was a blind soothsayer who lived in Thebes for seven generations and famous for being transformed into a woman for seven years. He was the son of the shepherd Everes and the nymph Chariclo. Eighteen allusions to mythic Teiresias, noted by Luc Brisson, fall into three groups: one, in two episodes, recounts Tiresias' sex-change and his encounter with Zeus and Hera; a second group recounts his blinding by Athena; a third, all but lost, seems to have recounted the misadventures of Teiresias.

Teiresias was a prophet of Zeus. According to the mythographic compendium Bibliotheke, different stories were told of the cause of his blindness, the most direct being that he was simply blinded by the gods for revealing their secrets. An alternate story told by the poet Pherecydes was followed in Callimachus' poem "The Bathing of Pallas"; in it, Teiresias was blinded by Athena after he stumbled onto her bathing naked. His mother, Chariclo, a nymph of Athena, begged her to undo her curse, but Athena could not; instead, she cleaned his ears, giving him the ability to understand birdsong, thus the gift of augury.

On Mount Cyllene in the Peloponnese, as Teiresias came upon a pair of copulating snakes, he hit the pair a smart blow with his stick. Hera was not pleased, and she punished Tiresias by transforming him into a woman. As a woman, Teiresias became a priestess of Hera, married and had children, including Manto, who also possessed the gift of prophecy. According to some versions of the tale, Lady Teiresias was a prostitute of great renown. After seven years as a woman, Teiresias again found mating snakes; depending on the myth, either she made sure to leave the snakes alone this time, or, according to Hyginus, trampled on them. As a result, Teiresias was released from his sentence and permitted to regain his masculinity. This ancient story is recorded in lost lines of Hesiod.

In a separate episode, Teiresias was drawn into an argument between Hera and her husband Zeus, on the theme of who has more pleasure in sex: the man, as Hera claimed; or, as Zeus claimed, the woman, as Teiresias had experienced both. Teiresias revealed woman's greatest secret: that she receives the greater pleasure: "Of ten parts a man enjoys one only." Hera instantly struck him blind for his impiety. Zeus could do nothing to stop her, but he did give Teiresias the gift of foresight and a lifespan of seven lives.

Stripped of its narrative, anecdotal and causal connections, the mythic figure of Teiresias combines several archaic elements: the blind seer; the impious interruption of a natural rite (whether of a bathing goddess or coupling serpents); serpents and staff (Caduceus); a holy man's double gender (shaman); and competition between deities.

Teiresias's background, fully male and then fully female, was important, both for his prophecy and his experiences. Also, prophecy was a gift given only to the priests and priestesses. Therefore, Teiresias offered Zeus and Hera evidence and gained the gift of male and female priestly prophecy. How he obtained his information varied: sometimes, like the oracles, he would receive visions; other times he would listen for the songs of birds, or ask for a description of visions and pictures appearing within the smoke of burnt offerings, and so interpret them.

As a seer, "Teiresias" was "a common title for soothsayers throughout Greek legendary history" (Graves 1960, 105.5). In Greek literature, Teiresias's pronouncements are always gnomic but never wrong. Often when his name is attached to a mythic prophecy, it is introduced simply to supply a personality to the generic example of a seer, not by any inherent connection of Teiresias with the myth: thus it is Teiresias who tells Amphytrion of Zeus and Alcmena and warns the mother of Narcissus that the boy will thrive as long as he never knows himself. This is his emblematic role in tragedy. Like most oracles, he is generally extremely reluctant to offer the whole of what he sees in his visions.

In Hellenistic and Roman times Teiresias' sex-change was embroidered upon and expanded into seven episodes, with appropriate amours in each, probably written by the Alexandrian Ptolemaeus Chennus, but attributed by Eustathius to Sostratus. Teiresias is presented as a complexly liminal figure, with a foot in each of many oppositions, mediating between the gods and mankind, male and female, blind and seeing, present and future, and this world and the Underworld.

Truth is, Teiresias is a great character in Oedipus Rex, as he carries with him the message of the play; the blind can see. Even though he is physically blind, he can see the truth. Contrast to Oedipus, who claims himself to be great and know-it-all, he fails to see and accept the truth from Teiresias.

Tutorial...

I was wandering before we started our tutorial class. "How's it going to be like? Most probably it'll be fun.." and it turns out to be true. Our tutor, Miss Kasthoori is an enthusiastic person, and although the class is 3 hour straight, it is enjoyable and fun. Lots of interesting activities have been conducted in the class, and the most enjoyable one is probably the acting. We were divided into several groups and were asked to act according to the scrip given. It was interesting and quite funny, when different group interpret and act differently. All of us got the same script, but the mood and expression are according to ourselves. For me, the tutorial class is like an additional class, besides theory, because we have the chance to act, and to do lots of activities according to the plays we learn. It is important to experience ourselves in order to further understand the plays. And in this case, it is to indulge in the plays and to act them ourselves.

Learn, Apply, Teach!

Through this course, I've picked up several ways and ideas for teaching drama.I have read several plays, and I like most of them. If one is already accustomed to reading classic novels or short stories, or a fan of literature, reading drama scripts might not be too much of a problem for them. In fact, if we are to teach students who have pure interest in literature, we seriously should be in peace of mind, as we do not have to squash our brains out to search for interesting ideas to teach. But how exactly to teach typical students who several of them might not have any interest at all towards literature? The most basic move is to choose suitable plays, which can attract them to read and understand. As for me, I do enjoy reading "The Swordfish, and Then the Concubine" by Kee Thuan Chye. Not only it is humorous, I am more familiar with it's settings than of Oedipus Rex's. From the names and myths used in the play, I found it is quite easier to understand. Comparing to Oedipus Rex, it is a whole different myths, beliefs and history (for example God Apollo, the role of Teiresias and the oracle, the city of Thebes, Delphi and Corinth) which I am not really familiar with. The factors can also lead to the level of interest in a student to learn the play. So I think it is crucial to choose plays that the students can be more familiar with.

How do I know?

What makes taking the drama course related to my field of study? Well, when I read the script of plays that I am learning now, I have to admit, besides to analyze the characters, themes, settings, etc., I also need to have the knowledge of the languages used in the script. For example, the languages used by Shakespeare (thou, thy, thine, art, dost, etc.). If I do not have the previous knowledge of the terms used, it would be hard for me to understand. In this case, it is to learn of the language and the terms. Not to mention that we do have to learn of the literary devices in the scripts, thus support the fact that taking this course does have the relation to my field of study. Activities and tasks that have to be done, especially micro teaching, helps us to prepare and to know our very field of study. We can make use of what we have learned during the course to apply to our future practicuum, and hopefully to our future career as well.

Drama..

Fortunately for me, I got the chance to learn all about drama, in one subject. Before, I had once acted in ‘Romeo and Juliet’ (but as the villain) on the stage during my Diploma days, but never really learn about drama. I just know that drama is a play, with actors, props, set and script. We get the script, we act and that’s all. Through this drama course, I get to know the types of theatres and also the genres in drama. If not for this course, I would never know what are Greek Theatre, Roman Theatre and Medieval Theatre, and the different genres in drama, like tragedy, comedy, tragicomedy and farce. I have to admit, from this drama course, it does trigger my interest in theatre and drama.

For starters...

If we were to be asked, “Do you watch theatre?”, I’m sure there won’t be many of us who would raise our hands, maybe none at all. But when it comes to cinema, it’ll be another different story. How similar or different between theatre and cinema? When it comes to similarity, both theatre and cinema are plays, consist of actors, props, set and performance, and both should have audience. Theatre and cinema are also supposed to be entertainments, or to educate and also for societal purpose. But how is it differ from each other? Would anyone of these days ask someone whether they have gone to particular theatre or not? There would be some of us, I’m sure, but can it be considered as a topic of our daily conversation? We would rather ask someone whether they have gone to cinemas or not. For people these days, theatre is for rich, aristocratic people, or merely for academic purpose. There are no special effects in theatre plays, or surround audio system. And for some people, just watching theatre plays can be quite boring. Differ with cinema, we can enjoy movies with wide screen and surround audio system. Not to mention, some theatres require the audience to dress formally, but if we are going to a cinema, how to dress is not going to be a question. But all and all, theatre is not out of date. There are also contemporary plays, not only ones from the old times such as Shakespeare. Theatre plays nowadays also portray about the current issues around the world. There are not many people who would watch theatre nowadays, yes, but still there are people out there who would appreciate good theatre plays.