Wakefield Mysteries

 

Izze Ginley

10/13/13

EL 207 – Early Brit Lit

Dr. Doug Sugano

The Wakefield Mysteries

            The Wakefield Mysteries, presented by Whitworth Theatre, did an excellent job of entertaining the audience as well as providing a historically accurate portrayal of a medieval play.  I personally was pleasantly surprised about the humorous aspects of the Mysteries, and I learned a ton of background information about theatrical performances of the time. 

            In total, there were ten mini-stories packed into the entire performance.  These stories were all interpretations of biblical passages, made in a modern format for personal application and humorous entertainment.  This production of The Wakefield Mysteries included The Creation, The Fall of Lucifer, The Garden of Eden, The Killing of Abel, and The Flood in Act I.  Then, in Act II, they presented Abraham and Isaac, The Flight Out of Egypt, The Annunciation, Herod and the Three Kings, and The Shepherd’s Play. 

            Throughout the majority of the plays, there were modern interpretations of the biblical stories.  For example, The Killing of Abel consisted of a wheat-farmer version of Cain riding a John Deere tracker and a rancher version of Abel giving a block of Ham as his sacrifice to the Lord.  There was also modernization within The Shepherd’s Play with the homeless people standing in as the shepherds.  These modernizations were intentionally done in order to portray the message that biblical stories can be applied to all cultures and times, and that God’s messages are meant for any generation of His people. I really enjoyed this element of the plays because it brought the themes and messages of the biblical stories closer to my own experiences.

            In the post-performance talk, given by Dr. Doug Sugano and Diana Trotter, this idea of modernizing the bible stories was discussed.  It was said that in the Middle Ages the actors in the Mystery Plays would also interpret the characters into their own culture and time.  The play’s program specifically indicated that the shepherds would have been performed as medieval serfs and Noah would have been a medieval carpenter.  This information gave me great insight into the original time period and helped me paint a picture of what the original performances would have looked like. 

            Another aspect of the Mystery Plays that stood out was the use of humor on such serious topics.  Throughout the plays there were hilarious interpretations of deeper conversations and relationships.  Specifically, the scene of Noah and his wife fighting had the crowd roaring with laughter.  Even though it could have been a very violent scene, the director’s choice to do a gender swap between Noah and his wife made the fighting very entertaining for the audience.  During the post-performance talk, Diana spoke to this directional choice.  She explained that choosing to do the gender swap was not only for humor purposes, but also to convey the fighting between Noah and his wife in a non-abusive way, since our culture sees domestic violence much differently than people of the Middle. 

            Overall, this play was very entertaining and educational. The cast, crew, and band did a phenomenal job with these Wakefield Mystery Plays.  I am so glad that I attended this performance because I gained a much better the understanding of medieval theatre, and I got to experience one of the greatest traditions of the Middle Ages.    

So I Went to the Mystery Plays...

... and am really glad that I went! At first, I was hesitant to attend the play because I have a lot of work to do today and the Seahawks game was on during the performance (go Hawks!). But it was well worth it. It was my first time seeing a Whitworth Theater production, and I was very surprised with the level of talent my peers have! You go, theater department!

            During the production, I tried to place myself in the position of the original audience member of the Wakefield plays – a poor, illiterate layperson from medieval England. The plays were created in order to educate community members about Biblical stories, so when I was viewing Whitworth’s performance, I began to wonder: what would I be learning? And, other than the major plot points of Biblical stories, there was a lot of theology thrown into the performance that would provide a layperson with aspects of the Christian faith. During “The Killing of Abel”, the character Abel gives a short description of what a tithe is, and that 1/10 of one’s income is the proper tithe. And, when the “Shepherds” from “The Shepherd’s Play” gave their gifts to the baby Jesus, they presented whatever they could muster up, teaching the importance of generosity and further emphasizing the importance of tithing from earlier in the production. I also found the characterization of God in the play to be especially instructive on the nature of God; by presenting God as three people, speaking in unison, the complex theological idea of the trinity becomes more understandable for a layperson.

            Another aspect of the production I’d like to touch on was the adaptation of the Mystery Plays for a modern audience. The program states that the members of the Theater Department “have tried to honor these theatrical traditions in our own production… and have spent many fun-filled hours playing with ways to do so.” The cast and crew are acknowledging that they have, in fact, changed things in the play in order to cater to the Whitworth audience – and perhaps to send messages to us just as the plays did to the laypeople of medieval England.

            In the transition between “The Killing of Abel” and “The Flood”, dancers from the Ensemble performed what was supposed to be a representation of humanity’s collapse back into sin; this dance was to portray what God viewed as despicable, and what caused him to flood the Earth. This dance was performed to electronic music, almost reminiscent of the EDM genre that is sweeping the nation. I was automatically brought to think about “raves” and current the “rave culture” that our generation is so wrapped in. Was the production intentionally using this music to comment on the corrupt happenings at “rave”/EDM events? Is this a good representation of our generation’s corruption?

            And, for that matter, is the CEO a good choice to represent Pharaoh from “The Flight Out of Egypt”? What about presenting the three kings from “Herod and the Three Kings” as an artist, scientist, and scholar? Are these things what our generations values as royalty? And is the CEO as oppressive as the Biblical Pharaoh? Theater Department’s choice to adapt the play to modern times was very smart as it forces the audience to consider our culture in a biblical context. 

Wakefield Mystery Surprises

Last night, I took a much-needed study break to check out The Wakefield Mysteries. Even though we'd read one of the plays from the cycle in class, I really had no idea what to expect: I have a friend in the chorus, and I remember asking him specifically if the plays would have a lot of modernization. "The mystery plays are really known for being contemporized in their day, right?" I'd asked. "Is that an adaptation that Whitworth will be making?" My friend just kind of looked at me funny and was like, "huh?," so I assumed that the plays would be performed pretty close to what they would have been like a couple centuries ago. This was not a correct assumption.

Like Lee, I really enjoyed the contemporary aspect of the plays. I think their modern-day costuming and humor helped (at least me) have an interest in the stories that was immediate and not just religious. While I intellectually understood that this was an element for the original audiences of "The Second Shepherd's Play," it really wasn't a part of my reading--I thought it was funny and I appreciated Mak and Gill's humor, but the shepherds' complaining and Mak's punishment went way over my head (probably because I didn't feel like I really had a cultural context for them). I personally had a hard time relating to the social conditions of the characters. However, with the modern adaptations (like giving Cain a tractor), I could understand the issues a little bit better: my grandparents still live on a farm, so I have a basis of understanding for what it's like to have a bad harvest year. (I don't have a basis of understanding for what it's like to be a tenant farmer.) Anyway, I was glad to be able to personally appreciate how the mystery plays' contemporary aspects changed the enjoyment level for medieval audiences.

Also like Lee, I must say that "The Second Shepherd's Play" was not my favorite of the cycle, and I was really surprised by some of the changes that they made. For instance, when the shepherds decide to toss Mak in the blanket, it seems funny but also kind of mocking and mean in the Whitworth production. While Mak is definitely not a good guy for stealing a sheep, the three shepherds seemed really reminiscent to me of elementary school bullies who think up weird and humiliating punishments just for fun. In the version that we read, though, it's really clear that the normal punishment for sheep-stealing would be death, so the three shepherds are actually being merciful to Mak when they decide to toss him in the blanket. This kind of changes the meaning of the most crucial element of the play: the meeting of baby Jesus. If the three shepherds are seen as ultimately good-hearted people, then their goodness is rewarded because they are chosen to see Jesus first. However, if they are kind of gruff bullies (which is what it seemed like to me in the Whitworth production), then it's less that they are pure people and more just a sense that Jesus came for gruff, bullying, flawed humans. I think that both interpretations are good, but it's just interesting to see the different interpretations that can come from a pretty small detail.

At any rate, I really enjoyed the humor, contemporization, and energy that the Whitworth theater department put into The Wakefield Mysteries. While there were times when the rapping, dance breaks, and jazz seemed a little outrageous, I think the department did a good job at retaining the spirit of the plays, which were reverent but didn't take themselves too seriously. There are two more shows next week, and if you guys haven't been yet then I definitely recommend it!

SGGK and Islam

After Doug mentioned the Green Knight's potential relationship to Islam, I couldn't stop thinking about the storyline in those terms. Islam's existence in Spain would have been on its decline at this time, and the indigenous Christians in Spain would have been fighting harder and harder to reclaim the land for "Christ". This adds a new gravity to the poem, and a new depth to the quiz question we had about spirituality and SGGK. At this point, Sir Gawain’s quest to find the green knight becomes about more than the development of an immature knight.  It becomes a battle to save Christendom from this dangerous religion that Christians had been fighting against for centuries, that was even in their own backyard.

Does Christianity emerge as a victor over Islam in this epic poem, or does it end the other way around? Morgan le Fay and Sir Bertilak do, after all, trick the naive Christian knight. The maturity of Sir Bertilak’s court and its connection with the successful bamboozlement of Sir Gawain and Arthur’s court would suggest (at least for me) that Islam is connected to a more mature sense of spiritual development in the epic poem. In the end Gawain is tempted by the green girdle. By doing so Sir Gawain can be seen as accepting the Islamic faith as a protective element against the Green Knight. While he adopts it as a sign of shame in the end, the other knights of King Arthur’s court are too naive to understand what it means—they think it is merely a cool, protective charm, as Gawain once did.

And I think that’s the point. The poem is a satire, showing how to be a poor knight. I think it presents Sir Bertilak’s court and its connection with Islam to show what’s really at stake if chivalrous knight’s fail: ultimately, their religion will fail too.

Mystery Plays

I attended the Wakefield Mysteries last night and thought they did a pretty good job with the whole performance. They had a nice description on the back of the program explaining the origins of the plays and their purposes. The modernization and humor added to the play made it quite enjoyable and interesting. I felt like they captured the purpose of informing the general audience of specific Bible stories and had some very creative props and backdrops.

The cast also did an excellent job with their parts. I especially enjoyed the performance by Keith Wyma, who played Lucifer. The creativity of when he was portraying the serpent tempting Eve was excellent; he was “snake-like” in everything he did. Although not dressed like a serpent, the movements he performed left little doubt to the audience on what he was.

I enjoyed “The Garden of Eden,” but my favorite rendition was “The Killing of Abel.” The cast, writing, humor, and modernization of the story made it quite entertaining. The moral lessons were not difficult to figure out and the story was quite simple, but again, the creativity behind the story made it very entertaining.

I have to admit, I was a little disappointed in “The Shepherd’s Play.” From what we read in class, I thought the humor was kind of lacking. Now, do not get me wrong, I thought they did an excellent job and thought the rendition was pretty good; however, I was looking forward to seeing how they portrayed Mak’s character. My favorite part of “The Second Shepherd’s Play” that we read in class was when Mak tried to uphold his lie to the very end, even when he knew it was hopeless. They pretty much cut that whole part out. They did, however, include the blanket scene. Overall, all the renditions were a great performance with quite a bit of creativity in the modernization, the props, and the cast.         

"The Faire Queene" as an epic

In class, Doug mentioned that Edmund Spenser's "The Faerie Queene" is an epic, with each book being a different adventure completed by a different personified virtue. There are some interesting similarities and differences between the medieval epics we read and this one.

Unlike some of the medieval epics, there is no list of important geneology to give importance to the main character. Where stories like "Beowulf" and "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" both opened with historical context and the victories of predecessors, "The Faerie Queen" jumps right into the knight's story, without any big introduction. I thought this was interesting because it creates an independent sort of importance; this knight matters because of his own conquests and accomplishments, not an ancestor's. The focus is placed on his individual quest.

Another difference I am noticing so far is in the focus on battle. I don't want to make too broad of a generalization because this is the first epic we've read for this unit, but so far this is what I'm picking up. In this first Canto, the battle with the dragon/serpent is a somewhat minor part of the story. It takes up about two pages, a small fraction of the rest of the Canto. It seems that there is potential that the focus of the epic has changed. It is no longer just about the battle, but about the journeys surrounding it and battles of the wit and spirit. The story describes the characters being lost in the forest of Errour and then their interaction with the Archimago in seemingly more detail and focus than the battle with the dragon.

There may be some continuity in the value of faith being reconciled with violence from the medieval era to this one. In the description of the knight, he is said to be wearing "a bloudie Crosse" (782) on his chest. Not only does this bring a symbol of the unity of violence in the crucifixion with salvation, but it shows the knight's reliance on a higher power to succeed in his quest. He needs spiritual strength to succeed in his battles.

That's all I've got so far, but I'm interested to see how these themes play out in other things we read.

Test

Today, Doug said that about half of us did well on the test. I was not in that half. I was able to talk to him afterwards though and got a better idea of what he is looking for. I assume that if the other half of the class did not do so well, that you may have made the same mistakes I did. For example, I was not specific enough in my short answer questions. I was also too broad when answering the essay question and actually kind of misread it, so I feel like I was lucky to get any points.

                However, like I said earlier, I was able to talk to Doug about it afterwards and received some helpful hints that I thought I would share with the rest of you. As I already said, be as specific as possible. Also, something helpful that Doug pointed out in the notes that I had taken was that I did not have enough sources to cover all the short answer questions. That was another issue I ran into during the test and I was forced to answer a question I was a little iffy.

                Finally, Doug also checked out my paper and gave me some useful info on that. As in the test, be specific. I think that if you follow everything he has on the guidelines for the paper, you will be fine. Another thing he pointed out to me on my paper was that I did not explain my quotes well enough, in that I only had one or two sentences to explain the text.

                Hopefully this is helpful to those of you who had some of the same issues I did. If you guys have any other useful info either about the tests or papers please let me know, or leave a comment.