The Wakefield Mysteries

Jennifer Rudsit

Doug Sugano

British Literature before 1800

October 21, 2013

The Wakefield Mysteries

            The Whitworth Theatre Department’s production of “The Wakefield Mysteries” effectively modernized the plays while still holding true to the original intent of the plays. The modernization of certain character portrayals made the stories more relatable and humorous to the audience, surprising most attendees with how funny and enjoyable the plays were. While in the original production there were a lot more plays that encompassed major stories from throughout the entire Bible, Whitworth’s version stopped at the Nativity scene. Act I contained the Prologue, The Creation, The Fall of Lucifer, The Garden of Eden, The Killing of Abel, and The Flood, while Act II included Abraham and Isaac, The Flight Out of Egypt, The Annunciation, Herod and the Three Kings, and The Shepard’s Play. While presented as separate stories, each one of them led into the next, literally setting the stage for the culminating story of the birth of Jesus with the weaving in and out of themes like God’s redemption, love, and grace, at the heart of every story.

            The modernization of certain parts of the plays, as previously mentioned, was very effective in relation to audience enjoyment. Cain riding out on a John Deer tractor instead of using a plow unites the audience through humor, as well as helping the audience identify with Cain, a character people try to separate themselves from, seeing as people usually do not want to identify with the first murderer in existence. In the post-production discussion with Doug Sugano and Dianna Trotter, they discussed how while they did modernize some of the characters and props, the lines and the jokes included in the plays remained the same, revealing how there is such continuity in humor throughout the ages. Modernization was also used, however, to stay true to the original intent of the jokes. The most striking example of this, in my opinion, was when Dianna Trotter explained her reasoning behind gender-swapping of Noah and his wife. Her reasoning was that it would make the scene more humorous, as well as avoid any hints at domestic violence in the scene. Because of modern values and societal implications surrounding relationships, her decision was necessary in order to uphold the original intent of the jokes, keeping it light-hearted and funny instead of uncomfortable and inappropriate.

            The modernization was also effective because it made the characters more relatable to the audience. The demons danced hip hop with Lucifer, the three shepherds were homeless, Moses was the over-eager, terrified nerd, and all of these character portrayals are characters that the audience can relate to, with both the cultural references and the weaknesses exemplified through modern social norms and expressions. Going in, I was afraid that the plays would be hard to understand and not very exciting, but because of the original writing and humor in the text, and because of the modernizations in the play, I really enjoyed the play a lot more than I thought I would. Modernizing a play while staying true to the original script is a very difficult thing to do, and I think that the Whitworth Theatre Department did an excellent job.

translating the Bible...

I had no idea that translating the Bible was something women used do as a source of entertainment, I always assumed that people were satisfied with one translated version of scripture. However, looking now at all the different aspects of society that were coming together, it makes sense that people would consider translating a very noble work. Especially if they were trying to condemn Catholicism, women would see translating as a way to have a voice in their religion. I, however, am not sure if I exactly agree with the practice. I totally am for people interpreting scripture in a way that makes it true for themselves, and I think that the true meaning of scripture is brought out when people disagree on what they think it is saying and are forced to talk it out. However, I don't think that Mary (Sidney) Herbert has that mentality in mind when she translated Psalm 52, it seemed to be a very selfish translation to me. That she was using scripture to prove a personal point, instead of having scripture guide her personal life.  

Wakefield Mysteries and Post-Production Discussion

I attended The Wakefield Mysteries and Doug’s Post-Production Discussion.

The Wakefield Mysteries was a creative reworking of Medieval Drama which took the audience through highlights of the Christian story, from Creation to the birth of Jesus.  The short plays each taught a Biblical story in a way that would have been instructive to the medieval playgoers, especially those who were illiterate.  At the same time, though, they expanded on the stories with humorous characters and theatrical fun.

            The creation story, presented with artistic banners, captured the medieval flavor and thrust the audience into that frame of mind.  The next scene, the Fall of Lucifer, continued the story, with Lucifer’s pride and its disastrous effects clearly staged as an attempted climb onto the mountain of God and a devastating fall from Heaven.  An excellently choreographed dance showed the newly formed band of demons at its most dastardly.  The Garden of Eden scene also made excellent use of dance.  Adam and Eve performed a beautiful dance piece to describe the joy of their newly created life.  After their Fall, they again attempted the dance, this time falling and taking on grotesque positions in place of the graceful ones from before.  The dance made it quite clear that their sin had ruined even their relationship with each other.  Throughout these opening scenes, the Christian theology came through clearly, as did the medieval emphasis on sin.

The Cain and Abel scene included a certain subversive air, making us rather pity Cain than despise him.  His complaints about giving a sacrifice to a far-off God seemed a bit too fitting, considering the aloof position of the Trinity at the upper left of the stage, never involved directly in the action below.  These plays, performed mainly while Catholicism held sway, might have been different had the later Protestant emphasis on free grace and a personal God been in effect.  The next scene broke the tension, though, with a hilarious interaction between Noah (played by a female) and his wife (played by a male).  This scene played on the husband-wife power struggle, a farcical arrangement of what we saw in “The Wyf’s Tale.”  In this case, the husband won.  

The next act opened with a startling, even horrific story: that of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his son Isaac.  It emphasized God’s purpose of testing Abraham, yet again made God seem aloof and even cruel.  Of course, there is no comfortable way to tell this story.  Next, the scene shifted to Moses and the Exodus, with a modern-feeling representation of the plagues.  Finally, the story shifted to the New Testament: the Annunciation to a picture-perfect Virgin Mary and the reaction of poor Joseph.  The emphasis on Mary (and her virginity within marriage) again makes sense in light of the Catholic setting, but would have been expunged in later Protestant forms.  

For the last scene, the three shepherds were depicted, fittingly enough, as the down-and-out of today’s world.  This makes sense both in light of the Biblical setting, where shepherds really were on the outskirts of society, and the medieval setting, in which the Wakefield Master makes them complain about the powers that be.  These lowly citizens become the first to witness the nativity.  They also engage in the humorous sheep-retrieval.

The whole play gave me a sense of how it might have felt to watch the original plays.  I was amazed at how it incorporated both humor and deep theological probings.  In fact, it rather bothered me at times – I wished that, at least at the end with the Incarnation, the Trinity would leave its far-off position on the top of the mountain and show some tangible love to mankind.  I wonder how much that concept of a distant God represents the medieval view.  The fact that the play made me think so hard convinced me that it was more than just a “merry romp” or pure entertainment.  At the same time, I loved the dancing, the jokes, and the farce, and their blend with the deeper themes felt at once medieval and contemporarily appropriate.  I imagine that this two-fold experience of depth and fun was part of the original setting as well.  The performance seemed to translate the best of the medieval experience (save perhaps the beer) to the modern setting, and I thoroughly enjoyed the chance to participate.  Watching it enhanced my sense of connection with the people of that time.  During the discussion with Doug afterwards, even further connections came to light, proving once again the power of art to speak to people and to connect them.

Doctor Faustus

I enjoyed Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus much more than Spenser’s The Faerie Queene. Marlowe held my attention more and introduced new excitement throughout the play, whereas Spenser seemed to be beating a dead horse. In that I mean he reiterated over and over again the same themes. I did not notice much of a difference in themes when reading the beginning canto and the ending canto. He just had different ways of saying Catholicism is horrible and Elizabeth is wonderful. Do not get me wrong, I think Spenser’s work is important to study, but am glad Doug did not have us read it in its entirety.

                Marlowe, on the other hand, portrayed Faustus as this lost character that feared hell and Lucifer so much that he did not see the signs that he could repent, right to the end. Or, he saw the signs, but did not act upon them for fear of what Lucifer may do to him. I found it interesting that Faustus could have saved himself from an eternity of hell, and he was given multiple opportunities to do so. He studied the black arts and sold his soul, which one would think during this time period they would have burned him at the steak.

                I especially enjoyed how Marlowe set the scene with Faustus having all this knowledge but wanting more. I may be wrong in assuming this, but The Wakefield Mysteries are still fresh in my mind and as I read Doctor Faustus, I could not but help think about the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. It seemed to me Faustus craved more knowledge than he could handle, and like Eve, was so tempted by it that he could not help himself. Faustus believed that he had conquered knowledge and his “final frontier” was that of the black arts.

                I do not think Faustus fully understood what selling his soul meant when he first made the deal, as he said, “Is not thy soul thine own?” (1140). It is almost like he could not understand how someone else could possess his soul. Plus, he did not put all that high of value on his soul. Only later does the reader begin to see a change in Faustus and how he regrets selling his soul, but is too fearful to repent.

                Finally, I enjoyed how Marlowe portrayed Faustus’ physical body and his soul. Faustus, at first, had no problem selling his soul, an intangible item. However, whenever he seriously considered repenting, Mephastophilis always threatened his physical body. Faustus is more concerned with being torn to shreds right away than spending an eternity in hell. The only way Mephastophilis could keep Faustus from repenting was by threatening his physical form, as Faustus held little value in his soul and sold that fairly quickly.

Wake Field Mysteries

The Wake Field Mysteries were very interesting. It wasn't exactly what I was expecting from what we read in class and what I have heard about it but it was still very interesting and enlightening to see it come to life on stage. I did particularly enjoy "The Second Shepherd's Play" more than the others that were presented probably because we read it in class and then discussed it. I'm sure that if I had read the other plays that were presented in the play I would have received it better than I did.
With that being said some of the most interesting thing that I saw in the show were the different elements added into the Bible stories. For example when Adam and Eve sin and God confronts them Adam states that it is the woman that He gave him, in a sense blaming God for the fall, instead of this in the show both Adam and Eve were more woe is me, it's my fault, blame me. Also during the scene of Abraham and Isaac, Isaac tells Abraham to say goodbye to his brothers and sisters for him which is different from what the Bible says because Isaac is supposed to be an only child at this point and that is why it is even harder to sacrifice him and do God's bidding. The last thing that I saw that was drastically changed was the fact that Mary and Joseph had already been married for a year and Mary wants to remain virginal her entire life. Also once Joesph finds out she's pregnant he was just sad that she didn't want to do it with him. Of course we know that Mary and Joseph were engaged at this time which completely changes the relationship and also Mary wasn't a virgin her entire life, Jesus has brothers. Also Joseph wanted to stone Mary but was abated by the Gabrielle in his own dream.
At least for the last discrepancy the talk after the show on Saturday really helped me understand why this was presented this way. I had a feeling that it was due to Catholic influence but having it stated at the talk really help me know that I was correct in my thinking. This of course is related to our class in the sense that Catholicism did have such a dominance on literature at this time to where their idea and their interpretation was paramount. But of course once the Protestant influence came it's understood that some of those could have been changed so as to show what they believe is right and to really show the incorrect thought of the Catholics. I don't really understand why the other discrepancies. It wasn't something that was addressed and so it is something that I am still questioning after seeing the show.    

Wakefield Plays and "Modern" Culture

When I went to see the Wakefield Plays, I thought I knew what to expect, which was a medieval play about Bible stories. But I got so much more than that. The clever little things that the cast did to make the play relevant to a contemporary audience were funny and relatable. They made old stories relevant and new by making some contemporary points and jokes. This got me thinking about how even in the Middle Ages they did the same thing. When they wrote the plays, they didn't just copy and paste stories from the Bible, they made them relevant to the audience by inserting their "contemporary" jokes and ideas. Such as the idea of the Trinity being repeatedly brought up in the Old Testament stories, which would have been easier for the audience in the Middle Ages to understand. Also the jokes that they made in the original plays were for their contemporary audience, like the shepherds groaning and complaining about prices and Wakefield, or The Flood play having a belligerent and headstrong wife. These things, although not Biblical, made it easier to watch for the audience in the Middle Ages.
The Whitworth Theatre department did the same thing with aspects of the Wakefield Plays as well. For instance, in the Cain and Abel story, Cain drives a John Deer tractor, which always got some laughs. The absurdity of it made it funny, but the image of the tractor is so relevant and relatable to us as an audience, we knew exactly what it meant. The farmer, the hard worker, not always able to depend on weather and always hoping for a good season. This hard work makes it hard for us, and for Cain, to give up what he has earned in that work.
These plays, far from being copy and paste Biblical stories, are important to watch and learn from because they show stories we have all heard and known quite well in a different light. It makes it relevant to the audience, which is why they can be so powerful.

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.