UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff LLoouuiissvviillllee TThhiinnkkIIRR:: TThhee UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff LLoouuiissvviillllee''ss IInnssttiittuuttiioonnaall RReeppoossiittoorryy Electronic Theses and Dissertations 5-2013 DDiirrttyy sslluutt :: aann eexxpplloorraattiioonn ooff MMaarrggaarreett iinn SShhaakkeessppeeaarree''ss MMuucchh aaddoo aabboouutt nnootthhiinngg.. Lauren Ashlee Street 1987- University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn Street, Lauren Ashlee 1987-, "Dirty slut : an exploration of Margaret in Shakespeare's Much ado about nothing." (2013). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1392. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/1392 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DIRTY SLUT: AN EXPLORATION OF MARGARET IN SHAKESPEARE’S MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING by LAUREN ASHLEE STREET B.A., Middle Tennessee State University, 2010 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF FINE ARTS Theatre Arts University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky May 2013 DIRTY SLUT: AN EXPLORATION OF MARGARET IN SHAKESPEARE’S MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING by LAUREN ASHLEE STREET B.A., Middle Tennessee State University, 2010 A Thesis Approved on APRIL 15, 2013 By the following Dissertation Committee: ________________________________ Dr. Russell Vandenbroucke ________________________________ Michael Hottois ________________________________ Dr. Jay Irby ________________________________ ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I must acknowledge my father, mother, and sister as my foundation, mortar, and keystone. Without their unshakeable love, I would crumble. I would like to thank Professor James R. Tompkins for the privilege of working with him last fall. I am grateful for the thesis guidance given by Dr. Russell Vandenbroucke and the comments made by Professor Michael Hottois and Dr. Jay Irby. Finally, I would like to thank the men and women who believed in me even when I did not believe in myself: Scott Boyd, Roy Buchanan, Dr. Jette Halladay, Gregg Henry, Daniel Magrans, Dale McGilliard, Kim Neal Nofsinger, Tee Quillin, Sarah Ramsay, Donna Seage, Dr. Lundeana Thomas, Barbara and Dr. David Wesner, and Elizabeth Williams. iii ABSTRACT DIRTY SLUT: AN EXPLORATION OF MARGARET IN SHAKESPEARE’S MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING LAUREN ASHLEE STREET APRIL 15, 2013 Throughout the past eleven years, my process as an actor has been influenced by my education in theatre, personal experiences, and changing views on literary figures and socio- political issues. Through the lens of a minor Shakespearean character, I examine my current process and relationship to the playwright and director and analyze the implications of my onstage representation of sexually active women. My views on gender politics prompt me to scrutinize the script, and I discover a tiny detail that confirms my character is innocent of the betrayal of her mistress and reaffirms my confidence in Shakespeare’s abilities as a writer. However, I find the overall production repressive to women. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 1.INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2.WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE: AVERAGE JOE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 3.ON YOUR MARK! GET SET! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 4.GO! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 5.ME, MYSELF, AND MARGARET. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.WALK THIS WAY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.DOES THIS NOSE MAKE MY BUTT LOOK BIG? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 8.WIVES, SUMBIT TO YOUR HUSBANDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 9.WHO’S THE BOSS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 10.TOBACCO FARMER’S DAUGHTER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 11.WILL THE DEFENDANT PLEASE RISE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 12.SEX AND COMEDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 13.PLAY THAT FUNKY MUSIC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 14.CLOSING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 APPENDIX: A CHARACTER BIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 CURRICULUM VITAE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 v I INTRODUCTION In The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde writes, “Good artists exist simply in what they make, and consequently are perfectly uninteresting in what they are.” However, does not an artist create out of what they are? The artist’s personal history and values will have an influence on the work of art itself. It cannot be avoided. What follows, then, is an examination of the parts of my personal history that contributed to the creation of Margaret in William Shakespeare’s Much Ado about Nothing as presented by the University of Louisville in November 2012. There is not much to Margaret on paper. She is a flat stock character with a single function in the play that could have been carried out by Ursula if Shakespeare had written Much Ado about Nothing more efficiently. Even so, she still managed to give me quite a fit. How does an actor give a full life to a character who was given so little thought by its creator? It can be, and almost was, maddening. Stock characters are easy to put on a stage. They lack subtext. Stock characters tend to be easy solutions for plot holes, used when the playwright is in a time crunch (or merely lacks skill.) I have yet to work with a director who paid much attention to stock characters once the role had been cast; indeed, for each stock character I have played, Margaret not excepted, the director barely bothered to give me notes on the performance after the blocking period ended. If the playwright did not work very hard on a character, and the director is happy so long as the character does not steal focus and can be heard, why should the actor bother pouring her soul into such a role? For me, it is a matter of personal integrity, and I was determined to use the twelve weeks I was to spend with Margaret to give her my very best. To my surprise, I stumbled onto a dilemma. I would never have guessed a character like Margaret or a show like Much Ado about Nothing would fly in the face of principles that have 1 become very important not only to me, but to women everywhere. I became increasingly uncomfortable with the role, unsure of how to handle the situation in which I found myself. 2 II WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE: AVERAGE JOE Sometimes, my opinion of the playwright affects my approach to a role. I admire Tennessee Williams tremendously, and my work on his plays tends to be intricate because I enjoy it so much. Truthfully, my work on every role should be as detail-oriented, and I strive to make it so, but when my opinion of the script or its creator is low it is difficult to motivate myself to work quite as hard. My feelings about William Shakespeare have undergone vast changes over the course of my life, and my struggle to relate to such a revered figure significantly impacted my relationship to Margaret. I can recall my first time reading William Shakespeare with the same clarity as my baptism; in a way, it was a kind of holy experience and evoked in my twelve-year-old heart the same reverence I felt in church. The television program Wishbone had taught me his work was not only important, but something truly special that I wanted to experience for myself. I sat on the floor of the Clarksville-Montgomery County Public Library in front of the books with 800-level call numbers searching for Romeo and Juliet and running my fingers over the worn brown fabric of the spine with the gold lettering. I hugged it to my chest as I made my way downstairs to my favourite overstuffed chair in the far corner of the children’s reading room. For once, I was alone; the large room was dim and quiet except for the rumbling from the HVAC unit that switched on and off periodically in such a way that I always imagined the library as a living thing breathing easily around me. I kicked off my pink flip flops and pulled my feet up in the blue chair. I remember being oddly nervous as I opened the cover and inhaled the wonderful old-book smell of the yellowing pages as I read, for the first time, “Two households, both alike in dignity.” For many years, I regarded William Shakespeare with the same fear I owed to God. Like God, he was distant and lofty, never to be questioned and never blasphemed. The similarity of Shakespeare’s language to the King James Bible created a link in my mind that suggested his 3