Thank your attention and effort during today's class. I hope you found enjoyable, insightful, and 'educational.' One of the lines I love from the podcast is "I learned I wasn't stupid, I just wasn't educated."
This prophetic line coming from a man with a third grade education too--in my humble opinion, I don't think PhD. candidates, in all their infinite wisdom, at at all the great educational institutions could craft a thought as succinct, humbling, and provoking as that one.
But, I ramble, and now back to the assignment:
Please transfer the notes from your journal into a more structured reflection. Please feel free to answer the five questions I posed at the start of yesterday's class or you may write about something else that moved you or spoke to you.
If you need more than the 35 minutes, please feel free to continue working on these over the weekend.
I am Laureates--to be or not to be?
Good Luck,
The Blue Whale
PS--please check the blog at least once a day for further assignments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Below is an email, I sent to one of my teachers (one of my gurus, guides, yogi, my blue whale). Nigel was the one who introduced me to "Hamlet in Prison," so I thought it would be wise if I included him in this conversation and shared my honesty with you.
See you soon,
AK
Nigel--
I just wanted to drop you a quick line to say hello and thank you.
Thank you for all of your wisdom this summer and the sage phrase "that is a great question--I am not going to answer it." I find myself echoing those words often this year, and as a result the answers have become that much richer.
More than anything else, I wanted to let you know that I used This American's Life podcast "Hamlet in Prison" yesterday. I paired it with a Camus' essay, "The Myth of Sisyphus" and Dostoevesky "Notes from Underground" linking the three together under the questions: Is there such a thing as World Literature or only Universal Truths but more importantly, what is the power of art (or words) and how is art able to tear down the walls society constructs around, and within, us.
"Hamlet in Prison" had me in tears the first time I listened to it at my kitchen table. The line from an inmate with a third grade education floored me "I realized I wasn't stupid--just uneducated."
And then James Word takes the stage--and I can see his passion his 10,000 watt smile through his words--and he speaks about playing Laertes. Jack Hitt asks Mr. Word if he can play Laertes so well because he seems so much of Laertes in his own life. Word's reply, "...I am Laertes, I am, I am, I am."
Maybe, 'to be or not to be' is the only question--the question we are all asking ourselves over and over and over again in so many of the personal and public situations that define our lives and push us one step closer to owning the strength that comes with acknowledging who we are.
"...Are we always the prisoners of our actions? That is a great question"
And I love when Agnus (the ultimate teacher) says, "And if something falls apart--pick it up and own it and go somewhere with it."
Thank you for educating me this summer.
With gratitude,
Andrew
“…science itself will teach man (although I say it’s a luxury) that he has neither will nor whim—never had, as a matter of fact…” (109), which, when you begin to puzzle over it is a rather disheartening thought.
After listening to the various Hamlet’s ponder the question, “To be or not be…,” I came back to something I had written last week sometime about Dostoyevsky’s ideas on existence. If Hamlet’s question is also the Underground Man’s, then the matter or whether man has will or whim is really much broader. Does man choose to exist? Does he choose not to? Once again, the idea of consciousness comes into play.
Danny, one of the prisoners, the one playing the ghost of Hamlet’s father, who killed someone once and now is in prison, is plagued by his consciousness. As Dostoyevsky wrote, “Why, suffering is the only cause of consciousness” (118). Danny does indeed suffer because of his past actions, and the question he asked about whether he could and should be allowed to go back and join society illustrates that. I cannot exactly remember what words he used, but he said he was not certain that his actions could ever be forgiven. I want to leave this thought here and come back to it in a bit, though.
We tend to think of existence as innate; you are alive, therefore you exist. In a word, we oversimplify it. Or, since I can speak for no one but myself, that is what I do. Certain philosophers would challenge that, Descarte’s “I think therefore I am,” and Camus’ “I rebel—therefore we exist,” come to mind. So I wonder if what Dostoyevsky was implying when he said man has neither will nor whim was that we do not exist until we find our will and whim, something like Camus’ rebel. We must assert our existence, not in the way Dostoyevsky tried to in the incident with the officer in Chapter One of Part Two, but to ourselves, by, I think, battling our walls.
I think that was the power of Hamlet in that prison; Hamlet offered a wall, something for the prisoners to reckon with and, through that struggle, understand. The thing is, what they said about Hamlet being someone who ‘dithers’ actually lends itself quite well to what I am trying to say. Where fate is considered heavily, free will and whim are stifled. In that, I mean that questions like “To be or not to be” become inevitable.
I also wondered, after listening to the prisoners, whether they were men of action or men of thought. I hesitate to label them as either, but I think perhaps they were originally men of action and now, due to jail, self-reflection, and, I am sure, in no small part, Hamlet, are most likely men of thought. I got the sense they have all asked themselves to be or not to be. Men of action seek revenge, they act more spontaneously, more like the prisoners. I think jail may be a catalyst, turning men of action into men of thought, because it forces one to face themselves.
I am realizing I would like to rephrase my thought about walls: Hamlet was not the wall, but the thing that made the prisoners see their walls, which were within them.
Dostoyevsky pointed out we always look to progress, but he thought there may come a day when there can be no progress and it will either be quite nice or quite dull. I am still not sure I agree with him there, but we cannot peter out and lose momentum, not necessarily moving forward but simply moving, because when we do, we completely deny ourselves our chance at will and whim. Originally I most likely would have considered jail to do that to people, but through the reading of Hamlet, I think these men had a chance to look in themselves and battle what they need to battle to possess whim and will.
This is somewhat in conjunction as my Hamlet post, but more about Dostoyevsky and kind of a rant…
Reading about the incident with the officer who picked Dostoyevsky up and moved him aside in Chapter One of Part Two, I am forced to think of the vanity in his outrage. By his own admission, the fact that he wanted to fight the officer and then backed out was the cause of his “boundless vanity.” But that bit he says, “to be brushed aside without being noticed” (130), struck me as really rather vain. Understandable, yes, but I cannot help but wonder if he says all of this in tongue and cheek. If it is, it says a great deal about human weaknesses, if not, then his actions are more unforgiveable than the officer’s.
The thing is that that kind of vanity is very human. It, too, is a wall. Only I cannot help but separate his ‘I’ from mine, and therefore I have a hard time truly understanding him.
The whole event with the officer struck me as very bizarre. I cannot understand his dire need to be apologized to. I’ve reread it about three times now and I am still grasping at straws, as they say. See, I could see if, at the moment the deed was done and Dostoyevsky was offended, he demanded an apology. It was fairly rude, but I do not think it was a slight to his being. However, he says he still feels vengeful two years later. To what end, Mr. Dostoyevsky? I must agree with him that it is for the better he did not send the letter to challenge him with a duel.
Back in Chapter Three of Part One, he spoke of the revenge of the “mouse” who seeks revenge because it was “disgraced” and “humiliated” (96). I think he is even saying that the vengeful man is “the real, normal man” (96). I admit there is some kind of justice in revenge but I have never liked the idea of it. Further, I am baffled by the methods used and the extremes people go to in attempting to achieve it. If Dostoyevsky wishes to instruct this officer of his ignorance, because I would agree that he is rather ignorant, that makes sense to me. I do not think, though, that Dostoyevsky’s breed of revenge in this instance is really revenge at all…
To say a word in his favor though, I thought his reasoning for his ‘revenge,’ “Why must I always get out of his way?” (133) was sound. The irony here is that it is entirely possible that Dostoyevsky wrote this as a type of, to borrow a phrase from Joanna Newsom, “inflammatory writ.” If so, it worked and I took the bait.
In conclusion, the event reminded me of a poem by Stephen Crane we read last year in English:
A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
Brings me back to the point I made in my Hamlet post about our need to assert our existence to ourselves rather than someone else. If Dostoyevsky was truly mad at the officer, his anguish fell on deaf ears. However, he himself was made aware of, perhaps, some of his weaknesses and his existence.
Being a good actor is the opposite of being a good prisoner. That is one of the many ideas present within “Hamlet in Prison” that has stuck with me. Perhaps I find that sentence at the forefront of my thoughts because though I understand the statement, I find it to be fundamentally untrue. First I should define what I consider a “good prisoner.” In my mind, the good prisoner is not the one who manages to close him or herself off from all emotion, retrospective analysis, and feeling. In a high security prison it may be a survival tactic, and a defense against the violence that may befall you if you appear weak or vulnerable. Outside of literal prison walls too and within our own personal walls as citizens of society it sometimes seems like the wisest act of self preservation to numb ourselves, to focus on something else, and to will ourselves unconscious. What do we accomplish with this strategy? I guess we’re safer. Whatever your walls are, whether you’re one of the tough killer whales in a jail or a student who keeps clashing with school and your parents’ expectations, your life will be easier if you just silently keep running into those walls with your head down, mind unaware, and a blank expression on your face. The other route will attract more attention and it will certainly evoke painful memories and realizations, but this inner turmoil is the only way to grow, and perhaps eventually find peace of mind.
Prisoners who have committed heinous crimes will be unsuccessful in tearing down the concrete walls that hold them in, just as the typical student will be unable to escape the constraints of school. When these walls cannot be dismantled, I would argue that the best option is to stop trying to break through them because there is another barrier that deserves attention. The walls that are truly the most constricting are not the physical ones in front of us, but rather the ones that we erect within ourselves over time – the ones that harden criminals and turn the youth bitter and cynical. Those outer walls keep us in, but the inner walls are what we build to protect ourselves from disappointment, sadness, frustration, and in the case of many prisoners, remorse. The good prisoner can find an avenue, like becoming immersed in a production of Hamlet, to understand the hatred, the resentment, and the mistakes that were born out of those emotions in their past in order to change: “To put a gun in someone’s face is a cowardly act.” and “I took a man’s life. Do I deserve to be out there? I cannot say.” These statements come from the mouths of changed men; individuals who have opened up emotionally and allowed themselves to be transformed by art despite their tough location. They’re facing some of the thickest walls in the world, but they’ve made a liberating inward transformation that plenty of “free” people never will.
Are we forever prisoners of our actions? Should we be punished long after we’ve realized the error in our ways? I don’t know. What I have gathered from this recording and the reflection that followed is that it really does come down to:”to be or not to be?” I don’t mean that in quite the original context of “to commit this act or not to commit this act”. The prisoners in Hamlet have all committed their acts and our now dealing with the repercussions. They have however all made the conscious decision to be something different now and to feel something different completely. They use their pasts to relate to their parts, and in turn can use their parts to come to terms with their pasts; the mark of a “good prisoner” in my opinion. In short, they have used a play to mold themselves into men of truer thought and nobler action within the confines of cold cement walls. That powerful human elevation is nothing short of incredible. It’s an example of the rawest and truest form of art.
After yesterday’s class, I really wanted to address the purpose of are (probably followed by a great deal of rambling and whatnot…).
I would like to start by saying that, before this school year, I in no way considered myself an artist. I have taken a pottery class—I will be the first to admit that clay is not at all my calling. My singing is atrocious and I quit piano at age nine, after my teacher told me that I might want to look into other instruments (“the recorder perhaps…”). So, no I was not an “art person.” But when I heard the prisoners in the tape, Hamlet in Prison, I kind of realized that art is more than sculpting a masterpiece out of clay or singing a flawless ballad—art is the freeing of the artist. In my journal, I wrote that I thought that an artist is extremely brave, for they expose their soul to everyone. I admire artists.
To define “artist” is not easy. I think that an artist is one who spends most of his/her time within themselves, searching for a technique that would accurately resemble who they are. This is not easy. On top of their difficult inward journey, we on the outside tend to judge. There is no use in denying this; artists are absolutely judged. What we see is a person who is rambling, like Dostoyevsky, or dressed in strange clothing. We do not see then, and yet we expect great things from them when they release their work.
But so we really appreciate it? Sure, we may gaze upon the canvas, admiring the smooth lines and the modern color pallet, but do we even know what we are seeing? When the artist is gazing at us through his masterpiece, completely exposed, do we even recognize that we are seeing the soul of the artist?
Our problem is our judgments. We pass jails on the highway, and the signs accompanying them that warn: “Do not stop for hitchhikers!” But we don’t even know the people who are contained behind those heavy walls. “Criminals are cowards,” said one of the prisoners. Now, why would a criminal (as we commonly think of criminals), make such a backwards statement? Have we ever though that we might be wrong about these incarcerated men and women? At this particular prison, the prisoners were able to discover themselves through Shakespeare’s Hamlet. These men who had been separated from society used their roles as a key to open the door of their past. By doing this, as artists, they could truly discover themselves. One of the prisoners, Danny Waller (I think that is how you spell his name…) said that he could feel the suffering of the man that he murdered through his role, the ghost of Hamlet’s father. He told the interviewer, “[The man I killed]’s mostly the one talking,” meaning that he was able to express fear that he could not feel before playing this role in Hamlet.
Acting in this production gave the convicts a way to discover themselves and find it within themselves to change. They discover and express who they really are through acting—though art. But there are two sides to art. The artist, who almost never fails to produce, and the audience, who needs to learn to appreciate the fact that art exposes that truth of an artist’s being and is something that needs to be respected. Dostoyevsky finds himself by writing; the prisoners find themselves through acting Hamlet.
And who are we to judge them?
Towey.
Prison is a society of it’s own. They take pride in much different ideals than the average American, and their crime often dictates their level of respect. The inmates have a warped hierarchy compared to the outside world. Their respect is born out of fear, and therefore those who are the most vicious and dangerous are given the greatest respect. I always felt like the more vicious they were the more heartless they were, but then it struck me when Big Hutch said that the “Killer Whales” were all for show. The killer whales were just as scared as the minnows were; they just handle the consequences of their actions with more experience. As the podcast began to unravel, it became clear to me that these prisoners were, as one man put it, cowards. For many of them, the guilt they felt over their crimes remained just as severe as the day after they committed the crimes. Except for these men, the choice to commit a felony seemed so black and white, unlike Hamlet’s inner debate. Big Hutch said that if Hamlet completely believed in his father’s ghost then he should have believed his father’s declaration of the murderer. From the killer’s point of view, Hamlet never really had a dilemma. He knew he had to kill his uncle, even if it was only to defend his honor. I believe this is the difference between the mind of a killer and the minds of everyone else. For the criminal, the answer is always “to be” and never “not to be.” They see a crystal clear line between action and thought, and the two never occur at the same time. These convicts are men of action during their crimes and men of thought after. Once they are bound by the cement walls of a prison cell, they often no longer see reason to be men of action. Their sense of reason and thought takes over, and they feel like changes men. There lies the startling statistic that 97% of people in prison will be released at some point in their lives. Whether it was the community, the activities, or the actual sentence that appear to have changed them, it is not clear. However, they have only been changed because they have no other option. On the other hand, they participate in the Hamlet production because they want to. It may be the only thing in prison that brings them comfort, but really it is the only place where whales and minnows can work together to represent one voice…that of the convict. They are making art that enables them to heal together.
When I was thinking about the purpose of art in relation to the convicts, I realized that if we consider art any form of expression, everyone must at some point participate in the act of creating art. The play Hamlet was a productive and useful form of art, but at some time before being involved with the play these prisoners must have engaged in a different act of self-expression. I think that it is very possible that their crimes were their only form self expression. Whether they were murdering a stranger or raping a child or robbing a store at gunpoint, these men were expressing a anger or a confusion that could not be brought out in any other way but art. Don’t get me wrong, I am not condoning their actions under the pretense of art, but I am accepting that art is a snapshot of a single moment of emotion, bad or good. These men aren’t any tougher than the rest of us, they are just lost without a means of expression.
I'm not sure why there are three me's following this blog...
To be or not to be? I really liked the way Hutch (Blue Whale, Horatio gave perimeters and consequences to this question. Say you're in jail, he says. Your brother is in jail too, and he's just been murdered. Now you know to survive in prison you have to defend your family's honor and get the guys who did it... But you also only have one year or so left and you've got a wife, a family, who wants you to come home. Are you the man of action, who draws strength in defending honor but must stay within the prison walls? Or are you the man of thought, who internalizes the hurt in order to escape physical imprisonment? To be or not to be? Which is better? How can you decide?
In society it is the men of action who are commended. After all, this idea of "honor" which you must defend really only exists in the eyes of those who perceive or judge you. "To be" is to say to others, "Look! I exist!" The men of thought, however, are ususally regarded as crazies or not regarded at all. To be a man of thought is to partake in the invisible crusade for truth... It is often a position of isolation. So which is better? asks the Underground Man... And I suppose it depends on what you are looking for in life. To be Claudius is to be a man of acion... To be commended and praised and successful in the eyes of others. To not be, is Hamlet... waging and invisible war, however noble, and therefore ridiculed by most.
Chelsea
Hello, hello--
For those of you who have posted your comments--I thank you. For the others, I hope they are coming in...again, if you are having problems with the blog please email me.
Reading on a rainy Saturday afternoon, before the wedding, in a house that was not mine, from a book I stumbled upon by happenstance I read:
"Playing with ideas without an explicit goal and letting one's imagination roam--these are necessary activities of the life of the mind...the right to think for oneself is not granted by nature; it is a right which has to be earned, and earned by learning....and then there is the story of Socrates with the young Meno who thought he knew everything--and how Socrates puts this youth through his paces--and how Meno finally says, 'Both my mind and my tongue are paralyzed, and I do not know how to answer you anymore.' Such an acknowledgment of one's ignorance is the beginning of wisdom.
Good luck--see you soon...
"Are we always the prisoners of our actions?" This is one of the most profound questions posed by Hamlet, and one that is painfully relevant to the lives of all prisoners. This question is about the ramifications of the choices we make, or at the very least the actions we take. The men who call themselves "The Hamlets" play the character for whom choices are the primary theme of his life. Hamlet spends the play hovering on the brink of the momentous decision of whether or not to commit the act of murder in the name of justice and vengeance.
The question, "To be, or not to be?" is possibly the most famous one ever posed. It, by the virtue of its simplicity, is able to fully capture every nuance of the choice Hamlet must make. It is the ultimate choice, the one that distinguishes the Person of Thought from the Person of Action. It is, essentially, the choice to choose. To Be is to be aware, proactive, and to accept nothing as outside of one's control. Not To Be is to be a slave to fate, circumstances, and the limitations imposed upon us by the inherent weaknesses of the human condition. To Be is to say, "I will make every aspect of my life the result of a conscious decision, and I will tear down walls until I am my own master." Not To Be, on the other hand, is to say nothing at all. Not To Be is to allow oneself to be controlled by the two weakest motivations, Fear and Lust. (I use these words in the broadest sense.) To put it as eloquently as possible, Not To Be is to react, while To Be is to act.
For the vast majority of the men and women in prison, the actions that resulted in their loss of freedom are from a reactionary lifestyle. This idea was expressed by James Word when he said, "Criminals are cowards." While this may be more of a judgement of character than I would consider fair, the sentiment is absolutely true. People like him wound up in jail because they made no choices, and instead flowed with the circumstances of their life and the pressures of society. People allow themselves to be dragged down this path because it is easier than the alternative. To quote the writer Dr. Samuel Johnson, "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." (Contrary to popular belief, this brilliant quotation originated with neither Hunter S. Thompson nor Avenged Sevenfold.) The men like Word who were in the prisoner's production of Hamlet made beasts of themselves when they committed their crimes; it was through their immersion into Hamlet that they began to navigate their way towards consciousness. "A person changes," said one man. "I am no longer the criminal I used to be." In a world driven mad by fear and desperation, there is nothing more beautiful than to see a dozen criminals gain such sublime awareness of their power as individuals. I would challenge the citizens of the law-abiding world to match their level of personal transcendence.
The problem that many readers of Hamlet encounter is that they have no way to relate to the trials and tribulations of the prince. The usual suspects who would be reading Hamlet, a lot of times high school and college students have never had to decide whether they should kill someone or not. They have never had to avenge the murder of their father. But the actors in the production of Hamlet at the Missouri State Penitentiary have something in common with the Prince of Denmark. They are convicted criminals, some facing life sentences. Some are murderers, rapists or pedophiles. They know what it is like to face the choices of Hamlet, and are now serving the consequences of his decision. They use their production of Hamlet as a device to try and find answers to the questions they ponder in the countless days confined in a cell.
The Underground Man is infected with the disease of too much thought. He over analyzes every decision he has to make, judges himself to critically whenever he thinks someone else is judging his sickness. The Underground Man spends his life wandering the gloomy corridors of his mind looking for the answers to his questions, and for a place where he can be accepted despite his disease. This is not unlike the prisoners reenacting the struggles of Hamlet at the Missouri State Penitentiary. They too are looking for a way to be accepted back into society, whether it is society that will allow them to reenter the world, or if it is themselves. The ultimate goal of the prisoner is to abandon the person they used to be and to move on in the world. But for many of the inmates this is a uphill battle. Even if they make parole or if their sentences ends they feel as if they can't let themselves back into society because of what crimes they have already committed. But others have hope for the future. They have realized that they have already been to the lowest point in their lives and have now begun to pull themselves up from the dregs of society. These prisoners are the ones who have become aware of the walls that surround them, and have begun to smash them down, one act of Hamlet at a time. The play helps them find understanding in a place where previously they would have only found sorrow and despair. The play allows the inmates to pretend to be real functioning people in society. So now, as the actors prepare for their final performance they are really just preparing for another rehearsal, but this rehearsal is for real life.
Reading and acting out Hamlet, is a way for the prisoners to be human. For everything that we deprive them of, they can hold onto this and keep sight of sanity. These prisoners looked further into themselves because of Hamlet and wondered if they deserved to be on the outside and not imprisoned; their answers of “maybe…” and “I don’t know…” showed that they aren’t mindless killers who feel no remorse. This isn’t to say that every man in prison has deep feelings of regret and such but the recognition of consequences for their actions is a big deal. In Hamlet’s words, “aren’t we all prisoners of our own actions?.” The inmates realize the consequences and are even hesitant to grant themselves the freedom of separating themselves from what happened. They distinguished themselves by saying, “that was me then, this is me now,” and they didn’t want to talk about their crimes. In our (society)/(country?), the ideas of giving people second chances are mired with past opinions and judgments that prevent them from leading normal lives. If you knew that your child would be taught by a man who had been convicted of assaulting a 5 year old, you would most likely feel less comfortable than if you knew that the teacher had been working for the Peace Corps for the last 10 years and was the most highly revered person in their division. Each one of us comes with some sort of history. Though some try to hide them, we are all people who have many different backgrounds. Both good and bad aspects are included in this but knowing the bad parts tends to worry and make us uncomfortable with situations. The truth behind the teacher who was convicted of the assault though, could be that he was wrongly convicted or wrongly identified.
The prisoners are men of thought now. They were previously men of action as they are in prison, but with the help of Hamlet they are returned being men and not just a number. They are now thinkers who are connecting themselves to the characters of Hamlet and relating their feelings and personal experience to bring life and emotions to the words. Hamlet gives the prisoners a chance to escape from the consequences of their actions and be free for the time they are acting and then pretending to be normal before their ten minutes are up and they get strip searched to go back into the yard. Choosing to elevate themselves from their previous third grade or so reading levels they had already made a commitment to go beyond the required cooperation. They create their options to stay human and then they hold to them as much as possible. Hamlet gave them a bond to something greater than them and it also created bonds between the inmates. The four hamlets practiced together and will be able to hold onto Hamlet in the future when they need to stay sane and remain more than a number on a clipboard or a cell.
final test
We discussed in class that we can not always break down our walls, or that we do not want too, but I gained a new perspective about these ‘walls’ after hearing about the prisoners. To escape our walls I think we need to understand what is beyond them, to see the bigger picture and the world we are not apart of or can not get to. This makes it hard for me to break down my walls, because I can not see beyond them, I don’t know if there actually is anything beyond them. The prisoners know of the world beyond their cells because they used to be apart of it. They know the social conduct, and standards of society that they are no longer apart of. Their major violations of those things is why they are there. Because they understand what is beyond they actual jail walls, overcoming their own walls will come with time.
Is it to rehabilitate them or is it a punishment, was one of the questions that was brought up as too why they are placed in jail. I think from punishment comes rehabilitation, and a changed perspective. The restrictive walls of jail, that no matter how hard a prisoner try’s to break them down, remain in tact and they need to learn to cope with their prison. The wall of being a criminal will come with them even after they leave their physical walls of jail, and outside of the jail is where it will have its greatest impact. By being placed in inescapable walls that you have not built yourself, I feel one is bound to change. Change comes from coping, and trying to survive in an altered environment. Much like the blind man who adjusts to the darkness, the prisoners adjust to their walls and find ways to overcome them instead of break them down. I think that is the fundamental difference between a prisoners walls and my own. While I have to break them down, and find what is beyond them, and prisoner knows what is physically beyond them, and needs to adjust to these new walls in order to overcome them.
When one prisoner said “Im this guy now, not that guy” in reference to how he had changed, I felt he was conscious of his condition, he was aware of his wrong doings and he was accepting change. He has been aware of his walls, and was able to overcome the mentality of being a prisoner. He said that “I know I will not do any other crimes…but do I deserve to be out there?” Out here in the world beyond his walls, with us. Among people he had little in common with after years in jail, but I think that his recognition of the fact that this world is different and his walls have changed him speaks to his readiness to be released.
The idea of being a good actor goes against everything that being a good prisoner means, shows that these men have moved beyond the walls that they have with built or that have been placed in front of them. By showing emotion when it makes them vulnerable in their surroundings and stepping into someone else for a few moments shows that they have overcome their personal walls. The walls that could have landed them in jail were the ones that they overcame while in jail. All that they need to do now is be released from the the walls of their high-security prison.
What can I possibly get out of this? I have never murdered someone or seriously contemplated the possibility. What could a murderer possibly teach me? They draw on the urge of wanting to do pain, and I consider myself a fairly peaceful person.
What is this art to a prisoner? They treat it as more than just a play. They live their art. Their character is themselves, or their atonement, and their passion. They bleed for the sins of themselves and who they portray through this art. It is a rebirth, and it gives them a chance to speak and express themselves in a society where most people would say, "let them rot." They transform from the men of action that they were to the men of thought that they are. The crimes that they committed had consequences that they could not comprehend at the time. They were things that they would boast about in their lives as men of action, but once in prison or even just by themselves they knew the truth. They weren't bad people, that someone got hurt from what they did, someone weeped for what they did, and that their crime made them unfit for society. They understood and accepted these facts and in doing so became men of thought. To become men of thought, they also had to recognize their walls, which were very literal in this case. Their walls were actual walls that were made of concrete and steel. In this way, their art took on a very different role. Their art was the sledgehammer or the pic axe that was used to tear down these walls and to connect them with what was on the outside. Not only did they see this, they understood it with every fiber of their being and committed themselves to their hammer. Every time they acted in Hamlet or enjoyed a cast party, they did so knowing that a cavity search was waiting for them and that another night within their cold walls was inevitable, but they pushed on to get yet another glimpse to the other side.
One man testified that the acting kept them human. assuming that this is true, there must be something that is dehumanizing them. What is it? you may ask. It is their walls. Their walls were keeping them from society and, in turn, from being human. They built these walls to separate themselves from everything. They built them the second that they committed their crime, the second that the tore down societies wall, this new wall was built to separate them from society, and if it was these walls that was dehumanizing them, then it was really themselves that were dehumanizing them. How can a man that shot another man in the head or raped his daughter call himself human? it is obscene to think that they should deserve that title, but that is why this rebirth and this art is so important. They use this art to become more human and destroy the walls that keep them from doing so. The walls they they created. In my journal entry about whether i thought math was art, i said that art has to change someone enough to make them want to change themselves, even if it is just for an instant. This play does just that. The prisoners see the beauty in this play and are so moved by it that they are not only forced to change themselves, they WANT to change themselves, and in this case not only for an instant, but rather for a lifetime.
So, what can I get out of this? I can learn to see the beauty in art and be deeply effected by it and learn to better myself through art. I can see the value of staying connected to society and get a better idea of which walls should be torn down and which walls should stay firmly in place, and even perhaps to value some of these walls.
"To be, or not to be." I do 0believe that this is the essential question that life is based upon. You are either in or out,with or against. This was the question the actors had to answer when they were faced with the option to participate in the play. To some it may seem like an easy question, and may help pass the time of a sentence, but to others, this was a difficult decision. Choosing to participate would mean they had to leave behind the typical stereotype of someone behind bars. There were many parts while listening to this production that moved me, and made me think differently about people in prison. Normally when I think of a prisoner I see a person mad at the world, a bully who will always be a bad person. But I quickly found out that no matter the crime they committed, they all seemed, at least from listening very normal. I thought that if I attended the play not knowing it was being acted by criminals, I would have no idea that they were in fact that. One part that really move me, was toward the end of the production when the actors were not allowed to use real shovels during the play, but were confined to using cardboard. This showed how dehumanizing jail could be. Also before and after each meeting the actors were searched was another part of this. The part that moved me most while listening was when one of the actors was talking about his crime. He took another mans life. During his sentence he had changed dramatically and was ready to be a good citizen outside of jail. But although he may have been ready, he acknowledged the fact that that it wouldn't be fair if he was let out. He took a mans life and that man could never come back to life again. This was very surprising, and you can only imagine how bad a prisoner would like to get out of jail, yet this prison, was very humble. When the producer went to the City Hall, to see the crimes some of the actors had committed of, they ranged from murder, to child molestation. He himself had kids, yet he did not think of these people in any other way than he had previously. They were still people just like you and me. "To be or not to be." These actors were out in the real world once, where you are pretty much demanded to be a good law abiding citizen. For whatever the reason, they chose not to be. Making the best out of their sentence, participating in the play, they chose to be, and be great.
The last post was Shaun Millerick.
Many people take freedom for granted. After listening to this moving radio program, this is all that I could think about. Freedom gives people emotions and it also makes them feel human. The deprivation of rights and the dehumanization of the inmates in prison gives them the feeling that they are no longer human beings.
“She makes us feel human.” This is one of the many statements that were made by the actors at the high security Missouri prison that left me baffled. One of the prisoners named Edgar is speaking of the play director. For most of these actors, this is the first time since entering prison that they have been treated like they are worth something. Hamlet gives the inmates emotions. The play is a life changing experience for the actors. They used their part in the play to understand their past. This opportunity changes many of the inmate’s lives for the better.
After hearing about the prisoners’ life changing experiences from the play, I look at walls in a different way. When people cannot tear down their walls, it is not necessarily a bad thing. It makes them learn from their past. Ironically, when the prisoners realize they cannot tear down the physical walls is when they tear down the wall of their pasts. The moment that the prisoners realize that they cannot change the past and have to , they tear down the walls. Society builds walls around criminals to give them an opportunity to change. Even if they are in prison for the rest of their lives, at least when they pass away they can be in harmony with themselves. For the actors, they use the play to understand their pasts and tear down their walls. One of the prisoner has the epiphany that he has, “Already been to the lowest point of life, now lets go to the top.” For some lucky prisoners, they get a second chance at freedom. This is an example of how prison helps someone turn over a new leaf and tear down the wall of their past. When prisoners cannot tear down their walls, they become insane. One actor states that the play director “Keeps them from going insane…” In other words, she is assisting them in tearing down their walls. When one cannot tear down their wall, they essentially give up on life.
Prison is these peoples’ rocks. The feeling that these actors get when they get to be in the presence of “normal people” for only fifteen minutes after the play is worth every beating and dehumanization in prison. For the first time in many years (for most prisoners), they are surrounded by people who have a positive influence on them. All the time spent in prison is the grueling haul up the mountain, pushing the rock with every bit of might in their bodies. When, and if, they are released from prison into the real world, this is the moment at the top of the mountain that they live for. The struggle of life becomes their rock. They have to learn how to be functioning human beings again. Many have not seen the outside of a prison since they were young adults. In my opinion, society is doing these people and the rest of the world a favor by putting up cement walls around criminals. It gives them the opportunity to tear down the wall of their pasts.
I found that a lot of what was said in the interviews with the prisoners was thought provoking. One thing in particular was the fact that most of these prisoners didn’t have any education really and yet as they read and understand Shakespeare they realize “he really is good.” It’s interesting to see how the play affects the prisoners and gives them something to immerse themselves in. The fact that acting is such a personal thing when you do it well; it requires you to be very open and it’s amazing that the prisoners are so willing to do it and excited about it. In prison it seems that it would just be better to stay within your comfort zone and to isolate yourself. I feel that the play gives the prisoners some way to forget about their individual pasts. The interviews showed that they are just people too. They may have done horrible things, but from listening to it I see that there isn’t much difference between them and any other person except for their previous actions. A question that really stood out to me was what one of the prisoners thought about the ‘state’ of a prisoner: “Are we forever the prisoner of our actions?” I think that this encompasses what is being shown by this podcast. These people have all done something horribly wrong and their punishment is to be locked up. Even if they change, the fact that they have to stay in prison is just a constant reminder of what they did. Like some of them said, they took someone’s life and they aren’t sure that they deserve to be back in the world; the person they killed doesn’t get that chance. The idea of these ‘lessons’ being taught through the play Hamlet is interesting. The director Agnes Wilcox says that being in a production like this allows the prisoners to feel something that they’ve never felt; make them realize certain things that they never knew. The play teaches the prisoners about interactions with people outside of the prison and outside of what they knew. The characters in Hamlet are so far from the way normal people today act. It gives the prisoners new things to experience and the cast party is a test to see how much they’ve grown. Although that still does bring back up the question about whether or not the prisoners feel that they deserve to be free. Freedom is a privilege and it is something to be valued. The realization of it’s value usually comes after it’s taken from you, but gaining it back takes the work. Regaining freedom is too difficult for most people to handle. For the prisoners, I imagine that it would be hard to realize their freedom once they’re released after being so degraded and confined for so long. Allowing them to put on Hamlet, it gives them a means of feeling free for even a short period of time, and let’s them feel normal and human.
"Are we forever the prisoners of our actions?"
We are not only the prisoners of our actions, but our choices. Choices that we have made in the past or are in the process of being made. Throughout the play, Hamlet is debating whether or not to kill Claudius, the man who murdered his father. He is essentially paralyzed throughout the play, stuck in a state of inaction as he makes his decision. He is held captive, unable to move forward, beyond his father’s death and on with his life. Choices, or decisions, hold us tightly in their grasp until we make them and then we must face the consequences.
Its is our choices that build and shape our walls. Brick by brick. The paths of each of our lives wind and intersect, and wherever they turn is where we made another choice. These men made a choice that drastically altered their path and walls. Naturally, society "helps" us build our walls, by eliminating choices, which is probably what happened to these men. But while in prison, they made the decision to turn their paths in a different direction.
Are prisons places for reflection and reformation? Or are they merely there to keep killers off the streets? I remember once hearing about a Quaker group that would go into prisons and just talk with the prisoners, to keep them in touch with the world outside, and to help them reform their ways. Which raises another question: Can people really change? The prisoners who did Hamlet claimed they had, in which case, should they still be in prison? I think in our society, we want to lock up and shut away criminals because they represent the worst within us, not because we want them to reflect on their crime.
Of course, there is the argument that it was the society they lived in, rather than themselves, that made them commit those crimes. Many of the prisoners had never been given the opportunity to excel at anything other than surviving, and were "surprised to find out that [they weren't] stupid". It is reasonable to say then, that it is not these men that need to change, but the society in which they live.
After listening, I won't lie. It was moving and inspiring, and I think we ultimately learn from it that even the most feared people in our society are human too, even though they are stripped of many of their human qualities. Acting out the play they say keeps them sane, it occupies them, but as time goes on, it becomes a part of them, and gives them a figure, a state of being. Much like the lives they are living, they have made mistakes and are now struggling to deal with the consequences that were thrust upon them. In Hamlet, the main character is carefully contemplating murder as an option to better his seat in society. The inmates are living out the consequences, and in this scenario many of them choose just to serve their time, and close off their feelings to those around them. Hamlet makes them open up, and they see sides of one another that they hadn't quite seen before. It gives them dimension rather than being perceived as just another delinquent. When acting out the play, they have a voice whereas when they go back to jail life, their voices are meaningless to those around them. They have to follow orders and have to live a structured life. But when they come to play practice they play a different role. They come together to create something beautiful and emotional. In a way, it seemed as if the crew had almost become like sort of a family. They learned from one another, and they understood the importance of the character's roles in the scheme of the play. WIth this understanding, they were able to in one way or another relate it to the life in which they lived. I thought it was also very interesting when in the end they question whether jail is thought of as a form or punishment or rehab? What is it's true purpose. When I think of jail, the first thing that comes to mind is that we put people in their yes to punish them. We want to take them away from the life which they live so freely and show them that they can't have this if they can't also abide by the rules os society. But how we will ever better human nature if we don't attempt to help us or them to understood what are the intentions of their soul. What is the root or cause of their sickness, and how can we help them to better understand what they desire. So yes, these inmates are in jail serving their time, but Hamlet provides them with the healing or rehabilitation aspect of this correction facility. And nor is someone feeding them answers, but at their own pace of will they are learning things about themselves and their actions in the past. They can either choose to accept or reject this offer. In the end, some people change and some people don't, and it's all up to the individual, but at least in this story we chose to give them a chance, and offer them a new light, and for them embracing it, I think their character shows immensely.
Post a Comment