Hailey (played Bavarian Hostess)

This essay presents a thorough and engaging description of how your group worked together to present a scene from . In particular, you do an excellent job of explaining the scholarly materials that informed your group’s perspective on the scene—a perspective that came through very effectively in the performance itself. While you effectively present these critical ideas, however, there are a number of points in your essay where I would have liked to see some more explanation of how, specifically, these ideas affected the choices you made in your performance. At times this is well done (for example, in your discussion of the idea that Burden has contracted syphilis, and his possible links with German Black Magic), but there are other points, indicated in my written comments, I was left wondering how these ideas translated into the decisions your group arrived at (for example, why you chose the specific representation of the Brazen Head you did, or how, specifically, you worked to engage the audience as per Maus’s emphasis on the importance of the spectator to the play). Also, while you present a fairly detailed record of the rehearsal process, I would have liked to read more about which group members contributed which ideas; as well, more about how these ideas evolved through the rehearsal process. You explain how this process happened, but do not give me any of the details of it, which is what I want to hear! Also, there are a number of mistakes in your use of class style (indicated in my written comments) and some errors in spelling and capitalization that work to distract from the ideas you are discussing. That said, I thought that your reflections on how your character functions as a key aspect of the scene (and on how your representation of her supported this position while leading you to a deeper understanding of the play as a whole) were very astute and thoughtfully presented. Well done!

Alana (played Mason/Clement)

This paper presents a thorough and engaging description of the ways that your group worked together to present a scene from . You do a particularly great job of describing the rehearsal process, with a focus on how the rehearsals took shape, how different people contributed ideas (and how those ideas were ultimately presented in performance) and what difficulties and problems cropped up during this process. The level of detail and honesty in this part of your paper are impressive. Another strength of this paper is the careful way you explain the rationale behind the choices your group made in your preparations for the performance—your essay clearly shows that decisions about costumes, blocking, props, and characterization came from an informed and thoughtful place. You do not spend as much time on the research portion of your project, however—while you briefly reference a couple of articles and another performance of the play, you do not deal with any more of the articles on your bibliography. What you have written in relation to the scholarship you engage with is great, but I would have liked to see more about how this research contributed to your group’s interpretation of the scene and, as such, to your performance choices. In general, the essay could have used more of a focus on what this overarching interpretive concept was—your essay is supposed to have a thesis that incorporates this interpretive view, but it doesn’t, and perhaps as a result it’s sometimes difficult to make out how the choices you reference contribute to a larger vision of what the scene means or expresses. This is not to say that I can’t make out this interpretive concept at all, but simply that if it were more clearly and emphatically expressed, your essay would be stronger and more cohesive. That said, I really enjoyed your reflections on how your representation of Clement/Mason was carefully conceived to demonstrate his inferiority as a scholar. I’m glad you were able to make it through an experience that was so challenging for you—your group did an excellent job, and you should be proud!

Justin Nusca (played Friar Bacon)

This thorough and well-written paper offers an engaging description of how your group worked to present a scene from . This essay does a fantastic job of explaining the overarching interpretive concept for the scene and for your character, showing both the research that contributed to your group’s view of the scene, and how the choices you made with regards to the performance itself worked in service of this view. I was particularly impressed with your discussion of the scholarship you referenced, and how you grappled with this scholarship in order to come up with a cohesive and powerful performance concept. Though you give a good deal of attention to the rehearsal process, and how ideas evolved from rehearsal to performance, one thing this essay lacks is a focus on who, specifically, contributed which ideas. At times you reference individual contributions, but most of your essay is rather general in this regard—and the assignment guidelines did ask you to be specific about such contributions. That said, your focus on your own character was thoughtful and astute, and clearly demonstrated how the time and thought put into the conception of this character before the performance contributed to an effective and engaging representation of the scene.

Grant Winestock (played Burden)

This paper offers a fascinating consideration of the character Burden in —rather than rendering him secondary to Bacon, as the scene itself (and much scholarship) does, your essay demonstrates how this character is a complex one that works to highlight both the positive and negative aspects of Bacon’s character while himself representing a new, modern kind of understanding of the world. Linking this character and scene to the play as a whole, you show how Burden, while largely an unsavoury character, is a key figure in the audience’s understanding of Bacon’s flaws, and his eventual repentance. One thing I found a bit confusing, though, was your treatment of nationalism and German influence in the scene and in the play. You argue that by linking Burden to a German paramour, his integrity is called into question (thereby supporting Bacon’s obsessive interest in the wall of brass) but at the same time claim that Burden is contemptuous of what Germany represents—magic and superstition, something linked to Bacon. You also claim that Burden’s interest in a German woman makes him more open-minded and modern than Bacon. These ideas are all very interesting, but I felt that they were very complicated and sometimes a bit at odds with each other—and they were certainly a bit too complex to come through effectively in performance. That said, your discussion of how Burden acts as a reprimanding father-figure to the naive and childlike Bacon (and Miles) was excellent, and demonstrated how your group’s careful thought and research contributed to an effective and engaging performance. I also thought your discussion of how Burden is aligned with modernity and Bacon with the medieval was really excellent, and this idea was well-expressed through the associated performance choices you reference. Your incorporation of scholarship into the essay demonstrates how your group’s view of the scene evolved from a careful consideration of these sources, as well as the ideas that group members contributed. One thing the essay lacked, however, was more emphasis on which group members contributed which ideas—at times you reference specific contributions, but more often you simply state that the group as a whole decided to incorporate a certain concept without indicating where the idea originally came from (the assignment guidelines did ask you to be specific about such contributions). Overall, though, this was an excellent consideration of the performance, and of how your character in particular contributed to your group’s view of the scene, and of the play as a whole.