Theatre

The Elizabethan theater in Shakespeares day was an amazing popular institution, operated by professional companies that included housekeepers, actors, playwrights, and a business manager. Theaters were visited habitually by all classes of society from peasant to aristocrat. All this was possible because the Queen Elizabeth and her court were eager supporters and admirers of theatre in Renaissance England. The insatiable curiosity and expanding world outlooks of the large audience contributed to a wide variety of theatrical themes and the enrichment of Elizabethan dramatic literature. High status of the artists and good living conditions attracted many talented actors, playwrights, and orators to the Elizabethan theatre, where they had to be trained in many techniques of voice, face and gesture. The most important genre that developed during this period is dramatic. The rise, culmination, and decline of Elizabethan theatre can be traced easily. Its development began as Elizabeth ascended the throne in 1559 it reached its height in the following twenty years of her reign, and then declined and lost its power in 1642. It would be impossible just to discuss all the features of this grand period in the history of the theater, so this paper will attempt to consider here most important elements of the Elizabethan theater, such as the main characteristics of the Elizabethan theater, types of plays, settings, how actors lived, acted and what character costumes they wore.

The Elizabethan theater became the highest point of a long development and the mixture of many different influences, processes, and progresses. It also became a precise reflection of the diversity of the social life during this period. Elizabethan stage in its various forms represented the period of the Renaissance and Englishmen of all social classes for which it existed. It made a precise imitation of the life of its contemporaries - their principles, ideas, religious faith, traditions, emotions, strong desires, goals, and preferences. The Elizabethan theater mirrored conscious national pride in the accomplishments and discoveries of Englishmen in geography, history, mechanics, scientific inventions, legal system, advanced medicine, astronomy, and other important spheres.

Popular literature and history were examined by the playwrights in the search for interesting stories  famous and unknown legends of Greece and Rome, Italian fiction and romance, English historical accounts, and also stories of the contemporary London. Surprisingly, however, whatever the source of the play, the characters and manner in which they acted were for the most part English thus, Romeo and Juliet are English young characters, however, they have Italian names Hieronimo is a English father deeply affected by sorrow and distress and who lives for the sake of revenge Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, is a gloomy and melancholy inhabitant of England.

The themes in the plays were diverse and demonstrated how intellectual horizons of the Elizabethans expanded during that time. All scientific advances and discoveries found their place in the theatre and were received with eager interest by the public. Together with its desire to absorb many-sided information, the Elizabethan public - maybe like no other in the world - was characterized by its love to the oral speech on the stage. People quickly understood that listening was much easier than reading books, and they were quick to love rhetorical style. Moreover, Elizabethans liked new words and expressions. Because of the preferences, social standings, and desires of this audience that were taken into consideration by many playwrights the theatre became an amazing place to visit. One may even say that never before or since has the theatre so fully been loved and admired by so a large proportion of the citizens.

Many public theatres were built in London, among which was the renowned Globe (Figures 1-2). In addition to the public playhouses that were most representative of the Elizabethan period, there were also various roofed-in theatres that often were called private. One of the private theatres was Blackfriars (Figures 3-4). The size of the private theatres was considerably smaller than that of public theatres, and the cost of entry was therefore much higher. Resources of the private theatres allowed for considerable mastery and inventiveness in staging.

In the summertime performances usually began at three oclock and in the wintertime at two oclock. For advertising of new performances three main methods were used the next days play was announced to the audience by the orator immediately after the play on the day of the performance a special flag was used that was put on top of the playhouse, and finally, parades and people who shouted advertisements also were used. Costs of entry were so graded that every person, from peasant to nobleman, could find an appropriate price to his taste. Actually, so many Elizabethans spent so many hours at the theatre that the members of the city council, who made their best to maintain the ideal of hard and continual work in the city, in addition to the Puritans, to whom the theatre was excommunication, were always at war with the players and playwrights. This ceaseless thread of criticism and reprehension runs all through the triumph, praise, and honor of Shakespeares day.

Superb Drama Produced 
The plays written and played by the Elizabethans contain the greatest body of dramatic texts in the English language, if not, really, in any language known in the world. Shakespeare may be easily identified as the perfect flower of the English Renaissance, but it must be also recognized that he was surrounded by many other talented dramatists. Plays written by Shakespeare were the climax and harmonization of many multifarious elements that existed and developed before him. Shakespeares forerunners and contemporaries worked on the problems of plot and character. For example, Robert Greene achieved a balance between plot and character, while Kyd and Marlowe were skillful in adjusting and incorporating subplots in the play.

Shakespeare became an English greatest dramatic talent, not only for the characters he created and variety of presentation, but also for his perfect skill in the advanced techniques of the theatre, and his impressive use of the theatre for which he created his masterpieces. In Shakespeares plays the classic tradition and heritage of the ancient past are outstandingly combined and harmonized. Shakespeare, uniting all the dramatic elements that had preceded him into one whole, produced amazing plays the playwright balanced plot and character and integrated the best elements of the existing plays. He used elements of romance, comedy, and tragedy by using them to make the tragic effect more intense. Unfortunately, his followers were not able to continue to maintain this harmony of elements, and the decline of the theatre and stagnation of dramatic development were unavoidable.

Types of Plays
It would be impossible to refer to all the names of plays and playwrights of the Elizabethan theater, so this section will attempt to consider the various types of plays that were popular and successful at the height of that period. One can distinguish four main divisions tragedy, comedy, chronicle plays, and masques. Each of these divisions, however, has various types. Tragedy, for example, was divided into two types, the classical and the native tragedy. Comedy had a large number of types, among which were the pastoral, the magical, the bourgeois, the allegorical and satirical - and innumerable combinations of all these types. The chronicle plays included historical-legendary, factual-historical, biographical, and popular-legendary (Ribner 1957).

The classical tragedies written in Shakespeares day included the classical drama combined with comic scenes, and also had subplots to emphasize the main plot. For example, the scene with porter in Macbeth, the play of the gravediggers in Hamlet, the chain of events connected with Gloucester in King Lear. In Shakespeares plays, as was said before, the genius of playwright was in including comic pieces as essential parts of the tragedies that served the role of emphasizing the tragic effects in the play. Among other important contributors to the tragic drama of the Elizabethan theater were Marlowe, Nashe, Lodge, Beaumont, Fletcher, Shirley, Heywood, Ford, and many other dramatists.

Another masterly union of Renaissance developments and classical English ideals is easy to see in the pastoral romance. In this type of comedy one can find a combination of the Italian pastoral play and the inherent English love of life in the open country. These qualities integrated into one play were greatly evident in The Pinner of Wakefield, written by Robert Greene in 1592 and reached full maturity in Shakespeares play As You Like It, written in 1599. Among the well-known legendary plays are John a Kent and John a Cumber (1594), Cambyses (1569), Locrine (1591), The History of King Leir and Three Daughters (1590). In addition to these professional productions, the court originated another type of drama of its own - the masque. It was a dramatic entertainment, consisting of pantomime, dancing, dialogue, and song, performed at court. English Renaissance dramatist Ben Jonson wrote about thirty masques for court production, and many other playwrights also produced them.

Elizabethan Actors
The position of the actors in the Elizabethan period was, in many ways, high and respectable. They were often considered as respected members of society and could be met in the best of social circles of Elizabethan London. The professional actor had a constant opportunity to grow as artists. At the same time, the demands of performance were requiring great physical and mental efforts. Therefore, the competent actor of Shakespeares day knew advanced techniques and possessed many capabilities. The closeness of the audience in the playhouses demanded complete attention from the actor, as well as skill in engaging and holding the attention of the often noisy and unrestrained crowd.

In most cases, actors received a rigorous training. Candidate for an actor position was placed as an apprentice to one of the members of the professional company of players and received individual lessons from him. When and if his training and education were considered to be completed, he could work as a professional actor and could then himself train other apprentices (Thorndike 254).

Women never acted on the professional stage in Elizabethan England. The role of women in the plays was usually performed by young boys. These boys were talented actors, and as a rule played their part very well. Probably because of this fact physical contact was insignificant between lovers in Shakespearean plays, and if there were love parts in the play, they were played from balcony to garden (Thorndike 289).

Playhouses paid a lot of attention to costuming. Specialized costumes were designed and made for many performances. Although many characters in the Elizabethan plays appeared in ordinary dress conforming to contemporary style, many of the characters also wore character costumes. Thus, allegorical characters wore distinctive costumes. Charmers and enchantresses, fools and elves, each had specific items of costume in attire and headwear, in cloaks and wigs. Besides these costumes, other types were also very popular, legal experts, teachers, clergymen, and civil authorities in the plays wore specific dress.

Elizabethan England was the greatest of all periods for playwright, actor, and audience. The demand of the Elizabethans for plays was incredible, and therefore, theatre was a profitable and enjoyable profession for those who possessed enough abilities to please the audiences taste. Creation of a free intellectual atmosphere in England challenged the skill of the actors, who improved their abilities to a powerful and effective expression in action. The greatness of the English theatre lay in its combination of foreign influences with the classical conventions to produce a national, spontaneous and popular theater. By the time the Elizabethan theater came to a fall, it had contributed to the theatre development in the whole world.

A Raisin in the Sun is a play that was created by Lorraine Hansberry. It was first staged in 1959, and has truly changed the face of American theater. It was also published in the same year by Random House. In the same year as well, it was awarded Best Play by the New York Drama Critics Circle. Its genre is realist drama.

It is said that this play was based on the personal struggles of the author or writer herself, while some argue that this had come from some poem. But no matter what its origin is, the play and the story had proved to be lasting testament to what life was like during the time when racism was adamant in society.
The major characters in the play are Walter Lee (the only son of Mama, the husband of Ruth, the father of Travis, the brother of Beneatha), Mama (the sensitive mother), Beneatha (the progressive daughter) and Asagai (the Nigerian suitor of Beneatha).

The protagonist of the play is Walter Lee Younger. In the story, he was first presented as someone who wanted to get rich immediately. He thought that by getting rich in a fast way would easily get them out of poverty. He told his mother of his plan to invest in a liquor shop, thinking that it would help them solve their problems with money. But in the end of the play, Walter realizes that there were much more important things in life than money and riches. He finds out that family, dreams, and cultural pride weigh even more than all the money in the world. With this new perspective, he was able to make one of the toughest decisions of his life  to continue to move to a place where majority were white people and who were rather not willing to have African-American neighbors.

The story focuses on the life of an African-American family called the Youngers. The family is given the pension of their deceased breadwinner, an amount worth 10,000. Each of them (Mama, Ruth, Beneatha, and Walter) think about what they could do with the money. Each one of them had their own dreams that they want to fulfill, but personal conflicts arise that prove to be challenges for the entire family when it came to their resolve of fighting for their dreams. Eventually, they all agree on one thing  that they move to someplace new  and start a new life. They chose a neighborhood full of white people, and even if they were obviously being rejected by the inhabitants of the place, Walters family continues to move out. Even if they were offered a certain amount of money, they still continued with their desire  to leave the place they had all grown to love and to hate  and move into a more challenging society.

The basic drive in this storyplay is human ambition and how far one would go to achieve his or her dreams. In the story, each member desires this thing or that, not realizing that by doing so, they were overlooking the happiness of the many. Walter was the one indeed troubled, for he was the one who was supposed to help his family. He was, after all, the only son of Mama. It was his duty to take care of her and his family. At first, he thought that instant richness can cause endless happiness, but later on, Walter realizes that there were other things that were worth it.

Human ambition is a powerful thing to contend with. One will go to any lengths, whether it is good or bad, just to attain ones dreams. Some humans think that by doing the wrong thing they can easily catapult themselves to the top, only to fall back down with a tremendous plop. Some humans think that by doing the right thing, they will be able to achieve their dreams in a more dignified manner. The bottom line is, there are those who would do anything for their dreams, even if it means encroaching on others toes. There are those who also do not mind getting to what they want that immediately. Time can wait what they want can wait so why cannot they wait themselves Driving ones self to attain a personal goal can produce either positive or negative results. It depends upon how they executed their plan of getting there.

A Raisin in the Sun is a fine example of a work that shows that your race, your color, or your culture cannot stop you from dreaming for a better life. Other people might hinder you along the way to your goal, but you must not let them take control of your destiny. We are defined by our resolve in life. The stronger our resolve is to attain something, the stronger we become in the face of any challenge that comes our way. Dreaming helps us to set our goals dreaming also gives us that energy to attain those goals. But going after your dreams does not only bring about fulfillment it brings out a new you. A new you that can be able to face new challenges and still emerge as the winner in the end.

Humorous and serious, these are the two adjectives that perfectly describe the comedy by Italian playwright Carlo Galdoni entitled A Servant of Two Masters. Comedy has been a source of entertainment to people, which started way before movies and other modern means of leisure has been created. Comic drama is commonly recognized as a laughing-stock, which has the main purpose of creating stage-plays that will make the audience laugh because of circumstances that are turn into comedy. Nevertheless, comedy drama does not only wish to entertain the audience with humorous scenes but rather it also has a serious side that aims to educate and open the eyes of the audience when it comes to societal issues that must be give due attention and importance. Comedy is use as a means in order to make people see the harsh realities of the society in a light and carefree manner. In relation to this, it is essential that comedy dramas like the one written by Galdoni is carefully studied in order to see its relevance in the society.

The Servant of Two Masters is written by Carlo Goldoni in 1743 as a comedy drama. The characters of this aforementioned play are based on the style of Italian Renaissance theatre, known as Commedia dellarte. The classic commedia usually use a stock character, which refers to stereotypes. Actors and actresses are instructed to perform a role that is based on typical cultural stereotypes that is reflected on the name, personality, manner of speech, and other qualities. In line with this, the characters in A Servant of Two Masters are actually derived from stock characters. These characters do not have any script and are instructed to improvise by using the stock characters assigned to them as their guides. In line with this, the main characters of this comedy drama are

Truffaldino  The central character of the play. He is the quirky servant who always complains of being hungry. He eventually served two masters, Beatrice and Florindo.
Beatrice  The woman who disguised as her brother in order to get money from the father of her brothers fianc and look for her lover, Florindo.
Pantalone  The father of Clarice, the betrothed of Beatrices brother. He is responsible in concealing the existence of Beatrice from Clarice and Silvio.
The other minor characters in the comedy drama are
Florindo  The lover of Beatrice, who also killed Beatrices brother. The other master of Truffaldino.
Clarice  The fiance of Beatrices deceased brother. The daughter of Pantalone.

Silvio- The fianc of Clarice. Clarice was engaged with Silvio after she thought that Beatrices brother is dead.
Smeraldina  The love interest of Truffaldino. The servant of Clarice.

The protagonist of the story is Trufalldino because he is recognized as the central character of the comedy drama and the plot of the story revolves around him. Truffaldino is the servant being referred to in the title A Servant of Two Masters. He has a quirky and gay personality, which actually allows him to have a funny personality. Aside from this, Truffaldino often complains about his hunger, which caused him to do untoward things like serving two masters and stealing food. Truffaldino has an insatiable appetite not only for food but also for money because he believes that the more money he has the more food he can buy. In this sense, Truffaldinos appetite for food and money pushes him to serve two masters because he perceived it as an opportunity for him to earn more.

In order to further understand Truffaldino and the other characters in the play, it is necessary that the plot of this comedy drama is given due attention. The story started with Beatrice, who is disguised as her dead brother. Beatrice pretended to be his brother in order to collect dowry from Pantalone, the father of Clarice who is her brothers fianc. Beatrice will use the money to look for his lover Florindo, who is also the one responsible in killing her brother. However, Clarice has fallen in love with Silvio because she thought that her former fianc is already dead. The pretentious act done by Beatrice has been troublesome for Clarice, Silvio, and Pantalone. In relation to this, the conflict in the play even heightened due to the decision of Truffaldino to serve to masters, namely Beatrice and Florindo. The comedic act was highlighted with the actions of Truffaldino, especially with the mistakes he has done in the duration of serving his two masters. One notably funny scene is when Truffaldino was having difficulties identifying which master the letters and money are for. Nevertheless, Smeraldina help Beatrice and Florindo to find each other, which also means that Truffaldino was caught in serving two masters. Since, most comedy dramas have happy endings and as such, A Servant of Two Masters also end with a happy note. Beatrice and Florindo was finally together, which also the same with Clarice and Silvio that were able to continue their marriage in knowing that Beatrices brother is really dead. Truffaldino also get his happy ending as he was forgiven by Beatrice and Florindo and he even ask Smeraldina to marry him (Goldoni et al., 4-10).

The basic human drive that is clearly observable in the play is the concept of money and power. The main motivation of Truffaldino in having two masters was brought about by his desire to have more money in order to avail of more food to eat. The situation of Truffaldino mirrors how people do untoward things in order to get money so that they can make their lives better and in the case of Truffaldino that is the lack of food or poverty. In the same manner, money is also the driving force that made Beatrice pretend to be her brother in order to get the dowry from Pantalone. The money that Beatrice will get also symbolizes her empowerment to find Florindo and escape with her lover. A Servant with Two Masters is a play that does not only aims to entertain people with its comedic scenes but it also send a serious message regarding the way by which money and power are the basic elements that drive people to do things that are sometimes inappropriate. However, at the end, love still remains more important that allows people to forgive and accept each others differences.  

What would you do when you know youre at the last stretch of your life Would you make amends and patch up broken relationships or just move on and forget Deborah Zoe Laufers dark comedy on the struggles of a dysfunctional family on the verge of an Armageddon captures the human struggle to make sense of our lives by creating meaningful connections, despite our varying perspectives. The production, remarkably done by the students and faculty of WSU Department of Theatre, deeply moves despite the sarcasm and absurdity it employs. As director Terry Converse explains in the Directors Notes, the play relies on the wackiness of the text to show the undeniable sadness that is embodied in each and every character of the play. And for this paper, we shall delve into the complexities of the text and the performance and, using Aristotles six aspects of drama, understand and review the how the production was done.

First, we shall look at the plot. The story revolves around the Stein family the only daughter, Rachel, whose infatuation with Goth is the only means by which she could distance herself from her eccentric family the mother, Sylvia, a recently converted born-again who believes that The Great Rapture will be upon uson Wednesday and the father, Arthur, a 911 survivor who hasnt recovered from the tragedy nor changed out of his pajamas. Joining this mad cluster is Nelson, Rachels secret admirer and a staunch Elvis devotee. In an attempt to take the Steins out of their rut, Nelson ingrains himself into the familys everyday life. He becomes the beacon of hope to a family in distraught he listens attentively to Sylvias incessant rantings about Jesus he gives Rachel purpose by introducing he to science and Stephen Hawkings and he gives Arthur a purpose by involving him in the preparations for his bar mitzvah. There to help and give any timely advice were the marijuana-induced apparitions of a wheel-ridden Hawkings, and a very sartorial Jesus.

Essentially, Laufers writing, with its wide array of underlying themes of family, love, religion, death, science, and iconology, could have easily been a mish-mash of concepts and ideologies. But instead it turns out to be a well-crafted, light comedy with laugh-out-loud twists and turns. There were some parts of the writing that came out half-baked, especially the scenes between Rachel and Nelson, but the comedy turned out well and in good taste. In my opinion, also, Laufer went overboard with the conclusion of the play. It would have been a cathartic sight to see Rachel awaiting the Rapture, with a smile on her face, as she has finally understood acceptance and the meaning of life and family. Instead, we see Rachel, after the supposed Rapture, wondering if the rest of the world had gone ahead or survived. This take was anti-climactic and seemed like ten unnecessary minutes of dialogue between her and Nelson. But despite this, the play redeems itself through its comedy and sincerity.

The cast definitely shines in this production. The actors who played Sylvia and Arthur both present honest performances that lack the ostentatious attempts of young actors their age. They both give out chillingly believable performances that take you to an unbelievable emotional height. Sylvia was played out thoughtfully and in so much detail, avoiding the pitfalls of a character that is bordering on schizophrenic. Arthur tugs at heartstrings in his listlessness, carrying the burden of surviving the 911 attacks. But the actor doesnt wallow in this because we see in his performance a kind of respect for experience that can only be attained through a thorough analysis of the character. The actress who played Rachel presents us with a very relatable character despite the kilos of make-up and out-of-this-world outfits. Her character is a very refreshing sight on any stage since only a few Goth characters are written for the theater. The actor who plays Nelson, despite a crude attempt at Elvis that at times comes to his advantage, plays the role with so much heart as he attempts to connect with a broken family. As the neighborhood wimp, he is played with a sense of stereotype in mind but one that is turned around during scenes that required it.

And in the hands of the talented director, these actors shone immensely. Converse delivers a play that churns out age-old insights on love, family and death. Under his helm, the play becomes a sincere insight on the depth of the human spirit and our innate need to find meaning in our lives, be it in religion or in science. Perhaps drawing from the Theater and Dance Departments recent sordid experience, Converse creates a play that speaks of hope despite what could be a great loss. The style he uses is almost bordering on absurd, but he manages extract the genuine humanity of the play without seemingly forcing the drama. And focusing on the comedy and using the human beings innate need for laughter, Converse is able to relay his message of hope without seeming too preachy and didactic.

Other aspects of the play should also be called to mind. The wonderful bare set was a perfect backdrop for the play. It doesnt eat up the attention which makes the audience focus on the action on stage. Its also a clear representation of the barren landscape that represents the withering connection between the family members, which towards the end is filled with light and hope. In this sense, the lighting design, which I always believe is poetry through color, was a well thought-out expression of the plays thesis.

Over-all, one of WSUs Department of Theatre and Drama last productions truly echoes human strife and shows the power of theater to relate that. It might not be their best production ever, but it is the best production to be remembered by. To the Department of Theatre and Drama and to the people behind it, your love and passion will surely be missed.

The development of the Turkish theatre stretches from the traditional theatrical performances of the shadow plays and Karagozi to the modern dramatic presentations of the contemporary Turkey. Turkish Theatre therefore entails all traditional practices of theater from the period of the Ottoman to the modern theatre. All developments in the Turkish theater stem from the traditional Asian theatre because, as Turks migrated from Asia to Anatolia, they upheld the Asian dramatic performance before the western influence impacted on this traditional form of theater. As such, theater during the era of Ottoman Empire paved way for the improvement of Turkish theater in the sense that the western influence got a favored pedestal to effect on it. Thus, through political influence, modern features of Turkish theater were exposed particularly during the era of the Republican (Raw, 2008).

Modern dramatic performances have been taken over by private theater companies alongside government sponsored theater centers such as Istanbul Municipality Theatre and Turkish state theatre. Characteristic to these developments is the techniques of theatre direction, production and the role of the actor in the performance of theatrical activities as well as in making an income through productions of plays and acting in movies. This paper seeks to explore the developed of Turkish theatre from the traditional era and style of performance to the modern approach of the performance.

The traditional concept of the Turkish theater is founded on the basis of Shadow Theatre. Typified in the Karagozi plays, theatre in Turkey used a technique that fostered motionless as well as colorless presentation of actors to depict issues in the society. (Ozturk, 2006) postulates that lack of mobility and color in the Turkish theatre in the 17th century laid the foundation of developing it to use techniques that could be clear, appealing and entertaining. In addition, the traditional outlook of Turkish Theatre emphasized on the shadow phantoms. Arguably, the Ottoman playwrights and directors became more devoted to shadow phantoms by capitalizing on the shadow puppetry thus making shadow theater more popular (Barfoot, 2003).

Plays with shadow figures become integral part of the lives of the people of Turkey as well as in the place life of Ottoman. According to Celick, (2002), shadow plays gained prominence as they became items of celebration in the 1623 especially in the connoration of Sultan Murrat IV. During this period, Turkish theater introduced into its composition the emergence of a host of master puppeteer structuring shadow plays to be in the form they are today. In the 19th century, Shadow Theater became more popular and the shadow plays were performed in places such as the palace. The techniques used in the traditional Turkish theater involved the plays being performed behind a white sloth screen made of animal skin. With regard to this, emphasis was laid on the prologue such that before the play began, a decorative scene was put on stage. On the other hand, Esin (1962) underscores that after the First World War shadow plays declined in their fame as well as importance and became irrelevant due to the emergence of modern drama and cinema.

During the Republic regime in Turkey, the Ottoman pattern of the shadow theater transformed a great deal. This was characterized by the development of written texts to phase out the old practice of shadow plays. Accordingly, Robson (2000) underscores that dramatic performances in a number of places were sponsored alongside the creation of government supported theatre centers. Martinovitch (1998) further argues that the effort of this transformation was inspired by the understanding that art, was to be cleansed and freed from the use of obscene elements thereby changing characters to mirror the modern ideology of theater.

Political and sexual humor later own became the feature of the transformed Turkish theater as most plays were performed to satirize the political regimes as well as the sexual behaviors of people. With regard o this, Barfoot (2003) claims that the integration of sexual freedom as well as making fun of those in power became typical of the low-class and rural entertainment. Modern Turkish theater thereafter became characterized to the element of adapting other play from various regions and performs them before the Turkish audience. For instance, adaptation of Shakespeares poems was taken over by the modern Turkish theater as the only approach to bring o life the themes of Shakespeare and eventually make him accessible to Turkish people in the contemporary society (Celick, 2002).

According to Raw (2008) the free adaption approach, as seen in the recent development of Turkish theater, was inspired by the overall goal to witness a community spirit. This resulted in a performance that integrated both the actors and the audience and making the Turkish become part of plays performed by the locals for the locals. Essentially, this strategic feature of the Turkish modern theater builds on the use of dream imagery removing the element of soliloquy and inducing the participation of the audience because they can clasp and applaud as they please. As such, the modern Turkish theater unlike the traditional one is committed to ensuring good audience fellowship as well as satisfactions as the basis of entertainment (Ozturk, 2006).

Moreover, actors and actress have a greater chance to make money through acting in a number of new scripts or adaption because, the modern Turkish theater enjoys the legislative provisions the freedom of recreation in the spirit of the community. According to Esin (1962), many actors in Turkey effort to gain from this provision and as a result, they strive to increase their earnings through their ability to elicit a number of lively moments that can entertain the Turkish audience. In light of this, they employ comic tactics to mirror the societal themes such as revenge, political downfall, reverse of gender roles and expectations where women outdo men in number and skill among others, thereby getting more chances to be voted for by the public to act and perform in many places (Robson, 2000).

Consequently, private theaters are increasing in Turkey. This characterizes the transformation of the Turkish theater and also provides a rationale as to how actors in the Turkish theater get an opportunity to increase their earning. In other words, the availability of private theater companies is a source of employment to the large number of talented actors. Martinovitch (1998) outlines that many famous actors and actress benefit from the private theaters therefore giving them a chance to flourish their free environment for dramatic performances. These private theaters give a different dimension on the development of Turkish theater therefore providing an impetus for theatrical activities thereby laying ground for the exploitation of talents, and development for a number of playwrights (Ozturk, 2006).

To recap, Turkish theatre is presently integrating western techniques and ideologies in both production and performances of theatrical activities. Turkish theater today focuses on the political and historical themes, as well as clashes between modern lifestyles and tradition way of life. In light of this, Celick (2002) summarizes that the form and content of the modern Turkish theater revolves around individual and social problems that torches on rural-urban migration, life in slum and the social order among others. Modern theater is characteristic of episodic form and content and mergers this with the traditional norms of Turkey. This presents a concise interpretation of dramatic performances and production within the precincts of economical, social and political conditions.

There is no denying the timelessness of William Shakespeares collection of work and it is especially evident with the extent of creativity and interpretation it has gone through in many different mediums. Shakespeares comedies, in particular, have thoroughly captured the modern audience, with its rambunctious dialogue, entrancing characters, and unexpected plot lines. Two most acclaimed versions of Shakespearean comedy are the American Conservatory Theatres playful, commedia dellarte rendition of The Taming of the Shrew and Kenneth Branaghs 1993 film Much Ado About Nothing. Like a lot of Shakespeares comedies, these two most popular works focuses on the clash between the sexes the cocky Petruchio and the shrewish Katharina, the misogynistic Benedick and the proud Beatrice. It also dabbles on mistaken identity and illusion. Utilizing two very different approaches to Shakespearean comedy, we see in these two works the extent to which modern-day artists have come to interpret the hallowed writings of the Bard.

In 1976, William Ball, director and co-founder of the American Conservatory Theatre, embarked on creating a version of The Taming of the Shrew that was founded on the, what could be, the essence of Shakespeares theatre. Relying on the physical comedy and speedy dialogue attributed to commedia dellarte, he created a version that was perhaps closes to how it was performed in the Globe. Despite this risky approach, the style was never alienating to its audience and was actually very effective in relaying the spirit of Shakespearean comedy. And despite the language barrier and the difference in context, the play is one laugh-out-loud fiasco that doesnt seem to want to stop.

A particular scene that exemplified this was the meeting of Petruchio and Katherina, the tamer and the shrew. Spectacularly acted by Marc Singer and Ferdi Olster, respectively, with admirable athleticism and rapid-fire dialogue, the scene had a market-show feel, where the audience is permitted, and even encouraged, to react gregariously at the antics show on stage, whether it be the couples choreographed wrestling match, the unadulterated banter, or the generous helping of sexual innuendo. Following the commedia tradition, slapstick and lazzi, or the humorous interruptions that do not relate to the play itself, were greatly employed much to the surprising enjoyment of the audience. Sound effects were also used to accent the humour and to add another layer of comedy to the play. Just watching this hyperactive show, one would feel like watching a superbly acted improvisation carnival, one that is always witty and never lacklustre. Under Balls uncanny direction, this playfulness and creativity that, for Ball, describes the true essence of theatre, is blended seamlessly with the underlying, grounding theme of the play is love between men and women utter subjugation, or pure romance

Branaghs Much Ado About Nothing follows the same tread, with the characters of Beatrice and Benedick, staunch detractors of the opposite sexes, continuously bickering about the uselessness of love. At the same time, they serve as comparison to the encompassing love affair of Hero and Claudio.

Like Ball, Branagh grounds the film on the texts innate humour that, on the wrong hands, can become bland and pretentious. But Branagh, who also plays Benedick, with a wonderful ensemble cast of household names and unknown actors led by a superb Emma Thompson as Beatrice, effortlessly drives through the comedy by keeping the film sincere and light. The pace is quick and up-tempo, never resting for one moment unless necessary. This shows on the very first scene of the film as the excited people of Messina scramble about to prepare for the arrival of Don Pedro of Aragon, played with much dignity by an unlikely Denzel Washington. Actors run about as the camera pans quickly from one area to another, showing flying smocks, rushing bath water, and quite a number of bare-bottomed men. This rushed feel is quite similar to the speedy action found in Balls Taming.

What would best describe these two works, though they come from different genres and eras, is the genuine approach to the text. By creating a very muted backdrop, as seen in Tamings plain set and costume design, and in Much Ados simple, earthy Messina setting, the characters, the plot, and the dialogue all come out and we see the capacity of Shakespeares genius. But, of the two, it must be Balls work that has remained the most true to the essence of Shakespeares work, and even more. Aside from clearly relaying the plot, through Balls play, we saw how Taming of the Shrew might have been performed during its first runs at the Globe. And we see how commedia dellarte, being that it came from the same timeline as Shakespeare, works perfectly with wit, irony, and slapstick humour of the text. Much Ado strives to do this, as well, but with the limitations of film and its market, it was not able to expand on the idea.

But pushing everything aside, there can never be any comparison between the deliverables of these two works. Essentially, the goal is to present Shakespeare with a different approach and make his work accessible and understandable. Based on these two criteria, the works of Ball and Branagh have reached the passing marks. But to be able to hear an audience react to the Bards words, to smile, laugh, and cry in empathy, is enough to be hailed a success.

The creation of a work of art is a fascinating and inspiring process. What starts out as a mere passing thought or fancy in a single individuals head, with enough time and nurturing, transforms into an object, a painting, a book, a song or a dance. But, perhaps the most intriguing of all the art forms is theatre because what begins with the idea of a single individual, only becomes a an actual work of art as a result of a deeply involved, multi-step, collaborative process.  This essay will trace the evolution of a typical theatrical production from start to finish, playing close attention to the creative contributions made by the playwright, the director and the actors.

Before a play can begin, it must first be written, and that is the function of the playwright.  A good playwright is, at heart, a superb storyteller with the ability to communicate a justifiable and worthwhile vision.  Drama has the ability to inspire an audience, to create social change, to possibly reshape the course of events in the larger culture.  A play can do so much more than merely entertain, but it can only do so if the playwright starts off with a solid foundation.  That means, the play should have a strong vision and voice, a solidly crafted plot and well-defined characters. If the play, in its written form, does not move and engage a reader at a profound level, then it is unlikely it would do so with a physical audience.  A poorly written play is a poor foundation on which to build the metaphorical house of the performance.  However, if a playwright is able to carefully compose a powerful and moving story, one which employs good basic craftsmanship (i.e. good dialogue, a solid plot and interesting characters), then the play is ready to move from mere words on a page, into the next stage of the creative process.

A good director may be equally important to the evolution of a theatrical production as the playwright herself.  No matter how good the written word, if the director does not have the aptitude to translate the original vision of the playwright, the ultimate result will be failure.  A good director must be able to do the practical work of communicating the playwrights vision. He must walk a delicate tightrope between staying true to the playwrights words and ideas whilst simultaneously using his own unique individual creativity and vision to bring the production to life.  Also, the director must balance between the artistic and practical considerations it takes to actually get the play to the stage.  He may want to recreate exactly the waterfall a playwright describes outside a characters window, for example, but must make concessions due to budget issues or the practical impossibility of bringing 7 tons of moving water onto a theatre stage.  Its all about capturing the essence of the playwrights vision via artistic means, rather than trying to recreate the exact world one finds in the actual words on the page.  Its about creating an illusion.  In order to do this, the director must be able to hold onto the basic vision and find the people who will help him to realize it.  That means finding the right design team (set, lighting, sound and costume) who can serve the broader vision.  And, it also means casting the right people in the central roles.

Actors often get the attention and the glory for the plays success or failure.  After all, they are visible because they are part of the artistic creation itself. While the director and playwright stand in the wings or behind the curtains, the actors ultimately embody the product of the collective collaborative efforts of many, many creative people.  This is why the selection of the right actors is so very vital.  During the casting process, the director must not only consider if the actors he chooses have talent or the right physical appearances to play the characters involved, he must also consider so many other factors. Ideally, the actors chosen will also have a good work ethic and attitude,  a solid understanding of the script and appropriate diction.  After all, what good is it if an actor says his lines perfectly, if only the first three rows of the theatre is able to hear them
After the actors are cast, then there is rehearsal, rehearsal and more rehearsal.  It is a tedious process, but a necessary one.  The hard work and practical realities of getting a play to production are often obscured by the glamorous perfection and illusion of the finished product.  However, before the applause and the curtain calls, there are lines to be memorized, sets to be built, costumes to be designed and sewn, lighting and sound decisions to be made and even playbills to be sent to the printers.  Although the audience may take for granted all the disparate elements involved in the final production, it is only because such hard work and effort has been paid, in order to make the theatrical production appear more seamless.

So many creative professionals lend their talent to bringing a play to production.  From costumers to technical people, prop crew to ushers - all play a critical role in creating the final illusion of the performance that audiences will see.  Each person will bring her own unique individuality and creativity to the effort, but ultimately it is the one unifying vision of the play itself, created by the playwright, that must be honored, in order to make audiences believe. Hopefully, that fragile seed of a vision will have survived all of the many steps and handlers it must go through in order to finally make it to the stage and, more importantly, into the minds and hearts of the plays audience. If that can be achieved, then the play will  have achieved success, whether it runs for 10 long years or merely 10 weeks.