Many of the issues that we've been circling around, especially the relationship between race and agency (or choice). So, I'd like you to think about a couple of questions/paradoxes in this drama:
1) What does it mean for Manrico to be at once a "gypsy" and Not a gypsy at all? How do you stage this?
2) What do you make of the fact that, even after he (kind of) finds out that he is not Azucena's son, both Manrico and his mother continue to use the tropes of *biological* maternal ties (i.e. "blood," "offspring")? Is this just a result of her effort to backtrack from her inadvertent admission? Or is it something more complicated?
3) What is the role of race in desire? Leonora only finds out he is a "Gypsy" (even at this point he doesn't know that he is) after they are already in love. Where does this play fit in as a drama of miscegenation?
There's a lot more to talk about, but this should get us started,
Dan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
If I were to stage this, I would simply dress a white man in gypsy clothing. I found it weird that no one noticed that he did not look like a gypsy. I just figured he blended in just fine. Some white people are darker than others, and maybe some gypsies are lighter than others. I really didn't make it a big deal. I also felt that being raised by a gypsy, he would associate more with gypsies even after he found out the truth. It said in the play that his mother was really close to him...that is why I felt she kept talking as if they were blood related. She loved him as much as her own son. As for Manrico, I first thought that he understood her story, but didn't understand that she wasn't his real mother, and that he was royalty. It's like he didn't get it. But he must have, and it didn't seem to upset him. Was he okay for living life as a gypsy when he could have been royalty? It seems like it. I do know he really loved his mother. Maybe their bond is very strong...but is it because they are gypsies? As for Leonora, I thought she would have a problem with it, but she surprised me. Miscegenation...I don't know. She thought he was a gypsy, but he really is not. So, the play really doesn't completely cross that boundary. But still, she loves him even though she thinks he's a gypsy, which is a step.
With Manrico being a gypsy, then not a gypsy sort of disproves the idea that Gypsies are a race; rather they are more like a label. If you think about it Manrico was apart of the ruling class and no one could tell he was not a gypsies. Even when Azucena was trying to avenge her mother’s death and kill the youngest child of the Count she throws her own child in the fire because she could not tell them apart without closely looking at the two children. I seem to me that the only way to portray the difference between Gypsies and white English men on stage is through wardrobe. Another way is lighting. Since the Gypsies in the story have darkness associated with them it would seem fitting to have the lights dim or a black backdrop when they are on stage. They could also try to make the Gypsies act or speak differently so the audience can make a clear distinction between the two groups. Other than that they would look like any other white English person.
Azucena and Manrico still regard each other as mother and son with biological description after she tells him the truth because she is the only mother he knows. It appears to me that she nursed him when he was a baby because she states ,“In thy breast, my cares reviv’d the vital spark” (13). When she takes him from his home he is a sick child and now he is a healthy man. So in a sense she gave him life. She did all the duties a mother is suppose to do so it would only seem right to regard him as more than just a revenge tactic. He became her child and has part of her within him.
Furthermore, I don’t think Leonora cares if he is a Gypsy or not. She loves him because of the person he is on the inside. I believe that Leonora is an example of why English men feel it is a duty to protect the woman from the other because the woman is more willing to accept the other just as they are. Even though Manrico is not a Gypsy by birth, she is still willing to marry him and die for him no matter what.
The second question made me start thinking about act two again and how Manrico and Azucena do continue to act like family even though both know they aren't. I think Azucena's use of these terms are more complicated than just trying to cover up her accidental admission. Her language in that scene is very possessive rather than maternal. She tells Manrico "Mine are thou ever", and "To me thy life's protection/ though owest"(13). Though she is fond of him she seems to think of him in propriety terms rather than maternal ones. And technically he is hers. She paid for him with the blood of not only her mother, but her child as well. Ironically he ends up serving as tool of her revenge, which just reinforces the imagery of her owning him.
1) I wondered if the ambiguity towards Manrico's "gypsiness" had anything to do with his gender. It seems like the women in the opera got a much worse fate because of their race. In Manrico's case, it was the more traditional storyline of "jealous lover" and "fight for the homeland" that decided his fate, with his race a seemingly secondary aspect. In that sense, I don't know if I have an answer to this question yet- I'm still trying to figure out if this is the most important aspect of his character.I do feel like it also brings up interesting questions about assimilation though, in that Manrico is able to "pass" as either gypsy or white as he chooses.
2) I feel like this question is something of a "nature vs. nurture" question. Manrico grew up with the gypsies so it seemed like even when he knew that he wasn't "one of them", he still identified in that way because of how he was raised. I agree with Tierney that Manrico seems to not mind that he has been robbed (literally!) of the opportunity to live as royalty. I wonder if we are supposed to contrast the family loyalty of gypsies to that of the Italians, since Manrico's brother was not looking for him as he had promised their father he would do, and he ends up killing his own brother. This dispute is sort of shown in Manrico himself, when he attacks his own brother (though he maybe doesn't realize that?) to save his "mother."
3) I think, in some sense, this addresses the idea of people wanting to be with the gypsies and coming to a bad end because of it (Leonora's death), though I'm not sure if that is the intention. I also feel as though this isn't really a play about miscegenation, because Leonora does only find out that Manrico is a gypsy after they are in love, so it's not as though she fell in love with him despite this. And of course, he is not "really" a gypsy, so Leonora is protected in a sense.
Once again, Gypsies are presented as dark, wicked, bewitching, and savage. However, the fact that Manrico is thought to be a gypsy and then is found out to not be shows that a definitive difference is not apparent. Gypsies cannot really be seen as so much of an "other" because even the physical appearance is not so marked that a European man cannot pass for one, or vice versa. If I were to stage this play, I would focus on class representation and clothing to distinguish characters, but have both fair and dark-skinned people playing both Gypsies and Europeans.
I think its important that Manrico and Azucena retain their mother and son relationship because it shows that their love as mother and son can transcend their "racial" difference. She reared him and that's why they still use biological terms to describe their relationship. It is definitely more complicated then her backtracking. She is no different to him, or him to her when they find out they are different because it doesn't change the fact are family. I think it really says something that he doesn't reject her, because in other narratives, finding out that someone you love is an "other" would completely change the dynamics of the relationship.
I feel like they way to stage Manrico's gypsy then suddenly not a gypsy action, would be to play on the stereotypes that people had of gypsies. If they considered gypsy a race, in that gypsies shared visible traits like skin color or facial features, then there is a great chance that he cloud be simply be played by a white man in stereotypical gypsy clothes. And then in an almost, Superman/Clark Kent type situation, instead of taking off glasses, he takes off his "gypsy" clothes and he's seen as a whole different person. The play makers could use the stereotypes of gypsies to their advantage, and then can reveal, no, he's actually a white guy in gypsy clothing and everyone thought badly of him because of his lifestyle, but in reality, his birth puts him in a high class. In writing this though, I wonder if they audience would think, "that gypsy just looks like a white guy in bad clothings."
It almost seems to me that Manric dismisses the claim that Azucena isn't his real mother and that he is in fact royalty. I just don't know if he dismisses it because it doesn't believer it or if it doesn't matter to him because their bond is too strong. I try to put it in a personal perspective and wonder how I would react if suddenly someone told me I had been stolen from my house as a child by the woman I love and know as my mother and that I was technically a whole different "race" than I thought I was, and on top of all of that, my birth family is rich and really wants me back. If you're raised and loved by a family, I can't imagine just packing your bags and moving along because someone else has made a better offer of familiness.
As we have seen in other works discussed in class, the gypsy is described as being coaxing, wily, or a thief or trickster of sorts—continually trying to take advantage of someone or something to reap the benefits. So it is interesting that Manrico, who is raised as a gypsy…with this persona, lightly dismisses his natural claim to nobility and royalty. Loyalty does not seem to be a quality attributed to gypsies, but he retains a kindred sense to his adoptive mother and his gypsy-ness. It is clear that he sincerely loves Acuzena, and they share a strong bond that resembles a biological one. While it follows Gypsy 101 for Acuzena to sustain her adoration and affection for her “son” of noble blood, what does it mean for Manrico in the reverse situation? Does this work call us to look upon gypsies in a different light? Or, on the contrary, does it reinforce the idea that only whites/Europeans are capable of admirable qualities like loyalty? After all, Manrico is biologically a white nobleman.
I think that Manrico being at once a gypsy and not is a facet of dramatic irony: the audience knows the truth behind the matter while the other characters do not. I think the function of this is both an expression of gypsy characteristics (a bit more shifty than the count and english characters) and a function of intrinsic suspense for Verdi's work.
What does it mean for Manrico to be at once a "gypsy" and Not a gypsy at all? How do you stage this? For Manrico do be at once a “gyspy” and not a gypsy at all reminds me of a Simpsons episode entitled “Much Apu about Nothing”. A dialogue between Lisa and Homer ensues about keeping the “bears” out of Springfield:
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a
charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]
This reminds be of being something and being nothing at the same time. Being a gypsy is simply a label that is placed on Manrico just the same as the rock Lisa picks up off the ground keeps bears away. So yes, he is a gypsy and yes he is not a gypsy, but what does it matter?
Opera's in general are very sad and drama overloaded. Il Trovatore is a very typical Opera and it deals with the "Gypsy" in an unflattering light. Reading it anyway you want the Gypsy's are thieves, kidnappers and vengful. The only well portrayed Gypsy is not a Gypsy at all, just a victim of the Gypsy woman.
He is allowed to fall in love with Lenora b/c the audience knows he's not really a Gypsy. When staging Il Travatore Manrico would not look much different from the rest of the cast b/c he's not really Gypsy, his actions are infact more honorable than most Gypsy's would get credit for. Asucena on the other hand could be dressed in full mockery. A bad, dark, curly wig. Layers of clothing with large, ugly jewelry and maybe she would walk with a slight bend in her back.
Manrico's loyalty to the woman who raised him maybe the only positive attribute associated with the Gypsy's in the whole Opera.
As is the case with many gypsy stories, the theme of acceptance is largely present. While Azucena's original motive for raising Manrico as her own is revenge, she clearly comes to love and accept him even though it is his kin that took the life of her mother. After all, the important relationship between mother and child would be incredibly hard for one to fake the entire time she raised her son- she could not help but grow to genuinely love and accept Manrico.
In contrast, we see the unwillingness of the royal family to accept anything that has to do with the gypsies. The have no intentions of accepting anything or anyone that is considered to be a gypsy. It is only when Azucena reveals that Manrico is of royal blood that they wish to accept him, and of course by now it is too late and they have learned the lesson of acceptance the hard way.
Post a Comment