When audiences first see director Mark Abram-Copenhaver’s spring production of “Henry V” at Saint Mary’s, they might be surprised at the lack of male actors.The play, which takes place April 3-6, is the first of its kind to premiere at Saint Mary’s. Every role from the servants to the king herself is portrayed and brought to life by an all-female ensemble at O’Laughlin Auditorium, sophomore cast member Claire Bleecker said.Abram-Copenhaver is the visionary behind the unusual concept of an all-female production of this Shakespearean history. By cutting and rearranging the text, he hopes to open its context for creative and thematic interpretation, Bleecker said.Bleecker said she is excited to say she is part of an all-female production of a Shakespeare play, especially one so fueled by masculinity.“There are three or four actual girl parts, so this is a play that I would never get a chance to be in outside of Saint Mary’s,” Bleecker said. “Back in my hometown, I played Hermia in a ‘Midsummer Night’s Dream’ and Luciana in ‘Comedy of Errors,’ and they’re both basically the same people. They’re not funny or tragic, they’re just objects of love for the people in the play.”Bleecker said although she has a rather small part, playing the character of Bardolph, she thinks the male role will be a great experience for her.“[Bardolph is] complex and has actual characteristics, whereas the female parts that I played in the past really don’t have actual characteristics,” Bleecker said.Critics of Shakespeare often point out that the major flaws in the female characters are their lack of depth and layers, Bleecker said.“When women are put into sticky situations in Shakespeare plays, their narrative is gone about in this light, sort of funny way,” she said. “There’s this dichotomy where the women are light and the men are taken very seriously.”In addition to playing with the script, Abram-Copenhaver has brought in various speakers to better inform the cast about what they are saying and performing, Bleecker said.Professor of Shakespeare studies Christopher Cobb recently assisted the ensemble in understanding the historical background of the play’s time frame and setting, Bleecker said.The cast also consists of women who are not Saint Mary’s students, Bleecker said.“We have one of the employees of the College … one of the ladies who works in the Husking Center … [and] a math teacher who graduated from Saint Mary’s,” she said. “It’s a good range from freshmen to seniors.”One significant character trait Abram-Copenhaver wants each of his actresses to focus on in their performances is that they are not women playing men but women playing women, Bleecker said.“Essentially our characters are the same as men, as in we’re not just purely comical or love objects,” she said. “We’re tragic and sad and funny and everything else too. [Mark] says, ‘You’re not playing men. You’re playing women. You’re women playing these characters.’“That re-enforces the fact that we can play men [and] women can play complex characters. We’re not going to pretend to be men, because we can’t fool anyone there. It’s a major interpretation decision that he made and I agree with,” she said.In performing in an all-female “Henry V” Bleecker said she feels there is a need for this interpretation of a classic play to showcase the strength women can bring to such a story.“In history, we as women look back and men have always ruled,” she said.“Men were always the leaders, always, always, always, always. But now we’re at a time in history where we have an all-women’s cast in a show.“Here’s a real example of a time when women are making the decisions and acting all the parts and being complex and beautiful. A little girl in the audience seeing King Henry? Yes, that’s going to have an impact. This is a ‘her’ story of King Henry V.”Tags: all-female, Emilie, Emilie Kefalas, henry v, Kefalas, performance, Play, production, Shakespeare, SMC, Theater, theater department
Archives: 浙江娱乐地图 原创验证区
FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享Casper Star Tribune:Cloud Peak Energy, the coal giant that operates two Wyoming mines, filed for bankruptcy Friday amid mounting debt and declining demand.The filing follows months of troubling signs for the Powder River Basin operator, which for a time avoided the economic difficulties of its competitors but had of late experienced growing financial challenges as the market for its product diminished.The company’s filing indicated it had, as of the end of the year, nearly $929 million in assets and almost $635 million in total debts.In its announcement, the company said its mining operations would continue as normal as it moves through the bankruptcy process. But the filing represents the latest concerning episode for coal, which has been one of the main drivers of the state’s economy, along with oil and natural gas.Cloud Peak owns three Powder River Basin mines: the Antelope and Cordero Rojo in Wyoming and Spring Creek in Montana. The mines shipped 50 million tons of coal in 2018. Cloud Peak is Wyoming’s third-largest coal producer, and its mines represent 20 percent of the state’s coal miners in the Powder River Basin.Cloud Peak is the fourth major coal producer in Wyoming, the top coal-mining state, to file for bankruptcy in recent years. Bristol, Tennessee-based Alpha Natural Resources filed for bankruptcy in 2015, followed by top-producing Peabody Energy and Arch Coal in 2016. Westmoreland Coal, which operates the Kemmerer Mine in southwest Wyoming, filed for bankruptcy in October.More: Wyoming coal giant Cloud Peak files for bankruptcy Wyoming coal producer Cloud Peak files for bankruptcy
At present the U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn’t require labels for foods with genetically modified ingredients, but labeling proponents believe consumers have a right to be able to make informed choices about which foods they put into their bodies and support with their pocketbooks. Dear EarthTalk: Can you fill me in on what the “Just Label It” campaign is and what it is trying to accomplish?— Eric Altieri, Columbus, OHJust Label It is an effort spearheaded by organic farmers and food producers, consumer and public health advocates and environmentalists to persuade the federal government to require that foods with genetically engineered (GE) ingredients be labeled accordingly. Consumers have a right, they believe, to be able to make informed choices about which foods they put into their bodies and support with their pocketbooks.Most Americans aren’t aware that some 80 percent of processed foods at grocery stores contain GE (also known as “genetically modified,” or GM) ingredients—yet in polls 93 percent of us support the notion of mandatory labeling of such foods. At present the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t require labels for foods with GE ingredients.Proponents of Just Label It worry that genetically engineered plants (and animals) could wreak havoc on human health and natural ecosystems, given how little we know about them and their ability to proliferate beyond our control. Among the concerns: There has been no long-term health safety testing on GE ingredients because they are so new; unexpected mutations can occur which can introduce unknown toxins into the food supply; the increasing use of herbicide-resistant genes in crops is leading to the overuse of herbicides in general; and the planting of GE crops that are programmed to generate their own pesticides means that more pesticides are in our farms and fields than ever before. Perhaps most worrisome of all is that, unlike chemical pollution or even nuclear contamination, so-called “genetic pollution” (as some critics refer to GE) cannot be cleaned up after the fact once the proverbial genie is out of the bottle.“What unifies many of us is the belief that it’s our right to know,” Just Label It organizers report. The idea for the campaign grew out of a 2011 meeting of organic stakeholders organized by Organic Voices, a project that documents the oral history of organic farming and sustainable agriculture.The first order of business for the “Just Label It” campaign was to submit a legal petition—written by attorneys at the non-profit Center for Food Safety—to the FDA in September 2011 calling for the mandatory labeling of GE foods for sale in the United States. At this point, FDA is taking public comments on the petition and will issue a final ruling on it later in 2012.Consumers can make their opinions on the topic heard by FDA regulators by customizing and submitting the form letter available at the JustLabelIt.org home page. To date some 600,000 people have sent along comments to the FDA due to the campaign’s outreach efforts. Just Label It aims to get that number to one million by the end of spring 2012, and is now working with 450 different partner groups to help spread the word. Campaign organizers are hoping that this outpouring of support will resonate with FDA regulators when it comes time for them to decide whether or not the U.S. should join almost 50 other countries–including South Korea, Brazil, China, and the European Union—in requiring GE labeling across the board.CONTACTS: Just Label It, www.justlabelit.org; FDA, www.fda.gov; Center for Food Safety, www.centerforfoodsafety.org; Organic Voices, www.organicvoices.com.EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E – The Environmental Magazine ( www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: [email protected] Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.
To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week. Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters