Session Five: Week 6, Part 1

Tuesday

We spent a lot of time checking in within our circle tonight, as there is a lot going on with some members of the group, and we all wanted to listen as they shared. The support and strength coming from the circle were heartening – the willingness to listen, to offer condolences and gentle advice, and to segue into group jokes and more lighthearted talk that enabled us to move on… I was very glad that we took the time that we did.

We then finished reading Act II Scene III, intending to get it on its feet. But the group discussion surrounding the scene and characters was so intense, enlightening, and constructive that we never quite got there – and no one seemed to mind.

We talked a lot about Iago and our varying “takes” on him. Some think that he’s arrogant and out to prove something – either he doesn’t think he’s that bad or he doesn’t care. One woman believes strongly that his intent is to prove how smart he is. Then someone mentioned that perhaps he is “evil,” and the conversation took a turn toward the stuff that is at the heart of the work that we do.

“He’s NOT evil,” said one woman. “Just imagine if you’d worked your whole life toward something, only to be passed over and have nothing to show for it. I’d break down, too.”

“It must be exhausting, carrying around all those resentments,” said another. “This is me six years ago – I know how this feels.”

“How many of us have dated Iago?” asked one woman, and at least five others raised their hands. “I relate to Iago,” said another. “I dealt drugs, and I did them – I was always stealing from Peter to pay Paul.”

“Frannie always reminds us not to judge characters,” said a longtime member of the group. “Remember how a month ago I said I hated Cassio? Now I might like him. I might even want to play him… and I think you knew, Frannie.”

We all laughed. “Well, at first he can come off as kind of smug – he’s the Golden Boy, and nobody likes the Golden Boy,” I said, “But now that you’ve seen him take this fall, you can empathize with him more because it’s obvious that he’s not perfect… This is what we want to do - find our way in so we can understand and empathize with the characters – and sometimes that way in is through our personal experience.”

Sarah then said that she had gained new insight into Iago through what our ensemble was sharing. “Sometimes it just takes a person who’s walked a different path,” said a woman who’s been in the group for two years. “It is so strange, what you learn about yourself here. If you ever want to really learn about yourself, get locked up for a little while,” said another.

Another woman, who’d been rather quiet up to this point, said, “I don’t know… I really click with Iago. But, you know… I love like Othello, and I hate like Iago.” Many ensemble members nodded. “That’s the thing about this group,” she continued, “At so many points, it just shows me myself. I never thought I would be using this… but I use it in real life.” She elaborated a bit, speaking about using traits of the character she played in Shrew to guide her in one of her current pursuits.

We then branched off into a conversation about the influence of Othello’s military experience on his behavior in the play. Soldiers need to take their “fight-or-flight” responses and react properly, which often means staying calm while being on high alert. “It’s like being here,” said one woman. Another pointed out that it is selfless to serve one’s country as a soldier, and Kyle reminded all of us that, while that may be true, this isn’t Othello’s country – which other characters point out constantly – and that may give us more insight into him.

We briefly talked about Roderigo, too, as we ended our reading of the scene. Again he is ready to give up, and again he lets Iago pull him back into the plot. What’s going on with him? “Maybe he just has nothing to lose,” said one woman. This made a light bulb go off for me – when you truly have nothing, you often cling to some crazy hope. Maybe that’s the way in for whomever plays this character.

We are not even halfway through the play, and already the group’s insight is staggering to me. They are teaching me so much about this play, and I am so honored to be with them through this process. 

Session Five: Week 5

Written by Kyle  

Tuesday

Today we opened the session with a somewhat longer than usual check-in from the ensemble members.  In some ways it was a pretty typical check-in in that it ranged from the profoundly intimate to the mundane pretty seamlessly; every so often it happens that the ensemble is especially free with their thoughts from the week, and are unusually eager to let the group in.  To be perfectly honest, I forget how the story came up, but someone commented that attending drama school was like being committed to a mental institution.  The three of us facilitators, although we really wanted to disagree, knew in our heart-of-hearts that we couldn’t quite contradict the comparison.

The past couple weeks we have alternated the structure of the Tuesday and Friday night sessions.  Tuesdays we start with improv/theatre games and finish with Shakespeare, and Fridays are the reverse.  So after warmup we continued on with some of the improv games that we had been exploring previously.  Tonight we learned a new game, “Freeze Frame” as I had learned it in college, although I think we called it something different in the prison.  In the game two ensemble members create a scene based on a dynamic stance that one of the performers is in, someone in the house calls ‘Freeze!’ and then assumes one of the roles of the ‘frozen’ performers and starts a completely new and unrelated scene from the same dynamic pose.  It’s harder than it sounds, although some of the ensemble members make it look easy.  We did have to have a discussion about the very understandable temptation from the performers to try and make their scene funny.  They begin to hesitate calling ‘Freeze!’ when they feel like they are not going to be funny, or they begin playing for laughs instead of sticking to the rules-of-thumb that make for good improv.  It’s a difficult temptation, and certainly one that more advanced improvisers have fallen victim to themselves.  It is something that we have all committed to working on, and I’m excited to see how we all do in the future.  Of course now that I say that, my favorite part was when a company member created a scene about committing a loved one to a mental hospital by telling them they were going to drama school!

As far as working on the text, we spent the remainder of the session on the last third of Act 1 Scene 3 (the Roderigo/Iago two-hander for all the aficionados out there!).  This group seems to be very interested in the staging of the show.  It seems that there is a constant conversation about how the nuances of the text are going to read best in the movement and positioning of the major contributors of the scene.  It can be difficult for us to remind ourselves that we are not staging the play yet - that we haven’t even had auditions!  What we are doing is exploring possibilities, not writing anything in stone, but it gets tempting to slip into a pretty nuanced discussion about staging because it just seems to be where their heads are.  The director in me can talk about those aspects all day and all night, and it is tempting to not let the conversation go on and on; but I have to remember to continue to encourage discussion that explores the characters’ relationships - there will be plenty of time for staging when the time comes!  There was a lot to discuss, though. Many like the intimacy that comes out of the scene when the two men are sitting next to each other; others thought that Roderigo’s talk of suicide is a more literal cry for help, so Iago needs to span the stage, inspiring him to live on and ultimately do Iago’s bidding.  Either way, it was pretty unanimously agreed on that Iago was ‘in-charge’ of the scene - that the scene moved when he moved it.  A poignant comment was made by a member who said, “It’s like a cat and mouse game, except that the cat doesn’t just eat the mouse- he plays with it a bit!”  There was a lot to talk about, and three different couplings of women played the scene with criticism/comments in between.  In the end, there was discussion and revisiting from one of the ensemble members about how to give constructive criticism rather than being insensitive.  It was a fair point, and I hope it is something that sticks with the ensemble.

Friday

It was a very cold and rainy kind of day, and it was very clear how cold everyone was.  There was another group using the auditorium, so we were in a different group room.  The cold seemed to affect everyone. The warmups were slow, and the check-in was a little sparse.  We had yet to see the entirety of Act 1 Scene 3 on its feet from start to finish; there was a tentative plan to start with a full run of the scene, but we had been working on it for three straight weeks and there was a unanimous decision to move on to Act 2.  The ensemble was in the mood for table work, it seems, as we didn’t end up exploring the scene on its feet at all.  They just wanted to keep reading and move along with the discussion of the text.

The ensemble seems to have really embraced the careful study of the text for which the process calls.  It’s nice to not have to prompt them for questions of comprehension very often; they will just stop and ask, “Is Roderigo stupid?”  We debated that very question for almost ten minutes, followed by a completely separate conversation about what a person is willing to do for love, and at what point romanticism becomes obsession.  We were all, myself included, encouraged by one of the senior members not to make judgements about the characters and to keep reading and see what happens.  It begged the question though: what would need to happen in me that Roderigo’s behavior would make sense?

In the following scene with Iago and Cassio, the ensemble were really dissecting the scene - almost too much!  There is an attention to every single detail that is really inspiring.  In the scene, we talked about whether Cassio was shutting down Iago’s provocative comments about Desdemona, or whether Cassio was so much of a boy scout that he didn’t understand Iago’s provocation.  The group seemed pretty split on the matter in a really wonderful way; each faction citing their own experience and the text to make their case.  It became a very good theatre teaching moment; I was able to point out that it was a decision that was up to the actor playing Cassio to decide for themselves how they think the scene should go.

Following the discussion, we continued with Act 2 Scene 3 - Cassio’s famous drunk scene.  The room was alive with chatter, and several times I had to remind them to listen to each other and wait for people to finish before they offered their opinions.  By this point everyone was pretty cold, and despite the amount of text we covered, we still managed to finish up early.

My favorite part of the evening, though, had nothing to do with Othello; there was a moment when we were reading, and we all stopped to admire the sunset.  Usually we are in the windowless auditorium and don’t see the sunset.  It was a magnificent magenta that seemed to soften into lavender, and the later it got, the more the sky turned to gold. One by one we put our books down and looked; until someone abruptly stood up and opened the blinds to see.  We all stopped reading, and many stood up and went to the window to look. A few jokes were made about what went for entertainment in prison, and then everyone sat down again and we picked up right where we left off.  It seemed to just come and go and didn’t seem all that noteworthy at the time, and didn’t have anything to do with Shakespeare, but is definitely my favorite memory of the night.

Session Five: Week 4

Tuesday

Tonight as we waited for people to arrive, a long-time member of the group gathered those of us who were there for a “creative minds meeting.” She shared that she’s been getting ideas for how the characters in our play would behave from watching TV shows and movies set in similar time periods. She also floated an idea of recording some of the characters’ “thought” monologues as MP3s and playing them during our performance while the actors on stage do whatever we feel is physically appropriate. This is definitely an idea we’ll be exploring with the rest of the group as we go.

We played a couple of games and then continued our work on Act I Scene III (it’s a long one!). We are still working on the idea of reining in our enthusiasm so that people can be heard when they speak – there is still a lot of talking over each other. This is going to become increasingly irritating to those with quieter voices if it continues unabated, so we need to keep reminding each other to take turns.

We read the “middle” of the scene and then put it on its feet. Some aspects of it worked, and others didn’t. After a lot of discussion, I noticed that the group had organically done something that many directors are trained to do – they adjusted the set (a table and chalkboard) and our blocking to create two distinct zones – one for the personal drama, and one for the war talk. They did this without stating outright that that was their intention, I pointed it out to them because I wasn’t sure they realized they had done it – and these are moments that are important to note because of how much they boost the ensemble’s confidence and ability to take ownership of the material.

We continued to adjust what we were doing to give the right emphasis to the most important lines and characters. We discussed taking this further in the future, although we also decided to move forward because we are at risk of becoming bogged down in this scene. Our exploration at this point is so valuable in terms of getting us oriented to the play, its characters, and its themes, but if we get hung up on things like detailed blocking, we begin to get impatient to get through to the end, and we have lost members in the past who felt we were moving too slowly. Our goal is still to cast the play before the December holidays, and in order to do that, we need to keep pushing forward.

Friday

Kyle and I arrived just in time for check-in tonight. The ensemble shared news good and bad, and then we lowered our ring together and got to work.

We honed in on the last part of Act I Scene III, in which Iago and Roderigo have so much back and forth… and Iago’s language is so evocative and complex. Although some members of our ensemble were visibly intimidated by the language, we worked together to eke out its meaning. This led to a lot of animated discussion – what is Iago really talking about? What are his objectives? Why does he talk to Roderigo this way? “It’s like a chess game,” said one woman, “You use all the pieces to your advantage – even the little ones. People learn a lot about you from the way you play chess.”

We then turned our attention to Roderigo. It’s so easy to fixate on the main three characters, but in this play the “minor” characters are potentially just as interesting.

A woman who has been in the group since we worked on The Tempest posed the question, “Is Roderigo like Caliban?” Others who were also in that ensemble were perplexed – what did she mean? She stated that she sees Caliban as misunderstood, seeking attention, and savage, and she thinks there’s a touch of all that in Roderigo. “He’s not on the same intellectual level as everyone else, so he’s easy to manipulate,” she said.

“I don’t think so,” said another long-time ensemble member. “I think he’s just naïve – not dumb.” Another woman said she relates to Roderigo and thinks he’s more like her interpretation of Gremio (in The Taming of the Shrew) – “blotted out right away,” with no one giving him a real chance.

Another woman said, “He’s really in love – look at how much he sacrifices for Desdemona.” In the end, he gives all of his possessions and money in his pursuit – and ultimately his life. “But is that love?” asked Kyle. “What does he hope is actually going to happen?” This led others to postulate that what Roderigo feels is not love, but obsession. Still others came back with the idea that it could be obsessive, but could also be unrequited love. We eventually agreed to table the conversation for now, as Roderigo’s words and actions in subsequent scenes are likely to continue to shape our ideas.

We closed by playing our first improv game, and the game was “Yes, and…” In this game, every line must begin with “Yes, and…” in order to get us used to the ground rules of improvisation, which help us so much throughout the year. This proved to be a lot of fun, with some scenes working better than others, and some people who were clearly very nervous getting through their scenes without giving up – a huge accomplishment.

We all agree it’s time to start doing more of this, and we’ll continue with it next week. We also agreed that our plan for Tuesday is to put the end of Act I Scene III on its feet as many times as people wanted to (many of us are itching to play with this scene), then to run the entire scene, and then to move forward.

Session Five: Week 3

Tuesday

As we were warming up tonight, a returning member remarked, “This play is so much better than Shrew.” I asked her to expand upon that comment. She responded that she feels it’s better written: the plot isn’t as confusing (both for the ensemble and the audience) and “the words are better.” Others in the ensemble agreed - as did I! She seemed tentative in her opinions, and I reassured her that she’s not off base - Othello was written years after The Taming of the Shrew, which was among Shakespeare’s first plays. “Isn’t that reassuring?” commented Sarah. “Even Shakespeare got better at what he did.”

Another returning member requested that we play a very physical game, which meant that some of us who weren’t feeling up to it sat out. But we were all still invested in the game, paying attention, and learning from each other. Those actively playing had a blast, beginning to learn how to maintain focus and listen to each other during a game that can get rather raucous. 

We then continued our work on Act I Scene II, which we read last week. We cast it and put it on its feet, working together to figure out where entrances should be and letting it play out from there. When the scene had finished, the ensemble was very vocal and constructive, both about aspects that worked and those that didn’t.

We all were excited that the woman who played Iago felt the instinct to slink over to the side to watch things unfold without being actively involved until she had to be - we feel it’s consistent with the character. In this first go at the scene, everyone except Othello had swords drawn, and we had a lengthy discussion about whether or not this was appropriate and what evidence there might be in the text to guide us. We ended up deciding (at least for tonight) that if Brabantio and those with whom he enters come in “with pitchforks,” or at least with swords drawn, then it would be natural for Othello’s people to draw swords to protect him, and then it would be natural for him to remain calm and tell them to put their swords away.

At this point a returning member offered two points of constructive criticism for the ensemble (including herself). The first was that, in our excitement, we are frequently speaking over each other, and it can be frustrating. We need to make more of an effort to take turns speaking. This is an excellent point, and something we will work on. She also voiced her apprehension about moving through the material too slowly and suggested that ensemble members should be reading ahead on their own. A few members of our ensemble respectfully suggested that this isn’t an entirely reasonable expectation, as they find the language too challenging to read on their own and don’t understand it till they speak or hear it out loud with the group. I suggested a compromise in which I would provide a modern language synopsis of each scene so that the content could be covered individually ahead of time, even if the actual text was not. This was accepted enthusiastically. 

We also decided that, rather than assuming we all remember a scene we read several days or a week ago, any time we put something on its feet we will read it together first to refresh it. Our ensemble is diverse in many ways, and some are prepared to move at a faster pace than others. It is a challenge to keep everyone engaged without moving so fast we lose some, or moving so slowly that we lose others. We are hopeful that we can find a good compromise with this “hybrid approach.” 

We then played the scene on its feet again and found that the ensemble members on stage had really listened to and taken the notes of the audience. The scene worked so well - we saw stage pictures that clearly foreshadowed dynamics in future scenes, which was exciting so early in our season.

Tonight was pretty much the ideal of how Shakespeare in Prison functions: we worked together as a team, listening to one another, giving and taking criticism constructively, solving problems, bolstering one another’s confidence, and ending on a very positive note.

Friday

Sometimes we are delayed getting through security at the prison, and tonight was one of those nights. We have always encouraged the ensemble to begin working without us so that time isn’t wasted, but in years past it hasn’t been a surprise to walk into our room a bit late and find that warm ups haven’t yet begun. Tonight, however, we walked in to a circle that had already warmed up, checked in, and decided to hold the Ring when they saw us coming down the hall. I feel like a broken record in this blog, stating again and again how exciting it is that the ensemble is working together like this so early in the season, but it is truly a thrill, and the result of years of problem solving by the ensemble, as well as a testament to the energy of our new ensemble members.

True to what we decided on Tuesday, we began by re-reading the majority of Act I Scene III to make sure it was fresh in our minds. We then discussed how to stage it - we all agreed that we should use a table as is noted in the text, but there were varying opinions on whether there should be chairs at the table, who should sit at them, and what should be on/around the table. For tonight, we decided that there should be a map on a chalkboard that the Officer could write on as information came in, as well as letters and maps on the table. 

Having set our physical scene, we discussed its atmosphere. Ensemble members threw out words like tired, contentious, chaotic, high stakes (“It’s a war room!”). We talked about how this beginning energy must stand in contrast to Othello’s energy, and, later, Desdemona’s. “What do they bring?” I asked. Othello brings a measure of calm and control, we decided. As far as Desdemona, one ensemble member said the energy at first should be masculine because she is so feminine. “She’s virtue; she’s love,” said one woman. “She’s gonna bring down the tension in there room because she smells good, she looks good - I mean, come on, she’s Desdemona,” said another. Another said, “Desdemona isn’t just the counterpart to Iago - she’s the counterpart to this whole scene.”

We began exploring the scene on its feet and found that we only got through the first part, in which various information comes in about the impending Turkish invasion of Cyprus, because so much is happening. We continued to work together to figure out where people come from and where they go. We are still talking over each other a bit, but there is clearly an effort being made to do better. Kyle mentioned to the group how unusual it is for people who are new to theatre to be so naturally able to create appropriate and effective stage pictures, and he’s right. It’s quite an exhilarating thing to be a part of.

One of our returning members quietly told me an idea she has for our set: we re-paint one side of our existing flats to be a giant map of the region in which our play takes place, and then, as the play becomes less and less about war and more and more about relationships, we flip the flats to a more intimate setting or image. I have to say that, as a professional director, this is an idea that resonates with me as one that I would love to have in any production of Othello. She chose not to present the idea to the ensemble yet - she didn’t want to interrupt the work that was being done on this scene - and it’s possible that, even if this idea is universally embraced, our ideas will evolve, but this is a wonderful place to begin our conversation about the set. It also shows very clearly how confident this woman has become in her analysis of Shakespeare and ability to express her opinion - we have not read through this play together as a group yet, but she’s read it on her own and clearly understands its themes very well. She did not have this level of confidence when I first met her - she was reticent to share opinions unless nudged - and it speaks volumes to me about her personal growth that after such a short time she has such a clearly defined concept for this play.

We closed with a game. When I was eliminated from the circle, I took the time to really observe the group. All of us - those still in the game and those who were “out” - were smiling and participating. There was a palpable feeling of camaraderie. Earlier in the evening, I asked a woman who is now in her fourth season of SIP if it’s just me, or if this group is actually different, and she agreed with me. “I think we did a better job welcoming the new people in,” she said, “It made them comfortable right away. And they’re just great.” Those who have been following this blog for awhile will know she’s right. The solutions developed by past ensembles to deal with the beginning of a session appear to have worked. We’ll see how our solutions for other challenges work as we go along.

Session Five: Week 2

Tuesday

Last session’s ensemble suggested that we watch the Shakespeare Behind Bars documentary very early in this session, so that’s what we did tonight. This is at least the tenth time I’ve seen the film, and it never fails to move and inspire me. This proved to be true for our ensemble as well.

The past four times I’ve viewed the film with an SIP ensemble (membership has varied since 2012), the focus of our discussion afterward has been predominantly about the group’s mechanics – how they retain members, how often they meet, the differences between working with men and women, the willingness of the men in the film to go all out for their roles. But tonight’s discussion was very different.

When the film was over, I asked the group if anyone would like to share her thoughts. The first response was from a returning member who said, “Well, that’s never easy to watch.” When we asked her why, she responded, “Because… I’m a criminal. It’s just not easy to watch.” She said that people think things about her because of her offense, but they don’t know the whole story.

Another woman said, “Until I got in trouble and came to prison, I used to say things, too. Now I’ve learned that everything is not black and white.” We talked about how the way we judge and are judged is often based on very little information – we make assumptions based on the little we know and run with them. “I’m afraid of how I’m perceived by other people,” said one woman.

“It’s beautiful to see how the men have so much fun with this program,” said another woman. “There are so few opportunities for true rehabilitation in prison. This is one. They found something to fulfill their lives – even the ones serving life sentences. It was beautiful.”

One woman shared how impressed she was by the level of empathy and support the men had for each other. Several of the men in the film share what their offenses were, and she asked if the entire group knew about one crime in particular. I responded (having heard this information from Curt Tofteland) that they did. “Wow,” she said. That crime resonated for her due to her own experience, and she talked about how conflicted she felt that, on the one hand, everyone has the right to seek to do better – to attain some sort of redemption, as the man in the film says – but she doesn’t know if she personally could see past the crime and have empathy for him, no matter how much she wants to.

Another woman brought up how interesting it was to see Red learn about himself and his life through playing Miranda. We talked about how this is one of the key reasons that we work with Shakespeare, and that it is likely to happen for a number (if not all) of us as well.

The discussion was open, honest, and emotional. Several of the women shed tears as we talked. It was an honor to be a part of such a frank conversation about issues that can be difficult to articulate, let alone to openly discuss in a very new group setting. We have had such discussions before in SIP, but it has always taken much longer for the ensemble to be so open to each other. It makes me even more excited to continue the process with this ensemble.

Friday

Tonight during check-in, we discussed the challenge of people needing to leave early fairly often to go to work or to take medication. We decided that we’ll switch up the format of our meetings to accommodate that as best we can – sometimes we’ll begin with games and end with Shakespeare, and sometimes we’ll do the opposite. Since last Friday was games-first, we began tonight with Shakespeare and had such interesting conversation about it that we never got to the games!

We continued our text work by reading Act I Scene II aloud. “I’d be pissed if I were Brabantio,” said one woman. We talked about this father’s unwillingness to see his daughter’s culpability in her “crime” – she’s gone, so it must be that Othello put spells on her. We also discussed how very much in control Othello is in this scene, and what an important person he obviously is – everyone is looking for him and everyone except Brabantio treats him with a lot of respect. We also talked about the class issue at play here – Othello and Desdemona are not in the same class, regardless of their skin colors, and this seems to be very important.

Since this scene doesn’t really resolve anything – it leads into the following one – we continued reading so we could see how things play out. It’s a long scene, and we stopped every now and then to make sure everyone was keeping up and that we understood what was going on.

One of our takeaways was that, although Othello says he speaks roughly, his language is quite evocative and compelling. He gets his meaning across. We also paid attention to the fact that Brabantio gives essentially the same speech four times, hammering home the point that the only way Desdemona could have done this is if Othello literally enchanted her, but the moment she states that she was a willing participant and loves Othello, he seems to completely deflate. “This breaks him. He’s broken now,” said one woman. His anger is gone, and he expresses hurt and disappointment.

Beyond his parental dismay at Desdemona going behind his back, the ensemble brought up the idea that this loss of control injures Brabantio’s reputation as a senator. “What do your actions say about me?” Several of us have had personal experiences that make us relate to this. One woman also volunteered that the “wealthy, curléd darlings,” – the suitors whom he wanted her to marry – would have enhanced his status and reputation, but the marriage to Othello does not.

This led Kyle to mention the “lace curtains” metaphor – a house may look beautiful from the outside, with lace curtains, but if the occupants have spent all of their money on those curtains, the inside is likely a mess. I remarked that the metaphor can work two ways. “Yeah,” said one woman ruefully, remarking that part of her family will have nothing to do with her because she’s in prison – they’ve written her off because of that label. “But that’s the thing about lace curtains,” said another woman, “If you get close enough, you can see through ‘em.” This, too, works two ways.

There was a strong reaction to Desdemona’s assertion of her love for Othello and desire to go to war with him. “I wish I could feel that way about a man at some point in my life,” said one woman. Her sentiments for her husband are truly beautiful. We talked about how, despite him being an admittedly hard man, Desdemona’s empathy for Othello and his struggles softened him emotionally toward her. There’s so much set up here for what follows.

We then branched off into a discussion of the term “Moor” – both its denotation and connotations. We are working toward viewing this play both through our own experiences and with the knowledge that Elizabethans had a very different worldview and use of language. It’s a difficult balance to strike. We noted that sometimes when people refer to Othello as “the Moor,” they are being obviously disrespectful, but sometimes they are not, as when Desdemona says, “… I do love the Moor…” We know she thinks the world of him. “Hey, you can say ‘white girl’ and have it be either a good thing or a bad thing,” one woman pointed out. We talked about what Othello might look like, and how much it matters – not exactly what shade his skin is, but the fact that he’s different and foreign – he’s not really part of this society and can never hope to blend in.

A few of the women seemed uncomfortable with the amount of time we spent talking about this, but others pointed out that, since it’s a theme in the play, we need to spend time on it. We don’t want to get bogged down, since it’s not the focus of the play, but we do need to continue to be able to have the open, respectful kinds of conversations we had tonight.