Jonathan Harker

Initial research for Jonathan

Jonathan Harker is the first person you meet in the novel, following his story as he goes and meets Count Dracula at his castle. It his diary entries and letters that we read and learn the first things about our cast of many characters in the book. And that is about it. I personally didn't find Jonathan the most interesting character in the book, rather a dry gentleman, who tends get upstaged by any other character in the scene. He is describes "quiet" and a "businessman-like gentleman" by Seward, which simply does not give me much to work with, especially since the character of Jonathan in the play I found to be very sociable and charming. But I feel it is for a meaning in the book that Jonathan is this way. He is there to contrast brave and extraordinary Van Helsing.
   Jonathan is supposed to be the image of the perfect Victorian man, but I haven't found this to be very difficult for me to internalize with Jonathan in my acting. So I've started to look at it in a different way. What if  the'image of the perfect Victorian man' is what Jonathan wants to be and everyone to see, but inside he is something different, a man full of temptation, perversions and selfishness. He is quick to defend himself and his believes, notice especially in Act 1 scene 5, where he almost insist on coming into Mina's bed, even though he probably knows that it would not do good for her reputation. He then defend his career, leaving his future wife behind and not supporting her wishes. He is also quite a perverted man. I do not think it was uncommon for men of this era to think women sexually and have chats wit their friends about 'delicious secretaries', but to want ones future wife's little sister? I think that is a bit twisted. Jonathan obviously cares for Lucy, but the way he talks to her and about her " Lucy, my pet..." " Sweet kid...", "the first few days in this country I saw my sister-in-law in every other serving girl that brought me supper - it was very disconcerting..." shows that Jonathan has thought Lucy in a  different way than just 'a little girl'. Also, the fact that he so easily falls into vampire Lucy's arms is evidence for this perversion.
   So, with Jonathan's character I almost made him overly charming and proper, to hide his inner-self, what follows very much the Artaudian approach. He might be even a bit too eager to socialize, since most of his life he has probably spent studying and reading books to become a solicitor. Jonathan holds himself in a straight posture, moving with sort of a slight confident bounce as he walks. To show the fact that he has something to hide, something he doesn't want people to see, I made him a bit fidgety, straightening his jacket or fixing his vest if something bother him or someone says something that comes a bit too close. Also, to make him  a bit more man-like I have lowered my voice, but hopefully it won't sound too humorous. His tempo is not the middle but a bit higher, his focus being direct, but quite quick to change.

Interpretation of the play

  For, and the class on basis of our discussion, it was very clear from the beginning that Liz Lochhead has made some of the major themes based againts what the original novel by Bram Stroker tried to convey. Bram Stroker used heavy religious symbols to show the readers the righteous path in life, Dracula representing our temptation into sin, especially lust. Now, Liz Lochhead has turned this around and uses lust, temtation, the hunt, and even insaty as major themes in the play and especially brought out the theme of suppression into play. I think the play is an excellent commentary how the most insane person can actually be the one making the most sense, represented by Renfield, and how it is ourselves and our inner wants that tempt us into to doing the things we consider as sin, especially shown by Jonathan and Mina, who both give into temptation, but also accept each others deviations in the end. Lochhead has also brought in an political side into the play by creating the character Florrie, who wasn't in the original novel at all. This is to show the difference between the classes at that time, but also highlight how priviliged the main set of characters - especially with Mina and Lucy - and how some of their problem might seem bigger than they actually are. This shows a certain sympathy to these lower class characters, unlike Bram Stroker who ignored them or took them as humour. 

   Even thought our main focus within this unit is the teaching of Antonin Artaud, this play, in my opion, will be a combination of styles, to create the effect we want with it. It will also in the end follow Artuad's theatre of cruelty, since it keeps the audience on their toes and doesn't stick to just one style, which could get repetative and expectable half way through the play. There is some obvious scenes(Lucy's staking, Vampire brides) where Artaud's rituals could be used very effectively to create a eerie and threatening scenewithout using any verbal communication, which Artaud saw as one of the biggest restriction in our society. Using everyone in the chorus in every scene as well will a good way to make the play an overwhelming amount to process for the audience, almost torturing even them during the course of the performance that follows Artaud's philosophy as well. Taking in consideration, that one of the major themes in the play is suppression, Artaud truly was the perfect practisioner to choose for us to study, since his main philosophy was surrounded by the idea of 'lancing the abcess', and so giving into our deepest desires to release 'the double', or become something more than we are now. But, since this will  probably be more a combination of styles, rather than just using Artaud's teaching to our advantage, to contrast the big strechings of chorus work to wow the audience, we can use Stanislavski's naturalism to ease some scene and bring the focus to the individual characters and their emotions. Using coplex gimmick troughout the play would be just as predictable and perhaps even boring as making an entire play in naturalism(not saying naturalism is boring, but without interesting characters and plot development, it can get a bit exhausting). I can also see hint of Brecht in the play, mainly because of the character of Florrie, who Lochhead solely created in the play to highlight the gap between different classes, bringing on an political side to the play.