Shakespeare's Lear....

Let's face it, the portrait of Will on the cover of most anthologies has a bit of a leer. I guess it is warranted. I mean the man did write some of the best plays ever and here we are, butchering his language and trying to understand his genius.

Besides the physical leer. Will has graced us with a human Lear. Well a play about a Lear. Who is a king. But might I add a man who seems to be going a bit off his rocker. One of the scenes that I looked at the most was the beginning. I mean it sets the tone for the play. And it is when Lear decided to give up his crown to his daughters.

WOAH! Daughters?! Yes, his daughters. His daughters husbands contribute a bit to the villainy of the play but it seems that the majority of the evil stems from the fact that his daughters (at least the elder two) are greedy.

But looking at the speech at the beginning of the play, it seems as if Lear was ready to give up his crown. When he asked for his daughter to say how much they loved him, he said us? Was he including the kingdom? Was he trying to get the girls to pledge their allegiance? It seemed almost as if he was an old man who had already gotten his kid/ grandchild the gift but wanted to be thanked for his effort. I mean he even went through the effort to divide the land in fair shares. But the question remains, why does he get so upset about Cordelia not wanting to publicly pledge her love to her father? Does this show his insanity? I mean he does bring with him all those knights later in the play and throw Kent out for no reason. These seem like pretty insane things to me. And why doesn't she want to profess her love? I mean she can't think that it is for real. That this is the end all to end all.

So what is Will doing in all of this? I think that he is just playing with the idea of greed, the problems between sisters and families, I guess even the problems between brothers! Maybe Will is even taking everything good that he could think of and adding it into one play.

Basically, I have no idea what Will is doing here. Just as in Hamlet, the sanity of the characters is questionable. Just as in Comedy, people seem ti be switching roles, characters seem to be shifting. Kent, someone high up, must reduce himself to an unintelligent man in order to serve the king. Edgar must disguise himself so as not to be falsely accused of plotting his fathers death.

Will keeps these themes of greed, lust, romance, disguises all in his play. They keep the play interesting. But he also seems to throw a lot of references of the Queen in this play. The Queen being Elizabeth. First, there is the references of the women ruling. I mean, yes the women suck at ruling. Except Cordelia, who seems to have her head on a bit straighter. And then there is the bastard son, Edmund, who tries to take the throne. I wonder if WIll is comparing Elizabeth to Edgar or Edmund, depending on the time and the current ruler and/or wife, Elizabeth was a bastard, daughter of Ann Boylan. Maybe that is what Will is getting at? He must appear to love the Queen but he was truly raised Catholic and that is what he believes? There is also the various images of the father dividing the land because he doesn't want there to be a problem with the heir to the throne. COuld this be also referencing the Queen and the problem there was about the heir when she ascended and left the throne?

So it seems that this reading left me with more questions? As Will is known to do... many thanks will, many thanks.

Move over Hamlet, you need a woman to finish the job!

Hamlet is a play strangely centered on the men. Yes there are women, only two though. In the whole play, only two women have any importance. One of the women is Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother and the Queen. The modern audience has a problem with her. We don’t understand how the wife of one man could so readily switch to being the wife of his brother when he dies. Of course, there are a few approaches to why she did this. One: she was having an affair with him anyway. This would make sense as to why she would dump her old husband “wearing the shoes that he bought her to the wedding.” Two: it was normal. Gertrude, being a women, might not have had any idea about the plot and simply married her brother-in-law for security and to keep Hamlet in the castle. In fact, she could have been trying to protect her son. Nevertheless, people today still find it weird.

The other main character that we can address is Ophelia. Personally, I feel for her. You can tell she has a major crush on Hamlet but he father and brother warn her to not like him because they are afraid that he will choose the good of the state over her. I wonder where her mother is in all of this. Her father is a bit of a bumbling man who goes on to stick his nose in business it shouldn’t be stuck in and then get himself killed. And her brother is off to go back to school in France. She has no one who can really guide her, to tell her how to act around Hamlet. How to answer his letters. How to deal with the grief she feels when he pushes her away. But sadly, she is left to her own devices and ends up dead. Many people question her death. Was it suicide or did she simply drown? The only information we have to base our decision off of is her actions before her death and how Gertrude (yes, the other women) describes it.


“There is a willow grows aslant a brook,
That shows his hoar leaves in the glassy stream;
There with fantastic garlands did she come
Of crow-flowers, nettles, daisies, and long purples
That liberal shepherds give a grosser name,
But our cold maids do dead men's fingers call them:
There, on the pendent boughs her coronet weeds
Clambering to hang, an envious sliver broke;
When down her weedy trophies and herself
Fell in the weeping brook. Her clothes spread wide;
And, mermaid-like, awhile they bore her up:
Which time she chanted snatches of old tunes;
As one incapable of her own distress,
Or like a creature native and indued
Unto that element: but long it could not be
Till that her garments, heavy with their drink,

Pull'd the poor wretch from her melodious lay
To muddy death.”


The passage begins with the image of the willow or commonly known as the weeping willow. The image of the weeping would have gone along with Ophelia’s attitude at this point quiet well. Hamlet was her first love that seemed to reciprocate and now he is either done with her or mad, both horrible thoughts.
Next is the image of the hoar leaves. Hoar means leaves that are covered with a frost. The leaves are masculine, which can refer to Hamlet. His heart has covered with frost, a reason that Ophelia might want to kill herself.
Then Ophelia is seen with a crown of flowers around her head. Is this a biblical image? Does she see herself sacrificing herself ? Does she think that she has mad Hamlet mad as her father suggested once? Or is this a foreshadowing to when Hamlet learns about her death and seems to come out of his madness for a moment. Perhaps she is what helped him to gather his wits and actually do something, causing the dual at the ends and the death but what helps to restore the kingdom again. The whole play has images of the kingdom being foul and rank, a once Garden of Eden gone wrong. Ophelia, with her flowers, embodies the Garden of Eden and helps to set Denmark to order again.
The next part talks of Ophelia wanting to hang the wreath on a suspended bough. But the wording is what trips me up, it says clamoring to hang. She could have wanted to hang the wreath or herself, it could be a reference to her wanting to kill herself.
Lastly, she sings when she is about to die. She falls into the water and sings as her skirts fill with weight and she is pulled under. This is a poetic image. It is an image of her knowing what she was doing. I would like to say that it is also an image of her being a sacrifice for the good of Denmark. Perhaps it is the women that save the kingdom versus the man?
I would like to say that Hamlet was putting on a show before all of this. That it was merely because he was unhappy with his new father. But once he hears of Ophelia’s death, his grief is then translated into madness. Hamlet then acts. He tells Horatio of his plan with the letter in the next scene. And the next scene is where the shit hits the fan. It is Ophelia who pushed Hamlet toward action. It is Ophelia who saves Denmark!

Begging, Borrowing, Stealing from History: Shakespeare's Way

Reading about what was going on during the life of Shakespeare shows how great of a connection there was between the political drama of the day and between his plays. Hamlet is an example of one play being routed in the problems of the day. Hamlet, the main character, believes that he father was poisoned and that his uncle killed him. Hamlet was very skeptical, thinking that his uncle wanted to take over the crown. Queen Elizabeth I was also very paranoid that there were those who were trying to take her crown. She even banned Essex from knighting any of his men because she was afraid that they would have more allegiance to Essex than to herself. Perhaps a bit of the Queen’s hysteria of maintaining power translated into his plays.
Another thing to note about Hamlet, and Shakespeare’s plays in general, was that they never take place in England. What is interesting though is that Will never had the chance to leave the shores of England to explore the world. Scholars suggest that Will was interested in the outside world because of his contact with merchant traders from all over the world who used the Thames to port their ships and London to trade their supplies. I can imagine Will walking around the streets of London on morning, running his latest play ideas through his head, and stumbling upon some Danish men, finding their accents to be most delightful and deciding to use them as characters in his next play.
The ships that sailed into London also offered another way for Will’s plays to be spread among the masses. As I have said before, I enjoy the fact that Will wrote to the masses and he wrote to make money. Apparently, Hamlet was preformed upon a ship. The captain said that it was “‘to keep [his] people from idleness and unlawful games, or sleep,’” (Shapiro 275). This is in keeping with the idea of plays being the films of the times. How often do parents sit their children in front the tele just to keep them occupied, out of trouble? How often do teenagers play videogames because their homework is boring? I am thinking that plays are just a hyped up version of interactive tele. Shakespeare was already a revolutionist.
Shapiro’s novel goes on to explain how to connect Hamlet and the drama of the old Kings death to the death of chivalry and the problem of the Irish during that time. What is reassuring is that Shapiro admits that Will might not have known all of the information of the coup and the threat of a foreign army, which means it was pure coincidence. What I do like is that Shapiro said, “It was a time when such things could be imagined…” (283). Shakespeare was borrowing, begging, and stealing from his own time period to concoct a new drama. This makes sense. Although, the first folio of Will’s works was not created till after his death, the great master could have been putting on or creating as many as three to five play in the year 1599. THAT IS CRAZY! The man had every right to borrow from history. He was just feeding the masses with more plays to keep them busy and happy.

Do You Like It?

TOUCHSTONE
Truly, shepherd, in respect of itself, it is a good
life, but in respect that it is a shepherd's life,
it is naught. In respect that it is solitary, I
like it very well; but in respect that it is
private, it is a very vile life. Now, in respect it
is in the fields, it pleaseth me well; but in
respect it is not in the court, it is tedious. As
is it a spare life, look you, it fits my humour well;
but as there is no more plenty in it, it goes much
against my stomach. Hast any philosophy in thee, shepherd?
CORIN
No more but that I know the more one sickens the
worse at ease he is; and that he that wants money,
means and content is without three good friends;
that the property of rain is to wet and fire to
burn; that good pasture makes fat sheep, and that a
great cause of the night is lack of the sun; that
he that hath learned no wit by nature nor art may
complain of good breeding or comes of a very dull kindred.


Scene: The forest, Touchstone sat under a tree, twirling a long piece of grass. In addition to Rosaline and Celia making him leave Court Street in Brooklyn New York, they have also made Touchstone throw away his iPhone in fear of being followed. Touchstone, sick of the boring life of the “natural” world decides to ask the country bumpkin that he has happened across on their travels in West Shokan, NY.

In modern lingo I see the conversation going a bit more like this….

T-Stone:
Dude, it’s not a bad life for a suburban yuppie but your life is nothing to compared to the city life. I get the whole away from the city thing, which is nice. But it is only you out here; there are no parties, not even a kegger around a bonfire! This nature, it is cool. Still it is no city and I have been here for way too long. I don’t mind coming out here every once in a while, it doesn’t bug me but, like I said, too much of it, makes me sick. Any advice?

Corey:
I don’t know much but I know that the sicker you get, the worse you will feel. If ya don’t have no money, or job you won’t have any friends. Rains job is to be wet and fire is to burn. A good field will make a fat sheep. I know that it is night because there is no sun. I also know that anyone who complains so much is because he got nothing out of nature or school.
Corey is a sort of philosopher in this sense here. He is taking T-Stone and bringing him back to reality. I guess I kind of saw Corey as being the man who thinks that the city has corrupted the mind of the city dweller. Corey is simplistic, perhaps because he never knew as better but he will call T-Stone out on it. Although he is cleaver, he tries to take a jab at T-Stone. T-Stone of course finds this funny and then eggs him on. I think that T-Stone has been in want of other conversation so much that he keeps talking to Cory but truly finds him beneath him, even though he is just a clown. I think that Shakespeare he is really playing up on the human nature of class distinction. Although clowns were wanted at court, they were be no means royals or had much stature and could be disposed of. However, once outside of court, T-Stone uses his connections to the city to elevate his power.

Comedy at the Comedy of Errors

I went to see Comedy of Errors at UCONN about two Tuesdays ago. And let me just say that it was MUCH better seeing the play than just reading it. The play seemed to jump off the stage with the slapstick humor that wasn’t written in the original dialogue.
First off the stage (created by a friend of mine’s dad) was amazing. It was a multi-level painted to look like a stonewall. What was even more interesting was that the stage included a trap door and an actual door that rose out of the “ground.” The stage helped to further the topsy-turvy feeling of the play with its lack of level floors. Characters jumped around the stage the whole play and were often avoiding one another, playing up that slapstick comedy even more.
The Dromios were amazing. (I think that amazing is the word of this blog!) The used the whole stage and even ran in and out of the audience. They also looked very much alike, which must have been a casting miracle! They made use of the “door” on the stage when the Antipholus’ were switched and one was locked out of his house for the night.
Another note on the characters, Dromio of Ephsus’ wife was hilarious! She was so completely, over the top huge. She also did a lot of acting that added to the play. One of the specific times I can remember is when she fell over and no one could help her back up because she was so large.
I realize that the play was cut down a bit. However, like many of the modern movies of Shakespeare’s plays, I think that the action of the play made up for it and made it unnoticeable. This is especially important in a play such of Comedy of Errors where the action, the movement is the key part of the play and the entertainment. Basically, I suggest that you go and SEE any and every Shakespeare play possible!

And the Plot Thickens....

After reading Titus and Richard III, it is a welcome to read Julius Caesar, a play without murder and plot. Oh wait, it is full of murder and plots. That and suspicions, fate, and prophecies.
One thing that I noticed about Shakespeare’s recent play is that he includes a lot of references on the supernatural world. A soothsayer predicts Caesar’s ultimate death. His fate is handed to him and yet he goes against it.
First of all, the inclusion of the prediction of the death builds up the play. The audience knows of the plot on the new King’s life and they also know of the prediction of his death. The audience is let in on the secret of the play. Shakespeare didn’t just write a play like this, he must have planned it. He must have wanted to include the audience, to engage them, to convince them that they knew the secret, hook them on the plot and reel them in. Brilliant Shakespeare.
Although, I suggest that there are other reasons Shakespeare decided to include the idea of fate. It must have been prevalent during this time period. People were expected to make sense of diseases running rampant without much medical or scientific knowledge. Fate was how people made sense of things. The people were trying to make some meaning of life, something that people are still trying to do today.
Caesar’s character is much like any man. He wants to succeed, to be powerful and have money. He is the Roman story of rags to riches (and then death, but that is neither here nor there). He is persuaded by his wife to stay home but then his pride and Decius are enough to change his mind.
The arguments running through his head are spoken through out the play. Caesar says, “ What end can be avoided whose end is purposed by the mighty gods?” (2.2.27). He seems to realize the fate he has been handed and is willing to accept that nothing can be done about it. He goes on to say, “Cowards die many times before heir deaths; valiant never taste death but once,” (2.2. 32-33). Caesar is prideful. He would rather face death and save face, then be thought of as a coward. And being thought a coward is precisely what Decius says the senate will think of him if he doesn’t go to the meeting. This isn’t unlike most people today. How many shootings are there based on the fact that someone’s pride was hurt. Or people showing up to fights they know that they will lose because they would rather suffer a black eye and bruised ribs than be thought of as weak. This play is about power. And power is something that heavily relies on seeming powerful, so not showing up because of a fortune would be categorized as something weak. Thus ends act two, with Caesar walking towards death and Portia and the Soothsayer predicting it.

Richard: Good or Bad... The Verdict

The class discussion veered toward if we ever felt any pity for dear ol’ Richard the other day. Originally, I was thinking, how could you? I mean from the very beginning the man is putting on a show. He actually says, “I am determined to be a villain,” (I.i.30). It is as if Shakespeare wanted to create the outrageously devilish villain and to have the audience hate him. It is so much more entertaining to hate the villain.
Wait, let’s take a step back though. I want to present a different point of view. How did Richard actually get this way. The beginning of the play starts off with him plotting his evil deeds. However, how did he get this way? The audience is presented with the misshapen man who is no where near getting to having any sort of substantial power and whose mother seems to have hated him before the play even began. Does no one feel bad for him? Yes, he does take it a bit far. Killing everyone that attempts to get in the way, not even stopping at killing his own family for gain. He also kills a girl’s father and brother, proceeds to marry her and then kills her when she is of no use anymore.
Why did Richard want to marry Ann anyway? She didn’t seem to do anything to help out his plot really. It seems like he just wants to be able to woe and hurt a beautiful woman to get back at every women who ever rejected him. There is a flaw in Shakespeare’s play though, why would any woman ever want to marry a deformed old man? I guess this falls into the suspension of disbelief.
So he murders his brothers? What if they were really mean to him but we, the audience, never saw this? His one brother, the current King, is on his deathbed. He could have been a real jerk to his brother. And Clarence? Clarence seems kind of dumb in this play. He has no idea what so ever that his brother could be evil, even when the murders tell him that it was Richard who paid them to kill him? Maybe Richard hated that his brother would be given the chance to be king when he was so stupid? Or he just resented him for being born first?
There is no reason he needed to kill the kids though. That is where Richard becomes the true villain. No one can even justify the killing of children, innocents. Children are symbols of all that is good and hopeful. This is the point where Richard takes it too far. And he receives what was coming to him in a sudden death scene where he is stabbed. Poor Richard, maybe I would have taken his side if he didn’t kill off the children…