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.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
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!
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!
Sunday, March 28, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, March 22, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, March 15, 2010
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!
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!
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, February 22, 2010
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…
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…
Monday, February 15, 2010
Titus: The Film
If you thought that Titus was hard to read, try seeing the film! Director Julie Taymor (also director of Across the Universe) took the play and put a whole new spin on it. The film starts with a young boy playing with toy soldiers during his meal. It ends up with the kitchen being bombed and we are taken to a coliseum looking arena with Titus. The viewer figures out that the boy is Lucius’ son. Taymor also adds a spin on the film by mixing what is modern with ancient Rome, such as the tanks beside the men in Roman armor.
Besides the apparent oddity in the scenery and the wardrobes of the film, it was don’t quite well. In class we saw another film, a BBC version, which was rather boring. There was no action but rather the long drawn out monologues and actors standing still. It was mentioned in class that the audience of Shakespeare’s time enjoy the poetry of the plays and were not always able to see the players, so the audience relied on the words of the actors. However, in today’s society, the plots fit right in but the word don’t. Taymor took the liberty of cutting down some of the speeches and instead use the visual aspect to communicate the play.
One such scene that the whole class talked about and enjoyed was the scene where Lavinia was found by her uncle. Marcus’ speech was cut drastically but his actions revealed so much of what the speech communicated. I personally think that I would be speechless if I came upon a family member who was ravished and had her hands and tongue cut off. The visual aspect of Lavinia after the incident was so much better as well. She was stood up on a stump in a swamp area. The brothers had placed twigs on the stumps where her hands were and when Marcus asked her to speech, blood came shooting out of her mouth. I found this to communicate the horror of the act much more than words spoken. I think that it works in todays society because we do depend so much on visual stimulation (i.e. TV shows, films, the internet, video games). Taymor tapped into the visual aspect and brought what was modern into the Shakespearean play. I guess audiences still enjoy blood, sex, and war.
Besides the apparent oddity in the scenery and the wardrobes of the film, it was don’t quite well. In class we saw another film, a BBC version, which was rather boring. There was no action but rather the long drawn out monologues and actors standing still. It was mentioned in class that the audience of Shakespeare’s time enjoy the poetry of the plays and were not always able to see the players, so the audience relied on the words of the actors. However, in today’s society, the plots fit right in but the word don’t. Taymor took the liberty of cutting down some of the speeches and instead use the visual aspect to communicate the play.
One such scene that the whole class talked about and enjoyed was the scene where Lavinia was found by her uncle. Marcus’ speech was cut drastically but his actions revealed so much of what the speech communicated. I personally think that I would be speechless if I came upon a family member who was ravished and had her hands and tongue cut off. The visual aspect of Lavinia after the incident was so much better as well. She was stood up on a stump in a swamp area. The brothers had placed twigs on the stumps where her hands were and when Marcus asked her to speech, blood came shooting out of her mouth. I found this to communicate the horror of the act much more than words spoken. I think that it works in todays society because we do depend so much on visual stimulation (i.e. TV shows, films, the internet, video games). Taymor tapped into the visual aspect and brought what was modern into the Shakespearean play. I guess audiences still enjoy blood, sex, and war.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Shakespeare: The Original Danielle Steel?
I have finally reached the part of Titus where Aaron says the first ever your mom joke (see first post). I watched the movie as I read the text and found the movie version to be like I pictured it. (Personally, I love Shakespeare but I hate to have to read it so I try to find versions of the plays online.) In this movie version, Aaron was quite spiteful, laughing at Chiron, when telling Chiron that he had been sleeping with his mom and impregnated her. I find it funny that Shakespeare chooses to add these little jokes to his tragedy. Does he give Aaron the jokes to further his portrayal of him as an uncivilized Moore? Or does he want to somewhat lighten a very dark play?
In fact, Shakespeare’s play left me with a lot of unanswered questions. In the play, everyone seems to be double-crossing and putting on a mask (oh how Shakespeare loved masks) but how much of this is planned. Did Tamora jump on the idea of ruining the Roman Empire when Saturninus decided to marry her? And how much did Aaron plan? Did Titus loose his mind? At many points in the play he switches from a grieving man to a composed one with a plan. On point, he even goes so far as to make Tamora believe he has lost his mind in order to kill her sons and then bake them into a pie. Has he lost it on some level or is it all a plot to get back for the death of his sons?
I like that this play pushed me to rethink all of the characters from the beginning, how it forced me to pick apart their previous lines to dig up their true intentions. However, I found this play to be a lot like Hamlet. Both plays have the themes of masks and characters that appear insane or sane. Also, the endings are quite similar in that most of the characters died and a seemingly pure character manage to live and take over the country. Did Shakespeare just run out of ideas? Or was he the olden Danielle Steel?
In fact, Shakespeare’s play left me with a lot of unanswered questions. In the play, everyone seems to be double-crossing and putting on a mask (oh how Shakespeare loved masks) but how much of this is planned. Did Tamora jump on the idea of ruining the Roman Empire when Saturninus decided to marry her? And how much did Aaron plan? Did Titus loose his mind? At many points in the play he switches from a grieving man to a composed one with a plan. On point, he even goes so far as to make Tamora believe he has lost his mind in order to kill her sons and then bake them into a pie. Has he lost it on some level or is it all a plot to get back for the death of his sons?
I like that this play pushed me to rethink all of the characters from the beginning, how it forced me to pick apart their previous lines to dig up their true intentions. However, I found this play to be a lot like Hamlet. Both plays have the themes of masks and characters that appear insane or sane. Also, the endings are quite similar in that most of the characters died and a seemingly pure character manage to live and take over the country. Did Shakespeare just run out of ideas? Or was he the olden Danielle Steel?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The origins of Holla
Let it be known that not only has Shakespeare come up with the “Your Mom” joke but that he also he came up with the word “Holla.” When I thought that the reading of Shakespeare could not get any better I stumbled upon act 2 scene 1 of Titus Andronicus.
Moving beyond the origins of the word “holla”….
Titus… what a play? In the beginning of the play in my anthology T.S. Eliot is quoted as having said that the play was, “one of the stupidest and most uninspired plays ever written.”
Harsh Eliot. Harsh.
Although, I must agree with him to some extent. Forcing myself through the first two acts I found the play read like an Elizabethan version of Saw. It was bloody and the scenes were just horrifying. I would not recommend reading this before you go to bed. In fact, I wonder how Shakespeare managed to sleep at all during the writing of this play?! Maybe the cutting of tongues was more commonplace then? Even so, it just seems that (at two acts in) anyone who is remotely good is being mutilated, killed, or thrown in jail.
Can I just say that Titus is stupid. I mean, why wouldn’t he just take the role as the king? Why did he think that Saturninus was such a good idea? Especially for the fact that right after he crowned him, Saturninus was asking for Titus’ daughter to marry when she was with Bassianus, Saturninus’ brother! Wasn’t this a clue that Titus shouldn’t run after his sons and daughter, who were fleeing from the wrath of Saturninus, only to kill his youngest son? Come on Titus! Plus, what is up with them talking about themselves in third person?
The only character that I really like in this play is Marcus. He tries to split up Bassianus and Saturnius when they were fighting in the beginning. And he tries to take care of his brother, Titus. He also has an amazing speech at the end of act 2 when he happens upon his niece after she has been raped and her tongue and hands are cut off. It is a bit horrifying when you think of his speaking in his reaction to her because I can’t imagine having words when seeing something so horrible. However, I imagine that the costumes and makeup of the time were not the best forcing the audience to rely on the speeches to know what was going on. Marcus’ speech is moving. He love for his niece and the fact that he carries her mourning as well makes him the most human of the characters. I wonder how Titus will react? Perhaps he will blame his daughter for this misfortune or perhaps he will open his eyes to what is truly happening when he sees his daughter’s current state.
Might I also add that when reading Titus, watch the movie as well. It skips some of the lines but I think that it does it justice by allowing you to see the horror visually as well as hearing it in the lines!
Moving beyond the origins of the word “holla”….
Titus… what a play? In the beginning of the play in my anthology T.S. Eliot is quoted as having said that the play was, “one of the stupidest and most uninspired plays ever written.”
Harsh Eliot. Harsh.
Although, I must agree with him to some extent. Forcing myself through the first two acts I found the play read like an Elizabethan version of Saw. It was bloody and the scenes were just horrifying. I would not recommend reading this before you go to bed. In fact, I wonder how Shakespeare managed to sleep at all during the writing of this play?! Maybe the cutting of tongues was more commonplace then? Even so, it just seems that (at two acts in) anyone who is remotely good is being mutilated, killed, or thrown in jail.
Can I just say that Titus is stupid. I mean, why wouldn’t he just take the role as the king? Why did he think that Saturninus was such a good idea? Especially for the fact that right after he crowned him, Saturninus was asking for Titus’ daughter to marry when she was with Bassianus, Saturninus’ brother! Wasn’t this a clue that Titus shouldn’t run after his sons and daughter, who were fleeing from the wrath of Saturninus, only to kill his youngest son? Come on Titus! Plus, what is up with them talking about themselves in third person?
The only character that I really like in this play is Marcus. He tries to split up Bassianus and Saturnius when they were fighting in the beginning. And he tries to take care of his brother, Titus. He also has an amazing speech at the end of act 2 when he happens upon his niece after she has been raped and her tongue and hands are cut off. It is a bit horrifying when you think of his speaking in his reaction to her because I can’t imagine having words when seeing something so horrible. However, I imagine that the costumes and makeup of the time were not the best forcing the audience to rely on the speeches to know what was going on. Marcus’ speech is moving. He love for his niece and the fact that he carries her mourning as well makes him the most human of the characters. I wonder how Titus will react? Perhaps he will blame his daughter for this misfortune or perhaps he will open his eyes to what is truly happening when he sees his daughter’s current state.
Might I also add that when reading Titus, watch the movie as well. It skips some of the lines but I think that it does it justice by allowing you to see the horror visually as well as hearing it in the lines!
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Let them eat.... comedy?!
Anyone who has read enough Shakespeare will laugh at the jokes, puns, and slapstick that Shakespeare threw into his comedies. Shakespeare was after all writing for his audience, selling tickets meant money, and comedy was a way to draw people into the theater.
M.M. Bakhtin’s essay, Rabelias and His World, talks about laughter and the middle ages. He states that laughter was something that was excluded from “proper life” (i.e. anything religious, ceremonial) but that it was inserted into the festivals (73, 82). The use of comedy in this way is much like the use of films during WWII, it becomes escapism.
The theater was positioned outside of London’s city limits for legal reasons. But this positioning of the city fits the description of the audience being able to leave this bustling, economic world for just a bit to escape into theater. Many apprentices would play hooky and see a play in the afternoon. The theater also had the reputation of having women who sold oranges and other things there as well. It became a place of pleasure, something that I am sure that most people needed without the luxuries of running water or sewers!
The theater was not just for the poor or the rich. In fact, the globe was set up to accommodate everyone who came to see the plays. The rich would often sit up in the balconies and the poor would crowd into the space in front of the stage. Comedy helped Shakespeare draw in the large crowd. Bakhtin also wrote of the universality of comedy, laughter. Every human laughs and most people laugh at similar things. Bergson says, “…the comic foes not exist out the pale of what is strictly human,” (Bergson 62). Laughter is something was created for and by humans. Both Bakhtin and Henri Bergson, in his essay Laughter, wrote about how comedy is often dependent on the body. The body is something universal (as we all have one) and unites the crowd. As long as the person we are laughing at on stage is not in any real harm, we will laugh at him.
Bergson’s view on laughter is a bit more rigid than just every person laughing at someone when they fall down. He says that humans laugh at someone else who is unaware of their surroundings and who is ultimately socially unacceptable, (156). However, Shakespeare seems to take normal people and place them in extraordinary situations, such as the brothers and servants in Comedy of Errors. Twin brothers are normal. Siblings who are separated is normal. What is not normal is the act of the separation and how they are reunited. The brothers are laughed at for having the same body and for being unaware of their surroundings, that the other brother is in the same city. Shakespeare plays on this humor and creates a snowball of situations where people are talking to someone who they think is someone else. The brothers are being rather social in the city; they are not unsociable just unaware. Also, the play ends in the normal happily ever after that Shakespeare loves so much.
Shakespeare saw how comedy brought an audience to the theater. He capitalized on it. He wrote what they wanted to see. For two to three hours he let the audience escape into the show and laugh at the characters on the stage until a happy ending. Even if he didn’t write the plays on his own, he was good at seeing what the people wanted and supplying them with it. It just so happens that the people wanted comedy.
M.M. Bakhtin’s essay, Rabelias and His World, talks about laughter and the middle ages. He states that laughter was something that was excluded from “proper life” (i.e. anything religious, ceremonial) but that it was inserted into the festivals (73, 82). The use of comedy in this way is much like the use of films during WWII, it becomes escapism.
The theater was positioned outside of London’s city limits for legal reasons. But this positioning of the city fits the description of the audience being able to leave this bustling, economic world for just a bit to escape into theater. Many apprentices would play hooky and see a play in the afternoon. The theater also had the reputation of having women who sold oranges and other things there as well. It became a place of pleasure, something that I am sure that most people needed without the luxuries of running water or sewers!
The theater was not just for the poor or the rich. In fact, the globe was set up to accommodate everyone who came to see the plays. The rich would often sit up in the balconies and the poor would crowd into the space in front of the stage. Comedy helped Shakespeare draw in the large crowd. Bakhtin also wrote of the universality of comedy, laughter. Every human laughs and most people laugh at similar things. Bergson says, “…the comic foes not exist out the pale of what is strictly human,” (Bergson 62). Laughter is something was created for and by humans. Both Bakhtin and Henri Bergson, in his essay Laughter, wrote about how comedy is often dependent on the body. The body is something universal (as we all have one) and unites the crowd. As long as the person we are laughing at on stage is not in any real harm, we will laugh at him.
Bergson’s view on laughter is a bit more rigid than just every person laughing at someone when they fall down. He says that humans laugh at someone else who is unaware of their surroundings and who is ultimately socially unacceptable, (156). However, Shakespeare seems to take normal people and place them in extraordinary situations, such as the brothers and servants in Comedy of Errors. Twin brothers are normal. Siblings who are separated is normal. What is not normal is the act of the separation and how they are reunited. The brothers are laughed at for having the same body and for being unaware of their surroundings, that the other brother is in the same city. Shakespeare plays on this humor and creates a snowball of situations where people are talking to someone who they think is someone else. The brothers are being rather social in the city; they are not unsociable just unaware. Also, the play ends in the normal happily ever after that Shakespeare loves so much.
Shakespeare saw how comedy brought an audience to the theater. He capitalized on it. He wrote what they wanted to see. For two to three hours he let the audience escape into the show and laugh at the characters on the stage until a happy ending. Even if he didn’t write the plays on his own, he was good at seeing what the people wanted and supplying them with it. It just so happens that the people wanted comedy.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
What's In a Name?
That which we call a rose...
DEMETRIUS
I think it only appropriate that I my first blog's title is a Shakespearean quote as this blog was created for my Shakespeare class. Secretly, I am a bit excited to have a blog (I have always wanted one) and I do kind of like Shakespeare.
People talk about Shakespeare as the genius who wrote all of these great plays. Personally, I see him as a man who begged, borrowed, and stole his way to fame. The theater was the Hollywood of London in the late 1500's and the 1600's. Shakespeare was just the greatest director of his time. I think this is why I like him so much, because he seems so human to me.
My professor dared to bring up Doctor Who in the first class. I was ecstatic. I love Doctor Who more than I love Shakespeare. However, my professor was talking of the episode when the Doctor and Martha go back in time to Shakespeare and end up fighting off an alien who is living of Shakespeare's rhymes. (His rhymes are naming the aliens. This most likely makes no sense to you if you a. don't like Shakespeare or b. don't like/know Doctor Who.) My professor commented on the fact that these aliens choose Shakespeare because his talent for rhyming is out of this world (ha ha ha!) or so superior that they could use his words as a medium to free themselves and take over the universe. He choose to view this as an elevation of Shakespeare's works. I liked this episode for completely different reasons. Shakespeare wasn't portrayed as a stuff old man sitting at a desk and writing but rather as a man who loved women and drinking. He was portrayed like most college boys really. But the humanistic approach to characterizing him made him so much more fun. I think that high school lit. classes tend to place Shakespeare in that box of things you ought to read and that becomes very forced and boring. When in reality Shakespeare's plays are fully of sexual innuendoes and other jokes that when properly explained would be very much like the jokes we laugh at today. In fact, Shakespeare is said to have invented the "Your Mom" joke. Shakespeare's plays are often relatable as well. Rafe, a teacher in CA, actually had his 5th graders act out Hamlet. They were able to accomplish this because they related to the themes of death and betrayal in the play. When taught Shakespeare correctly it is possible to make these connections, allowing you to dig deeper than the flowery language that the Elizabethan era loved so much.
Anyway, the point of this blog will be to spread my thoughts about what we are reading/ what I am learning about Shakespeare and to hopefully make him more fun and intersting for those of you who have loved to hate him.
So I leave you with act IV, scene II of Titus Andronicus....
Villain, what hast thou done?AARON
That which thou canst not undo.CHIRON
Thou hast undone our mother.AARON
Villain, I have done thy mother.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
