I really enjoyed A Midsummer Night's Dream. It was different from alot of other plays i have read before. Being it was Shakespeare also made it difficult to understand. Once i was able to get into the play and make sense of what was going on I found it to be complete comedy.
I think Act V had to be the funniest act. There wasn't much drama in this act but alot of comedy. I have two things that i found really interesting after reading Act V and I wanted to look more into it. One being why Shakespeare had included this act in the play. Act IV to me seems like it sums up the entire play and there is no need for another act. I wanted to see what others felt about this as well. Many people who follow Shakespeare and all his works find this play the most interesting, as do I. Many feel the reason why Shakespeare included this play was because he wanted people to see that the ending of the play could also have been tragedy and not comedy. Meaning the part of the play in this act when Thisbe and Pyramis run away, a lion comes in and takes Thisbe's cloak and when Pyramus sees the cloak covered in blood, he kills himself with the sword. As Theseus and Hippolyta watch the play, Hippolyta finds great humor in this and says, "this is the silliest thing that I have ever heard." But Theseus replies and tells her, "the best in this kind are shadows, and the worst are no worse if imagination amend them". So you can see how silly everyone thinks this play is but maybe that is the point that Shakespeare wanted to make. He wanted this final act to be a challenge for the audience about reality and imagination. Looking into this more and researching the idea, cleared up my question about why Shakespeare would include this act in a play.
The last thing I found interesting in act 5, is how caring Hippolyta actually was. In other acts she has never come across as a person that cares about others. In the beginning of this act when Philostrate doesn't want to show them the play because he is afraid of the horrible acting it has. Theseus tells him he will watch the play because it can't be bad when it's created by simple people who try hard. Hippolyta actually has emotion and tells Theseus that she doesn't want to see poor people overburdoned or looking bad when they try to do something good. It seems both Theseus and Hippolyta have taken a turn and have remorse for their actions, they actually care about how they treat others.
2 comments:
Act V is not pointless: while it doesn't elaborate much on the plot the way the previous acts do, it does comment on subjects that those acts addressed. For example, Egeus says that the aristocrats can "find sport" in watching the play that the rude mechanicals put on. In that way they will be entertained not by the play itself, but by what they see as the idiocy of the laborers and their inability to understand their subject as well as them, the audience. The attitude Theseus, Hyppolyta, & co have towards the rude mechanicals mirrors the attitude the fairies have towards them, especially Puck. At 3.2.120 Puck says of his mistake: "Then will two at once woo one/That must needs be sport alone/ And those things do best please me/ That befall prepost'rously." He uses the same word Egeus will later use which illustrates the relativity of relations of power.
What is absent from act V speaks as much as what is there, namely any dialogue from Hermia and Helena, which I think is best explained by Theseus rejecting the story of Dionysus and his female followers. Just as the bacchanals story is an "old device" that he has already conquered, Helena and Hermia's relationship (and the other female homosocial bonds) are old and conquered by the reaffirmed male centered world. However, this interpretation is complicated by how much Hippolyta speaks. I still think it is valid, though, because her speech in act V is completely different from her speech in the first act.
I agree with Therese, Act V is not pointless. While nothing major happens in act v as opposed to the earlier acts, it still has some depth to it. There was a big emphasis on the "play" when the rude mechanicals got together to start practicing it, a good chunk of the act was written for that. For me, as a reader, it wouldn't make much sense if the "play" wasn't carried out or brought up again, there would have been no point in writing about it in the first place. So when they carried out the "play" in the final act it provided some closure for me. Even though I kind of felt bad for the Quince and the gang.
Helena and Hermia's lack of dialogue is very underplayed. Perhaps it touches on the "ancient law" and now that they each have a man they aren't such dominant social figures as they used to be earlier in the play. Were they written that way in the final act because of the "social norms" of that time period, or did Shakespeare feel they weren't important to the last act? If I had to pick, I would say they had become the property of their suitors, loosing the independence they used to have.
Post a Comment