Feste takes the show

The production of Twelfth Night by the New Paltz theater department I found to be a great show, with every member of the cast performing their parts very well. Out of all the players though, I think it is Feste who deserves the nod for the best one. Every time he took the stage it was not long before he had the audience laughing. I though it was impressive too when he played mandolin and sung in the middle and end of the play. The actors playing Sir Toby, Sir Andrew, and Malvolio also gave great comedic performances. The duo of Toby and Andrew was hilarious. The interpretation of Andrew I though at first to be a little over the top, but as the play went along I quickly forgot about that. Toby drunkenly stumbling around was great every time (and that was for most of the play), and Malvolio coming in wearing yellow stockings for Olivia was very entertaining.
The comedy in the play shined through, especially in 3.4 when they are all drawing swords on one another. While the play had me laughing throughout, it was definitely this scene that was the high point. As Chris pointed out on his blog I also was wondering about the end of 2.4; if Orsino knew that Ceasrio was really a woman at that point than it changes the rest of the play, but if he is falling for the boy than that adds a whole other dynamic to the play.
Overall I thought this was a great performance and I'm happy that I went. I would definitely go again and recommend buying a ticket to anyone who is on the fence about seeing it. The cast gives a great performance and the difference between reading this play and seeing it fold out in front of your eyes is worth your money.

Twelfth Night Reflections

I would first like to preface this, with the fact that when I reflect upon a production I am reflecting as an Actor. It is no way meant to hurt anyone’s feelings nor say that I would have done it more effectively. It is simply an objective break down of what I thought worked and what I thought did not work. As well my own opinions and values that can be chocked up and thrown out if you choose to. Also because so many of my peers are involved, I feel uncomfortable critiquing them in a public forum. I will limit my review of the production to the direction and over all scope.

I was disappointed with our school’s production of Twelfth Night. While the show has its outstanding individual performances, over all a cohesive performance is not be found in Parker Theatre this fall. Director Dr. Frank Trezza, had no vision for the show, there was no sense of a thru line making the whole production want for movement. If I had to pick one word to describe the whole show it would be stagnant. There was no sense of movement either in pacing, in stakes, or in the actual physicality of the play. By setting the play in the Baroque era Trezza further managed to freeze the production into an academic museum piece. Why set it in the Baroque era? Not only is it just a complete lack of imagination but it does nothing to serve the text. Due to the constrictions of the costumes ( although visually stunning and designed by Professor Andrea Varga) and mannerisms of the period, everyone’s movement seemed stilted and unnatural. There was nothing organic or real for the actors and therefore for the most part it appeared made it harder for them to truly connect past the surface level. Overall the added convention of the Baroque proved to be distracting and silly. Shakespeare is like a really great black dress. You completely ruin the dress by adding layers of bows and frills or pairing it with a ridiculously gaudy accessory. It is just not necessary. Especially when the majority of the cast was struggling with the technicalities of putting the dress ( ie mastering the language and emotional connectedness) that all of the added everything was just nonsense. Granted it looked pretty ( Set designed by Kelsey Luken- my apartment mate!) If setting it in the baroque era were to bring something out about the text then fine. But it didn’t there seemed to be now logic as to why it was set where it was. Everything on a stage must have a reason otherwise it just becomes an exercise in self-indulgence.

Perhaps even more irksome than the time period, was literal ill direction of the stage picture. Parker theatre like the actual Globe theatre is a ¾ thrust space. This means the audience surrounds the stage on three sides. Shakespeare was well aware of fact and even wrote into the play where the actors were to turn their bodies to a different side of the stage. Normally this is done every time there is an emotional shift. Dr. Trezza completely ignores this, not only does he ignore this, but he completely ignored the fact that there were people sitting on the sides of the audience. It was directed as though it were in a proscenium or picture frame space. People pay money I spent 80% of the production staring at the backs or partial profile of actors. Totally and completely ineffective.

A take on New Paltz's production of 12th Night

I saw the dress rehearsal on Tuesday. While the cast's hard work is apparant, I think this show served as a calibration for them and I doubt it will be their best work of the stand. Sir Toby and Feste stood out to me, both being hearty, contagious, invigorating goofs.

The decision was made to have all men wear beards except for Sebastian, making him more similar to Cesario in that way. Unless I am unaware to a widely accepted reading, the production had an odd interpretation of the close of 2.4, having Orsino and Cesario nearly kissing. This contradicts my previously held opinion that Orsino does not know Cesario to be a woman until the plays resolution, unless ofcourse he was choosing to love Cesario as a boy. If he had known Cesario was a woman earlier in the play it would take much of the drama and excitement out of the final scene.

Watching Olivia's recognition of Sebastian and Cesario was wonderfully fun, and at time the cast really shined (Not that I'm of merit to truly grade them.)

I was lucky enough to be in Larry Carr's dramatic writing class and get the nodd to attend the dress rehearsal. Hope you all enjoy the show!

Masculinity in Act V of Much Ado About Nothing

In many of Shakespeare's works, performances of masculinity from Elizabethan times are common. Demonstrations of masculinity, similar to those in Shakespeare’s works, have been mocked, to a certain degree, in films such as Monty Python and Robin Hood: Men in Tights. I'm referring to masculinity here as a form of male culture that often permits hierarchical attitudes with the goal of dominance to measure a man's worth. In Much Ado About Nothing, the performance of masculinity is prominently featured in Act V when Claudio is almost forced to dual with both Leonato and Benedick!

Frequently, masculinity is upheld through strength and proper age. This is exemplified when Cluadio slightly mocks Leonato's old age by stating, “Marry, beshrew my hand / If it should give your age such cause of fear” (5.1.55-56). However, Leonato responds by stating that with all of his gray hairs he challenges Leonato to a dual (5.1.65). Leonato also makes a distinction between himself, as a man, and Claudio, as a boy, when he says, “If thou kill’st me, boy, thou shalt kill a man” (5.1.79). Antonio also calls Cluadio a boy when he says “Come, follow me, boy. Come, sir boy, come, follow me. / Sir boy, I’ll whip you from your foining fence” (5.1.83-84). Due to these observations, it seems clear that masculinity was often threatened when a man was called too old or too young, and therefore powerless.

There is also interesting masculine banter present, in Act V of Much Ado About Nothing, when Benedick wants to challenge Claudio to a dual. Cluadio speaks to Benedick with a macho tone when he says “What, courage, man! What though care killed a cat, / thou hast mettle enough in thee to kill care” (5.1.132-133). Another example that could fit under the category of mannish banter is when Benedick is trying to sing and says that even though he can't sing very well, when it comes to loving, he's great (5.2.26).

Masculinity is just one part of what is to be noticed in Much Ado About Nothing. There are certainly interesting issues with the female characters in the play and all of this is a magnified view of certain aspects of gender within the play, without encompassing other details of the gender dynamics. With that being said, it does seem positive that the play ends with Benedick and Beatrice being married and talking in such a carefree, witty, and joyous manner to one another. Beatrice jokingly says things like “I would not deny you, but, by this good day, I yield / upon great persuasion, and partly to save your life, for I was / told you were in a consumption” (5.4.93-95); and Benedick says things like “A miracle! Here’s our own hands against our hearts. / Come, I will have thee, but, by this light, I take thee for pity” (5.4.91-92). With so much blatant masculinity being flaunted throughout the play (remember that most of the men in this play are soldiers!) and the threat that women face of being sent into religious life, just because of a poor reputation (4.1.241), Beatrice and Benedick, when together, seem to interact on a more equal playing field where hyper masculinity is somewat worthless and women are allowed to be sarcastic and witty.

Much Ado about Nothing

As we briefly talked about in the class, what does the title of this play actually mean? We spoke about how there are a few different levels to it; 2 different puns; the first one being that men have some THING and women have NOTHING,which is the Elizabethian slang term for vagina. The play deals with a variety of highs and lows of the relationships between different men and women, gossip, suspicion ,and lack thereof. When the title is viewed in this way, the women are the ones being put in a powerful and central role, the men are the ones that are working while the women are what they are working for.

This can also be linked to a saucy romantic comedy where the men are looking for women to be with. However, one may interpret it as the men chasing around nothing. Also, it can be related to the theme of power and how the play takes place in a masculine setting. The second pun is to focus on the word nothing, which also sounds like noting and we can describe this as watching/making note of. The title may be deliberately a paradox, in order to catch the eyes of the reader. The play deals with a variety of highs and lows of the relationships between different men and women, gossip, suspicion of and lack thereof.

Benedick and Beatrice are both interesting characters because they both invoke each other. They both say that they don't want to marry, however they bicker like two middle schoolers who have crushes on each other. Benedick is a very dominant character, and is known for his independence and leadership qualities. However, by the end he has altered his loyalty to Beatrice. We see a lot of manipulation throughout the play as well. One example is when Don Pedro, Claudio, and Leonato trick Benedick into believing that Beatrice is in love with him. Like Benedick, Beatrice's feelngs about love are strong and opposing, is this what brings them together? Because at one point in the play Beatrice feels that her desired partner doesn't exist. My opinion on their relationship is that they knew all along that they were meant for each other and would also end up together.

The Idiots Save the Day

Much Ado About Nothing begins as a comedy of errors. Claudio loves Hero but lacks confidence and has someone else woo her for him. Benedick and Beatrice profess to loathe love and marriage but when tricked by family and friends into believing the other’s passion, they find love with each other. Once Claudio has won the love of the fair Hero, Shakespeare’s light-hearted romp turns dark when Don John plots to besmirch the reputation of Hero, destroy Claudio’s love, and shame her father all in an effort to get back at his brother, Don Pedro. What is the audience to believe has happened here, they enter a comedy and leave a tragedy? Shakespeare saves the day by sending in the clowns.

In a play about confusion, the introduction of Dogberry and Verges comforts the audience that they are still on comedic footing. These petty officials are meant to be the signifiers of nothing. As soon as they are introduced in Act III, Scene 3, Dogberry and Verges display their powers as they interview two watchmen. Dogberry asks if they are good men and true and Verges responds, “Yea, or else it were pity but they should suffer salvation, body and soul.”(3.3.1-3). Salvation is the wrong word in the context of this sentence but it is the correct word for their role in the play as they bumble into the plot just after Don John’s scheme.

Dogberry and Verges are guilty of confusing their words, they commission the two watchmen to become the heroes of the play when Dogberry commands, “… you shall comprehend all vagrom men. You are to bid any man stand, in the Prince’s name (3.3.21-23).” This is exactly what the two watchmen do when they come upon Don John’s henchmen, Borachio and Conrad. Instead of apprehending them as Dogberry means by his command, they listen to detailing of the events that have unfolded and understand the implications of Borachio and Conrad’s actions. This act of comprehension will foil Don John’s plan.

Dogberry and Verges report to Leonato after Conrad and Borachio are captured but Leonato is too busy with his daughter’s wedding. Dogberry announces, “Our watch, sir, have indeed comprehended two auspicious persons, and we would have them this morning examined before your worship (4.1.40-42).” The audience is in on the joke, knowing that this nonsense brought before Leonato is the ado he should be focused on.

Unlike the rude mechanicals in Midsummers Night’s Dream, Dogberry and Verges are central to the plot of Much Ado About Nothing. The rude mechanicals hope to win fame and fortune by presenting their play but all they receive from Thesus’s court is derision. Dogberry in Act V Scene 1 is thanked by Leonato for his “care and honest pains (5.1.297).” The bumbling idiots save the day, receive their fair share of laughter accompanied with the respect of Prince of Aragon’s court.

Are Minor Relationships Overlooked?

Are Minor Relationships Overlooked?

After reading the conclusion of Much Ado About Nothing, it seems to me that one of the most overlooked yet crucial points of the play is Benedick's trust of Hero. Although they interact very little, it is Benedick's perception of Hero as a flawlessly moral woman which allows his "merry war" with Beatrice to turn from an entertaining game into a more serious and genuine romance.

It is, in fact, Hero that brings Benedick and Beatrice together. In Act II scene iii, when Claudio, Leonato and Don Pedro hold their staged conversation to convince Benedick that Beatrice loves him, there is no sure way for them to get Benedick to believe them. Initially Benedick suspects that it must be a trick. Soon the three men resort to using Hero's name to lend them some credibility, and as they continue to claim that Hero is the source from which they have learned of Beatrice's affections, Benedick becomes convinced: "This can be no trick. The conference was sadly born. They have the truth of this from Hero." (2.3, 196-197) While Benedick is distrustful of his friends, he holds Hero's word to be absolute truth. Thus it can be said that Hero is the one who made it possible for him to realize his love for Beatrice.

So when in Act V scene i Benedick challenges Claudio to a duel for Hero's sake, it is not simply about Claudio's mistreatment of any woman. Benedick says to his best friend, "You are a villain. I jest not. I will make it good how you dare, with what you dare, and when you dare. Do me right, or I will protest your cowardice. You have killed a sweet lady, and her death shall fall heavy on you. Let me hear from you. (5.1, 143-147) Benedick is willing to fight his best friend, but it is not for the sake of Hero as a woman so much as what Hero represents to him. It is, after all, the use of Hero's name in the well-intended trickery from Act II which led Benedick to let go of his pride and accept his feelings for Beatrice. I think Benedick is grateful to Hero, who he believes revealed the truth of Beatrice's feelings toward him. If Hero is not as morally upright and faithful as Benedick thinks, then it is possible that she lied about Beatrice's affections; and Benedick, wanting to cling to the hope that Beatrice loves him, can't accept that there is some doubt.

Benedick's complete trust of Hero's word is very important to the Benedick/Beatrice romantic plot, and without it the plan of Claudio, Leonato and Don Pedro probably would have failed. It is interesting to me that so few people have pointed this out, but I think in all the other action of the play things like this can be lost—much like Don Pedro's brief proposal to Beatrice, which is a very minor part that hints at a larger problem of Don Pedro being the only one who doesn't enjoy a romantic happy ending. This may not seem so important because Don Pedro's conflict with the villain Don John is wrapped up, but Benedick notes that Don Pedro seems sad in Act V scene iv and urges him to "get thee a wife, get thee a wife" (5.4, 117). For Don Pedro it is not an entirely happy ending, just a resolution to the greatest of his problems. This, too, seems to be lost amid the other plots and the joy of the other characters' happy endings.

Much Angst About a Misapprehension!

Dogberry & Verges

A connection was made in class between "Much Ado About Nothing"'s Dogberry and Verges and "A Midsummer Night Dream"'s rude mechanicals. Shakespeare is drawing comic relief from the lower middle class once more, this time also at their expense. The humor of these characters of "The Watch" is derived from their ignorant misuse of words and unwitting puns while Dogberry and Verges are speaking of their policing role that they take very seriously.

It was unclear in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" whether the audience is meant to pity or take humor in the mechanical's play they flub hopelessly and I felt the same conflict for the Watch as Act IV unfolded. Dogberry and Verges say absolutely ridiculous things, which was pure fun to read in Act III when they were on the beat, but when it came to discovering Don John's scheme and warning Leonato before the wedding, their verbal stumbling was cringe-worthy. Although they were the most enlightened two characters of the play at that moment, the two of them came off just as silly as always in the instance Dogberry "defends" Verges: "...an old man, sir, and his wits are not so blunt as God help, I would desire they were." (3.5, Lines 9-11) I myself would lose patience trying to sort through this type of backwards conversation, so I don't place blame on Leonato for brushing them off and continuing to his daughter's wedding. This was just such a terrifically ironic scene, placing the crux particulars of the play in the hands that don't know what to do with it.

My Contention With Claudio

The end of Act III and wedding-alter scene that followed left me feeling very malcontent with Claudio's conduct.

After falling for Don John's ruse, Claudio did not just decline marrying Hero quietly the next day, but went as far as to publicly insult her and deliver scathing remarks such as the following, "You seem to me as Dian in her orb...But you are more intemperate in your blood/Than Venus or those pampered animals/That rage in savage sensuality." (4.1, 55-59) The blistering insults and name-calling seemed very over-the-top and uncalled for, as I read it. Hero's response did not carry as much assertive objection as I would have liked or might have expected from a character like Beatrice if she were in Hero's place. Hero seemed demure and crumbling against Claudio's outrageous accusations. Of course, Claudio gave her a snowball's chance of defending herself by referring to her flush of shock as further proof to her guilt, "By these exterior shows? But she is none. She knows the heat of a luxurious bed. Her blush is guiltiness, not modesty." (4.1, 38-40) Claudio's behavior is exceedingly cruel and is the crown to a series of bizarre actions he has taken with Hero.

Claudio's first stint of weirdness can be traced to trying to woo Hero through the gestures of a friend. At first read, I chalked this up to severe bashfulness on Claudio's part, but in hindsight taking this disaster wedding into account, it was a sign of Claudio's distance and lack of intimacy for Hero. Claudio gave a lot of talk about love to his soldier bros, but there are scarce examples of Claudio being affectionate towards Hero. His snap-judgement of Hero's "sensuality" without attempt to question her or hear her side of the matter has made up my mind that Claudio may not have been Hero's match after all.

The male characters in Much Ado about Nothing absolutely enrage me. Reading act IV scene I was practically unbearable. It's bad enough that Claudio decides to humiliate Hero at the alter rather than call off the wedding, but his sickening speech beginning on line 28 is outrageously offensive. He lacks the nerve to address Hero directly, so instead he tells her father “There, Leonato, take her back again./ Give not this rotten orange to your friend./ She's but the sign and semblance of her honour” (29-31). I understand that he truly believes that Hero has “betrayed” him, but he never doubts for a moment that the affair could be a misunderstanding. Claudio, and most if not all of the male characters in this play, are ready and willing to expect the worst of women. When Claudio accuses Hero of adultery, asking or rather demanding her to answer him “What man was he talked with you yesternight/ Out at your window betwixt twelve and one?” (82-83) she honestly responds “I talked with no man at that hour, my lord” (85) and still no one believes her. Hero appears to have no history of deceitfulness and up until this point in the play all the characters seemed to agree that Hero is virtuous and modest in manner. What is even worse than Claudio refusing to believe Hero and his insistence on her having “impious purity” is Leonato, her own father, immediately assumes Claudio is right. He can not fathom that Claudio is wrong, saying “Would the two princes lie? And Claudio lie,/ Who loved her so that, speaking of her foulness,/ Washed it with tears? Hence from her, let her die” (151-153). What kind of Father says “let her die?” speaking about his own daughter? I understand that this play takes place in a time where women had much less rights, but did not a bond between a parent and their child exist? Leonato seemed to be a loving father in the acts prior. The only defense Hero receives from the opposite sex comes from the friar. He observes Hero to have “A thousand blushing apparitions/ To start into her face, a thousand innocent shames/ In angel whiteness beat away those blushes,/ And in her eye there hath appeared a fire/ To burn the errors that these princes hold/ Against her maiden truth” (158-163). He dares Leonato to “Call me a fool” and to “Trust not my reading nor my observations/ Which with experimental seal doth warrant/ The tenor of my book. Trust not my age,/ My reverence, calling, nor divinity” (163-167). Leonato refuses to believe the Friar and still insists his daughter has sinned. It is unbelievable that Leonato is so certain of his daughter's piety that he disagrees with the words of a priest. This was a very frustrating scene to read and I felt a lot of sympathy towards Hero.

Poor Benedick

Throughout the first three acts of this place there seems to be a level of expressed yet hidden affectionate connection between Benedick and Beatrice. Another student stated their relationship to be juvenile or high school like which is true, and even further proven by the manner Bendick takes to profess his love to Beatrice.

Act four scene one is the wedding scene between Claudio and Hero. When asked if he wanted to marry Hero, Claudio says no and claims she is not pure that she had multiple sexual encounters with another man. Hero fell in shock of this accusation, which a vast majority of the audience bought into excluding the friar and Beatrice. Beatrice is outraged at this accusation for she is certain that Hero is pure.

Benedick goes over to comfort Beatrice, as any friend would, but like at the start of some juvenile relationships he saw an opening in her vulnerability or so he thought and professed his true love to Beatrice for the first time confirming any suspicions the audience had if any by this point in the play. Beatrice is welcoming to the idea of his love and asks him to challenge and kill Claudio, who is Benedick close and dear friend, for the slander of Hero. Benedick refuses at first, but eventually after realizing how serious Beatrice is says he'll do it.

Benedick stays true to his word and tells Claudio of his intention of killing him for his actions, luckily Borachio comes clean and admits to his lying and treachery and being the cause of this slander clearing Hero's name. Benedick now not only professed his love to Beatrice but also showed how pure it is and how much she means to him by being willing to kill his friend because she believed that is what should be done.

Benedick is happy, he is in love Beatrice is showing affection back towards him. Life is exactly what he wanted it to be. All the flirting and compassion has been shown for one another only in seclusion though. When back again at the wedding Benedick publicly professes his love for Beatrice and asks her to marry him, but she says no and denies ever loving her.

Why would she do this to Benedick? He has done nothing but show her the deepest level of compassion and is in no way deserving of this level of humility.

Claudio and Hero tell everyone that they both Benedick and Beatrice love each other and say they have have finished love poems from each of them written to the other. After being caught Beatrice basically says ok I love him and agrees to marry him.

I just do not understand why or how she could have the audacity to deny Benedick in the manner she did.

Can you really call that love?

I'm realizing that more often than not, I find myself questioning the "love" that comes about in Shakespeare's plays. In Shakespeare's plays i see love as generally being defined more along the lines of 'wants' or shallow 'desires,' but not as something to be considered 'true' or deep and definitely nothing that will typically result in a lasting happiness for both parties.

In "A Midsummer Nights Dream," I constantly found myself asking 'Why does Demetrius love Hermia?' It either has something to do with her looks, or her status, or even a mixture of both, but is that really enough for him to be declaring love, and so adamantly? The whole idea of the juice from a special flower having the ability to control who a person falls in love with has me questioning the true feeling of all the couples in this play. I've always had this idea of true love not having the ability to be hindered or changed, and as something that can overcome anything, even a potion.

In "Twelfth Night" as well I don't believe Orsino or Sir Andrew are really in love with Olivia for who she is as a person in a deeper sense, but rather for who she is in society. Sebastian as well. He didn't meet Olivia or even know of her existence until the day he married her. I can't comprehend how this can be considered normal or even socially acceptable. Did true love hold such little meaning in marriage at the time? or was their definition of love only relating to status and appearance?

In "Much Ado About Nothing," we come across Hero and Claudio. Neither of them speak with each other until deeper into the play, and she is wooed for Claudio by another man. Yet all the same they are due to get married almost immediately afterwards and they both seem to be ecstatic at the prospect. Possibly having to do with the fact that getting married was important during the time of the play and having nothing to do with actually being in love.

On the other hand, the relationship between Beatrice and Benedick is probably the closest to 'legitimate' i've come across in a Shakespeare's play thus far. This mostly having to do with the amount of time and the connection involved in their relationship. It is mentioned that the two have a history, suggesting that they've known each other since before the time of the play, leading us to believe that there may have been a previous connection between the two. Their bickering though seemingly hateful, i believe underlies love more then anything.

It may be argued that they were tricked into loving each other by Pedro and the others, but i would argue that they have always loved each other but they just didn't know it. They are both stubborn characters and i am sure they were both under the impression that they were hated by the other, which is why i think they needed to be 'tricked.' Their relationship leads me to wonder why there are so many shallow relationships in the Shakespeare plays that i know of when he was clearly capable of creating a relationship that i believe can be considered true love?

Worthless Hero: The Importance of Virginity and the Absurdity of Marriage

We’ve been discussing in our class how clothes constitute identity in Shakespeare’s comedies, from Viola’s clothing in Twelfth Night being the deciding factor of what gender she is, to the masks in the party scene of Much Ado About Nothing that completely hide the wearer’s personality. Yet in Act IV and Act V of MAAN (the play’s title makes an interestingly masculine acronym, doesn’t it?), we see an entirely different marker of identity: virginity.

Although I was previously aware of the importance placed on premarital virginity in Shakespeare’s time, I found the reaction to Hero’s suspected de-floweration to be overwhelmingly spiteful. The man that only a day prior was lovesick over her wants absolutely nothing to do with her, telling her father:
“There, Leonato, take her back again.
Give not this rotten orange to your friend.
She’s but the sign and semblance of her honor.” (1.4.27)

However, the most shocking hatred is found in Leonato’s monologue, in which Hero’s father says:

“Do not live, Hero, do not ope thine eyes,

For, did I think thou wouldst not quickly die,

Thought I thy spirits were stronger than thy shames,

Myself would, on the rearward of reproaches,

Strike at thy life. Grieved I had but one?

Chid I for that at frugal Nature’s frame?

O, one too much by thee! Why had I one?

Why ever wast thou lovely in my eyes?

Why had I not with charitable hand

Took up a beggar’s issue at my gates,

Who, smirchèd thus, and mired with infamy,

I might have said, ‘No part of it is mine;

This shame derives itself from unknown loins’?” (4.1.122)

Harsh. Hero’s father is saying that he’d rather she die than not be a virgin, that he doesn’t know how he ever loved her, and that his only child is worthless to him. In such a short amount of time, a father’s love has been completely reversed due to the value of the prized possession of his loins being decreased; in other words, Hero is considered useless and unworthy of life if she isn’t a virgin.

This objectification of femininity contrasts severely with Shakespeare’s other representations of women in his comedies. His other female characters show strength and individual personality: Hippolyta is an intelligent Amazonian warrior queen, Hermia is willing to chase after the man she loves, Helena defies her father, Titania defies her husband, Viola bravely disguises her gender, Olivia rejects the traditional feminine role of submission, and Beatrice displays a sharp and clever wit. Among these great woman characters lies Hero, who is given no remarkable personality, whose only value lies in her virginal innocence. So why create such a weak, bland character as Hero?

Through Hero, Shakespeare is making a statement about marriage itself. Marriage is the core subject of this play, which is titled “Much Ado About Nothing.” This could have two meanings: marriage, as represented by the shallow relationship between Hero and Claudio, is nothing of any substantial value. Or, marriage has a great deal to do with female genitalia and sexuality, based upon the slang definition of “nothing” in Shakespeare’s time. Either way, Shakespeare is conveying the institution of marriage as being comically superficial. I say “comically” because the importance placed on Hero’s virginity is outrageous, enough to not only make her worthless as a potential wife but also to make her unworthy of existence.

What is also comical about Shakespeare’s treatment of matrimony is the contrast between marriage as represented by Hero and Claudio, and marriage as represented by Beatrice and Benedick. Unlike the younger couple, Beatrice and Benedick are two characters with multi-dimensional personalities and a witty and frequent exchange of dialogue. These two reject marriage throughout most of the play, and when they do end up together, their relationship is comical because their mutual affections were only revealed because of phony gossip.
So despite their relationship’s more substantial, personality-based qualities, Benedick and Beatrice are still getting married over “nothing,” just as Claudio and Hero are. Once Hero’s virginity is proven, everything returns to normal and the couple are happily together again- despite Hero now knowing that Claudio’s love is entirely conditional, that he is in love only with her virgin identity. We saw a similar return to normalcy in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, in which the couples were happily together despite Demetrius still being under a spell and Titania still being unaware of her abuse. Although Shakespeare may challenge convention in his plays, whether he challenges traditional femininity or the institution of marriage, he still completes the cycle of comedy with creation and returns the audience to reality. Hero’s virgin identity is restored, and we are left to believe that both marriages- however absurd they may be- will be successful ones.

Do they live happily ever after?

Upon reading the entire play, I have to say I'm left with a bit of uneasiness again just like a lot of the other plays. I don't really know how I feel about Claudio or the marriage between Hero and Claudio.

Claudio is a character doesn't seem to think before he speaks or acts; he acts purely on emotions which can be very dangerous. This is behavior we as readers witnessed from the very beginning. He sees Hero and it's love at first sight. I'm a cynic. I don't believe in love at first sight, so I think it's highly irrational behavior, especially from a soldier who one would expect to have a good head on his shoulders (sorry to anyone who believes they have fallen in love at first sight). Then he believes Don John, who is notorious for lying and causing trouble, when he tells him that Don Pedro is wooing Hero for himself. Maybe he only believed Don John because he is insecure in his lack of a relationship with Hero seeing as he has never even spoken to her. Then Claudio is once again fooled by Don John. After you are lied to once by someone, would you really listen to them again? Did he just do it because he was actually scared of getting married and he was just looking for a way out of marrying Hero? If that's the case, why would he have gotten so angry? Which brings me once again to Claudio being an emotional fool. He completely destroys Hero's life by saying she's not virginal. He slanders her in front of her father and everyone who is attending for the wedding. He didn't bother to ask what in the world was going on he simply took a liar at his word and hot headedly ruined an innocent girl's life.

It leaves me wondering who the real villain is in the play. Is it really Don John or would you have to consider Claudio a villain, too? The fact that I can't decide if I consider Claudio is a villain or not leaves me a bit nervous about the wedding between Claudio and Hero. I can't imagine marrying someone who ruined my life forcing me to pretend I'm someone else for all eternity. That would be such punishment. Then again, I suppose depending on how the marriage scene is intererpreted, maybe Hero is going to make Claudio pay for the rest of his life. What's that saying...hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? Maybe Hero is stronger than I give her credit for. Maybe she realizes this is a way to take her life back from the person who destroyed her. Or maybe she realizes that she will never have another chance because of the damage Claudio has done. I'm not sure, and for that reason this ending leaves me with that sense of uneasiness that I'm not sure if it's really a happy ending.

Benedick and Beatrice - love and wat

In the two Shakespeare plays that we have read so far we can see that there is a lot of deceiving, deception and lying that takes place. In Much Ado About Nothing, these deceptions are everywhere. The deception starts at the very beginning of the play when Don Pedro wooes Hero for Claudio and from there on deception after deception just seems to unfold. The deception that I find most interesting was the one involving Benedick and Beatrice. I say this because these two characters are so a like with their personalities and view points, both against marriage and the idea of love. In Act 1 scene 1 Beatrice and Benedick are bickering back and forth about how they will ever love, on line 101 Benedick says “Then is courtesy a turncoat. But it is certain I am loved of all ladies, only you expected. And I would I could find in my heart that I had not a hard heart for truly I love none.” Beatrice responds “A dear happiness to women. They would else have been troubled with a pernicious suitor. I thank God and my cold blood I am of your humour for that. I had rather hear my dog bark at a crow than a man swear he loves me”(1.1.105). Right from the beginning we see how these two characters interact and are aware of their strong views about each other and about love. Also can you see the irony? I thought it would have been a little more difficult than it was to persuade or trick these two characters because they both seem so stubborn and set in their ways. For both of them it didn’t take much to change their attitudes about love and they both cave in so easily. For Benedick all it took was Claudio, Leonato and Don Pedro to talk about how Beatrice felt and that she was afraid to express her true feelings and Benedick caved right in, “This can be no trick…They have the truth from Hero. They seem to pity the lady. It seems her affections have their full bent. Love me!”(2.3.196).
I also enjoyed the clips of the movie that were shown and it was funny to see how Benedick reacted to the plan, what we watched wasn’t exactly what I had pictured in my head, but it was better and defiantly funnier. Watching him perform the speech (the lines above) was like watching a kid in a candy store. Reading his reaction speech and actually seeing it gave two different impressions, from reading it you could feel the excitement that he had but seeing it you could see the excitement in his facial expressions and see the change in his views right away.

Benedick and Beatrice get married, who would have ever guessed...

I really enjoyed reading Much Ado About Nothing and found it to be quite interesting. This play was both simialar and different compared to many of Shakespeare's works. On the other hand I didn't care for the way the ending of this play happened and that seems to be a reoccuring thing with Shakespeare's plays. I would think they would end with a bang but instead they seem to just end in a very boring and expected way. The ending of Much Ado About Nothing to me was expected, Beatrice and Benedict would end up marrying one another, but i didn't think it would have happened the way it did. Every play has it's main characters and in this play that is Beatrice and Benedict. At the same time all the other drama that is happening on the side is made to create tension and a story line, but I think this play was never meant to be about Claudio and Hero finding true love and getting married it was about the two characters that had the most tension, it's like we were blindsided but in the back of our minds we knew they were right for one another and we could see it all along. How could they not be, they are so much alike and thats what causes so much tension between one another. In the beginnig of the play they want nothing to do with one another. Beatrice says O lord, he will hang upon like a disease! He is sooner caught then the pestilence, and the taker runs presently mad. Beatrice finds him extremly annoying like a infection that is easy to catch but hard to get rid an. For people who despise one another they sure do have alot in common. Both Beatrice and Benedict view marriage and love the same way. They are simply meant for one another but in a way that isn't done on its own. The fact of them being together has been pushed upon by the other characters in the play. This is seen later in the play and you can also see the sudden change between these two. They both have so much tension and I think alot of it is sexual tension as well. Every chance Benedick gets he wants to kiss Beatrice and we never see this happen until the end. Beatrice seems to have a change of heart and lets her feelings get the best of her. She opens up and lets her guard down. She invites Benedick to come along with her to her Uncles when she hears the news about Hero. They also both wrote things in there handwriting that is brought up in Act 4. Claudio has a sonnet in Benedicks writing dedicated to Beatrice and Hero has a poem she took from her cousins pocket in Beatrice's writing about how much she adores Benedick. Any way you look at it these two were going to end up with one another. It wasn't much of a surprise but the way the play just ended did. I thought since one wedding was already ruined, maybe Benedicks and Beatrice's wedding would be huge and made a big deal of, since mostly everyone in the play is responsible for these two being together. There love is like an accidental love, they both weren't expecting anything and out of it they ended up with one another.

Persuaded to Love

     The relationship and eventual marriage between Beatrice and Bendick left me feeling a bit uncomfortable at the end of the play. This appears to be one of those partially unresolved issues that Shakespeare seems to enjoy leaving his readers with at the end of his plays.

     I certainly feel as though Benedick and Beatrice have an abundance of sexual (and perhaps emotional) tension. They do have quite a bit in common, and seem to enjoy the sarcasm and witty banter they frequently share. After thinking more on the subject following our brief discussion about it in class, I am not completely convinced that Benedick and Beatrice would have naturally wound up with each other if their friends had not taken the initiative to shove them together. In fact, after reading the play in its entirety, I am more prone to believe that they would not have ended up in marriage with each other if they were not so intensely persuaded to do so.

     Beatrice and Benedick are both extremely stubborn individuals. They appear, as evident in their first conversation in Act 1.1, to enjoy toying with each other, and one might even expect them to secretly love one another. They do not, however, seem to think of each other when they are not in direct contact. In Act 2.3, Benedick vehemently expresses his dislike for marriage, and does not once mention Beatrice. He is alone, so it is not as though he has other, secret feelings that he is trying to hide from others. I truly feel that he has no intention of attaching himself to a woman until his ego has been stroked by the idea that Beatrice is in love with him. Beatrice also seems to genuinely dislike the idea of marriage, and likewise gives no evidence of secretly pining over Benedick.

     Because they each think so highly of themselves, I am convinced that only the idea of being loved by someone that was so determined not to love is what finally brings them together. It feels great to be wanted, but to be wanted by someone who is trying so hard not to have those feelings must be a powerful thing.

     What convinces me most that these two needed other people to connive their match is the final scene of the play, when Benedick and Beatrice discover that the love they each thought existed in the other was not necessarily real. Benedick asks, “Do not you love me?” and Beatrice replies, “Why no, no more than reason.” Benedick then states that he feels similarly. It takes some additional convincing by their friends for them to decide to marry each other. Beatrice even says, “…I yield upon great persuasion, and partly to save your life, for I was told you were in a consumption.” It seems, therefore, that they have really fought against being matched with each other. Although I’ll allow that they must have some real affection for one another to let themselves be convinced to marry, I think that that affection would not have been enough to bring them together on their own. The other members of the play were an imperative part of their eventual marriage.