The final act of this play, is one that I was not expecting while I was reading the play. While I was hoping for a more Romeo and Juliet ending, I found this act to end the play on a more comical note. I want to mainly focus on act 5 scene 1 of the play. In class we have been talking a great deal about the significance of the "play within a play". At this particular moment in the play, Theseus is already married to Hippolyta and is looking to enjoy some entertainment that has been prepared for the occasion.
I find it quiet comical that the options Theseus is given do not seem very appropriate for a wedding to begin with. The first option that Theseus reads aloud is about a battle between Hercules and the Centaurs (line 44-47). Not only is it a play about a battle, but it is "to be sung/ By an Athenian eunuch to the harp" (line 44-45). The most comical about this play is Theseus' reason for not wanting to see this play performed, "We'll none of that. That have I told my love" (line 46). It is not the gruesome realities of battle that leads to Theseus to opt against the play, it is because he told his new wife the story already.
The second choice that Theseus has is the play "The riot of the tipsy Bacchanals, Tearing the Thracian singer in their rage". Just the title of the play alone says that it is not very wedding like! Drunk individuals that rip a singer to shreds is not reason enough not to watch it on your wedding night for Theseus. No, his reason is that the play is old and he saw it the last time he came back from his conquer of Thebes. (line 50-51).
His third option is "The thrice three Muses mourning for the death of learning, late deceased in beggary". Now this play is probably the closest on the list to appropriate for a wedding, although not 100% the best choice, but Theseus says, "That is some satire, keen and critical, Not sorting with a nuptial ceremony" (line 53-55).
Finally, Theseus chooses the play that our "Hard-handed men that work in Athens" (line 72) have put together because it is a very sad and tradgic comedy. As I read this, I could not help but say to myself, "because that is just all kinds of perfect for a wedding!"
Did anyone else find this moment of the play to be one of the most comical moments toward the end of the play?
New Paltz Students Blogging about Shakespeare
Showing posts with label comedies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comedies. Show all posts
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Who're the True Servants?
The servants cause the mischief in comedies it seems. Like in Twelfth Night, where Maria thought up a merry plan to cause things to go a little bit crazy, Antonio’s man and Borachio seem to be the catalysts for chaos this time around. The trouble starts with Antonio’s man. He overhears Claudio and the Prince discussing how Claudio has fallen for Hero…and takes it entirely the wrong way. The Prince has decided to approach Hero at the masked ball later on and pretend to be Claudio to hear of her feelings for him…but the servant seems to think it’s the Prince who has a think for Hero! Leonato then says he’ll have Hero have an answer ready for just in case…for the wrong man! It seems all matter of craziness can spring from this, it seems another case of who loves who. It’s another case of clothing making the man, considering the Prince is disguising himself and as we learned from Viola, no good can come of that in Shakespeare’s plays!
Borachio, on the other hand, hears the full story and knows it’s Claudio who likes Hero. He also knows that the Prince will be dressed up like him to get her feelings. He tells this to his lord Don John who, we learn, doesn’t like Claudio. As it turns out, Claudio was the one who kept John from over throwing his brother. “If I can cross him any way I bless myself every way.” He seems to have every intention of causing chaos for poor Claudio. And thus the stage is set for very wacky things happening, as they are wont to do in Shakespeare’s work.
And this is all just in Act one. Shakespeare shows his skill at setting the stage and immediately getting the reader, or the audience seeing as it is a play, sucked right in. This was of course necessary for the time when the people on the floor could be easily bored and walk out, or throw rotten food. It was always best to keep the action moving and keep them entertained, but I digress! The point is that…it seems the servants start all the mischief.
If it wasn’t for the two eavesdroppers, Borachio and Leonato’s man, could this possibly have happened? Most likely not. It may have all gone according to plan otherwise. The Prince may have simply learned of Hero’s feelings for Claudio and set them up to be married. But that wouldn’t be much of a comedy, would it? No, the chaos must insue and all chaos needs catalysts, for which servants provide a wonderful source of such. We see it in Midsummer’s Night Dream with the way Oberon sends Puck to use the potion and he botches it up. Its also seen in Midsummer with the way all the fighting between Oberon and Titania starts with a servant boy that they both want. We see it in Twelfth night with Cesario being Orsino’s servant, which starts all the chaos in that play. It is also seen there with Maria and the way she, along with Sir Toby and Andrew, tricks Malvolio. Servants are what starts all the fun in these comedies. It makes you wonder who are the true servants, and who are the true masters!
Borachio, on the other hand, hears the full story and knows it’s Claudio who likes Hero. He also knows that the Prince will be dressed up like him to get her feelings. He tells this to his lord Don John who, we learn, doesn’t like Claudio. As it turns out, Claudio was the one who kept John from over throwing his brother. “If I can cross him any way I bless myself every way.” He seems to have every intention of causing chaos for poor Claudio. And thus the stage is set for very wacky things happening, as they are wont to do in Shakespeare’s work.
And this is all just in Act one. Shakespeare shows his skill at setting the stage and immediately getting the reader, or the audience seeing as it is a play, sucked right in. This was of course necessary for the time when the people on the floor could be easily bored and walk out, or throw rotten food. It was always best to keep the action moving and keep them entertained, but I digress! The point is that…it seems the servants start all the mischief.
If it wasn’t for the two eavesdroppers, Borachio and Leonato’s man, could this possibly have happened? Most likely not. It may have all gone according to plan otherwise. The Prince may have simply learned of Hero’s feelings for Claudio and set them up to be married. But that wouldn’t be much of a comedy, would it? No, the chaos must insue and all chaos needs catalysts, for which servants provide a wonderful source of such. We see it in Midsummer’s Night Dream with the way Oberon sends Puck to use the potion and he botches it up. Its also seen in Midsummer with the way all the fighting between Oberon and Titania starts with a servant boy that they both want. We see it in Twelfth night with Cesario being Orsino’s servant, which starts all the chaos in that play. It is also seen there with Maria and the way she, along with Sir Toby and Andrew, tricks Malvolio. Servants are what starts all the fun in these comedies. It makes you wonder who are the true servants, and who are the true masters!
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Blogging
What I like most about the blogging assignments is that they create a space in which we get to express ideas that we aren’t always able to get to in our class discussions. It’s a valuable tool: I kind of use it as a way to gradually tease out ideas that aren’t fully formulated, but that keep popping up in my head as I read each play. What I like most about it, however, is that I get to read about what other people think of the plays. From others’ posts I’ve come across questions that I would never have thought of asking and arguments that supplement my understanding of our readings.
In my blogs I mostly focus on Shakespeare’s depiction of women, how he creates his characters’ identities, and how he represents power relations. When writing the posts I don’t remember feeling that they were particularly political, but reading them all in succession makes me realize that my writing comes from a particular standpoint: it’s mostly influenced by a feminist focus on women, but it is also concerned with the character’s positions within the societies they inhabit. This is a little surprising to me because I usually focus on more methodological aspects of writing and not so much on broader themes; it also makes me realize how much my education has influenced my stance on a variety of subjects. I don’t think 3 blogs is enough for me to recognize a change in my writing, though. Perhaps by the end of the semester I’ll focus more on other aspects of Shakespeare’s writing.
There are two things I think are worth revisiting: the first is the examination of cycles and progress in the second tetralogy. By the end of Henry IV I began to see a recurrence of a central powerful character being surrounded by a group of people who try to influence his actions. In Richard II the king was surrounded by older advisors who didn’t really want to give up the power they had accumulated while Richard had been young; In Henry IV Hal surrounds himself with thieves and liars and members of the lower classes; in Henry V we find that Hal now surrounds himself with religious men. In each case the group determines the identity of the individual: when Hal surrounded himself with rogues, he was seen as a rogue. When he surrounds himself with gentlemen and seeks counsel from an archbishop, he’s a great religious leader. A contrasting example of progress would be how Hal casts Falstaff out in order to assume his role as a serious King. I also notice that each instance of progress is actually an act of manipulation and violence, which makes me question whether the “progress” is really worth it. The second is that I see a parallel between themes in Shakespeare’s comedies and these history plays. In both the characters in power try to make it seem as if they don’t have as much power as they actually do by siphoning responsibilities off to others: the Duke makes Isabella decide not to kill Angelo, and Henry V makes the Archbishop decide to go to war. Also, both Measure for Measure and Richard II illustrate a historical shift in methods of social control: both plays move from punishing through spectacle (Angelo wanting to execute Isabella’s brother; Bolingbroke killing Richard’s associates) to disciplining through surveillance (the Duke disguising himself as a friar in order to effectively manipulate and “direct” Angelo & maybe even his marriage proposal; York insisting on telling the technically illegitimate king that his son is a traitor, which is a kind of internalization of the surveillance.) Hal exemplifies this idea: he goes from using spectacle to legitimate his king-ness (killing Hotspur) to using surveillance (making sure people know that he’s cut himself off from Falstaff.) … Random, but I think I may like the comedies more than the histories.
In my blogs I mostly focus on Shakespeare’s depiction of women, how he creates his characters’ identities, and how he represents power relations. When writing the posts I don’t remember feeling that they were particularly political, but reading them all in succession makes me realize that my writing comes from a particular standpoint: it’s mostly influenced by a feminist focus on women, but it is also concerned with the character’s positions within the societies they inhabit. This is a little surprising to me because I usually focus on more methodological aspects of writing and not so much on broader themes; it also makes me realize how much my education has influenced my stance on a variety of subjects. I don’t think 3 blogs is enough for me to recognize a change in my writing, though. Perhaps by the end of the semester I’ll focus more on other aspects of Shakespeare’s writing.
There are two things I think are worth revisiting: the first is the examination of cycles and progress in the second tetralogy. By the end of Henry IV I began to see a recurrence of a central powerful character being surrounded by a group of people who try to influence his actions. In Richard II the king was surrounded by older advisors who didn’t really want to give up the power they had accumulated while Richard had been young; In Henry IV Hal surrounds himself with thieves and liars and members of the lower classes; in Henry V we find that Hal now surrounds himself with religious men. In each case the group determines the identity of the individual: when Hal surrounded himself with rogues, he was seen as a rogue. When he surrounds himself with gentlemen and seeks counsel from an archbishop, he’s a great religious leader. A contrasting example of progress would be how Hal casts Falstaff out in order to assume his role as a serious King. I also notice that each instance of progress is actually an act of manipulation and violence, which makes me question whether the “progress” is really worth it. The second is that I see a parallel between themes in Shakespeare’s comedies and these history plays. In both the characters in power try to make it seem as if they don’t have as much power as they actually do by siphoning responsibilities off to others: the Duke makes Isabella decide not to kill Angelo, and Henry V makes the Archbishop decide to go to war. Also, both Measure for Measure and Richard II illustrate a historical shift in methods of social control: both plays move from punishing through spectacle (Angelo wanting to execute Isabella’s brother; Bolingbroke killing Richard’s associates) to disciplining through surveillance (the Duke disguising himself as a friar in order to effectively manipulate and “direct” Angelo & maybe even his marriage proposal; York insisting on telling the technically illegitimate king that his son is a traitor, which is a kind of internalization of the surveillance.) Hal exemplifies this idea: he goes from using spectacle to legitimate his king-ness (killing Hotspur) to using surveillance (making sure people know that he’s cut himself off from Falstaff.) … Random, but I think I may like the comedies more than the histories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)