The Classics Club: As you like it, by W. Shakespeare

For this month's Let's read Plays, I read As You Like it by Shakespeare. 

A play that was intended as a comedy and which I, of course, did not get -at all.  I think I'll stick to Shakespeare's tragedies from now on...

A complex set of characters parade in this play, all with the same background story:

- siblings ostracising each other for the throne:  Oliver and Orlando, Duke Senior and Duke Frederik

- people assuming different identities: Rosalind a.k.a. Ganymede, Celia a.k.a. Aliena

- people desperate in unfulfilled love 

We find ourselves in France.  The beginning is rather sad, as two brothers, Oliver and Orlando, cannot stand each other, with Oliver, the first son and heir to everything, ostracising Orlando from all aspects of life.  Yet, Oliver cannot succeed:

I know not why, (my soul) hates nothing more than he.  Yet he's gentle; never schooled and yet learned; full of noble device; of all sorts enchantingly beloved/ and indeed, so much in the heart of the world, and espacially of my own people, who best know him, that I am altogether misprised

The dynamics between the two brothers come in stark contrast with two cousins, Rosalind and Celia, who are really like sisters.  A small point here that I didn't feel like they were lovers, something I read in several posts - but maybe that's me... Their fathers, the two brothers. are however exactly like Oliver and Orlando and even worse:  in this case, Duke Frederik has actualy driven Duke Senior away.

There are a lot of pastoral elements in this play that appeal to audiences in the past as well as today.  Unfortunately, not to me.  I would describe the play as a light romantic one, certainly not a comedy and a little bit on the boring side...

There is no elaboration of any of the characters and the Deus ex maquina seems to be the only way out of a difficult situation.  In a sudden whirlwind of events we will find ouselves with two girls who pretend to be boys, and one of these boys will pretend to be a girl... Too much confusion, with plenty of allegories for a good life in the woods, for true love, for superficiality

'Tis true, for those that (Nature) makes fair she scarce makes honest, and those that she makes honest she makes very ill-favouredly

The end is predictable, but even so:  the solution found is beyond plausibility - Frederik repends his sins and reconciles with his brother, all couples are straightened out and an epilogue applies the play to both men and women in the audience.

I just couldn't see Shakespeare's maestry in this play.  There was no wit that could showcase his genious.  It was an average work, a tried-and-tested little play, sure to please the audience.

Not bad, but then again not good.

The Classics Club: Cymbeline

For February's Let's Read Plays, I chose to read Cymbeline by Shakespeare.  I was intrigued by the reports I had read about this not being Shakespeare's finest works, of it actually being the work of someone else, or - worse - of it being pieced together and not in the smoothest way...

Well, in a nutshell, I have to agree.  I was almost frustrated when I finished reading it because I did not know what to make of it.  The mess in the plot, the unbelievable twists, the Deus ex-machina and the forced happily ever after - well, at least it made for an eventful reading...

The Classics Club: The Merchant of Venice

For January, Let's Read Plays gives free choice of a play.  Would I choose an easy, romantic, harmless play to read?  Of course not!  I chose The Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare - a play that really troubled me and I still can't say whether I liked it or not...

While reading about the play, I have remarked that most comments focused on the anti-semitic element of the play.  That was the one thing that bothered me, the other being the ending itself of the play ...

The Classics Club: The Comedy of Errors

Most of the time, I enjoy a book better than any adaptation.  The tone, the language, the descriptions, all these factors play an important role for me to understand and fully enjoy the plot.  But there are those plays that need... to be played out to get the essence of what the author has in mind.  I consider The Comedy of Errors by William Shakespeare one such play - which I had the pleasure to see (via streaming) live from the National Theatre in London (Alex wrote a nice little post on that experience).  Still, it doesn't mean I wouldn't be able to find good things in the book as well:

The Classics Club: Antony and Cleopatra

Fanda is hosting one of the greatest "challenges" for the end of the year:  aptly named "Let's read plays", it offers one classic play per month to enrich our knowledge of this great genre.  It starts now in November and goes on for a yearlong celebration! 

November is Shakespeare Tragedy month, and I chose to read Antony and Cleopatra.  I've seen the Hollywood version of it, with E. Taylor and R. Burton (I assume this is also the more famous interpretation), but I've always wondered how much the excitement and ups and downs in the film were because of this couple, or whether they were depicted in the play as well...

The Classics Club: Much ado about nothing

One of his classic plays, Much Ado about Nothing by William Shakespeare tells a tale of grand mischief, of love turned sour, of love being tricked but also of love conquering all in the end... 

Love is a favourite subject of Shakespeare's, so I was half-certain of what to expect.  Yet, I was surprised (yet again):  the play is not a lovey-dovey tale of romance, but rather a story of cynicism and irony, of confirmed bachelors and intrigues aimed at revenge... Now, this a story to keep up my interest!

It begins with a scene of grand merriment, where, among others, we are introduced to Leonato, a respectable nobleman, as well as Beatrice and Hero, two of the maidens in the idyllic town of Messina.  While Hero pleasant and lovely is, Beatrice is a confirmed bachelorette (she did remind me of Kate in the Taming of the Shrew, actually): "I had rather hear my dog bark at a crow" she says, "than a man swear he loves me" (oh, so it must be a horrible bark...)

The play also introduces a word I had not read before:  Yea.  Given that it is fairly similar to the colloquial yeah, it is amusing to think that Shakespeare actually used "slang" language ahead of his time...

Leonato welcomes his friends from war:  Don Pedro, a close friend and a prince (ha!), and two soldiers:  Benedict and Claudio.  This pair is the equivalent of the maidens: Claudio is all romantic and immediately falls for Hero, even sidelining Don Pedro ("Friendship is constant in all other things save in the office and affairs of love"),  while Benedict is the ever so sarcastic bachelor:  "If I do (get married), hang me in a bottle like a cat and shoot at me" (what kind of weird pasttimes did people have in Shakespeare's time?).

Claudio and Hero, after deciding they know each other and can thus get married (hmm...), want to play cupid for the other pair ("some Cupid kills with arrows, some with traps"), to get them to stop arguing and confess their love for one another.  Of course, this is not the end of the play - Don John, Don Pedro's illegitimate brother, is the mean character and wants misery for everyone around him.  He employs his companion Borachio to serenade Hero's serving woman Margaret, while he, together with Don Pedro and Claudio are in the vicinity.  Claudio is so upset that he dumps Hero at the altar, after horribly humiliating her.

Hero's family pretend she's died of grief, while waiting for the truth to come to light - which of course it does (this is a play, after all!).  Claudio is devastated (as he should be!) and the global realisation is revealed: "what we have we prize not to the worth whiles we enjoy it, but being lack'd and lost, why then we rack the value".

The language used throughout the play is not the easiest one, particularly as it provides some of the weirdest lines I've read so far:  when Benedict realises he's fallen for Beatrice, he exclaims: "if I do not love her, I am a Jew" -- WHAT?  What can possibly be the rationale behind this? Then, when Benedict shaves his beard, Claudio refers to the hair "the old ornament of his cheek hath already stuffed tennis-balls" -- I just had to check this out.  Indeed, tennis balls go back as early as the 1480s....  And finally, when the constable meets with Leonato to tell him of the trick played on Hero, he describes the Headborough who actually overheard the plot as "honest as the skin between his brows" -- now, would that honesty also apply in botox-ed skin between the brows???
What the end to this tale is?  Why, all is peachy: Claudio and Hero and Benedict and Beatrice celebrate their double wedding and they all dance merrily...  I have to admit that while Much ado about Nothing a very interesting tale is and the plot quite fast-paced - it is seriously over the top, and there are no gods, nymphs, or fairies to justify all the bizarre behaviour.  On the plus side, I was amazed at the boldness with which Shakespeare criticises society that "forces" people to marry appropriately, as well as place great importance on chastity.  It's no wonder that the three main characters are either confirmed bachelors, or feel that marriage a trap is to have them controlled.  The tale may be entertaining, but it certainly includes dark moments - great example of Shakespeare's work!


------------------------------
For the visual interpretation of the tale, I watched the 1993 film directed by Kenneth Branagh, starring a beautiful cast of many known actors, including Branagh himself, Emma Thompson and Denzel Washington.  The acting is very interesting and, for me, it provided some nuances that I had not understood while reading the tale (oops...)

Macbeth

I didn't know what to expect of Macbeth by Shakespeare.  Having only heard small passages of the play in various classic mystery films (the latest was a Columbo episode, where the murderers were actors playing Macbeth and Lady Macbeth),  I was not sure whether all this war theme and blood and madness would appeal to me.

I loved it.  Plain and simple - I loved it.

I enjoyed the gradual degradation in Macbeth's feelings towards the witches' oracles:  in the beginning, when even Banquo tells Macbeth that

"... to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness tell us truths", 

Macbeth replies:

"if chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me without my stir"

only to shortly afterwards exclaim:

"that is a step, on which I must fall down, or else o'erleap, for in my way it lies. Stars, hide your fires! let not light see my black and deep desires"

before foreseeing doom:

"Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine, making the green one red"

and already I had the feeling that Shakespeare insinuates that the trick with the Witches actually the deep immoral thoughts of Macbeth were - he personified his inner want for power to the hated figures to justify the evil taking over his soul and to justify his actions.

Macbeth is further descending into madness when he realises that everyone is his rival - as there are no direct heirs to him, it will be Banquo's children he will have committed the crimes for - therefore they must die.  What an insight into the tortured soul of someone already realising that he's at a point of no return...

Lady Macbeth is a character I couldn't quite make out.  She's portrayed as the evil initiator, asking spirits to

"... unsex me here; and fill me, from the crown to the toe, top-full of direst cruelty!"

but cannot afterwards bring herself to live with the idea of her deeds (or rather her contribution) and dies:

"... unnatural deeds do breed unnatural troubles"

the blood from the first killing has stained her for good and she can't just seem to be able to pull through.  But being such an evil planner, I would never have suspected she would be of a sensitive nature - there, of course, comes Shakespeare to bring everything off balance and provide a twist to the story.  

Her death drives Macbeth further into despair, delivering the perhaps most famous monologue on "tomorrow", on how his life no longer has a meaning, but is rather "a tale told by an idiot... signifying nothing" (I'm still in awe of this monologue - if it's all a tale meaning nothing, then all  the conspiracies, all the deaths are "nothing"? ) 

A truly great play with yet another innovation - I loved the fact that the most important parts of the play do not actually take place in the main stage, but are rather presented afterwards or only mentioned ... this, however, sent my poor imagination into overdrive -- if I could close my eyes to the horrible scenes I was imagining, I would!

The language used throughout is fairly strong and gory, which is exactly the indication that this is no child's play  -- we find ourselves in a dangerous plot, we witness the darkest hours of human kind through the eyes of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth.  Several of the monologues have become iconic for pointing right at the core of the feelings of the characters, be it the preparation phase for a murder or the time afterwards, when they realise what has been done.  I would even go as far as to say that the play is a series of well-delivered monologues showing the spiralling fall of Macbeth. It's not nice, but it's truly interesting!

On the other hand, I also like the rhyme-like dialogues of the three witches and Hecate, blurring out horrible things in such a pretty way... It's a twisted hilarity to an otherwise solemn play.

I've read the psychological interpretation of Macbeth, but I would rather not see it purely as an essay on ambition / aggression and masculinity - I like to think this is play on the loss of control and morals and the ensuing dangers. A lesson bound to have had an audience in those times...

***

For the visual interpretation of this play, I watched the 1979 version of Macbeth with Ian McKellen and Judi Dench (not yet Sir and Dame at the time). I cannot recommend this version enough - beautiful chemistry between the two, mastery of the gory nature of the play and then there were the monologues - both by Dench on the "come spirits..." but especially by McKellen on "is this a dagger..." and "tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow" - they are truly unbelievable and sent shivers down my spine!

A mid-summer night's dream read-a-long

An interesting readalong on the net is Reading Shakespeare - a play a month... an ingenious idea and within a time frame that is feasible even for someone with a überfull-time job like myself... My solution to separating the readalongs with the challenge and book club reading, is to dedicate my weekends to the readalongs, and to read all other books over the week (I am organised, if nothing else...)

A mid-summer night's dream is a well-known fairy tale of love, betrayal and tricks... all the right ingredients for a havoc made in fairyland...

Shakespeare starts off with the main cause of distress in Athens: a strange love-triangle, with Hermia loving Lysander but being loved by Demetrius, who shuns Helena, who's in love with Demetrius... Oufff! Already the complications show the way to how the story proceeds... I find it weird that Demetrius would insist on marrying Hermia who doen’t love him, or the Helena would be so infatuated with Demetrius (but then again I am a present-day cynic…). The only couple that seems closer to today's standards is Hermia and Lysander, but there, as well:

"The course of true love never did run smooth"

Why the use of magic and fantasy in this play? I believe that the fantasy world is the only chance we get to find and express our true feelings, our gateway from the “real” world, with all its boundaries and insecurities – then but even more so now. 

Shakespeare also uses quotes to reach the desired effect: Egeus talks about his daughter Hermia “As she is mine I may dispose of her” (grrr…) but even Theseus, the duke, telling her “To you your father should be as a god” (double grrr…) – of course I was laughing while reading these quotes, but nevertheless they made me wonder how much this exaggeration could highlight the difficulties people faced (and face) when not following the "accepted" road (in love, but also in other matters). 

An on to the world of fairies. I found Act II especially poetic (I suppose it fits perfectly with the fairy world) and I thoroughly enjoyed the reference to Cupid and I suppose Elisabeth?? Because if it is indeed Queen Elisabeth, I can understand the reference made by Hermia to Lysander to keep a distance… 

Various misunderstandings happen, and affections change among the different couples - in real life this would be considered a serious matter, but in the play it's described in a merry and lighthearted manner. This made me wonder whether the play is about love at all: if I compare it to Romeo & Juliet (an exaggerated example, I agree) I cannot see the same depth of character or use of language. I start to think whether this play is not  a slight mockery of what people do for (or because) of love (with the help of Puck!). 


What is beautiful about Shakespeare's plays is, of course, the language.  If someone else took these same elements of the story and tried to present it to me, I would not be amused...  But, here, every flower brings a note of something in the story, every time Puck speaks, I feel like wandering off to the woods... Those who have watched stage productions get a different glimpse into the world of Shakespeare, but I, a non-native speaker, am also content with the Hollywood version of 1999, which I admit is not that bad:  when the play executed nicely, the language comes alive (which it is) and paints bright stars in the night...

That night when everything seems to go wrong... wrong people/fairies get the potions, horrible truths come up in the air (dwarf?  where are your stiletto heels, woman???) and insecurities rage in the air while someone becomes an ass... And for all that we blame a tiny bit of potion?  Can it be that love is so magical, that any confusion and disorder can only be because of a "trick"? are we mortals so without magic, that we don't have the capacity to feel perplexed otherwise?

In the following act, I have my only two objections in the play:  the one where Oberon requests the child from Titania in exchange for undoing the spell, which he receives -- a very thin line between the magic of love and blackmail? And then Demetrius is still under the first spell when love is restored between him and Helena.  No true feelings of love, then.  But all is all right, balance is restored, and as the magic of the night is undone, the sun rises and there are two weddings take place. 
Here again, Shakespeare is innovative:  he could very well have put a full stop and be done with the play.  But he chooses instead to focus on the sub-plot of a play within the play, of Pyramus and Thisbe, to provide some enjoyment to the public, after the "crises" presented before.

I must admit that from all the characters in this play, I thoroughly enjoyed Puck -- he's such a naughty, little creature that I can't but like him (and the fact that he's interpreted by S. Tucci in the film is an extra bonus...) and I particularly like the ending, that makes sure that the audience will leave in good mood (ingenious Shakespeare at his best):

"If we shadows have offended,
Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumber'd here
While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idle theme,
No more yielding but a dream,
Gentles, do not reprehend:
if you pardon, we will mend:
And, as I am an honest Puck,
If we have unearned luck
Now to 'scape the serpent's tongue,
We will make amends ere long;
Else the Puck a liar call;
So, good night unto you all.
Give me your hands, if we be friends,
And Robin shall restore amends".