Sunday, September 18, 2011
As You Like It Comic!
Rosalind as Ganymede preaches to her love interest, Orlando, that the concept of love is frivolous and self serving, and has no tangible purpose in life.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Out with the Old, In with the New
My first impression when reading this extract was the immense thought, analysis and interpretation that goes into putting on a performance of Shakespeare's plays. The characterization is so in-depth that the actress playing Rosalind lived in jeans, to feel like a boy. The though process for the set was also elaborate and well thought out. The globe theatre and how the actors dealt with performing in this unique environment bought authenticity to the play as this is how actors performed in Shakespearean times. As pointed out it certainly was ironic that in Elizabethan England all female roles were essayed by boys and therefore Rosalind represented a double whammy of sorts, a boy being a girl pretending to be a boy! Modern day interpretations allow female actors in the role! The reading was certainly an eye-opener of insights for me
As far as interpretation, it was interesting to note the various nuances and how they were justified. Glaringly, was the speculation that Orlando always knew that Ganymede is Rosalind, which lifts his intellectual status as equal to Rosalind making him worthy of her. Shakespeare never actually outright alludes to this and so this interpretation is based on hints and needing to believe that Rosalind could never fall for a weak, duped character. I wonder though how much of this is wishful thinking. Is it not possible that Rosalind can fall in love with a man not worthy of her. Did not Shakespeare use the notion that love is blind and fickle and Cupid strikes his bow to any two unsuspecting characters. Was not Rosalind taken by simply a handsome man who won at wrestling signifying his physical and not mental strength, and further was she not fickle in forgetting the love for her father and the pain of his banishment? I honestly feel that the modern day interpretation wanted to glamorize the aspect of the love story and needed to beef up Orlando, when considering his love spends most of her time as a man. This is similar to Hollywood films interpretation when the hero can beat up a dozen men to win the heart of the damsel in distress.
It was interesting to note the school of thought that Rosalind playing a man was able to assess the true intentions and feelings of Orlando and test his authenticity. But again how can this notion hold true, if indeed Orlando is simply playing a game and knows Rosalind is in disguise.
On a general note of interpretation, adaptation and authenticity: well as the theory of knowledge state, we see things not as they are but as we are. No interpretation can ever be wrong as it is the visual from the viewpoint of the director; it is in effect his vision and not the vision of Shakespeare that the audience sees. The director will interpret in this case As you like it, on his feelings, past experiences and emotional response rather than on pure knowledge, rightly or wrongly in others eyes. In the same way a painting or novel may appeal to one person as a masterpiece but may be not so kindly noted to another. Taste also evolves as we evolve. What is relevant then may hold no value today. Often artists or novelists were not appreciated in their lifetime as their work was misunderstood or ahead of their times. With the passage of time understanding and significance increases since beauty needs a value to define it and it's value may not be discovered till much later. It is up to the director how true to the original he wants to stay, it is about his perception. Writers too have a poetic license not to be authentic to add dimension to their canvas. Their creativity enhances the image created and the story being told. For example, we can question where exactly does a forest have a lion and palm trees in this English of plays which house Dukes? The" aesthetics of beauty", explores what defines beauty to a connoisseur or to a layman. This essay discusses in depth how art is perceived but much of it's analysis can broadly be applied to how we interpret a piece of fiction or a play.
As far as interpretation, it was interesting to note the various nuances and how they were justified. Glaringly, was the speculation that Orlando always knew that Ganymede is Rosalind, which lifts his intellectual status as equal to Rosalind making him worthy of her. Shakespeare never actually outright alludes to this and so this interpretation is based on hints and needing to believe that Rosalind could never fall for a weak, duped character. I wonder though how much of this is wishful thinking. Is it not possible that Rosalind can fall in love with a man not worthy of her. Did not Shakespeare use the notion that love is blind and fickle and Cupid strikes his bow to any two unsuspecting characters. Was not Rosalind taken by simply a handsome man who won at wrestling signifying his physical and not mental strength, and further was she not fickle in forgetting the love for her father and the pain of his banishment? I honestly feel that the modern day interpretation wanted to glamorize the aspect of the love story and needed to beef up Orlando, when considering his love spends most of her time as a man. This is similar to Hollywood films interpretation when the hero can beat up a dozen men to win the heart of the damsel in distress.
It was interesting to note the school of thought that Rosalind playing a man was able to assess the true intentions and feelings of Orlando and test his authenticity. But again how can this notion hold true, if indeed Orlando is simply playing a game and knows Rosalind is in disguise.
On a general note of interpretation, adaptation and authenticity: well as the theory of knowledge state, we see things not as they are but as we are. No interpretation can ever be wrong as it is the visual from the viewpoint of the director; it is in effect his vision and not the vision of Shakespeare that the audience sees. The director will interpret in this case As you like it, on his feelings, past experiences and emotional response rather than on pure knowledge, rightly or wrongly in others eyes. In the same way a painting or novel may appeal to one person as a masterpiece but may be not so kindly noted to another. Taste also evolves as we evolve. What is relevant then may hold no value today. Often artists or novelists were not appreciated in their lifetime as their work was misunderstood or ahead of their times. With the passage of time understanding and significance increases since beauty needs a value to define it and it's value may not be discovered till much later. It is up to the director how true to the original he wants to stay, it is about his perception. Writers too have a poetic license not to be authentic to add dimension to their canvas. Their creativity enhances the image created and the story being told. For example, we can question where exactly does a forest have a lion and palm trees in this English of plays which house Dukes? The" aesthetics of beauty", explores what defines beauty to a connoisseur or to a layman. This essay discusses in depth how art is perceived but much of it's analysis can broadly be applied to how we interpret a piece of fiction or a play.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Bitter Sweet Love
An antagonist is a character who opposes the views of the protagonist and does all he can to counter their opinions or plans. Jacques is the antagonist to the love of Orlando and Rosalind and wishes to make light of or sabotage their budding romance.
Jacques is a melancholy traveler in As you Like it. The reasons for his deep rooted and psychological sadness is unclear but references show that he is opposed to the idea and institution of love. In fact he is so accustomed to his melancholy that he wears proudly like a cloak that he actually enjoys being in this condition, revealing a mental disorder of the mind.
We can suppose that Jacques may in fact have been the Orlando in his past, may have fallen head over heels in love, only to face rejection and heart break which left him bitter and cynical. This is epitomized in his conversation with the lovesick Orlando where he, upon hearing the name of Orlando’s object of desire, coldly and emphatically states without rhyme or reason or clear motif.
3.2.246 “I do not like her name”
3.2.251 “The worst fault you have is to be in love”
3.2.264 “By my troth, I was seeking for a fool when I found you”
Though throughout the play Jacques is an insensitive party pooper of sorts full of sarcasm and dry wit that derides others he in fact shows great sympathy and heart by weeping and lamenting over the dying deer in the garden of Arden. He moralizes about the human condition and shows himself to be ahead of his time with great sensitivity and insight in a time when killing animals was socially accepted as a sport of kings. We might infer that the deer, a female may represent the death of his previous relationship. He may cry for the fact his lady love is dead even figuratively speaking and is mourning his heart break for something that once was a fragile beauty that roamed free. In fact love is extremely fragile and can easily be lost in the blink of an eye.
Shakespeare though being revered as the writer of personifying love through his prose and sonnets in fact enjoyed mocking love, even in his greatest love story, Romeo and Juliet. Here he cleverly uses Jacques to jest and ridicule the most passionate of human emotion. This acts a contrast to the intoxicated feelings of Orlando and Rosalind and indirectly is able to highlight their intensity with his opposition that keeps their lofty praises and optimism real and grounded. The reader is then able to grasp their love story in greater depth and appreciation due to the contrast of love and bitterness. After all love is ‘bitter sweet’ and full of pain and sorrow. So the reactions of the lovelorn Orlando strangely are not very different from the bitter Jacques who opposes love.
I agree with the sentiments of Gautam, on the further proof of the insight of Jacques, in “All the worlds a stage” commentary. And yes, that Jacques though harmless in the end despite being a foil and demonstrating open hostility to Rosalind and Orlando, is indeed to be viewed as the antagonist and not just the pessimist. It is possible as Gautam states that Jacques secretly craves to be Touchstone the court jester, but I do not agree that this shows his lighter side. Clowns are often depicted even today with sad faces and tears drawn on them which belies their antics that give rise to laughter and joys to others. In fact Jacques I feel wants to be a clown so that he can mask his own deep rooted sadness to the cruel unsympathetic world in a mask or make up. In this disguise he can make light of the ‘fools’ around him all the while hiding his true feelings. Clowns are essentially lonely people who are never part of the crowd but are removed from it, an outsider that entertains from the sidelines but is never invited into the party as a guest. He does not take part in the wedding celebration, as this celebration represents an event that he was powerless to prevent, and despises the happy ending that his life never had. He decides to be a hermit and stay in the forest which reinforces his isolation.
http://gautamkapur.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/jacques-the-antagonist/
Jacques is a melancholy traveler in As you Like it. The reasons for his deep rooted and psychological sadness is unclear but references show that he is opposed to the idea and institution of love. In fact he is so accustomed to his melancholy that he wears proudly like a cloak that he actually enjoys being in this condition, revealing a mental disorder of the mind.
We can suppose that Jacques may in fact have been the Orlando in his past, may have fallen head over heels in love, only to face rejection and heart break which left him bitter and cynical. This is epitomized in his conversation with the lovesick Orlando where he, upon hearing the name of Orlando’s object of desire, coldly and emphatically states without rhyme or reason or clear motif.
3.2.246 “I do not like her name”
3.2.251 “The worst fault you have is to be in love”
3.2.264 “By my troth, I was seeking for a fool when I found you”
Though throughout the play Jacques is an insensitive party pooper of sorts full of sarcasm and dry wit that derides others he in fact shows great sympathy and heart by weeping and lamenting over the dying deer in the garden of Arden. He moralizes about the human condition and shows himself to be ahead of his time with great sensitivity and insight in a time when killing animals was socially accepted as a sport of kings. We might infer that the deer, a female may represent the death of his previous relationship. He may cry for the fact his lady love is dead even figuratively speaking and is mourning his heart break for something that once was a fragile beauty that roamed free. In fact love is extremely fragile and can easily be lost in the blink of an eye.
Shakespeare though being revered as the writer of personifying love through his prose and sonnets in fact enjoyed mocking love, even in his greatest love story, Romeo and Juliet. Here he cleverly uses Jacques to jest and ridicule the most passionate of human emotion. This acts a contrast to the intoxicated feelings of Orlando and Rosalind and indirectly is able to highlight their intensity with his opposition that keeps their lofty praises and optimism real and grounded. The reader is then able to grasp their love story in greater depth and appreciation due to the contrast of love and bitterness. After all love is ‘bitter sweet’ and full of pain and sorrow. So the reactions of the lovelorn Orlando strangely are not very different from the bitter Jacques who opposes love.
I agree with the sentiments of Gautam, on the further proof of the insight of Jacques, in “All the worlds a stage” commentary. And yes, that Jacques though harmless in the end despite being a foil and demonstrating open hostility to Rosalind and Orlando, is indeed to be viewed as the antagonist and not just the pessimist. It is possible as Gautam states that Jacques secretly craves to be Touchstone the court jester, but I do not agree that this shows his lighter side. Clowns are often depicted even today with sad faces and tears drawn on them which belies their antics that give rise to laughter and joys to others. In fact Jacques I feel wants to be a clown so that he can mask his own deep rooted sadness to the cruel unsympathetic world in a mask or make up. In this disguise he can make light of the ‘fools’ around him all the while hiding his true feelings. Clowns are essentially lonely people who are never part of the crowd but are removed from it, an outsider that entertains from the sidelines but is never invited into the party as a guest. He does not take part in the wedding celebration, as this celebration represents an event that he was powerless to prevent, and despises the happy ending that his life never had. He decides to be a hermit and stay in the forest which reinforces his isolation.
http://gautamkapur.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/jacques-the-antagonist/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)