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.