The article by Orgel is interesting in that it focuses partly on the absence of Prospero’s wife. He breaks up his article into five related moments and themes in the play; the missing wife, the marriage contract, power and authority, the renunciation of magic, and the bibliographical coda. In these related moments he tries to use his reason and understanding of Shakespeare’s life to discover if this text is the stable text in its reasoning and historical representation and one that can be taken as an accurate representation of Shakespeare saying goodbye to his craft.
Orgel uses many quotes from The Tempest and bits of information about Shakespeare’s life and the time in which he lived. For instance, he used the institution of marriage as an example of where Shakespeare’s play is not accurate to the times, nor a reflection of his life. Orgel cites that many of the women in Shakespeare’s plays marry very young. He notes that Miranda is fifteen and Juliet is fourteen at the time of their marriage. This is seen as abnormal in the everyday life of the common folk of the 17th century. In fact, Shakespeare’s own children married at much older ages than Miranda and Juliet. Ironically Shakespeare married younger than his daughters.
This article helped me to think of the play in ways in which I never had, especially pertaining to the absence of Prospero’s wife. I like the exerpt that Orgel cites, I think it really shows a conscious effort by Shakespeare to acknowledge the absence of Prospero’s wife:
When I have decked the sea with drops full salt,
Under my burden groaned, which raised in me
An undergoing stomach, to bear up
Against what should ensue.
(Act 1.2 55-58)
I think Orgel’s argument is very thoughtful and in depth. I think his logic is sound and he makes many points, but I find it hard to fully understand and critique since I don’t know much at all about the time in which Shakespeare wrote these plays and the other critics he notes. This article explores trains of thought that I had not even gave the time to think about nor do I care to give much more time to think about. I think it gets excessive when people analyze and analyze a work of Shakespeare. Sometimes it is just too much. The man has been gone from this Earth for centuries and people are still analyzing his work hoping to somehow understand what he was really thinking when he wrote it. But of course that can’t be done, Orgel even said it when he stated that the same play will always vary in its impression based on the people performing it. I think it is fun to try to discover what Shakespeare was thinking when he wrote the play and I think the wonder in that is beautiful because we will never really know why Shakespeare did some of the things he did. It is something we can be content with, I know I might sound like I am contradicting myself but I think the analysis of Shakespeare’s work can get excessive and this article is an example of that.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Blog 12
The production of Winter’s Tale that we watched in class was well done. I thought the actors were above average. I am not a drama critic and I have only seen a handful of plays but I believe this play was very well done. The portrayals of the characters were very accurate to the text.
Leontes was depicted as mad and infected with jealousy in the scene in Act 3. I thought the character played the part of a mad man well. His facial expressions helped him come of as a mad man. And he seemed to ignore everything that Hermione said in a very believable way. My problem with his character was that he seemed a little wacky. By that I mean his character was almost silly. I think it would have came off a little better if he was to have a more angry tone, sort of like the one Laurance Fishbourne played in Othello. Also when he cried it was sort of amusing. I think he could have done better. His depiction in the later act was good. They had him dressed in more humbler attire and he seemed to be very level headed.
Hermione was great. I loved the actress who played her. In Act 3 she was superb. The emotion she evoked locked me to the screen, I felt genuinely bad for her. She wasn’t too emotional for the stage nor was she trying too hard. She had it just right. She was an honorable woman. I felt she had just the right amount of dignity and pride on her way out. In the later scene, well she didn’t do much but stand there. She plays a statue well! When she came alive I felt it was fitting. I was waiting to see how she would act when it was time for her to come to life and I was pleased when she did it the way she did. It wasn’t tacky.
Paulina was the voice of reason. She was ok. In Act 3 she was good but when it was time for her to be very emotional, she wasn’t as good as Hermione. I’m not sure what I would do to make that part better, but it seemed put on when she was yelling down at Leontes. I did enjoy her part in Act 5. She was soft enough to be heard and set the mood well. The way she was stirring Hermione to life was ok but it got to the point to where I was saying to myself, “come on already lady, wake up!”
Leontes was depicted as mad and infected with jealousy in the scene in Act 3. I thought the character played the part of a mad man well. His facial expressions helped him come of as a mad man. And he seemed to ignore everything that Hermione said in a very believable way. My problem with his character was that he seemed a little wacky. By that I mean his character was almost silly. I think it would have came off a little better if he was to have a more angry tone, sort of like the one Laurance Fishbourne played in Othello. Also when he cried it was sort of amusing. I think he could have done better. His depiction in the later act was good. They had him dressed in more humbler attire and he seemed to be very level headed.
Hermione was great. I loved the actress who played her. In Act 3 she was superb. The emotion she evoked locked me to the screen, I felt genuinely bad for her. She wasn’t too emotional for the stage nor was she trying too hard. She had it just right. She was an honorable woman. I felt she had just the right amount of dignity and pride on her way out. In the later scene, well she didn’t do much but stand there. She plays a statue well! When she came alive I felt it was fitting. I was waiting to see how she would act when it was time for her to come to life and I was pleased when she did it the way she did. It wasn’t tacky.
Paulina was the voice of reason. She was ok. In Act 3 she was good but when it was time for her to be very emotional, she wasn’t as good as Hermione. I’m not sure what I would do to make that part better, but it seemed put on when she was yelling down at Leontes. I did enjoy her part in Act 5. She was soft enough to be heard and set the mood well. The way she was stirring Hermione to life was ok but it got to the point to where I was saying to myself, “come on already lady, wake up!”
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Blog 11
Othello and Antony and Cleopatra both deal with their fair share of ethnocentricity. Shakespeare uses certain characteristics of people to support these views. Whether he was trying to support ethnocentricity is unsure to me, my goal is to compare and contrast a few instances in which some of the character traits within the play show this.
In Othello, the main character, Othello is not full blooded Venetian. He is treated as an outsider because of his half blooded nature. And he sees himself as an outsider. Because of his ethnicity racial epithets are used against him. Some of the slurs used against him are “the thick lips” which can be found Act 1.1 and “old black ram” which can be found in Act 1.1 also. Since Othello is not a full blooded Roman, his lack of self control towards the end of the play can show what he lacks according to the Roman ethnocentric view. Romans are seen as strong, rational, and very masculine men. As the play progresses and Othello starts to lose control over his emotions. And being that he is losing control because of what he thinks is a woman’s doing, this shows great weakness. To the Romans, lack of emotional control is very much a woman’s trait, that stereotype still lives on today. With certain signs showing Othello there is a reasonable doubt that Desdemona is innocent, Othello chooses to pull a George W. Bush and trust his gut feeling. Romans would look down upon this, as it is a sign that Othello has lost some sense of reason.
The way Anotony and Cleopatra deals with the ideas of the east and the west is interesting. As stated before, Roman culture was very masculine. And it is fitting that the person to truly control a Roman would be a woman in Egypt. Cleopatra is a woman of Egypt, she eventually gets the very brave man of war Antony to follow her off of the battlefield in a retreat. Ironically during the end of the play after Antony killed himself, Cleopatra later kills herself in a more masculine way. Using the Asps to bite her is a very Roman idea, which in itself represents masculinity. She seems to die in a way that suggests she is in control, while Antony killed himself attempted but failed to kill himself in Act 4.15. In that scene he says he doesn’t know who he is, having an identity crisis as a Roman is not very honorable and shows weakness on his part, while Cleopatra always seems to be in control of her life.
In Othello, the main character, Othello is not full blooded Venetian. He is treated as an outsider because of his half blooded nature. And he sees himself as an outsider. Because of his ethnicity racial epithets are used against him. Some of the slurs used against him are “the thick lips” which can be found Act 1.1 and “old black ram” which can be found in Act 1.1 also. Since Othello is not a full blooded Roman, his lack of self control towards the end of the play can show what he lacks according to the Roman ethnocentric view. Romans are seen as strong, rational, and very masculine men. As the play progresses and Othello starts to lose control over his emotions. And being that he is losing control because of what he thinks is a woman’s doing, this shows great weakness. To the Romans, lack of emotional control is very much a woman’s trait, that stereotype still lives on today. With certain signs showing Othello there is a reasonable doubt that Desdemona is innocent, Othello chooses to pull a George W. Bush and trust his gut feeling. Romans would look down upon this, as it is a sign that Othello has lost some sense of reason.
The way Anotony and Cleopatra deals with the ideas of the east and the west is interesting. As stated before, Roman culture was very masculine. And it is fitting that the person to truly control a Roman would be a woman in Egypt. Cleopatra is a woman of Egypt, she eventually gets the very brave man of war Antony to follow her off of the battlefield in a retreat. Ironically during the end of the play after Antony killed himself, Cleopatra later kills herself in a more masculine way. Using the Asps to bite her is a very Roman idea, which in itself represents masculinity. She seems to die in a way that suggests she is in control, while Antony killed himself attempted but failed to kill himself in Act 4.15. In that scene he says he doesn’t know who he is, having an identity crisis as a Roman is not very honorable and shows weakness on his part, while Cleopatra always seems to be in control of her life.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Blog 9
Othello was a story about relationships and trust, to be quite simplistic. Some of these friendships were very close and were sprinkled with undertones that some readers have picked up on. In article by Robert Matz called ‘Slander Renaissance and Discourses of Sodomy, and Othello” he looks into the ways that Othello supports the regulation of desire between men and women and also men and men. In this article he argues how the relationships between the men can be seen as homoerotic and the power that these relationships give the men in the political field.
Matz uses another article called “Homosexuality and the Signs of Male Friendship in Elizabethan England” by Alan Bray as parallel support to his argument. He uses Bray’s article to help support the way in which the word sodomy is used at the time. He goes on to say that opponents can use sodomy as a political attack. It can be used as an accusation without much evidence. This was effective in the days of Renaissance England. The friendships between men were much closer and affectionate than they are today. It was not uncommon for two men to sleep in the same bed together. With these visions in mind, it wasn’t a long shot for men to accuse another men of committing sodomy. Matz also compares the relationships between Othello, Desdemona, and other men of the play. He explains how the closeness of Cassio and Othello can easily be seen as homoerotic. The relationship between Othello Cassio and Desdemonia can be seen as a love triangle in which Cassio and Desdemon are sexually involved with Othello. But it could also look as if their relationships were strictly heterosexual. Matz makes a great point when he brings up the fact that Cassio was the go-between when Othello was trying to get close to Desdemonia then later the role was reversed when Desdemona was the go-between when she was trying to help vindicate Cassio. Matz believes that this could be seen as a underlying romance between Cassio and Othello. He thinks that Othello could have really been upset because Cassio, who was his lover, made love to Desdemona theirfore Cassio was the infidel as well as Desdemona.
This article gave me a more in depth analysis of the homoerotic nature of the play. I could definitely notice some of the homoerotic undertones, but this article does a good job of explaining it in depth. The author ties the history of male-male relationships in the Renaissance era and analyses the characters relationships. I found this helpful because I didn’t go all the way with the belief that there was something more between Othello and Cassio besides a heterosexual friendship. I find how this new point of view can add what might not necessarily be portrayed as a comment on the acts of a homosexual man in the following passage:
Iago: Will you think so?
Othello: Think so, Iago?
Iago: What, To kiss in private?
Othello: An unauthoriz'd kiss!
Iago: Or to be naked with her friend in bed
An hour, or more, not meaning any harm? (4.1. 1-5)
I can definitely agree with the author on this topic. But I think a critical eye can create things that weren’t meant to be portrayed. His use of quotes in the play to support his judgment is good and it adds much credence to his argument. While his point of view is interesting and the evidence is solid, I think it his logic that can be a little flawed. I don’t necessarily feel that Cassio and Othello had a homosexual relationship happening. Although I can not really prove it because Shakespeare is dead and the characters are fictitious I still believe that they weren’t homosexuals simply because it isn’t glaringly obvious to me. Some men have very close relationships, and it seems in those times, the men were able to have much closer heterosexual relationships.
Greenblatt, Stephen. The Norton Shakespeare, Second Ed. New York, London: W.W. Norton and Company, 2008.
Matz, Robert. "Slander, Renaissance Discourses of Sodomy, and Othello." (1999)
Matz uses another article called “Homosexuality and the Signs of Male Friendship in Elizabethan England” by Alan Bray as parallel support to his argument. He uses Bray’s article to help support the way in which the word sodomy is used at the time. He goes on to say that opponents can use sodomy as a political attack. It can be used as an accusation without much evidence. This was effective in the days of Renaissance England. The friendships between men were much closer and affectionate than they are today. It was not uncommon for two men to sleep in the same bed together. With these visions in mind, it wasn’t a long shot for men to accuse another men of committing sodomy. Matz also compares the relationships between Othello, Desdemona, and other men of the play. He explains how the closeness of Cassio and Othello can easily be seen as homoerotic. The relationship between Othello Cassio and Desdemonia can be seen as a love triangle in which Cassio and Desdemon are sexually involved with Othello. But it could also look as if their relationships were strictly heterosexual. Matz makes a great point when he brings up the fact that Cassio was the go-between when Othello was trying to get close to Desdemonia then later the role was reversed when Desdemona was the go-between when she was trying to help vindicate Cassio. Matz believes that this could be seen as a underlying romance between Cassio and Othello. He thinks that Othello could have really been upset because Cassio, who was his lover, made love to Desdemona theirfore Cassio was the infidel as well as Desdemona.
This article gave me a more in depth analysis of the homoerotic nature of the play. I could definitely notice some of the homoerotic undertones, but this article does a good job of explaining it in depth. The author ties the history of male-male relationships in the Renaissance era and analyses the characters relationships. I found this helpful because I didn’t go all the way with the belief that there was something more between Othello and Cassio besides a heterosexual friendship. I find how this new point of view can add what might not necessarily be portrayed as a comment on the acts of a homosexual man in the following passage:
Iago: Will you think so?
Othello: Think so, Iago?
Iago: What, To kiss in private?
Othello: An unauthoriz'd kiss!
Iago: Or to be naked with her friend in bed
An hour, or more, not meaning any harm? (4.1. 1-5)
I can definitely agree with the author on this topic. But I think a critical eye can create things that weren’t meant to be portrayed. His use of quotes in the play to support his judgment is good and it adds much credence to his argument. While his point of view is interesting and the evidence is solid, I think it his logic that can be a little flawed. I don’t necessarily feel that Cassio and Othello had a homosexual relationship happening. Although I can not really prove it because Shakespeare is dead and the characters are fictitious I still believe that they weren’t homosexuals simply because it isn’t glaringly obvious to me. Some men have very close relationships, and it seems in those times, the men were able to have much closer heterosexual relationships.
Greenblatt, Stephen. The Norton Shakespeare, Second Ed. New York, London: W.W. Norton and Company, 2008.
Matz, Robert. "Slander, Renaissance Discourses of Sodomy, and Othello." (1999)
Friday, October 16, 2009
Blog 7
I’ve had a good time so far this semester. I was always somewhat intimidated by Shakespeare but I have a pretty good handle on the readings now. Although I read slow, I can still finish a play and understand what happened. I am interested in the times of Shakespeare. I find it very pleasing that the humor back then is still very funny today. Shakespeare has his own style of humor that never ceases to please me.
From what I have learned, Shakespeare was so popular because he was able to make commentary on current affairs. Doing that has helped to make him the most influential artist of his time. It has really helped me to understand the concerns of the people of that time. I think what is most interesting is that Dr. Hand said she didn’t believe he was the best playwright to ever touch a pen, but the most influential. This reminds me of the famous rapper Tupac. He wasn’t the best lyricist to grab a microphone but I believe he was one of the most influential. It’s interesting how the amount of influence an artist has on a person dictates what they think about the quality of their craft. It seems that to most people, the influence an artist has on them is worth more than the quality of their craft. This idea has come to mind a few times throughout our readings. As I read I wonder whether I would call Shakes the best playwright that ever lived. It makes me want to read the works of other great playwrights to compare their craft. I guess the quality of a playwright is up to the reader. Some people might believe a great artist will have a profound impact on their life or some might think a great artist is the most technically sound.
When it comes to the readings, I haven’t finished all of them on time. I am a good reader but I read slow due to my lack of concentration and some trouble reading Shakes quickly. I will sometimes break my reading up to a series of acts or scenes. If I can’t finish the text or if I have trouble understanding what was going on, I will check Sparknotes to brush up on parts I misunderstood.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Blog 5
The passage by Hic Mulier had a lot of negative things to say about cross-dressing in plays. He obviously does not like the idea of cross-dressing. The author claims it looks deformed and ugly. He compliments in long drawn out poetic rhetoric that women are beautiful, true, and glorious.
The author’s tone is very disagreeing of cross-dressing. But the crowd that went to see Shakes plays were probably open to it since it was the norm. Since the play was a comedy it would only add to the comedic tone of the play. In the play they used cross-dressing as a comedic theme. There were cases of mistaken identity in the play in which Viola was caught up in a love triangle. She was a large part of the play and I’m sure if people did not largely accept the idea of a cross-dressing man or woman this play would have not become so popular.
It seems that the author could have been speaking for a smaller group of progressive yet prejudice people of the time. The author made clear his negative stance on the issue but there was an undertone of hate in his writing “you that have made Admiration an ass and fooled him with a deformity never before dreamed of.” While he makes a point that women should be playing the part of women in the plays, he seems upset at the fact that they are so unattractive. I believe maybe he was scarred at an accidental attraction he had to one of these burly broads. Of course eventually everyone felt that is was right for women to participate in plays but in this case, the idea of cross-dressing in a play is just funny. This mindset was progressive for its time but it wasn’t yet refined enough to really touch a cord with the commonfolkThursday, September 17, 2009
Week 4
Although I haven’t finished it yet, the beginning of The Merchant of Venice intrigues me. The last half of Act 1 Scene 3 strikes me, particularly lines 102- 177. In this passage there is no rhyming and Shylock confronts Antonio while they are making a deal for a loan. Shylock states his claim on line 103 with “In the Rialto you have rated me/about my moneys and my usances.” He also uses a good metonymy in line 117 saying, “ ‘Hath a dog money? Is it possible A cur can lend three thousand ducats?”, referring to himself. He doesn’t understand why Antonio would say such things about him and also be asking him for money. Shylock sees it more of a deal between friends. But Antonio held his ground in line 125 saying “I am as like to call thee so again.” I love this part because it reminds me of a mafia movie of some sort arousing my conscious with a sense of danger. Antonio says the deal isn’t about friendship, in fact, they can be enemies. And Antonio implores Shylock to condemn him as an enemy if he doesn’t pay up. But Shylock counters by saying he will indeed loan him the money without interest but keep him as a friend also. This is where I see trouble; Shylock is still willing to be friends with this guy after his comments. I get the feeling he is naïve. And this sets the tone of their interactions, which are open for some drama. Antonio then seems overconfident in his following statement when he says he will have earned three times as much as he owes in a month before the loan is due. Shylock then stipulates that if the loan is not paid in time that he will not hold Antonio to a pound of his flesh if he not pay in time. It seems as though he leaves the penalty unanswered. The scene ends with them being oh so sweet to each other and parting ways.
This section of the play really struck a cord with me. I feel a familiarity to this since I have lent people money with the anxieties that I will not get it back and had to unfortunately GO GET IT back. I think this is a part of the play many people can connect to and just oozes with a foreshadowing in my mind knowing that Antonio is a little untrustworthy and Shylock is a little to nice and maybe looking for something more than a plutonic friendship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)