Again with the acting...

So, just as Hamlet has a play within a play, so does Love's Labour's Lost. However, this time it is different. It is no longer glorified, but utterly ridiculed.

I find it funny that Ferdinand's crew makes fun of the actors in the play. It is just like the Princess and her ladies were making fun of Ferdinand and his men for trying to act like Russians. I see it as an un-official play followed by a formal play - and both are ridiculed. The Princess of France said about the men's attempt to play them:

   "So shall we stay, mocking intended game, and they, well mock'd depart away with shame."


Then, in the middle of the play with the Worthies, Dumain and Longaville ridicule Don Adriano de Armado's acting when Don Armando says:


   "I am that flower,-"


And Dumain and Longaville respond with:

   "That mint."
   "That columbine."


This is really meant in mockery as mint was thought of as the lowliest of plants, always to be tread on, and columbine represented foolishness as was also mentioned in Hamlet and in one of my previous posts.

I just find it funny that those who were playing are now making fun of those in the play. Maybe it makes them feel better about their own acts of foolishness by making fun of another's.

Action!

     As I finished reading the final end of Hamlet, I have to admit that I was somewhat disappointed. It's not because the ending was disappointing, but it was because I wanted to actually be able to see it being acted out. While studying Hamlet in high school we were able to watch both the Mel Gibson and the Kenneth Branagh versions of Hamlet. This helped me to visualize the scene and actually see the action being played through. 

      

      This brings me back to the appeal of the theater. Not only does Shakespeare have amazing personal characters whose speeches can be thoroughly analyzed and still bring up questions as to the human mind and nature, but the fact that it is a play and not a piece of literature is what made it so popular. It is the play with live actors who bring the words to life and help the audience members put themselves into the story. I feel that personally, I am more able to sympathize with difficult situations when the actors are right there, not only saying their lines, but expressing their deeper emotions. Each little gesture can suggest a thousand different things about the character that really brings them to life as a truly three-dimensional character who lives and thinks like you and me.

      I agree with Hamlet when he realizes that words are not enough, but that power comes through theater.

"The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King."

For you, and you, and you...

So, we're back to Hamlet! Joy of joys, let's go for it.

Anyone who has read Hamlet before (and probably several of you who haven't) knows that after Polonius is killed, Ophelia goes crazy. Literally crazy. However, sometimes there is method in Shakespeare's madness (as stated by my blog). So, does Ophelia actually make sense in her madness, or is it just a random babble that seemingly happens to touch on some truth?

I think the greatest way to tell is in her flower choices. I know many other people have analyzed her floral arrangements, but here's mine:

First, she gives rosemary...

Rosemary:

- symbolizes: remembrance & fidelity

- used greatly in funeral wreaths to remember those who have passed on

- also used greatly in wedding bouquets to remind couples of their vows to each other

- interesting rumor: if you touch a lover with a sprig of rosemary, they will always be faithful

Then Ophelia hands out pansies. 

Pansies:

- symbolizes: thoughts (you occupy my thoughts) & merriment

- one of the main ingredients in Celtic love potions

In "A Midsummer Night's Dream" it is shown as a love potion when "with pansy juice on her eyes, sleeping Titania fell in love with the first creature she saw when she awoke."

Next, Ophelia hands out fennel and columbine.

Fennel:

- symbolizes: foolishness & flattery 

- once fennel is picked, it wilts very quickly 

- quote: "Sow fennel, sow sorrow"

Columbine:

- symbolizes: male adultery & foolishness, ingratitude & thanklessness 

- shape of the flower imitates a Jester's cap and bells, showing the foolishness

Next, Ophelia hands out the rue.

Rue: 

- symbolized: genuine repentance & everlasting suffering

- rue has a very bitter taste

- was the major cause for abortion in its day

-tied with adultery in that it shows repentance of transgressions for women

Then, Ophelia skips over the daisy.

Daisies: 

-symbolized: innocence, purity, & forsaken love

- it is also tied to the keeping of a secret; "I'll never tell"

- Celtic legend: 

Daisies come from the spirits of children who died at birth. To cheer up the parents of these children, God sprinkled the flowers over all the Earth. This is why daisies stand for innocence.

Then, Ophelia mentions that all the violets are withered.

Violets: 

- symbolized: modesty, virtue, affection, faithfulness, & fidelity 

- used as a charm against evil because of its purity

- also shows a returning of love

      So, was Ophelia truly mad? Was she simply pretending to have lost her wits just as had Hamlet had? Was she doing this so she could confront the King and Queen without the fear of them killing her for treason? 

Is there method in her madness?

Policies about Cyborgs

"Are you all just robots? Because we have policies about cyborgs."


Sometimes the things said in Shakespeare class are surprising. But sometimes they're not. Like the never-ending debate about Hamlet's mental stability or the two star-crossed lovers that somehow end up running away from their problems. One thing that I've particularly noticed, however, is the fact that a lot of the conflicts occur because of a lack of information. It's either a huge miscommunication, or simply people assuming the worst about others because of their lack of communication. I wonder what would happen if these people had better technology. Maybe then they wouldn't have had so many problems. But seriously - would Hamlet have been able to find the truth about his uncle any other way? What about Polixenes? Would he have simply texted his son and asked him where he was instead of finding out from Camillo that he was seeing Perdita?

You know, I think that these situations would still occur. Even with the wonderful technology that we have today, I feel that there are miscommunications occurring all around us. It's like when you receive a rude text message that the other person meant as a total joke. I believe that Leontes would have become even more jealous had Hermione called up Polixenes and asked him to stay over the phone. I think he would have thought Hermione was going behind his back in a situation such as that.

Also, had Hamlet simply looked at the security cameras placed around the palace gardens, he would have known the truth about his uncle without the mental and emotional turmoil that led from his seeing his father's ghost. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes our technology can help us to avoid miscommunication, but it also provides a greater opportunity to be misled.

The Winter's Tale Acts II - III

So those of you who haven't read Justin's comment on my last post should. He brought up a great point about Shakespeare's characterization of Leontes. This made me start thinking of Leontes and I wondered what could possibly convince Shakespeare to create such a character. It seems like Leontes' character fails to be the believable human being that Shakespeare is known for - the ones that we can all relate to as we see their inward struggles and challenges.

Leontes seems to have no inward struggles. He is quick to blame and sticks with his anger. Imagine what would've happened had Hamlet been like this. He would've killed Claudius whether he was the real murderer or not. Then the play would end by Act II. I think that Shakespeare's point in this is to say how blinded we can be in our anger and jealousy that we could become a being like Leontes, who through his anger becomes less like a true character. I believe that Shakespeare is trying to show that true character is built through thoughts and reason.

Beginning Hamlet

Reading through the first several Acts of Hamlet I can really see why this play is so famous. Out of all Shakespeare's plays I find that this one delves into the psycological aspects of the human mind and analyzes human behavior.

That's a pretty big statement, I know, but going through this play for the second time I can really see Shakespeare playing with the different plays found in Hamlet. As you meet Hamlet for the first time he speaks about the ways people really aren't in mourning with their "customary suits of solemn black,/ Nor windy suspiration of ford'd breath,/ No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,"

Hamlet suggests that people might perform the actions, but not truly be in the right emotional state of mourning. He says, "These indeed seem,/ For they are actions that a man might play;/ But I have that within which passeth show-/ These but the trappings and the suits of woe."

This is the first time that Hamlet makes a speech. This is the moment that audiences usually start gathering information about the character and what kind of person he is. Now, I don't think it is any coincidence that Hamlet says the words play and passeth show in his first big speech. Shakespeare is trying to explore at what levels people are living their lives as if in a play to satisfy an audience, or at what point they turn to their own emotions and act as they truly would.

Now the question must be asked. How much of your life are you acting out?

My First Encounter . . .

All through my life I've heard of the infamous William Shakespeare. The same William Shakespeare who turned high school English class into a living torture for its unsuspecting students. When my turn finally came, however, I found that it wasn't as bad as it seemed. I'm not sure if it was that I had a knack for actually understanding the language (that was for some reason labelled as English), or if it was the fun, quirky teacher that brought it to life. I'm leaning towards the second reason. My teacher had the courage to introduce a class of thirteen-year-olds to the madness of King Richard the Third. Yet, amidst the betrayals, beheading, and bemoaning of those killed I found that I couldn't wait to see how it all ended. Of course the evil Richard was going to be dethroned, but how much madness could he create before it finally caught up to him? And thus, my curiosity was sparked.

Now, they often say curiosity killed the cat. If that's true, then I should only have myself to blame for signing up to study Shakespeare. By the time high school had ended I had thouroughly studied Richard the Third, Macbeth, Romeo & Juliet, and Hamlet. And yet, that wasn't enough. I was like the monkey who'd reached into the jar and would rather be caught than let go of the food he'd found. And that's what has brought me here. I'm about to dive head-first into the complex world of William Shakespeare.

I hope I'm up for the challenge.