Leontes as a tyrant

The conspicuous lack of background information on Leontes' character may support the idea that Leontes is a tyrannical leader. Because we have no indication that he is truly a good friend, or a good leader, we may conclude that he is a treacherous, evil man throughout the play. The one contradiction may lie in Polixenes' speech about their youth together, wherein they were described as completely innocent. At the end of this speech however, we learn that they can no longer claim innocence. Furthermore, in the first scene, we are immediately confronted with the idea of poison (sleepy drinks), which is precisely what Leontes plans to use in his murder of his former friend. 

Skepticism in the Winter's Tale

It is obvious (and frequently discussed) that Leontes' skepticism is taken too far, and this leads to his demise. His reluctance to fall for anyone else's deception makes especially gullible toward his own thoughts. Although his thoughts are borne from no proof or evidence, he thoroughly believes them. Polixenes is also very skeptical, but his skepticism leads to his salvation rather than his sin. When Camillo says that he "dare not" know what is causing Leontes' bad mood, Polixenes is immediately alert to the fact that he avoids the words "do not." He then uses his other senses to confirm this belief (sees Camillo's blush). I think that this inclusion of other senses saves Polixenes from becoming too skeptical, and this difference causes the difference in their fates. While Leontes is driven to dangerous jealousy, Polixenes is simply led home.

Poison and sickness in Othello

Iago is described as being sick in several instances in this play. He makes reference to his own sickness when he says that the thought of Othello does "gnaw at his innards" like a poison. Later, his wife describes whomever must be planting jealous thoughts in Othello's mind as "a scurvy fellow." While this comment may seem innocuous at first glance, it is repeated later when Roderigo calls Iago's plan scurvy. The OED provides two definitions for scurvy. It can either refer to a bad man or to a skin disease. This shows that the sickness of jealousy begins in Iago who later infects Othello. Do you think this initial sickness gives Iago any excuse?

Autolycus - The Winters Tale

While preparing for tomorrows final exam I read more in depth on the character of Autolycus. I found it fascinating that he was a lovable, but amoral, rogue, however his amoral actions are directly responsible for the happy outcome of the play. If Autolycus had not scared Clown and the Shepard out of their wits with his threats of torture and death, thereby convincing them to flee to Sicilia they could not have turned out with evidence that Perdita was in fact not the Shepard's daughter but King Leontes's lost child. If they had not been there then Polixenes would have most certainly not approved of Florizel's and Perdita's marriage. I think that it is fancinating that this rogue, but not a villian, through his deeds that are most certainly not good created an ending to the play that is happy. My question is why did Shakespeare decide to do this? Why include this character at all? Couldn't have the Shepard and Clown have decided on their own that Polixenes was going to kill them and decide to flee? Why should his ignoble actions result in a very happy and desirable ending?

Hermione's Silence

How do you all interpret Hermione’s silence towards Leontes after they are reunited? After she comes back to life (or just comes back to Leontes, whichever) why does she address only the gods and then Perdita alone? You would think she would have something of significance to say to the husband that not only caused her so much pain, but that she hasn’t seen for 16 years. I reason it could be interpreted 2 ways: 1, she hasn’t really forgiven him, or at least not as much as he’d hope, or 2, you can interpret it positively and think of it as happiness beyond words. Silence could have its own eloquence, I suppose, or maybe it’s just that nothing needs to be said. What do you all think?

Leontes' character

Some of Leontes mood changes seemed to happen so fast that I had a hard time believing them. He starts out calm with his suspicion of his wife’s infidelity, but that just explodes into wanting to destroy his family. Then when he succeeds in doing that he suddenly feels sorry for it. None of these emotions really seem genuine to me since the only reason his requests get followed through with is because he’s king and they are so brief. I’m kind of glad that the story just breaks off at the end of one of his fits and switches tone to characters who are more stable. Even when he is reintroduced as a repentant king I’m still not convinced that he’s truly sorry, especially at the end when there’s that moment when he thinks his wife really did cheat on him. Out of all the tyrant kings that we have read about Leontes is the least well-defined or believable one.

A winter's tale and subversion

Does anyone wonder how Shakespeare was able to get away with such a (what I think) is politically subversive play at the time? This was, if I remember correctly from lecture, a time when James I was asserting his divine right to rule more strictly than any monarch had before him in decades. And yet here, in this play, Shakespeare is obviously asserting that it is impossible for kings to know the will of God, as he showed through Leontes' rejection of the oracle from Apollo. He’s also asserting that it is entirely possible for Kings to go mad for no reason and make terrible mistakes. Any thoughts on how he was able to get away with this?

Paulina's power over Leontes

In The Winter’s Tale, the character of Paulina interested me very much. I was hoping to talk a little about her in discussion, but we did not get to her so I was wondering how everyone else viewed her. What stood out to me the most was the immense power that Pualina seemed to have over Leontes. After reading the play, I was so intrigued with how she could be so powerful that I looked her up on different websites to see if there was a piece of information that I missed, such as family lineage that connected her to royalty or something. However, there was nothing to indicate that Paulina was more important to the king than other ladies and I am more confused than ever as to how she controlled Leontes’s personal life and whether or not he married another woman after Hermione died. I guess my question is why does everyone else think that Leontes followed her rules? If guilt for his actions is one reason, then I feel that Paulina’s role in his actions was relatively pointless because he could have felt guilty on his own accord. 

Who is Othello?

I would like to examine the evolution of the character of Othello. I did my close reading for the final on his speech about his history with Brabantio. One thing that struck me was the grandeur with which he stood before his audience of Brabantio, the Duke and the Senate. He told them how unconfident he was in his abilities to be a good speaker, but clearly he made a fantastic speech and got his point across to the men. I view this ability as a sign of power, and the fact that he knows people. However, this character trait clearly morphs into a man who is insecure about his abilities and does not know people, even when it is the closest person in the world to him (Desdemona and his fears of her infidelity). I find this evolution an interesting one in such a short amount of time; it makes me wonder if Othello is the confident man that appears before the Senate or the insecure husband who kills his wife off of merely a suspicion. 

The Macbeths and children

In lecture Professor Britland talked about how Macbeth was afraid of fathers and their sons so he killed anyone who was a father or would become a father. This makes sense to me because the witches tell him that Banquo’s sons will be kings and not his own. The Macbeths have no children of their own yet and he may be a little disappointed and jealous that his friends have children already and he doesn’t. Lady Macbeth doesn’t seem like she’s interested in having any after she says things like “take my milk for gall” and that she would dash the brains out of her baby. However in the 2006 Australian film her character is very sensitive to children in a way that I couldn’t find in the text. The film creates a new scene that shows her weeping over her son’s grave, clearly devastated by the loss. This scene could work for Macbeth (who is in it too, but not showing any emotion) because of his actions toward fathers and sons later, but doesn’t for Lady Macbeth. There’s another scene that shows her madness as being caused by the news of Macduff’s wife and son being murdered. It seems like a good way to justify her madness in the film, but based on what is in the text her attitude toward children is not motherly at all. I think this should not have been in the film because it deviates too far from Lady Macbeth’s androgynous character.

OH NO! A BEAR...?

It could be that I just came to the end of a day of studying. It could be that I'm so hyped up on caffeine from all the coffee I've been drinking tonight. But either way, I felt that even now I must write a post about A Winter's Tale. When Perdita is left on the shore for the shepard and his son to find, it occurs to me that "Wow, this could be a powerful moment of the girl exiting the world she was supposed to grow up in to a world of relative unknown. In fact, I believe that this has many similarities to Star Wars when Luke Skywalker is taken to his aunt and uncle in order to escape his tyrant father Darth Vader who wants to kill him. Especially in light of the situation in which Perdita's mother had "died" along with her brother, it feels like it could have been a really emotional moment. That is until, Antigonus is chased down and mauled by a bear while everyone else on the ship they came over on crash into a cliff and die. Every time I think about this part, I just can't help but get over how incredibly ridiculous this is. I mean really, a bear mauling the guy? Shakespeare must have had a cruel sense of humor, or he really needed to come up with some abstract way for everyone who made the journey except for Perdita to die. The whole following moments of the "drop off" seem out of place and just bizarre. In a really dark way, it's actually pretty funny. I mean, it's not funny to laugh at people dying, but it's really just hard to not giggle a little at how incredibly random all of it was.

A (Disappointing) Winter's Tale

I really did not enjoy A Winter's Tale very much in comparison to the other plays. It seemed so unfinished and almost juvenile in comparison to all of Shakespeare's other plays. The rest have so much depth--there's a reason that they've stuck around for so long. A Winter's Tale is missing that "it-factor" which the other plays have, and I think that that is why it is less well-known. If it had been an earlier play, it would have made more sense; there would be a possible excuse of Shakespeare being young and needing to grow into his writing more. But this play was written near the end of his life, and it seems to me like he didn't put forth much effort. While the story itself isn't terrible, where is the deeper meaning? Where is the development of characters' motives? While A Midsummer Night's Dream was probably the most similar in tone to this play, even it had the exploration of love and what it really means. This play doesn't seem to have even an attempt at anything other than an enjoyable couple of hours for the audience. While I'm sure it did accomplish that goal, I guess I've just come to expect more from a Shakespearean play than that.

Leontes scares me. Honestly, I think he is by far the most frightening Shakespeare character. Richard is a tyrant but at least honest in his murderous tendencies. Iago is pure evil but is at least consistently evil. But Leontes is just a normal guy…until he decides to go crazy. His abrupt swing from lovable king and husband to jealous bully frightens me. It’s a reminder of what happens when someone abuses absolute power (kind of reminiscent of Macbeth actually). This man is completely normal one second, then threatens to bash his infant daughter’s brains out in the next. I can’t ever bring myself to relax while reading this play just because I am constantly worried about Leontes’ next crazy action. The man is the supreme ruler of his land, so there is no one to stop him. There is a moment of hope when the word of God is invoked, but when he refuses to believe even the oracle, all hope is lost. The ending of this play should reassure me, but I don’t quite buy Leontes’ protestations of repentance. Who knows when this man could lose himself in another fit of jealousy?

While I was writing my final paper on Macbeth, I stumbled upon a phrase in the assigned quote that intrigued me, especially when I looked it up on OED online. The term “rook” in Act 3, Scene 2, Line 50 can have so many different meanings that give Macbeth’s speech entirely different qualities. “Light thickens; and the crow/Makes wing to the rooky wood.” According to the OED, “rooky” could just be a reference to the place the crows go to sleep, or it could reference a different species of bird called a Rook, which is closely related to the common crow. Rook can also refer to a human thief or “bad guy” or it could mean “misty or foggy.” I thought this was a perfect example of classic “Shakespeareism.” So many of the meanings drawn from Shakespeare’s works can be completely objective, and can change with even a slightly different interpretation of a word or passage.

I was really intrigued by the newest genre of plays Shakespeare wrote in his later years, that of the romances. While reading Winter's Tale, I was waiting for the tragic event to occur and for everything to kind of go to hell. Perhaps it’s my own tendency to predict the tragic events given the past four or five plays we’ve read, but I was really interested in the plot decisions Shakespeare made in terms of the first half of the play being in the form of a tragedy, and the second half being in the form of a comedy. I also wonder in what context this play (in performance) was received. I’m really interested in general at what types of events Shakespeare’s plays were performed at. It makes sense at weddings and festivals his comedies would be performed, but I’m not sure what context it would be appropriate to perform Winter’s Tale.

Shakespeare's Message

I feel that every shakespeare play teaches a lesson, and the one taught in Othello is a very important one.  Number one, you need to be able to trust your significant other and they need to be able to trust you.  It must be mutual.  It simply does not work when you're constantly wondering if your significant other is "cheating" on you.  As we see in Othello, it causes Othello to kill his wife, I mean cmon dude!  Othello believed his peers more than his own wife, and that's a BIG mistake.  Number two, if you don't trust your significant other, break it off or learn to trust them quickly.  Number three, don't violate the codes of dating and marriage!  It always amazes me how so many people "cheat" on their S.O.s.  Don't do it!  The main root of this problem seems to begin with communication.  If you can't talk to your S.O. about everything!, then that's a problem.  I enjoy twisting off of the main message displayed by shakespeare, obviously, but I felt the need to say it.  Shakespeare apparently had great knowledge of loving relationships...I wonder how he faired with the ladies???

Othello - Poor Desdemona

I meant to write this a while ago, but for some reason kept forgetting. Of all the characters in the play, nobody gets more caught up in the collateral damage than Desdemona. Blame her if you will for marrying Othello and then not telling everyone about it, but aside from that mistake, is she really so bad? She was accused falsely for having an affair, she was set up for simply being involved with Othello. Eventually this would get her killed. For all we know too, Othello may have had an affair with Emilia, which would make her even more of a victim. It's the classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not to mention Iago isn't right in the head, and in turn causes Othello to lose his mind, but even beside that fact did she really deserve her fate? Did anyone deserve the fates they had?

If anything can be taken from this situation, it is to be honest with the person you're involved with, and choose carefully the people you get close to. It may be a matter of life or death!

Emilia the Coward - Othello

Upon further reflection of the play I find I don't really like the character of Emilia. I think she is a coward. She seems far to unquestioning for me. Of course she plays the "I didn't know what he intended" card in the end, but it seems to me that she didn't really look to hard at what she was doing. What did she think Iago wanted her to do when she stole the cloth? I believe that in her effort to be a loyal wife to Iago she purposefully didn't think about what she was being asked to do, so that she wouldn't have to think about the consequences of her actions, until the end when the consquences are right before her. When her good friend Desdemona is murdered because she couldn't bear to think about what she was doing she is finally shocked out of her cowardliness by shame and comes clean. This is why I think she is a coward. Agree or disagree?

Othello versus Leontes

When I started reading The Winter’s Tale, I began to see parallels between it and Othello. The two plays hardly have anything in common, but they both have one man who ruins everything by being suspicious or jealous. Both Othello and Leontes accused their wives of cheating. I’ll admit that the circumstances were different. Othello had Iago telling him what to think, while Leontes came up with the idea all on his own. Even so, it made me wonder why Shakespeare keeps reprising this theme. Did many women cheat on their husbands during his time? Did people simply like to see stories where cheating was a central element? I have no idea. All I know is that it can be irritating within a play, especially The Winter’s Tale. Even when the Oracle proclaimed Hermione’s innocence, Leontes still didn’t believe it. I actually like both plays a lot. They are good stories, and they are told in the way only Shakespeare can tell them. However, I get tired of reading about stubborn, foolish men like Leontes and Othello.

Racism + Sexism = Iago

Maybe it's a harsh claim to make, but I highly dislike Iago.  First off, he starts things because he is jealous of Othello.  Acting on behalf of  jealousy only makes things worse.  In the first act, we find out that Iago is racist, calling Othello "the thick lips" and a "barbary horse".  In these days, his character would be looked down upon, but in the old days, I feel as though racism was the normal due to the existence of slavery.  Does anybody think that the meaning of this play could be different in the old days?  Maybe Iago did not come off as such a bad person back then.  Also, we find out that Iago is a bit sexist in the second act, on the island of Cypress.  He claims that "women rise to play, and go to bed to work".  This is completely disrespectful, and it makes me hate Iago even more.  In today's world, many people would brush him off as a simple ahole, as I do.  But could his image have been different in the time period of this play?  

A More Identifiable Othello

I was watching the modern version of Othello yesterday (aka “O” with Mekhi Phifer, Julia Stiles and Josh Hartnett) and I found it very surprising how well they incorporated the play into this movie. Going into it, I thought the movie would be a modern version VERY loosely based on the play. I don’t know if any of you have seen the movie before, but I definitely recommend it. The reason I liked it so much is because I was able to find constant parallels with the movie and the play and it helped make the characters seem more real. The parallels included an interpretation of Shakespeare’s speech which was quite similar to language that we would use every day. Because this play has a very intricate plot line (which sometimes I found was hard to follow) it was nice to be able to see it unravel in something more easily identifiable. The other aspect which I appreciated was being able to see how the characters act in a time of our own (something more like reality). I often find it very hard to relate to the Shakespeare characters sometimes simply because I have a pre-set notion that it happened such a long time ago, which can create quite a barrier. I thought this version was very refreshing, and even though I saw it when it first came out, watching it right after reading the play again pretty fun. A lot more parallels jumped out at me than I would have thought.

Imagery in the Scottish Play

I think Shakespeare's use of symbols and imagery in macbeth is really cool. Blood is everywhere, and for the most part it seems to be a physical manifestation of guilt. For example, Lady Macbeth has her sleep walking episodes where she tries to wash the blood off. Macbeth sees a bloody Banquo, as well as a bloody child apparition, a bloody knife, and just constantly talks about delving deeper in to blood which is murder and therefore guilt as well. Lady Macbeth's asks for her blood to be thickened, perhaps so she cannot feel the guilt of her actions, but we know that doesn't happen. There is also a lot of clothing related images regarding king ship. The term borrowed robes are referred to often. When Macbeth is told he is Thane of Cawdor, he says why do you dress me in the borrowed robes. When he becomes king, there is mention of the clothes not fitting right. And towards the end of the play, if I remember correctly Macduff calls his clothing stolen. The clothing is obviously representative of the position of kingship and other nobility. I liked how it was consistently referenced throughout the play.

Fate/Fortune in Macbeth

Quote I’m discussing:

And fortune, on his damned quarrel smiling,
Show'd like a rebel's whore: but all's too weak:
For brave Macbeth--well he deserves that name--
Disdaining fortune, with his brandish'd steel,
Which smoked with bloody execution,
Like valour's minion carved out his passage
Till he faced the slave;
Which ne'er shook hands, nor bade farewell to him,
Till he unseam'd him from the nave to the chaps,
And fix'd his head upon our battlements.

I think that the sergeant summarizes the role of Macbeth’s decisions, and fortune’s influence very well in the second scene. An important thing to notice, however, is that his description remains ambiguous because it can be read in two opposing ways: either Macbeth disdains fortune with his sword and carves out his own passage, OR fortune is disdaining for brave Macbeth because it carves out Macbeth’s passage like a minion (and we all know Macbeth’s fate is not such a positive one). This ambiguity is very intriguing and the two meanings the passage conveys provide the main (in my opinion) question for any audience to answer. Was it Macbeth’s fate that led to each of these events, or was it Macbeth’s decisions that led him to his fate?

Something Rotten in Denmark

What is rotten in Denmark? This question was mentioned frequently, and the quote is well known, but rarely is the question answered. I would like to propose that death-- more specifically death out of its place-- provides the rotten stench. The scene with the gravedigger led me most directly to this conclusion. He discusses how bodies are often rotten before they arrive, and his job is to put death where it belongs (by burying it). The king, poisoned in his own garden, is the initial source of rot. This may explain why his ghost haunts rotten Denmark. Later, when Hamlet hides the dead body, he adds to the problem. This explanation makes sense to me especially in the presence of murder and the king's ghost. It also gives a reason for the inclusion of the gravedigger's scene.

Richard III

One of the most interesting things that it seems I, and others who have commented on this blog, have found about Richard III is that so many people believe everything he said, against all evidence to the contrary. In a play that is all about betrayal and killing, this seems to me to send a message contrary to what goes on in the play: that people, for better or worse, want to believe in the good inside a person. We see it first with Lady Anne, but afterwards with many characters, including Queen Elizabeth. It is very odd to me that he was always believed, and the only conclusion I can come to is that Shakespeare was trying to make a point on human nature. He wanted the audience to hope, along with the other characters, that smooth-tongued Richard was redeemable, making it a greater letdown when he betrayed them all again. Thoughts?

Richard III...

Since nobody has been posting lately, I decided to try and start something, at least, for Richard III.  I probably liked this play the least so far because it serves no purpose in my mind.  All it is, on the whole, is a play full of deceit and killing.  It is merely a story, and it doesn't even teach a direct lesson other than, don't be a deceitful serial killer.  It amazes me how Richard uses his voice and his words to deceive people and blame deaths on other people.  It seems to me that nobody should believe him, but some people do, even when it is obvious that he is killing everyone.  He also uses his words to get with Lady Anne, someone who practically hates him for the death of her late husband, Prince Edward.  All I know is that it seems a bit ridiculous that many people believe the words of Richard.  Could it be that they are scared of being killed themselves?  I don't know......

Hamlet and Ophelia

Before moving on to Richard III, I wanted to reflect on Hamlet a little bit. This play, like Romeo and Juliet, leaves me feeling frustrated for many reasons. The biggest problem I have with it, however, is the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia and how unresolved the whole thing is. Did Hamlet truly love Ophelia? This is the question I wonder about the most, and it is one that I can't come up with an answer to. In the scene where Hamlet rejects Ophelia, I almost felt that he was doing it to protect her from himself. Hamlet knew he was dealing with some serious issues, and it is possible that he just wanted to keep her out of it. If you were to take that view, then surely Hamlet does love her. Even so, the scene at Ophelia's funeral is an entirely different matter. Hamlet and Laertes end up looking like fools because they are competing over who is most impacted by Ophelia's death. To me, this contradicted Hamlet's earlier appearance. Basically, I'm confused. Any thoughts?

Age and Shakespeare

Isn't it weird how as we age we can develop different opinions of the same thing?  I agree with Jay's post very much.  Everything that happens seems a bit ridiculous to me as a man in college.  Back in high school, 9th grade for me as well, this play seemed so innocent and lovey-dovey.  I can attribute this change in opinion to a simple change in maturity level since 9th grade.  We are now finding out that love doesn't quite work like it does in Romeo and Juliet.  Back in 9th grade, all we really knew about dating was this: step one: notice a cute girl/guy, step two: talk to them, step three: hold their hand in the hallway.  In a sense this is what is happening in Romeo and Juliet, and it makes sense because they are only 14!!!  Even stil, Romeo and Juliet still serves a purpose to us older college students and adults.  I haven't quite figured out exactly what lesson Bill is trying to teach is, but I know there is one.  Perhaps this is why Shakespeare has stood the test of time...His plays can mean different things to different aged people.  Everyone of all ages can take something away from Bill's work, and that is a rare find in any kind of theatre or literature.  

ARGH

There's so many points in R and J where I just grunt to myself and say, "why the hell are they doing this. its so illogical." Why is mercutio out to get into a fight? so that he can die and curse romeo and juliet and make the play a tragedy. Its like deus ex machina. The friar isn't very logical either, and follows the foolish train of thoughts of fourteen year olds. Juliet is threatened to be cast on the streets if she doesn't marry paris, and so instead she choses to run away to mantua with romeo via the potion fake death. Both options leave her disenfranchised to her family fortune, so why not just tell her parent's shes married to romeo. Why does the friar run away when he finds romeo dead and the noises of the guards scare him. Only so juliet can conveniently stab herself alone. When I first read this in high school in ninth grade I thought, "how touching". Now I read it and think, this is dumb, no one has to die. The Zeppereli version was on tv today and I found juliet's gestures and facial expressions amusing. 

Slow Motion

I believe that the concept of time is an interesting one as well, and there is an interesting view of this in the film which was shown on Monday. The movie had a lot of information that had to be condensed into a film, however only spanning three day's of actual time?? The movie was a frantic, fast paced, free for all which was tearing the audience in every which way...except for the times when Romeo and/or Juliet were on the screen. They seemed to be the calming influences and slowed the pace of every scene in which they were apart of to me. With use of language and speeches I believe that Baz Luhrmann, through Shakespeare is implying to us that even in the young love these two characters are beyond their years and that they know or think they know what they are doing to themselves. Even though they were the characters that were supposedly young, inexperienced, and naive they exhibited a calming influence and even a mature sense of being while on camera. However, this is just one interpretation of the play and it could have been done in many other ways this was an interesting way to separate Romeo and Juliet away from all of the other character's by almost putting the scene's which they are in into slow motion compared to the rest of the film. Just wondering if anybody caught this or was it just a figment of my imagination?

Time in Romeo and Juliet

Although we touched on it in discussion, the biggest confusion in Romeo and Juliet for me is the concept of time. The entire play takes place over a three-day span (possibly more, depending on how long we believe Romeo was away in Mantua). However short the time is, the characters of Romeo and Juliet develop a love that would take years to develop in reality. I wonder what Shakespeare is trying to accomplish by portraying their love in this way. When I first read the book, I thought it was the most romantic love story ever. However, this time around I think it could be something else. Either Romeo and Juliet are incredibly immature and Shakespeare wants to show his audience how naïve they are, or it is a parody on the concept of love. I can’t help but compare their love to present day Vegas weddings. Although crude, I feel that one could easily compare two people who meet in Vegas and have a shotgun wedding to Romeo and Juliet. It is spontaneous and there is not much thought that goes into the marriage. I would like to see what others think about this. Maybe I am completely out of line and “dumbing down” the romance that Shakespeare is trying to portray. Thoughts?

My OED word this week actually is quite relevant concerning Jay's post. I researched the term "spirit" in reference to the fairies. One of the dictionary entries for "spirit" was something along the lines of creatures that are unperceived by humans that meddle with their affairs. This, to me, was very applicable to the A Midsummer Night's Dream fairies. Also, the definition said that these "spirits" could make themselves visible at will, which accounts for Titania's appearance to Bottom as well as all the woodland fairies appearance to Theseus' court at his wedding in the final scene. This invisibility of the fairies didn't really dawn on me until Professor Britland showed us a couple clips from the Callista Flockhart/Michelle Pfieffer/Hollywood version. In a couple scenes from that film Oberon and Puck have multiple conversations from what seems like right in front humans (mostly the lovers). I wonder how the lovers overhear or at least see the two fairies. The possibility of the invisibility of the fairies to the humans gives me an entirely different impression of the play. If indeed the fairies are invisible, than they have a lot more control over the mortals than I originally perceived. Obviously they prove to be very controlling, as Oberon basically controls who ends up with who in the end.

One of my favorite characteristics of Bill's plays is their potential to have multiple meanings. I feel like A Midsummer Night's Dream does exceptionally well in this capacity. This comedy really surprised me; having read A Comedy of Errors I had a different expectation of what a "comedy" would be. A Comedy of Errors was a lot of blunders and physical comedy, but A Midsummer Night's Dream (despite it's ridiculousness) has quite a lot of depth, and I value that. I don't think a play has to be a hundred percent dreary and tragic to have some poignant points to it. Your thoughts?

Theseus and Hippolyta

I have not seen the 1981 version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, but earlier today I did watch the 1991 “Hollywood” version (as Professor Britland puts it) with Bale and Flockhart. I know she warned us about how horrible it was, and I completely agree considering it took such a shallow analysis of the play as a whole, but I did think that this particular version had some interesting input in its interpretation. For instance, instead of Hippolyta being completely under Theseus’ control and with no ability to say what she believes, she was portrayed as the one controlling him. I’m not necessarily a huge fan of admitting that Theseus has such absolute control over her throughout the play, even though that may certainly be the case, because it is simply too frustrating. I was able to appreciate then the fact that they had Hippolyta as the person standing up to Theseus and persuading him to excuse the lovers in the end of all they were accused of (even if it was in a sort of a pathetic pouty way that got on my nerves). So really, I was just wondering if anyone else had watched the horrid Hollywood version and if so, what they thought of it. The different ending was pretty thought provoking. As well I wanted to see if anyone else had any input on Theseus and Hippolyta’s relationship, whether it be another viewpoint or just something interesting.

Fairies

When reading the play I had the feeling that the fairies weren't perceived by the humans in the play. Oberon says he is invisible and what not. The 1981 version of the movie used this interpretation as well, although in quite a creepy manner. After watching the movie, when I read Titania and Oberon accusing each other of affairs with Theseus and Hippolyta, I don't see it as a physical affair, but as more of a playful thing, for example Titania enchanting  Theseus and making him act silly and high and dancing around in the woods and just sitting talking to himself, or her, not knowing in fact what he was doing. Also did anyone notice in the movie when all the little fairy children gathered around bottom (funny he is named bottom an he turns into an ass) that there is one girl in the background just bobbing back and forth for no apparent reason? The film was obviously made on a very low budget, but I am unsure as to why the girl was bobbing. It was quite hilarious, but does anyone have any ideas?

Up and Running

Your class blog is now up and running. If you have any questions
or encounter any problems while using then, then please email
me. I've put some interesting links up, and will probably
continue adding to them over the course of the semester. Enjoy!