Respond to this as a comment below: Using Antony's 'castles in the cloud' metaphor, can you think of a character in a modern movie, show, or book that didn't live up to his or her legend? One that seemed to blow away like smoke when the story looked a bit closer (or the story reached its climax)? Why do you think the story failed the character--or the character failed the story? Why were we (the audience) disappointed?
Tuesday, April 28, 2020
Last Lecture Video for Antony and Cleopatra, Acts 4-5
This is the LAST video I'll make you watch for our Shakespeare class! It's just an overview of some big themes in the last two acts that I hope will help you write the final paper. Be sure to read over the Paper #3/Final assignment in the post below this one--that paper is due Friday, May 8th by 5pm (or earlier). Meanwhile, watch this video and answer the question that follow as a post...and that's it!
Respond to this as a comment below: Using Antony's 'castles in the cloud' metaphor, can you think of a character in a modern movie, show, or book that didn't live up to his or her legend? One that seemed to blow away like smoke when the story looked a bit closer (or the story reached its climax)? Why do you think the story failed the character--or the character failed the story? Why were we (the audience) disappointed?
Respond to this as a comment below: Using Antony's 'castles in the cloud' metaphor, can you think of a character in a modern movie, show, or book that didn't live up to his or her legend? One that seemed to blow away like smoke when the story looked a bit closer (or the story reached its climax)? Why do you think the story failed the character--or the character failed the story? Why were we (the audience) disappointed?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Answer TWO of the following for class: Q1: The Chorus of the Epilogue warns, “Regard his hellish fall,/Whose fiendful fortune ma... -
Answer TWO of the following... 1. The final act is peppered with scenes and moments that are often cut or condensed in modern pro...
I am so sad that this is our last video! But we're going out with a bang with "bitch wife", which made me LOL.
ReplyDeleteI think that a certain amount of disillusionment when one looks closely at an admired figure's life is unavoidable. We love to put people on a pedestal but even the most remarkable among us can't totally stand up to that. And my example is Albus Dumbledore, like the Harry Potter stan I still am deep down. I think that he is redeemed by the end of the series, but Rowling definitely did not want her readers to idealize him indefinitely. Either way it's not that he is a failure, and, by extension, I wouldn't say that Antony and Cleopatra were failures, either. It's just a question of bringing our exalted characters back down to earth. If, as a reader, we're really disappointed by finding out that our favorite heroes are human, too, I would question what we're really looking to get out of those stories.
Dumbeldore is a great example, as are many characters from Harry Potter, which become deified or at least idealized in popular culture. But characters aren't meant to be worshiped or to become complete role models, any more than sports heroes or politicians are. They're all tragically human, and the more 'human' the character in a book, the more successful they are. And so with Antony: Shakespeare was very uncomfortable using characters from Greek myth and Roman history since they tended to be larger than life, and Shakespeare preferred life no matter how messy. So he set out to humanize both characters, and show us them, warts and all. Cleopatra hates this, since she feels her only defense is stagecraft; if she is taken down to human life, she fears she will be nothing--a mere slave, or even worse, just a 'woman.' So seeing herself on stage would be the ultimately indignity. Shakespeare is making fun of his own art in her last big speech, even though, ironically, that's what gave her the truest immortality. Without Shakespeare, she would have vanished the way so many other great female queens and warriors have...who remembers Boudica today?
DeleteJon Snow from Game of Thrones didn't live up to everything he was supposed to be. He was supposed to be king, but he was reduced to a character who was almost in the same boat as he was in the beginning of the story. His whole "secretive" heritage was finally revealed, and yet nothing happened. It felt so pointless to announce this, then have it yanked away by a random vote. It was disappointing because Jon became a character that represented hope. He was brought back to life for a higher purpose, then thrown back North.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, this is Daidra Hendershot. I just realized it posted anonymous.
DeleteGreat response...an example where a character's promise doesn't survive into fruition. As you suggest, his thematic resonance to the book is lost, so it leaves us wondering what he truly represented...or if the book can mean what we assumed it meant.
DeleteCarla Torres:
ReplyDeleteThe whole Toy Story 4 film did not live up to the expectation that people were hoping for, I know this because I was one of them. Yes do not get me wrong, the whole film was good and while watching it, it made me feel like I was my younger self. However, the film was everywhere and Buzz, Woody, and many other toys did not live up to my expectations. I think personally that the characters failed the story because they did not live up to what I was hoping along with many other viewers. I wouldn't go as far to say that Anthony and Cleopatra "failed" but like Toy Story 4, they did not live up to their expectations.
I still haven't seen #4, but that's why I'm scared to...those movies were important to my kids growing up, and they were meaningful...I can't see what a fourth movie would add to the characters' stories. And as you suggest, not much! That's the danger of creating iconic characters--where else do you go with them? It's the same reason that people got so angry at Star Wars' new version of Luke Skywalker. It deviated too much from the myth.
DeleteKari Elledge:
ReplyDeleteRomeo Montague! I remember being so excited to read Romeo and Juliet and I could not believe that Romeo was such a weenie. He was wishy- washy, and pathetic and I felt lied to for all my life up to that point. How was this suppose to be a great love story? Was Juliet were that oblivious of how awful Romeo was? Juliet wasn't much better; always threatening to kill herself if she didn't get her way. Who acts that way?!? The whole play felt less then what I was promised.
Then I ended up teaching freshmen for ten years and guess what I had/got to teach? The more I read it the more I felt that Shakespeare was just really good at portraying teenagers, and since I was no longer a teenager I could see it for what it was. I started every Romeo and Juliet unit with "Romeo is a Weenie" on the white board and it stayed there until the end. It was always interesting who resisted the claim and who eventually joined in with the opinion.
Yes, great example--Romeo isn't the lover he's made out to be. He's not an experienced lover at all--in fact, he's totally inept (since the girl he's first in love with, Rosalind, doesn't seem to know he exists). And even Juliet has to teach him how to woo properly, since he comes off as very mechanical and uninspired. But we mistake their love (which any teenager could aspire to) to his fluency in love, which is NOT what Shakespeare was writing about.
DeleteI recently watched Call Me By Your Name for probably the tenth time, and I cannot help but think of Oliver’s character when reading this question. With reading Antony and Cleoptra, I really had no prior knowledge of Antony’s character or what his role was in the play, and my first time watching Call Me By Your Name, I had no idea of Oliver’s character either; I really only expected the best, because of how both he and Antony are put on such high pedestals in the beginning of both stories. Oliver is an intern working on his doctorate with Elio’s father for a summer in Italy. Because of the way the story is established, and with Elio idolizing Oliver, we watch the movie truly hoping that Oliver will live up to Elio’s, as well as our own, expectations. While this movie is one of my absolute favorites, it shatters when after so much build up, Oliver becomes a character that we no longer root for or expect good things from because of the way he treats Elio. His character falls flat after the climax of the movie.
ReplyDeleteFascinating...I haven't seen this yet, but this sounds like it goes perfectly with the play, and with many of the other students' discussions above. It suggests that the more we know a character, the less we can idolize them or see them as the paragon of a virtue or ideal. So if we DO idolize a character, it suggests we don't know them well at all, and this is certainly true of most of our culture's heroes--sports stars, actors, musicians. We know their legend, their stage persona, but not the real person. And when we do meet them, it's always disappointing.
DeleteOkay, so I don't know if I am allowed to choose this, but my mind went first to Ellen DeGeneres and her show. While it is a talk show, and there is really not a plot to compare, the show host that everyone sees seems to be a character of itself. I used to kind of idolize Ellen; I loved her generosity, humor, and kindness. She seemed like a genuine soul. Of course, nobody is perfect. I recently stumbled on an article that shared people's experiences meeting Ellen in person, and the encounters were awful! The source seemed relatively reliable, and it linked to the original thread of Tweets. Since then, she has fallen off the pedestal in my mind's eye. I don't really want to watch her show because I don't want to see an actor playing the character of Ellen. It reminded me that ideals are problematic because nobody can live up to them. I think I had a bit of a Wizard of Oz moment and pulled the curtain aside to look closer. I am/was definitely disappointed. I think for several reasons, but for one, I was given some extra sense of hope in humanity when the "Ellen" character existed to me.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great example and it bounces off my response to Megan's comment above. Ellen created a persona that people loved and responded to, but it was never her--and too many people expected to see her at all times. The more beloved an actor, the worse the public's disappointment in person (usually). In fact, if you ever watch the show Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee, in one of the episodes Jerry Seinfeld takes Ellen out for a drive, and you can see she's very stiff and uncomfortable--almost irritable. I think we're getting closer to the 'real' her here, or at least, not the persona we see on her show--or even earlier, on her famous sitcom that was very influential.
DeleteKelci Pollock
ReplyDeleteThe character that comes to my mind is Triss Merigold from the Witcher books and game (not so much the show because we haven't really seen enough of her yet). Triss is initially shown to be Yennefer's closet friend and a big sister figure to Ciri. However, she betrays Yennefer by essentially giving Geralt a magic roofie... then she betrays Geralt, Yennefer, and Ciri by joining the Lodge of Sorceresses (who want to get to Ciri). Throughout the entirety of the games and books, Triss was backstabbing and manipulative. Despite her guilt, despite her love for Yennefer, Ciri, and Geralt, she continuously made decisions that put them in harm's way. In the second game, Geralt has lost his memory and does not recall Ciri or Yennefer. Triss does not know if either one of them is dead or alive, but does not try to spark Geralt's memory. Instead, she chooses to manipulate him into being with her romantically. When he eventually does remember Yennefer and Ciri, he is furious with Triss and breaks things off with her. By the third game Triss is still upset that Geralt left her, even though she put Yennefer, her best friend, and Ciri, Geralt's child, in so much danger.
Very interesting--I haven't read the books, just seen the show, so I can see this sense of disappointment when characters don't seem to act according to earlier logic, or the logic of the story itself (like Harry Potter and Games of Thrones, in the comments above). This begs the question, is it a lapse on the author's part, or their intention to show how people never live up to the earlier ideals--even if evil ones?
DeleteI think that this applies to almost every superhero movie, show, or book that you can think of. Whether it be Superman, Iron Man, Spider Man, Hulk, or whoever, they're all idealized by the public that they take care of as these larger than life, indestructible individuals. But the truth is that behind the mask, and underneath the cape or the armor, all that's left is a human (in a lot of cases anyway), a gifted human, but one that feels pain, lust, anger, fear, etc. just like the rest of us. They all have a weakness of some sort that blows the cloud of idealism away and reveals the vulnerability beneath it. And this itself doesn't necessarily make the audience disappointed, but it does make the society that they protect disappointed. Yet, sometimes, they may make us disappointed if they make the wrong choice that results in negative consequences not only for them, but for others as well. However, that just shows that everyone, even a superhero, can do so.
ReplyDeleteYes, great point...and this is why we keep making superhero origin stories over and over again. People like when the 'normal' person has to deal with becoming superhuman, since that shows the dilemma of how a person becomes a symbol. But once they become a symbol, what can you do with them? It's very difficult, and only Spider Man and Batman really pull this one off very well, since they have to live in two worlds. It's a problem that has always plagued Superman, since he's literally an alien and not human at all...how do you make a superhuman 'good guy' not disappointing when you have to show him in the flesh? Or to argue the other side, as you do, what happens when 'perfect' heroes act too human and make mistakes? What happens when Batman kills someone accidentally...or Spider Man isn't there to save someone? To be a hero is to walk a fine line between inspiration and disappointment.
DeleteI was all set to write about how I couldn’t think of any specific character that didn’t live up to their legends, but then I remembered someone that would apply. The one that I can see that worked with this question was Johnny Depp and Tim Burton’s version of Willy Wonka in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory made in 2005. The reason why I think that that version of the story didn’t live up to it’s legend is that I’m a bit older than some of the people in this class, so my version of Willy Wonka was Gene Wilder, with his baby blue eyes and crazy afro. In the 1971 version of the story, the first time you see Willy Wonka, he’s walking with a cane until he gets to about 30 feet of the gates. He does a tumble and lands it with a bright, happy smile, showing the audience that they shouldn’t take him at face value.
ReplyDeleteBut when you watch the 2005 movie, he is introduced by showing up beside the golden ticket winners as they watch the burning scene of the animatronic puppets. It didn’t give me the same “surprise!” moment as the pratfall did. Instead, it gave me the creeps, since I don’t really like it when people sneak up behind me.
Now, I know that the 2005 version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was so much more true to the original book than the 1970’s version, but it felt like the 1970’s version of the story was able to capture the wonder, amazement and colorfulness that a child would have gotten from the book. I think I was disappointed with the 2005 version of the story because of that. It didn’t capture the joy that a child in poverty would have if they were going into what, in essence, was a castle full of candy for a day. It was darker.
That being said, I think the oompa loompa songs were better in the 2005 version, but more memorable in the 1970’s one. (Seriously, if you see the two movies, which version of the oompa-loompa songs will get stuck in your head more?)
Great response...even though Wilder's depiction departed much more from the book, it 'felt' the most accurate and honest. The way he enters the film, with a limp, and then falls and rolls and leaps up--that's magic. Johnny Depp just seemed like a creepy Michael Jackson. It had the wrong effect, even if it was more 'accurate' in some sense. I think, too, the 70's movie became more iconic and beloved than the book because it balanced the message of condemning bad kids with rewarding good ones...it had more magic and hope than the book itself.
DeleteAs a child, I read the book "A Wrinkle in Time" repeatedly-I loved it! So, when the film failed, I was not surprised. Everything that gave the book depth and meaning was removed. The characters were changed and the story became unrecognizable. Anyone who has read the book would be disappointed by the film. In the book, the main character,Mags, is going through the awkward transition from childhood to young adult. Through the quest to find her father, she faces her fears and discovers her own strengths, , grows closer to her family, and ultimately grows in her relationship to Christ. Unfortunately, this wonderful story was stripped of its authenticity and faith -filled message in favor of political correctness that left its viewers unmoved and fans of the book disappointed. Had the film makers kept to the original story line, I believe it would have been received more positively, and a new generation would have discovered the joy of reading "A Wrinkle in Time"
ReplyDeleteYes, I heard a lot of people criticize the movie (which I didn't see) for just these reasons. What makes a book a classic is its message, and when you tinker with this message, and try to update it, it's doomed to failure--or at least, major disappointment. When I saw the trailers, I could see immediately how they were trying to "rehabilitate" it, and I just winced. The filmmakers didn't believe in the original book, which is why it didn't translate...they refused to trust the material.
Delete