For Friday's class, read ONE of the following essays in the back of our Norton edition of As You Like It, and respond to TWO of the questions that follow. This will form the basis of our discussion on Friday.
The essays--read at least ONE of the following:
Anne Barton, "As You Like It: Shakespeare's 'Sense of an Ending'" (246), Jean E. Howard, "Crossdressing, the Theatre, and Gender Struggle in Early Modern England" (337), James Shapiro, "The Play in 1599" (361).
The Questions (answer TWO):
1. What "problem" is the author responding to in the play? That is, how is his/her essay trying to address a specific issue that needs to be resolved in staging As You Like It that would help modern audiences "get" Shakespeare's intention? What makes this issue so problematic?
2. Do you think this essay offers a more historical or a theoretical approach to Shakespeare? In other words, do you feel that the author offers a more "back to the text" approach in understanding how to reach Shakespeare's intentions, or is the author trying to use modern theoretical approaches/influences to "resurrect" the play? What makes you think this, and how successful do you feel this approach is? Be specific.
3. Do you feel like the essay would agree with Branagh's interpretation of As You Like It? Could we imagine that Branagh had read this essay before filming his version--does the essay illuminate his version in particular? Or conversely, do you think Branagh should have read this essay before film his version? What might have changed or been improved? Or, perhaps, what advice did Branagh wisely ignore? Again, be specific and point to examples in the essay and film.
4. How does the essay help you understand or appreciate As You Like It in a new light? What ideas does the essay reveal that you either didn't consider before, or didn't 'see' from this perspective? Be specific and reference a particular scene, moment, or character that connects to ideas in the essay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For Tuesday: Wells, William Shakespeare: A Very Short Introduction, Chapters 6 and 8
Let's return one last time to our short supplementary text by Stanley Wells, and read Chapter 6 (Tragedy) and Chapter 8 (Tragicomedy). T...
-
Answer TWO of the following... 1. The final act is peppered with scenes and moments that are often cut or condensed in modern pro... -
Please watch the short video (20 min) on Acts 1-2 of the play, focusing primarily on Cleopatra as an actress, and answer the question that f...
Nikki Ennis
ReplyDelete1. One problem the criticism by Shapiro acknowledges was the irrelevance of Jacques. However, I don't think that removing his character would be beneficially. He has many iconic lines, and his random presence adds to the humor of the play. Humor, I think is important for this play to work for a modern audience. I'm having trouble answering this, or any of the other two questions, so I'm just going to leave it at that. I'm sorry!
4. In James Shapiro's criticism, he says, "Jacques is something of an enigma" (365) because although he is a significant presence in the play (having almost a tenth of its lines), he is basically useless. Shapiro states, " He changes nothing, fails to persuade or inform anyone" (364). I found this fascinating because, to me it seems so undeniably true, and yet I hadn't realized it before.
Yes, this is important: Jaques was added as a concession to popular taste, which favored satire in comedy. Shakespeare gave his audience a character who would satirize the events of the play, but who in turn was also satirized. Part of the satire is that he has almost no role in the play: he is routinely ignored and even bested by everyone he encounters. Only in his "All the world's a stage" and his final lines does he get some redemption, reminding us that even in a comedy there is truth and darkness. Anne Barton's essay pushes this a bit further, arguing that Jaques is a necessary foil in a "classical" play, which is otherwise symmetrical and finely balanced. He sets the play slightly off-kilter, reminding us that it could easily go askew, and perhaps will, once the curtain goes down.
DeleteI really felt like my responses to these questions were less than substantial (that is to say, they sucked) and I want you to know I feel bad about it. A plague upon me!
Delete2. I read Howard’s essay "Crossdressing, the Theatre, and Gender Struggle in Early Modern England" and I think that the approach is definitely more historical. Howard uses a number of other critical and historical sources to expose the reader to the culture that Shakespeare was writing for. I thought it was interesting that during the Renaissance the official reinforcements of the gender hierarchy were more strictly enforced. For whatever reason I was under the impression that those lines had begun as very conservative and then had loosened gradually throughout time. I didn’t know that it was more of a cyclic process. I think that Howard discusses the culture and laws of the time period in order to help the reader better understand the text, not to “resurrect” it. He doesn’t really refer to modern adaptations much and mostly focuses on the original and what Shakespeare’s intentions may have been in revealing in such an obvious way that female characters were played by boys in the epilogue.
ReplyDelete4. Reading this article has really shifted my perspective of why Shakespeare may have had Rosalind impersonate a man. I still don’t think she is a feminist, but I originally supposed that the whole boy playing a woman playing a boy gambit was done only for a laugh. However, given what a huge social issue crossdressing was at the time I think Shakespeare may have been playing on some of his society’s fears. Rosalind’s chattiness is especially shocking. I knew that socially she wouldn’t have been able to speak to Orlando the way she did as Ganeymede if she had been a woman, but I didn’t know that she risked being set on a stool and dunked in water for it. In the face of the persecution she could have endured if she had been real Rosalind’s actions do seem much more daring, even if she does faint at the sight of blood. The epilogue is especially pointed, to have a boy say that he would kiss men while he has been successfully impersonating a woman really points to how permeable the boundaries we draw between the genders really are.
This is an important essay, and it helps us see the anxieties that resulted from having a boy portraying a woman portraying a man on stage. This really happened and was becoming more and more prominent. It showed not only the upsetting of gender roles, but of class roles. A woman was seen largely as a "lesser man" in society, and by becoming a man, Rosalind jumped class to become a gentleman, which no woman could possibly become. It gave her tremendous authority, suggesting that a gentleman's power lies solely in his clothes--as did Elizabethan notions of class and sexuality. So in the comedy lies a great anxiety about how the world really works--and who gets to run it!
DeleteHaha, and if you could rule simply by donning purple?
DeleteMelissa Williams
ReplyDeleteDr. J. Grasso
Shakespeare
January 30, 2014
As You Like It Excerpts (P. 337)
1. Most people within modern times may not understand the implications that cross-dressing had during the period in which “Shakespeare” wrote. Within those times, cross dressing – at least in the public setting – would lead to shame and even legal punishments. Yet, that did not mean that the same punishments would be applied to actors. Thanks to a hierarchy being enforced to keep the order they sought, women were not allowed to perform on stage making men have to play the female parts. If not for this knowledge, people might miss the shock value that Shakespeare would have wanted by making a young man or teenage boy play Rosalind who is a woman that pretends to be a man named Ganymede who pretends to be Rosalind herself. Modern audiences will understand the human, but not the full extent of the shock value if they do not understand that cross dressing could be punished by the law.
2. Howard wants the reader to understand the historical context of the play, and does so quite well by presenting real cases where women were punished for cross dressing as men (340). He mentions too how clergy were pressured to preach against women trying to dress up as men. So, what Howard wants is for the reader to realize that Shakespeare was mocking the institution of his time that a woman should not play as a man, by making a man pretend to be a woman pretending to be a man.
Yes, great response--for all its comedy, As You Like It has some dangerous ideas at its heart; dangerous, at least, for the more conservative powers that be. And it was doubly dangerous for the "boy as girl as boy" masquerade at its core. For a boy player (who had little status) was playing a woman of great status, who was playing a gentleman (and a man at this time was much greater than any woman--the Queen excepted). The play stages this as normal and even triumphant--which must have upset the more Puritan members of the audience,
Delete1. In his article, James Shapiro attempts to explain why As You Like It exists. We have discussed in class how this particular play does not seem to fit with the traditional Shakespeare canon because of its frivolous nature. Shapiro asserts that Shakespeare realized "it was no longer possible to write the kind of comedy that he had been writing for most of the past decade," and he points out that the conventions and expectations changed during the playwright's career (361). According to the author, three things were paramount to the play's success: satire, clown, singing. Shapiro points out that Shakespeare's rival writers (namely Jonson) were producing strongly satirical works, and despite the "banning and burning of verse satire" in the summer of 1599, the public was hungry for "this caustic stuff" (363). Shakespeare recognized the shift and created the character Jaques to be the leader of comedic social commentary. The character of Touchstone was written specifically for a certain actor named Armin, and it satisfied what the author calls the "audience's desire for a clown" (365). The numerous songs in the play also "satisfy the audience's desire to hear good singing" (368). It would seem that in addition to maintaining his status as the best playwright by focusing his rivals' techniques against them, Shakespeare wrote the play simply to sate the audience's appetite for popular entertainment.
ReplyDelete2. Shapiro's essay is heavily historical as he explains in depth the 1599 context of As You Like It. As highlighted in the first response, he discusses how Shakespeare's rivalry with Jonson pushed him to explore satire and public entertainment expectations. He goes into specific detail about the theatre companies and their actors, telling of the transition between writing for Kemp to Armin, and praising Armin's singing ability. He determines that Shakespeare's heavy incorporation of music to be sung by boys was due to the increasing popularity of children's acting companies. They were off limits to adult actors and operated "independent of the licensing control of the master of the revels" (367). Because satire had been outlawed and destroyed earlier in the year, these companies allowed an opportunity for hard-hitting satire and topical plays to be performed during their "private" performances. The author goes on to explain that Shakespeare probably collaborated with Thomas Morley, "one of the leading musicians and composers of the day," on some of the songs, particularly "It Was a Lover and His Lass" (369). I find Shapiro's illumination of the context of the age in which the play was written enlightening. It gives significantly more meaning to the play if only because I can now legitimately understand that popular trends, oppression of expression, and the collaboration of entertainment professionals gave rise to a seemingly frivolous work of art. I realize that the forces in 1599 have remained in effect--entertainment today is formed by the same influences.
Great reading of Shapiro's essay: he claims (quoting Kermode) that As You Like It is perhaps Shakespeare's most topical play, which is quite true: not that we need to get all the references to appreciate it, but if we consider all the contemporary responses in this play, much is revealed. The character of Touchstone makes more sense if we realized it was a fool's part that was meant to be embellished by a great comedic actor, and the songs point to the idea that it was a collaboration between Shakespeare and Thomas Morley--a proto-musical, perhaps. Modern readers tend to disregard the songs, but in a performance, they can be the true heart of the piece, setting the tone and thrust of the drama. Branagh does a good job with this at the end of the film, which ends as a musical. We can't re-create the play as Shakespeare would have intended, but knowing some of the references helps us make it relevant--and interesting--to more global audiences in the 21st century.
Delete1. From Howard, the problem addressed was Rosalind's crossdressing and the "ease" of the ending. Why doesn't Orlando react with anything but what appears to be awed wonder? The issue that's so problematic is not merely crossdressing itself, but ideas of gender, then and now. Howard mentioned that gender wasn't so much "male and female" as "male and 'lesser male'", that women doing things we would consider normal was considered unusual and even monstrous. A common motif in mythology across the world is a monstrous female. While theories thrive and contradict one another about why women at the time would crossdress, the underlying thing was that a woman doing something outside the norm was evil. In Sutton's history classes he often refers to the "Great Chain of Being"; a woman dressing as a man subverts that order. Today people don't care about crossdressing except if a man does it because it looks "weird." For a woman wearing pants, that's normal and acceptable, an acknowledgement that women have a lot more autonomy in their own decision-making. It wasn't then.
ReplyDelete--Jessie Randall
Yes--so glad you're bringing Sutton's class into this! The Great Chain of Being was an artificial, yet powerful social construct of how things were meant to be (according to men). As Alexander Pope writes in the 18th century, "whatever is, is right." But is it? In Howard's essay, we get the comment from a contemporary piece on crossdressing that "custome is an idiot." Any women could don a man's breeches and challenge this order and reveal its flimsy construction. So when Rosalind becomes Orlando's teacher, she becomes the tutor for an entire audience, showing them how easily custom is subverted--but safely, since a comedy always restores order and goes back to the familiar. And yet, for a few hours on stage, everything changed. And seeing is believing!
Delete4. Rosalind, despite her social standing, in a way not only inverts cultural ideas or exploits them but DESTROYS them, if only for a while. Duke Frederick, while she was "only" a woman, suspects her of subversion by her "normalcy" and of making Celia look bad. Her womanhood threatened him, because she wasn't only good, she was the society's version of good womanhood, and it made him paranoid enough to think it was an act, that she was more of a Lady Macbeth or female Iago and not like Cordelia or other Shakespearean heroines. For her wooing of Orlando, she becomes his teacher (and like as said in class, a friend) and opens his eyes to what love is really like and how poorly male dominance and patriarchy of the time reflects it. She becomes "monstrous," but not because she's mannish, but because she's the epitome of womanhood at the time of her banishment. When she's with Orlando, she's playing at being wooed by him in the "normal" way, but what she's doing by subversion is, in itself, HER wooing of HIM. Such a thing, even on stage, was as dangerous to male power of the time as her simply crossdressing. Why? Because not only could theater reflect reality, but women who had no idea it was happening, or had little context, could see it and have their own ideas changed, however marginally, so they might begin reflecting theater for their own purposes.
ReplyDelete--Jessie Randall
Marc Ruhnke
ReplyDelete2. Shapiro's approach to interpreting As You Like It seemed very strongly rooted in history and examination of theatre at the time Shakespeare was composing and staging As You Like It. I think in a sense he is trying to "resurrect" something despite taking the historical approach, though. Shapiro isn't going back to text so much as going back to Shakespeare's contemporaries and the surrounding acting companies. By examine how he may have been parodying other playwrights at the time, and by examining that his plays were written first and foremost for his particular acting company, a production can better come to grips with some of the more obtuse references and strange characterizations. I feel Shapiro is very successful at telling us the circumstances surrounding the play, but it is largely anecdotal and may not actually help in the staging of it. But it is eye opening and another way to consider Shakespeare. Mostly it helps demystify Shakespeare.
4. I guess I already sort of talked about this in 2, but Shapiro's insight into the fool's expansive role and the speculation that Shakespeare himself may have played Adam are really compelling insights. The idea that he wrote for his particular actors rather than some future set of performers gives us another way to consider Shakespeare, and it helps to remove him from our elevation of him, bringing him down to our level in a sense. He had favorite actors and his own messages he wanted to make, whether it was by having Jaques as a possible parody of other characters playwrights were crafting, or even his early experiments with "musical theatre". I can't help but imagine any future casting of Adam should have at least a vague resemblance to Shakespeare himself to properly look the part - as silly as that may be today.
Yes, it's fascinating to think of Shakespeare as Adam! But also important to consider that many roles were written to order, to be topical, and might not really have a 'purpose' in the play itself. Just as many current shows and films have cameos and references that are to delight the audience but have nothing to do with the plot--and will make absolutely no sense 50 years from now. Much of Touchstone's role is meant to be fleshed out by Armin, and as Shapiro points out, Touchsone's speech about the different kind of lies is kind of pointless...though Armin might have done something with it. Seeing As You Like It as a topical play--and a proto-musical--might very well help in the staging of it, and I think Branagh takes this route, especially at the end.
DeleteJean E. Howard, "Crossdressing, the Theatre, and Gender Struggle in Early Modern England" (337).
ReplyDeleteI had a hard time with these questions…to the extent that I read all three readings before answering any questions and still for whatever reason I am struggling…
2. I think that this essay offers a historical look into the era in which Shakespeare was writing for, their concerns, thoughts, and fears evolving around cross dressing. I think that the author is offering information about the time to give a better understanding as to why might Shakespeare of written a play satirizing gender, role playing, cross dressing because it was a real issue at the time. I do not think that the author is trying to resurrect anything just providing a better understanding of Shakespeare.
4. I think this article gives more power to Shakespeare’s genius behind the writing of the play. He took a very serious issue of the time for his society, satirized it, and exposed the sexist nature of it. It is a punishable crime for a woman to dress like a man for any reason with serious repercussions because it conflicts with social station and gender roles. A man can however dress as a woman and it doesn’t confuse these same boundaries? Women cannot perform at the theatre so who is playing the women but young adolescent MEN. Surely, if this be their argument then why not have women act as women and men act as men in theatre? If a woman dressing as man can confuse the boundaries of a person sex then a man dressing as a woman could as well.
By: Lisa Edge
Jean E. Howard "Crossdressing, the Theatre, and Gender Struggle in Early Modern England
ReplyDelete2. This essay is definitely taking a more historical approach to Shakespeare. Women and men were not just separated by dress, but so were the aristocrats from the commoners. Those who wore silk, purple, and adornments (341) were those of the aristocrat status. In the Renaissance time period men appeared "to be only one sex, [and] women being but imperfectly formed or incompletely men (3420." If a man dressed as a woman, it was like he was "lowering" his self. For women, if they were caught dressing as a man, it was as if they were giving up their roles as the submissive woman and becoming "masterless" (345). This essay, I believe, is going "back to text" and helping the audience more understand the significance of the Epilogue: the boy actor, who plays a woman, who is pretending to be a man, reminds the audience that he is what he is. He is a boy playing a girl. This essay shows us that even though during this time the subject of women cross-dressing as men, and men cross-dressing as women, was a huge and dangerous topic.
4. This essay did show me that during the time period that this play was on stage, the subject of genders cross-dressing was a very serious one. It also helped me to realize that the Epilogue, where the boy actor reminds the audience that he is a boy playing a girl, was actually a sort of "slap in the face" to the social norm of sexual hierarchy. A man that dressed as a woman would have been in danger of becoming "submissive" when it should be in HIS nature as the dominate and superior sex. Yet, he plays a woman who dresses as a man. Which means, the character Rosalind was not only performing an act that would have landed her in jail with punishment, but it would have also ruined her reputation as a "modest" woman. The fact that the actor addresses that both sex enjoyed his performance as a woman playing a man is like Shakespeare was laughing in the face of social norms of his time.
1. Barton discusses and responds to the lack of death in As You Like It, noting how many of Shakespeare's earlier plays dealt with death in some capacity. She notes how the play touches upon death during certain moments (such as the snake and lion, Orlando being threatened with fire towards the beginning, etc) but doesn't have any scenes of mortality at the end of it. Death is something Shakespeare is incredibly known for, because of his plays such as Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Macbeth, and many others. People reading a play by Shakespeare that they've never read before might expect, and in some ways be disappointed by (the lack of), death. An interesting point she brought up was that Shakespeare, when using the play Rosalynde as the basis for As You Like It, took out many instances of tragedy and death. She also discusses the plot and how the lack of plot allows for the comedy to be effective. This, more than the lack of death, is a problem for adaptations of the play. Even the simplest of movies have a plot, so to move to something that barely has one can be both jarring and incredibly boring. Branagh's adaptation gets past this by playing up the comedical aspects of play, and by making it more absurd than it already was (setting it in Japan). Setting the tone that As You Like It is going to be comedical can help audiences understand and get past both the idea of death and the fact that it doesn't have that much of a plot to it.
ReplyDelete4. It's kind of humorous that both of the problems I had with the play (lack of plot/danger) are directly discussed by Barton. Learning some of the history of how Shakespeare wrote As You Like It helped show me that the lack of plot isn't a bad thing and that the comedical nature of the story works just as well, if not better than, if it had had a plot to begin with. In some ways a lack of structure can be freeing to a story, allowing for certain aspects to work better, and that's the case with As You Like It. As You Like It is an absurd play, top to bottom. Adding in death or making it more structured would have done nothing to alleviate the problems some people may have with it (such as the idea that Rosalind can change her appearance slightly and fool everyone that she is a man, or that everyone gets together and the end and the story ends happily).The most important aspect of the play is how absurd it is, and the comedy often comes from that absurdity. Making it more structured would take away from that, I think.
- Casey Fowler
"Crossdressing, the Theatre, and Gender Struggle..." Jean E. Howard
ReplyDelete1. In this essay, Howard spares a moment to discuss the femininity/masculinity of Rosalind. Howard claims Rosalind is not, in fact, a feminist, as many scholars have claimed. Howard says Rosalind continues to disprove her masculinity by both fainting at blood and "acting out" the typified feminine disposition throughout the play: "saucy, imperious, and fickle by turns." Howard shows us how Rosalind was almost a feminist-heroine, but not quite.
4. Reading this essay really helped me to understand why cross-dressing was such a hot-button topic. It also made the play seem so much more politically/socially relevant for its time period. Before, "As You Like It" seemed like a silly comedy, meant only to satisfy the masses. However, "Crossdressing..." shows us how deeply important gender roles were for society at that time. This makes the play and Shakespeare seem so much more tongue-in-cheek, and so naughty, like a political cartoon. By exaggerating the characters and their lives, Shakespeare makes a caricature of the controversial topic and the people attached to it.
[2] Having read "Crossdressing, the Theatre, and Gender Struggle in Early Modern England" it seems to be a more historical approach to the play. As You Like It is only one of the plays that is touched upon in the essay and the author brings in several other informational sources. He provides a fairly solid framework for the times in which the plays were written. He gives specific incidences of law regarding cross-dressing and the roles of men and women in England at the time. For me the way he structures the argument and the approach to the topic work. In providing the solid background he lends a stronger understanding to the plays when it is time to discuss them in-depth. This makes it easier to understand what he is trying to say when he actually says it.
ReplyDelete[4] I liked this essay because it helps shed a greater light on the historical context of when the play was written. Not going into the play completely ignorant but without a completely grounded view on the time, this essay helps feel in some of the gapes. By doing this it makes the play a more special, more invigorating interpretation of the life of the time. It shows just how far it pushes things. In a tamer way than some of the other plays that come along side it, but nonetheless it still brings into highlight some of the more risqué scenes in the play. Many of the scenes between Orlando and Rosalind you can see this tension that is present. I especially like the scene where two are “married” while Rosalind is still in the guise of Ganymede. This essay places specific emphasis on the epilogue and how it draws attention back to the “boy” that is playing a “girl,” and sometimes playing a “boy” playing a “girl.” Today it seems deeply confusing and comic, but I’m sure at the time it was rather shocking and disturbing. Still I like this because it draws attention to the original setting and shows more of the importance that the things being shown/heard in the play would have had.
3. I don’t know that Barton would’ve necessarily approved of Branagh’s version of As You Like It because sometimes where Shakespeare had cut out the violence the movie inserts it. In the play we don’t see how Duke Senior is kicked out of his home, but in the movie some kick ass ninjas and Duke Frederick break into the part- and he’s got on armor. He never takes the armor off so there’s always this implied threat with him. Whenever he banishes Rosalind, he even puts his hands around her throat like he’s going to choke her. The depiction of Jacques keeps with what Barton had to say about him being ‘firmly displaced from the centre of the composition’. He always seems to be off on his own thinking or writing. When he does interact with other characters he still has the serious, thoughtful persona that he has in the play.
ReplyDelete4. A lot of Shakespeare’s works seemed to be inspired by historical events or in the case of As You Like It, a play by Thomas Lodge called Rosalynde. That play was violent and actually had death in it. It’s interesting to know that Shakespeare intentionally cut this out and focused more on the characters themselves. Barton comments that the play has a ‘subordination of plot in the traditional sense to an intricate structure of meetings between characters, a concentration upon attitudes rather than action’. Shakespeare used character’s development and interaction to move the story along. Tense moments with what seems like an impending death are diffused with comedy or just glazing over the dangerous undertone. Like whenever Duke Frederick exiles Rosalind and Celia, a moment when Rosalind’s and even Celia’s lives are in jeopardy, he simply walks away after sentencing them. This enables the play to remain a light comedy.
Kim McCreery
1) Shapiro is wrestling with the fact that comedy is so topical. Just as discussed, even something as "recent" as a snl skit from early 2000,s or a tv show like Seinfeld can seem dry to someone watching it to day. (Though Seinfeld is still really funny in my opinion). I really wanted to mention memes as another example in class of something that is funny now but might now last. In staging body language and presentation of the lines are necessary for the audience to understand the humor. With out training, footnotes and explanation actors could easily miss the mark and the play can come off as dry.
ReplyDelete4) just as macy mentioned in class I had never really considered the fact dressing as a man would be such a big deal. Im sure because of the topical issue that situation just seems normal. I continually found it funny that no one noticed he was a she. It makes me see just how lacking the ending was with her reveal. I feel now her reveal should have been responded to, if not negatively, at least in a more dramatic manner.
Anne Barton is very theological and compares Shakespeare’s work to other play of his time and before his time. “Although if will be necessary for most of them to return to an urban civilization…, this return does not imply a rejection of the values of the forest.” The writer brings up historical social surrounding influences Shakespeare’s choices in scenery and characters. This explanation helped me see the play in a new light by parallel his plays together such as King Lear and The Two Gentlemen of Verona. It also gives more understanding to the time period as well as moral meanings under the text.
ReplyDeleteI know this is four days behind and if I don't get credit it's cool. Either way I can use this for paper 1 hopefully.
1. The essay I read is by Jean E. Howard, and I think she was trying to address the question of how should we view Rosalind. Obviously, in today's world women don't face the same consequences for not conforming to traditional women's roles as they did in Shakespeare's time. Therefore, Rosalind's cross dressing is humerus, but not scandalous to a modern audience. This essay helps to set historical setting, so that the modern audience can understand that there is an underlying seriousness to the play. It helps the modern audience to really see that Shakespeare is pushing the boundaries of the identity question.
ReplyDelete4. The essay pointed out that Rosalind in male dress is not really a feminist moment, or very disturbing to original viewers, because she fails at being a man. In one scene, she faints at the sight of blood. This shows that she could not properly act the part of a man, because she was still following the sensibilities of a woman. I had never considered that at times she failed to play her role as Ganymede, because everyone within the play seemed to believe that she was distinctly masculine.
-Cayla O.