Answer TWO of the
following...
1. The final act is
peppered with scenes and moments that are often cut or condensed in modern
productions: notably Act 5, Scenes 1 and 3, Touchstone’s long ramble about
retorts, reproofs, and replies, and the speech of Hymen (both in 5.4). Focusing on one or more of these, why are
these moments in the play and yet seen as so superfluous to the true
story? If kept, what might they
add?
2. Rosalind is given the
last word in the play—a witty speech in prose, not verse. What do you feel is the purpose of the
Epilogue, and why is it important to see/hear Rosalind after the happy ending
of Act 5? Is the Epilogue another bit of acting on her part...or is this the
true, unmasked Rosalind? Also, is this
Shakespeare speaking to us directly, through his character?
3. Jacques is notably
quiet in the final act, though he emerges in the final scene and is given the
next-to-last lines in the play (save the Epilogue). Discuss the manner of his exit and the strange ‘benediction’ he
offers all the characters before he goes.
How are we meant to read this?
Is it another comment on the play itself from the mouth of
Shakespeare? Or the misanthropic
musings of a fool?
3. Jacques’ lines at the end of the play seem to be an ironic treatment of Hymen’s benediction on the previous page. Rosalind and Orlando, the true lovers of the play, are treated quite well by both; Hymen predicts that no conflict will drive them apart, and Jacques says they will get the love they deserve. Cilia and Oliver are also treated well by both god and human—each wishes them well in their relationship with each other. Silvius, Phoebe, Touchstone, and Audrey on the other hand, are all treated quite differently.
ReplyDeleteSilvius is not mentioned by Hymen, but Phoebe is held accountable to her promise. While Hymen makes their love sound like a contract waiting to be fulfilled, Jacques comes right and says what it is more likely to be about: sex. The funniest lines, at least in my opinion, are the ones concerning Touchstone and Audrey’s relationship. Hymen compares their love to foul weather in winter, and Jacques straight out tells them their relationship won’t last more than two months.
I also noticed that Jacques bequeaths people to things—Duke Senior is given to his honor, Rosalind and Orlando to their true love, etc. I’m not quite sure what it means, but I found it an interesting switch from the general formant of gift giving.
4. I found the ending to be quite funny. It was as if Shakespeare was making fun of love stories, the plot, and Greek plays all at the same time. Jaques de Bois’ appearance was comically abrupt, and the idea that Duke Frederick became a holy man is ridiculous. I kind of took it as the result of Shakespeare’s “who cares about the plot” attitude. He had said what he wanted to say, didn’t care about the ending, and hoped to mirror the ridiculousness of many other plays and story ending. For him, a quick ending was a win-win situation.
Great point about the Hymen/Jaques connection. Jacques wanted to give everyone away, but wasn't allowed to, so he did it anyway--and with greater success, perhaps! His gift is his 'philosophy,' which predicts good and dire fates to the married couples. Like many philosophers, he can augur happiness in others but cannot find it for himself.
Delete1) Hymen is merely the personification of marriage. Her appearance, though timely coinciding with all the upcoming nupitals, is superfluous. If left out, nothing is really detracted from the play. However, when left in place, she adds beauty to the scene and makes it seem almost as if these marriages will be blessed by the gods. Maybe there will be no need for horns for these husbands? :-)
ReplyDelete4) Like ArkhamA, I liked the ending. That it was so much more fast paced than the rest of the play made the scene hilarious. I like happy endings, so the play is well named because it turns out just As I Like It! On the other hand, with all the references to cuckholdery in the play, it could be seen as satirical. Suddenly everyone is getting the love they want, and so, will live happily ever after...maybe.
I think, too, Hymen is here to make the play more of a ritual--as all comedy is (making sure things conclude happily). Of course, he also offers his benediction to the couples--though even his best wishes to Audrey and Touchstone are mixed (Jaques takes it a step further). Clearly, the end of the play isn't realistic or even plausible--just a rehearsed ritual like the game of love itself. It ends predictably, yet is none the less fulfilling for that.
Delete1. Touchstone's ramble, to me, seemed to imply that he thought (or says he thinks) that he fought tooth and nail for Audrey's hand. It has "trod a measure, flattered a lady, politic with my friend, smooth with mine enemy"... and describes the Retorts as if he were giving a blow-by-blow account of a duel, and of a handbook for dueling. Back in the day, dueling was serious business; in the footnotes it mentioned that a duel could be fought upon the insult of a reputation. The common idea is that it is for a lady's honor. Once again, Shakespeare seems to satirize wooing stereotypes. Oddly, it also ties in to the ideas of high adventure--even now, a satisfying ending would be defeating the villain both for one's true love, for the people, and for the completion of a quest for honor or vengeance. It seems superfluous because it comes out of nowhere and is as catty as Touchstone can be. Hymen's words sound like a priest instead of a god of marriage, but also as if the heavens were in on Rosalind's planning and aided her as well, perhaps by keeping her safe from harm while someone pretended to be her. The speech seems superfluous because well, Rosalind already revealed herself. If kept, I think they add more humor and riffing of love stories and myths, and a "legitimacy" to the stories and marriages.
ReplyDelete--Jessie Randall
4. The play is satisfying mainly in terms of Rosalind's plan being perfectly realized. She pulled off one of the great schemes of Shakespeare's comedies or plays about love in general, and she did it all by herself. (Well, Celia helped, but only by keeping quiet.) Jacques de Bois comes out of nowhere, and serves mainly to wrap up the previous plot threads of Duke Frederick's threats. It isn't particularly satisfying, especially to a modern audience, who wants to see a confrontation of words or a battle, but in Shakespeare's time it would have served to tell the audience that the proper order has been restored even if they haven't seen it happen. If it is meant to be satiric, then it satirizes convenience itself and of divine intervention to someone who hadn't even expressed remorse in the opening of the play (although said "divine intervention" takes the form of clerics). Normally, it would take a lot for a man like Duke Frederick to change his ways. Like the above posters said, it's probably a pot-shot at those who want logic in many of their stories, and those who disagree with the author of a story on how it should end. In the end, it allows the viewers and readers to imagine what the aftermath would be like, because otherwise Shakespeare might have made a tragedy like in his source material (at least according to the footnotes).
ReplyDelete--Jessie Randall
As you suggest, we should get the Duke's repentance and a lengthy explanation restoring order. Instead, it just happens--all behind the scenes, all at a moment's notice. The fun of the play is how they fall in love, not how it gets patched together. Even less fun would be the inevitable result--the Sixth Act, or how Orlando and Rosalind fight over whose turn it is to wipe the baby's ass! So Shakespeare ends it where he does, and how we like it, meaning before we can really start asking too many questions. I think of this play as a collection of real characters (such as Rosalind, Jaques, Orlando, Touchstone, Celia) who wander into a stereotypical comedy and shake things up for the two-dimensional characters (Sylvius, Phoebe, Audrey, etc.). They make of the play what they can!
Delete4. I think this is Shakespeare giving the middle finger to the audience who all want “a romantic comedy” of the day. Shakespeare ain’t about that life. He does what he wants throughout the play, and then you have the final act that is very short everything is happy go lucky and works out for the best. Everyone is in love and happy, and that is just “as you like it”. Not so much in the movie we watched, but when I read Act V, it felt very satirical to me. Shakespeare hurriedly wrapped a satin ribbon around all of these events that didn’t make much sense, just to say he gave the audience what they wanted.
ReplyDelete2. I also took Rosalind’s last lines as satirical. In the beginning of the speech she states “ ‘tis true that a good play needs no epilogue” and then goes on speaking for another paragraph. I think this is Shakespeare rubbing it in our face that we just read this ridiculous play with the tacked on sappy ending that he only added for the benefit of the superfluous audience. If we had any doubts about Act V being satirical or poking fun, then I think this epilogue is our answer. The epilogue is an obvious bit from Shakespeare himself telling us how we should really take this play. I think this is Shakespeare (using Rosalind’s character) to get across his words.
-Tori W.
Good points--though he's maybe not giving the "middle finger" as much as a sly wink or a pat on the back. He loves his audience, clearly, but also really knows what they want. Not just a pat, happy resolution to all the drama, but a strong woman who the men can love both as a woman AND a man. It would be hard to have a male audience really accept a woman without some way of hiding her sex, and many of Shakespeare's women do this (we'll encounter it again in The Merchant of Venice). Rosalind, though, does it most extravagantly, and though she has to take off her doublet and hose, the Epilogue shows her unrepentant and just as omnipotent. So yes, this is both Shakespeare speaking and a woman who has the measure of her audience (even if it was originally a boy).
DeleteNikki Ennis
ReplyDelete4. I felt Jacques behavior in the final scene as more of a mockery. Shakespeare mocking the kind of people in society who are like Jacques, who insist on being melancholy all of the time. Everything works out in the end, despite Jacques's negative "predictions" of life, and he goes off like a disappointed child who didn't get his way.
5. To me, the ending did seem haphazardly thrown together. It felt as if Shakespeare tried his best to write a romantic play but still be true to himself. However, it seemed at the end, the over-the-top romantic direction in which things were headed was too much for even Shakespeare to handle and so he just threw his hands up in resignation, dumped it all together in one grand romantic gesture, possibly threw his quill across the room, and gave society exactly what they wanted, 'as they liked it'. Satisfying? Sure. Mentally challenging? Hardly.
Part of the fun of this play is to ask: did Shakespeare write the play--or the characters? I get the sense that this play is, in some sense, a "make your own play kit" which he gave to Rosalind. He put her in this pastoral, Robin Hood land which is the ideal backdrop for romance. He gave her all the right players and pieces, and said "go to work." Jaques, as many people have mentioned below, didn't sign up for this experience at all, hence his displeasure. We'll see another character writing his own play to some extent in The Tempest, and Shakespeare loved this idea of people manipulating their own world, using the conventions the audience expected, while subverting it to their own tastes. Can a character also be a writer? In this case, it seems hard to deny!
DeleteI personally love when a story ends like it is suppose to. I HATE when a movie or book ends abruptly without an answer or without all the loose ends neatly tied up. However, even though Act V seems to portray this, much of it did not make much sense. Many scenes are glossed over. For instance, I have a hard time believing that everyone would be okay with Rosalind's portrayal of a man and the fact that Duke Frederick quickly realized his evil ways. So, in this sense, the final act was not satisfying. However, I do agree that Shakespeare was just wrapping up an already ridiculous play with a ridiculous ending and using the ridiculousness to mock the love stories of his time.
ReplyDelete2. I do believe that this epilogue is also suppose to continue in the mocking of the conventional love story of this time. Rosalind does address both of the female and male audience, for the love they bear each other, to like the play as much as they please. I think Shakespeare is speaking through Rosalind's character to address the fact that this was not a seriously written play. He wrote it to please his time. However, with that being said, if the whole play was written to mock the sappy love stories of his time and was completely ridiculous in some parts, why did Shakespeare include the epilogue? Does it not basically imply the same meaning and just wrap everything up?
Courtney White
Great points, and you're right, the Epilogue could be read as contradicting his whole point in Act V. Yet it is both a traditional 'wrap up' speech and a very unconventional one--as Rosalind tells us, when she first appears. With Shakespeare, the plot and characters are all very traditional: it's the language that makes everything different. How she says what she says is what makes this extraordinary and puts a clever spin on the events of the entire play. But she says it so quickly and so slyly that it can easily go over our head and leave us nodding with pleasure and innocence.
DeleteI don’t understand why Hymen is not included. I am sort of upset to learn that there was a bit of mysticism and the version we watched in class gave Rosalind his words. This play would be so much better with Hymen and the forest being more concentrated on! I wish an adaptation was made with Hymen and his song to the newlyweds. I hate cliché happy endings so the addition of a mythical God would have kept my interest a little better. Touchstone’s speech about retorts and arguments/conflicts is pure character development. Touchstone is basically a bull-shitter. He bullshits his way out of everything. As far as what that has to do with the plot, wait what plot?
ReplyDeleteJacques “forever alone” exit is great. Out of all his bitching and self loathing, he tries to give everyone as sound advice as possible. Then he goes to find religion or answer his many questions about life. Not all people are obsessed with love, not in the romantic way. I think Jacques is the observer who has finally seen all he needs to see of his specimens. Shakespeare might be attempting to relate Jacques to audience members who are “all out of love” (I’m so lost without you…..I know I was wrong…). Anyway, sometimes you have to love yourself. To me, Jacques just isn’t there yet, and Rosalind is. That’s why she gets the epilogue!
4. I think the ending is rushed and untidy. However, I think it is also designed to give the audience an uncomplicated happy ending. I think Shakespeare satirizes the idea of a happy ending just as he mocks the act of falling in love. The different personas that the characters take on gives the play a lot of depth. Yet, the ending is something that the audience might expect, even though it doesn't feel like it fits in with the rest of the play.
ReplyDelete2. The epilogue doesn't seem like Rosalind at all. It almost sounds as if it is Shakespeare speaking through Rosalind. I understood the epilogue to say that this was a good play, and it can only be made better by a good epilogue. I think it is important for Rosalind to speak after the final act, because for those viewers that didn't like the ending it is a reminder of the previous exploits of the characters. I suppose that it could be the unmasked Rosalind, in which case I feel as if she is very self aware. Her character likes to play act, and don multiple personas. This epilogue almost sounds as if she is thanking her audience for participating with her throughout the play.
-Cayla O.
2. I take the ending as rather tongue in cheek, and agree with Tori that it is Shakespeare speaking to us through Rosalind's character. I think it makes the ending much better after rushing through and giving them their happy endings.
ReplyDeleteJ. Wingard
Two things: one, you need to respond to 2 questions, not just one. And two, give a more detailed answer--go into more detail and 'read' part of her speech for us. The more you do here, the more 'pre-writing' you'll have for your papers to come.
DeleteMelissa Williams
ReplyDeleteDr. J. Grasso
Shakespeare
January 28, 2014
1. Touchstone rambles on and on about how to argue in polite society, which turns out to not be so polite after all. Looking at the ramble in scene 3, we notice that it probably is shortened because it seems to stop the flow of the story. Rather than keep focus on the romance and drama of the story, it stops for a moment to look at it from a different perspective. If added, it would show that Shakespeare perhaps did not mean for this play to be viewed seriously. Touchstone basically mocks the whole entire way that Rosalind and Orlando have been acting around one another the entire play rather than be direct. Basically, their relationship at this point is an “if.”
2. The speech of Rosalind reminds the audience that it does not matter who plays the roles within the play. Instead, what matters is that the play was performed at all. Going back in the play, Shakespeare mentioned that all of the world is a stage, and all of the people merely actors. Thanks to Rosalind pretending to be Ganymede who then pretended to be Rosalind who she really was, it makes sense that despite being a high station woman that she is given the epilogue. Never does Rosalinde drop her mask throughout the entire speech because she does not let her emotions show. Sure, she talks about being in love with the audience, but was she? Her eyes were set on Orlando the entire play before, and all else received her laughing scorn.
4. Like stated above I also believe that the ending of “As You Like It” was Shakespeare flipping the audience off. His intentions were not to compose a predicable play with an ordinary love story. He probably knew that the audience that would watch this play would be expecting to see a romantic comedy but he wanted to push the limit and give them something beyond that. He gave them a new take on the reality of love. I personally was not a fan of the ending, mainly because I felt every scene prior to the ending was drawn out and took time explaining the situation and then the ending was just sort of thrown at me. I think that Shakespeare was giving us a play “as we like it” along with puns and strategies to show a different version of the perfect love story.
ReplyDelete2. I felt like in the epilogue Shakespeare was speaking through Rosalind. Her/His character is practically flirting with the audience who may or may not already be pissed off from the play they just watched. The purpose of the epilogue may have been Shakespeare mocking the audience for sitting through this play with the expectations of the basic day and age love story. The Rosalind that comes out to speak is very much so unmasked.
-Kayci Snider
2. It was important to hear Rosalind at the end of the play because she ran the whole show. It was Rosalind that was the driving force of the storyline and it was just fitting that she be the one to end it. I feel that the purpose of the epilogue is to conclude all the satire brought out in the play. The epilogue makes fun of the idea of live and tells each side “what to do” when in love. The epilogue sounds as if Rosalind is dressed as a man again. Especially when she say “If I were a woman” because the joke is that she is a woman, she’s just dressed as a man. Of course in Shakespeare’s time that would have been even funnier because it’s a man playing girl playing a man. So because she is acting like a man this still isn’t the “true” Rosalind. She may have unmasked her character and attitude, but not who she is fully. Shakespeare is always speaking to his audience through his characters. So here in the epilogue he is again talking to his audience and really showing how ridiculous they can seem.
ReplyDelete4. The ending is satisfying the sense that it is a happy ending and no one gets killed. It is unsatisfying however, because it’s not really revealed to us how this magical happy ending came to be. As an audience member you don’t want to be left in the dark about certain information. The whole scene of Jaques de Bois coming in and setting everything right is way to coincidentally happy, especially for a modern audience. The unsatisfying feeling, due to its rushed unexplained ending, I think is supposed to be unsatisfying. Because we as humans always want the happy story book ending and we became upset when we don’t receive it, even if the work overall is a good one. Shakespeare knows this and I feel is just playing on that idea to really show us his audience how unrealistic the happy every after we want is.
-Jasmine Q
Marc Ruhnke
ReplyDelete2. The Epilogue, especially in the Branagh version, seemed like Shakespeare speaking directly to the audience as much as Rosalind addressing the audience. Based on what scholars have pieced together from his sonnets, and the mystery surrounding Shakespeare's lovers, it seems likely that he had at least one male lover. When Rosalind speaks of "kissing the beards" of the men in the audience, despite not being a woman, it is almost like Shakespeare is floating the idea "oh, I could really do this... would it be so bad?". With the added complication that young men or boys played the women in Shakepeare plays, this would have added a whole new wrinkle to the ending, with a boy pretending to be a girl pretending to be a boy delivering the lines from Shakespeare's pen... And while we can't say for sure what was Shakespeare playing with convention, how much was play acting, and what was his actual thoughts on the matter, it makes up a really neat and nuanced ending to an unusual play.
4. The ending, while convenient, didn't particularly bother me. It was very tidy, but it is a play, a drama, with a title naming it just what it is, "As You Like It". It has the sort of ending that we pine for in romantic comedies. While there are many complex, nuanced elements to the play, it is not so far removed from modern romantic comedies. A main character paints themselves into a corner and then has to figure a way out to fix all the problems in a nice tidy ending, and that is exactly what Rosalind does. While we expect some added level of complexity from Shakespeare (fairly or not), as discussed in class he did not actually care to greatly about plot, favoring more the characters and language. Whether out of lazyness or as a jab at the audience, or perhaps because he just wanted a tidy ending, As You Like It's ending serves its purpose.
2. In the epilogue, Rosalind comments that though the epilogue is normally done by a man the play was good enough that nobody told her she couldn’t do it so she did. Her appearance could make it better maybe but not worse. She takes this opportunity to tell the women that they can take the play as they want. Whether it’s as multiple love stories that end happily, an exiled duke who regains his title and land, or a satire over male gender roles and behavior. She also takes a jab at the men again with teasing them about kisses for the attractive ones. She uses words that might normally be used to describe a woman’s appearance. I think she’s also letting the audience know that despite speaking in verse and being very formal as a woman in front of her father, Duke Senior, Orlando, and the others that she is mostly still the smart and playful girl that she proved herself to be.
ReplyDelete4. I liked the end of the play even though it wrapped up too nicely and was kind of sudden. In the adaptation, everyone breaks out into song and dance which I thought was kind of weird, but after reading the play I see the same thing happening there too really. Jacques de Bois seems to deliver the icing on the cake. All of the couples are happily married, and he rides in on his horse to deliver the news that everyone can now go home. The usurper, Duke Frederick, has found religion and renounced his ways. So Duke Senior and his entourage may now really get their titles, wealth, and lands back. This also allows Oliver to get his own estate back and Orlando to gain independence. It is funny though that an intelligent lady of the court marries a guy who was raised as a peasant. With everyone’s wealth returned, the ending is perfect and leaves nobody unhappy. Even Jacques not de Bois decides to explore the reasons behind the mysterious change of heart in Duke Frederick. I also thought it was strange that Jacques dominated the conversation with de Bois instead of Celia asking about how her father was doing, but I guess she was preoccupied with Oliver.
Kim McCreery
2. I think that Rosalind having the last word is important because it's the actor unmasked, but channeling Shakespeare at the same time. It reminds the audience that this is a young lad, playing a girl, who pretends to be a young lad. It's almost like Robert Downey Jr.'s line in Tropic Thunder about his identity confused character "I'm the dude playing a dude disguised as another dude". You're reminded that this is the actor playing the female. But, he's speaking what Shakespeare has written or told him to say. In a way, I think it's both Shakespeare and the actor telling the audience "It's okay that you like this".
ReplyDelete3. I think that Jaques's whole role, is as Grasso said, it's like he's in the wrong play. Amongst all this comedy, he's just like, "Ugh, really?" It really is like Hamlet wondered into this play. I believe that him not staying for the wedding is almost like he's really just sick of it. When he leaves and gives the benedictions, I read it more like he's saying, "Alright, I hope you guys have a good marriage. Congrats on regaining your title and rank. And you two just need to hurry up and sleep together…" and so on. It's like he's searching for his story - his Hamlet story. But at the same time, the entering of the other Jaques De Bois is like the entering of the RIGHT Jaques, and when the Jaques we're acquainted with leaves, it's like he's possibly going on to his own story.
3. Jaques seems to be the character that will never allow himself to be outdone, especially by a random, brand new character by the same name. I think Shakespeare wrote him to be that obnoxious, somewhat self-righteous, self-important (but really everyone can see he's a fool) guy. This is obvious during his 'benediction,' during which he assumes the authority to bless the lives of his fellow forest-dwellers. His comment to the Duke Senior is as insufferable as it gets: "You to your former honor I bequeath-- Your patience and your virtue well deserves it" (85). In a previous response I suggested Jaques served as a deviation from the ridiculous plot movement of the play. However, at this juncture he seems to finalize the happy endings for the characters, ties up the (very) loose ends in a few swift lines, and gives the audience exactly what they like instead of leaving them with life lessons from a tortured fool.
ReplyDelete4. I find a simple yet clever comedy in the unsatisfying ending. Based on other Shakespeare plays I've experienced, I expected a cohesive and meaningful plot, but the flimsy structure really lends itself to the ridiculousness of the unbearably happy ending. The fact that the conclusion is unsatisfactory is perhaps a Jaques-like reflection on life--sometimes we are still unsatisfied when things go exactly as we would like them. It seems to me that Shakespeare recognized the limitations of gender roles on human relationships and made a play as ridiculous as the constructs people set up for themselves.
Rosalind, Oh dear Rosalind, two hours of intimate scenes with Rosalind leave the audience with a real connection to her character, the audience is given the chance to see ever facet of her personality. This intimate relation warrants prose rather than verse, how unsatisfying it would have been for her to come out speaking verse to the audience! I feel it would be terribly dissatisfying to have been left with Act 5 and nothing more of Rosalind. The epilogue gives the audience the chance to have one last look at her character. I do think Shakespeare is using her otherwise there is no needs for phrases like “good plays prove the better by the help of good epilogues” because she would be a character of the play rather than the actor aware of her epilogue. This helps the ending but still leaves much to interpretation is how the audience wants to read act 5.
ReplyDelete4. I believe this to be satirical in a small way, as if Shakespeare wants to make the audience reexamine what they expect from the play. This scene is the perfect ending for any romantic comedy. The perfect ending is what people expected despite the intense character development they just watched for the past two hours. Even today we like our comedies to end “perfectly” in marriage. That is why many are so upset with movies like The Breakup, in ended “wrong” according to romantic comedy format. The ending of The Breakup is not “how we like it”, Act five is exactly how we want or expect things to end. I do feel it was a little rushed over all but when trying to pack so much in to the end of a play (that already lasted 4 acts!) you can’t really waste much time or talking.
2) I think Rosalind's speech is one last jab at the entire premise of pretending to be a man/woman/man. It was like Shakespeare agreeing the play makes no sense and it is okay. It's explaining that he isn't just a bad playwright, but in fact, he is witty and acknowledges the bizarre nature of the play. I also think it is a very good way to bring Rosalind back. She disappears and we want to know if she is the same witty girl. She returns to charm the pants right off of herself. I believe this is truly free Rosalind. These are her free thoughts in prose. I believe Shakespeare is blatantly pushing his humor through Rosalind but it is her character's feelings and humor.
ReplyDelete4)I took it as satiric. It seems to make fun of what we want to see. We crave a happily ever after. Shakespeare gave us what we always wine about not getting. And it shows how silly it would be to truly have all lose ends tied up. The seer ridiculousness of the play ending with all married and the duke back causes us to chuckle at what a silly life we would lead without struggle. I leave satisfied and slightly embarrassed that the play really was "As I liked it"