For Tuesday: van Es, Shakespeare's Comedies, Chs. 4 and 5 "Time" and "Character"

Since we only have one class next week (because of the Scissortail Creative Writing Festival), I want to take a break between plays and talk shop about Shakespeare through van Es' book. So read the chapters on "Time" and "Character," since these are very important for Much Ado and for our next play, All's Well That Ends Well.

Here are some questions to consider as you read, one of which we'll write about on Tuesday:

* What is the difference between a 'flat' and a 'round' character? Why was Shakespeare one of the few playwrights of his age to write 'round' characters?

* How do Beatrice and Benedict demonstrate a combination of the two types?

* Why, according to van Es, did Shakespeare move away both from flat characters and from the classical unities of time from his early to his middle plays?

* If comedy is about reformation (or seeing our vices), why do you think Shakespeare risks complicating his comic types and making them more interesting/human rather than based on 'humours'?

* van Es writes that the "manipulation of time is an exceptional achievement that sets the comedies apart from other plays" (76). What does he mean by this? How does Shakespeare manipulate time in the comedies besides simply compressing many days/weeks/months into a two-hour play?

* Related to the above, why did Shakespeare become more interested in time as a 'character' in his plays?

* van Es also suggests that comedies can also be defined by a movement from winter to spring, or of "fertility over the sterile." How can this help us understand some of the comedies we've read in this class so far?

* Why did playwrights follow the "classical unities" so closely for so long? Do we have any idea why Shakespeare abandoned it so early in his career?

For Tuesday" Bevis, Chapter 6 and Act 5 of As You Like It

Be sure to finish the play for Tuesday, and if possible, re-read the final act to keep it in mind for Tuesday's discussion. Also read Chapter 6 of Bevis which discusses the line between savagery and satire, and why we delight in the nastiness of humor so much--and what this might say about us and the people who write comedy.

Here are some ideas from Bevis to consider relating to the play:

* What does he mean when he says "Behind the smile, then, may lie a socialized snarl; and behind the laugh, a play fight. But behind both of these facial expressions lie real snarls and real fights" (78)? Where do we see in As You Like It a sense of play becoming "serious"?

* Bevis quotes Alexander Pope, the writer of the great mock-epic poem, The Rape of the Lock, as saying "'Tis a sort of writing very like tickling" (81). Why is tickling the perfect metaphor for satirical comedy, and much of what we see in As You Like It?

* Bevis writes that "comedy can teach you to be both a fatalist and a moralist at the same time" (83). How might this describe most of the fools in Shakespeare's plays, and especially someone like Jacques?

* Bevis writes "to be a witness [in a comedy] is to be an accomplice" (85). When do we feel guilty for laughing or enjoying a laugh in this play? When is the laughter also cruel or uncomfortable? What things do we laugh at in the play that we wouldn't laugh at in real life?

* One of my favorite quotes in the chapter comes at the very end when he writes, "comedy is a story of how taunting becomes teasing becomes treasuring" (88). How might this work in As You Like It?

Mid-Term Paper: “Based Upon A Play By Will Shakespeare”

“in Shakespeare…we get something different: sustained, two-way courtship in which the affection of women is taken seriously in spite of the ludicrous confusion that inevitably occurs. This confused courtship lies at the heart of romantic comedy, a modern genre that Shakespeare could be said to invent” (van Es 54).

For your mid-term paper, I want you to consider adapting one of Shakespeare’s classic comedies for the big screen: Two Gentlemen, A Midsummer Night’s Dream or As You Like It. Each one has all the hallmarks of the ‘Romantic Comedy,’ as it is about the struggle, confusions, doubts, and joys of love relationships. In that sense each play is very modern, particularly in how Shakespeare makes courtship the center of the play, and women are allowed (even if only temporarily) to assume center stage and decide their own fate. However, as van Es reminds us, “though we might say that love in Shakespeare’s comedy is more modern than one might have expected, we should also acknowledge that it is more early modern than it at first feels” (64). So much of what he dramatizes and makes fun of is particular to Elizabethan England and might not translate for modern audiences without a little editorial work.

Your paper will be a “pitch” to a producer as to why you think your adaptation will work on the screen and become the next She’s the Man, or Ten Things I Hate About You. To do this, I want you to address the following points:

• Your introduction should state the new title of your play (make it sound modern), the updated setting, and the main characters (you don’t have to use them all, but consider if you want to update their names or situations). Compare your adaptation to a modern film or show that you feel it will complement in style, tone, or ideas. You might want to analyze a brief scene from that show/film to illustrate this!
• Discuss what scenes still work and are “modern”: what scenes would play beautifully with a minimum of editing? Discuss 1-2 scenes in a short close reading/analysis. Also explain how it will work in the context of your new setting/characters.
• Discuss what scenes don’t work and need to be cut or severely changed for the good of the adaptation. Discuss 1-2 scenes in a short close reading/analysis. Make sure we understand why it’s too “early modern” rather than “modern.”

ALSO: You must use Bevis and van Es to help make your points and explain why Shakespeare is not only funny to modern audiences, but how his humor works—why it’s subversive, witty, exciting, and risqué. Make sure your paper is a conversation between you, Shakespeare’s text, and the critical sources addressed to a specific audience—a producer who doesn’t know Shakespeare very well and might be inclined to think he’s boring, old, and obscure.

REQUIREMENTS: At least 6-7 pages (double spaced); all quotes should be cited according to MLA format guidelines; due Thursday, March 15^th by 5pm

 

For Thursday: As You Like It, Acts 3-4

Finish the play if you can for Thursday, but we'll really only have time to discuss Acts 3 & 4 as usual. Here are some ideas to consider as you read:

* In a play largely written in prose, verse is no longer 'natural,' but often strange when it appears in the play. How does the play often use verse for satirical purposes--that is, to mock the person who uses it?

* How do these acts discuss the conventions of love and how lovers such as Oliver, Silvius, etc. should behave? What seems artificial and ultimately humorous about these conventions? How do we know that Shakespeare is laughing at them? (if interest, read Shakespeare's Sonnet 130, which seems to inform many of the speeches in this play--notably Rosalind's to Phoebe in Act 3, scene 5).

* How do Touchstone and Audrey satirize the behavior of other lovers, such as Orlando & Rosalind, and Silvius and Phoebe? What makes his "foolish" approach to love so unconventional--and comic?

* How does Rosalind (as Ganymede) instruct Orlando to woo her? How is this similar to how Sylvia instructs Valentine in The Two Gentlemen of Verona? What makes this version of the scene a bit more racy--and humorous?  

* Why is Act 3, Scene 5 entirely in verse? What makes Rosalind switch when talking to Phoebe and Silvius? What effect does this have on the scene and the audience?

* In previous plays, the headstrong, witty woman always has a foil--a man who can ultimately overpower her (Proteus for Sylvia and Julia, Oberon for Titania, Demetrius for Helena, etc.). Why doesn't Rosalind have a similar male foil? Why do you think Shakespeare allows her to basically run wild in the forest with no one to oppose her?

* How does Jacques develop as a fool in these acts--and what happens when he meets up with Touchstone?

* Why is Oliver out to destroy his brother, Orlando? What makes him a villain in this play? And how seriously are we supposed to take him?

For Tuesday: As You Like It, Acts 1-2

Read Acts 1-2 of As You Like It and consider some of the following questions below. Also, I want to work on close reading skills in class over the next few weeks, so expect to really dig into some difficult or confusing passages in class!

* Why does this play use almost as much prose as verse? Which characters predominantly speak in prose and why? When do they revert to verse?

* Why do brothers in this play hate and betray one another, whereas 'sisters' (even though Rosalind and Celia aren't blood sisters) are willing to die for one another? What might this reveal about Shakespeare's view of male and female relationships?

* Touchstone is the classic Shakespearean fool much like Speed rather than Bottom or Puck. What is his role in the play? Consider, too, that a "touchstone" is a "stone used to test the quality of precious metals."

* Why does Rosalind take the name Ganymede? Who was Ganymede and what meta-associations might this have for the audience? Consider Bart van Es' point in Chapter 3 that Shakespeare likes to test the possibilities of relationships in his comedies though they are always restored to 'normal' by the end of the play.

* How does the play contrast the world with the court with the Forest of Arden? Why does Duke Senior prefer it? Do others?

* Is Jacques a knowing or an unwitting fool? Is he also a kind of "touchstone" for others around him, to prove their wit/worth? Or is his wit more nonsensical/humorous?

* Read Jacques' speeches in Act 2, scene 7 (page 77-78 in the Folger edition) carefully: according to him, what is the license of a Fool and what is the benefit of satire? Why does he desire to be seen as a "motley fool" so desperately? Does Duke Senior think he's qualified for the job?

* Consider the many allusions to the stage in Act 2, particularly Jacques' famous speech, "all the world's a stage." Why call the audience's attention to this in the forest scenes?