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? 

Final Exam/Paper #3 Assignment

In Chapter 9, “Endings” from Poole’s Tragedy: A Very Short Introduction, he writes,

Death is promiscuous in tragedy. It engulfs the good, the bad, and the indifferent without regard to their mortal qualities, the Cordelias as well as the Gonerils and the Regans. There is no justice we can recognize in the way war, famine, and plague choose their victims. That’s what happens with weapons of mass destruction—they do not discriminate. The ‘evil’ that tragedy shows us is a realistic assessment of the way individuals are destroyed with no regard to whether they deserve it or not (118).

For your Final Paper (and Final Exam, so to speak), I want you to use King Lear and Antony and Cleopatra to respond to Poole’s idea: what are we supposed to learn from the deaths in both plays? Good people are maimed and killed in each play (Gloucester, Cordelia, Enobarbus) and several ‘evil’ people get their comeuppance (Edmund, the sisters, Lear? Cleopatra?). Of course, plenty of people don’t die at all, and the balance of good vs. bad people doesn’t lend itself to an easy moral interpretation. Are the deaths random in Shakespeare’s plays, like life itself? Are they staged merely for dramatic effect? Or do they lead to other themes and ideas beyond merely rewarding good and punishing evil? And how do we get catharsis (or relief, justice, satisfaction) by the end of the each play? Do the deaths accomplish this…or do we get it in spite of the deaths?

This is important to think about today, in the midst of COVID-19, which takes the young and the old, the sick and the healthy, the good and the bad. Is Tragedy a mirror or life, merely showing us what we know to be true? Or does it try to make sense out of the random chance and injustice of life? In other words, how does Shakespeare transform death in these plays to achieve his larger purpose?

REQUIREMENTS

• I won’t grade this like a polished paper, but more like a Final Exam you composed in class. So feel free to be a little more messy and extemporaneous. Give yourself a few hours and see what comes out. Though feel free to revise if you can.
• Use BOTH plays, though you can focus more on one than the other.
• Besides the quote above (which you can discuss directly), use Poole elsewhere in your paper to help make your argument. You can also use Wells if you like.
• Length is not an issue--that's up to you. Double space, though, please. 
• DUE NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, MAY 8^th BY 5pm

Please e-mail me with questions and concerns, or simply to talk some of these ideas out with me. I’m still here to help, even if we can’t talk face to face!

Antony and Cleopatra: Acts 2-3

Here is your last actual set of questions for Antony and Cleopatra! I will give a short video lecture/question for Acts 4-5 early next week, but it won't be the normal set of questions (since it is supposed to be Dead Week). So enjoy these last questions and be sure to get them to me no later than next week. 

Q1: How would you stage Act 2, Scene 5, particularly the scenes with Cleopatra and the Messenger? Is this a scene of high comedy, where Cleopatra loses it and acts like a spoiled child? Or is this a deeply tragic scene, where she realizes that the one hold she had over Antony’s affections is lost? Use a line or two to support how you think we’re supposed to read (and stage) this scene.

Q2: When Enobarbus tells the Romans (Maecenas and Agrippa) about Cleopatra, he switches from verse to prose: why does he do this? Also, examine this speech—what does he think about Cleopatra? Does he consider her Antony’s “exotic” whore? Or does he hold her in respect and awe? 

Q3: Though Rome is notoriously racist in its views towards Cleopatra and Egypt, is the same true of Antony? Does he love her in spite of her race, or is he ‘color blind’ when it comes to his affections? How does Act III offer us a definitive portrait of their relationship, especially once the chips are down (after the disastrous naval battle)?

Q4: What role does Enobarbus seem to embody in the play, particularly in Acts 2 and 3? Though he is one of Antony’s most loyal supporters, even he is looking for a way out by the end of Act 3. Does he function somewhat like the Fool in King Lear? Or is he more like Edmund, plotting secretly against his father?

Short Video Lecture for Acts 1-2 of Antony and Cleopatra

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 follows as a Comment (or send it with your next set of questions). I'll post questions for Acts 2-3 later this week, but I'll give you time to digest those acts first. But never fear--we're almost done with the course! :) 

QUESTION: How important to you feel it is to make Shakespeare racially accurate in performance? Should Cleopatra be portrayed by African actors only? Or Shylock only by Jewish actors? Considering that in Shakespeare's day women weren't even allowed on stage, is it more important to adhere to the realities of the stage, or the realities of the plot? What do we gain or lose by being more historically or racially-aware? 

Antony and Cleopatra, Act 1

For those interested, here is a short clip from a RSC production of Act 1, Scene 3 to get a sense of how Cleopatra might be portrayed on-stage. It might give you insight into the first question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0B1xgqAdkM

Q1: In many ways, this is a play about acting, and no one acts more extravagantly as Cleopatra. As Enobarbarus (her servant) says about her, "I have seen her die twenty times upon poor moment" (1.2). Why does she spend so much of her time with Antony in 'costume' rather than being more 'real'? Why might a woman like Cleopatra view life as a performance? 

Q2: How do the Romans in the play, such as Caesar, regard Antony's behavior? Though he's a great warrior and clearly a great lover (to win Cleopatra's affections), what makes him seem 'unmanly' to them? How might this relate to other definitions of manhood in Lear and Macbeth? 

Q3: In a tragedy we might expect Antony to be a dramatic and pathetic (in the best sense, as opposite to bathetic); however, Shakespeare's Antony is very different than the typical portrayal of this famous soldier. How might he have more in common in King Lear, Macbeth, Othello, and (from a play we didn't read) Hamlet? What kind of person is he in Act 1?

Q4: In Act 1, we get a brief glimpse of Rome (Scene IV) and several of Egypt. Why is Egypt written almost entirely in prose (except for the lovers), and Rome entirely in verse? Why might Shakespeare want us to hear this tonal and stylistic contrast? 

Short Lecture on Lear and the 'Gods'

NOTE: Be sure to read Chapters 8 from Poole and Wells for next week; the questions are in the post beneath this one. For now, here's a short lecture to round off King Lear and give you some food for thought. 

When you finish, respond with a COMMENT to this question: "Based on this play (and the ideas in the lecture), do you think Shakespeare is a subversive author? Is he trying to actively change people's mind about the world they live in, and they people who rule them? Or is he just a great entertainer, using characters and plot devices that make for good drama? In other words, does he want to change the world...or just make money off it? 

For Tuesday: Poole and Wells, Chapters 8

For next week, be sure to read Chapters 8 from both Poole and Wells' books. Then answer two of the questions below. Don't forget to watch the brief video in the post above as a counterpoint to some of these questions! 

Q1: Wells writes that the blinding of Gloucester, "is the kind of episode that classical dramatists would have been likely to narrate rather than to represent, but Shakespeare wants us to experience its full horror, causing Gloucester himself to compare it to the bearbaiting spectacles in which contemporary audiences delighted" (82-83). Why do you think we need to see the "full horror" of this scene? If Gloucester came in without his eyes, it would still have its effect and the plot would be satisfied. Why do we need to see this act of sheer violence by the sisters? 

Q2: Poole notes that the word crisis comes from the Greek word for "justice," and climax comes from the Greek word for "ladder" (102). Why might tragedy then suggest that you need to climb to the top of the ladder to find justice? How does this explain the events of King Lear? What 'climax' do we have to reach (and on how many rungs?) to achieve justice? And what kind of justice is it?

Q3: Poole also writes that tragedies are about rites of passage, and specifically, rites such as weddings, coronations, death, funerals, etc. He goes on to note that "These things can go wrong. And tragedy represents the moments when they do, when the rites are challenged, thwarted, violated, aborted" (107). How is King Lear a tragedy about aborted/thwarted rites? What rites? And how do they go wrong? Whose fault is it that the rites don't work as planned? 

Q4: Very interestingly, Wells notes the original King Lear that existed before Shakespeare wrote his own play. This play was "heavily Christianized," but for some reason, Shakespeare took all of this out, so he could "use the story as the basis for a fundamental examination of the human condition, of the relationship between man and the physical universe" (78-79). Why do you think he needed to remove the Christian framework to do this? 

Ian McKellan on Lear (brief lecture)

I was all ready to add a new lecture on King Lear for your 'enjoyment,' but then I remembered this one which is not only shorter, but gives real insight into Lear's character and motives. So watch the video below, which is about 10 minutes, and then answer the question below as a comment (or e-mail it to me with your questions):

The Question: discuss the biggest insight you took away about Lear's character from Ian McKellan's discussion. How did this help you read a specific passage or moment in the play? As someone who has played Lear many times, what does he see that the casual reader may have missed? Be specific, don't just say "he helped me understand why he does what he does." Watch closely and think carefully about what someone who has been Lear has to say about the man and his play. 

For Tuesday: King Lear, Acts 4-5

Here are six questions for Acts 4 and 5, since so much happens here! But you still only have to answer two of them for next week. Again, I don't care when you answer them, whether on Tuesday or Thursday, but keep in mind I'll be giving you questions for Thursday as well. If you need extra time to finish the play, don't worry--we'll only be reading a little bit next week from Wells and Poole, so you'll still have time. You don't have to finish exactly for Tuesday since we don't technically have classes anymore! 

Answer two of the following: 

Q1: Read Lear’s speech on page 90 (4.6) that begins “Ay, every inch a king!” carefully.  After emerging from the storm, Lear seems both mad and enlightened, speaking nonsense and ‘sense’ in equal terms.  In this speech, however, he goes on a misogynist rant against women and seemingly blames them for his downfall.  What is he specifically accusing women of here, and have we heard this language (or sentiments) in other characters in previous plays? Also, how might this relate to Lear’s interest in sex that Ian McKellan discusses in his video (the post above)?

Q2: In some ways, Cordelia and Edgar are mirror images of one another, each one caring for a damaged father, both exiled, and both of them acting (to some extent).  How might one character help us ‘read’ the other, and how do their paths cross metaphorically—or linguistically—in Act IV? 

Q3: How do we read the marital discord between Albany and Goneril in Act 4, Scene 2?  Is this the first time he’s seeing his wife like this—or has this knowledge been long known by him?  Is she surprised by his sudden sympathy for her father?  How does the language of their argument help us see them both—and particularly Goneril—in a new light?

Q4: In Goneril’s scene with Edmund (Act 4, Scene 2), she says, “Oh, the difference of man and man/To thee a woman’s services are due;/My Fool usurps my body” (179).  How does her definition of man, a definition defined against her husband, help us understand why she and her sister are so drawn to Edmund—and so angry toward their father?  Does this remind you of anything Lady Macbeth says to Macbeth? Are they defining “men” similarly?

Q5: By the end of Act V, Regan is poisoned, Goneril kills herself, Edmund is slain by Edgar, Gloucester’s heart breaks, Cordelia is hung, and Lear dies at her side.  However, many of these deaths were Shakespeare original invention, as the sources for King Lear (including a play of the same name) have Cordelia surviving. Why do you think Shakespeare insisted on doing away with Cordelia? Do we want—or hope for—a happy ending in this play?  Is it another attempt to frustrate our desires or expectations (giving us a play not as we like it?).  Or does Cordelia have to die to make sense of the play? 

Q6: Related to the above question, consider who does survive: Kent, Edgar, and Albany.  Why these men?  And what do you make of Edgar’s enigmatic final line: “The oldest have borne most; we that are young/Shall never see so much, nor live so long” (114)?  Why does he say this when both Kent and Albany are far from “young”?  Or is this statement about some other kind of youth/age?