Shakespeare for the Switcher of Sex

Boyet--a woman?  Or two?  Moth in love with Don Adriano de Armado? What?  Dang, I really wish that I had written this closer to when I watched Love's Labor's Lost--I'm having a hard time remembering all my thoughts now...but I went with my sister to see the play, and like Sarah, I found that knowing the plot was super helpful understanding what was going on, and being able to explain that to my sister was a good exercise for me.  And, like a lot of people said, watching it made me be able to relate to the play a lot more, and caused me to like it a lot more too.

Since a lot of people have commented on the setting already (which I though was terribly clever and very well adapted), I thought I'd mainly focus on other things.  I thought the gender switching was interesting how in both this play and the Merchant of Venice.  In Shakespeare's day, as we've discussed, the actors were all male and the female roles were played by men and boys dressed as women.  Then of course there was the additional layer of disguise when a character cross dressed in the plays.  In both of the plays we watched, the characters themselves were changed from male to female characters.  In the Merchant of Venice, I thought perhaps it was to avoid the whole homosexual thing.  But perhaps the motivation was the guy-to-girl ratio of the actors?  They had the opposite problem as Shakespeare--more female than male actors.  But rather than maintaining the gender of the character and having the actor play accordingly, they simply switched the gender of the characters.  Or, did they do that in Love's Labor's Lost in order to allow for even more matchmaking and love potential (as if there wasn't enough already)?  Or was it to match the setting by having certain characters fulfill certain social roles?  I couldn't decide.  But here are some of the gender switches I can remember from the play.  (There might have been another 1 or 2 I forgot.  Please make note of them if I did.)

Boyet--In the Shakespeare original, a man.  In this play: 2 woman.  This is one switch I could see being motivated by the social role thing--the setting for the Princess of France and her attendants to plan, plot, and discuss is a dressing room.  Very appropriate and believable setting too, in my opinion.  For Boyet to be a part of those discussions, would only make sense for him to be female.  There is a definite divide between the men and the women in the 1940s setting, which parallels the divide between France and England in the original, and making Boyet a woman (or 2) certainly fits this.  Another note on this--all the women are dressed in very bright and vibrant colors--the woman representing the princess is dressed in red--indicative of power, or at least social prominence?  The exception is the two women playing Boyet--they were both dressed in blue--the archetypal male color.

Moth--Again, this could be a setting-motivated switch also.  It makes more sense for the radio host's foil to be a woman.  This, of course, led to obvious match and romantic potential in the relationship, which changed the feel of that relationship.  And did it seem to anyone else like Moth had feelings for Don Armado that led to disappointed love in the end, when he ended up with Jaquenetta?

Holofernes--Call me slow but I didn't get this role at all in the 1940s version.  But, it did lead to some more romantic potential, and she ended up with someone in the end, didn't she?  Was it Nathanial?  There were so many matches it was tough to keep them all straight.

So maybe all this gender switching was motivated by the setting.  Afterall, if it really was just a lack of male actors, couldn't they just dress the women up as men like they did the men as women in Shakespeare's day?

Shakespeare for the Starved

Since we didn't have a new play to do this week, I took a bit of advice from Kent (which was first suggested to us by Dr. Burton) and checked out the BYU audio books. He was right. They're amazing. So amazing, in fact, that I will give you a link. Just click on Shakespeare Audio plays. It' now bookmarked on my computer. I had originally mixed in some Librivox with my reading of King Lear, and it was nice. I found it to be about the same as with Macbeth--some good actors, some bad, but still nice enough to listen to. I still haven't had any horrible experiences with Librivox, but maybe I'm not as discerning of a listener as Kent. I also think ramen tastes just fine, so I'm obviously not too picky. In fact, googling pictures of ramen made me so hungry I'm about to go home and eat now. But yes, BYU Library Audio versions are the way to go, so long as you have the happy privilege of studentdom. After that, Librivox is not too terrible of an alternative. Plus, by then you can afford a little more besides ramen anyway.

Shakespeare for the Shopper

So I finally tried Librivox. I wanted to try listening to some Shakespeare while I ran, so for my long run on Saturday morning, I loaded up my brand new phone with Macbeth and took off. But for some reason, it just didn't work for me. Maybe it's cause I'm not used to listening to anything while I run, but Shakespeare distracted from my run, and my run distracted from Shakespeare so it didn't last very long. But after I got back home, I tried listening while I did some other random chores: cleaning, doing dishes, laundry, and even when I went grocery shopping. This worked great and added an interesting variety to my Saturday. I have to admit, it was kind of depressing, listening to Macbeth all day because it's such a depressing play. But now I have a tempo-spatial link forever in my mind with some scenes from Macbeth, based upon the places I was when I was listening to them. For example, Lady Macbeth's unsex me speech will now forever in my mind be linked with pulling into the Smith's parking lot. Whenever I re-read the scene when Macbeth is informed he is the new thane, I'll think of the bridge on the Provo River trail under 800 E in Orem. When Macbeth visits the witches to ask for additional foresight, I will always remember folding my laundry...maybe slightly disturbing, but there you go.

As for what I thought of Librivox? For being free, it's really not bad, at least Macbeth was pretty palatable. There was huge variety in the actors; some were great...some were horrible. Lennox had a weird accent that kind of distracted. Lady Macbeth was so good it scared me to listen to her. I was seriously disturbed while parking at Smiths, and thoroughly disgusted. One of the witches was so flat and dry I almost think she had to be doing it on purpose. But the variety in their voices was fun. Even with the bad actors, having a different voice with the different characters helped give life to the play. After all, Shakespeare was written to be performed, not read.

Shakespeare for the Seeker of Quotes

I am discovering that I am obsessed with quotes--I love knowing their source, their context, what the have come to mean. While reading these plays, the oft-quoted lines are the ones that jump out at me first, and I love trying to figure out why they have become famous, or why certain gems of wisdom that strike me are not famous. Since we have all just read the play (and because this is a post about Hamlet) the source and context will be familiar to all, so I will not rehearse them here. But the rest of this post will be my thoughts and the thoughts of others about lines that caught my attention, especially why they have or have not become oft-quoted.

'Tis sweet and commendable in your nature, Hamlet,

To give these mourning duties to your father;

But, you must know, your father lost a father;

That father lost, lost his; and the survivor bound,

In filial obligation, for some term

To do obsequious sorrow: but to persevere

In obstinate condolement is a course

Of impious stubbornness; 'tis unmanly grief;

It shows a will most incorrect to heaven;

A heart unfortified, a mind impatient;

An understanding simple and unschool'd;

Famous because it is so outrageous, and so condemning of its speaker. A reader definitely begins to sympathize with Hamlet and despise Claudius.

Frailty, thy name is woman!

Famous for its poetic value? Certainly not because of it's broad application.

Polonious' speach:

Neither a borrower nor a lender be...

to thine ownself be true...

Famous for the gems of wisdom it contains (ironic, considering the talk he gives his daughter just moments later, lacking any kind of good wisdom.)

I do not set my life at a pin's fee,

And for my soul, what can it do to that,

Being a thing immortal as itself?

So this is one that is less famous--in googling the phrase I found other people have analyzed it and thought about it, but mostly they were just explaining what it meant--basically Hamlet is saying that he values his life as much as the cost of a pin, which is practically nothing, or in other words, that he doesn't value his life. The whole thing struck me as a poetic expression of bravery and a good lesson for all. Various sources I read pointed to it as revealing Hamlet's character--that he does not value his life (also citing his later contemplation of suicide), or that he is a very moral person who considers the value and immortality of his soul. How you interpret this quote depends on how you view Hamlet--is he a depressed, suicidal person, or a morally bound God-fearing noble person, trying to do what is right? This passage makes me think of Acts 20:24, " neither count I my blife dear unto myself", and I tend to think Hamlet more the latter, not that he doesn't value his life, but that he understands eternity and that this life is short and the events thereof less important by comparison.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Now, compared to the profound lines I just analyzed, such a quaint phrase seems trivial by comparison. Why on earth is this one famous? It has come to be used all over to indicate that something is wrong, particularly referring to corruption at an upper level, but why such a phrase has found such common use in our vernacular is beyond me. Spark notes and a couple other sources I looked at explains it in the following way,

"This line is spoken by Marcellus in Act I, scene iv (67), as he and Horatio debate whether or not to follow Hamlet and the ghost into the dark night. The line refers both to the idea that the ghost is an ominous omen for Denmark and to the larger theme of the connection between the moral legitimacy of a ruler and the health of the state as a whole. The ghost is a visible symptom of the rottenness of Denmark created by Claudius’s crime."

but this still does not satisfy me.

Brevity is the soul of wit

I had no idea this phrase, which has become a proverb, originated from Shakespeare. What a gift to the English language! I think the explanation for its fame is self-evident.

Words, words, words

Enough said.

That's as far as I have time for right now. The following are the other quotes I picked out while reading that stood out to me...perhaps in a subsequent blog post I will finish analyzing them. But the fact that so many famous quotes have come out of one play really says a lot for Hamlet, and the universality of Shakespeare...

For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in

faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in

action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the

beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what

is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor woman

neither,

To be or not to be...

Get thee to a nunnery!

Madness in great ones must not unwatched go.

The lady protests too much, methinks.

I will speak daggers to her, but use none.

Hamlet, thou hast thy father much offended.

Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio;

Shakespeare for the Sick

Perhaps this is more detail than anyone cares to know about, but I got sick last week and have very unfortunately not been able to go running in over a week. :( So much for that part of my self-directed learning. But laying sick in bed afforded me similar opportunities for contemplation, so I guess it all worked out. I read The Tempest while I was sick, which was nice because then I was able to still be productive. I really enjoyed the play--I thought it was an entertaining play with an unusual (for Shakespeare) theme forgiveness and a happy ending. Maybe I'm just not well-read enough, but I think of Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet when I think of Shakespeare, and both of those are completely lacking in the departments of both forgiveness and happy endings. The thing that stood out to me the most from the play were the oft quoted lines that I didn't even realize were from Shakespeare until reading. I mentioned that I took the class to become more culturally aware--knowing from where and in what context oft-quoted lines originate is just exactly what I mean by that. So whenever I was reading and came across a line I recognized, I stopped, googled it, and saw what people had to say about it. I only came up with three (probably indication of my cultural ignorance) but that's why I'm taking this class. Here they are, along with my thoughts and the thoughts of some other folk.

"misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows"

Being miserable and in bed while reading this line, it kind of caught my eye. So what does it mean? Well, in context the impending storm causes Trinculo to seek shelter under Caliban's cloak. Trinculo, being miserable because of the storm, or desperate for shelter, is willing to do something he would not tend do under normal circumstances, share a cloak with this "monster" or strange bedfellow. At the moment I read that, I certainly could relate. I was miserable because I was sick. Because I was sick, I had decided to stay home from school and work, something I hardly ever do. I hate wasting time and have to be always doing something or working on something or engaged in some kind of activity. During the week, I normally leave either before 8 in the morning, and don't come home again until 7 or 8 or 10 or 12, depending on the week. Being sick dictated other circumstances, and I spent an entire day in my apartment sleeping, eating, and doing things other than homework and work--all strange (or unusual) companions (or bedfellows) for me. What did other people think it meant? Or what has this phrase come to mean? One lad said "misery loves company". Eh, I guess you could say that--when you're miserable, you seek the company or commiseration of other people who are also miserable. Another said that it means your attitude attracts people with similar attitudes--if you're miserable, you will attract other people with dark attitudes. Enotes.com says strange bedfellows has come to mean unexpected partners. Dictionary.com says strange bedfellows means “unlikely companions or allies; often used in the phrase ‘politics makes strangebedfellows.’”

"we are such stuff as dreams are made on"

This struck me as more the existential depressing kind of stuff of which great literature is full--it reminded me of Jacob's "and and also our lives passed away like as it were unto us a dream". I thought it was saying that our lives just kind of float along without direction. I've never really known what Jacob meant by his phrase, but it is plenty poetic. One reader interpreted it similarly,

"Prospero is making an analogy between the spirits, who seem like illusions, to life itself. The spirits can produce marvelous visions, but when they are done there is nothing left, and not even any sign that they ever were. Rather like a dream... something which can be fanciful or terrifying, but then you wake and it is gone. Prospero is suggesting that human lives are no different; a sentiment echoed by Hamlet in another work of Shakespeare's. The suggestion is the people live their lives and then are gone, leaving no appreciable mark and eventually not even a memory of their existance. And arguably this may be so - even if we do remember a few figures in history, there are billions more who get no mention; it's even likely that many of the ones we think we remember have little resemblance to the actual figure.”

Deeper thinkers read more into it--cliffnotes.com said,

“This is a reminder that the masque, with all its heavenly creatures, is not real. Like the masque, life, too, will come to its inevitable end. Prospero reminds Ferdinand that each man's life is framed by dreams. The evidence of that life, with its earthly possessions, is only temporary. Again, this points to the role of the young couple as redeemers for their father's sins. Alonso, and through him, Antonio and Sebastian, have placed too much emphasis on worldly possessions and titles. Even Prospero, with his focus on books, has forgotten that they are also only temporary vestiges in this life. This reminder that corporeal riches are only temporary also seems to be directed toward Stefano and Trinculo.”

I liked this interpretation best--not that our lives don't matter, or that they wander aimlessly, but that there is more to this life than the present state we can see. Ebook.com had a similar interpretation, and pointed out that Humphrey Bogart's famous last line in the 1941 film The Maltese Falcon was a misquote of this line; it reads, "The stuff that dreams are made of," rather than on.

"brave new world"

I was excited to find the source of this famous quote--little Miranda says this upon interacting for the first time in years with humans other than her father and Caliban--for her, humanity is a new world. I enjoyed the hopeful attitude it reflects about mankind: "O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in it!" This line has come to be used in any context when we are entering previously unknown waters, such as in using new technology to teach an interactive class in two locations. The most famous use of this line is as the title of Aldous Huxley's book. Upon further reflection I thought that was kind of ironic since that book is all about mankind's depravity. Then after reading a Wikipedia article, I realized this is probably supposed to be an ironic line since Miranda's exposure to mankind is drunken sailors.