Comic representation of Orlando's introduction to As You Like It. Enjoy.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Jaques: Antagonist or Not?
In As You Like It, Jaques (or "Jake-wheeze", as Komali so charmingly put it), is always the pessimistic one. In every scene, he makes fun of people, criticizing both their character and the things they believe in. He scorns the court and its rules and limitations, he rails against the fantastical forests and the ideas it represents, he picks on Orlando, Duke Senior, Rosalind, even going so far as to condemn love, the idea integral to the entire play. So the question arises- why on earth would Shakespeare include Jaques in the play? He is the exact opposite of everything else in the play.
The play is a pastoral drama: it has an "idealized, tranquil rural setting", comparing the urban with the rural so personalities are able to roam free. There are magical things, and inexplicable things, and always just about everything deals with love. It doesn't have to make sense. But at the center of pastoral drama is the interaction between the audience and the actors. In As You Like It, the characters all have a variety of personalities, allowing the audience to explore each one. There are also different types of love. Sisterhood, family, friends, lovers- throughout the play there are all of these types. In fact, by the end of As You Like It, everyone has some love: lust between Touchstone and Audrey, sisterhood between Celia and Rosalind, a father-daughter reunited love between Duke Senior and Rosalind, etc. Everyone has some love to take with them back to the court. Except Jaques.
In the Director's Cut at the end of our version of As You Like It, it mentions how at the very end, Jaques does not head back to court, and another Jaques (De Bois) comes in. When Jaques stays "at your [Duke Senior's] abandoned cave" (Act 5, Scene 4, Line 189), I think it marks a change in him. Throughout the play, I do not think his actions are a result of some lost love, as Dominic Cooke and Michael Boyd mention. Although he may travel around the world avoiding getting hurt by love, or being someone "who still yearns for company, the court, and pretty youths" (Boyd, 147), I think it is more because he is just trying to learn. He is trying to figure out what love is- sort of like the audience. He is a character that, if the audience sometimes questions the other characters, with their silliness or confusions, the viewers can connect to. He criticizes the whole play, so the audience doesn't have to. Jaques examines each type of love and each character. In a way, Jaques is trying to figure out who he is, and what he wants to do. That he returns to the cave, still within the forest, I think marks upon this. All the other characters return to the court, happy with what they had in the forest, out of time, ignoring the past and the future. They are ready to realize all that has happened and accept it all. They each have their love. But for Jaques, he has not accomplished his "quest" yet- if he returned to the court, he would have nothing to show of hist time in the forest. He has not gained anything yet, so he must continue to search and find what he was looking for. The other characters had gone to the forest, lost and unwary, but left it happy and joyful, with clear ideas of who they were, of love, and self-identification. They weren't lost anymore. Jaques still hasn't come to this yet.
I think by this Shakespeare was bringing a bit of the realistic in- not only with Jaques criticizing the folly of the forest, but also because at the end, not everyone falls in love. It isn't one big happy family- in the real world, some are not ready for love, and do not have it. Jaques is sort of a "to be continued" end at the play- perhaps he'll find love later on, or perhaps not. I think he will continue to wander the forest in search of people that he can learn from. When Jaques talks with people, he learns who they are. He disliked talking with Orlando and Duke Senior because he already knew who they were. For instance, Jaques had labeled Orlando (quite accurately, if I do say so) as "Signior Love" (Act 3, Scene 2, Lines 270-271). He didn't really need to know more than that. This is why Jaques enjoyed hanging out with Touchstone so much. A true fool, Touchstone was spontaneous- Jaques couldn't guess his next move or what exactly he was thinking. So Jaques liked him, unlike the others. I think Jaques is looking for new things to learn new things, about life.
So Jaques is both an antagonist and not an antagonist. He does oppose all the ideas that the play introduces- the court being better than the forest, the forest being better than the court, the wonderfulness of love, etc. He criticizes each of these things thoroughly. But to truly convince an audience that something can be true, or even to make them consider it or even spark thought, there always needs to be a counterargument. Then, if Jaques says something along the lines of "so what?", or "is that really true?", the audience asks that too, and then they think about it for a while. Jaques himself is not trying to be the antagonist (or at least from my point of view). He is merely trying to work himself out, and in doing this, questions others (quite critically and sarcastically).
There was an essay about Jaques, and it said this about Jaques' melancholia:
"The requirement of a melancholy Jaques, so crucial to the play's emotional equilibrium, testifies to an undertow of sadness in it that is brilliantly held at bay by a Shakespearean game of Fort/Da, and thus Jaques reveals how the carefully managed relation between melancholy affect and textual representation enables this comedy to function." The author talked about the idea that Jaques was merely a substitution for the brother Jaques, and that this plays a role as a symbol of the "capacity to compensate for loss". This is because the play includes many switched roles and changing characters and different substitutions; so Jaques is one of these. I am not quite sure I agree with this; the brother Jaques is quite an enigma to me (although I have to admit the other Jaques is as well, but in a different way). I do not think that Jaques is a character to plug the sorrow of the absent brother Jaques. Anyways, the author says that Jaques is the melancholic side of the play, which allows the comedic sides to be that much funnier. Jaques' role as a character is to be melancholy to add to the comedy- an irony, but As You Like It is full of them.
Looking at other plays of As You Like It, at this website, the plays often have Jaques as an important character. "For McFarland, the work oscillates between comedy and tragedy. Ostensibly comic, it nevertheless features darker tones, allowing its celebration of pastoral purity, the potential of social renewal, and the wonders of passionate love to be undercut by ironic voices—most notably that of the cynical, melancholic Jaques." In McFarland's play, Jaques does not play the comedic relief as Touchstone does, but to introduce a serious and depressing tone into the play. In a different play directed by Agnes Latham, she relates Jaques and Touchstone. "In Latham's view, Jaques caricatures the sixteenth-century view of human temperaments based on bodily humors, in this case depicting the melancholic man—a hypersensitive but nevertheless insightful individual whom Shakespeare may have drawn from life. Latham argues that Shakespeare developed Touchstone to a lesser degree than Jaques, rendering him as a type—the stage fool—rather than as a fully drawn character." This is very different from McFarland's play, as Jaques is someone more than melancholic, but thoughtful. Latham made Jaques much like Touchstone, as a realistic fool; although depressing, he creates a more thoughtful tone. Jaques provides the insight into some of the other characters' actions, perhaps furthering them instead of limiting them with his criticisms. In the version directed by Fordham, he also has a strong philosophical character to represent Jaques.
I think that these directors have taken the idea that Jaques is a kind of foil, not as a character taking part of the play but as a technique to highlight aspects of other characters. Whether he is comedic relief (as in Globe Theatre), the thoughtful character (Latham's production), or a serious and dark character (Mc Farland's play), his actions and speech are to help the audience to understand the deeper meanings under the lighter-romantic plot of the play.
What I would be interested in seeing is what Jaques does after everyone else returns to the court. I'm not really sure who he would become or what he would do. Out of all the characters, Jaques is the hardest to predict in the future, understand in the present, and know in the past. It's interesting to see the different interpretations from different directors, and the choices they made. Even a little change alters Jaques character- did he experience a lost love in the past, or is he just some guy who needs anti-depressants?
The play is a pastoral drama: it has an "idealized, tranquil rural setting", comparing the urban with the rural so personalities are able to roam free. There are magical things, and inexplicable things, and always just about everything deals with love. It doesn't have to make sense. But at the center of pastoral drama is the interaction between the audience and the actors. In As You Like It, the characters all have a variety of personalities, allowing the audience to explore each one. There are also different types of love. Sisterhood, family, friends, lovers- throughout the play there are all of these types. In fact, by the end of As You Like It, everyone has some love: lust between Touchstone and Audrey, sisterhood between Celia and Rosalind, a father-daughter reunited love between Duke Senior and Rosalind, etc. Everyone has some love to take with them back to the court. Except Jaques.
In the Director's Cut at the end of our version of As You Like It, it mentions how at the very end, Jaques does not head back to court, and another Jaques (De Bois) comes in. When Jaques stays "at your [Duke Senior's] abandoned cave" (Act 5, Scene 4, Line 189), I think it marks a change in him. Throughout the play, I do not think his actions are a result of some lost love, as Dominic Cooke and Michael Boyd mention. Although he may travel around the world avoiding getting hurt by love, or being someone "who still yearns for company, the court, and pretty youths" (Boyd, 147), I think it is more because he is just trying to learn. He is trying to figure out what love is- sort of like the audience. He is a character that, if the audience sometimes questions the other characters, with their silliness or confusions, the viewers can connect to. He criticizes the whole play, so the audience doesn't have to. Jaques examines each type of love and each character. In a way, Jaques is trying to figure out who he is, and what he wants to do. That he returns to the cave, still within the forest, I think marks upon this. All the other characters return to the court, happy with what they had in the forest, out of time, ignoring the past and the future. They are ready to realize all that has happened and accept it all. They each have their love. But for Jaques, he has not accomplished his "quest" yet- if he returned to the court, he would have nothing to show of hist time in the forest. He has not gained anything yet, so he must continue to search and find what he was looking for. The other characters had gone to the forest, lost and unwary, but left it happy and joyful, with clear ideas of who they were, of love, and self-identification. They weren't lost anymore. Jaques still hasn't come to this yet.
I think by this Shakespeare was bringing a bit of the realistic in- not only with Jaques criticizing the folly of the forest, but also because at the end, not everyone falls in love. It isn't one big happy family- in the real world, some are not ready for love, and do not have it. Jaques is sort of a "to be continued" end at the play- perhaps he'll find love later on, or perhaps not. I think he will continue to wander the forest in search of people that he can learn from. When Jaques talks with people, he learns who they are. He disliked talking with Orlando and Duke Senior because he already knew who they were. For instance, Jaques had labeled Orlando (quite accurately, if I do say so) as "Signior Love" (Act 3, Scene 2, Lines 270-271). He didn't really need to know more than that. This is why Jaques enjoyed hanging out with Touchstone so much. A true fool, Touchstone was spontaneous- Jaques couldn't guess his next move or what exactly he was thinking. So Jaques liked him, unlike the others. I think Jaques is looking for new things to learn new things, about life.
So Jaques is both an antagonist and not an antagonist. He does oppose all the ideas that the play introduces- the court being better than the forest, the forest being better than the court, the wonderfulness of love, etc. He criticizes each of these things thoroughly. But to truly convince an audience that something can be true, or even to make them consider it or even spark thought, there always needs to be a counterargument. Then, if Jaques says something along the lines of "so what?", or "is that really true?", the audience asks that too, and then they think about it for a while. Jaques himself is not trying to be the antagonist (or at least from my point of view). He is merely trying to work himself out, and in doing this, questions others (quite critically and sarcastically).
There was an essay about Jaques, and it said this about Jaques' melancholia:
"The requirement of a melancholy Jaques, so crucial to the play's emotional equilibrium, testifies to an undertow of sadness in it that is brilliantly held at bay by a Shakespearean game of Fort/Da, and thus Jaques reveals how the carefully managed relation between melancholy affect and textual representation enables this comedy to function." The author talked about the idea that Jaques was merely a substitution for the brother Jaques, and that this plays a role as a symbol of the "capacity to compensate for loss". This is because the play includes many switched roles and changing characters and different substitutions; so Jaques is one of these. I am not quite sure I agree with this; the brother Jaques is quite an enigma to me (although I have to admit the other Jaques is as well, but in a different way). I do not think that Jaques is a character to plug the sorrow of the absent brother Jaques. Anyways, the author says that Jaques is the melancholic side of the play, which allows the comedic sides to be that much funnier. Jaques' role as a character is to be melancholy to add to the comedy- an irony, but As You Like It is full of them.
Looking at other plays of As You Like It, at this website, the plays often have Jaques as an important character. "For McFarland, the work oscillates between comedy and tragedy. Ostensibly comic, it nevertheless features darker tones, allowing its celebration of pastoral purity, the potential of social renewal, and the wonders of passionate love to be undercut by ironic voices—most notably that of the cynical, melancholic Jaques." In McFarland's play, Jaques does not play the comedic relief as Touchstone does, but to introduce a serious and depressing tone into the play. In a different play directed by Agnes Latham, she relates Jaques and Touchstone. "In Latham's view, Jaques caricatures the sixteenth-century view of human temperaments based on bodily humors, in this case depicting the melancholic man—a hypersensitive but nevertheless insightful individual whom Shakespeare may have drawn from life. Latham argues that Shakespeare developed Touchstone to a lesser degree than Jaques, rendering him as a type—the stage fool—rather than as a fully drawn character." This is very different from McFarland's play, as Jaques is someone more than melancholic, but thoughtful. Latham made Jaques much like Touchstone, as a realistic fool; although depressing, he creates a more thoughtful tone. Jaques provides the insight into some of the other characters' actions, perhaps furthering them instead of limiting them with his criticisms. In the version directed by Fordham, he also has a strong philosophical character to represent Jaques.
I think that these directors have taken the idea that Jaques is a kind of foil, not as a character taking part of the play but as a technique to highlight aspects of other characters. Whether he is comedic relief (as in Globe Theatre), the thoughtful character (Latham's production), or a serious and dark character (Mc Farland's play), his actions and speech are to help the audience to understand the deeper meanings under the lighter-romantic plot of the play.
What I would be interested in seeing is what Jaques does after everyone else returns to the court. I'm not really sure who he would become or what he would do. Out of all the characters, Jaques is the hardest to predict in the future, understand in the present, and know in the past. It's interesting to see the different interpretations from different directors, and the choices they made. Even a little change alters Jaques character- did he experience a lost love in the past, or is he just some guy who needs anti-depressants?
Monday, September 5, 2011
New vs. the Old
I don't mind the modern interpretations of Shakespeare's original play. I do not believe that Shakespeare's play should be the same from the beginning of time to the end of the world- that would be dreary. In ToK, we are discussing art. I believe that interpretation comes from the viewer, and not always the original artwork. Directors have their own liberties to best portray what themes and ideas they think is most important from what they are trying to produce.
Reading about what some of the directors did for the scenery, I understand. Not much was done with actual stage props and background scenery: the play depended on the characters themselves to change the mood. In fact, one director mentioned that Shakespeare was not trying to say that the court is one thing and the forest is the other- they are a mix. Throughout the play there is a contrast between a romantic and a realistic view of life. It's better without the special effects and the elaborate backgrounds- because the play is a play and it involves the audience. The characters know this, and they let the audience know this too. Engaging and involving the audience is all part of the play. I think it is sort of Shakespeare's style.
What I found interesting was the interpretation that Orlando knows about the whole Rosalind-Ganymede masquerade. I think it makes sense- not only because it makes Orlando and Rosalind more equals as intellectuals, but adds to each of their characters, and makes it a bit more realistic and believable. Also, if Orlando has his suspicions, it could make sense about the whole lion-snake-Oliver bit: perhaps Orlando put his brother up to this to try and test Rosalind/Ganymede. Sabrina mentions this in her blog, bringing up an interesting idea: she asks if this is just wistful thinking on our part- "Is it not possible that Rosalind can fall in love with a man not worthy of her [?]. Did not Shakespeare use the notion that love is blind and fickle and Cupid strikes his bow to any two unsuspecting characters [?]. Was not Rosalind taken by simply a handsome man who won at wrestling signifying his physical and not mental strength, and further was she not fickle in forgetting the love for her father and the pain of his banishment? I honestly feel that the modern day interpretation wanted to glamorize the aspect of the love story and needed to beef up Orlando, when considering his love spends most of her time as a man". I think that while Rosalind may be capable of falling in love with someone "not worthy of her", Orlando is worthy, as an equal, not only due to the fact that he realizes Rosalind's charade, but because of the transformation in the forest- in the beginning he was quite teenager-ish: fighting with his brother physically, and being angry all the time. In the forest however, he takes on a caring role with Adam, and learns not to be spontaneous all the time; for instance when he unsheathes his sword at the Duke and demands food, only to realize that there are still "gentlemen" in the forest and that all he has to do is ask. I believe he grows up a little bit in the forest, and it is this transformation from boy into man that allow him to really love Rosalind. And this is where his realization of the Rosalind-Ganymade truth applies. Instead of being blindly in love, he is forced to question himself (with the help of Rosalind) and his love, and in the end, his love is still there, and I think a bit more realistic as well.
There was another thing Sabrina said that sparked a lot of thought for me. She wrote "we can question where exactly does a forest have a lion and palm trees in this English of plays which house Dukes?" And this connected for me to the Rosalind-Ganymede situation. When Oliver tells Rosalind about the lion and the snake and the palm trees, it seems clear to the audience that this is pretty impossible if you think about it. But Rosalind takes it all in stride, and believes it. Just a little thought; perhaps Shakespeare is not trying to say that Orlando needs to become Rosalind's equal but that Rosalind may not be as smart as we all think she is, and that they may already be equals. Or of course, that love makes one blind. But speaking of Rosalind, I do think we have to remember that it is not a given that Rosalind is the smarter/better of the two. Why should Orlando have to justify himself, if Rosalind doesn't? I think from court to forest Rosalind goes under a similar transformation as Orlando (and not the obvious Rosalind --> Ganymede character). In the beginning Rosalind jokes about making sport of love, and then right away acts boldly and surely with Orlando. And then in the forest she badgers Orlando and is a bit too cocky, if you ask me. But in the end, she is a little less sure of herself, which I think is a good thing. In questioning Orlando about love, I think she changes her idea about love. You can see her reactions change about Orlando in between the beginning and the end. By the end of the play, she holds on to Orlando more. When Rosalind is with Phoebe, Silvius, and Orlando, and all three of them shouting to their loved ones that they love them, and in the Globe Theatre Production Orlando shouts to the crowd (instead of to Rosalind) "If this be so, why blame you me to love you?", she acts envious and asks him "Who do you speak to, 'Why blame you me to love you?". I think because Orlando pushes back at her a little bit (the wounded arm) that she realizes she loves him truly, instead of the instant love she had in the beginning.
Anyways, back to the Globe Theatre Production...
The only thing I don't understand is the dancing at the end. Everything else, I understand it's purpose or its place in the play. But with the dancing, I thought it carried on way too long, and way too loud- it felt a little random at the end. Yes, there was a wedding, actually multiple weddings, so there was a party, and being in the Forest of Arden, the "freer, livelier" side of humanity, but it still felt weird. I guess this is because with the other modern interpretations of Shakespeare's original play, it still fell along the intentions of the author- I guess I'm just having problems relating all the dancing to the play itself.
I think that Shakespeare's writings are timeless- but that does not mean they do not change. Their ideas are there, many of the words are there, but the interpretation develops and changes as culture changes: "like all Shakespeare interpretations- [they are] open to question".
Reading about what some of the directors did for the scenery, I understand. Not much was done with actual stage props and background scenery: the play depended on the characters themselves to change the mood. In fact, one director mentioned that Shakespeare was not trying to say that the court is one thing and the forest is the other- they are a mix. Throughout the play there is a contrast between a romantic and a realistic view of life. It's better without the special effects and the elaborate backgrounds- because the play is a play and it involves the audience. The characters know this, and they let the audience know this too. Engaging and involving the audience is all part of the play. I think it is sort of Shakespeare's style.
What I found interesting was the interpretation that Orlando knows about the whole Rosalind-Ganymede masquerade. I think it makes sense- not only because it makes Orlando and Rosalind more equals as intellectuals, but adds to each of their characters, and makes it a bit more realistic and believable. Also, if Orlando has his suspicions, it could make sense about the whole lion-snake-Oliver bit: perhaps Orlando put his brother up to this to try and test Rosalind/Ganymede. Sabrina mentions this in her blog, bringing up an interesting idea: she asks if this is just wistful thinking on our part- "Is it not possible that Rosalind can fall in love with a man not worthy of her [?]. Did not Shakespeare use the notion that love is blind and fickle and Cupid strikes his bow to any two unsuspecting characters [?]. Was not Rosalind taken by simply a handsome man who won at wrestling signifying his physical and not mental strength, and further was she not fickle in forgetting the love for her father and the pain of his banishment? I honestly feel that the modern day interpretation wanted to glamorize the aspect of the love story and needed to beef up Orlando, when considering his love spends most of her time as a man". I think that while Rosalind may be capable of falling in love with someone "not worthy of her", Orlando is worthy, as an equal, not only due to the fact that he realizes Rosalind's charade, but because of the transformation in the forest- in the beginning he was quite teenager-ish: fighting with his brother physically, and being angry all the time. In the forest however, he takes on a caring role with Adam, and learns not to be spontaneous all the time; for instance when he unsheathes his sword at the Duke and demands food, only to realize that there are still "gentlemen" in the forest and that all he has to do is ask. I believe he grows up a little bit in the forest, and it is this transformation from boy into man that allow him to really love Rosalind. And this is where his realization of the Rosalind-Ganymade truth applies. Instead of being blindly in love, he is forced to question himself (with the help of Rosalind) and his love, and in the end, his love is still there, and I think a bit more realistic as well.
There was another thing Sabrina said that sparked a lot of thought for me. She wrote "we can question where exactly does a forest have a lion and palm trees in this English of plays which house Dukes?" And this connected for me to the Rosalind-Ganymede situation. When Oliver tells Rosalind about the lion and the snake and the palm trees, it seems clear to the audience that this is pretty impossible if you think about it. But Rosalind takes it all in stride, and believes it. Just a little thought; perhaps Shakespeare is not trying to say that Orlando needs to become Rosalind's equal but that Rosalind may not be as smart as we all think she is, and that they may already be equals. Or of course, that love makes one blind. But speaking of Rosalind, I do think we have to remember that it is not a given that Rosalind is the smarter/better of the two. Why should Orlando have to justify himself, if Rosalind doesn't? I think from court to forest Rosalind goes under a similar transformation as Orlando (and not the obvious Rosalind --> Ganymede character). In the beginning Rosalind jokes about making sport of love, and then right away acts boldly and surely with Orlando. And then in the forest she badgers Orlando and is a bit too cocky, if you ask me. But in the end, she is a little less sure of herself, which I think is a good thing. In questioning Orlando about love, I think she changes her idea about love. You can see her reactions change about Orlando in between the beginning and the end. By the end of the play, she holds on to Orlando more. When Rosalind is with Phoebe, Silvius, and Orlando, and all three of them shouting to their loved ones that they love them, and in the Globe Theatre Production Orlando shouts to the crowd (instead of to Rosalind) "If this be so, why blame you me to love you?", she acts envious and asks him "Who do you speak to, 'Why blame you me to love you?". I think because Orlando pushes back at her a little bit (the wounded arm) that she realizes she loves him truly, instead of the instant love she had in the beginning.
Anyways, back to the Globe Theatre Production...
The only thing I don't understand is the dancing at the end. Everything else, I understand it's purpose or its place in the play. But with the dancing, I thought it carried on way too long, and way too loud- it felt a little random at the end. Yes, there was a wedding, actually multiple weddings, so there was a party, and being in the Forest of Arden, the "freer, livelier" side of humanity, but it still felt weird. I guess this is because with the other modern interpretations of Shakespeare's original play, it still fell along the intentions of the author- I guess I'm just having problems relating all the dancing to the play itself.
I think that Shakespeare's writings are timeless- but that does not mean they do not change. Their ideas are there, many of the words are there, but the interpretation develops and changes as culture changes: "like all Shakespeare interpretations- [they are] open to question".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)