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".
I actually liked the dancing and music. If added a modern day almost Hollywood type of choreographed feel to an ancient play. As you pointed out thiere were multiple weddings and celebrations, and this represented the Shakespearean version of the happy ending, and the feel good factor associated with it. At the end of the day the audience will come out smiling, and that is an achievement in itself!
ReplyDeleteSabrina!
I think dancing symbolizes all that is celebratory-in a very timeless way. Ms. M
ReplyDelete