Sarcasm Keeps us on our Feet

Sarcasm is the most prevalent technique to inspire laughs. The most common character who uses it is Touchstone. He is sarcastic all the time, often making rather indecent comments. While this, taken at face value, is the comedy of the play, it also offers insight to the themes. For instance, Touchstone is often regarded as the most free person, able to say what he wants and do what he wants. This is because he is a fool, and thus can say sarcastic things with double meanings. So perhaps sarcasm helps to illustrate Touchstone's freedom as well. At any rate, Touchstone is a very sarcastic person. I would also say that Jaques uses sarcasm as well, as he constantly berates the court and its arrogant members. So sarcasm can twist the characters in different ways: Touchstone's sarcasm is funny foolery, while Jaques is a bit cynical. The sarcasm throughout the play influences the behavior portrayed by individual characters.

Sarcasm serves to entertain the audience in two ways: as a comedic medium, to make the audience laugh, but also to make the audience think. There is a lot of irony in this play, for instance when "Ganymede" and Orlando talk to one another- the audience is aware of the play on words and the suggestions, although Orlando is not. The sarcasm effects the language used by the characters: with double meanings, perhaps more, there is wittiness, with the obvious literal translation vs. the suggestive slang language. This could tie in to how comedies often can be understood differently by kids and adults, fun for the kids and analytical for the adults, although I think it also just serves to provide a double meaning for any audience. One to understand the plot, another to understand the emotions, and even another to further the theme. Jaques cynicism enables the audience to understand the characters- who Jaques is, who others are around him, as well as the theme of the civilized "court" vs. the "wild" forest. Also, in his world famous speech of the world being a stage: it speaks of Jaques character and what he thinks of the world, one of the themes of the play (of people putting on different personas eg. Rosalind vs. Ganymede in the play world) as well as what Shakespeare says about our world: that at times things can sometimes feel like one is in a movie or a play and that things are "predestined". Also, I think Shakespeare here could be mentioning that as we progress through life we change into different characters- the "schoolboy", the "lover", or the "soldier". Anyways, the sarcasm and irony help establish this. It keeps us on our feet- ideas are changing, things contradict each other- this is because of the sarcasm in the play: the scorn, the derision, the jokes, the cynicism, the irony. When Phoebe scorns Silvius and Rosalind scorns Phoebe, the idea of love contradicts itself. It makes the audience question: what is love?

Writing vs. Acting

The written play of As You Like It is quite different from the Globe Theatre production. I have to say, it made some parts clearer, while it entirely surprised me in other parts. For one thing, the scene where Jaques admires Touchstone as a "fool" (Act 2.7 lines 12 to 34) I suppose made the hidden meaning clearer- I admit I hadn't quite gotten the lewd symbolism behind it, and it quite surprised me... The characters they portrayed through the play were pretty much as I thought: Orlando determined and righteous, Oliver annoyingly smug, Adam fatherly. Touchstone was a touch more insane than I had imagined, and Duke Senior a bit more happy and free than I had thought. What I hadn't expected were the personalities of Celia and Rosalind. For some reason, I had thought their personalities were the opposite of what they were in Globe Theatre production. I had an image in my mind that Celia was the calm one and Rosalind the more outgoing one- but it is almost the opposite. Rosalind was level-headed, and when it came for their decision to leave, Rosalind was the unsure one and Celia was the hopeful and excited one. Celia, while nurturing and kind, was also a bit sillier, even pessimistic a bit and more confident. The two were a lot more "girly" and giggly than I had thought too. But seeing the play in front of me, the characters became a bit more real. It also became clearer how this play is actually a comedy. I had wondered before, what were the really funny moments, and now seeing it in action, I understand.

The way the play was presented was nicely done. There was the contrast of the court and the Forest of Arden- in the court there were drums, to create apprehension, and there was constant fighting. In the forest, there was always happy music, singing from Amiens, and bird tweeting in the background. I could just feel the change. The actual background scenery wasn't that impressive (the mere change of black poles to wooden), but understandable. They change the scenes so fast that the characters barely have time to run off before more come on. I also noticed that the clothes helped contrast the court and the forest. In the court, things were worn properly, with collars, buttoned jackets, and fancy dresses with lots of lace. In the forest however, Duke Senior, Jaques, and all the other lords were ruffled and dirty. They sat around campfires and on the ground. They were also more free. Not in the physical sense- in both settings the characters moved around a lot fully utilizing the broad space of the theatre. The attitudes of the characters within the forest contrasted those outside. Duke Frederick and Oliver are quite uptight, constantly worrying, plotting, envious. And Orlando, Rosalind, and Celia are caught up in this as well- they fight and worry. In the forest, though, things change. There are more times to laugh, and Rosalind absolutely loves it. Jaques is free to roam and say what he wants, acting slightly drunk and sarcastic. I liked the play. If I had watched it first, I might not have understood the subtleties, but watching it after reading and understanding the words, it is quite good. I like it.

I guess the only thing I don't really understand is the point of the intro of the play- where Duke Frederick is being crowned. I guess it serves as an introduction to what's happening, but I thought that was what the dialogue was for.

As a further note, I was looking on youtube for plays on As You Like It, and I came upon something produced with the setting in Japan. The story is (approximately) the same, but with interesting interpretation and twists (such as sumo-wrestling and kung-fu fighting between the brothers). Here is the video- it's a bit slow to begin (interestingly enough, it begins with Duke Frederick taking over and being crowned as well- albeit a bit more viciously), but once the dialogue starts it becomes familiar. Posted by Amebugi.

Act 1: the Introduction

Act 1 is the introduction to the story of As You Like It. It introduces the characters, the background information, the relationships, the plot- but most of all it introduces the themes and ideas that run throughout the play. It mentions love, hate, family, the role of women and men, independence, caring- the list goes on. What I think is one of the most important themes the novel brings up starts with the title. As You Like It is an even more prevalent theme in the play. In class, my group was talking about how "As You Like It" refers to pretty much the whole play. Love can be however you like, family, personality, who you are and what you do- it is all however you like it. It's an easy-going sort of title, which also speaks to the comedy of the play. But what I like about the title is that one can only understand this after one has read the play, understood the characters, and thought about it. It's sort of saying something about life. Which is interesting.

And this idea starts in the introduction, in Act 1. While it does not introduce that things can be "as you like it", it sets up the plot to cover this. Each character has a problem, and each is unhappy: Orlando wishes to step out from under his brother's thumb, Rosalind wants independence, Oliver and Duke Frederick feel insecure about themselves and threatened by their family members, Touchstone wondering about the foolery of wise men, etc. They each want to change their lives, and by the end of the play, they each do. Rosalind has the control and independence she craved. Touchstone becomes a little wiser and a little more foolish. Each character almost finds him/herself through the course of the play and end up happier for it. They make themselves as they like. I find this fascinating. Only in retrospect can I see this. Life is as you like it.

I guess what I think is the most important aspect of Act 1 is that it is an introduction. A very good one, I have to say. It introduces all that it needs to to get the reader thinking and ready for what is to come, so one can wait in anticipation.

"As You Like It" Family Tree Act 1

Below is a link to a family tree that includes all of the characters from Act 1 in As You Like It, as well as the relationships that have been introduced between them all.

https://bubbl.us/?h=73acd/12ad3b/47lJYpweozwkI

The Way Comedies Work

There are many things that make a comedy or tragedy. There is the ending, an obvious "happy" or "sad" one where either (in comedy) everything ends up perfect, or (in tragedy) the protagonists and probably more die. The idea is that both talk about impossibilities- both comedies and tragedies comment on society. In Dramatic Structure: Comedy and Tragedy, Ian Johnston lays out the differences between comedy and tragedy, specifically in Shakespeare's works. Although the plays all begin with order, serving as an introduction, comedies and tragedies diverge as an unexpected action occurs- introducing disorder into the play. In comedy, the protagonist will adapt, while the tragic hero- "egocentric and unwilling to compromise their powerful sense of their own identity"- will remain stubborn to the end, unbending. Compromise is in comedy, unmoving in tragedy. There are several views of the personalities of comedies and tragedies, and the purpose they play in satirizing society; comedy supporting integration into society and tragedy "individual integrity". Johnston narrows it down to acceptance (comedy) or avoidance (tragedy).

In the comedy "The Simpsons", the characters live in a small town that represent the towns in the United States. Although the show can be just plain funny with its absurdity and comicalness, the show uses stereotypes and character relationships to comment on how society works, both satirizing and subtly (or not so subtly) pointing it out to the audience. The following clip "Homer Evolution" posted by huluDotCom on youtube relates to the article summarized above. Unfortunately, I have not watched many comedy shows, and some of the satirical private jokes below pass right over my head (I do not recognize all of the characters represented by the animals in this clip) but I have enough background knowledge for this clip to be an interesting one in relationship to Johnston's article.

Of course, this isn't Shakespeare, but the article's theories apply. Throughout the clip the protagonist Homer evolves from a small organism to his normal Homer self. All happening in a day, this clip could represent what Homer feels his day has been like, from getting up and brushing his teeth to coming back from work. He goes to work, gets hit by the octopus (someone he works with?), followed and tortured by the people meets during the day. His son attacks him as a dinosaur, truthfully playful, but for the father he seems like a menace. Then he continues home, passing a man who devolves as he walks (probably a statement on the capabilities and personality of the character), and going through history as he wears different clothes- it's been a long day. Then he arrives home, a "usual day" as he steps over the dog and meets up with his family watching T.V. on the couch, as his wife says to him "What took you so long?" The Simpsons is a comedy- accepting rather than avoiding society. Homer accepts his place in society to endure what he feels are long days and troubles, taking his place in society as a father and a worker. He bases his identity with "a particular family in a specific place". Not only did the clip satirize the people (and those whom they stereotype), it relates to Johnston's article in the way that "there is always a sense of limitation underneath the joy". At first when I read this, I hadn't understood. But in watching the clip, the idea became clear: Homer has the security of his place in society, a duty, a job, a purpose- and he is happy. But there can be a limitation, a sadness, that he (perhaps without thinking or knowing) conformed to society and is not "truly free" unlike a tragic character. However, he is alive and well, which accounts for his joy as well.

Johnston also mentions the gender differentiation and its relationship to comedies and tragedies. His theory on "Contrasting male and female principles, the former associated with the origins of tragedy in some dissatisfaction with the given world and the latter associated with an acceptance of the world" connects to the children of the show, Bart and Lisa. In the clip, the two's actions reveal their acceptance and avoidance of society. Bart the dinosaur, a T-Rex I presume, chases his dad crazily- he is his own self- an individual, albeit a slightly insane one. The daughter, on the other hand, conforms to what society thinks the perfect child should be- good in school, competitive, a good orator... As a triceratops (I think) she pushes her disobedient and disgraceful brother off, protecting her dad, but even more so society, and her place in it.

Both comedies and tragedies serve the same purpose- they speak about society and the people in it, exaggerating a situation to absurdity, to either make it funny or sad.

Blog Portfolio May

Coverage:


All the blogs I've written this semester:

Killing an Arab by the Cure

Idioms from Culture

This is War

The Illusion of Perfection

If this was my poetry exam, I would...

Commentary on "Wanda Why Aren't You Dead"

Depth:


Idioms from Culture

I think this blog, about Amiri Baraka's Expressive Language, provides some good thought about the class and the world. First I talked about Baraka's point of view (one I completely agree with), and sort of got my thoughts straight. As I wrote the blog, things became clearer and more developed. Then later at the end I connected it to my life, and then to the world. It gives me perspective, and I hope it gave others perspective as well.


Interaction:


The Illusion of Perfection

I think Elizabeth's comment on my post is a good reminder, for me at least, that people have different ideas about the same thing. She really questioned my interpretation, and I think that's a good thing. It made me question myself, and actually helped me realize why I thought the things I did.


Discussion:


Commentary on "Wanda Why Aren't You Dead?"


I like this post because I developed my thoughts in class with the help of my peers- as we talked about it in class I got new ideas and interpretations, some which I agreed with and some which I didn't. Later, writing this commentary, I added some other thoughts that grew as I was writing. It's kind of funny really- I kept seeing new things as I was looking over it- it seemed like it would never end. Also, this post helped me see what I needed to work on myself- the analysis of poems, as well as just the overall structure and way to go about writing commentaries.


Xenoblogging:


no such thing as absolute

I liked Julie's blog- she always manages to look at it while bringing in its context to the world. And this one really made me think. Like I said, it was a real "thought-provoker". I like to think I questioned her statement about what makes one special, as well as added some thoughts.


Wild Card:


Killing an Arab by the Cure

In this post I brought up a song that was about The Stranger by Albert Camus- and discussed its interpretation/relevance to the novel. I think this is what blogging is about- not merely discussing and talking about things in class but taking something from outside of class and seeing that people all around the world have done things like read The Stranger. Sometimes I think in class- all of my classes at school- we have a tendency to forget about its importance, or even about others out there in the world. Given that we are supposed to be "global citizens" and all, I find that slightly ironic. So it is with pleasure that I learn about something in class, and then realize that this something is well-known all around the world. I think that's great.

Commentary on Wanda Why Aren't You Dead

In Wanda Why Aren't You Dead by Wanda Coleman, the theme of the poem is the treatment of black women, two words that have had negative connotations in the past. It describes the life that a black woman has had in her life.

The form describes the way in which Wanda is treated: with insults and carelessness. Almost the entire poem is just listing, without pause, all of the insults and rude thoughts of another about Wanda. The lack of interlude creates a continuous whining in the reader's mind without breath. This reveals that Wanda has been insulted her entire life, and this is practically all she knows. As a black, and a woman, she earns no respect, and is incessantly abused and slandered.

The repetition is key in furthering the mood of being surrounded by exaggerated libel. Each sentence beings with "wanda... wanda" and as ideas are repeated- the sustained insults throughout the poem- which creates an image of what Wanda's life is like. She is insignificant, not cared for, and abused. The most prevalent phrase throughout the poem are the lines "wanda why are you so angry". This is an introduction to what Wanda, as a black woman, felt on the receiving end of the insults, and how she is treated for her emotions. She reacts by feeling hurt and angry- a completely normal reaction: but this action is turned against her as she is being viewed as "crazy" and silly. She is just a foolish girl that doesn't know what's what. She is being blamed for everything.

The grammar- or lack thereof- in the poem also add a subtle touch of the treatment of black women. The use of capitalization adds to the derogatory insults that are given to Wanda. Her name is not capitalized, symbolizing the disrespect she is given: she is not even of equal value to a human. The only capitalization comes into play in line 25, "wanda you're ALWAYS on the attack", emphasizing the consistency with which she has been abused, and the effect this has had on her- she is defensive and on her guard. It also gives insight into the mind that insults her, who constantly blames her for all of his problems. The use of periods also tie into the regular insults she receives: because after each insult there is no period, it makes it seem like there is no end to the abuse she is given. At the end of the poem is the line "why ain't you dead" (29). This does not contain a period at the end, leaving an opening that the insults will not end. This reveals how women were treated, and how they felt as though there was no end to their unequal treatment.

This poem is reminiscent of the time when women and blacks were treated unfairly and rudely. Although written from the point of view from an insulter, we can clearly understand the side of the abused and the emotions they had, under the treatment they suffered through. The treatment of black women was poor, and Coleman is able to portray this in a wonderful manner.