All’s Well That Ends Well–Act I

Thanks for you patience, guys! That was s long unintentional hiatus.

alls-well-that-ends-well

 

If I were asked to summarize what this play is “about” from only reading the first act, I would tell you, among other things:

  1. The playing out of the next generation
  2. Inherited rank versus inherited merit
  3. How virtues imbued in birth are ramified by good action

Insofar as I am concerned about the first point, the very first line of the play revolves around the death of the head of household of the first generation, “In delivering my son from me, I bury a second husband” (I.i.1). Not to mention, love of Bertram replaces the love that Helena had for her father after his death. And, well, the rest of my point is made with the last two.

Alls-Well-That-Ends-Well1-1024x683

The cause of Helena’s despair over Bertram revolves heavily in my second point. She loves a man that outranks her in birth. Clearly she’s a pretty feisty, smart, rad lady, and she’s the main heroine of a Shakespeare comedy, which means that she’s one of those ladies you marry the instant you meet her. And we have evidence of that by the countess’ comment, “…her education promises her dispositions she inherits which makes fair gifts fairer; for where an unclean mind carries virtuous qualities, there commendations go with pity; they are virtues and traitors too” (I.i.39-42).

Sadly, I’m pressed for time, as per usual, but I wanted to get back on schedule, at least a little bit.

I’ll leave you with this last line from Helena (I’m not getting into the roots of her name–Helen–and what I think it says about her):  “Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie,/Which we ascribe to heaven” (I.i.216).  Natural disposition cultivated in action?

We’ll see tomorrow.

Hamlet–Act IV & V

As per usual, that hiatus was accidental. The other bartender at my work quit, and I have not had a day off in a million years, and it has been very difficult on these ol’ bones.

Kate-as-Ophelia-in-Hamlet-kate-winslet-12007277-1023-465

Quick comments on Act IV:

  1. Hamlet states, “The body is with the King, but the King is not with the body. The King is a thing of…nothing”(IV.ii.26-28). Exhibit A) Capital “K” on the King. Exhibit B) Discord of soul and body, which translates to “nothing”. Exhibit C) We never see a burial for Polonius.
  2. England is seen as the cure for the poison that is Hamlet’s madness.
  3. I’m going to stretch is a little regarding Ophelia, meaning I’m about to make some assumptions and throw them around like a freshmen in a college Humanities class trying to win over their peers. She’s told that her spurning Hamlet in his love is the cause of his madness–the same madness that leads him to kill her father through a curtain–so, methinks perhaps she blames herself for the death of her father and the madness of her love. Translating to her going crazy and offing herself, because she has been made to believe that this is all her fault.

Tennant_and_Tchaikowsky_as_Hamlet_and_Yorick

Now, to quote a gravedigger:

It must be se offendendo, it cannot be else. For here lies the point: if I drown myself wittingly, it argues an act, and an act hath three branches–it is to act, to do, to perform…

“In self-defense” is the simple translation of se offendendo. Yet he’s arguing for an act that takes place in the will, in full knowledge of the action. He even uses the term “perform” which I have spoken about the language of plays being in plays ad nauseam, so I won’t go into how Hamlet seems self-aware to the point that he almost realizes he’s in a play, again. Which brings me to my point–to know, in the clown’s terms, is to act–which has been an overarching tension in this entire play. Hamlet knows his course, and the only ramification of this knowing is to act upon it–leaving his mother, Ophelia and Laertes in the cross-fire.

The effect of Hamlet on the other players brings me to my final point (though I could go on for days, but I simply don’t have days, as I am super behind schedule) regarding Horatio. “Tell my story,” is what Hamlet asks in his dying breath. Why is this important? Well, Hamlet, you’re one of the most self-aware-of-being-in-a-play character I have yet to have the pleasure of meeting, and I have a feeling that may have something to do with it.

I have more on that, but a busy schedule, and this needs. To. Get. Posted.

Hamlet–Act III

hamlet2b

There’s been oodles of scholarship done on the “To be or not to be” speech, so I’m only going to reference it. And later.

Notice we open, again, with a staged meeting–only this isn’t for Laertes and the discovering of virtues and vices, but it’s a staging to figure out what in the dickins in going on with our main man Hamlet. Which reveals nothing, so the King wants to send him to England.

Now, the speech I am interested in is Hamlet’s conversation with the players (told you, I’m not going to let them go for awhile), because it is a reflection on what a play does and how it operates. I’m going to block quote it now, and let it speak for itself.

                            …Suit the action to the word, the
word to the action; with this special o’erstep not
the modesty of nature: for any thing so overdone is
from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the
first and now, was and is, to hold, as ’twere, the
mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature,
scorn her own image, and the very age and body of
the time his form and pressure.(III.ii.19-25)

Earlier, Hamlet also has a line about the players being, “the abstract and brief chronicles of the time” (II.ii.524-525). It’s been awhile since I read Claire Asquith‘s book Shadowplaybut I highly recommend it if you want the “chronicle” of the time, which is much better than I will even try to do here. But there is a rant I want to go on about what this means…

hamlet460

 

Onto Claudius’ desire for repentance. There’s a play between inherent character traits and actions going on here–he still has the same vices that brought him to the heinous act of killing his brother, so he cannot be allowed forgiveness for his action. Now, having a vice doesn’t make a person unforgivable–it’s to act upon that vice that makes an action good or bad. I’m not even going to get into the fact that Hamlet won’t kill him because there’s a risk Claudius might go to heaven.

Onto my last point which relates to the players a little bit as well. In the course of conversation with his mother, Hamlet states, “…but heaven hath pleased it so,/To punish me with this and this with me,/That I must be their scourge and minister” (III.iv.175-177). I’m thinking, and this might be over shooting here, that Hamlet might not be in control of his actions as the other characters in this play. The rest are showing “virtue her own feature” primarily by choices made that show the privation of virtue. I spoke earlier about there not being an Oedipus in a Christian understanding of man, but I think I may have been wrong. While the rest of the characters have choice, it seems that Hamlet is operating from something other than himself–he’s fated to commit his actions. They have flaws they can choose to act upon–he has an action he must do.

Hamlet-On-Stage-david-tennant-1905603-620-400

I think this explanation may be the cause of Hamlet’s constant rumination on suicide. It’s the only thing that is his choice, if that makes sense. I don’t know how clear my argument is, so I’ll have to think on it a little more.

Hamlet–Act II

william-shakespeares-hamlet-3

 

Polonius opens the act with the “staging” of Laertes’ vices in order to find out if his son is being a good boy in France. Which, if you think about it…”The plays’ the thing/Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King” (II.ii.606-607)…Is pretty much what Hamlet is doing to Claudius. To present a feigned vice and through that presentation, reveal the truth of whether the person has committed said vice.

It’s different, though, isn’t it? One’s done through gossip, the other through a play. It seems okay to make this falsehood in a play, but not in gossip, right? Is that just a feeling I’m having? Because if we separate the action and the idea, the ideas are the same. And, honestly, I think we should look at what makes the “lie” of fiction different. And I think that’s what Shakespeare may be looking at, too. With this whole…play within a play thing.

hamlet96-3-2a-1

I’m going to be dwelling on the players for a bit, actually. Probably until the fourth act, so bear with me. I have a thousand thoughts, and these are the only vaguely-coherent ones.

Polonius notes that, “Seneca cannot be too heavy, nor Plautus too light” (II.ii.401-402), which is followed by the first player telling at great length the story of Priam’s death and Hecuba’s sadness. There’s a link here. They’re Roman. And Hamlet’s response? “What’s Hecuba to him, or he to her/That he should weep for her?” (II.ii.559-560)

To be brief, I’m wondering if it doesn’t have to do with what I was thinking earlier–that there is something afoot in Shakespeare’s work that he’s going above and beyond the tragedians in the past. That said, I’ve been spending too long dwelling on this act tonight, so I think perhaps tomorrow will reveal more.

Hamlet–Act I

jacobi-branagh-christie

That’s not a happy face.

To begin with the first line, “Who’s there?” (I.i.1), we open with the subtle fact that the way the Danes understand their identity and recognize one another is through the king. Later, Laertes states to Ophelia–regarding their relationship and how it can only be passing–“…his wil is not his own./For he himself is subject to his birth…for the choice depends/The sanity and health of this whole state” (I.iii.17-18, 20-21). The state of the kingship–and complete disarray  that is Hamlet’s family–is vital to the polis and its relation to itself.

So it’s no surprise to us that we open with watchmen who are awaiting the outbreak of war with Norway. Which brings me to my next point.

hamlet09-1-5a-1

The ghost of the old king is dressed as he was for war with Norway–the war that was won by the hands of Hamlet, when he slew the older Fortinbras–and he is asking Hamlet again  to intercede on his behalf and win a different kind of war. The war against Hamlet’s uncle, the new king, who poisoned not only the king, but the entire heir-system that this country is founded upon.

I’ll get back to the ghost after these messages.

  1. Notice that in scene three, the only characters are Ophelia, Laertes, and Polonius. Family.
  2. The word prodigal is used three times in reference to Hamlet’s emotions to Ophelia. Now, prodigal is an odd word to be used, and to be used three times in one scene. Shakespeare’s got binders full of words, and here he’s using one that brings to mind a little story called “The Prodigal Son.”
  3. Hamlet’s not allowed to go back to school because of his depression. Hmm.

One more thing, and I’ll get back to the ghost, I promise.

Claud_Gert_Hamlet2

Hamlet has a little monologue I want you to look at a little closer, in case you missed it in the sea of monologues that is this play:

So, oft it chances in particular men,
That for some vicious mole of nature in them,
As, in their birth–wherein they are not guilty,
Since nature cannot choose his origin–
By the o’ergrowth of some complexion,
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason,
Or by some habit that too much o’er-leavens
The form of plausive manners, that these men,
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Being nature’s livery, or fortune’s star,–
Their virtues else–be they as pure as grace,
As infinite as man may undergo–
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault. (I.iv.23-36)

So, I have this theory. Many of you may not have been lit majors, doomed to only understand literature via Aristotle’s poetics (because a few of your teachers are philosophers only) and haven’t had the term FATAL FLAW shoved into every fiber of your being. My theory is–once Christianity hits the scene, Aristotle’s Poetics are nice, good, true, beautiful–but at this point they’re getting half the picture, because what Christianity does is erase the entire notion of a flaw in your character determining your fate. There is no Oedipus in a Christian world. What is Hamlet’s fatal flaw? Because I can’t find it. And here, Shakespeare is making the tragic figure himself outline what a fatal flaw is and how it operates. Shakespeare. You are too cool for school.

So. I lied. About talking about the ghost. Does he come from hell? I could argue that. Purgatory? I could argue that too. I said all I had to say about the ghost in the beginning. Ha! Fooled you.

Until tomorrow, kids.

 

Antony & Cleopatra–Acts IV and V

I decided to do these acts together, because I predicted that both would involve at least one of the same thing: The deaths of Antony and Cleopatra.

 

Three things about their suicides:

  1. The idea that this is the only way to be the master of oneself. Antony’s lost everything and will have to submit his life, but if he kills himself, he submits only to himself–same goes for Cleo. What I think is interesting about this in lieu of the past references to being oneself and not being oneself in relation to the other lover–this seems the only way they rectify “oneselfness” again.
  2. The servant dies first. For Antony, he “learns” his option through Eros’ suicide (also, Eros is Antony’s servant? Antony begs his servant Eros to kill him? Eros…love, erotic love…WHAT’S SHAKESPEARE DOING WITH THESE NAMES…I CAN’T HANDLE HOW MUCH I LOVE THIS). Ahem. And Iras dies from…ehh…She just kind of, dies.
  3. Antony dies by the sword, Cleo by poison. Notice this is the opposite of what happens in Romeo and Juliet–And while that tale ends on the sound of woe, this one rings of pity.

One other note: there’s been a war in the last half of this play, and they only bodies we see are from suicides or people who have lost the will to live–non from the war.

Sorry this is late, I’m on a time crunch even as we speak. I’m seeking new employment with better more manageable hours–and one that doesn’t keep me there until one and leaving me so exhausted that I can’t wake up in time to post.

Antony & Cleopatra–Act III

Sometimes life throws you punches and you have to sleep for a week to reconfigure your life.

3-2x5a4225-kim-cattrall-cleopatra-antony-and-cleopatra-photo-by-georgia-oetker

Enobarbus. He’s calling all of Antony’s bluffs and faults, mainly, “that would make his will/Lord of his reason” (III.xiii.3-4). The whole theme of the play, kids. Make your will or pleasures the master of your reason, you’ll make a few political mistakes, war against Caesar by sea (which obviously isn’t your strong suit) and flee the minute your buttercup leaves the fight. I’m a little obsessed with Enobarbus (despite the fact that it takes me a few tries to type his name correctly), because he’s incredibly aware of everything. And awareness is sexy.

I’ve been thinking about this line of his, “I see men’s judgments are/A parcel of their fortunes, and things outward/Do draw the inward quality after them/To suffer all alike” (III.xiii.31-34). And I actually have to think about it more before I can say anything about it. It’s too cool for school, and right now my thoughts are a-jumble with “negative capability” and “outward manifestations of internal truths” and I can’t put them together quite yet.

REPUTATIONS: RICHARD BURTON, TAYLOR MADE FOR STARDOM

That said, I have a feeling certain loves are not reciprocated by other loves. And the in-continuity of Antony no longer being himself with Cleopatra, and Cleopatra’s identification that she is only herself with Antony…things are going to get a little interesting on the “who is who in relation to who” front here soon. Love, that which makes us not ourselves…but this one doesn’t seem to…fit.