In a play where lies, deceit, and disguises are at the core of the plot, there remains only one man who continues to carry on his personal values regardless of the pressure to conform to the higher ups that lay down the law of the land; his name is Lucio, the true hero (maybe anti-hero) of the story. A man who decides to play by his own rules, regardless of the inevitable consequences that’ll be handed down to him continues to express his charismatic and witty personality towards every other character throughout the play; therefore forcing them to come to terms with their own personal demons and desires. The way he subliminally “pimps” out Isabella to Angelo so that she can free her brother Claudio from prison, or how he casually talks to the disguised friar(the Duke in disguise) about how the Duke was a great leader not just because of his leniency but because how he also indulged in the pleasure of other women just like his fellow citizen. The term “sin” is blind to the of Lucio as he believes that it is not a sin to please ones desires, and that those who believe it to be so are clearly in denial of their own human wants and needs. Is Lucio a saint? Nope, but that is the reason he is the best and most relatable character within the play; he embraces his human instincts and does not sugar coat his opinion. The title of the play is Measure for Measure but a lot of the characters within this story take half measures, as they decide to not fully embrace there own beliefs and desires. Angelo wants to enforce the law against premarital sex, but can’t resist Isabella. Isabella wants to save her dear brother Claudio, but refuses to commit a single sin to save his life, but will deceive Angelo in the end. The Duke wants to infiltrate the community as a common man, but still has issues letting go of his ego. It is only Lucio who goes all in from the beginning until the end, and even though he is disciplined by the king his character never wavers. Is he immature and volatile? Indeed, but within the character of Lucio there are no half measures, only full and that makes him the ultimate hero of the story.
Category Archives: Class and status
Duke or Douche?
Measure for Measure begins with the Duke announcing he must take leave and put Angelo in charge of his dukedom, Vienna. The Duke then tells the audience he doesn’t plan on traveling outside of the city for business. He tells the audience that he wants to see Angelo handle the power of being a Duke and how he runs the dukedom in his absence. The Duke Vincentio takes on the robe of a friar to overlook his city while remaining anonymous.
My biggest problem with the Duke is he appointed Angelo to power and yet, he set Angelo up to fail. I think that is grossly irresponsible and he isn’t being considerate of his comrade Angelo. I would say Angelo is loyal to the Duke and any individual who is granted power without any supervision is susceptible to misusing said power. The whole story of Measure for Measure could be avoided if the Duke doesn’t decide to do this social experiment. The Duke specifically says that he fears his city is starting to become fearless of his authority and he needs to put Angelo in charge to get them to start respecting authority again. At the end of the play however, he doesn’t hesitate in trying to kill off Angelo. I never really liked Angelo as a character; in fact I despised him in a way. However loyalty is something that should always be held up, especially considering Angelo is the Duke’s man. I felt like the Duke should have taken more responsibility for Angelo’s appointment. The Duke ends up being even more powerful with the city in shambles after Angelo’s reign and people supporting him even more. The Duke was this plotting character throughout the story. The one constant thing about Measure for Measure is that no character was really a hero and everyone was really full of it. I stick by the Duke being a Douche.
Autolycus: The Wolf [Him]self
There is a great deal of talk talk about bears, lions, and other beasts such as wolves in The Winter’s Tale, but by the second half of the play, we realize that the only wolf we are going to meet is Autolycus. This is not to say that this rogue is simply an antagonist, though. He is a highly complex character who falls somewhere in between the realms of good and bad: the realm of mankind.
To start, it is important to mention that the name Autolycus means “The Wolf itself” and has an extensive background in Greek mythology. In short, the mythological Autolycus was the son of Hermes and the grandfather of Odysseus. He is said to have been a great thief who had the gift of never being caught. It is interesting that this is the meaning behind his name, especially after we see him stealing fleece at sheep-shearing festival. In addition to this, he calls people “the herd” (4.4) after he completes this task. As we all know, wolves typically prey on sheep, and therefore, the sheep tend to fear them. This fact of nature would normally lead us to believe that Autolycus is evil and wishes to cause the people harm. Yet this is not the case. The people (or the “herd”) don’t fear Autolycus because he’s not really hurting anyone with what he’s doing. It is more likely that he deems these people “the herd” not because he wishes them harm, but because he is extremely clever and cunning and can constantly outwit and win these mindless sheep-like individuals over with his charming personality. It should also be noted that prior to this festival, Autolycus has been stealing sheets. There is an apparent sexual connotation here that brings to mind it the issue of Leontes, who thought Hermione was sleeping with King Polixenes. This links the latter half of the play back with the first and gives us reason to believe that Autolycus is a foil of Leontes. Autolycus uses his “profession” to his advantage and sparks a comedic element in the play, while Leontes is suffering the consequences of his false accusations and represents the tragic aspect of the play.
Autolycus appears in disguise several times (as peddler at the sheep shearing festival and later as a nobleman), tricks nearly everyone he comes in contact with by picking their pockets, and also captivates them through bawdy songs which are often about marriage, love, and sex. Shakespeare has presented us with a highly seductive character, which is likely one of the reasons why audiences and the people around him in the play seem to take a liking to him so much. His behavior is anything but honorable and he often speaks and sings crudely, but his songs are still expressed in a way that is artful and appeals to the senses and interests of his audience, and his deeds are almost overshadowed by his skillful wit and honesty with the audience. Autolycus might bring to mind Milton’s interpretation of the devil in Paradise Lost; though he is acting immorally and takes on different forms, we cannot help but also feel some sort of sympathy for and attraction toward him as a character. It helps that he really conveys the plight of the working class and shifting times on a larger level. We can see through his description of himself (4.4, 95-102) and also his actions that sometimes he works, sometimes he steals, and sometimes he begs. It is clear through many of the plays we have read (especially through Measure for Measure and King Lear, in my opinion) that Shakespeare was aware that life was not easy for most people living in 17th century England. It was a struggle to put food on the table each day, but Autolycus makes light of the situation through his humor, and would therefore be appealing to and appreciated by this large portion of the population.
In addition to this, when we learn that he used to work in the court, it becomes evident that he also serves as a link between the royal world and the pastoral world. He isn’t your typical member of the bourgeoisie. Autolycus always masters every situation he’s in and he is a jack-of-all-trades. He is not unlike Falstaff in terms of his wit and general competence; there is no doubt that he is in control and very aware of what is going on around him. I might go so far as to argue that Autolycus is what the every day workingman might dream to be. He is admirable in that he makes the best of his situation and doesn’t seem to be suffering, though he goes about it in a less than admirable manner. Even so, his character gives a sense of hope to the working class poor in the audience in Shakespeare’s time, and even today.
Through all of this, it becomes quite difficult to characterize Autolycus as a predatory wolf. He is always honest about his intentions from the start. He never presents them as honorable, and although his intentions aren’t pure in any sense of the word, they are not really “evil” either. His crimes are what we would consider relatively petty, especially when juxtaposed with the crimes of King Leontes. And we cannot forget that Autolycus’ actions eventually lead to reconciliation and harmony at the play’s end. It is undeniable that he is a complex character who is difficult to define explicitly, but we might all be unified in the notion that in all of its mystery and chaos, Act 3 scene 3 was setting us up for the entrance of a character of this nature. Through Autolycus, laughter and joy are brought into a play filled with tragic undertones, and beyond all of the fantastical elements we are presented with on stage, we finally meet a character that is truly human.
The Scene in the Court – Measure for Measure Group 4 Reflections
Looking back to the day we had to act out the scene highlighting Pompey and Escalus (2.1.136-256), there is no denying that coordinating the rather tricky Shakespearean language entwined within the scene, the appropriate atmosphere of the characters and the setting and the limited resources (and not to mention ability) into a cohesive portrayal of this particular scene was initially challenging. However, being able to retrospect the challenges in recording the scene, and both understanding and analyzing the significance of the scene only gives an opportunity to once again appreciate the genius of Shakespeare in breathing life into what would be just merely physical movement, voices and props.
Before we had a chance to look at our dialogue we knew that we had to refrain from using the books on stage while filming. The productions we had seen of Shakespeare’s plays were powerful because the actor not only interpreted each line in his/her own way but also because they were able to look out into the audience and convey their emotions to the audience. So, the first thing that popped into my mind was a teleprompter. We’ve seen simple technology such as this being used on a daily basis in so many different TV shows and what we were taping was a video so in that aspect it worked out perfectly. When we finally read the scene we realized it was very apt to use the prompter because it was a court scene. Using the chair for Escalus to sit down and face his back towards the audience was a decision we took since he was the authority in that scene. Simple actions from Froth, Pompey and Elbow like stepping forward to present their case (i.e. read their parts) each time really immersed us into the roles as novice actors.
Unknowingly, a typical tribunal type of atmosphere arose from just our positioning, which eventually became necessary to get the feeling for the more serious questions regarding the actual law that was to be enforced and the type of crime that was committed. The second most important dramatic technique, attempted, was the idea of Pompey reciting the four lines alone as both Escalus and Elbow phase out of the line of sight of the camera to emphasize a sense of cynicism in the justice system presented by Shakespeare because it illustrates the persistence of certain deeds, and even the possibility of helplessness in erasing that same persistence. Just as Pompey critically derides Escalus’s duty to the law, “Does your worship mean to geld and splay all the youth of the city,” the selected scene that was required of us definitely gave the opportunity to not merely enact but to feel, at the very minimum, how the language woven within the directions of how the props and setting would be displayed creates the right atmosphere in thinking on terms like cynical justice or corruption. Hence going back to what was mentioned earlier, this is just a taste of the genius in Shakespeare breathing life, which can be appreciated only when one has attempted to enact that selected scene.
We found it very enjoyable working on this project despite everyone’s initial hesitation towards group projects. Everyone in this group was extremely cooperative, which helped a lot considering we had to do a number of retakes (close to 20?). One scene that stood out for us was the one between Escalus and Pompey regarding Pompey’s nickname. We all laughed out loud during the “bum” comments because we didn’t realize how hilarious they were until we recited the play.
The scene showed us a very different dynamic to Shakespeare’s work in that it showed comedy, however, it also illustrated his ability to created striking conversation. The scene the group did was not an introduction to the types of subjects the play addresses, but also the kind of quick hitting, “right back at you” type of dialect. In addition, while it was able to delineate multiple dynamics, it showed a very interesting lens in that it portrayed class distinction by way of vocabulary which was a bit new to me when it came to Shakespeare. All in all, he believes that sometimes we lose sight of the meaning behind Shakespeare’s work because of the language, but if we take the time to find the power behind the dialogue, we can gain a better understanding of the play, the times, and Shakespeare himself.
GROUP 6 — The conclusion of the Gloucester plot — King Lear, 5.3.111-52; 166-223
Here’s the link to our group’s video presentation
Clowns, Skulls, and Melancholic Musings: Group 3 Critique
- Satirical Summary of the gravedigger scene
The graveyard scene in Hamlet is one of the most iconic moments of the play often referenced out of context, and as a result many of its important details go missed. As a group, our initial meeting focused on planning and logistics. We wanted to do Shakespeare’s work as much justice as we possibly could in light of our modest situation, and what became readily apparent was that even if nothing else was available Yorick’s skull had to be used as a main prop. Something that we all felt as a profound truth in this experience is that Shakespeare’s plays were certainly meant to be seen, heard, and performed. There is undoubtedly so much more to be learned from playing one of his characters instead of simply reading the lines. As fortune would have it we were able to use an area of the Baruch Performing Arts Center that allowed for ease of filming, the sound of our voices to carry well to our amateur filming apparatus, and also for our characters to be positioned in a way that we felt truly made the scene come to life.
Reid by far had the most challenging task in portraying Hamlet; a character whose tendency to branch into soliloquy made his portion of the scene the lengthiest and most long-winded. His task in our practice readings, and finally in the ultimate performance was preventing the words from melding together and becoming a drone. His use of vocal inflections and varied expressions, a result if his familiarity with the piece, brought the character to life, making what could have been a boring recitation into a worthy theatrical effort.
For Nolan, embodying the character of Horatio really helped him to understand the importance and significance of this character. Horatio was the one person that Hamlet had full trust and confidence in. Where every other relationship he has falls into disarray, the one he has with Horatio stays constant and cordial. This certainly allows the reader to delve further into the mind of Hamlet, but for the actor playing Horatio this effect is even more profound. Horatio has very few lines in the gravedigger scene so he has plenty of time to observe and ponder Hamlet and his sudden return to Denmark. He’s the first individual to truly see the changes that Hamlet experiences, the first person to understand the implications of what actions are to come, and the last person alive to see how these necessary events unfold.
Karina was fascinated by the depth provided by a character that is so often glossed over. She jumped at the chance to portray the comic relief, whose few lines and small role held so much life and character and spoke volumes of the tone and mood of the play itself. It was a very different experience seeing a character portrayed, and being the character yourself. Speaking his jokes, singing his songs, ‘sitting in his grave’ added a layer to the play that reading lines in a book failed to provide. The gravedigger provides exposition from an outsider’s point of view, he is a common man who faces death not with melancholy or petulance, but with rationality and realism. As Hamlet stated “the hand of little employment hath the daintier sense” (5.1.70),and after digging an imaginary grave for seven minutes it is easy to see why humor and honesty would be necessary to make the most of the gravedigger’s vocation.
One thing for sure, it is very easy to see how easy it is for Shakespeare’s work to be represented differently in each production. Lines and scenes can be interpreted differently by different directors and actors causing these variations. We each had different ideas of what the scene would look like and it was especially fun having the opportunity to let the scene flow forth from each of our minds into physicality. We got to collaborate and create a shared organic vision for the scene, and share this interpretation with others.
Variations of the scene in film (Mel Gibson vs. Kenneth Branagh):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbxMhvcxJJc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXixlEy5Gfc
Exploration into the importance and properties of Yorick’s skull
Pianist’s dying wish: human skull used in performance
Group 5 Scene Study: Introduction of the Fool
The Efficacy of Law in Measure for Measure
In Measure for Measure, authority figures often anthropomorphize the law of Vienna. For instance, during his conversation with the Friar, the Duke describes Vienna’s laws as “strict” and “biting” (1.3.19). Similarly, Angelo callously assures Isabel that “It is the law, not I, [who] condemns your brother (2.2.80). Through their syntax, Angelo and the Duke separate themselves from the law, which offers an interesting insight on the way the law is perceived in the play: it is an objective, stand alone entity.
But in light of the play’s final scene,where one “fornicator” is absolved of his “crime” and the other is “punished,” are Angelo and the Duke right to take this view of the law?
The Spectacle of Executions
Since more than one character in the play Measure for Measure has a brush with death, a deeper inquiry into the code of conduct that went into the job of executioner provides worthwhile insight for the reaction the audience would have about said topic.
Though the play takes place in Vienna, the audience would be familiar with the great symbol of power that stood during their time: The Tower of London. This site, in itself, offers pages and pages of history on how power is exhibited. Drownings, tortures, marriages, imprisonments and executions all took place there.
Executions had their own code of conducts, one of which was the class divide for the process of how an individual would be “dealt with”. The question of how was resolved through class: The upper class were deemed worthy of beheading, as apparently it was considered the least brutal ( accounts of beheadings gone wrong prove otherwise. The source for this information.
Other factors that sealed the fate of the accused included (of course) gender and the nature of the crime. Traitors were deemed especially malicious and had a list of execution methods set all to themselves.
What I found particularly interesting in the executions presented up till now (Act 3) of the play is that almost all the characters had some form of say in their ill fate. Claudio, for example, was handed a reprieve at the hands of his sister’s maiden status. In some way, he had a choice in his death sentence. Barnardine, another example, got to push off his quickened beheading with pure luck, even though his death was long coming and he seemed ready.
With the continuous mentions of birth, pregnancy and life, it’s worthy to pay attention to how death is presented in the play. While pregnancy, or giving life, seems to be met with harsh consequences (for man and woman) and great dispute, death becomes an answer and even a greater indicator of character in the play.
Honor as Property in 1 Henry IV
For most of Henry IV, Shakespeare handles honor in an indirect way. Although nearly every character stakes some claim to honor, the audience is left without a fundamental definition of it on which to build an understanding and more importantly, against which the “honor” of a character may be measured. There is, however, a notable shift away from this pattern of the indirect treatment of honor in Act 3, Scene 2, when King Henry and Hal are reunited after the Prince’s self-imposed “exile” to discuss the “villainous news” (2.4.334) of the Percy rebellion. During his discussion with his father, Hal’s description of honor implies that he perceives it as form of property, i.e., a thing whose ownership of can be transplanted. This notion of honor as property not only deepens our understanding of the rivalry between Hotspur and Hal, but also helps us find a better bearing on the dynamics of honor in Henry IV.