Shakespeare Fashion Craze: Royalty

1 Henry IV, Costumes and props, Imagery, Stage techniques, Verbal texture

The repetition of a particular metaphor type in a William Shakespeare play can signify and complement a theme of the play.  In Henry IV Part 1, the repeating metaphors that stand out to me relate to dress and wardrobe.  In a play that is concerned with the crown and the role of royalty, dress metaphors are especially appropriate when considering that a king can simply “wear” the crown or be the crown.  Specifically, does the occupation of the throne automatically make every action of a king royal or does the content, the spirit or the motive of the act define royalty?

This observation is why I liked Prince Henry at the end of the Act I. The idea that, “when  this loose behavior I throw off,”  is like him suggesting that he can change his roles like his clothes and throw off that tattered jacket of adolescence for a more appropriate garb. ( Act 1, Sc. 2, 213) Instead of taking the title or royalty and the responsibility that comes with it, Henry shows his understanding of what royalty is by doing the exact opposite. Rather than take it for granted that all of his actions are seen under the guise of the crown, he does the dastardly and goes in cahoots with thieves. He’s taking to defining royalty on his own terms rather than adhering to the expectations of others.

In a plot line where the occupation of the throne seems to be on the mind of anyone with any relation or claim to the throne, it is interesting to see a character who is not crazy about the responsibility of the crown rather than be dazed by the glory of the title and instead opts to con everyone into accepting whatever he wills to deliver as long as it is not thievery. It’s almost like a plot of a Guy Richie movie.

A Lover’s Dilemma

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Generic characteristics, Imagery, Romantic comedy

A Midsummer Night’s Dream is a tale of chaos and order, light and dark, sane and insane. The setting and environment help the reader understand the emotions the actors were portraying as they entered the woods.  Demetrius’ line 192 of Act 2 demonstrates his feelings as he enters the woods, “and here I am, and wood within this wood.” Here he means that he feels confused as if his transition to the woods has brought about this change.

Shakespeare sets the scene where the young lovers are out in the woods  unsure of their love. Puck the mystical fairy organizer even takes a jab at this by confusing the lovers with the spraying of his magical juice. Shakespeare takes you along this mystical journey into the woods and you are as lost as the characters.

The characters are Shakespeare’s version of young immature teens searching for love. The characters in the play old or young, mortal or immortal all become immature due to the chains of love.  Oberon, the mighty King of the fairies and Titania, Queen of the fairies are constantly at each other’s throats over the young changeling. Shakespeare captures the tension by having both enter the play from different sides. He then leads us to see the growing resentment in Oberon when he sets his henchmen Puck to spray into the Queen’s eyes and trick her into loving a transformed donkey. This immaturity is very strange and Shakespeare makes a mockery of the “love” going around.

The Curious Case of Nick Bottom?

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Generic characteristics, Tragicomedy

The character of the “fool” has been a major staple within Shakespearean literature, as it presents a character that is “ahead of the curve”. Through several of his playwrights, regardless of the overall tone of his story, Shakespeare creatively found a way to insert a character that is so unique and unorthodox that the reader can’t help but gravitate to said character. A perfect demonstration of such a person is Nick Bottom from within  A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Bottom (as Shakespeare so eloquently titles him throughout the play) is introduced as an immature, cocky, and jackass (both figuratively and literally) of a human being. His mindset is transfixed on the notion that he knows all compared to his other craftsmen counterparts. The true comedy roots from his total obliviousness to his animalistic transformation that occurs during the 3rd Act of the playwright. Shakespeare intentionally turns the characters head into that of a donkey, and therefore the effect the term “jackass” now has become a triple entendre (i.e. the relation to the characters name being “Bottom”, his head now being an actual Donkey a.k.a an ass, and the simple fact that his personality is that of a jackass unto itself).

Without a doubt this was extremely clever scripting by Shakespeare, but the true genius of this character comes towards the end of the play as one see’s the interesting transformation of Bottom. The interesting transformation is that there is no transformation; none of personality, action, or revelation. Aside from his brief change in physical appearance, the man we meet in the beginning of the story is the exact same man we are left with when the curtains close. THAT is what make this character so intriguing; the simple fact that within this play every person that wakes up from their “dream state” goes through some change in character but this one man. It seems that his foolishness is actually a synonym for a strong sense of wisdom. Bottom is able to remain true to his self regardless of the outlandish circumstances; he is also the only person to be aware of both the fairy world and the “real” world. If being a fool allows me to remain myself through the most drastic of situation then color me an insane fool. And with that I leave you with this:

“A Fool Thinks Himself To Be Wise, But A Wise Man Knows Himself To Be A FOOL”-Will Shakespeare.

Two Couples, Not Alike

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Psychological states, Romantic comedy

Though much of the comedy in A Midsummer Night’s Dream comes from the confusion that ensues between the four young lovers, I have to admit that their maturity and conviction at the beginning of the play is quite impressive to me. Hermia and Lysander seem so sure of their love for one another (that Hermia is willing to defy  her father and face potential celibacy or death to protect it.)

It is was when Lysander stated  “the course of love never did run smooth” that I felt it appropriate to take their characters and their love for each other seriously (as silly as it later becomes). Lysander expresses his understanding that the journey of love is never an easy one, yet he remains committed still. Knowing the hardships they will have to face, Hermia and Lysander make a vow of love to each other.

The next couple we are introduced to is Oberon and Titania who, while committed to each other by marriage, no longer seem a committed couple at all. As Puck explains, “And now they never meet in grove or green.” The two even come from separate entrances and seemingly cannot stand the sight of each other. Oberon even performs cruel tricks and spells on his once love.  By comparison the love between Hermia and Lysander seems far stronger than that of Oberon and Titania.

All that being sad, I think that these couples, being at different stages in their lives and at different ages, only reflect a common theme in reality: love is often  strongest when it is young .

 

Shakespeare disorients you in the most entertaining way.

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Psychological states, Romantic comedy, The role of the imagination

One of the things that I found the most compelling about A Midsummer Night’s Dream is how hysterically disorienting it can be. That goes for much more than the blatant confusions of the fairy-engineered chaos that ensues in acts two, three, and four. It really is not hard to catch yourself trying to figure out minor details, such as the moon position, and how it could possibly have such a prevalent theme of moonlight despite Theseus’ comments of, “four happy days to bring in another moon” to denote the time of the ceremonies.

Perhaps liberties were taken for the theme of moonlight, or there are alternate ways of interpreting what Theseus meant, but it would not be surprising if either were the case. Both fit into how disorienting it can be by adding to the numerous dualities in the play: sanity and insanity, civilization and wilderness, elite and commoner, and, of course, the confusion these dualities cause. I cannot imagine where we would be without the moon as a perfect scapegoat to explain the actions of the four youths in the woods and the mysterious disappearance of Bottom. Let’s also not forget about how disorienting of a time the players must have had trying to pull a performance together with their lead character off in the woods with a fairy queen and a horse head.

And, of course, what better to include in a play centered on marriage and love than a prominent theme of disorientation?  I would assume that it is safe to say that Shakespeare sought out to comment on the inner-complexities of love in this play in the same was as he did so with dreams and social standings. Whether it is Hermia and Helena caustically doting over each other’s opposing features, or subtle commentary on two men falling for the same woman, Shakespeare does not shy away from tackling dense topics in order to delve into social ideas that are certainly not unique or confined to the setting of the play. It makes these characters very real and believable in the cleverest of ways, and even gives a brief second of clarity, just as the last act of the play seems to do.

Is a Dream a Dream, or a Dreamed Reality?

A Midsummer Night's Dream, The role of the imagination

I viewed A Midsummer Night’s Dream as an easy-to-relate-to Shakespearean play, having read his other works. There are elements to this play that ring true for that time period and ours. As long as we can remember there have been stories of love and fights in honor of protecting love. In this play elements of fantasy are weaved into the fabric of the play. So much so they make appearances where it seems uncommon for them to be.

At the end of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Puck comes on to the stage and states to the audience.

If we shadows have offended,
Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumber’d here
While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idle theme,
No more yielding but a dream,
Gentles do not reprehend.
If you pardon, we will mend.

Pucks is telling the audience that if they did not enjoy the show imagine it but a dream and it will all be ok. This is the final reinforcement on the importance of dreams  in relation to this play. If something doesn’t please you assume that it is a dream and that will bring peace to your mind.  A dream is an escape from reality or reality is the escape from the dream. Love is an escape and sometimes it’s an escape from reality as well. The things that you may have seen and believed are nothing more than fantasy taking over in love sometimes as well as when you view a play. Even if real emotions are evoked as they often are in dreams they’re separate and a fading escape from reality. This is what stood out to me most the idea of the mystical fairies along side the human reality. The fairies living and affecting the outcome of the human beings. Yet their impact could be viewed as a dream and not as the reality presented.

The eyes have it.

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Imagery

Something that caught my eye (har-har) about A Midsummer Night’s Dream is the repeating motif of the eyes. Whether they are being magically corrupted by fairies, tricked the moon or referred to in a great and concise image, the eyes are subject to a formidable amount of literary experimenting on behalf of Shakespeare. Spoiler alert, eyes take on a significant meaning in King Lear too, so it is interesting to see how his earlier treatment of the visual organs is much more…gentle.

We’ve heard the trite line that the eyes represent the window to a human’s soul, so perhaps it is this easy opening that allows transformation to take place for the love-struck visitors and occupants of the woods. Eyes are also organs that take in light, which means they would be the most susceptible to the change from day to night. This fits with the repeating underlining of the difference between night and day in the play. There would have not been the same effect to the magic if say Puck spoke a magic word and knocked Demetrius over the head with a rock. The selection of the eyes is significant in more than one way.

One of the things that love transforms in the play is perception. To indulge my response with another well-known cliché: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not only do the eyes leave humans vulnerable by opening up the soul, they are themselves known to function differently when “love” becomes a factor.

A very popular line from the play, spoken by Helena, is:

“Love looks not with the eyes but with the mind.” (Act 1, scene 1 line 234)

What I can take away from this is that the surge of emotions that come from looking at a person is not love; it might feel like it, it might sound like it, but it is not love. When the bewitched Lysander gazed upon Helena affectionately or Titania doted upon the ass that is Bottom, it was not from love or from the mind. The eyes opened them to affection and passion, to the guise of love.  As seen from the comical situation that the couples in the play find themselves in, there’s much more to love that what can be perceived through eyes.  Sometimes, only magic can explain why a powerful female would fall in love for a character like Bottom.

The visual elements of Midsummer.

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Costumes and props, Stage techniques

The tone and feeling of the play are heavily affected by the visual representations of the characters in Midsummer Night’s Dream. In particular the depiction of the character Bottom is a very important element of each performance. Looking at different pictures online show various representations of the character.   Even with the same dialogue these visual depictions and the way the actor performs will create drastically different experiences.

Professor Berggren mentioned the portrayal where Bottom is shown with a tremendous phallus. How different is Bottom’s dialogue when given with the distraction of a giant waggling penis rather than just the implication of one? This is part of the magic of the theater in that each run of a play can be an entirely new experience. Each of the major characters in the play have the potential to present themselves entirely differently depending on the visual design in a way no regular reading can depict. Does anyone have one version they consider more valid than others? Any more thoughts on the visual experience of theater?

A more comedic take.

Too normal?
More animal-like. Could have done without the image of Judi Dench sexing up this donkey; but we all suffer for art right?