Why Iago is a better wing man than Richard III...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Movie Worksheet "Richard III"

1.  Plot Summary (3-4 Sentences)

The movie starts with Richard blasting down the headquarters of Henry VI with a tank. It then transitions to a nineteen thirties style celebration of Edward IV's throne and the ending of the war. Richard then weasels his way to the crown as per the play, with his speech to Ann taking place in a hospital morgue instead of a funeral march, and the tower of London consisting of an ominous Nazi-esque monolithic military compound. Lord Rivers, played by Robert Downy Jr., is killed by being stabbed while having sex (a rather grievous and unexpected change from the play). The ending battle scene consists of a World War II style battle, with Richmond chasing after Richard with a pistol. They chase each other up a factory like compound, where Richard jumps off a beam and is shot by Richmond simultaneously.

2.  How does this movie adapt, comment on, or relate to what we read in class?

The movie takes some very strong liberties in certain areas. One of the most obvious is the the complete removal of any supernatural elements to the story. While they leave Clarence's bad dream, they completely cut the ghost sequence from the end, and the character of old queen Margret is completely removed. Marget's curses at the beginning were very important to the story, and foreshadowed much of the tragic events that followed, even the characters themselves often commented on this. All that has been removed in the movie, the only line remaining being queen Elizabeth's request for "how to curse", but the question was directed toward Richard's mother, not queen Margaret, so it had much less impact.

3.  Does this movie change your interpretation of the text?  Why?  Why not?

I feel that the movie was a badly done interpretation. Richard III was not my favorite play, and a lot of that was because of the large amount of seemingly "excess" characters. The movie attempted to consolidate the story a bit, but in the process the removed an important aspect of the story. One of Shakespeare's main themes was fate, and they just removed that idea completely. This places all of the focus on Richard as a villain, which while appropriate, makes the story much less sympathetic, and arguably less believable. the idea of Fate in a universe, makes me at least a little more accepting of Richard's seemingly magical ability to make people fall for his speeches, because hey, maybe they really didn't have a choice, but removing that just makes the characters far too gullible to believe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blog

Richard is set up to be a great villian, and he succeeds admirably in becoming a two dimensional story book evil mastermind with little character depth. Iago is set up from the start to be a villian (he is even labeled a villian in the Dramatis Personae), and succeeds in not only becoming a great villian, but becomes a deep character with realistic motives and character interactions. One of the best ways that show how Iago is more realistic than Richard is by analyzing how they interact with their wing men. Richard had the Duke of Buckingham, and Iago has Roderigo. 


Iago and Roderigo are seen from the very opening scene of the play as seemingly good friends. They are talking ill about their general, a conversation that you would only have with a close friend in quiet conversation. Richard on the other hand, seems to show little true emotional connection to Buckingham. They don't even truly conspire together until Act 3 scene 1, and it is an obviously political arrangement. This lack of personal connection,  makes the relationship much less believable. Richard is a villain, so how can he have friends?


This is a direct contrast to Iago. Iago actually very effectively consoles his friend Roderigo, getting Roderigo to give him money, all in one fell swoop, and it is believable(1.3.297-373). Iago's consoling of Roderigo is believable because they have been set up as close friends already. Iago is pursuing his own means, but he also seems genuinely interested in the well being of his friend. In fact Iago uses Roderigo's jealousy of Othello to help justify his own hate of the General. They are friends in hate, and Iago's pep talk actually brings Roderigo closer to Iago. This is a very realistic relationship dynamic. 

Iago initiates the conversation with Roderigo with, "What say'st thou, noble heart?". Iago starts the conversation after everyone else has left the council chamber. He is obviously curious of Roderigo's opinion of the things that just happened, as any good friend would be. He greets Roderigo with the greeting of a close friend, calling him a "noble heart". When Roderigo responds that he will "incontinently drown" himself, Iago immediately responds as someone who seems to care. He calls Roderigo a "silly gentleman", telling Roderigo that if he kills himself, Iago will no longer love him. This statement, yet again shows the closeness of the two men. Roderigo cares about Iago's friendship a great deal and Iago knows this, and uses it to his advantage. Roderigo then tells Iago of his jealous feelings and his inability to control his feelings. This is where Iago starts to take advantage of Roderigo. He answers, "Our bodies are our gardens, to the which our wills are gardeners...". Iago is setting Roderigo up to let him in oh his plan. Iago is giving Roderigo hope, while convincing him to help him in his plan.

"...thou shalt enjoy her; therefore make money. A pox of
drowning thyself! it is clean out of the way: seek
thou rather to be hanged in compassing thy joy than
to be drowned and go without her." (1.3.354)

 Richard had no such close relationships with any of the other characters, especially Buckingham, who was placed in a similar wing man position. When Buckingham is denied his rewards from Richard, and even when he is captured and killed, there isn't as much sympathy for him, because there is no equivalent emotional connection, it is all political. "It's nothing personal, it's business". Iago is deeper because it is personal.

"Did You think to kill me?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Movie Worksheet "V for Vendetta"

1.  Plot Summary (3-4 Sentences)

The movie begins with Eve going to go on a date with someone. She is stopped by "fingermen", gestapo type secret police, who attempt to rape her, but she is saved by V, who kills the fingermen, and then makes his famously quotable introduction consisting of V related words. He leads her to a rooftop to watch his destruction of the Old Bailey. Later, V takes over the National TV station, broadcasting a promise that he will blow up parliament in a year on the fifth of November. Eve helps V escape, but is knocked out. V then takes Eve to his layer, where he says that she must stay for a whole year. Some time passes and Eve asks if she can be of help to V. He has Eve pretend to be a young girl sent to a corrupt bishop for "pleasure" purposes, and to assist in killing the bishop. Eve escapes V during this ordeal and flees to one of her bosses, Gordon Deitrich. Deitrich takes Eve in, where we find out he is gay, and keeps copies of "contraband" material, such as the Koran. The police raid and seemingly capture Deitrich and Eve. Eve is then subjected to torture in a cell, in appears to be an attempt to find the whereabouts of V. This whole thing turns out to be a ruse set up by V to make Eve stronger. After she thinks she is going to be killed, she finds out that she was in V's lair the whole time. She then leaves V and attempts to make sense of the outside world. In the meantime detective Finch is on V's trail, and begins piecing together V's story. He finds out that V has been killing all the people in charge at Larkhill detention camp. He finds out too late that the coroner was the head doctor of the facility; she is killed by V before he gets to her. V then convinces Mr. Creedy, the head fingerman, to capture and bring the head of the party, Chancellor Sutler to him, in exchange for his own life. Mr. Creedy does this, thinking it will allow him to assume power for himself. Mr. Creedy kills Sutler himself, then attempts to kill V. V gets shot badly, but kills Creedy and all of his men. He then finds Eve, and dies in her arms. During this time, all the people gather in front of the parliament buildings, waiting to see what will happen. Eve puts V's body on a train lined with explosives that V had built, and sends it off to blow up the parliament buildings.

2.  How does this movie adapt, comment on, or relate to what we read in class?

The movie seems to be a very condensed version of the text. Most of the main ideas are there, they simply narrowed down the cast a lot, removing some of the less major characters, and shortened the timeline. There are two main differences in overall concept though. The main one is the ending. In the movie, V seems to plead to the people and gives them a choice. The people march on Parliament in V masks, and seem to want the change. This is different from the novel, where the change is forced upon the people. They don't seem to directly want it, and opposed to an organized protest, they seem to assume the role of a vicious unorganized mob. The second difference is the relationship between Eve and V. The movie makes V a bit more sympathetic at the end, having him die in Eve's arms; they seem to have a lovers embrace. In the novel, V shows more sympathy in the beginning toward Eve, and less so at the end. Their love was not as played up in the Novel.

3.  Does this movie change your interpretation of the text?  Why?  Why not?

The movie provides a kind of alternate universe from the text. The movie has a lot of the same ideas, and I would say, the main idea of the evils of fascist government remain the same between the two. The movie just goes about it a slightly different way. The text informs the movie, but the movie does not inform the text. The text goes into a lot more depth with certain ideas, that are really necessary to get a full appreciation for the ideas of V. A lot of these ideas, while they exist in the movie, get cut short, an unfortunate side effect of the medium.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blog

May I vicariously visit a captivating virtue embodied by V's visage. (Sorry, I couldn't resist...) V is a precarious character, who has many traits that amount to a very complex character; a character that walks a grey area between traditional storybook good and evil roles. Even through to the end of the story, you aren't sure whether he is a hero or anti-hero. There is a particular trait of V that I would like to discuss that goes beyond the question of V's morality, and that is his 'immortality'. V is an idealist. Whether you agree with his ideas or not, you have to applaud his ferocious loyalty to them. V as a man struggles with ideas throughout the story. During his destruction of the statue of Justice in fact, he romanticizes about the symbol of Justice cheating on him, representing his believed loss of value and faith in Justice as it exists in his world. V's entire world centers on symbols; ideals that represent lofty ideas. V believes his ideas will make him immortal, and he turns out to be right.


V makes this famous quote after he is shot by Mr. Finch in the Graphic Novel (Mr. Creedy in the movie), "There, did you to kill me? There's no flesh or blood within this cloak to kill. There's only an idea. Ideas are bullet-proof"(Moore 236). The person behind the mask is mortal, and is fully aware of this fact. V is banking on the fact, that even though he physically dies, the idea's that he fought so thoroughly for will survive him, through the peoples memories of his actions, and more importantly through eve, whom he implicitly named as his heir. Eve dutifully fulfills her role, dawning the Guy Fawkes mask herself. The transfer of power and responsibility from old V to Eve V, essentially turns V into a symbol, a Job, something that exists beyond the confines of human mortality. This is a very powerful concept, one that is not new.


There are several comic book superheros that have made use of this concept, probably the oldest and most famous is The Phantom. The Phantom is actually a family tradition, not a single man. The Phantom does not have any super powers. He uses only strength, agility, and gadgets (and he preceded Batman by four years). What makes The Phantom interesting that the role is passed down from generation to generation, but since the Phantom's identity is a closely guarded secret, to his enemies he appears to be immortal. Indeed some of the Phantoms famous nicknames are "The Ghost Who Walks" and "The Man Who Cannot Die". The idea of the Phantom as a symbol for "fighting evil" far outlives any one of the men who have worn the mask. Other comic book heroes have used the idea as well, and in fact the plot of the 1998 Mask of Zorro movie starring Antonio Banderas and Anthony Hopkins was entirely centered on this idea. 


V was building on this time honored tradition of transcending into symbolism. V starts out as an icon, but his goal is to become a symbol. I would like to bring up Scott McCloud's discussion about the difference between a symbol and an icon. According to McCloud, an icon is a representation of an idea, person, place, or thing, etc... It is assigned a general meaning by the reader. McCloud then specifies that symbols are a specific class of idea that represent "concepts, ideas, and philosophies". He is referring to large philosophical ideas that have icons that are so recognizable that they are inseparable from the idea they have come to represent. A standard icon can change it's meaning through time, or by the references set up by the author, a symbol cannot easily have it's meaning changed. V starts out as an iconic terrorist, but his goal is to become a symbol that represents Anarchy and arguably Freedom. At the beginning of the story we see V, first committing a heroic act by saving eve, and then as a terrorist when he blows up Big Ben and the houses of parliament. These two events, make V an icon, representing to conflicting ideals. Heroism and Terrorism. V doesn't in fact transcend into a symbol until he dies. It is Eve picking up the mask that makes V a symbol. V had to die for this to happen, and Eve had to take up his legacy. By being "resurrected", V is no longer simply a heroic terrorist. Eve realizes this when she imagines all the people that might be beneath the mask after he has died. When she realizes that V was an icon for all the people she loved in life, and then that his actions had far more power as something larger than any one individual, she effectively created V the symbol. In Eve's mind V will always be the stern parent and loved one in the background for society, just as he was for her, and V will always exist as long as someone wears the mask.

King Lear Vs. Ebanezer Scrooge...

We have gone through three plays, and two graphic novels thus far in this course. Each one was a good story, and each one provided for some very interesting interpretations and discussions. Hamlet provided some of the best examples of complex, self reflective, human characters I have seen in literature, it is a character building masterpiece, that we still pull ideas from to this day. Macbeth provided a discussion of of destiny and the dangers of ambition that continues to this day. Of all the Shakespeare we have discussed in class, and of all the Shakespeare I have read for that matter, King Lear is the most directly moral, and most directly transformative. Lear is also has the simplest plot of all Shakespeare's plays that I have seen so far, but it is a plot that is very well executed.

King Lear, had a special connection for me. We had discussed two ways in which to view Lear, one was a morality play, with an absolute moral scale, the other was a subjective piece, with each character having valid goals and ideals. I like to view Lear as a morality play, and the reason why is that I can then compare King Lear to Dicken's a Christmas Carol, which is one of my favorite stories from when I was a child. As an aside, I have to make a mention of my bias. It was a tradition in my family to play a Christmas Carol on Christmas eve every year, and it was one of my favorite traditions. I loved the dark mysteriousness of the story, and I especially loved the transformation and redemption of Ebenezer Scrooge. I feel the same sort of connection toward Lear as I do for Scrooge. Because of this connection, which admittedly is entirely personal and subjective, I see King Lear the play as a darker more adult version of a Christmas Carol. Which is why Lear Rocks. But, there's more! I can break down this comparison further.

My favorite part of a Christmas Carol is the transformation and redemption of Scrooge, so let's break that transformation down, and compare it to Lear. I will argue that Scrooge goes through three stages of transformation. This is loose, and depending on how much psychological analysis you want to use, can be broken down further, but the four basic stages are as follows: The first stage, with Marley's ghost, is denial. Scrooge refuses to believe that there is anything amiss in way of life, even faced with the horrible image of Marley's chains. This scene is mirrored with Lear and Cordelia in the Love Auction scene. Lear flat out denies Cordelia's wisdom, though it isn't presented in such strong imagery as chains with Marley. Both Lear and Scrooge force the dissenting characters from their world.

The second stage is the 'crisis' moment. After the point of denial the character is bombarded with evidence of their 'wrongness' until they can no longer deny the error of their ways. For Scrooge, this is the first two ghosts. The ghost of Christmas past shows Scrooge his old ways, and his transformation into evil. Admittedly, Lear has no direct analogous moment to this, but through the actions and dialogue of Kent and the elder Gloucester we get a sense that in the past Lear was a good king, at least good enough to gain very strong loyalty from these high ranking men. A side note, by good, I mean politically good, as the argument the Lear molested his daughters is still viable, but would not directly affect what Kent and Gloucester saw in their king. Back to Scrooge, we move to the ghost of Christmas present, which is where Scrooge really has his "crisis" moment. The ghost of Christmas Present shows Scrooge the present disarray of the world around him, which is implied to be caused, at least in part, by Scrooges own evil. Presented with these images, Scrooge begins to have his "crisis" and starts the process of change. For Lear, the equivalent of this is his maltreatment by Goneril and then Regan. Lear's crisis moment is after he decides to whether the storm instead of deal with his daughters mistreatment.


The third stage is a feeling of rock bottom or "defeatism". For Scrooge this happens with the ghost of Christmas Future. At this stage he is completely overwhelmed with not only the destruction of his world, but the shear supernatural aspects of the experience. The direct comparison to this with Lear is the Storm scene, and the subsequent trial in Edgar's hovel. For scrooge, the empty funeral and thieving servants is his trial/judgment scene, for Lear it is the imaginary trial of his daughters. The difference between the scenes is the way in which the characters deal with the situation. It is arguable that Lear is still defending his old ways, but it could also be seen as Lear giving himself a sense of closure and allowing himself to complete his redemption. The grave scene had a similar effect for Scrooge's character. It was the final nail in the coffin, so to speak.

The final stage is "redemption". This is an interesting stage because for both characters it is arguable that their redemption is inexorably linked with a form of madness. It can be argued for both characters in fact, that there is no redemption, simply madness, but you cannot argue for redemption without madness to some degree. Scrooge is obviously "cured" of his miserliness, but he has swung to the opposite side of the scale. He is overly jolly and giving, to a point that it bewilders and frightens his servants and the people he interacts with. Lear has a similar interaction with the blind Gloucester in the French camp. Both characters show a new found wisdom, but both are obviously psychologically shaken from the transformative experience. Where the two stories differ is how the world these characters live in accept these transformations. For Scrooge, all is good, and a happy Hollywood, Christian ending ensues, "God bless us all, every one.", thank you, Tiny Tim. For Lear, the world is not so accepting. His transformation did arguably redeem him, he learned his lesson, but it was too little, too late, which in my opinion is far more realistic, making Lear a better story. Lear's death doesn't redeem him, his insanity does, but his death legitimizes the redemption.

Movies, Movies, and More Movies, Oh My!

This is a blog that has a lot of movie related things in it...I am excited...
First and foremost, directly below are the answers to the movie questions for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead:

---

1.  Plot Summary (3-4 Sentences)
The movie begins with two characters,whom we assume from the title are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They are traveling along and find a coin which they proceed to keep flipping, and it proceeds to keep coming up heads. The odd behavior of the coin sets off a philosophical discussion of fate between the two, which sets up the two characters. They both seem to have memory issues, and are unable to remember why they are traveling, only that they were summoned by the king. Along their way, the two meet a traveling theater troupe, who advertise their services. During the midst of this, the scene cuts and the two companions are suddenly at the castle, where they are covered by curtains. The king, Claudius, welcomes them, and asks the two to help cheer up and spy on Prince Hamlet. The whole time Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seem slightly confused, to a point where they aren't even sure which one is which. This is a theme that persists throughout the movie. The two go through their scenes with Hamlet, but in between these 'scenes', the two wander the castle, attempting to figure out what is going on, often overhearing various scenes with other main characters, such as Polonius telling the king about Hamlets love letters to Ophelia. During these interludes, they often have philosophical discussions and Gary Oldman's Rosencrantz often half-wittedly ends up discovering famous physics experiments. They meet up with the actors again, when they come to perform for Hamlet and the king. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern follow the actors, the leader in particular, because they seem to have answers to their confusion. Upon following them they see a dumb show put on by the actors for the common people, which is basically the whole plot of Hamlet. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern do not get it, even when they see their actor representations hanged...The end of the movie becomes a bit abstract, deviating more from the play than the rest of the movie. Hamlet leaves in an almost dream like fashion on the pirate ship after it attacks their ship bound for England. The troupe of actors falls through the deck of the ship onto the floor, seeming to appear out of nowhere. Guildenstern then confronts the troupe leader about the meaning of all this. He takes out the letter, and reads it aloud, realizing that they have been duped by Hamlet. The troupe leader then seems to imitate the king of England, where they have a confrontation relating to fate. Nooses appear out of nowhere in the last scene. Guildenstern comments about he feels he should have somehow been able to avoid this, and the two of them voluntarily place the nooses around their necks and jump.
The irony is that I watched the movie with you, so you already know that I have seen the movie, and I therefore had little need to write such a detailed summary :-P. I am just in a wordy mood today I guess...




2.  How does this movie adapt, comment on, or relate to what we read in class?
The movie gives an expansion and a critical look at a big theme that Shakespeare liked to play with, destiny. The movie really Deconstructs the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who were essentially minor characters, and creatively fills in a lot of their personalities. Shakespeare was a very meta-critical writer, and this movie played on that idea, by having the acting troupe seem to be all knowing beings, experts at 'playing their part' in contrast to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who just sort of bumble through. Interestingly no matter how much Rosencrantz and Guildenstern try to avoid their fate, or change any major plot lines, they subtly forced back to the plot. The most extreme example of this is how, when they first arrive, they are kept going in circles after their audience with the king, almost as if the castle was a labyrinth biding forcing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to bide their time until the next scene in which they are needed. 


3.  Does this movie change your interpretation of the text?  Why?  Why not?
I wouldn't say that the movie changes my interpretation, but it does expand on it. The fact is, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, were minor characters. In the original text, they had little personality lines, though they had enough to establish them as seemingly real people. That is one of Shakespeare's talents, being able to create convincing characters with comparably little dialog, especially for minor characters, while still leaving a lot of room for interpretation. This movie uses that room for interpretation to it's fullest. Without destroying the original plot in any way, they are able to create essentially Shakespearean clowns, in a Shakespeare play devoid of fool characters. 

---

Now to my Blog:
I would like to discuss what I believe to be one of the main reasons Shakespeare is still so popular today. It can be summed up in one word, Interpretation. Specifically, Shakespeare's plays are brilliant in their lack of stage direction. He is able to tell compelling stories and create believable characters using almost entirely dialogue alone. This leaves a lot of room for a stage director, or graphic artist, or film director, etc... to modify the story without changing it's core meaning and values. This is one of the things that I believe gives Shakespeare's works such timelessness. Even within the dialogue, Actors have much room to interpret the lines in how they are delivered; the pauses, the facial expressions they choose to use, even their tone, all affect how we see these characters. It has been said that theater is a living art, and Shakespeare is proof of it.


There are some specific examples of interpretation that I would like to look at. I recently watched the Hamlet production that starred Patrick Stewart as Claudius and David Tennat as Hamlet (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1449175/). Aside from the fact that I am a huge Star Trek and Dr. Who fan, this was a brilliant production, with some very interesting interpretations that greatly affected how I saw the play. The first overall change to the play, was the decision to make it take place in a modern setting. This meant modern clothes, a modern castle ball room, and interestingly a use of security cameras to create interesting camera angles. None of the dialogue of the play was changed. It is the same Hamlet we know and love, but just the fact that they are wearing suits instead of doublets, changed how I sympathized with the characters. It could have been a modern melodrama, following the troubles of a modern kingdom. The poetic Shakespearean language coupled with the modern setting actually made the whole thing seem very timeless to me. It could have taken place in any era, this was just the era that I happened to see it happening. 


Beyond the clothes and set pieces, the editing and acting choices also had a great effect on my interpretation as well. Let's take good old Polonius, as you know by now, he is my favorite bumbling old courtesan. When I first read Hamlet, I saw him as a cunning old man, who was selfish and misguided, not particularly bumbling. Obviously, most people do not interpret him that way. But, to show how subtly and powerfully presentation can change your opinion of a character, I would like to analyze the Stewart interpretation of one scene in particular. This is Hamlet's final words to Polonius after they have a discussion over Hamlets reading in the hallway:

Hamlet. You cannot, sir, take from me anything that I will more
willingly part withal- except my life, except my life, except my
life,

I specifically want to point out the last few words. Hamlet repeats "except my life" three times. I originally read this as Hamlet just feigning his madness, but as I said before, there are no stage directions, which can leave a lot to interpretation. The Stewart version shows it like so:

We cut to Hamlet who says his first "except my life", and stops for a long pause.

We then cut to Polonius, who wears an expression of not understanding, or not hearing. 

We cut back to Hamlet, who says the second "except my life", and pauses again.

We cut back to Polonius, who has an even more exaggerated look of confusion.

We then cut back to David Tennant's Hamlet, who mouths every syllable of the last "except my life" with an extremely exaggerated expression.

When we cut back to Polonius, he has an expression of extreme horror and offense.  

The lines are unchanged, the same exact things are said, the difference is how they are said. In my head, I never saw the scene playing out in this way. By simply extending the pause that is offered by the comma, and placing in some strong facial expressions, the entire tone of the scene is changed. It now emphasizes Polonius's infirmity as opposed to Hamlets madness. The interpretation of this scene in particular had a huge affect on how I see Shakespeare. There are so many places that, when used creatively, can entirely build on and change the words that are directly written. I think this is an amazing thing.

Playing with Actors: Deleted Scenes from the First Paper

During my research for my first paper, which focused on Polonius from Hamlet, I discovered a very interesting article relating to the term actor vs player, and the implied meanings that these terms contained for Shakespeare's era. Unfortunately, I felt it was too tangential to include in my paper, despite it's interesting findings. But alas, that is how the editing process goes sometimes. Having been unable to reflect upon this article in my paper, I would like to expand upon my reflections in the blog.

Let us start with the infamous lines from which I speak:

Hamlet: My lord, you play’d once i’ th’ university, you say?  

Polonius: That did I, my lord, and was accounted a good actor.  

Hamlet: What did you enact? 

Polonius: I did enact Julius Caesar. I was kill’d i’ th’ Capitol;  Brutus killed me.

Hamlet: It was a brute part of him to kill so capital a calf there.
Be the players ready?
(3.2.98 – 107)

There are actually two places in which Hamlet mocks Polonius in small interchange, the second, involving the calf reference, has many loaded connotations which I analyze in detail in my paper, the first though is quite interesting in itself, though perhaps more subtle to modern audiences. The interchange provides a very interesting situation which creates a layered pun. On the surface, the very fact that Polonius uses the term 'actor' and then Hamlet responds with "what did you enact"(italics mine), shows the surface level in which Hamlet may be playing at Polonius's position at court. That is easy enough even for modern audiences to interpret. But, there is another level to the pun when put into a historical context.

The second level of this pun can be seen as what is known as a company joke: "Commentators have seen a company joke here, referring to the roles taken by these same actors in recent performances of Julius Caesar."(Bishop 65). Theater was the equivalent of movies for modern audiences, and just as the same big name actors often populate the summer blockbuster films, the same actors would obviously be recognizable across the various productions by the theater troop. Shakespeare was probably well aware of this, and had no problem poking fun at the idea of a familiar actor.

To even increase the complexity, I am going to argue that there is even a third layer embedded in this pun.  The pun can be looked at in the context of the language of the time. This was a time when theater was beginning to regain it's stature as a respected art form, and there was a huge debate going on in popular culture of the time over whether "actor" or "player" was the correct term to use for theater performers. Tom Bishop explains the pun in this way:

Polonius’s preference for avoiding the vocabulary of players and playing here suggests something about the contest between two sets of terms for the theater around 1600... A quick inspection of Shakespeare’s use of the terms player and actor reveals... that player or playing is the usual professional term, while actor tends to designate an amateur. Perhaps related to this distinction, and building on the difference in prestige, actor also tends to occur in Shakespeare in situations of praise, player of dispraise. (Bishop 66)

This use of conflicting terms seems to show Shakespeare, through Hamlet, being facetious about the issue. Hamlet refers to the theater performers as "players", and treats them very professionally and with great respect. Polonius, on the other hand, refers to himself as an "actor", which can be seen as an attempt to be snooty or "high-brow" by using the latinate term. Hamlet mocks Polonius by responding with "enact", an obvious play on "actor". Hamlet obviously does not see Polonius as particularly good at anything, especially theater, considering just a few scenes earlier Hamlet made fun of Polonius getting bored with all but the most bawdy or violent of plays. Hamlet is being facetious, knowing Polonius won;t understand that he is actually being made fun of, not praised. This playing of words can be seen as Shakespeare making fun of the fuss that critics are making over the term, as much as Hamlet is making fun of Polonius.

Works Cited

Bishop, Tom. "Shakespeare’s Theater Games." Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 40.1 (2010): 65-88. Print.

King Lear and his Mighty Illusions of Grandeur

Away with Hamlet and toward King Lear we go. Presently, I would like to discuss the king himself. In class I had brought up the comparison between Lear and Napoleon Bonaparte. Upon further research of Napoleon, I actually find that comparison rather shallow. My Original thoughts had been related to the coined term, "Napoleon Complex", which has little to do with the man himself, and more to do with the popular culture perception of Napoleon. But back to Lear, Napoleon Complex is a slang term for an inferiority complex, which would presume that Lear thought he was lacking something, I believe it is the other way around, and that Lear suffered from superiority, not an inferiority, complex.

I am going to contradict myself again slightly, Lear does indeed have a lack of perceived love from his daughters, or at least he needs it affirmed to him. The entire first scene (the "love auction" as Dr. Jessica McCall so eloquently put it) is a situation in which Lear is angered that his daughter Cordelia does not adequately profuse her love to him, even though she has a very wise response:

CORDELIA

Good my lord,
You have begot me, bred me, loved me: I
Return those duties back as are right fit,
Obey you, love you, and most honour you.
Why have my sisters husbands, if they say
They love you all? Haply, when I shall wed,
That lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry
Half my love with him, half my care and duty:
Sure, I shall never marry like my sisters,
To love my father all.

          KING LEAR

So young, and so untender?

 I do not not necessarily see this as Lear acting out an inferiority complex, but more that he is attempting to reaffirm his superiority. Cordelia shattered his illusions of all importance, which, while it incurred his "dragon's" wrath, as Lear himself put it, also foreshadowed his coming downfall. The shattering of Lear's illusions of grandeur begin to fully emerge to him by the end of Act 1, Scene 4, after his daughter Goneril is outright rude to him, telling him to learn some wisdom:

KING LEAR

Doth any here know me? This is not Lear:
Doth Lear walk thus? speak thus? Where are his eyes?
Either his notion weakens, his discernings
Are lethargied--Ha! waking? 'tis not so.
Who is it that can tell me who I am?

 The fool responds rather bluntly to this, "Lear's shadow." A very telling statement. Lear's illusions center on him thinking that it is not his titles that give him authority, but that his power comes from the love of his people, and more closely the love of his family. Lear's reasons for the "love auction" scene were thus twofold, one he wanted to solidify his god complex by having his daughters show unrequited devotion to him, secondary to that he assumed their devotion was true, and thus he would still have power through their devotion to him, even though he lost his official power.

Polonius: an Archetype for characters we love to hate

Before beginning, I must confess my naivety. I have before now been exposed to Shakespeare only in the standard cursory ways that people of my generation often are. The only two pieces I have ever read by the famous bard are Caesar and Taming of the Shrew, and those I read so long ago that I barely remember them. In fact, one of my main goals for this class is simply a better exposure to Shakespeare, something the class has already succeeded in greatly. Simply put, I am a noob, and I come to this with fresh eyes. On that note, I would like to discuss a character that I believe gets a bad rap, the loyal, albeit naive, Polonius.


People seem to have a general dislike and hatred for Polonius, and I am not here to defend the character. In fact, it is the general hatred of him that I like so much. Polonius serves his purpose in the story very well, he provides a character that we love to hate. He is not on the level of Darth Vader or Jafar from Disney's Alladin, but more comparable to the Road Runner or Daffy Duck. In fact, if you know your old Looney Toons cartoons well enough, Foghorn Leghorn, the rooster, is a very close comparison to Polonius. He follows the archetype of the shifty character, that while he doesn't have a master evil plan, is often caught up in mischief, often as a henchmen for a more powerful character. The common theme with all of these characters is not that they are stupid or simple minded, quite the contrary, they are usually very intelligent, and simply misguided. We sympathize with these characters for their misguided use of their intelligence. Forgive me, I am going to quote Wikipedia here:

Until the 1900s there was a tradition that the actor who plays Polonius to also play the quick-witted gravedigger in Act V. This bit suggests that the actor who played Polonius was an actor used to playing clowns much like the Fool in King Lear: not a doddering old fool, but an alive and intelligent master of illusion and misdirection. Polonius adds a new dimension to the play and is a controlling and menacing character.

The beginning of ACT 2, SCENE 1, directly supports Polonius being intelligent and shifty, not bumbling and annoying:

LORD POLONIUS

Marry, well said; very well said. Look you, sir,
Inquire me first what Danskers are in Paris;
And how, and who, what means, and where they keep,
What company, at what expense; and finding
By this encompassment and drift of question
That they do know my son, come you more nearer
Than your particular demands will touch it:
Take you, as 'twere, some distant knowledge of him;
As thus, 'I know his father and his friends,
And in part him: ' do you mark this, Reynaldo?

He continues on to show his reasoning, "Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth:
And thus do we of wisdom and of reach". Polonius likes to play the spy and the rumor mill to his own ends, a dangerous and misguided habit that eventually leads to his own demise. Yet, these traits make for an interesting character. He is relatable because of this traits. It is common to know some Maven, in modern contexts often portrayed as the nosy old lady, who is constantly trying to snoop and either play match maker or match breaker, often with ill conceived results.