Mr. Magorium:

"When King Lear dies in Act V, do you know what Shakespeare has written? He's written "He dies." That's all, nothing more. No fanfare, no metaphor, no brilliant final words. The culmination of the most influential work of dramatic literature is "He dies." It takes Shakespeare, a genius, to come up with "He dies." And yet every time I read those two words, I find myself overwhelmed with dysphoria. And I know it's only natural to be sad, but not because of the words "He dies." but because of the life we saw prior to the words."...

This is a pivotal scene in the fantastic(I love toys all too much) movie "Mr. Magorium's wonder Emporium." Mr. Magorium goes on to tell his predecessor in managing the store, that when he goes, she should turn the page, continue reading, and let the next story begin. He also tells her that when people ask what happened or became of him, she relates his life in the same way Shakespeare did for Lear, and then end it simply and modestly with "He died."

In the end of the play, we are left with a gloomy and unjust ending. Where all the villains die, so do all those characters regarded as good. This again urges the question, does justice exist? The characters lives and then ultimately deaths, may be to depict that regardless of virtues, attributes, or age, death comes to all and that despair is imminent. But at the same time, Lear's death brings end to grief and madness as he "hath endured so long," as Kent says in the end.

So this is it. All has been said. Shakespeare lived on again through another college course dedicated to him. Did he blow me away with his eloquence, character depth, and all-around genius? Maybe a bit. Still, I'd Choose Bill Watterson to take me through the theories and philosophies of life through Calvin&Hobbes (favorite read ever) before I pick up another lengthy dramatical piece. And, personally, I think the guy would have a hard time finding friends in class with his flashy ways and showboating language. But maybe he'd woo the ladies just as his characters did. I mean they say the man is a legend, a mecca for flourished authors, the holy grail for literature, a shrine for education.

and in the end, he died.

King Lear Cont'd

I apologize for the past boring, shorter blogs. I have lost my touch in the midst of spring and distractions and my getting into university trouble...

As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods;
They kill us for their sport.

Gloucester speaks adamantly about his theories on the lack of order in the universe. He blames the gods and the world as he says man is incapable of imposing his own thoughts and his own morals due to the controlling outside forces. This quote shows how he does not feel there is any justice in the gods decision making but merely it is a sport in which cruelty and inflexibility rule. This all exemplifies his reasoning that there is no rationale behind any of the suffering that encompasses the play.

King Lear

The storm scene seems to be a very telling scene for the aspect of suffering in King Lear.

When this scene come about, Lear begins to take on a sense of resilience as he challenges himself against the storm saying, "Pour on, I will endure." As the scene progresses, Lear gains empathy for the common man as he says"Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel, /That thou mayst shake the superflux to them/And show the heavens more just," as he recognizes his very own condition. He finds shelter within the storm as a sense of recess and release from suffering.

But Lear is never able to escape his feelings of his daughters lack of love. the storm seems to make these more persistent. He is trapped within these thoughts. His own condition is all that he can be embroiled in, only being able to relate Edgar's position to his own, rather than forming a kinship.

We can look at the Fool's role in the storm scene as well...his comments are dismissive, snide, and pessimist. As loss is an important theme in this play, the fool makes it clear that his opinion is that there is nothing to be gained, only those to be lost as he says "this cold night will turn us all to fools and madmen".

Final Act

In the final act of this play, Hamlet's murder of Claudius is definitely a highly anticipated scene, but the nature in which it is carried out seems odd. He commits the act in such a roundabout way that it does not seem to properly suit the vengeance he is attempting to carry out.

In 1765, Samuel Johnson, criticized the way in which shakespeare made the ending:

“The poet is accused of having shown little regard to poetical justice, and may be charged with equal neglect of poetical probability. The apparition left the regions of the dead to little purpose; the revenge which he demands is not obtained but by the death of him that was required to take it; and the gratification which would arise from the destruction of an usurper and a murderer, is abated by the untimely death of Ophelia.”

The ghost that we had seen in the beginning of the play as an important part, seems to be left behind in this culmination. The play almost seems to come to a close accidentally, and it is this somewhat clumsiness in his writing that Johnson accuses Shakespeare of.

In Hamlet, we see a character who is reluctant to carry out the revenge that many other of Shakespeare's characters are so willingly ready to do. At one point Hamlet says, “The time is out of joint. Oh cursed spite / That ever I was born to set it right!” Shakespeare has created a character who accomplishes through intellect and language, rather than violence.

Hamlet’s dying words to Horatio speak to the audience to aid in helping sort out all that has been seen in the final act. He emphasizes that we reach meaning in retrospect, not in a current action. And his being and death represent the importance of thought over fate.

Hamlet: The Lion King 2

What came first-The chicken or the egg? Hamlet or The Lion king?

As soon as I began reading this play, my immediate thoughts were how strikingly similar Claudius is to 'Scar', (an evil character in The Lion King for those of you who are unaware of their DISNEY CLASSICS!). Let me divulge into the similarities that make me question if Walt Disney was basing a childrens favorite on the works of an English playright. It may be a farfetched theory, but their is undoubtetdly proof to support such a claim.

Scar is the brother of Mufasa, a kindhearted, generous and majestic king who is stern on his son, Simba, but only to teach him to become a responsible adult and future king. As Mufasas brother, Scar was next in line for the throne until Simba was born. Throuhgout the movie, he is obsessed with the need to possess the kingdom in anyway he can. He is evil and cunning and while masquerading as a good man to his nephew, he plots to kill Mufasa and successfully does so.

Claudius is the brother of Hamlet's recently deceased father, and thus the uncle of Hamlet. He is the antagonist of the play, just as Scar is of the movie. He has a unwavering lust for power, and is ambitious, manipulating and villainous.

Check out the two photos posted...Two Conniving Look-A-Likes.

...

Hamlet's first soliloquy in act 1 scene 11, expresses Hamlets disraughtness from the death of his father so much that he consideres suicide as he wishes god hadn't made it sinful as he says, " Or that the Everlasting had not fix’dHis canon ’gainst self-slaughter!" He is also even more so distresssed and disgusted by his Mothers marriage to Claudius. The idea lies behind a sort of incest as he says, "with such dexterity to incestuous sheets. ”He harps on the marriage being bad for Denmark as it " is not nor it cannot come to good.”

As You Like It

The mirroring of biblical stories is apparent from the start of this play. The dueling between brothers Oliver and Orlando directly reflects the story of Cain and Abel. Cains murder of Abel seems to resonate, in a lesser scale, within Oliver's unwillingness to educate or share his own fortuned education with his Orlando.

Rosalind and Celias freinship in the beinging scenes of act 1 seem to me to have some underlying tendencies towards more than just friends... as Shakespeare wites himself they were "coupled and inseparable" and had a strange sort of bond deeper than a sisters bond...that would mean to me a romantic relationship. But instead ends up getting married to a man to suppress her love for another woman. But I don't know, I'm not a relationship connoseiur.

SPeaking of love and relationships, as we readers meet the character Silvius, we see his utter, uncontrollable attraction to Phoebe. He is so in love, that he feels he is a victim to love. It is just that powerful. As this takes place we see Shakespeare hints at idea of foolishness arising from this raging passion and love, and that it is the foolishness that we fall victim to.

But some people love to become foolish in love...

how do you like it?

Who brought Drama to the party!?

The Connecticut Repertory Theatres adaption of Comedy of Errors was...interesting. It was definetly a lively play that kept the audience amused with it's fast paced movement of characters runing up and down the aisles and leaping around and off stage. I mean, I thoguht I was going to be snoozing throughout (dreaming about shakespeare of course), but I was wide awake! The actions of the characters were reminsicnt of Cartoon characters actions in akwarkd or need-to-escape moments in which they freeze in running position in air before exiting stage.

The setting aided the plays production in which the lightning and multi-leveled platform was fitting for the context and for the optimal viewing for the audience.

I really enjoyed the fast-forward time setting of the play. The 1940's feel added a whole different style to the play and gave it a fresh feeling rather than the typical, exhausted language of most shakespeare places. The wardrobe and jazzy music coupled with Solinus looking like a mafia head rather than a Duke all played into this effective twist.

Hold the Anchovies

The opening scenes of both plays give an exposition that foreshadows the bloody violence that unravels throughout the scenes. Both the scenes present two main male characters advocating for something. In Julius Caesar, Falvius and Murellus are scolding citizens for have such appraisal and acniticpaiton for the return of Caesar for the military triumph, while in Titus Andronicus, Saturninus and Bassianus are asking the massesto determine who shoudl succeed to the throne.

Julius Caesar seems to have the elements of revenge in tragedy in the forthcoming scenes just as Titus Andronicus' main element is revenge. The idea of conspiracies to achieve power or take power from others is prevalent in both plays as well. The opening scene is also smiinar to that of Titus andronicus in the senese that the reader can tell that both are depicting England's anxiety over the succession of leadership. Honor and patriotism are again seen as main elements that drive the characters to make the decisions they do but also serve as major conflicts within the characters self and opposing characters, just as we see in Titus Andronicus.

Falvius and Murellus plan to control the power rather than the traditional family lineage of succession which has led to chaotic turmoil in the past. In this sense, Titus and Andronicus is similar in that different characters are fighting for the power of the deceased emperor of rome.

You're falling for Richard III.

It seems as though quite often someone is dating a great guy, a nice, sweet guy, but that's just the problem, "He's too nice."  We don't know why but we all want the evil one. We want Richard. Here's Why:

I think the most dominating characteristics that makes a villain a villain is their ability to manipulate, and we see this within the character of  Richard lll towards the play characters and the audience.  

In the very first scene of Act 1, Richard goes on his tirade about his villainous ways stemming from his traumatizing life lacking love and suffering from a daunting physical deformity.  While he speaks of this, the audience is drawn into believing the other characters in the play are the evil ones for ridiculing his helpless appearance, and that we ought to sympathize with Richard despite his thoughts and actions.

We also see Richard possessing a complicated and intricate mind full of self-reflection and intellect. It is the "brains" that often make a villain as menacing as he/she seems to be. Have we ever seen a truly evil villain who is foolish, and simple minded? The Joker in Batman may be as evil and chilling as he seems because of his unparalleled thoughts and theories and plans. They would have no success without their 'brains," which also correlates directly to the unnerving ability to manipulate. 

Richard's  foolhardiness and perseverance lead him to not stop at anything to achieve his schemes, and his mental state of pure wickedness allow him to disregard the normal moral and ethical dilemmas a non-villainous person would adhere to.

So his villainous traits lead him to both manipulate and also impress us, so it is this awe and sympathy that blind us from his real nature. And it's not just the audience that falls victim to this. Lady Anne, who knows very much of Richard's true self and true motives and desires, still somehow allows herself to fall into his seduction. He relentlessness and intelligent wit with words plays into this. 

It is not until the end that we can fall out of his trance to see how evil he really is, as his nature becomes explicitly apparent. So after he charms your parents when you bring him home, and after countless dates, you'll realize you should have never left that guy who was just too nice... 

I'll have the Shakespeare shake (Titus Andronicus con'td)

The question of right or wrong in this play can be better described in a sense of sympathy for the characters or lack of. Upon reading the entire play, my feeligns towards the chracters varied immensely. Although in my first post I discuss how the honor does not surpass the excessive killing, I now see the characters actions as more of concern of a means to an end. As I said in class, a praying mantises way of reproduction falls along the same lines. The male rapes the female, and the female attacks back, biting his head off and eating it, yet it still impregnates her. The comparison I am trying to make here is that when we learn of this or maybe see this take place, we immediately have negative feelings toward the male and think his actions are wrong. But as angry as this may make us, the male is doing this for a cause, he is continuing his species existence. So as Titus killing his own son may seem very wrong, he is doing it for the sake of carrying on the honor. And with the other characters who kill, they kill for their country. So when you look at the play at a whole, this is what I mean of it all being done for a means to an end.

But then again, the female praying mantis does not cook the male into a pie and serve it to the queen praying mantis. Not really a praying mantis dessert delicacy. So revenge is another thing...

Titus Andronicus

The vengeance and malice present in the entirety of the first two acts seems almost excessive. But the repetition of the perils of the 'hole' whether it be a hole in the ground or the 'female hole' does not seem as excessive, as its different uses through varying metaphors, language, and diction prove to be symbolic and works well in the play. 

Examples from act 2 scene 3 are as follows:

"this abhorred pit" 

"some loathsome pit" 

  "this unhallowed and bloodstained hole"

  "this fell devouring receptacle" 

  "this gaping hollow of the earth" 

My reaction in terms of sympathy to the characters as the play progressed in the opening scenes changed from me understanding of  pride in their men and their country, to a feeling of them having an unwarranted sense of audacity, and the thought that they were over stepping their boundaries. Pride and virtue, tradition and vengeance, all got tangled in a the mens pursuit of lust and anger.

The Romans being praised as civil and the Goths as barbarous seems like an inaccurate as their actions lead them to be portrayed otherwise. The importance of Honor is taken to far as Titus slays his own son, without doubt, for that sake of that virtue. That to me is more barbaric then civil.

This guy may not be so bad after all

I am not a Shakespeare fan, but I am a Huge Syracuse basketball fan. So, you can imagine my excitement upon reading the first few lines of The Comedy of Errors. 

And the mention of college basketball isn't limited to just that. It just so happens that the character who first speaks the words "Syracuse/Syracusians" is named "Duke."  This all makes me question Shakespeare's' motives. 

Were two mentions of successful basketball teams in one play a Coincidence?  My skepticism leads me to believe otherwise. Maybe Shakespeare would have been a die-hard fan of college basketball if he was alive today. Was the underlying message amidst all the fancy diction and ornamented dialogue a foreshadowing of what teams would emerge at the top of college basketball?  If the character of Antipholus was around today he may have been a star player for the Orange. Unless of course his twin brother from some little town called Ephesus accidently was put in the game, causing uproar and confusion when he failed to show the athletic talent that his identical brother had always displayed. Now that error would be a comedy.

Besides being utterly thrilled in Shakespeare's mention of 'cuse, I found Duke's first speech (1.1.3-25) to be telling of our past, present, and future. The attitude is so territorial and antiquated in the sense of such strict boundaries and animosity between two towns. But in the same sense, our present day foreign relations have now taken the role of this seemingly extreme town vs. town dispute in a broader scale of  country vs. country. For example, we can look at the war in Iraq. There are many cases of soldiers/citizens becoming Prisoners of War  for being found in their land. The torturing and deaths of POW's is still prevalent across the globe.  So, as Shakespeare's words spoken through Duke, describe what is occurring, we can see that history surely does repeat itself, and maybe even exasperates itself...

I'll leave you with one last thought. Imagine the Character Duke as a sports commentator, his first speech describing the matchup and previewing the game in very lengthy,  abstruse style, with a serious, stern tone. This highly contrasts the simple, terse version of sports commentating today...

Maybe, afterall, Shakespeare and I would have gotten along. He'd work all week, crafting sophisticated bardisms, and on the weekends we'd sit around and talks sports all day, betting on Syracuse games in the pubs of london...

So, was shakespeare ahead of his time? 

Oh, in so many more ways than I ever thought. But as his own text reads in King Richard 111, "so wise so young, they say do never live long."