Fuzzy Memories and Cast-off Dreams

Once again in the first act of The Tempest, I ran into the idea of reality and how our perception of it can be altered by others (see my previous post about it and dreams). Miranda has lived on an island with her wizard father all her life, and yet she finds nothing odd about it. She never questions their solitude or the sheltered and strange life she lives. However when her father, Prospero, begins to tell her about their past she seems to remember part of it. But it is a bit hazy.

"'Tis far off
And rather like a dream than an assurance
That my remembrance warrants"

The normal life of any other person seems like a dream to her because her perception of "real life" has been so altered. At the same time, I believe she is saying the memory is so dim that it seems as though it couldn't have happened. I guess this is applicable to my own life though. Sometimes things seem so long ago that I can't seem to recall if they ever happened or if I simply dreamed them or made them up! Sometimes when I wake from sleeping I have to remind myself what is real and what is not.

In fact this all reminds me of Inception. In case you haven't seen it you should it's a fantastic movie with a thrilling plot. Anyways, in the movie there is a line that I think applies to what Miranda is describing. When Cobbs go to get Saito out of limbo, Saito doesn't quite realize that he isn't in the real world. He has been trapped in limbo for so long that it has become his reality.

Saito: Have you come to kill me? I've been waiting for someone...
Cobb: Someone from a half remembered dream.
Saito: Cobb? Impossible. We were young men together. I'm an old man.
Cobb: I've come back for you... to remind you of something. Something you once knew...That this world is not real.

Miranda is much like this! She has been living in the "world" her father created out of necessity, that she doesn't know what the real "world" is like. Her sense of reality and normalcy is different, so much so that the outside, normal world seems to be a dream. I'm sure that as we read on however that the other characters may feel as if they are in a dream, or if the life they left was one. I think it will be interesting to see.

And once again I wonder what sort of things I may be forgetting in my life that are real but I think to be a dream. Or what have I dreamed or wanted to be real, so I convince myself that it is? I guess there could be a whole slew of things, but I'd have to go back and analyze my life more closely to determine what my reality really is. And are there maybe some things that are just better to believe to be reality?

Initial Reaction....WHEW!!!

Can I just say that Antony and Cleopatra was way more complicated, and a lot longer than I thought it would be?! There were so many subplots in the reading of the play that I was so thankful for online scene by scene summaries so I could make sure I was reading the play correctly!

Let's just say that in the midst of their complicated and blossoming love, Antony and Cleopatra have to deal with war! I'm not gonna lie I was often confused by motivations of characters and I think I will have to go back and examine more of why they do what they do.

While I was reading I also found themes that I would like to go back and examine. These include the following:

~Poison references
~Manipulation of others
~How the characters choose to perceive their reality
~Nature references
~Ambition versus Passion

I actually didn't find in my initial reading as many reality crisis as I thought I would find but I want to go back and examine those. I didn't see too much of this is in the movie either actually. What really interested me why how quickly the characters are to believe things that may or may not be there.

A quick thought on the movie Cleopatra is simply, wow. It was four hours long and the first two hours actually portray a plot that happens before the play even begins! In face it is more a movie about Julius Cesar and Cleopatra at first! Not only that but Cleopatra at first had such ambitious motivations and she didn't seem as cruel or cold as the play seems to make her out to be. I just thought that was such an interesting choice to do those things. In some ways it really added to the dynamics of the relationship Antony and Cleopatra had, but it also took away. I was ready to get to the point and have the movie end after the first two hours.

Yep, those are just my first thoughts after looking at the two versions of the story so just wait for the in depth analysis to come next week!!

Manly Men?

Love's Labours Lost is fraught with rhetoric as we have discussed at length in class. What I think is interesting not only in this play, but also in most of Shakespeare's works is that there are so many references to other stories that were, and still, are popular. It is just another way that Shakespeare uses the world around him to drive a point home. Here are a few that I noticed in Biron's confrontation to his friends in Act Four referencing famous characters.

To see great Hercules whipping a gig,

(Hercules was a Greek legendary demigod with extraordinary strength. Whipping a gig is another way of of saying to spin a top.)




And profound Solomon to tune a jig,

(Solomon is a Biblical king known for his great wisdom given to him by god. To tune a jig simply participate in a dance or music.)



And Nestor play at push-pins with the boys,

(Nestor is another character of Greek mythology. He was an Argonaut who fought centaurs and hunted the Calydonian Boar. Push-pin was a game geared toward very young children.)





And critic Timon laugh at idle toys!

(Timon was an Athenian philosopher. And, well, idle toys are just that, toys that aren't moving and are in essence, for babies.)



What Biron is trying to say is that the love of the women these noblemen have, is turning them into children. However Biron is hypocritical because the same thing is happening to him!

Presenting Antony and Cleopatra! - well my plan for reading...

So my play that I am going to be exploring is Anthony and Cleopatra. I'm going to be completely honest I had no idea what this play was about. I mean I recognize the names of Antony and Cleopatra as historical figures, and I knew that Shakespeare had written a play about them, but that's about the extent of my knowledge. So naturally the first went to SparkNotes to figure out what this is all about. (In case you want a quick synopsis as well click here!)

Basically it seems as if the play is full of many complicated motives and twists. I think it should be an exciting read but at the hard time very hard to keep up with! I'm excited but daunted at the same time because it does seem so complex. One thing I am going to examine in the reading of Antony and Cleopatra is once again the idea of reality as we percieve it. They both seem passionate, vengeful and driven by what they want and what they believe to be true. In other words I once again want to examine how we decide to construct our reality and what reality really is. I've found this theme in the other two plays we've read and it fascinates me! (see here for previous blogs about.)

Finally I think for my film viewing I am going to watch Cleopatra with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. It won four Oscars (and it's available on Netflix!). From reviews it looks as though this production with vary from the play, but that's almost expected in film. Here's the trailer! (Sorry its long so please don't watch the whole thing, just some to get the idea.)

Ghostly Manifestations

Earlier on my blog I discussed the nature of the dead king's ghost. I would like to return to that, but compare it to the portrayal of the ghost inThe Story of Edgar Sawtelle.

As a quick recap the ghost in Hamlet first appears to the night guard of the castle. Since other people see him we assume the ghost is real (but also begin to question that later). We are told that the ghost is "In the same figure like the King that's dead.". But that is all we know, and so a director really has a lot of room to play with what to do with the ghost.




However in The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, the portrayal is very set in stone, and I believe to be quite elegant in the way David Wrobleski decided to portray him.

And for a second time that night something moved in front of the double doors. It took a moment to makde sense of it. A change in the falling of the rain. Something about the way it fell....He squeezed his eyes shut....When he opened his eyes again, the way to see them all together had clicked into place.
Instead of raindrops he saw a man.

That's right the ghost is made of rain. Not only this but Gar only appears to Edgar. Trudy never sees her husband's form. However the dogs do and they obey the signed commands the figure gives them to prove his reality.

I just think this whole new way of portrayal is so effective and it adds to the story because whenever it rains Edgar goes rushing outside to try to see his father's form. It also adds the element of trying to discern if the ghost is real or just something Edgar has concocted to get through tragedy.

Personally, I believe the ghost is there.

Ready...Set...Compare and Contrast!!

So I mentioned earlier in one of my posts that I am reading one of my favorite books again, which happens to be a retelling of Hamlet. So now that we are finished reading Hamlet and I am reaching climatic parts in my journey, that I start doing a comparison. (I'm actually quite excited about it, and don't worry it'll only be a few posts.)



For this post I think I'm am going to simply do a character comparison between the two great literary works. (Oh, first of all you should know that the story takes place on a dog farm in Wisconsin in the 1950s. That's right "Hamlet's" family raises and trains a fictional breed of dogs.)

Hamlet = Edgar ~ Edgar is a mute! He communicates solely by sign and written word. This is partly why he withdraws so much into himself after his father's death.

The King/Hamlet Senior = Gar ~ He is actually alive for the first 100 pages of the book. You learn to love his character and see why Edgar is so distraught.

Gertrude = Trudy ~ In this retelling you see Trudy and Gar's relationship develop as well as her distress over his death. Parts of the story are actually told from her view. She actually never marries "Claudius" but he does propose and they have a relationship.

Claudius = Claude ~ Gar's brother. They have a rocky past but neither of them seem to understand quite where the conflict began. He comes to live with them and then leaves on rocky terms. He has a natural talent with dogs and helps around the kennel after Gar's death (which he caused through an injection of poison).

Ophelia = Almondine ~ She is actually a dog! She and Edgar have been best friends since his birth but when he sees her fawning on Claude he goes into a rage and refuses to acknowledge her. Edgar feels as if she has betrayed him, and while he is away she dies of old age.

Polonius = Dr. Papineau ~ The vet who works on the Sawtelle dogs and a close family friend. He actually has a share of their kennel as well and hires Claude to work for him.

Laeretes = Glen Papineau - The county sheriff who is devastated by his father's accidental death. When Claude tells him that Edgar played a role he is determined to shake Edgar up and conspires with Claude to achieve this. He doesn't end up dying but is blinded by quicklime.

My Problem with Paulina

I'll admit it, I have a problem with Paulina. Sure it's great that she sticks it to the man, so to speak and makes Leontes feel guilty, but after that I have issues with her. I don't understand why she would make Leontes feel guilt for SIXTEEN YEARS about Hermione's "death", when she knows that Hermione is alive and well. I almost feel like it is worse of Paulina for Leontes to suffer for years on end about something he didn't even do! (Okay he was responsible for the death of Mamillus and he accused Hermione but he didn't kill her!)

Not only this but at the end of the play Paulina talks about awakening faith and goes all Christian. But wouldn't part of having faith and feeling guilt also be forgiving? Like I said I just don't understand why she causes Leontes to suffer for sixteen years! That is a decade and a half of marriage that she robbed from the king and queen! Think about how much growth for the couple and the kingdom could have occurred then!

I guess I can think of two justifications for her hiding of Hermione. First would be that she is trying to fulfill the oracle's prophecy (not that great of a reason in my opinion). Secondly, might be that in some way she is exacting revenge on Leontes for the failed return of her own husband and the death of the young prince. (I guess a third reason would be to protect Hermione, but this doesn't seem necessary because Leontes is obviously very penitent.)

So there you go. I've said it, even though it seems many people love Paulina's pointed words and unsweetened tongue. I just think she was a little harsh and rash and well, rude in keeping Hermione away from her loving, though misguided, husband. It doesn't seem her place to meddle in marriage. But I guess that's what was needed to move the play forward. It just irks me (and I'm sorry that this turned into a rant). But I guess that's Shakespeare.