Brechtian Acting

In Schecher Chapter 6, the author states that "acting is a sub-category of performing a very broad range of behaviors."

One of the "sub-categories" of acting that intrigued (but also confused) me was Brechtian Acting. Essentially, this is different than realistic acting because it "separates the actors from the roles." This is what aroused my curiosity. I am curious about how this is even possible for spectators to perceive?

Another thing that captivated me was when the authors states that, "The important thing is to create an art where history is not already given, a theater not controlled by fate and destiny, but open to historical intervention and social change." Even though I found this quote slightly confusing, I read it as just a form of acting that disregards social norms and offers the actors to provide their opinions about certain subjects.

The social aspect of this is still prominent in today's acting. I don't know If I am reading this wrong, but a lot of films have an underlying message that deals with the director's position on a subject. Like the author stated, "Brechtian Acting is not so much "opposed" to realistic acting as supplemental to it."

I am curious about how you all understood this aspect of acting and if some of my points could be clarified.

Velvet Goldmine and The Space of Youthful Indiscretion

In keeping with the spirit of Velvet Goldmine, my blog this week will be a bit less linear than usual.

I’m curious to hear all of your thoughts about the gemstone which reappears throughout the film. In particular, what is the significance of Arthur Stewart (Christian Bale’s character) receiving Oscar Wilde’s gemstone as the movie comes to a close? The gemstone first appears as the infant Oscar Wilde is beamed down to Earth from a spaceship.  It is later dug from the dirt by the young Jack Fairy and then passed along to several other glam rock stars. Its multiple origins – first space and then the dirt - make the stone a clear representation of the marginalized beliefs, behaviors, and performances Wilde conveyed throughout his works. The transgressive nature of these performances is mirrored by the glam rock artists who follow Wilde.  These individuals are clearly striking a pose which explode traditional masculine performance and question normative conceptions of sexuality. What does the passing of this stone to a buttoned-up journalist whose attachment to glam rock, or any subculture for the matter, appears to be a thing of the past signify? It seems possible his status as a journalist could be significant.  Curt’s passing of the emblem could be symbolic of the advent of the modern media’s saturation of the public’s consciousness with an endless amount of performances which both re-inscribe and reinvent norms. Stewart’s resistance to accepting the token may signify the resistance of our culture to the destabilization of norms through performance but its eventuality because of the nature of the information age. It also seems possible that endowing this man with the gemstone asserts lasting destabilization of norms, or the existence of a world in which glam rock could be more than a subculture, will only occur when people stop “aging out” of trangressive performances and our norms become less rigid, fully incorporating marginalized behaviors rather than giving them a limited space of acceptability as youthful indiscretions.

After viewing the film, I was also left considering to what extent Brian Slade and various other more minor bisexual characters made an argument for the legitimacy of bisexuality, or, more broadly, the consideration of sexuality as a spectrum rather than binary.  The scenes which show a news reporter interacting with several  purportedly bisexual younger folks clearly positions bisexuality as a trend more than a legitimate form of desire, placing this form of desire into the theoretical space of youthful indiscretion. The moment in which a man being interviewed points out that these masses don’t seem to realize identifying as  bisexual entails “gay sex” characterizes the widespread adoption of marginalized sexual practices and desires as an impossibility. Though Brian Slade publicly pronounces his bisexuality, the love of his life is clearly Curt Wilde. His marriage serves only as a side note to the progression of the stars’ relationship. Upon receiving his divorce papers, which are tied with a bow- an interesting aesthetic, Slade refuses to grant his wife’s request that he acknowledge her as such, laughing uncontrollably as he screams and making it difficult to buy that he was truly emotionally invested in this woman. At one point, Slade’s former manager refers to the star as “elegance walking hand and hand with a lie.” It seems possible this “lie” is his alleged bisexuality, which there is room to interpret as a denial of homosexuality. For this reason, I am not certain the film succeeds in clearly carving out a space for sexuality outside of the binary (aside from the youthful indiscretion zone of course) despite the fact that it puts glam rock culture on full display.

Wilde's Ending and Age

I found the end of this play very intriguing. The whole argument that Cecily, Lady Bracknell and Jack have about Cecily’s age was interesting to me. I could almost understand Cecily’s reasons behind saying, “Well, I am really only eighteen, but I always admit to twenty when I go to evening parties” (lines 240-241). But when Jack mentions that “Miss Cardew does not come legally of age till she is thirty-five” I was astounded (line 251-252).  How can they (these people in charge of Cecily, and more broadly men) be so controlling in someone’s life? It just does not seem fair. I know it probably was not too bizarre at the time, but now it seems so preposterous. This is when the absurdity of Wilde’s play comes back into play, when Lady Brackness cites other women in similar positions (lines 253-261). For as crazy as the reasons are for the marriage, Wilde makes the reader want Cecily to be able to marry Algernon. This age distraction is so typically Wilde that it gives the play a good ending. 

Society vs. Everything

     Typically,  actions speak louder in words- except in the satirical play, "The Importance of Being Earnest" by Oscar Wilde."In matters of grave important, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing" (209) Cecily says regarding such a trivial matter of being lied to by her beau. Society itself does seem the silent main character all characters in the play are aware of, making it humorous and ridiculous to read.
     Act 3 begins with a struggle of actions and what they may symbolizes or look like. Gwendolen points out after their engagements were broken off, the men "did not follow us at once into the house" and even decides, "as anyone would have done" but then justifies their actions that could have been label as "cowardice" or perhaps "spineless" but instead thinks, "they have some shame left." Either this is a lot of hopeful wishing, or perhaps Gwendolen has a very positive outlook on life and everyone in it. Either way she still feels haunted by the way things are supposed to play out/be and must justify their actions that do not come off very loving, repent, or manly. Cecily continues the hopeful wishing and supports Gwendolens idea, maybe in humor, saying, "they have been eating muffins. That looks like repentance." In today's society, and possibly maybe then as well, any man calmly eating a sweet (typically a PMS-ing girl reaction) when he supposedly just lost the love of his life would be most likely label derogatory man names or even with names that take away his manhood.
    Lady Bracknell is the prime example of one in this play who wishes to play the game of society and walk away a winner, although in the processes she often seems to lose human sense and empathy in the case of Algernon confessing Bunburry's sudden death. Instead of comforting Algernon and offering her condolences of the sincerest- (whoops style over sincerity), well regardless she gregariously implores questioning, "When did Bunbury die? ...What did he die of?...Was he the victim of a revolutionary outrage?" Lady Bracknell loses herself in questions, most likely asking what she will have to later spread around high societies questions ladies. She herself names this looming deity and practically treats it as a god that may at anytime smite anyone who serves the wrong types of tea cakes as she says chastising Alergnon, "Never speak disrespectfully of Society."
    Although we think we act freely and independent, we can perhaps identify with parts of the play, and realize that even in our own life we react a certain socially acceptable way, because if we didn't we may be labeled "unfit for society."

Miss Prism

All of the characters in The Importance of Being Earnest are endlessly fascinating to me, but Miss Prism is always one of the most intriguing, in my opinion.

Miss Prism is a woman that is relatively normal, all things considered, except that during a previous employment, she actually kidnapped a child. While unintentional, the crime is still incredibly serious and yet it's hardly a matter of importance throughout the show. She mentions at one point that she had written a novel but it had been lost, but the sentiment throughout this confession is more of a frustration at having lost the novel, not at having lost someone's child. Later, after the grand reveal of Jack's parentage, she still demonstrates a greater concern towards her novel and her handbag than she does in the situation of the child she carelessly misplaced (by leaving in a handbag, no less!). She's affronted by the comment Lady Bracknell makes about the quality of the novel and later, when Jack presents the handbag for inspection, she is able to go over every detail of its history and yet is practically useless when it comes to providing details to assist in Jack's dilemma. Wouldn't you think she'd remember the name of the baby she ditched? And to top it all off, when Jack assumes that she is his mother, she is offended and disturbed! This woman is terrible!

To me, throughout the entire play, this is the most serious event and while it plays a significant role in the development and resolution of the story, it's treated so lightly, which is part of its comical appeal. Miss Prism is a woman that committed a grave sin of abandoning a baby in a cloakroom at a railway station and yet even she gets her happy ending. The fact that her happy ending is with a supposedly "celibate" man is yet another piece of her life that could easily be interpreted as a stain on her character. But in any case, while so many of the characters make unusual or even shocking statements, Miss Prism seems to be the only person that has actually done something truly shocking, which makes her the most interesting character to me.

Act 3

Lady Bracknell and her ideas of marriage are extremely interesting topics. She is basically a parody on the importance of society. She speaks as if society is the only thing that matters.  She  feels that marriages are the way that you need to move up in society, so she is tying to make matches within the play that make sense for advancements in society. She talks of celcily's chin being suitable for society , and then decides that something that unchangable about a person is a thing that can decide whether or not they are worthy of society.
This is likely a comment on how shallow the makings of marriages are In high society.  They become about money and land and appearance, as lady Bracknell points out in her various assessments of the men and women in the play. Marriage, to her, is not at all about love or attraction, but about where it puts you in society.

Lady Bracknell's Role

I have read "The Importance of Being Earnest" twice in my lifetime and this second time around the character that stood out to me the most was Lady Bracknell. It seems that every time she speaks some form of exaggerated or oxymoronic statement. I found myself laughing to myself almost every line I read that she spoke, so I asked myself why I was finding her so amusing and what her purpose both in the story and in the broader context of the entire play's themes is. It seems that Oscar Wilde emphasizes the frivolity and ridiculous nature of the upper class through the character of Lady Bracknell. We discussed in class somewhat about how silly it was that Lady Bracknell was not going to allow the marriage of her daughter Gwendolyn to Jack solely because he was found in a handbag and he does not know who his parents are. However this is definitely not the only example of Lady Bracknell's nature.

Another example of this type of ridiculous conversation is in Act 3. She is insisting that Algernon and Cecily get married quickly, even though they just met and she says "To speak frankly, I am not in favour of long engagements. They give people the opportunity of finding out each other's character before marriage, which I think is never advisable" (Lines 204-206) This statement is obviously incredibly absurd in nature. To think of people not knowing each other before marriage in today's culture is just unheard of. However, this level of absurdity highlights the insanity of the reasoning of the upper classes. In addition, she wasn't even okay with this marriage occurring until she found out that Cecily was in line to inherit her father's fortune. Her shallow nature and ridiculous line of thinking is exemplified in this interaction.

The Big Reveal

As “The Importance of Being Earnest” comes to a close, Jack’s double life is largely reconciled.  He acquires the name Ernest and gains the troublesome younger brother in Algernon he had previously invented as an excuse to travel into London on the regular basis.  Remarkably, he has fulfilled Lady Bracknell’s suggestion that he “acquire some relations as soon as possible”(I,565).   In doing so, one can assume he has earned the right to marry Gwendolyn, which he repeatedly asserts is key to his happiness.

This surprising turn of events is very interesting when thinking of the play in terms of its messages about performance.  The resolution of the play is dependent on the restoration of the natural identity of Jack/Ernest.  The conflation of the conclusion of the play with the restoration of original identity suggests that it is impossible for contingent, “unnatural” identities to last.  In the end, no one does form an alliance with a parcel.  Origin is established and the romance coloring Jack’s early years is revealed as merely an accident and there is a sense that everyone is destined “to be who they are” or adhere to some natural, inherent identity.

Nevertheless, the fact that Jack performs an identity of his own design and ultimately legitimately attains the life he has been acting out also can be read as a suggestion that performance creates reality, a concept that has been discussed at length in several of the critical articles we have worked with thus far. Jack’s natural identity is ultimately what he chose for it to be, insinuating natural identity may be nothing more than an allusion. This reading picks up on a message that was likely quite transgressive at the time the play was published.  Wilde was clearly negotiating between social acceptability and transgression by trying to popularize his potentially threatening fiction and it seems completely possible the room for these two interpretations was part of this effort. 

"The Importance of Being Earnest": A Critique on Society's Norms of Marriage

As Paige previously mentioned, the full title of this play is "The Importance of Being Earnest: A Trivial Comedy for Serious People." And what an appropriate title. For my post, I would like to discuss the triviality of marriage, as seen in "The Importance of Being Earnest." More specifically, I will explore how the play is a critique of society's norms of marriage. As we discussed in class on Monday, Cecily uses a variety of props to prove that she is engaged. These props, which consist mostly of material items, serve as a social function because they are bits and pieces of evidence. However, the fact that the props are mostly material things could be a jab at society's view towards marriage, where the emphasis is placed on the size of one's ring, for example, as opposed to the actual relationship. Furthermore, Cecily falls in love with Algernon after she hears people talking about him, stating that "a man who is much talked about is always very attractive." This statement further exemplifies how society's view on marriage is superficial; in Cecily's case, meeting a person
is not required to fall in love.

As seen in Act I, Lady Bracknell worries about what her daughter's marriage will look like in society. Instead of being concerned with her daughter's happiness, Lady Bracknell interviews Jack, questioning him about the most absurd things, and keeps a list of potential suitors. In Act III, Lady Bracknell declares that she is against long engagements, saying that they "give people the opportunity of finding out each other's character before marriage" which she believes is "never advisable." To today's audience, this kind of thinking seems odd. Isn't it beneficial and practical to know and understand the person who you are marrying? This statement serves as a jab at society's need for fast marriages, as opposed to long engagements. In a way, this statement demonstrates that knowing a person is hardly the most important factor in a marriage.

As Act II demonstrates, it is important to Cecily to have a ring so she can show off her taken status. She is primarily concerned with signalling to other people that this relationship has gone on. Both of these characters exemplify the emphasis society places on the outward appearance of a marriage. The amount of letters one has received, the way a marriage looks to others, or the name of the person you are engaged to are all such trivial matters when it comes to the institute of marriage. But as Wilde demonstrates, these matters are important to society and its views on marriage.

Homosexuality and Muffins

Before our discussion of Wilde’s writing last week, I had no idea about his incorporation of “homosexuality” in many of his plays, let alone in “The Importance of Being Earnest”, which I have read several times without noticing the theme at all. However, now that I am aware of Wilde’s common commentary on the masculinity of men, I have been able to spot places here and there within the play that support his critique on society. The one that stuck out most to me can be found at the end of the second act when Alegernon and Jack are fighting over who will eat the muffins and who will eat the coffee cake. The fact that Wilde portrays two grown men of significant social status physically fighting over muffins and cake makes the reader question what masculinity really is, and if society’s idea of how men should act is actually accurate at all. It is now much easier to understand why so many found Wilde’s subdued radical ideas injected into his popular plays threatening to the norms of society. When I first read this scene several years ago, it didn’t really seem out of ordinary at all given the character’s tendencies and circumstances. Therefor, I would imagine those viewing the play when it first premiered in the mid 1800s, felt similar to how I felt upon first experiencing it. If they felt that their behavior was also not very out of the ordinary, they would think it not a problem if they were to also act like Algernon and Jack in the real world; theatre is a comment on reality after all. This way of thinking could easily be seen as threatening to the higher ropes of society, and seemingly the only way to stop it was to make an example of Wilde and his writings. 

Males vs. Females

It is interesting to me to see the pairs that have been formed within Act 2. We obviously see the blossoming relationship between Jack and Algernon and we are introduced to the relationship between Cecily and Gwendolen. Through all of the bunburying and talks of marriage, these relationships are put to the test.

First, let us examine how females react to certain situations. We see Cecily and Gwendolen introduced and Gwendolen talks about how fondly she thinks of Cecily and that her first impressions are always correct. She adores Cecily and it seems that the same feelings are exchanged. Through the confusion of bunburying, Cecily and Gwendolen both figure out that they are engaged to "Earnest Worthing". When they both realize this, the female claws come out. Cecily purposely puts sugar in Gwendolen's tea even though it isn't "fashionable" anymore and continues to provide her with cake instead of bread and butter. Gwendolen immediately changes her mind about Cecily and seems to think that she is conniving  and manipulative. It really made me laugh at how much of a change the girls made. It's all a part of the female persona and protecting their ground.

On the other hand, the men rationally sort out their issues. They think quickly and just run with the consequences as they are thrown at them. For instance, when Jack was speaking about how his brother Earnest Worthing had passed on and then suddenly found himself face to face with Earnest Worthing (aka Algernon), he just kind of went with it. He was angry for an intant but then continued on with his business. It was completely interesting to me how the male confrontation varies from female confrontation.

Along with that, I am confused on Algernon's views of marriage. In Act I, we found him despising marriage and saying that married couples were annoying and boring. In Act II, he is courting this Cecily and wanting to marry her! It is amazing to me the lengths that a man will go to in order to pursue a woman. The marriage card has completely changed in Act II. It really was full of surprises I suppose!

The Unimportance of Being Serious

As we all know, Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest often showcases the act of people not being trustworthy and earnest.

In Act II and beyond, the concept of death becomes more prevalent. Examples of this are when Jack explains to Miss Prism and Chasuble that Ernest had passed away and when *SPOILER ALERT* Algernon "killed" Bunbury. The latter showcased the playfulness of Oscar's style. Death in its usual connotation is simply disregarded and is turned into the meaning of convenience. Everyone just happened to die at the perfect time and death did not have any real somber consequences "or did they?"

 My question is what other examples throughout the play could you all find where Oscar Wilde seems to stray away from the conventional meanings of serious things (and lightens them up a bit)?

The Importance of Being Ernest

I found it really interesting that the characters need to create an alter-ego to participate in aspects of life that seem more appealing to them than their social norms. Jack talks about how he wants to go into town, but he can't do that with a ward around (because he has to uphold certain social standards to model them for her).
So he creates this alternate personality, and even falls in love with a woman while he is presenting himself as this name.
On the other hand, Algernon lives this life of constant social interaction. He may not be the best host or anything, but he knows what is expected of him - and it is not expected that he will leave for weeks at a time to go to the country and just 'chill' all alone. So he creates this story about a permanent invalid so that he can get out of things. No one is going to contest the fact that you need to go take care of your friend who never leaves the house, and no one wants to accompany you...in this way, the fake friend is an easy 'out' for anything that he doesn't want to do.

They've created these alter egos as stories to excuse their behaviors. It is interesting to note that they have done it for different reasons, Jack wants to escape the country, and Algernon wants to live there. But somehow they have met in the middle about this, and I am curious to see where their relationship goes, and whether or not they are 'found out' and chided for their behavior.

Comedy within Earnestness

So, this is my REAL post for the week. Here we go!

I absolutely adore Oscar Wilde's writing. He is witty and self-proclaiming and confident. This all combines to make an extremely enjoyable read. It's all extremely thought provoking as well. I realize that we talked about it quite a bit in class but I really enjoyed the quote, "The very essence of romance is uncertainty." Algernon provokes a very interesting point.

I just adore the passion and excitement that accompanies new love and I feel that this is exactly what Algernon is talking about. Why burden that raw love with the legality of it all? Why involve oneself in the union of love through the government? I feel that the beauty of love is that one can enjoy their love and enjoy being a couple while still having an individual lifestyle. It makes me think about the movie (500) Days of Summer with Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon Levitt. Zooey's character Summer is adamant about not getting too caught up within a relationship because she is young and wants to experience all that her life has to offer. She doesn't want to be tied down with commitment and the burden of a man (if you can call it a burden). I feel that the character Summer has the same view as Algernon. She has a desire to keep things fresh and doesn't want a relationship boring and repetitive. It's all very innovative and feministic.... And yet that proves that women have come extremely far since Wilde's time. Women don't want to be tied down nowadays just as men back then didn't want to be burdened with a needy woman. It's amazing how the views on relationships have changed based on the social norms of the time.

I am interested to see how Algernon's situation pans out though. His Bunbury should pose some interesting issues for his future love life... If he does pursue a relationship after all.

Absurdity among Aristocracy

I was intrigued by the subtitle of this play as I went back to read it. It is titled The Importance of Being Earnest: A Trivial Comedy for Serious People. After reading the first act, that makes a lot of sense. These characters are arguing about cucumber sandwiches (lines 56-58, 81-91, 294-305) among other things, which along with the title reminds me of Seinfeld, since it's notorious for being a "show about nothing." I was also amused by the scene in which Lady Bracknell interrogates Jack about his life and whether or not he is worthy of her daughter. She asks him the most absurd questions, that makes both her and him sound like airheads (lines 453-577).

Earnest, or not?

To begin, OSCAR WILDE IS FANTASTIC. Now to continue...

A delayed moment of epiphany happened when I was reading the first few pages and saw with the list of Wilde's accomplished, The Picture of Dorian Grey. Immediately, my literary senses tingled and were awake and excited for what this play written by Oscar could be like...and the similarities, are apparent, yet also different, and a few different themes jumped out at me.

Firstly, the main character Algernon appears to me as a walking argument, contradiction, and little affected gentleman of little moral standing. Similarly to Dorian Grey, he posses strange ideas and enjoys confusing other people in the story and making them question him so that he can talk about his own opinions and thoughts that are generally sassy statements of society and the ridiculousness of people. I often felt reading the novel and now the play that this is Oscars main voice as a narrator coming through his characters. For example, Algernon says to Ernest, "The truth is rarely pure and never simple. Modern life would be very tedious if it were either, and modern literature a complete impossibility!" (209), personally the later part of this line seemed slightly out of context to the conversation until I thought of it as Oscar's own voice on literature. It is also a bit horrid to consider that the truth is not as simple as not telling a lie.

 Algernon makes a comment near the beginning which expresses his attitude, perhaps towards life although in this case, piano playing; "I don't play accuratley-anyone can play accurately-but I play with wonderful expression" (5). Algernon seems hold creativity and a individualist approach higher than the polite, socially restricted lifestyle Jack/Ernest holds, although they hold similarities as well. I think its terribly ironic that this play as well as As You Like It, dabbles with the idea that characters, don't accurately know each other, and within a play pretend to be other people than they are. Perhaps this idea is central to literature and I am just realizing it, but also perhaps it is used to cause more conflict to develop. In the case of Ernest/Jack wanting to marry Gwendolen, it appears like a worsening issue.

I am exciting to further delve into this text and explore the similar themes of performance within a performance and see how Oscar develops this issue, and solves it while raising interesting comments and questions about society.

Wilde's Downfall

Upon reading both Act I of The Importance of Being Ernest and the small biography of Wilde's homosexual life, I found myself wondering if there was a correlation between the two. My findings were actually quite interesting. While Wilde was unable to keep his private life secret, he had managed to hold together a family previous to his trial in 1895. In fact, Wilde's most successful time of writing was between 1893-1894, one year before his downfall, when he vacationed in Sussex at a seaside resort. During this time, he wrote The Important of Being Ernest, A Woman of no Importance, and Lady Windermere's Fan; three of Wilde's most successful plays. What is most interesting, is that his fans remained loyal to his work even when the rumors about his second life began circulating in 1895. When The Importance of Being Ernest opened in 1895, it began with a run of 86 performances with standing ovations. However, immediately after the opening, Wilde's accusal and trial of being a homosexual began. Therefore, the rumors of his social life seemed to have no negative effect over The Importance of Being Ernest, in fact it seemed to motivate the audiences. However, the trial did have indefinite effects on his future career as a playwright.

Character Comparisons in "As You Like It"

As I finished up "As You Like It" I couldn't help but see a glaring similarity between the brotherly relationship of Orlando and Oliver and then Duke Frederick and Duke Senior. Both sets of brothers have a rocky relationship, beginning in Act 1. Duke Senior has already been banished by his brother and Orlando is driven out to the forest by his brother's actions against him. Senior and Oliver both hunt down their brothers in order to kill them and get rid of the threat. However, the most interesting similarity to me is the conversion stories of both "bad" brothers.

As we have discussed in class, Oliver's conversion story is discussed in great detail in the play. It occurs in Act 4, Scene 3. It involves the snake wrapped around his neck, the lioness stalking him, and Orlando acting as the loyal brother and saving Oliver's life. This whole experience leads Oliver into realizing that he should make up with his long lost brother. The conversion story of Duke Frederick was much simpler and more straightforward. It was just mentioned at the very end that a religious man had talked to him and that he was converted into giving Duke Senior back his rightful land. This story is less metaphorical, however it ends in the same result. These two conversion stories link Oliver and Frederick.

Orlando and Duke Senior are both portrayed as the sympathetic brothers by Shakespeare. Orlando is the masculine wrestler who was wronged by his brother and was not the inheritor of his father's power. Duke Senior was usurped by Duke Frederick and was banished to the forrest without having actually done anything wrong. Shakespeare appears to want us as the readers to root for these two brothers. Both of these brothers seem to be portrayed as the "good ones" and end up the victors in their situations.

Overall I just find it very interesting that these two sets of brothers have such strong similarities, both in how they relate to each other and what happens throughout the play.

Hypocrisy Already?

"The Importance of Being Earnest" is already off to a rousing start. One extremely strong theme that has already been established is hypocrisy. As the play opened, I found Lady Windermere to be an interesting character with strong opinions on men and the reliability of marriage and familial standards. She becomes quite headstrong on the situations in which men cheat on their women and make rash decisions. This leads to a quote that caught my eye, "Do you know that I am afraid that good people do a great deal of harm in this world." Lord Darlington has a point that prestigious and high class beings can make detrimental decisions.

Through this conversation, I felt that Lady Windermere and Lord Darlington were smart people with strong heads on their shoulders. It also seemed that they had a relationship brewing due to Lord Darlington being so smitten with her. The tables turned for me when the Duchess of Berwick entered the house. She provided scandal and drama to the scene by first, revealing that Lady Windermere was married. I was extremely shocked to find this out and found her conversation with Lord Darlington to be extremely hypocritical. She reprimanded women and men for cheating on their spouses and being unfaithful and yet she was quite flirty and even invited Lord Darlington to her birthday soirée. This would be an important result of foreshadowing.

The Duchess of Berwick seems to be quite the gossip. She stirs the pot in drama and comes to warn Lady Windermere of her husband's infidelity and seems to prompt that he is unfaithful to her. It is shocking considering Lady Windermere was just speaking about how "vile" infidelity was. Nonetheless, she continues to cause drama by snooping around her husband's pocket books. This seems to be sneaky and hypocritical to me. When Lord Windermere seems to prompt that he is simply helping his "mistress" to get back on her feet within society. When Lady Windermere refuses to invited her to the birthday party, I changed my opinions on her. She seems to be extremely hypocritical and only looks out for herself.

I am extremely interested to see how this pans out considering I changed my opinions on Lady Windermere quite quickly within the first act.

Identity Changes in "As You Like It"

As we have discussed in class, "As You Like It" has a multitude of characters who undergo identity changes. To review, Rosalind is disguised as Ganymede throughout the majority of the play, so she undergoes an identity change in the sense that she changes genders by means of dressing and acting like a man. This sort of behavior, as noted in act 2, scene 4, includes not crying, for it would "disgrace [her] man's apparel... to cry like a woman" (4-5). Similarly, Celia takes on the disguise as the shepherdess Aliena and, like Rosalind, by assuming this disguise, she falls in social rank. However, Rosalind's identity change questions society's gender roles, and I am not sure if I would consider Celia's disguise to be as impacting. At the very end of the play, Duke Frederick lets go of his desire of worldly possessions and concerns and joins a monastery. This identity change is quite the contrast when compared to the Duke's violent temper and hunger for power.

However, one of the most pivotal scenes in the play, and arguably one of the biggest identity changes, takes place in act 4, scene 3, when Oliver converts to loving his brother. This turning point in the brothers' relationship essentially collapses who Oliver was; the "new" Oliver is removed from the Oliver who wanted to kill his brother and deny him of an education. This collapse in identity ultimately leads to Oliver marrying Celia, even though, as far as he is concerned, she is only a shepherdess.

Act 5: The End of Transgression?

The bulk of As You Like It takes place in the forest of Arden, a space in which lionesses, snakes, sheep, shepherds, and those banished from court coexist and the “lazy foot of time” is only tracked by the sighs and groans of the lover (III.II.209).   Within this space and state of relative timelessness, the breakdown of patriarchal order, which I discussed previously as beginning in the first act of the play, fully commences.

Within this new societal order, class conventions fade. The clown and banished princess verbally spar with a familiarity suggesting they are on the same level. Adam, the servant of Orlando, is invited to dine at the same table as the wronged duke. Oliver, the former merciless enforcer of his own patriarchal power decides to merry a woman he believes to be a shepherdess and bestow all of his riches onto his youngest brother, abandoning the laws of primogeniture to which he held fast within the court. One could go on and on.

Traditional gender roles and notions of sexual desire become equally muddled. Rosalind’s performance as Ganymede and the ensuing relationships with both Phoebe and Orlando legitimizes same sex desire on some level.  Moreover, all of the women of the story seem to be in full control of their romantic destinies. As Phoebe steadfastly refuses Silvius and pursues Ganymede, no father is consulted. Audrey is similar fatherless as she is wooed by Touchstone. These women seem to be making their own choices rather than being traded by the men in their lives, their futures dictated by custom. Ganymede’s role in resolving all the entangled love triangles to his/her own benefit and self-proclaimed status as a magician makes him/her the most cunning, and arguably the most powerful, individual in the play despite the fact her often referenced inherent femininity.

Nevertheless, the final act of the play is, in many respects, a restoration of the order that is all but lost in the forest. After the appearance of the nameless second brother, the rightful and now restored duke proclaims that all “That have endured shrewd days and nights with us/ Shall share the good of our returned fortune/ According to the measure of their states,” effectively announcing the class fluidity which has flourished in the forest will come to an end as everyone returns to the court and is given their rightful estates (V.IV.179-81). Rosalind’s restoration of order essentially rests on the impossibility of homosexual desire, as the stubborn Phoebe is left with the choice to marry a woman or Silvius, which Rosalind’s confidence in her scheme suggests is a non-choice.  As the weddings take place, Rosalind asks her father for permission to marry Orlando, her elaborate scheme to wed the man of her dreams becoming contingent on her father’s consent, while Phoebe becomes completely voiceless. Convention is restored, but not completely.

Primogeniture is only partially vindicated as the forest society prepares to transition back to the court. While the wronged duke is restored and Oliver retains his rightful lands, Orlando does one up his eldest brother by becoming the heir to the duke’s kingdom. This status would never be attainable by a youngest son in traditional patriarchal society. Whether or not this violation of tradition is progressive is debatable. In one sense, the overturn of patriarchal convention does survive outside the formless space that is the forest. On the other hand, the fact that the strongest, most courageous man attains the highest status in the court also characterizes the patriarchal system as malleable, and able to account for nature. The stakes of this should not be underestimated, just as the transgressive nature of the play should not be discounted because of the somewhat normalizing ended, which very well could have been an absolute necessity for an artist of Shakespeare’s era. 

Works Cited

WS                  Shakespeare, William. As You like It;. New York. Folger Shakespeare Library. 2009. 

Print.

As You Like it: Act V

This final act in Shakespeare's' "As You Like it" is a very brief, but dense act. One of the first things I noticed was the amount of repetition contained in the act. For example, in scene 5.2 Phoebe, Silvius, and Orlando all ask "If this be so, why blame you to love you?" all in consecutive lines. Another example of repetition is on page 223, Duke Senior tells Rosalind, "If there be truth in sight, you are my daughter" and Orlando tells her that "if truth be in sight, you are my Rosalind." What effect does this repetition have? Is it for emphasis? Is it just to contribute to the rhythm of the play?

Another thing I noticed in this act was Touchstone's identity conflict. In the beginning of act V, Touchstone hassles a young man named William (who also loves Audrey). Touchstone, seen as the fool to the majority of characters in the play, seems to downplay William's intellect and even calls him a fool. An example of this is when William says that he is witty and Touchstone replies by stating, "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." How is this consistent to Touchstone's identity conflict in the play overall?

Melancholy

At the beginning of Act 4, I found the argument between Rosalind and Jaques very interesting. I especially found the different types of Melancholy that Jacques lists interesting (Scholar's, Musician's, Courtier's, Soldiers, and Lawyer's). Do you find these legitimate forms of melancholy (if melancholy has forms at all)? With this said, is there a type of melancholy for any occupation or hobby?

Gender Roles Reinforced: Rosalind and Celia

While reading, As You Like It, a particular passage stood out in 3.2. Celia is discussing the poems that have been left in the forest and an anxious Rosalind is begging to know who wrote them.  In this scene, each of the women seem to touch on a particular stereotype applied to their gender, and agree with it in a sort of playful tone.  For example, Rosalind says, "Good my complexion, dost thou think though I am caparisoned like a man, I have a doublet and hose in my disposition?" (III.ii.177-178), which essentially is a comment on how Rosalind's patience is still as little as that of a woman's, despite her men's clothing.  She later says, "Do you not know I am a woman? When I think, I must speak" (III.ii. 226-227).  This is yet another stereotype that women speak their mind freely and, often, unabashedly.  Later in the scene, Rosalind discusses how woman are, "touched with so many giddy offenses" (III.ii.313-314).  This scene playfully touches on the stereotypes of women by women characters who seem to reinforce them.  It is interesting that Rosalind and Celia seem aware of these stereotypes and still seem to uphold them, despite the fact that some of the characteristics are not so desirable.  This scene seems to set the tone for the entire play's view on gender roles and the ability to reinforce them, while still "making fun" of them. 

Discovering Class through Poetry

I was intrigued by Rosalind’s ballade (3.2.84-91) and Celia’s almost-soliloquy (3.2.120-149). I am not sure that I understood what Shakespeare was trying to get across with them. Rosalind and Celia go into a pretty deep discussion about the form of the poetry in Celia’s part. I think it is interesting that Shakespeare would draw attention to his poetry, but I think it also says something about the characters Rosalind and Celia. Aren’t they supposed to be in hiding, acting as though they are not from a well-off family? If so, how would they know something like what Rosalind states, “…for some of them had in them more feet than the verses would bear” (3.2.160-1)?

Rosalind's Heart

While reading Act 3 and Act 4 of Shakespeare's As You Like It, I found myself turning back to the passage:
"I could find it in my heart to disgrace my/
man's apparel and to cry like a woman, but I must/
comfort the weaker vessel, as doublet and hose/
ought to show itself courageous to petticoat... (II.IV.4-7).
The insinuation that clothing "ought" to behave in a certain manner certainly poses the question of whether gender "does not exist unless it is being done" and is nothing more than "an act that has been going on long before one arrived on the scene (Diamond 4). However, the passage begins by designating crying, and the broader concept of the feminine as weak and highly emotion, as an impulse of Rosalind's heart. This link internalizes the aforementioned feminine stereotypes, attaching them to Rosalind's body and insinuating weakness and a lack of emotional may constitute a "true feminine nature" Diamond's discussion of gender performances as contingent rejects.

As Rosalind encounters more inhabitants of the woods, her masculine performance is repeatedly questioned. While reflecting on Ganymede, who has just given her a thorough censuring for failing to appreciate the love of Silvius, Phoebe notes "Betwixt the constant red and mingled damask/There be some woman..."(III.V.133-4).  Upon initially approaching Celia, Oliver notes that he has been told to look for a boy "....fair/Of female flavor, and bestows himself/like a ripe sister...," suggesting Oliver, or perhaps other members of the camp, regard both Rosalind's appearance and behavior as feminine(IV.III.89-91). It is certainly possible that the failure of these characters to regard Rosalind (as Ganymede) as masculine is due to  her inability to perform masculinity in a manner incorporating all of the cultural nuances folded into this "role." Yet again, the fact that both of these moments of suspicion focus on a physical feature brings again to mind the conception that man and woman are fundamentally different, and, as a result perform differently on the basis of true natures which are at odds.

As Rosalind (as Ganymede) swoons and Act 4 comes to a close, Oliver provides the most direct critique of her performance of masculinity, stating "...You, a man? You lack a man's heart"(IV.III.174). Again, feminine weakness is tethered to Rosalind's heart, the symbolic spirit or center of being. Her masculinity is deemed "counterfeit," a term which Rosalind attempts to re-appropriate to describe her feminine swoon. Oliver does not bite, and there is room for readers to similarly reject this gender performance as the ridiculous or impossible rather than  read it as a progressive commentary of social norms.

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William. As You like It;. New York. Folger Shakespeare Library. 2009. Print.

Diamond, Elin. "Performance and Cultural Politics." London. Routledge. 1996. Print.

Happiness

"Sir, I am a true laborer. I earn that I eat, get that I wear, owe no man hate, envy no man’s happiness, glad of other men’s good, content with my harm, and the greatest of my pride is to see my ewes graze and my lambs suck." -Corin

As I read Acts III and IV of As You Like It, this quote by Corin caught my eye. I absolutely loved the idea of the content happiness that he had. He knows that his life is as it should be and yet he still feels happiness for others as well. He enjoys the simple things in life like watching his livestock graze upon the land. I find that sense of natural happiness beautiful. It was just such an interesting contrast compared to the rest of the characters within the novel.

As we discussed in class on Monday, Rosalind and Celia seem to be discontented with their state of being. Since they have dimmed their statuses and become that of the lower class, they seem to be unhappy and scared. Neither one of them seems to want to give up their high stature within society. Therefore, I found Corin's happiness refreshing. He is simply pleased by life's little gifts and I find that beautiful.

Then, while I continued reading, I found it disappointing to see that Touchstone was appalled by Corin's happiness. Touchstone scorned Corin because he was happy to be a peasant and to live off of the land. It seems that Touchstone (although not as high in rank as Rosalind) still does not wish to give up his status as the court's fool per se. I suppose I can be very opinionated but I dislike this ranking system that they have within the times. But then again, I suppose that I am being hypocritical considering the system that we have today concerned lower, middle and upper class. Corin's simple happiness was just a shock to me and I absolutely love that. 

Gender roles: Enforced or Questioned?

    While reading Jaques' big speech in Act 2, Scene 7 of "As You Like It" I was struck by the lack of female inclusion. When he speaks about the seven stages of life Jaques only discusses the life stages of a man. His stages of life include infancy, school boy, lover, soldier, justice, old man, and elderly, disappearing man. These stages are gender specific. He does not even touch on how this concept applies to the lives of women. He discusses a school boy, not a school girl. This seems to be an accurate representation of gender roles during this time period. Women were seen as weak, lesser, inferior, or simply less important.
     Over the course of the play women are often pushed aside or considered weak. For example, when Rosalind is dressed as a man she establishes that as a man she should not cry, that action is for the weak petticoated women. However, while the time period and the actions of the play seem to lean towards enforcing the gender roles, if you look closer Shakespeare seems to be mocking them slightly Both of the lead female characters, Celia and Rosalind, have great courage in leaving the court and going into hiding. They are taking on lesser roles to what they were born into and are coping with a changing world. Overall this speech by Jaques brings up interesting concepts to think about while reading the rest of the play.

"All the World's A Stage": The Lack of Originality in Performance

Today in class we touched upon the concept that most performances have been performed before. Nothing is completely original and, as we discussed last Wednesday, we constantly rely on other people and other influences. As Schechner states in his article, "What Is Performance?," action "consists of twice-behaved behaviors" and "there is no such thing as 'once-behaved behavior'" (23).

This concept can be seen in multiple scenes throughout "As You Like It," but a well-known example is in Act II, scene vii. "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances, and one man in his time plays many parts" (139-142). Although each player has their own separate performance, they each play the same roles. As Schechner states, "the uniqueness of an event is not in its materiality but in its interactivity" (23). Our interactions and relations with others are what set our personal performances apart from others', although they will never be truly original.

All The World's A Stage...

What I found most interesting about this week’s readings was the correlation of topics shared between the two. In the Schechner chapter two selections, the idea of ‘where exactly does a performance take place’, is discussed. It is concluded that, “a performance only takes place in action, interaction, and relation.” Therefor, a performances foundation is based mainly on circumstances shared between two or more persons. I found this theory reflected in Jaques’s speech within Act II of As You Like It. In the second scene, beginning with line 140, Jaques launches into his monologue set in motion by the famous line, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women are merely players.” When I read this, I immediately thought back to Schechner’s idea of a performance being something we carry out through our whole lives. In the reading, Schechner goes even further and gives us an example of the common person’s earliest performance. When your mother first taught you how to eat from a spoon, she demonstrated how to properly bring the food to ones mouth with the spoon so you could see the correct way to go about it. You would then mimic her performance, and carry out your own performance of bringing the spoon to your mouth. Schechner argues that this process of observing and carrying out performances happens to us several times a day, and therefor making ‘all the world a stage’. 

Bonds Unbroken Bonded

     Regarding social and part performance in Shakespeare's, As You Like It, I am troubled to find a claim or observation regarding honest characters that does not keep true. I wanted to say, "Amazingly enough, here is a set of characters, perhaps not perfect in nature, but honest and loyal to their image, name, or moral beliefs;" however, that is not the case. Despite how honorable many of our leading characters appear to be, (ie Orlando gallantly wrestles in part perhaps to die and cease space on this earth, and although her father has long since been in her life, Rosalind still remembers him daily by carrying on his sad memory in her heart) they still use a means of lying to achieve their goals.

    Celia and Rosalind both are first read as gentle and meek young women of their time, but when Rosalind is exile, Celia banishes herself as well and plans to, "put myself in poor and mean attire" to "pass along and never stir assailants". Rosalind as well plans to disguise herself as a man and wear, "A gallant curtal-axe upon my thigh, [and] a boar-spear in my hand" (115). She even takes up a new name to be called, "Ganymede" and Celia goes along with the idea and chooses to be called "Aliena" for her new 'character's' name. From clear disguises to a crime many men die for, Rosalind plots worse with Celia, "But cousin, what if we assayed to steal The clownish fool out of your father's court. Would he not comfort our travels?" (128-130). I highly doubt "comfort" would ever be a reasonable plea in court for taking another's man. 

      Both of these characters change who they have strived to be in order to accomplish a goal they feel is higher than their own reputation. In a matter of pages, they go from reputable princess and cousin, to exiled, chosen exile and thieves. If Celia stayed, perhaps she could have secured a safer travel for Rosalind, for then the Duke's men would not hunt after them. Overall, I was surprised to see characters change so much for each other without almost any hesitation. I wonder what some "disguises" we put on and "names" we adopt when we are with friends and how the situation could have been better if we had just acted honestly and without lies. 

A Performance about Performance?

I was struck by the first few paragraphs of the Schechner introduction. In describing the book, Performance Studies: An Introduction, Schechner writes,

“This book embodies the values, theories, and practices of a certain field of scholarship as understood by one particular person in the seventh decade of his life. This person is a Jewish Hindu Buddhist atheist living in New York City, married, and the father of two children. He is a Professor of Performance Studies at New York University and the Editor of TDR: The Journal of Performance Studies….” (Schechner 1).

I found it interesting that he goes from discussing his book to himself, but stays in the third person. He switches after a couple of sentences and says, “Who I am is not irrelevant. I will be leading you on a journey. You ought to know a little about your guide” (Schechner 1). His use of first and second person here, along with what he is talking about, makes me wonder if he is taking a stab at creating a performance here as well. There is no material stage, but the piece of paper with the words on it. The characters/actors are the author, Schechner, and the reader, us. This may be a leap, but is he creating a performance in introducing Performance Studies to us?