 |
| Beatrice and Benedick in the 1993 film by Kenneth Branagh |
For Monday: Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, Act I
Answer TWO of the following:
1. Since no one in the audience can catch every word of a
performance, reading a play is useful since you can pause, re-read, and
contemplate the meaning of a speech (or even a word). Having read Act One, discuss a passage or a line that you never
noticed in the movie but seems more interesting or confusing in the play. What happens in the actual lines that may
have been skimmed over in the film, or you simply didn’t catch the first time
around? Why is this passage
significant, do you think?
2. The play suggests that Beatrice and Benedict have a
history, though not much is said about it.
What is Beatrice’s chief complaint about Benedict? What kind of man does she think he is? What are his chief flaws? Is there any way to guess what happened
between them, and why she’s bitter (if you read her that way)?
3. Most of Act One is in prose, which is normal, spoken
English. However, on page 12, once
Benedict leaves, Don Pedro and Claudio start speaking in verse (and
specifically, imabic pentameter—we’ll discuss this). Why do you think there language changes here, when they were
formally speaking in prose? How might
this mirror what they’re speaking of, and how Shakespeare wants us to ‘hear’
this conversation?
4. How might some elements of Act One carry Machiavellian undertones? Who is acting or putting on a performance
that is contradictory to their true self?
Who might be playing the role of a “prince” in some way, large or
small? Or, is anyone instructed to follow
Machiavellian principles to “win” their desire?
Andrew Reeves
ReplyDelete1. The following passage caught my interest more when I'd actually read it then seeing it in the movie
BEATRICE
I wonder that you will still be talking, Signior
Benedick: nobody marks you.
BENEDICK
What, my dear Lady Disdain! are you yet living?
BEATRICE
Is it possible disdain should die while she hath
such meet food to feed it as Signior Benedick?
Courtesy itself must convert to disdain, if you come
in her presence.
BENEDICK
Then is courtesy a turncoat. But it is certain I
am loved of all ladies, only you excepted: and I
would I could find in my heart that I had not a hard
heart; for, truly, I love none.
BEATRICE
A dear happiness to women: they would else have
been troubled with a pernicious suitor. I thank God
and my cold blood, I am of your humour for that: I
had rather hear my dog bark at a crow than a man
swear he loves me.
These lines just resonate more with me in written word than spoken. This passage is a prime example of the two's hatred and disdain for one another and show the implied past relationship the two had together. It implies that the two had flirted on and off for a good while, but Benedick became distracted by something else and Beatrice felt scorned, thus making her bitter and harsh.
2. Beatrice's main complaint about Benedict is that he has too much ego. She thinks him foolish, dumb, and egotistical. She thinks he is a slave to his hormones and is easily distracted. His main flaws are that he is very arrogant and not very personable. There isn't very much information to go on to determine their past relationship, but I believe he scorned her and she is bitter about it.
Kasia Connel
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2.
Beatrice hints that something once upon a time happened with her and Benedick but we don’t know for sure, but it seems she may being calling herself a fool for it. She refers to him as a stuffed man, denoting he is made to look like a genuine man but all of that is for appearance. Possibly meaning hes is full of faults. Beatrice also compares sir Benedick to a disease, and fears for Claudio that he might become a replica of Benedick. She sees him as just a fool, to make his companions laugh.
Question 4.
Benedick and Beatrice both pretend they hate love and hate each other. They put on an act to everyone, loudly proclaiming they disagree and will never fall fate to the villainy of love. It is all an act and everyone sees through it. When Benedick over hears that Beatrice secretly loves him, he begins to put his best foot forward, and put on an act even more.
2) The history between Beatrice and Benedict is pretty easily explained. It seems that she loved him or at least had the hots for him before and was burned by him and now thinks of him what any scorned woman would, he is an ass. She even refers to him as a disease.
ReplyDelete4) The ongoing battle of words between Benedict and Beatrice is very Machiavellian. Its a battle of wits and politics. I feel like they both are trying to play the Price in some ways. Its almost like they are both so dysfunctional that they express their feeling by slamming the other person. Some of this banter is more playful other is possibly very hurtful.
2. Beatrice thinks Benedict is honestly a pompous ass and Benedict thinks she is a spoiled brat who is too good for herself. What their past is, is unclear but it is clear that at some time these two had some kind of feelings or relationship that went south and now they are just focusing on hiding their feelings for each other and making themhate one another.
ReplyDelete4.Beatrice and Benedicts battle is Machiavellian in the fact that its better to be feared then loved kinda thing. Beatrice doesn't want to show her feelings in case Benedict denies her and its the same way with Benedict. They both would rather hate each other then disclose their true feelings that would make them seem weak.
Margaret Mitchell
ReplyDelete2. I think Beatrice’s chief complaint about Benedick is that he seems to be full of himself. If he wouldn’t think that he is so high and mighty that maybe she would look and act towards him differently. She thinks that he seems to be many things shy of a man. She doesn’t seem to really think he is any kind of man in general because she doesn’t look upon him as he is one. I think the play to a certain extent does give way that they had a history together. I know that I simply do not just not like people, unless they have given me a reason to not like them or I was told misinformed information about them. So the play sort of gives off the vibe that they once had something happen and they seem to be bitter about what had happened.
3. I think that their language changes because they are not in front of anyone particular except for one another. Like most people, they have a different way they talk in other settings. We do not come to college classes and talk the way we talk at home (at least I hope not) nor do we talk to our professors like we would children. Our speech and formality of it change due to our surroundings. I think it mirrors the kind of way they want us to feel about the topic they are speaking of. Shakespeare wanted the change I think because he wanted to make it relateable and to make the audience aware of the difference in settings.
3. The language changes from prose to poetry because they begin to start being serious. I also think that Claudio treats love with a lot of passion and that is why the speaking changes too, because it become more passionate. I think this shows how it is mirrored and how Shakespeare wants to hear about it because you can get all the playful jokes about love, but if nobody is serious about it, then whats the point?
ReplyDelete4. Like we talked about in class, Claudio is playing much smaller than he should be and Pedro is playing somebody that he should not be. This is giving two sides and the fact that Pedro is going to win Hero for Claudio, shows exactly that there really is two sides to Claudio. Now, Machiavelli doesn't say literally have two sides, but this is a good representation of what he meant. They just decided to take it literally.
Kyle Straughn
ReplyDelete1. The first watching was a difficult viewing with the archaic languages and quick, witty metaphors. I followed the tone well enough in most places but I found that the plan hatched between Don Pedro and Claudio eludd me the first time. It was not that I couldn't understand what they were planning but that it is the kind of plan that has be reread to be believed. Details like that are far enough removed from my and most American experience that we would assume that we had misunderstood on the first veiwing.
4. The choice of how to woo Hero is bizarrely Machiavellian. It premises a marriage on deceit for reasons that I find hard to grasp. Still, treating Hero as a prize to be won I can definitely follow the reasoning. What I don't understand is why Pedro is suggesting the plan in the first place. I might just be missing something but I can't see what he has to gain from this and I can imagine he has a lot to lose. Maybe this is revealed latter and I just missed it but this struck me as the big plot hole in this tale.