For Monday: Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, Acts.
IV-V (last questions for class!)
Answer TWO of the following...
1. Shakespearean humor is almost
always based on language, unlike the more physical comedy of today’s
theater. Discuss a passage that is
funny/hilarious based on how characters use some aspect of language, from puns,
sexual references, malapropisms (using the wrong word), metaphors, etc. You might specifically examine the language
of the lower classes, whose humor is more direct than their masters, but often
easier caught by us hundreds of years later.
2. Beatrice has a powerful scene
in Act IV, scene 2, where she exclaims, “O that I were a man for his sake! or
that I had any friend that would be a man for my sake!” How do you think she’s
defining a “man” in this passage? Does
she literally mean a male, or is there some subtle definition of man that makes
her unable to find one in Messina, even despite Benedick’s presence?
3. Discuss a scene (either an
entire scene, or a few lines) where Shakespeare switches from prose to verse
(or vice versa) to make a dramatic point.
Much
Abo About Nothing, as we have discussed earlier, is rare
that it has more prose than poetry, but in the later Acts we find entire scenes
of poetry. Explain why and how it is
used in this scene, and what effect it has on the audience. How does it act as a “setting” and a
“costume” for the characters?
4. At the first wedding, Pedro
insists that he and Claudio “Did see her, did hear her, at that hour last
night/Talk with a ruffian...Who hath indeed, most like a liberal
villain,/Confessed the vile encounters they have had/A thousand times in
secret” (IV.1.). So even though they saw “Hero” at
the window, what really convinced them is what Borachio “told” them about the
affair. Why does all the action in Much Ado About Nothing take
place in words rather than in actions?
Everything is told to the characters—and to us—second hand, from Hero’s
infidelity to Don John’s capture. Film
versions always show us these events...so why does the play refuse to?
Margaret Mitchell
ReplyDelete2. I think Beatrice is defining a man in the said passages as someone who is strong enough to hurt someone, or as we find out, someone who will kill someone. She also seems to only use that powerful line as a way to manipulate Benedick into killing Claudio for her. She goes on to claim that if he really did love her then he would most certainly do this task for her or she would find someone manly enough to do it for her. I don’t think she really means a male but simply someone who has enough courage to carry out a “manly” task.
4. I think the action takes place in words rather than action because during this time period it kind of seems Machiavellian. Meaning that words and what seems to be, shouldn’t really be questions. To feel something or look beyond the surface isn’t much of a thing to do during this time. I think the play chooses to not show us the events second hand because it kind of seems to make us sit at the edge of our seats. It puts emphasizes on what can happen when only words are spoken and believing only the words.
3. In 5 scene 1, when Borachio is talking to Claudio and Pedro about his offenses they are talking in prose. Although this is a very serious matter, it does not seem as serious until Leonato approaches him. When this happens, it is almost like everybody's demeanor changes. Everyone realizes the severity of the situation know that somebody died because of a false premeditated accusation. By the play switching from prose to poetry, it brings a dramatic change to the play. It makes you feel so guilty for Leonato even though we know Hero is not dead.
ReplyDelete4. Events are talked about more than shown because back in those times, a mans word was all he had for himself. It did not matter who you were, everybody respected what you said unless you were a slanderer. Being a slanderer was probably the worst thing back then because people could no longer trust what you did. I think plays talk more about what happens than actually do it because it was easier for people to understand it. In our culture now it's all about "seeing is believing" but back then everything was through word of mouth. All our history was oral, religion is the ultimate seeing is believing. The audience recognized the words rather than actions. I also think Shakespeare meant it for people to know that anybody and everybody could be deceived. I think he wanted people to realize that maybe our words are not as reliable as we think they are.
Jacob Anderson
ReplyDelete2. In this passage I believe Beatrice is defining a "man" as somebody who will do whatever it takes to get what they want. Not necessarily a man, but somebody who possesses the qualities that a strong man is supposed to have. She talks about how she cannot wish to be a man or have a friend be a man for her sake so it seems to me she is trying to convince somebody to do what she can not.
3. In scene IV Act 1 when Claudio and Leonato are discussing the wedding it switches from prose to verse. I think it is used in this scene because it helps get Claudio's point across better and with more seriousness. It gets the audience's attention more in my opinion because it kind of sets the scene to be more dramatic. If Claudio said the same thing in prose then maybe Leonato would not have understood the gravity of the situation.
Andrew Reeves
ReplyDelete1. My favorite passage that is funny based on its witty language is thus:
Messenger
I see, lady, the gentleman is not in your books.
BEATRICE
No; an he were, I would burn my study. But, I pray
you, who is his companion? Is there no young
squarer now that will make a voyage with him to the devil?
This is funny because Shakespeare compares good will and the opinion of Beatrice to that of a book and a library. Thus she really states, "Hell, no. I absolutely hate him! I have a horrible opinion of him!"
2. I believe that Beatrice is more commenting on the social status of a man at this time. She wants to be able to have stayed and supervised Hero so that none of the events could have happened. If she were a man in social status she would have been able to refute the slander of Hero and prevent the pain she went through. Though Benedick could have done so, he wasn't close enough by then to Beatrice or her family to fulfill such a role.
2. I believe that this passage shows the true definition of a woman in Shakespeare’s era. Woman were becoming stronger presences around the world at this time as evidenced by Queen Elizabeth I coming to power and ruling England with a ruthless and strong hand. However because of the hierarchy of men to women and men’s view on women I believe she is cunningly creating an oxymoron of what being a man is. She is questioning the honor and friendship of Benedick in this passage. Attempting to see how much he truly does love her, if he would do anything for her love. She defines a man in this passage as someone who could get away with murder if it was done so to protect another’s honor. That she might have the physical strength to make any man pay for their misdeeds. She obviously does not believe that she has the power to do her will, but would risk someone else’s dignity or power to have it done.
ReplyDelete4. I think the play refuses to really show us the events because Shakespeare wanted his words to speak volumes to the imagination of the audience. The characters in the play are trying to create something that did not happen at all and convince and trick the audience into believing that the perception of the wrongdoing becomes reality. For us, as a current audience, we tend to understand visual interpretations better than the original text from Shakespeare. In original performances of Shakespeare’s works there were little visual cues from the scene or costuming to sell a moment. It was all relying on the actors to understand and convey the message to the audience in a way that they could catch the meaning entirely.
2. I think Beatrice is saying that she wishes she was a man so that she could avenge her cousin Hero for what Claudio. She says this because it seems back then men were very close and it seems they would not be torn apart by a woman, she then says something like she wishes she had a man to do this for her and Benedict eventually caves and tells her that he will Claudio for her because he loves her.
ReplyDelete4. Yes it seems like every vital piece of info in the play is heard second hand from someone. I think when you see it acted out in movies it all makes more sense. But I think written out in play form it makes the play into a comedy for the readers because just reading the play you can just see all the stupidity of all these supposed "high" class people
2. A man is someone who is strong. She does not necessarily mean the gender, she means the gender role that man falls under. Beatrice is aware that she cannot do certain things because she is a woman. She wants to be able to fill this role for one duty, but she is aware that she can't. Beatrice instead wants somebody else to do what she cannot for Hero.
ReplyDelete4. The play doesn't show the events because that makes the audience or the readers more engaged and a part of the story. When you view it being acted out, you know more about what is going on than the characters do in the story. The whole story is based around a bunch of hearsay. In order to fully understand the purpose of the play, you need to understand how important it is to find out the answers yourself than to rely on the words of somebody else, because the end result could likely be detrimental.
2 I believe that Beatrice uses these words to belittle Benedick. It tells that she is asking for help to kill Claudio, but Benedick and others will not do her bidding and aren’t “manly” enough to carry through.
ReplyDelete4. I feel that the play shows that things in Shakespearean time were so more simple and that the word of a man was so important, and when things happen to discredit someone they are usually reined. The modern movies of today have to show action to keep us excited, words sometimes just
Don’t keep our attention .
2) She is frustrated about the fact that she cannot do things that need to be done because of her sex and that no one seems willing to do it in her place.
ReplyDelete3) I think the switch to verse is to make it even more dramatic. Its kind of helps the reader note the seriousness being conveyed.
Kyle Straughn
ReplyDelete1. The item that comes to mind when thinking of humor in the play is the lines:
“Friar. You come hither, my lord, to marry this lady?
Claudio. No.
Leon. To be married to her. Friar, you come to marry her."
Considering what must be going through Claudio's head I find to weird that they feel the need to point this out. Like so many of the lines in the play the imphasis is not clear from the context so it is hard to tell whether they really care about the mistake or if they are just poking fun at the Friar's imprission. It is such a small bit, yet of all of the lines in the play I find it to be the most in enegmatic.
2. My take on Beatrice’s claim that she wish she were a man is that she wish she had violence as a legitimate option. If she were male she would have the skills and resource to take the actions that she is requesting of Benedict. As it stands she might be able to murder Claudio in retaliation for the wrong done to Hero but she can not act to defend Hero's good name.