The Merchant of Venice Pt. III

Antonio and Bassanio

The Merchant of Venice Acts 4 & 5

I wonder if Shakespeare was truly ahead of his time or if he never thought his modern audience would have so much compassion for a character such as Shylock's. In his time, Shylock's ending would have been just and applauded. His conversion to Christianity was welcomed by this 16th century, English society and since he was a Jew, the taking of his fortune was considered a good ending for such a villain. The reason I think Shakespeare might've been beyond his time, is that as a human there is still compassion, and Shylock's character shows himself to be beautifully human and not at all the scum that Christian Venice portrays him as. Whether or not Shakespeare planned it this way, as a modern reader, I cannot stand the humiliation Shylock goes through, and even Portia's (or Balthazar's) punishment for him. Thank goodness the Duke and Antonio showed mercy, or else this would be one Shakespeare's most cruelest plays. The fact that Shylock didn't have to lose his life or half of his estate does show mercy, although the forced conversion is probably, to me, even crueler. To have to be forced to believe a whole new set of beliefs can make one's life meaningless, as I'm sure Shylock might have felt.
As for Antonio and Bassanio's relationship, it is a bit homoerotic. Bassanio would give up many things, even his wife in order to die for Antonio, and Antonio had Bassanio give away his wife's ring in order to please the young lawyer, or Portia. Granted that this new plot gave way to a lighter tone after the cruel court scene, and that Portia and Nerissa showed their superior wittiness to their husbands once again, I can't help but be upset for Portia. She and Nerissa forgive him because they both know they did it for something honorable, but, nonetheless I'm not sure I would want my husband around Antonio (lol). I feel as though, Portia cannot trust her husband seeing as he would so easily be swayed by his friend to part from such a special gift. Bassanio continually enjoys pleasing Antonio, and Antonio seems rather rash to do anything for Bassanio's happiness. Perhaps it is a type of friendship lost in time, lost in the friendships of 16th century men. Or perhaps it is a gender difference, and men would understand this type of behavior more than I would.

The Merchant of Venice Pt. II

Shylock and Jessica

 The Merchant of Venice Acts 2 & 3

Jessica's treatment of her father is a reflection of her surroundings. Shylock can be considered the plays villain, but I view him as the victim of a hostile environment. He has been spit on, ridiculed, and dishonored many times by the Christians of Venice. They wanted him to convert, but never did anything constructive to truly reach out to him, and in fact, acted contrary to Christian values. Shylock knows that they do not act as proper Christians, and his biggest flaw is being a reflection of their poor behavior. Jessica wants to be well-liked and accepted, which is why she chooses to marry a Christian man and to escape from her father. She in fact, seems so cruel to me, as she runs away with not only Shylock's money, but the ring that was given to him. Since this ring was important to him, one can assume that Jessica knew of its importance, but still nonetheless, decided to take it from her father. I also noticed that Jessica doesn't really get acknowledged when she's around Portia and the others. Although she doesn't get mistreated either, there is the idea that she is getting ignored because she is, still a Jew. The opinion that she has about Portia pushes the reader to think that this is the world that Jessica wants to be a part of, which makes Jessica seem shallow and without much loyalty to her kin. 

The Merchant of Venice Pt. I

The Merchant of Venice Act 1

I love reading The Merchant of Venice; I was in a play a few years ago called Shakespeare and the City. It was a combination of four of Shakespeare's heroines and the TV show Sex and the City. Every woman was a mixture of one of the women in Sex and the City and one of the heroines in one of Shakespeare's plays. I was the Miranda/Portia combo, and I absolutely loved playing this character. Needless to say I had to really research and know the role of Portia, and, since I had never seen an episode of Sex and the City in my life, I also had to watch quite a few episodes to understand the relationship and bond that the four women had. The other character combos were Samantha/Lady Macbeth, Carrie/Viola, and Charlotte/Desdemona. The plots revolved around Shakespeare's plays, while the relationship with the four women plus the narration by Viola was very Sex and the City-esque.
That is why I really love and enjoy this play; I know all there is to know about the role of Portia and really grew fond of her characteristics. I love how much integrity she has and how much she respects her fathers wishes, even if she complains to Nerissa in Act I about the way her father has chosen her future husband, she still goes along with this plan when she could've chosen otherwise. She shows herself to be highly independent and capable of choosing, yet chooses to respect her deceased father. Others know her to be virtuous and honorable, which is not something as prominent in other of Shakespeare's female characters.

Antony and Cleopatra Pt. III

Antony and Cleopatra Acts 4 & 5

Antony's last moments alive left me feeling a lot of sympathy for this celebrated war hero. He put all of his identity and honor into being a great leader, and when his honor was threatened by Caesar as Egypt's ships fleeted from helping him, he decided it was better to die than to continue to live defeated. Likewise, in terms of personal affairs, he was defined by Cleopatra and her betrayal meant he didn't have her; he'd lost his identity. On the other hand, his death was very much a Roman death. He would have rather died and defeated his own self, than die being defeated by someone else. This proves to be an honorable death as Caesar acknowledges Antony's value as a Roman leader and willingly mourns his death. Antony resembles a tragic hero because he was never able to successful in both of his pleasures or identities. He was either a great lover, or a successful war hero, but not both. This is truly a tragedy since he could never be at peace with himself over his two identities.

Antony and Cleopatra Pt. II

Antony and Cleopatra Acts 2 & 3

The feminist in me is almost angry at the plot in Antony and Cleopatra. The plot, albeit indirectly, assumes that women are responsible for the actions and flaws of the men in the story. For instance, the Romans see Cleopatra as the harlot that is distracting Antony from his Roman duties. Octavius Caesar believes that if Antony marries his sister Octavia, that this will somehow unite them and mend any sort of animosity. The burden lies on Octavia for bringing such balance. Why, I ask myself, must this pressure lie on Octavia, or the blame for Antony's actions be put on Cleopatra. The funny aspect of it is that the Romans still believe Antony to be a great war hero, which he probably is, but as much as they may reference his recent lack of devotion to Rome, they do not look down on him. Whereas with Cleopatra, the Romans see nothing but an exotic pleasure of Antony's. I believe Antony should be held fully responsible for his actions, as well as Caesar. Peace and loyalty between Antony and Caesar should be the responsibility of  the two instead of using a woman as a mediator. This only means that Octavia is forced to be a great wife, one who will support Antony and one who will look out for the good of the people... which I guess would be her way of being of service to Rome. Caesar tells his sister that she should not come to him plainly or display herself as common maid, rather she should make a spectacle as she parades the city. He links theatrics with power, and although he resents Cleopatra for her theatrics, he knows how powerful the representation of power can be.

Antony and Cleopatra Pt. I

Antony and Cleopatra Act 1

I imagine the love story of Antony and Cleopatra to be a version of Romeo and Juliet that takes place among more powerful and older people, but basically the same. At this point in the story, the two are obsessed with each other, so much so that Antony has been ignoring his duties to Rome. During this semester, I have also taken an ancient civilizations class, and we learned that ones duty to Rome, however powerful one may be, was of the up most importance. One could not fully call oneself "Roman" if one did not sacrifice it all for service of the state. Being so that Antony was no common citizen, the frustration of Octavius Caesar are fully understandable; Antony was to be an example for the people and he was neglecting that role. He would hardly even be identified as Roman during this time in history.
Going back to the parallel between Antony and Cleopatra and Romeo and Juliet, they have become infatuated with each other to the point that they have forgotten about feuds and responsibilities. Antony, still being the Roman that he is, still feels somewhat inclined to be of service for Rome, yet Cleopatra acts like a foolish girl in love around him. I'm most curious to find out how the story ends for Cleopatra than any other character so far.

Macbeth Pt. III

Macbeth Acts 4 & 5

Lady Macbeth shows some humanity in the last Act, as her guilt and nervousness leads her into madness. As sad as her drive into madness is, the fact that she is moved by the deeds she has helped influence, helps the reader feel some sympathy for her and brings her back from being completely evil. The visions she beings to have of her hands being bloody, shows her ability to feel remorse which is a very human emotion to feel. She commits suicide, which in Christian tradition, was the ultimate sin one can commit since there is no salvation from such a sin. While in the eyes of Christian tradition this may seem terrible, and it is, I also believe that this further proves her humanity instead of her being pure evil. As a reader, making her human once again is important, it makes for a much less scary tragedy and one where one can explore realistic human tendencies. Macbeth shows the reader the absolute ugliness in human nature, and that to me, is far more intriguing than something that seems out of this world.

Macbeth Pt. II



The Ghost of Banquo

 Macbeth Acts 2 & 3

Acts II and III bring up the theme of a false sense of security, which not only Macbeth but also Lady Macbeth feels. This false sense of security, first begun by the three witches, is what makes both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth confident in their evil doings. Macbeth feels protected within their prophecy, yet it starts to aggravate him when he realizes the final part of prophecy: that Banquo's children will inherit the crown. Macbeth feels safe so long as this doesn't occur, which then prompts him to order the killing of Banquo and Fleance. Furthermore, the main witch, Hecate, wants to further deceive Macbeth by showing him visions and spirits who will provide more false security. This idea is further illustrated with the overall obtainment of the crown. Why do Macbeth and Lady Macbeth want the crown so badly? Why does anyone who is human want to elevate their social status? There is a certain false sense of security in having both status, money, and power. I think Shakespeare does a good job of presenting how wrong the human is in believing that. Everyone strives for it because it means having a prosperous, stable life, yet at the core of this ambition lies the need to either commit malicious deeds to others, or have malicious deeds done to us.

Macbeth Pt. I

Macbeth Act 1

Lady Macbeth's power over Macbeth makes for a very scary duo. Macbeth knows that what he is doing is wrong, yet he gets so easily persuaded by Lady Macbeth's taunting, that he agrees to proceed with the murder. Lady Macbeth challenges the traditional view of the ideal wife. Traditionally, a wife was supposed to encourage her husband to honorably progress in life, and to respectably provide for their family. Lady Macbeth, while encouraging her husband to progress and to provide for their family, does not encourage honor or dignity. She wants immediate prosperity and does not see how this can be their downfall. Her tragic character flaws make me wonder how she was like before the three witches told Macbeth their prophecy. Was she always this evil? Or did she cling onto this idea because the prophecy of Macbeth becoming the thane of Cawdor proved true? Macbeth seems either blinded by his love for her, or purely easily persuaded by any glimpse of possibility for higher status. Neither seem moral at this point, but at least Lady Macbeth seems to be more in control of her emotions and thoughts.

Richard III Pt. III

Richard III Acts 4 & 5

Amidst Richard's murders of his young nephews and all the misery filling up in England, the young Richmond comes into the plot and brings hope to the characters and to England. Richmond's fight against Richard is admirable and noble, because he is trying to bring good back into England. He succeeds and knows he will succeed when he dreams about the people Richard has murdered, and when they tell him he will be successful. This beginning portrayal of the house of Tudor brings up a question about Shakespeare's motivations for making Richard seem so evil. The Tudor dynasty is the dynasty of Queen Elizabeth I, whom Shakespeare was at least semi-responsible for entertaining. The entertainment would not be the same if the Tudor dynasty was not shown to be pure and good. Shakespeare dramatizes a key turning point in English history. He had to favor the court he was entertaining; of course I don't blame him at all, for the more evil Richard seemed, the more respectable the Tudor dynasty seems. Being a successful playwright, in Shakespeare's time, meant pleasing the current noblemen/noblewoman. However, from the perspective of the real Richard III, his image has now been popularized in a very negative way.

Richard III Pt. II

Richard III Acts 2 & 3

In Acts II and III we see that not everyone is manipulated or deceived by Richard. Richard's young nephews, who would be next in line for the throne, can see right through him. They feel unsafe with Richard, and likewise, the common people of London can also see right through Richard's actions. Richard's nephew, Edward, also seems to have a way with words like his uncles Richard and Clarence. He tells Richard that he wants his uncles, and indirectly tells Richard that he doesn't want him around. When the common people hear that Richard may be the next ruler of England, they do not cheer but rather are terrified and disgusted at the idea. I imagine that the opinion of the common people was and is more important to the average Shakespeare audience, simply because they solely want to make sure they will be ruled by a just ruler, a ruler who will help them progress in their daily life. With Richard, even a modern audience sees the danger in having someone as deceitful as Richard rule over them.

Richard III Pt. I

Richard III Act 1

In Act I, we are introduced to Richard, brother of the new King Edward. He is unhappy and thus wishes misery upon everyone else. He was born deformed and says he cannot be as happy as everyone is. Richard's eloquence and manipulative skills are seen in scene ii when he is trying to persuae Anne to marry him. He causes her to feel guilt, and says that her beauty is the cause for her husband's death. Although Richard is pitiful at times, especially in the very first scene, the reader finds out that Richard has no real motive to hurt anyone, he simply wants everyone else to be as unhappy as he is. This is scary because it makes Richard very dangerous and unstoppable, seeing as he is not seeking any sort of vengeance that will satisfy his need for wrong doing; there is no knowing what Richard will do. His use of words are in fact so convincing that even his brother Clarence, who was imprisoned because of Richard's wishes, does not believe that his brother could do him harm.

Much Ado About Nothing Pt. III

Much Ado About Nothing Acts 4 & 5

Probably my absolute two favorite characters in Shakespeare are Beatrice and Benedick. There's a certain realness to them as lovers that is different from all the other lovers in his plays. They are flawed, but not in the dramatic way that Othello and Desdemona are, rather they are relatable and human even. Beatrice's pride and witiness promotes the usage of defense mechanisms; likewise, Benedick also protects his heart in the same way. Personally, I see these two character traits as very normal and prominent among people today. I enjoy seeing their banter, all the while knowing that the mere effort exists because they have feelings for one another. Unlike many other characters who either fall in love all too easily, such as Claudio and Hero or Miranda and Ferdinand, Beatrice and Benedick seem like they truly fall for each other. Even when one removes the tricks posed upon them by their friends, I believe that they truly did already love each other. Their denial of marriage in the beginning, serves as a sign of self-protection against any harm. Their friends' actions of removing these walls only made their love for each be known, freely and without any harm of judgement. I see Benedick and Beatrice as the couple who grows old happily with each other; they may still banter with each and have personal pride, but the knowledge of their love for one another will aid them in having a happy marriage.

I also love the casting of Benedick and Beatrice in the 1993 version of Much Ado About Nothing. Emma Thompson and Kenneth Branagh truly capture the wit, banter, insecurity, and love that happens among the two characters.

Much Ado About Nothing Pt. II

Much Ado About Nothing Acts 2 & 3

In Acts II and III, we discover certain character flaws of Claudio. He is quick to believe Don John about Don Pedro wanting to court Hero for himself. He acts rashly and believes his friend would betray him, instead of carefully seeking out the truth. This may be due to the fact that Claudio is obsessedly in love with Hero, to the point of being blinded with any speck of suspicion. Benedick does imply that love has changed Claudio from being a serious soldier, to being a boy in love. This does not excuse such distrust towards Hero, especially when Don John comes along in Act III scene ii, when Don John tells Don Pedro and Claudio that he has proof regarding Hero's unfaithfulness, and Claudio goes with Don John so willingly. The mere action of Claudio accompanying Don John to see if Hero was in fact being unfaithful, shows how little thought Claudio truly puts into making decisions which may affect his whole life.

Much Ado About Nothing Pt. I

Much Ado About Nothing Act 1

Don John's villainy, although he states he is "plain villain", goes deeper than him simply possessing a malicious nature. He is the illegitimate son of a nobleman, also father of Don Pedro. Because of this position he is in, he will never be his father's real heir, nor be able to enjoy the privileges that Don Pedro can enjoy. All he can do all day is behave well, and live in his brother's shadow. He believes he has been put in a cage and in a muzzle, and therefore, cannot live freely or as successfully as his brother. This peek into Don John's past, allows the reader to understand more fully why is he is so prone to wish chaos amongst his brother and Claudio. I cannot say that I excuse the villains throughout Shakespeare's plays, but Don John possibly more than any other, is a character I at least sympathize with a bit. Whether it was optimism, joy, or patience, Don John's perception of life was skewed because of his situation and to be honest, if Don Pedro would've been in his shoes, he probably would have had the same malicious thoughts. I can imagine it is hard to have to be strong for such a long time without getting much more than the basics out of life whilst seeing others living joyously and abundantly with others who celebrate your success. Then again, it could have been worse. Don John's father and brother could've ignored him and not brought him along at all. It is those facts that then bring me back to sympathize with all other characters.

Othello Pt. III

Othello Acts 4 & 5

One of the themes that most intrigued me, especially towards the end, was that the insider versus outsider. Othello is treated as a Venetian because of his tales and his loyalty to protect the land, yet at any moment, his differences can make him become an outsider. Perhaps this is why he was so easily manipulated by Iago; he had little trust in his society's acceptance and loyalty to him, Desdemona included. Even at the end, Othello assumes that perhaps Desdemona was unfaithful because he was different compared to Cassio. Othello was walking on a thin social thread that would snap with the help of anyone as seemingly trustworthy as Iago. All Othello's confidence needed was a push from someone wishing him misfortunes. I suppose in a sense we are all a bit like this. We walk around seemingly confident until something or someone challenges our truth, even if there are no bad intentions coming from other people or the universe itself. If that person is already teetering on social inclusion and exclusion, that frail confidence goes out the window. Othello didn't really have family or kinsmen who were undoubtedly loyal to him, and the second best whom he thought could fill that void was Desdemona. It is no wonder he reacts with such disparity to the point of throwing away his respectable reputation. 

Othello Pt. II

Othello Acts 2 & 3

It seems almost inevitable for any of the characters, at this point, to stop Iago's schemes. Since his loyalty is only to himself, and no one knows of his real plans to bring down Othello, no one can really stop the unraveling of these terrible events. Everyone is slave to his hidden intentions and there is no escape for them or their destinies. Perhaps the only way to stop Iago, was if Othello wasn't led so easily by Iago's comments and assumed well-thought of opinions instead. In this way, I consider Othello a bit weak-minded. However, in his defense, if a person such as Iago has never really shown his true evil before, why wouldn't one believe the things they say... especially if it even seems as though they don't want to point fingers and come off as innocent. Iago, being a person driven by greed and vengeance, is still admirably clear-headed even in all of his evil doings. He doesn't burst, accidentally showing his true intentions, he remains calm and patient for the results. In a way he can be described as a controlled evil, instead of completely mad.

Othello Pt. I

Othello Act I

In Act I, the reader learns about most characters through the filter of Iago and Roderigo's representation. Iago sets himself to be the villain and is honest to no one but the audience, as he lets his audience know about all of his malicious intentions. He is loyal to no other than himself and his interests, and misleads even Roderigo. Before even meeting Othello, the audience has established an opinion about him, solely because of the talk happening between Roderigo and Iago. At least for myself, their talk makes Othello an innocent character before even meeting him. Sympathy is established because of Roderigo and Iago's evil plans for Othello's demise. The anticipation of meeting Othello and his overall nature made diving into reading the play a much easier process than when reading other stories.

The Tempest Pt. II

The Tempest Acts 3, 4, & 5

Prospero's famous epilogue in The Tempest has been suggested to represent the playwright himself. Prospero's final farewell to the audience can be seen as Shakespeare's farewell to his audience. Prospero's speech about using magic to manipulate those around him, to control their minds and destinies, is essentially what Shakespeare has done as a living. He has created and molded characters. He has decided their intentions and their destinies, and knows every ending because of his absolute power over his characters. When Prospero forgives the ever-so flawed people surrounding him, he realizes that amongst these flaws, love, humor, and surprise can still exist and that these things can be beautiful. Likewise, Shakespeare has an appreciation for the differences in character the human condition carries. He knows that these differences fill the world with intricate people with lives full of ups and downs; Shakespeare finds beauty in every difference, good or bad.

The Tempest Pt. I

The Tempest Acts I & 2

During Acts I and II of Shakespeare's The Tempest, a certain innocence is exhibited by various characters both foreign to the island and on the island itself. For instance, Miranda and Caliban, both of whom already resided on the island before the shipwreck, are innocent to outside influence and evil intentions. Although Caliban can be seen as "bad" himself, many people only put such a reputation on him because of his mere appearance, when in reality, Caliban had evil thrust onto him because of the way he was born and from whom he was born from. Sycorax, the witch who resided on the island before Prospero, gave birth to Caliban and because of this, one might think that Caliban is as evil as his mother. A more proper interpretation of his character, especially up until what we see in Act II is that he is expected to be as evil as his mother. He is gullible and almost welcoming of others, as we learn that he helped Prospero in the beginning of Prospero's arriving to the island, and his helpfulness towards Stephano and Trinculo. There seems to be a yearning to belong and to be accepted within Caliban. On the other hand, Miranda is also an innocent character; she is sheltered by her father and has little knowledge of the outside world and her own past. She lacks identity and falls easily for the first man she meets. Both characters are naive and trusting because of their lack of knowledge about the realities of the the world.

Sonnets

Shakespeare's fascination with the youth of the young man is truly impressive, albeit a bit obsessive. To write 126 sonnets about this man's youth and show so much urgency to preserve his beauty through procreation is just remarkable to me! In a good way, of course. It is interesting to see what the worries and thoughts of someone in the 17th century were. Sonnet 18, being the one I've read the most, definitely sounds the prettiest to me. To compare someone to something as beautiful as a summer's day and then to go on further and say "thou art more lovely and more temperate" (line 2), makes me want to do nothing but read stories about love and watch The Notebook. I remember reading this particular sonnet back in high school, and falling in love with Shakespeare, thinking someday a nice guy would somehow speak in iambic pentameter and quatrains and couplets. The day never came, but alas it was a nice thought. :) Whomever this was written to definitely became immortal, as the couplet at the end implies they would be. That is such a beautiful concept, that someone could go on living forever, simply because you were the muse of the words written and read over and over again in the future.