When I say "gray areas," I'm not talking about the gray matter that houses the mind of the playwright. Instead I'm referring to Shakespeare's straying from the often clearly defined/black & white elements that he uses in his plays. Here's what I mean:
As You Like It is not based on fact, so we can rule out its existence as a History. It most definitely cannot be classified as Tragedy because death does not occur in this play. And though there is a presence of perilous situations (Duke Frederick's banishment of Rosalind, Oliver's malicious, dogged pursuit of Orlando, Oliver being attacked by a hungry lioness), the storyline is devoid of what would be considered tragic circumstances. Perhaps it is a Comedy since it ends with a wedding, or in this case, several. However, it is not entirely fair to call it a Comedy either. There are consistent moments of comedy scattered throughout the play. But comedy does not dominate the premise. It is also wrong to combine the two and call it a "Tragicomedy." We can use scholarly terms and call it a "Romance" or even a "Dramady." But is that a sufficient classification for As You Like It? Also, was Shakespeare a man ahead of his time, creating a new form of play? Or did he simply stumble upon this brand of drama by accident?
Another confusion I have about this play is Shakespeare's definition of a type of character in this play. He succeeds in establishing the heros/protagonists/"good" people of the play; specifically Orlando and Rosalind. He also hits the mark accompanying them with loyal supporting companions or "sidekicks" by today's standards: Adam for Orlando, Celia and Touchstone for Rosalind. And adds strength to his story with the presence of subplots inhabited by dynamic characters such as Jacques, Phoebe, Silvius, Corin, Audrey, etc. Unfortunately his villains in this play lack the consistency of many of his other works. The villains of Shakespeares other Tragedies, Comedies, and Histories are clearly defined, that is, they are villains throughout their respective plays and show no remorse. Iago, Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, Richard of Gloucester, Aaron the Moor, Tamora, Claudius, Cassius, Edmund the Bastard, Don John the Bastard: All are bad people; villains to the end, showing no remorse for the evil actions they have performed. Yet, this trend is not evident with the so-called villains of As You Like It. The usurper Duke Frederick meets a priest in the forest and suddenly turns to Monkhood and life in a monastery. Oliver De Boys quite suddenly has a swift change of heart about his demeanor and his opinion and treatment of his younger brother after being rescued from a random animal's attack. So can call these men the villains? Or does their potential for and eventual turn towards Good make them simply adversaries/foils?
I have other concerns about Shakespeare's As You Like It which will be addressed in my "Letter to Bill." I certainly don't condemn the play. It is a pretty decent work of Mr. Shakespeare. Still, I do have some issues about its various inconsistencies. Hopefully I'm not alone in this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I also have various problems with "As You Like It", although I do feel it is fair to call it a comedy... not only in the sense that it has lead characters whose fortunes change from bad to good, but also in the fact that the play is driven by humor and wit. Your argument regarding the lack of good character construction with the villians of this play (Oliver and Duke Frederick) further confirms for me that this play is a comedy, especially Duke Frederick's encounter with a monk(although it does seem like a quick fix that he could have thrown together to make the plot work). For me, the beauty of Shakespeare's plays has been in his accurate depiction of human nature and life... and although Oliver's turn in sentiment towards Orlando because of a random animal attack is off-the-wall in terms of plot, there is truth in the effect it has upon Oliver. Life sometimes contains this hilarious truth of events. I like your use of the word adversary instead of villians; I think Shakespeare wasn't necessarily out to create villians in this play. Instead he showed a selfish brother and a fearful, imposing duke - two characters based in real human emotion.
I think you are right when you ask, "did shakespeare stumble upon this type of drama?" Shakespeare wrote Henry V, Julius Ceasar, and Hamlet around the same time as "As You Like It", and I'm sure this light-hearted, inquisitive piece gave him a much needed release from tense dramatic scripts, although I'm unsure of when this play was written chronologically.
You are certainly not alone in your confusion about this play's construction, but I think in this one Shakespeare is asking us to let go of our conventional ideas of what should be... He asks us to supsend logic and imagine a world where things work out for the best. Wouldn't that be funny?
I think there's definitely a tension between darkness and humor in this play, and it seems to be toying with convention in general. If it's intended to be a "comedy" in the classical sense, as Conrad points out, it fits the bill. Comedies are generally defined as plays that have a change in fortune for the better, that represent characters of "lower classes," that involve a strange scheme that upends the order of the world, and that end with the restoration of that order with some change taking place, generally a "marriage of opposites" literally and figuratively. Shakespeare's comedies end with lots of weddings instead of lots of deaths.
Shakespeare messes around with those rules quite a bit, as Evan notes. Which leads to my question: what difference does it make how we categorize a drama? Is it necessarily a better play if it fits certain rules? How can we get beyond those classifications when we stage the play and ask specifics about what we want to communicate to an audience?
Post a Comment