Incomplete thoughts on "As You Like It"

As You Like It by James Watts (1736-1819)

I have a few questions I'd really like to ask someone about Shakespeare's As You Like It.

I love the play and I've read it countless times. (Partially because we own a small, cute, blue, Yale hardback edition and it's fun to hold and sniff.)
It has been a source of sorrow in my life that I cannot find anything by Peter Leithart on this play.

Some of the themes are obvious. Brothers and family (Oliver and Orlando and the two dukes). Totally confused romantic relationships. Loyalty. And the most striking and obvious-- the contrasts between all the couples at the end. Act V, Scene IV is quite the diverse line up. There are a strange variety of view points and reverence for love and marriage throughout the play.

But what exactly is Shakespeare saying with all this?

And what is with Jaques? I could literally be him. (Except for his famous "All the World's a Stage" speech in Act II, Scene VII which I would not have the genius to say.)

All the same...I kind of have this feeling that his conclusion is not what it should be. To leave at the marriage dance and feast hardly seems like a generally-condoned activity in Shakespeare... However appealing finding some abandoned cave and reading and thinking might sound. ;-)

Touchstone and Jaques seem to be contrasted often and both seem to be a bit unbalanced. I'd like someone really Shakespeare-smart to tell me what's going on here.

The dialogue is very clever and snappy which makes the play move quickly with plenty of laughs. Although there are more characters than some of the other comedies which make it a bit more confusing, I think As You Like It is good introduction to Shakespeare because it is just so funny.

I have only watched Kenneth Branagh's 2006 adaption. My sister and I watched it alone a couple years ago and loved it. We then told the rest of our family they had to see it. One night we all sat down with another family and watched it. Susannah and I laughed merrily through the entire movie while pretty much everyone else sat dead-pan. Apparently it wasn't a hit. Maybe they were disappointed if they were expecting another Much Ado.

I do realize that the movie is a little more random then Branagh's other adaptations-- partly because of the whole Japanese setting, partly because that's the way the play is written, and partly because Branagh gives it a funny, wacky flavor.

Random is my humor. I loved it. A random Buddha sitting in the middle of the forest? Who doesn't love that? ;-)

I also realize that the whole girl dressing up as a boy and then pretending to be a girl is weird and kind of awkward...especially due to our unfortunate exposure to homosexuality and America's current stand in this issue. We're pretty touchy. But since this is so obviously not what is going on, I don't think this should be a problem.

Audrey, and especially Audrey and Touchstone together, do add some unnecessary material. The only other iffy content I can remember is the wrestling scene which could be rated R for disturbing images. (Charles happens to be a sumo wrestler. Nasty. But if you have a sick sense of humor, like me, you will laugh.)

The cast is good and familiar. Bryce Dallas Howard is excellent and Romola Garai works better in Shakespeare for me than her other movies. I could listen to Brian Blessed all day because he plays Jean Valjean in Focus on the Family's Les Miz. Keven Kline, Alfred Molina, and Richard Briers play their roles wonderfully.

Patrick Doyle produced another amazing soundtrack as well as acting the part of the singer in the play.

Overall the movie has a 100% Kenneth Branagh feel (casting, music, takes, everything). Like Much Ado the movie is beautiful and mostly filmed outdoors. Branagh never appears but you do hear him say "and...cut!" at the very end after Rosalind's clever epilogue.

There is one thing I'd like to ask Branagh. Why did he make the shepherd, Corin, play the priest as well? I have enough faith in the way he uses imagery and details to portray his spin on Shakespeare (or Mary Shelley for that matter) that I don't believe he was just short on actors.

Hmm... I guess I mostly just have questions about this play and movie and not much intelligent things to say. ;-)

Overall, the movie totally resonated with me. Perhaps partly why I loved it was it's randomness, but I really think it's a well-done movie. Some of running-around-in-the-woods scenes I can totally can see my sister and I playing when were younger...of course with out all the clever themes and poetry. ;-) Maybe that's why it seemed normal.

I do love the story though. Many of our most well-known Shakespeare quotes come from As You Like It.

Thanks for reading. I love discussion, so comment and let me know what you think of it. I'd also love to hear about other film versions.

I charge you to like as much of this review as pleases you. :-)

Miss Pickwickian

King Lear - William Shakespeare :-)

King Lear Admonishing Cordelia by Henri Fuseli

We were all set up to study King Lear in highschool, but something happened and we didn't. After reading Deep Comedy I knew I simply had to make it a priority. :-)

So I read it.

I tried to read it straight through without looking at any notes or criticism the first time round. Then I watched the latest movie version, reread the play, reread the portion in Deep Comedy that talks about King Lear, and then investigated some other interpretations. It was extremely interesting.

I'm really glad I worked through it on my own to start with.
I've never really done that with a Shakespeare play, and it was very good. And I didn't get too confused. :-) And I was able to figure who was bad and who was good all on my own! Yeah!

So, anyways...I really liked it. Even more than I thought I would.

Here's a few lines from the play

Edmund 1.2.118-128

"This is the excellent foppery of the world, that when we are sick in fortune-- often the surfeits of our own behavior-- we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, the stars, as if we were villains on necessity, fools by heavenly compulsion, knaves, thieves, and teachers by spherical predominance, drunkards, liars, and adulterers by an enforced obedience of planetary influence; and all that we are evil in by a divine thrusting-on. An admirable evasion of whore-master man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of the star."

Albany 4.2.

"This shows you are above,

You justicers, that these our nether crimes

So speedily can venge! But, O poor Gloucester!

Lost he is other eye?"

Edgar 5.3

"The weight of this sad time we must obey;

Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.

The oldest hath borne most: we that are young

Shall never see so much, nor live so long."

Squibbing

Deep Comedy has some really interesting, concise stuff on this play, and even if there weren't a hundred other reasons to read it, you should for Leithart's interpretation of King Lear.

Here's a chunk...

"In an important sense, this pattern of frustrated optimism is a sign of the effect of deep comedy on tragic drama. The play is filled with the unrealized possibility of restoration, redemption, resurrection, in a way that an ancient tragedy could never be. Ancient tragedy took place in a world where resurrection was unknown, where death was the end, but the world of King Lear is potentially a far happier place. The fact that this potential is not realized enhances the feeling of waste."

I wish I could quote all he has to say, but instead here's a paragraph from the conclusion.

"If ancient comedy is haunted by the fear of death, Christian tragedy is haunted by the hope of resurrection. A tragic vision of life makes ancient comedy sad; real hope of a new life in the Christian comic view of things makes Christian tragedy all the more poignant."

Christian tragedy is haunted by the hope of resurrection. I love that.

So I guess I don't have anything very profound to say about King Lear...Not surprising, I'm afraid. But I certainly recommend reading it and thinking about it. :-)

I'd love to hear your thoughts and any good film recommendations. I've watched the 2009 Trevor Nunn/Ian McKellen version (review to come).

Thanks for reading,
Miss Pickwickian