The Machiavells

[shaxper]

While posting my last reply in the "Iago" thread, I realized something about Shakespeare's Machiavells that I had never caught before.  In a sense, they do give reasons for doing what they're doing.  The common understanding seems to be that Edmund did what he did because Bastards were evil, and Richard was deformed because it was a sign of evilness, but perhaps, since we're discussing how Shakespeare writes whole people, there is a human reasoning behind their actions.

Edmund outright complains that it is unfair that he is treated as an inferior to his brother.  His father commits infidelity, yet brags about it to others and then introduces his son as the bastard as if it were Edmund's fault.  Surely, the moment in which Edmund shows his wound to Gloucester, but Gloucester is too concerned with Edgar's betrayal to notice, is telling, as is Cornwall's symbolic adoption of Edmund, actually wanting to own the bastard when his own father does not.

Richard is tougher, probably since Shakespeare needed to villainize him so as to not threaten the Tudor right to rule, but his opening speach about not being made for courting and sportive tricks may not simply be an excuse.  And, after all, it is implied that Richard was the one who led Edward to victory, since he is the one who killed the former king and prince.  Edward, on the other hand, is sickly and (at least physically) unworthy/unqualified for the job.  Surely gentle but ignorant Clarence is not much of a better candidate.  Since Richard never has a scene in which he murders the princes, he doesn't really take his campaign farther than that.  Yes, he is evil and enjoying his intrigue far too much, but there do seem to be some genuine motives behind him.

What do you guys think?

[MelanieS]

This is not a direct reply to your subject, but one that sprang to mind.
I am not sure if I am right, but isn't it so that the characters in Wills plays explain themselves to the audience...what I am trying to say and doing a really bad job of it, is - the plays are rather like those Peter Falk "Colombo" TV series.

The audience knows who the murderer is, and watches the characters discover it. At the beginning of Othello, Iago tells the audience why he hates Othello and what he intends to do about it.

At the start of Romeo and Juliet, the Chorus tells the audience what's going to happen - two feuding families, two star-crossed lovers, and that their dying will unite the families.

We see the female characters who then dress up as males, and then reveal themselves to the unsuspecting other characters, but never - or hardly ever - do we see a character who starts off as - whatever, a good guy, a man, a woman, and then turns out to be someone or something else. (I may be wrong about this as I have not read all the plays...)

There was a discussion in another forum about women characters dressing up as men, and some posters thought the audience would then just be seeing a man wooing another man, but the point is, if you show an audience a stage and two actors, and tell them "this is a castle and here is the prince and the princess" at the start, then later on one of the actors dresses up as a man, you the audience know it's "the princess hiding in men's clothes", and if the chorus says "Another part of the forest" you are still looking at the same bare stage, but you know that now the princess in men's clothes has left the castle and is in a forest.

So, back to my point, Shakespeare always has his characters give a reason for their behaviour, no matter how petty this reason may seem to us. But then human beings are like that - big things can be borne but little things then makes them flip. You can lose your job, wreck your car and your wife walks out, and still you grin and bear it, but then the postman doesn't say hello one day, and you go ballistic.

Yes, I... "speak yet (I) say nothing, what of that".

MelanieS

[shaxper]

I like your Columbo analogy

Yes, the Elizabethan/Jacobian theatre worked differently in that respect. Teling stories through performance was still a relatively new idea. Fiction, the art of lying for entertainment, hadn't even been formally established yet. Thus, pains were always taken to guide the audience, never to startle them. My mind goes back to the amateur players in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" who have the lion come out on stage and explain that he's not a real lion because they don't want to startle anyone. Shakespeare's parody is an exaggeration, yet it is accurate. I wonder if someone suggested to him that the bear from The Winter's Tale do the same. ;D

Of course, these asides and monologues, in which the play gives some warning about what's about to happen, are not always direct. It's impossible to misinterpret the opening lines of Romeo and Juliet: two unfortunate kids in love are going to die. But Iago's explanations about his motives in Othello are contradictory and confusing. It's impossible to take him at his word, so do we then feel lied to and view him as an even worse sort of scum for decieving the audience as well, or do we see this contradiction in his most private thoughts (shared only with us) as proof that he suffers from some inner conflict that might make him more understandable and redeemable?

As for the confusion about crossdressing, while As You Like It allows you to see Rosalind putting on men's clothing and later reminds us that she's really a woman being played by a boy, more serious plays like Romeo and Juiet make no reference to the fact that Juliet is played by a boy. The question then being if a boy in girls clothes (and then sometimes in men's clothes) would have been convincing to an Elizabethan/Jacobean audience. Did Rosalind need to remind the audience who she was precisely because the cross-dressing was too convincing?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's always good to see you back!