Sarcasm

Shakespeare uses sarcasm in as you like it to comment about the absurdity of city life and for comedic purposes. Touchstone delivers a lot of sarcasm when talking to the shepherd: “Such a one is a natural philosopher. Wast ever in court, shepherd?” the question is sarcastic because of course the shepherd wouldn’t be in court. It’s ironic in his situation of course because he is accompanying Celia and Rosalind who are of the court but disguised as shepherds. But this sarcasm acts as a sort of reminder of the foolish social structure of the city, because in the shepherd’s and touchstones conversation there was a lot of teasing but a lot of intelligence exchanged. Clearly you don’t need come from the court to have wit; the court itself is mostly just full of pretentions. Touchstone also parodies Orlando’s poetry by turning it into a dirty poem. This is partly for comedic relief but also criticizes the heavily romanticized love that really doesn’t make anyone happy. It’s never perfect it’s always made more dramatic than it really is its foolish but it’s relatable and touchstone himself gets married but he takes the marriage light heartedly. Rosalind also points out the foolishness of suffering in love when she says to Orlando: “men have died from time to time and worms have eaten them but not for love.” sarcasm allows Shakespeare to comment on society in a lightheaded but no less intelligent manner.

Globe theatre

The globe theater production was minimal. There was not a real elaborate backdrop or changes in scenery so I think that forced the actors to really push there ability to create the setting. I really liked the drum as an auditory cue for the court scene; the drums were very solemn and commanding setting the tone for the court. They used costume to primarily show social class but Rosalind’s transformation into Ganymede she was wearing attire identical to Orlando, which foreshadowed their future encounters. Touchstone notably did not change his costume which signifies that because he is thought of as nothing more than a fool he doesn’t have to pretend to be anyone else. The wrestling scene was interesting I thought, because when they ran all over the place and went through the audience it looked a little silly and not so violent. The acting definitely made the play come alive, their expressions and voices made the dialogue much richer and much funnier. Jacques was one of my favorite characters because they exaggerated his misery so much.  Orlando who exaggerated his frustration was confusing, he is a very likeable character in the written play but it the live play he yelled so much he just seemed annoying and hot headed. I didn’t think that was well done.  They brought the audience into it and that seemed to raise the comedy. More laughter occurred when they pointed at specific people in the audience like the women or the school boy. It’s difficult to say exactly why this is funny, because it’s ironic that were just watching and then suddenly were put on a pedestal. It’s kind of like an improbable twist, except most people can expect to have some audience involved stuff at a play. Its just that no one knows when its coming and it always seems to happen when were paying the most attention. Stand up comedians often point at people in the audience to create laughter. It could be that were laughing at the startling of others who are being pointed at.

Sibling Rivalry

In act I a prevalent theme is sibling rivalry. It can be shown through Duke Frederick and Duke senior as well the conflict between Oliver and Orlando. Shakespeare suggests that jealousy contributes strongly to sibling rivalry through the parallels that can be drawn through Duke Frederick and Oliver. Both are jealous of their brother’s popularity and become paranoid. Oliver babbles to himself about Orlando’s motives for power and ability to attain it even though Orlando only wants an education. Frederick does something similar although instead of commenting about Senior directly he comments about Rosalind, his brother’s daughter, to his own daughter Celia. Like Oliver, Duke Frederick talks about Rosalind’s likability as a threat to Celia, showing his own insecurity. When Celia rejects her father’s ideals and goes with Rosalind to Arden she shows that sibling rivalry is not passed down. The ideals of our parents are not necessarily our ideals. The issue of family loyalty comes up when Celia leaves her father. In this situation personal loyalty trumps family loyalty and rightly so because Frederick’s issues with his brother deny family loyalty in the first place.  The situation with Rosalind staying with Celia and Duke Frederick is complicated, but it doesn’t become a big family drama like one might expect.  Whilst Oliver and Frederick are both power hungry and insecure they are oposites in priminginoture. Oliver is the eldest and abuses his power over the family fortune, whilst Frederick is the younger and over through his elder brother. Shakespeare suggests It doesn’t matter what order you were born in how you treat your sibling is your responsibility. Shakespeare also says that siblings can get along through Rosalind’s and Celia’s relationship. Although they are not exactly sisters they are related by blood and are very close, they also pose as brother and sister when they go to Arden. The forest signifying nature also implies that their good sibling relationship is natural and sibling drama is caused by problems like greed for money and power, issues of the city. Overall Shakespeare says that sibling rivalry isn’t really a family matter it’s a personal issue.

Mind Map

https://bubbl.us/?h=748ac/12adca/47JYMCwNNupJE

Comedy and Tragedy

the clip above uses  and the absurd and unlikely events to satirize the economic crisis which is funny. this clip mocks the economic recession by using foolish economic jargon, "a money market mutal fund" that only results in an imediate loss of money,  and the ridiculous process to return a margaritaville causes further laughter. the people in charge of the money are portrayed as fools, the guy at sur le table who pronounces things in a foolish manner as well as the guy constantly putting on chapstick who also refuses to take the margarita ville.  The lecture on comedy and tragedy was interesting. The structure for comedy was I think is easier to see in modern films and TV shows than tragedy I think. I thought that the concept of the sad clown and the illusion of normalcy   in modern films and TV shows however I don’t think comic heroes necessarily fulfill the archetype described in the article. For example Cartman in South Park is the antithesis of a comic hero and actually seems to fit the profile of a tragic hero. He will go through incredible lengths to get what he wants, like when he went to Somalia for example. He also refuses to listen to any one but occasionally allies himself with Butters but only because Butters will do anything he says. South Park also points out the illusion of order in the conclusions to their episodes. For example there was one episode where the children sent a whale to the moon, and they felt a restored sense order because they thought they had returned the whale to its homeland, when in fact they just killed it. South Park parodies modern issues for comedy but also it parodies the comic paradigm, through the use of tragic heroes and an obviously disillusioned ending. I found it interesting how comedy is similar in all cultures but tragedy isn’t.  Perhaps its because comedic heroes value good of the community and so all communities would like to celebrate that unity. But isn’t the tragic hero, who defends his identity and values individuality also universally relatable? We all like to think that we are special and worthy in some way and we have to in order to appreciate ourselves and life. But we don’t find our selves feeling any empathy for those tragic heroes. Perhaps due to our own insecurity with the fate of the character we tend to distance ourselves from them in order to reassure ourselves that we wont do the same thing. But then again why would the story be a tragedy if we remain emotionally distant from the protagonist?