Macbeth

Frankly speaking, I was a bit disappointed with Macbeth. It turned out not as intense as I have expected. I have read somewhere that Macbeth is one of Shakespeare’s shortest tragedies, and maybe it is true, as the scenes seemed to be passing quickly before leaving deeper impression upon me. I have once seen some illustrations of the three witches; but in the play, they didn’t seem grim at all. The eerie atmosphere felt after Macbeth killed Duncan, and later on when Lady Macbeth was sleepwalking with candle in her hand. Maybe this play in particular would be much better when performed on stage, than read as a book.

Macbeth is a Scottish general, and after having won a battle, the Emperor Duncan praises him for his bravery. When he is chatting with his colleague Banquo, they meet three witches whom greet them with prophecies. Macbeth would become Thane of Cawdor (he is at present Thane of Glamis), and then a King; while Banquo is prophesied to beget a line of Kings though he himself will not. Almost right away someone tells Macbeth that he is now Thane of Cawdor after the previous one died. Macbeth instantly believes the prophecies to be true, and begins to build ambition for becoming a King.

When the King visits Macbeth’ castle, Lady Macbeth encourages the reluctant Macbeth to murder King Duncan. He did it although got disturbed after the deeds. As he is Kings nearest relative, Macbeth is soon crowned as King of Scotland. But he never rests assured about his throne as he still remembers what the three witches has prophesied about Banquo; so he sent murderers to kill him. Disturbed with guilt, Macbeth seeks assurance from the three witches; whom tells him that no one born of a woman will kill him but to be careful with Macduff—a lord. So when Macduff wants to take revenge for his family’s murder, Macbeth keeps calm as ‘none of woman born shall harm Macbeth. But is it possible for a human being to be invincible? Or is Macbeth deluding himself?

My favorite part from this play is Macbeth’s soliloquy after hearing the news of Lady Macbeth’s death: “Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow…”. It is perhaps the only one that really touched me. I can feel how desperate Macbeth is when losing his strong supporting wife while he must be prepared for the grand battle. I almost even felt sorry for him. Here are the full lines:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time,

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

It makes you thinking….do our days of life really signify nothing? Perhaps it doesn’t if you lead a wrong way to live. Just like Macbeth…

I must admire Shakespeare’s great influence in Renaissance literature. His did give a new structure and style to plays, remodeling the old Greek’s and making plays flow more fluently and dynamically. And his role in elevating English language is not to be questioned. But sometimes his lines can be vulgar, which reduce my admiration to him.

Three and a half stars for Macbeth.

 I read ebook from Feedbooks dot com

This book is counted as:

3^rd book for Literary Movement Reading Challenge2015 (Renaissance)

Play On Challenge 2015: February – Renaissance

87^th book for The Classics Club Project

Coriolanus

After delving into plays for a year last year, I thought another Shakespeare would have been enough for me this year. However, this particular play has interested me since my last year plays event: Coriolanus, so when The Classics Club announced January to be Shakespeare theme of our Twelve Month of Classics Literature, I instantly decided to give it a try. Historical-tragedy has been my most successful theme of Shakespeare, and although Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra are much more famous, Coriolanus turns out to be another gem from the Bard!

The play depicted a Roman general named Caius Marcius, who lived in around 5^th century BC. While he was fighting against the Volscians in Corioli, the plebeian were lamenting about grain price which was at that time controlled by the senate. They put the blame on Marcius, and hated him for that. Things were getting worse because Marcius faced the plebeian in an openly contemptuous manner.

While he was not good in social life, Marcius was highly successful in his military campaigns. He won the Volscian battle very bravely, where Cominius—his commander—gave him the name of Coriolanus: the conqueror of Corioli. With the win, he also won Senate’s respect and appreciation, and they supported him to run for consul. However the tribunes: Sicinius and Brutus provoked the citizens to oppose it. Being under-pressured, Coriolanus was enraged and insulted the people. He was banished from Rome, and finally decided to join his enemy, Tullus Aufidius of the Volscians, to retaliate against his own country.

Coriolanus is a typical portrait of the patrician-plebeian conflict, which is still relevant in any country in any era. I read in Sparknotes analysis, that Shakespeare may have gotten the inspiration for the plot from the actual conflict between King James and the Parliament in England’s early 17^th century, the time when Shakespeare wrote this play.

Coriolanus was perhaps a great military commander, but he was far from a good state leader (consul); he even had contempt for plebeian or the common people. So I think this is not a pure tragedy, because it was Coriolanus himself who made the circumstances against him. His fall was caused by his pride and ambition; he failed to gain people’s respect, and he was blinded by his ambition for revenge that he could not detect Aufidius’ betrayal.

The play is very engaging; the plot is flowing nicely, the stage arrangement is very good and helps us to learn the actual situations. The war is very lively, but most of all, the speeches are very strong! Although a secondary character, Volumnia—Coriolanus’ mother—is an influential figure in Coriolanus’ decisions. Her speeches are so noble, touching and inspiring. Even Coriolanus was very moved by his mother’s speech, that he changed his mind about destroying Rome. His anger was replaced by tears under her mother’s words.

This time Shakespeare is succeeded in controlling my emotion to the play’s climax, and I finally found a new favorite play. Five stars for Coriolanus!

  ~~~~~~~~~

I read e-book from Feedbooks.com

This book is counted as:

Twelve Months of Classics Literature project: Shakespeare in January

66^th book for The Classics Club Project

Hamlet – Final Review

After reading Hamlet, I can officially announce that tragedy is my most favorite theme when it comes to plays. The story is more intense and there is less nonsense than in comedy. Although I tend to like historical tragedy (Julius Caesar, Antony & Cleopatra, Saint Joan and Richard III are my favorites), Hamlet is good, and I quite like it.

Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark. His father—Hamlet senior, the King—has just passed away, and now Denmark is ruled by Claudius, King Hamlet’s brother. Not only the kingdom, Claudius also took over the Queen—Gertrude—to be his wife. In his mourning, Hamlet was told by his friend Horatio that a Ghost that looked like the late King Hamlet has appeared lately. One night Hamlet saw, or rather met, the ghost of his father, who said that he has, in fact, been poisoned by Claudius while he was asleep, and he wanted Hamlet to take revenge for him.

Still unconvinced by the ghost, Hamlet arranged with a group of actors to perform a certain tragedy based on a story he wrote himself, the story of his father’s death (according to the ghost). Hamlet wanted to seek proof of Claudius guilt, and to justify his revenge plan. Claudius was angry and plannd to kill Hamlet, while Hamlet killed Polonius accidentally as he thought he was Claudius. Polonius’ son Laertes wanted to kill Hamlet to take revenge of his father’s death, and he was used by Claudius to kill Hamlet in an arranged duel, involving poisoned sword and poisoned goblet of wine. As in every tragedy, everybody died, leaving Horatio to tell the world the whole truth.

I like Hamlet for his smart tongue, it seems that he always wins from anyone who wants to pull something off him that he doesn’t freely give. His counter to Guildenstern’s unceasing pressing questions is one example. Hamlet insisted that Guildenstern should try playing a flute despite of the latter’s confession that he doesn’t know about melody. Hamlet then uses the flute playing to satirize his impending questions: “Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you cannot play upon me.” Clever!

And when he wasn’t roused by the passion for revenge, he could be quite romantic too I guess…

“Doubt thou the stars are fire,

  Doubt that the sun doth move,

  Doubt truth to be a liar,

  But never doubt I love.”

I wonder, did he actually love Ophelia? And if Claudius have not killed his father, would he marry her? Just playing “if”…. :P

His speech, when he and Horatio met a gravedigger, is quite interesting too; he talked about how men would all end in the same shape: skulls in the grave. It makes me reflect of how vain everything we think is important in this world, as it would be vanished when we are dead.

One rather contradictory thing: Hamlet did not kill Claudius when he caught the King praying. Is it a noble act? If refusing to attack someone unprepared is the reason, then I can see Hamlet as a gentleman. However, Shakespeare purposely wrote that Hamlet thought that killing a man while he was praying would hinder the victim from ascending to Heaven. Is this some moral conscience? But he was having revenge, which is against conscience. And he killed Polonius nevertheless (thinking he was Claudius) when he was hiding behind the tapestry, definitely unprepared. So why did the praying aspect make the difference?

Overall, Hamlet could be one of my favorite characters, if only he hadn’t taken Polonius’ accidental death rather lightly. I know that he didn’t mean that, and he must focus on his own mission, but I still think he didn’t care much that he has wrongly killed an innocent man. Well….is it possible that Hamlet, in his effort to be appeared crazy, has let his mind be poisoned with the revenge plot, as to become slightly unbalanced? Maybe….

Four stars for Hamlet, and this would be my last play I read for Let’s Read Play!

~~~~~~~~

I read e-book version from Feedbooks

This play is counted as:

 13^th book for Let’s Read Plays (October) theme: Shakespeare Tragedy

19^th book for What's In a Name Reading Challenge 2013

57^th book for The Classics Club Project

Twelfth Night [Review & Play Monthly Meme]

Orsino—Duke of Illyria—is wooing Olivia, a lady who is in mourning of her death brother and doesn’t want to meet any man. Meanwhile, Viola—also a lady—is stranded in Illyria as her ship wrecked, separated from her twin brother who was at the same ship before the wreck. She wants to hide her identity, so she disguises as a man and serves as Orsino’s attendant, Cesario. As she becomes the Duke’s favorite, Orsino sends her to woo Olivia for him, which is hard a task for her as she is actually in love with her boss. The plot becomes much more complex when Olivia rejects the Duke but falls in love instead with the messenger (Viola in disguise). Meanwhile Sebastian—Viola’s twin brother—has actually landed on Illyria too; and as he is Viola’s twin brother, it’s hard to distinguish one from another; and that adds to the complexity of the misunderstandings.

As always with Shakespeare’s comedies, this play is about misunderstanding, disguising, and coincidences. There are the ladies and gentlemen, but also the losers (Sir Toby Belch and Sir Andrew Aguecheek), and of course The Fool who is often cleverer and wiser than the others :). I’m not a fan of comedy, but this one was quite enjoyable as a light reading. However, I still cannot appreciate some vulgar humors of Shakespeare (and maybe I’d never do) in this play.

One character that annoyed me is Maria. The way she’s playing at Malvolio is, for me, too much. Maybe Malvolio deserves to be given a lesson by his colleagues for his haughtiness, but to false your boss’ handwriting to insult your colleague is ‘grossness’—the word Maria used to describe Malvolio’s appearance: “For there is no Christian that means to be saved by believing rightly can ever believe such impossible passages of grossness. He’s in yellow stockings.” And why must she use Christianity to compare such silliness? Ridiculous and not funny at all!

Play Monthly Meme August theme: Favorite Scene

I think the cleverer of them is Viola, and her dialogue with the Fool in Act 3 Scene 1 is very interesting. From the whole play, this scene is my favorite. I enjoyed the Viola-Fool dialogue, and also Viola (Cesario)-Olivia scene where Olivia is clearly attracted to Cesario, and how Cesario feels awkward about that. It’s funny really, when you see it being presented on stage. It’s funny that Olivia didn’t see how Cesario reacts (her body language most of all) just as women do. See here (it becomes more interesting because they staged it outdoor):

Three and a half stars, for I enjoyed the play, although it’s not too special.

P.S. I still don’t understand, why this play is titled Twelfth Night? Are the scenes really stretched in twelve nights?

~~~~~~~~

I read ebook version from Feedbooks

*This book is counted as:*

11^th book for Let’s Read Plays (August) – Shakespeare Comedy

52^nd book for The Classics Club Project

Richard III – Final Review

Richard III is the first Shakespeare historical themed play I‘ve ever read, and I can say now that I prefer politics-with-tragedy theme more than any others. After Julius Caesar, I think Richard III has become my new favorite. I enjoyed the clever speeches of Richard and the overall story.

The story begins when England’s two royal Houses of Plantagenet dynasty, Lancaster and York, have just put on a peace treaty after their long time war. It was now Richard’s brother, Edward, who ruled as King of England. Richard seemed to be bored at the idleness of peaceful time, and being encouraged by his high ambition, he invented a bloody strategy to snatch the throne from Edward, and at the same time thwarted the others whom he’s afraid would prevent his plan.

Helped by his friends—Buckingham was his chief supporter—Richard sent murderer to kill a lot of people, including his closest relatives. To highlight his cold heart, even the murderer—who supposed to kill two little innocent princes Prince Edward and Duke of York—felt remorse for a moment, before finally slain them; while Richard took it very lightly. Richard knew that to legitimately take over the throne he must make it desired by the citizens. He worked on it cleverly, and it rewarded him the throne of England.

At this stage he should have been invincible; however as he had reached the throne by deceitful ways, Richard became paranoid of his friends. Small mistakes in replying him could raise Richard’s suspicion; his Kingdom was built on the fragile foundation of fear. Resentful friends betrayed him and supported Earl of Richmond (Henry Tudor) in the Battle of Bosworth, where Richard was finally defeated by Richmond, and England was peaceful once again under King Henry VII (aka Richmond).

Despite of the lack of conscience, Richard’s diplomacy skill deserves two thumbs up. Twice he had had almost-impossible-to-win arguments. First, to propose Lady Anne—whose husband he had just killed—to be his wife. Second is to propose to the Queen (Elizabeth) to marry her daughter; while Richard knows how Elizabeth hates him so much. I know it’s quite absurd how those two ladies could ever agree with him; but nonetheless, Richard’s speeches are very clever and persuasive. And he won both of them! He reminds me a bit of Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew.

Beyond that, it is very hard to sympathize with Richard; he is just a true villain with corrupted soul from the beginning of the play. Nonetheless, Richard is the most interesting character in this play, and learning a bit of his history is quite enjoyable. Here we have battle, murders, a bit of romance, ghost apparition and superstitious, as always with Shakespeare tragedies. I have only one complaint. In the version I read (ebook from feedbooks), the mentioning of the characters are often inconsistent. One example, Lord Stanley is sometimes mentioned too as Derby, which is often confusing.

Four and a half stars for Richard III. You can read my further analysis on this play in my WEM posts.

~~~~~~~

Let’s Read Plays History theme

15^th book for What's In a Name Reading Challenge 2013

4^th book for Historical Fiction Challenge 2013-2015

8^th book for Well-Educated Mind Self Project

47^th book for The Classics Club Project

Romeo and Juliet [Play + Movie]

Let’s Read Play’s theme for this month is tragedy, and I have picked one of Shakespeare’s most famous tragedies of all time: Romeo and Juliet. Although I‘m not a fan of romance story, least of all teenagers romances, I braced myself to give a try on this particular play. Well, I must say that my instinct has never failed me before, and it doesn’t this time also. It turns out that I could not enjoy this play, and it didn’t move me like Julius Caesar did me, for instance.

First of all, I am annoyed by the harsh—and sometimes very vulgar too—humour Shakespeare put in this play. I know that somehow it is his style, but I think it has come at an annoying point this time. Maybe it’s because I have been expecting ‘Romeo and Juliet’ comes as a romantic yet tragic love story, that there would be flowery sentences and paragraphs. They do appear of course, but especially in the beginning, there are also harassing comments or insults from Romeo and Mercutio around sexual topics. And as this has happened in the very early Act, it diminished my mood (and respect) to read the rest.

What interesting me is the eternal hostility of two Houses in Verona: Montague and Capulet. The play can portray very well how each of the families took their hostility; how the youngsters especially, were eager to ignite strife whenever they met the enemies. It is in the situation that Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet found themselves in love. And apparently, the hostility of the two families could only be resolved by the two teenager’s sacrifice. It’s quite ironic, considering that these two youngsters were merely thinking about their passionate love, but from them the adults would have to learn much about the real meaning of ‘love’.

Considering that this is about teenagers’ love, the story is as ridiculous as you could have expected, but I think the plot is interesting; how the mistiming and misunderstanding caused the tragedy. It’s only proving how love can sometimes be blind for naïve (or foolish?) people. Three stars for this tragic play—which did not really moved me, honestly…

~~~~~~~

Right after finishing the play, I jumped to the movie adaptation. I picked Baz Luhrmann’s version, partly because that’s the only one I had (:D), and partly because I was curious to see the earlier collaboration of Baz Luhrmann and Leonardo diCaprio (before The Great Gatsby).

I’ve already known that the movie would be in modern settings, before I watched it, so I was a bit surprised to see that Luhrmann only alter the settings, but not the dialogues! The dialogues were really picked from the original play, and that makes the whole movie is really unique. Listening to those punk boys speak in Shakespearean language was weird but interesting.

Here Leonardo diCaprio is in his earliest career, and this movie shows distinctly the difference with his present acting. However, I think he plays Romeo quite convincingly as the waverer and sentimental young man. The rest of the stars are not very prominent, except for Harold Perrineau, Jr who plays as Mercutio, who is the most interesting character in this movie.

One of my favorite scenes is Juliet’s tomb—which in this case doesn’t look at all like a tomb. It is very eloquent and glamour (typical Baz Luhrmann, of course), and the scene of Romeo and Juliet in their last agony is superb! Only while watching Romeo drinks the poison not knowingly that Juliet is stirring beside him, and Romeo’s expression when he knows the truth, that I am really moved. So in this case, for me, the movie has enlightened the play rather than the other way round. 7 to 10 is my final rating for this adaptation.

~~~~~~~~

I read the ebook version from Feedbooks dot com

This book is counted for:

May theme of Let’s Read Plays: Shakespeare’s tragedy

5^th book for Back to the Classics 2013

11^th book for What’s in A Name Reading Challenge 2013

43^rd for The Classics Club

I watched the movie for Books Into Movies Monthly Meme #6

The Taming of The Shrew

After being touched by a Greek tragedy on last March, this month we ought to read a Shakespearean comedy for Let’s Read Plays. The Taming of The Shrew has been my choice since the beginning of this event, and now I’m glad I have chosen it. It is perhaps the most satisfying and entertaining comedy I’ve ever read so far (the other was The Merchant of Venice, yet it didn’t feel like comedy in the end). This play uses play within a play structure, and the play within has a much bigger portion than the opening one, that you might even forget that you were inside another play when the whole plays ended.

A drunkard tinker named Sly was asleep outside an alehouse when a Lord and his group passed by in their hunting. Seeing Sly, the Lord had an idea to bring the drunkard secretly home and treated Sly as if he was a rich Lord. The Lord made a serious effort of mocking Sly, he even invited a group of players to play a fine comedy to entertain ‘Lord’ Sly. And here was the original play….

Gremio and Hortensio were both suitors of Bianca—a fair lady, daughter of Baptista, a gentleman of Padua—however they could never won Bianca, as Baptista won’t let Bianca marry before her elder sister—a shrewd lady named Katharina—got a husband. Gremio and Hortensio then raced to find a husband for Katharina to achieve their goal.

Lucentio also fell in love with Bianca, and to compete with Gremio and Hortensio, he would disguise as a school-master, so that he could court Bianca while teaching her. On the other hand, Hortensio’s friend Petruchio was looking for a rich lady as a wife, and liked the idea of taking a shrewd lady. Then Hortensio, Gremio and Tranio—Lucentio’s servant who disguised as his master—decided to support Petruchio’s expenses to woo Katharina.

So, when Lucentio, Hortensio (disguised as a music teacher for Bianca) and Gremio were competing to win Bianca’s heart, Petruchio was in a harder mission to tame the shrewd Katharina. The most entertaining part came from the way Petruchio tamed the shrew. Shakespeare, as usual, was a genius in making us laugh by words-playing—and that’s why it is hard to translate most of his comedies in other languages, because English have so many words with double meanings, that when you just translate them as it is, there might not be any comical situation left. And here is one of the words-playing from Katharina and Petruchio:

Katharina: You were a moveable.

Petruchio: Why, what’s a moveable?

Katharina: A joint stool.

Petruchio: Thou hast hit it. Come, sit on me.

Katharina: Asses are made to bear, and so are you.

Petruchio: Women are made to bear, and so are you.

And this is another one (rather more slapstick than smart, actually) from Petruchio and his servant Grumio when they were in front of the door of Hortensio’s house, and Grumio mistakenly thought he was instructed to knock down his master instead of knocking the door for him:

Petruchio: Here, sirrah Grumio, knock I say.

Grumio    : Knock, sir! Whom should I knock? Is there man has rebused your worthy?

Petruchio: Villain, I say, knock me here soundly.

Grumio    : Knock you here, sir!

As most of Shakespearean comedies, the wittiness of his plays came also from the complexity of disguising situation; the misunderstanding caused by it and how they were revealed. And as you might have guessed from the title, Petruchio finally succeeded in taming Katharina. But it’s not the end result which was important, but more on the process itself which was smart, comical, and acted as a satyr to reflect what women suffered during that era.

From Katharina we can see how an Italian young woman at that time, no matter how smart and ambitious she was, did not have any choices for her future besides waiting for her parents to get her a husband, and all around the complicated of dowry businesses which I have never understood… :) In short, women could not pursue her own ambition and to be distinguished in the society by herself; and without a marriage, there would not be any future for a young woman. I think this injustice which has made Katharina the shrewd she was. From her smart conversations with Petruchio, I believe she was actually a very smart woman, but she was forced to get marry very soon by her parents.

Four stars for The Taming of the Shrew.

~~~~~~~

I read the ebook version from Feedbooks dot com

This book is counted for: 

April theme: Shakespeare’s comedy

39^th book for The Classics Club

King Lear

This is the third tragedy I read from Shakespeare; but unlike the previous two (Julius Caesar and Antony & Cleopatra), I did not find King Lear as I’ve expected. My biggest problem was the language. Being a non-English-native-speaker reader, I’m just beginning to get familiar to Shakespeare’s plays at Let’s Read Plays event. In two of three plays I’ve read since November 2012, I must sometimes consult the No Fear’s Shakespeare; only with The Merchant of Venice I read the whole play without any difficulties. With King Lear, unfortunately, I spent most of my readings with NFS. :(

King Lear is all about deception; it criticized how people like false, wordy and flowery declarations than true and honest confessions, and outer appearances rather than inner affections. The irony was that the elders—who are supposed to be wiser—were the worst victims of their children’s deception.

The play is about King Lear and Earl of Gloucester, and interestingly, both had had a similar faith. King Lear was going to divide his Kingdom to his three daughters, so he demanded them to declare their love level to him. The more they loved him, the bigger their share. Goneril and Regan both announced their exaggerated love declaration, while Cordelia—who deeply loved her father—could not find words to describe it. King Lear appreciated Goneril and Regan’s declarations, and granted them each along with their two husbands, half part of the Kingdom; while—being enraged with Cordelia who he thought didn’t love him—he banished the youngest princess.

On the other hand, Gloucester had two sons, a real one and a bastard one. The bastard Edmund—being hurt of how people talked about him as a bastard and envied his brother—accused his brother (Edgar) as a traitor. Gloucester—digested the case without further consideration—was enraged, that Edgar was forced to runaway in disguise. When the crimes were then revealed, both King Lear and Gloucester lost their insanity out of deep rage and regret—enraged to the traitors and regretted for bad treating the innocence. And just as typical tales, when King Lear and Gloucester were at their hardest times—both children they had rejected came to rescue them with a tender heart and forgiveness.

Besides that main plot, King Lear was also about loyalty vs infidelity. Kent, who had been serving the King, was banished when he defended Cordelia from his father’s banishment. However, instead of revenge, he return in disguise to serve King Lear as a lower attendant, while secretly was closely in contact with Cordelia about King Lear’s condition. Meanwhile Goneril and Regan had had affairs with the same man, Edmund. Goneril even asked Edmund to kill his husband, Duke of Albany, whom was a generous man, thus was different from his wife.

What confused me is the war between France and England. Was that really a war between two nations? Or was it merely Cordelia’s intention to set her father free, that King of France decided to send troops to England?

Actually I picked this play for its high ratings in Goodreads and positive reviews from others. I read it with high expectation, but left slightly disappointed, for the story was quite typical and ordinary. In fact I was wondering, is this play going to be enjoyable to be performed on stage? I feel that this play would be much better written as a novel than as play. I was also surprised at the vulgar comment about women here, which I found quite insulting.

“Down from the waist they are centaurs, though women all above. But to the girdle do the gods inherit; beneath is all the fiends'. There’s hell, there’s darkness, there’s the sulfurous pit— burning, scalding, stench, consumption!”

Three stars for King Lear. Not my favorite so far, and I’m now looking forward to Shakespeare’s history theme for February.

*I read the ebook version from FeedBooks dot com*

*This book is counted as*

January’s Freebie theme of Let’s Read Plays

2nd book for What's In A Name Challenge 2013

31^st book for The Classics Club

The Merchant Of Venice

The Merchant of Venice was the second comedy I have read from Shakespeare’s plays. After successively read two tragedies, it’s quite relieving to flow with a lighter story, with beautiful words. The main plot of this play was concerning Antonio—an honorable Venetian merchant—who wanted to help his dear friend Bassanio to pursue his love for a wealthy girl named Portia. Antonio agreed to be Bassanio’s guarantor as the later took a credit from a cunning Jewish moneylender named Shylock.

Being a Christian hater—especially to Antonio who always lent money gratis—Shylock was full of joy when he found out that Antonio’s ships had wrecked at the sea, that he won’t be able to pay back the money. Wanted to take revenge to Antonio, Shylock sued Antonio in court to be cut his flesh for exchange of the money.

Meanwhile, with the money from Shylock, Bassanio had departed to Belmont to enter a contest set by the late of Portia’s father to get a husband for his daughter. A suitor who could choose the right casket from three choices would become Portia’s husband. It was a great test indeed, for Portia was very rich, that his father was afraid she would get a greedy man as a husband.

And between those two situations, Shakespeare crafted witty and interesting scenes and acts to become this beautiful play.

This is the third play I read for Let’s Read Plays and I found at least one similarity from those three, that the servants—despite of being secondary characters—were wiser than their masters or mistresses, and the main characters often learned from them. Here is when Nerissa taught her lady, Portia, about how the balance of trouble and happiness would make live longer.

“It is no mean happiness, therefore, to be seated in the mean.

Superfluity comes sooner by white hairs, but competency lives longer.”

It’s interesting too how Shakespeare picked a Jewish as the stereotype antagonist; I wonder whether it did not stir many controversies from Jewish readers? Another thing, being a comedy, this play still made me a bit uncomfortable when Antonio asked Shylock to be a Christian (Act IV Scene I). When Antonio was asked by Portia: “What mercy can you render him, Antonio?” he replied: “..Two things provided more: that for this favor he presently become a Christian…” I could not understand how forcing somebody to have one’s religion can be regarded as a mercy. And that request changed my respect to Antonio.

Besides that annoyance, I found this play quite entertaining, especially whenever Launcelot was in the scenes, such as this one (talking to Gobbo—his father):

Gobbo: “..what a beard hast thou got! Thou hast got more hair on thy chin than Dobbin my fill-horse has on his tail.”
Launcelot: “It should seem then that Dobbin’s tail grows backward. I am sure he had more hair of his tail than I have of my face when I last saw him.”

Over all, Merchant of Venice was an exotic and intriguing play; it criticized men’s greediness. I found it funny in Portia’s father casket contest, and a bit tragic in Shylock’s judgment. Four stars for Mrchant of Venice!

*I read ebook from FeedBooks dot com*

Antony and Cleopatra – Final Review

This is my second Shakespearean tragedy after Julius Caesar, and while we are still entertained with wars—though not as flourish as Julius Caesar’s—we are also spoiled with stories of love and lust, loyalty and betrayal, nobleness and dirty politics; all bitters-and-sweets in human’s live.

I believe Antony was a great general, he fight with his soldiers; not just watched and gave orders from the camp (compare this with Octavius who pointed Agrippa to lead the army), and for that his soldiers loved and respected him—well at least before he was crazy. He was a gentleman of his time, always treated his soldiers fairly, and his friends loyally. However—as every man must have his weakness—Antony could not resist love charm; and in this case, the charm has a name: Cleopatra, the queen of Egypt.

From the beginning of the play we can see that Cleopatra was an obsessive woman, she kept asking Antony how much he loved her. If one does not know her reputation, one might think she was just like any other silly young girl who was in love. But I believe this was not the case of Cleopatra. I think she was an ambitious, self-possessed and even cunning woman—you could not become a queen at that time if you did not possess those qualifications—and for her, to keep her throne was more important than to win a man’s heart. I think, after Caesar’s death, Cleopatra needed an allegiance to protect her interests, and she had chosen Antony.

On the contrary, Mark Antony had really fallen in love and trapped into Cleopatra’s charm, that he neglected his duty as the ruler of one third of the world, leaving the young ambitious Octavius worked alone (with Lepidus) in Rome for his own interests. This was Antony’s biggest fault, to let his heart controlled his brain. However, with a woman so charming and determined like Cleopatra, it’s difficult for Antony to avoid his faith.

Cleopatra on the Terraces of Philae
by Frederick Arthur Bridgman, 1896

I loved this play a lot, it has all you can ask for an exciting reading; history, romances, politics, wars and witty dialogues now and then. I always love Roman history, so I don’t have any trouble of loving this one too, plus I think I’m a new fan of Mark Antony, although Cicero is still (for me) the best. One thing I don’t like from this play, is how Cleopatra was portrayed here by Shakespeare. I think, except for once or twice when she was really angry and in the last chapters, one will think Cleopatra was a spoiled teenager who was madly in love.

I am still wondering whether Cleopatra had betrayed Antony as Antony had accused her. If not, why had the Egyptian deserted their master twice, first in Actium battle, second near Alexandria? And Cleopatra never gave Antony any reason why she had instructed her army to abandon him in Actium, nor did she defend herself when Antony accused her after the last battle; she just left him and hid in the monument.

Assuming that Cleopatra was innocent and she hid herself merely afraid of Antony’s rage, why did she send her eunuch to tell Antony that she had died, but then sent another messenger to say that she was still actually alive? Did she send the first one because she knew how Antony would react if he heard about her death—thus keeping her promise to Caesar; then sent the second one because she was in fact still in love to him? Oh what a complicated woman!

The label of “hero of this play” I think must be granted to Eros, who—when was instructed by Antony to kill him—chose to end his own life because he could not kill his own master, but he did not want to disobey him either. Antony did not have the courage to kill himself and must ask his men’s help, but Eros stabbed himself without any doubt. Antony killed himself as a result of his own conducts, but Eros killed himself merely of his infinite loyalty to his master.

“My dear master,

My captain, and my emperor, let me say,

Before I strike this bloody stroke, farewell.

(stabs himself) Thus I do escape the sorrow

Of Antony’s death.”

I have enjoyed this play until Mark Antony died. After that, it’s like an anticlimax for me. I did not really want to know how Cleopatra will end her life (for I had already know the facts), and what Octavius would do. Act V was the most boring part of this play, and for that—and for absurdity in Cleopatra’s manner—I granted four stars for Antony and Cleopatra. Although this play was slightly interesting than Julius Caesar, but all in all, I liked Julius Caesar more.

You can read my post for each act: Act I - Act II - Act III - Act IV - Act V

Julius Caesar – Final Review

“Beware the ides of March.” If only Julius Caesar had believed in this prophecy, Shakespeare might have never written this tragedy….

Roman history is one of my favorite interests. I have read several historical fictions with Roman history theme, but so far I have never read about Julius Caesar, or his assassination in particular. Reading this favorite subject of mine as a play, only increased my excitement! This is the second Shakespeare’s play I have ever read, and unlike my first encounter (A Midsummer Night’s Dream), I enjoyed Julius Caesar a lot. Maybe it’s because of the theme, but maybe I fit more with tragedy than comedy.

Gaius Julius Caesar was one of the most successful rulers of Rome; and this play depicted the era of his dictatorship in Rome—while Rome was actually still a Republic. This condition created political envies among senators and aristocracy in the Senate, because Senate was practically muted by Caesar. Caius Cassius was one of the unsatisfied senators. He persuaded a noble man among them who were a close friend to Caesar: Brutus, to join his group of Conspirator. Brutus was so naïve that he was persuaded and agreed to murder Caesar.

The murder scene was great—although I believe the reality was even more horrible than the play’s scene. There were originally around 60 senators who took roles in this assassination, and Caesar died after receiving 23 stabs. What made it more tragic, was Caesar’s last words. He always loved and trusted Brutus, and at first he tried to defend himself despite of his wound; however knowing that Brutus was one of his murderers, he finally surrendered and died. The original murder scene was more brutal I think, because even when Caesar had fell and laid down helplessly, they (60 senators!) continued to stab him. He uttered his last word to Brutus: “Et tu, Bruté?” (You too, Brutus?) before he finally died. This was one of my favorite moments in this tragedy. It was so tragic to know that a person so noble, so honorable that you loved and trusted so much, betrayed you and literally stabbed you. I think for Caesar, the hurt from Brutus’ betrayal was even more than the stabs....

"Et tu, Bruté?"

And what was it all about, actually? Did Roman lower class really suffer at that time under Julius Caesar (the excuse they had given to legitimate the assassination)? No! The first scene in Act I proved that, the workers took a day off and well-dressed to celebrate Caesar’s triumph. So it’s was all about political envies. Cassius was the promoter, but so the rest of the conspirator—well, all except Brutus. Like what Mark Antony later stated:

“This was the noblest Roman of them all.

All the conspirators save only he

Did that they did in envy of great Caesar.

He only in a general honest thought

And common good to all, made one of them.”

Like I have said in Act 5 post, it’s so ironic that Brutus’ (or the Conspirators’) excuse to kill Caesar was to prevent him from transforming the republic into a monarchy, but after that, Rome fell into civil war and finally became a monarchy anyway.

There were also some other ironic misunderstandings or mishaps within the play. When Caesar was on the way to the Senate House, for example, Artemidorus submitted a warning letter—and an exact one—that if Caesar has read it before he arrived at the Senate, well…the story would be altered :), but Caesar refused to read it just because Artemidorus insisted on it. Another irony ‘letters-related’ was false letters Cassius wrote for Brutus. I believe it was those letters that finally convinced Brutus to take action. It was so a child game that you might wonder how a politician could be that naïve (if not stupid) to believe in.

But the biggest ironical scene was perhaps in the battle field when Cassius thought Titinius was captured and murdered by the enemies, while in fact the shouts of joy he heard was of Brutus’ armies who were welcoming Titinius. Cassius just believed what his servant, Pindarus told him, he took it as a truth, and killed himself without re-checking. A politician like Cassius done that, can you believe that? Or, was it merely a guilty feeling?

Another favorite moment of mine was Mark Antony’s oration at Julius Caesar’s funeral. It’s a very clever and wise move from Antony. He knew that he must looked as if he made an allegiance with the conspirator, and he knew he could trusted Brutus on this—once again Brutus made mistake by trusting Antony, poor Brutus…you should never be a politician! So Antony grabbed Brutus’ confidence to perform a funeral oration, and look how he swayed beautifully from praising Brutus and co as noble men to cursing them as brutal murderer of a great man of Julius Caesar! And look how clever he was to tease the citizens by revealing that he had Caesar’s will earlier in the speech, but kept the content only near the end, which convinced the citizens that Caesar was a generous and honorable King who had been murdered by villain conspirators, and that they must take avenge. Well done, Antony!

Five stars I granted to this play, for I was really enjoying every moment of it, and Shakespeare has helped me to vividly imagining the real scenes. Well, I must confess here, that through the play I couldn’t help to imagine the real setting, instead of the play’s setting. I know I should have been concentrating on the play, but I don’t know how my imagination always hops to Rome’s streets, the forum, and even the battle field… :) And at the end, I was thinking….which was the real tragedy in this play? Caesar’s death? Or Brutus’ ? I pick the first, because Caesar was murdered merely because his enemies’ envies, not purely for the sake of Rome; so it was just a political move, not a heroic action. Tragic, yet ironic….

You can also read my thorough analysis of each act: Act I – Act II – Act III – Act IV – Act V

*I read ebook from Gutenberg project*

*with Sparknotes’ No Fear Shakespeare to guide me here and there*

A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Terus terang, baru kali aku mencoba membaca karya drama William Shakespeare. Dan menuruti anjuran beberapa teman, aku akhirnya memilih membaca versi e-book, karena e-book menyediakan semacam thesaurus yang otmatis muncul ketika kita mengarahkan cursor ke kata tertentu. Dan memang benar, tak pernah aku menyelesaikan satu halaman pun tanpa membuka thesaurus, dengan kata lain ada begitu banyak kata ‘asing’ yang kutemui. Kadang-kadang bahkan thesaurus pun tak mendeteksi suatu kata, dan aku harus mencarinya di glossary khusus karya-karya Shakespeare di Shakespeare Glossary. Namun ternyata pengalamanku membaca Shakespeare justru membuatku ingin membaca lebih banyak lagi karyanya.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream ini adalah salah satu karya Shakespeare yang terbanyak difilmkan maupun dimainkan di atas panggung. Karya ini masuk genre komedi (genre yang kupikir pasti lebih ringan daripada sejarah maupun tragedi). Kisahnya dibuka dengan suasana di kerajaan Athens yang sedang bersukacita menantikan pesta pernikahan raja dan ratu mereka: King Theseus dan Queen Hyppollyta. Di tengah semarak persiapan itu, datanglah Egeus menghadap untuk mengadukan persoalan pelik. Putrinya Hermia yang telah dipersiapkannya untuk dinikahkan dengan pemuda bernama Demetrius, ternyata lebih mencintai pemuda lainnya yang bernama Lysander. Egeus malah mengharuskan Hermia untuk memilih antara menikah dengan Demetrius atau mati. King Theseus akhirnya memberikan waktu bagi Hermia untuk berpikir, dan harus member keputusan saat pernikahan sang Raja.

Ingin terbebas dari hukum yang mereka anggap kejam, Hermia dan Lysander berencana untuk melarikan diri ke hutan tempat tinggal bibi Lysander, di mana mereka dapat menikah dengan bebas. Sementara itu, ada seorang gadis bernama Helena yang amat mencintai Demetrius, padahal sang pria mencintai Hermia. Ketika Lysander dan Hermia membocorkan rencana pelarian mereka pada Helena, segera Helena berketetapan hati untuk memberitahu Demetrius, agar Demetrius segera mengejar ke hutan. Di sana—harap Helena—mungkin saja Demetrius akan mengalihkan cinta kepada dirinya. Maka dimulailah petualangan empat tokoh kita di hutan dekat Athens.

Sementara itu di hutan, Raja kaum peri: Oberon sedang resah karena keinginannya tak dikabulkan oleh Ratu Titania. Maka Oberon menyuruh asistennya yaitu Puck untuk mencari serbuk bunga tertentu yang—bila dibuat ramuan—akan membuat orang yang terkena tidur lelap, dan akan jatuh cinta pada orang yang pertama ia lihat ketika bangun. Oberon ingin ‘mengerjai’ istrinya agar menuruti keinginannya. Berangkatlah Puck mencari bunga itu, dan begitu mendapatkannya, Oberon mengoleskannya di pelupuk mata Titania ketika tidur. Sementara itu Oberon mendengar pertengkaran antara Helena—yang ngotot mengekor pada Demetrius, dan Demetrius—yang merasa terganggu dan berusaha mengusir Helena. Oberon pun menyuruh Puck mengoleskan ‘ramuan cinta’ yang sama ke mata si “pria berbusana Athens”, agar mereka berdua menjadi pasangan.

Malangnya si Puck ‘salah alamat’, alih-alih mengoleskan ramuan cinta ke mata Demetrius, ia membubuhkannya ke mata Lysander—yang sama-sama berbusana khas Athens. Dari sini anda akan dapat membayangkan betapa akan kacau dan ironisnya kisah cinta tokoh-tokoh kita ini nantinya gara-gara ramuan cinta itu. Dan kekocakan akan bertambah ketika masuk tokoh-tokoh lain, yaitu para sekelompok pekerja  yang ingin menampilkan sebuah drama pada pesta pernikahan Theseus dan Hyppollyta. Kelucuan timbul saat mereka berebut memerankan tokoh yang mana, dan lebih lucu lagi waktu mereka benar-benar menampilkannya. Meski begitu di kisah utamanya sendiri kadang terselip dialog yang membuat kita tersenyum, misalnya:

“Lysander: You have her fathers love, Demetrius (memang Egeus menyukai Demetrius)

Demetrius: Let me have Hermias; do you marry him.”  


Meski tampaknya tak serius, ada beberapa hal yang tersirat dari drama ini. Shakespeare ingin menyoroti ironisnya cinta. Saat ada dua pemuda dan dua pemudi, bukannya mereka saling berpasangan, namun ternyata ada satu wanita yang dicintai dua pria, dan wanita yang satu lagi tak menerima cinta dari siapa pun. Aku juga melihat kecenderungan wanita yang menganggap pria mencintai wanita hanya karena fisik semata. Dan ketika si wanita mengharap cinta si pria dan tak mendapatkannya, ia pun mulai menyalahkan diri sendiri yang secara fisik kurang menarik disbanding saingannya. Hal ini nampak pada tokoh Helena, yang dialognya diwarnai kegetiran dan cenderung membuat dirinya sendiri jauh lebih rendah daripada Hermia karena cemburu dan iri.

"Happy is Hermia, wheresoeer she lies,

For she hath blessed and attractive eyes.

How came her eyes so bright? Not with salt tears;

If so, my eyes are oftener washd than hers.

No, no, I am as ugly as a bear;

For beasts that meet me run away for fear;

Therefore no marvel though Demetrius

Do, as a monster, fly my presence thus.

What wicked and dissembling glass of mine

Made me compare with Hermias sphery eyne?"

Itulah salah satu contoh dialog ‘galau’ Helena. Contoh bagaimana cinta membuat manusia kadang menjadi buta dan irasional. Bagiku pribadi, itulah yang kudapat dari drama ini. Mungkin ada filosofi lain yang terselip di sana-sini, namun aku hanya berhasil menemukan apa yang telah kutulis ini saja. Semoga kali berikutnya aku akan dapat lebih memahami sekaligus menikmati drama karya Shakespeare.

Tiga bintang untuk A Midsummer Night’s Dream.

Judul: A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Penulis: William Shakespeare

Format: e-book

Penerbit: eshelf Books

e-pages: 63 hlm


Conclusion:
This is the first time I read Shakespeare's play, and frankly speaking I cannot say I enjoyed it very much. First of all, there are several 'strange' words that even did not appear in my Kindle's dictionary. Other than the language (maybe I'm just not familiar with play's language), I found the story is not quite engaging. I can feel the beauty of this play..oh yes, but that's it, nothing more. So I guess I'd just give three stars for A Midsummer Night's Dream. After all, I don't quite like comedy play, so next time I might choose history or even tragedy when I have another mood to read Shakespeare again. What do you think?