All's Well that Ends Well, by William Shakespeare, play category
Well, it does end with Helena and Bertram married and living together, but he's a big jerk so I'm not sure why she wants him.
Helena is the daughter of a gifted physician, recently deceased. Bertram is a Count, newly become ward of the King of France. She heals the king and asks for Bertram as her husband for her reward. He (Bertram) is disgusted by her low rank and runs off to fight a war in Italy. For some totally unknown reason, she thinks it's her fault and sets off on a pilgrimage. Which just happens to take her to Italy.
I read the preface in this edition, which suggests that Shakespeare was adapting earlier stories, so the lame plot may not be entirely his fault.
I also hated the "clown" parts in this which just weren't funny at all. Then there are all these completely extraneous scenes and dialogues that just slow the action down and make my eyes gloss over. In the theater, that would be the time to run to the restroom.
There are a few good lines in here though. Most of them are at the beginning, so you could just stop there. Shakespeare seems to give the best lines to Helena and the King. He must have been playing favorites.
Absolutely not his best. I know that seeing the play is always better, but it just couldn't save this play. Don't bother!
Showing posts with label play. Show all posts
Showing posts with label play. Show all posts
Friday, July 3, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
As You Like It
As You Like It by William Shakespeare, play category
I'm not going to go into the complicated plot on this one, but it's the one with Rosalind and Orlando, where Rosalind, for her own mysterious reasons, pretends to be a boy and flirts with Orlando, who is extremely dense, and never figures out that she is a girl.
Forget about whether this is believable or not. (It's not.) In fact, the whole plot is pretty darn farfetched. It is, however, funny in some places and thoughtful in other places. Like all Shakespeare, it's much better on stage than on paper, but it was still a fun read.
What I really enjoyed about the edition I read is that it had photos from the Royal Shakespeare Academy and others of the play, including a very young Alan Rickman as Jaques and a ludicrously costumed Kenneth Branagh as Touchstone. Very funny!
And this puts me at reading 17/37 Shakespeare plays so far.
I'm not going to go into the complicated plot on this one, but it's the one with Rosalind and Orlando, where Rosalind, for her own mysterious reasons, pretends to be a boy and flirts with Orlando, who is extremely dense, and never figures out that she is a girl.
Forget about whether this is believable or not. (It's not.) In fact, the whole plot is pretty darn farfetched. It is, however, funny in some places and thoughtful in other places. Like all Shakespeare, it's much better on stage than on paper, but it was still a fun read.
What I really enjoyed about the edition I read is that it had photos from the Royal Shakespeare Academy and others of the play, including a very young Alan Rickman as Jaques and a ludicrously costumed Kenneth Branagh as Touchstone. Very funny!
And this puts me at reading 17/37 Shakespeare plays so far.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Long Day's Journey Into Night, 49/81, 2nd Round
Long Day's Journey Into Night, by Eugene O'Neill, play category
The Tyrones - mother, father, and two sons - spend a day more or less together in the country. Within the course of that day, we see all sorts of nasty little secrets that were only suggested in the first act.
This is the first O'Neill play I have read, and I have to say that I found it excellent. Not much fun, but really well done. The theme, to me, was that of excuses, excuses. The entire family has someone - someone else, that is - to blame for being the way they are. Mary blames her husband, her dead son, Edmund, life in general, not having her own house, her circumstances. Tyrone senior blames his difficult childhood, his lost chances. Both sons blame their parents. But in the end, every character admits the truth of why they are the way they are.
Every character except Mary. Despite many chances to admit the truth - she is a drug addict - she denies to the very end. And it is the difference between the men in the play, with their ultimate honesty, and Mary's self-deception that makes me angry with her and feel empathy for the others.
There is a chance, a small one, but still a chance, that Edmund will get well, that Tyrone will stop drinking, that Jamie will branch out on his own. But Mary is stuck where she is, dreaming and lying through her life.
Like I said, this wasn't exactly a fun play, but it was extremely realistic. Very well done and highly recommended.
The Tyrones - mother, father, and two sons - spend a day more or less together in the country. Within the course of that day, we see all sorts of nasty little secrets that were only suggested in the first act.
This is the first O'Neill play I have read, and I have to say that I found it excellent. Not much fun, but really well done. The theme, to me, was that of excuses, excuses. The entire family has someone - someone else, that is - to blame for being the way they are. Mary blames her husband, her dead son, Edmund, life in general, not having her own house, her circumstances. Tyrone senior blames his difficult childhood, his lost chances. Both sons blame their parents. But in the end, every character admits the truth of why they are the way they are.
Every character except Mary. Despite many chances to admit the truth - she is a drug addict - she denies to the very end. And it is the difference between the men in the play, with their ultimate honesty, and Mary's self-deception that makes me angry with her and feel empathy for the others.
There is a chance, a small one, but still a chance, that Edmund will get well, that Tyrone will stop drinking, that Jamie will branch out on his own. But Mary is stuck where she is, dreaming and lying through her life.
Like I said, this wasn't exactly a fun play, but it was extremely realistic. Very well done and highly recommended.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Lysistrata 45/81, 2nd Round
Lysistrata by Aristophanes, play category
The basic plot behind this book is pretty well known. The Greek women get tired of war and decide force a peace treaty. Their weapon of choice is sex - they will withhold intimacy from their men until the men agree to call off the war.
As might be expected, the dialogue is pretty full of innuendo and at time explicit reference to sex. There are lots of jokes about it. I'm not sure how this would be staged in today's world.
I was fine with that. What bothered me was the translation. For instance, apparently the Spartans had an accent that marked them out from the Athenians. The translator chose to interpret that as a country hick accent. Then there was the attempt to make the dialogue modern and hip, which is of course, at least 20 years out of date.
Not a bad play, although the whole idea shouldn't have taken as long as it did to stage. One act would have been enough. But if you want to read it, find a different translation. This one was done by William Arrowsmith and it is really jarring to read.
The basic plot behind this book is pretty well known. The Greek women get tired of war and decide force a peace treaty. Their weapon of choice is sex - they will withhold intimacy from their men until the men agree to call off the war.
As might be expected, the dialogue is pretty full of innuendo and at time explicit reference to sex. There are lots of jokes about it. I'm not sure how this would be staged in today's world.
I was fine with that. What bothered me was the translation. For instance, apparently the Spartans had an accent that marked them out from the Athenians. The translator chose to interpret that as a country hick accent. Then there was the attempt to make the dialogue modern and hip, which is of course, at least 20 years out of date.
Not a bad play, although the whole idea shouldn't have taken as long as it did to stage. One act would have been enough. But if you want to read it, find a different translation. This one was done by William Arrowsmith and it is really jarring to read.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Waiting for Godot, 6/81, 2nd round
Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett, play category
Let me start by saying that I do not like angst-ridden or depressing books. Several of my family members and myself have all dealt with depression, and some of us are still struggling. I do not need to read more about depressed people. Really, I just don't. So why did I put this book on my list? It wasn't like I didn't know what it was like. No, it was because I saw part of it, the first act, on TV and I was mesmerized. I couldn't get it out of my mind. But I never got around to reading it until this year.
The plot is simple. Two men, Estragon and Vladimir, are waiting for a third man named Godot to arrive. That's it. While they wait, they try to pass the time. Godot never arrives.
It sounds like a pointless play, doesn't it? But it adds up to so much more. I am not a theater critic, but I found so much to connect with in this play. This play, to me, is about the human struggle to find meaning in life, and about what happens if you NEVER find that meaning. What then?
This is a line I loved, from Estragon to Vladimir. "We always find something, eh Didi, to give us the impression we exist?"
I am a person with a great faith in my purpose in life. And yet, I think because of that perhaps, I am also a person who knows what it means to question whether there really is any meaning at all in my own life. I think that a person of faith has greater doubts than a person without. A person of faith knows that God exists, but knows that He is not present for us. A person without faith knows that there is no God, and doesn't expect anything else. So for me, I have struggled over and over with trying to find my own purpose here in this life.
The blurb on the front reads, "One of the most noble and moving plays of our generation, a threnody of hope deceived and deferred but never extinguished." The two characters wait for something to happen. In the meantime, they fuss with their clothes, they have a little something to eat, they meet other people and try to interact, but above all, they do nothing, because there is nothing to be done. And yet, they keep coming, every day, to wait.
Not everyone will appreciate this play. I tried to explain it to my daughter and she just didn't see the point in it at all. I'm not sure why it appeals to me. I think it is the fact that at the end of the play, Vladimir and Estragon are still waiting.
I know that waiting.
Let me start by saying that I do not like angst-ridden or depressing books. Several of my family members and myself have all dealt with depression, and some of us are still struggling. I do not need to read more about depressed people. Really, I just don't. So why did I put this book on my list? It wasn't like I didn't know what it was like. No, it was because I saw part of it, the first act, on TV and I was mesmerized. I couldn't get it out of my mind. But I never got around to reading it until this year.
The plot is simple. Two men, Estragon and Vladimir, are waiting for a third man named Godot to arrive. That's it. While they wait, they try to pass the time. Godot never arrives.
It sounds like a pointless play, doesn't it? But it adds up to so much more. I am not a theater critic, but I found so much to connect with in this play. This play, to me, is about the human struggle to find meaning in life, and about what happens if you NEVER find that meaning. What then?
This is a line I loved, from Estragon to Vladimir. "We always find something, eh Didi, to give us the impression we exist?"
I am a person with a great faith in my purpose in life. And yet, I think because of that perhaps, I am also a person who knows what it means to question whether there really is any meaning at all in my own life. I think that a person of faith has greater doubts than a person without. A person of faith knows that God exists, but knows that He is not present for us. A person without faith knows that there is no God, and doesn't expect anything else. So for me, I have struggled over and over with trying to find my own purpose here in this life.
The blurb on the front reads, "One of the most noble and moving plays of our generation, a threnody of hope deceived and deferred but never extinguished." The two characters wait for something to happen. In the meantime, they fuss with their clothes, they have a little something to eat, they meet other people and try to interact, but above all, they do nothing, because there is nothing to be done. And yet, they keep coming, every day, to wait.
Not everyone will appreciate this play. I tried to explain it to my daughter and she just didn't see the point in it at all. I'm not sure why it appeals to me. I think it is the fact that at the end of the play, Vladimir and Estragon are still waiting.
I know that waiting.
Monday, March 2, 2009
A Doll's House, 41/81
A Doll's House, by Henrik Ibsen - for New Author category
When I was a student at BYU in my last semester I took an American Lit class. Looking back, I should have taken almost any other class available. I was a newlywed when the semester started, and by the end I was expecting my first baby. So what did we study that would go along with my life's lessons I was learning at the time?
Kate Chopin's The Awakening. Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper. Edith Wharton. Sarah Orne Jewett. Just about any depressing story written by American women, we read it. That class was not a lot of laughs.
The play, A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, would have fit right in with those writers if only he had been American. It's got all the right elements. Restricted setting - check. Slice of middle class family life - check. Deceptively innocuous beginning - check. Desperate woman struggling with her own identity against a tightly ordered society and family life - double check.
The difference is that for me, 18 years after the first class, is that now instead of making me depressed, it made me angry to read this. Angry with Nora, and the way it took her so long to protest the way she was treated. Angry with Helmet, for treating his wife as an inferior creature he had to humor. Angry with Christine, for putting up with years of unhappiness just so she could devote her entire self to taking care of someone. And then going after what she really wanted only because she was helping her friend, and further, because she set up the expectation that she would again be 'taking care' of someone.
Most of all, angry with society, that this was accepted as normal. I read that when this play was first performed, the audience was shocked. But not because of any of the reasons I mentioned. No, because women were generally supposed to be perfectly content to be treated in such a way.
Looking back at that class, I am not a bit surprised that I found it so troubling. There I was, just barely started on this marriage thing and shortly about to take on motherhood. And what did I get to read about? Any healthy models of what family life could be like? No. Literally, everything we read that dealt with marriage or motherhood was telling me how restrictive it was, how demanding, how degrading to my personhood, how I would have to sacrifice my very self to be successful in my new roles. No wonder I had a hard time!
So a little perspective is valuable now that I read this play. I know from my own experience that marriage does not have to be like that, and that motherhood is a source of great joy and fulfillment, as well as a challenge. Yes, I know that society was different 100 years ago, but I have to believe that even then, not every marriage was one of dominant/submissive. There must, even then, have been relationships that were based on a more equal footing. There must have been women who ENJOYED being a wife and a mother, and didn't just do it because they needed security.
And maybe I'm just a little spoiled, because I am living in the 21st century, when women are busy in so many different things. Maybe. But to say that I can't judge people from that era means that I'm supposed to accept that they are not as capable as I am of fixing things that don't work, and that they are not as bright at seeing what makes them unhappy. I don't believe that. Yes, it must have been more difficult for women of that time to express their true selves, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't get angry when I read about a woman who is a doormat, and ask myself why she put up with that.
What did I think of this play? I can't say I loved it. But it sure brought out a strong reaction in me. On that basis alone, I have to give it 5 stars. I think that every couple ought to read this play, or even better, see it together. And so should every therapist or clergyman. Single people too should read this and learn from it to set up some solid boundaries before they form a partnership.
I think that so far this year, this is the book that got me the most emotionally involved with what I was reading. So I have to give it 5 stars. However, read or see this with the knowledge I didn't have as a newlywed. Not every relationship demands this self sacrifice from the woman. This is how it is NOT supposed to be. Once you know that, you can ask yourself if you need to adjust anything in your relationships so this doesn't happen.
Kate Chopin's The Awakening. Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper. Edith Wharton. Sarah Orne Jewett. Just about any depressing story written by American women, we read it. That class was not a lot of laughs.
The play, A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, would have fit right in with those writers if only he had been American. It's got all the right elements. Restricted setting - check. Slice of middle class family life - check. Deceptively innocuous beginning - check. Desperate woman struggling with her own identity against a tightly ordered society and family life - double check.
The difference is that for me, 18 years after the first class, is that now instead of making me depressed, it made me angry to read this. Angry with Nora, and the way it took her so long to protest the way she was treated. Angry with Helmet, for treating his wife as an inferior creature he had to humor. Angry with Christine, for putting up with years of unhappiness just so she could devote her entire self to taking care of someone. And then going after what she really wanted only because she was helping her friend, and further, because she set up the expectation that she would again be 'taking care' of someone.
Most of all, angry with society, that this was accepted as normal. I read that when this play was first performed, the audience was shocked. But not because of any of the reasons I mentioned. No, because women were generally supposed to be perfectly content to be treated in such a way.
Looking back at that class, I am not a bit surprised that I found it so troubling. There I was, just barely started on this marriage thing and shortly about to take on motherhood. And what did I get to read about? Any healthy models of what family life could be like? No. Literally, everything we read that dealt with marriage or motherhood was telling me how restrictive it was, how demanding, how degrading to my personhood, how I would have to sacrifice my very self to be successful in my new roles. No wonder I had a hard time!
So a little perspective is valuable now that I read this play. I know from my own experience that marriage does not have to be like that, and that motherhood is a source of great joy and fulfillment, as well as a challenge. Yes, I know that society was different 100 years ago, but I have to believe that even then, not every marriage was one of dominant/submissive. There must, even then, have been relationships that were based on a more equal footing. There must have been women who ENJOYED being a wife and a mother, and didn't just do it because they needed security.
And maybe I'm just a little spoiled, because I am living in the 21st century, when women are busy in so many different things. Maybe. But to say that I can't judge people from that era means that I'm supposed to accept that they are not as capable as I am of fixing things that don't work, and that they are not as bright at seeing what makes them unhappy. I don't believe that. Yes, it must have been more difficult for women of that time to express their true selves, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't get angry when I read about a woman who is a doormat, and ask myself why she put up with that.
What did I think of this play? I can't say I loved it. But it sure brought out a strong reaction in me. On that basis alone, I have to give it 5 stars. I think that every couple ought to read this play, or even better, see it together. And so should every therapist or clergyman. Single people too should read this and learn from it to set up some solid boundaries before they form a partnership.
I think that so far this year, this is the book that got me the most emotionally involved with what I was reading. So I have to give it 5 stars. However, read or see this with the knowledge I didn't have as a newlywed. Not every relationship demands this self sacrifice from the woman. This is how it is NOT supposed to be. Once you know that, you can ask yourself if you need to adjust anything in your relationships so this doesn't happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
