With the global sharing objective in mind, I did a search on Icerocket for anything new or interesting concerning my individual play, The Merchant of Venice. And I stumbled across something really interesting! There's a Boston cycling blog that did a piece less that two weeks ago about drivers' actions towards cyclists and sharing the road. It's called The Bard and the Bike: A Plea for Tolerance. In the post, the author takes Shylock's famous speech about tolerance and antisemitism and rewrites it about having tolerance for cyclists. It's actually pretty good. 

This is Shylock's speech, done by Al Pacino:

And here is the blog's speech:

I am a Cyclist. Don’t Cyclists have places to be? Don’t Cyclists have friends, families,
engagements, jobs, appointments, obligations; aren’t we entitled to
the same rights, injured by the same collisions, subject
to the same laws, ticketed by the same police,
enduring the same weather and road conditions
as Drivers? If you cut us off, do we not seethe?
If you yield to us, do we not wave? If you run us over,
do we not die? And if you do not respect us on the road, shall we respect you?
If we are alike in all these other ways, we are alike in this way too.
If a Cyclist takes the lane, how do Drivers react?
With anger and aggression. If a Driver cuts off a Cyclist, what is
the driving force behind the Cyclist’s response? Aggression.
I will emulate the irresponsibility and indifference you teach me,
and take it to a whole new level – regardless of the consequences for you.

The whole post is really interesting. You can read it at the link above.

And since I recently made the car to bike transition (not by choice, my car died right before I moved up to Provo this summer) I felt like I could give some insights in the driver/cyclist relationship. If you go to the blog and scroll all the way down you can read my comment. It was essentially aimed at explaining how this speech fit into the rest of the play, with Shylock, the intolerant man, asking for tolerance. I simply encouraged them not to make Shylock and Antonio's mistakes, and to be a little more tolerant yourself before asking for other people to make way. 

There hasn't been a response yet, but I'll post about it as soon as I hear anything. Hopefully it'll be productive, I felt like I tried pretty hard to be considerate in my comment. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

For my local sharing objective, I decided to come up with a brief survey on some common misconceptions about Shakespeare and use it as a talking point. The questions are vague and can be argued either way, so my hope was that some of the people I harassed would challenge the questions and/or what I told them were the "right" answers. It worked pretty well. And I tried to work in my individual play as examples for why questions were true or false. The people who didn't care didn't ask for the answers, but those that did led to some good discussion.

So don't judge my flaky questions, they were conversation starters. Here's the survey and a tally of answers I got:

1. T / F Shakespeare wrote original masterpieces
   True:6  False:3
2. T / F Shakespeare was more concerned with crowd pleasing than making deep comments on society
   True:3  False:6
3. T / F Shakespeare’s plays tend to have a clear protagonist and antagonist
   True:6  False:3
4. T / F The best way to study a Shakespeare play is by renting the movie
   True:0  False:9
5. T / F Shakespeare was subject to the cultural views of his day, including racism and elitism
   True:5  False:4

And, when asked, here's the answers I gave:

1. False. In the Renaissance there was no such thing as copyright. Writers borrowed ideas and stories from each other and whoever wrote it best got credit. For obvious reasons, that tended to be Shakespeare. ex. Hamlet is based off an ancient Scandinavian tale, "The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet" by Arthur Brooke was Romeo and Juliet's direct source.
2. True. There's not really a way to know his motives, but I lean towards true. All Shakespeare's play are comments on society, but his main audience was the common man. He brought his plays down to the groundling's level with cheap jokes.
3. False. I used Shylock from my play, The Merchant of Venice, as an example for this. His character's are always more complex than just good or bad. The ones who may seem to be the antagonist tend to have bad motives and there's always that moment where you sympathize with the bad guy.
4. True. Shakespeare never meant for his plays to be read. They weren't published for the first time until 7 years after his death. He intended for his plays to be performed, and it is much easier to get the theme and feel of a play from experiencing it than reading it.
5. False. While Shakespeare included the racial and elitist stereotypes of the day in his plays, he almost always goes against expectations. The clowns and low men always seem to know what's going on while the royalty run around with their heads cut off and kill each other. In Merchant of Venice his Christian audience would have instinctually disliked the Jew. But Shakespeare gives Shylock a famous speech that speaks strongly prejudice. "Hath not a Jew eyes?" "If you prick me I will bleed."

Obviously there are some faults in my questioning. And all the arguments are true, but they don't exactly match up with the questions. The funnest part of this assignment was seeing how many people just took my word for it, and who thought about it a little more and challenged what I told them. There was one guy I met, let's call him Joe, who seemed pretty interested in what I had to say and came up with some awesome comments. I guess I should have seen it coming when I interrupted him reading The Aeneid in the CougarEat. Here's as close as I can remember of what Joe said to my answers:

1. Every author has sources and influences.  The way they put the work together makes it their own original. (A good point, although I would argue that most authors today don't use plagiarism as a literary tool)
2. There are specific things in plays meant for royalty, so it wasn't all for commoners (He did, however, consent that I was right on more general terms)
3. Many of them do, but not all (More of a comment on my questioning skills I guess..)
4. When I explained my reasoning to Joe, he agreed that, other than actually going to a play, watching a movie is the best way to go. (I, in turn, argued that movies are much more convenient and easily available than a production of whatever play you happen to be studying.)
5. He had to be subject to them in some degree because he wrote about them (On this one I think we ended up agreeing that Shakespeare was subject to these views in the sense that he understood them, but was able to look past them enough to invert stereotypes and make a point.)

So there you go! I shared Shakespeare with my community! Talking to people about what I'm learning was actually pretty fun. I got the chance to see just how well I could articulate the ideas that have been forming in my head all semester, and I got to see some other people's perspectives as well. Although I have to say, the hardest part about this was probably just sucking it up and walking up to a stranger to ask for their opinion. But it feels like a good learning experience. And somebody out there knows just a little bit more about Shakespeare because of me.

I haven't done this before, so I figure I'd give it a try..

In our group discussion during class I brought up the idea of costuming and staging in The Tempest, especially the feast scene where a table full of food disappears from before Alonso and company and there are misshapen spirits and fantastical beings. I was wondering how they would have accomplished these things in the Renaissance and how the production we are going to see this weekend might do it differently. I didn't do much research because I wanted to use this blog a bit creatively and focus more on how I think it could be done.

The stage directions for the banquet read:
Thunder and lightning. Enter Ariel like a harpy, claps his wings upon the table, and, with a quaint device, the banquet vanishes.
In class, we talked about possibly having the table full of food lifted up into the air and out of view. That's possible for a production today, but in the Renaissance the typical place for these performances was the Globe Theatre, which is outdoors, and has no roof to hoist a table up to. For Shakespeare's time I picture someone out of sight making loud banging noises for thunder as shadows were made in whatever lighting they had to represent lightning. There could have been a long, thin table, so that the feast could appear large and appetizing. The table could be stationed over the trapdoor so that when Ariel hits it with his wings it folds in the middle and falls down through the trapdoor and out of sight.
There are many other ways it could have been done. The only thing we get from the text is that a "quaint device" was used. My footnotes indicate that the word quaint meant something different in those days, and that it was some sort of mechanism or person designed to make the banquet disappear with a blend of "imagination, skill, and elegance."

When the spirits and strange beings perform, we get these descriptions from the text:
Enter several strange shapes.
"Who would believe that there were mountaineers,
Dewlapped like bulls, whose throats had hanging at 'em
Wallets of flesh, or that there were such men
Whose heads stood in their breasts" -Gonzalo
There's more description here than there are with many other fantastical things in The Tempest, which potentially makes it harder for productions to live up the Gonzalo's words and Shakespeare's original plan for this play. With this I am mostly curious to see if the production we go to this weekend will include these people with heads in their breasts and fleshy throats, or if they will simplify the spirits for convenience's sake. I hope they keep it in, because I am really curious to see how it would be done.

I know I don't have much experience in planning and creating things like this, I've always been on the observer side of things. So I could use your input. How do you think people from the Renaissance could have pulled this off and made it a thing of spectacle without any kind of modern special effects? And what are you hoping to see this weekend?

I searched the vast expanse of knowledge and truth known as the internet and came up with some pretty interesting things people were saying about the two focuses I ended up taking with Merchant of Venice: is Shylock the villain or victim?, and animal imagery.  On the topic of Shylock, I stumbled across a "Yahoo!Answers" question which posed the same idea. Although the questioner there seems to come to the conclusion that he is the victim, the commenters all have good points. Specifically, one answer suggests that Shakespeare is a product of his time and we should not try to impose our moral views on him. I also found a discussion board where one user suggests that he is simply both. After making a case for both sides, he says:

"You can make a case either way. For me, I'd argue that he's both at once: though like the Wittgenstein duck/rabbit, at any one moment he seems one or the other."

For animal imagery, a blog post gave me a little better perspective of Shakespeare's using animals as every day images by comparing it to things we say today such as:

"Like a deer caught in headlights"-Surprised look.

"There is more than two ways to skin a catfish"-There is more than two ways to do something.

I also found reference to animal imagery in Macbeth, Othello, and King Lear. So it seems like I was correct in assuming that Shakespeare relies heavily on it in many of his works.

So what does any of this have to do with me? 

Well like I said before, I'm newly exploring the idea of working with wildlife for the rest of my life. So my mind has been on animals for a while now. The idea of how animals and humans relate to each other and animals can portray human emotions and actions is fascinating to me. And for Shylock.. at the beginning of the year I posted about needing to find my self, and looking for characters with unsure identities. Shylock seems to fit this better than any other Shakespeare character. It is unsure on what side of our emotions he should be, whether pitied or hated, and his identity as a Jew is taken away from him when Antonio says he must become Christian or lose everything he owns. I don't think anyone could feel more confused with their identity than that..

Until next time, Hakuna Mutata:)

While I was unsure before about whether or not Shylock is villain or victim in The Merchant of Venice, upon closer inspection, the BBC "Theatre in Video" production seemed to be leaning towards villain. Shylock's character is dressed in all black, and the actor chosen was shorter than any other. Whether intentional or not, the visual difference between Shylock and other men sets him apart from them, and the black clothing suggest evil or darkness. Maybe even a 'black heart'. In the climax of the play, the court scene, Shylock and Antonio are placed much more closely on stage than I would have pictured them. The producers seem to be saying, "look at this man, he can stand a foot away from a good man like Antonio and demand his life." Villain. The physical closeness of the characters, and Antonio's friends intense pleadings with Shylock, reveal a heartless and unforgiving man.

The themes of mercy and justice were also extremely emphasized in the film. Shylock refuses to have mercy on Antonio, saying he wants justice to be fulfilled. Portia(disguised as the lawyer Balthazar) tries to convice Shylock to take his money and leave. The actress helped me to better understand the theme in the way she softly, almost pleadingly, encouraged Shylock to show mercy. But when the tables were turned and Shylock was the one in need of mercy, the judge spared his life before Shylock could even ask. The judge said it was "the see the difference in our spirit." So once again Shylock is the villain, the one who showed no mercy and asked for justice. It was the judge, by Antonio's request, who portrayed the Christian concept of mercy when he could have dealt Shylock with justice.

So there you go, Shylock is the villain and he got what he deserved. Right?

Oh.. poor guy..

Some other things that I noticed about the production:

Antonio(right) saying goodbye to Bassanio(left) with
Portia(disguised as lawyer) listening in.

• It was set up like a stage production, but obviously for a movie viewing audience. The actors talked too softly for a play, moved around too much, and interacted with the camera.
• I like that all the [asides] that weren't to another character were directed at the camera. It formed a connection between me and the character, like they were confiding in me as a viewer.
• The setting was very minimalistic, but the costumes were extravagant. Called attention and focus to the actor.
• Camera angles usually focused on speaker, but sometimes captured powerful emotions in listeners
• Shylock's daughter, Jessica, didn't have a Hebrew accent. This is a foreshadow of her running away with a Christian and not identifying herself with the Jews.
• The women in the court scene were not very well disguised as men. It emphasized the gullibility and ignorance of the men for not recognizing them.

So as I was looking at the individual learning objectives for this week, I realized that one post fulfilling all the requirements would be quite a beastly post, and there's a good chance even my eyes would glaze over trying to read it. So here is the first of three, maybe four, posts on my individual play: The Merchant of Venice.

There's something similar in all these lines. Can you spot it?:

"I am Sir Oracle, and when I ope my lips let no dog bark!"

"You call me misbeliever, cutthroat dog, and spit on my Jewish gaberdine... Should I not say, "Hath a dog money? is it possible a cut can lend three thousand ducats?"... you spurned me such a day; another time you called me dog-and for these courtesies I'll lend you thus much moneys."

"The patch is kind enough, but a huge feeder, snail-slow in profit, and he sleeps by day more than the wildcat. Drones hive not with me."

"I have never heard a passion so confused, so strange, outrageous, and so variable as the dog Jew did utter in the streets"

"Thou called'st me dog before thou hadst cause, but since I am a dog beware my fangs."

"Oh, be though damned, inexecrable dog... Souls of animals infuse themselves into the trunks of men... for thy desires are wolvish, bloody, starved, and ravenous."

"For do but note a wild and wanton herd or race of youthful and unhandled colts fetching mad bounds, bellowing and neighing loud."

Yes! You got it. Shakespeare uses a lot of animal imagery. And in this particular play, lots of dogs. Maybe I'm hypersensitive to the subject because I'm still on the fence with my newest idea for a major (Wildlife and Wildlands Conservation), but as I was reading through the text I couldn't help but notice the motif. I almost focused only on the dogs, because there are a lot of them, and, for the most part, they  all focus on Shylock. But I though it was important to recognize that he uses animals generally for comparisons, as well as to make a repeated point about one character.

Shylock is compared to a dog over and over again. Sometimes by others, sometimes by himself. With today's attitude of dogs as man's best friend, this might not be much worse of a comparison than to say that Shylock was inferior, but loved. However, in Shakespeare's time the idea of keeping dogs as pets was frowned upon. They were used for hunting and gaurding, and not much more. One special troupe of dogs used was trained to preform, do tricks, and jig as part of Elizabethan entertainment. Another form of entertainment, dog fighting, dates back thousands of years. But their value as companions was not appreciated. 

So as Shylock is repeatedly being called a dog, there is a sort of dehumanization going on. They are saying he is inhuman and less than them. He claims they call him dog without cause, and then warns them to beware his fangs. I think images of violence are easier for people to imagine when they are linked to animals rather than people. We like to think of people as rational, and animals as driven by instinct. With Shylock acting as the animal, his anger with Antonio seems much more real and dangerous. And Shylock seems more inhuman and less capable of mercy. The other characters dehumanize Shylock by comparing him with a dog, and he retaliates by showing anger and intolerance characteristic of an animal. Still not sure if he's the villain of not...

As we're getting into The Tempest, there is a storm and a shipwreck and there are at least three separate groups (that I know of so far) that are stranded on the island. It seems odd to me that the very first thing someone in each group did was assume that everyone else was dead, and then look to see what they could gain from the situation.

Commonality of wrecking a ship
"Every day some sailor's wife, the masters of some merchant, and the merchant have just our theme of woe. But for the miracle-I mean our preservation-few in millions can speak like us." -Gonzalo
This quote suggests to me that shipwreck, and death and loss resulting from shipwreck, was very common in Shakespeare's day. In a brief history of Bermuda, there are four historic shipwrecks documented from 1500-1699. Which means there were many more that were not written about, obvious from the map here. So it seems like the characters of The Tempest were somewhat justified in thinking that anyone not with them must have perished. But there does seem to be some other reason why many of them gave up hope so quickly.


Let's all assume everyone's dead
Ferdinand: 
"The ditty doth remember my drowned father."
Alonso:
"My son is lost."
Sebastian:
"Milan and Naples have more widows in them of this business' making than we bring men to comfort them."
Antonio:
"'Tis as impossible that he's undrowned as he that sleeps here swims"
Trinculo:
"I should know that voice. It should be-but he is drowned, and these are devils."


What do we stand to gain?
Ferdinand:
"I am the best (highest ranking) of them that speak this speech (Italian)."
Ferdinand assumes the king, his father, is dead. And therefore assumes that he is now king.
Gonzalo:
"Had I plantation of this isle... and were the king on 't... I would with such perfection govern, sir, to excel the Golden Age."
Antonio (to Sebastian):
"My strong imagination sees a crown dropping upon thy head."
Sebastian (to Antonio): 
"As thou got'st Milan, I'll come by Naples. Draw thy sword. One stroke shall free the from the tribute which thou payest, and I the King shall love thee."
If the king, his son, and any witnesses are dead, Sebastian becomes king and Antonio gains his love and freedom from tribute.
Stephano:
"Trinculo, the King and all our company else being drowned, we will inherit here."
This quote pretty much sums up all the others. Stephano, a butler, believes that everyone higher ranking than him is dead, and plans on inheriting what would otherwise go to men above him.

The coat of the King of Naples.
 (What all these men were after)

Can't get any higher than the top
It's interesting to note that, though he believes his son to be dead at first, the king, Alonso, eventually finds hope and goes out to "search for [his] poor son." He is the only character who doesn't have anything to gain from the death of another. Since Alonso is already king, no one else's death would be beneficial to him, so he hopes his son lives. All the other characters have something to gain from the death of others, and so give up hope much more quickly. Sebastian and Antonio even go so far as to try and kill the King and Gonzalo so that they can be in higher positions of power when they return home. I'm sensing some Macbeth parallels here...




If I only had a brain.. or a conscience.
The case of Antonio and Sebastian stands out from the others. While all the other ambitions of characters rely on fortune, or misfortune, granting them the death of a superior, Antonio and Sebastian's ambitions must be taken by force. It is easy to justify taking power when the men before you were killed by nature, but it should not be so easy to justify killing for gain. Shakespeare's characters, however, seem to be burdened very little by their consciences. When speaking of murder Sebastian asks, "But for your conscience?" To which Antonio basically replies, 'I haven't got one. Nothing bothers me.' His justifications for the murder of the king are reminiscent of Berowne of Love's Labour's Lost justifying his pursuit of women. If they can put enough words together, then they can justify their actions to themselves. Sebastian's conscience seems to be won over, as he replies, "Thy case, dear friend, shall be my precedent." So these two men, who seemed so lighthearted and upright, justify murder and treason in less than five minutes.


Is Shakespeare's comment here that ambition is more powerful than moral conscience? That man will kill to get gain? And that those who don't bring themselves to murder are just as ready to accept the death of another if it benefits them? If so, who's death do you stand to gain from? Ever thought about it?

The actor who plays Shylock in the BBC adaptation (and apparently the radio voice).

So when I first started reading Merchant of Venice it was pretty black and white who was who. Shylock's the villain, and Antonio and Bassanio the good guys. Then as I got a little farther into it, my perception flipped. I actually felt bad for Shylock. His daughter ran away with a Christian and took all his money, Antonio humiliates him in public, and his servant runs away to work for Bassanio. Antonio starts to look like the guys who gets whatever he wants, and no one likes that. But then there was a court scene, and Shylock is demanding a pound of Antonio's flesh to repay a debt and refuses to have mercy, which kinda heads back towards the villain status, and Antonio is so sad, just wanting to see his best friend before he has to die. So then I thought, ah-ha!, Shylock is the bad guy, and this court scene proves it. But by the end of that same scene Bassanio's wife, disguised as a lawyer, has tricked Shylock out of demanding Antonio's death and Shylock pretty much loses everything. They take away all that he owns and give back half on the conditions that he turn from Jew to Christian and, when he dies, give everything to his daughter who has run away with a gentile. I feel so bad for him. I mean sure, he wanted to kill the protagonist, but "Nay, take my life and all" is the line of a pretty beaten down man.

So the moral of the story is I don't know who I'm supposed to be happy or sad for in this comedy of sorts. Sure, I know Shakespeare intended for his crowd to hate the Jew and be glad he got such a harsh punishment, but I just don't know that he deserved it. And the movie didn't help, he was such a cute little, old Jewish guy with his Jewish hat and thick Hebrew accent. And all the other guys seemed kind of pompous to me.. Perhaps the BBC production wanted to be more open about who's side to be on. Anyway.... If you're still reading this long rant, thank you. I guess the point is that I really loved this play, but loving something doesn't mean I completely understand it. So maybe next week my thoughts will be a little more coherent. Until then, Hakuna Mutata:)

Just as a side note, I'm writing this post Thursday night and setting it to post tomorrow morning in order to blog on time for this week, in hopes that I can get some sleep and get better before I get more sick. Also, the BBC production of my individual play has to pause every 2 minutes to buffer and I will never get through it tonight.. But I do promise I'll still have my individual play finished and a post about it by the end of the day Friday. Cross my heart, hope to die.


Now you may or may not be aware, but there may or may not have been a sequel to Love's Labour's Lost... It would be fitting. The final act ended pretty lamely. The whole love story aspect of it kind of failed, and there wasn't even a real fight between Armado and Costard over Jacquenette. The Princess' father's death reminded me of the Greek deus ex machina, which was essentially some outside source swooping in to save the day when it looks like the plot won't be able to resolve itself. Because no audience would be okay with girls who made fools of the boys all pairing up with hecklers and living happily ever after, there had to be some good reason for the french ladies to go their way, leaving the men with a year to put their nose in the corner and think about what they've done.

So the question is, was Shakespeare okay with this unresolved ending? Or did he write a sequel which somehow didn't survive the years? I first came across the theory of there being a sequel in an episode of Doctor Who. The time-traveling humanoid alien takes his human companion Martha Jones back to Shakespeare's day at the Globe Theatre. At the end of a Love's Labour's Lost performance William himself takes the stage and promises a sequel the very next day. Somewhere along the way he hits on Martha, someone gets killed via voodoo doll, and an alien in the form of a witch tampers with the script of the sequel in an attempt to, go figure, free her alien family and take over the world. You can read more about it here, but the point is that at the end the only transcript of the Love's Labour's Won is lost and Shakespeare decides to move on to bigger and better things.

I remembered that episode of Doctor Who as I was reading Love's Labour's Lost and decided to see if BBC did their research. It turns out, there is a very good possibility that there WAS a sequel, titled Love's Labour's Won, in which the King and his lords return after a year and get a second chance at a happy ending with the French Princess and her ladies. There have been references to the play title found in written documents, and lots of other reasons for scholars to believe in the existence of the play that I don't really want to get into here. You can read the wiki page linked above if you're interested. Also, there's a facebook page, so it must be true. Facebook never lies. The real question is, do you think the plot needs a sequel? I do.. And if there was a sequel, what kinds of themes or plot lines would you like to have been continued? Should there be a happy ending between the sassy ladies and immature boys? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Last Friday my roommate had a boy over at our apartment and they were doing homework together. He started humming a song I vaguely recognized but couldn't quite place. Of course, I couldn't rest until I figured out what it was. Turn's out it was the song "When You Believe" from The Prince of Egypt. So of course that dang boy got the song stuck in my head and I had to go listen to it. Then I had to listen to it again, and again, and again. Needless to say, I've been listening to the Moses and the Hebrews leave Egypt since last Friday. I ended up finding an awesome video with the song put to a compilation of the movie. As I watched this video again and again (and was overheard singing it in the shower), I started thinking about the power of song, and how a well acted (or animated) scene and a good song can elicit emotions from us and make an experience more memorable. As you watch this video, pay attention to how it makes you feel, and maybe consider how different it would be if you were simply reading the words.

It's also pretty cool in context...

So why in the the world am I talking about this on my Shakespeare blog? Well, I've been thinking as I read Love's Labour's Lost about the production of Winter's Tale we went to and the fact that Shakespeare is meant to be seen, not read. That play was so different on stage than it was in my book. I was more connected to the characters, more invested in the plot, and better able to understand the humor. And the songs were awesome. There's a line in the beginning of Act 3 of Love's Labour's Lost that says:

BOY[sings] Concolinel


My footnote says that the word "Concolinel" is unknown, but is perhaps the first word or title of a song. So you're probably saying "so what?". Well, I don't know. I can't know, because all it is, is a word, not even lyrics to a song. What if the song sung by that boy is something as important to the plot as the song above was to its movie? Shakespeare wrote this boy to sing a song and I will never know what it sounded like. What else are we missing out on by simply reading the text? Moses's animated sister and wife singing about their faith in miracles had a real impact on me, now this boy singing Concolinel will never have the chance to do that.

So, answer me this: What are we missing out on when we only read the text of Shakespeare's plays? And, conversely, what are we gaining from experiencing the greatest literature of all time in a way it was not meant to be experienced?

Honestly, I am so excited to read this play. The plot summary was so confusing and twisted that I'm not even going to try and sum it up here, but this play had me laughing just reading the summary. What I got from it was a double wedding, debts payed in a pound of flesh, women dressed up as lawyers, and a Jew forced to convert to Christianity or give over half his property. I can't wait.

The only slightly disappointing thing about this comedy that I can see is it's romance. Like I talked about before, Shakespeare really only has two kinds of love. This one seems to fall right into the "love at first sight, meant to be together" category. Not once, but twice in this play do two people fall so easily in love it's like fiction. Oh wait....

I am, however, thrilled for the villain. His name is Shylock, and the Urban Dictionary definitions of his name are quite fantastic. Which is funny, because I didn't know Shakespeare was urban. But basically he is a ruthless, Jewish, money-lender. When the merchant Antonio takes out a loan for his friend, he promises Shylock a pound of his flesh if he does not pay the money back in full. When Antonio's ships are lost Shylock tries to cash in his debt. Can you think of any better villain than one who demands a pound of your flesh? I didn't think so.

As far as movie adaptations of the play, there have been at least 18 that I could find. (Well, that IMDb could find.) They all seem okay, but nothing really stuck out. There was a 2004 production that was looking pretty good, and it's the only one that's been really heavily advertised. I tried looking it up on the BYU library website to no avail, only to realize that it's rated R. Shucks... So I'll have to keep working on that. But I'm sure one of those other 17 movies are worth watching.

So what's my plan? Read the play straight through and be on the lookout for themes and motifs that interest me. Then watch a movie, noticing how the specific adaptation affects my views on the play. Hopefully this way I can completely focus on each media, rather than trying to read along to a movie and get distracted with edits and cuts.

As we are reading Love's Labor's Lost, it's almost comical (probably intentionally) how quickly the king and his three lords start to deviate from their plan to study and see no women for 3 years. Before they've even signed the agreement the king realizes he must meet with a princess soon. And once the king and his lords reach the princess and her ladies all hope is lost. Flirting ensues.

The conversations that go on between the men and women in Act 2 are quick and witty. They remind me a lot of the kind of talk in Much Ado About Nothing that goes on between Benedick and Beatrice. And since we know that Benedick and Beatrice end up together, even though they originally seemed to hate each other, it is pretty obvious what is going on here in Love's Labor's Lost:

Biron. Did not I dance with you in Brabant once?
Rosaline. Did not I dance with you in Brabant once?
Biron. I know you did. 605
Rosaline. How needless was it then to ask the question!
Biron. You must not be so quick.
Rosaline. 'Tis 'long of you that spur me with such questions.
Biron. Your wit's too hot, it speeds too fast, 'twill tire.
Rosaline. Not till it leave the rider in the mire. 610
Biron. What time o' day?
Rosaline. The hour that fools should ask.
Biron. Now fair befall your mask!
Rosaline. Fair fall the face it covers!
Biron. And send you many lovers! 615
Rosaline. Amen, so you be none.
Biron. Nay, then will I be gone.

Biron tries to be nice, Rosaline's a little fiesty, but by the end of their back and forth they've fallen into rhyme with each other. I can hear the wedding bells already.. Shakespeare is awesome at witty banter. It's one of the things that make his comedies funny, and his romances bearable. This art of witty banter seems to be Shakespeare's opinion of the best way to find your eternal companion. Lucky for us it can be mastered in just ten easy steps. Enjoy. But maybe don't try it out on the first date... Just in case.
Back on track, it seems to me like there is a pretty standard form of humor in Shakespeare's comedies. It's either love at first sight, or witty banter and insults until they realize they're meant to be together. Maybe Love's Labor's Lost's king and his lords with mix things up a bit for us. But so far I'm doubtful.. To illustrate, even taking into account that the movies below are both Kenneth Branagh films, the covers might as well be advertising the same play with different actors. Plus or minus a perfectly matched and awkwardly close couple. I'm anxious to see what makes this play different from others.