Saturday, April 9, 2011

Love's Labor's Lost Act 4, Scene 2


oh boy oh boy oh boy. this scene. i don't even want to say anything. i'm just going to give you the synopsis. here we go.

act 4, scene 2
Dull, Holofernes (a teacher), and Nathaniel (a cleric) enter Navarre's park. they fight over whether the deer that was killed was an old doe, a buck in its first year, or a buck in its second year. Dull is confused by the language, and Nathaniel explains that he didn't have the luxury of education. (see quote below.) they tell riddles and continue to argue about the deer. then there's a big section i don't understand at all. (lines 52-79) Jaquenetta and Costard enter. she asks Holofernes to read the letter given to her by Costard from Armado. some talk happens in between with a lot of dropping of other languages. Nathaniel reads the letter, which is a love poem to Rosaline from Berowne. it takes a lot of talking to work it out, but they realize that the letters were mixed up and that Berowne has majorly broken some rules by writing it. they give Jaquenetta the letter to take to the king in order to snitch on Berowne. Costard, of course, goes with her, and Nathaniel and Holofernes continue to argue about... i'm not sure what.

in case you didn't catch it, i wasn't a big fan of this scene. it's not until about 2/3 into the scene that something finally happened that i could fully understand. (Jaquenetta's entrance.) i feel like there's NO WAY this scene can be performed without being cut. please prove me wrong if you can! there's so much in this scene that is in another language or based on outdated references. it was almost un-followable for me. and i had the footnotes. i can't imagine the average person would have any clue. even with great actors. if it were me, i'd just do the section with Jaquenetta. it's act 4! 2 new characters?!?!? that don't make any sense?!? that aren't even relevant to the story! i can't deal. i'm not trying to be negative, i'm just being honest with how i feel. if anyone wants to shed some light on this scene, by all means...

this play is like Shrek for me. i don't like that movie. (i know. i'm the only one.) i feel like the humor in Shrek is really of our time. (Shrek 1 is even starting to feel slightly outdated to me.) in 25 years, that humor will feel so dated. that's how i feel about this play. it is SO of it's time that it's hard to enjoy now. i'm more of a Toy Story/Much Ado About Nothing fan. funny forever.

i also feel it might have something to do with the fact that Shakespeare was still so young at this time. he was trying to imitate others' writing styles. and he just isn't him yet. right?

quote of the day:
'sir, he hath never fed of the dainties that are bred in a book,
he hath not eat paper, as it were; he hath not drunk
ink. his intellect is not replenished. he is only an animal, only sensible in the duller parts;
and such barren plants are set before us that we thankful should be--
which we of taste and feeling are-- for those parts that do fructify in us more than he.'
   -Nathaniel; act 4, scene 2

for tomorrow: act 4, scene 3- it's long, so i will get as far as i can!

-rebecca may

No comments:

Post a Comment