An Analysis Of Much Ado About Nothing — страница 3

  • Просмотров 336
  • Скачиваний 9
  • Размер файла 18
    Кб

innocence was revealed, but his love of her wealth cannot be overlooked either. After learning of Hero’s innocence he agrees to marry one of Leonato’s nieces, and says that he would even have an Ethiope for his wife. This could be interpreted as a desire of Claudio to marry into fortune, pursuance of his love wealth obscured by beauty. Both couples see inward and outward beauty by the end of the play, although they both end up learning practically opposite lessons in love (Brown 118). When we are not confident in our thoughts and ideas, we are hesitant and they do not translate them into actions thus the initial spark dies and we are blind to what could have been. Other times inner beauty is more clear than is outer beauty, and overconfidence in our observations and the way

we present ourselves can make us blind from another perspective as well. a) The role of Dogberry – how does he provide comic relief? He’s funny. He just is. Usually Shakepeare’s clowns are the wisest characters in his plays. We laugh at Dogberry because he is ignorant and pompous – yet he commands the respect of his underlings and knows when to defer to those above him. In a way, his presence is a lampoon of authority, a less serious reflection of the dark plots of Don John, who seeks, among other things, to make fools of those who have authority over him. Dogberry manages to be both the fool and the victim in his own little circle. His antics allow us to laugh on the surface while reminding us, on a deeper level, what is going on in the play proper. : b)Don Jon – does

such a villainous character have a place in the comedy? Are you kidding? There’s got to be a villian. Without a villian, there is no conflict. Without conflict, there is no story. Remember your melodrama. The villian drives the plot. Also, how are we to determine what is “good” if there is no “evil” with which to compare it? If you want to go even farther, you could take a good hard look at Claudio and Don John and see if you think they are really allthere is no story. Remem c)The supposed death of Hero – how does a potentially tragic scene – comparable to the supposed death of Juliet become part of a comedy? I would argue that it is a comdey. I am more apt to consider Much Ado a problem play for exactly this reason. We don’t know what Shakespeare was thinking

when he wrote his plays, but it seems to me that a man who would create Beatrice and put her in a play with Hero, then name Hero, “Hero” was not writing to be understood on merely one level. Comedy at it’s best makes us laugh when we want to cry. There is nothing funny about Hero’s “death”. The comdey is in her triumph over the social mores of her time, her ability to turn it around and shame Claudio later. And that comedy is not the fast and furious comedy of Beatrice and Benedict or the buffoonery of Dogberry, but the slightly wry, bemused sort of comedy that makes us acknowldege that even funny situations are in some way tragic and vice versa. d)Beatrice and Benedick – what is their comic role? They are the antithesis of the Hero/Claudio relationship. As Dogberry

is to Don John so Beatrice and Benedict are to Hero and Claudio. While Hero and Claudio remind us how fragile love is and what illusion is “perfection”. In the Hero/Claudio relationship, we have a situation of innocents confronting the dark reality of human nature, and surviving, emerging stronger and truer than before. Beatrice and Benedict start out jaded, confront the same dark realities, and find something in themselves that is innocent yet, something that is willing to trust. 352