Thursday, October 16, 2008

Oh the things Billy gets away with...

So, going back to those retched days of reading Shakespeare... a week ago... I reflect on the fact that no matter what I read, it was understood that Shakespeare wrote it, so it must be true. Now, after being asked the question for this blog: What are the improbabilities or illogical events in "King Lear", and what impact do they have on the general effect of the tragedy?, I realized that within Shakespeare's genius writing style, he likes to add those little "gotchas" that he can get away with, being a genius and all. I think he likes using the confusing (understandment) language so he can hide a totally unlikey event (uhh.. Gloucester's fall? Puhleese) into such a confusing turn of events it seems absolutly logical at the moment. Now, I'm no expert on falling off cliffs, but the gravitational force I'm sure would be more than noticable, along with the rushing wind, the feeling of falling, and the agonizing end when reaching the bottom. No person in their right mind would fall for the fact that they fell, half a second later hit ground, only to feel a slight impact and maybe a bloody nose. This might be just the impact our genius friend was looking for. Gloucester wasn't quite in his right mind. He's following the imsainity trend, although maybe not to the same extent as Lear (he still favored clothing). Gloucester's fall was not only a physical fall of course, but also a metaphorical fall. He realizes his false anger towards Edgar and regrets the judgments he made, also being hurt by the betrayal of the son he trusted and loved. Being blind helps him see the world a lot clearer. The fall symbolizes a change in Gloucester's views, which of course changes his course in life from there on out, so although he was physically alive, a part of his spirit "died" while being replaced by a new view and optomism.
Following in his father's footsteps, literally in this case, is Edgar. Not only is he the "Master in Disguise", but he's quite the magician when it comes to teleportation. From the sounds of the distribution to the three daughters, Lear's kingdom is no South Berwick or Eliot. So, how is it that King Lear and company, Gloucester included, just happen upon Edgar's hovel in the forest. Not only that, but Edgar, disguised as a phesant, runs into his father who is later on being escorted after having his eyes gourged out. I think there is way more coincidence going on in this kingdom then necessary. Of course, without Edgar running into his father and disappearing like he was supposed to following Edmund's advice, his character wouldn't have such a lasting effect throughout the story, adding the occasional irony of his father talking to him, about him, as if he were some poor phesant, along with the fact that Edgar pretty much saves the day in the end, so I mean thank God for Edgar, but it still makes no sense. What is even more frusterated about Edgar is his ability to lower his clothing status and all of a sudden become a new person. Modern day disguises take a few plastic surgeons to work completly. It might have been the movie that ruined the idea, since his only difference was a hair cut, but even in the play it sounded as if he went from silk to rags and all of a sudden became unrecognizable.
Moving on to Edgar's brother (improbability runs in the family), how exactly is he getting away with his love affairs with both sisters? Not only are they both aware of it, but so is Goneril's husband (in the movie she went as far to "show her affections" right in front of her own husband). If you think about this in a normal, modern day life, your standing by watching as a neighborly friend is making moves on both your mom and your aunt and your dad is asking the neighborly friend and your mother to move their make out session from in front of the tv. How is everyone so nonchelant with what's going on? It does have a huge effect on the outcome of the play though, like the fact that the two sisters both end up death over jealousy issues.
So, I guess when reflected on, Billy has once again proved his genius. He gets away with putting improbable events in the play by allowing them to create the necesary ending in the end.

-purgalicious

7 Comments:

Blogger MS said...

Nice post ,but I have one problem with it: if Egdar was disguised as a "phesant", he'd be a bird. I think you mean peasant.

October 18, 2008 at 3:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hahahahaha.
yes.
you'd be correct.
typo on my part

October 18, 2008 at 4:12 PM  
Blogger MS said...

I really wish he disguised himself as a pheasant,though. That'd make Lear more fun.

October 18, 2008 at 6:05 PM  
Blogger jj said...

We would call that a "postmodern" Lear. Maybe we should think about a student production in which all the characters are REALLY animals.

October 19, 2008 at 7:56 AM  
Blogger MS said...

I loved your thought that he saw the world much clearer once he was blind. So seemingly paradoxical but true.
--Little Red

October 19, 2008 at 4:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

in the case of a cast of animals.. King Lear would SO be a cow infected with mad cow disease.

October 19, 2008 at 8:57 PM  
Blogger sobereyedconclusions said...

that is really strange that you said that rae, because when i first read lear i thought of him as a cow. thats really strange.

October 25, 2008 at 9:51 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home