Kelly's Reviews > As You Like It

I just saw this play for the first time since college, at the Shakespeare Theater here in DC. I've never really known what to say about it, to be honest. I know all the hype surrounding Rosalind, and I agree with it. It's a really excellent part for any actress, and I love that the play is structured entirely around her. The play even offers the rare pretty great supporting part for a woman in Celia. There's Jacques, the odd and amusing duck who doesn't ever quite fit, and a surprisingly large and non-commentary filled part for the clown. But it's always sat kind of oddly with me. The first act and the second act seem to have very little to do with one another in tone or approach. The characters have the light character development of a comedy (both villains use the Don John classic justification for their behavior: "I don't even know why I hate that guy, but I totally do, so I'm going to continue to be a serious, life-ruining dick to him"), but there's some surprisingly serious and violent moments that don't quite sit with that either. There are great individual comedic/love scenes but they're interspersed with Jacques and the clown and who else knows what- it's got such weird pacing. And it often shows in productions.

The one I saw last night was no exception. The director had his actors play the thing ridiculously straight- no subtext whatsoever. It was the first play I've sat through where I wanted to raise my hand and give line readings because I really felt like they left a lot out there on the stage that they didn't do a thing with. I mean, it's one thing to have a different preferred interpretation than the director, but I don't know that he interpreted it at all, really. All the dialogue seemed intended to be perfectly unambiguous, which is a tragic waste of any Shakespeare production. Not even the characters appear to be thinking through their problems, never mind the audience. The Seven Ages of Man speech was declaimed from on high and in such a silently reverent room that people applauded when it was over (and these are people who know better). The best Shakespeare productions I've seen are the ones where another character's perspective is illuminated through a moment of silence and directed gaze, or another path that could have been taken on the way to the conclusion is denied. For example, I've always liked productions that make the choice that the Prince in Much Ado is in love with Beatrice. It's right there in the dialogue, but only in one crucial moment- the rest is carried on in silence and looks and implications. Likewise the idea that Gertrude lets Ophelia drown because she thinks she'd be better off dead- that's why she has such a full report of what she did and didn't save her. I got nothing here, not even a single solitary hint of unrequited lesbian love, despite some fairly obvious and recurring opportunities for that. If he had only put some interpretation on it and given me a thread to follow and theorize about.

But since he didn't occupy my mind, at least it gave me time to think about a few things in the play that I hadn't seen before:
1) Surveillance: I had not realized before seeing this again how much of this play is people telling stories about something that happened off-stage and reporting it to people onstage. People spend a LOT of time listening to other people talk- even leading players. Moreover, even if there is a live-action scene where something is actually happening right in front of them, there's always a character standing off to the side witnessing it. Even if they don't say a word. There are very rarely any private scenes. Backs up the whole interpretation of this thing as a treatise on gender and relationships as performance, whether a voluntary or involuntary one. I think there was maybe one or two scenes where two characters were genuinely alone- and both of them were in the threatening, dark first act.
2) The Otherworld: One thing the play did that I liked was that it used the scene changes for the appearance of a goddess of marriage who also seemed to double as a forest spirit. Unacknowledged, she guided the characters to their next step. The characters taking off and putting on costumes again was spotlighted center stage (which isn't surprising given the theme, but her help was unexpected). I've seen plays at that theater before and they used the lights that they use to signal the appearance of magic or the otherworld again, which was an interesting choice. I wouldn't have connected faerie with this play before. But of course it makes sense- they're in the forest, people are wandering around trying to find each other or escape each other pretty frequently. Why wouldn't there be a Puck helping to arrange this? And sure- divine intervention seems just as good an excuse as anything else as to how these people are getting away with their gender bending/identity screwing and changing magic.
3) The lonely arms of ruling figures: at least in the comedies. Have we noticed this? The guy who is actually the most powerful in terms of status in the play often ends up standing alone on stage amongst the couples at the end. I mean Theseus is the outlier, but he's a conquerer, right? And Oberon is a game player playing chess, not a lover. Those ladies are both coerced or spoils in some fashion. Not super romantic, however much we're going to gloss over that. Too serious to be involved in such plots? I dunno, I just noticed it. They're just standing awkwardly at the end a lot.
4) Taming of the Shrew v. As You Like It: Lots of commentary about what men and women are and are not and battles of the sexes. Lots of discussion about which gender is better are this or that- two completely different tacks, at least on the surface. Two epilogues given to ladies with surprisingly similar message for all that. What are we thinking was going on here?
5) Also, speaking of the structure, why go out of your way like this to make such a Statement that this is a comedy at the end of the show? The whole first half and setup seemed to state otherwise. That shit was not funny. And now all of a sudden hijinx and four weddings? I know it's a problem play, but still, what's up with that?

Next time I see this, I'll be interested to focus more on the Jacques angle, because there's something going on there I need to figure out. But that's all for this round.