Work in progress.

Anything Goes in As You Like It

After weeks of referring to it as Anything Goes I saw Shakespeare's As You Like It today (Okay, I'm lying, I only vocalized Anything Goes twice, tops). I had to read this play way back in the day (sophomore year) for Shakespeare (the class) and only moderately enjoyed it. I'm not a big fan of traipsing into a forest and falling in love. I've been in plenty of forests in my day, and I've never run across a merry band of exiles (excepting Rainbow People). I've only run into people with campers or wild animals. That said, I saw the play anyway.

As it turns out, the play was not only aesthetically pleasing, but in fact, chock full of aesthetics. Why? It had Plato-esque overtones. Rosalind is a girl who dresses as a boy that pretends to be a girl. Best yet, in the original version, Rosalind would've been a boy to begin with. Thankfully, this Rosalind was played by a girl. However, Orlando, who fell in love with Rosalind at first sight, couldn't see through her disguise when she played Ganymede. Much of the time, Orlando was sitting in the allegorical cave while Rosalind danced shapes in front of him, making him believe unreality. He even believed that Celia was a different person, and all she changed was clothes!

In addition, a few actors played several parts. Duke Senior and Sir Oliver Mar-Text were the same actor, as was Oliver/First Lord with Duke Senior, Silivus/First Lord, Le Beau/Second Lord to Duke Senior, Adam/William, Charles/Corin and Dennis/Amiens/First Page. Whew! Just watching that caused major suspension of disbelief, as in one scene a character was holding a writing table for Jaques De Boys, and in the next he was a lusty shepherd.

Because of this, and because it was live theater, the audience was removed from interacting with the "text" by the fourth wall. This also plays into aesthetic distance. Clearly, one would not confuse this play with reality. However, more than just theatrical aesthetic distance was at work. The audience was removed from the work in other ways. First, the language was difficult. Sure, it was easier to "hear" the play than to read it and understand what was going on, but nonetheless, I didn't get all the jokes. Another reason why I didn't get the jokes? Some things are still funny 400 years in the future. Other things aren't. The age of the play also held the audience at a distance. It was still accessable, but not nearly as easy to understand as more contemporary plays, like Proof.

Overall, the play was fabulous, and darn it, I just don't know how actors can memorize entire plays!