1. What’s the effect of structurally contrasting the scenes with Shylock against the scenes with Portia? Do you like it?
19 comments:
Ross Bronfenbrenner
said...
Act 2 of The Merchant of Venice is intriguing simply because so much is happening. As I was reading, I found myself trying to picture a set that would allow for such a rapid transition between two totally different scenes and that in itself was challenging. Every major player makes an appearance and it seems that almost all of the major plot lines are being established. The act reminded me of a long-form theater game called "Scene on Scene" in which the performers spend 20 minutes or so "tangling", i.e, entering at exiting, establishing relationships with other people and forming plots but never finishing them. The next twenty minutes are spent "untangling"; every character reappears and ties off the stories they created. It feels like this general idea is taking place.
By contrasting the scenes of Shylock against those with Portia, Shakespeare establishes both their differences and also how they are connected through a series of people. I like the structure of the act because I imagine it looks great on stage and provides the director and actors so many opportunities for good transitions and moments between scenes.
I found the contrast of the scenes interesting to read, and thus did like it a lot. I felt an effect of shining light over Portia versus heavy, darker vibes surrounding Shylock. Her fate with the prince of Morocco seems much more hopeful, and due to the gamble he must take, uncontrollably exciting. In contrast, Shylock's controlling nature over Jessica makes the fate of that situation much more dreary and schemed. Rather than a gleaming light at the end of a wide tunnel, her romantic situation is like a rodent squeezing through a tight space- it's going to be rougher. While of course, lights at the ends of tunnels can be extinguished, the scheming of Shylock's daughter makes for a darker aura around the scenes he is in. His role as an outsider is definitely perpetuated in Act II.
This scene reminded me of the plot of Twelfth Night all jammed into one Act. There is a scheme, multiple romances- the whole bit. I really like Grace's metaphor of the rat squeezing through a hole for Jessica's love, as opposed to Portia who, continuing the analogy, I see as having one foot stuck on a glue trap and trying to break free (though more humane than that). Because these scenes are so short and, as Ross mentioned, fast-paced, the contrast between Shylock's controlling nature and Portia's longing to be able to control her life is accentuated. I enjoy this style of writing, because it is a nice break from the long monologues and dialogues that the play has consisted of so far. This is back to the fast-paced style that the comedy between Toby and Andrew was based off of.
I thought that the contrasting of the scenes makes sense: with the exception of Scene 1, it follows a complete logical progression in following Lancelet around. The only "contrast" in my opinion is from scene 1 to scene 2, but with Shakespeare, I've just learned to go with it. However, I think that in putting a scene with Portia next to a scene with Shylock, it establishes a connection in the audience's mind without ever having seen them talk to each other. They are two of the most important characters, and putting their scenes next to each other makes putting the on stage together later (I assume) less weird.
I really like how Ross compared these scenes to a game of scene on scene because I got the impression that Shakespeare is tangling for the purpose of having to untangle later. This reminds me (like Michael said) of Twelfth Night, where Shakespeare introduces multiple different scenarios that don't seem like they could ever come together in the end. It definitely makes the plot exciting and adds all kinds of interesting twists. Bringing in Shylocks daughter was unexpected and advances the plot a lot. I think since these scenes seemed to focus on Shylock, his daughter and servant, and Portia, the three of them will have some kind of encounter or importance to one another at the end. I'm assuming Shylock and Portia will have so kind of dramatic impact on one another at some point later in the play.
Like Grace, I enjoy the contrast between Portia's situation and Jessica's. On stage, I can picture these scenes set similarly with Jessica and Portia in similar positions to clue the audience into their similarities and differences.
Overall, this is truly an action-packed chunk of text (as Ross said). Numerous things are established which made the pace seem unpredictable and pretty fast. However, I think this makes for a riveting few scenes in a movie or staged version. In the scene where Launcelot meets his father, everything seemed too sudden - but when performed I can imagine it would flow more smoothly. I will be curious to see how the directors handled this portion if we watch more of the movies...
Added bonus: I noticed Shakespeare has Jessica use the exact same couplet rhyme that Viola does (page 25 in MoV, I.iv.42-43 of TN).
I agree that this act was really interesting, however at times it was a tad difficult to follow. For example, Shylock says nothing about Launcelot leaving to work for Lorenzo until the very end of scene 5, and even then doesn't seem that upset about losing his best servant.
I really liked the flow of this. Again with what Ross said I pictured half of the stage lit up with Portia's scenes which would go dark when the other side was illuminated with Shylocks scenes. Shakespeare does this to contrast the 2 really different lifestyles but also show how they are inevitably affected by the other.
I definitely agree with Ross’ statement about this act being like Scene on Scene. It’s also like one of those sappy romantic comedies with dozens of big name celebrities where there are so many plotlines and characters to keep track of. Shakespeare uses these first five scenes as introductions to Launcelot, Jessica, and Lorenzo, all of whom will probably be significant characters later on. At the same time, Shakespeare reminds us of previous characters Shylock, Bassanio, and Portia, as well as furthering the plot line through his description of the dinner that will take place later on. I think this variation of scenes is very captivating for an audience. His short, rapid-fire scenes introduce characters and get straight to the point, ensuring that the audience isn’t consumed in boredom during unnecessarily lengthy dialogue. The alterations in subject and characters also allow the audience to foreshadow potential future interactions among existing characters.
In Act 2 it seems as if the play is immediately spead up in comparing it to what we have read so far. In Act 2 the plot for the a majority of the characters was set up in such a quick amount of time. Similar to what most of the people have already commented on is that due to the scenes being shorter and less of the long monologues it allows for the play to have more interaction and between the characters. Establishing Portia's desire and longing to be able to choose what she wants in life instead of having to abide by her father, as well as displaying Shylock's desire to control everything around him. I really like what Michael said about Sir Toby and Sir Andrew and how this play is similar to that due to the pace and how the book has picked up so much. In a short number of pages so much has already happened and been established. By contrasting the Scenes of Shylock and Portia Shakespeare demonstrates how similar they are, but also their differences. I like what he has done because after starting to read this a lot fo the plots and story lines of his writings seem way to similar. He has provided a different style of writing and gave us a twist in his writing.
Wow. Shakespeare got to the point. There were no lengthy, overdone monologues or unnecessary scenes. Everything was furthering something. With the introduction of the major characters and the dinner which will bring them together, Shakespeare gets up ready for some action - if this was near the end of the play, I'd expect some untangling at the dinner. However, it's only act 2 - tangle time!
I think the contrast of the scenes was interesting; it could certainly translate to some interesting staging (what about a two-story stage?). I was hoping to see more of Portia than I did; I still don't really have an idea of her character and motivations, beyond the surface level. I think Portia's world is darker than some may suggest, and the contrast between the two houses may also serve to show some similarities.
I really enjoyed how Shakespeare juxtaposed the scenes with Shylock against the scenes with Portia. When I first read through Scenes 1-5, I felt a bit lost. Naturally, I had to reread the scenes and came to the conclusion that Shakespeare contrasts the two characters in order to point out their similarities. Both Shylock and Portia (either out of spite or duty) are forced into doing something that they probably would not do regularly; with Shylock accepting a dinner invitation from the "christians" and Portia forcing the Moroccan Prince to choose a box that will determine if they are to be married. Both characters are subject to outside influences that impair their judgement.
I'm not really sure what the effect of contrasting the scenes is. Also I'm not exactly sure what scenes Mary is referring to, since Portia and Shylock are only in one scene. Anyhow, I think scene 1 with Portia can be contrasted with Shylock's scene, scene 5. In Portia's scene we hear more about the lottery/test her father created to chose her husband and this highlighted her lack of control in the situation. In fact she says that the lottery "bars me the right of voluntary choosing". Shylock on the other hand is very controlling in his scene. He bosses Launcelot and especially Jessica around. Mary spoke in class about how Shakespeare in some way created characters that would appeal to an audience during his time and theses scenes establish such characters. A young maid powerless in the face of her father's will and a villain who is not only Jewish, but also a tyrannically controlling would appeal to 17th century Elizabethan audience. By structurally contrasting them, Shakespeare could further emphasize the difference.
The effect of comparing the scenes of Portia and Shylock allows me to figure out who the character actually is, and then figure out who a different character is. Reading one scene with Portia allows me to understand her better because I have time for her to sink into my brain when reading the next consecutive scenes with Shylock.
Like Grace said, the reading seemed much more hopeful for Portia, since the Prince of Morocco has a 33% chance of picking the right casket. Therefore, Shakespeare gives the reader a positive stance to take of the situation with Portia. On the other hand, although this may not be the largest conflict, Shylock must attend the Christmas dinner. As illustrated in the lines of Lancelot, many Christians have intense anti-semitism that would obviously make Shylock very uncomfortable at the Christmas dinner. This is a situation that I think is inevitable.
I agree with Ross and Cara that Shakespeare is certainly tangling various plots so that they can be untangled later. I find the short scenes fascinating, they never let you get bored. I have never experienced Shakespeare being so short winded. I also agree that in switching back and forth quickly between Potria and Shylock, Shakespeare is attempting to show similarity in their situations and possibly their characters.
In my mind, the contrast of the two scenes gives the reader a chance to imagine to widely different stories that seem, the farther you read, to be drawing closer and closer together. This technique of having different scenes hopefully overlap eventually creates a air of foreshadowing that I find intriguing. I like this contrast of scenes because it also keeps my mind nimble and makes me think of how possible actions in one scene can potentially affect in some way, shape or form the other corresponding scenes. This is completely hypothetical but imagine that for some reason, Shylock intended to murder Bassanio after he left to court Portia. This murder would be dragged into the scenes in which suitors are trying to marry Portia and would hence affect these scenes in some way, shape or form. This is just food for thought. I find this possibility of having events in different scenes affect completely different scenes extremely amusing and I like it a lot.
i really liked the changing of scenes. Although I felt like it was a bit confusing at times, It would definitely be more clear in a play. I thought that all the short and somewhat funny scenes were designed to be comical especially since they happened in the same place just at different times. What Shakespeare is doing is a kind of compare and contrast. Taking the scenes with Portia in them and analyizing them against Shylock. Bassanio also serves as a kind of bridge between the groups as he is envolved in the groups and the scenes serve to show his character.
Like Michael and others, I agree about the relation between these scenes and Twelfth Night. So many different plots are happening, some secretive and some not, and with so much action brings quick and constant excitement that is not present in much of Shakespeare's work. In terms of contrasting the characters of Portia and Shylock, I like how Shakespeare moved gradually through each scene, showing and/or reminding us slowly of how these seemingly very different people are connected within the story. Shakespeare doesn't waste time with long soliloquies or monologues; he gets to the point of the scene as quickly as possible and doesn't fill it with beautiful poetry or metaphors that often stall the plot. Because of this, these scenes were a little more believable to me, since people don't often make long speeches in normal conversation. The dialogue occurred similar to how we might talk (despite the Elizabethan jargon) today.
I believe that the Act two in general was hard to follow because as Micheal said everything was jam packed into. We had at least 3 different plots arise. Lancelots prank on the old gobbo, Shylocks argument and portia's view of her choice. I think that the contrast between Portia and shylock is a simple contrast of light and darkness. Obviously portia symbolizes lightness and Shylock symbolizes darkness. But not only is shylock a symbol of darkness, he's not that included/ outsider. its interesting that Shakespeare plays both of these contrasts side by side.
19 comments:
Act 2 of The Merchant of Venice is intriguing simply because so much is happening. As I was reading, I found myself trying to picture a set that would allow for such a rapid transition between two totally different scenes and that in itself was challenging. Every major player makes an appearance and it seems that almost all of the major plot lines are being established. The act reminded me of a long-form theater game called "Scene on Scene" in which the performers spend 20 minutes or so "tangling", i.e, entering at exiting, establishing relationships with other people and forming plots but never finishing them. The next twenty minutes are spent "untangling"; every character reappears and ties off the stories they created. It feels like this general idea is taking place.
By contrasting the scenes of Shylock against those with Portia, Shakespeare establishes both their differences and also how they are connected through a series of people. I like the structure of the act because I imagine it looks great on stage and provides the director and actors so many opportunities for good transitions and moments between scenes.
I found the contrast of the scenes interesting to read, and thus did like it a lot. I felt an effect of shining light over Portia versus heavy, darker vibes surrounding Shylock. Her fate with the prince of Morocco seems much more hopeful, and due to the gamble he must take, uncontrollably exciting. In contrast, Shylock's controlling nature over Jessica makes the fate of that situation much more dreary and schemed. Rather than a gleaming light at the end of a wide tunnel, her romantic situation is like a rodent squeezing through a tight space- it's going to be rougher. While of course, lights at the ends of tunnels can be extinguished, the scheming of Shylock's daughter makes for a darker aura around the scenes he is in. His role as an outsider is definitely perpetuated in Act II.
This scene reminded me of the plot of Twelfth Night all jammed into one Act. There is a scheme, multiple romances- the whole bit. I really like Grace's metaphor of the rat squeezing through a hole for Jessica's love, as opposed to Portia who, continuing the analogy, I see as having one foot stuck on a glue trap and trying to break free (though more humane than that). Because these scenes are so short and, as Ross mentioned, fast-paced, the contrast between Shylock's controlling nature and Portia's longing to be able to control her life is accentuated. I enjoy this style of writing, because it is a nice break from the long monologues and dialogues that the play has consisted of so far. This is back to the fast-paced style that the comedy between Toby and Andrew was based off of.
I thought that the contrasting of the scenes makes sense: with the exception of Scene 1, it follows a complete logical progression in following Lancelet around. The only "contrast" in my opinion is from scene 1 to scene 2, but with Shakespeare, I've just learned to go with it. However, I think that in putting a scene with Portia next to a scene with Shylock, it establishes a connection in the audience's mind without ever having seen them talk to each other. They are two of the most important characters, and putting their scenes next to each other makes putting the on stage together later (I assume) less weird.
I really like how Ross compared these scenes to a game of scene on scene because I got the impression that Shakespeare is tangling for the purpose of having to untangle later. This reminds me (like Michael said) of Twelfth Night, where Shakespeare introduces multiple different scenarios that don't seem like they could ever come together in the end. It definitely makes the plot exciting and adds all kinds of interesting twists. Bringing in Shylocks daughter was unexpected and advances the plot a lot. I think since these scenes seemed to focus on Shylock, his daughter and servant, and Portia, the three of them will have some kind of encounter or importance to one another at the end. I'm assuming Shylock and Portia will have so kind of dramatic impact on one another at some point later in the play.
Like Grace, I enjoy the contrast between Portia's situation and Jessica's. On stage, I can picture these scenes set similarly with Jessica and Portia in similar positions to clue the audience into their similarities and differences.
Overall, this is truly an action-packed chunk of text (as Ross said). Numerous things are established which made the pace seem unpredictable and pretty fast. However, I think this makes for a riveting few scenes in a movie or staged version. In the scene where Launcelot meets his father, everything seemed too sudden - but when performed I can imagine it would flow more smoothly. I will be curious to see how the directors handled this portion if we watch more of the movies...
Added bonus: I noticed Shakespeare has Jessica use the exact same couplet rhyme that Viola does (page 25 in MoV, I.iv.42-43 of TN).
I agree that this act was really interesting, however at times it was a tad difficult to follow. For example, Shylock says nothing about Launcelot leaving to work for Lorenzo until the very end of scene 5, and even then doesn't seem that upset about losing his best servant.
I really liked the flow of this. Again with what Ross said I pictured half of the stage lit up with Portia's scenes which would go dark when the other side was illuminated with Shylocks scenes. Shakespeare does this to contrast the 2 really different lifestyles but also show how they are inevitably affected by the other.
I definitely agree with Ross’ statement about this act being like Scene on Scene. It’s also like one of those sappy romantic comedies with dozens of big name celebrities where there are so many plotlines and characters to keep track of. Shakespeare uses these first five scenes as introductions to Launcelot, Jessica, and Lorenzo, all of whom will probably be significant characters later on. At the same time, Shakespeare reminds us of previous characters Shylock, Bassanio, and Portia, as well as furthering the plot line through his description of the dinner that will take place later on. I think this variation of scenes is very captivating for an audience. His short, rapid-fire scenes introduce characters and get straight to the point, ensuring that the audience isn’t consumed in boredom during unnecessarily lengthy dialogue. The alterations in subject and characters also allow the audience to foreshadow potential future interactions among existing characters.
In Act 2 it seems as if the play is immediately spead up in comparing it to what we have read so far. In Act 2 the plot for the a majority of the characters was set up in such a quick amount of time. Similar to what most of the people have already commented on is that due to the scenes being shorter and less of the long monologues it allows for the play to have more interaction and between the characters. Establishing Portia's desire and longing to be able to choose what she wants in life instead of having to abide by her father, as well as displaying Shylock's desire to control everything around him. I really like what Michael said about Sir Toby and Sir Andrew and how this play is similar to that due to the pace and how the book has picked up so much. In a short number of pages so much has already happened and been established. By contrasting the Scenes of Shylock and Portia Shakespeare demonstrates how similar they are, but also their differences. I like what he has done because after starting to read this a lot fo the plots and story lines of his writings seem way to similar. He has provided a different style of writing and gave us a twist in his writing.
Wow. Shakespeare got to the point. There were no lengthy, overdone monologues or unnecessary scenes. Everything was furthering something. With the introduction of the major characters and the dinner which will bring them together, Shakespeare gets up ready for some action - if this was near the end of the play, I'd expect some untangling at the dinner. However, it's only act 2 - tangle time!
I think the contrast of the scenes was interesting; it could certainly translate to some interesting staging (what about a two-story stage?). I was hoping to see more of Portia than I did; I still don't really have an idea of her character and motivations, beyond the surface level. I think Portia's world is darker than some may suggest, and the contrast between the two houses may also serve to show some similarities.
I really enjoyed how Shakespeare juxtaposed the scenes with Shylock against the scenes with Portia. When I first read through Scenes 1-5, I felt a bit lost. Naturally, I had to reread the scenes and came to the conclusion that Shakespeare contrasts the two characters in order to point out their similarities. Both Shylock and Portia (either out of spite or duty) are forced into doing something that they probably would not do regularly; with Shylock accepting a dinner invitation from the "christians" and Portia forcing the Moroccan Prince to choose a box that will determine if they are to be married. Both characters are subject to outside influences that impair their judgement.
I'm not really sure what the effect of contrasting the scenes is. Also I'm not exactly sure what scenes Mary is referring to, since Portia and Shylock are only in one scene.
Anyhow, I think scene 1 with Portia can be contrasted with Shylock's scene, scene 5. In Portia's scene we hear more about the lottery/test her father created to chose her husband and this highlighted her lack of control in the situation. In fact she says that the lottery "bars me the right of voluntary choosing". Shylock on the other hand is very controlling in his scene. He bosses Launcelot and especially Jessica around. Mary spoke in class about how Shakespeare in some way created characters that would appeal to an audience during his time and theses scenes establish such characters. A young maid powerless in the face of her father's will and a villain who is not only Jewish, but also a tyrannically controlling would appeal to 17th century Elizabethan audience. By structurally contrasting them, Shakespeare could further emphasize the difference.
The effect of comparing the scenes of Portia and Shylock allows me to figure out who the character actually is, and then figure out who a different character is. Reading one scene with Portia allows me to understand her better because I have time for her to sink into my brain when reading the next consecutive scenes with Shylock.
Like Grace said, the reading seemed much more hopeful for Portia, since the Prince of Morocco has a 33% chance of picking the right casket. Therefore, Shakespeare gives the reader a positive stance to take of the situation with Portia. On the other hand, although this may not be the largest conflict, Shylock must attend the Christmas dinner. As illustrated in the lines of Lancelot, many Christians have intense anti-semitism that would obviously make Shylock very uncomfortable at the Christmas dinner. This is a situation that I think is inevitable.
I agree with Ross and Cara that Shakespeare is certainly tangling various plots so that they can be untangled later. I find the short scenes fascinating, they never let you get bored. I have never experienced Shakespeare being so short winded. I also agree that in switching back and forth quickly between Potria and Shylock, Shakespeare is attempting to show similarity in their situations and possibly their characters.
In my mind, the contrast of the two scenes gives the reader a chance to imagine to widely different stories that seem, the farther you read, to be drawing closer and closer together. This technique of having different scenes hopefully overlap eventually creates a air of foreshadowing that I find intriguing. I like this contrast of scenes because it also keeps my mind nimble and makes me think of how possible actions in one scene can potentially affect in some way, shape or form the other corresponding scenes.
This is completely hypothetical but imagine that for some reason, Shylock intended to murder Bassanio after he left to court Portia. This murder would be dragged into the scenes in which suitors are trying to marry Portia and would hence affect these scenes in some way, shape or form. This is just food for thought. I find this possibility of having events in different scenes affect completely different scenes extremely amusing and I like it a lot.
Daniel
i really liked the changing of scenes. Although I felt like it was a bit confusing at times, It would definitely be more clear in a play. I thought that all the short and somewhat funny scenes were designed to be comical especially since they happened in the same place just at different times. What Shakespeare is doing is a kind of compare and contrast. Taking the scenes with Portia in them and analyizing them against Shylock. Bassanio also serves as a kind of bridge between the groups as he is envolved in the groups and the scenes serve to show his character.
Like Michael and others, I agree about the relation between these scenes and Twelfth Night. So many different plots are happening, some secretive and some not, and with so much action brings quick and constant excitement that is not present in much of Shakespeare's work.
In terms of contrasting the characters of Portia and Shylock, I like how Shakespeare moved gradually through each scene, showing and/or reminding us slowly of how these seemingly very different people are connected within the story. Shakespeare doesn't waste time with long soliloquies or monologues; he gets to the point of the scene as quickly as possible and doesn't fill it with beautiful poetry or metaphors that often stall the plot. Because of this, these scenes were a little more believable to me, since people don't often make long speeches in normal conversation. The dialogue occurred similar to how we might talk (despite the Elizabethan jargon) today.
I believe that the Act two in general was hard to follow because as Micheal said everything was jam packed into. We had at least 3 different plots arise. Lancelots prank on the old gobbo, Shylocks argument and portia's view of her choice. I think that the contrast between Portia and shylock is a simple contrast of light and darkness. Obviously portia symbolizes lightness and Shylock symbolizes darkness. But not only is shylock a symbol of darkness, he's not that included/ outsider. its interesting that Shakespeare plays both of these contrasts side by side.
Post a Comment