Much Ado About Nothing

Read this around a campfire tonight at a Shakespeare Night organized by a wonderful friend who always plans the best things! She’s wonderful too because she cast me as Dogberry, and I had a blast reading his lines.

I’ve been enamored of this play for many years, but I’d never actually read it. I’ve watched the adaptation with Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson over and over, and I love the Joss Whedon version too. I remember seeing Whedon’s adaptation for the first time at the Wisconsin Film Festival and giggling my whole drive home, every time I thought of Nathan Fillion’s performance as Dogberry.

It’s a play full of ridiculous schemes, a romantic hero I want to punch, and the best enemies-to-lovers banter I’ve ever read. show more It’s fun to read and even more fun to see performed, so if you haven’t done either of those things, get on it, people! show less

The title is so accurate it hurts. Consider the “villain” of this play for a minute-- he is just kind of sad for some reason and he thinks it would lift his spirits to make the other people around him miserable too. Luckily he has a pair of dedicated henchmen who are totally on board, so they just fabricate some juicy drama and away we go! Characters fall in and out of love based on whispers and hearsay, not because of any concrete actions. Though it might seem light and fluffy on the surface, there is something terrifying about how easy it is to emotionally uproot these character’s entire existences. How much are our feelings and opinions manipulated by people/society? Are the most genuine emotions we feel based upon lies? Can we show more even pretend to be in control of our lives?!? existential breakdown). So really everyone in this play is ridiculous, but if you can get caught up in the absurdity it makes for a pretty fun time. show less

I was dealt a sizeable blow by the Introduction to my Wordsworth edition of Much Ado About Nothing, and the play itself never really recovered me. You see, the Introduction went into the history of the play and pointed out that our surviving version of Much Ado is an early text, representing "a preliminary stage in the play's evolution: we lack a 'finished', enriched and polished version" (pg. 13). And it is true: the inconsistencies which you sometimes find in Shakespeare attack you like waves on breakers in Much Ado: convoluted plotlines, inert characters put into a scene without any lines or even a purpose, and underdeveloped or counter-intuitive motivations for key characters. Even the division of the play into Acts and scenes is a show more modern editorial decision. When you add to this the lack of eloquent soliloquies or memorable phrases, the lack of rhyme to end scenes, and bawdy jokes that don't land, then you have the sort of Shakespeare experience that enthusiasts try so desperately to dispel: a 'comedy' and a play that is too much like hard work. It is the near-equivalent of that modern habit of posthumously publishing a famous author's incomplete manuscript as a new work.

However, the same Introduction also points out Much Ado's saving grace: we sometimes forget, but Shakespeare was meant as drama, not literature. "Shakespeare wrote his plays as scripts for performance, and the main critical test is whether they succeed as performances" (pg. 16). The underlying concept of Much Ado is a good one: of lovers getting into misunderstandings and consequently into all sorts of inept schemes, before things work out and they all live happily ever after. It is the framework for most modern romantic comedies. Much Ado does this well: there are some good lines, and Benedick and Beatrice can be a delight; "they never meet but there's a skirmish of wit between them" (pg. 32). So whilst it may be a clunker in book form, there is enough here for directors and actors on both stage and screen to deliver a great interpretation – and many have. (One can only wonder at how Shakespeare's finished piece would look, had it survived into modern times.) But readers of Shakespeare should approach with more caution than I did: Much Ado About Nothing is one for the stage, not the page. show less

Shakespeare - Arden Edition of Much Ado About Nothing
Much Ado About Nothing is one of those Shakespeare plays which many people feel they know from Kenneth Branaugh's star studded movie of 1993.
Full of Mediterranean sunshine, tanned and physically striking celebrity actors in freshly starched linen exuding the dewy glow of youth and cavorting on the grounds of a gorgeously framed Italian villa whose own beauty did much to highlight the lighter side of the play. I certainly remember it this way, but there is a darker side. Many of Shakespeare's plays are open to interpretation when they are staged or filmed. The director is at liberty to choose which version he/she wants to show and Branaugh chose the lighter side even to the extent of show more cutting 180 lines from the dialogue between Benedick and Beatrice. When sitting down with the text in front of you the reader can make his own interpretation and in this instance I was surprised by just how dark or near tragic this play could be. I also watched the 1984 BBC television film which keeps close to the text and the Claudio-Hero semi tragedy takes central stage.

The story starts with an elite group of soldiers coming back from war Don Pedro: Prince of Aragon, Benedick Lord of Padua, young Claudio Lord of Florence and Don John illegitimate brother of Don Pedro. They arrive in Messina where the Governor Leonato bids them welcome and asks them to stay. There is history between Beatrice and Benedick who cannot resist in spa-ing with each other every time they meet, they have a love-hate relationship. Claudio who has been commended for his actions in the wars falls in love with Leonato's daughter Hero. At a masked ball Don Pedro says he will win the affections of Hero and hand her over to the more inexperienced Claudio. Leonato is happy to sanction the marriage of Claudio and Hero for the following week. The plain speaking villain (on his own admission) Don John hatches a plot to trick Claudio and Don Pedro to believe that Hero is not a virgin. Two friends of Don John, Borachio and Conrad arrange for Margaret (a lady in waiting) to to dress up in hero's clothes and be seen in Hero's bedroom with Borachio. Dogberry the master constable and the watch despite their comedy routine catch the two plotters, but not in time to prevent Claudio and Don Pedro denouncing Hero as a whore at the alter. Hero swoons and the friar smells a plot and suggests to the distraught Leonato that he takes and hides Hero while her friends pretend that she is dead. While this dark side of the plot is being played out, there is the love jousting continuing between Beatrice and Benedick aided and abetted by their friends who trick them both into believing that each one loves the other, but can'e admit it. There is much eaves dropping and skulking around in the undergrowth similar to Don Pedro and Claudio.

The two love matches are skilfully intertwined and Benedick and Beatrice find themselves caught up in the defence of Hero against Don Pedro and Claudio. Dogberry eventually reveals the plotters to Leonato and Don Pedro, who have worked themselves up into challenging each other to fight. A truce is called and Claudio agrees to marry another member of Leonato's household; sight unseen, but it is Hero, and there is a double wedding celebration as Benedick and Beatrice still jesting join the celebrations.

The play can be seen as a battle of the sexes between two couples, light hearted but pointed between Beatrice and Benedick, but semi tragic in the case of Claudio and Hero. There is the need for a bride to be a virgin, which although seems somewhat outdated in todays westernised culture was of supreme importance in some periods of our history and takes a central position in this story. This all points to the Claudio-Hero story as being the main plot, however the play can be easily subverted into a romantic comedy if the Benedick-Beatrice story is given equal billing. They both have the best lines which are genuinely funny and their love play jousting, sits well with the comedy interludes, provided by Dogberry and the Watch.

It is interesting that Shakespeare gives Beatrice and Benedick the best lines as they twist each other comments in a way that would have been familiar to some Elizabethan theatregoers. It is similar to the euphuistic language used by John Lyly in his books and plays, but whereas this was largely an exercise in style and could go on at inordinate length, in Shakespeares hands it is cutting and witty. When it is all said and done and we are at the celebratory end of the play it is the comic interplay between Beatrice and Benedick that stays in my memory.

It is interesting that The title of the Much Ado About Nothing indicates to the modern reader that is is an exercise in frivolity, but when you understand that 'Nothing' in Elizabethan times was another term for female genitalia then the dark side of the play rears its head again. I read the Arden Shakespeare edition of the play and thought that the introduction and editing by Claire McEachern was one of the best that I have read - 5 stars show less

This is one of Shakespeare's most delightful comedies and ends happily with a big wedding. The plot involves the romance of two couples. Claudio and Hero fall in love at the first glance but their marriage plans are complicated by the intrigues of the wicked Don John who poison's Claudio's mind against Hero by tricking him into believing she has been unfaithful on the eve of their wedding. The other couple, Beatrice and Benedick, start out with a very biting relationship full of witty repartee. Their friends determine to trick them into falling in love with each other. There are plenty of other entertaining characters, particularly the watchmen who are key to uncovering the plot against Claudio and Hero.

One challenge with the play is show more the language used. Because there is so much witty dialog with puns to malapropisms, the reader is forced to regularly check the notes provided. The Folger e-book edition, however, makes this easy although it interrupts the flow of reading. This Folger edition, as usual, provides a number of introductory essays on Shakespeare, his theater and his language. Most of these essays are copies of what appears in all other Folger editions. The one unique essay is a modern commentary on the play by Gail Kern Paster. I found the essay to be more irritating than illuminating. show less

http://nhw.livejournal.com/1130881.html

I have been unfaithful to Arkangel. I was quite enjoying their presentation, particularly with the excellent Saskia Reeves as Beatrice, but I kept on thinking back to the cinema version of 1993, which I remember with deep nostalgia because it was the year we got married; and eventually I thought, OK, I'll get hold of the Branagh version and watch it instead. Which was surprisingly easy, and definitely worth it.

The play itself is genuinely funny, not quite as funny as A Comedy of Errors, but a better play - the characters are better rounded, and the drama frankly more believable. Beatrice is surely one of the most memorable female roles in Shakespeare (I think only Portia is in the same league). I show more see from IMDB that her role was played by Penelope Keith in the 1978 BBC version, and by Maggie Smith in a 1967 version which also starred Caroline "Liz Shaw" John as Hero. But the overall frame is good too, the contrast between the Claudia/Hero and Beatrice/Benedick romances, neither of which is straightforward, but complicated in different ways. The Dogberry bits are, for once, pretty integral to the plot, though I suspect it is difficult to integrate them with satisfactory unity of style. (If I were staging it, I'd have Dogberry's guards and maybe even Dogberyy himself visible in the background in all the early crowd scenes, so that they don't appear out of nowhere in Act III.) show less

CRITIQUE

Okay. I think I will have to start with the obvious problems – racism, anti-Semitism, and sexism. Some scholars of Shakespeare excuse him as being a product of his time. I am also a product of my time, so I can’t just let him off the hook for these flaws.

When Benedick says, “If I do not love her, I am a Jew.” It is a clear slur against Jews. Taking the content of his speech into consideration, he means something like, “If I do not love her, then I am a fool.” (Act 2 Scene 3)

When Claudio agrees to marry whoever Leonato asks him to, he is motivated to do so out of guilt – guilt for his role in Hero’s death. He is agreeing to do penance for his misdeeds. So when he says, “I’ll hold my mind, were she an show more Ethiope,” he is saying that he will marry her, even if she is black. As penance. Not cool. (Act 5 Scene 4)

And of course, there is the obvious sexism. Who cares if Hero is a virgin?

Claudio is a royal jerk. Even if he does think that Hero is disloyal, he could confront her in private and allow her to defend herself. And even if Hero has been disloyal, Claudio could simply break off his engagement and leave. But to publicly disgrace her? In the 16th century? That was close to a death sentence.

And Hero’s father? How could he possibly buy into the scandal? On his behalf, after Leonato recovers from his shock, he does defend Hero the next day. But still.

Benedick decides to defend Hero’s honor just minutes after it was tarnished. Even though he hardly knows her. So what’s Leonato’s excuse for not doing the same?

Another question that begs to be answered is: Why in the world would Hero take Claudio back after what he did? And why would Hero’s father support it? I guess it was either that or the nunnery…

It’s crass to think that even a virgin whose reputation has been tainted has no option other than a “religious life”. The Friar makes this clear:

“And if it sort not well, you may conceal her,
As best befits her wounded reputation,
In some reclusive and religious life,
Out of all eyes, tongues, minds, and injuries.”
(p. 163, Act 4 Scene 1)

PRAISE

I really love the bantering: between Beatrice and the messenger, between Beatrice and Benedick, between Benedick and Claudio. Even Don Pedro and Leonato join in on the bantering – and they’re supposed to be these high-society, proper noblemen. And these are not just light, polite topics about which they are joking around. Topics include how ugly and disdainful the other is, and who slept with the other man’s wife. It’s hilarious. With a little updated language, this could be a group of college students, joking around – intelligent, sharp-witted, and with an incredibly good sense of humor.

And for all the sexism that existed in the 16th century, and for all the weak female characters in Shakespearean plays, Beatrice is by far the strongest Shakespearean female character I have come across to date – and she can be considered a strong female character, displaying intelligence, wit, strength, and integrity, even when measured by today’s standards.

She is not the typical late 16th century European woman by any definition of the word. She suggests her cousin choose a husband that pleases her:

“Yes, faith; it is my cousin's duty to make curtsey and say, 'Father, as it please you'. But yet for all that, cousin, let him be a handsome fellow, or else make another curtsey and say, 'Father, as it please me'” (p. 39).

A young noblewoman (or any woman) doing what she pleases in 1598, especially in regards to whom she marries, is nothing short of revolutionary.

Yes, Beatrice is quite the rebel. Not only in gender issues. When she tells Benedick, "We must follow the leaders," referring to the dance, and he adds, "In every good thing," Beatrice continues, "Nay, if they lead to any ill, I will leave them at the next turning" (p. 47).

So apparently Beatrice is not willing to follow people blindly just because they are designated leaders. I like her spirit.

Benedick’s character is also admirable. Despite his outward display of “being a professed tyrant to their sex,” he sees Beatrice as his equal in wit and intelligence and admires her for it. He is a stand-up, principled man, which he proves when he stays to see if Hero is alright, in spite of her alleged disloyalty, even after his friends have left her for dead. He stays, not solely because of his feelings for Beatrice, but because that’s the kind of decent person he is. And when he challenges Claudio to a duel, he believes in the honor he is fighting for. He is in no way a puppet on Beatrice’s string, but is clearly his own man in taking these grave steps to right the wrongs done to “a sweet and innocent lady” (p. 199, Act 5 Scene 1).

It’s interesting that the Goodreads description of the play above doesn’t mention Benedick and Beatrice at all and suggests that the “play's central plot shows how Don John maliciously deceives Claudio into believing that Hero has taken a lover on the eve of her marriage, causing Claudio to repudiate her publicly, at the altar.”

I don’t think that that was the “play’s central plot” at all, but rather a background story for the essential story line featuring the hero and heroine, Benedick and Beatrice.

The end of Act 4 Scene 1 is my favorite part and, I would purport, the most powerful section of the play. Benedick and Beatrice profess their love for each other in the middle of the tragically unfolding drama, in which Beatrice’s cousin’s life is ruined and Benedick agrees to challenge his best friend to a duel. Powerful stuff. Elegantly written. Pure drama. (p. 165-173) show less