One of my favourite movies of all time, starring my personal girl-crush Emma Stone, is Easy A. This is the story of a young high school woman who spreads a rumor that she's promiscuous, and gains an inordinate amount of popularity because of it. When things start to spiral out of control, she takes matters into her own hands to clear up everyone's misconceptions.
But what does it have to do with our class, and why is it even worth watching?
Lysistrata
In Aristophanes' Lysistrata, the women use their seductive skills to sexually frustrate the men, and the lack of consummation eventually gets the women what they want. Easy A shows echoes of this concept. Olive, the main character, starts to use the rumor working against her to help the less fortunate. She pretends to have sex with them, but for a price.
Well that's the most awkward screencap I've ever seen.
The connection to Molière's The Misanthrope is less about characterization, and more about wordsmithing. The style of writing used in The Misanthrope was downright poetic. In Easy A, there is an obvious love for words among Olive and her family. They delight in language itself, and find a way to turn this delight into something entirely comic.
In The Venetian Twins, Goldini used a method called "breaking the fourth wall" that allows the characters to speak directly to the audience. Not only is Easy A broken up into bite-sized segments (or what I would call "acts"), these segment breaks are a direct result of Olive narrating her situation directly to the audience.
YouTube didn't have the scene, so here's a snake in a tiny hat.
There are a lot of elements to Easy A that relate back to previous texts we've analyzed in class (as seen above). But beyond that, this film masters a tongue-in-cheek humor that is subtle and elevated, and all the more hilarious because of it. Every line is crafted, and if you listen carefully enough, you'll find something to laugh at come every turn.
For those who haven’t seen this
movie, it stars Amanda Bynes and Channing Tatum. Amanda Bynes plays Viola, a tomboy whose
mother insists on her acting more ladylike. Viola’s twin, Sebastian, is in a band and gets
a last minute gig in London, and Viola comes up with a plan to disguise
herself as her brother in order to go to his school and play on the soccer team
there. When she arrives (acting as her
brother), she meets her roommate Duke, played by Channing Tatum, and tries to
act manly, but just ends up looking like a freak. There is a big love triangle, which ends up
as more of a complicated web of relationships.
This movie is loosely based on Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night.
I think this movie can be related
to The Venetian Twins because one twin
inpersonates the other and chaos ensues.
One twin (Tonino/Viola) pretends to be the other twin
(Zanetto/Sebastian) and winds up causing lots of confusion and heartache for
everyone around them.
This movie can also be related to Lysistrata because both the movie and
the play have lead female characters who do not agree with how the men are
doing things and decide to take matters into her own hands. Viola’s school soccer team is cut, and when
the men’s team laughs at the idea of a co-ed team, she sees her chance to pose
as Sebastian at a different school where she can join that team and play
against her previous school in a big rival match.
She’s the Man covers topics like gender
roles in society, lies and deception, and breaking stereotypes. I think it would be a good choice to watch in
class and we could make many connections between the film and the plays we have
read.
The text that has helped me expand on my knowledge about what comedy is Frye's "The Argument of Comedy," which is quite surprising considering it was probably the piece I hated to read the most too. Particularly, I like the four causes presented by Frye, and I enjoy trying to fit the plays we read into the mold Frye has given us.
Just for a refresher, here are the four causes:
1. The Material Cause: the desire and driving force of the main character; mostly it's motivated by the body, i.e. sexual desires.
2. The Formal Cause: the coming to terms with the social order, usually represented in the form of an older wiser character, like an older man; it's the opposing force to the material cause.
3. The Efficient Cause: the natural course of events, usually brought about by a lower more humorous character, like a slave.
4. The Final Cause: the audience's applause and approval validates the final resolution of the main goal.
As much as I like to apply these causes to the play we read for class, I have had a hard time doing it for "The Beaver Coat." Going through all four causes is fun but frustrating because the play does not fit the typical mold.
1. The Material Cause: Usually this is a bodily desire for sex with someone. For example, in "The Venetian Twins," the material cause was easy enough to spot because it was Zanetto's desire for Rosaura. The desire in "The Beaver Coat" is not for sex, but for wealth and material gain. The main character is not a male in this case either, but Mrs. Wolff.
2. The Formal Cause: As far as I can determine, the efficient cause, the wise older character, in this case is Krueger. His influence doesn't stop Mrs. Wolff's desire for wealth of course, so he isn't a very effective formal cause. A case might be made for Von Wehrhahn to be the formal cause, and although he fits the bill for the highest placed member of society over even Krueger, he in his determination to week out political criminals overlooks the criminals right under his nose. Krueger is a much more likely character to personify the formal cause, but in the end, he goes the same way as Von Wehrhahn and doesn't properly pursue the criminal activity under his nose. If he had only looked more closely at Mrs. Wolff, he would have caught his thief.
3. The Efficient Cause: Here is where I start to run into trouble. As far as I can see, the efficient cause is what is missing in the play. There are lower characters, of course, but they do not bring about any natural course of events. Justice is not done in the play; the efficient cause could even said to be MRS. WOLFF herself. She is a lower level servant like character, and she does push the play to its end, by making the higher level characters not suspicious of her or her family when she is the very person they should be looking at.
4. The Final Cause: The final cause is of course the audience, including myself. Obviously justice is not served to the actual sense that the thief is punished. But perhaps justice is served in the fact that the two members who were supposed to be the efficient cause failed to gain any justice. Their neglegence and the fact that they both failed to open their own eyes to see the real thief in their midst cost them their chance at justice. They deserved what they got and so the audience claps at the end of the play.
The first thing that came to my mind about the
wordcomedy was "something funny that produces laughter;
to entertain". To me, comedy simply means a movie/show/act/drama/etc. that
has people acting foolishly to make you laugh. It was not something
that I would put much effort in thinking about the whys and hows; it was just
something that I would watch and laugh it off at the end of the day (usually to
make myself feel better on a sad day). I definitely did not expect to “dissect”
comedy to this extent before attending this class.
Well, in this class one thing that struck me most
that now I would look at comedy differently was the fact that there could be a
tragedy in a comedy. Frye related tragedy with comedy in two ways: 1)tragedy
is implicit or uncompleted comedy and 2)
comedy contains a potential tragedy within itself. I really like how Frye incorporate
the idea of tragedy in his definition of comedy. In order to be classified as a
comedy, a play does not necessarily contain ONLY humour; it could include a
certain amount of tragedy as long as the ending is happy.
Let’s take The
Venetian Twins for example. Before the death of Zanetto this play was very laughable
and amusing, though sometimes frustrating, when the mixed identity of the twins
led up to many comical events. The death of Zanetto had certainly cast a shadow
on the play but when we looked at the ending, we could see how the play is
still a comedy. Tonino resolved the misunderstanding, couples were paired, broken
friendship was reconciled, and the villain was dead. The death of Zanetto was redeemed by the reestablishment of social order when the misunderstanding was cleared up. This resolution made the death
of Zanetto more acceptable although I still have a sense of pity towards the
poor Zanetto.
This is an entirely novel way to look at a comedy
and I have certainly gained a brand new perspective of understanding a comedy.
At this point, we've watched a couple
plays and read many more. As we discussed the difference in drama
and theater in our last class, I felt like now was a good time to
bring up differences in watching a play and reading a play, and why
ultimately I believe reading a play is certainly not the best way to
experience one.
In most of the plays we've read, hardly
anything except dialogue is mentioned. With nothing much else to go
on, reading a play feels a lot like looking at a template. By
reading a play we can understand its intentions, but so much is lost
when a play isn't viewed. Certain character's tones can be
misinterpreted, I know on more than one occasion in this and other
classes I've been totally wrong about how a character was approaching
a situation just because I didn't pick it up from how it was
presented in the play. The Beaver Coat is
the first play to actually mitigate things like this, being very
descriptive in the way people look, act, and speak.
When I
say much is lost in only reading a play, I don't just mean
better visualizing what's occurring, but the play's character. While
that in itself might not be relevant to analysis in our class, it
doesn't change the fact that some of my favorite parts from the plays
we've watched have been things that were never explicitly mentioned
in text alone. In The Venetian Twins,
my favorite thing is when Tanino (Zanetto?) is giving an aside and
one of the servants squints over his shoulder to try to see who he's
talking to. In The Broken Jug,
Judge Adam breaking his stick (it just snaps in half as he's banging
it, it doesn't look like it was even intentional) was one of the few
things that made me laugh.
In the
end I believe it is unfortunate that more of these plays aren't
watched instead of read, as they were intended.
The audience, while not as directly a
part of the play as some of our previous works, is still an important
thing to consider. Unlike The Venetian Twins,
there are no asides nor does it end with a character directly
speaking to the audience. The closest we get to audience interaction
is the pseudo-bow all the actors take at the end on the clock.
Although the methods are not as direct as The Venetian
Twins, the audience will always
be an element.
In my
Venetian Twins post I
discussed that audience inclusion is very important. The
Broken Jug accomplishes this by
giving the audience a sense of superior knowledge. While the people
in the court room are very slow to come to the realization, it's
evident to the audience pretty quickly that Adam is the culprit.
Similarly to the jug situation, we also know more than Walter
regarding Adam's court records.
Many
of these things we, as the audience, knew from Adam himself; for
instance, that the wig had to be his. As a result of this, the
audience has superior knowledge over everyone – except, that is,
Adam. Adam is the audience's peer, but only in knowledge. Adam's
character is what allows the audience to feel dissociated from him,
and puts us on the side of the court. Given the knowledge we are
afforded and the (often ignorant) people of the court, we watch as
these people draw nearer to a solution known to us, and in addition
watch as Adam realizes they grow nearer. Ultimately the audience
inclusion stems from being on the side of the people while having
knowledge of the villain.
(For a
more historical approach on intended audience, see Christian's post.)
While reading your posts this evening, I was struck by another connection to a recent event that might help us explore the trope of mistaken identity within dramatic comedies.
On Monday, I saw the headline below:
Here's a link to the video
Now, I am sure this is not at all a laughing matter for the reporter, though Samuel L. Jackson manages to play the moment for some modicum of comic effect, but does this mix-up of identity work in the same way as the Tonino/Zanetto confusion in The Venetian Twins? Wherein does the difference lie? How would you alter this situation for it to work within a comedy frame?
Similarly, given the following plot synopsis of the Hitchcock thriller "North by Northwest," shouldn't it be a comedy? Why doesn't the plot sound like a comedy? How does the trope of "mistaken identities" need to function within a text for it to earn the label "comedy"?
A suave, succesful New York advertising executive finds himself, through a case of mistaken identity, embroiled in a web of intrigue and murder that takes him across the country to prove his innocence to the police and get an evil crime syndicate, looking for a lost microfilm, off his tail.--Google
While reading The Venetian Twins, I kept coming back to the idea that its humor seemed oddly familiar. There was something about the hit-or-miss way the Twins narrowly avoided each other, something about the comedic structure of the play itself that made it feel modern, rather than something written over two hundred years ago. Though there were many humorous moments throughout the play, certain themes kept jumping out at me, such as...
Twin Mix-Ups
"TONINO: And who do you think I am, then?" (p. 77)
From Sister, Sister, to The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, twins (and getting them mixed up) have been a common theme in comedy. Though I'm not entirely certain why twin-related mishaps have adopted their own trope in our society, I have a hunch it has something to do with the humor in misunderstandings (re: my last post about this topic). It becomes an inside joke for the audience/reader. We know who's who -- it's obvious to us, their names are right there, written on the play we're reading. We are fully aware of the tension, of how close everything is to being resolved, and that everything is just a simple misunderstanding between characters that aren't privy to the big picture.
This use of mistaken identity (whether accidental, or on purpose) seems to originate from (you guessed it) misunderstandings. And this sort of comedic topic has no expiration date. It's an overarching theme that can be recreated in all sorts of scenarios.
Speaking of overarching themes...
Making Fun of the Government/Corrupt Law Enforcement/Lawyer Jokes
"ZANETTO: I don't care if I'm robbed by thieves or by the law." (p. 67)
There's something about authority that makes us want to trip it and laugh when it falls. Is this a unique brand of the everyday man expressing his opinions? Is it a sad state of awareness that notices corruption in higher power? Is it meant to humble our betters, or improve younger generations with cynical thinking about when and where to elect officials? I'm not sure of the exact purpose, but politics is a hot-button topic for current comic appeal. There even are two different shows dedicated entirely to political humor, that I know of.
Political humor in and of itself does have a time stamp. There are certain events more relevant to one particular time than to others. But the theme of political humor -- the very foundation of it -- has an ever-prevalent, ever-evolving quality. Political humor tends to play on the ironies and stupidities of authority. Even though I know nothing about Italy in the 1740's, Zanetto's displeasure with the local authorities veritably stealing from him via their layers of red tape was something even I could connect with.
As for universal connections...
Love
"ZANETTO: I love you so much; without you I'm like a bird without a nest, a rooster without a hen, a stallion without a mare, a little pig without his own little sow." (p. 74)
Love. Probably the most universal theme of all. You see it in RomComs, plastered all over popular music. It's in most of the stories you read, sometimes blatant, sometimes hiding out in the shadows. Love, human connection, draws people in, and I think its magnetism is ageless. Love has potential -- it can be morphed into a silly, comical thing (like Bo Burnham's video up top), or even make its rounds in the world of tragedy (Christopher Titus, above).
When you take a premise like in The Venetian Twins, love becomes a source of humor (the twins' constant rejection) or a remedy for tragedy (Zanetto and the poison). Love can be a catalyst for a bigger theme (like in Lysistrata, and the wives manipulation of the husbands for a political end), or the theme itself. Which makes love a topic with timeless comedic potential.
without a nest, a rooster without a hen, a stallion without
a mare, a
little pig without his own little sow. It's true, darling, I
love you, I
want to throw myself in the ocean of your beauty and drown,
I want
to splash around in your sweetness like a water bird in a
lake, I want
to stir up the dust of your affection, like, um, like a
donkey kicking up
sand in the desert.
These are the lines of poor love struck Zanetto, easily the most pitiable character in the play. Zanetto is the foolish twin. He doesn't know much about matters of love or possess any common sense for that matter, but out of all the characters in the play, he is the most honest. His brother Tonino, while he obviously has more sense, is shrewder and more willing to take advantage of others. He has obviously already done so by having Beatrice abandon her family to meet him in another city, potentially putting her honor at stake, and he is willing to take his twin's jewels and money, knowing they aren't his, even if he claimed it was only to find out the real owner of the jewels. He used them for his own advantage when he needed them, gentleman or not.
Zanetto, on the other hand, is honest the entire play, even if it is out of foolishness. His motives are bared for all to see and finding a loving wife is his only goal, with no dark dishonest intention behind it. He is bluntly honest with Rosaura with his desire for sex right at the beginning of the play, saying, "The best time is right now." He is even honest later when he states his intentions of marrying both Beatrice and Rosaura because he does not know it is illegal to have two wives. Other characters in the play fully seek to take advantage of his simple nature, including his would be father-in-law. "Daughter dear, be discreet. He's a bit of a fool, but he's filthy rich." Poor Zanetto is so honest himself that he never suspects Pancrazio of giving him advice and later poisoning him. He even chooses to believe that the poison is working to make him alluring to women as he knows he is dying, ever the fool to the end.
To add insult to injury, Zanetto goes un-mourned at the end of the play, underappreciated and unwanted. Oh sure, Tonino drops a few lines pretending to care that Zanetto is dead, but he just got to inherit all his brother's fortune, including the jewels and money he so gentlemanly took earlier in the play. Tonino is happily going to be married to Beatrice, Rosauro has discovered her true identity and is going to be married to another, and even Zanetto's servant Arlecchino has run away without giving him a second thought. Though the play is a comedy, it has a slightly dark flavoring at the end with the most trusting and pure character dead and forgotten for at the end. Innocence has died, and everybody is too busy celebrating their own gains to care.
According to Merriam-Webster, arrogance is “an insulting way of thinking that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people.” In think that word best describes Tonino in The Venetian Twins.
A few times during the play, Tonino proclaims to others that he is a “gentleman” and a “honest man.” An example is after he is given Zanetto’s jewels and money by Arlecchino, “A casket of jewels, a purse full of money, it would have made a good haul for somebody, but I’m an a gentleman, and I don’t take other people’s things.” However, I believe his true character shows as the play progresses. Not long after he acquires the money and jewels and swears to find who they belong to, he uses them for his own amusement at the Professor’s house, “she’s [Colombina] picked the wrong pigeon this time. But this could be fun” and decides to play detective. He also revokes his friendship with Florindo after seeing that he is trying to steal Beatrice from him and insults those he views as inferior to him, (to Lelio) “what about you, you little caricature.” Tonino does redeem himself by defending his friend Florindo before he is murdered in the street and with his speech on why women and marriage do not destroy a man, but instead men allow themselves to be destroyed. In between these great actions, though, he seems to strut about the place finding the faults in others while not realizing his own.
In my opinion, Tonino’s character was one that the audience could learn a lesson from. That lesson being: no one is perfect, no matter how much one thinks they are. People in the 18th century may have seen how heroic and kind-hearted a person Tonino was at the beginning of the play, when he saved Florindo, and thought to themselves, “this character is just like me” and by the end of the play had them thinking, “I know I try to do good, but what am I doing that is causing harm to others?”
So I'll be honest, long ago first
hearing of the idea of asides I thought they were evidence of poor
writing. If you could develop your characters well enough, why would
you need them to literally speak their minds? However, after seeing
it done a few times I've since
changed my mind on them.
Firstly,
yes, asides can be used to easily justify one's actions without
developing a character, however character development is not always
necessary. As Frye said and as we discussed in class, stories and
particularly comedies use very simple archetypes. These archetypes
combined with an aside lets the viewer more easily understand the
characters.
However,
there's more to it than that. The aside is a tool used to create a
sense of inclusion. As we said last time, the important part of this
brand of comedy is being in on the joke; listening to Tonino's
thought process when he believes Rosaura to be a prostitute is
amusing because we have the extra knowledge of being a viewer; “ha
ha, he thinks that but we know this.” Some of the more interesting
use of aside can be seen in Pancrazio; if his demeanor wasn't enough,
his personality changes drastically during his asides, revealing his
true intentions.
Now
in a time where most visual entertainment has no way to directly
interact with the audience, is the aside still a valid tool? I would
most certainly say “no, of course not,” if I hadn't seen a few
episodes of House of Cards. The
protagonist often speaks directly to the viewer, and I think the
effect is better seen than described.
"The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good."
This contrarian statement made by Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko (Wall Street - 1987) is what rings in my ears when I ponder Carlo Goldoni's The Venetian Twins.
Greed is the intense and selfish desire for something. Usually it is wealth, or food, or power. It is an emotion that ever present in human society. It is that emotion which drives people, corporations, economies, politics, civilizations, and plays.
Greed is, arguably, the foundation of this story. Without the greed of the Professor (his folly, if you will), the play would not have been nearly the same. It would have been a completely different tale altogether; it would most assuredly not have been a comedy either.
Consider for a moment if the Professor had lost his biological daughter and had taken the time to grieve as any rational father would have. He would have lost the inheritance he was offered to his nephew. That is not the same story and nor is it funny. Let us mull over an alternate scenario: the Professor lost his daughter and adopted the orphan child because of his need to fill the hole in his heart with the love and trust of a young infant instead of cold hard cash. He would have raised the girl to be a normally functioning member of society without the ulterior motive of essentially selling her to a rich husband. Paying no mind to how superficial or vapid he may be. Heart warming? Yes. Comic? No.
In The Venetian Twins, it is greed that drives the story. It is greed that creates the conflict. It is greed that give the audience the opportunity to laugh.
Although Tonino is described in the character list as ‘the
clever twin,’ his actions align more with foolishness than cleverness. Tonino believes that he is being clever when
he asks Florindo to call him Zanetto in order to conceal his true identity. Of course he has no idea that Zanetto is also
in Verona, but he does not seem to have any problems or moral issues with
masking his identity.
Tonino’s one little lie caused heartache for Rosaura and
Beatrice and the death of Zanetto and Pancrazio. This may seem harsh on Tonino, but imagine
what probably would have taken place had he not lied about his identity. There would not be mass confusion and the
whole fiasco could have been avoided.
He is attributed with cleverness and even claims that he
knows his “way around the world a little better” than Zanetto. Shouldn’t a clever man know that deception
and mistaken identity can have severe consequences? Perhaps Tonino serves to illustrate to the
audience that even the cleverest of people can make bad decisions that impact
the people around them. He continues to
play along in his disguise, even when he is in situations where he is
completely clueless.
As Emily pointed out in her post, Frye claims that “comedy
is designed not to condemn evil, but to ridicule a lack of self-knowledge.” Tonino clearly fits this description because
he cannot see how his little lie is affecting everyone around him. His oblivious attitude, at least until the
end, is comic yet frustrating to watch because as the audience, we see the big
picture. At the end, he is not condemned
because of his deception, and with the exception of his brother being dead,
things seem to be working out in Tonino’s favor, thus fulfilling the given definition
of comedy.
When reading 'The Argument of Comedy' by Northrop Frye, the concept that jumped out at me the most was the idea of a green world. A green world, basically, is a place of looser structures and a more fantastical environment. In this 'world', all of the problems that are found the regular world are allowed to work themselves out and then the characters are able to return to the normal world. Some good examples of a green world are the fairy world from A Midsummer's Night Dream and the switching of the daughter's and mother's minds and bodies in Freaky Friday.
While there is no crazy, fantastical place where the rules of normal life don't apply in the Venetian Twins, it was still helpful for me to think over the play using a kind of green world. Perhaps a better term for the middle part of the play where all of the problems are sorted out would be the grey world, since most of the things that passed probably wouldn't happen in real life (but they might. It's a grey area.)
Alright, so in this grey world, anything can happen. The twins are confused for each other, the women are constantly getting their hearts broken, there are several more love triangles than Twilight, and of course, the doctor allegedly sells his daughter. None of these things would be pleasant in real life, but in this grey world, the world of comedy, it's hilarious and acceptable. In the grey world, it's as if all of my morals are suspended and anything goes. Whereas, if I were to just hear about a doctor selling his daughter, I would be furious. But in the context of the grey world, it was very amusing.
When I put my moral beliefs and social constrictions aside, I can just sit back and not worry about the implications if these things were to happen in my life. Thinking in terms of a grey world or a green world allows me to enjoy the play for what it is: comedy.
