The Winter's Tale - Act III

[kasie]

SPOILER ALERT!!!

If Antigonous doesn't die, there can't be the neat resolution of pairing off Paulina in the last act....

I wrote a reply to Virgil's post some time ago and my computer played silly wotsits and deleted it for me when I tried to post it. I'll see if I can remember what I thought at the time....

I think the problem we have with the first three acts of AWT is a real time problem - we are sitting reading the play and mulling over it: in a theatre we would be watching the action unfold before our eyes and would, I think, be more prepared to take it as given, letting the momentum of the performance carry us with it. We might think about it afterwards and wonder about the inconsistency and unlikelyhood of events but by that time we would have seen all the action and would know how the rest of the story resolves itself. These early scenes are a preparation of things to come, not the whole story - if the Leontes/Hermione story were the sole central action of the play, it would be a tragedy and would end in Leontes spending the rest of his days in mourning and this early part would have to be fleshed out more fully to justify the dramatic action. As it is, to go back to the idea of real time, the audience at the first production, with no idea of the outcome, would know this could not be the whole story (or they had paid for a very short play!) and would accept this is a sketchy outline of events as a preparation of something more to follow.

Given the shorthand aspect of this part of the play, I personally don't have too much of a problem with Leontes' behaviour - it's irrational, both the jealousy and the quick repentence. It might be a bout of temporary breakdown, self-induced by jealousy - the plea 'while the balance of the mind was disturbed' used to be a mitigation of a verdict of guilty in English Law and kept many a murderer from the gallows, albeit sending him/her to a sentence of imprisonment for life or 'detention in a place of safety at Her Majesty's pleasure'. (The phraseology may not be correct word for word, but that's the gist of it!) Its function is to provide the background to the second part of the play.

Is it worth bearing in mind that this is a late play, first performed in 1611 and drama was changing by this time? It was written eight years into James I's reign, plays performed at court were becoming masques with more dancing and music, and less verbally dramatic content, possibly because the Queen, Anne of Denmark, did not speak fluent English and preferred less verbal entertainments. The second part of the play has a masque-like quality and lends itself to all sorts of dancing and musical presentations.

re: the bear - I'm sure it was written to be a cameo part for one of the next-door neighbours! Some of the bears were quite tame and were themselves well-loved 'stars' at the time - I seem to remember reading, but I'm sorry I can't remember where, that the bears were popular and familiar figures in the area, few died in the bear-pit, it was the dogs that were mauled, and most lived to quite a peaceful old age. (Virgil - what's the Latin tag about 'other times, other ways'?)

[Janine]

[QUOTE=kasie;610342]SPOILER ALERT!!!

If Antigonous doesn't die, there can't be the neat resolution of pairing off Paulina in the last act....

Yes, true and that is part of the comedy, seeing how it is all resolved so neatly at the end.

I wrote a reply to Virgil's post some time ago and my computer played silly wotsits and deleted it for me when I tried to post it. I'll see if I can remember what I thought at the time....

I hate that when the computer does that stuff.

I think the problem we have with the first three acts of AWT is a real time problem - we are sitting reading the play and mulling over it: in a theatre we would be watching the action unfold before our eyes and would, I think, be more prepared to take it as given, letting the momentum of the performance carry us with it. We might think about it afterwards and wonder about the inconsistency and unlikelyhood of events but by that time we would have seen all the action and would know how the rest of the story resolves itself. These early scenes are a preparation of things to come, not the whole story - if the Leontes/Hermione story were the sole central action of the play, it would be a tragedy and would end in Leontes spending the rest of his days in mourning and this early part would have to be fleshed out more fully to justify the dramatic action. As it is, to go back to the idea of real time, the audience at the first production, with no idea of the outcome, would know this could not be the whole story (or they had paid for a very short play!) and would accept this is a sketchy outline of events as a preparation of something more to follow.

The statement I bolded up in your commentary I totally agree with. I have watched the play on DVD, but somehow I kept thinking that if I was sitting in the actual audience, I would find the play more believable and dynamic as a play. I would put it into that 'context' and take it as it comes and accept it. I know perfectly, just what you mean by your comment.

Given the shorthand aspect of this part of the play, I personally don't have too much of a problem with Leontes' behaviour - it's irrational, both the jealousy and the quick repentence. It might be a bout of temporary breakdown, self-induced by jealousy - the plea 'while the balance of the mind was disturbed' used to be a mitigation of a verdict of guilty in English Law and kept many a murderer from the gallows, albeit sending him/her to a sentence of imprisonment for life or 'detention in a place of safety at Her Majesty's pleasure'. (The phraseology may not be correct word for word, but that's the gist of it!) Its function is to provide the background to the second part of the play.

Good observations and commentary. That is true that he is irrational in each action - in jealousy and then his quick repentence, so that is he indeed sane at the point of the second. I don't think so. In fact in the play I saw he was still portrayed as a wretched soul and hardly a man - still very much demented in his manor. I think the play I saw showed him as more mentally derranged and this helped to put forth a more believable plot.

Is it worth bearing in mind that this is a late play, first performed in 1611 and drama was changing by this time? It was written eight years into James I's reign, plays performed at court were becoming masques with more dancing and music, and less verbally dramatic content, possibly because the Queen, Anne of Denmark, did not speak fluent English and preferred less verbal entertainments. The second part of the play has a masque-like quality and lends itself to all sorts of dancing and musical presentations.

So this was actually a late play of Shakespeare's? I was wondering where it fell in the body of his work. Thanks for that information and insight.
Yes, the second half is full of silliness, sometimes bawdry, even somewhat obscene and much playfulness, gaiety - so opposite the first half of the play.

re: the bear - I'm sure it was written to be a cameo part for one of the next-door neighbours! Some of the bears were quite tame and were themselves well-loved 'stars' at the time - I seem to remember reading, but I'm sorry I can't remember where, that the bears were popular and familiar figures in the area, few died in the bear-pit, it was the dogs that were mauled, and most lived to quite a peaceful old age. (Virgil - what's the Latin tag about 'other times, other ways'?)

That is quite interesting, too. Thanks for the insight. I wondered why he used a bear.