On Thursday night I went to see Montana Shakespeare in the Parks' production of All's Well That Ends Well. It was excellent, as usual.
In the first scene, as the character Parrolles was introduced and developed , I noticed that my mind was filled with unexpected musings. I addressed myself to a recently arrived thought. "Thought," I said, "What are you and what business do you have inside my head?" "I," it replied, "am a thought springing from a brain that has been toned to critically evaluate literature. I am a thought about what this play really means. And I am sure if your literature teacher could see me, he would be proud." And so it continued through the whole of the play. My head was starting to hurt as I kept pace with this complex play and analyzed it as carefully as I could.
In the first act (I think, I don't know where the act/scene divisions are), I began to notice a striking parallel between Parrolles and Count Rossillian. "Ah," I thought delightedly, "they're foils. How brilliant!" And I watched, enthralled, as this theme developed. Each scene with Parrolles was perfectly executed and everyone in the crowd was laughing, but I wonder how many people saw through the jokes to the real message. How many saw that Parrolles' simple arrogance and cowardly heart were really designed to illuminate similar traits in Rossillian? And why did Shakespeare so hide his meaning and intent? His plays are delightful riddles and full of witty wordplay. They are extremely enjoyable for those who get it, but probably a little tedious for those who don't.
It is not my intent to sound like a haughty member of the enlightened few. I will be the first to admit that I certainly don't see all of the things Shakespeare was doing in this play, and it is my loss. For instance, when Parrolles nearly got himself into a duel with Lord Lafew, I am certain that it is supposed to reflect on Rossillian's disagreement with the king, and his recent "marriage" to Helena. But how? Was Parrolles' refusal to fight a commentary on Rossillian's refusal to face the issue of his marriage? Was Shakespeare pointing out that both men were foolish cowards? Perhaps... Also, the drum scene critiques Rossillian's seduction of the Florentine maid, and probably foreshadows Rossillian's coming examination by the king of France, but I know I missed some of its depth and richness of meaning.
And the ending confused me too! Why did Shakespeare end his story that way? All's well that ends well, but this story didn't end well! It actually didn't seem to end at all, just stop. Does that mean that all is not well because nothing ended well? Oh for a mind like Shakespeare's! Then I could puzzle out his plays, and perhaps even write a few of my own.
Finally there's the question of the theme. I don't think his theme was "the ends justify the means," as the title and scene in Florence would seem to imply. Was his theme "know thyself"? Parrolles and Rossillian both came to understand and accept their true character, and both were finally happy, in a rather disconcerting way. No, I don't think that is the correct theme, or if it is, it is certainly not the entirety of it. Was Shakespeare's theme "seek after virtue and let it guide you"? "Prize wisdom above all else"? "Honor humility"? "Shun false appearances"? Or was it something else entirely? I see I still need to do some pondering on that head.
This evening of mental acrobatics really heightened my appreciation and respect for my wonderful, wonderful literature teacher. It is because of his years of dedicated effort that I began almost unconsciously asking, "what does Shakespeare want to tell us through this play, and how does he do it?" Mr. K, you gave me the tools to evaluate any work of literature, for which I am grateful and of which you should be proud. I hope I never lose interest in literature and never stop questioning its meaning or evaluating it in the light of Christianity. Thank you for giving me that desire, and for developing in me the thinking skills necessary to pursue it!
2 comments:
Well done on the foil bit. Shakespeare's last few plays are confusing to many critics because they don't fit any nice categories; they are either dark comedies or comic tragedies. However, to the Christian who understands reality, these last few "problem plays" are Shakespeare's very best work, because they brilliantly reveal the true nature of the world to us.
Your questions about the ending and the theme have the same answer, for the ending IS the theme. The ending of this play leaves us with the very urgent question of whether Rossillion becomes a new man or if he remains the pig he was through the entire play. We wonder if Helena will get the husband she deserves. The King's closing speech gives us the truest answer possible: maybe. If Rossillion does change--or rather if love changes him--then "all's well that ends well." Redemption and conversion will transform all his earlier rascality into part of the glorious comedy of Helena's wooing of him. If he remains a boor, then the story ends tragically.
In either case the power of redemption and reconciliation are greatly praised. Even a coward and traitor like Parrolles can be restored to the community--once he humbles himself and acknowledges his sin for what it is. Now if only Rossillion will imitate his foil's confession.
Perhaps this theme--which fills all the "problem plays"--was particularly important to Shakespeare at the end of his life. It is indeed one of the most important truths about this world.
Sorry for being so verbose. Looks like I learned some things from you as well. :)
So is it safe to say that Helena is a symbol of the church, or even Christ? She is wooing Rossillian toward his telos, and toward redemption, and the true question is whether or not he will respond and be saved? This seems a fitting theme to the play, and also a fitting theme for a Christian author near the end of his life. How amazing!
Post a Comment