310 Post 2

In the second version of As You Like It the characters, staging, and script differed significantly from what I expected from both how I read the play and the version of the play seen at the Globe. In addition to the significant changes, the characters in the second version were not as likeable, nor were they as charming. In the first version of the play, the actor who played Rosalind was funny and created an extremely interesting character while the Rosalind in the second version was nowhere near as charming nor as well rounded, at least in my own opinion. The other characters, particularly Touchstone in the second version created a somewhat uncomfortable situation on the stage. The Regent’s Park As You Like It made the characters and the relationship between Touchstone and Audrey much more sexual. This was further exacerbated by the changes made to the script which introduced more slang to the lines and added a new feeling to the play. The slang and random singing added by Touchstone was most likely supposed to create a funny comparison to the other characters and included to make Touchstone seem more of a fool than a clown. This takes away a juxtaposition that the play normally has where Touchstone is clearly seen as witty and thus performs the role of being contrasted against Orlando. This is particularly evident in the scene where Touchstone reads the poems that Orlando places on the trees around the forest and comes up with his own lines. In the first version of the play and in the original script this clearly has the purpose of showing how Oliver wronged his brother in not giving him a proper education. We also talked about this exact contrast in class with our discussion of As You Like It which is why the difference in the plays on this point seemed so clear.

The staging also changed in both plays and in fact added a situation that made the disappearance of Adam clearer, but also more graphic. Adam is the servant of Orlando and only appears in the first two acts. It is never explained why Adam does not appear again, but the second version clearly shows that Adam dies after Orlando goes through all of the trouble to save him from starvation and exposure. This part is strange because there is nothing clear in the play that suggests that he dies. Thus, the second version is clearer, but also more graphic. This is further shown by the hyper realistic deer that showed up later during the hunting scene. The hunting scene is strange in and of itself, most likely added in order to provide time for wardrobe change or passage of time, however the realistic deer really added to the creepy factor. In the first version of the play the deer was made of cloth and still not a scene that seemed particularly necessary nor fitting to the tone of the play, but the realistic deer made the scene and second version stranger. Both of these aspects added to the Regent’s park version made the entire play strange and creepier than originally.

Finally, the script in both versions of the play were different than the one I read from Shakespeare, however, the second version was more inventive with the script than the first. The first version of the play made the Shakespearean more understandable but did not detract from the overall mood of the play. The second version added in more slang and not just modern words, which in actuality made the Shakespeare a little more confusing because it also added lines that were not clear into the play. They added Touchstone singing in sections that made sense, but also confused the overall effect of each scene on the whole of the play. They also removed Touchstone’s speech about the seven stages of lying. This speech, while not incredibly important to the play does add humor and demonstrate more of an intelligence to the character. The removal of this speech and the slight distraction during the discussion of the poems on the trees took away from the contrast of Touchstone and Orlando.

Overall, the second version of the play was not as clear, as humorous, nor as entertaining as the first one. All of the different aspects provided a good source of comparison between the two and show how different aspects could be used, but while both did not directly copy Shakespeare the second play did not go far enough off of the script to accurately provide a different production.