Amazing Helena

Falling in love with a guy, trapping him into a life-long loveless marriage, fining out he’s been trying to get with someone else while you’re supposedly ‘dead’… What’s a girl to do? In Helena’s case as we read in All’s Well That Ends Well, she solves all her problems by tricking her husband into having sex with him and then gets pregnant with his child. In the 2012 best-selling thriller Gone Girl, (MAJOR SPOILERS SO DO NOT READ AHEAD OF THIS!) the lead character, Amy, fins out her husband is cheating on her. So, she does what any strong, smart woman would do- she fakes her death, frames her husband, uses his frozen sperm to get herself knocked up, and pins her disappearance on an old lover who she brutally murders in his house. While As You Like It is definitely not as extreme as Gone Girl, both of these characters are a lot alike. They both go after what they want, even though they aren’t expected to do so. Helena lives in a time where women weren’t generally allowed to fight like she did to keep her husband, while Amy is in a marriage where her husband doesn’t expect a lot of love from her anymore.  Both of these women are also pretty good at manipulating people. Helena is pretty quick to get Diana and the widow in on her plan, and Amy is incredible at getting her old lover, Desi, to drop everything and hide her. Helena, however, isn’t completely crazy. She doesn’t feel the need to fake a rape and slaughter an innocent man just to get her husband to stay with her forever. I feel  that if As You Like It was to be written nowadays, it would be pretty similar to Gone Girl. But, on the contrary, there is no way Gone Girl would ever fly in any time period except for ours.

That Weird Medieval Switcheroo Pregnancy Trope

Shakespeare’s play “All’s Well That Ends Well” is resolved happily when Helena reveals that not only is she alive, but in fact, it was she that Bertram slept with, not Diana, and she’s even pregnant with their child! Everything settles into place: chaste Diana will earn herself a hefty dowry from the King, Helen consummates her marriage to Bertram, and… Well, you know. It’s in the title.

We don’t often see narratives like this anymore, or at least, not positive ones. Helena’s trick, presenting herself as someone else in order to fool Bertram into having sex with her, would never turn out “for the best” in the modern day. Rather than a story of comedy, bringing things to a cheery close, that sort of plot would be found in a horror story about a rape – especially in this era of technological concerns such as identity theft and other forms of internet based identity deception. (By the way, has anybody written the futuristic barcode-identity dystopia version of this story yet?)

A credit card stealer... claiming to find out if your card has been stolen.
Just another day of  liars lying on the internet, right?

But by early modern standards it’s just fine. Maybe even funny! Helena’s cleverness gives her the life and the love she’s dreamed of. How is that possible?

There’s some weird precedent for this kind of thing. Shakespeare isn’t just pulling this out of his elaborate joking sexual metaphor for a butt. One that comes to mind is the story of Uther and Igraine, the parents of Arthur Pendragon, or King Arthur. Yeah, the one who pulls the sword out of the stone and all that.

There are many different versions of the story, but here’s a short version of a popular one: Igraine’s husband, the Duke, rides off to battle while Uther has Merlin bewitch him to make him look like the Duke. Then, so disguised, he has sex with Igraine. Igraine gets pregnant, the Duke conveniently dies in battle, and afterward Igraine and Uther marry so that Arthur, future King of England, is a legitimate child.

Ringing a few bells? Okay, let me reword a few things.

Uther wants to bed/wed Igraine, so he pretends to be somebody else. She gets pregnant, he marries her, and they live happily ever after with their legitimately born elite-class child. Helena’s actions are basically a gender reversal of Uther’s. In “All’s Well” the main differences are that they’re already married (though not consummated, kind of important back then) and she wants to get pregnant.

If you ask me, Shakespeare’s doing something interesting here. Sure, Uther and Igraine aren’t the only story of mistaken-identity-cheating in old stories, but they’re unique in that it turns out alright. The fact that it turns out alright is made possible by the fact that Uther is a powerful high-born man, and Igraine – often by as little as 3 hours! – becomes an unmarried widow, so he has every right to “claim” her, in a sense.

Helena looking at Bertram, Bertram looking away...
Shakespeare sets up nicely for Helena to get what she wants.

And in a similar sense, Shakespeare’s decision to begin the play with that half-complete marriage legitimizes this trickery as something that can work from a female standpoint. What if she and Bertram hadn’t been married? Why, she’d be a seductress of some sort. But because the King married them, she’s only getting the sex he’s legally required to give her – by early modern standards of course, since this is all rape by ours, but marital rape and informed consent weren’t concepts back then.

Helena gets pregnant, Bertram’s in love with her after all, the end. Ta-da! Shakespeare takes a plot that previously required patriarchal ownership to make it work, makes it about a woman, and succeeds by using the marriage standards of the time to put her in power instead.

Not half bad.

The Cinderella Twist

All’s Well That Ends Well  reminded me so much of Ella Enchanted because the focus was on Helena, the orphan daughter who falls madly in love with Count Bertram but feels like she has no chance because he is a nobleman while she is part of the lower class. As well as the rejection Count Bertram gives her because she has no higher statues. 

The same issue can be seen when viewing the movie Ella Enchanted because the plot starts off showing how Ella’s mother passes away and is cared for by her thoughtless and greedy father who remarries but eventually passes away as well and she ends up getting mistreated by her step mother and step sisters who make her clean and do chores all day. 

            In Ella Enchanted, Ella relates to Helena in the sense that she starts growing feelings towards prince Charmont who all the girls think of as dreamy but they know he is out of their reach. The scene of the movie that most relates to the play is the scene where Ella and prince Charmont are standing in in the mirror garden and she loves him so much that she is trying to find the will power not to stab him, but when she finally succeeds he ends up rejecting her and she is taken away. After being taken away she does everything in her power to see him again and try to talk to him in order to explain her actions. When finally doing so they work things out and end up together and happily married.

            The movie is different in many ways but I felt like it was a modern-day, fantasy Cinderella story which included lots of twists and turns but overall covered the basics of what Shakespeare’s play All’s Well That Ends Well tried to cover. We even got to see how Count Bertram who was a player related so much to prince Charmont in the movie of Ella Enchanted.. Both the play and the film focused on love, betrayal, and rejection.

Helen's New Groove: Suitors in Shakespeare and Disney

            An interesting comparison can be found between the presenting of suitors to Helen in All’s Well That Ends Well (Act II, Scene III) and a similar presentation of potential spouses to the emperor Kuzco in the animated Disney film The Emperor’s New Groove. The drastically different origins/structures these two characters conform to (Kuzco being an upper-class/noble man, and Helen being a low-born/common woman) present a commentary on the treatment of gender/social class in regard to the suitor process. Not only this, but one can also find an interesting view into some of the changes/consistencies found in the depiction of finding a suitor in Shakespeare’s work as compared to a modern work.

First to consider is the role of each character’s social standing/class in regard to their approach of being presented with suitors. In this comparison, Kuzco appears on a surface level as a clearly more desirable spouse; as emperor of his kingdom, the wealth and social influence accompanied in becoming his wife are obvious. Alternatively, Helen appears/is viewed as a relatively undesirable bride, being of low birth and therefore lacking the dowry/familial connections/status a potential husband might be looking for. This can be seen as a potential reason for Kuzco’s suitor’s anger at his rejection (ignoring for the moment his disrespectful treatment of them), as well as Helen’s suitor’s (possible) relief at her dismissal of their advances in favor of Bertram. However, while Helen’s standing may not have been on par with nobility, she still had earned herself a close relationship with the king, and would’ve held a respectable degree of clout/significance through this relationship (evidenced by the king’s agreeing to allow her to pick her future husband). Not only this, but the king even states to Bertram his intention/willingness to more formally heighten Helen’s social standing, more or less alleviating the issue (although not to a satisfactory degree in Bertram’s opinion). Thus each character is presented as holding some degree of social significance (although the difference between their social standings is admittedly quite large), which pushes one to strive further outward in regard to the reasoning behind the suitors’ responses to their rejection.

Gender appears as potentially the most major difference existing between the reactions of the suitors to Helen as compared to Kuzco (possible relief/happiness and anger/sorrow respectively). With societal/cultural traditions usually stressing the male’s courtship of the woman, the interactions between Helen and her initial suitors can be viewed as potentially emasculating. In this situation, the classic gender roles have been reversed, and the group of young lords is presented to Helen in much the same way the maidens are presented to Kuzco. Thus Helen’s suitors would’ve viewed her rejection as less emasculating as compared to the removal of what they would’ve perceived as their right as men. This prebuilt gender norm also helps explain the modern interpretation of the suitor process as seen in Kuzco, the woman reacting more to him personally (and specifically his callous/rude behavior towards them) as compared to reacting to the situation itself (as is the case All’s Well that Ends Well, Helen herself being a wonderful individual often lauded by the other characters.

Leave Her Virginity Alone

Being the only child of a well-known doctor, people can assume that Helena in All’s Well That Ends Well is a well-educated woman with some background in her late father’s profession. But even with this assumption, boys Helena’s age only value her on the basis of her sexuality:

Wow...A "withered pear"? Thanks.

“Your date is better in your porridge than in your cheek, and your virginity, your old virginity, is like one of our French withered pears: it was formerly better, marry, yet ‘tis a withered pear (1.1.145-9).”

This metaphor towards her virginity has the same crudeness as a conversation in Arrested Development between Michael and his mother Lucille:

“Michael: It [the family cabin] is going to be up in Tahoe a couple more days. Maybe you could take a date.
Lucille: How am I supposed to find someone willing to go into that musty old claptrap?
Michael: [Long awkward stare] The cabin… Yes! That would be difficult, too.”

Both scenarios refer to the vagina as a horrid and vile part of the female anatomy. But no one expresses this unsavoriness when it’s associated with reproduction and furthering of a man’s name throughout generations:

“Out with’t [virginity]! Within t’one year it will make itself two, which is a goodly increase, and the principal itself not much the worse (1.1.136-8).”

Ohhhh, now I get it. When a baby is the end product the vagina is not so bad, but any other function that’s necessary for the good health of the woman, and for reproduction itself, then it’s condemned. Helena’s is horrid because she refuses to give it up. Lucille’s is vile because she’s an older woman and no longer fertile. Makes complete sense.

But here’s what kills me about this logic, it creates this idea that women should be ashamed to talk about any other biologically natural function of the female body. Female sexuality is only positively spoken of when in it’s toward something societally desirable. Any cramps, pain, itching, keep that stuff private. And no, it’s not the most pleasant topic, but why should I keep my own “victoria” a secret when men can openly make references to their “disco stick”? And, bringing it back to the literature, why must Helena’s virginity be condemned when she exercises full possession of her sexuality by deciding to save it for what she determines as the right time? Preferably, when Bertram and her consummate.

Helena is right to stand by her virginity. She has the right to hold onto to her virginity without it being called a “withered pear”.  And even though she receives harsh critiques, she creates a plan to use her intelligence and medical background knowledge in order to gain what she wants and uses her femininity with power and respect. She saves the King and she marries Bertram on her own terms. Helena shows true feminine power. She shows that a woman can use her intelligence and  doesn’t need to compromise her sexuality to get what she wants.

Tricky, Tricky Helen

“I cannot love her nor will strive to do’t.” (2222)

It isn’t very often that the “roles” switch like this.

Helen loves Bertram, Bertram doesn’t love Helen.

Helen is a commoner, Bertram is a nobleman.

Helen gets the guy; Bertram doesn’t want to consummate the marriage.

Helen TRICKS him into consummating the marriage.

WHAT?

While reading this play and finding out that Helen tricked Bertram into sleeping with her, I became curious as to whether or not this was happening in today’s society. So off to Google I went.

“How to make someone have sex with you….”

I hope this doesn’t save in my google search history.

I found some helpful tips and tricks in making someone fall in love with you- by using psychology. I’m not kidding; these are real articles and videos out there and I found some entire books as well.

First, from our friendly Today Show host, Kathie Lee Gifford.

She starts off her tips by asking if this is smart or manipulative. Yikes, you tell me.

Then her tips include:

·         Hang around a lot but then be unavailable. So sneaky.

·         Don’t do nice things for them; let them do nice things for you. Bring me lunch, you peasant. #luvya

·         Give them the eye. It literally means to stare at them. All the time.

·         Don’t look away. ^^^

·         Practice "pupillometrics" Which I think is bedroom eyes….?

So basically just stare at them. A lot. And be super unavailable after you’re totally available. And then make them buy you stuff. Sounds like a rock solid foundation to a relationship if you ask me!

http://www.today.com/klgandhoda/5-ways-make-anyone-fall-love-you-1D80244648

Next, a how to guy on Youtube!

He mentions a trial that was performed by a group of psychologists. The trial was completed by having men cross a “sketchy” bridge and meeting a woman in the middle who would ask them to complete a survey of questions. After they completed the survey she mentioned that they could call her if they had any questions. #canihaveyonumber 

Then they did the same thing with a group of men who were on a “normal-non sketchy” bridge.

Those men who were on the said sketchy bridge were 54% more likely to call the woman after and ask her out on a date because of the feelings of adrenaline and fear they were confusing with feelings of attraction for her. 

Then he goes on to tell YOU how to trick someone into falling in love with you by taking them on adventurous dates. This is real… Watch the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsN9rVUeT68

So now that you know how to make someone fall in love with you, Tinder it up, and get what you deserve! 

V-Card Controversies

PAROLES: Are you meditating on virginity?

HELEN: Ay…. Man is enemy to virginity: how may we barricado [barricade] it against him?

PAROLES: Keep him out.

(lines 105-109)

            All’s Well that Ends Well explores interesting angles on the concept of virginity, specifically in the dialogue between Paroles and Helen in Act I, Scene 1. There are several conflicting views shared between the two characters, and it feels as though what is expressed possibly reflects the views of Shakespeare at the time as well.

            Paroles and Helen begin their conversation comparing the concept of virginity and sex in general to that of war. Phrases like “barricado” (lines 107-108) and “military policy” (line 115) all use war as a metaphor for virginity: Helen asks Paroles for advice on how to keep her virginity away from unwanted lovers, and even admits a woman’s virginity needs a man’s help, apparently.  

HELEN: …our virginity, though valiant in defence, yet is weak. Unfold to us some warlike resistance.

PAROLES: There is none. Man, setting down before you, will undermine you and blow you up.

(lines 110-113)

            Basically, there’s no hope for women at this period in history in deciding when and where they decide to “lose” their virginity (which, the concept of “losing” your virginity is a bit strange to me—but none on that currently). In fact, just a bit later in the scene, Paroles urges Helen to “lose” her virginity so she can contribute to the increase in population because keeping her virginity makes her potential for reproducing “lost” (line 124). Here again is the concept of “losing” and also a strange, conflicting view in which Helen is encouraged to “lose” her virginity but only to be in line with the patriarchal, archaic view that Paroles offers, that of to bring children into the world. However, it can be said that it is still strange Helen would even be encouraged to lose her virginity at all. Wasn’t it prudent to most people back in the time Shakespeare wrote in to preserve a woman’s virginity is one of the most important things? We see in Titus Andronicus that Lavinia is considered to be “nothing” or “ruined” once she is raped and her virginity is stolen from her. Why the slight deviation in All’s Well, where losing virginity is considered to be a better than keeping it, if only for the aspect of producing offspring?

            Moreover, Paroles calls virginity “peevish, proud, idle, made of self-love—which is the most inhibited [prohibited] sin in the canon [scriptures]” (lines 134-136). So now virginity is considered a sin, when most religious texts preach the sanctity of it. Why has Shakespeare expressed such a different view on virginity in this play and not in the others? Possibly, this is a new interpretation of his developed over the years as he continued to write plays. That being said, this play feels neither comedic nor tragic in nature, but just bizarre in its material, almost like Shakespeare was going for something quite prematurely absurdist.

            Back to v-cards. Helen asks Paroles, “How might one do, sir, to lose it to her own liking?” (line 140). She wants to “lose” it on her own terms, but Paroles ignores this tender request by relating virginity to being sold: “Off with’t while ’tis vendible [salable]” (line 143). This, like all Shakespeare plays, objectifies women and paints their virginity as an object to be sold. Is Shakespeare really pushing for women to make their own decisions regarding their virginity or really just reinforcing gender roles of the time? I’d like to end with one more quote, at the very end of the scene. It feels, once again, this quote can both objectify Helen and women in general, but also hints at their little agency in being able to manipulate their husbands, perhaps. Whatever the meaning, Shakespeare has some controversies on virginity he never tied up. What do you all think?

PAROLES: …Get thee a good husband and use [treat] him as he treats thee. So farewell.

(lines 197-198)