Who is the Merchant of Venice?

Who is the Merchant of Venice?

            “I give them with this ring, which when you part from, lose, or give away, let it presage the ruin of your love, and been my vantage to exclaim on you” (The Merchant of Venice 3.2. 171-174).  Along with the promise of marriage to Bassanio, Portia also promises a ring to him that symbolizes his dedication to her.  However, as we learn later on, Portia uses the ring to her own advantage to remain the master of her own destiny.  Such a test of Bassanio’s loyalty to Portia proved him unworthy of her love, but was that really the purpose of the ring? 

            Each character at the end of The Merchant of Venice gets what they are owed by the court of law.  Shylock loses almost everything he owns, Antonio escapes with his life, and Bassanio saves the life of his friend, pays his debt, however, loses fair Portia by carelessly giving away the ring entrusted to him.  Therefore it would seem that the only person in the play who is truly happy at the end of the play is Portia herself, making her the one and only merchant of Venice and proving herself to be a very versatile character. 

            Portia, therefore, can be related to a female character in the new and modern movie, Divergent.  The main character Tris, is beautiful, charming, and smart but, when it comes to defending herself and others, she morphs into a fierce warrior.  Portia is much the same in character when it comes to defending her honor.  She decides to take matters into her own hands by manipulating and outwitting those in charge of her destiny as dictated by her father’s final wishes.  Tris is similar because she goes against those who dictate what is acceptable and unacceptable in her society, fights for what is right for both herself and those she loves, and changes the rules for everyone and levels the playing field for people like her with a diverse set of abilities.  Tris also uses a variety of trickery and cunning to outwit authority such as giving herself up to the top authority in exchange for the lives of those she loves, but does it all on her own terms and demands more in return, therefore, although she’s submitting, she’s still going by her own rules. 

Portia also has a unique set of abilities as well.  She’s not just a beautiful and fair face, but a very intelligent individual with the courage to fight for what she wants as well as what she believes is just.  Portia hates that she must marry Bassanio without a say in the matter, therefore, she concocts a plan to save herself from a long and unhappy life with him.  She takes on the role of a man, dresses up like a judge, and passes judgment on Antonio and Shylock to work the circumstances in her favor.   After tricking Bassanio and receiving the ring as a gift, Portia’s plan is unveiled and she is free once again to decide her own fate.  Much like Tris, Portia refuses to take the injustice bestowed upon her by society and changes the rules. 

           

 

Crossdressing: Can it be taken seriously?

In William Shakespeare’s As You like It, many characters are forced to dress as the opposite Gender. Rosalind is disguised as a man as well as Lauren who is forced to also dress as a man under the circumstances of her situation. The play brings up many social issues regarding to homosexuality and gender identity, but one thing that stands out is the crossdressing of the play. Because the play is meant to be a comedy, it is hard to take the roles of the characters seriously when they are dressed as the opposite gender. That being said, can crossdressing be identified or taken seriously for something other than comedy?

Historically speaking, crossdressing has only been used for comedy. Take Eddie Murphy’s Nutty Professor. In the story, Eddie Murphy not only place obese yet remarkable scientist Professor Clump, but he also play just about everyone in Clump’s entire family, including his own mother. When doing so, Eddie Murphy portrays the mother as a caring if not enabling mother who wants to make sure that her son is well fed and nourished, often offering food as a way of making him feel better. In short, Eddie murphy plays the stereotypical yet loveable mother figure, and goes over the top to do so. In short, it is still a comedy role, and therefore hard to take seriously.

There of course have been roles in which crossdressing is often seen as a serious issue, or at least used to take a look at more serious issues. Take the popular film Franchise of Tyler Perry. In many of Tyler Perry’s movies, Tyler Perry plays an overly active older black woman named Medea. Medea’s attitude and funny remarks make the role one of comedy, yet in many of her movies Medea’s role as a family member allows her to consul her family when things turn for the worst. In turn, Tyler Perry’s movies show good old-fashion family values through a crossdressing effort.

Whether or not crossdressing can be taken seriously remains to be seen. Can it be seen as more than just a role for comedy? Are there case in which characters who are dressed as the opposite gender can be taken seriously?

Parable As You Like It: A Consideration of Cross Dressing

In Octavia E. Butler’s Parable of the Sower, the audience is presented with a character, Lauren, who chooses/if forced to cross dress as a man due to the circumstances of her environment. She makes it clear to her travelling companions (Henry and Zahra) the importance of keeping her true gender a secret from any others they should encounter in their travels, the potential risk the group faced should it be revealed. However, despite this, Henry still proves incapable of keeping said secret, referring to Lauren as her in front of another group of wanderers. When called out on this, “smiling embarrassingly” (Butler 212) he replied “I’ve known you all my life. It isn’t easy to remember to switch all your pronouns.” (Butler 212)

            Yet in As You Like It, no such slip is made, nor even apparently a worry. Celia shows little apparent difficulty in altering her referral to Rosalind/Ganymede, and is able to keep the truth of the matter a secret until the appropriate time. This raises the question then of whether or not Parable of the Sower’s presentation of Henry’s difficulty in adapting is reasonable and truly a simple mistake on the character’s part when compared to the fluidity shown in Shakespeare.

            I believe much of the variation in these situations can actually be attributed primarily to the underlying needs of the narratives themselves, and the differing themes Shakespeare and Butler were concerned with addressing. The comedic nature of As You Like It might have potentially benefited from an accidental reveal of Rosalind’s identity; however, the removal of the actual “reveal” would have cheated the piece of a measure of its ability to play with and blur the lines of gender. Alternatively, the far more grim nature of Parable of the Sower, the society it chronicles spiraling into dystopia, creates a greater necessity for this accidental reveal. The added tension of Lauren’s true gender being revealed, even if only slight, builds on the already substantial strain placed on Lauren, and sets in motion key events of the narrative. The accidental reveal in this case, the questioning of Lauren’s “true” gender, is something the text needed to address to continue to build on its concepts, where the same accidental reveal/questioning would have likely proved damaging to the pursuits of As You Like It. 

At First Glance

In Merchant of Venice one of the most distinctive characters that surprises the readers at the end of the play is Portia. She is most surprising due to the fact that she is first introduced in the play as being some sort of prize that the male figures compete for because she is wealthy and beautiful. No one regards her as being a threat or smart enough to cause trouble because her full potential is not revealed yet. But she is indeed resourceful and can sometimes come off as being a free spirit who abides rigidly by rules when in reality she seems to be almost a prisoner in her own home. But as the play goes on Portia’s character changes for the better and we come to realize that she isn't afraid of breaking the rules. Only difference is that she is smart enough to make the law work for her and is still able to get away with her actions.

          Portia reminds me very much of Katniss Everdeen from the Hunger Games movie because in this film we are seeing a new type of heroine who defies gender stereotypes in cinema. She is not a victim, nor is she passive or cold. She takes action, and is compassionate yet still strong and takes care of her own. We start noticing her as this girl who pretty much has to take care of the ones she loves and is good with a bow but as the movie goes on we come to realize that she has amazing hidden skills which is what helps her survive the games.

In terms of romantic interests. She also has guys chasing after her just like Portia’s suitors. But only difference is that both guys chasing Katniss love her whereas Portia’s suitors just wanted to take advantage of her. Katniss is eventually caught having to choose between her best friend from home, Gale, and another contestant in the games with her, Peta. Overall both women are independent and make it very clear that they don’t need a male figure in their life to take care of them. These women take charge of the relationship and are fearless.

"The man of my dreams is a woman...?"

From the very beginning of the play As You Like it, I was intrigued by the relationship between Rosalind and Celia. Although the two are cousins and supposedly share a "familial" love, it just seemed like they share something more. My suspicions were further confirmed when Rosalind decides to dress in male drag to protect herself in the forest, but Celia remains a woman. Given the fact that it is referenced many times during the play that Rosalind's disguise isn't foolproof - such as when Phoebe proclaims her love for Ganymede by describing his/her traditionally "feminine" characteristics - I'm can't help but feel that Rosalind and Celia were Early Modern lesbians.

I mean, the image of Rosalind as Ganymede accompanied by the disguised Celia is very much similar to contemporary images of lesbian relationships. Stereotypically (although I don't understand why...), one of the women is the "guy" and the other is the "girl." For instance, like Ellen DeGeneres and her wife Portia.

Shakespeare, however, was so intuitive that he highlights the strange intimacy between Rosalind and Celia even when they are still both their "female-selves." The relationship between the two cousins is a lot like a certain kind of relationship that's become very common (and by common I mean accepted) recently: friendships between "straight" women, and "straight" women and lesbians. Especially in college, when young people are experimenting with their identities and sexualities, it seems to be the trend for many women to engage in homosexual behavior that they claim is homosocial.

Check out this video by BuzzFeed to see what I'm talking about (if you don't already know).

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlopZ3cf2-g#t=78

                        

I'm no expert on sexuality, but I'm sure that even though many of these friend/relationships may just be out of curiosity, many of them are also out of actual attraction. However, all these boxes we put people in and the attributes we give to women (like women are naturally closer to each other than men) make the lines extremely blurred. It could also be that some women are unwilling to admit their feelings due to the fact that homosexuality is still pretty taboo in our society. 

Who knows?

As for Rosalind and Celia - we can speculate all we want on what will happen after the two are married to Orlando and Oliver, but I think this photo describes the true ending of the women's relationship best.

If you're concerned about your own sexuality after reading my post, here's a link to a BuzzFeed quiz that'll tell you just how gay you are. Because, of course, BuzzFeed has all the answers.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/lets-talk-about-sex#.htK7dxrkr

 "Boys in the Head:" Gender Policing in Shakespeare's As You Like It 

       Shakespeare's As You Like It features a female character pushing the limits of  conventional gender and sexuality; Rosalind achieves her goals, but at what cost? Popular in plays like Merchant of Venice, All's Well That Ends Well, and Titus Andronicus is the success of its female roles, but at the expense of others. Certain aspects of Shakespeare's writing does lend itself undeniably to enlightened and progressive ideals of gender and sexuality, but I can't help but wonder... it is it doing more harm than good?

          In As You Like It; Rosalind dresses as a man and flees to the forest. Rosalind calls herself Ganymede, an androgynous sex symbol that quickly enchants Orlando and Phoebe. In Rosalind/Ganymede we are presented with one of the most kick-ass examples of fluid sexuality and fluid gender, but at the expense of the female sex. Yes, one could argue that the rail against the character of Phoebe by Rosalind  is used to show the constraints placed on them, but I find her rant somewhat offensive to the female gender. This is not to say that Rosalind isn't a hero, which she is, but the policing of her own gender detracts from her appeal. The conversation between Celia and Rosalind after Ganymede/Rosalind's lesson with Orlando is particularly interesting because Celia points out that Rosalind, "'...simply misused our sex in your love prate. / We must have your doublet and hose plucked over your head, and /  show the world what the bird hath done to her own nest'" (As You Like It 4.1.Ln.172-4). What Celia is saying is that in order to gain ground with Orlando she had to betray her own gender.
        
                     In order to put this in a modern day perspective; I have chosen magazine covers to illustrate my meaning in regards to Rosalind in As You Like It. What these covers have in common besides all the women featured on the front are beautiful, and uphold current beauty standards, but the headlines and content around them is most startling. "50 Ways to Seduce a Man," "Sex Survey, Thousands of Guys Reveal What Really Flips Their Switches," "What Guys Really Think About You!" The list goes on and on, we as consumers see these in our everyday life, but what are the repercussions of this kind of advertising? By focusing on what men want from women instead of what they want out of themselves is counterproductive. This has been called "Boys in the Head," and it can be seen in instances where women enforce the gender binary on themselves without there needing to be a man physically present. We as girls have experienced this throughout school and our adult lives. "Slut shaming" is a popular form of gender policing , as well as female relational aggression,  a direct result of women not being allowed to experience, nor exhibit aggressive behavior.  It is easy to make the connection between gender policing and Rosalind/ Ganymede's comments to Orlando, and it is no doubt problematic, but Shakespeare redeems the misogynistic undertones of the play by shedding light on gender policing through the role of Celia.

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.

The Cross Dressing in the Room

As we have discussed heavily in class, cross dressing female characters within the play AND their cross dressing boy actors are a huge elephant in the room that must be addressed.

In both The Merchant of Venice and As You Like It, the two main female characters, Portia and Rosalind, disguise themselves as men in order to gain the power they need to make things right for themselves and those around them in their respective plays.

If these women were not in drag they wouldn't have been able to assert themselves in the same way they were both able to dressed as men. They are both clearly strong women (and human beings in general…) but unfortunately their position against the male characters would have fallen short in the end. SO, they both do what they have to in order to achieve their successes.

The big reveal in the end of both plays is the best part of this mixed up situation! Portia reveals to everyone when they are finally back in her home and she calls Bassanio out for giving her ring away and confesses that she was the lawyer who saved Antonio’s life when he was about to be skinned alive by Shylock. In As You Like It, Rosalind comes back from removing her disguise and the men were all like oh we knew it was her all along….. Okay, maybe but no. Let her have her success since this was the only way she was able to get it in a patriarchal society.

The Epilogue in As You Like It twists this crazy situation even further by having the boy actor who played Rosalind give the epilogue saying something along the lines of…. I know women aren't usually the ones to read the epilogue and this play really doesn't even need one but we’re just going to trip you up because I’m really a boy still just dressed up like a woman. Wait…. Who are you? 

The Power of the Conditional

At the conclusion of As You Like It, Rosalind (as Ganymede) neatly resolves every issue of homoerotic desire that has arisen throughout the tangled lovelines of the play. She has to fix the "problems" of this queer desire and potential queer marriage plot, and the way in which she manages this feat is incredibly similar to Portia's solution in The Merchant of Venice.

Terrible disguise aside, Portia's plot serves her well.

In her plot, Portia uses a strict interpretation of language to force Shylock into sparing Antonio, telling him that "this bond doth give [him] here no jot of blood; / the words expressly are 'a pound of flesh.'." (Merchant of Venice 4.1.306-07). She traps him with the language of the deal, interpreting each clause literally in order to accomplish her goal. It is only when in drag that she is able to exert her power, but what a power that is. Portia's command of language transcends that of anyone else in the play, and she is able to trap Shylock into doing what she wants him to do. Portia's rhetoric is just as powerful as that of any of the lawyers and other men in the play.

Rosalind's plan parallels Portia's almost exactly. She also disguises herself in drag, though her persona Ganymede is much more central to the story than Portia's false identity. Having hidden her female identity, in which her agency would be much more limited, Rosalind is now free to work out a deal. She also makes great use of the conditional here; she traps the duke by getting him to agree that "if [she] bring in [his] Rosalind / [he] will bestow her on Orlando here" (As You Like It 5.4.6-7). Phoebe agrees to marry Ganymede only "if [he] be willing" (AYLI 5.4.11) and that otherwise she will marry Silvius. Her conditionals continue until everyone is trapped into a marriage that abides by the heterosexual norms. In other words, she tricks them into renouncing the queer desire that has permeated the play up to this point.

Don't worry, Orlando: no homo.

In drag, these women are able to fully employ powerful rhetoric and achieve their ends. Though both women clearly have a strong command of language and understand how to use it, their true agency only comes through when in drag. This gender-bending makes a statement about the power dynamics at the time; women lacked only the recognition for their skills, not the intelligence. Both women also demonstrate the overwhelming power of language; each is able to use the conditional and a literal interpretation of contracts in order to achieve their goals. Through this expert use of rhetoric, both women resolve all the issues in their respective plays, saving the day with their wit.

Shakespeare's Lesson on Queer Attraction

     Out of all of the Epilogues in Shakespeare’s play, the most memorable is the one in As You Like It where Shakespeare specifically addresses that queer attraction is present throughout society.

                                    Rosalind.    My way is to conjure you;

                                    And I’ll begin with the women. I charge you, O women, for the love you

                                   bear to men, to like as much of this play as pleases you.

                                    And I charge you, O men, for the love you bear to women—as I perceive

                                    you by you simpering none of you hates them—that between you and the

                                    women the play may please. If I were a woman I would kiss as many of

                                    you as had beards that pleased me, complexions that liked me, and

                                    breaths that defied not. And I as sure as many as have good beards, or good

                                    faces, or sweet breaths will for my kind offer, when I make curtsy, bid me

                                    farewell. (Epilogue. 9-19)  

Through the Epilogue, Shakespeare informs the crowd that queer attraction isn’t something only present in plays, but as the audience consumes the display in front of them, they are also experiencing queer attraction themselves. Rosalind states that if “the love you bear to men” pleases the women watching the play, then they may enjoy the entire play, even the female leads because they are also men. And if women still find the male actor attractive while he is in drag, then there’s more of a queer attraction present since they’re enjoying the appearance of a lady more so than a man. On the other hand, the men that are watching and believing in the beauty of Rosalind are technically

believing in the beauty of the male actor in drag which in itself is queer attraction. If the boy chooses to “kiss as many of you as head beards that pleased” him while assuming the part of Rosalind, no man would “defied not” the boy’s in drag “kind offer”. If this is true, then the men watching the play are definitely experiencing queer attraction. Therefore, while Rosalind resolves the queer attraction conflict in the play by revealing herself as Ganymede, the Epilogue creates another conflict involving the audience and their possible queer attraction towards her/him.

     While Shakespeare is well known for exploring queer attraction throughout As You Like It, this exploration still continues throughout movies today. In movies like Tootsie (1982), Juwanna Mann (2002), White Chicks (2004), Jack and Jill (2011) they deal with men dressed in drag as women. Throughout each movie, the woman, who is actually a man, is forced into a conflict of sorts when a man falls in love with “her”. While drag is done in these types of movies for comedic relief, they make sure to take the precautions seen in As You Like It and resolve this queer attraction through the cross-dressing man revealing his deception and ending up with, usually, the woman he’s supposedly likes. But while in most movies this conflict is resolved, one movie that never reveals that the woman is actually a cross-dressing man is Tyler Perry’s Madea. Tyler Perry allows Madea to maintain the 

identity of a woman, and not a man dressed in drag, by never acknowledging the fact that she's a man in drag and never revealing himself at the end of any movies. But throughout all of the Madea movies there isn’t a single occurrence of a man showing interest in her because, if there was, then that would create a queer attraction conflict that can only turn out in one of two ways: 1)Tyler Perry would have to reveal Madea as a man or 2) the queer attraction would still exist by not outing Tyler Perry as Madea which, as Shakespeare has shown, is a predicament that cannot persist. So in order to keep up the perception that Madea is a full-fledged woman and not a man in drag, the queer attraction is avoided by Madea never possessing a love interest.

      Just like Shakespeare shows that queer attraction exists in Elizabethan society through As You Like It, movies today show that queer attraction is still present throughout society, whether it’s purposeful or not. Shakespeare uses the Epilogue in As You Like It to teach the audience that queer attraction isn’t just for entertainment and plays, but it’s a complexity present throughout human society.

Acting Styles in AS YOU LIKE IT and Beyond

ROSALIND: By no means, sir. Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.

(As You Like It 3.2.280-81)

            As Tom mentioned in class the other day, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, not read. The discrepancies in script as well as character theories and analyses divide rather than bring together a consensus. Rosalind makes a good point when she says times moves at different speeds depending on the person: the staging of a Shakespearean play will move differently depending on the period in which the performance is produced. Not only is the approach to the material different, but so is the approach to acting style and methods.

            Preparation for theatre in Shakespeare’s time can be assumed to be more of an individual process, as things could only be written by hand by then – or memorized. The chances actors each had a full script are pretty much next to none. So, what else would they do but only memorize their own lines? Shakespeare’s plays are pretty hefty, so any chance of actors, or players, memorizing the whole thing is, again, pretty much next to none without tons of practice, which they did not always have. The characters themselves have some large monologues and soliloquies, and throw in iambic pentameter on top of that and that’s quite a bit to memorize. People in Shakespeare’s time didn’t speak in iambic pentameter, so memorizing it during Elizabethan theatre was probably as difficult as it is now in present day.

            Acting was even more individual-focused in Shakespeare’s time than theatre today, even with the contributions of Stanislavski and others. There is little stage directions in Shakespeare's works, which is typical in theatre in general, but the severe lack of stage directions – or even, in fact, when they are missing entirely and it is up to scholarly speculation – indicates there is more to analyze in the script for acting rather than the actor looking beyond the words on the page. The blog Shakespeare Workshops explores the notion that the psychology of Shakespearean or verse acting was completely different based on 1) the actors being most fully focused on their own lines rather than the action that surrounds them onstage and 2) the lines themselves indicating exactly what the character is feeling. This differs from modern-day acting because it leaves out, as Shakespeare Workshops points out, the idea of preparation and subtext. A play today rehearses together for a certain stretch of time before their performance and must constantly go to each rehearsal or performance prepared for what will happen throughout each encounter and make sure each time they move or react is authentic to not only the character but also themselves as an actor. However, a Shakespearean play would allow the actor to fully feel more being in the moment since they are so focused on their individual journey with the lines rather than getting caught up in the subtext of a situation.

JACQUES: All the world’s a stage, / And all the men and women merely players. / They have their exits and their entrances, / And one man in his time plays many parts…

(2.7.139-142)

            Shakespeare’s players thrive on feeling, not thinking deeply about how their actions affect the rest of the group of actors and instead turning it in on themselves. Lines like “your experience makes you sad” (4.1.24) and “I had rather hear you chide than this man woo” (3.5.66) feel surface-level, but it is the characters contextualizing how they feel about the situation rather than putting a group of characters in a certain situation. The characters control the situation through their words, through expressing their emotions, and that in turn shows a very different acting style for the staging of a Shakespeare play like As You Like It than any other modern day play, in which the characters depend on the situation they’re placed in (and I can say that as a studying actor). More on these differences in both acting and staging another time, perhaps. Thoughts?

(My reference and for more information on Shakespearean acting: http://shakespeareworkshops.blogspot.com/p/the-modern-actor-and-performing.html)

Lesbihonest… Are there really any boundaries to friendship?

Girlfriends, circa 1600s 

Like Antonio and Bassanio of Merchant of Venice, Rosalind and Celia portray the liberal love between two (usually) heterosexual friends. These two women of As You Like It exemplify the loyalty of true friendship. We see their relationship and admire the ways that they look out for each other and partake in mischievous schemes together. If we look a little closer, though, we might detect some homoerotic or homosocial behavior in their relationship. Some people would say that the "friendship" between Celia and Rosalind is actually a true love affair. Whether or not there is any actual homosexual desire between the two women, it is undeniable that they are at the least very devoted friends: 

   "The Duke's daughter [Celia] her cousin so loves her, being ever from their cradles bred together, that she would have followed her [Rosalind's] exile, or have died to stay behind her…Never two ladies loved as they do" (1.1.93-97)

   "If [Rosalind] be a traitor, / Why so am I [Celia]. We still have slept together, / Rose at an instant, learned, played, eat together, / And wheresoever we went, like Juno's swans / Still we went coupled and inseparable" (1.3.66-70)

Girlfriends, circa 2000s

But let's be honest, is their relationship that much different from best friends' today? Think about some of those Buzzfeed lists you see on social media and immediately forward to your friends, with titles like, "19 Signs Your Best Friend is Actually Your Soulmate," "16 Times You Realized You and Your BFF Have No Boundaries," "18 Female Friendship Truths, as Told by Bridesmaids." We admit to all the really weird things we do with our best friends: peeing, sleeping, and cuddling together, swapping clothes and personal items with each other, inadvertently dressing and acting the same, etc. You've probably seen your best friend naked, experienced her most personal habits, learned every nasty detail about her life, and maybe even (drunkenly?) made out with her. Also, you've probably responded to such incidents with some kind of brush-off "No homo" remark. But it is pretty "homo." And it's also okay.

The problem is that we strive to label everything as black and white, straight or gay. Maybe critics are genuinely shocked by the relationship of Celia and Rosalind because they find the liberality of such a feminine relationship of that time strange. Or maybe they are oblivious to how homoerotic or homosocial their own relationships and the relationships of people around them actually are. On the other hand, maybe there is something deeper between Celia and Rosalind. Celia could be in love with Rosalind, but we'll never really know. Personally, I read their relationship and mischief as Sex and the City-esque: two friends sticking together with the idea that "maybe our girlfriends are our soul mates and guys are just people to have fun with."



Here are the links to those lists… In case you need to gush about them with your BFF.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kristinharris/21-signs-your-best-friend-is-actually-your-soulmate#.dcMvBKd9V
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kirstenking/no-boundaries-with-my-gal-pals#.denZ8AnPw
http://www.buzzfeed.com/erinlarosa/18-female-friendship-truths-as-told-by-bridesmaids#.yaGLkxZlp

As You Like It: The Original Mind Fuck Movie

The epilogue takes As You Like It to a whole other level as a representation of the original “mind fuck” movie. The work starts off with a complicated plot and heavy action. Like any good psychological thriller, the characters’ traits are revealed slowly and then complicated with different personalities layered on their originals. Of course, the gender flip flopping is complicated further with the dramatic irony that the actors are all boys to begin with! 

 

Because the identities of the characters constantly change, so do their relationships to each other. You end up with Phoebe/Ganymede, Orlando/Ganymede, Rosalind/Orlando, Celia/Rosalind, Celia/Oliver, Phoebe/Silvius etc. The schmorgasboard of heterosexual and homosexual lovers complicate the plot even further until the play’s “resolution” ties up all the pairs neatly with Rosalind and Celia’s reveal, and the subsequent quadruple wedding (Orlando and Rosalind, Oliver and Celia, Phoebe and Silvius, and Touchstone and Audrey). Like any good psychological thriller, you think the play sums itself up neatly here. Hannibal Lector is in his infamous straight jacket and headpiece routine in the airport as the senator’s mother begs for her daughter’s return. Leonardo DiCaprio is climbing the stairs to the lighthouse about to uncover the great conspiracy of Boston’s Shutter Island Ashecliffe Hospital. Leonard Shelby is tattooing one thing after the other, so close to finding his wife’s killer/rapist, you get the picture. BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE. A good psychological thriller builds up the false conclusion, some even play it out completely, but then slams down the true ending, often with little to no falling action or true conclusion. This forces the main character, and the audience as well, to reconcile what they thought they knew to be true for the past two hours with reality. Boom. Mind fuck.

Accurate representation of the average "mind fuck" movie viewer

WARNING SPOILERS TO SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, SHUTTER ISLAND AND MEMENTO

How does Shakespeare do this? He takes his neatly wrapped up ending and turns it upside down. First of all, Rosalind delivers the epilogue and says herself how unusual it is for a female character to do. She plays on all of the intermingling queer relationships throughout the play by dropping the “dramatic irony bomb:” Rosalind is being played by a man. Because the audience already knows this, the effect is comical rather than thrilling. Breaking the fourth wall by redefining a character completely with “were I a woman…” after the neatly resolved ending, while referencing queer love again and topping it all off with a curtsey and roaring applause seems almost ridiculous in the short epilogue, but it functions completely as the true, albeit comical, ending of a “mind fuck” movie. Hannibal sits up in the ambulance, Leo is a patient after all, Leonard Shelby IS Sammy Jankis and Rosalind is a man. Who knew. Way to go, Bill.