In which we FINISH CORIOLANUS and I have this FANTASTIC GOLD COAT! Also I mislabeled one of the videos so that it says part 1, 2, 3, and 5 — but thats actually all of them you are not missing any.
Wednesday, April 1, 2020
16 comments:
INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT COMMENTING!!! If you are a current student of mine please include your first and last name somewhere. (You don’t have to log in to make a comment, but if you log in with your gmail account your name and image will be there automatically). Ask QUESTIONS, or give OPINIONS WITH REASONS or ADD something to the discussion with EXAMPLES! If for some reason your comments disappear — JUST EMAIL ME YOUR COMMENTS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After watching that scene you talked about the two woman... I thought they were lovers honestly but then no. Also, I think this is just another way of Shakespeare crushing Coriolanus manly figure.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you also noticed this!
DeleteI think I found another parallel between Coriolanus and Velumnia. When Velumnia asks Coriolanus to apologize to the people and he doesn't want to, he then uses a similar tactic that she uses later, except that he fails at it. He also tries to say, "look I am going" without actually leaving as a way to use his giving in as a form of guilt tripping to change her mind about making him apologize. Then there's that scene in the end with Velumnia doing that and saying "we will home to Rome and die among our neighbors." It's so typical that in a family, they will use the same tactics against each other. Coriolanus and Velumnia really have a lot in common, from their hardened battle loving personalities, to their possible queerness, to the way they even approach each other when they want something. Although Velumnia is way better at verbal confrontations than Coriolanus. He tries though.
ReplyDelete-Deborah Majowka
This is another great observation!
Delete
ReplyDeleteProf. Klock:
This is a good video. I would like to comment on the scene where Coriolanus' wife, mother, friend and son bow down before him to reconsider invading and ultimately destroying their city. This is I believe the most crucial scene in the play because it is here that Coriolanus changes his mind; even though he realizes it will cost him his life. As you have stated, there is no solution; if Rome defeats Coriolanus they will lose someone they love; if Coriolanus destroys Rome they will probably lost their lives. So when Coriolanus changes his mind, it will spare him his family, but it will cost him his life. HE also appears weak to Aufidius as he's given up but its not something he wants to do. He was forced to make the lesser of two bad choices; ultimately he gives up his own life for his family.
Matthew Morelli
I 100% agree!
DeleteOne other comment is that in the movie version (director by Fiennes) the casting of Vanessa Redgrave as the mother of Coriolanus is very strategic. That being one of the most crucial scenes of the play, Fiennes choice to cast one of England's most revered Shakespearan actresses is very purposeful and planned. Perhaps only she and a couple of other admired actresses of her caliber could pull of that scene. This is a good video.
ReplyDeleteShe is for sure one of the best!
DeleteHi, so glad to be finishing Coriolanus! VERY excited to start Romeo and Juliet (I wanted to make sure I covered my tracks on Volumnia’s relationship with Coriolanus before finalizing my paper, so that will be submitted again very soon!). In regards to the ending I’d like to draw a comparison with the beginning of Macbeth. Macbeth opens with the three witches signaling a disruption in the balance of power/natural order with their “ALL Fair is foul, and foul is fair” line. However in Coriolanus this shift from the natural order is acknowledged with Volumnia’s line toward the end when she says “How more unfortunate than all living women are we come hither; since that thy sight, which should make our eyes flow with joy, hearts dance with comforts, constrains them weep and shake with fear and sorrow”(pg 33). In Macbeth the shift away from natural rule by birthright is recognized as bad(also he technically steals Duncan’s title via murdering him, also bad), and in Coriolanus the shift away from the convention of family relations is also characterized as bad. His mother getting on her knees and begging him for pity is seen as a sacrilegious act in the play. Maybe this is a reach because I’m tired but the tragedy of these plays highlight the triviality of convention. It reminds me of The Natural Law Argument, which states that the observation of governing laws and existing order in the universe indicates the existence of a ‘superior being’ who enacts these laws. What’s trivial about The Natural Law Argument for God’s existence is that 1. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that God exists (And if you’re going to be religious, for the sake of philosophy and conviction, you better have a better argument than that- truly a Descartes move) and 2. If there were reasons for the laws in which “God” gave, then he would be subject to it, and therefore cannot be interjected as an intermediary or divine edict when things go wrong. The idea that Coriolanus- a grown man has to follow his mother’s wishes because she’s his mother, is equal to that of blind patriotism, the idea that people need to hail their ‘divine king’ because of birthright. After all, all monarchy is illegitimate. So these poorly thought conventions have a way of unraveling themselves when applied long term. Their foundations are flawed, so it’s like a house of cards.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great comment — you are really taking this seriously and I adore it. I always found the Natural Law Argument crazy for a different reason — I can understand the idea of jumping from the created world to THERE MUST BE A CREATOR but it seems to me if you do that you gotta think the creator is pretty evil, blind, or has left the building. (This belief is called Gnosticism)
DeleteI think its fascinating that Coriolanus' loses his mind when Aufidius calls him a boy because he doesn't want to be seen in a feminine light BUT it's a group of women and a young boy that cause him to break his manly shell and not attack Rome. As for the group of people who came to convince Coriolanus to not attack Rome, I had to question what is their role beyond the relationship to coriolanus. I think the entire confrontation between Coriolanus, his wife, child, mother and her friend is a literal mirror of Coriolanus and his inner conflicts. His mother represents his foundation (Think of how she is first to kneel and the rest follow her) She represents all of his knowledge, how he was trained to be this unwavering soldier. His mother's fault was in teaching him how to be relentless, she didn't teach him how to be fluid. I think of concrete when i think of this, No matter how solid, nature will find a way to seep in and crack it up. With the idea of Volumnia and Valeria being partners, I see Valeria as a reflection of the relationship of Coriolanus and Aufidius. Young Martius represents his father's greatest fear, himself as a helpless young boy. He is so eager to show that he is a worthy soldier but knows he isn't ready. When Virgilia says "That brought you forth this boy to keep your name. Living to time" (p. 33) Young Martius responds to his mother saying "He shall not tread on me. I'll run away until I am bigger, but then I'll fight" Which sounds just like a conversation that would be held between a young Coriolanus trying to please Volumnia who is unsatisfied with his lack of strength. Now the symbolism of his wife Virgilia I haven't completely developed yet but I feel like she resembles his supressed emotions and trauma. Simply because no completely sane man is going to wage a deadly war on an entire city, including his own family because an interview went wrong. She's his "Gracious Silence" but she's also the most emotional. I feel like she is the person who feels the emotions that he cannot process for himself.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great analysis! I love it! One way of thinking about his wife as Gracious Silence is that she reflects his desire NOT TO TALK TO PEOPLE
DeleteAs I previously mentioned, I think Volumina pursued her desires through her son. She succeeded in her efforts to narrate Coriolanus’ life. Up until Coriolanus’ last breath he did what his mother wanted him to do. I believe her influence in his decision making weren’t for the betterment of him, it was to accomplish her goal.
ReplyDeleteAgreed
DeleteThe ending with this play is bit funky for me. I think they handled it well in the movie, but still it's unsatisfying. Everything seems to happen rather quickly. And actually this happens for me as soon as he leaves Rome. All of these major decisions and dramatic courses of action happen so fast. It just kind of dissolves.
ReplyDeletePart of it is that Shakespeare has done so many tragedies (this is the last one he wrote alone) and seems to be experimenting with an unsympathetic protagonist who doesnt do soliloquies and an anticlimactic ending. I agree that it doesn’t 100% work, but the homoeroticism and class warfare and Volumina are too fantastic to resist.
Delete