Review of As You Like It

            Upon experiencing the Royal Shakespeare Company’s production of the pastoral romance As You Like It, my concluding assessment can only be described as being conflicted. From the perspective of an engaged audience member, I found the performance to be exceptionally entertaining, humorous, and saturated with momentous energy; however, as a literary scholar, I frequently questioned the effectiveness of many of the dramaturgical devices employed in the staging of this play. My particular concerns can be attributed to the company’s often neglectful interpretations regarding the prominent textual motifs of love/marriage and Shakespeare’s convoluted commentary on the complexity of gender and cross dressing.

            Instead of elucidating on the textual themes of love/marriage and gender disparities, the Royal Shakespeare Company dedicated the majority of their dramaturgical choices to emphasize the dichotomy between the court and rural life. The RSC program provides a descriptive article with the following quotation distinguishing the two radically opposing settings: “The court speaks the language of intimidation and imperative, its trappings are constructive, inhibiting and cruel. The forest speaks of freedom and the characters move from inhibition to exhibition, from restriction to a gentle wildness as the forest ripples its open-heartedness out, ever out.” Traditionally, pastoral romances constituted a symbiotic relationship between the court and country; one cannot survive without the other. It is for this reason that Shakespeare has the cast return to the court upon the play’s conclusion. This particular performance, as a consequence of the company’s incorporation of jubilant music and dance, did not necessarily achieve the customary balance often associated with pastoral romance. Due to stringent desires to portray the Forest of Arden as a magical and sensual setting, the company unfortunately neglected the more prominent motifs mentioned above.

            In regards to the play’s commentary regarding the legitimacy of love and marriage and the rather ambiguous equivalence they represent, this production’s most prominent fault can be attributed to the company’s interpretation of the character Touchstone. The text portrays Touchstone as an exceptionally cynical and vulgar character especially, when discussions attempt to illuminate the essence of love. In Act II, Touchstone mockingly remembers a time when he too was in love: “We that are true lovers run into strange capers; but all is mortal in nature, so is all nature in love mortal folly” (Act II-iv 52-54). Despite his obvious wooing of the country wench Audrey in act III, Touchstone maintains his opinion associating love with falseness: “No, truly; for the truest poetry is the most feigning; and lovers are given to poetry; and what they swear in poetry may be said as lovers they do feign” (Act III-iii 17-19). The Royal Shakespeare Company’s interpretation of the same scene grants Touchstone a soliloquy in which he directly interacts with an audience member through a serious of questions inquiring after the man’s own experiences with marriage. Although the interaction contributed to the play’s humor, Touchstone’s subsequent responses contradicted the textual representation of his character. In general, the cynicism Shakespeare seemingly intended to emphasize when discussing the nature of love and marriage was substituted with a modern perspective of intensely romantic love.

            An additional flaw I found egregious was the company’s neglect to accentuate the complexity of cross dressing and the subsequent distortion of gender roles. Shakespeare’s casting of Rosalind would have been exceptionally complex considering a boy actor would have portrayed a woman cross dressing as a man pretending to be a woman with the aspiration of successfully wooing a man. Considering the company’s decision to initially cast Rosalind with a female actor, one layer of complexity is consequently disregarded. Despite Pippa Nixon’s outstanding performance as Rosalind, it was rather obvious that the crossed dressed persona of the masculine Ganymede was in fact, a woman. The obvious femininity attributed to Rosalind when cross dressed as Ganymede was not a consequence of her appearance but rather, a result of the company’s poignant humor that continuously referenced Ganymede’s true sex. Most prominent of these humorous allusions was Ganymede’s self conscious attention to his simulated male genitalia. Granted, Ganymede’s desire to constantly assure herself that his “package” was visible to Orlando was especially humorous, the subsequent effect was detrimental in maintaining the complex annotations Shakespeare insinuates within the text. Additionally, although I was pleased that the company included Rosalind’s Epilogue, the manner in which it was delivered deviated from Shakespeare’s concluding commentary on complex gender roles and Renaissance cross dressing. This performance had Rosalind deliver the epilogue in women’s apparel as opposed to Ganymede’s male apparel the text insinuates. As a result of Rosalind’s more feminine appearance at the play’s conclusion, the following lines lose their potential insightfulness concerning the nature of gender and cross dressing: “I charge you, O women, for the love you bear to men, to like as much of this play as please you: and I charge you, O men, for the love you bear to women (as I perceive by your simpering, none of you hates them), that between you and the women the play may please. If I were a women, I would kiss as many of you as had beards that pleased me…” (Epilogue 12-19).

            Consequently, for the reasons above elucidated, the play’s effectiveness in emulating Shakespeare’s more prominent theatrical motifs can primarily be characterized as a failure; however, the play was still very enjoyable and I would certainly recommend this particular performance to anyone wishing to experience exuberant humor and an evening of profound entertainment.