- This topic has 11 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated Mar 3, 2019, 9:36 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
-
The character I decided to write about is Bottom, the weaver, who is introduced in Act I, Scene ii of the play at Quince’s house. In my opinion, Bottom seemed like the funniest character out of all of the characters so far when reading the play. But, it seems like he doesn’t try to be funny or comical in any sense. His personality just seems to be goofy and a little aloof. I especially got this feeling in the written version when Bottom kept using words that contradicted the true meaning of what he was trying to say. For instance, Bottom says “You were best to call them generally, man by man, according to the scrip” (1.2.2-3). He uses the word ‘generally’ when he really means to say something like ‘individually’. Bottom does this throughout the rest of the scene, adding in humor to the play—which I feel is hard to do with a written version. Bottom is also very theatrical and dramatic, as he tries to play every role that is assigned by Quince. It is almost as if Bottom is aware of his eccentric and extroverted personality, and likes getting all the attention he can. This is apparent at the end when he has to be told to play the role of Pyramus, who “…is a sweetfac’d man; a proper man…” (1.2.78). Bottom basically needs to be told that he is attractive and fit for this role. When watching the version at the Globe, Bottom is even funnier! His personality and quirks are accentuated through the acting as we see Bottom as this man who is such a character. It honestly is such a weird dynamic, where is he serious, goofy, and aloof all in once. I don’t believe Shakespeare tries to portray him as dumb, but more like a comedic class clown in a sense. I really disliked Bottom in the modern version however, he just seemed a little arrogant and full of himself. Maybe it was the video he took of himself, pretending to be the best actor ever.
-
The “rude mechanical” (as they are called later in the play) are a particularly interesting part of this play. They’re all middle class professionals, including Bottom the weaver. Their peers were the groundlings standing in the field at the theater. So if you can imagine, Bottom is meant to be subtly making fun of the very people closest to the stage and most likely to get rowdy. I think what makes it work is that the workers aren’t professional actors, so we can laugh at how bad they are innocently. Shakespeare also highlights the skill of the actors by showing how well they act out putting together a bad play.
-
Nick Bottom is one of my favorite characters in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. As a character that brings comedic relief to the play, much of what makes him humorous is his lack of care in regards to his narcissistic tendencies. He is so sure of his sublime acting abilities that he wants to play every part, even the lion. “Let me play the lion too. I will roar, that I will do any man’s heart good to hear me. I will roar, that I will make the Duke say, ‘“Let him roar again; let him roar again.’ (1.1.64-67) This line drove home the envisionment of Bottom as the arrogant guy in the friend group that everyone tolerates because he’s funny sometimes. So imagine my surprise to see Bottom revered in the Bennett film, with claps being given after every interruption of Peter Quince and proclamation of a new role. Granted, it added humor to the scene, but generally people are not too keen about such flagrant bravado. To be fair, I am imposing real world judgement onto a fictional, comedic work, however with the declaration that his roaring would demand encore from the Duke of Athens just reeks of douchebaggery. I actually found the interpretation of the character in Bennett’s film to be more likeable than my interpretation. Sure he’s still obnoxious, but he at least has the respect of not only his fellow players but people outside that social circle as well, which is shown by him greeting fellow students at the Athens Film Institute. Dromgoole’s direction of the infamous weaver was more in tune with my interpretation of him in regards to the superiority complex. On the other hand, the nonchalant attitude he exuded was not in in line with my thoughts of Bottom. In that respect, I would imagine a more brash personality such as the Bennett interpretation. None of these interpretations are perfect or wrong, they all have merit to them. I feel that these two productions, despite their differences from my perception of the character and each other, utilize Bottoms vital character traits to do him justice.
-
-
When I was in Los Angeles last month, this cheesy and weirdly retro infomercial for the Hollywood Film Institute played at least 3 times during the previews for every film I went to see. It was a bit frustrating then, but I’m glad I sat through the propaganda because I got that reference in Bennett’s production.
I knew I had to write about Bottom as soon as he swaggered down the halls of the Athens Film Institute. He waxes poetic to an adoring cast, and repeatedly interrupts and questions his instructor Quince’s directions because he thinks he knows better than she does despite having little skill and attending a film school with almost no barrier for entry. I was struck by this interpretation for two reasons: how much he reminded me of all the worst stereotypes about film students, and because of how different the portrayal was from that of both Dromgoole and the original text. Like Roberto said, in Bennett’s portrayal, he’s arrogant and applauded by his peers for his supposed acting prowess, which is not the impression I got from Shakespeare’s writings at all. Unlike the others in the thread, when I initially read Act I, I did feel that Bottom was arrogant, but in such a way that he annoys the people around him rather than impressing or even entertaining them. I may be incorrect, but I didn’t observe anything in Shakespeare’s writing that indicates how the other cast members are reacting to Bottom’s eagerness to do it all; they only say that they don’t want Bottom to get them killed (which is pretty much all we can ask of anyone) so I suppose that leaves much room for interpretation.
“That would hang us, every mother’s son.” (1.2.71)
Seeing Dromgoole’s portrayal and reading your guys’ interpretations of Bottom cast him in a different light for me, one that I think I’ll carry throughout reading the rest of the original text. In Dromgoole’s interpretation, to the amusement of the rest of the cast and the annoyance of Quince, Bottom is just a crazy old guy who’s getting a little too into his play, which is both funny and rather endearing (okay, maybe not to Quince).
-
I hadn’t thought much about how everyone reacts to Bottom until reading your comment. You’re right, there isn’t much, but I can think of a few moments that might be suggestive. I’m not sure how much I want to get behind this argument I’m about to make, but here it is anyway.
When Quince calls everyone together, he describes each as “thought fit, through all Athens” to to produce this play. Either Quince is being ironic or they all don’t know how bad they are. Quince also chooses Bottom in a lead role. Why would Quince do that if he thought Bottom was rubbish and hard to work with?
But now that I’m really thinking about it, it makes sense that Shakespeare makes the Quince, the writer, to be the smarter of the bunch. We know he’s not the brightest because of the title he gives to the show (“lamentable comedy”), but I definitely get the sense that he’s “handling” Bottom. That would imply that Quince is smarter than Bottom, but Bottom clearly has some kind of charm that makes him an attractive leading man (maybe he’s just good looking, who knows?). The fact that none of the other actors are any brighter, means maybe Quince is in on it all along.
-
-
After reading the first act, along with viewing the two videos, I’ve decided to write about Bottom. He first appears in the second scene, where he’s accompanied with Quince, Snug, Snout, Flute, and Starveling. This one scene gives the reader/viewer a decent idea of Bottom’s role in the play. He’s obviously the comedic relief of the play, and this is shown through his arrogance, and his misuse of certain words. The fact that he wants to play almost every character in the play, is a good example of his arrogance. At the same time, his arrogance isn’t something that makes me dislike him, but it adds to his almost naive sense of humor. He doesn’t realize that he’s being a joker. He’s basically like that one friend that always manages to embarrass himself, but doesn’t realize it. Especially where he misuses words, such , ” We will meet, and there we may rehearse most obscenely and courageously. Take pains, be perfit, adieu” (1.2.98-100). His careless use of the word “obscene” adds to his humorous nature, along with his confidence in the use of the word. Small blunders like this are what make him such a unique and charming character.
Between Bennett and Droomgoole’s interpretation of the character, I feel as if Droomgoole’s is more lively than the modern rendition. He’s depicted as arrogant and rude as the play, but at the same time this plays well for his character. The actor portraying him also does a fantastic job expressing his emotions, and he really brought the character to life. Bennett’s on the other hand seems more clumsy than arrogant. Although he does depict the character in a humorous fashion, it wasn’t as enticing for me. Personally, the rendition of Bottom at the Globe just adds a bit more humor through the use of facial expressions and tone. The fact that he takes himself seriously just adds to his character.
-
It’s surprising how much less funny Bottom is when you don’t like him. Maybe because it doesn’t make sense that he would be cast in the lead role if he was always wrong and horrible to be around. If he has a kind of unwitting charm, then it makes sense that his other faults could be forgotten.
In this case, though, you also have the fact that Bottom is one of the smartest among his group. Maybe the other characters don’t even notice all the misused words (worse, maybe they believe them!).
-
-
I decided to choose a monologue from Bottom when he is with his actor cohort because it really gives us a great sense and gist of what his personality is. When talking about what roles the commoners will play, Bottom goes off on a small, yet hilarious rant (as he interjects and cuts off people in a comedic fashion–at least in the movie and theatre adaptations) saying “That will ask some tears in the true performing of it. If I do it, let the audience look to their eyes. I will move storms; I will condole in some measure. To the rest—yet my chief humor is for a tyrant. I could play Ercles rarely, or a part to tear a cat in, to make all split. “The raging rocks And shivering shocks shall break the locks Of prison gates; And Phibbus’ car Shall shine from far, And make and mar The foolish Fates.” This was lofty! Now name the rest of the players. This is Ercles’ vein, a tyrant’s vein, a lover is more condoling” (1.2.21-35). From this, we gather that Bottom is dramatic, yet in a comedic sense. It’s almost like he does it without knowing so–like a class clown that is unintentionally funny. When he talks about how his part will require tears, and that he’ll certainly move the audience, we see that Bottom is just so dramatic, and likes the spotlight on himself. I also get a sense that he is very confident in himself and his abilities. When he goes on to name all the parts he could play, like a tyrant, a cat, etc, Bottom allows us to understand that his personality is grounded in confidence and humor. This comedic side is supported through the mini recital he gives within this monologue. This can be thought of as Bottom acting dramatic in a goofy sense, as he is taking these acting roles so seriously. In reality, Bottom, Quince, and all the other ‘actors’, are commoners who are trying to put on a good show.
-
-
“That will ask some tears in the true performing of it. If I do it, let the audience look to their eyes. I will move storms; I will condole in some measure. To therest—yet my chief humor is for a tyrant. I could play Ercles rarely, or a part to tear a cat in, to make all split.“The raging rocks And shivering shocks shall break the locks Of prison gates;And Phibbus’ car Shall shine from far, And make and mar The foolish Fates” “(1.1.120-35). These lines almost epitomize Bottom’s character, and provide the audience with a humorous, yet revealing take on his character. These lines showcase his self confidence, along with his willingness to fit in. This line could also start the conversation around his confidence, and may bring up thee question as to why he is doing this. Maybe he’s doing this to feel accepted from the group, or maybe he feels as if he isn’t good, enough and the only way to prove himself is by taking up these roles. These lines also reveal to the audience his role in the play. It reveals his role as the comedic relief, where his character is intentionally humorous in order to please the audience. Maybe later in the play he plays a greater role on the story, but as of now I feel that this is his best quote, as it reveals the most about him, and his contribution to the play.
-
Huh! I’ve never thought of Bottom as maybe someone who is self-conscious. You make him sound like some guy who feels lonely and reads a guide to being cool he finds on Reddit or something and tries to make it work. That’s almost heartbreaking! I’ve never seen Bottom played that way, but it would be interesting.
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
