Script Analysis

Adam B. Ferguson

Group 4

Actions vs. words: In Measure for many character say they are doing or will do one thing and then completely do the opposite.  The Duke often announces that he is doing one thing, and then acts completely different from what he said he is doing. This causes the reader to question why the Duke would be deliberately misleading, and what his overall intent for this deception of leaving the city is.

Appearance vs. reality: This is especially seen in the character of Angelo.  Angelo has the reputation and appearance of being good do not truly match who he is as an individual.  This idea can also be extended to the city of Vienna itself which appears to be pretty and serene but instead hides a lot of sin.

Corruption: The city in this play (Vienna) is corrupt on many different levels.  This corruption seems to spread from the city and affect Angelo who later becomes corrupt.  This corruption seems to be the result of too much indulgence, or a belief that one will get away with one’s crimes.

One motif of Measure for Measure shows itself when characters use other people, or ideas of people, to achieve goals.

Some examples:

Angelo uses the idea of himself as a strictly pious ruler to demand sex from Isabella.

Claudio is willing to use Isabella to save his own life.

The duke uses the image of a friar, a virtuous and trustworthy person, to spy on others.

Isabella uses Mariana to save her virginity.

The duke attempts to use Barnardine to save Claudio; he then uses a dead pirate instead.

This motif ties in with the theme of the play, illustrated in the title.  Obviously the characters are forced to measure the value of their own virginity, happiness, or social position in terms of each other.  In addition, the characters are forced to measure each other.  Shakespeare uses this tactic to explore how and why we judge others’ actions and value certain people over others when it comes to achieving our personal goals.

THE DUKE
motivation: evaluate the trustworthiness of his underlings and the success of his rule
obstacles: deception, brown-nosing from underlings
what is he willing to do?: go incognito, deceive his subjects, lie
why would he do this?: he knows that that is the only way to get a subjective view of his government
avowed (why he says he does things) v. true (why he actually does things):

ANGELO
motivation: sex, unchallenged power
obstacles: the duke, keeping up appearances of propriety
what?: fail the duke, deceive, use sex as a weapon, lie, coerce
why?: he has the power, he must keep up appearances, he thinks the duke will never know
avowed v. true: he says he rules for virtue’s sake but he is really hungry for power

CLAUDIO
motivation: love of Juliet/Isabella, survival
obstacles: the law, propriety
what?: sacrifice Isabella’s virginity, die
why?: he is given no other choice (he must weigh the loves of Juliet and Isabella)
avowed v. true:

ISABELLA
motivation: love of Claudio, piety
obstacles: Angelo, the law, propriety
what?: lie, challenge Angelo, deceive, allow Claudio to die rather than her go to hell
why?: piety, value of god’s law over humans’
avowed v. true:

I’m unsure about the avowed versus true actions, or at least of how to articulate them.  Could someone fill those in by any chance, or give me some ideas?  Thanks.

Meassure for Meassure, it’s no moon. (textual evidence to be provided separately)

It’s no moon but it’s so recurrent and important. How do we meassure ourselves, how do we meassure others? What do we meassure with? WHAT’S THE SCALE, and most importantly, WHAT’S THE MEASSURE?

In this play by William Shakespeare there is no escape from action, the characters are doomed to face their fates. Each of the characters are distinct from one another, both in the ways they were conceived by the author and through the reader’s, audience’s, eyes and senses.

Distinctions and similarities between two blocks of contending forces (not necessarily opposing ones) :

The people from the state:

The Duke & Lord Angelo

The people from the people:

Claudio & Isabella

This distinction has been made in order to clarify the way these characters appear to be constructed in, and also because of what they represent in society. Both blocks are powerful given their own means in actuality, morality, politics, bed, appearances, religion, values, and law.

A close-up to the first block clearly strips away unnecessary weight and leaves the bones uncovered.

Ball states that characters gain meaning through performance rather than through text, while he puts forwards the importance of the skeletal nature of their definition distressing the focus on interpretation. Thus, this distinction needs to be done.

The first block, has been comprised to these two characters given their interactions.

The Duke’s decision to step outside of the public arena gives Lord Angelo the reins of law. The Duke, nevertheless, seems to become passive in terms of decision but actually indulges in the most direct action. He steps into the arena as a different character, Friar, for direct intervention. Premeditatedly, he lets L.A take care of the situation in order to examine and expose this character given his lack of trust in him.

Reversely, in the second block Claudio asks Lucio to advert his sister about the situation given his knowledge and trust in her. He does so, not with the intention of examination but with hope and trust.

Claudio manipulates his sister virginity, her virtuousness and purity; which are all immaterial substances. Light ones in terms of real weight but solidly firm and rooted in her.

The Duke manipulates L.A.’s carnal debility to the seemingly corruptible and frail Isabella.

The woman-object of this story, Isabella, appears as a means. She is the means to freedom, as conceived by Claudio, and the subject for naughty intentions, as perceived by Lord Angelo.

Meassure by meassure, the deployment of action seems to be fated. Events fall under the expectations of the Duke and Claudio, but particularly the Duke. The latter, as a self-forced intermediary of God, offices his master plan beneath the surface. How does this relate to the title image?

Well, if we look the Duke’s speech it always maintains a rhetorical structure. Everything he says builds up, forwards. He represents the master, knowledge. Although his position in society is not upon direct merit, he sticks to his role. Not only to appear fitted for his position, but the contrary. It is a character that is not caught in the realm of appearances, although he regards the superficial importance of things as powerful elements. This respect for the superficial world is made obvious by him adopting a different role to the eyes of others.

His temple, nevertheless, is internal. This characters’ value lies in the acknowledgement of his duty. His duty is such because of his stock and lineage.

(AND NOW IS WHEN WE GET TO SPECIFICS)… I will be editing this later on with the textual evidence and makeing a new post with the resume and identification of theme, different images, all according to Ball. I just thought it would be good if I posted some raw work to stimulate the discussion.

One recurring image in Measure for Measure is that of a bait-and-switch.  A promise is extended to a character, only to have it fulfilled in a way that goes against the original plan.  Usually the promise and the fulfillment are almost identical, creating a strong sense of irony.  For instance:

Angelo is pious and strict against adulterers and takes over for the duke only to demand sex from Isabella.  Vincentio is lax with adultery laws but leaves Angelo in charge in order to masquerade as a friar.

Angelo offers to not punish Claudio for adultery; however, the only way that can happen is if Isabella commits adultery, thus passing Claudio’s sin onto his sister.

Isabella promises to unlawfully sleep with Angelo; instead, he is tricked into having an entirely legal tryst with Mariana.

Lucio constantly insults the duke when speaking to Vincentio as the friar; he later insults the friar to Vincentio as the duke.

Angelo sleeps with Mariana, then goes back on his word and demands to see Claudio’s severed head.

The duke attempts to substitute Barnardine’s head for Claudio’s; Barnardine refuses to be executed.

The head of an executed man is demanded; the head of a pirate who died of natural causes is substituted.

The irony of the bait-and-switch imagery contributes to Shakespeare’s theme of hypocrisy.  Many of the substitutions are quite similar to what was originally promised, showing that arbitrary human demands are usually unreasonable and hypocritical.