Conclusion

At the beggining of the paper, I was convinced about the fact that Freud’s theories would be very useful in order to analize the characters of Much Ado About Nothing. However, while doing the paper, I realized that this approach would be perfect in a Shakespearean tragedy like for example Hamlet, because this character has a lot of contradictions in his personality, I mean that in the tragedies there is much more changes in the mind of the characters, while in a comedy, characters are much more flat compared with a tragedy. Although that fact, paying attention to the details, and reformulating some actions from this perspective, I found many comparisons that could be made.
 
Moreover,Rimmon-Kenan’s article helped me a lot in order to introduce the characters into the analysis, and apart from that I think it is important to give these three axes he talks about.
 
Having done the anaylsis of the four characters, I think that the most representative or the most important character of the play was Beatrice, and at the same time, it is the character which I found easier to analyze because Beatrice is a clear character and her actions are very defined. She is not ambiguous, so you can tell in every moment what her actions represent according to Freud. 

It doesn’t happen the same with Hero, which is completely the opposite. She doesn’t show her as she is, and it seems imposible to the spectator to know her. With their respective partners, it happens the same more or less, while Benedick is much more visible to the audience, Claudio is not that much, and I think is poorer talking about personality.

To sum up, it would be a great job to see those aspects in a character of a tradegy, although, it has been a very interesting task to analize the chracters of a comedy because I realised that, it wasn’t all as I though. There are also interesting changes and attitudes in comedy characters.

Feu un comentari


¡IMPORTANTE! Responde a la pregunta: ¿Cuál es el valor de 10 10 ?