I have changed my thesis a little bit after getting into the idea of Shakespearian jesters a little bit more. Instead of analyzing jesters in Shakespeare's plays, I thought it more useful to analyze what other critics of gathered from Shakespeare's jesters and applied them to modern day comedies.
Thus, I have theorized that Shakespeare broke medieval traditions by endowing his jester characters with sage advice and discerning perspectives. This change in jester characters has carried down into today's tradition of successful comedic films.
Background and Support:
I have given the background on jesters pre and peri-Shakespearean theater and how they were viewed in society. Jesters were essentially highly respected performers in roles that required with and insight while the players stayed on their toes in an intimidating court environment.
It is only during Shakespeare's day that jesters are represented somewhat intellectually in popular culture. This can be embodied in the character of Touchstone. "This jester, while described as a silly dimwit by Rosalind and Celia, is shown to be quite witty and socially adept. He still provides some comedic moments, but they are generally in circumstances where he is the wise one, not the fool (e.g. when speaking with Audrey, the simple shepherd girl)" (as stated in a the post, "Touching on Touchstone").
I then move on to the present day and analyze modern jesters in today's romantic comedies. Why romantic comedies, you might ask? Because romantic comedies more closely follow the Shakespearean tradition of a comedic secondary role. Most comedies feature their "jester" as the protagonist. I was interested in those movies that brought in jesters secondary to the main characters, much like Shakespeare did in The Tempest (Trinculo), The Merchant of Venice (Launcelot Gobbo), The Two Gentlemen of Verona (Launce and Speed), etc.
These present day jesters modeled after Shakespearean jesters in that all of them possessed some sort of deformity, this is what made them so comical. Past jesters often had physical deformities like a hunchback or dwarfism, yet present jesters in popular comedies embody more social "deformities," such as sexual orientation, race, and intellectual deficiency.
Present day jesters have also been endowed with figurative baubles that defend themselves from any negative consequences wished upon them from other offended characters in the story. These baubles could be social gracelessness or pure stupidity. At any rate, these baubles keep the main characters from abandoning their friendships with these jesters because they are inhibited by these pitiful characteristics. However, some jesters' baubles prove to break Shakespeare's tradition of possessing insight and sage characteristics, which leads me to my conclusion.
Conclusion:
In analyzing my research of present jesters in popular romantic comedies, I have noticed a correlation between the success of these films and the redeeming qualities of their jesters. It seems that those films that follow Shakespeare's outline of sage and helpful jesters have generally experienced higher ratings among movie critics than those with medieval-patterned two-dimensional jesters. Thus, those films that break Shakespearean tradition in their development of jesters are less well received as those that follow Shakespeare's pattern of ironically sage and insightful jesters.
