I actually think Romeo and Juliet gets the worst rap of all Shakespeare plays. Hear me out. It is the most commonly done, which means that most people in their lives will have seen a bad production of Romeo and Juliet. I had only ever seen bad productions until I was an adult, with the result that I didn't understand how great this play was. Then one day a couple years ago I was looking for monologues from Shakespeare. In an anthology I ran across Juliet's Gallop apace monologue. I read it and thought "Wow. That is an incredible piece." So then, despite the fact that I had always protested not to like Romeo and Juliet and specifically not to like Juliet, I decided to re-read the play. And I made a conscious decision to ignore everything I thought I knew about it and read it fresh, without any expectations. And boy did the play surprise me. It's a damn good play. And Juliet is an amazing character. She is strong, and courageous, and she goes after what she wants without worrying about the consequences (perhaps unfortunately). She is a person who LIVES. This is demonstrated so well in her verse, as she has so many trochaic inversions. (I.e. instead of a line of verse starting da-DUM it starts out DUM-da. Trochaic inversions launch you speedily into a line of verse.)
An interesting fact about Romeo and Juliet is that the Prologue does not appear in the first folio. It is in the Quarto edition. This brings about the question whether the Prologue was written originally as part of the play, or whether it was a later addition once the play was well known. The Prologue tells us exactly what will happen, and I've heard it argued that maybe without it, the play was more exciting, because the audience didn't know what was going to happen. I'm not sure that argument holds up, given the fact that the play probably would have been advertised as a tragedy. One title page calls it "An excellent conceited tragedy of Romeo and Juliet." Another, "The most excellent and lamentable tragedy of Romeo and Juliet." And seeing how the Chorus pops up again before Act two in both the Folio and the Quarto, I think it seems likely that the exclusion of the Prologue was a mistake in the Folio.
And then there is this small speech of Romeo's in Act 1, Scene 4 that also lets the audience know what they are in for
... my mind misgives
Some consequence yet hanging in the stars
Shall bitterly begin his fearful date
With this night's revels, and expire the term
Of a despised life closed in my breast
By some vile forfeit of untimely death.
-------------------------------------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Juliet
Favorite Male Character:
Mercutio
"That's what she said!":
Samson: when I have fought with the men, I will be civil with the maids -- I will cut off their heads.
Gregory: The heads of the maids?
Samson: Ay, the heads of the maids, or their maiden heads.
Oh, misogyny:
Friar Art thou a man? Thy form cries out thou art;
Thy tears are womanish, thy wild acts denote
The unreasonable fury of a beast.
Unseemly woman in a seeming man,
And ill-beseeming beast in seeming both!
Down with the Patriarchy:
Nurse There's no trust,
No faith, no honesty in men; all perjured,
All forsworn, all naught, all dissemblers.
Favorite Moment/Line:
3.2 is an amazing scene, and I had thought that Gallop apace would be my favorite speech, but I think the end of the scene is even better
Juliet Ah, poor my lord, what tongue shall smooth thy name
When I, thy three-hours wife, have mangled it?
But wherefore, villain, didst thou kill my cousin?
That villain cousin would have killed my husband.
Back, foolish tears, back to your native spring.
Your tributary drops belong to woe,
Which you, mistaking, offer up to joy.
My husband lives, that Tybalt would have slain,
And Tybalt's dead, that would have slain my husband.
All this is comfort. Wherefore weep I then?
Some word there was, worser than Tybalt's death,
That murdered me. I would forget it fain,
But oh, it presses to my memory
Like damnèd guilty deeds to sinners' minds:
"Tybalt is dead and Romeo banished."
That "banishèd," that one word "banishèd,"
Hath slain ten thousand Tybalts. Tybalt's death
Was woe enough if it had ended there;
Or, if sour woe delights in fellowship
And needly will be ranked with other griefs,
Why followed not when she said "Tybalt's dead,"
"Thy father" or "thy mother," nay, or both,
Which modern lamentation might have moved?
But with a rearward following Tybalt's death,
"Romeo is banished." To speak that word
Is father, mother, Tybalt, Romeo, Juliet,
All slain, all dead. "Romeo is banished."
There is no end, no limit, measure, bound,
In that word's death. No words can that woe sound.
Monday, March 8, 2010
6:38 Love's Labor's Lost
I find Love's Labor's Lost a fascinating look into the development of Shakespeare as a dramatist. There are several things that he tries out with this play that he returns to later.
Verbal wit.
The bickering lovers. Becomes Much Ado About Nothing
Women teaching men about love. (Also shows up a little in Two Gents). Becomes As You Like It.
And most especially, his playing with conventional genre expectations. Everyone should get married at the end of the play, and Shakespeare rather pointedly doesn't do this. He continues to bend the rules of genre throughout his career, particularly with The Winter's Tale and Cymbeline.
One of the positive aspects I am getting from this reading project is learning that I have misremembered things about certain plays. This happened to me with both Titus Andronicus and Love's Labor's Lost. With Titus, I was super pumped to read it. "I love this play," I thought. And while it's true that I am a great fan of the revenge tragedy and that there are some really great moments in Titus, if I am being honest, there are also a lot of weakness in that text. So the play itself isn't as great as I remembered it being.
Love's Labor's Lost I have a great fondness for, as the first production I did when I moved to DC was this play. Many of the cast members were smart asses, so we had a good time working together, and we fit the characters well. Love's Labor's Lost isn't one of the major plays. "Oh yeah," I thought, "it's because that subplot is impossible - all the jokes rely on knowledge of Latin, and we just don't get that anymore." Well, re-reading the play I discovered that I was wrong. The jokes aren't really about the Latin words at all. The jokes are about the characters, Nathaniel and Holofernes, and how they make a concerted effort to sound smarter than everyone else by peppering their speech with Latin and by using several words when one will do. That was still funny. I actually had to check the notes more often on the scenes with the royal couples, despite the fact that I'd done the play before. There are several witty jokes that just don't make sense anymore. But the subplot. The subplot totally still works.
Other things I like about this play:
1. The contract between the opening speech and what the play is really about. The King of Navarre gives this rousing speech to his men that makes it sound like this is a history play and they are about to go into battle. "Therefore brave conquerors -- for so you are, That war against your own affections And the huge army of the world's desires." Only about 35 lines in do we finally discover the silliness to which the King is rousing his men.
2. The scene when the men discover that they are all in love -- is this anything but delightful?
3. The wiseness of the women contrasted with the silliness of the men. I absolutely love the Princess's response to the King's courtliness.
King Fair Princess, welcome to the court of Navarre.
Princess Fair I give you back again, and welcome I have not yet. The roof of this court is too high to be yours, and welcome to the wide fields too base to be mine.
4. The banter.
Rosaline This proves you wise and rich, for in my eye--
Berowne (finishing her joke) I am a fool, and full of poverty.
5. The ending. It's not what we were expecting, but damn, all those final speeches are really quite, quite beautiful.
--------------------------------------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Rosaline
Favorite Male Character:
Berowne
Obviously, since these two are Shakespeare's prototype for Beatrice and Benedick. But Beatrice and Benedick are a little more evenly matched. I love how, in Love's Labor's Lost, Rosalind always manages to leave Berowne completely flustered.
Laugh out loud:
Holofernes Via, goodman Dull! thou hast not spoken no word all this while.
Dull Nor understood none neither, sir.
"That's what she said!":
King This maid will not serve your turn, sir.
Costard This maid will serve my turn, sir.
Oh, misogyny:
Very little. This play loves women. Both in the female characters being witty and wise, and also in the praise the men heap on them. The women are clearly smarter than the men. And there are lovely moments of the men being in love, like Berowne's:
What peremptory eagle-sighted eye
Dares look upon the heaven of her brow
That is not blinded by her majesty?
What little there is is generally in the form of the men trying to convince themselves not to be in love, such as Berowne's:
A woman that is like a German clock,
Still a-repairing, ever out of frame,
And never going aright, being a watch,
But being watched that it may still go right!
Down with the Patriarchy:
Princess We are wise girls to mock our lovers so.
Rosaline They are worse fools to purchase mocking so.
Favorite Moment/Line:
King Now, at the latest minute of the hour,
Grant us your loves.
Princess A time, methinks, too short
To make a world-without-end bargain in.
No, no, my lord, your Grace is perjur’d much,
Full of dear guiltiness; and therefore this:
If for my love,—as there is no such cause,—
You will do aught, this shall you do for me:
Your oath I will not trust; but go with speed
To some forlorn and naked hermitage,
Remote from all the pleasures of the world;
There stay, until the twelve celestial signs
Have brought about their annual reckoning.
If this austere insociable life
Change not your offer made in heat of blood;
If frosts and fasts, hard lodging and thin weeds,
Nip not the gaudy blossoms of your love,
But that it bear this trial and last love;
Then, at the expiration of the year,
Come challenge me, challenge me by these deserts,
And, by this virgin palm now kissing thine,
I will be thine; and, till that instant, shut
My woeful self up in a mourning house,
Raining the tears of lamentation
For the remembrance of my father’s death.
If this thou do deny, let our hands part;
Neither entitled in the other’s heart.
King If this, or more than this, I would deny,
To flatter up these powers of mine with rest,
The sudden hand of death close up mine eye!
Hence ever then my heart is in thy breast.
Verbal wit.
The bickering lovers. Becomes Much Ado About Nothing
Women teaching men about love. (Also shows up a little in Two Gents). Becomes As You Like It.
And most especially, his playing with conventional genre expectations. Everyone should get married at the end of the play, and Shakespeare rather pointedly doesn't do this. He continues to bend the rules of genre throughout his career, particularly with The Winter's Tale and Cymbeline.
One of the positive aspects I am getting from this reading project is learning that I have misremembered things about certain plays. This happened to me with both Titus Andronicus and Love's Labor's Lost. With Titus, I was super pumped to read it. "I love this play," I thought. And while it's true that I am a great fan of the revenge tragedy and that there are some really great moments in Titus, if I am being honest, there are also a lot of weakness in that text. So the play itself isn't as great as I remembered it being.
Love's Labor's Lost I have a great fondness for, as the first production I did when I moved to DC was this play. Many of the cast members were smart asses, so we had a good time working together, and we fit the characters well. Love's Labor's Lost isn't one of the major plays. "Oh yeah," I thought, "it's because that subplot is impossible - all the jokes rely on knowledge of Latin, and we just don't get that anymore." Well, re-reading the play I discovered that I was wrong. The jokes aren't really about the Latin words at all. The jokes are about the characters, Nathaniel and Holofernes, and how they make a concerted effort to sound smarter than everyone else by peppering their speech with Latin and by using several words when one will do. That was still funny. I actually had to check the notes more often on the scenes with the royal couples, despite the fact that I'd done the play before. There are several witty jokes that just don't make sense anymore. But the subplot. The subplot totally still works.
Other things I like about this play:
1. The contract between the opening speech and what the play is really about. The King of Navarre gives this rousing speech to his men that makes it sound like this is a history play and they are about to go into battle. "Therefore brave conquerors -- for so you are, That war against your own affections And the huge army of the world's desires." Only about 35 lines in do we finally discover the silliness to which the King is rousing his men.
2. The scene when the men discover that they are all in love -- is this anything but delightful?
3. The wiseness of the women contrasted with the silliness of the men. I absolutely love the Princess's response to the King's courtliness.
King Fair Princess, welcome to the court of Navarre.
Princess Fair I give you back again, and welcome I have not yet. The roof of this court is too high to be yours, and welcome to the wide fields too base to be mine.
4. The banter.
Rosaline This proves you wise and rich, for in my eye--
Berowne (finishing her joke) I am a fool, and full of poverty.
5. The ending. It's not what we were expecting, but damn, all those final speeches are really quite, quite beautiful.
--------------------------------------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Rosaline
Favorite Male Character:
Berowne
Obviously, since these two are Shakespeare's prototype for Beatrice and Benedick. But Beatrice and Benedick are a little more evenly matched. I love how, in Love's Labor's Lost, Rosalind always manages to leave Berowne completely flustered.
Laugh out loud:
Holofernes Via, goodman Dull! thou hast not spoken no word all this while.
Dull Nor understood none neither, sir.
"That's what she said!":
King This maid will not serve your turn, sir.
Costard This maid will serve my turn, sir.
Oh, misogyny:
Very little. This play loves women. Both in the female characters being witty and wise, and also in the praise the men heap on them. The women are clearly smarter than the men. And there are lovely moments of the men being in love, like Berowne's:
What peremptory eagle-sighted eye
Dares look upon the heaven of her brow
That is not blinded by her majesty?
What little there is is generally in the form of the men trying to convince themselves not to be in love, such as Berowne's:
A woman that is like a German clock,
Still a-repairing, ever out of frame,
And never going aright, being a watch,
But being watched that it may still go right!
Down with the Patriarchy:
Princess We are wise girls to mock our lovers so.
Rosaline They are worse fools to purchase mocking so.
Favorite Moment/Line:
King Now, at the latest minute of the hour,
Grant us your loves.
Princess A time, methinks, too short
To make a world-without-end bargain in.
No, no, my lord, your Grace is perjur’d much,
Full of dear guiltiness; and therefore this:
If for my love,—as there is no such cause,—
You will do aught, this shall you do for me:
Your oath I will not trust; but go with speed
To some forlorn and naked hermitage,
Remote from all the pleasures of the world;
There stay, until the twelve celestial signs
Have brought about their annual reckoning.
If this austere insociable life
Change not your offer made in heat of blood;
If frosts and fasts, hard lodging and thin weeds,
Nip not the gaudy blossoms of your love,
But that it bear this trial and last love;
Then, at the expiration of the year,
Come challenge me, challenge me by these deserts,
And, by this virgin palm now kissing thine,
I will be thine; and, till that instant, shut
My woeful self up in a mourning house,
Raining the tears of lamentation
For the remembrance of my father’s death.
If this thou do deny, let our hands part;
Neither entitled in the other’s heart.
King If this, or more than this, I would deny,
To flatter up these powers of mine with rest,
The sudden hand of death close up mine eye!
Hence ever then my heart is in thy breast.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
5:38 The Comedy of Errors
Okay, a confession. I'm not going to read Comedy of Errors. But only because two weeks ago I closed a production that I was assistant directing and playing Emilia. And the script was uncut, so I think I remember this play well enough.
When we starting the rehearsal process, I remember our director talking about the fact that this play is often poo-pooed by critics and being light and not having much literary value. Then we all talked about whether we liked the play or not. I was honest and said it wasn't one of my favorites, but not necessarily for the play itself, but because I prefer comedy less as an entire genre. And Comedy of Errors is straight comedy. Which means it can be quite entertaining (and our production certainly was), but I have to be in the mood as an audience member for that kind of entertainment. (Though I will fully admit that I am not in the norm and most audience members prefer comedy and have to be in the mood for a dramatic work.)
Why you can tell this is an early play -- well, to be frank, the verse is quite a mess, and actually very difficult to scan. There are few scenes where you kind of have to throw your hands in the air, and just say the lines as you would speak them and find the scans that way, because there are so many extra syllables that if you tried to figure out how to ellide them into ten you would drive yourself crazy. As an actor in the play, I can tell you that the text doesn't roll off of the tongue the way Shakespeare usually does. I had to concentrate more with the lines in this text.
What do I like about this play? It's such a nice ensemble piece. There is no standout lead role, and as an actor, I love getting to work in an ensemble environment. Some many roles have their moments to shine. Let's take a look:
Antipholus of Syracuse has the drop of water speech
Antipholus of Ephesus gets to get really, really angry in the scene with Pinch
Dromio of Syracuse has the scene about Nell and all the countries in her body
Dromio of Ephesus has the beating speech
Adriana has both the Are my discourses dull speech, and the Ay, ay Antipholus speech.
Luciana has the And may it be that you have quite forgot a husbands office speech
Finally, let me just take a moment to talk about casting. Many directors are under the illusion that the Dromios and the Antipholuses have to look alike. Since, you know, they are twins. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the comedy in the play works. The characters in the play are confused about who is who. But the audience never should be. The audience should always be able to tell which Antipholus is from Syracuse and which is from Ephesus and the same with the Dromios. If the audience can't tell them apart, then they can't follow the plotting of the story and the mistakes and therefore they miss most of what is funny about the play.
---------------------------------------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Adriana. The Ay, ay Antipholus speech is pretty great.
Favorite Male Character:
Dromio of Syracuse
Laugh out loud:
Antipholus Syracuse Where stood Belgia, the Netherlands?
Dromio Syracuse O, sir, I did not look so low.
Oh, misogyny:
Luciana Man, more divine, the masters of all these,
Lords of the wide world and wild watery seas,
Indued with intellectual sense and souls,
Of more preeminence than fish and fowls,
Are masters to their females, and their lords.
Down with the Patriarchy:
Adriana Why should their liberty than ours be more?
Favorite Moment/Line:
This isn't going to make any sense, but when Egeon is telling his history and talking about when Emilia was pregnant and says:
From whom my absence was not six months old
Before herself (almost at fainting under
The pleasing punishment that women bear)
Had made provision for her following me
There is just something so utterly ridiculous about labor and pregnancy being described as "the pleasing punishment."
I also really like the repeated sounds in Adriana's
Wouldst thou not spit at me, and spurn at me
And hurl the name of husband in my face
When we starting the rehearsal process, I remember our director talking about the fact that this play is often poo-pooed by critics and being light and not having much literary value. Then we all talked about whether we liked the play or not. I was honest and said it wasn't one of my favorites, but not necessarily for the play itself, but because I prefer comedy less as an entire genre. And Comedy of Errors is straight comedy. Which means it can be quite entertaining (and our production certainly was), but I have to be in the mood as an audience member for that kind of entertainment. (Though I will fully admit that I am not in the norm and most audience members prefer comedy and have to be in the mood for a dramatic work.)
Why you can tell this is an early play -- well, to be frank, the verse is quite a mess, and actually very difficult to scan. There are few scenes where you kind of have to throw your hands in the air, and just say the lines as you would speak them and find the scans that way, because there are so many extra syllables that if you tried to figure out how to ellide them into ten you would drive yourself crazy. As an actor in the play, I can tell you that the text doesn't roll off of the tongue the way Shakespeare usually does. I had to concentrate more with the lines in this text.
What do I like about this play? It's such a nice ensemble piece. There is no standout lead role, and as an actor, I love getting to work in an ensemble environment. Some many roles have their moments to shine. Let's take a look:
Antipholus of Syracuse has the drop of water speech
Antipholus of Ephesus gets to get really, really angry in the scene with Pinch
Dromio of Syracuse has the scene about Nell and all the countries in her body
Dromio of Ephesus has the beating speech
Adriana has both the Are my discourses dull speech, and the Ay, ay Antipholus speech.
Luciana has the And may it be that you have quite forgot a husbands office speech
Finally, let me just take a moment to talk about casting. Many directors are under the illusion that the Dromios and the Antipholuses have to look alike. Since, you know, they are twins. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the comedy in the play works. The characters in the play are confused about who is who. But the audience never should be. The audience should always be able to tell which Antipholus is from Syracuse and which is from Ephesus and the same with the Dromios. If the audience can't tell them apart, then they can't follow the plotting of the story and the mistakes and therefore they miss most of what is funny about the play.
---------------------------------------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Adriana. The Ay, ay Antipholus speech is pretty great.
Favorite Male Character:
Dromio of Syracuse
Laugh out loud:
Antipholus Syracuse Where stood Belgia, the Netherlands?
Dromio Syracuse O, sir, I did not look so low.
Oh, misogyny:
Luciana Man, more divine, the masters of all these,
Lords of the wide world and wild watery seas,
Indued with intellectual sense and souls,
Of more preeminence than fish and fowls,
Are masters to their females, and their lords.
Down with the Patriarchy:
Adriana Why should their liberty than ours be more?
Favorite Moment/Line:
This isn't going to make any sense, but when Egeon is telling his history and talking about when Emilia was pregnant and says:
From whom my absence was not six months old
Before herself (almost at fainting under
The pleasing punishment that women bear)
Had made provision for her following me
There is just something so utterly ridiculous about labor and pregnancy being described as "the pleasing punishment."
I also really like the repeated sounds in Adriana's
Wouldst thou not spit at me, and spurn at me
And hurl the name of husband in my face
4:38 Titus Andronicus
Oh, Titus Andronicus. I find this to be clearly one of Shakespeare's earlier works, because even though there are a lot of things I love about it, the verse just isn't that elegant. And the plotting in the second half of the play is rather weak ("You look just like Tamora." "I'm not, I'm Revenge." "Oh, great." "Ha, we fooled him!") Still, I'm a fan of the play. One of my great sadnesses in life is that I will never get to play Aaron. Maybe there will be some crazy director who would let me play Edmund or Iago... but I'm pretty sure Aaron is never going to happen. Ah well, I will just have to wait until I am old enough for Tamora and then play the hell out of that role.
As for what aspect of the play I will blog about... well let's talk about sources and influences. Whenever talking about why Shakespeare wrote Titus Andronicus, people tend to point to Marlowe. Well I'm here to point you to an under-appreciated early modern playwright who truly began the genre of Revenge Tragedy. That would be none other than Marlowe's one-time roommate, Thomas Kyd. The play, under-appreciated as well, The Spanish Tragedy. This is a really good play, that no one ever puts on. Which is why I directed about one year ago. The Spanish Tragedy works as a piece of theatre, but it is also fascinating as a piece of theatre history. If you ever read or see this play, you will find echoes in the work of Shakespeare.
The Spanish Tragedy was immensely popular in the Elizabethan era. One of the most popular plays of the day. Titus Andronicus was Shakespeare throwing his hat into the ring of Revenge Tragedy. And Hamlet was Shakespeare's elevation of this genre. Titus is crude in comparison, Hamlet much more intellectual. Both draw from The Spanish Tragedy.
Titus Andronicus is not a very valued play, perhaps because scholarship snobs don't like all the gore and violence. Its authorship has been much debated; both Marlowe and Kyd have been suggested as having a hand on it. But frankly, I'm a scholarship snob, and I like this play a lot. But then, I like gore and violence, and am a big fan of the entire genre of Revenge Tragedy.
Titus Andronicus has the chopping off of a hand, the rape and disfigurement of Lavinia, the eating of children as pies. The Spanish Tragedy has a letter written in blood, a hanging, and the main character ends the play in a bloodbath and then BITES OFF HIS OWN TONGUE.
So Shakespeare seems to take the gore and put it into Titus Andronicus. But then he takes the more refined aspects of The Spanish Tragedy and uses them for Hamlet. There is a ghost. There is a woman going crazy. There is the question of whether the hero is crazy or not (in Titus also). A play within is an important aspect of the hero's revenge. The question of suicide versus revenge is discussed. And then Shakespeare does one major flip. In The Spanish Tragedy the plot concerns a father seeking revenge for his murdered son. In Hamlet, it is of course a son seeking revenge for the murder of his father.
Okay, I'll admit it. This blog posting isn't so much about Titus Andronicus as it is me blatantly trying to spread the love for the first Elizabethan revenge tragedy, The Spanish Tragedy.
Okay, fine, I will speak more about Titus Andronicus. I will contract two fine production I have seen, specifically with what the directors chose to leave the audience with, ie. how they ended the play.
First there is the movie available for all to see starring Anthony Hopkins and directed by Julie Taymor. Taymor clearly believes in the nobility of Lucius. She believes he will keep his promise to Aaron not to kill the child. She believe that Lucius will stop the circle of violence and restore peace. Her ending is a hopeful ending. Taymor also used Young Lucius as part of that hope, increasing his role, and using him to provide a sort of frame. Children, the hope of the future, I guess.
Gale Edwards directed a production at the Shakespeare Theatre in Washington, DC a couple years ago. Edwards, like Taymor, saw Young Lucius as key to what happens after the play. But Edwards directed an ending directly opposed to Taymor's. Edwards believed that the point of Titus Andronicus, and perhaps of all revenge tragedy, is that violence breeds more violence, and that children learn what they are taught. Her ending, horrific and sad, was incredibly memorable. Marcus and Lucius do their final speeches, Lucius promising peace to Rome. Young Lucius during this time is sitting downstage, holding Aaron's baby. As the lights begin to dim, they stay brighter around Young Lucius and the baby. Young Lucius lifts and knife, and just as he is moving downward to stab Aaron's baby, blackout. Wow.
As great as I generally think Julie Taymor is, I much preferred Edwards interpretation. I don't think we are supposed to feel hope at the end of revenge tragedies. We are supposed to be horrified by the acts human beings are capable of, all human beings. Edwards gave us that. And Edwards interpretation seemed much more in line with the text, given that Young Lucius at one point says, "if I were a man, / Their mother's bed-chamber should not be safe / For these bad bondmen to the yoke of Rome."
--------------------------------------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Tamora, duh.
Favorite Male Character:
Aaron the Moor, duh.
Laugh out loud:
Titus Ha, ha, ha!
(bad joke?)
Oh, misogyny:
Demetrius She is a woman, therefore may be woo'd,
She is a woman, therefore may be won.
Down with the Patriarchy:
"That's what she said!":
Chiron Thou hast undone our mother.
Aaron Villain, I have done thy mother.
Famous Last Words:
Titus Here lurks no treason, here no envy swells,
Here grow no damed grudges, here are no storms,
No noise, but silence and eternal sleep:
In peace and honor rest you here, my sons!
Oh, Titus... if you only knew, you silly, silly man.
Favorite Moment/Line:
Aaron Even now I curse the day--and yet, I think,
Few come within the compass of my curse,--
Wherein I did not some notorious ill,
As kill a man, or else devise his death,
Ravish a maid, or plot the way to do it,
Accuse some innocent and forswear myself,
Set deadly enmity between two friends,
Make poor men's cattle break their necks;
Set fire on barns and hay-stacks in the night,
And bid the owners quench them with their tears.
Oft have I digg'd up dead men from their graves,
And set them upright at their dear friends' doors,
Even when their sorrows almost were forgot;
And on their skins, as on the bark of trees,
Have with my knife carved in Roman letters,
'Let not your sorrow die, though I am dead.'
Tut, I have done a thousand dreadful things
As willingly as one would kill a fly,
And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
But that I cannot do ten thousand more.
Come on, that's amazing. He dug up corpses from their graves and set them in front of doors. WTF? Love it!
As for what aspect of the play I will blog about... well let's talk about sources and influences. Whenever talking about why Shakespeare wrote Titus Andronicus, people tend to point to Marlowe. Well I'm here to point you to an under-appreciated early modern playwright who truly began the genre of Revenge Tragedy. That would be none other than Marlowe's one-time roommate, Thomas Kyd. The play, under-appreciated as well, The Spanish Tragedy. This is a really good play, that no one ever puts on. Which is why I directed about one year ago. The Spanish Tragedy works as a piece of theatre, but it is also fascinating as a piece of theatre history. If you ever read or see this play, you will find echoes in the work of Shakespeare.
The Spanish Tragedy was immensely popular in the Elizabethan era. One of the most popular plays of the day. Titus Andronicus was Shakespeare throwing his hat into the ring of Revenge Tragedy. And Hamlet was Shakespeare's elevation of this genre. Titus is crude in comparison, Hamlet much more intellectual. Both draw from The Spanish Tragedy.
Titus Andronicus is not a very valued play, perhaps because scholarship snobs don't like all the gore and violence. Its authorship has been much debated; both Marlowe and Kyd have been suggested as having a hand on it. But frankly, I'm a scholarship snob, and I like this play a lot. But then, I like gore and violence, and am a big fan of the entire genre of Revenge Tragedy.
Titus Andronicus has the chopping off of a hand, the rape and disfigurement of Lavinia, the eating of children as pies. The Spanish Tragedy has a letter written in blood, a hanging, and the main character ends the play in a bloodbath and then BITES OFF HIS OWN TONGUE.
So Shakespeare seems to take the gore and put it into Titus Andronicus. But then he takes the more refined aspects of The Spanish Tragedy and uses them for Hamlet. There is a ghost. There is a woman going crazy. There is the question of whether the hero is crazy or not (in Titus also). A play within is an important aspect of the hero's revenge. The question of suicide versus revenge is discussed. And then Shakespeare does one major flip. In The Spanish Tragedy the plot concerns a father seeking revenge for his murdered son. In Hamlet, it is of course a son seeking revenge for the murder of his father.
Okay, I'll admit it. This blog posting isn't so much about Titus Andronicus as it is me blatantly trying to spread the love for the first Elizabethan revenge tragedy, The Spanish Tragedy.
Okay, fine, I will speak more about Titus Andronicus. I will contract two fine production I have seen, specifically with what the directors chose to leave the audience with, ie. how they ended the play.
First there is the movie available for all to see starring Anthony Hopkins and directed by Julie Taymor. Taymor clearly believes in the nobility of Lucius. She believes he will keep his promise to Aaron not to kill the child. She believe that Lucius will stop the circle of violence and restore peace. Her ending is a hopeful ending. Taymor also used Young Lucius as part of that hope, increasing his role, and using him to provide a sort of frame. Children, the hope of the future, I guess.
Gale Edwards directed a production at the Shakespeare Theatre in Washington, DC a couple years ago. Edwards, like Taymor, saw Young Lucius as key to what happens after the play. But Edwards directed an ending directly opposed to Taymor's. Edwards believed that the point of Titus Andronicus, and perhaps of all revenge tragedy, is that violence breeds more violence, and that children learn what they are taught. Her ending, horrific and sad, was incredibly memorable. Marcus and Lucius do their final speeches, Lucius promising peace to Rome. Young Lucius during this time is sitting downstage, holding Aaron's baby. As the lights begin to dim, they stay brighter around Young Lucius and the baby. Young Lucius lifts and knife, and just as he is moving downward to stab Aaron's baby, blackout. Wow.
As great as I generally think Julie Taymor is, I much preferred Edwards interpretation. I don't think we are supposed to feel hope at the end of revenge tragedies. We are supposed to be horrified by the acts human beings are capable of, all human beings. Edwards gave us that. And Edwards interpretation seemed much more in line with the text, given that Young Lucius at one point says, "if I were a man, / Their mother's bed-chamber should not be safe / For these bad bondmen to the yoke of Rome."
--------------------------------------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Tamora, duh.
Favorite Male Character:
Aaron the Moor, duh.
Laugh out loud:
Titus Ha, ha, ha!
(bad joke?)
Oh, misogyny:
Demetrius She is a woman, therefore may be woo'd,
She is a woman, therefore may be won.
Down with the Patriarchy:
"That's what she said!":
Chiron Thou hast undone our mother.
Aaron Villain, I have done thy mother.
Famous Last Words:
Titus Here lurks no treason, here no envy swells,
Here grow no damed grudges, here are no storms,
No noise, but silence and eternal sleep:
In peace and honor rest you here, my sons!
Oh, Titus... if you only knew, you silly, silly man.
Favorite Moment/Line:
Aaron Even now I curse the day--and yet, I think,
Few come within the compass of my curse,--
Wherein I did not some notorious ill,
As kill a man, or else devise his death,
Ravish a maid, or plot the way to do it,
Accuse some innocent and forswear myself,
Set deadly enmity between two friends,
Make poor men's cattle break their necks;
Set fire on barns and hay-stacks in the night,
And bid the owners quench them with their tears.
Oft have I digg'd up dead men from their graves,
And set them upright at their dear friends' doors,
Even when their sorrows almost were forgot;
And on their skins, as on the bark of trees,
Have with my knife carved in Roman letters,
'Let not your sorrow die, though I am dead.'
Tut, I have done a thousand dreadful things
As willingly as one would kill a fly,
And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
But that I cannot do ten thousand more.
Come on, that's amazing. He dug up corpses from their graves and set them in front of doors. WTF? Love it!
3:38 King John
How great is it that on the third day of this challenge we get to read King John? This means, even if you peter out after a week, you'll still have read one of the more obscure plays. And to confess, I have not read King John all the way through. Sections, yes. A couple Constance scenes, and of course I know the Commodity speech. But never the whole play. And the Histories happen to be my favorite subset of Shakespeare plays. So here we go! (PS. My Yale collection of these plays is proving to be most convenient for this reading challenge. Though I'm missing about seven of them, so at some point I'll probably have to break out my Pelican complete works.)
And since we are delving into those History Plays, let me take this time to recommend Shakespeare's Genealogies by Vanessa James. Not only does this book contain thorough family trees for all of Shakespeare's works, it's also really, really cool. The only issue is that James doesn't always list the family in chronological order, for spacing reasons I imagine. So from her tree you can't confirm which son is the oldest and which is the youngest. Which matters since the whole dispute in King John is that Arthur is the son of John's elder brother, giving him a claim to the throne.
Since it is a history play, we can find many connections to the other history plays. France vs. England, who is the rightful heir, God fights on our side, etc. But something else that shows up in the history plays is young royals being manipulated by adults, not for the good of the child, but because the adults want as much power as they can get. There is something so touching about Arthur's frustration in II.i: "Good my mother, peace! / I would that I were low laid in my grace; / I am not worth this coil that's made for me." Actually, I think the beginning of that whole scene is pretty great. All the bickering, and antithesis and accusations and interruptions. I'd imagine that in performance there is a lot of comic potential, along the lines of the second gage scene in Richard II.
And then the scene ends with the Commodity speech. Okay, all of 2.i is pretty much brilliant. How come this play doesn't get done?
There are lots of verbal echoes, especially with Caesar. Most obviously, the "Cry Havoc" line, but Constance also says "O lawful let it be / That I have room with Rome to curse awhile." These two words sounding the same is a joke Shakespeare used again with Cassius: "Now is it Rome indeed and room enough."
But let's also talk about how this play is different than all the other history plays -- The French characters are not comical. In the Henry plays, it's very clear that we are meant to laugh at the ineffectual and often effeminate (or at least vain) French. But here in King John they are characters just like the English characters. In fact, I think we find ourselves sometimes on their side in this play, which doesn't happen in the other history plays.
---------------------------------------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Constance, because boy does she get to freak out and rail a lot.
Favorite Male Character:
Philip, the Bastard, obviously.
Laugh out loud:
Philip the Bastard And hang a calfskin on those recreant limbs.
Austria Thou darst not say so, villain, for thy life.
Philip the Bastard And hang a calfskin on those recreant limbs.
It's nice to know that some jokes really have been around forever.
Oh, misogyny:
I was surprised with how little there was, considering how outspoken Eleanor and Constance are. But we still have the typical characterization of feminine weakness with Hubert's:
I must be brief, lest resolution drop
Out at mine eyes in tender womanish tears.
and the Bastard's:
Show me the very wound of this ill news:
I am no woman; I'll not swoon at it.
Down with the Patriarchy:
Kings are people too:
Prince Henry What surety of the world, what hope, what stay,
When this was now a king, and now is clay?
Edward II has hot pokers for the butt:
King John has hot pokers for the eyes.
Favorite Moment/Line:
Philip, the Bastard
And why rail I on this Commodity?
But for because he hath not woo'd me yet.
Not that I have the power to clutch my hand
When his fair angels would salute my palm;
But for my hand, as unattempted yet,
Like a poor beggar, raileth on the rich.
I love that Shakespeare's "bad guys" are often the most honest characters.
But then, let me take a moment to talk about the bad guy in this play. Philip the Bastard kind of seems to be two characters. He's obviously an early prototype for Edmund, the better-known bastard, and he seems delightfully wicked in the first half of the play, encouraging war and battles, but then in the second half of the play he is all loyalty and nobility. He doesn't actually do anything bad or mischievous or wicked. All his actions are rather on the side of England and the existing King. And he is the character who gets the final lines of the play, which are entirely patriotic. While generally bad guys and bastards serve but their own self-interests, Philip seems to go an entirely different route. The play ends with him:
This England never did, not never shall,
Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror,
But when it first did help to wound itself.
Now these her princes are come home again,
Come the three corners of the world in arms,
And we shall shock them. Nought shall make us rue,
If England to itself to rest but true.
I mean, that's really quite beautiful.
And since we are delving into those History Plays, let me take this time to recommend Shakespeare's Genealogies by Vanessa James. Not only does this book contain thorough family trees for all of Shakespeare's works, it's also really, really cool. The only issue is that James doesn't always list the family in chronological order, for spacing reasons I imagine. So from her tree you can't confirm which son is the oldest and which is the youngest. Which matters since the whole dispute in King John is that Arthur is the son of John's elder brother, giving him a claim to the throne.
Since it is a history play, we can find many connections to the other history plays. France vs. England, who is the rightful heir, God fights on our side, etc. But something else that shows up in the history plays is young royals being manipulated by adults, not for the good of the child, but because the adults want as much power as they can get. There is something so touching about Arthur's frustration in II.i: "Good my mother, peace! / I would that I were low laid in my grace; / I am not worth this coil that's made for me." Actually, I think the beginning of that whole scene is pretty great. All the bickering, and antithesis and accusations and interruptions. I'd imagine that in performance there is a lot of comic potential, along the lines of the second gage scene in Richard II.
And then the scene ends with the Commodity speech. Okay, all of 2.i is pretty much brilliant. How come this play doesn't get done?
There are lots of verbal echoes, especially with Caesar. Most obviously, the "Cry Havoc" line, but Constance also says "O lawful let it be / That I have room with Rome to curse awhile." These two words sounding the same is a joke Shakespeare used again with Cassius: "Now is it Rome indeed and room enough."
But let's also talk about how this play is different than all the other history plays -- The French characters are not comical. In the Henry plays, it's very clear that we are meant to laugh at the ineffectual and often effeminate (or at least vain) French. But here in King John they are characters just like the English characters. In fact, I think we find ourselves sometimes on their side in this play, which doesn't happen in the other history plays.
---------------------------------------------------------
Favorite Female Character:
Constance, because boy does she get to freak out and rail a lot.
Favorite Male Character:
Philip, the Bastard, obviously.
Laugh out loud:
Philip the Bastard And hang a calfskin on those recreant limbs.
Austria Thou darst not say so, villain, for thy life.
Philip the Bastard And hang a calfskin on those recreant limbs.
It's nice to know that some jokes really have been around forever.
Oh, misogyny:
I was surprised with how little there was, considering how outspoken Eleanor and Constance are. But we still have the typical characterization of feminine weakness with Hubert's:
I must be brief, lest resolution drop
Out at mine eyes in tender womanish tears.
and the Bastard's:
Show me the very wound of this ill news:
I am no woman; I'll not swoon at it.
Down with the Patriarchy:
Kings are people too:
Prince Henry What surety of the world, what hope, what stay,
When this was now a king, and now is clay?
Edward II has hot pokers for the butt:
King John has hot pokers for the eyes.
Favorite Moment/Line:
Philip, the Bastard
And why rail I on this Commodity?
But for because he hath not woo'd me yet.
Not that I have the power to clutch my hand
When his fair angels would salute my palm;
But for my hand, as unattempted yet,
Like a poor beggar, raileth on the rich.
I love that Shakespeare's "bad guys" are often the most honest characters.
But then, let me take a moment to talk about the bad guy in this play. Philip the Bastard kind of seems to be two characters. He's obviously an early prototype for Edmund, the better-known bastard, and he seems delightfully wicked in the first half of the play, encouraging war and battles, but then in the second half of the play he is all loyalty and nobility. He doesn't actually do anything bad or mischievous or wicked. All his actions are rather on the side of England and the existing King. And he is the character who gets the final lines of the play, which are entirely patriotic. While generally bad guys and bastards serve but their own self-interests, Philip seems to go an entirely different route. The play ends with him:
This England never did, not never shall,
Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror,
But when it first did help to wound itself.
Now these her princes are come home again,
Come the three corners of the world in arms,
And we shall shock them. Nought shall make us rue,
If England to itself to rest but true.
I mean, that's really quite beautiful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
