Monday, December 26, 2011

Monday, December 26 2011

Monday, December 26, 2011

Since today is a holiday in Sweden I get a free blog Monday. Yay! It seems like more than two Mondays that I've been away and sadly it will be two more until I'm back. How will the Shakespeare world survive? Try to muddle through, friends....

  • Shakespeare sightings, quite a few this time since I've been offline. Anyway here they are –
    • An old one, actually, that I missed when it showed up: My dear beginner's English student GÄ wrote in an assignment about her mother in Poland who, in her 70's, still loves to read and one of whose favorites is Shakespeare. I'm pretty sure GÄ mentions it because I talk about Shakespeare a lot in class so it's kind of a prompted sighting.
    • In Harry Potter 6 – The Half-Blood Prince, one of the members of the Weird Sisters is at a party at Hogwarts and later, at the funeral at the end of the book.
    • In Harry Potter 7 – The Deathly Hallows, Harry is in Ginny's room for the first time and sees that she a poster on her wall of the Weird Sisters. Now since there probably won't be any more references to this famous band, it's time for a contest – who are the Weird Sisters and what play are they in? What is their most famous line? Great prizes for the one to answer correctly first!
    • In the book Slaget om Tammerfors (in the original Finnish Tampere Tulessa,in English The Battle of Tampere) which presents eyewitness reports to a significant part of the Finnish Civil War of 1918, the actor Jalmari Rinne, trapped in the Laterna Hotel in Tampere as the battle goes on, reports on March 26, “I don't know how many Shakespeare dramas I read while staying at the Laterna. But those which are less often produced, like the history plays, and the cannonades heard from the outside went very well together...” (rough translation).
    • In Sherman Alexie's short story “Can I Get a Witness” in his collection Ten Little Indians the main character wonders, after 9/11: “Men have walked on the moon and written Hamlet and painted the Sistine Chapel and played the piano like Glenn Gould...and other men still have the need to hang antlers and flags on their walls.”
    • The novel The Hotel at the Corner of Bitter and Sweet by Jamie Ford is called in one of the reviews the Romeo and Juliet story about the antagonism between Chinese and Japanese immigrants in the US during World War Two. I can't quote the review because I've returned the book to the library.
    • We have now completed our backwards Springsteen marathon and in his early songs there is a lot of Romeo and Juliet (he's such a romantic!). Here are the last two: Point Blank: “I was gonna be your Romeo you were gonna be my Juliet, These days you don't wait on Romeos, You wait on that welfare check” and Incident at 57th Street: “Well, like a cool Romeo he made his moves, oh she looked so fine. Like a late Juliet she knew he'd never be true but then she really didn't mind”. Hmmm, did I say romantic?
    • On one of the last episode of Flight of the Conchords Bret has fallen in love and is trying to describe his beloved to the skeptical Jemaine. He says she's like Shakespeare's Juliet and Jemaine says, “What? Thirteen?”
    • In the book The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter by David Colbert, the author writes of the nasty basilisks, used in The Chamber of Secrets, and points out that, “William Shakespeare even mentioned a basilisk in his play Richard III. The evil title character kills his brother then immediately flatters his brother's widow by mentioning her beautiful eyes. But she replies, 'Would they were basilisks, to strike thee dead!'” Contest 2: What's her name and who had Richard actually killed to inspire such a response from her? He did kill his brother too but that was later. Big prizes for the first right answers!

Further, these weeks:
  • Book order but not received: Fintan O'Toole's Shakespeare is Hard but So Is Life. It's been on my Bokus wish list for a long time so when I received notice that it was available I ordered it, but it was too late. By the time my order came in, it was sold out again.
  • Movies watched: Dead Poet's Society. This should have been watched in connection with A Midsummer Night's Dream since the movie is about it, so to speak, but we didn't have it then and I wasn't at the time aware of the connection. The last time I saw the movie it was long before my Shakespeare days. Anyway, a movie well worth seeing with or without Shakespeare.
  • Now reading aloud with Hal: Richard II.
  • Text posted on blog: “Don't Trust Anyone Over Thirty – or Twenty-Eight– Adults vs Kids in Romeo and Juliet”.

Romeo and Juliet - Adults vs kids

Don't Trust Anyone Over Thirty (or Twenty-Eight)
Adults versus Kids in Romeo and Juliet

I think Shakespeare should have stuck with his original plan and written Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter, saving Juliet for a play more worthy of her. Oh, yeah, that's right, Ethel and her pirate dad are just pretend. But Juliet would probably have been better off with a pirate for a father. He couldn't have been meaner than old Pa Capulet.

I have trouble with this play. While reading it I kept saying, “But why didn't...?” and “But they could have just...” Etc.

Juliet does have some really powerful lines. While Romeo tends to succumb to “drippy passion” (Dromgoole p. 56), Juliet's eloquence soars, whether she is longing for Romeo (“Come, gentle night; come loving, black-browed night, Give me my Romeo”, Act 2.3), putting him in his place (“What satisfaction canst thou have tonight?” Act 2.1), raging at his murder of Tybalt (“Beautiful tyrant, fiend angelical!” Act 3.2) or fearful of the friar's potion (“What if it it be a poison which the friar/ Subtly have ministered to me to have me dead...?” Act 4.3). In short, Juliet is magnificent, while the play is...not as good as she is.

What Shakespeare really has succeeded in doing is showing how painfully young these two kids are. And how cruelly they are treated by the adults. Romeo's parents aren't so bad but Juliet's are real tyrants, the father being among the worst of Shakespeare's dreadful dads. Being called “green-sickness carrion”, “baggage”, “tallow-face”, being told that she is, as an only child, one child too many, and being threatened with being thrown out on the street to “hang, beg, starve, die” (Act 3.5) is startling even for us who know how rotten Shakespeare's fathers tend to be. And her mother, at the ripe old age of twenty-seven or twenty-eight, isn't much better. She does protest her husband's raging, but only lamely and when Juliet begs for comfort and support she only says:

Talk not to me, for I'll not speak a word.
Do as thou wilt, for I have done with thee (Act 3.5)
and sweeps from the room.

A couple of parents more in need of parental guidance would be hard to find.

But what I find harder to accept are the two supposedly nice adults, the Nurse and the Friar. The Nurse is usually played for laughs and is actually called “one of the most entertaining characters”, “endearing” and “affectionate” in Soliloquy's advice on how to play the role (Early and Keil, p. 129-130). This seems to be the prevailing interpretation of the Nurse. Harold Bloom points out that she is an “audience favorite” (p. 89).

She's not mine. The Nurse troubles me from the start. In her first appearance in the play, in Act 1.3, in what seems to be interpreted by most as evidence of a deep affection for Juliet in her long speech about how old the girl is, I find it hard to ignore her meanness. She laughs about weaning baby Juliet by smearing her nipples with bitter tasting wormwood. But even worse, she repeatedly tells the story of how her husband had mocked and ridiculed the little Juliet when she fell and hurt herself quite seriously. Entertaining? The Nurse apparently thinks so.

Still she is funny and bawdy and affectionate and all that and she does go to a lot of trouble to help the young lovers meet. But why? She knows from the beginning that Juliet is to marry Paris. This is not a society in which a thirteen-year-old girl is allowed to have a romantic fling before marriage. There's nothing really wrong with Paris. He's young, wealthy and usually played by a good-looking actor so why shouldn't Juliet marry him? OK, I'm not a dimwit or a total anti-romance curmudgeon. Juliet falls in love with Romeo. But why did the Nurse so actively encourage it and, in fact, manipulate the situation? I really don't know.

But she does. She helps arrange the marriage and despite her grief over the death of Tybalt and anger with Romeo for killing him, she actually arranges for Romeo to come to Juliet to consummate the marriage. Why? Juliet is only thirteen, Romeo not much older. What adult in his or her right mind would encourage and maneuver and meddle and push a marriage the day after they meet no matter how passionate the love?
But meddle she does, married they get, and consummate it they do. Then comes the big confrontation between Juliet and her parents. Juliet and the rest of us can be forgiven for expecting more help from the Nurse, right? She makes a few feeble protests against the father's rage but instead of saying, “Don't worry, dear, I've managed things so far, I'll get you to Mantua to be reunited with Romeo” she, in fact, says:

Faith, here it is: Romeo
Is banishéd...
...Then, since the case so stands as now it doth,
I think it best you married with the County.
O, he's a lovely gentleman!
Romeo's a dishclout to him...
...I think you happy in this second match,
For it excels your first; or if it did not,
Your first is dead, or 'twere as good he were
As living hence and you no use of him (Act 3.5)

What?! It's hard to say who is crueler to Juliet, Capulet or the Nurse. There's no question, however, that the Nurse's betrayal is far more unexpected and therefor by far the worse. Entertaining? Endearing? I don't think so! The Nurse is, as Prof. Bloom writes in a world-class understatement, “bad news” (p. 89). Juliet is more succinct when she stares after the Nurse in shock, seeing her as a “most wicked fiend” (Act 3.5).

Ahem. I told you so.

There is, of course, a reasonable explanation. The Nurse is not an independent character. She seems to have a lot of leeway in the Capulet home but in fact she is a hired servant. She has already – amazingly – gone against her boss, Capulet, and one could say that she suddenly realizes that she has put herself in danger. Thus her abrupt about face. Advocating bigamy is evidently less dangerous.

Friar Laurence, the other nice adult, is not in that kind of position. He's independent, he's respected, he's knowledgeable. Both Juliet and Romeo trust him and turn to him with their passions and problems, indicating that he's been a positive force in their lives previously.

And he does have a plausible reason for helping them. By uniting them in holy matrimony in spite of his wise advice of moderation in love, he hopes to end the violent feud between the two clans. The objection could be raised that children should not be exploited that way, but OK, his intentions are good.

So then why in the name of all that is sensible doesn't he simply help Juliet go with Romeo when he leaves? Failing that, why in the world doesn't he smuggle Juliet off to Mantua when the threat of marriage to Paris becomes an imminent reality? Why this ridiculous rigamarole of the knockout potion which anyone can see will backfire? And to top it all off he turns chicken in the tomb because of hearing some noise and abandons the newly bereaved Juliet with her dead husband and a lot of other corpses.

No. I won't have it. There's something here I'm not getting. Nobody's ever accused Shakespeare of being consistent or unfailingly logical but his characterization is usually flawless. Not the people themselves, of course, but the flawlessness of the credibility of their flawed characters.

But for me the Nurse and the Friar don't work. I'm missing something here. This time Shakespeare has me stumped.

November 2011
December 2011

Works cited:

  • The Norton Shakespeare, based on the Oxford Edition. Ed. Greenblatt, Stephen et al. Second edition, 2008.
  • Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare, the Invention of the Human. 1998.
  • Dromgoole, Dominic. Will & Me. 2007.
  • Early, Michael and Philippa Keil, editors. Soliloquy – The Shakespeare Monologues, The Women. 1988.

Films seen:

  • BBC, 1978. Director: Alvin Rakoff. Cast: Rebecca Saire – Juliet; Patrick Ryecart – Romeo; Celia Johnson – the Nurse; Joseph O'Connor – Friar Lawrence; Alan Rickman – Tybalt; Anthony Andrews – Mercutio; Michael Hordern – Capulet; Jacqueline Hill – Lady Capulet. Rebecca Saire is young enough and earnest enough to be convincing as Juliet. Patrick Ryecart is not a likeable Romeo, not worth dying for. It's fun to see the very young Alan Rickman who does a good Tybalt: there are even signs of a budding Snape. Everyone else does an OK job but are far too old for their parts.
  • “West Side Story”, 1961. Director: Robert Wise. Cast: Natalie Wood – Maria/Juliet: Richard Beymer – Tony/Romeo; Rita Moreno – Anita/Nurse (sort of); Russ Tamblym – Riff/Mercutio; George Chakiris – Bernardo/Tybalt. I'm not exactly sure if I saw this movie before seeing Zefferelli's version. Probably. I've seen it about six or seven times but this is the first time I've actually thought about it in relation to the play. There are more parallels than I would have thought, but why doesn't Maria/Juliet die too? Not that I wish poor Maria ill or begrudge her a long and happy life but the whole point of the tragedy is that they both die. Oh well, I won't be picky. What I don't like about the movie is that Natalie Wood and Richard Beymer are hopelessly sweet and romantic. What I love about it are the gangs, the dancing and the incredibly clever lyrics in all of the songs except the love songs.
  • “William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet”, 1996. Director: Baz Luhrman. Cast: Claire Danes – Juliet; Leonardo DiCaprio – Romeo; Miriam Margolyes – the Nurse; Pete Postlethwaite – Friar Lawrence; John Leguizamo – Tybalt; Harold Perrineau – Mercutio; Paul Sorvino – Capulet; Diane Venora – Lady Capulet. My favorite version by far. The garish Catholicism, the off the wall MTV kitsch disco, the macho gang stereotypes are all so outrageous that they're just right and Danes and DiCaprio are miles ahead of all other Juliets and Romeos I've ever seen. They're funny, the adolescent, they're madly in love and completely grief stricken. And absolutely convincing. Shakespeare's words spoken by this wild cast are perfectly natural. Too bad major parts of the play were cut.
  • “Romeo and Juliet”, 1968. Director: Franco Zefferelli. Cast: Olivia Hussey – Juliet; Leonard Whiting – Romeo; Pat Heywood – the Nurse; Milo O'Shea – Friar Lawrence; Michael York – Tybalt; John McEnery – Mercutio; Paul Hardwich – Capulet; Natasha Parry – Lady Capulet. Flawed version with too much Hollywood beauty and sumptuous flowing costumes (which won both and Oscar and a Bafta, so evidently not everyone saw that as a flaw. ) Hussey starts out as a breathlessly giggly Juliet, which is annoying but still, Juliet is only thirteen years old and Hussey soon rises to the task and does a very creditable Juliet. In fact, all in all, it's a good movie. Visually pleasing, suitably dramatic and tear jerkingly tragic. A must-see actually.
  • “Romeo and Juliet”, Thames, 1976. Director: Joan Kemp-Walsh. Cast: Ann Hasson – Juliet; Christopher Neame – Romeo; Patsy Byrne – Nurse; Clive Swift – Friar Laurence; David Robb (uncredited) – Tybalt; Robin Nedwell (uncredited) – Mercutio; Laurence Payne – Capulet; Mary Kenton – Lady Capulet. This is a rather obscure version in the sense that it's hard to find information about it on the net. Oddly, some of the cast are not credited; I couldn't find anywhere who plays Benvolio. But if you have the chance to see it, do! Sadly the box it was packaged and sold in is no longer available. A pity because it could well be the best version. I still like Luhrman better but this is a close second. Hal says it might be the best film version of any Shakespeare play. I don't agree but it's certainly towards the top of the list. What's good about it? Faithful to original, minimalistic but evocative stage setting, sincere, nuanced and profound acting.
  • “Romeo and Juliet”. Ballet to Prokofiev's music, choreography by Rudolf Nureyev. Ballet de l'Opéra de Paris. 1995. Dancers: Monique Loudières – Juliet; Manuel Legris – Romeo; Annie Carbonnel – Nurse. I had been looking forward to this. Sadly I was disappointed. I'm not a fan of classical ballet but that's what this definitely was. Entirely too much tippy-toeing and leg-twitching for me. The story was changed in several totally unnecessary ways and it is way too long. It has some rather beautiful scene and costume work and the dancing was of course outstanding but I certainly would have liked to see what Pina Bausch could have done with this!
  • “8 Päivää Ensi-Iltaan”, which, in case you're not fluent in Finnish, means “8 Days to Premiere”. 2007. Directed by Perttu Leppä. Cast: Vilma (Juliet) – Laura Birn; Lauri (Romeo) – Micko Leppilampi. A lightweight but enjoyable offshoot about a professional theater company in Helsinki who is dong R&J. It's a love story (big surprise) and even has the ghosts of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to help out when things get complicated. See it if you get the chance. Here's the link to a Finnish trailer:
  • “Romeo and Juliet”, no date available. Kirov Ballet. Music: Tchaikovsky. Choreography: Nataly Rizhenko and Victor Smirnov-Golovanov. Dancers: Juliet – Svetlana Semenova. Romeo – Alexander Semenchukov. Absolutely stunning! A much shorter and tighter ballet than the above-mentioned version. This too is classical ballet and very stylized but the stage setting is a mix of dark rich backgrounds and atmospheric dramatic ramparts, castle courts and seasides. The dancing is superb with the kinds of leaps and twirls one expects from Russian ballet. A big plus is the music. Tchaikovsky's R&J is much more dramatic than Prokofiev's. It helps that we're also much more familiar with it. A most worthy finale for our R&J session!

Seen on stage: Yes. A shortened outdoor version in the park at Drottningholm outside of Stockholm in about 2003. Actually the first Shakespeare play I've seen on stage. I don't remember it being tragic, I remember the cleverness of the stage setting and the zest of the characters playing multiple parts. I also remember freezing to death and stumbling through the dark back to our friend's car after the play.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Monday, December 5 2011

Still a bit of a limbo week. We've read some more critical comments on Romeo and Juliet and have seen a few more Romeo and Juliet movies (we have one take-off plus a short ballet version left to watch). I have also written my text but I need time to think about it and revise it so it won't be posted today, unfortunately.
And I can't promise when it will be posted. Sadly, this is my last Shakespeare Monday for awhile. Next week I go back up to full time for four weeks. However one of those Mondays is a holiday so I'll try to get something posted then. And I will be back on January 16 to resume my Mondays.
So it's a little early but Happy Winter Solstice!

  • This week's Shakespeare sightings –
    • At the end of Harry Potter 5 – The Order of the Phoenix, Tonks wear a T-shirt with a Weird Sisters logo.
    • In “Downton Abbey” when Daisy is reluctant to talk to her fiancé William, home from the war and dying, the cook Mrs. Patmore says, “It doesn't have to be Shakespeare!”
    • In Sherman Alexie's short story “Search Engine” in his collection Ten Little Indians the main character, college student Corliss, watches a young guy trying to seduce a young woman by quoting Auden. Corliss, herself a poet, “wondered if Shakespeare wrote his plays and sonnets only because he was trying to get laid?”
    • Fridays' crossword in DN. Clue: “More than one in Hamlet”. Dane? Murder? Sword fight? Sign of madness? None of the above. Answer: act. How mundane.
Further, this week:
  • Book received: Jean E. Howard's Companion to the Tragedies. I see that she's the editor, not the author. Too bad, but it still looks interesting.
  • Movies watched: Zefferelli's version of Romeo and Juliet, the Thames version of same, the Ballet de Paris version of same.
  • Text posted on blog: the next Book of Interest – Eric S. Mallin's Godless Shakespeare.

Mallin Godless Shakespeare

Godless Shakespeare by Eric S. Mallin. 2007. Read in April, 2008.

Many have noted that Shakespeare, at least judging by his plays, was not an overly religious person. Granted, he lived in a society in which the Christian church dominated, but it was also a society in which this powerful church had split in two and was battling for something much more concrete than the human soul – political power. So what else is new, you might well ask, and indeed, that has been the role of organized religion since its appearance X number of thousands of years ago and until our day.

In this short (119 pages of text) but dense book, Eric Mallin proposes that the pervasiveness of Christian belief in Renaissance times did not preclude atheism. In his introduction her writes, “Unbelief was clearly possible in the Renaissance, and, as staged by Shakespeare, it furnishes a rich contrast and a goad to religious certainty” (p. 7). He quotes George Santayana's “The Absence of Religion in Shakespeare” (pointing out that Santayana's words could apply to many writers of the 16th century): “...for Shakespeare, in the matter of religion, the choice lay between Christianity and nothing. He chose nothing; he chose to leave his heroes and himself in the presence of life and of death with no other philosophy than that which the profane world can suggest and understand” (p. 6).

Mallin then gives several examples of characters who, in situations where they could have been expected to resort to prayer or evocation of the Christian God, breathe not a word of the Christian doctrine. Juliet, in rhapsodizing over her Romeo, “speaks lines that have nothing of Christianity about them” and instead of glorying in a shared future in the Christian heaven when they die, she wishes Romeo to be cut up into stars that will shine down on everybody (p. 8).

Mallin goes on to divide his essays into three categories: “Hell”, “Purgatory” and “Heaven”. Citing such plays as Titus Andronicus, Measure for Measure, Hamlet, Macbeth and A Midsummer Nights Dream, he shows how “[g]odlessness (or...counter-belief) passes the ethics test in Shakespeare that Christianity, religiosity, and self-conscious virtue so often and so glaringly flunk” (page 87).

He doesn't deal with the many examples in Shakespeare of pillars if the Church who are less than virtuous, (read: downright villains) but he has examples of heroes who do truly evil things in the name of religion, most notably Lucius in Titus Andronicus. (See further my text “The Nastiness of Lucius” on this blog. Mallin's take on Lucius was a big help in writing the text.)

In spite of such amusing references to such modern culture manifestations as South Park, Fawlty Towers and Randy Newman, this is not an easy book to read. Sometimes Mallin's reasoning is obscure and his point unclear. It is nevertheless a thought-provoking and very exciting read. Recommended!