Saturday, February 13, 2016
Friday, February 12, 2016
Love's Labour's Lost - Shakespeare
'Love's Labour's Lost' is another new play to me. This play is a comedy although it doesn't quite fit the same mold as the other comedies. It opens with the King of Navarre and three of his friends, all swearing an oath. For the next three years they will focus strictly on becoming scholars. To do this, they will regularly fast, limit their sleep and, most of all, banish women from their the King's court. They all agree that anyone caught breaking these rules will be punished.
Of course, as soon as they make this oath, four attractive women show up, including the Princess of France. To keep the oath in place, the king has them camp outside of his court. The four men all fall for one of the women, though they must be careful to keep these loves to themselves. The wittiest of the four, Berowne, writes a letter to his opposite and gives it to a clown to deliver. The letter goes to the wrong woman (natch).
One by one, the scholars all discover that the others are in love and they simply agree to drop the oath. They decide to each give 'their' woman a favor, and then they will come to them dressed like 'Muscovites'. The women get wind of this plan and the princess decides that they will also wear masks. They will also switch the favors around so that the men will be confused. She decides that their approach has been full of mocking, so they will mock them back.
The men utterly fall for this and each pledge love and service to the wrong woman. They leave and shortly return without masks. The women reveal that they have been tricked. The scholars all try to laugh it off, but the women accuse them of breaking their oaths again and again and find them untrustworthy.
Word comes suddenly of the death of the princess's father. She decides they must leave at once. The king tries to stop them so that their love can proceed. She tells him that she will not make such a huge decision as love at a moment's notice. Instead, he must spend a year in a hermitage, after which, he can renew his suit. The other men are also given a year away as a kind of penance. Berowne notes that a year is too long for a play.
The structure of this play is very interesting, but ultimately self-defeating. The idea of four men swearing off women and then quickly finding themselves in love is a good one. The women are all compelling and strong. The mischief is good. It's predictable but fun, nonetheless.
The weird part comes with the death announcement and penalties for the men. It changes the tone rather dramatically. It's as if you've gone to a romantic comedy and instead of the cute couple ending up together, she is maimed in an accident and he ends up in jail on charges of stalking. The story isn't impossible, but it's very jarring.
Not that it doesn't have possibilities. The remake of 'Taming of the Shrew' as '10 Things I Hate About You' could serve as the template. Put four college freshman roommates together making a vow and four college girls and you have the basic story. All of the fixings for a good comedy are there.
This play isn't on the Great Books reading list and I'm not surprised by that. I read the full thing but I also watched the movie version starring Kenneth Branagh (among others), which is right now on Netflix streaming (in the US at least). The movie is not very good. They cut the play down quite a bit and inserted various songs from the Gershwin, Porter, etc. It works in bits but not in others. The overall acting is, um, not great. Nathan Lane is very good and that's about it. Watch it as a curiosity, or not at all.
From what I can tell, this is the only film version ever made. Again, there is some good stuff there, but you'd have to cut the story mercilessly to get to it. The language is lots of fun, though overall light. I'm glad I read it but I can't honestly tell anyone else to run out and do so.
Of course, as soon as they make this oath, four attractive women show up, including the Princess of France. To keep the oath in place, the king has them camp outside of his court. The four men all fall for one of the women, though they must be careful to keep these loves to themselves. The wittiest of the four, Berowne, writes a letter to his opposite and gives it to a clown to deliver. The letter goes to the wrong woman (natch).
One by one, the scholars all discover that the others are in love and they simply agree to drop the oath. They decide to each give 'their' woman a favor, and then they will come to them dressed like 'Muscovites'. The women get wind of this plan and the princess decides that they will also wear masks. They will also switch the favors around so that the men will be confused. She decides that their approach has been full of mocking, so they will mock them back.
The men utterly fall for this and each pledge love and service to the wrong woman. They leave and shortly return without masks. The women reveal that they have been tricked. The scholars all try to laugh it off, but the women accuse them of breaking their oaths again and again and find them untrustworthy.
Word comes suddenly of the death of the princess's father. She decides they must leave at once. The king tries to stop them so that their love can proceed. She tells him that she will not make such a huge decision as love at a moment's notice. Instead, he must spend a year in a hermitage, after which, he can renew his suit. The other men are also given a year away as a kind of penance. Berowne notes that a year is too long for a play.
The structure of this play is very interesting, but ultimately self-defeating. The idea of four men swearing off women and then quickly finding themselves in love is a good one. The women are all compelling and strong. The mischief is good. It's predictable but fun, nonetheless.
The weird part comes with the death announcement and penalties for the men. It changes the tone rather dramatically. It's as if you've gone to a romantic comedy and instead of the cute couple ending up together, she is maimed in an accident and he ends up in jail on charges of stalking. The story isn't impossible, but it's very jarring.
Not that it doesn't have possibilities. The remake of 'Taming of the Shrew' as '10 Things I Hate About You' could serve as the template. Put four college freshman roommates together making a vow and four college girls and you have the basic story. All of the fixings for a good comedy are there.
This play isn't on the Great Books reading list and I'm not surprised by that. I read the full thing but I also watched the movie version starring Kenneth Branagh (among others), which is right now on Netflix streaming (in the US at least). The movie is not very good. They cut the play down quite a bit and inserted various songs from the Gershwin, Porter, etc. It works in bits but not in others. The overall acting is, um, not great. Nathan Lane is very good and that's about it. Watch it as a curiosity, or not at all.
From what I can tell, this is the only film version ever made. Again, there is some good stuff there, but you'd have to cut the story mercilessly to get to it. The language is lots of fun, though overall light. I'm glad I read it but I can't honestly tell anyone else to run out and do so.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Laws (Book X) - Plato
This concerns only Book X from Plato's 'Laws'.
Book X begins with a discussion of blasphemy laws and how the men of Athens would convince outsiders that they are just. If the outsiders don't believe in the gods, how could they believe they should be punished for speaking out against them. This idea, that there must be some 'buy-in' from those judged by the law, is an important one. The idea that there must be some consent from the governed, to borrow a phrase, is an idea that comes and goes and still can't be reliably counted on. That Athenian men of nearly 2500 years ago thought it important is a key to understanding why we still read the ancient Greeks.
The first step, they agree, is to prove that the gods, do indeed, exist. I wasn't very impressed with this effort. The reasoning works like this:
I don't know much about 'Laws' as a full text but I'm curious about it. Last year I felt like I gained quite a bit by reading all of Plato's 'Republic'. I don't doubt that 'Laws' would also be of great benefit to read in it's entirety.
Book X begins with a discussion of blasphemy laws and how the men of Athens would convince outsiders that they are just. If the outsiders don't believe in the gods, how could they believe they should be punished for speaking out against them. This idea, that there must be some 'buy-in' from those judged by the law, is an important one. The idea that there must be some consent from the governed, to borrow a phrase, is an idea that comes and goes and still can't be reliably counted on. That Athenian men of nearly 2500 years ago thought it important is a key to understanding why we still read the ancient Greeks.
The first step, they agree, is to prove that the gods, do indeed, exist. I wasn't very impressed with this effort. The reasoning works like this:
- Living things have souls.
- Living things move around on their own.
- Things that move around must have souls.
- The greater the moving thing, the greater the soul.
- The sun, moon, planets and stars are the greatest movers, so they must have the greatest souls.
I don't know much about 'Laws' as a full text but I'm curious about it. Last year I felt like I gained quite a bit by reading all of Plato's 'Republic'. I don't doubt that 'Laws' would also be of great benefit to read in it's entirety.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Comedies - Shakespeare
This post is primarily about the four Shakespearean comedies that were chosen for the Great Books reading plan. The four were:
'Much Ado About Nothing' is better known now, but that's probably in large part due to the very successful movie version of it from the 1993 film. Still, the play itself is great fun. Other Shakespearean comedies also got film treatment in the 90's without reaching such fame. Maybe the play itself has something special going for it.
I've read 'Merchant of Venice' before, but it was a long time ago. The anti-Semitic angle is difficult today, but I don't know if it is as fully 'problematic' as 'Taming of the Shrew'. My guess is that a modern director would finesse them both in the same ways.
The only other one that I've read before is 'Troilus and Cressida' (reviewed here). (Notably, I've read the play but not seen it.) I didn't remember that it is considered a comedy and looking back on it, I'm somewhat surprised. The play itself is titled a history and it plays out more like a tragedy. The ending is not really happy and the title couple doesn't end up together. My favorite Shakespeare book, 'The Friendly Shakespeare' lists it as a 'problem' play, in large part because it doesn't fit neatly into the main categories. I'm not bothered that it missed out on the Great Books list, though I did enjoy it more than the Chaucer version that did make the list.
Time permitting, I hope to see/read all of the Shakespeare plays this year. I hope to have a more informed opinion of the comedies as a whole then. As of now though, I don't really understand why these four were picked.
- The Comedy of Errors (reviewed here)
- As You Like It (reviewed here)
- Twelfth Night (reviewed here)
- The Taming of the Shrew (reviewed here)
- Two Gentleman of Verona
- Love's Labor's Lost
- A Midsummer Night's Dream
- The Merchant of Venice
- The Merry Wives of Windsor
- Much Ado About Nothing
- The History of Troilus and Cressida (!)
- All's Well that Ends Well
- Measure for Measure
'Much Ado About Nothing' is better known now, but that's probably in large part due to the very successful movie version of it from the 1993 film. Still, the play itself is great fun. Other Shakespearean comedies also got film treatment in the 90's without reaching such fame. Maybe the play itself has something special going for it.
I've read 'Merchant of Venice' before, but it was a long time ago. The anti-Semitic angle is difficult today, but I don't know if it is as fully 'problematic' as 'Taming of the Shrew'. My guess is that a modern director would finesse them both in the same ways.
The only other one that I've read before is 'Troilus and Cressida' (reviewed here). (Notably, I've read the play but not seen it.) I didn't remember that it is considered a comedy and looking back on it, I'm somewhat surprised. The play itself is titled a history and it plays out more like a tragedy. The ending is not really happy and the title couple doesn't end up together. My favorite Shakespeare book, 'The Friendly Shakespeare' lists it as a 'problem' play, in large part because it doesn't fit neatly into the main categories. I'm not bothered that it missed out on the Great Books list, though I did enjoy it more than the Chaucer version that did make the list.
Time permitting, I hope to see/read all of the Shakespeare plays this year. I hope to have a more informed opinion of the comedies as a whole then. As of now though, I don't really understand why these four were picked.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Taming of the Shrew - Shakespeare
The story in 'Taming of the Shrew' is pretty straightforward (once you get to it). A wealthy man has two daughters. The younger one, Bianca, is a much desired beauty. The older one, Katherine, is wild and violent. Many men want to marry the younger daughter but she will not be allowed to be wooed until the older one is married.
Two of the men who want to marry Bianca decide they must find someone to marry Katherine. Enter Petruchio, drunk as a proverbial lord. He is looking for a wife. Well, more for a dowry than an actual wife. When he hears of Katherine and her father's riches, he decides that she sounds like just the answer.
He tries to woo her and finds her just as wild as her reputation. But eventually he wears her down. (In the version I watched, she is physically exhausted from being chased hither and yon. Plus, he had her arm twisted behind her back.) Everyone is amazed at how quickly they have settled on a date.
They are wed, though Katherine is humiliated. In fact, this is Petruchio's ploy. He will keep throwing obstacles at her until she mellows. He keeps her from eating. He tempts her with fancy clothes and then destroys them. Finally, he absurdly tells her that it is morning when it is the middle of the night. When she disagrees, he starts to punish her again and lays out the directions plainly. As long as she disagrees with him, things will go poorly for her. But if she agrees, life will become easy.
The return to her family for Bianca's wedding. The crowning moment is when Petruchio wagers with some of the other husbands that Katherine is not a shrew, but will come to them as soon as he calls. The other wives, including Bianca, tell their husbands to wait, but Katherine drags them in and admonishes them for not treating their husbands like a king.
This must not be an easy play to put on today (to put it lightly!). Stripped down to it's bare foundations, it's incredibly misogynistic. Petruchio's treatment of Katherine is horrible and her speech at the end sounds like a staged hostage video. As I was reading about the play, several sources went out of their way to say that it reads much more harshly than it stages. The verbal jousting can certainly be harsh, but it can also be playful, if done in the right way. Even Kate's final speech can be done in some kind of ironic manner, which will show that she has not been broken.
It can be tricky not to read too much into this play. Shakespeare treated other women much better than he does Katherine. Instead of treating her as a stand in for all women, and reading Petruchio's actions as a how-to manual, we have to remember that she is a specific character. If she really is extremely out of control, then extreme measures will be called for to calm her. (Though obviously, I won't endorse these methods.)
While watching this, I happened to think of the play 'Lysistrata'. There, the women of Greece decide to handle their husbands by denying them sex until they stop fighting. This has become something of a feminist classic. Is it ok then, for wives to scheme against husbands but awful husbands to scheme against their wives? Or is it always wrong for both of them?
I can't imagine trying to do anything like this against my wife and if one of my buddies told me of such a plan, I would be dead set against it. Is the difference now that we see the marriage relationship so much more differently than they did in ancient Greece or Elizabethan England?
I watched the 1967 version which stars in Liz Taylor and Richard Burton. Somehow in my classic movie watching, I have not seen either of them before. Taylor is fantastic. She is wild and passionate and vital (and kinda hot, to be honest). Burton is also very good. His Petruchio is larger than life and you can see hints of tenderness behind his ploys.
I would like to see some more performances. The teen movie '10 Things I Hate About You' is based on 'Taming of the Shrew' and it does a very good job both with the basic story and in keeping the audience from hating the main characters. There is also a 'Moonlighting' episode that recreates the story and I like that too. In fact, the basic dynamic between Maddie and Dave is very similar to Kate and Petruchio. Maddie is so full of sharp edges that she has trouble in relationships, while Dave is so larger-than-life gregarious that he is hard to trust. (I miss that show.)
This is the last of the Shakespeare comedies in the Great Books plan. I'll try to see some of the rest and write about them too.
Two of the men who want to marry Bianca decide they must find someone to marry Katherine. Enter Petruchio, drunk as a proverbial lord. He is looking for a wife. Well, more for a dowry than an actual wife. When he hears of Katherine and her father's riches, he decides that she sounds like just the answer.
He tries to woo her and finds her just as wild as her reputation. But eventually he wears her down. (In the version I watched, she is physically exhausted from being chased hither and yon. Plus, he had her arm twisted behind her back.) Everyone is amazed at how quickly they have settled on a date.
They are wed, though Katherine is humiliated. In fact, this is Petruchio's ploy. He will keep throwing obstacles at her until she mellows. He keeps her from eating. He tempts her with fancy clothes and then destroys them. Finally, he absurdly tells her that it is morning when it is the middle of the night. When she disagrees, he starts to punish her again and lays out the directions plainly. As long as she disagrees with him, things will go poorly for her. But if she agrees, life will become easy.
The return to her family for Bianca's wedding. The crowning moment is when Petruchio wagers with some of the other husbands that Katherine is not a shrew, but will come to them as soon as he calls. The other wives, including Bianca, tell their husbands to wait, but Katherine drags them in and admonishes them for not treating their husbands like a king.
This must not be an easy play to put on today (to put it lightly!). Stripped down to it's bare foundations, it's incredibly misogynistic. Petruchio's treatment of Katherine is horrible and her speech at the end sounds like a staged hostage video. As I was reading about the play, several sources went out of their way to say that it reads much more harshly than it stages. The verbal jousting can certainly be harsh, but it can also be playful, if done in the right way. Even Kate's final speech can be done in some kind of ironic manner, which will show that she has not been broken.
It can be tricky not to read too much into this play. Shakespeare treated other women much better than he does Katherine. Instead of treating her as a stand in for all women, and reading Petruchio's actions as a how-to manual, we have to remember that she is a specific character. If she really is extremely out of control, then extreme measures will be called for to calm her. (Though obviously, I won't endorse these methods.)
While watching this, I happened to think of the play 'Lysistrata'. There, the women of Greece decide to handle their husbands by denying them sex until they stop fighting. This has become something of a feminist classic. Is it ok then, for wives to scheme against husbands but awful husbands to scheme against their wives? Or is it always wrong for both of them?
I can't imagine trying to do anything like this against my wife and if one of my buddies told me of such a plan, I would be dead set against it. Is the difference now that we see the marriage relationship so much more differently than they did in ancient Greece or Elizabethan England?
I watched the 1967 version which stars in Liz Taylor and Richard Burton. Somehow in my classic movie watching, I have not seen either of them before. Taylor is fantastic. She is wild and passionate and vital (and kinda hot, to be honest). Burton is also very good. His Petruchio is larger than life and you can see hints of tenderness behind his ploys.
I would like to see some more performances. The teen movie '10 Things I Hate About You' is based on 'Taming of the Shrew' and it does a very good job both with the basic story and in keeping the audience from hating the main characters. There is also a 'Moonlighting' episode that recreates the story and I like that too. In fact, the basic dynamic between Maddie and Dave is very similar to Kate and Petruchio. Maddie is so full of sharp edges that she has trouble in relationships, while Dave is so larger-than-life gregarious that he is hard to trust. (I miss that show.)
This is the last of the Shakespeare comedies in the Great Books plan. I'll try to see some of the rest and write about them too.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Twelfth Night - Shakespeare
'Twelfth Night' opens with a lonely duke, Orsino. He calls music 'the food of love' and wishes to overstuff himself in order to kill that love. We quickly learn that he is in love with a Countess named Olivia but she won't love him back.
In the meantime, there has been a shipwreck. Two survivors climb onto the beach and try to establish where they are. One of them, Viola, asks if her brother has survived and is told that he hasn't. She decides that since she is in a foreign place, she will disguise herself as a man and seek shelter with the Duke Orsino.
Orsino brings the disguised Viola into his house and asks her to woo Olivia in his name. She does so but (twist!), Olivia falls for Viola. To make things more confusing, Viola's brother Sebastian has survived and also enters the town. Olivia finds him and quickly marries him. There is much confusion that is (fortunately!) all straightened out and we end up with two happy couples, Olivia and Sebastian; Viola and Count Orsino.
While all of this is happening, a group of rogues that live in the Countesses house are up to no good. There we find Sir Toby Belch and Sir Andrew Aguecheeck carousing to all hours of the night. With the help of the maid and the clown, Feste, they get up to one hilarious scheme after the other.
Their main target is Olivia's steward, a dour man named Malvolio. Malvolio dreams of marrying the countess himself and they get him good. They leave a note in her handwriting, praising him and wishing that he would wear yellow, cross-gartered stockings. He does so and becomes incredibly foolish. Eventually he finds out and, cursing everyone involved, walks out.
I don't think I've read or seen 'Twelfth Night' before. I enjoyed it quite a bit, especially the downstairs goings on. Between Belch and Aguecheek, Shakespeare has created a couple of wonderful drunken idiots. They are highlighted by their counterpoint, Malvolio, who is ridiculously harsh and pompous. (I would love to play that role myself!) The 'upstairs' elements are fun too, and a perfectly fine love story, but they are overshadowed by the rest.
I enjoyed this quite a bit.
In the meantime, there has been a shipwreck. Two survivors climb onto the beach and try to establish where they are. One of them, Viola, asks if her brother has survived and is told that he hasn't. She decides that since she is in a foreign place, she will disguise herself as a man and seek shelter with the Duke Orsino.
Orsino brings the disguised Viola into his house and asks her to woo Olivia in his name. She does so but (twist!), Olivia falls for Viola. To make things more confusing, Viola's brother Sebastian has survived and also enters the town. Olivia finds him and quickly marries him. There is much confusion that is (fortunately!) all straightened out and we end up with two happy couples, Olivia and Sebastian; Viola and Count Orsino.
While all of this is happening, a group of rogues that live in the Countesses house are up to no good. There we find Sir Toby Belch and Sir Andrew Aguecheeck carousing to all hours of the night. With the help of the maid and the clown, Feste, they get up to one hilarious scheme after the other.
Their main target is Olivia's steward, a dour man named Malvolio. Malvolio dreams of marrying the countess himself and they get him good. They leave a note in her handwriting, praising him and wishing that he would wear yellow, cross-gartered stockings. He does so and becomes incredibly foolish. Eventually he finds out and, cursing everyone involved, walks out.
I don't think I've read or seen 'Twelfth Night' before. I enjoyed it quite a bit, especially the downstairs goings on. Between Belch and Aguecheek, Shakespeare has created a couple of wonderful drunken idiots. They are highlighted by their counterpoint, Malvolio, who is ridiculously harsh and pompous. (I would love to play that role myself!) The 'upstairs' elements are fun too, and a perfectly fine love story, but they are overshadowed by the rest.
I enjoyed this quite a bit.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Books Read in January
I did a bunch of reading for the Great Books this past month, and very little outside of it. Overall, I read through three of Plato's dialogues, parts of three of Aristotle's works and five different plays from Shakespeare. There are worse ways to spend a month than with Plato, Aristotle and Shakespeare.
Otherwise, I think it was just two books:
Declare, by Tim Powers - This was a reread for me, but it's been so long since I read the original that it was all new to me. This book blends together legends of djinns, spy games with Kim Philby and the final resting place of Noah's Ark. All great stuff.
Consider Phlebas, by Iain M Banks - New to me, though it's from an author that I enjoy quite a bit. This is part of a far future space opera, where human civilization has come to be known as 'The Culture'. In this book, the Culture is fighting against a warrior species called the Idiran. A super-sentient AI gets lost behind enemy lines and something of a race is on to recover it. Banks does such a good job of creating a rich world with complicated people in it. This is no exception.
That's pretty much it.
Otherwise, I think it was just two books:
Declare, by Tim Powers - This was a reread for me, but it's been so long since I read the original that it was all new to me. This book blends together legends of djinns, spy games with Kim Philby and the final resting place of Noah's Ark. All great stuff.
Consider Phlebas, by Iain M Banks - New to me, though it's from an author that I enjoy quite a bit. This is part of a far future space opera, where human civilization has come to be known as 'The Culture'. In this book, the Culture is fighting against a warrior species called the Idiran. A super-sentient AI gets lost behind enemy lines and something of a race is on to recover it. Banks does such a good job of creating a rich world with complicated people in it. This is no exception.
That's pretty much it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)