Blog Response #6: Adapting Shakespeare and The Merchant of Venice, Acts 1-2

 The video below is less about The Merchant of Venice (though I talk about it at the end) than an introduction to the idea of adapting Shakespeare, with an eye toward your Paper #3 assignment. I'll be posting more links and tips for doing this assignment and the Final Project to follow soon. For now, watch this video and COMMENT below, and then be sure to read Acts 1-2 of The Merchant of Venice for next week. See you then!

Paper #3: Final Project Proposal

Your third paper is a kind of ‘abstract’ to your Final Project, suggesting what you might want to do, or explore, in that larger assignment (see that assignment below). Since the final project will focus on the modernization and performance of a single play, I want you to choose ONE of the four plays from this class to focus on. Imagine which play you would most like to see performed in a modern production, and which of the four you think a modern audience would most benefit from seeing live.

The Proposal should do three things, and can be much more informal than the typical English paper: 

1.       Explain why you think this play is the best candidate for a modern production: why you think the audience needs to see it, or why the play is underappreciated or could expand our notion of Shakespeare’s writing.

2.       Suggest an alternative (more modern) setting for the play that makes sense to an audience. Instead of Ephesus or Athens, for example, why not Las Vegas or Cancun? Or a historical period, such as 1930’s Chicago (gangsters) or Studio 54 in the 70’s (in NYC). Explain why this setting (with its appropriate costumes) would help your audience see the characters and the comedy that Shakespeare intended.

3.       Identify 2 or 3 potential “problem scenes” in the play. But “problem,” I’m referring to scenes where you think the audience would have trouble with the content, the language, the characters, or some other element (is it sexist? Racist? Too confusing?). It doesn’t have to be the entire scene, necessarily, but explain why a specific passage might have to be changed, adapted, edited, or cut slightly. You can’t re-write lines, but you can adapt them (delete lines, remove a character, combine characters, etc.). Be SPECIFIC. Don’t just say that something is too confusing or too sexist; explain why and where you see it. You don’t have to offer elaborate changes, but suggest how you might approach it.

For this assignment, you don’t have to use any secondary sources, but think about Bevis’ ideas throughout. I’m only interested in seeing you talk shop here: tell me the what, why, and where of each play. And that’s it. However, the more thought you put into this assignment, the easier the final project will be. No page limit, but this due IN-CLASS ON TUESDAY, APRIL 13^th. This will be our primary focus in class that week, and I’ll give you a break from the reading/questions/videos.

For Next Tuesday: The Taming of the Shrew, Acts 3-5

Sorry for the delay--I've been having connection issues with my new laptop! But no fears--you questions have arrived! After you read Acts 3-5, answer TWO of the following questions for Tuesday's class. 

Q1:Petrtuchio's method to tame Katherine is similar to how an Elizabethan gentleman would prepare a wild falcon for service: "My falcon now is sharp and passing empty,/And, till she stoop, she must not be full-gorged,/For then she never looks upon her lure" (151). Why might Shakespeare have Petruchio dehumanize Katherine in this manner? If they are both intellectual equals (as Act 2 seems to prove), why does he take this course of action, rather than trying to win her through love and affection? if this is a comedy, why would Shakespeare resort to such brutal tactics to bring together his two protagonists? 

Q2: Why after several scenes of Katherine refusing to play Petruchio's game, does she suddenly give in and proclaim, "be it moon, or sun, or what you please./And if you please to call it a rush candle,/Henceforth I vow it shall be so for me" (187)? He she finally been broken by his gaslighting? Or is there another way to read her abrupt about-face? Do her words sound convincing? How would you advise the actress playing her to say or to act around them? 

Q3: Though Katherine is the most prominent woman in the play, Bianca is more interesting than she first appears. Though she seems like the "nice" sister, is this completely true? How does she using her charm to work against her would-be suitors and get her way? And how does she seem to feel about her new husband by Act 5? Is this a love match? Any clues? 

Q4: In Karen Newman's essay, "The Taming of the Shrew: A Modern Perspective" (in the back of the book), she notes that "The convention of mistaken identity...is not only a plot device in the play, but also works thematically to undermine notions of an essential self or a fixed identity" (235). Why might it be important than both Christopher Sly, the suitors, Katherine, and Lucentio's father, Vincentio, are all changed into something they're not? What might Shakespeare by saying to his audience that anyone, from the lowliest servant to the greatest lord, can wake up one day and not be who they think they are? 

Q5: (one more for good measure!): Why do you think the Induction scene doesn't return at the end of the play? There is another version of this play (but probably not by Shakespeare) where they bring back the character of Christopher Sly. However, after Act 1, he's never mentioned again, and surely this wasn't an oversight on Shakespeare's part. Would returning the frame story benefit the play? Or ruin it? 

For Next Week: The Taming of the Shrew, Induction + Acts 1-2

Be sure to read the first two acts (plus the brief Induction that opens the play) for next week, even though there are NO questions or video to watch. However, here are some ideas to consider for next week, and we'll open the class by examining a specific scene in the play. See you then!

* Why does the play open with the brief Induction that makes the entire play seem 'fictional'? How does this compare with Act 5 of A Midsummer Night's Dream? 

* Also, why are the characters in the Induction English (English names and English locations), but the play itself is Italian? Why do you think Shakespeare made that distinction? 

* The Taming of the Shrew has a mixture of poetry and prose, but in the first 2 acts, almost no rhyming verse. The verse is almost exclusively blank verse, with only a few lines here and there that rhyme (usually at the end of a speech or scene). Why do you think this is, particularly considering A Midsummer Night's Dream was full of it?

* Why might this play illustrate Bevis' idea that you are what people say you are? Where do we see that in the play? (or possibly, where don't we?)

* Where do you see some obvious echoes or connections to the previous plays, particularly in characters and the roles they play? Based on this, do you think The Taming of the Shrew was written after or before our previous plays (or in-between them?). 

* How seriously does Shakespeare treat the business of love and marriage in this play? Do we find people sincerely in love, or it all a game, or an act? How can we tell?

* How do you read the sparring match between Petruchio and Katherine? Is it meant to be angry and threatening? Or light-hearted and flirtatious? Is he really trying to marry her, or just playing a game? Is she offended, or flattered, by his attention? 

* Is Petruchio more like Oberon or Robin (someone who mischievously tries to control others), or is more like Dromio and Bottom (someone who is a wise fool--silly, but wiser than he seems)?  

Spring Break: Read Acts 1-2 of The Taming of the Shrew (and recap below)

Since we don't have class next week, go ahead and read at least the first TWO acts of The Taming of the Shrew. I won't give you any questions since it's Spring Break, but I will give you some ideas to think about early next week to help your reading. Don't forget that Paper #2 is due THIS FRIDAY! Let me know if you have any questions.

Here is a little recap and some passages that are pertinent to our discussion on Tuesday: 

JUST A JOKE

• Page 78 (Bevis): People often say, "oh, I'm only joking," or "he's just kidding" but are often serious nonetheless. Jokes are often geared to wound. As Bevis writes, behind the smile is a socialized snarl...real snarls and real fights.
• Page 78: Is the term "playful anger" an oxymoron? How can anger be playful? Anger becomes playful or funny because it seems antithetical to play--it CAN'T be harmless, can it? But it can...it can be used to make us laugh.
• Page 80: What really makes us laugh? Two theories: Superiority Theory and Incongruity Theory? One suggests we laugh because we feel superior to the 'fools' on stage; the other, that we laugh because things are so absurd and out of place. How else CAN we respond? One or the other? A mixture of both?

THE USES OF SATIRE

• "Satire" comes from old Greek satyr plays, which were comedies about half men, half goats that mocked the audience. The idea is that you see both your human and your animal side on stage--reason and illogic. 
• Page 79: The point of satire: change the name and you are the subject 
• Page 81: Like TICKLING--both pleasure and pain. 
• Page 81: BIG—to send something up is not necessarily to put it down; which means, a satire isn't necessarily mean-spirited. You can lampoon something you love in order to see it better, or to point out its obvious flaws. Indeed, can we love something WITHOUT flaws? Don't we have to see something for its flaws and all? Does comedy helps us see the world in a human light in exactly this way? 
• Page 91: "Bad behavior"—so wrong it’s right. We often like to act badly in private, or in a space that allows us to do the 'wrong' thing. Why we like horror movies? Because they allow us to see people die and commit murder without committing a crime? Or experiencing terror without real danger? 
• Comedian George Carlin: likes bringing the audience across the line, having them happy I did...but where is the line drawn? And how far can we go without becoming 'monsters'?

ASKING THE WRONG QUESTIONS!

• Page 84: Composer John Cage was asked if there was too much suffering in the world. His response: “I think there's just the right amount.” Why is this COMEDY? Why is he acting like a "fool" here? 
• Page 81: PHILOSOPHY—“things aren’t so bad, it could be worse”: comedy as complacency? 
• Volatire's 1759 novel, Candide: the main character is constantly told "we live in the best of all possible worlds," even though he witnesses murder, torture, rape, and worse. His response: “yikes, so what are the other worlds like?”
• Page 85: TO BE A WITNESS IS AN ACCOMPLICE: why are we 'guilty' simply by watching the events on stage? 
• Page 85: Comedy a force for good? OR merely to question what “Good” might be? And who gets to choose?
• Page 91: Not to degrade humans; to remind them they already ARE!

For Next Week: Bevis, Comedy (Chapters 5 & 6) and Re-Cap of Tuesday's class

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1:  According to Bevis, why are the most comic characters usually the "low class" characters? What makes the lower classes "funnier" to audiences, and how does Shakespeare seem to acknowledge this? Is the still true today, when we have less class distinctions than Shakespeare's time did (or than even the British do today)?

Q2: In Chapter 6 Bevis writes that "Behind the smile, then, maybe a socialized snarl; and behind the laugh, a play fight. But behind both of these facial expressions lie real snarls and real fights" (78). How might comedy suggest or cover up real aggression and anger in the play--and in society? Why might, in a way, comedy be the angriest of all genres? (You might think of stand-up comics who are very angry and confrontational in their routines--yet we still laugh at them). 

Q3: In Chapter 5, we get a famous quote from Freud: "the joke is essentially a double-dealing rogue who serves two masters at once" (69). What does this mean? How can a "rogue," or a comic servant like Dromio or Bottom serve "two masters"? What gives them power within the play?

Q4: On some level, all comedy is voyeuristic--meaning it's a spectacle created for our own titilation and enjoyment. And if we're the intended audience, that means we're also an accomplice; we're not innocent by the things on stage that offend us or are offensive to others. As Bevis writes, "to be a witness is to be an accomplice" (85). How might this work in A Midsummer Night's Dream? Where is the audience an "accomplice"?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

IDEAS/PASSAGES FROM TUESDAY'S CLASS

THE LANGUAGE OF LOVE

* Page 79 : Titania speaks in couplets to Bottom ! Never spoke like this before. A spell, but also the "cliched" love of the lovers...no longer HER speech or HER thoughts

* Page 83: Robin: “My mistress with a monster is in love”; reminding us that she sees a 'monster' or in this case, a man with an ass-head, as her dearest love on earth. We know this isn't so, since she loved her friend and her friend's child, the Changeling, yet she willingly gives this up for 'love.' But is that really what she wants? What she LOVES?

* Page 93: Helena: "O Spite! O Hell!" Can only see their vows of love as comic, mocking...a ‘bad’ performance, like Bottom and the others trying to perform their play. Their 'sincere' love looks ridiculous because they're not being sincere--it's a trick, a spell, and not a true protestation of love. Fake language. 

* Page 97: What real love sounds like: Helena’s chiding of Hermia in blank verse. They had a real relationship and an actual history. So when she speaks to Hermia, she does so in blank verse, her own language. She becomes a real character here. 

THE TRAGIC END!

* Page 103: The all-out war—the women fighting, the men fighting with each other: funny, but also tragic?

* Page 125: Note that Titania not only gives away the child, but no longer speaks in blank verse; she responds to Oberon in couplets again, even after he humiliates her: “There lies your love!” He has broken her...she is now submissive to him (127). 

* Page 133: THE WOMEN DON’T SPEAK! Demetrius 'mansplains' for them: “And will forevermore be true to it." Even when Theseus offers to marry them, they say nothing...so what are they doing in their silence? How do they respond? Shakespeare doesn't tell us. Remember this, because we'll see this again in our next two plays--major characters who fall silent by the end of the play. 

ACT 5: THE PLAY WITHIN THE PLAY (we'll talk more about this on Tuesday)

* Page 143: Theseus (a mythical character) says this events are too unbelievable! Ironic! 

* Page 147: "The Tragedy of Pyramus and Thisbe," a play that is advertised as short and tedious; tragical and merry! Ridiculous! BUT ISN’T THIS PLAY THE SAME WAY? Couldn't the play they're mocking be a satire of their own play? 

* Page 149: HIPPOLYTA—the only voice of dissent; she doesn’t want to watch it, begs them to stop, but they laugh right over her. She is the only woman who gets to speak in Act 5. 

* Page 151: The crazy prologue: “offending with good will!” Like this play??