your least favourite shakespeare play ?

[MorpheusSandman]

That's your loss. It's one of the greatest sources of humor of all time. Humor comes from breaking taboos, defying conventional mores, shocking people, exposing hidden prejudices and fears.

The problem is that the play doesn't break any taboos: it reinforces the misogynistic notion that everyone is happier when women know their place. Breaking taboos would've been suggesting that things are actually better when men and women are considered equals. Shakespeare was capable of this, and, as I suggested above, he may have been subliminally suggesting this in Taming of the Shrew. It all depends on whether we read it straight or ironically.

The Comedy of Errors is a refinement of a classic play by the Roman playwright Plautus, who invented modern comedy! Can't you appreciate the amusing subtlety of a bloke in a dress?

I enjoy Comedy of Errors just fine, but it's not the (near)-masterpiece Twelfth Night is.

But why should the play being lurid be seen as a defect?

Because if that's all a work has going for it then it might as well be sold as a dime novel. Shakespeare's other "lurid" efforts (like Macbeth) have much more going for it than just that aspect. Lurid matter can be elevated to high art, absolutely, and Shakespeare did that frequently in the later plays.

He's such a beautifully tragicomic character, so human, so flawed, but noble in his way, ideal after a fashion. He has too much depth and complexity to be an archetype fat clown soldier like his ancestor the Miles Gloriosis. He transcends all that to be a truly unique, intelligent, pathetic, heroic, comic character like Don Quixote.

And it's because of how sympathetic and human he is that Hal's betrayal at the end of II Henry IV may be the single most devastating moment in all Shakespeare. It's very close with the final scene in Lear, anyway. Others might object, but I feel that Orson Welles's Chimes at Midnight is probably superior to the two plays taken straight.

I'd say that they are mostly good but I don't feel a pressing need to revisit some of them. How badly do we really need to re-read Timon of Athens or Pericles?

Pericles is certainly flawed (probably because, again, it was a collaboration), but I always feel like Timon is better than I remember it. It's certainly Shakepseare's bleakest play as it pertains to the nature of humanity.

[Pompey Bum]

I half suspect this was intentional on Shakespeare's part. It wouldn't be the first time he's pulled of the trick of playing into and against his times' expectations simultaneously (The Merchant of Venice being the other), especially since we know Shakespeare had a thing for strong female characters anyway.

Oh I certainly think the part you take offense at is toungue-in-cheek--and more to the point, a lampoon of dumb-*ss male attitudes about women. Do what you will, but my advice is to relax a little and join the fun. The battle for women's well being is not to be won (or even fought) here; and taking offense at a comedy like The Taming of the Shrew only identifies one as another balloon to be pricked.

I don't object to anyone considering the Henry IV plays masterpieces, but, personally, they're plays I admire intellectually more than plays that move me emotionally. Hamlet was (and remains) the second most profound experience I've ever had with fiction.

My experience has been just opposite, but to each his own.

And it's because of how sympathetic and human he is that Hal's betrayal at the end of II Henry IV may be the single most devastating moment in all Shakespeare. It's very close with the final scene in Lear, anyway.

I agree with both of those statements. And the loss of bad mentors, fallen idols, insufficient father figures--even just drinking buddies--with the onset of adult responsibilities is such a universal experience that the scene truly captures something heartbreakingly human.

Others might object, but I feel that Orson Welles's Chimes at Midnight is probably superior to the two plays taken straight.

I'm not sure how to take a play by Shakespeare straight. I read them out loud myself (with my own characterizations--my wife thinks I'm nuts); and I always have pictures in my mind. I like the Welles' movie, but like most movies (and almost all audiobooks), it pales before art shared with an artist on such a personal level. Give me a book any day.

[Jackson Richardson]

Now the case where an adaption of Shakespeare is far better then the original is Verdi's Falstaff, based on The Merry Wives of Windsor and a considerable improvement. Mind you I've just been to a wonderful production. Arrigo Boito who adapted it (and also Othello) was a genius.

[Pompey Bum]

Congratulations as always on your access to London's rich cultural provender. The Merry Wives of Windsor is fun, but it's not real. Henry IV One & Two are funnier, and as real as it gets. What more can you say?

[Jackson Richardson]

In a sense Verdi is Italy's answer to Shakespeare (on the basis that although Dante is the great poet, it's all symbolic). Actually Verdi and Dickens were exact contemporaries and in many ways parallel - boys with no higher education who became National Treasures.

But what is wonderful about Falstaff is that Verdi composed it when he was over 80 and not thought to write another opera. In fact it was his first comic opera for fifty years. And technically it is like nothing else: the music matches the words and situations without stopping for big solos until you get to the magical scene in Windsor Great Park at the end. It make me feel young.

[MorpheusSandman]

Oh I certainly think the part you take offense at is toungue-in-cheek--and more to the point, a lampoon of dumb-*ss male attitudes about women. Do what you will, but my advice is to relax a little and join the fun. The battle for women's well being is not to be won (or even fought) here; and taking offense at a comedy like The Taming of the Shrew only identifies one as another balloon to be pricked.

Where does one draw the line, though? Should we just "relax and join the fun" when the Klu Klux Klan rides to the rescue in Birth of a Nation? I mean, I do think some art reaches a point where we are morally obligated to denounce its content even if we praise its artistry.

I like the Welles' movie, but like most movies (and almost all audiobooks), it pales before art shared with an artist on such a personal level.

Not quite sure what you mean here; there are a great many films that are very personal, and a great many books that are very impersonal. I wouldn't even call Shakespeare a highly personal author as far as that goes.

[MorpheusSandman]

Now the case where an adaption of Shakespeare is far better then the original is Verdi's Falstaff, based on The Merry Wives of Windsor and a considerable improvement.

When WH Auden taught his classes on Shakespeare, in which he delivered lengthy, in-depth lectures on every play, during his lecture for The Merry Wives of Windsor he simply turned on a recording of Verdi's Falstaff.

[Pompey Bum]

Where does one draw the line, though? Should we just "relax and join the fun" when the Klu Klux Klan rides to the rescue in Birth of a Nation? I mean, I do think some art reaches a point where we are morally obligated to denounce its content even if we praise its artistry.

Sounds like a slippery slope argument to me, but I'll give you my best answer in any case. A riotous comedy like The Taming of the Shrew is not comparable to a (supposedly) historical epic film like Birth of a Nation because there is no question of historicity involved. There is, of course, plenty of art in which one is able to learn and teach from despicable content (the traditions of Jew-hatred behind Fagin in Oliver Twist come to mind). But denouncing (as long as slippery slopes are cool) is way too much like proscribing content, and proscribing content is way too much like burning books for my tastes. Of course, anyone is free to learn and teach about sexism from The Taming of the Shrew (and many do). Perhaps it can do women some good; I truly hope so. It's bound to give me a big laugh in any case.

Not quite sure what you mean here; there are a great many films that are very personal, and a great many books that are very impersonal. I wouldn't even call Shakespeare a highly personal author as far as that goes.

Sure, what I mean is that the connection between a reader and a writer is personal--even an intimate. The actual experience of the art is made in that interaction. With movies and audiobooks, the experience is mediated through directors, actors, cinematographers, or readers (not that movies aren't potentially worthwhile in other ways). Audiobooks in which the author is also the reader are a happy exception. Unfortunately they are not very common now.

[MorpheusSandman]

Sounds like a slippery slope argument to me, but I'll give you my best answer in any case...

I certainly wouldn't endorse any kind of banning or censorship, but part of free speech is the ability to denounce the content of what free speech we find morally repugnant.

Obviously BOAN is on the opposite end of the spectrum in just about every way, but that was part of my point about asking where, exactly, to draw the line. Very recently there's been a lot of controversy over the morality of comedians telling rape jokes, so I don't think it's a simple manner of "serious historical drama" VS "frivolous comedy" since even comedy is usually promoting some perspective while making fun of another (though some comedy tries to mock every perspective). Traditionally, though, comedy has been aimed at the powerful, establishments and privilege, as they're the ones that benefit the most and suffer the least through existing social structures. It gets very tricky when you start making light of groups that aren't privileged.

I'm not saying it's morally wrong to laugh at Taming of the Shrew, but I do think it's important to be aware of where the laughter is coming from; namely to guard against it coming from a place of agreeing with the misogynistic aspect. One shouldn't be laughing and saying to themselves: "Yeah, that ***** Katherina is getting what's coming to her!"

On a tangential note, this entire conversation is eerily echoing a recent poem I wrote on this very subject (taking Browning's My Last Duchess as a reference).

Sure, what I mean is that the connection between a reader and a writer is personal--even an intimate.

Well, all I can say is that I can feel the same intimate connection with some filmmakers as you feel with writers. It always depends for me on the particular author/filmmaker. I always said that the film Eraserhead is as close as one can come to observing someone else's nightmarish psyche.

[Pompey Bum]

I certainly wouldn't endorse any kind of banning or censorship, but part of free speech is the ability to denounce the content of what free speech we find morally repugnant.

Oh so we're not doing slippery slope? Cool! The Taming of the Shrew has nothing to do with Birth of a Nation (or rape jokes). And of course you have the right to say anything you like. Who said otherwise?

I don't think it's a simple manner of "serious historical drama" VS "frivolous comedy" since even comedy is usually promoting some perspective while making fun of another (though some comedy tries to mock every perspective).

You misunderstand me or are intentionally misrepresenting my position, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I made no comparison between the serious and the frivolous. What I said was that the two works could not be well compared because the issue of HISTORICITY does not pertain to both. Historicity is the underlying kernel of historical authenticity within a work of art (among other things). Birth of a Nation makes a claim to the authenticity a certain version of history. The Taming of the Shrew does not. It is a raucous comedy lampooning courtship, which never even considers issues of historiography. My opinion is that idiot male attitudes toward women are especially skewered and that the "sexist" aspects should not be taken seriously. You are free to disagree.

Well, all I can say is that I can feel the same intimate connection with some filmmakers as you feel with writers. It always depends for me on the particular author/filmmaker. I always said that the film Eraserhead is as close as one can come to observing someone else's nightmarish psyche.

Again, I don't think you understood my point. A reader (or this reader in any case) provides vocal characterizations and narrative voice, and brings an author's colors and pictures to life in my mind as I read. One who views a film does not have to do that because others have already done it for her. But it is not important to me whether you understand what I meant, so it would probably be best to drop it.

[Clopin]

It gets very tricky when you start making light of groups that aren't privileged.

"Look ma I'm using buzzwords on the Internet!"

[MorpheusSandman]

"Look ma I'm using buzzwords on the Internet!"

"Look ma I have nothing to add to this discussion so I'll crib a banal internet meme and completely miss the irony of deriding someone else for using internet buzzwords!"

[MorpheusSandman]

Oh so we're not doing slippery slope? Cool! The Taming of the Shrew has nothing to do with Birth of a Nation (or rape jokes). And of course you have the right to say anything you like. Who said otherwise?

Sorry for the confusion but I was conflating two different parts of our discussion. Where you said "dencouncing is too much like proscribing content, and that's too close to burning books," I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't advocating anything that extreme, merely that there's nothing contradictory about championing a right to say something and denouncing what is said: I'm including in "what's said" to be all art, so I'm not talking about "burning books."

You misunderstand me or are intentionally misrepresenting my position, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I made no comparison between the serious and the frivolous. What I said was that the two works could not be well compared because the issue of HISTORICITY does not pertain to both.

Sorry about that, I did misunderstand your point. But even now as I understand your point I'm not sure I agree with it. There was a time when the Klu Klux Klan WERE seen as heroes to certain people in the south, and we really have no idea as to whether or not a situation like that depicted in BOAN ever happened or not, just like we usually don't know if what's depicted in historical fiction happened that way or not as we're usually quite limited in detailed accounts of such events (and it's worth pointing out that the particular part of BOAN in question isn't meant to be depicting a specific historical event like, say, Saving Private Ryan depicts D-Day).

Either way, IMO what makes BOAN morally objectionable is entirely in how it tries to portray an entire race of people and likewise how it champions a group known for their violent discrimination against that race. The parallel to be made with Shrew is in the notion that all "strong-willed women" are bad, and any man who tames them is heroic and in their right to do so (if, indeed, that's the "play's" perspective).

My opinion is that idiot male attitudes toward women are especially skewered and that the "sexist" aspects should not be taken seriously. You are free to disagree.

I'm on the fence, personally. My bardolotry wants me to think the best of Shakespeare, and even my rational side says that Shakespeare had an almost superhuman ability to NOT stereotype people and make blanket declarations against them, and even when he was forced into presenting a certain perspective because of his times ("Jews are evil") he found a remarkable way to create a kind of ironic counterbalance going the other way that probably would've been missed by those at the time who lacked his humanistic depth. However, apart from the prologue, the dullness of everything "post-taming," and the exaggerated almost-to-the-point-of-parody element of the taming itself, there's not much evidence that the play is meant ironically. Whether you say that's enough evidence to declare that Shakespeare wasn't promoting the play's open misogyny is, indeed, a matter of opinion.

Again, I don't think you understood my point. A reader (or this reader in any case) provides vocal characterizations and narrative voice, and brings an author's colors and pictures to life in my mind as I read. One who views a film does not have to do that because others have already done it for her. But it is not important to me whether you understand what I meant, so it would probably be best to drop it.

No need to get defense, I understand you now.

[Clopin]

"Look ma I have nothing to add to this discussion so I'll crib a banal internet meme and completely miss the irony of deriding someone else for using internet buzzwords!"

Woah buddy, as a Native American member of the lGBTQWERTY community I think you had better fix that ire on someone a little more privileged; your post is honestly quite 'problematic'. I find your microaggressive use of sarcasm, levelled at a member of a minority group, to be quite 'tricky'.

[cacian]

Woah buddy, as a Native American member of the lGBTQWERTY community I think you had better fix that ire on someone a little more privileged; your post is honestly quite 'problematic'. I find your microaggressive use of sarcasm, levelled at a member of a minority group, to be quite 'tricky'.

what is the meaning of that?