Taming The Shrew.....

[Nigel]

I've just been cast in a production of "Taming Of The Shrew" and wanted to ask a question of all of you. Especially regarding Katherine's speech that ends the play. It was accepted at the time, but isn't quite translatable into today's standards. In fact, I cringe sometimes, thinking of the reaction of the audience, mainly the ladies. An excerpt:

"Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign, one that cares for thee,
And for thy maintenance; commits his body
To painful labor, both by sea and land;
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,
Thilst thou li'st warm at home, secure and safe;
And craves no other tribute at thy hands
But love, fair looks, and tru obedience --
Too little payment for so great a debt.
Such duty as the subject owes the prince,
Even such a woman oweth to her husband;
And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour,
And not obedient to his honest will,
What is she but a foul contending rebel,
And graceless traitor to her loving lord?
I am asham'd that women are so simple
To offer war when they should kneel for peace,
Or seek for rule, supremacy, and sway,
When they are bound to serve, love, and obey."

I have seen productions of the play where they handle this conundrum by, as Kate and Petruchio are leaving, having Kate wink at the audience - thereby signaling that what she just said is bullshit - she's got him now....and literally by the balls.

What do you all think? I'm interested...because though Shakespeare touches on issues that are still true today, sometimes they are mired within his time. I won't be on often enough to reply to all, but will peek in to see your responses.

Thanks,

Nigel

 

[RastaPope]

Have the broad wink like that other one...Don't change it or cut it out or anything....

So it was written, so shall it be done.

 

[Nigel]

Have the broad wink like that other one...Don't change it or cut it out or anything....

So it was written, so shall it be done.

I'm not directing, so have no say so in what the actress playing Kate will do. As for cuts, the speech remains intact in our version, though it has been cut liberally - but carefully....

 

[freescorfr]

I think many men would pay to have a chance to recite those lines.

My wife cut the "honour and obey" out of her marriage vows, many years ago. I think it's quaint.

It was my dad's favourite play and he obeyed my mum till his dying day.

Anyway Shakespeare is not for bowdlerising these days.

 

[p_p_man]

I can't see anything to worry about...

Shakespeare was written for his day, not for ours, and I can't really see an audience going to the play and start throwing bad fruit at the cast because Katherine's speech isn't PC.

Elizabeth Taylor starring opposite Richard Burton in the film played it the same way as you mention. As she was herding the other wives out of the room, she glanced back and gave a look of pure triumph...

I hate PC...

 

[RastaPope]

I'm not directing, so have no say so in what the actress playing Kate will do. As for cuts, the speech remains intact in our version, though it has been cut liberally - but carefully....

Liberal cuts are cuts nonetheless.


Sounds stinky to me.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Don't change it at all! That's a beautiful speech.

Unless of course Rosanne Barr is going to be Kate...<And I'll never get near THAT theater>

I think "Honest will" is a key phrase. Discussion is good; "sullen" "sour" and "peevish" are bad. Contention for "sway" is bad. Partnership is good.

I'm interested in what the ladies think.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Re: I can't see anything to worry about...

Elizabeth Taylor starring opposite Richard Burton in the film played it the same way as you mention. As she was herding the other wives out of the room, she glanced back and gave a look of pure triumph...

I'm shuddering the think that I'm agreeing with PP on anything....<checking my pulse>

This was a wonderful scene, Elizabeth Taylor played the part beautifully.

 

[phrodeau]

In at least one modern professional production, after Kate's final speech she puts her hand under Petruchio's foot. He immediately takes her hand and raises her up, symbolically giving her equality.

Your producer and director should have their own vision about how to deal with presentation of the text. I'm not saying it's none of your business, but there ought to be clear reasons why they chose to do this play in the first place.

Unless it's produced for children, the majority of your audience will know the play and will also be wondering how your production will deal with Kath's monolog.

 

[Andreina]

she should read the words out aloud as Shakespeare has written them for the noble audience. at the same time she should be eaten out by her hubby's best mate.

but that would just be my ideal version...

Halo

 

[KillerMuffin]

Updating Shakespeare, or any other work that goes against the rights we should all enjoy today, is like revisionist history. It shouldn't be done.

That's the way it was then. That's the way Shakespeare wrote it.

"Taming of the Shrew," the very title itself is insulting because it gives the impression that the husband could judge the woman a shrew and should have the right to "tame" her.

If the audience or cast members can't deal with the parts that are or might be offensive, then the play shouldn't be done.

I say let them deal with it. Tough. But that's just me. I don't find things from the past offensive; it's history that needs to be learned from and remembered, not reviled because it doesn't stand up to modern ideals.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Equality.....

"And for thy maintenance; commits his body
To painful labor, both by sea and land;
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,
Thilst thou li'st warm at home, secure and safe;
And craves no other tribute at thy hands
But love, fair looks, and tru obedience -- "


Where is any of Katherine's speech seen as demeaning to women? If one would but turn this monologue around to read from the mans standpoint, that his wife is his "Goddess and Queen" and give tribute to her as Katherine gives to her husband, would there be any question of PC?

Isn't this monologue, updated to modern language, what most couples say in their vows of marrige today?

I think it's "Much a'do about nothing".

Rhumb

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I don't want to be married to a woman who behaves as such:

And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour,
And not obedient to his honest will,
What is she but a foul contending rebel,
And graceless traitor to her loving lord?

I want a smart intelligent partner who is going to work with me to build a better life. I don't want constant contention.

To offer war when they should kneel for peace,
Or seek for rule, supremacy, and sway,

There are enough "wars" in the world without having to come home to one. Some women are Dommes, fine for them, I'm not going to marry one though.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Some women are shrews!

Some men are jerks and lazy bums

This politically correct crap about being non-judgemental is a lot of hooey. I'll be open to differing points of view and listen to people (I'm a good listener). However, if I'm a coach and the second baseman gives me grief all the time I'm not going to say "well, I'll listen to the grief because I don't want to be jugdemental". I'm going to trade the SOB. Judgement made.

So back to my point.."Some women are shrews!"
Some men like shrews. Not me..I'll take the "reformed" Kate everytime and be proud of her and love her and cherish her and treat her like a queen. I might even give her flowers every day and I might give flowers to her daughters every day too.

I'm going overboard again.

 

[phrodeau]

By the way, congrats on landing the part, Nigel. Break a leg!

(Better late than never, I guess.)

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Congrats Nigel. It sounds like a lot of fun!

 

[Nigel]

I don't think I made myself clear - it was not my intent to suggest that we've cut Katherine's speech at all - it remains intact.

Most of the cuts were to the prologue - which is rarely done these days - wherin a low drunkard is made to believe that he is upper class by two tricksters...and watches group of players do a play.... The Kate/Petruchio story is technically a play within the play.....

Other parts were cut for reasons of time.

I just wanted feedback - from women, for the most part - who might object to the message in that last speech - and also to Kate being starved and driven mad...to "break her spirit." I know that one must consider the period in which the play was written - but a lot of people just don't, or can't, do that. They sit and get angry. These are the same thoughts of "What kind of message are you sending?" when it concerns movies, video games and television. They want to put no more effort or thought than it takes to sit down and watch...and not participate in any discussion about it. Sad, but true in my experience.

I like LDWAH's idea....hmmm...maybe I'll direct a version sometime in the future. LDWAH...can you come to the states to assist??

I agree that Shakespeare's words shouldn't be changed or updated. To do so isn't doing Shakespeare. I actually quit a production of "Romeo and Juliet" because the director was changing the script to fit his concept - and ruining the musicality and poetry of the verse by doing so. If you have to change the words and language to fit the concept - it's a bad concept.

I've seen "Shrew" twice in my life - and both settings worked very well. The language nor the city names were changed or updated. The first was set in 1880's Wild West - Petruchio was looking very "James West", with Grumio as a grizzled sidekick. Kate's father owned the saloon in Padua, and Kate was a serving girl. When Petruchio entered late for his wedding, dressed inappropriately - well, think of the grossest parody of Tom Mix you can think of. It all worked so beautifully. The second I saw was set in Italy in the 1930's. Petruchio in a white linen suit and pencil-thin moustache. For his late wedding entrance, Petruchio and Grumio came in on a golf cart - both of them dressed in the most grotesque period golf attire - tams, plus fours, the works. His "Alas, I come not well" was delivered after looking at his score card. Again, no change in the text or language, and it worked well in that setting.

For our part, we are doing the play in the costume and setting of Shakespeare's time....with a rollicking, almost farcical pace and style.

Thank you all for your thoughts...and your congratulations and good wishes.

 

[Mellon Collie]

AS far as I'm concerned, Shakespeare's lack of "political correctness" is nothing compared to Thomas Hardy.

Edited to add: Either way, a play from these periods in history are simply that, plays. They all have their place in cataloguing popular opinion and events of a time and should never be censored because the ideas have no place in modern society.

 

[kotori]

I agree that Shakespeare's words shouldn't be changed or updated. To do so isn't doing Shakespeare. I actually quit a production of "Romeo and Juliet" because the director was changing the script to fit his concept - and ruining the musicality and poetry of the verse by doing so. If you have to change the words and language to fit the concept - it's a bad concept.

That's criminal. For fucking with another's art, that deserves public humiliation.

I'd like to think that the original Kate, whoever she (or he?) was, did the exact same thing, giving a knowing wink to the audience. We've just changed the palaver, but the nature of relationships between men and women hasn't changed.

 

[mistressastra]

The way I have interpreted that scene was that, not only has Kate been tamed, she tamed Petruchio as well. He started out being a money hungry asshole but ended up falling in love with her. And yes, as someone stated he lifted her up after her speech indicating to the assemblage that they were a partnership. I find it quite relevant but touchy folk read other things into it.

 

[Desert Amazon]

 

[MechaBlade]

Shakespeare is pretty shitty. Having said that, if you modify it, you must state so, so that people know you are modifying it, because it is technically art. I was in a Shakespeare production, but half was cut out just because it was too fucking long. The show was still about 2 hours.

But don't change it to make it PC. Taming of the Shew is about just that- the taming of a woman. You can make her wink or even hold up a sign that says "Psyche!" using Shakespeare's lack of stage directions to your advantage. But it was written about female submission, and adults know this when they are going to see it.

I assure you the first few Kates were played by men because they didn't allow women to act on stage. I doubt during these sexist times they wanted to make sure Kate winked signifying that her submission was bs.

 

[cybergirly]

Congratulations Nigel.

I would say that the way this play was written is antiquated at best. But that is the way it was written. It does not really matter how we view it by todays standards, it was not written by those same standards. I for one can enjoy reading a book, watching a play or seeing a movie and realize that it is fiction. I see no reason anyone should be offended by having actors read and act the lines as they were were meant to be read.

Just my 2 cents worth

girly