Geeklet Story Time

So tonight my wife’s at work and I’m putting the kids to bed. My older girls are in their rooms reading, and I’m laying (lying?) down in my 5yr old son’s bed with him.

“Daddy!” yells the 9yr old from her room, “There’s a Shakespeare quote in my book!”

“Which one?” I yell back.

“Life’s but a walking shadow…” she begins.

“…that struts and frets his hour upon the stage. A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” I reply.  And, yes, I missed a few words in the middle.

“Yes, that one,” comes the reply.

“Macbeth.  That’s a good one.”

“Why is that a good one?” asks the 5yr old.

“Well, he’s sad because his wife died,” I say.

Somehow I end up telling the story of Macbeth. To my 5yr old.  As a bedtime story.  My 5yr old who is prone to bad dreams as it is.

I now present my very shortened, very censored, off-the-top-of-my-head version of Macbeth, suitable for 5yr olds:

Once upon a time there was a soldier in the army named Macbeth. One day when he was coming home from the war he ran into a witch who said, “Greetings, King of Scotland!”

“I’m not king of Scotland, you crazy witch!” said Macbeth.

“Not yet!” said the witch.  “But you will be.”

So Macbeth went home and told his wife this crazy story.  “You know what we should do?” said his wife.  “We should invite the king over, and then when he’s sleeping we should take his crown!  Then you could be king!”

“I don’t know about that,” said Macbeth, “I mean, he’s a good king, he’s never really done anything to us.”

“What sort of chicken are you?!” his wife yelled at him.  “The witch said you are going to be king.  How do you expect that to happen if you don’t take action?”

Macbeth agreed, and they invited the king over to dinner.  Sure enough, that might while he slept they came into his room and stole his crown, and then Macbeth proclaimed himself king of Scotland.

Well this was just plain silly, as everybody knew you don’t get to be king just by taking the crown.  But Macbeth locked himself up in a castle and wouldn’t listen to anyone who tried to talk sense into him.

Meanwhile, the king’s family went off and rallied support to get their crown back.  They brought in Macduff, a brave warrior, to face Macbeth in hand-to-hand combat.  Macbeth thought that he would easily win because the witches told him that he would be king.  But Macduff won the battle, and rather than keep the crown for himself he gave it back to the original king who was the rightful owner.

“What happened to Macbeth?” my audience of 1 asks.

“He lost the battle,” I say, stalling.

“How did he lose the battle?”

“They had a sword fight, and he lost. Macduff made him surrender.”

“So did Macbeth go to jail?” I love the 5yr old perspective.

“You know,” I tell him, “I’m not sure.  The story doesn’t really say what happens next.  But I think you’re right, I think that he probably went to jail.”

At this point, and I am totally not kidding, my 5yr old decides that he’s in a Shakespeare mood, and he wants to hear the one about the father who has to divide his kingdom up among his three daughters but he gets mad because one says she doesn’t love him most of all.  I’m flabbergasted at this – I may have told him Lear like, once, a year or more ago.

As a matter of fact, I have this story that I told my middle daughter back in 2007, but my son was only 18months old! I know I’ve told him the story, but right now I can’t find a link to it.

…continued in part 2, because this is a very long post. 🙂

Fate v. Free Will in Romeo + Juliet (Plus, Changing The Ending?)

While cruising through Yahoo! Answers today I saw that somebody had asked about the theme of destiny in Romeo and Juliet.  Then something hit me.  It’s easy to point to the “star-crossed lovers” right in the prologue, and later Romeo, who is Fortune’s fool, defies to stars, etc etc etc.

But here’s the thing, I’ve also always thought of the play as a lesson to the parents about not being so stubborn in your ancient grudges and your own problems that you don’t realize what you’re about to lose. 

At the end of the play, the prince gives his great “All are punished” speech and the two families shake hands and build statues.  I don’t know about you, but I’m definitely left with a feeling of, “See how stupid you’ve been? If only you’d changed your ways and seen what was happening, this all could have been prevented.”

And there’s the problem.  Which is it?  Is Shakespeare giving us a story where we’re supposed to come away thinking that this tragedy could have been prevented?  Or that it was Fate, and that these kids were going to end up dead no matter what happened?

I’d never really thought of this before, but has anybody ever done an ending to this play where the Prince still gets to give his speech, but rather than the statue building stuff, the two families turn their backs on each other and the grudge continues?  I think that would be genius.  Depressing, but genius.  Then you’ve got the more helpless feeling that no, these kids never had a chance, the feud is never going to end even in the face of such overwhelming tragedy.

Non-Weddings in Shakespeare

This question came up again this morning – why doesn’t Shakespeare ever write an actual wedding ceremony into any of the plays?

The simple answer (historians, fill in the details for me) is that he wasn’t allowed. Marriage was a holy sacrament, a big deal, and having actors depict one would have been considered sacrilege.  The Master of Revels wouldn’t let it happen.  Although, what the punishment would have been I don’t know – would it just get edited out, or would even attempting it have been a swift trip to the Tower?

Anyway, this post is not about that. I started to list in my head all the different ways that Shakespeare gives us “everything but” the actual ceremony.  I’m sure I’ll miss a few, but we have:

  • The “eye witness testimony” in Taming of the Shrew where we get to hear, but not see, how Petruchio ruins his own wedding (made very confusing by the fact that most movie versions just go ahead and turn this first-hand account into an actual wedding scene).
  • The “wedding that doesn’t happen”, in Much Ado About Nothing.  “Do you, Claudio…” “You’re a whore!”  “Eeeek! *faint*” *chaos* …
  • The “rehearsal dinner” scene (well, that’s what we’d call it, but for Shakespeare we’ll call it the “scene before the wedding”) also from Much Ado, which ends literally with a bunch of people saying “We’re going to get married, but first, let’s dance!”
  • The Reception.  Midsummer Night’s Dream, of course – a wedding reception scene so hysterical that while I was researching my book I actually found a bride who was trying to get her bridal party to act it out.
  • The “does it still count if the marriage is performed by a non-human entity?” dodge.  Well how would you describe As You Like It, where the goddess Hymen comes down to bestow her blessings on the new couples?
  • The “blink and you’ll miss it, oh look we’re married now” wedding.  I don’t think that Romeo and Juliet is the only example of this, but it’s the most obvious.  High school students for generations try to figure out where in the play that Romeo and Juliet get married, because for the life of them they can’t find that scene.  That’s because it happens between scenes, kids.  One scene, not married.  Next scene?  Married.

What am I missing?

Speaking of Shakespeare and weddings, everybody knows that I wrote a book on the subject, right?  Hear My Soul Speak : Wedding Quotations from Shakespeare brings together all the most romantic things Shakespeare ever wrote, explained and organized for all your wedding needs – the proposal, the vows, the best man’s / father of the bride’s toast, you name it.  Even if you just want something cool to sign in the guest book.  Available now for Kindle and all e-reader formats!

Romeo + Juliet : The War

Just about a year ago I spotted the news that comic god Stan Lee was associated with a graphic novel adaptation of Shakespeare entitled Romeo + Juliet : The War.  At the time I wrote, simply, “Want.”

Well, lucky lucky me tripped into a complete pre-release copy (digital only and heavily watermarked), and just read it cover to cover in one sitting :)!   Yayyy!   Love.

This telling takes place on “a planet you recognize…yet in many ways, you don’t.” It is a war-torn planet, populated by two super races: The Montagues, a race of cyborgs (half human, half machine) and the Capulets, a race of genetically engineered superhumans.  They were both bred and created for the same purpose – defeating a common enemy.  Once that task was complete, they turned on each other. As far as the “two households both alike in dignity” and the “ancient grudge” go, I buy it. 

(Let me just break in here on myself to mention that, in the introduction, it says “Respectfully based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet”.  I like that.  None of this “We all know that original boring story blah blah we think our version is better” stuff.  Respect.  Carry on.)

The story they tell is a bit different from Shakespeare’s, as retellings often are (see our West Side Story discussion for more on this topic). This version, like many others, significantly plays up the violence.  Every Montague hates every Capulet, major characters included.  Romeo and Benvolio are both right in the mix and ready to draw Capulet blood at every opportunity.  There is no Lord Capulet moment where he says “It is not so hard for men as we to keep the peace.”

This is a common approach (heck, even Gnomeo and Juliet did it) but I think it takes much of the depth out of the story.  I much prefer an interpretation where the grudge is basically old and buried, and it is only recently “broken to new mutiny” by guys like Tybalt who refuse to let it go.  I think that’s important character development there.  Just making everybody bloodthirsty doesn’t really do it for me.

Anyway, soapbox off.  The rest of the story elements are there – the party, the meeting, the secret wedding, the over -hasty marriage to Paris, Friar Laurence’s plan.  I will say that it takes a very different turn right in the middle (during the Mercutio/Tybalt confrontation) which is definitely in line with their world building, even if it is not exactly what Shakespeare wrote.  For as much as I don’t love some of the liberties that storytellers take with my beloved source material, I do have respect for those that can stand confidently in *their* story and carry it through to the end. The ending is satisfying, based on how they get there.

I’m always torn when digging into a work like this, because my brain says, “Yay! Shakespeare content!” and then I start reading and three pages in my brain says, “Wait a minute, this ain’t Shakespeare.” I don’t really know what I want as a solution to that problem. Sometimes the retelling will sprinkle in direct quote. There’s not too much of that here.  The goal seems to be, “Retell what Shakespeare said, and say it in a way so that the reader knows what we’re doing, but not so that it looks like we just tried to flat-out translate the original into modern text line by line.”  Does that make sense?  Keep it close, but not too close.

Sometimes they try too hard. Every single time there’s an opportunity to say “Ha, the Montagues are clearly the good guys and Capulets the bad guys!” expect there to be somebody who is quick to point out that the Montagues are just as guilty. They really hammer home the whole “these two sides are exactly alike” thing. We get it. Don’t let us develop our own feelings for these characters or anything – tell us exactly how we have to feel.

As far as the visuals go, the artwork is just beautiful (and I think they know it).  On
numerous pages you’ll think that you’re looking at a scene out of
Terminator, The Matrix, or some other hugely successful science fiction
movie that jumps immediately into your brain. They have a very clear idea for the world they want to show, and pull it off brilliantly.  Frequently there’s a shot of nothing but the landscape, just to show how impressive it looks. Honestly if there wasn’t a gigantic watermark across my copy, there’s a handful of pages that would be gracing my laptop’s wallpaper right now.  (UPDATE – They have downloadable wallpaper on the website!) There are a bunch of places where it’s overly violent for my taste, and a number of fight scenes where it’s hard to tell what’s going on, but I think that has more to do with me looking at it primarily as a Shakespeare fan and not a comic fan.  I’d bet that the comic aficionados in the crowd wouldn’t mind it at all.

You know what? I said that it looks like a movie. I think that if somebody tried to tell this version of the story as a movie, it could be pretty awesome.

I can’t wait for this to come out for real. Although there is plenty of bloodshed (and a surprising scene of near nudity which I think was completely gratuitous) I would almost certainly let my kids read it.  Well, at least my oldest.  I’d probably call it borderline PG-13, as there’s a very definite “Romeo and Juliet, now married, are in bed together” moment that’s hard to talk my way around. Relatively speaking I’ll take the gratuitous almost-naked scene if we could leave out the almost-naked-and-in-bed-together scene.

Be on the lookout for this one!  Coming out officially in “late 2011”, but I don’t have word yet on when exactly it will be available. I find no listing in Amazon, not even for pre-order, but that doesn’t prove anything.

Murder Most Foul : Hamlet Through The Ages

Tell me, what would you do with a book that attempts to capture the history of Hamlet? I’m talking all of it, from the original Amleth story all the way through to screen captures of Ethan Hawke moping about when Kyle MacLachlan watches in the background.

So it is with David Bevinton’s Murder Most Foul: Hamlet Through the Ages
(Oxford University Press), which surprisingly still weighs in at just under 200 pages.  What do you say to that, Harold Bloom? 🙂

The author is not just tackling how the character of Hamlet has been portrayed over the years, either. He’s truly gone for a complete history of the play in every sense. There’s a diagram of the Swan Theatre, which has no trap door in the stage, and discussion about what this would have meant for a performance of Hamlet, which requires one.  How would Polonius have hidden behind the arras? Would he fall through it and back onto the stage, or would Hamlet have to pull back the curtain to see him? What does Hamlet do with the body when he drags it offstage? That’s all just in one early chapter. There’s depth like that on every page.

These issues may seem trivial, particularly to the theatre-folk in the crowd who have to deal with such details every performance. But this is not a lesson plan in how *you* might stage Hamlet, this is a history of how Hamlet *was* staged. That is what makes it fascinating. There are times you want the plays to be timeless, and there are times when you want to feel connected to their origins.

Jump forward to modern days and Bevington has something to say about all the most popular modern video interpretations. There’s a surprisingly lengthy and positive description of Mel Gibson’s version (which, according to Bevington, was always intended as an “action movie” Hamlet), and then a story about the disastrous timing of Kevin Kline’s production coming out the same year and basically getting lost on PBS, despite its emphasis on “superb performances” and “insightful interpretation”. Branagh’s, Tenant’s and event Ethan Hawke’s interpretation also get a fairly detailed examination.

I have to admit, books like this are intimidating to me. They are so densely packed with stuff that I just plain didn’t know that I can’t get through 3 pages without saying, “I could make a post out of that!”  Typically several times.  I know my style, and this is not the kind of book I sit and read and absorb end to end.  I can’t do it.  Instead I’ll grab it and flip to a random chapter, knowing that wherever I land I’ll learn something new and want to talk about it.

This is a great addition to my reference library, and I thank Oxford University Press for sending me a copy.