We more cynical Shakespeare geeks can point out that Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy, less about the romantic ideas of “how far would you go for love” and more “look what happens when adults are stupid,” but that doesn’t change the fact that the world at large loves a good tragic love story. Over at GeekDad they’ve got Top 10 Tragic Love Stories in Geek Fiction. I think I’m stretching the Romeo and Juliet connection a bit as all of their examples are tragic in the sense that only one of the two lovers dies, leaving the other alone. I suppose that makes it even more depressing? At least Romeo and Juliet ended up together, kinda sorta. In all these examples, one lover is left to wander through life alone. This being the realm of scifi,it’s a sad truth that 3 out of the 10 stories have been ruined by film interpretation, and you have to go back to the source material to get at the good stuff. They do offer up a classic, though – Lancelot and Guinevere make the list. Got any favorite “tragic love stories” along these same lines? I’m tempted to bring up Tale of Two Cities, and Sydney Carton’s legendary “Far far better thing that I do” speech. Or perhaps Jean Valjean in Les Mis, devoting his life to the protection of Fantine’s daughter Cosette?
Category: Shakespeare Plays
William Shakespeare is widely regarded as one of the most influential playwrights in history, and his plays have been performed and studied for centuries. From the timeless tragedy of Romeo and Juliet to the hilarious antics of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Shakespeare’s plays continue to captivate audiences around the world. Whether you’re a fan of tragedy, comedy, or romance, there’s a Shakespeare play for everyone. So why not revisit these timeless classics and discover the magic of Shakespeare for yourself?
Browse the entire text of Shakespeare’s plays right here on Shakespeare Geek.
Romeo and Juliet, Sort Of
http://theater.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/theater/reviews/21romeo.html?nl=&emc=ura1
Should the phone ring one day, and you are asked to recount the plot of Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet,” would you remember which Italian city the play takes place in? The particulars of the faked-death ruse that ends so unfortunately? The immortal lines that Juliet speaks from her balcony as her heart flutters with awakening love?
Well, umm…..yes. To all of those questions. But I don’t think I’m in the target audience :). The show reviewed appears to be something of the reduced/improv Shakespeare variety, starting with the premise that most folks kinda sorta know the story, but are foggy on the details. Sounds like a crowd pleaser. I remember seeing “The Complete Works in 60 Minutes” or whatever it’s called, and not really loving it. Not so much for the Shakespeare-mocking, but more for the weak attempts at humor. There’s massive amounts of material to be found in poking fun at Shakespeare so that Shakespeare fans can actually enjoy it. But there’s the rub, I suppose – these shows aren’t for fans. These shows don’t start with Shakespeare, they start with “That bit of Shakespeare that everybody in pop culture kinda sorta knows”, and then from there they just run with whatever sex joke they can find. In the Complete Works we got “Call you buttlove? What? Ok, buttlove” and other types of lines. In this version of Romeo and Juliet there’s apparently scenes of Paris … ummm… having some private time with Juliet’s corpse? Insert your own “rub” joke here, I can’t bring myself to do it.
Hamlet is 16. Discuss.
In my head, the words and works of Shakespeare are … how can I explain this …. they exist outside of time. They are timeless, and I mean that in all senses of the word.
I could not tell you off the top of my head whether Merchant of Venice is technically supposed to happen in 1275, 1623 or 1941. It is part of what I love. It is what enables people to go to the well over and over and over again, keeping the essence while simultaneously changing everything. If you tried to tell me that there is something about Hamlet that *must* take place in 1601, you’d ruin it for me.
So it is something of an eye-opener for me to stumble across a book like Steve Roth’s “Hamlet: The Undiscovered Country” where he very literally maps the action of Hamlet to actual calendar days, in the process rebuilding many core beliefs about the play.
I am not in the least kidding when I say that he discusses which of the action, for example, happens on a Monday. More so, *what* Monday and why that is important, why Shakespeare chose it.
I first stumbled across Steve’s work on the “Hamlet is 30” topic, which we’ve discussed twice before. It is his position that the well known “I have been sexton here, man and boy 30 years” – the primary evidence that Hamlet is 30 – is actually a misinterpretation. He feels that the line actually reads “I (the gravedigger) have been sixteen here (i.e., have been at this job 16 years)…” It is a bold position to take. The secondary bit of evidence, that Yorick – who Hamlet played with as a child – died 23 years ago, is harder to contradict. But Roth finds Q1 evidence that the line was originally 12 years, which would fall right in line.
As I said above, and as my regular readers probably know, this is not how I do it. There’s a world of difference between just assuming that “some time” elapsed before the nunnery confrontation, and mapping that time out to a number of days, a time of year, everything. The flowers that Ophelia picked (if she didn’t imagine them), were they in bloom at that time of year? The old king was supposedly sleeping in his orchard… how cold was it? There are folks that eat that stuff up. I’m willing to bet that there’s a handful of regular readers of my blog, in fact, who are all over it.
It’s often hard to make the case, and Roth knows that. When he’s got details he makes his case clear. When the case is a little weaker on fact, he’s not afraid to say “That sounds about right.” In particular, Hamlet’s time with the pirates is particularly tricky to nail down. There are also times where I just don’t plain understand what calendar we’re supposed to be using. The anachronism of “going back to Wittenberg” is oft-cited – it wasn’t there in Hamlet’s time, but would have been in Shakespeare’s time. Ok, fair enough. But much of Roth’s calendar calculation is done against the 1601 calendar, when Hamlet would have been *performed*, not when it took place. Is that too much a convenience? Did Hamlet really write in-jokes and references that would have been out of date a year later, much less 400?
Within all the calendar counting, though, there are still opportunities to learn new things (again, this is part of what I love). For instance, this book brings up the idea that Hamlet’s harping on Gertrude not going to bed with Claudius is not because he’s got some Oedipal issues, but because (if Hamlet is 16, mind you), Gertrude is clearly still young enough to bear a child by Claudius. A child that would be next in line to the throne, bumping Hamlet out of the picture. Maybe that’s common knowledge, but I’d never thought of it. And if Hamlet is 30, it’s more far fetched.
Roth’s book is small, barely 150 pages, and has its fair share of tables taking up space. So it’s a quick read. You don’t have to buy the “Hamlet is 16” premise to enjoy it either, though Roth certainly makes a good showing for his case. This book would be a fine addition to the collection of any Hamlet geeks out there.
Bric-a-Brac Theatre : Romeo and Juliet, starring Christopher Walken?
I’m not quite sure what I just watched, but I like it. Narrated by Christopher Walken, this little movie tells the story of Romeo and Juliet from Cupid’s point of view. Of course, Cupid is voiced by John Madden, Romeo is Nicholas Cage, and a few other surprise “guest” voices. Neat.
I’d Love A Romeo, But I Think I’m More Falstaff-Shaped
Now, see, this is just a tease. Normally I do not get dressed up for Halloween, but apparently kids’ school is having a family night and going as a family implies that we all get dressed up. The thought most certainly crossed my mind (I just mentioned it on Twitter not 10 minutes ago) about doing something Shakespearey. Wouldn’t you know it, but the Shakespeare Theatre Company is having a costume sale!
Because the theater has covered a lot of Shakespearean ground since 2006—remember Twelfth Night, Hamlet, and Macbeth?—the selection is diverse. Period details such as doublets, cloaks, and armor pull an elaborate character together—or check out some of the unexpected options, such as animal headdresses or 1960s mod fashions. And it’s not just clothes, either: There’ll be jewelry, masks, and props such as sculpted wedding rings and table settings from The Taming of the Shrew.
Alas, it’s down in Washington DC and I’m no way near there. But if you are, go check it out! More details can be found here: http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/shopping/shoparound/13787.html (There’s gotta be a joke in here someplace about going as Bottom and not needing a costume at all…..)