Rosenbaum’s Shakespeare Wars continues to be the most serendipitous book I’ve ever read. By that I mean that I’m never quite sure when I’ll turn the page into a new chapter and he’ll be talking about something I was just talking about two days ago. In this case it’s the “When I shall die” line (as opposed to “When he shall die”) that we talked about last month. Certainly it’s supposed to be “Give me my Romeo, and when he shall die, cut him out in little stars….” rather than the version Luhrman gives us, “When I shall die, cut him out in little stars….” After all, if he’s not dead, why are you cutting him up? Oddly, though, my googling showed that most Shakespeare versions do in fact have it as I, not he. Rosenbaum gets to this near the end of his book, speaking of a trip to Bermuda. He even points out that most editors do indeed go with the “he” version (which is apparently Fourth Quarto) because the “I” version makes no sense. And what Rosenbaum offers (not his own hypothesis, but rather one he heard, though I do not have the book handy to quote the original author) immediately makes sense to me, I’m just not sure if I love or hate it. He goes back to the more bawdy version of “die”, namely “orgasm”. He says that Juliet, a mere 13 yrs old and not married, is to put it bluntly thinking about wedding sex, and how good it’s going to be. You have to admit, if you make that little word translation, it still fits. Now you’ve got an anxious young girl, in love but also certainly in lust, waiting for that big moment when … ummm….hmm, how can we say this and keep it clean? Shall we say, when she gets to consummate her marriage? It’s going to be so good, she tells herself, that all she’ll see are stars, and her Romeo. (I’m not sure when all the rest of the world comes into it, though?) I love it because it works, pretty much. It’s somewhat crude, it’s the sort of thing you don’t talk about when you talk about the story like it’s the greatest love story ever told, but sex is certainly a part of that type of love, and it’s certainly believable that a virginal bride-to-be is contemplating what it will be like. (Now that I’ve seen that interpretation, other parts begin to fall into place – “I have bought the mansion of a love, but not possessed it, and though I am sold, not yet enjoyed”???) I hate it because it destroys what I consider to be one of the most romantic lines in the entire play. It’s an opportunity for Juliet to explain how much Romeo means to her. Normally it’s the guy spouting all the poetry and the “You’re my world” stuff. Sometimes it’s nice to hear it back the other way. What would Juliet do without Romeo? She would repaint the heavens in his image, and the rest of world would say, “Wow, yeah, we like that better. Who is that guy?” 🙂 Thoughts? Nobody mentioned the sex interpretation the first time we discussed that line, so I’m curious if it is a popular interpretation.
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+Juliet Shot by Shot
http://www.slideshare.net/mcmrbt/romeojuliet-shot-by-shot/ I love it when I find things that are new to me. In this slide show, someone goes through Luhrman’s movie bit by bit, demonstrating how and when he used extreme closeups, what colors he chose for backlighting, and so on. It is 44 individual slides, so don’t be afraid to check it out for fear that it is 10 hours long or something. I’m enjoying it. (Note, now that I finished it I see that the 44 slides only go as far as Romeo and Juliet’s first meeting.)
Romeo and Juliet : The Soundtrack
http://colorblindblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/romeo-and-juliet-soundtrack/ This kid(?) had the assignment of creating a soundtrack for Romeo and Juliet (presumably the Zeffirelli version, since that’s the image he chose). I like some of the choices, although truthfully I don’t recognize many of them. Would have been cool to provide MP3 links, hint hint hint. Oh, and “Romeo and Juliet” the song is originally by Dire Straits, covered by The Killers (among others). It’s not a Killers original. “Juliet, when we made love you used to cry, I love you to the stars above, I’ll love you til I die.” Good stuff.
Welcome John Hudson of The Dark Lady Players!
http://www.darkladyplayers.com
If you don’t recognize the name, John Hudson is known for having put forth Amelia Bassano Lanyer as the latest contender for the Authorship Question (also known as the “Shakespeare was a black Jewish woman?!” theory).
When I first posted about the theory I wondered aloud if it was a joke. I also wondered why the discussion is always about As You Like It, since it seems that you’d want to go right to Shylock if you’re going to argue that a Jewish person created him. So when I got email from Mr. Hudson, I apparently have no shame, I dove right in and asked both questions :). Answers printed with his permission:
Q: With all due respect, are you serious? Or is this some larger satirical joke on the Authorship question as a whole that’s gone over my head?” (paraphrased)
A: Actually I am serious–which is why in March last year I went to London to present this theory to Mark Rylance and the Shakespearean Authorship Trust, who treated it seriously and brought her in as candidate number 8 at the top of the ‘other candidates’ section of their website. I would also not be spending money putting on demonstration allegorical versions of the plays unless I was serious!
Q: Why have I not heard anyone ask about Merchant, or even Taming of the Shrew? Why would Bassano have written such misogynistic, anti-Semitic works?
A: This theory holds that the plays are written as allegories—as was much of Elizabethan and Renaissance literature—so they have a meaning in some cases on the surface that is opposite to what they really mean underneath. Both MOV and Shrew are quite complex, so it is easiest if I begin referring you to my analysis of more straightforward plays like MND and AYLI (which we are currently rehearsing for production in late July). Once you see how those work it is easier to make analogies to the others. For instance I would show why the way that Adam disappears half-way through AYLI is a parallel to the way that Shylock disappears half way through MOV–and what happens to them is similar. (I would however refer you to the literary signatures she has left on the two Shrew plays, which have also recently been detected by Rene Weis in Shakespeare Unbound pg 177).
(I certainly plead ignorance regarding the depth of these arguments, but that answer to the Shylock question does seem similar to the “nonono, it’s not anti-Semitic, it’s showing us the dark side of anti-Semitism” case that we’ve spoken of.)
Hudson goes on to add, “The only person who has ever considered Amelia Bassano was the Russian critic Gililov, who identified the Shakespearean quality of her poetry (The Shakspeare Game pgs 305-312) then decided as a lower class woman she could not have written it, even though she was educated by a duchess and a countess from the age of 7. Once you have read the two documents will be happy to talk further, and yes please use it in your blog, I would like to get the public debate going!!”
[John did attach two PDF documents for me, but I don’t have a good way to attach them to this post. Perhaps if he is reading he can provide links.]
Thank you to John Hudson for his response, and the boatload of reference material he provided. I’ve got some reading to do.
The Psychiatric Times, on Hamlet
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/52396
I like finding crossover references like this (which, by the way, is dated 2005). Most folks know, I’m sure, that it was Freud who came along and suggested Hamlet’s issues with mommy. Here is a psychiatric view of that argument and more. As a matter of fact the article opens by crediting Freud with “persuasively answering” the question of Hamlet’s delay. However it then goes on to question Freud’s character-centric analysis, showing the positive side of examining interaction between characters rather than just individual motivation. I’ve got to sit down and read the whole 5 pages.