What's Done, Is Done

It’s time to finish this thing. As jolly old Lady Macbeth would say, “what's done, is done.” I must admit that I enjoyed the ride, probably more than I thought I would. I really liked having this blog on the side, as it were, a sideline activity in an area I always wanted explore in greater detail. So, to finish up, I thought I would list some general thoughts and impressions (bear with me…you made it this far):

1) In some ways, this project has done one main thing for me, that is, show me how ignorant I really am on all things Shakespeare. As I have said before, you could spend a lifetime studying one play, or only one act of one play even, which I’m sure countless people have done (without ever “finishing” of course). So, first and foremost, I now know that I know hardly anything, but at least now I can claim to have some sort of clue, which is something more than clueless.

2) Taking the above observation a bit further, I found that Shakespeare, the idea of Shakespeare, is an idea that extends well beyond the boundaries of his plays, so you have to deal with that expansiveness right away, or be swept off. It is a larger-than-life domain, occupying such a huge space in this world that, when you dive into it, you are confronted by what feels like an endless universe. This is both good and bad. You get a really cool sense of almost total artistic vibrancy, which is good. However, it’s almost always coupled with a strong sense of hopeless, down-the-rabbit-hole ambiguity. Beyond the “actual” plays (actual in quotes here because no one can agree about the exact Shakespearean actuality of any of the plays), there are endless myriads of related books, books about books, experts, expert experts, colleges, professors, theaters, actors, directors, movies, movies about movies, movies about plays, plays about movies, websites, discussion boards, blogs, podcasts, and on and on and on. A huge space. Enormous. Navigating it was daunting but, as I realized early on and as with many things in life, it serves you well to keep it simple. Read the play. Watch a version of it. See it live if you can. Get what you get. Move on. That’s Shakespeare, at least for me, and that’s life, at least for us all, right?

3) Concerning the Shakespeare space, I found two main camps dividing this space: the academics and everyone else. Often, I found that these groups were at odds with one another, while overlapping all the time, in various ways, which was an interesting (and sometimes contentious) dynamic. For example, when friendly, uber-knowledgeable professors would give free lectures to non-academics like me, that was good (great even) but when opinions were offered as valid simply because they were coming from behind a degree, that was, well, not so good. There is this scholarly thing going on with the Bard, and a significant (or just overly vocal?) number of non-academics seem put off when confronted by this sort of snobbery. This I think has led to the perception, hopefully limited, that Shakespeare is only for classrooms, which kind of stinks, however limited, because it diminishes the Bard, making him into something he is most certainly not. If any truth has come out of this project for me, any single learning, it is that Shakespeare is most definitely meant for everybody. The depth and breadth of the Shakespeare universe can (and should) accommodate everyone, no problem, with lots of room to spare. It’s the whole point really, this idea of inclusion. It’s what all great art does. No one owns anything and everyone is invited to the party. This should be obvious, but unfortunately it seems to some extent to have been lost in the shuffle.

4) Speaking of obvious, I didn’t realize how much I would learn about Renaissance Theater and the Elizabethan/Jacobean age. I should have expected this but oddly I didn’t. This was pretty cool, getting a real feeling, however slight, of what it was like to sit through a play in the Globe (or Blackfriars) or having an idea, however limited, of what it was like to live in the England of the 1600’s. The life and times of Shakespeare. Now I know more about this, which I like.

5) There is absolutely no substitute for seeing some version of a play. You can’t just read each one and get everything. Not even close. This also should have been obvious, more obvious than anything probably, but for some reason it wasn’t when I first set out (see the name of this blog). Maybe it’s because I’m an introverted reader-type and, to me, words on a page equal books to sit and read alone. Unfortunately for me, this project would have quickly failed in read-only mode (assuming that it hasn’t failed for the billions of other, wholly valid reasons). Without any exceptions, I would have missed a great deal if I had only read each play, so see them all if you can (in a theater, if possible). I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Shakespeare never personally published anything, so nothing was meant for just reading. Everything he produced was for theaters, to act out, in front of real people, live. These were things to be seen and heard, not just read.

6) The daily references to Shakespeare that started popping up everywhere, all day, every day, was an excellent surprise and just so cool. Like I said before, you don’t have to look for them, they just happen. This, probably more so than anything else, showed me the tremendous impact that this one man has had on all of us, in so many ways, expected and unexpected. The dude is everywhere.

7) One of the main goals of this blog was to force me to critically analyze each play through a reasonably coherent blog posting, so as to sharpen my reading and writing skills. I didn’t want to embarrass myself (not sure I succeeded there), so I worked at it a bit. There was (and is) an importance to these entries for me personally, and I treated them seriously. This blog made a forum for discussion (mostly personal, which was fine actually) where I could seek understanding and clarity on a complex thing…and I liked it, a lot actually, all that thinkin’ and figurin’ and stuff. Although I have mixed feelings about the overall quality herein (re-reading some of my entries…oy vey!), I can say with satisfaction that I tried to write well and think intelligently and by trying, have hopefully become better at it. One can dream, eh?

8) All of my posts were written in another document first and then copied into this blog. That document reached 72 pages and about 36,000 words. That’s pretty good. Like half a book almost (but not really). I like that, the idea that I have produced something with volume and substance, at some level, on the side, in off hours. It bodes well for the future in terms of finding the discipline to put something together writing-wise of maybe greater substance and ambition. Oh, and the time frame was almost exactly 19 months, just to fill out this bit on metrics.

9) Except for some notable blackouts, I got a good rhythm going, especially towards the end. The attainable goal I found, with all the other life things going on, was about one and a half plays a month, at most. That felt just about right, like I was moving at a decent pace, not slacking, but also not racing. In the beginning I was definitely moving too fast and I should have paced myself better. Maybe next time (yeah right). Bottom line: Two or three a month is too much, especially when you need to study all those ancillary things like watching the movie, or (and?) seeing the play, or (and?) reading someone’s critical analysis, or (and?) attending a lecture at a library.

10) I advertised this blog lightly, for the most part keeping it to myself and just a few close friends and family. Early on I noticed little to no interest in this thing when I would mention it (For good reason. I’m under no illusions. Who would really want to read some no-name blither on about Shakespeare?). When it did come up (rarely), it would usually elicit the same reaction, which was no reaction, usually just awkward silence. To varying degrees, I almost always got a strange why-would-anyone-do-that vibe or even worse, a feeling that I was being pretentious (a thought that really bothers me). So I stopped talking about it and it worked. Back to normal, but still in business. It’s all good and I get it. Shakespeare can be boring, really boring if you’re not into it, especially if you perceive the whole thing as something you should only be doing in school (see above). And you didn’t like school. I can respect that for sure. Different strokes for different folks (thankfully). It’s what makes the world go ‘round.

11) That being said, for me, this project was great fun. Really. I can’t explain it. It just worked for me. For example, I can say with certainty that, without fail, at any point on any day I could think about something in a given play I was reading, then think about what to write about that given play, turn it all over in my head a few times…and it would make me feel happy. Every time. So there, one of the keys to life: Read Shakespeare and write a blog about it. You’re welcome.

So there it is. Thanks for reading. I really enjoyed this project (did I say that enough?), but it is certainly time to move on. So, adios and farewell, my good old faithful Shakespeare blog, and farewell especially to anyone who followed along! Bard, blog, and readers alike were so good to me that I must end by saying that, unlike this blog, my appreciation is sincerely without end.

Some Favorites

Favorite Plays
Hamlet
Much Ado About Nothing
Richard III

Favorite Movie Adaptations
Two versions of Much Ado About Nothing (2013 Wedon and 1993 Branagh versions)
The Taming of the Shrew (1967 Taylor/Burton version)
The Hollow Crown (TV series)
Coriolanus (2013)

Favorite Movie About Shakespeare
Al Pacino’s Looking for Richard

Favorite Book About Shakespeare
Shakespeare: The World as Stage (Bill Bryson)

Favorite Live Plays
Much Ado About Nothing (The Philadelphia Shakespeare Theatre, Philadelphia, Pa., Saturday, April 6, 2013)
Cymbeline (Fiasco Theater, The Folger, Washington, D.C., 2014)
The Tempest, Act I, Scene I (Glen Ellen Theater, Glen Lake, Michigan, 2014)

Favorite Theaters
Blackfriars Playhouse

Favorite Shakespeare Websites
Shakespearences
Folger Library
Get Insulted by the Bard

A Few Favorite Quotes (Forgetting Many)
“Laud we the gods, And let our crooked smokes climb to their nostrils, From our blest altars.” - Cymbeline

“Now is the winter of our discontent: Made glorious summer by this sun of York” - Richard III

“If we shadows have offended, Think but this, and all is mended, That you have but slumber'd here, While these visions did appear.” - A Midsummer Night’s Dream

"Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once." - Julius Caesar

Favorite Stage Directions
[Exit, pursued by a bear] - The Winter’s Tale

"What, you egg!" [stabbing him] - Macbeth

So Long Mr. Williams

As a tribute to one of my favorite entertainers of all time, I'm posting this interview by Carson on the Tonight Show back in the day where he spends a good bit of time riffing on Shakespeare. Funny stuff, really funny. Truly a great artist and an unbelievable talent that I grew up watching and admiring. He will be missed.

Ranking the Plays

Believe it or not, I have been ranking each play in a running list since I started this thing with the aim of publishing, at the end, the full list, from most to least favorite. So here it is. Yes, I know such lists are totally dumb, but I couldn't help myself and it was fun to try and place each one as they were finished, to build out the list, one at a time, as an act of progress. So there.

Hamlet
Much Ado About Nothing
Richard III
King Lear
Richard II
Macbeth
A Midsummer Night’s Dream
Henry IV, Part 1
Othello
Henry V
As You Like It
The Taming of the Shrew
The Tempest
Julius Ceasar
Pericles, Prince of Tyre
Henry IV, Part 2
Measure for Measure
The Winter’s Tale
Romeo and Juliet
Anthony and Cleopatra
Coriolanus
Henry VI, Part 1
Henry VI, Part 2
Henry VI, Part 3
The Merry Wives of Winsor
Love’s Labor’s Lost
The Merchant of Venice
The Two Noble Kinsmen
The Two Gentlemen of Verona
All’s Well That Ends Well
Twelfth Night
Timon of Athens
Troilus and Cressida
The Comedy of Errors
Titus Andronicus
King John
Henry VIII

Coriolanus - The Movie

I saw an excellent movie version of Coriolanus last night, an adaptation for sure, but a good adaptation, an interesting and provocative take on the Shakespeare original. What did it have going for it? All (and only) the best lines were picked out and used (deftly used, with great delivery by great actors), long and interesting action sequences were created to forward the plot, character, and theme (yes, stuff blows up), and interesting, modern-day sets and scenery were included (with a cool sort of CNN-media-war-coverage thing threaded throughout). But, as any adaptation must do, big parts were cut out, including my favorite patricians-are-the-stomach speech and, most notably, some key bits at the very end.

However, even with these (and other) parts excised, the story still remained, and a great story it is, full of great Shakespearean nuance. As any good adaptation should do, it enhances the original version without really changing anything, a difficult magic trick for sure, especially when you’re dealing with Shakespeare. This one did that, to a tee, which in turn helped me understanding the play way better. Indeed, I feel like I missed some things in the initial reading, like maybe I was wrong about Coriolanus the character, just a bit maybe. Although he's still mostly a jerk, the movie explores why he is the way he is, in a believable and relatable way, which builds sympathy for the guy and makes me like him, and the play, much more. So I liked this movie a lot, especially in the way it helped me appreciate the play. So kudos to them. The Bard would have been proud I think.

(38) Coriolanus

Coriolanus is a play about power, namely, the origins of power, how power relates to class, and the way in which power is gained and lost (and, in the case of this play, gained and then lost again, really lost, like dead lost…but more on that in a minute). As a tragedy, I think it holds up reasonable well, but it really doesn't compare to some of the other tragedies in the canon (but, given the competition, that can’t be too surprising, right?). My main complaint is on the main character Coriolanus: a character of only one dimension, he’s the same guy throughout and doesn't change one bit, at any point. You know who he is right away and he stays that way. Arrogant, inflexible, ridiculously proud, and utterly disdainful of the lower classes, I didn't like him very much at all I guess, which is probably a big reason why he (and this play) holds up only “reasonably well” in my humblest of estimations.

An oversimplified summary: Coriolanus saves Rome by defeating his arch rival Aufidius in battle. He is lauded as a hero by the patricians (upper class) but essentially dismissed by the plebeians (lower class). In reacting to this dismissal, he says the exact wrong things, basically intimating that, as a member of the upper class, those in the lower class can pretty much just suck it. He says this over and over, even when called upon specifically to unsay it as apology and in order to gain the consulship (so even when a lot is at stake). He's like the worst politician ever. The anti-politician.

Not surprisingly, the people of Rome expel him, which sets him off to no end. In his anger, he gathers a huge army to invade Rome. All seems lost for the Romans until his wife and family persuade him to call off the invasion. He agrees, is accepted back into Rome, but is betrayed, right at the very end, and killed (what did you expect?). In typical Shakespearean fashion, everyone immediately realizes the horror of losing such a great man and he is carried dead off stage, with much pomp and lamentation.

To read this play is to experience, in full force, the idea of the “body politic.” Shakespeare explores this concept extensively in this play, perhaps more so than any other I have read (and I have read them all…first time I can write that!). To review: the body politic is what it says, a concept that likens the political nation to the human body. The head is the king and the body the people, with endless permutations on each part as it relates to the other. Indeed, in this play, that is exactly what happens, with countless references to human body parts sprinkled throughout, including Menenius’ famous speech to the plebeians to calm them after one of Coriolanus’ many arrogant insults, a speech where Menenius likens the upper class to the stomach, which distributes nourishment to the plebian “body,” magnanimously taking only the leftovers as nourishment, after the body has had its fill. A great speech, as good any in Shakespeare, and for this alone I was glad to have read the play.

This idea of the body politic, or more accurately a “diseased” body politic, is so thematically prominent in this one that it seems overdone at points. The likening of the various parts of the nation to human body parts was apparently quite popular in Shakespeare’s day so perhaps he’s just pandering to the crowd. The king is the head, the nobility the limbs, the lower rebellious classes the “great toe of this assembly” and thus “o’ th’ lowest, basest, poorest” of people. Simple as that, the lower you go, the less your social esteem. As a monarchist (as Shakespeare most certainly was), you could see the appeal of this message, to him and to his audience, the extensible idea of body as nation, hierarchical and rigid, safe and straightforward. Religiously right. Appealing in his day for sure, and as appealing (perhaps more so), in ours?

So there it is, my last play “analyzed.” The goal has been reached. I have read every play so this project is over…but not quite. I have a few more “wrap up” posts in me I think, things like favorite lists and lessons learned and whatnot so bear with me. Just a few more, but not many, as I am more than ready to move on. It’s been a blast but enough is enough, right?

(37) Pericles, Prince of Tyre

I liked Pericles, Prince of Tyre. I liked it much more that I thought I would, given all the negative press it has garnered from critics over the years (oddly though, it was very popular in its day and was in fact the very first Shakespeare play to run after the Restoration, when the theaters reopened). This play follows the noble adventures of Pericles, who looks for and finds a wife, has a beautiful daughter by her, loses both at sea, and then is finally reunited with them, tearfully, in the end, all in that so-familiar-now artful and adept Shakespearean way.

I like it in some ways simply because it comes across as such a play, if that make any sense. Unlike many of Shakespeare’s other works, this one feels like clear drama, through and through, full of purely dramatic elements, like for example the so-called “dumb show”. Anything but dumb, these are dramatic interludes spoken by some orator (in this case, the historical poet John Gower) directly to the audience, sort of a running commentary on what’s up. Often in rhyming couplets, Gower recaps plot points, predicts future events, and generally clues you in to all the action, often with candid alacrity and sly humor. They are fun, these dumb things, and make for an artful framing of and pacing to the play, regulating the flow perfectly so that things unfold exactly, in a way the feels exactly right. Instead of say, something like Macbeth (a study of evil), Hamlet (a study of sanity/reason), or Romeo and Juliet (a study of romantic love), Pericles is just a play. Does that make sense? I guess I’m trying to say (trying being the operative word) that this one comes across as more captive to its form and thus more to point or to purpose, which I noticed, and appreciated (with nothing against those other plays of course). It’s different, this one, in a good way. So there.

Another thing this one has going for it is the story. It’s a great tale of adventure, with a big heartwarming ending, and some funny scenes thrown in involving pimps, prostitutes, and a brothel. And great characters too, especially Marina. Pure Shakespeare, this character. Funny, complex, and powerful, she’s great, trust me. Read this one for her lines alone.

So that’s that. One more to go: Coriolanus. I actually have a bit of a background on this play. It was one of the few I studied in some depth in college (I even unearthed an old paper I wrote on it way back then. I thought for sure I would sound like a blithering idiot in this paper, but when I reread it I found that I was actually making a little bit of sense, here and there. I even got an A on it. It’s written right on the back, by my teacher. Really.). Anyway, maybe I’ll share some of it in my next post. Or not. One more to go, kids.