Other Thoughts on Troilus and Cressida

Shakespeare’s harsh and way-critical casting of the classic Grecian heroes in Troilus and Cressida is relentless. These guys are made out to be such assholes. Take, for example, Achilles, that great and noble hero-warrior of yore. Shakespeare portrays him as an arrogant, pompous, and conniving fool with a penchant towards cowardice. Troilus and Cressida, the title characters, are weak, flighty “whores” (his words, not mine) with little to no integrity, ready at every turn to betray and otherwise harm their friends and lovers. They are all that way, exaggeratedly so, which deserves comment. Perhaps Shakespeare is trying to "pump up" his Elizabethan audience by showing such a debased and wanton society. We may not be perfect, he could be saying to his peers, but at least we’re better than these losers. Or, perhaps (and more intriguingly) he’s making an anti-war statement, as was first suggested to me so eloquently (again) in Ann Barton’s introduction to the play. Maybe a war based entirely on a pretty girl (Helen) rubbed the guy the wrong way. Indeed, there’s lots of soul searching by the characters throughout the play in regards to the fact that “the face that launched a thousand ships” has resulted in so much bloodshed. And if you stop to think about it, it actually isn't the noblest of causes, right? What’s so noble and great anyway about a major, epic war with thousands of dead, all over a kidnapped (yet perfectly happy) girl?

The ending of the play was fast and furious, which was cool. Act V has 10 scenes, the vast majority of which are quick, two character affairs occurring at the very end of the act (and the play, in fact). Two guys rush in, yell all sorts of eloquent, disparaging poetry at each other (I know, not so realistic, but bear with me), and then rush out, to be replaced by yet another fighting pair. This dramatic spectacle, at least on the page, works great. It must be really interesting to watch live.

Also, speaking of the ending of the play…what a bummer. This thing ends as despairingly and hopelessly as anything I have yet read. So much for happy endings. And people like happy ending of course, which probably explains (in part) the reason why this play was not performed at all after its debut in 1603 until the 20th century came along, at which point it was performed all over the place. Indeed, many have suggested that this play wasn't performed even once until the 20th century. I wonder why our age likes it so much? What could it be about a play depicting war as the ultimate expression of hopelessness and nihilism that appeals to our century (I’m being facetious of course). It is as if Shakespeare anticipated our age three centuries ago. This is interesting.