The Classical Unities

When you research Shakespeare’s plays, you quickly come across the concept of the Classical Unities, most definitely because Shakespeare was so fond of violating them in his plays (the idea of which was a relatively new thing). The Classical Unities are three laws to follow when writing a play, as outlined by Aristotle. They are:

Unity of action - One main action and no subplots.
Unity of place - It happens in a single physical space.
Unity of time - It takes place over no more than a single day.

Derived by Aristotle, these were followed rather strictly throughout the ages, until The Bard came along. Apparently Shakespeare didn't believe in these rules one bit (what a rebel) and almost never followed them (the only case where he did was a play I have read already – The Comedy of Errors - which is generally accepted as one of his weaker efforts, so you can see where following the rules gets you). I thought this was interesting in that it shows, in yet another way, Shakespeare’s allegiance to a new kind of muse, a muse that leads him outside the lines sometimes (okay, pretty much all the time), to get you where you’re going. This is great of course, great because it can be so interesting and great because it’s so hard to do right. So, All Hail the Bard!

(4) The Winter’s Tale

So, I jumped all the way down to the end of my list here and picked up The Winter’s Tale. The main motivation for this was the fact that it was playing in a local theater (I stole the above picture (which I absolutely love) from their website and am paying for it with the preceding plug. Seeing as I make nothing from this site and have no readers, I can’t imagine they would mind, right?). The run of this play at said theater was ending soon (last weekend) so I thought I would read/see this one earlier rather than later. Also, it’s winter time in these parts so why wouldn’t I read it now…and I’m mighty glad I did, as I thought this play was excellent, on many different levels.

It was a tale of rebirth and redemption, status and order, love and jealousy, mystery and beauty. It was a study of the darkness of extreme jealousy and the evil sickness of creeping suspicions. It was a play book-ended by births and middle’d by death. There was dancing. There was sheep-shearing. There were songs and, most importantly, there was a guy getting eaten by a BEAR! This thing had it all.

Part of what helped me enjoy this one was seeing it performed live. Obviously, there’s something “right” about seeing it acted in person, in front of you, as opposed to just reading it. Something intentional…so I will be trying to do this as often as is practical. However, I don’t want to lose focus here (this is a blog about reading, not watching Shakespeare’s plays, right), so the main analysis will still revolve around the writings. Think of the plays as live study guides then.

(3) The Two Gentlemen of Verona

This play, for me, was an exploration on the sometimes absurd and destructive nature of lusty, romantic love. In this play, two gentlemen (and another guy) vie for a single woman’s love, and do all sorts of crazy, bizarre stuff in the process. This idea is most clearly presented at the end where (I’m not kidding), in less than 25 lines, one character threatens to rape his best friend’s true love, is admonished, apologizes, and then is quickly and completely forgiven by said best friend. That qualifies as crazy, right?

Because of this bit of wackiness (and others bits too), this play has been derided by critics over the years. Many have noted that the abrupt, contrived nature of the end (and the abrupt and contrived nature of the other bits) indicates a lesser play. Perhaps. However, if you view things, including the ending, through this “crazy love” lens, then one can argue that this often-maligned ending is just reinforcement for this theme, and that the characters, true to this theme, are only behaving as they should: recklessly and without reason.

In this way, it was a good read. However, like The Comedy of Errors, I wasn't totally blown away by this one either. I think I agree that Shakespeare seems to still be honing his craft in these early comedies (especially in terms of producing these things for the stage and not just creating them as written works). But, like I referred to earlier, bad for Shakespeare is actually pretty good, relatively speaking…or at least full of enough good so as to be time well spent.

The Aside

One of my favorite actors is Kevin Spacey, probably in large part due to his performance in American Beauty, one of my favorite movies. He is now staring in a Netflix political drama called House of Cards, which I just started watching and am really enjoying. So, what’s this have to do with Shakespeare, you ask? Spacey’s character (Francis J. Underwood) makes extensive use of the dramatic device known as The Aside, a device used extensively by Shakespeare. This is where a character directly addresses the audience, commenting about something going on, with the implied understanding that the other characters cannot hear it. Think of it as a sort of “head’s up” to the audience, and inside joke shared.

The House of Cards series makes extensive use of this device in a really great way. Like Shakespeare, the Spacey series often uses this to inject comedy (sometimes very dark comedy) or develop layers of complexity. Also, in the Spacey series, he does this really cool thing where he sometimes reverts back to his original, thick southern accent when speaking these aside’s to the camera, as opposed to when he is speaking with the characters, in which case he speaks the King’s English, clear and sharp. Spacey’s character hides his “real” voice most of the time (I guess the implication is that a heavy, country bumpkinesque southern drawl would not fly inside the beltway), but lets it all hang out when he speaks to us, the audience. We’re insiders and we’re special. Shakespeare did the same thing, all those years ago, once again proving that when it comes to art, there truly is nothing new under the sun (and thus proving that great art is never the WHAT of it, but rather the HOW).

A Note on Theme

Just a quick post here on a central theme I have noticed in the few plays I have read so far. Clearly, the idea of identity is one of the main points Shakespeare wished to explore in his plays. This idea of identity, on all levels, like the identity of self, the identity of sex, the identity of state, the identity of social status, all comes across in all sorts of cool ways. I will be looking for this as I go forward. I’m sure you all are waiting anxiously, with bated breath.

(2) The Comedy of Errors

So, this play can be summed up as follows: Two sets of twins, together in a city but strangers to each other. One set of twins are masters, and the other set are buffoonish servants to those masters. Enter other characters who constantly mistake their identities (that’s the “errors” part). Hilarity ensues (that’s the “comedy” part). I appreciated the twists and turns of this one and if you follow it, it is pretty interesting to see how Shakespeare keeps the joke going, scene after scene, like a verbal juggling act, because of course, all the characters must be kept ignorant until the end for it all to work.

Often labeled a simple “farce,” this play is considered by some to be one of Shakespeare’s weaker works (as so well presented in the Riverside introduction to this play, a farce implies that the playwright will do anything for a laugh, including sacrificing complexity and nuance for less “serious” elements such as slapstick and pure fantasy, thus the derogatory nature of the label, at least from a “deep” or “artistic” perspective). I both agree and disagree. It did seem that the plot and structure was just a little bit…mechanical…or maybe a bit too construed at times, bent of creating the situational comedy above all else. It employs “Deus ex machine” to the point where one becomes a little too conscious of the play as a play, rather than something “greater,” something that transports you. Does that make sense? It’s as if, through the wild and winding series of errors that is this play, it becomes too easy to get lost in the trees (shallow, plot-driven details) and miss the forest (deeper, more rewarding thematic implications)?

But don’t get me wrong, there was much to like, including many great quotes (“Marry, he must have a long spoon that must eat with the Devil.”) and many great characters (like Antipholus of Syracuse, clearly the “cooler” and more likeable of the two twin brothers). So, like I said, I’m torn on this one, appreciating it on some levels while agreeing that it may not be one of his strongest efforts (which for Shakespeare, means simply just “genius” instead of “pure genius,” right?).

(1) The Taming of the Shrew

So, I begin with The Taming of the Shrew and I really liked it. How do you tame a shrew you may ask (for those of you not in the know, a shrew is a nagging, “difficult” wife)? On the surface, the play suggests some mild starvation coupled with sleep deprivation. Also, and most importantly, you must act like her, the idea being that when she sees her own self reflected in another she will be disgusted and reform her ways. Lots could be said here but I think I will focus on the obvious (and probably belabored) point: the idea that this is a play promoting misogyny and male chauvinism. It’s not, and to suggest so would be to sorely miss the mark. Although I can see such an interpretation, I think Shakespeare is smarter than that and deserves much more credit. Taken at face value, yes, the central action of the play has Kate being “tamed” by her newlywed husband, but taken deeper, there’s more nuance to it. The play unfolds as a deftly done dance that actually subverts the idea of male dominance over their wives. It is all about the ideal of the balance between the sexes, and stands as a discourse on the importance of sharing power…and provides a warning about the terrible dangers of hoarding and concentrating such power.

After reading the play, I found a really good Elizabeth Taylor/Richard Burton movie version and checked it out. Great, and a really good idea going forward (read the play, watch the movie, where possible). It really helped me catch things I never noticed in the text (plays are meant to be seen, not just read, right?). It does a really good job of communicating the deeper nuances I alluded to above, especially with the final all-women-must-be-allegiant-to-their-men speech from Kate. Taken off of the page and onto the stage, the speech goes from a simple diatribe against the shrewish women of the world to a much more eloquent and complex plea for all of us to work together equally and with all our hearts towards a greater general harmony between the sexes, a harmony stewarded by both sides, with each side playing their part to create what Shakespeare seems to be promoting as the greatest ideal of all: the ideal of the loving, shared life. Or at least that’s what I saw. So anyway, I liked this one quite a bit and am looking forward to the rest.