Here in Memphis there’s a theatre troupe called the Tennessee Shakespeare Company whose specialty I shall not name unless someone asks, and even then I’ll just be mocking the inquirer. Their most recent production was The Taming of the Shrew, which I enjoyed mightily, as TSC is made of awesome. But not everybody in town shares my high opinion. Someone wrote to the local daily newspaper (The Commercial Appall*) to opine that the Company should have known better than to perform such the play. Shrew, the writer said, is a distasteful and disgraceful relic of an bygone era; and while Shakespeare may be the greatest writer in the English canon, this play, like the rule of thumb, is best confined to the privy of history.
That’s what the letter-writer said, anyway. I disagree, but then I’m a sexist egotistical lying hypocritical bigot who should probably be held captive by his secretaries until forced to mature. But if you have an opinion about whether people who put on Taming oughta be horsewhipped, this is the thread to talk about it.
And no, I’m not gonna summarize the play. Why? Eat your beans, that’s why.
I can’t imagine anything but the vast majority of posters here saying it’s worth putting on still. Let’s see. I’m in favor, and have seen it performed, so 1-0 in favor so far.
There’s a lot more to a play than what’s on the page, especially with a playwright like Shakespeare who uses minimal stage directions. Depending on the acting and direction, Shrew can be horribly misogynistic, upliftingly feminist, or anything in between. Though admittedly the misogynistic interpretation is a lot easier to achieve.
And people said you shouldn’t do The Merchant of Venice because of the antisemitic stereotypes. Then Dustin Hoffman did it and that seemed to quiet down.
I wonder if the person who wrote the letter has ever read or seen the play. And does this apply to Kiss Me, Kate, too?
Context is everything. It’s clear in the play that Petruchio actually does love Kate, that her shrewish temper makes her as unhappy as it makes everyone else, and that all he really wants is a little domestic tranquility. Of course there are objectionable things in it, but I saw worse stuff being done to children in Nanny McPhee Returns yesterday.
There is a term, Bowdlerizing, which refers to the practice of taking objectionable things out of works of art so that the public would not be offended. To shitcan this play would be Bowdlerizing taken to the extreme. Anyone who doesn’t want to see it, doesn’t have to. Anyone who thinks that it constitutes a license for oneself to abuse one’s spouse would have abused their spouse anyway. Anyone who thinks they know what people should and should not see should take a flying leap.
ETA: there are plenty of laughs, Kenm, I encourage you to see it.
It was a movie called Ten Things I Hate About You, and it did pretty well.
I’ve seen the original play as well. It doesn’t strike me as saying, “this is how women are, and how they should be treated,” but rather “this is how this particular woman is, and how this one mercenary but redeemable man acts.”
I saw this yesterday amd thought TSC did a fine job of this play. I am of two minds about the play itself though. The play seems to espouse the idea that women should be biddable and compliant to their husbands wishes no matter how ridiculous he is being. Bianca seems an addleheaded fool but she is held up as the ideal her sister should be.
I have seen the play done where Katherines final speech was done in a way that showed that she was not cowed down by starvation and exhaustion but instead was still doing things her way but letting Petrushio think it was his way.
so I guess the choice is addleheaded fool or manipulative deceit.
Personally, TOTS is possibly my least favorite of Shakespeare plays. You can certainly tell it was written after Elizabeth’s death - there is not a remotely sympathetic female in there. I have no desire to ever see it again. However, I see no reason to dustbin it for everyone else any more than other literature that is in keeping with the attitudes of its time, like Kipling.
I think the taming parts should be staged without a trace of humor, or with only black humor – and play up the humor everywhere else – to emphasize that what Petruchio is doing here is breaking down Kate’s spirit through psychological torture, as many husbands do to this day. Likewise, the early bits should be played up to emphasize that this is not just a woman with a mind of her own, this is a violent raging all-hating psycho who is physically dangerous to everyone around her. She needs taming, but this way? Let the audience judge.
I’ve read the play, seen several live performances as well as several movies and I don’t agree with you that it’s clear that Petruchio actually does love Kate. It’s possible, but it’s very hard for me to see love or affection in his behavior. In my reading, Petruchio is only in it for the money; both Kate’s dowry and the bet with the boys.
Well, he makes it very clear to her, while courting her if you can call it that, that he really, really wants her, in a carnal sense; which might not be so refined as Romeo’s sentiments for Juliet, but more or less equates to love for Elizabethan purposes.