It’s a very problematic play. I don’t know enough about life & art in the 1590s to know for certain, but it seems like it’s supposed to be a light comedy and it’s actually incredibly fucked up. I’ve seen it many times and never seen anyone manage to pull off a way to deal with what is domestic violence/psychological torture.
I don’t think it should be banned, though, just done better.
He was pretty clearly never going to hit her. It was all bluster. Ricky Ricardo, on the other hand…
It’s his way of striking back at all the people who fail to recognize his references.
Okay. Knowing that it’s some pop culture reference makes it much less bizarre.
I’m strongly anti-censorship, but I think there are some legitimately interesting questions at work here:
-Is it possible for a work of art to fairly-unambiguously espouse a position?
-What if a work of art espouses a position that we as a modern society find abhorrent?
I don’t know Shakespeare from Adam, but I’d argue that some works are very very clearly making a particular point. Animal Farm, for instance, is pretty clearly taking an anti-communist viewpoint. That’s not just one weird interpretation of it that some scholars who are way out on the fringe read into it, that’s absolutely what it’s about.
So what if there was a book or play that was taking a similarly pro-slavery, or pro-subjugation-of-women, or pro-killing-of-Jews viewpoint? Such a thing certainly could exist. It could even be a wonderful work of art full of scintillating wordplay and wit. How would we as a modern people hypothetically respond to such a thing?
I don’t have an easy answer for that, and I don’t think there are any easy answers.
Recognizing that the play is really about Grumio is the key to grasping its brilliance.
At least, that’s what my friend, who played Grumio, told me.
Yep. And Hamlet is about a gravedigger who meets a prince. It’s widely misunderstood.
In a world where there’s only time / room / money to stage one or two Shakespeare works a year, I’d admit that staging TotS wouldn’t be a top priority – but, mercifully, we don’t live in that world. Stage it and perhaps let some of the audience know it was written a while ago.
I saw a production put on by the Royal Shakespeare Company at the Kennedy Center in DC about 10 years ago, and it blew me away – it changed nothing of the text and set it in Shakespeare’s time (rather than modernizing), but by emphasizing the fact that Petruchio is grieving for his recently deceased father (through the acting and staging), they turned the play into a story of two very troubled people who find love and healing through each other. The story became beautiful and uplifting. Literally – at the end moment when Kate must put her hand under Petruchio’s feet as a sign of subservience, in this production she did so and he took her hand and lifted her up to his level.
I loved it.
You’ve not heard of the Gor novels, have you?
But, is that still TotS anymore? Or are they just doing a riff on the original? Can we even know what Shakespeare’s original intent was?
When Moonlighting did it, it wasn’t “true” to the original story, either.
If they’re using the text? Sure. It’s an interpretation of the play- one of many that are possible.
No. And while his intent might be interesting to know, it’s not really relevant.
Well if we don’t go by original intent our whole framework of Shakespeare-based jurisprudence might collapse!
What if you’re a script constructionalist?
The Taming of the Shrew was the first live on stage (well sort of a stage; it was the Papp production in Central Park decades ago) and it took my breath away. I became a Shakespeare fan. This snotty nose, punk high school kid liked and understood Shakespeare. So just because it might bring some other kid to theater and specifically Shakespeare, I think, yes, it should be performed today.
But let me address the story line and characters. From that first time I saw it, I knew that it wasn’t the surface story. Kate was not a “shrew” and there was nothing heroic about good old Petruchio in spite of what he thought. That’s why the “Moonlighting” version of ‘Taming’ with Bruce Willis and Cybil Shepard was so great. They got it! Kate is a bundle of fears and Petruchio is as insecure as can be covering it with bluster. The strong character is the female. The weak is the male both realize this about the other and that’s why they “ACT” the way they do.
The second stage production I ever saw was also Shakespeare, a wonderful college production of “Merchant of Venice.” I have since acted in, and directed a good number of Shakespeare plays and in spite having to deal with actors’ egos, I still love the bard.
Of course it’s ToS–they didn’t change one word of the play, they simply emphasized an aspect of the story that was usually glossed over.
BBC’s Shakespeare Retold also did an updated version of TPTS which was quite fun. In it, Kate is an MP from an old political family and Petrucio is an impoverished lord. She wants his title. He wants her money. And of course, they both have their issues.
Of course, in this version, he becomes a stay-at-home dad while she goes on to become Prime Minister, so quite modern in that respect…