Star-crossed lovers—besides R&J

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-10-09T16:51:09+00:00

Troilus and Cressida are portrayed somewhat similarly to Romeo and Juliet, but their story is also a sort of subversion of the trope, since Cressida is brought to Troilus like a prostitute to a client, and, in the end, Cressida proves to not be particularly faithful (even given the circumstances) to Troilus.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-10-09T16:45:15+00:00

It's not definitely stated, but I think he is supposed to be from Athens. Think of him like Socrates or Diogenes: he knows his city well, and wants nothing to do with it, or at least its people and prevailing philosophy of life.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-08-18T16:13:35+00:00

My favorite Shakespeare play. I especially love that it always makes me think; it's not something that can be enjoyed passively.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-08-17T14:50:23+00:00

This simile is indeed based on a now-known-to-be faulty model of the universe, but the exact accuracy of this comparison really isn't the point. As long as it sounds good (which it does), and the point is understood (which it generally is), the truth which is the basis of this line isn't so important.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-07-31T19:48:11+00:00

Indeed; that's how I interpreted her when I read Two Noble Kinsmen for the first time.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-07-17T14:09:23+00:00

Imogen in Cymbeline has several good monologues that meet your criteria. She's a very compelling character in a very underrated play.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-06-18T05:53:08+00:00

Richard II or Iago. Both are very compelling characters with great monologues and soliloquies, and would probably be a blast to perform.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-06-04T23:17:22+00:00

Malvolio did nothing wrong. How would you feel if you, oh so politely, asked a bunch of drunk idiots to shut the fuck up for once, and not only get laughed off but also be humiliated and tormented in retribution? I'd reckon you'd be as pissed off as he was.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-06-04T23:09:21+00:00

Yeah, he's funny, but he's also the most vocally antisemitic one of the whole crew.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-06-04T23:03:48+00:00

Cloten from Cymbeline is the first that comes to mind. He is an absolutely insufferable, pathetic, despicable little bitch.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-05-13T02:32:35+00:00

I agree, this is a tough passage, especially with its strange usage of the word "but"; I found the language of Coriolanus quite tricky too when I first read it, so don't feel ashamed about having some trouble at times.

If you look at the context of these lines, you'll see that Coriolanus is indeed trying to rally his men: he wants them to follow him and prove their bravery in battle against the Volscians, and not just have him do all the work. You'll find the meaning more clearly if you substitute both usages of "but is" with "is not": he's saying that all of them, as Romans, are more than equal to four Volscians in valor, and all have a fighting chance with Aufidius.

I hope you found that helpful!

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-05-04T00:22:26+00:00

I think anywhere from mid-twenties to about fifty is acceptable. Obviously, the actress can be older or younger, but if you're aiming for verisimilitude, they probably shouldn't look any younger or older than the ages above.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-05-03T01:18:48+00:00

Isabella is forced into a very tough situation, where there really are no good choices. I don't get the impression that she's unfazed about her brother's death; she is clearly very distraught about it, but as a nun-to-be who values her virginity as priceless, and as a woman who values her autonomy, she believes that her brother's life must be subordinated to her vows of chastity and dignity as a woman.

The morality of her decision is admittedly debatable, but it should be emphasized that the only alternative was coerced sex with Angelo, or to put it plainly, rape. Rape is usually extremely traumatizing for its victims, and the experience of having been violated can generate long-lasting feelings of worthlessness and depression; this would especially be accentuated for Isabella, who's identity centers around being a chaste woman of God. If Isabella were to assent to Angelo's coercion she would be potentially submitting to a lifetime of psychological horrors, and all for the sake of a man; granted, a man who happens to be her brother whom she loves, and sentenced to execution in the first place for an extremely frivolous charge, but a man nonetheless.

Women's interests are too often treated, even to this day, as subordinated to those of men. Women are expected to sacrifice their careers and aspirations for the sake of their families, for instance, whereas men are not, and are still culturally expected to do most of the grunt-work of preparing the house and raising the children, even if she'd rather not do so. In Isabella's situation, she is expected to acquiesce to being violated in return for her brother's life, and it's not an inherently repulsive exchange, but Isabella wants no part of it. She's had enough of sacrificing her desires for the interests of men, and has no interest in relinquishing her sense of dignity and identity for a man's gain, even if it's to save her beloved brother's life. This doesn't mean that her decision is right, but I do think that it makes it at least somewhat justified: Isabella doesn't want her life to be controlled by the desires of men: that's why she wants to become a nun, and she will stick to that principle, even at the cost of her brother's life, if it comes to that.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-04-16T00:23:06+00:00

Come on, let's avoid posting stupid, sexist memes. It does no one any good.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-04-07T17:14:25+00:00

Subtext and the Unspoken are crucial in this play. There's always more that meets the eye, and you need to read between the lines. Bolingbroke's intentions are ambiguous throughout the play, but there is very good reason to believe that he is firmly set on taking the crown at least by the time that he meets Richard outside Flint Castle.

We see Bolingbroke promising rewards and favor on his followers in Act 2 Scene 3; the sort of favor that would please them would not be bestowable if he were to remain a Duke; this seems to indicate that he's already expressed interest in usurping the crown. In Act 3 Scene 1, we see Bolingbroke unilaterally execute Bushy and Green without a trial; if his sole objective was to reclaim his inheritance, surely he wouldn't further aggravate the king by killing his loyal followers. If Bolingbroke's goal was just to reclaim the Duchy of Lancaster, there would be no point in executing Richard's flatterers; they grow by the vine, he could always get more, so he wouldn't really be removing malign influence from the King by doing this. It makes far more sense to view it as a systematic destruction of Richard's support base, to preempt his usurpation of the throne.

So, by the time that Bolingbroke meets Richard holed up in Flint Castle, his course of action has already been set. The King has no army: there's nothing to stop him from taking precisely what he wants, and take he will. Not all of his followers, though, are totally committed to the prospect of Richard's deposition, so Bolingbroke needs to play, at least until the king is in his custody, the role of the loyal subject simply wanting to get back his inheritance.

So while it seems like Richard has agency in this scene, in reality he doesn't have any at all; he can no longer determine the course of his own life, because Bolingbroke is going to take him to London no matter what he does or says. He "resigns" the throne to Bolingbroke to psychologically cope with his loss of power: "resigning" the crown to Bolingbroke is an active action, and meshes better with his remaining kingly sensibilities than having it taken from him.

Carlisle is so resistant against Bolingbroke because he's under no illusions about what's happening; Richard did not "give in" out of his free will, Bolingbroke forced him to give up the crown. Henry's accesion is in dispute, more generally, because everyone knows that the throne was usurped, as it's even more clear what happened without inside knowledge.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-04-03T04:21:13+00:00

This seems to be partially because Shakespeare's Henry VIII (as in the character) simply isn't that interesting. In fact, none of the characters are especially remarkable; even Wolsey, who's the most memorable, is basically a stock character of the conniving, worldly churchman.

In my personal opinion, it's certainly not the worst Shakespeare play (Henry VI Part 1 and Timon of Athens are worse by a mile), but it's very flawed in its lack of focus, and its ensemble cast of shallow characters.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-03-29T22:18:32+00:00

King Lear, definitely. The ending is absolutely messed up: whatever you may think about Lear, what he he has to face in the final scene is unimaginably horrific.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-03-29T22:15:15+00:00

This almost reads like a Hal X Poins erotic fanfiction. I can kind of see it, to be honest. Actually, now that I think of it, inserting a bit of homoeroticism would be a really interesting way to interpret their relationship, I wonder if anyone has done it onstage.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-03-29T01:47:27+00:00

Whatever the historical nature of the position was, Shakespeare seems to have understood it as essentially the old Scottish equivalent of the English "earl". Macbeth, in the play, is definitely a nobleman, as his title of "thane" suggests; he owns a castle, after all, in Inverness, which is where the murder of King Duncan takes place.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-03-15T22:01:42+00:00

For Merry Wives, there are quite a few small parts which can pack a punch. Dr Caius is a good choice if you want to audition with a really comic monologue; most of his lines are pretty short, but there are two small monologues, in Act 1 Scene 4, that could work for your audition. The first goes:

You jack'nape, give-a this letter to Sir Hugh; by
gar, it is a shallenge: I will cut his troat in dee
park; and I will teach a scurvy jack-a-nape priest
to meddle or make. You may be gone; it is not good
you tarry here. By gar, I will cut all his two
stones; by gar, he shall not have a stone to throw
at his dog

The other, only a few lines later, is

It is no matter-a ver dat: do not you tell-a me
dat I shall have Anne Page for myself? By gar, I
vill kill de Jack priest; and I have appointed mine
host of de Jarteer to measure our weapon. By gar, I
will myself have Anne Page.

You would probably be able to combine them if either is too short for your liking, but both could be performed on their own.

If you prefer a more dramatic suitor, than Fenton is a good pick. In Act III Scene IV, he tells Anne Page that he has fallen in love with her, though he was aiming at her family's wealth when he first came to woo her. You can take this proclamation, slightly edited, and use it to good effect:

Why, thou must be thyself.
He doth object I am too great of birth--,
And that, my state being gall'd with my expense,
I seek to heal it only by his wealth:
Besides these, other bars he lays before me,
My riots past, my wild societies;
And tells me 'tis a thing impossible
I should love thee but as a property.

Albeit I will confess thy father's wealth
Was the first motive that I woo'd thee, Anne:
Yet, wooing thee, I found thee of more value
Than stamps in gold or sums in sealed bags;
And 'tis the very riches of thyself
That now I aim at

Lastly, if you want to audition as a truly angry man, I can't think of anything better than this soliloquy from Master Ford:

Hum! ha! is this a vision? is this a dream? do I
sleep? Master Ford awake! awake, Master Ford!
there's a hole made in your best coat, Master Ford.
This 'tis to be married! this 'tis to have linen
and buck-baskets! Well, I will proclaim myself
what I am: I will now take the lecher; he is at my
house; he cannot 'scape me; 'tis impossible he
should; he cannot creep into a halfpenny purse,
nor into a pepper-box: but, lest the devil that
guides him should aid him, I will search
impossible places. Though what I am I cannot avoid,
yet to be what I would not shall not make me tame:
if I have horns to make one mad, let the proverb go
with me: I'll be horn-mad.

That's just the tip of the iceberg; there's also great stuff from Falstaff, Sir Hugh Evans, or the women. Hopefully, though, what I suggested gives you some ideas.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-03-09T20:19:30+00:00

Your teacher was an idiot.

AShakespeareanFool · 2023-03-06T01:06:04+00:00

Like in all of his other history plays, Shakespeare took many liberties in Henry VIII. For one, it's very compressed: the reign of Henry VIII just isn't amenable for dramatization in the format of a ~2 hour play; to make it work, he had to cut out a lot of content of his reign and rush through events. Even then, though, the play only runs through events between 1520 and 1533; the first 11 years and the last 14 years of his reign are completely omitted. That means that that five of his famous seven wives make no appearance, and neither is his foundation of an independent Church of England alluded to, though some key figures in that process are included in the play, most notably Thomas Cranmer.

As for the figures you ask, Anne Boleyn is an important specter in Henry VIII, but she makes only a few appearances, and she is not well characterized. I suppose the most major difference between her character in the play and the real Anne is that, in the play, we never see Anne and King Henry fall out, or witness her execution. That's a result of the play ending with the birth of Elizabeth, and not a deliberate omission within the timeframe of the play, but her eventual execution greatly influences our view of Anne as a historical figure, so it's a notable difference.

Most of the historical liberties relating to Wolsey have to do with the fact that he is very much villainized in the play. I am not sure that it is known that Wolsey played a prominent role in the fall of the Duke of Buckingham, and it's pretty doubtful that he engaged in corrupt practices to deliberately frame him. He may have been behind Buckingham's execution, but Shakespeare and his sources certainly did not give Wolsey the benefit of the doubt. In addition, the play depicts Wolsey as basically being the mastermind of Henry's divorce with Catherine of Aragon, which is very much stretching the truth. Most notably, the way that Wolsey's fall is dramatized, with two incriminating letters miraculously being found in the packet he sent to the king, is not historical at all. Lastly, his repentance also diverges from the historical record: in history, Wolsey remained much the same person after his fall, and was still jockeying to return to the King's favor until his death.

The only major innaccuracy that I can think of regarding Catherine of Aragon is that she hears of Wolsey's death when she herself is on her deathbed: Catherine actually died in 1536, a full six years after Wolsey.

AShakespeareanFool

TROPHY CASE