HENRY VI PART 2 –The One With Jack Cade

The Henry VI story as told by Shakespeare has three parts. It may therefore seem odd to start with ”Part 2”, but as any fan of movie franchises will know, chronology is often played around with and sometimes focuses on the middle section of ”the big story” first. There is a sequel if the piece is successful, and then possibly a prequel. The Star Wars series, for instance, started with episodes 4,5 and 6 then went back episodes 1, 2 and 3, and has now jumped forward to episode 7. Such jumbling of narrative is not new –Shakespeare was doing it over 400 years ago. Indeed, his whole line of English historical plays seems to have evolved this way, with individual ”episodes” of quite different styles, but connected by a running storyline –that of the struggle for the crown– and with characters whose lives we follow through several plays. History always fascinates an audience, and it was no different in the 16th century; everyone knew something of the tales and exploits of the major players from past centuries, so people coming to the theatre already had some ideas about who the bad guys were, who to root for, and yet still be enthralled by the unfolding drama, event by event, episode by episode. And this is certainly true for the trilogy of Henry VI plays. However, by starting with episode two –sorry, part two, I have followed the assumed chronology of the writing of the plays, rather than the historical chronology, for it seems Shakespeare wrote parts two and three first and then went back and wrote part one. This makes more sense when one learns that Henry VI Part 2 was only given this title when it was included in the first Folio. Originally, it had the snappy title The First Part of the Contention of the Two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster with the Death of the Good Duke Humphrey –certainly a title that aptly describes its contents, but the printers probably had a fit when they tried to squeeze all that in the ”Contents” page of the collected works and brevity seems to have won the day. And these days, if you say to people that you’ve just read Shakespeare’s play The First Part of the Contention… they’ll probably look at you blankly and say that he never wrote such a play. Of course, they may well equally well look at you blankly if you say you’ve read Henry VI (parts one, two or three), because of all Shakespeare’s history plays these are probably the least known and among the least performed. And that’s a great shame because they contain many great individual scenes of tension, conflict, turmoil, argument and struggle, between great characters who really are intent on getting what they want. And these scenes work great on stage. Everyone is jostling for position, scheming and making plans because Henry VI himself is a very weak king who can’t keep those around him in check. Upon re-reading it I again and again see similarities to the great mafia films like The Godfather –the power struggle is essentially the same, and this is very much a family matter, only here its the royal family with all its branches. Most of the main characters are related in some way, and this is part of the dilemma –who has a rightful claim on the throne? The play marks the start of the whole ”War of the Roses” struggle, culminating later with Richard III, but here we get to taste and see some of the reasons behind the conflicts of that future play. But keeping track on who is who in relation to who demands a bit of work.

Though it is perfectly possible to read the play as it stands, I have found it most helpful to have a genealogical table of characters in front of me throughout. This makes it much easier to understand the relationships between the various characters and those they refer to. Shakespeare isn’t always necessarily historically accurate, of course, and he bases his play on the history books available to him at the time, but what shines through is his characterization and the way he sets up each conflict to be a miniature battle. Soap opera has taken much of its dramaturgy precisely from this form of playwriting. Some of the verbal battles of The Taming of the Shrew are further developed here, though in a much darker way than in that previous play. We have another extremely strong female character in Queen Margaret –a woman who is not to be trifled with, and whose contrast to the cautious, vacillating King Henry could not be greater. Personally, I think she is one of Shakespeare’s most riveting and unforgetable characters, certainly among the most driven. She is a sort of embryonic Lady Macbeth, just as determined but even more dangerous and vindictive.

Then we have Jack Cade, the leader of the rebels who puts in a ludicrous claim to the throne and creates havoc until quelled. The fourth act more or less belongs to him, and this ”episode” is a whole drama unto itself, with a new set of characters comprising his followers –commoners, and presented as a sort of mirror court to that of the nobility. The tone of these scenes is feisty and urgent, and though not presented as comedic in any way, some of the plays few light-hearted moments are to be found here. Jack Cade himself is a very colourful character, and one that gives actors playing him a lot of opportunity for bravado and high-charged ranting. His demise at the hands of the person whose garden he breaks into is one of my favourite scenes in the play.

The play finishes in a way that whets our appetite for more, telling us just enough about what is to come that we get hooked –very much like today’s franchise movies do. As I put the play down I found myself already reaching out for the next part, eager to know how this continuing drama would unfold. And I’m sure that was Shakespeare’s intention.

Favourite Lines:

York:
Now, York, or never, steel thy fearful thoughts
And change misdoubt to resolution;
Be that thou hop’st to be; or what thou art
Resign to death –it is not worth th’enjoying.
(Act III, Sc.9 – the whole of the long speech that starts with these lines is terrific.)

Character I would most like to play: Richard Plantagenet -Duke of York (but Jack Cade comes a very close second.)

SHAKES-SCREEN: The Taming of the Shrew (1967)

Alongside my chronological reading of the plays of Shakespeare I will be revisiting or watching for the first time various filmed and televised versions of many of them, and posting a few remarks on them. First out is Franco Zeffirelli’s version of The Taming of the Shrew.

Shakespearean comedy has not always fared too well on film, and there are far fewer successful film versions of these than there are of the tragedies and other dramas. But there are one or two that do stand out and The Taming of the Shrew belongs to this select group. I think there are several reasons for this: the casting -which is magnificent and inspired; the acting -which balances just on the edge of ”over-the-top” without succumbing to out-and-out farce; the pace -which is boisterous and bonny; and the profusion of little touches and details of scene, direction and picture. It is like a series of rather fine paintings from the Renaissance that are brought before us and taken away just as we start to think a little deeper about what is being shown. Here, as in most good comedy, we are never allowed to dwell too long before the next chapter unfolds. Zeffirelli’s vision for this film is very theatrical, almost operatic, and he sees it through, so that it is a well-rounded whole; it’s certainly beautifully designed and fascinating to look at. I quite understand why the choice was made to focus on the main story of Petruchio and Katharina (Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor are terrific together), though purists may claim their histrionics flourish at the expense of the sub-plot, which is more heavily cut compared to its place in the original play.In Shakespeare's play much of the business involving the wooing of Bianca contains references that are less accessible to modern audiences than they would be to those watching in the 1590s. But I think quite enough is kept to retain the gist and thrust of the scheming. Bianca as a character does remain rather bland though, as indeed she does in the play.

The film does away with the framing device –the "Induction" that Shakespeare used in his play, so here there is no opening scene in England with Christopher Sly and thus what we are shown is presented as ”real” and not as a play being presented to this drunken character. Many stage productions do away with this frame device too, and most people are probably unaware that it is even part of the story.

There are many fine and colourful performances here, right across the board, but more importantly the cast works particularly well as an ensemble, each actor embracing the communal spirit of the piece and firing off each other. I find Michael Hordern deliciously perfect as the distraught father of the two girls . His facial expressions speak a thousand words and I think he gives one of the finest performances of his career; as does Burton. And Elizabeth Taylor is just fantastic.

The Taming of the Shrew (1967)
Director: Franco Zeffirelli
With: Richard Burton, Eizabeth Taylor, Michael York, Cyril Cusack, Michael Hordern, Alan Webb, Natasha Pyne, Alfred Lynch, Victor Spinetti

THE TAMING OF THE SHREW -The One With the Induction

The Taming of the Shrew is one of Shakespeare’s most popular comedies and one that has fared much better over the course of time than some of the others. Much of its comedy lies in its plot and characterisation. The situation is easily grasped, and the dilemma the plays seems to pose (the battle of the sexes) is as recognizable and irrestible to audiences today as it was when it was first performed. The characters spring up from the page with gusto, and I can’t help but feeling that Shakespeare must have really enjoyed writing this because the pace is so lively and fresh, especially the exchanges between Petruchio and Katherina. These two characters stand out, of course, but I think one of the reasons the play has endured is beause of the richness of the other characters, each of whom has shining moments. I particularly sympathize with Baptista, the father of the two girls. The sub-plot of the wooing of the younger sister, Bianca is understandably less appreciated than the main plot concerning Katharina and Petruchio and suffers somewhat because these characters are less colourful and Bianca herself seems less interesting than many of Shakespeare’s other romantic young ladies.
There are some problems with the text, often stemming from discrepencies in the narrative, location, and lines for particular characters. Many of these apparently are due to the printers of the first folio (in which the play was first published) following a rather poor transcript of the original play. Thus there are numerous things that do not make sense unless edited in some way. This could be said of the the famous ”induction” sequence that starts the play, because the whole business of the Christopher Sly ”frame” peters out after a while, which seems a bit unfulfilling. As my first encounter with the play was through the 1967 film version (which dropped the induction altogether) I was very confused when I first saw it on stage and did not recognize the start at all, thinking for a while that I had walked into the wrong theatre! It seems probable that there were originally more Christopher Sly scenes throughout the play, and these have sometimes been interpolated from an earlier play called The Taming of a Shrew which was based on what is assumed to be Shakespeare's original draft! These provide a more satisfactory ”rounding-off” of the play. Of the productions I have seen about half have included the induction and half haven’t. Both ways work, but any production of the play needs to address this matter. Shakespeare never used this device again to frame his plays, though there are numerous later examples of the ”play-within a-play” idea in his subsequent work, and I think it is something that must have appealed to him. Movies, incidentally, use the same device all the time –just think of The Wizard of Oz!

When re-reading the play another thing that strikes me is the amount of insults that are flung out by the various characters, particularly Katharina and Petruchio, and without making it a scientific bet, I’d say this play contains more insults than any other by Shakespeare. And such glorious insults too, often spewing out in a fountain of abuse, such as Petruchio’s dismissal of the tailor ”..thou thread, thou thimble, / Thou yard, three-quarters, half-yard, quarter, nail,/ Thou flea, thou nit, thou winter-cricket thou!” Often the exact meanings of the insults are obscure to us, but we certainly get their drift and Shakespeare must have delighted in conjoring up colourful language for characters as volatile as those we meet here. The cut-and-thrust, confrontational badinage between Katharina and Petruchio is also rich with verbal invention and creativity –as thrilling as a fencing match. The play has been much criticised for what is claimed to be cruelty towards women –the ”taming” of the title, and certainly the treatment of Katherina by Petruchio is shocking in many ways, but her own behaviour initially leaves a lot to be desired too and one somehow feels that ultimately these two characters deserve each other. I also choose to read the ending as rather ambiguous –who exactly has been tamed here? The play starts with a jumble of dissatisfied people and ends with everyone transformed in some way but seemingly content; order has been restored. It’s an enjoyable read, but even more enjoyable when seen on stage and perfomed with gusto!

Favourite Lines:
I knew a wench married in an afternoon as she went to the garden for parsley to stuff a rabbit.
(Biondello –Act IV, Sc.4)

Petruchio:
And you, good sir. Pray have you not a daughter
Called Katherina, fair and virtuous?
Baptista:
I have a daughter, sir, called Katherina.

Character I would most like to play: Petruchio

THE TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA -The One With the Dog!

I first read this play 17 years ago, but it left little impression on me then. So I didn’t really have any high expectations beyond getting through the text when I started on it again earlier this week as the first Shakespeare play on my chronological reading list. To my surprise, however, revisiting it gave me a whole new appreciation of what surely must be one of Shakespeare’s most underrated works.
Though it is not certain this was the first play Shakespeare wrote it is one of the earliest and is listed first in The Oxford Shakespeare’s Complete Works as well as in many other chronologies. It has often been dismissed as the work of an inexperienced writer, a mere curiosity, an immature piece –and by some critics the worst play Shakespeare ever wrote. Well, it’s certainly not the latter; nor is it a masterpiece, but it is the work of a master testing and finding his way in his early days. And two things struck me immediately upon reading it: its lively youthfulness, and the exciting way it seems to encapsulate –in embryonic form– almost every element of what endures Shakespeare’s plays to us today: themes, techniques, plot-elements and creative use of language that later bloom in more well-known and praised plays. And it’s so exciting to experience this! The play is refreshingly uncomplicated and there is a bursting form of creativity that makes me think Shakespeare already had so much more up his sleeve when writing it, but couldn’t get it all in one play; so there are samples of many different wares here, as if Shakespeare is trying out what works best. The version of the play we have today has numerous inconsistencies in geography, time etc. and the final act especially appears very rushed with far too much going on in so few pages, but this text could well have been, as it has been suggested, a shortened version of the play that was taken out on tour. In reading it, and certainly if mounting a production, I think one has to add quite a bit oneself, because in many ways one is presented here with a skeleton that needs to be fleshed out considerably to make sense. But precisely because of this I think The Two Gentlemen of Verona is a play that suits the freedom of modern production far more than it has been afforded so far. (I myself have never seen it staged, though the Royal Shakespeare Company revived it for the first time in years in 2014). I’d also say it is a wonderful play for schools to do because it is a play about youthful issues, written with a youthful perspective and because it allows for a refreshingly broad introduction to Shakespeare’s wonderful world without being bogged down by too much prejudice and the unavoidable baggage of so many more ”worthy” plays. Besides, and perhaps most important: It is fun, it is enjoyable, it has moments of fine poetry and great comedy, music, a good but not too complicated story and easily identifiable characters who are nonetheless not stereotypical but each live and breathe as individuals, including two marvellous, strong female characters. It’s a rom-com indeed, but with an edge, and a somewhat ambiguous ending that really is open to discussion. Shakespeare is more tidy with his endings after this, but here it can go almost any way. And on top of all this, of course, The Two Gentlemen of Verona features Shakespeare’s most famous non-speaking character, Crab, the dog –who bears (I think) the distinction of being the only canine in the canon!

Favourite Lines:
For Orpheus’ lute was strung with poet’s sinews,
Whose golden touch could soften steel and stones,
Make tigers tame, and huge leviathans
Forsake unsounded deeps to dance on sands.
(Proteus –Act III, Sc.2)

O illiterate loiterer!
(Launce –Act III, Sc.1)

Character I would most like to play:
Launce

ShakesYear – Kick Off!

Greetings to you all! I have called 2016 ShakesYear, and have decided to spend the entire year in the company of the Bard, William Shakespeare and re-visit his works, sharing some of my thoughts on both these and Shakespeare in general. He has been an inspiration, a guide, a subject of study and a huge influence in my life since I first encountered him as a teenager. Aside from his plays and poems I have read dozens of books about him, seen many, many films and plays, played numerous of his characters myself and directed others, talked about him to anyone who’ll listen and once even played Shakespeare himself in a one-man show about his life. But this year –the 400th anniversary of his death– I thought I’d do something that I have found to be incredibly rewarding in the case of other writers and artists. I call it CHRONOPRECIATION. Now don’t be alarmed; that’s just a word I coined (Shakespeare did this all the time when there wasn’t a fitting word around already). Chronopreciation simply means Chronological Appreciation and it entails working one’s way chronologically through the output of an author, composer, artist etc., starting at the beginning of that person’s artistic life and reading (or listening to or watching) each piece of work in the order it was written, or composed or made. I first started this method with the films of one of my favourite directors, Alfred Hitchcock, and I was astounded to discover just how much one film informed or influenced the next one in his canon and gave me a richer understanding and appreciation of not only each individual film (most of which I had seen many times before), but also of the whole body of his work. I then tried this method with Noël Coward (another favourite of mine), reading through his plays, stories, lyrics etc chronologically through the course of 2014. Last year I did it with Ibsen! It seemed only natural that this year it should be Shakespeare. I thoroughly recommend and encourage this way of really getting to know one’s favourite author, writer, composer, artist –whoever, especially if you think you already know everything about that person’s work. Usually we stumble across a book or play or film or album in a fairly random way, perhaps because someone has recommended it, and then if we like it, we search out other work by that person –the well-known pieces first, usually, and then maybe the lesser known or more obscure works. But it’s usually pot-luck what we find first and what we are exposed to next, and it’s seldom a structured activity. Chronopreciation (that word again!) is all about structure, but it’s not meant to be a restraint in any way. For a completist, it’s enormously satisfying, because it covers all those annoying gaps in the list of books to read, music to listen to, films to see etc. And, let’s face it, there’s a certain sense of achievment in getting through a whole list –any list! It takes a wee bit of planning and one has to have time, of course –there is no gain from rushing through a writer’s work as quickly as possible merely as a kind of challenge, for savouring each piece of work, reflecting on it, reading up on it is part of the pleasure and affords a richer appreciation of that artist’s work. You can decide how long you want to spend on the project or have no set schedule, but a year is a good frame to go by and is pretty adequate for most writers etc. Shakespeare wrote around 37 plays plus a good number of poems/sonnets. 37 plays to read in the course of year -that's certainly achievable. Ibsen wrote 27 plays, so I had about two weeks on each of those last year; with Shakespeare I have around ten days to get through each play and associated material (films, criticism etc.). Many of the plays I know very well already while some are less familiar, and there are one or two I have never actually read, even though I know of them by reputation or from stage productions; King Lear, for instance –a shocking admission, I know, but I have always ”saved” it for some reason! Inevitably when one starts at the beginning of an artistic career there will be lesser works to get through first, but this is precisely why chronopreciation is so valuable; works that may seem dreadfully trite or half-rate when read in isolation suddenly take on a new significance when seen in the context of the preceding work or the one that follows in the author’s canon –we experience the development of the artist and gain a door to the working of his creative mind. Shakespeare's early plays (especially the comedies) are sometimes dismissed grudgingly as mere curiosities –crude, dated and insignificant. Well, I happen to disagree. Of course, there are plays that work better than others, things that are harder to appreciate or fully grasp today or that actually aren't as good as what comes later, but I find the lesser plays just as interesting as the "masterpieces" –in many ways more so because we have been less exposed to them. I'll give each play my own mark, but both these and everything I write here is, of course, subjective and I am quite happy knowing that many people may have different views. Shakespeare can bear it! Ok, now the problems: With Shakespeare there is no worldwide consensus on the exact chronological order of his work, especially when it comes to the early plays. This is a whole field of scholarship in itself, but after reading up on the arguments for this and that view I have decided to follow the chronological list as set out in the excellent Oxford Shakespeare (Collected Edition) edited by Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor. Where there are different versions of a particular play I shall attempt to read through each. The sonnets and poems have their place in the chronology too. As for the actual volumes I will be using –well, finally I get the chance to raid my Shakespeare bookshelf and dig out all sorts of volumes that have been patiently standing there, waiting for their day! I have over the years collected dozens of different editions of individual plays, so I will try to encompass as many of the different series that I can through the course of my reading. In the few cases where I don’t have a single-edition version of a particular play I will revert to one of my two ”collected versions” –those foreboding volumes that so many people have on their shelves but seldom take down because they’re usually printed so densely that they scare off the casual browser. I’ll be presenting the various editions and plays as I go through them, and also some other Shakespeare books and bits and pieces that I find fun and useful. I’ll also try to add my thoughts on as many of the productions and films I see this year. And some thoughts on Shakespeare himself along the way. You're welcome to add any comments, of course. Finally, I have always felt that Shakespeare is best appreciated when read aloud rather than silently. As an actor I read almost any text that looks like a script aloud anyway by instinct, but with Shakespeare the words and lines really come alive when they are lifted from the paper. And for some plays, I’ll try to read in appropriate settings (I did this with Ibsen to good effect) –a forest for As You Like It, a castle for Hamlet etc. So if you happen to see and hear a starry-eyed actor reading aloud from a volume of Shakespeare in your neighbourhood, don’t be alarmed; it might just be me!