HENRY VI PART 1 –The One With Joan of Arc

Some academics place the writing of this play after the two other Henry VI plays, and as I am following the chronology as set out in The Oxford Shakespeare which argues this, I have now read this after the other two. And I have to say my gut feeling is to disagree with the view of the esteemed editors of that volume in terms of its chronology –I believe it was written before the others; chiefly because it seems to be very uneven in style and less mature in construction. I do agree with them in that it was probably written by several people, Shakespeare being one of them, and it is fairly easy to spot or ”feel” the different voices (or pens). Thus there are parts that are more effective and well-written than others, and the overall effect can be a bit disjointing. There are good scenes and plenty of drama, but in general the development of character is less mature than in the following two parts, which is logical considering those plays are far more likely to be the work of just one writer – our boy Shakespeare. Here though it seems to be a collaboration. It works as a whole, and is full of energy but as a play it is uneven and it is not surprisingly performed even less frequently than the other two plays about Henry the Sixth.

This is not to say it is a disaster or not worth reading –quite the contrary: early Shakespeare is some ways more rewarding to read than those great masterpieces of his mature years that are on so high a level of excellence and so skillfully written that we are not immediately aware of the craftwork. It is with the early plays that we get a sense of him at work, trying out things, learning his craft and sharpening his ever playful use of language. Henry VI Part 1 is like the work of an apprentice –but a very gifted one, who will later use things he learned and tried out here to greater effect.

There are two characters that stand out for me in the large cast of characters –Talbot, the pragmatic, loyal commander who has no time for the petty squabbles and intrigues of those who are supposedly on his side and who simply gets on with the job. The scene where his young son turns up to fight alongside him is the best scene in the play, and one of Shakespeare’s best father/son scenes. It’s brilliantly heightened by having their lines rhyme, creating a bond between them that is poetical and deeply moving. It’s almost operatic in style, and it is intriguing to wonder whether Shakespeare is putting something of his relationship with his own father in these lines. I choose to think so.

The other stand-out character is, of course, Joan La Pucelle –better known to us as Joan of Arc. She is a truly fascinating historical character in her own right and we cannot give Shakespeare credit for creating her, but her part is written with great relish and she electrifies each scene she appears in, without descending into caricature. She is clearly ”the enemy” but Shakespeare by and large presents her in a fair and sympathetic way –or rather a way that allows us to sympathize with her position Her language is that of a true warrior and most of the French nobles around her pale beside her. I found the scenes with her the most rewarding to read, and I think Shakespeare must have enjoyed writing them as they flow so easily.

Henry himself comes across in a rather wishy-washy way here –he is after all only a boy or very young man, and though the play bears his name it is more about the people around him who are all manoeuvering like mad. There is a great deal of family and inter-family squabbling, and once again it does help to have a genealogical table nearby when reading the play, just to untangle some of the relationships and alliances. Sadly, I have yet to see a full stage production of the play, though I remember fondly the English Shakespeare Company’s televised version some years ago which was part of their ”War of the Roses” project.

Favourite Line:

Sir William Lucy
O. were mine eye-balls into bullets turn’d,
That I in rage might shoot them at your faces!
(Act IV, Sc.VII)

Character I would most like to play: Talbot

SHAKES-SCREEN: Titus (1999)

Marvellously Shocking!

Having just read the play Titus Andronicus I was eager to take a look at the 1999 film version. I found it an uplifting experience, because though the film was quite different to my own visualization of the story, it was a perfectly consistent modern take that both respected the language and construction of the original play and provided an exciting, personal interpretation –respectful of Shakespeare but true to itself. In fact, I rate it as among the best screen versions of Shakespeare’s work. Perhaps because it also succeeds in balancing on a line that is purely theatrical on one side and purely cinematic on the other –so that though I often feel I am watching a film of a stage production, I never feel constrained by this; for the film is genuinely and richly cinematic. I am also extremely glad that a certain amount of restraint was shown in the direction –it could so easily have been totally overloaded with effects, forced gimmicks and gore, but here the visuals –and impressive they are– never overpower the language and the interaction between the characters.

The performances are of a high level throughout, and the actors are all comfortable with the language, which is a relief because so many other “modern” versions of Shakespeare suffer from an inconsistent mixing of acting styles that distract us momentarily from the story. Here there is no attempt to slur the dialogue to make it seem “real” –it succeeds because it retains its metre and theatricality. I think Anthony Hopkins’ performance is interestingly low-key and playful –the character itself is a difficult one to fully sympathize with– but Hopkins takes us down many different paths. He is both former hard general, ambitious and later grieving father, warm grandfather figure, madman, avenger –a complex character indeed. And again, the restraint in his performance says more than any rant. I also particularly like the pairing of him with Colm Feore as his brother. Alan Cumming gives a very memorable performance as the emperor –I found this character difficult to fully get hold of when I read the play, but the boldness and audacity shown by Cumming makes him very clear –and again it’s never over-the-top as it so easily could be.

I think it does help to know at least something of the play before seeing the film as there is no real explanation of exactly who is who to begin with and this may cause some confusion –the unravelling of characters and their relationships is equally challenging in the opening of the play, so the fault (if it can be called that) lies with Shakespeare. The whole first act is a bit of a mess –perhaps intentionally– and though we are able to work out who is who and what their relationship is to the next person, it does demand a bit of extra concentration at the beginning of the film that could perhaps have benefitted from some form of narration or on-screen signing. This is, however, my only complaint –otherwise I found the film marvellous; utterly shocking, of course, but marvellously shocking!

Titus (1999)
Director: Julie Taymor
With: Anthony Hopkins, Jessica Lange, Alan Cumming, Harry Lennix, Colm Feore

TITUS ANDRONICUS –The One With That Human Pie!

...Well! –it is hard to avoid being stunned into such terseness upon completion of reading this play, one I had not previously read or seen on stage and knew only from its notorious reputation for goriness. Several times as I read it I had to put down the text because I was numbed by the horror of what I was reading, for this is Shakespeare’s most sensationally savage play, and unlike that more renowned and stylishly heightened horror piece Macbeth, Titus Andronicus has a rawness and viciousness that is fascinatingly frightening to encounter. Written at a time when there was a trend for gore and sensationalism on stage, with a killing every few minutes, this play was one of Shakespeare’s most produced in his own time and probably is one of the reasons he became so popular a writer. Because it is shockingly ”good” theatre, providing just what the audiences wanted in a horrifyingly seductive way. It works in the same way that horror films do, or roller-coasters for that matter. I’d be fascinated to know how many people have fainted during performances of it, for I’m sure the number must exceed that for any other Shakespeare play. The number of characters who snuff it is also probably one of the highest for his plays; some barely last a moment on stage. But it is the manner of the deaths that is most shocking: This is set in a harsh period of history, centuries before Shakespeare’s own time (which itself wasn’t exactly humane), but serving sons up in pies to their mother is on a whole different level, even as an act of revenge. This is just one of several gruesome scenes that so easily could descend into farce of a very black kind if not seen in the context of the whole play or dealt with very carefully in a production.

It is a dark, troubling, upsetting piece –Shakespeare’s first tragedy, and bears signs of being the work of an enthusiastic but not yet fully developed writer, but it has terrific energy amidst its rawness and a clarity of thought and dialogue that, no matter how we feel about it, makes the lines jump off the page as we read them. And there are some real gems that make us step back a moment from all the gore –like the sobering words of Titus to his brother who has just killed a fly, asking him to consider the fly’s mother and father, for their sorrow at losing a child could be as great as a man’s. This is a terrific little scene that brings in a whole new element to our viewing of the story and of our own lives. Few of us have slaughtered enemies of Rome, but who has not swatted a fly and never given it a second thought? I have always liked such moments of reflection in Shakespeare –and I’ve come to realize that he has them in almost all his plays; moments where we are taken out of the story briefly and presented with an idea, a new angle on things, and this lingers in our mind. In Henry VI Part 3, for instance, there is the speech of Henry reflecting on being a shepherd rather than a king, and this is the same sort of thing. It is part of what makes Shakespeare so great.

I find the character of Titus himself to be quite difficult to fully understand, and though I was able to follow the unfolding story of his misfortune with ease and have sympathy with him in the middle acts, he does to a certain extent bring the tragedy on himself through his treatment of the prisoners he brings back in the opening scenes –killing the eldest son of Queen Tamora, already severely pissed off at being conquered. Her lust for revenge is right up there with Queen Margaret in the previous play (Henry VI Part 3) and with such a capacity for cold-hearted viciousness she makes Lady Macbeth look like a pussy cat. Were just these two characters (Titus and Tamora) pitted against each other, it would be in a sense a fair fight, but the real tragedy of Titus Andronicus is that of the secondary characters, and none more so than Titus’ daughter Lavinia –surely one of Shakespeare’s most unfortunate characters: jilted by the Emperor; her true love killed; ravished by two men; hands cut off: tongue cut out; then finally to be stabbed and killed by her father –her story arc is nothing but woe. Though she has few lines (even when she still has her tongue), she is the human centre of the play. Famously she was played by Vivien Leigh in the 1955 RSC-production with husband Laurence Olivier playing Titus. This is by far the most well-known production of the play. There have been others, of course, but like the other Roman plays of Shakespeare it is not produced very often –its gruesomeness is not necessarily good box-office, and companies wanting to go down a bloody path tend to go for the safer (and shorter) Macbeth. Also, as an early Shakespeare play it is always going to get less attention than the works that follow. But, I stress again: it is gripping ”theatre”, even when read, so do give it a go –if you have a strong constitution.

In my next entry I shall be reviewing the 1999 film adaptation (Titus).

Favourite Line:

Lucius
Bur soft! me thinks I do digress too much,
Citing my worthless praise. O, pardon me !
For when no friends are by, men praise themselves.
(Act V, Sc.III)

Character I would most like to play: Aaron

HENRY VI PART 3 –The One With the Paper Crown

Also known as The Third Part of Henry the Sixth, with the Death of the Duke of York (Folio of 1623 title), and The True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York, and the Death of Good King Henry the Sixth, with the whole Contention between the two houses Lancaster and York (1595 version), this play is my own favourite of the three plays about Henry VI. It’s certainly not the end of the story, because Richard III will soon follow, but it brings together lots of different threads and is in a sense a series of small dramas with no one character dominating throughout, but each having his or her ”moment” as the continuing struggle for power evolves. Thus it is an ensemble piece rather than a ”star” vehicle like Richard III. Richard himself (here still Duke of Gloucester) does steal almost every scene he is in, but it is mostly towards the end of the play that the focus shifts to him –a portent of things to come; and I am quite sure Shakespeare was already looking ahead to writing the play about his reign and looking forward to exploring this fascinating character more. Here Richard is coarser, more direct and more viscerally violent than in the play that bears his name (and where, though just as ruthless, he schemes with such deliciously evil charm). Here in Henry VI Part 3, however, we get much of the background to his character –how and why he became what he is– and quite often some of the latter scenes and speeches from this play are incorporated in productions of Richard III –the Olivier film from 1955 does this, for instance.

Act One of the play is one of the most dramatic of all the history plays, and there are some quite shocking scenes –torture, killing, taunting, and it doesn’t really stop until the end. The tone of the play is extremely grim and frantic, with the crown passing back and forth from side to side like a football, and the war causing the disintegration of moral codes and hardening of hearts as it rolls on. And as an examination of what war does to men, this play is Shakespeare’s harshest. One scene in particular stands out as a striking example of this –scene 5 in Act II, where a father who has inadvertently killed his own son and a son who has killed his own father in battle share the stage and lament, and are observed by King Henry, who is aghast at what he sees. It is one of the few scenes in the play that involves ”common” men, and must have packed as much of punch when it was originally performed as it does when we read it today; it is unusually modern, and quite outside the main line of the story, but it brings the war into instant sobering perspective, both to the king and, through him, the audience. Unfortunately, because this play is so seldom performed the scene is not very well known, but it deserves to be right up there with the best of Shakespeare.

The contrast between Henry and his wife, Queen Margaret, is stretched even further in this play than in Part 2, with Margaret’s viciousness reaching new heights and Henry’s diffidence making him touchingly sympathetic. It’s not that he does not wish to be king; he just would prefer it if the job did not come with so much trouble. And his gentleness among such harshness is curiously alluring. My second favourite scene in the play is the final confrontation between him and Richard who comes to the Tower of London to murder him. In their brief altercation lies all the differences between them, and for a moment or two Henry really shows his fire. This is a great little scene for drama students, by the way; and there are many other similar one-on-one encounters that make terrific workshop pieces. There are also some excellent speeches for both men and women that can be used for auditions. I myself have several times used Henry’s musing on how much more peaceful it would be to be a shepherd than a king (Act II, Sc. 5) for this purpose and in Shakspeare programmes.

The play certainly deserves more recognition and I thoroughly recommend reading it, though once again it does help to have a genealogical table close by to keep track of who is who. You are fortunate if you manage to catch a full production of it because when it is presented it is often an condensed version of Parts 1, 2 and 3, or 2 and 3. The English Shakespeare Company famously performed the whole cycle of history plays in the late 1980s and these were televised and issued on VHS. I hope they pop up on DVD some day as I remember being captivated by the energy of these productions, presented in a contemporary setting on a fairly bare stage which allowed the characters and words and unfolding plot to be in focus. The BBC also produced a fairly good version of this and the other Henry VI plays in their BBC TV Shakespeare series.

Favourite Lines:

Gloucester
But where the fox hath once got in his nose,
He’ll soon fins means to make the body follow.
(Act IV, Sc.7)

Warwick
Why, what is pomp, rule, reign, but earth and dust?
And live we how we can, yet die we must.
(Act V, Sc.2)

plus
All of Richard’s ”plan” speech
(Act II, Sc.2)

Character I would most like to play: Richard, Duke of Gloucester

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