Archive for 2014/02/25

50 Shades of Shrew

Posted in The Taming of the Shrew with tags , on 2014/02/25 by mattermind

The Taming of the Shrew, Act V

The final act has proved confounding to many people for multiple reasons, mainly due to the nature of Katherine’s “subjugation speech” delivered to Bianca and the widow (and to all women by implication) at Petruchio’s insistence.  What is she (and Shakespeare) really saying in this ode to male domination?

Subservience itself is a pejorative term, so I must be careful how I describe what she says.  But it seems to me that there are only three fundamental approaches to the text:

1) As a paean to dominant-submissive relations (HINT: that’s where 50 Shades of Grey comes in.)  That blockbuster shocked the masses into recognizing that more than a few women get off on at least the fantasy of a dom-kitten relationship.  Whether that’s what Shakespeare had in mind is another enchilada entirely. 

If I’m persuaded by this argument, I would lean it more Biblical/Medieval ideal than kinky handcuffs and bondage – in keeping with the hotly contested notion (outside of Texas) of “virtuous kingly rule.”  By this parsing, all of creation is inherently hierarchical, starting with  a benevolent God and radiating downward.  Accordingly, males stands above females as king above subjects and God above kings.   This was the 1590s after all – hardly a bastion of progressive feminism even under a strong, take-charge queen.  Shakespeare would only be stating the obvious if he cited this “top-down” approach as his model.

2) Shakespeare, no surprise, was a misogynist like all other men of his era.  In their mind, the subjugation of women was a given.  Men held the power – despite the odd Elizabeth, Margaret or Matilda – and men therefore made the rules.  The only chance a female had to be esteemed as praiseworthy was to surrender her independence of mind, body and spirit – and smile about it.  Shakespeare quite naturally wrote from this domineering male vantage point.  His comedies – like the majority throughout history – were meant to be general, easily accessible, and thus pander to the peccadillos of the crowd.  He neither mocked nor flouted the cliched standards of his day – he goosed them for a good laugh and big box office.

3) Not content to settle merely for types, Shakespeare attempted to satisfy both the audience’s appetite for broad comedy as well as sneak in subtle ideas at work on multiple levels.  Ever-concerned with the nature and limits of perception, he wrote an unconventional love story about a man who teaches a woman a subjective truth buried under the cloak of mass perception.  Rather than bang her head repeatedly against a reality that won’t budge, Kate learns to play the outward game, allowing others to presume she has conformed to the rules while enjoying the private, inner freedom to laugh at them.  Wink wink.  Nudge nudge.  Great lovers always speak in a language that they alone understand.

Of these three options, #1 sounds the most plausible.  #2 the least likely.  And #3 the alternative reading for Bardologists such as myself who defend Shakespeare to the hilt as a singular genius who thought beyond the simple constraints of prevailing normative values.  When scanning the text, this is the only explanation for otherwise confounding scenes. 

It also helps us understand the love banter that develops between them, particularly when Petruchio asks her to kiss him in public:

KATE: Husband, let’s follow to see the end of this ado. 

PETRUCHIO: First kiss me, Kate, and we will.

KATE: What, in the midst of the street?

PETRUCHIO: What, art thou ashamed of me?

KATE: No, sir, God forbid, but ashamed to kiss.

And yet, by the end of the act, that’s exactly what she does.  In front of everyone.  Unabashedly.

There’s one more telling moment, and I’ll leave the play at that.  The final table celebration is a lot more jovial and banter-y than I had recognized before.  Barbed one-liners and sexual innuendo fly freely between guests, along with more than a few digs at Katherine for being a shrew.  What I love here is not only that Kate defends herself by going on the attack, but that Petruchio backs her to the hilt, taking a great pride in her assertiveness.  We see that she hasn’t subdued her high spirits, but rather learned to master them.  Petruchio not only vouches that he would bet on her in a fight, but he will raise the stakes twenty-fold when it comes down to a question about her character or faithfulness.

Now I realize that my opinion is only one of millions – and certainly not in the mainstream.  Yet, true to my vow, I have sincerely attempted to read the play from scratch with an open mind.  Therefore, I’m sticking to my guns, and ready now to move on.

But before I go, here’s one of my favorite scenes between a man and woman who need to redefine love on their own terms.  Enjoy!

Leave a comment »

He Kills Her in Her Own Humor

Posted in The Taming of the Shrew on 2014/02/25 by mattermind

The Taming of the Shrew, Act IV

In Shakespeare’s Philosophy, Colin McGinn makes it clear that epistemology (how we know what we know) was very much on Shakespeare’s mind.  Mr. McGinn did not mention Taming of the Shrew in his discourse, but his lesson has served me well and I find it anyway.  For such an understanding greatly aids my reading of the play – especially the formerly bewildering series of scenes in Act IV.

For it is in these scenes that Petruchio “tames” Kate by putting her through ordeals that seem like torture – or brainwashing at the very least.  He denies her food and sleep.  He flies off on unprovoked rages.  He denies her a perfectly lovely dress while upbraiding the tailor for what she judges to be commendable work.

The real question is why.  What is Petruchio after?  He states in a late-night soliloquy that there is a method to his madness.  But what exactly is his aim?

The simple reading would say: neither to be crossed, confronted nor contradicted in his authority as “the man” of the house.  This is what Kate herself believes at first, protesting that the worst part of Petruchio’s behavior is that he claims to be treating her this way out of “love.” 
Love?  Not any form of the word that she has ever known! And so she continues to resist him, asserting her independence in matters of taste and perception of objective fact.

It is precisely here that Petruchio applies the heat and pressure, insisting that Kate undermine her own logic to buttress his own.  Therefore, if it’s the middle of the day and the sun is shining, she must abandon what she knows and “agree” when Pertuchio praises the radiant moon.  When an old man approaches, she is bidden to acknowledge the lovely young maiden who makes her way towards them.  Her sense of reality thereby becomes unhinged from its independent track and gets hitched to his.  Just what sort of power-hungry lunatic is he?  Did he marry for simple-minded agreement to every whim and fancy?

It would certainly appear that way.  But I love what happens in the BBC production because it is at just this moment that Kate begins to laugh.  Not merely to giggle…but to split a gut. In fact, she finds it so funny that Lucentio calls her a “merry mistress” and wonders if his fellow travelers are telling him the truth or pulling pranks.

So why is Kate laughing?  Until now, she has consented to Petruchio’s whimsy only because it presents itself as the most expedient path to get what she wants: food, sleep, a hat, the trip to see her father.  At this point, though, something within her breaks.  And it’s because suddenly she grasps what Petruchio has been up to all the while, hitting upon the that fungible difference between reality and perception – and how it can be manipulated.

Her former “shrewishness” had served as a form of social protest.  Dwelling wholly in what is and what ought to be, she has acted out idealistically from a wronged sense of justice. Her father has preferred Bianca.  She has been labeled a shrew by the townspeople.  She has been locked inside a role that was only partly her own creation.

What Petruchio offers her is the chance to play with perception to her own advantage.  By acting a certain way or saying a particular thing, she can allow people to believe whatever they want; it will have no bearing over what she or Petruchio knows to be true.  By his willingness to flout convention, Petruchio has shown her that what they perceive doesn’t matter – he just needs her to see what he sees.

She gets that now.  Which is why we are so wrong when we accept the surface meaning to Petruchio’s behavior.  If we do, we fail the very lesson he tries so hard for Katherine to pass.  They are like two kids in a sandbox.  Until now, Kate has insisted that Petruchio’s imaginary friends aren’t real.  There are no unicorns or leprechauns.  No looking glasses or journeys down a rabbit hole.

Pay attention in Act V.  For that is where these lessons in misperception (the so-called “taming”) come to bear.

Leave a comment »