Bad Shakespeare Takes England: Knight of the Burning Pestle

I ended up touring the Globe Theatre in London twice. I was supposed to see Knight of the Burning Pestle twice, too, but that idea got shot down quickly, as my wife had no interest in seeing authentic Jacobean Theatre by beeswax candlelight.

I can’t imagine why. 

Needless to say, I was excited to see Knight of the Burning Pestle at the Sam Wanamaker Theatre which is very Globe adjacent in London, England. Also, there’s a BBQ Joint right across the way - of course that’s another post. But it’s a pretty authentic theatre, and this was supposed to be a pretty funny show.

Of course, I didn’t expect the standing...

Let me back up a little bit, as part of the whole London Theatre Tour, we of course went to go look at the Globe, a replica of where Shakespeare put on some of his most famous plays. I had already gone to tour it during my vacation a few weeks earlier for Christmas, but I was touring again, this time in my official capacity as “student” and less in my capacity as “Shakespeare enthusiast.” 

Also, I say “replica” because there have, in fact, been three Globe Theatres total. The first one was was burned down when the special effects for one show ended up getting way out of hand. The second one was torn apart after the Puritans decided that theatre and entertainment was evil, and sometime just before they decided to take that trip over here to America to give us their own special brand of deciding things were “evil.” Eventually, Sam Wanamaker decided he’d had enough, and made his own Globe with donations because that’s what you do when you’re dedicated: You just go out and do it.

However, in Shakespeare’s day Theatre wasn’t popular enough (remember: They were totally cool with just letting it be torn down because “evil”) to really merit having it indoors, plus there was that whole thing of Thomas Edison not being born for another 100 years, which really handicapped his ability to create a light bulb sooner. As theatre grew in popularity, some of it was moved inside and done by candlelight. Since this was “December in London” and the weather in December in London is... well, it’s pretty horrible... the Globe itself wasn’t having anything outside, but instead was inside the playhouse, all done by candlelight.

That brings us to our presentation of the Knight of the Burning Pestle. In order to make it as authentic as possible, some of the cheaper “seats” were actually just spaces to stand behind a metal bar and look over the edge to see most of what was going on. 

Guess which “seats” the group-rate college students got?

Knight of the Burning Pestle is a play about a group of players trying to put on a production of another play, called The London Merchant. An angry Grocer and his wife are sitting in the front row and decide they don’t want to see that play, rather they want to see a play that glamorizes the grocing lifestyle, so they get the players to add their man Rafe into the production and add an entirely new section called “The Knight of the Burning Pestle” (a pestle, for those of who who like me didn’t know what it was until we were told by the handsome Rick Davis, is what’s used to mix herbs in a bowl called a mortar. Grocers would use them.) The London Merchant is a pretty standard tale about a rich dude that won’t let his daughter marry who she wants, with a sub-plot about an old man named Merrithought who throws his money away living a happy lifestyle and his wife leaving him because of it.

Sore legs aside, this one stands out as one of my favorites we saw while we were in London. Firstly, it was the funniest. I mean, part of the plot was a guy dancing in his underwear because he’s lost everything. “Merriment and mirth/will keep you from the Earth” was his refrain, and we sang it for a while as we trudged back across the bridge to catch our bus, legs on fire from standing for three hours. 

The cast took full use of the minimalist stage, coming out into the audience, even coming out to taste some of the ice cream of one of the random audience members that got a seat. Because the “audience” is part of the show, there’s a lot of nods and winks to the audience. 

This play was written by a playwright that wrote around the same time as William Shakespeare and was intended as a parody of the chaste romantic plays that were all the rage at the time. The “pestle” is often used as a double etendre, and one of my favorite exchanges involves the grocer’s wife (not forgetting names here... her character name is “grocer’s wife”) lamenting the loss of a child and Rafe offering to “give her a new one.” So the comedy is pretty funny, and the cast worked hard to ensure that everyone was in on the joke.

Overall, this was one of the more interesting experiences from my trip to England. It was a play as close to the Globe as I was able to see, being that it was cold outside, and I didn’t want to spend too much time standing outside. It was interesting seeing a play performed that I wasn’t familiar with from Shakespeare’s day, and still getting the joke because of the skill of the players. And it was just interesting to see something that is a parody, one of my favorite genres of today and how it translates across the page.

Like I said, this was one of my favorite plays. Some people were a bit divided on it because it did go all over the stage, and yes, we missed some of it from our unique vantage points atop the stage.

But it was a lot of fun. No one can argue that.

Bad Shakespeare Takes England: Training with the Royal Shakespeare Company

            Back when I was beautiful, I wanted to be an actor.

            Well, not an actor, per se, but I loved the theatre. Which is why initially ended up on a theatre tour of London that was specifically noted towards undergrads but I figured they’d allow me because I’m so handsome and awesome and why not? But I knew Rick Davis, the leader of our merry band of misfits, from back when I wanted to work with the theatre and be a director. I even continued this trip during my little jaunt down Education Way, when I took some classes in teaching theatre, because, well, I still love theatre in my heart.

            Of course, nothing could prepare me for the announcement that I would be taking classes with the Royal Shakespeare Company.  In Stratford Upon Avon. Mere Steps from where the man himself, Will.I.Am Shakespeare was born and got the inspiration to steal most of this most famous plays.

            (Hey, I’m the biggest bardolator you will find, but let’s remember that good writers write, great writers steal. It’s how we ended up with Fast and the Furious, Tokyo Drift.)

            Needless to say, after the squealing stopped (I found out about it in early December, I still had about a month and some change and that’s a long time to keep squealing like a fangirl at a One Direction concert. Are they still a thing? Zayn was carrying them for a while.) I was ready to get started to train with the Freakin’ RSC. The kings and queens of Shakespeare, the bard himself.

            I was a little bit nervous as I walked up the stairs that took me towards the theatre space where I would be training with them. As mentioned, the last time I was in any type of role that could be considered an actor, I really don’t think the world knew what a “Barack Obama” was just yet, and many of the members of One Direction were just learning to speak and had not yet been thrust into the spotlight.

            Sorry, this Zayn thing has really gotten into my head.

            Anyway, my group was filled with some really talented actors and actresses, and here I was, some guy that wanted to come along to analyze some plays and eat some of the best fish and chips on the planet. (And. They. Were. AWESOME.) But, I sucked it up, partly because I was graded, and partly because, let’s face it, it’s the freakin’ RSC, and how many other opportunities will I get to work with them.

            Once there, the lovely young lady who was leading the group started to talk to us about that night’s play, Love’s Labour’s Won or Much Ado About Nothing. As I refuse to refer to it as both for the rest of this post, I’m going with what the fancy British people told me to call it, and that is Love’s Labor’s Won, and since that’s a pain to keep typing with the whole apostrophe thing, I’m going to start abbreviating as LLW.

            So, the crux of LLW is the fact that it is one of Shakespeare’s most verbally challenging plays. It’s a prose play, which means limited use of iambic pentameter. So, this was going to be a lot of physical and verbal exercises.

            The whole thing started with us getting in a giant circle, and having to introduce ourselves with hand gestures. It helped at this point that we had all been hanging out for a week, so we all pretty much knew each other, but there were a few people who’s names I didn’t quite know and still managed to butcher when I did. (Sorry, Alessandro.) From there we moved on to movement, moving around the circle while saying everyone’s names, from there we started to move while NOT saying anyone’s name and cuing people non-verbally.

            Then we did this really cool exercise with some chairs where we tried to mimic each other as much as possible. It was a fun little trip as we tried to find more and more creative ways to top people, and ended up in a clap off with, once again, Alessandro. This was done because Benedict and Beatrice were constantly trying to one up each other in LLW with their dialogue, and we wanted to a visual cue of it.  It was actually pretty awesome.

            There were a few other exercises, but by the end we were performing scenes using narrators, and limited actors (in which I had a pretty interesting turn as Hero. This was Shakespeare. There were only male actors. I’d like to think I was the prettiest.)

            I’ve always been interested in acting along with the whole “play” thing (in which we capture the conscience of the king…) but this gave me a different understanding for it. All of the games, exercises, and whatever were geared toward better understanding the play we were about to see. And it started small. It started with just a few minutes calling each other’s names, getting to know each other. Because acting is very much a group activity. You have to play with the energy that you’re given. This is something that was very evident in the Scottsboro Boys, and something I’ll talk about when I recap their visit to our classroom. But especially a play like LLW, that lives and dies on the belief that these two characters are falling in love, or that three of these characters have been best friends for a while, or even when a certain Dogberry makes his presence known as the smartest…. Or luckiest guy in the room. These aren’t just random actions. These are cultivated from months of intensive work, from trusting your fellow actors, and from the risk taking that can only be had by making a fool of yourself a little bit.

            I’d like to think I held my own with the talented actors and actresses that allowed me to accompany them on the trip to train with the RSC. But we all have two bucket lists. One we admit to – Hey, I want to drop everything and take a trip to Japan one day… and another one that we don’t think will ever happen, not in our wildest dreams. “Hey, I want to take a trip to Japan and treat Nicolas Cage to a hot sake.” Training with the RSC, even for one day (let alone BEING IN Stratford Upon Avon) was on that second list. The Nicolas Cage list. And I got to do it.

Bad Shakespeare Takes England: Much Ado About Love's Labour's Won!

            So there I was, watching the Royal Shakespeare Company in Stratford Upon Avon put on Love’s Labour’s Won, more commonly known as Much Ado About Nothing…

            I struggled for a while on how I was going to start this post. Then I realized that the best way to do it was to jump right into it, because, I star Bardolator that I am, who has willingly sat through more Shakespeare productions than I can count, was now sitting in the Bard’s HOMETOWN watching the acting company DEDICATED TO HIS WORK, putting on a performance of my FAVORITE play of the Bard.

            Essentially I was in William Shakespeare Nerd Heaven.

            A quick bit of background that we’ll get into more detail next week (spoilers), but to help you out this week. William Shakespeare was born, grew up, and had a house in Stratford Upon Avon, but his theatre, the Globe, was located in London. Which means he was a commuter, going to London to put on performances and fall in love with Gwyneth Paltrow, but the RSC Theatre was placed in his hometown. So, this was still the closest I was going to get to William Shakespeare without a time machine, and The Doctor and the TARDIS doesn’t seem to be heading my way any time, nor does Doc Brown in his Delorean. Also, something something phone booth Excellent Adventure.

            Also, the big debate: Love’s Labour’s Won vs. Much Ado About Nothing. So, William Shakespeare wrote a comedy called Love’s Labour’s Lost, which is all about several princes that take a manly vow of chastity while deciding to pursue their studies, and naturally they meet the loves of their lives because Shakespeare invented all 1980’s sitcom plots. The story ends, unlike many of his romance/comedies WITHOUT a marriage. So, for a while a lot of people thought that there was a “lost” play in which they returned, more hijinks ensued, and then marriage. Some people thought that Much Ado About Nothing was the sequel, and it got a weird name. Others don’t care, and just want Joss Whedon to do another black and white adaptation.  However, Much Ado About Nothing is sometimes called Love’s Labour’s Won. The RSC, because they’re cool like that, simply paired the two up together and set them during World War 1 because England is acknowledging the 100 year anniversary since World War 1.

            As I’ve mentioned before when I reviewed Joss Whedon’s black and white version, Love’s Labour’s Won tells the story of a group of soldiers returning from War. (in this version. World War 1.)  They settle into the home of the wealthy Leonato, when the young Claudio falls in love with Hero. Don Pedro, Claudio’s… leader? General? It varies. Convinces her to fall in love, and as they pass the time they try to set up Benedict and Beatrice, two former lovers who are at a “merry war” with each other. At some point Don John, the Prince’s brother decides to intervene, but everything gets wrapped up in about half an act or so.

            Quick note: I get some pushback a little bit because I throw in the idea that this is one of his lighter plays, because towards the middle, through Don John’s boredom, he tries to wreck the marriage of Hero and Claudio by tricking him. And it is a pretty rough scene. But I’d like to point out that the whole “Hero is a cheating whore” scene lasts about five minutes, long enough for the Friar to say, “yo, something’s not right.” I stand by my assertion that ultimately, this s a bunch of bored people doing things to alleviate the boredom.  No sword fights, no real stakes, other than the brief mention that Hero and Claudio may not live happily ever after, and hey.. what’s a few brief death threats against friends?

            As I’ve said, this show was set in during World War 1, which I felt added some gravity to the situation. One of the issues with doing Much Ado/Love’s Won is the fact that these are very rich people doing very rich things, and essentially dealing in parties.  The characters are fun, but sometimes they’re difficult to relate, even though in the end, it’s the dumbest, poorest dude that ends up saving the day. No one’s bad behavior is punished… Hero marries Claudio and is waved off as “oops, my bad” and even Don John who’s motivations range from “cause I want to” because “Shakespeare must have been all out of motivations for the day” doesn’t get punished until, as Benedict calls it, “tomorrow.” But setting it during World War 1, these aren’t just rich people, these are soldiers that have seen enough.

            This does help solve the problem I mentioned earlier, too, by making Don John more than just a one-note villain, but by giving him a limp and the indication that he was wounded while the others were spared. The actor playing him was amazing, and brought some depth to a problematic character.

            Of course, no production of Much Ado/Love’s Won could be complete without mentioning Benedict and Beatrice. The love story of Claudio and Hero and their whole plot is pretty much to the side while watching, quite frankly, a very modern war of the words between the two. They nailed it. Because it was World War 1, Beatrice was played as more of a “new woman” being the only woman in the cast to wear pants. But the two actors who played the parts clearly  had clearly fallen into their roles wonderfully, and you got the impression that it was two people that had known each other. I mentioned earlier that they don’t really have sword fighting or a lot of action in this play: these are the scenes that make it up. Loved them in the roles, and I could have watched them spar for hours.

            The only detriment to the entire production, sadly, was one of my favorite scenes. In the play, Don Pedro, Leonato, and Claudio decide to trick Benedict and Beatrice into falling in love. These are typically some of the most comic scenes in the play, with the actors hiding on the stage in plain view, and it being evident to the audience what is going on. In this version, they decided to have Benedict hide early, then mug for the audience while the signature song “Sigh No More” was being played. I’ve heard a ton of versions of this song… jaunty from David Tennant and Catherine Noble.  A jazzier version in Joss  Whedon’s version. I’ve heard it more traditional. I’ve heard it fast, I’ve heard it slow.  And this version when with a slower, more somber version, which is fine. But to have Benedict hide behind the curtain and make faces… that took me out of the play a little bit. Fortunately it was made up later, involving a Christmas Tree.

            So, if I were you, I’d go see this version. What? It’s in Stratford Upon Avon and you CAN’T go see it? That’s where you’re incorrect, my friends. This AND Love’s Labour’s Lost are playing via the Globe Theatre on the Screen project. So, this is playing across the country in the next couple of weeks. So… here’s an early review. Go to your local multiplex and see if it’s playing! Then stick around for that new version of Cinderella. That’s not bad either.

            Next week: Bad Shakespeare TRAINS with Shakespeare!

Bad Shakespeare Takes England: All About Shakespeare!

So, let’s talk about Shakespeare.

The name of this blog is, of course Bad Shakespeare. You read it on the top. I’m a huge fan of the man, and yes, his writings. Yes, they were his writings, despite the various conspiracy theories that continue to persist despite all evidence to the contrary. And I was on a trip that focused on seeing primarily things involved with the theatre. So, we were in the land of Shakespeare, a scant few miles (or kilometers... damn metric system) away from William Shakespeare’s birthplace.... so yeah, I guess we did a few Shakespearean things while we were there.

What do you want to hear about first? The Globe? Shakespeare’s Birthplace? The Royal Shakespeare Company? Stratford Upon Avon? The 45 minute lecture we got from a tour guide about Shakespeare’s Daughter’s house? Anne Hathaway’s Cottage? The many, many jokes about Catwoman we made on the way to Anne Hathway’s Cottage? Bubbles, the Shakespearean Cat? The Royal Shakespeare Company Training session we did? Love’s Labour’s Won? OH, THERE WAS SO MUCH SHAKESPEARE!

Firstly, this won’t be contained in one post. I tend to go over, but I like to keep each post to around 1000 words. When I start to talk about our Shakespeare adventures, it’s probably going to be closer to around 2 billion words. (Conservative estimate.) 

Secondly, it’s my blog so I’m going to start where I darn well please. If you want to choose, then you start a blog, then go to England on a theatre tour with Rick Davis, then you have all these amazing adventures. 

I’m going to start with Shakespeare’s Birthplace. Not Stratford Upon Avon, where he was born, but the actual cottage in which Shakespeare was born. We’ll get to Stratford and it’s killer swans in a future post.

To answer some of your questions... yes. Shakespeare’s birthplace is a very touristy place. I mean, Stratford is nice, and a very quaint little village about two hours away from London. (one if you get the bus driver that took us back at night.) But at first glance, there’s nothing really remarkable about the city itself. It’s a small town, there’s that river next to it, and it has various shops, tourist spots, and swans. Lots and lots of swans. 

But all signs point to this small cottage in the middle of town, surrounded by a museum full of all things Shakespeare. It’s not a big exhibit... the most interesting thing is the original copy of the First Folio that sits in the center of the whole thing. Then there’s various references to just about everything Shakespeare has ever done or given credit to, which includes Hamburger Hamlet, which, if I were running it, would have the slogan, “Our prices are insane... or are they?” 

Once you get through the museum which contains a lot of Shakespearean facts, including stuff about his birth, marriage, the birth (and death) of his kids, the real main event takes you outside, briefly, into the beautiful England weather in December (re: cold and rainy, with the occasional burst of sun) and into this beautiful garden. Or... would be beautiful if it weren’t the winter. I’m guessing. But in the middle of this garden is a path, that leads you to this cottage that’s straight out of 18th century England.

Which make sense. This is the old Shakespeare place. The place. Where he was born.

Now, before I go any further, this is a life goal of mine, to visit the place where the bard was born. I think Rick Davis said it best: you can see Shakespeare’s plays in this place. (Keep in mind that grades have been posted, so I don’t have to suck up quite as much. He’s just that awesome of a person.) And he is right. The big thing that people get wrong when discussing Shakespeare is how could the son of a poor Englishman with no formal schooling be aware of any of the stuff that Shakespeare writes about. The answer is... well, for starters he’s not poor. He was actually kind of wealthy. Shakespeare didn’t have to write for food, he had to write because he was a writer. And the town itself is a character that Shakespeare manages to incorporate into his writings.

But that’s a post for the town. Let’ get back to the house.

Now, the house stands out - there’s old architecture throughout England, but none so old architectury (is that a word? I’m going to let it pass) as this tiny little house. And as with anything, it’s important to remember that Shakespeare was very successful in his time, but hasn’t quite reached the point that he was being studied and worshipped the way that he is today. (Had he known, he probably would have cleared up that whole “is the Ghost real” thing in Hamlet and he probably wouldn’t have written Titus Andronicus. Just throwing that out there.)

No, a lot of the house has been restored as a result of some dude named “Charles Dickens” who decided, “hey... William Shakespeare was pretty famous. Let’s restore his birthplace.” Yes, it’s odd to think that one of England’s most prolific writers was such a fan of another one of England’s most prolific writers that he had to restore his birthplace. So, the house is restored in some ways, so it’s not as if it was perfectly preserved from the first day that William Shakespeare showed up on this Earth and presumably cried his first sonnet.

Quick side note: They had a guest book from one of the first showings of the birthplace. On this is an actual page signed by... You guessed it... Charles Dickens. Mr Christmas Carol Himself!

But the house oozes history and Shakespeare. There are tour guides, as is to be expected with any historical location. What this place has, though, are two actors that sit in one of the rooms upstairs and can perform a scene from any Shakespearean play, on command. ON. COMMAND. So, for instance, we asked for a scene from Love’s Labour’s Won (Or Much Ado About Nothing) to be performed for us... they not only did a scene, but a song from the production. 

One of the debates we had were whether or not the “house shakes with the words of Shakespeare” as Professor Davis put it. I mean, at the end of the day it’s just a house... wood and stone. But for me, it was a spiritual experience. This is a house that birthed one of the greatest writers ever. And I don’t mean just the fact that he was born in the house, as so many people were of his generation. I mean he took his first steps, he developed an interest in writing there. When he decided he was going to be a writer, where was he? When he wrote his first inevitable thing that all writers write that’s silly and we throw it out (mine was about dragons)... what was it? What inspired it? Landmarks are funny... how much do they really influence us? How much do they have a say in how we view a person or a place? In this case, it didn’t really change too much for me... I love Shakespeare for his words and his turn of phrase. But to be able to reach out and be in the same space as the man... it meant a lot to me. It filled me with confidence. It energized me. 

Coming up next week: We review Love’s Labour’s Won... World War 1 Style!

Bad Shakespeare Takes England: Shakespeare in Love: The Play.

So, one of the reasons I was in London was for a class in Theatre, taught by the handsome and talented Rick Davis. I should also mention that in addition to be fabulously handsome and so amazingly talented as an inspiration, he hasn’t put final grades in just yet. So... someone let him know about this first paragraph.

Moving on.

Theatre is HUGE in London. There are more theatres for plays than there are movie theatres, and I was fortunate to see 11 plays while I was there. ELEVEN. Nine with my class taught by the fabulously handsome Rick Davis, and two on my own because I’m not made of Pounds, which turns out are worth more than the American Dollar. Fortunately they love students there, and they love their half priced theatre tickets, so you can wander in off the street and get a good deal on just about any play you want to see, so long as it’s not Book of Mormon.

So, obviously, I’d be doing you a disservice if I didn’t pepper in a few stories about the plays I saw there.

I’m going to start with the last play I saw, because I decided to go see it when I saw the first advertisement for it, then I decided I wasn’t going to see it because it was too expensive, then I decided I was in London once and why wouldn’t I take advantage of seeing whatever play I could possibly see.

The last play I saw on my own was the spectacular new production, a Romantic comedy called Shakespeare in Love.

Look, sometimes you want to be inspired by going to the theatre. Sometimes you want to be challenged. Other plays challenged and inspired me. Sometimes you want a good time. For my last night in London, I wanted a good time. Shakespeare in Love was that good time. I had a wonderfully good time, and I’ll tell you all about the challenging (I’m looking at you, Golem) and the inspiring (I’m looking at you, Scottsboro Boys) and even the terrible (How do you make the go-to adventure novel, Treasure Island, boring?) but for today, I’m going to tell you about my good time in the theatre and that was Shakespeare in Love.

Boo-ya.

Now, one of the big things our wonderfully inspiring Professor put into our heads was this: in order to be critical about plays, we should never start with “I Liked it.” It’s a controversial statement, and we need to focus on what he referred to as “Reportage” because we were in Europe and he was going to sneak in as many european words as possible. We needed to tell about the play, talk about it’s elements, and then we get to even think about whether we “liked” it or not. Even then it’s controversial, because in the long run we are there to report and distill our opinions from that.

Therefor, in an effort to be as controversial as possible, I’d like to start off by saying... I really, really, really liked Shakespeare in Love, the play. (The movie was ok, too, but I need to bring in a distinction, because the play was roughly a billion times better than the movie.)

There. I made my controversial statement but it’s not without its purpose.

Shakespeare in Love is a play written by Lee Hall, based on the movie of the same name by Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman, and features the same Academy Award Winning plot: Young Viola knows all of dialogue from the plays of William Shakespeare and wants to be an actress at a time when women even going to the theatre was considered an indecency. We probably shouldn’t go back in and tell them that much of popular culture has been devoted to the female booty this past year. Or maybe we should. Disguised as a man, she meets the Playwright William Shakespeare who is going through a problem of his own with writers block while trying to write his new comedy “Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate’s Daughter.” Eventually he sees through her deception, the two fall in love and of course, hilarity ensues. Well, some tragedy. There’s plenty of tragedy involving a marriage and well, the acknowledgement that William Shakespeare was married to Anne Hathaway at this point, so romancing a young actress is pretty much status quo in today’s times, it’s probably still a little taboo back then. After all, this is something very loosely based on the story of William Shakespeare, a man who once wrote that a man gets randomly attacked by a bear while exiting because there wasn’t enough death; it’s not going to be all happy endings.

The play takes place on a set that is designed to look vaguely like the Globe Theatre might look had England not managed to go through two of them before the third one that stands today (more on that later), which is a nice reminder that this is Shakespeare, and that he wrote very much from his own life, even with this fictionalized story. It’s a bold statement presented right up front: Shakespeare wrote about life itself, this is not to be forgotten, even in a light romantic comedy. Indeed, even the start of the play itself starts with William trying to write, and all of the characters gathered around him, trying to see what the next piece of great literature that may explode from his pen might be, as he grows increasingly more frustrated. One of the greater designs of this set is the ability for it to swing back and forth so the audience is quickly brought backstage as needed. Or a bar. Writers do enjoy writing within bars.

One of the better elements as well was the use of practical elements on the stage. When Will and Viola are rowing across Thames for her to get home, they sit in an arrangement of chairs that vaguely represents a boat, not an actual boat, while characters off to the side actually generate the sounds by dipping their hands in a pool of water. Later, when rose petals drop from the ceiling, they are dropped by several actresses who are standing above the stage. Despite the fact that this is a very 21st century production, every attempt is made to invoke the feeling of being sent back in time to Shakespeare’s day with limited props, minimal set, and practical effects that add to the experience. Really the most 21st century thing about the production is the aforementioned moving set, but even that doesn’t feel out of place... it brings us all in on the experience. We are now co-conspirators, coming backstage with the characters as they bring their new tragedy, “Romeo and Juliet” to the audience.

And that’s the thing about the play. As I’ve mentioned, the opening image, is that of the characters - all of them - gathered around William Shakespeare. The ending image is the same. Rather than an attempt to distance the audience from this genius, the play itself goes out of its way to remind everyone that Shakespeare was a man of his time and place. His writing endures because he is a man who saw the world around him and wrote about it and allows us all to draw our own conclusions from it. He’s a man. And that’s what made him so great. This play gets that. It may be “light.” It may be “funny.” But it reminds us of what this one man was capable of, and why we still read him today.

But ultimately... it was just a good time. 

William Shakespeare vs. The Pirates!

Time for a Bad Shakespeare 450 Friday Fun Fact! Well, fun if you like Shakespeare. Otherwise it’s probably just a fact. Either way, here you go.

There is some debate on whether or not William Shakespeare was “real.” There are several theories, including the Oxfordian theory that states his works were written by the Earl of Oxford (and the subject of the movie Anonymous) and the Marlovian Theory that states that his works were written by Christopher Marlowe, a contemporary of Shakespeare.

I’m going to save everyone some time, if you bring these theories up to legitimate scholars of Shakespeare, they’re going to spend a while debunking them, mostly because they’re not true. Seriously. Don’t do it. You’ll find a lot of sub-groups (and a million other theories) but he was a real person, and most evidence pointed to the fact that yes, he wrote many of his own works.

Time for the shocking reveal. The writer of many of William Shakespeare’s works is.. William Shakespeare. Yes, there is evidence that he collaborated with dramatists in some of his works such as Titus Andronicus and Henry VI. There’s evidence that many of his works are based on other works, or as we call them today, “reboots.” And there’s evidence that some of his works were re-written, like Macbeth, which makes sense since everyone said it was cursed.

Why do people still question if William Shakespeare wrote his works, despite the fact that there’s a lot of evidence that he didn’t. There are many reasons, I’m going to just outline a few.

-Piracy. Pirates ran rampant back in ye olde England. I don’t just mean the cool, Johnny Depp, Shiver-me-timbers, time. Actors, which were once considered lower than thieves, would work in troupes. Sometimes, local actors would be hired if there weren’t enough parts of the troupe. Those actors, not being paid much and not being respected, would often run to book publishers and say, “Hey, I just got the script for the new Shakespeare” and recite parts of it, or parts they could remember, resulting in a few different versions. William Shakespeare didn’t write too much down, didn’t give it to actors, and didn’t even publish anything for years and years. Of course, publishing wasn’t easy back then because...

-William Shakespeare didn’t have an easy name to spell on early printing presses. Yes, William was easy. Look at all those straight lines. But then he had to mess it up with the last name “Shakespeare. See that “e” followed by that “s”. Those two letters weren’t easy to put together, so when it was published, usually by pirates, they would leave off the “e”, thus leading people to believe that he didn’t know how to spell his own name. Of course he did. Which leads me to...

-The mistaken belief that William Shakespeare was an uneducated, penniless, actor. Actually he was kind of rich. And he left none of it to his wife, Anne Hathaway. Not Catwoman. But that would make the story more awesome, so if you want to believe William Shakespeare hung out with Catwoman, please feel free. We all like to believe the first part because again, back then actors weren’t exactly treated like treat them now. Also, the “uneducated, penniless” part is used to ask, “How did he know how all these kings live?”. Because he was smart and he did research. Remember, Shakespeare stole... um, “rebooted” everything he wrote, except for possibly his last play.

So the next time you’re out at the bar and the question comes up of Shakespeare’s authorship, you have three handy little facts to dispute the person making those claims, and win over the girl/guy you’re trying to impress. 

You’re welcome.

Tom Hiddleston: Charismatic Bad Guy

Recently, I went to go see Coriolanus at the Shakespeare Theatre, specifically in the Sydney Harman Hall, where I once made it through an entire tribute to Michael Kahn, including meeting the man, without once dropping to my knees and yelling, “KAAAAAHHHHNNNNN!!” at the top of my lungs. I’m pretty proud of myself for that. 

This particular production was part of National Theatre Live, where it broadcast a recent production of the play from the Donmar Warehouse Theatre in London’s West End, and starred Tom Hiddleston, probably best known for managing to out-handsome the main character in Thor, and Mark Gatiss of Sherlock’s Brother fame. It was a pretty cool production.

For those of you who don’t know Coriolanus is one of Shakespeare’s later plays, and the last one set in Rome. It’s about a general named Caius Marcius, who’s this really cool general, but the common folk hate him. Which is ok, because he hates the common folk, so it’s mutual. He gets word that there’s a Volscian Army about to go fight Rome, so he goes and fights, personally taking down (but not killing) the leader of the Volscian Army. Later, he’s told by his mother (and man... does this guy have some mommy issues) that he should show off his scars, then run for what amounts to a pretty high political office. Fresh off his victory he easily wins the support of politicians who wish to glom on to a war hero (my, how times have changed) and then eventually starts to win over the people, but naturally two other politicians who hate him get in the way. Caius speaks loudly against popular rule, he’s condemned as a traitor, then he goes and finds the General of the Volscian Army that he recently defeated and joins up with them. Because he wants to fight. Rome, realizing there’s a problem with this great general joining their enemies, tries to persuade Caius to come back, eventually settling on sending his mother to go find him and tell him to come home. Eventually, Caius decides to make peace, and in true Shakespeare fashion, once he learns his lesson he’s brutally murdered by the Volscian General he spared earlier.

As I mentioned earlier, this isn’t one of Shakespeare’s more well-known plays. The main character Caius who later gets the nickname “Coriolanus” doesn’t spend a whole lot of time giving reasons for what he does to the audience, he spends a lot of his time “doing” which I find interesting. However, after discovering it, Coriolanus has become one of my very favorite Shakespearean plays, and it’s lead one of my very favorite characters, in probably just about anything.

I mentioned in my very brief review that doesn’t do the play any justice, that Coriolanus is a general, and has a complicated relationship with is mother. One that would probably make Norman Bates take a step back and say, “whoa. Let’s calm down a little bit...” She spends most of his life convincing him to be a great fighter, general, and overall hero, and he does it. He almost becomes a robot, unwilling or unable to think of anything else. Indeed, his tragic flaw is that he’s so focused on this one thing that once he gets it, he can’t move on. When asked to be a spokesman for the people, he can’t fathom speaking for people so below him. Rather, he wants to fight so badly he goes an joins his enemies because that’s what he’s been trained to do.

I wanted to bring up this play, other than the fact that watching it from the Donmar was an awesome experience, and I had an awesome friend to share it with (quick sidenote: get an awesome friend to share Shakespeare stuff with. Makes the experience so much better) because I can relate to the character of Coriolanus so readily.

No. Not the mother issues. She reads this blog regularly. Hi, Mom! And I don’t want anyone to mistake what I’m saying.

Coriolanus is a man who’s pushed his whole life to be one thing. He gets pushed to the point, and expectations get piled on him so high that when he’s asked to go in another direction, it’s really easy for him to be tricked into throwing it all away, and then running back to what he was good at... because he’s constantly told that’s all he was good at. I think too often we all fall into this Coriolanus trap. We all decide at one point or another that we’re “good at something” or “not good at something” and fall into familiar roles. In Coriolanus’ case, it was so extreme that he just wanted to be a general, it didn’t matter that he was now going to be a general for the army he just defeated, and he was going to go off and fight his friends. Essentially, Coriolanus was a monster, created by his situation, and then everyone was baffled when the monster turned on them. 

But for how many of us, how many times to we get stuck in positions where we are told we need to be a certain way, then do it, and are unwilling to take a risk that we just might suck at something? We’re all told: “You’d be great at this” or “you’re such a great XXXX” and then we don’t leave, because we’re being told by people that we need to stick out what’s familiar instead of trying to pull together what’s unfamiliar and uncomfortable? I know I feel like that. It’s one of the reasons I went so far into my teacher training: because I believed I wouldn’t be any good at the thing I really wanted to do. And I suffered for it. Big time. 

Coriolanus is a complex character, but one that flies under the radar. He doesn’t have the fame of Hamlet, nor the flashy race-based issues that can be applied today that Othello does. He’s not really manipulated by his wife like Macbeth, nor does he have the sheer foolishness of Lear. No, most of his story is told off the page, and we get a quick glimpse into what happens when an entire life leads up to a moment, then he’s told to change. He believes he’s superior to everyone. And that deeply affects him, because when he’s told to humble himself, he just can’t do it. Oh, there are conspirators... Rome always seems to have them. But that’s what I like about him. He’s a man who’s trapped by his own self. And I don’t think we realize just how often we all get trapped by own our selves, we get in our own way. Coriolanus wanted to be a great man, and returned from war a great man. 

It’s easy to point to a tragic flaw in Shakespeare’s Tragic Heroes. And we will often do that, and then it’s easy to judge. The thing about Coriolanus is that he was failed. He was failed by people around him who were supposed to help. 

What I relate to about this character is the fact that he was trapped. He was trapped by his sense of self, and who he was. He walks into the play knowing who he is. He spends half the play knowing who he is. The problem comes when he stops being who he is, and then tries to be something else for everyone else, because they all say “that’s what you should do.” I think its important that we all go back to that one idea that we are true to ourselves. 

Whew. Got a little preachy at the end. I promise they won’t all be like this!