SOA Fridays: The Supernatural Element

In studying Sons of Anarchy for it’s Hamlet connection, there was one aspect of the show I was wondering how, exactly, I was going to explore. It’s an interesting aspect. Namely, the supernatural element found in Hamlet, and how Sons of Anarchy, a show that isn’t very supernatural (aside from Charlie Hunnam’s magical abs). However, Sutter found an interesting way to incorporate it with the Homeless Woman.

Now, Hamlet isn’t necessarily a supernatural play. It’s actually a play about fathers and sons. (which Sons of Anarchy plays up very well… almost as if they are talking about it in the title itself!) But the whole “hey, there’s a ghost” is actually pretty ambiguous. In the first scene there are three people who see a “ghost” but it’s made pretty clear they’re the night watch and not extremely reliable. In the third act, only Hamlet can see the ghost, and he tells Hamlet pretty much what he’s been wanting to hear from the get-go: kill Claudius. In fact, some productions of Hamlet skip the ghost altogether, and suggest that most of it is in the mind.

It’s important to note here that Shakespeare had no problems in saying when it was time to call in Sam and Dean Winchester to do a little demon slaying. The supernatural drives most of Macbeth, which includes witches, ghosts, a ghost dagger, and an evil cat. (That probably caused most of what happened in the play. Just sayin’.) Midsummer Night’s Dream loves to talk about it’s faeries and other woodland creatures prancing about, mocking us foolish mortals. So I really feel the ambiguity of the ghost in Hamlet is often underplayed by scholars and people who think they know what they’re talking about. 

But back to Sons of Anarchy. In the first season, in an extremely innocuous scene, Gemma is leaving a store when a homeless woman starts talking to her, asking for money. Gemma gives her some, the Homeless Woman responds that she can help her kids in a phrasing that scares Gemma a little. Jax later sees her just before Donna’s funeral, as she has covered him up when he fell asleep at the cemetery. It’s important to note that these two characters are the only ones who have an interaction with the Homeless woman as she pops up, and both of their first interactions with her involve them showing her some kindness. She’ll continue to show up, usually when a big decision had to be made, or when there’s a large shift in power or the status quo. (Abel’s kidnapping in Ireland, before the dogfight rescues…)

So… who is she and what does she represent? Is she even real? Some of her possible backstory is given, that she may have been killed when John Teller’s motorcycle collided with a truck. (given in the sixth season). 

It’s kind of difficult to discuss exactly who she is, not knowing how the series ends, but I don’t want to wait that long to speculate about her. Knowing that she has a connection to the death of JT, which is part of the show dynamic, and when she shows up, makes her an interesting part of the show dynamic. She’s almost a sign, a signifier of things to come. When she shows up, something’s about to change. In the first season, her appearance comes right before Jax decides he’s going to challenge his mother and step-father for what they have done. She shows herself to Gemma in the second season at church, as Gemma needs healing from her rape and before Jax goes Nomad to escape the current regime. She’s in Ireland when Jax decides to let the nice couple keep Abel. She shows up just before Tara’s kidnapping which results in her hand being destroyed. 

It’s very important to note that those last two incidents occur further away from the action. One is in Ireland, the other is on the road to Oregon. And in both instances, it’s only Jax that sees her. So she really does show up in moments when things really are about to change for the Motorcycle club.

It’s also possible she represents some kind of guilt. Her appearances, while coming at a time of change, usually come at a moment when something bigger has happened, something that needs to be aired either for the good of the character, or the good of the club itself. Not always big. 

The show’s creator, Kurt Sutter only has glib responses when asked about the Homeless Woman, and rightfully so. She’s obviously a symbol of something larger, and to be just “told” what she represents takes away what she means.

I’m interested in finding out what she represents in the larger picture, and that can only really be told after the fact, when the show closes out. (possibly with the death of Gemma and Jax. Sorry, kids. It’s going to have to happen.) It’s possible that the last scene of the series is going to be her walking away from all the wreckage. Or maybe she’ll be seen by one of the boys who stands to inherit the Sons of Anarchy gavel from Jax in many, many, years. I’m not sure.

I’m glad that this detail was added to the show, it adds another layer of complexity to a show that can be too easily written off. 

Sons of Anarchy Friday: Gemma

When I was first told about Sons of Anarchy and the Hamlet connection, I wondered about setting the play in motorcycle club. Mostly because Hamlet takes place in a society with a very rigid set of rules: there’s a dude in power, there’s a dude who wants power, and there’s a guy who kills the dude in power then steals his woman, and the only one batting an eye about the whole thing is Hamlet, and ultimately it’s because he may or may not have seen a ghost. I didn’t think it could be done, I was just wondering the hierarchy, or at least the world that’s been created and they’ll do the father/son, ruler/follower, mother/son dynamic. Kurt Sutter hit it out of the park by establishing all the rules in a Motorcycle Club like Sons of Anarchy, whether real or made up, and they all makes sense.

That of course, brings us to the Gemma character. One of there rules of the society is that nothing is kept from the “Old Ladies” or the women that stand behind the men. In fact, their role of keeping the club together, even if it’s with a “family dinner” is established from the beginning. The women of Sons of Anarchy are treated with respect, or else. Yes, some are treated like property, some are treated badly, but rarely does something happen to one of these women without some serious, serious payback. 

Spoilers, by the way, for some of the later seasons. I’m caught up through season 5, and yes, I know what happens in season 6. With a fork, people. A major death happens with a fork.

Gemma is the matriarch of the Sons of Anarchy, father to our Hamlet Jax, formerly married to our Hamlet, Sr. John Teller, and currently (at the start of the show) married to club president, best friend to John (one might say… brother) and step-father to Jax, Clay. She definitely knows what is going on within the club, very little is kept from her for very long, and she clearly knows the scheming that Clay is doing most of the time.

This includes, of course, the fact that Clay killed John Teller before the show started, and most likely had a hand in it.  (Like I said, spoilers.)

She has her share of bloodshed as the show goes on. One of the more disturbing story lines involves her kidnap and rape to “send a message” and her refusal to speak about it until she absolutely needs to. (It brings together Jax and Clay on a key issue, when Jax was about to leave due to.)

These are all interesting choices for a “Hamlet” type show, especially as Gemma is in the Gertrude part. The play Hamlet leaves the door open for a lot of interpretation, including whether or not Hamlet saw a ghost, but also just how much Gertrude was involved with everything. In some versions (or according to some scholars) she was a co-schemer, wanting to kill her husband to get her lover, his brother Claudius to the throne. Some believe that while accidental, this is why she ended up drinking the poison first. 

However, a vast majority play her off as someone who does’t know what’s going on, oblivious to Claudius, and wanting nothing more than to remain near the seat of power, so she remains with Claudius. (Some still think that he just offers her a kind ear.) It’s really up to the person interpreting Hamlet to think about Gertrude as a character. It’s telling that Hamlet, while making up his mind for 400 pages, puts most of his rage against Claudius not his mother.

Kurt Sutter, the creator of Sons of Anarchy, never shies away from the fact that Gemma knows what is going on. She covers up her involvement with JT’s death whens Tara (Jax’s “old lady”) finds the letters. She is clearly aware when Clay’s involvement ends up in the deaths of Opie’s wife, and in fact works to hide that fact. She’s just as scheming as Clay.

This is sort of a bold statement for a TV Show. Here you have a character that would be extremely easy to cast someone in the oblivious role and sort of play it off as Gertrude has been played off a million times: loyal to her man (as Gemma is) loyal to her kingdom (same thing) and loyal to her son. (Gemma.) But instead, Sutter when all out with it and said: where we go, Gemma is in on it, and she’s probably just as scheming and probably just as evil as Clay. Remember, one of the earliest lines of the show (and one of the best for me) is “let’s make sure he’s listening to the right father.”

Especially in later seasons as Clay (spoiler) loses his power and dies, she’s still scheming. It’s almost as if Sutter has positioned her to be the ultimate big bad of the show, the ultimate villain.

In this interpretation, is he trying to tell us something about Gertrude? I like to go back to the source material at times, and this is no different. I’m really enjoying thinking about this differently… While Claudius is scurrying around the castle, worried about Hamlet, and Hamlet is putting on fake plays and taking forever to decide to act, maybe she was scheming? Maybe Gertrude is the true villain, dispatched before she can release her real plan… remember, Hamlet is filled with rage when he fights Laertes, and he knows his Uncle-Father is responsible for the death of his Father. (or at least suspects it.) No matter who wins the duel, she can still remain in power, possibly with a lot less pressure. Sutter seems to have had this deep reading of Hamlet, and potentially put all of that into Gemma.

Again, this is deep reading, but I find it to be interesting. Yes, we have a danger when we take a show that’s “inspired by” and try to match up all the pieces… I don’t think SOA has a direct match for all it’s characters in the show, but perhaps this is a cool way of showing us some interesting insight not just into a character on the show, but into a character so deeply entrenched as an innocent victim of Hamlet’s cycle of revenge, it’s something worth checking out.

Bravo, Mr. Sutter… Bravo.

SOA Fridays: Hamlet vs. Hamlet

I had heard about Sons of Anarchy a long time ago. It wasn’t that I was uninterested in watching the show, it’s just that for all my talking about TV shows and movies on this blog, I don’t actually spend a whole lot of time watching TV Shows. Movies is another story. I could go to the movie theater right now and spend the entire day there. I won’t argue that with anyone. But my point is that it wasn’t snobbery or anything like that kept me away from what is turning out to be one of my favorite television shows... just time.

Anyway, I was told about Sons of Anarchy and that I should be watching it if I liked Breaking Bad . Not just the Netflix “if you liked” random generator that isn’t always accurate, but by real live people who know and love me. Then I was told by a friend of mind that Sons of Anarchy was a Hamlet story, and I had to jump on it. I still wasn’t sure I was going to write about it for this blog, mainly because of what I had written previously about Breaking Bad. 

Remember, I wrote about Breaking Bad because I felt it had Shakespearean Elements, not because it was a direct adaption of anything. Walter White is the perfect character that Shakespeare would have written about: a defeated man who finds strength and his taken down by his tragic flaw. I mean, that’s classic Shakespeare right there. And there’s a ton to explore: themes, characters, etc. I’m not jus comparing to something original, I wanted to very much tell a story about how if William Shakespeare was writing today, he’d probably have written Breaking Bad. (And probably Two and a Half Men. His comedies were very formulaic, and he would have loved Charlie Sheen.)

But SOA was a story that was very rooted in Hamlet. It also didn’t have the same framing device of a season where the characters were all doing good things to ensure that we were on their side - these are gun running bikers that will turn a blowtorch on people for having the wrong tattoos. (More on that later.) I was wondering how I would do that. Yes, Clay is clearly Claudius? Hey, Jax is Hamlet. Horatio is any number of characters a season, most of the time it’s Piney, Opie, and sometimes Tara. Gemma is the anti-Gertude, more Lady Macbeth than anything else. There! Hamlet is SOA, and vice versa!

I’ve said this before: behind Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet is probably one of the most adapted Shakespearean plays. Like some adaptions of Romeo and Juliet, some adaptations of Hamlet tend to leave out some of the bloodier moments to focus on the father/son dynamic, and give more of a happy ending, or give satisfaction with the whole revenge you killed my father thing. So, I should say, while Hamlet is a pretty adapted play with little room to explore many of the themes in a new way, GOOD adaptions of Hamlet that explore themes in new ways is pretty rare.

Sons of Anarchy is pretty rare. 

SOA uses Hamlet as a jumping off point. Rather than slavishly stick to the ideas of Hamlet, it uses that almost as a “what if.” What if there’s a prince, who discovers that his father was murdered by his Uncle... what happens next? 

As mentioned, the big three of Hamlet are pretty well represented: Clay, the current president of Sons of Anarchy, was Jax’s father’s best friend. He’s our Claudius, calculating, cruel, and guilty. (While in Hamlet it was about 50/50 that Claudius was guilty or innocent for most of the play, this makes it pretty obvious that he’s guilty.) And he’s married to his mother, Gemma, who’s very much not even close to Gertude. (More on that later.) And Jax starts out as our indecisive Hamlet, who has discovered a book filled with the ideas of his father... and is now a father himself... but changes into something completely different. 

There’s also another interesting aspect of Sons of Anarchy that hasn’t been discussed much. Hamlet, the play, is pretty much left up a lot to interpretation. Yes, we’ve all seen the stories of a ghost appearing, but a lot of that is how the people putting on the play feel about the story. The original text of Hamlet is vague. We never know for certain if he see the ghost or even if Claudius and Gertude are guilty of anything. Shakespeare casts the entire audience as Hamlet, basically. So it’s interesting to watch something like Sons of Anarchy and see how Hamlet is interpreted. Clearly the creator of the show, Kurt Sutter, appreciates Hamlet and has studied it, but he’s telling his own story now. The idea of this really fascinates me.

Next week we’re going to get a little bit more into the characters starting with my favorite: Gemma. I want to study her first because, as mentioned, while Jax starts out as the perfect Hamlet, and Clay is pretty much Claudius throughout, this character is a radical departure from the Hamlet derived narrative of the show.

SOA Fridays: It's Hamlet, but with more Leather

Recently, I explored the world of Breaking Bad. The fact that I felt because of the symbolism, the characters, and plot, not only was it literature but it had a Shakespearean bent. Of all the posts I’ve written on this website, that was the most visited, and something I’m proud of. 

It’s important to keep in mind that while exploring that, there was no direct parallel to any of the bard’s works. There were some things we could compare, but Vince Gilligan, the writer of Breaking Bad, at no point said, “Walter White represents Macbeth.” It just sort of turned out this way.

A few people pointed me to a show I hadn’t watched before called Sons of Anarchy, which is a Hamlet story. In this event, yes, the show is exactly that... the story of Hamlet, with some parallel characters, themes, etc. So I decided to give it the same treatment that I gave to Breaking Bad, and I’m going to start during this, the celebration of Shakespeare’s Birthday.

Welcome to the first installment of Sons of Anarchy Fridays, here on Bad Shakespeare.

If you would ask anyone what the most adapted Shakespearean work was, you’d probably come down to two answers: Romeo and Juliet, and Hamlet. The label “Romeo and Juliet in a...” gets thrown around a LOT, and is essentially used to describe any story that features two star crossed lovers, (or parents who hate each other. Or rival gangs. Or rival monster groups. Or... you get the idea.) while ignoring the deeper themes of death, life, mistaken identity, and war. But for true adaptations that try to capture the theme, that would have to be Hamlet. 

It makes sense, too, believed to be written following the death of his own son, Hamlet explores a father/son relationship as well as the ideas of loyalty, family, revenge, madness, action vs inaction, fate, ghosts...

So Kurt Sutter, the creator of Sons of Anarchy (SOA) said, hey, let’s set it all in a biker gang!

SOA tells the story of Jax Teller, the Vice President of the Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club Redwood Original (SAMCRO or Sam Crow). As the story opens, his junkie ex-wife prematurely gives birth to his son, Abel, and he finds a storage unit containing the diaries of his father, John Teller. SAMCRO has been in the gun running business and generally owns the town of Charming, California (including having a complicated relationship with the law... sort of love/hate.) and the diaries indicate that this isn’t what his father wanted. But more on that as we go along.

Running the club is Jax’s Uncle-father, Clay Morrow, who was John’s best friend, and now married to Jax’s mother following the death of John, Gemma. So yeah, there’s your Hamlet/father connection right there. There are other characters as well, including Clay’s right hand man Tig, middle of the road Bobby Elvis, Not quite a member Half-Sack, Horatio stand-in Opie, Club co-founder Piney, Juice, and Chibbs, all plaing very specific roles. There’s also Tara, the doctor who left Charming, and is the main love interest. 

Let me start out by saying that this show is incredibly violent. Not Titus Andronicus violent mind you, but you are dealing with a biker gang. One of the things that always amuses me when looking at things like this and Breaking Bad are the little ways the writer gets you to look at something like a violent biker gang and say, “hey... these are the good guys... I want them to win!” But we will explore this as well, and the brilliant way it is done. 

Now, this is a Hamlet story, so it’s important that we remember what that means. We are talking about a story that has Hamlet-type elements, in this case a strong focus on father/son relationships as well as revenge, death, and a few other themes. This isn’t a shot for shot remake of Hamlet with people wearing biker helmets and getting into turf wars. This has elements of Hamlet in it, the most obvious being the mother marrying the “brother” type situation and the prince/VP/cool biker dude. (Who is referred to as a prince several times.)

Take Gemma for instance, which we are going to explore. Gemma is clearly the Gertrude character, the mother of the hero who married his “brother”. However, while Shakespeare never really answered that question, “What did Gertrude know?” Gemma clearly knows just about everything, and manipulates everything behind the scenes, just like Volumnia in Coriolanus. Fine, just like that one chick in the scottish play. You happy now?

I mentioned earlier that one of the the things that’s so great with some of Shakespeare’s works is the ability to set them in just about any time. Some of them. Some of those themes are universal. Hamlet is one of those stories that has a timeless appeal to it. Father/son issues will remain a good story narrative until the end of time. When I started SOA, I was curious as to how that would play out, and it has been an interesting ride. I’m looking forward to exploring more of it as the show continues (for me, at least, I’m only up to Season 4, I hope to be up to season 6 by the time I write the next Sons of Anarchy post next Friday.) 

I look forward to exploring this show as a Hamlet narrative, and thus justifying why you should be watching it instead of doing your homework. 

Shakespeare's Super Soliders

Tomorrow (or tonight for lucky people like me that have a ticket) the world will be amazed/astounded/nitpicking/hating/overanalyzing/generally mehing the newest superhero movie Captain America: The Winter Soldier. a.k.a Captain America: Those of us who read the comics already know who the Winter Soldier totally is, prepare to have your mind blown. 

As much as the armchair commenters that have to write and go on the news a whole bunch because they need content like to constantly complain about how we’re being overrun with this new fangled phenomenon of Superhero movies, the fact is we’ve been interested in Superheroes since we first thought of stories. Wasn’t Hercules just Superman in a toga? Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel were early Spanish and English versions of Batman. Our early warriors were all people who could do amazing things, from Beowulf slaying Grendel to King Leondius holding off an army of 10,000 with only 300 soldiers. (And was turned into a superhero comic/movie/action-fest.)  And without the fancy car, I guess. We’ve always been obsessed with people who can do those special things we wish we could do.

What makes Captain America so interesting is that he’s not just a superhero, injected with a Super Serum that makes him super (that’s a little redundant...) but he’s also a solider, which sort of makes him unique amongst the heroes of today. Superman is just a guy who was on the right planet at the right time. The Hulk is someone that needs to learn the importance of using “lead” and “radiation suits” when testing “nuclear bombs.” Even those that chose to take up the mantle of hero, like Batman and Iron man, are driven by some kind of tragedy that causes them to take up the mantle of hero. 

The fact that Captain America is a soldier is important. 

You know who else was obsessed with the idea of the soldier superhero? William Shakespeare. (The name of the series is Shakespeare 450. Where did you think I was going with this?)

William Shakespeare seemed to have a respect for soldiers, even if they ended up with some kind of tragic downfall. Keep in mind the tragic flaw is a pretty big reason a lot of heroes end up falling in tragedies, even today. Walter White was free and clear until his pride stepped in. So giving these superheroes tragic flaws are just part of the job, and not so much a comment on heroes. 

Yesterday I talked about Caius Marius, who went out and won a war, pretty much by himself in Coriolanus. Here was have a prime example of a super-soldier, loyal to a fault, willing to throw himself on the line not even for a cause or his hometown, but because he has a need to fight. (When asked to be domesticated, he runs to the front line to join the enemy!) His mother suggests that he shows off his scars to show how great a warrior he is.

There’s also everyone’s favorite general, Othello. He has almost magical powers. No, really, one of the charges leveled against him is that he managed to bewitch everyone into believing him. (Given the absence of witches, fairies, and wizards in this play, he probably didn’t. Shakespeare never had a problem using those.) Some people lived in fear of these magic powers to the point that they tried to kill him. But remember, before that he was a general loved, despite the fact that he was a Moor, living in Venice, which at that time didn’t go over to well. The fact that he was able to rise to such a power was... super! (I went there. Deal with it.)

Let’s not forget Macbeth, the cursed Scottish King. Again we have an example of a guy who does his best. When he meets the witches, he’s coming home from a successful battle. Let’s face it, he’s not the most heroic of Shakespeare’s characters, what with the murdering children and all, but he managed to work up a plot to kill a king, any of his supporters, and rise to power. Now there is some debate on whether he could have done this without murdering the king, but Macbeth is also a great Frankenstein story... the story of someone who is created, pushed into power, and then everyone wonders why it went south so quickly. But he makes the list because of his ability to lead an army, by force if needed. I’m also putting MacDuff on here, simply because when push came to shove it was MacDuff that commanded an army that destroyed the other guy, because he’s that awesome. 

Lastly, I’m going to put on there Sir John Falstaff, the Fat Knight. Not really “super” at first, until you get to his death in Henry V, and you realize just how much influence the funny dude had on the King. They were estranged at the end, but he is felt so much in a play he’s not even in, it’s uncanny. 

There are many other examples (such as Henry in Henry V.. that’s where we get the famous “St. Crispin’s Day Speech”) but I wanted to highlight these, because I believe them to be the most superheroic of all the soldier’s in Shakespeare’s play. They may not have done anything fancy like throw a shield, but they are pretty important as we look at Super-Soldiers in history.

The Spirit of James Franco Lives in Our Hearts

Six weeks is a long time. On this blog, I try to comment on everything from silly science fiction to education to writing to just whatever is on my mind for the day. (Squirrel!), but obviously for six weeks... four weeks plus two where I didn’t really feel like writing anything... I didn’t cover anything. I have a few options here.

1. Go back and write about what happened as if it was timely, even though it’s really not.
2. Just dump everything into a post here, in one glorious mishmash of what’s on my mind. Also, look up if mishmash is a world. Note: It’s not. I’ll allow it.

Thusly, here’s a list of a few things that have happened in the news or around the world that would have warranted full Bad Shakespeare posts in the month of November and early December, but I didn’t get to because I was dedicating my blog to other things.

-Cow and Boy is officially ending! As you may recall, this is the hilarious strip that is like Calvin and Hobbes but with a boy and his cow instead, and was cancelled so that more digital room could be given to reruns of Peanuts, or other comics where the creator died years ago and now they’re just coasting on jokes that aren’t funny anymore. (There’s a new comic that’s just about a circle. Hilarious.)

Sadly, as Cow and Boy went to web comic form, it was limited to three days a week. As of the end of the year, it’s going to be relegated to zero days a week. Before it’s over, go over and show some love at www.cowandboy.com. It’s funny.

-Core Common Standards for Education are out, and now one group hates it and then the other group that is always against the previous group likes it, and there’s little reasoning or evidence that anyone read anything having to do with it. Because everyone in politics is stuck in third grade where if one side likes it, the other side HAS to hate it, which will make the inevitable cure for Cancer awkward as one side is apparently going to have to take a stance against it.

Me, personally? I read the English part of it, and basically it focuses more on understanding the text rather than just trying to repeat a bunch of facts. Which I’m for. So I’m for that part of it at least. I won’t pretend I read any more of it, or understood it.

Quick note: Bad Shakespeare and it’s writer fully endorses any cures for Cancer, no matter who endorses it. Unless it’s Mike Myers. Where’s our next Austin Powers? Yeah, you focus less on Cancer and more on that.

-Another day, another high school teacher fired for something on social media. This teacher’s crime: she posted a picture of her at the beach, with her fiance holding her... girl part. Yep. We’ve reached that point, where apparently teachers can’t do anything outside of school except sit quietly and wait for the next school day to start.

Why am I bringing up this one when there are literally stories every day of teachers being fired or suspended for the crime of being humans who don’t shut off? Well, for one, it’s her FIANCE. Which means they were ready to be married. Also, there was the little fact that they were both coaches. (Suddenly, you might see where this is going.) She was the girls volleyball coach. He was the boys football coach. And only she was disciplined... Hmmmmmm.... Yeah, so once again sports rulez (with a z, that’s intentional) in public schools.

-This is the only other thing with a quasi political bent, and I have to admit it’s recent enough I debated giving it over to a whole post, but apparently we’ve entered a world where Santa’s ethnicity is a hot button political issue because we’ve run out of things to talk about. For those of you who haven’t been sucked in, basically some FOX News Anchor Lady said that Santa was white, then a bunch of people made fun of her, then she said she was joking (look, the debate is stupid but I saw the clip - she wasn’t joking, and if she was, it wasn’t funny.)

It’s really important to me that anyone seriously debating this issue starts off with the caveat that Santa isn’t real. That’s important for this debate: The magical, all knowing, all seeing, obese man that commands an army of elves while riding in a sleight pulled by flying reindeer (one of which has a red, glowing nose) is a fictional character. That means he’s of no ethnicity. Oh, he can be described, but he doesn’t exist. Just as Bilbo Baggins doesn’t look like Martin Freeman “officially”, Hamlet has been played by more actors than you can shake a stick at, and James Franco’s appearance is left up to everyone’s imagination, Santa is part of our imaginations and looks just like however the person imagining him wants to look. We live in a world that has TWO different Captain Kirks, people. Two. Each one dreamier than the last, but they’re also both not real. (Unless your last name is Kirk and you joined the military. In which case... I’m sorry for all the jokes at your expense. You kinda brought it on yourself.)

Why is this a real issue anyone is discussing? The whole thing came from a harmless article that just suggested what I just said: Santa is imaginary and can look however we want.

-I’m disappointed I didn’t get to do my “Bad Shakespeare Black Friday Shopping Guide” this year, which I had planned since last year. It would have included such great tidbits as: 

1. Bear Mace isn’t just a good idea, it’s a great one.
2. Hire your local High School Football Team to run defense.
3. Visit a store with furniture first, bring your Thanksgiving meal and have it on a table for sale.
4. When all else fails remember: lick whatever you want. It’s yours!
5. Remember to be there when the store opens so there’s a cool picture of you screaming as you burst in! Also, remember to have a cool pose.
6. Don’t be that guy. You know. The one that doesn’t know what’s for sale. Research!
7. Mercy is for the week. Sweep the leg.

Whew, I think that just about covers it. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

This Halloween, Have a Piece of Pie... On Shakespeare

As mentioned, it’s that scary time of year, and this is the scariest day in all the scariest times of year: Halloween. Whether you’re planing on going out trick or treating, staying in and eating the candy meant for the trick or treaters, or making sure that everyone on your social media feeds know that this “candy” thing contains sugar, and sugar will eventually destroy all life everywhere, it’s important that you enjoy yourself today. (Seriously, though, if you hand out raisins I fully endorse the egging of your house every day until next Halloween.) Also Happy Halloween to all of you who are going to complain about people’s costumes.

Halloween can be a scary day, not just because of the sheer number of takes you’ll see on the “Wrecking Ball” costume or Miley Cyrus Twerking, but because there is a big push on what to do for this day. Do you go out? Do you stay in? What do you dress up as? (Please.... no more “Wrecking Ball” or Miley Cyrus Twerking Parodies... think of the pictures in about two years.) But what’s most important is: What do you watch?

I have an annual tradition of watching my most favorite of all ghost based Bill Murray movies: Ghostbusters. Of course then in about a month I watch my second favorite ghost based Bill Murray movie of all time: Scrooged. Ah, Bill, is there a holiday you CAN’T make a movie out of? 

But what you you literary types out there? The ones who would like to watch a movie, but still maintain an air of knowing that you’re learning something? Bad Shakespeare is here to help! There are a ton of great movies out their based on literature that are perfect for this time of year. Specifically, movies based on the works of the bard! (I was going to do all literature, but my list was mostly Frankenstein and Edgar Allen Poe. Seriously, read up his stuff. The man was insane.) Presented below is a list of the BEST Shakespearean adaptations for Halloween.

First up is Titus Andronicus. No, not the band that transcends genre but is classified as “Punk.” Here we’re talking about one of the first plays written by William Shakespeare, and definitely one of the first tragedies. It’s about a General who’s caught up in a cycle of revenge and honor with the Queen of the Goths.  (It’s got generals, goths, pies... you’ll love it!) This particular version stars Anthony Hopkins and isn’t really set in any time period, but is one of the most disturbing movies I’ve ever seen. It’s also one of the most violent plays Shakespeare ever wrote, and is probably closer to Saw than it is to what you think of as Shakespeare. This one will give you nightmares.

Next up is the Scottish Play, Macbeth, and I’m including two versions. One is Patrick Stewart’s quite excellent adaptation that moves most of the drama to a war torn country (that’s sort of the standard for William Shakespeare adaptations.) I’m also including an audio version of Alan Cumming one man adaptation, because when he’s not playing Nightcrawler, he can be a disturbing individual. I mean, just listen to it. Anyway, you know what it’s about, blah, blah, blah, witches, blah, blah, blah killing, blah, blah, blah cursed. The whole play itself is cursed. It’s like watching the Ring, only there’s no timeline on when someone is going to drag you down into a well. Or your play flops. I forget what’s supposed to happen here.

Next up: Any version of Othello or Hamlet. Except O. Which was terrible. They actually included a line that said, "I thought Shakespeare wrote movies." Just.... really? And Julie Stiles, you're supposed to be... you know what, I just need a minute. 

       Moving on. You want your horror psychological? How about we drive people mad. Othello is driven mad by his supposed friend, Iago, until he goes on a killing spree that involves killing himself. Iago is one of the rare exceptions to most of Shakespeare’s works in that one of the major villains meets his fate by being arrested, not by meeting the business end of a blade, or poison. He almost gets away with it! Hamlet is driven mad by himself, and possibly ghosts. But mostly himself. I’m throwing the Kenneth Branagh versions of both, because he did a good job. And plus, one of them has Neo in it. Neo, people. Neo.

Finally, Much Ado About Nothing. Why am I including a comedy on this list? Think about how absolutely disturbing this movie is. Yes, there’s the lighthearted romantic comedy between Beatrice and Benedict... oh, young love. They’ll get together, right? Yes, they will, after she asked Benedict to kill his best friend. Why? Because he’s so quick to anger that he throws away his true love once he sees her “cheating”. In a plot that is put together for no real reason or motive. Then when the plot is uncovered, does everyone laugh? No, no they fake Hero’s death. They make the young lover think that the love of his life kills herself. Seriously, people, this is some messed up The Game type stuff going around here. Yes, it ends happy because Shakespeare didn’t feel like having anyone eaten off stage by a bear. People are crazy.

Enjoy your Halloween, everybody!

Breaking Bad Shakespeare: The End

“The whole thing felt kinda shady, like morality wise.”

Skinny Pete, wrapping it all up for us.

I’m going to start this wrap up/analysis of Breaking Bad (And Breaking Bad Shakespeare) by saying... “wow.” There’s not a human being alive who didn’t think that this show wasn’t going to end with Walter White going to that big Meth Lab in the sky (or down below... he’s cooking the purest meth for Satan now, I guess) but I don’t think anyone could have called it exactly like that. Let’s get this out of the way: I thought his was a fantastic series finale.

Some of the debate seems to go around the idea that Walter White... Heisenberg... “won” despite the fact that he now has newly ventilated lungs. (It was one of those TV “vague shots to the midsection that could be a flesh wound, could mean he’s going to die” sort of things. I’d like to think it pierced is cancerous, cancerous lungs.) The thing is... Walter White didn’t win at all. Heisenberg won... his blue meth is off the street. Walt lost while winning, the grand tradition of tragic Shakespearean heroes everywhere.

First, let’s tackle how Walter White lost tragically. There’s a reason he started cooking meth: To save for his family. Walt was never going to fight to stop the cancer, he was never going to do battle, he was in give-up mode from day one. Make money, give it to his kids, bam. He took treatment when his wife turned around, made it about her, and then he was making money to pay for cancer treatments AND saving for his kids’ future, since he truly believed that it was futile. (This was before he was “good at it.” We’ll get to that line in a moment.)

Walt lost because he’s not giving his kids anything. Remember when Walter, Jr. “Flynn” set up a web page to save his father? Remember the outrage when Saul suggested that Walt launder the money through that? Remember when Walt didn’t want to be handed a job at Grey Matters because he had to earn it for his kids? Yes, Flynn won’t accept money from his father, so this the roundabout way he gives it to his kids, etc. But he loses out on the recognition. He loses out on the ability to say, “I provided for my family.” It was never about the money, and it wasn’t about the meth to start, it was about Walter White: hero to his family. Yes. Gretchen and Elliot will make sure Flynn gets the money. But Walt doesn’t get to say it was from him. It’s actually one of his worst nightmares.

I say this in the grand tradition, because other Shakespearean Tragic Figures have won by  losing like this. Claudius is exposed about 10 second before dying, after which Hamlet can go to his grave knowing that he won. Macbeth was king, and he did win... he didn’t lose his kingship to anyone woman born, nor until the trees of biram moved, which I’m sure comforted him for the 10 seconds his brain was still alive after it he was beheaded. King Lear learned his final lesson after his beloved daughter is killed. I put Walter White in this category. His pride got him into this situation. It’s by putting his pride aside that he’s able to achieve his goal of providing for his family. 

I was glad to see Jesse escape not just captivity from the Nazis (without having to resort to any bad language) but from Walter White. Had Jesse taken that moment to kill Walt, it would have meant he was trapped with him forever (alive for dead) but he was finally able to break free by NOT killing him. (He did see the blood, but at that point it meant nothing. He knew Walt was dead, but he wasn’t going to be the one to do it.) Personally, I felt that was one of the greatest moments of the show: Jesse finally free from Walter White. Jesse able to go make his own way.

The finale was full of little character moments like this, but I like that they were all framed around Walt. This is very much Walter White’s story. I’m glad they didn’t overplay Marie... just had her offer a word of warning to her sister. I’m glad we saw Holly, Flynn and Skyler again, but it was a nice reminder that their story ended back when they threw Walter out of their lives. (I know it’s television, but either Walt turned into a lot more of a master criminal than we thought, or the agents keeping tabs on her home weren’t very good. I do like the fact that Skyler didn’t immediately turn him back in.) 

The appearance of Badger and Skinny Pete was excellent for a few reasons, not the least of which being that it was a reminder that Heisenberg was a legend. I think that tended to fall flat for a bit in the final seasons. He was, as Hank (RIP) said, “A meth chef.” It’s also a nice call back to the start of the show, when they didn’t have the resources or the connection to call in an army to invade a compound, or to hire hitmen, like Walt was trying to do last episode. Gretchen and Elliot got taken by a pair of burnouts with laser pointers.

There were a few moments that fell flat for me (as with anything, really.) I really thought the final phone call from Lydia was a bit much... I would have much rather seen her coughing and get the implication that she was poisoned. The whole Gretchen and Elliot scene seemed off. Don’t get me wrong, I loved the casualness of Walter, strolling up to the door and his casual conversation. But I feel Walt needed more of a push against them. It was the two of them, dismissing him that caused him to spring back into action. Remember what I said before about losing his legacy? Here’s the physical representation of people that took it away from him. They didn’t have to die, but I just wish he had done more to address the fact they downplayed his involvement, even if he “understood why.” 

Then there’s Walt’s admission. I both loved and hated this scene. Talking to Skyler, he finally admits what everyone figured out since the time that he was noticed for his meth-cooking abilities, that he liked it, and he was good at it. I’m glad that the writers showed that he acknowledged it... he did this because he enjoyed it. I almost wish they found a way to incorporate it better. I almost feel that the last scene of the series, Walt walking through the meth lab before the police come, dying, shows this off better than anything that Walt could have said.

Let’s talk for one moment about Walt’s final act of redemption, shall we? I suspect that Walt’s original plan many not have involved saving Jesse, rather making him part of the bloody tableau that ended the show. Yes, it’s last minute redemption to remind us that Walt was never the ruthless drug kingpin he wanted to be. (Also, really, at this point what would killing Jesse serve?) It was immediately made a little selfish by the fact that he wanted Jesse to finish the job, to kill him

That last scene... I’m obsessed with last scenes. Even if I don’t watch a show, or I’m not interested in a book, I’ll do what I can to find out how it ends. I like thinking about the final image that a book or play or TV show will leave us. Last scenes are hard, though. Take Star Trek: The Next Generation. Personally, I hate the final scene of the series, because it wasn’t really. It was just waiting for them to head to the movies. Deep Space Nine, with Jake staring out the window... that to me is one of the finest final scenes a show has ever done. Obviously, with this show I was much more invested. This was a final scene. The deposed King, dying not with his family but in the place where he was truly great. This is up there in final scenes of a show, even if you didn’t enjoy the rest of the show. (and I know that some people didn’t enjoy it. That’s their right, even if they’re wrong.) But also, did you catch the way that Walter was wearing a green shirt and khaki pants... the same thing he was wearing in the first episode, when this all started. 

Ending the show the way it did... with Walter dying in a meth lab as the result of a self-inflicted accidental wound... ranks it up there with the great tragic heroes of literature. I’ve made this point many times, and I’m going to make it again: Breaking Bad should rank up their with great literature. It needs to be rewatched, studied. We’re going to need to discuss this for years to come to catch the symbolism. I enjoyed it. And I look forward to watching it again. 

Breaking Bad is Literature

You know, since I started working on this blog while Breaking Bad is airing, I’ve started putting this little tag letting you know that I’ll be covering spoilers. Is it even necessary? I mean, I post these the Friday after the episode aired. That was on Sunday. Did you really manage to avoid everything until then? If you didn’t, then you deserve to have me tell you that the episode ended with Walt turning into a Dragon and attacking Arizona. Grrr. Arrggh.

As you may know, next week is Banned Books Week. Which means we’ll be taking a break from Breaking Bad Shakespeare Fridays. I’ll be doing a special on Monday analyzing if it ended as a Shakespearean piece, or merely as something Marlowe may have slapped together to cover his drinking debts, because screw Marlowe. You heard me.

In the meantime, and in the spirit of Banned Books Week next week, I wanted to take a special look at Breaking Bad in the spirit of banned book weeks. Mostly, this show that I’ve been comparing to a Shakespearean tragedy (because it very much is a Shakespearean tragedy, and there are people with phD’s that agree with me, not just a guy with a blog and three days to fill. (I suppose I could cut back, but here I am...). Many of the themes are the same, the body count is lower than in a lot of Shakespearean Plays, the violence is just about the same, but I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone to put Breaking Bad in a classroom as an example of great literature. (Never mind that Shakespeare didn’t write a word of his plays to be read, he wrote them to be performed, yet we say how Shakespeare is nothing but literature.) 

Quick note: some of this post is because of last week’s Breaking Bad, in which we poured some Schraderbrau on the curb for ASAC Schrader. However, I hope that people understood that in an episode that contained a shootout between two DEA Agents and a group of Meth-Dealing Nazis, both DEA Agents being murdered, the brutal torture and imprisonment of a guy, a knife fight between a husband and wife, and the kidnapping of a baby, the helpful censored made sure we didn’t hear any naughty words in the form of ASAC Schrader’s final “Fuck” to the bad guys. I’m glad that we got to think of the kids in the audience not hearing any bad words before Walt confesses to letting a woman die because she was getting in the way of his Meth-Cooking.

That brings me to my point of Breaking Bad and Shakespeare, mostly with violence. The body count in Shakespeare’s plays are pretty high. There’s murder (most foul), rape, suicide (oh, my... the suicide), torture, and one instance of a pie that would make the writers of Saw sit down and say, “hey... maybe Shakespeare should have toned it down a little bit.” At what point do we trade off violence (and some language) for the “literary factor.” Let’s face it, there’s symbolism in Shakespeare, there’s symbolism in Breaking Bad. I can’t stress enough: Walter White should be up there with the great pantheon of Shakespearean characters. He’s got pride, jealousy, no matter how far down the rabbit hole he goes, he’s doing it all for his family and can justify it (until his wife pulls a knife on him.)

So what makes something “literary”? Is it because a bunch of guys in wigs decide that something is literary? (That’s how they do it right? Or am I thinking of the British Legal System.) What makes, say, Hamlet more literary than Alan Moore’s The Killing Joke, which many consider to be one of the best in the medium? Why is Macbeth great art when Breaking Bad is “just a TV Show”? Again, I’m using Shakespeare not just because this blog is called “Bad Shakespeare” and not just because I’ve been comparing the two for the past however many weeks (I’m too lazy to go back and count. Someone do that for me.) but because Shakespeare wrote PLAYS. Things up on the stage for us to see. Things that would be interpreted a certain way because an actor decided that Hamlet should be played as depressed flimmaker in 2000. (Damn you, Ethan Hawke. Just... damn you.) Or because Wesley from Angel should dive in the grass as much as possible while people try to trick him.

I guess I’m getting at the central question I’ve asked plenty of times: Is Breaking Bad literature? I’d say yes. Yes it is. But something like this would be banned from classrooms, because of it’s violence and language. (Oh, and Shakespeare LOVED the bad language. He just hid it better than we do today.) But this violence and language... it’s nothing compared to what we’ve seen in the past. It still has all those juicy elements that I would love to tackle in a classroom, and do so in a way that will help kids learn something about revenge tragedies, fatal flaws, symbolism, and everything that Shakespeare would love to teach us. Because Shakespeare loved the bad guy, and show us what made him tick.

But hey, don’t take my word for it. Here’s Aaron’s speech at the end of Titus Andronicus, where he curses the fact that he can’t do more evil.

AARON. Ay, that I had not done a thousand more.

Even now I curse the day- and yet, I think,

Few come within the compass of my curse-

Wherein I did not some notorious ill;

As kill a man, or else devise his death;

Ravish a maid, or plot the way to do it;

Accuse some innocent, and forswear myself;

Set deadly enmity between two friends;

Make poor men's cattle break their necks;

Set fire on barns and hay-stacks in the night,

And bid the owners quench them with their tears.

Oft have I digg'd up dead men from their graves,

And set them upright at their dear friends' door

Even when their sorrows almost was forgot,

And on their skins, as on the bark of trees,

Have with my knife carved in Roman letters

'Let not your sorrow die, though I am dead.'

Tut, I have done a thousand dreadful things

As willingly as one would kill a fly;

And nothing grieves me heartily indeed

But that I cannot do ten thousand more.”

The Tragic Flaw...

Quick note: This post is going to contain spoilers for some of the “Final Season” episodes of Breaking Bad. I’ve generally tried to keep my analysis a season behind, but something came up that was so juicy, I had to work it into my analysis. What will follow is part of the discussion for “Buried” the second episode of the Final Season. Or the 10th episode of the 5th Season. I’m really fuzzy on the math of this. But if you haven’t watched it live, through DVR, old school videotape, had your friends re-enact the episode for you, or downloaded it legally or illegally, then I strongly suggest that you’re probably a time traveler from the 18th century. and you’re not sure what Breaking Bad is and why we choose to stare and glowing rectangles for so much of our lives. In which case, I have some other spoilers for you, and we can talk later. Onto Breaking Bad Shakespeare Friday!

Shakespeare loved the tragic flaw. In fact, when studying Othello, King Lear, Hamlet, or Macbeth (the big four tragedies), chances are pretty good that your teacher (albeit not as handsome as me) probably started out the discussion with a brief overview of each of the main character’s tragic flaws. (Inevitably screwing up Macbeth’s tragic flaw and mixing it up with Lady Macbeth’s but that’s another post.) But what a lot of people don’t cover is the fact that the “tragic flaw” is available in all flavors, and affects so many of the other characters. In Othello, the argument could be made that as much as Othello is jealous and easily manipulated, so are Desdemona (she let’s her husband kill her) and Iago (who throws everything into motion because he’s jealous of this dude who’s skin color is not the right color for him and has everything he wants). Most of Hamlet could have been avoided had they had a sitdown at the start of the play rather than taking advantage of all the madness, corruption, and paranoia. The play may have been shorter. And Macbeth is about a dude who’s kind of happy until he gets the idea to be ambitious, then his wife got all ambitious, too. Then Macduff gets all revengy and ambitious. Then they all die. As Bruce Willis might say, “Macbeth won’t be attending that hat convention in July.” (He gets beheaded, so the line is hilarious.)

My point being that the same with Breaking Bad: everyone has spent a long time analyzing Water White’s tragic flaw, which is a combination of pride and ambition. He’s too proud to accept help, so he has to go on and cook meth to pay for his treatments. (At the point in the series that he’s offered financial assistance by his former business partners, he’s already had one major failure as a drug overlord and had to murder two people. One of them he strangled with his bare hands.) Pride and ambition have long been associated with people on this show. Jesse throws out several batches of meth because he can “do better.” Gus Fring... oooooh, we’ve talked about good ol’ Gus, but when Walter crossed paths with him and hurt his pride, how long did it take him to go all boxcutter on people? 

But there’s one line that sums everything up, for me at least. Last week on “Buried” we get the conclusion to the long awaited showdown between Heisenberg and Hank. This is the moment that Hank has been waiting on for a year, and we’ve been waiting on for five. Then the moment is over as the two men run to their respective wives, and eventually Hank ran to Skyler. While confronting her, he let of this gem of a line: ““He looks me in the eye and says ‘If what you think you know is true.' IF!” 

Had anyone told me that line without the context, I’d look at you and say, “That’s a great line from Walt. Writing like that shows us what’s going on in his head.” But that’s Hank. Hank who’s pride is hurt, not from the fact that the Meth Druglord he’s been hunting for the better part of the year is his brother-in-law, but from the fact that he’s being taunted. The fact that he’s being underestimated again. That despite the fact that he’s figured out that his brother-in-law is Heisenberg, he can’t get the confession he wants. He can’t get the few words that he wants: “I am Heisenberg.” 

It’s things like this that push the show over the edge from mere entertainment to something deeper. To something that is more Shakespeare-like. I’m interested to see where we go from here. Really that line starts to seal up Hank’s fate: He’s going to have to die. Hank’s pride is going to get in the way, the same as Walt’s pride affected him, the same as Skyler’s pride is starting to affect him. The whole thing is just going to keep going in a vicious cycle, much like Macbeth or Othello or Lear. Now we get to add White to that list, and all the prideful people around him.