Appendix on “Antony & Cleopatra”, part two: Now we are talking!

For once, I would have liked to write this in German: “Jetzt geht’s ans Eingemachte!” I just hope that I will get permission to publish it. The repercussions on my reading are still ongoing …

(Permission granted! Thank you!!! I think it is definitely worth the risk of sounding “frightfully grown-up”. Maybe I never realized how much I am IN FACT a writer because I am so used to the changed version(s) of myself in my written text. Probably like them more than the “original” – though I don’t know about “grown-up” … But - among other things I am not concerned about enough, obviously - I have to take into account more that not everybody is as comfortable with this as I am? We have been TALKING about these issues - partly even more “sophisticatedly” than this, I think - but this is not the same as such thoughts being written down. So: still more thanks!!!)

Wednesday, February 13th 2019
Subject: a+c

 Hi Claudia,

have been sitting over my post all day (about A+C of course) and couldn’t get to the conclusion because I hit on so many basic things about Shakespeare, and „Shakespeare acting“, and actors, and so on. I can understand your opinion about Cleopatra – especially after having seen the show again. Sophie Okonedo played her even more “childishly” than I remembered. Before seeing this production I understood Cleopatra differently although there has always been a degree of irritation. Sophie Okonedo – and Ralph Fiennes – rather enhanced these feelings. Which is something I liked! Have to think about this some more and probably read the play again (?!) I felt that the political dimension of Cleopatra got deleted completely in this production. But, as far as I can tell, there wasn’t any substantial loss of text. I probably added knowledge about the historical Cleopatra which isn’t really in the text? Maybe the irritation will become productive and end up in my blog. I would like that!

Wednesday, February 13th 2019
Subject: answer: a+c

Hi Barbara,

(…) I was so preoccupied with the play that I dreamt about it last night! Or rather about Ralph Fiennes and acting. I read the programme you brought from London and found that the content has nothing to do with what I saw. I missed the political dimension which gets explained in the programme. I was fascinated about what they wrote on the Pax Augustana and Jesus being born under Augustus’ reign. That Antony and Cleopatra’s love had been seen as part of God’s plan – nonetheless they get “punished” for their contribution (like Judas). For Cleopatra in particular it would be just logical that she is presented rather unfavourably. Again the historian speaking 😉

On the other hand I couldn’t find any footholds for a historical dimension in the text without Jesus. This is the reason I criticized the “sainted” Will at the interval. And I had a feeling that it is rather difficult to get some dignity and class out of Cleopatra.

Historically speaking, it was an interesting period which I have never really looked into. The sea battle of Actium lost for love – that’s intense! I am totally fascinated with “alternative history” where the question is raised what the world would be like if decisive events of history had turned out different. Pity that I didn’t read at least the synopsis in your programme before seeing the show (That’s the benefit of theatre – that I usually have time to read the synopsis), then I might have been able to focus on these things. I was at a loss about which events were important, and some things eluded me.

I found it interesting that they decided to have Octavia tell Cleopatra what Augustus really planned to do with her – Cleopatra might have understood this as revenge of the jealous wife who might not be telling the truth. I think I should read the play …

(footnote: there appears to be some fascinating content that I didn’t even process! It is about something I always find interesting about Shakespeare’s plays and never get to take up, not least because it would mean to read at least Wikipedia: how he uses historical content in his plays. My overall view is that he is zero interested in any religious content – especially compared with other playwrights of his time. I might be wrong about this! As with other moral aspects, religious content is dealt with IMPLICITLY – without pointing a finger. In the case of Cleopatra this might have had in fact grave consequences for how the historical character gets changed to “fit” Shakespeare’s universe!)

Wednesday, February 13^th 2019
Subject: answer: a+c

Hi Claudia,

You dreamt of Ralph Fiennes! Something like this wouldn’t happen to me in a million years – no matter how intense the experience. Which it was, actually.  I already regret that I will never see it again. I admit being addicted – which is strange because I still don’t really like him. Never did. But what he is doing appears to be “my thing”.

Interesting as well that we saw and read it so differently. I was, of course, fascinated with the “amimetobion”. But I need to find the time to process what you have written. Today is definitely not the day for it. I want to continue the discussion, though. I am rather certain that Shakespeare is “to blame” for the lack of political impact where Cleopatra is concerned. On the other hand what she is doing cannot be explained without taking politics into account … As I said – I’ll read it again, if I can find the time …

As to our plan of seeing “The Favourite”: the film will be shown (…) When would you like to go?

Friday, February 15th 2019
Subject: “the favourite”

Hi Claudia,

I don’t want to get into a discussion about „The Favourite“, my brain isn’t really working today. But I had this idea which I couldn’t express yesterday after the show. When I woke in the morning it came to me what I was trying to say. Though it might be grossly inaccurate historically, I had the impression that it is a really clever film on a deeper level because it is taking up one of the suppressed and disagreeable truths about women and men, and feminism. I couldn’t get rid of the feeling that, if they would just let the men do as they please, everything would somehow come right – it is just the “female element” that makes everything complicated and awkward. If women have political power there always seems to be a problem. (Maybe I have already switched back to A+C …?) But I think the film shows the reason for this because the two “worlds” are grossly incompatible – which I think is no longer so today! I don’t think that Frau Merkel had any problems on that scale – in spite of Seehofer! (Who survived whom?) Whereas, if I am thinking about it, the incompatibility is part of my own experience – not on a professional but on a personal level. I find that I UNDERSTAND women much better and often think: Are these men completely insane? Most of the time I don’t even have a clue about how they “work”.

Friday, February 15th 2019

Subject: answer: “the favourite”

Hi Barbara

This is a fascinating thought (why did it not occur to me?) I would even take this further: if we see it like this – that men would manage somehow anyway – it would even be a misogynist film. As I am convinced that men are basically doing the same thing, this is just the female way of doing it. In the end, politics was taken care of. If men need duck races, or have to throw tangerines at naked men to do it, then so be it! But unfortunately we still see it like this: that women are meddling, personal, and hysterical – why are women almost never to be found in leading positions? If they are, then only if they can suppress their femininity (Merkel), or have to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the men (May). I will never forget how, in the 80s, Frau Adam-Schwätzer got bullied because she was seen crying about a political defeat. A really interesting aspect – and we are in fact back with A+C because it is the woman who gets blamed for unmanning the warrior Antony. She only gets taken seriously as a ruler when she uses her female attractiveness, as she did with Caesar.

Now you got me thinking!

Friday, February 15th 2019

Subject: answer: “the favourite”

Hi Claudia,

I carried on thinking, even though I should have been getting on with item 1 to … of my list of totally unimportant things that have to be taken care of. I didn’t mean to criticize the film – though it inevitable turns out this way. What I meant was that the female way of dealing with things – basically WITH emotions! – actually IS not compatible with how men are doing it, and often APPEARS to be perverse and inefficient BECAUSE OF THIS. (Women and war! Has always been a bad combination, but at the time war was a viable – maybe even important – way of doing politics. In this respect, Merkel and her “sisters” are definitely better off than Queen Anne was.) In my opinion it is a really good “feminist” film because it is dealing SERIOUSLY with what concerns both men and women – and is probably disagreeable for both to deal with.

(footnote: I think this is why the film was disagreeable FOR ME – though I find it even more relevant now than I did seeing it in the cinema.)

Maybe I never really realized that I understand women SO MUCH better – and that men are in fact (because of the lack of what I consider to be “genuine” emotions) so much more perverse then women. Football or duck races – what’s the difference?! But I think that men also have emotions – they are just more practical about them, and more adept at “compartmentalizing”. Which is in turn often difficult for women to deal with. (In this respect I am probably rather masculine. I can quite easily “put away” emotions - especially bad ones - where they are just counterproductive. Especially at work!) On the other hand, I find it unfair if men are not allowed to have a “feminine” side – as is the case with Antony. (I liked it so much to see REAL tears when he hears that Enorbarbus has left him!) I am looking forward to more thinking over the weekend …

Friday, February 15^th 2019

Subject: answer: “the favourite”

Hi Barbara,

there are in fact a lot of examples for it (your point that the film is not misogynist): foot massage vs tangerine battle, Abigail selling herself to safe her father vs leader of the opposition who is trying to get her into bed to gain political influence, the Duchess who stands up to the man who tries to rape her …

I’ll have to think about it …

In many ways I consider myself to be rather masculine, but this might be a total misconception. It isn’t enough to be the least romantic person in the universe, never to have wanted babies, and to find buying clothes totally dull. I would love to be able to put away emotions, but I have them nonetheless – to my own surprise? - on a big scale, especially at work. And again I came to think about myself … Art! It’s getting you down 😉

Friday, February 15^th 2019

Subject: answer: “the favourite”

Hi Claudia,

Maybe it is even appalling how often I experience emotions in real life as embarrassing and inefficient. I am often at odds with my mother who is rather feminine in comparison. The main reason why I turned out quite masculine is that I always thought my father was great whereas my mother was the person in my life I was certain I didn’t want to emulate. I probably knew this already when I was a year and a half because I have always been clever and was able to see who was losing and who was winning. Nonetheless, there are emotions I find vitally important, and which I always knew I wanted to have - and was allowed to have! - as much as I wanted. As you know, I am totally “romantic” – though I dislike the word … But there are also emotions I came to consider as completely unnecessary – like jealousy, or feelings of inferiority – which I just don’t want to have. And this power play that is conducted on an emotional level – as in the film – is something that I always knew I had to stay totally clear of.

Friday, February 15^th 2019

Subject: answer: “the favourite”

Hi Barbara

(…) my father had an equally big impact on the person I became, though more in the sense that I wanted to be how I thought he imagined the ideal woman: totally without all the “chichi”. And as my emotionally normal mother was the loser in this marriage I didn’t want to become like her. But as I was closer to my mother emotionally than to my father, and came to the conclusion that the compartmentalizing isn’t good for me, I wish I could have become more like my mother. I feel that I miss out on good emotions and let the bad ones get the upper hand. So, the balance isn’t right.

Friday, February 15th 2019
Subject: answer: “the favourite”

Hi Claudia,

I find it rather important too to understand my mother better, but this is because I want to get on with her better. Which would make my own life easier. She is probably the only person I can really get down – but I don’t want that! It would just be better if I could “talk business” with her without emotions getting in the way all the time. And as the “window” for femininity got closed a long time ago where I am concerned there is no use in occupying myself with it anymore. As I have been in love constantly for the last 5 years I “subscribed” to feeling good. Even though there is not a single sane reason for it, it is good for the immune system and self-esteem. Probably any kind of happiness is partly insanity? That’s why I can understand Cleopatra: She knows that this is the last time this will ever happen – and the best! – and she’ll never let him go if she can help it. But there is this abyss waiting when it is over, of course – which I don’t want to imagine. (It’s quite enough to see it on the stage … which was beautiful! Right: Art is getting us down!)

Friday, February 15^th 2019

Subject: answer: “the favourite”

Hi Barbara,

Basically, all feelings are chemical reactions in our brain ;-)

No matter what we think about good feelings, the main thing is to have them – and they are good for the immune system and self-esteem, as you said. What else do we need? The abyss … It happened to me once, and it was so bad that I don’t even want to have the good feelings again. Better never to have loved than to have loved and lost. Maybe this is why I cannot really understand emotional people, not even in fiction. Thence my feeling that Cleo should be more “queen-like” and dignified, and shouldn’t be completely “fortune’s fool”.

(footnote: this is, in fact, a thrilling moment for me because it is the closest I ever came to prove that people are reading FUNDAMENTALLY differently because of who they are. The thwarted wish to identify with a character BECAUSE she is female is completely alien to me – which is probably the reason for the issues I always had with feminist criticism. (I identified with Cleopatra ONLY because of this moment where she becomes aware of the enormity of her loss – and, by this, the immeasurable quality of her love. Which, basically, has nothing to do with her sex but happened because I KNOW what she is feeling!) And I believe that our respective emotional upbringing – which, even though there are parallels, is fundamentally different! – has a part in this. (In fact, I always had this feeling that it’s fathers who fuck up their daughters’ lives, even without DOING anything to that end, and these – making their daughters want to become the women they would like, and making them want to become like them - are basically the two different ways of doing it completely unintentionally.) And THIS is why I hoped to get permission to publish this: not because I am so keen on exposing private content but to be able to document the impact it has ON OUR READING.)