I bought
this kitchen towel in the NT’s gift shop when I saw A&C which says:
“Everybody dies …”, giving a list of violent deaths in Shakespeare’s tragedies.
Quite an impressive count, I had always thought, but what purpose does all this
frantic dying really serve? I confess that I never took it quite as seriously
as I should have. Sometimes it even appears to take the sting out … Now, having
acquired the final season of “House of Cards” on the day of the DVD release and
binged it over the weekend, I got this epiphany about why timing is so
important in “Shakespeare” when it comes to dying. Just imagine: Lady Macbeth
not conveniently taking her own life when she is no longer needed but, having
realized that Macbeth had fucked up, carrying on with an agenda of her own …
First of
all - before I can unfold the issue I regrettably actually have with Shakespeare
when it comes to women - I need to elaborate on why I think Shakespeare is so
exceptional when it comes to the “human stuff”. And I am pleased that Mark
Antony comes in here again – whom I neglected because I got assailed by “minor
issues” ( - which is what our former Bundeskanzler Schröder thought about
women’s and family issues (= “Gedöns”). But this was the golden age when
politics still mattered to a degree and, therefore, women – courtesy of
Claudia! - wouldn’t have been trusted with it …). And even before taking up
Mark Antony I have to explain about “Rome”. That’s where I spent the last weeks
– when I haven’t really been here. It is a TV series about the time of Julius
Caesar and the ending of the Roman Republic which is absolutely fabulous and, I
think, one of its kind when it comes to bringing to life a period of history AS
IT ACTUALLY WAS. As people thought and “worked” at the time, and as to what the
social structure really was like, and what their real motives were. And, at the
same time, it is fraught with scandal, and violence, fucked-up families and
relationships, imaginative sex and orgies, war, gore, and heroes … in a word:
everything you can wish for in the kind of fantasy/action story that is
currently the most successful kind of text. (Except dragons, of course … Well,
I wonder: who needs “Game of Thrones” when they can have the “real thing”?!!!
There really is nothing these Romans did NOT do, or try, or pull off - except
fighting dragons, but I am sure this is only because there weren’t any. If there
had been they certainly would have managed. In this context it didn’t even feel
wrong – or appalling! – when Titus Pullo – who basically is a nice guy! - bites
off his opponent’s tongue and reports that it tasted like chicken. Let alone
the big butchery at the Forum …)
The actors
are brilliant as well – all of them! - and, for all the major characters,
British, of course, though it isn’t really a BBC series. But I suppose the
brainpower mostly came from the BBC. And it was filmed in Italy, obviously,
with some very adequate Italian actors, and the appropriately beautiful and
Mediterranean landscape. I almost couldn’t believe Ciarán Hinds as Gaius Julius
Caesar (must definitely look into him now …), and Simon Woods (whom I have
never noticed before!?) as his successor Octavius was even better (and genuinely
scary as to what they reaped when they sowed blood!). And I totally loved
Lindsay Duncan as Servilia (mother of Brutus) (whom I always thought to be a
phenomenal actress without actually having seen her play anything phenomenal until
now ... maybe just because she scares me, like Gillian Anderson or Rosamund
Pike) and Kevin McKidd as Centurion Lucius Vorenus (whom I saw and admired - as
it appears, ages ago - in a mediocre series about Mary Stuart and then never
again). I didn’t like Tobias Menzies as Brutus at first (whom I loved in
“Outlander”, and basically every time I saw him) or David Bamber as Cicero, nor
– now I am coming to the point! – James Purefoy as Mark Antony UNTIL I saw
where they were headed with these characters. Then I could see that they were
doing exactly the right thing. Especially James Purefoy who delivered an unbelievably
nuanced and complex version of his character. And - even though they are
fundamentally different people - in “Shakespeare” it’s exactly the same ISSUES that
Mark Antony is made off. The Bard just didn’t have the advantage of a sixteen
hour series to make it THAT explicit.
So I
finally came to understand Antony’s predicament – which actually IS in
Shakespeare’s play, though kind of “drowned” in the big issue of the
exceptional love story. It is very cleverly written into the scene where, after
having made it up with Octavius Caesar by marrying his sister, Antony is
speaking with the soothsayer and has to admit to himself that there is no way
he and Caesar will ever be able to work together as equals. I am inclined to
believe that the version the series is telling of the events is accurate: that
Antony and Octavius fought to the blood for supremacy in Rome and Antony lost –
not least because he has always been the least “Roman” of the two, and the more
complex character, being “burdened” with a temper and other ungovernable emotions,
self-consciousness, a cruel and rather questionable sense of humour, and an
insuppressible hunger for sex and the good things of life – and got “chucked
out” of Rome to hopefully rot in Egypt, and ultimately disappear from the
political landscape. In fact, IT IS NOT CLEOPATRA WHO IS TO BLAME for his
“downfall”. Where Antony is concerned, she is just the symptom of the “disease”
- as Centurion Vorenus calls it in one of these prophetic moments - or moments
of tragic irony - which keep popping up throughout the series. (This was the
second hint at misogynist subtext, by the way …) He is not able to name the
disease, which I think is uncannily lucid as well – as I was already writing
about blind spots. Now I think the disease can likewise be called “Rome” and
consists of all these “minor” human issues - like love, sex, empathy, and human
relationships in general (so, basically: “Gedöns”) - that get suppressed or
destroyed when somebody turns out as perfectly Roman as Vorenus, or Octavius
Caesar, and which - if you are not already a psychopath! - are bound to
resurface some day and bring you down …
Great! I
think I finally pulled it off, with the help of “Rome”: This is Mark Antony in
a nutshell (and my answer to all the unfinished issues about him in our e-mail
exchange!) And it is, of course, why I came to find Antony so fascinating – after having been repelled by him at first, probably
because I actually LIKE and admire (and partially emulate!) Roman stoicism.
Even more interesting when I was going back to “Julius Caesar”: what
Shakespeare wrote into this character at his “beginning” – basically: his
coming of age story from (Caesar’s) puppy to politician - and what became of him in the end.
The
thing is, though, that, being so taken with Antony, Shakespeare wasn’t able to
deal with Cleopatra’s complexity. At least this is the opinion I unconsciously
– and conveniently! – subscribed to, and a version of which Claudia brought up
in our recent “Shakespeare talk” on the occasion of our breakfast at the
Victorian House regarding “Macbeth” ( - thanks for bringing this up, it was
what made everything fall into place!!!): that Lady Macbeth is just an
“extension” of Macbeth, basically a part of Macbeth himself that can be made
visible in this way. I know this is a way critics look at fictional texts to
reduce complexity and make them more completely available - and which certainly
cannot be DISPROVED where Lady Macbeth is concerned. It is NOT, though, what
“we” are actually DOING when we are reading. And especially when we are
watching them on the stage these people are always living, breathing – and
suffering! – beings to us who will have our empathy if the actors are doing
well. Even with quite insignificant characters this is possible – and required!
– in “Shakespeare”. I would even go so far as to say that Shakespeare is DARING
us to read in this way – comparing his plays with those of other writers of the
time. But this is, of course, my intuitive way of looking at it, and it would
be sufficient for my argument to account for my personal experience with
Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. As far as I am concerned, Lady Macbeth always felt
much more like an actual human being than Macbeth. The great thing as well as
the difficulty about this character is his being THE tragic paradigm in “Shakespeare”,
the way he is just ONE with his predicament. I even felt that we’d LOSE a
dimension of the character if he turned out too specific! So, whereas Macbeth
remained some kind of “concept” for me (until Christopher Eccleston played
him!), I had a few viable versions of Lady Macbeth in my head or on screen
(like Keely Hawe’s version in the “Shakespeare Retold”).
(So, now
this very long footnote becomes unavoidable because, the evening before I
started writing this, I watched my recently acquired DVD of the RSCs “Macbeth”
with Christopher Eccleston. As I am becoming used to, it was totally different
from what I remembered about seeing it on the stage – this time partly even the
set and the costumes??? – but, my God, it is so BEAUTIFUL! Basically, I was
just looking at Chris Eccleston, and couldn’t believe what I was seeing! I
remember that I enjoyed his playing, especially the way he was dealing with the
text, but I was too preoccupied with coming to terms with the fact that I saw
him “for real” (and didn’t!), and with figuring out what their version of the
play and the people was and to compare it with my own, to enjoy it PROPERLY.
But this production is so, so, SO GOOD!!! I always feel that the RSC knows where
they are going with these plays, but never like this! Not that it is the most
beautiful production they have done lately. “Julius Caesar” (which I watched recently
when I had finished “Rome”) is more beautiful because it is so wonderfully
consistent, and their “Antony & Cleopatra” is just so perfect where the
acting is concerned, whereas “Macbeth” is much more gritty and dirty, and - as
it is transferred into a contemporary setting - more painfully close to “our
own” issues and experience. But the timing is SO perfect, and the little things
they did with the Weird Sisters (my God, these little girls were amazing!), or
the simple idea of the porter sitting there the whole time, making the count of
the dead with chalk on the wall, or Banquo’s spirit NOT appearing in person at
the banquet for once, at least initially …! There was no shortage of good
ideas, and one of the best aesthetic experiences I ever had were Macbeth’s
soliloquies and speeches, precisely BECAUSE they were so entirely NATURAL. He
spoke them as if they were just ordinary spoken language, as if they were NOT
SHAKESPEARE – and it would never have occurred to me that THIS is the ultimate
way of doing it! I just never thought this might be possible, but it appears to
be the most difficult way of doing it as well. And this might be precisely WHY
Christopher Eccleston is so special that there actually is no actor quite like
him, that he is able to do this: be completely ONE with his part of a
Shakespeare text and a Shakespeare character – as he always is with ANY
character he is impersonating, not PLAYING him anymore but actually BEING him.
At least it feels so because it is just impossible to SEE the playing. I can
understand that this might be an empty statement to most people, that they
wouldn’t know what I mean – probably first of all Chris Eccleston himself
because, I suppose, for him, it is the only way of doing this, so that he might
not even understand why he is so special. (Pity, really …) But I am absolutely
certain that I am right about this, just measuring the pleasure I felt watching
it. And a little proud that I can see this, and experience it in this way,
because this is where I was going all the time as to the relationship I WANT to
have with text. (I certainly had it a few times already, but this time it
actually is “Macbeth”!) Of course, this is now my favourite bit of acting in
2018, and I feel extremely gratified that it is finally him! - And, what I was
really delighted with as well, and have to take up because I criticized them in
my earlier posts: Niahm Cusack and Chris Eccleston worked admirably together,
covering all the major issues of that relationship. There wasn’t much time for
anything, but this was also the reason, I suppose, for the actors to make the
most of what little there was. Only the sleepwalking scene was quite as
pathetic as I remember it, and I still didn’t really like (or accept) Niahm
Cusack’s rather old-fashioned version of Lady Macbeth, but it certainly worked.
(And this might be an indication that it is I who is getting it wrong because I
don’t want to accept the misogynist subtext ???) Otherwise (and with the
exception of the very first scenes!) everything was unbelievable good,
trenchant, and clever. Very likely the production was already quite “worn down”
when we saw it in Stratford, to the point even of being substantially changed. The
interesting thing is that the only actor who was better when I saw him last
summer was Luke Newbury as Malcolm – whom I had down as the same kind of
accomplished “Shakespeare actor” as Tunji Kasim was as Octavius Caesar. Same difference! It appears that this kind of
acting only gets better with time and practice.)
So, I
seem to have lost my thread a bit and have to step back. I selected Mark Antony
as an example for why Shakespeare is so amazing – and, in fact, unparalleled –
where the human stuff is concerned. And - even though they made more of it in
in “Rome” - I have no doubt that a lot of these ideas about who he was originally
came from Shakespeare! It is this potentially infinite complexity of character
and predicament that makes me come back to “Shakespeare” every time. And,
basically, there is no difference here between the two sexes. I used to think
that no contemporary prejudice could ever hurt this “vortex feature” which wouldn’t
allow any limitations of thinking and feeling to get in the way of the predicament
that has the biggest dramatic potential. And I recently dealt with this taking up
another “political correctness issue” in “The Merchant of Venice”. I don’t
doubt that Shakespeare himself held the antisemite prejudices that are voiced
in the play. The dramatic peak of the play, though, without doubt, is the scene
where Shylock demands the execution of his bond. And - although even a
contemporary judgement on Shylock will probably pronounce him guilty of inhuman
cruelty - this scene loses all its dramatic impact if his call for justice and
his suffering are not taken very seriously. So, it can be read and played AS
WELL as a blatant accusation of Christian inhumanity WITHOUT changing or
suppressing any relevant content. To be a great dramatic poet and make the utmost
of this kind of human issues is the main rule under which Shakespeare worked.
And this
assumption, I think, makes the potential of misogynist subtext to actually
DAMAGE a play more interesting. Lady Macbeth’s storyline just being broken -
without even an attempt to establish any consistency between what she has been
in the beginning and what she becomes in the end - may still be explained, for
example, by seeing her as an extension of Macbeth. Losing their usefulness as
to taking the story any further can be seen as just cause for a “death
sentence” in “Shakespeare” where, in fact, an economic use of stage time is
imperative. And the option of Lady Macbeth taking the matter into her own hand
probably just didn’t exist at the time, so it is at least not Shakespeare who
is RESPONSIBLE for the misogynist subtext. But it appears that I cannot help trying
to see a silver lining. I like to think that Claire Underwood wouldn’t have
turned out as “great” without what Shakespeare began with Lady Macbeth. Having
just watched the incredibly brilliant first episode of “House of Cards” (season
1) again, I realized for the first time TO WHAT EXTENT she actually is the
moving force behind the inexorable rise of Frank Underwood. That – even though
he appears to be more active! - it is in fact HER who “made” him (- at least as
much as he made her! 😉). And, IN THE BEGINNING, Lady Macbeth is
exactly the same. Her rise to “greatness” wouldn’t have been possible without
Macbeth, but she is by far the keener and more determined agent. (I am not
quite sure, though, if I would have liked Macbeth to have “TURNED OUT just to
be the means to an end” (House of Cards, season 6!). In case of doubt, though,
I prefer the worst case scenario …) But this is, of course, just what “history”
made of Lady Macbeth, not what she was supposed to signify at the time, and we
haven’t even STARTED on “Hamlet”!
What was
so interesting about Cleopatra, though, is that we BOTH run out of excuses and
explanations in her case. I even documented in my blog how I tried to find one,
but, in the end, it did not hold. And the reason is probably that Cleopatra is
not just a fictional character, like Lady Macbeth or Gertrude in “Hamlet”. She
isn’t “everywoman” but, like Mark Antony, has been an eminent figure on the
political stage of the time. So, from a contemporary point of view, we automatically
began to substitute historical content that Shakespeare INTENTIONALLY left out.
He quite obviously isn’t interested in Cleopatra as this political figure. And this
- especially if compared to the crystal-clear and eminently dramatic account of
the situation in “Rome” - quite obviously leads to a biased version of the
historical events and people’s motives. Interestingly, as to historical truth,
Shakespeare seems to take it more seriously than the writers of “Rome”. For
example, I always waited for Fulvia to turn up in the series, or at least get
mentioned, but she never did. According to Wikipedia, Shakespeare dealt with
her role in the story quite faithfully. But as to Cleopatra’s MOTIVES AND
INTENTIONS he got it totally wrong, DELIBERATELY, as I think. According to
contemporary misogynist and theologically controlled subtext she has to be the
“serpent” that seduces Antony, and her political role is restricted to this end.
There always is this possibility to play it differently, as Josette Simon did
in the RSC’s production – who “admits” to falling back on the historical
Cleopatra in her interview! – but it is NOT in the text Shakespeare has written.
So, basically, Sophie Okonedo got it right, even though we didn’t like it! And
I think, in this case, Shakespeare might easily have got it right himself if he
had been as interested in historical accuracy and complexity – and political
dramatic potential! - as he was in other cases.
Going
over this, I am extremely pleased with what I have written, first of all because
of the descriptions of intertextual “activities”. I totally loved how “House of
Cards” penetrated “Macbeth” already when I was watching it - and that I was
able to find the “hook” to describe it - realizing at the same time how the
series got everything out of “Macbeth” that it possibly could. And even though
I am not much fonder of feminism than I was – or could ever be of something
with an “ism” in it – I am eminently pleased with showing texts INTERACTING in
this way. To lay the finger on how exactly certain text can damage other text
and keep it from working and unfolding its full potential. Eminently pleased as
well of having been so “right” about “House of Cards” – or rather so wrong in
the end because I couldn’t see where Claire Underwood was going and thought
that the sixth season would be redundant. Of course, because of the “accident”
with Kevin Spacey, she couldn’t be SHOWN to ultimately destroy Frank Underwood,
but I DO think that Doug Stamper turned out as a worthy substitute in the end! 😉 (Now I finally ordered this t-shirt
…)
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen