What's It All About, Shakespeare?

Clever Portia and The Quality of Mercy

2013-06-09T13:29:00.000-07:00

Portia might seem only interested in getting
hitched, but she shows a much
smarter side in the courtroom scene

The Merchant of Venice contains a number of Shakespeare's best known speeches, including Portia's famous oratory on the ‘quality of mercy’.

Until this point in the play, Portia has appeared to be little more than a wealthy heiress courted by undesirable suitors. However, the “quality of mercy” speech and the courtroom scene as a whole, offers a view of a much more complex and intelligent character.

Why is it Portia Who Delivers the Speech?

Shakespeare could have used any number of characters to deliver this speech, including the Duke, so why does it fall to Portia, who has, until this juncture, had nothing to do with the ‘Shylock’ strand of the plot?

Perhaps the most fundamental (and uninteresting) reason is this is how Shakespeare’s source material told the story.

However, there are dramatic reasons, too. For example, if one of the Christian merchants had spoken the speech, it would have reduced Shylock’s validity as a worthy antagonist. His great weapon against the Christians is his power with words. Subsequently, although Shylock has only 360 lines in the play, they are undoubtedly some of the best.

And then there’s the duke. But if the Duke had delivered the speech, the play would have been resolved by a deux et machina, which is a valid theatrical device (used by Shakespeare on numerous occasions). However, it wouldn’t build dramatic tension throughout the scene, because an audience would know exactly how the play is going to be resolved. With Portia, things look a little more dicey.

Of course, the use of Portia also allows for cross-dressing, which is a firm favourite with Shakespeare, and the possibility for comedy, because, at the beginning of the scene, an audience is likely to think that Portia’s attempt to be a doctor of law (the term lawyer was not used at the time) will be a complete cock-up.

The Quality of Mercy is not Strain’d

The quality of mercy speech is one of Shakespeare's
most famous

So, we've looked at why Portia gives the speech. Now, let's take a look at the speech itself. What is she trying to do with it?

'The quality of mercy', like several of Shakespeare’s speeches, including 'To be or not to be' and 'Now is the winter of our discontent', is very well known, but most people could not quote beyond the first line or two.

The speech demonstrates Portia’s intelligence and boldness, but it perhaps also smacks of naiveté. Her seemingly innocent view of the world is, of course, another reason for using Portia to deliver the speech; the men of the play speak of commerce, spurning their enemies and revenge (all very unmerciful concepts).

Portia begins by using the metaphor of ‘gentle rain’ to describe mercy, and points out that mercy benefits the merciful and those who receive mercy, “It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.”

It is important to bear in mind that Portia already knows the Venetian law cannot prevent Shylock from taking the pound of flesh, so she has to make the concept of mercy as appealing as possible. She does this by describing it as a most becoming quality in the powerful, “Tis mightiest in the mightiest…”

The religious section of the speech is interesting, because Shylock’s response to this can, and is often, played in two different ways. On one hand, as a religious man, Shylock could recognise the human quest for salvation and mercy. Therefore he may be affected by the speech and waver a little in his pursuit of justice.

It might not have had the effect she
wanted, but the quality of mercy speech
gives us an insight into Portia's character

Alternatively, as the Jewish faith places a high value on justice, Shylock could be entirely unaffected by Portia’s words. Shylock’s reaction is, of course, down to the choices of actors and directors.

Either way, like an Elizabethan Perry Mason, Portia delivers a very clever piece of courtroom oratory, which transcends the question of the legality of the bond and looks at a higher state of right and wrong.

By the time Portia reaches her closing, “I have said thus much/To mitigate the justice of thy plea…” incredibly, she has managed to deliver a persuasive argument for the immorality of justice.

It might not have worked on Shylock, but it certainly gives the rest of us pause for thought.

If you'd like to learn more about the character of Portia throughout the course of the play, click here.

A version of this article was originally published, by the author, on Suite101.com.

What Would be Macbeth and Lady Macbeth's Song?

2013-05-24T14:24:00.001-07:00

Francesca Annis and Joe Finch in Polankski's Macbeth

It's fairly widely accepted that (at least before the murder of Duncan) the Macbeths are the happiest married couple to feature in any of Shakespeare's plays. I'd go as far as to say their relationship is one of the strongest (married or otherwise) that Shakespeare wrote.

A knee-jerk reaction might be to suppose that Romeo and Juliet are the great Shakespearean lovers, but let's think about that for a second: Romeo and Juliet are both incredibly young and Romeo, in particular, is spectacularly impetuous. We know, for example, that his affections (although undoubtedly strong), are apt to change. Would they have gone the distance or would Romeo have ditched Juliet as soon as some other beautiful young woman waltzed into his field of vision?

We'll never know, because he took his own life at the height of his passion for lovely Miss Capulet. But I'm not sure this tale of teen suicide is quite as romantic as some would claim.

Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, on the other hand, have gone the distance. As far as we know, they're loyal to each other. Certainly at the start of their play, they're very open - Macbeth's first instinct is to tell his wife about the witches prophecy.

And they work as a team when it comes to plotting and covering up the murder of Duncan. Okay, that might not be the most romantic activity a married couple can partake in; it doesn't scream 'date night', but it says something about the kind of relationship they have.

The fact of the matter is the play is all the more tragic, because part of Macbeth's downfall involves the destruction of his once very happy, extremely loving marriage. And as all soppy romantics have 'their song', I wondered what would be an appropriate one for the Macbeths...here's what I came up with.

Peter Cetera: The Glory of Love

I don't hold with this notion that Lady Macbeth makes her husband murder Duncan - that simplistic interpretation of their relationship is insulting to both Macbeth and Shakespeare. That said, it is clear that Macbeth (like most men) wants to be viewed as masculine, powerful and capable...he especially wants to be seen that way by his wife. And to paraphrase Mr Cetera, Macbeth is always strong when Lady M is beside him.

Take That: Rule The World

On a similar theme, Take That implies that a solid couple could indeed rule the entire world. It's a theory, I think, the Macbeths would subscribe to. And speaking of ruling the world, that bring us neatly onto another song that could have been written for Shakespeare's most famous married couple...

Garbage: The World is Not Enough

Ignore the fact it's a Bond theme and the fact that the Macbeths only want to rule Scotland, and go with me on this one. I think it's fair to say, if they hadn't been so preoccupied with keeping the throne and concealing their crimes, they would have moved on to bigger and better things. One thing's for sure, I don't think they would ever have been satisfied - relatively few of us ever are.

Meat Loaf: I Would Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That)

Let's be honest, there isn't much the Macbeths won't do for love. In fact, unlike Meat Loaf, I think they can do away with the parenthetical, 'but I won't do that'. If Lady Macbeth is to be believed, she'd kill her own baby...these things are easy to say though, right?

Kelly Clarkson: Dark Side

Everybody may have a dark side, but some are darker than others. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth have a particularly dark side. Initially, this is fine with both of them, but as it turns out they're not able of loving that side of themselves or each other.

Michael Sembello: Maniac

Okay, there's no dancing (flash or otherwise) going on in Macbeth, but I'm sure there are many people who would describe Lady Macbeth as a maniac. In truth, it's a label that could be applied to either of them, especially in the latter half of the play.

If there are other songs you think would fit my favourite Scottish, Shakespearean couple, leave your suggestions in the comments below. And if you'd like to find out more about Macbeth, take a gander at What's It All About, Shakespeare? A Guide to Macbeth.

Why is Shakespeare Boring?

2013-05-14T05:47:00.000-07:00

If you'd like to send me a
Shakespeare-related question, feel
free to write to:
such_stuff_as_dreams@yahoo.com

A couple of weeks ago, I received an email from a student who had stumbled upon What's It All About, Shakespeare? Their note was seeking advice on creating a Shakespeare-themed blog, for an assignment, and asked how I made a subject as "boring" as Shakespeare seem interesting.

Now, I suppose, that was a compliment, but I immediately became very defensive of The Bard. Don't get me wrong, I know it's not an uncommon opinion. However, it's one of those things I simply can't understand - like why anyone would want to bungee jump or what it is about jellied eel that some people find appealing.

How can anyone find Shakespeare boring?

Well, actually, when I stopped to really consider that question, I did find my answer. I will always maintain that Shakespeare and his works are not now, nor have they ever been, boring. But, and this is a big but (which I like; I cannot lie), Shakespeare can be made boring.

How to Make Shakespeare Interesting

Enthusiasm is contagious, so is apathy

My response to the email that began this post was not a big ol' rant about the fact that Shakespeare wasn't boring, although that impulse was within me. Instead, I explained that my posts probably didn't read as 'boring', because I don't find Shakespeare boring.

In other words, if you want to write something interesting about a subject, choose a subject that you're passionate about. Enthusiasm is a wonderfully contagious thing.

If you love something, and can explain why you love it, other people will start to see your point of view.

And that, basically, was the whole purpose of this blog. It's great if people who already like Shakespeare enjoy it, but its real reason for being is to encourage those who wouldn't usually touch Shakespeare with a barge pole to see that The Bard's plays and poems really aren't as intimidating or dull as they might believe.

So, if enthusiasm and passion can make a subject seem interesting, the reverse must also be true And that is where we run into, "Shakespeare is boring" territory.

How to Make Shakespeare Boring?

Shakespeare can be made boring by the dull way his
plays are often taught

Although I'm a huge advocate of teaching Shakespeare in schools, I can see a rather glaring problem with it: if it's taught badly, then a whole bunch of young people are turned off Shakespeare's work for life.

What do I mean by taught 'badly'? Well, I'd argue that if the vast majority of the class comes away from an English lesson with the opinion that it was 'boring', then the teacher was doing something wrong.

Now, I was, by all accounts, a bit of a weirdo (probably still am), because I actually had quite a dull introduction to Shakespeare, but still managed to find something in it I loved. The rest of my class probably didn't feel the same way. How did we learn Shakespeare? We sat at our desks and took turns reading various parts of A Midsummer Night's Dream.

I'm sure there was a theory to this: if we heard the words out loud, we'd begin to understand them better. However, if you have a bunch of thirteen-year-olds, who can't comprehend the rhythm of Shakespearean dialogue not to mention some of the more archaic words, it's going to make even less sense than trying to read it alone. For example, a boy in my class, who'd been given Oberon to read, spoke the character's most famous line as, "I'll met by moonlight, proud Titania." It didn't even occur to him that it was nonsensical, because he didn't understand any of it. And neither did the rest of us.

The Problem With Teaching Shakespeare

Just reading Shakespeare isn't the most interesting
way to learn

Hearing Shakespeare read, or misread, in monotone voices is the best way I know of to make Shakespeare thoroughly boring.

And it seems insane that this is still the way most people learn Shakespeare, and I use the word 'learn' loosely, because I'm convinced the majority of students gain nothing from this kind of teaching.

I am convinced that if school kids were given the opportunity to watch a professional performance and, better yet, encouraged to get up and act some of the scenes themselves, they would begin to see that the themes and characters are just as exciting and engaging as any modern TV show or film.

Is this a viable option? I cannot see why not. I know that teachers have limited time, but the time they have is wasted if Shakespeare is being taught as I experienced it.

And just one last thought on why Shakespeare is boring: before trying to read one of his plays aloud, it seems fundamental to learn how to actually read Shakespeare. Looking back, it seems crazy to me that our English teacher did not spend twenty minutes, before we ever opened the play, explaining iambic pentameter and how that affects the way in which a line should be read.

While I will never agree with the statement 'Shakespeare is boring', I will submit that his work can often be made boring. And with alarmingly regularity it is made boring by the very people who introduce us to Shakespeare's work.

To find out more about why I don't believe Shakespeare is boring, take a look at What's It All About, Shakespeare? An Introduction to The Bard of Avon.

Julia Stiles and Modern Adaptations of Shakespeare

2013-03-28T07:50:00.001-07:00

Julia Stiles as Kat in 10 Things I Hate About You

What do I have in common with Dirk Bogarde, Lady Gaga, Nick Frost and Julia Stiles? We were all born on the 28th of March.

Now, I wondered for a while whether I could somehow weave a connection between Gaga and Shakespeare...has she ever worn anything Shakespeare-themed? If not, perhaps one day she will.

Nick Frost, on the other hand, could probably do some Shakespeare. Given his brilliant performance as Ed in Shaun of The Dead, it's not a stretch to imagine him as an impressive Falstaff or Toby Belch.

As far as I can discern, Dirk Bogarde didn't do any Shakespeare - if he did, there's certainly no reference to it on the all-seeing, all-knowing internet. I dare say, he could have made a very dashing Bassanio, though. And perhaps, in his older years, Antonio.

However, for the purposes of this blog post, I've plumped for Julia Stiles, because she has already starred in three modern adaptations of Shakespeare plays: 10 Things I Hate About You (The Taming of The Shrew), Hamlet and 'O' (Othello).

Julia Stiles in 10 Things I Hate About You

10 Things I Hate About You did not provide Stiles' with her first lead role in a film. However, it was the first to receive a commercial release in the U.S. It was the role that really launched her career, gaining her critical praise from many corners.

And Kat Stratford, although very much a modern girl, does have undeniable similarities to her predecessor: Shakespeare's Katharina. Now, of course, Stiles can't take all the credit - part of the reason she makes such a great Kat/Katharina is that the film was very well written. And, for the most part, 10 Things I Hate About You is reasonably faithful (as faithful as any reworking that sets Shakespeare in a high school can be) to The Taming of The Shrew.

Julia Stiles in Hamlet

Julia's second modernization of Shakespeare came just a year after 10 Things..., playing Ophelia opposite Ethan Hawke's Hamlet. Here Stiles took on a very different Shakespearean woman - on the face of it, you can't get women more polar opposite than Katharina and Ophelia. Although, of course, they both have facets of unruliness that seems typical of all of Shakespeare's girls.

This adaptation took something of a machete to Shakespeare's original, making it a rather different story, despite the fact they were going for a Baz Luhrmann (keep the dialogue) approach. And, let's be honest, some of the performances leave a little to be desired. In fact, if you're looking for a film version of Hamlet, you're best sticking with one of the many other. Nevertheless, Stiles didn't do too badly.

Julia Stiles in 'O'

And then, the following year, Julia Stiles took on another of Shakespeare's unfortunate heroines. This time, in an adaptation that takes place in another U.S. high school.

O isn't always faithful to its original, either. However, Julia Stiles does give a belting performance as Desi, demonstrating her versatility beautifully if we compare her here and in her more comedic role in 10 Things...

It can't be denied that Stiles has talent, and it seems she has an affinity for Shakespeare, though whether that's through design on her part of the way the roles have fallen in her career, I don't know. It would be good to see her in more, though!

If you'd like to learn more about modern adaptations of Shakespeare's work, check out What's It All About, Shakespeare? An Introduction to The Bard of Avon.

How Did a New Monarch Affect Shakespeare?

2013-03-24T07:33:00.000-07:00

How did James I's reign affect
Shakespeare's work?

On the 24th of March, 1603, Elizabeth I's nephew, James VI of Scotland, became king of England. Now that the country was under new management, how was Shakespeare and his work affected?

Well, by all accounts this change of monarch was very positive for Shakespeare and his company.

James I's Love of The Arts

James was a huge fan of the arts, specifically theatre. In fact, in the latter part of her reign, Elizabeth sent some of the best English players to Scotland to entertain and impress the Scottish king.

Although we have no proof that Shakespeare was among theses men, it is possible that the Bard went north of the border, during a nine month absence from London, in 1599-1600.

In any event, three short years later, James would be in London as king and one of his first acts as monarch was a move in favour of drama. Shakespeare's troupe would no longer be known as the Chamberlain's Men, now they were the King's Men and had license to not only perform at the Globe, but also town halls and many other suitable spaces in the provinces.

How Shakespeare Flattered James I

Shakespeare's company was no longer
known as the Chamberlain's Men

Knowing only too well that it's wise to stay on a monarch's good side, Shakespeare wasted no time in finding ways to flatter and please his new king and patron.

The most obvious example of Shakespeare's flattery is Macbeth, the Scottish play, which contains witches (a fascination of James'), Scotland (of course), Banquo (who is an ancestor of James') and themes of guilt and conscious (which was another area of great interest to James).

Not to mention, of course, that the main theme of the play is, 'don't mess with the divine right to rule'. For a monarch as paranoid as James, this must have been a very satisfying message.

However, Shakespeare didn't stop there, the fact that Hamlet is set in Elsinore is a nod to James, as it was where he spent his honeymoon with Anne of Denmark.

Now, I know what you're thinking, but despite Hamlet being written before James became king, changes could have been made before it was printed in approximately 1603 or, of course, Shakespeare, like many of Elizabeth courtiers, could have preempted James' ascension to the throne.

Measure for Measure, which was written in 1604, seems to have a reference to the new king, too.

"I love the people, But do not like to stage me to their eyes. Though it do well, I do not relish well Their loud applause and aves vehement"

Elizabeth had indulged James' love of the arts by sending
players to Scotland

This seems to be a overt reference to James' own opinion of the masses who wanted to gather to greet him as he entered the new kingdom.

Apparently, he forbade this, telling people that he disapproved heartily of the tradition.

And then, of course, there's this vote of confidence from Elizabeth's eulogy in Henry VIII:

"...Her ashes new-create another heir, As great in admiration as herself; So shall she leave her blessedness to one, When heaven shall call her from this cloud of darkness, Who from the sacred ashes of her honour Shall star-like rise, as great in fame as she was, And so stand fix'd: peace, plenty, love, truth, terror, That were the servants to this chosen infant. Shall then be his, and like a vine grow to him: Wherever the bright sun of heaven shall shine, His honour and the greatness of his name Shall be, and make new nations: he shall flourish, And, like a mountain cedar, reach his branches To all the plains about him: — our children's children Shall see this, and bless heaven."

Let's face it, you couldn't get much more sycophantic than that - not that I'm judging Shakespeare.

After all, not only did he know that being on the right side of James would mean huge injections of cash, but also that being on the wrong side of James could result in his head being hacked off. So, all things being equal, I think we can forgive him a little apple-polishing.

What Happened to Shakespeare Under the Reign of James I?

At the height of his success,
Shakespeare was raking in the cash

Quite simply, things for Shakespeare and his company went from good to better under the reign of James I.

Already a well-known name on the London theatre scene, Shakespeare's popularity increased after 1603; causing him and his fellow company members to become very rich indeed.

On a creative level, Shakespeare also produced some of his best known and highly regarded plays during this period. Now, it could be that James' financial help or inspiration helped Shakespeare to achieve this.

However, I suspect the new monarch had little to do with the higher quality of Shakespeare's output. Rather, the man from Stratford Upon Avon was now in his stride.

No matter who had been on the throne, I believe, he would have been cracking out masterpieces.

If you'd like to learn more about Shakespeare, be sure to take a look at What's It All About, Shakespeare? An Introduction to The Bard of Avon.

Things Shakespeare DIDN'T Write

2013-03-19T13:04:00.000-07:00

'Hell hath no fury' is not
one of Shakespeare's

The recent Chris Huhne/Vicky Pryce saga prompted a discussion with a family member about where, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" comes from. I had great difficult convincing her that Shakespeare did not write those words, and later found out that her mistake is not an unusual one: "Hell hath no fury..." is regularly misattributed to Shakespeare.

This got me thinking about all the other phrases that are labelled as Shakespeare's, or the instances of misquotations that have seeped into common parlance. So, here are just a few phrases that were definitely NOT written by Shakespeare.

Hell Hath No Fury Like a Woman Scorned

People who think this was written by Shakespeare are close in the fact that the words were penned by a playwright and his Christian name was William.

However, they belong to William Congreve, who was a Restoration period dramatist. And while we're being precise, the line, which comes from The Mourning Bride, actually reads, "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned." This, for my money, is much better than the common paraphrased version.

Poor William Congreve not only had to
walk around with that hair, but he also
has some of his best work
misattributed to another playwright

And, as we're on the subject of poor old William Congreve, that brings us nicely to another of his lines that has been falsely branded as Shakespeare's.

Music has Charms to Soothe a Savage Breast...

This is also from Congreve's The Mourning Bride, and is the very first line from the play.

Not only is this quote often attributed to Bill Shakespeare, but it's also, readily, misquoted as 'savage beast'.

'Tis Better to Have Loved and Lost Than Never to Have Loved at All

I seem to recall, although please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that Will Smith mentions this in Men in Black, stating that it was written by Shakespeare. Even if Will Smith didn't say it, many, many, many people have erroneously attributed 'Tis better to have loved...' to The Bard.

In fact, it was written well over two hundred years after Shakespeare's death, and comes from Alfred Tennyson's In Memoriam A. H. H.

So, Farewell Hope and With Hope, Farewell Fear...

'So, farewell hope...' comes from John
Milton's Paradise Lost

This comes not far (some fifty years) after Shakespeare's death, so I can sort of understand the confusion. It is at least from approximately the same era as Shakespeare.

However, I'm not sure John Milton would appreciate passages of his greatest work being attributed to another poet. This quote is actually from Paradise Lost, published in 1667.

How Do I Love Thee? Let Me Count the Ways...

I find it difficult, given how famous this poem is to believe that anybody would mistake it as Shakespeare's work, but apparently people often do.

It is, of course, the opening line of Elizabeth Barrett Browning's most famous poem, number 43 from her collection Sonnets From The Portuguese.

Oh! What a Tangled Web we Weave When First we Practice to Deceive

This is another quote from a famous playwright and poet, but it's not Shakespeare. Sir Walter Scott penned this beautifully phrase (and sound advice) in 1808, as part of his epic poem Marmion.

Come Live With Me and Be My Love

This is a quote perhaps more understandably misattributed to our friend Shakespeare, because it was penned by one of his contemporaries.

If Christopher Marlowe wasn't Shakespeare,
then 'come live with me and be my love' is
regularly misattributed

And, of course, depending on your point of view, you might believe that Christopher Marlowe actually was Shakespeare, in which case, you'd be right to call this a line from his work.

In any event, the quote comes from Marlowe's poem, The Passionate Shepherd to His Love, which was published in 1599.

***

These are, of course, just a few of the most common quotes misattributed to William Shakespeare. I suppose that it's flattering to The Bard to think that people assume popular literary and poetic phrases are his. However, it's not quite so flattering for the quotes' true authors, whose talents should never be forgotten.

If you'd like to find out more about the things Shakespeare DID write, take a look at What's It All About, Shakespeare? An Introduction to The Bard of Avon.

The Psychology of Richard III | What Was Tricky Dicky Really Like?

2013-03-07T11:42:00.002-08:00

Does this look like the face of a homicidal maniac to you?

Professor Mark Lansdale and Dr Julian Boon from the University of Leicester have been trying to get into Richard III's head. What have they discovered?

The real Richard may not have been the psychopath from Shakespeare's play.

Ever since the facial reconstruction of Richard was unveiled, he's seemed that little bit more human, hasn't he?

Well, now Professor Lansdale, the head of Leicester university's School of Psychology, and Dr Boon, a forensic psychologist, have been poring over contemporary and historical documents in an attempt to find evidence that Richard III had any of the common characteristics of the psychopathic mindset, which include:

Unreliability
Untruthfulness
Superficial charm
No capacity for remorse
Inability to learn from experience
Lack of insight
Incapable of 'normal' emotions - such as love
Sense that 'right' and 'wrong' does not apply to them
Cunning and manipulative

What Lansdale and Boon have discovered is...none of the above. In their opinion, there is a complete lack of evidence that Richard had any of the usual traits associated with a psychopathic mentality. And, quite rightly, they point out that if he had been any of the above, the Tudors would have jumped on it, just as they did his slight deformity, in order to paint him blacker than he actually was.

Naturally though, it's difficult to be sure about these things. Dr Boon cannot interview Richard, and none of us can really know what the man was like. Not for sure.

For example, it seems that Richard III was loyal to his brother, Edward IV - and, as no evidence seems to suggest otherwise, we assume that's true. And, of course, it's thought that Richard was deeply distressed by the deaths of his wife and son, indicating that he was indeed capable of love and other 'normal' emotions.

But can we ever know whether these were just outward shows of devotion and love? Could they simply have been part of his cunning plan? Like Blackadder, perhaps he had a plan so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a weasel.

Or maybe I just want Richard III to have been like Shakespeare's version of him.

What about killing his nephews? Well, seeing as murder (even of family members) was not altogether unusual in the era, it's thought that even if he did 'do them in', that alone is not evidence enough to call him a psychopath.

What has emerged is that Richard may have had an 'Intolerance of Uncertainty', which is typically known as IU. This is similar to an obsessive personality, and people with IU often place strong emphasis on justice, as well as having rigid morals. If it's true that Richard had this personality type, it's unlikely that he resembled Shakespeare's character in many (if any) ways.

This is all good news for The Richard III Society, who have been working tirelessly to clear the last Plantagenet king's name.

As for Shakespeare's version of the king, well, let's be honest, that character is far too irresistible to ever be completely wiped out - no matter how good the real Richard turns out to have been.

For more information, visit the source - University of Leicester's site.

The Seven Basic Plots and Shakespeare

2013-02-26T11:13:00.004-08:00

How do Shakespeare's plays fit
into the 'seven basic plots'?

According to Christopher Booker, there are only seven types of story that exist in the whole of literature, theatre and film. On the face of it, Shakespeare’s plays should all slot into either one of just two of these categories, but do they?

Let’s start at the very beginning, what are the seven basic plots:

Overcoming the monster
Rags to riches
The quest
Voyage and return
Comedy
Tragedy
Rebirth

If you’d like to find out more about those and see examples in well-known plays, novels and films, have a quick look here.

Should it be Shakespeare and The Two Basic Plots?

How does Shakespeare’s work fit into those seven basic plots? It’s fairly simple, isn’t it? After all, Shakespeare’s plays were divided into three categories: tragedy, comedy and history, so the vast majority of his works would fall into either the ‘tragic’ or ‘comic’ story arcs.

But I’m not so sure it’s as easy as that. I think that many of the plays fit into more than one of those categories, especially if you look at them from different characters' points of view.

For instance, Macbeth is undoubtedly a tragedy…if we’re looking at the play through Macbeth’s eyes. But from Macduff’s angle, it’s looking very much like an ‘overcoming the monster’ story, isn’t it?

Can Shakespeare’s Plays be Placed into The Seven Basic Plots?

Good question! And, I realise, of course, that I’m congratulating myself there. But, if you were thinking it, then bravo to you too.

I think Shakespeare’s plays are so complex and multi-layered that most of them can easily fit into two or more of the categories Booker lists.

Now, I was going to go right ahead and trawl through all thirty seven plays, but I’m not sure that would make for very entertaining reading, so I’ve chosen just seven plays with which to illustrate my point.

Is The Comedy of Errors more than a comedy?

The Comedy of Errors - Okay, ostensibly, it’s a comedy; it has all the traditional elements, such as confusion and disguise.

However, I’d say The Comedy of Errors also fits into the ‘voyage and return’ category, because the boys from Syracuse find themselves in a very strange world (or so it seems to them), not dissimilar to one of the most famous examples of a ‘voyage and return’ story: Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream - Again, very strong elements of the ‘voyage and return’, and here that holds even more true - with the young lovers finding themselves in the, quite literally, magical world of the Athenian forest.

The Merchant of Venice - Most people would agree that The Merchant of Venice doesn’t even fit comfortably in its original pigeon hole: comedy. I’d argue, from Bassanio’s perspective, it could be seen as a ‘rags to riches’ story. Of course, it could also be branded a ‘rebirth’ story for Shylock, although that’s rather distasteful to our modern perceptions.

Does Katharina experience a 'rebirth' in
The Taming of The Shrew?

The Taming of The Shrew - This battle of the sexes is another plot that can seem uncomfortably classed as ‘comedy’ to us. Perhaps we could call it a ‘rebirth’ plot, though.

Whether Katharina has been truly tamed, or whether she’s being sarcastic in her final soliloquy, it can’t be denied that she’s no longer the, frankly, quite monstrous character she was at the beginning of the play.

King Lear - For Lear (if you cut out all the nasty death at the end), this is could be deemed a ‘voyage and return’ or ‘rebirth’ story; his journey into the untamed landscape sends him mad, but, ultimately, offers clarity.

Is As You Like It a 'voyage and return' story for
the boys and girls in the forest of Arden?

As You Like It - Could be said to be another example of a ‘voyage and return’ in terms of the story of Duke Senior, his followers and the young gang that ends up in the forest of Arden.

From the perspective of Oliver and the Younger Duke, of course, it may be deemed a ‘rebirth’.

Julius Caesar - Just as Macbeth could be said to be an ‘overcoming the monster’ story if seen through the eyes of Macduff and Malcolm, Julius Caesar might be called an ‘overcoming the monster’ story if we’re focusing on the play through Marc Antony’s eyes.

What does this all prove? Well…nothing much, except that perhaps some stories are far too complex to slot neatly into pigeon holes.

If you’d like to learn more about Shakespeare, check out What’s It All About, Shakespeare? An Introduction to The Bard of Avon.

How to Prepare a Shakespeare Audition Speech

2013-02-24T06:54:00.000-08:00

Need help preparing a
Shakespeare audition speech?

If you're planning to audition for drama school, or if you want to perform in a Shakespeare play, chances are you'll have to prepare a Shakespeare audition speech. Now, on the face of it, this might seem daunting, especially if you're a drama school auditionee, who hasn't studied much of the Bard.

However, whether you love or loathe Shakespeare, there are a few simple steps that can help you prepare for an audition and ensure that you give the best performance possible.

Step One: Choose Your Weapon (Soliloquy)

You might be asked to perform a specific speech; in which case, you can skip this step.

If you have the opportunity to choose your Shakespeare speech though, the world really is your oyster.

Well, not quite your oyster, especially if you're a girl.

But there are some great soliloquies for both genders, and you may even choose to perform a speech from a character who is the opposite gender to you. For the ladies reading, if Sarah Bernhardt can do Hamlet, then why can't you?

If Sarah Bernhardt can do
Hamlet, why can't you?

And for the gentleman, all Shakespearean roles were originally played by men, so what's to stop you performing Portia's 'quality of mercy'.

Be wary, though, as you might be specifically asked to choose a speech that's in your playing age. So, if you're an eighteen-year-old girl, King Lear is certainly out.

All that said, though, it is wise not to select a speech that the auditioners have seen and heard a million times - I'm thinking along the lines of Juliet's balcony speech and Macbeth's 'tomorrow' soliloquy.

Unless you think you've got something totally original and radically unexpected to offer one of the really well-known speeches, it's better to choose one that the auditioners haven't already seen five times that day.

If you're looking for Shakespeare speeches, they can all be found here.

Step Two: Watch The Entire Play

Get a DVD copy of your Shakespeare
play and watch it

Notice, I wrote 'watch' not 'read'. By all means, read the play, too. And you might prefer to read rather than watch the play. However, I do strongly suggest watching it, especially if you're not a Shakespeare lover, because it is likely to help you make sense of the play as a whole.

I cannot stress enough how important it is to know the play from which your speech comes. Why? Well, for one thing, you might be asked a question to which you cannot give an answer.

But, in terms of your performance, you need to know what happens to your character both before and after the speech - what has lead him/her to this point? Is the speech in some way ironic, because of what's to come? These are things you simply cannot know unless you know the play.

Step Three: Get Some Inspiration

This is another step that you may choose to leave out, particularly if you're concerned that watching another actor's performance of a speech will negatively affect your own. However, in most cases, I think it can be extremely valuable to watch an expert do it. And don't just stick with one interpretation, seek out as many different versions of the speech as you can.

For example, take a look at Mel Gibson performing 'to be or not to be':

And compare that with Laurence Olivier's version of the speech:

Try to note what the actors do differently and why they've made those choices. When it comes to performing your own version of the speech, you might decide to go in an entirely different direction, or you may think that one or more of the actors is onto something.

There's nothing wrong with seeking inspiration; just ensure that when it comes to your audition, you're putting your own stamp on the speech.

Step Four: Learn the Words and Learn Them Well

Memorise your Shakespeare audition
speech, until you know it like the back
of your hand

You can't possible give the best performance you're capable of if you're struggling to remember the words.

For some people, learning Shakespearean dialogue is easier than modern speech, thanks to the rhythm, which can make it akin to learning song lyrics.

However, for many, memorising a Shakespeare speech is something of a nightmare.

If you find it difficult, there really is no quick fix. The solution is just drilling the speech over and over again, until you know it like the back of your hand.

If you know this is going to have to be your method, ensure that you've left yourself plenty of time to memorise the speech properly.

And that really is all there is to it. If you follow all of the steps above, you'll be well-prepared for your audition and able to perform your Shakespeare speech to the best of your abilities. So, break a leg!

If you'd like help getting to grips with Shakespeare and truly understanding a soliloquy or speech, be sure to check out, What's It All About, Shakespeare? An Introduction to The Bard of Avon.

Richard Briers and Shakespeare

2013-02-19T03:30:00.001-08:00

Yesterday, sadly, Richard Briers passed away at the age of 79. To millions of British television viewers, he is inextricably linked to his character Tom Good, in The Good Life.

However, Briers' career was bookended with Shakespeare: beginning as a young Hamlet in rep theatre, who's frenetic delivery was remarked upon by critics; and, in his later years, collaborating with Kenneth Branagh's Renaissance Theatre and Renaissance Films, which would bring Richard Briers to an entirely new generation of film and theatre-goers. We would see him get to grips with vastly different characters, from Malvolio to King Lear and Bardolph (among others).

Here are just a few photographs and screenshots of Richard Briers' brilliant work as some of Shakespeare's greatest characters:

Briers as Hamlet -Duthy Hall, London, 1956

Richard Briers as Malvolio in Renaissance Theatre's production of Twelfth Night, 1987

As the recently hanged Bardolph in Henry V, 1989

He went back to the stage in 1990 with Renaissance Theatre's King Lear

Richard Briers as Leonato in Renaissance Film's Much Ado About Nothing, 1993

Opposite Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, Briers played Polonius in Renaissance Film's Hamlet, 1996

In 2002, Briers played Prospero in The Tempest

Richard Briers (Adam) and David Oyelowo (Orlando) in Renaissance Film's As You Like It, 2006

The veteran actor succumbed to emphysema on 17th February, 2013, dying at his home in London. Taken from us too soon, Briers' talent will, thankfully, live on in his work for both television and film.

Sir Kenneth Branagh said of Briers, "He was a national treasure, a great actor and a wonderful man."

Can Hamlet be Seen as a Villain?

2013-02-09T14:20:00.000-08:00

Does Hamlet have a menacing streak?
Kenneth Branagh as a Hamlet (1996)

After an article I wrote on why Shakespeare’s villains are so irresistible, comments drifted into a fascinating debate over whether or not Hamlet can be perceived as a villain. And because this very subject was also mentioned on a post I wrote here, ‘The Recipe for a Great Shakespearean Villain’, I think it bears closer scrutiny.

Now, clearly, Hamlet is a tragic hero - one of the most famous the world has ever known. But is he only a tragic hero because we’re viewing the events of the play (largely) through his eyes?

In other words, if Shakespeare hadn’t made Hamlet the protagonist, would we still feel the young prince is just in his pursuit of a revenge that will end in the deaths of almost everybody in the Danish court?

Do we feel as sympathetic towards him when viewing Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, for example?

There is a Difference Between Being Villainous and Being Evil

Now, I don’t for one moment think Hamlet is an Iago-like figure or an Edmund, but brace yourself, because I'm about to make comparisons between the Danish prince and two of Shakespeare's most reviled villains. And it’s worth mentioning that the whole reason this discussion came about is because I put forth a theory that all of Shakespearean villains are sympathetic in some way.

And in that vein, I’d argue that no Shakespearean villain is evil for evil’s sake. They’re usually seeking one of two things: power or revenge.

Just as I wouldn’t brand Tamora evil (she has cause, after all, doesn’t she?), I’m not suggesting that Hamlet is an ‘evil’ villain. However, like the aforementioned queen of the Goths, he clearly falls into the latter of the two ‘villainous motives’ camps.

It Depends on Your Point of View

In Ophelia's eyes, is Hamlet more villain than victim?

And just imagine, if you will, that the entire play were told through Ophelia’s eyes.

She could be the one endlessly soliloquising about her woes: her lover, who seems to have lost his marbles, is endlessly cruel and cryptic, and eventually stabs her father to death.

Ophelia has seen him manically talking to himself, plotting - not so dissimilar to Shakespeare’s great villains.

'Ah,' you say, 'but he’s plotting against the wrongdoers.'

Yes, that’s perfectly true. Does it absolve him of guilt over the collateral damage, though? Hamlet’s actions, albeit indirectly, prompt poor Ophelia to commit suicide. Is that really so different from Iago’s actions indirectly causing Othello to murder Desdemona? Iago never anticipated that little turn of events, but he’s responsible for it nonetheless.

And, of course, like Iago, Hamlet pretends to be something he isn't in order to manipulate a reaction from the play's other characters. You could say, Hamlet's motive for doing so is more understandable, but the method is very similar.

But Hamlet’s The Victim of The Play

Hamlet was always meant to be a conflicted
character | Richard Burton as Hamlet (1964)

Indeed he is a victim, but does that prove anything?

Let’s look at King Lear through Edmund’s eyes; as though he were the protagonist of the play. Edmund has been shunned by his father, “He hath been out nine years and away he shall again.” and has no right to title or assets, simply because he is illegitimate. Is that fair? Is he any less a victim of his circumstance than Hamlet?

So, is he wrong to attempt to rectify the injustice?

Now don't get me wrong, there is no question, Shakespeare intended Hamlet to be a hero. However, there’s also no question that Shakespeare never intended it to be a black and white issue of wrong vs. right or evil vs. good.

Just as Macbeth is a tragic hero, who can seem more villain than victim, I’d argue that Hamlet can be seen as a villain, if we’re looking at him in the right light. But what do you think?

What Makes Macbeth a Tragic Hero?

2013-01-28T12:19:00.001-08:00

Can a murderer be a 'hero' of any description?

Is Macbeth a tragic hero, or does he simply get what's coming to him?

The play is named after him and he dies at the end. These two facts are indicative of Macbeth being a tragic hero, but they don’t make him one. So what does?

Shakespeare’s perception, and our modern view of tragedy are founded in Aristotle’s theories on the subject.

Aristotelian tragedy, as described in Poetics, has shaped every form of dramatic art, from Ancient Greek theatre to big-budget Hollywood blockbusters.

According to Aristotle, tragic heroes must conform to a few rules. Most notably:

They should not be too good. Otherwise, an audience will feel that their downfalls are unjust.
They should not be too bad. Otherwise, an audience will feel no sympathy for them.
They must have an intrinsic character flaw known as ‘hamartia’, which causes them to do something horrific and instigates their fall from grace.

Macbeth’s Bad Side

Can we really for sorry for someone
with all that blood on his hands?

It’s not difficult to explain how Macbeth conforms to the first of the rules above.

As soon as the witches tell him that he’ll be king, he begins to have rather dark thoughts about how he can make it happen.

“…why do I yield to that suggestion/Whose horrid image doth unfix my hair/And make my seated heart knock at my ribs,/Against the use of nature?…My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical,/Shakes so my single state of man…”

Of course, he doesn’t stop at the assassination of Duncan, either.

In order to retain the throne, he is driven to even more heinous acts, including ordering the murders of Banquo, and Fleance, as well as the slaughter of every single member of Macduff’s household.

Macbeth’s Good Side

Macbeth can't technically be called a 'baddie'

However, in concordance with Aristotle’s opinion, Macbeth isn’t all bad. At first glance, it may seem difficult to find redeeming features in a mass-murdering tyrant.

But it’s important to remember that, at the beginning of the play, he is lauded as a great and loyal soldier.

His hesitancy over committing regicide, “We will proceed no further in this business…” is also evidence of the fact that he is not an innately ‘evil’ person.

Macbeth’s Tragic Flaw

Often, Aristotle’s use of the word ‘hamartia’ is translated as a fault that causes a horrific act to occur as an unforeseen consequence or accident.

Alternatively, the terrible act can be as a result of ignorance or negligence. For example, Hamlet’s murder of Polonius is an accidental act, which is caused by his hesitancy in exacting revenge on Claudius.

However, Macbeth’s flaw, which is initially ambition, does not cause an accidental or unforeseen event. The murder of Duncan is a very purposeful act, although it could be argued that, as he was focused solely on the witches prophecy, it was an act of ignorance rather than malice…but even that might be stretching it a bit.

Do you think Macbeth is a tragic hero?

Later, after he has met with the witches for a second time, he begins to develop another flaw: hubris, which mistakenly convinces him that he is immortal.

“Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn/The power of man, for none of woman born/Shall harm Macbeth.”

The tragic flaws of ambition and hubris cause Macbeth, the loyal and honourable soldier, to become a mass-murdering despot.

Despite the many horrific, bloody acts he has committed, we should feel empathy for him, because he isn’t a ‘bad’ guy.

And there is a sense that, if he had never met the witches, he would not have come to such an unpleasant downfall.

But, of course, whether Macbeth truly is man 'more sinned against than sinning' really rather depends on who you ask. Macduff, for example, would feel that Macbeth got his just desserts.

What do you think? Do you feel sorry for the mass-murdering Macbeth?

If you'd like to know more about Macbeth's tragic hero status, be sure to take a look at What's It All About, Shakespeare? A Guide to Macbeth.

The Importance of Puck in A Midsummer Night's Dream

2013-01-23T11:13:00.001-08:00

Puck or Robin Goodfellow is a
character from folklore

Cheeky sprite and Mischievous prankster, Puck plays an integral role in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream.

Shakespeare’s Puck, or Robin Goodfellow, is based on a character of the same name from ancient English, Welsh and Irish folklore; ‘Puca’ (in Irish) being used to identify a half-tame woodland sprite or fairy.

Both the original mythological Puck and William Shakespeare’s incarnation are known for their mischievous antics. However, in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Puck is much more than just a jester.

In fact, it could be argued that he is the most influential character in terms of the confusion and outcome of the play.

Puck as Oberon’s Fool

Stanley Tucci as Puck

Parallels can be drawn between Puck, “that merry wanderer of the night”(II.i) and any number of Shakespeare’s fools; Feste in Twelfth Night, Touchstone in As You Like It and The Fool in King Lear. The use of clowns, jesters or fools was nothing new, even in the Elizabethan era.

Typically, Shakespeare’s fools are commoners, servants or citizens who are witty and able to run intellectual rings around their masters or ‘betters’.

As mentioned in my post on the role of Shakespeare's clowns, often fools point out the ridiculousness of a dramatic situation. This is especially true of Puck, who mocks both the mechanicals and the lovers for the audience’s benefit: “Helena is here at hand;/And the youth, mistook by me,/Pleading for a lover's fee./Shall we their fond pageant see?/Lord, what fools these mortals be!”(III.ii)

Many of his pranks are ordered by, or concocted for the amusement of, Oberon. Thus, he is both servant and jester to the fairy king. In addition, his shenanigans, intentional and accidental, amuse and entertain us.

Puck is the Creator of Midsummer Madness

Puck by Joshua Reynolds (1789)

At the beginning of Act II, Puck introduces himself as a sprite with a talent for, and love of, mischief, “…sometime lurk I in a gossip's bowl,/In very likeness of a roasted crab,/And when she drinks, against her lips I bob/And on her wither'd dewlap pour the ale.”

He is then quickly sent on two errands: a goodwill mission to encourage Demetrius to fall in love with Helena; and a ploy to humiliate the fairy queen, Titania.

In his attempt to achieve these goals, he unleashes romantic pandemonium. Mistaken identity leads to both Lysander and Demetrius lusting over Helena, leaving Hermia feeling heartbroken and betrayed, while Helena believes herself to be the butt of a joke, resulting in chaos in the Athenian wood.

This, coupled with the transformation of Bottom, which prompts an infatuation in Titania, turns the play into a comedic farce.

It’s difficult to imagine any other character being able to affect this much destruction and yet still retain his or her likeable nature. Partly, this is due to an honest error, “This is the woman, but not this the man.”(III.ii)

However, even his very deliberate humiliation of Titania is forgiveable due to his cheeky, almost childlike, sense of humour.

Puck’s Epilogue

The epilogue, which has echoes of the prologue from the mechanicals’ disastrous ‘Pyramus and Thisbe’, could only ever be delivered by Puck.

With tongue firmly in cheek, he apologises for any offence the play may have caused and suggests that, if the audience members have not enjoyed what they have seen, they simply pretend it was all a dream, “Think but this, and all is mended,/That you have but slumber'd here/While these visions did appear.”(V.i)

Here, he acts as ‘mender’, seeking to put right any wrongs that the play, and its characters, have committed. Apt, of course, as he is also the character that fixes the woodland bedlam (albeit one that he was responsible for creating).

A Free Guide to Macbeth

2013-01-16T12:07:00.000-08:00

For the rest of this week, until the 20th of January, What's It All About, Shakespeare? A Guide to Macbeth is available absolutely FREE from Smashwords.

If you're studying Macbeth this year, the guide will prove indispensable.

It offers a simple, straightforward explanation of the key events in the play, an analysis of the main characters and a closer look at some of the themes.

In addition, this free-for-a-limited-time ebook takes a look at the real life king of Scotland, who inspired the play and what was occurring in Shakespeare's world at the time of writing.

Humorous and enthusiastic, the book is a great guide for even the most reluctant of Shakespeare students.

Pick up your free copy today!

What did Nahum Tate do to King Lear?

2013-01-14T06:41:00.000-08:00

Nahum Tate's work was a product of the changing tastes
of the Restoration

The son of a clergyman, Nahum Tate was an Irish poet and lyricist. As well as penning his own works, Tate turned his hand to 'adapting' a number of Elizabethan dramas, including some of Shakespeare's.

Nahum Tate was just an eight-year-old when Charles II took the throne and the Restoration permitted the reopening of the theatres.

And by the latter part of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, when Tate began tampering with the works of Webster, Fletcher, Marston and Shakespeare, London theatres were very different from Blackfriars or The Globe.

A Very Different Type of Theatre

Restoration theatres were very different from
Shakespeare's Globe

More importantly though, Restoration theatregoers were very different from Shakespeare's audiences.

Unlike the socially diverse crowd at The Globe, Restoration theatre was attended by the crème de la crème; London's elite, the richest and most well-connected men and women.

This, more refined and more prudish, audience demanded something different from their evening's entertainment.

Now, it's not difficult to comprehend why Tate would alter Richard II, given what had so recently occurred in England. A play that almost glorifies and encourages the usurping of a king was, understandably, a touchy subject post-Cromwell, if not with audiences, certainly with the censors.

Shakespeare appealed to a very different kind of crowd

And, of course, this altered sensitivity toward all things to do with the monarchy accounts for some of Tate's tampering (for there is no other word for it) with King Lear.

However, there are other changes that were simply prompted by changing tastes. And, credit where credit is due, he was right. Tate's version of King Lear became incredibly popular and continued to be the only one performed on English stages for nearly 150 years.

Imagine, if you will, that She's The Man not only becomes the only version of Twelfth Night performed, but also remains the only version performed or shown, until 2156. - I'll say no more about that.

How Nahum Tate Changed King Lear

Nahum Tate's 'Reviv'd' version of
King Lear, with 'alterations'

Tate's version of King Lear, titled The History of King Lear, is drastically different from Shakespeare's. For one thing, it is not a tragedy.

Tate felt, and many agreed with him, that the ending of King Lear was just too sad to bear. So, he replaces Lear on the throne and doesn't kill off Cordelia. However, he doesn't stop at having a happy ending.

Nahum Tate decides to do away with the King of France and insert Edgar as a love interest for Cordelia.

When Cordelia refuses to answer her father's request for a declaration of love, this is later explained by the youngest daughter as an intentional ploy to leave her dowerless and, therefore, lose the romantic interests of Burgandy.

Consequently, she doesn't go to France and when her father becomes lost in the English countryside, she goes in search of him.

And, of course, it is not she (with the help of a French army) who can mount an attack against her sisters. Instead, it is the British people who revolt against Goneril and Regan's tyranny.

Restoration audiences found the original
King Lear too sad

Lear and Cordelia are still taken prisoner, and orders are given to murder them, but Lear manages to fight and kill the would-be assassins, while Edgar is killing an utterly unrepentant Edmund.

Meanwhile, Goneril and Regan are poisoning each other (rather than Goneril poisoning Regan then stabbing herself).

Albany happily offers the crown to Lear, who confers it on Cordelia and his soon to be son-in-law, Edmund.

Despite a lower body count, and big alterations in cast (there is no fool in The History of King Lear) Tate does maintain a considerable amount of Shakespeare's dialogue and this is perhaps both a blessing and a curse.

Was Tate Wrong to Tamper With Shakespeare?

Should we be thanking Nahum Tate for Shakespeare's
longevity?

Although an adaptation superseding Shakespeare's original seems crazy (at least to some of us) now, we have to remember that Shakespeare wasn't always perceived to be the world's greatest.

In fact, in 1681 when Tate's version of King Lear was first performed, Shakespeare was just another Elizabethan/Jacobean poet and playwright. His work was no more sacrosanct than any other writer of the era (read more about that here).

And, of course, the original King Lear was out of fashion. Many deemed it too depressing; audiences simply didn't want to sit through an evening of misery. So, why was Tate's use of Shakespeare's dialogue a blessing? Well, it ensured that audiences and critics did not forget about Shakespeare's genius. And prompted the likes of Edmund Kean, in 1823, to resurrect the original.

For Tate, of course, despite the popularity and longevity of his adaptation, using so much of Shakespeare's original material was a curse, as it quite naturally lead to unfavourable comparisons between his own verse and the Bard's.

As much as I think Tate's adaptation is a bastardisation of King Lear, it's important to keep in mind the important role he played in keeping Shakespeare's work alive. If it weren't for Tate finding what he believed to be an 'unpolished' and 'disordered' play in King Lear, perhaps it would have faded into obscurity.

It is clear, if Shakespeare's work had not undergone a revival by the likes of Tate, the Bard would now be no more famous than his numerous contemporaries.

What's Twelfth Night & What's it Got to do With the Play?

2013-01-05T11:30:00.001-08:00

Feste, Sir Toby and Sir Andrew personify
the Twelfth Night shenanigans

This evening, the 5th of January, is Twelfth Night, which doesn’t mean much to us now, other than it’s time to take the Christmas decorations down.

However, there was a time when the Twelfth Night holiday was, essentially, the biggest celebration of the Christmas festivities and, before that, of the winter solstice. It was the last night of the holiday; the last chance to let your hair down and really let rip.

So, what’s that got to do with Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night?

Other than the title, Shakespeare makes no direct reference to Twelfth Night within the play. But his audience would have recognised aspects of it that were very obviously connected with the festival.

Twelfth Night or What You Will was written for the Twelfth Night celebrations of 1602. And it contains all the elements that Shakespeare’s revelling audience would have known and loved about the holiday.

Drinking
Feasting
Dancing
Singing

Malvolio is made to look foolish & the topsy-turvy world of the play
is representative of a period of misrule

And, most importantly of all, Twelfth Night was known for it’s Lord of Misrule, who is a symbol of society being turned on its head. During Twelfth Night celebrations, a king or lord and all of those in high status, would don peasants attire and vice versa. Slaves would dictate to their masters. The lowly would rule…albeit for an evening.

So, it’s not difficult to find these elements in Twelfth Night: we’ve got the drinking and feasting with Sir Toby, who spends more time drunk than he does sober. We have dancing and singing during the post-midnight “gabble like tinkers” party. And we have misrule everywhere!

Watching over it all, there’s Feste, who acts as Lord of Misrule, ensuring that Malvolio gets his just desserts, and seeming to be the most powerful (or at least the most intelligent) character of the play, despite his low status.

Of course, there's much more to Twelfth Night than just festival silliness - it's a deep and, at times, very dark comedy. But the above explains the play's connection to the holiday and the aspects of it that were intentionally used by Shakespeare to appeal to a Twelfth Night revelling crowd.

Is Desdemona a Helpless Victim or One of Shakespeare's Spunky Gals?

2012-11-29T12:12:00.002-08:00

Is Desdemona's decision to protect Othello a
sign of weakness? | Alexander Cabanel's
portrait of Desdemona

Desdemona is one of Shakespeare's most interesting female characters. Unlike Katharina, she isn't an obvious rebel, but in her own quieter way, she radically defies the convention of her age.

The first time I read Othello, I found Desdemona to be a disappointingly 'wet' character - ridiculously obedient to a crazed husband, even to the point of protecting him with her dying breath. I believed this to be a sign of great weakness, but I was young and foolish.

Since then, I've realised that there's much more to Desdemona. And, in fact, far from being wet, she's one of Shakespeare's strongest female characters.

Shakespeare's Source for Desdemona

Interestingly, in Shakespeare’s source material, Un Capitano Moro by Cinthio, ‘Disdamona’(sic), taken from the Greek for ‘unfortunate’, is the only named character. The others are only known by their rank or position. For example, ‘The Moor’ (Othello), ‘The ensign’ (Iago) and ‘The ensign’s wife’ (Emilia).

Why is this interesting? Well, it suggests that Cinthio, like Shakespeare, saw Desdemona's role as important - important enough to give her a name, albeit one that suggests her rather untimely demise.

Desdemona as an Independent Woman

Is Desdemona's biggest mistake marrying for
love? | Irene Jacob and Laurence Fishburne,
Othello (1995)

In many ways, Desdemona is a typical woman of her age. However, she is also an atypical woman of her age.

According to the conformities of 17th century Europe, Desdemona is considered to be the property of her father. This is illustrated in Iago’s line “…an old black ram is tupping your white ewe”(I.i) The word ‘your' indicating Brabantio’s ownership of his daughter.

Desdemona rebels against the conventions of Venetian society, both patriarchal and sexual, to elope with Othello. Her decision to marry her choice of husband is an act of defiance that is easily overlooked, because it is the norm in modern society. However, during the 17th century, almost all women, but particularly those of noble birth, married men of their fathers’ choosing.

Of course, not only is she strong enough to discard her father’s wishes, but she has the fortitude to defend this choice before the Duke and other prominent men of Venetian society, including Brabantio.

Desdemona as a Wife

Is Desdemona's fate sealed from the very beginning of the
play? | 'Othello and Desdemona' by Alexandre-Marie Colin

However, it would be a mistake to think that Desdemona only married Othello to break with convention and separate herself from her father.

Although she is young, her decision to marry appears to be solely motivated by love; there doesn't seem to be a desire to distress her father. This is made clear in her heartfelt statement, "I saw Othello’s visage in his mind,/And to his honours and his valiant parts/Did I my soul and fortunes consecrate."(I.iii)

Nevertheless, it becomes clear throughout the play that Othello knows relatively little about Desdemona. What he does know is that she has betrayed her father and it is perhaps this streak of independence in her nature that worries him.

After all, it is reasonable to assume that Iago’s accusations alone would not be enough to cause such jealousy in Othello. Iago’s calculated plan involves playing on Othello’s, already present, insecurities. More on that can be read here.

The Tragic Role of Desdemona

As mentioned above, the name Desdemona comes from Greek for ‘unfortunate’ or ‘ill-fated’. This notion of Desdemona’s tragic fate is also suggested in Othello’s “O ill-starred wench…”(V.ii)

Is Desdemona a helpless victim or one of Shakespeare's
strong women? | Suzanne Clotier in Othello (1952)

Of course, during the play’s first performances, it may have been argued that it was Desdemona’s betrayal of her father or her choice to marry outside her race that made her death an inevitability.

Just as Macbeth brought about his grisly end by acting against the will of God and committing regicide, Desdemona acts against patriarchal convention and nature (apparently). Therefore, she is doomed to perish.

However, there is something very tragic and poignant in the fact that her death is the result of a simple desire to love freely.

Her final tautological words, “Nobody, I myself.”(V.ii) can be, and often are, interpreted as her protecting Othello with her dying breath. On the other hand, perhaps she realizes that it was her own actions; her wish to be liberated, that led to her death.

What do you think of Desdemona? Is she a victim, just a pawn in Iago's game? Did she bring about her own death or was she simply subject to fate?

This post was original published on Suite101 by the author

Modern Movie Retellings of Macbeth

2012-11-26T11:50:00.000-08:00

Proof, if proof were needed, that Macbeth is an enduring and timeless play, there have been a huge number of adaptations over the years.

These films place the action of the play in various weird and wonderful corners of the world and in a variety of eras. Here is just a handful of the most popular:

Scotland, PA is a dark comedy
adaptation of Macbeth

Scotland, PA (2001)

Set in 1970s Scotland, Pennsylvania, the film is a dark comedy take on Macbeth, which centres around a greasy spoon called Duncan’s Café.

Joe ‘Mac’ McBeth (Macbeth) works at the fast food restaurant and is passed over for promotion by his boss Norm Duncan (Duncan) in favour of Douglas McKenna (Macdonwald), who is embezzling money from the restaurant.

Three hippies (the witches) claim to be able to see the future and predict that Joe will be manager of a drive-thru style restaurant.

Joe and his wife, Pat (Lady Macbeth), reveal McKenna’s dodgy bookkeeping practices and Joe is swiftly promoted to manager. Joe and Pat then concoct a plan to kill Norm in a faked robbery.

Throne of Blood | Macbeth
with Samurai warriors

Throne of Blood (1957)

A Japanese film, Kumonosu-jō literally translates as Spider Web Castle. Directed by Akira Kurosawa, Throne of Blood takes Shakespeare’s play and shifts it to feudal Japan.

Macbeth is Washizu, a Samurai general under Lord Tsuzuki. Washizu encounters a spirit who foretells his future.

When he hears that he will become lord, Washizu and his wife kill Tsuzuki, and Washuki gains the title.

But, just like Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Washizu’s troubles are only just beginning.

Joe Macbeth sets Shakespeare's masterpiece in
1930s America

Joe Macbeth (1955)

Directed by Ken Hughes and starring Paul Douglas and Ruth Roman, Joe Macbeth is a gangster movie, set in 1930s America.

The ‘gangster’ genre is, I would argue, an ideal setting for Macbeth as it is a perfect modern slant on the dog-eat-dog world of 11th century monarchy.

In this adaptation, Joe Macbeth is convinced by his wife, Lilly, to murder the reigning kingpin and take charge himself.

The plan works like a dream, until Lennie (Macduff), a fellow mobster whose wife and children have been murdered by Joe, catches up with the new ‘king’.

Macbeth is in da club! Rave Macbeth

Rave Macbeth (2001)

Rave Macbeth is a German production, which is a much looser adaptation than those already mentioned. That said, the premise is unmistakably Macbeth.

Set in the world of dance music and raves, Marcus, played by Michael Rosenbaum (of Smallville fame), is fighting for superiority among a gang of drug dealers.

Things come to a head when Marcus’ girlfriend, Lidia, helps him gain the upper hand.

Men of Respect gives us a Macbeth of
the 90s, who listens to the insights
of a spiritualist.

Men of Respect (1990)

Directed and written by William Reilly, Men of Respect is another gangsteresque Macbeth and centres around a hitman, Mike Battaglia (played by the very talented John Turturro), who listens to the prophecies of a spiritualist.

The spiritualist foresees that Mike will become the head of his ‘family’, so he sets about killing to get there, being sure to shift the blame elsewhere.

He eventually rises to a position of power, but soon realises there are consequences.

For me, it is fascinating to watch these adaptations and compare them to Shakespeare’s original. However, if you’re studying Macbeth, it is not advisable to see a modern interpretation and nothing else. While it might give you a feel for the play, many aspects will differ.

Moreover, you’re missing out on the wonderful language of Shakespeare, which is, let’s be honest, what has made him such an enduring figure in drama and literature. Shakespeare’s storylines were good, but the way he told those stories was even better.

If you'd like to learn more about Macbeth, be sure to take a look at What's It All About, Shakespeare? A Guide to Macbeth.

Did the Death of Shakespeare's Son Affect his Work?

2012-11-24T06:03:00.002-08:00

How did Shakespeare cope with the death of his young son?

Hamnet Shakespeare, the playwright's only son, died in August 1596 at the age of eleven.

There have been many theories about how his young son's death may have influenced Shakespeare's work - principally Hamlet.

However, I think it's unlikely that Shakespeare exorcised his grief in just one play.

Therefore, Hamnet's death probably affected much of the Bard's work.

The Problem with Biographical Theories

There is, of course, no way to categorically know what was going on in Shakespeare's mind at the time of writing any of his works. We can make assertions, based on what was happening in his life (and the world) at any given time, but we can never say with certainty what drove Shakespeare to write a specific work.

Therefore, biographical theories are just that: theories. As such, there has been, and always will be, a difference of opinion. For some, Hamlet is the play in which Hamnet's 'ghost' looms largest. For others, themes in several of Shakespeare's plays focus on loss (especially of a child), grief and, as in Twelfth Night, a fantasy scenario in which all ends happily.

How did Shakespeare Respond to The Death of His Son?

Does Hamlet depict Shakespeare's grief
over his son's death?

There is one other thing to consider, before looking at the plays: Hamnet's death, although tragic, was not something that would have made headlines at the time. In fact, a third of children under the age of ten died during the latter part of the sixteenth century.

Therefore, Shakespeare was far from the only parent to experience this type of loss. Sadly, it was all too commonplace.

Did high child mortality rates mean Hamnet's death was a matter-of-fact part of life that Shakespeare was able to deal with?

Unlike Ben Jonson, whose son also died, Shakespeare certainly did not write anything specifically focused on the loss of his child.

Exactly how the Bard dealt with the untimely demise of his son, we'll never know. However, there is some evidence in his work to suggest that it wasn't an event he was ever able to banish from his mind.

Hamlet and Hamnet

Given the similarity in name and the gritty, dark content of Hamlet, it's easy to see why people assume that the play is Shakespeare's great outpouring of grief over his son's death. It is one of the Bard's most nihilistic plays - capturing the hopelessness, depression and, sometimes, insanity of one who has suddenly lost a beloved family member.

But, of course, Hamlet wasn't a creation of Shakespeare's imagination. The story stems from Scandinavian legend, although this does not negate the possibility that Shakespeare's grief is at the root of the play.

However, Hamlet probably wasn't penned until around 1600, some four years after Hamnet's death. Of course, it's quite possible that Shakespeare would delay writing the work that mourns his son, but I think it's unlikely. I also think that there are very clear hints of Hamnet in earlier works - and I'm not alone.

Grief in Shakespeare's Comedies

Twelfth Night has a happier outcome for the twins
who thought each other dead

At the time of Hamnet's passing, Shakespeare was predominantly working on comedies. So, you'd think there would be no room for references to death, but far from it. Twelfth Night, which features the supposed death of a twin (Hamnet and Shakespeare's youngest daughter, Judith, were fraternal twins) and the miraculous reunion of Viola and Sebastian.

In addition, Professor Richard Wheeler of the University of Illinois asserts that the theme of cross-dressing in many of Shakespeare's comedies: Twelfth Night, As Well That Ends Well, Merchant of Venice is indicative of Shakespeare's hopes for his son passing to his daughters. I'm not entirely convinced by the theory, but it's possible.

Author Bill Bryson wonders if Constance's "Grief fills the room up of my absent child" speech from King John is in response to Hamnet's demise. However, it's not clear whether this was written before or after the young boy's death.

Other Possible References to Hamnet

Grief over a child's death is a feature of many
Shakespearean plays

There are many other events and themes in Shakespeare's plays that we could suppose are reference to the playwright's son, for example the deaths of Romeo and Juliet, Lear's heart-wrenching response to Cordelia's murder, and Julius Caesar adopting Marc Anthony, because his own son is deceased.

Consequently, I don't think we should be looking for Hamnet in a specific Shakespeare play, but in the overall tone of the man's work.

It's clear that Shakespeare improved his craft. Over the years, his writing became more mature, and the depth of his characters' emotions more profound. I suspect it was life experiences, including Hamnet's death, that enabled him to write words that still speak so eloquently of the pain of loss.

Perhaps, just like Richard II, the vast majority of Shakespeare's sorrow was kept from view.

"My grief lies all within;

And these external manners of laments

Are merely shadows to the unseen grief

That swells with silence in the tortured soul."

Did Shakespeare Have an Editor?

2012-10-28T12:29:00.001-07:00

Title Page of The First Folio

Shakespeare almost certainly never had an editor in the modern sense of the word. And, during his lifetime, he may not have had any editor at all.

Shakespeare’s plays were not collected for the First Folio, until 1623; seven years after the Bard’s death.

The plays were brought together by John Heminges and Henry Condell, who were both actors with the King’s Men. Today, Heminges and Condell are commonly labelled as the ‘editors’ of Shakespeare’s First Folio, but, in truth, all they probably did was sling the plays together.

The Plays Were for Performing not Publishing

But it’s worth bearing in mind that Shakespeare didn’t write the plays with a vision for them to be published. The documents he wrote were for the use of his actors, and, therefore, not in a suitable condition for publishing.

Step in, Edward Knight, who was the ‘book-keeper’ and prompter for the King’s Men. It’s believed by some that it fell to him to proofread and prepare the documents for publication.

So Why Are There Different Versions of Shakespeare’s Plays?

Well, it’s believed that over 100 pages of the 900-page folio were still being corrected while it was already in the process of printing.

Writer Nicholas Rowe was the first to create
a universal edition of Shakespeare's
complete works

Each printer was editing these pages as he went, but was only capable of fixing obvious typographical errors. It’s thought that approximately 500 errors were rectified in this way.

The result is that individual copies of the First Folio differ quite drastically in the errors they contain.

When Were The Mistakes in The First Folio ‘Fixed’

It was not until the beginning of the eighteenth century, that people attempted to create a ‘universal’ collection of Shakespeare’s plays.

It began with Nicholas Rowe (also a playwright), in 1709, and continued through to the Arden series.

Because Shakespeare’s plays were published several years after his death, and have subsequently been quite heavily tampered with, it’s impossible to say with certainty that the plays we now have are exactly the ones he wrote.

We also, sadly, can’t know whether he ever had an ‘editor’ who might have said, “A bear, Bill? Are you sure?”

Who knows, he may even have had an editor like this…

Things I've Learned From Shakespeare

2012-09-30T13:40:00.000-07:00

What does Shakespeare teach us?

One of the reasons Shakespeare's work remains so popular is that it deals with matters that can never be confined to one century or era. Love, hate, jealousy, revenge, ambition, betrayal; all of these things are just as relevant now as they were in Shakespeare's lifetime.

So, what can Shakespeare teach us about life, love the universe and everything?

1. Your Twin is Almost Certainly Alive

Whether it's your identical or fraternal sibling, the chances are high that they survived that shipwreck. So, if someone's confusing you for somebody else, your first assumption should not be that said person is insane.

2. Love Hurts

No matter how simple the path to true love may seem, it never is. In some cases, the journey to happiness may entail turmoil, heartache, misunderstandings and require the assistance of good meaning friends, family members or magical folk. In other instances, however, the road is much darker, leading to murder and/or suicide.

3. The Person You Think is The Most Trustworthy is Actually The Least

Keep your enemies close and your
friends at arm's length

If we lean anything from the likes of King Duncan, Julius Caesar and Othello, it's that we should always be wary of those people we think are most devoted and loyal to us - because those are the ones who will stab you in the back, or in the front, or try to convince you that your wife is having an affair.

4. Your Dad is Probably Right

Now, although it's not always true that fathers are right (for example, Egeus, Hermia's father, is wrong in trying to marry her off to Demetrius), an alarming amount of the time, fatherly advice turns out to be sound advice - even if it's given for the wrong reasons, such as Brabantio's objection to Desdemona's marriage.

5. Extravagant Professions of Love are Usually False

This is particularly sound advice for monarchs. If someone - even if it's your own daughters - is laying on the flattery with a trowel, chances are high it's insincere.

6. If You're a Chaste Novice Nun, You're Going to be in The Sights of Lecherous Older Men

Men love a girl in a habit

Poor Isabella. First, she has to resist the advances and blackmail of Angelo and, just when she thinks she's escaped with her virtue intact, the Duke decides he's going to marry her. Her opinion of the matter? Well.....I guess, we'll never know.

7. If You're a Historical Figure, Don't Expect Dramatists to Represent You Fairly...Or Accurately

Your representation in the fictional account of your life will largely depend upon who is on the throne at the time the play is written.

If, for example, you were the last Plantagenet monarch and the granddaughter of the dude who killed you is currently on the throne, don't expect a glowing review of your reign. Similarly, if you're a Scottish chap who killed a king, you're not going to be portrayed kindly for a Scottish (and newly crowned English) king, who is slightly paranoid about being assassinated.

8. The Rantings of Three Strange Women Do Not Mean You're Immortal

Use a little common sense were predictions are concerned, and bear in mind that there's always a catch. If they meant you're immortal, they would have said, 'you're immortal'. The "none of woman born" stuff leaves a small loophole.

9. If You're a Girl, Put on Some Men's Clothes & Nobody Will Recognise You

Clothes really do maketh the man...
or woman | Imogen Stubbs as Viola

It works every time. Our disbelief is willing to be suspended to such an extent that we're prepared to accept a small change of outfit will cause a husband to no longer recognise his wife, a father to not know his daughter and for everybody to believe that you are, in fact, a man.

Of course, it's worth mentioning that if you're a girl dressed as a man, who is being played by a man in the first place, your disguise is that much more convincing.

10. Don't Upset Your Fairy King Husband, Or He'll Make a Sucker Out of You

Although it might not seem like a likely scenario, it's always worth remembering; should you ever wed a fairy king, he has the power to make you look very foolish, should he choose to do so. Don't upset him. If he wants the changeling boy, just let him have him - it'll be easier in the long run.

If you've picked up any other useful life lessons from Shakespeare's plays, please feel free to share in the comments below. And if you'd like to learn more about the bearded Bard, please take a look at What's It All About, Shakespeare? An Introduction to The Bard of Avon.

Shakespeare and Deception | Disguises, Lies and Misunderstandings in Shakespeare's Plays

2012-09-29T11:57:00.000-07:00

Deception is a mainstay of Shakespearean
drama, regardless of the genre

Deception is rife within Shakespeare's plays, perhaps because deception is rife within human nature.

Interestingly, deception in Shakespeare takes many forms. For example, there are instances of accidental deception, as in The Comedy of Errors.

There are many cases of characters using deception as a form of self-preservation, as in Twelfth Night and As You Like It. And then, of course, there are the occasions when deception is used in a more malevolent fashion, as in King Lear, Julius Caesar and Richard III.

Consequently, the dramatic effect of deception varies greatly. It can be purely comedic, it can be suspenseful, evil or cruel and, in some instances, it can create a bizarre mixture of all of these effects. For example, the torment of Malvolio in Twelfth Night.

Common Deception Motifs in Shakespeare

Cross-dressing is a major form of deception in Shakespeare's
plays | Bryce Dallas Howard in As You Like It

Throughout Shakespeare’s comedies, tragedies and histories, there are some recurring motifs of deception.

The most frequently used technique is cross-dressing and/or disguise, which is used by Viola and Feste in Twelfth Night, Rosalind in As You Like it and Portia in The Merchant of Venice to name but a few.

Deception can also be created by interfering, but generally well-meaning, magical or mystical forces, such as puck in A Midsummer Night’s Dream or Ariel in The Tempest.

Of course, there are much more sinister motifs of deceit, including false expressions of love and/or devotion, found in plays such as King Lear, Hamlet and Macbeth.

Deception in Shakespeare’s Comedies

In Shakespeare’s early comedies, such as The Comedy of Errors, characters are deceived, but it is not due to a deliberate attempt by any individual. However, Shakespeare could clearly see the comedic value in confusing a character, and he used it to full effect. This example of deception, like the play itself, is quite crude in concept.

Deception in Shakespeare's comedies often
hinges on mistaken identity

However, as Shakespeare’s skills as a playwright developed, he also began to create more elaborate deceptions.

Often, as mentioned above, these deceptions are based on mistaken identity, particularly mistaken gender identity.

On the whole, deception in Shakespeare’s comedies is done without malice. In the cases of Viola, and Rosalind deception is necessary for their survival.

Similarly, in The Merchant of Venice Portia dresses as a man to help protect her new husband’s friend (although she also uses her disguise to test Bassanio later in the play).

However, these comedic examples of deception can sometimes cross the line from humour to cruelty, as demonstrated in the torture of Malvolio in the latter part of Twelfth Night.

Deception in Shakespeare’s Tragedies

Examples of deception in Shakespeare’s tragedies are just as common as in his comedies. However, these depictions of deceit are usually more malevolent. In addition, we find that, as in the case of Macbeth and Hamlet, even heroic and seemingly ‘good’ characters can be drawn to deception to achieve their ends.

Feigning loyalty to Duncan and innocence over his death,
Macbeth is a master of deception | Ian McKellen as Macbeth

Unlike the comedies, there is very little humour to be derived from the deception in tragedies.

In most cases, deceit is used within a tragedy to destroy a character's standing or reputation. In fact, in some cases, it is used to destroy a character’s sanity, such as Iago’s use of deceit in Othello or the deception of King Lear by Goneril and Regan.

These illustrations of deceit are intended to prompt empathy for the victim of the deception and aversion towards the perpetrator, but even this is not clear cut.

For example, Hamlet’s feigning madness leads to Ophelia’s suicide and ultimately the deaths of the majority of the cast. However, an audience can recognize the just cause he was trying to achieve and probably, therefore,does not entirely condemn his actions.

One thing is clear, the audience’s awareness of the deception, whether deliberate or otherwise, is crucial, because it is the dramatic irony which leads to humour, tension and/or empathy.

To find out more about Shakespeare, take a look at What's It All About, Shakespeare? An Introduction to The Bard of Avon?

Who Was The Real Macbeth?

2012-09-28T12:02:00.000-07:00

The Real Macbeth of Scotland

Shakespeare’s play was based (and I use the word ‘based’ loosely) on an actual 11th century Scottish king, who did, indeed, murder his way to the top.

However, it’s worth bearing in mind that regicide was not at all uncommon during this era. Subsequently, monarchs of Europe did not usually reign for decades. In fact, they were, often, on the throne for very short periods.

How Did Macbeth Find His Way to Power?

The real Macbeth, who was known in his native 11th century Scotland as Mac Bethad and nicknamed The Red King, succeeded King Duncan, just as Shakespeare’s Macbeth does. However, unlike the old Duncan of Shakespeare’s play, the real Duncan was still called 'youthful' at the time of his death, in 1040.

This early passing occurred in August of that year, during a battle, and it was Mac Bethad who struck the fatal blow.

Shortly after Duncan’s death, his wife fled Scotland with her sons: Malcolm (who would become Malcolm III of Scotland) and Donald. Mac Bethad was crowned, without any serious opposition, although it is fair to assume that he wasn’t a popular choice with everyone - very few kings were!

The Real Macbeth’s Reign

The real King Duncan was nothing like
the old man of Shakespeare's play

Mac Bethad reigned for some seventeen years; a long time for the era. Duncan, in comparison, was only king for six measly years. In fact, Mac Bethad felt so secure on his throne that he took a pilgrimage to Rome, something no sane man would do if he feared being usurped.

Apparently, while in Rome, he was very generous, giving the impoverished Roman citizens money, ‘as if it were seed’. Something we would not expect from the despot, child-murdering, bloodthirsty Macbeth of Shakespeare’s play.

The truth is that no source from the period refers to Mac Bethad as a tyrant.

Even Malcolm III, who’s father was killed by Mac Bethad don’t forget, referred to him as ‘Mac Bethad the renowned’. And in Duan Albanach (a Gaelic poem written between 1058 and 1090), he is called, ‘the generous king’.

Nevertheless, in 1054, the Earl of Nothumbria, Siward, led an invasion into Scotland. There followed a conflict that waged for several years and, eventually, Mac Bethad was wounded in battle by Duncan’s son, Malcolm, and died several days later in Scone.

Who Succeeded Macbeth?

It was Mac Bethad’s step-son, Lulach, (who was not graced with nicknames as favourable as his predecessor), who took the throne after his step-father’s death.

Known as ‘foolish’, ’simple-minded’, and ‘unfortunate’, his reign was short and, probably, not very sweet. Crowned on the 15th of August 1057, he ruled for just seven months, before being assassinated. He was succeeded by Malcolm III.

Who Was the Real Lady Macbeth?

Was the real Lady Macbeth anything
like Shakespeare's? | Dame Judi Dench

Mac Bethad’s wife was a widow named Grouch. Very little is known about her life or death, except that she was married to Gille Coemgáin, with whom she had a son, Lulach.

In 1032, Coemgáin was killed in a fire, which also claimed the lives of fifty of his men.

It has been suggested that Coemgáin was, in fact, killed by Mac Bethad in an act of vengeance for the murder of his father. Whether or not Coemgáin was responsible for the murder of Mac Bethad’s father or if Coemgáin’s death was at the hands of Mac Bethad is something we’ll probably never know for certain.

Regardless, Mac Bethad took Coemgáin’s widow, Grouch, as his wife.

As far as is known, the pair never had any children, but, given that Lulach succeed his step-father, it’s fair to say that Mac Bethad had a fairly good relationship with his wife’s son.

Of course, whether or not Grouch and Mac Bethad’s marriage resembled the loving bond shared by the Macbeths (at the beginning of the play at least), is just one more thing that we’ll never know.

If you'd like to know more about Macbeth the man or the play, be sure to check out What's it All About, Shakespeare? A Guide to Macbeth

Top 5 Bad Boys of Shakespeare's Plays

2012-09-27T14:45:00.002-07:00

Let's face it, we've always had a bit of a soft spot for the bad boy; the man who lives by his own rules, defies convention, but whose deeds are never quite so evil as to place him in the 'villain' category. From Heathcliff to Danny Zuko, guys want to be the bad boy and girls want to be with him.

So, is the same true of Shakespeare's bad boys? And who are those top five Shakespearean rule, and heart, breakers?

5. Romeo

Baz Luhrmann's modern take on 'bad boy'
Romeo | Leonardo DiCaprio as Romeo

Hotheaded and impulsive (traits that will lead to his tragic fall), Romeo is the Elizabethan equivalent of any role played by James Dean.

He is the super cool leader of the Verona pack and son of affluent parents. There's no getting around it, this guy's got everything.

And, of course, he's got that extra special quality that makes him truly irresistible to young Juliet - wonderfully poetic dialogue.

A Bad boy who can also express himself beautifully...the poor gal never stood a chance.

4. Bertram

What the heck does Helena see in Bertram?

All's Well That Ends Well is one of Shakespeare's problem plays, and for good reason. It is not difficult to see what Helena finds attractive about Bertram to begin with: he's rich, he's young, he's handsome, and, just like Romeo, he's the alpha male of his gang of friends.

What's a bit harder to get your head around is why, after he treats her so appallingly, does a runner and tries to have an affair with a young woman he meets in Florence, she forgives him and happily takes him back.

Unfortunately, Shakespeare doesn't explore Helena's psyche much more than to emphasise she's completely infatuated. Perhaps, like many women, she believes she can calm her bad boy's wilder ways - and you could say that, by the end of the play, she has. Let's hope for her sake she did, anyway!

3. Petruchio

Behind every bad boy, there has to be a
wild woman | Richard Burton as Petruchio

Petruchio is a footloose and fancy-free bachelor, living the life many men would envy, until he decides it is time to marry. However, he doesn't want to marry for love. Oh no, he wants to find himself a Sugar Mama, and he doesn't care how ugly or ill-tempered she might be.

With this in mind, you might think he only wants Katharina for her father's money and, that's certainly his initial reason for calling on her.

I have a feeling, however, that he's rather intrigued by the 'shrew' he encounters. All this talk of "come, sit on me!" and tongues in tails is incredibly saucy, and unnecessarily so. He's clearly flirting outrageously with her, which indicates he's attracted to her.

Moreover, I think that she's attracted to (or at the very least intrigued by) him, too.

His status as a 'bad boy' ensures that he's willing to hurl back whatever she throws at him. And I suspect, Katharina has never met anyone quite like him. In spite of herself, Kate is interested in this man who plays by his own rules.

2. Prince Hal

Fun- lovin', hard-drinkin', prank-pullin', Hal is a real
Shakespearean bad boy | Tom Hiddleston as Prince Hal

Before he becomes Henry V, Prince Hal is a hard drinking, irresponsible prankster, who is little more than an embarrassment to his father.

Spending his days surrounded by questionable (to say the least) company, Hal is an Elizabethan playboy. Born into luxury, we can assume he never wanted for anything, nor has he had any responsibilities.

Nevertheless, Shakespeare chooses to imply that Hal's wild salad days are always something of an act. "I know you all, and will awhile uphold/The unyoked humour of your idleness."

It is, however, the battle for his father's kingdom against the rebel Hotspur that dramatically shifts his view, causes him to reassess his loyalties and, ultimately, leads him to shun his drinking partners.

1. Falstaff

Bad boys don't come much more lovable than
Falstaff | Roger Allam at The Globe

And speaking of Hal's questionable companions...Unlike the other bad boys in this list, Falstaff isn't a 'boy'. Far from it, he's an old man. However, that doesn't alter his claim to the 'bad boy' crown.

In fact, so loved was this Shakespearean bad boy that Elizabeth I is said to have insisted that he make a reappearance - despite his off-stage death in Henry V - prompting Shakespeare to write The Merry Wives of Windsor.

Falstaff is, arguably, the epitome of a lovable rogue. On the surface, we shouldn't like him - he's a liar, a thief and a coward. However, his lies are almost childlike in their transparency and his schemes almost always fail, meaning that there remains an innocence about him.

A lover of life, food, drink and women - in short, a pure pleasure seeker, Falstaff is incredibly likeable despite, or perhaps because of, his flaws.

For more on the greatest of Shakespeare's bad boys, take a look at 'There's Something About Falstaff'

Who's your favourite Shakespearean bad boy? And don't forget to check out the 'Top 5 Unruly Women of Shakespeare's Plays'

How to Read a Shakespearean Soliloquy

2012-09-26T13:16:00.000-07:00

How to perform a Shakespeare soliloquy

Whether you’re performing in one of Shakespeare’s plays, preparing an audition speech or simply reciting a soliloquy for English class, there are ways to ensure that you get to grips with the speech.

Here are 3 simple steps to reading and, most importantly, understanding a Shakespearean soliloquy.

1. Make Sure You've Read the Whole Play

This is a trap that young student actors often fall into; they assume simply knowing the speech is enough. However, if you don't understand the context of a soliloquy, then you can't truly get to grips with its meaning.

For example, Hamlet's 'to be or not to be' cannot be fully understood as a philosophical examination of suicide and death, until you know what has brought Hamlet to that moment of dark reflection.

The same can be said of any other Shakespearean soliloquy: What brings Macbeth to that point of nihilistic hopelessness in the 'tomorrow' speech? What prompts an unexpected revelation for Viola in the 'I left no ring with her' soliloquy?

2. Follow the Rhythm

Iambic rhythm is important, but
should be used naturally

No, not the rhythm of the night like DeBarge, but the iambic rhythm of the vast majority (but not all) of Shakespeare's soliloquies.

If you're not familiar with what that means, it's essentially a pattern of unstressed and stressed beats, which in its simplest form sounds like this: de DUM - de DUM - de DUM - de DUM - de DUM.

If we put words to that, we begin to see that Shakespeare has made it very clear that certain syllables are intended to be emphasised.

For example, if MUS - ic BE - the FOOD - of LOVE - play ON

Once you've established the specific pattern of the soliloquy you're reading, you might find it useful to mark the text or simply highlight the syllables that should be stressed.

However, you'll probably notice that overemphasising the iambic rhythm makes the speech sound like a bad nursery rhyme. So, at this point, you may want to pull back on those stressed beats, so you master something that resembles a slightly more natural speech pattern.

That said, it's important to keep yourself aware of those accented beats, because Shakespeare's chosen them to be stressed for a reason. Not only will it help you find the soliloquy's groove, but it might also help make sense of the speech.

3. You Can Go Your Own Way

Try not to be influenced by famous interpretations
of a speech | don't be afraid to do your own thing

One of the wonderful things about Shakespeare, in my opinion, is that much of his work is open to interpretation. And this, in part, is why his plays have such staying power.

There are still questions that we don't have the answers to: Is Hamlet really mad? Is Macbeth wholly responsible for his downfall? Is Shylock a victim or a villain? Why does Iago want to destroy Othello? Is Petruchio really in love with Katharina?

Questions questions, questions. And there really is no right or wrong answer to any of them. In fact, the answer frequently hinges on the way a production of a Shakespearean play is performed.

A director or actors can choose to turn Richard III into a completely comic figure, they can make the Christians of The Merchant of Venice thoroughly dislikeable, or they can turn Lear's elder daughters into justifiably upset women.

My point is that Shakespeare gives us very few absolutes. So, don't feel that you have to perform a speech in a particular way.

Don't be afraid to have your own opinion about a character or the events of a play. If you can justify why you've taken a certain angle, you can never be wrong.

If you'd like to find out more about the world's greatest playwright, be sure to check out What's It All About, Shakespeare? An Introduction to The Bard of Avon.