Oof, a rough poem. I listened to the summary before I started so that I wouldn't be confused. It's pretty good.
These are my two main thoughts after listening to the poem.
One, the audio version that Missy and I both listened to was quite good in getting emotion across. There's a scene where Lucretia was angry and for that I was grateful. She should at least be able to be angry.
This takes me to my second thought. The whole thing ended up being surprisingly modern to me. She wasn't just that chaste, beautiful woman, her husband had boasted about. She wasn't meekly available for the picking. She was angry. She TOLD on him, which good for her. I had been worried she would be found out and accused of an affair. She threw herself into painting, which again felt modern to me, but here is the proof to the contrary.
Even how everyone reacted felt modern. The men in her life did take her side even though the little detour into who took her side more was...uh, one way of grieving, I guess. Society took her side. They overthrew the whole government by taking her side.
I know there was a Roman Republic, but I often think of Rome as empire and the ones who treated the Isrealites as second class citizens and...well, Jesus and all that. Tyrants.
I KNOW it's not true. I've read and seen Julius Caesar after all, but it's always gratifying when you see that an ancient people aren't brutes as compared to our civilized democracy. Also that trad dads and Bronze Age Pervert or whoever are wrong about the historical past and they'd be driven out of a Roman Republic town on a splintery rail (probably dead as a doornail if this poem is any indication) for trying the "your body, my choice" garbage.
The Rape of Lúcrese is a narrative poem published early in Shakespeare’s career.
In it, the powerful son of a corrupt king rapes the beautiful and virtuous wife of fellow officer and aristocrat.
The beautiful and virtuous wife, Lucretia, then kills herself. Her death is the catalyst for an uprising that banishes the royal family making room for the noble Republic.
Unlike the plays, this is a work that Shakespeare published himself. It contains his edits and his introduction. It’s his 2nd published work and one that he referred to as a grave labor.
I like this poem.
I listened to a full cast version today at work and had the text on my phone for reference.
Here are my thoughts in no particular order.
On the weird relationship between England and Rome
This gives both Lucretia’s pondering the painting of the fall of Troy and Shakespeare’s embrace of a classical canon an interesting weight.
There was some fellow feeling here because Mythological Rome was also founded by a descendent of Aeneas (Romulus). All of this means that when Elizabethan writers and thinkers refer to the classics they feel that they are being self referential.
They read and write in Latin (if decreasingly) and the education standard is that of classicists. Everybody wanted to be Cicero.
It’s worth bearing in mind when considering Shakespeare’s motivations in attempting this work.
On Suicide
Although the Roman ideal of suicide as a noble act was the inevitable crux of the poem, it left me wondering at the English valorization of it.
This happened previously in Julius Caesar and I’d wondered the same thing.
I feel like, in the latinophile world of renaissance England, you can see the dawning of the age of reason peaking through. Shakespeare lived in a heavily Christian society in which suicide was one of the very few unpardonable sins. But everyone venerated Rome and Roman thought. The worshipful attitude for the Greek and Roman classics were a rising tide that swept over the accustomed standards of the church, within the next hundred years or so.
On Rape
I’m a huge fan of martial arts movies. There is this standard trope in them (and in movies generally) where an innocent woman is raped. That rape is the turning point for the hero. He must now avenge her. He must now choose violence.
Rape is a plot device. Rape is a spectacle, often prurient.
The woman usually dies because she’s now dirty but her death redeems her.
This is a cynical and infantilizing impulse, usually coming from men for whom rape is an abstract occurrence.
This is exactly what happens in the Rape of Lúcrese.
It is is completely typical of stories from male dominated cultures.
It’s not like rape can’t happen to men but let’s be honest here, it’s a lopsided representation.
Currently about 1 in 5 women vs 1 in 71 men have experienced completed or attempted rape.
All of this to say my sympathy and patience with this plot structure is very low and the fact that it’s coming from a great writer (Shakespeare) or from canonical greatness (Virgil) doesn’t change my opinion much.
Women are not plot devices.
A culture that treats women as inhuman can’t quite get that.
On the Poem Itself
Shakespeare is so good at the human condition.
He’s good here at Tarquins vacillation and rationalization. He’s good at Lucretia’s desperate arguments.
He riles us up with her tragedy.
The things I want to praise here are later though.
His exploration of art as solace for pain:
That she with painted images hath spent;
Being from the feeling of her own grief brought
By deep surmise of others' detriment;
Losing her woes in shows of discontent.
It easeth some, though none it ever cured,
To think their dolour others have endured.
I also really liked the portrayal of the competitive and inappropriate impulses that can make grief especially ugly. When in their sorrow, her husband and father argue over who she meant the most to:
The one doth call her his, the other his,
Yet neither may possess the claim they lay.
The father says 'She's mine.' 'O, mine she is,'
Replies her husband: 'do not take away
My sorrow's interest; let no mourner say
He weeps for her, for she was only mine,
And only must be wail'd by Collatine.'
'O,' quoth Lucretius,' I did give that life
Which she too early and too late hath spill'd.'
'Woe, woe,' quoth Collatine, 'she was my wife,
I owed her, and 'tis mine that she hath kill'd.'
'My daughter' and 'my wife' with clamours fill'd
The dispersed air, who, holding Lucrece' life,
Answer'd their cries, 'my daughter' and 'my wife.'
On Easter Eggs
The Wikipedia article on this poem had a nice section on other works of Shakespeare that referenced this story. There are quite a few and that sort of this is always fun for me to look at.
But the Easter Egg that I most enjoyed was the presence and moral leadership of Brutus.
This is Lucius Junius Brutus, the ancestor of the Brutus (Marcus Junius Brutus) from Julius Caesar.
Here he preforms the same role of galvanization and piety over a bloody knife.
He brings the bickering family in line and rouses the people against tyranny. He causes them to kneel to the gods and he kisses the bloody dagger and swears justice. The people follow him and you can almost hear ‘Friends Roman’s Countrymen’ echoing behind him.
I began this play with a pretty bad attitude. I was bored before it even started. Mostly, this had to do with the visuals. It's from the 80s and it's worse than black and white in that the edges are completely gone. It's like watching something through a peephole. And because they weren't filming black and white, they didn't adjust coloring and lighting and so whole thing looks like it's taking place in a very dim, evening, indoor setting.
I first started to really pay attention when the king and Helena kissed because I KNEW that wasn't part of the story. I was like wait just one dang minute.
Anyway, they never followed up with that. So I don't know what the point of that kiss was. But it got my attention.
This is how I feel about Helena. If she was a man, we would think she's despicable. To pressure a man to marry her and then to force his hand was wrong. It makes me think she was a little self-aware how pious, righteous, beautiful, good she was because she must have believed after marriage he would see her charms.
He was pretty despicable himself trying to get a girl to sleep with him that would be ruined afterwards.
Actually, I quite liked Diana. She was a girl's girl and she did much more for Helena than she really had to. Maybe she enjoyed the drama and doing something exciting. She's also quite beautiful.
Lots of virginity talk. Just a note, lol.
The mom was alright in the end. I don't know how I feel about her disowning her son for the reasons she did. There were other reasons that I'd be ok with her disowning him for lol. Her heart was in the right place, I think.
The whole Parolles storyline was not worth much commentary. Was Bertram dumb for not seeing right through him? Yes, but also I think this whole arc was supposed to be ridiculous and slapstick and not realistic.
I'm giving it a half extra star more than I ought to because given the bad attitude I started with, I ended it with much more interest. For sure, I was waiting to see how the whole king and Helena chemistry was going to play out. I think if they could have given it a new interpretation without departing from the text, I would have been impressed. But they didn't.
Also, I think it was in the scene where the women are looking down over the balcony that I thought, if this film wasn't degraded so badly, I bet this was supposed to visually appeal to us like A Midsummer Night Dream or Much Ado About Nothing. Flowers and sun and old brick walls. And I felt the spirit of that even if I couldn't see it.
Alls Well that Ends Well is not particularly well known. I’d argue that it deserves its anonymity.
I’m pretty sure I saw it once at the Carter Barron when I was a teenager, but it’s very fuzzy in my mind. Please watch the above summary to get a feel for the plot. I certainly did. It’s not hyper memorable.
Here is our Helen. She is wise and beautiful, virtuous and ingratiating. She has terrible taste in men. She loves above her station. The King likes her.
Her father is dead. She is very sad.
Here is Parolles. He’s like the ugly duckling child of Iago in terms of malice and Antonio from the Tempest in terms of cowardice and bad planning.
Most of the bad moves in this play can be traced back to him. On the other hand the protagonist’s seem fully capable of making bad decisions on their own so he’s more of a catalyst than an actual villain.
This is Bertram. He is self centered and foolish but apparently attractive. He’s recently become Count and is about to go make a name for himself at court.
His father is dead and Bertram is about to go live up to his good name (fail).
The main actions go like this.
Poralles convinces Helen to go get the man she wants (Bertram) because her virginity is withering away.
Poralles convinces Bertram to run away to the wars rather than sleep with his own new wife because …? You’re not the boss of me?
Various chasing of uninterested parties and identity swaps ensue. This is Shakespeare after all.
In the exciting denouement a not very good riddle is told and Bertram and Helen fall magically in love and the King says something wise.
I’m giving this one 3 stars for plot and character.
There was a strange directorial decision to have the King and Helen kiss, for no apparent reason.
But I think the cast and crew did well with the play they had. I particularly thought the king had a very kingly voice and mean.
When we were about to start this play Mariam texted me that there is finally a mom and even a pretty good mom in one of our watches for this project.
I was delighted.
The mom (Bertrand mom and Helen guardian then mother in law) is a pretty good mom and I’ll give her 4 stars for doing what she could with the son she had. Minus one star for being sort of ineffective but really not bad.
Even though we actually get a mom here I was struck by the missing dads from the beginning.
Their loss is world shattering and defining in a way it could not be today. Helen spends the first few acts completely at a loss for the absence of her father and likewise Bertram is defined only through the lens of his missing parent.
In a world where men held the lives and livelyhoods of their family’s in their hands, a death like either of these would call for complete realignment.
I imagined Shakespeare imagining how lost and bereft his own daughters would be without him. There’s a certain amount of self aggrandizement and martyrdom to the imagining though.
All of this reminded me of this juvenile impulse that Henry VIII had. He loved this song about a beautiful beloved and gallant knight who’s died and how all the world morns for him.
He used to have it sung to him when he was feeling low, and thought it was very deep. To me it’s always smacked of a 7 year old telling everyone “You’ll be sorry when I’m dead!”.
This is all speculation but it’s what the play made me think about.
Now I also will be self indulgent and afflict you with my version of that song Henry VIII made people sing to him.
We begin the War of the Roses with Henry VI part 1.
This is a play that I had neither read nor watched before today. Partly this is because I like Henry V so much and know what happened to his heir.
Henry VI part 1 is all about how the victories of Henry V fall apart.
England loses France.
Here we get to see Joan of Arc as an evil witch.
Already I don’t like this as I have a special theatrical place in my heart for her. My first proper play attendance was to a very moving production of St Joan by George Bernard Shaw. I loved that play and that Joan and this version seemed so flat and cartoonishly villainous in comparison.
We also saw the downfall of Henry Vs noble brother, now the Lord Protector and regent of the young Henry VI.
This downfall includes ham fisted cat fighting, more witchery and violent murder.
There was so much whichery that I wondered if this could be a Jacobean play, but no.
Henry VI part I also shows the disassembly of the union of the nobility, church and ruling classes that Henry V managed to hammer together in his brief rein. By the plays end the lines are drawn and the Game of Thrones backstabbing is well underway.
Henry VI part 1 also destroyed the happy romantic feel that swept me away with the courtship of Hal and Catherine, leaving the audience with a manipulative petty wife and a husband built to provoke her with piety and ignorance.
Things I liked about this production: The Hollow Crown continues to wow me with casting, location and costuming.
I think Henry VI (Tom Sturridge) was fantastic and really I don’t think anyone was bad…
Or not bad with the acting.
I think maybe some of the direction was over the top but also the writing here just feels ham fisted to me.
Analysis for this play posits that it is a very early one in Shakespeares career, maybe only his 2nd play and that could account for some of the linguistic and dramatic lack of subtlety, that I so enjoy in some of his other works.
There also a very strong argument that he was only the coauthor of this play, with 1-3 other playwrights heavily involved (Marlowe comes up a lot here and given all the occult stuff I buy it).
One analysis I saw said that only about 18% of this is actually Shakespeare.
I mostly find that reassuring as I’m not in love with this one.
But the thing I find most compelling is this idea that in this play the violence is very show don’t tell and that feels very unShakespeare.
I can only think of Titus as having this much Michael Bay style fight/curse/death pacing.
Henry VI part I - 3 stars
Mom score - 0 There are a few moms here but you wouldn’t know it. It’s all witches and bitches.
Well that was fascinating in the way that you can't turn your eyes away from something horrifying is.
Henry VI, Part 1, The Hollow Crown. was the first of the Henriad plays where I finally started to understand the family tree well enough to keep everyone straight. It’s very likely the repetition starting to make sense plus the fact that it’s literally the same family squabble from four plays ago.
This play continues with the conflict created by Henry IV when he showed everyone that actually maybe you don’t have to respect the divine right of the king. Unfortunately, they have not figured out what other authority gives you right to the throne. The Bolingbrooke line already showed up the divine right but don’t necessarily want the “power is right” authority because that just encourages other people to try and take it from them. That is why I had to laugh a little at Henry VI’s uncle bowing to the infant king. They’ve got themselves in a right mess.
Quite early on, I had a trepidation of: is Henry VI an idiot? I can’t remember the exact moment, but it came early. I was so surprised to realize that it was Henry VI who said, "For blessed are the peacemakers on earth." What a great line to waste on that situation. I can't believe we ever quote that line seriously given the context it was said in.
I don't totally get Henry VI and we're back at the madness question. Is he actually falling into insanity? Is he mentally deficient? Is he just easily influenced? Or is he just weak-willed? Since Shakespeare lumps all that together usually, it's hard to tell. At first, I thought he was just being tempted by a woman, but then it seems like he's not even sleeping with her. I didn’t understand his interest in her if he wasn’t being physically tempted by her. Does it make sense that he feels good about her marrying him if he doesn’t physically understand the prize? Possibly, if everyone is telling him so.
The dramatic plucking of white and red roses was great. At first, I wasn't sure who's side I was on. Then I realized, I was on no one's side. Both York and Somerset were horrible people which I full realized in the scene of the burning of Joan of Arc. This was the most disturbing scene I've watched so far in a Shakespeare play. York had her burned and Somerset snacked through the whole thing. But I did laugh when York captured her and she yelled, "I prithee, give me leave to curse a while." Lady had some priorities.
Margaret of Anjou as told by Shakespeare was quite despicable. But when I looked up the history, she's not even rumored to have done most of the things Shakespeare has attributed to her. So Shakespeare really didn't like her. I made the observation that he seems to think the downfall of all great men is through women, (Macbeth, Othello, Henry VI, Duke of Gloucester) but Missy made the point that he's careful to say strong English women are fine, strong Scottish women, very suspect, and strong French women, just rank evil.
I'm more of the opinion that we should be blaming Henry VI. Man was just giving away France. I felt bad for the Talbots who were fighting for a fickle king.
I read something about how the Duke of Gloucester, is one of Shakespeare's few unambiguously good characters. Loved that, because Shakespeare's penchant for the ambiguous morality of all is realistic but drives me nuts. Poor guy, he could have had a Kenneth Branagh hero movie as Henry V's brother in his own right.
I liked the visuals in this even better than Richard II. The story was engrossing if a little lurid. I get why this was the inspiration for Game of Thrones, now. It's very dramatic. I am now invested in the Henriad.
After talking to Missy, I've decided that the fascinating part doesn't overcome the lurid for me. I understand the lineages of everyone better now for the fact that everyone is SO memorable for their horrific actions but other than that, it's a little nasty. And I look down on that in modern works and I find that after thinking about it, I don't think it's better for being Shakespeare.
Henry IV part 1 and 2 were about Hal being a debauched youth who either by design or by circumstance (can't tell still) turns into a brilliant king. Here we see him as the brilliant king.
He outs traitors.
He hangs one of his own ex-friends.
He wins battle after battle and makes speech after speech.
The British longbow is impressive and the archery was really fun to watch. Not the dying but the arrows flying.
Now admittedly, I don't believe in his cause. Who should get France? I don't have an opinion either way. BUT, I do appreciate his guilt for having the crown and for how he/his family got it. I don't believe in guiltless kings, so I am glad that his conscience is uneasy. It should be.
The play itself may not have impressed me so much, but I think Branagh did a great service to this play. I think he understands Shakespeare's work. He's willing to play it serious when someone else would play it goofy and slapstick. He brings depth to words that could easily be light and shallow.
The scene where Falstaff dies and his friends remember him was such a scene. The humor in the grief was perfect and real, exactly how someone may remember their old friend. This is EXACTLY how you would sit, all crowded on the stairs together.
He also did the cost of war really well. I think it's difficult to do in one movie, in the space of a couple of hours without doing it cheaply and he did not. He's not trying to manipulate you and I appreciate that. That may be Shakespeare too but I am happy for Branagh sticking to that.
The romance was the only light and funny part of the play and Emma Thompson is beautiful.
I think it didn't overplay it for what it was. They were kind of obliged to marry each other but they made the best of it and I do believe that is sweet in itself.
It should have been Much Ado About Nothing, but this is the play that convinced me to watch all of the Branagh Shakespeare.
After all that, the play ends with us being told that Henry VI loses France in the next play??? Ugh. Well on to Henry VI. It's back to the Hollow Crown for us.
