If you want wars, this is the play for you. It's a constant circle of Henry in charge, Henry in charge (via York), then York, then Henry (via Queen Margaret), then York (via Warwick), then Henry (via Warwick), then York (via Richard, Duke of Gloucester). To me, this is the warm-up to the splendidness that is Richard III. (Also, the love for Richmond--eventual Henry VII--is pretty obsequious. Shakespeare is good at that. I love that man.)
To prove that I'm right about the warm-up, Shakespeare included the longest soliloquy that he ever wrote (III.ii.124–195); he gave it to Richard, Duke of Gloucester (who will be Richard III soon!). It's a gorgeous piece of writing and it begins the themes that Shakespeare will later use with R3, namely that in between the bloodthirsty ambition of Richard, there's a likeability and an honesty that resonates with audiences.
Of course, the play is called Henry VI and we do get to see that weak excuse of a monarch quite a bit. (I'm not positive, but I think he gets more lines in this play than in part ii--and of course it's more than he gets in part i.) In Act I, Henry is more than happy to throw his progeny to the wolves if he can keep power for a little longer. By Act II, when Henry sees the son who has killed his father and the father who has killed his son, Shakespeare uses Henry as less of a monarch and more to develop a connection to the audience.
Now, when it comes to women, there are a lot of interesting elements in this play.
a. Queen Margaret is rightfully pissed off, and it's invigorating. She's the whole reason that we have a play because, if it wasn't for her, Henry would roll over. She fights (and, boy, does Richard initially underestimate a woman's army! underestimating women is a move that Richard will repeat again), she plots, she plans, she inveigles, she whines, she protests, she wins, she loses, she kills, she lives, she protects.
b. Lady Grey, who becomes Edward's Queen, doesn't have much personal power in this play. But Edward wooing her is a master lesson in awkwardness and, of course, Edward thinking with his nether regions causes so many unnecessary problems. When will men learn?? :)
c. Connected to Queen Margaret: "O tiger's heart wrapt in a woman's hide!" (I.iv.137). It's one of my favorite lines and I kind of like to try to emulate that line whenever I'm trying something new or someone seems to say that I'm just not good enough or that women aren't strong.
That's a wrap on Henry VI and I'm breaking from the Shakespeare2020 line-up so that I can go straight on to Richard III! We're ready to trade in kingdoms for a horse! :)
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Saturday, February 1, 2020
Shakespeare2020: King Henry Vi, part ii
If part i of King Henry VI was all about armies of men moving and being defeated, then part ii is when the nobles start to die. And die they do. It reminded me of a low-budget Tarantino-esque production at times, simply because, to announce every death, they keep showing off the heads of slain nobles. We won't get to see blood gushing from the stage in these productions, but we still get grisly sights--Queen Margaret almost making out with a dismembered head is pretty wild.
The quick summary--Queen Margaret marries Henry and plots against him with her lover, Suffolk. York begins to assert his power in different ways: inciting Jack Cade to lead a rebellion, then leading a rebellion himself. But, don't worry, Henry knows that he's a terrible ruler. In Act VI, scene ix he says, "Come, wife, let's in, and learn to govern better; For yet may England curse my wretched reign." You have to appreciate that at least he knows he's a terrible ruler. It ends in the aftermath of the Battle of St. Albans with Henry and Margaret running away, and York planning to follow Henry to London so he can fully gain the crown.
The things that stuck out to me:
1. In Act I we have a conjuring scene, but it's almost wholly a Ouija board type of event. They aren't asking for any spirit-interference, just predictions, but punishments rain down on their heads. In Macbeth, Shakespeare will go much more deeply into whether the Weird Sisters have power and what role predictions have, but this simplistic execution of conjuring acts as solely a decent plot device.
2. Oh, the Yorks! I love me some Yorks! Yes, York peppermint patties, of course, but also I'm totally Team White Rose. (That's another post for another day.) Now, in King Henry VI, part ii, we get to see Richard (later King Richard III) onstage at the end [being belittled by Clifford...grrr...as a"heap of wrath, foul indigested lump, as crooked in thy manners as thy shape" (V.i, 157-158)]. But the main focus is on the Duke of York (Richard's father). The Duke of York shows us where Richard gets his wonderful ability to connect to the audience through asides and descriptive monologues. One of my favorite lines ever is this gem from York: "My brain, more busy than a labouring spider, Weaves tedious snares to trap mine enemies" (III.i.340-341). Gorgeous, gorgeous! His history lesson in Act II is marvelous and necessary, especially if you're watching the tetralogy all at once and you need a refresher in the middle.
3. "Game of Thrones" unabashedly stole Cersei's walk of shame from the Duchess of Gloucester's Act II walk. Shakespeare would be proud.
4. Suffolk gets off too easy; Queen Margaret is such a skank. Jack Cade's rebellion reflects the loss of poetry/intellect/beauty if regular citizens ever would gain control. Henry can't read people, can't understand politics, and shouldn't rule.
5. One last thing--Walter and Water. It's so deliciously Britishly brilliant. Suffolk heard that he was to die by "water" but, when he's about to be killed by a dude named "Walter," he totally realizes his mistake. If you're a midwestern American like me, you start to realize that Shakespeare wrote Act VI, scene i just for YOU. Because, when reading it, you have to sound it out, elongate the vowels, subsume the "ell," and genuinely grovel in the artistry of British wordplay for a bit. Of course, it also predicts how misunderstanding prophecies can go quite wrong (*cough* *cough* *Macbeth**cough*).
It's quite a cliffhanger at the end, so I'm happily moving right on to part iii.
The quick summary--Queen Margaret marries Henry and plots against him with her lover, Suffolk. York begins to assert his power in different ways: inciting Jack Cade to lead a rebellion, then leading a rebellion himself. But, don't worry, Henry knows that he's a terrible ruler. In Act VI, scene ix he says, "Come, wife, let's in, and learn to govern better; For yet may England curse my wretched reign." You have to appreciate that at least he knows he's a terrible ruler. It ends in the aftermath of the Battle of St. Albans with Henry and Margaret running away, and York planning to follow Henry to London so he can fully gain the crown.
The things that stuck out to me:
1. In Act I we have a conjuring scene, but it's almost wholly a Ouija board type of event. They aren't asking for any spirit-interference, just predictions, but punishments rain down on their heads. In Macbeth, Shakespeare will go much more deeply into whether the Weird Sisters have power and what role predictions have, but this simplistic execution of conjuring acts as solely a decent plot device.
2. Oh, the Yorks! I love me some Yorks! Yes, York peppermint patties, of course, but also I'm totally Team White Rose. (That's another post for another day.) Now, in King Henry VI, part ii, we get to see Richard (later King Richard III) onstage at the end [being belittled by Clifford...grrr...as a"heap of wrath, foul indigested lump, as crooked in thy manners as thy shape" (V.i, 157-158)]. But the main focus is on the Duke of York (Richard's father). The Duke of York shows us where Richard gets his wonderful ability to connect to the audience through asides and descriptive monologues. One of my favorite lines ever is this gem from York: "My brain, more busy than a labouring spider, Weaves tedious snares to trap mine enemies" (III.i.340-341). Gorgeous, gorgeous! His history lesson in Act II is marvelous and necessary, especially if you're watching the tetralogy all at once and you need a refresher in the middle.
3. "Game of Thrones" unabashedly stole Cersei's walk of shame from the Duchess of Gloucester's Act II walk. Shakespeare would be proud.
4. Suffolk gets off too easy; Queen Margaret is such a skank. Jack Cade's rebellion reflects the loss of poetry/intellect/beauty if regular citizens ever would gain control. Henry can't read people, can't understand politics, and shouldn't rule.
5. One last thing--Walter and Water. It's so deliciously Britishly brilliant. Suffolk heard that he was to die by "water" but, when he's about to be killed by a dude named "Walter," he totally realizes his mistake. If you're a midwestern American like me, you start to realize that Shakespeare wrote Act VI, scene i just for YOU. Because, when reading it, you have to sound it out, elongate the vowels, subsume the "ell," and genuinely grovel in the artistry of British wordplay for a bit. Of course, it also predicts how misunderstanding prophecies can go quite wrong (*cough* *cough* *Macbeth**cough*).
It's quite a cliffhanger at the end, so I'm happily moving right on to part iii.
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
Shakespeare2020: King Henry VI, part i
Ah ha....now we start into the histories!
Henry VI, part i (it's usually written I Henry VI) isn't one of the most well-known plays, so I'll recap it as part of my discussion of it too. But know that, even if it isn't especially well known, it's still an amazing bit o' writing. And I do like thinking about this in terms of Shakespeare's evolution as a writer. In this play, you can see themes and even a scene that he'll keep toying with and (imho) perfecting as he grows as a writer. I Henry VI was written around 1591 and might be the earliest play by my man W. Shakes, though there's a few areas that you can tell may have been written by another playwright (possibly by another fantastic laddie you may know named Christopher Marlowe! and sweet Thomas Nashe too!). I Henry VI is the first in a tetralogy that spans The Wars of the Roses (Henry VI parts i, ii, and iii and Richard III). Shakespeare wrote two tetralogies [together, they're called the Henriad) and though this was the first composed, it's actually the later in chronology; the other follows Richard II, Henry IV parts i and ii, and Henry V].
Anyway, this play starts in the aftermath of Henry V's death. Henry V was a controlling, egotistical, intelligent, and strong man, and his death has left England in the lurch. His son, Henry VI, is weak, to put it mildly. This is demonstrated beautifully by Shakespeare because Henry VI doesn't even show up in the play until Act III. 🔥
So, what is this play about? Nobles arguing, England waging war in France, nobles arguing, Joan of Arc doing a bit of witchcraft, nobles deciding that Henry VI should marry, and (yes I may have mentioned this) nobles arguing. The play ends with Henry and the nobles (mostly) agreeing that Henry should marry Margaret of Anjou (much more about her in the rest of the tetralogy), and a peace with France somewhat exists (but, characters assure us that it won't last long!).
So, that's the quick and dirty synopsis. What I want to point out are some aspects where I can see Shakespeare's broader themes and ideas being tackled for the first time:
a. Hmmm, women might be evil?
My darling Shakespeare starts to play with this idea, which will get much more sound and more well-constructed in later plays (and when he has stronger female characters).
In this play, Shakespeare shows the vileness of women but points to men's prejudice as a reason that women are being twisted thusly. He'll do it much better in later plays, but that theme is clearly present.
b. Fatherhood and a lineage of power
Talbot is quite the major role in this play. He's discussed (as a hero to the English, as a thorn in the French's side) as strong; he's shown as capable; he even has a sense of humor. (Spoiler alert: He dies in battle at the end of the play.) Now, Shakespeare shines in his brilliant crafting of multi-dimensional characters, and Talbot's character construction shows several aspects that will become deeper, more pervasive elements of later characters. Talbot almost seems like an exercise in melding humor and wisdom, in seeing how strengths can showcase character flaws, in how to combine a dominant character with weaker characters in a way that still explains their interactions evenly. When Shakespeare shows Talbot arguing against his own selves/desires, I see glimpses of Macbeth and Hamlet; when Talbot demonstrates a twinge of evilness covered in a coat of likable humor, I see stirrings of what will become Richard 3 and even Iago. But Talbot most often reminds me of Othello--a strong warrior who focuses so much on how others might view him that he loses his mind. Talbot doesn't lose his mind and does care about his son, but Talbot thinks that all problems will be solved by war/brute strength, knowing that the nobles he's trusting to support him are weak-willed cowards. He assumes that the nobles will have courage when courage is needed but he underestimated their cowardice and pettiness.
In addition, the scene between Talbot and his son is a wonderful precursor to the Banquo/Fleance scene in Macbeth (though Banquo is more forceful and definitive, and we have a "never-ending line of kings" that proves that Banquo's delivery equates with success 😜). But the Talbot/son scene nicely sets up an element of lineage-derived power which is in, I would argue, every single Shakespearean play.
c. Roses are red, or are they white? Which color is right?
Yep, the WARS OF THE ROSES are a-starting! The Wars of the Roses were a series of English Civil Wars between the House of Plantagenet (white roses) and the House of Lancaster (red roses). Shakespeare deals with this more fluidly in subsequent plays of this tetralogy, but the Act II of this play is notable because we start to see which nobles will be on which side and why. It's an interesting exposition strategy that Shakespeare uses because he is introducing an idea that was very well known to audiences at the time but absolutely needs to be said. He doesn't want to bore the audience, but we need to see the teams assembling, to be blunt. The scene is constructed in a fluid and basic form, which makes it rather rich for interpretation by directors. I've seen a few versions of this play and this scene usually is the most different between directors. Some like to have roses in a garden being plucked (i.e. a visual delineation); others will play with an actor's volume (whispering and voice pitching) to explore potential alignments and misdirections. It's fascinating the complexities that are within this scene.
d. Supernatural baby!
This play talks about angels, God, spirits, witches, and demons. There's an entire scene kinda showing Joan summoning demons. It's a rich tapestry of supernatural creatures and discussions! [A little about me: I adore exploring how Shakespeare uses the supernatural onstage to bring forward subversive social, economic, religious, political, or ideological views. I did quite a bit of graduate work in Renaissance Literature and the supernatural was my specialty.] In this play, there's a lot of talk about the supernatural and one instance of a pseudo-performance of witchcraft, but they are fairly basic and typical. The talk doesn't go beyond basic tropes of supernatural creatures and the witchcraft pseudo-performance is muddled, decidedly weak, and useful only for highlighting Joan's waning power and the weak nature of Dauphin Charles. I also call it "pseudo" because the play only notes Joan talking to herself not to any other characters, and most actors play it as Joan simply wandering around, pretending to talk to the air; this is in direct contrast to later plays where supernatural characters will talk and interact as major roles.
Shakespeare will go much, much further with his use of the supernatural in subsequent plays, but it's always nice to see what he was starting from; it makes me appreciate his facility in using the supernatural in later plays even more. To me, this is how a beginning writer would use the supernatural. But as Shakespeare begins to understand the power within a a role defined and strengthened by "otherness," he experiments more and finds avenues that highlight ambiguity and unnatural/supernatural strength, and he draws on more traditions (going beyond folklore and into Greek/Roman/ Egyptian supernatural tropes).
So, obviously I'm a nerd, and I didn't think I'd write this much about I Henry VI, but I suppose I've shown you my excitement. Please do read the play. It's a snappy and swift read. Onward to part ii!
Henry VI, part i (it's usually written I Henry VI) isn't one of the most well-known plays, so I'll recap it as part of my discussion of it too. But know that, even if it isn't especially well known, it's still an amazing bit o' writing. And I do like thinking about this in terms of Shakespeare's evolution as a writer. In this play, you can see themes and even a scene that he'll keep toying with and (imho) perfecting as he grows as a writer. I Henry VI was written around 1591 and might be the earliest play by my man W. Shakes, though there's a few areas that you can tell may have been written by another playwright (possibly by another fantastic laddie you may know named Christopher Marlowe! and sweet Thomas Nashe too!). I Henry VI is the first in a tetralogy that spans The Wars of the Roses (Henry VI parts i, ii, and iii and Richard III). Shakespeare wrote two tetralogies [together, they're called the Henriad) and though this was the first composed, it's actually the later in chronology; the other follows Richard II, Henry IV parts i and ii, and Henry V].
Anyway, this play starts in the aftermath of Henry V's death. Henry V was a controlling, egotistical, intelligent, and strong man, and his death has left England in the lurch. His son, Henry VI, is weak, to put it mildly. This is demonstrated beautifully by Shakespeare because Henry VI doesn't even show up in the play until Act III. 🔥
So, what is this play about? Nobles arguing, England waging war in France, nobles arguing, Joan of Arc doing a bit of witchcraft, nobles deciding that Henry VI should marry, and (yes I may have mentioned this) nobles arguing. The play ends with Henry and the nobles (mostly) agreeing that Henry should marry Margaret of Anjou (much more about her in the rest of the tetralogy), and a peace with France somewhat exists (but, characters assure us that it won't last long!).
So, that's the quick and dirty synopsis. What I want to point out are some aspects where I can see Shakespeare's broader themes and ideas being tackled for the first time:
a. Hmmm, women might be evil?
My darling Shakespeare starts to play with this idea, which will get much more sound and more well-constructed in later plays (and when he has stronger female characters).
- Joan of Arc is the most dominant female character. She appears very early in the play when the Bastard of Orleans introduces her to Dauphin Charles (who leading a rebellion in France against the English). She wins a duel against Charles and, as a reward, is sent to command the French armies, which start to do pretty well. But, she ultimately loses her power to have visions (if she ever had this power), her sexuality becomes a joke to the French and the English (does she control Charles through sex? is she a tramp? is she really pregnant? who's the father?), and she ends the play, destined to be burned at the stake, pleading for her life.
What can we tell from her representation? Although it is a fairly typical progression of the female trope in this early play, there are moments of unexpected power. Joan's fight and battlefield knowledge, her ability to talk to spirits, and her sexuality are all prized assets at times. Certainly, Shakespeare shows that winners write history and, if those winners are males angry at a woman, then the end result will be a harsh caricature of a woman. But I do think that by showing us her strengths, even if for a short time, Shakespeare does point to the hypocritical nature of "winners write history." Moreover, by having the English reduce Joan in such petty and typical ways, I would argue that Shakespeare emphasizes the unimaginative nature of "winning" males. - The Countess of Auvergne, a very minor character, tries to capture Talbot, and levies some pretty hilarious insults at him during the scene (which he laughs off). The Countess sub-plot is pretty silly, immediately debunked, and doesn't add much to the text. It emphasizes that not all women's machinations will work. And it clearly shows the difference between Charles (easily bewitched by Joan) and Talbot (easily able to overcome a woman). In Richard III, we'll see women being wooed to showcase how Richard's power changes in concert with the exposition of the play. That trope is much better crafted, and takes up much more time, than the Countess scene.
- Last, Margaret of Anjou is a carefully constructed creature. We don't see much of her or her personality in this play, but I think this is a deliberate choice by Shakespeare. She needs to be introduced and will become a very major character, but Shakespeare primarily uses her introduction to set up Henry's reliance on Suffolk and the apprehension that it causes with Gloucester. Shakespeare knows how to introduce a character (independent of gender) in order to show other characters' development/alliances.
In this play, Shakespeare shows the vileness of women but points to men's prejudice as a reason that women are being twisted thusly. He'll do it much better in later plays, but that theme is clearly present.
b. Fatherhood and a lineage of power
Talbot is quite the major role in this play. He's discussed (as a hero to the English, as a thorn in the French's side) as strong; he's shown as capable; he even has a sense of humor. (Spoiler alert: He dies in battle at the end of the play.) Now, Shakespeare shines in his brilliant crafting of multi-dimensional characters, and Talbot's character construction shows several aspects that will become deeper, more pervasive elements of later characters. Talbot almost seems like an exercise in melding humor and wisdom, in seeing how strengths can showcase character flaws, in how to combine a dominant character with weaker characters in a way that still explains their interactions evenly. When Shakespeare shows Talbot arguing against his own selves/desires, I see glimpses of Macbeth and Hamlet; when Talbot demonstrates a twinge of evilness covered in a coat of likable humor, I see stirrings of what will become Richard 3 and even Iago. But Talbot most often reminds me of Othello--a strong warrior who focuses so much on how others might view him that he loses his mind. Talbot doesn't lose his mind and does care about his son, but Talbot thinks that all problems will be solved by war/brute strength, knowing that the nobles he's trusting to support him are weak-willed cowards. He assumes that the nobles will have courage when courage is needed but he underestimated their cowardice and pettiness.
In addition, the scene between Talbot and his son is a wonderful precursor to the Banquo/Fleance scene in Macbeth (though Banquo is more forceful and definitive, and we have a "never-ending line of kings" that proves that Banquo's delivery equates with success 😜). But the Talbot/son scene nicely sets up an element of lineage-derived power which is in, I would argue, every single Shakespearean play.
c. Roses are red, or are they white? Which color is right?
Yep, the WARS OF THE ROSES are a-starting! The Wars of the Roses were a series of English Civil Wars between the House of Plantagenet (white roses) and the House of Lancaster (red roses). Shakespeare deals with this more fluidly in subsequent plays of this tetralogy, but the Act II of this play is notable because we start to see which nobles will be on which side and why. It's an interesting exposition strategy that Shakespeare uses because he is introducing an idea that was very well known to audiences at the time but absolutely needs to be said. He doesn't want to bore the audience, but we need to see the teams assembling, to be blunt. The scene is constructed in a fluid and basic form, which makes it rather rich for interpretation by directors. I've seen a few versions of this play and this scene usually is the most different between directors. Some like to have roses in a garden being plucked (i.e. a visual delineation); others will play with an actor's volume (whispering and voice pitching) to explore potential alignments and misdirections. It's fascinating the complexities that are within this scene.
d. Supernatural baby!
This play talks about angels, God, spirits, witches, and demons. There's an entire scene kinda showing Joan summoning demons. It's a rich tapestry of supernatural creatures and discussions! [A little about me: I adore exploring how Shakespeare uses the supernatural onstage to bring forward subversive social, economic, religious, political, or ideological views. I did quite a bit of graduate work in Renaissance Literature and the supernatural was my specialty.] In this play, there's a lot of talk about the supernatural and one instance of a pseudo-performance of witchcraft, but they are fairly basic and typical. The talk doesn't go beyond basic tropes of supernatural creatures and the witchcraft pseudo-performance is muddled, decidedly weak, and useful only for highlighting Joan's waning power and the weak nature of Dauphin Charles. I also call it "pseudo" because the play only notes Joan talking to herself not to any other characters, and most actors play it as Joan simply wandering around, pretending to talk to the air; this is in direct contrast to later plays where supernatural characters will talk and interact as major roles.
Shakespeare will go much, much further with his use of the supernatural in subsequent plays, but it's always nice to see what he was starting from; it makes me appreciate his facility in using the supernatural in later plays even more. To me, this is how a beginning writer would use the supernatural. But as Shakespeare begins to understand the power within a a role defined and strengthened by "otherness," he experiments more and finds avenues that highlight ambiguity and unnatural/supernatural strength, and he draws on more traditions (going beyond folklore and into Greek/Roman/ Egyptian supernatural tropes).
So, obviously I'm a nerd, and I didn't think I'd write this much about I Henry VI, but I suppose I've shown you my excitement. Please do read the play. It's a snappy and swift read. Onward to part ii!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)