Locrine is an Elizabethan play, first published in 1595, whose author is, sadly, lost to history. The title page says the play was “Newly set forth, corrected, and overseen, by W.S.” As you might expect, scholars and theater practitioners have eagerly tried to prove that this means the play was written, (or at least revised), by Shakespeare. So far, no proof has been found.
“Historical” Context
Notes on the Trojan War
The play is a tragedy based on the founding of Britain. Over 2,000 years ago, a father and his three sons flee the destroyed Troy, tame the wild landscape of England, and become its first kings. After his father’s death, the eldest son, Locrine, must defend his land from barbarian invaders with the help of his brothers.
Semi-mythical characters
Brutus of Troy
Brutus is the patriarch of the Britons who, according to legend, was descended from Aeneas the sole survivor of the infamous Trojan War. Brutus preserves the legacy of Troy by founding a new city in Britain, Troynovant (New Troy), and establishing his three sons as heirs to his kingdom.
Camber, Brutus’ young son
Albanact
Albanact is the great warrior whom Brutus puts in charge of Scotland. He has his hands full defending Britain against the Scithian invaders.
Camber
Camber is given Cambria, (modern day Wales)
Illustration of King Locrine from the Genealogical Chronicle of the Kings of England to Edward IV (c. 1461)
Locrine is Brutus’ eldest son, and as such he is crowned king over all Britain. According to legend, Locrine changes the capital of England from New Troy, to Locrindom, which then became London.
The Plot
Title page illustration from Locrine, 1709
The prologue
Prologue describes Prometheus’ punishment as a tragedy, and his gift is a blessing. Prometheus also warns that Zeus will be overthrow if he succumbs to his desire for Thetis
Ate the Goddess of revenge introduces the play, making it very clear that this is the fall of the royal house of Brutus.
As the play continues, we see Brutus die, leaving his kingdom to his children
4. Humber is humbled- the villainous emperor Humber tries to conquer Britain. Many battles and many tears ensure
Locrine is conquered- without giving too much away, Locrine is defeated in battle by his former wife, Gwendoline. It’s possible that, since the play was written in the last few years of the Elizabethan era, that the writer of Locrine chose Gwendolyn to be a stand in for Queen Elizabeth herself.
Gwendoline, legendary Queen regent of Britain.
A Senecan Tragedy
Locrine probably isn’t a Shakespearean play- it’s characters communicate mainly in operatic speeches that are full of passionate feelings. Plays like this are called Senecan Tragedies, based on the ancient Roman playwright Seneca.
As I mentioned in my podcast, these speeches are fun to give, but it’s a challenge to deliver them in a way that connects with an audience.
Humber’s monologue from Locrine
Dumb Shows
To illustrate key moments of the play, each act begins with a dumb show, a short pantomime which usually involves some kind of animal. For instance, when Humber defeats Brutus’ son Albanact, there is a dumb show where a crocodile kills a fish, echoing how Humber (who carries a crocodile on his shield), deceived and murdered Albanact.
Our version of Locrine chooses to use puppets instead of real animals, most notably crows and vipers. The Mexican folktales that we intertwine with the text of Locrine mention a beautiful serpent named Kwinim Tsan, which represents the power of nature.
Our team works on the great serpent puppet
Our Interpretation
Humber is humbled in the wilderness Gwendoline rallies the troopsBrutus fights the giant Gogmagog Gwendolyn confronts LocrineA massive battle between Locrine’s forces and Gwendolyn’sThe indigenous story of how the crow became black.Cast photo
Our production, Víbora y cuervo: Locrine and Other Tales, pairs this origin myth with other origin myths to explore their power and purpose in our world. Orangemite.org
Poster for Orange Mite’s 2026 production of Locrine and Other Tales
Well, there you go, Hope you enjoyed this overview of the play Locrine. If you like this review, you might like to see the show itself. Click here to purchase tickets:
Two Gentlemen Of Verona is probably Shakespeare’s first comedy, maybe even his first play. A lot of the plot devices and themes Shakespeare explores in later plays were first set down in Two Gentlemen.
The Plot
Two Gentlemen Of Verona is about two best friends, Valentine and Proteus, who start out as young men yearning for adventure and to seek their fortune in Milan. As you might have guessed from his name, Valentine finds love instead of fortune, and so does his friend Proteus. What makes the play unique is that Proteus falls in love with Valentine’s betrothed Silvia, forsaking his faithful sweetheart Julia. The two virtuous girls support each other and fight to stop Proteus from sabotaging their relationships. In the end though, Valentine forgives Proteus and Valentine takes him back, which makes the play a little controversial for modern audiences.
The Concept
What happens in Milan, stays in Milan! Shakespeare’s gleefully silly comedy is set in 1940’s Las Vegas, where love and friendship are put to the test. A charming adventure navigating a love triangle, betrayal, disguises, an escape into the forest, and a dog. -Quoted from the official program.
The play is set in 1940s Las Vegas, which works well with the theme of young, impressionable men trying to make their fortunes in a place where luck can change in an instant. Proteus goes from a lover and loyal friend to a liar and traitor. Meanwhile, Valentine’s luck changes from a favored gentleman at court, to a banished vagabond.
The performances had the air of a 1940s classic comedy, with a lot of stylized slapstick and over-the top characters. It echoes the work of Laurel and Hardy or Abbot and Costello, which I feel was a wise choice- even if the audience couldn’t understand a word of the dialogue, they could still be entertained by the actors’ over-the top comedy.
Free Shakespeare In the Park
The set of “Two Gentlemen Of Verona”
This was my first KY Shakespeare production, and I enjoyed the overall vibe a lot. According to kyShakespeare.com, the company is enjoying its 66th year of being the longest running, non-ticketed Shakespeare festival in the United States. The company prides itself as being accessible, inclusive, anti-racist, and generally committed to welcoming all people to enjoy their shows. From what I saw from my seat on a balmy day in Olmstead Park, Kentucky Shakespeare is doing a great job accomplishing its goals. I saw people from many different walks of life come by, laugh at the jokes, clap and cheer, and have a good time.
The Cast
The cast has a great grasp of Shakespeare’s language and comic timing. Like I said before, the cast performed as if they were in a 1940s classic comedy, which helps sells some of the absurd moments in the play. That said, across the board, the actors also knew how to deliver the serious moments of the play with grace and pathos.
Crystian Wiltshire (Proteus)
As you read earlier, Proteus’ character commits some very questionable actions- betraying his friend and forsaking his girlfriend for no good reason. In order to make the audience feel even a tiny amount of sympathy for him, would require an actor with charm, and a great sense of humor. Fortunately, Chrystian Wiltshire brings both of these qualities, as well as a great deal of skill. His Proteus is basically a young, naive fool, who never considers the long term consequences of his actions. One gets the impression that by the end of the play, he will learn his lesson and become a better man. Still, I heard a few people booing when Valentine forgave him at the end of the play. It’s a testament to Mr Wiltshire’s performance that he inspired such an emotional response from the audience.
Justin Jackson (Valentine) Obviously, anyproduction of Two Gentlemen depends upon the actors playing the title characters. The play’s central tension is Proteus changing from a lover to a liar and Valentine from a libertine to a lover. Fortunately, Mr Jackson is a great foil for Mr Wiltshire as Proteus. He excellently portrays the change of Valentines heart. At the beginning of the play he is charming and devil-may-care. If you haven’t read the play before, you might expect that Valentinemight be the real liar and cheat from the way he teases Proteus about his lovesick behavior. But, once he meets Silvia, Valentine is utterly sincere and his smarmy looks are replaced by a rock solid earnestness. Jackson expertly conveys this startling metamorphosis with his powerful voice, imposing height, and dashing good looks. I wish I could see him in a tragic role like Hamlet or Brutus, but with his masterful portrayal of Valentine, I’m sure he’ll have many more memorable performances in the future.
Kate Drury (Julia) I hope I have established by now that the main idea Shakespeare conveys in this play is that people transform when they fall in love, and neither the exterior nor interior man (or woman), resembles who they were. This is especially true with Julia, who starts out as a simpering, childish girl who tears up Proteus’s love letter to prove that she is not in love, but then agonizes over her cruel destruction of the note. This speech could seem cloyingly sweet or annoying in the wrong hands, but Miss Drury pulls it off to great effect.
Even more impressive is the transformation Julia undergoes in Act 2, where she disguises herself as a man and faces many dangers to find and confront Proteus. She even has the heart to befriend Silvia, the woman Proteus forsakes her for. The childish Julia from Act I might not understand that Proteus is unfaithful, not the virtuous Silvia, but Kate effortlessly shows Julia’s wisdom to see that Silvia never entices Proteus, and scolds his behavior on behalf of Julia herself. It’s rare to see an Elizabethan playwright portray a female friendship that is mature and genuine, but Shakespeare manages to do so, and the actresses mirror this relationship flawlessly.
Tilly as CrabbetheDog
For most people in the audience, the true star of the show was Tilly as Crabbe the dog. When my kids and I took our seats, my son’s immediate question was “When is the dog coming?” To be fair, Tilly is very cute and never once breaks character.
Tilly the Golden Retriever as Crabbe 1Tilly the Golden Retriever as Crabbe 2Tilly the Golden Retriever as Crabbe 3
My Reaction
I tried my best to separate my feelings about Two Gentlemen Of Verona from the production. As I mentioned earlier, as Shakespeare’s first comedy, many of his more famous works are actually derived from this one. For instance, we have an Italian hero who visits his beloved by night, whose love is denied and he is banished from Verona, (sound familiar?) We also have a heroine who disguises herself as a boy, (a device which Shakespeare employs at least six times), a comic servant, a maid, pirates, a foppish suitor, and a bit where the heroine secretly obtains her beloved’s ring. As a hardcore Shakespeare fan, seeing these repeated devices and characters was a little tedious after recognizing them from other plays. I also felt that the dialogue should have been edited a little bit more- the play was about 2 1/2 hours which I felt was a little too long. That said, the skill of the actors and thecreativeuse of the setting helped make Two Gentlemen Of Verona an enjoyable experience for all.
In conclusion, I can see why people like this play and I too enjoy it, despite its questionable subtext.
If you like this analysis, you might be interested in signing up for my Outschool Course on Shakespeare’s Comedies. Link down below. Share this class with a friend and you will get $20 USD off! You’ll also get $20 USD when you sign up with your link and take their first class!
The Child is locked within that room, alack! Too high to fly and the doors are far too thick Perhaps this console I can disarm or hack O Fate! Thou play'st upon me yet another trick. To enter I must show this Droid my face A thing most vile, against my holy creed. Methinks I hear The Armorer's voice 'cross space: "This is the way of Mandalore, take heed." This is MY WAY, MY QUEST, MY SACRIFICE Behold my face, thou cold and lifeless sentry. A few seconds shame should thee suffice Open the gate! Let me have present entry!
Strange, up to now, my face hath been my mystery My Grogu's life is far more dear to me.
With the upcoming release of The Mandalorian and Grogo, I knew there would be lots of tie-in Star Wars merchandise capitalizing on it. What I didn’t expect, was that, after a six year hiatus, playwright Ian Doescher has once again taken up his quills and lightsabers to dramatize the next installment in the Shakespearean Star Wars cannon, The Mandalorian of Nevarro.
What Is William Shakespeare’s Star Wars?
William Shakespeare’s Star Wars is a series of parody plays written by Ian Doescher that takes the prose screenplays of the Star Wars story and transforms them into Elizabethan verse. Last time, I mentioned how much I loved the cheeky references to Shakespeare and Star Wars, and how Doescher adapts the cinematic quality into Elizabethan drama very well. In my podcast, I also emphasized the way Doescher gives each character verbose Shakespearan language that works very well for radio and theater:
I’ve written reviews about Mr Doescher’s versions of the original trilogy, but I never expected him to cover the Disney Plus shows, bit he proved me wrong, and by all accounts, this edition lives up to its predecessors.
Interview with Ian Doescher about “The Mandalorian of Nevarro”
What We Know
I haven’t gotten a copy yet of the full play, so this will be less of a review and more of a prediction and a fun speculation about how Mr Doescher will handle everyone’s favorite green foster child and Beskar- clad dad.
When your main character is, quite frankly, one of the most non-theatrical Star Wars protagonists in existence, forcing that character to come out of his shell and give him that Shakespearean flair was always going to be a test. – Nate Manning, Star Wars News.net
The Mandalorian of Nevarro is a two part series that, like the other William Shakespeare’s Star Wars books, adapts the prose text of episodes 1-4 into Shakespeare’s verse. According to Wookiepedia, the series was originally titled Mandalorius, which is probably a pun on Shakespeare’s play Coriolanus
Prologue and Dramatis Personae for “The Mandalorian of Nevarro”
What We Can Guess
One thing I am very curious about is how far Doescher adapted Coriolanus for Mandolorian. As you might have read in my review for Coriolanus, one reason why the play isn’t as popular as some of Shakespeare’s other tragedies is simply that its hero is not very compelling. Coriolanus is not as articulate or wise as Hamlet, nor does his journey form a cohesive arc like Macbeth or Othello. He seems to flit between loving Rome and hating it, between peace and war, with little agency or understanding of what is happening to him, and even less insight. He is mainly a maddeningly inscrutable man, almost as if he was wearing a mask.
With all this in mind, I can honestly understand why Doescher might choose the Roman general Caius Martius Coriolanus as a model for Jinn Jaran, (assuming that the final play does in fact do so). Like Coriolanus, Mando is a lone warrior in a fragile republic, who goes from planet to planet with nothing but his ship, and his rigid code of behavior to guide him. Therefore it makes total sense that Doescher would use Coriolanus as a model to emulate when adapting The Mandalorian.
With all due respect to Shakespeare, what makes Mando a more interesting character from Coriolanus us that he has a compelling Arc. He starts as a solitary bounty hunter to a surrogate father who finds meaning when he adopts a child. It’s like his helmet and armor are metaphors for the uncaring, uncompromising person he was. Over the course of the series, as Mando becomes a better man and a better father, he is forced to remove his armor and form real relationships.
What I Hope
I hope this adaptation uses Shakespeare’s ability to conjure images and feelings when telling Mando’s story, but only time will tell.
Enjoy this video trailer and a podcast episode to see some of the ways I’ve traveled to a Galaxy Far Far Away, with Shakespeare’s ghost as my Jedi Master:
I’m coaching a young actress who is performing a monologue from one of Shakespeare’s histories, his play Henry VI, Part I. It’s likely you know the character, even if you don’t know the play- Joan LaPucelle, aka Joan of Arc. In this post, I will compare and contrast the historical Joan from Shakespeare’s version, and further attempt to separate the real woman from her legendary status as the patron Saint of France.
Shakespeare’s Joan
Shakespeare’s younger sister was also named Joan, and it’s possible she might have inspired Shakespeare’s decision to write about Joan the Maid. Recently, a document called A Spiritual Testimony, (long attributed to Shakespeare’s father), is now believed to be proof that Shakespeare’s little sister was a devout Catholic, at a time when doing so could incur ruinous fines and the risk of arrest for sedition and heresy. Given the courage of Joan’s convictions, perhaps her elder brother infused some of her zeal when writing the character of Joan in Henry VI, part I.
The Life of Joan
One life is all we have, and we live it as we believe in living it. But to sacrifice what you are and to live without belief, that is a fate more terrible than dying. -Joan of Arc
Joan LaPucelle, (Joan the Maid) was a controversial figure even in the 15th century. To the English, (and even some of the French), she was a witch, and a cruel warrior who took away rightful English territory. To others, she was a hero and a saint.
What I hope to do in this post is provide you with details about the life of Joan of Arc. Next I will compare and contrast the most iconic portrayals. I would argue that the success of each interpretation depends on how the writer, director, and of course, the actress playing Joan, answer these questions.
Shakespeare’s Version of Joan La Pucelle
Charles, King of France. Go, call her in. [Exit BASTARD OF ORLEANS]255 But first, to try her skill, Reignier, stand thou as Dauphin in my place: Question her proudly; let thy looks be stern: By this means shall we sound what skill she hath. [Re-enter the BASTARD OF ORLEANS, with JOAN LA PUCELLE]
Reignier. Fair maid, is't thou wilt do these wondrous feats? Joan la Pucelle. Reignier, is't thou that thinkest to beguile me? Where is the Dauphin? Come, come from behind; I know thee well, though never seen before. Be not amazed, there's nothing hid from me:265 In private will I talk with thee apart. Stand back, you lords, and give us leave awhile. Reignier. She takes upon her bravely at first dash.
Joan appears in the first part of Shakespeare’s epic saga of four plays about the Wars of the Roses. It is King Henry’s inability to defend his lands in France against Joan’s valiant attacks that helped trigger the Civil War, where the House of York fight to take the crown away from the incompetent King Henry VI.
Joan la Pucelle. Dauphin, I am by birth a shepherd's daughter, My wit untrain'd in any kind of art.270 Heaven and our Lady gracious hath it pleased To shine on my contemptible estate: Lo, whilst I waited on my tender lambs, And to sun's parching heat display'd my cheeks, God's mother deigned to appear to me275 And in a vision full of majesty Will'd me to leave my base vocation And free my country from calamity: Her aid she promised and assured success: In complete glory she reveal'd herself;280 And, whereas I was black and swart before, With those clear rays which she infused on me That beauty am I bless'd with which you see. Ask me what question thou canst possible, And I will answer unpremeditated:285 My courage try by combat, if thou darest, And thou shalt find that I exceed my sex. Resolve on this, thou shalt be fortunate, If thou receive me for thy warlike mate. Act 1, Scene ii
In the play, Joan is a strong warrior, a clever tactician, and a gifted orator, yet her main function in the play is as the antagonist who goes toe to toe against the English warrior, Lord Talbott.
Naturally, since Shakespeare was trying to write for an English audience, Joan is portrayed as the antagonist, not the hero. The English make many snide comments that suggest Joan might not be as virtuous or as righteous as she appears. However, Shakespeare never outright calls Joan a witch or portrays her doing anything other than trying to fight for her country, by any means necessary.
Once Charles is crowned and Joan gets back Orléans for the French, the tide of battle turns against her. In Shakespeare’s version, this is because the English are united around John of Bedford, (King Henry’s uncle and Regent of France), as well as Lord Talbot, the great knight and “Terror of the French”. In Act V, scene iii, Joan calls upon spirits to fight the English:
The regent conquers, and the Frenchmen fly. Now help, ye charming spells and periapts; And ye choice spirits that admonish me And give me signs of future accidents. [Thunder] You speedy helpers, that are substitutes Under the lordly monarch of the north, Appear and aid me in this enterprise. [Enter Fiends] This speedy and quick appearance argues proof Of your accustom'd diligence to me. Now, ye familiar spirits, that are cull'd Out of the powerful regions under earth, Help me this once, that France may get the field. [They walk, and speak not] O, hold me not with silence over-long! Where I was wont to feed you with my blood, I'll lop a member off and give it you In earnest of further benefit, So you do condescend to help me now. [They hang their heads] No hope to have redress? My body shall Pay recompense, if you will grant my suit. [They shake their heads] Cannot my body nor blood-sacrifice Entreat you to your wonted furtherance? Then take my soul, my body, soul and all, Before that England give the French the foil. [They depart] See, they forsake me! Now the time is come That France must vail her lofty-plumed crest And let her head fall into England's lap. My ancient incantations are too weak, And hell too strong for me to buckle with: Now, France, thy glory droopeth to the dust. [Exit]
Joan LaPucelle in the 2010 RSC production of “Henry VI, Part 1
At first glance this passage seems shocking- Shakespeare appears to be accusing the patron saint of France of witchcraft. Even more bizarre, later when Joan is arrested by the English lords, she claims to be pregnant with King Charles’ child! And to confound the audience even further, Joan contradicts her own confession by denying any witchcraft or any relationship with any man:
Joan la Pucelle: First, let me tell you whom you have condemn'd: Not me begotten of a shepherd swain, But issued from the progeny of kings; Virtuous and holy; chosen from above, By inspiration of celestial grace, To work exceeding miracles on earth. I never had to do with wicked spirits: But you, that are polluted with your lusts, Stain'd with the guiltless blood of innocents, Corrupt and tainted with a thousand vices, Because you want the grace that others have, You judge it straight a thing impossible To compass wonders but by help of devils. No, misconceived! Joan of Arc hath been A virgin from her tender infancy, Chaste and immaculate in very thought; Whose maiden blood, thus rigorously effused, Will cry for vengeance at the gates of heaven. Henry VI, Part I, Act V, Scene iv
I get the sense that Shakespeare is trying to make Joan’s character ambiguous- if you are an English patriot, you can see her as a witch, a liar, and a manipulative harlot. If you are French, you see these accusations as filthy lies, and Joan’s “confession,” as merely a desperate attempt to spare her own life, one that tragically backfires.
The Real Joan of Arc
Born: circa 1412 in Domrémy, France
Died: May 30 1431 (executed by burning)
Birth/ Childhood
Joan was born January 6th, 1412 to Isabelle and Jacques D’Arc, the mayor of the town of Domr’emy France. At the time, Domremy was right on the border between the Armeniacs (who supported Charles the Dauphin) and the Burgundians, who supported King Henry V of England as rightful king of all Frence. Because of this, Joan’s home was subject to English raids and she might have been raised to support Charles as her lawful king. In any case, the accounts we have describe her as very pious, intelligent, generous, and a lover of justice.She had no formal education nor any experience on the Battlefield. Yet, by all accounts, Joan was an extremely devout youth, devoted to God, and her lawful king.
Call to Arms
When she was 13, Joan went to pray in her father’s garden and believed that she saw the Archangel Michael, who prophesied that she would be the one to save France. In 1428, Joan approached Robert Baudricourt, Lord of Vaucouleurs. She demanded to join the French army and to bring Charles to Reims to be officially crowned king. Though she was turned away three times, Joan’s faith and courage attracted followers from the surrounding countryside, and Baudricourt eventually agreed to train Joan to fight, and allowed her and her enterage to talk to Charles the Dauphin about joining the troops defending the city of Orléans.
Once he met Joan at his palace in Chinon, the Dauphin agreed to let her take weapons and supplies to the troops who were already laying siege to the French town of Orléans. However, Joan insisted on leading the troops into battle, and quickly became a symbol of French resistance.
The Siege of Orléans
The city of Orléans was a vital town that the English had garrison. For six months, the French had attempted to starve out the English, destroy their defenses, and retake the city.
Joan la Pucelle. Advance our waving colours on the walls; Rescued is Orleans from the English Thus Joan la Pucelle hath perform’d her word.- Henry the Sixth, Part I
Diagram of a castle Diagram of siege equipment
Joan’s Fall From Grace
Henry, by the grace of God, king of France and England, greeting. It is well known how for some time a woman calling herself Jeanne the Maid, putting off the habit and dress of the female sex (which is contrary to divine law, abominable to God, condemned and prohibited by every law), has dressed and armed herself in the state and habit of man, has wrought and occasioned cruel murders, and it is said, to seduce and deceive the simple people, has given them to understand that she was sent from God and that she had knowledge of His divine secrets, with many other dangerous dogmatizations most prejudicial and scandalous to our holy faith. Whilst pursuing these abuses and exercising hostilities against us and our people, she was captured in arms before Compiègne by certain of our loyal subjects and has subsequently been led prisoner towards us. And because she has been reputed, charged and defamed by many people on the subject of superstitions, false dogmas and other crimes of divine treason, we have been most urgently required by our well beloved and loyal counselor the bishop of Beauvais, the ecclesiastical and ordinary judge of the said Jeanne, who was taken and apprehended in the boundaries and limits of his diocese
Letter from King Henry VI to the Bishop of Beauvais (Joan’s captor), January 3rd, 1431
Joan was captured in 1430, when King Henry of England was only 10 years old. Even though now France is united with pride for Joan and her defense of her country, back then there were plenty of factions that actually supported the English, and those French factions captured, and arrested her for heresy during the siege of Compiègne.
The Trial- January 9th, 1431
It has pleased divine Providence that a woman of the name of Jeanne, commonly called The Maid, should be taken and apprehended by famous warriors within the boundaries and limits of our diocese and jurisdiction. The reputation of this woman had already gone forth into many parts: how, wholly forgetful of womanly honesty, and having thrown off the bonds of shame, careless of all the modesty of womankind, she wore with an astonishing and monstrous brazenness, immodest garments belonging to the male sex.
As this excerpt from the trial transcripts demonstrates, Joan’s trial focused much more on her alleged heresy and witchcraft, rather than her defying British rule. In reality, Joan’s arrest and martyrdom was a political sacrifice for the French- they wanted to show political support for their English overlords, without alienating Joan’s supporters. Discrediting Joan by calling her a heretic was a calculated political move, and Joan probably knew it.
Execution
Joan is burned at the stake
Joan was executed by burning on May 30th, 1431, six months before King Henry was formally crowned King of England. After her death, Henry was unable to maintain control of France and his incomplete, combined with a congenital mental illness, is why he later lost
Iconic portrayals:
Trailer for Carl Dryer’s Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)
Mila Jovavich in Luc Besson’s “The Messanger”, 1999
Sources:
Books
You Wouldn’t Want To Be Joan of Arc
Joan of Arc by Josephine Poole
Title Page of Joan of Arc by Josephine Poole, illustrated by Angela Barrett
Why no Coriolanus?? David Oyelowo is playing him at the National Theatre and it’s the one analysis of Shakespeare you don’t have! Please hurry! I’m seeing it on Friday!
User Noittickles, sent to me today
Well, with a request like that, how can I refuse!
Coriolanus is the only Shakespearean story about Republican Rome, which is to say, before Julius Caesar turned Rome into a dictatorship. The play has been called pro-democracy, pro-monarchy, fascist, Marxist, and many other things. In some ways, the play is rather simple and its verse isn’t much fun to read, but the questions it poses, and the way Coriolanus shows the clash between power and common people, makes it fascinating to think about.
The play’s title character is also the most opaque one Shakespeare ever wrote. Some say he is a war hero, undone by the mob. Some say he is a want-to-be dictator who hates the common people and wants to keep power among the military elite. Unlike Hamlet, Macbeth, or any of Shakespeare’s other tragic heroes, we never get a sense of his true intent, or his actual feelings on anything.
To illustrate this, let’s look at two very different interpretations of the same speech. In Act III, Scene iii, the tribunes (representatives of the commons in the Senate), have organized a smear campaign to prevent Coriolanus from becoming Consul, (the highest rank a Roman aristocrat could achieve before Emperor Augustus). Coriolanus is furious at the Tribunes, and vows to leave Rome to take his revenge on the city. Here’s the text of the speech:
Coriolanus. You common cry of curs! whose breath I hate As reek o' the rotten fens, whose loves I prize As the dead carcasses of unburied men That do corrupt my air, I banish you; And here remain with your uncertainty! Let every feeble rumour shake your hearts! Your enemies, with nodding of their plumes, Fan you into despair! Have the power still To banish your defenders; till at length Your ignorance, which finds not till it feels, Making not reservation of yourselves, Still your own foes, deliver you as most Abated captives to some nation That won you without blows! Despising, For you, the city, thus I turn my back: There is a world elsewhere. [Exeunt CORIOLANUS, COMINIUS, MENENIUS, Senators,] and Patricians] Aedile. The people's enemy is gone, is gone! Citizens. Our enemy is banish'd! he is gone! Hoo! hoo!
In the first speech, Tom Huddleston plays Coriolanus as a heroic soldier, disgusted and hurt by the lies of the scheming Tribunes:
Hiddleston chose to play Coriolanus not as a villain but as a frustrated demagogue- someone who wants to lead his people to greatness, whether they like it or not. Whether you approve of his methods, Hiddleston’s Caius Martius does care about the good of Rome. You can almost see the tears in his eyes as he leaves the city he loves, the city he bled for, and that has now betrayed him.
By Contrast, Ralph Fiennes takes a much more authoritarian and cruel route in the film Coriolanus, which Fiennes also directed:
Youtube critic Kyle Kallgren made the excellent case that Fiennes’ Coriolanus is first and foremost, a soldier. You could argue that perhaps Coriolanus has no political ambition whatsoever; he merely wants to keep fighting because war is all he knows. Maybe he purposefully sabotaged himself during his campaign for Consul, because all he wishes to rule is the battlefield:
Kalgren also highlights the “proto fascist” parts of Fiennes’ performance, since Fiennes himself has played Nazis, serial killers, and of course, Lord Voldemort, who is essentially a fascist dictator. Like Merchant of Venice, the Nazi party used Coriolanus as a propaganda tool, claiming that Caius’ fall from grace showed the failure of a weak democracy:
The poet deals with the problem of the people and its leader, he depicts the true nature of the leader in contrast to the aimless masses; he shows a people led in a false manner, a false democracy, whose exponents yield to the wishes of the people for egotistical reasons. Above these weaklings towers the figure of the true hero and leader, Coriolanus, who would like to guide the deceived people to its health in the same way as, in our days, Adolf Hitler would do with our beloved German Fatherland.
Martin Brunkhorst, “Shakespeare’s Coriolanus in Deutscher Bearbeitung. Quoted from Weida
It makes sense that fascists would gravitate towards a play about a seemingly virtuous Roman military leader. After all, the word “fascism” is an Italian word, coined by Benito Mussolini, to evoke the glory days of the Roman Empire- days when Roman society was based on military conquest under a strong leader. What these fascists fail to recognize is that Coriolanus is not a strong leader- he hates politics and is unable to gain any support from the people or from the elites in power. His inability to “play the game” of Roman politics, does make him appealing to some, but on the whole, his career is a disaster.
Some have chosen to interpret the story of Coriolanus as a sort of action-movie wish fulfillment- a man in a lawless society who uses his fists rather than words. Back in the 1990s, Steve Bannon (former advisor to President Donald Trump), wrote a hip-hop musical called: The Thing I Am, which re-interpreted the story of Coriolanus as a police captain who is trying to clean up downtown LA, which is embroiled in gang warfare. I find this interpretation paper-thin and not at all conducive to the spirit of the original play. It also has very racist and paternalistic undertones. You can read my review of it here:
Shakespeare refuses to be prescriptive on political or social issues. He tries to represent all sides of an issue and let the audience decide. With the rise of neo-fascist movements, sectarian violence, and the persistent questions surrounding police and military forces, Coriolanus is more relevant than ever. I haven’t seen this production at the National Theater, but I hope it calls attention to the various angles and points of view of the play- Coriolanus the war hero, Coriolanus the traitor, Coriolanus the soldier, Coriolanus the would-be-dictator. David Oyelowo is a fantastic Shakespearean actor, so I’m sure he can bring a great deal of complexity and nuance to this complicated man.
What I find interesting is that the trailer chooses to use this speech, when Coriolanus has defected to Rome’s enemies, the Volskies. He seems sorrowful, desperate, and afraid of what the Volskies will do to him, now that he is in their camp. One line that Oyelowo delivered exceptionally well was the line “Only the name remains.” I haven’t seen the whole play, but it seems THIS Coriolanus is concerned with the glory of his name living after him. The final question this play asks is, for such a complicated man, how will Coriolanus be remembered?
Well, there you go, Stopittickles! Hope you enjoyed this overview of the play Coriolanus. If you like this review, you might like to sign up for my online class on Julius Caesar via outschool.com:
The Shakespearean Student 