Benedick and Beatrice’s Infinite (Variety) Playlist
This is a game I created for a Shakespeare workshop back in 2012. I would recommend it for any teacher who wants to connect their students to a piece of literature: basically you make a list of songs that A: relate to the personality of a Shakespearean character, and B: relate to moments of the show.
Introduction:
Have you ever met people who go around everywhere with their MP3 players and their earbuds? The kind of people who walk around playing their own personal soundtrack? Well, what do you think would happen if the characters from Much Ado did this, and you happened to glance at Benedick or Beatrice’s iPod? Well that’s what we’re going to pretend in a little game I like to call “Benedick’s Infinite Variety Playlist.” Below is a list of the major events in the play that happen to Benedick. The problem is: they’re all on shuffle. Your job is to figure which song matches which event, put them in chronological order, and submit your answer in the comments below. Later this week, you can play the same game with Beatrice’s playlist. Have fun and remember, as Shakespeare said: “If music be the food of love, play on!”
Events For Benedick in Much Ado About Nothing in random order (Match these with the songs from the playlist below)
Benedick and Beatrice have a brief fling and break up before the play begins
Benedick sees Beatrice and fights with her with his wits.
Benedick dances with Beatrice at the party.
Beatrice insults Benedick mercilessly at the party.
Don Pedro, Claudio, and Leonato claim they overheard Beatrice confessing her love to Benedick.
Benedick decides to be “horribly in love” with Beatrice.
Convinced that Beatrice loves him, Benedick tries to spruce up his appearance.
After the wedding scene, (where Claudio discraces Hero), Beatrice asks Benedick to “Kill Claudio.” Benedick must choose between being Claudio’s friend, and becoming a real man.
Benedick tries to coax Beatrice into admitting that she loves him
Benedick marries Beatrice
Enjoy this game, and leave me a comment if you think you know the correct order of the playlist (that is, the order of the sequence of events in this show).
This was without a doubt, the most incredible theater experience I’ve ever had. It was scary, interactive, exciting, clever, sexy, and even a little disturbing, but without a doubt it was incredible, original, and true Shakespearean theater.
Before you read the review though, a word of caution-
WARNING: this is a production where, the less you know about it, the better your experience will be. I will provide a basic outline of the production, and give you an insight into what I experienced, but I would urge you to see the show yourself without any preconceptions, so if you want to keep the mystery going that surrounds this production, I suggest you stop reading…
RIGHT
NOW.
Alright, if you’ve chosen to keep reading, that means you want to know more, so more I shall give you. Going from the general to the specific, I’m going to talk a bit about what the show is, then describe the experience a bit, and then offer some tips for people who have never gone before.
Sleep No More is not the traditional kind of theater- there is no proscenium, no stage, no seats, and only one platform. It’s what theater teachers like my wife call “Experiential Theater.” The way she explains it, it’s theater that exists as an event. Rather than sitting and watching, you actively follow the action and you can get so close to the actors you can, (and sometimes will), touch them.
The play was conceived by an English company called Punchdrunk Theater Company, who took over an old 6 story warehouse on West 27th Street in New York City, and turned it into a fictional hotel/bar called the “McKittrick Hotel.” The play, (which is done entirely without dialogue), is a re-imagination of both Macbeth, and the novel Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier, set in the 1930s. The audience is admitted on the ground floor and are permitted to go freely through the 6 floor set and watch the actors perform. Different actors perform on different floors and interact with other actors at different times, and the audience may watch any scene or actor they wish.
The title of the play comes from this passage from Macbeth:
The Experience
As I said before, this a very freeing and very active kind of theater. The only division between you and the actors is that you will wear a face mask. Your role is basically to be an anonymous spectator at an event that unfolds before you, an event full of madness, sex, murder, and mayhem. I would describe it as sort of like living in the strange orgy scene in Eyes Wide Shut, or that scene in The Shining where Shelly Duvall runs through rooms of the hotel and keeps seeing bizarre sights.
From the moment you enter the incredibly detailed hotel, you know you are in a place that was dangerous, dark, and chaotic. You wonder if the people are crazy, or if the building itself is crazy.
As an audience member, you set the pace of your experience as you wonder through the hotels’ infirmary, library, parlor, bath, ballroom, balcony, patio, and dark forest (masterfully designed by Alexandria Challer). Eventually the actors will find you and you choose whether to follow them or wait for something else to come along. When I first entered the hotel, I spent a few minutes looking at the set- reading a hotel guest list, or examining a jar in the pantry, or staring at animal carcasses in the trophy room. Eventually though, I found a story unfold before me, and I rushed to follow it.
Because none of the actors talk, this play is not Macbeth, unless you want it to be, it is not Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier, unless you want it to be. YOU determine what your experience is. The great, (and famously crazy) theater theorist Antonin Artaud once said, “Text is a prison.” If that’s true, then Sleep No More has set its actors free: their movements convey the story through mime, ballet, gestures, and occasional words. This freedom from the restrictions of text means that it’s up to you to truly piece a story together, and you will find that story can alter, change, and sometimes disappear into mist.
How is This Story Macbeth? (Spoilers Ahead)
One of the most common complaints I read online from people who saw the show is that they didn’t understand the connection between Sleep No More and Macbeth. I don’t want to give too much away because I feel that part of the fun in this production is trying to figure out the connection yourself, but I will provide you with a few scenes to look for, to give you some clues on how to connect this physical theater piece with Shakespeare’s play:
Scenes to look for:
In the bedchamber on the 3rd floor, there is a bathtub on a small platform. On the steps leading up to the tub I saw a letter that contains this text from Shakespeare:
They met me in the day of success: and I have
learned by the perfectest report, they have more in
them than mortal knowledge. When I burned in desire
to question them further, they made themselves air,
into which they vanished. Whiles I stood rapt in
the wonder of it, came missives from the king, who
all-hailed me ‘Thane of Cawdor;’ by which title,
before, these weird sisters saluted me, and referred
me to the coming on of time, with ‘Hail, king that
shalt be!’ This have I thought good to deliver
thee, my dearest partner of greatness, that thou
mightst not lose the dues of rejoicing, by being
ignorant of what greatness is promised thee. Lay it
to thy heart, and farewell.
–Macbeth
This was the first definite evidence I had that the performance was inspired by Shakespeare besides the title of the play. A woman in a beautiful ball gown entered and read the note, pacing the whole time. Suddenly a handsome, red headed man came in. Like the Macbeths in Shakespeare, the body language between these two was hot and fierce; at times passionate and sexual, at times violent and animalistic. Lady Macbeth uses her body and her caresses to tempt her husband to murder, as the one in Shakespeare seduces him with her words. He trembles, turns away, brushes her off. Then, when she persists they struggle- clawing and slapping, even throwing each other across the bed, but in the end, exhausted, he slumps. She, victorious, leaves the room, looking like a queen already.
2. Alone in his room, Macbeth contemplates his dire murder. He leaves the warmth of the bedchamber and enters a dark, moon-lit forrest with a few gravestones. I followed him out into the forrest, knowing that what he does now will probably be an interpretation of Macbeth’s two most famous soliloquies: “If It Were Done When Tis Done” (Act I, Scene vii), and the famous Dagger Speech from Act II, Scene ii. Since the actor didn’t talk, he had to convey Macbeth’s inner torture with his body. I saw him going up to a statue of the Virgin Mary, beating his fists and chest against the hard stone. It was clear to me that this symbolized Macbeth’s struggle between morality and desire. He staggered away from the statue and stopped at a stone pathway that led back to the bedroom. Macbeth then put his hands on the stones, lifted his body up pull-up like, and kicked his legs in a futile attempt of motion. I immediately thought of Macbeth’s line:
I have no spur To prick the sides of my intent, but only Vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself And falls on the other (Macbeth I,vii).
It was clear that the actor was showing how Macbeth cannot bring himself to kill, yet is too ambitious to let go of the desire to kill and this is what manifested in his tortured body. He then turned toward me and the other audience members and I saw his expression change. He looked around, worried, even frightened, as if he saw something he couldn’t believe. It wasn’t clear to me at first, but now I’m pretty sure that he was looking at the dagger from his famous soliloquy, and it was US. He ran from the forrest, and we charged after him like a swarm of angry bees! We found him in a corridor on the 2nd floor, where he again hoisted his body up against an old fireplace, inverting himself with his legs sticking up, and his head below, like an upside down cross. He then stretched his hands out and waved them frantically. Two frightened audience members took them and helped him hoist himself down. When Macbeth got to his feet, he proceeded to a darkly lit chamber where another man lay sleeping…
3. In a small bar on the 1st floor, I saw Macbeth with two women and one man. They all wore black lipstick and had crazed and hungry looks in their eyes. The music sped up to a crazed pace and the movements erupted into a terrifying orgy of sights and sounds. A strobe light pulsed showing me glimpses of the frightening spectacle, which included the two women stripping their clothes, the man putting on the head of a goat, and one of the women pulling out an infant covered with blood, and holding it in triumph over Macbeth’s head. At this moment I realized that these gruesome creatures must be the witches, and that they were foretelling Macbeth’s destiny as they do in Act IV. They also brought out a tree, which signified the prophesy that Macbeth will never be vanquished until Birnam Wood walks to Dunsinane Hill. To be honest, I don’t remember much after that, I was probably still in shock!
4. Back in the forrest, I encountered a small brick structure that looked like a tower, with a woman looking out of it expectantly. She beckoned me to come inside. When I did, I saw that she was dressed in a nurses’ uniform, and she was looking at a doctor with concern. Inside the tower was a small operating room with a circular table in the center, and two rows of seats above it. The doctor was injecting some kind of drug into his arm, which made it twitch in spasms. The two of them walked into the forrest and through a door into a room that looked like a small train station with platforms and travel posters on the walls. Lady Macbeth was there, wondering aimlessly. I instantly identified this moment as the famous sleepwalking scene, where Lady Macbeth contemplates the crimes to which she has become accessory. Usually the actress conveys her guilt by washing imaginary blood off her hands, but in this case she chose to interact with people, specifically, ME. She held out her hands to me, I took them. She looked into my eyes with a haunted look on her face. Then she whispered in my ear: “The thane of Fife had a wife, and she was beautiful.” I could see that this woman felt alone and afraid, with no one to talk to. She was no longer the powerful figure throwing her husband across the bed. This was what had driven her mad, and her madness allowed her to see me and the rest of us in the audience. She looked upon us with looks of disgust and terror, as if we were the ghosts of the people she killed, and ran away somewhere we couldn’t follow. We never saw her again (until the ghostly finale).
Those were just a few pieces that I witnessed. I won’t give away how it ended, but I will tell you that the show ended in a dining room on a tableau that reminded me of a cross between Da Vinci’s The Last Supper, and the banquet scene of Macbeth.
When I talked to my wife, (who also came to the show, but was in a different audience group from me), she told me that there were many other scenes that were clearly inspired by Rebecca; she encountered a woman that she figured out was the ghoulish housekeeper Ms Danvers. She also had an intense meeting with the long-suffering Mrs. DeWinter, who gave her a locket and told her to keep it always. Finally, my wife revealed to me the startling fact that (Spoiler Alert), the same woman who plays the infamous Rebecca, dressed in a red flowing gown, also becomes Hecate, the goddess of black magic in Macbeth!
These performances are athletic, well thought-out, and incredibly nuanced. If you take some time to familiarize yourself with the stories of Macbeth and Rebecca, you can understand how the actors are interpreting the stories through dance, mime, and interactions with the set, props, and occasionally, the audience themselves.
I’d now like to conclude this review with my own pieces of advice for those of you who choose to see the show:
Yes, wear comfy shoes. Almost everyone will tell you to bring comfortable shoes and they’re right- if you don’t want to lose the thread of a story, you have to be quick. Macbeth in particular is fast and nimble as a tiger, and you have to run fast to keep up with him.
Find a person that interests you. I think some people make the mistake of staying in one place too long and ignoring the actors. This is physical theater, so try to find an actor to follow.
Pretend you are a ghost if it helps Remember, murder and insanity are here, and you have a chance to see what it looks like and how it moves. Look right into the actor’s eyes and embrace your power to haunt these lost souls. Don’t be afraid to get close to them, and stay there as long as possible.
If you do read Macbeth or Rebecca beforehand, it can be useful to memorize a few lines or moments and look for them in the performance. I can tell you for a fact that these actors meticulously planned their performances to give physical life to these two great works of literature. Look for a gesture, a glance, or a prop that jogs your memory and puts you into this hybrid world of Shakespeare and Du Maurier.
The actors can sense if you are interested in interacting with them. If you seem scared or apprehensive, they will respect your space and not get close to you, but if you show them you are brave enough, they will extend a hand, or come toward you and give you a theater experience you will never forget.
Leave your loved ones behind. Nothing was more fun to me than talking about my experience with my wife after the show and piecing our nights together. Even though the same show was going on the whole time, we saw different people, to different rooms, and had very different reactions.
If an actor disappears, don’t wait for them. Sometimes you’ll follow an actorrl and they’ll duck into a corridor, or go behind a locked door, or a sentinel in a black mask will block your path. Now the story is over, and you are alone. Now you must choose again where to go, and try and uncover the sense of this horror.
If you get to go to the 6th floor, consider yourself very lucky. Only a few people get to see it. My wife said she saw one person go up there. He was on an elevator with a small group. As they reached the top floor, a hotel porter let him off, then extended an arm, to indicate no one else would be admitted. Even the man’s girlfriend was blocked by the porter, who then explained, “This experience is best undertaken, alone.”
Well, I hope this whetted your appetite somewhat. Like I said this show is incredible, and very different from the kind of theater we generally think of, and that’s what makes it engaging and exciting. However, there is violence, nudity, and gruesome imagery onstage so it is definitely not for children. If you are interested in learning more, you can visit the Sleep No More website: www.sleepnomore.com/
I’m waiting until tonight to finish my “Sleep No More” review, which as you may know, is a highly inventive, experiential interpretation of Shakespeare’s “Macbeth.” I heard from some people who had seen the show that one of their biggest problems was that they themselves weren’t familiar with the play, so here’s a quick summary from one of my favorite YouTube channels: “Thug Notes!” (PG-13 Language alert)
As promised, here is my review of the hot new Broadway musical “Something Rotten.”
Me posing in front of a colorful banner for “Something Rotten”
My reaction: I went into this show with the hope that it would be a witty, whimsical, musical salute to both Shakespeare and musicals, and it certainly was , but to my mind as a Shakespearean fan, I felt like it didn’t quite live up to its full potential. Yes it’s entertaining, yes it has some great acting and great performances, yes it boasts some glistening songs and scores of jokes, but the plot is a little recycled, the characters are hard to like at times, and the balance of Shakespeare and musicals is pretty tipped to one side.
The Theater
Something Rotten is entertaining from the moment you walk up to the door of the St. James Theater: I was greeted by colorful Elizabethan cartoon figures who voiced their take on the show via speech bubbles: “Song and dance at the same time? Blasphemous!” As I walked up the stairs to my seat in the Mezannine, I saw all kinds of Shakespearean merchandise in the lobby from magnets to T-Shirts, to signature candy bars and drinks, including one called “The Bloody Bard.” This raised my hopes that this show would show some love to Shakespeare in addition to musicals.
View from the audience of the curtain for “Something Rotten.”
As I took my seat, I gasped at the enormity before me: a huge Greek proscenium opening on a Pantheon like dome, complete with two painted muses on the ceiling, and three chandeliers that would tempt any Phantom of the Opera to deploy upon the audience. Below the dome was the set; an impressive recreation of an Elizabethan playhouse with its thatched roof, wooden galleries, and the banners that announce the start of the show. Once the lights dimmed, the orchestra began with trumpet and the ping of an old fashioned Tambor drum, which slowly evolved into the raucous jazzy tune “Welcome To the Renaissance.” The show had begun, and I was smiling already.
The Plot
As I’ve stated before, the premise is pretty simple. Two brothers, Nick and Nigel Bottom, (Brian D’Arcy James and John Cariani respectively), are struggling writers who are trying to make it in theater in London, constantly out classed by Shakespeare (Christian Borle), who used to be an actor in their company. Nick angrily curses out Shakespeare in song in the hilarious number: “God I Hate Shakespeare.”
Shakespeare is a flamboyant and stupendously successful writer with a leather doublet, killer abs, and a cocky smile. He knows he’s the best there is, and shows off by giving extravagant parties and poetry readings, complete with colored lights and pyrotechnics! Shakespeare also has an annoying habit of stealing lines and ideas from other writers; the second he looks at Portia he says, “Good name,” hinting at his use of her name for the heroine of The Merchant Of Venice. Borle is fantastic in his Shakespeare strut, and plays the Shakespeare rockstar persona to the hilt.
Both the Bottom brothers secretly envy Shakespeare; Nick for his money and success, Nigel for his skill at writing beautiful poetry. Nick worries how to make a living as a playwright, especially since he is also supporting his brother and his wife Beatrice (played excellently by Heidi Blickenstaff). Bea urges him not to worry and assures him that she is strong enough to get a job and help ease the burden of supporting his family in the song: “Right Hand Man,” (a wonderful satire of contemporary gender politics). “It’s 1595, we have a woman on the throne,” Beatrice tells her husband, “By 1600 a woman will be exactly as equal as a man.”
Nick doesn’t want his wife to have to work for him, but he can’t get out from under Shakespeare’s shadow. Desperate to turn his luck around, Nick pays a soothsayer (Brad Oscar) to tell him the future of musical theater. Oscar goes into a raucous musical number, “A Musical,” that “invents,” and parodies almost every musical of the last 50 years from A Chorus Line, to Rent, complete with an upbeat tune and kick-lines!
Bottom becomes convinced that he will create the great new musical that will rival Shakespeare’s plays in popularity, and he gets his brother and the Soothsayer to write it. He now imagines that for once, “Bottom’s Gonna Be On Top!”
Nigel Bottom, Nick’s brother, is an aspiring poet who dreams of creating a play that will show beauty and truth. Nigel’s poems put love in the heart of Portia, who adores both his poems, and Nigel himself. The only problem is her father Brother Jeremiah (Brooks Ashmanskas), is a Puritan, (as well as a closet homosexual). Jeremiah despises theater, and by extension, Nigel. The pair secretly meet to allow their love, and their love of poetry to blossom. They also have a wonderful duet, “We See The Light,” where they imagine getting Brother Jeremiah to believe in their love, which turns from tender Elizabethan ballad into a catchy Gospel tune.
I don’t want to give too much away but, in the end, the Bottom family and Shakespeare strike a deal- Shakespeare will still rule theater in England while the Bottoms get to be on top at last in America, where their new musicals will become the theater of the future.
If you already have seen the show, here are some Shakespeare jokes you might have missed:
The title “Something Rotten,” refers to a line from Hamlet where the guard Marcellus declares: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”
The name Nick Bottom comes from one of Shakespeare’s characters; in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, he is an actor in an amateur theater troupe, who is magically transformed into a man with the head of a donkey. Through the play and the musical there are jokes about what an ass Bottom is both literally and figuratively.
The two female characters are also named after Shakespearean heroines: Beatrice, Bottom’s strong-willed wife is from Much Ado About Nothing, while Nigel’s sweetheart Portia appears in The Merchant of Venice, as does the Jewish moneylender Shylock.
In many of Shakespeare’s comedies women dress up as men to take on their jobs, just as Beatrice does for her husband Nick.
The villainous puritans who try to shut down Nick and Nigel’s musical are based on a real life religious group who did eventually pull down all the playhouses in London, and ban theater altogether. Fortunately for Shakespeare, they didn’t succeed in destroying the theater until 30 years after he was dead.
The brothers’ home land of Cornwall probably echoes that of the brothers Edmund and Edgar in Shakespeare’s tragedy of King Lear.
Many people have accused Shakespeare of stealing his work from other people over the years, and of course, this musical makes it one of his defining characteristics. I’ve written about this in the past, but to sum up my arguments- Shakespeare adapted, he didn’t steal.
The beautiful song: “To Thine Own Self Be True,” is a direct quote from Shakespeare’s play Hamlet; a bit of fatherly advice from Lord Polonius to Leartes.
(Spoiler Alert) Toby Belch, Shakespeare’s non-de-plume as he spies on Nick Bottom, is named after another of the real Shakespeare’s characters- a fat drunken knight from the play Twelfth Night.
The line “Son of York,” comes from Shakespeare’s Richard III.
(Spoiler alert) Ironically, in Shakespeare’s play of Merchant it is Portia, not Beatrice who disguises herself as a male lawyer and saves the heroes from death in the courtroom with her famous “The Quality Of Mercy Is Not Strained” speech, though Beatrice does so in Something Rotten.
(Spoiler Alert) The judge in the courtroom whom Shakespeare promises not to make fun of is named Falstaff, named after Shakespeare’s most celebrated comic character- another fat, drunken knight who has no moral code whatsoever!
(Spoiler alert) When the brothers are banished and sent to America with Shylock, this parodies a historical event in 1751, where a troupe of actors mounted one of the first ever theatrical productions in America, which happened to be Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice.
This musical is a wonderful and entertaining show, but as I said before, I feel that some of it didn’t quite live up to my own expectations. I’ve decided to list my criticisms as a list so that you can choose to read or ignore it. After all, this is only my opinion, and I want you to make up your own mind.
I would argue that plot-wise, Something Rotten is basically The Producers set in 1595. The Bottom brothers who struggle to produce a play are quite obviously lifted from Mel Brooks’ Bialistock and Blume, and the fact that Brad Oscar, (who was in that musical), has such a big part in Something Rotten, is a dead giveaway. Plus the final scene that culminates in a courtroom is very derivative of the climax of The Producers. I feel that for a musical that bills itself as “A Very New Musical,” the creators belie this statement by ripping off one of the most popular musical of this century.
This is a small point, but I believe that there are far more musical jokes in Something Rotten than Shakespeare jokes. This could just have been my own experience, (surrounded as I was by high-school aged musical theater geeks), but I thought that the torrent of musical theater puns and quotes was simply too much. The audience ate it up and laughed so fast that I couldn’t hear a lot of the other jokes. I wish that the jokes were a little more spaced out, and that the balance was a little more toward Shakespeare instead of musicals.
The roles for women are small and the roles for minorities are nearly nonexistent- the only black actor is a minstrel (played superbly by Michael James Scott), who only gets one song, “Welcome To the Renaissance,” and doesn’t have any influence on the plot whatsoever. In Shakespeare’s plays, fools and minstrels were essential to understanding the plot and often helped comment on the action, so I thought not using his talent more was a huge missed opportunity. Likewise, Bea and Portia are great characters, but I wanted to see more of them in the play, and it would have been nice if they got a scene together.
Although Shakespeare is the antagonist, I found his scenes were the best, which arguably caused sort of a problem. I feel the writers couldn’t really pick a lane in terms of making it clear whom to root for- Bottom or Shakespeare. In many ways Nick Bottom is a jerk- he ignores his wife, he ridicules his brother, and his jealousy to Shakespeare (though understandable) is highly unappealing. By contrast, Shakespeare might be an egomaniac and a thief, but as he says in “It’s Hard to Be the Bard,” he’s just trying to live up to the adoration that his fans demand of him. The Bard is arguably more sympathetic because he is constantly trying to live up to his image as a genius. Like a lot of artists from Mozart to Bob Dylan, to Picasso, to George Lucas, Borle’s Shakespeare worries that he’s piqued too soon, and has nothing more to offer his public. Bottom never offers to help Shakespeare or ask him for advice on how to become a better writer, he just tries to steal Shakespeare’s success and justifies it with his insatiable jealousy. At least Max Bialistock was nice to Leo Bloom and encouraged him to follow his heart’s desire of being a producer, but Nick never even does that for Nigel. In short, I found it hard to enjoy the character of Nick Bottom, (who was supposed to be the hero), when he is never given an opportunity to be likable. Once again, Bottom is overshadowed by the Bard, but this time it’s his own fault.
Although I was a little disappointed with these issues, the show is incredibly entertaining, well-acted, and has great catchy songs. I certainly would recommend it to any musical theater fan with at least a touch of Shakespeare in their soul!
Stay tuned for a review of one of the greatest Shakespeare adaptations I’ve ever seen, the experiential theater piece, “Sleep No More.”
Today, June 24rth, is the ancient Roman festival of Fortuna, the goddess of luck and worldly fortunes. I’ve chosen to use this opportunity to explain a little bit about the concept of Fortune, which Shakespeare uses frequently in his tragedies. But first, a short musical interlude:
Does this song sound familiar? You’ve probably heard it underscored in hundreds of commercials, TV shows, maybe even in concerts, it’s a song composed by composer Carl Orff called “O Fortuna.”
The Roman goddess Fortuna with her wheel and orb.
In Roman mythology, Fortuna was the goddess of luck, wealth, and fertility. If you listen to the lyrics of the song above, you can see that for centuries, people chose to represent Fortune as a fickle, changeable, and irresponsible goddess. Unfortunately, one of the reasons she’s personified as a woman is the long-held prejudice that women are weak, have frequent changes of mind and mood, and can’t commit to one person, (a view of women that I and Shakespeare believe to not be true). However, based on his writing he does seem to think Fortune fits these characteristics:
“I am Fortune’s fool” –Romeo and Juliet
O fortune, fortune! all men call thee fickle:If thou art fickle, what dost thou with him. That is renown’d for faith? Be fickle, fortune; For then, I hope, thou wilt not keep him long, But send him back. –Romeo and Juliet
“When Fortune means to men most good, She looks upon them with a threatening eye.” –King John
Out, out, thou strumpet, Fortune! All you gods,
In general synod ‘take away her power;
Break all the spokes and fellies from her wheel,
And bowl the round nave down the hill of heaven,
As low as to the fiends! -Hamlet
In Dante’s Inferno, Fortuna lives in the Underworld with Plutus the god of gold, helping to distribute the god’s wealth to people above ground. In the Middle ages she was an explanation for why some people have good luck, some have bad, and why luck frequently changes.
The Wheel of Fortune.
Fortuna’s most recognizable symbol is her wheel; the symbol of how luck can change; just when you think your life is perfect, the wheel turns and you find yourself on the bottom. Frequently in tragedy when things go wrong, the characters blame Fortune, such as when the Lord of Kent finds himself put in the stocks like a common thief and gripes: “Fortune good night, smile once more, turn thy wheel,” King Lear, Act II, Scene ii. And yes, the real game show was partially inspired by the goddess’ most famous symbol.
Fortuna In Tragedies
Shakespeare mentions fortune over 500 times in his plays and frequently in his tragedies. Characters in Shakespearean tragedy frequently single out Fortuna as the cause of their unhappiness and curse her as a liar and a strumpet. In a Christian society, it was a lot more appealing to blame a pagan goddess than a loving, Christian god, (which would probably be considered blasphemous). Now you see why she has become a popular scapegoat for misfortune in tragedy. At the same time, all tragedy raises questions about the nature of free will; how much of bad fortune is the result of fate, and how much is a direct result of the character’s bad choices? Edmund in King Lear laughs at the notion of any kind of fate, and accuses all of humanity of shirking responsibility in this speech:
EDMUND
This is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune,–often the surfeit of our own behavior,–we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars: as if we were villains by necessity; fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and treachers, by spherical predominance; drunkards, liars, and adulterers, by an enforced obedience of planetary influence; and all that we are evil in, by a divine thrusting on: an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star! (King Lear, Act I, Scene ii).
At the same time, the audience also knows that Edmund was cursed by Fortune from the beginning, since he is the illegitimate child of the Duke of Gloucester, which might prove exactly the opposite point of his speech. He may act like he is absolute in his free will, but his behavior and his violent end suggests otherwise. So when characters curse Fortune or Fortuna in Shakespeare’s plays, take a look at the language they use to characterize this abstract concept. The way we think about luck or fate helps shape our perspective of our own lives, and therefore how playwrights depict this mysterious goddess helps us see the possibilities of human choice, and maybe help us make better choices than the tragic men who slander her in these plays!
Thanks for liking and commenting on my last few posts. I feel this website is starting to hit its stride and I have all of you to thank! This week, because Father’s Day is coming up (June 21st), I’m devoting an entire week to posts and podcasts related to fathers. Here’s a sample of some of the topics I’ll be covering:
Shakespearean Father’s Day Cards: Find some nice Shakespearean sentiment to show your Shakespearean dad how much you care.
Bios of William Shakespeare and John Shakespeare Both Shakespeare and his father had children, and both worked hard to make a better life for their offspring, so I thought I’d tell you some of their life stories so you can learn more about these great men.
My Picks For Top 5 Best and Worst Dads in Shakespeare I’ve gone through the entire cannon from As You Like It to Alls Well That Ends Well, and picked out the dads whom I think deserve recognition either as great or terrible parents. Who will take the coveted #1 Shakespeare Dad prize? Stay tuned to find out!
Join me for all the fun this week, and also check out my podcast!
What’s the best Shakespeare edition to read? You may not know it, but all of Shakespeare’s plays are contained in just one little book that has been printed and re-printed for 400 years. Today you can find thousands of different versions of Shakespeare for your needs as a student, scholar, or just regular Shakespeare fan, and today I’m here to guide you through some of the most popular! Let’s take a look!
A Little Background:
The original printed edition of Shakespeare’s First Folio, 1623
During Shakespeare’s lifetime, he wrote his plays just for his company to perform. The scripts were distributed among the cast as little rolls of paper that had each actor’s part written on it (this is why an actor’s part is sometimes called his “role”). Sometimes the plays were published when the company wanted to make a little extra money, but they weren’t exactly best-sellers. After Shakespeare died, two actors from his company, John Hemmings and Henry Condell, decided to preserve Shakespeare’s work for all time, printing his plays in a beautiful book called Shakespeare’s First Folio in the year 1623. This book helped preserve 36 of Shakespeare’s plays, 17 of which were never printed before, and would have been lost forever if Hemmings and Condell hadn’t preserved them.
Today some purists say that the only way to read Shakespeare is by reading a facsimile of the First Folio, because it preserves Shakespeare’s original spelling, his stage directions, and the natural integrity of the verse form because of the way it’s printed on the page. To be honest, I see the merit in this, but only for actors and scholars who often need every clue in the text to inspire them to construct creative and inventive interpretations of Shakespeare’s work. However, for first time readers I recommend a modern edition, since the Folio has very few stage directions, and no standard spelling or punctuation, making it very hard to understand. Shakespeare is hard enough to read without love being spelled “loove” all the time.
Shakespeare in modern type by Neil Freeman. These editions are the kind i mentioned earlier, the ones for Shakespeare Fundamentalists. These are the people who believe Shakespeare left clues for performance in every line, every punctuation mark, and every change in verse. I don’t dispute this view, but I also can’t fully support it because it encourages actors and directors to become slaves to iambic and to never deviate from the rigid construction of Shakespeare’s verse, even if they have a creative reason not to. Even classical musicians must be allowed some form of improvisation. Actors should have the same liberty to interpret the text as they see fit. You can rent or purchase individual versions of the Freeman Folio texts, or purchase the full version of the First Folio in modern type. For sample pages, click here: https://books.google.com/books?.
Editions of The Arden Shakespreare
The Arden Shakespeare– For over 100 years, this edition has been a favorite of scholars and actors alike. It focuses on the world of Shakespeare to help you understand the characters by detailing the interpretations directors have favored for the last 400 years. The Arden edition has excellent notes and is great for college students and honors high schoolers. http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/academic/academic-subjects/drama-and-performance-studies/the-arden-shakespeare/
The Norton Shakespeare- This version is a more academic version with great notes by the venerated Steven Greenblatt of Harvard University. It focuses on the world of Shakespeare with notes about Elizabethan society, history, poetry, and mythology. I would recommend it for college students and adult readers.
The Folger Shakespeare- Edited by the premiere Shakespeare scholarship institution in America: The Folger Shakespeare Libary, this version has very clear and simple explanations for what the characters are saying and has lots of pictures and notes. This version is excellent for high schoolers and is one of the standards in most school districts. Click here to sample some of their work. Be sure to also check out the Folger’s website! http://www.folger.edu/
No-Fear Shakespeare- As I’ve said before, this edition is fundamentally flawed, and I don’t recommend it to anyone. It purports itself to be a “translation” of Shakespeare, when in fact it’s just a loose paraphrase. I don’t agree with most of the choices that the editors put in these editions, and I think it dumbs down Shakespeare too much. In addition, I reject the concept that the plays need a translation- they were written in English, and purporting that a student needs a translation of Shakespeare just makes him or her dependent on this edition and still assume that they cannot understand Shakespeare’s text. So once again, I don’t recommend this version, but if you’d like to check it out, here’s a link below: https://books.google.com/books?
Sourcebook Shakespeare: Macbeth
The Sourcebook Shakespeare– This is my favorite version of Shakespeare to study. They are probably too expensive to use in a classroom, but they really are worth it for a Shakespeare appreciation class. Not only do they have tons of notes and a really reader-friendly layout, each edition also contains a CD with up to 30 scenes and speeches from Shakespearean productions dating back 100 years! These editions focus specifically on how directors and actors have taken the same plays and interpreted them in new and interesting ways. In my view, this combination of reading and listening is one of the purest ways to demonstrate Shakespeare’s versatility, and why we keep reading him today. The same company is also developing versions for iPad to make the experience even more interactive: http://www.sourcebooks.com/blog/
Filthy Shakespeare- To be honest, this version is really more of a dictionary of naughty topics Shakespeare explored about in his plays, and is really just for entertainment purposes, but I thought I’d mention it anyway. I should of course mention that this version is not for children since it has lots of adult language. Click here for a sample: https://books.google.com/books?id=E523EogqB84C
Thanks for reading this post. If you’d like to learn more about the issues of editing and adapting Shakespeare, check out The Struggle For Shakespeare’s Textby Gabriel Egan. Let me know how you liked this post! I’m also planning on creating a series of audio interpretations of Shakespeare. Stay tuned!
The Shakespearean Student 