|
sirguym -> RE: Taming of Shrews (3/25/2008 12:11:58 PM)
|
The syndrome you're referring to is usually called, "Stockholm Syndrome" after the phenomenon of hostages siding with their captors was noted in a siege there.
Shakespeare wrote some great parts for women, and obviously knew that there was far more to them than the cramped and simplistic stereotype that literal-minded Christians try to cram them into, but he was not trying to write a treatise on women's liberation, he was struggling to entertain the audience so they'd pay their money to come again.
So if I put myself in his shoes, I'd play it the way the poster portrays below to appeal to the lowest common denominator amongst the unsophisticated men; who after all were most of his audience. (It would of course been the commonly accepted wisdom of the day that what Petruchio did was the 'right' thing to do, even more than it is now, and that he should not have been so damn patient or gentle about it!) But also and at the same time to hint at the other interpretation to the women in his audience, and to those men who were a little more appreciative and sophisticated in their attitude to women, and gently try to subvert the stereotypes imposed by the Christian bigotry of the day. That is the wonderful thing about Shakespeare, it can be taken at so many different levels. There may well have been actors in his company seeing it one way, others seeing it the other way, both at the same performance, and both playing it the way he wanted them to as well!
I think that seeing it as either black or white is falling into exactly the same trap that so many of our critics fall into, thinkiing that there is an 'us' and a 'them'. For every bit of pure black or pure white there is an infinite spectrum of colours, shades, tints so on.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee
1. He denies her her rightful sexuality.
2. She becomes defined in relation to someone else, not in relation to herself. She becomes "other-defined"
3. She becomes the object of his life and not the subject of her own life.
What he does is take a female, BY FORCE, who is strong, independent, self-centered, powerful, assertive, and above all, the subject of her own life, and terrorize her into being weak, dependant, other-centered, powerless, timid, and an object.
No I do not think that this is a beautiful thing.
He humiliates her at their wedding, starves her, insults her, objectifies her, sleep deprives her. . . WITHOUT HER CONSENT.
Of course she loses her identity and begins to identify with him. There is actually a name for this syndrome, but I cannot recall it off the top of my head.
It is terrorizing domestic abuse.
No, I do not think that it is a good basis for a relationship.
However, I do like the play. It has some great lines.
|
|
|
|
