Katherina's Last Speech! *WARNING "SHREW" HYPE ALERT*
Fri, 28 Nov 2008, 02:43 amGarreth11 posts in thread
Katherina's Last Speech! *WARNING "SHREW" HYPE ALERT*
Fri, 28 Nov 2008, 02:43 amSo? That speech... for those of you who are unfamiliar here it is:
Fie, fie! unknit that threatening unkind brow,
And dart not scornful glances from those eyes
To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor.
It blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads,
Confounds thy fame as whirlwinds shake fair buds,
And in no sense is meet or amiable.
A woman mov'd is like a fountain troubled-
Muddy, ill-seeming, thick, bereft of beauty;
And while it is so, none so dry or thirsty
Will deign to sip or touch one drop of it.
Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign; one that cares for thee,
And for thy maintenance commits his body
To painful labour both by sea and land,
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,
Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe;
And craves no other tribute at thy hands
But love, fair looks, and true obedience-
Too little payment for so great a debt.
Such duty as the subject owes the prince,
Even such a woman oweth to her husband;
And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour,
And not obedient to his honest will,
What is she but a foul contending rebel
And graceless traitor to her loving lord?
I am asham'd that women are so simple
To offer war where they should kneel for peace;
Or seek for rule, supremacy, and sway,
When they are bound to serve, love, and obey.
Why are our bodies soft and weak and smooth,
Unapt to toll and trouble in the world,
But that our soft conditions and our hearts
Should well agree with our external parts?
Come, come, you froward and unable worins!
My mind hath been as big as one of yours,
My heart as great, my reason haply more,
To bandy word for word and frown for frown;
But now I see our lances are but straws,
Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare,
That seeming to be most which we indeed least are.
Then vail your stomachs, for it is no boot,
And place your hands below your husband's foot;
In token of which duty, if he please,
My hand is ready, may it do him ease.
Does it go too far? Is it Ironic? Is it Sexist How would you handle it? I have just finished nutting this one out with my Katherina in Upstart Theatre Company's FREE production of "The Taming of the Shrew" and was interested to hear your opinions!
If you want to see how we worked to make this speech then I encourage you to come to the show and have a good night out under the stars at Woodlake amphitheatre Ellenbrook. You can find all the details here:
http://www.theatre.asn.au/production/2008/shakespeare_on_the_lake_the_taming_of_the_shrew
I hope to hear from you all soon!
GarrethFri, 28 Nov 2008, 02:43 am
So? That speech... for those of you who are unfamiliar here it is:
Fie, fie! unknit that threatening unkind brow,
And dart not scornful glances from those eyes
To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor.
It blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads,
Confounds thy fame as whirlwinds shake fair buds,
And in no sense is meet or amiable.
A woman mov'd is like a fountain troubled-
Muddy, ill-seeming, thick, bereft of beauty;
And while it is so, none so dry or thirsty
Will deign to sip or touch one drop of it.
Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign; one that cares for thee,
And for thy maintenance commits his body
To painful labour both by sea and land,
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,
Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe;
And craves no other tribute at thy hands
But love, fair looks, and true obedience-
Too little payment for so great a debt.
Such duty as the subject owes the prince,
Even such a woman oweth to her husband;
And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour,
And not obedient to his honest will,
What is she but a foul contending rebel
And graceless traitor to her loving lord?
I am asham'd that women are so simple
To offer war where they should kneel for peace;
Or seek for rule, supremacy, and sway,
When they are bound to serve, love, and obey.
Why are our bodies soft and weak and smooth,
Unapt to toll and trouble in the world,
But that our soft conditions and our hearts
Should well agree with our external parts?
Come, come, you froward and unable worins!
My mind hath been as big as one of yours,
My heart as great, my reason haply more,
To bandy word for word and frown for frown;
But now I see our lances are but straws,
Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare,
That seeming to be most which we indeed least are.
Then vail your stomachs, for it is no boot,
And place your hands below your husband's foot;
In token of which duty, if he please,
My hand is ready, may it do him ease.
Does it go too far? Is it Ironic? Is it Sexist How would you handle it? I have just finished nutting this one out with my Katherina in Upstart Theatre Company's FREE production of "The Taming of the Shrew" and was interested to hear your opinions!
If you want to see how we worked to make this speech then I encourage you to come to the show and have a good night out under the stars at Woodlake amphitheatre Ellenbrook. You can find all the details here:
http://www.theatre.asn.au/production/2008/shakespeare_on_the_lake_the_taming_of_the_shrew
I hope to hear from you all soon!
FrellisFri, 28 Nov 2008, 06:09 pm
The only time I've ever
The only time I've ever seen this performed was in the BBC 'Shakespeare Retold' series. They modernised the language so there wasn't much of the original wording, but the sentiment was the same. The only bit they really stuck to was 'place your hands below your husband's foot'. Which focused the speech to some extent on love. It seemed more that she was showing her love to him by putting him first, but not necessarily that he was completely in charge.
I think that's different to the original. Katherina is chastising her sister for being ungrateful. It could be a simple reminder to be happy for what you have and willing to share it (in the retold version the speech comes about because Katherina's sister is upset that her husband-to-be won't sign a pre-nup.. lol) but there is a lot of discussion of the roles of men and women.
Perhaps, by today's standards, it's a sexist speeching and clearly places men above women ('Such duty as the subject owes the prince, Even such a woman oweth to her husband;'). But for the Elizabethan era it is quite forward-thinking to question and explore the roles of men and women, even though the conclusion places men in a position of more importance.
I have no idea how I would go about performing it. Shakespeare always stumps me the first time I look at a piece. I have to read it about 20 times before I have any ideas. (But I'm guessing I'm not alone there.) Last time I did Shakespeare was 2 years ago for a school thing and it was terrible... I have attempted to avoid it since. :)
- Frellis -
"I have two giraffes... the State requires me to learn the Harmonica..."
marcieSat, 29 Nov 2008, 02:57 pm
The Taming Of The Shrew
This will be no help at all and I can only say like a politician that it's a good question and I'll think about it.
I'd already been thinking about it while in Sydney recently. I'd seen there was a production of this play which I haven't seen performed for some twenty years and wondered whether I could cope. It really is a very difficult one now.
The gender roles in Shakespeare are always interesting and well ahead of their times, so far as we know. Lady Macbeth expresses some of these same ideas in her 'unsex me here' speech. But she's a mass of contradictions in that she is the one who pushes for action and then is also the one who falls apart afterwards.
So much is personal taste too - I'm not a fan of the 'Treat em rough' kind of character or the meek and gentle females either.
I really don't know what the answer for this play is. I feel I should suspend my disbelief, but I always get so involved!
I saw My Fair Lady in Sydney about a month ago and during the reconciliation at the end found myself willing Eliza to shove his slippers down his throat.
A production under the stars sounds beautiful but Ellenbrook is a little far for me.
GarrethSat, 29 Nov 2008, 04:55 pm
I know I am biased but its
I know I am biased but its not that far. I did the trip from South Perth to Ellenbrook in 35 minutes today (doing the speed limit).
FrellisSat, 29 Nov 2008, 05:12 pm
Damn timing...
I was looking forward to checking out the production but then I realised I'm going to be away! I'm so annoyed!
On what was said about Lady Macbeth. I think it makes sense for her to fall apart after being so strong. I think her gradual break down is expressing the idea that lies and treachery will corrupt. It could be read as a punishment to her for transgressing the social boundaries set out for women, though.
"I have two giraffes... the State requires me to learn the Harmonica..."
GarrethSat, 29 Nov 2008, 11:19 pm
There is also alot of talk
There is also alot of talk as to whether her breakdown is because she has failed to produce an air to the throne. There have been a few productions where her "madness" scene is played as though she has miscarried a child. This reading fits in with the idea that she asks the demons to "unsex me here" and as such bought it upon herself. Giving birth after all is arguably the most feminine thing a woman can do.
I've never really seen her as a commentary about a woman's place. I can certainly see how it can be read that way BUT I think it devalues the more important points it makes about what it is to be human.
Shakespeare's women are interesting characters though and in a number of plays he gives them a position of power over men. Though it is a subtle one. For example my reading of Bianca (Katherina's sister) is that she is a first class manipulator of men and it has certainly been fun to play with that idea whilst directing and hads produced some interesting results.
FrellisSun, 30 Nov 2008, 01:54 pm
I agree. It's too easy to
I agree. It's too easy to break plays down into a discussion on gender. But, speaking in terms of Elizabethan era art/drama/music, things were still often based around social values and attitiudes. People didn't go to the theatre, back then, expecting to discover what it is to be human. They went there to have all their beliefs confirmed and to see things play out according to the social norms of the time.
Most of the time I think we, from our modern perspective, say things like 'Shakespeare was so ahead of his time... he creates a female character that can order a male character around!!'. I think it's entirely possible that Shakespeare was nowhere near the social radical people sometimes make him out to be. It's possible he just intended to put a new spin on the old religious plays, all the characters who transgress any boundaries get their due by the end of the play and Elizabethan/Jacobean era values are firmly reinforced. Any radicalism we read in it was probably not intended by Shakespeare. He wouldn't have been such a popular playwright back then if he tried to make the audience think.
"I have two giraffes... the State requires me to learn the Harmonica..."
Walter PlingeMon, 1 Dec 2008, 02:20 pm
I think the reason
I think the reason Shakespeare gets so widely celebrated is that he manages to do both: provide entertaining mainstream theatre for his audience, *and* challenge their thinking at the same time.
marcieSun, 14 Dec 2008, 07:37 pm
Lady Macbeth etc
It's taken me a long time to come back and say that I wasn't trying to sum up Lady Macbeth in a sentence - I was just referring to that speech specifically. The explorations of her childlessness are really interesting, I agree.
We rewrite history so much it's hard to say whether Shakespeare was thinking much differently from others - the Elizabethan world-order and women's place in law suggest he did, but who knows. It's interesting to think about also in terms of male actors playing the female parts. I don't know whether audiences of the time would react as much as we would.
I think his audiences varied widely and most of his plays offered something for everyone. Many of the audience-members were uneducated and I think it's a shame that now it's sometimes seen as so highbrow when it can be so much fun and really interesting.
Also, I'm sorry I just couldn't think of coming to see The Taming Of The Shrew. I've been away in Melbourne, extra busy since I got back and Ellenbrook is a long way from me - about an hour and a half according to Google and we know they're never wrong. I probably drive slower than Google too!
Everything I've read about the production here has made it seem really interesting and I hope you were happy with the season.
Walter PlingeFri, 23 Jan 2009, 03:44 am
Help!!
Hi there Frelli? I have just read your comments and to be honest its quiet good thing that you've understood the final speech of Katherina in "The taming of the shrew". So, I was just thinking if you can help me with this question: Is Katerina genuinely tamed in her final speech? How do the language and dramatic effects impact on audiences past and present? I've read the Shakespeare play for 10 times and I still don't understand it. Anyone can answer these questions. Thanks...
FrellisFri, 23 Jan 2009, 07:59 pm
Katerina's Tamed-ness
I think she's pretty 'tame' by the end of it. But one cannot definitively say that she is genuinely tamed. It, being art, is open to interpretation. I think she has been tamed, but not completely. She has just learned that she can share responsibility and that it is not always weak or bad to let others take charge.
If we look at it from an Elizabethan perspective however, that is the era it was written and performed in, it could be seen as an example. That is, "See here little girls, if you just let your dear husband (read men) take charge you'll be much much happier." This can be read as sexist as at the time women were considered more feeble or 'softer' than men. But this softness was celebrated by men who considered it their duty to care for 'the fairer sex'. These ideas can be seen either as benign (stemming from chivalrous tendencies of men at the time) or malicious (designed to control and inihibit women).
And that's me all literatured out...
"I have two giraffes... the State requires me to learn the Harmonica..."