I couldn't even finish this video because I've been in a relationship where he messed with my head the same way. There's not much that will mess you up and break your spirit in the same way as someone close to you demanding that you deny reality itself and then basically call you stupid for doing it.
I absolutely understand what you went through and am really sorry you've had that experience, Callie. I was brought up the same way and consequently all my relationships were with the same kind of abusive people. This is the only play of Shakespeare's (out of those I know of) that I really hate and refuse to see again. Happily, I now recognise those people and have learnt to steer clear of them. I wish much happier times for you. :)
I grew up in that type of gaslighting, abusive family, so unfortunately have some idea of what you are talking about. Good for you that you got out of that relationship - it is so difficult to get out once in. Sending good-energy, healing thoughts.
I am 72. I first saw Taming of the Shrew at the Shakespearean theater in Stratford, Connecticut, US. It was a school trip, and I was 14. The players, Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee were magnificent actors at the beginnings of illustrious careers. The show was brilliantly staged and produced as kindly as you might want it to be. And I went home PROFOUNDLY disturbed. There were no words in 1962 for the emotions I was feeling. I am so glad that they exist now. Thank you Dr Kat for putting those words to this play. I have seen it performed several times since then--including the 1967 film with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in the roles of Petruccio and Kate. All those outstanding performances and still the play leaves me sick. I'd much rather go see The Tempest.
I saw this at the Globe in 2012. The production was definitely comedic, but there was one moment of stage business at the very beginning that completely transformed my perspective on Bianca. They had Kate and Bianca going at their fight full bore on both sides, with Bianca giving as good as she got, maybe even more so. But, crucially, she is positioned so she sees her father before he gets a good look as to what is really going on, and she turns on the victim mode complete with tears and running to Daddy for protection from the Mean Big Sister Bully, which he buys fully, leaving Kate obviously feeling betrayed by his blindness on his beloved Bianca’s true nature. This got a universal “oooooh” from the entire audience.
Natasha Pyne (Bianca) in the Zeffirelli Film made a similar choice. Not only in that scene but also earlier on in Act 1 Scene 1. She rages at Kate "Sister content you in my discontent," but catcher herself as she realizes her suiters are there as well.
I have a lot of opinions about TAMING OF THE SHREW.... First of all, I think by looking at the works of Shakespeare one sees a writer who clearly has a deep respect for women and an awareness of their plight as being in a world where they are the eternal inferiors to men as every one is supposed to be inferior to Kings. But by the same token, just as Shakespeare does not see even the best of Kings as without flaw, he likewise recognizes a sense of injustice here in that even the best of men are likewise flawed, being after merely human. I think this is important for context. Second, certain themes recur over and over in Shakespeare, so often in fact I've grown to automatically look for them in his plays. One of these is disguise--not the wearing of a mask, assuming a false name, and telling lies (although this happens often enough) but the truism that nearly all major characters are not what they seem, and may in fact not be what they believe themselves to be. Frankly, this seems to offer a key to TAMING imho. Yes, Shakespeare was a man of his time, but he was also a man who evidently trusted the running of his properties and household to his wife, and left his entire estate to his daughter. He was also a man who lived his entire adult life under the reign of a mighty impressive Queen. So I personally tend to believe that--unlike the vast majority of productions of TAMING that I've seen--Petrucchio also has an arc. He is not the same man at the end of the play that he was at the beginning. In particular I think the rather chilling "She's had no meat today, nor shall have none tomorrow..." speech is important because it isn't supposed to be ultimately very funny. Read it carefully, and you soon realize Petrucchio is enduring the precise same privations he is making Kate endure. He has barely slept, hardly eaten, is at this point exhausted and I would argue one of the most dramatic choices a production can make at this point is for him to be feeling doubt. Methinks we will like him more, and believe in the success of this marriage, if he finds this task uncomfortable. Playing this scene just for laughs has always sent a chill down my spine. More, I would argue that moment when she starts agreeing with such silliness as this is the sun or the moon works best in terms of humor and drama with Petrucchio and Kate agreeing to play a game--a social game that this society more or less demands. Because of two things. Kate does not lose her spit and vinegar for which we love (and also somewhat fear) her. Rather she has gained control of it, using her tongue as a far more effective weapon against her sister and the widow, in support of her husband whom she can pretty clearly figure out has made a bet (she is the third wife summoned and is the smartest of the three). Also, when one looks at the overall play, certain things stand out. Kate and Petrucchio, almost uniquely in the story, are essentially (although not completely) honest with one another. Everyone else lies and lies a lot, sometimes to a shocking degree. They alone seem to have any real passion for each other. Everyone else who feels some real emotion seemingly never has it returned. More, if we are talking about actual behavior, everyone else is less likable that either Petrucchio or Kate--while remember the whole thing is set up as a play within a play, with a drunkard lied to and pretending he is a lord, his wife is actually a boy (which at the time was true of all the female characters), etc. No one is who they seem. Everyone is pretending to be something they are not. In other words, I genuinely believe TAMING OF THE SHREW is a farce making fun of the whole spectrum of what we would call "gender relations" in Shakespeare's time (and which isn't all that different). As you yourself pointed out also in ROMEO AND JULIET, these plays are almost never of one particular tone. Humor and tragedy, laughs and tears are interwoven. I believe the best, most honest, most powerful staging of this play in particular requires threading that particular set of needles very carefully, not avoiding ambiguity but embracing it with both arms. I hope that was somewhat clear. Probably not. But I do think in many ways Shakespeare (without writing a parable or a polemic) tends to give lessons by example about how to muddle through in a deeply imperfect world. But deciding on one's focus in a given production should guide how the text will be seen in performance. Because exactly which subtext is going on determines everything. Note: This play we now know was just as controversial in its own day as today. There was even an unofficial sequel called "The Taming of Petrucchio" performed at court!
This is an insightful response to the play. I adored the Burton and Taylor version for it's glamour and fire but I always shuddered when it got to the banquet scene where Katherine appears to capitulate so markedly. Thanks for your observations. ;-)
@@1pussychicken I'd agree with your assessment of the Taylor/Burton performance. Though I've always interpreted that last scene by them as "Well, two can manipulate. Let's carry on -- this will be fun!"
The American Conservatory Theater (ACT) did a production of TOTS in the late 1970's that people still talk about and remember for how much fun it was. It was done in the style of Commedia del Arte, lots of physical comedy, and meant to be quite fun. Kate's capitulation to Petruchio is very much done only to get him wrapped around her little finger in the end, and she succeeds brilliantly. Check it out if you want, really a lot of fun! Marc Singer plays Petruchio and Fredi Ostler plays Kate. It was broadcast on PBS which was how I viewed it. And it was so good that I knew people who decided to become actors because of the production of this play.
As far as Kate is concerned...I think Kate wasn't tamed at all, but figured out how to play the game to her advantage. Kate was not a stupid woman! ;-) Also, what of the play-within-a-play containing the bit with Sly?
This is a brilliant reading of this important Shakespeare play, Dr. Kat! Thank you. When I was a student of Shakespeare many many years ago, I recall reading some feminist criticism about the play. One scholar, whose name I will spell wrong, for which I apologize, Coppelia Kahn, makes the claim, if I remember correctly, that in her final speech, Kate dominates the stage and the play. This has always allowed me to believe that Kate subtly wins the war against Petruchio and the patriarchy and that they live a life--after the play--of rough parity or even loving equality. This may be wishful thinking on my part, for as you point out, Petruchio's every speech and action prior to "Kiss me, Kate" are deeply problematic. Again, thank you for this brilliant reading! 🙂❤😎
I think the most interesting performance of the shrew I have seen was a tragedy and at the end Kate is neither brainwashed nor sarcastic, but desperate. She played along with Protruchio so she could get her chance. Her final words " my hand is ready, may it do him ease" she secretly slides a knife into her pocket. Then right at the end she follows her husband off stage as she slowly draws the knife on him.
quite a different catch as in the 2005 BBC production Shakespeare retold with Shirly Henderson and Rufus Sewell, it's comedy that seems to pivot about a couple that love eachother as much as they love to fight. in the end Kate belittles her sister with "the speech", but after that she becomes a Prime Minister with Petruchio taking care of the children.
What a treasure I've unearthed in coming across you and your videos. They are all so very diverse, informative, engaging and I'm loving every single one. I'm especially enjoying your unique perspective on subjects as I feel that you approach historical figures, both real and fictional as in this instance, from a more realistic and often more empathetic angle than others. History needs more academics like you Dr Kat, you're the best!!!
Thank you! I (happily) stumbled across your channel, to which I subscribed after one video, a few days ago. As you were discussing the Taming of the Shrew I thought about Laura Richards, before you mentioned her. I remember watching the movie with Elizabeth Taylor as a young girl and being very uncomfortable. Thank you for this analysis. My father was not abusive nor controlling, so I married a wonderful man. We’ve been married 35 years this August. Btw: I’m legally blind and you do a great job describing pictures in your videos.
In my 8th-grade Literature class, we read (or should I say Mrs. Morgan acted out) The Taming of the Shrew, among other bits of Shakespeare. I now believe that Mrs. Morgan was a frustrated Shakespearian actress. She explained very little of what she acted out in our classes. Truly I think that 13-year-olds are not an appropriate audience for The Taming of The Shrew, but that is beside the point. The point is I didn't get it nor did the rest of my classmates. My teacher had me convinced that it was one of the best things ever written, so I bought a copy and gave it to my mother for Christmas that year. My parents, especially my dad - neither of them being Shakespearian scholars-- thought it was funny and mother asked me if it was a comment on her temper. I didn't even know what a shrew was except for a vicious garden creature. It wasn't until I was an adult that I sort of 'got it.' I told the entire story to my parents and they found THAT even funnier. Burned by Shakespeare or perhaps Mrs. Morgan? Thank you for helping me truly to 'get it.'
When I was a teen I got to see an all-woman production of taming of the shrew at the globe (I had the best seat in the house as because I'm a wheelchair user I was allowed to enter early so I could go right to the front so I'd be able to see as we were in the standing area, and unlike those who has paid for seats I at least had a backrest!). The male parts were still presented as male but the actors were women, much like how in Shakespeare's day the women's parts were played by men. Petruchio was played with an overly confident dick-swinging sort of masculinity, much like drag kings amplify stereotypical masculinity for humour and satire. The speech at the end by Kate was played absolutely dripping with sarcasm. It was made very clear he had not actually tamed her, it was almost as though she was telling him exactly what she wouldn't be.
@@blondbraid7986 This is somewhat what my wife and I will see tomorrow evening! A fabulous actress who played the lead role in Hamlet a few years back will be the Petruchio character. The play is very uncomfortable for us but with this major gender swap we are hoping for something meaningful and entertaining.
Petruchio in the present times would have definitely been a very abusive husband. The first thing toxic people do is get you away from people by either direct separation like he did with Katherine's father or indirectly by manipulating her to become a person nobody wants to be arounlike in the case of calling the old man a virgin, which could have seemed insulting and mocking. Also to call her mad and insane is another tactic to discredit her in case she tells somebody about the abuse. If she ever wanted to separate from him there wouldn't be much for him to get her locked up in a facility. He tries to take over everything what she can eat, wear and even think, very much a control freak. This play wasn't designed for comedy this is a lesson for women who "act out". For me Petruchio is a smug, self loving psychopath who degrades everybody he can till they become some sort of pet.
Thanks, Dr. Kat explaining the humours does help with the misogynistic elements in this play. That said I am a fan of this play, despite these undertones. I always struggle as Shakespeare gives a short introduction before the main action never a true backstory. Psychologically speaking Kat has no mother in this play. Dad but no mother present. It is highly likely she was an only child til 5-7 and then her mum had Bianca. It is possible that her mother died in childbirth and left Kat with no mother and a screaming little sister. All attention on the new born and her father's loss. A bewildered young Kat could grow to dislike her sister for what she signifies and refuse to conform to the doting sister/mother figure. Her shrewness could be her lashing out at the cruel world. By the time she realised that her behaviour had alienated her it had become a pattern. Pushing all people away including all suitors. Bianca is at marrying age say, possibly as young as 16 that could, make Kat in her 20's and an old maid by local standards. Petruchio declares he doesn’t care what his wife looks like as long as she is rich. Showing he is shallow. However, in the first meeting, he likes her face and form. I think there is a spare there for both. In the versions I have seen, Kat likes him too. He had been warned Kat had a temper but I think Petruchio realises he likes her spirit just not directed against him. Hence his mission to “tame a wife” I agree that he uses coercive control as a form of domestic violence to manipulate her. But I feel Kat is strong enough that he is playing a game and wants her to play it with him together. He is called a half Lunatic, maybe she is the other half. But I think they both identify they are better together than against each other. Kat comes when Petruchio commands her, not because she is “whipped” but because she knows he is up to a game with the men and wants to be in on the action. After all, she has seen 2 wives called and not attend. She knows she has a part to play and he has given her the commanding role in his jape. I don’t see Kats's statement at the end as a complete submission but more it is identifying her role in the partnership. I feel Kat has identified that she is better with a husband who matches her in temperament and that they both can bend.
I remembered this quote by Germaine Greer from reading The Female Eunuch in 1973! "Kate's speech at the close of the play is the greatest defence of Christian monogamy ever written. It rests upon the role of a husband as protector and friend, and it is valid because Kate has a man who is capable of being both, for Petruchio is both gentle and strong (it is a vile distortion of the play to have him strike her ever). The message is probably twofold: only Kates make good wives, and then only to Petruchios; for the rest, their cake is dough.”
In my Spanish Lit class at University we read a similar story, that was from around the same time. The Professor suggested that Shakespeare was familiar with it, and other contemporary stories from around Europe. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the Spanish story. I do remember that the husband in the story killed and dismembered three animals, after ordering them to do impossible things. The implied threat to his wife was clear. We were told this was a comical story. The other students and I were still disturbed. I have to admit I haven't read or seen "The Taming of the Shrew". The closest I've come to Shakespeare's play is "Kiss me Kate".
Happy New Year dear Dr. Kat! I had the pleasure of seeing the RSC perform this in Canterbury and it was brilliant fun. Along with the changes matriarchal, there was a deaf actor signing, and an actor who used her wheel chair with great comedic effect. Very well done and certainly thought provoking. Thanks for your good work, I really appreciate these insightful and informative, generously and gently offered videos. Here's a subject offering if you please, anything good stuff, facts, tales, literature, etc. regarding the "Liberties" in and around London? Any other cities in the UK, or other countries have liberties or something like? Anyway, thanks again, best to you and fam in the new one!
I think Kate was not totally reformed by her husband, i think she tolerated him, being the more flexible of the two, and not being as shrewish as others had said she was to begin with. In fact, her husband does not wait for her to prove shrewish before he begins his retraining of her supposed attitude. You can even seeing him trying to provoke her anger, to sound it out. But she does not act shrewish, he is the antagonist and she by and by pretends he is alright when he isn't provoking or trying her patience on purpose. I saw a production of this play where in the final speech he places his foot into her hand, and when she says the phrase, when the wife obeys her husband's true wishes, the actress twists his ankle on the word true. It was brilliant. I think that was Maggie Smith. It turned my understanding of the play to see that. The crowd applauded wildly when it finished.
The first and so far only time I’ve seen this play was at Western Oregon University in 2010. They did a wonderful job staging it. What marks it out in my mind especially is HOW they staged it. They staged the characters to the 1950s. I can’t remember if they changed some of the phrases to made it more 1950s friendly (for example talking about cars instead of horses, it’s been a while.), or if they kept all the dialogue the same, but in between set changes they had “off stage”-left “1950s” commercials acted out by the students that were done in Shakespearean dialect. It was also an interesting comparison of what was expected of women and their role in Shakespeare’s time vs the 1950s, how little changed in those almost 400 years, yet how much had changed in the last 60.
I hadn't realized how thoroughly ingrained the idea of a woman being "less than" was, until one of my sisters had four daughters and I thought, 'oh how terribly sad they've not had a son. What a waste.' I'm disgusted by this way of thinking now. But mostly I'm incredibly sad that I thought so low of myself and other women. If one needs historical backing re: the strength of women, look back at all the male heirs that never were, and all the strong surviving females.
Interesting video. Gives a lot to think about. Some of the banter in this play is Shakespeare's sharpest writing, so I can't quite abandon it completely. But it is unquestioningly an abuse narrative. An abuse narrative that says 'Hey. Instead of physically brutalising your wife, why not emotionally terrorise her like that's better' I wonder if there is a layer of irony that modern audiences will miss. Obviously, in Shakespeare's day, the scene was set by someone coming out on stage and saying 'We are in a deep, dark forest,' or 'You can see the moon glowing in this dark night', even as the sun was beating down on the audience. It was a convention, and everyone accepted it. 'Ok, Burbage might be getting on a bit, but in this, he's a strapping youth, okay!?' That was just theatre. So I wonder if the 'Gods be blessed, it is the blessed sun' segment was intended as a joke about those conventions that we no longer have, and so to us, it's a straight up example of gaslighting. I don't know how you'd put that back in a modern restaging. Although Id be interested to see a movie where maybe Petruchio goes 'Greet this guy we've bumped into! No wait, he's just a runner, you don't have to be polite to him'. Ofc, it is a play within a play, so there are levels of fiction we're operating on. And that's up to the individual whether that makes them comfortable with the main story or not. Like, I want to argue that it's actually about the artificiality of gender roles, but I can't actually in good faith do that because I don't think Shakespeare intended that. I think he intended a sex comedy in a world in which 'A Merry Geste' could be described as a merry jest. But I am still quite interested that Petruchio uses some of the same conventions that the playwright would have used to create their own universe. Idk. I still enjoy Kiss Me Kate. Even though that also veers into uncomfortable. But they're very straight up that Fred is just as flawed as Lily, and the final speech is played firmly tongue in cheek. Either that, or as you say, a version that goes fully dark.
The first Shakespeare play I ever saw was community college production of Taming of the Shrew when I was in Kindergarten... needless to say it didn't go over well and even as a kid I was mad at the way Kate was treated
I'd like to suggest one other interpretation. Katherine is headstrong, demanding, and obnoxious. So is Petruchio. They both need to amend their ways. I see the final scene with Katherine playing her final speech absolutely straight, and directed to Petruchio. She says, "You're right. A woman should be meek and mild and submissive to her husband..." etc. But throw some focus onto Petruchio, who is listening intently. We need to see him slowly realizing that he doesn't want a wife like Bianca or the Widow - he's fallen in love with Katherine because she is confident, strong, intelligent and doesn't put up with his BS. In the end, they are a good match (they may fight, but have great "make-up" sex). Whereas the other 2 couples in the show are absolutely miserable. Also, Petruchio is putting himself through all the privations he is inflicting upon Katherine: he doesn't eat or sleep as long as she isn't allowed to eat or sleep. It makes a big difference in the production - and the audience's understanding/appreciation of the story if we see that Petruchio is just as hungry and exhausted as Katherine. They both endured the same privations, which brings them together at the end and they become a strong partnership with a much more satisfying relationship than that of the other couples in the show. They've learned to respect each other, and treat each other as equals.
Your exposition helps me understand why I could not make sense of the Butron/Taylor film. It is played as a comedy, but her final speech is incongruous. I can imagine I'd like it better if after her speech, the camera would pan to her back where she has her fingers crossed. We don't like a bullied person to yield to the will of the bully. We want to see resistance, even while feigning obeisance. We want to be in on the joke.
I disagree Dr. Kat. While not a doctorate, I wrote my Senior paper at university on the topic of Courtly Love vs the Business of Love in English history/literature. I take this play as a celebration of smart, outspoken women who balked at the yoke of the business of marriage and vyed for the love match. Kate in her distrust for the marriage arrangement shuns Patruccio. Their sparing brings them to a true affection for one another. A love match. this exchage sets the basis for every modern rom-com.
A good decade or so ago I participated in an open air summer production of this play; and there was much discussion around its misogyny; not comfortable. I do remember the final scenes being played in an ironic manner, by Kate, so perhaps we were copping out. It's still not a favourite play.
It's tragedy when it's happening to you. It's comedy when it's happening to somebody else. I waited in vain for some mention of the Taylor/Burton staging of this in their film, over fifty years ago. Burton's Petruchio is mad for Katherine but realizes that he must get the upper hand immediately, because she is unbearably spoiled. She has been throwing tantrums and getting her way for far too long, but she's beautiful and fiery and he loves her on sight. He doesn't do it for fun. There's a moment when she rides in bedraggled from the rain, her brave bridal finery ruined, and he almost loses it. He wants to comfort her but continues until she just gives up and humors him. That's how Taylor played it- unbearable frustration becoming Oh what the hell, do it your way. At the end, she still has her fire, but she turns it on the other women. The sexual energy between the Burtons makes this production work. Taylor's Katherine is a woman who could not respect a man she could walk on. I'm no student of Shakespeare, but I think they performed it as it was written. It's the only production of this play I can watch.
I've always seen Petrucio as a irresponsible, arrogant fool who got himself tricked into marrying Kate for laughs and a good payday. And Kate was a selfish, indulged spoiled brat. Their meeting was forced on them in hopes that they might cure each other. Kate, of her indulgence and Petrucio, of his irresponsible foolishness. By the end it seems this is the case, as they have found the true prize, love, which by contrast no else has. I think this the true gift of this play and that Shakespeare is ultimately saying that status, birthorder and prestige mean nothing compared to finding respect and love in a person who understands us. I think we read to much of our modern biases on to the past and then pass judgment without fully understanding their context. To my mind, Shakespeare was quite a liberal writer for his time. He openly gives voice to the those in lesser positions and even blatantly states what would otherwise be punishable offences to be done by them for laughs and thought making. He knew how to grip his audience with humor, sentiment and insult. Its our mindset that needs to be open when we read or act these plays. As players we need to be the ones that know and understand enough to convey the ambiguous material in a more explainable way to the audience. We are the translators and thus curators of the message that is being sent. We are not the authors but the pen. We can't assume meanings, its up to the reader or audience to decide for themselves.
Found a clip of RSC's production Act 2 Scene 1 ruclips.net/video/6v0GHtOaASk/видео.html I love it. Most time this staged it is blocked with a lot of physical combat. Normally with Petruchio just trying to defend himself from Kate attacking him. Here the combat was at a minimum. The two actors circle each other for a great deal of the scene and still fill the space with tension and humor from the wordplay in the script. There are also bits that are just charming. Pay attention to Katherine's expression when Petruchia is trying to convince Baptista that Katerine agreed to the marriage. It begs the question do the same points about Act 4 hold up now that the roles are reversed?
I last saw Taming of the Shrew years before I had worked with abused and controled women. This discussion show this as a very disturbing play. Shakespeare shows a frightening eye for how people treat each other.
Has anyone seen the musical version, Kiss Me Kate? I saw it and 10 Things I Hate About You when I was younger and it has always rubbed me the wrong way...
Having once been married to a controlling, gas-lighting, violent man (I was 18 and knew _everything_ ... oy), I had always found "Taming" unfunny and problematic. This video has broadened my perspective (so ta for that!) and reminded me that viewing the past thru modern lenses is never the best idea.
Coming to this discussion late but I wonder if your interpretation of Taming of the Shrew depends on your age and how your first production was staged. Im over 60 and my one and only exposure to TOTS was the Taylor/Burton version. Burton was abusive - remember the chase across rooftops and his pinning Taylor’s arm behind her back? But Taylor played the scene about her acquiescence with a cocked eye. So when we get to her finial speech I knew she was doing this only to get over on her husband. She was pretending. She had figured out that in that time the best way to have her way is to make the man believe he’s won. The finial scene, where she “runs” and he must pursue seals the deal for me. I can “forgive” the brutality maybe because of the era I was born or because I understand the era it was written. It’s a play. Not a manual for marriage.
I have never read taming of the shrew and I have never seen a production of taming of the shrew. Listening to you read the lines in a very normal, straightforward tone I feel like he is the shrew. Granted you did not share any of her early rantings I guess. So I don’t have that background knowledge of her personality. But everything that she does is absolutely horrible. He is cruel, he is controlling, he is manipulative. I don’t see anything funny about any of his actions. I’m gonna have to go find something on Amazon or Netflix about the taming of the shrew. I agree that if everything she does is with gritted teeth or rolling her eyes, I could see how that would be funny. but truthfully I don’t see how any of his actions are ever called for. Denying somebody’s food, denying them visitation with their father, even the clothes. Unless she was whining and saying that the clothes weren’t good enough then I could understand him sending Taylor away. I found this video very interesting. And if I were in a position to stage the place I think I would probably stage it more as a drama or tragedy.
As far as I am concerned, the finest production of The Taming Of The Shrew can be seen in the movie version with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. It is a rollicking good time, which follows the original play, and doesn't pay court to the ridiculous notions of the modern "snowflake" generation.
I saw the Richard Burton/Elizabeth Taylor version at a child. I remember enjoying it at first but it got more and more disturbing. I was so disappointed by the final scene! I remember thinking ‘what is this? How could it end like this, it makes no sense!’ My least favourite play and I always cringe when it’s remade as modern versions. Now this analysis just make me think it’s even worse than I thought!!
I think there is a third perspective here, that might serve the comedic purpose, while respecting Katherine's wit and intelligence. First, I don't think Petruchio really enjoys being mean, or even abusive towards Kat. Second, maybe Kat isn't tamed in the sense of acknowledging his power over her, despite the final speech. And I think he would not like her without her intelligence. So what I am saying here is: what if Petruchio goes to such lengths not so much to weaken her spirit, but for her to start looking at the world in different perspectives? Her calling the elderly man a blooming maid is totally absurd, but it might serve that purpose. Kat, looking at her not as a woman in a chain of power, but as a human being among other human beings, may in the end find a way to look at the world in a different and more simpathetic way. What if Petruchio doesn't tame her, but shows her the different roles and possibilities that may be part of her world? Choosing to say no to everything is in the end the same thing of accepting in toto Petruchio's will. Understanding the moments, the wills, the roles, the expectations and starting a marriage might well be a far more difficult task. If she does what she is expected to, it doesn't necessarily mean that she thinks it is true and right and she is a blind hawk, nor that she dislikes it and she needs it to keep living and eating.
Early GASLIGHTING. Relevant for political modern times - particularly the part where the moon and sun are not themselves. Or perhaps in the final scene she is Melania Trump?
I couldn't even finish this video because I've been in a relationship where he messed with my head the same way. There's not much that will mess you up and break your spirit in the same way as someone close to you demanding that you deny reality itself and then basically call you stupid for doing it.
* hugs *
I absolutely understand what you went through and am really sorry you've had that experience, Callie. I was brought up the same way and consequently all my relationships were with the same kind of abusive people. This is the only play of Shakespeare's (out of those I know of) that I really hate and refuse to see again. Happily, I now recognise those people and have learnt to steer clear of them. I wish much happier times for you. :)
I grew up in that type of gaslighting, abusive family, so unfortunately have some idea of what you are talking about.
Good for you that you got out of that relationship - it is so difficult to get out once in.
Sending good-energy, healing thoughts.
Even worse when the authorities side with your abuser/s. Denial of access to justice on top of being abused is horrific.
I am 72. I first saw Taming of the Shrew at the Shakespearean theater in Stratford, Connecticut, US. It was a school trip, and I was 14. The players, Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee were magnificent actors at the beginnings of illustrious careers. The show was brilliantly staged and produced as kindly as you might want it to be.
And I went home PROFOUNDLY disturbed. There were no words in 1962 for the emotions I was feeling. I am so glad that they exist now.
Thank you Dr Kat for putting those words to this play. I have seen it performed several times since then--including the 1967 film with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in the roles of Petruccio and Kate. All those outstanding performances and still the play leaves me sick.
I'd much rather go see The Tempest.
I saw this at the Globe in 2012. The production was definitely comedic, but there was one moment of stage business at the very beginning that completely transformed my perspective on Bianca. They had Kate and Bianca going at their fight full bore on both sides, with Bianca giving as good as she got, maybe even more so. But, crucially, she is positioned so she sees her father before he gets a good look as to what is really going on, and she turns on the victim mode complete with tears and running to Daddy for protection from the Mean Big Sister Bully, which he buys fully, leaving Kate obviously feeling betrayed by his blindness on his beloved Bianca’s true nature. This got a universal “oooooh” from the entire audience.
Natasha Pyne (Bianca) in the Zeffirelli Film made a similar choice. Not only in that scene but also earlier on in Act 1 Scene 1. She rages at Kate "Sister content you in my discontent," but catcher herself as she realizes her suiters are there as well.
I have a lot of opinions about TAMING OF THE SHREW....
First of all, I think by looking at the works of Shakespeare one sees a writer who clearly has a deep respect for women and an awareness of their plight as being in a world where they are the eternal inferiors to men as every one is supposed to be inferior to Kings. But by the same token, just as Shakespeare does not see even the best of Kings as without flaw, he likewise recognizes a sense of injustice here in that even the best of men are likewise flawed, being after merely human.
I think this is important for context.
Second, certain themes recur over and over in Shakespeare, so often in fact I've grown to automatically look for them in his plays. One of these is disguise--not the wearing of a mask, assuming a false name, and telling lies (although this happens often enough) but the truism that nearly all major characters are not what they seem, and may in fact not be what they believe themselves to be.
Frankly, this seems to offer a key to TAMING imho. Yes, Shakespeare was a man of his time, but he was also a man who evidently trusted the running of his properties and household to his wife, and left his entire estate to his daughter. He was also a man who lived his entire adult life under the reign of a mighty impressive Queen.
So I personally tend to believe that--unlike the vast majority of productions of TAMING that I've seen--Petrucchio also has an arc. He is not the same man at the end of the play that he was at the beginning. In particular I think the rather chilling "She's had no meat today, nor shall have none tomorrow..." speech is important because it isn't supposed to be ultimately very funny. Read it carefully, and you soon realize Petrucchio is enduring the precise same privations he is making Kate endure. He has barely slept, hardly eaten, is at this point exhausted and I would argue one of the most dramatic choices a production can make at this point is for him to be feeling doubt. Methinks we will like him more, and believe in the success of this marriage, if he finds this task uncomfortable. Playing this scene just for laughs has always sent a chill down my spine.
More, I would argue that moment when she starts agreeing with such silliness as this is the sun or the moon works best in terms of humor and drama with Petrucchio and Kate agreeing to play a game--a social game that this society more or less demands.
Because of two things.
Kate does not lose her spit and vinegar for which we love (and also somewhat fear) her. Rather she has gained control of it, using her tongue as a far more effective weapon against her sister and the widow, in support of her husband whom she can pretty clearly figure out has made a bet (she is the third wife summoned and is the smartest of the three).
Also, when one looks at the overall play, certain things stand out. Kate and Petrucchio, almost uniquely in the story, are essentially (although not completely) honest with one another. Everyone else lies and lies a lot, sometimes to a shocking degree. They alone seem to have any real passion for each other. Everyone else who feels some real emotion seemingly never has it returned. More, if we are talking about actual behavior, everyone else is less likable that either Petrucchio or Kate--while remember the whole thing is set up as a play within a play, with a drunkard lied to and pretending he is a lord, his wife is actually a boy (which at the time was true of all the female characters), etc. No one is who they seem. Everyone is pretending to be something they are not.
In other words, I genuinely believe TAMING OF THE SHREW is a farce making fun of the whole spectrum of what we would call "gender relations" in Shakespeare's time (and which isn't all that different). As you yourself pointed out also in ROMEO AND JULIET, these plays are almost never of one particular tone. Humor and tragedy, laughs and tears are interwoven. I believe the best, most honest, most powerful staging of this play in particular requires threading that particular set of needles very carefully, not avoiding ambiguity but embracing it with both arms.
I hope that was somewhat clear. Probably not. But I do think in many ways Shakespeare (without writing a parable or a polemic) tends to give lessons by example about how to muddle through in a deeply imperfect world. But deciding on one's focus in a given production should guide how the text will be seen in performance. Because exactly which subtext is going on determines everything.
Note: This play we now know was just as controversial in its own day as today. There was even an unofficial sequel called "The Taming of Petrucchio" performed at court!
This is an insightful response to the play. I adored the Burton and Taylor version for it's glamour and fire but I always shuddered when it got to the banquet scene where Katherine appears to capitulate so markedly. Thanks for your observations. ;-)
@@1pussychicken Thank you!
That's given me a whole new perspective to think about. And I like it! Thank you. :)
@@1pussychicken I'd agree with your assessment of the Taylor/Burton performance. Though I've always interpreted that last scene by them as "Well, two can manipulate. Let's carry on -- this will be fun!"
The American Conservatory Theater (ACT) did a production of TOTS in the late 1970's that people still talk about and remember for how much fun it was. It was done in the style of Commedia del Arte, lots of physical comedy, and meant to be quite fun. Kate's capitulation to Petruchio is very much done only to get him wrapped around her little finger in the end, and she succeeds brilliantly. Check it out if you want, really a lot of fun! Marc Singer plays Petruchio and Fredi Ostler plays Kate. It was broadcast on PBS which was how I viewed it. And it was so good that I knew people who decided to become actors because of the production of this play.
I saw Fredi Ostler play Kate at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. She was wonderful
I found that one on RUclips - it's very entertaining.
As far as Kate is concerned...I think Kate wasn't tamed at all, but figured out how to play the game to her advantage. Kate was not a stupid woman! ;-) Also, what of the play-within-a-play containing the bit with Sly?
This is a brilliant reading of this important Shakespeare play, Dr. Kat! Thank you.
When I was a student of Shakespeare many many years ago, I recall reading some feminist criticism about the play. One scholar, whose name I will spell wrong, for which I apologize, Coppelia Kahn, makes the claim, if I remember correctly, that in her final speech, Kate dominates the stage and the play. This has always allowed me to believe that Kate subtly wins the war against Petruchio and the patriarchy and that they live a life--after the play--of rough parity or even loving equality. This may be wishful thinking on my part, for as you point out, Petruchio's every speech and action prior to "Kiss me, Kate" are deeply problematic.
Again, thank you for this brilliant reading! 🙂❤😎
I think the most interesting performance of the shrew I have seen was a tragedy and at the end Kate is neither brainwashed nor sarcastic, but desperate. She played along with Protruchio so she could get her chance. Her final words " my hand is ready, may it do him ease" she secretly slides a knife into her pocket.
Then right at the end she follows her husband off stage as she slowly draws the knife on him.
quite a different catch as in the 2005 BBC production Shakespeare retold with Shirly Henderson and Rufus Sewell, it's comedy that seems to pivot about a couple that love eachother as much as they love to fight. in the end Kate belittles her sister with "the speech", but after that she becomes a Prime Minister with Petruchio taking care of the children.
Sounds better.....
What a treasure I've unearthed in coming across you and your videos. They are all so very diverse, informative, engaging and I'm loving every single one. I'm especially enjoying your unique perspective on subjects as I feel that you approach historical figures, both real and fictional as in this instance, from a more realistic and often more empathetic angle than others. History needs more academics like you Dr Kat, you're the best!!!
Thank you! I (happily) stumbled across your channel, to which I subscribed after one video, a few days ago. As you were discussing the Taming of the Shrew I thought about Laura Richards, before you mentioned her. I remember watching the movie with Elizabeth Taylor as a young girl and being very uncomfortable. Thank you for this analysis. My father was not abusive nor controlling, so I married a wonderful man. We’ve been married 35 years this August. Btw: I’m legally blind and you do a great job describing pictures in your videos.
Brilliant assessment. I always thought he was abusive after seeing the play in Stratford Upon Avon in the 80's.
In my 8th-grade Literature class, we read (or should I say Mrs. Morgan acted out) The Taming of the Shrew, among other bits of Shakespeare. I now believe that Mrs. Morgan was a frustrated Shakespearian actress. She explained very little of what she acted out in our classes. Truly I think that 13-year-olds are not an appropriate audience for The Taming of The Shrew, but that is beside the point. The point is I didn't get it nor did the rest of my classmates. My teacher had me convinced that it was one of the best things ever written, so I bought a copy and gave it to my mother for Christmas that year. My parents, especially my dad - neither of them being Shakespearian scholars-- thought it was funny and mother asked me if it was a comment on her temper. I didn't even know what a shrew was except for a vicious garden creature. It wasn't until I was an adult that I sort of 'got it.' I told the entire story to my parents and they found THAT even funnier. Burned by Shakespeare or perhaps Mrs. Morgan?
Thank you for helping me truly to 'get it.'
When I was a teen I got to see an all-woman production of taming of the shrew at the globe (I had the best seat in the house as because I'm a wheelchair user I was allowed to enter early so I could go right to the front so I'd be able to see as we were in the standing area, and unlike those who has paid for seats I at least had a backrest!). The male parts were still presented as male but the actors were women, much like how in Shakespeare's day the women's parts were played by men. Petruchio was played with an overly confident dick-swinging sort of masculinity, much like drag kings amplify stereotypical masculinity for humour and satire. The speech at the end by Kate was played absolutely dripping with sarcasm. It was made very clear he had not actually tamed her, it was almost as though she was telling him exactly what she wouldn't be.
I'd kinda wanna see a full genderswap version of the play, with a man playing Kate's role and vice versa for Petruchio.
@@blondbraid7986 This is somewhat what my wife and I will see tomorrow evening! A fabulous actress who played the lead role in Hamlet a few years back will be the Petruchio character. The play is very uncomfortable for us but with this major gender swap we are hoping for something meaningful and entertaining.
I really enjoy these deeper looks into Shakespeare. I hope you do more. Thank you : )
Petruchio in the present times would have definitely been a very abusive husband. The first thing toxic people do is get you away from people by either direct separation like he did with Katherine's father or indirectly by manipulating her to become a person nobody wants to be arounlike in the case of calling the old man a virgin, which could have seemed insulting and mocking. Also to call her mad and insane is another tactic to discredit her in case she tells somebody about the abuse. If she ever wanted to separate from him there wouldn't be much for him to get her locked up in a facility.
He tries to take over everything what she can eat, wear and even think, very much a control freak. This play wasn't designed for comedy this is a lesson for women who "act out".
For me Petruchio is a smug, self loving psychopath who degrades everybody he can till they become some sort of pet.
I totally agree!
Thanks, Dr. Kat explaining the humours does help
with the misogynistic elements in this play. That said I am a fan of this play,
despite these undertones. I always struggle as Shakespeare gives a short
introduction before the main action never a true backstory. Psychologically
speaking Kat has no mother in this play. Dad but no mother present. It is highly likely
she was an only child til 5-7 and then her mum had Bianca. It is possible that
her mother died in childbirth and left Kat with no mother and a screaming
little sister. All attention on the new born and her father's loss. A
bewildered young Kat could grow to dislike her sister for what she signifies
and refuse to conform to the doting sister/mother figure. Her shrewness could
be her lashing out at the cruel world. By the time she realised that her
behaviour had alienated her it had become a pattern. Pushing all people away
including all suitors. Bianca is at marrying age say, possibly as young as 16
that could, make Kat in her 20's and an old maid by local standards. Petruchio
declares he doesn’t care what his wife looks like as long as she is rich.
Showing he is shallow. However, in the first meeting, he likes her face and form.
I think there is a spare there for both. In the versions I have seen, Kat likes
him too. He had been warned Kat had a temper but I think Petruchio realises he
likes her spirit just not directed against him. Hence his mission to “tame a
wife” I agree that he uses coercive
control as a form of domestic violence to manipulate her. But I feel Kat is strong
enough that he is playing a game and wants her to play it with him together. He
is called a half Lunatic, maybe she is the other half. But I think they both
identify they are better together than against each other. Kat comes when
Petruchio commands her, not because she is “whipped” but because she knows he is up to a game with the
men and wants to be in on the action. After all, she has seen 2 wives called and
not attend. She knows she has a part to play and he has given her the
commanding role in his jape. I don’t see Kats's statement at the end as a complete
submission but more it is identifying her role in the partnership. I feel Kat
has identified that she is better with a husband who matches her in temperament
and that they both can bend.
I ALWAYS loathed this play, though we were firmly told it was light hearted and showed a loving relationship of its time.
I remembered this quote by Germaine Greer from reading The Female Eunuch in 1973!
"Kate's speech at the close of the play is the greatest defence of Christian
monogamy ever written. It rests upon the role of a husband as protector and friend,
and it is valid because Kate has a man who is capable of being both,
for Petruchio is both gentle and strong (it is a vile distortion of the
play to have him strike her ever). The message is probably twofold:
only Kates make good wives, and then only to Petruchios; for the
rest, their cake is dough.”
I would love to see you do a video on Sheridan's The Rivals, and particularly on how Mrs. Malaprop would have read to an 18th c. audience.
In my Spanish Lit class at University we read a similar story, that was from around the same time. The Professor suggested that Shakespeare was familiar with it, and other contemporary stories from around Europe. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the Spanish story. I do remember that the husband in the story killed and dismembered three animals, after ordering them to do impossible things. The implied threat to his wife was clear. We were told this was a comical story. The other students and I were still disturbed. I have to admit I haven't read or seen "The Taming of the Shrew". The closest I've come to Shakespeare's play is "Kiss me Kate".
This is my favorite play of Shakespeare's! I would LOVE to see Tom Hiddleston as Petruchio!
Inspiring. Thank you
I loved the version with with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. I felt it was such a great story!!
Happy New Year dear Dr. Kat! I had the pleasure of seeing the RSC perform this in Canterbury and it was brilliant fun. Along with the changes matriarchal, there was a deaf actor signing, and an actor who used her wheel chair with great comedic effect. Very well done and certainly thought provoking.
Thanks for your good work, I really appreciate these insightful and informative, generously and gently offered videos.
Here's a subject offering if you please, anything good stuff, facts, tales, literature, etc. regarding the "Liberties" in and around London? Any other cities in the UK, or other countries have liberties or something like? Anyway, thanks again, best to you and fam in the new one!
I think Kate was not totally reformed by her husband, i think she tolerated him, being the more flexible of the two, and not being as shrewish as others had said she was to begin with. In fact, her husband does not wait for her to prove shrewish before he begins his retraining of her supposed attitude. You can even seeing him trying to provoke her anger, to sound it out. But she does not act shrewish, he is the antagonist and she by and by pretends he is alright when he isn't provoking or trying her patience on purpose. I saw a production of this play where in the final speech he places his foot into her hand, and when she says the phrase, when the wife obeys her husband's true wishes, the actress twists his ankle on the word true. It was brilliant. I think that was Maggie Smith. It turned my understanding of the play to see that. The crowd applauded wildly when it finished.
I just enjoy your talks , keep up the good work xx
The first and so far only time I’ve seen this play was at Western Oregon University in 2010. They did a wonderful job staging it. What marks it out in my mind especially is HOW they staged it. They staged the characters to the 1950s. I can’t remember if they changed some of the phrases to made it more 1950s friendly (for example talking about cars instead of horses, it’s been a while.), or if they kept all the dialogue the same, but in between set changes they had “off stage”-left “1950s” commercials acted out by the students that were done in Shakespearean dialect.
It was also an interesting comparison of what was expected of women and their role in Shakespeare’s time vs the 1950s, how little changed in those almost 400 years, yet how much had changed in the last 60.
I hadn't realized how thoroughly ingrained the idea of a woman being "less than" was, until one of my sisters had four daughters and I thought, 'oh how terribly sad they've not had a son. What a waste.' I'm disgusted by this way of thinking now. But mostly I'm incredibly sad that I thought so low of myself and other women.
If one needs historical backing re: the strength of women, look back at all the male heirs that never were, and all the strong surviving females.
Interesting video. Gives a lot to think about. Some of the banter in this play is Shakespeare's sharpest writing, so I can't quite abandon it completely. But it is unquestioningly an abuse narrative. An abuse narrative that says 'Hey. Instead of physically brutalising your wife, why not emotionally terrorise her like that's better'
I wonder if there is a layer of irony that modern audiences will miss. Obviously, in Shakespeare's day, the scene was set by someone coming out on stage and saying 'We are in a deep, dark forest,' or 'You can see the moon glowing in this dark night', even as the sun was beating down on the audience. It was a convention, and everyone accepted it. 'Ok, Burbage might be getting on a bit, but in this, he's a strapping youth, okay!?' That was just theatre. So I wonder if the 'Gods be blessed, it is the blessed sun' segment was intended as a joke about those conventions that we no longer have, and so to us, it's a straight up example of gaslighting. I don't know how you'd put that back in a modern restaging. Although Id be interested to see a movie where maybe Petruchio goes 'Greet this guy we've bumped into! No wait, he's just a runner, you don't have to be polite to him'. Ofc, it is a play within a play, so there are levels of fiction we're operating on. And that's up to the individual whether that makes them comfortable with the main story or not.
Like, I want to argue that it's actually about the artificiality of gender roles, but I can't actually in good faith do that because I don't think Shakespeare intended that. I think he intended a sex comedy in a world in which 'A Merry Geste' could be described as a merry jest. But I am still quite interested that Petruchio uses some of the same conventions that the playwright would have used to create their own universe. Idk.
I still enjoy Kiss Me Kate. Even though that also veers into uncomfortable. But they're very straight up that Fred is just as flawed as Lily, and the final speech is played firmly tongue in cheek. Either that, or as you say, a version that goes fully dark.
The first Shakespeare play I ever saw was community college production of Taming of the Shrew when I was in Kindergarten... needless to say it didn't go over well and even as a kid I was mad at the way Kate was treated
I'd like to suggest one other interpretation. Katherine is headstrong, demanding, and obnoxious. So is Petruchio. They both need to amend their ways. I see the final scene with Katherine playing her final speech absolutely straight, and directed to Petruchio. She says, "You're right. A woman should be meek and mild and submissive to her husband..." etc. But throw some focus onto Petruchio, who is listening intently. We need to see him slowly realizing that he doesn't want a wife like Bianca or the Widow - he's fallen in love with Katherine because she is confident, strong, intelligent and doesn't put up with his BS. In the end, they are a good match (they may fight, but have great "make-up" sex). Whereas the other 2 couples in the show are absolutely miserable.
Also, Petruchio is putting himself through all the privations he is inflicting upon Katherine: he doesn't eat or sleep as long as she isn't allowed to eat or sleep. It makes a big difference in the production - and the audience's understanding/appreciation of the story if we see that Petruchio is just as hungry and exhausted as Katherine. They both endured the same privations, which brings them together at the end and they become a strong partnership with a much more satisfying relationship than that of the other couples in the show. They've learned to respect each other, and treat each other as equals.
Your exposition helps me understand why I could not make sense of the Butron/Taylor film. It is played as a comedy, but her final speech is incongruous. I can imagine I'd like it better if after her speech, the camera would pan to her back where she has her fingers crossed. We don't like a bullied person to yield to the will of the bully. We want to see resistance, even while feigning obeisance. We want to be in on the joke.
I disagree Dr. Kat. While not a doctorate, I wrote my Senior paper at university on the topic of Courtly Love vs the Business of Love in English history/literature. I take this play as a celebration of smart, outspoken women who balked at the yoke of the business of marriage and vyed for the love match. Kate in her distrust for the marriage arrangement shuns Patruccio. Their sparing brings them to a true affection for one another. A love match. this exchage sets the basis for every modern rom-com.
This was my married life. Have to close this down now
A good decade or so ago I participated in an open air summer production of this play; and there was much discussion around its misogyny; not comfortable. I do remember the final scenes being played in an ironic manner, by Kate, so perhaps we were copping out.
It's still not a favourite play.
In the productions I've seen, he was portrayed as emotionally abusive at the very least. For example the Elizabeth Taylor - Richard Burton production
It's tragedy when it's happening to you. It's comedy when it's happening to somebody else. I waited in vain for some mention of the Taylor/Burton staging of this in their film, over fifty years ago. Burton's Petruchio is mad for Katherine but realizes that he must get the upper hand immediately, because she is unbearably spoiled. She has been throwing tantrums and getting her way for far too long, but she's beautiful and fiery and he loves her on sight. He doesn't do it for fun. There's a moment when she rides in bedraggled from the rain, her brave bridal finery ruined, and he almost loses it. He wants to comfort her but continues until she just gives up and humors him. That's how Taylor played it- unbearable frustration becoming Oh what the hell, do it your way. At the end, she still has her fire, but she turns it on the other women. The sexual energy between the Burtons makes this production work. Taylor's Katherine is a woman who could not respect a man she could walk on. I'm no student of Shakespeare, but I think they performed it as it was written. It's the only production of this play I can watch.
I've always seen Petrucio as a irresponsible, arrogant fool who got himself tricked into marrying Kate for laughs and a good payday. And Kate was a selfish, indulged spoiled brat. Their meeting was forced on them in hopes that they might cure each other. Kate, of her indulgence and Petrucio, of his irresponsible foolishness. By the end it seems this is the case, as they have found the true prize, love, which by contrast no else has. I think this the true gift of this play and that Shakespeare is ultimately saying that status, birthorder and prestige mean nothing compared to finding respect and love in a person who understands us.
I think we read to much of our modern biases on to the past and then pass judgment without fully understanding their context. To my mind, Shakespeare was quite a liberal writer for his time. He openly gives voice to the those in lesser positions and even blatantly states what would otherwise be punishable offences to be done by them for laughs and thought making. He knew how to grip his audience with humor, sentiment and insult. Its our mindset that needs to be open when we read or act these plays. As players we need to be the ones that know and understand enough to convey the ambiguous material in a more explainable way to the audience. We are the translators and thus curators of the message that is being sent. We are not the authors but the pen. We can't assume meanings, its up to the reader or audience to decide for themselves.
Could you do a video on William Berkeley, 1st Marquess of Berkeley
Found a clip of RSC's production Act 2 Scene 1 ruclips.net/video/6v0GHtOaASk/видео.html
I love it. Most time this staged it is blocked with a lot of physical combat. Normally with Petruchio just trying to defend himself from Kate attacking him. Here the combat was at a minimum. The two actors circle each other for a great deal of the scene and still fill the space with tension and humor from the wordplay in the script. There are also bits that are just charming. Pay attention to Katherine's expression when Petruchia is trying to convince Baptista that Katerine agreed to the marriage.
It begs the question do the same points about Act 4 hold up now that the roles are reversed?
I think that as Kate is a smart woman she knows that petrucchio is a narcissist and she plays him and plays him well.
I last saw Taming of the Shrew years before I had worked with abused and controled women. This discussion show this as a very disturbing play. Shakespeare shows a frightening eye for how people treat each other.
Has anyone seen the musical version, Kiss Me Kate? I saw it and 10 Things I Hate About You when I was younger and it has always rubbed me the wrong way...
Having once been married to a controlling, gas-lighting, violent man (I was 18 and knew _everything_ ... oy), I had always found "Taming" unfunny and problematic. This video has broadened my perspective (so ta for that!) and reminded me that viewing the past thru modern lenses is never the best idea.
Coming to this discussion late but I wonder if your interpretation of Taming of the Shrew depends on your age and how your first production was staged.
Im over 60 and my one and only exposure to TOTS was the Taylor/Burton version. Burton was abusive - remember the chase across rooftops and his pinning Taylor’s arm behind her back? But Taylor played the scene about her acquiescence with a cocked eye. So when we get to her finial speech I knew she was doing this only to get over on her husband. She was pretending. She had figured out that in that time the best way to have her way is to make the man believe he’s won. The finial scene, where she “runs” and he must pursue seals the deal for me.
I can “forgive” the brutality maybe because of the era I was born or because I understand the era it was written. It’s a play. Not a manual for marriage.
I'd definitely be accused of witchcraft back then for running my mouth lol
I have never read taming of the shrew and I have never seen a production of taming of the shrew. Listening to you read the lines in a very normal, straightforward tone I feel like he is the shrew. Granted you did not share any of her early rantings I guess. So I don’t have that background knowledge of her personality. But everything that she does is absolutely horrible. He is cruel, he is controlling, he is manipulative. I don’t see anything funny about any of his actions. I’m gonna have to go find something on Amazon or Netflix about the taming of the shrew. I agree that if everything she does is with gritted teeth or rolling her eyes, I could see how that would be funny. but truthfully I don’t see how any of his actions are ever called for. Denying somebody’s food, denying them visitation with their father, even the clothes. Unless she was whining and saying that the clothes weren’t good enough then I could understand him sending Taylor away. I found this video very interesting. And if I were in a position to stage the place I think I would probably stage it more as a drama or tragedy.
This feels like "gaslighting the play"
As far as I am concerned, the finest production of The Taming Of The Shrew can be seen in the movie version with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. It is a rollicking good time, which follows the original play, and doesn't pay court to the ridiculous notions of the modern "snowflake" generation.
I saw the Richard Burton/Elizabeth Taylor version at a child. I remember enjoying it at first but it got more and more disturbing. I was so disappointed by the final scene! I remember thinking ‘what is this? How could it end like this, it makes no sense!’ My least favourite play and I always cringe when it’s remade as modern versions. Now this analysis just make me think it’s even worse than I thought!!
It would be pretty comedic if all the actors were men, with men playing the female roles.
Petruchio is Gaslighting her just as my husband did.
The original "gaslighting" story.
I think there is a third perspective here, that might serve the comedic purpose, while respecting Katherine's wit and intelligence.
First, I don't think Petruchio really enjoys being mean, or even abusive towards Kat.
Second, maybe Kat isn't tamed in the sense of acknowledging his power over her, despite the final speech.
And I think he would not like her without her intelligence.
So what I am saying here is: what if Petruchio goes to such lengths not so much to weaken her spirit, but for her to start looking at the world in different perspectives?
Her calling the elderly man a blooming maid is totally absurd, but it might serve that purpose.
Kat, looking at her not as a woman in a chain of power, but as a human being among other human beings, may in the end find a way to look at the world in a different and more simpathetic way.
What if Petruchio doesn't tame her, but shows her the different roles and possibilities that may be part of her world?
Choosing to say no to everything is in the end the same thing of accepting in toto Petruchio's will.
Understanding the moments, the wills, the roles, the expectations and starting a marriage might well be a far more difficult task.
If she does what she is expected to, it doesn't necessarily mean that she thinks it is true and right and she is a blind hawk, nor that she dislikes it and she needs it to keep living and eating.
I think petricurio was a clown then and a clown now
A child finds this play a rollicking comedy,a full grown man knows it to be an uncomfortable farce!
Early GASLIGHTING. Relevant for political modern times - particularly the part where the moon and sun are not themselves. Or perhaps in the final scene she is Melania Trump?
Just as Iv always thought not funny