Between Man and Beast or why gorillas are not proof of Bigfoot

reel-between_man_and_beast-pgr

There is a yet again a resurgent interest in Bigfoot. No, I am not talking about American cable television’s manic obsession with the beast. Thankfully this seems to be on the wane. After 7 years, Finding Bigfoot may be gone, in large part because it has yet to find a clue, never mind an 8-foot monster. No, its now mainstream science and journalists who are jumping on the Wildman’s bandwagon.

Former Oxford Professor of genetics, Brian Sykes, put a call out for Bigfoot samples a few years back as part of a plan to conduct genetic analysis of the material. He and his colleagues called this the Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project. What he found remains as elusive as what he was looking for. At first it was thought he found a possible hybrid bear that would explain Yeti sightings, but it turns out the sampling may have been flawed. The media, as usual ,is contradicting themselves as to his other findings. But soon, it turns out, we can all read about the project in his unnamed upcoming book on the subject. Or will we? Each day, as more and more information flows across the Internet, new questions and concerns arise. Is he really an Oxford fellow? Yes, but he has not been associated with the institution for over a decade. What is this Wolfson Institute, he claims to be a member of? Turns out, it’s mythical. Sykes says he needed more college cred, so he made up a one man Institution. Humm. I wonder if I could do that and apply for Federal funds?

Why am I bringing this up? Because not much about this is new. We’ve seen this played out before. Only last the time it wasn’t Bigfoot, it was the elusive gorilla. Yet to be fair, there is one major difference between the two: contrary to popular belief (or lies-to-adults) the early 19th century science community understood the gorilla to be fact. What they could not agree on was what kind of ape was it? What did it look like? With little more than stories and a few skulls and leg bones to go by, the community was torn.

Today many Bigfoot enthusiasts use the gorilla as their go-to story on why the search for Bigfoot ought to continue. The common view is that the gorilla was myth until African explores found and killed a few. The idea that a myth turned into fact is why I picked up Monte Reel’s Between Man and Beast. An Unlikely explorer, the evolution debates, and the African Adventurer that took the Victorian world by storm.

 images-3

Reel recounts the life and adventures of Paul Du Chaillu, the unlikely adventurer who brought back several stuffed gorillas along with bones and tales of the mighty beast.

What fascinated me wasn’t so much the adventure. It turns out it wasn’t all that hard to find and kill gorillas. But the scientific backlash that followed. Du Chaillu was the first to bring back a body and watch them in the wild, yet this did not stop the scientific community from calling him a fraud. It was unimaginable that a young, uneducated, underfunded Frenchman could have gone into the heart of Africa and shot gorillas.

As I read the book I could not help but be reminded again and again of Bigfoot hunters, the stories associated with the creature, and the lengths people will go to in order to ingratiate themselves into the myth of the beast. Some find it hard to believe that so many would lie about seeing such a creature. Reel’s book shows us that is a very human and often repeated human trait.

Early on in the book, as Du Chaillu first sets out to find the Gorilla, his guides tell him what we would now describe as campfire stories. In one of these stories a gorilla chases two women. One gets away, the other does not. The tribe, thinking the second woman has been eaten, is surprised upon her return. She claimed (so they say) to have been raped by the gorilla, “leaving her traumatized but otherwise unharmed”. (52) Other native stories tell of how gorillas are possessed by human spirits. In fact, spirit possession was part of the early native gorilla lore. The spirits of dead warriors inhabited gorillas and because of this, these supernatural man/apes could not be killed. Anyone who knows anything about Native American Wildman lore can see the similarities. Anyone who has read accounts of encounters with Bigfoot have read accounts of women who claim to have been raped by the beast.

You and I have probably never heard of Charles Waterton, but all of Victorian England would have known him quite well. He was a rival of John James Audubon. Both were naturalists specializing in birds, but Waterton, not content to specialize in just one thing, credited himself with discovering several species including the gorilla. Not having anyway of proving it didn’t stop him from telling stories about his adventures with the gorilla. He even claimed to have kept one as a pet, which is odd since no one ever saw it or its corpse. It was Waterton who led the charge against Du Chaillu. Waterton was an egomaniac who wanted the spotlight for himself. Perhaps on some level he believed his own stories. Yet the question I asked myself as I read this book is why, if he wanted to be the one to discover the gorilla, didn’t he? After all it turns out gorilla bones were easily attainable.

It was the first and last time I was ever on a Cayman's back" From Waterton's book Adventures in the Amazon 1825
It was the first and last time I was ever on a Cayman’s back” From Waterton’s book Adventures in the Amazon 1825

Before Du Chaillu stepped off the boat into the heart of the African jungle, he put a call out for gorilla bones and skulls. He had promised the Philadelphia Natural Society (who promised to fund his expedition) he would send ship bones to them. His request from the natives resulted in a return of so many bones that he quickly stopped paying for them. Let that sink in for a moment. Before the first white man ever set eyes on a gorilla, the creature was already a well-documented fact. Bones had been coming out of Africa for several years. They had physical proof that it existed. What the scientific community didn’t know was what the creature looked like or what he ate. Contrast this with Bigfoot. Men have been hunting him for almost 100 years, and yet not one bone has been found. There is no physical proof, yet the tie between finding Bigfoot and finding a gorilla remains. Hunters continue to use the story of the “elusive” gorilla as proof of an elusive Bigfoot.

Du Chaillu’s adventures into Africa are only a fraction of the story. In less than two months he had spotted and killed two gorillas. Let that sink in Bigfoot hunters. Europeans had some physical proof of the beast. When someone decided to brave the African interior with the sole purpose of finding a gorilla, it took just a few months to do so.

The real drama of the story played out within the scientific community as they battled to decide how the gorilla fit into their worldview. Was this proof of co-evolution or was this proof that man deserved a special place among other species? The battles between those who risk their lives to bring back new species and those who worked to qualify and classify them could be very ugly. Add into this volatile mix were dissenting voices from armchair adventurers, seeking to snatch the glory for themselves.

Reel’s book is a fascinating account of the ugly side of science normally hidden from view. The book gives Du Chaillu, a man who is lost to history, long overdue credit for bringing back not just gorillas but inspiring other adventures and writers. If it were not for Du Chaillu, Author Conan Doyle would never have thought to write The Lost World, nor Jack London Call of the Wild. Both men read and credit Du Chaillu’s book Adventures and Explorations, as their inspiration.

Isn’t it funny how some things never change? Once again we have an elusive beast in which stories of rape and spirit possession abound. The scientific community is all too eager to discredit anyone who claims to have proof of its existence and many armature explorers will do just about anything (including making fools of themselves on TV) to be the first to bag the beast. The difference of course is that this time there is no physical proof that makes this a worthwhile endeavor. Or is there? Professor Sykes, we wait on you, claws extended.

Can we still enjoy Much Ado About Nothing?

branagh-03

I haven’t watched Kenneth Branagh’s adaptation of Much Ado about Nothing since it’s 1993 release. I completely forgot how delightful the movie and the play truly are. This in part thanks to some modern scholars and theater directors.

I reread the play last month as part of a Future Learn class, but because I do not buy into the scholarly idea that this is a problem play, I didn’t get much out of the class. It seems to me modern scholars make much ado about nothing. Or at least, much ado about something we needed not think so hard on. When we chose to use our modern sensibilities as guides to inform us about a pre-modern plays with there will always be problems. But if we bother to look at this play from an Elizabethan audience perspective we find there is no problem.

My goal here is not to overly criticize modern scholars and directors as some of their points are valid; the role of women as objects is a worthy subject. But, when Shakespeare’s plays are placed under a microscope, scholars lose the big picture. Shakespeare understood the subject matter he addresses it in the play. Critics don’t like his solution and therefor tend to ignore it. This does a disservice to the play. Modern theater companies tend to make it darker than it need be. We need only to compare the Royal Shakespeare Theater’s 2013 production to the Branagh film to see how modern attitudes can affect the likability of the play.

In order to understand why Branagh’s film is a breath of fresh air and a film worthy of praise, we need to understand the subject matter Shakespeare addresses and his understated answer or his “moral of the story”, if you will. There is a lot to unpack but for discussion sake, I will keep it brief.

Here come the spoilers!

In a nutshell, Much Ado about Nothing is a play about two sets of lovers and the fragility of love and courtship. It is possibly the most socially realistic of his plays in its portrait of class difference and community life. The pain is contrasted and constraint by joy. As in all of Shakespeare’s comedies this play’s misunderstanding are sorted out and ends with a wedding scene.

Don Pedro (a prince of Aragon) accompanied by a band of soldiers, travels to the small town of Messina. It is mentioned that Pedro has an uncle in Messina but we never see him. It is the governor, Leonato, that Pedro decides to stay with. The soldier Claudio (a lord of Florence) instantly falls in love with Leonato’s daughter Hero. Hero’s cousin Beatrice and Benedick, another soldier, have an antagonistic relationship, one that was cemented before the soldiers return from an unnamed war. Upon Benedick’s return the two once begin trading barbs. It is obvious to all that that these two are in love, yet neither will admit it. It will take light-hearted subterfuge to get them together.

Claudio and Hero have no such problems confessing their love. When Claudio tells Pedro he wants to marry Hero, a quick (yet unnecessary) plot is hatched to woo and win her hand. The comedy turns dark when Pedro’s illegitimate brother, Don John, decides to interfere. His companion, Borachio (Italian for “drunkard”) devises a plan in which John convinces Claudio and Pedro to watch as “Hero” and Borachio have sex the night before the wedding. Claudio, enraged, publically shames Hero at the alter and throws her back at her father calling her a whore. Hero “dies” at the alter and is buried in a shroud of shame. When John’s devious plot is revealed, Claudio begs Leonato to punish him as he sees fit, believing he has killed the woman he loved. Leonato tells Claudio he must publicly admit his guilt and then marry his niece; a lady Claudio cannot meet or see until after he marries her. Claudio agrees to the terms. As it turns out, Leonato’s niece is really Hero, who has been in hiding waiting for the truth of her virtue to come out. That she agrees to marry the man who publicly shamed her is the modern scholars problem.

Elizabethans on the other hand, would have been very familiar with this plot. Shakespeare did not make it up out of whole cloth. Sexual slander was a theme sixteen-century theater audiences were quite familiar with. Aristo’s Orland Furiouso and Juan Martorell’s Tirant lo Blanco are two earlier works so similar to Shakespeare’s that we can safely assume he drew upon them. Seventeen-century playwrights would also use this theme as a way of satirizing English sensibilities. Cecil Sheridan’s A School for Scandal comes to mind.

That Hero agrees to marry Claudio may be disagreeable, but it shouldn’t shock us. In reality she has little choice in the matter, as it is her father that decides the wedding will take place. When the idea of her “death’ at the alter is voiced by the priest, it is her father, not Hero who agrees. It is her father who decides Claudio will marry her, even if it takes trickery to seal the deal. Hero has little to say about the matter as her voice is silenced by the pre-modern patriarchal society she lives in. This is the setting of the play, not modern England where woman are allowed to chose and reject their suitors.

Shakespeare knew fully well what he was writing. He could have easily kept the story a tragedy as it was in earlier plays. Instead, he couples it with humor by the pairing of Beatrice and Benedick. On the outset it seems these two couples are opposite but closer inspection shows us they are not. Beatrice and Benedick use words to hurt each other in order to avoid personal pain. They seem to be afraid of each other. It is only after overhearing conversations in which each thinks the other is in love, that they come together. Hero is easily wooed by Pedro’s words about Claudio yet Claudio, in his self-doubt, is easily blinded by John’s.

Shakespeare is telling us that in this time and place what people and society think are important (when isn’t it?). So important that Hero “dies” when she is called a whore, and resurrects when her honor is restored. Shakespeare knows Claudio is a flawed character and why he is flawed. His solution is to allows Claudio some redemption by way of punishment. Claudio must agree to marry a woman whose reputation and face is unknown. His station in life in part depends on whom he marries; yet he is willing submit to whatever fate has in store for him. He honors Leonato by his willingness to forgo social constraints. In doing so he finally achieves a measure of honor.

Many modern directors make Claudio so unlikable that there is little impact to this last scene. Audiences are so uncomfortable with the play’s progression that the unfortunate actor playing Claudio is painted into a corner. He can only hope his punishment fits the crime. I’ve seen one play that has the actor so vile that his acquiescence is little more than lip service. I pictured him dumping his veiled wife as soon as no one was looking. From all of this you might think this is one of Shakespeare’s least liked plays. It is not. This is one of the few plays that has never gone out of theatrical style.

Which brings us back to Branagh. As I reread and studied the play, it occurred to me that my memory of the movie in no way matched the ideas that were being presented to me as of late. I had to wonder if I had missed something in my introduction to the play? Is is possible to still enjoy the play?

This is a must see movie for so many reasons! One does not have to admire Shakespeare to fall in love with this adaptation. Between the setting and the acting there is much ado about this film.

Branagh sets his film in the lush hills of Tuscany. One can watch this a second time for the cinematography alone.

Branagh plays Benedick with the wonderful Emma Thompson as Beatrice. At the time, these two were in love and their passion for each other jumps off the screen. Some scholars suggest Beatrice and Benedick would end up having a doomed relationship, as their barbs would make it impossible for them to respect and love each other. Branagh and Thompson prove that it’s there hidden meaning, not the words alone that cement this marriage. It’s in thanks to Shakespeare that whenever modern fictionalized bickering male/female characters are first introduced we automatically know they will end up together. Branagh reminds us why we love this plot device.

Denzel Washington plays a very convincing Don Pedro. He range of mood: authoritative, compassionate, and contrition works. Keanu Reeves on the other hand only has one mood; that of a brooding malcontent. His character is so one-dimensional that it borders on the absurd. This is the only flaw I can find in the movie.

Michael Keaton more than makes up for Reeves’ wooden performance. Keaton is tasked with playing Dogberry, a beloved comical character who is not always easy to play. I’ve heard people complain that Keaton goes overboard with his representation but they forget he is introduced as the play switches from comedy to tragedy. Dogberry is inserted into the play as a reminder to the audience that this is still a comedy. Keaton’s Dogberry arrives on horseback in Monty Pythonesque style (that is, there is no horse). It is so out of left field that I laughed out loud, and for a moment forgot I was about to see the tragedy of Hero. Well played, sir, well played.

Robert Sean Leonard has the task of making us both like and dislike Claudio. I am not sure what his intent was but he managed to be dull, both as a potential lover and scorned groom. This actually worked in his favor, as Claudio is supposed to be malleable. Make him too likeable and his actions at the alter come across as false. Make him too distasteful and Hero’s affection for him, equal as false. Leonard comes across as a young man on the edge of manhood who is easily swayed by those around him.

The humor involves subtle slapstick. Watching Benedick as he tries to unfold a lawn chair while eavesdropping on a conversation reminds us just how funny Branagh can be.

Everyone is this film is a pleasure to watch. Branagh has a gift for surrounding himself with talented people, and is the kind of director who allows their talents to shine. The movie is just plain fun. It is a feel good movie that makes us realize why we still love Shakespeare.

If you’ve never watched a movie based on one of Shakespeare’s plays, start with this one. It may be one of the best.

I’d love to hear which is your favorite.

Amazing Waste

Repurposing Food and Reducing Waste

measurestillformeasure

Shakespeare, Classics, Theatre, Thoughts

Nerd Cactus

Quirky Intellect for the Discerning Nerd

Sillyverse

Stories of magic and mystery

Commonplace Fun Facts

Mind-Blowing Facts You Didn’t Know

Fictionophile

Fiction reviews, Bookblogger, Fiction book reviews, books, crime fiction, author interviews, mystery series, cover, love, bookish thoughts...

Patrick W. Marsh

monsters, monsters, everywhere

Shakespeare for Kids Books

Opening the door for kids to love Shakespeare and the classics

desperatelyseekingcymbeline

The 10-year Shakespeare New Year Resolution

Katzenworld

Welcome to the world of cats!

booksandopinions.com

The Book Reviews You Can Trust!

The Book Review Directory

For Readers and Writers

thelitcritguy

screams from the void

Author Adrienne Morris

Step Into the Past—Lose Yourself in the Story.

crafty theatre

ideas inspired by crafty characters

Critical Dispatches

Reports from my somewhat unusual life

The Nerd Nebula

The Nucleus of the Universe for all Nerd Hacks!