Shakespeare’s Prop Room- a review

9781476663364
McFarland & Company 2016

 

“Shakespeare’s Prop Room an Inventory” is hard to pin down. While at times it offers insight into Elizabethan theater life and may prove useful to theater groups, its arguments tend to be self-serving and a little questionable. If you are wondering why a book about props would propose arguments at all, let me assure you, this book offers more than a scholarly look at props; at times is reads as if the authors believe the plays to be some missing Christian gospels, which left me with a feeling of unease.

I blame Ralph Alan Cohen for setting me up. I was so eager to dive into the book after reading his foreword. In it he writes in part:

Crass considerations can get us deeper into the plays…What might a show look like? What was on stage? What were they holding? What objects are we dealing with?”

“And that is the question that Shakespeare’s props asks so well, questions that unlocks so much…It is a book that points but does not push the reader towards answers. …it is material to an understanding of the plays and matters to the production of a performance”.

I am not convinced Cohen read the entire book before he wrote the foreword. The first two chapters “Bring out your dead”, and “Off with his head” are highly enjoyable and as promised, offer some understanding of the plays; I can see both chapters as valuable material to any modern theater group looking for a deeper understanding of the norms and customs of Shakespeare’s day. But starting with chapter 3, Exit pursued by a bear” ,the book shifts focus and uses biblical passages to make the argument that Shakespeare relied heavily on the Bible for his imagery and made good use of his plays as arguments for Christianity. This is an odd argument to make, given that scholars know he used Ovid and older plays as his primary source material. The chapter is brief, (and possibly unnecessary as there are few animals in the plays) but somehow manages to talk about everything from Macbeth’s hounds of hell, to that of man taming his own inner beast, and then jumps to Caliban-is he man or fish-which somehow turns to Jonah and the whale. The author even finds the time to remind us on page 46 that, “God assures us we are made in his image, in his likeness, and like Prospero, have dominion over the fish of the sea…”

This short rambling chapter seemed so widely out of place that I had to read it twice to find any connection to the book it sits in. I am still not sure what any of this has to do with Shakespeare’s prop room.

In chapter 9, Welcome to our table”, the authors state “Behind every dinner lurked the last supper”. So much for Cohen’s claim that the authors points but does not push the reader towards answers. As part of their biblical argument the authors cite Jan Kott, a critic known to have interpreted the plays in light of existentialism, and his own personal experiences. The choice of Kott seems a little odd until one realizes he is used to bolster the authors’ Shakespeare/Christian argument.

A few chapters later we return to talking of props and their use with no mention of Christian leanings. As I read these later chapters, it dawned on me that the two authors may not have collaborated much. Perhaps each took a few chapter subjects and wrote separately. If this were true it would go a long way to explain why some chapters tend towards the utilitarian use of props while others towards the Bible as a metaphorical prop in Shakespeare’s plays.

If you sift through the biblical references and table some of the arguments for later, you may enjoy the book as a theater prop guide. Be warned, it is not the book Ralph Alan Cohen read, which is too bad because that book sounds amazing.

I received this book from Librarything’s Early Reader program in exchange for a fair and honest review.

Branagh’s Romeo & Juliet, my review

ROMEO AND JULIET by Shakespeare,         , Writer - William Shakespeare, Director - Rob Ashford and Kenneth Branagh, Set and Costume Designer - Christopher Oram, Lighting - Howard Hudson, The Garrick Theatre, London, 2016,  Credit: Johan Persson
ROMEO AND JULIET by Shakespeare, , Writer – William Shakespeare, Director – Rob Ashford and Kenneth Branagh, Set and Costume Designer – Christopher Oram, Lighting – Howard Hudson, The Garrick Theatre, London, 2016, Credit: Johan Persson

Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross’d lovers take their life;
Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents’ strife.
The fearful passage of their death-mark’d love,
And the continuance of their parents’ rage,
Which, but their children’s end, nought could remove,
Is now the two hours’ traffic of our stage;
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.

These are the opening lines of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. The Chorus pulls no punches in his brief summary of what the audience is about to see. The Chorus could hardly be clearer, thought I suppose we could break it down to one sentence. Two noble families discover that their ongoing feud brings about in the death of each houses’ child and in this tragedy finally find peace.

You could argue that the Chorus is offering the first “trigger warning” as he mentions the word death twice, notes the lover’s “end” and let’s us know they will “take their life”.  The play is supposed to be a double warning about passion; old feuds make for new deaths and if not checked, lead to dangerous and rash decisions. In other words, passion, whether it is fueled by rage or by lust, can lead to bitter consequences.

You’d think these lines would be sufficient for the audience’s understanding of Shakespeare’s intent, but you’d be wrong. Time and time again directors ignore the playwright’s overall double theme of passion, so much so that Romeo and Juliet is now thought of as the western canon’s greatest love story. The biggest problem with this idea (besides offering the greatest love story as a double suicide) is in its execution; if this play is the west’s greatest love story, why then do so many productions fall short of offering a great love story? Why are audiences and reviewers always so critical of what they have just witnessed? I argue it is because we view the play much as Plato viewed forms; while the abstract is always pure and perfect, any attempt to recreate it into base matter will always result in some pollution and never fully measure up to our ideal play. Romeo and Juliet may be thought of as the perfect love story, but in reality it is far from the perfect love story. The audience’s expectation is never fully met, yet some how this play continues to draw both crowds and directors who are convinced that ‘This time it will be great!”

Take for example Kenneth Branagh’s latest adaptation, produced for the Garrick London stage. The play should have been a hit as it offers Branagh as co-director and two young actors, Lily James and Richard Madden who wowed audiences in Cinderella. Yet critics find little to love in about this play. The Guardian says, “The plot is slapdash; the coincidences preposterous; the main characters not interestingly conflicted, just doomed”. The Telegraph thought James saved the play (they must have seen it on a different night than I) but finds Madden “ordinary” and saw no value in Derek Jacob version of an older Mercutio: “He’s generations older than his pal Romeo, this refined gent who minces into view, in mock attitude of an old groover, silver-topped cane (sheathing a sword) a-twirl. He might have stepped out of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, and there’s little sense of a life cruelly cut short when he hobbles off, bleeding to death”.

Both reviews found the play lackluster, and though both could point to some specifics, each noted that there was something amiss but couldn’t quite pin down exactly what it lacked. For me there is little doubt what it lacked. It lacked focus and the passion the play is supposed to represent.

The beautiful verses Shakespeare wrote fall flat when uttered by James and Madden. The Guardian notes, “Their speaking is earthbound”, and I have to agree; in fact most of the actors fall short of delivering anything that resembles passion. As my friend noted, Juliet’s father spoke his lines as if he was reading from cue cards, or at least yelling from cue cards.

In order for this play to work as any kind of love story the two characters must show the passion they have for each other along with the emotional instability brought on by a lost love. Shakespeare uses the word “death” 48 times in the play but balances these lines with some of his best flowery speech about love. Both Romeo and Juliet foreshadow their deaths several times but gush over each other with equal measure. But James stumbles and mumbles Juliet’s famous lover’s vow, “My bounty is as boundless as the sea. My love as deep. The more I give to thee,. The more I have, for both are infinite” yet emphasizes her fear of living without Romeo crying out, “Come, cords, come, nurse; I’ll to my wedding-bed; and death, not Romeo, take my maidenhead!” The constant stress on death was so over the top that my friend turned to me and quipped, “Hey you think Romeo is going to die? This constant stress on death made the play less of a love story and more like an inevitable head on collision.

And here in lies the problem with this play. While the audience is being primed for the inevitable end so are the characters. It seems like the two know they are doomed from the start so any declaration of love rings hollow especially given the two actor’s lackluster performances.

This version of the play is a perfect illustration of my argument against this being a love story. The coincidences that result in the double deaths are absurd and when emphasized make for a strange and silly story (what is Paris doing in Juliet’s tomb in the middle of the night?). Shakespeare tells us right up front that this is warning to those who continue to fight and the consequences of hate. Yet for some reason we’ve convinced ourselves that this is a love story; one that is told rather badly time and time again. No wonder audiences and critics are always let down.

But if you really feel the need to see this version, it runs through August 3rd.

 

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!