I recently read about a new all-male production of Much Ado About Nothing. This is far from novel; indeed, many productions of Shakespeare’s plays are performed with all-male or all-female casts. The question each time it happens, of course, is why? What does that approach mean now? Ostensibly, some of it is rooted in a historical interest in recapturing the feel of Shakespeare as it was performed in his own time. As is well known, the ladies’ roles were played by boy actors (which helps explain why so many Shakespearean female characters have such comparatively small roles). In essence, Shakespeare never wrote a part for a woman. He always wrote it for a man playing a woman.

You could argue this issue the same way the issue of race is often debated in Shakespeare. Just as some actors of color might balk at the idea of playing a part written by and for a white actor, so to might an actress reject playing a role that is essential a man’s version of what it means to be a woman. Politics aside, how do single-gendered productions escape novelty? Even if it is not played as a drag show (with unintentional comedy encourage and augmented), does it ultimately boil down to an acting exercise rather than a rendering of the play? That’s the quandary such productions must resolve: if you “forget” you’re watching a cross-gendered actor, then what is the point of doing it in the first place? If you notice (or are reminded of) the change, are you performing the play and its characters or commenting on them?

A new production of Twelfth Night is being hailed by one critic for taking the play in new directions. As the writer notes, this particular comedy of Shakespearean identity is typically handled with a very light touch (save for some comic highlights which tend to get milked for all they are worth). The critic describes this version as bittersweet and even a bit melancholy, suggesting deeper meanings that other productions might be tempted to gloss over. To evoke that darker side, the production has put some of Shakespeare’s words to music, since the Fool sings frequently. The difference in this version, is the original music is stylized to evoke torch songs.

One of the key area that can get short shrift in productions of this play is its exploration of sexuality. Although everyone ends up in a male-female couple by the end, along the way there are many pairings that suggest questions about identity and sexuality. For instance, what do we make of Olivia falling in love with Viola in drag? Similarly, how do we play Orsino’s feelings for Viola, whom he knows for the majority of the lay as a man? Interestingly, this version sidesteps one more complication via cross-gendered casting. Viola’s lost twin Sebastian is aided greatly by Antonio, whose feelings for Sebastian have often been played as romantic. In this production, the character is female, thus removing any homoerotic implications. The choice isn’t necessarily right or wrong; rather, it highlights Twelfth Night’s chameleon-like nature—it can be a play about all kinds of love.

Don’t you just love this picture?  One of our cast members drew this amazing picture to be on the back of our cast/crew t-shirts this year!  I went to him and our set designer and I said, “Okay, here’s what I want for our t-shirts this year - I want a shrew (you know, the animal shrew) in a beautiful Elizabethan dress, holding some kind of weaponry, looking like she’s doing the taming!”  Their response - “A mouse in a dress?”  Yup, that’s what I want!  And this is what I got!  I can hardly wait to get our t-shirts made!

Craig asked me a great question after my last post - “Why Shrew?”  He mentioned the fact that it’s about the public submission of a woman (how, exactly, is that entertaining?), and he was wondering why I chose this play, and also how my teenage cast was reacting to the storyline.  I really appreciate his question because it’s always good as a director to question things - interpretations, visions, the text of the play to some extent - This should never be a “set in stone” experience (well, at least until dress rehearsals, maybe!!!)!

So, why Shrew?  I chose this play primarily because it’s a fun play…Anyone who has seen the Burton/Taylor 1967 film would agree, I think!  There is a ton of physical humor involved, and if you consider who’s doing the smacking around, it’s not Petruchio beating Katharina into submission - it’s Katharina breaking a lute over Hortensio’s head; Katharina smacking her sister, Bianca; Katharina hitting Petruchio; Katharina hitting Grumio…Katharina has some serious anger issues to overcome in this story.  Katharina is a young woman who is almost like the ugly step-sister (even though she is quite beautiful).  She is not her father’s favorite - that title goes to Bianca, Katharina’s younger sister.  Any time a parent plays favorites there is going to be resentment, and it is clear that Katharina is very resentful.  Because of this resentment, she is acting out against everyone - Baptista, Bianca, all of her sister’s suitors, and especially Petruchio when he comes a’ callin’!  She has not learned how to deal with her hurt and her anger, and so she has become horribly shrewish.

Petruchio’s methods of “taming” his new wife have been criticized over and over again, particularly in the 20th century with the feminist movement.  He speaks of Katharina like she’s his ”falcon” (4.1), denying her food in order to make her completely dependent upon him.  He plans to keep her up all night, hungry and exhausted, so that she will be more submissive.  I realize that from a modern standpoint this sounds perfectly horrible!  It doesn’t really sound all that funny to talk about causing physical discomfort like this to one’s new bride, or to anyone for that matter.  But it’s important to consider that Shakespeare was not writing this play during the 20th century - he was writing the way a man in the 16th century would write.  I wouldn’t honestly expect anything different.  A recent discussion in the eNotes Book Club concerned this very thing. Should an author write accurately and be true to what his characters would say, or should he candy-coat it and make it nice and palatable for all people to read?  I don’t believe for a minute that Shakespeare was some horrible mysoginist - I think he was writing for his time.  What else could we expect?

So why does Petruchio determine that it is worth his time to “tame” Katharina?  He could have found a much more willing, just as wealthy bride, given a bit more time.  I believe he truly fell in love with her.  The Burton/Taylor film depicts Petruchio as more concerned about his “20,000 crowns” than for the welfare of Katharina, as she runs across a roof to escape from him, almost falling to her death.  But that was something Zeffirelli threw in to make it funnier - that is NOT in Shakespeare’s text.  I was struck by something that Petruchio says in Act 5, scene 2, when my afterschool reading group went through the play this past semester.  At the wedding feast for Lucentio and Bianca, Katharina is demonstrating for Petruchio’s sake that her ways are mended - that she is no longer the unhappy, violent woman she once was.  After witnessing her submissiveness to her husband, Lucentio says, disbelievingly, “Here is a wonder, if you talk of a wonder.”  Hortensio agrees, saying, “And so it is.  I wonder what it bodes.”  Petruchio’s reply touched my heart:

“Marry, peace it bodes, and love, and quiet life,
An awful rule, and right supremacy,
And, to be short, what not that’s sweet and happy.”

That’s all he wanted with Katharina - peace, love and a quiet life, and all that is sweet and happy.  (”Awful” in the third line, by the way, means “profoundly respectful or reverential,” according to Schmidt’s on-line lexicon - http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.03.0068%3Aentry%3D%23424.  Petruchio wanted respect, as we all do, I believe. And yes, he wanted “right supremacy” - to be the head of his house - as any 16th-century man would have wanted.)  I think this touched me because of what I was like during the first few years of marriage to my saint of a husband.  Because some of my students read this blog, I won’t go into specifics, but trust me, I had Katharina matched in the “shrew” department.  It was my husband’s peace and love and desire for a kind, quiet life, that finally helped me see that there is a better way of dealing with frustrations.  Petruchio just went about it as a 16th-century man would.

By the way, my teenagers seem to really be drawn to the sibling rivalry between Bianca and Katharina.  What kid hasn’t, at one time or another, felt honestly like their parents loved, admired, liked, whatever, their sibling(s) better than themselves?  Many adults still believe that!  The cast seems to really enjoy the fact that Bianca ends up possibly not as submissive and obedient as her father always believed her to be, and they love it when Baptista gives Petruchio “Another dowry, to another daughter,/For she is changed, as she had never been.” (5.2)  They see that Katharina did need to change her attitude and her actions, but then once she does, her parent is thrilled to death with her and sees the good in Katharina that before wasn’t evident.

I hope this helps everyone see a different side of this wonderful play. It helps to stick solely to the text, rather than worry about what other people say about it. I have found, too, that reading one of his plays multiple times (I think I’ve read Shrew now about seven times, plus seen three different stage and film versions) really helps a 21st-century person wrap their heads around the language and all of the nuances of what Shakespeare was saying. Give it a try - It’s worth the ride!

The settling-in period has begun…the students are figuring out who they’re related to in the play, and…EEEK!  “I’m a suitor to her?!?  What the heck is a suitor?  What on earth did I sign up for?!?!”  Seriously, though, they are all very excited to figure out the new relationships, especially now that I have finished and distributed the scripts.

Last year, I was merciless about girls playing guys…I really had very little choice in the matter as it was imperative (to me) that Dogberry, Verges, and the Watch be men.  In keeping the production as traditional as I could, I did not feel comfortable swapping out guy roles and making them into female characters.  That could also probably have something to do with the fact that I can’t picture anyone but Michael Keaton being Dogberry after his wonderful performance in Branagh’s Much Ado!  Hilarious!  But besides my own personal likes/dislikes/opinions, there was the simple fact that I was doing something I had never done before - directing a play.  It was completely out of my comfort zone to do this in the first place, and the thought of switching character genders never even crossed my mind.  I just wanted to present Shakespeare in a positive light to my students, their families, and our audience, so I didn’t tamper with the text very much!

This year, though, I know my girls just want to be girls…They don’t want to have to wear grungy pants, sport unibrows and beards, and try to walk as masculine as possible.  They want to wear the pretty dresses the other actresses got to wear last year…and can I really blame them for that?  Of course not…I would be right there with them, wanting the gorgeous feminine costumes that our designer created, as opposed to orange pants, brown shirts, and burlap vests!  So I have done some “gender-modification” with this year’s cast (and I’m not even a licensed doctor!).  I have Baptista, played by my Dogberry from last year, as the overwrought mother of Bianca and Katharina, trying desperately to find a husband for her eldest (sounds vaguely reminiscent of Mrs. Bennet in Pride and Prejudice!).  Two of Petruchio’s household servants will be played by girls and will actually be girls - Isabella and Celia (instead of Nathaniel and Curtis).  I also have the Lord who plays the trick on Christopher Sly as a Lady, out for a hunt with her friend (also a girl).

It will be interesting and fun to see what people’s reactions are to these changes.  I know there are purists out there who may think I’m somehow tampering with a sacred formula for “doing” Shakespeare (some might even be in the cast), but hopefully people will realize that this is not a professional theatre troupe - these are junior high and high school kids who are gradually gaining an appreciation for Shakespeare (not to mention a certain amount of trust in me to keep things fun - this is, after all, their summer vacation they’re dedicating to this project).  If making Baptista a woman helps someone enjoy her summer more, then hey!  I see no problem with that.  Do I agree with professional troupes that are trying to make a point by making all of the characters women (or dogs, or Martians, or whatever)?  Well, it wouldn’t be my first choice of how to do a play, but then, I don’t have to buy tickets to it either.  My point here is that gender-swapping for the sake of saying, “Let’s see what we can do that’s different than everyone else!” is not necessarily my idea of how to use the text.  But for the sake of helping kids enjoy theater more?  I’m all for it…unless, of course, they ask to all be Martians…I’ve got to draw a line somewhere!