Filling the Cheap Seats
Page 14
entertaining situation comedy, but as always with Shakespeare, it offers flashes of insight and fosters lighthearted doubt about what we take for granted.
Much Ado About Nothing—A Renaissance power couple
Claudio, a strong, simple, reliable man loves Hero who matches him in simplicity and reliability with her shy quiet charm. Fortunately the play isn’t about them. Their easy obvious love does drive the play’s plot but it really serves as the foundation over which Shakespeare puts together the most interesting couple of all his plays: Benedick and Beatrice.
Benedick is a friend of Claudio with whom he serves Don Pedro. Beatrice is close friends with her cousin Hero, the daughter of Leonato, who the governor of Messina where the play is set. Beatrice and Benedick hate each other, or at least they think they do—their friends know better.
Each of them fears the submission that comes with love. They are an obvious match for one another and yet neither ever wastes an opportunity to put the other down, giving us some of Shakespeare’s most delicious bantering.
Unlike Petruchio and Kate from The Taming of the Shrew, neither ever decisively wins over the other. There are only two ways this play can end for them. Either they fall in love and thus they both win, or they keep to themselves and they both lose.
Another difference between this play and The Taming of the Shrew is that the shrew is a fantasy about how men can rule their wives while Much Ado About Nothing is more realistic. This play portrays two strong superior individuals both determined to stay true to themselves and yet each needing the other to complete themselves. Claudio and Hero are a conventional couple, a good husband and a good wife, both following the social convention that the man rules the family. Benedick and Beatrice on the other hand show us that it is possible for a man and a woman to love each other as equals, social conventions be damned!
The Merry Wives of Windsor—A barrel of laughs from a tub of lard
Among critics this is arguably their least favorite of Shakespeare's plays, but with audiences it is a perennial favorite. Giuseppe Verdi chose it as the basis of his very last opera Falstaff, so there must be something in the play.
Sir John Falstaff, the lovable rogue from The Henriad cycle of histories, needs money and he intends to get it from a rich wife. Just to be sure he gets something, he attempts to woo two women rather than just one. Never mind that both women are already married; this is not a problem for the shameless Sir John. He sends love letters to both women but puts them in the wrong envelopes, so that each gets the one meant for the other. OK, these middle aged women might be a little starved for affection from their husbands, but they aren't stupid and they would have seen through Falstaff's ruse anyway.
His mistake however does give them the chance to have a little fun at his expense. Falstaff appears at one woman's home to press his suit. Her husband arrives unexpectedly, and Falstaff hides in a basket that is then carried out. It's a bit heavy...
Falstaff with his ridiculous plan provides the comic situation, the confusion that ensues provides the slapstick, foreigners with Welsh and French accents provide ethnic humor. And in the end, Falstaff receives a well-deserved lesson.
There is nothing wrong with this play: it's a very good, very funny comedy and as close to pure comedy as Shakespeare gets with the exception of The Comedy of Errors. So why don't critics like it? Probably because they expect more from Falstaff. He fears getting caught by the husband but that does not keep him from courting his wife. He offers no catechism in this comedy about the evils of adultery or of the dark side of love, unlike in Henry IV Part One where he cautions the audience against how honor in war leads to injury or death. The fat man in this play offers us a barrel of laughs but no wisdom at all.
And to Finish…
All’s Well That Ends Well—Do two wrongs make a right?
This is a bitter play with a happy ending. It's full of people deceiving and cheating each other but the title is fulfilled and all ends well. Or does it?
Is the happiness at the end of the play deserved? Do two wrongs make a right? The well-known proverb says they do not, so we would expect Shakespeare to agree but he doesn’t. The hero and heroine, Bertram and Helena, wrong each other but in the end they get what they want, especially Helena, so two wrongs do seem to make a right. Nevertheless, something feels off.
Helena is a sincere, loving, deserving woman. Her late father was the physician to the House of Rossillion. She is in love with Bertram, the young count, but as mere servant she cannot aspire to marry into nobility. She does have an ally however in Bertram’s mother, the old Countess Rossillion. The countess thinks Helena’s qualities outshine her low status and so she finds herself very happy at the thought of Helena as her daughter-in-law. But how can Shakespeare bring the two together?
Helena’s father left her a secret cure with which she heals the dying King. He gives her a ring to thank her and as a further reward, she asks that he gives her the husband of her choice. The King agrees and she chooses Bertram. Bertram is aghast and accepts only after the King threatens him. He cheats Helena however as he resolves to go abroad without ever consummating the marriage.
He makes his way to Florence and enters the service of the Duke. Much to everyone’s surprise, not least the audience’s, Bertram reveals himself a valiant warrior. He falls in love with a local woman, Diana, but knowing he is married she refuses his advances.
In the meantime, Helena follows Bertram to Italy in secret and meets Diana. She urges Diana to demand a token from Bertram, his ancestral ring, which he foolishly gives her as a love token. Diana tells Bertram to meet her in her bedroom, but Helena takes her place. In the dark, Bertram can’t tell the difference and he beds Helena, taking Helena’s ring from the king in exchange for the one he gave Diana.
In the end all is resolved. Helena pretends to be dead only to be resurrected, revealing a ruse by which Bertram is threatened with execution. The King, as confused as we are, finally comes to understand everything when Bertram’s old friend and reformed braggart Parolles gives a crucial testimony about the ring.
But what exactly happened here?
First, Helena forces herself upon a man who wants nothing to do with her. Is this right? Shakespeare has to present Helena has an exceptionally intelligent and sympathetic woman or else everyone naturally would take Bertram’s side. We still feel Bertram shouldn’t be forced. But why do we feel this? After all, no Shakespeare audience would feel anything was wrong in forcing an unwanted husband on a woman. Think of Kate being forced to marry Petruchio in The Taming of the Shrew. Why does the reverse situation, with Bertram forced to marry Helena, make us feel something is wrong?
Second, Bertram initially turns down Helena merely because she is of low status. Even in Shakespeare’s day some regard was given to merit and ability. Bertram’s refusal seems petty. So why would Helena want him after that?
Third, both Bertram and Helena lack empathy for the other; they resort to lies and tricks to get to their ends. We say all’s fair in love and war, yet how can we claim to love someone on whom we so readily play tricks?
A contrite Bertram marries a triumphant Helena, but Helena is wise enough to understand that her future is built upon a shaky foundation. When Bertram tells her he will love her dearly, she warns him that if “it prove untrue, deadly divorce step between me and you” (Act V, scene 3 lines 314-315).
In other words, we have a very gray play. We have good people doing bad things; Bertram and Helena trick each other, while the King and the countess take no heed of Bertram’s feelings, and a host of minor characters participate in the various charades. We have bad things leading to good results; Bertram is forgiven and he and Helena marry. But the good ending is corrupted. Helena and Bertram will always live with the memory of having deceived and cheated each other.
All’s not so well after all…
FINIS!
About
the author
Vincent Poirier was born in Montreal, Canada where he now lives. Before moving back to his home town, he lived in Japan for 23 years where he worked as an information technology manager in the financial industry. You can find out more about the author on his website.
https://vincent.poirier.com/