Shake

What is it about the works of William Shakespeare that appeal to us today? Is it the poetry, the violence, the humor, or the romance? Is it because all of these things relate to our times? No. These aspects of ShakespeareÐŽ¦s plays have always appealed to audiences. ShakespeareÐŽ¦s plays are timeless, and due to this enduring significance, the BardÐŽ¦s works have easily translated to film. Scarcely a Shakespearean play has not been made and remade numerous times into to a movie, and more often than not the film is either a hit at the box office or critically acclaimed. There is something about Shakespeare that has continued to capture the attention of audiences for the past four hundred years. In our present age of short-attention spans and exploding graphics, it is difficult to imagine that literature and poetry could attract people to the movies, but it seems that film has become the best medium for Shakespeare. All that the stage once limited can now be seen at the movies in its full glory; what the Bard wrote for everybody may now be known visually and in total splendor.

In Taming of the Shrew, we are presented with the story of a very independent woman and a very controlling man in an Elizabethan Battle of the Sexes. Appropriately, the female submits to the male and all is happy and well. For many, this is certainly not the best story to update to the present era of liberated women. On the contrary, Taming of the Shrew is an ideal film to update to our time. In 1967, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton starred in Franco ZeffirelliÐŽ¦s version of Taming. For those familiar with the history of the 20th century, you may recall that the 1960ÐŽ¦s are somewhat notable for the womenÐŽ¦s liberation movement. Zeffirelli directed a film that, on the surface, advocates female obedience to males. Upon careful inspection, however, it can be seen that submission was not the message at all. When Shakespeare wrote Taming, Queen Elizabeth I sat on the throne of England. Elizabeth was a famous shrew who ruled alone without the aid of a man. Such autonomy by females was not commonplace and certainly not appreciated. So when this playwright named William Shakespeare came out with this story of a strong-willed woman being tamed by a brutish man, many felt it was a commentary on Elizabeth and an appropriate way for a woman to behave. Shakespeare may have had another message to send. The shrew Katrina is starved and sleep deprived before she submits to her husband Petruchio. Was Shakespeare saying that a woman must be beaten down before she gives in? Or perhaps that the only thing that defeats a strong female spirit is madness? Either way, it is obvious that Shakespeare was making a statement about ÐŽ§appropriateЎЁ behavior for men and women of his world. Zeffirelli took this statement, and using the BardÐŽ¦s own words, made a statement for his own time. Was Zeffirelli saying that women should obey men? This was probably not his message. In the final scene where Katrina gives her speech on the duty of the obedient wife, Shakespeare had written that both Petruchio and Katrina exit together. Zeffirelli gave his ending a slight but poignant twist, this being that Katrina leaves on her own while Petruchio, oblivious, delivers his triumphal speech of having subdued his wife. The director seems to indicate that Petruchio has not tamed Katrina at all, but rather has gotten what she wanted (food, sleep, etc.) by giving her husband a false sense of dominance. When considering the context in which this film was made, the message appears entirely fitting.

Other aspects of ZeffirelliÐŽ¦s Taming were designed to appeal to his audience. Aside from the technical differences from ShakespeareÐŽ¦s original staging, like the use of real women and the ability to film in an analogous setting, the 1960ÐŽ¦s Taming offered more physical comedy, more sexiness (i.e., the almost sex-scene between Petruchio and Katrina), and more of the story relied on action versus ShakespeareÐŽ¦s poetry. The words of the play seemed a bit downplayed to allow for what audiences love ÐŽV sex and comedy. Not to say that the Elizabethan audience didnÐŽ¦t want sex and comedy, but they certainly did not have a Three Stooges mindset for what was funny. The modern viewers often require an emphasis of the visual comedy to be entertained and Zeffirelli satisfied that requirement in his translation of the play.

In our present cultural context, there are a few problems of Taming of the Shrew. Obviously, a wifeÐŽ¦s submission to her husband is not presently considered acceptable. Also, a man like Petruchio would not be admired based on his taming skills but would rather be more likely to be featured on an episode of ÐŽ§Cops.ЎЁ One critic has claimed that the play ÐŽ§enacts the defeat of the threat of a womanÐŽ¦s revoltЎЁ (PetruchioÐŽ¦s Horse, website). What was considered appropriate male and female behavior in ShakespeareÐŽ¦s time has not survived into the 20th century.

There are some core values and assumptions that still exist today that were present in TamingÐŽ¦s original setting. Today, though certainly not as extreme, there are desirable social behaviors specific to oneÐŽ¦s gender. More importantly, however, is the treatment of individuals specific to their gender. That is why a woman with the same training and the same experience as a man tends to make lower wages and be passed over for more promotions in the workplace. Another cultural message from Taming that we still respond to is that one can get what he wants if he is willing to ÐŽ§play the game.ЎЁ Katrina gave in to Petruchio to gain peace of mind, not necessarily because she honestly believed that submitting to him was the right thing to do, but the easy thing to do. Ever present in our own society we ÐŽ§suck up,ЎЁ shmooze, etc. to get what we want even though we may not be doing what we believe in.

One of the BardÐŽ¦s most famous characters got into a lot of trouble doing what he may not have necessarily believed in, and his name is Hamlet. Hamlet is a play that is not be entirely cross-cultural (Bohannan, Shakespeare in the Bush) but is, at least for the Western world, considered timeless. The play has been translated in most every way imaginable, from modern updates, to female leads, to even a Disney cartoon.

For the new millennium director Michael Almereyda gave us Hamlet 2000, a modern update of the classic using ShakespeareÐŽ¦s own words. The story of the pensive Danish prince was translated to that of a wealthy New York slacker in the year 2000. Almereyda appeals to his audience by including lots of high-tech gadgets, violence, and plenty of visual symbolism to stimulate the post-theater discussions. The modern Hamlet delivers soliloquies into a