#shakespeare discourse

[hotvintagepoll]

I was in a production of Taming of the Shrew as Petrucio, so I feel like a bit of an expert when I say this play is misogynist and weird. The film adaptations do star a bunch of hotties though.

is this a good time to mention apparently Meryl Streep was in it once

[foul-z-fowl]

My favorite thing about Shakespeare discourse is people saying 'hot take! Switching Hamlet and Othello would give both of their plays happy endings because-' 'hot take! If you put Romeo into the plot of Macbeth no one would die-". Because that's why Shakespeare is SO GOOD! That's why we still read and sometimes enjoy him! Because his characters are SO complex and well written and because the plays only work with THESE people, just like real life! Of course the characters in Shakespeare's play can affect and interact with the world around them, because real people can and every author (including Shakespeare) strives to make their characters like real people. The fatal flaws actually impact the story, they're not just there for texture!

[rideroftherange]

I think you’ll find that taking up arms against anything troubling is going to result in slings and arrows and all sorts of hardships.

Dueling yourself just results in suffering whether you win or loose, which you will.

[ingravinoveritas]

Interesting, is it not, that the Romeo and Juliet photos with the most chemistry are the ones with his male co-stars?

Hi, Anon! This is in reference to this post, for anyone who hasn't seen it, featuring production photos of David when he was in the RSC staging of Romeo & Juliet in 2000.

Your observation that the R&J photos where David has the most chemistry are with his male costars is indeed interesting...but also not surprising. Well, let's first take a look at a few particular photos that stood out:

When I say that it's not surprising, it's because we don't have to look any further than David himself, who wrote an entire essay about this production in 2005. From his words, the chemistry and homoerotic undertones to Romeo and the male characters' relationships--especially Romeo and Mercutio (Adrian Schiller, in the first picture)--were absolutely intentional:

"It certainly seems from the text of the play that Mercutio doesn't entirely applaud Romeo's interest in girls. He bombards Romeo with criticism and lewd innuendo about his mooning after Rosaline. Adrian Schiller (playing Mercutio) felt sure that this endless vitriol must be based on something more than locker room horseplay and that the character's fury must stem from a feeling, however subconscious, of sexual jealousy and betrayal. We had no trouble finding this in the playing of the scenes. "

There are many factors that go into the staging of a play--what the director wants/envisions, how/where the play is set (i.e., a conventional/traditional staging vs. a more contemporary one), and how the actors interpret the characters and their relationship to each other. Shakespearean plays in particular are (in my opinion, at least) always a tug-of-war between conveying the author's intended meaning--even references that are narrowly specific to the Elizabethan era--and a larger and more timeless universal message that speaks to a modern audience.

Romeo & Juliet is a play that has had tremendous resonance and countless adaptations over the centuries. (The play itself is an adaptation of the story of Pyramus & Thisbe, originally penned by Ovid.) We can look at those different adaptations and see what each cast/crew brought that others didn't...and it seems clear that David made a purposeful choice to highlight the queer/homoerotic subtext between Romeo and Mercutio.

This also seems to be the starting point for David revisiting these themes throughout various other Shakespeare plays in which he has acted, in ways both subtle (Benedick in Much Ado; Hamlet) and more overt. In particular, his deliberate choice to play Richard II as androgynous and his idea to have Richard and Bolingbroke passionately kiss during one moment in the play. And again, all those factors mentioned above are still pertinent, but we can start to see a pattern in David's readings of these plays that is unique and specific to him.

Which finally brings me to one other line in the above-mentioned essay, still talking about the relationship between Romeo and Mercutio (bold emphasis mine):

"The further Romeo moves away from his 'childhood' friends into the grown-up world of heterosexual desire, the more Mercutio rages and the less Romeo is affected by him."

Almost immediately, I was struck by that line--"The grown-up world of heterosexual desire." Especially in the context of the homosexual undertone of this production of Romeo & Juliet. As we've said, what goes into the staging of a play involves many different factors, but a clear one in this case is David's reading of it/collaboration with another actor. In addition, many actors bring elements of lived experience to their roles, and that made me think of what David experienced when it came to gay relationships and growing up in the 1980s.

In most (if not all cases), gay relationships on television or in movies in the '80s/'90s were shown as tragedies--something that was sinful, unhealthy, and (more often than not) ended in death. This is where the "Bury your gays" trope in media comes from, as such plot lines sadly became so common over time. Another trope that (at least in my estimation) was less common but still present is the idea of queer people "experimenting" in childhood but ultimately having to give up those relationships/hide those feelings when they grew up, in favor of doing what was "expected" instead.

What both of those things mean is that David (and so many others) had no model or picture of a healthy gay relationship in adulthood to look to--to see as something that he could potentially have. Because it did not exist, and never could. So it became this thing that was relegated to childhood--that same-sex attractions are immature and something you grow out of/leave behind for a "real" (straight) relationship--essentially the concept we know now as compulsory heterosexuality (or "comphet").

It sounds so patently absurd to us in 2025 that it's almost impossible to imagine...but this is the world David grew up in. These are the messages that he internalized. And the heartbreaking and long-lasting effect of that on him seems borne out and clear as day in his writing of this essay, and in how he came to view the relationship between Romeo and Mercutio.

So yes, going back to your question, it is interesting to see that chemistry, and when we look at everything surrounding it, the pieces very much start to come together. It's been 20 years since David wrote that essay, and I just wonder if, given time and the shifting attitudes in society, perhaps he is able to see things differently now. For his sake, I hope so...

[theriverspath]

Well, it's been 0 days since David Tennant made me ugly cry.

My birthday is coming up, and I've treated myself to a month of Marquee TV as a little gift. I was particularly looking forward to David's Richard II. I've never seen a production of it, nor read it. So, I was going in fairly blind. But, I'd seen clips of The Kiss on youtube, and even an interview or two about it. So I thought I was ready for the level of heartache it would evoke.

I was wrong.

Y'all. That scene within the greater context of the story ripped my queer little heart right out of my chest. First of all, David's delivery of

I live with bread like you, feel want, Taste grief, need friends: subjected thus, How can you say to me, I am a king?

in a previous scene floored me. Here is a individual struggling with the isolation and loneliness that comes with power. They have the natural human need to be seen, to have honest emotional connections, to have a safe space in which to be vulnerable. But, they are at the top of a social structure that does not reward vulnerability with safety. In order to be king, they have had to sacrifice a measure of their humanity.

It's only when Richard comes to accept that the end of his reign will also mean the end of his life, that he affords himself the freedom to reach out to someone he obviously cares deeply for. I mean, he's asking the man if he can lay by his side in death. There's no mention of wanting to be with his wife for all of eternity. It's Aumerle that he trusts to witness his anger and fear about his impending death, and it's Aumerle that he turns to for comfort.

And, The Kiss is lovely. It really is. The longing on Richard's face, the hesitation as he decides whether or not he's really going to go through with it, the tenderness of it all. It's beautiful.

It was what Richard did after The Kiss that opened up the ugly cry flood gates for me, though. It's when he places the crown on Aumerle's head. It's played for a little laugh, to break the tension of The Kiss. And again, I'd seen it done on youtube, but it hadn't made sense to me. It had seemed like an odd gesture, and I didn't understand the motivation behind it. This time, the meaning of it came crashing down on me.

In this play, the crown is the focus of everyone's love, devotion, and desire. The one who wears it is the most powerful, the most precious person in the land. And for one brief moment, Richard crowns Aumerle. Richard cannot say aloud that Aumerle is the king of his heart. But, that almost playful exchange says it for him.

And then Richard begins to fold all of that back inside of himself. The crown returns on his own head. His face starts to set into the stony mask of the divinely appointed ruler. But before it's done, there's The Look. It's all there: pining, hope, confession, regret, grief. A wistful sigh and brief brush of fingers against Aumerle's face and he walks away, not human but king once more. It broke me.

If this isn't an analogy for the closeted experience, then I don't know what is. Historically, if someone wanted financial and social stability, then they had better act straight. Their true feelings were a real danger to themselves and to those they loved.* Add the fact that David has said in an interview that they were going for a "slightly androgynous quality" just piles a whole 'nother layer of gender stuff on top of the sexuality stuff. Like, I could write a paper on this.

*I wrote that in the past tense, but it is still true for the majority of the people on the planet.

I know I'm a million years late to this play, and there's probably already a ton of analysis from the queer perspective floating around out there. But, I just had to get all these feelings out somewhere. Thanks for reading.

[ineedhjalp]

tumblr discourse but it’s all just shakespeare

[jumpluffdrifting]

The thing about Final Fantasy VII is that it’s really good despite how many people say how good it is

[backjustforberena]

My desolation does begin to make A better life. 'Tis paltry to be Caesar; Not being Fortune, he's but Fortune's knave, A minister of her will: and it is great To do that thing that ends all other deeds; Which shackles accidents and bolts up change; Which sleeps, and never palates more the dung, The beggar's nurse and Caesar's. Eve Best as CLEOPATRA in ‘Antony and Cleopatra’ (2014)

[morrigans-umbrella]

putting my english major to work

AKA

unit 919 favourite (semi popular so you’re not forced to google them all) classics headcanons

starting off strong with morrigan. for reasons i hope are evident i think she is absolutely a gothic girlie, she’s probably got an affinity for poe. i’d say her favourite is the raven, though unlike most poe fan girls i don’t see her as someone who is able to yap endlessly about why she likes him. she’s quite reserved with her interests after all. i imagine she’s capable of giving solid but simple reasons to justify herself when asked (pressed) by her friends but otherwise keeps her thoughts internal.

cadence, this might be a hear me out, has an adoration for oscar wilde. my first thought was dracula actually but as someone who is perpetually cursed to be forgotten i think she’d enjoy the way wilde writes. she finds society frivolous and rather stupid, and wilde is prompt to agree with her on this. i’d say her favourite text is the importance of being earnest, as it’s possibly the most ridiculous piece of nonsense ever, entirely on purpose.

hawthorne was a hard one, as i don’t think he willingly reads anything that he could preemptively deem “boring”. i had to shake my brain like a maraca to try think of something easy and entertaining enough to keep his white boy adhd brain locked in long enough for him to intake it. the conclusion drawn was that i think he could survive through three men in a boat (sincerest apologies she’s a little niche). i found it funny enough, i think hawthorne is capable of switching off his brain and blindly enjoying it.

anah. well. i adore her greatly and i was a little in between. i think she’d ADORE little women. i think she has incredibly strong opinions on all the film remakes and could give you an extensive breakdown of the pros and cons. however. i also think the only CORRECT choice with her is pride and prejudice. she seems like she enjoys a good love story that has her giggling and kicking her legs it just befits her.

now, archan. if you ask he will lie to your face, he will very confidently say the most pretentious book he can think of. this is because his favourite classic dodie smith’s i capture the castle. which isn’t embarrassing by any means, but it is a very silly romance novel (i am strongly passionate about it). i think he likes to read casually more than obsessively and it’s a relatively easy read, and if you get the right copy the cover makes you look very distinguished in public.

mahir was harder as i had to test my knowledge of various translations across the world. he’s definitely a poetry type, i think he likes collections of poems as opposed to large brick novels. poems are more entertaining to translate and test your skill far more. i think he’d like mahmoud darwish (who is unfortunately NOT a classical author but i wanted to bring him up anyway), so i’m marking his as leaves of grass by walt whitman. which i strongly recommend to all poetry enjoyers out there. he definitely would get into translation purism beef online if he could. i know it in my heart.

so francis was kind of hard. i was actually tempted to be sneaky and pick an old recipe book as his favourite without specifying BUT i concluded through my non biased perfectly objective opinions he’s an agatha christie enjoyer. poisoning and cooking are sort of born of the same mother. to me at least. his favourite is dumb witness, as it features a brilliant dog. full disclaimer that’s the one i am presently reading, so i don’t know everything that occurs in it, but i know in my heart he would enjoy this.

thaddea was hard, man. i expended my one easy ish to read comedy on hawthorne and i refuse to repeat. then i remembered treasure island. which i also have not finished (someone stole my copy when i was 50 pages in). i don’t actually think she banks too hard on humour to get through books, she more so is interested in action and adventure. i actually think thaddea enjoys to read, she just has a hard time keeping herself focussed and finding the time to sit down and enjoy it, so she probably leans toward audiobooks.

lambeth. well. i opted against the one i initially was thinking of not because it wouldn’t fit just because i considered the discussion that surrounds it and concluded i didn’t feel compelled to dig into that here. she’s definitely a prose enjoyer, she has probably the most “refined” taste save for maybe mahir (i like to believe they talk books together frequently). after much consideration i concluded on black beauty. on account of the fact that it’s my (second) favourite and i think she would appreciate how gorgeous the craftsmanship is.

[thegoosiestlucy]

i finally watched andrew scott’s hamlet, and god he plays hamlet so young; but then you see the gravedigger scene and hamlet’s actually been alive for thirty years and then it’s just: oh. we never do escape being a child when we’re around our parents, do we; we can leave, play at being adults, but the minute we come back we will always be ten twelve fourteen eighteen and our parents are flawed and perfect and broken and untouchable; and all of a sudden thirty doesn’t seem that grownup at all

[hotvintagepoll]

To add to the Taming of the Shrew convo, the only good production I've ever seen was the Globe's production this past year that leaned hard into how awful the women in that play are treated. They use the frame narrative in the play to "kidnap" a woman from the audience (the actress is planted in the audience) to play Katarina, and they gaslight and abuse her throughout the play until she finally accepts her role at the end. Truly one of the most haunting things I have ever watched

this is the last piece of Taming of the Shrew discourse i'm going to post but that is truly chilling

[lungthief]

Re: Shakespeare theories - was Shakespeare queer? Is his work queer? How much does it matter? Is he a pseudonym? Let's discuss!

he was likely queer but also most of my personal interest lies a lot less in shakespeare the guy himself and more in the stuff he wrote. like obviously you can’t really divorce the content and themes of his work from the period and place in which they are from but also conspiracies about his identity do not compel me for a number of reasons. his work can be viewed through so many different lenses (and has been throughout multiple centuries) that there is both a freeing subjectivity through interpretation and a heavy load of historical baggage.

i will say i am very tired of a prominent person in the literary sphere perpetuating antistratfordianism as a promotional tool. like i may lean a lot more toward actor/dramaturg than elizabethan historian but like. any theory that cites shakespeare’s level of education as a reason for him not being capable of writing those plays is bullshit. like the history and what you do with it is very important actually

[yvesdot]

One little peeve of mine (God, I'm peevish, aren't I?) is this insistence on getting cookies for casting trans people in Shakespeare plays with no further effort. Needless to say this is the bare minimum. When teenagers on the Internet are writing free essays on the transgender symbolism in any Shakespeare play you can think of, surely the trans audience is owed more than "gender-blind casting?" Surely some effort could be made to actually tell a transgender story, to, at the very least, make efforts to make a character read as transgender in the play, not just be a cis woman played by a trans woman this time? No? Well no cookies from me.

[bardofavon]

thinking a lot about how fatal flaws are misconstrued as being moral failings when actually hamartia is a moral neutral.

the best kind of fatal flaw, in my opinion, is one that’s both a character’s greatest strength and biggest weakness at the same time. it needs to be their biggest weakness intertwined like vines with what makes them admirable. it’s their very virtues that bring them to ruin!!! it’s something they can be lauded for that spells their death!!

it’s macbeth’s ambition. it’s oedipus’s loyalty to his state and unending thirst for truth and justice. it’s hamlet’s obsessive contemplation and wish to make sure his every decision is the right one. it’s being loyal to the point of blindness or confident to the point of hubris.

in any other story they could succeed because of these traits, but they aren’t in any other story, and in theirs it’s exactly what damns them.

[ingravinoveritas]

Re your second reply to the R&J thing... most straight dudes aren't trying to unearth the gay subtext so they can act it that way...🤷🏻‍♀️

DING DING DING. Yep, pretty much, Anon...

It's the intentionality on David's part that is so noteworthy. That he made a point of saying he and Adrian Schiller eagerly dove into that subtext and "had no trouble finding this in the playing of the scenes."

Could this and does this speak to David's talent/range as an actor and his professionalism overall? Yes, absolutely. But it also speaks to having a desire to put forward an element of the play in a way that, for any number of reasons, many other actors would not.

I just think it's interesting, too, that this discussion would not likely even be happening if we weren't talking about a queer interpretation of the play. There is this knee-jerk response, even unconsciously, to avoid "going there," despite there being so many other interpretations and stagings of Shakespeare's plays (especially Romeo & Juliet) over the years.

But the beauty of Shakespeare is in its timelessness, and in that people of every generation and walk of life can see themselves in and personally connect to the text. That's also part of what allows actors to find the motivations for the characters, so the personal element can't ever be completely discounted, because that's what Shakespeare's plays are about: Humanity and all that connects us, both in the past and the present.

So if that's what David found in this particular play, it seems like the only reason to diminish that or distance him from it (when he's taken such great effort to show much it means to him) is because others are uncomfortable with it. Which is truly an unfortunate thing, because this is something we need more--not less--of, especially in these current, fraught times...

[gnome-adjacent-vagabond]

I've consumed like four different versions of King Lear this week, two of which were filmed, but one shot of Jonathan Hyde as the Earl of Kent consumed me so completely that I spent one dollar on samsung stickers to bring my vision to life.