I first read Measure
for Measure six years ago (see
my post here) - and since that time, it has been my favorite of
Shakespeare’s “problem plays.” It addresses the themes of mercy and justice
without the taint of anti-Semitism and cruelty present in The
Merchant of Venice. It has a memorable and complex female heroine. It
has a villain who gets a fitting comeuppance - but also receives undeserved
mercy. And, like all of the “problem plays,” it is one heartbeat away from
being an unspeakable tragedy. Believe me, Measure for Measure is arguably the most bitter of all Shakespeare plays - even more than Othello or Lear.
My previous review contains the plot, and a number of other
observations about the play, which I will not repeat here. I recommend reading
my previous
post first, if you have not already done so. This was my first time to see
this live, although my wife saw it at the Utah Shakespeare Festival a few years
ago.
Six years seems like an eternity ago for me, honestly. A
great many things have changed in my life, in my beliefs, and in our world at
large. Just to name a few things: The
leader of the cult that I spent part of my teens and 20s in was unmasked as a
sexual predator. The religious tradition I was brought up in threw in its
lot wholeheartedly with White
Nationalism. On
a related note, our family has left that tradition, and no longer participates
in organized religion. I have lost a number of friends as a result of
standing against the racism, misogyny, and social darwinism which are the core
beliefs of the Right in this country right now.
But perhaps most obviously connected to this play, women
have started to come forward and out the powerful men who have raped, sexually
assaulted, and sexually harassed them. The #metoo movement changed the
discourse substantially. On the one hand, some men have felt some heat. On the
other, there has been a significant backlash - and as one could easily predict,
it has come mostly from white men. And
the women who benefit from white supremacy in our nation. One would like to
hope that the tide is turning. But it will only turn of those of us who are
determined to smash the patriarchal and racist systems that plague our country
keep the pressure on, vote, and
push back against those who are committed to returning to the injustices of the
past. This isn’t a new issue, and, although things have changed for the
better over the past few decades, we have a long way to go.
As it is with some many issues, though, Shakespeare was
there first.
When I read this the first time, I hadn’t really appreciated
the dynamics of sexual predation in the play. I mean, I noticed it, of course.
And I already had deep suspicions about Bill Gothard from talking to women who,
like me, had left the cult. But the #metoo movement really clarified it.
Director Cody Ganger from Bakersfield
College chose to do this
play, this year, because of this theme - and it felt incredibly timely. What
Shakespeare gets about human nature is this: rape isn’t primarily about sex, it
is about power - and therefore, sexual assault (and false claims of sexual
assault) are primarily wielded as power plays. In fact, if Measure for Measure can be said to be about anything, it is about
the relationship of sex and power - both economic and political.
Just a quick summary: Duke Vincentio leaves his domain in
the charge of Lord Angelo, his subordinate, so he can spy on how his kingdom is
being governed. Angelo is a humorless prude, with as much self-righteousness as
any fictional character, and a determination to enforce the most draconian laws
without mercy. One of these laws punishes men for fornication with the death
penalty. (Yes, Shakespeare turns this societal double standard absolutely on
its head.) Caught up in this is Claudio, who is all but married to Juliet -
they just need her dowry to make it legal. He gets her pregnant, and...off with
his head. Claudio’s sister Isabella - preparing to become a nun - is
reluctantly dragged into the case. Her halfhearted plea for the life of her
brother (who she really thinks is a flake) is ineffective. But she does inspire
Angelo’s lust. He assaults her, then tries to get her to trade her virginity
for Claudio’s life. Angelo, of course, has no intent to keep his promise. He
intends to violate Isabella, then kill her brother so he can’t revenge her
innocence.
And he knows he can get away with it, because he has power
and a reputation for prudery.
Here is the pertinent part of the conversation. (The whole
scene is powerful, though.)
ISABELLA
I have no tongue but one: gentle my
lord,
Let me entreat you speak the former
language.
ANGELO
Plainly conceive, I love you
ISABELLA
My brother did love Juliet,
And you tell me that he shall die
for it.
ANGELO
He shall not, Isabel, if you give
me love.
ISABELLA
I know your virtue hath a licence
in’t,
Which seems a little fouler than it
is,
To pluck on others.
ANGELO
Believe me, on mine honour,
My words express my purpose.
ISABELLA
Ha! little honour to be much
believed,
And most pernicious purpose!
Seeming, seeming!
I will proclaim thee, Angelo; look
for’t:
Sign me a present pardon for my
brother,
Or with an outstretch’d throat I’ll
tell the world aloud
What man thou art.
ANGELO
Who will believe thee, Isabel?
My unsoil’d name, the austereness
of my life,
My vouch against you, and my place
i’ the state,
Will so your accusation overweigh,
That you shall stifle in your own
report
And smell of calumny. I have begun,
And now I give my sensual race the
rein:
Fit thy consent to my sharp
appetite;
Lay by all nicety and prolixious
blushes,
That banish what they sue for;
redeem thy brother
By yielding up thy body to my will;
Or else he must not only die the
death,
But thy unkindness shall his death
draw out
To lingering sufferance. Answer me
to-morrow,
Or, by the affection that now
guides me most,
I’ll prove a tyrant to him. As for
you,
Say what you can, my false
o’erweighs your true.
To see this essentially played out before our very eyes in
my lifetime is pretty disturbing. Again, the reason that Shakespeare has
remained popular and relevant for the past 400 years is that he understands
human nature and human society so very well. On a related note, the reason that
the bible has remained relevant is exactly the same. There is a strikingly
similar story in Genesis, which has been much abused by Christians lately,
alas. (See below for more.)
What Shakespeare gets so right here is that the dynamics of
power determine who is believed in cases like this. After all, it isn’t really reputation.
Angelo does indeed have a good reputation. But so does Isabella. She is a prude
herself, actually, is a nun in training, and is above reproach. She pleads for
her brother reluctantly, and pays the price for being a vulnerable woman.
Again, we have seen this play out in real life. And it isn’t
just a single Isabella - but multiple women - and some male witnesses as well.
But power still ultimately seems to win.
Shakespeare doesn’t just leave it at that either. The
disguised Duke orchestrates a “bed trick,” then watches Angelo attempt to kill
Claudio anyway (a convenient death provides an alternative), then returns as
his true self. But he does what you might expect: he “believes” Angelo and
throws serious shade at Isabella and Marianna (Angelo’s jilted fiancee.) In
essence, this goes exactly how certain hearings went recently. The woman is not
believed, pays the price, and the man skates without consequences. In this
case, the Duke saves his ire for the final scene, and all is made right in the
end. But both the Duke and Shakespeare play along to make the point that, while
this story may have a happy ending, in most cases, this doesn’t happen. The
Angelos of the world tend to win. They can rape and assault and destroy the
reputation of women with impunity - because they have a penis and power. The
Isabellas of the world pay the price. And the Claudios too - the lower status
men are the ones punished for sex in our society.
Let me give some major props to Bakersfield College
for their interpretation of this play. While junior college productions have
their limitations - lower budgets, amateur actors, the need to include students
relatively new to the stage - they really do work hard to bring the drama to
life. This isn’t an easy play to put on, and they did a thoroughly credible
job. No, don’t expect every part to be professional quality. Give the kids a
little slack when they don’t project enough to fill the outdoor space, or miss
the rhythm of a line here or there. There were some great moments, and they
deserve credit.
Let me start with the best of them all. The scene I quoted
above was fantastic. As it unfolded, Angelo went from wrestling with his lust
and loss of self control to actively grabbing and fondling Isabella. It was
creepy beyond belief, and well acted by the leads.
I don’t think I have seen John Spitzer in anything before.
He is tall, lanky, and fairly handsome. While I am not sure he looks the prude
in the way that, say, Alan Rickman could - he’s young and innocent looking - he
wasn’t bad at the self-righteousness thing. But when he turned, boy did he
turn. He went from pretty boy to gross lech in a few minutes. Paired with this
was the excellent work by Mariah (Jordan) Bathe. I saw her at The
Empty Space earlier this year as the middle sister in Chekhov’s The
Three Sisters, and she switched from the passionate lust for the
married officer she loves to utter disgust. Her face showed horror, fear,
contempt, panic, and more, as she was groped and caressed against her will. If
you want to call this “anti-chemistry,” I think that would capture it. The two
of them portrayed the loathing in a highly believable way.
A few of the other actors merit some mention. Carlos Vera
has become a real fixture of local theater, and has been in nearly every
Shakespeare play (among others) that I have seen in the last few years. He has
taken on progressively larger parts as he has gained experience. In the role of
Vincentio, he brought his usual simmering aggression to the part. Justin
Thompson, hilarious as Mercutio
last year, was likewise amusing as the libertine Pompey in this play. One of
the few ringers, the always delightful Paul
Sosa was hilariously chipper as the dimwitted constable Elbow. Lucy Brown
played the executioner Abhorson in full goth makeup and a menacing silence.
Cody’s husband Kevin Ganger made a good scene as Barnardine, the crazy
murderer. As part of the play’s classic punk aesthetic, he had a mohawk, a
union jack shirt, and as good of a punk swagger as I have seen. Honestly, I
hardly recognized him, despite the fact that he has been in productions
(including a great turn opposite his wife in The
Taming of the Shrew) around town for years.
Shakespeare needn’t be set in period costume, of course, and
BC has a longstanding tradition of using creative settings for dramatic effect.
Sometimes these are more effective than others, but I do think it serves to
make students think of Shakespeare as timeless, rather than time bound. (My
wife took a few Shakespeare classes while she was in nursing school at BC - and
got to propose a few settings of her own.)
In this case, the classic punk era was used for the
lower-class characters. The aristocratic characters wore suits - except for the
clergy, who wore black and clerical collars, and the police, who wore uniforms.
The music too fit the vibe, with a heavy dose of the B-52s.
Overall, a thoughtful production of a play that really
should be seen more often. It may be 400 years old, but it still challenges our
ideas of power, morality, mercy, and justice.
***
Speaking of the B-52s, this one was essentially the theme
song:
***
Ah, the old Joseph and Potiphar's Wife story. It has now
been dragged out to ostensibly show the dangers of false rape accusations and
create fear that any man could have his life ruined by one of those scary,
awful women. The misuse of this story is nothing new - it’s endemic to the patriarchal
Evangelical tradition, which feels a need to portray female sexuality as
terrifyingly dangerous.
Even more offensively, the tragedy and injustice of the Emmett Till lynching has
been repurposed for the same use.
What both of these either miss - or ignore - is that both
stories are, like Measure for Measure,
about the abuse of power.
Potiphar’s wife is like Lord Angelo. She has power, and
decides to ruin a lowly slave when he refuses to give his body to her on
demand. In both cases, it is the entitlement of power that treats those below
as chattel to be abused at will.
Likewise, Carolyn Bryant, who later admitted that she lied
about what Emmett Till - a 14 year old boy - did to her, has never paid a price
for her role in the murder of an innocent. And she is just one instance of
cases where white women and their precious “purity” has been used as an excuse
to murder, abuse, enslave, and segregate black men.
This is the pattern, actually. You can see it with Bill
Gothard, with Donald Trump, with Harvey Weinstein, with so many rich,
privileged, powerful (usually white) men. To quote Trump, “Grab ‘em by the
pussy. When you are a star, you can get away with anything.” It’s all about
power. Shakespeare got that all too right.
***
Let me once again whine about BC’s criminal lack of
publicity photos. Come on, guys! Promote your art! Make it a bit easier for
those of us who enjoy your productions and would like to give you some online
love. We. Need. Pictures.
No comments:
Post a Comment