Violence in Entertainment

Violence in Entertainment

[In response to the recent slate of gun violence, I offer three essays on violence in our culture and entertainment. This is the first of the series. It is a consideration of the topic.]

Is our entertainment making us more violent? After Sandy Hook, Aurora and so many other massacres, we’re looking for someone/something to blame. The list of usual suspects (movies, music, video games, drugs and guns) are quickly rounded up and put on the trial of public opinion and the 24 hour news cycle.

Violence has always been part of entertainment. Violence and passionate love are the extremes of being human, when we are most alive. Plays and films, the forms of entertainment that are most life-like, are drawn to these heightened experiences. Every dramatic work ends or begins with violence or sex. They make good entertainment.[i]

One of my teachers (someone at Shakespeare & Company, either Tina Packer or Kevin Coleman) taught that it is no surprise that theatre expanded from acting out stories around the fireside to a full blown entertainment at the same time we started to live in cities. To live in close proximity with so many others and strangers, we needed to control our impulses and large emotions. Otherwise, our cities would be torn apart by violence. To enjoy the benefits of City living, we had to trade a part of our humanity.  Every great human innovation requires a loss of some vital part of humanity.[ii]

As a consolation prize for limiting our full range of emotional expression, we got theatre. Watching actors in the throes of simulated life having the full and raw emotional experience of humanity replaced and settled our own need to have these large emotions. We modulated our response to experience. In exchange, we got theatre and entertainment. The actor’s responsibility is to feel all that we do not allow ourselves to feel, to be the extreme and raw experience. Watching/ Hearing/ Experiencing theater allows us to touch this extremity without going through the full experience ourselves.

Theater also helped to socialize the populace and teach them how to live (and how not to live) in society. Entertainment is intended to be instructive.[iii]

In Ancient Greece, theatre grew to be a community experience. It was large and epic. At the start, the violence was kept off stage. It was reported and spoken. The actors expressed the full experience of the violence and its impact on their lives, but the act of violence was not seen. They didn’t see Agamemnon being stabbed in his bath nor do they see Oedipus gouge out his eyes. Slowly, the violence began to creep onto the stage. By the time the theatre of the Greeks transitioned to Rome, the violence had crept onstage. With the excesses of the Roman Empire, came greater violence as part of the Roman tragedies. It is reported that it grew in excess to the point there were “snuff plays” where actors were actually killed onstage. It’s no surprise since theatre was competing with the Gladiator contests at the local Coliseum.[iv]

What happens to a society when the acts of violence are portrayed in the entertainment? What is happening in a society that needs to continually increase the extremity of the violence in their entertainment? There must be a correlation.

When popular theater resurged again in the Renaissance, violence was initially kept off the stage.[v] They had read their Aristotle. Though in time, the violent acts began to creep onto the stage. As Elizabethan theatre gave way to the Jacobean Era the portrayal of violence expanded and became more explicit. As one part of the culture became more liberal and permissive of all extremes, a conservative backlash grew until the King lost his head, the theaters were closed and the country edged toward a theocracy. Was this caused by the explicit violence in the theaters and the adjoining bear baiting arenas where animals were torn apart for sport?

Soon after motion pictures began at the beginning of last century, there was a movement to force restraint and limit explicit violence and sex. (i.e., the Hayes Code). These restraints began to fall off in the sixties and seventies. Filmmakers began to explore and add more vivid portrayals of violence. It was done to express realism, but it devolved in time for titillation and commerce. They knew and exploited the fact that violence sells. It fed something in our culture.

At this point in my argument, I might be expected to advocate for less violence in entertainment, that the showing of violence in entertainment is a degradation of the culture. However, as I thought about this trend from the violence being kept offstage to being brought onto the stage/screen, I noticed a trend in each of the cultures: the elevation in violence often coincided with a lack of wars in the countries and to the populace. This is not to say the Romans, Elizabethans or Americans weren’t engaging in wars or colonization during the Pax Romana, the Elizabethan Golden Age or America in the later twentieth century. The difference is that the stability and strength of the country meant that the wars did not happen in the country nor was the full populace at war.

Could it be that the expression of violence in entertainment is in direct relationship with the violence in the culture? Some people will argue that the United States in the 2013 is a violence culture, look at the number of gun deaths.  I would argue that most Americans have very little exposure to violence. There are certainly violent sections of every city and a sub-section of the populace is regularly confronted by violence. For most Americans real violence is reported on the television and on our smart phones, it is not something we actually encounter.  Is this why we need the placebo of violent entertainment? Is it making up for something we intrinsically need as humans?

We haven’t been “civilized” for very long in the grand evolutionary scheme.  Primitive life contained a greater daily threat to violence, disease and death than we Moderns experience. The only real daily threat I feel is driving on the freeway in Los Angeles and it is mitigated by my own skill and the “armored” Jeep that protects me.

If we really want to reduce violence in entertainment, perhaps we should have the Civil War that is being threatened by our divisiveness. If we Americans were truly confronted with the risk of violence or death, we might not crave violence in our entertainment.

The biggest problem with this increase in entertainment violence is some in the culture can’t handle it. On one side of the spectrum there are those who are sensitive to violence due to past trauma or their heightened sense of empathy. Experiencing an act of violence for them is like it is happening to them.[vi] On the other side of the spectrum are people, usually young men, who no longer see or feel the violence happening to others.  This disassociation from shared humanity disconnects them from their actions and the impact on others.  In a few sick young men, their inability to differentiate between media and real violence allows them to massacre others.

Is the violence in our entertainment still helping to socialize our culture? Or has it expanded to nullify and numb any and all emotional response? Is it keeping us from experiencing our lives? Are the people who are becoming increasingly hyper-sensitive to violence coupled with those who have become immune and disassociated from the violence a sign that we are putting ourselves in danger? Are these folks on the edges are proverbial canaries in our coal mine?

Follow this link to the next part of the series When Entertainment Violence Works.

[vii]

---

[i]               I’m writing about violence in entertainment.  Sex and Nudity in entertainment will need to wait for another essay. Discussing violence in the States is a walk in the woods compared to slogging through the swamp of our culture’s relationship with sex.

[ii]               While I speak of a living in a city, I’m not just talking about places with a population over a million. For tens of thousands of years humans lived in large tribes where everyone knew each other and was in some way related. When the towns grew to the size where you no longer knew everyone in town, then you had challenges.

[iii]              The two chief definitions of the word entertain is to amuse and to consider.  Our entertainment should embody both aspects at the same time.

[iv]              I wrote this footnote for the Teeter Totter of the Brain Series. I like the idea and wanted to share it again: When the Romans took over a city, they were quick to build three specific buildings: The Amphitheatre (or Hippodrome) for the horse/chariot races and wagering; the Coliseum for the blood sports, and the Theaters for cultural instruction and comedy. These three different venues for entertainment were important because they helped distract and civilize the citizens. The races or athletic competitions fed the desire for competition. There were four teams designated by color throughout the Empire. If you were a Green, you’d root for the Greens wherever you were. Think of this as the sports entertainment that fills our TVs today. The Blood Sports of the Gladiators offered the cathartic experience. This allowed for the release of the basest and most violent instincts. This pacified and distracted the mob. We currently get this from our movies and football. The Theater was built for both tragic and comic plays. This entertainment taught the new populace what it was to be living in their time as members of the Empire. It was also the place that allowed a place to make fun of and ridicule the leaders.

[v]               There was theater between the Romans and the Renaissance. I can discuss the full transition in detail, but most people would quit reading. I’m working with bold strokes. If you want more details, write me. As one colleague once said, “Go ask Carey, he’ll tell you more than you want to know.”

[vi]              There is a lot of writing on this. The simplest introduction is to the research by Elaine Aron, PhD.  Her writing on the Highly Sensitive Person or Sensory Processing Sensitivity is accessible and not to technical.  High Sensitivity Persons. Jung coined the phrase “Innate Sensitiveness” in 1913.

[vii]             The Los Angeles Times did a great series on Violence in Culture this past Sunday. This link will take you to the lead story and links to the rest of the articles: LA Times Series on Violence in Entertainment.

Jump the Gun

Jump the Gun

I often wish that I knew the future. Not “the” future, so much as “my” future. What’s going to happen to me? Will I ever be successful? Will I live a long time? Will I ever be able to retire?

As I wrote last week, when the Witches told Macbeth he would be King they altered his actions, even though he was already on the road to taking the crown.  While I want to know what is going to happen next, in myth and story knowing the future often has causes more trouble than not knowing would have caused. As I was wondering what would happen to me this year, this story from the Bible kept showing up:

Abram (or Abraham) was told by God to leave his town and go out into Canaan.  He packed up his wife, Sarah, and his nephew, Lot, along with their servants and livestock and left Ur for the great beyond.  (They had lots of adventures worth reading recorded in Genesis 12-16). 

God gave Abraham a vision telling him he would be the father of a great nation that would number more than the stars in the sky or the grains of sand in the desert. Abraham liked the sound of this prophesy. It didn’t make any sense since both he and his wife, Sarah, were old and she was seemingly barren.  But, he held the faith.

After a number of years of not giving birth, Sarah came up with a plan. She would let Abraham sleep with her handmaiden, Hagar. She and Abraham would “adopt” their offspring. In this way, Abraham and she would fulfill God’s prophesy. Abraham agreed.[i] The passage reads:

And Sarah said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing,: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. . . And Abram went in unto Hagar and she conceived: [Genesis 16: 2-4 King James Version[ii]]

Of course, as soon as Hagar got pregnant, she “despised” Sarah and joked that she could give Abraham the child he wanted and Sarah couldn’t.  Sarah went to Abraham and blamed him.[iii] He told Sarah to do as she wanted. Sarah beat Hagar. Hagar in turn ran away into the desert where an angel came to her and said that God had blessed her and the son in her womb, who she should call Ishmael. God said Ishmael would be the father of a great nation. She was counseled to return to Abraham and Sarah for she was blessed by God.  [iv]

A number of years later, three angels stopped in to see Abraham on the way to toast Sodom and Gomorrah.  They reminded him that God would make him the father of a great nation.  Sarah overheard this and laughed. [v]

A few more years passed and Sarah gave birth to a son.[vi] They called him Isaac. On the feast day when they celebrated Isaac’s weaning, Ishmael teased him. Sarah got annoyed and had Abraham kick Ishmael and Hagar out into the desert.

When there water was gone, Hagar left Ishmael under a shrub and moved away because she did not want to watch her son die.  An angel spoke to her and told her Ishmael would be the father of a great nation and he showed her a nearby well so they might live. 

Isaac grew up and was the fore father of the Israelites.  According to the Koran, Ishmael grew up to father many Arab tribes and was the forefather of Mohammad.  The Israelites and the Arabs have been fighting since.

It’s hard not to read this story and wonder if only Abraham had trusted in God and waited for his divine timing rather than try to make it happen, would it have ended up differently? Would there be peace in the Middle East?

So while I would like to know what is going to happen next and I’m ready to jump to the newest opportunity, there is some good counsel in waiting for things to take their course.  To not, jump the gun.

---

[i]               From the perspective of a married man, I’d have to ask Abraham how he imagined sleeping with Hagar was going to be a good idea? Was this in any way going to lead to marital bliss? There is no way he could agree to this plan without Sarah becoming a bit jealous and hurt that he wanted to sleep with Hagar. And, how did you think this was going to play when Hagar gives you the son that Sarah can’t? While this essay is about “jumping the gun”, this would be a prime example in an essay I could write titled: “What not to do when Married: Examples from the Old Testament”.

[ii]               I refer to the King James Version of the Bible. It is the one my father, the Southern Baptist Minister preferred and preached. Living with the King James Version of the Bible clearly added to my appreciation and understanding of Shakespeare. Shakespeare and the other poets/playwrights of time were enlisted to help write the new version of the Bible. I find it funny that a lecherous King who most likely liked young men more than women was the sponsor of the Bible most fundamental Christians believe to be in the inspired word of God. The very people who use the literal words of the Bible as a bludgeon against homosexuality, among other things, refer to the version of the Bible sponsored by King James.

[iii]              Didn’t see that coming Abraham? Did you?

[iv]              I’m skipping over a lot of this story to get to my point. It’s a good read. Look up Genesis, Chapter 12- 21. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-12/ Read it as a good story and myth.

[v]               The three angels continued onto Sodom and Gomorrah where they tried to find an honorable man or any other good reason for God not to smite the City. They visit Abraham’s Nephew, Lot, who had moved to the City after he and Abraham had a falling out. (Genesis 13) The Angels didn’t so much visit him because he was honorable. They visited him because Abraham had asked them to look up his nephew. The people of Sodom had heard of the angels arrival and went to Lot’s house, mob-like, to demand he give them the angels, the suggestion is that they would like to gang rape them. Now this sounds bad, but in the Sodomites defense they were angels. They must have been intoxicating. Lot, not wanting to be a bad host, refuses to give the angels to the mob and offers his two virgin daughters in their place. Now, this is pretty sick. The angels got Lot, his wife and his two daughters out of Sodom and Gomorrah before God destroyed it with a fire ball all Hiroshima-like. Even if Lot was Abraham’s nephew, I’m not sure he should have escaped destruction. His wife couldn’t follow the instructions not to look back and was turned into a pillar of salt. It’s hard to justify a vengeful Deity wiping out an entire city with a fire ball, but the folks of these towns were definitely pushing boundaries.

[vi]              The Bible says that Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born. I think you must take the stated age of a person in the early Old Testament with a grain of salt. I can’t believe that Abraham lived to be a hundred seventy-five. They must have counted the years differently than we do. This was actually one of the things that made me begin to question the Bible as literal fact. I soon understood the Bible as holding mythical truth rather than factual truth. When I read Abraham was 100 years old, I understand that the birth of his son was at the appropriate time, when he reached the maturity to have his son.

Richard III, the Last Great Medieval Man

Richard III, the Last Great Medieval Man

[In honor of the discovery of Richard, the Third’s remains, I’m re-posting a short essay I did on Richard that was part of the “To Be Or Not To Be” Series.]

Before HAMLET, Shakespeare’s first big hit was Richard the Third: Richard, Earl of Gloucester, the Hunchback, the Crook-backed toad, Tricky Dick. Richard marched through the Henry VI plays killing everyone in his way to get the crown for his father, York, and then his older brother, Edward the fat and horny. At the end of Henry VI part III, Richard assassinated King Henry, the Sixth, the pious, the boy who should have been a Saint rather than a King. King Henry tells Richard what a horrible devil he is, how he infects the world and how the world would have been better if he had never been born. Richard gets fed up with listening to this and murders him in the Tower saying: “Die, prophet, in thy speech. For this, amongst the rest, was I ordain’d.”

In the opening soliloquy of the play, The Life and Death of King Richard the Third, “Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of York“, Richard has a dilemma. Edward is now King Edward IV. Peace has returned. What’s a villain like Richard to do during this summer of peace? Dance with the ladies? Right, the hunchback will become a courtier. Well, if he is to be true to his nature and honor God, being a good Medieval Man, he must continue to become the best villain ever.

In the Medieval era, there was a belief that a man was placed in his place in the wheel. He had his place, function and duties. They were pre-ordained by God. A man stayed in his track. If he thought he had a choice or stepped out of his path, he would be damned. He might have a little glory and power for a while, but fate would finally catch up with this he would be sentenced to eternal damnation. Richard realizes that he has no other option than to be what God made him to be. “For this, amongst the rest, was I ordain’d.”

Hmm, let’s see what would be the height of Villainy? He sets his goal: to become King. How audacious would that be for the younger brother, the hunchback toad to become a king? He kills a brother, marries the wife of the previous prince whom he killed, he kills his nephews. He is a great villain, a pious villain.

A great example of this is Act III, Scene 7. Edward has died. Richard and Buckingham put out a rumor that his sons were bastards and legitimate. The Lord Mayor and the Citizens come to plead for Richard to assume the throne. They demand to see Richard. The mob is told that Richard is at prayer. After many summons while Buckingham riles up the crowd, Richard appears with prayer book in his hand and a Bishop on either side. In some ways this is a farce and a sacrilege that the audience is in on. In another way it is absolutely correct Richard is doing what God ordained him to do: be a Super Villain. After much begging, Richard finally capitulates. He becomes King Richard the Third of that name. This is a triumph. He is gaming the system while he is abiding by the system. It’s quite brilliant.

Attaining the crown is one thing. Keeping it is the next challenge. He continues to kill everyone in his way, including his friends. Buckingham who helped him to the throne is executed. A villain has to keep up his skills. In time (three plus hours in the theater), an army amasses against him at Bosworth Field.

Prior to the penultimate battle, Richard has a dream where all of the people he killed or had killed return to curse him: “despair and die”, you shithead. In that moment, he asks if he is a murderer? He realizes that he might have had a choice. Maybe he didn’t have to be a murderer. But, he’s a Medieval Man. He can’t change his stripes. The next day, “A Horse, A Horse, my kingdom for a Horse”, is the end of Richard.

A thought about the Scottish Play

A thought about The Scottish Play

[Sorry for the delay in posting new things. January has distracted me from writing. I have a few short pieces that I want to post before I launch a big thought.

I watched the first episode of UNCONVERED SHAKESPEARE on PBS last week, the one with Ethan Hawke discussing MACBETH. It was pretty good, an interesting conversation about the play, lot’s of examples, nothing that I screamed about, it made me want to see the play again.]

Many think that if it weren’t for the witches planting the seed of what could be in Macbeth’s brain, he might have lived more peacefully and become King in his own time.  For threat of foreknowledge of what is to be is that it will change how you act.  While this in itself is an interesting topic, you must notice other political situations forced Macbeth’s hand as much as the witches’ prophesy. Act I, Scene 4 holds the key to Macbeth’s ambition.

The scene begins with King Duncan asking if the execution has been done on the Thane of Cawdor, who is being put to death for aiding and abetting the Norwegian’s assault on Scotland. The Scots led by Macbeth and Banquo rebuffed the attack and decimated the traitors. The Thane of Cawdor was captured and Duncan immediately sentenced him to death. Duncan then sent the Thane of Ross to greet Macbeth with a new title, the Thane of Cawdor.

Malcome, King Duncan’s oldest son, reports that someone told him that Cawdor has been executed and that he died nobly as if he were prepared for death. This very description annoys Duncan who probably wanted Cawdor to die painfully in retribution for his betrayal. He says:

King.                  There's no Art,

                           To finde the Mindes construction in the Face:

                           He was a Gentleman, on whom I built

                           An absolute Trust.

Duncan bemoans his inability to look at a person and know their mind. He had put his complete trust in Cawdor. If he couldn’t trust Cawdor, who he could trust? This creates a doubt that leads to his next major action.

Macbeth and Banquo arrive from the battle field where they had been greeted by the three wyrd sisters, often called witches, who had greeted Macbeth as the Thane of Glamis (his current title), the Thane of Cawdor (the title of another man, who Macbeth didn’t know was on his way to execution and that this title had already been awarded to him) and finally as the King, hereafter. They also greet Banquo as the father of many kings[i] (Banquo was the patriarch of the line of Scottish Kings represented by King James. Macbeth and Banquo consider this all a joke until the Thane of Ross arrives and greets Macbeth as the new Thane of Cawdor.

Macbeth and Banquo are warmly greeted by Duncan, who celebrates their success, hugs them and promises to reward them more for their service. His joy at their service is tempered by his sorrow over the betrayal by the late Thane of Cawdor.

King.                  My plenteous Joyes,

                           Wanton in fulnesse, seeke to hide themselves

                           In drops of sorrow.

He then makes a sudden announcement:

King.                  Sonnes, Kinsmen, Thanes,

                           And you whose places are the nearest, know,

                           We will establish our Estate upon

                           Our eldest, Malcolme, whom we name hereafter,

                           The Prince of Cumberland: which Honor must

                           Not unaccompanied, invest him onely,

                           But signes of Noblenesse, like Starres, shall shine

                           On all deservers.

He briefly and with great authority states that his son, Malcome, will inherit his throne, title, lands and power. The title of King will pass from Duncane to his son, Malcome.

For those of us who expect the monarchy to fall from father to son, this would be obvious and most productions treat it as such. However during this age, the crown of Scotland did not always fall to the first born son. While it tended to stay in the family, the most capable was usually elected, appointed or grabbed the throne. Prior to this battle, the Thane of Cawdor might have been considered the next in line to the throne over Malcome.

The King says he will ride to Inverness, Macbeth’s house, to stay the night. Macbeth tells him he will ride ahead to tell his wife to make the house ready. The King bids Macbeth farewell by calling him by his new title: “My worthy Cawdor.” It should be a tender moment of thanks.

Prior to his exit, Macbeth speaks directly to the audience:

Macb.                 The Prince of Cumberland: that is a step,

                           On which I must fall downe, or else o're-leape,

                           For in my way it lyes.

                                                              Starres hide your fires,

                           Let not Light see my black and deepe desires:

                           The Eye winke at the Hand; yet let that bee,

                           Which the Eye feares, when it is done to see.

Rhyming couplets no less. The line is emotionally charged and like a spell he conjures.

Macbeth is clearly thinking about becoming King. And why shouldn’t he? Even without the seeming prophesy by the wyrd sisters: he’s in the family, Duncan is his cousin ;he’s just proven himself as the greatest warrior in the country; and with Cawdor out of the way, he should be next in line. Malcome is still a young, untried boy. However, Duncan’s decree has made Malcome a step that will either trip Macbeth causing him to lose the throne or someone to leap over to get to the throne.

It is important to note, that Macbeth already decides to seize the throne prior to writing or conversing with his wife. People like to blame Lady Macbeth, but Macbeth was well down the road prior to her encouragements.

The witch’s prophesies start to look less like true prognostication and more like educated political guesses. If they had heard or known that Cawdor was supporting Norway, it is not a big leap to expect him to be executed and for the title to fall on Macbeth. If Macbeth became Cawdor, he would move up in the line to the throne. A lot of magic is just awareness and intuition. There might not be as much magic going on here as it seems at first blush.

Everyone in Elizabethan England was very concerned about succession. Queen Elizabeth was getting older and the “Virgin Queen” did not have an heir. The next in line to the throne was King James of Scotland, though his claim was convoluted. James was a Catholic, like his mother Queen Mary I of Scotland. People feared he would force a return to Catholicism causing severe unrest as Queen Mary I of England had a few decades before when she tried to switch the country back to Catholicism after her father, Henry VIII, and half brother, Edward VI, had made the country Protestant.[ii] [iii]

The question of succession or “who should rule us” comes up in over half of Shakespeare’s plays. And it’s not just the Histories, but it appears in the Tragedies and Comedies as well. During the 1590s, it seems that Shakespeare often argued that the best man, even though he might not be next in line or even a bastard, should be the leader. And while some of his choices were politically necessary in an England where the censor approved every script and where upstart playwrights might be imprisoned or mysteriously die in a bar fight, he leans more toward the better man rather than the next in line.

His change in Macbeth is interesting. Of course, it would have been politically stupid to continue to suggest the better man should gain the throne over the next in line with King James I in power. However in Macbeth, Shakespeare seems to come down against the ambitious claiming a throne that should rightfully go to someone else. Shakespeare represents Malcolme, though untested, as the better man to lead.

Macbeth had a legitimate claim for the throne that might have happened naturally, but when Duncan proclaimed Malcome as his heir it forced Macbeth to take the throne rather than wait for it. For me, this few line exchange changes the entire trajectory of the play even more than the witches prophesies.

---

[i]               Banquo became the patriarch of the line of Scottish Kings that included King James VI of Scotland who was King James I of England when the play was first performed.  There was a little pandering to the current king going on in this play.

[ii]               Am I the only one who constantly gets Queen Mary I of Scotland and Queen Mary I of England mixed up? English Mary reigned after her half brother Edward VI died. She was the daughter of Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII’s first wife. English Mary swept away Edward VI’s dying attempt to have the crown go to Lady Jane Grey, a cousin who was the daughter of Henry VII’s youngest daughter and farther down the line than Scottish Mary, English Mary or Elizabeth. Lady Jane Grey “ruled” for nine days prior to being taken out by English Mary. Mary returned the country to Catholicism and had a lot of people executed winning the title of “Bloody Mary.”

Scottish Mary claimed the throne of England over Elizabeth because her mother was Henry VIII’s sister. When Mary I of England died, Elizabeth grabbed the crown even though the Scottish Mary claimed it. She returned the country to being Protestant and had a bunch of Catholics killed. Later, when Scottish Mary was kicked out of Scotland, Elizabeth arrested her and eventually had her put to death. Though in the end, Elizabeth supported Scottish Mary’s son’s claim to the English throne making James VI of Scotland James I of England and Ireland.

[iii]              I visited Salisbury Cathedral once after visiting Stonehenge. I was struck by the sarcophagus of the Bishop of Salisbury, John Capon, in the mid-Sixteenth Century. The note over his grave said that he was named the Catholic Cardinal of Salisbury under Henry VIII. He supported Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon and retained his title when the Henry created the Church of England. When Queen Mary I returned the England to Catholicism, he switched back to being Catholic. He died before Elizabeth switched it again. How wild that must have been: I’m Catholic, I’m Protestant, I’m Catholic again, whoops now I’m Protestant. And, we think our country is confused.

Shakespeare's Mentor: the Earl of Oxford?

Shakespeare’s Mentor: the Earl of Oxford?

[OK, I hate the Shakespeare Authorship debate. I firmly believe that William Shakespeare, from Stratford, the actor and son of a glove maker wrote the plays. I find most people who engage in either side of this argument, especially those that suggest that someone other than William Shakespeare wrote the plays, to be bores, elitists and zealots. Arguing with them is a waste of breath. And, don’t even get me going on how wretchedly inaccurate the movie Anonymous was.

And yet, there is an area around the authorship question that seems a little fuzzy and warrants consideration. How did Shakespeare become the writer capable of writing these plays? Who wrote the plays that Shakespeare later adapted into his masterpieces? Below is my thought experiment on the authorship question. It is not based on true research or scholarship, it is a conjecture based on some unanswered questions. Please treat it with lightness it is intended. This idea can be wrong.]

Some people are convinced that the 17^th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare. I have often dismissed this claim as elitism since the argument against William Shakespeare, son of a Glove maker from Stratford, often begins with “there’s no way a commoner could be the world’s greatest poet . . .” Oxford has been their chief alternative candidate for author of the plays since the 1920’s, even though he died before many of the plays were written.

While I think these folks are deluded, they might have a point that influences the authorship question. Here is an alternative theory that explains why there is an authorship question and why people point to Oxford:

The Earl of Oxford was a published poet and known playwright. This was cited in William Webbe’s Discourse of English Poetry stating that:

I may not omit the deserved commendations of many honourable and noble Lords and gentlemen in her Majesty's court which in the rare devices of poetry have been and yet are most excellent skilful, among whom the right honourable Earl of Oxford may challenge to himself the title of the most excellent among the rest.

And in The Arte of Poesie, often attributed to George Puttenham:

And in her Majesties time that now is are sprung up another crew of Courtly makers Noblemen and Gentlemen of her Majesties own servants, who have written excellently well as it would appear if their doings could be found out and made public with the rest, of which number is first that noble Gentleman Edward Earle of Oxford . . .

The writer of The Arte of Poesie also considered Oxford among the best comic playwrights of his day.

While we have poems written by a young Oxford, none of his mature works or the plays attributed to him has survived with his name attached.

He became a patron of his own company of players in 1580 and was patron of a Boy’s company. When the Queen formed her own company, the Queen’s Men, she took the best players from the other companies. This was in part to put a stop to the rivalry between Leicester and Oxford, whose companies competed for playing at court.

Oxford was rumored to have a greater hand in the productions of his company of players than most patrons. This possibly extended to offering his plays to be played under a pseudonym. He was known as a patron of several writers and playwrights during the 1580s, including John Lyly, Robert Greene and Author Golding. It is strongly suspected that Oxford had a hand in the development of the Queen’s Men.

The Queen’s Men was the foremost company of players from 1583 until it dissolved into the Admiral’s Men and the Lord Chamberlain’s Men in the early 1590s. The company set the stage for the work of Kyd, Marlowe, Shakespeare and Johnson. They developed historical drama, in part because their charge was to educate (or propagandize) the citizenry on what it was to be English.

Many of the Queen’s Men hit plays were later adapted by Shakespeare:

The Famous Victories of Henry V

The Troublesome Reign of King John

The True Tragedy of Richard III

King Leir – The most famous Chronicle history of Leir King of England and his Three Daughters

And possibly,

The lost Ur-Hamlet

The Taming of a Shrew

These plays were written between 1585 and 1592.[i] The author of these plays is unknown.

What if they were written by Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford? It would fit. This would be why the plays remain unclaimed. [ii]

It was rumored that William Shakespeare got his start in theater with the Queen’s Men. The company toured extensively. The suggestion is that he hooked up with them in Stratford and continued with the company as a bit player to London.

It is possible that Edward de Vere took an interest in this country bumpkin with some talent for writing. Could he have become Shakespeare’s mentor? Could he have taught him not only playwriting, but about the court, battle, law and travelling? The very information that the Oxfordians, the name for those who believe that Oxford wrote Shakespeare’s plays, say Shakespeare lacked could have been learned from Oxford. The facts Shakespeare gets wrong, especially geographical facts, are the very things that Oxford couldn’t teach him. It can only be learned only from first-hand experience.[iii] Oxford mentored him, though could not teach him what it was to be on a ship at war, to walk from Pisa to Verona or that Bohemia was land locked.

We also know that Shakespeare was a better adapter than originator of stories. He adapted Thomas North extensively for his English Histories and Roman Dramas (Plutarch by the way of North’s translations). He adapted other’s plays and popular books, such as Plautus and Thomas Lodge. Only two of the plays by Shakespeare are considered original and not coming from previous source material: Midsummer Night’s Dream and The Tempest. Even these could have originated with lost source material.

When Shakespeare’s players, Heminges and Condell, wrote in the First Folio:

His mind and hand went together: And what he thought, he uttered with that easiness, that we have scarce received from him a blot in his papers.

I’ve always believed that they protest too much. Shakespeare was a chronic re-writer. It is hard to believe that any of the plays that have come down to us were written at one time. When plays were revived, it was practice to spruce them up.

Here’s what I imagine: Shakespeare joined the Queen’s Men in Stratford around 1588. He traveled to London and met Oxford. Over the next few years, Oxford mentored Shakespeare. They wrote together. Shakespeare added text to the Queen’s Men plays written primarily by Oxford. In turn, Oxford added text to parts one and two of Shakespeare’s Henry VI play and possible Titus Andronicus.

There was a split between the two men around 1592 or 1593. The protégé surpassed the mentor. Shakespeare no longer needed Oxford’s instruction. He became known and famous by his own right. Shakespeare proved this by rewriting the plays by Oxford and having more success with them. His Richard III was Shakespeare’s first blockbuster. With this success, he was able to buy a share into the newly forming Lord Chamberlain’s Men.

Oxford, who was broke and in trouble with the Queen, went another way.

Edward de Vere did have a large hand in the plays written by Shakespeare. Oxford mentored Shakespeare and helped create the best playwright in the English Language.

---

[i]               These plays are not very good compared with Shakespeare’s re-tellings. They do hold really interesting clues to Shakespeare’s mind, intent and process. It is fascinating what he kept and what he changed. I recommend anyone doing one of the plays to review this source material.

[ii]               People often ask how a secret like this can be concealed. I was working at Actors Theatre of Louisville when Jane Martin wrote many hit plays. Jane Martin was described as a Kentucky playwright who wanted to remain anonymous. While there were many rumors as to who was Jane Martin, it was never conclusively proven, even within the company. As an insider, I can make an educated guess and have seen some “proof”, though I don’t know for sure.

[iii]              Oxford is known to have traveled extensively through Europe and to have fought in the army and navy. Shakespeare supposedly did not. This shows up in the details that Shakespeare gets wrong. Oxfordians use his experience as an argument for his authorship of the plays and against Shakespeare. However, they fail to see how much the writer got wrong. The writer gets things wrong no one with first-hand experience would. 

Why this Play?

Why this Play?

[I’m back.  I disconnected during my winter break from everything, including writing.  The New Year has rushed in and I’m back at everything.  I’ll post a few short pieces I started last month before launching into a big thought.  Thank you for reading and your encouragement.]

I’ve seen and worked on many productions of Shakespeare. Still, I enjoy hearing the plays.  Hearing Shakespeare always pays benefits. While I rarely have an epiphany, every production teaches me something or inspires me with a new thought about the play, my time or myself.

Walking out of the Shakespeare productions I heard last month, I was left with a question I often ask: “Why did these theatre artists want me to hear their play?”  By putting on this production, I suppose they wanted to have a conversation with me as their audience. Why did they need me to be there? Why this play at this time?

Shakespeare’s plays are works of art that express the universal human experience. Even his weaker plays have their charms.  Yes, not every Shakespeare play is a masterpiece. And, while there are a few I’m not fond of like Timon of Athens (to bleak) or Titus Andronicus (too much blood and cannibalism, makes me nauseous), there is a place and time to do any of the plays. Each one expresses something unique about the human experience and each one can potentially illuminate our experience.

So, why did these theatre artists pick this play out of the canon?  Why did they want me to hear this play today?  Was there something in this play that really connected with them?  Was there a theme or situation? Does this play express something specific to our now?

If the role of the artist is to express what it is to live in our time, then the choice and production of a Shakespeare play must be specific to our now.  A director or theater company should decide to do a Macbeth or a Much Ado because they have an idea or a point of view that they want to express. 

Now, what I get might be something other than what they intend.  That’s fine.  I’m not looking to be told what to think. What I want is an argument presented with a point of view.  By having a strong argument and reason for playing the play, it helps the audience have their own experience.

This is important. It is easier and more potent for me to form and understand my own argument when the theatre artists have a strong and committed argument. The more specific and committed to a thought and argument a production is the more it can open the audience to not only that point of view, but also to their own.  Many productions seem to feel that the opposite is true, when they are general and open to all arguments it allows the audience to decide.  This only disconnects and bores the audience. They need to make a strong argument, even a controversial tack on the play.  Then, I can have my own point of view, my own experience.

I need to add this to my list of Paradoxes of Playing Shakespeare that I first developed many years ago at Shakespeare & Company.  Shakespeare’s plays are revealed through paradox.  The way you might think it works doesn’t. It actually works the opposite way.  Here are my Paradoxes of Playing Shakespeare:

Shakespeare’s text will go where you go and will always get you where you need to go.

The text will support any feeling and thought the actor truthfully has in the moment.  It will express that part of the actor that is present.  And, if the actor stays open to the words of the text, the text will lead the actor to feel, think and speak the character’s journey through the play.  The text will support and lead the actor’s journey through the play.  This second part is as important as the first part.  The actor must allow the text to play on her/him.

The text embraces your humanity while expressing your individuality.

In the text the actor will find his/her own humanity, how she/he is like, resembles all other human beings in our history.  It embraces how we are the same.  In addition, the actor can express his/her own individuality by speaking the text from a place of honesty.  It allows the actor to express how he she is different than anyone else.

The more you focus on the minute parts of the text, the more you express the universal.

The more specifically and individually you play each word and syllable, the more the text will illuminate all of humanity.

Though the text seems old and of another time, it expresses the experiences of each new moment.

Though the text seems old, it retains the fire of its first igniting and will burn anew with each person’s utterance.

In the theater when you speak directly to one member of the audience, the rest of the audience feels included.

When an actor generally speaks to the audience, the audience members can often feel disconnected from each other and the whole.  When the actor speaks directly to one audience member followed by speaking directly to another, all of the audience feels as if the actor was talking to them.

Now I can add:

The more a production commits to a point of view, the more the audience can have their own point of view.