Hi Doc,
I think you're right about Coriolanus; he doesn't fit with
Aristotle any more than he fits with Rome or his own
family. And I think that makes him off-putting, to Romans
as well as critics. We don't know what to do with him,
any more than the Romans do.
I think the impulse, understandably, has been to pressure
the play to be a touch allegorical, which means that it is
either conservative (deriding the fickle plebeians) or
leftist (scorning the arrogant patricians). What I saw at
Winedale that night was a performance that didn't pressure
the play in either direction. And what emerged, for me,
was a kind of emotional malice coming from figures like
his mother, and the blond guy who was either Sicinius or
Brutus; I'm not sure, but he did this wonderfully, and
most dangerously from Aufidius, who seems to always dodge
a fair and conclusive fight with his rival. In this
landscape of emotional coldness, I read the (relatively)
silent Virgilia and the irascible and profoundly unlikable
Coriolanus to emerge as warm, because in the land of the
emotionally dead, those with half a heart become
sympathetic.
For me this became particularly apparent when Coriolanus
embraced Aufidius, putting his hand on the back of his
neck. It was almost a moment of intimacy (which, very
subtly, draws on what many critics read as a homoerotic
undercurrent). And it was also tragically asymmetrical.
Coriolanus thinks that the intimacy creates a permanent
bond, but of course, for Aufidius it is only a provisional
one.
Michael
Quoting James Ayres <
jayres@cvctx.com>:
Well, Mike, Mike, and Jerald.
Actually many scholars don't think the play is at all
interesting but in fact something of a puzzle that
every generation of directors, actors, and critics must
attempt to solve. Yes, for Eliot, it might have been a
greater "tragic" achievement than Hamlet. For the like
of me, I could never figure that out. Coriolanus does
not measure up well with his (well, not actually his,
but borrowed) "objective correlative" notion either. He
did not like Hamlet, for sure. When I met him in '57
in Gregory Gym, I should have asked why.
I must confess that I really never
liked the play. That is why my graduate director, John
Harold Wilson, demanded that I explore its dramatic
history in my dissertation. For me the play has
problems. I see nothing "heroic" or "tragic" in the
central figure. The text does not really give us too
much of a chance to get inside him. Yes, he is a war
hero, swift with sword, and very proud indeed. Like
Hotspur, he is himself on the battlefield, but
comfortable nowhere else. I just do not see dimensions
in the man, tragic or otherwise. He is more talked
about than talking. He seems to me a subject, or
perhaps a (threatening?) symbol, for discussion, and I
find myself waiting for him to rise above all of that.
But he does not. Scholars have listed, as they will,
his "tragic flaw" as "pride." In the play, he is
described as "too noble for the world," One critic
commented that he was "more sinned against than
sinning," inviting an absurd comparison with Lear.
I was amused by the Times' notion
that he relates poorly to his country's commoners.
"Poorly"? He despises them. They are stupid. For that
matter, he relates "poorly" to just about everyone he
encounters. And everyone seems to have difficulty
communicating with him. Even mom, who (almost alone?)
carries the Roman values. His wife is described as a
"sweet silence"? Hmmmm.
On one occasion, I told Professor
Wilson that I thought that Coriolanus was one of those
Pirandello folks searching for an author, or a play, or
a life.
He shook his head and tried to
smile. For me, he is a helpless, solitary, figure
whose only distinction is killing people. Aufidius is
the same. That is what they share.
And yes, director's "notes" for
performances seem to focus on the "relevant political"
interest in the play. While it is rather clear that
whoever wrote this play wanted us to hear the
conflicting voices of the patricians, tribunes, and
commoners (scenes often played for comedy, alas), I
still wonder where it all ends up. Coriolanus never
really runs "for" office. In fact, he runs "from" it.
Granted, that like most candidates, he is not
well-suited for political office. And why should he
be running for consul when the country is beset by an
intruding enemy which he can tackle more handily on foot
in the battlefield than in office? And as well, a
deteriorating internal class struggle. And then
there's mom.
I have always felt that mom was
the strongest voice in the play, should be. She is
Rome.
Going on too long, I know, but
have to say finally that I think the play is not
tragedy but irony, presenting the audience with
characters struggling unsuccessfully for meaning,
order, for certainty. Certainly, Coriolanus' last,
Posthumus-like, sequences, illustrate that and as well
the final moment which startles us with an act of
murder followed by an heroic burial. Sorry, but I
cannot find anyone valuable in this play.
The Winedale performance I saw was
the same one you attended, Michael. You wrote that it
was an "emotional" experience. I'd like to hear the
why and where of it in specific terms. Apparently, I
missed some things. I did see some very enthusiastic
kids struggling independently with the
characterization, conflict, and language with a tough
assignment. Some really super great line deliveries.
But not an end. For me, alas, it is still the puzzle
I addressed in 1963.
Cheers,
Doc
On Aug 3, 2012, at 10:57 AM, saengerm@southwestern.edu
wrote:
Oh, I think that's accurate.
Most scholars would call the play interesting, but I
haven't heard it heralded very much. That said, I
think performance can make a strong case for looking
at the play differently. From what I understand,
past performances have tended to make the play read
politically--the recent Fiennes version does this
very strongly. What struck me as really interesting
about the Winedale production is that it really
didn't come off as a political play, for me, but more
of an emotional one. That surprised me, in a good
way, and not just because our world already has an
excess of politically inflected discourse. I also
think the play emerges really powerfully on emotional
terms.
Mike
Quoting Mike Godwin <mnemonic@gmail.com>:
I'm astonished to see the New
York Times declare that "Coriolanus" is not a
heralded play. It's not a
*popular* play, but this is hardly the same thing.
--Mike
ik
On Friday, August 3, 2012,
wrote:
Just my humble opinion, but
the performance of Coriolanus is really moving
and wonderfully done. I had
very high hopes, and I wasn't disappointed at
all.
This is a great play if you
have the opportunity to see it.
Michael
Quoting Jerald Head <jlhead1952@gmail.com>:
Nice blurb NYTimes today
about upcoming show "Coriolanus"
"The actors participating
in the University of Texas?s Shakespeare at
Winedale summer workshop
will perform ?Coriolanus? for the first time in
its 42-year history.
Though it is not a heralded play, this
political drama
was adapted for the screen
last year, with Ralph Fiennes and Gerard
Butler,
and T. S. Eliot called it
a greater tragic achievement than ? Hamlet.?
The story follows a mighty
Roman warrior whose one obstacle to office is
how poorly he relates to
his country?s commoners. In this election, no
matter whom you tag as
Coriolanus, the same point comes across: no
candidate is perfect."
Sent from my iPad
______________________________**_________________
Winedale-l mailing list
Winedale-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/winedale-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/winedale-l
>
_______________________________________________
Winedale-l mailing list
Winedale-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/winedale-l