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
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
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-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/winedale-l
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-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/winedale-l
On Fri, 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.
Well, apart from the famous Eliot appraisal, there's always Frank Kermode. But if I had to name an "unheralded" play, I might go with TIMON or HENRY VIII, both of which I regard as deservedly held in poor regard.
I certainly wish I could see what this year's Winedale class is doing with CORIOLANUS, but finances prohibit.
--Mike
Right. I think it's generally perceived to be in the same category as Troilus and Cressida, Henry IV, part 2, etc. That is, plays that are very provocative and rich but not perhaps ultimately successful. Timon and Henry VIII both have complex textual issues.
On 8/3/2012 1:35 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
On Fri, 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.
Well, apart from the famous Eliot appraisal, there's always Frank Kermode. But if I had to name an "unheralded" play, I might go with TIMON or HENRY VIII, both of which I regard as deservedly held in poor regard.
I certainly wish I could see what this year's Winedale class is doing with CORIOLANUS, but finances prohibit.
--Mike
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
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:13 PM, James Ayres jayres@cvctx.com wrote:
The text does not really give us too much of a chance to get inside him.
That is for damn sure.
Doc, you really put your finger on the problems with Coriolanus that I also have -- one wants redeeming qualities to emerge. I suppose there's something to be said for his disdain for popular regard, except that he makes it a vice.
When I learned Eliot's opinion of CORIOLANUS, I fairly quickly concluded that the opinion told me much more about Eliot than it did about Shakespeare.
--Mike
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
This discussion inspired me to reread Plutarch's comparison of Coriolanus and Alcibiades -- it seems clear to me (as it always has) that Plutarch is much more forgiving of the facile, flattering Alcibiades than he is of unbending, resentful Coriolanus. But there's this point that Plutarch (in this Dryden translation) puts quite well that communicates a kind of irony that perhaps Shakespeare was trying to get at: "He who least likes courting favour, ought also least to think of resenting neglect; to feel wounded at being refused a distinction can only arise from an overweening appetite to have it."
I said earlier that Coriolanus disdains popular regard, but that is of course incorrect -- he disdains seeking recognition, or seeming to seek it, but of course he feels entitled to it.
Here's Plutarch (via Dryden): http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/compared.html
--Mike
I just want to say that, like Doc I never found anything to like about Coriolanus. Perhaps a really good production can give emotional oomph to a character who has none. But Shakespeare did write some turkeys and that's one of em.
Terry
-----Original Message----- From: saengerm saengerm@southwestern.edu To: James Ayres jayres@cvctx.com Cc: Shakespeare at Winedale 1970-2000 alums winedale-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 10:17 pm Subject: Re: [Winedale-l] NYT
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
_______________________________________________ Winedale-l mailing list Winedale-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/winedale-l
Thanks for your notes Michael. Not sure if I can follow all of them, though, e.g., the notions of "emotional malice" and "emotionally dead." Your observation about the Coriolanus "embrace" is interesting, insightful. I agree, what I saw at Winedale was a performance that chose not to go in any direction.
Doc On Aug 3, 2012, at 7:17 PM, saengerm@southwestern.edu wrote:
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
I just meant they seemed so heartless, whereas Coriolanus seems warmer by the end of the play.
On 8/4/2012 10:09 PM, James Ayres wrote:
Thanks for your notes Michael. Not sure if I can follow all of them, though, e.g., the notions of "emotional malice" and "emotionally dead." Your observation about the Coriolanus "embrace" is interesting, insightful. I agree, what I saw at Winedale was a performance that chose not to go in *any *direction.
Doc On Aug 3, 2012, at 7:17 PM, saengerm@southwestern.edu mailto:saengerm@southwestern.edu wrote:
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 mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto:Winedale-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/winedale-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/winedale-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/winedale-l%20>
Winedale-l mailing list Winedale-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Winedale-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/winedale-l
In light of this discussion, I watched Ralph Fiennes's film adaptation of CORIOLANUS today. Emphasis, of course, on "adaptation" -- the text is radically reduced from the source. Fiennes does an amazing job as a screen actor of attempting to fill in the gaps that the text does not fill regarding Coriolanus's -- by my count, he smiles only at one moment in the whole film, when we first see him with his "sweet silence" of a wife and his child after his return from routing the Volscians. His performance doesn't make fix the problem that the text leaves us with -- too little information about his inner life, what drives him, how he got this way, and what changes in him. But it is certainly watchable.
What I really liked, though, is Brian Cox's take on Menenius. Here's a good interview with Cox in the Telegraph that underscores Cox's and Fiennes's interpretive choices with that role: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/starsandstories/9027156/Brian-Cox-in... .
--Mike
Doc writes:
Yes, for Eliot, it might have been a greater "tragic" achievement than Hamlet. For the like of me, I could never figure that out.
Having thought on this some more, I think Eliot must have have preferred CORIOLANUS over HAMLET because the former is so much simpler emotionally.
--m
Thanks Jerald. There are only three more chances to see this rare play at Winedale: this Saturday night (8/4), the following Saturday afternoon (8/11), or Sunday evening, 8/12. We will also perform it at the Blackfriars Playhouse in Virginia on Monday, 8/27.
The Winter's Tale and Midsummer also play through 8/12 at Winedale.
Thanks!
James
On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Jerald Head wrote:
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
winedale-l@lists.wikimedia.org