As a comment on the absurdities of war (particularly the Trojan one) and silly love stories, Troilus and Cressida starts out well enough. The Trojans hang out on balconies fanboying/girling over the hot Trojan warriors coming back from the field (To be fair, hot Trojan men in short kirtles. It's not the worst.). The Greeks, meanwhile, are led by a bunch of old drunk men who, after a drunken counsel, decide that all their problems in taking Troy are Achilles' fault. As Achilles is spending all his time in his tent with Patroclus (unabashedly presented as a catamite, complete with kissing, go Shakespeare Tavern!) this is sound policy. Always blame the person not in the room. Our titular lovers, meanwhile, are going about their titular love with the aid of Cressida's Sassy Gay Uncle and his witty repartee, and it really doesn't seem that serious, vows of eternal affection in poetic language not withstanding. Other characters on both Trojan and Greek sides have silly witty repartee and it's all very slapstick and fun.
It's after the intermission that the play falls apart. It stops being a comedy when Cressida gets traded to the Greeks in exchange for another prisoner being released. Troilus decides to be a complete jerk about this, and gives her a speech about staying true (like she's going to have a choice in the matter, do we really have any illusions about what happens to captive Trojan women who are given to the Greeks?) and later decides to visit her in the Greek camp to spy on her to make sure she's being true(rescuing would seem more to the point, but she's not that important, I guess) and not only is she all sweet and affectionate toward Diomedes, she gives the following speech:
Ah, poor our sex! This fault in us I find,
The error of our eye directs our mind.
What error leads must err; O then conclude,
Minds swayed by eyes are full of turpitude.
Is that Shakespeare's take on this? Really? Her lover Troilus gives her to the Greeks. Just gives her. With a hug, but that doesn't make it better. He's a prince, I'm sure he could actually manage to do something useful. So is Shakespeare, with his much vaunted insight into the human psyche, really saying Cressida now totally has the hots for Diomedes, totally for realz and not at all influenced by a desire to not be gang-raped by a bunch of drunk old men? There's a scene in which they all take turns kissing her. I'm thinking that is probably a stand in for sex, if not, it's still creepily non-consensual. This is a play in which women have no agency and are explicitly referred to as things (that the things are pearls does not make it better). Cressida is doing what she can to protect herself, that Shakespeare has her saying she's just a fickle woman with her love at the mercy of the last hot man she saw is repulsive.
Back to the main plot (because the titular characters seem like afterthoughts throughout), there are battles going on now! We have gone from comedic Greek commanders and silly Trojan love stories to Serious Combat and Depressing Death, and it doesn't seem to tie together in any clear manner. Particularly since the only characters who die are Patroclus (who we never really cared about) and the hottest man in the cast Hector. Hector is enough of a character that we might care, but the drama of his death is somewhat overshadowed by the fact that the responsible Myrmidons are magical ninja assassins. Achilles' knavery in claiming glory and responsibility for Hector's death at the hands of Myrmidons is also overshadowed, because why are the Myrmidons magical ninja assassins? I hate to criticize magical ninja assassins, I really do, but I was so busy trying to figure out why the Myrmidons were magical ninja assassins that I missed some speechifying.
Oh, in further questionable staging choices besides the magical ninja assassins, while all the Trojans are in mourning, the bastard son of Priam assumes a crucified hero shot, because Reasons. Not only does The Illiad (and any actual historical events forming its basis) predate Christianity, it predates crucifixion as a popular form of execution. I realize Shakespeare didn't particularly care about anachronisms, so if there seemed some actual reason for some crucifixion symbolism tossed in at the end, I doubt I'd care, but there wasn't, so I do.
It's not that the Shakespeare Tavern did a bad job presenting this (except for maybe the magical ninja assassins), it's just that the play itself is odd. But as the announcer telling people to turn off their phones remarked, seeing Troilus and Cressida gives one serious Shakespearean street cred. So there's that. Also Thersites, who tells everyone in excellent turns of phrases that they are stupid and he hates them. He may be the only character in the play with sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment