![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Thursday night I joined ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
beckyzoole and bbwoof at Forest Park to catch this year's Shakespeare in the Park production, "The Merry Wives of WIndsor". I was not thrilled by the play itself, finding it not one of Shakespeare's best, and I was disturbed by some elements in the production as well.
The play, for those of you who like me had never read or seen it, is about Falstaff, a fat drunkard who thinks very well of himself. He comes into Windsor in need of some scratch, and gets the idea that he'll keep himself in dough by getting some sugar mamas. He sends love letters to two ladies of the town, who happen to be best friends. Of course they show each other the letters, and take offense at his cheek in sending the same letter to both of them. They voice much shock that he'd think they would ever have affairs, although before finding out that her friend had also gotten one the first lady seemed to feel flattered and possibly interested. All that happens in the first act. The rest of the play consists of the ladies repeatedly humiliating Falstaff in more and varied ways. Okay, there's also a subplot about trying to marry off the pretty daughter to two different gentlemen: mom promotes one, dad promotes the other while the girl loves a different man altogether.
Already there are several elements that disturb me. I have a strong distaste for watching someone's humiliation as entertainment, even if he seemed to deserve it. But then add to all that the fact that Falstaff was played by a black man and all the other main actors were white, and you've got an even more disturbing visual to go with the words. I have no problem with colorblind casting as a rule, but if doing so sets up a scenario in which a bunch of white men will be beating up a black man for making eyes at white women, it becomes problematic for me. It may be that this was actually intentional, in an attempt to make a commentary on US history or current events, but I found it distressing.
The play was re-set in 1920's St Louis, just at the time of women's getting the vote. This had almost no effect on anything except the scenery and the rather nice music, except for one thing. The part I talked about above? Had Falstaff getting beaten as "The Witch of Brainford" while disguised in women's clothing: a dress and hat and yellow "VOTES FOR WOMEN" sash. The only appearance of suffrage memorabilia is in a scene where the wearer gets beaten. Lovely.
beckyzoole and bbwoof at Forest Park to catch this year's Shakespeare in the Park production, "The Merry Wives of WIndsor". I was not thrilled by the play itself, finding it not one of Shakespeare's best, and I was disturbed by some elements in the production as well.The play, for those of you who like me had never read or seen it, is about Falstaff, a fat drunkard who thinks very well of himself. He comes into Windsor in need of some scratch, and gets the idea that he'll keep himself in dough by getting some sugar mamas. He sends love letters to two ladies of the town, who happen to be best friends. Of course they show each other the letters, and take offense at his cheek in sending the same letter to both of them. They voice much shock that he'd think they would ever have affairs, although before finding out that her friend had also gotten one the first lady seemed to feel flattered and possibly interested. All that happens in the first act. The rest of the play consists of the ladies repeatedly humiliating Falstaff in more and varied ways. Okay, there's also a subplot about trying to marry off the pretty daughter to two different gentlemen: mom promotes one, dad promotes the other while the girl loves a different man altogether.
Already there are several elements that disturb me. I have a strong distaste for watching someone's humiliation as entertainment, even if he seemed to deserve it. But then add to all that the fact that Falstaff was played by a black man and all the other main actors were white, and you've got an even more disturbing visual to go with the words. I have no problem with colorblind casting as a rule, but if doing so sets up a scenario in which a bunch of white men will be beating up a black man for making eyes at white women, it becomes problematic for me. It may be that this was actually intentional, in an attempt to make a commentary on US history or current events, but I found it distressing.
The play was re-set in 1920's St Louis, just at the time of women's getting the vote. This had almost no effect on anything except the scenery and the rather nice music, except for one thing. The part I talked about above? Had Falstaff getting beaten as "The Witch of Brainford" while disguised in women's clothing: a dress and hat and yellow "VOTES FOR WOMEN" sash. The only appearance of suffrage memorabilia is in a scene where the wearer gets beaten. Lovely.
