The Taming of the Shrew, Royal Shakespeare Theatre
8th March, 2019
On this International Women’s Day I took my two eldest daughters to see Taming of the Shrew at the RST in Stratford. Interesting choice for IWD you may say but obviously I had no idea of the auspicious day when I booked the tickets. Such forward planning is sadly not my style.
The girls didn’t know the play and I was excited for them to see it. It’s a problematic play in many ways, the clue being in the title. Ultimately the shrew is tamed. But the entertainment is in Katherine’s defiance. Arguably, she is the greatest Shakespearean female with some of the greatest lines: “I see a woman may be made a fool/If she had not a spirit to resist.”
Ahh, “a spirit to resist.” And this is where the entertainment lies; just watch her resist! I think I speak for most theatre-goers when I say, “We forgive you, Mr Shakespeare, for ending the play in the manner you did.” I like to think that, of course, within the confines of the day, he had to have the shrew tamed both for the sake of conventional comedic resolution but also so that fifty percent of his audience were not shocked and disgusted out of ever visiting the theatre again.
All this was pacing around in my head when I bought the programme and discovered that such sacrilege was about to occur that I instantly wished I’d chosen a different play. What a shame that the first time my girls were to see this play, the wonderful Katherine was to be played by a man. Even worse, all the roles had been swapped and we were being transported to a sixteenth century matriarchy. I explained to my girls what was going to happen. They cared not a jot, having no prior knowledge or affection for the play. And so, we perched on our stools and awaited the performance, me telling myself firmly to open my mind.
Matriarchy is an odd but satisfying concept, I suppose. Not what the feminist aims for, obviously, being so wedded to equality as we are but a nice day dream all the same. Except, even in day dreams I’m a pragmatist. What would a matriarchy be founded on? The patriarchy, of course, exists for one reason and one reason alone: Men are bigger and stronger than women. And for all the pay inequality, silencing and burkas it's worth remembering that still, today, an average of 137 women, across the world, are killed by men everyday. There’s the patriarchy.
In the programme for this performance, Jami Rogers writes:
‘Some audience members may find it uncomfortable to watch a female Petruchio wielding power over a male Katherine, but perhaps some will also ask why – when audiences have happily flocked to see a male Petruchio’s treatment of a female Katherine – it is unacceptable if the tables are turned?’
Well, Jami, it’s unacceptable because it doesn’t work. And you’re wrong that audiences ‘happily flocked’ to see Katherine beaten and bullied by Petruchio. We flocked to see the guile and spirit and sheer witty brilliance of Katherine in the face of inevitable domination. The scenes where Claire Price, quite brilliant as Petruchia, physically abuses the male Katherine were simply turned into farce. The audience roared and indeed they were quite funny. Funny because it’s all so improbable. My girls looked thoroughly perplexed. My eldest struggled not to walk out. Afterwards, she said, “It’s a horrible play!” But I tried to explain, “If only you could have heard Katherine’s words spoken by a woman, seen a woman square up to Petruchio, you’d have been incredibly moved.” Not this time though.
I do want to try and suspend my disbelief for a moment and comment on the good because there was still much to praise. All the cast gave their absolute all but Emily Johnstone as Lucentia and Laura Elsworthy as Trania were particularly successful at harnessing the humour of their parts. How Sophie Stanton as Gremia, managed to hover in her enormous gown so successfully, as if propelled by wheels, was a source of fascination and hysteria to all. The music, a sort of Renaissance rock, was also effective at enhancing an environment based around mad dating rituals and hidden identities
I suppose, at this precise moment in time, such an interpretation seems pressing and contemporary. Jami Rogers refers to characters being ‘gender-swapped’ but let’s be clear, the sex of the actors was swapped; nothing to do with gender. And what the RSC hoped would be subversive actually bordered on offensive. Womankind has a history and that history is often one of repression and enslavement. It cannot so easily be handed to men, either in drama or in any other way you might care to imagine.
