A Musing Things

dreamyoswin:

the doctor: clara I’m not your boyfriend

clara: I never thought you were

the doctor: I never said it was your mistake

me: 

Hmm my feelings exactly..

(via dreamyoswin-deactivated20141206)

—Please note this contains spoilers for the play so if you want it to be a surprise (I love that Shakespeare can still be a surprise) then don’t read it–

I went to my local indie cinema to see National Theatre Lives “broadcast” of Coriolanus on Saturday.  It was so breathtaking.  I loved every minute of it.  I have not watched many/any Shakespearian Histories but this has opened my eyes to them.  It was so dynamic and human - more than a history is was an anatomy of the heart of it’s main character and the affect his choices, or his immovableness, had on others.  It is a story of fruitless redemption.  

Coriolanus wins his final victory by allowing his resolve to break for the sake of his love and duty to his family and by doing so is butchered by his enemy and sometimes friend Aufidius. I think I will try to seek out more of the histories - I always thought of them as cartoonish, inaccurate and boring but now I see that they may have much more to them - and they can only be more interesting if they can bare to have a cast and leading man as enthralling as this production.  

Mark Gatiss was admirable and warm as Menenius and Tom Hiddleston’s performance was like watching lightening strike, so brilliant and illuminating you almost had too look away.  A portrayal so true, so honest, so compassionate, that even though Martius is an unashamed hater of the lower classes and is ready to stomp on them as much as rule them, you are very much on his side wishing he would give in to save his skin but also knowing that having done this the pure quality of his conviction would be sullied.  

My compassion for him scared me.  Coriolanus is everything I usually associate with evil. He is tyrannical, violent  - a consummate soldier - in politics an unrepentant elitist who sees the lower orders as only there to support the lifestyle of the ruling classes, and yet I admire his courage his resoluteness his nobility, his purity of purpose and the genuine affection he has for his city (at least in the beginning) and above all his family.  So while he has some objectionable points of view and ideas he is not evil or duplicitous in any way he is plain and unflinchingly honest - this is so refreshing and compelling.  It is in the end his honesty and his unwillingness to disguise his point of view in any way that are his downfall.  In fact when his family come to entreat him not to attack the city with Aufidius it is his inability  to deny his affection and love for his mother his wife and his family that undoes him in the end.  The end is both a victory and a defeat - so bitter sweet.  

My affection for the tyrant amazed and confronted me.  What does this say about how I view people in political life in my world?  How much are my views skewed by the context, the speaker and those whom he/she is opposing?  Am I evaluating the moral content of what the person is saying or am I allowing these things to be obscured by my pervious perceptions of the person?  In the case of Martius he is elected consul by the people purely on the strength and valour he has shown as a soldier, despite all the people knowing of his disdain for them and tyrannical nature.  It has to be said that I know that my perception and readiness to be on Coriolanus’ side had a lot to do with the fact that he was played by one of my favourite actors and the fact the he is very easy on the eye. I kind of think that is part of the point that the director is making.  It is definitely a theme in play - with a bit of sweetener the masses will swallow anything….even a 400 year old play that is barely ever performed.  That is not to say I am denigrating this strategy - it is, rather, a masterstroke. I think the more people who are introduced to these amazing works the better. And what is more the audience was not “pulled in” by some gimmicky novelty that had nothing to do with the integrity of the story but by using the themes and ideas that were in the text. (i.e. Hiddleston’s fame and celebrity have some like to the fame and regard with which Martius is held in the play - hopefully with the exception of the tyranny I imagine) This is, in my humble opinion, when Shakespeare is at it’s best.  When what is written on the page is brought to life and respected and not twisted and obscured to suit the purposes of the director.  Maybe I am old fashioned but my rule of thumb when it comes to Shakespeare is ‘Trust what’s on the page" - after all it’s survived for a reason.