#Hyper-jacobean

[plunder-heaven-and-devour-god]

In which I continue with my english lit rant but much shorter:

So because my brain needs to think about other things I’m going to keep talking about Measure for Measure.

So a week into the painting I’m doing for Measure for Measure has given me ample time to think about what symbols, themes, and motifs to visually represent. This has also forced me to mull over parts of the play, its problem parts for the most part. Because there is a historicist reading, religious, psychosexual, feminist, capitalist, and folkloric reading I had to think about which to concentrate on. Translating my emotional reaction to the version I saw in comparison with other adaptations can be tricky.

Which is why, like the play, I tried to make ambivalent representations. I borrowed the hair yank from the Ian Richardson’s Angelo because it has those sadomasochistic overtones, but there is an element to Isabellas reaction that plays the line between the psychosexual and the feminist reading. Those readings being 1) Maybe the interplay between the restraint of faith and sex does do something for ISabella 2) Angelo as a sexual predator.

Now you might be saying: “why would you try to blur the lines between “maybe she likes it” and “Sexual Predator”. 

1) The text itself does that, that isn’t production dependent.

2) IT’s a valid interpretation in a modern interpretation BECAUSE the interplay between the feminist reading and the psychosexual is carried through in the text, It was in the still very feminist version I saw, BUT the degree of assault is determined by the adaptation. 

That being said, the Oregon Shakespeare production of it, is C H I L L I N G. Like, genuinely strikes me cold with fear to the degree to which they say: this is rape. And I think there absolutely needs to be a version of Measure for Measure like this. But the version I saw puts Angelo down to pathetic, and less of an utter monster.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT

BECAUSE ISABELLA HAS TO FORGIVE HIM AT THE END.

THAT IS IN THE TEXT. THE SEXUAL ASSAULT IS NOT. 

Again, have the heavy feminist reading that includes the sexual assault. The structure of this play means that it will make mostly sense the whole way through and we need that version.

HOWEVER. 

IT really does beg the question: can sexual assault ever be portrayed properly on stage or in film? I am not here to answer that, I am but a humble hyper fixated worm, but! It does make a difference, because even watching David Tennant force a kiss on Isabella made me think: UHHH THIS MIGHT BE PUSHING IT. 

And I, personally, don’t love a version of the play which is Angelo nearly sexually assaulting her and then she finds it in her to forgive him for it. Depending on how violent and atrocious it is? N O ! NO NO NO! I don’t want to watch that near rape and have her spare his life. The version I saw, he more or less prostrated himself at her feet, held her hand, and pathetically buckled at every touched, and at most, kept his distance as he followed her around the stage. This makes Isabella forgiving him later feel??? More realistic, because in this sense hes an immoral wretch, a pathetic worm, and HOW DARE HE. Instead of an honest to god rapist, and at that point forgiving him would feel disingenious even by Shakespeare Jacobean era.

So I try to keep it implied in my painting (and wow you know im trying to get away from twitter if Im giving you a fine arts self critique) which I feel is better for one image. If I ever got the chance to adapt it I would probably make Angelo feel somewhere between pathetic, domineering, and submissive. If that makes sense? Like, if the religious reading is in keeping with this, then it would be like an angel *madonna plays in the background* TOUCHED FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME. 

Anyways this is why when Martha Henry played Isabella in the 1970s she wiped herself down post Interview #2 out of disgust or heat? WE DON’T KNOW. And I learnt this straight from the Stage Manager Nora Polley (who has a book called Whenever You’re Ready which you should get because it has some of her most amazing experiences working for the Stratford Festival). 

The Snake?!

WELL!

IT WAS ON THE SHIRT I BOUGHT AT SHAKESPEARE IN THE PARK. And its Isabella as Justice with her balances, her eyes obscured by a snake, who has slithered up the body. To which I freaked because it’s such a good visual representation. BUT ALSO? snake? In the Garden of Eden. And if we are talking Angelo as a fallen angel? Thats the extent of my input there. 

They also played sexually religious songs? Like? Hozier, Depeche Mode, Madonna. Twas all there, and if I ever did a film (it’s my pipe dream to go GDT and just make films of my obsessions) I would also make my film with sexual religious songs. 

Uh so thats all i got. Wow, a lot less than my last english lit breakdown.

Anyways Billy Shakes wanted us to be sexually attracted to some of his villains, idk if Angelo was one, but Richard III, Edmund, the Macbeths, those he kinda intended.