To Tame a Shrew?

Along with being portrayed as demons, witches, and temptresses, women have also been portrayed as fiesty creatures, in need of being 'tamed'. This fact was blatantly obvious when I had a chance to observe a production of Shakespeare's "The Taming of the Shrew" this weekend.

I was excited to see this play. Firstly, because I had enjoyed it very much when I read it as a twelve year old, and secondly, becuase I had heard that this version would have a 'modern' twist and I hoped for an interesting adaptation.

I was disappointed on both counts.

I found that I have changed so much and come a long way since I was 12. Whereas Petruchio's treatment of Katherine and his method of changing her used to amuse me, now I could hardly endure more than a few minutes of his cruelly misogynistic behavior. For he was a misanthrope! Being almost half her height taller than her, and of a larger build, he over powered Katherine from the start. She had no say in the marriage, and no support from her father, who only wished to get rid of her because he feared she had little prospects for marriage. So here she was literally sold off to a man, who desired her dowry more than herself. And then her husband turns out to be a worse terror in that he deals harshly instead of gently with her. I agree that Katherine is the type of woman who needed something harsh to set her right. I agree that she misbehaved badly before her marriage. She was too cross and could hardly ever have a decent conversation without wrecking the house. However, her husband's tactic involved making her meek and submissive. At the end of the play, Katherine shows all the women and men around her that she is the most obedient wife, for she listens to all her husband's commands without question. She tells the women in the room that a woman must always obey her husband because he works so hard and loves her so much while she languishes in her home, being pampered by the fruit of his hard work. She warns women to not be angry, but be pliant and accepting. She tells them that ire would get them no where. I understand that a woman, or anyone, should not go around destroying everything and wrecking havoc verywhere in the manner that Katherine did. However, what kind of punishment is it when all her fire is quenched at the end? When all we are left with is a little puppet, who listens to all that he husband tells her, because he has so much control over her? What kind of woman is she who has no opinons of her own? Is she then not a toy to be used for the sole purpose of giving pleasure to a man?

I felt like Katherine had died at the end, even though everyone applauded her conduct and esteemed her as fine example of virtous womanhood. When the play ended, the audience clapped wildly. I didn't know what to do.

After the play ended, my friend (who was just as furious with the whole episode as I was) and I happened to spot the director mingling with other guests. We walked up to him and inquired as to what his thoughs were about the message in the play, and how he hoped it would address a modern audience. He replied saying that Katherine wasn't wholly submissive, that she still maintained a sly way of dealing with Petruchio's commands, that she was not innocent as she seemed by the end. We told him that the play didn't show enough of what he claimed. When he insisted that Katherine could only marry Petruchio and that they were equals, I mentioned that Petruchio always had the upper hand, for he always knew how to deal with Katherine. Whereas Katherine had to obey him by the end if she is to live peaceably with him. Petruchio could be cunning or not if he wished but Katherine could not because she had no way out.

As for the 'modern twist', the setting was America in the 50s. I suppose one could say that this was an age before the feminist revival of the 60s. Does it still mean that we can accept the social mores that were being implied in the play? Katherine speaks to the audience at the end about submission and obedience toward her husband. Are we meant to take this as invaluable advice for all time? Or are we meant to think of it as the speech of a repressed 50s housewife, and be glad that we are living in a different time?

More importantly, how far have we changed? It is contemporary actors who played those roles. I wonder what thoughts run through their minds when they perform this play.