13 thoughts on “Coriolanus: general themes”

  2. Also, I’ve instituted tags for these posts, so be thinking about the ways we can use this aspect of the blog. Should I tag all the characters in each scene, so that when we cast, one could go back and click on the character’s tag and retrieve all the discussion about him/her?

    And if so, how should I distinguish between Coriolanus the tragedy and Coriolanus the hero?

  3. I’ve decided to use the tag “Coriolanus” for the character. The category “Coriolanus” will be for the play.

  4. Something struck me in reading through I.1 that might be useful as we head into an election in the fall. None of the characters are likable, but all of them speak the truth. No one is lying in the opening scene. It’s sort of like the Visual Thesaurus: when you look up politics, you get one little web of words/meanings, and then if you click on government, everything swings around and rearranges until a new balance is found. That’s what politics is supposed to be about, our current polarized situation notwithstanding.

    It’s interesting too how many articles I’ve read recently which extol one politician or another for being a deal-maker: Ted Kennedy, of course, but also Barney Frank, about whom a Republican colleague was quoted as saying that he got fairer treatment from Barney as chairman of the committee than when his party was in control. Perhaps we’re seeing the beginning of the end of absolutist politics for a while? If so, our Coriolanus fits with the Zeitgeist, if we have it be an object lesson on going along/getting along.

  5. But wouldn’t it also be interesting to show the world through Coriolanus’ eyes. I realize that eliminates the possibility for a kind of balanced debate, but the acting possibilities are interesting. Shift the energies so that it almost seems like Coriolanus is the only character who makes sense. Seems, mind. And that view would not be stable, of course.

    I think I’m wanting to be a little sneaky since I’m assuming most of our audience will not be familiar with the play; they won’t necessarily “know” what C’s problem is. We could lure them into a sympathy and then show how they are headed for disaster if they maintain that allegiance. It’s as if, to be a touch simplistic, Coriolanus is a WWF wrestling hero who’s bluster and bragging excites the crowd. We just follow that posturing to its bitter conclusion, let the audience see how their investment in that kind of excess leads to annihilation.

  6. Easy enough to do, I think: Menenius is a good ol’ boy; the tribunes are conniving triangulators; the senators are craven power-hoarders; only Coriolanus is pure and noble, for all the good that does him (or the state). It reminds me of Anouilh’s Antigone in that regard.

  7. Vanity and madness prompt me to want to be on record as having had this idea. To continue with World Wrestling Federation idea. Lets just go for the whole Po-Mo ironic mediation thing and do the entire play as a WWF extravaganza. We would actually research by watching some matches. Can you imagine Coriolanus as a wrestler spewing vitriol in iambic pentameter? This would satisfy my appetite for spectacle and still keep things “interesting.” Of course we end with a final death match. There’s no reason why the plot of the play wouldn’t work as one of those elaborate wrestling scenarios.

  8. The more I think about it, if Shakespeare were alive today, he’d be writing and producing World Wrestling spectacles. Think about it. What’s really wrong with wrestling shows is the low caliber of the writing.

    I bet if we sat down we could find wrestling show correlatives for everything in the play.

    And with a new infusion of exalted language, participants wouldn’t need as much reliance on steroids. Just speaking the words would puff them up. In fact, it would puff up everybody. We could still play the parts ourselves and not have to recruit from Gold’s Gym or the Fire Department. There’s a part of me that’s a touch serious about this.

  9. Why, is not this better now than groaning for art?
    now art thou sociable, now art thou Honea; now art
    thou what thou art, by art as well as by nature.

  10. Warming to the theme. Also shooting from the hip, but why not. As a wrestling extravaganza, the play can still ask all of the questions it tries to ask. “What do The People want?” “What is the meaning of the warrior’s act in the context of the political imagination?” “What should those who engorge their sinews to ensure our security and to satisfy our darker appetites for conquering struggle expect as recompense?” “Is honor real?” “How does honor get manipulated?” “What does it mean to be fit for the game of politics?”

    At the risk of offending, I cannot help but see Coriolanus’ attempt to court the People as his doing a bad impression of W. After all, we are told W’s popularity was in part due to his seeming just like plain speaking folks.

    And I don’t see Coriolanus’ treasonous alliance as a break of the frame. It all plays out in the ring as part of the spectacle; it’s the next evolution of the thrill of the show. IT’S ALL A SHOW. Show is a good word. Even in the way Coriolanus and his beloved enemy “show” each other their scars, we find useful resonance.

  12. Go look at the tag cloud. (I don’t know why it doesn’t show up on any page but the front one.) If I/we can tag each post with sufficient perspicuity, I can see how it would be useful in discerning threads or themes. I guess what I’m thinking right now is my usual Gestalt thing: what’s missing? What are we reading in the script that should be tagged?

    Suggestions are always appropriate.

  13. This is not an answer to the above question.

    I find my reading moves in fits and starts but is quite enjoyable. Speaking of Gestalt, so far my thinking is wholly global and conceptual, not helpful for issues of scene needs or character needs yet.

    Images and questions to ponder in no particular order:

    I hope I don’t sound too tiresomely cliched when I say that the idea of “performance” is conceptually highlighted for me. I think in particular about the contrast between C.’s military performance and his political performance and how both performances are experienced by others and commented upon. It connects with the notion of pundits and journalists using the word performance to evaluate everything from appearances on talk shows, to participation in debates, and on to the results of polls. Might there be some aspect of the performance space that responds the various shifts in status and scrutiny of C.’s performance. For instance, to celebrate his military acts, an elevation is constructed. C. is upon it, viewed by audience and other characters from below. When C. must appeal to the tribunes, the area is lowered and both audience and tribunes will stand above, looking down on him, with C. in a pit of some sort. Both the elevation and the “pit” are constructed by stagehands/workers/proles.

    I keep seeing the world of the play as the contemporary world of politics. We joke with the idea by dressing all senators and tribunes in the “working” political uniform: no jacket, rolled up sleeves, loosened ties, cell phones constantly at the ears.

    Spin. Image management. “Charisma.” I am baffled by the libidinal attachment supporters experience with their candidates. I would like to use the production to investigate such a thing. Clearly as a hero C. has that certain something that produces…what…in the imaginations of people across the spectrum (though less so in the scheming tribunes, it seems). Is it the erotics of patriotism? If you can’t see the how those on the right get off on such things, you’re burying your head in the sand. You have to juxtapose the unassailable honor with the obscene enjoyment. We can’t be blind to it. There is obscene enjoyment in the sacrifice of the young.

    There IS great comedy in the attempt to translate C.’s presence into something with political appeal. And so much of it circulates around the issue of exposing his wounds. Again, a certain perverse erotics at work.

    Given this is an outdoor performance, how “decorative” do we want to be? Design statements? I confess I never go to design first and naturally. I’m conceptual by nature and more reflective. I have to push myself to create in visual terms. What think we? Do we want big outdoor visual elements?

Comments are closed.