|
Text Size: A A A
tempestuous(ness) or, HIStory Is Told by the VictorsYou can get on Shakespeare's case about a lot of things — say, his being responsible for Timon of Athens. But unless you're in very uptight academic circles, you'll find it difficult to make a sustained case for his systematic mistreatment of women, at least when you consider that women comprise the majority of his most fully realized characters (especially in the comedies). Even so, writer and director Scott Baker attempts to take Shakespeare to task for misogyny in tempestuous(ness), a fitful exploration of a very minor character in The Tempest, the Bard's last (and perhaps most opaque) play. By "very minor character," I mean a character who doesn't even appear onstage — the witch Sycorax, mother of Caliban, who is discussed in a single monologue by Prospero. Among other theories, Baker seems to think she is a stand-in for Shakespeare's "Dark Lady" (a pretty random conjecture, considering that The Tempest postdates the Sonnets by more than a decade). Sycorax' backstory could make for great theater (in fact, it has), but Baker's rambling succession of scenes never manages to accumulate any dramatic (or comedic) momentum. His script is full of invention but short on ideas; for all its scattershot potshots at a 400-year-old play, tempestuous(ness) fails to illuminate either Shakespeare's work or Sycorax' marginality.
Show Comments (1)
more by
Write Your Comment*indicates required fields. Please enable browser cookies before filling out this form. All reader comments are subject to our Terms of Use. By clicking Add Comment, you acknowledge that you have reviewed and agree to these Terms. Comments may take a few minutes to process and appear on the site. Please do not click the "Add Comment" button again while your comment is being added. Most …
SF Weekly on Digg© 2010 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
|
Scott Baker 09/22/2009 9:26:53 PM
Chris, The audience was laughing from the start of the performance you attended. I'm sorry you didn't find my material funny or compelling, but you do not accurately reflect the mood in the theatre that Sunday afternoon. One of your fellow critics saw the same show that afternoon and had an entirely different experience. I suppose that's how it should be. If I get wildly diametrical views of the play, then I've created something to both please and piss off everyone equally. I wrote this play to work on many different levels. If you know nothing about The Tempest or Shakespeare, there are things for you. If you know some, there is more. In your case, I would love to discuss your background in Shakespearean criticism and the history of his works, this time period and specifically, The Tempest. We disagree on many of the "factual" elements of your review. I have my sources. I would love to know yours. I spent a great deal of time researching all the elements of what I wrote. My research does not agree with what you represent in your review. I would love to delve into the specifics. I do appreciate though that you focused your spleen on my play rather than the wonderfully talented cast and crew. If you didn't enjoy yourself, ultimately, that is my fault, not theirs. I am glad you mentioned Timon of Athens, which is a brilliant first half of a play, saddled with a enigmatic conclusion. It reminds me of another play I've seen recently. I hope to discuss with you sometime soon.