(December 18, 2019 at 3:29 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(December 18, 2019 at 3:20 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Not the version I saw.
In the version I saw, you still had the dowrey motif, and girls/women are not property to be bartered like back then. And Petruchio was a fucking stalker, assaulter and abuser in the version I saw. Since when is it ok to kidnap someone, force them to marry you, force them to move with you, then when you don't tidy the house you starve them? That is not love, that is abuse.
If the play made you uncomfortable, then Shakespeare got what he wanted. In the late 16th century, arranged marriages were beginning to fade out, and 'Taming of the Shrew' is (I think) at least partly a critical commentary on the old way of doing things.
Boru
If you go read my prior posts, I was thinking this.
Often in human history, in media, back then, and even today, social norms and stereotypes are used to open the door to question them.
Even Big Bang Theory today, uses the geek/nerd/OCD motif to get society to question the old "men don't cry and should always be Rambo."
It would not surprise me one bit that Shakespeare was telling females, "stand up for yourself." But it was still done in the tone of the social norms of it's time.
Even with atheists, there was an episode of Moonlighting, where Maddie flat out denied the existence of God. David flipped out over that. But at the end of that episode, it was implied that Maddie was willing to reconsider.
They painted her in that episode as cold, materialistic. But, what I did appreciate at the time was the fact, and mind you "not believing" was not a subject widely shown on prime time TV in the 80s.
Point is, if you want to claim he was opening the door for women, I can buy that. But the plot still gives me a lip twitch, knowing how far females have progressed since.
