Q1. Discuss the significance of the Prologue scene in Troilus and Cressida? How does it introduce playgoers to the action?
Q2. Discuss the love relationship between the titular characters? Is the tragedy of the piece the unravelling of their relationship? Do you feel sympathy for either, or both, character(s)?
Q3. What is Thersite's dramatic purpose in the play?
Q4. In the BBC film adaptation of the play, discuss Miller's direction of the female characters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Q2.
ReplyDeleteThe love between the titular characters isn't presented as the passionate, undying love as say Romeo and Juliet. Though Troilus displays an interest, Cressida is more reserved; and the couple's first meeting is very formal and chaste. Although both later proclaim their love and faithfulness to one another, this unconvincing beginning leaves us wondering whether this is real love or a sort of arranged marriage, organised by Pandarus. This leads me to believe that the unravelling of the lovers' relationships isn't the main tragedy of the piece - if we don't geniunly believe the love, can it really be tragic when it falls apart? Instead, the real focus here is the wider, more general tragedies of futile love and war, as opposed to the more specific tragedy of Troilus and Cressida. The surprisingly limited stage times devoted to the 'lovers' supports this argument.
With regards to sympathy, it is open to debate how Shakespeare wanted us to feel, especially towards Cressida. Though traditional representations portray her as a knowing villain, given the right staging Cressida could also be seen as the play's victim. When it is announced she is to be taken hostage by the Greeks, none of the Trojans (even "true" Troilus) protest very much against this. Perhaps Troilus's failure to protect her made Cressida disillusioned about their relationship - confirming her initial doubt and the cynical views she had expressed earlier and encouraging her to seek protection from Diomedes. Also, Shakespeare presents Troilus as jealous and distrustful even before Cressida has left. This is partly meta-theatricality on Shakespeare's part, but Troilus's lack of trust could also have made Cressida's faith in their relationship fail. If this is the case, surely then Troilus is also a false lover here, and we can be more sympathetic to Cressida than in earlier versions of the tale.
- Rosie Abbott, Monday 10am group
The relationship between Troilus and Cressida is presented to us as lacklustre at best. Troilus, as he professes his love for Cressida in the opening scene, is reminiscent of Romeo and his childish desire for Rosaline. Cressida completely denies any desire for Troilus before Pandarus; it is only later, when alone, that she confides to the audience that she loves Troilus dearly. However this is marred by her cynicism. She believes that ‘men prize the thing ungained more than it is’, and swears not to let anyone know of her love. The couple’s first meeting is awkward and bumbling. Pandarus is a constant source of annoyance and humiliation. By the end of the scene, each of the three swear on their reputation, and all three epithets are fulfilled.
ReplyDeleteThere is an element of tragedy in the unravelling of their relationship, as the playgoer knows that the relationship is doomed from the start. However, because it is difficult to believe that there is a deep, undying love between the two characters, a sense of tragedy is kept to a minimum. One could feel sympathetic towards both of the characters. Troilus is sympathetic because he has lost his love, and has proved true, but this is undermined by his inaction when Cressida is sent to the Greek camp. He does not argue against her removal, but accepts it peacefully. Furthermore, early on in the play, he shows that he does not trust her, by asking her to be true. Cressida is a far more sympathetic character, despite the fact that she is the one who does wrong. Nobody stands up for her; she has to find a way to protect herself in the Greek camp. She is left with little option but to submit to some man in the camp, otherwise she could be used like a common harlot (this can be seen in Act Four, scene five, when she is passed from man to man, unable to refuse their advances). However, there is another, less sympathetic side to her, in that she is cynical and almost too worldly. It is questionable how much of her supposed modesty is an act, and to what extent she is simply doing whatever she would like
- Caoimhe Ni Dhonaill, Monday 10am
Q.4 In the BBC film adaptation of ‘Troilus and Cressida’, Miller’s direction of the female characters illustrates the problem of how to represent the women from their negative portrayal within the source text. This dilemma stems from whether to portray women such as Cressida or Helen as unfortunate victims or willing accomplices.
ReplyDeleteIn Miller’s adaptation Cressida appears to be portrayed as the former: she is a young girl, taken from the man she loves, as well as her home, and conveyed into the Greek camp full of disheartened and lonely soldiers. Her betrayal of Troilus is seen to be an act of necessity, rather than the whims of a fickle woman. The Cressida we are first introduced to is a shrewd, self-aware woman,knowingly annoying her uncle Pandarus by noticing every other Trojan warrior except Troilus, with whom he is trying to set her up. She keeps her actual feelings towards Troilus hidden, as she observes that “Men prize the thing ungain’d more than it is”. She is loath to give into Troilus’ wooing as she fears he will not want her once he has won her. Here Cressida is directed as realistic, she knows that much of her worth lies in being unattainable, and this trait is shown again in her arrival in the Greek camp. Miller’s direction of this scene is very significant in conveying the impression of Cressida as a victim rather than a vixen, as the common soldiery of the camp grab and grope at her, leaving her clinging to Diomedes for protection. The leaders of the Greeks are no better, passing her around for kisses, and whilst her lukewarm defence can be interpreted as coquettish, Miller’s previously witty Cressida seems uncomfortable and out of her depth. Her pragmatic portrayal is shown in her allowing Diomedes to court her, as quite simply, she needs a protector in the camp. Miller’s direction of Cressida as a pragmatic, shrewd woman attempts to explain her betrayal as the necessary act of a victim, not the deliberate acts of an inconstant woman.
By contrast, Miller’s direction of Helen is not quite as straightforward, as whilst she certainly seems complicit in her relationship with Paris, and by extension the cuckolding of Menelaus which caused the war, she is also in some ways a victim. At the war council, at which she is present, the men of Troy discuss what to do with her as if she was an item to be bargained for, and not as an actual person. They speak of her in terms of ‘prizes’ and ‘spoiled goods’ and all the while, Helen in this scene sits staring straight ahead, as she is objectified and discussed. Though elsewhere in the adaptation, Miller’s Helen is petulant and childish, it is in the Council scene that Helen appears, in some ways, to be a victim.
Q3. In Shakespeare’ s Troilus and Cressida, Thersites’ insults and blunt declarations draw attention to the faults of the Greek warriors, inviting the audience to engage in a comic and critical view of long mythologized characters. In Homer’s Iliad, the original Thersites is called the “ugliest man of all those that came before Troy” and is generally depicted as a ridiculous figure. This helps to undercut the viciousness (and veracity) of his insults in a text where Greeks like Achilles and Ajax are meant to be heros. In Shakespeare’ s play, Thersites can, depending on his portrayal, be seen as either a sharp-witted social critic, who alone is privy to outspokenly critique the Greek heros, or he can be me made ridiculous and cowardly, and therefore little better than the mythic figures he attempts to undermine. In the BBC film adaptation of the play, Thersites is dressed in drag and played completely camp. While he does serve to draw attention to the flaws of the Greek heros in spite of this portrayal, he becomes largely a source of comedy, alleviating the seriousness attendant on a Classically set play.
ReplyDelete-Clancy Flynn, Monday 10am