Mara challenged us to think about the “bad romances” in Knight of the Burning Pestle, seeing the woman as commodity as a through-line from the old system of patrilineal inheritance to the new-market and capital based system emerging in the period, and how the play stages an illicit desire to see this “property” of woman carried off.
-The Caste to Class shift
-Courtesy
-the (ridiculous) exigencies of knighthood
-the theatre of the courtship ritual
-how virginity is refreshed by rape, the audience’s illicit desire to see rape (the carrying away of a woman/sexual violation) as a bad romance here made ok by Luce’s “asking for it”
-the assumption that women in the period would like to read these rapey narratives
We then discussed the oft-asked question of why the play flopped, bringing in our own experiences of the play, whether or not we found it funny, engaging, confusing, boring, etc.
-was the irony not pointed enough, as Witmore pointed out?
-too many layers?
-too offensive, did people not appreciate this takedown of the market class, or of the gallants, or even of the romance genre?
-the critique of audience appetites inherent in the play (George and Nell’s desires act as the focus, the lens through which the plays are mediated and interpreted)
-did audiences find themselves too distanced, that they weren’t being conscripted enough, but rather were being replaced?
-comparisons to other meta-theatrical moments in this period, especially Midsummer Night’s Dream and the difference of that sophisticated audience and their harsh critique of the earnest work of the players, and Shakespeare’s satire of that audience
-was it like going to see a certain genre of movie not getting expectations met?
-does it simply take too long to understand the bodies on stage?
-readerly pleasure vs. theatre flop
Affect and Audience in Knight
-George and Nell as adorable, affectionate, and as instilling affection
-possible to read all characters as funny, compelling, engaging
-idealized representation of apprentice/master relationship
-the way Nell invites us into her home to drink after the play
-Nell can also be read as stupid; as unruly subversive woman; as bad spectator who critiques bad spectatorship (the smoking gallants)
Witmore’s Article
-Knight doesn’t work as a boy’s play because the kind of irony normally available through bodies of boys was changed, even lost
- Bodies of actors aren’t left to bleed through, somatically impact the audience
- Bodily excess, actor’s body beneath/ Rudder’s claim- how readily did e.m. audience take boys for women? Absolutely!
-Nell herself is a boy pointing out boys’ beautiful bodies, they are aging out of boys company roles
-Middle aged drag-has to pull off trade class and woman, if its too draggy might be reason why play flopped
Knight in Performance
- May have taxed the companies too much, each character has tremendous comic potential
-Excess: too much demanded of characters, of actors
-perhaps too much to process, to grab onto, hard to read emphasis and right affect
-comparison to onstage competition between Lavinia and Titus
-isn’t staged often, could we stage it today?
Identification and Audience Appetites
-George and Nell misidentify allegiances: they favor Humphrey who has money and status but nothing else, instead of Jasper, who is an apprentice like their own Rafe
-Beaumont critiquing audiences’ desires as that which go against their own interests
-Nell doesn’t feel compassion for Luce as woman but sees her as daughter, as property
Final notes
-Professor McKay wants to discuss Knight in relation to two-eyed ness of Titus
-She would also like to take account of all the characters
-the complex tapestry of negotiating interest, appetite, and desire of spectators
No comments:
Post a Comment