Why Does Shakespeare Still Compel Us?
by Adam Leipzig
Four hundred years after his death at the age of 52, Shakespeare still intrigues, transports, mystifies, frustrates and beguiles us as no other writer, before or since. In an age where all of us want to stay young forever, W.S. seems to have found the secret. “I have immortal longings in me,” he wrote in Antony and Cleopatra. What about his work works this way?
Each era, and each culture, invents its own Shakespeare and grapples with this question. Over the past 50 years, he has been known as our contemporary (Jan Kott), the inventor of the modern mind (Harold Bloom), and the creator of the language we speak (Frank Kermode). Indeed, Shakespeare leaned forward to invent sounds our lips still form today – words like addiction, and published and whirly-gig, and phrases ranging from “all that glitters is not gold” to “wild goose chase.” He gave us, what is, to my mind, the best curse ever: “Thou whoreson Zed, thou unnecessary letter!”
One of the reasons Shakespeare’s work endures is that it is infinitely adaptable. Here are three of my favorites:
Orson Welles’s 1965 film Chimes at Midnight. Welles cut and pasted Falstaff’s character arc from five plays and turned it into a whole, with a great battle scene in the middle, edited like a Bach fugue. (Here’s the first reel, the rest is on YouTube.)
Czech puppet cinema artist Jiří Trnka’s 1959 A Midsummer Night’s Dream. (Here’s the beginning, the rest is on YouTube.)
Forbidden Planet, the 1956 MGM science-fiction cinemascope spectacular, adapted from The Tempest. (Here’s the trailer.)
Although his work can be interpreted in many directions, W.S. himself bedevils us as a figure of drama, and we make him a character in movies, novels and plays. Anonymous is just the latest in a line that stretches back through Shakespeare in Love to episodes of Dr. Who, Neil Gaiman’s comic Sandman, and Edward Bond’s play Bingo.
Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges wrote in his fable Everything and Nothing that before or after dying, Shakespeare “found himself in the presence of God and told Him: ‘I who have been so many men in vain want to be one and myself.’ The voice of the Lord answered from a whirlwind: ‘Neither am I anyone; I have dreamt the world as you dreamt your work, my Shakespeare, and among the forms in my dream are you, who like myself are many and no one.’”
Some fictions about Shakespeare dramatize the possibility that he did not exist, or that someone else wrote his plays. This is the least interesting thing about the man or his work. Shakespeare would not have considered himself a worthy subject of drama. Writers do not merit serious consideration in his plays – they are either innocent lovers, like Orlando pinning his doggerel verses on tree-trunks in As You Like It, or neurotic plotters who use words as tools, as Hamlet does in the play he writes to expose his step-father’s crimes.
There is a great mystery at the heart of Shakespeare, and that mystery is the reason we keep coming back to him. But that mystery is not one of personality or authorship. The reason we keep returning to Shakespeare is because of the mysteries inherent in who we are, and how his texts reveal something of ourselves. Shakespeare remains unique at being able to unite the most cerebral, high-minded language with words that are as emotional and body-centered as you can get. How well he knows that the heart compels the head: “Go to your bosom, knock there, and ask you heart what it doth know” (Measure for Measure).
Those who question his authorship – or even his very existence – reveal something touching and vulnerable about all of us: that we are frightened by the possibility of knowing ourselves too well. Shakespeare has been, and is, us. Which is why his works will continue to transport us, and why we’ll never tire of venturing to their undiscovered country.
Top image: Shakespeare by Barry Novis, posted with kind permission of the artist.
Filed Under: Literature, Recent Posts, THEATRE + PERFORMANCE









Comments (8)
Lawrence Heck
October 27th, 2011 at 4:52 AM
I disagree with the statement "…we are frightened by the possibility of knowing ourselves too well. " It may be true of some, but I am intrigued by the historical mystery at play here. I know it does not really matter who "Shakespeare" was. As Ian McKellan stated in his solo show of pieces from the plays and poems, to paraphrase, what matters is that the plays exist. I agree. And yet, as one interested in history and how religious and political players rewrite history to their own ends, the idea that the Stratford man was not the author fascinates me. I question the authorship because the only facts relating to the Stratford man are presented in support of a vast industry, educational, religious, political, and mercantile.
I would say anyone who makes the statement you made has not read anything more about the debate beyond what the establishment (A.L. Rowse and Co.) has said about the question.
That aside, the plays are the thing. I am re-reading for the 5th time in my life the complete works, this time chronologically. In the midst of R&J. Sublime. Some of the plays I have read dozens of times (such as Richard III which I recently saw with Kevin Spacey who presents the play as Shakespeare's greatest comedy!)
I deeply regret never having directed or performed in a play by "Shakespeare" other than as William in "As You Like It."
George Wead
October 27th, 2011 at 1:51 PM
Of course all facts occur in a context and are passed down in some disarray. But to believe that an "Establishment" has created and fed an enormous lie seems gullible. Elsewhere in this issue, Garner Simmons (discussing the film Anonymous) investigates the Edward de Vere nonsense with logic and an awareness of how theatre was carried on in Shakespeare's (or, if you insist, Writer X's) day. In his book Contested Will, James Shapiro does a remarkable job of investigating the psychological and historical contexts in which the authorship crowd emerged. Shapiro does exactly what Heck would seem to want: to show how Shakespeare deniers rewrote history to their own ends.
Lawrence Heck
October 27th, 2011 at 3:29 PM
George, I will read the Shapiro book. Sounds good. I am very interested in establishment views on the arguments.
I think you misunderstand what I mean about the "establishment" rewriting yet I think you do understand because you state it better in your opening line. There is an establishment that has grown over the centuries based on William Shaksper of Stratford being the author of the plays. Thousands of books, essays, biographies, films, documentaries, courses, professorships, etc…..a whole town and like-named towns in Canada and the US depend on this world-view to continue. That is what I meant.
I do not claim DeVere or anyone else as the true author. I am merely interested in the question and the fact that there seem to be few facts which is not the case with his lesser contemporaries. As to Anonymous, sounds like a fun flick, probably make a good double-bill with the new 3 Musketeers with their steam-engines, flying machines and ninja-moves! As long as we keep in mind it is a roller coaster ride and not a dissertation.
What I responded to in the original article was the apparent outright dismissal of the curiosity of a rather large and varied number of individuals by adhering to the accepted, mainstream view without ever reading any of the opposing view's research. Now I may be wrong about that. Adam is usually very thorough. And yet he was educated in that same establishment that raises Rowse to sainthood. ;>)
Bill Stern
October 27th, 2011 at 3:36 PM
"Why Does Shakespeare Still Compel Us?" should be required reading in all schools: it is as "relevant" as it gets.
Thank you!
George Wead
October 27th, 2011 at 8:42 PM
Lawrence, I do agree that we shouldn't dismiss contrary opinions only because they are against accepted wisdom. And I was raised under even earlier saints than Rowse: traditional scholars like Kittredge and Kitto.
I am delighted, however, at how much more we have learned about Shakespeare and his times than was current in the days of those saints. And it may be that, as with Shapiro's work, we have learned more because so many doubts were raised. I believe that the new research has thoroughly disproved the doubters (at least of his existence or authorship) without dispelling the essential mystery of the man, which Adam was noting.
Nico
October 27th, 2011 at 9:16 PM
Side note….. any WS fans reading this from the Bay Area should see Sam Mendes / Kevin Spacey's Henry III asap! It's amazing, but ends in two days!
Lawrence Heck
October 28th, 2011 at 1:32 AM
@Nico – been there done that! And I heartily agree. I spent a week's wages on 15th row center orchestra and do not regret it at all.
Lawrence Heck
October 28th, 2011 at 1:34 AM
I just noticed the direct reply link. See below and do note it is Richard III ;>) though I wonder if somewhere in those lost manuscripts there might be a Henry III?!
Leave a reply