I adored Romeo and Juliet (Zeffirelli 1968) when I saw it all those years ago.
In fact when I watched it last night (2010) on DVD I realised I must have seen it several times as many of the scenes were so familiar. But I hadn't seen it again for at least 30 years so I came to it with fresh eyes.
When I first saw it I was young and passionately swept up in the two lovers, so beautiful, so sexual, so irresistible.
This time I still reverberated to their love, but the most powerful impact was the gangs of idle, dangerous young noblemen. They spread across the screen. They appeared very soon as the film opened, and recurred with mounting violence.
Discussing it afterwards with my husband this problem of young male violence was, we agreed, central to the purpose of the play. It was also clear to a critical eye, that the Prince was weak. For all his pomp, his curvetting about on his lordly horse, his blaring voice making threats, he does nothing effective to control the violence.
This we thought was partly because the English view of Renaissance Italy at the time was just that: violent, colourful and treacherous.
But Shakespeare was also a Tudor writer and the Tudor dynasty derived their stability from the people's deep aversion to any return to civil war, feuding or internal violence. Shakespeare was at the time of writing Romeo and Juliet, the Queen's loyal man. So his play supported the conservative view that a strong "prince" (monarch) was better than the dangers of violent division. Better Elizabeth's strength, even though it meant a near-dictatorship – secret police, torture and disappearances. The alternative was riot in the streets, and widespread bloodshed as in the Wars of the Roses.
So I do not agree with this reviewer Dennis Grunes that the theme of anti-violence is not sustained by Zeffirelli. It was to me overwhelmingly clear.
http://grunes.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/romeo-and-juliet-franco-zeffirelli-1968/#comment-5385
The review has more justice in accusing Zeffirelli of sugarcoating Romeo. Yes he is a flowerchild but I see this as the natural view in 1968, not necessarily a crass exploitation of youth culture by Zeffirelli. That WAS the icon of our times back then.
I was interested that Romeo's killing of Juliet's other suitor was excised. But the adjustment to Romeo's conflict with Thibault more than balances this out, as Romeo's savagery is quite obvious.
Like this reviewer Dennis Grunes I do not share the dominant view that Zeffirelli portrayed his youngsters as in rebellion against "the establisment" or "the system." Certainly they were horrified at the arranged marriage proposal, but Juliet before falling in love with Romeo is not averse to it in her family’s plans for her future. It is not the adults' arrangement as a custom the lovers’ reject, but simply Juliet's marriage to anyone else but Romeo.
In this they stand centrally in the tradition of Romance which opposes arranged marriage in the individual case of a heroine and hero, but not necessarily as an institution. (If an arrangement is carefully made and allows the pair to meet and be attracted, Romance would not object.)
But there is nonetheless some exploitation in the film. Lawrence Whiting has spoken on record as objecting to the dawn bed scene. I recall Olivia Hussay at the time speaking unhappily about it too which sounded to me as if Zeffirelli pushed them into it. Certainly the quick flash of Olivia's nipples seems crude and unnecessary, actually startling and distracting; as does the camera focus on Leonard's bottom. But if these items had been left out I think a scene of sexuality and nakedness, enfolded in a soft linen draped sanctuary bed, fits very well with the passionate innocence of the lovers.
As a detail I liked the Capulet parental marriage strain. It was a deft use of cinema imagery to amplify the text. It enriched the drama without overloading it with subplot.
Another detail I liked was the excellent costumes together with the actors' seeming habitual comfort in them. That is quite rare in a historical film where actors often look most uncomfortable! Olivia Hussay has mentioned that she was tightly laced and very hot in the Italian summer.
Yet another praiseworthy item was a graceful and believable interpretation of mediaeval dances. Thee whole atmosphere of the ball was well realised with very human anxiety by Lady Capulet as organiser, the excitement of the marraccas handed out etc.
The reviewer says things "just happen" such as the Friar's message arriving too slowly to tell Romeo what is going on so he will know Juliet is not really dead. But the written play, preferred by the reviewer, has a plague intervene to prevent the message arriving. I do not see how a plague is less random than a slow donkey. Both act as the accidental but natural agencies of a merciless Fate.
Mercutio curses "both your houses" - with plague and the link to what pivots the tragedy is therefore lost. It was Zeffirelli's choice to leave out any supernatural consequences but I think this works well. Mercutio's curse is a distraction and a muddling of the doom that develops from the violence of those dangerously feuding, idle young men. This is the dire warning of the play which a curse would obscure, as if the ultimate tragedy of the lovers’ death happened only because Mercutio drew down magic on them. Instead Zeffirelly leaves the purity of violence as the cause of doom.
Over all I found the key theme to be a beautification AND a strong warning against passionate impulse. Again and again the young people react without thoughtfulness, with abandon and passion.
Boys set up a fight for the hell of it then feel, significantly, horrified to see that they have caused a death. They play, and playtime turns lethal, still a theme today.
The lovers yearn together, embracing as they explicitly throw aside the danger they run if found together.
Romeo bounds off to hunt Thibault down in an excess of fury, never thinking what this might do to his chances with Juliet.
Juliet, though slightly more controlled than Romeo as she holds out for marriage, pushes him to arrange a secret marriage with no thought for how this could work out.
Later when the Friar offers her a dangerous drug she instantly reaches for it in urgent passion for an impulsive solution.
I did like the reviewer’s point very much that the Friar too is impulsively childlike. He takes almost no time to reflect: he glances at his herbs and in seconds plunges the child Juliet into a harebrained scheme. Later when it has gione wrong he runs away like a small child, wailing.
Shakespeare was perhaps plugging into the Elizabethan ideology of Catholics as no fit priestly guides.
In sum Zeffirelli offers us both the beauty of passion and its ugliness.
The film is lush, vivid with throbbing reds and golds within and luxuriant gardens without. Olivia's sweeping hair and rich curves beside Leonard's winsome body evoke the beauty of passionate sexuality. The young men fight in the streets with faces alight with excited playfulness, alive in the moment, and nothing else.
But young men die of their delight. Sso do the lovers. Agony as the price of passion is shown as a warning. The Prince, symbolic as the head/ Head of State, is weak, unable to control the passions at war in the body politic.
Nonetheless although this is all there, where Romeo and Juliet is flawed is in the absence of a rational voice to contrast a cooler point of view. The portrait of passion is too finely balanced in its light and dark, so much so that it is easy to be swept up, as I once was, in the glory of it, and even include the death scenes in that glory. They died young but lived fully is a poisonous creed. Why not live longer and live even more fully?
Shakespeare might have written within the Greek tradition that honoured restraint and self control. The Symposium, examining Love, held romantic love up to ridicule.
But if so, if passion is to be seen as the exquisitely bottled poison it can be, the play, and the much later film, needed a commentary or cautionary character to put the other point of view: that caution, sober judgement, is as necessary to the good life as waves of passion.
Living without either reduces us to being less than human.
Showing posts with label Reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reviews. Show all posts
Sunday, 21 February 2010
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Avatar
I was reluctant to go, not being a lover of splashy special effects and not much else. Also violence nowadays goes way past my tolerance so I was all ready to leave and go home if necessary.
I liked it. A lot. There was a great deal more than special effects. The violence was there but it illustrated genuine conflict rather than the usual gory porn - of which there was none.
It has its flaws. I'll leave the in-depth discussion to after the READ MORE link so if you haven't seen it stop here.
But I'd recommend it.
Special effects A
Violence control B
Gender balance A
Characters B
Dialogue C (but with some good moments)
Politics B
Beauty A
The Na'vi are Noble Savages of classic kind: physically stronger and more agile than civilised humans; morally aware, deeply interconnected; religious without being cowed; linked to ancestors, passionate, loyal, aggressive and generous.
Cameron uses a blend of various tribal cultures to bring them alive for us. They have dreadlocked hair, painted skin, plaited and crafted decorative jewellery, belts etc.
This can easily be seen as stereotyping even racist. But how else do we create poetic images of an ancestral culture? The Na'vi are as much drawn from white Celtic ancestry as from colonial peoples on other continents. (The Celts were the early colonised too of course but they were white subordinates, mainly of the English.)
The military-industrial complex as the Enemy is vividly presented in ways that Left or radical rhetoric find it hard to do. The massive machines crunch and threaten what is human, supposedly to serve humans by extracting vital resources. The soldiers are manipulated with pep talks about 'survival' against 'hostiles' in a realistic way.
The human world is "dead" and all human scenes are shown in metallic colours that emphasise their techno, alienated state. The contrast with the quiveringly alive colours of the Na'vi world is obvious.
Ultimately although Avatar makes a brave picture of persons standing up to a machinelike civilisation, the ending is naive. The desperation for minerals (or fuels) would bring back a great force of conquest. But that is to disregard the nature of the film which is heroic saga, fantasy epic, rather than sustained political realism.
Cameron points his doom warning like an ancient prophet, rather than a political economist. But the warning is there loud and clear.
In religious terms Avatar is very good, a Pagan world realised. We have the Earth Mother who is immanent spirit in all things. We only borrow our lives and must give them back. The Na'avi thank the beasts they kill to eat as their relatives - trees, plants, animals are "all our relations."
But the Goddess is said not to interfere in the struggles on the planet, yet then she does - which disappointed me. I liked the first point better. However the animals drawn into the final battle could well have responded to the Na'avi under threat as their "cousins" so it becomes a moot point whether this is the deity or not. Such is the difficulty with an immanent "everywhere" divinity.
Though beasts are nominally respected in the most intense scenes with them, they are not. They are dominated. A young warrior is expected to duel with a flying dragon beast and subdue it much like "breaking" a horse. Why was there no "dragon whispering"? Why no partnership with the beast?
Nonetheless although the Paganism is flawed it is thrillingly there in a better realised screen presentation than I have ever seen before.
Politically Avatar is weak. The military and scientific groups among humanity are conventional and realistic enough. But the tribal politics are crude, a king and priestess and a bunch of warrior hunters. What did they use to navigate conflict in decisions? Was there a Council?
It appears that our hero can send out orders and get them obeyed by other tribes. How? Why? Because he had taken on the powers of legend. But how otherwise did the Na'vi mediate conflict and determine their laws?
Tal tells me that there is much more detail in the Pandorapedia that was not evident in the film.
Avatar is excellent on gender. We have a heroine who is strong, skilful, active and innovative - she does not just reflect the feelings or follow but initiates. Several times, including the crucial last event, she rescues our hero. Where else on the big screen does the final duel have heroine rescue hero? - except in comedy perhaps. Yet it is more interesting than that for that last duel has hero rescue heroine, who then repays the favour. Neat.
Nor is the heroine an isolated example of strong women. There's a scientist who has the breadth of mind to understand much of the Na'vi meaning. She attempts to block the military agenda but unsurprisingly fails.
There's also a great pilot who flies into battle with heroic wisecracking courage.
Among the Na'vi there's a queenly priestess plus a glimpse of another female leader.
I'm perhaps asking too much of the big screen in feeling even so there was a lack of gender depth. Unlike the Serenity/ Firefly opus which I recently much enjoyed discovering, the females in Avatar only connect to males and service their needs. Principally the hero's. But Serenity/ Avatar shows that gender balance can be imagined in-depth. Avatar had to please its backers no doubt so we couldn't go too far on gender. So B rather than A.
Oh but did I mention the sex scene was a bore? I liked the restraint, as heaving blue giant bodies would have made me heave. But why didn't they join their telepathic plaits - or do something other than a boring American kiss n cuddle?
Where Avatar gets murky, inspite of its many remarkably good points, is the white American rescuer hero. As Will Heaven at the Telegraph points out in no uncertain terms, the theme of the white rescuer is dubious. Tribal people, this theme tells us, cannot lead themselves out of trouble: they need the superior white guy to do that for them.
The point is hard to tease out. Yes Jake is a white American male, and a soldier at that. A conqueror. He bags the native princess and by her Pocahontas sponsorship wins acceptance in the tribe so he can later be its saviour.
But in Avatar he does it by becoming a Na'vi far more intimately than living among the tribe, adopting their dress and learning their language. He lives in a Na'vi body. So as he becomes the incarnation of an ancient Na'vi folk hero, he does it as a Na'vi. He looks to us like a Na'vi and his retuirn visits to his human body almost become an irritating diversion. As he says his human life has become the dream, his Na'vi life has become his reality.
There is also the pragmatic point that he can become the saviour of the Na'vi specifically because he has inside knowledge of the human military machine. This neatly reverses his original mission to spy on the Na'vi from the inside!
He can therefore exploit a blend of Na'vi ancestral knowledge of the territory, with his own trained knowledge of his own (?) people's weapons and tactics.
Tal comments: Knowing, for example, that while the Na'vi bows cannot harm military gunships when shooting from the ground upwards, when shooting from Ikran-back (Na'vi flying beasts), with the added speed of the beasts flight behind the arrow, they can pierce a gunships canopy.
Yet even allowing that Jake becomes a Na'vi as much as an outsider possibly could, even living in a Na'vi body, and that his leadership twins Na'vi folk legend, intimacy with territory and human knowledge of human military resources, even so. He is still white American male rescuing the native tribe. He's not a Na'vi person emerging from Na'vi life to save the day.
This is perhaps too much for America to stomach. After all they only just permitted themselves a black president. Autonomous heroes of colour will have to wait a bit.
Nor do we see much of other Na'vi wisdom; command politics again. A council of war would have been interesting with different ideas hashed out. Perhaps we can forgive that one in the cause of heroic legend.
He does, Tal reminds me, claim a "right to speak" among the senior Na'vi before everyone gathered. Implicit is the idea that all Na'vi have this right. But we don't see how conflict is discussed and mediated. Since Cameron is criticising the dominance type of system exemplified by the military industrial complex, I feel he should have shown more of its alternative option.
Over all as I said I liked it very much criticisms notwithstanding. I do not bother to critique what I do not respect. I came away strengthened, inspired, confirmed in so much that means so much to me.
The interconnectedness of life. Ecology. Strong women partnering men who can be vulnerable as well as strong for themselves. Sheer beauty. Violence portrayed as a conflict rather than mere gore. Dreamlike other reality.
Avatar for all its faults has a real grandeur. It's glorious especially to a Pagan. So go see it and get the DVD.
I liked it. A lot. There was a great deal more than special effects. The violence was there but it illustrated genuine conflict rather than the usual gory porn - of which there was none.
It has its flaws. I'll leave the in-depth discussion to after the READ MORE link so if you haven't seen it stop here.
But I'd recommend it.
Special effects A
Violence control B
Gender balance A
Characters B
Dialogue C (but with some good moments)
Politics B
Beauty A
The Na'vi are Noble Savages of classic kind: physically stronger and more agile than civilised humans; morally aware, deeply interconnected; religious without being cowed; linked to ancestors, passionate, loyal, aggressive and generous.
Cameron uses a blend of various tribal cultures to bring them alive for us. They have dreadlocked hair, painted skin, plaited and crafted decorative jewellery, belts etc.
This can easily be seen as stereotyping even racist. But how else do we create poetic images of an ancestral culture? The Na'vi are as much drawn from white Celtic ancestry as from colonial peoples on other continents. (The Celts were the early colonised too of course but they were white subordinates, mainly of the English.)
The military-industrial complex as the Enemy is vividly presented in ways that Left or radical rhetoric find it hard to do. The massive machines crunch and threaten what is human, supposedly to serve humans by extracting vital resources. The soldiers are manipulated with pep talks about 'survival' against 'hostiles' in a realistic way.
The human world is "dead" and all human scenes are shown in metallic colours that emphasise their techno, alienated state. The contrast with the quiveringly alive colours of the Na'vi world is obvious.
Ultimately although Avatar makes a brave picture of persons standing up to a machinelike civilisation, the ending is naive. The desperation for minerals (or fuels) would bring back a great force of conquest. But that is to disregard the nature of the film which is heroic saga, fantasy epic, rather than sustained political realism.
Cameron points his doom warning like an ancient prophet, rather than a political economist. But the warning is there loud and clear.
In religious terms Avatar is very good, a Pagan world realised. We have the Earth Mother who is immanent spirit in all things. We only borrow our lives and must give them back. The Na'avi thank the beasts they kill to eat as their relatives - trees, plants, animals are "all our relations."
But the Goddess is said not to interfere in the struggles on the planet, yet then she does - which disappointed me. I liked the first point better. However the animals drawn into the final battle could well have responded to the Na'avi under threat as their "cousins" so it becomes a moot point whether this is the deity or not. Such is the difficulty with an immanent "everywhere" divinity.
Though beasts are nominally respected in the most intense scenes with them, they are not. They are dominated. A young warrior is expected to duel with a flying dragon beast and subdue it much like "breaking" a horse. Why was there no "dragon whispering"? Why no partnership with the beast?
Nonetheless although the Paganism is flawed it is thrillingly there in a better realised screen presentation than I have ever seen before.
Politically Avatar is weak. The military and scientific groups among humanity are conventional and realistic enough. But the tribal politics are crude, a king and priestess and a bunch of warrior hunters. What did they use to navigate conflict in decisions? Was there a Council?
It appears that our hero can send out orders and get them obeyed by other tribes. How? Why? Because he had taken on the powers of legend. But how otherwise did the Na'vi mediate conflict and determine their laws?
Tal tells me that there is much more detail in the Pandorapedia that was not evident in the film.
Avatar is excellent on gender. We have a heroine who is strong, skilful, active and innovative - she does not just reflect the feelings or follow but initiates. Several times, including the crucial last event, she rescues our hero. Where else on the big screen does the final duel have heroine rescue hero? - except in comedy perhaps. Yet it is more interesting than that for that last duel has hero rescue heroine, who then repays the favour. Neat.
Nor is the heroine an isolated example of strong women. There's a scientist who has the breadth of mind to understand much of the Na'vi meaning. She attempts to block the military agenda but unsurprisingly fails.
There's also a great pilot who flies into battle with heroic wisecracking courage.
Among the Na'vi there's a queenly priestess plus a glimpse of another female leader.
I'm perhaps asking too much of the big screen in feeling even so there was a lack of gender depth. Unlike the Serenity/ Firefly opus which I recently much enjoyed discovering, the females in Avatar only connect to males and service their needs. Principally the hero's. But Serenity/ Avatar shows that gender balance can be imagined in-depth. Avatar had to please its backers no doubt so we couldn't go too far on gender. So B rather than A.
Oh but did I mention the sex scene was a bore? I liked the restraint, as heaving blue giant bodies would have made me heave. But why didn't they join their telepathic plaits - or do something other than a boring American kiss n cuddle?
Where Avatar gets murky, inspite of its many remarkably good points, is the white American rescuer hero. As Will Heaven at the Telegraph points out in no uncertain terms, the theme of the white rescuer is dubious. Tribal people, this theme tells us, cannot lead themselves out of trouble: they need the superior white guy to do that for them.
The point is hard to tease out. Yes Jake is a white American male, and a soldier at that. A conqueror. He bags the native princess and by her Pocahontas sponsorship wins acceptance in the tribe so he can later be its saviour.
But in Avatar he does it by becoming a Na'vi far more intimately than living among the tribe, adopting their dress and learning their language. He lives in a Na'vi body. So as he becomes the incarnation of an ancient Na'vi folk hero, he does it as a Na'vi. He looks to us like a Na'vi and his retuirn visits to his human body almost become an irritating diversion. As he says his human life has become the dream, his Na'vi life has become his reality.
There is also the pragmatic point that he can become the saviour of the Na'vi specifically because he has inside knowledge of the human military machine. This neatly reverses his original mission to spy on the Na'vi from the inside!
He can therefore exploit a blend of Na'vi ancestral knowledge of the territory, with his own trained knowledge of his own (?) people's weapons and tactics.
Tal comments: Knowing, for example, that while the Na'vi bows cannot harm military gunships when shooting from the ground upwards, when shooting from Ikran-back (Na'vi flying beasts), with the added speed of the beasts flight behind the arrow, they can pierce a gunships canopy.
Yet even allowing that Jake becomes a Na'vi as much as an outsider possibly could, even living in a Na'vi body, and that his leadership twins Na'vi folk legend, intimacy with territory and human knowledge of human military resources, even so. He is still white American male rescuing the native tribe. He's not a Na'vi person emerging from Na'vi life to save the day.
This is perhaps too much for America to stomach. After all they only just permitted themselves a black president. Autonomous heroes of colour will have to wait a bit.
Nor do we see much of other Na'vi wisdom; command politics again. A council of war would have been interesting with different ideas hashed out. Perhaps we can forgive that one in the cause of heroic legend.
He does, Tal reminds me, claim a "right to speak" among the senior Na'vi before everyone gathered. Implicit is the idea that all Na'vi have this right. But we don't see how conflict is discussed and mediated. Since Cameron is criticising the dominance type of system exemplified by the military industrial complex, I feel he should have shown more of its alternative option.
Over all as I said I liked it very much criticisms notwithstanding. I do not bother to critique what I do not respect. I came away strengthened, inspired, confirmed in so much that means so much to me.
The interconnectedness of life. Ecology. Strong women partnering men who can be vulnerable as well as strong for themselves. Sheer beauty. Violence portrayed as a conflict rather than mere gore. Dreamlike other reality.
Avatar for all its faults has a real grandeur. It's glorious especially to a Pagan. So go see it and get the DVD.
Sunday, 30 August 2009
Anne, the Most Happy
No post for a while because I've been setting up "Pagan Britain" email community.
Also lots of Y Mabinogi reading: "Rhiannon" by Gruffydd arrived from the library, and "Celts and Aryans." Oh and a busy day getting Tal enrolled at college.
ANNE BOLEYN
Thoroughly enjoying the Anne Boleyn Files - one of my greatest heroines together with her daughter Bess. I hate it that Anne is usually shown as a sexy vamp, ignoring her fine mind, especially her significant religious influence, and her acute political acumen.
I am surprised though that Claire on the Anne Boleyn Files doesn't explore the overriding issue of Anne's maternity. It deserves a blog section on its own Claire. I will outline the plot here, including the staggering effect this issue had on Britain's future! and the sexual politics that contributed to Anne's downfall.
I agree with Claire that Henry wanted the impossible. He wanted the independent intellectual Anne: he absolutely adored her ability to companion his mind and soul as well as his body. But, once they MARRIED she was his WIFE and QUEEN.
This was a relatively impersonal role to play. Anne herself was not bred to be a royal wife, and she failed to adapt from high hearted mistress, to dignified queen.
It is worth noting that Anne and Henry are by no means unusual. Through the ages men with a bit going for them have yearned after the independent woman. But once won, the story shifts abruptly especially if she submits to marriage. Suddenly she is a WIFE, and she is judged very differently. What is MINE should be reassuring, supportive, not unsettling and challenging.
Many an independent couple has fallen foul of this stereotype I think.
But more than any other reason, more than making an enmity of Cromwell, more than opening up a precedent for other ambitious women (or their families) was Anne's maternity. She did not bear a living son, any more than Katherine had before her. Both women were rejected for this, although both had been greatly loved and honoured for a time.
I believe that if Anne had borne a son she could pretty easily have seen Cromwell off and other aspirant women too. Henry would have adored her not anly as his fiery companion of heart and soul and mind, but as his Madonna, Mother of the Royal Prince. This was the crux of her power, her magic, more than any other source.
Anne DID conceive a son. By birthing Elizabeth she disappointed Henry but he rallied and "forgave" her. He still came to her bed and she conceived again, this time a son. Of course they did not know that for certain, but she would have strongly assured the King of it.
What went wrong was one of those strange, almost eerie turning points of history. Henry was a strong virile man of 44. On 24 January 1536 he had a fall during a joust. He was unconscious and carried into the palace. Seeing him as if dead, and told he would die, Anne reacted with deep shock. She miscarried their boy child.
Had Henry not fallen as he did, Anne was likely to have had a healthy boy, for she had borne a healthy child before.
The tragic incident also changed Henry forever. From being active and manly he was forced to live as a semi-invalid for the rest of his life. Any active older man finds this tough, but this was a man used to getting his own way, a powerful King. His body was broken, a failure – and so was hers.
He became increasingly tyrannical, partly to demonstrate his power still, but quite possibly because he had suffered a brain injury in the fall.
This was no longer the tender lover, the jovial friend, Anne and others had known. Henry became spiteful, a petty bully, and unlovable. A proud woman such as Anne would have found him hard to bear in his unpredictable rages and self pity.
Whether or not his brain was damaged, and this does seem likely, we do know that Henry lived with a wound in his leg that would not heal, and caused him frequent pain. A persistent hurt that will not improve drains energy and optimism; and this pampered prince had little experience of coping with lengthy or permanent physical limitation.
Anne had loss to bear, but a miscarriage for her was not the end of the world - for her on her own. She could look to try again. But the king was older, and he had gone through all this before with Catherine, dead baby after dead baby after dead baby over two decades.
For Henry his tragedy in 1536 was immense. He had lost his manhood in two huge ways.
His baby son gone, the hope of England reduced to a bloody flux. We know he was a tender father to all his children, so this was not only his fear and loss as a sovereign. No doubt he felt the death of the little boy too. But more than anything he had failed his dynasty, failed his colossal father, the shrewd conqueror Henry VII.
It was still part of being a sacred king that he should be "fit", whole, healthy and fertile. Henry was none of that now. In ancient times he would have been sacrificed, or forced into exile for a king must be a perfect specimen.
Possibly Henry was always at heart insecure. Brought up as the younger indulged brother to Arthur the serious Prince groomed to rule, Henry had not expected, nor been expected, to become a King. His childhood was to be treated as less important, a playboy.
Brother Arthur’s death as a young man thrust Henry unprepared into the direct royal lineage. Significantly he was the one who insisted on being Your Majesty, to reinforce on his grandeur. His great father had never needed that. But now His Majesty was failing – yet again – at this most sensitive and intimate task: to provide a son for his realm. What the meanest peasant or potboy could do, he could not. (He had had illegitimate sons, but that meant little.)
Secondly his own personal strength had gone too. His world had closed down, shrunk to an indoor, limited, observer life, seeing other men hunting and jousting and dancing - the things he had so loved and so excelled. To sit about, to hobble with a stick, when once he leaped ran and rode - this was bitterly cruel. He did not help himself by overeating for comfort, becoming bulky, putting yet more strain on his leg. Henry did not face old age gracefully.
His double loss, with the horror and frustration of long years behind him with Catherine's many dead babies, the prospect of yet more of the same misery with Anne, plus the agony of his unhealed leg wound, pain in his head, and raging emotions out of control; Henry was in a bad way. Certainly he was in no state to rise up smiling, comfort his Lady Anne, bounce into bed and try again. Her comparative youth and health would also be hard to bear as a contrast to his weakness.
In the grip of great loss, depression and fear, many people even today consider whether they are “cursed”, jinxed, dogged with “bad luck.” It is so much easier to think that some outside target for our pain and anger is to blame, instead of a huge daunting complex of events we cannot control.
If we are cursed then we can get the curse lifted, and regain control. But to solve a complex situation of misfortune requires long gruelling effort and courage to work through. Even then there is no guarantee of success.
No wonder the market for protection magic, removing curses, is as brisk as it ever was. Henry did not live in an age of science with technology all about him as its result. That age was just beginning, still on a shaky basis. He was surrounded by priests, prayers – and he lived with suppressed fear that his great rebellion against the Pope had set off divine retribution. The God of the Bible had after all always targeted sons: Abraham's Isaac, the Egyptians' first born, and his own Jesus. Henry had good reason to fear the hand of God.
But in his extremity there was a way out. The priesthood was clear that the cause of sin was always female. Had he not been tempted just as Adam had been tempted? By a beautiful women who had spoken to him of freedom, and offered it to him with her body?
Hurt, grieving, afraid, desperate for escape, the King had a sweet young girl placed upon his knee. Quiet Jane, who did not argue, who was so young, so gently healthy, so suited to motherhood.
Once a lover turns against his love, his hatred can be as intense, as deep as his love once was. It can be aggravated by the haunting of former times. Henry knew he was still vulnerable to Anne so he refused to see her, in case she reached his heart again. She had to die to cleanse him of his curse.
If Henry had not fallen, if Anne had borne her boy and he lived, there would have been no Bloody Mary, and no Elizabeth. There would have been a glorious Edwardian Age perhaps, and a very different history with no Stuart kings, no German Georges.
Perhaps there would have been no witch craze for one thing. The fear of a powerful woman might not have been invoked by a king's pained nightmare about Anne, his determined Queen and Great Whore. Nor would her mighty daughter have killed Mary Stuart, and left her son the Stuart king motherless, in terror of strong women. A world without the Malleus Maleficarum would nave been better off.
Also lots of Y Mabinogi reading: "Rhiannon" by Gruffydd arrived from the library, and "Celts and Aryans." Oh and a busy day getting Tal enrolled at college.
ANNE BOLEYN
Thoroughly enjoying the Anne Boleyn Files - one of my greatest heroines together with her daughter Bess. I hate it that Anne is usually shown as a sexy vamp, ignoring her fine mind, especially her significant religious influence, and her acute political acumen.
I am surprised though that Claire on the Anne Boleyn Files doesn't explore the overriding issue of Anne's maternity. It deserves a blog section on its own Claire. I will outline the plot here, including the staggering effect this issue had on Britain's future! and the sexual politics that contributed to Anne's downfall.
I agree with Claire that Henry wanted the impossible. He wanted the independent intellectual Anne: he absolutely adored her ability to companion his mind and soul as well as his body. But, once they MARRIED she was his WIFE and QUEEN.
This was a relatively impersonal role to play. Anne herself was not bred to be a royal wife, and she failed to adapt from high hearted mistress, to dignified queen.
It is worth noting that Anne and Henry are by no means unusual. Through the ages men with a bit going for them have yearned after the independent woman. But once won, the story shifts abruptly especially if she submits to marriage. Suddenly she is a WIFE, and she is judged very differently. What is MINE should be reassuring, supportive, not unsettling and challenging.
Many an independent couple has fallen foul of this stereotype I think.
But more than any other reason, more than making an enmity of Cromwell, more than opening up a precedent for other ambitious women (or their families) was Anne's maternity. She did not bear a living son, any more than Katherine had before her. Both women were rejected for this, although both had been greatly loved and honoured for a time.
I believe that if Anne had borne a son she could pretty easily have seen Cromwell off and other aspirant women too. Henry would have adored her not anly as his fiery companion of heart and soul and mind, but as his Madonna, Mother of the Royal Prince. This was the crux of her power, her magic, more than any other source.
Anne DID conceive a son. By birthing Elizabeth she disappointed Henry but he rallied and "forgave" her. He still came to her bed and she conceived again, this time a son. Of course they did not know that for certain, but she would have strongly assured the King of it.
What went wrong was one of those strange, almost eerie turning points of history. Henry was a strong virile man of 44. On 24 January 1536 he had a fall during a joust. He was unconscious and carried into the palace. Seeing him as if dead, and told he would die, Anne reacted with deep shock. She miscarried their boy child.
Had Henry not fallen as he did, Anne was likely to have had a healthy boy, for she had borne a healthy child before.
The tragic incident also changed Henry forever. From being active and manly he was forced to live as a semi-invalid for the rest of his life. Any active older man finds this tough, but this was a man used to getting his own way, a powerful King. His body was broken, a failure – and so was hers.
He became increasingly tyrannical, partly to demonstrate his power still, but quite possibly because he had suffered a brain injury in the fall.
This was no longer the tender lover, the jovial friend, Anne and others had known. Henry became spiteful, a petty bully, and unlovable. A proud woman such as Anne would have found him hard to bear in his unpredictable rages and self pity.
Whether or not his brain was damaged, and this does seem likely, we do know that Henry lived with a wound in his leg that would not heal, and caused him frequent pain. A persistent hurt that will not improve drains energy and optimism; and this pampered prince had little experience of coping with lengthy or permanent physical limitation.
Anne had loss to bear, but a miscarriage for her was not the end of the world - for her on her own. She could look to try again. But the king was older, and he had gone through all this before with Catherine, dead baby after dead baby after dead baby over two decades.
For Henry his tragedy in 1536 was immense. He had lost his manhood in two huge ways.
His baby son gone, the hope of England reduced to a bloody flux. We know he was a tender father to all his children, so this was not only his fear and loss as a sovereign. No doubt he felt the death of the little boy too. But more than anything he had failed his dynasty, failed his colossal father, the shrewd conqueror Henry VII.
It was still part of being a sacred king that he should be "fit", whole, healthy and fertile. Henry was none of that now. In ancient times he would have been sacrificed, or forced into exile for a king must be a perfect specimen.
Possibly Henry was always at heart insecure. Brought up as the younger indulged brother to Arthur the serious Prince groomed to rule, Henry had not expected, nor been expected, to become a King. His childhood was to be treated as less important, a playboy.
Brother Arthur’s death as a young man thrust Henry unprepared into the direct royal lineage. Significantly he was the one who insisted on being Your Majesty, to reinforce on his grandeur. His great father had never needed that. But now His Majesty was failing – yet again – at this most sensitive and intimate task: to provide a son for his realm. What the meanest peasant or potboy could do, he could not. (He had had illegitimate sons, but that meant little.)
Secondly his own personal strength had gone too. His world had closed down, shrunk to an indoor, limited, observer life, seeing other men hunting and jousting and dancing - the things he had so loved and so excelled. To sit about, to hobble with a stick, when once he leaped ran and rode - this was bitterly cruel. He did not help himself by overeating for comfort, becoming bulky, putting yet more strain on his leg. Henry did not face old age gracefully.
His double loss, with the horror and frustration of long years behind him with Catherine's many dead babies, the prospect of yet more of the same misery with Anne, plus the agony of his unhealed leg wound, pain in his head, and raging emotions out of control; Henry was in a bad way. Certainly he was in no state to rise up smiling, comfort his Lady Anne, bounce into bed and try again. Her comparative youth and health would also be hard to bear as a contrast to his weakness.
In the grip of great loss, depression and fear, many people even today consider whether they are “cursed”, jinxed, dogged with “bad luck.” It is so much easier to think that some outside target for our pain and anger is to blame, instead of a huge daunting complex of events we cannot control.
If we are cursed then we can get the curse lifted, and regain control. But to solve a complex situation of misfortune requires long gruelling effort and courage to work through. Even then there is no guarantee of success.
No wonder the market for protection magic, removing curses, is as brisk as it ever was. Henry did not live in an age of science with technology all about him as its result. That age was just beginning, still on a shaky basis. He was surrounded by priests, prayers – and he lived with suppressed fear that his great rebellion against the Pope had set off divine retribution. The God of the Bible had after all always targeted sons: Abraham's Isaac, the Egyptians' first born, and his own Jesus. Henry had good reason to fear the hand of God.
But in his extremity there was a way out. The priesthood was clear that the cause of sin was always female. Had he not been tempted just as Adam had been tempted? By a beautiful women who had spoken to him of freedom, and offered it to him with her body?
Hurt, grieving, afraid, desperate for escape, the King had a sweet young girl placed upon his knee. Quiet Jane, who did not argue, who was so young, so gently healthy, so suited to motherhood.
Once a lover turns against his love, his hatred can be as intense, as deep as his love once was. It can be aggravated by the haunting of former times. Henry knew he was still vulnerable to Anne so he refused to see her, in case she reached his heart again. She had to die to cleanse him of his curse.
If Henry had not fallen, if Anne had borne her boy and he lived, there would have been no Bloody Mary, and no Elizabeth. There would have been a glorious Edwardian Age perhaps, and a very different history with no Stuart kings, no German Georges.
Perhaps there would have been no witch craze for one thing. The fear of a powerful woman might not have been invoked by a king's pained nightmare about Anne, his determined Queen and Great Whore. Nor would her mighty daughter have killed Mary Stuart, and left her son the Stuart king motherless, in terror of strong women. A world without the Malleus Maleficarum would nave been better off.
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Destroyed masculinity?
A new book claims that women are destroying men's masculinity which is why so many men have sunk into passivity and failure. Groan!
I love it when my husband cooks, it’s very sexy. Why on earth should I be irritated when he fusses in the kitchen? as the book suggests I should! Providing food is very masculine.
Nor do either of us find it unattractive for me to fill up the car – what am I supposed to do when out driving for heaven’s sake? Run it dry?
I’m certainly grateful that he and my son heave the heavy bins out as I CAN do it but it’s so much easier for them.
The examples given are limited and odd.
But there certainly is a problem. The “lazy teenager” husband in the article I read definitely rings a bell.
My own analysis after 20 years of marriage is that men are not programmed for equality much and we don't train boys to handle it where it counts. They are creatures of extremes: either dominance or passivity with nothing in between.
If men feel they are in charge, the boss, they will often do well – though not always as no one is perfect.
But if someone else is in charge, they don’t cope well at all. They become sulky teenagers complete with passive resistance, sabotage, irrational tempers and rages, refusal to get help or advice, parasitism about money etc.
I try to deal with it by making sure my husband has certain things like the car that are “his.” That works OK but the trouble is you can’t split everything up like that.
So in areas that must be shared it simply comes down to who handles it best. If he does, fine. No problem.
But if not, inevitably, yes there has to be some of that feminine stuff because men are just not equipped to handle inferiority. Which really comes down to lies.
Pretending he did his part better than he did. Repairing what he messes up, but doing it discreetly so it doesn’t notice. Letting others think he does more than he does, and does it better. Feminine wiles like this are filth, but men aren’t ready to cope without them.
Doing this feminine filth is damaging to both. It infantilises the man that he does actually need it, and it damages the woman who must provide it to ensure the family works out.
It is most bitter to provide most of the money for a family, make sure bills are paid, things get fixed, events organised etc – and elaborately pretend you’re not doing it.
If anyone does realise what is going on a female provider is not seen as heroic, admirable, worthy of help and support, as a man would be. She is instead either a ballbreaker or a stupid exploited victim letting a man live off her.
Try not doing it though, give him “time” or “space” to do one of those things, and watch the mess appear if this isn't one of his skill areas.
With children at stake you can’t let that happen. Certain things just must get done right. Nor do I really see why my security financially, or my basic comforts at home, should be put at the mercy of someone who won't look after them properly all to save him a bit of accurate self assessment.
On some things there isn't much room for a man to mess up. Those things have to get done by the best person for the job and the other must either defer, or try to learn better skills.
Women are simply much better at recognising they aren't good at something and either supporting the person who is, or learning to do better, or both. It comes out very early on in children learning things which is why girls get ahead if they are not artificially held back. Boys give up and flop into failure if they don't zoom to the top straight away, where girls cry, then try again.
There is no good answer right now. Somehow though we HAVE to find a way for men to learn how to handle not being dominant, and not collapsing into useless lumps as a result.
It would help if there wasn’t this constant emphasis on masculinity meaning being in charge, being dominant, being deferred to. Masculinity is gorgeous in its distinctively male bodies, its capacity to father a child, its strength to carry heavy stuff, an ability to stay detached and nurturing when we women occasionally need to collapse.
It would so help if men could be shown what we really appreciate, instead of being fed a pretence. Every time a man carries something heavy I am delighted in his masculinity. To him it's a shrug, minor, just as many of my female sensitivities he finds so useful are nothing to me.
That kind of mutual respect is REAL.
Stop implying men should be exaggeratedly strong and dominant and they could have breathing space to get used to not being exaggeratedly strong and dominant. Stupid articles telling women to apply more feminine lies do NOT help.
I love it when my husband cooks, it’s very sexy. Why on earth should I be irritated when he fusses in the kitchen? as the book suggests I should! Providing food is very masculine.
Nor do either of us find it unattractive for me to fill up the car – what am I supposed to do when out driving for heaven’s sake? Run it dry?
I’m certainly grateful that he and my son heave the heavy bins out as I CAN do it but it’s so much easier for them.
The examples given are limited and odd.
But there certainly is a problem. The “lazy teenager” husband in the article I read definitely rings a bell.
My own analysis after 20 years of marriage is that men are not programmed for equality much and we don't train boys to handle it where it counts. They are creatures of extremes: either dominance or passivity with nothing in between.
If men feel they are in charge, the boss, they will often do well – though not always as no one is perfect.
But if someone else is in charge, they don’t cope well at all. They become sulky teenagers complete with passive resistance, sabotage, irrational tempers and rages, refusal to get help or advice, parasitism about money etc.
I try to deal with it by making sure my husband has certain things like the car that are “his.” That works OK but the trouble is you can’t split everything up like that.
So in areas that must be shared it simply comes down to who handles it best. If he does, fine. No problem.
But if not, inevitably, yes there has to be some of that feminine stuff because men are just not equipped to handle inferiority. Which really comes down to lies.
Pretending he did his part better than he did. Repairing what he messes up, but doing it discreetly so it doesn’t notice. Letting others think he does more than he does, and does it better. Feminine wiles like this are filth, but men aren’t ready to cope without them.
Doing this feminine filth is damaging to both. It infantilises the man that he does actually need it, and it damages the woman who must provide it to ensure the family works out.
It is most bitter to provide most of the money for a family, make sure bills are paid, things get fixed, events organised etc – and elaborately pretend you’re not doing it.
If anyone does realise what is going on a female provider is not seen as heroic, admirable, worthy of help and support, as a man would be. She is instead either a ballbreaker or a stupid exploited victim letting a man live off her.
Try not doing it though, give him “time” or “space” to do one of those things, and watch the mess appear if this isn't one of his skill areas.
With children at stake you can’t let that happen. Certain things just must get done right. Nor do I really see why my security financially, or my basic comforts at home, should be put at the mercy of someone who won't look after them properly all to save him a bit of accurate self assessment.
On some things there isn't much room for a man to mess up. Those things have to get done by the best person for the job and the other must either defer, or try to learn better skills.
Women are simply much better at recognising they aren't good at something and either supporting the person who is, or learning to do better, or both. It comes out very early on in children learning things which is why girls get ahead if they are not artificially held back. Boys give up and flop into failure if they don't zoom to the top straight away, where girls cry, then try again.
There is no good answer right now. Somehow though we HAVE to find a way for men to learn how to handle not being dominant, and not collapsing into useless lumps as a result.
It would help if there wasn’t this constant emphasis on masculinity meaning being in charge, being dominant, being deferred to. Masculinity is gorgeous in its distinctively male bodies, its capacity to father a child, its strength to carry heavy stuff, an ability to stay detached and nurturing when we women occasionally need to collapse.
It would so help if men could be shown what we really appreciate, instead of being fed a pretence. Every time a man carries something heavy I am delighted in his masculinity. To him it's a shrug, minor, just as many of my female sensitivities he finds so useful are nothing to me.
That kind of mutual respect is REAL.
Stop implying men should be exaggeratedly strong and dominant and they could have breathing space to get used to not being exaggeratedly strong and dominant. Stupid articles telling women to apply more feminine lies do NOT help.
Friday, 15 May 2009
Harlow, Queen of Faerie
I remember Harlow very well as a heroine to my family so I am surprised to hear her spoken of in a new biography, as being so obscure.
Nowadays I hope we can understand better that these bewitching women - and men - are typically not themselves interested in sex. Not real sex.
To these fey creatures, sex is a way to power, very often the only way to get affection they know. To get a glimpse of gentleness, they will suffer a great deal of violence. Their lovers therefore know they can be uncontrolled and get away with it.
They crave affection, faeries do, to be wanted for more than their beauty, but then they are hurt by being used, so often settle for the power their pseudo-eroticism gives them. Not that this false eroticism isn't beautiful. It's the true meaning of glamour - Glamourye - the ancient eldritch art of faerie. To turn dross into gold by candlelight.
For when dawn comes, that fey creature is revealed as grubby, hung over, smelly and grey of skin. Frequently ill, anxious, craving and demanding. At worst dominating at best needy.
Yet still the fascination of that Look bespells us so the truth is hard to see.
The truth, of a starving abused child, desperate for love they never got. Instead they got sex, too early, so they absorbed its raw power without its sweetness.
Unequal sex, too young sex, damages for life.
Of these are made our stars, our prostitutes, our rent boys, and our battered wives. Seduced or bullied young they learn so thoroughly that they have little or no value except as a sexual body. The rest has a horrible logic that destroys them with drink, drugs and violence as they seek more and more desperately to numb the void.
Not a pretty sight after all, as what seemed so lovely is stripped of its illusion. Poor Jean.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)