Reviews 2016
Reviews 2016
✭✭✭✩✩
by Keir Cutler, directed by T.J. Dawe
Doctor Keir Co., Studio Léonard-Beaulne, Ottawa Fringe Festival, Ottawa
June 16-25, 2016;
Robert Gill Theatre, Toronto Fringe Festival, toronto
July 1-9, 2016
Montrealer Keir Cutler (Ph.D. McGill) made a name for himself with his hit fringe monologue Teaching Shakespeare back in 1999. In Shakespeare Crackpot, Cutler’s eighth monologue since then, he reveals the surprising fact that he does not believe that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. Cutler recognizes that holding this view automatically makes him a “crackpot” in the eyes of academia, but Cutler’s explanation of his views on the subject are not the most entertaining part of the show. Rather, Cutler’s autobiographical story of the pressure of trying to live up to the expectations of two parents who valued a university education so highly is much more engaging. Cutler’s mother, as we learn, founded Tundra Press.
Also, more enjoyable is Cutler’s discussion of the quandary of the populace of Stratford-upon-Avon when, 200 years after his birth, Shakespeare finally became acknowledged as the greatest writer in the English language. The town had preserved almost nothing of their belatedly famous son’s heritage and only had a mulberry tree said to be planted by the Bard to show tourists. Unfortunately, The Reverend Francis Gastrell who lived at New Place, where Shakespeare died in 1616, became so fed up with tourists coming to see the tree that he chopped it down in 1756. This led one Thomas Sharpe to fashion the wood into souvenirs. As Cutler mentions, there soon were more souvenirs made from Shakespeare’s mulberry tree than there are fragments of the True Cross. In 1759 Gastrell demolished New Place itself.
To Cutler the “crackpot”, the fact that Stratford-upon-Avon had done nothing to preserve the heritage of its most famous son until 200 years after his death is just one indication that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare. This part of the show is the least interesting because it changes from an animated relation of anecdotes into basically a straight lecture. And, worse, as a lecture it does not present evidence from both sides of the argument, which is exactly Cutler’s accusation against traditional professors of Shakespeare.
First, lack of fame in an artist’s own lifetime is hardly a reason to doubt his existence. Van Gogh sold only one painting in his lifetime. Bizet died thinking he was a failure, unaware that his Carmen would become the most performed French opera in the world. As for Shakespeare, much as we recognize his greatness, others of his contemporaries wrote more according to taste of the times. Ben Jonson (1572-1637) wrote comedies and two tragedies directly inspired by Classical models. He was rewarded for this by being named the first ever Poet Laureate of England. Francis Beaumont (1584-1616) and John Fletcher (1579-1625) were the most popular playwrights of the period because they catered to the public’s taste for convoluted plots rather than consistent character development. Their complete works of 1647 received the most lavish edition of the 17th century.
Second, Cutler claims there is no “paper trail” linking Shakespeare to his works. He left no letter to his wife, for example, saying “I wrote [title of play]”. What Cutler does not mention is the simple fact that John Heminges (1556-1630) and Henry Condell (1576-1627), who we know were actors in the King’s Men, for whom Shakespeare wrote and acted in plays, compiled the First Folio of Shakespeare’s works in 1623 and listed Shakespeare as the author. These works are preceded with dedicatory poems by contemporaries of Shakespeare, like Ben Jonson, Hugh Holland and Leonard Digges and gives a list of the actors in the plays which mentions Shakespeare, Heminges, Condell and 23 others. Thus, either a person has to believe there was a massive conspiracy to hide the name of the “real” author of Shakespeare’s works, or accept that a man called William Shakespeare wrote and acted in the plays as the names of the listed actors testifies.
Third, and most important, Cutler does not mention that who “really” wrote Shakespeare’s plays is irrelevant. We know that the name Homer is given as the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey, but we know absolutely zero about him (or her) or whether the same person wrote both works. Yet, both are masterpieces and continue to inspire and influence others. To speak of “Homer” as the author is simply a convenience.
Cutler thinks that students should be taught that we don’t know who Shakespeare really was, but in reality what good would that do. Unless you think, mistakenly, that biography determines artistic merit, knowing exactly who an author is is unimportant. We know massive amounts about Ludwig can Beethoven, Pierre-August Renoir and James Joyce, but does knowing their biographical data somehow “explain” the genius and effect of their works? It doesn’t. Thus, even if “Shakespeare” were a label of convenience like “Homer”, it would still be the works that count, not who wrote them. Cutler’s view is that students should think for themselves, but such thinking should also include the topic of whether such a question yields useful results.
It’s surprising and disappointing that Cutler, who has given so many shows about Shakespeare, should reveal his crackpot side. He obviously can believe whatever he wishes but it would be much better if he could somehow promulgate this belief in a more entertaining fashion that a straightforward lecture, especially after the highly enjoyable introduction he provides.
Next stops:
Winnipeg Fringe Festival,
July 15-24, 2016
Edmonton Fringe Festival,
August 12-20, 2016
©Christopher Hoile
Note: This review is a Stage Door exclusive.
Photo: Keir Cutler. ©2016 Doctor Keir Co.
For tickets, visit http://ottawafringe.com or http://fringetoronto.com/fringe-festival/shows.
2016-06-17
Shakespeare Crackpot