MovieChat Forums > The Taming of the Shrew (1967) Discussion > Important question about Katherine. Help...

Important question about Katherine. Help?

posted 16 years ago by hellyeah_chemical
24 replies | jump to latest

I'm playing the part of Katherine in the play 'Taming of the Shrew' by William Shakespeare for my audition and I am going to be doing Katherine's final speech, I was wondering if any of you might be able to help me and give your opinions on how you think Katherine should be played in her final speech.

Do you believe that Katherine drastically changed and was infact 'tamed', learning that men have the authority and that women should bow down to them? Or do you believe that Petruchio was harsh in his taming methods and now she is a broken women, saying all in her final speech to hide her pain and the humiliation? Or do you believe what she said was insincere and that she is just being sarcastic in what she says?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks

Did you seriously just stamp your foot?
I thought girls only did that on tv-Jacob
NCDCBFC
OEL

[–] fosthoff 16 years ago

Really, it's impossible to determine that. There are thousands of ways she could feel or deliver the line. The best thing you can do is image how you personally think Katherine would feel and perform consistantly with those emotions.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] denis-38 15 years ago

She was tamed...somewhat. She fell in love with Petrucio, and for that love she would compromise a little. But (based on the film version) you can tell they will have a stormy, sexy marriage.

"I see a woman can be made a fool, if she has not the spirit to resist."

[–] catcat2000230 15 years ago

I have done the monologue twice, and I have always performed it as if she has indeed been "tamed", and said it with disgust and rage.

Then again, it could be performed as sarcastic. Or weak. Or exaggerated. It's really all up to you.

[–] Jessaly 15 years ago

The passage is sarcastic. She isn't tamed, she's saying what Petruchio wants to hear so she can eat and sleep in peace.

I'll join you when hell freezes over.
Dumbledore's Army!

[–] wintermonk 14 years ago

"The passage is sarcastic. She isn't tamed, she's saying what Petruchio wants to hear so she can eat and sleep in peace. "

But does that mean it is sarcastic?

Consider her character: she has rebelled all her life against her father's authority, and now she tries to rebel against her husband's. Has that made her happy? No. It has made her miserable (she says woman's lances are like straws against men's). Perhaps she has learned that with submission comes true happiness. Her logical argument, that women are soft and smooth and not fit to toil and so their hearts ought to agree with their external parts is not an argument of sarcasm. And she admitted that she used to return insults and return frowns. Why would she admit faults if she didn't think they were faults?

Also, if she is being sarcastic, then she certainly wouldn't be lecturing her sister and the widow. But one can tell she is not all that happy with their pevish resistance to go to their husbands during the last scene. I hardly doubt she applauded their behavior. It certainly doesn't come across that way.

Of course, a woman would want a good husband if she was to submit to someone (and submission was certainly what was expected of wives in Shakespeare's day!), and one could argue that Petruchio was not a good man and that he had been cruel. Perhaps, but it wasn't because he was sadistic. He wanted to tame her. Her father had been too weak and others too dim-witted to handle her. Petruchio is, even with all his faults, the one to tame her. He isn't intimidated by her, and he is able to match wits with her.

Also, I think she learned to truly love Petruchio. After all, she would have been bored with someone like Lucentio or Hortensio, just as Petruchio would have been bored with Bianca or the widow. They are a perfect match. It might be a stormy marriage, but I'm not sure either would want it any other way.

[–] hafabee 13 years ago

Well put wintermonk, you have good insights into the character. Petruchio does break her will to a certain extent, but most of her come-about is due to her own inner revelations as she learns truths about her existence, the main one being that her happiness is tied to that of those around her.

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 13 years ago

I have the feeling that Liz did not portray Katherine 100% the way Shakespeare envisioned. She undoubtedly fleshed out the character and envoked sentiments that weren't as originally intended.

Life, every now and then, behaves as though it had seen too many bad movies

[–] ewanssweetee 14 years ago

In my opinion, I think she falls for him, BUT...that they as a couple are now in on the joke against her family & the people who mocked her previously. So, she finishes the play as half-heartedly lecturing the others and with a glance to her hubby like she's on to his game and he to hers.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chefz2 14 years ago

I think she's disgusted with Bianca and the widow. She has come to respect Petruchio (or has at least learned that it is not worth the fight). Whereas Bianca and the widow are flippant in their loyalty to their husbands.

Her speech (to me) signifies her willingness to be subserviant (previous examples were tainted with cunning segues into tempertantrums or because she was too upset to fight.)

I hope that helps.

Next year, I'm having the Joker do my taxes.

[–] AshleyInWonderland 14 years ago

i think that the speech she says in the end, the way she says it, she is completely sarcastic! i dont think she was ever infact tamed

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bajbhdkn-1 13 years ago

The idea that women should 'submit' to their husbands is an old fashioned sexist piece of crap. Women are equal to men, and a marriage should be an equal partership. Harsh in his taming methods. Well, obviously yes, because women should not be 'tamed.' I hope anybody who watches this movie (or any adaptation) realizes that. (Unfortunately Christians haven't learned that yet.) But considering the time the story was written and even when the movie was made ... Still, I don't think I could watch this sexist movie, even though I do think Elizabeth Taylor was an amazing actress.

Divas Rule!

[–] WhippedHoney 13 years ago

The idea that women should 'submit' to their husbands is an old fashioned sexist piece of crap. Women are men are to equal, and a marriage should be an equal partership.

Who gets to decide what marriage "should" be? If I tell you what I think "should" be happening in your marriage, is there any reason for you to give a damn what I think? Is it any of my business? If two people have a marriage that works for them, which is not an equal partnership, who has the right to tell them they have to change?

Still, I don't think I could watch this sexist movie, even though I do think Elizabeth Taylor was an amazing actress.

It's your loss if you refuse to watch this movie because it's "sexist", because although it has major flaws (about half of Shakespeare's dialog is edited out), it's still one of the most gorgeously produced, memorably acted, funniest Shakespeare film adaptations, and Elizabeth Taylor is great in it.

Petruchio is entitled to Kate's deference because he's got to keep her safe in a society that's extremely dangerous to women, without the help of modern technology, and you're given the respect of the responsibility you take. If Katharina really wanted her independence she would have run away and become a prostitute; she obviously prefers being a submissive wife.

[–] bajbhdkn-1 13 years ago

Oops. That was supposed to say, "Women are equal to men and marriage should be an equal partership."

"Who gets to decide what marriage "should" be? If I tell you what I think "should" be happening in your marriage, is there any reason for you to give a damn what I think? Is it any of my business? If two people have a marriage that works for them, which is not an equal partnership, who has the right to tell them they have to change?"

I see your point, but it has go both ways. If I (or anyone) shouldn't say a marriage where the wife submits is wrong, then other people shouldn't say that an equal marriage or one where the wife is the leader is wrong either. According to your logic, one should not have the right to tell anyone what their marriage should or should not be and tell them to change. Then Katherine is wrong to tell other women to submit to their husbands (Which from what I hear, she does just that.) I suppose it boils down to that couples have to find out what works best for them and no one should judge or say that ALL couples should be a certain way.

Divas Rule!

[–] WhippedHoney 13 years ago

According to your logic, one should not have the right to tell anyone what their marriage should or should not be and tell them to change. Then Katherine is wrong to tell other women to submit to their husbands (Which from what I hear, she does just that.)

You can't apply 21st century standards of behavior to a play written in the 16th century. Freedom of individual choice in personal life is a modern idea that can't be retroactively applied to half a millennium ago. There's nothing wrong with Katharina telling the other two women to submit to their husbands; it's perfectly sound advice for 1594. The husbands are entitled to some degree of deference from wives the husbands have to support financially and keep safe in a dangerous society.

Art can be understood only in the context of its time and place.

Have you read any Shakespeare? If not, you're missing out on some truly great stuff - if you can take it on its own terms and not apply modern political paradigms to it.

[–] bajbhdkn-1 13 years ago

Perhaps Katharine wasn't wrong, but a person would be wrong to say that to a woman now in modern times just as I would be wrong to tell a woman not to submit.
I've seen at least one adaptation of most of his works. Read some of the books in high school.

Divas Rule!

[–] WhippedHoney 13 years ago

Perhaps Katharine wasn't wrong, but a person would be wrong to say that to a woman now in modern times just as I would be wrong to tell a woman not to submit.

I agree. Freedom of choice in personal life is a product of modern technology and modern medicine; it's been possible for most only for the last 40 years or so.

[–] StrongRex 12 years ago

The idea that women should 'submit' to their husbands is an old fashioned sexist piece of crap. Women are equal to men, and a marriage should be an equal partership. Harsh in his taming methods. Well, obviously yes, because women should not be 'tamed.' I hope anybody who watches this movie (or any adaptation) realizes that. (Unfortunately Christians haven't learned that yet.)

Usually I refrain from religious discussions on forums now, but I had to respond to this.

Yes, the Bible does say "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord," but it also instructs, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it" (Ephesians 5:22,25). A man who understands that Jesus Christ sacrificed His life’s blood for the Church will likewise love his wife sacrificially and passionately. He will honor her, respect her, protect, love, and cherish her as much as he does his own body, as he is instructed to do (Ephesians 5:28). He will never say or do anything to harm or demean her. It is in this atmosphere of love and security that a godly wife willingly submits herself to the protective arms of her husband. She does this not because he is better than she is, but simply because this is God’s order for His creation. Men and women are equal in God's eyes, but they have different roles. Since Man was created first, Woman was created to be his helper.

A godless world rejects the God-given formula to make marriage work. It thinks it knows best, and suffers the heartbreaking consequences of destroyed marriages and ruined lives. The Christian ideal of marriage is not one of an authoritarian and chauvinistic male holding his cringing wife in submission like an obedient dog. It’s the very opposite. While most of the great religions treat women as inferior to men, the Bible gives them a place of dignity, honor, and unspeakable worth, expressed so evidently in Proverbs 31.

[–] Andrew_S_Hatton 11 years ago

She does this not because he is better than she is, but simply because this is God’s order for His creation. Men and women are equal in God's eyes, but they have different roles. Since Man was created first, Woman was created to be his helper

Such is my interpretation of what George Fox and later Quaker's taught, that I no longer describe myself as 'Christian'

However, from being out in the world for sixty odd years I do not think all or even most folk who do consider themselves Christian, agree with Dan_the_Man_88 's words that I have quoted.

Christianity like every other faith belief is understood in different ways by different individuals, groups and organisations.

I think some even share some of my views. The Bible is the gathered writings of a whole host of folk who find relevance in Hebrew teaching and what has been understood from reports and experience of the life of Jesus and those in the first century who altered their behaviour as a consequence of how they were influenced.

So, I do not think The Bible as translated into English is the complete or final word on how we must all behave in order to gain approval from the Supreme Being identified by Bible writers as God.

I think, and my spiritual experiences support this to an extent that I am comfortable with my beliefs and that others differ from me that we are all able to live in the manner of Christ; he is a superb guide to many issues. However, God seems to encourage independence and for us to interpret teachings as we believe are correct - rather than accept there is only one way to approach every question we face.

It does not seem to me that the Bible requires me to believe a husband is 'better' or worse - for that matter - but that all people are of equal worth, the babe who has just died as a consequence of the greed of Western Nation Folk who have grabbed an unfair share of the world's resources or the folk who having benefited from that grab and now ignore the needs of the weakest - perhaps even while we debate with our fancy Internet.

[–] roark183 11 years ago

Yes, I believe that as Shakespeare wrote the play, Katherine did change. However, women today are certainly not so subservient as they were in Shakespeare's day.

So how you give the speech depends on how you view the nature of the play as a whole. Is the play intended to be presented as Shakespeare wrote it in 1590 where women were subservient? Or is it being presented as it would be written today, where Katherine's speech would be fraught with sarcasm? This largely depends on your own feelings on the matter, but be aware that women in Shakespeare's day were much more subservient than they are today.

Personally, I am a very conservative traditionalist and I like to see Shakespeare presented as he wrote it. But how you play Katherine might well depend on the nature of your feelings regarding female subservience. But keep in mind the play is a comedy of a romantic relationship, not a tragedy. So make comedy of it. Don't make it tragic.

If you watch this version of the play, be aware that all the comedy has been removed from the play to make it a feature the Taylor - Burton love affair, full of squabbling. Look for other versions that do show the comedy that Shakespeare wrote into the play.

[–] PillowRock 11 years ago

So how you give the speech depends on how you view the nature of the play as a whole.

One could argue that if the goal of the audition is to get the role, then how you read the speech might depend on what you know of how *the director* is viewing the play.

Is the play intended to be presented as Shakespeare wrote it in 1590 where women were subservient?

Of course, there is still plenty of room for debate about what was really intended by Shakespeare when he wrote it.

In its full form, the vast majority of The Taming of the Shrew is a play within a play. And that performance, in turn, is part of an elaborate practical joke being played on a drunkard.

So, is Shakespeare truly advocating that a "tamed", submissive wife is how things should be?

Or, is he saying that having a societal expectation of wives being completely submissive amounts to a gigantic practical joke on men foolish enough to believe it? (Shades of Dickens in Oliver Twist, when the admonition that the law presumes a wife to be acting on her husband's instruction prompts the husband to respond "Well, then the law is a bachelor!")

Arguments can be made for either interpretation. (And probably others, as well. That's a big part of why Shakespeare's writing stays interesting through the centuries.)

Personally, I am a very conservative traditionalist and I like to see Shakespeare presented as he wrote it.

On the other hand, I think that updated / imaginative stagings (in terms of settings, costuming, etc.) can help to point toward how universal and timeless most of the underlying themes of the plays really are.