Here are some thoughts, questions, and ideas that I didn’t really get around to addressing in our time here with Cymbeline:
Continue reading “Some thoughts and unanswered questions on Cymbeline”
Here are some thoughts, questions, and ideas that I didn’t really get around to addressing in our time here with Cymbeline:
Continue reading “Some thoughts and unanswered questions on Cymbeline”
The play may be called Cymbeline, but he’s not the protagonist. I suppose you might make an argument for Posthumus, but I think most would say the play revolves around our gal Innogen.
People love her.
Using Professor Rodes’ midpoint theory, let’s take a look at Cymbeline.
There are 3288 lines in in the play, which means the midpoint is at line 1644, or at Act Three, Scene Four, line 185. According to Dr. Rodes’ theory, you could find at this midpoint–or within twenty lines either way–a speech that perfectly sums up a major theme of the play (the 20-line leeway was to help remove the differences in prose line lengths between individual editions).
So, sometimes there are scenes that make you wonder just how you stage something. You know, like Jupiter in Cymbeline. That’s a big one, an obvious one.
How about something more subtle?
With every play, toward the end of the discussion cycle, I like to address a subject that rocks my world, but probably bores the socks off you. Well, since it’s my blog, I get to do what I want. And I want to talk about stage directions hidden in plain sight within the dialog. While these later plays do tend to have more stage directions than before (like the bizarre war correspondency that opens Act Five, Scene Two; or the truly truly bizarre directions around the dream of Posthumus Leonatus), there are still some hidden nuggets. And what are Cymbeline’s nuggets? (that sounded like it belonged to our discussion of bawdy)
Well, let’s see…
A long time ago (OK, it was only three weeks)…I wrote about Cymbeline and the question of casting. As in, “How do you cut the casting requirements from the 40 in the play, to something more manageable?” It was more rhetorical than anything, going off on tangents that took us to experimental 6-actor casts for both Shakespeare’s Globe and Fiasco Theater.
Here’s a different, but related question.
Over the last week or so, I’ve been discussing some of the major speeches from Cymbeline. I started off with Act Two’s Iachimo-in-the-Box speech. Last weekend, I touched upon Posthumus’ full-scene, single-speech rant against women. Today, let’s move from the men to the main woman of the piece: Innogen.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
[archive]
This week’s podcast continues our two-month discussion of Cymbeline. We’re going to start off with a look at bawdy in the play, an exploration of one of the great speeches from the play, and a review of a fun little bit of non-Cymbeline-related bawdiness.
Continue reading “Podcast 155: Cymbeline — a bit o’ bawdy, a speech, and burlesque [EXPLICIT]”
A couple of days back, I broke down the Iachimo-in-the-Box speech from Act Two, Scene Two of Cymbeline. Today, let’s take a look at another speech, pretty much a direct result of that first speech: the Act Two, Scene Five’s single-scene soliloquizing rant by Posthumus.
Let’s check out some of the major speeches of Cymbeline and see if we can find any clues for the enterprising actor or director in the scansion and poetry. First up: Iachimo in the Box!