Coriolanus was one of the plays that I watched at Ashland, with freshmen--during my years as the Director of the Honors Program. I had no clue about the play. My colleague, the theatre faculty, said that it was an absolutely perfect play to watch and think about, given the war and election season at that time--seems like it is always war and elections, eh! :(
As always, the folks at Ashland did a great job. (When the play ended, I was thankful that they did not adapt it to any other time period, as they occasionally do with Shakespearean plays.) Once again, Shakespeare punched the lights out of me--how did that guy manage to do all that fantastic stuff? And such profound dramas!
Even as the play was progressing, it was difficult not to compare it with contemporary American social and political events. Politicians pretending to be one of the commoners so that they can get their approval--which Coriolanus resisted doing not because he was idealistic, but because he thought he was too good to seek approval from the masses.
Contemporary politicians know all too well that if they behaved like how Coriolanus did, well, they wouldn't get elected even as a dog catcher. So, they put on different roles. Last time around, it was Obama droppin' the "g" or not mentioning arugula after one mishap, in order to relate to the commoners. Similarly, the hilarious attempts by McCain to relate to Joe the Plumbers, and the "betcha" folksy Palin .... well, Shakespeare portrays these so well in Coriolanus.
Here is a neat essay on Coriolanus, from the New English Review (once again, thanks to AL Daily). The author notes that:
Has political life really changed very much since Shakespeare’s day, at least as portrayed in Coriolanus? If anything, it seems to have regressed towards it, having perhaps (but only perhaps) have moved away from it for an interlude of a century or two.
Demagogues and war heroes we have with us still, while discernable principles seem very few and far between. The crowds are still demanding that the candidates display their war wounds: when Mrs Clinton ‘mis-spoke’ she was trying to demonstrate that she, too, knew what it was to be under fire. The desire and willingness to present others in the worst possible light, as a sufficient argument in itself, is still with us.
Unfortunately, demagogues and demagoguery are alive and well.
Except with one guy--Ron Paul.
Paul doesn't seem to care about saying things that people might prefer to hear so that they will, in turn, approve of his candidacy. Though I don't agree with a few of what Paul says, I find it absolutely refreshing that he mostly says what he means, and means what he says. And he behaves that way not out of contempt for the public either.
But, the guy gets practically no media coverage. Why so? (ht)
Mostly because the mainstream media and the Republican establishment wish he would just go away.
One reason the bipartisan establishment finds Paul so obnoxious is how much the past four years have proven him correct -- on the housing bubble, on the economy, on our foreign misadventures, and on our national debt.
The Daily Show also correctly points out this systematic exclusion of Ran Paul--doesn't it remind us of how Ralph Nader used to complain that the two parties and the media have rigged the system?
No comments:
Post a Comment