Actually, Hollywood HAS based a movie -- at least loosely -- on "The Comedy of Errors." It's called "Start the Revolution Without Me" (1970), and stars Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland.
As for the play...
It's a very early Shakespearean comedy, and it's pretty unsophisticated when compared with what was to follow ("12th Night," "As You Like It," "Much Ado About Nothing," etc.)
Still, the essential plot device (which Shakespeare borrowed from an old Roman play by Plautus called "Menaechmi") -- identical twins separated from each other at birth -- is a good one, and creates terrific comedic possibilities.
I've seen the play described as Shakespeare's most "farcical" comedy, and I suppose I would agree with that. I played one of the Antipholus twins in a production where we actually used "slapsticks" (hinged paddles that make a wicked cracking noise) for the many instances in the play where the "master" twins are supposed to beat the "slave" twins. The slapsticks created a comic illusion of exaggerrated violence without any real physical contact.
But -- and this is where I believe that most productions of "The Comedy of Errors" fail -- the play is built on a deadly serious reality...as are ALL of Shakespeare's comedies. If you look closely enough at these plays, you'll find that there is ALWAYS a dark undercurrent. This, in my opinion, is what makes them greater works than the comedies of his contemporaries. And it's also the thing that separates quality productions of the comedies from run-of-the-mill productions. If you don't capture the inherent DRAMA of the plays, you don't get all of the laughs, either.
In the first scene of "Comedy of Errors," the old man Egeon, is led onstage as a prisoner in the land of Ephesus. He speaks a VERY long monologue, in which all of the essential plot elements of the show are revealed. It's an absolutely heartbreaking tale. He was a well-to-do businessman. His wife delivered identical twin sons (the Antipholus twins); that same night, a very poor woman at the same inn also delivered identical twin sons (the Dromio twins), which Egeon "bought," and raised to be servants to his own sons.
Clear so far? Two sets of twins. The tragedy is that, while travelling aboard a ship with the infant children, a storm divided the boat in two, separating husband and wife. And with each of them went one Antipholus and one Dromio.
Do you begin to see the sad reality emerging? Husband and wife separated, and two sets of twins who've never seen their brothers.
But wait, there's more! It is also revealed in that first scene that, as a native of Syracuse, Egeon has, in coming to Ephesus (to search for his lost son!) violated a law of Ephesus which requires that he be PUT TO DEATH at day's end, unless he can pay a fine of a thousand marks...which he clearly doesn't have.
In this regard, "Comedy of Errors" is similar to "A Midsummer Night's Dream," in which Hermia's father imposes a death sentence against his daughter if she refuses to marry the young man of his choosing (Demetrius). Hermia runs away from Athens with Lysander, they enter the woods (where Puck and Oberon dwell), and the "comedy" begins.
But, that's the REALITY of the play! This old man is going to be EXECUTED at the end of the day unless he can find someone to put up the cash for his release -- not likely, since he doesn't know anybody in Ephesus.
Little does Egeon know, of course, that two of his sons, Antipholus and Dromio of Ephesus, live in that very town (although THEY'VE never seen him before), and his OTHER sons (Antipholus and Dromio of Syracuse; the sons he raised) have arrived in town that same day, looking for their brothers.
So you see...there's more going on here than mere farce. And, there's one more element that has to be present in order for the show to succeed. You have to remember that there was no such thing as the "science of Genetics" in Shakespeare's day, so you have to imagine what the Elizabethans would have made of IDENTICAL TWINS. There should be a real sense of awe and wonder around the moment when the twins finally encounter one another in Act V.
To sum up, it's a good play; not a great play. It can be a lot of fun, AND it's capable of more dramatic weight than most directors are willing to give it.
2006-08-24 03:44:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by shkspr 6
·
1⤊
0⤋