'Tis pity she's (not) a whore.

[e_juliana]

I was drawn into a discussion last night of Measure For Measure and the problems inherent in setting it (or any Shakespeare) in a modern setting. This one is especially thorny for the lead actress, since her dilemma is so far removed from modern life: sleep with Angelo and spare her brother, or preserve her virginity and let Claudio die? (I am aware that Shakespeare's audience wouldn't have sympathized with her overmuch, but women's virginity was much more of an issue 400 years ago.) The actress mentioned that she had been quizzing her social circle, and that the answers broke fairly cleanly along gender lines, with the men having much less of a problem with Isabella basically prostituting herself for her brother than the women. (Hmmm. A little personal bias creeped in there, methinks.) Our male friend (who's playing Lucio) argued that it's for a life, so even though it's not a fantastic solution, the woman should save her brother. He even said that if the reverse were to happen, and the man had to go to prison a la Oz to save his sister, that it should be done. My argument is that by asking Isabella to give up the one piece of power she has, Claudio & Angelo are asking her to give up her life. She would not be allowed to join the convent - her life's ambition - if she was not a virgin. She would be a woman with no place, no rank, no life. Death would be preferable to such a fate, and she in fact expresses the desire to change place with her brother, so that she may give her life for his.

So, I ask you - what do you think? Which of these fates would you choose, and why? Why do you think the discussion breaks along gender lines?

Comments

[debg.livejournal.com]

Thorny question is right, which is one reason I tend to back away from Jacobean or Elizabethan drama in an updated setting. (I do except the Scots play from that general blanket, since its themes don't seem to age.)

I think the discussion breaks along gender lines because, put brutally, it devolves back to the testosterone-based religions that have powered the society we're talking about, ever since the BC/AD clock change. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, have a policy of burying the feminine principle under a cloak of sexual terror, and therefore putting an artificial value on female "purity".

And it is policy - elevate the woman onto a false pedestal, remove her humanity while they do so by prizing her for her ovaries and not much else, and while they're at it, conveniently whistle innocently and pretend they don't know they've put her into this cage of phony sanctity, the better to shut her up and abrogate all the affairs of importance to themselves, when that, in fact, has been the object of the exercise all along.

I've had the gender-line breakdown discussion about Antigone and about Persuasion, but never about this one. Thanks - it's an interesting play to pose this for.

[septembergrrl.livejournal.com]

I would prostitute myself. I recognize this is a modern answer, but I can't get myself into a head-space where preserving my rank and getting into a convent is worth someone's death.