Much Ado About Nothing

This year (2016) marks the 400th anniversary since William Shakespeare very poetically joined the underworld on his birthday. Considering his track record of tragedies, comedies and histories, it seems a rather morbidly fitting end for the eternally famous playwright. 

Just last Saturday, April 23rd, was the actual day itself although historians aren't 100% sure exactly how old Shakespeare was when he died as in those days (and the next 200 or so years to come) poor people didn't get to have their birth recorded properly. And if you were poor and couldn't go to church where it was generally recorded? You probably lived and died incognito - mostly. 

Shakespeare would have if he didn't reach such a level of infamy due to not only the nature of his plays, his audience (which included royalty like Elizabeth II and James I), and the myriad of conspiracy theories and studies constructed about him in the following centuries. 

This post however isn't going to go into too much depth of the life and times of the bard himself, because that would take years to write, and rather aims to focus on one of his plays in specific: Much Ado About Nothing.

You would think as it is my favourite of all his plays that I would know the year that it was first written and performed, but rather I don't. I don't know the general context of it, unusual for a history hipster such as myself, and oddly I don't really care. Much Ado About Nothing is as relevant today as it was when it was first written and makes very few references to the context of the time except for perhaps the language and evidence that a war seems to be going on somewhere. But then in 17th century Europe that could realistically been any war. Or any war since.

Much Ado About Nothing is a play not, for once, about mistaken identity which is such a common element to Shakespeare's comedies (although you could argue there is reference in the form of a masquerade party which takes place during the first Act). It is however a play about prejudice, jumping to conclusions and passionate banter with a little slapstick thrown in for good measure. 

The main players, Beatrice and Benedick, are arguably Shakespeare's strongest and most evenly matched romantic couple written as virtually every scene they appear in together is constructed as a battle of wills and wits, both parties aiming to outdo the other. From the very first time you see Beatrice in Act 1, Scene 1 there is evidence of a love-hate relationship between her and Benedick that you don't actually ever learn the real truth behind. Joss Whedon's rendition in 2012 (my honest least favourite of all) suggests that the verbal sparring is the result of a one night stand gone wrong, and though I'd argue that is definitely not the original source (listen to Beatrice and tell me she just fell into bed with a random) it does make for a modern twist. But what is important to note is that although they put up a front that they don't get on to each other and those around them at no point in the story is anyone actually fooled.

The play's main comedic element comes from the ensemble's desire to put Beatrice and Bendick's say so to the test by deliberately allowing each to over hear a conversation about how much one loves the other. For Benedick it is Claudio, Leonato and Don Pedro waxing poetic about Beatrice's affection for him, which absolutely perfectly comes less than two minutes after his grumpy soliloquy about his resolve to die a bachelor. By the time they leave he is so convinced by their trick that he assumes her forced nicety to him in telling him dinner is on has a double meaning and comes out with this absolute gem: "when I said that I would die a bachelor I did not think that I would live til I were married". 

Beatrice, on the other hand, takes even less convincing from the conversation between Margaret and Hero that she over hears. For such an impassioned will to remain single, and Beatrice is rarely played by any one all that young as hero is, insisting that she would rather "hear her dog bark at a crow than a man swear he loves [her]" she very quickly clicks on to the idea that Benedick, the man she has told everyone she hates, should want to marry her.

When you think about it, the relationship between Beatrice and Benedick could be any of us. Maybe at one time one said something or heard something that has offended because they're sensitive to what the other says because they like them and in hurt has begun this seemingly hateful relationship that tricked no one else into thinking was real. Sound familiar? I can think of at least one other very famous couple that started off in exactly that way: Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy. Just like Austen's two, Beatrice and Benedick's prejudice was tossed on its head with a little bit of prodding from those around them just in a much quicker and funnier way. They do after all say that there is a very fine line between love and hate.

The drama of Much Ado About Nothing, and arguably the reason for the play's title, comes from the wedding of Claudio and Hero who fall in love at first sight, a much happier circumstance than Romeo and Juliet. With everyone's approval, the two only stumble at the alter after Claudio (moron) is tricked by Don Pedro's brother, John (like Prince John), that Hero has been hitting it with other men. Claudio is quick to believe it, insecure and distrustful as he is, and waits until they are in front of everyone to shout accusations at her storm out. Now eventually Don John is caught out and Claudio apologises to Hero before they are married for real and live happily ever after, but not before the more serious damage is done. Of all of Shakespeare's characters from the evil hunchbacked fiction of Richard III to the playful Puck, i would argue that Claudio and Hero are among the weakest and stupidest and I'll tell you why. Hero, much like Desdemona, is a very unfortunate product of her time and is notably one of the most frustrating female characters ever written - when faced with Claudio's rejection she fakes death and sits by until everything is resolved. She only utters a weak 'that's not true' to his accusations then takes him back in a heartbeat after he has publicly shamed her and physically pushed her around in front of everyone she knows. If Hero was a 21st century woman she would be the girl you use as a cautionary tale for so many reasons. And don't even get me started on Claudio.

It's after the reality check of this situation though that Benedick and Beatrice actually come clean to each other and find a sort of common ground amongst the utter disappointment with Claudio's actions. But what really drives home how strong these two are is how equal they make themselves to each other; Beatrice in a superbly passionate speech about women's suffrage instructs Benedick to kill Claudio to which he replies more or less that he will not but he loves her and they will figure out a solution together. 

Benedick, I think, is a surprising equalist. Written in a time where women were at fault in infidelity cases and men were right to abuse them, at no time does Benedick ever talk down to a female character on stage. He waffles about his perfect woman like a true lad, but the only woman he spars with is Beatrice and this battle of wits is what ultimately draws them together. He appreciates that Beatrice is outspoken and intelligent, and neither condemns Hero or allows himself to be browbeaten by Beatrice despite his desire to please her. Even though the things he says in the height of his verbal battle with Beatrice are strong, there is no point in any of his scenes that he ever leaves the realm of someone worthy of introduction to your mother. Even Darcy who acts like a snob for half of his story doesn't reach this bar, and just think about the bevy of other cads that Shakespeare wrote (I'm looking at you Lysander, Othello, Hamlet and Bertram). Benedick, for all his faults, is a good guy at the root of it.

And by now I have barely touched on all the elements to this play. There is plenty more about Beatrice and Benedick, Claudio and Hero, and the terrible Don John that I haven't even mentioned. More about the play's hidden meanings and truth that I could ponder. I could go on for hours, and would given the chance, to analyse and unweave the utter genius written in to what on the surface is such a great Romantic Comedy but I will leave you to think about it for yourselves.

There are some fantastic renditions of Much Ado About Nothing that I do recommend to anyone keen for a laugh, some Shakespeare love or even if you are new to the whole thing. I promise it's one of the bard's easiest works to understand and it will definitely cheer you up if you give it a try. Notable adaptations include the 1993 film featuring Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson (who were married at the time), a 2005 BBC modern version with Damian Lewis and Billie Piper, and my personal favourite: the 2011 live performance featuring Catherine Tate and David Tennant set in the 1980's. 

The 400th anniversary is a big deal so please check out some Shakespeare if you haven't already. His plays are entertaining to say the least and as relevant now as they were four centuries ago - and just think how much has changed since then. You may even learn something you didn't know before.

Sam xox