A misunderstood love story: thoughts about playwright William Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew

                                A still from the 1967 adaptation of the movie

I believe that small joys in life leave you most contented. One of the many being, for me, reading a novel and then watching a movie based on the book, if there is one. On a trip to Delhi, I found a bookstore in the bylanes of Lajpat Nagar that was selling classics for a mere 50 rupees. My state was such of a starved kid being taken into Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory. I bought Jane Austen, Thomas Hardy, Charles Dickens and (how can I forget thee) William Shakespeare. Upon reading Taming of the Shrew, I downloaded the 1967 version of the movie starring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. I remember reading Shakespeare in 8^th grade. I firmly believe myself to be too young to acknowledge his language and thought. Having read the book again, I felt disappointed, only initially.

The book abides to 15^th century conventions laid by the society where Shakespeare has portrayed a situation where women were considered as objects or chattels (like Petruchio puts it) that were exchanged for money. This was the definition of marriage. It is even so in contemporary, modern India. Whether Shakespeare was a patriarch having such notions or was his work a mere reflection of the society, I will be unable to say.

Moving on, what intrigued me more was why Katharina was a shrew than her actual taming. Why was she the way she was? Headstrong, violent, harsh, wild and easily enraged. She was the ugly duckling, she was the odd one out, she was the one without a date at the prom.

Anguished, she screams infront of her husband (Petruchio), “I will speak the anger of my heart”. She might be violent, rude and crazy. But nowhere does the text question or answer the reason for her shrewness. I firmly believe Katharina to be the definition of a woman who did want to hide behind the veil, speak softly, be modest, retain her virginity or simply, become what is expected of women, to be compromising and calm. An example of this being Bianca (her younger sister), who has men fighting for her hand.

Furthermore, Petruchio tames her by refusing to give her food and comfort but remains kind to her in words. She uses the situation to her advantage by making friends with the house staff and agreeing with him on every account. She wins his heart. One must note that even though Petruchio denied Katharina of all these pleasures, so did he deny himself. Hence, he was harsh with himself as well. (Love in the air?)

Katharina realised the fact that she is not in her father’s house anymore, hence she will not be able to dominate the members of the household. She is now in possession of Petruchio who can choose to treat her as he wishes. She does agree with him on every count, knowing that it will be advantageous for her in the long run.  

I also believe that Katharine needed someone equally crazy like Petruchio (he was Kated!) to handle her. It was him who eventually gave her the chance to speak. In some ways, he set her free. Imagine a scenario if there were no Petruchio, Katharina would have died a bitter death, alone and abandoned; cast away by the society becoming a symbol of bad luck.

When I saw the 1929 version of the same movie, which is directed by Sam Taylor starring Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks, I looked forward to Katharina’s speech at the end. She winks at Bianca (her submissive younger sister) while revelling about women’s duties towards their husbands.

This makes me wonder whether Kate was really tamed or was it a well thought off ploy to impress Petruchio.