Brendan O’Hea:
Titania and Oberon accuse each other of infidelity and then she has that wonderful speech.
Judi Dench:
‘These are the forgeries of jealousy.’ She’s in a fury. Because she can’t escape him. Wherever she goes – on a hill, in a forest, on a beach, in a meadow – he rocks up, looking for a fight. And what are the repercussions of their rows? The whole world’s thrown upside down. It’s cataclysmic. There are contagious fogs and diseases, floods in summer, heatwaves in winter, and the animals are dying and the crops are rotting in the fields and it’s all their fault. Between them they are ruining the world. Because of their differences. It’s a very, very good speech for what we feel about the planet now. Melting ice caps and flooding and climate change.
—Excerpt from the chapter on A Midsummer Night’s Dream, from the new book Shakespeare: The Man Who Pays the Rent
In the new book, Shakespeare: The Man Who Pays the Rent, Oscar-winning actor Judi Dench engages in conversation with friend and fellow theatre professional Brendan O’Hea. Sometimes laughing, sometimes arguing, they discuss each of the Shakesperean roles she has performed over the years, from Ophelia and Juliet to Cleopatra and Lady Macbeth. For lovers of Shakespeare, but more generally for lovers of stage and screen, this is a gem of a book.
Yet, I think we can also draw meaning from it for our discussions of Mormonism here at Wheat and Tares.
In the above excerpt, Judi inadvertently strikes at the heart of what may be most problematic about Mormon notions of godhood. Titania and Oberon are powerful fairies, essentially the gods of their world. The more human in appearance and behavior that Gods become, the more Heaven starts to sound like the principal set piece of a soap opera or reality TV show. The amorous and combative Greek pantheon comes to mind. So does the Marvel cinematic universe. But how about this? Open your Pearl of Great Price or Journal of Discourses and see what’s coming up on the next episode of Real Housewives of the Celestial Kingdom or Game of Thrones: Premortal Realm.
O’Hea:
Is it true that when Trevor [Nunn] was asked if the Macbeths were the Nixons—
Dench:
He said, ‘No, they’re the Kennedys.’ They’re the golden couple. They adore each other. And she’ll do anything for him. If he wants to be king then it’ll come to pass. ‘You are Glamis, you are Cawdor, and we know what’s been promised next. You’re going to be the effing King, darling.’
O’Hea:
And you’ll be the Queen.
Dench:
She’s not interested in that. I don’t think she does it for herself at all. She does it for him. She’ll push him towards what she believes to be his due.
The above excerpt provides me with a challenging moment as a reader. In it, Dame Judi Dench says something I don’t expect her to say. She takes a position opposite to the one I assume she will take. In her eyes, the villainous Lady Macbeth is not seeking power for herself but for her husband. Dench sees her as a loyal wife and willing participant in patriarchy.
I have seen Dench’s performance, opposite Ian McKellen, on an archival recording. A master of her craft, Judi brings an emotional depth and humanity to Lady Macbeth that isn’t necessarily in the Bard’s script. It is up to the actress, in collaboration with a director, to turn the character from a two-dimensional villain into a nuanced human being.
Elsewhere in the book, I love how Judi proposes avoiding the canonization of a single interpretation or style. Instead, she allows for experimentation, variety, and new revelations into what stories like Macbeth can offer us today.
“And then there were the York Mystery Plays in St Mary’s Abbey. Each year, my father would play Annas the High Priest and my mother would help design the costumes. My first role was an angel in a gold wig; then the following year I played the young man dressed in white sitting at the entrance of Jesus’ tomb; and finally, the Virgin Mary. Fantastic childhood. I feel very blessed because I was encouraged and given the opportunities to play. In order to be creative I think it’s important to hold on to that inner child and remain open to wonder.
Like the Christian mystery plays Dench performed as a child, Mormonism provides a grand framework in which to explore our imaginations. We may lean in too far with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ literal approach, but the stories themselves nonetheless spark images and ideas in our minds. They stimulate us, turning us into beings who aspire to more than we are, seeking to learn more than we know, and attain more than we have. For many of us, Mormonism was not only the source of our values and morality, it became the seat of our ambition.
Questions for Discussion
Do you agree or disagree with the connections made in this post between Shakespeare and Mormonism? Why?
What characters from Mormon scripture and history would you describe as Shakespearean? Why?
Which Shakespeare plays have you seen and had strong reactions to, either positive or negative? Why?
Wheat & Tares 
I absolutely loved the recent interview with Dame Judi Dench & Brendan O’Shea about the book, although I haven’t yet read it. Their sparring back & forth, discussing these complex characters is one of the things I love about Shakespeare. I also really enjoyed the latest Folger Library podcast about “second chances” in Shakespeare. So many of his plays (and other great literature like Jane Austen, for example) are about the main characters being total screw-ups, making ruinous choices, then (except the tragedies where they continue to blow it), they get a second chance in the final act. Some of these second chances are deserved (Lear’s repentance feels real, but he’s too late because his oldest daughters learned the lessons from his narcissistic parenting too well), and some frankly are not (All’s Well That Ends Well–Bertram is far too easily forgiven, probably because he’s attractive–Helena deserves better!). Here’s a link to that interview: https://www.folger.edu/podcasts/shakespeare-unlimited/second-chances-shakespeare-and-freud-phillips-greenblatt/
We’ve been attending the Utah Shakespeare Festival since the mid-90s, and one of the things I appreciate about their format is that it’s repertory theater with non-Shakespeare plays mixed in, so you’ve got these themes that tend to emerge each year, which pull out some of the different subtext and interpretations of the character arcs in the Shakespeare plays. The characters are written in such a rich way that (as you point out with Dame Judi Dench’s view of Lady MacBeth) you can have a subtly different take on them depending on how the dialogue is emphasized, plus the non-verbal cues that accompany it. It’s really extraordinary to experience it. These plays not only understand human nature, but they reveal that there is nothing concrete when it comes to understanding human character.
I like the point that you make regarding how Mormonism provides a framework for imagination. I quite agree with that notion. Even though we don’t currently attend our local ward, I still read my 9 year-old son the scriptures and we discuss doctrine and theology often. At some point we talked about the idea of godhood and the theoretical idea of being able to create/organize a world. For whatever reasons, this aspect of theology has really stuck with my son and he talks enthusiastically about creating his own world after this life in heaven and goes into elaborate detail about how his version of the world will function, what will exist, and how thing will run. The particular aspect of LDS theology is quite thorny and does not endear us to other Christian denominations, and so is not really emphasized or even discussed nowadays, but it was a staple of discussion and speculation when I was a youth and teenager growing up in the church.
For my son, as far as I can tell, his imagination of creating a world, or being a god/exalted being, is similar to how he thinks of gaming. He views it very similar to to Minecraft or a myriad other versions of multi-player games design-your-own-level games which allow users to assume an quasi-godlike posture of creating a virtual universe that other players can then join and participate in. The symbolism and allegorical instruction of temple worship emphasizes the central role of creation, not just of children, but also of matter, plants, animals, nature, etc. For the purposes of this discussion, I believe creation of great works of art, poetery, plays, dramas, music, movies, and games are the quintessential manifestation of the best parts of divinity within each of us.
The Shakesperian plays I have read/watched: Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear, Merchant of Venice. I think Merchant of Venice has some relevance to Mormonism as it deals with conversion and a hearty dose of anti-semitism as well in the character Shylock. There are probably quite a few lessons and parallels we could apply when we discuss those who are participating members vs non-participating (in-group vs. out-group), Christian vs. non-Christian, including forced conversions and “othering” non-believers/infidels/apostates.
Hawkgrrrl’s comments have ignited in me a desire to attend the Shakespearean festival, which I’ve sadly never done even though we are less than an hour’s drive to Cedar City. Time to put it on the calendar!
I think that Judy Bench might be on to something, saying that Lady Macbeth did not seek power for her own purposes, but she wanted her husband to seek and to claim higher station. Harold Bloom might have agreed. Macbeth: A Dagger of the Mind, was one of his last books and I am reading it now. He suggests that Lady Macbeth may have been higher born than her husband. Shakespeare doesn’t say as much, I don’t think, but this makes some sense. It might help explain her strength in dismissing the lords and ladies at the banquet where Banquo’s ghost appears.
I have seen many of Shakespeare’s plays. I prefer the tragedies, but so think the Merchant of Venice is my favorite. Shylock seeking his pound of flesh is a great character, although some people don’t like that he is a Jew. Can human vengeance ever be meted such that it takes only what is allowed, without doing other damage? I like Branagh’s Henry V and Hamlet, Laurence Olivier’s versions not nearly as much (if at all).
Persons from Mormon scripture or history who are Shakespearean? I don’t know. I do not see Joseph Smith as a tragic character, although he dies. Heber J Grant appears to me to have become embittered in his old age and disillusioned with his people, as he felt betrayed when Utahns voted to repeal prohibition and elected FDR four times. And the Great Depression and WWII were during his tenure. Maybe in some ways he felt like King Lear, whose two daughters feigned love and loyalty but despised him and betrayed him while he rejected the daughter who loved him. Maybe not Shakespearean. I don’t know if he died embittered, so I might be way off base.
I think there are an abundance of Mormon fantasy and sci fi authors, not sure of the connection with Shakespeare. But Mormonism was fertile ground for many teen dystopian fiction inspirations. Sometimes when I am reading a new book from a new author and it seems familiar I willl turn to the author bio and see that they went to BYU or are from Utah and have five kids and I realize we grew up in the same cultural stew.
Brian G,
That same Mormonism and cultural stew also produced Chad Daybell and his writings.
ji, there’s a great tie to Shakespeare in this Daybell business: there is something rotten in the state of Denmark (Marcellus, in Hamlet, act 1 scene 4). Daybell and Vallow have/had many supporters and followers in some parts of Zion, including people in positions of leadership and influence.
I’ve heard with some uneasiness the teachings lately to disregard dead prophets and to listen only to current ones. I think I understand why. These words are intended to address people like Daybell/Vallow and their followers, who (if I understand correctly) dug up obscure teachings and used them, and people followed them. If that’s the case, then why not say so? Why tell us to ignore past prophets (and scriptures) and listen only to current prophets? If the ailment is people following kooks, then teach us about how wolves appear among us in sheep’s clothing. Otherwise, if you’re not aware of the Daybell and other stories, then what you actually hear in the current teaching is leader infallibility: follow us, and only us, for we will not err, but past prophets gave victories to Satan! I don’t think that they intend to teach infallibility, but because they don’t tell us what ailment they intend to cure, the medicine is applied where it isn’t intended, which might do more harm than the ailment itself. Members don’t seem to suffer from Daybellism where I live, like they do in Idaho, Utah, and Arizona. We hear these teachings and we hear leader infallibility, and that doesn’t ring quite right because we know that our leaders are fallible, not because they’re leaders but because they’re people.
Shakespeare discusses how kings are kings, but also sometimes merely men. In Richard II, act 3, scene 2, the king is facing a rebellion by his first cousin, the future Henry IV, and he declares that he is always king: “Not all the water in the rough rude sea / Can wash the balm off from an anointed king. / The breath of worldly men cannot depose / The deputy elected by the Lord.” The president of the church and all our leaders hold those offices until the Lord takes them away: I believe that. But they are still mortal and fallible, as Richard II avers a few lines later: “I live with bread like you, feel want, / Taste grief, need friends. Subjected thus, / How can you say to me I am a king?” Kings are both always kings and somehow always fallible.
I wonder if there would be benefit to teach plainly about how to identify wolves in sheep’s clothing, applying the medicine to the wound and not to all the body. Teaching against Daybellites without referring to them allows people to hear a message about infallibility, and if so we might misapprehend the teaching, applying the medicine where it might harm instead of heal. I also wonder if there would be benefit to teach that all leaders, including current ones, can err, for we are all human, and at times our leaders make decisions alone. The parable at D&C 88:51-61 might be helpful here. Even though the master of the vineyard may be absent, perhaps for long periods of time, the servant (president of the church) is still the Lord’s servant: “If we be not [king], show us the hand of God / That hath dismissed us from our stewardship; / For well we know, no hand of blood and bone / Can gripe [grip] the sacred handle of our sceptre, / Unless he do profane, steal, or usurp.” Seems like Chad Daybell tried to profane, steal, or usurp that which belonged to the president of the Lord’s church. Doesn’t that make Chad a wolf in sheep’s clothing?
I love Shakespeare. I didn’t answer one question from the OP: As You Like It, Hamlet, Henry V, Julius Caesar, King Lear, Macbeth, The Merchant of Venice, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Othello, Richard III, Timon of Athens, Twelfth Night. Amazingly, I have never made it to see Romeo and Juliet. For Christmas last year, my wife got me a facsimile of Shakespeare’s First Folio, the British Library’s 400th Anniversary Edition. 12.9″ tall and 8.2″ wide, a magnificent work of art–at least for a bibliophile. And I apologize for misspelling Ms Dench’s name in my earlier post: Judi Dench, not Judy Bench. I think that I did not see the autocorrect to its nefarious work.
I never thought about President Oaks’ counsel as protection from Daybell et alia, but that sounds possible. If so, I agree that the medicine needs to be precisely formulated and precisely applied. There is a danger is using medicine incorrectly or too broadly.
But the church still has not condemned Daybell or his teachings — I heard that the church quietly stopped selling his books just a few months ago, but there has been no direct warning to the people.
I have read some of the transcripts of the on-going trial in Idaho — too many church members, including stake presidents, bishops, and temple workers, were persuaded by Daybell. That is sad. That is scary. Maybe the watchmen in the tower need to do better.
I live far away from the center place, and I am glad for that.
I grew up in an even smaller town near Rexburg and can totally see how Orson Scott Card and Chad Daybell could come from the same Mormon cultural stew.