Why I don’t hate “Taming of the Shrew” (anymore)

I expected to sit in the audience of the IU theater department’s summer production of “The Taming of the Shrew” boiling with feminist rage.

I’m normally furious that a play about a woman who is unforgivably abused and compromised continues to find a stage.

Instead, I laughed. Hard.

It was that sort of laughter that escapes you before you realize maybe you shouldn’t be laughing.

In this way, Jonathan Michaelsen’s production was both hilarious and provocative.
Even as a feminist swollen with pride, I wouldn’t call it offensive.

Michaelsen and his team of actors certainly had their reservations about approaching this play.

But it seems Michaelsen is not a director who shies away from a piece because it is difficult or uncomfortable.

He wanted to challenge the audience.

He selected a bold, new angle, and through his direction and Adam Noble’s exceptional performance, the play’s usually despicable chauvinist was transformed into a sympathetic character.

I was conflicted.

Should I have sympathized with him?

Michaelsen converted the character of Petruchio from a soulless, misogynistic monster into a modern soldier who is damaged both physically and mentally.

As the daughter of a veteran and someone who grew up around soldiers her entire life, this quickly tugged at my heartstrings.

Watching Petruchio fall to the ground in terror after confusing firecrackers for gunshots did not justify his abuse of Kate.

It did, however, humanize him.

He is not an invincible character, as most interpretations would have him. He is damaged.

In most productions, Petruchio is presented as a misogynistic superhuman who easily endures starvation and lack of sleep so long as it puts his woman in her place.

Noble’s Petruchio suffers and genuinely loves Kate, if in a warped way.

He hits no one.

Kate is often presented as a losing character, a shrew that is tamed, a broken steed.
In this production, she receives the final word.

She asserts herself. She is quicker-witted than Petruchio, and he is played as someone who appreciates this.

This production explores the relationship between two damaged individuals.

Both come to understand and even love each other in an unconventional way.

This relationship probably warrants an examination of their mental health.

There is the fear of people walking away from this believing abuse should be tolerated.

There is the fear that people will misinterpret Kate’s final speech about compromise as an obliteration of her former self, that all should be sacrificed to a spouse.

There was danger here. The love between Petruchio and Kate in this production was not easily digestible.

But it was there. I saw it.Seeing it made me wonder if someone who abuses his or her partner can genuinely love him or her.

It made me want to push for society’s examination of military relationships. Or, even more importantly, to push for the examination of abusive relationships.

It made me question how harshly I judge other relationships and what is considered “healthy.”

Because this play was so successful in making me question previous beliefs, it is still very valuable and relevant and deserves a stage.

Michaelsen’s production was a phenomenal interpretation of a play I used to hate.

­— ambhendr@indiana.edu