The Taming of the

Shrew
by William Shakespeare

Group Presentation

Bocu Cristina-Violeta
Ciomag Alina-Elena
Dasclu Claudia-Cristina
Enea Andreea-tefana

Contents
1. General aspects and critical views on William Shakespeares
The Taming of the Shrew
Ciomag Alina-Elena
2. Themes and Symbols
Dasclu Claudia-Cristina
3. The nature of marriage in the play
Enea Andreea-tefana
4. The Taming of the Shrew on screen
Bocu Cristina-Violeta

I. General aspects and critical views

on William Shakespeares The Taming of the Shrew
Ciomag Alina-Elena

The Taming of the Shrew is regarded as one of Shakespeares early comedies and,
although it couldnt be dated precisely, it is assumed to have been written somewhere in between
1590 and 1594 and published in Shakespeare Folio of 1623. The incertitude is due to the
existence of a different version -The Taming of a Shrew, whose connection to the Folio plays
is quite unclear. (Thompson p.4)
However, The Taming of the Shrew Folio version is built as a play-within-a-play and
it begins in a tavern in the countryside with the argument between a beggar, named Christopher
Sly and the proprietress of the tavern. At a short interval after this, Lord a nobleman - happens
to be passing by and to see Sly sleeping drunk on the side of a road. He then decides to play a
farce on him, take him to his palace and make him believe that he is in fact an aristocrat with a
temporary loss of memory. To serve his plot, Lord sets up a play for Sly, claiming that the story
in the story of the play relates to his life and it will help him recover his memory. This
Introduction has been often seen as a self-conscious device which raises questions about the
relationship of the theatre to the world and the nature of reality itself. (Thompson, p.31) The
sub-plot play is the actual focus as it has a well-defined plot. It is set in Padua, Italy and presents
young Lucentio just arrived from Pisa to pursue his studies at the University of Padua. As he falls
for Bianca, the beautiful younger daughter of a wealthy citizen of Padua Baptista Minola, he
learns that aside the whole army of suitors, he cannot marry her also because her father has
decided that she is not to marry before her older sister Katherina marries. The problem with that
is that Katherina is the shrew of the play. She has a nasty-temper and a sharp-tongue, insults and
humiliates men and, when angered she may also prove to become physically violent. In other
words, her temper reduces the number of eligible suitors to zero; until Petruchio comes along. He
is a wealthy nobleman from Verona, who is looking to marry a woman with a substantial dowry
in order to increase his fortune. Biancas suitors convince Petruchio to marry Katherina, as he is
confident enough to take the proposition as a challenge that would make him the shrew tamer.
Therefore, he asks Baptistas permission to marry Kate and although she is enraged by her
fathers agreement she will still marry Petruchio and undergo the whole process of taming.
Petruchio tortures and starves her until she gives in at the end and acknowledges him as her
husband and protector. The taming process has often been regarded similar to the notion of
education, a notion that Shakespeare emphasizes through Petruchios character who does not
show blind cruelty towards Katherina, but rather the verticality of an educator an educator
meant to uncover her really fine qualities: patience, practical good sense, a capacity for humor,

and finally obedience. (Cecil C. Seronsy qtd in Thompson p.31) In a parallel plan Lucentio
struggles for Biancas hand and he succeeds in eliminating all other suitors by creating an entire
game of disguise with the help of his servants Tranio and Grumio. Now, with Katherina tamed,
the happy ending culminates with Bianca and Lucentios wedding but although it seems that
everyone has got what they wanted, the play leaves the reader with the question whether
Katherina is really tamed or she has mastered the game of disguise.
It is obvious that the relationship between Petruchio and Katherina is the focus point of
the play, as in no other Shakespearean comedy a relationship dominates the play so thoroughly.
This is the reason why critics couldnt establish clearly how seriously the two characters should
be regarded. A main assumption is that although Petruchio and Katherina may appear as vivid
figures they are somehow not perceived as characters in the dramatic sense because they exist in
a farce rather than in a comedy; on the premise that the farce is a superficial sub-species of
comedy and it is more concerned with the manipulation of social conventions than with the
development of individual character and hence is inclined to treat love as an intrigue or a
game. (p.25 - 26) But modern criticism tend to analyze the main characters as they are
represented in the play, and in doing so Katherina is no longer the shrew of sheer monstrosity but
rather a bad-tempered woman jealous of her spoilt younger sister and her behavior can be
simply interpreted as healthy and typical for a woman who tries to burn out her masculine
desire to dominate as a part of the process of maturing from girl to wife. (Charles Brooks qtd in
Thompson p.27) On the same line of reasoning, Petruchios methods of taming the shrew are
meant to illustrate him as a model of intelligence and humanity for these methods seem
positive and kind while compared to the medieval and Renaissance versions of shrew-taming.
He does not carry a whip nor does he use sadistic violence and in this respect one can observe
how Shakespeare another principal weapon of the male supremacist: theology. God is never
mentioned in the characters speeches and Petruchio never implies that Katherina should submit
to him because he was created as an inferior being by God; he rather asserts a kind of political
relation, that of ruler subject, where both parties have obligations to perform. (Thompson, p.
29)
The critics have analyzed the play in the context of Shakespeares own work and have
noticed that among Shakespeares comedies The Taming of the Shrew shares common
elements with two other comedies The Comedy of Errors and The Two Gentlemen of
Verona. However, as it seemed difficult to establish the date and the order in which

Shakespeares earliest comedies have been written a theory has been developed that his
technique would have evolved from classical and Italian models towards the less-plot bound
mode of the romantic comedy (e.g. from Loves Labours Lost to Twelfth Night) Based on
this premise, Comedy of Errors is believed to be the first one written as it is highly related to
classical sources, The Taming of the Shrew which combines both classical and romantic
elements would come second and the latest would be Two Gentlemen of Verona as
Shakespeares first attempt at a fully romantic comedy. Nevertheless, The Taming of the
Shrew displays certain similarities also with early history plays in terms of the outrageous
courtship scene between Petruchio and Katherina, which is likely to be compared to the
confrontations between Suffolk and Margaret in Henry VI or between Richard and Anne in
Richard III. It is believed that the three female roles were written with the same vigorous
image of a boy actor in mind. Furthermore, in The Taming of the Shrew emerges also a strong
Ovidian influence, which for that matter critics argue to have affected much of Shakespeares
work before 1590. For example, in Act I Tranio encourages Lucentio to read Ovid and then in
Act III he appears reading Heroides with Bianca or joking with her about the Ars Amatoria
in Act IV. The wanton pictures in the Introduction make a reference to the erotic representations
Ovids Metamorphoses too, which make the scene relevant to the theme of transformation
through trickery(in the case of Sly) and love( in the case of Katherina). Therefore, on the basis of
the comparison between the The Taming of the Shrew and Shakespeares other works but also
of the sturdy of the literary tendencies it illustrates critics could only assume that it has been
written in or about 1590. (Thompson, p.4 -9)

Works Cited:
Thompson, Ann. Introduction. The New Cambridge Shakespeare: The Taming of the Shrew. Ed.
Ann Thompson, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 1-52

II. Themes and Symbols

Dasclu Claudia-Cristina

Themes
Art imitating life

As a writer, Shakespeare was always interested in the concept of life imitating art that is
why, in his comedy, The Taming of the Shrew, he creates the frame story, the play-within-the
play episode. The so called Induction presents the audience a drunkard named Christopher Sly
who is tricked into believing that he is a an aristocrat. Nevertheless, its role in the play is to catch
an interest. The two plots are carefully interwoven, so as to give a wide variety of comic
incident, as well as a puzzling nature.

Performance, Identity and (Metha)theater

The Taming of the shrew is a play which deals also with the idea of the theater, bringing
into discussion the theme of the Metha Theater, which is related to how the play itself is able to
raise questions about the performance. So, the central plot in which Katherine and Bianca are
courted by different suitors is a play within a play, performed by the actors brought for
Christopher Sly and by the audience that is part of this scene (those who pretend to be the
attendants of Christopher Sly). Even Petruchio can be seen as performing when he pretends to be
mad or when he finds fault in every gesture, world, action of Katherine. All these ideas
concerning performance has to do with the theme of identity and to what extent it can become
distorted.

Country vs. City

Shakespeare is well known for the dichotomy that he uses concerning the rural and urban

setting. Even this is not so obvious in The Taming of the Shrew like in other of his plays, this
theme has an important role in the development of the action. Padua stands for the city, a place of
culture, wealth and refinement. It is here where Lucentio introduces Bianca to the world of
romance books and Latin translations. In opposition to this, the country is seen as a degraded
space, where servants are beaten by their masters and horses are collapsing in the middle of the
road. It is a wild and cruel setting on the background of which Petruchio struggles to tame
Katherine, as if she were an animal. Once with the arrival of the two in Padua, the two narratives
(the one which takes place in the country and the one having as setting the urban space) seem to
interpenetrate. This causes the transformation of Katherine into an obedient and kind wife and
Bianca and the Widow into persons that make a promise to follow her example.

Disguise

The Taming of the Shrew is a comedy that has as a nucleus the theme of the disguise of
identities. The first aspect that argues this statement is the Induction itself. The unnamed Lord
is the first character who uses this technique in order to attain a comic nature. He tries to fool
Christopher Sly by changing overnight his identity and in order to achieve his purpose, he also
uses other persons. This thing has to do with the physical disguise.
On the other hand, we can assume that Katherine and Petruchio resort to another type of
dissimulation, namely the psychological disguise. For example, Katherine plays an apparently
role of a shrew, that is because she wants to hide her disappointment towards the fact that her
fathers favorite daughter is Bianca. On the other hand, Petruchios position is that of the shrewtamer. He is sure that he has found a strategy in order to change his wifes behavior and to make
her realize how foolish and childish her anterior actions were. According to Robert Snawsel,
through reflection of the husband, the wife can reveal the good which [she] may have by [her]
husband, if [she] would be loving and submissive to him (191. This is the reason why he uses
this psychological device through which he offers Katherine what she gives: meanness in order
to achieve a certain degree of mutual understanding.

The difference between social classes

The struggle between social classes is another theme that Shakespeare brings into discussion
in his work. As we go through the Induction, we can notice that the idea of social rank is
highlighted. The Lord, free of duties and possessing a considerable amount of money finds
himself in a convenient position which enables him to play the main role in tricking the poor
Christopher Sly. The farce directed by him with regard to the reversal of social class emphases
the hierarchical social order that embodies the discrepant differences between opposed levels of
society.
On the other hand, Petruchios wedding costume signals the importance of appearance of
the social rank. It would be clear that almost everyone would have wore another type of clothing
but, considering his strategy to be an advantage in achieving his goal with regard to the taming of
Katherine, he does not care.

Symbols
Clothing

It is clear that the most of the scenes in The Taming of the Shrew suggest the importance
and allegorical meaning of clothing that plays a vital role in the development of the narrative
thread. The characters use different types of garments in order to disguise themselves or to
become someone else (Christopher Sly is provided by the Lord with aristocratic attire, Tranio,
Hortensio and Lucentio dress up in various clothes in order to dissimulate). The most important
outfit would be that of Petruchio, who uses at his wedding a conspicuous costume: O, sir, his
lackey, for all the world caparisoned like the horse; with a linen stock on one legand a kersey
boot-hose on the other, gartered with ared and blue list: a monster, a very monster in apparel,
and not like a Christian footboy or a gentlemans lackey.1 By wearing this clothes, Petruchio
humiliates Katherine acquires authority over her even before the wedding takes place. This
symbol stands for the human nature because it is obvious that the clothes do not show
Petruchios real character.

Animals
The play, including the title, is filled with animal imagery, which mainly refers to the
domestication of birds and beasts. Before being turned into a noble man, Christopher Sly is
called by the Lord a swine and a beast. Katherine herself is associated with the term of
shrew (refers to violent, aggressive women) that conceals a lot of hidden meanings. After the
marriage, the status of Katherine changes; Petruchio now names her his horse, ox and later
bird. Petruchio then associates the taming of a wife with the training of a falcon. According to
critic George Turberville, that the falconers first interaction with the hawk should happen
while the bird is hooded with a head covering that blinds the bird (309). In this condition the
bird is defenseless. The hood is not removed until she know her meat (309). The falcon
becomes tame because the trainer approaches the bird while it is blind, removing the hood, then
offering meat and re-hooding . This is in a way the same thing that happens to Katherine.
Another significant animal image is that of the horse. They are known as kind, valuable and stout
creatures but, as well as Katherine, they cannot be part of a civilized society until they are not
tamed. As the flow of events in the play unfolds, the figure of the horse is associated with that of
the wife, who needs to be controlled by the husband in order to become useful.

1 The Taming of the Shrew- Act III,Scene II page 24

Works Cited
1. Turberville, George. The Book of Falconry or Hawking: For the Delight and Pleasure of
All Noblemen and Gentlemen. 1611. Dolan 30910.
2. Shakespeare,William, The Taming of the Shrew, London: Oxford University Press, 1914
New York.COM, 2000
3. Snawsel, Robert. A Looking Glass for Married Folks. 1610. Dolan 18793.

Websites:
1. http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/shrew/
2. http://www.shmoop.com/taming-of-the-shrew/

III.

The nature of marriage in the play

Enea Andreea-tefana

In this section of our presentation, I would like to analyze Shakespeares comedy from
the point of view of the two major social structures around which the play is built, courtship and
marriage. This two themes are illustrated both in the main plot of the play, by the relationship
between Katherina and Petruchio, and in the sub-plot, by the courtship of her sister Bianca.
There are two distinct views on the nature of marriage that meet in the realm of
Shakespeares comedy. The sixteenth centurys traditional idea of marriage is that of a contract
(Thompson 29), a business transaction meant to bring profit to the family. More often than not,

the wife was seen as a commodity, as it is also depicted in The Taming of the Shrew
(www.wikipedia.org). The reason for which Petruchio came to Padua was Happily to wive and
thrive (1.2.53), being deeply motivated by money in his quest for a wife. When his friend
Hortensio presents him with the opportunity of marrying Katherina Minola, who wound receive
a great deal of money from her father as dowry, Petruchio is not in the least put back by her
famous shrewdness:
If thou know
One rich enough to be Petruchio's wifeAs wealth is burden of my wooing danceBe she as foul as was Florentius' love,
As old as Sibyl, and as curst and shrewd
As Socrates' Xanthippe, or a worse,
She moves me not..
I come to wive it wealthily in Padua;
If wealthily, then happily in Padua..

(1.2. 63-73)

Similarly, in the sub-plot, the courtship of Bianca and her hand in marriage depends also
on money matters (Thompson 15). What looks like a transaction is also the agreement of
Baptista to marry her youngest daughter to the one who can guarantee her the greatest dowry:
Tis deeds must win the prize, and he of both
That can assure my daughter greatest dower
Shall have my Bianca's love.

(2.I. 331-333)

Moreover, the proper relationship between the spouses was associated with a political
one, with the husband ruling over his wife, while the position of the woman was determined by
the patriarchal nature of family relationships, with an emphasis on her subordination. As Lynda
Boose writes in her paper Scolding Brides and Bridling Scolds: Taming the Womans Unruly
Member, when there was no longer this clear distribution of gender role, and the woman was
scolding, brawling and dominating ones husband, she was labeled as scold or shrew
(Boose 185). Shrews were considered a threat to male authority and consequently, they were
severely punished. One of the punishments used was a device called the cucking stool, in
which the shrew was paraded through town and then ducked in the local pond, a taming ritual
also mentioned in Shakespeares play by Grumio when he says that Katherina deserves rather to
be carted than courted: To cart her rather! Shes too rough for me. (1.1.55)(Boose 186). Lynda

Boose also mentioned other procedures used to tame a shrew, like the scolds bridle or even
the maiming of the mouth, which were both supposed to silence the woman.
However, Petruchio does not resort to these kinds of drastic solutions in taming his shrew.
He uses instead a sort of psychological torture, setting himself a goal in humiliating and shaming
Katherina. The best example of this case is definitely the scene of their wedding, where not only
does Petruchio arrive late, but he also manages to attract everyones attention with his
carnivalesque outfit. His behavior in church and the denial of the wedding feast are also means to
humiliate her and to underline the fact that she is but a possession for him:
She is my goods, my chattels; she is my house,
My household-stuff, my field, my barn,
My horse, my ox, my ass, my anything.
(3.2. 219-221)

Although he also resorts to physical torture, depraving her of food, he garments his ways
with a most chivalric and noble language:
This is a way to kill a wife with kindness,
And thus I'll curb her mad and headstrong humour.

(4.1. 179-180)

As Ann Thompson remarks in the Introduction of The New Cambridge Shakespeare of

The Taming of The Shrew, Petruchios methods of taming Katherina are positively kindly
compared to what happens in most of the other medieval and Renaissance versions of the shrewtaming plot where sadistic violence is commonplace, Petruchio even imposing

the same

deprivations on himself (Thompson 28).

In the end, with her famous final speech, Katherina is the one reinforcing the idea of
marriage based on a political structure, just like a reign:
Fie, fie, unknit that threatening unkind brow,
And dart not scornful glances from those eyes
To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor.

(5.2. 136-138)

She goes on asserting mens superiority over them, by praising their qualities and by
condemning a frowning wife, a shrew as she was so often referred to in the past, mentioning
that a womens duty is to serve, love and obey (5.2. 164). Above all, she ends her speech with
a literary description of a common gesture made by women at the time: that of placing her hand
under her husbands foot, read as the symbol of her ultimate submission (5.2. 177-179). This was
an extremely humiliating thing to do even then (Boose 183), and the scene is certainly entitled to
receive drastic criticism. As Ann Thompson notices in her introduction, the tendency of the

producers and directors of the play was to alter and adapt the text in order to soften the ending
(Thompson 24). For example, in Franco Zeffirellis movie, Elizabeth Taylor in the role of
Katherina, instead of putting her hand under Petruchios foot, she offers it to him. In this way, we
are made to believe that marriage is rather a partnership, than a monocracy.
This second perspective upon marriage- marriage as a partnership- was also present in
Shakespeares time. It was a Protestant view, in which the communion between the two was a
choice of the partners, based on affection and not only on financial grounds (Nicolaescu). From
this point of view we can look at Lucentions feelings towards Bianca, which are of the noblest
intentions:
Tranio, I saw her coral lips to move,
And with her breath she did perfume the air.
Sacred and sweet was all I saw in her.

(1.1. 165-167)

If we have in mind this new perspective, we can speculate that, as Ann Thompson did, the
whole relationship between Katherina and Petruchio is a farce, in which the old views and the
absurdity of male supremacy is laughed at (Thompson 25).
My personal opinion concerning the authenticity of Katherinas speech and her
miraculous taming is that her final attitude was ironic and rather a role-playing. She seems to
have realized that it was more advantageous to enter her husbands game, and by doing so, to be
the tamer herself. A great share in leading me to this opinion is a previous scene in which
Katherina deliberately asserts whatever her husband says, be it absurd like the mistaking of the
moon with the sun, or that of old Vincentio with a gracious maid, thus joining his game:
PETRUCHIO
KATHERINA
PETRUCHIO
KATHERINA

Works Cited

I say it is the moon.

I know it is the moon.
Nay then you lie, it is the blessed sun.
Then God be blessed, it is the blessed sun.
But sun it is not, when you say it is not,
And the moon changes even as your mind. 20
What you will have it named, even that it is,
And so it shall be so for Katherine.

(4.5. 16-22)

1. Boose, Lynda. Scolding Brides and Bridling Scolds: Taming the Womans Unruly Member.
Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Summer, 1991), pp. 179-213. Folger Shakespeare
Library. < http://sites.middlebury.edu/enam0419/files/2014/02/Lynda-Boose.pdf>
2. Nicolaescu, Mdlina. Lecture. University of Bucharest. 2015
3. Shakespeare, William. The Taming of the Shrew. The New Cambridge Shakespeare.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2003
4. Thompson, Ann. Introduction in The Taming of the Shrew by William Shakespeare. The
New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2003. pp. 1-49
5. <www.wikipedia.org>

IV. The

Taming of the Shrew on screen

Bocu Cristina-Violeta

Shakespeares comedy The Taming of the Shrew remains one of the most performed out
of all of his plays, both on the stage and on screen.
In this part of the presentation I will be talking about two screen adaptations, namely the
1967 version, directed by Franco Zeffirelli and the updated version, 10 Things I Hate About You
directed by Gil Junger.

The Taming of the Shrew (1967)

Director: Franco Zeffirelli

Franco Zeffirelli cast in his 1966 adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew two of the
most popular actors at the time, the then Hollywood version of royalty (Jackson 217), Richard
Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. This choice, along with its categorization as a funny battle-of-thesexes movie (Jackson 87), a popular genre at the time, dedicated to every man who ever gave
the back of his hand to his belovedand for every woman who deserved it. Which takes in a lot
of people!, as the films poster playfully but rather misogynistically read, granted the film a
great commercial success.
The film follows the story and the text of the play pretty closely, but there is a
considerable amount of differences too. In it we can spot both things that have been removed and
some additions to the original play.

The first thing that has been removed altogether is the Christopher Sly Induction.
However, the farcical atmosphere is translated here in the opening sequence, when a church
sermon turns into a carnival, which has the role of announcing to the audience that it is all just a
world of trickery, mockery and artificiality (Jackson 221).
The most obvious change is the fact that the Bianca sub-plot has been greatly reduced,
with its time given to the main plot, that of the taming of Katharina by Petruchio.
In terms of what the film brings new, first of all it introduces some lines of dialogue that
arent found in the original, out of which the most notable is Katharinas Of all things living, a
man's the worst!. Another addition is the suggestion that Bianca is not as ingnue as she is
believed to be, she can be just as mean to her sister as her sister is to her, yet she is more skilled
in hiding her shrewdness and putting on a mask of innocence.
The wedding church scene, which is one of the most funny and entertaining out of the
entire film, is also the directors own addition. In the play, this scene is only related by Gremio to
Tranio.
In terms of the relationship between the two main characters, the nuances are changed.
Katherine and Petruchio seem genuinely attracted to each other, which might have a lot to do
with the strong on and off-screen chemistry between the actors that play the two parts. Rather
than just Petruchio schooling Kate, they seem like they tame each other and, unlike the play,
they seem to fight from an equal ground.
In the end, just like the play, the film poses the same question: Does Petruchio really tame
Katherine after all or is it all just an act?, although, unlike the play, the film clearly alludes that
the latter is the correct response.
Liz Taylor does not deliver the final speech ironically. On the contrary, she seems
genuinely convinced and convincing of her words. However she does leave Bianca and
Lucentios wedding banquet, playing a final joke (Jackson 218) on her husband, who
worriedly follows her out accompanied by the wedding guests hysterically laughing at him.

10 Things I Hate About You (1999)

Director: Gil Junger

The second version that I took into consideration is 10 Things I Hate About You directed
by Gil Junger. The film is a modern adaptation of Shakespeares play and it was targeted mainly
at teenagers and young adults. The plot is set in a present-day American high school, called
Padua High School.
Since it is a modern-day adaptation it is understandable that a lot of things are different
from the original, however the outline of the plot is pretty much kept intact: we have two sisters,
one of who is a shrew, a male protagonist that attempts to tame her and we even have an
instance of disguise.
With the exception of Bianca, the names are all changed although some of them hint to
the original ones Katherina is here Kat Stradford (Julia Stiles) and Petruchio becomes Patrick
Verona (Heath Ledger).

Just like in the play, the story revolves around two sisters, here Kat and Bianca. Similarly,
Bianca has many admirers but her overprotective father doesnt allow her to date any of them
unless her older sister goes on date first. The disguise is here performed by Cameron (the
equivalent of Lucentio) who pretends to know French in order to tutor Bianca and be near her.
He also comes up with the plan to pay someone to take Kat so he may eventually go on a date
with Bianca. The perfect candidate for this job is Patrick Verona a mysterious and misunderstood
bad boy.
But, as it turns out, the job isnt all that easy, as Kat is an opinionated and fierce character
with feminist views and a bad attitude, who, in contrast with the play, is more verbally, rather
than physically abusive.
The film also involves a sort of taming and, similarly to the 1967 version, it seems to
be mutual. However, it eliminates much of the misogyny, discrimination and female
objectification that is obvious both in the original play and in Franco Zefirellis film, which
makes this version more enjoyable and more entertaining for a 21 st century audience whose ideas
about relationships completely differ from those in Shakespeares times. Furthermore, it adds the
detail that the two main characters end up falling in love with each other, which is not, at least
explicitly, stated in the play.
As Russell Jackson affirms in The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film, the
film also does not make any attempt to recreate Kates final speech which it would suggest that
the plays sexual politics are far too complex and problematic for a cinema audience at the end
of the twentieth century(Jackson 218). However, the film does present a version of a public
affirmation of love on the part of the main heroine, namely Kats poem that she reads aloud in
front of her class and through which she expresses her feeling.

Works Cited

Jackson, Russell. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film. New York: Cambridge
University Press. 2007