Feminism in the 1690s? Surely not?
TRUE or FALSE?
Typical love stories are all about the damsel in distress, and her prince charming coming along and rescuing her from her tower/ terrible marriage/ evil stepmother/ almost spinsterhood (shout out to you, Bridget).[1] And then they all live happily ever after? Right?
And it’s not a shock to say that ‘women in early modern England were disadvantaged because they were born into an overtly patriarchal society’,[2] is it? We’d say that’s a MASSIVE understatement.
*Cue feminism…*
In modern literature, and more and more often, we are seeing the rise of the strong independent woman, one capable of getting herself out of her own problems, and, sure, falling in love if she thinks that the man is good enough.
This is why Agnes de Castro is so perfect for a modern adaptation; we’ve got two strings of the story, both interconnecting into a feminist narrative.
STRING 1) We see all these many men falling head over heels for Agnes, and her saying she’d rather flee the country than be imprisoned by a man she does not love.
STRING 2) I like to call this the ‘John Tucker Must Die string’.[3] In this film we see a man, who thinks he’s kind of royalty (whereas we have actual royalty), thinking he can have any woman he likes, and then the girls gang up against him and conspire to take him down a peg. Ring any bells?
SO, HOW WOULD WE UPDATE THIS PLAY?
In order to convey equality, we would have the audience all sat in the round on equal level seating, so that there is no use of ‘cheap seats’ or boxes for the separate classes. Such an arrangement would depart from the highly hierarchical theatre architecture of the seventeenth century. However, such an arrangement would also encourage the audience to experience all of the high intensity passion that the play evokes, an experience prized by theatregoers of the 1690s.
‘Theatre in the Round’. Wikimedia Commons. Last Accessed 21/06/2018.
.jpg){kind=link}
So, with the frame of John Tucker Must Die in your heads, a modern adaption of Agnes could take this idea of feminism attempting to knock patriarchy down a few, but with a twist as things don’t necessarily unfold as one might expect.
In John Tucker Must Die, the writers had a good idea, but failed in the execution: the women of the film still seem a little nutty. While it is true that not all the gals of Agnes are totally cool and level headed (ahem, Elvira), Elvira also comes close to pulling off a scheme that fools everybody, and it is only when she admits that she’s done it herself (and stabs her accomplice) does she not get away with it. We can hear all the men of the play thinking, ‘How did a woman almost get away with this?’ Because, sure, she’s a bit unhinged, but at least she’s going after what she wants, and there is definitely a part of us that wants her to succeed in avenging herself on the man that broke her heart.
We also see Constantia, who is lined up to be the over-dramatic damsel in distress, but instead, she refuses jealousy, looks at things with a calm head and acts accordingly to achieve what she wants. And lets not forget the sister-love that is going on everywhere here: between Agnes and Constantia, and Elvira and Bianca, there’s a whole lot of love in this play!
In order to show how incredible it is to have such a strong feminist narrative in a play from the 1600s, we don’t think the script needs any editing at all. Jacqueline Eales states that women of this period were described ‘as morally, intellectually and physically weaker than men.’[4] Thus highlighting the significance of Agnes de Castro’s feminist attributes. For example, in the scene in Agnes de Castro when the king tells Agnes to marry Alvaro, he tells her, ‘dissembler, were you free as you pretend … renounce these airy hopes.’[5] Agnes responds, ‘I value Liberty far more, Than to forsake it, though for Golden Chains, A shining Prison, is a Prison still.’ In other words, she’s saying she’s intelligent enough to understand the limitations of marrying someone, even if he is really rich and of the right status. So Agnes breaks Eales’ statement, and conveys herself as equal to the men around her.
SO, WHO WOULD PLAY WHO?
Let’s face it, a modern adaption of a seventeenth-century play? Not everyone’s cup of tea (how wrong they are!) So let’s bring in some stardom to show how relevant each character is!
Sir Ian McKellen? Come on down! We all know that Ian has ROCKED some seriously strong leaders his time (think Lear,[6] think Gandalf) – so lets type cast him (because he’d be great) as the King.[7] He’s got it all, the ability to make strong decisions. YOU SHALL NOT PASS!! And also the sentimental side, which makes him able to go back on these strong decisions when they are wrong; just like Lear forgives Cordelia,[8] The King in Agnes de Castro forgives the Prince and Agnes.
For the Prince, we would need a typically handsome man, who is known as a bit of a womaniser, and perhaps looks a little sleazy. For that reason, we would cast someone like Dominic Cooper to play our prince, as he notably performed as John Wilmot, a cruel Lothario in the Restoration drama, The Libertine, in the autumn of 2016,[9] we know he’d be pretty amazing.
And for our ladies, we would have someone like Amanda Seyfried to play Princess Constantia, with Lily James playing Agnes, in order to convey their gentle tendency in the play, but both, equally play strong women to convey that sense of female pride.
For our scheming Elvira, we would cast someone like Jennifer Lawrence, in order to convey her schemes in a funny and lovable light. In this way, we would have our most, potentially mocked character, portrayed in a positive light, thus highlighting the intended feminism of the piece further.