Brain Pain discussion

This discussion covers Chorus Two, Scenes 8 through 14, and the Epilogue, and discussion of the play as a whole, and its relation to the 1587 German chapbook.

Faustus pops in on the pope and his friars sing a dirge. Robin and Rafe harass a Vintner. Faustus performs a trick for the Emperor of Germany and makes a knight horny. If you lead a horse to water, it may make hay. With his time running out, Faustus conjures some grapes for a lady, and Greek Helen for some lads. One last party, a role in the hay with Helen and Faustus is off to hell for all eternity.

Marlowe follows the German version of the story fairly closely, but adds a few elements for dramatic purpose. Is the play engaging/interesting? Did you understand Faust and his motivations/challenges?

I think I understood his original motive. He had been a scholar for so many years, but became bored with all he had learned. He wanted more, and felt that by studying magic he would be able to do more. Here is a quote from Scene One:

"The end of physic is our body's health. Why Faustus, hast thou not attained that end? Is not thy common talk sound aphorisms? Are not thy bills hung up as monuments, Whereby whole cities have escaped the plague And thousand desp'rate maladies been eased? Yet art thou still but Faustus, and a man. Wouldst thou make man to live eternally, Or, being dead, raise them to life again, Then this profession were to be esteemed. Physic, farewell."

But by the end of the play, it seems that the only dead person he brought back to life was Helen of Troy/Greece, "Was this the face that launched a thousand ships And burnt the topless towers of Illium?" (That's such a great line, and probably the most famous line of all of Marlowe's plays -- do you agree??)

Well, I did enjoy the fact that he was able to conjure the spirit of Helen, but I didn't feel as though the play shows any of the "great" things that Faust originally wanted to do with his magic powers. (But I guess since he sold his soul to Mephistopheles and Lucifer, he was no longer able to do "good" things.)

To sell ones soul to the devil just to play some tricks on the Pope and meet the Emperor, and trick a horse-dealer???

At the beginning of Scene Eight, Faust talks of all the places he visited with Mephistopheles... but they were European cities that a person can see withOUT selling their soul to the devil!!! I know from the Chapbook that Faust got to travel through the universe and see the planets, moon, and stars, and I'm going to go back to the Chapbook to get the whole description of that (which I'm sure is magnificent.)

But, this is a play, and the audience of this time period would have been very bored with too many descriptions of the stars and the moon. I understand that. The audience wants to see the seven deadly sins, and they certainly got that (but as a reader, I would have liked more descriptions of the seven deadly sins.)

Also, I know that the Elizabethan audience liked pranks, bawdiness, tricks. SO, as a play, Marlowe definitely did an outstanding job. But if one really wants a real understanding of Faust, I believe the Chapbook and maybe Goethe's Faust are better.

Possibly most importantly, I think this is a morality play. I loved Scene 14. Faust's friends want to help him, and they did not turn away from him for "giving them his soul for his cunning." (not a direct quote.) Faustus tells his friends (the scholars), "God forbade it indeed, but Faustus hath done it. For vain pleasure of four-and-twenty years hath Faustus lost eternal joy and felicity."

So I love Scene 14 and the Epilogue, because Faust does not get off the hook, which I believe is a lesson in morality. (And I am not a religious person at all, nor do I believe in hell, but I think this is a good lesson for the audience of the time, who probably did believe in hell.)

BUT, if I could change the ending, I may have God step in and tell Faust that during his 24 years with the devil he did not kill anyone or do anything to seriously hurt anyone -- he just traveled around and played tricks on people and had some "pleasure." Pleasure should not be viewed as a sin unless your way of attaining pleasure is by hurting others (stealing, physically hurting, cheating, killing, etc.) So maybe, just to show that God is more powerful than the devil, it would have been nice for God to send Faust to purgatory to redeem his sins, where he would at least have a chance to make up for selling his soul, and possibly end up in heaven after all.

Barbara wrote: "as a play, Marlowe definitely did an outstanding job. But if one really wants a real understanding of Faust, I believe the Chapbook and maybe Goethe's Faust are better..."

Excellent point about what Faust does with his power Barbara. I hadn't even thought about how in Marlowe's version the man who supposedly sold his soul for greater knowledge ends up acting like a bored and randy teenager. But, as you said, Marlowe had aims other than furthering the Faust mythos, namely in the poetics and theatricality department.

I don't think your purgatory ending would have played with the protestants, though ;-)

Whitney wrote: "Barbara wrote: "as a play, Marlowe definitely did an outstanding job. But if one really wants a real understanding of Faust, I believe the Chapbook and maybe Goethe's Faust are better..."

Excellen..."

Thanks, Whitney!!

LOL -- No, my purgatory ending would definitely not have played well with the protestants, or with most people during Marlowe's time (and even to this day, for many people.) I could get in trouble for this -- I shouldn't be bringing my own "personal views" into the discussions, but I just thought it would be fun to make up an alternative ending that I (personally) think is more suitable.

Because, seriously, during the 24 years, did Faust actually do anything REALLY bad?? No! But as you pointed out so perfectly, he did end up "acting like a bored and randy teenager."

Obviously you and I see that his powers were definitely not put to any great use.

I've heard Marlowe referred to as "the greatest poet/playwright during the time of Shakespeare, immediately preceding Shakespeare."

Marlowe was considered the "best" Elizabethan playwright, but only wrote six or seven plays prior to his death at age 29. After Marlowe's death, Shakespeare became the best playwright of the time, and we have around 39 plays (plus the sonnets and poems) of Shakespeare, which are performed and read TREMENDOUSLY more than Marlowe.

But which of the two is really the better playwright? Of Marlowe's work, I've only read Faustus and Edward the Second, and I've seen Edward the Second performed here in NYC. I've read almost all of Shakespeare's plays, and I've probably seen around 15 (or more) of Shakespeare's plays performed, so I would never be able to compare Shakespeare and Marlowe because I am so much more familiar with Shakespeare.

Whitney and the others in the group, what do you think? After reading Marlowe's Faustus (and maybe you've read some of his other plays) would you call him a "great" playwright? As great as Shakespeare?

Barbara wrote: " After reading Marlowe's Faustus (and maybe you've read some of his other plays) would you call him a "great" playwright? As great as Shakespeare?..."

No and NO!

If he had lived and developed further, I'm sure he might have been a great playwright, but the seven plays we're left with do not threaten to knock Shakespeare from his pedestal as best of his era.

Faustus is far far far from being a great play. Undercooked, underdeveloped, no real impact that I could find. I have a vision of Marlowe sitting in a tavern, his copy of the German legend open on the table as he does a quick adaptation, throwing in Robin the ostler to get a cheap laugh from the rabble in the cheap seats.

A harsh critique, I know, but Marlowe did nothing to develop the Faust legend beyond where it already stood.

I basically agree with Jim although I loved the play. Marlowe has wonderful, almost unsurpassable moments in his work but not the consistency of greatness that there is in Shakespeare. There are many weak and very weak sections. And his clowns fall far below what we see in Shakespeare. There is great poetry-and not always consistent even there- but not great drama.

I hate to admit I haven't read any other Marlowe. I'm not a big reader of plays in general, I'm just not imaginative enough to picture how they will play with real actors. Faust didn't do much for me either, it did seem like a watered down version of the chapbook.

Thank you, Jim, Ellie, and Whitney for your responses.

Jim, your critique is what I was expecting. To be honest, I didn't think Faustus even came CLOSE to ANY of Shakespeare's plays -- even Shakespeare's "less popular" plays!!! But I put the question here, because I wanted to make sure I wasn't "missing" something.

Ellie, I also found a few great moments in Marlowe's Faustus, but not enough. I actually think I was too generous in giving it a 4-star rating, but I may go back and change it once I finish Goethe's Faust. (Although I don't think Marlowe deserves less than 3-stars for this play, IMHO.)

Also, (and this is not a spoiler) I've already started reading Goethe's Faust, and so far I am finding it so much richer and deeper than Marlowe's version. I'm looking forward to the Goethe discussion.

Ha! I pretty much gave it four stars based on reputation and my assumptions that I must be missing something. Now Jim has gone and pointed out that the Emperor is pretty scantily clad. I will leave the four stars, if only because being played in a movie by Rupert Everett should be worth at least one.

Wagner introduces Act III with a speech that says that Faust scaled Mount Olympus and has gone to prove cosmography which is consistent with the ride through the sky in the chapbook. Marlowe focused his play on the scenes that would play well in front of an audience and could have assumed that most of the spectators were already familiar with the basic outlines of the story.

Jenny wrote: "Wagner introduces Act III with a speech that says that Faust scaled Mount Olympus and has gone to prove cosmography which is consistent with the ride through the sky in the chapbook. Marlowe focus..."

I agree with Jenny. There was no way to include the visits to hell and other loftier subjects, lest the audience would fall asleep. It is mentioned in the Chorus in Acts III and IV that he is learned and people admired him for his knowledge and skill. Of course, by the scenes that are acted out, he seems more of a circus entertainer, but I don't believed he sought to sell his soul just for that.

I agree that Marlowe does not compare to Shakespeare, for the same reasons presented above. However, I deeply enjoyed this play because of the departure from the simplistic morality of the Historia and the fact that Faustus is active in attaining his deal, offering a renewal of his vows, and in trading 24 years of his life. And he does try to repent, he has the good angel and attempts to pray (which the Historia Faust never does).

I also think that when he consummates his passions with Helen - yes, Barbara, that is an amazing line - there is a tinge of abandoning a chance of salvation for sexual pleasures, which feels aligned to the doctrine of the time.

I especially loved his declarations to Helen, and his soliloquy at the end, as he hears the clock striking and his time escaping him. He considers many ways in which he could be saved, and many religious theories as a whole, of transmigration of souls, of losing his identity, of spending some time in hell and then being pardoned. I really liked both the ideas and the words, and I feel there is a lot in only those lines.

Simone wrote: "Jenny wrote: "Wagner introduces Act III with a speech that says that Faust scaled Mount Olympus and has gone to prove cosmography which is consistent with the ride through the sky in the chapbook. ..."

I have been interested in Queen Elizabeth since I was a child and I have also been interested in the history of science for a long time. It is interesting to look at how these different versions of the Faust legend fit into the thinking of their time.

Marlowe wrote in a time where it was a treasonable offense to ally oneself with the Catholic Church, but it was permissible to question some religious ideas and present multiple alternative theories of religion as alternatives at the end of his play.

I am interested in how these same ideas will be presented in Goethe's Faust.

Jenny wrote: "Wagner introduces Act III with a speech that says that Faust scaled Mount Olympus and has gone to prove cosmography which is consistent with the ride through the sky in the chapbook. Marlowe focus..."

Simone & Jenny, I just read your posts -- Messages 10, 11, and 12. Great points, and very interesting points.

I'm looking forward to what you each think of Goethe's Faust!

Whitney wrote: "Ha! I pretty much gave it four stars based on reputation and my assumptions that I must be missing something. Now Jim has gone and pointed out that the Emperor is pretty scantily clad. I will leave..."

Whitney, at first I thought you meant that there was a new movie coming out, with Rupert Everett playing Faust! That would be pretty awesome.

But then I realized that you were referring to Everett playing Marlowe in the movie Shakespeare in Love. It's a really fun movie. Have you seen it??

Also, there's a fabulous movie called The Cradle Will Rock, produced (and/or directed) by Tim Robbins. It takes place in the 1920's or 30's, and I think it's a BRILLIANT movie, with an amazing cast. Even better than the amazing cast are the characters that are played in this film -- Orson Wells (forgive any misspellings -- I'm writing this quickly), John Housman, Diego Rivera, Nelsen Rockefeller, many other important names from that time period.

Anyway, the film goes back and forth from the theatre, where we find Orson Wells and John Houseman, and Rockefeller Center where Diego Rivera is painting his famous mural.

It's a very short scene, but toward the beginning the actors (who are playing the actors) are in the theatre, being directed by Orson and John Houseman, and they're doing a production of Doctor Faustus. The only part of the actual play that we see is the part with the seven deadly sins, and Orson is playing either Faust or Mephistopheles (it's been a while since I've seen it.)

This film is absolutely FANTASTIC. You'll get to see a small part of Marlowe's Faustus performed, but all of the other themes in this film are magnificent and incredibly important issues regarding the arts during the early part of the 20th century.

Has anyone here seen The Cradle Will Rock? (I think there may be two movies with this title) -- I'm referring to the Tim Robbins production, starring Susan Sarandon, John Cusak, Joan Cusak, Hank Azaria, Rubin Blades, and many other great actors.

Barbara wrote: "Has anyone here seen The Cradle Will Rock? (I think there may be two movies with this title) -- I'm referring to the Tim Robbins production..."

I was disappointed with this movie, despite some great performances. The main problems I had with it were that the play at the center of it just wasn't very good, and it was also a bit sledge-hammery with its politics.

Yes, I referring to Shakespeare in Love with my Rupert Everett comment. That was a movie I was expecting to hate but really enjoyed instead!

Whitney wrote: "Barbara wrote: "Has anyone here seen The Cradle Will Rock? (I think there may be two movies with this title) -- I'm referring to the Tim Robbins production..."

I was disappointed with this movie, ..."

Yes, Tim Robbins can definitely be "sledge-hammery" when it comes to making political points. I guess The Cradle Will Rock is not for everyone, but for some reason it's one of the few movies that I watch when I need to feel inspired (or when I need to get into a good mood!) I'm not quite sure why it puts me in a good mood, but somehow it does.

The first time I saw Shakespeare in Love I didn't like it at all. But I tend to watch movies (even some that I don't like the first time) many times, and the more times I watched Shakespeare in Love the more I enjoyed it. This is another one of my "get into a good mood" movies.

Reminder: Tomorrow, March 4th, we begin our discussion of F.W. Murnau's movie, Faust.

The discussion thread can be found here:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...