What do you think?
Rate this book
Three Comedies
326 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 1969
1 person is currently reading
9 people want to read
About the author
Erich Segal
73 books1,317 followersErich Wolf Segal was an American author, screenwriter, and educator. He was best-known for writing the novel Love Story, a bestseller, and writing the motion picture of the same name, which was a major hit.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 12, 2009
In the introduction to Plautus’ The Brothers Menaechmus, the translator Erich Segal describes how, in the collection of Plautine comedy, The Menaechmi stands out as one of the playwright’s only “Comedies of Ignorance.” The majorities of Plautus’ extant works create laughs through their focus on scheming slaves--lovably cunning servants who drive the plays’ cruel farce—rather than bumbling stock characters, enmeshed in the chaos of a common point of confusion. While I loved Shakespearean nature (can I say this, considering the fact that the Bard wasn’t born for another 1700 years?) of The Menaechmi, I have to agree with the play’s translator: Comedies of Cunning are infinitely funnier than Comedies of Ignorance (which is probably why Plautus wrote so many of the former). Though I easily embrace this assumption, I can’t help but ask: why? Perhaps the predictability of the action in Comedies of Ignorance undermine their potential for humor, while Comedies of Cunning—always driven by a mischievous character—tow viewers along with drastic plot permutations that are wholly unexpected.
Considering how masterfully Plautus presents a classic Comedy of Ignorance, I’d love to read an example of his infinitely funnier specialty: a Comedy of Cunning.
At the opening of the play, Plautus presents the reader with a thoroughly modern meta-theatrical conceit: the narrator speaks openly about how the viewers are about to watch actors (not characters) play many different parts in a play written by Plautus. What a killer self-promoter! Apparently, Plautus frequently added this pre-show disclaimer / shameless plug. Plautus clearly puts Tyler Perry to shame.
Thematically, The Brothers Menaechmus is dumbfounding in its open chauvinism. Granted, women’s rights were certainly the exception rather than the rule in 2nd Century Rome. However, the woman-hating in The Menaechmi still seems like overkill. According to the translator, Plautus openly flooded his plays with chauvinism—it was something of a comic calling-card. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by this; some of the most popular comedy today is rooted in very transparent woman-hating (i.e. Family Guy, South Park). Still, would this unavoidable thematic element cripple a contemporary production of the play?
Major development in the evolution of ancient comedy: The Brothers Menaechmus contains ZERO CHORAL SONGS. Why did Plautus cut this out? In his quaintly unfunny comedies, Menander at least makes a nod to Greek Old Comic tropes by integrating choral songs and dances as transitory entr’actes. But Plautus totally wipes out any choral music. How did ancient Roman viewers adapt to this change?
Speaking of adaptations, as I was reading about the play’s setting Epidamnus and its infamous atmosphere of hedonism, I couldn’t help but think that it would be great to set a contemporary adaptation of The Menaechmi in Las Vegas. Maybe Erotium’s home is reminiscent of the Bunny Ranch on HBO’s Cathouse?
I was also really fascinated by the total transparency of characters’ motivations in the play. Throughout the work, the characters narrate everything—what they’re thinking, what they’re about to do, their fears, hopes, etc. Why did Plautus do this? From a contemporary perspective, such a literary method comes off as condescending—do you really think the audience can’t suss-out what characters are thinking and feeling based on their body language, interactions, and the like? Really great storytelling shows rather than tells. Once again, however, an audience will buy any style so long as it’s consistent. So, where does a play like this fall along the continuum of “kitchen-sink” realism to staged poetic abstraction?
Throughout The Brothers Menaechmus, the characters exploit lots of comic “takes” to the audience. While this practice is a widely-recognized stylistic devise in 20th century comedy (i.e. vaudville, variety show sketches, etc.), couched in this ancient Roman work, the comic “takes” seem to be evidence of the evolution of the parabasis. Aristophanes’ parabasis possessed a clear agenda when executed. Used sparingly, the Old Comics’ hallmark was typically very arresting, forcing the viewers to question the etho-satirical dilemma presented in the work. Conversely, Plautus peppers The Menaechmi with TONS of comic “takes.” This near-constant chipping-away at the “fourth wall” is hysterical, but totally undermines any potential for acute agenda-based audience provocation. That is, unless the only agenda is to make the audience members laugh their asses off, which they undoubtedly did when viewing Plautus’ hammy masterpieces.
Last thing: it would be interesting to do a comparative analysis between The Brothers Menaechmus and the more widely-read work it inspired: Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors. While the content is nearly identical, the form is surely divergent. How?
Considering how masterfully Plautus presents a classic Comedy of Ignorance, I’d love to read an example of his infinitely funnier specialty: a Comedy of Cunning.
At the opening of the play, Plautus presents the reader with a thoroughly modern meta-theatrical conceit: the narrator speaks openly about how the viewers are about to watch actors (not characters) play many different parts in a play written by Plautus. What a killer self-promoter! Apparently, Plautus frequently added this pre-show disclaimer / shameless plug. Plautus clearly puts Tyler Perry to shame.
Thematically, The Brothers Menaechmus is dumbfounding in its open chauvinism. Granted, women’s rights were certainly the exception rather than the rule in 2nd Century Rome. However, the woman-hating in The Menaechmi still seems like overkill. According to the translator, Plautus openly flooded his plays with chauvinism—it was something of a comic calling-card. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by this; some of the most popular comedy today is rooted in very transparent woman-hating (i.e. Family Guy, South Park). Still, would this unavoidable thematic element cripple a contemporary production of the play?
Major development in the evolution of ancient comedy: The Brothers Menaechmus contains ZERO CHORAL SONGS. Why did Plautus cut this out? In his quaintly unfunny comedies, Menander at least makes a nod to Greek Old Comic tropes by integrating choral songs and dances as transitory entr’actes. But Plautus totally wipes out any choral music. How did ancient Roman viewers adapt to this change?
Speaking of adaptations, as I was reading about the play’s setting Epidamnus and its infamous atmosphere of hedonism, I couldn’t help but think that it would be great to set a contemporary adaptation of The Menaechmi in Las Vegas. Maybe Erotium’s home is reminiscent of the Bunny Ranch on HBO’s Cathouse?
I was also really fascinated by the total transparency of characters’ motivations in the play. Throughout the work, the characters narrate everything—what they’re thinking, what they’re about to do, their fears, hopes, etc. Why did Plautus do this? From a contemporary perspective, such a literary method comes off as condescending—do you really think the audience can’t suss-out what characters are thinking and feeling based on their body language, interactions, and the like? Really great storytelling shows rather than tells. Once again, however, an audience will buy any style so long as it’s consistent. So, where does a play like this fall along the continuum of “kitchen-sink” realism to staged poetic abstraction?
Throughout The Brothers Menaechmus, the characters exploit lots of comic “takes” to the audience. While this practice is a widely-recognized stylistic devise in 20th century comedy (i.e. vaudville, variety show sketches, etc.), couched in this ancient Roman work, the comic “takes” seem to be evidence of the evolution of the parabasis. Aristophanes’ parabasis possessed a clear agenda when executed. Used sparingly, the Old Comics’ hallmark was typically very arresting, forcing the viewers to question the etho-satirical dilemma presented in the work. Conversely, Plautus peppers The Menaechmi with TONS of comic “takes.” This near-constant chipping-away at the “fourth wall” is hysterical, but totally undermines any potential for acute agenda-based audience provocation. That is, unless the only agenda is to make the audience members laugh their asses off, which they undoubtedly did when viewing Plautus’ hammy masterpieces.
Last thing: it would be interesting to do a comparative analysis between The Brothers Menaechmus and the more widely-read work it inspired: Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors. While the content is nearly identical, the form is surely divergent. How?
Displaying 1 of 1 review