Some have suggested that maybe that this may not be one of his best plays but I still found it quite enjoyable. It is a shame that, unlike the other two plays that appear n 'Three Plays for Puritans', this one did not make it onto the Hollywood screen, especially since he gives the play the subtitle of 'an adventure'. Sometimes I wonder if it is possible to have a play that is an adventure produced on the stage. I certainly could not imagine ever going to Her Majesty's Theatre to see a production of this:

Though I have been to Her Majesty's Theatre (in Adelaide) to see a production of this:

So I guess when it comes to the modern theatre scene anything is certainly possible (and the performance of The Hobbit was actually really good – oh, I have also seen The Wizard of Oz live on stage as well).

Anyway, this play has everything that an adventure could have: an exotic location, a villain, a hero, and a damsel in distress. Actually, I probably cannot suggest that we have the last three things because the play does not actually turn out like the traditional adventure story. The story is about a couple of English aristocrats – a judge (Sir Howard) and his wife (Lady Cecily) - who travel to Morocco on a holiday to visit the interior. Now, I'm not going to suggest that Morocco is the safest of places to visit, but then again it is certainly not one of the most dangerous. However, as Shaw seems to indicate, in his day the interior of Morocco was certainly one place that a well respected English gentleman and his wife would unlikely be going a tour. However, they insist on it and hire the likes of a Captain Brassbound to take them there.

As ends up happening in a lot of these plays, it turns out that there is a connection between Brassbound and Sir Howard (the are related), and Brassbound has a rather nasty bone to pick with him. Brassbound was supposed to inherit a property off of his brother, but that was stolen from him by some rather dubious agent in the West Indies. Also his mother was killed, which turned out to be because of an indirect action of the Sir Howard's. As such Brassbound wants revenge, and by taking them to his castle in the interior he has them where he wants them.

Brassbound's character is interesting because while be portrays a rather hard exterior (he has to since he is a pirate), there is a part of him that shows compassion. This is described (if you can understand what he is saying) by one of his crew members, a certain Drinkwater. He commands the boat, but he commands it fairly. Also, we have this impression that while he may be a leader, he does not see himself as a commander. He is not power hungry, nor does he appear to be greedy. Rather, as it comes to light, it turns out that he just wants revenge, and he selects Sir Howard as the target of the revenge.

It is also interesting how Shaw portrays the Moors. In those days they would have been seen as barbaric savages, and in a way Shaw portrays them as such. The further away from civilisation they go the more savage they become. As is indicated to Sir Howard that despite his high standing unless gold were to be discovered in the interior it would be highly unlikely that the British would send in troops to either rescue, or seek revenge, for his death. It was simply too dangerous, especially for Christian men. It seems that little has changed with regards to the Western opinions of Muslims because, in a way, they are still portrayed as wild, backward, and savage, and it is unfortunate that it is only the bad apples that are portrayed that way. On the otherside though many of them have the same view of us here in the West.

The one thing that I did find really annoying with this play was Shaw's insistence of attempting to put dialect into the text, especially Drinkwater's. However, I suspect that if I were to see this play performed then Drinkwater would be just as difficult to understand on the stage as he is on the printed page. I guess Shaw wanted to ram the point home (and he does discuss his use of dialects at the end of the play).

The problem I face when I approach this play is that there is so much in it I simply do not know where to start. There is the character of Julius Caesar that Shaw seems to capture perfectly, from the wise and kind leader to the man who would repetitively show mercy to his enemies: which resulted in his own destruction. There is also the idea of the new empire meeting the old empire, and the elder statesman meeting the child queen and the interaction between the two. Then there is a beautiful scene at the baby sphinx where Caesar and Cleopatra first meet, and while Caesar is aware of who he is talking to, Cleopatra is not.

First, though, I should mention that Hollywood turned this play into a very faithful movie, and by clicking in the image below you will be taken to You-Tube where you can watch the full length feature:

Anyway, the first thing that struck me was the interplay between Julius Caesar and Queen Cleopatra: it is nothing short of brilliant. They are both in effect monarchs, but their view of political leadership is radically different. Cleopatra comes from the old school where the monarch does not work and has everything done for her, whereas Caesar is more of a modern monarch in that he works and he takes his position seriously. Secondly, Cleopatra is a queen and she is not afraid to let people know that she is the queen, however Caesar never lets on that he is a monarch, and in fact when he was offered the crown he refused it because while he is a leader, a general, and a statesman, he does not want to be known as a monarch, or a king.

In many ways this was the nature of the Roman Empire, in that it is portrayed as being a modern empire, an empire where everybody pulls their weight and works hard – it was a nation of farmers and soldiers, and the idea of the leader living in luxury and living off the hard work of others is anathema. This is clearly shown in the banquet scene where Caesar rebukes Cleopatra for the exotic food that is being brought before him. This is also shown where Cleopatra is shocked that Caesar, a leader, does not sleep in a luxurious bed, but rather in a cot in a tent, and even then, he does not sleep because he is up all night working.

Thus what we see here is a clash of kingdoms; a clash of the old and the new. As I was reading this play it seemed to be reflective of England's occupation of India (despite that having occurred around a century prior to the play being written, but having it reflective of England and Egypt in Shaw's time simply did not seem to work because at that time Egypt simply did not come across as an exotic kingdom in its death throes). What we have is the modern empire coming into conflict with the empire that is still caught up in its traditional past. In another sense it could be reflective of England and China, especially with the boy emperor, who I believe was emperor of China around that time. Still, the image of Caesar as the noble and enlightened leader was not very reflective of the leadership of England of Shaw's day.

It is interesting that we have Caesar as the elder statesman of the young empire and Cleopatra as the girl monarch of the old empire. It seems to be reflective of the old empire being so caught up in tradition that it is no longer able to move forward, and as such it is not longer able to progress and grow, and as such is left with the mind of a child. It is even suggestive that when a child takes the throne, and the child is immature, then the kingdom itself is in trouble. However, with Rome we have the new empire, despite it being around seven hundred years old at that time (Egypt was much older though, around two and a half thousand years). However, the age of Rome is irrelevant because we have a new Rome that is maturing, and expanding, and despite still being embroiled in civil war (or on the verge on a new civil war) the empire had still to reach its height. This was not the case with Britain in 1898 because while it was still at its height and its destruction was inconceivable, with the rise of the other industrial powers, and Britain's downfall was not far off.

Like a number of Shaw's plays, he begins this one with an introduction on the topic of the play, which seems to be about the nature of good and evil and how in reality it is quite difficult to distinguish between what is good and what it evil, especially in the political sphere. The play is set during the American Revolution and is about how 'the Devil's Disciple', Richard Dudgeon, a self-avowed devil worshipper, takes the role of the village vicar in order to save the other's life.

.

Shaw opens his introduction with the statement that while the gates of heaven may be accessible from the mouth of hell, so the mouth of hell is accessible from the gates of heaven. The meaning of that, initially (that the gates of heaven are accessible from the mouth of hell) is that despite one being what some consider to be 'damned' nobody is truly damned while they still have breath in their body. What that may be true (it is, as far as I am concerned) Shaw also points out that (as far as he is concerned) salvation is never really assured. Okay, I feel that the Bible does contradict that in a way, but from what I understand what he means is that there are a group of people who are so confident of their salvation that they may not realise that their actions on Earth are actually having the opposite effect on them (and Jesus pointed to the Jewish ruling class of his day as example of this – though once again he also implied that their fate had not yet been set in stone).

Another interesting thing that Shaw brings out (other than the stupidity of writing an introduction to his play telling people what his play is about because painters don't do the same thing with their paintings) is that how interpretations of a play may change over time (which is while he suggests that the introduction is silly because while he may have one interpretation of the play, others will not necessarily have the same opinion). What Shaw understands is that thoughts perceptions, and culture changes, and as such what may be popular in Shakespeare's time, and what may be accepted in his time, may not be the same as it is in Shaw's time, as is the case in our time. Thoughts and ideas change, as does the idea of what is good and what is evil. There was a time when homosexuality was a crime punishable by gaol time, however that is not the case now (and has not been been for over thirty-five years). On the other hand, there was a time when smoking cigarettes was perfectly acceptable, whereas now, if you smoke in the wrong place you can be thrown out, or even prosecuted.

Shaw also raises the point of the nebulous nature of good and evil by setting the play during the American Revolution (or whatever name you may give it, though I suspect using the word rebellion is probably not the best term since a rebellion suggests that the armed uprising failed, while the term revolution suggests that it succeeded, so as much as some people may want to, pardon the cliché, call 'a spade a spade', the truth is that the American revolt against Lord North and King George succeeded, meaning that it was in fact a revolution as opposed to a rebellion – though let us not go down the road of defining freedom fighters, I might get myself in trouble). The reason I raise this is not just because it involved Anglo-saxons fighting Anglo-saxons (there are plenty of other wars where that occurred) but because both sides had their own reason for fighting the war, and both sides saw their respective goals as being 'good'. The British saw it as defending the integrity of the empire, as well as putting down a rebellion against the rightful rulers (once again something that is open to definition) while the 'Americans' were fighting to protect their right to self-determination, and against what they considered to be an unfair taxation system. Interestingly enough, if California today were to revolt against the Union (as was the case during the American Civil War) both sides would more likely than not use similar statements with regards to the rightness of their position (though because the South supported slavery, people don't like to suggest that they were right, but in reality, the reason that the South rebelled against the North during the Civil War had more to due with undue influence of the federal government over the states). The same can be said of the current unrest being experienced in the Ukraine, where the Eastern portion does not want closer ties with Europe, but prefers closer ties with Russia, where as the Western majority consider themselves to be European.

So, in the end, what we see here is that we cannot necessarily label somebody as good or as bad based simply upon our own thoughts and opinions. Everybody considers Dudgeon to be bad, the 'Devil's Disciple' as many people, including himself, put it, yet he goes out and takes the place of the town vicar, acting in a very Christlike manner, which is something not to be expected by a 'Devil's Disciple'. Rather, one would expect that he behave in a selfish manner, selling out his friend's and family for his own life, yet this was something that he does not do. As such, the notion of good and evil, or war and peace, is turned upside down.

By the way, a film version is available on Youtube.

The one thing that stands out with this collection of plays is Shaw's introduction where he theorises on whether it is possible to be better than Shakespeare. Now, Shakespeare is undoubtedly a literary master, though there is some debate as to whether Shakespeare is actually the author of many of his plays (though it should be noted that he did borrow a lot of his ideas for his plays from other sources, such as Plutarch). This it not the discussion here, though there are many who would consider suggesting that anybody is better than Shakespeare is tantamount to blasphemy. Personally I am not willing to throw much into the debate beyond the questions of whether Shaw is a good playwright (he is) and whether he is better than Shakespeare (doubtful).

Anyway, the three plays in this collection are The Devil's Disciple (A Melodrama), Caesar and Cleopatra (A History) and Captain Brassbound's Conversion (An Adventure). The Devil's Disciple reminded me a lot of [book:The Crucible] and sometimes I wonder whether [author: Arthur Miller] stole his idea from Shaw, though I find this doubtful in that The Crucible was written during the red terror of the 1950's and the action in the play reflects that. What is interesting in The Devil's Disciple is the role reversals that Shaw loves in his play. In this play the outcast, Dudgeon sacrifices himself in a Christ-like manner, while the parson Anderson shows himself to be the unloving coward. I guess in the end it shows us that we should never prejudge a person, and further we should be willing to accept that somebody will change for the better.

Caesar and Cleopatra is what Shaw was referring to when he was suggesting that it was possible to be better than Shakespeare. This play is sort of a prequel to the Shakespearian plays Julius Caesar and Anthony and Cleopatra. It brings in two of the characters from the later plays and appears to try to tie the Shakespearian plays together into a trilogy. The play is set in Alexandria during Caesar's conquest of Egypt, and much of it is an interplay between a very young Cleopatra and Julius Caesar. There are also echoes in the play of the latter tragedy that is to arise between Cleopatra and Mark Antony.

The final play, Captain Brassbound's Conversion, is set in the deserts of Morocco and is about a missionary that travels into the Moroccan interior where he meets with some bandits, and after an interplay, the bandit chief, Captain Brassbound, is convicted of his sin and repents.