original text, Caliban is always under someone's control, whether Prospero’s
through fear, or Stephano’s through his manipulation with alcohol; in Roe’s
version, Caliban seems to initiate, execute, and control his own actions.

Tempest is seen as being colonial literature, with Caliban being the savage
native who the Caucasian Prospero attempts to civilize, yet fails to because of
Caliban’s “nature.” As a result, giving agency to Caliban is not necessarily bad.
Conversely, there is also the issue that through his use of sexual manipulation,
he is portrayed as a sexual deviant, which gives more sympathy to Prospero, as
he is betrayed by his clearly disturbed (and now drunk) servant. However, in the
original text, the crime that resulted in Caliban’s enslavement to Prospero was
Caliban’s attempted rape of Prospero’s daughter, Miranda. So really, how much
more of a sexual deviant can Roe make him?

Of course there is also the possibility that someone might not see all of this
as giving agency to Caliban at all; that Caliban is simply acting on hedonistic
instincts—in other words, that he is just a horny drunk. This is also damaging
because there is the danger of playing up his bestiality, exactly the issue in the
original text, and making the island’s “native” even more backwards compared to
the “civilized” Prospero.

Or maybe it’s just funny...

The Tempest has also been criticized for its lack of any strong female
characters. True, it does have two female characters, Miranda, and Ariel. Ariel
is Prospero’s servant spirit who helps enact the majority of his machinations.
Technically Ariel is supposedly male in the original text, but his gender is fluid
and changes with whatever form he takes.

Yet even with these comparatively strong female characters, Ariel is still a
slave to Prospero, and Miranda is basically the equivalent of a vanilla pudding
cup as far as character development is concerned. Translation: she’s sweet, but
devoid of any real depth.

Roe adjusts the narrative to accommodate two additional female characters
who despite their faults act autonomously, making their own decisions however
impaired they might be; Roe’s interpretation could be incredibly progressive.
Additionally, the two characters Roe swapped tend to be popular with the
audience for their comedy, which could be a step in the right, feminist direction.
What might draw us back a bit is if we remember that these two characters, the
comedic relief, the fools of the play... are now women. Not exactly the best way of
representing females—but hey, at least they are fully developed! Wholly unlike
what we get in the original text where the substantial cast of characters includes
a whopping two female characters.

Now onto some far graver issues: one of the scenes most affected by the
gender swap is when Trincula first encounters Caliban. In the original text,
Trinculo finds Caliban hiding under a blanket after the sounds Trinculo had
made as he traversed the island scared Caliban into thinking that Prospero
had sent spirits to torment him. Trinculo sees the deformed Caliban under the
blanket and mistakes him for some sort of odd, lumpy fish. He gropes and prods
Caliban, attempting to discern what he is, and only after blatantly grabbing and
commenting on Caliban’s “package” (which he apparently finds impressive)
does he accept Caliban is a human man, or at least something close to one.

They are interrupted when yelling comes from the distance and, fearing that

it isa storm, Trinculo crawls under the blanket with Caliban. The yelling turns

out to be a drunk Stephano, stumbling in and seeing the two figures under the
—a. "ae

ai i
SS ee
mei”

 

blanket moaning and crying out. The entire scene is comical as well as being
homoerotic. Now would be when I describe the changes Roe made—if she had
made any.

No changes were made to the scene beyond the sex of Trinculo and
Stephano, so it is almost exactly the same as it is in the original text. How then is
the scene affected?

By having a previously homoerotic scene now be between a heterosexual
couple, the reinterpretation is in danger of propagating heteronormativity.
Heteronormativity is the belief that heterosexuality is the only sexual
orientation that is normal, and that any sexual or romantic relationships should
be between a man and a woman. In an age where gay rights are in such dire
straits, promoting this kind of thing is not exactly positive.

Alternatively, a scene that previously made a joke out of the concept of gay
sex, now does not.

All of this controversy over how the sex changes could be interpreted makes
me question whether the changes were worth making at all. Let us not forget
that The Tempest is a classic for a reason. In the end, how the production is
interpreted—whether Meg Roe’s alterations were offensive or empowering—is
all dependant on the sensibilities of the audience. Even without Meg Roe, the
original play has been criticized for being both racist and sexist. Personally I
enjoyed the reinterpretation of Stephana and Trincula, and would recommend
seeing the play for yourself before making any concrete decisions on whether or
not to get out the torches and pitchforks.