The Merchant of Venice - Shylock part 2, Two Shylocks

Shylock. I will have the heart of him...(3.1.1358)

In my previous post about Shylock, I discussed the controversy surrounding the Jewishness of the evil Shylock and that a lot of readers and critics find the play troubling because of this. An idea that concerned me in some of my research about different viewpoints on the play was the sense that some actors and directors were afraid to touch the play - that the subject matter was too hot to handle. I was happily able to see a powerful performance of the play last year at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, and was very moved by it - it makes me sad that some people could miss out on the play because of what I see as a distorted focus. I was therefore very happy to find, in the Playing Shakespeare TV series, a robust discussion about Shylock and The Merchant of Venice where the participants agreed with me - that Shylock's status as a very bad Jewish person does not make Shakespeare and the play hateful and unplayable.

Playing Shakespeare is a very, very cool British TV series from the 1980s where some of the actors and directors from the Royal Shakespeare Company got together and talked about ways to approach performing Shakespeare, with actors such as Ian McKellen, Ben Kingsley and Patrick Stewart giving short scenes and working on them with directors Trevor Nunn and John Barton. It's great fun for any Shakespeare fan - if the comments section from the Amazon link doesn't convince you, check out this panegyric review of the series. I myself love the show not only for its thoughtful examination of Shakespeare's text in performance, but also, as a child of the '80s, for its retro appeal as a return to a past world of earth tones, chain smokers, and actors who were young but now are old. Presiding benevolently over all is RSC co-founder John Barton, looking like a kindly, rumpled, absent-minded professor in baggy sweater and disheveled tweed tie. It's good stuff.
My favorite episode in the series is all about Shylock - David Suchet, the delightful actor known everywhere to watchers of PBS's Mystery! as Hercule Poirot, and Patrick Stewart, of Star Trek fame, discuss the part and both perform, with differing interpretation, several scenes from the play. I have to agree with Shakespeare Geek here that I prefer Suchet's interpretation of the role - he's truly scary! - but the insights that both men bring are fascinating, even when I don't completely agree with them. You can - and should - watch the whole episode online here on the Theatre in Video site - it's under an hour. However, here's a little taste of David Suchet's Shylock to get you going:



Though Stewart and Suchet dig deeply into the motivations, characterization and actions of Shylock, one piece that I see as missing from their discussion is a really clear view of how Shylock fits in with the rest of the play. But what is really going on? What is this play all about? I see the play, as I mentioned before, as about money, marriage and murder, all leading up to mercy. In my next post, I hope to get more deeply into the question of law vs. grace and the importance of promises and bonds in the play - and how Shylock fits into these questions.

Angoor - The Comedy of Errors, Bollywood Style

This is William Shakespeare. He was a famous playwright of the 16th century. And is still considered to be the greatest. This story is based on his novel, which he called "Comedy of Errors." Several writers have penned stories revolving around twins, but Shakespeare is the only one to write a story based on 4 twins.
(Subtitles translated from Hindi)

So begins the 1982 Bollywood film "Angoor," which takes Shakespeare's basic story of two sets of twins separated in infancy and re-sets it in contemporary India.

Like the original source play, "Angoor" is highly comedic, with many...

Read more »

Richard III - Movies

Catching up from our play from a few weeks ago, it's time for a run-down of Richard III movies! Richard seems to be a fairly popular subject for the screen, so I'll be breaking my reviews up into a few different categories, starting with fairly standard adaptations of the play. I'll begin with my favorite:

1. The Tragedy of Richard III (BBC, The Complete Shakespeare, 1983)

This is just the best Richard. The story is told clearly...

Read more »

Henry VI - The Complete BBC Shakespeare

Earl of Warwick. Then let the earth be drunken with our blood:
I'll kill my horse, because I will not fly.
Why stand we like soft-hearted women here,
Wailing our losses, whiles the foe doth rage;
And look upon, as if the tragedy
Were play'd in jest by counterfeiting actors?

(Henry VI part 3, 2.3.1051-1056)

Over the last few weeks, I've watched through the Complete BBC Shakespeare versions of Henry VI part 1, 2, and 3 - and all I can say is that counterfeiting actors, though playing this tragedy but in jest, can make it seem very real.

I came to these particular videos of the plays with low expectations, because, as Emma has pointed out, The Complete BBC Shakespeare series is somewhat uneven - many of the productions that I've seen in the past have been...well...clunky.

I was wrong about these ones though! The three Henry VIs are the best Shakespeare productions I've seen from the BBC. What makes them good? It sure isn't the sets, lighting or camera work, which are very basic and workman-like. It's the acting, which is across the board COMPLETELY AMAZING!!

(Bernard Hill, one of the amazing actors, addresses the audience as the Duke of York)

Jane Howell directs these plays, along with Richard III (week after next's play!), as a tetralogy, with steady casting of the lead roles across all four productions. And what a cast she had - especially worthy of note are Trevor Peacock as Talbot, David Burke as Gloucester, Bernard Hill as York, and Mark Wing-Davey as Warwick. But just about everyone is tremendously good - easy to understand, expressive in voice and language, and committed to their characters in a way that sweeps the viewer into the story.

And this suspension of disbelief is quite remarkable given the constraints of the production. These videos are in no way cinematic: all the action takes place on one non-realistic theatrical set that - at first glance - looks as if it were a cross between a jungle-gym and a fire-escape built out of left-over lumber found in a forgotten storeroom somewhere.

(Joan la Pucelle with Alencon, the Dauphin, Reignier, and the Bastard of Orleans from Part 1. The simple set can be seen in the background)

An additional complication in watching this series also comes from some of the multiple casting issues. As I've mentioned previously, the Henry 6 plays have the largest casts in all of Shakespeare; Howell, going off of the kind of casting practices that were almost certainly used by Shakespeare's own theater company, has a core troupe that manages, through clever costume and makeup changes, to cover all the roles. This allows for some great actors to brighten up some otherwise small and less prominent parts - for example, the messengers at the beginning of Part 1 are played wonderfully by the actors who later take on the leading roles of Edward IV and Richard III in Part 3 - but it can also be rather confusing in a play where it's tricky enough already to keep up with all the characters. My advice? If you see someone you recognize coming in with a different hat on, assume that he is a different character.

How can you get your hands on these versions of the plays? Well, if you want to buy them, they are ridiculously expensive (the Henry VIs aren't included in some of the cheaper boxed sets of the more popular plays, and the complete dvd set of all 37 will cost you about a grand). BUT hie thee to the library, as pretty much every library on the planet has - or can access - a set of the complete BBC Shakespeare.

On the whole, I strongly recommend these productions. I wasn't able to watch them all at one go (the three productions require quite a time commitment - Parts 1, 2, and 3 are 185, 212, and 210 minutes respectively), but this gave me an indication of how much I was enjoying them -  between each film I looked forward to starting the next and engaging again with these fascinating characters. Even with the theatrical, non-realistic set and basic production values, I found them exciting, compelling, and intensely moving. Can we believe that wars and dramatic death take place on a small stage? As is asked in Henry V, can this cockpit hold the vasty fields of France? After watching these Henry VIs, my answer is a resounding yes.

Ah min hawaa - The Taming of the Shrew

Egypt. Land of the pyramids, the Nile and the pharaohs - and Shakespeare? We've been reminded these last few revolutionary weeks that Egypt, that ancient superpower, is still a force to be reckoned with. And while the world watches the sweep of events in Cairo, Shakespeare girl is holding up the side by bravely watching: Egyptian Shakespeare!

The 1962 film Ah Min Hawaa, or Beware of Eve, is a loose adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew. Set among a wealthy, westernized modern Egyptian elite, Amira (Lubna Abnel-Aziz in the "Kate" role) is beautiful, intelligent, educated and incredibly fashionable.

(Amira has an extensive wardrobe of cute 1960s clothes)

Nine suitors have expressed interest in her. The problem? She was rude to all of them - and she's consistently obnoxiously hostile to everyone she comes in contact with. As the blurb on the back of the dvd puts it:

 In a modern adaptation of William Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew, the handsome veteran [Shakespeare girl's note - veterinarian] finds himself obliged to tame the beautiful but wild with the support of her family who is suffering from her tantrums and her tyranny in this comedy presented by a group of the most prominent Egyptian film stars.

Got that?

Amira's long-suffering grandpa Sayyid Amin is at his wit's end, but much to his delight, Dr. Hassan Shukri (Roshdy Abaza, playing the part of "Petruchio") arrives on the scene - he's a veterinarian from Cairo who has come to stay at the family’s estate in order to cure their sick farm animals. Hassan and Amira clash when he is not willing to tolerate the kind of ill-treatment she dishes out to everyone, and Hassan promises grandpa that he will try to help both "the animals in the stable and the animal upstairs [in the house]". But it isn’t until Amira decides to spread a malicious, slanderous lie about the veterinarian that he turns the tables on her - and the taming begins.

First, I have to say that this is a fun, funny, well-made movie. A film can be an easy-to-understand entry point to intersect with a foreign world, and this movie really works for that - it’s stylish and zany in the best tradition of screwball comedy, and the excellent and appealing actors throw themselves into their roles with energy and good humor. I totally enjoyed it. But going beyond the slapstick, it’s interesting to look at the transfer of this play, all about marriage and gender roles, into a Middle Eastern context.

Amira gets rid of an unwanted suitor:

Some of the concerns of the story seem similar to the issues Shakespeare was examining from a Renaissance European viewpoint, but were still applicable to 1960s Egypt: Yvette Khoury, in her interesting article about the film The Taming of the (Arab-Islamic) Shrew: Fatin 'Abdel Wahab re-frames Shakespeare's comedy for the Egyptian screen (published in Literature-Film Quarterly, April 2010), notes that The Taming of the Shrew has been adapted as a film no less than five times in Egypt, and that "Of all Shakespeare's comedies The Taming of the Shrew seems to resonate most with the domesticity of Arab-Islamic patriarchal societies....the subjugation of women to men as in The Taming of the Shrew is a phenomenon which is more oriental in spirit than western."

In the film as in the play, we have a very well-educated and clever woman who must stay under the authority of her grandfather (male authority figure), who is bound by his culture to take care of her, despite what she might say and do (the grandpa announces that he would disown Amira because of her rude attitude if she were a boy). Again, like the original play, the girls' grandfather has total veto power over whom they will marry, or when.

However, some of the issues dealt with in the film seem to arise specifically out of Egyptian culture. We see concerns over dishonor to the family, leading to threats to kill one of the girls to remove the shame; lots of the later conflict in the story arises from the potential non-permanence of marriage based on the easy access to divorce in Islamic societies.

A huge topic in the film is an examination of how people's behavior and treatment of each other sets them apart from animals. It's no accident that Hassan is an "animal doctor" who needs to give Amira some (literal and figurative) medicine; she, for her part, regularly insults him - and others receiving her wrath - by calling them animals. Related to this focus on the animal world is the film's preoccupation with fertility, which is indicated by Hassan's care of little baby goats, for example, and his concern for laying geese and ducks, which he then relates back to Amira and any future children she might have.

At times Hassan's treatment of Amira can be absolutely cringe-inducing - a major plot point rotates around a plan where Amira will assert that Hassan has given her a bad beating, and Hassan's statement that "women need to be insulted to cooperate" fits with his determination "to help [Amira] learn to be a good housewife". However, Hassan's hard-line stance towards Amira can perhaps be rationalized in the audience's minds by the fact that Amira seems even more malicious and out of control than Kate in The Shrew, and thus in need of some payback from Hassan. It is interesting to note that in this film the "wild animal" Amira not only accepts "Petruchio's" presence in her life, as Shakespeare's Kate does, but she also undergoes a very clear humanization. For the first time, she feels compassion for her family, and reacts with emotional sensitivity, empathy, and self-sacrifice in response to the needs of the people and animals around her.

Ultimately, the film seems to underscore, as Hassan says to Amira, that "marriage is not a game." He's right - in this movie, it's more like a war. Will there ever be peace? We'll leave that to the audience to determine!

All in all, this comedy makes for a fun, crazy and very Egyptian ride, and underscores the universal application of Shakespeare's take on the battle of the sexes. Just don't forget to beware of Eve - and watch out for Adam too.

La Pucelle - History and Movie Review

If you read Henry VI part 1 and you're anything like me, you might have been slightly annoyed at Shakespeare's treatment of Joan of Arc. She's inspiring and disarming (literally) when we first meet her, but by the end of the play, Shakespeare has turned her into a medieval Sabrina the Teenage Witch - complete with a lively interest in boys and a slightly undependable spell-making ability.

Now, we can see why Shakespeare would write it this way - the English are the good guys in his play, and it would hardly do for him to add a plot point in which a French saint was led by holy visions to massacre them. But is there much truth in Shakespeare's portrayal of her? Well, I did a little research, and as much as I like Shakespeare, the general conclusion seems to be no, probably not. As far as can be told, in reality she seems to have been a brave and clever peasant girl who sincerely believed in her visions and in French independence, not in witchcraft and dalliances with French royalty.

Of course, I suspect Shakespeare would not have been particularly upset about his departure from the historical record here (like many of his historical characters, she is there to fulfill a specific role in his story, not to educate us about the true personalities of famous people).

Joan of Arc by Jules Bastien Lepage (click to see a larger version of this amazing painting).

If you're looking for a dramatic portrayal of Joan that is in complete contrast with Shakespeare's propagandistic version, and you by some mischance have insufficient leisure to read Schiller's Die Jungfrau von Orleans in the original German, may I suggest the 1928 Danish film The Passion of Joan of Arc? It's even available on youtube.

This is an extraordinary silent film, directed by Carl Th. Dreyer. It covers the events leading up to Joan's death and focuses on the ecclesiastical trial - the script was made from actual excerpts - and religious complicity in her death (unlike Shakespeare's political emphasis). Although difficult to watch, it's one of the greatest films I've seen.

The actress Maria Falconetti as Joan. None of the cast in this production wore makeup.

The film almost didn't make it until the present day. Shortly after it was released, it was destroyed in a warehouse fire. Another cut prepared by the director from outtakes was destroyed in another fire! A few incomplete versions circulated for years. Finally, in 1981, a complete cut was found in a mental institution in Norway and was restored.

Part of what is most notable about the film is the use of the low angle face shot. Dreyer used it extensively for inquisitorial scenes that capture the businesslike horror of medieval "canon law." 

Special mention goes to the score, written by Richard Einhorn and performed by Anonymous 4 (I fell in love with this recording, which was released as a CD, before I ever saw the movie).

Now, I feel I could go on and on about how amazing this film is, but I've already taken on a lot in writing about it at all - how do you "review" a movie like Casablanca or The Seventh Seal? These are the guys that make the rules! And to me, this film is in a similar category, except very old, sad, European and silent (read: slow, for those of you that only like the action-packed!).

I'll just say that to me, this movie is a reminder of a historical fact: even when it seemed that all of the European supposed "Christians" were unified, there were those - persecuted, silenced and burned - whose beliefs were different. And ours too is a world where people are still persecuted and even killed because of religious differences or 'thought crimes.' Those who decry the multiple denominations and political factions in free societies and long for religious or political unity at any price, take note of the alternative.

"All Talking! All Laughing!"

The above quote was the advertising byline for the 1929 film version of The Taming of the Shrew, starring the Hollywood royalty of the day, America's Sweetheart Mary Pickford and her husband Douglas Fairbanks, the well-known action-adventure hero, as Kate and Petruchio!

Pickford plays Kate as a whip-wielding harpy whose ferocity could only be matched by Fairbank's swaggering, piratical Petruchio. It just so happens that BOTH habitually carry big black whips around - most convenient for cracking at dramatic moments. And we have these moments aplenty - this was an age of acting on a large scale, where expansive gestures and dramatic poses were an actor's stock-in-trade. (For a taste of the movie, click here to watch a clip on youtube - the video quality is not so great, and there's the added delight of Spanish subtitles. However, it's an opportunity to glimpse the whips, plus Petruchio's pirate suit!)

Though Emma and I both laughed at some of the old-fashioned acting that seems over the top to us, there is a lot to admire about this movie. Although Pickford and Fairbanks don't perform in the naturalistic style  that we are accustomed to, their energy and magnetism makes it easy to understand why they were stars. The film was one of the very first talkies after the silent era, and it's clear that it's the product of an art form in transition. While Pickford and Fairbanks declaim their lines with gusto, there are also several short comedic routines that are pretty much completely silent.

The production is lavish - much of the visual look and setting of the film, including the rowdy crowds on the street and the scenes outside and inside the church, seem like a possible inspiration for similar settings in Zefferelli's later film.

(Petruchio arriving for his wedding. Are you taking notes, Franco Zefferelli? In case you can't tell, that's an upside-down boot on our hero's head.)

This version is very clearly an adaptation - according to IMDB, one of the film's claims to fame is an unintentionally hilarious author credit: "By William Shakespeare, with additional dialogue by Sam Taylor." The plot is considerably simplified, characters are condensed, and at just over an hour, it's much shortened from the play. As we near the end of the movie, there are also several dizzying plot twists that will leave your head spinning.

In general, the plot variations in this adaptation deal with the question that we've discussed - how can we enjoy a story where all the power ends up resting with only one partner in a marriage? In this Shrew for the modern 1920s, we see a much more even power dynamic where both Kate and Petruchio essentially "tame" each other. 

Ironically, the making of this movie, where the unequal marriage roles of the Renaissance are changed in favor of a more modern, level playing field, was apparently so acrimonious that it contributed to the break-up of the marriage of the two stars and their ultimate divorce. Ordinarily, I would not comment on the personal lives of the actors involved in a production, but I think that this movie is an exception in that the revisionist nature of this adaptation makes a very strong statement about what was perceived as appropriate gender roles and marriage mores for the time. The relationship between the two stars - a "celebrity couple" in a movie-crazy culture that equals our present-day infatuation with Hollywood scandal - feels like a very strong subtext to the whole production, as is shown by the poster above, featuring the two in modern dress, united and smiling at the camera. But it didn't last - no "peace...love, and quiet life" (5.2.1625) for this modern American couple.

Ultimately, this movie is fun to watch as a time capsule. It delivers a message about gender and marriage that the America - or Hollywood - of the time perhaps wished that Shakespeare had written, as well as showing two talented actors who made it to the top of the Hollywood tree. However, there are other options if you want to see The Shrew as Shakespeare wrote it - without dialogue help from Sam Taylor.

Great Petruchios, Part 2

Petruchio the Great II

Pop quiz time! Which legendary Hollywood star said the following?

"The great roles are always Shakespearean."

Kenneth Branagh? Leslie Howard? Laurence Olivier? Derek Jacobi? Ian McKellen?

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.




Answer:

Surprise! At least, I was surprised.

After such an introduction, it is perhaps not quite as much of a surprise for me to say that it is Charlton Heston who is the second great Petruchio I'd like to talk about (I can't be surprising all the time). His interpretation of Petruchio can only be seen, as far as I know, in the Studio One TV Version of the Taming of the Shrew (1950).

Now, before I watched this video, I already had an inkling that Heston was a great Shakespearean actor, simply because his speech as the Player King is a great moment, one might say the *only* great moment, in Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet (if you'd like to see it, click here -but if you do watch it, please pay no heed to the silly flashbacks - as Mark Steyn pointed out, the Player King may be old, but probably not quite old enough to literally *remember* the fall of Troy. This sort of thing is not what Shakespeare meant when he called it "senseless Ilium").

The Studio One made-for-TV version of The Taming of the Shrew is considerably less well-known -and almost incalculably less expensive -than Branagh's Hamlet, but Heston again exceeded my expectations. He brings a wonderful, charismatic performance, along with a lot of youthful energy (he was about 27 at the time it was filmed). Like John Cleese, he somehow makes you believe that he really is thinking of each line in the moment - it all does seem to be "extempore, from [his] mother-wit." Cleese and Heston are rare in their ability to do this with Shakespeare, and it has a tremendous impact.

This photograph of Heston is not actually from The Taming of the Shrew, but he looks a lot the same.

I have to admit that Heston overshadows everyone else in the cast, but the other actors are generally pretty lively and entertaining. I liked that by the end of the movie, Petruchio and Kate (Lisa Kirk) seem to see all of his oddities as a shared private joke - definitely makes the story more palatable. The production is set in "modern times" (1950), something which makes the costuming pretty delightful: Grumio wears a propeller hat! Petruchio wears a trench coat and sunglasses!

Lest we get too excited... there are a few big problems. The first is that the film is interspersed with commercials for Westinghouse Radios, Fans, and Floodlights. But this could easily be fixed with a little digital video editing, or even a nice big pair of scissors and some scotch tape (we watched it on VHS). The commercials are sort of entertaining, honestly, so it's not too bad.

"You can be sure, if it's Westinghouse" (I learned that by watching this production).

A much more serious flaw is that it portrays Petruchio's servants as stuttering half-wits. A charitable interpretation would say this is in poor taste, others - like me - might find it a downright offensive portrayal of mental disability. Mercifully, this section is quite short.

Overall, Heston's thoughtful, laughing interpretation of the part made me genuinely like Petruchio, and that, I think is key to making the story successful. Although this film was too short and too TV-oriented to be to be the Taming of the Shrew for the ages, I found it to be worth watching.

A side note to the review: Although both Petruchio's and Katherine's behavior would have been considered strange by their contemporaries, to us nowadays it all seems pretty long ago and far away. But in this film, the modern setting and Heston's unstudied delivery doesn't allow us to distance ourselves like that. Instead, it (perhaps unintentionally) poses the question: how would we feel about the story of Petruchio and Katherine if it had happened in 1950's America? If it were the courtship story of our parents or our grandparents?


"I am he am born to tame you, Kate"

Looking at it this way brings out one of the most uncomfortable aspects of this story - namely, that both Katherine and Petruchio could easily be categorized as abusers.

I think Shakespeare asks us with Taming to consider: what do you do if there are adults in your society who, like Katherine, have never learned self-discipline? She is obviously angry, out-of-control and dangerously violent. Her father seems to be unable or unwilling to deal with the problem, and she is already an grown-up, with adult rights. Can we help people like this? Can discipline be imposed from another person, like Petruchio? He has to get into some pretty harsh behavior patterns himself in order to "help" Katherine, and remember that he's also married to her. Is there any way at all this would ever, ever really work?

Great Petruchios, Part 1

Well, I finished Henry VI part 1, but I haven't started part 2 yet. Pretty exciting stuff! I'm still chewing on what to say about it, so in the meantime, I wanted to offer what may be my last Taming of the Shrew movie review for now (but no promises - The Taming of the Shrew is such a popular and famous play that there are many, many movie versions ; we ordered some from the library that only just arrived! Don't know if I'll have time to watch them - silly me for not placing holds on them until the last minute).

Anyway, so far there are two Taming of the Shrew movies that I think are really only notable for their great Petruchios. Here's my review of one of them - my review of the other is to follow shortly!

Petruchio the Great I: The Complete Shakespeare BBC Version (1980)

This video is very, very slow. The production quality is not great. Some of the lines are almost incomprehensible, because many of the actors' diction is rather poor. Katherine is too old. Why am I recommending it to you? Because John Cleese, aka Basil Fawlty, aka various Monty Python characters, plays Petruchio. And he plays him splendidly.

Petruchio meets Katherine (Sarah Badel) and breaks the news of their engagement

It is worth slogging through the slow bits of this movie just to see John Cleese attend his wedding in a hat with an unbelievably enormous feather, and an equally enormous yellow daisy in his button hole. His Petruchio is incredibly natural, amusingly hurt when crossed (Cleese fans will know exactly what I'm talking about), and surprisingly reflective. He also has just the right tinge of the obnoxious, and when he rails on his servants, it is in a manner reminiscent of the finer moments of Fawlty Towers. Best of all, he is somehow able to give us the sense that he is doing Monty Python-style ad-libbing, all while reciting complicated Shakespearean lines.

Sometimes the greatest Shakespearean actors are just great actors, and not Shakespearean in their careers at all.

Could this man really be a great Shakespearean actor? Really?



In my opinion, the only other standout performance was David Kincaid, whose Grumio provides a nonchalant foil to Cleese. Now, if the the BBC had snagged the other Monty Python guys to play Hortensio, Gremio, etc - I believe this production would have been incredible (and please don't take that as an endorsement of the entire Monty Python body of work, but they SHOULD have done Shakespeare!). Alas, the moment is past.

These guys could have livened things up a bit for the BBC Shakespeare Department.

Two Halfway Decent Versions of the Taming of the Shrew

Although the Monsterpiece Theater version of the Taming of the Shrew is pretty great, it is in fact not the "better versions" that I was referring to in my earlier post. It's true that as far as I've seen, the great Taming of the Shrew film has yet to be made. But take heart! There are a few movies that are worth noting before we enter the gory world of Henry VI movies. So, if you're still in the mood for Christopher Sly and the Players, I'd recommend you check out one of the following productions (both of which actually do include Christopher Sly, incidentally)...

1. The BBC Animated Tales version (1994)
This short (26 minutes), sweet version can only be described thusly: adorbs. I especially loved Katherine - not only does she have cute red curls, which bounce up and down with her emotions, her voice is done by the wonderful Amanda Root (whom you might remember as Anne in Persuasion).

This is Amanda Root. If you watch the puppet production, you won't actually get to see her, so I'm putting her picture here.

All of the puppets are quite well done - judging by the credits they seem to have been put together by a whole host of clever Russian puppeteers, led by director Aida Zyablikova. Of course, the length means that much of the text is cut, but I was impressed that the adapter, Leon Garfield, was able to tell the story with mostly Shakespearean lines in the time given.

Puppet Petruchio woos Puppet Katherine. She remains hard-hearted.

Of course, because this is basically a mini-version of the play - both in length and the size of the players - it can't be a comprehensive or definitive version. Also, I would have liked to have seen a little more rapport between Katherine and Petruchio by the end - puppet Katherine seemed a little too dejected in the final scenes - but you can't have everything in 26 minutes of puppetry, I suppose. Overall, these animators do a great job of capturing some of the fire and fascination of this play, all in a delightful format. BTW, I actually found and watched this entire production on youtube (here). Or, buy the set on amazon (and support What Shall Shakespeare Say Today):

2.Stratford Ontario Shakespeare Festival Version (1986)

Hands-down the best version if you want to see an entertaining, straightforward production of the play. The comic elements and rhyming couplets are brought out. Gremio (Rod Beattie) and Hortensio (Patrick Christopher) find their places as comedic, rather than tragic or serious, characters. What's going on is always clear. Every scene is light, quickly paced and full of -mostly- amusing gags.

Hortensio has disguised himself, apparently as a chipmunk, by carrying a lute and filling his mouth with marbles. Thus he hopes to win Bianca's love.

One reason that this enjoyable production has not taken its place as THE movie version of The Taming of the Shrew is that it is a TV recording of a play on a stage, without the film quality or visual interest of an actual multi-set movie.

Another reason is that although all the actors are competent and funny, there just is not an extremely compelling star here. Petruchio, played by Len Cariou, is highly energetic and engaging, but is also somewhat one-dimensional. Kate (Sharry Flett) is great in that she is pretty, yet thoroughly unpleasant, yet thrilled to have a suitor; however, she's also a little screechy (screaming probably worked better on stage than it does on film). Lynne Griffin does stand out from the rest of the cast with her hilarious, bratty, and totally text-supported portrayal of Bianca, but generally, the strength of this production is not in star performances, but in the excellent ensemble work, great pacing, and the whole cast's beautiful, understandable diction.

Lucentio (Peter Hunt) and Bianca. Everyone likes Bianca!

Overall, both Shakespeare girl and I really enjoyed this funny, traditional version - so far, it is our top recommended production of this play. I only wish I could zip over to Ontario and see it live, but alas, it closed about 25 years ago! This one's available on amazon too:

Four Reasons We Need a New Taming of the Shrew Movie

Have you ever started watching a movie, and turned it off before the show was even halfway through? I must confess that when I watch TV or movies I have a tendency to watch everything - yes, even Random Reality Shows Set In Malibu - all the way to the end. This is (part of) why I really should never, never, never have a TV in the house.
Yet, among the few times that I have not finished a movie, I must number four, yes count them, FOUR versions of The Taming of the Shrew!!! Weird, right? Clearly, someone needs to make a good one. Any filmmakers reading this, your task is before you...

Although I hate to post any negativity on this generally groovin' blog, in the interest of helping you avoid these videos like the plague, I have decided to post my top four partially-watched reasons we need a new Taming of the Shrew movie:

1. The ShakespeareRe-Told, New BBC Version (2005)
Within the first few minutes, I was disappointed to find that they had written their own - not clever, and utterly crude - dialogue. It's cheating to try to pass such stuff off as Shakespeare! Time to move on.

2. The Comedia dell'arte Version (1976)
The lines are delivered stiffly - seemingly in an effort to keep the dialogue from distracting us from the equally stiff pantomimes. A lot of visual monotony, which was occasionally and startlingly broken by some rather embarrassing spandex.

3. The Zeffirelli Version (1967)
Just gorgeous visually, but very slo-o-w - and it doesn't help that the lucky few Shakespearean lines that were chosen to appear in this movie are often repeated over and over (why?).
Also, literally every single time - every time! - Petruchio (played by Richard Burton) speaks, his dialogue is punctuated by this: *evil cackle*, while Katherine (Elizabeth Taylor) generally runs about breaking furniture in the background. Honestly, the characterization work in this film would only be pleasing to those whose vision of Petruchio is of a mean, possibly insane, dipsomaniac, resembling no one so much as King Henry VIII in his later years (note that half of Henry VIII's wives were named Katherine. Coincidence? I think not.).
Thankfully, Zeffirelli made some other - quite excellent, movies - so we can enjoy his work elsewhere.


Franco Zeffirelli, looking worried about his production of The Taming of the Shrew. However, note that his Romeo and Juliet is not bad, and his Hamlet is totally awesome. Unrelated: he also designed some extremely cool opera productions.

4. Kiss Me Kate (1953)
Writers always write about writers, Broadway people love making musicals about the stage. It just doesn't have much to do with Shakespeare. If you adore 1950's musical technicolor dance sequences, this might be a great film for you. I regret to have to warn you, though, that I personally found them ghastly (and this is coming from someone that deeply appreciates the Broadway musical genre). My advice: watch Singin' in the Rain instead (a musical about show business from around the same time, but a lot more fun!).

Singin' in the Rain

I hope to report back on some better versions of the Taming of the Shrew in the next blog post!

Two Gentlemen: Movie Review

If you’ve ever wandered among the shelves at your local library in search of a video of one of Shakespeare's plays, you may have noticed that there are a lot of Shakespearean BBC productions from the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Why is that? Well, it turns out that right about then the BBC was gripped with an urgent desire to make TV productions of virtually every British classic play or book. This is why you will also find BBC video adaptations of the works of Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw and other Authors of Note tucked between the innumerable BBC murder mysteries and episodes of something called The Forsyte Saga (which you’d expect would be about Vikings, but is in fact a story about upper class British people).

Needless to say, adaptation frenzy led to a BBC telly series with productions of every single Shakespeare play (The Brits are thorough like that. Shakespeare didn't skip writing any of his plays, and the BBC didn't skip producing any of them). And this series' production of Two Gentlemen of Verona was in fact the only video of the play I could get my hands on other than ‘A Spray of Plum Blossoms.’

So, would you like to know how Shakespeare girl and I liked this video? Of course! So here is my review!

The Bad...

First and worst, the beginning of this production is slow. The actors seemed to me to still be finding their characters (over-rehearsing was not a problem that characterized these BBC productions). It also took me a few minutes to get used to the budget sets and 1980’s TV film quality.

If you happened to read the cast list for this production on IMDB, you might have noticed that it includes several actors listed to play “Cupids.” This is just as worrisome as it sounds - the presence of oddly-dressed, awkward children with gold-painted faces in several of the scenes in Milan is not only unexplained, it is also quite bizarre, to say the least. I read here that this was meant to be a “garden of courtly love” motif, but I merely found it unnerving.

The unabashedly modern “forest” set, which appears to have been created largely from steel and green pipe cleaners, is also not a strong point. Neither are the Bee-Gees-style “doublets” and longish hair sported by Valentine (John Hudson) and Proteus’ (Tyler Butterworth), style choices which I’m pretty sure were not based on careful historical research of clothing in Renaissance Verona.

The Good..

The play really does pick up steam as it goes along. I found myself surprised and touched by the latter scenes, especially Tessa Peake-Jones’ performance as the jilted Julia. She emphasized Julia’s softer side, and I thought it was heartbreakingly effective.


This is Julia - doesn't she look sweet?

This production captured Proteus’ descent into villainy quite well. Butterworth does some good interpreting, and he's well set up by the other actors. Peake-Jones as Julia was already mentioned, but Silvia (Joanne Pearce) and the Duke (Paul Daneman) also helped in their very believable, but non-script-required, reactions to Proteus. And I have to say that Proteus’ disco-cool/Renaissance fashion sense actually seemed oddly appropriate for a man getting wickeder and wickeder.

Proteus (left) and Valentine

Great Renaissance tunes from the “Consort of Musick” were featured throughout - my brother thought that the lead singer in the opening song was the prominent British early music singer Emma Kirkby, and it does look like her. However, I have not been able to verify this (if anyone knows one way or another, feel free to message me!). I also loved the melody of their song to Silvia - beauteous.

The End of the Matter...

This is perhaps not where I would start if looking for a first movie introduction to Shakespeare. And there are some stylistic issues. But I found it to be a solid - and even moving - interpretation of the play, with a lot of great storytelling. Kudos to the BBC for putting together an enjoyable production of this rarely seen play!

Movie review!

The Two Gentlemen of Verona is a pretty cool play. BUT...what if you wanted to see a similiar story, only set in 1930s Nationalist China and featuring lots of guns and horses? Have I got a movie for you!

Check out A Spray of Plum Blossoms, which I can pretty much guarantee is Shakespeare like you've never seen it before!

 This 1931 silent film, originally released with both English and Chinese caption cards to narrate the silent action, is set in the contemporary, militaristic Chinese culture of that time. Thus, we meet a Valentine and Proteus in uniform, two best friends just graduating from a military academy. Whereas Valentine is an ambitious cadet, Proteus pays more attention to girls, earning this rebuke from his friend:

Pretty much says it all, right? Valentine, unfortunately, makes the mistake of introducing Proteus to his sister (!) Julia, who is captivated by Proteus' ability to make funny animal imitations, such as quacking ducks, with his hands. So when Valentine takes off for Canton to become a Captain under General Sze, Proteus' uncle, he thinks Proteus will take good care of Julia. But Proteus himself has to go to Canton to fulfil his military obligations. When he spends much of his time trying to get the fair Silvia, General Sze's daughter, to laugh at his funny quacking duck imitations, we know trouble is not far behind!

Although trouble does come with a vengeange, there are a lot of sweet moments - we see the development of tenderness between Valentine and Silvia, with a plum blossom becoming the motif of their relationship. When Valentine is banished - court-martialed after Proteus accuses him of treason - he becomes an outlaw known as "The Plum Blossom Bandit," a freedom fighter who embodies all the best elements of Robin Hood and The Scarlet Pimpernel rolled into one! Do not laugh - Valentine is one cool outlaw.

                                (Valentine on the left. He's really cool.)


Immediately we can tell that a lot of the cultural concerns that this movie is dealing with - family and blood obligations and ties, the duties and political concerns that a military society calls for - are not really the same as in Shakespeare's play. Yet, though the story ranges far afield from the source play in many details, it is in many ways a very charming film. Visually it's great, with awesome sets and costuming varying from the height of 1930s Western fashion to Chinese traditional for the outlaws; everyone, including the women, also appears in military uniform at one time or another. Much of the appeal of the movie comes from the fine acting performances of all four of the main leads --  Jin Yan as Valentine stands out as a very dashing leading man.

So, if you enjoy the silent movie genre (like me!), this might be a great film for you. There's a sweet clip from the movie you can check out on Bardfilm (no guns or horses, alas). There are some issues with the print on the "Cinema Epoch" dvd that we watched; some words in the captions are cut off, and we were only able to keep a watchable image that was not either too dark or to light by constant adjustment of the brightness and contrast.

All told, aside from being a poignant glimpse of a long-vanished China, this film is totally worth watching as a wild adaptation of The Two Gentlemen of Verona! But even though there are changes to the story all the way through, Valentine's words to Proteus at the end still say it all: "I want you to understand that I'm always your pal." Some things never change.