CBC/Stratford Festival Taming of the Shrew

For Christmas this year my beloved and long-suffering wife gave me several Shakespeare DVDs, and recently I managed to make time to watch the CBC Home Video of the Stratford Festival's production of The Taming of the Shrew.

This is a video recording for Canadian television of the Stratford (Canada) Festival production of Taming of the Shrew. I don't recognize any of the cast members (and I watched a lot of You Can't Do That on Television and Degrassi Junior High back in the 80s) but that's okay. Many of the best Shakespearean actors are not household names.

There's so much you can do on film. Professor Rockwell would probably frown on this production because it's not a “fully realized cinematic production” but rather a recording of a stage production. For the comedies at least —and I'm starting to think more and more for the tragedies and histories as well— film doesn't work well for Shakespeare. Stage works a lot better. And I'm not just saying that stage is better because Shakespeare wrote for the stage and it's a more authentic Renaissance experience to see Shakespeare on stage. That may be true, but it's not what I mean.

I mean that the performance communicate better when there's an actual audience present. The jokes land better. The serious moments have more impact. With a fully realized cinematic production there is no present audience to react to the actors and for the actors and to react to. For Shakespeare to work well, and I think this is especially true of the comedies, the audience is extremely valuable to the actors. It's one thing to know a line and know what it means and think you're communicating well, it's another thing to have the instant feedback from an audience telling you that you're communicating well.

It would be interesting to see a production that is rehearsed in front of a live audience and then filmed, and see if that live experience translates to film. Come to think of it the 1999 RSC Midsummer Night's Dream would fit that description, and it was disappointing. Maybe that wouldn't work. I would be glad to see another experiment.

The Stratford Festival is one of the big Shakespeare incubators of North America possibly the world. Their reputation is that they produce excellent Shakespeare and develop excellent experienced Shakespearean actors. I 've never actually seen any of their productions before this but I have to say the reputation seems to be well earned.

They have a great website that explains the history of the festival and how a world-class festival ended up in Canada (here's the link).

This production is from way back in 1988 but it doesn't seem dated to me at all—it doesn't even seem all that Canadian. There is a really bad set of cast pictures of the beginning but keep watching it doesn't last too long.

Colm Feore is the big name in this production. He makes a great Petruchio. He's not huge and muscular like Marc Singer, not as over-the-top exuberant as Richard Burton, or as just plain wrong for the role like John Cleese. If not for Marc Singer, Colm Feore would be my favorite Petruchio. Feore's a better actor, and I'm excited that I'll be seeing him in other Shakespeare films, but I think Singer's a better Petruchio. According to imdb.com Colm Feore has been in all sorts of movies and TV shows that I've never seen. He was also in Thor.

I'm not as crazy about Goldie Semple as Katherina. She's just a bit too much. In the earlier parts of the play she starts every line at a yell. A lot of the time it just doesn't work. It's not always motivated by the script, and it doesn't leave her anywhere to go but to back down or get even louder. Neither of those choices work well for Katherina. She wins me over an act five though and her performance becomes just spot on perfect. According to imdb.com Goldie died in 1999.

Scott Wentworth is also worth noting as Tranio, as is Geraint Wyn Davies as the best Hortensio I've ever seen.

This production gets laughs in places I haven't heard laughs before. The performance is founded on a clear understanding of the text, and many of those laughs come from the text plus stage business. It's a fantastic production of a great team. I hope to see more of the CBC Stratford DVDs soon—they're on my wishlist.

If you only have time to watch one Taming of the Shrew, this one is a good choice. I think this is the second best Taming of the Shrew that I've seen, not because of any fault in this production, but because the 1976 Marc Singer/Fredi Olster production is just so good.

So here's my Taming of the Shrew list:

1. Taming of the Shrew. Dir. William Ball and Kirk Browning. Perf. Fredi Olster, Marc Singer, and Stephen St. Paul. 1976. DVD. Kultur, 2002.(imdb.com)
2. Taming of the Shrew. Dir. Richard Monette. Perf. Colm Feore, Goldie Semple, and Henry Czerny. CBC, 1988. DVD, Morningstar, 2003. (imdb.com)
3. Taming of the Shrew. Dir. Franco Zefferelli. Perf. Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, and Cyril Cusack. 1967. DVD. Columbia, 1999. (imdb.com)
4. Taming of the Shrew. Dir. Jonathan Miller. Perf. Simon Chandler, Anthony Pedley, and John Cleese. 1980. DVD. Ambrose, 2000. (imdb.com)
5. Kiss Me Kate. Dir. George Sidney. Perf. Kathryn Grayson, Howard Keel, and Ann Miller. 1953. DVD. Warner, 2003. (imdb.com)
6. 10 Things I Hate About You. Dir. Gil Junger. Perf. Julia Stiles, Heath Ledger, and Joseph Gordon-Leavitt. 1999. DVD. Buena Vista, 2010. (imdb.com)

King John Arkangel Audio Production

Since there are so few full productions of King John available, I thought I'd write you a post about the Arkangel Audio recording. The Arkangel productions are fantastic Shakespeare. The casts include many famous and accomplished actors. If you find yourself asking “Wait, is that...” the answer usually is that yes, it is. Your local public library can probably get a copy of King John into your hands fairly quickly, and unlike Hamlet or Macbeth, the disk will probably not be too worn from use.

The first things you'll notice are that the costumes and scenery are much better than the BBC production. OK, that's a joke I've been using since reading the novelization of the Doctor Who episode “Terror of the Zygons” back in the mid-80s, but it holds true. An audio production (or sci-fi novelization) has the advantage that it can build great sets and costumes without having to spend a penny on sets or costumes. The BBC production only looks like it didn't spend any money on sets and costumes.

Michael Feast is very good as King John. I prefer Leonard Rossiter, but he was long since dead when this was made. I guess you can't have everything.

Michael Maloney is my second favorite Philip the bastard. He plays the bastard as more devious and scheming than George Costigan, who plays the character as more charming and funny. Comedic roles are hard to pull off in Shakespeare even with the full physical pallette available to an actor on stage, so even though I prefer Costigan's portrayal, I can't really hold it against Maloney.

Eileen Atkins is great as Constance, although to me she sounds a bit too old to be the mother of a preteen. Shakespeare was always messing with the ages of characters, though, so I don't think it's too far of a reach. The “My grief fills the room up of my absent child,” speech kills me every time. Atkins appeared as the evil Tamora in the BBC TV production of Titus Andronicus – a very different part.

You'll also recognize the voice of Bill Nighy, who played the art museum guy in the Doctor Who episode “Vincent and the Doctor”. OK, maybe you'll recognize him as Scrimgeor in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One? He also plays The British Guy in just about 1000 other things. In this he appears as Cardinal Pandolf, and this interesting and talented actor plays him as boring and tedious. Unfortunately, that's the role. Pandolf is boring and long-winded and there's not much you can do about it. It would have been great to hear him in a more interesting role – maybe King John himself, or perhaps Hubert.

But I can't complain about Trevor Peacock as Hubert. You probably won't recognize him, which is too bad because he was in a number of the BBC complete Shakespeare films in the early 1980s. You'll see him if you go back and watch Titus Andronicus or the Henry VI plays. Hubert has to be strong and conflicted, and Trevor Peacock plays that brilliantly.

While this doesn't count as Shakespeare on screen, it is a very good production of King John and I do recommend it. I'll be back to screen productions in my next post.

King John. Dir. Clive Brill. Perf. Michael Feast, Eileen Atkins, and Michael Maloney. CD. Arkangel, 2003.

King John. Yes. King John (Oh, Don't Get Like That!)

Unlike many of Shakespeare's kings, it's probably more likely that you've heard of the historical King John than the one in the play.

The historical King John was the younger brother of Richard the Lionheart. Richard left John in charge when he went off to the crusades. King John was the Prince John of the Robin Hood stories (in the Disney Robin Hood movie, he's a childish lion voiced by Peter Ustinov). He is also the king who was forced by the nobles to sign the Magna Carta, which we like to bring up here in the US because we like to think of it as the beginning of a line of constitutional governing documents running from the Mayflower Compact to the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution itself.

Shakespeare doesn't mention Robin Hood. Or the Magna Carta. There are four hundred years of history that hadn't happened yet, and perhaps it just wasn't considered important at the time. Isaac Asimov suggests this is because the strong monarch of Shakespeare's time, Queen Elizabeth, was not a fan of the Magna Carta, and would rather people are didn't think about it. He's got a point. A strong executive rarely likes a strong legislature, and Shakespeare was very careful to keep on the right side the people in power.

There's not much competition for the best film version of King John. I can only find one, although there are a few options on YouTube that I will link to below.

King John is usually considered one of Shakespeare's lesser planes and it's easy to see why. The story sort of lurch is from this happened to this happened with a lot of growth. King John starts is a bad king who is manipulated by his mother to a bad king who doesn't have anyone to pull the strings. It's not much of a journey.

I have to say, though, this play has some very good scenes and some very good speeches. It has battle scenes, betrayals, at least one great male character, and at least one good female character. In a skilled production, with a good cast, a good director, and an adequate budget, it doesn't have to be one of the lesser plays. It could do with some cuts, I think, but then there are parts of Hamlet that most productions ought to cut. Maybe King John will never be one of the great plays, but it doesn't have to be one of the lesser plays. It's better than you think.

A number of actors have used the good parts of King John for monologues, it seems. Especially Constance's speeches, which have quite a bit of fire to them. You can see Constance being played perhaps by the same actor who played Juliet. There must've been a player in Shakespeare's company who could pull off an intelligent and tragic female character.

It's really Philip the Bastard's soliloquies that shine for me. As portrayed by George Costigan at least, he's clever and funny. Whoever was cast as Mercutio would do well in this role too.Philip stands in for the audience as he sees the war with France turned into a temporary alliance, then a peace treaty, and then to war anyway. He eventually figures out that all of the powerful man are really motivated not by honor or the common good, but rather by self-interest, or “tickling commodity” as he calls it. Even the kings have a price, and even in the Middle Ages money talked. Some things never change.

The only full version I could find on DVD is the Leonard Rossiter version produced by the BBC in 1984. As far as I can tell there is no other full version is available. This one is okay. It's clearly not a very high budget production – the sets look cheap (at best), the costumes look recycled – but the performances are really really good. Leonard Rossiter stars as King John, usually with a glass of wine in his hand which fits. King John is always in over his head. The idea that he's a drunk works very well for the character. You'll recognize Rossiter if you've ever seen the 1970s British sitcom The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin. He was a very funny actor, and perfectly suited to King John. Unfortunately he died suddenly the same year this came out.

The Bastard is played by George Costigan. You won't recognize him, but he played Max Capricorn in the 2007 Doctor Who Christmas special. He's been in many many things over the years but you probably won't recognize him.

Eleanor of Aquitaine is played by Mary Morris, who was in the Doctor Who episode “Kinda,” but seems like she should have been in the Sisterhood of Karn.

Constance is played by the great Claire Bloom, who you will recognize from her roles as Hera in Clash of the Titans and as The Woman in the Doctor Who two-parter “The End of Time.” According to imdb.com, we're going to be seeing a lot more of her in Shakespeare, as she's going to turn up in Hamlet, Henry VIII, and Cymbeline, and possibly others.

King John. Dir. David Giles. Perf. Leonard Rossiter, Mary Morris, and George Costigan. 1984. DVD. Ambrose, 2001. (imdb.com)

I found this version at my local public library, but you can find snippets online, for example at 

As I mentioned, actors love the firey speeches from this play, and a few of these studies and audition pieces show up on YouTube. Here are a few of the better scenes I found:

Act IV, Scene I, Hubert & Arthur

Lady Constance Mourns for Arthur

Earliest Existing Shakespeare Scene on Film - the Death of King John

Here's the thing about being one of the “lesser plays:” It's just a popularity contest. If a play isn't popular now, that doesn't mean it was never thought of as one of the great (or at least good) plays. In the 1900s, for example, King John was much more popular than it is now. The earliest existing appearance of Shakespeare on film is this short part of King John. It makes me think – what will people be saying about Pericles in 100 years?

A Midsummer Night's Dream 1996

This is a Royal Shakespeare Company production, and it has the look of a stage production that was adapted to screen. That can work well, but in this case, the adaptation doesn’t work so well. There's a little bit too much "staginess" about it. The actors understand their characters and convincingly deliver their lines as if they know what they mean. Let me briefly explain what I mean by "staginess:" the actors seem to be very aware that this is a Shakespeare play and they are in the RSC, and they are supposed to pronounce things in a Shakespearean way and sound Shakespearean. In order to get through to the people in the cheap seats, a stage actor needs bigger movements and louder, clearer speech than a film actor. These actors seem to have been told to do what they always do, and the camera will be over that way. It gets to be a bit much by the end, and I think the film would have been improved by more natural performances. There are also moments that must have been the director’s favorite bits, but should have been edited out (I’m thinking of when Theseus roars directly at the camera. It’s impossible on stage, so why not try it in a movie, except that it doesn’t make sense and doesn’t work).

This is the weirdest version of A Midsummer Night's Dream that I've seen. It's framed as the dream of a little boy, which seems like a good idea if you haven't already seen Julie Taymor's Titus. Instead of a real world–fairy world contrast, the whole film takes place in a vibrant Seussian dreamscape. I miss that contrast. I think I must have written a paper about it in college.

I’m ok with weird, as long as it makes sense. I thought the production’s take on fairyland was very interesting, with lightbulbs descending from the sky and doors appearing out of the ground. Sometimes this can look like a production just didn’t have the budget to afford a real set, but in this case, the minimalist approach provided just enough information and just enough spectacle. I like the lightbulbs; they would be really cool on stage. Well done. Athens, though, with all the hairspray, flowing gowns, and candles, looks like a Whitesnake video. And a fire hazard.

Adrian Noble seems to have had a strong dislike of the “fourth wall.” He places The Boy, played by Osheen Jones (who, incidentally, played Young Lucius in Taymor’s Titus), in the action, standing in as the proxy for the audience. The boy is in the play, the play is in his dream. It would be a really cool nesting of realities if it worked. The characters seem to recognize that he’s there (sometimes) and direct their soliloquies to him (sometimes) and try to scare him (sometimes). Mostly he’s there to show us how we’re supposed to feel about the story, because I guess Shakespeare wasn’t a good enough writer to convey that, or maybe because we’re too dim to understand what’s going on.

The overall impression is that it’s a film by people who would be much more comfortable working on stage, but excited to finally be able to use all the ideas they’ve ever had for a movie.

I have one last note before I finish: I had to watch this twice because when I checked imdb.com, I noticed that one of the fairies is played by Ann Hasson, who was amazing as Juliet in the 1976 Thames Television Romeo and Juliet. I think she’s the “Over hill, over dale / Thorough bush, thorough briar” fairy. It’s amazing what makeup can do.

Here’s how I rate this production:

1. Midsummer Night's Dream. Dir. Max Reinhardt and William Dieterle. Perf. James Cagney, Joe E. Brown, and Dick Powell. 1935. DVD. Warner Bros, 2007. (imdb.com)
2. Midsummer Night's Dream. Dir. Elijah Moshinsky. Perf. Helen Mirren, Peter McEnery and Pippa Guard. 1981. DVD. Ambrose, 2000 or 2001. (imdb.com)
3. Midsummer Night’s Dream. Dir. Adrian Noble. Perf. Alex Jennings, Lindsay Duncan, and Finbar Lynch. 1996. Netflix.com, 25 MAR 2015. (DVD. Miramax Lionsgate, 2011.) (imdb.com)
4. Midsummer Night's Dream. Dir. Peter Hall. Perf. Helen Mirren, Diana Rigg, and Ian Richardson. 1968. DVD. Water Bearer, 2004. (imdb.com)

To be fair, Julie Taymor’s Titus came out in 1999, three years after this A Midsummer Night’s Dream, so I could just as easily be criticizing her.

Shakespeare's Globe Online!

This is the sort of thing that gets me excited!

Shakespeare's Globe is putting their videos online for rent or purchase. Right now it doesn't work here in the states, and it looks like they haven't included the Richard II I want to see, but there's hope that day will come. There are also free videos of interviews with Shakespearean actors in the "Muse of Fire" section.

Here's the link:

http://globeplayer.tv/tragedy