Romeo + Juliet Part 6: Luhrmann

You either love this movie or you hate it. It either decodes the Shakespearean language for a modern audience or hacks the language into incomprehensible, meaningless snippets. The entire production is way over the top, which is sure to put off some people, but by the final scene it gets pared down to the story of two young people who simply shouldn’t have fallen in love.

I think before I go any further, I ought to talk a little about Shakespeare’s audience. According to the best sources I’ve read, the Londoners filling the Globe Theater came from every walk of life, from the wealthy and the educated to the poor and unschooled. It’s hard to imagine members of the upper nobility turning out to watch a play with a bunch of grocers, tanners, and clerks, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of the lesser nobles show up. The cheaper area, standing in front of the stage, would have been affordable for the working-class people, while the wealthy would have paid a premium to sit in the balconies, shaded from the sun and protected from the rain. Shakespeare had to appeal to all these people with their varying interests by including in his plays as much comedy, romance, tragedy, fantasy, history, drama, violence, action, poetry, and anything else that would fill the theater.

It’s frequently pointed out that Romeo and Juliet starts out as a comedy - the wordplay between Romeo, Benvolio, and Mercutio is (better than, but) reminiscent of The Two Gentlemen of Verona, plus there are the typical comedy elements such as love at first sight, and the Nurse’s funniest scenes are in the first half of the play - and then turns suddenly to tragedy. The switch happens in the scene where Mercutio and Tybalt are killed. I’m sure many High School English papers are written on the subject every year.

The job of cutting a play that usually runs almost 2-1/2 hours down to fit in a 90-minute film must be daunting. When the play has as many facets as Romeo and Juliet, which appears to have been written to appeal to as many of Shakespeare’s audiences as possible, the screenwriter is faced with making choices about which of the facets to highlight, diminish, or eliminate. Apparently, you need to cut the “Poor John” joke, which I guess seems impenetrable on paper, although it is easily understood on screen. (With any other writer, you might even be able to add a line or two of your own to the script, but with Shakespeare, that is almost universally frowned-upon.) Choices must be made. You have to pick which audience you want to address. 

To me, it looks like Luhrmann decided to make a date night movie - romance and eye candy for the ladies, action and eye candy for the guys - and make it hip, funny, and modern enough to keep everyone happy up to the crying part at the end. By the end of the movie, your date should be in pretty good shape.

As for decoding the language, I’m not so sure he was successful. Shouting the words doesn’t necessarily mean you’re conferring the meaning. Neither does screaming, mumbling, or putting on a very very fake-sounding accent. I think they missed the mark there. I don’t think the acting for Romeo and Juliet needs to be particularly realistic (the characters are completely unrealistic, after all) but the actors need to keep their feet not on the ground, but plausibly close to it.

I hate Miriam Margolyes portrayal of the nurse. She puts on a terrible Cuban accent and falls flat on all the comic potential of the character. The “Over-The-Top Flamboyant Spanish” character must seem very funny to British and Australian directors (as Timothy Spall in Branaugh’s Love’s Labours Lost can show). To me, it’s just annoying. Like Jar-Jar Binks annoying.

Paul Sorvino is underutilized as Capulet, and also crippled with a fake accent. I like the idea that Capulet’s a drunk, though. I think that really works.

I like Harold Perrineau as Mercutio. He doesn’t have the unpredictable rage you see in John McEnery, or the mischievousness anger of Robin Nedwell, but those are hard to pull off. His Mercutio is over-the-top in everything he does - over-the-top joy, over-the-top anger. In a film where everything is over-the-top, it works. Also, if you’re like me, you keep thinking “That’s Michael from Lost! Let’s hope this ends better for him….”

Claire Danes does OK as Juliet. She’s not spectacular, but she does alright.

I remember when this came out I was very excited that there was a new production of Romeo and Juliet that was directed at people my age and younger. When I saw it, I thought it was excellent. That was nearly 20 years ago. The shock value has worn off. The energy of the production seems misdirected. The concept seems misguided. I mean, Yes, you can do Romeo and Juliet like this, but should you?

I still think the Post-Haste Dispatch is hilarious, though. I wish I’d thought of that.

This production currently ranks as my third favorite Romeo and Juliet.

Here’s the overall ranking so far:

Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Joan Kemp-Welch. Perf. Christopher Neame, Ann Hasson, and Robin Nedwell. Thames Television, 1976. DVD, A&E Television Networks, 2005.

Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Franco Zeffirelli. Perf. Leonard Whiting, Olivia Hussey, and John McEnery. 1968. netflix.com, 19 SEP 2013.

Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Baz Luhrmann. Perf. Leonardo DiCaprio, Claire Danes, and Harold Perrineau. 1996. DVD, Twentieth Century Fox, 2007.

Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Alvin Rakoff. Perf. Patrick Ryecart, Rebecca Saire, and Anthony Andrews. 1978. DVD, Ambrose, 2000.

Romeo and Juliet. Chor. Kenneth MacMillan. Perf. Angel Corella, Alessandra Ferri, and Michele Villanova. Teatro Alla Scala, Milan, JAN 2000. DVD, Euroarts, 2002.

Shakespeare Series: Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Larry Sullivan. Perf. Alex Hyde-White, Blanche Baker, and Dan Hamilton. Shakespeare Video Society, 1982. Amazon.com, 15 AUG 2013.

Romeo and Juliet Part 5: Zeffirelli

If you are had a high school English class that covered Shakespeare, you have probably seen this film. It is by far the most popular version of Romeo and Juliet ever produced. You can find it on Netflix. You can stream it on Amazon (for a fee). You can borrow the DVD from Minerva (in Maine). You can go into my cellar and find it on VHS. It’s everywhere.

There’s a lot to love about this movie. The language is beautiful (I mean, it’s Shakespeare), the cast is charming and attractive, the sets and locations are amazing, and Nino Rota’s score is spot-on.

The fight scenes are excellent. You can tell that Tybalt and Mercutio are just horsing around, even if Romeo can’t, and in the Romeo–Tybalt fight, the blind rage is palpable. Extremely well-executed.

Olivia Hussey is probably the best Juliet ever. Ann Hasson is awesome in the role, but Olivia Hussey is better.

Here’s the thing about setting Romeo and Juliet in a “real” Verona: Romeo and Juliet is a completely unbelievable story. The rules of society, place, and psychology all make a kind of sense within the story, but they don’t make any sense in any other reality. For example, that Romeo and Juliet would go from complete strangers to madly in love in mere moments. That they would go from madly in love to married to dead in less than a week. That Friar Lawrence would agree to marry two underage kids who met the night before and talked for fifteen minutes or so, and that he would agree to do this without their parents’ consent. That nobody would ask “How does a 14-year-old get ahold of a bottle of poison?” The audience has to suspend a lot of disbelief to make all this happen. The closer it gets to a real place, the harder that becomes. Shakespeare was writing for a blank stage that could represent any place or time. His audience was a bunch of Londoners who may have travelled as far as the countryside. A few of them had been to sea, and might have been to Italy or other countries, but to most of them Verona was as alien as the moon or Metebelis III, so they would be disposed to believe that people in this strange place would  behave strangely. So, beautiful as the locations are, I think they actually  take away from the film.

A bigger problem is the soundtrack. The audio is obviously dubbed. Mouths aren’t always exactly in sync with the voices, and the volume and clarity of the voices doesn’t match the images on the screen. The actor’s delivery is perfect, it just feels like the audio is coming through a wormhole. I looked this up online, and according to IMDB.com, the cameras that they used were so loud that they could be heard on the soundtrack, so it all had to be dubbed. I find it very distracting. 

Also, the hair. Capulet’s hair and Friar Lawrence’s hair: They look like wigs. It’s OK to use wigs, as long as they don’t look like wigs. These look like wigs. I know, it’s not a big thing, but it bothers me. If you’re going for realistic, look realistic.

Despite these minor complaints, this is an outstanding production of Romeo and Juliet. As Zeffirelli’s Shakespeare movies go, I think it’s the best. If I were a high school teacher, I’d probably show this one to my class. For one thing, it’s got a little bit of nudity. That always keeps the kids interested. (According to imdb.com, Franco Zeffirelli had to get special permission to show Olivia Hussey topless, even for just a second, because she was only 15 at the time of filming. Leonard Whiting’s bottom, on the other hand, wasn’t a problem because he was 17 and perfectly legal under UK and Italian law. The story that Olivia Hussey couldn’t attend the opening because she was too young to see a film with (her own) nudity in it is a myth.)

For me, though, I still prefer the 1976 Thames Television production. 

This production currently ranks as my second favorite Romeo and Juliet.

Here’s the overall ranking so far:

Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Joan Kemp-Welch. Perf. Christopher Neame, Ann Hasson, and Robin Nedwell. Thames Television, 1976. DVD, A&E Television Networks, 2005.

Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Franco Zeffirelli. Perf. Leonard Whiting, Olivia Hussey, and John McEnery. 1968. netflix.com, 19 SEP 2013.

Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Alvin Rakoff. Perf. Patrick Ryecart, Rebecca Saire, and Anthony Andrews. 1978. DVD, Ambrose, 2000.

Romeo and Juliet. Chor. Kenneth MacMillan. Perf. Angel Corella, Alessandra Ferri, and Michele Villanova. Teatro Alla Scala, Milan, JAN 2000. DVD, Euroarts, 2002.

Shakespeare Series: Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Larry Sullivan. Perf. Alex Hyde-White, Blanche Baker, and Dan Hamilton. Shakespeare Video Society, 1982. Amazon.com, 15 AUG 2013.

Book Review: Kenneth S. Rothwell’s A History of Shakespeare on Screen

When I started this project, I thought I knew all I needed to know to write intelligently about Shakespeare films. I had taken classes in Shakespeare and screenwriting in college, I’ve read all the Shakespeare plays, I’ve listened to them as audioplays, I’ve seen many of them on film, and I’ve been watching movies since I was a toddler.

I have quickly learned how wrong I was! First, I need to study up on Shakespeare. I need to read every book I can find about Shakespeare’s life, Shakespeare criticism, the world of Shakespeare, everything Shakespeare.

Second, I know almost nothing about film studies. There’s way more to it than I thought. Rothwell often alludes to the “grammar of film,” which is something I hadn’t really thought about before. I knew there were visual cues that are used to evoke moods and attitudes, and thereby tell the story, but I had never really thought about them very much. Rothwell points them out, but as his book is not an intro to film studies, he doesn’t go very far into them. I need to learn more. 

Rothwell is not a fan of films that are adaptations of stage performances. His ideal is a story that must be told in film, using the grammar of film and images and sounds that would be impossible to reproduce in any other medium. I don’t really know what he’s talking about. I grew up watching Doctor Who episodes from the 1970’s and then reading the novelizations of the same stories. Yes, I loved the sounds and images I saw on TV, but the sound and visual effects were always better in the novels. I’ve seen movie versions of books that had better acting than the novel, but I’ve never seen one with better special effects. I need to learn more about this film-centered aesthetic.

You could design a drinking game around Professor Rothwell’s mentions of Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky, and the phrase “tickling commodity.” Alexander Nevsky is apparently the archetype of films with Medieval battle scenes with horses. I’m not all that versed in Soviet-era (or any other era) Russian films, so I’ll have to take his word for it (I requested a copy from Minerva. It’s on its way). “Tickling commodity” is his code for the fact that it costs money to make a film, and if a movie doesn’t make money, similar movies will not be made. One of my favorite podcasts is the Reduced Shakespeare Company’s Podcast. It’s a little bit about Shakespeare, a fair amount about comedy, and a lot about how to make a living in theater. The hosts are witty and the podcast is almost always interesting or at least not too long. One of the points they’ve made on numerous occasions is that the reason it’s called “Show Business” is that without the show, there’s no business, and without the business, there’s no show. The two are always in tension, but you can’t have one without the other. It’s a good podcast. You should give it a listen.

I never like being informed of my on ignorance. I do know a lot of stuff, after all. In a lot of circles, I’m a Shakespeare expert, and in some I’m even a film expert. Professor Rothwell has shown me that I don’t know half as much as I thought. I’ll admit that it’s discouraging. But I’m not going to give up. I now have some introductions to film studies on my bookshelf, and I’m sure the library has even more on their shelves. I’m only 1/4 of the way through the plays. I have much more to learn, many more books to read, many more films to see.

For now, I have to go watch Alexander Nevsky.

Who-induced Hiatus

Hi, all, 

I currently have two posts in the works, and they promise to be good ones: the Zeffirelli Romeo and Juliet, and the Luhrman Romeo + Juliet. They're taking me a bit of time to write. Also, I'm almost done with Kenneth Rockwell's book "A History of Shakespeare on Film," which I plan to review for the blog too.

The big holdup, though, is that the 50th Anniversary Episode of Doctor Who is coming out this month. I'm trying to re-watch seasons 6 and 7 in preparation.

I'll post before then if I can, but don't expect too much for a little while.

New (well, mostly used) Shakespeare Paraphernalia!

Here's some Shakespeare stuff that arrived this week! I'll add them to my sources list as soon as I get around to it.

Romeo and Juliet Part 4 - Rakoff

Remember what I said a few weeks ago about how hard it is to cast Juliet? I said something about how hard it would be to find a teenage actress to play such a difficult role. According to imdb.com, Rebecca Saire was only fifteen when she played Juliet in the 1978 BBC production, and she did a great job. She wasn’t perfect - she’s no Ann Hasson, for my money - but she did a really impressive job with the role.

The problem with this production wasn’t the acting, (although I don’t like Anthony Andrews as Mercutio. His twitchy style makes it look like Mercutio is snorting coke offstage). The problem is the lighting. My high school drama coach used to say of theater, “Without lights, this is called radio,” which is OK, just not what I’m looking for. I get that they may have been going for a “darker” version of the play, but still, when Mercutio is giving the Queen Mab speech, or Juliet is talking to Romeo from the balcony, the audience wants to see them act, which means you don’t let their faces go into shadow. I know great lighting can’t fix bad acting, but in this case there was good acting being ruined by bad lighting. Very disappointing.

Here are some more of my notes from this production:

• Jacqueline Hill (played Barbara Wright in the first few seasons of Doctor Who back in the 1960’s) is my Fantasy Shakespeare League pick for Lady Capulet.
• John Savident kills the role of Friar John. This is a nothing role. He gets one scene where he spouts an explanation for why Romeo didn’t get the message about Juliet faking her death. Savident is a breath of fresh air, turning the role in to some desperately needed comic relief. He’s my FSL pick for Friar John every time.
• They cut the “Poor John” joke from ACT I Scene 1. It’s the best joke in the play, and they cut it.

This production currently ranks as my second favorite Romeo and Juliet.

Here’s the overall ranking so far:

1. Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Joan Kemp-Welch. Perf. Christopher Neame, Ann Hasson, and Robin Nedwell. Thames Television, 1976. DVD, A&E Television Networks, 2005.
2. Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Alvin Rakoff. Perf. Patrick Ryecart, Rebecca Saire, and Anthony Andrews. 1978. DVD, Ambrose, 2000.
3. Romeo and Juliet. Chor. Kenneth MacMillan. Perf. Angel Corella, Alessandra Ferri, and Michele Villanova. Teatro Alla Scala, Milan, JAN 2000. DVD, Euroarts, 2002.
4. Shakespeare Series: Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Larry Sullivan. Perf. Alex Hyde-White, Blanche Baker, and Dan Hamilton. Shakespeare Video Society, 1982. Amazon.com, 15 AUG 2013.

Romeo and Juliet Part 3 - MacMillan

I’ll be the first to admit that my qualifications for this project are, shall we say, dubious. Basically, I have a library card, an Amazon Prime subscription, and an interest in the subject. When it comes to critiquing ballet I’m way beyond my depth, so I’ll try not to make a fool of myself.

Ballet on screen is very different from ballet on stage, even though this is a filmed recording of a stage production. A few years ago, I went to Boston with my family and a number of my sisters to see the Boston Ballet Company production of Swan Lake. To do that, we had to order ballet tickets, order train tickets, and make plans for supper in the city. Before any of that, we had to decide that we were going to go to the ballet and that this was a valuable experience for us. My point is that we were invested in the theater experience before we even left home. We wanted to live this experience and we wanted it to move us in some way. What’s more, the performers on stage and in the orchestra pit were invested, too. At any point in the show, any one of the ballerinas could have said to themselves, “My toes hurt. I’m hungry. To hell with this, I’m going back to waitressing at Denny’s: the pay was better, and I’d get to wear comfortable shoes.” 

This production of Romeo and Juliet is probably as good a ballet as you’re going to find. Angel Corella is amazing as the crazy-in-love Romeo. Alessandra Ferri makes mind-bending moves look incredibly easy as Juliet. Michele Villanova as Mercutio has one of the best deaths of any Mercutio I’ve seen so far. Gianni Ghisleni is a great, villainous Tybalt. The score is a classic by Sergei Prokofiev.

Making it look easy is the most impressive aspect of ballet, as far as I’m concerned. I can’t imagine the amount of practice and dedication that goes in to ballet. As I say, I am far beyond my depth on this one. 

If you only have time to watch one version of Romeo and Juliet, you probably shouldn’t go for this one, but I would encourage you to put this on your list to watch. The power of ballet isn’t in its ability to tell a story (because if you don’t know the story already, you’ll be pretty lost), but in the way it conveys the emotions of a story. That power is why I currently rank this as my second-favorite Romeo and Juliet.

Here’s the overall ranking so far:

1. Romeo & Juliet. Dir. Joan Kemp-Welch. Perf. Christopher Neame, Ann Hasson, and Robin Nedwell. Thames Television, 1976. DVD, A&E Television Networks, 2005.
2. Romeo and Juliet. Chor. Kenneth MacMillan. Perf. Angel Corella, Alessandra Ferri, and Michele Villanova. Teatro Alla Scala, Milan, JAN 2000. DVD, Euroarts, 2002.
3. Shakespeare Series: Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Larry Sullivan. Perf. Alex Hyde-White, Blanche Baker, and Dan Hamilton. Shakespeare Video Society, 1982. Amazon.com, 15 AUG 2013.

Romeo and Juliet Part 2 - Kemp-Welch

If you only have time to watch one Romeo and Juliet, this would be a good one to watch. Excellent directing. Excellent acting. Even the fights are believable.

Produced by Thames Television in 1976, and directed by Joan Kemp-Welch, this version is as good a Romeo and Juliet as I expect to see. 

I don’t know how old Ann Hasson was in 1976. IMDB.com has no biographical information about her, and if she wants her privacy, that’s fine. She looks to me to have been in her early twenties, but she easily passes as thirteen. If there were a Fantasy Shakespeare League, I would have her on my team to play Juliet. Her performance is excellent. Casting Juliet is a huge problem. For one thing, Shakespeare makes it clear that she’s thirteen years old - almost fourteen - and (at the beginning of the play) thinks of herself as a child. So obviously, you should cast a child actress. But good luck finding one that can play this role! Shakespeare, of course, was writing it for a teenage boy, but that’s neither here nor there. By the end of the play at least, Shakespeare wrote Juliet so that you could believe her to be anywhere from seventeen to twenty-two. I suspect most casting directors look for an actress in her early twenties and hope that the audience will play along and believe that she could be thirteen. Ann Hasson pulled it off. If you want to know how to play Juliet, watch Ann Hasson. 

(By the way, based on her performance in True Grit, I have high hopes for Hailee Steinfeld, who will be seen as Juliet in a Romeo and Juliet scheduled to be in theaters in October 2013. Here’s the trailer: http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3520702745/.)

Christopher Neame is a very active Romeo. Unlike Alex Hyde-White, he understood the words coming out of his mouth. He and David Robb (Tybalt) appear in the special features discussing their memories of the production. Apparently they were in school with Robin Nedwell (who kills it as Mercutio) and fight coordinator William Hobbs. 

I also gave to mention the excellent performances of Clive Swift as Friar Lawrence (who you’ll recognize from at least two appearances on Doctor Who) and Patsy Byrne, who is now my Fantasy Shakespeare League Nurse. You’ll recognize her from playing essentially the same character in Blackadder II.

This production currently ranks as my favorite Romeo and Juliet.

Here’s the overall ranking so far:

1. Romeo & Juliet. Dir. Joan Kemp-Welch. Perf. Christopher Neame, Ann Hasson, and Robin Nedwell. Thames Television, 1976. DVD, A&E Television Networks, 2005.
2. Shakespeare Series: Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Larry Sullivan. Perf. Alex Hyde-White, Blanche Baker, and Dan Hamilton. Shakespeare Video Society, 1982. Amazon.com, 15 AUG 2013.

Romeo and Juliet Part 1 - Sullivan

Yes! Now we’re in to the good stuff! Romeo and Juliet is one of Shakespeare’s great plays, a true classic. It has been filmed many times and adapted to many different forms, including cartoons, ballets, and Broadway musicals. 

Only one of these is available to stream on Amazon Prime. It was filmed in 1982 by an operation called “Bard Productions, LLC” for the Shakespeare Video Society. It stars Alex Hyde-White as Romeo, Blanche Baker as Juliet, and Esther Rolle as the Nurse. 

The entire play (except possibly Friar Lawrence’s cell and the cemetery) is shot on one set, dressed as a marketplace, or an orchard, or Capulet's home, etc. The costumes appear to be a 1980s take on what Elizabethan Englishmen would have expected Italians to wear. The men are all wearing skin-tight leggings with contrasting codpieces that I have to mention because I found them very distracting (Dude! Put it away already! Get some pants, or maybe a kilt or something. Maybe a longer shirt!). Perhaps the ladies will appreciate it more than I did.

At the time this was made, Esther Rolle was probably the biggest name on the cast list due to her work on TV sitcoms. I liked her as the Nurse. The role appears to have been a little bit of a challenge for her, but her comic acting ability still shows through. Unfortunately she’s almost always stuck in scenes with Blanche Baker as Juliet. Baker seems to have learned her lines a few minutes before filming. Phonetically. Her Juliet is blank - expressionless - trancelike. She is so boring to watch, I had to start entertaining myself by watching for the shadow of the boom mic at the top of the screen. 

The redeeming star of this production is Dan Hamilton as Mercutio. I tend to think of Mercutio as a blowhard added for comic relief who gets one good speech and then dies. Dan Hamilton’s Mercutio is way more than this. There’s a deep backstory to this Mercutio. This Mercutio is a guy who’s been hurt by love. He’s angry, he’s itching for a fight, and he can’t help but use his natural charm and wit to diffuse what’s seething inside him. Your typical Mercutio steals a scene from Romeo. This Mercutio steals the entire production. 

Since this is the first Romeo and Juliet I’ve watched for this project, it is, by default, the best so far. I expect it to sink pretty quickly.

Here’s the ranking:

1: Dir. Larry Sullivan. Perf. Alex Hyde-White, Blanche Baker, and Dan Hamilton. Shakespeare Video Society, 1982. Amazon.com, 15 AUG 2013.

Love's Labour's Lost Part 2 - Branaugh

Ever wonder what it would have been like if, instead of writing for the London stage in the late 1500s/early 1600s, Shakespeare had been writing musicals in the 1930s? Me neither. But one man has chosen to answer this question: Kenneth Branaugh.

Usually Branaugh’s approach to Shakespeare (and yes, I’ll get to his Henry V and Hamlet in due course) is fairly conventional. He’s just not a big risk-taker. So it’s a bit of a surprise that he would take the leap to make a Shakespeare Musical. And he mostly hired the right cast: Alicia Silverstone makes a great princess, Richard Briars has to be in all Branaugh’s Shakespeare movies (I think there’s a contract or something), and if you’re doing a musical, you want to hire Nathan Lane. Lane would make an awesome Don Adriano, but that role inexplicably went to Timothy Spall, who you’ll recognize as Peter Pettigrew from the Harry Potter movies. Nathan Lane ends up playing Costard, who is morphed from a country bumpkin (probably what Shakespeare meant by “clown”) to an obnoxious travelling vaudevillian.

Here are some quick notes I made while I was watching this:

• Branaugh is getting a little long in the tooth to play a romantic lead.
• Alicia Silverstone has an amazingly expressive face, and appears to understand what she’s saying (not a given in Shakespeare movies!).
• Dear Mr. Spall: TURN IT DOWN!
• Cut the “I Get a Kick Out of You” number.
• Cut the synchronized swimming number.
• Richard Clifford is a great Boyet. Give us more Boyet!
• It would be interesting to see what Baz Lurhman would have done with this.

If I had seen this in the theater, I would have been disappointed by the absence of The Pagent of the Nine Worthies scene. Since that’s usually the best part of the play, I’m glad they included it in the bonus features. This cast actually didn’t do this scene very well, so I understand why most of it was cut, but I would rather they had reshot it with some better ideas. This might be all the proof you need that comedy is actually harder than tragedy.

It’s one of Shakespeare’s comedies: It’s not that good to begin with, so while you could make it awesome, you can’t really ruin it.

Love's Labour's Lost Part 1 - Moshinsky

I found two versions of Love’s Labour’s Lost were available to me. This post is about the 1985 BBC/Time Life production directed by Elijah Moshinsky.

The play is one of Shakespeare’s Stupid Comedies. The Idiotic King of Navarre decides to take three years off from being king (I guess Navarre pretty much runs itself) to study with three of his friends. In order to concentrate on their studies, they will eat very little, sleep very little, and stay away from women. Somehow this moron has forgotten that a Princess is due to arrive on an official visit, and that she is a woman. The four friends immediately have to break their agreement, meet the princess and her ladies, and fall madly in love. Idiotic comedy ensues, and we’re supposed to pretend it makes sense.

The BBC/Time Life production is set in the 1700s, so there are lots of wigs and lots of powder. The silly costumes work very well with the stupidity of the play.

The shining light of this production is David Warner, best known as the Cardassian who tortured Jean-Luc Picard in season 6 of Star Trek: The Next Generation (http://youtu.be/o_eSwq1ewsU). He is absolutely brilliant as Don Adriano, and plays the love-sick Spanish knight-errant with such realism that he seems to be in a different play. Don Adriano is pretty much the same character as Sir Eglamore from The Two Gentlemen of Verona, so it may be that the Lord Chamberlain’s Men had an actor who was really good in that kind of role (or the audiences were shouting for more Sir Eglamore).

The play breaks down into two ensembles: The Nobles Ensemble, and the far more compelling Villagers Ensemble, comprising Costard, Moth, Dull, Holophrenes, the Curate, Don Adriano de Armado, and Jaquenetta. Holophrenes must be Shakespeare’s parody of every self-important school master he’d ever known. The audience soon learns to cringe when he appears.

In the Pageant of the Nine Worthies scene, the Villagers put on a show for the Nobles. This scene is crucial to the play.  Shakespeare directly compares the two ensembles and all but asks the audience to judge between the two: The Country Bumpkins present noble archetypes from history to the educated nobility, who heckle them mercilessly. The Nobles show poor manners, and the Villagers stand for their own dignity and honor. 

Shakespeare could have written out at least one, but better two each of the King’s men and the Princess’ ladies. If you have Longueville, you’ve pretty much got the same character as Dumaine, and if you have Maria, you’ve pretty much got Katherine. In my opinion, you’re better off without any of them.

Oh, and you’ll recognize Valentine Dyall, who has the walk-on role of Mercade. He played the Black Guardian on Doctor Who back in the 1980s (http://youtu.be/40FQXpJlFiY). He had an amazing voice.

The Two Gentlemen of Verona

Many people think this could have been Will’s first play, and you can tell why. It moves like a beginner play, with long passages that feel like they’re treading water until a good bit comes along. If you were to cut this play down to just the good bits, though, you’d leave out the entire plot line and most of the characters. Actually, you’d probably leave out everything but Launce’s monologue about his dog and Sir Eglamore’s two scenes.

The central conflict of the play could be the question of whether a man's friend is more important than his girlfriend. Or it might be about the importance of being true to your word. Take your pick. The play seems to flail around for a point of focus, and never seems to find one. Proteus (one of the two gentlemen) ditches his girlfriend and double-crosses his best friend for the sake of a woman who has no interest in him whatsoever. All the main characters end up miserable for a while, and then when the play’s gone on long enough, there’s suddenly a resolution where everyone’s happy. 

The BBC/Time Life version of the play does little to improve it. The cast is OK but not great, and the director’s vision simply wasn’t up to the task of making this play enjoyable. Launce and his dog are funny, the other servant is obnoxious, and the cheap sets often make as much noise as the dialogue. I wish the disc had included captions.

The bright light of this production is Frank Barrie who plays Sir Eglamore gloriously over-the top. He spends way too little time on screen, and is in my opinion, the best character in the play.

I wasn’t able to find another recording of The Two Gentlemen of Verona in Minerva or on Amazon. I listened to the Arkangel audio play many years ago, but I don’t feel the need to listen to again.

It appears there was a musical stage version in the early 1970’s starring Raul Julia. I couldn’t find any evidence that it was filmed, and I couldn’t find it online or on Minerva. It would be interesting to see someday. 

The Taming of the Shrew - McLintock!

Minerva listed this as a retelling of The Taming of the Shrew. I would say that elements of this movie were inspired by Taming, most prominently the female protagonist’s name and the spousal bickering. Other than that, the two have nothing at all in common.

I’ll start out by saying that I did not enjoy this movie. Yes, John Wayne is an American film legend. Yes, he worked well with Maureen O’Hara in two other movies. But McLintock!, for me, fell flat.

Basically, John Wayne is McLintock, a cattle baron who was instrumental in kicking the Comanche off the land, but who is now respected by just about everyone. McLintock is a frontier ubermensch in a world where a man’s worth is based on his ability to punch another man in the face. Education is valued only if book learning was balanced by boxing. Maureen O’Hara is his wife, Katherine, who left him two years ago when he came home from a business trip with lipstick on his collar. He either cannot or chooses not to satisfactorily explain this. Instead he spanks her until she stops asking questions about it.

Shakespeare thought misogyny was hilarious - the central theme of The Taming of the Shrew is that uppity women need to be put in their place - and in general we’re willing to cringe a bit and forgive him because it was 400 years ago and we can congratulate ourselves on having come a long way. Violence against women just isn’t funny anymore. 

Racism isn’t funny either. McLintock! hopes to make us laugh through its portrayal of Native Americans as dangerous alcoholic thieves. It doesn’t work. Neither does the sterotypical portrayal of the McLintock’s Asian cook.

The GoodTimes DVD is of very poor quality. It looks like it’s a copy of a copy of a burned-out VHS tape copied from a worn-out film copy. They really need to go back to the original master (if it’s available) to make a good DVD. It turns out it is also available on Amazon Prime. I watched a few minutes for comparison, and the video quality wasn't any better. You can also find it on YouTube. Given the poor quality of the transfer, I can't even compliment the cinematography.

In fact, I can’t really say anything positive about this movie. If you are looking for a disappointing experience that will kill about two hours, go ahead and watch McLintock!. Otherwise, watch something else. Anything else.