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

A Julie Taymor Midsummer Night's Dream? With Vinnie DelPino?

Here's a trailer for a film of A Midsummer Night's Dream directed by Julie Taymor and starring (among other people) Max Casella, who played Vinnie DelPino on Doogie Howser, MD.

According to IMDB, it's already been screened in Canada, so it hopefully won't be too long before I can find it here in the States. Taymor's productions always leave me uncomfortable, but her tendency toward dark, playful mischief-making should fit very will with A Midsummer Night's Dream. I can't wait.

A Midsummer Night's Dream - The Clock That Roared

It could be that I’m not being fair to Elijah Moshinsky. I didn’t like his Love’s Labours Lost, but that’s a hard play to do well. A Midsummer Night’s Dream is an entirely different play, with an entirely different cast, and Moshinsky had more television experience, so I should watch this with as little prejudice as I can.

But the problems start in the first scene. Except for Pippa Guard, none of these actors seem to have any idea that this is a comedy. There’s very little movement. The laugh lines fall flat. It’s more like a read-through than a staged performance. But that’s not the worst thing: Somewhere, there’s a clock. I don’t think it appears on screen, so if you watch with the sound off, you won’t notice it. Turn the sound back on, and it’s the loudest thing in the room! Maybe I’m missing something. Maybe there’s some sort of theme about time, and the regular, steady passage of time in the “real world” environment of Athens that contrasted with the flexible time of the “fantasy world” of the forest (Isaac Asimov made much of this in Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare). Maybe they were planning to put some contrasting elements in the forest scenes and they got cut. Maybe they did put them in, and I’m not clever enough to have noticed them. Maybe the sound technician should have moved the microphone away from the clock. Maybe some production assistant wound the clock after the sound check but before they started filming. Regardless, the clock is quickly established as the star, and upstages all the actors (including Estelle Koehler as Hippolyta, Nigel Davenport as Theseus, Geoffrey Lumsden as Egeus, Nicky Henson and Robert Lindsay as Demetrius and Lysander, and Cherith Mellor and Pippa Guard as Helena and Hermia). There’s supposed to be some funny stuff in Act I, scene 1, but the delivery here is so flat, bland, and overpowered by the clock, that you would never know it. Pippa Guard tries her best, but it’s like she’s in a different play.

Once the characters get out of Athens, things immediately start looking up. Brian Glover is hilarious. He’s the best Bottom I’ve seen so far. In fact, this ensemble of “Rude Mechanicals,” with Geoffrey Palmer as Peter Quince, John Fowler as Flute, Don Estelle as Starveling, Nat Jackley as Snout, and Ray Mort as Snug, is the best I’ve watched for this project. This is worth watching just for them.

But there’s more. Peter McEnery is spot-on as Oberon (according to IMDB he’s the older brother of John McEnery, who was Mercutio in the Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet), and he has to be, because he’s playing opposite the perfect-in-every-way Helen Mirren as Titania. Yes, she’s even better in the role than the great Judi Dench. Let that sink in for a minute.

I also want to mention Phil Daniels who makes an excellent Puck. Creepy. Weird. Funny. Exactly right. (I couldn’t find any evidence of this anywhere, so include your own grain of salt, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s somehow related to Anthony Daniels of C-3PO fame.)

Oh, and you’ll recognize Hugh Quarshie (Philostrate). He played Captain Panaka in the Star Wars prequels, he was one of the immortals in the original Highlander, and he was in the Doctor Who episodes “Evolution of the Daleks” and “Daleks in Manhattan.”

Do the excellent performances of the Fairies and Rude Mechanicals make up for the disappointing Athenians and the sound and lighting problems? I think they do, but I really wish they didn’t have to. It must be possible to focus on the comedy, timing, character, and motivations of this play (such as in the 1968 RSC production) and also have excellent lighting, sound, and special effects (such as in the 1935 Max Reinhardt version). I haven’t found it yet. For now, I recommend this version, but I’m still hoping to find something better.

I have to rate this one as my second-favorite Midsummer Night’s Dream. Here’s my current hierarchy:

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.

2.    Midsummer Night's Dream. Dir. Elijah Moshinsky. Perf. Helen Mirren, Peter McEnery, and Pippa Guard. 1981. DVD. Ambrose, 2000 or 2001.

3.     Midsummer Night's Dream. Dir. Peter Hall. Perf. Helen Mirren, Diana Rigg, and Ian Richardson. 1968. DVD. Water Bearer, 2004.

Another Richard II: The Royal Shakespeare Company - With David Tennant!

I'm taking a little break from A Midsummer Night's Dream because the DVD of the RSC production of David Tennant in Richard II arrived a while back, and I'm not going to wait any longer to watch it. And it's Richard II! My favorite Shakespearean history! And it has David Tennant! I might get my wife to watch this!

I think it's hard for David Tennant to shake his Doctor Who character, and Richard probably isn't the role to use to break out of that stereotype. I think it would be great to see him as Richard III, or Edmund from King Lear. In this production, though, David Tennant sort of finds one note and sticks with it. It's a good note, but he is capable of so much more.

This Richard II is a filmed theater production. The actors are on a thrust stage in front of a proscenium. There are also ramps for actors to enter and exit in the front corners, and musicians are high above the audience on the sides. Lighting effects and an occasional chair fill in for scenery. The audience surrounds the stage on three sides, and appears to have been coached to keep still and keep quiet. The setup is actually not too far off from the Blackfriars stage that the Lord Chamberlain’s Men would have used, although I believe they were mostly working at The Globe when Richard was probably written. I’ll let that go, though. Richard II was a politically very dangerous play to put on at all. It’s reasonable to think that it was too hot to be shown a The Globe, but may have been performed more often indoors, by request, at Blackfriars.

So how did it turn out? Well, not bad. Richard II will never be a comedy, but Shakespeare wrote in a few good jokes here and there, and even the heavier dramatic scenes have at least a few laughs thrown in to cut the tension. This production is so serious that the audience is ready to jump on any opportunity for a little giggle. The appearance is that everyone knows who the star is, and nobody’s going to get in his way. Nigel Lindsay is appropriately bland and masculine as Bolingbroke. Michael Pennington is no John Gielgud or Patrick Stewart, but he still makes a solidly good John of Gaunt. Emma Hamilton does what she can as the Queen. Oliver Rix is given a bit more meat to chew on as Aumerle. You might recognize Oliver Ford Davies from his role as Naboo politician Sio Bibble in the Star Wars prequels. It’s pretty much the same role, just with better writing.

This is not my favorite Richard II. I enjoyed it. David Tennant is always worth watching (even when he’s letting his hair extensions do most of the work). But I was left with the feeling that I really wanted to re-watch the Hollow Crown version, and I’d still like to see all of the Mark Rylance Globe version. If you need a version to watch for a class, this will do nicely (but stick through to the end, or you’ll get an F on your paper!). If you are a teacher and need a Richard II to show your class, try to get your hands on the Mark Rylance version.

Here's the RSC Website, where you can find all sorts of cool stuff: http://www.rsc.org.uk/whats-on/richard-ii/

Here's a clip from the deposition scene:

A Midsummer Night's Dream part 2: The Royal Shakespeare Company 1968

Dear lord, this is a dream cast!

Helen Mirren.

Diana Rigg.

Judi Dench.

Ian Richardson (the guy from the original British House of Cards).

Ian Holm (Bilbo from Lord of the Rings).

David Warner (best known as the Cardassian who tortured Picard).

Clive Swift (Friar Lawrence in the Thames Television/Ann Hasson Romeo and Juliet. He’s also been on Doctor Who twice, I believe).

There will never be a better Helena than Diana Rigg. She’s perfect. She understands every line, every motivation. If you’ve been cast as Helena, watch Diana Rigg. Or maybe don’t. You’ll lose hope.

Helen Mirren is incapable of putting out a bad performance, and she absolutely rocks as Hermia.

If the chemistry between Ian Richardson and Judi Dench (as Oberon and Titania) doesn’t make you blush, their costumes might.

Ian Holm is suitably weird as Puck.

The tragedy of this production is that in contrast to the extremely high quality acting, it appears to have been directed, filmed, and edited by a team of college freshmen taking Filmmaking 100 as an elective.

Tracking shots are hand-held. In the 1935 Max Reinhardt film, you can occasionally see rails on the ground behind James Cagney, which is a little cheesy, but in this one, Diana Rigg is looking straight at the camera, nailing Helena’s monologue, and the image you have is of the cameraman stumbling backwards across the field, desperately trying to point the lens in the right direction.

The splotchy green makeup is more reminiscent of Santa Claus Conquers the Martians than magical forest creatures.

The attempts at special effects are really really bad. I mean, my siblings did better with their production of Scrooge back in the early ‘70s. In fact, the production values of Scrooge compare well to this Midsummer Night’s Dream. Scrooge features characters appearing through jump-cuts. So does Midsummer Night’s Dream. Scrooge has scenes where the lights are pointed straight at the camera. So does Midsummer Night’s Dream. Scrooge has family members playing magical creatures. So does Midsummer Night’s Dream (Fairy and Peasblossom are played by Judi Dench’s nieces). The production team of Scrooge was amateurs aged 1-14. I can’t confirm that this is also true of the production team for Midsummer Night’s Dream, but the evidence on screen points in that direction. The only elements missing are double-exposed scenes and an interlude with the Memorial Day Parade.

So, no, I don’t recommend this version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, but if you have to watch it, I suggest you use the smallest screen you can find. The shaky hand-held shots would be bad enough, but it looks like in the transfer from film to DVD, the frames were dancing around, so even where they did use a tripod, the picture is still shaking and bouncing. It’s very distracting on a large screen, but if you shrink the image on your computer, or watch it on your phone, you might be able to get through it without Dramamine.

A Midsummer Night's Dream Part 1 - Max Reinhardt and William Dieterle,1935

There's so much that could be said about this movie, I can't even begin to cover it all. In the end, I'll probably end up preferring another Midsummer Night's Dream over this one, but I think I can say, right now, if you need to or want to watch a Midsummer Night's Dream, even if you watch another one, watch this one too. It's worth it.

Points in favor:

• This is an American film of an English play, directed by two Germans, featuring a Javanese/Danish ballerina, choreographed by a Russian.
• By 1935, special effects were pretty impressive, considering that most of them were done in the camera. The digital effects we see in today's films are (for me) no more believable than the state-of-the-art effects you will see in this. The creativity plus trial-and-error formula of the 1930's makes the 21st Century CGI effects look cheap and lazy by comparison.
• James Cagney as Bottom. Apparently, critics hated his performance back in the day (and there are valid points there, like he was too handsome, too Brooklyn, too, well, wrong for the part), but he committed to the role and made it pay off. Maybe not as Bottom, but certainly as Bottom playing Pyramus.
• Joe. E. Brown. You'll recognize him from Some Like it Hot. If you don't, put down the computer and go find a copy of Some Like it Hot, watch it, and come back. I can't imagine I will see a better Flute/Thisbe.
• Victor Jory as Oberon. Olivia de Haviland and Jane Muir as Helena and Hermia. Their readings of the script might not be perfect, but they do a great job of bringing the characters to life.

Points against:

• It's black and white, which isn't a problem for me, but may be a problem for some.
• I'm pretty good at the Willful Suspension of Disbelief thing, but the masks on the elves and gnomes are pretty bad.
• Mickey Rooney's obnoxious cackilng! Oy! According to the special features, Max Reinhardt loved the laugh Rooney developed for the audition, and this is what got him the part. I found it extremely irritating.

Watch this one a second time with the commentary on. It might not explain much about Shakespeare or A Midsummer Night's Dream, but you will learn quite a bit about cinema in the 1930's.

Happy Birthday to William Shakespeare

Today is probably William Shakespeare's 450th birthday, so as a Happy Birthday to William Shakespeare, here's a video of the Pyramus and Thisbe Scene from A Midsummer Night's Dream, performed by some young actors you may recognize. Enjoy.

The Richard II that Got Away

While I was writing my post about The Hollow Crown: Richard II, I stumbled on a YouTube video that turned out to be the best version of Richard II I've ever seen. The sets aren't lush, the costumes might be a bit over-the-top, and the acting might not always be perfect, but everything about the production is right. 

One catch, though: I can't watch the whole thing. It's not available in the US. Or anywhere, as far as I can tell.

The production I'm talking about is a stage production by Shakespeare's Globe that was apparently broadcast on the BBC in 2003 (Richard II / Shakespeare's Globe). Their website does offer DVDs of some of their shows, but not this one, which is tragic! I have a "Don't Spend Money" policy when it comes to this project (the only exceptions being my Netflix.com and Amazon Prime subscriptions), but this production is so far above all the others that I would totally pay to see it.

Here's the first YouTube clip, it's John McEnery (who you'll remember as Mercutio in Zefirelli's 1968 Romeo and Juliet) playing John of Gaunt:

In Shakespeare's time, the actor playing Gaunt wouldn't have had to worry about being heard over passing airplanes.

Here's Act  3, scene 2. Richard has returned from Ireland, and it's been slowly revealed to him that he's lost his kingdom. It was here that I realized what was missing from the other productions: The audience. English teachers often tell their students that Shakespeare plays were written not to be read in silence, but read aloud by actors. They're almost right. They were written to be acted in front of an interested and active audience. A loud audience, that's interacting and commenting on the action. This scene is usually presented as tragic and heartbreaking (and it is), but notice how many laughs Mark Rylance gets as Richard realizes there's nothing he can do:


Here's Act 3, Scene 3, the confrontation at Flint Castle:


Act 3, Scene 5. John McEnery reappears as the Gardnener. The queen and her lady-in-waiting are played by men. This is completely appropriate for Shakespeare's day, except that it's usually said that women were played by boys. At the time it was considered indecent in England for women to appear in stage, although standards were different in some parts of Europe:


Act 5, Scene 3. This scene has baffled me for some time. Presented in front of a live audience, with the Duchess of York played by a man, this scene makes sense - and it's hilarious:


Act 5, Scene 5. Richard is in prison, musing on his situation.


And here's the grand finale. This has to be my favorite part. Bolingbroke is already dealing with the difficulties of being king, putting down rebellions and buying loyalty where he can. But how do you end a tragedy? The hero, failed person that he was, is dead. The kingdom is probably in better hands, but there will be a price for Bolingbroke's treason, which will play out in the wars of Henry IV parts 1 & 2, Henry VI parts 1, 2, and 3, and finally be resolved in Richard III. But that's for another day. For now, let's have a silly curtain call and send the audience home happy:

Take a look on YouTube for more clips from this production. And keep checking Shakespeare's Globe. Someday they have to sell it on DVD. If I ever get to go to London, I don't care what's playing - I'm going to Shakespeare's Globe.

Bye, Mickey.

Stick with it through the first 3 minutes.

Mickey Rooney, Sept. 23, 1920 - April 6, 2014.

The Hollow Crown: Richard II

I've been trying to decide what I think about The Hollow Crown: Richard II. Compared to the other two Richard IIs, the production quality is way better. It's still made for TV, but it's made for 2012 HDTVs, not 1978 "Oh, you have color?" TVs. Much better. The casting is at least as good as the best  of the other two (Patrick Stewart as John of Gaunt - how can you go wrong?). The sets are more full and vivid. The costumes are entirely believable - they look like clothes people have actually worn. If you are a student of 1300s fashion or theatrical costuming, I suspect you will love this film (tell me in the comments if I'm wrong). The sound is impressive, too. Try to watch this on a TV with good bass response - you won't regret it.

Here's a clip from YouTube (the entire film might still be on PBS.com. I know you can find it in a boxed set on Amazon.com). This is the controversial Deposition Scene, which was banned for many years by the English government. Bolingbroke (played by Rory Kinnear, and usually shot so that he's tilted back and to his right - it reminds me of how the "villains lairs" on Batman were always filmed at an angle - and wearing a baffled expression) has outmaneuvered his cousin, King Richard II (played by Ben Whishaw), and while Bolingbroke is essentially king at this point, he needs Richard to go through the formality of turning over the crown.


So the production values are by far the best of the Richard IIs I've seen. Most of the shots appear to be filmed with the widest-angle lens possible, and the director, Rupert Goold, and director of photography Danny Cohen seem deeply enamored of extreme close-ups, so if you don't like the looks of Ben Whishaw's nostrils, you might find many segments difficult to watch. Also, perhaps due to their fascination with extremely small depths of field, it appears the actors have been told "OK, we have your ear in focus, now stand RIGHT THERE! DON'T MOVE FROM THAT SPOT!" Now, I get that the movie has no major battles, dance scenes, etc., but it's not just a story about people standing around talking. Or reaction shots of people staring blankly into space.

That said, the wide angles do emphasize the distance between the characters. The blank expressions could be an attempt at showing us that these characters are very serious, or perhaps that the characters are terrified of Richard's power. The long meditations on the sun dappling through leaves picks up on Shakespeare's metaphor of Richard as the sun setting as Bolingbroke's fortunes rise.

Here are a few more nitpicks:

• This play has five female characters. They cut two. Then they cut lines from Isabella and her maid. Now, in my head, I always imagine one of the maids to be Philippa Chaucer (you know, Geoffrey's wife. She was a lady-in-waiting to Queen Philippa of Hainault, Edward III's wife. Philippa Chaucer's sister was John of Gaunt's third wife, by the way, and Geoffrey held various posts under Edward III and Richard II, and his pension was continued by Henry IV, but may not have been paid. I always picture Geoffrey Chaucer in the background of John of Gaunt and Richard's scenes). Philippa probably died many years before the action of the play, but she would have been the older of the two ladies-in-waiting. They cut the part. (Here's a quick bio of Geoffrey Chaucer: http://www.poemhunter.com/geoffrey-chaucer/biography/)
• They also cut the entire scene between John of Gaunt and the Duchess of Gloucester (one of the five female characters), which explains the basic conflict of the play - that everyone thinks Richard had Thomas of Gloucester killed off by Mowbray. It may not be Shakespeare's best-written scene, but it does explain what's going on.

Enough of that.

Throughout the play, Richard compares himself to Jesus (no lack of ego there), but in this production, they've decided to draw a line from Richard to Saint Sebastian. I think it works really well, at least as far as visuals go. Richard is cut down by many faults, and Saint Sebastian was shot with so many Roman arrows that he looked like a sea urchin. The connection makes sense. Of course, Sebastian recovered and was finally martyred by being beaten to death and thrown in a privy, but you can't have everything.

I liked that they made Bushy an artist. Bagot, Bushy, and Green tend to be treated as interchangeable, and this made Bushy stand out. Bagot and Green are also surprisingly well-defined. That's the sort of thing that makes a film for me - it shows that there was thought and care put in to even the characters who barely appear. If only they'd come up with a way to do that with the Duchess of Gloucester and the second lady-in-waiting.

I ended up watching this three times, and my opinion improved each time. I think it would be my favorite version of Richard II, if it weren't for the one I'm going to write about in my next posting.

Richard II - The 1978 BBC/Time Life Version with Derek Jacobi

The 2014 Olympics are over, and I'm getting back into Shakespeare. I'll be putting up a few more posts about Richard II, then I'll be on to A Midsummer Night's Dream.

I've mentioned before that Richard II is my favorite of the history plays. The 1978 version with Derek Jacobi is part of the reason why. I don't remember which semester I took a Shakespeare class up at UMaine, but I do remember that I took seriously the concept that Shakespeare's plays were written to be performed and watched, not to be read. I found that Fogler Library had the complete works on VHS, and spent many hours in the media room watching these BBC/Time Life productions. Much as I'm doing now, I would do the assigned reading, and then watch the video.

Even if you've only seen a few Shakespeare films, you're probably familiar with Derek Jacobi. His work with Kenneth Branaugh includes appearing as the Chorus in Henry V  and Claudius in Hamlet. If you're a PBS viewer, you may also have seen him in I, Claudius on Masterpiece Theatre, and Cadfael on Mystery. Of his more recent work, my favorite is his appearance as the undertaker Mr. Ween in Emma Thompson's Nanny McPhee. You should check it out. He's hilarious. I think I had seen some of this before those long afternoons in the

Jacobi is great fun to watch as Richard. His voice is captivating. He's constantly twisting and turning his pitch and volume, so that even if you don't have any idea what he just said, you know that it sounded awesome. I know it's a cliche to say "I could listen to him read the phone book," but man, he would make the phone book sound amazing! This is perfect for the emotional, irrational Richard.  The problem is, that having seen Sir Derek in many many films and videos, it's hard to see him as Derek Jacobi playing Richard, instead of seeing him as Derek Jacobi as Derek Jacobi playing Richard. It feels like watching someone do a very good Derek Jacobi impression with all the lines drawn from Shakespeare.

The critical deposition scene comes out very well. It's very dark, just like the rest of the film. I don't know if it was a technological limitation (maybe the cameras they were using weren't very good, or the copies degraded over time) or an artistic choice, but the whole film is too dark. It might be they decided to save money on set dressing by putting most of the set in shadow, I don't know. Regardless, the heart of the deposition scene  is the contrast between the Bolingbroke and Richard. Bolingbroke is calm, and stoic, blandly putting up with his wildly emotional cousin. Richard is wallowing in self-pity, anger, and grief. That contrast, more than anything, makes this scene.

John Gielgud is John of Gaunt. That's really all I ought to have to say to get you to watch this.

Jon Finch makes a great Bolingbroke. He looks like a king, and is completely believable.

Charles Gray plays York. You will recognize him as the Criminologist from The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Mary Morris plays the Duchess of Gloucester. You'll recognize her from the 1982 Doctor Who episode Kinda.

You probably won't recognize Jeremy Bulloch from his most famous role. He plays Hotspur in Richard II, but he played Boba Fett in Return of the Jedi.

Please feel free to leave any questions or comments about this post. And please click one or two of the ads you see here. Google tosses me a few cents with every click, which makes me feel less guilty about all the time I'm spending on this project.

Thanks.

Richard II. Dir. David Giles. Perf. Derek Jacobi, John Gielgud, and Jon Finch. 1978. DVD, Ambrose, 2004.

Sorry no posts lately - the Olympics are on

Hi,

I spent a week or so reading about The Tragedy of Richard II, and I'm working on a post based on that, but I'm also working on a post about the BBC/Time-Life version starring Derek Jacobi, but the Olympics are on, and I only get to watch luge, bobsled, and curling every four years. The timing's not good. I'll be back in a few weeks with more Shakespeare stuff.

The Shakespeare Series: King Richard II

Richard II is my favorite of Shakespeare’s history plays. I’ll get in to why that is so in a later posting, but for now, I just want to point out that I might not be 100% objective about this one.

Amazon prime includes only one version of Richard II, and unfortunately, it is The Shakespeare Series: King Richard II directed by William Woodman for Bard Productions and The Shakespeare Video Society, the same outfit that brought us the dismal Romeo & Juliet directed by Larry Sullivan. At first, I thought this was going to be a reprise of that performance, as the boom microphone that improved so many of Juliet's scenes makes a brief appearance in Act I, scene 1 of Richard II.

Luckily, Woodman and stars David Birney (as Richard) and Paul Shenar (as Bolingbroke) managed to keep me entertained enough that if the boom appeared again, I didn't notice it. I love these two characters, and Birney and Shenar pulled them off beautifully. Richard is a vain, imperious, and ineffective king. Bolingbroke is laconic, calculating, and pragmatic. Richard is clearly unsuited to the responsibilities of power, and Bolingbroke is the perfect candidate to depose him.

As with all the Shakespeare Series productions I've seen, the production qualities are not the best. The actors - especially minor characters - could be better rehearsed. The costumes look like they were designed for stage, not the small screen. The sets are basic black spaces with steps and very little dressing, much like something you would see in a low-budget stage production. Some might find the video quality to be disappointing. It looks like Amazon copied this from a much-used VHS tape, and that may well be the case. If you watch it on your tablet or laptop, it's not too distracting, but the poor quality is obvious on our big-screen tv.

If you're of my generation you'll spend much of the film recognizing actors from Knight Rider, The Love Boat, and Spider-Man. 

I would watch this again (and nearly did before writing this!), and while it isn't the definitive Richard II, I would recommend it as worth watching. 

One More Romeo and Juliet

I was researching for my first Richard II post, and I stumbled upon this production of Romeo and Juliet produced by The Shakespeare Society and the Hunts Point Alliance for Children in the South Bronx. It's a kids production, so it's not perfect - it's not the Royal Shakespeare Company - but the kids attack it with an energy and enthusiasm that beats some of the professional productions I've seen.

Here are the links that will take you there:

http://vimeo.com/68824348

http://www.shakespearesociety.org/hunts-point.html

Shakespeare would probably have been unhappy about this, by the way. In his day there were children's theaters that were so popular they were seriously cutting in to his business - he makes a reference to it in Hamlet (which the Shakespeare Society and Hunts Point Alliance for Children plan to take on next year, according to the website). To Shakespeare, who was nothing if not a good businessman, they were a serious threat to his bottom line.

I found it to be a lot of fun to watch. The kids are great. Watch it, enjoy it, Click on their donate link.

Romeo and Juliet - Gnomeo and Juliet

This is my last Romeo and Juliet for this project, and it’s not really a Romeo and Juliet. Gnomeo and Juliet is clearly inspired by Romeo and Juliet, and takes many of its plot points from Shakespeare’s play, but it owes as much to Shakespeare as it does to landscape design and Elton John. 

Gnomeo and Juliet are garden gnomes in neighboring gardens. The homeowners’ gardening rivalry has carried over to the culture of their gnomes, who of course come to life when the homeowners are looking the other way. The gnomes’ mutual animosity is expressed in mischief, typically centered around drag racing souped-up self-propelled lawnmowers in  an alley between the yards. This occasionally leads to breakage, which is equivalent to death in the gnome world, although it is possible to be glued back together, which takes away some of the sting.

Gnomeo is voiced by James McAvoy, who is surprisingly unlikable through most of the movie. Shakespeare never went through great pains to make us like Romeo (to me he’s always seemed to be a cardboard cutout of a romantic hero), but Gnomeo, whether it’s the writing or the acting, is kind of a jerk. McAvoy is best known as Young Professor Xavier in X-Men: First Class. Action film star Jason Stratham provides the voice for Gnomeo’s drag racing rival Tybalt. It’s his usual one-note performance, but as a voice actor, he doesn’t need to punctuate his lines by kicking someone in the throat, so that takes away much of his skill-set. Emily Blunt does okay as Juliet. Since this doesn’t use Shakespeare’s lines, she doesn’t have nearly the challenge faced by Ann Hasson, Olivia Hussey, Rebecca Saire, and Claire Danes, so it’s not really fair to make a comparison.

It does not use Shakespeare’s language, although there are a few quotes sprinkled in here and there. It’s almost enough to make a Shakespeare fan happy. I can’t really count this as a Romeo and Juliet, though. It’s not in the same category as the Kemp-Welch, the Zefirelli, the Luhrmann, or the Rakoff. As an adaptation of the story, I enjoyed West Side Story more, and the ballet version less. It’s a cute and funny movie, but I’m going to rank Gnomeo and Juliet as my sixth favorite Romeo and Juliet.

Here’s my ranking of Romeo and Juliets that I’ve seen. #1 is the one I’d take to a desert island. With a DVD player. And a generator. I’d like to say that I never want to seen #8 again, but to be honest, I’d probably watch all of them again if I had the time. Even bad Shakespeare is still Shakespeare. If I ever watch more, I’ll add them. If your favorite isn’t listed, let me know, but for now I’m going to move on to my favorite of the history plays - Richard II!:

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.

West Side Story. Dir. Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins. Perf. Richard Beymer, Natalie Wood, and George Chakiris. 1961. DVD, MGM Home Entertainment, 2003.

Gnomeo and Juliet. Dir. Kelly Asbury. Perf. James McAvoy, Emily Blunt, and Jason Stratham. 2011. DVD, Buena Vista, 2011.

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.