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

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.