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.

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.

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.

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.