# Shakespeare on film and tv



## SimonNZ

Which are your favorite filmed productions of Shakespeare's plays? Which are the worst? What would be a core collection of dvds?

Aspects that worked from problematic versions, and aspects that didn't? Perfect casting choices and the frankly absurd? Good cuts and bad cuts?

References to stage productions you've seen also welcomed.


----------



## Ingélou

I am very fond of the 'Midsummer Night's Dream' film that features Diana Rigg. I also love the old black and white Julius Caesar with James Mason as an anguished Brutus and Marlon Brando as Mark Antony. Normally I have no time for Marlon Brando, but his funeral speech scene is masterly:






I remember going to see the 1979 colour film with Charlton Heston as Mark Antony and being bitterly, bitterly disappointed...


----------



## Ingélou

I love comparing different productions of Shakespeare. For several years I taught 'Much Ado About Nothing' at A-level, and used the BBC production, with Robert Lindsay as Benedick & Cherie Lunghie as Beatrice. This was fabulous acting and comedy, and I liked the period costumes. In general I prefer Elizabethan costume and don't like modern, but when I was a student, I saw a production at Stratford which set the play in the British Raj and brought out some refreshing Oscar-Wilde-drawing-room-comedy subnotes.  I was a bit surprised, though, to go to a production at Windsor, *twenty years* later, and find the same re-setting presented as something experimental and revolutionary, though!

The BBC production of Henry IV Part One had its charms, with a Geordie Hotspur who spoke like a football hooligan (a good actor, though), and a red double-decker bus. It worked *despite*, not because of, all this, imho. 

I don't like the Emma Thompson film of Much Ado - it's all that artificial laughing that does it. For comedy, I say, let the audience laugh, not the characters.


----------



## Taggart

Often an "experimental" production can divide the audience. When I taught in Durham we used to go and see the RSC in Newcastle with the school. There were two venues - the Theatre Royal for standard productions and a smaller venue for more "odd" productions. When we went to see A Winter's Tale it was at the smaller venue. The famous "exit pursued by bear scene" had the actors running through the hall pursued by a person in a fairly tatty bear suit. The adults in the group thought it hilarious. The sixth formers on the bus back were tut-tutting about the "purity of the text" and taking liberties. Can't win.


----------



## ptr

I quite enjoy Grigori Kozintsev's King Lear (Korol Lir) and Hamlet (Gamleto) films, they are not as magniloquent and sentimental as most UK produced alternatives... (Like Oliver, Gielgud or Branagh, I don't dislike them, just feel that they are more contrived).

Also like Kurosawa's Ran, who is also loosely based on Lear.

/ptr


----------



## SimonNZ

Ingélou said:


> I am very fond of the 'Midsummer Night's Dream' film that features Diana Rigg. I also love the old black and white Julius Caesar with James Mason as an anguished Brutus and Marlon Brando as Mark Antony. Normally I have no time for Marlon Brando, but his funeral speech scene is masterly:


The Mason / Gielgud / Brando "Julius Ceasar" is, I agree, a superior film production, remarkably respectful of the source material for its time. It was quite a pleasant surprise when I first saw it just a couple of years ago.

I haven't yet seen the Heston, but your warning is duly noted.

In other news: a few days ago i finally ordered the BBC "An Age Of Kings" series from 1960, comprising Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI and Richard III. I know nothing about the series but how well it is regarded, so purchased based on that alone (plus the chance to get the seldom filmed or performed Henry VI parts I-III.

Did anyone see this when it originally screened on tv a couple of times in the sixties (and was then shelved for forty years)?


----------



## Pip

For frankly absurd - look no further than the Zeffirelli Hamlet with Mel Gibson in the title role.
For a complete Hamlet - the BBC Shakespeare production with Derek Jacobi and Patrick Stewart.
The full length Branagh film is also very fine with Branagh and Jacobi (now as Claudius).
for a good laugh, I always enjoy Stoppard's "Rosenkranz & Guildenstern are dead" with Gary Oldman and Tim Roth - brilliant.

The Olivier films although old, are still marvellous and his Othello film from a staging at the Old Vic in 1965 is a tour de force.
Branagh's Henry V is great.
The BBC's recent "The Hollow Crown" is a brilliant conception. The 4 plays have Ben Wishaw as Richard II, Jeremy Irons as Henry IV and Tom Hiddleson as Prince Hal and Henry V.
Can't go wrong with this.
BBC Shakespeare series - MacBeth with Nicol Williamson is very good - but the best MacBeth to have is the
DVD of the RSC's production in the 80's with Ian McKellan and Judy Dench - this is outstanding.


----------



## Ingélou

I studied *Othello* for 'A'-level, and in 1968 our sixth-form group was taken on a long bus ride from York to the Nottingham Playhouse to see the play, starring Robert Ryan as Othello. Yes - that's *Robert Ryan* , the American film actor whose craggy face appeared in all those black and white WWII films. I can't say he made a very good job of it - one of my friends said that when he called Desdemona 'Sweedie' she lost all respect for him. But I do remember the British actor John Neville as a chilling Iago - at that moment when he stabs Rodrigo who dies saying 'O damn'd Iago - O inhuman dog', the play suddenly 'got real' for me.

I didn't like Olivier's film version of Othello at all. I found his attempts to produce Arab mannerisms etc to be tedious work. But there was a BBC version, starring Ian McKellen as a brutal Iago and John Kani as a noble Othello - also Zoe Wanamaker as a tragic Emilia - Desdemona I don't remember. Anyway, I thought this was excellent.

Apart from that, I don't think I've seen a good *Othello*. It is perhaps hard now to see 'blackface' productions, given we're so used to 'realistic' treatment. But I am not sure it's that so much as that 'the Othello music' can make actors sound pompous. I once saw a production at the Barbican in London with Ben Kingsley in the title role, and to my mind he spent the whole time trying to make up for his short stature by standing with his back to us upstage from the others, haranguing people with his arms in the air, wearing magnificent robes etc. It drew painful attention to his vertically-challenged state instead!

(PS I remember the Henry VI plays appearing on TV in the 60s but was too young to appreciate them, Simon. And I know them no better now . Do let us have your impressions after you've watched the plays.)


----------



## SimonNZ

Ingélou said:


> I didn't like Olivier's film version of Othello at all. I found his attempts to produce Arab mannerisms etc to be tedious work. But there was a BBC version, starring Ian McKellen as a brutal Iago and John Kani as a noble Othello - also Zoe Wanamaker as a tragic Emilia - Desdemona I don't remember. Anyway, I thought this was excellent.


That's interesting because i first got to know Othelo in my teens through the audio set of lps of that olivier production, which i loved. When I finally got to see the film I was terribly disapointed at how little the images matched to what I'd built up in my mind.










The film with Laurence Fishburn as Othello and Kenneth Branagh as Iago doesnt have blackface, but somehow manages to be a complete misfire - not least because its so heavily cut, and the French Irene Jacob as Desdemona hasn't mastered everyday English, let alone Shakespeare's.

I haven't seen the McKellen - I'll look out for it. I assume its this one?:


----------



## Blancrocher

SimonNZ said:


> That's interesting because i first got to know Othelo in my teens through the audio set of lps of that olivier production, which i loved. When I finally got to see the film I was terribly disapointed at how little the images matched to what I'd built up in my mind.


As an aside, BBC Radio continues to make top-quality audiobook versions of Shakespeare. Othello sounds to particular advantage: there's no better way to appreciate the darkness and confusion of the opening than with your eyes closed!

A couple films I like that I haven't seen mentioned, both versions of The Tempest: Derek Jarman's "The Tempest" and Peter Greenaway's "Prospero's Books." My favorite Hamlet on film is David Tennant, to my surprise.


----------



## Ingélou

The Burton/Taylor 'Taming of the Shrew' is lovely, of course, chiefly because of the beautiful sights on offer - there's a lot of cutting, and as a lot of Shakespeare's puns are difficult to make funny for a modern audience, why not?

And I like the BBC version of it, with a surprise appearance by Joan Hickson (of Miss Marple fame) as the widow that one of the unsuccessful suitors finally opts to marry. 

With all its inherent sexism & the cruel treatment of Kate, this play remains very satisfying to watch, for some mysterious reason. The Head of the English Department at my old college was a keen feminist, but she still loved it - maybe because she could make so many points about sexual politics, or maybe some atavistic romanticism, who knows?


----------



## GreenMamba

Not too long ago, I watched the Royal Shakespeare Company's old TV version of Antony and Cleopatra on YouTube. Richard Johnson and Janet Suzman are the leads, but Patrick Stewart is especially compelling as Enobarbus.

Downside: I didn't agree with all the cuts (although I'm not opposed to there being cuts).


----------



## science

I sometimes do a "Shakespeare Club" as an extracurricular activity for some of my students. It's lots of fun - most of my students haven't ever dreamed of doing any theater. Usually three hours a week, two hours of reading and discussing together and an hour of watching something, followed by everyone reciting some speech before they're allowed to leave (something famous from what we've read or watched). But we can go out sometimes too, when we get the money....

(Edit: I should've added: pizza. I'm sure quite a few students are there for the pizza. But also, I write a detailed, flattering recommendation for all of them in case they apply to some elite private high school, as many of them do.)

(I once took four 8th grade boys to a production of Prokofiev's _Romeo and Juliet._ I admit I did not have high hopes. But they loved it. It helped not a little that Juliet was unquestionably "hot," but also that the sword fighting choreography was really excellent, to the point that it was surprising that no one actually got hurt. So it turned out really well! I think I nudged four young gentlemen toward ballet that night....)

My students swayed me on _Romeo + Juliet_ (the one with DiCaprio). I'm now a fan. My students also like the old Romeo and Juliet in which Alan Rickman, "Snape" to them, plays Tybalt. Funny that a little thing like that....

My favorite screen production of Shakespeare is the _King Lear_ with the elderly Lawrence Olivier. Of course _King Lear_ is my singly favorite work of art, bar none. But I really like the way that one was done. Lots of very nice details, great but subtle acting. It's one to see a few times.

A great one for me is _Throne of Blood_, the Kurosawa version of _Macbeth_. My students loved that one too, particularly the "ghost" (in place of the witches). The best _Macbeth_ that I've seen is Playboy's version. Really, that's almost up there with the Olivier _King Lear_.

It's a bit of a stretch for the thread, but you all must see James Morris play Iago in Levine's DVD of _Otello_. Steals the show, IMO.


----------



## Ingélou

English teachers have to use what's available to them, and when I was teaching 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' to junior forms at a private girls' school, I had to use the 1935 creaking black and white film. The lovers included an incredibly youthful Dick Powell and Olivia de Havilland.










Surprisingly, James Cagney was a rather striking Bottom, but Mickey Rooney must be the most irritating Puck who ever lived. He had a bubbling giggle that he used as his trademark, and that the girls soon learned to imitate. It became the fashion in the Lower Fourth for a few weeks, and it nearly sent me barmy!

I liked the 1930s Hollywood costumes though - slinky Elizabethan numbers, halfway between a quilt and a satin nightdress!


----------



## Cheyenne

Orson Welles' moor haunts.


----------



## Ingélou

GreenMamba said:


> Not too long ago, I watched the Royal Shakespeare Company's old TV version of Antony and Cleopatra on YouTube. Richard Johnson and Janet Suzman are the leads, but Patrick Stewart is especially compelling as Enobarbus.
> 
> Downside: I didn't agree with all the cuts (although I'm not opposed to there being cuts).












I can imagine Janet Suzman being excellent; I also liked this BBC version, with Jane Lapotaire as a very seductive (and later poignant) Cleopatra and Colin Blakeley as a satisfactory Antony. Ian Charleson was a convincingly austere Octavius and Emrys James was good as Enobarbus.


----------



## SimonNZ

science said:


> The best _Macbeth_ that I've seen is Playboy's version. Really, that's almost up there with the Olivier _King Lear_.


That's the Polanski film? I didn't know it was financed by Hugh Hefner. I was expecting to dislike that, given the nature and focus of the hype, but liked it very much. Particularly the attention to detail in recreating the dirt, cold and brutishness of the Medieval setting. Also thought Martin Shaw did such a great job as Banqo, and stole every scene he was in, that I wished he and Jon Finch had swapped roles.


----------



## brianvds

I can't watch Shakespeare films because I cannot make head or tails of the dialogue, with the result that I simply cannot follow the plot. Only way I get Shakespeare is if I read it. Slowly.


----------



## GreenMamba

brianvds said:


> I can't watch Shakespeare films because I cannot make head or tails of the dialogue, with the result that I simply cannot follow the plot. Only way I get Shakespeare is if I read it. Slowly.


I do both. I'd miss a lot if I watched a performance of a play I hadn't read.


----------



## Posie

*Much Ado About Nothing*






No matter how many times I watch this particular part (in any production), it makes me laugh, and puts me in a good mood. :lol:


----------



## Ingélou

Out of the film Hamlets, I don't like the Mel Gibson - too red and raw - or the BBC production with Derek Jacobi (too mannered, especially Patrick Stewart's Claudius) - and I 'quite like' the Kenneth Branagh, so the one I tended to use was Laurence Olivier's black & white Elsinore production, which has power - I particularly like Claude Rains' Claudius.

Of course Olivier's blond hair almost blinds me in that, and his basin cut in *Henry V* may be authentic but it's unpardonably painful to look at. Otherwise, I like this film, but particularly the opening scene set in an Elizabethan theatre which was *so* useful as a teaching aid.

My favourite Olivier film of Shakespeare is *Richard III*, though - he has such chilling magnetism. The scene where he woos Lady Anne wowed my class of teenage girls and wowed their teacher at the same time!


----------



## science

Ingélou said:


> Out of the film Hamlets, I don't like the Mel Gibson - too red and raw - or the BBC production with Derek Jacobi (too mannered, especially Patrick Stewart's Claudius) - and I 'quite like' the Kenneth Branagh, so the one I tended to use was Laurence Olivier's black & white Elsinore production, which has power - I particularly like Claude Rains' Claudius.
> 
> Of course Olivier's blond hair almost blinds me in that, and his basin cut in *Henry V* may be authentic but it's unpardonably painful to look at. Otherwise, I like this film, but particularly the opening scene set in an Elizabethan theatre which was *so* useful as a teaching aid.
> 
> My favourite Olivier film of Shakespeare is *Richard III*, though - he has such chilling magnetism. The scene where he woos Lady Anne wowed my class of teenage girls and wowed their teacher at the same time!


I realize it's a completely taboo opinion, but I think my favorite _Hamlet_ is the one with Patrick Stewart as Claudius. Entirely for Patrick Stewart, though the security-state stuff does add a touch of interest.


----------



## Ingélou

I like Patrick Stewart in general, but it irritates me in the BBC Shakespeare when he does his 'sin makes you sick' routine. 
I did use the BBC Shakespeare in class, along with the other films - it was certainly useful.

Edit: - Just seen Simon's post below & realise I'm at cross-purposes! 
The David Tennant Hamlet sounds interesting.


----------



## SimonNZ

science said:


> I realize it's a completely taboo opinion, but I think my favorite _Hamlet_ is the one with Patrick Stewart as Claudius. Entirely for Patrick Stewart, though the security-state stuff does add a touch of interest.


You're meaning the one with David Tennant as Hamlet (which Blancrocher also praised), wheras I believe Ingelou was disliking the one with Jacobi as Hamlet (which i haven't seen, and now won't rush):










The Tennant one was way more interesting than I was expecting, and having Stewart here play both Claudius and the Ghost was a stroke of genius. Odd that isn't done more often, especially as they're almost never cast to look like brothers (not a particularly big deal), but also adds a new level to the "look here upon this picture and this" bit, beyond mere superficial and subjective physical difference. Also adds power to the "incest" talk.

I also loved the way they highlighted everything in the text to do with the unbridgable difference between royals and mere mortals, especially in dealing with both friends and advisors.


----------



## science

SimonNZ said:


> You're meaning the one with David Tennant as Hamlet (which Blancrocher also praised), wheras I believe Ingelou was disliking the one with Jacobi as Hamlet (which i haven't seen, and now won't rush):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tennant one was way more interesting than I was expecting, and having Stewart here play both Claudius and the Ghost was a stroke of genius. Odd that isn't done more often, especially as they're almost never cast to look like brothers (not a particularly big deal), but also adds a new level to the "look here upon this picture and this" bit, beyond mere superficial and subjective physical difference. Also adds power to the "incest" talk.
> 
> I also loved the way they highlighted everything in the text to do with the unbridgable difference between royals and mere mortals, especially in dealing with both friends and advisors.


You're right, I'd forgotten about the old one (with Jacobi). In fact, I barely remember that one!


----------



## PetrB

I did not know good ol' Will had any thoughts on film and tv!


----------



## SimonNZ

PetrB said:


> I did not know good ol' Will had any thoughts on film and tv!


Hey! These jokes aren't so funny when I'm on the recieving end of them!

-

Has anyone seen the Branagh As You Like It? I tried a couple of years ago, but got so annoyed at the over the top ninja-assasin prologue that I stopped. But I've recently read some reviews say that not only does it get much better, but that it may be his best film since Henry V. It probably didn't help that I still had a bad taste in my mouth from having recently seen his very problematic Loves Labours Lost.

I have a friend coming to stay for Christmas and we're talking about lining up a number of Shakespeare films, and I may make that one (along with the Olivier King Lear which I also haven't seen, but will have to add to the top of the pile after science's recommendation).


----------



## Blancrocher

SimonNZ said:


> Has anyone seen the Branagh As You Like It? I tried a couple of years ago, but got so annoyed at the over the top ninja-assasin prologue that I stopped. But I've recently read some reviews say that not only does it get much better, but that it may be his best film since Henry V. It probably didn't help that I still had a bad taste in my mouth from having recently seen his very problematic Loves Labours Lost.


I generally have an aversion to Branagh, but I've seen this movie and liked it--quite a bit, actually, though I'm not all that proud of the fact.

As regards the use of the Japanese setting: I wonder if Branagh made any pointed references to Kurosawa movies in homage to a great Shakespearean. I don't remember anything interesting myself, but it might be something to watch for.


----------



## amfortas

For something truly amazing among the comedies, check out the old American Conservatory Theater's commedia dell'arte version of _The Taming of the Shrew_:






Along with the Flying Karamazov Brothers' take on _The Comedy of Errors_:






And the Public Theater's _A Midsummmer Night's Dream_:


----------



## Guest

science said:


> The best _Macbeth_ that I've seen is Playboy's version.


I think it nicely captures the atmosphere and the time period very well, but it's heavily cut, changes the ending, and has laughable special effects! (Not to mention inaccurate: Lady Macbeth puts on her sleeping gown during her mad scene in the play: in the movie she's nude!) I've shown it for years in my 10th grade classes, but I'm replacing it with Patrick Stewart's for an updated setting starting this year. Michael Fassbender's looks promising, too.


----------



## science

Kontrapunctus said:


> I think it nicely captures the atmosphere and the time period very well, but it's heavily cut, changes the ending, and has laughable special effects! (Not to mention inaccurate: Lady Macbeth puts on her sleeping gown during her mad scene in the play: in the movie she's nude!) I've shown it for years in my 10th grade classes, but I'm replacing it with Patrick Stewart's for an updated setting starting this year. Michael Fassbender's looks promising, too.


Very, very few productions of Shakespeare keep the plot, setting, dialogue and so on perfectly intact, so for me the question isn't whether they do that but how, and how I feel about it.

For example, the murderers in the Polanski film are killed after they kill Banquo. That is not in the play, but for me, it is an improvement on the play. I mean, that is _real_. Another example, in the Polanski film we see the minor characters of the court - particularly Ross, if I remember correctly - ambitious to benefit from Macbeth's rule, and when they're disappointed, betraying him. I don't see that in the play, but I'm glad it's there. We see the soldiers that surprise Macduff's castle raping the servants. It's almost wrong NOT to show that kind of thing, IMO, because that is what war is, and lying about it only glamorizes war, but it couldn't have been in Shakespeare's text. On the other hand, when Macbeth first encounters the witches, he walks away from Banquo, and then lies to Banquo about what he saw. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I probably approve. We can certainly agree, however, that the special effects are unfortunate.

Putting it philosophically, I value the story more than the text!

But the medieval-ness of it is the main thing. I hate - I mean, really, _hate_ - romanticized portrayals of the middle ages. _The Hobbit_ is an absolute masterpiece, but I cannot forgive it not only for its cartoon good/evil dichotomy but for all its pastel dishonesty about the middle ages. Makes me sick. So any presentation of the Middle Ages in which people look like they might not have been able to buy shampoo at the drugstore is an instant hit with me.

But I wouldn't ever show just one version to my students. When we did Macbeth, I showed them the Playboy version, the Patrick Stewart version, a bit of the Ian McKellen version (they hated it so we didn't watch the whole thing), and _Throne of Blood_. I was planning to show them Verdi's opera, but I don't remember whether we did or not! We may have run out of time.

That is important, when it is possible, because the students judge the different ways the story is told, and in my experience that is the way I've had the most success getting the students to _think_ about the stories. What happens to the story when a scene is skipped? What tone of voice should the character have used for that line? Etc. I really like to hear students discussing that stuff with each other, offering their own opinions, thinking about it for themselves.


----------



## Ingélou

Interesting take, Science - though I prefer more faithful versions. Extravagant extrapolation on a director's part just looks bigheaded to me, and self-indulgent. 
And in this case, I think also, *dated*: slick & cynical sex & violence is so much a part of the films & literature of that era (late sixties, early seventies), my heyday!


----------



## Guest

Another interesting aspect about Polanski's version is that his wife was slaughtered right after the filming of it, as I recall. What makes that especially creepy is that she apparently begged the killers to spare her unborn baby--consider_ that _ while watching the C-section imagery during Macbeth's hallucinatory scene in which he sees his future.


----------



## Taggart

Kontrapunctus said:


> Another interesting aspect about Polanski's version is that his wife was slaughtered right after the filming of it, as I recall. What makes that especially creepy is that she apparently begged the killers to spare her unborn baby--consider_ that _ while watching the C-section imagery during Macbeth's hallucinatory scene in which he sees his future.


After his wife's death (August 9, 1969) he abandoned the film he was on and then eventually started on Macbeth in 1970. See wiki for more detail. That does not negate the point that he may have imported elements of his personal tragedy into the screenplay.


----------



## science

In less obvious ways, of course, we cannot help imposing our own tragedies and other experiences on the texts we read and interpret. My own cynicism about life (whether that's genetic or the result of my experiences) must impose itself on my reading of _Macbeth_. I couldn't avoid that, and if I tried to compensate for it I'd be unfaithful to my own mind. Shakespeare without that kind of cynicism - maybe we should call it "moral ambiguity" if that's an easier pill to swallow - wouldn't be Shakespeare.

Also, I just had a wonderful idea. Sharkespeare. Sharkbeth. And so on. Like "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies." You well-connected creative types need to get on that before someone does.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Polanski's Macbeth - the atmospherics were spot on (aided no doubt by the bad North English weather for some of the outdoor scenes). I found the Welles version oddly non-engaging, even allowing for what I gather was a tight schedule and relatively small budget. I liked Jacques Ibert's music for it, though.


----------



## Varick

Some of the aformentioned Shakespeare movies I have seen, many I have not. One of the most visually exciting and creatively produced Shakespeare movies I have ever seen was TITUS with Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange. Little things that the director (Julie Taymor) did such as use only 5 colors in the entire movie.

I believe it was also the last movie the wonderfully and beautifully aging Jessica Lange was in before she screwed up her face with plastic surgery.

V


----------



## Il_Penseroso

Perhaps it's not just a matter of taste and my 'English Literature' is not at all that good to make even a recommendation! But here are my favorites:

Hamlet (1964) directed by Grigori Kozintsev










King Lear (1971) also directed by Grigori Kozintsev










Both film-scores by Dmitri Shostakovich, and Jüri Järvet is perhaps the best ever - conceivable - 'Lear' you could see on the screen!










Macbeth: Orson Welles (1948)

Othello: Sergei Yutkevic (1955)


----------



## science

I have mentioned that I sometimes do a "Shakespeare Club" and I think I'm going to get to do it again this year. I give my pitch tomorrow - someone has to pay for it... so we'll see whether I get the money or not....

If I do get to do it, I let the kids pick the plays, not me, so my sway is not exactly solely sovereign... but I do get some input too! Through me even you could have influence....

*So I wonder, which plays did you enjoy most as students? Or, which do you think you would have enjoyed most? Which do you think students today would enjoy? Which do you think I ought to do with my students? *

I can probably do 6 (3 per semester). Which six do you think I should do? If you want, you can tell me in which order I should do them! If you care to give me your reasons, I'd appreciate that! I promise this: if I get to do the Shakespeare Club, and if anyone offers an interesting insight that is novel to me about why we should do a particular play, I will pass your insight on to my dear students for their consideration!

Last time I did this was two years ago, and I can barely remember it, but I believe we did _Romeo and Juliet_, _Julius Caesar_, _Macbeth_, _Twelfth Night_, _Henry IV, Part 1_, and _Hamlet_ - in that order. It's a bit heavy on tragedy... but those tragedies!

That's not bad, but I think I'd prefer to switch out _Twelfth Night_ for _King Lear_, _A Midsummer Night's Dream_, or _The Tempest_. If I switched it out for _King Lear_, there'd be nothing technically labeled "a comedy" on the list. I would feel a little guilty about that, but I would probably get over it.

The comedy for which I've found the best resources is certainly _A Midsummer Night's Dream_, and that goes so well with _Romeo and Juliet_. One of my opinionated and insightful coworkers insisted we should do _Much Ado About Nothing_, but I just can't find very good resources for that. (Even for _Twelfth Night_, I confess I showed that soccer movie and a recording of _The Nutcracker_.)

I considered making this a new thread because I don't mean to hijack this one, but ultimately I decided that this fits in this thread because one of the main things I need to consider is what I can show the students. We can get creative - we just need "arguable relevance!" For _Romeo and Juliet_, I showed _West Side Story_, the Gounod opera and the Prokofiev ballet; for _Julius Caesar_, I showed the Handel opera (barely relevant to the play) and documentaries about ancient Rome. (I've already confessed what I did for _Twelfth Night_. Don't make me type that again.)

Anyway, I'm very strongly considering showing dramas that we don't read together (like _The Hollow Crown_, of which I've only seen tantalizing excerpts). I would have to get student-permission to do that, but I'm pretty sure they'd be up for a try.


----------



## Taggart

Multi -culturalism - Merchant of Venice 

Antony and Cleopatra - run against Shaw's Caesar and Cleopatra - as an alternative to Julius Caesar

Alternative histories - Henry V or Richard III both in Olivier versions

Women's rights - Taming of the Shrew plus Kiss me Kate


----------



## Ingélou

King Lear is unique, of course - but I've always really loved Twelfth NIght & found it goes down well with students too. It's a wonderfully constructed play with so much to say about love and ambition, so I enter a plea for it here.


----------



## science

Taggart said:


> Multi -culturalism - Merchant of Venice
> 
> Anthony and Cleopatra - run against Shaw's Caesar and Cleopatra - as an alternative to Julius Caesar
> 
> Alternative histories - Henry V or Richard III both in Olivier versions
> 
> Women's rights - Taming of the Shrew plus Kiss me Kate


Oh, I like that _Caesar and Cleopatra_! I will try to work that in if we do _Julius Caesar_.

But it's hard for me to swallow giving the kids _Antony and Cleopatra_ when they haven't read _Julius Caesar_. I feel I can sell _Julius Caesar_ a bit more persuasively because it has so many famous bits.

I guess that "famous bits" is pretty much the determining factor.


----------



## Ingélou

'Julius Caesar', sadly, has not always gone down well with female students in my experience, but I loved studying it myself when I was at an all-girls school, and I think it has so much to teach about politics, and the funeral scene about oratory. I also like the quarrel in the tent in Act IV. I love Antony & Cleopatra too, but it's a big complex play, though wonderful on sex & death. 

So yeah - be an honourable man!


----------



## Taggart

science said:


> Oh, I like that _Caesar and Cleopatra_! I will try to work that in if we do _Julius Caesar_.
> 
> But it's hard for me to swallow giving the kids _Antony and Cleopatra_ when they haven't read _Julius Caesar_. I feel I can sell _Julius Caesar_ a bit more persuasively because it has so many famous bits.
> 
> I guess that "famous bits" is pretty much the determining factor.


It's ears v asps then and what about the carpet? Still another "resource" is the Carry On films - I love the Infamy speech from Carry on Cleo. That got voted the best film one liner so should qualify as a "famous bit".


----------



## hpowders

Ingélou said:


> 'Julius Caesar', sadly, has not always gone down well with female students in my experience, but I loved studying it myself when I was at an all-girls school, and I think it has so much to teach about politics, and the funeral scene about oratory. I also like the quarrel in the tent in Act IV. I love Antony & Cleopatra too, but it's a big complex play, though wonderful on sex & death.
> 
> So yeah - be an honourable man!


They simply don't understand that "lean and hungry look" we men display sometimes. I'm quite good at it actually.


----------



## science

Ingélou said:


> King Lear is unique, of course - but I've always really loved Twelfth NIght & found it goes down well with students too. It's a wonderfully constructed play with so much to say about love and ambition, so I enter a plea for it here.


_King Lear_, much as I love it, is probably doomed just because I feel _Hamlet_ and _Macbeth_ must be higher priorities for the students. How much of that high tragedy can I give them? I don't know, it's their choice of course, but....

I did get to do _King Lear_ with students in a regular class twice, and it went well enough. One of my female students fell in love with France for "She is herself a dowry." Try telling her France might have had more cynical motives! I did, but she had none of it. Poor Cordelia.

Anyway, how do you feel about _Twelfth Night_ versus _The Tempest_ and _A Midsummer Night's Dream_? One thing _Twelfth Night_ has going for it is the Christmas setting, making it tempting to do in December. (I've never read _The Winter's Tale_, alone or with students. I wouldn't mind having a go at it in a situation where I didn't have to find 5 hours of stuff to put on a TV screen.)

I'd also love to do Taggart's suggestion, _The Merchant of Venice_. I love "the quality of mercy" speech. (I can also love those words' use in Michelle Shocked's excellent song on the _Dead Man Walking_ soundtrack.) There are a few decent resources for that - the Al Pacino movie, a Maori version that would at the very least be interesting, and a recent opera. Regardless, if I do the movies without text thing, I will definitely show the Al Pacino film.


----------



## science

Ingélou said:


> *'Julius Caesar', sadly, has not always gone down well with female students in my experience*, but I loved studying it myself when I was at an all-girls school, and I think it has so much to teach about politics, and the funeral scene about oratory. I also like the quarrel in the tent in Act IV. I love Antony & Cleopatra too, but it's a big complex play, though wonderful on sex & death.
> 
> So yeah - be an honourable man!


That is an interesting insight. Hmmm. I cannot call my experience to mind one way or another. Can you tell me more about that?

How about _Macbeth_? How has that gone with your female students? So much like _Julius Caesar_ in outline, but with wicked women! I have probably shared my one great experience teaching _Macbeth_ to a "perfect little girl"... but if not and if you're interested, I will tell all!


----------



## science

Y'all have persuaded me. I will try to sell _Antony and Cleopatra_ a bit harder to my students, particularly on the bit about female enjoyment. (After all, Cleopatra!) I can cover the pedagogical bases by showing a film (or two) of _Julius Caesar_ while we do _Antony and Cleopatra_ as the main event.

Thank you!!!!!!


----------



## Ingélou

When I was teaching at the Sixth Form College, I had to choose an 'easier' Shakespeare play, in its entirety, to do a repeat English exam for those who had failed it at their high schools. Almost every year this repeat class, who took pleasure in telling me how 'boring' they found English, the subject they had failed, was made up of about sixteen boys and four girls. It was difficult to find a play. Sometimes I chose 'Taming of the Shrew' for its farcical elements and funny 'battle of the sexes'; sometimes Much Ado for the dramatic church scene and male camaraderie; and sometimes 'Julius Caesar' for its plainer style (Latin elegance consciously chosen by Shakespeare, in my opinion, though unprovable) and its great crowd scenes. 'Romeo & Juliet' would have been a good choice, but they'd usually studied it already at High School and would just have wanted to regurgitate the work that had got them the exam fail in the first place. And the same went for 'Macbeth'. 
'Julius Caesar' has two good women's parts, Calpurnia & Portia, but the girls didn't seem to like the themes of war and political manoeuvring. They should have - they were modern citizens in a democracy & should have liked political issues - but sadly, they just seemed to want love & romance in the stereotypical way. They did the work, but they grumbled all the time. The boys also grumbled but seemed to get the point of the story more. 
'Much Ado', apart from the church scene, seemed difficult for the students to grasp.
By far the best choice seemed to be 'The Taming of the Shrew', though there was always the danger that the huge male majority would interpret it in a chauvinist way and not be open to debating or discussing the issues.
I wish it were otherwise - but these were disaffected groups. Usually we started as mortal enemies, but by about February we were friends; then comrades as the big struggle to get the coursework in and prepare for the exam began.
We did the Shakespeare because the exam boards said we had to. I did everything I could to lighten it - video, role play, even translating scenes into modern English. But they much preferred other parts of the course, like creative writing, or oral work, discussions, speech making etc. 
It was challenging work. Sometimes I had nice groups, sometimes not. I always got through 'in the end', but I didn't always enjoy it.


----------



## SimonNZ

science said:


> (Even for _Twelfth Night_, I confess I showed that soccer movie and a recording of _The Nutcracker_.)
> 
> I considered making this a new thread because I don't mean to hijack this one, but ultimately I decided that this fits in this thread because one of the main things I need to consider is what I can show the students.


Any Shakespeare discussion of any type welcomed, regardless of what I wrote in th OP.

Do you have access to the Trevor Nunn film of Twelfth Night? I recall that being very good and enjoyable, even if Imogen Stubbs isn't a strong enough actress for Viola.

I can imagine high-school-age students in particular liking that version. (how old / what level are you students?


----------



## science

Shakespeare Club 2014-5 is a go, baby! 

Now we'll see how many kiddies sign up for it.... I'm not the only game in town....


----------



## science

SimonNZ said:


> Any Shakespeare discussion of any type welcomed, regardless of what I wrote in th OP.
> 
> Do you have access to the Trevor Nunn film of Twelfth Night? I recall that being very good and enjoyable, even if Imogen Stubbs isn't a strong enough actress for Viola.
> 
> I can imagine high-school-age students in particular liking that version. (how old / what level are you students?


I don't remember showing them that. I think I would have... I don't know why I wouldn't've... But the only one I can remember showing them is the BBC one with Alec McCowan, Robert Lindsay, Sinead Cusack.... I don't remember what the other one I showed them was. That's terrible! I can actually feel my mind declining. I'd better hit the bucket list here quick because I might only have a decade or so left!


----------



## science

Well, I have finally seen the _Richard II_ that is the first part of the BBC's "The Hollow Crown," and I absolutely loved it. Next I would like to see David Tennant's version.

I have to confess that until recently _Richard II_ would not have been one of my favorite Shakespeare plays. I thought Richard talked too much, and it seems to me that the Richard of history had a little more fight in him, and I'd've liked to see that. But it has grown on me considerably. It has everything I love about Shakespeare: moral ambiguity with characters struggling even with themselves not only to do what is right but to figure out what is, with even the minor characters being sympathetically and thoughtfully rendered, and all the good lines: "... but whate'er I be, nor I nor any man that but man is, with nothing shall be pleased, till he be eased, with being nothing" - that is better than any line in Hamlet!

As I read the play, it portrays as sheer folly any belief that right (as God gave Richard to see the right) would prevail over might, any political reasoning but Machiavellian reasoning (albeit perhaps gilded by ideological savants like the inhuman Duke of York with a retrospective, implicitly fatalistic religiosity). Because I've become more cynical about the ways of even our modern "democracies," almost free for now at least from much of the terror of tyranny, the bitterly disappointed idealism of _Richard II_ moves me more. And in the end, who is content but Richard, eased with being nothing?

We inevitably see too much of ourselves in Shakespeare, as perhaps in all great art. How wrong could I be to suspect that Shakespeare would've found a large part of the answer to these worries in sharing a drink with a few good friends?


----------



## Musicforawhile

What about the more modern films? I loved Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet, Trevor Nunn's Twelfth Night, Roman Polanski's Macbeth, and Midsummer Night's Dream with Michelle Pfeiffer and Calista Flockhart...


----------



## SimonNZ

I started watching the Pfeiffer / Flockhart Midsummer Nights Dream a while ago and stopped after twenty minutes because the actors seemed to have no idea what they were saying, content to just mouth some Elizabethan jibberish.

You enjoyed it? Should I go back and persevere?

Of the more recent films my biggest surprise was the Al Pacino Merchant Of Venice, which I expected to be terrible, given how much I hated his "Looking For Richard" doco (don't get me started - or maybe do, because a perplexing number of people seemed to like that), but though it so good, despite bristling at some cuts, I went out and purchased a copy the next day.

Actually, I might even watch that again tonight...


----------



## Musicforawhile

Maybe you're harder to please than me. I really enjoyed the way the film looked: costumes, scenery, lighting etc so I think that distracted me from the acting. They weren't the best Shakespearian interpreters but I still found it enjoyable. Yes Merchant of Venice too. I also liked Much Ado with Keanu Reeves lol, and Hamlet with Kenneth Branagh, Othello with Laurence Fishburne.


----------



## science

I'm glad to see this thread again. Shakespeare Club is on! I had to make two of them, actually, because I had a set of 6th grade boys who really wanted to do it and I didn't want to mix them with the 8th & 9th graders.

I had some hesitation about doing Shakespeare with 6th graders. But, boy, was I wrong! Their enthusiasm is amazing. They try to read everything with some sort of accent we might call "British." Everyone winds up sounding like Malfoy. (We're doing _Macbeth_, so I've encouraged them to find videos of Scottish people talking.... Maybe I've got some budding actors here.) They love the dirty jokes; immaturity might be an advantage because they're not shy about laughing out loud at them. Such joy and fun, it's great. I'm not sure how all the other stuff is working out for them, but we'll find out!


----------



## Musicforawhile

I love the songs in Shakespeare's plays, but I guess we don't know what version he was thinking of as he didn't write the actual sheet music in an appendix or anything:


----------



## Taggart

Just suddenly had a thought about that Shakespearean actor John Laurie.

If you want scots, try his version of McGonagal's Tay Bridge Disaster


----------



## SimonNZ

Musicforawhile said:


> I love the songs in Shakespeare's plays, but I guess we don't know what version he was thinking of as he didn't write the actual sheet music in an appendix or anything:


This reminds me that I've long been meaning to put together a compilation of my prefered settings of songs from the plays in my prefered recordings.

Track one would be Emma Kirkby singing Thomas Arne's version of "Where The Bee Sucks" from The Tempest

Looking into a link for that now I notice for the first time that Arne actually wrote a complete set of songs and incidental music for The Tempest. Wondering why I hadn't encountered that before I find that most of the music is now lost, as is most of the music for the many other Shakespeare productions he was involved in. In fact it appears most of his music for some one hundred theatre productions is now lost.

This makes rather grim reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Thomas_Arne#Stage_works


----------



## Musicforawhile

SimonNZ said:


> This makes rather grim reading:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Thomas_Arne#Stage_works


So sad, and I really love his masque Alfred, but you hardly ever hear the music from it except the finale of course...which I don't like.


----------



## SimonNZ

Watched the film of Cymbeline earlier today. And it turned out to be considerably better than I was expecting. Heavily cut - now taking the prize from the Taylor/Burton Taming Of The Shrew as the most cut Shakespeare film I've seen - but done in such a way to give the essence and make near-clarity of a very complex story, though they still require a full fifteen minutes at the end for all the but-wait-there's-more revelations to wrap everything up. Everyone speaks clearly and intelligibly, even if they are cherry-picking two or four line excerpts as they hopscotch through the text. Also a lot less motorcycle-club imagery than I was expecting, despite all the Sons Of Anarchy allusions in the advertising. The only real minus was that the gender-bending of Imogen to Fidele wasn't set up well and was handled clumsily (and wouldn't have fooled anyone - though that's true of most films).

A cautious recommendation, then. Don't expect too much and though not knocked out you may well be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## TxllxT

*Shakespeare for Dummies*


----------



## Sloe

science said:


> So any presentation of the Middle Ages in which people look like they might not have been able to buy shampoo at the drugstore is an instant hit with me.


You mean you want the middle ages to be like this:


----------



## znapschatz

*Hamlet* is my favorite Shakespeare play, and overall, best movie version the Kenneth Branagh. It has its flaws, but it's the only one with the complete text. Acting and production values are important, but without the full play, too much is missed. The mind can compensate for a less than superb performance, but there is no way to fill in for missing components.


----------



## SimonNZ

znapschatz said:


> *Hamlet* is my favorite Shakespeare play, and overall, best movie version the Kenneth Branagh. It has its flaws, but it's the only one with the complete text. Acting and production values are important, but without the full play, too much is missed. The mind can compensate for a less than superb performance, but there is no way to fill in for missing components.


The Branagh Hamlet was also interesting in that respect because it was released in two versions: a cut version at standard film length and the full-text version. It's something I wish was done more often: film every word, release a cut version theatrically if you have to, but make the full film available on dvd - even if it still means choosing either cut or full on the menu page.


----------



## znapschatz

SimonNZ said:


> The Branagh Hamlet was also interesting in that respect because it was released in two versions: a cut version at standard film length and the full-text version. It's something I wish was done more often: film every word, release a cut version theatrically if you have to, but make the full film available on dvd - even if it still means choosing either cut or full on the menu page.


I saw the full length version in a movie theater and until your post had no idea it existed in another format. Actually, I am glad you posted this. It reminds me I need a dvd of the Branagh Hamlet and better stop procrastinating :tiphat: .


----------



## Bellinilover

I'm another one who loves the 1950's _Julius Caesar_ with Mason, Brando, Gielgud, etc.; I have it on DVD. A few of the actors playing the smaller parts probably were not experienced Shakespeareans (you can kind of hear that they have New York accents), yet I still feel the whole thing works really well. Louis Calhern was a good choice for Caesar.

The next Shakespeare film I'm going to watch is the _Merchant of Venice_ from 2004, with Al Pacino as Shylock. Has anyone here seen this?


----------



## SimonNZ

Bellinilover said:


> The next Shakespeare film I'm going to watch is the _Merchant of Venice_ from 2004, with Al Pacino as Shylock. Has anyone here seen this?


I expected to hate it (given how much I hated Pacino's "Looking For Richard"), but actually liked it very much. I'll be very interested to hear your opinion once you've seen it.


----------



## Vaneyes

Nothing beats the printed word and original pronunciation. I was fortunate to have teachers and professors who did not dumb down Shakespeare. :tiphat:


----------



## SimonNZ

Vaneyes said:


> Nothing beats the printed word and original pronunciation. I was fortunate to have teachers and professors who did not dumb down Shakespeare. :tiphat:


But the best films aren't "dumbed down", are they? Which examples or trends are you thinking of?


----------



## znapschatz

Bellinilover said:


> I'm another one who loves the 1950's _Julius Caesar_ with Mason, Brando, Gielgud, etc.; I have it on DVD. A few of the actors playing the smaller parts probably were not experienced Shakespeareans (you can kind of hear that they have New York accents), yet I still feel the whole thing works really well. Louis Calhern was a good choice for Caesar.
> 
> The next Shakespeare film I'm going to watch is the _Merchant of Venice_ from 2004, with Al Pacino as Shylock. Has anyone here seen this?


1. I thought Brando was illuminating as Mark Anthony, to this day my favorite reading, and I wasn't bothered by the American accents. We are so accustomed to hearing the superb diction of trained British actors that we assume Shakespeare should always be so performed, but Shakespeare's English sounded more like Southern American dialect than current British does. Besides, I'm American, and am not bothered by an American accent. However, for a good mind stretch, you really ought to hear Shakespeare in Yiddish. I've actually met some old-timers who thought it should be performed that way :clap: .

2. Yes, I have seen the 2004 *Merchant of Venice*, and although I believe it is worth the watch, I tend to agree with Orson Welles, who turned down the project after a long study in which he concluded there was no way to mitigate the anti-semitism inherent in the play. The "do we not bleed" speech is Shakespeare doing his genius thing re character motivation, but doesn't cut it as a cry against prejudice. Remember his times. But I don't go around boycotting Shakespeare. Pacino does a workman like rendition of Shylock, but Ralph Fienes and Jeremy Irons own the movie, IMHO.


----------



## Bellinilover

znapschatz said:


> 1. I thought Brando was illuminating as Mark Anthony, to this day my favorite reading, and I wasn't bothered by the American accents. We are so accustomed to hearing the superb diction of trained British actors that we assume Shakespeare should always be so performed, but Shakespeare's English sounded more like Southern American dialect than current British does. Besides, I'm American, and am not bothered by an American accent. However, for a good mind stretch, you really ought to hear Shakespeare in Yiddish. I've actually met some old-timers who thought it should be performed that way :clap: .
> 
> 2. Yes, I have seen the 2004 *Merchant of Venice*, and although I believe it is worth the watch, I tend to agree with Orson Welles, who turned down the project after a long study in which he concluded there was no way to mitigate the anti-semitism inherent in the play. The "do we not bleed" speech is Shakespeare doing his genius thing re character motivation, *but doesn't cut it as a cry against prejudice.* Remember his times. But I don't go around boycotting Shakespeare. Pacino does a workman like rendition of Shylock, but Ralph Fienes and Jeremy Irons own the movie, IMHO.


I believe it's Joseph Fiennes in _The Merchant of Venice_, rather than Ralph.

About the bolded part -- what's ironic is that in the film _The Pianist_, a Jewish character (the pianist's brother, played by Ed Stoppard) quotes Shylock's "If you prick us, do we not bleed..." in order to sum up the tragedy of the situation the Jews find themselves in. So in that film, at least, Shakespeare's words do serve as an outcry against prejudice.


----------



## znapschatz

Bellinilover said:


> I believe it's Joseph Fiennes in _The Merchant of Venice_, rather than Ralph.
> 
> About the bolded part -- what's ironic is that in the film _The Pianist_, a Jewish character (the pianist's brother, played by Ed Stoppard) quotes Shylock's "If you prick us, do we not bleed..." in order to sum up the tragedy of the situation the Jews find themselves in. So in that film, at least, Shakespeare's words do serve as an outcry against prejudice.


Right you are it is Joseph, not Ralph Fiennes (I usually proofread _after_ posting :roll eyes:,) but the line "If you prick us, do we not bleed...," although often used in context of anti-prejudice, does not have that specific meaning in Shakespeare's play. It works as such in other dialogues because it is commonly used to convey that sentiment. That is, those are the character's meanings, not the authors', and that is perfectly valid. But in *MoV*, Shylock is the villain, and his Jewishness part of it. Almost every modern production tries to compensate for this by showing the contempt other characters heap upon him him as wrongful, but in Shakespeare's day, the contempt was regarded as justified. Vestiges of that attitude persist to the present era, and that was the basis of Welles' conclusions and decision to not perform the play.


----------



## Bellinilover

znapschatz said:


> Right you are it is Joseph, not Ralph Fiennes (I usually proofread _after_ posting :roll eyes:,) but the line "If you prick us, do we not bleed...," although often used in context of anti-prejudice, does not have that specific meaning in Shakespeare's play. It works as such in other dialogues because it is commonly used to convey that sentiment. That is, those are the character's meanings, not the authors', and that is perfectly valid. But in *MoV*, Shylock is the villain, and his Jewishness part of it. Almost every modern production tries to compensate for this by showing the contempt other characters heap upon him him as wrongful, but in Shakespeare's day, the contempt was regarded as justified. Vestiges of that attitude persist to the present era, and that was the basis of Welles' conclusions and decision to not perform the play.


I think the other way productions try to compensate is by making Shylock (and Jessica) a "rich" character -- i.e. really showing "his side of the story," so that he's more than just a stereotype. I saw a production of _Merchant_ (Shakespeare Theatre in 1999, Hal Holbrook as Shylock) that did this. As a result, Shylock was still more or less the villain, but at least you could understand his point of view and sympathize with him up to a point.

By the way, I totally "get it" if someone doesn't want to see his/her own ethnicity portrayed in certain ways. I'm of Italian descent and refuse to watch the _Godfather_ movies. It's not that I think they're bad or "wrong," and I don't judge others for watching them. It's just that the mafia and other stereotypes in them bother me, personally. "I find them annoying" is the best way to put it.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

The core collection of DVDs would have to be the BBC Shakespeare, which filmed just about everything except _The Two Noble Kinsmen _and the apocrypha. Best episodes include:
•	_Othello _- directed by Jonathan Miller, with Anthony Hopkins & Bob Hoskins.
•	_All's Well That Ends Well _- directed by Elijah Moshinsky.
•	_Love's Labours Lost_ - directed by Elijah Moshinsky. I'd hated the play when I read it; too many obscure puns and bawdy quibbles. This was a revelation. Moshinsky set the play in the 18th century, as a Mozartean opera of words - and it's delightful.
•	_Richard II_ - Derek Jacobi as Richard. Seriously underrated, dramatically powerful play, with some of the most lyrical poetry in all Shakespeare. 'Down, down I come, like glistering Phaethon, wanting the manage of unruly jades.' The whole 'Let us talk of graves, of worms and epitaphs' speech. The mirror scene.
•	_Henry IV, I & II_. The sequels. Jon Finch magnificent as Henry IV; why wasn't his career more stellar?

Other favourite film / TV versions:
•	The Branagh _Hamlet_. The five-hour movie. Glorious.
•	The McKellen _Richard III_. Yes, it's updated, to an alternative reality Fascist 1930s, and liberties are taken with the text, but it works. The totalitarian England is consistent, and McKellen scuttles across the screen like a spider.
•	Zeffirelli's _Romeo & Juliet_. A beautiful film. Lines have been cut, but the young cast bring energy and a sense of wonder. Visually lovely - scenes that look like Dutch Old Masters, the warm, rich colors of the costumes, Renaissance Italian buildings - and exciting swordfights. And done properly, in period!
•	_Kiss Me Kate_, or _The Taming of the Shrew_. It's an "adaptation", but it's clever, funny and has music and lyrics by Cole Porter.
•	Welles's _Chimes at Midnight_. The Boar's Head scenes, with Hal.

Least favourite? I didn't enjoy the BBC's _Troilus & Cressida _and _Timon of Athens_, but the plays are bad. _Troilus _is long, boring and cynical, and _Timon _is undramatic, proto-Beckett / Existentialist theatre.


----------

