BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

Discuss North American DVDs and Blu-rays or other DVD and Blu-ray-related topics.
Post Reply
Message
Author
onedimension
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:35 pm

BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#1 Post by onedimension » Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:55 am

There are 4 of these on Amazon: two sets of "tragedies", one "histories" and one "comedies" - relatively expensive; can anyone vouch for them?

I've seen next to no Shakespeare actually performed, so I'm interested in that respect, but because this is a DVD forum, any comments on PQ? Are the subtitles accurate?

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#2 Post by MichaelB » Fri Dec 26, 2008 7:26 am

If these are sourced from the BBC Television Shakespeare cycle from 1978-85, they're a mixed bag (as one might expect), and the fact that it's often the better-known plays that received the worst productions (notably Romeo and Juliet, As You Like It, The Merry Wives of Windsor and The Tempest) has led to the widespread impression that the series as a whole is pretty lacklustre.

In fact, it included some excellent productions, especially after Jonathan Miller took over as series producer in 1980 - but even before then there were outstanding adaptations of Henry VIII and Measure for Measure, and Richard II at least had a superb cast (Derek Jacobi, John Gielgud). Other standouts included most things directed by Miller, Elijah Moshinsky and Jane Howell - I'm particularly fond of the latter's productions, which included Titus Andronicus, The Winter's Tale and a superb Henry VI/Richard III cycle.

I wrote an overview and pieces on most of the individual productions for BFI Screenonline - I'm hoping to mop up the rest at some point in 2009.

As for PQ, I can't vouch for US editions, but they were all shot on 1970s/early 1980s PAL videotape - so any US edition will unavoidably be a PAL-NTSC conversion. Subtitles on the UK edition are fine (albeit including HOH sound effects) - I can't imagine why the US edition will be any different.

User avatar
Peacock
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:47 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#3 Post by Peacock » Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:50 am

I would personally recommend purchasing the UK boxset instead
http://www.amazon.co.uk/BBC-TV-Shakespe ... 470&sr=1-1
as the price is far better than buying all the individual american oness.

charal
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 6:36 pm
Location: ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#4 Post by charal » Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:23 pm

I bought the UK box last year when it was discounted. With the Oz dollar at 90 US cents each disc cost me just under $4 AUD [including exchange + postage]. The box is big with each play separate [in a slim amaray case] housed in alphabetical order.

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#5 Post by denti alligator » Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:14 am

MichaelB wrote:I wrote an overview and pieces on most of the individual productions for BFI Screenonline - I'm hoping to mop up the rest at some point in 2009.
Thank you so much for this, Michael. These are marvelous reviews!

Are there good video or film versions of every Shakespeare play? That is to say, even for the clunkers in this BBC set, can one find good versions elsewhere? It would be nice to compile a list of best adaptations of each of the plays. For the famous ones the list would be helpful to point to the best versions, for the lesser-known plays, it would be nice to know what, if anything, is worth watching.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#6 Post by MichaelB » Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:46 am

denti alligator wrote:Are there good video or film versions of every Shakespeare play? That is to say, even for the clunkers in this BBC set, can one find good versions elsewhere? It would be nice to compile a list of best adaptations of each of the plays. For the famous ones the list would be helpful to point to the best versions, for the lesser-known plays, it would be nice to know what, if anything, is worth watching.
Well, my professional expertise is with British Shakespeare adaptations, so I can't give definitive answers to this (and in any case with some of the more famous plays there's clearly no single definitive adaptation - for instance, Hamlet has seen several outstanding versions).

But I can say with reasonable confidence that if you want to watch Cymbeline, Henry VIII, King John, Pericles, Timon of Athens, Troilus and Cressida, The Two Gentlemen of Verona and (surprisingly) Coriolanus or The Merry Wives of Windsor, you're stuck with the BBC productions, as any others (if there were any) no longer survive - or only exist as a fragment, like the 1899 Beerbohm Tree King John. Fortunately, with the exception of the rather plodding Merry Wives, they're among the cycle's better productions (Cymbeline and Henry VIII are among the best full stop, while Timon of Athens' defects are those of the play: Jonathan Miller, Jonathan Pryce and their colleagues do their best).

Realistically, you're probably also stuck with the BBC All's Well That Ends Well, Measure for Measure, Richard II, The Winter's Tale and the entire Henry VI/Richard III cycle (at least if you want a near-complete Richard III: the feature films are severely cut) - in these cases, other television versions survive (and in most cases I've seen examples), but they're not commercially available. Fortunately, I can recommend all these productions pretty much without reservation.

So that's seventeen plays to be getting on with: I'll tackle the other twenty later!

(I know it's more than 37 if you count things like Edward III or The Two Noble Kinsmen, but neither have been filmed or televised to date)

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#7 Post by MichaelB » Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:53 am

Incidentally, I'm not counting the BBC Wales/S4C/Soyuzmultfilm Shakespeare: The Animated Tales productions, because they're all severe truncations - but I do strongly recommend them. From memory, Romeo and Juliet was the only significant disappointment, and I was really pleasantly surprised with how intelligently the others were done.

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#8 Post by denti alligator » Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:49 pm

Thanks for this run-down, Michael. Troilus and Cressida, Measure for Measure, and The Winter's Tale are among my favorites, and I've always wanted to read and see productions of the lesser-known plays, so I'm going to seriously consider getting that BBC set.
(I know it's more than 37 if you count things like Edward III or The Two Noble Kinsmen, but neither have been filmed or televised to date)
It's a shame about The Two Noble Kinsmen. I've always been attracted to that oddity.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#10 Post by MichaelB » Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:44 pm

wardolf wrote:Can anyone who owns this BBC Shakespeare DVD set tell me one crucially important thing: Can the subtitles be TURNED OFF? On all the plays?

Thanks
Of course they can - burned-in HOH subs on discs that are in English in the first place would be insane.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#11 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Jan 13, 2010 12:01 pm

Despite still being half way through my Hitchcock marathon (Vertigo is actually starting to grow on me and The Man Who Knew Too Much remake reminded me with the taxidermist digression that Hitch also used many extraneous but interesting sequences in his work to throw off the viewer or to provide a brief comic respite from the main action) I decided to have a brief break to refresh my palate, and in a fit of mad ambition decided to open up the big box of BBC Shakespeare adaptations instead! I’m not sure how many I’ll get through but I thought it might be fun to put up some of my impressions of the series and the plays themselves here.

I actually have some memories of watching one or two of these BBC productions at school - I'm pretty sure it was one of the Roman pieces and since our school wasn't very adventurous in its Shakespeare choices I'd have to assume that it was the adaptation of Julius Caesar. I'm ashamed to admit though that it was purely the size of the enormous boxed set of VHS tapes of the series that caught my attention and awe more in those days! It looked fascinating, though I'm pretty sure part of the fascination was due to it being one of those sets that was kept locked away by the librarian due to its valuable and unwieldy nature with access only allowed through special request, which sadly added an extra feeling of inaccessibility to the plays themselves in a strange way. Anyway all this is just a preamble to my finally having picked up the box set, big in itself even with the DVDs housed in their thin cases, and finally having the chance to watch the plays at my leisure.

I have to again thank MichaelB for the Screenonline critiques of many of the plays - I have decided to tackle them in transmission order for no particular reason other than maybe to experience them as they appeared on television and because of the general feeling expressed in the notes that the plays became more accomplished as they progressed. I should also admit to there being many gaps in my Shakespeare knowledge (notably all the historical plays and once we get past Midsummer Nights Dream, As You Like It and Love's Labour's Lost I'm pretty lacking in knowledge of the comedies too),so I'm looking to this set to provide me with some introductions to texts that I was never taught in school and have never seen adapted elsewhere. I'm also of course going to approach commenting from the point of view of fun rather than as an academic exercise, as I'm sure most of what could be said about these plays has been done elsewhere and far more eloquently than I could ever hope to manage.

Romeo & Juliet

Starting in transmission order however meant that the first play was Romeo & Juliet. I love the play itself with the naive idealistic innocence of the young lovers thinking that their marriage will bring a long running feud to an immediate end contrasting with the youthful childish fighting between Mercutio and Tybalt - themselves little understanding the devastating consequences their constant fighting will have both to themselves and to others, but unable to stop an almost obsessive need to violently confront each other. (Mercutio and Tybalt's deaths, while sad, are 'good' deaths since they fought for honour and revenge, so could be accepted as being necessary and noble while at the same time helping to fuel fires of vengeance. Romeo and Juliet's deaths are the opposite of that, mutual love rather than hate causes them to kill each other through making them both wish to commit suicide, and which in itself acts to reverse the cycle of revenge and hatred - at least momentarily)

However it seems a difficult piece to perform effectively in order to show this youthful bravado or idealism without regard for consequence while at the same time keeping the audience's sympathies from being lost as they see easily avoided tragedy being fully played out (though this does let Romeo have a nice little sense of premonition of impending doom even before he reaches the party and meets Juliet - that no good can come of crashing a ball held by a sworn enemy, though of course the explosion of violence Tybalt attempts is diverted for a more unexpected and slow burning fuse of destruction). There needs to be a sense of the problems occuring and snowballing due to naturally arising character flaws rather than schematic plotting forcing the issues.

I may be in the minority of finding the set up, quickie marriage and circumstances that prevent Romeo being informed of the plot to fake Juliet's death falling more to the schematic deus ex machina side, which in a way has often lead me to judge this play more harshly than plays which incorporate that deus ex machina inside the narrative itself, such as the plottings in Titus Andronicus or the feud between the fairy king and queen in Midsummer Night's Dream that impacts on the human characters, for all that these two plays in particular get pushed to extremes in different ways. (And interesting that Rohmer’s now final film Romance of Astrea and Celadon seems to have some of this influence in it)

It leaves a lot more resting on the actor's performances, and their charisma in their roles, than it should. More than any of the other plays perhaps you have to be so totally invested in the plight of the young lovers that you can forgive the manipulation towards their double suicide as being inevitable and necessary as instead of their marriage bringing their feuding families together the mutual and total devastation becomes a much stronger bond.

I felt that Rebecca Saire was particularly good as Juliet, as was Michael Hordern of course in his ditzy yet authoritative paternal figure. Celia Johnson as the nurse was perfect - both light and gently encouraging in the joy she has at helping the young lovers, their love maybe letting her experience first love again by proxy, then maybe hurting by the overturning of the hopes she had for the couple turning to the initial tragedy of the death of Tybalt devasting in her pragmatic betrayal of Juliet by agreeing with her parent's insistence that Paris should be married instead. But her pain at discovering Juliet's 'death' (whether faked or genuine it represents the irrevocable severing of ties between Juliet and her nurse), is so beautifully played the audience feels that the nurse was always doing what she thought would be in Juliet's best interests - perhaps the truest tragedy is that of the nurse (and the Friar) in seeing their hopes and dreams utterly destroyed, with the feeling that they aided in that destruction more than prevented it. (I think the Friar's initial speech about the plants in the garden is probably the highlight of the entire play. The 'Romeo, Romeo' balcony scene may be more famous but often plays almost parodically lovey-dovey, especially in the many anguished partings and running back to each other that takes place at the end of the scene)

I also felt Jacqueline Hill was excellent as Lady Capulet - loving of her daughter yet also distant and manipulative of her as a child would be of her dolls. The way that she expresses hope for revenge against Romeo after Tybalt's death is beautifully done - the despair turning to anger that is a parent's perogative after a child's death, but at the same time the anger is a self-justification and a continuance of the feud that left Tybalt dead in the first place. And the hasty jump into the arranged marriage of Juliet with Paris is performed for reasons of security of the blood line, but ends up being the catalyst for the final tragedy - once everything is lost, feuds have to be forgotten.

Alan Rickman as Tybalt was excellent in a performance that calls for bemused, barely suppressed rage at the impertinence of Romeo and Mercutio, quick to offence and looking for an excuse to fight as much as Mercutio is, though Mercutio does not help matters! Anthony Andrews as Mercutio is an interesting, annoying performance which I felt was perfectly appropriate - the character himself is a flamboyantly irritating character able to speak truths but easily ignorable by others due to their own flaws or position in society preventing them from being taken seriously (a version of the Fool in King Lear? This actually brings up a neat benefit of watching a number of the plays together - to see the way that archetypal characters and behaviour is tackled in different ways in different plays, with different outcomes depending on the weighting of the character in a particular work, or the 'light' or 'dark' nature of the text itself. In this case it is the new, unformed generation that is destroyed by the sins of the older, whereas in Lear it is the younger generation again but one which has begun to learn the rules of the game for themselves to become victors rather than victims).

I had some issues with Patrick Ryecart as Romeo though - I found him a little fey and callow as a romantic lead, though again perhaps that might be the best way to play the character as apart from the initial decision to go to the ball (which he is pushed into anyway) and falling in love with Juliet, Romeo has little particular impact on events beyond begging other people to help him in some fashion. He is truly "more sinned against than sinning", so to speak.

Richard II

This was my first encounter with the play and I was extremely impressed by the impact it had on me, though I wonder if that might have been because it was free of negative connotations of having to study it for school and all the pressures that brings that can destroy the enjoyment of a text?

After John Gielgud's brief appearance as the chorus in Romeo & Juliet, he takes on a larger role here as John of Gaunt (strangely as in the notorious Caligula film, Gielgud takes a role of someone who provides some order to the proceedings, and with whose early death seems to allow room for the upheavals that follow to occur). Charles Gray is also impressive as his tormented brother (as the last of the line of many brothers sacrificed to war he brings to mind Titus Andronicus, especially in his willingness to give over his son to Henry when he finds evidence of plotting behind the king's back), especially good in the silently anguished reactions he has throughout the latter half of the play. But everyone is put into the shade by Derek Jacobi's impressively nuanced performance as Richard II, both unlikeably petty and a poor leader and wronged against at the same time.

The play feels very much about 'soft' and 'hard' wielding of power. Richard is undone by his soft wielding of power to defuse situations that would normally have called for harsher punishments. ‘Soft’ power is kindlier but also by its lack of harshness seems less motivated and more whimsical. This ‘softness’ also contains a sense of allowing room for others to plot and scheme without fear of being mercilessly crushed. For instance the confrontation between Henry of Bolingbroke and Thomas Mowbray that is taken to the point of a duel to the death but is then stopped at Richard's whim and both instead banished. Richard reveals a rather petty side here in banishing Mowbray indefinitely and Henry for ten years, reduced to six as a gesture to his father. In exposing his obvious favouritism and seeming to do Henry a favour he incurs Mowbray's premonition-like curse and also reveals a tendency to impetuous decisions as well as a weakness of will that leads to doubts about his fitness to govern. By trying to please everyone, while also doing that which benefits him the most, he invites revolution and seems to acknowledge it in the paranoid seeming request of Mowbray and Bolingbroke never to plot anything together or even meet while both are banished from the kingdom. It is a solution that causes more problems than it solves, even while it avoids bloodshed.

There is an interesting exploration of the limits of a king's power associated with the sanctuary of England itself, with it being in the king's best interests to make the world beyond seem as wild and unsavory a prospect as death (even if he gets his wife from foreign kingdoms!) so that his ultimate punishment of explusion can seem as horrific as getting thrown out of the Garden of Eden (plus, shockingly, you may even have to learn another language while there!)

It therefore makes it ironic that with the death of Henry's father John of Gaunt, it is Richard's decision to take all the money from the estate to fund his war with Ireland that brings about his downfall! Plus Gaunt rails at Richard himself for ‘leasing’ the country out to foreign interests and abandoning the perceived foundations of English society through his casual rule, particularly in the discussion with his brother the Duke of York of the way England in held in thrall by Italian customs.

This is where you get the quotably reverent speech about “this scepter’d isle…this happy breed of men…this teeming womb of royal kings fear’d by their breed and famous by their birth renowned for their deeds as far from home from Christian service and true chivalry as is the sepulchre in subborn Jewry of the world’s ransom, blessed Mary’s son” etc which espouses England’s greatness and how things are falling apart, but which is just as much about John of Gaunt’s anger at his son’s banishment from the land and the ongoing prerogative of the old and those nearing death to complain that things just are not what they used to be as a kind of self-comfort against the knowledge that they are leaving the world! As well as a thinly veiled dig at the currently vacillatingly weak King Richard, it also brings up the idea of the curse being pronounced as being a kind of narcissism on the part of the curser, which also crops up in Lear. This complexity usually gets missed of course when elements from the speech can be quoted in a right wing political context to celebrate an isolationist or purity of blood ideal. Gielgud is incredibly impressive in this final speech, and really delivers an authoritatively righteous and angry performance railing against the King that hangs over the rest of the film however, despite these other discernable nuances to the text and character's motivation.

The way that John of Gaunt earlier in the play has a confrontation with his now assassinated brother’s distraught wife also brings up ideas of all consuming revenge (more fully expressed elsewhere in Shakespeare) as she rails against Mowbray as she is decided that he is definitely her husband’s murderer and also attacks John of Gaunt for not standing up for his own son more, even if he had doubts about him. There is also the sense that after their scene together, the wife is planning to kill herself as the proper response to losing her husband and feeling wronged, rather than pursuing revenge.

There is an interesting complication of sympathies as Richard seems over privileged and cruel in the way that he jokes about hoping that he arrives too late to see John of Gaunt before he dies, his over hasty land grab once the death is announced, and his anger at Henry being more of a ‘man of the people’ than he is. However this petty and seemingly paranoid cruelty eventually seems to have some basis in truth - while it doesn’t excuse Richard’s attempts to take Henry’s lands, which is the main trigger for his downfall, the popular uprising which follows among ‘the common people’ to reinstate Henry proves that Richard has never really had the respect of his subjects, just a subservient loyalty based on tradition. Though having loyalty or respect or not among ‘the people’ is really neither here or there except when there is a more charismatic potential King around to garner support, and Henry proves himself more than willing to push past just reclaiming his inheritance and using the groundswell of support he has to go beyond righting wrongs and actually depose the ruling monarch.

Would he have done this if he were not banished from the kingdom or not? The play seems to leave this an open question, although the initial dispute between Henry and Mowbray, in which Mowbray seemingly prophesies Richard’s fate before he is forever banished, comes about due to an accusation after an assassination, which suggests at least someone was making moves for power at this early stage.

It was interesting to see the motif of woodland meetings (Henry after having broken the rule of banishment meets the Duke of York before they march on Richard) and the working, rural class having a clear vision of the entire situation, viewing events wryly aware of their lack of influence on the course of events. Of course these ideas run through many of the other Shakespeare plays, emphasised to a greater or lesser extent

At this mid-point of the play Richard and Henry exchange places, as Henry becomes more regally aloof, while Richard more human, making it seem much more that the position of monarch necessitates a detachment from the people. If a monarch does have a relationship with a close group of friends or advisors in power it taints their reign - Richard’s cruelty is allowed to have free reign and flourish while he is in the company of a close circle of friends Bushy and Bagot and the Duke of Aurmerle. Once they are removed from him, along with his position, he becomes more sympathetic. It is also interesting that the final action of Richard’s assassination is carried out by people who feel that they are doing Henry a favour by their actions – they still think they can relate to the new King as an equal, and perform deeds on behalf of him that they think he will approve of, instead of recognising that they are now only subjects to follow the monarch’s explicit orders without independent action of their own on their behalf.

The amazing scenes on the battlements and in the Coronation where Richard is advised not to rock the boat and go along with a non-violent handover of power, systematically having his illusions of control stripped from him one by one (the armies; the allies; the advisors; the trappings of the position as the armour and the finery are stripped over succeeding scenes; eventually the divine right to rule until death, although that one is conveniently and neatly resolved with his final assassination!), while he has feelings of ownership and right mixed with feelings of anger and growing awareness of his abandonment by his people, with this realisation that this situation may be due to his actions and a new and late awareness of the responsibility he had, and which he wasted, torments him.

Shakespeare seems to love characters becoming self aware only after the damage has been done by or to them. In the comedies these complications can usually be set right with a happy ending for all – in the histories and of course the tragedies the only restoration (or resetting) of norms comes about through death, as the institutions of church, state and families continue while the individuals within them are sacrificed for that continuance (perhaps the Roman plays are the exception in this regard, as there the individual tragedies can stand for the end of a whole society).

Jacobi is absolutely breathtaking throughout the play but especially in these scenes, an absolutely phenomenal and difficult performance of a complex part. Changing from feyness and complacency, through shock and blistering anger, to eventual pained acceptance of his new condition he is mesmerising throughout.

I thought that this production was very well filmed, revealing and hiding actors in long, fluid camera movements that manage to capture the essence of the meaning of the scene just through composition and placement of action – it felt far more distinctive and interesting than the rather stagey and flat framing of the actors in Romeo and Juliet. Especially in the Coronation scene where the emphasis is mostly on Jacobi’s magnificent railing the camera still manages to include every important element in the scene that manages to counterpoint or comment on the scene being played out without undermining it (the newly enthroned Henry; the Crown and sceptre on its pillow; the Duke of York in torment occasionally captured on the side of the screen), pulling in for the intimate moments on Richard, but never making it entirely his show.

The post-coronation scene of Richard meeting his French wife for the last time on his way to the Tower was also extremely moving, suggesting an actual love that had grown in between them despite their marriage of convenience. It also makes me wonder if there is much connection to the more famous, and far more cruel “get thee to a nunnery” scene from Hamlet?

After those powerful scenes, I’m afraid I found the scene between the Duke of York and his wife (albeit nicely played by Wendy Hiller) a little bit farcical, as they find out about their son, the Duke of Aurmerle’s plot to murder Henry, and set out either to condemn him (the Duke, as mentioned above in sacrifice seeming like Titus Andronicus), or to save him (the Duke’s wife in an almost hysterical state). It is perhaps important to give an audience some respite from the heavy business of deposing a King, especially given the final assassination to come which counterpoints this unsuccessful murder plot played for laughs, but it does feel a little too broad after the intimacy of the preceding scenes.

I agree with Michael’s comments in his piece on the play that the decision to separate Richard’s final speech to himself in his cell into time passing dissolves was very nicely done, suggesting that the worst critic and tormentor anyone can have is really their own conscience.


As You Like It

I was a little antipathetic towards this play at first, coming after such an extremely powerful piece like Richard II, I wasn’t sure if a cross dressing piece of fluffy fun would hold me to the same extent! And the opening didn’t really help much, as actors seemed uncomfortably broad in setting up their roles which, combined with a muffled quality to the dialogue likely as a result of the decision to film outdoors for all but a couple of scenes, was a little off putting at first, but I soon got used to it.

However once all the characters were on their journeys into the woods and the romantic complications began, the piece really hit its stride. The way that the trappings of civilisation - power; being first born and so being the only brother to be educated and cultured; even celebrity in the rather overblown wrestler, not above a quick kick to the crotch when his opponent is down (with associated “ooh’s” of sympathy from the watching crowd!), being bested by our amateur hero - actively works to hide fundamental human decency, and causes much of the anger and hatred in the world (even setting brother against brother at the opening) is set against the rural idyll that the characters find themselves in, with little to do but tend the land and make love to each other. It even allows for the consideration of same sex relationships in a comfortable manner, though heterosexuality is always present as the ‘correct’ alternative that it is inevitable that all the characters will embrace at the end of the play after their various dalliances! The relationship between Orlando and Ganymede (Rosaline cross-dressed as a ‘lusty youth’) in which Ganymede woos Orlando by pretending to be the woman he is pining for, which Orlando willingly plays along with, becomes surprisingly erotic and long drawn out! (This homoerotic relationship actually allows Orlando to express his longing for Rosaline in a way that he is too tongue-tied to do when face to face with the lady herself, making it seem as if it is a necessary stage to go through before he can truly be with Rosaline without mediation). Though the way that near the play’s end the question of whether the disguise actually ever works to deceive or not is quite funnily toyed with!

As with Romeo, it probably helps that the male lead Orlando has to be played with a kind of callow blankness to allow for a certain amount of audience suspension of disbelief (though the actor here is much better than the chap who played Romeo and seems to be having some fun with the ‘is he aware or isn’t he?’ shenanigans). I’m beginning to feel that the male leads are never really the most interesting characters in Shakespeare – they may put the story into motion and their fates may be important at the climax, but after that it is the characters around them and inspired by them who take on the greatest life and interest, at least for this audience member.

I also liked the way that once everyone has been set up in the woods the play becomes a sort of experiment in throwing different combinations of characters together and seeing how they relate together, and what new light they shed on each other’s characters. It is a nice way of developing fully rounded characters for the audience by experiencing how they taken on various different roles in their interactions.

Helen Mirren of course is wonderful in her role, though I was also very impressed by Angharad Rees as the friend she elopes with, as she seemingly takes a lot of delight in the light and fun role, enjoying the way her friend's decision to dress as a man takes all sorts of unexpected turns! Interestingly the most impressive part of the production is the final wrapping up, as all the loose threads are quickly tied up without having to get too many extraneous characters involved (a lion features in reports, as does the Orlando’s bad brother’s conversion to good. And the death of the evil, overly grumpy Duke whose banishment of the good Duke to the forest and threats to kill Rosaline leading to their flight into the forest, is treated in an offhand ‘oh, by the way he’s dead so everything is fine now!’ manner that gets rid of a problem while maintaining the light mood!). The wonderful final epilogue direct to the audience is beautifully performed by Mirren, as the rest of the cast dance off into the woods before she joins them, is a great way to end, inviting the audience to participate in their own hopeful world of love through the continuance of their own love lives!
Last edited by colinr0380 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:14 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#12 Post by Michael Kerpan » Wed Jan 13, 2010 12:23 pm

My recollection from watching the series when it was first aired was that Richard II may have been the very best film of the whole batch -- with the Hamlet (also starring Jacobi) coming in jusrt behind.

Then again, Richard II is my favorite Shakespearean history play.

User avatar
Dr Amicus
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:20 am
Location: Guernsey

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#13 Post by Dr Amicus » Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:12 am

This is one of those sets I keep thinking about, then putting on the back-burner

Covering Richard II suddenly makes the set more tempting. About 20 years back, Jacobi played both Richard II and Richard III in the West End. I only managed to see Richard III, which I enjoyed a great deal, but those who had seen Richard II told me it was vastly superior - as indeed was Jacobi's performance. This at least will be a chance to have at least a taste of what I missed.

User avatar
Sloper
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:06 pm

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#14 Post by Sloper » Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:24 am

A friend of mine here at Warwick, lucky bastard that he is, has done tons of research on Shakespeare performances, including going to see all 54 (I think) productions at the recent 'Complete Works' festival in Stratford. He has a very well-maintained blog called 'The Bardathon': here's his review of the BBC set.

I have a treasured off-air recording of Richard II being performed live at the Globe, with Mark Rylance playing Richard - I haven't seen the BBC version, but Rylance managed very much the same sort of balance you talk about, Colin, between childishness and gravitas. These sort of flawed, tragic, unbearably sympathetic characters are what Shakespeare does best, and watching them being played by actors sensitive to this kind of duality is a rare privilege.

After watching that one, you might want to plough through the histories: the BBC Henry IVs are a little dull as productions, but they're pretty much Shakespeare's best plays, and the cast here is mostly very good (especially Anthony Quayle's definitive Falstaff); haven't seen the Henry V, but the Henry VI/Richard III cycle is, as Michael says, breathtaking. These BBC productions were my introduction to Henry VI, and never having much liked Richard III I wasn't expecting much - but they're brilliant, terrifying plays, staged and performed here with maximum relish by a stalwart cast amid an increasingly battle-worn playground set. It sounds weird, but it works beautifully. Trevor Peacock (best known as the 'no no no no yes' bloke from the Vicar of Dibley), in a dual role as Talbot and Jack Cade, is particularly outstanding - not to be missed. And after spending time with Richard II, you have a real sense of where these tragic events stem from, how that one act of usurpation leads to a sprial of increasingly futile and bloody conflicts. (This was brought out in the recent RSC productions by having the same actor, Jonathan Slinger, play Richard II and Richard of Gloucester.)

I've seen a few other BBC Shakespeares, and I have to say I found Troilus (my favourite play) kind of dull - everyone speaking much too quietly. Coriolanus was a little bit of a drag as well, with a fatally hammy lead performance. Othello, despite Hopkins and Hoskins, surprisingly lifeless.

But Timon of Athens is one I often revisit. Have to disagree with Michael (and lots of others - a recent editor called it 'Shakespeare's least loved play') about the quality of the text, but he's right about the production. Jonathan Pryce is note-perfect in this superlatively difficult role, somehow managing the personality reversal at the mid-point without making it seem artificial; Pryce employs his trademark nervy insecurity in the early scenes, and it pays off in spades when he falls apart at the seams later on. Nice atmospheric sets, too.

And the Hamlet with Jacobi is the best filmed Hamlet I've ever seen. In fact, Jacobi's is the only performance I've seen of this role that really 'makes sense' - he seems to mean what he says, rather than just giving an admiring recitation (which I think is essentially what Branagh does).

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#15 Post by MichaelB » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:09 am

Sloper wrote:After watching that one, you might want to plough through the histories: the BBC Henry IVs are a little dull as productions, but they're pretty much Shakespeare's best plays, and the cast here is mostly very good (especially Anthony Quayle's definitive Falstaff); haven't seen the Henry V,
It's along very similar lines to the Henry IV plays - decent casting, plodding production. Sadly, they were victims of the ultra-conservative artistic policy that bedevilled the 1978/79 productions, though by the time the other history plays got off the ground things had thankfully changed. Henry V is also interesting for being largely uncut - less of a revelation in the wake of Branagh's version, but the inclusion of text that Olivier pointedly left out makes Henry a much more ambiguous and less conventionally 'heroic' figure.
but the Henry VI/Richard III cycle is, as Michael says, breathtaking. These BBC productions were my introduction to Henry VI, and never having much liked Richard III I wasn't expecting much - but they're brilliant, terrifying plays, staged and performed here with maximum relish by a stalwart cast amid an increasingly battle-worn playground set.
This was the first time I'd ever seen Richard III almost uncut, and it was a revelation - I'd never realised just how heavily truncated the standalone features are, or how many lines really don't make much sense unless you've seen the Henry VI cycle (or at the very least Part III, which sets up and explains many situations that Richard III later resolves). And you're right to single out the Jack Cade sequence - that's one of the most inspired bits of staging and casting in the whole BBC cycle, with a real sense of impending revolutionary apocalypse. I watched the whole four-play cycle on four consecutive nights, and I really recommend doing it this way if you can spare the time.

Colin, you're in for a major treat - and your policy of watching the series in broadcast order should pay off substantially once you get through the lacklustre early seasons. Though even then there were gems - you've already flagged up Richard II, and the presumably imminent Measure for Measure and Henry VIII are even better.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#16 Post by Michael Kerpan » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:00 am

For those who can do R2 PAL -- I believe all 37 plays a re available from Amazon UK for 77 pounds (or so).

User avatar
Sloper
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:06 pm

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#17 Post by Sloper » Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:08 pm

MichaelB wrote:I watched the whole four-play cycle on four consecutive nights, and I really recommend doing it this way if you can spare the time.
This is pretty much what I did: I was suffering from terrible insomnia at the time, and one night I just thought, 'Bugger it - I'll watch Henry VI.' It kept me awake all night and much of the next day.

The RSC productions were equally good, with equally intelligent casting choices. For instance, after Joan of Arc was burnt alive onstage (by the Duke of York), the same actress re-entered moments later as Margaret of Anjou - giving added piquancy to the 'paper crown' scene much, much later on. Chuk Iwuji was a great Henry as well. Like Peter Benson (in the BBC version) he did a great job of holding the play together, providing real pathos and tragedy to offset the callous, almost manic brutality that pervades the rest of the story. The scene where Gloucester is arrested, and Henry compares himself to a cow watching its calf being dragged away to the slaughter, is among the most chilling and moving passages in Shakespeare.

I forgot about Measure for Measure - another good production, nothing surprising but with so many safe pairs of hands (Kenneth Colley, Tim Pigott-Smith and especially John McEnery as Lucio) and such a great play, you can't go wrong.

One of the things I like most about these BBC productions is their clarity: the Ian McKellens and Antony Shers are all very well, but sometimes I think the most fulfilling way to experience writing like this is just to hear it performed distinctly and intelligently by actors who understand the words, the thoughts and the emotions. I know that sounds very conservative, but I'm so sick of wasting time in theatres (especially in Stratford) watching a bunch of self-regarding poseurs leaping around the stage, rushing through the boring bits and heavily accentuating any lines they can get a cheap laugh out of, grabbing their crotches and shagging the air at the slightest hint of sexual innuendo, frantically crossing themselves every time God is mentioned, and only really seeming to wake up when they get to the obligatory dance at the end (cue more leaping, hand-clapping and joyous shouts of 'Hey!', as in 'Hey, the play's over!').

I think one of the reasons the recent productions of Henry VI were so good, while the Henry IV plays were totally wretched (despite David Warner as Falstaff) is that most actors and directors seem much more comfortable with the physical stuff - the battles, the stabbings, etc - than with the business of character interaction, emotional depth, and poetic beauty. One of the virtues of television is the intimacy it allows, and while something like Troilus and Cressida really needs (I think) a sense of grandeur and volume to really work, the format suits Measure for Measure like a glove. Generally, from what I've seen of the BBC series, it seems that working for television encouraged those involved to really focus on getting the words and the drama to make sense - to be comprehensible. One of these days I'll get paid and buy the whole set.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#18 Post by colinr0380 » Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:52 pm

MichaelB wrote:Henry V is also interesting for being largely uncut - less of a revelation in the wake of Branagh's version, but the inclusion of text that Olivier pointedly left out makes Henry a much more ambiguous and less conventionally 'heroic' figure.
Embarrassing admission time - I've never actually made it through Branagh's Henry V yet, so hopefully the BBC play will be my first viewing of a 'full text' production of that play (I have some issues with Branagh, but have seen most of his other Shakespeare films including the long version of Hamlet which seems to be doing the same thing as the BBC films by including famous film, rather than television, stars (Robin Williams, Charlton Heston, Jack Lemmon, etc. Though wonderfully he also finds room for Brian Blessed and Ken Dodd too!) in the smaller roles to enhance the impact and memorability of some minor characters presumably to counteract a danger that the audience may begin to be overwhelmed by the number of characters without these recognisable actors playing them).

The Bardathon link was fantastic Sloper! I do kind of like the idea of there being a televisual or filmic equivalent of there not being a 'definitive' version of a play, instead many different interpretations and stagings, as in theatre, though with the added bonus that the performances can be saved for posterity. I agree that it would be nice to see some wild risk taking with the basic material too, though in a way it is good to have the BBC series to provide a kind of foundation from which the more outrageous interpretations can be better appreciated (I'll be particularly interested to see a relatively more staid, even 'period', staging of Titus Andronicus, since I've only experienced that play through the rather wild Julie Taymor film so far). The recording of a great amount of the original text, if not all of it, in a filmed performance is a valuable first even before we start commenting on the quality of the particular productions.

Perhaps the best comment I could make about the quality of Richard II is that I came fresh to the play, a little nervous about tackling my first 'historical Shakespeare', and clutching my book of Shakespeare plays closely in order to let me follow along with the dialogue and help me to pick up references (which I found interesting to consult during Romeo and Juliet, noting the occasional omissions and restructurings of dialogue in scenes), and found that I never consulted the book once, instead finding myself drawn into the action and even following the gist of the dialogue without needing breaks in the action to digest and understand it (which is a big thing for me as I'm normally a slow learner with regard to Shakespearian language, though I should also admit to having had the subtitles turned on whilst viewing all of the plays so far to act as a handy on screen guide! I don't know if that could be considered cheating or not!) It was very surprising to find myself considering Richard far more sympathetically than I had initially, and to similarly begin to dislike Henry more as the play went on, something which led me to feeling that it was the title of all powerful King itself that distorted my view of the character, as that power almost forces people to actions that they wouldn't normally consider taking.

That is the mark of an excellent and well staged adaptation, where the staging and performances are in synch (or sympathy) with the text all of which helps the viewer to enter into the play more easily and consider the implications of the action beyond just understanding the on stage action. I find too many plays and films tend towards becoming overblown and tinged with desperation in their attempts to 'bring Shakespeare to a modern audience' that they can sometimes make the text even more impenetrable by all the additional elements they bring to bear (I have problems with the Branagh adaptations for the rattlingly fast-paced levels of hysteria he can bring to many of his Shakespeare plays, even the comedies, though I should admit to a fondness for the inspired period setting and musical numbers of Love's Labour's Lost!)

Though of course that applies to any adaptation, not just Shakespeare - a sensitive adapter with a understanding of the ideas behind the text, or the themes of an original film that is being remade, is a necessity but all too rare it seems. But that sympathy can lead to the best reinterpretations, or restagings, as when the essence of the meaning of the material is retained everything else can be changed around that core and it can still remain faithful to its source. Conversely if the essence of the piece is misunderstood or ignored in favour of other more 'marketable' elements, it doesn't matter how much 'period faithfulness' is retained in the staging, or how much of the original text is kept if the actors cannot make it come to life through an informed performance.
Last edited by colinr0380 on Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kidc85
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:15 pm

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#19 Post by kidc85 » Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:57 pm

Not strictly on topic I suppose, but what did people think of the production of Hamlet starring David Tennant that screened on the BBC over Christmastime? I must admit to not watching all of it (real-life got in the way) but, although I very much enjoy watching Tennant and he has a wonderful energy about him, he rampantly failed to convince whenever the tempo of the play slowed down. I don't have a great problem with watching filmed plays but the lazy, cliched attempts at making it more cinematic (the CCTV shots - oof) combined with sterile, pointlessly empty sets made me wish they had just filmed a stage performance. Better to be honestly uncinematic than the truly uncomfortable halfway house they made for themselves. Disappointing. I also failed to understand why Patrick Stewart played dual roles - were they suggesting Hamlet's father and uncle were twins? Very distracting.

User avatar
Yojimbo
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Ireland

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#20 Post by Yojimbo » Thu Jan 14, 2010 4:02 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote:For those who can do R2 PAL -- I believe all 37 plays a re available from Amazon UK for 77 pounds (or so).
I bought it about a year ago; still haven't watched any of it yet, though! [-X
(cost me £100 though!) :(

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#21 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:21 am

Julius Caesar

It has been a long time since I last saw a production of this play, and one of the things that I had forgotten is that amongst all the assassinations and righteous indignations, was how blackly funny it was!

I wonder if choosing a Roman setting also allows further consideration of issues that might seem completely unacceptable if they took place in an English court or seen as a comment on a current monarch’s reign with the relatively sympathetic portrait of the plotters of an assassination not being immediately treasonable!

There was an interesting comment made by Patrick Reilly from Glasgow University in his introduction to the play in an edition of complete Shakespeare works which I have that perhaps the whole key to understanding the play is provided in the first scene where a cobbler amongst a group of rowdy peasants celebrating Ceasar’s triumphant return to Rome responds to questioning about why they are not at work with the quip that he is wearing their shoes out so he will find himself with more work. Reilly says that this shed light on Cassius and Brutus and the interesting central question of the play – are they leading their band of plotters through the streets for noble reasons or simply for their own gain?

I would add that this initial quip could be joined with Titinius’s final speech on finding Cassius having killed himself thinking the battle was lost, but by his actions causing the defeat of Brutus. Titinus asks Cassius’s dead body why he has misconstrued everything and brought about their downfall. Both of these quotes define the audience’s response to the characters, not just whether they were acting for the best reasons or for personal gain, but also whether a ‘good’ person can perform terrible acts for the ‘right’ reasons.

I also like the way that Cassius and Brutus at the opening help to illustrate the adage of “keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer”. Brutus is more titled and closer to Julius Caesar than Cassius is, and this itself may actually be the cause of Caesar’s assassination. Brutus would likely not change his opinions of the justness of rule by Julius, or any other, Caesar if he we given patronage or not, whereas Cassius seems much more driven in his plotting against this particular Caesar by the anger at having been spurned and left without power or influence due to Julius’s lack of trust in him. Perhaps if Cassius had been given a relatively powerful position in Caesar’s senate he would have found it in his best interests to ensure that Julius Caesar remained in his position. Cassius and Mark Anthony are very similar in that respect – Mark Anthony is in just that privileged position that Cassius yearns for (this also raises ideas about how close the sycophant can be to turning into the plotter).

Brutus however is against the whole idea of the need for an all powerful Caesar figure at all, along with the temptation to abuse power that such a position brings. Julius Caesar himself, as much as Brutus, appears to feel conflicted by the power he is being given by the vested interests that surround him, as much to ensure their continuing advancement as to praise his glories - as shown in the reports of his repeated turning down of the crown that Mark Anthony keeps attempting to present him with (thereby turning the republic into a monarchy just by another name) at the opening of the play.

The whole play is really Marcus Brutus’s tragedy more than Caesar’s however as he almost willingly deludes himself into believing that if he removes the figurehead he will destroy the entire system, if he can just appeal to the huddled masses. Unfortunately he only succeeds in removing a relatively moderate Caesar and replacing him (after momentarily being elevated by the crowd into becoming the successor himself) with a triumvirate of more pragmatic Caesars.

He also loses his wife Portia to grief at his failed coup. I did wonder whether Portia in her wish to be a full partner in her marriage with Brutus and therefore to know of the plot, and then the scene which follows later as she seems conflicted about sending one of their servants to Rome, perhaps to prevent the assassination but in the end just to pointlessly report back to her on what is happening there, bears some comparison to Lady Macbeth, except of course that she does not get her ‘hands dirty’ to the same extent (Brutus himself is the person who ends up elbow deep in Caesar’s blood compared to the rather meek and willingly manipulated Macbeth, letting his wife do all the difficult work for him).

Caesar also proves prone to superstitions, though in the way that he still convinces himself to go to his fate at the senate after receiving ominous portents there is also shown in a blackly funny manner the way that superstitions can be ignored and interpreted in the way that best pleases the individuals disposition and twisted to excuse their actions – so it can be seen as a terrible warning that justifies an action or an easily dismissed aberration dependent on what Caesar was planning to do anyway!

This plays rather well into the emotionalism that Mark Anthony displays in the manipulation of the crowd after Caesar’s assassination. Taking the crowd from praising Brutus for a heroic act to baying for his blood is quite a feat but he manages it in perhaps the funniest scene of the play! The way that he praises Brutus and his accomplices in a way that only manages to make the crowd angrier at them, introduces the last Will and Testament of Caesar to the crowd then ignores it in order to pore over every wound on the corpse for maximum emotional impact, and then reintroduces the Will in an “Oh, I forgot! Caesar willed cash pay outs for every Roman Citizen!” manner is absolutely hysterical!

I found the most interesting aspects of that scene to be wondering whether Caesar’s Will was real or not, likely not since after the assassination there are reports that Anthony has gone straight to his house (likely to write the Will) and then returned straight to the senate. Then if it is a created Will does that suggest that this plan was something Anthony had prepared for in case of an assassination? It makes his grief seem a lot less genuine if that is the case, although this issue is commendably left unresolved.

It is also a very cynical scene with regard to the general population – looking for someone who is seen to be their better and who seems to have all the answers to rule over them, no matter how much they might pretend that they wish for all men to be equal, and to share equal responsibility for the society as a whole. They would rather have a figurehead that they can either idolise or demonise to take full responsibility for them and let them indulge in the full extent of their joy or anger at a situation without having to feel any responsibility themselves (best shown in the minor character Popilius casually wishing Brutus best of luck in the plot before going to talk with Caesar and then to watch the assassination from the sidelines)

The scene which follows Anthony’s rousing speech in the forum as Octavius, Anthony and Lepidus are sitting together and deciding who is to be killed in purges following their seizing of power, and bartering over which particular relatives to sacrifice in order to prove their allegiance, is a sobering sign of their pragmatism, especially if it is set against the naïve assurances of Brutus earlier in the play that only Caesar needs to be killed in their plot and no one else needs to be hurt.

As with Romeo and Juliet there is an interesting reconciliation between Brutus and Cassius as the battle lines harden again and everyone accepts their assigned role in the final act. The following suicide of Cassius after mistakenly thinking that all is lost reminds a little of the end of Romeo & Juliet or Richard II – the audience could so easily see the action having a better, even joyous, outcome but the finality of the death of one character is the fixed, irreversible point that contrasts with all the plots and plans, the hopes and fears, that the characters get so caught up in. Often there is a sort of mid-point premonitionary death (Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet, for example, or the murder of Duncan in Macbeth or Julius Caesar himself. The ghost of Hamlet’s father plays a similar role too, just placed at the very start, rather than the mid-point, of the play) that makes the characters aware of their inevitable fate, the deaths hitting on an emotional and thematic but not devastating level. Then there is a sort of catalytic domino effect triggered by the death of Romeo or Cassius, truly significant figures in the drama, which causes the collapse of every other significant character at the climax.

On to the adaptation itself. It was interesting to note that this was the first time voiceovers were used for the soliloquys. They worked very nicely, especially in first one from Cassius in which the other characters disappear off into the background while the camera gets into a tighter and tighter close up, until just the eyes remain! The whole production was nicely staged too – perhaps the thunder effects were a little overdone, but they add to the heightened paranoia of the characters at that point too.

Measure For Measure

Or “an eye for an eye”.

I loved this play, and the production of it is one of the first fully successful ones of the series so far, with a lot of beautiful and evocative sets and continually interesting staging of the action. It also feels like one of the first productions that features an excellent all round cast with no poor performances or wrong notes from anyone. Plus it is also another darkly funny piece with one of the most effective and ironic of Shakespeare’s final ‘wrap ups’ of the action, but more on that later.

As with Julius Caesar it seems another use of a ‘foreign’ setting to allow consideration of politics and corruption that might cut too close to the bone if performed in an English court setting. The inciting incident of the play involves the Duke giving up his power to Angelo on a whim, ostensibly to go on a foreign trip but instead to hide out as an undercover monk to both get Angelo to make the decisions he does not have the stomach for and brutally crackdown on his subjects to show them who’s boss. Plus the Duke also wants to put Angelo’s rigid moral standards to the test. So it is a win/win situation for the Duke: if Angelo succeeds in making the tough decisions then he becomes unpopular with the people, and if he does not manage to hold up his rigid standards then he has failed the Duke. This comes to a head when Claudio is sentenced to death for making a girl pregnant outside of wedlock, causing his sister Isabel who is training to become a nun to tell Angelo that she will give anything for her brother’s life to spared…up to a point.

While this is never explicitly pointed towards in the play, I’m left feeling much more sympathy for the cold, unhappy and tormented Angelo than for the Duke who pretends to give up power on a whim and takes a God-like pleasure in meddling in his subject’s lives, even to the extent of telling Isabel that her brother has been executed, just so he can have a great moment of unveiling at the end of the story and be able to show his greatness through putting the world to rights.

The play seems to be about power giving the ability to create and amend laws to suit yourself – the position both gives Angelo full licence to pursue his ideology whether it helps or harms people, plus it tempts him to put his morality aside in his fateful decision to offer a pardon to Claudio if Isabel will sleep with him for one night. That is what destroys him - not the rather sordid request itself (which gets an extremely ironic twist in the ‘happy’ ending), but that it reveals that he actually has emotions that may sway the course of his decisions…that he is human.

This undermining of both ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ forms of power seems to push the audience into recognising the importance of religion and piousness in society as a greater check to this moral arbitrariness, especially as embodied in the character of Isabel. Yet this is also immediately undermined itself as Isabel’s insistence that her brother should die seems rather quickly and concretely made and her own pleas for her brother (or for “Justice, justice, justice, justice!” in the final scene), while initially forcefully made are almost immediately retracted again when challenged and it falls to others to persuade her to made further attempts, or to plead for her brother on her behalf. While this aspect is also left open to interpretation it does seem to me that maybe Isabel feels that the authorities are right in wanting to execute Claudio for making a girl pregnant, and is just carrying out the role of caring sister dutifully but without conviction.

The other aspect that totally undermines religion and piousness is again the Duke (in his whimsical games, he seems unaware of the dangerous game he is playing with the fabric of society), in playing at being a monk he gets to give people their last rights before execution, provide comfort and all the while manipulate through the confidences he is privy to.

There seems to be two pairings of characters: the Duke (the false priest) and Isabel (real faith), as well as Claudio (loving through pre-marital sex) and Angelo (the bargaining of Claudio’s life for Isabel’s virginity, as well as the later revelation of his own betrayal of a potential marriage). Plus there is also the comic relief ‘lower class’ characters who act as a mirror image itself undercutting the refinement of the main story – so the virginal nun Isabel is mirrored in the brothel madam Mistress Overdone, Elbow turns from pimp into executioner’s assistant mirroring the Duke’s change of profession (and he has a wonderful speech noting that under Angelo it is just the jail which now houses everyone from the taverns and whorehouses, so it feels as if only the location has changed, not the content or the characters).

By far the best part of the play however is the section which often undermines many of Shakespeare’s plays – the extended wrap up.
SpoilerShow
It seems to take the multiple marriage approach of As You Like It or Much Ado About Nothing, and twist it, as the Duke manages to get everyone married off and put back in their place, legitimising illegitimate children and teaching both Claudio and Angelo a lesson, thus avoiding having to actually support or legitimise either of their grievances – it could be seen as a textbook use of diplomacy to defuse a difficult situation but also one that leaves every party but the Duke frustrated.

The Duke by his absence and manipulations of everyone from behind the scenes ends up the best informed character and also the least likeable or relatable (the absence of Sherlock Holmes from The Hound of the Baskervilles until he turns up having done the bulk of the investigation off stage thereby undermining Watson’s own attempts at solving the case seems very similar). The Duke is able to pair everyone off, and neatly punish each of the guilty parties “measure for measure”, but he is truly the major corrupting influence at the heart of the play who gets away without any punishment for the games he has played – and he seems all the worse for being so charismatically charming.

Of course the final coup de grace is when the Duke asks for Isabel’s hand in marriage – forgive me if this is a wrong interpretation but couldn’t this be seen very similar to Angelo’s request for a night with Isabel in exchange for Claudio’s life? The Duke has pardoned Claudio and (in front of the newly-forced into marriage Angelo too, to rub some extra salt into the wounds) requests Isabel’s hand, and therefore of course her virginity, which she similarly must feel obliged to give him in return for sparing her brother. Though before we see this purely as a terrible tragedy for Isabel, being bullied into having to give up her chastity in the end just to a different suitor, she does seem far more willing to become the Duke’s wife than to share Angelo’s bed – like Angelo’s own morality damning request earlier, her lack of rebuke of the Duke in this final moment places doubts over all of her earlier protestations (and shows perhaps that disgust at the thought of being a one night stand, with however noble a goal, contrasts with becoming the wife of the Duke, with all the power and influence that might bring. Far more than keeping chaste and becoming a nun at least!)

So the final celebratory pairings off of all of our characters instead of being a purely joyous celebration of true love united and conquering all becomes troublingly oppressive, deeply ironic and very funny!

User avatar
ando
Bringing Out El Duende
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:53 pm
Location: New York City

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#22 Post by ando » Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:15 am

Sloper wrote:One of the things I like most about these BBC productions is their clarity: the Ian McKellens and Antony Shers are all very well, but sometimes I think the most fulfilling way to experience writing like this is just to hear it performed distinctly and intelligently by actors who understand the words, the thoughts and the emotions. I know that sounds very conservative, but I'm so sick of wasting time in theatres (especially in Stratford) watching a bunch of self-regarding poseurs leaping around the stage, rushing through the boring bits and heavily accentuating any lines they can get a cheap laugh out of, grabbing their crotches and shagging the air at the slightest hint of sexual innuendo, frantically crossing themselves every time God is mentioned, and only really seeming to wake up when they get to the obligatory dance at the end (cue more leaping, hand-clapping and joyous shouts of 'Hey!', as in 'Hey, the play's over!').
Ha. Indeed. There are some real gems in the DVD set. I'm a third of the way through Cymbeline (had a regrettable interruption) with, among other notables, Claire Bloom and Helen Mirren. There's an Off Broadway production of it here in New York (at an outrageous $75 a ticket) that I may attend. But I wanted to be familiar with the text before I ventured forth. (At those prices, however, the Cymbeline experience may stop here.) The manner in which the text is handled in this production is really refreshing. Cymbeline is rarely performed. The accompanying buffoonery that often attends (I'm sorry, I must say it) American productions puts me off. Ben Brantley, however, notes that the current Barrow Street play (as opposed to the production) is the focal point. It sounds like semantics but those who have sat through Bard abominations will understand. There's a certain (or seemingly certain) comfort level with the language that most of the actors in the BBC produced series possess. It's not merely a feat of delivering the lines in a coherent fashion but of using them as a means of getting what you want. And there's a world of difference between those two objectives.

didi-5
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:51 am

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#23 Post by didi-5 » Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:16 am

In terms of great screen Shakespeare, the BBC set has to be fairly high up the list (particularly Richard II, the Henry IVs, King John, King Lear, Macbeth, Hamlet, Twelfth Night, As You Like It, and Coriolanus).

However in terms of Lears I have to mention those of Ian McKellen (who did understand the part), James Earl Jones, and of course Olivier. Hamlets - Nicol Williamson, Kevin Kline. Macbeths - Ian McKellen and Judi Dench, Michael Jayston and Anna Calder Marshall, Antony Sher and Harriet Walter. Romeo and Juliet - the Di Caprio film, Clive Francis and Angela Scoular. Richard II, not commercially available but Fiona Shaw was superb. Love's Labour's Lost - a recent recording from the Globe, ditto Othello.

There is so much to enjoy when it comes to Shakespeare.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#24 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:25 pm

It might be good to note here that as part of the 'Cultural Olympiad' this year the BBC will be producing new versions of Richard II, both parts of Henry IV and Henry V. Apparently there will be a new version of Julius Caesar as well.

didi-5
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:51 am

Re: BBC Shakespeare DVD Sets

#25 Post by didi-5 » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:17 pm

colinr0380 wrote:It might be good to note here that as part of the 'Cultural Olympiad' this year the BBC will be producing new versions of Richard II, both parts of Henry IV and Henry V. Apparently there will be a new version of Julius Caesar as well.
Yes! I'd forgotten about that since the initial announcement but it is very good news. A while back the BBC promised to do all 37 (or is it 38/39 now?) plays again which sounds like a massive undertaking, but if it comes off, worthwhile.

Post Reply