The Shakespeare Thread

[Tages]

(And before you move it Brian, Shakespeare wrote plays and poems, not books)

In the last age of the boards before the great Cataclysm devoured them, I remember an entertaining thread wherein someone posted questioning why he had to learn Shakespeare in school and calling him overrated, many others jumped to Shakespeare's defense, and we had a nice discussion going.

As it so happens, in just a few hours I will be attending a performance of "A Comedy of Errors" with Kristen and my interest in the works of Shakespeare has been revived. Hence, this thread.

What do you think of the Bard and the incalculable effect his works have on the world in general and the English language in particular even today? How many productions have you seen? Did Shakespeare indeed write all the plays he's credited with writing? Is "The Merchant of Venice" anti-Semitic? Is mentioning the name "Macbeth" really bad luck? Is Hamlet really seeing his father's ghost or just suffering a nervous breakdown? Does Christopher Marlowe deserve comparison with Shakespeare? Does anyone?

Discuss, discuss, and discuss.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Shakespeare was incalculably good. I am familiar with no better writer, and rate very few as even approaching his level of genius. As a wordsmith and as an observer and reporter of human nature, he has few if any equals.

I've seen lots and lots of Shakespeare performances, ranging from the incredible to the awful. I've never seen a good live performance of MACBETH, sadly.

I don't think there's any serious question any more of Shakespeare being the author of those plays attributed to him.

[StoneGold]

Yeah, but is he a better writer than Ben Raab?

[Nate C.]

Reading Jasper Fforde is making me want to read Richard III.

I have a love/hate relationship with Shakespeare.

I hate the fact that I don't love him, know that I should, but my experience and satisfaction don't equal the hype. I know he's a genius, and some of his lines do indeed reach the divine (another proof for the existence of a divine creator- come on, you think heaven doesn't exsist and Shakespeare doesn't have his own wing in the great library for all eternity?)

I just wish the language of the day were more alive for me in my reading. That's all. Modern translations help.

Commence to bashing of the Nate. (I'm two for two with you now, Tages.)

[Dom]

I love Shakespeare.

Titus Andonicus is my absolute favourite.

Shakespeare was a writer of immeasurable geniues and is comparable to no one.

[K'Nort]

Reading Jasper Fforde is making me want to read Richard III.

Have you read Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time yet?

[Archyduke]

Shakespeare was incalculably good. I am familiar with no better writer, and rate very few as even approaching his level of genius. As a wordsmith and as an observer and reporter of human nature, he has few if any equals.

Pretty much my sentiments. Its sort of a shame though; all of the people my own age who enjoy him mostly came to do so through their own reading, while those who've only read Shakespeare as school-work for the most part hate him. I don't know if this is because the schools in my area fail to teach it well, or what, but... ehm, I don't know.

[Slam_Bradley]

I just wish the language of the day were more alive for me in my reading. That's all. Modern translations help.

Commence to bashing of the Nate. (I'm two for two with you now, Tages.)


I don't know that it calls for bashing. I'd disagree with modern translations (it kills the rhythm of the work) and suggest annotation. It's really not unusual to have to read Shakespeare's works two or three times before they really come alive.

[K'Nort]

Easily some of the best versions I've seen of his stories (vs his actual words) are Kurosawa's.

[Expletive Deleted]

Reading his plays doesn't do much for me. I just don't feel like I'm getting the full experience. I have to see them performed to really get into them.

[Ed Cunard]

I don't know that it calls for bashing. I'd disagree with modern translations (it kills the rhythm of the work) and suggest annotation. It's really not unusual to have to read Shakespeare's works two or three times before they really come alive.

I second Slam--I think modernization (and, of course, bowdlerization) makes for a much weaker experience.

Shakespeare, I love for so many reasons. His contributions to linguistics alone is something to snuggle up inside. I'm a giant fan of his sonnets (and if you are too, may I suggest Helen Vendler's excellent The Art of Shakespeare's Sonnets (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674637127/qid=1124234425/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-1252210-1332034?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)?).

The thing is, though, with the plays... one can read them for enjoyment, but that's not how they were meant. It really helps to see them performed (preferably on stage, but a quality film will get the spirit across).

Personal favorite sonnet? LVII.

Being your slave, what should I do but tend
Upon the hours and times of your desire?
I have no precious time at all to spend,
Nor services to do, till you require.
Nor dare I chide the world-without-end hour
Whilst I, my sovereign, watch the clock for you,
Nor think the bitterness of absence sour
When you have bid your servant once adieu;
Nor dare I question with my jealous thought
Where you may be, or your affairs suppose,
But, like a sad slave, stay and think of nought
Save, where you are how happy you make those.
So true a fool is love that in your will,
Though you do any thing, he thinks no ill.

To me, that's still a living, breathing work. So are the tragedies and the histories. I have a little trouble with many of the comedies, because I've only seen one performed.

Also, while I'm playing linka-marinka-dinky-dink, check out The Reduced Shakespeare Company (http://www.reducedshakespeare.com/). Funny stuff, those guys.

[Nate C.]

Have you read Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time yet?

No, tell me about it.

[K'Nort]

No, tell me about it.

You'll need to read Richard III first. I haven't read Fforde, so I don't know his take on the story. But basically, Daughter of Time consistently shows up on lists of the best mysteries of all time. Short version is a British detective in the 1940s is laid up in the hospital for many months with a broken back and decides to spend his time determining whether Richard really did kill the princes in the tower. Super interesting. And pretty fast. Slim book.

[Nate C.]

I don't know that it calls for bashing. I'd disagree with modern translations (it kills the rhythm of the work) and suggest annotation. It's really not unusual to have to read Shakespeare's works two or three times before they really come alive.

Maybe I can find a good annotated edition. I actually like the side by side translations, but they're too expensive.

(Hamlett alone was eight bucks.)

Of course, I'd have to be a cretin not to appreciate the poetry: "There is more on heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."

"Shall I compare thee to a Summer day? Thou art more temperate..."

(Is that Shakespeare?)

[Nate C.]

You'll need to read Richard III first. I haven't read Fforde, so I don't know his take on the story. But basically, Daughter of Time consistently shows up on lists of the best mysteries of all time. Short version is a British detective in the 1940s is laid up in the hospital for many months with a broken back and decides to spend his time determining whether Richard really did kill the princes in the tower. Super interesting. And pretty fast. Slim book.

Cool. I will write that down. (I love books about books.)

[Ed Cunard]

Maybe I can find a good annotated edition. I actually like the side by side translations, but they're too expensive.

(Hamlett alone was eight bucks.)

Of course, I'd have to be a cretin not to appreciate the poetry: "There is more on heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."

"Shall I compare thee to a Summer day? Thou art more temperate..."

(Is that Shakespeare?)

Yes, that is. Sonnet 18.

With school, how much free reading time do you have?

[Nate C.]

Yes, that is. Sonnet 18.

With school, how much free reading time do you have?

About thirty minutes at night before bed.

You pick the play, Ed, and I'll start it. (I have multiple Shakespeare editions, I'm sad to say, unread, unwept, unloved.) (who wrote those lines???)

[JeffreyWKramer]

Titus Andonicus is my absolute favourite.

This is unusual sentiment. Elaborate, please?

[K'Nort]

Titus Andonicus is my absolute favourite.

Did you see the Julie Taymor version?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Have you read Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time yet?

Exceptional book. Highly recommended.

[Nate C.]

Okay, Ed, Henry V, it is.

[PatrickG]

I was talking to a prof. who suggested abandoning Shakespeare altogether today.

His (valid) point is that the only drama kids get exposed from about 7th grade on is a mix of Shakespeare, Ibsen and Chekov.

Heck, I agree to an extent. Shakespeare takes some refinement to really "get".

There's one girl I wanted to slap when she made fun of Shakespeare for talking "funny" and bragged about how her high school theatre department made fun of Shakespearian speech in a parody they wrote and performed.

My response was that I didn't feel that parodying Shakespeare was appropriate for high school students, that to laugh at something, you should intimately know it first. I then asked her if she knew why Shakespeare "talked funny".

She responded that it was how people talked "back then" and at that point, I just about had to restrain myself and proceeded to lecture her on how essential poetic language was to encoding meaning in Elizabethan drama and how the stage was less representational than it is today.

And Shakespeare also gets put on a pedastal too much. This was a guy prone to dirty humor. He'd break out into bawdy jokes in the middle of a tragedy. But people don't look for the bawdiness. Actors too often gloss over dialogue that could easily be played up for scandal and audiences scoff at actors for "taking liberties" when they maximize the dirty jokes and fowl earthiness in some characters and some scenes.

I even hold to the tradition that he died after a night of drunken revelry.

I think everyone should be exposed to him... But their knowledge of theatre should not be exclusive to him. Shakespeare and the study thereof is a wonderful treasure trove for linguistic scholars, textual scholars, historians, actors and the like. And I'm inclined to believe that whatever his stature really is to the objective observer, he should always be studied and we should do our best to do justice to his plays and poems.

And I would certainly love to inhabit a world where people "talk funnier". Where conversations are never soundbytes but are expressions of vast vocabulary and profound cannotation and where words are prized assets of incalculable value.

Sadly, I don't think that even Shakespeare's age held such wonders.

Here's to the bard, the player king, the schoolmaster, philosopher, playwright. A toast to a man whose memory outlived the era he lived in and a man who brought life to eras before and beyond his own memories, both candles lit by the flame of truth. It is impossible to write in the English language or be well spoken in the English tongue without lifting up Prospero's wand, in a sense. May the applause that brought rest to his career be renewed with each generation and never cease, liberating author from words and for that poor author's bones release.

What I wouldn't give for a pint with the man.

To Shakespeare.

[Ed Cunard]

His (valid) point is that the only drama kids get exposed from about 7th grade on is a mix of Shakespeare, Ibsen and Chekov.


Man, I wish they would have taught Ibsen and Chekov in my high school. I mean, I love Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller, too, but those were our three. Oh, and a bit of Marlowe so we didn't think Shakespeare was the only dramatist of Elizabethan times.
And Shakespeare also gets put on a pedastal too much. This was a guy prone to dirty humor. He'd break out into bawdy jokes in the middle of a tragedy. But people don't look for the bawdiness. Actors too often gloss over dialogue that could easily be played up for scandal and audiences scoff at actors for "taking liberties" when they maximize the dirty jokes and fowl earthiness in some characters and some scenes.

Hell, those are the best parts of it! I wish they'd teach that part to high school students, because I think it would make people connect with the material easier (I have the same thing with THE CANTERBURY TALES.)

<SNIP> To Shakespeare.

Oh, hells yes.

[Archyduke]

Hell, those are the best parts of it! I wish they'd teach that part to high school students, because I think it would make people connect with the material easier (I have the same thing with THE CANTERBURY TALES.)

Strangely, my high school teachers really played up on the more risque aspects of Chaucer and Moliere, but kind of danced around it when it came to Shakespeare. I don't know if they considered him too "sacred" or what, but they really did gloss over most of the innuendo and double-entendres.

[Slam_Bradley]

I'm trying to remember...but I don't think that we studied any plays in high school except Shakespeare. I think the American Lit class read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", but I took English Lit instead.

[Michael P]

Hell, those are the best parts of it! I wish they'd teach that part to high school students, because I think it would make people connect with the material easier (I have the same thing with THE CANTERBURY TALES.)
My classes got it. We had a lot of fun with those.

[howyadoin]

In the last age of the boards before the great Cataclysm devoured them, I remember an entertaining thread wherein someone posted questioning why he had to learn Shakespeare in school and calling him overrated...Was that the same thread that said black people shouldn't have to read Shakespeare?

[Michael P]

Was that the same thread that said black people shouldn't have to read Shakespeare?
*arches eyebrow* I'm sorry I missed that. I would have had a lot of fun reducing that to an absurdity.

[PatrickG]

cough**OTHELLO**cough

And then, well, all the characters are pretty human.

And if you speak English, I figure knowing the history of the language should be necessary.

[K'Nort]

Was that the same thread that said black people shouldn't have to read Shakespeare?

Did they also say that Jews shouldn't read The Merchant of Venice?


Now I'm trying to remember which plays we read in high school English. Everyone, regardless of which level of English, read Shakespeare. All freshmen did Romeo & Juliet, sophomores Julius Ceasar, juniors Macbeth, and seniors Hamlet. And you'd watch a movie version after reading (aloud) the plays. And after Hamlet, we got to read/watch Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, but that might have just been my particular English class. I so love that one.

We definitely did The Crucible. The Importance of Being Earnest. That's all I remember.

One thing about Shakespeare is the influence he had. It's like the Bible. There are allusions all over anything else you read. Or even in regular media. So it enriches the experience to know what they're talking about. My English teacher junior/senior year was an atheist but she had us read a big chunk of the Bible for the allusions and other literary influence. So we'd the get full effect of things like Grapes of Wrath.

[Grazzt]

This is unusual sentiment. Elaborate, please?

Actually, its not that unusual. I remember reading somewhere that until censors objected to its content and it stopped being shown as much, Titus was one of the most popular of Shakespeare's tragedies.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Actually, its not that unusual. I remember reading somewhere that until censors objected to its content and it stopped being shown as much, Titus was one of the most popular of Shakespeare's tragedies.

Well, it's certainly sensationalistic. It's sort of Shakespeare's equivalent of IDENTITY CRISIS. But it isn't particularly well-written - little of the lyricism of, say, ROMEO AND JULIET, none of the deep themes of HAMLET or LEAR.

Actually, the IC comparison is kind of off. A better one is THE KILLING JOKE. As with Moore on TKJ, TITUS is an atypical work by a generally brilliant writer, who on this occasion panders to the audience by producing a work based largely on shock value.

[Adam Crocker]

Actually, the IC comparison is kind of off.

Yeah, what with the plot actually hewing to logic and all...

Funny, I'm one of those guys who got into Shakespeare through school. Then again I was one of those guys who actually enjoyed my classwork, at least in English and History, which may or not have had something to do with the fact that I was one of the nerdy outcasts in the school and thus didn't have any stake in the activities of those who weren't paying attention. Though as for Archyduke's earlier point, I think school fails to get most kids into Shakespeare because it is school, and generally children and teenagers regard it more as something they have to do rather than do voluntarily. So often its subjects aren't something they take an outside interest in because they aren't cool or are introduced to them as an obligation. (At least that's my take, but from my perspective almost everyone in the school was less interested in the courses than I was.)

[Donald M.]

Well, it's certainly sensationalistic. It's sort of Shakespeare's equivalent of IDENTITY CRISIS. But it isn't particularly well-written - little of the lyricism of, say, ROMEO AND JULIET, none of the deep themes of HAMLET or LEAR.

Actually, the IC comparison is kind of off. A better one is THE KILLING JOKE. As with Moore on TKJ, TITUS is an atypical work by a generally brilliant writer, who on this occasion panders to the audience by producing a work based largely on shock value.

Titus may not be Shakespeare's best play, but Julie Taymor made it into a damn fine film. It's one of the few DVDs in my collection I've watched more than once.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Titus may not be Shakespeare's best play, but Julie Taymor made it into a damn fine film. It's one of the few DVDs in my collection I've watched more than once.

Never seen it. Since it's been mentioned twice, I'll have to check it out.

Just added it to my Netflix queue, in fact.

[Dom]

This is unusual sentiment. Elaborate, please?

It's difficult to explain.

I studied Shakespeare in college, and my professor was absolutely in love with him. We read MacBeth, Hamlet and, on my own accord, I read Richard III, Othello, The Merchant of Venice and Romeo and Juliet.

I loved them, still read MacBeth every now and then. But I always wondered if Shakespeare ever let down his guard.

It's my understanding that at the time, Shakespeare was popular, but other writers that wrote far more sensationalistic works were in greater regard. I may be wrong, but Prof. Garraway was adamant about this point.

I asked if Shakespeare had ever just decided to give the peoplw what they wanted and wrote something like that. He gave me Titus, and I loved it.

I loved it more for what is meant at the time than the actual merits of the work. I love that it was, essentially, Shakespeare's "fuck you" to other writers. A notice that he could do it too, he just chose not to.

I have seen the Julie Taymor version, it was quite good. I'm not usually a Hopkins fan, but he was not bad. Didn't quite like Alan Cumming though.

I certainly recognize that it isn't Shakespeare's finest achievement, but it holds a special place in my mind. The place were Shakespeare kicks fucking ass!

[JeffreyWKramer]

It's my understanding that at the time, Shakespeare was popular, but other writers that wrote far more sensationalistic works were in greater regard. I may be wrong, but Prof. Garraway was adamant about this point.

Quite true. Marlowe is a good example, as are several lesser-knowns. Early theatre was very much a media of the masses, and people back then flocked to plays which were that age's equivalent of action and slasher films, or pro wrestling.

In a lot of ways, TITUS can be viewed as both an answer to the populist, shock-schlock playwrights of the time, and as an attempt by Shakespeare to exorcise much of the Marlowe excessiveness from his own writing.

Certainly not a bad play, but still an unusual choice as a favorite. Your reasoning for that choice is valid, though.

[Donald M.]

I

I have seen the Julie Taymor version, it was quite good. I'm not usually a Hopkins fan, but he was not bad.

I'm not a huge Hopkins fan, but certainly a bigger fan than you. At any rate, thinking on that film I have a hard time picturing anyone else in the part simply because I got such a huge kick out of the twist the dinner scene at the end puts on his most famous role. Given how stylized the film is, you can't say Taymor didn't have that in mind when she chose him for the role.

[Donald M.]

Quite true. Marlowe is a good example, as are several lesser-knowns. Early theatre was very much a media of the masses, and people back then flocked to plays which were that age's equivalent of action and slasher films, or pro wrestling.

In a lot of ways, TITUS can be viewed as both an answer to the populist, shock-schlock playwrights of the time, and as an attempt by Shakespeare to exorcise much of the Marlowe excessiveness from his own writing.

Certainly not a bad play, but still an unusual choice as a favorite. Your reasoning for that choice is valid, though.

I must say, it never fails to tickle me that many of today's revered classics were , at the time of their release, the equivalent of today's mindless summer blockbusters and junk novels. Makes me wonder if someday people will look on the works of Micheal Bay with the same reverence we hold for Shakespeare.

[Bouncing Boy]

As it so happens, in just a few hours I will be attending a performance of "A Comedy of Errors" with Kristen and my interest in the works of Shakespeare has been revived. Hence, this thread.


My first thought when I read this was, "Hey they're doing 'A Comedy of Errors' around here too" then I remembered that you live here in Reno as well. I went and saw the other play that the Lake Tahoe Shakespeare Festival is doing, "MacBeth" and I was kinda disapointed. It made me think that maybe I should have seen Comedy of Errors instead, but I chose MacBeth because it's my favorite Shakespeare tragedy.

I think I've been in more Shakespeare plays than I have seen. I've been in MacBeth (I played "An Old Man"), A Midsummer Nights Dream (as Snug), Julius Ceaser (as Ceaser), As You Like It (as Orlando), Comedy of Errors (As the Duke), Taming of the Shrew (as Baptista) and Comedy of Errors again (this time as Angelo). I've also done Kiss Me Kate, but I'm not sure that counts (interestingly enough I played Baptista in that too and since I had played the part in Taming of the Shrew I didn't have to memorize as many of the lines since I already knew alot of them).

I've seen (Not including movies)Julius Ceaser, A Midsummer Nights Dream, Romeo and Juliet, Twelfth Night, Hamlet, Peracles, Much Ado About Nothing, and MacBeth. Hmm, looking at the lists it looks like I was wrong, I have seen more than I've been in.


I don't take much stock in the whole MacBeth is bad luck thing. When I was doing plays in college a friend of mine and I would say to each other, "Good Luck, MacBeth" before performances. Obviously we would do that out of the earshot of the other actors because actors are a cowardly and superstitious lot.

I've had arguments with people who have said they don't think Shakespeare's all that hot because he stole alot of his plots from other plays and stories. But I think Shakespeare's greatest achevements is not the plots of his plays, but his use of language, no one can turn a phrase like the Bard of Avon. Oh and I am in the camp that believes that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's plays.

[Lone Ranger]

Re. Titus - Taymor's film didn't do anything for me. My wife and I are big fans of Shakepeare and are open to just about any type of adaptation, but we turned it off after 40 minutes or so (a rarity in our house).

My first exposure to Shakespeare wasback in Grade 7, when my English teacher made everyone in the class wear a toga and recite Marc Antony 'Friends, Romans Countrymen...' speech.

Since then, I have read, viewed and acted in just about everything he wrote. I have some great memories of enjoying the Bard's work:

Favourite live theatrical productions:

Richard III at the Stratford (Ontario) festival in 1989
The Tempest at McGill University in 1996
Romeo & Juliet at my High School in 1990 (I played Montague)

I am seeing a production of Much Ado About Nothing in Toronto's High Park next week and have high hopes.

Favourite Films

Henry V (1989) - Kenneth Brannagh
Othello (1952) - Orson Welles
My Own Private Idaho (1991) - Gus Van Sandt
Richard III (1995) - Richard Loncraine

I have always found the best way to teach Shakespeare (at least the way I preferred to learn) was to have a class read portions aloud with different students taking on different roles.

I think that students can get their head around the iambic pentameter a bit more easily reading aloud. Then, when they go home to read further - the will hopefully retain the rhythm in their brain and have little trouble following the storyline.

[Bouncing Boy]

Oh my god, I can't believe I forgot to mention that I'd seen Richard III on stage in San Fransico starring Ian McKellen. That was a fantastic production.

[Dark Galaxy]

As it so happens, in just a few hours I will be attending a performance of "A Comedy of Errors"

How many productions have you seen?
I saw "A Comedy of Errors" last summer at the Shakespeare Festival in Ashland Oregon. It was quite devine.
When I was in school, the drama kids used to field trip it to Ashland every year and see some shows. I've seen Romeo and Juliet, Henry the IV part II, and Twelfth Night at the festival.

I've read Hamelt, MacBeth, Romeo and Juliet, The Taming of the Shrew, Twelfth Night, Much Ado about Nothing, and As You Like It. (At one time I was an English major.)

I agree that seeing performances is the best way to experience Shakespeare. Although the language is wonderful to read, these works were made to be on stage, and that is really what brings them to life.

[Donald M.]

The only live productions of Shakespeare I've seen were these annual productions put on by a theater whose name I can't remember for an audience of several High Schools from across Massachusetts.

The plays I saw produced were Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth and The Tempest, in that order.

Of those, The Tempest is the one I remember enjoying most. Romeo and Juliet nearly put me to sleep, but that was more the fault of the production than the material.

[K'Nort]

Oh my god, I can't believe I forgot to mention that I'd seen Richard III on stage in San Fransico starring Ian McKellen. That was a fantastic production.

Did they do it like his movie or more traditional?

[Bouncing Boy]

Did they do it like his movie or more traditional?

I haven't seen the movie, but I believe the movie was based on that production. It was sort of a Nazi based setting right? The movie came out after the stage version.

It was part of a tour of the show, I think they were only in san francisco for about a month. My drama teacher raved about the production so I begged my mom and step-dad to take me to see it.

[K'Nort]

I haven't seen the movie, but I believe the movie was based on that production. It was sort of a Nazi based setting right? The movie came out after the stage version.

That's the one. A lot of really good people in the movie version. Plus Robert Downey Jr.

[Xombie]

(And before you move it Brian, Shakespeare wrote plays and poems, not books)

In the last age of the boards before the great Cataclysm devoured them, I remember an entertaining thread wherein someone posted questioning why he had to learn Shakespeare in school and calling him overrated, many others jumped to Shakespeare's defense, and we had a nice discussion going.



Hey that was me! *poses heroically*

And he still sucks :D

[Bouncing Boy]

That's the one. A lot of really good people in the movie version. Plus Robert Downey Jr.
I just put it in my netflix queue. And are you implying that Robert Downey isn't good? In my opinion he's the best actor of his generation...now if only he would stop screwing up his life with drugs.

[K'Nort]

I just put it in my netflix queue. And are you implying that Robert Downey isn't good? In my opinion he's the best actor of his generation...now if only he would stop screwing up his life with drugs.

I actually do like him. He's just such an easy punchline.

[howyadoin]

*arches eyebrow* I'm sorry I missed that. I would have had a lot of fun reducing that to an absurdity.I forget all the details, but it was something about how there's nothing in his work that's relevant to black culture.

[Michael P]

I forget all the details, but it was something about how there's nothing in his work that's relevant to black culture.
... I could respond to that, but I'm pretty sure I'd blow my sarcasm sequencer.

[Super Hero Guy]

Hmm, I found this quote on the internet, what do you make of it,

"and whoever said people shakespeares work is underapreciated is insane! shakespeare wrote plays to keep food on the table, not to be studied in every school in the world hundreds of years later, if anything the plays are overapreciated, we read it and interpret every other sentance to have some form of connotation or ambiguity."

Actually, this whole post might be interesting read for you Shakespeare lovers. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0184791/board/nest/7095777

[JeffreyWKramer]

Hmm, I found this quote on the internet, what do you make of it,

What do I make of it? The peson who wrote it is an imbicile.

[Tages]

Hmm, I found this quote on the internet, what do you make of it,

"and whoever said people shakespeares work is underapreciated is insane! shakespeare wrote plays to keep food on the table, not to be studied in every school in the world hundreds of years later, if anything the plays are overapreciated, we read it and interpret every other sentance to have some form of connotation or ambiguity."

Actually, this whole post might be interesting read for you Shakespeare lovers. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0184791/board/nest/7095777
Imdb is often a treasure trove of insightful opinions (for example, Merwyn Grote (http://www.us.imdb.com/user/ur0650655/comments), though I rarely agree with him, has extremely perceptive and well-written reviews).

This isn't one of them.

[Noah Johnson]

Yes, of course Shakespeare wrote plays to keep food on the table. Duh. Nice insight there, Gomer.

It's just that he was better at it than anybody else. By a lot.

Mind you, I'm no Bardolator. If there's one thing that ticks me off (and there's not, there are many things) it's some nitwit, usually an academic, trying to make a case that Shakespeare is the perfect standard by which all writing must be judged. Perhaps my favorite was this one article I read wherein the author argues that The Comedy of Errors is not a farce. His argument was too inane to have stuck in my memory, but it stemmed straight from a nigh-religious conviction that WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE could not have written such a dirty, low-comedy thing as a farce.

Now, my favorite play, in some respects is Much Ado About Nothing. Love it. Researched it thoroughly, seen multiple productions, wrote a screenplay based on it. Dynamite play however you look at it.

That being said, the title bites, the character of Claudio either hasn't stood the test of time or sucked from day one, the subplot's much more interesting than the main plot, there are entire scenes in the uncut version that go nowhere and take forever to do it, and Don John is perhaps Shakespeare's crappiest villain, memorably described as "a bumbling second-rate Iago", and so utterly flat and characterless that Keanu Reeves could play him.

Shakespeare was far from perfect. But sweet holy mother of hell, he was really good.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I always liked Romeo and Julliet . ( Not that horrible Dicaprio movie). I always enjoyed that tale a lot. I admit other than this and some of Hamlet ( we did a few plays from the book ) thats it for me with Shakespeare. Sad to say....

[K'Nort]

and Don John is perhaps Shakespeare's crappiest villain, memorably described as "a bumbling second-rate Iago", and so utterly flat and characterless that Keanu Reeves could play him.

For the record, that joke wasn't wasted.

[Davideaux]

I enjoy Merchant of Venice. It's kind of weird, especially the Portia/Bassanio plotline. I felt awful for Shylock's loss. Antonio's questionable sexuality and his fey nature are also very interestingly presented. I think it's my favorite play of his. Most of it is not really poignant but it is all very well executed.

I've seen Hamlet and King John live. Hamlet rocked. I had never fully understood the humor in the play until I saw it live. I really enjoyed Kenneth Branagh's version too but wonder why it isnt on DVD yet.

Last year, I tried reading all the comedies and found Twelfth Night to be a gem but I couldn't get through the play with Rosalind (forgot the title). Maybe I was experiencing Shakespeare fatigue at the time.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I admit other than this and some of Hamlet ( we did a few plays from the book ) thats it for me with Shakespeare. Sad to say....

Never too late to change that. Just because you never read anything else by Shakespeare before doesn't mean you can't start now.

Some of Shakespeare's plays make a lot more sense, or resonate a lot more strongly, when a person is older, anyhow.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I couldn't get through the play with Rosalind (forgot the title). Maybe I was experiencing Shakespeare fatigue at the time.

AS YOU LIKE IT.

[PatrickG]

AS YOU LIKE IT.

Hey. Don't excuse the guy's Shakespeare fatigue. You should be encouraging the guy to go back and finish the play.

Now... What's the alternate title for TWELFTH NIGHT?

[Bouncing Boy]

Hey. Don't excuse the guy's Shakespeare fatigue. You should be encouraging the guy to go back and finish the play.

Now... What's the alternate title for TWELFTH NIGHT?


WHAT YOU WILL


The guy who directed the production of AS YOU LIKE IT that I was in suggested that what happened with those titles was that the guy who made up the posters went up to Shakespeare and asked him what the name of the play was and he said "Call it as you like it" and "Call it Twelfth Night or what you will" and the guy took him literally.

[Michael P]

I enjoy Merchant of Venice. It's kind of weird, especially the Portia/Bassanio plotline. I felt awful for Shylock's loss. Antonio's questionable sexuality and his fey nature are also very interestingly presented. I think it's my favorite play of his. Most of it is not really poignant but it is all very well executed.
You just inspired me. Hang on, I think I still have it lying around somewhere...

Okay, I wrote this for a Shakespeare class I took during sophomore year in college. The prompt was, "Adapt a Shakespeare play into a modern-day film," but phrased better. Anyway, enjoy.

" “Hath not a Mac user eyes? Hath not a Mac user hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same viruses, healed by the same disk utilities, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a PC user is? If you spam us, do we not e-mail the administrator?”

Okay, so it probably wouldn’t go exactly like that. And I think all involved will count this as a plus. Still, one could make a case for a modern updating of Shakespeare’s most controversial comedy, The Merchant of Venice, set in the convoluted and nerd-intensive world of the modern-day computer industry.

“Why the computer industry?” the reader may ask. Well, it’s this author’s opinion that the reader should try finishing the essay before asking so obvious a question. Because the answer deals with a tricky issue, one dubbed by most scholars as “the Jew thing.” As anyone who’s read, seen, heard, or acted the play knows, there’s a considerable amount of hatred directed towards the Jewish characters of Shylock and Jessica by pretty much anyone else in the play. And in a world where a film like Bubble Boy is decried because it is insensitive to people who live in bubbles, and not just for being a god-awful waste of cinema, that sort of thing just won’t fly. So, Shylock must be converted (no pun intended) into an archetype universally reviled, a figure so hated that no man, woman or child could possibly object to a negative portrayal in a major motion picture (with McDonald’s toy tie-in and platinum-selling soundtrack featuring the hot new single from Destiny’s Child). And that figure is: Bill Gates.

Allow a clarification on the above: This is not to say that the Shylockian figure in the play will be reduced to a stereotypical “nyah-hah-hah” villain. To do so would disrespect the Bard, and, even worse, really suck. While he is doubtlessly a bastard Shylock is also at times a sympathetic, tragic figure, and one would do the character, the film, and the audience a great disservice by rendering him otherwise.

On with the plot: Our story opens on the fog-laden streets of Seattle, home to programming nerds, bad grunge bands, and beret-wearing coffee addicts. In one of the city’s umpteen Starbucks’ we meet dot-commers Tony and B.J. Tony is the owner/operator of a successful office supply warehouse which sells only on the Internet; B.J. is a web designer who came up with the layout for amazon.com, but wasted the money in a disastrous relationship with a stripper. He has a new idea for a browser that will revolutionize the way people surf the Internet (among other things, it allows the user to inflict actual pain on people who post stupid things to message boards), but lacks the capital to hire a programming team. Fortunately, he recently met a girl in a chat room whose father was one of those eccentric billionaires who lived way up in the mountains in a hermetically sealed environment and washed his hands 47,000 times a day. Just before his death, he added a provision in his will that all his money would go to her husband, who would be selected by means of a lottery; each suitor would be presented with three computers, one running on Windows, one on Mac OS, and the third on Linux. (Yes, it’s a real operating system.) He would pick a computer to boot, and whichever one had a desktop wallpaper of Portia (assuming this takes place in modern times, she was probably born sometime in the sixties or seventies) would get her hand, and all the money. Sadly, B.J. is so hard up, he lacks the cash for a plane fare. He and Tony are old college roommates, so Tony would be happy to loan him the money, but it’s all tied up in fending off a hostile takeover from Staples. So, they turn to J. Richard Shylock (guys with J’s in front of their names are always pricks), owner of a multibillion dollar software firm whose web browser is packaged with practically every computer, despite being incompatible with every website programming language except the one developed, copyrighted, and sold by his company. (Sound familiar?) Despite the boys’ constant flaming of him on Internet message boards, he agrees to loan Tony the money, with the provision that, if Tony can’t pay him back, he will forfeit one gigabyte of data from his company’s main hard drive. Tony, being a sucker for his buddy, agrees. Before B.J. and his Everquest-playing crony Gary leaves for Portia’s splendid estate in the Cascades, they help programmer friend Larry elope with Jessica, Shylock’s daughter.

At Belmont, Portia watches as first a Mutual Fund executive, and then an oil company bigwig, fail the tests. After B.J. arrives with Gary, Larry and Jessica, Portia confides in her sorority sister, Nerissa (again, daughter of hippies), that she has the hots for B.J. Fortunately, B.J. selects the correct comp (for the record, it was the Linux one), and wins Portia’s hand in marriage. Additionally, Gary’s geeky charm has won over Nerissa, and they are also to be wed. However, the Vegas honeymoon is cut short when bad news arrives from Seattle: with a Republican in the White House again, the bottom has fallen out of the dot-com market, and Tony is flat broke and unable to pay his debt to Shylock. B.J. and Gary catch a red-eye back to Seattle, but not before Portia and Nerissa entrust their new husbands with solid-gold watches, and entreat them to wear them always. After the boys leave, Portia and Nerissa take a private jet to see Portia’s old law professor at Berkeley, then arrive in Seattle dressed as a high-powered attorney and his paralegal.

At the trial, things go badly for Tony, as Shylock refuses B.J.’s offer of twice, and even thrice the payment, demanding his bond. Portia saves the day by pointing out the loophole in the agreement, that Shylock is entitled to remove one gigabyte of data, but not an ounce of physical memory; since no e-mail program on Earth will accept an attachment of that size, Shylock is SOL. Furthermore, his attempt at vengeance constitutes an illegal hostile takeover under federal law, and his assets are seized by the government, and held in trust for Jessica and Larry. Happy beyond words, B.J. attempts to pay Portia for her work, but she will only accept his watch. Eventually, he gives in, and Nerissa later gains the same from Gary. Once the boys get back to Belmont, Portia and Nerissa play their little joke, then present Jessica with the ownership of the trust fund, and give Tony word that his company has been refinanced by a conglomerate of Japanese industrialists. All’s well that ends well, but that’s another play.

The film would keep all the major themes, with the potentially inflammatory anti-Semitism replaced with more politically correct anti-corporatism. With a Kevin Smith or a Tim Burton in the director’s chair, and the unstoppable juggernaut of star power that is Ben Affleck and Matt Damon in the starring roles, The Programmer of Seattle would do Shakespeare proud. Or, failing that, absolutely kill during the summer blockbuster season."

Oh, and I got the Keanu Reeves joke, too. That's still the most unintentionally funny opening to a movie I've ever seen.

[Tages]

Never too late to change that. Just because you never read anything else by Shakespeare before doesn't mean you can't start now.

Some of Shakespeare's plays make a lot more sense, or resonate a lot more strongly, when a person is older, anyhow.
Especially "King Lear," for obvious reasons.

[Loren]

The film would keep all the major themes, with the potentially inflammatory anti-Semitism replaced with more politically correct anti-corporatism.

Over the weekend I saw a play that a couple of friends were in. It was a gender-reversed version of "The Taming of the Shrew," called "The Taming of the Dude." I'm not sure how much they manipulated the dialogue, but I know they created a lot of sexual innuendo where there wasn't any before.

In the director's note in the program, she explained that a big reason for this experiment was because the play's theme, that of marrying off daughters to eligible suitors, doesn't resonate terribly well with modern audiences. And she hoped that by switching the sexes, it would avoid those issues of the subjugation of women, and make the play funny again.

[Karl J. Barnes]

Over the weekend I saw a play that a couple of friends were in. It was a gender-reversed version of "The Taming of the Shrew," called "The Taming of the Dude." I'm not sure how much they manipulated the dialogue, but I know they created a lot of sexual innuendo where there wasn't any before.

In the director's note in the program, she explained that a big reason for this experiment was because the play's theme, that of marrying off daughters to eligible suitors, doesn't resonate terribly well with modern audiences. And she hoped that by switching the sexes, it would avoid those issues of the subjugation of women, and make the play funny again.

Sounds like SHE had some issues with the play. My take on Taming is Ol' Will was making fun of both the taming part and the marrying off.

[Asmith]

Love the bard. My most prized books are his complete plays in 12 leather bound volumes made about 200 years ago. I've oft found that the weight and texture of the books can lend a certian richness while reading the text.

However, I can't remember having ever seen a good stage production of his works. The last I saw was about 4 years ago. It was King Lear, put on by the Bell Shakespeare Company (supposedly Australia's finest Shakespearean acting troupe). Blah! It was so damn fruity - every actor delivered their lines with such earnestness and poignancy that every word became farce. And even when I tried to focus on the words the massive staging with flying backdrops and over wrought lighting (not to mention a strangly massive amount of stage-blood that would spurt from actors at every opportunity) would just be too distracting.

It quite turned me off Lear and searching out any other productions of his work. Though this thread has whet my appetite to maybe give seeing a live production another go. The best rendition of one of his plays I ever saw was done by a community theatre group who couldn't afford more than one spotlight and no scenery - so maybe I'll look for a low budget production. Where they focus on the words and not the staging.

[howyadoin]

In the director's note in the program, she explained that a big reason for this experiment was because the play's theme, that of marrying off daughters to eligible suitors, doesn't resonate terribly well with modern audiences. And she hoped that by switching the sexes, it would avoid those issues of the subjugation of women, and make the play funny again.So marrying off sons is okay?

[K'Nort]

I liked the Moonlighting version of Taming of the Shrew.

[Asmith]

I liked the Moonlighting version of Taming of the Shrew.

Yeah, that was good. But not as sensitively crafted as the Astro Boy episode: Roboto & Juliet...

[Super Hero Guy]

I saw an interesting version of Romeo and Juliet, with a bare minimum in sets, props, and costumes (it was mostly regular modern day clothes), and only 5 actors in the entire piece. Three of which were women. It's funny, how in Shakespeare time all the women's part were played by men, and in this version most of the men were played by women. So, yeah, a lot of multiple rolls. It cut out stuff though, probably because of the small cast. And the balcony scene involved Romeo sitting a top a ladder and Juliet on the stage. The scene with Mercution and Tybalt's fight was done with each standing at either side of the stage, facing the audience, acting as though they were facing each other. And the strangest thing of all, the apothecary is changed to three people, supposedly "the fates", who Romeo goes to buy poison from and they dispense some warnings about destiny. Um, this isn't MacBeth idiots.

And the first scene and the last scene are exactly the same, Romeo and Juliet waking up after spending the night together to the sound of a lark. They also did it a third time where it was supposed to be. The director, who felt the need to come on after performance and explain his work, said that this was to show that the story was always being told again and again for centuries, or something. To get an idea of his genius, he said his personal favorite version was the Leonardo DiCaprio movie.

I've also seen a junior high production, if that acconuts for anything.

[Dom]

And the first scene and the last scene are exactly the same, Romeo and Juliet waking up after spending the night together to the sound of a lark. They also did it a third time where it was supposed to be. The director, who felt the need to come on after performance and explain his work, said that this was to show that the story was always being told again and again for centuries, or something. To get an idea of his genius, he said his personal favorite version was the Leonardo DiCaprio movie.

I've also seen a junior high production, if that acconuts for anything.

I imagine the junior high production was better.

[howyadoin]

I liked the Moonlighting version of Taming of the Shrew.That kicked ass. Especially when they performed the Young Rascals tune.

[Ronald Bryan]

I saw Taming of the Shrew, Richard III, and As You Like It for a studying abroad class in Straford on Avon. Richard III was an odd production, yet very well done. As You Like It was funny, if a bit overacted by Touchtone. But Taming of the Shrew was one of the funniest things I have seen. It was brilliant.

Then, we went to London and saw an all woman version of Richard III which sucked! The acting was sub-par, the star was sick and her understudy didn't know the lines, and so read the entire play off of a script!

One thing when reading Shakespeare is to read it aloud. You really get a better understanding of the work that way. Act it out! Just watch out who you act it out around.

[PatrickG]

WHAT YOU WILL


The guy who directed the production of AS YOU LIKE IT that I was in suggested that what happened with those titles was that the guy who made up the posters went up to Shakespeare and asked him what the name of the play was and he said "Call it as you like it" and "Call it Twelfth Night or what you will" and the guy took him literally.

Yeah.

But I was trying to setup a "Who's on first...?" routine with the names. :)

[PatrickG]

BTW, I've been in productions of Shrew and Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.

The misogyny in Shrew is heavy, even by Elizabethan standards.

I think the problem lies in the exclusion of the induction (and the loss of the final Sly/Lord scene).

IMO, the entire story is a farcical play-within-a-play and it's characterizations and conclusions are NOT to be taken seriously and that it's a farce on traditional masculinity.

If I ever get to direct a production, Petruchio will be the biggest chauvinist pig ever, tolerable only because he's interrupting an otherwise bland story that Christopher Sly can't stay awake through.

(Do a linguistic study. I have done some work there and my conclusions suggest that the Lord from the induction IS Sly.)

Also, I may try to incorporate the epilogue from "Taming of ***A*** Shrew".

Failing that, I'd do a sparse traditional cut and follow up with a tight cut of "The Tamer Tamed". (By Marlowe? It's about Petruchio having a second wife named Maria who tamed him.)

[Loren]

So marrying off sons is okay?

Hardly. The point wasn't to turn an unacceptable behavior into an acceptable one, but rather to make the audience forget about the social implications of the play's themes and enjoy the play on its own terms.

Like PatrickG said above, the misogyny in Shrew is pretty strong. Most modern audiences would look at it and focus on how poorly the women are being treated. It doesn't matter that the play is a comedy; the theme of subjugation of women will be taken in seriously. But nobody takes the idea of marrying off sons seriously. We don't take social stances about men's lib, so we can more easily laugh at the men being treated poorly on stage.

I've actually heard complaints that a similar phenomenon has become too common on TV. Whereas the old-time TV dad was a role model and disciplinarian, the modern TV dad tends to be fat, loutish, and kinda stupid. In a great many current sitcoms, the dad is a goofball and the mom is the one with her head on straight. It's a rather one-sided take on the American household, but it's apparently believed that audiences won't read as much into a goofy dad as they would an incompetent mother character.

[Ronald Bryan]

Failing that, I'd do a sparse traditional cut and follow up with a tight cut of "The Tamer Tamed". (By Marlowe? It's about Petruchio having a second wife named Maria who tamed him.)

We also saw them do Tamer Tamed with the same cast, and a few characters changed because Petruchio suddenly having new people work for him is a bit odd. Pretty good, but it is a bit too heavy in Petruchio actually being tamed.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I don't know that it calls for bashing. I'd disagree with modern translations (it kills the rhythm of the work) and suggest annotation. It's really not unusual to have to read Shakespeare's works two or three times before they really come alive.

A moredn translation is good for getting people to see that the plays do have really good stories in them, and not just some man standing their reciting a monologue.

The best way I ever found for getting into shakespeare (though I never had a problem studying him at school) is to actually perform a piece of his.
I did it for drama and highschool, and so not only did you have to learn the lines but to learn what they actually mean, and find the emotion behind them.
The amount of depth and hidden meaning to the most banal of exchanges is quite incredible.

[Super Hero Guy]

Did you ever notice how Shakespeare often when he's trying to rhyme uses two words that don't really rhyme, so than the actors have the horribley butcher the pronunciation of the word?

[Xombie]

Did you ever notice how Shakespeare often when he's trying to rhyme uses two words that don't really rhyme, so than the actors have the horribley butcher the pronunciation of the word?

Well yeah but should we expect anything less?

[Michael P]

Did you ever notice how Shakespeare often when he's trying to rhyme uses two words that don't really rhyme, so than the actors have the horribley butcher the pronunciation of the word?
It's a common enough device among the classical poets.

[Grant]

It's a common enough device among the classical poets.

And country music songwriters.

[Bouncing Boy]

Did you ever notice how Shakespeare often when he's trying to rhyme uses two words that don't really rhyme, so than the actors have the horribley butcher the pronunciation of the word?

To be fair though, sometimes pronouncations change through time (and with different accents as well) so it's possible at the time that they actually were rhymes.

[howyadoin]

Did you ever notice how Shakespeare often when he's trying to rhyme uses two words that don't really rhyme, so than the actors have the horribley butcher the pronunciation of the word?
Well yeah but should we expect anything less?You guys should learn a little about the history of your own language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vowel_Shift). Pronunciations have changed a lot in 500 years; chances are pretty good that those words did rhyme in Shakespeare's time.

[JeffreyWKramer]

You guys should learn a little about the history of your own language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vowel_Shift). Pronunciations have changed a lot in 500 years; chances are pretty good that those words did rhyme in Shakespeare's time.

Bing bing. Give the man a smoke of his choice.

[Paul McEnery]

I notice it's only you colonials who are dead keen on Shakespeare. Probably because we get him drilled into us at high school.

I'd rather see Shakespeare in Love, or Rozencrantz and Guildenstern, or Dogg's Hamlet, Cahoot's Macbeth.

Of the recent Shakespeare movies:

Titus was okay (thanks to the cast), but by God Taymor is tin-eared. I've seen more tasteful Snoop Dogg videos.

Baz Luhrmann does a lovely job with R&J.

Derek Jarman's Tempest is my favourite (far outweighing Greenaway's, which is only good for Michael Clark's bit, really); his Angelic Conversation, based on 14 sonnets, is pretty damn good too (only known collaboaration between Judy Dench and Coil).

Not so keen on McKellan's one-note and garish R3.

Branagh's HV was flat, but Love's Labours Lost was quite nippy.

And yes, My Own Private Idaho definitely deserves the nod (Keanu Reeves, world's greatest Shakespearen movie actor except Branagh!)

[howyadoin]

I notice it's only you colonials who are dead keen on Shakespeare. Probably because we get him drilled into us at high school.I'd be willing to bet that most of the Shakespeare fans here - myself included - studied the Bard in high school, too.

[Paul McEnery]

I'd be willing to bet that most of the Shakespeare fans here - myself included - studied the Bard in high school, too.
For how long, and how intensively?

What I got was two whole bloody years studying R&J -- a play that falls apart the moment Mercutio bites the dust and has a completely wasted fourth act; and a further two whole years studying Othello, which hinges on his inability to JUST BLOODY TALK TO HER!!!

That, for me, is the big problem with all Shakespeare's tragedies. Their big theme is failure to communicate, which sets me on edge like watching Abigail's Party -- something I have to take frequent tea-breaks to get through without bricking the set.

To return to Othello: and why doesn't anyone point out that Iago is sodding gay? Instead, we get all this guff about "motiveless malignity" (thank you oh so very much, you opium-riddled plonker). The passed-over fucker has two reasons to appeal to the "green-eyed monster" of envy, and one is: "how come the moor gets the glory, when I, the white fag, am kept out of the picture; I'll get him!". And then at least we've got some good subtext going.

[Tages]

I notice it's only you colonials who are dead keen on Shakespeare. Probably because we get him drilled into us at high school.

I'd rather see Shakespeare in Love, or Rozencrantz and Guildenstern, or Dogg's Hamlet, Cahoot's Macbeth.

Of the recent Shakespeare movies:

Titus was okay (thanks to the cast), but by God Taymor is tin-eared. I've seen more tasteful Snoop Dogg videos.

Baz Luhrmann does a lovely job with R&J.

Derek Jarman's Tempest is my favourite (far outweighing Greenaway's, which is only good for Michael Clark's bit, really); his Angelic Conversation, based on 14 sonnets, is pretty damn good too (only known collaboaration between Judy Dench and Coil).

Not so keen on McKellan's one-note and garish R3.

Branagh's HV was flat, but Love's Labours Lost was quite nippy.

And yes, My Own Private Idaho definitely deserves the nod (Keanu Reeves, world's greatest Shakespearen movie actor except Branagh!)
What about Polanski's "Macbeth?"

So deliciously dark and pessimistic... (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19710101/REVIEWS/101010319/1023)

[Tages]

For how long, and how intensively?

What I got was two whole bloody years studying R&J -- a play that falls apart the moment Mercutio bites the dust and has a completely wasted fourth act; and a further two whole years studying Othello, which hinges on his inability to JUST BLOODY TALK TO HER!!!

That, for me, is the big problem with all Shakespeare's tragedies. Their big theme is failure to communicate, which sets me on edge like watching Abigail's Party -- something I have to take frequent tea-breaks to get through without bricking the set.

To return to Othello: and why doesn't anyone point out that Iago is sodding gay? Instead, we get all this guff about "motiveless malignity" (thank you oh so very much, you opium-riddled plonker). The passed-over fucker has two reasons to appeal to the "green-eyed monster" of envy, and one is: "how come the moor gets the glory, when I, the white fag, am kept out of the picture; I'll get him!". And then at least we've got some good subtext going.
You haven't seen Branagh's cinematic "Othello," have you? He makes the homoerotic subtext much more visible.

But I always thought one of the most tragic parts of the play was Othello's pride keeping him from doing the simple thing that could solve his problems.