I have always been a movie buff, from the time I was a little kid. I remember my mom taking me to see Disney’s Robin Hood at the theater (you know, the one where Robin Hood and Marian are foxes, and Prince John is a thumb-sucking lion…PJ? PJ! Oh, I like that…Hiss, put it on my luggage!). And I remember going to my first drive-in movie with my brother - Young Frankenstein.  Probably not the best movie for a 6-year-old to watch - I believe a lot of the humor was lost on me until later years!

But movies have always been important to me and played a big part in my life…especially historical epics!  Oh, my…that year that both Braveheart and Rob Roy came out?!?!  I thought I’d died and gone to historical cinema heaven! And, of course, being a huge Shakespeare/Elizabethan buff, I adore movies like Elizabeth and Shakespeare in Love.

But what on earth does this have to do with Staging Shakespeare? Well, one thing that has been very helpful, not only to my cast but also to the students in my English classes, is to teach Shakespeare’s plays utilizing good film versions of the plays. Of course, when I teach Henry V to my 8th graders, we watch the Branagh film - read one act, watch the act; read the next act, watch that act, etc. When I teach Hamlet, we watch bits of both the Gibson and the Branagh films, and when I teach Macbeth, I’ve found that I prefer the BBC version of the play with Nicol Williamson (remember him as Merlin in Excalibur?) over the Ian McKellen/Judi Dench play, although I like to show scenes from both. (Speaking of Excalibur - Here’s some trivia for you - Cherie Lunghi, who played Guenevere, also did a fabulous Beatrice in the BBC’s Much Ado About Nothing! Kind of cool that two Excalibur cast members also did some mean Shakespeare!)

So back in May and June, when the weather here was icky and we couldn’t start rehearsing outside, our cast spent a great deal of time working on the text - reading parts aloud; figuring out what various words and phrases meant; determining what their characters might be thinking and feeling at any given moment. Once we were finished, we would watch whatever scenes we had worked on that day from the BBC version of Shrew, with John Cleese as Petruchio. Talk about a HOOT! John Cleese is just a great actor anyway, but seeing him come in for his wedding to Katharina, dressed in some hideous burlap-type vest, no shirt on underneath, but an enormous yellow sunflower stuck to the vest…and a hat with the longest feathers sticking out in front of it…I could go on…I won’t…except to mention that Grumio had some weird face painted on his bare belly, under a very similar ensemble as that of Petruchio’s! The kids loved it, and they saw some really outstanding acting in the process. We also watched the Richard Burton/Elizabeth Taylor film version, which is such an enjoyable movie, especially when you consider that Burton and Taylor were married at the time they made the movie…it definitely created quite the dynamic for their performances!

Using film versions of the plays seems almost like a no-brainer, really. In this day and age of audio and visual technology, why wouldn’t a teacher or director want to use film to help their students really get into Shakespeare? The only downside I can see is that you don’t ever want your actors to feel like they have to play a part exactly like some famous actor did it. I was hesitant about showing the Branagh Much Ado last year, simply because I didn’t want anyone to feel like there was only one way to play these characters. But I also showed them the BBC version (the one with Cherie Lunghi as Beatrice) in order to demonstrate that there are definitely different ways of approaching the characters, the scenery, the costumes, the everything of putting together a stage production…as long as you don’t deviate from Shakespeare’s text!

Just a suggestion, too, concerning those BBC plays - If you look for them on Amazon or other commercial websites, you’ll probably only find them available to purchase as sets - all of the comedies, all of the histories, or even all 37 plays in one huge bundle. If you are interested in buying them individually, go to the Folger Library website - www.folger.edu - and you can purchase them through their gift shop, one at a time. I’ve slowly been building my collection this way, purchasing the ones I need for school or for whatever plays I am considering directing in the future.

And finally…a little ritual that I started last summer as our production neared completion and we were almost to Opening Night. When I start to worry about the play coming together, actors learning their lines, costumes being finished, sets being painted, but I know I’ve done everything I can do and it’s up to the kids, I pop in my copy of Shakespeare in Love.  If I have time, I’ll watch the whole film, but sometimes I’m just too tired to stay up and watch it after my children are in bed, so instead, I will skip to the scene where Will’s Romeo and Juliet is about to start.  Henslowe’s tailor, playing the Chorus, is stuttering backstage, and Will looks like he would rather slit his wrists than let the play go on.  Then the Chorus gets pushed out onto the stage, and it almost appears that he won’t be able to get the words out…but suddenly, his voice is perfect, exclaiming, “Two households, both alike in dignity, in fair Verona where we lay our scene….” I absolutely love that entire part of the movie, where they show what it might have been like the very first time R&J was on the stage…except, of course, where a gorgeous Gwyneth Paltrow saves the day! And then, when the play is over, and the audience just sits there, like they didn’t know what hit them…until finally, thunderous applause and ovations! Ah, yes…it helps me sleep better that night!

Among Henries, the Sixth never gets quite the same attention as his predecessors. In the canon of Shakespeare’s histories, the chronicles of Henry IV (two plays often combined as one) and Henry V are far more popular. This makes a new production of all three parts of Henry VI (along with its historical follow-up, Richard III) notable. A rapturous review of this new interpretation of the cycle notes the many values of the Henry VI plays as well as their recent stage history. As the author notes, the plays have evolved from a kind of Tudor pageant to a more complex historical opus in the past half century.

One of the main points that dogs the Henry VI plays is the questionable authorship of the first play in the trilogy. Written very early in Shakespeare’s career while young Will was in his early twenties, many have questioned exactly how much Shakespeare contributed to the initial installment. As the reviewer notes, some editions have published the plays under alternate titles derived from Quarto editions of the plays (rather than the standard Folio texts used). Some even choose to exclude the first part altogether on the basis of its iffy authorship.

Finally, some take umbrage at treating the history plays in any kind of grouping because they were not written in chronological order. I am inclined to take the more relaxed perspective adopted by the reviewer. The history plays are like a large family: wildly different, not always functional as a group, but stuck with each other for good or ill.

When you think about Henry V, what’s the first thing that comes to mind? Do you imagine a strung out drug addict? Could you picture the famous Agincourt speech delivered by a working class male stripper? What if Hal were a zombie killer or the lover of a closeted priest? Could see cannibalism working in a production of arguably the favorite of Shakespeare’s History plays? Could you imagine a Henry V impervious to pain fighting none other than Her Majesty’s most famous, martini-loving superspy? If none of these descriptions fits your vision of the character, then you may need to rethink that vision.
The Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama (RSAMD) in Glasgow recently announced a festival of Shakespearean-themed performance and music entitled “Raising the Bard.” The centerpiece of this event is a performance of Henry V starring Robert Carlyle in the title role. Carlyle is arguably one of Scotland’s busiest actors and has played all of the roles mentioned above and many more. If you don’t recognize him by his name, you would certainly recognize his face. The fact that Carlyle falls a bit under the radar is a testament to how well he disappears into each of his roles, whether they are in blockbusters or independent European films. Carlyle will undoubtedly bring an edge to Henry and a decidedly contemporary feel. This brilliant character actor is more than up to the challenge of one of The Bard’s more demanding kings. Also, after acting opposite Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist, Agincourt will be a piece of cake.

When Kenneth Branagh filmed his unedited Hamlet in 1996, it elicited a variety of responses. Some carped about the sheer length of the film (four hours plus), while others questioned the integrity of the text (e.g. which versions are we using/combining to create this “complete” Hamlet?). Regardless of your level of appreciation of the film, it does test the level of Bard fanaticism. By this logic, if you love Shakespeare’s words, the more of them there are, the happier you will be.

The Royal Shakespeare Company in England is taking this idea to the ultimate limit. They are producing no less than eight of The Bard’s plays as a history cycle: Richard II, Henry IV Parts I and II, Henry V, Henry VI Parts I, II and III, and Richard III. Though not written in this order, this sequence represents a chronological presentation of the plays. Shakespeare’s other two histories, King John and Henry VIII, do not feature any of the overlapping characters and story threads that the other eight do, which presumably explains their absence from this presentation. All told, this reportorial approach took nearly three years to prepare and would demand about twenty-four hours of the audience’s time to view in its entirety.

This is a bold undertaking in a number of ways. First, it demands the consistency of a single, extended play, even though the works were not written that way. Secondly, the histories are generally less popular than the tragedies and comedies, with Henry V and Richard III getting most of the face time. If it succeeds, the RSC’s cycle will be nothing short of…uh…historical.

After teaching Hamlet, Henry V, and Macbeth to three separate English classes, I realized that there was true interest in these amazing plays from my students. Now, don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying that all of my students were knocking down my door, bribing me with lattes, begging, “Please, please, please let us read more Shakespeare!” But there were a significant number who truly wanted to get into the Bard more than time would allow in our classes. So I asked what they thought of attending an afterschool Shakespeare Reading Group, and in a school with around 55 students, I had between 10 and 14 kids sign up…and attend regularly throughout the school year!

We started by reading some of the sonnets, and I also introduced historical information about Shakespeare, his life and times, and the other playwrights that wrote during the 16th century. Beginning with the sonnets rather than a play made for a really good introduction to Shakespeare’s language, particularly the idea of iambic pentameter. It was helpful to get the meter into their heads by exploring the sonnets, where it is pretty obvious that there is a set rhyme scheme and meter, as opposed to the plays, where it can be difficult at times to find. And what I discovered later was that this preparation was very beneficial to those kids who received parts in Much Ado About Nothing…which I’ll tell you about in another post! At the time I started the afterschool reading group, I had no idea I’d be directing a play in a few short months!

Once we finished reading sonnets, we started reading Much Ado About Nothing because many of the kids were familiar with the Kenneth Branagh film and absolutely loved it! With that kind of enthusiasm, I knew reading Much Ado would be a hit for these students. They were all so excited to read aloud the words they had heard the actors and actresses say in the film, and they also came to realize that most film versions of his plays do a great deal of cutting (except for Branagh’s Hamlet, of course). The students enjoyed reading parts that they had never heard before!

In the middle of reading the play, I also started a Shakespeare Festival, which allowed students from each of my English classes to memorize scenes from the plays they read. At the festival our Shakespeare Reading Group performed the first scene of Much Ado. During rehearsals for the festival and afterschool reading of Much Ado, my students came to the realization that not only is reading Shakespeare aloud fun…but so is acting it out! So one day as we were nearing the end of Much Ado, one of my students said, “Hey! Why don’t we put on a play? Why don’t we do Much Ado this summer?”

I was told later by one of my students that my face lit up like I had just been given the best Christmas present ever! It was one of those moments…those teaching moments…those “Oh my goodness, I’ve reached my students!” moments…I realized that by some miracle I had shown a group of kids, aged 11-17, that Shakespeare can actually be fun. And that’s what it’s all about!

In my next post I’ll mention a bit about how I did auditions for Much Ado last year, as well as how I’m getting the kids ready to audition for The Taming of the Shrew in just a couple of weeks!

Just call him “Desdemona Man.” Boxer Gene Tunney, who became a champion after defeating Jack Dempsey in the late 1920’s, may seem on paper like an unlikely Shakespeare aficionado. After all, pugilists are not regarded for their intellect, and many are derided for a lack of it. The assumption is that muscles and physical agility must mask (or replace) a lack of mental capability. Tunney proved this insulting stereotype wrong with his highly analytical boxing style. What set him apart from other boxers of his time was his forensic approach to the sport, literally profiling his opponents as he fought them to work around their strengths and find their weaknesses.

Another interesting aspect of Tunney’s training regimen was his devotion to The Bard, whose words he often read in preparation for a fight. A new one-man play, Tunney/Shakespeare in Six Rounds, dramatizes the boxer and his love of Elizabethan poetry. The well-read bruiser is played by character actor Jack Wetherall (best known for his work on the American version of Queer as Folk). While reams of Shakespeare could be labeled inspirational, a show like this calls into question what passages might speak most to a boxer’s mental preparation for his work. Certainly, one speech that might fit is Henry V’s famous morale-raising speech before the Battle of Agincourt. It is after all a speech about war and giving a good fight, but mostly it is a speech about faith—and perhaps that was one of the things that made Gene Tunney one of a kind.

Before Branagh took up the mantle of Shakespearean film interpreter, there was Sir Laurence Olivier. Branagh owes a great debt to Olivier, and adapted some of the same Shakespearean plays into films. This year marks the centenary of Olivier’s birth, so there have been tributes aplenty—and with good reason. Some of Olivier’s most impressive achievements (in a career that had many) were his Shakespearean films: his seminal Richard III (1955); the buoyantly theatrical Henry V (1945); the blackface Othello (1965, not long before this kind of performance would no longer be considered appropriate); and, of course, his best known Shakespearean film, the Oscar-winning Hamlet (1948).

Olivier stood tall among contemporary Shakespearean actors (and sometimes directors) such as John Gielgud and Richard Burton. In many ways, Olivier represented the ideal balance between the extremes embodied by the other two. Gielgud was the consummate poet, with graceful movements and a mellifluous, resonant voice. Burton was Gielgud’s opposite—gruff and animalistic, with a larger-than-life personality. Olivier in his Hamlet found both the elegance and the turmoil in the character. His decidedly Freudian take on the material may have helped him give both qualities equal attention. His monologues were pure poetry while his scenes with other characters, particularly Jean Simmons’s tremulous Ophelia, were passionate and visceral. Olivier brought this duality to many great performances. Even late in his career, when he was consigned to the role of Zeus in the ultra-cheesy Clash of the Titans, Laurence Olivier remained a class act.
.

A recent editorial noted that a former speech writer for President Bush had written an article on Shakespeare. The editorial’s author, who clearly was no fan of the president, found it ironic that a former Bush administration member (particularly one responsible for the much-discussed phrase “axis of evil”) would laud the complexity of Shakespeare’s characters. This writer found this oxymoronic in light of what he felt was the president’s simplistic nature. In doing so, the writer made an extended comparison between Bush and Hal from Shakespeare’s historical Henry cycle.

Rather than get myself in hot water by taking sides on the president or his policies, I would rather interrogate the validity of the writer’s comparison. This Hal/Bush pairing is puzzling coming on the heels of his assertion that Shakespeare is complex while Bush is rudimentary. Supporters of the president hail his undeterred sense of purpose in the face of much opposition while his detractors criticize his narrow-minded inflexibility. Both sides are addressing the same quality—one that in some ways might be more relatable to Greek drama than Shakespeare. Antigone’s Creon, with his unwavering belief in the state and his leadership of it, seems more applicable to Bush than characters like Hamlet, who are famous in part for their indecision. What the editorial does point to is that Shakespeare’s plays (like Greek drama) often follow people in power and what happens to them as they use (and often misuse) that power. As a result, they can provide points of comparison and analysis for politicians of any affiliation, both the inspiring and the inept.

In a review of a new production of Julius Caesar, the reviewer noted the play’s unique role among Shakespeare’s works. Perhaps more than any of his other plays, Julius Caesar is many high school students’ first brush with Shakespeare. The reviewer liked, but did not love, the production, and in her assessment I found myself returning to the question of why this is the work that high schoolers study to learn about Shakespeare. The challenges that face directors and actors, as well as student readers, make it a curious choice for representing Shakespeare’s entire cannon.

Obviously, a play like Cymbeline would never make the cut because, love it or hate it, its structure is far from standard. Also, plays where the textual integrity is under question are poor choices as representative works. Still, Julius Caesar is a tricky piece, requiring highly able actors and directors (as evidence, see the highly profitable but critically execrated Broadway production starring Denzel Washington from a few years ago). A play whose protagonist is questionable (the title character is actually only a supporting role) and whose biggest scene occurs at the halfway point is a challenging undertaking for the best of teachers and students. Perhaps one explanation for Caesar’s triumph over King Lear and the Henrys is the historical angle. The play offers a cross-disciplinary tie-in to World History curriculum, not just for Roman studies, but for larger political questions as well. In this light, a blond Dane with mommy issues seems like a lightweight by comparison.

Big changes have been announced recently for Shakespeare’s digs. The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust oversees a number of buildings in the Stratford-Upon-Avon area related to The Bard, including the houses where he was born and where he died. The Trust’s current efforts are focused on embellishing the experiences of Shakespeare enthusiasts who visit the various houses. Like Colonial Williamsburg in the U.S., one of the primary focuses is having historian-actors recreate various aspects of life in Elizabethan England.

In the wake of the recent announcement of a Harry Potter-themed amusement park, I wondered what (if funds allowed) Shakespeare’s answer to Six Flags might be like. Would there be “Hamlet’s Haunted House,” in which kids might be chased around a scary castle by the Prince of Denmark’s ghostly dad? “Henry V’s Wild Ride” could take visitors on a virtual trip through the Battle of Agincourt. They could even include theme restaurants like “Shylock’s Pound O’Flesh Hoagies.” Not that it’s a competition, but doesn’t that sound better than some park with an Owlery and plastic “Deathly Hallows” as souvenirs?