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!

If you are a fan of really obscure poetic references, then last night’s Tony Awards must have been a hoot for you. On the heels of Lauren Hutton’s psychotic break during the meaningless A-List Awards, actor Mark Rylance chose to recite poetry rather than issue any kind of formal thanks for the Best Actor in a Play Tony he won yesterday. The moment elicited both chuckles and head scratches from the audience in an evening when most of the expected victors claimed their prizes.

Rylance’s win also came at a high price to Shakespeare fans. Patrick Stewart’s highly regarded interpretation of the title role in Macbeth was bested by the performance of quirky poet Rylance. In addition, Stewart’s nefarious leading lady also walked away awardless. In fact, the entire production was shut out, not claiming a single victory.

Whether kooky or just cheeky, Rylance is a fine actor, so it is hard to begrudge him. Furthermore, he has also racked up a ginormous resume of Shakespearean work himself. Still, his win for a revival of a little-known farce seems like a bit of a letdown. At the very least, it might have been nice for the Tony audience to have been treated to a performance of a scene between Stewart’s Macbeth and Lady M. I know it would have been challenging because it would have cut into the valuable time they spent staging musical numbers every five seconds, including those from plays that have been around for OVER A DECADE! Sorry, I didn’t mean to raise my voice, but the Bard got robbed.

If ever there was a classical smackdown, it is the one currently going on in New York. The City that Never Sleeps has always been the focal point of the country’s theatrical activity. Now, it is playing host to the biggest fight in town: Macbeth versus Macbeth. While Patrick Stewart is asking Broadway audiences eight times a week if there’s a dagger before him, nearby Verdi’s opera based on the very same play is also dazzling audiences. A New York Times piece on both productions pitted the two against each other and suggested a possible draw, if not a win in favor of the opera.

In discussing the ups and downs of the two Macbeths, the writer also made comparisons between Verdi’s other Shakespearean operas and the original source material. For this writer, the operas sometimes are move evocative than the plays upon which they are based. The argument put forth is that music is more visceral than words and can evoke a clearer response from an audience far more quickly. The writer admits that Shakespeare purists would balk at such a notion and compromises by saying that the two productions can coexist quite nicely because they are both so strong (in different ways).

Is that true? Are the majority of Shakespeare aficionados actually Bard Snobs? I’ve recently complained about an updated version of a classic play that includes jokes about contemporary pop stars. Am I putting Shakespeare before all else? It’s possibly that artists, critics and theatergoers like to be contrary, and this particular columnist is no different. In order to make the daring statement that Shakespeare isn’t all that and a bag of chips (yes, I know that catchphrase has expired, but I haven’t found anything to take its place), he has to assume that Will’s fans are stodgy, old, and clinging to dusty leatherbound copies of his plays as if they were sacred texts. Maybe in order to make the two Macbeths sound like a battle, you have to spin it like everything else.

It’s that special time of year again. I’m not talking about spring, although the warmer weather is nice (even if it does bring along seasonal allergies with it). No, it is awards season in the world of theatre, as the gearing-up for the Tony Award nominations has begun. Wisely distanced from the glut of film awards in December through February, the Tony Award nominations are typically announced in mid-May, with the statuettes handed out the first or second weekend in June (after the close of the traditional theatergoing season).

Of particular interest this year is the Patrick Stewart-led production of Macbeth, which has played a number of venues over the past year en route to Broadway. Stewart is a virtual lock for a nomination (and possible win) as Best Actor in a Play, and the production seems a likely bet for Best Revival of a Play. An article about the impending nominations noted a relative lack of love for Shakespeare by the Tony Awards, pointing to a scant number of nominations in the Acting, Directing, and Revival fields, with even fewer garnering wins.

To be fair, these complaints are a bit misleading. First, the Best Revival of a Play category has only existed for roughly one third of the Tonys’ 60-plus-year history. Very few playwrights have appeared in this category multiple times and Shakespeare is one of them. As far as the Acting and Directing nods go, keep in mind that these awards don’t split up the nominations among revivals and new works. Thus, actors in contemporary American works go head-to-head with their Shakespearean counterparts. Whether you believe there is a bias or not, all bets are off this year as the acting prize appears to be Stewart’s to lose.

What if Shakespeare were the first words you ever learned? In an eye-opening account of his youth, a foreign-born man explains how this was possible. As a young man, he was first introduced to English by a teacher with a passion for all things Bard. The teacher gave the young man a copy of Romeo and Juliet to take home, making some of his earliest experiences of the English language of Shakespearean origin. The man confesses that much of what he read was completely over his head. Since he was new to the language and young to boot, much of what people cherish about Shakespeare was initially lost on him.

Curiously, this in no way impaired his enthusiasm for the material. The words themselves, even the ones that he did not understand, riveted him. The more he read and the more he learned, the more he wanted to read and learn. While still a youngster, he performed in a student production of Macbeth (despite knowing virtually every line by heart, he was cast as one of the witches and not, to his dismay, the title role).

It is clear even in this brief recollection, that this experience was life altering. Shakespeare is now a part of this man’s make-up, and it has become a point of reference for looking at the world. What was most refreshing about this essay was the sheer simple passion of it. The man clearly knew Shakespeare, but did not feel the need to prove it. Instead, he simply gave testament to the influence of these works.

What’s in a joke? Depending on whom you ask, comedy—or, more specifically, what makes something funny—is indefinable. In fact, the more you chase after the funny, the more elusive it becomes. In essence, you kill the joke by trying to categorize it. That hasn’t stopped people from writing volumes on the nature of comedy. In a way, writing about comedy is like writing about spirituality: it requires a certain leap of faith. A new book of humorous stories doesn’t try to answer the question of what makes something funny, but it does approach those questions in its selection of subject matter. Many of the stories are take-offs, reworkings or continuations of works by famous authors, Shakespeare included. As a result, you have to know the source material to truly appreciate the humor.

One of the Bard-based stories is “Lady Macbeth on Ambien,” in which the character’s somnambulant adventures are motivated less by psychological torment than the prescription drug’s side effects. Could this story be funny to someone with no familiarity with Shakespeare or Macbeth? It’s doubtful. Thus, humor it seems is partially about context. In the story, the title character eats a huge meal during her late-night wanderings, prompting a character to quip, “Methinks the lady does ingest too much.” It’s barely funny as a response to ravenous consumption, but brings a smile to the face of anyone who recognizes the pun. Maybe comedy is a club; you have to be in the know to get it.

In other MacNews, Orlando Shakespeare is changing the shape of its theatre to accommodate its new production of Macbeth. According to an article about the production, the space was designed so that its traditional proscenium setup could be converted to a theatre-in-the-round model. The unusual thing is, in its first seven years, they have never made the conversion….until now. Apparently, this Macbeth necessitated an arena set-up for its decidedly unique take on the play.

What stood out to me in this piece was the question of how the plays change depending on the space in which they are presented. In his own time, The Bard’s works were performed in a kind of three-quarter thrust stage with a tiring house in back of it for entrances, exits and balcony scenes. Obviously, we have more variety in the twenty-first century in deciding how to stage the plays, but what is the best option? Is there an ideal format for each play, or do the plays simply become something different when they are placed in a different relationship to the audience? Are proscenium productions capable of a grander scale at the expense of audience intimacy? Do arena productions lose some of their majesty because of the necessary scenic compromises?

Most importantly, what happens when the space is used to play against the text? Is it possible to stage a large, gothic Macbeth in a small space to increase the audience’s sense of unease? Orlando Shakespeare is gambling that it can do just that.

In the past few months, I have written several blogs about the phenomenon of kids playing Shakespeare and/or the appropriate age to introduce Shakespeare to children. The tone of these entries has largely been skeptical, and some of the responses I have received indicate that many believe the primary focus should be to get kids interested in Shakespeare and maintain that interest into adulthood. I came across a story about a ten year-old boy being hailed for his performance in the title role in Macbeth. I was initially prepared to scoff at the story, but as acting phenoms like Haley Joel Osment have proven, kids are capable of more than we give them credit for.

In this light, I tried to view this pre-adolescent Macbeth from a new point of view instead of giving in to my usual cynicism. It occurs to me that Macbeth, more than any of the rest of Shakespeare’s tragic heroes, might be best suited for portrayal by a young adult. In fact, it might just bring out an essential quality in the character: childishness. Indeed, Macbeth is a largely manipulated character; so gullible as to be almost an innocent. In addition, there are maternal overtones in his relationship with Lady Macbeth (I know, ick, but think about it). Macbeth is The Bard’s least mature hero, and perhaps having a child play the role would highlight this trait and perhaps even (as paradoxical as it might seem) make the character seem just a bit more grown up.

One of the greatest actors of Shakespeare passed away earlier this week. Paul Schofield, whose career spanned more than five decades, died from complications of leukemia at age 86. Schofield was a rare bird among actors—one who preferred the stage to the screen. His most famous role was that of Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons, which earned him 1966’s Best Actor Oscar (he had also played the role on stage). Despite this success, he remained largely absent from the silver screen for much of his career (notable exceptions include his fine work in Quiz Show and a terrific performance in The Crucible).

Although far from a recluse, Schofield simply chose to work more on the stage and gave few interviews over the course of his career. In the theatre, he mastered all of the great Shakespearean roles including Macbeth, Hamlet, and King Lear. In many of his obits, a famous quote from Richard Burton is often mentioned, “Of the ten greatest moments in the theater, eight are Schofield’s.” Despite this, Schofield’s name is probably less familiar than that of Burton (who largely left the theatre in favor of films at a young age). Perhaps one of the reasons Schofield will be forever tied to Thomas More is because he was so well-suited to the role. Friends and co-stars have eulogized him as an incredibly decent human being. In addition, his acting has often been heralded for its groundedness and strength. It was this same powerful core that made his turns as Shakespeare’s famous heroes uniquely human.

A review of a current production of Titus Andronicus compares the play to slasher films, but differentiates it by noting the lack of complexity and sophistication in the latter. Titus Andronicus frequently inspires gore-laden productions, so this assessment is not totally surprising, however, what about reverse argument? What, if anything, is Shakespearean about slasher films? Are they in any way comparable?

Revenge plays a key role in both the tragedies of Shakespeare and slasher movies. Hamlet must avenge his father’s murder, while Coriolanus seeks revenge against the society that he believes rejected him. In horror filmdom, Freddy Krueger goes after the children of Elm Street as payback for their parents murdering him. Jason, who became the face of 1980’s horror, actually became the killer from the second Friday the 13th film onward. One of his primary motivations is revenge for his mother (who is the killer in the first film).

Like Shakespeare’s plays, the horror films eventually learned to expand their market by mixing genres. Shakespeare’s late-career works are alternately described as romances and tragicomedies in an attempt to categorize their melding of different genres. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master plays with some potent executions added to the mix (a far cry from the more serious, shadowy figure depicted in the first installment).

Most importantly, both Shakespeare’s plays and horror movies ask us to identify with characters who aren’t particularly likeable or honorable. Macbeth and Lady M. are terrible people, but the play hinges on our investment in their undoing. Horror films, particularly in their heyday two decades ago, asked us not only to like but to root for demented, undead sociopaths. Ultimately, both allow audiences to take a trip to the dark side.