(no subject)

[shadowkat]

Hmmm...I'm going to have to try Still Star Crossed because guess who is playing Juliet's father, Lord Capulet? Anthony Stewart Head. And Lord Montague is Grant Bowler from Defiance. It's basically what happened in Verona after Romeo and Juliet died. (Basically all hell breaks loose, not the optimistic ending Shakespeare opined.) Which is an interesting premise, just wish it wasn't adapted from a successful YA series. Although that could be a good thing, sometimes book adaptations give a series a bit more cohesion.

I was thinking about favorite Shakespearean plays, adaptations and film versions...and really the devil is in who performed it and how.

On paper? My favorite is Hamlet. It just has the best lines.

Performed? It's more of a toss-up. I've seen really good live theater presentations of
King Lear (Anthony Hopkins played Lear vis RSC in London) and Twelth Knight in Stratford Upon Avon. Not much else.

Film? Franco Zefferelli's Romeo and Juliet, and Fassbender's Macbeth, also Ian McKellan's Richard III. Kenneth Brannagh also made Henry the V very accessible.

Adapted? Harder. I think West Side Story is by far the best adaptation. The others I can't remember or didn't quite work. Romeo and Juliet really lends itself to adaptation.
Although I do have a fondness for the film Ten Things I Hate About You which is a teen adaptation of Taming of the Shrew, a bit better than the musical version Kiss Me Kate.
(You can tell I was an English Lit major and a theater geek, back in the day, can't you?)

2. There's a list of 65 television shows popping up this summer in TV Guide. 65. Half of them are game shows, which makes me nostaglic for the 70s. Half of the television series in the 1970s and part of the 1980s were unscripted game shows. I don't enjoy game shows that much, but my best bud at the time adored them. So I saw all of them. She loved two things -- game shows, science fiction and horror.

Midnight, Texas looks sort of interesting, it's another adaptation of a Charlain Harris series. (I don't understand how Harris gets adapted let alone published. Her writing is abysmal. But then I didn't understand the appeal of Twilight. So what do I know?)

The adaptations are actually more interesting than her books. This one is about a down-on-his luck medium, a waitress and a town filled with ghosts, angles, a were-tiger, and something else.

It's more about community and family then sexual relationships, partly because it is on NBC and not HBO. So, if you're curious to see what a non-cable subscription channel would do with it, check it out.

What else? I think I should try Wyonna Earp on Syfy at some point. People seem to like it.

Can't really remember anything else. Oh, Nashville and Younger are popping up again.
I'd like to try The Last Kingdom...but not sure where it can be found in US. I like Bernard Cornwell for the most part, was a fan of his Sharpe series. Everything else is on HBO or Showtime, which I don't get at the moment. Starting to wish I hadn't let go of it. Although I could always grab it back again.

Salvation is a..."meteor is falling to earth how do we stop it series". I like some of the stars.. Santiago Cabrera.

And a whole host of other things...The Sinner is an odd miniseries about a woman suddenly going nuts and stabbing someone and the detective who investigates why. The detective is portrayed by Bill Pullman.Will is basically a TNT series about Wild Man, Will Shakespeare who wants to revolutionize theater. And yes, it's the actual William Shakespeare.

Comments

[ex_peasant441]

Still Star Crossed sounds an interesting premise. I hope I get a chance to see it over here. Romeo and Juliet has never been my favourite play, but it undoubtedly spawns the best adaptations and spin-offs. (I assume you are familiar with Shakespeare in Love!) Oddly enough, the first decent theatre version I ever saw had as Romeo a young unknown by the name of David Tennant.

Ian McKellan's Richard III
I love that version.

Kenneth Brannagh also made Henry the V very accessible.
That was the film that introduced me to Shakespeare and got me hooked (my experiences at school having been very bad). His Hamlet is also very good and accesible, although nowadays I rate Tennant's higher.

I'd like to try The Last Kingdom

Yes, yes! You must! It is Cornwell's best series by miles and shapinglight and I are desperate for other people to start watching and talking about this! BBC America: The Last Kingdom - Where to watch

[thedabaracds]

When the Royal Shakespeare Company toured the US I was lucky enough to see King Lear starring Ian McKellan live - it was absolutely awesome. And the fool was played by Sylvester McCoy (of Dr Who!) and he was superb as well. Not sure if McCoy played that role in the BBC-TV version with Ian McKellen, but it's still got to be well worth watching.

I got into Shakespeare at 14 years old, when they were broadcasting the BBC Shakespeare plays on US TV and I decided to see what all the fuss was about. (Yes I was an enormous nerd.) If they'd been broadcasting one of the war plays that would probably have been the end of my curiosity, but luckily it was "As You Like It," starring a young Helen Mirren as Rosalind - amazingly good! Some of the funnier bits were almost Monty-Pythonish.

Years later I saw a stage version of "As You Like It" that had all the "Forest of Arden" part of the play done as a bunch of TieDye shirt and ripped-jean-wearing hippies playing guitar and singing the Elizabethan music as if it was a 1960's lovefest - and it worked REALLY well.

Also if you can find it, the BBC-TV version of "The Taming of the Shrew" starring John Cleese is also fabulous! Not one of my favorite plays, but this production wasn't at all as sexist and knee-slapping as other versions (the Liz Taylor/Richard Burton scenery-chewing version comes to mind) but was far more nuanced. I highly recommend it.

[shadowkat]

I didn't know John Cleese had done Taming of the Shrew. I saw the Richard Burton/Liz Taylor one, which wholeheartedly agree...not the best version. And Moonlighting's take on it. Along with the film adaptation of the musical Kiss Me Kate, and the Heath Ledger/Julia Stiles film - 10 Things I Hate About You (which I wholeheartedly recommend).

Did see As You Like It at the Public Theater -- or Shakespeare in the Park in Central Park, with, of all people, the guy who voiced the Disney animated version of Robin Hood. Oh, and one of the stars from 3rd Rock. That was in 2005, I think. Also, saw an all nude homosexual version of Midsummer Night's Dream in England in 1987, which...was just weird.

Envy your Lear with Ian McKellan. That would have been awesome.

I've seen quite a few of them. Julie Taymor's Titus Adronicous is rather memorable, if slightly gorey, with Jessica Lange and Anthony Hopkins.

[shadowkat]

Thanks -- may need to stream it. Hopefully, Amazon Prime will let me do it for free. BBCAmerica -- I think is in the 2nd Season.

His Hamlet is also very good and accesible, although nowadays I rate Tennant's higher.

I hadn't seen Tennant's. I have seen four of them, one with Ethan Hawk, which is modern day and weird. Derek Jacobi did one. Kenneth Brannagh's. And the Franco Zeffrelli one with Mel Gibson, which made the interesting choice of having Hamlet lust after his mother, which was almost Fruedian. I thought Brannagh's drug a bit -- it was almost too long, but admittedly the most true to the play. OF those, I agree Brannagh's is the best. Although the Gibson one was highly entertaining.

I keep meaning to see Ralph Fienne Corianolous (sp?) but can't get in the mood. I have seen the film version of Julius Cesar, but can't remember it. And the film version along with the live theater version of The Tempest. Liked the theaterical version better.

Also... read and saw Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.

[ex_peasant441]

I've seen assorted Hamlets on stage and Brannagh, Tennant and Gibson on screen. Gibson I found dreadful, but I hate all Zeffrelli films. The freudian take is not something I am comfortable with, although I accept it is a very valid interpretation.

I thought Brannagh's drug a bit -- it was almost too long, but admittedly the most true to the play.
Did you see the two hour or the four hour version? I saw the four hour uncut one, which was very long but Brannagh has the ability to make even the most confusing elements of text seem understandable. For example I had never really understood the 'get thee to a nunnery' scene until I saw him do it. And he does make up for it in the scene with Osric telling him about the duel, where both on stage and screen he gallops through the text.

I keep meaning to see Ralph Fienne Corianolous (sp?) but can't get in the mood.

Same here. It has been sitting on my to-be-watched pile for too long.

Have you seen the Much Ado About Nothing that Joss Whedon did with Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker? I think it is a very good version indeed. And Nathan Fillon manages to be far less irritating as Dogberry than most.

I haven't yet found a good version of Julius Caesar. Nor a really satisfying Lear. If you like the history plays I thoroughly recommend the Hollow Crown series by the BBC. In particular the Richard II with Ben Whishaw and then Tom Hiddleston as Prince Hal are superb.

Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Wonderful stuff! There is a film version with Gary Oldman and Tim Roth, which cuts quite a bit but is still very good fun.

[shadowkat]

Did you see the two hour or the four hour version?

Oh the four hour one. And I can't remember if it was in the movie theater. It was long, but admittedly it did finally explain the line "get thee to the nunnery". Actually it explained a lot of things that made no sense in the abridged versions.

The Gibson one was just hilarious. I could not take it seriously. While Zefrelli's R&J worked, this one did not. Although arguably Baz Lurhman's R+J was slightly better in some respects or more risky.

Have you seen the Much Ado About Nothing that Joss Whedon did with Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker? I think it is a very good version indeed. And Nathan Fillon manages to be far less irritating as Dogberry than most.

I have. I've seen both Whedon's and Brannagh's. Was on the fence on which I preferred. I think Fillion did a better job with Dogberry than Keaton, who was unintelligible and irritating, while Fillion's version was hilarious and affecting. Also, the guy they had play the villain was so much better than Keanu Reeves. I can't remember the actor's name -- he was from Firefly. I almost wished I could have combined the two, Emma Thompson and Brannagh as Benedict and Beatrice, with everyone else from Whedon's cast. Although I did like Alexis and Acker in the roles.

Overall, I think Whedon's worked better -- the use of noir tones, and the sardonic edge, as well as the casting. Brannagh's Hollywood star casting was a bit of a mistake... while more accessible, a lot of the people seemed out of their depth.

I kept meaning to see the Hollow Crown, but like Coronliaus, no time. I have too many things in my to watch file.

Oh, I've also seen Anthony and Cleopatra with Sir Anthony Hopkins and Dame Judith Dench in the 1980s...I did not like, amazingly enough.
Which is odd, I know.

And Christopher Marlow's Jew of Malta, which I did like more than expected.

[ex_peasant441]

I agree with your analysis of Much Ado. Both versions have much to offer. My current favourite is the recent RSC version with Edward Bennett and Michelle Terry, which is very lively indeed (although sadly the recording has sound quality issues). That version gives real poignancy to Dogberry, so much so I was actually shedding tears.

Oh, I've also seen Anthony and Cleopatra with Sir Anthony Hopkins and Dame Judith Dench in the 1980s...I did not like, amazingly enough.
Which is odd, I know.

Not that odd to me. I think theatre styles have changed a lot in the last thirty years and anything that old seems very clunky and over the top to me.

[shadowkat]

I think theatre styles have changed a lot in the last thirty years and anything that old seems very clunky and over the top to me.

They were definitely over the top. I love Judi Dench, but she over-acted this role back in the 1980s.

[ex_peasant441]

Doubtless people will look back in 40 years at current stuff and deplore it just as much :D

[ex_peasant441]

Not sure if McCoy played that role in the BBC-TV version with Ian McKellen, but it's still got to be well worth watching.

McCoy is in the DVD version. The recording is a good Lear IMO, but lacks something. Like many stage versions it may not have transferred well to screen.

[shadowkat]

Well, it was theater, so a certain amount of that is admissible. I didn't like it at the time though - so it's not really in retrospect. Also, to be fair, I don't like that particular play. So it well could have been a combination of the two.

Meanwhile, I loved Hopkins in Lear. He was busy that year, he was doing Anthony and Cleopatra and King Lear with RSC.

[ex_peasant441]

So it well could have been a combination of the two.
Maybe. Alternatively, have you seen and liked Dench in any other Shakespearian roles? Because I think some actors can be wonderful in normal roles and then utterly wrong in Shakespeare. I have that problem with Patrick Stewart - I have seen him live as Macbeth and on DVD as John of Gaunt and both times I thought he was absolutely dire but the critics raved about him. And yet I like him in other roles, it is just his Shakespeare I can't stand. He seems to take all the major speeches and kills them dead by removing any expression whatsoever. I can only assume he is frightened of over-acting the famous bits. But clearly most people rate him very highly and he is classed as one of the greats like Dench.

The reverse is also true of course. I saw Toby Stephens do a mind-blowing Corriolanus on stage, but I have never seen him do anything good on screen.

Meanwhile, I loved Hopkins in Lear. He was busy that year, he was doing Anthony and Cleopatra and King Lear with RSC.
I have never seen Hopkins on stage. It is hard to imagine actually since his style on screen is so quiet and restrained.

[shadowkat]

Hopkins was very good in Lear, more restrained.

But here's the thing movie acting and stage acting are so different. You can't be too quiet or restrained on stage -- or the back row will go to sleep. That's why so many screen actors can't do stage, and stage actors struggle on screen.

James Marsters actually explained it in one of his interviews/Q&A's on youtube really well. That he'd watch Anthony Stewart Head - - who seemed to be doing nothing, yet it's all on the screen. But in theater, Head knew you have to exaggerate gestures a bit more. Pitch your voice. I saw Head on stage long before I saw him on TV, and he blew me away...because he was able to pitch to the back row, yet be restrained at the same time.

Hopkins was good in both Anthony & Cleopatra and King Lear -- similar to Head in his performance. While Dench - I think overcompensated. I've only seen her in that play though, so not sure if she had an off night, if it was the play or what.

Agree on Patrick Stewart -- I don't like his Shakespearean performances. He tends to put me to sleep or my attention wanders.

[ex_peasant441]

James Marsters came from a stage background himself, didn't he?

I find Head a bit uneven on screen. But that is partly the roles he takes. Never had teh chance to see him on stage. Does he still even do stage work, I wonder?

Agree on Patrick Stewart -- I don't like his Shakespearean performances. He tends to put me to sleep or my attention wanders.

So glad I'm not the only one. It is unnerving to dislike someone who is being celebrated as a genius. But I had him about three yards from me when he was doing 'Is this a dagger I see before me' and frankly he could have been describing a cornflakes packet.

[shadowkat]

James Marsters came from a stage background himself, didn't he?

Yep, heavy repertory theater background. Even owned and ran his own repertory theater up in Seattle or Portland, somewhere like that. Has done a lot of Shakespeare. Still does stage work.

Like most stage actors, he doesn't have a lot of respect for the television medium. I can't say I blame him.

I find Head a bit uneven on screen. But that is partly the roles he takes. Never had teh chance to see him on stage. Does he still even do stage work, I wonder?

Agreed. He's had a lot of bad roles. Similar to Marsters in that way. I haven't liked Marsters in anything but Buffy. Head has had a bit more luck. But most of his recent stuff I haven't liked that much. (Haven't tried Still Crossed, yet.)

He does some stage, I think. Just not high profile. Although he never really did high profile. I saw him -- because he was subbing for his brother Murray Head, a major musical theater actor in London, for Chess.

[ex_peasant441]

I liked Marsters in his episode of Supernatural. I don't know if you watch that show but he was very well paired with Charisma Carpenter. I haven't seen most of his other post-Buffy stuff.

Although he never really did high profile.

Of course his real claim to fame was as the guy in the coffee advert ;)

[shadowkat]

I liked Marsters in his episode of Supernatural. I don't know if you watch that show but he was very well paired with Charisma Carpenter. I haven't seen most of his other post-Buffy stuff.

Oh, I liked that episode. They were good in that together. Worked very well off each other. I'd hoped they'd bring them back. Marsters is very good in certain roles. Not so much others. (I followed him around and saw him in pretty much all his tv roles. He's only down two I liked Spike and that one.)

I have watched Supernatural. Made it sixth seasons...then sort of lost interest. It pulled me in with the brother relationship and the whole urban legend thing. (I studied urban legends and folklore in college, so most of the ones they referenced I'd actually read and studied. Hence I was intrigued.)
But I'm not really a horror fan, and the Christian mythos got on my nerves finally...also after the 6th season...I began to just not have the time.

Anthony Stewart Head, while known for Taster's Choice commercials, won me over when he subbed for his brother Murray Head on stage in Chess, and then later played a very dark mysterious mentor figure in VR5 - a sci-fi cyberpunk series that was on the WB prior to Buffy. It got cancelled, and Head jumped to Buffy, so I followed him. I remember being disappointed that he didn't have a bigger role, then got intrigued by the Angel character.
Buffy and her friends grew on me.

[ex_peasant441]

I'd hoped they'd bring them back.
Yes! I'm still hoping :D

But I'm not really a horror fan, and the Christian mythos got on my nerves finally...
Yes, I can fully understand many people would hate it. I think they do try to stay the right side of insulting, but they walk a very fine line. I like the basic idea of heaven and hell being run by bureaucratic angels and demons engaged in power struggles (I loved Good Omens as well) so that is a big hook for me.

I studied urban legends and folklore in college, so most of the ones they referenced I'd actually read and studied. Hence I was intrigued.
That sounds interesting! Most of them have been new to me. I mostly value complex world building, so the show has actually increased attraction for me since they moved away from pick and mix legends and into a more coherent created mythos.

Head jumped to Buffy, so I followed him
I have known many, many Buffy fans over the year and never met anyone who followed Head to find the show!

I am sadly conventional because I wasn't really hooked until S2 when Spike appeared. Before that I found it fun, and Buffy was very cute, but the show as a whole was not worthy of obsession.