Favorite Shakespeare productions or whatever

[Angel_Grace_Blue 0]

For no real reason, I decided to start this. Basically, tell us your favorite (Or least favorite, I suppose) production of a Shakespeare play. It doesn't have to be a direct/literal adaptation, either.

 

So, anyway, since I started the thread, I figured I'd mention some of mine.

 

The Lion King, adaptafied from Hamlet. Kinda. I mean, it does follow a pretty similar plotline, and the whole speech from Hamlet about a peasant eating a fish that ate a worm that ate a dead king, therefore peasant eats king, is totally Circle of Life. Hell, many of my classmates and I wrote "Circle of Life" in our copies of Hamlet. I've gotten off-track. My apologies.

 

Scotland, PA is pretty good, in my opinion. And, like Lion King, it's not the literal adaptation of MacBeth. And, it's got Walken. That's all I should really have to say about that.

 

Gibson and Brannagh's Hamlet's are pretty good, too.

 

I suppose I should watch more so I can have a better list, but that's neither here nor there. I'll just shut up now and let others post.

[ArkhamGlobe 0]

Kurosawa is the king of cinematic Shakespeare treatments. Both Throne of Blood (MacBeth) and Ran (King Lear) are marvellous films in their own right and should be seen by all serious film buffs.

[Ravenbomb 0]

"O", yes I know, most people on the board hated the movie, but I didn't. So there.

 

Julius Caesar, Brando/Mason version

 

Ran, best Shakespeare movie ever. Period

[starvenger 0]

The Stratford Festival in Ontario was pretty good back when Colm Feore was the principal actor there. A couple of performances that stood out was his Iago in "Othello" and Petruchio in "The Taming of the Shrew" (which used a 60's theme).

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

Titus, based on his play Titus Andronicous. After seeing the movie, I did a bit of research - trying to see what literary critics thought of the play - and found that a lot of them hated the play. After reading the play, I can see. But, there are some things that are better presented on screen/stage and I believe this is one of them.

 

There's just *so* much subtext going on, especially when you see how the actors say the lines. Anthony Hopkins, of course, shines as the lead role. There's also a lot of visual [what are they called? I want to say clues, but that's not it. hm..go with subtext again, though I hate to do it]. Like, for instance, Titus Andronicous's clothes, throughout the length of the film go from warrior/black/tight,confined to chef/white/loose.

 

[side note, on the IMDB page, a child star and a clown are listed before Hopkins. Um....wtf?]

 

Jessica Lange plays Tamora, the Queen of Goths, and I think she's just wonderful in it. Harry J. Lennix just excels in the role of 'Aaron', the manipulator of all the schemes.

 

But the reason I became interested in the movie to begin with was because my faveorite actor, Alan Cumming, stars in it. Usually, I just fastforward through boring movies to see the part I wanted to see, but for this one, there was no way one can fast forward and *still* know what the hell is going on. I, of course, love the way he plays Saturninus. He's a spoiled brat-emporer, yet very much a child.

 

It's not just the characters that make this movie, but the visuals [Penny Arcade Nightmares, for instance] and the costumes. For those able to rent the DVD, I suggest doing so, as the director really adds all kinds of information.

 

For instance, Tamora's costume was a 40s-ish type of garb, an adrogynous/masculine look. Yet Lavinia's costume is more of an innocent-50s, the type of gal that you want see defiled. The director's words, not mine. And indeed Lavinia does get defiled in a really, really horrible way. She gets raped by Tamora's two sons, Chiron and Demetrius. Then, her hands are cut off, replaced with twigs, and her tongue is cut out. Thus, she cannot reveal who did the deed to her at all. Well..not till later.

 

This is also one of those moves that *really* make you think. When is violence justified? Tamora kills most of Titus's 20 sons, and her sons defile his daughter. So. For revenge, Titus has Tamora's two sons killed and baked into pies, which are then fed to Tamora and Emporer Saturninus And, how much of that violence affects teens? An old cliche, I know, but it's really well done in this movie, if you pick up on it. Chiron, the youngest of Tamora's two sons, probably, at first, never wanted to rape and main Lavinia. He was infatuated and wanted to love her. It wasn't actually love, just lust; a boyhood crush. Yet Aaron was able to manipulate that

 

Wow. Long post. Well..uh..anyway, it's a good movie.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Woof, Titus wasn't my thing. Too bad, because I think Taymor's stage work is pretty good. As you said, the source material is pretty weak as far as Shakespeare is concerned, and I just wasn't taken with what she did.

 

My recent trip to London offered the best Shakespeare production I've ever seen: super-director Trevor Nunn's production of Hamlet, starring soon-to-be-huge-star Ben Whishaw, at the Old Vic Theatre. It was unfucking real. Barely abridged - runtime was just about three and a half hours. Whishaw is very young and plays Hamlet as probably in his late teens, which makes for a big change after Branagh and Olivier. His control of his body was uncanny, and the supporting cast was excellent. Even though I've read Hamlet and seen filmed versions time after time, this was the first time that the play scene gave me chills. I think it's closed by now, but if not, anyone over in London really, really ought to give it a shot. It's probably the best production of any play that I've ever seen.

 

In terms of film, I agree with Arkham that Kurosawa does some superb adaptations. I especially like the way he takes the basic story of Lear and twists it to become Ran. Lear is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays, but there are days when I like Ran better.

 

I also get a really big kick out of Orson Welles' Chimes at Midnight, which is an amalgamation of the Shakespeare plays that featured the character Falstaff (chiefly 1 Henry IV and Merry Wives of Windsor). It's fun seeing something new yet traditional done with Shakespeare, and Welles as tubby old Jack is a riot.

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

Woof, Titus wasn't my thing. Too bad, because I think Taymor's stage work is pretty good. As you said, the source material is pretty weak as far as Shakespeare is concerned, and I just wasn't taken with what she did.

...woof? o0

 

I haven't seen her stage work, so I can't really comment on that. And I, personally, don't think it's weak as far as Shakespeare was concerned. I don't know too many of his works, so I can't say that honestly. I was just quoting the critics of the play.

 

Hmm. I totally respect that opinion. Care to elaborate? [i like reading people's differing opinions of things I enjoy. I'm just weird like that].

[Nevermortal 0]

One of my favorite Shakespeare plays is The Tempest, though the only real popular version is this shitty made for TV version with the narrator from oz.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I haven't seen her stage work, so I can't really comment on that. And I, personally, don't think it's weak as far as Shakespeare was concerned. I don't know too many of his works, so I can't say that honestly. I was just quoting the critics of the play.

 

Hmm. I totally respect that opinion. Care to elaborate? [i like reading people's differing opinions of things I enjoy. I'm just weird like that].

I know a lot of his works (thanks, Shakespeare survey) and I probably wouldn't put it in the top 10, maybe even 15. If you liked Titus Andronicus, I'd...well, I was going to recommend Richard III, which has a lot of the same style of menace. Richard himself is very, very much like Aaron. But then I realized that I don't like that one too much either. I'd call it an improvement, though. Hamlet, Lear, Much Ado, and I Henry IV are my faves. Oh, and I enjoy Midsummer too, especially when you've got good people playing Peter Quince, Bottom & co.

 

Biggest gripes with Titus (the movie) are purely stylistic. At some point I overloaded. Some of the stuff was nonsense (the kid? yeeeah...) and some of it was gratuitous to the point of comedy (i.e. super slo-mo and splashy blood on the revelation about Lavinia's...modifications). Of course, Titus Andronicus is itself pretty gratuitous, and while I normally like that sort of thing, this was just too hyperactive. Not a big fan of the color scheme, either. My complaints are largely nitpicky, and I think that's also because I can barely remember any of the performances. Someone usually stands out in Shakespeare; not so here, I feel.

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

Biggest gripes with Titus (the movie) are purely stylistic. At some point I overloaded. Some of the stuff was nonsense (the kid? yeeeah...) and some of it was gratuitous to the point of comedy (i.e. super slo-mo and splashy blood on the revelation about Lavinia's...modifications). Of course, Titus Andronicus is itself pretty gratuitous, and while I normally like that sort of thing, this was just too hyperactive. Not a big fan of the color scheme, either. My complaints are largely nitpicky, and I think that's also because I can barely remember any of the performances. Someone usually stands out in Shakespeare; not so here, I feel.

 

Goddess, did that kid get annoying! For most of the movie, I'm all 'WTF?! Why is he here?'. Like..the intro. You prolly remember it, but if not, here's a recap: he goes friggin' crazy with his toys and food, and makes a complete MESS. Yet..we're supposed to care about him? Why?? This is the one aspect that I completely disagreed with the director; she says he's an example of how violence corrupts and all that [towards the end, he starts taking a more active role in the violence, and also, watches his father kill Saturninus]....but, I think that part was just pushed way too hard.

 

According to her, she held back on the violence and deaths, and didn't reveal hardly any blood...well, until the end of course. Then, she said, it was time to not hold back any more.

 

Hmm...I can see how the performances could all run together. Those that stood out for me [aside from the obvious, Alan Cumming ] are Harry Lennix and Anthony Hopkins. The two showed such emotion in their roles..really an awesome thing to see. Plus, it's always fun to watch Anthony Hopkins play a pschyo.

[godthedog 0]

the truth has previously been spoken: 'ran' = THE best shakespeare adaptation ever. i have yet to find someone who has seen 'ran' and disagrees with that statement. i had the good fortune of seeing a fresh new print of this in the theater a couple years ago, and the visual & dramatic grandeur of the whole thing are just overwhelming. i left the theater out of breath. that last shot is achingly beautiful. i've since seen it on my television, and it's still a great movie, but the experience just isn't the same.

 

i also second the love for 'chimes', which gets better every time i see it. would easily crack my all-time top 20, and in some ways is even better than 'kane'.

 

i remember watching branagh's 'hamlet' and shaking my head in embarrassment at some parts, but overall i quite liked it in all its campy glory.

My recent trip to London offered the best Shakespeare production I've ever seen: super-director Trevor Nunn's production of Hamlet, starring soon-to-be-huge-star Ben Whishaw, at the Old Vic Theatre. It was unfucking real. Barely abridged - runtime was just about three and a half hours. Whishaw is very young and plays Hamlet as probably in his late teens, which makes for a big change after Branagh and Olivier. His control of his body was uncanny, and the supporting cast was excellent. Even though I've read Hamlet and seen filmed versions time after time, this was the first time that the play scene gave me chills. I think it's closed by now, but if not, anyone over in London really, really ought to give it a shot. It's probably the best production of any play that I've ever seen.

odd: i have a friend who just got back from london and saw a ton of shows, and his impression of the whole acting scene there was very negative, with a lot of them being very amateurish and tripping up on basic stuff like "projecting" and "not just standing there on the stage with your arms down." he did see one or two shakespeares there and was very underwhelmed by them, but i can't remember which ones exactly he saw.

[Fuzzy Dunlop 0]

The best Shakespeare production ever was CLEARLY the time I played Oberon at my high school. There were a lot of hot girls in that play, probably more than in any other Shakespeare production.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

odd: i have a friend who just got back from london and saw a ton of shows, and his impression of the whole acting scene there was very negative, with a lot of them being very amateurish and tripping up on basic stuff like "projecting" and "not just standing there on the stage with your arms down." he did see one or two shakespeares there and was very underwhelmed by them, but i can't remember which ones exactly he saw.

I saw a dozen shows myself, and there's a wide range. On West End mainstays, you will get some shit. I tried to avoid them. The best play I saw besides Hamlet was Conor McPherson's new show, Shining City, at the Royal Court in Chelsea. Absofuckingbrilliant throughout; I picked up the script for 2 pounds and I'm cherishing it. The performances were ace, and they had to be - the play is 5 scenes, all between 2 people, with just one setting. Big-time chance for talking heads a-go-go, but it worked wonderfully. I mostly went to see the super-acclaimed or out-there ones - i.e., Michael Frayn's new play Democracy, and Tom Waits' musical, The Black Rider.

 

As for the bard: Shakespeare at the reconstructed Globe is kind of underwhelming. Sometimes you got to see Emma Thompson's sister Sophie play a role, and you do get to be a groundling if you want. Otherwise, eh. The Open Air Theater in Regent's Park is cheap and good for comedy (wonderful Midsummer Night's Dream) but ass for drama (they crapped all over 1 Henry IV). And then there's the big one right now, which is the troupe Teatro de Felicite currently in residence at the National Theatre. They're doing a big, hyper-modern version of Measure for Measure that's very interesting, though they do take some stuff too far. As with any theater scene, there's a helluva spread.

[Highland 0]

Brannagh's rendition of Henry V was pretty good. Very nice battle scenes.

[godthedog 0]

fun fact: my subtitle is a line from "chimes at midnight."

 

i've thought about changing it to "by my heel, i care not," but i just can't bring myself to.

[King Kamala 0]

I played Charles the Wrestler in As You Like It. What a kick ass role. The adaptation I was in was set in 1930's Hollywood. I got stabbed in the head with a pair of scissors. In some cemetery in England, William Shakespeare's grave slowly rolled over. I also doubled as Corin, an old shepard.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

I very much liked Ran, but the garish colors the soldiers wear is grating. I don't think a samuari would go into battle wearing BRIGHT BLUE on their armor. My friend blames it on Kurosawa's relative experience with color and I agree with him. It's a nice effect, but it doesn't look right. I do personally prefer how Ran ends as oppsoed to Lear, though.

[godthedog 0]

I very much liked Ran, but the garish colors the soldiers wear is grating. I don't think a samuari would go into battle wearing BRIGHT BLUE on their armor. My friend blames it on Kurosawa's relative experience with color and I agree with him. It's a nice effect, but it doesn't look right. I do personally prefer how Ran ends as oppsoed to Lear, though.

okay, what exactly do you mean by "kurosawa's relative experience with color"? do you mean he didn't know how to use it properly because he didn't make a color film until the 70s? because there's *maybe* 2 directors i can think of off the top of my head who consistenly use color better than he did.

 

basically, there's 2 schools of thought in relation to the use of color: the "realistic" school, and the "technicolor" school. kurosawa is VERY firmly within the technicolor school, as am i: if you're going to use color, USE it. it's a movie: it's not supposed to look like real life, it's supposed to look cinematic. nobody ever complains that the grotesquely baroque lighting in 'citizen kane' is unrealistic, because it looks so fucking cool. 'ran' is supposed to be mythic and primal and larger than life. the acting and makeup in 'ran' certainly don't resemble anything realistic, & a shot of hundreds of soldiers rushing to a battle just wouldn't be the same if the colors were dirty or muted. i honestly cannot conceive of 'ran' being shot without those colors, because they're essential to the basic, mythic strength of the movie.