The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged)

Shakespeare's Plays: All of them (at least, all are mentioned)

KATE SAYS this is the corniest, silliest, and (occasionally) sophomoric production in the world. And I love it. Every time I watch it, I think, "This is the corniest, silliest, most sophomoric production," and I still laugh my head off.

Some of my favorite parts include Adam constantly throwing up, Jess's put-upon Hamlet, Ophelia's "drowning scene" (cup of water), Reed's commonsense reaction to odd moments, and, then, Adam's sudden, surprisingly serious recitation of Hamlet's "What a piece of work is man" speech.

Here's the rub: this is probably the most accurate production of Shakespeare on record: the genius of Shakespeare is that he went from corny and slapstick all the way to serious and profound. Adam--who is positively manic in this production--delivers the Hamlet speech quickly, even gaspingly, and yet the words retain their glory. Whenever I hear it, I think, "Man, that guy could write!" (I also think that at the end of Taming of the Shrew; political-correctness-scholitical-correctness--who cares about content when the words are so damn fine?!

Additionally, Reed's juggling routine mirrors how Shakespeare was produced through much of the 19th century--between sideshows, such as jugglers and the dancing bear. It wasn't until the late nineteenth century that people got all pompous about him!

Actually, they were probably pompous about him before. That's what so cool: he can be all things to all people. So, even though the Ophelia scene isn't my favorite part of the production, I often use it to teach Freudian interpretation. Nobody does it better!

MIKE SAYS okay, this is hilarious.  The framework of the play is genius, and the way it involves the audience in a fun, thoughtful, and playfully critical look at the works of Shakespeare is the way all things should taught.

While many of the works are merely mentioned and brushed over, the play still offers a pretty good summary of the ideas that Shakespeare presented, and a pretty frank assessment of their originality. While watching the play, I actually had an epiphany--Shakespeare and James Cameron had a lot in common.  Now, follow me on this one: Both men are amazingly talented, but they both have the gift of making works that people want to see; they may not always be the most original, but the expression and exploration of the old ideas are new and glorious. They're both showmen, and know how to reach the widest amount of people.

The fact that such a show like The Complete Works could be cobbled together from Shakespeare's work is solid proof of this.  The three actors give wonderfully insane performances, and jump from thoughtful to silly in a heartbeat, but they keep it rolling. While the British choose to preserve the past, we Americans make fun of it.  While it may not be very professional, it sure is a lot of fun.

Finding Shakespeare Abridged

This week, the Mike-Kate Video Club is reviewing The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged) by the Reduced Shakespeare Company. The whole thing can be found online!

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

These are the original members/performers.

Much Ado About Nothing

Shakespeare's Play: Much Ado About Nothing, 1598-99, at the height of Shakespeare's career.

Definitive versions: Well, we're watching them. Joss Whedon has also produced a version. It is apparently running the film festival circuit. When it comes out on DVD, we will review it!

Retelling: Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing, Much Ado About Nothing (Shakespeare Retold)

MIKE SAYS  this play is one of my absolute favorites.  I love the language, the quips. The attraction- charged rivalry is pure fun.  That the play works both on the basis on language (as the Branagh version proves) and the story (which Shakespeare Retold focuses on) shows just how exceptional it is.

The Benedict and Beatrice relationship is fantastic, and finding two actors that play off of each other so well is the key to making it work, and thankfully both versions have this in bunches.

The most impressive thing for me is that the Retold version chooses to preserve the language far more than it has any reason to, far more than Shrew did.  That it makes this work just shows Shakespeare's mastery of capturing humanity.  He didn't just create characters, he caught a snapshot of life and spirit in each role.

I like that the Retold version goes with a far more realistic approach. Hero needs time to get over the trauma (whereas Shakespeare's heroines were sometimes quick to forgive), but Beatrice and Benedict don't let it bother them.  It doesn't matter WHAT brought them together; once they are, they like it, and make a conscious choice to keep it.

Branagh's version still remains my favorite, but perhaps only because it's so darn WATCHABLE.  Shakespeare was a genius, but one doesn't turn on Hamlet when he's needing a little drama, subterfuge and action.  Much Ado, however, is always good for a laugh.

However, it's hard to compete with the last line of Retold . . . "What are we doing here again?"

KATE SAYS this play is exuberant!! There is no other word for it. Both film versions just dance, jig, gambol, chuckle their way off the screen.

I LOVE the music. I'm especially fond of Patrick Doyle's score for Branagh's version--it is possibly the SECOND soundtrack I added to my collection. And I happen to adore Big Band Music: the soundtrack for the Shakespeare Retold version is sing-along enchanting.

Plus I like a lot of the actors in both (isn't Billie Piper a pistol?). Damian Lewis greatly amuses me (interesting that both Benedicks are sandy blonds). Sarah Parish is hilarious. Emma Thompson speaks Shakespeare as if she's been doing it from the cradle. Branagh speaks it like it is modern English. And Denzel just looks fine. And the "security guards" in both are completely amusing although in totally different ways.

Branagh did have the extra challenge of non-Shakespeare-trained actors. Denzel Washington pulls it off since he sounds good saying anything. Robert Sean Leonard pulls it off through sheer cuteness (he is a good actor in general) and Keanu Reeves pulls it off because his character doesn't need to say much (I will say that the villain in the Shakespeare Retold version, the excellent Derek Riddell, is far more chilling in his villainy than Reeves; however, in general, the villain of Much Ado is not that important: the play is more about people being susceptible to doubt and jealousy than to the villain being brought to judgment).

The play has always suffered from the wedding scene. Claudio's denunciation of Hero, even by sixteenth/seventeenth century standards, is harsh and unnecessary. But then, that's the point! That's why BOTH Beatrices can snarl that great line: "I would eat his heart!" Of course, both Claudios are truly repentant. But--can you say, "High maintenance husband?"

That aside--and the Shakespeare Retold version handles Claudio's outcome fairly well--the relationship between Benedict and Beatrice is the best example of Shakespeare's timelessness. Sure he was a product of his culture, but he also produced these positively modern characters who sound like the Thin Man couple exchanging quips. Or Bones and Booth. The classic relationship of Benedict and Beatrice never dies.

Hamlet II

Actors: David Tennant (Hamlet), Patrick Stewart (Claudius), Penny Downie (Gertrude), Oliver Ford Davies (Polonius), John Woodvine (Player King), Peter De Jersey (Horatio)

Date/Location: 2009, Great Performances through PBS

KATE SAYS this is a fairly traditional telling--a combination between Branagh's and Gibson's versions: Hamlet as an intellectual man of action.

The Art Deco setting is quite appealing (although the Brits have kind of gone crazy with the early twentieth century look when it comes to Shakespeare). My favorite scene, however, where I feel that the movie really comes alive, is when Claudius interviews Hamlet in the basement scullery room. In a cramped space, Claudius looms over a bound Hamlet. He is tense with fury. Hamlet is finally worried but still insolent. Stewart and Tennant play well off each other's energy. There is strong individual vision in the scene.

I didn't see that as much in the rest of the film, at least not in the drama parts. I thought the strongest roles/scenes were the comedic ones. Ford Davies is completely hilarious as Polonius, and Osric (Ryan Gage) with his plastered-on smile is drop-dead funny. In fact, the physical humor (the soldiers chasing Hamlet all over the castle) is the best part of the movie. Tennant is more cerebral than Gibson but he is more fun to watch than Branagh. He has a Cary Grant-like physicality: sheer physical excess coupled with acrobatic grace.

Tennant does a good job as Hamlet but as with all the characters, the interpretations are mostly in the individual facial expressions rather than in the director's vision. Patrick Stewart plays Claudius as a cunning king. Peter De Jersey plays Horatio as deeply, quietly caring. Downie plays Gertrude as devoted to her husband and son and doubtful of Polonius's assertions.

The one part of the movie that didn't work for me was the security cameras. They are never used by Claudius; in fact, at first, I assumed that the cameras were planted by Fortinbras's spies. But Claudius refers to them; he just never uses them. It was odd. Clever. But odd.

I'm not sure how many more versions of Hamlet need to be done. But I'm glad PBS has Hamlet on-line. When I've assigned students to watch a version, they've been able to view this one!

MIKE SAYS if this version of Hamlet proves anything, it's that the setting of the play has minimal impact on the plot. The storytelling relies so much on the performance of the actors, and the language, that the setting is really incidental. The play could ideally take place anywhere: a post modern society, an mystical kingdom in the woods, or a far flung space station. It really doesn't matter.

It's enough to make me rethink something I said in an earlier post about Shakespeare: I had implied that the story was more important to the Bard than the specific language. However, upon watching this version of Hamlet, I realized just how carefully every sentence and word is constructed. Thinking even further, I realized that the minimal use of setting may have been intentional.

As his plays were originally performed with little stage dressing, Shakespeare probably tried to draw as little attention to the surroundings as possible. Not only as a way to overcome the limits of the stage, but perhaps as a way to help the audience focus more on the lines he had so carefully crafted.

However, the focus on the dialog may have been a choice of this particular version and its director, which may be why it caught my attention.

The film itself is well made and acted, and the costuming sometimes hilarious and liberating. I love the red muscle shirt from Hamlet's soliloquy: it's geeky, casual, and yet still hearkens back to the idea of a muscular and perfect Hamlet. It's also just a fun t-shirt!

I was intrigued by the choice to use Patrick Stewart as both brothers, and I'm unsure why the choice was made. It's interesting, but never paid off.

Despite my regression in my argument about Shakespeare and story, I do still think that a change in setting has little impact when the dialog itself remains unchanged. Despite new and interesting surroundings, Hamlet is still Hamlet.

While I understand the need to stay true to the play, I would still love to see a version like this:

Hamlet I

Shakespeare's Play: Hamlet, 1600 (about 2/3rds of the way through Shakespeare's career; one of his best known plays, even during his lifetime)

Definitive versions: Laurence Olivier version (1948), Kenneth Branagh version (1996), Ethan Hawke retelling (2000), The Complete Dramatic Works (1980) stars Derek Jacobi who plays Claudius in Branagh's version.

Retelling: The Lion King (1956)

The Play Itself: David Tennant version (2009), next week!

MIKE SAYS the great thing about this film is how well it balances all of its various elements. You have Drama, Suspense, Comedy, Tragedy, and Romance all connected with versatile characters and amazing music in such a way that the film never feels out of joint or uncomfortable with itself.

The plot and world are open enough to allow exploration, which Disney was happy enough to explore with an animated series, two more films and a Broadway play, though none of them (well, I can't speak for the play) really pull it off as well as the first movie.

While the Lion King certainly represents Hamlet, according to the writers and director, it was a happy accident: The original screenplay had some strong similarities to the play, which was later pointed out by a few observers. Upon seeing it, the script was changed to bring it closer and closer to the play, while maintaining the features that make the film its own wonderful and unique entity.

I don't know what it is about the short, odd, old and wise characters that always seems to gain my affection, but Rafiki continues to be my favorite character in the film.  From his oddball antics, his off the wall wisdom and his sweet kung fu moves, the character is just the loose cannon the film needs to pull the different strands together.  That he pulls off even the most grave of his duties (such as summoning the ghost of Mufasa) while earning a laugh "What was Dat!?!?!  The weather, VERY peculiar!" just makes the character all the more well-crafted.

The film is part of what was considered the "Disney Renaissance," which included other masterpieces such as The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and Beauty and the Beast, and may in fact be the best of them. While it probably shouldn't be included on any lists of Shakespeare adaptations (though it is, hence it's inclusion on this list), it does, like Forbidden Planet, show how the stories used by Shakespeare can really be used in universal settings, and seem to capture real human drama and emotion.

Although, it's safe to say that the Bard's soundtracks weren't nearly as good.

KATE SAYS this is a beautiful film! I saw it in a theater when it first came out, and it just blew my mind: that opening scene!! (I also own the Rhythm of the Pridelands soundtrack--one of the first CD soundtracks I bought for my soundtrack collection; it includes the African lyrics/music rather than the popular numbers although "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" and "Warhog Rhapsody" is on there).

From a content point of view, the film is a little sparse; it is basically the last 1/4 of Hamlet after Hamlet comes back from being thrown out of the kingdom for killing Polonius. All the material is there (father ghost, crazy friends, not-so-crazy Ophelia, evil uncle, mother who actually is sleeping with evil uncle but that's just cause I know my lion biology--don't tell the kiddies); unlike with Forbidden Planet, it's hard to imagine that the writers weren't at least aware of the connection though they may not have aimed for it specifically.

The one thing the movie does that the play (deliberately) fails to do is capture Hamlet (Simba's) relationship with his father. Branagh tried to rectify this issue by adding flashbacks. I personally think that Shakespeare meant the relationship to be ambiguous; Hamlet feels compelled to revenge his father out of filial duty, not because he necessarily trusts the ghost, father or not.

But I'm glad Mufasa is in The Lion King since he is the best king/father on the entire planet ever. And James Earl Jones is the best voice for Mufasa ever--or for any dad character (it's my contention that Darth Vader was redeemed solely because of James Earl Jones' voice--and am I the only one who thinks that Simba chasing the monkey to the pool is very Empire Strikes Back?). 

The biggest disappointment in the film is Matthew Broderick. I like Matthew Broderick in lots of stuff. I think he was completely wrong for the voice of Simba. There's something a little unsettling about the younger version of Simba having a gruffer, huskier voice than the adult version. Jonathan Taylor Thomas does a magnificent job as young Simba. Matthew Broderick as the grown-up king-to-be is kind of hard to believe in.

Jeremy Irons is wonderful though (I like him as Scar much more than as the villain in Die Hard With a Vengeance) as well as all the extras--how about that Rowan Atkinson?!

The Tempest

Shakespeare's Play: Tempest, 1611 (one of Shakespeare's last plays, often perceived as his personal farewell to the stage)

Definitive versions: Hallmark Hall of Fame version (1960) with Maurice Evans, Richard Burton, Lee Remick, and Roddy McDowell; Wishbone version. Interestingly enough, this play has very few true-to-the-original versions; The Complete Dramatic Works version with Michael Hordern, which isn't bad, is kind of it.

Retelling: Forbidden Planet (1956)

KATE SAYS the impressive thing about this movie is how uncorny it is. I went in expecting silly special effects, silly robots, and silly acting. I love Leslie Nielsen (mostly from Due South but also from Columbo), but I have to admit, the most memorable thing about Leslie Nielsen is that he did a whole bunch of corny films, and he always looks like he is about to crack-up. He CAN do serious acting, but most of the time, his attitude seems to be "Why bother?"

So I was immensely impressed by the film's serious vision and attitude. Consequently, although it is really an hour-long episode that has been unnecessary expanded to 90 minutes, Forbidden Planet has a much more modern/dramatic feel to it than much of the sci-fi that followed it on television and on the big screen.

Even by the time Star Trek: The Original Series came around, corniness had crept into the genre. The first season of Star Trek: TOS has some solid sci-fi episodes. But there's still a bit of a wink and a nod at the back of the scripts and the acting. Forbidden Planet, on the other hand, is not only completely serious about but completely enamored with its own sci-fi nature.

After all, the 1950s were the hey-day of science-fiction! Asimov was producing stuff. Sci-fi magazines were flooding the marketplace. And although I love my Stargate, I have to admire the mentality that produced Forbidden Planet without flinching.

First, I really like the military aspect of the movie (this is where Stargate unabashedly comes out ahead of Star Trek: we're military! so what? get over it). The relationship between the captain and his men is quiet, even affectionate, yet real in its expectations and discipline. I was seriously upset when the men started dying. And I was also seriously impressed by the crew's response to the planet's threat. Although the guns fail to take out the monster, they do hold it off. 

Second, Anne Francis steals the screen as Alta. She may be blond. And she may be innocent. But she's no dummy. She delivers her lines with panache, amusement, and strength. She does get dumber towards the end of the movie, but in a way, this is inevitable: she can either stay on the planet with a fruitcake or take her chances in an obviously male-dominated society. She isn't wrong to opt for the latter; it's called growing up.

Third, the special effects are quite impressive. I think this is mostly because they are so simple. There are a few breathtaking scenes that are so well-designed, I forgot I was watching a 1956 film.

And the attendant lighting, costuming, and camera-work give some scenes a truly classic, literary effect. Towards the end of the movie, Adams faces Morbius in his office. Morbius is seated, leaning forward over his desk. Behind Adams to his immediate right, "Doc" leans against a wall. Further behind Adams, Alta--now dressed in black--waits in the shadows. The scene is beautifully shot and blocked and expresses more than all the remaining dialog about the movie's relationships, including each character's intentions.

The one major snag to the film is the middle portion where the "this is sci-fi!" excitement gets out of hand. There's almost 15-20 minutes of showing off sci-fi gadgets, stuff that sci-fi shows now take for granted. It's kind of like the middle of Moby-Dick where Melville starts telling us how to cut up a whale. Well, okay, that's nice, Melville. What's going to happen next?

And Forbidden Planet does make you wonder what will happen next!

As for the Shakespearean influence, while I was watching the movie, my reaction was, "Well, sure, it's kind of like The Tempest, but not all that much." After reading up about different versions of The Tempest, however, I've formed the conclusion that actually Forbidden Planet may be the closest version out there. It certainly seems to capture Shakespeare's theme more than the others!

MIKE SAYS after watching Forbidden Planet, and then doing a little research, I'm inclined to believe that any similarities to The Tempest were probably accidental, and in the best case scenario, a screenwriter or director noticed the analogs and enhanced them in a later draft.  But, this doesn't really ruin the movie for me. Instead, it highlights what makes Shakespeare's work so impressive: his ability to capture and represent archetypical stories in a near universally understandable manner (well, except for the old English).

As for Planet, the film is remarkably beautiful and striking.  I watched the DVD on my Blu-Ray player, which upscales the quality of the film.  Couple this with my 43" flat screen, and well, frankly, the film blew my mind.  The image was crisp, the colors were bold and bright, and every single special effect was convincing.

The effects especially impressed me, as they were easily comparable to the quality of current television, despite the years since the movie's release.  The simplicity of the images and their use really helped sell them all the more.

The plot is simple, though again, only incidentally comparable to The Tempest.  The film is definitely true to its era, with pacing, acting, and editing that is very straight, ordered, and evenly paced.  If anything, it helps show the strengths and weaknesses of modern editing techniques . . . while the film doesn't buzz along, it's easy enough to follow, and a viewer feels free to blink without missing a key plot point.

I do have to agree with you, Kate, that the film does feel weighed down by extra exposition showing off the sci-fi world.  I imagine that those seeing the film for the first time were anxious to immerse themselves in this new world.  For viewers today, however, most of this stuff is old hat, and it's a little tedious to sit through.

Despite this, I was completely impressed by the film:  I can now understand how this is considered the father of modern sci-fi.  It seems that filmmakers of the last 50 years have merely been trying to convey what they felt when they first saw Forbidden Planet.  While we can watch it now in all it's glory, I don't think we'll ever be able to appreciate the impact this film had on a society still new to a genre that has spawned a generation of geeks . . . on second thought, that may not be a good thing . . .

King Lear Retelling

Shakespeare's Play: King Lear, 1605 (towards the end of Shakespeare's career)

Definitive versions: the best way to pinpoint definitive versions is through the actors who have played King Lear: Orson Welles (1953); Paul Scofield (1971); Laurence Olivier (1983).

Retelling: Ran (1985)

MIKE SAYS If I knew what I was getting into, Ran wouldn't have made the list. Seriously.

I don't even know where to start.  The film is vibrant and colorful; this is what epic cinematography is.  There's no blurry CGI or green screen here. The natural beauty of the locale shines through.  The shots are deliberate, thought out, and elegant.  In short, the level of craftsmanship used to make this film is utterly staggering, and is desperately missing from modern film.

That being said, Good Lord, this film is long.  Like REALLY long.  Like Thanksgiving afternoon long, where you take a good nap and still end up watching an hour of the film.  And NOTHING is shown quickly.  There are no quick summaries, fast cuts, or reestablishing dialog in this film.  No, it takes it's time.  Like showing an army crossing a river . . . from one side to the other.  Or an extended battle montage that goes on for about twenty minutes (I wish I was kidding).

The subtitles were the only thing that kept me from wandering off to do something else, because I couldn't tell what was going on unless I was watching and reading!

The film is masterfully made, but little fun to watch.  There are some quiet, funny moments that are like the prize for sitting through the thing, and the expressions of the actors are so clear and well done that the subtitles are hardly needed at times.

And for those who felt like Shakespeare was out to depress his audiences, Ran is your best argument.  This movie is so tragic that it ends with a blind man, in a dress, alone, on the edge of a cliff.  Forget Citizen Kane,  Ran is your surest bet for making you need mood-altering medications.

While this movie is a masterpiece, it also reminds me of why films like this aren't really made any more . . . because audiences are lazy (myself included).  It was work to get through this film, and it was worth it.  But holy cow, if I knew what I was getting into, I would have avoided it like the plague.  Hmmm, what do you know, another reason to hate previews . . .

KATE SAYS this is a really long film. I watched it with the commentary by Stephen Prince, who just loves the film. I found the commentary not only helpful in understanding the film but fun in and of itself: Prince is just so enthusiastic! (He especially praises Kurosawa for building a $1 million set--the 3rd castle--and then burning it down: no CGI!)

My first impression is that the film is truly thematic--it looks like a movie. And there are some stunning, visual sequences that remind us that films are, in fact, supposed to visual. The old king leaving the 3rd castle is a great example.

My second reaction is that King Lear, the play, lends itself to a wide range of political interpretations. Shakespeare rarely concerned himself with historical context--he is the ultimate character-driven writer. Prince states that the lack of background information in Shakespeare's play bothered Kurosawa (how did King Lear become king?) and sought to rectify this by giving Hidetora a samurai background of constant war.

My thought: all directors do this with Lear. It is as if Shakespeare expertly, cleanly created the ultimate frame story to explore complex political events without the side-effect of excessive confusion. It isn't just that Shakespeare fell back on a stock narrative; it is that he created the fundamental stock myth of character and politics: King Lear can be set in just about any time period and location.

Japanese retellings of Shakespeare are particularly effective: I've seen Shogun MacBeth (live performance) as well as Ran. In some ways, the medieval mentality between Japan and Europe is surprisingly transferable.

I did miss the original characters Gloucester and his sons Edgar and Edmund. Their mirror-story to Lear includes some strong material. But Kurosawa is more interested in the aging king and the MacBeth-like sub-plot with Lady Kaeda.

The Fool, interestingly enough, is the same, being a sharp, ambiguous character within his own right (rather than just a comedic foil).

My third thought: as I stated above, this is a really long film that takes a really long time to say something fairly basic. But then I'm a product of the "Sesame Street" generation (even though I grew up in a house without a television, so it isn't fair to blame Sesame Street). But if it makes people happy, who I am to complain? In fact, this film kind of reminds me of 2001 and Star Trek: The Motion Picture: you can turn it on, leave the room, bake a cake, cut your cat's nails, start a religion, find a cure for cancer, save the universe, come back--it's still going!! A true epic!!

Romeo and Juliet Retelling

Shakespeare's Play: Romeo and Juliet, 1594 (near the beginning of Shakespeare's career)

Definitive versions: Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet (1968); Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet (1996); The Complete Dramatic Works of William Shakespeare did a version, but nobody ever watches it.

Retelling: Gnomeo & Juliet (2011)

KATE SAYS so how totally adorable is this movie?! The thing that I love most about it is how much the writers know and value their Shakespeare. This isn't an "oh-we-saw-West-Side-Story-so-we-know-the-plot" R & amp;J. The Gnomeo & Juliet writers went back to the text--all the text!

There are constant cute references to Shakespeare plays (not to mention Shakespeare himself!). My favorite: "Out, out." "Damn Spot!"

Speaking of Shakespeare--how perfect is Patrick Stewart in that role?!

The movie follows the play quite closely (except for the end--get there in just a moment). It captures the major players, from the (frog) nurse to Tybalt. And the theme is perfectly worked out--in fact, in some ways, the idea of reconciling feuds makes a lot more sense with neighboring gardens than with Italian factions; I doubt Shakespeare fully understood what the Italian factions were fighting over (since the history of medieval Italian factions is harder to parse out than the various elf clans in Tolkien's Silmarillion, Shakespeare's "uh, they're Italian, they're feuding, whatever" attitude is understandable).

But gnomes/neighbors battling over the best garden totally makes sense.

The ending is a little weak--not the Terrafirminator, which is hilarious but the very, very end. Basically, at the last minute, the play becomes a comedy instead of a tragedy. I would have liked the comedy swerve to be more choice than luck.

The difference I absolutely love: the characterizations of Romeo and Juliet. I grew up on the Zeffirelli version--that's the version I watched in high school. What I remember--other than the naked butt scene--is how limp the main characters were, and I've frankly never seen a version where they weren't limp. Even DiCaprio and Danes, who pulled off the angsty limpness better than most, were . . . limp.

I love how brash and funny and mischievous Gnomeo and his Juliet are. I love how an animated version of a garden gnome with a faint white beard can look like a cocky young man. I love Juliet's wry little grin. McAvoy and Blunt as the voices are perfect!

I don't remember this movie making a big splash in the theaters (but then, without regular television, I'm appallingly unaware of a lot of stuff), but the DVD is well-worth renting. Several times.

MIKE SAYS a consequence of both being a parent and working with children is that I get to see A LOT of kid movies.  As fun as that sounds, in the world of movies like Chipmunks, Yogi, and The Smurfs, this particular "perk" is usually something I have to endure (with gritted teeth).  Every once in awhile, however, I'm treated to an enjoyable film.  Luckily, Gnomeo & Juliet was such a surprise, especially since I expected to hate it.

What I expected to be a shallow, silly, and tasteless cash grab of a movie turned out to be a wonderfully enjoyable and clever adaptation.  From the dead-on sound track to the wickedly sharp sense of humor and numerous pop culture references, G&J turned out to be just as much fun for me as it was for the kids I saw it with, and from what I saw, the same was true of many of the adults in the theater.

The great thing about the film is just how true it is to itself and the play.  While it's a ridiculously accurate adaptation, the film has a personality all it's own.  The plot and setting never feel forced, and the meta-humor hits a level rarely seen outside of a comic shop. (For the non-geek, "meta" is something that is about itself; for example, the film Scream is a scary movie ABOUT scary movies and people's reaction to them).

The film is also yet another sign of how much British humor and talent (such as the amazing Michael Caine) are really permeating American media. In fact, one almost wonders if the film were originally intended for a British audience.  G&J never takes its audience or source material for granted, however, and tries to make the same old stuff feel new and worth watching.  For the most part, it succeeds. 

While I know I already mentioned it, I LOVE the soundtrack for the movie.  It's fun, and spot on. Elton John does a great job of making his songs work for the plot. The music and visual style of some of the montages really reveal the age of the film makers, which in this case is actually a coded message to parents watching the film: "Don't worry folks, we've been there with our own kids.  This is for you."

As a parent tired of the current movie trends, I was flattered, grateful and, for once, entertained.

Taming of the Shrew Retellings

Shakespeare's Play: Taming of the Shrew, 1590/1591 (near the beginning of Shakespeare's career)

Definitive versions: Taming of the Shrew (1967) with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, Taming of the Shrew (1980) from The Complete Dramatic Works of William Shakespeare, starring John Cleese (The Complete Works did all the plays, so, hey, it's definitive).

Retellings: 10 Things I Hate About You and Taming of the Shrew from Shakespeare Retold

MIKE SAYS of all the the Shakespearean retellings I've seen, 10 Things is by far my favorite, mostly due to the fact that if a person were completely ignorant of Shakespeare, that person would have no idea that it was an adaptation.

Every time I watch the film, however, I'm always surprised by the crude humor in the first half of the film; it's so overpowered by the later half that I forget all about it. The film is superbly written and acted, smart and funny throughout, and far closer to the original play than it has any right to be.

The core of the movie is really Gordan-Levitt and Heath, who bring star power to the film years before either would hit it big.  Stile's Kat is fun and well done, but it's far more fun to see the other actors react to her grumpiness. It's also obvious that the actors are having a blast on the set, and the fun permeates the movie.  It's also apparent that the writers really love The Bard, and this love is evident throughout the film.

The understated humor in the film is what I enjoy most: I still laugh every time I see the gym teacher stumbling in the background after being shot by Bianca's arrow.

The Shakespeare Retold version is far more odd and usually in more odd ways.  This version was unexpected in a lot of ways. I went into it not knowing how long it was, what tone it would take, or even who was in it.

Henderson's Katherine is downright terrifying and is completely convincing.  The rest of the cast is fun, and Sewell's Petruchio is just plain nuts.  It's a clever re-imagining, if a little dark and scary at times.  My wife walked in on the wedding night scene, and it took me a full ten minutes to convince her it wasn't a rape scene.

Probably the biggest difference between the two is the intent of the versions.  Retold is all about telling the story in a way that was new and current for a culture that knew the story inside out, while 10 Things is for a culture that wouldn't care about or even understand the original.  Both work and capture the fun of the story.

KATE SAYS the two retellings do a far better job capturing the humor and pure magic of this play than more artsy, literary productions.

For the play to work, Petruchio can be portrayed one of two ways: as an old-fashioned, domineering bully. Or a whack job.

Either way works. The Elizabeth Taylor/Richard Burton version is an excellent example of the former. Taylor and Burton are so full of piss & vinegar plus pure animalistic vigor, the movie just cannons from beginning to end.

But then in the 1980s and 1990s, directors got all feminist and self-aware, blah, blah, blah, and Petruchio became a total prick. To be fair, I should write that Petruchio became a progressive feminist out to tame the love of his life. This is how the Complete Works presented Petruchio (played ironically and self-deprecatingly by John Cleese).

The problem with making Petruchio all forward thinking is that he comes off as much worse as a "sensitive" guy than he does as a bully. Instead of being this big, weird, pushy guy who falls in love with a bigger-than-life, weird, pushy gal, he comes across as a condescending jerk who thinks it is his job to "enlighten" the ignorant woman and bring her into the 21st century for her own good. I've met this type of so-called male feminist, and he makes you want to vomit.

Sorry, just getting a bit too much it to the "Kate/Kat" persona.

Regarding the Shakespeare Retold version, it also helps that I love the actors. The movie includes two of my favorite comedians of all time: Shirley Henderson and Stephen Tompkinson. In addition, the movie showcases Rufus Sewell all grown up and hilarious, so now that's three comedians that I love (until Shakespeare Retold, I'd only seen Sewell in serious dramas from his 20's).

I never would have guessed Shirley Henderson for the role of Katherine, but she is perfect--not only in her hunched strutting walk and baby voice that can pierce ears but in her tininess. Half of the film's jokes come from the vast difference in height between her and Sewell, partly because Sewell's Petruchio still finds Henderson's Katherine completely intimidating (when he isn't finding her utterly alluring) and partly because, as Jack on Stargate would say, Henderson's Katherine is a "4-9 fighting machine." Henderson is just this adorable, rampaging ball of fire (I can call her that: at 5' she is slightly shorter than me).

10 Things I Hate About You also has a good cast although 10+ years later, I find Stiles the weakest of the group. But Heath as Patrick Verona is truly good (my favorite scene is his singing/dancing number where he gets to use his physical acting skills). Heath's Petruchio is not quite as crazy as Sewell's but close enough to really sell the part. Interestingly enough, the teen film is somewhat closer to the original play in which money plays a somewhat larger long-term role than in the Shakespeare Retold version. (However, I was glad that the Shakespeare Retold writers got rid of the money motive early on, concentrating instead on the supposed “taming.”)

The most remarkable thing about 10 Things I Hate About You, however, is the supporting cast. David Krumholtz, who I happen to adore in Numb3rs, does an great job as the funny friend though my absolute favorite fall-down laughing scene is the detention scene: no, NOT Stiles showing her boobs—the beginning of the scene where David Leisure accuses a student of having marijuana. It’s completely hilarious.

There’s tons of tiny moments like this from Larry Miller on the exercise bike to Daryl Mitchell's Mr. Morgan sending students to the guidance counselor.

And Joseph Gordon-Levitt, naturally, effortlessly pulls a straight-man act out of a hat. 

To return to my original point: these versions are much closer, I think, to what the play is supposed to be like than so-called "artistic" versions. The combination of sex jokes, pure slapstick, and surprising visual humor is actually much closer to Shakespeare’s brand of comedy than more refined literary-type jokes. Shakespeare was about as bawdy as a writer can get; the only reason he isn’t censored in high schools is because nobody understands the language!

But then, that's what retellings are for.

Shakespeare Anew-- UPDATED

Our next list, List 11, will tackle Shakespeare modernized, retold, re-imagined, rethought, re-branded.

UPDATE BY MIKE:  So I should have written this intro days ago, but life has been a little crazy of late.  The trouble with loving literature is that the good stuff, such as Shakespeare, has been done so many times that it's just not fun anymore.  After thousands of stage performances, dozens of film adaptations, the plays of Shakespeare have been done so often that even the Bard himself would be bored stiff.  If anything, I think he'd watch a few, and say "Good Lord, people, I think you missed the point!" (in this instance, Shakespeare would just happen to say what I think about the matter).

You see, Shakespeare wasn't out to preserve or display British culture; he was writing about the human condition and about the life of the common people.  While his writing is beautiful and elegant, in the end I think the story was more important to him than the exact wording (not much more important, but still). If Shakespeare were alive today, I think he'd wonder why his stories have been preserved in a static state, instead of being adapted for the common people of the modern era.

Luckily, updating Shakespeare has become something of a trend.  And so, to celebrate the story=telling ability of the Bard (rather than his writing skills, which were indeed awesome), we have decided to do a list of Shakespeare, but with a twist:  instead of reviewing straight adaptations, Kate and I will be watching modern, and often off-beat, retellings of Shakespeare.

Not only will this be fun, it will also circumvent the whole "Wow, I had to watch that four times before I got through it without falling asleep" issue, which comes with most play adaptations.  Enjoy!

The list will start next the first weekend of August.

1. 10 Things I Hate about You; Taming of the Shrew (Shakespeare Retold)
2. Gnomeo and Juliet
3. Ran (1985)
4. Forbidden Planet (1956)
5. The Lion King
6. Hamlet (David Tennant version)
7. Much Ado about Nothing (Branagh) & Much Ado About Nothing (Shakespeare Retold)
8. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare Abridged