Shakespeare on a TV near you

With all this talk about adaptations, I wanted to see if the same Shakespeare hype was present on TV shows. I came to find that over the years some very popular American television shows have included Shakespearean themes or Shakespeare adaptations themselves.

The first episode came from a show before our time, but one most of us are still familiar with, Gilligan's Island. In one episode, named "The Producer" the cast of Gilligan's Island puts on their own musical version of Hamlet.
Embedding has been disabled, but If you want to check out a video of a scene from this episode I would watch this video of Gilligan's Island Gilligan as Hamlet sings "To be or not to be".

Something everyone may remember from our childhood, "Wishbone" did an episode for "The Tempest" called "Shakespaw". Certainly a different feel than the Shakespeare Behind Bars adaptation.  The full episode is available in the youtube videos below:

Sorry to side track if you were enjoying the Shakespeare tv episodes but while looking for Shakespeare on TV, I came across something one of my highschool teachers showed us in our British Literature class, as well as in the Shakespeare elective class that I took with her. I had completely forgot about this, but If you haven't seen it I would highly recommend it.

A group called " The reduced Shakespeare Company" has a show they preform live called The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged). The group's website is reduced shakespeare if you want to see or learn more. Anyways they put on a hilarious show including bits from all of Shakespeare's works.

Below is a video of the Reduced Shakespeare's Company of the comedies.

Here's Romeo & Juliet, I wanted to find something a lot of people would be familiar with.

I hope you enjoy! There are many more videos from the RSC on youtube if you are interested.

My changing perception of Shakespere Behind Bars

So after watching the first half hour of Shakespeare behind Bars I was ready to turn it off.  I just wasn’t able to sympathize with these criminal actors. My first thought was, you killed your wife I don’t really care for you to be happy or engaged in activities.  I am going to continue to write this rumination as  I watch, perhaps my feelings towards these men will change as the documentary continues.  After a few more minutes we learn about Leonard’s story, a man who sexually abused seven girls talking about how he wants to get out on parole and redeem himself. He did not want to be remembered as a sex offender. I was ready to scream.  I feel as if when he was moved to a high security prison, people were probably sympathetic, but why?! He is getting what he deserves. I maintained these feelings up until about an hour in (especially in regards to the man with the hair dryer in the tub), when I decided I needed to look at this situation through a different lens.  I need to look past the terrible crimes these men have committed and look at the Shakespeare Behind Bars program itself.

Not only during the end was I able to look past the crimes and see these men as the human beings that they are, I actually ended up having some sympathy for them. When Sammie was talking about leaving his friends and Shakespeare Behind Bars if he makes parole, I was able to really see him as  person with feelings and emotions not as a murderer. His time as an inmate seemed to have allowed him to really change, and he got to better himself in the process. Ideally that is what as a society we want prisons to do.

I have to say, I am glad I didn’t turn it off.  Something I have always believed is that there is always two ways to handle any adverse situation, a really great way and a really bad way and as an individual you should strive for the really great  route as best as you can. Shakespeare Behind Bars is a really great way to handle a really bad situation. These men are in jail, they are serving their time, but they are doing everything they can to make meaning for their own lives.  At one point the director says to them, “you can’t change the past, the past is gone, that moment in time is gone, it’s only this moment, and in this moment it creates the future.” He was referring to acting, but to me that should be one of two take- home messages of Shakespeare Behind Bars, the first being what I mentioned before about making the best out of bad situations. 

On a final note I really thought Sammie was going to get parole, and found myself a little sad for him when I read he didn't. 

ravens give me the heebie jeebies

Have you ever seen one in person? They are terribly disgusting birds, I guess Jonson considered that when naming his characters.

This is a picture I took of a raven at the Tower of London. Apparently, at least six ravens are kept at the Tower because it is believed that if there are no ravens the kingdom will fall. If you want to know more, the Wikipedia article is pretty interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravens_of_the_Tower_of_London

Volpone on the Big Screen

While reading the play, I tried, as suggested, to think of who I would

cast in various roles. I ended up creating images in my head that

weren’t necessarily actors, so afterwards I went back and thought about

what I thought defined each character, and went from there. I had a

lot of fun thinking about who I would cast for each role in the play. Some of

the roles were a little bit of a stretch for me to come up with an

actor to fill them (I’m not exactly the biggest movie buff) so I am

looking forward to hearing who others thought to cast as each role.

Volpone was of course the first person I had to cast. The most striking characteristic

about Volpone is his lack of immediate family, as well as his greed and

deceitfulness. I ended up deciding to cast George Clooney as Volpone,

the protagonist. First George Clooney, is not currently married and has

no children. Second, but more importantly, I kept thinking back to

George Clooney’s role as Danny Ocean in Ocean’s 11. In Ocean’s 11,

Clooney’s character is involved in a scheme to trick a casino out of

money, which parallels Volpone’s behavior in the play. Also if a movie

is going to make money, you need to have your main character be

attractive, and George Clooney obviously has that characteristic

covered.

I would cast Taylor Swift as Celia. Not only is Swift beautiful but

she is the ultimate good girl in Hollywood; never have the tabloids

caught her indulging in any inappropriate acts. Furthermore, Celia’s character

tends to be predictable, which is reminiscent of Swift, who is not one

to shock with her play by the rules antics.

For Celia’s husband, Corinvo I decided to cast Mel Gibson. The

rant Gibson recently unleashed on former girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva has

similarities to Corinvo’s threats to Celia. Playing this character

should not be too far-fetched for Gibson.

I picture Corbaccio as Gene Wilder. For only one reason in particular,

he is getting pretty old and looks it, he certainly looks much worse

for wear then George Clooney. This provides irony in Corbaccio’s

character. Corbaccio himself is relatively more ill than Volpone,

however is expecting and hoping for Volpone’s death.

Nano, would have to be Chuy Bravo. He is hilarious on Chelsea lately,

which would lend him well to the character of a fool or jester. Of

course Chuy is also in fact a dwarf which makes him the perfect for

the role of Nano.

As for Mosco, he is the character I had the most trouble casting,

Mosco’s character to me is very specific, and would take a special

kind of person, which I am not sure I have exactly came across in my search.

 Any Suggestions?

A child's point of view of this so called "Utopia"

As and Elementary Education major, I tend to look into a lot of things from a child’s or educators perspective because that’s where my specific interests lie.  Thomas More’s Utopia gave me an opportunity to do this, and I have to say, the society presented in Book 2 would not be one most children would want to grow up in.

On page 551 you learn that in Utopia each person is trained in a particular trade.  Of course that is not all that striking, but what is seemingly harsh is how a young boy’s trade is established. “The son is trained to his father’s craft, for which most feel a natural inclination” (551). That doesn’t seem too bad, but those children who have a different interest are in a very particular situation.  These boys would be put up for adoption to a family that practices the trade they wish to pursue.  To have to leave your family as a child because you may have other interests completely disvalues the son’s attachment to his family in favor of a particular trade.

In Utopia, after the age of five, until the age in which you are married, eating arrangements are not all that favorable. “both boys and girls up to the age of marriage, either wait on table, or , if ot old and strong enough for that, stand by in absolute silence. They eat whatever is handed to them by those sitting at the table, and have no other set time for their meals” (556).  Although it is understood that no one ever goes without, this way of eating is far from desired.  Standing for any extended period of time in complete silence would be a challenge for many adults, expecting it of children seems almost unreasonable.  Also being expected to eat whatever is handed to you take could put a person in a situation where they may not eat, if they are handed only food items in which they do not like. The text makes it seem the children have no say in the matter.

The perception of children in the society is shined on by negative light.  Criminals are forced to wear gold and silver so the common people can scorn them. A similar treatment is given to the children. When what we would consider a precious stone is found, for instance a diamond, it is given to the children as a play thing because they “feel proud and pleased with such gaudy decorations. But after, when they grow a bit older and notice that only babies like such toys, they lay them aside” (558).  The word gaudy has an apparent negative connotation, as well as the word babies in this particular occasion.  In modern terms, when a child plays with a toy, it’s considered innocent. In Utopia the positive connation of children’s innocence is missing.

The entirety of these situations may be “perfection” for the adults, particularly the men of the society, but the children’s emotions are hardly considered.

letter

If you ask me, I'd say King Charles was asking for it

If you look solely at the account of King Charles’s trial on pages 1739-41, the king comes off as arrogant, unremorseful, and disrespectful. I understand he had feelings that parliament was in the wrong, but, possibly if he had sung to different tune, he would have kept his head for a little while longer. In a situation in which you are on trial with the chance of execution, it would be in your best interest to at the very lease reframe from smiling.

                The account from The Moderate, although short, provides several examples where King Charles should have just bite the bullet and behaved differently.  Upon entering the court, neither King Charles nor parliament took off their hats. ”The king came into the court, his hat on, and the Commissioners with theirs on also; no congratulation or motion of hats at all” (1739). Neither party wanted to show superiority to the other.  I understand that King Charles thought he was right, I really do, but its striking that he could not have played this situation better. Whether or not he did it sincerely is irrelevant. If King Charles was playing his cards right he would have shown respect to the people who currently had his life in their hands. Wouldn’t you think?

                As his charges were read, the king maintained his smug attitude to the situation. “The king smiled often during the time, especially at those words therein, viz that Charles Stuart was a tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy of the commonwealth.” (1739) Really Charles, smiling? SMOOTH.

                The king continues with the same antics by refusing response to his charges, reminding parliament that he is their “lawful king”. He then proceeds to tell the Lord President that “England was never an elective kingdom but a hereditary kingdom, for near a thousand years, therefore let me know by what authority I am called hither.” (1740) It seems fairly ignorant to not realize while you’re sitting in a courtroom, that those in prosecuting you are in the authority position. (Whether or not legitimately so).

 Logic has seemingly escaped the king.  However, due to the strong religious feelings King Charles’s presents, he comes off as a martyr and not crazy or dumb. He leaves the courtroom saying he is not afraid of the sword. He truly believed that if he had given in to this “illegitimate” power he would be sinning. He was willing to die for what he thought was right. Something we do not see a lot of on the modern political field. If Charles was king today, maybe he would have played the game a bit better.

A separate thought, but I think it is important to remember, that Charles was in the situation because he was not liked by the people. Perhaps in the actual courtroom he was a little more diplomatic than described in the passage.  If the spin we had the opportunity to read was authored by someone who opposed the king as well, then the author possibly could have written about Charles’s words and King Charles persona based on his present hatred for the king not on the facts.