Shakespeare - Choice of film

Towards the end of November, we're going to see a movie based on a play by William Shakespeare. I have not decided which.

A lot of you are familiar with at least a few Shakespearean plays and might have opinions about which you would rather see and write about. I welcome everyone's opinions, and will probably show the film that the class chooses.

Here are the films I know I have access to, and a very short evaluation of each:

• Hamlet: I would probably use the early '90's Zeferilli production with Mel Gibson as Hamlet; Glen Close as his mother, Gertrude; and Alan Bates as the scheming Claudius. Kenneth Branagh did an interesting Hamlet in 1996, but it lasts 4 hours, and we will probably want the time for discussion. Gibson gives a passionate and surprisingly cogent performance; Close and Bates are measured and good, as expected. Hamlet is famous for the profundity of the main character's grief and philosophical investigations of life, death, and responsibilities of various sorts. Some have said that Prince Hamlet is literature's most intelligent fictional character; others feel he goes on too much about his own problems.


• Othello is a tragic story of love, jealousy, friendship and betrayal that is considered by some to be Shakespeare's greatest tragedy, in part because the plot is very tight and moves fast. I would use the 1994 version with Branagh as Iago and Laurence "Morpheus" Fishburne as Othello. For my money, it's Branagh's best performance, better than the early Henry V that made his reputation. There is some nudity and violence.


• Macbeth is tightly plotted, moves quickly, has lots of action, and showcases some of Shakespeare's finest language. It's a story of ambition and murder in which the strongest and perhaps most interesting character is the female murderess, Macbeth's wife. I'm not sure which Macbeth I'd use yet. There's a recent Australian version set in Melbourne with three very alluring young witches, which does contain some nudity; a 1972 or so version directed by Roman Polanski, lushly costumed and appointed; there is also an older Orson Welles version that I have just acquired and hope to view this coming week. There is violence, but so far none of the versions strike me as graphically violent by the standards of modern TV viewers.


• Titus is the Julie Newmar version of Titus Andronicus, surely Shakespeare's most savagely and graphically violent play, and both the violence and sensuality are graphic in this Newmar production. This is superbly acted and realized. Anthony Hopkins plays Titus Andronicus better than I'd have thought possible. [] is savage and lovely as the Barbarian Queen, and very effective when her discomfort with the Elizabethan script don't weigh her down. The Queen's Afican lover, Aaron, whom many find the most interesting character in the entire piece is nobly played as well. If we watch this, viewers must be ready for some strongly graphic scenes that involve both violence and nudity.


• Romeo and Juliet is of course the famous tale of star-crossed young lovers. If I go with this, there is a big decision to make about which version to use. West Side Story is a version of R & J done as a musical in the late 1950's with Natalie Wood and Rita Moreno. It's a great production, though I find it more dated than the 400-year-old play itself. It does not use Shakespearean language, which I think is a pity (student opinions vary). There are several fairly standard versions that I could choose from. But then there's also Zieferelli's mid-90's version with Leo DiCaprio as Romeo, which sets the whole play in a stylized "Verona Beach" filmed across town from here in Venice CA. The rival families show up here as rival gangs who shoot at each other and have names shaved into their heads. Modern drug references are made in Shakespeare's original language. It's pretty wild altogether. Some passing nudity, and a fair amount of violence.


• The Merchant of Venic is kind of halfway between tragedy and comedy. Take your pick. Shakespeare takes 4 traditional stories that feel kind of like fables or fairy tale examinations of love and values. Then he gets some real depth by weaving them together. I'd go with the lovely 2005 production, filmed in Venice with Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons sharing the screen with a crew of attractive younger actors. Some nudity, no violence, some laughs.


• The Taming of the Shrew is a comedy about gender roles. Feminists often complain because "the shrew" is female, and in some sense apparently "tamed" or dominated by her husband, but to my mind the most accurate readings of the play and its best performances give a very different impression. This is one of Shakespeare's funniest pieces, and so remains popular despite questions about whether it's politically correct, as the saying goes. So far the best version I have is the old Liz Taylor vs Richard Burton 1968, played very broadly and for laughs, with the couple spitting and bellowing at each other and Taylor merrily cracking chairs over Burton's back and head. C'est la vie, mes amis.


• A Midsummer Night's Dream, for all its apparent silliness, involves profound examination of love and may be Shakespeare's most popular comedy. Four couples and a troop of would-be amateur actors traipse through the woods at night, befuddled by fairies and magic that strangely resemble a lot of human romantic behavior. This version has Michelle Pfeiffer as the Queen of the Faeries, Calista Flockhart chasing her man through the woods, and an extraordinary performance by Kevin Kline as the lunkheaded dreamer Bottom. This play causes some confusion because viewers tend to take it as just a light comedy and nothing else, but when the faerie dust clears, there are always things to write about.


• Julius Caesar is one of the better known of Shakespeare's histories, a thoughtful consideration of power and morals. The version I have features a very young Marlon Brando in one of his first filmed performances.