Why the quality variations in BBC/Time Life series?
Lon Ponschock
Are there any notes on the various productions for
the BBC/Time-Life series called The Shakespeare Plays?
There seems to be a lot of variation in the quality
of the mountings of the various productions and I wondered
why this was so.
"Taming of Shrew" is excellent as is "Timon of Athens" (of all things.)
But I am currently viewing "The Tragedy of Richard III"
and the Duke of Gloucester reminds me a lot of
Davey Jones of the Monkees.
Who can explain why these productions are so uneven?
I wondered about costuming details too: the ruffed
garb seems to come and go regardless of the supposed period
that the play was written to represent.
Early on, I thought that this costume convention was
a part of a 'unified look' to the series. But since
none of the commentary by Jonathan Miller was included
in the videos, these questions remain.
Any help appreciated.
lon
callimachus
Lon Ponschock <l...@earth.execpc.com> wrote in message
news:38bbff59$0$40...@news.execpc.com...
> There seems to be a lot of variation in the quality
> of the mountings of the various productions and I wondered
> why this was so.
>
>
Two reasons --
1. Different producers. From what John Simon called the Straits of Messina
(referring to Cedric Messina, the producer of the earlier entries in the
series), to Jonathan Miller, who produced some of the later ones, there is a
considerable change in concept.
2. Successful and failed experiments. Jonathan Miller tried some new ideas,
but these didn't always work. For instance, within a single play, Antony and
Cleopatra -- the set design, Roman Antiquity via Renaissance Art, was
beautifully judged. However, the idea of casting the anti-heroic Colin
Blakely and Jane Lapotaire in the leads completely destroyed the play's
poetry and drive.
Callimachus
Symposium1
Ponschock) writes:
> Are there any notes on the various productions for
> the BBC/Time-Life series called The Shakespeare Plays?
Over the span of the series the project was helmed by three separate producers
-- who in turn hand-picked directors to take on different plays. The two
tetralogies were filmed consistently, with the first tet directed by Jane
Howell and the second by David Giles. You'll see common touches and techniques
among the works directed by a single director -- my favorite being Howell, who
also directed Titus Andronicus.
> "Taming of Shrew" is excellent as is "Timon of Athens" (of all things.)
>But I am currently viewing "The Tragedy of Richard III"
> and the Duke of Gloucester reminds me a lot of
> Davey Jones of the Monkees.
The haircut? Just a guess. I've bored this NG with my take on the Howell tet
and Ron Cook, whom I enjoyed very much as Gloucester -- largely because the
series allowed me to observe Richard's character shaping itself over time.
Howell used an ensemble cast deftly throughout the four sequential histories.
May I suggest you watch the four in series? I found 1 Henry VI a little hard
to get through but that's mostly due to the story. I thought parts 2 and 3
were well-done.
>Who can explain why these productions are so uneven?
You might want to read Susan Willis's book, "The BBC Shakespeare Series: The
Making of the Televised Canon."
> I wondered about costuming details too: the ruffed
> garb seems to come and go regardless of the supposed period
> that the play was written to represent.
The general rule agreed upon at the start of the series was that the costumes
either reflect the Elizabethan era or the time period in which the play is set.
So you see a lot of ruffles. Jonathan Miller boldly put his Troyans and
Greeks into Elizabethan clothes. The obvious exception is Moshinsky's "Love's
Labour's Lost," which was done in Georgian costumes -- and I thought it worked
magnificently, all that Age of Reason look about it.
--Ann
Lon Ponschock
>>But I am currently viewing "The Tragedy of Richard III"
>> and the Duke of Gloucester reminds me a lot of
>> Davey Jones of the Monkees.
>The haircut? Just a guess. I've bored this NG with my take on the Howell tet
>and Ron Cook, whom I enjoyed very much as Gloucester -- largely because the
>series allowed me to observe Richard's character shaping itself over time.
>Howell used an ensemble cast deftly throughout the four sequential histories.
>May I suggest you watch the four in series? I found 1 Henry VI a little hard
>to get through but that's mostly due to the story. I thought parts 2 and 3
>were well-done.
It's more than just the costume(s) or do's in this
play that I found distracting.
There are distinct internal pauses, a 'smirk' as Gloucester
hugs one of the characters he is sending to the tower,
and the look of the set did nothing to enhance the
dialogue and asides.
These sorts of things always put me in mind of
college productions... experiments which fail to
enhance and definitely detract from the action of
the drama.
In Richard III, the closeups of the women characters
especially Margaret did work very well.
The 'cinematic' ending was, again, not in keeping
with that 'unified look' I mentioned earlier and
appears more as a directorial 'statement.'
But I continue with the series.
That book which was mentioned below I will look for.
>You might want to read Susan Willis's book, "The BBC Shakespeare Series: The
>Making of the Televised Canon."
>> I wondered about costuming details too: the ruffed
>> garb seems to come and go regardless of the supposed period
>> that the play was written to represent.
>The general rule agreed upon at the start of the series was that the costumes
>either reflect the Elizabethan era or the time period in which the play is set.
> So you see a lot of ruffles. Jonathan Miller boldly put his Troyans and
>Greeks into Elizabethan clothes. The obvious exception is Moshinsky's "Love's
>Labour's Lost," which was done in Georgian costumes -- and I thought it worked
>magnificently, all that Age of Reason look about it.
I have certain favorites in the series: "The Merchant Of Venice"
"Taming Of The Shrew" (for both Cleese and his Kate), "Othello"
for the actors Hoskins and Hopkins as well as "Midsummer Night's
Dream" for Helen Mirren etc.
Howell's "Titus" was a bit rough going at the beginning
but it was interesting to see Trevor Peacock do a
completely different turn in "Pericles."
I still have the Jacobi "Hamlet" 'in the can' but haven't
added that to the other productions I've seen over time.
Thanks for answering. I am new to this discussion
and am glad to have found a place to ask about these things.
lon
>--Ann