Shakespearean Productions

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.069  Sunday, 19 February 2012

 

From:        Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         Sunday, February 19, 2012

Subject:     Shakespearean Productions

 

A few days ago, I wrote,

 

>I have alluded to my preferences regarding production values and matters 

>of class and to theater spaces, but I would like to mention here involves 

>what I see as issues related to language and acting styles. 

>

>As one might imagine, I see Shakespeare’s language as being foremost in 

>productions. I like it clear, fast-paced generally, and understandable to me 

>and to the actors delivering it. Language is my foremost production value 

>and influences the choice of space in which it is delivered.

>

>Today, I would like to mention the relationship between language and acting. 

>I prefer presentational acting to representational acting for Shakespeare. For

>this reason, I feel that actors should eschew the method for performing 

>Shakespeare. 

 

This morning I read the following commentary on Spacey’s Richard III at BAM in the New York Times.

 

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/theater-talkback-kevin-spacey-ham/

 

*******************************

February 16, 2012

Theater Talkback: Kevin Spacey, Ham

By Charles Isherwood

 

 . . . let’s all admit that there are times when we crave something comfortingly, even flagrantly unhealthy, like a big ham sandwich.

 

The same holds true, in my view, for theatergoing, and in particular the aesthetics of acting. When it comes to performing onstage, subtlety and delicacy are to be prized far higher than showy displays of obvious emotion. To cite an exemplar of this most respectable kind of acting, I’d guide you right now to “The Road to Mecca.” Rosemary Harris is irradiating the American Airlines Theater with a performance that draws you into the troubled heart of her character with such natural grace that it is easy to forget that she is giving a performance at all.

But there are also occasions when I succumb to the pleasures of a performer serving up more ham than you’d ever find between slices of bread at the Carnegie Deli. A current case in point would have to be Kevin Spacey’s audience-devouring turn as the title character in “Richard III,” at the Brooklyn Academy of Music’s Harvey Theater as part of the Bridge Project. In contrast to previous productions from the company, a venture led by Sam Mendes that combines American and British casts in classical (mostly Shakespearean) productions, this is indubitably a star-driven vehicle, and for not one moment during the production’s daunting three-and-a-half-hour running time are you likely to forget it. (I concur with my colleague Ben Brantley in his observation that with a couple of exceptions, “basically the ensemble is only scenery for Mr. Spacey to gnaw upon.”)

 

Mr. Spacey delights in particular in turning his character’s monologues into intimate colloquies with the audience, in which Richard invites us to partake willingly of the unseemly pleasure Richard takes in executing his own evil designs. And, boy are we eager to sign up. Despite the humpback and the draggy leg, Mr. Spacey all but capers through the role with a kind of glee that’s infectious.

 

Flashing out comic asides and even indulging in that greatest of actorial no-no’s, upstaging another actor with a look or a gesture, he had the audience I watched the show with feasting on the performance as if it were a big bowl of macaroni and cheese sprinkled with truffle oil. Standing ovations at the Brooklyn Academy of Music all too often strike me as self-congratulatory displays of the audience’s discerning taste at supporting the latest in fancy-pants European theater. But in this case the leap up was clearly inspired by a lusty appreciation for Mr. Spacey’s daredevil performance, which includes a stagy bit of business at the end that was like the last scoop of that gooey macaroni and cheese.

 

Does Mr. Spacey’s take on the character illuminate the character’s twisted psychology in any new ways? Not really. His Richard comes across as a snarling dog foaming at the mouth in some scenes, a silken seducer in others, a bratty child deprived of his Halloween candy in others, but there is never a point at which the character’s dark deeds are felt to be grounded in truly plausible human feeling. When the late-coming confessions of haunted remorse arrive, Mr. Spacey delivers them with due deference, but it’s the prancing evildoer we really find convincing, and irresistible.

 

So while there is nary an understated note struck in the performance, those three-plus hours flew by mighty quickly. I can’t say I entirely respected Mr. Spacey’s endlessly ingratiating performance, but I definitely enjoyed it, as you enjoy indulging in something that you know is bad for you but cannot resist. For once Lady Anne’s quick turnabout from bilious hate to pondering a wedding dress seemed if not rational, then at least faintly believable. Mr. Spacey’s Richard really does resemble the kind of guy a woman knows she shouldn’t go near — but somehow she ends up hopping on the back of the motorcycle anyway.

Mr. Spacey’s Richard has leapt to the top of my list of shameless performances I have no shame in admitting I enjoyed, but I’d be curious to hear about yours. Surely there’s a guilty-pleasure star turn in the past that you’ve secretly (or not) delighted in, even as you’ve sorrowfully concurred with the critics that it’s outlandishly over-the-top?

******************************* 

 

I am wondering if others would care to comment upon Shakespearean acting, the Spacey Richard III, or the number 42?

 

Also, we have had many conversations about production recently, is there anyone who would like to take the conversations into a different realm?

 

Best wishes,

Hardy

 

PS: Yesterday, I renewed my subscription for the next season at the Shakespeare Theater. 

 

Shakespeare’s Coriolanus

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.068  Sunday, 19 February 2012

 

From:        Ellen Moody <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         February 19, 2012 8:40:30 AM EST

Subject:     Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, a film by Fiennes, featuring Redgrave

 

Dear all,

 

A review. Do what you have to do to see this film. Don’t miss it. It

speaks home to us about our world. It’s Shakespeare all right too, a

truly great film adaptation, performances, mise-en-scene. It seemed to

me to break with conventions of such films

 

http://ellenandjim.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/shakespeares-coriolanus-a-film-by-ralph-fiennes-featuring-vanessa-redgrave/

 

Ellen Moody

 

[Editor’s Note: I took the following from Ellen’s blog. –Hardy]

 

I suppose my reader knows the play’s story; if not, here’s a synopsis. This, so I can cut immediately to what makes the film so riveting and important: the acting and how Shakespeare’s core story was made a parable for our times combined with the directing in the context of its mise-en-scene. I’ve just read Stephen Greenblatt’s review in the NYRB (59:4, March 8, 2012, 4, 6) It’s unfair to Fiennes. How irresistible it is to ridicule, especially when a character role demands no humor from the actor — though Fiennes managed a moment here and there, as when in exile we see him like today’s homeless people, sitting in front of his tent, looking cold, hungry, slightly puzzled, staring at his stuff.

 

Fiennes’s directing (the blocking) and acting were (as they say) pitch perfect, uncannily so. I’ve seen him as good before and unlike many other actors he can take on many types (from the bullying dense duke of The Duchess, to the sensitive diplomat of Constant Gardener [the film is dedicated to Simon Channing-Williams who directed CG], to Heathcliff, to the neurotic, yes seeming tall, thin and tortured in an early Prime Suspect). Here he actually managed to project sensitivity now and again amid the crazed militarism of Caius Marcius. The towering fits of rage where he spits out intense hatred and scorn for ordinary people and most of his peers are brought on by something in him that is a nervous wreck, neurotic, but not intimations of Hamlet because there is something dark in his eyes, obtuse, and he is edginess itself. Fiennes may have meant to evoke Marlon Brando in Apocalypse; he was Kurtz looking out at the world and his reasons for refusing to condescend to ask for votes, to taken on the role of suppliant had also to do with an appalled horror at the world he lived in, his own values somehow, not just patrician disgust. (In Tinker Tailor Colin Firth also channeled as they say Brando, but as in The Godfather.) So Shakespeare’s basically conservative message was altered to fit our era, especially perhaps this year, say since 9/14/08, the real year the world changed: when Lehman Bros came near default and the economic and political systems we endure began to be laid bare before us. If there was some music from Apocalypse Now I didn’t hear it. The film had sequences of no-music in the background a lot.

 

I haven’t seen Vanessa Redgrave in so great a part, one worthy, giving room for abilities in years. (The Merchant-Ivories didn’t.) It’s hard for older women to find great parts. If possible, she was even better than Fiennes. Utterly plausible. Not some scold, not a domineering termagant, but sure of herself with her son. The best scene in the movie was a longish one of her rubbing his really woundered body all over with her hands, binding his wounds with gauze, all around his body, his arms lovingly, as he places himself intimately within the folds of her body. This is followed by a silent one of him lying looking in pain but resting in bed, with Virginia (Jessica Chastain) coming up to him, and gingerly lying down alongside him. This actress does seem to have been chosen because she looks like young actresses all do recently: super-skinny yet large breasted, curvy thickish lips, a jutting kind of face: the way Julia Roberts looked when young, and Cate Blanchet is attempting to keep up nowadays. Chastain can weep, look as if she’d like to escape all this, and has a scene gathering her boys’ toys — naturally a plastic sub-machine gun and other implements of death by his bed. Redgrave (bless her), like Emma Thompson, has not gone super-thin; she still has her regal body, smooth if aging face. Her smiles gave me the creeps, but I think she is not blamed for what happens. One danger of this play is it may be read simply as see what mothers do. No. Fiennes was his own man, the product that belongs to the world around him.

 

[ . . . ]

 

A Prince

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.067  Sunday, 19 February 2012

 

From:        Charles Weinstein <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         February 19, 2012 8:20:33 AM EST

Subject:     A Prince

 

Hamlet at Elsinore (DVD; 1964) starring Christopher Plummer, Robert Shaw, Michael Caine et al.

 

Christopher Plummer’s Hamlet is so fine that it redeems a bad film and goes a long way towards redeeming Plummer’s career.  Here is a man whose gifts might have placed him among the great classical actors, but it was not to be.  The fault, dear Brutus, lay in his wayward commitment, a matinee-idol fecklessness that all-too-often opted for the easy or thoughtless way out.  His Iago (1982) was a palimpsest of clashing interpretations; his ashen Macbeth (1988) died before the play began; and his Lear's (2004) admonition that nothing can come from nothing was self-referential.  But his Cyrano (1973) was marvelous:  Romantic and Modern, eloquent and neurotic, febrile and edgy yet flamboyant, it synthesized centuries of acting styles in a manner reminiscent of Olivier.  I am happy to add Hamlet to the list of his achievements.

 

Plummer gives us the complete Prince where others have given us parcels. He has looks, presence, breeding, charm, athleticism, wit and consummate grace.  He also has a touch of the feminine (which works well for Hamlet), yet is incontestably virile.  This is important: one mustn't feel that Hamlet’s fitful misogyny springs from congenital attraction to his own sex.  There is no doubt that Plummer could have happily married Ophelia in a better world than Denmark.  Nor is there any doubt of his capacity for martial exploits if his mind could deem them authentic.  “Hamlet does not think too much but too well,” and Plummer has the capacity (lacking in Gibson, Branagh and Hawke) to convey a subtle and probing mind.  Michael Pennington (1980) was more intellectual, Derek Jacobi quirkier in his line-readings, but neither combined thought and surprise with sexual incandescence as Plummer does.  He is a bright particular Star who has been wounded into inwardness, which is merely to say that he is Hamlet.

 

The movie serves as foil to Plummer: its badness makes his talent stick fiery off indeed.  Filmed at Kronberg Castle in Elsinore, it struggles to work new interiors and grounds into every frame.  At times, this pays dividends: the Players' first scene takes place in an open-air courtyard, conveying an exhilarating sense of freedom.  However, most of the locations are hackneyed, nugatory or distracting.  Repeated shots of waves crashing upon rocks look backwards to Olivier’s Hamlet (1948) and sideways at Kozintsev’s (1964).  One stony corridor is much like another.  The Nunnery Scene is filmed in the castle's chapel (acceptable) with Hamlet standing above and beyond Ophelia for a time in the pulpit (not).  A minister exhorting a sinful parishioner may seem like an apt metaphor, but the actors do not play the scene that way, and the distance between them prevents dramatic synapses from connecting.  It’s an ominous portent of postmodern decadence.

 

There are unkind cuts, bizarre compositions and moments of painful misdirection--one can count the infelicities like sheep vaulting a stile.  The Mousetrap is reduced to its Dumb Show, making nonsense of Gertrude’s “The lady doth protest too much.”  Ophelia loses her second Mad Scene and all her unsettling flowers.  Polonius, Gertrude and Claudius speak in a single-file diagonal bisecting the screen, which is perfect for a conga-line but awkward for a conversation.  Plummer is so tender, quiet and lucid with Ophelia that her “O what a noble mind is here o'erthrown!” seems crazier than anything Hamlet has said.

 

The tally increases with a crupperful of bad performances.  Alec Clunes’ Polonius is so fulsome and cute that one can hardly wait for Hamlet to kill him.  Jo Muller plays Ophelia as though she were 13, while Laertes (Dyson Lovell) is a cipher to a great account.  Subtextual Gertrude must be brought to the surface; June Tobin leaves her placidly submerged (“drown’d, drown’d”).  As Fortinbras, Donald Sutherland looks and sounds like an extraterrestrial.  The young Michael Caine is a beautiful creature, but beauty is wasted on Horatio, and Caine is so busy avoiding cockney vowels that he neglects to create a character. The biggest disappointment is Robert Shaw, whose distracted, head-rubbing Claudius seems to be suffering from recurrent migraines.  Philip Locke, of blessed memory, brings more camp viciousness to Osric than I have ever seen, but it’s too little, too late.

 

Plummer must salvage the proceedings, and so he does, seizing his plum role and plumbing it to its depths.  With him in the lead, at least one thing is healthy in the state of Denmark.  Sometimes there is no reason at all to see a Shakespeare production; sometimes there is only one.  Hamlet at Elsinore is out of joint, but Christopher Plummer was born to set it right.

 

--Charles Weinstein

Chesapeake Shakespeare's Merchant

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.066  Sunday, 19 February 2012

 

From:        Chesapeake Shakespeare Company <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         February 16, 2012 1:13:09 PM EST

Subject:     Merchant Opens This Friday--Inside Scoop

 

This production is indoors at the 1820 Oliver’s Carriage House in Columbia, Maryland. With its huge beams and stone fireplace, this clearly isn't a theatre space, but we turn it into a great opportunity to experience Shakespeare as if it were in your living room. The lights are on, and the actors are only a couple of feet away from you. It’s a chance to see a lot of the careful, thoughtful work that’s gone into making these performances glow with passion. 

 

A fairy tale romance between Portia and Bassanio is assisted and encouraged by the generous merchant, Antonio. When Antonio must default on a loan, Shylock, an abused and bitterly vengeful Jewish moneylender, demands the gruesome payment of a pound of flesh and only the clever Portia seems able to save Antonio from the consequences of his anti-Semitism.

 

THE MERCHANT OF VENICE

at Oliver’s Carriage House, Columbia, Maryland

 

February 17 - March 24

Thursdays and Fridays at 8:00, Saturdays at 3:00 & 8:00

(no performances March 1, 2, 3, & 10)

 

Adults: $36

Seniors 65+: $29

Under-25: $15 (not recommended for children under 12) ticket service fees included in ticket price

 

Pay-What-You-Will Preview: Thursday, February 16 at 8:00

Extended Versions: Saturday, February 25 and Friday, March 23

 

Call 410.313.8661 (Mon. - Fri. 12:00 -4:30)

 

Shakespearean Productions

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.065  Monday, 13 February 2012

 

[1] From:        Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         February 11, 2012 9:10:23 AM EST

     Subject:     Re: Shakespearean Productions

 

[2] From:        Anthony Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         February 11, 2012 12:26:00 PM EST

     Subject:     Shakespearean productions

 

[3] From:        Paul Barry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         February 11, 2012 4:08:34 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: Shakespearean Productions

 

[4] From:        Jemma Alix Levy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         February 11, 2012 8:38:36 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: Shakespearean Productions

 

[5] From:        Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         Friday, February 10, 2012

     Subject:     Shakespearean Productions

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         February 11, 2012 9:10:23 AM EST

Subject:     Re: Shakespearean Productions

 

I agree with everything Hardy has said.  I also agree with Paul Barry that much depends on the variant visions of Ralph Cohen and Michael Kahn.  But not enough has been said about the companies themselves.  The ASC is blessed with a resident company of highly professional actors whose dedication to their craft and to Shakespeare and other Renaissance drama borders (nay, it crosses into) sacrifice.  They work with each other in almost every performance and to a large extent live in close proximity to each other.  Despite that, it seems they genuinely like and respect each other and have no observable professional jealousy.  I have to believe that this close-knit familial relationship is a significant factor contributing to the uniformly excellent productions they mount.

 

The ASC has my complete support and I hope we can all do what we can for them.

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Anthony Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         February 11, 2012 12:26:00 PM EST

Subject:     Shakespearean productions

 

Hardy,

 

The same concerns as your own have been much on my mind since writing the essay on unrecognized asides in Merchant that found its way into Laury Magnus’ and William Cannon’s “Who Hears in Shakespeare?” followed by seeing One Man Two Gov’nors in the “Live from London” series at out local theater some months ago and then two days ago, Kevin Spacey’s Richard III in the very large Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM to us New Yorkers).  

 

It seems to me that Shakespeare regularly made extensive use of asides to and involving the audience, such as one sees with wonderful skill and comic effect in Two Gov’nors.  It also seems that the proscenium stage strongly invites operatic declamation and a consequent loss of both the intimacy required for asides to work best and also the ironic or ambivalent subtlety that is catnip to academics and other attentive readers.  It also invites conventionalized, ill-considered and undramatic performances of the more familiar “favorites,” many of which I believe to be gross misreadings inherited from the narrow tastes of the post-Garrick years of Shakespeare’s deification—which more modern historical scholarship is very, very slowly correcting.  The small thrust stage, in contrast, invites interaction with an audience who may be as nearby as other actors on stage, and consequently a rediscovery of the need for such things as asides and other vehicles that lend themselves to the outsiders’ perspective and thus to ironic commentary and other breaches of the fourth wall. My essay on the asides in Merchant leads to an entirely new imagination of the rôle of Shylock, the trial scene and consequently the whole thrust of the play.    

 

And it seems that without noticing it, I’ve been on this wavelength for many years.  I wrote an essay for June Schleutter’s and Paul Nelson’s 2006 Acts of Criticism that argued for a new understanding of Gertrude based on my own view that there is a three-part choreography to her characteristic actions consisting of (a) perception of potential discord (b) physical intervention by her between the parties involved and (c) a completely false reimagination and restatement of the immediate situation that serves to mollify feelings on both sides and preserve dignity all around.  One of my points there was that stage productions allow and rely on large movements across space, while film (and TV) productions are at their best with closeups that emphasize interiority—thought and emotion.  So I found that the four or five film versions of Hamlet which I dealt with all in my view diminished the role of Gertrude as indicated by the script itself.

 

All my best wishes,

Tony Burton

 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Paul Barry <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         February 11, 2012 4:08:34 PM EST

Subject:     Re: Shakespearean Productions

 

Dear Hardy:

 

We all tend to hire people who agree with us, and directors hire and re-hire actors who fit their ideas.  It makes sense.  Rehearsal time is short enough. Who wants to spend time convincing someone of your point of view?  I think you’ll find that directors who “specialize in Shakespeare” develop a style (for want of a better word) over the years and assemble acting companies that can make it work.  That’s both selfish and efficient.  I have the greatest respect for Ralph Cohen and his company, but I don’t agree with every thing they do.  Come to think of it, the only directors I ever completely agreed with were Angus Bowmer, Peter Brook, Michael Langham, and Robin Phillips.

 

If this be treason, make the most of it.

 

Love, 

Paul 

 

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Jemma Alix Levy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         February 11, 2012 8:38:36 PM EST

Subject:     Re: Shakespearean Productions

 

Dear Hardy,

 

As a student of Michael Kahn’s (from Juilliard) and Ralph Cohen’s (at Mary Baldwin in association with the American Shakespeare Center), I was a bit loathe to enter into this discussion for fear of upsetting either of my mentors.  However, after reading the responses of Mr. Costa and Mr. Barry, as well as your subsequent response to them, I feel that I need to say something.

 

I agree that these two theatres seem to have opposing styles (if one can say such a thing about theatre styles).  Yet I can assure you that, at least in their teaching, both Michael Kahn and Ralph Cohen are equally committed to Shakespeare’s language - just in different ways.  In my memory, Michael focused on how word choices fit into the world of the play and affected characters’ relationships and actions.  Ralph also had us look at language in relation to character and action, often leading us there through the poetry of the language and its rhetorical forms.  Both men, in their teaching, were (and I assume still are) absolutely clear that Shakespeare’s language is THE fundamental piece to understanding and producing his plays.  I recognize that this plays out very differently in each of their directing styles, but I have to agree with Mr. Barry on this one: Michael and Ralph have very different ideas about producing Shakespeare today, not about the importance of his words.

 

Jemma Alix Levy

Artistic Director

Muse of Fire Theatre Company

www.museoffire.webs.com

 

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         Friday, February 10, 2012

Subject:     Shakespearean Productions

 

Dear All,

 

This will be writing on the fly since I want to get the digest out and to include a response, but I also am settling back after getting home, re-bonding with my Umbrella Cockatoo, who gets separation anxiety if I am not in view, and picking up my dogs from the vet’s where I was boarding them and having my high-maintenance, diabetic dog getting her glucose levels. 

 

Well, what do I say?

 

I hope that I have not given the impression that I strongly disapprove of the work of Michael Kahn and blindly favor that of Ralph Cohen. Obviously not. There have been productions from both companies that have knocked me out and others that have bored me to tears. I wrote about the reverse negative Othello with Patrick Stewart recently as a text opening production for me. Michael’s early Richard III with Stacy Keach while the company was still at the Folger Elizabethan Theater is THE Richard III that I will always think of first when I think back on productions of that play—it was SO much fun. The same goes for SSE/ASC productions.

 

However, I continue to rack up the numbers of Shakespeare productions I have seen, and they are at a virtually incalculable level, and run the gamut from Melissa’s community theater As You Like It when she was 8 to Peter Brook’s Dream to an amazing Richard II at the Other Place, and on and on. As my number of productions increases, I find I do have preferences. And what I was interested in when I started this thread was to explore matters of Shakespeare in performance today. 

 

I have alluded to my preferences regarding production values and matters of class and to theater spaces, but I would like to mention here involves what I see as issues related to language and acting styles. 

 

As one might imagine, I see Shakespeare’s language as being foremost in productions. I like it clear, fast-paced generally, and understandable to me and to the actors delivering it. Language is my foremost production value and influences the choice of space in which it is delivered.

 

Today, I would like to mention the relationship between language and acting. I prefer presentational acting to representational acting for Shakespeare. For this reason, I feel that actors should eschew the method for preforming Shakespeare. 

 

In this regard, I am reminded of the first season of Slings and Arrows, in which the film actor playing Hamlet, Jack Crew, does not want to do the text because then he would be acting Hamlet rather than emoting Hamlet.

 

In rehearsal of the closet scene, for example, we have the following:

 

Maria, the Stage Manager calls: “Polonius falls and dies.”

 

Ellen [as Gertrude]: O me, what hast thou done?

 

Jack [as Hamlet, improvising]: I don’t know. Who was it? Was it the king?

 

Ellen: O, what a rash and bloody deed is this!

 

Jack: Yeah, right. Almost as bad as killing a king and marrying his brother, right?

 

Frank whispers to Cyril: Why is he allowed to do that?

 

Cyril: It’s the Method isn’t it, ducky. He’s making it his own. That’s how they do it in America.

 

Jack discovers Polonius: You IDIOT! You stupid idiot. I thought you were the King. Oh well, no great loss, ey?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W93QhEdo9E

 

 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.