So just now I see a story about Kate Mulgrew taking on Cleopatra.  Not a Trek Geek? She was Captain Janeway, from Star Trek Voyager.

Naturally that got me thinking. 

Captain Picard, Patrick Stewart? Well, we know all about Patrick Stewart.  I can’t even find a single story to link, there’s too many obvious choices.

How about William Shatner, Captain James T. Kirk?  No problem.  Hamlet, no less.

Now, now we start to get tricky.  What about Avery Brooks, also known as Captain Sisko of Deep Space Nine?  He’s Othello.

Aha, but what about Enterprise, and Scott Bakula as Captain Jonathan Archer? Alas I can’t find video, but might I point you to this synopsis of Quantum Leap Episode 411?

The Play’s the Thing	January 8, 1992	September 9, 1969	New York City, New York	411
Sam leaps into a man named Joe Thurlow who’s dating a much, much older woman and must convince her not to move back to Cleveland with her straight-as-an-arrow son and his wife. And somehow he also has to get through a nude version of Hamlet.

The Boston Herald’s got a review up of David Tennant’s Hamlet (called “Prepare to be bard to tears…”) so I had to go check it out for that negative headline, if nothing else.  They didn’t like it, though I don’t think the negative aspects of the review live up to the headline, which makes it sound awful.  The author gives is a C+.

What gets me, though, is that crazy picture that I’ve seen used in several articles now.  If we didn’t know what was happening at the time, wouldn’t that look like something straight out of a bad B horror movie?  Why the frick does Hamlet have a crown on his head, has he been playing Henry V? Is Claudius that engrossed in what he’s doing that he’s let a potential assassin get that close to him? He of all people should know you don’t live long as king of Denmark without watching your back!

Saw a production of Hamlet once where they all carried guns instead of swords.  During this crucial scene, Hamlet is at one side of the stage with the gun leveled at Claudius’ back.  I thought that was an interesting way to merge the ideas of “I’m this close to doing it” with “well, if I had a sword I’d kinda sorta have to be within arm’s reach of him…”  Not to mention all the implications that come with the “good guy” shooting someone in the back, even if it is Claudius.

I almost forgot about this, but once again PBS is presenting some modern classic Shakespeare as part of their Great Performances series.  Last year it was Sir Ian McKellan’s King Lear, this year it is David Tennant’s Hamlet (also starring that other guy, what’s his name…. Sir Patrick Frickin Stewart(*)).

I’d seen Lear before PBS broadcast it, but I’ve not yet seen Tennant’s Hamlet.  I’ve actually been eyeing (? that doesn’t look right) it this week, but as my birthday approaches I figured I’d give the family a chance to score it for me first.  But since I never actually mentioned it to anybody it’d have to be a heck of a coincidence.  We shall see!

P.S #1 : I expect my subtle subject line humor to go over the heads of the folks who don’t recognize that David Tennant also played a character called Dr. Wherewhen.

P.S. #2 : I am from Boston, where when we feel strongly about somebody we give them a new middle name.  Another owner of this proud distinction, but for completely different reasons, is Bucky Effing Dent.

P.S. #3 : UPDATED, The date is tomorrow April 28, not Thursday April 29.  The latter is the date of Open Mic Shakespeare, which was on my brain because I’d posted it earlier in the day.

Just got word that there’ll Shakespeare in the Park in my hometown this summer!  Woot!  More details to follow (since I literally just got word 10 minutes ago I don’t want to jinx things), but babbling about Shakespeare is a good thing.  You bring it up, it turns out you’re speaking to a librarian who wants local Shakespeare and just hasn’t made it happen yet.  So you point out that you know some people a few towns over who have a Shakespeare group and are looking for places to perform.  Badda boom, badda bing, Shakespeare in my back yard!

I can’t help but laugh at this article, which takes the position that Taming of the Shrew is conclusive evidence for Shakespeare’s personal hatred of all women.  This one play, out of some 38 or so, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Shakespeare’s goal in life was subjugation and inhuman treatment of women.  After all, aren’t all his women examples of this?  Lady Macbeth, Gertrude.  There, that must prove it.

I really want to leave a comment but I can’t decide whether it would be worth it.  The icing on the cake is when the author invokes the ghost of fictional Anne Wetly, arguing that Shakespeare clearly loved her but was stuck marrying Anne Hathaway instead, and thus forever had a hatred of women that he vented in his plays.  Which would be a valid point, except for that whole “she didn’t really exist” thing.

Personally I don’t love Shrew.  It’s little more than slapstick to me.  I really have no interest in debating the “wink” moment in the final scene, and what it really means.  But I don’t know how you meaningfully write a piece that on the one hand points to Katherine as a poor weak creature cowering under her husband’s hand, while at the same time using Lady Macbeth as an example of the same point? Lady M clearly wears the pants in her family.  Apparently the author’s point is that Shakespeare thinks that men want to … dominate women, be dominated by them, or, re: Gertrude, marry them.  Yes, that makes a very consistent and logical point?  I suppose perhaps we could take all the girls who dress up as boys and use that as evidence that Shakespeare was into transgender, too?  And all the ones that kill themselves as evidence that Shakespeare wants all women dead?

It’ll make you laugh, if it doesn’t make you tear your hair out.  Articles like this make you realize where the stereotype of feminists as man-haters comes from.