Did Shakespeare write Edward III?
Jeff Watkins, founder and artistic director of the Atlanta Shakespeare Company, thinks so. And it’s crucial to his argument that his group is the only one in America to have produced all 39 of Shakespeare’s plays.
Let the debate rage. If you fall back on the classic agreement of plays — 37 (leaving out Two Noble Kinsmen) — then there are a number of Shakespeare companies that have achieved this goal. If you count Kinsmen, then the Royal Shakespeare Company (granted, not in America) can raise its hand to make that claim.
Watkins isn’t stopping at E3, however, and ye gods one can only hope that he’s going for quality and not just quantity — his group will be doing Double Falsehood (aka Cardenio) as well as Sir Thomas More, which would indeed make him the only company around to have produced 41 of Shakespeare’s plays.
Maybe he can just put an asterisk next to Shakespeare(*) like they do in baseball.
Hamlet is down!
It’s happened again — this time it was all fun and games over in Ireland until Hamlet almost lost an eye. I’m assuming that this is a freak accident that would have happened with any stage weapon, and not one of these crazy cases where the director insists on using real weapons. What I’m most curious about, though, is this:
The A.P. said that Mr. Madden sustained a cut beneath his eye and collapsed on stage, requiring the theater company’s artistic director, Alan Stanford, to go to the stage and explain to stunned audience members that this was not part of the play: the actor had been injured, and the play could not continue.
Not “the actor could not continue” – the play could not. Isn’t it common to have some sort of second for your lead, for situations like this? Or does that only apply if the actor is not able to go on at all?
I suppose a third option is that I’m being heartless, and the cast was unable to go on because they were too distraught at the injury to their Hamlet. Though I remember professional wrestler Owen Hart *dying* on a live pay-per-view event, and the show went on.
Harry Potter Would Do Shakespeare
Face it, Daniel Radcliffe, you’ll forever be known as Harry Potter. And I know, it’s not terribly newsworthy to hear that he’d “love to do Shakespeare one day”. But since he seems intimidated by the idea (he admits that he’d need a lot of direction), I thought it might make for some interesting conversation to ask…. which character for him?
I figure that his name recognition alone at this point would require that he get a fairly lead role, there’ll be no Banquo or Benvolio for him. But do we see him as a Romeo? I don’t think so. It would be a fun character turn to see him try Iago, but come on, the kid’s intimidated by Shakespeare already, do you really want to start him there?
How about Benedick?
The Shakespearification of Jersey Shore?
We’ve spoken before about that sign of the apocalypse known as Jersey Shore, and what it has to do with Shakespeare.
Well here’s the latest link in a chain of events heading us straight for the end of the world – one of the “actors” (I don’t know or care what his name is, Vinnie something) is apparently trying to become a “real” actor, and credits his Shakespeare background with giving him a boost.
If you can’t bear to click on the link I’ll save you the pain – he mentions Shakespeare, they ask him for some, he busts out “Wherefore art thou, Romeo”, and one of the hosts says “Yeah, but Juliet says that.” I wonder if Vinnie played the girl’s role? Whatever would the boys at the gym think!
The Story of Edgar Sawtelle
When I first started reading The Story of Edgar Sawtelle by David Wroblewski, I immediately sat down to write A Hamlet Story. What does it mean when you know that something is supposed to be a Hamlet story? How close will it echo the plot? Will all the characters be there, will the ending be the same?
I think that I’ve been so long immersed in kid-friendly versions of kid-friendly stories that I’d forgotten that it’s possible to do what Wroblewski’s done. This entirely new story doesn’t just help itself to the “son avenges father’s murder” idea and call it a day – it tracks nearly everything, and then some. It answers questions that Hamlet never answered. I loved it.
I know that Bardfilm reviewed this book as well, briefly, and chose not to divulge any of the plot at all. So stop here if you prefer that style of review, because I’m going to give you at least a little bit.
This is the story of the Sawtelle family, and more specifically the “Sawtelle dogs”. For generations the family has bred dogs that are unlike any other in the world. Nobody can explain why, exactly – not even the Sawtelles. But you know it when you see it.
The story starts out pretty far removed from anything resembling Hamlet, which confused me. A grandfather here, a soldier over there, a miscarriage scattered in for good measure. With every character I found myself asking, “Now, is that Hamlet? Hamlet’s father? Laertes?” It was like reading one of those books that retells Romeo and Juliet, only several generations prior. *Eventually* you find a character you recognize, and then everything else falls into place. So it is with this one. One character walks in, one unmistakably named character, and the lightbulb goes on. Oh, I see, now the entire family tree is laid out for me. I love it.
Wroblewski’s creativity doesn’t stop there. I find myself surprised by what I’m about to say, given his source material, but it’s like he adds another dimension to Hamlet.
Examples?
The Sawtelle family raises dogs, as I mentioned. Special dogs. In fact, not only does Edgar speak to the dogs, it is made quite clear that the dogs understand what he’s talking about. So the dogs are characters in the story, and you may easily discover that Laertes is actually canine. (* He’s not. I’m not giving anything away.)
Second, The story is told from multiple points of view. Edgar tells some. But then turn the page and it’s his mother’s turn to tell the same portion of the story. Think about that, oh ye Hamlet fans. For how many years have we yearned to know what exactly Gertrude was thinking? Why she went with Claudius? Or, for that matter, what exactly Claudius was thinking? What was his relationship with his brother? This is where the parallel universe comes in. We don’t get to know what Shakespeare’s Gertrude was thinking, but at least we’ll get a glimpse into the mind of Wroblewski’s doppleganger for her.
Combine all these things and you get something whose sum is greater than its parts. It is Hamlet, plus parts of Hamlet we always wanted. Plus completely original things. When you feel something, you have no idea if you should give credit to Shakespeare for starting it, or Wroblewski for the way he tells it.
There is a part, in any good production of Romeo and Juliet (bear with me), where you know beyond a shadow of a doubt what is going to happen, and yet you’re still on the edge of your chair muttering Oh god, oh god, hurry, get there faster…. That’s why it is genius. Shakespeare started out the story by saying “See those two? They’re going to die.” And before two-hours’ stage traffic is complete you manage to feel so much for them that, once you remember again that they’re doomed, you desperately want that not to be true.
Such was the case with this book. I started it wondering whether there was even an Ophelia character in the story. Once I discovered the answer to my question, all I can say is I know what the phrase “hit me like a ton of bricks” means now. Who knows, you may spot it immediately. You may have your own moments. The book is full of them, and that’s the great part.
How does it end? Does it have the same body count? How pray tell does the story of murder among Danish nobles play out in a modern story? You don’t just run around killing each other during duels, after all. And I’m not saying. 🙂
Highly, highly recommended. Nobody sent me a copy of this one, I sought it out as one of the first books to put on my Kindle.