Why would you watch a Shakespeare play when you could watch the Super Bowl?

Although Bardfilm doesn’t have any visceral objections to the Super Bowl, he does find Shakespeare more interesting. In the list below, he offers some of his reasons. Enjoy them—and follow the hashtag #ShakesBowl on Twitter to see what other reasons people come up with—and to add your own to the mix!

Shakespeare is better than the Super Bowl . . .

. . . because most Super Bowls are only four quarters long. All Shakespeare plays are five acts.

. . . because millions have been talking about Hamlet for over 400 years—but how many remember who won Super Bowl IV?

. . . because you can be sure that neither Macbeth nor Macduff will call time out in the middle of their exciting battle.

. . . because the ads during a Shakespeare play . . . well, all right. Super Bowl ads are pretty good.

. . . because the coaches hardly ever deliver the St. Crispin’s Day Speech to their teams during halftime—even though they really ought to!

. . . because when Hamlet talks about “Singeing his pate against the burning zone,” he’s not talking about the End Zone.

. . . because if you feel disappointed at the end of a Shakespeare play, you’ve been rooting for the wrong people.

. . . because women in Shakespeare are generally treated with more respect than women dancing at the Super Bowl are.

. . . because “The Battle of the Century” should refer to something like Bosworth Field, not a Football Field.

. . . because “Two households, both alike in dignity” seldom describes the Super Bowl matchup.

. . . because the pre-game show usually consists of a speech like “O, for a muse of Fire” instead of inane chatter.

. . . because “Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried, / Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of Steelers” doesn’t have quite the right ring to it.

. . . because John Madden seldom delivers a play-by-play on a Shakespeare play.

. . . because concussions only occur in Shakespeare very rarely—usually by accident when the Scottish Play is being performed.

. . . because Sonnet XLV begins with “The other two, slight air and purging fire, / Are both with thee, wherever I abide”; Super Bowl XLV begins with a sixteen-hour pre-game show.

. . . because Because the Black-Eyed Peas’ “I Gotta Feeling” doesn’t show quite the emotional range of Romeo and Juliet.

. . . because Rosalind says “my affection hath an unknown bottom, like the bay of Portugal” not “. . . like the bay of green.”

And don’t forget to follow #ShakesBowl on Twitter during the big game for more reasons!


Our thanks for this guest post to kj, the author of Bardfilm. Bardfilm is a blog that comments on films, plays, and other matters related to Shakespeare.

True Grit Shakespeare

I love the paradox : Shakespeare is so difficult and irrelevant to modern society that nobody can understand why we even teach him anymore … and yet every time a new movie comes out, inevitably somebody compares it to Shakespeare.
Today’s example is True Grit, the current remake of the old John Wayne western. Although the linked interview is with 14yr old Hailee Steinfeld, she quotes co-star Barry Pepper for the Shakespeare reference.
Combing through the quotes page on IMDB, I found this amusing bit of dialogue that Mr. Shakespeare himself might have penned:

Rooster Cogburn: The jakes is occupied.

Mattie Ross: I know it is occupied Mr. Cogburn. As I said, I have business with you.

Rooster Cogburn: I have prior business.

Mattie Ross: You have been at it for quite some time, Mr. Cogburn.

Rooster Cogburn: There is no clock on my business! To hell with you! To hell with you! How did you stalk me here?

Mattie Ross: The sheriff told me to look in the saloon. In the saloon they referred me here. We must talk.

Rooster Cogburn: Women ain’t allowed in the saloon!

Mattie Ross: I was not there as a customer. I am fourteen years old.

Rooster Cogburn: The jakes is occupied. And will be for some time.

A Hamlet Story

If you read a story (or see a film) and then somebody says, “Did you know that was based on Hamlet?” then what you’ll do is run it back over in your brain and spot all the spots where it wasn’t. Take for example Lion King, which I saw without even considering a Hamlet connection. Where’s the Ophelia character? Polonius? The relationship between Gertrude and Claudius? Some of them are stretched – are Timon and Poomba *really* supposed to be Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? Or is this a case where they said “Uncle kills father, son avenges” and then just made up the rest?
However – what if somebody tells you to read story X, because it’s based on Hamlet. Then you’ve got a whole different ball game. Such is the case with The Story of Edgar Sawtelle. This is not my review of that book, which will come when I finish it. Think of this as the intro material that would have padded my review when I finally did get around to it.
If you know you’re reading a Hamlet story, then every plot device, every new character, you find yourself saying “Who is that supposed to be? What’s happening here?” A grandfather? There’s no grandfather in Hamlet, he must not be relevant. Oh look a random hippie chick? That’s weird. Wonder if she’ll be Ophelia. It’s like a mystery story. When the dad dies – because we all know the dad dies, I hope – you get to sit there and wonder “How did he die? Did the brother do it? Will we learn that the brother did it? What’s the wife’s relationship to the brother?”
Hamlet shows us the dynamics of just about every family relationship – husbands and wives, fathers and sons, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, brothers (Claudius and King Hamlet), sisters (Laertes and Ophelia). It would be difficult to tell a family drama/tragedy and not be able to say “Oh, yeah, a little bit like Hamlet.” Rivalry between brothers? A son with an absent father figure and mother issues? Family members who don’t want the daughter to go with the man she chooses? All there.
We already know that this is done ad nauseam with Romeo and Juliet – every “they can’t be together, oh the tragedy!” love story ever written has made the comparison.
But are there others? Does anybody ever write an Othello story, or a Macbeth story?

Repeat and Repeat and Repeat : Liev Schreiber on Shakespeare

Although modern moviegoers may know him now as Sabretooth from the X-Men movies, Liev Schreiber is actually an accomplished Shakespearean (which I personally learned when he was a guest on NPR). So when he was the invited guest at Yale University Theatre recently, interviewed by Dean of the Yale School of Drama, the conversation was not about Magneto and Wolverine:

He added that he attributes his success to rehearsals. Schreiber said he was initially intimidated by the ambiguous notion of success in theatre.

“In French, rehearsal is called repetition,” he emphasized. He added that it is important to repeat rehearsals until the actors know the verses “upside-down.”

Luckily, he said Shakespearean verses come much more easily to him than normal script.

“It’s like a nursery rhyme,” Schreiber said. “It’s so easy to just repeat and repeat and repeat.”

I appreciate the simplicity of that thought. It says that anyone can do it – but don’t fool yourself, it’s going to be hard work. He doesn’t say you have to repeat yourself a dozen times. You’ll have to repeat yourself hundreds of times.

UPDATED for spelling the man’s name right.  Thanks, Christine!