When I got an Apple TV for Christmas, I demonstrated it for my wife by showing her the climax of Orson Welles’ Chimes At Midnight.  I love that scene.  I think I even tried to show it to my kids.

This morning in the shower, though, I thought of a question.  I suppose I could find this answer with a little more study, but sometimes it’s fun to get people’s impressions. After all, that’s what I love so much about Shakespeare – the humanity he instills in his characters that make us all immediately understand what they’re going through.

So, here’s my question.  Does Falstaff die a broken man, convinced that the new king Henry has abandoned him?  Or does he understand that “he did what he had to do now that he’s king” speech?  Welles’ performance at this moment seems to suggest both.  There’s a flash of a smile, a sort of an acknowledging, “My boy has gone farther than I ever imagined he would” expression.  Just for a second.  After the procession continues, though, we see the broken man who still swears, albeit with a little less energy now, “I will be sent for.  You’ll see.  He’ll send for me in private.”

Perhaps it is a combination of the two. He’s proud and understands, but at the same time also understands that, no, he won’t be sent for. How am I doing?  Close?   (I have another Falstaff-related post coming later today. I’m on a Falstaff kick. :))

I’m not quite sure the history of this piece, but I’m greatly enjoying it.  And, I’d like to think, getting most of the jokes :)!

“I don’t get it. Othello smothers Desdemona with a pillow, right?”
England nods.
“But then Emilia comes in and asks who did this to her, and she says nobody; I, myself. Which means he’s stopped smothering her. Which means she can breathe again. Which means she shouldn’t be dying at all!”
“No, she has to die. The tragic form demands it.”

Credit and applause go to … puella nuerdi?  I never did understand LiveJournal names. Anyway, go check it out.  Great, original, entertaining stuff.  A massive undertaking that has something snarky to say about just about all of the plays. http://puella-nerdii.livejournal.com/114125.html

Been slow here at Shakespeare Geek, because it’s been crazy in the real world.  Christmas with three little kids, as some of you can imagine, gets crazy. There’s travelling to be done, vacations to take advantage of, toys to buy, then wrap, then unwrap, then open, then play, then throw into a corner and move on to the next one … I hope to get back on track shortly.  I’ve got at least one book (Actors Talk About Shakespeare) and movie (Teller’s Macbeth) to write about, and that’s not counting the new stuff. For Christmas I got the DVD collections “Playing Shakespeare” and “Age of Kings”, both highly recommended here on the site.  So those will keep me busy for awhile.  I also got a book, “Letters to Juliet” which looks pretty cool, it’s a very nice looking coffee-table style of book with lots of pictures. I was looking for Tad Williams’ “Caliban’s Hour”, but it is out of print and nobody wanted to get me a used copy for Christmas.  Fair enough.  But now that I know a sci fi author I like did a Tempest story, I have to have it. How’d everybody else do?  What’s new under the Shakespeare tree?

Ok, that’s a terrible title, but it’ll get more clicks than “Shakespeare and The City.” Since I’m behind in my links you may already have seen that Kristin Davis, most famous for playing the “nice” girl Charlotte in Sex and The City (get it now?) wants to do some Shakespeare.  If this were Kim Cattrall we were talking about, the one who plays the slutty Samantha, I’d make a “do Shakespeare” joke right here.  Oh, well. Davis has specific plans, too.  At 44, she wants to play Viola from Twelfth Night.  I appreciate that she’s got that level of understanding about the plays, and doesn’t want to get into them just because she’s got this vague notion that “Shakespeare” equals “be taken seriously as an actress.” http://entertainment.malaysia.msn.com/Celebrity/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3764010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/may/30/top10s.shakespeare See, lists like this are the stuff I crave.  From the opening quote:

Vivien Leigh once said that acting in a Shakespeare play was like ‘bathing in the sea – one swims where one wants’.

You get the idea that the author has at least some clue of what they’re talking about.  Drawing upon the themes and characters of Shakespeare still leaves infinite flexibility in *what* you write.  It is a tremendous playground for Shakespeare Geeks. So we get the “Top 10” Shakespeare inspired novels, although it’s a bit more like a sampler than a top 10.  We get relatively new David Foster Wallace’s “Infinite Jest” (1996) and the classic Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” (1931).  I’m familiar with “Gertrude and Claudius”  and “A Thousand Acres”, though I’ve not read them.  “Money” and “Wise Children” are really the only ones completely new to me. But then the list goes and discredits itself with the inclusion of Lunar Park, by Bret Easton Ellis.  I read this one.  It’s been years since I admitted it.  It is terrible.  I mean, seriously, this is a book that I chose to throw away rather than to let someone else read.  It’s horrible.  I’m embarrassed for it to have Shakespeare content. Still, a top 9 list’s not that bad.