Ok, learn something new every day. You know that scene in J.R.R Tolkien’s The Two Towers, when the giant tree-creatures known as Ents march on Saruman’s tower? Remind anybody of a certain Scottish play? Coincidence, you say?

Maybe not. From Tolkien’s letter #163 to W.H. Auden:

Take the Ents, for instance. I did not consciously invent them at all. The chapter called ‘Treebeard’, from Treebeard’s first remark on p. 66, was written off more or less as it stands, with an effect on my self (except for labour pains) almost like reading someone else’s work. And I like Ents now because they do not seem to have anything to do with me. I daresay something had been going on in the ‘unconscious’ for some time, and that accounts for my feeling throughout, especially when stuck, that I was not inventing but reporting (imperfectly) and had at times to wait till ‘what really happened’ came through. But looking back analytically I should say that Ents are composed of philology, literature, and life. They owe their name to the eald enta geweorc of Anglo-Saxon, and their connexion with stone. Their part in the story is due, I think, to my bitter disappointment and disgust from schooldays with the shabby use made in Shakespeare of the coming of ‘Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill’: I longed to devise a setting in which the trees might really march to war. And into this has crept a mere piece of experience, the difference of the ‘male’ and ‘female’ attitude to wild things, the difference between unpossessive love and gardening.

(Emphasis mine.)

There you go – straight from Tolkien’s mouth. Or, pen. I’d provide a link, but unfortunately this comes from a PDF document that I received through …. ummm…..unlinkable means.

You have to admit, though – if we want to pit modern movie special effects against Shakespeare’s ability to paint a picture with words….the march of the Ents still rocks.

UPDATED: Found a link, here.

“I’ll be the new Hamlet,” says Jack Black.
I’m going to assume that he’s joking, given the context of the story. His Gulliver’s Travels comes out soon (now?) and apparently there’s a line in there where he calls himself Shakespeare (at least, that’s what my kids keep telling me). So I’m sure that came up during an interview and hence the above quote.
Although it does make me think of a question. Who among modern actors could play the great comedies? What actor working today would we like to see as Feste, Jaques, or Bottom? I deliberately leave Falstaff out of the list, because I think he’s a category all to himself.

Ok, so I’m sure most of us saw the story, not even worth linking to, that Miramax’s business plan for the next couple of years is to make sequels out of all their old hits – including Shakespeare In Love.
This immediately cast fans of the movie into two camps: the “that was an awesome movie and thus if they can capture that awesomeness again it will be even more awesome” camp, and the “You’ll never replicate it, it’s perfect the way it was, don’t ruin it” camp.
The problem with the second camp is that Miramax is going to do it with you or without you, so the best you can hope for is not “don’t do it” but “oh god I hope it doesn’t suck.”
So, here’s what I’m thinking. Collectively, the people that hang out here probably know more about, and care more about, the subject of Shakespeare than much of the rest of the world. So, let’s write the sequel. Let’s put together so many ideas about what it can and should be that Miramax can’t help but get wind of it and run with whatever we come up with. (I’ll believe that when I see it, of course, but until then it can keep us entertained :)).
So, brainstorm. Let’s go, anybody.
I heard three ideas bandied about on Twitter. One involves a midnight mission to steal and reassemble the Globe in the middle of the night. Great scene from history, and a great scene for a movie. But it’s not a plot, just an event.

One tries to get Shakespeare as far away from the first movie as possible, projecting him into the Late Romance years, near retirement, having lived out a full life and approaching the end of his career, looking back on memories.
One suggested that even Gwynneth Paltrow’s character could be reprised, haunting Shakespeare’s vision of all his female leads for the rest of his career.
Maybe tell it through the character of his children? That has huge untapped potential, since we know so little about his relationship to them. Unfortunately the first movie establishes that the Anne Hathaway relationship is a frigid one, so that pretty much slams the door on any romance (unless you attempt a rekindling storyline, but that would be very difficult I think). Perhaps his daughter’s marriage to… Thomas Quiney, was it? Wait, no, he was the one that had the scandal. Which daughter had the good marriage, Susannah? I could start to imagine a play about Shakespeare’s daughter in love, her famous father cast in something of a secondary role (much, though, like Julius Caesar is to his play, a spectre over the entire production). Ooo, how about a story where his daughter (and son-in-law) conspire to somehow find Gwynneth Paltrow and reunite them? Eh, it’s a thought.
Ok, somebody else go.

“My plan for how the Bard could rule TV.”
No, it’s not my plan – it’s Michael Billington’s plan. Normally I wouldn’t link to a random review of a random production that I had no chance of seeing, but this article is different. Here, the author (Mr. Billington) goes off on the tangent of how exactly to position Shakespeare for the wider television audience:

This suggests there is huge potential for making Shakespeare available to a wider audience. You can, of course, take cameras in to a live performance and show the results on big screens. It has already happened with the National’s All’s Well That Ends Well and Hamlet, and the same technique will be be used for the Donmar’s King Lear on 3 February. I suspect Lear will look sensational in the cinema, since Michael Grandage’s chamber production is based on intimate pyschological detail.

But there is surely also room for rethinking stage Shakepeare for TV. If I were a BBC boss, I’d get Goold to adapt his current Romeo and Juliet for the box. It’s the most exciting version of the play I’ve seen in 50 years, and with its key image of fire blazing on the Veronese streets and in the loins of its young lovers, it could set the screen ablaze.

The article is small, but it is part of the Guardian. So if you like the idea, go comment over there and maybe get the idea some attention!

So this is interesting. A few weeks back a teacher contacted me and asked whether her Shakespeare class could interview me, videoconference-style, over Skype. They’ve been trying to make more use of technology in the classroom and stumbled across little ol’ me.
As a technologist and a Shakespeareist (? :)), I love that idea and immediately said Sure. Truthfully I know a woman who teaches Romeo and Juliet, local to me, and I’ve always secretly hoped that one day she’d invite me in to talk to her class. That’s never going to happen for a wide variety of reasons, but doing a Skype call? Why not?
Thus far, due to various technology and bureaucracy problems (translated: firewalls are a pain), this project hasn’t happened. But it’s not dead yet, just dormant until the next semester.
While we wait, though, I wanted to throw that idea out there. If there’s any teachers of Shakespeare who’d also like to make use of some technology in their classroom and interview a Shakespeare geek, I’m open to the idea. Contact me. 🙂