Ben Chavda

Shakespeare � Merchant of Venice

"Who chooseth me must give and hazard all he hath." (II.vii.9)

In the gripping and controversial play "Merchant of Venice," the leaden casket that holds the future with Portia as its reward bears the inscription, "Who chooseth me must give and hazard all he hath." (II.vii.9) I would hold that the inscription eludes to sacrifice. The play itself is, at many times, about sacrifice. Encompassed in the idea of sacrifice is a concept of risking and gambling everything for something better.

In much of the play, the Bible is drawn upon as a reference for arguments between Jew and Christian, since both read from the first half of the book, the Torah, or what the Christians call the "Old Testament." From the Jewish perspective, the greatest story of sacrifice is the legend of Abraham and his son Isaac, whom he attempts to sacrifice to show his obedience to God. God eventually gives Abraham a ram to sacrifice instead of his son. As I initially read the inscription of the leaden casket, I was reminded of the story in the New Testament of the Bible, wherein a young rich man comes to Jesus Christ and asks to be a disciple. In return, Jesus tells him that he must sell everything he owns to become a follower. The rich young man is unable to meet this requirement. Jesus would go on to promise persecution and death for those that followed him, but then promised everlasting life for those who were his followers. All those who followed him literally had to "give and hazard" all they had, first sacrificing everything to the great gamble of faith, hoping for a promising return. This was my first reaction to the line and as I continued reading the play, I saw that the theme of sacrificing one�s self to a gamble was carried on throughout the play.

In Act I, scene vii, Antonio tells Bassanio, "Within the eye of honour, be assured / My purse, my person, my extremest means / Lie all unlocked to your occasion." (136-139) Here, Antonio promises Bassanio to aid him in his monetary needs. Antonio�s love for Bassanio leads him to put up his goods (and later, unwittingly, his very life) as a sacrifice for Bassanio. We have all heard the quote from the Bible, "Greater love hath no man than he who would give his life for his friend," but this is going a bit too far. Antonio�s love for Bassanio blinds him to the fact that Bassanio is a user. He always has been and always will be ready to gamble what others put up to sacrifice. Antonio literally gives Bassanio all he has and risks his own destruction all for a simple sacrifice brought out of his love for his friend.

I believe the message of the leaden casket also speaks to the entire meaning of marriage. Sacrifice is an important part of marriage. We must sacrifice our pride and sometimes our expectations so that we can help our love stand the test of time. Marriage is a frightening concept for numbers of people. To many, the idea of sacrificing the old ways of a bachelor (either male or female) for the new ways of a joined life with another is one "�Which rather threaten�st than dost promise aught�" (III.ii.105) But it is the gamble we take when we choose to sacrifice our old life for our new that is the very basis of marriage. When we marry, we hope for a rewarding future, but we risk misery as well. And it is this very gamble that makes the prospect of marriage look so frightening and yet so exciting to the single person. Love is a risk we all wish to take, sometimes giving up everything as a sacrifice, hoping that the roll of the dice will be in our favor.
 
 
 
 

Ben Chavda

Shakespeare I - As You Like It

"Then is there mirth in heaven

When earthly things made even

Atone together." (V.iv.97-99)

The aforementioned verse is spoken by Hymen, the marriage god who shows up to bless the multiple marriages at the end of "As You Like It." The quote speaks directly, I believe, to the gender bending that takes place throughout the play. Shakespeare played with the switching of gender roles several times through his career, but this play held an extreme amount and type of gender switching. You had Orlando forced to pretend to love Ganymede (who was really his beloved Rosalind as a man) but Phoebe wants Ganymede (who is not a man at all!) If taken to their furthest extent, the sexual ramifications of this play are quite staggering. A man fantasizing that another man is a woman, although she is a woman. A woman in love with a man who is a woman. The language that is used by the characters gives the play an erotic feel that borders on taboo.

But all is not right. Fun and games in the forest is fine for a while, but there comes a time when playtime must cease, that being the end of the play. This play makes the strongest argument for the theory that Shakespeare always returns his plays to the status quo of his society. Jack must have Jill and thus we have what was called in the ancient theater, "Deus ex machina." This phrase literally means "God from machine," and comes from Greek and Roman plays wherein an actor playing the part of a god would be placed onstage by a crane or other contraption in order to solve the present problem of the play. Over the years, deus ex machina has come to mean an actual type of play that calls upon a deity to resolve the play. Usually this form is frowned upon by modern scholars looking back at old plays that use this form, for they feel that it is a quick and easy ending to a play. Why Shakespeare uses this method I am not quite sure. The play before the introduction of Hymen was not exactly supernatural or metaphysical. But Shakespeare�s methods have kept him around for four hundred years, and so I would rather not question his ideas on how to write a play. The god shows up to bring the play back to the status quo, to lead the characters out of the forest of play and into the world of reality. "�Earthly things made even�" literally means "�earthly things set right�" Hymen allows the false-gender disguises to be dropped. All things are made right. Phoebe, seeing that Ganymede is a woman, turns to Silvius; Hymen makes a lightly chastising remark to her regarding Silvius and her earlier lust for Ganymede/Rosalind, "You to his [Silvius] love must accord, / Or have a woman to your lord�" (V.iv.122-123) Of course she will not wind up with a woman. It is with the gender roles set right again that the "earthly things made even / Atone together." "Atone together," refers to a unification, possibly a reference to man and woman becoming "one flesh" through the act of intercourse. It is through the reaffirming of the boundaries of sex that heaven rejoices, for no one is in sin.

The final word on the gender bender that is "As You Like It" comes at the end of the play, in the Epilogue. Shakespeare has Rosalind rationalize a woman making the appearance in the prologue by having her comment that it is "no more unhandsome than to see the lord in the prologue." (Epilouge.2-3) Of course it�s no more unhandsome, for it is the same gender making both speeches! So although Shakespeare does return to the status quo in the play, he reminds us that the lovely Rosalind is in fact a man. "If I were a woman I would kiss as many of you as had beards that pleased me�" (Epilouge.15-16)
 
 

Ben Chavda

Shakespeare - Henry IV

"My reformation, glitt�ring o�er my fault,

Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes

Than that which hath no foil to set it off.

I�ll so offend to make offence a skill,

Redeeming time when men think least I will."

I would hold that this play is not really about King Henry IV. The true story of this play is the boy who will become a man (And eventually get his own play): Henry V. The young man will go from a drunkard and a consort of the ill repute to England�s greatest king. Hal seems at first to be a mere fool, but soon we realize that he has a self-awareness that few have and it is the understanding of his own soul that makes Hal the incredible character he is.

When we first see Hal, he is in one of his usual lurks with his friend and "mentor," Falstaff. To Falstaff, life is an all-you-can-eat buffet; he is the epitome of a glutton, a man who has consumed far too much of life already, but continues to go back for more helpings. It is at the end of the scene amongst his bawdy friends that Hal mutters this soliloquy: "My reformation, glitt�ring o�er my fault, / Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes / Than that which hath no foil to set it off. / I�ll so offend to make offence a skill, / Redeeming time when men think least I will." It is then that we realize that he is fully aware of his appearance to those in the court. He is also probably fully cognizant of his own father�s disappointment in him. We learn that he is a schemer and has intentions on rising from the mire around him like a phoenix from the ashes. Hal�s intention is to be the punch that no one sees coming, the blow that will catch everyone offguard. He fully understands that he looks bad and thus he figures that the worse he looks, the dirtier his surroundings are, the brighter his assent to the throne will be.

Hal tells us that the key to his glorious resurrection from the sloth to the throne is to pair himself with a foil so that he may shine more radiantly. The use of foils in dramatic literature was perfected by Shakespeare and is one of the techniques that make his plays so interesting. Foils are characters set against each other to show each other�s weaknesses and strengths, as well as differences and similarities. "Hamlet" was perhaps the best example of the foil play and I find shades of the tragedy of the Prince of Denmark in this play. Both Hal and Hamlet show themselves to be schemers. They hide behind the scenes and spin complex weaves of plots, hoping to achieve a triumphant means. The difference, of course, is that whereas this scheming and procrastination becomes Hamlet�s tragic and fatal flaw, for Hal it works. Hal intends for Falstaff to be his foil, to show off his strengths, but along the course of the play, it is Hotspur who will be Hal�s true foil. As Laertes was to Hamlet, Hotspur shows himself as a man willing to take action swiftly, without waiting to plan or plot. Hal will eventually defeat Hotspur without much damage to himself, but I find it very interesting that the two so closely resemble Hamlet and Laertes in their personalities and actions.

The final thing that struck me about Hal�s soliloquy is that (as pointed out in the Norton text) he draws upon verses from the Bible to make his speech. Ephesians 5:15-16 says, "See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil." Hal knows at the very moment that he must forsake the foolishness of the world he has been living in, the world of the drunkard and the fool, so that he may make the most use of his every waking moment. He specifically refers to "redeeming time," meaning he recognizes the time he has wasted on Falstaff and Company, but he intends to set things right. In order to make up for time lost, Hal will rise to greatness quicker then anyone will suspect. It is this self-understanding of his flaws, his strengths and his destiny that makes Hal such an intriguing character.
 
 

Ben Chavda

Shakespeare � Taming of the Shrew

"I am ashamed that women are so simple / To offer war where they should kneel for peace, / Or seek for rule, supremacy, and sway / When they are bound to serve, love, and obey." (V.ii.165-168)

These lines Katherine speaks at the end of the play, and they sum up the theme that the farce deals with. The play, of course, is very controversial in our modern world. Sometimes people forget that this play is a farce, a misogynist fantasy set in an absurd world. Perhaps we should not be so anxious to shun this play as merely sexist, for the play exists solely for entertainment. At the same time, we cannot forget about the atrocities committed against women in the past. This play is a "friendly" (if there can be such a thing) reminder of the way of days thankfully gone by. I have conflicting views about the play. On the one hand, it is a play that treats women as pets. Good pets don�t bite and bad pets must be trained. On the other, it makes us laugh at the very "taming" of the bad dog (the "bitch," if you will).

The excerpt I chose to dwell has a female character telling us that women are shameful when they are overbearing. We are told that women should not even seek to "sway" their husbands in one way or another. It is horrifying to think of a time when women were meant to be mindless drones and yet that is what the play harkens back to. The protagonist of the play, Petruccio, has one goal: to teach Kate to be subservient to a man (namely him). When explaining why he starves Kate and deprives her of sleep, Petruccio tells us, "This is a way to kill a wife with kindness, / And thus I�ll curb her mad and headstrong humour." (IV.i.189-190) What can we say about this premeditated abuse? In the same soliloquy, Petruccio carefully plots out how he will continually blame her for things that are not her fault. He will keep her hungry and tired until she breaks. This isn�t a Vietnamese prison camp, but a situation of domestic torture. At the same time, it is hilariously bizarre. I have seen Shrew performed on stage by a professional repertory group and scenes that would be grisly in real life are wonderfully humorous on stage. That is the magic of Shrew, even for modern audiences. It is a wonderful slice of nastiness, a comedy that no one but Shakespeare could get away with. Imagine a film to come out today about a crafty guy who forces a woman to marry him. He then tortures her. He physically and mentally abuses her. After starving and sleep-depravation, she suddenly becomes cheerful and completely loyal to her husband. If something like this came out in this day and age, it would be an outrage, regardless of how excellent the writing or dialogue was. Shakespeare gets away with it because the play is a relic from an old time.

There is no completely correct way of seeing Shrew. I hold that there must be a balance. The play is sexist, but should that turn us off from the fact that it is marvelously witty? Balance must be a factor in reading Shrew. We must focus on the good and accept the bad as part of the playwright�s time.

Ben Chavda

Shakespeare � Romeo and Juliet

"Virtue itself turns vice being misapplied,

And vice sometimes by action dignified."

--Friar Lawrence II.ii.21-22

This strange play that is Romeo and Juliet has been called not truly a tragedy by many literary scholars based upon their preconceived notions of what a tragedy is. In a tragedy, especially typical of the Greeks, the protagonist must show some sort of flawed trait. I believe that this play is a tragedy, and while Romeo and Juliet�s foolish love may seem flawed, I hold that the true action that causes their downfall is their trust in the character of Friar Lawrence. This simple and kindly man is, if one looks at the play closely, the one who sets in motion the "Hamlet-esque" schemes that will eventually go bad and be the death of Romeo, Juliet and many others. It is the Friar�s good intentions that wind up being the "plague" on both houses of Montague and Capulet.

When we first see Friar Lawrence, he is greeting the morning. He is about picking flowers, setting himself as a type of gardener and a master of earth�s natural potions. "I must up-fill this osier cage of ours / With baleful weeds and precious-juiced flowers. The earth, that�s nature�s mother, is her tomb." (II.ii.7-9) Lawrence is a man caught up in the beauty of things. Nature is what he takes pleasure in. He is in his own little world, surrounded by the flowers that he can so easily cause to grow against the weeds, pick when it matures and make into useful potions. When he first spots Romeo, in what may be a foreshadowing moment (if you take it as a double meaning), he says, "Within the infant rind of this weak flower / Poison hat residence�" (II.ii.23-24) I hold that there is a reason that Shakespeare has Romeo enter exactly before these lines. Romeo is, in fact, a weak-minded infant and Friar Lawrence sees him as a flower that he can tend to and bring to bear something good. But there is an eerie foreknowledge in the line "Poison hath residence" as he to this flower, Romeo. As he tends to his garden, so Friar Lawrence begins to tend to the seed planted in Romeo and Juliet. He hopes to bring about a blooming flower that not only will result in marriage between the two young lovers, but also in peace between the warring families. "For this alliance may so happy prove / To turn your household�s rancor to pure love." (II.ii.91-92) But the virtue, the good intentions behind Lawrence�s actions, will turn to evil. He fails to recognize that human beings are not so easily manipulated as the flowers he tends to. Although he councils Romeo, "Wisely and slow. They stumble that run fast." (II.ii.94), hastiness (and the lack thereof) is exactly what leads to the death of Romeo. The message sent by Lawrence to the banished Romeo regarding the sleeping Juliet is delayed. Because of the lack of the message�s delivery, Romeo, being the rash and impudent young man he is, immediately sets out to Verona with the intent of killing himself. He does so, after murdering Paris, and then Juliet, in a rash and hasty act worthy of her lover, kills herself. The alchemy of Lawrence does not result in love but in death. However, to Lawrence�s now tainted credit, the bond formed in death between the lovers does bring about the redemption of the houses in peace.

But Lawrence is not a truly sympathetic character. He is a man who has lived in a bubble his entire life and thus cannot deal with the real world. His own personal reality is very different from the reality of Verona. "�The watch is coming, / Come, go, good Juliet. I dare no longer stay." (V.iii.158-159) His cowardice at the impending light that is to be shed on his scheme is at once both sickening and understandable, for he is a weak character, in many ways as weak as the rash Romeo. He cannot mentally handle the invasion into his own little world. His scheme has crumbled, his flower has died. And so he flees back into the safety of his private reality. It is his overlooked eccentricity that is the end of life for Romeo and Juliet. Although I understand his motives, I still find them inexcusable, for he should have been an adult as he counseled Romeo; instead he snuck around as though he were Romeo and Juliet�s peer. And the result was truly tragic, turning the good intentions into a deadly deed.

Ben Chavda

Shakespeare � Titus Andronicus

"Art thou Revenge, and art thou sent to me

To be a torment to mine enemies?" (V.ii.41-42)

The glories of Rome were matched by her atrocities. In Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare paints the perfect picture of the barbarity of Rome. But the play is, at heart, a revenge tale. Vengeance belies vengeance, murder leads to murder. The aforementioned quote is perhaps what the play could be distilled into. Titus Andronicus may not be Shakespeare�s most well written plays, but it is a study in the art and psychology of revenge; this study will be a foundation for later, greater works of the playwright. But it is a formidable play on its own, violent and perverse in the nature of its characters, yet also clawing and grasping at nobility, as seen in the opposing forces of Titus and Tamora and the vengeance they wreak upon each other. The play attempts to seek out whether revenge is worth the toll it takes on one�s soul.

It has been argued that if Titus had allowed Tamora�s son Alarbus to live, then the tragedy struck upon Titus would never have occurred. In response to Tamora�s pleads for her son, Titus says, "Patient yourself, madam, and pardon me." (I.i.121) The words "pardon me" signify the fact that Titus was not a cruel soldier that some might make him out to be, but instead he went against his own conscience in giving Alarbus over to his sons for sacrifice. He asked Tamora�s forgiveness. This is the actions of a simple soldier, tired of war, but bound by the rules of duty and honor, as he has been his entire life. It is these rules that cause Titus to strike down his own son shortly thereafter. Titus is a tired soldier, but still a deadly one, and we see at this point that his obedience to the laws of his life have caused him to walk on the edge of insanity. But he does not fully cross over until later in the play.

After the many horrible torments of Tamora, a broken and insane Titus meets her and her sons in the courtyard of his home. The Gothic family take on allegorical roles for themselves, becoming personifications of Revenge, and Vengeance upon Rape and Murder, in a sick way of tormenting the general. The Goths mistake Titus� insanity to be a delirium, but he sees through their disguises and plays along. It is here he has a conversation with "Revenge," which is Tamora. She swears to be his friend, their to help him take his vengeance on his enemies. "�I am not Tamora. / She is they enemy, and I thy friend. / I am Revenge�" It is at this point that something interesting occurs. Tamora eventually leaves, but Revenge stays, in a manner of speaking. Throughout the play, we have not seen Titus personally shed the blood of Tamora�s family. It is here that Revenge truly does come, in the form of Titus as he slits the throats of the rapists.

The infamous banquet is an incredible spectacle of gore and horror. Titus serves the heads of Tamora�s sons to her in a pie, then kills her. His revenge is complete, and thus he meets his doom. Was he insane? Most assuredly, but that, I believe, is what the play is saying about revenge. To quote the Bible, "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord." Shakespeare is using this play to point out to us the horror and insanity behind revenge. Vengeance devours our souls, turning us into that which we hated. Tamora was dignified in the beginning, but her hatred at the barbarity of the Romans fueled her quest for revenge; that same quest turned her into the very thing the Romans had hailed her and her people as: barbaric. Titus, in the same way, kept a certain stoic dignity throughout his trials, but when he finally sought revenge, he became a monster capable of the most gruesome of deeds.

Revenge ultimately leaves us with nothing. It is what we may desire more than anything else in the world. Perhaps we are justified sometimes in our desire for revenge. This play is the Bard�s warning against such endeavors. They may not be futile in results, but the destruction of one�s own humanity is a high price to pay to satisfy a bloodlust.
 
 

Ben Chavda

Shakespeare� Midsummer Night�s Dream

"If we shadows have offended, / Think but this, and all is mended: / That you have but slumbered here, / While these visions did appear; / And this weak and idle theme, / No more yielding but a dream, / Gentles, do not reprehend. / If you pardon, we will mend. / And as I am an honest puck, / If we have unearned luck / Now to �scape the serpent�s tongue, / We will make amends ere long, / Else the puck a liar call. / So good night unto you all. / Give me your hands, if we be friends, / And Robin shall restore amends." (Midsummer Night�s Dream, V.Epilouge.1-16)

This is one of my favorite soliloquies in Shakespeare�s work. The lines are meant to close the play, but I think that they can be used to do exactly what they say they are meant to do: pacify any anger about whatever controversial happenings occur within Shakespeare�s plays.

The crux of the passage are these lines, "�And this weak and idle theme, / No more yielding but a dream." It speaks to the fact that the playworld is a fantasy, a place where ghosts and fairies mingle with kings and queens. A Midsummer Night�s Dream is one of the more fantastic of the plays of Shakespeare, but his writing usually delves into the world of fantasy in one way or another. What I am getting at is not that Midsummer is a fantasy, but rather all the works of Shakespeare, in one way or another, are glorified fiction. Whether the play be a history, tragedy or comedy, the fact is that Shakespeare is not really meant to be taken too seriously. At times I have to roll my eyes at the way that modern literary theorists view Shakespeare. In their desire to always make him applicable to modern audiences, they have turned much of the fun fantasy of Shakespeare into a rather troubling brew of issues, whether it be sexism, racism or another "�ism."

Consider Taming of the Shrew. Should we really be upset about the view the play takes of contentious women? Are we so easily offended and frightened of being offensive that we take up arms against a four hundred-year old play? I would offer that perhaps we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. I am not saying that the play is not sexist, indeed, it is a romp of gleeful misogynism. But that was the time it was written in. It is highly likely that women laughed just as hard at Kate�s antics as men did when it was first produced.

Take Othello or Merchant of Venice. Two excellent plays, but both filled with racism. In Merchant, the villain�and regardless of how modern artists portray Shylock, he is written as a villain�is a collection of mishmashed stereotypes about the Jewish people compressed into a conniving, murderous and greedy moneylender. Othello is a noble Moor, usually played as black and not Arabic, but ultimately falls victim to his own animalistic instincts because, despite all his good qualities, he is in the final analysis a non-European, therefore is at heart a barbaric beast. Both Shylock and Othello are at times called "devils," although Shylock is a Jewish devil and Othello is referred to as a black devil. But they are only characters in plays written for a world hundreds of years ago. While we can find meaning in the plays, should we really be offended at the actual subject material?

Sometimes those who live in the literary world hold Shakespeare on a pedestal so high that they do not want to believe that the man was a man with flaws like any other. He was in all likelihood a sexist and a racist, although not perhaps as bad as some were during his time. Modern teachers have been fired for teaching Shakespeare. Why? Because his plays challenge us. We don�t want to believe that the greatest playwright of the English language had his own faults and they showed up in his work. We must find a balance in our world of political correctness. In the film world, D.W. Griffith�s Birth of a Nation is considered a landmark of movie-making, the grandfather of modern film. But the film represents blacks as evil and gives us heroes in the form of none other than the Ku Klux Klan! While the film goes far beyond Shakespeare in the way of being offensive, can we still be blind to the fact that it is a landmark?

I am not arguing that Shakespeare is inapplicable today. Indeed, his mix of incredible characters, fantastic stories and themes that are basic to man�s very nature are what have made him survive for hundreds of years and will continue to carry him to further generations. I would argue that we as modern audiences should accept the bad of Shakespeare with the good, realizing that although he is viable today, his ideas about certain issues are not. Let us forgive Shakespeare, overlooking his flaws, because his plays were, after all, only meant for entertainment! The plays are not even realistic. They are fantasies, taking place in a world of make-believe. Can�t we just accept that?

Ben Chavda

Soliloquy Two � Titus Andronicus

"He that had wit would think that I had none,

To bury so much gold under a tree

And never after to inherit it.

Let him that thinks of me so abjectly

Know that this gold must coin a stratagem

Which, cunningly effected, will beget

A very excellent piece of villainy.

And so repose, sweet gold, for their unrest

That have their alms out of the Empress� chest." (II.iii.1-9)

I love this soliloquy because it sets up a type of villain that I hold to be the highest form of villain and the most well-written in Shakespeare: the Master Manipulator. In this play, true, Tamora is the villain, along with her sons, but it is Aaron who keeps things on track and in motion. These opening lines show him with almost everything he cares about: himself, money and evil. I like the fact that Shakespeare has Aaron refer to villainy as "excellent," for it shows a character who is completely rotten. He loves doing evil. To Aaron, evil is like a fine wine: the more refined it is, the better the appreciation of it. The very fact that he is a connoisseur of wickedness is chilling. He is the precursor to Iago, completely self-centered and content to do harm to others. We also see him with money. "Sweet gold," he calls it. It immediately sets him up to be a man who loves money. As the famous Bible quote says, "The love of money is the root of all evil." Does he love Tamora? I would argue that he does not, although he seems to care for their child.

Aaron is a wicked man, but in a way that is almost admirable. He guides and feeds every action that Tamora will make against Titus. He is always in control, manipulating the villains from behind the scenes. Why does Aaron do such a thing? For several reasons, but we can assume that being part of a good scheme of evil is pure joy to Aaron. There is a nobility to which he carries his wickedness, as if he were a player in a great game, an athlete with an uncanny ability. We admire those who have everything in control and thus Aaron is a completely perplexing and yet compelling character.
 
 

Movie Review � "Romeo + Juliet"

Bullets whiz by as a gas station explodes. Innocents flee for their lives as the Montages and the Capulets shoot it out. Tybalt, the Prince of Cats, relishes in the glorious carnage as he wages war with his Montague enemy.

The opening sequence of director Baz Luhrmann�s "Romeo + Juliet" is at the same time dazzling and stomach-churning. The extreme camera angles and constantly moving picture will make most feel like they are on a roller coaster. And this comes after a dizzying work of editing pieces of footage into what one could call "The Prologue."

It is evident within the first five minutes of this film that this is not William Shakespeare�s "Romeo and Juliet" as we have seen in the past, most notably in the Zefferelli version, but rather a story for the MTV generation of today. The film, released in 1996, was incredibly popular with the young audience, mostly due to the star power of Leonardo DiCaprio (Romeo) and Claire Daines (Juliet). Would the film have grossed as much money if it had not had starred the aforementioned stars? No. But the film deserves the money it made, because it is an experience unlike any other Shakespearean adaptation to film.

While it was not comparable to the scope and majesty of Kenneth Brannagh�s "Hamlet" or "Henry V," the film does what none have dared to do in an extreme way. Baz Luhrmann takes the Bard�s tale of two warring houses and changes almost every aspect in the tale. The story is the same: two "star-crossed lovers" from two feuding families fall in love and eventually commit suicide. But it is the art direction of the movie that is the star of this film.

The setting is Verona Beach, which is a near-future hybrid of Miami Beach and the play�s original setting. In this world, bright colors of flamboyant decadence clashes with the steel grays of industry. Two families duel as they would have in the ancient times, but in Verona Beach, they shoot at each other while riding in souped-up, futuristic cruisers.

Amazingly, Luhrmann does not corrupt the Bard�s piece while telling the story. But every nuance, every slight detail is updated. As violence is a key to the story, a modern weapon must be used, and so handguns are called broadswords, rapiers and daggers, clearly identified by wording on their grips. For Shakespeare fans, these little adaptations will either be heresy or brilliance. One of my favorite touches, much to my surprise, was the inclusion of Mercutio�s "Queen Mab" speech. In this version, Queen Mab appears to be slang for acid or a like drug.

Luhrmann wisely allows his actors to speak in American, as opposed to the pentameter that many would deem necessary. Although Shakespeare wrote primarily to be acted in pentameter, in the world of Verona Beach it would be sorely out of place. The characters are played well by the actors, with the highlight being an explosive John Leguazamo as Tybalt. Unlike Zefferelli�s snobbish and stuffy Tyblat, the Tyblat of this film is a seething cauldron of pure hatred. Leguazamo easily steals the show away from the two main characters. DiCaprio is good as Romeo, bringing a sense of wonder and his usual charisma to the screen. The same cannot be said for Claire Daines, who tries very hard to deliver her Shakespearean lines, but unfortunately it comes off as exactly that: trying too hard. Her screen presence, good in many films, is just overshadowed here by the gaudy and lavish production design and the stronger actors.

Two of the best "fat man" character actors�Paul Sorvino and Brian Dennehey�show up as Fulgenceno Capulet and Ted Montague, respectively. Note that they have been given first names in this version. Their addition is a delightful surprise to a fan of film such as myself.

Harold Perrineau shows up as Mercutio. This Mercutio is bound to frighten and offend some, for this Mercutio like to dress in drag. But it is all in fun, as Mercutio�s character remains consistent with the adaptations of the past and the general consensus about what this character should be like.

The authority figure of the original piece, Prince, is here transformed into Captain Prince (Vondie Curtis-Hall), head of the Verona Beach police force. His role is the same, but it is interesting that Luhrmann has transformed the character of Prince into the angry black police chief from many an action film. But the choice, as most of the choices of the film, work.

And now to the other characters. The Capulets and Montages are thought out very well in every aspect of design. It can be argued in the original play that there is nothing separating the two families from each other besides the names they carry, thus resulting in Juliet�s "What�s in a name?" speech. In Luhrmann�s vision, we are still given two distinct and powerful families, at war with each other because of God-know-what. But the actual families have distinctive qualities�once again due to the excellent production design. Notice the Capulets, all dark haired and Romanesque in appearance (save Claire Daines). They seem to border between either Italian or Hispanic. They wear dark colors, lots of leather, and you will see black and red everywhere. They like Roman Catholic icons (one will see religious symbols scattered throughout the film) and Tybalt actually has a picture of the Madonna on his pistol grip. The Montages, on the other hand, are fair-skinned and fair-haired, like western and northern Europeans. They wear many bright and light colors (Hawaiian shirts seem to be a favorite). Can this be Luhrmann�s not-so-subtle attempt at making the fight more than about a name? Absolutely, and in fact one can almost point to such famous on-going racial dislikes, such as traditional Irish for traditional Italian.

What is not so great about the film? Apart from the incredible design of the movie, the camera work is at times forced and uncomfortably in-your-face, and although it matches the tone of the film, it sometimes reaches ridiculous proportions (like the opening sequence). After Mercutio�s death, the film becomes almost surreal. I can see Luhrmann�s logic behind the decision, but the campy humor found in the first half of the film leaves one unprepared for the shift in the film�s feeling. The ending of the film cuts out the reconciliation scene between Montague and Capulet. The sacrifice of the young lovers is given center stage, and the tragedy becomes too heavy-handed, without the redemption found at the end of the original play.

In the final analysis, though, such complaints are rather pithy when compared to the scope and brilliance behind the look of the movie. This is the type of movie that can be muted and still be enjoyed for its cinematic scope and beauty. Of course, what does that say of the Bard�s contribution to the film? Unfortunately, this film is not about the Bard. It is about making his story accessible to those who would ultimately fear him. In a sense, the film betrays Shakespeare because, although it is faithful to him, it cinematically surpasses him, becoming its own entity. Some Shakespeare fans will despise the film for this. But, although a Shakespeare fan myself, I found it an enjoyable experience.

Ben Chavda

Shakespeare References in Modern Day Life

"And what about the Senate race here in New York? We really got screwed on that one. We had to choose between voting for a child or Lady Macbeth." �Louis Black, comedian, Late Night with Conan O�Brien �Conan O�Brien is the best of the late night comedians. I watch him religiously, and was incredibly delighted when one of his guests, Louis Black, a very funny political comedian, said this, referring to the mound of insanity and coldness that is Hillary Clinton.

"Is this the end of zombie Shakespeare?" �A dying zombie William Shakespeare in a Simpson�s Halloween Special. I�m not sure if it counts, but I couldn�t resist putting it down here.

"Something Wicked This Way Comes�" � Article on homebuying.about.com �I found this article as I was cruising the Net looking for a way to get a good price on an apartment. The article itself had nothing to do with Shakespeare.

Being an occasional actor, I ran across a pamphlet for, of all things, a Christian Ministry with a focus in the creative arts. Their name is All The World�s A Stage Ministries. I looked them up on the web at: members.aol.com/ATWASDrama

"Weather to be or not to be" � weather site on the Internet - bright.net/~lieberma/ohioweat.html �I was trying to find out the local weather and I ended up clicking on this website. Not a very good one, but hey, they quote Hamlet.

Speaking of Hamlet, as it is probably the best and most popular of Shakespeare�s plays, it is quoted a lot in our society. I wasn�t even really thinking about it, but two movies I wound up watching had references to the same speech in Hamlet, that being the "To be, or not to be�" speech. Here they are:

What Dreams May Come � 1998 film starring Robin Williams

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country �1991 continuation of the Star Trek movies. And while we are on the subject of the Bard and Star Trek, Shakespeare is a major contributor to the popular sci-fi series. Without going into specifics, here are names of Star Trek episodes taken directly from Shakespeare (I found them at ulen.com/shakespeare):

Original Series:

"All Our Yesterdays" �Macbeth

"The Conscience of the King" �Hamlet

"By Any Other Name" �Romeo and Juliet

"Dagger of the Mind" � Macbeth

Animated Series:

"How Sharper than a Serpent's Tooth" �King Lear

Next Generation:

"Sins of the Father" -- Merchant of Venice
 
 

I, like many Americans, enjoy reading my news, especially Time Magazine. So are tried to keep my eyes open for any and all references to William Shakespeare. Some I found in Time itself, others (like the European Time article) came from the website at time.com/time.

"But her younger brother and most of her male friends seemed more inclined to act like Falstaff than to study Shakespeare." � from "The Male Minority;" Time Magazine�December 2000 issue. The article was about the attempts to educate the non-intellectual gender (yes, men.)

"Koetsu's is as new a species in spacing as Shakespeare's is a new species in drama." � from "The Subtle Magic of Koetsu;" Time Magazine�October 23, 2000 issue. This article was regarding the work of Japanese artist Koetsu.

"Live theater performances, including Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida at the Opera House, came to a halt while a big screen showed a particularly anticipated race." �from "Laugh Track;" Time Magazine�October 9, 2000 issue. A particularly funny article about the humor that Australian fans and announcers brought to the Sydney games.

"Armstrong's sessions with his Hot Five and Hot Seven bands quickly elevated him to national renown. They are to jazz (to American popular music in all forms, really) what Shakespeare's plays are to English literature: both the never fading banner of pure genius and the foundation for everything that came later." �from "Pops Is Still On Tops. Oh Yeah!" Time Magazine�August 28, 2000 issue. Long live Louis Armstrong. This article deals with a resurgence of jazz in mainstream America.

"The narrator is himself a traitor. Writing from the perspective of 10 years after the events in the novel, Henry Shaw relates how at 17 he stumbled into his mother�s e-mail file, discovered messages to and from her lover, and over the course of the next year clandestinely monitored and saved the e-mail traffic from their affair. His agony over his mother�s adultery and his agonizing over what to do make him a kind of Hamlet in cyberspace." �from "Autumn Books: Literary Fiction;" �a special for MSNBC.com. Some really interesting books here, including the above mentioned one, and a little book entitled Mrs. Shakespeare, which is a fictional diary of Anne Hathaway. The book shows Anne as shrewish and prudish at times, but also with a wit and charm about her. The conclusion of the book intends to answer why Shakespeare left Anne his "second-best bed" in his will.

"The referendum has produced some strange bedfellows, with far-left parties sharing the negative view with right-wing extremists." �from "Decisive Danes;" Time Magazine Europe�September 18, 2000 issue. If I were writing this article, I would have been very tempted to use "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark," somewhere. Truth be told, I saw the word "Dane," and I immediately began scanning for the "rotten" line, but it didn�t come. However, I found the phrase "strange bedfellows," which is taken from The Tempest