Book Note (Short Story Note, Really): "The Missing Shakespeare Manuscript"

de la Torre, Lillian. "The Missing Shakespeare Manuscript." In Golden Age Bibliomysteries, edited by Otto Penzler. Penzler Publishers, 2023. 162–92.

---

As I'm sure you also do, I was spending some idle time checking the "Shakespeare" entries in various reference works. While doing so, I came across an entry for a short Shakespeare-releated mystery story that looked interesting. Lillian de la Torre's "The Missing Shakespeare Manuscript" is set during the time of the Shakespeare Jubilee in 1769 and involves the imagined staging of Caractacus; or, the British Hero, a previously-lost Shakespeare play. And the famous Dr. Johnson serves the role of detective.

"Lead me to it, governor," I said, and requested the 2023 volume Golden Age Bibliomysteries, where it's been anthologized (it was first published in 1946) .  

I'm writing this post for two reasons. First, now that classes and grading are nearly over for the semester, I hope to follow the general principle "Write about the Shakespeare you encounter as quickly as possible." Second, I'd like to advise you not to bother with this one.

The story is written with a lot of pseudo-eighteenth-century (and extremely affected) language modeled on James Boswell's Life of Johnson (Boswell here serves as Watson to Johnson's Holmes). I knew I was in trouble two pages in.

And the entire narrative doesn't hold together. The reasons for the manuscript's absence just don't work. And even if it did, it's narrated in such a clunky way as to make it much more tedious than enjoyable.

Here are the first few pages as an example of what we're faced with in this story:

I'm trying to be meticulous in not providing spoilers, but if anyone would like to talk about the details of the story, let's do so in the comments, away from those who would rather not know.

---

Click below to purchase the book from amazon.com
(and to support Bardfilm as you do so).

Incidental Julius Caesar in the Scottish Episode of VeggieTales

MacLarry and the Stinky Cheese Battle. Dir. Mike Nawrocki. Perf. Mike Nawrocki, Phil Vischer, Henry Haggard, Jim Poole, Cydney Trent, and Brian Roberts. 2013. DVD. Big Idea Recorded (B.I. Owned), 2013.

---

Assuming that you've all read all of Bardfilm, I know that you know about the VeggieTales Hamlet (for which, q.v.).

Since that was fairly interesting, I was excited when someone mentioned MacLarry and the Stinky Cheese Battle. And that excitement grew when I saw the kilts and rough medieval costumes on the cover of the DVD. "What will they make of Macbeth?" I thought. "Will Lady Macsparagus have trouble getting tomato juice off her [admittedly non-existent] hands?"

Alas, although there are plenty of references to Scots and Scotland (and many Scottish accents), I found nothing that connected to Shakespeare's Scottish play—not even in "Silly Songs with MacLarry" (actually titled "Silly Songs with Scottish Larry") where it might have been most appropriate.

Instead, I found a quote from Julius Caesar (for inexplicable reasons, the key conflict is between the Romans and the Scots). Here it is:

There you have it: "Friends, Romans, Country fans," together with a very Kenneth Branaghesque visual annotation of each of those categories—wrapped up with a vegetable joke. It's not much, but it's at least something!

---

Links: The Film at IMDB.

Click below to purchase the film from amazon.com
(and to support Bardfilm as you do so).

Shakespeare (Mostly Incidental) in How I Met Your Mother

“Milk.” By Carter Bays and Craig Thomas. Perf. Josh Radnor, Jason Segel, Cobie Smulders, Neil Patrick Harris, Alyson Hannigan, Charlene Amoia, America Olivo, Carter Bays, and Craig Thomas. Dir. Pamela Fryman. How I Met Your Mother. Season 1, episode 21. CBS. 8 May 2006. DVD. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2018.

---

“Benefits.” By Kourtney Kang. Perf. Josh Radnor, Jason Segel, Cobie Smulders, Neil Patrick Harris, Alyson Hannigan, and Kim Kardashian. Dir. Kourtney Kang. How I Met Your Mother. Season 4, episode 12. CBS. 12 January 2009. DVD. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2018.

---

“The Exploding Meatball Sub.” By Stephen Lloyd. Perf. Josh Radnor, Jason Segel, Cobie Smulders, Neil Patrick Harris, Alyson Hannigan, and Jennifer Morrison. Dir. Pamela Fryman. How I Met Your Mother. Season 6, episode 20. CBS. 11 April 2011. DVD. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2018.

---

“The Stinson Missile Crisis.” By Kourtney Kang. Perf. Josh Radnor, Jason Segel, Cobie Smulders, Neil Patrick Harris, and Alyson Hannigan. Dir. Pamela Fryman. How I Met Your Mother. Season 7, episode 4. CBS. 3 October 2011. DVD. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2018.

---

“The Broath.” By Carter Bays and Craig Thomas. Perf. Josh Radnor, Jason Segel, Cobie Smulders, Neil Patrick Harris, and Alyson Hannigan. Dir. Pamela Fryman. How I Met Your Mother. Season 7, episode 19. CBS. 19 March 2012. DVD. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2018.

---

“Bedtime Stories.” By Carter Bays and Craig Thomas. Perf. Josh Radnor, Jason Segel, Cobie Smulders, Neil Patrick Harris, Alyson Hannigan, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Christopher Darga, and Michael C. Mahon. Dir. Pamela Fryman. How I Met Your Mother. Season 9, episode 11. CBS. 25 November 2013. DVD. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2018.

---

Thanks are due to ShakespeareGeek for calling my attention to some of these incidental Shakespeare references in the long-running sit-com How I Met Your Mother. I found the others on my own through doggedly watching my way through the show, which I had heard of when it was being aired but never seen before.

Now that I've finished the entire run of the show, it's time to review the Shakespeare it offers. For other shows, I might have posted six separate posts, but I found myself not having too much to say about any one of these on its own. The great Kenneth Rothwell, in his classification of Shakespeare derivatives (for which, q.v.), has a category called "Parasitical." Works in that group "will exploit Shakespeare for embellishment, and / or graft brief visual or verbal quotations onto an otherwise unrelated scenario” (209). Although How I Met Your Mother certainly uses Shakespeare in this way, I feel that its intention isn't the negligible or manipulative one implied in Rothwell's "Parasitical" grouping. Indeed, it seems to ask for an additional category, and I propose "Incidental Shakespeare."

I found How I Met Your Mother to be very cleverly written (and to contain at least one very annoying, very objectionable character, but that's by the way), and its use of Shakespeare is both casual—the way Lord Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane simply have Shakespeare as part of their everyday vocabulary) and obscure. They're not trying to raise the tone of the show by throwing a Shakespeare sop to the Cerberus of Shakespeare aficionados; it's just naturally a part of the cleverness of the writing and of the characters.

Here, then, are the relevant Shakespeare allusions in How I Met Your Mother compiled in the clip below. I'll offer a bit of context first, and then you may enjoy them all the more. Note: None of these contain major spoilers, but there may be some minor ones. Continue at your own risk.

The first Shakespeare reference comes in a Season One episode entitled "Milk." Barney (the annoying, objectionable character alluded to earlier) has concocted an elaborate pick-up line that involves hiring actors to play the role of paramedics. The Shakespeare comes when he mentions the play they're doing locally: Troilus and Cressida. It's not one of the most well-known plays, and perhaps the joke is all the funnier for that. Note: The men playing the paramedics are also the writers credited on this episode.

In "Benefits," Marshall struggles to overcome his reluctance and embarrassment about using the bathroom at work. When he's achieved that end, he's commended by Kim Kardashian (appearing on the cover of his magazine) with a quote from Shakespeare: "Virtue is bold, and goodness never fearful." Again, this is marvelously obscure. It's a line spoken by the Duke in Measure for Measure (for those of you keeping track, it's Act III, scene i, line 208). Note: The clip below has a typo in the episode number—it should be episode 12, not episode 2. Needing space on my hard drive, I had already erased the files before starting this post, and recreating it all from scratch would have been overwhelmingly onerous. I apologize.

The issue raised in "The Exploding Meatball Sub" is near and dear to the work Bardfilm does. Ted and his then-girlfriend Zoe are arguing over whether a film is a derivative of a Shakespeare play or of some other classic work of literature. I'll let you watch that one for the details and the humorous reveal. Note: Despite some internet chatter on the subject, the Shakespeare play in question is not Hamlet.

By the time we get to "The Stinson Missile Crisis," we have learned that (minor spoiler) Marshall and Lily are having a baby. Ted very much wants to be on "Team Baby," and he can't recognize that, in this as (possibly) in other ways, he's a third wheel to Lily and Marshall. In his defense, he offers famous trios that wouldn't be the same without the third element: "Salt and Pepper and Cumin" is one; "Romeo and Juliet and the Apothecary" is another. Note: I've extended this clip a bit beyond the mere Shakespeare because I admire the work that went into the Famous Trio Halloween Costumes.

And then we have "The Broath," whose title is a play on the idea of a "Bro Code" that men are supposed to follow. Playing on the same idea, we get a bit of Julius Caesar.

Finally, we get one Shakespeare quote in a Dr. Seuss-like poem that Marshall is telling (minor spoiler) his baby to keep him quiet on a long bus ride. There's nothing wrong with a little Henry V . . . and, yes, that is Lin-Manuel Miranda. Note: I've let this one go on beyond the Shakespeare to show him and to wrap up the rhyme scheme.

With all that in mind, give all those Shakespeare references a try:

Perhaps "Incidental Shakespeare" isn't quite right either. "Pervasive Shakespeare" might fit better. 

But whatever you call it, it shows that Shakespeare is still useful and relevant.

---

Links: The Series on IMDB.

Click below to purchase the complete run of the show from amazon.com
(and to support Bardfilm as you do so).

George Haggerty's Hamburger Hamlet

Hamburger Hamlet. Dir. George Haggerty. Perf. Stacy Keach and Harris Yulin. 1975. DVD. Screen Edg, 2017.

---

I found this film listed in a bibliography somewhere, and I managed to convince my library to purchase it.

George Haggerty's avant-garde film is something of a visualization of Jorge Luis Borges' short story "Everything and Nothing" (for which, q.v.). The narration of the film is from Borges' brief, poetical, biographical sketch of Shakespeare's life. It ends with a suddenly-disenchanted Shakespeare giving up acting and writing and retiring—yet, even in retirement, he is unable not to play a part.

Haggerty's envisioning of Borges' idea can be found in its title: "Hamburger" stands for pop culture, commercial enterprise (the literal marketing campaigns of the 1970s), and low-brow entertainment; "Hamlet" stands for high art, pretentious culture, and even (I imagine) avant-garde films like Hamburger Hamlet. 

The plot seems to take us through a day in the life of a modern Shakespeare. We follow an actor (who is made to look roughly like various portraits of Shakespeare) as he watched TV, goes grocery shopping, and puts on a production of Hamlet in which he plays Hamlet. But we only see him in the dressing room between scenes.

I've extracted a bit from the film to give you an idea of how Haggerty works with his source material:

I'm very fond of how, Tom Stoppard–like, we see the part of a production of Hamlet we don't ordinarily see. I also like the wind-up skull and how that image of the departed Yorick becomes replicated and duplicated in the cars on an LA freeway—especially the VW Beetles of that era, which look remarkably like wind-up Yorick skulls. And I appreciate the way Borges' words are overwritten by 1970s advertisements.

---

Links: The Film at IMDB.

Click below to purchase the film from amazon.com
(and to support Bardfilm as you do so).

Book Note: Much Ado About Numbers

Eastaway, Rob. Much Ado About Numbers. The Experiment, 2024

---

I received this book for Christmas, and I read it almost immediately. In addition to indicating how far behind I am in my Book Notes, that also indicates the book's staying power—it remains clear in my memory even after so many months.

The book contains examples of how Shakespeare uses numbers, and that's interesting enough, but of particular interest to me was how maths was developing under Shakespeare's very eyes.

For example, here's an exploration of how the digit "cypher" (we might call it "zero") was coming into use in Europe during Shakespeare's life:

I also found a couple of charts in the book very useful. Here are the relative values of coins mentioned in Shakespeare's works:

And here's something I made a stab at (and then abandoned as being hopelessly complicated and uncertain) in my graduate student days: 

I'm a Shakespeare fan, not a mathematician, but the mathematical concepts and the Shakespeare were very well presented. Whichever way your interests lie (or if, like ShakespeareGeek, they lie in both camps), this book will be fascinating and valuable to you.

---

Click below to purchase the book from amazon.com
(and to support Bardfilm as you do so).

Just Shoot Me and the Humorous Approach to King Lear

“King Lear Jet.” By Danny Zuker. Perf. Laura San Giacomo, George Segal, Enrico Colantoni, David Spade, Carmen Electra, and Wendie Malick. Dir. Lee Shallat Chemel. Just Shoot Me. Season 2, episode 5. NBC. 11 November 1997. DVD. Shout! Factory, 2017.

---

I watched this some time ago and immediately (and too hastily . . . and inaccurately) classified it as "Parasitical Shakespeare"—using Shakespeare as window dressing, grabbing a recognizable title and employing it for nothing more than a quick joke or for the cultural cashet it implies. 

On a second viewing, I realized that I was wrong.

On a third viewing, I realized I couldn't be more wrong!

In the "King Lear Jet" episode of Just Shoot Me, we're provided with a careful integration of the plot of King Lear into the existing elements of the show. Perhaps my unfamiliarity with the show itself was what led me to dismiss the episode so easily.

The plot involves the relationship between Jack Gallo, the owner of a fashion magazine, and Maya Gallo, his daughter and an employee. Maya is tired of being called silly pet names by her boss (who is also her dad), and asks that she not be given preferential treatment. Taking this advice to heart, Jack gives tickets to King Lear to Nina (another writer for the magazine) and Elliot (one of the magazine's photographers), not realizing that they are far more interested in flying to London on a private jet than in seeing Shakespeare at the National Theatre.

These three, then, stand in for Lear's daughters, and the plot of the show follows the plot of the play—though in comic rather than tragic fashion.

The clip below provides the relevant portions of the show. Maya explains the plot of King Lear, and this is interspersed with events in the world of the show (which I've largely excised). The one other thing you need to know before viewing the clip is that Jack has lately installed a remote-control power door to his office and that it's malfunctioning to a greater and greater degree as the episode progresses.

The show provides an intriguing humorous version of King Lear, leaving out neither the flattery involved in answering "Which of you shall we say doth love us most?" nor the Storm (both literal and allegorical).

I'm particularly fond of how the people in the bar (or café?—I'm still not familiar with the broader outlines of the show) become increasingly captivated by the plot of King Lear—showing that it is anything but boring. I also admire the choice not to have a typically-happy sitcom ending. We would expect that Maya, the Cordelia analogue, would somehow get to see the National Theatre production of King Lear. Instead, all three "daughters" are deprived of the opportunity. But we also get a happy ending—in which Dennis Finch, Jack's executive assistant, manages the double victory of seeing King Lear and seeing it with Carmen Electra.

One Additional Note: The quote Maya delivers (contrary to many websites on this episode) is not from King Lear. It's from Richard III: 

Your grace attended to their sugar'd words,

But look'd not on the poison of their hearts

God keep you from them, and from such false friends! (III.i.13–15)

---

Links: The Episode at IMDB.

Click below to purchase the entire run of the show from amazon.com
(and to support Bardfilm as you do so).

Book Note: All Our Yesterdays

Morris, Joel H. All Our Yesterdays: A Novel of Lady Macbeth. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 2024.

---

I'm afraid I have one more Macbeth novelization that's been on a lot of "Best Modern Shakespearean Novels" lists lately. 

Queen Macbeth tells the uninspiring (but historically-accurate—it claims) story of Lady Macbeth and her child (Macbeth's, but conceived when she was married to someone else).

In All Our Yesterdays, the child is Lady Macbeth's and her then-husband's, but he is raised by Macbeth as an adopted son once Macbeth and Lady Macbeth marry.

Unlike Queen Macbeth, this novel doesn't claim to be fixing the historical errors in Shakespeare's play. But, like Queen Macbeth, All Our Yesterdays is a very dull account of what might be quite a fascinating backstory for the plot Shakespeare gives us. The Lady Macbeth Analogue is called "The Lady" throughout; her son is called "The Boy." This has the (intentional?) effect of distancing us from them rather than the (more justifiably-intentional) effect of making them universal characters.

All Our Yesterdays is just as tedious as Queen Macbeth, but it's much longer.

I'm sorry, but I cannot recommend this novel.

---

Click below to purchase the book from amazon.com

(if you must, you must)
and to support Bardfilm as you do so.

Book Note: Queen Macbeth

McDermid, Val. Queen Macbeth. Atlantic Monthly Press, 2024.

---

Here at Bardfilm, we try to stay abreast of Shakespearean output of various kinds, and that includes Modern Shakespearean Fiction. Usually, we only take the time to comment on Shakespeare-related novels that have a fair bit of interest and / or enjoyment. When we read one that's not so great, we generally set it aside and don't mention it. It just seems polite.

But sometimes a book shows up somewhat-inexplicably on a number of "Top Shakespeare-Related Novels." In such a case, it's only polite to point out that it really doesn't need to be so highly rated.

That's the case with Queen Macbeth. I requested it from the library after seeing it on at least two "Top [However Many] Shakespeare Novels" lists.

In my view, it's not that good.

 

Queen Macbeth is intended to be a more accurate history of the historical Lady Macbeth than we get from Shakespeare. That's its main selling point. However, though there many be some parts that are rooted in history—and though there are certainly many plot points that differ from Shakespeare's play—there's much that's debatable at best and highly speculative at best. Did the historical Macbeth actually unite all of Scotland under his banner of freedom and peace? Well, arguably. Did Lady Macbeth have a child by Macbeth while married to another man? I suppose it could have happened that way. But if you're presenting your book as providing the true story of Lady Macbeth (or a novelization of the true story of Lady Macbeth), your audience will probably expect a fair bit of historically-reliable background material.

But, really, a novel that goes those directions could be quite interesting.  Instead, this novel is mainly just tedious. Yes, it's mercifully brief, but it's also lackluster and plodding. "Tedious and brief?" you ask. "Like the Pyramus and Thisbe play in Midsummer Night's Dream?" Yes, except it lacks the humor and interest and clever use of language that the Rude Mechanicals bring to their retelling of that age-old story.

Unfortunately, this isn't the only retelling of Macbeth that has been (in my view, undeservedly) making its way on to "Best of" lists. But more on that later.

---

Click below to purchase the book from amazon.com

(if you really have to)
and to support Bardfilm as you do so.

The Careful Integration of Julius Caesar into Star Trek: Deep Space Nine—Together with a Five-Star Review of Star Trek: The Next Conversation

“Improbable Cause.” By René Echevarria. Perf. Avery Brooks, Rene Auberjonois, Alexander Siddig, Terry Farrell, Colm Meaney, Nana Visitor, Andrew Robinson, Carlos Lacamara, Joseph Ruskin, Darwyn Carson, Julianna McCarthy, and Paul Dooley. Dir. Avery Brooks. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Season 3, episode 20. Syndicated television. 24 April 1995. DVD. Paramount Pictures Home Entertainment, 2021.

---

“The Die is Cast.” By Ronald D. Moore. Perf. Avery Brooks, Rene Auberjonois, Alexander Siddig, Terry Farrell, Colm Meaney, Nana Visitor, Andrew Robinson, Carlos Lacamara, Joseph Ruskin, Darwyn Carson, Julianna McCarthy, and Paul Dooley. Dir. David Livingston. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Season 3, episode 21. Syndicated television. 1 May 1995. DVD. Paramount Pictures Home Entertainment, 2021.

---

I recently mentioned that I've been listening to Star Trek: The Next Conversation, a highly-enjoyable Star Trek rewatch podcast, and am currently trekking with them through Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. 

As my Grandmother Jones used to say, I told you that to tell you this.

Late in Season Three, we're presented with a two-part episode that begins (quite promisingly, from Bardfilm's point of view) with some Shakespeare. That's not too unusual, and, since the episode aired on the day after Shakespeare's 431st birthday, quite fitting. But I was disappointed and unsatisfied. After all, it seems like mere filler to show the ongoing quasi-antagonistic relationship between Garak (a Cardassian who might or might not be a spy) and Doctor Bashir, a member of the Federation (which has, at this point, a queasy peace with the Cardassians). Here's all the Shakespeare we get in the episode:

Not much there, right? That could have been a conversation about Ernest Hemingway or Emily Dickinson or Erma Bombeck, couldn't it?

After a fashion, that's accurate. But we get a deep payoff toward the end of the second episode of this two-parter, and it's exactly what Star Trek, at its best, does with Shakespeare.

Note: From this point forward, spoilers abound.

The plot of “Improbable Cause," the first episode, involves Odo, Deep Space Nine's Constable (a.k.a. Chief Security Officer) investigating an explosion at Garak's shop. [Side note: Garak has been exiled from Cardassia for mysterious reasons and has set up shop as a tailor on Deep Space Nine—which is, in itself, somewhat suspicious.] Odo suspects Garak of having blown up his shop himself, but it's also possible that he's been the victim of an attempted assassination. When the two of them learn that many former members of the Obsidian Order, a secret police force of sorts, have recently been killed, they set off to find Enabran Tain, who was very high up in the Order—and responsible for Garak's exile.

Garak and Odo find Enabran Tain, who was, indeed, responsible for eliminating many of his former colleagues and underlings in the Obsidian Order. In doing so, he was setting the stage for a political and military power play. Because Garak betrayed him in the past, Tain doesn't trust that Garak's interests and his own (which he equates to those of Cardassia) coincide. However, he offers Garak a chance to join him. Even though doing so works directly against the Federation, Garak does so.

The second episode is entitled "The Die is Cast," and its plot increases the intrigue. In fact, it gets very complicated indeed. Essentially, the Cardassians and the Romulans, historic enemies of the Federation, have joined forces to do battle with the Founders (a.k.a. the Dominion, a.k.a. [sort of] the Jem'Hadar), brand-new enemies. And Garak has cast his lot (or "die," I suppose) with Enabran Tain and Cardassia.

But that's where Julius Caesar comes back. It's themes of trust and betrayal have actually been running subtly throughout the entire two-parter. In the clip below, we find out that it's all been a trap for the Cardassians and the Romulans. We join in the middle of a very one-sided battle:

Although Garak wasn't the mastermind behind the trap (and hasn't betrayed Enabran Tain in that way), he has been working to protect Odo—you can see him sneaking off to save Odo in the last moments of the clip.

What seemed to be a tangental and throwaway use of Shakespeare turns out to be the underlying structural element of the entire two-part narrative! When we go back to the first minute of the first episode with the second episode in mind, Garak's "I knew Brutus was going to kill Caesar in the first act" makes us consider whether we should have known that Garak would betray Enabran Tain from the beginning of the two-parter. That's the use Star Trek can make of Shakespeare if it puts its mind to it.

Which brings me to Star Trek: The Next Conversation. In order to belong to their prestigious "Admirals' Club," a listener must post a five-star review somewhere where it's likely to be seen. And I've decided I'd like to be a member of that club.

Star Trek: The Next Conversation is a five-star podcast. Matt Mira and Andrew Secunda, its hosts, have taken listeners through the entirety of Star Trek: The Next Generation, which Matt had watched—and watched deeply—many, many times while Andrew had seen few (if any) episodes before the podcast began. The podcast is currently making its way through Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The thrilling experience of seeing Star Trek in all its forms through their eyes cannot be duplicated elsewhere, especially given the devoted listener contributions (the creation of theme songs and other hilarious material by fans of the show), the many "inside baseball" insights from two television writers, and odd-but-enjoyable segments like the strangely-compelling "Frank Sinatra? Come on!" bit where Matt and Andy recount what the Chairman of the Board was doing on the release date of many episodes.

If there's one part of this otherwise-flawless podcast that could be improved, it is the hosts' engagement with the Shakespeare offered by Star Trek. It's almost as if they haven't read carefully through Bardfilm's vast collection of Shakespeare references in Star Trek found in the post Shakespeare and Star Trek Complete or discovered that my work compiling those references has earned me the nickname "Chairman of the Bard." On occasion, the Shakespeare is incidental to Star Trek. But in the case of “Improbable Cause” and “The Die is Cast," understanding the Shakespeare is integral to appreciating the episodes. In their most recent episode, for example, Star Trek: The Next Conversation gave “Improbable Cause” fewer than a full ten Andies (their rating system)—in part because they felt the opening sequence had nothing to do with the rest of the story. I hope that their next episode will re-consider that rating now that the second episode of the two-parter has make the Shakespeare reference intensely relevant to the show as a whole. Paying greater attention to the Shakespeare will make this five-star podcast even more rich and strange (see what I did there?—that's a quote from The Tempest).

---

Links: The Episode at IMDB. Subscribe to Star Trek: The Next Conversation.

For more connections between Star Trek and Shakespeare, head to Shakespeare and Star Trek Complete.

Click below to purchase the DVDs from amazon.com

(and to support Bardfilm as you do so).

The 2025 Midsummer Night's Dream at the Guthrie Theatre

Midsummer Night’s Dream. Dir. Joseph Haj. Perf. John Catron, Regina Marie Williams, Jimmy Kieffer, William Sturdivant, Ari Derambakhsh, Justin Withers, Jonathan Luke Stevens, Royer Bockus, William Sturdivant, Remy Auberjonois, Max Wojtanowicz, Kimberly Richardson, Dustin Bronson, and Aimee K. Bryant. Guthrie Theatre Company. Minneapolis. 1 February—23 March 2025.

---

I had hoped to complete this review before the show completed its run, but, thinking it over, it wasn't a production that I would have felt compelled to urge you to see.

That's not to say it was a bad play—just that it had few points of interest or inspiration.

I've seen two other productions of Midsummer Night's Dream at the Guthrie: One in 2008 (for which, q.v.) and one in 2015 (for which, q.v.).  Both those productions raised interesting questions and made interesting decisions. They had quite a bit of humor and play—play with the lines and play with the characters.

This production was lacking in those elements. The main interesting choice I remember came in Act I. When Theseus says, "Come, my Hippolyta: what cheer, my love?" Hippolyta crossed to Hermia and clasped hands with her before following Theseus off. Later, in Act IV, Theseus again says, "Come, Hippolyta," and then exits with him—much more happily. It's one of the points to watch for in any production; this one was subtle, but it was a clear and interesting decision.

The other memorable part was the play-within-the-play. I'm afraid I need to quote Polonius here: "This is too long." I like a Shakespeare production that keeps the audience from looking at its collective watch, and I'm usually very fond of the Pyramus and Thisbe part. But it seemed like this production made that the focal point of the entire show. What's written as a supplemental plot, one that can usefully underline elements of the main plot, became the main plot toward which the rest of the action seems to build. And its length made it border on the tedious—despite some very funny moment—including Wall breaking into a remarkably soulful and profound song about being a wall.

The sets were beautiful—especially in the woods outside Athens:

All things considered, the production just didn't do much with Midsummer Night's Dream. It wouldn't be fair to say that it's like the production that is underway at the beginning of Slings & Arrows, but it's certainly more in that direction than past productions at the Guthrie.

---

Links: Information about the show at the Guthrie website.

The 2025 Hamlet at the Royal Shakespeare Company

Hamlet. Dir. Rupert Goold. Perf. Luke Thallon, Jared Harris, Nancy Carroll, Anton Lesser, Elliot Levey, and Nia Towle. Royal Shakespeare Company. Stratford-upon-Avon, UK. Until 29 March 2025; touring in a limited way thereafter.

---

Finding myself by chance* in the U.K., I decided I would make my way to Stratford-upon-Avon and, after seeing the biographical Shakespeare sites, take in the latest Royal Shakespeare Company Production.

The plot is set on board a ship—not that it's fully realized. We're not told that we're on board the Good Ship Elsinore on route from anywhere to anywhere else. Instead, the setting becomes a metaphor for the Ship of State of Denmark floundering and eventually sinking.

Making this more powerful, the entire elongated rectangle of the stage is on hydraulics, enabling it to tilt up to a pretty astonishing forty-five degrees (at a rough estimate). 

Moreover, the stage was generally pretty bare, with two larger hatches surrounded by guardrails at the front and back of the deck of the ship. These led to steep stairway exits and entrances. An image take from by seat before the performance began will illustrate this:

In addition to the two large hatches, there were a number of small square hatches through which actors could enter and exit. These were largely used between scenes by those clearing the stage and setting up something new—or just by those scurrying about in a panic as the ship gets closer to sinking.

The back of the performance space was a screen that often had projected images of a stormy sea (as in the opening image of this post) or portholes (for interior scenes) or vast machinery (for really interior scenes).

All of that made for an absolutely stunning visual experience.

[Spoilers follow.]

But the danger with such a set is that it can become gimmicky. Too much relies upon the staging, and that can make the performances—or the interpretation of the play—take a back seat.

That's almost the case here—but only almost. The actors are tremendous in their roles, but their choices are very nearly superseded by the set.

I'm going to wrap this up quickly by listing some of the most memorable choices the production made so I can post this before the show closes.

Luke Thallon's Hamlet

This Hamlet is genuinely insane most of the time. There are many reasons I'd like to re-watch it, and one of them is to see if he ever says anything about putting on an antic disposition. I don't think he did, but my memory may be unreliable (especially when jet lag and a series of trains from Liverpool are part of the equation). Whether that's there or not, there are many times when he genuinely loses control (I'll mention one a bit later). At other times, he becomes conversational with the audience, genuinely asking us to respond to his question "Am I a coward?" It was very effective.

Nia Towle's Ophelia

This Ophelia is stronger than most. During the play-within-the-play scene, she gives back to Hamlet better than she gets. And when this Polonius treats her like a little girl—still playing the dad games he did when she was six—she is offended.

Burials at Sea

The play opens with Hamlet's father's funeral; his corpse is buried at sea over the back of the stage with military rituals. Then Claudius exits through the downstage set of stairs. At that point, Hamlet is very near the audience with his back to us. The look Claudius give him as he exits was chilling.

Ophelia, too, is buried at sea. I suppose that's one way of dealing with the question of whether she should be buried in "ground unsanctified."

Double-Casting: The Ghost and the First Player

This might have been nothing more than a practical choice, but this Hamlet does more with it. When the First Player shows up, Hamlet loses his mind completely. He thinks he sees his father. Hamlet recovers relatively quickly, but the resonance of that remains.

Gravedigger Scene

When everyone's buried at sea, you don't really need a gravedigger, and you also have some trouble rationalizing the appearance of a skull from many years ago. Here, the First Player is clearing out some theatrical properties—tossing them overboard. And that motivates the scene.

The Willow Speech

Hamlet is rife with images of water and nautical expressions ("About, my brain" springs to mind), and (another spoiler here) Ophelia drowns. But there are no willows or brooks aboard. Again, I wish I could go back to see it again for the details (I can't remember the exact chronology), but Gertrude is, very interestingly, given a modified version of Clarence's speech about dreaming of drowning from Richard III. It's certainly relevant, and it gives insight into Ophelia's possible state of mind as she drowns.

How the Dead Exit

In the final scene, the stage was titled to its full extent; this allowed the corpses to roll off the front of the  and (presumably) walk away from there. I don't have much more to say about that, but it's a convenient way to clear an already-sparse stage from the corpses that would otherwise litter it.

The Ghost Who Isn't

In the text of Hamlet, the ghost re-appears in Act III, scene iv (after Polonius' death and a lot of confrontation in the closet). In this production, he doesn't. Hamlet response to the lines the ghost would have spoken, but he delivers those lines into a mirror.  It's an interesting choice that adds to our understanding of just how insane this Hamlet is.

There's a lot more to be said about this production, but I do want to let people know about it before it closes. And, should you find yourself in the U.K., go see it—and report back on the places where my own memory is unreliable.

You can also watch a trailer for the production here!

*It was actually thanks to a generous grant from the Faculty Development Committee at the University of Northwestern—St. Paul for a project in which another faculty member and I were able to take three students double-majoring in English and Theatre to Liverpool to work on performing Shakespeare—both individually and with the students of Liverpool Hope University. 

---

Links: The Show at the RSC.

Love's Labour's Lost at the Shakespeare North Playhouse

Love's Labour's Lost. Adapted by Elizabeth Godber and Nick Lane. Dir. Paul Robinson. Perf. Alice Imelda, David Kirkbridge, Thomas Cotran, Alyce Liburd, Linford Johnson, Annie Kirkman, Jo Patmore, and Timothy Adam Lucas. Produced by Shakespeare North Playhouse and Stephen Joseph Theatre. 7–22 March 2025.

---

Thanks to a generous grant from the Faculty Development Committee at the University of Northwestern—St. Paul, another faculty member and I were able to take three students double-majoring in English and Theatre to Liverpool to work on performing Shakespeare—both individually and with the students of Liverpool Hope University. 

As part of the week's activities, we were able to go to the relatively-new Shakespeare North Playhouse to hear their vision for the theatre and to see their production of Love's Labour's Lost.

The physical theatre is quite remarkable. It's a replica of the Cockpit-in-Court Theatre designed by John Webb, protégé of Inigo Jones. You can find much more fascinating information about the new theatre, its design and construction, and its uses in The Shakespeare North Playhouse: Replica Theatres and their Uses (edited by Tim Keenan, Routledge, 2024). 

The vision for the theatre is impressive, and the programs we were told about cover a wide range of activities, both entertaining and educational, that are designed to serve the people of Prescott (the theatre's home) rather than the other way around.

I could say much more about all of that, but I don't want to lose the opportunity to promote the current show at Shakespeare North.

The Love's Labour's Lost we saw has the subtitle (More or Less). It's Shakespearean in its plot and in its fun play with language (much of the dialogue is in rhymed couplets), but it's a loose retelling of Love's Labour's Lost rather than a staging of Shakespeare's words. It also incorporates quite a number of popular songs from the 1980s and 1990s to tell its story.

And it's really quite marvelous and exciting. The eight actors take us on a whirlwind journey with every one of Shakespeare's plot twists (and a few of their own), and we were enthralled from beginning to end.

If you're in the UK, book your tickets now. It's a show well worth seeing—even if you have to travel a distance to do so!

I'll leave you with a few pictures of the theatre itself (note the prominent disco ball, please). 

Go see the show. You won't regret it!

Bonus: The production has put together a Spotify playlist of the songs they sing (in whole or in part) during the show. When you get to Cher's "The Shoop Shoop Song (It's in his Kiss)" imagine our three male leads performing it—each dressed as Cher. If you're undecided or skeptical, that may give you just the push you need to book your tickets!

---

Links: Shakespeare North Playhouse. Tickets for the performance.

Click below to purchase Tim Keenan's book from Amazon

(and to support Bardfilm as you do so).

Book Note: Practice

Brown, Rosalind. Practice. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2024.

---

And sometimes, as you're reading your way through the latest Modern Shakespearean Novels, you hit on a real clunker.

This time, it was Rosalind Brown's Practice. This novel is about a graduate student not writing her essay on Shakespeare's sonnets.

That's all.

Well, there are many vivid descriptions of trips to the bathroom, long and confusing fantasy sequences, and miscellanea.

There was some interest in the thoughts of a procrastinating student, but it really doesn't add up to anything worth reading.

And there's not much Shakespeare here, either.

I thought I'd mention it so you can have a more informed decision about reading it than I had.

---

Click below to purchase the book from amazon.com—

but don't say I didn't warn you—
and to support Bardfilm as you do so.

Book Note: Edward Ruscha: Words without Thoughts Never to Heaven Go

Ruscha, Edward, and Lannan Museum. Edward Ruscha: Words without Thoughts Never to Heaven Go. Lannan Museum, 1988.

---

I've recently been exploring the vast corpus of work produced by Ed Ruscha. Most of his work involves some sort of connection between words and art. Only Murders in the Building fans may know Ruscha from a print on the wall of Steve Martin's character's apartment: Nice, Hot Vegetables (see below).

Nice, hot vegetables are very nice, but, as you all might suspect, I'm in it for the Shakespeare.

One of Ruscha's projects was to design images for the then-newly-constructed main branch of the Miami-Dade Public Library, particularly the images around its vast rotunda.

Inspiration struck, and Ruscha decided to us a line Claudius speaks in Hamlet:

My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
Words without thoughts never to heaven go. (III.iv.____) 

With that starting point, Ruscha seems to have flung himself into a creative frenzy. There are dozens and dozens of preliminary sketches and finished pieces, all of them astounding.

For example, here's what the rotunda looks like:

That's amazing enough, but here are several other versions of the piece as flat canvases:

Of course, some of you may still prefer

. . . but my heart goes out to the Shakespeare. 

---

Click below to purchase the book from amazon.com
(and to support Bardfilm as you do so).