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).

Shakespeare Goof in Gilmore Girls

“Application Anxiety.” By Amy Sherman-Palladino and Daniel Palladino. Perf. Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel. Dir. Gail Mancuso. Gilmore Girls. Season 3, episode 3. The WB. 8 October 2022. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2005.

---

We've had occasion to think about some of the Shakespeare in The Gilmore Girls (for which, q.v.), and there's doubtless much more.

One that caught my eye happens in Season Three. 

In this scene, Lorelai and Rory have gone to dinner with a Harvard alumnus and his family—just to see if Rory would find Harvard a better fit than Yale for her undergraduate studies. While there, they witness the family's dinnertime routine: Pop quizzes. They start with a little Shakespeare.

Watch this clip and see if you can spot the Gilmore Girls' goof regarding Shakespeare:

There's nothing wrong with the "one fell swoop" analysis—Macduff says it in Macbeth when he grapples with the news of his family's murder: "What, all my pretty chickens, and their dam / At one fell swoop?" (IV.iii.218–19).

And there's nothing wrong with the son's answer about Falstaff. He did appear in multiple plays: 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, and The Merry Wives of Windsor.

But the father's correction is erroneous. Falstaff, rather famously, does not appear in Henry V, though the epilogue to 2 Henry IV promises that he'll be in the next play:

One word more, I beseech you. If you be not too much cloy'd with fat meat, our humble author will continue the story, with Sir John in it, and make you merry with fair Katherine of France, where (for any thing I know) Falstaff shall die of a sweat, unless already 'a be kill'd with your hard opinions; for Oldcastle died [a] martyr, and this is not the man. (2 Henry IV, E.26–32)

It seems to me that there are two possibilities for this goof. One is that the writers slipped, not remembering that Falstaff isn't in Henry V. That's understandable enough. Even Homer nods.

The other possibility is more subtle. The writers may have been looking for a way to pop the pomposity of this preposterous prat. Perhaps his goof implies that our Harvard graduate got his Henry V knowledge from watching the Kenneth Branagh film rather than by reading the play. It gives us, as the audience, a brief moment to feel superior to these unsympathetic characters.

Either way, it's always delightful to find a little Shakespeare peppered in to a show of this caliber. 

Note: I'll leave it to you to look up all the Oldcastle material.

---

Links: The Episode at IMDB.

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

Book Note: Angela's Ashes

McCourt, Frank. Angela's Ashes. Simon & Schuster, 1996.

---

I came very late to Angela's Ashes. But perhaps I'm doing better than Jim from The Office, who didn't read the book but just put on an Irish accent and pretended to know what he was talking about (see Season 4, episode 6, "Branch Wars").

No, contrary to Jim's assertion, it is not a "fun read," but it's brilliantly written and, despite the tragic elements, has an uplifting humor.

And, of course, it has some good Shakespeare!

Frankie McCourt, our young hero, first encounters Shakespeare during a long hospital stay. He's overcome by the power of the language and the attraction words offer.

Amazing, it's a lesser-known line from Henry VIII that moves him so: "I do believe / (Induc'd by potent circumstances) that / You are mine enemy" (queen Katherine, II.iv.75–77):

A bit later, the line comes back again. Here, he's dreaming about life in the hospital, a place where "There was a lavatory where you could sit and read your book till someone asked if you were dead."

Later still, he's able to listen to a radio broadcast of Macbeth:

Yes, McCourts book makes me almost agree that "That Shakespeare is that good he must have been an Irishman."

---

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

Bonus for those who have scrolled down this far: 

The "Angela's Ashes" segment of The Office episode "Branch Wars."  Because . . . why not?

John Barrymore Quotes Hamlet in Svengali

Svengali. Dir. Archie Mayo. Perf. John Barrymore, Marian Marsh, and Donald Crisp. 1931. DVD. Alpha Video, 2022.

---

I put the John Barrymore film Svengali on a wish list—and then promptly loss track of what made me want it. It was doubtless a passing reference in some Shakespeare criticism or other I was reading.

Whatever the impetus for wanting to see the film, I received it this Christmas, and I eagerly watched it to see if I could divine the Shakespeare connection.

The plot of the film is fairly interesting. Svengali is a music teacher who falls in love with Trilby O'Farrell, a woman who is already in love with another man—an artist who is part of Svengali's Bohemian circle. He hypnotizes the woman, which has the dual effect of making her forget the man she loves (but not the love she has for the man) and enables her to achieve greatness in her singing.

The cinematography of the film is exquisite. I still don't quite understand how they were able to achieve these effects in 1931. And the scene design reminds me of the terrifically out-of-kilter houses in The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari.

But what, you ask, about the Shakespeare? It all boils down to Hamlet's line to Horatio after he first sees and talks to the ghost: "There are more things in heaven and earth . . . / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (I.v.166–67).

The clip below provides that quote (uttered near the beginning of the film and repeated near its end), but it also gives a sense of the astonishing camera work. You'll see Svengali casting his mind over the streets of the city to draw the hypnotized object of his obsession to him. Then it cuts toward the end of the film—after Svengali has first made a name for himself and Trilby and then lost nearly all of it by fearfully fleeing Trilby's true love:

I always wish for more Shakespeare, but this film gives enough interest as a film to (almost) make up for only having one quote from one play (repeated once).

---

Links: The Film at IMDB.

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

Book Note: Flibbertigibbety Words

Guthrie, Donna. Flibbertigibbety Words: Young Shakespeare Chases Inspiration. Illus. Åsa Gilland. Page Street Kids, 2020.

---

A little while ago, in writing about a Shakespeare-related page in a book about dictionaries (for which, q.v.), I mentioned a children's book that was entirely about Shakespeare's words—not realizing that I hadn't written about it.

But here's my chance!

Flibbertigibbety Words tells the story of young William Shakespeare running around the environs of Stratford-upon-Avon, trying to capture the marvelous words and phrases that he'll need for the rest of his career.

It's not a bad way to expose readers—young or older—to some famous Shakespearean quotations.  Here, for example, is the opening spread:

A little later, we get some key tombstones and descriptions of nature:

It's all pretty interesting—and very well-illustrated. Unfortunately, the allusion on the back cover does the rest of the book a disservice:

Still, don't let that be too off-putting. The book is usually much more accurate with its quotatations—and it's a wonderful way to gain some familiarity with Shakespeare's language before diving in to The Complete Works.

---

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

The "10 Classics in 10 Minutes" One-Minute Version of Romeo and Juliet

Becker, Jim, Andy Meyer, and John "Mighty Mouth" Moschitta. Romeo and Juliet. From 10 Classics in 10 Minutes. CD. Barnes and Noble Books, 2004.

---

Romeo Turns Bandit [Roméo se fait Bandit]. Dir. Romeo Bosetti. Perf. Max Linder. 1909. Othello.  DVD. Keno Video, 2002.  

---

If you're of a certain age, you likely remember John "Mighty Mouth" Moschitta. He rode to fame as The World's Fastest-Talking Man with a famous commercial for Federal Express (as, in 1981, it was known).

He's perhaps less well-known for doing an album called 10 Classics in 10 Minutes. But that's what we're here to talk about today.

I've taken the audio from the Romeo and Juliet portion of the album, sprinkled a little salt and pepper over it, added the video from the 1909 silent film Romeo Turns Bandit, and turned on the burner.

Here, then, is John Moschitta's one-minute (minus the introduction) version of Romeo and Juliet:

---

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

Book Note: Incidental Shakespeare in Two Children's Books about Dictionaries

Fagan, Cary. Maurice and his Dictionary: A True Story. Illustrated by Enzo Lord Mariano. Owlkids Books, 2020.

---

Sierra, Judy. The Great Dictionary Caper. Illustrated by Eric Comstock. Simon & Schuster Books for Young Readers, 2018.

---

As so often happens, I chanced upon these books while searching for something else.

As so often happens, I chanced upon a bit of Shakespeare in each one.

In the business, this is called "SS" or "Serendipitous Shakespeare."

Maurice and his Dictionary, compellingly written and marvelously illustrated, tells the story of a family's flight from the holocaust from the point of view of one of the sons. They leave Belgium in 1940 and travel to the north of France, the south of France, and Spain before ending up in Jamacia. Maurice, wanting to learn English, spends some of the little money he has to buy Cambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary. Eventually, he attends university in Canada.

The image below shows Maurice preforming Shakespeare while attending Jamaica College, a well-respected high school in Kingston. 

The book itself was delightful. Naturally, there could be more Shakespeare, but it's well worth reading and re-reading nonetheless. 

The Great Dictionary Caper has a loose narrative about words escaping from Noah Webster's dictionary. That's far less important than the collection of words in various categories covered by the book. Shakespearean words get a page of their own:

Of course, entire children's books have been written about Shakespeare's words—see Flibbertigibbety Words: Young Shakespeare Chases Inspiration or Will's Words: How William Shakespeare Changed the Way You Talk (for which, q.v.)—but a two-page spread was just right for this book.

Either book would make a great addition to your children's book library. Don't hesitate; give them a try!

---

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

 

Romeo and Juliet in (or, really, after) The Office (BBC)

“Special Features.” Perf. Stephen Merchant and Ricky Gervais. The Office Special [BBC]. Extra features. BBC. DVD. BBC Home Entertainment, 2006.

---

Alert readers of Bardfilm will have noted that there's a fair bit of Shakespeare in the American version of The Office.

But what, they ask, about the BBC Office—the original Office—the truly groundbreaking Office on which the American Office was based? Do you mean to tell me there wasn't any Shakespeare in that masterpiece by Stephen Merchant and Ricky Gervais? After all, we know about all the Shakespeare in Extras, the later show written by that great comedy duo. You helpfulully informed us about Patrick Stewart's Prospero and the one-man Romeo and Juliet . . . and we've even know about that little bit where Ricky Gervais' character talks about the possibility in acting in a Shakespeare Retold version of King Lear. And all that's lovely.  But what about the BBC Office?

Honestly, there's not too much Shakespeare in the original Office. When I've watched the show, I've noticed just a few incidental reference to Shakespeare, the most memorable being the way David Brent introduces Tim Canterbury to the documentary crew. But there are others. Here's what I found:

We have, then, part of a quote from Gertrude ("the lady doth"), a list of Shakespeare plays as possible answers to a trivia question, part of a quote from Hamlet ("the rub"), another partial quote from Hamlet ("cruel to be kind"), Shakespeare's name mentioned, and a dance we can imagine being performed by Caliban when he sings "'Ban, 'Ban, Caliban / Has a new master: get a new man. / Freedom, hey-day!  Hey-day, freedom!"

Admittedly, that last one is a bit of a stretch, but when I next direct The Tempest, that dance is absolutely going in.

Even though there's not much beyond incidental Shakespeare in the show, I recently watched the interviews made with the actors after the show had completed its full run (including the specials) and found more. In the clip below, the show's creators liken the romance of Tim and Dawn (to American audiences, that's the rough equivalent of Jim and Pam) to the romance of Romeo and Juliet:

And that, roughly, must have been what the entire series was about. It's really a derivative of Romeo and Juliet. Fascinating.

---

Links: The Film at IMDB.

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

In this bonus for those who have scrolled down this far, we offer Keith introducing himself:

Book Note (Well, Short Story Note, Really): "Gertrude Talks Back"

Atwood, Margaret. "Gertrude Talks Back." In Good Bones and Simple Murders. Rockland, Massachusettes: Wheeler, 1994.

---

I recently came across several references to Margaret Atwood's very short short story "Gertrude Talks Back." I was able to track it down in a collection of mostly similarly short short stories, and I enjoyed it immensely. 

The setting seems to be, generally, during the closet scene—Hamlet's "Leave wringing of your hands" (III.iv.33) is delightful recalled in Gertrude's line "I am not wringing my hands. I'm drying my nails."

According to Bardfilm's Fair Use Policy, I'm not providing it in its entirety, but I'm giving you the first page of two. I'm pretty confident that you'll want to find the rest and finish it on your own. You won't want to leave these thoughts unfinished.

In the meantime, I hope you enjoy the opening of "Gertrude Talks Back."

---

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

Cracking the Shakespeare Code: A Norwegian Shakespeare Conspiracy

Cracking the Shakespeare Code. Dir. Jørgen Friberg. Perf. Petter Amundsen, Robert Crumpton, and Stanley Wells. 2017. DVD. Synergetic, 2018.

---

Although I don't remember precisely, I think I bought this because it was the exact price I needed to use up my Shakespeare budget for the year. Also, I had hopes that it wouldn't be just another documentary-style propaganda piece for another anti-Stratfordian conspiracy theory. After all, it had Sir Stanley Wells!

Eventually, I gave it a try. And it interested me at first in having much higher production values than the usual fare in this genre does. And then it interested me because our narrator / presenter / guide presents himself as skeptical of the skeptical. Finally, it interested me because it seemed to be about a Baconian theory of authorship, which seemed quaint.

And then it got very odd. And odder. And then it seemed to leave the oddness scale behind.

Here's a rough summary. We start with the idea that there are codes in Shakespeare's works and Shakespeare's gravestone and the Shakespeare monument. And those codes point toward Francis Bacon. 

And then we learn about the Holy Grail to which all those codes are pointing: The manuscripts of Shakespeare's plays (in this theory, the plays were written by Shakespeare, the man from Stratford, but they were written at the instigation of Francis Bacon and Henry Neville), which are preserved in mercury somewhere on the planet Earth.

I mention the planet Earth because we have to leave it for the next step. We have to go to the constellation Cygnus (a.k.a. "The Swan") and see where it's pointing on Earth—that will be the location of the Shakespeare manuscripts stored in mercury by Francis Bacon. That turns out to be Oak Island, Nova Scotia.

Did I mention that the Rosicrucians are behind all of this?

Finally, we learn that the Shakespeare manuscripts aren't the only Holy Grail hidden on Oak Island. The Ark of the Covenant is also there. Together with a powerful and historical menorah—possibly the very one involved in the miracle of Hanukkah. And maybe the Holy Grail is there, too—I admit to letting my attention wander a bit at that point.

The documentary (I'm debating whether to put that in air quotes are not) astounded me by how outrageous its claims became. They build somewhat eccentrically but also gradually so that, if you give each step the benefit of the doubt, you hardly notice when you cross over into the utterly outlandish.

I tried to excerpt a brief clip, but I was unable to do the film justice with just a little bit. Here, then, are some key points in the presentation.

I wish that Sir Stanley had been given more screen time. He could have provided much to rectify the extreme leaps in logic that guide the conspiracy to its ultimately ridiculous conclusions.

---

Links: The Film at IMDB.

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