If you are interested in the adventures of Henry VIII or you enjoy thick, historical novels, you will probably want to read this book. Margaret George is a good genre novelist and has done gobs of research, but she does not show us the mind of Henry as vividly as some of the great historians, like Antonia Fraser, or Alison Weir. Part of the problem, I think, is the gimmick of autobiography--Henry never sounds convincingly English. It is as if you went to see Anne of a Thousand Days, and instead of Richard Burton playing Henry, its Tom Hanks.

George does better with the character of Will Somers, whose critical comments intrude on Henry's "manuscript" from time to time. She also does a pretty fair job of explaining a long and complicated span of English history. Character development tends to be limited to Henry and his six wives and several mistresses, but that is part of the historical romance genre. The important men in Henry's life: Wolsey, More, Cromwell, Cranmer, come off as cardboard sticks. ( I would have loved to have seen more of the inscrutable Cranmer--now THERE'S a novel for you.)

I don't see how this book can warrant less than five stars. While it may not be the most historically accurate book written about English King Henry VIII, it is certainly entertaining, insightful, and interesting. Don't let the length discourage you; 900 pages were up before I knew it and I didn't want it to end. I became so used to Margaret George's diary-style of writing through Henry that I almost felt as if he were my friend.
The book, written all through Henry's point of view (with clever inserts from his fool, Will) greatly improved my knowledge of Tudor England. Also, it really helped me to see Henry's life through his own eyes. Through much research, Margaret George has delved into his very personality and managed to write about every event of any significance in his life. She also showed how each wife and divorce/beheading came with a different justification for Henry VIII. As I came to understand his personality more and more, there were many times I felt sympathy and sorrow for the English monarch.
I highly suggest that anyone who has any interest in this subject read the book!

Getting to love you, ....Okay, sorry about that. But basically it does describe how this book made me feel about Henry VIII, well, almost.

For all of my life I disliked Henry VIII by default. You know, the usual reasons...He had six wives, he beheaded two of them, he had mistresses, illegitemate children, etc. etc.

But, being a great fan of Margaret George I felt I needed to read this book. I was not disappointed. Another great historical novel by Ms. George. An extraordinary amount of research appears to have gone into this book, and Ms. George actually accomplishes to almost, _almost_, make you feel sorry for poor Henry, and successfully paints him in a more "human" light. My opinion of him has definitely changed.

Okay, so he should not have just thrown Katherine of Aragon away, simply because he fell for that whore Anne Boleyn, which resulted in a break with the Roman Catholic Church. But Katherine did start to become a real bore.
I can understand why he beheaded Anne. His public reasons (adultry) may have been questionable, but the witch thing? Back then you could never be too sure about those witches and what they could do. Off with her head!
And Jane, poor Jane, she truly loved him and he truly loved her. How tragic that she died so soon.
And then that Anne of Cleves! Wow, she must really have been a bow-wow, but then, who the hell marries a woman sight unseen? I don't care how distraught you are over the beheading of the witch. At least he was very fair in his separation of Anne of Cleves, and I think she got the better end of the deal, because by this time, Henry himself was no longer an Adonis either.
And then his foolish infatuation with that second hussy, Catherine Howard. How could he not have known? She also deserved to lose her head on the chopping block, no question about that. I mean, he's the KING for crying out loud!
And then the surprise marriage to Katherine Parr, dear Kate. Finally he gets lucky and marries someone nice who manages to stay alive in the process. But then of course, he dies. Ah well, such is the comedy of life.

The notes by Will Somers are great, although I almost wish there had been more of them. It would have been nice to see what Will and other subjects of the King were thinking about all these crazy goings on in Henry's head.

To sum it up, this was a very very good book. I am glad I read it and I am sure I will read it again soon. The descriptions of the characters and places are vivid and colorful, and the description of Henry's life is thorough and memorable.

Also, read Ms. George's other books, The Memoirs of Cleopatra and Mary Queen of Scotland and the Isles. Both are just as good. Don't let their size intimidate you! In the end you'll be glad they lasted as long as they did.

"Much Ado About Nothing" is a beautifully made, performed, and directed film by the incomparable Kenneth Branaugh. This film includes an all-star cast that give wonderful performances and draw you into the lives of the characters. The plot is somewhat complicated, so I'll give a general version. The film is basically about love, misunderstanding, scandal, revenge, virtue, and bravery. That's a lot for one film, but believe me, it's all in there!

Kenneth Branaugh, Emma Thompson, Denzel Washington, Keanu Reeves, and Michael Keaton give excellent performances in this film that you wouldn't want to miss. Although the film is a period piece and the Shakespearean language is used, you will have no difficulty understanding it perfectly.

The scenery and landscape in this film are exquisite as well. I never thought there could be such a beautiful, untouched place like that on earth. I would suggest watching the film just for the beautiful landscape, but it's the performances and the story that you should really pay attention to.

Anyone who loves Shakespeare would absolutely love this film! Anyone who loves Kenneth Branaugh and what he has done for Shakespeare in the past 10 or 15 years will appreciate this film as well! There isn't one bad thing I can say about this film. Definitely watch it, you won't be disappointed!!!

One of the problems with Shakespeare's comedies, an English professor once told me, is that they are not funny. Now, this is not to say that Shakespeare was a bad comedy writer, or that this professor had no sense of humour. In fact, quite the opposite--he had turned his sense of humour and love of humour into an academic career in pursuit of humour.

What he meant by the comment was, humour is most often a culture-specific thing. It is of a time, place, people, and situation--there is very little by way of universal humour in any language construction. Perhaps a pie in the face (or some variant thereof) does have some degree of cross-cultural appeal, but even that has less universality than we would often suppose.

Thus, when I suggested to him that we go see this film when it came out, he was not enthusiastic. He confessed to me afterward that he only did it because he had picked the last film, and intended to require the next two selections when this film turned out to be a bore. He also then confessed that he was wrong.

Brannagh managed in his way to carry much of the humour of this play into the twentieth century in an accessible way -- true, the audience was often silent at word-plays that might have had the Elizabethan audiences roaring, but there was enough in the action, the acting, the nuance and building up of situations to convey the same amount of humour to today's audience that Shakespeare most likely intended for his groups in the balconies and the pit.

The film stars Kenneth Brannagh (who also adapted the play for screen) and Emma Thompson as Benedict and Beatrice, the two central characters. They did their usual good job, with occasional flashes of excellence. Alas, I'll never see Michael Keaton as a Shakespearean actor, but he did a servicable job in the role of the constable (and I shall always remember that 'he is an ass') -- the use of his sidekick as the 'horse' who clomps around has to be a recollection of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where their 'horses' are sidekicks clapping coconut shells together.

I'll also not see Keanu Reeves as a Shakespearean, yet he was perhaps too well known (type-cast, perhaps) in other ways to pull off the brief-appearing villian in this film.

Lavish sets and costumes accentuate the Italianate-yet-very-English feel of this play. This film succeeds in presenting an excellent but lesser-known Shakespeare work to the public in a way that the public can enjoy.

I saw this movie when I was fairly young. I admit that I couldn't understand much of what was going on let along what was being said (I was nine, I wasn't exactly fluent in Olde English). Since then I've watched it many times. Not only do I understand it now, but I fully apreciate how good it is.

The movie is a very good adaptation of the play. The impressive lines that Shakespeare wrote were generally given new life in their delivery. Also, I must compliment Michael Keaton on his role. It isn't a very big one, but if you watch this movie, you'll understand why I mentioned it. Overall, this is simply a fully enjoyable movie, whether you're a fan of Shakespeare or not.

The Cricket in Times Square is the first book in the series. It's about a cat named Harry, a mouse named Tucker, but it's mostly about a cricket named Chester. Chester lives in Connecticut. He was found by a lady who stuffs him in her purse. He gets carried all the way, to New York in a subway station. There's a family who sells newspapers in the subway station. And there's a boy who finds Chester and picks him up and buys a special golden cage with a bell that hangs down. Once Chester hears the bell he is able to sing. Then Chester has his own concert.

My favorite part is when Chester has his own little concert and he makes a lot of money because Chester makes beautiful music.

I would recommend this book and series to grade two to six because they are great fantasy stories about animals, but I would recommend them the most to people who like fantasy and animals.

By the way this book is the first book out of seven books. They're great books to read.

This book is about a cricket named Chester who finds his way to New York City in a picnic basket. Chester is originally from Connecticut. One day a little boy named Mario picks him up and takes him to an unsuccessful newstand located in the subway station of Times Square. This little creature is lucky enough to find two great friends. Their names are Tucker the fast talking broadway mouse, and his pal Harry the Cat. These friends have many great times such as; when Tucker manages to get the gang some scraps of food. But they also have some bad times, like when Chester dreams of a willow leaf, and eats a dollar bill, but all together they manage. These wonderful pals go on some more pretty great adventures, Chester even becomes a celebrity. Read the book to find out more!

This book is about a little mouse who was Tucker, a cat whose name was Harry, a kid named Mario. Mario owned a newsstand which was not going really well.In the meanwhile a cricket named Chester arrives in Times Square, from Connecticut. The four decided to make Mario's bankrupt newsstand become popular once again. Later in the book everone decided to put Chester (the lucky cricket) on the newsstand so people could be more attracted to it. Then their plan was successful, hundreds and hundreds of people came.

I liked the book because it was really interesting finding out how they could make the bankrupt newsstand successful. Then again most books are kind of boring because it keeps on saying the same things over and over again. This book isn't boring because every page you turn something new happens, so this book is really exciting to read.

My favorite part in this book was when Mario's newsstand finally became a success. It is my favorite part because it is kind of sad in the start of the book because it seems like Mario's life is very poor and trying to struggle just to make his newsstand right. Then, when you see that they brought up with a great plan, and Mario's newsstand is filled with people now.

Although I have generally found Orwell to be a politically confused thinker, 1984 stands out as one of the best and most forward thinking works I have ever read. The amount of relevance this book has today is overwhelming, considering modern government propaganda techniques and the double edged sword of technology. This story serves as a warning to all who trust the government, especially in regards to privacy issues.

Winston Smith, while not the ideal romantic protagonist, is still compelling in his own right with his inspiring (and finally tragic) fight against Big Brother. The struggle that takes place between Winston and the government in 1984 is psychologically thrilling and intense, and it is still difficult for me to put the book down each time I read it. I am particularly drawn to the character of O'Brien, who represents to me the culmination of a path that all seasoned politicians and government officials travel down.

The year 1984 has come and past, but an extreme statist government similar to the one portrayed in the novel still may haunt us in the future.

One of the great books of the 20th century - it is amazing how much of Orwell has entered the language : Big Brother, Thought Police etc. The story is a bleak one - "Imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever!". Orwell intended it as a warning, not as a prophecy. As a warning, it worked - 1984 was read by every Russian dissident, about the only English book (besides Animal Farm) that can make that claim. Yet, the abuse of language described by Orwell, the way thought can be controlled by inculcating poverty of language, in a certain sense describes much of today's media - "dumbing down" actually limits the possible human response - look at the jeers and cheers on 'the Jerry Springer' as pathetic subjects explode their inarticulate rage. The nearest thing to the '5 Minute Hate' that I have ever seen. Yet, Orwell possibly made the warning too bleak (he was dying of TB as he wrote, it was his last book). You feel that while Julia and Winston Smith do ultimately betray each other, yet it was done under duress of torture, and there could possibly be forgiveness in their hearts afterwards, not the disillusion of the book. The power of human love could defeat the Party, perhaps. A book that repays several readings.

1984 Review

George Orwell's novel, 1984 is classic, thought provoking literature that everyone should read. 1984 relates to many of the radical ideas of the communist era. Orwell points out the fake reality portrayed by the government with his incorporation of such things as "victory cigarettes and victory gin." This story exhibits the reality of life in many small, exploited countries.

The exaggerated ideals 1984 expresses, represents the oppression felt by many in the world that is gilded by a thought of true freedom. The story is very descriptive and allows the reader to feel the true emotions that the main character, Winston Smith is feeling. Orwell shows that in our world everything is deceptive to reality. Conformity is the main concern for the masses working for the elite and even the name Winston Smith is symbolic for this lack of individualistic qualities. This book shows the militaristic tactics used by the government of "Big Brother" to inspire people to work and keep an interest in the common good. Every four years the government of Oceana started a fake war with one of the other two super powers to maintain the work ethic and inspiration of the slaving people in the middle class. Winston represents all people who rebel against the system and know that the illusions presented by the government of aristocrats are wrong. He represents the middle class which work as tools of the elite and the proletarians are the people who the government leaves to their own ignorance. 1984 holds a great amount of symbolism and connects fiction with the real world. This book is a must read for everyone and to me, quite possibly one of the greatest books ever written.

. . . to really achieve its full potential, this play needs to be acted out on stage. Still, highly excellent, involving twins, cross-dressing, love tangles, sword-fighting, secret marriages, music, disguises, mistaken identities, high speech, and lowbrow humour.

The entire play takes place in Illyria. In the main plot, Orsino is in love with Olivia, who unfortunately does not return his feelings. Viola is shipwrecked on the Illyrian coast, and dressed as a boy, comes to serve in Orsino's court, where she of course falls in love with Orsino. Meanwhile, in Olivia's court, some of her courtiers plan a cruel--but funny--practical joke against her pompous steward Malvolio. There is also a third plot later on involving Viola's twin brother Sebastian, who has been shipwrecked likewise. Naturally things get quite confusing, but, true to Shakespeare's comedic style, everything gets worked out in the end.

This is an enjoyable book to read, and the notes are very helpful. However, it is still better as a performance.

"Twelfth Night" is one of the famous romantic comedy written by William Shakespeare. Many critics said, "Twelfth Night" is the masterpiece among his comedy because his fully developed style and insight are in the "Twelfth Night", so it has special value and attractiveness.
There are four main characters in "Twelfth Night" ; Duke Orsino, Olivia, Viola, and
Sebastian. Duke Orsino who lives in Illyria loves Olivia, so every day he send one of
his servant to Olivia's house for proposal of marriage. However, every time Olivia
refuses his proposal for the reason that she lost her brother before long, so she is now
in big sorrow and can not love anyone. One day, Viola comes into Illyria. She and her
twin brother Sebastian are separated in a shipwreck and they are rescued by two
different people in two different place, so they think the other one is dead each other.
Viola disguise as a man and become a servant of Duke Orsino, and then she fall in
love with Duke Orsino. But, Duke Orsino loves Olivia and he send Viola whose new
name as a man is "Cesario" to Olivia for proposal. Unexpectedly, Olivia fall in love with
Cesario!! Therefore, love triangle is formed. In the latter scene, Sebastian also come into
Illyria, so the confusion getting worse. However, in the end, all misunderstandings are
solved and Cesario become Viola, so the four main characters find their love.
There are also four supporting characters in "Twelfth Night" ; Clown, Sir Toby Belch,
Malvolio, and Sir Andrew Aguecheek. They make the readers laugh through their funny
behaviors and comments in subplot.
"Twelfth Night" is very funny story and enjoyable book, so I recommend you.

I didn't read this particular version of Twelfth Night, so I'm rating the plot, not the editing. This book was the first play by Shakespeare that I read, and I loved it! It starts when Viola and her brother, Sebastian, are seperated in a shipwreck. Viola decides to disguise herself as a boy and work for Orsino, the duke. Orsino sends Viola to tell Olivia that he loves her. Viola does what he says, but she wishes she didn't have to, because she has fallen in love with Orsino! Then Olivia falls in love with Viola, thinking that she is a boy. While all this is going on, Andrew Aguecheek is wooing Olivia, who scorns him. Also, Maria, the maid, Sir Toby Belch, Olivia's uncle, and another servant write a letter and put it where Malvolio, a servant, will see it. The letter says that Olivia is in love with Malvolio. Malvolio immediately starts trying to woo Olivia. Maria and Sir Toby pretend to think that he's mad, and lock him up. Meanwhile, Sebastian comes to town with Antonio, the man who saved him from the shipwreck. Antonio gives him his purse and says that he must stay away from the city because he fought against the duke in a war. A few minutes later, Antonio realizes that he needs money for lodgings and goes to find Sebastian. In the city, Viola is being forced to fight Andrew Aguecheek for the right to marry Olivia. Antonio sees the fight and hurries to intervene. Orsino recognizes him and has him arrested. Antonio asks Viola for his purse so that he can pay bail, thinking that she is Sebastian. Viola denies having had a purse. Then Sebastian comes up. Olivia had found him and married him on the spot, and he, deliriously happy, had gone away to give Antonio his purse. On the way, he met Sir Toby and Andrew Aguecheek. When they try to force him to fight, he punches them and goes on. They come up too, bitterly accusing Viola. (No one has seen Sebastian yet.) Then Olivia comes up and speaks to Viola, who denies being her wife. Orsino becomes angry with her, thinking that she has married Olivia, and accuses her of treachery. Just as things are looking bad for Viola, Sebastian reveals himself. Then everyone is happy (since Orsino falls in love with Viola on the spot) except Andrew Aguecheek and Malvolio, who is later set free. The plot of this book is a little hard to understand, but it is halariously funny and makes for happy reading.

This book is not about pigs and horses and sheep on a farm. This book is not about pigs who take control over other animals. This book is not about animals revolting against Mr. Jones the farmer. This is a book about the Russian Revolution, and each of the characters in Animal Farm plays a role as someone else who really lived.

Old Major - Karl Marx. Invented communism, inspired revolution. Snowball the pig - Leon Trotsky. Wanted good for all the people, supported communism. Napoleon the pig - Joseph Stalin. Greedy for power. Squealer the pig - Propaganda. Boxer the horse - Oblivious, hard working, supporter. Moses the raven - Religion. Mr. Jones - Czar Nicholas II. (run out of his country after the people and Karl Marx revolted due to his poor leadership). Dogs - KGB Secret Police. The Sheep - Followers. Benjamin the donkey - Skeptical Russians.

THE SEVEN COMMANDMENTS
A large part of this analogy of the Russian Revolution is the hypocrisy involved. Napoleon and the pigs set rules, only to break and change them as they pleased. Seven Commandments were written to be followed as laws and rules to all the animals.
1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
6. No animal shall kill another animal.
7. All animals are equal.
But by the end of the story the commandments are altered by the pigs. The law stating that whatever goes on two legs is an enemy is changed to the sheep's chanting of "Four legs good, two legs better!" after contact and trade with humans is made. After the pigs begin to sleep in the old house of Mr. Jones the farmer, the fourth commandment is changed to: No animal shall sleep in a bed WITH SHEETS. The law: "No animal shall drink alcohol" is changed to "No animal shall drink alcohol TO EXCESS." After Napoleon brutally kills many of the animals for disobedience and treachery, (even though they were killed for crimes they never committed), the law was changed to: No animal shall kill another animal WITHOUT CAUSE. At the end of the story, all seven commandments are erased, and replaced with a single commandment: ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

George Orwell's Animal Farm is a superb animation of the Russian Revolutioon. The book is amusing and interesting; it includes a comic element as it synonymously demonstrates the evolution from the proletariat revolution to a totalitarian government led by the swine of the society. Orwell successfully simplified the not-so-simple theory of class stratification and Karl Marx's proposed solution of communism. Orwell's method of conveyance is incredibly inventive. He uses satire in the form of a fairy tale to share his indignation for ideological doctrines that would, if allowed, lead to the eventual destruction of a society. Each character in the story is representative of someone who was involved in the Russian Revolution. Old Major is Marx, and inspires the proletariat revolution by motivating the over-worked animals and educating them on the ways of the human beings, who represent the bourgeoisie. Orwell's creativity convinces the reader that the animals on the farm are intellectual beings, revolting against the tyranny of the humans. Animal Farm offers itself as an example of a responsible criticism of Marxism. The story gives us a peek at the Utopian vision, and then offers a long look at what results from using a Marxist approach at achieving it. I strongly reccomend this book, as it is entertaining and educational. Orwell succeeded in creating a fairy tale that evokes both sadness and laughter, while causing us to feel sympathy and even empathy for the working class animals. The book escapes complexity, but its message does not.

Animal Farm is much, much more than a story about animals. These animals are used to portray Russian history. Seems weird doesn't it? But it makes sense! Everything in this book mirrors Russian history and the characters were created after Russian historical figures. It starts out with a pig named Old Major (who stands for Karl Marx) who sees visions of a wonderful revolution where animals will share everything and the world will be beautiful without any humans, especially Mr. Jones their master. Mr. Jones stands for Czar Nicholas II. They revolt from him and set up their own commandments, the Seven Commandments which includes things like "no animals shall wear clothings", "no animals shall sleep in a bed", "no animals shall consume alchohol", and "all animals are equal". The pigs, who are known as the smartest animals which is an actual fact, take over control of the farm. Napoleon stands for Stalin who wants a strong central government and wants to teach the young only while Snowball stands for Lenin who wants a democracy and to educate all of the people. The animals on the farm other than the pigs stand for common people. Boxer the horse stands for the physically strong people that aren't very smart. Benjamin the mule (Boxer's best friend) stands for the smart people who know what's going on, but are too stubborn to admit there is a problem. Clover stands for someone who's motherly and cares about every one else. The dogs stand for military people. The chickens stand for the smart, but weak people. The cats stand for the lazy people who don't want to do any work, but want to have rewards. Moses the Raven stands for religion with his talk of where animals go when they die (Sugar Candy Mountain). The sheep stand for the brainwashed people who can't think for themselves. Everything in this book happens for a reason. It's a weird story about how communism will never work because pigs will always be greedy pigs.

It's a really great story about talking animals, but it's an even better story when you take it apart and analyze and think to yourself, "but what if so and so got with so and so.... could they have stopped this from happening?" The ending of this book is a really freaky ending... Always remember "Two legs baaaaad, four legs better!"

On a superficial first reading, 'Titus Andronicus' is lesser Shakespeare - the language is generally simple and direct, with few convoluted similes and a lot of cliches. The plot, as with many contemporary plays, is so gruesome and bloody as to be comic - the hero, a Roman general, before the play has started has lost a wife and 21 sons; he kills another at their funeral, having dismembered and burnt the heroine's son as a 'sacrifice'; after her husband is murdered, his daughter is doubly raped and has her tongue and hands lopped off; Titus sacrifices his own hand to bail out two wrongfully accused sons - it is returned along with their heads. Et cetera. The play concludes with a grisly finale Peter Greenaway might have been proud of. The plot is basically a rehash of Kyd, Marlowe, Seneca and Ovid, although there are some striking stage effects.

Jonathan Bate in his exhaustive introduction almost convinces you of the play's greatness, as he discusses it theoretically, its sexual metaphors, obsessive misogyny, analysis of signs and reading etc. His introduction is exemplary and systematic - interpretation of content and staging; history of performance; origin and soures; textual history. Sometimes, as is often the case with Arden, the annotation is frustratingly pedantic, as you get caught in a web of previous editors' fetishistic analysing of punctuation and grammar. Mostly, though, it facilitates a smooth, enjoyable read.

For my fellow reviewers who choose to simply pass this play over because of the prevelant violence, I must point out the complex, witty character of Aaron the Moor. Shakespeare either intended for this play to be a parody of Marlowe/Kyd, or he wanted to experiment with a character, Aaron, to evoke every possible feeling from his audience. And, in my humble opinion, Shakespeare succeeded at this. Aaron is, at the same time, evil and cunny, witty and horrifying, and compassionate and stoic. His final lines, as he is buried up to his neck, left to starve, are some of the best confessions ever produced by the bard. It takes a truly cruel and uncaring individual to not feel for Aaron, who gives up his life for his child's, and who hopelessly and blindly loves a cruel witch of a woman. This play is worth reading, or seeing if you should be so lucky, simply to indulge yourself in the character of Aaron the Moor.

Now that the film "Titus" is about to open, I thought I had best hear a recorded version of the complete play to keep my mind clear during what is bound to be a perversion. Of course, many consider "Titus Andronicus" a perversion anyway; and to tell the truth, I do get a little queasy during the various mutilations that make the deaths at the end a relief rather than a shock. But accepting the play on its own terms, you will find the reissue on tape of the 1966 Caedmon recording of (CF 277) possibly the best directed of the entire classic series. Howard Sackler has a bunch of professionals on hand and he lets them (with one exception) tear up the scenery. Poor Judy Dench, who has so little to say as Lavinia before the plot makes her say no more, can only make pathetic noises for most of the play until her final death cry. The evil brothers, played here by John Dane and Christopher Guinee, are not only evil but sarcastically so--and this works on a recording as it might not on the stage. Perhaps Maxine Audley's Tamora is a bit too Wicked Witch of the West now and then; but her co-partner in evil, Aron the Moor, is brought to life by Anthony Quayle in a role he made famous on stage, going even further in the outright enjoyment of his ill-doing. Yes, this play can easily raise laughs and takes an Olivier to keep the audience in the tragic mood. (Reports are that he did it so well that some audience members became ill and had to leave.)

Which brings us to Michael Hordern's Titus. Hodern is a fine actor but not a great one. He suffers well but not grandly. I am surprised that his Big Moment--"I am the sea"--is lost among all the other images in that speech. But anyone can direct someone else's play. This recording, soon to be rivaled by one in the Arkangel series, is definitely worth having for Quayle's performance alone.

Macbeth is one of Shakespeare's more gloomy plays. It is downright grim. It starts grim and only gets blacker... ...It is one of Shakespeare's better plays

Macbeth is one of Shakespeare's more ambiguous main characters. Motivation is always a big question with him. Sure, he is hungry for power. Yet he also needs prodding from several quarters to take most of his actions.

Lady Macbeth is really no different. She comes off as eager for evil early on, but is utterly shocked by its repercussions. Her attempt to go against nature leaves her absolutely unhinged and thirsting after guidance--only to find despair. In this regard, Shakespeare anticipates the psychology of Dostoevsky.

Macbeth is also one of Shakespeare's most supernatural plays. Regardless of whether one wants to debate the reality of Banquo's ghost, there are forces at work in Macbeth that are often unseen, but which drive the plot. The witches and all the unnaturalness come up against the forces of nature (the trees) and the divinely appointed King.

The most remarkable thing about this play is, for me at least, that it becomes a true tragedy only in its last moments. Only when all the stuff has hit the fan, and he has realized his doom is eminent, does Macbeth show the courage and nobility of a true tragic hero.

Macbeth is a great place to start if you are new to Shakespeare. It is a fun place to return if you're not.

While I was basically familiar with Shakespeare's Tragedy of Macbeth, I have only recently actually read the bard's brilliant play. The drama is quite dark and moody, but this atmosphere serves Shakespeare's purposes well. In Macbeth, we delve deeply into the heart of a true fiend, a man who would betray the king, who showers honors upon him, in a vainglorious snatch at power. Yet Macbeth is not 100% evil, nor is he a truly brave soul. He waxes and wanes over the execution of his nefarious plans, and he thereafter finds himself haunted by the blood on his own hands and by the ethereal spirits of the innocent men he has had murdered. On his own, Macbeth is much too cowardly to act so traitorously to his kind and his country. The source of true evil in these pages is the cold and calculating Lady Macbeth; it is she who plots the ultimate betrayal, forcefully pushes her husband to perform the dreadful acts, and cleans up after him when he loses his nerve. This extraordinary woman is the lynchpin of man's eternal fascination with this drama. I find her behavior a little hard to account for in the closing act, but she looms over every single male character we meet here, be he king, loyalist, nobleman, courtier, or soldier. Lady Macbeth is one of the most complicated, fascinating, unforgettable female characters in all of literature.

The plot does not seem to move along as well as Shakespeare's other most popular dramas, but I believe this is a result of the writer's intense focus on the human heart rather than the secondary activity that surrounds the related royal events. It is fascinating if sometimes rather disjointed reading. One problem I had with this play in particular was one of keeping up with each of the many characters that appear in the tale; the English of Shakespeare's time makes it difficult for me to form lasting impressions of the secondary characters, of whom there are many. Overall, though, Macbeth has just about everything a great drama needs: evil deeds, betrayal, murder, fighting, ghosts, omens, cowardice, heroism, love, and, as a delightful bonus, mysterious witches. Very many of Shakespeare's more famous quotes are also to be found in these pages, making it an important cultural resource for literary types. The play doesn't grab your attention and absorb you into its world the way Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet does, but this voyage deep into the heart of evil, jealousy, selfishness, and pride forces you to consider the state of your own deep-seated wishes and dreams, and for that reason there are as many interpretations of the essence of the tragedy as there are readers of this Shakespearean masterpiece. No man's fall can rival that of Macbeth's, and there is a great object lesson to be found in this drama. You cannot analyze Macbeth without analyzing yourself to some degree, and that goes a long way toward accounting for the Tragedy of Macbeth's literary importance and longevity.

Noble Macbeth and the story of his decay due to the seduction of the forces of darkness - I liked it. The play sets off with an impressing scene, the chant of the three witches, a perfect use of language, I dare say. It takes only about a page and I knew it by memory after two times reading. We used to quote it during the breaks, and actually still do so sometimes. "When shall we three meet again...and so forth. After this promising start the language gets quite hard (I'm not any native form Enland, the US or any other english speaking part of this planet). One can follow the action though and every five or six pages there's a reward for your patience, at least for anybody who likes the power Shakespeare's language is able to display in their good or best moments: "Have we eaten on the insane root?" and the likes. Of course there's also the famous "It is a tale, told by an idiot...". It's for these moments, where Williams knew how to transfere a feeling of one of his caracteres into the realm of a universal significance, that I enjoyed the play...

'As you like it' is one of those Shakespearean plays that is considered 'great' by critics, but never really found true popular acclaim, perhaps due to the absence of charismatic characters (the romantic hero is particularly wet) or compelling dilemmas.

It shares many features with the great comedies - the notion of the forest as a magic or transformative space away from tyrannical society ('A Midsummer night's dream'); the theme of unrequited love and gender switching from 'Twelfth night'; the exiled Duke and his playful daughter from 'The Tempest'. But these comparisons only point to 'AYLI''s comparative failure (as a reading experience anyway) - it lacks the magical sense of play of the first; the yearning melancholy of the second; or the elegiac complexity of the third.

It starts off brilliantly with a first act dominated by tyrants: an heir who neglects his younger brother, and a Duke who resents the popularity of his exiled brother's daughter (Rosalind). there is an eccentric wrestling sequence in which a callow youth (Orlando) overthrows a giant. Then the good characters are exiled to Arden searching for relatives and loved ones.

Theoretically, this should be good fun, and you can see why post-modernist critics enjoy it, with its courtiers arriving to civilise the forest in the language of contemporary explorers, and the gender fluidity and role-play; but, in truth, plot is minimal, with tiresomely pedantic 'wit' to the fore, especially when the melancholy scholar-courtier Jacques and Fool Touchstone are around, with the latter's travesties of classical learning presumably hilarious if you're an expert on Theocritus and the like.

As an English pastoral, 'AYLI' doesn't approach Sidney's 'Arcadia' - maybe it soars on stage. (Latham's Arden edition is as frustrating as ever, with scholarly cavilling creating a stumbling read, and an introduction which characteristically neuters everything that makes Shakespeare so exciting and challenging)

Anyone with a working knowledge of Shakespeare's plays knows that As You Like It is a light, airy comedy. It is clearly not one of Shakespeare's greatest plays. As You Like It is more obscure than famous. Even amongst the comedies it comes nowhere close to the popularity of plays such as A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Tempest, or Twelfth Night. That said, it is a treasure in its own right. This is so, if for nothing else, because it contains one of the greatest pictures of a woman to be found in Shakespeare's works, excluding the Sonnets.

Ah, sweet Rosalind. In her are encapsulated so many ideas about the nature of woman. She is first pictured in a rather faux-Petrarchan manner. This quickly fades as an intelligent woman comes to the fore. While the intelligence remains, she is also torn by the savage winds of romantic love. Rosalind, in all her complexity and self-contradiction, is a truly modern female character.

Most of the women in Shakespeare's tragedies and historical plays are either window dressing (as in Julius Caesar) or woefully one-sided (Ophelia, Lady Macbeth). This is not the case with Rosalind. Rather than being marginalized, she is the focus of a good chunk of the play. Instead of being static and [standard], she is a complex evolving character.

When Rosalind first appears, she outwardly looks much like any other lady of the court. She is a stunning beauty. She is much praised for her virtue. Both of these elements factor in the Duke's decision to banish or [do away with] her.

Rosalind falls in love immediately upon seeing Orlando. In this way she at first seems to back up a typically courtly idea of "love at first sight." Also, she initially seems quite unattainable to Orlando. These are echoes of Petrarchan notions that proclaim love to be a painful thing. This dynamic is stood on its head following her banishment.

Rosalind begins to question the certainty of Orlando's affection. She criticizes his doggerel when she finds it nailed to a tree. Rather than wilting like some medieval flower, she puts into effect a plan. She seeks to test the validity of her pretty-boy's love. In the guise of a boy herself, she questions the deceived Orlando about his love.

Yet Rosalind is not always so assured. Her steadfastness is not cut and dried. Composed in his presence, Rosalind melts the second Orlando goes away. She starts spouting romantic drivel worthy of Judith Krantz. Even her best friend Celia seems to tire of her love talk. This hesitating, yet consuming passion is thrown into stark relief with her crystal clear dealings with the unwanted advances of the shepherdess Phebe.

Rosalind contradicts herself in taking the side of Silvius in his pursuit of Phebe. She seeks to help Silvius win the love of Phebe because of his endearing constancy. Yet the whole reason she tests Orlando is the supposed inconstancy of men's affections.

This idea of Male inconstancy has made its way down to the present day. Men are seen, in many circles, as basically incapable of fidelity. Though a contradiction to her treatment of Silvius' cause, Rosalind's knowing subscription to pessimistic views on the constancy of a man's love places her on the same playing field as many modern women.

Rosalind takes charge of her own fate. Until and even during Shakespeare's own time women largely were at the mercy of the men around them. This is satirized in Rosalind's assuming the appearance of a man. Yet she had taken charge of her life even before taking on the dress and likeness of a man. She gives her token to Orlando. She decides to go to the Forest. She makes the choice of appearing like a man to ensure her safety and the safety of Celia.

Rosalind finally finds balance and happiness when she comes to love not as a test or game, but as an equal partnership. Shakespeare is clearly critiquing the contemporary notions of love in his day. His play also condemns society's underestimation and marginalization of women. However, the Bard's main point is more profound.

As You Like It makes it clear that the world is never picture perfect, even when there are fairy-tale endings. Men and women both fail. Love is the most important thing. With love all things are possible.

"As You Like It" is bar none, one of Shakespeare's VERY best works. It is probably the most poetic of the comedies and contains perhaps as many famous quotations as any other of his plays. Rosalind is perhaps his greatest female character and this work, along with the equally (or even more) brilliant "Midsummer Night's Dream," is the best example of Shakespeare's theme of the "dream world" vs. the "real" world. This play, especially the scenes in the forest, is a celebration of language and the power of the freedom of the imagination. It consequently can be read as a criticism of the "real world," here represented by Duke Ferdinand's court. Like many of the other comedies, Shakespeare is mocking the "ideal" which many in his society would have praised. Though this play deals with some pretty dark themes (which of his plays doesn't?) it is a light-hearted and fully enjoyable read!