The Comedy of Errors

I saw the Comedy of Errors with Roger Daltrey. I totally disagree. I thought Daltrey was very entertaining and acted brilliantly in it. Also got to see him on stage in NYC acting as Scrooge in a Christmas Carol about 7 years ago. He was good in that role, too.

In addition to being a well known singer, I believe he shows a lot of versatility with his acting, also. I'm guessing he's gotta be on the other side of 60 now, but he still looks good. He was on Letterman recently with Peter Townshend, and although he's beginning to show age, he still keeps himself in great shape.

While a lot of rock stars of his era were poisoning their bodies with drugs and alcohol, he seemed to steer clear. There were times he fought with his own band mates over the alcohol and drugs they were using and killing themselves with(Two of them died using drugs). He stayed away and looks great at his age compared to how bad others look from his era who were lucky enough to survive their drug addictions.

"The Comedy of Errors," a 1983 TV movie of William Shakespeare's early funny play, is a fun version that keeps the main idea of the original words while adding more things to see and do that make it more funny.

Director James Cellan Jones does a good job of showing the crazy and silly world of "The Comedy of Errors" with skill and smoothness. The movie happens in the city of Ephesus, where there are a lot of mix-ups, silly actions, and jokes with words, all done by a great group of actors.

The movie is about two sets of twins who look the same and were lost when they were babies, Antipholus of Syracuse and Antipholus of Ephesus, and their helpers, who are both called Dromio. The story is about what happens when they all come to the same city and get confused for each other.

The main actors, Michael Kitchen and Roger Daltrey, both do a great job. Kitchen, who plays both Antipholus roles, shows the confused, annoyed faces and says the smart speeches very well. Daltrey, who plays both Dromios, adds to this with his amazing funny actions and saying things at the right time.

The other actors also do a good job, especially Suzanne Bertish and Jenny Agutter, who play Adriana and Luciana. They make their characters interesting and lively.

The things that make the movie look good, like the places and clothes, are good too. They make it look like the play's place near the sea. The music, made by Ilona Sekacz, makes the movie feel light and silly.

But, the movie's loyalty to the original words might be hard for some viewers who don't know Shakespeare's language well. Even though the actors and the situation make the story easy to follow, some words might be hard to get or understand.

To end, the 1983 movie of "The Comedy of Errors" is a good and fun way to show Shakespeare's early joke. It has the feeling of the play with a strong group of actors and a director who knows how to make Shakespeare's work funny and lovely. It's a classic that people who like Shakespeare, and people who like good comedy, will like a lot.

I know the BBC Shakespeare series has this reputation for being low-budget and boring, but I've enjoyed them, even if the quality isn't always consistent. The takes on the material tend to be creative and inspired, and the lack of flashy cinematography helps keep the focus on the language and performances. Best of all, lesser-known works in the Bard's canon get a chance to shine through this series.

THE COMEDY OF ERRORS is one such piece. An early comedy, it lacks the sophisticated characterizations of MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING or A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM. There is a heavy emphasis on crude physical humor and the farce gets so intense that it can be an exhausting read. However, this performance is light and entertaining. I was impressed by how the actors made this silly story seem more grounded. There were even elements of pathos the play's text lacks. It just goes to show how different a story can come off in performance as opposed to through the text alone.

this movie bothered me so much, I had to see it in many days to survive the agony of it. now I am going to try to show my feelings towards this picture.

first of all: the acting. the cast acts like they are teaching little children. I hate it when actor's do taht. it's as if we are all dumb creatures and they know it all... I dislike that fact, because it isn't so. correct, it's a play of Shakespeare, so they must overact to make it watchable, but still... they annoyed me like hell! second: the story. it's a story a 7 year old can write. again, it's Shakespeare, but why should I have to love everything from Shakespeare? yes, I like most of his works, but this one I detested. it was like watching a train arrive in 1894 (actually, that would have been more exciting than this Comedy of Errors).

the music. ah, the music was fine. but if you would hear the music outside of the movie, you would hate it. so, also the music BEEPs.

conclusion: the whole movie BEEPs. the only interesting about it was the conclusion, where everybody comes together in a Shakespearian way.

To cast one Roger Daltrey may be regarded as a misfortune. To cast two looks like carelessness.

This is a woefully clunky piece of film-making, and its biggest mistake is to use sophisticated special effects (sorry, awkward split-screen work) so that the same actors can play both identical twins. The BBC series is always over-literal in its interpretations, and this is a classic example; when the two Roger Daltreys and the two Michael Kitchens are identical to the point of pristine perfection, the story is actually made even less realistic than it was before. And it's also made less interesting; the actors don't play each twin as having a different personality, so it's difficult to tell who is who, and even more difficult to care. (Quite apart from the fact that Daltrey can't act...)

Unintentional humour: check out the under-rehearsed actors who attempt to mime Egeon's story of his travels. It's really funny in a painful kind of way.