The Taming of the Shrew

If you want a slapstick, obvious "Shrew," don't waste time, go directly to Zeffirelli's overstuffed, overdecorated jamboree of shtick. OTOH, this production is actually about people, who they are and why they act that way. The cast here may be less star-studded than the other version, but is uniformly funny and very much worth watching.

Director Jonathan Miller brings his background as a neurologist into play here to make sure that the characters are not mere eccentric puppets, but are psychologically well-grounded. Sarah Badel gets the palm as Katherina. She doesn't just play the anger and violence of sibling rivalry, she also shows the pain and bewilderment of living in a world where everybody loves her sister more. John Cleese starts off uncertainly, underplaying the verse and slow to abandon Basil Fawlty's tics as he establishes the character of Petruchio, but later he grows in the part and is quite warm and human by the end. In fact, the whole play closes with much greater love and humanity than usual.

The rest of the cast is never bad, and occasionally quite brilliant. Anthony Pedley's Tranio is beautifully done, as is John Franklyn Robbins' Baptista, and Frank Thornton's Gremio leaves "Are You Being Served?" completely behind. Jonathan Cecil knows that he has a funny face and tries a little hard, but his Hortensio never breaks context with the rest of the play. Sharp-eyed viewers will recognize Angus Lennie (Mole in "The Great Escape"), Joan Hickson (Miss Marple) and John Bird ("Barnaby Spoot and the Exploding Whoopee Cushion").

The beautiful but spare decor is BBC Old Masters. There are some bewildering moments when a Vermeer room is invaded by riotous brawling, but that's probably a good thing. Occasionally a gag misfires, for as Groucho says, "All the jokes can't be good." But the overall impression is very positive. Altogether recommendable.

I saw this when first broadcast on PBS. I have no idea where you would find it now. It was a bit minimalist in its setting and staging, but that was part of the wonderful effect. I believe (and hope I am getting this right) that Jonathon Miller said the goal was to very much represent what an Elizabethan playgoer would have seen if they had been to an opening performance of Bill Shakespeare's plays. I seem to recall John Cleese saying that it came to him some time into rehearsals that this was the official BBC version for the next several decades and that he was shocked that he had stupidly missed that point until later and also shocked that he had that much responsibility. He ended up hiring a tutor to run lines with him so he could get every word with 100% accuracy.

I wish I could find it to see again.

A funny, fast-paced and thoroughly enjoyable production. All the actors are clear and well-spoken. They all add funny little unspoken touches to their lines, Cleese especially, so that there's a lot of physical comedy going on while the fast dialogue is crackling. A lot of talent went into this show, and it pays off.

Unlike Taylor, Burton, and Zefferelli, who run roughshod over Shakespere's script and chew the scenery like buffoons; Jonathon Miller's intelligent direction and John Cleese's droll performance illuminate the true depth of the play. Cleese is ever mindful of the brilliance of Katherine's intellect and seduces rather than browbeats her to be his love. While at the same time being seduced by her mind and deeply loving heart. Not a farce as it is most often produced, but a true battle of wits, where both combatants win.

I recently studied this play in Brit Lit, and I definitely think that even though this version might be a little slower than the Zefferelli version, it is better. The Zefferelli version reverts back to the physical, cheap humor that Shakespeare obviously steers clear of, because in his day there were a number of those kinds of plays out there, but they were cheap, superficial plays. Also, Zefferelli leaves out the falcon soliloquey. I think that John Cleese is just a genius with comedy, and I am also a big fan of Frank Thorton. Besides that, I think that the makers of this film understood the real themes of Taming, and tried to portray them in the movie, as opposed to Zefferelli, who added extraneous things to make it more "amusing", but thus led it further away from Shakespeare's true meaning.