Love's Labour's Lost

As has already been noted, 'Love's Labour's Lost' is not one of "The Bard" William Shakespeare's best or most accessible plays despite being one of Shakespeare's shortest. Mostly for all that wordplay and dialogue, difficult to remember and not always easy to follow. It is a lot of fun to watch though and one of the most striking aspects of it is the very meaty character of Berowne, so it does deserve to be better known.

'Love's Labour's Lost' is not quite in the top 10 of the BBC Television Shakespeare series to me ('Much Ado About Nothing', 'Henry the Eighth', 'King Richard the Second', both parts of 'Henry the Fourth', 'The Taming of the Shrew', 'Richard III', 'Pericles', 'Twelfth Night', with 'Hamlet', 'King Lear', 'Measure for Measure' and 'All's Well that Ends Well' just missing out). It's not one of the weakest either, though don't dislike any of the productions ('A Midsummer Night's Dream', 'Romeo and Juliet', 'Othello', 'Antony and Cleopatra', 'The Tempest', though none are unwatchable). Personally put it somewhere near the top, have realised watching this very interesting if uneven series that some productions of the lesser known plays are better than those for the more famous plays.

There is really not an awful lot wrong here in 'Love's Labour's Lost'. Do agree that the abridgements and moving around of some of the text was not always necessary and actually complicated the story.

While all the cast give good to excellent performances, the production is a case of the supporting actors faring better than a few of the leads. Jonathan Kent and Maureen Lipman plays their parts spot on and there are no problems with the characterisation, but it is agreed that it is the age-appropriateness (or lack of it) that brings them down a little. Just didn't buy them as young lovers, but their characterisation does make up for that.

Mike Gwilym, as the play's most interesting character Berowne, and David Warner, having an absolute blast with Armado, are never less than splendid and were the clear standouts for me. This is not the first time Gwilym featured in the BBC Television Shakespeare series, do think that this is one of his best performances of the series, perhaps his best.

On a visual level too, 'Love's Labour's Lost' is one of the best looking and most professional of the series, like most of the Elijah Moshinsky-directed productions. Some of the series' productions, namely 'The Tempest' and 'A Midsummer Night's Dream', suffered from budget constraints, meaning a drab and unattractive look. Not here, thought the production values looked pretty gorgeous actually. It's beautifully and intelligently staged too, it is not always successful in making the story easy to follow but one is always engaged, it is a lot of fun and it is played straight without ever being too serious.

In summation, very good. 8/10

Despite hilarious laugh out loud scenes and wonderful performances, this adaption fails at fidelity. Scenes are not only swapped, but cut and pasted, and there is a lot of dialogue removed. Being that this is a play about wordplay, puns, innuendos, etc. cutting lines is a large no. On another note, Moth appears older than Don Armando, which distracts when he is referred to as an adolescent (John Wilder agrees). If you have not read the play, then do not watch this expecting a perfect page to screen translation.

This is one of the weaker adaptations from the BBC's "Complete Works" series. It's not my favorite script from him to begin with, but what William Shakespeare's original play lacked in a compelling, complex, or even realistic story, made up for in some of the cleverest and wittiest dialogue The Bard has ever put to a page in his career. However, the BBC's version of the text played it more straight, less funny or witty, not by cuts but by choice of delivery, which in turn made for a much less entertaining TV movie. I may have chuckled once, and for the rest of the time I was completely bored by what I was watching.

This fine production was one of the last in the BBC Shakespeare series. The acting is excellent on all sides; the costumes are lovely; and the sets are very impressive. Mike Gwilym is particularly good as Berowne -- by far the most richly characterized role in the play -- but everyone else, ranging from Maureen Lipman (Princess) to Paul Jesson (Costard), likewise acts at a pleasingly high level. My sole complaint, especially about a production that runs for under two hours, is that there are far too many abridgments and some rather odd rearrangements of bits of the text that are extracted from their original locations. Those alterations are at best unnecessary and at worst rather confusing. Still, they don't detract much from the overall magic of the performances.

Neither the most fascinating or the most accessible of Shakespeare's plays, 'Love's Labour's Lost' is the first part of a new lost pair of plays centering on the King of Navarre and his Lords as they vow to foresake all female company for three years to concentrate on their studies. All, that is, but the Princess of France who just happens to be due on a state visit ... well attended by her ladies! As the King, Jonathan Kent (now a respected theatre director) is pleasing enough, and his young courtiers (Berowne is a peach of a part seized on with relish by Mike Gwilym; Longaville and Dumain are a couple of dreamers played by Christopher Blake and Geoffrey Burridge, two fine actors sadly now lost to us) are strong enough characterisations to move proceedings along.

Maureen Lipman is a mischievous Princess, all smiles and jests, while her ladies (Petra Markham, Jenny Agutter, and Katy Behean) make good foils for the lovestruck swains. The supporting cast are no less watchable - David Warner excellent as Armado, with John Kane as faithful servant, Paul Jesson fun as the dumb Costard, and Frank Williams (the vicar from 'Dad's Army') is well-cast as Dull.

Set in a limbo time and place and dressed accordingly, this production of 'Love's Labour's Lost' does much to bring in the viewer, and when the lines are most impenetrable, it doesn't matter.

A short adaptation at just two hours, this is a quiet production from the BBC set which sits nicely alongside showier pieces such as 'Hamlet' and 'Othello'.