Troilus & Cressida

I'd never see this play before, only the Opera when I was 10 and I didn't remember much of that, not surprisingly.

I'd hesitated a bit over watching this one from the set but as always with Shakespeare I was caught up in it right from the start. I do have a few gripes though. I felt Cressida did just a bit too much wailing when told she must leave Troy and her lover. I don't complain much, as someone else has on this list that they were wearing the wrong clothes etc or that the fighting scenes weren't very realistic. I think the director was trying to show the play as it would appear in Shakespeare's time so it's fine that the clothes are contemporary rather than Ancient Greek (did people of Shakespeare's time know what Ancient Greeks wore?) and we couldn't expect the actors to do lengthy realistic duels. But yes, the duel between Ajax and Hector was unconvincingly coy. Did Achilles really not kill Hector himself but have Hector set upon and murdered by his followers and then profess to having done the killing himself? What exactly happened to Troilus's rival for Cressida or did I somehow fall asleep at the moment whatever happened? And finally, why oh why wasn't Achilles' death included, that so very famous sequence when Paris shoots him with an arrow in the one place he's vulnerable? This is why I ask if the play's unfinished - there's no revenge shown for Hector's death and wouldn't Shakespeare have wanted to include this famous sequence as a fitting finale? But perhaps I can be convinced that Shakespeare's ending is right, that it

I was impressed by all the actors, especially Bernard Whitrow as Ulysses and Charles Gray as Pandarus.

I am a seasoned Shakespeare appreciator, but I just have no idea what's going on in Troilus and Cressida. What is the point of the action? What does it all mean? What do the characters represent? What themes are being treated here? This seems to me the most impenetrable Shakespeare play of all.

The play is about two things, by and large: the relationship of Troilus and Cressida, and the war between Troy and the Greeks. The latter interferes with the former. Troilus is a courtly lover who woos his courtly mistress, Cressida, who relishes her role and plays appropriately hard to get. In time she acquiesces to him, and they become lovers, swearing over and over to be true to each other. Just then it happens that Cressida is demanded by the Greeks in a hostage exchange, and much against both her own and Troilus' will she is handed over to them, in exchange of one Antenor, an otherwise completely anonymous Trojan character. Once in the Greek camp, Cressida is apparently so taken with the Greek warriors that she begins to forget her vows, and starts up a relationship with Diomed. Troilus is, of course, distraught. Later on, Trojan warrior Hector, brother of Troilus, is killed by Achilles, and the war just goes on.

It's all quite mysterious. What does it mean? What does this action signify? Is it about the melancholy futility of extended warfare? Or is it, like Antony and Cleopatra, a statement about how courtly love cannot survive in an era of history where the defining feature of civilization is the ability and willingness to wage war? I think it must be something like the latter, but it isn't exactly clear!

This BBC production is well mounted, with good actors, good enunciation, as we expect from the BBC, but the production does not particularly aid us in understanding what the play is really about. There are some good actors here, esp. Charles Gray and the guy who plays Thersites, whereas one is disappointed by how small a role a character like Achilles plays in this story.

It is a hard play to gloss, but the BBC makes an honest and ambitious effort in staging it, and for this we should be grateful.

8 out of 10.

As has been noted, 'Troilus and Cressida' is one of Shakespeare's less famous plays. Not because it is a bad or inferior play, far from it. The prose and characters are characteristically memorable and the comic and tragic elements and how they're balanced have always intrigued in Shakespeare (though other plays of his handle this more subtly). It is more down to how difficult it is to stage, with it being very psychological, how to respond to the characters puzzling some, its ambiguity and the questioning of values.

From 1978 to 1985 the BBC did an interesting if variable (don't dislike any of the productions, but not all of them are great) series of productions of all of Shakespeare's plays. That is one of the main reasons in seeing the productions, also with some of the plays having limited available competition on video or DVD. Another good reason being seeing casts consisting of fine actors, some early on in their career. Their version of 'Troilus and Cressida' is a solid one, do not think it as of now deserves to be one of the lower rated productions of the BBC Television Shakespeare series here. Put it somewhere in the middle, for a play with not many productions available this more than makes do.

Wasn't crazy about the production values where once again budget limitations are evident, just looked too drab and grim and the lack of authenticity sticks out like a sore thumb a bit.

Jack Birkett is less than incredible and goes too over the top, as has already been mentioned by some, as Thersites, the hamminess annoys and jars.

On the other hand, there is so much to recommend. The long takes of the camera work are beautifully judged, without ever making the action static and enhancing it at its best even, as is the distinguished delivery of the prologue. The production is directed most tastefully by Jonathan Miller, who is highly successful in making the characters interesting and easier to understand, keeping the character interaction detailed and compelling and balancing the comedy and tragedy smoothly and without being out of control (very problematic staging the play). The comedy is funny and doesn't feel over-played and the tragedy is genuinely moving.

Regarding the staging, a major highlight is the climax, the climax is one of Shakespeare's most harrowing and the staging of it in this 'Troilus and Cressida' is as brutal as they come. Hector's death lives long in the memory. Cressida agreed has a big scene that is quite devasting. Birkett aside, the acting is very good. Although age-appropriateness is called into question with some of the cast, that does not stop the performances themselves being great. Anton Lesser is a compelling Troilus while Suzanne Burden fares even better as a touching Cressida. Anthony Pedley is also fine. This 'Troilus and Cressida' production's best performances come from, and this has been mentioned by some already, Charles Gray's full of life Pandaras and Ben Whitrow's chillingly calculating Ulysses.

To conclude, solid. 7/10

Jonathan Miller triumphs with a fascinating production of an unruly play. His eye for casting is faultless, and different from others in the series. This personal view is emphasized by his special precision as director in revealing the interplay of character. There is absolutely no rhetoric for sound's sake here - every character knows exactly why they are saying what they're saying, and who they're saying it to.

The running time of "Troilus" is 12 minutes longer than that of "Pericles," yet it feels around 45 minutes shorter. Much of this play is done with a single mobile camera in long, unblinking takes. This adds to the pressure on the actors and crew, and contributes to a special kind of energy.

The performances are all excellent, without an embarrassment in the cast. That is not always true in this series. The young lovers are fine. Charles Gray grabs the role of Pandarus, and shakes it within an inch of its life. This huge personality is almost too big for the small screen, yet he never quite outstays his welcome.

Ben Whitrow's Ulysses is perhaps the most clever, calculating and cold-blooded of any, in any version of the story I've seen. Anthony Pedley is a funny Ajax, and Kenneth Haigh and John Shrapnel are confident as Achilles and Hector. Esmond Knight as King Priam and Jack Birkett as Thersites are both blind actors, which adds a certain otherworldly quality to the proceedings. The physical production and sound design are both detailed and effective.

The book "The BBC Shakespeare Plays: Making the Televised Canon" by Susan Willis spends a whole chapter describing in detail the rehearsal, taping and editing of this "Troilus." Highly recommended reading.

P.S. The prologue is read off-camera by an uncredited actor. Could it be Alec McCowen? Whoever it is reads the Bard's words as they should be read, a model for would-be Shakespeareans to study.

This is, along with Pericles, Timon of Athens and All's Well That Ends Well (just for starters), the only filmed version of the play available. Although the production is not bad, you get the feeling that if there was a new filmed production it would supersede it.

The star of the film is Charles Gray as Pandarus, Cressida's camp uncle and matchmaker. He gets some of the best lines, referring to young lovers as a "generation of vipers", and he is wonderfully decadent yet also quite touching in his love for his niece.

For me, the soldiers all blended into one, apart from Patrolucus, Hector (once identified) and Thyerstes (Jack Birkett), a grotesquely camp soldier commenting on some of the action in the camp.

As the lovers, Anton Lesser is suitably tender as Troilus though not particularly interesting. Suzanne Burden speaks the verse clearly but she lacks spark and flirtatiousness. Their tragedy is that Troilus is true in love whereas Cressida is a flirt and cannot stay true, even if she loves Troilus.

I haven't read the play so I can only judge it by what I see here. There are some great lines and emotional love scenes, and some great characters in Cressida, Panderus and Thyerstes. The story is set during the Trojan War. Cressida and Troilus are in love but her fidelity is tested when she becomes a prisoner of the Greeks. Beware- at the end, there is a very powerful gruesome scene. Thematically it is very interesting: the subjects being war and lechery. Shakespeare draws parallels between the two and the two world clash together at the end for a grotesque finish.

Is it a tragedy or a comedy? Some have called it a satire but I think it's more of a tragedy with political commentary. It's an interesting play that I'd like to explore more.

In short, this production is not bad (long though) but overall it lacks something of the greater productions, such as Measure for Measure and Pericles.

EDIT: Actually looking back on this, I think Suzanne Burden, whilst not doing a great job, does a slightly better job than I thought. I think she lacks Cressida's crassness; Cressida is essentially one of the boys. She wants to play by men's rules but can't. However she does get Cressida's vulnerability across well. For all her bawdy talk, she is a maiden when she meets Troilus. I think her ability to stay true is not simply because she's a flirt, but because she is afraid of commitment. She reveals a lot of her heart to Troilus but as soon as she says a nice thing she has to undermine it with a cynical one. Though Cressida knows that Troilus loves her, she can't quite believe it until she is confronted with another man. That's why it's such a shame that this play is not done more; it's Shakespeare's most modern and incisive study of relationships.