The Comedy of Errors

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.

I was a bit worried at the beginning, (I just hate 'fire-eaters' in merry crowd scenes..and unfortunately there are jugglers and mimes too,another hate of mine)

So I was tensed from the start.

Luckily it didn't deter me, and I was able to enjoy a great performance from Michael Kitchen, and an amateur but still enjoyable one from Roger Daltry.

OK,the plot is corny, the set minimal.

So what? It's a fun production and I enjoyed it.

(I even smirked a few times)

Not the most crucial Bard Product but recommended all the same!

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.

This play is not as feeble as, say, "Two Gentlemen of Verona," but it's not terribly strong either. Directors have a tendency to throw in distractions to up the level of interest: Trevor Nunn threw in nine songs, Greg Mosher added a clown and a drag queen, and here James Cellan Jones throws in a mime troupe.

I don't care what his rationale was, there are three things in life worth avoiding: folk dancing, incest and commedia dell'arte. The mimes are superfluous, annoying and nowhere near as interesting as they are supposed to be.

Getting past that, this is neither the strongest nor the weakest of the BBC Shakespeares. The set is a cheerful stylization of a tiny town on the Aegean, with a surprising amount of atmosphere. It's easy on the eyes and is also built in the round, so no matter which way the camera looks, you remain solidly within the physical setting.

Cyril Cusack and Wendy Hiller get the acting honors, with a tip of the hat to Charles Gray.

The master and servant pair from Syracuse are relaxed and benign, those from Ephesus are sour and prone to violence. Since the TV camera would not forgive two sets of actors pretending to be identical twins, one single actor plays both Antipholi (?), and another both Dromios. Michael Kitchen labors over a case of flu to differentiate his characters. Roger Daltrey is sincere and good-natured, but way out of his depth here and best passed over in silence.

The trouble, as so often with farce, is the pace. Though things start off promisingly and finish well, that droop in the middle is serious.

So, not a show for the ages, but not the worst thing ever to happen to the Bard.

'The Comedy of Errors' is one of William Shakespeare's, one of the most quintessential playwrights, earliest plays and his shortest. Do not think it is one of his best plays, from personal opinion it's not even among my favourites of his comedies. As cliched as this sounds, even when Shakespeare was not at his best though he is still worth reading and analysing/studying, also got a lot of pleasure (one of the few people in my class who did) reading it out loud when reading it as a class in school. 'The Comedy of Errors' is no exception.

1983's production of 'The Comedy of Errors' as part of the inconsistent but fascinating and must-watch BBC Television Shakespeare series, ranging from 1978 to 1985, is neither among the best or worst of that series. In ranking, would put it somewhere in the solid middle. In that it is a well above average and even quite good production, but not a great one. It is mainly worth watching if trying to see as many productions of 'The Comedy of Errors' possible and to see all the BBC Television Shakespeare productions, to see performances of all of Shakespeare's plays (yes even the rarely done ones) that may be low budget but are mostly faithful and have talented casts. Those that like Cyril Cusack, Michael Kitchen, Charles Gray, Wendy Hiller et al. should find much to like about this production as well.

It is not a perfect production, and some of it is to do with the staging. It is stagy at times, there is some very distracting stage business bordering on overdone mugging (i.e. the mime) that was not needed and the beginning goes on for rather too long. Most of the very brave use of split screen is done surprisingly well, but there were points where it wasn't so seamless and was obvious, especially near the end.

Really wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but couldn't help worrying that Roger Daltrey would be a disaster being somebody who didn't care for him in 'Tommy' and that he was swamped by everybody else. His role there and his dual/identical role in a Shakespeare comedy are so far apart and the former should have been more in his comfort zone. Actually he was a little better and not quite as out of place as expected as he does give his all, but he overdoes it and never really fully settled in the roles.

Everybody else fared well to brilliantly. Michael Kitchen is in the other dual/identical role and is much better, much more comfortable, he neither goes overboard or plays it too seriously, he is much less obvious and the roles fit him like a glove. He and Daltrey had the most difficult roles, but dual/identical roles can be done well and has proven to be (a big prime example being 'Dead Ringers', have been mentioning this film a lot recently but for good reason) and he does very well done. That said, there are better performances in the cast. Suzanne Bertish's Adriana is suitably feisty and Cusack, Gray and Hiller can be relied upon to give good performances and do and more. For me, the best performance comes from Cusack with Gray a very close second.

It's a good looking production on the whole. It's not high budget and not on location but does well considering the limitations. The sets are far from dreary or tack and there is more of a sense of time and place and authenticity than other productions of the series. The split screen is patchy but mostly not amateurish, while the production is nicely scored, it sounds appealing and it fits at least. The staging has its flaws, but has enough fun and absorbing moments and doesn't leave one in a muddle. It's a long way from being just under two hours of torture.

On the whole, quite good though with room for improvement. 7/10