The Taming of the Shrew

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.

Essentially, up until the last hundred or so years, women were property of their husbands and had little or no hope of having control over their own lives. But it does not follow that a woman in such circumstances would be docile by nature. Any woman can make a man happy or miserable depending on how she is managed. This play is a success story about how one man uses psychology to pave his way into a fortune and a prize wife. John Cleese is such an ingenious casting choice for the character of Petruchio in this still-relevant tale of the nature of men and women. Not only for his comedic dryness, but also for his advantage of size in portraying a blustery domineering character. If you admire him in his Python work and are afraid of Shakespeare, simply watch the first 10 minutes of this piece and if you are not captivated, scan forward to Cleese's powerful rendering of Petruchio's soliloquy. He ruins any other actor's chance at improving on his performance. On the other hand, ff you find Shakespeare to contain perennial truths and keen illustrations on the Nature of Mankind, then you will particularly enjoy the perfection of this version. The other actors don't ignorantly recite their lines, but truly convey their meaning through inflection and phrasing. Since Shakespeare often used artful and obscure language even by the standards of his time (this truth is mocked by the "knock me" sequence between Petruchio and Grumio), and gave no notes or stage direction to specifically instruct sarcasm or anger or cluelessness, it is a credit to the company when a Shakespeare play is skillfully revealed to a modern audience, as this one is. Further, the way this play is photographed is so masterfully fluid and economically managed it would not be difficult to fail to notice that the whole of the first 22 minutes is performed on the same 30x50 space.

As far as I'm concerned, this rendering of Taming of the Shrew is the gold standard by which all performances will be measured.

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.

John Cleese in The Taming of the Shrew?!!!

That was my reaction, too. But I couldn't resist tuning in, and boy was I glad I did. I enjoyed Richard Burton's version and considered it the definitive take on Petruchio -- until I saw Cleese's. Simply magnificent. That acid wit of his was the perfect tool for taming Kate. Highly recommended.

The simple truth about Shakespeare's plays - especially the comedies - is that they can be delightful beyond one's wildest imagination. I consider Much Ado About Nothing to be by far one of the most pleasant comedies of Shakespeare, but upon watching The Taming of the Shrew, I come to realize that it, when well produced, can be just as wondrous. The wisdom and humor contained in a play by the Bard are nigh-infinite, if only we have the eyes to see it.

Having said that, this classic BBC production may indeed be classic, but apart from John Cleese it is fairly pedestrian. The delight, for me, comes from the words rather than the stage production, and then, of course, from John Cleese. I had my doubts about him when I heard he was in a "serious" Shakespeare play, but the second I saw him my doubts evaporated. He carries this show, being easily the best thing about it, and it should be obvious to all that Shakespeare and John Cleese is a match made in heaven - a mad mating, to use a pun from the play! One is grief-stricken that Cleese did not go into Shakespeare acting as a full career; woe is we who have spent our lives lacking a comedic giant such as Cleese in the Shakespearean art form!

In short: Cleese is superb, utterly and completely. The rest of the production is adequate, but Cleese absolutely steals the show.

My rating: about 6-ish for the rest of the production, with two points added for Cleese's brilliant performance, coming to an 8 out of 10.