Theatre

There is no denying the timelessness of William Shakespeares collection of work and it is especially evident with the extent of creativity and interpretation it has gone through in many different mediums. Shakespeares comedies, in particular, have thoroughly captured the modern audience, with its rambunctious dialogue, entrancing characters, and unexpected plot lines. Two most acclaimed versions of Shakespearean comedy are the American Conservatory Theatres playful, commedia dellarte rendition of The Taming of the Shrew and Kenneth Branaghs 1993 film Much Ado About Nothing. Like a lot of Shakespeares comedies, these two most popular works focuses on the clash between the sexes the cocky Petruchio and the shrewish Katharina, the misogynistic Benedick and the proud Beatrice. It also dabbles on mistaken identity and illusion. Utilizing two very different approaches to Shakespearean comedy, we see in these two works the extent to which modern-day artists have come to interpret the hallowed writings of the Bard.

In 1976, William Ball, director and co-founder of the American Conservatory Theatre, embarked on creating a version of The Taming of the Shrew that was founded on the, what could be, the essence of Shakespeares theatre. Relying on the physical comedy and speedy dialogue attributed to commedia dellarte, he created a version that was perhaps closes to how it was performed in the Globe. Despite this risky approach, the style was never alienating to its audience and was actually very effective in relaying the spirit of Shakespearean comedy. And despite the language barrier and the difference in context, the play is one laugh-out-loud fiasco that doesnt seem to want to stop.

A particular scene that exemplified this was the meeting of Petruchio and Katherina, the tamer and the shrew. Spectacularly acted by Marc Singer and Ferdi Olster, respectively, with admirable athleticism and rapid-fire dialogue, the scene had a market-show feel, where the audience is permitted, and even encouraged, to react gregariously at the antics show on stage, whether it be the couples choreographed wrestling match, the unadulterated banter, or the generous helping of sexual innuendo. Following the commedia tradition, slapstick and lazzi, or the humorous interruptions that do not relate to the play itself, were greatly employed much to the surprising enjoyment of the audience. Sound effects were also used to accent the humour and to add another layer of comedy to the play. Just watching this hyperactive show, one would feel like watching a superbly acted improvisation carnival, one that is always witty and never lacklustre. Under Balls uncanny direction, this playfulness and creativity that, for Ball, describes the true essence of theatre, is blended seamlessly with the underlying, grounding theme of the play is love between men and women utter subjugation, or pure romance

Branaghs Much Ado About Nothing follows the same tread, with the characters of Beatrice and Benedick, staunch detractors of the opposite sexes, continuously bickering about the uselessness of love. At the same time, they serve as comparison to the encompassing love affair of Hero and Claudio.

Like Ball, Branagh grounds the film on the texts innate humour that, on the wrong hands, can become bland and pretentious. But Branagh, who also plays Benedick, with a wonderful ensemble cast of household names and unknown actors led by a superb Emma Thompson as Beatrice, effortlessly drives through the comedy by keeping the film sincere and light. The pace is quick and up-tempo, never resting for one moment unless necessary. This shows on the very first scene of the film as the excited people of Messina scramble about to prepare for the arrival of Don Pedro of Aragon, played with much dignity by an unlikely Denzel Washington. Actors run about as the camera pans quickly from one area to another, showing flying smocks, rushing bath water, and quite a number of bare-bottomed men. This rushed feel is quite similar to the speedy action found in Balls Taming.

What would best describe these two works, though they come from different genres and eras, is the genuine approach to the text. By creating a very muted backdrop, as seen in Tamings plain set and costume design, and in Much Ados simple, earthy Messina setting, the characters, the plot, and the dialogue all come out and we see the capacity of Shakespeares genius. But, of the two, it must be Balls work that has remained the most true to the essence of Shakespeares work, and even more. Aside from clearly relaying the plot, through Balls play, we saw how Taming of the Shrew might have been performed during its first runs at the Globe. And we see how commedia dellarte, being that it came from the same timeline as Shakespeare, works perfectly with wit, irony, and slapstick humour of the text. Much Ado strives to do this, as well, but with the limitations of film and its market, it was not able to expand on the idea.

But pushing everything aside, there can never be any comparison between the deliverables of these two works. Essentially, the goal is to present Shakespeare with a different approach and make his work accessible and understandable. Based on these two criteria, the works of Ball and Branagh have reached the passing marks. But to be able to hear an audience react to the Bards words, to smile, laugh, and cry in empathy, is enough to be hailed a success.