Shakespeare on Film Movie Review: Akira Kurosawa's "RAN"

Akira Kurosawa, known among ardent film fans by the well-deserved moniker "The Master" has been a profound influence on the state of modern film, and everything from "Star Wars" to "A Fistful of Dollars" owes a debt to his immeasurable contribution. Among his extensive filmography there are actually several films that were loose but very well-executed and beautiful adaptations of Shakespeare's works; the best of these, and the film that is often cited as Kurosawa's final masterpiece, is the vibrant and colorful "RAN" (pronounced "Rahn"), which was released in 1985 and is based on the Bard's classic "King Lear". At the time it was the most expensive Japanese film ever produced, and it is an epic for sure; the color (an element that people were skeptical of with Kurosawa, since he was known for black and white) is breahtaking. Some of even the most violent scenes have a tinge of beauty because of the palette that was chosen. And the direction is different for Kurosawa; a lot less close ups and many more wide shots, but this change shows that Kurosawa is just as potent from a distance.

The play, like "Lear", deals with an elderly warlord who divides his kingdom among his offspring, only to see this decision lead to chaos, disruption, and disorder. However, there is a key element that is changed; Hideotora, the Lear figure in this film version, is not an honorable man as Lear is. The thing that makes "Lear" the ultimate tragedy is the fact that he is undeserving of all of the sorrow and emotional torment he endures in the play. On the other hand, Hideotora has been responsible for numerous rapes, murders, and other acts of despicable violence in order to claim that which he possesses. As a result the overreaching message of the play and the film adaptation are both good but starkly different; "Lear" is a tragedy about the unfortunate and needless emotional ruin of an experienced elderly man, and a commentary on how the elderly generation is easily dismissed by the younger one once the younger generation has the power it craves. "Ran" is about how the sins of the father will be passed on to the child, and can lead to the destruction of both in the process. Hideotora's ruthlessness is what dooms himself and his beloved childrfen, and Hideotora only realizes this once it is inevitably too late, and that is the ultimate tragic element of his particular story.

This spin on the story is framed against the backdrop of feuding samurai warriors and political scheming. there's even an appearance by a truly evil, ghastly woman Lady Kaede who echoes elements of Lady Macbeth, and gives a very expressive but minimalist performance that is unnerving without being showy. It's roots are in Shakespeare but it never forgets to make the material feel alive and maintains the spirit of Shakespearean tragedy without taking many of the pratfalls of the era.

So Can I Watch This Instead of Reading the Play?

No. Well, let me preface this; definitely watch "Ran". It really is a remarkable piece of cinematic art, and the costuming and battle sequences are astounding even 25 years later. However, if you are watching this instead of reading "Lear" and expecting not to look like a fool on your next book report, you are sorely mistaken. The film is clearly based on "King Lear" but the direction the play is taken on the screen version is starkly different, and even the ultimate message both stories are trying to convey are not really alike at all. "Lear" is a tale of how evil things happen to decent yet foolish people, and "RAN" is about how evil people will see their sins replicated and magnified in their offspring. As a piece of film art its a masterpiece; as a straight adaptation, it really only uses the actual play as the framework on which the director's own vision of the story was built, and therefore, watch it in reference to its Shakespeare ties with this fact firmly in thought.

And for those who have never seen a glimpse of how "RAN" looks as a film, here is a really lovely fan-made trailer:

The Bard's Work Review #2: King Lear

I've previously read most of Shakespeare's most beloved and acclaimed tragedies (Hamlet, Macbeth, and Romeo and Juliet being the other prominent works from him of this genre), and had always meant to get around to reading the last of the 4 major works in this genre, "King Lear". While I was aware of the basic plot of the play, my knowledge of it was minimal, outside of films loosely based on the play (of which, you will learn through successive posts on this blog, there are many). Upon reading the play in its entirety, I discovered I not only enjoyed it, but was a little miffed at myself for waiting this long to read it. Of his four classic tragedies, this is the one that is not as blatantly represented in popular culture as the other three, and yet for me it is the best of the four.

So What Is This Play About Anyway?

The play begins with King Lear deciding he will be vacating his throne and giving the power he wields as king to his three daughters, but with the caveat that the one who shows him the most devotion and love as a daughter will receive the largest share of rulership (translation: whoever can give me the biggest ego boost among my daughters, you get the largest piece. Commence the brown-nosing). His first two daughters, Regan and Goneril, submit to this suck-up contest on a herculean scale, espousing a torrent of flowery descriptions of how awesome Lear is. His third daughter, Cordelia, does not. While she is not disrespectful or impolite, she doesn't feel the need to heap overly dramatic praise, and as a result Lear removes her from any of the treasures of the throne, and instead splits the kingdom between Regan and Goneril. The Earl of Kent challenges Lear's action as a false one, and since Lear isn't a huge proponent of contrary opinions, banishes Kent from the country.

And this singular action spirals Lear's kingdom wildly out of control. Both of the daughters lack respect or honor in regards to their father now that his is no longer king, thinking of him as irrelevant and senile in his old age. They reject him outright, throwing him into a whirlwind of anger at their ungratefulness and sadness at the fact they would deem their own father beneath them. He only finds support in the form of Kent, who snuck back into the country in disguise only to assist the man who banished him, and the Earl of Gloucester, who believes what is happening to Lear is awful but finds himself in tragedy later when his eyes are gouged out. Also Cordelia, the very daughter he shunned, comes to the aid of Lear, who is increasingly losing his grip on sanity.

The state the kingdom has been left in because of Regan and Goneril's mistakes leaves the country very vulnerable, and the French attempt an invasion, which the British army does succeed in defeating. But the paranoia and mistrust among the family reaches a fever pitch as Goneril fatally poisons Regan. Goneril confesses to the poisoning, but only before fatally stabbing herself as well, because apparently self-destructive diva behavior was hereditary in Lear's lineage. Cordelia is slain by a killer sent by the enemy of the country, Edmund, and the now stark raving mad Lear mourns Cordelia's demise as he holds her in his arms. Lear dies shortly after, his mind completely fallen victim to madness by this point. The play ends with one of two secondary characters, Edgar or Albany, being crowned based on which version of the play you read (in my version Albany ascends the throne).

My Thoughts

King Lear begins with a message that seems to illustrate the dangers of the well-known verse from Proverbs "pride goeth before the fall". Lear's decision to spread the kingdom between the two daughters who are heaping such an absurd amount of praise that its clear they aren't the most honest of women is a clear omen that giving them the reins of the kingdom was a poor decision on Lear's part. Cordelia's need to be honest and upfront about where the line is in regards to her relationship with her father makes her the clear candidate for who should replace him as the head of royalty. But Lear's own pride causes him to rebuff Cordelia's response and instead give the throne to the two other less authentic daughters. This is the action that ultimately dooms him and all three of his daughters. It also becomes apparent through the shunning Lear receives from the two ruling daughters that their worship of him was clearly only for the purpose of acquisition, and their admiration was only applicable when they had something to gain from him.

Ultimately Cordelia is the key figure in the play. Lear's brief flirtation with narcissism in the play does indeed lead to a tragic end for the two ungrateful daughters, and manages to cause Lear to descent into insanity and perish himself. But it also leads to Cordelia's demise, meaning that Lear's actions destroyed those who maintained guilt for the state of the kingdom, but also lead to the destruction of the sole innocent figure in the family. By rejecting the one virtuous daughter, he ultimately dooms her and the entire family. Had he embraced her for her blunt but honest words, it would be interesting to see if the play would have had the same conclusion.

For as well as it is known by title, "King Lear" is seriously under-read compared to the other classic Shakespearean tragedies. Which is a shame because the richness in the story, and the fact that it has more women in prominent authoritative roles than most Elizabethan plays makes it an interesting and absorbing read. And like several of Shakespeare's plays, it is a story you will notice as having been retooled and reworked for several other contemporary works.

And I leave you this post with a rather humorous Shakespeare-related video from British comedy icons Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean) and Hugh Laurie (Dr. House):

Shakespeare On TV Review: South Park, "Scott Tenorman Must Die"

In the process of composing this blog, one of my main objectives is to take the text of Shakespeare, which to many is still achingly inaccessible as a result of the Elizabethan approach to the English language, and relate how the writer's work has entered into our culture in places one would never expect to find its presence. One need not look any further than the wildly subversive and brilliant animated brainchild of Matt Stone and Trey Parker, "South Park", to see the influence of the Bard at work. One of the most beloved episode in the history of series, titled "Scott Tenorman Must Die" (and in fact was voted as the 2nd best episode of all time by fans, falling just behind a hilarious satire on the massive multiplayer PC game World of Warcraft). The story relates an epic battle of wits the overweight young Eric Cartman has with 9th grader Scott Tenorman after he is fooled into purchasing disposable remnants from Tenorman's lower anatomy. And for rabid fans of all things Shakespeare, we as viewers are also subjected to a hilarious sampling of Shakespeare's infamously gory early play "Titus Andronicus".

How, you say? Well, the escalation in Scott's actions against Cartman on a minimal level echoes Tamora's actions. While having Cartman humiliate himself by buying a plastic bag full of 9th grader pubic hair or having him dance and sing "I'm A Little Piggy" may pale in comparison to the horrors of your daughter having her tongue gouged out and having your own hand sliced off, in the world of South Park, these offenses were equally horrific to young Cartman. There are also some subtle similarities as well: the fact that in a story that seems to be borrowing from the most famous English writer, the most popular British band of today (Radiohead) makes an appearance in a show that is traditionally much more Western in character. It should also be noted that Chef is the other major figure in the Chili Carnival Revenge (which I will explain in detail in the next paragraph), much in the same way the sole African-American character in "Titus", Aaron, is the catalyst in which revenge is able to be taken on the evil Tamora in the end as a result of his confession that is released to save his infant child. Even the name "Tenorman" seems like a deviation of sorts of "Tamora". None of this should come as a surprise to fans of Matt and Trey: the boys have included Dickensian and Kafkaesque references in the series several times in the past, and it would not be a stretch to suggest Shakespeare might be among their many literary allusions as well.

Of course the largest similarity is the ending, which has become a classic moment in South Park history. Cartman hatches a plan to take his revenge on Tenorman at a local chili cookoff, but foolishly informs his friends Stan and Kyle of his plot as well. They inform Tenorman of the upcoming sleight against him, not realizing Cartman had anticipated this. At the cookoff, Scott has a bowl of the chili Cartman prepared for the cookoff, and chuckles as Cartman eats Tenorman's submission for the carnival, which Tenorman has once again included his ever-present pubes in. Cartman confesses hes aware of the secret ingredient, but then turns the tables by revealing the secret ingredient he has submitted in his own chili: Scott's parents. Upon realizing he has devoured his own murdered parents as a result of Cartman's horrible scheming, Scott bawls as Cartman gloats at his victory, seemingly undeterred by the fact that this proves he's a psychotic little douche. The episode clearly has strong similarities with Titus cooking Tamora's children and serving them to her at the conclusion of "Titus Andronicus", thus presenting another moment the Bard likely had a major contribution in creating. For your viewing pleasure, I've included that final scene of the episode in video form below (side note: Matt and Trey, the much adored creators of South Park, at the very least by this fanboy, actually have every episode of South Park free and legal online at www.southparkstudios.com. If you find this amusing go show the boys your support and watch more of it).

Scott Tenorman Must Die
Get More: SOUTH
PARKmore...

Shakespeare on Film Movie Review: Titus (1999)

Before Julie Taymor went on to more ambitious ventures, such as making a pretty good Beatles musical (Across the Universe) and ruining Spider-man (the much maligned Spider-man: Turn Off the Dark Broadway musical), Taymor made an equally ambitious attempt at reimagining "Titus Andronicus" for the silver screen. The result is a movie that takes the rather absurd source material as seriously as is likely possible, while still playing up the inherent camp at moments. Despite Taymor's villification on Broadway by some for the fallout of the Spider-man debacle, I actually enjoy Taymor's take on most of her projects. She typically has a very creative and original take on any project she approaches, even if the source material has been established for quite some time. Titus proves to be no exception to this.

The most fascinating element of the this screen version of Titus is the anachronistic time in which it is set. It doesn't appear to be of any particular era; yes, there are Roman Colosseums and people dressed in armor and ancient apparel, but sharing the screen are also motorcycles, motorcades, and several characters, such as Saturninus, dressed in apparel that would be more appropriate in a 30 Seconds to Mars video rather than in a Shakespearean era piece. Taymor claims this was intentionally done to emphasize the fact that violence and violent behavior has not changed over eons. I would be hard-pressed to debate this with the author of the film, but I think there is another reason for the inclusion of this element; the play has cemented a reputation itself for its conflicts in setting. The setting is highly debated, and there are several chronological elements in the play that are inconsistent, leading even more credence to the idea that it was one of Shakespeare's first works. By blatantly blending several different eras into one fantasy setting, it nullifies the flaws within the inconsistencies. All in all, I'd chalk it up as a stroke of directorial genius on Taymor's part.

I was also quite pleased with the performances in the film. Not enough can be applauded regarding Jessica Lange's performance as Tamora. Of course, stating that Jessica Lange did a remarkable performance in anything is never really much of a surprise, but she really endows the character with the raging menace that makes her such a fun character to portray when done correctly. The other particular performance I'd like to single out, despite the minimal amount of screen time, is Harry Lennix as the malicious Aaron. He was one of the few actors Taymor carried over from her stage production of the same play, and its easy to see why. Aaron is both articulate and intellectual in the film while at the same time being unspeakably foul; the only other actor I could see in this role realistically is maybe Jeffrey Wright, but Lennix is very strong so the need to think of "what could have been" is unnecessary. I also found the bit discussing religion in the film, for Aaron identifies as atheist, and its often lost that this was a concept of that time as well, and from a historical perspective this emphasis in the film is interesting. The scene with him laughing as he describes the horrors bestowed on Lavinia relates the despicable demeanor of the character spot-on. I wasn't particularly crazy about Alan Cumming's take on Saturninus; I think Cumming is a fine actor and it didn't really pull me out of the movie, it just felt a little more flamboyant and spastic than I personally pictured it in the play. As for Hopkins as Titus; it wasn't an epic performance but it was certainly strong, and did the material well.

Some of the more fantastical scenes I felt didn't work as well as they could have. The aftermath of Lavinia's attack looked a little cheesy, with twigs replacing her hands in the scene and much of her silent acting not being particularly tragic and more comical. And the scenes with Titus seeing a wall of flame with a trumpeting angel? I could have done perfectly well without that being included, as it did little to drive the story. And the scene where Lavinia writes in the sand as she recalls the violent actions brought upon her......having symbolic tigers jumping towards you to illustrate the horror of a scene just looks a little silly.

So, Can I Watch This Instead of Seeing the Play?

The short answer is, no, you should absolutely read the play, for it has some rich moments, and choosing literacy over viewing pleasure is always a wise course of action. The more accurate answer is this: the film stays very faithful to the source material. Clearly the setting and the execution of the material is varied somewhat, but it relates the story in an effective and flattering way. While I didn't have the play's text right in front of me as I was watching the play, at almost 3 hours it felt like the film captured just about all of the actual text. There have bene relatively few productions of Titus Andronicus that have been recorded, and as a result I dare say that this film is the best thus far. Taymor's artsy fleets of fancy could seem overwrought at moments, but overall her film did what these adaptations do at their best and elevates the material.

The Bard's Work Review #1: Titus Andronicus

In delving into a literary exploration of Shakespeare's complete body of work, why begin with a lesser-known work like "Titus Andronicus"? It isn't as well known as the writer's more famous works, nor is it regarded as one of his better written plays (in fact quite the contrary). Well, there's a few reasons I went with this play: first of all chronologically this is one of Shakespeare's earliest efforts, and many scholars claim this was in fact his first play (though there's no sufficient evidence to solidify this theory). Also, it will provide a good contrast to later works, as it can show how Shakespeare's style became more refined over time.

But honestly, I chose this play because its fun to read. Why? Imagine Shakespeare wished to blend the over-the-top gore of Evil Dead with the cool, edgy style of Kill Bill, all in Elizabethan prose, and you begin to have an idea of what Titus is like. I always find it wildly humorous when people try to portray the Elizabethan era as a more refined, classy time in history; certainly the language has an articulation to it that seems far more intellectual to contemporary slang and style, but that era was just as enamored with edgy material, whether it be in the form of sex, drugs, intrigue, or violence, as this current generation. "Titus Andronicus" is one of the best examples of this truth.

So What is this Play About Anyway?

Titus Andronicus, to put it lightly, is a truly bizarre story of revenge. It begins with the death of a Roman Emperor, and in the wake of his demise his two surviving sons (Saturninus and Bassianus) are debating over who should step into the vacant seat. Marcus Andronicus then arrives to rain on their parade, and informs them neither of them will be the new head of royalty; instead his brother, Titus Andronicus, who had been fighting valiantly for ten years in the name of Rome against the Goths (though it isn't explained, we are to assume he was fighting the Goths at a Hot Topic right outside of Rome) and is shortly returning home. When he arrives he has with him as prisoners Tamora, Queen of the Goths (no, not Helena Bonham Carter, Tamora), her black lover Aaron, and her three sons. As a result of the losses he endured in battle, Titus takes revenge on Tamora by murdering her eldest son in front of her.

He then proceeds to reject the emperor seat and instead passes it on to Saturninus. Feeling pretty cocky, Saturninus tells Titus he wants a new wife, and that Titus' daughter Lavinia is quite the catch......but shes betrothed to Bassianus. Titus' son Mutius objects to this as well since under law Bassianus should be able to keep his arrangement with Bassianus. Titus responds by murdering his own son Mutius, simultaneously pissing off the new emperor Saturninus and proving himself to be a douchebag of a father. Saturninus retaliates by marrying Tamora instead on the spot, but Tamora calms Saturninus and pleads with him to not take action against Titus, mainly so she can screw him over royally later in the play.

From here the play progressively gets more insane. Aaron, the Moor who is Tamora's lover, organizes Bassianus' murder, and then has Lavinia raped in the forest and her tongue and hands cut off so she can't identify her attacker. The murder is framed on Titus' sons, who are scheduled to be executed. Titus pleads for his sons to be spared, and Aaron says if he allows one of his hands to be severed it will spare his sons. Well, the hand is chopped off and sent off to show as evidence.....but it is returned with his sons severed heads. Apparently Titus' actions cost him an arm and a leg.....or in this case a hand and two heads. Titus then vows violent revenge on the Goths for what has transpired.

This leads to a wealth of Jerry Springer-esque behavior. Aaron and Tamora give birth to an interracial baby (or more accurately, Tamora births it, but Aaron did help create it). In the course of the final moments of the play, Titus also kills his daughter Lavinia (his reasoning? He asks Tamora if a father should kill his daughter if she was raped, and she says yes. Wow, that's sound logic). Oh yes, and did I mention that this all happens at a dinner Titus is having with Tamora? And did I also mention that Titus cooked Tamora's sons in the pie Tamora is eating during the whole fiasco? And Titus even dressed as a freaking cook???? Actual text in the play : "Titus enters, dressed as a cook"; that Titus has a batty sense of humor. Clearly Tamora is horrified, and the play ends with a series of stabbings that is so riddled with murder after murder it looks like the closing minutes of Reservoir Dogs. Titus is dead, Tamora is dead, Saturninus the Emperor is dead, and Lucius, right hand man to much of Titus' actions and the only son who manages to survive both Titus' enemies and Titus himself, is the new Emperor. Titus is laid to rest, Tamora's body is fed to wild beasts, and Aaron is buried with his head and neck only above ground and left to starve to death, and in a very Camus moment proclaims he doesn't regret the actions that have led to his painful death, but instead only wishes he had been responsible for more sinister behavior.

My Thoughts

This play is clearly one of Shakespeare's weaker works. It is labeled as one of his tragedies, but reading it in modern times it is so filled with outlandish gore and absurd taboo-thumping plot revelations it is difficult to not be at least a little amused by it. With that said, I find the play to be highly enjoyable regardless of the weaknesses in its literary merit, and there is some intelligent concepts still to be gathered from it. The one that stands out the most to me is the concept that Shakespeare suggests if no one is fit to be ruler, natural events will diminish those unworthy for the throne until one that is worthy remains. It is clear from the poor behavior of just about every character at the start of the play none of the central characters should ever be allowed a position of authority. Saturninus and Bassianus seem inadequate for the job. Tamora and Aaron are relentlessly evil. And Titus, the supposed protagonist, may be a war hero but it is made apparent he is also too impulsive and is willing to murder own members of his family with little hesitation (which begs to ask the question as to why he would be SO bitter at the Goths for murdering his son, when he ultimately murders another son and his daughter with relative ease). At the end of the play, Lucius, the one character who seems to have some sense of honor who isn't dead, ascends to the now-vacant throne. I'm somewhat curious if this play was commentary on the royalty that was governing England at the time, as many of his plays set in the past often commented on happenings in the present in a very subtle way.

Much has been stated about the elements of racism in the play, with Aaron, the sole black character, being such an unrelentingly vile creation. While there's no doubt he is a highly unpleasant character, you need not look any further than Othello to see that Shakespeare did not seem to be making any harsh criticisms of the black community (and that isn't the case with all classic authors; love him though I do, its undeniable that H.P. Lovecraft's writings have some deplorable racial comments throughout). I happen to love Aaron as a character as well. His prose in the way of his lines in the play are among some of my favorites in the entire work, and his delight in his own menace is a blast to read.

I also love Tamora as a character. I think her willigness to do whatever it takes to ruin Titus makes her a fun character to watch, as villains tend to be more infectiously fun and exciting to perform than stock heroes. Lavinia on the other hand, seems like a stock "damsel in distress who is entirely submissive to the males in the work". I almost feel like Lavinia is supposed to be a strong contrast to the Tamora character, which in that aspect it works well.

Overall, I consider this one of the better entry-level plays for those interested in getting into Shakespeare. I think its a play that actually fits in with mainstream tastes more than most are aware of, and I think its healthy for readers to get a glimpse of a true artist before they had really reached their full potential. This play doesn't have the brilliance of something like "Hamlet" or "Macbeth", but the style and the character development that led to those stories is certainly evident in this play.

And finally, I will close out this post with a clip from the Royal Shakespeare Company's performance of "The Complete Works of Shakespeare Abridged". It is a hilarious variation on the Titus story that is very fitting and in line with a more modern form of entertainment:

Next Play: Ironically, one I have never read, and one that is ranked among Shakespeare's best: King Lear!

Shakespeare In A Year: My Ambitious Quest to Digest All of the Bard's Work in 365 Days

Let's face it; Shakespeare isn't going to fall from popularity any time soon. Whether you are navigating his works through whatever English class you are currently attending (or in the minds of some skeptics, imprisoned in), or cozying up to a relaxing Disney picture (that's right kids, The Lion King has strong ties to Shakespeare's epic Hamlet), or even just having a casual conversation (Shakespeare's work is credited with either inventing or at least being the print origin of over 1700 words), Shakespeare is all around you, and in many ways has shaped not only our perception of literature but the world around us.

Recently a friend of mine proposed the idea of creating a midnight gathering discussing the works of the Bard, to which I cheerfully obliged. For you see, I have been a lifelong fan of Shakespeare almost as long as I have had any honest measure of literacy. I still recall being excited to visit my Grandmother's house, for she had two leather-bound volumes from the 1920's that comprised the complete works of the master playwright, and as early as 9 years old, I was pouring over the pages and plunging into the Elizabethan world from which the material was birthed. In preparing for the midnight gathering, and as I was in the midst of reading Bill Bryson's "Shakespeare: The World As Stage" (which, by the way, is as detailed of a biography as you'll likely get on such an enigmatic figure as Shakespeare, and a fascinating read to boot), I inquired as to what play we would begin with for our inaugural midnight gathering. It was decided that we would decide the night of the actual meeting; but this started to form an entirely new, more ambitious objective in my brain. It is still the first week of January, when resolutions tend to be developed (and sadly, most of them are broken after the three week period. The first week of February is usually wrought with the smell of Cellulite and tears). Why not commit to reading all 37 of Shakespeare's plays, the entirety of his poetry, and finally the handful of plays that he has been identified as at least a partial contributor, and record this epic venture in blog format? I mean, this is an idea I haven't really seen played out as of yet, and I feel......

HEY! HOLD ON, WAIT!!!!! QUIT TRYING TO RUN AWAY! YOU'RE ONLY MAKING THIS HARDER ON YOURSELF! NO, DON'T CLOSE THIS PAGE! AND DON'T "NEW TAB" ME AND JUST AVOID THE PAGE EITHER, I'M NOT A FOOL!

..............(pant, pant).............Ok, now that you've conceded temporary defeat......listen, I know to some of you reading this, spending a year with a writer who has been dead for 400 years is a horrifying test of will (HAHAHAHAHAHA! "Will"?????? Get it? Because his name is "William", and "Will" is an abbreviated- eh, nevermind). But fear not, those of you who have decided to follow me on this journey. I will be reading all 38 of Shakespeare's plays, as well as giving my thoughts and a summary of each through this blog. And yes, I will be reviewing them like a real-life human being, and not in some Ben Stein-esque attempt at synthetic intellectualism.......just don't plagiarize my post in lieu of actually reading the play yourself. For those who are unfamiliar with Shakespeare's full body of work, his plays are as follows (in order from shortest length in regards to total lines to longest):

1. The Comedy of Errors
2. A Midsummer Night's Dream
3. The Two Gentlemen of Verona
4. The Tempest
5. Pericles
6. Macbeth
7. Twelfth Night
8. Timon of Athens
9. Titus Andronicus
10. Much Ado About Nothing
11. The Merry Wives of Windsor
12. Julius Caesar
13. The Taming of the Shrew
14. King John
15. The Merchant of Venice
16. As You Like It
17. Henry VI Part 1
18. Love Labour's Lost
19. Richard II
20. Measure for Measure
21. All's Well That Ends Well
22. Henry VI Part 3
23. Henry IV Part 1
24. Romeo and Juliet
25. Henry VI Part II
26. The Two Noble Kinsmen
27. Henry V
28. Henry VIII
29. Henry IV Part 2
30. The Winter's Tale
31. Troilus and Cressida
32. King Lear
33. Othello
34. Antony and Cleopatra
35. Richard III
36. Cymbeline
37. Coriolanus
38. Hamlet

In addition to this core body of work by Shakespeare I will also be reading his collected sonnets (154 in total) and 4 narrative poems written by him as well. Finally, I will be reading some of the works that have come to be known as "apocryphal" Shakespeare works; these are works where either the extent of Shakespeare's authorship is questioned, or where there is debate over whether he was an author at all. I will be carefully selecting which of these titles I will be including in my literary journey from these titles, but as both "Sir Thomas More" and "The Reign of Edward III" are both printed in "The Complete Oxford Shakespeare", these titles at the very least will most certainly be included in this project. I will also be reviewing and commenting on books pertaining to Shakespeare and films inspired by Shakespearean works as well, but the central focus will be the works themselves, so don't expect a terribly prolific influx outside of that.

Why am I doing this? Well, Stephenie Meyer has only written 6 books, and the 4 I read sucked horribly, so Shakespeare seemed like a healthy alternative. Where else can I read articulate, intelligent, classy writing that is universally hailed as among the finest literature in the English language, while also being inundated with bawdy humor, gleefully politically incorrect humor that feels like its right out of "Blazing Saddles", stabbings, cannibalism, implied incest, embarrassingly cheesy puns, cross-dressing, comedic drunkenness, teen gangs (I'd love for clowns dressed in baseball outfits to yodel "HEY CAPULETS, COME OUT AND PLAYYYYYY"), interracial drama, and just about every other madcap atrocity one can imagine?

As I have begun this blog on January 4, 2012, that leaves January 4, 2013, as the date in which this project is scheduled to be complete. That averages out to a little over 3 plays per month of the central Shakespeare canon, plus 2. That doesn't include the sonnets, poems, and apocryphal works as well, but hey, we will get to those. Let the journey begin!