Kevin Spacey as Richard III? What an amazing treat that would be. After reading a sort of quasi-review of his performance in the production currently playing at London's Old Vic Theater (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/theater/richard-iii-at-old-vic-and-other-london-shows-offer-catharsis.html), I'm more than usually jealous of the cultural riches found in the capitol city of the oldest member of the Commonwealth. It seems like a role that Spacey would explore in an entirely new way, and the thought of it reminds me of how excellent he was in Al Pacino's must-see film, Looking for Richard (1996), in which he plays Buckingham. Of course, Pacino is great in that one as well, and I'm really hoping to someday see him in the (complete) role, as well (either stage or film would do).

It must be considered one of the most amazing things about Shakespeare that his work becomes more interesting with familiarity, not less. And that each time an actor gives a great performance, it makes an audience member want to see more of them. There is no such thing as a definitive Shakespeare performance, and there never will be.

Just a quick note re the comment to the July 10 post: Once again the anti-Stratford side is basically asking the impossible - to prove a negative. Everything is either about what's missing (he didn't mention books in his will, we don't have enough of his signatures) or coded messages (as if someone could have written the most imposing body of work in the history of literature almost by accident, because they were actually doing something else).

And the comment asks whether I have complete familiarity with the anti-Stratford side. I'll be really clear on this: I have far more familiarity with it than it deserves. Once there is a single piece of evidence (a document of any kind for a start) that even suggests that Shakespeare was a fraud or a pseudonym or whatever, then I'll be all ears. In the meantime, may I suggest reading his plays and poems thoroughly would be a far more valuable undertaking than this nonsense.

Just watched a video debate on the "authorship question" at the Shakespeare Adventure website (you can google it - I'm not going to link it because I really can't recommend the site, although the video in question is worth seeing) in which the Stratfordian side, led by the great Stanley Wells, absolutely wipes the floor with the Oxfordians, led by Roland Emmerich, the director of the upcoming "Anonymous". The debate actually provides a good summary of the evidence that exists, which is all, and I mean all, on the Stratford side. (Isn't it amazing that after all these years, and all of the allegations and accusations, that there is still not one piece of evidence for anything other than the established history?) It also shows the complete misunderstanding of art and literature that is put forward by the conspiracy theorists as proof of their contentions (the misreadings of the poems and plays that have gone into their arguments could be the subject of a hilarious book). I've still never met a conspiracy theorist that I would consider a strong reader of Shakespeare, and if that sounds a little harsh, so be it. As for Mr. Emmerich, I think that in the future he should stick with subjects such as Godzilla - in other words stories that have a possible, albeit tiny, hint of plausibility.