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.

Came across a comment in Kenneth McLeish and Stephen Unwin's Faber Pocket Guide to Shakespeare's Plays (which is just excellent, by the way) that describes one of the essential qualities of Shakespeare's writing in a way so concise and accurate that it's worthy of its subject: "hardly a word is lazily used". Yup. That's exactly it. This thought comes the closest to describing one of the most enjoyable aspects of reading him - the fact that he can make even words or expressions with which we think we are familiar seem fresh and thought-provoking. It's that quality of poetry and/or art in general that Ezra Pound once described as "the combination of the obvious and the unexpected".

Anyway, I like not only the above comment but its context as well, so here's the whole passage: "His plays live not merely for the dazzle of the language - hardly a word is lazily used - or the dynamism and fascination of the story-telling, but for the way he roots profound moral, ethical and spiritual matters in every-day reality. Even in his most fantastical plays, real people, with all their contradictions, are placed in specific and meticulously-realized social worlds. Although some of the detail is now dead, the authenticity of those characters and those worlds remain: the plays provide images of truth. By constantly developing dramatic and dialectical opposites, Shakespeare creates the illusion of life stretching out in every direction".

Well said, chaps.

Just a short note today re Stratford's upcoming season (2012, I mean): I'm not sure why the name change to the Stratford Shakespeare Festival was necessary a few years back, because the bard content has actually significantly declined recently. And now, the news comes that there's to be only three next year. Bit of a drag, that, in my opinion. The plays in question (Cymbeline, Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing) aren't the problem (of course). There should simply be more of them - at least five per season. Or else at least change the name back. (On the bright side, when they do them, they do them very well. I'm sure I'll be giving each of the three above-mentioned productions standing ovations a year or so from now.)

Finally got to see Julie Taymor's film version of The Tempest, and enjoyed it immensely. She takes a lot of liberties in some ways, but everything is done with real intelligence and style. The treatment of the play's songs, for instance, I found very fresh and interesting. (I wonder if there's another work of literature that comes so close to exposing the essence of music.) In fact, all of the thematic content resonates really strongly. There are some terrific performances as well, with Ben Whishaw as Ariel (his John Keats in Bright Star from 2009 was equally excellent) and Djimon Hounsou as Caliban standing out in particular. Also liked Russell Brand's Trinculo a lot, and Felicity Jones' Miranda was very strong. Her listening ability (crucial in Shakespearean acting) points to a big future. Some of the bigger names, Helen Mirren, Chris Cooper and David Strathairn, were surprisingly reserved in their interpretations now that I think about it, but I enjoyed them as well. I'm going to watch it again soon, and write more about it at that point, but I can certainly recommend it right now. Check it out as soon as you can, and the same goes for her version of Titus Andronicus (Titus from 1999).

I sometimes wonder how long it's going to be before people realize that the most important writing ever done - which has been an influence on almost every idea that came after it, and which holds the key to future ways of learning about life, art and literature - must be looked at with much more seriousness than is currently the case. Shakespeare must be made central to the educational experience of young people. For this to happen, it must not be treated frivolously: the various agendas of academic and other professional commentators must not be allowed to interfere, nor should nonsensical conspiracy theories such as the "authorship question" be the location of the division regarding Shakespeare. (Once and for all: there is no evidence for any of this stuff because it didn't happen that way. Every single piece of evidence in existence supports the established story. And in response to the question of why academics won't even entertain the possibility of another theory, the answer is simple. They can't. They must follow the evidence and only that, just like any other professional. By the way, I saw the trailer for "Anonymous", and it looks really dumb. No, check that - it is really dumb. Boycott it.)

Another thing that bugs me is that whenever Shakespeare's name comes up, people talk about the words that he coined as if this was his central achievement. Patronizing, that. The attitude that follows is one of, "oh yes, he was a good writer for his time, did a lot for the language, you know". This kind of thinking is naive. Shakespeare had accomplishments of similar consequence in many, many other ways as well. My solution for all of the above? Let's stop discussing Shakespeare, and start reading him seriously. And let's do everything we can to encourage kids to do the same.