Review: Edward II by Christopher Marlowe
For Pride Month, I’d like to draw some focus to a celebrated LGBTQ film, based on a play that, while not Shakespearean, it was by one of Shakespeare’s contemporaries and one who influenced Shakespeare a lot. This film, Edward II, directed by Derek Jarman, was based on the play of the same name by Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593). The film came out in 1991, during the AIDS crisis, when gay and lesbian people were not only fighting for their lives against a devastating epidemic but also for acceptance from the heterosexual community. This film is not only a striking, well-acted, well-directed adaptation of Marlowe’s play; it is also an encapsulation of the fears, struggles, and anxieties of the LGBTQ+ community at the time.
Plot Summary/ Great Quotes
Biography Of King Edward II
Edward II was the son of the infamous King Edward I, aka, Edward the Longshanks, the Scottish Hammer. He lived from 1307-1327 – until he was assassinated.
Fact Vs. Fiction
Aside from a few historical footnotes, I’m betting that when we think of Edward II, we mostly think of this portrayal in the 1995 film Braveheart. Frankly, most contemporary accounts of Edward II’s reign are similar to this portrayal- vain, spoiled, weak, deluded, and an utter disgrace to his warrior father. One of his greatest embarrassments was his army’s catastrophic defeat at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Edward’s sources mainly portray him as weak and feeble compared to his father, but we have to remember that this was a cruel, warlike society with very little place for anyone who didn’t conform to stereotypical masculine virtues. Probably in the minds of the English court, Edward’s homosexuality was linked with his failures as a king. It was up to Jarman’s production to make Edward feel more like a real man, and not just a gay stereotype.
Play Vs. Movie
In the play, it’s ambiguous whether Galveston really loves Edward, or if he’s using him for the king’s power and protection. In the movie, Galveston is definitely using Edward, making the king’s fawning all the more pathetic and tragic. As his son asks: “Why do you love him when all the world hates him?” This makes our sympathies teter between Edward and his court- we wish Edward would open his eyes and get rid of Galveston, but at the same time, who hasn’t been blinded by love? At the same time, Galveston has been hurting the country, and taking Edward away from his court and his queen. Like many other stories of monarchs in love, including the real-life story of our current king, there is a constant tension in the court between the monarch’s personal desires, and his or her responsibilities to the country.
Biography of Marlowe
Edward II and Richard II
Many scholars believe that Marlowe’s play helped influence Shakespeare’s Richard II, as they both center around weak, sometimes effeminate kings that fall prey to the machinations of other lords. In Shakespeare’s play, it is possible to play Richard as being in love with some of his favorite courtiers, but nothing is explicit. Obviously, Marlowe was much more overt in Edward’s love for Gaveston. To demonstrate how these plays are similar, here’s Ian McKellen playing Richard II:
Is this play Homophobic?
On the one hand, the story shows Edward as effeminate, weak-willed, and poor in judgment which does align with offensive homosexual stereotypes. On the other hand, the other lords of the court are portrayed as cruel and intolerant, and Jarman definitely makes Mortimer a cruel and homophobic individual. In addition, when Edward’s son Edward III, who famously conquered England and France, he is shown in the movie wearing drag, which clearly shows that a member of the LGBTQ community need not be weak or ineffective. It also shows that Edward III has inherited his mother’s strength, not his father’s weakness.
Lots of Great classes are available on Outschool Next Week!
Before you send your kid off to summer camp, why not spend a few short hours learning Shakespeare in a low-key, no-pressure scenario! I have classes on Shakespeare’s life, Romeo and Juliet, and my celebrated Stage Combat class! Sign up now for all the fun on Outschool.com!
May 29th- June 4rth- Romeo and Juliet Murder Mystery
May 31st- Introduction to Shakespeare– 3PM EST
Course Description: In this one-time course, students will learn about Shakespeare’s life and what made him so remarkable. Knowing more about the man and his theater will help them understand why his plays have been loved for so many years.
June 2nd- Intro to Shakespeare, How to Write Like Shakespeare, and Intro To Romeo and Juliet.
How to Write Like Shakespeare: Learn the basics of iambic pentameter, sonnet form, and Shakespeare’s dramatic structure, and practice writing Shakespearean speeches.
Romeo and Juliet: Why Do We Still Read This Play? In this one-time class, learners will explore the story, characters, and themes of Shakespeare’s play, and grow to understand its timeless appeal.
June 3rd- Shakespeare’s Comedies- 11PM EST or 8:30 IST.
June 10th- Into To Shakespeare, Stage Combat, and Shakespeare’s Comedies.
Review: Romeo and Juliet, 2013
a sufficiently entertaining, adamantly old-fashioned adaptation that follows the play’s general outline without ever rising to the passionate intensity of its star-cross’d crazy kidsBy Manohla Dargis, New York Times Review 2013
Changes to The Plot
The Act I Tournament
The film opens, not with two servants fighting (yet), but with a tournament between the Monaegues and Capulets, where they joust instead of fight to avoid bloodshed. It is a striking image to be sure, and it is less confusing than starting a fight over biting a thumb, but it is a little odd that the Prince has this tournament to avoid street fights, and then they wind up fighting anyway over the results of the tournament. It works within the story but it makes the Prince seem dumb and it adds little to the story other than spectacle.
As you can see from this clip, the dialogue of this film is changed liberally. The writers change Shakespeare’s lines to make them sound less Shakespearean. They also heavily cut the speeches to shorten the duration of the film. Cutting long speeches and substituting a word here and there is pretty standard for most Shakespeare movies, but what I find really irritating in this film is the number of lines that they add. It’s generally understood in Shakespeare that a director or actor can subtly change a few lines in a play- change pronouns, change an archaic word or two to make it easier for an audience, but this movie has the dubious record for most lines added to a Shakespeare movie. Some of these lines are paraphrases of the Shakespearean text, like all the dialogue of Sampson and Friar Laurence’s speech explaining the sleeping drug plan to Juliet. Some of the additions are character lines, like the scene where Benvolio admits he wants to woo Rosaline, (which to be fair, is an interesting change and I don’t mind it). Finally, some of the lines are designed to summarize speeches that the script cuts.
I know I sound like a purist here, but I feel that if you’re going to do Romeo and Juliet, use the text of Romeo and Juliet, and don’t change it unless it’s absolutely necessary. If you’re going to do an adaptation like Gnomio and Juliet or Tromeo and Juliet, you can throw out the Shakespearean dialogue and play around with dialogue using the plot and characters Shakespeare wrote. This film does neither- it mangles Shakespeare’s text but rigidly adheres to the story and characters, so it fails to pick a lane between faithful depiction or creative adaptation.
- Mercutio is a Montegue now. This matters because in Shakespeare’s version, he was related to the Prince, which is why the Prince takes pity on Romeo for avenging Tybalt’s death. Changing his allegiance robs his death of some of the tragedy that he was a neutral party who got caught up in other people’s quarrels.
- Tybalt is in love with Juliet, which admittedly, I’ve seen in other productions. It gives him more motivation to hate Romeo and makes him even more distasteful to the audience.
- Sampson and Gregory appear, but they are not named, nor do they bite a thumb.
- Benvolio’s role is merged with Balthazar and the actor is the youngest person in the cast. I honestly like this change a lot- Balthazar is a great character but he is functionally identical to Benvolio in the plot, so merging the two parts makes a lot of sense. Both Balthazar and Benvolio spend the play looking out for Romeo yet Benvolio disappears once Tybalt dies, so giving the actor Balthazar’s lines is a welcome change. Now Benvolio is literally with Romeo to the end, which makes us feel sorry for Romeo and his best friend.
- Benvolio is in love with Rosaline and makes a play for her after Romeo falls in love with Juliet. This might be a subtle nod to their relationship in the novel “Romeo’s Ex.”
- Rosaline is Juliet’s cousin now, which is not mentioned in Shakespeare’s version.
- Rosaline actually speaks, remarking on the foolish nature of silly Romeo, the Montague, and the Capulets. She still has no effect on the plot though, and her dialogue adds nothing.
Concerns for Teachers
If you are a teacher, I would recommend you show parts of the movie, specifically the fights and some of the action in the second half rather than the whole thing, but once you read the rest of this review, you can draw your own conclusions. As I mentioned before the Shakespearean dialogue is heavily cut, new ‘modern’ dialogue is added in, and even some of the action is also changed. Because of this, DO NOT TRY to read the play along with this film, as your students will get extremely frustrated. In my class, I actually played a game where the students write down what the movie changed from the play to try and get them to engage with it. I would also recommend asking questions or quizzing the students on the plot or the famous lines since those are more or less intact.
According to Common Sense Media, the film is relatively tame for students, (which of course was one of the goals of making it), so the violence is toned down, there is little nudity and little cursing (there actually is a little PG-13 language added near the beginning, but not much).
Though the film is populated with English and American actors, the majority of the crew is Italian and principal photography was done in Italy, both on-location in places like Verona, Mantua, Rome, and other Italian locations.
The original story of Romeo and Juliet is set in the 1400s but based on the references to contemporary fashion and music, we can assume Shakespeare set his version around 1593- (the year it was probably written). This production, based on its fashion and architecture is probably set around the early Baroque period, (c. 1600).
This time period was notable for abandoning neck and sleeve ruffs in favor of lace or linen collars (Source: https://fashionintherenaissance.weebly.com/fashion-timeline.html) . The famous pumpkin pants were also replaced with less fussy breeches as well. All these fashion choices are in the Romeo and Juliet movie and it’s fascinating to look at the choices they made for the film in behind-the-scenes documentaries. I shouldn’t be surprised here, but studying this period made me enjoy the film more- I lost myself in the spectacle and ignored their handling of the story.
As you can see from the close-ups above, the Swarovski Crystal company definitely showed off some of their wares in Juliet’s costume. In fact, Swarovski sells a version of Juliet’s wedding ring.
You can also see in these costume renderings the influence of Pre-Raphelite artwork on the costumes, like this famous painting by Francis Dicksee (1884).
Many of the street locations for Romeo and Juliet were filmed at Cinecitta Studios in Italy, but as you can see from this behind-the-scenes footage, most of the film was filmed on location in beautiful real-life baroque buildings in Italy:
Many of the locations remind me of the high baroque architecture of the celebrated Italian sculptor and architect Gian-Lorenzo Bernini (1598-1680), who had his own Romeo and Juliet-style drama in terms of sordid love affairs, duels, and exiles:
The film was shot in some of the real locations of the play; Mantua; Caprarola, Lazio; Cinecittà, Rome; and in Verona.
One location I found very interesting to research was the Grotto of Sacro Speco in Subiaco, which was the location for Friar Laurence’s cell. This is a very holy site to many Catholics- it is the celebrated Cave of St. Benedict, the founder of the Benedictine monks. Friar Laurence is a Franciscan monk so this isn’t entirely accurate, but it does provide some wonderful religious eye candy during the scenes at his cell, and it does beautify the wedding scene.
The Music (rant alert)
THE MUSIC NEEDS TO SHUT UP! Especially in the love scenes, I feel like the music is too loud and drowns out the dialogue. I also find it irritating that the score makes so much use of the piano, which wasn’t invented until 1700 since the movie is trying to be historically accurate. To be fair, the loud piano is actually the sound department’s fault, but the fact that pianos didn’t exist at this time took me out almost as much as the overpowering score, (which somehow won two International Film Music Critics Awards (IFMCA)!
Reviewers usually love to rag on whoever plays Romeo and Juliet. It’s kind of a no-win scenario here- If they’re young, they’re inexperienced and thus, don’t know how to speak Shakespeare. If they’re older, they’re too old and shouldn’t have been cast in such a youthful role. So rather than falling into that trap, I’ll be positive about the casting and say what I like about the performances, while criticizing the direction, because I feel that in general, the acting in this film is fine, but there are some odd choices that the director should’ve thought twice about.
Romeo (Douglas Booth)
Booth might actually be my favorite film Romeo- he’s beautiful to look at, sweet, impulsive, naive, everything Romeo should be. He also knows how to deliver Shakespeare and can convey complex ideas through poetry. I could argue that he lacks the rage that Romeo should have when killing Tybalt, but I don’t think that’s what he was going for this Romeo is a good guy who is too sheltered and lacks proper guidance, so he makes rash choices because nobody is there to tell him why they are.
Juliet (HailiEe Steinfeld)
I don’t fault Ms. Steinfeld for this, but her worst scenes are sadly, the most famous. Her delivery during the Act I dance and the famous balcony scene is monotonous and dull. I think the director told her to act as if love put her in a trance, but the effect is that she sounds like she’s half asleep. Again, I know she can do Shakespeare because her scenes with the Nurse and Lord Capulet are much better; she’s passionate, articulate, and full of emotion. I think the director failed to give her proper direction to play a love scene realistically, and intentionally slowed the scene down so the audience could pick out the famous lines.
Some people argue that Lord Capulet is actually a good dad, but not this film. As I’ll show you later, this film is trying to play up the forbidden love aspect of the story, and what is more classic than an angry, disapproving father? To this end, even though Damien Lewis starts out jovial and sweet to Juliet, by Act III he is full of resentment and rage:
Tybalt (Edward Westwick)
In my opinion, Ed Westwick steals the show every time he’s on screen. He knows how to speak the Shakespearean lines and he makes the added lines sound Shakespearean (which is to say, actually good). With his fiery gaze and his thick, deep voice, he reminds me of a young Mark Strong and is equally good at playing smarmy yet compelling antagonists. You love to hate this guy, yet you feel sorry when he dies.
Friar Laurence (Paul Giamatti)
Giamatti rivals Pete Postlethwaite for my favorite Friar Laurence. He was a perfect choice and he has an effortless Shakespearean delivery. I think it’s telling that his lines of dialogue are the least altered from Shakespeare- the director knew Giamatti could make them work without any alteration. He also has a great rapport with both Douglas Booth and Hailee Steinfeld.
Moments to Watch For:
This film does well at portraying the forces that rip Romeo and Juliet apart- Tybalt’s maniacal hatred of the Montagues, Lord Capulet’s scheme to marry Juliet, and the influence of maligning fate. For this reason, the film is actually better in the second half, once the romance is over and the tragedy sets in. Again, a lot of this is due to the excellent performances of Ed Westwick as Tybalt, and Paul Giamatti as Friar Laurence, who frantically strains his brain to help the lovers and is thwarted at every turn. I wonder if, since the film was adapted by the creator of Downton Abbey, in which Giamatti starred, the writer placed most of the success of the film on Giamatti’s shoulders, intentionally or not.
My Reaction: Shakespeare for Twi-hards.
Forgive me for getting a little conspiracy-theory-ey here but, since the Twilight saga concluded in 2012 and this film came out the next year, I suspect that this Romeo and Juliet was partially produced to cash in on the success of Twilight. After all, Twilight: New Moon is full of references to Romeo and Juliet:
As the video below demonstrates, Twilight and Romeo and Juliet are both examples of Petrachian love, which is to say, love thwarted, so similar themes and tropes are baked into both stories.
There are also stylistic similarities to how this particular Romeo and Juliet are filmed, such as the lush landscapes, the prevalence of piano in the score, the heavy uses of glamour shots, and even some of the Italian locations evoke Twilight:
Worst of all, I feel that this film tried to make Hailee Steinfeld, an Academy Award-nominated actress, try to act like Bella Swan in the Balcony scene. I think this is why the first half of the film drags and seems slow and dull- it is trying to emulate Twilight’s visual style and forces the actors to adopt a “Twilight School of Acting.”
So in conclusion, the film is uneven- it has talented people working on it, but I think the studio and the company were a little preoccupied with selling the film to a specific group of young people. Does it work for classrooms? For now, but I worry that this version won’t connect with young people for long, and because of its lack of focus and clear direction, it will probably go the way of Twilight– a brief cultural blip that is pretty to look at, but that is quickly forgotten.
If you like this analysis, you might be interested in signing up for one of my Outschool Course on Romeo and Juliet Link down below. Share this class with a friend and you will get $20 USD off!
Darth Vader Does Shakespeare
I’m working on Part II of my Shakespeare’s Star Wars podcast and I thought I’d share some of the clips I’ve been editing together. First is a short clip of Darth Vader saying lines to express his sorrow and anger when Luke plummets down the Cloud City shaft, rather than go with his own father. I wrote the text myself, adapting it from this speech of King Leontes in “The Winter’s Tale:”
Gone already! Inch-thick, knee-deep, o'er head and ears a fork'd one! Go, play, boy, play: thy mother plays, and I Play too, but so disgraced a part, whose issue Will hiss me to my grave: contempt and clamour Will be my knell. Go, play, boy, play. "Winter's Tale" I re-purposed this speech as Vader’s angry response to Luke choosing to fall down the air shaft. I think it conveys Vader’s anger, but also his grim determination to turn his son to the dark side: Gone already! Inch-thick, knee-deep, o'er head and ears a fallen one! Go, fall, boy, fall: So Obi Wan, and I Fell too, but thou shalt live and come to me again My master will hiss thee to my path: darkness and pow’r Will be my friends. Go, fall, boy, fall! If you listen to the podcast, you can hear that I mainly focused on Vader and Luke and how they convey their emotional journey through soliloquies like this. In the second part, I will talk about the romantic foils to Luke and Vader- Han and Leia! STAY TUNED!
Support the show
If you like my dramatic readings and analyses of the “William Shakespeare’s Star Wars” series, please consider donating to my podcast.
How to Write a Shakespeare Sleep Story
This post is for subscribers
Comparing Coronations, or “Who Wore It Best” (Royals Edition)?
O ceremony, show me but thy worth! What is thy soul of adoration? Art thou aught else but place, degree and form, Creating awe and fear in other men? Wherein thou art less happy being fear'd Than they in fearing. What drink'st thou oft, instead of homage sweet, But poison'd flattery? O, be sick, great greatness, And bid thy ceremony give thee cure! Think'st thou the fiery fever will go out With titles blown from adulation? Will it give place to flexure and low bending? Canst thou, when thou command'st the beggar's knee, Command the health of it? No, thou proud dream, That play'st so subtly with a king's repose; I am a king that find thee, and I know 'Tis not the balm, the sceptre and the ball, The sword, the mace, the crown imperial, The intertissued robe of gold and pearl, The farced title running 'fore the king, The throne he sits on, nor the tide of pomp That beats upon the high shore of this world, No, not all these, thrice-gorgeous ceremony Henry V, Act IV, Scene i. As this quote from Shakespeare's Henry V, there are many different cermonial customs and adornments that the British monarchs have used to adorn and elevate their kings and queens. Today I'm going to compare and contrast King Charles III and his mother Queen Elizabeth II, then I'll compare these coronations with the monarch who lived during most of Shakespeare's life: Queen Elizabeth I.
Part I: Queen Elizabeth II vs. Charles I
All my information for this section comes from this fascinating article from the Washington Post, which compares and contrasts King Charles’ coronation on May 6th, 2022, with his mother’s, which occurred on June 2, 1953:
Both Charles and Elizabeth were anointed with holy oil- an ancient tradition signifying God’s favor. The tradition goes all the way back to the Bible, where the book of First Kings details the procedure of anointing King Solomon:
And the king said to them, “Take with you the servants of your lord and have Solomon my son ride on my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon.
And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet there anoint him king over Israel. Then blow the trumpet and say, ‘Long live King Solomon!’ You shall then come up after him, and he shall come and sit on my throne,1 Kings Chapter 1, Verses 33-35
King George the Third commissioned composer Georg Friedrich Handel (famous for “The Messiah”) to write an anthem for his coronation based on this Biblical passage in 1761 This song has been a tradition during English coronations for the past 300 years, and as you can see in the video below, it was played when King Charles and Queen Elizabeth were privately anointed behind the canopy you see below.
The scepter is called the Sovereign’s Scepter and it is on display in the Tower of London as part of the Crown Jewels. For more information, go to Royal Collection.org:
The ball in this passage refers to the globus cruciger or ‘the orb and the cross.’ This is a symbol of the king’s status as the head of the Church Of England, which began with Elizabeth I’s father, Henry VIII. The orb telegraphs Christ as the true ruler of the world, and the English monarch as his representative on Earth.
The Sword (and) the Mace
A mace used to be a concussive weapon used in battle against knights in shining armor. Since armor is hard to penetrate, medieval warriors tried to cause blunt force trauma and concussion in their enemies using maces. Since those more violent beginnings, the mace has evolved into a symbol of the King’s power and is used at the opening of Parliament. There are three swords that lords used to herald the King during the coronation- the two swords of Justice, and the Curtana or ‘Sword of Mercy,’ so called, because its blade is broken, making it a ceremonial object of peace, rather than a practical weapon.
King Charles’ own sword is called the Sword of State- it is a steel sword gilded with silver, and the handle is wooden, gilded with gold. It symbolizes the monarch’s commitment to knightly virtues, and it is used to create people as knights.
St. Edward’s crown is adorned with diamonds, furs, and over 2,000 diamonds! This crown, along with the sword of state, dates back to the 1660s, after the monarchy was briefly abolished, though the crown still has had its share of problems over the centuries, including being stolen!
Much like how during graduation ceremonies people wear special robes to signify the transition from one state of being, British monarchs have worn multiple robes to show their apotheosis from a prince to the sovereign head of the country.
The Robe of Estate
The robe of Estate is the long, sumptuous robe of the sovereign; a symbol of his or her wealth. Charles wore his at the end of the ceremony after the crown was placed on his head.
Traditionally, the Robe of Estate is a very specific shade of purple called Tyrian Purple. It is again, a symbol of wealth because it was very labor-intensive and expensive to produce. This is one of the reasons why purple is a color associated with wealth and status:
Elizabeth’s purple Robe of Estate will now be worn by Queen Camilla, Charles’ wife. It is 6 1/2 meters long, weighs 15 pounds, and took 12 seamstresses 3,500 hours to complete, (source: Historic UK).
The oldest part of the ceremony will without question be the throne- a plain-looking piece of oak that is over 700 years old! St. Edward’s Throne has been part of coronation ceremonies since King Edward I, (aka Edward Longshanks from Braveheart) in around 1200 AD. Surely there is no greater symbol of royal continuity- the monarchs in Shakespeare’s history plays actually sat on this throne. Any king or queen who touches this piece of furniture must get a sense of the ancient traditions of the monarchy.
The Tide of Pomp (Royal Processions)
It’s been a tradition ever since the Middle ages for the new king or queen to travel from their home palace through the county so people can see them on their way to be crowned at Westminster Abbey. Long ago, this was a multi-day journey full of public festivals and entertainment that allowed the whole country to get a rare glimpse of the new monarch. By contrast, King Charles and Queen Camila only traveled 1.3 miles from Buckingham Palace to Westminster.
Part II: Queen Elizabeth the First’s Coronation, January 14th, 1558.
After the death of Mary the First, Elizabeth’s sister,
An Account of the Coronation
Like her namesake and the new king, Queen Elizabeth I was crowned at Westminster on January 15, 1558. Unlike them, however, the ceremony was performed in Latin and English by a Catholic bishop. Obviously, since Elizabeth was crowned during the Protestant Reformation, there was a lot of controversy about the liturgy. Some accounts aren’t sure what parts of the Catholic were read, but we do know Elizabeth took the oath, wore a similar golden robe to Charles and Elizabeth II, and was given the balm and scepter just like them. Here is a primary source account from an ambassador from the town of Mantua, Italy:
“The Queen was received under the canopy by the Archbishop and another Bishop, they having previously perfumed her with incense, giving her the holy water and the pax, the choristers singing; then the Earl of Rutland followed her Majesty with a plain naked sword without any point, signifying Ireland, which has never been conquered; then came the Earl of Exeter with the second sword; the third was borne by Viscount Montagu; the Earl of Arundel, having been made Lord Steward and High Constable for that day, carried the fourth (sword) of royal justice, with its gilt scabbard loaded with pearls. The orb was carried by the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Marshal, and in advance were knights clad in the ducal fashion, carrying the three crowns, they being the three Kings-at-arms; they bore the three sceptres, with their three crowns of iron, of silver, and of gold on their heads, and in their hands three naked iron swords, signifying the three titles of England, France, and Ireland..”
— Il Schifanoya, royal ambassador from Mantua
‘And whereas your request is that I should continue your good lady and be Queen, be ye ensured that I will be as good unto you as ever Queen was unto her people. No will in me can lack, neither do I trust shall there lack any power. And persuade yourselves that for the safety and quietness of you all I will not spare if need be to spend my blood. God thank you all.’ _Queen Elizabeth I
10 Things You didn’t know about Coronations
God Save the King! In case you didn’t know, over the weekend, Charles Windsor, (formerly known as Prince Charles) became King Charles III at Westminster Abbey, The ceremony called upon many ancient royal traditions, many of which Shakespeare would’ve been familiar with. So this week, in addition to my traditional celebration of Mother’s Day, I am going to look at this ceremony and give you a behind-the-scenes look at royal coronations and how they looked in Shakespeare’s time and our own.
First, enjoy this video produced by Westminster Abbey, the ancient hall where King Charles was crowned on Saturday, May 6th, 2023:
Verily, May the Fourth Be With Thee
Well today is May 4rth, when a lot of people have chosen to celebrate one of the most iconic movies of the 20th century: Star Wars! And why not? The story is full of conflict, introspection, love, change, the conflict between fathers and sons, and occasionally guidance from ghosts. Wait, that sounds familiar- it’s a lot like Shakespeare! Yes, the movie has a lot of parallels with the Shakespearean canon, and I’d like to share some of those similarities here. Below is a post I did for the American Shakespeare Center about how the Star Wars prequels parallel Shakespeare’s history saga of Henry the Sixth:
More recent posts for May 4rth
Enjoy May the Fourth!