Some of the characteristics of Shakespeare's plays may not be to the taste of today's audience. For example, the villain in the story sometimes says to himself - or even in private! - "I must plot a devilish scheme and a tenth-degree fraud." That is, sometimes such intense character processing occurs. (I remember that when my nephew played the role of Iago in the performance of Othello, he said: "I am plotting." Later, when I read Othello, I realized that Iago has a monologue with the same content.) Or the situation where two people are talking about their plans and one person is standing behind a curtain or a booth and can hear their voices, and these people are so careless in a public place that they talk about their plans! Or the moral messages that sometimes appear randomly in the dialogues, sometimes fitting well into the context and sometimes abruptly interrupting the natural flow of the conversation with artificial silence.

Anyway, despite these characteristics and the stylistic limitations of that era, the plots of Shakespeare's plays are so sweet and charming that they still have the ability to attract today's theater audience with a modern dramaturgy. Themes such as betrayal, lies, fraud, honor, and so on are still the mainstay of many film and play productions, and Shakespeare's treatment of such themes may be one of the secrets of the longevity of his works.

2. An interesting point about "Much Ado About Nothing" is the tension between Beatrice and Benedick, who constantly tease each other and push each other around, and keep the audience waiting for their union. Interestingly, this type of relationship has become one of the attractions of today's American sitcoms, and it turns out that it is not a new technique for keeping the audience engaged.

3. The weakness of the story is that the motivation of the two young people for this Chinese fraud is not clear. Perhaps this is also the reason for the title of the play, that all these events happen for nothing.

**Title: The Witty World of Shakespeare's Heroines**

If slander left a trace, we would all go dirty

Don Pedro: Do you want to marry me?
Beatrice: No, Your Highness, unless I have another husband for weekdays. Your Highness is too precious to be worn every day.

Beatrice is truly a wonder. Shakespeare's cheeky and witty women are remarkable. We have the Nurse in "Romeo and Juliet", Mrs. Page and Mrs. Ford in "The Windsor Mockers", Olivia in "Twelfth Night", Titania in "A Midsummer Night's Dream", Helena in "All's Well That Ends Well", Rosalind in "As You Like It", Rosalina in "Love's Labour's Lost", Adriana in "The Comedy of Errors", and Marianne in "Measure for Measure". But perhaps Beatrice is closest to Katarina in "The Taming of the Shrew".

In terms of glibness of language, wit, and the enchanting brightness of his heroines, Shakespeare's genius remains unrivaled. And yet, when we return to "Much Ado About Nothing", it's interesting to note that there is enough sexism in it from today's perspective. Despite the play's second main character being so independent, enterprising, and smart. It seems there were women in Elizabethan times who knew how to position themselves correctly.

The plot is relatively uncomplicated. I'll warn you, if spoilers infuriate you, you shouldn't read further. For those who are calm about them and don't like to read plays and don't expect to see a performance in the next couple of decades, I'll tell you. Young noble Florentine Claudio, a close associate of the Prince of Aragon, falls in love with Hero, the daughter of the governor of Messina. He asks for her hand, and since the love is mutual, they don't plan to delay the wedding.

Meanwhile, the bastard brother of the Prince of Aragon, wanting to spite his noble relative out of principle, bribes his servant to court Hero's chambermaid, Margaret, who is supposed to appear at the window of Hero's bedroom at a specified time. This is done to disgrace the girl in the eyes of her fiancé (who will be warned of the opportunity to see for himself the unfaithfulness of his bride). By disrupting the wedding, in which the prince has taken an active part, he hopes to spite him and cause a rift with the governor of Messina.

The unhappy fiancé rages and rails, and instead of talking to Hero, he rejects her right during the wedding ceremony, rudely insulting her by saying that "it seems this dish has already been eaten by someone". Deeply hurt, the girl faints, and the heartless fiancé leaves without bothering to make sure she's okay.

This could have become a tragedy in the style of "Othello", but then the wise friar, Father Francis, Hero's cousin Beatrice (yes, the one in the epigraph), and the equally witty Benedick, a young nobleman from Padua, whose banter with Beatrice makes up a significant part of the charm of the play, step in.

And as for the rest, I'm not such a cruel spoiler as to ruin the pleasure of meeting our William Shakespeare. The play is of a very small volume, and by reading it, you will receive endless pleasure and, perhaps, overcome the idiosyncrasy of reading drama.

This was a whole lotta rigmarole about diddly-squat.

It seemed like an endless and convoluted discussion that ultimately led to nothing of significance.

The conversation was filled with unnecessary details and tangents that only served to complicate matters further.

People were going on and on about things that didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

It was a waste of time and energy, as no real progress or conclusion was reached.

One couldn't help but feel frustrated by the lack of substance in the whole affair.

Perhaps if they had focused on the important issues and cut out the fluff, they would have been able to achieve something meaningful.

But as it stands, this was just a whole lot of rigmarole about diddly-squat.

Claudio is truly the archetype of the foolish lover. He lacks any backbone and easily succumbs to the slightest doubts and rumors. One would almost feel sorry for him if it weren't for his own actions.

And then there's Hero. She is equally as foolish. She allows herself to be misled and doesn't stand up for herself when Claudio wrongly accuses her.

It's a sad state of affairs for both of them. Claudio's lack of trust and Hero's naivety combine to create a situation that is both tragic and a bit comical.

In the end, one can only hope that they both learn from their mistakes and grow as individuals. Maybe then they will be able to have a more meaningful and fulfilling relationship.

This is an engaging exploration of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing." The play, likely written in 1598, offers a modern feel despite its Elizabethan language. The complex plot, with its array of good and bad characters, along with the denouement and happy ending, resembles modern light comedies. Benedick and Beatrice, entirely Shakespeare's creations, steal the show with their witty repartee. Their initial exchanges in the opening scene set the stage for their comical relationship. Shakespeare also adds dialogues among other characters, outside the traditional story, where they conspire to trick Benedick and Beatrice into believing each other is in love. Another source of comedy is Dogberry, the constable, who is portrayed as an idiot with his constant malapropisms. The 1993 movie adaptation by Kenneth Branagh is splendid, with excellent performances by the cast. The language remains Shakespearean, and the music enhances the production. Overall, it's a highly enjoyable play and movie that showcases Shakespeare's genius.

Movie review at bottom

This is the most enjoyable play I’ve yet read in my Shakespeare project. Aside from the Elizabethan words that required me to check the footnotes, it had a very modern feel to it. The complicated plot, the good and bad characters, the denouement, the happy ending all reminded me of light comedies that I’ve seen performed on the modern stage.

The play was probably written in 1598. In my Complete Works it has been placed in between Henry IV Part II and Henry V.

The Introduction states that the incident causing Claudio to renounce his love for Hero is a device used, in various forms, “not uncommonly” in the sixteenth century, citing two examples: one version in Spencer’s Faerie Queene (book II, Canto IV), another by Matteo Bandello in an Italian novel published in 1554. The final verdict is that the direct source for Much Ado is “quite likely some play that has now been lost.”

Regardless of where Shakespeare got the general story of Claudio and Hero (who before his version of the play were no doubt the main characters, and even could be so-considered in his version) to this reader they were clearly upstaged by two other characters that are listed below them in the Dramatis Personae: Benedick and Beatrice. Not surprisingly, these characters are entirely of Shakespeare’s own invention (so far as we know), and they provide perhaps the main source of comedy in the play.

Benedick, a young lord of Padua, is introduced as a man who disdains women, and disdains the very idea of marriage. Beatrice, Hero’s cousin, is introduced as a woman who disdains men, and, agreeing in this only with Benedick, disdains the very idea of marriage.

Here’s the first repartee between these two, in the opening scene.

BENE. If Signior Leonato be her (Hero’s) father, she would not have his head on her shoulders for all Messina, as like him as she is.
BEAT. I wonder that you will still be talking, Signior Benedick. Nobody marks you.
BENE. What, my dear lady Disdain! Are you yet living?
BEAT. Is it possible Disdain should die while she hath such meet food to feed it as Signior Benedick? Courtesy itself must convert to disdain if you come in her presence.
BENE. Then is courtesy a turncoat. But it is certain I am loved of all ladies, only you excepted. And I would I could find in my heart that I had not a hard heart, for truly I love none.
BEAT. A dear happiness to women. They would else have been troubled with a pernicious suitor. I thank God and my cold blood that I am of your humor for that. I had rather hear my dog barking at a crow than a man swear he loves me.
BENE. God keep your ladyship still in that mind! So some gentleman or other shall ‘scape a predestinate scratched face.
BEAT. Scratching could not make it worse an ‘twere such a face as yours were.
BENE. Well, you are a rare parrot-teacher.
BEAT. A bird of my tongue is better than a beast of yours.
BENE. I would my horse had the speed of your tongue, and so good a continuer. But keep your way, ‘I God’s name. I have done.
BEAT. You always end with a jade’s trick. [A jade being a bad-tempered horse]

Are these two ready for prime time? You bet.

Shakespeare then adds considerable dialogue among other members of the cast, completely outside the traditional story, in which other male characters conspire to trick Benedick into thinking that Beatrice loves him; while separately, Hero and her attendants decide they will trick Beatrice into believing Benedick has fallen for her.

The other main source of comedy in the play is Dogberry, a constable who plays an important part in Shakespeare’s resolution of the traditional plot-line. But Dogberry, like many minor characters in his plays, is portrayed as a complete idiot, basically by having him spew out one malapropism after another (in fact “Dogberryism” is another term for malapropism). Here are examples of Dogberry’s Archie Bunker-like mix ups, from his first scene: (III.iii)

Says allegiance when he means treachery
Says desartless when he means deserving
Says senseless when he means sensible
Says comprehend when he means apprehend
Says tolerable when he means intolerable
Says present when he means represent
Says statues when he means statutes

All this, and more, in the space of less than a hundred lines (about half are his) while giving the Watch (a group of responsible citizens who would take turns patrolling the parishes of London at night) their instructions for the evening.

Even when Dogberry manages to say what he means, what he means to say is often exceeding strange. When he is asked by the Watch what they should do if they command a vagrant to “stand”, and he will not: “Why, then take no note of him, but let him go, and presently call the rest of the watch together and thank God you are rid of a knave.”

When he is asked what they should do if a drunkard does not obey them when told to go home: “Why, then let them alone till they are sober. If they make you not then the better answer, you may say they are not the men you took them for.”

And, the Watch asks, when they apprehend a thief, “shall we not lay hands on him?”

Dogberry replies with his own ruthless logic, “Truly, by your office you may, but I think they that touch pitch will be defiled. The most peaceable way for you, if you do take a thief, is to let him show himself what he is and steal out of your company.”

1993 movie

Kenneth Branagh adapted the play for the screen, then produced and directed the movie for BBC Films. Branagh also starred as Benedick. Filming was done at a villa in Tuscany.

Other cast included

Emma Thompson (at that time married to Branagh) as Beatrice
Robert Sean Leonard as Claudio
Kate Beckinsale as Hero
Denzel Washington as Don Pedro
Keanu Reeves as Don John
Michael Keaton as Dogberry

The movie is splendid. Branagh and Thompson are superb in the lead roles, Reeves gives a solid performance as the bad guy, and Michael Keaton is way over the top as the buffoon Dogberry. The language is Shakespearean throughout, with unnoticeable cuts in the dialogue and only slight elision of Elizabethan archaisms. Everything a modern audience could ask for. The music is a wonderful plus in the production, and I found myself laughing out loud inordinately often. I’m at a loss to imagine how Shakespeare’s play could have been produced on film more enjoyably. 4 stars (out of four) from me.

Here’s the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYj-2...

There’s also on YouTube (as of now) a two part recording of the play (in a modern setting) done at Wyndham's Theatre, starring David Tennant as Benedick and Catherine Tate as Beatrice. Don’t know how long it will be there.
Part I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElbmD...
Part II https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXts0...


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Previous review: Genius in Disguise Harold Ross of the New Yorker
Next review: The Sound and the Fury
Older review: The Girl Who Played with Fire

Previous library review: The Life and Death of King John
Next library review: As You Like It

A Timeless Classic by William Shakespeare: A Masterpiece Beyond Romeo and Juliet

William Shakespeare is renowned for his remarkable blend of humor and romance, and his works are a testament to his genius in these aspects. After all, who wouldn't be eager to read a Rom-Com penned by the great Shakespeare himself?

I had the pleasure of reading this play for a study, and I was completely captivated. At times, I found myself laughing out loud, while at others, I gasped in shock. The suspense was palpable, and the romance was beautifully developed. It was truly a joy to experience this play.

What I adored about it was the unexpected humor that brought countless smiles and laughs. This reaction is rare for me when reading novels. The plot was not only rich but also carried a moral meaning, offering both entertainment and educational value. The character development was engaging and heartwarming. Watching some characters mature and others learn from their mistakes was one of the highlights. Additionally, the characters were highly relatable, with their humor and flaws adding to their charm and making them truly human.

In conclusion, this play is a masterpiece that leaves no room for negative comments. It stands as a testament to Shakespeare's enduring talent and continues to delight audiences to this day.

It is a work that should be cherished and studied for generations to come.

Whether you are a lover of literature or simply looking for an entertaining and thought-provoking read, this play is sure to satisfy.

So, pick it up and embark on a journey into the world of Shakespeare's genius.

Hey nonny, nonny! Whatever that means, William.

This is a story that I've read before, but I thought it would be really cool to listen to the full cast audiobook. And let me tell you, it was definitely worth it. I also just rewatched the 1993 movie, which was also great, but for a different reason. Keanu Reeves + Shakespeare = Unintentionally Hilarious!

Alright, so "Much Ado About Nothing" is one of those stories that really hold up. It's from the late 1500s or early 1600s, and yet it's still generally enjoyable today. Now, I know I might come across as an uneducated peasant who doesn't like classic literature, but that's not entirely true. I just don't like boring classic literature. And this play wasn't boring at all. It was funny, weird, crazy, and yes, a whole lotta sexist. But basically, it was top-notch entertainment, 16th-century style.

The gist of the story is that there are two couples. Hero and Claudio are the loving couple, while Beatrice and Benedick are the hate-loving couple. They both need a little help from their friends to make it down the aisle. Hero and Claudio are the obvious cute couple because of true love. But Beatrice and Benedick are the ones that everyone is really rooting for because they're always hissing and spitting at each other instead of making googly eyes. They're the fun couple!

But things don't go smoothly for either couple. Claudio asks for Hero's hand in marriage, but there are some misunderstandings along the way. And then there's Don Jon, the villain of the story, who causes even more trouble by faking the loss of Hero's virginity. This leads to a whole bunch of drama and heartbreak.

But in the end, everything works out. The misunderstandings are cleared up, the villain is caught, and everyone gets their happily ever after. It's a classic story that has been told and retold countless times, and for good reason. It's just that good.

Overall, I would highly recommend "Much Ado About Nothing" to anyone who loves a good story. Whether you read it, watch a movie adaptation, or listen to the audiobook, you're sure to enjoy it. It's a timeless classic that will make you laugh, cry, and everything in between.

So this is definitely more about the Kenneth Branagh adaptation than the play.

However, the absolute gayest moment I’ve ever had in my life was when I watched Emma Thompson flounce around in an underbust corset and chemise.

As she was saying rude things to the men in her life, I found myself thinking “yeah I could do it.”

Forget Benedick, this is truly a story about Beatrice and the 14-year-old midwestern girl who was in love with her.

The way Emma Thompson portrayed Beatrice was simply captivating.

Her mannerisms, her expressions, and her confidence all combined to create a character that was both charming and fierce.

And for that 14-year-old girl, it was love at first sight.

She was drawn to Beatrice's independence and her ability to speak her mind.

It was a moment that would stay with her for the rest of her life.

Second reading, and I still find myself in awe of Beatrice's spirit. The banter between her and Benedict is truly a delight to witness. However, what I cherish the most, without a doubt, is the song. There is an indescribable charm in its verse that compels me to apply it not only from a woman's perspective towards men but as a universal truth applicable to everyone and everything. Maybe, just maybe, it's all just much ado about nothing.

Sigh no more, ladies, sigh no more. Men have always been deceivers. One foot in the sea and one on the shore, never constant to one thing. Then, instead of sighing so deeply, let them go. Be blithe and bonny, converting all your sounds of woe into the lighthearted "Hey nonny, nonny."

This song seems to hold a wisdom that transcends gender and circumstance. It encourages us to let go of our disappointments and embrace a more carefree attitude. In a world filled with uncertainties and betrayals, it serves as a gentle reminder that perhaps we are making too much fuss over things that don't really matter in the grand scheme of life.

4 Stars

This work presents an old-school hate-to-love trope that is truly captivating. It showcases Shakespeare's remarkable word-play, which adds a layer of depth and charm to the story. The way the words are crafted and intertwined is simply awe-inspiring.

However, it's important to note that it also contains elements of 16th Century misogyny. For instance, there is a scene where a father swears he'll kill his daughter if she's not a virgin. This aspect might be a bit disturbing to modern audiences, as our观念 of gender equality and respect for women has evolved significantly.

Nonetheless, despite this drawback, the overall work is still highly engaging and值得欣赏. It offers a unique glimpse into the literary style and社会观念 of the 16th Century, while also providing an entertaining hate-to-love narrative. The use of Shakespeare's word-play alone makes it a must-read for fans of classic literature.

This play is truly one of my absolute all-time favorites.

I have a deep longing that my dear friend Will was still alive.

If he were, he could create more of that wonderful Beatrice-Benedick banter just for me.

Their exchanges in the play are so witty and charming, filled with clever wordplay and a hint of underlying affection.

I can't help but imagine the new and exciting dialogues he might have come up with.

It would be a delight to experience that kind of verbal sparring once again.

Even now, whenever I think of this play, I am filled with a sense of joy and nostalgia.

It has left an indelible mark on my heart and continues to be a source of inspiration and entertainment.

I will always cherish this play and the memories it holds.

Some people hold the belief that comedy is of a higher order than tragedy. In the earlier part of my life, I would have simply scoffed at such a notion. I have always had a penchant for a story like Macbeth rather than an As you like it, much like my preference for music in minor keys over anything in a major key.

Although there are moments of tension in comedy when the protagonist's desires appear to be thwarted, which can indeed tug at the reader's emotions, yet the entertainment it provides is light and rather trivial. It is easily forgotten later without any sense of regret. Tragedy, on the other hand, leaves a lasting scar; Macbeth is simply unforgettable. But the question remains: which is the greater experience? Which is the more formative and valuable read?

However, having now read this play, namely Much ado about nothing, I am no longer so certain about asserting the superiority of tragedy. I can state that the plot of this play is complex and intricate. It involves not just one but multiple romances. While reading it, I found it just as difficult to put down as I had with Macbeth. And after reading it, I have this strong feeling that I must return to it again to uncover more of its hidden secrets.