I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Shakespeare is a master of suspense, when he wants to be, or isn't he always? A Duke of Vienna leaves his city and his deputy, Angelo (what a name for a twisted mind) in charge. But he comes back in disguise to check upon Angelo and he finds out that the man is corrupt and uses power to his own advantage, even trying to seduce a nun by sending her brother to the block where he would be beheaded at the strange time of four o'clock in the morning. But the Duke prevents the execution of that brother Claudio and comes back in time afterwards to sort things out. Shakespeare is a master at making us believe it will not go through and every step to the truth is immediately countered with two steps down the abyss, till the very last moment when the deputy is completely fooled out of countenance by the Duke coming back under his disguise – as a monk mind you – and reveals the villainy of his deputy when this deputy orders the Duke disguised as a monk to be sent to prison pending execution. Though everything looks really bleak till the end of the fourth act, the fifth act brings some relief but at the end of it only, though Shakespeare brilliantly prepares it with Isabella's cry for justice: "Justice, O royal Duke! Vail your regard / Upon a wrong'd- I would fain have said a maid! / O worthy Prince, dishonour not your eye / By throwing it on any other object / Till you have heard me in my true complaint, / And given me justice, justice, justice, justice." An opening single cry first and then a closing quadruple cry, which brings these "justice" cries to five: the diabolical disruptive pentacle, that the Duke double further on, along with Isabella, to ten to make the truth stronger, more unavoidable, with six words on each side and five identical making the sixth one all the more powerful. "Duke: Nay, it is ten times strange? / Isabella: Nay, it is ten times true." And the truth of a well balanced decision will come from the Duke, this time like a final decree: "Duke: 'An Angelo for Claudio, death for death!' / Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure; / Like doth quit like, and Measure still for Measure. / Then, Angelo, thy fault's thus manifested, / Which, though thou wouldst deny, denies thee vantage. / We do condemn thee to the very block / Where Claudio stoop'd to death, and with like haste. / Away with him!" But Shakespeare being Shakespeare he manages to sort things out in a final ruling, as square a ruling as square can be. Mariana is married to Angelo and she is the happiest woman when Angelo is pardoned and escapes the block. Isabella is reunited to her brother Claudio. Lucio's slandering against the Duke sends him at first to prison to be whipped and then hanged, because he had called the Duke "a fool, a coward, one all of luxury, an ass and a madman", a diabolical pentacle of insults, but the Duke yields to popular demand and pardons the slandering provided he marries a prostitute this very Lucio had mishandled, which is equal to death in Lucio's words: "Marrying a punk, my lord, is pressing to death, / whipping, and hanging" which is another formal square though "marrying" is equaled to the three others: "pressing to death", "whipping", "hanging". And finally the Duke is moving towards his own marriage with Isabella. Four couples are reunited, even if one is brother and sister and another is a slanderer and a prostitute. And three marriages in that square ending. This production adds a detail at the end that does not seem to be in the tale which is the coming to the forefront of a woman and a newborn baby that is at once acknowledged by Claudio which makes a fourth real marriage, but I would have preferred the Shakespearian ending that is somewhere slightly awry and hence a big tongue in a big cheek like the final ternary speech of the Shrew when finally tamed into marriage and obedience.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

Back in the 1970s, someone in England had the extraordinary idea of producing a made-for-television version of all the plays attributed to The Shakespearean Poet, who hid behind the name and person of "William Shakespeare". The idea was hubristic and more than a bit silly, since the usual practice in such an undertaking would be to produce an "all-star" version"--casting the best actors available for each part as Herbert Von Karajan tried to do when he recorded versions of famous operas for posterity. In this case, the choice of actors often seemed to be based on no discernible nor announced purpose; and the result was filmed versions of 37 plays which were extraordinarily uneven in quality, with many lines being read by youthful actors lacking classical training and/or ability. The best of all these version, in many ways, for actors and writers alike I believe to have been "Measure For Measure". Those seeking the true identity of "Shakespeare" could do worse, I suggest, than by starting with the fact that the playwright set three plays in 'Bohemia', which he must have visited to gain the knowledge of its constitution he showed, that he was fundamentally a Medieval not a Renaissance mentality and that by his writing's complexity, length and contexted idea-quality he was obviously over forty-five years of age when he began writing for the public stage in 1590. Bohemia was a kingdom independent under a moralistic government as early as 1530. Here it offered the playwright a chance to demonstrate the difference between personal belief and an enforced religious puritanism which lacked all the qualities of a true religion and none of those of an authoritarian dictatorship. The play involves a seemingly virtuous fellow, Angelo, who with the city's leader gone, is in charge in his place--even though he is being tested by that worthy without knowing this is so, for the leader remains to watch his course of action. His major problem involves young Claudio, who violates a statute by impregnating one Mariana outside of wedlock. He is willing to marry here, happy to do so, except that he has been clapped into jail and is awaiting execution. Isabella, his sister, speaks for him, with great effect; too great, since the future nun is propositioned by Angelo--he will spare her brother if she will let him make love to her. The effects of this triangle, as the cowardly Claudio begs his sister to submit, becomes dramatically tense. Will the Duke step forward and intervene? Will Angelo relent? Will Isabella surrender herself? Will Claudio be murdered by the iron letter of the law/ The plot is unusually strong, of course; and most everything is resolved by the ending. But the revelation of the difference between true faith, the monastic sort, which even agnostics can admire in Isabella and the puritanical-dictatorial pseudo-religion of Angelo which is worldly, divisive and totalitarian and utterly impractical is revealed here very clearly...A word of caution to post-1994 sufferers from theocratic pretensions from the Renaissance's minds is strongly spoken by the Shakespearean Poet here. This is unarguably largely a photographed stage play; but some minor dialogue has been excised, some clever camera-work introduced; and the production's entire middle section moves along quite effectively--the internal "dream sequence" between the exposition and first statement and the resolution of a theatrical work often works well with a bit of trimming when a play is translated into cinematic space-time events. Odette Barrow's costumes are good and Stuart Walker's production design is unobtrusive and serviceable at all points. Desmond Davis directed the production and by any standard I know his work appears to have been admirable by its results. Kate Nelligan's impersonation of Isabella is award-caliber and a lasting tribute to her dramatic ability. She is tragic, sweet, intelligent, sympathetic and desirable all at once. As Angelo, Tim Piggot-Smith does quite well in a difficult part for a young act; his intelligence and his ability to read a good one-liner serve him well. As Claudio, Christopher Strauli gets a good deal out of a part that in lesser hands can be repetitive. As the comical Pompey "The Great", Frank Middlemass has his finest cinematic part ever. Kenneth Colley is likable and interesting as the watchful Duke who tests Angelo, and as Escalus Kevin Stoney has a difficult part filled with reactions, remonstrations and nuances which he handles very professionally by my standards. Others in the cast include Adrienne Corri as Mistress Overdone, Eileen Page as Francesca, Yolanda Vasquez as Juliet, Jacqueline Pearce as the long-suffering Mariana, John Mcenery as Lucio and several more, all well-cast and more than adequate to their tasks. This is an attractive production which I find to be interesting as an ethical and moral question and well-paced as a realization of the playwright's intention. of all the series of BBC Shakespearean productions, this is the one I regard as the most cinematic and the most successful. I recommend it to the viewer whenever it is shown, if only for Kate Nelligan's lovely achievement.

This is an excellent, comprehendible and thoroughly enjoyable version of William Shakespeare's most disturbing comedy. Hats off to Kenneth Colley for his amazing portrayal of Vincentio, the eerie stage-manager of this unique drama. This is an all-around well done production: a must-see!

*SPOILER*This production is terrible. It blatantly sets aside or resolves ambiguities essential to the play's central metaphor; can there be charity in sin?Mr. Davis, who obviously had no academic understanding of Measure for Measure, has managed to destroy this amazing play.How can Lucio, a notorious womanizer be constantly and consistently colored with such paints of homosexuality as a heavy cake of rouge and a pearl stud in his left ear?How can Claudio lovingly embrace his sister who, at their last meeting promised to pray for his death a thousand times, accused him of incest and told him that if she could save him but by bending down would let his execution proceed?How can Isabella, a moral absolutist of the highest regard, who would not find charity in fornication to save her brother's life and who has found station as an initiate in a nunnery, so willingly accept the Duke's marriage proposal?How Can Angelo set aside all cunning and tricks of his office to approach Isabella with such aggression that it at times borders on violence?If I want Shakespeare, and I want the BBC involved, I'll stick to Trevor Nunn, thank you.