This is a famous comedy, maybe the most famous comedy by Shakespeare. It was made famous by Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton but it stands apart in Shakespeare's comedies. In most comedies we have four couples getting married or re-united at the end. In this one we have only three women who get married to three men of course. Three in Shakespeare's style is the incongruous and disorderly rhythm that breaks the perfect iambic harmony of two or four. In his language anything coming by three is a sign of some disruption, some tempest coming, some imbalance that menaces the normal peaceful course of events. So there is an element of disorder in this ending. And there is another in the number of ternary elements the final speech of Katharina at the end, a speech to her sister for her to understand she has to submit to her husband for the good of the couple and for her own comfort. The number of ternary elements is dense. Let me give a few examples: "thy lord, thy king, thy governor", "it blots…, confounds… and in no sense is…", "thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper, / Thy head, thy sovereign." (1 + 3 + 2 = 6), "warm at home, secure and safe", "but love, fair looks and true obedience". But the acme of this imbalance is brought by a pentacle, a group of five elements, the devil in the story: "…froward, peevish, sullen, sour, and not obedient", "but a foul contending rebel, and graceless traitor" (3 + 2 =5, or Adjective + adjective + noun + adjective + noun = 3 adjectives + 2 nouns = 5). This is clear enough and it is the absolute meaning of the speech to the sister: submit for your benefit, and of course you can think as much as you want, as long as you have peace you can. This spirit of women in fact getting the best out of their husbands for their own sake and not for their husbands' sake, is the central meaning in this play. Women are no hypocrites or liars or simulators in any way. They are just taking care of their best interest and what the husbands may see as submission is the guarantee for women to have their independence and freedom. Apart from this general meaning, which is ahead of its time as for women in society in the 16th century, the play is such an accumulation of disguises and servants playing masters and masters playing servants, and sons and fathers, and fathers and daughters, without counting all the suitors, that we are literally made slightly dizzy. The language, the puns, the innuendo, the playing on words and all the wit, some of it openly gross, some insinuating some grossness, make this comedy real fireworks of fun and pleasure: water music one century early. This BBC production is fair enough and the setting is wider than a stage which enables the angle of vision to change which gives to our perception of the public or private space a dimension it probably does not have, in between a natural setting and a sound stage. The dynamism of the actors is just fun, including the final song of the banquet which is just amateurish enough to sound plain true.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

The simple truth about Shakespeare's plays - especially the comedies - is that they can be delightful beyond one's wildest imagination. I consider Much Ado About Nothing to be by far one of the most pleasant comedies of Shakespeare, but upon watching The Taming of the Shrew, I come to realize that it, when well produced, can be just as wondrous. The wisdom and humor contained in a play by the Bard are nigh-infinite, if only we have the eyes to see it.Having said that, this classic BBC production may indeed be classic, but apart from John Cleese it is fairly pedestrian. The delight, for me, comes from the words rather than the stage production, and then, of course, from John Cleese. I had my doubts about him when I heard he was in a "serious" Shakespeare play, but the second I saw him my doubts evaporated. He carries this show, being easily the best thing about it, and it should be obvious to all that Shakespeare and John Cleese is a match made in heaven - a mad mating, to use a pun from the play! One is grief-stricken that Cleese did not go into Shakespeare acting as a full career; woe is we who have spent our lives lacking a comedic giant such as Cleese in the Shakespearean art form!In short: Cleese is superb, utterly and completely. The rest of the production is adequate, but Cleese absolutely steals the show.My rating: about 6-ish for the rest of the production, with two points added for Cleese's brilliant performance, coming to an 8 out of 10.

A funny, fast-paced and thoroughly enjoyable production. All the actors are clear and well-spoken. They all add funny little unspoken touches to their lines, Cleese especially, so that there's a lot of physical comedy going on while the fast dialogue is crackling. A lot of talent went into this show, and it pays off.

I recently studied this play in Brit Lit, and I definitely think that even though this version might be a little slower than the Zefferelli version, it is better. The Zefferelli version reverts back to the physical, cheap humor that Shakespeare obviously steers clear of, because in his day there were a number of those kinds of plays out there, but they were cheap, superficial plays. Also, Zefferelli leaves out the falcon soliloquey. I think that John Cleese is just a genius with comedy, and I am also a big fan of Frank Thorton. Besides that, I think that the makers of this film understood the real themes of Taming, and tried to portray them in the movie, as opposed to Zefferelli, who added extraneous things to make it more "amusing", but thus led it further away from Shakespeare's true meaning.