"The Two Gentleman of Verona" is one of Shakespeare's much better comedies, full of the kind of witty wordplay and lively characters that frequently appear in them.The plot is essentially simple: Proteus (Tyler Butterworth) is in love with Julia (Tessa Peak-Jones) and Valentine (John Hudson) is in love with Silvia (Joanne Pearce). Complications arise, however, when Proteus falls in love with Julia...There are some good performances here from everyone involved. Butterworth and Hudson are great fun as the two leads, and handle the play's darker elements very well. The portrayal of the two servants Speed and Launce (Nicholas Kaby and Tony Haygarth respectively) are also spot-on, although the latter does tend to confirm Shakespeare's generally patronising attitude in his plays towards the working classes. David Collings as brilliant as ever as irksome fop Thurio.The theatricality in the production (with a scene in a forest not shot on location but quite evidently in a studio) actually serves the comical story much better than realism.A good one to get warmed up on Shakespeare.

Though most critics fall over backwards to parrot Harold Bloom's characterization of William Shakespeare's The Two Gentlemen of Verona as "the weakest of all Shakespeare's comedies," I found it to be a very entertaining effort, especially as performed by the BBC-Time-Life ensemble in its 1983 performance. Accolades should go to Joanne Pearce as Sylvia, Tessa Peake-Jones as Julia, John Hudson as Valentine, Paul Daneman as the Duke of Milan, and especially to young Nicholas Kaby as the clownish Speed. Cited among Shakespeare's works in 1598 by Francis Meres but not printed until the First Folio of 1623, the most accepted date for the work is the early 1590s but there are no documented performances. Perhaps, for stylistic reasons, it is often thought of as Shakespeare's earliest comedy.Shakespeare commentators consider the story to be taken from a Spanish play by Jorge de Montemayor, Diana Enamorada and it was performed in an anonymous English version at court by the Queen's Men in 1585 as The History of Felix and Philomena. Other influences may have been the commedia dell' arte of the Italian playwright Flaminio Scala. Although the work may not be as weak as some have said, it is generally not well thought of because of the unsavory nature of its characters, particularly the cruel betrayal of Julia by Proteus and the disturbing offer made by Valentine to Proteus in the last act.The play indeed is mystifying unless one looks at it as a fascinating look into the mind and heart of the author whose "two gentlemen" may be (as in Measure for Measure) two sides of his own personality, the trusting, open-hearted and the false-malignant. Like Measure for Measure, it is a self appraisal in which the author does not escape indictment. The story is set in Northern Italy in Verona, Milan, and Mantua and the controversy about its reference to traveling by sea from Verona to Milan and the possibility of shipwrecks has given carte blanche to all those whose goal in life is to prove how little geography Shakespeare actually knew. Although the possibility of shipwrecks does seem rather remote and Shakespeare may have written the play before he was sure of its setting, during the 16th century an extensive canal system did stretch across the Po Valley from Venice, west of Milan, and the Lombard Plain as far as Turin.While some use this play to denigrate Shakespeare, others make the case that the writer showed an astoundingly detailed and accurate knowledge of Italy, demonstrating extensive familiarity with Milanese landmarks such as the Abbey of Saint Ambrose, the Well of St. Gregory, and the Lazaretto. Whether the author visited Italy or not, he makes the audience feel as if everything is coming from rich personal experience. Two Gentlemen is the tale of two friends living in Verona, Valentine and Proteus, whose interests in women lead to complications, none of which are handled very well. Both interestingly enough are known as writers and, when Valentine's lover Sylvia (daughter of a powerful duke) asks him to write poems for her, he discovers that he is writing not for his lover's contentment but for his own satisfaction.Both Valentine and Proteus are sent to Milan, Valentine to gain worldly experience as he asserts, "Home-keeping youth have ever homely wits", and Proteus on a mission from his father. When Proteus arrives, he discovers that Valentine has fallen in love with Sylvia. Turning his back on Julia to whom he had offered undying devotion, he begins to court Sylvia, even while knowing that she loves Valentine and, has been pledged to Thurio by her father. Treachery, plotting, and cruelty abound throughout the play and in the final scene, as Proteus threatens Sylvia who is betrothed to Valentine …woo you like a soldier, at arms' And love you 'gainst the nature of love – force ye.As Valentine rushes in to save his lady, Proteus puts his sins behind him:O heaven, were man But constant, he were perfect! That one error Fills him with faults, makes him run through all th' sins.To which Valentine responds incongruously:Then I am paid; And once again do I receive thee honest. And, that my love may appear plain and free, All that was mine in Silvia I give thee.It is an offer that, under the circumstances of a threatened assault, is unfathomable if addressed to another person, but conceivable if addressed to oneself and inaudible to their object. As in Measure for Measure, however, all dishonor is forgiven and the perpetrator, after exposing his faults for all the world to see, is let off the hook with a large measure of unearned compassion. If these events are not the substance of the dramatist's life, they make no sense whatsoever. To paraphrase author Elisabeth Sears, it is clear that in dealing in his plays with the themes that tormented him in real life as a means of exorcising his troubles, Shakespeare was able to transform his anguish into artistic creativity of the highest order.

If "Two Gentlemen" isn't the first of Shakespeare's plays, it might as well be. There are many themes here that are rough sketches for later, more fully developed works, but the play as a whole is a misfire, and this performance can't redeem it.The physical production is beautiful, and Crab, the dog, is an unfailing source of warmth and enjoyment. The human actors, however, are much more of a mixed lot, with none outstanding, some good, a handful perplexing and more than a few excruciating.A wise man once said, "Never tell an English actor he's in a comedy," and the first, sunny half of the play is a chore to sit through with all the mugging, rolling eyeballs and forced laughter. Once things get serious at about the midpoint the young cast is on a firmer emotional footing, however preposterous the plot. Shockingly, the final Shakespearean resolution, in which everybody forgives everybody and all the couples are united, for once does not produce the requisite spinal tingle.You may remember the beautiful sets. You will remember the dog. But you won't have that wonderful feeling of two or three hours in the exquisite company of Shakespeare, because this one just doesn't work.

I must admit that this production of one of Shakespeare's earliest plays (if not the earliest) is beginning to grow on me. I must be losing my critical judgment.Or it may be because I have learned to filter out the rubbish spoken by the main characters, and play full attention only when the clowns Speed (in this production played plausibly as an annoying boy by Nicholas Kaby) and Launce (played by Tony Haygarth) are speaking. Launce's classic speech to his dog Crab (the only other engaging character) about the trouble Crab has brought on him is the highlight of the play.It may be that this production (the only one of this play I have seen) suffers from the seriousness which is applied to all of the productions in this BBC series of the plays. I wondered on watching it how much better it might have been if the four main characters had played their lines for laughs. The absurd reconciliations in the final scene might then have had me rolling in the aisles rather than staring in disbelief. It is hard to believe that a writer as intelligent as Shakespeare could have intended to have those lines delivered po-faced, and harder still to believe that if he did anyone would have paid him to write another play