Shakespeare here proposes a pure entertainment. Two young men in love with the same woman, and two ladies in love with one of each of these two men. It so happens one man necessarily loves the woman who is the common love to both and the other woman loves the second man. It is then a story of plotting, betraying, cheating, and all variations on these three themes for the one who loves the woman the two men love and is not love by that woman to try to force his choice onto her against the other man who is supposed to be his best friend. The rest is nothing but circumstances. The couple that shares a mutual love will finally come together and the man who lost that woman will accept the love of the other woman. Hence we will end with two happy couples or at least two happily married couples, which is weak in Shakespeare's dramatic patterns. All is well that ends well and it was all much ado about nothing. The play is particularly light because of the numerous musics that take it along on a brisk Elizabethan path. You know something is awry when Launce, Proteus' servant, describes the woman he loves in the style of some official statute. "the catalog of her condition: Imprimis: She can fetch and carry. […] Item: She can milk. […] Imprimis: She can milk. […] Item: She brews good ale. […] Item: She can sew. […] Item: She can knit. […] Item: She can wash and scour. […] Item: She can spin. […] Item: She has many nameless virtues. […] Her vices. Item: She is not to be kissed fasting, in respect of her breath. […] Item: She has a sweet mouth. […] Item: She doth talk in her sleep. […] Item: She is slow in words. […] Item: She is proud. […] Item: She hath no teeth. […] Item: She is curst. […] Item: She will often praise her liquor. […] Item: She is too liberal. […] Item: She hath more hair than wit, and more faults than hairs, and more wealth than faults. […] Item: She hath more hair than wit, […] and more faults than hairs, […] and more wealth than faults. […]" Each item is read by Speed and is vastly commented upon by Launce. It is in a way the portrait of a standard woman in Elizabethan society. We have to think of course that in 1590-91 the Queen of England was Elizabeth I and any allusion to the fate of women was an allusion to the Queen who must have had some fair sense of humor to take all the more or less sarcastic remarks on the stage, and at times in the Court since she often invited the companies for court performances, which is by the way alluded too in many plays by Shakespeare who adored having plays in the play and these plays were always in front of kings, dukes or whatever other princes. It is that level we have lost in our reading of Shakespeare and this production is typical of our modernity by having a fair presence of musicians and songs for the sake of entertainment, beauty and tempo, and of course a setting that oscillates between some Italian fantastic château and some dark nightly forest with "the bare scalp of Robin Hood's fat friar" roaming around and a band of runaway castaway outlaws who will be pardoned at the end of the play. We could thus analyze all the allusions to Shakespeare's society and find out that the play and all its poetic charm and humoristic fun is also a slightly satirical and slightly caustic reflection of the society of his time and the history of England, probably to the utmost pleasure of Skakespeare's audience.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

"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.

My rating isn't for the story for which I'd give only 6 but for the gorgeous settings and good acting - how the actor could act stupid, selfish Proteus so well is worth watching by itself! I've been rewatching this wonderful series - and watching for the first time some I missed when they were shown on TV originally. The story is good enough to enjoy tho' not one of the Bard's best by any means. I really couldn't though agree with one reviewer who suggested the lines by the lovers (and therefore I suppose the whole play) should have been played for laughs because I love the language and the style and I really don't want to see any of the plays presented as complete farce. Added to which I don't find the others in the play farcical nor the story itself. The problem lies in Proteus being so intolerable immature, stupid and selfish. But I can imagine the viewer in question becoming frustrated at Proteus' persistent stupidity and wondering if farce might have helped any viewer to calm down rather than want every few minutes to give him a slap for his bad behaviour. Certainly he doesn't suffer enough at the end when he's forgiven, and that means the viewer doesn't feel much pleasure at his redemption. He doesn't seem to deserve it, nor Julia who's suffered quite enough from his ill behaviour. I wonder what her father and mother will think of all this and especially of Proteus, when she finally goes home with her regained lover? But doubtless the Duke will deal with the parents tactfully?Thank goodness Sylvia has the sense not to listen to nasty Proteus but to realise immediately that he betrayed the trust of his friend and her love. One can accept Proteus can't help his lusts and when forcibly parted from Julia, this very silly young man immediately swoons over another lovely girl who's nearby instead of afar. The worst moment is when he declares all's fair in love but in terms that are thoroughly insulting to Valentine, Julia and Sylvia too. Valentine banished behaves sensibly and shows he's worthy of Sylvia, hence the Duke forgives him for his attempt to make off with her secretly seeing that was to save her from the unwanted husband the Duke is trying to force on her. Deceitful Proteus though is far too easily forgiven by Julia even though he has hurt her over and over as she, disguised as a page, has to listen to his passionate declarations to Sylvia and dismissal of his past love. A slap across his face (or several during the play) would have done him a world of good. I suppose he's forgiven because humans can't control love - it strikes where it will as Cupid in this production demonstrates now and again. These days people expect a bit more contrition, I think. Still, the actor does his best with his moment of self-discovery and shame.So, a very satisfying production visually which makes up a great deal for Proteus being such a completely stupid and deceitful twerp and a certain lack of satisfaction at the end. Well worth watching.

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