This is easily one of Shakespeare's more exciting action-packed tragedies, working well even in the space of the confined set as shown here. Fine performances and solid direction quickly make the most of the plot. Although technically a Roman drama, it is not based on any true historical events from that period.Roman General Titus Andronicus (Trevor Peacock) returns to Rome having won victory of Tamora (Eileen Atkins), Queen of the Goths, whom he has captured. As a reward for his victory he is asked to elect the next Emperor of Rome and he chooses Saturninus (Brian Protheroe), the late Emperor's son. Saturninus takes a fancy to Titus' daughter Lavinia (Anna Calder-Marshall) but when she refuses his offer of marriage, he selects Tamora as his Queen instead. Tamora wastes no opportunity to take revenge on her former captor and bloody havoc quickly ensues...The redoubtable Trevor Peacock, a staple of these BBC adaptations, delivers a noble Titus corroded by rage and revenge. Atkins is on fine form as the scheming Tamora, although Protheroe could have made more of the sliminess in Saturninus.One notable performer here has not been given his due elsewhere. Hugh Quarshie excels as Tamora's follower Aaron, and gives a solid performance of pure evil. It's a shame they couldn't cast him as the lead in "Othello" as he would been fantastic in the part.The piece is shot on one set but it works well, the black, decaying walls suggesting a crumbling corrupt society and it is suggestive, appropriately enough, of the Roman Coliseum.Good stuff.

As stated elsewhere,"Titus" is arguably the worst play in the Canon.The bard might have intended this as:the Elizabethan version of a slasher film;an attempt to out do Marlowe;or as a sick joke where the audience/reader would laugh along with him.It's impossible to determine his intentions.The plot is derived from an earlier ballad. Shakespeare developed and embellished various details and aspects of character.nonetheless,any production intended for the uninitiated really ought to follow the script closely and downplay the grosser aspects.Traymor's over the top production is a stylistic mishmash.Anyone unfamiliar with the story will find it impossible to follow along.Consequently,the novice should study this version prior to witnessing the 1999 messApparently intended as a stylized Elizabethan stage production of a Roman play and props,THIS is the version for the beginner.While Peacock and Atkins lack the stellar stature of Hopkins and Lange,their performances show restraint and are more believable as the text allows.(The latter,while fun,as campy,self-indulgent,and hammy.)Hardwicke and Protheroe are far superior to their counterparts in the film.I prefer Quarshie to Lennix for the following reasons:Aaron,in the film,is a grinning,one-dimensional pantomime devil or medieval vice.He's far too obviously a villain,and wouldn't be able to deceive anybody with the intelligence of a grapefruit.He's lacking virility,and not at all attractive.Quarshie,on the other hand,is much better-looking,manly,charming,and convincing a speaker and manipulator.Ask anybody who's ever dealt with a psychopath,and they'll tell you that the way these characters achieve their power is to be able to win and inspire confidence initially,before they develop their evils ploys.

Titus Andronicus is seldom staged and even more rarely filmed, although I understand that there were as much as three (!) U.S. film versions during 1999-2000 alone, of which I have only seen Taymor's magnificent Titus.But, I have just watched BBC's 1985 production of the play, and I found it brilliantly superb and highly moving. I am a deep appreciator of Shakespeare, and I find Titus to be one of the Bard's best plays, wanting to categorize it with Hamlet, Lear, Othello, Macbeth and the other great tragedies. Note how, in Othello, Iago refuses to speak, but Aaron does no such thing; he recounts one more horrible deed after the other, forcing the listeners to shut him up! Surely this shows us what Iago would have said, had he been inclined to speak! I can only assume that the reason this play has been so neglected by stages and film producers alike is that it is very much off the mainstream in its type of plot and action, being excessively horrific and over-dramatic, almost to the point of the ridiculous. But Shakespeare in fact can sustain this level of drama, and so can a serious production, as can be seen both here and in Taymor's surrealist 1999 masterpiece.The BBC version is in many ways a classical/traditional production, relying on the actors and the words more than the stage visuals. And these actors pull it off to perfection. The Greek garb of the chorus, and the general likeness to Greek tragedy is overwhelmingly realized, demonstrating how Shakespeare could take the dramatic stylism of the Antiquity and magnify it tenfold, entirely surpassing the original and adding nigh-infinite new layers of substance of his own.The strongest scene is shortly after Lavinia's tragedy, when the entire Andronicus family huddles together to wallow in their maddening, unbearable sorrow. For such a scene alone, this production deserves a 10 out of 10 rating. Yet, I hold off one point for a variety of reasons, chief of which is that the final scene with the cannibalistic feast is not quite grotesquely horrific enough - see Taymor's version for a better realization! Also, yes, the death of Aaron's child. It's true that it should remain alive as a symbol of hope; a symbol of innocence not necessarily having to answer for the sins of the father. Or, as a smaller, less dangerous version of its father, which is necessary and integral to human nature; something we can "acknowledge ours", as Prospero does with Caliban.Lastly, a pet peeve: Lavinia's having to carry her father's severed hand between her teeth. This was used in both of the versions I've seen, but I just don't believe that Shakespeare would subject any character, much less a woman, to something as absurd as this, even in a play like this. I simply don't think it jibes with the rest of the play. I believe with all my heart that the "teeth" bit is a corruption by hands other than Shakespeare's, coming from the non-authoritative Quarto 1. I much prefer the Folio version, which I believe (in this case) to be an authorial version, and saying that she must carry the severed hand between her arms. Just my two cents!9 out of 10.

One of the BBC series which I can respect on the basis that it is approached like a stage performance. It is bound largely to one set which may disappoint some people, but works quite well if you consider it as a piece of theater. Performances are theatrical and large, some hit and some miss. One definite miss is the much misconcieved Aaron the moor who seems more jovial than the evil precursor to Shakespeare's later Iago. Lavinia and Tamora also seem a bit weak and off the mark, but then Lavinia is hardly afforded the time within the play to truly establish sympathy. Tamora fares better, but still seems like it could do with a bit more regal poise. She was a queen after all. The good performances on the other hand do have their flaws, but are largely very strong. Saturninus is way over the top, but admirably tackles the huge ego and short temper of the sinister ruler. Special kudos must be awarded to the actor portraying Marcus Andronicus. He achieves the moments of over the top style reflected in much of the cast, but he also has moments of wonderful subtlety and maintains a stoic and staid respectability. His performance may very well be the finest in the production. Finally, Peacock most noticeably brings his weighty gravely voice to Titus, and brings with it the necessary bellowing fire to the whole affair. His performance is even larger and more stylized than most, but I was actually moved deeply by some of his speeches in the scene immediately after he has his hand lopped off. When reading the play, they are just words on a page, but his voice cries out to the rafters full of anguish and horror at the events beset upon him. Quite nice. On the whole, the affair is carried off with a fire and style that may occasionally be missed in Shakespeare productions, and that helps one to overlook it's flaws. Maybe not an incredible video, but good theater.