There is a scene in Star Trek Next Generation, where the doctor, Beverly Crusher, asks Picard to take the time to play a part and rehearse for her play. He responds plainly, "...I'm not much of an actor." Picard's response includes a very subtle, twisted grin. Kudos, Patrick Stewart, I've always appreciated your passion and talent. You are a gift.
Q. How did they get the great Patrick Stewart to do this? A: He wasn't famous then. Q: But he looks... A: Yes, he looks exactly the same. It was 34 years ago and he looks exactly the same.
I got this series on DVD years ago. What I find slightly ironic is that there's an episode where they play recordings of old Shakespearean actors from the late nineteenth/early 20th century and laugh about how they "project" (i'e' shout) their lines, but Barton comments that that's how it was done back then in a primarily theatre-based entertainment world without voice amplification technology. The ironic part is that I think since the 1980s, most people would rather see the "emotional" take on Titus, rather than the highlighting of the text. Now we have Netflix and can watch with subtitles... and apart from that, most of us value emotional truth, rather than the (relatively) subdued text-based performance. Times changed from the 1890s to the 1980s, and they have changed again from the 1980s until now.
It should be taken to note, he would not perform the role like this. This is an exercise, and it's not like he's spent months learning that role. As an exercise its brilliant though, and patricks acting, god damn
Oh, absolutely. I would consider him one of the great actors of the 20th century based purely upon his Shakespearean credits, something he carried over to Star Trek when he played Picard.
It's very interesting to see the contrast between the emotional delivery vs. the intellectual delivery of this scene from "Titus Andronicus"...especially since I've heard that this is the difference between the way in which American theater and British theater typically approach Shakespeare. American theater tends to focus on the emotion, whereas British theater (at least historically) has focused on the language.
When I think about the title of this mv, two actors come to mind: John Gielgud and Lawrence Olivier. There was probably no actor that mastered the words, getting every nuance of every speech than Gielgud. But when it came to physical approach and taking risks, Olivier was the king. Both actors discussed this on several occasion - and it's interesting to watch the two perform the same scene.
Excellent point, well illustrated. The overpowering emotion of the first version won't allow the listener to "get" the illustration, the image that is painted with the words. The second version was much clearer. Not necessarily always appropriate in its intensity to what was happening, mind, but with time that would have been added. The calmer version is a better starting point.
Honestly considering what had just happened in the scene, I think the first time he did it was a more appropriate chioce. The physical pain alone would cause a very strong emotional response add to that having seen the daughter you loved mutilated and ravaged would have taken any man to a point beyond holding back those emotions! Patrick is an awesome actor!
You make a valid point, @76sherie. If I were lucky to direct this scene, I would try to find a middle ground between both interpretations. The character's physical shock and pain bubble away beneath the surface, at times exposing itself in brief flashes before their control - however fluid - is reinstated.
He seems like almost Stoic, like he's exploring the human condition in the moment. It's almost like he's discovered something, and the more miserable he is, the more articulate he becomes in describing it.
I find the first one more fitting, and imagine a compromise of both would likely be best. Chiefly because the second one made me not focus on his words but rather on the fact that he seemed oddly nonplussed; I was thus more wondering how he spoke so calmly at the sky as his daughter was weeping and begging for his sympathies. His attention was focused where mine was not, so I spent more time noting the diversion than the actual intent behind his performance. If one was to give a speech within this situation, it would be to cry out directly to the audience in anger. In fact, that anger seems to be the intention. “You expect me to be quiet and calm in a situation like this? Does nature sit idle when harmed?” The first performance captures that, though it’s clouded in some ways.
To be fair if I’d had a hand cut off, my Daughter had just been raped, tortured, brutalised, and had her hand cut off, and tongue cut out, I think the first version would be the realistic response. Sir Patrick oozing class as always.
It's Titus, it's a play that includes the title character killing two of his enemies and backing them into pies. The title character being over the top is perfectly in character.
strange. 30 years ago i watched the Barton series with awe. Now, while still of course relevant points are made, in this case the first version was much more emotionally moving and true to the text. But greeing with most commenters. A final performed version would be somewhere in between both.
I preferred the first one too; who could possibly speak that calmly after seeing his daughter mutilated and then losing a hand himself? The second one was easier to understand, but where was the emotion?
Titus Andronicus is such a sad work. It has trully haunting and emotional moments, completely ruined by the absurdity of the events and how uneventful the brutality is. The sorrow of Titus is palpable and the mute screams of his daughter are unsettling, but it's hard to forget that is moment is after the new roman emperor married Rome's biggest enemy for petty issues with his brother, or that two of titus sons were killed in ridiculous and cartoony set up, or that after this Titus will order Livignia to carry his hand with her mouth even thought there's plent of people with their hands free in that scene, or that the goths honestly believe a silly act will convince Titus.
Me too, honestly, as it seemed more emotionally apt considering what was going on in the scene.....Though I readily admit that I could understand the meaning behind the words easier in the second version. Perhaps a variation which is in-between those two extremes would do justice to the words and the emotions?
I've seen the Livinia part played that way before, it's not a choice I would make but really, what does one DO on stage after losing both hands and a tongue?
Interesting ? people would comment on the actor's..These are very brave people...Mostly; .This is an exerpt of a Burton class..The .Artistic will take in the exploration. The Critical intellectual will do what they do. Burton great history !!!! many of american greatest actors have taken his perspectives...?.( class ?? workshops ???) . So, Just to learn of humanity, of life this is a gift if one accepts as it is. For a layman open minded, much could be learned from observing these classes....I wish there was a link to all of his classes, or many, or even a few more....Thank you for posting........
I can understand this champion, I think it’s the whole thing that if an actor can engage with such complex text emotionally and physically it enables them to deal with contemporary work easier.
I can understand peoples' opinion with which performance is stronger. Personally, I like the second presentation better because I can understand what's being said and also I don't know what Titus will do next, which makes it all the more compelling to watch. The first presentation made me burst out laughing, especially when Stewart emphasized the word 'deluge.' Also as an actor with school still fresh even after graduation, the comment on generalizing speeches was something I got a lot from school so explaining what you're feeling makes perfect sense. However, since it is Shakespeare, it's hard to make it big and epic when you've been confined to a box-like frame capturing your performance. So perhaps a marriage between the passionate and the intellectual would capture what the character is feeling at this moment.
@montgomery7 I think it had to not do with just the drama of the situation but with the actual text that Titus says, the whole passage about her sighs and weeping and her pitiful state driving his. Without her there is no other direct stimulus for him saying those lines. It's logical and what the text holds. I'm no expert but I'm just saying... it's there. That's just the text and not delving into the whole psychology of the scene.
I thought I was first introduced to him through X-Men when I finally gave in and watched the movies, but then I found out I'd known him for years - through 'I Claudius'
I think both are valid ways to play it, but I do get what they're trying to get at: In a play, I'd rather have the lines heard, especially since I, as an audience member, want/need to hear the words. Yes, there is a level of emoting that should be done, but not so much to where it becomes unintelligible. Whereas a movie, I do want the more visceral and passionate interpretation, as I feel as a viewer, I feel I should see this man at his lowest, completely broken and vulnerable, what he says is not so much important as is his physicality. And if he just says the words, I don't feel his grief as much. I think a better characterization this excercise could've had was these interpretations are dependent on how the play is being adapted: as a stage show or as a film. I agree with most people that both are equally valid, but note that it is entirely dependent on if the medium of which these plays are adapted are textually, sonically, or visually focused.
Thank God We've enter 21st century and We don't stage these plays like that anymore ! Thinking Shakespeare has to be done that folkloric way today is kinda... well... I have great respect for Sir Patrick Stewart, but he probably watch this and tells himself he got a totally different and modern way to deliver the fullness of such monologues.
There is a scene in Star Trek Next Generation, where the doctor, Beverly Crusher, asks Picard to take the time to play a part and rehearse for her play. He responds plainly, "...I'm not much of an actor." Picard's response includes a very subtle, twisted grin. Kudos, Patrick Stewart, I've always appreciated your passion and talent. You are a gift.
Both performance were outstanding
Q. How did they get the great Patrick Stewart to do this?
A: He wasn't famous then.
Q: But he looks...
A: Yes, he looks exactly the same. It was 34 years ago and he looks exactly the same.
+PopeLando he was recognized, famous shakerpearean actor back then
I guess that's a strange benefit to being bald your whole life....
Do you not know, Patrick steward is an immortal.
He just doesn't age...that's a genetic gift ...in his late 70s,he is still fit
This is the Royal Shakespeare Company, of which he was a member at the time along with Ian Mckellen and others.
I got this series on DVD years ago. What I find slightly ironic is that there's an episode where they play recordings of old Shakespearean actors from the late nineteenth/early 20th century and laugh about how they "project" (i'e' shout) their lines, but Barton comments that that's how it was done back then in a primarily theatre-based entertainment world without voice amplification technology. The ironic part is that I think since the 1980s, most people would rather see the "emotional" take on Titus, rather than the highlighting of the text. Now we have Netflix and can watch with subtitles... and apart from that, most of us value emotional truth, rather than the (relatively) subdued text-based performance. Times changed from the 1890s to the 1980s, and they have changed again from the 1980s until now.
It should be taken to note, he would not perform the role like this. This is an exercise, and it's not like he's spent months learning that role. As an exercise its brilliant though, and patricks acting, god damn
Oh, absolutely. I would consider him one of the great actors of the 20th century based purely upon his Shakespearean credits, something he carried over to Star Trek when he played Picard.
It's very interesting to see the contrast between the emotional delivery vs. the intellectual delivery of this scene from "Titus Andronicus"...especially since I've heard that this is the difference between the way in which American theater and British theater typically approach Shakespeare. American theater tends to focus on the emotion, whereas British theater (at least historically) has focused on the language.
It really is amazing how the first run-through is nigh-incomprehensible, but the second is almost as if Patrick Stewart is speaking in plain English.
When I think about the title of this mv, two actors come to mind: John Gielgud and Lawrence Olivier. There was probably no actor that mastered the words, getting every nuance of every speech than Gielgud. But when it came to physical approach and taking risks, Olivier was the king. Both actors discussed this on several occasion - and it's interesting to watch the two perform the same scene.
Excellent point, well illustrated. The overpowering emotion of the first version won't allow the listener to "get" the illustration, the image that is painted with the words. The second version was much clearer. Not necessarily always appropriate in its intensity to what was happening, mind, but with time that would have been added. The calmer version is a better starting point.
2:02 reminds me of Derek Jacobi's character in Frasier.
My thoughts exactly...."I die Horatio...huuuuuuuuuughhhh"
Honestly considering what had just happened in the scene, I think the first time he did it was a more appropriate chioce. The physical pain alone would cause a very strong emotional response add to that having seen the daughter you loved mutilated and ravaged would have taken any man to a point beyond holding back those emotions! Patrick is an awesome actor!
If Shakespeare wanted you to scream during this point of the story, he would have written that into the script instead of the beautiful language.
When you consider the Context of the scene to be melancholy is out of place. Anger and dispair must be present, or it's unbelievable.
You make a valid point, @76sherie. If I were lucky to direct this scene, I would try to find a middle ground between both interpretations. The character's physical shock and pain bubble away beneath the surface, at times exposing itself in brief flashes before their control - however fluid - is reinstated.
Hopkins did a great in-between emotional and intelligent in the movie Titus.
He seems like almost Stoic, like he's exploring the human condition in the moment. It's almost like he's discovered something, and the more miserable he is, the more articulate he becomes in describing it.
His act had me weeping, knowing all was staged. Such a masterpiece art of work sir Patrick.
I was kinda mesmerized by Patrick Stewart's acting.
for both versions? Yeah, me too
Patrick Stewart is the epitome of acting.
This was amazing!
This was such a clear example of such a delicate concept, holds up so well all these years later. Patrick Stewart is an incredible actor.
Second is so much better and sadder because of his attempt to cope and reason.
Be more afraid of the second version of Titus. Someone's gonna die.
I can't really decide which version I like best, I think they could both work in an actual full performance of 'Titus'
Where can I see the full "Playing Shakespeare" video series?
Feckin' hell that. I started welling up to tears during the first one. Damn Patrick is brilliant then and now.
I find the first one more fitting, and imagine a compromise of both would likely be best. Chiefly because the second one made me not focus on his words but rather on the fact that he seemed oddly nonplussed; I was thus more wondering how he spoke so calmly at the sky as his daughter was weeping and begging for his sympathies. His attention was focused where mine was not, so I spent more time noting the diversion than the actual intent behind his performance.
If one was to give a speech within this situation, it would be to cry out directly to the audience in anger. In fact, that anger seems to be the intention. “You expect me to be quiet and calm in a situation like this? Does nature sit idle when harmed?” The first performance captures that, though it’s clouded in some ways.
I like watching TNG and seeing the Shakespeare come out of Stewart occasionally.
To be fair if I’d had a hand cut off, my Daughter had just been raped, tortured, brutalised, and had her hand cut off, and tongue cut out, I think the first version would be the realistic response. Sir Patrick oozing class as always.
Sir Patrick Stewart is an amazing actor! Love him!!!! I like the yelling part better than the other part!
I enjoyed the first version done by Patrick Stewart. He expressed more emotional passion through words thus intellect reigns supreme.
Hey man, it's Shakespeare. You get licence to be a little over the top. That's part of the fun.
It's Titus, it's a play that includes the title character killing two of his enemies and backing them into pies. The title character being over the top is perfectly in character.
Yes. But not at the sake of clarity of text.
Agree the intellectual version is easier to follow but it's very much two extremes here. Would like to see a third way. Must check out Hopkins.
strange. 30 years ago i watched the Barton series with awe. Now, while still of course relevant points are made, in this case the first version was much more emotionally moving and true to the text. But greeing with most commenters. A final performed version would be somewhere in between both.
I preferred the first one too; who could possibly speak that calmly after seeing his daughter mutilated and then losing a hand himself? The second one was easier to understand, but where was the emotion?
So true
Titus Andronicus is such a sad work. It has trully haunting and emotional moments, completely ruined by the absurdity of the events and how uneventful the brutality is. The sorrow of Titus is palpable and the mute screams of his daughter are unsettling, but it's hard to forget that is moment is after the new roman emperor married Rome's biggest enemy for petty issues with his brother, or that two of titus sons were killed in ridiculous and cartoony set up, or that after this Titus will order Livignia to carry his hand with her mouth even thought there's plent of people with their hands free in that scene, or that the goths honestly believe a silly act will convince Titus.
But this was written before cartoons existed, so could it be said that cartoons are quite Shakespearean?
Patrick stewart should have played in the merchant of Venice Film!
In what sense is it "not otherwise available"? I have the boxed set and accompanying book, and it is available to buy on Amazon.
Me too, honestly, as it seemed more emotionally apt considering what was going on in the scene.....Though I readily admit that I could understand the meaning behind the words easier in the second version. Perhaps a variation which is in-between those two extremes would do justice to the words and the emotions?
I saw him perform this play with the RSC as a teenager it was a seminal moment
Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa........He is VERY good.
"Ravished" sounds so much more genteel than "brutally raped".
I've seen the Livinia part played that way before, it's not a choice I would make but really, what does one DO on stage after losing both hands and a tongue?
Interesting ? people would comment on the actor's..These are very brave people...Mostly; .This is an exerpt of a Burton class..The .Artistic will take in the exploration. The Critical intellectual will do what they do. Burton great history !!!! many of american greatest actors have taken his perspectives...?.( class ?? workshops ???) . So, Just to learn of humanity, of life this is a gift if one accepts as it is. For a layman open minded, much could be learned from observing these classes....I wish there was a link to all of his classes, or many, or even a few more....Thank you for posting........
I can't stand how Shakespeare is seen as such a pinnacle of theatre and acting.
I can understand this champion, I think it’s the whole thing that if an actor can engage with such complex text emotionally and physically it enables them to deal with contemporary work easier.
Without keycards I couldn't do 10% of that act. How the hell does he remember all that? Impressive to say the least.
Much better the second time. But I would have liked to have seen them use the SAME intention, whilst trying to give the words more precedence.
THERE....ARE.....FOUR......LIGHTS!
I can understand peoples' opinion with which performance is stronger. Personally, I like the second presentation better because I can understand what's being said and also I don't know what Titus will do next, which makes it all the more compelling to watch. The first presentation made me burst out laughing, especially when Stewart emphasized the word 'deluge.' Also as an actor with school still fresh even after graduation, the comment on generalizing speeches was something I got a lot from school so explaining what you're feeling makes perfect sense.
However, since it is Shakespeare, it's hard to make it big and epic when you've been confined to a box-like frame capturing your performance. So perhaps a marriage between the passionate and the intellectual would capture what the character is feeling at this moment.
I think I prefer the first one.
Is that Imelda Staunton?
Personally, I liked the first version better.
5:48 Patrick really lets go of Lisa very quickly and she looks at him and he doesn't respond.
I could understand both perfectly - in fact if anything I preferred the first.
I like the first version waaaaay better
@montgomery7 I think it had to not do with just the drama of the situation but with the actual text that Titus says, the whole passage about her sighs and weeping and her pitiful state driving his. Without her there is no other direct stimulus for him saying those lines. It's logical and what the text holds.
I'm no expert but I'm just saying... it's there. That's just the text and not delving into the whole psychology of the scene.
Between the two, I'd prefer the more emotional tone than the more intellectual one.
I first discovered Patrick Stewart doing Shakespeare, not Star Trek (although I am a Trekkie from way back).
I thought I was first introduced to him through X-Men when I finally gave in and watched the movies, but then I found out I'd known him for years - through 'I Claudius'
Patrick Stewart totally crushes it.
Let's not threaten the welkin, please.
I thought he was holding a cat in the thumbnail
So is the character begging for help or mercy (or both) or pitty from the heavens?
read the play, easiest way to explain what's going on now....
Wow bloody hell!
Patrick was marvelous but Anthony Hopkins NAILED IT!
Agreed! Masters of their craft, both of them.
I preferred John's later work when he moved over to America to paint on TV
Billy Shakespeare was pissed off at someone when he wrote this one,.
creative outlet, a healthy way of getting in touch with your anger
I prefer the first reading. The second is just unbelievable from someone who experienced that great a tragedy.
Eh I enjoy both interpretations.
0:58 - 2:35 After a nearly five-decade Starfleet career, including 15 years as captain of the USS Enterprise, Jean-Luc Picard has finally lost it!!
The holodeck is on the fritz
Well, he did get assimilated by the Borg. That would be overwhelmingly traumatic for anyone
Dose any one else find the way Jon Barton dilevers is quite Shakespearian ? ( sorry about my spelling :) X
I like the first version best...
Anyone who shouts in an argument... Take note....
2:43 - she sticks her tongue out :P
Het tongue and hands had been removed
It's very good, but perhaps a little bit overdone. Although one must project onstage, so there is that...
The host looks like Bob Ross.
You should have seen Richard Burton! Now there was a Shakespearean actor.
The dude is mimicking Sir John Gielgud what's the big deal?
I thought his overdramatic version was better. His second try was almost distant....
Patrick Stewart is such an amazing actor!
I think both are valid ways to play it, but I do get what they're trying to get at:
In a play, I'd rather have the lines heard, especially since I, as an audience member, want/need to hear the words. Yes, there is a level of emoting that should be done, but not so much to where it becomes unintelligible.
Whereas a movie, I do want the more visceral and passionate interpretation, as I feel as a viewer, I feel I should see this man at his lowest, completely broken and vulnerable, what he says is not so much important as is his physicality. And if he just says the words, I don't feel his grief as much.
I think a better characterization this excercise could've had was these interpretations are dependent on how the play is being adapted: as a stage show or as a film. I agree with most people that both are equally valid, but note that it is entirely dependent on if the medium of which these plays are adapted are textually, sonically, or visually focused.
The actor Holy Grail is to convince.......that's it.......Patrick Stewart convinces.
I would direct the actor to be the voice of his daughter that cannot speak
Hear me, hayden christensen, THIS is called ACTING
When the heavens weep does the world not overflow?
first try was better. ten years later
He has no other hand. :-P
@MrOregona230, LMFAO. XDD
@Kari166 sounds like a slowly deflating balloon
Engage!
Patrick Stewart's hot.
"Acting."
Not to be distracted but the short tie is extremely irritating.
Who watches this stuff?
you and I
Thank God We've enter 21st century and We don't stage these plays like that anymore ! Thinking Shakespeare has to be done that folkloric way today is kinda... well... I have great respect for Sir Patrick Stewart, but he probably watch this and tells himself he got a totally different and modern way to deliver the fullness of such monologues.
The woman makes sounds like the demon from The Exorcist.
Worst Star Trek episode ever.
too much yelling
WIth all due respect but she's rather annoying...Stewart on the other hand, very good...I like the original language spelling as well...
his head's shape looks most funny in this
The first one was better, but I like overacting.
both Titus speeches were horrible. Stewert spent most of his energy trying to remember the lines He is a better actor then this.
This was back in the 80's btw.