The lengthy title for the 1598 printing was "The History of Henrie the Fourth, With the Battell at Shrewsburie, between the King and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Henrie Hotspur of the North, with the humorous conceits of Sir John Falstaffe".

Surprisingly, Hal, Prince of Wales, (later Henry V) was not even mentioned in this verbose title although many would consider him to be the central character. This play is clearly the dramatization of a struggle for a kingdom, but it is equally the story of Hal's wild and reckless youthful adventures with Falstaff and other disreputable companions.

Shakespeare did not write his plays about English kings in chronological order, but these plays do have a historical unity. It is helpful (but not essential) to read the tetralogy Richard II, Henry IV Part 1 and 2, and Henry V in chronological order. Whatever route you take, I highly recommend buying a companion copy of Peter Saccio's "Shakespeare's English Kings", an engaging look at how Shakespeare revised history to achieve dramatic effect.

A wide selection of Henry IV editions are available, including older editions in used bookstores. I am familiar with a few and have personal favorites:

The New Folger Library Shakespeare is my first choice among the inexpensive editions of Henry IV. "New" replaces the prior version in use for 35 years. It uses "facing page" format with scene summaries, explanations for rare and archaic words and expressions, and Elizabethan drawings located on the left page; the Henry IV text is on the right. I particularly liked the section on "Reading Shakespeare's Language in Henry IV" and Alexander Legget's literary analysis (save this until you have read the play). The fascinating article "Historical Background: Sir John Falstaff and Sir John Oldcastle" adds a religious dimension to the play that I had not previously noted.

The Bedford Shakespeare Series provides an excellent study text (edited by Barbara Hodgdon) titled "The First Part of King Henry the Fourth". It is a little more expensive, is about 400 pages, and provides a broad range of source and context documentation. It would be excellent for an upper level course in Shakespeare. The context documentation is fascinating and informative; it ranges from the Holinshed Chronicles to Elizabethan writing on Civic Order to detailed cultural studies of London's diverse populous. Other chapters address the OldCastle controversy and the "Education of a Prince".

I also like the Norton Critical edition (edited by James Sanderson), "Henry the Fourth, Part 1", particularly for its extensive collection of literary criticism. The essays are divided into two parts: 1) the theme, characters, structure, and style of the play and 2) a wide variety of interpretation directed toward that roguish character, Sir John Falstaff.

Having just completed Henry IV Part I, I must say that I came away delighted and impressed with Shakespeare's genius once again. Shakespeare's ability to intertwine the arduous dichotomy of the impcomparable comedy of Falstaff and the meaningful history of Henry IV, Prince Hal, & Hotspur is impressive to say the least. It comes as no surprise that this was one of Shakespeare's most popularly staged plays during his day and enjoyed an unusually long stage run.

Falstaff is undoubtedly the most infamously famous literary comic character in the history of English literature. The scenes of him being robbed by Prince Hal, feigning his death, stabbing the already deceased Hotspur in the leg while claiming victory, and his employment of beggars as his foot soldiers galvanize the comic aspect of the play and make for a hilarious & farcical sublot. Interestingly, in the bar in Eastcheap, Prince Hal alludes to his future persecution of Falstaff when he is crowned king.

I strongly recommend Henry IV Part I to all Shakespeare aficionados seeing as I deem it in the top five of all Shakespeare's works along with Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, & Henry V. Now on to Part II. Adieu.

"The better part of valor is discretion." - Falstaff

henry iv is misnamed since the play isn't really about king henry but about his son, prince hal, and his enemies, especially henry percy (aka 'hotspur') who is a rival to hal. hotspur is one of the leaders of the rebellion against the king and, at a tender age, is already an accomplished soldier. his story provides the drama of the play. hal, on the other hand, has fallen out of favor with the king, and is whiling away his days in the company of dissolute company, led by sir john falstaff, one of shakespeare's great characters. his adventures with sir john provide the comic relief. fortunately for the king, hal sheds his prodigal ways in time to save his father and his crown in the battle at shrewsbury, where, coincidentally, hal meets and slays his rival, hotspur.

this is one of shakespeare's best plays. the story of the rebellion is intriguing, and the adventures of hal and falstaff are laugh-out-loud hilarious. the culmination of the two stories in the final battle scene is wonderful. this is a fitting sequel to richard ii.

note that there are some historical inaccuracies and even outright inventions in this play. foremost is the character of falstaff who is pure invention (and genius). the story of hal's adventures stems from his reputation, enhanced by legend, as a playboy. falstaff was the perfect foil for a carousing prince. the biggest inaccuracy is hotspur's age. he was actually of the generation of henry iv, and not as young as he's depicted in the play. shakespeare made him younger to enhance, maybe even create, the rivalry with hal. there are other inaccuracies here, but better for the reader to consult 'shakespeare's kings', an excellent book by saccio that explains the history of the period and the discrepancies in the play.

I really enjoy Ms. Nesbit's written works. It is quite a shame that she can't write anymore. Although I liked this one a lot, I was a little disappointed by it because it lacked the charming fairy tale sort of feel that many of her children's books have. However, the story was quite wonderful, and I particularly loved the realistic scene of the children that the reader is given. I highly recommend this book to Edith Nesbit's fans, as well as people that enjoy a touch of mystery, mixed with a child's view of life.

I like the Railway Children a lot,especially how the author told the story. I liked Bobbie because there is something different about her,she was helpful and sweet at the same time. I am wondering where the dog James went? Other than that, the story was great!

I remember in The Railway Children that Bobbie, Peter and Phylls had a dog named James. I was wondering, what ever happened to James? In the book Phyllis is the best person to me because she is accident prone. In the story the kids lives change a lot from the city to the country. They make new friends on the railway.It was a great book. I still wonder..."What happened to James...."

. . . to really achieve its full potential, this play needs to be acted out on stage. Still, highly excellent, involving twins, cross-dressing, love tangles, sword-fighting, secret marriages, music, disguises, mistaken identities, high speech, and lowbrow humour.

The entire play takes place in Illyria. In the main plot, Orsino is in love with Olivia, who unfortunately does not return his feelings. Viola is shipwrecked on the Illyrian coast, and dressed as a boy, comes to serve in Orsino's court, where she of course falls in love with Orsino. Meanwhile, in Olivia's court, some of her courtiers plan a cruel--but funny--practical joke against her pompous steward Malvolio. There is also a third plot later on involving Viola's twin brother Sebastian, who has been shipwrecked likewise. Naturally things get quite confusing, but, true to Shakespeare's comedic style, everything gets worked out in the end.

This is an enjoyable book to read, and the notes are very helpful. However, it is still better as a performance.

"Twelfth Night" is one of the famous romantic comedy written by William Shakespeare. Many critics said, "Twelfth Night" is the masterpiece among his comedy because his fully developed style and insight are in the "Twelfth Night", so it has special value and attractiveness.
There are four main characters in "Twelfth Night" ; Duke Orsino, Olivia, Viola, and
Sebastian. Duke Orsino who lives in Illyria loves Olivia, so every day he send one of
his servant to Olivia's house for proposal of marriage. However, every time Olivia
refuses his proposal for the reason that she lost her brother before long, so she is now
in big sorrow and can not love anyone. One day, Viola comes into Illyria. She and her
twin brother Sebastian are separated in a shipwreck and they are rescued by two
different people in two different place, so they think the other one is dead each other.
Viola disguise as a man and become a servant of Duke Orsino, and then she fall in
love with Duke Orsino. But, Duke Orsino loves Olivia and he send Viola whose new
name as a man is "Cesario" to Olivia for proposal. Unexpectedly, Olivia fall in love with
Cesario!! Therefore, love triangle is formed. In the latter scene, Sebastian also come into
Illyria, so the confusion getting worse. However, in the end, all misunderstandings are
solved and Cesario become Viola, so the four main characters find their love.
There are also four supporting characters in "Twelfth Night" ; Clown, Sir Toby Belch,
Malvolio, and Sir Andrew Aguecheek. They make the readers laugh through their funny
behaviors and comments in subplot.
"Twelfth Night" is very funny story and enjoyable book, so I recommend you.

I didn't read this particular version of Twelfth Night, so I'm rating the plot, not the editing. This book was the first play by Shakespeare that I read, and I loved it! It starts when Viola and her brother, Sebastian, are seperated in a shipwreck. Viola decides to disguise herself as a boy and work for Orsino, the duke. Orsino sends Viola to tell Olivia that he loves her. Viola does what he says, but she wishes she didn't have to, because she has fallen in love with Orsino! Then Olivia falls in love with Viola, thinking that she is a boy. While all this is going on, Andrew Aguecheek is wooing Olivia, who scorns him. Also, Maria, the maid, Sir Toby Belch, Olivia's uncle, and another servant write a letter and put it where Malvolio, a servant, will see it. The letter says that Olivia is in love with Malvolio. Malvolio immediately starts trying to woo Olivia. Maria and Sir Toby pretend to think that he's mad, and lock him up. Meanwhile, Sebastian comes to town with Antonio, the man who saved him from the shipwreck. Antonio gives him his purse and says that he must stay away from the city because he fought against the duke in a war. A few minutes later, Antonio realizes that he needs money for lodgings and goes to find Sebastian. In the city, Viola is being forced to fight Andrew Aguecheek for the right to marry Olivia. Antonio sees the fight and hurries to intervene. Orsino recognizes him and has him arrested. Antonio asks Viola for his purse so that he can pay bail, thinking that she is Sebastian. Viola denies having had a purse. Then Sebastian comes up. Olivia had found him and married him on the spot, and he, deliriously happy, had gone away to give Antonio his purse. On the way, he met Sir Toby and Andrew Aguecheek. When they try to force him to fight, he punches them and goes on. They come up too, bitterly accusing Viola. (No one has seen Sebastian yet.) Then Olivia comes up and speaks to Viola, who denies being her wife. Orsino becomes angry with her, thinking that she has married Olivia, and accuses her of treachery. Just as things are looking bad for Viola, Sebastian reveals himself. Then everyone is happy (since Orsino falls in love with Viola on the spot) except Andrew Aguecheek and Malvolio, who is later set free. The plot of this book is a little hard to understand, but it is halariously funny and makes for happy reading.

Many people accuse the Fitzgerald translation of deviating too much from the Persian original. Personally, I don't like to see poetry translated from one language to another in verse either, because I will always feel that something has been missed.

However, if it is not translated in verse, then it is no longer has the quality of the original poetry. So what shall we do here?

I think that Fitzgerald has done an excellent job in translating Khayyum. It is said that good poetry has a balance of two things - beautiful language and meaning. Ftizgerald has achieved this.

If you are looking for a more "literal" translation, to get exactly what Khayyum said and thought, then you are better to look to a word for word, unrhyming translation, that has taken care to keep the authentic quatrains only - not all the ones ascribed to him. The "Persian Heritage Series" has produced a good translation like this.

Also beware of "commentaries" telling you that Omar Khayyum was a sufi, mystic, or whatever... and that his verses have special meanings outside of the literal interpretation. It is true that poets in Persia used such imagery as "may" (wine), "maykhana" (tavern), "saqi" (cup-bearer), "yar-e nazanin" (lovely maiden) etc. etc. to bring across meanings of God, and heaven, though this doesn't mean that these things are always implied.

One of the qualities of poetry is that it is ambiguous. It must be recognised that people like Omar Khayyum and Hafez were living in times of religious persecution. If you said something against the established sect, then you could be accused of "kufr" (blasphemy) and punished accordingly. Khayyum himself was accused of kufr, as was Hafez in his time through a line of poetry he had written. Hafez protected himself through the ingenious adding of another line of poetry, clearing his name. Khayyum protected himself because he was a guest at the royal court.

:)

This beautifully illustrated edition of Omar Khayyam's classic poem is a gem. The illustrations complement the lyrical imagery of the poem. Two editions of Fitzgerald's translation are included, with the second including additional quatrains, and representing a mature and slightly darker reading of the poem. The introduction contains a lot of interesting information, but don't be misled. Far from being a work of skepticism, this beautiful poem reflects deep-thinking belief.

One should be wary when purchasing or reading a copy of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. The various translations are VERY different. They are based on different original manuscripts, which do not contain exactly the same material. The FitzGerald translation is much more of an interpretation of Khayyam than a translation, although it is a wonderful piece of work in and of itself, it is victorian baroque romanticism not Sufism. From my own personal experience (I've read much of three of the translations, the ones by FitzGerald in the 1850s, by a professor from Cambridge made in the mid 1900s, and by Robert Graves in the 1960s) I would suggest that you go with the most modern translation (which is no longer the translation by Graves). The Graves translation definately is a work of both deep philosophical ideas and of beautiful poetry.

Pulizter-winning poet Richard Wilbur has chosen to dedicate years of his life to making worthy English translations of the plays of Moliere with the idea no one will have to again for a hundred years. His confidence in his own translations is enormous, and correct. This is Moliere in the language of today -- direct, witty, insightful, hilarious. Tartuffe sends up hypocrisy, religious and otherwise, in a bourgeois farce of escalating absurdity.

This particular translation won the prestigious Bollingen Prize. The only thing going against it is that you can essentially get two-for-the-price-of-one by getting Wilbur's Tartuffe and The Misanthrope together in another book. That book even contains the same introduction. But why stop there? I can't praise Wilbur's Molieres highly enough. If you like The Misanthrope and Tartuffe, check out the other ones, like The School for Wives and Amphitryon, two personal favorites.

WARNING! This cornucopia of lechery, blastphemy and hypocracy has been found to be an addiction for the adult mind! Before you know it, you will have a Moliere monkey on your back, begging you to obtain more of this spectacular playwright's work. The play is a sordid tale of a "religious man" who comes into a bourgeois household and wreaks absolute bedlam. Tartuffe is the name of this man of the cloth (though he would prefer to have no cloth on whatsoever) who sparks this hilarious story. However, don't let the idea of farcical pinchings and burlesque tendencies fool you, for underneath all of that is a shining and thought-provoking literary work that is still revered today. It was the first play to ask questions about the undertones of staunch religion. The principle of having a monk as a villian has not been so well told since Rasputin. To add to the delightfully sinister plot, the play is written in the elegant verse of Moliere. Do not be put-upon by rhyming couplets! In this translation, the words begin to roll off the tongue and the brain in an almost watercolor manner, painting imagery on the canvas of your mind in a soothing and relaxing manner. And as for actors, I could not imagine a play with more vivid characters and witty dialogue. It is not stale or dusty as so many translations are, but has kept the freshness and zing over the centuries. If you want to keep yourself awake at night, or want to send the dinner guests packing, whip out Tartuffe and watch the eyes bulge. And perhaps some tips can be taken from old Tartuffe, for Moliere reminds us all that the unattainable is often percieved as the most desirable. Oh, and don't leave it around the kids.

The most amazing thing about this play is the skill of its author. The story is original and interesting. The actual writing is what captivated me. So witty is the dialogue, so humorous it is at times, that I laughed out loud. It is quite amazing that such ancient text sounds like something you would hear on a sitcom. This is not boring or confusing speech, like in Shakespeare; this is very down-to-earth. Aside from the alluring rhyme, Moliere has an incredible ability to take a page-long theme and express it perfectly and succinctly in one sentence, and with poignancy. If I were given the task of writing dialogue about the theme of hypocrisy, I would write page after page of ineffective, watered-down, wordy dialogue that repeatedly misses the mark of expressing the point well. Moliere's lines, however, are so well-crafted that the ideas are ingeniously short and accurate. He fits so many good points into one entertaining, rhythmic, memorable sentence. Tartuffe is my favorite play of all!

If you can find another translation of this seminal book (see my review of Freud's Gravida), then do so. Strackey translates "kultur" (culture) as "civilization," "I" as "ego," and in general makes Freud seem so lifeless and cold-blooded that it's nearly impossible to get an accurate feel for his thought.

Without defending Freud's obvious reductionism, it needs saying that it was he who prompted us to ask: do the demands of modern life encourage or pathologize our innermost strivings? What do they do to our eros, our capacity for loving and feeling solidarity? And how do they stimulate our frustration and aggression?

While I disagree with Freud's conclusion that the total psychic repression of powerful passions is a necessary evil for the existence of culture, I do think he challenges us to wonder about just how high a price we pay for what we believe to be the "higher" and "nobler" achievements of the mind.

I would have to definitely say that this is one read that has helped change my perception on reality, as well as give me deeper insight. Although one must be patient with Freud (his writing can, at times, rather sleep inducing), this book can open up a great deal of understanding about current literature and film. My essay I wrote for school comparing Civilization and it's Discontents and Fight Club recieved an A, and I have also been able to identify similarities from here in books such as Brave New World and Island both by Aldous Huxley.

I must say this is a recommended read that you should definitely look into!

To whoever is interested in Freuds "Civilization and It's Discontents" I SAY READ IT! An excellent book which depicts civilization for what it is. In this book Freud discussed a varity of topics such as religion, sex, happiness and human suffering (listed in no particular order). I think that the entire purpose of the book was to show humans that civilization is not any better than times before it occured. We tend to think of ourselves better than pre-civilized times however, nothing has changed because reality is constant. Human nature is focused on beauty, instinct and will.

I am giving the Dover Thrift Edition 1 star, not the play, the play is a world classic and a masterpiece. The edition, however, is pitiful. I would like to know how many people were lured into buying this because it is so cheap?

This would not do for any kind of performance because it provides very little, if any, notes as to what is going on in the background, what the actors should be doing, how they are feeling, details at all! It is simply a horrible edition for anything but putting on your bookshelf to rot. Unless you never plan on reading this book, don't buy it. PLEASE!

I read this book in 9th grade and still read it now that I'm in the 12th. Shakespeare's play about two "star-crossed lovers" is funny, and suspensful, and sad, and readers of today can even relate to the situations in it. This book is a great example of how strong love can be, how assumptions can lead to tragedy, and the risks one will take for love.

Romeo and Juliet is the best of Shakespeares work ever. Everyone knows the story, but once you read it, it brings the meaning and connection to a different level. The language is beautiful. The words passed betweem Romeo and his love are so moving, you read them over and over. Even if you don't understand what they are saying, you'll still get the general idea and fall in love with this forbidden romance. Even though its a sad ending. The tragedy just adds more to the play. A magnificent book...you have to read it.

I found this spy novel particularly interesting as I was born on the coastline described. Childers's descriptions of the Frisian Islands, the cities of northern Germany, and the dangerous tides are very accurate. That's what I like best about the book. The narrator, Anton Lesser, does a generally good job reading the book. In fact, he's much better than some other actors I've heard. However, his grasp of the German language is dreadful. Some sentences he reads in German are almost incomprehensible. This is inconsistent with the fact that the narrator of the story is supposed to speak German like a native. Listen if you love stories about ordinary people getting caught up in extraordinary events. Listen if you love the North Sea and Baltic coasts of Germany. Stay away if you love the German language.

This book is often referred to as the first spy novel, and it is not wrong. However, to appreciate the novel, you have to know beforehand several things. But, don't worry, that is not much.

The story is narrated by an English gentleman Currthuers, who received an unexpected invitation of duck shooting from an old friend Davies. Being tired of his neglected position in "society," he accepts it to go to the North Sea only to find that he is involved in a mystery, or "the riddle of the Sands." His friend claims there's something in the air, something hiding behind the misty coast of Germany. But how can they prove it?

As a story, "The Riddle of the Sands" is far from perfect. It is full of authentic descriptions of local landscapes (the author actually cruised his yacht there), but at the same time frequent reference to the geographical data and nautical terms are a bit wearisome to readers, and moreover, the narrator often refers us to the maps in the appendix. Those things only slow down the action of the novel, and actually the book sometimes has to go through lull.

But, wait a while. The story gets gradually faster, and as the adventure of the heroes slowly gets near to the core of the plot, the tale becomes more and more gripping. Though characters sometimes are just more than cardboard (and especially female part is poorly done), your patience will be rewarded.

It is well-known that Sherlock Holmes in "His Last Bow" turns a spy for his country, and says "There's an east wind coming." The meaning of what Holmes says is clear to the comtemporary people, and Childers, a politician, also wrote his book not as an amusement but as a warning to England about the coming threat of Germany, and actually "The Riddles of the Sands" was written about 10 years before WW1 began. In this historical context too, the book is interesting, and the tediousness of the opening chapters is justified if you keep it in mind that it is meant for Childers's sarcasm against indifference and complacency among the English people (talking of English complacency, we remember later in 1938, immediately before WW2, Alfred Hitchcock again uses it as a satire in his thriller "The Lady Vanishes" with brilliantly silly two British gentlemen who are more concerned with cricket games than surrounding danger). People don't change.

So, the book itself is still enjoyable, but these historical matters will make it more precious; after all, it is one of the proof how people reacted to the coming change in the history of mankind. And if you're interested in this kind of book (I mean, books reflects German-England relationship), check out "The Battel of Dorking" by George Chesney (written in 1871) and "When William Came" (in 1913) by Saki once.

This book has been described to me both as "the best Yachting Book written" and "The book that saved Britain". Written in part as a wake-up call to the British Public at the turn of the last century -Childers (no stranger to Whitehall politics) was terrified that existing British strategy left the country wide open to an invasion from Germany- and in part as a celebration of a lifelong passion for boats and boating, the book "works" brilliantly. Even non-yachting enthusiasts will be drawn into the story, and those of us who have worked our way along a foggy coast by chart and compass will appreciate Childers' attention to detail and faithfulness to his subject. Overall I found the two principal characters well drawn, but the Germans are a bit cartoonish, and the hint of Romance towards the end was an un-needed distraction, other than that, this is a quite-un-put-downable novel of adventire & daring that MAY just have changed the course of history.

This was a wonderful production from the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Ontario, Canada.

The cast is very strong, and benefits from being actors, as opposed to singers. The weakest link in the cast (and I think any one will agree with me) is Henry Ingram as Nanki-Poo, who is not an actor, just a singer. He's not the young, handsome type that one would like to see in the role, nor is he even all that funny. Marie Baron as Yum-Yum is high spirited, bubbly, and funny. Also exceedinly comical is Richard McMillan's Pooh-Bah, who steals the show. Eric Donkin is a perfect Ko-Ko, of the D'Oyly Care breed. Pish-Tush (Allen Stewart-Coates) is generally a non-descript, but is of strong voice and personality here, and is left to be fairly memorable. Karen Wood is PERFECT for the adorable Pitti-Sing, and is cute and charming to boot! My least favorite presence in the cast, though, is Gidon Saks as The Mikado of Japan himself. Now, I love over the top performances, as you can tell from my praise of McMillan, but this one crosses the lines of what's bearable. I feel that a strong Mikado, next to being highly comical, should at least be somewhat intimidating. Saks just plays the Mikado as a big goofy man, that strikes fear into no one (except for the cast, for some strange reason).

The production was brilliantly and swiftly staged by Brian MacDonald, who keeps everything comical and at a swift pace.

(Incedentally, I did THE MIKADO myself this summer with the local G&S Society, a first-rate Summer Stock company. A Canadian tenor played Nanki-Poo, and he told me HORROR STORIES of what it was like for friends of his who have worked with Mr. MacDonald.)

This is the best out of the Stratford G&S series, since it's the beginning, and it was before MacDonald and musical director Carriere got too self-indulgent in what they thought they could do to Gilbert & Sullivan's work.

The two CBC documentaries included on the DVD are very informative. And I seriously doubt that it was really filmed live. The laughter and applause sounds canned, and you never ONCE see the audience. And from the way the camera moves, I think it was filmed in an empty theatre with the audience added later.

But this is still a first-rate production. Mnimalist and fast-paced, it is theatrically refershing, and a great introduction to G&S for any one!

While some Gilbert & Sullivan devotees may quibble with this Canadian version of their masterpiece, THE MIKADO, there's no denying this version's infectious energy and fun. This production by the Stratford Festival is awash with high-jinks antics, solid acting and a boldness rarely seen since the Kevin Kline/Linda Ronstadt version of THE PIRATES OF PENZANCE. Director Brian Macdonald directs this production with a sure hand and a fine sense of humor. Eric Donkin makes for a solid and delightfully uptight Ko-Ko, while the tall and very lanky Richard McMillan steals the show as the self important Pooh-Bah. Marie Baron's Yum-Yum is a pure delight, and Karen Wood is a delightful Pitti-Sing. Gidon Saks makes for a rather hammy, but delightfully fierce, Mikado. Henry Ingram seems a little old for the youthful Nanki-Poo, but he definitely gets into the spirit of this wonderfully broad production. Some fans may not appreciate the "modern" Canadian references nor the very slight liberties in the score, but this is probably the one production that doesn't treat the immortal work like a museum piece. This is definitely the best version on DVD to date and one that I would definitely recommend.

The video/DVD is of a staged Canadian production, filmed from the proscenium-audience point of view with some close-ups, in full costume and makeup appropriate to the G&S script and score. The score is very well sung although the songs are dubbed, you have to pay special attention to notice this. The lip-sync is very, very good and since they don't have to worry about singing perfectly "live" with the camera, they can do more acting while mouthing their parts, and it all works very well. Some wonderfully stylized performances make it fun, expecially from Pooh Bah who is the tallest actor I've ever seen in a G&S opera! Folks who are addicted to perfect-score singing will notice some deviations (not bad ones, just different) but overall its well-done and includes encores that are usually performed of the most popular numbers at high speed for an appreciative audience. I recommend this version to Mikado-lovers.

'As you like it' is one of those Shakespearean plays that is considered 'great' by critics, but never really found true popular acclaim, perhaps due to the absence of charismatic characters (the romantic hero is particularly wet) or compelling dilemmas.

It shares many features with the great comedies - the notion of the forest as a magic or transformative space away from tyrannical society ('A Midsummer night's dream'); the theme of unrequited love and gender switching from 'Twelfth night'; the exiled Duke and his playful daughter from 'The Tempest'. But these comparisons only point to 'AYLI''s comparative failure (as a reading experience anyway) - it lacks the magical sense of play of the first; the yearning melancholy of the second; or the elegiac complexity of the third.

It starts off brilliantly with a first act dominated by tyrants: an heir who neglects his younger brother, and a Duke who resents the popularity of his exiled brother's daughter (Rosalind). there is an eccentric wrestling sequence in which a callow youth (Orlando) overthrows a giant. Then the good characters are exiled to Arden searching for relatives and loved ones.

Theoretically, this should be good fun, and you can see why post-modernist critics enjoy it, with its courtiers arriving to civilise the forest in the language of contemporary explorers, and the gender fluidity and role-play; but, in truth, plot is minimal, with tiresomely pedantic 'wit' to the fore, especially when the melancholy scholar-courtier Jacques and Fool Touchstone are around, with the latter's travesties of classical learning presumably hilarious if you're an expert on Theocritus and the like.

As an English pastoral, 'AYLI' doesn't approach Sidney's 'Arcadia' - maybe it soars on stage. (Latham's Arden edition is as frustrating as ever, with scholarly cavilling creating a stumbling read, and an introduction which characteristically neuters everything that makes Shakespeare so exciting and challenging)

Anyone with a working knowledge of Shakespeare's plays knows that As You Like It is a light, airy comedy. It is clearly not one of Shakespeare's greatest plays. As You Like It is more obscure than famous. Even amongst the comedies it comes nowhere close to the popularity of plays such as A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Tempest, or Twelfth Night. That said, it is a treasure in its own right. This is so, if for nothing else, because it contains one of the greatest pictures of a woman to be found in Shakespeare's works, excluding the Sonnets.

Ah, sweet Rosalind. In her are encapsulated so many ideas about the nature of woman. She is first pictured in a rather faux-Petrarchan manner. This quickly fades as an intelligent woman comes to the fore. While the intelligence remains, she is also torn by the savage winds of romantic love. Rosalind, in all her complexity and self-contradiction, is a truly modern female character.

Most of the women in Shakespeare's tragedies and historical plays are either window dressing (as in Julius Caesar) or woefully one-sided (Ophelia, Lady Macbeth). This is not the case with Rosalind. Rather than being marginalized, she is the focus of a good chunk of the play. Instead of being static and [standard], she is a complex evolving character.

When Rosalind first appears, she outwardly looks much like any other lady of the court. She is a stunning beauty. She is much praised for her virtue. Both of these elements factor in the Duke's decision to banish or [do away with] her.

Rosalind falls in love immediately upon seeing Orlando. In this way she at first seems to back up a typically courtly idea of "love at first sight." Also, she initially seems quite unattainable to Orlando. These are echoes of Petrarchan notions that proclaim love to be a painful thing. This dynamic is stood on its head following her banishment.

Rosalind begins to question the certainty of Orlando's affection. She criticizes his doggerel when she finds it nailed to a tree. Rather than wilting like some medieval flower, she puts into effect a plan. She seeks to test the validity of her pretty-boy's love. In the guise of a boy herself, she questions the deceived Orlando about his love.

Yet Rosalind is not always so assured. Her steadfastness is not cut and dried. Composed in his presence, Rosalind melts the second Orlando goes away. She starts spouting romantic drivel worthy of Judith Krantz. Even her best friend Celia seems to tire of her love talk. This hesitating, yet consuming passion is thrown into stark relief with her crystal clear dealings with the unwanted advances of the shepherdess Phebe.

Rosalind contradicts herself in taking the side of Silvius in his pursuit of Phebe. She seeks to help Silvius win the love of Phebe because of his endearing constancy. Yet the whole reason she tests Orlando is the supposed inconstancy of men's affections.

This idea of Male inconstancy has made its way down to the present day. Men are seen, in many circles, as basically incapable of fidelity. Though a contradiction to her treatment of Silvius' cause, Rosalind's knowing subscription to pessimistic views on the constancy of a man's love places her on the same playing field as many modern women.

Rosalind takes charge of her own fate. Until and even during Shakespeare's own time women largely were at the mercy of the men around them. This is satirized in Rosalind's assuming the appearance of a man. Yet she had taken charge of her life even before taking on the dress and likeness of a man. She gives her token to Orlando. She decides to go to the Forest. She makes the choice of appearing like a man to ensure her safety and the safety of Celia.

Rosalind finally finds balance and happiness when she comes to love not as a test or game, but as an equal partnership. Shakespeare is clearly critiquing the contemporary notions of love in his day. His play also condemns society's underestimation and marginalization of women. However, the Bard's main point is more profound.

As You Like It makes it clear that the world is never picture perfect, even when there are fairy-tale endings. Men and women both fail. Love is the most important thing. With love all things are possible.

"As You Like It" is bar none, one of Shakespeare's VERY best works. It is probably the most poetic of the comedies and contains perhaps as many famous quotations as any other of his plays. Rosalind is perhaps his greatest female character and this work, along with the equally (or even more) brilliant "Midsummer Night's Dream," is the best example of Shakespeare's theme of the "dream world" vs. the "real" world. This play, especially the scenes in the forest, is a celebration of language and the power of the freedom of the imagination. It consequently can be read as a criticism of the "real world," here represented by Duke Ferdinand's court. Like many of the other comedies, Shakespeare is mocking the "ideal" which many in his society would have praised. Though this play deals with some pretty dark themes (which of his plays doesn't?) it is a light-hearted and fully enjoyable read!