The Comedy of Errors (1983)

This comedy is a very good comedy with no disguises this time but with two pairs of twins who were estranged by some storm during a sea voyage when they were infants. Plus imagine the father who was estranged from one of each pair and the mother separated in her own way and not even knowing that those who arrived with her in Ephesus were hers. It all turns and whirls around these lost connections and these pairs of twins that create havoc on the main square of Ephesus. The square is full of mountebanks and other street artists, peddlers and vendors, hawkers in one word. And it is a real merry-go-round from one side to the other and all around. They are all so ignorant of the tricky situation they are in that they are all turned into curtal dogs turning the spit in their wheels: "To conclude, this drudge, or diviner, laid claim to me, call'd me Dromio; swore I was assured to her; told me what privy marks I had about me, as, the mark of my shoulder, the mole in my neck, the great wart on my left arm, that I amazed ran from her as a witch: And, I think, if my breast had not been made of faith and my heart of steel, She had transform'd me to a curtal dog and made me turn i' the wheel." (Act III, Scene 2, Dromio of Syracuse). But it is a comedy and that incessant turning may make you dizzy, so the duke will finally put some order in that disorder and the twins will find out their fate and the parents will be reunited and the children will recognize their parents. And to square the dog-wheel, couples will be built to come to the magic number of eight, if possible. The two pairs of twins make four, the parents will make six and the Duke will go to the party with the Courtezan mind you and that will make eight. But you also have the parents, each son with his wife or wife to be, the sister of the previous one, and the Duke and the Courtezan and the two Dromio going their way hand in hand, and that is eight again. Or even the two sons Antipholus, the two brothers Dromio, the two sisters who are married to or will marry the Antipholus, and their parents and you have eight again. Speaking of squaring a whirlwind, Shakespeare here is great. The BBC does a beautiful show because the twins really look like twins and the rhythm is so dynamic that we are really enchanted by the job. It is true too that all actors are perfect in their respective places and the slaps look and sound like slaps and quite many other little tricks like a rope turned into a hanging noose and a schoolteacher who is also a doctor and a great master in the art of dealing with insane people (the schoolteacher as much as the doctor), to his own expense in a way. Good entertaining job.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

this movie bothered me so much, I had to see it in many days to survive the agony of it. now I am going to try to show my feelings towards this picture.first of all: the acting. the cast acts like they are teaching little children. I hate it when actor's do taht. it's as if we are all dumb creatures and they know it all... I dislike that fact, because it isn't so. correct, it's a play of Shakespeare, so they must overact to make it watchable, but still... they annoyed me like hell! second: the story. it's a story a 7 year old can write. again, it's Shakespeare, but why should I have to love everything from Shakespeare? yes, I like most of his works, but this one I detested. it was like watching a train arrive in 1894 (actually, that would have been more exciting than this Comedy of Errors).the music. ah, the music was fine. but if you would hear the music outside of the movie, you would hate it. so, also the music BEEPs.conclusion: the whole movie BEEPs. the only interesting about it was the conclusion, where everybody comes together in a Shakespearian way.

I saw the Comedy of Errors with Roger Daltrey. I totally disagree. I thought Daltrey was very entertaining and acted brilliantly in it. Also got to see him on stage in NYC acting as Scrooge in a Christmas Carol about 7 years ago. He was good in that role, too.In addition to being a well known singer, I believe he shows a lot of versatility with his acting, also. I'm guessing he's gotta be on the other side of 60 now, but he still looks good. He was on Letterman recently with Peter Townshend, and although he's beginning to show age, he still keeps himself in great shape.While a lot of rock stars of his era were poisoning their bodies with drugs and alcohol, he seemed to steer clear. There were times he fought with his own band mates over the alcohol and drugs they were using and killing themselves with(Two of them died using drugs). He stayed away and looks great at his age compared to how bad others look from his era who were lucky enough to survive their drug addictions.

I was a bit worried at the beginning, (I just hate 'fire-eaters' in merry crowd scenes..and unfortunately there are jugglers and mimes too,another hate of mine)So I was tensed from the start.Luckily it didn't deter me, and I was able to enjoy a great performance from Michael Kitchen, and an amateur but still enjoyable one from Roger Daltry.OK,the plot is corny, the set minimal.So what? It's a fun production and I enjoyed it. (I even smirked a few times)Not the most crucial Bard Product but recommended all the same!