You could say that about any era. Though the production values were not as good in the 1970's, there was often more of an attempt to remain true to the original source material than there is today.
The same is true now. Vikings dressed in leather... Elizabethans dressed in leather... queens who sound like they grew up on council estates because they have to be 'strong' and 'relatable'. It's easy to place any film or TV to its period of creation. It all reflects the culture that made it. The dialogue in 'Julius Caesar' suggests Caesar wore Elizabethan clothing when it was performed by Shakespeare's company 'The King's Men'. It's not just visual clues either, even acting styles change with the time. It's easy to tell a radio production made in the 1980s for example because the acting style is so distinctive. It's really not some terribly esoteric thing, people only relate to a work of fiction through the lens of their own culture. Thus with the rise of feminism for example you'll get more feminist interpretations of a given work, which will date the production very firmly to its era; as racial diversity and representation becomes an important cultural imperative you will see very diverse casts which will again be huge telltale cues for posterity as to the providence of the production.
@@SantaRosaGal Good point, well made. Shakespeare productions now usually try self-consciously to call to mind some period much later than that in which the play was either set or written. But it still very much just seems like whenever the production was filmed, in fact all the more so.
SUPERB! I never cared for this play in the 4 decades of studying Shakespeare until now. It is amazing what great actors can do for one's appreciation. Thanks yall !
Jeremy Brett elevates everything he acts in, no matter what the part. In LLL he is absolutely perfect, exuding sex appeal! I just finished watching this as a professional stage play, well enough acted, but a pale copy of this production. This is my favorite JB part and I've seen all I can get my hands on. Momentous actor!
Thank you very much indeed for uploading this faultless BBC production of one of Shakespeare's finest plays. Martin Shaw is commanding as the King of Navarre, Jeremy Brett superb as Berowne, and the Princess of France is beautifully played by Lorna Heilbron, a very underrated and underused actress.
This really is a superior performance, and brings the play alive. Branagh's 2000 and Moshinsky's 1984 BBC productions have not a modicum of the same charm. Thanks for posting it.
An excellent production! Superb acting from everyone in the cast, and brilliant direction as well. For anyone bothered by the tights and decor, etc., sit tight and enjoy the words, story, characters, and, again, great performances. Shows that even the lesser known plays like LLL are works of genius.
Another gem from the great producer Cedric Messina. Never saw a dud from him. Missed this one - what was I doing in the 1970s? But very grateful to catch up now I'm an ancient P.
Jeremy Brett was a phenomenal actor!!! Монолог на 32:12 можно слушать бесконечно, это гениально👏👏👏👍 "Oh, my little heart" - произносит так, что сердце сжимается... Как жаль, что ушла эпоха великих актёров, и у нас в России, и в Англии...
I hadn't known this production existed. Lovely discovery for me. Thanks for uploading! Evidently there were a few other Shakespeare plays featured as "Play of the Month". Wish they all had survived.
Love will be moving, and those will be lost who freeze that motion. For a love will be moved by that heat of its health. And a play like this is the of its sound of its wealth.
Beautifully done; Brett has a dimensionality that Shaw was just beginning to develop; the rest do well enough but except for the "Man of La Mancha" Spaniard, who really worked hard as his character, there were depths that could have been plumbed in the others. I'm also not a fan of the "let's skip around and make our skirts swing if we don't know the period dances well enough to do them" club. We actually do (and did) have choreography from this period: if they're going to do the music correctly, why not the dances as well? A pavane would have worked at the end, for example; the faster-moving branles and galliards are named in other Shakespeare works, so...why not? There are (and were, when this was made) historic dance reconstructors and dance historians who could have done that. But that's just a constant beef of mine. Otherwise, much appreciated. Thanks for making it available.
Thanks for uploading the full film, Gypsycyn! Are you still working on other Jeremy Bretts as well? I could desire everything him, but recently (and particularly) one TV series caught my eyes; 'A Picture of Katharine Mansfield' with Vanessa Redgrave - since first I enjoyed the audio production of 'All's Well that Ends Well' with them (Vanessa as Helena + Jeremy as Bertram). I appreciate all the other full JB films you put here, and please let me hear any news!
Thanks for these uploads. If your video collection includes the 1970s version of She Stoops to Conquer with Tom Courtenay and Juliet Mills, the drama watching public would love to see it again - a shame Jeremy Brett was not in the cast, otherwise I'm sure it would be here. I've not seen it for 40 odd years but it was the funniest play I've ever seen. Cheers.
@AMT I no longer have the hard copy, unfortunately. I honestly do not know who would have a hard copy of this production anymore. Maybe the local library or Ebay?
When did drama colleges stop voice work ? In the 50' & 60s actors had perfect diction and you could understand every word. Watch this version - ua-cam.com/video/GLl1q-lnnys/v-deo.html Lots of very young, famous faces. By the 1970s, actors were able to keep accents, speech impediments and thick tones, which made the precise rhythms of Shakespeare, very difficult to play. With a thick voice / speech impediment / accent, some words take longer to produce, or are produced in the back of the throat, not tripping on the tongue and the pentameter gets lost, like a singer who misses the beat, it is annoying. The 1970s were a time of social levelling and the cut glass BBC diction, was discarded and the Lawrence Olivier Declamation style, laughed at. BUT - watch the older performance above. It is a joy, to hear every word of Shakespeare correctly delivered - it makes it so easy to understand !
What is wonderful is that seeing this as a play (as opposed to reading it) even if one doesn't get every word or nuance, the plot & characters are universal and the beautiful language becomes more understandable with repeated viewings.
My children weren't Elizabethan either but they never had a problem understanding Shakespeare,nor did their friends who studied and acted it to. It's not that hard, just requires a good vocabulary and a bit of concentration 🤷
@@bellringer929 no, not in the slightest. I wasn't saying it to show off, but to illustrate that children study Shakespeare,we all did when I was at school and can find the humour and drama in it.
It's actually hilarious. Shakespeare has great fun trying out different linguistic styles, from lofty and formal to satirical and ungrammatical: the constant play on words is dazzling, language (and linguistic jokes) move at breakneck speed. For myself, I think this is a play that looks better on paper, ( better to see the subtlety of linguistic creations and effects), but this production is also visually gorgeous, set in the age of the Renaissance (rich in art).
@@soniavadnjal7553 Having watched the play again I would qualify my criticism and admit that the bits that feature the eight main characters have merit. But it also have some boring bits - and the Bard can be quite a bore - aggravated by the odd casting mistake of having a middle-aged man play the part of the small page Moth. I agree that this play looks better on paper; indeed I would go further and say that this is true of Shakespeare generally.
![The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: A Scandal in Bohemia [Jeremy Brett]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZaDfTP7zohQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I love how, in the 70s, no matter what period your film takes place, it always looks like the 70s.
You could say that about any era. Though the production values were not as good in the 1970's, there was often more of an attempt to remain true to the original source material than there is today.
The same is true now. Vikings dressed in leather... Elizabethans dressed in leather... queens who sound like they grew up on council estates because they have to be 'strong' and 'relatable'. It's easy to place any film or TV to its period of creation. It all reflects the culture that made it. The dialogue in 'Julius Caesar' suggests Caesar wore Elizabethan clothing when it was performed by Shakespeare's company 'The King's Men'.
It's not just visual clues either, even acting styles change with the time. It's easy to tell a radio production made in the 1980s for example because the acting style is so distinctive. It's really not some terribly esoteric thing, people only relate to a work of fiction through the lens of their own culture. Thus with the rise of feminism for example you'll get more feminist interpretations of a given work, which will date the production very firmly to its era; as racial diversity and representation becomes an important cultural imperative you will see very diverse casts which will again be huge telltale cues for posterity as to the providence of the production.
I don't know if that's true, but you got a laughin out of me.
@@SantaRosaGal Good point, well made. Shakespeare productions now usually try self-consciously to call to mind some period much later than that in which the play was either set or written. But it still very much just seems like whenever the production was filmed, in fact all the more so.
The 80s is worst! Especially science fiction! Movies that are supposed show a far future, but screams 1980s. 😅👌🥰
Very memorable Play of the Month. Perhaps the best television productions
A young Jeremy Brett! And as Berowne! Delightful.
Jeremy Brett is just amazing (as always)! TY
SUPERB! I never cared for this play in the 4 decades of studying Shakespeare until now. It is amazing what great actors can do for one's appreciation. Thanks yall !
Jeremy Brett elevates everything he acts in, no matter what the part. In LLL he is absolutely perfect, exuding sex appeal! I just finished watching this as a professional stage play, well enough acted, but a pale copy of this production. This is my favorite JB part and I've seen all I can get my hands on. Momentous actor!
Absolutely wonderful. Fresh! Many thanks. 🌟
Oh Jeremy Brett..wonderful !!!
Thank you very much indeed for uploading this faultless BBC production of one of Shakespeare's finest plays. Martin Shaw is commanding as the King of Navarre, Jeremy Brett superb as Berowne, and the Princess of France is beautifully played by Lorna Heilbron, a very underrated and underused actress.
I knew I had seen her before! She played in Blake's Seven, was Avon's old love.
I love Jeremy Brett and Martin Shaw. Thank you so much for posting this.
This really is a superior performance, and brings the play alive. Branagh's 2000 and Moshinsky's 1984 BBC productions have not a modicum of the same charm. Thanks for posting it.
Una maravilla visual y auditiva. Gracias por subirla para que podamos disfrutarla.☺☺☺☺
Jeremy... And Martin ❤️
Outstanding! I'm just now studying this play and this performance of 1975 is a great find.
An excellent production! Superb acting from everyone in the cast, and brilliant direction as well. For anyone bothered by the tights and decor, etc., sit tight and enjoy the words, story, characters, and, again, great performances. Shows that even the lesser known plays like LLL are works of genius.
Well Done, I do believe the Bard himself would approve.
Another gem from the great producer Cedric Messina. Never saw a dud from him. Missed this one - what was I doing in the 1970s? But very grateful to catch up now I'm an ancient P.
Me too! This is lovely.
Thanks for posting this--a real treasure!
Thanks for this quality upload, you lovely human being!
Oh, one of my very favourite Shakespeare plays! Love the many plays on words! Thank you so much, Gypsycyn!
mine too this a lovely production - a wonderful Holofernes
How wonderful, one of the plays I've always wanted to see. Thank you so much for posting it.
Lillian Nieswender you're very welcome. enjoy!😃
What a butiful video thank you
Jeremy Brett was a phenomenal actor!!! Монолог на 32:12 можно слушать бесконечно, это гениально👏👏👏👍 "Oh, my little heart" - произносит так, что сердце сжимается... Как жаль, что ушла эпоха великих актёров, и у нас в России, и в Англии...
The fact that this has only 300 or so "likes" is unfortunate! Thank you for this quality upload!
Such a beautiful production. It is a pity it is not on DVD.
I am a Filipino, but i love movies like this...The accent, the flowery language, the costumes are just magnificent....
I hadn't known this production existed. Lovely discovery for me. Thanks for uploading!
Evidently there were a few other Shakespeare plays featured as "Play of the Month". Wish they all had survived.
Same here. It is a lovely production of a delightful play.
Jeremy Brett is memorable as Berowne, the closest thing to a self-portrait in the Bard's work.
And wildly bisexual just like Will. Pity he was so horribly addicted to the smokes.
Thanks!! Thanks!! Thanks!!
Tamara Likhach you're welcome!😄
Fascinating movie as well as a Play!❤️💐😊
Love will be moving, and those will be lost who freeze that motion. For a love will be moved by that heat of its health. And a play like this is the of its sound of its wealth.
Thank you!
Beautifully done; Brett has a dimensionality that Shaw was just beginning to develop; the rest do well enough but except for the "Man of La Mancha" Spaniard, who really worked hard as his character, there were depths that could have been plumbed in the others.
I'm also not a fan of the "let's skip around and make our skirts swing if we don't know the period dances well enough to do them" club. We actually do (and did) have choreography from this period: if they're going to do the music correctly, why not the dances as well? A pavane would have worked at the end, for example; the faster-moving branles and galliards are named in other Shakespeare works, so...why not? There are (and were, when this was made) historic dance reconstructors and dance historians who could have done that.
But that's just a constant beef of mine. Otherwise, much appreciated. Thanks for making it available.
wow. good acting
Proper British cast beautifully performing Shakespeare. Why is that now so hard!?!
Maurice Denham as Armado is extraordinary
agreed!!
Saw this play at Oregon Shakespheare Festivle in Ashland. In 1973
Thanks for uploading the full film, Gypsycyn!
Are you still working on other Jeremy Bretts as well? I could desire everything him, but recently (and particularly) one TV series caught my eyes; 'A Picture of Katharine Mansfield' with Vanessa Redgrave - since first I enjoyed the audio production of 'All's Well that Ends Well' with them (Vanessa as Helena + Jeremy as Bertram).
I appreciate all the other full JB films you put here, and please let me hear any news!
It is a lovely, but often neglected play.
Thanks for these uploads. If your video collection includes the 1970s version of She Stoops to Conquer with Tom Courtenay and Juliet Mills, the drama watching public would love to see it again - a shame Jeremy Brett was not in the cast, otherwise I'm sure it would be here. I've not seen it for 40 odd years but it was the funniest play I've ever seen. Cheers.
Regrettably I do not have that production. Hopefully someone does have it in their collection and can share with the rest of us on UA-cam.
@AMT I no longer have the hard copy, unfortunately. I honestly do not know who would have a hard copy of this production anymore. Maybe the local library or Ebay?
32:12 (please ignore me, I am marking this timestamp for myself)
1:52:52
This movie is 44 years old
Goodness, hard to believe, it seems timeless.
So am I. 😔
the play is 400 years old!!
32:10
@38:38 ...don't forget the Horses are just as good at acting this out as anybody else on set!
This cuts many passages from the original (I'm reading the Delphi version).
Brett in tights😋
When did drama colleges stop voice work ? In the 50' & 60s actors had perfect diction and you could understand every word. Watch this version - ua-cam.com/video/GLl1q-lnnys/v-deo.html Lots of very young, famous faces. By the 1970s, actors were able to keep accents, speech impediments and thick tones, which made the precise rhythms of Shakespeare, very difficult to play. With a thick voice / speech impediment / accent, some words take longer to produce, or are produced in the back of the throat, not tripping on the tongue and the pentameter gets lost, like a singer who misses the beat, it is annoying. The 1970s were a time of social levelling and the cut glass BBC diction, was discarded and the Lawrence Olivier Declamation style, laughed at. BUT - watch the older performance above. It is a joy, to hear every word of Shakespeare correctly delivered - it makes it so easy to understand !
Totally agree. The "refined" English accent was still the norm fifty years ago and now is not. Shakespeare works better with it.
much better than that bizarre musical set during world war 2 (but not really world war 2)
Terrible wigs, awful hose, indifferent camerawork; perfect fucking diction and verse-speaking.
It must the 70s Shakespeare.
thinki seen that old man 13:18 in a dickens movie.. he was mad in that movie too and in love..w
I'll bet Bodie is hiding in the bushes.
17:24
47:07 ignore me pls
Is it possible to add a wider cast list please.
the cast list is at the end of the film
too bad they cut the text so much
www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/playmenu.php?WorkID=loveslabours
Керемет )
34:22 !!!! )))))
Let subtitles be written upon every Shakespearean play😭 we aren't Elizabethans to understand his gibberish by instinct..need help😊
What is wonderful is that seeing this as a play (as opposed to reading it) even if one doesn't get every word or nuance, the plot & characters are universal and the beautiful language becomes more understandable with repeated viewings.
The subtitles I saw were ridiculously wrong. I turned them off and brought up a tab with the actual script on it.
My children weren't Elizabethan either but they never had a problem understanding Shakespeare,nor did their friends who studied and acted it to. It's not that hard, just requires a good vocabulary and a bit of concentration 🤷
@@LuciThomasHardylover-qx6ts your children and their friends are special talent.
@@bellringer929 no, not in the slightest. I wasn't saying it to show off, but to illustrate that children study Shakespeare,we all did when I was at school and can find the humour and drama in it.
12:15
34:39 act 4
1:20
Notably unfunny.
It's actually hilarious. Shakespeare has great fun trying out different linguistic styles, from lofty and formal to satirical and ungrammatical: the constant play on words is dazzling, language (and linguistic jokes) move at breakneck speed. For myself, I think this is a play that looks better on paper, ( better to see the subtlety of linguistic creations and effects), but this production is also visually gorgeous, set in the age of the Renaissance (rich in art).
@@soniavadnjal7553 Having watched the play again I would qualify my criticism and admit that the bits that feature the eight main characters have merit. But it also have some boring bits - and the Bard can be quite a bore - aggravated by the odd casting mistake of having a middle-aged man play the part of the small page Moth. I agree that this play looks better on paper; indeed I would go further and say that this is true of Shakespeare generally.
@AMT It is also true that bad acting can ruin the impact of the written word. It is usually better to read Shakespeare than to watch a performance.
Quite right. It is a very witty comedy, not a farce.@@soniavadnjal7553
1:12:01