Shakespeare Solved™ versions of these plays solve the mysteries surrounding them by taking us back in time to see the plays as they were performed for the first time in history.


This blog explains these new versions, and explores the life and times of Shakespeare, in order to build support for my new film versions of the plays.


Available from Amazon, Apple, Google Play, and Smashwords. Search: David B. Schajer.


Please join over 56,000 other people who follow Shakespeare Solved™ on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, Pinterest and Tumblr!



Articles Written For:


The University of Oxford's Bodleian Library & The Royal Shakespeare Company


Most Popular Posts:


1. Shakespeare's Othello Finally Identified 2. Shakespeare In Love Sequel SOLVED

3. The Real Romeo and Juliet 4. Shakespeare in January 1601 5. The Miracle of Shakespeare's Birth

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Shakespeare's Shylock Solved Part 1


Did William Shakespeare put himself in one of his own plays?

Did he create a character in one of the plays that speaks as Shakespeare spoke and thinks as Shakespeare thought?

Yes, he did.

For the 450th anniversary of Shakespeare’s birth, I have a very special discovery to share with you.

Shakespeare is Shylock, and Shylock is Shakespeare.

Tomorrow I will reveal how the names Shakespeare and Shylock actually mean the same thing.

Today, I want to tell you how I discovered Shakespeare in his Merchant of Venice play, which might give us a better idea why he named Shylock after himself.



The Chandos Portrait of Shakespeare



This discovery was part of a longer journey that started in 2005. 

I had watched The Merchant of Venice starring Al Pacino as Shylock. As I watched the film, I realized that they got it all wrong. 

I started to read everything I could get my hands on about Shakespeare, his life and work.

I realized that I could write a version of the play that was unlike anything we have ever known, and would solve all of the problems with the play, arguably the most problematic of his ‘problem plays.’







When I set out to write this version, I intended only to show the play as it would have been first performed in 1596 at The Theatre in Shoreditch. I intended only to present the entire play, without any other scenes. I would not write anything in addition to or outside of  the play.

Why?

Because I did not want to create a ‘Shakespeare’ character. I did not want to have any scenes where this ‘Shakespeare’ character would talk. 

As talented a writer as I consider myself to be, I didn’t presume to write dialogue for the greatest writer in history.

I struggled with this for a long time. I was faced with the problem of translating the Merchant of Venice play, and I knew it would help to have other scenes, in order to help our modern-day audience understand why Shakespeare wrote the play in the first place.

For example, Shylock is a usurer, and the practice of usury, charging interest on a loan, is a central issue in the play.

Usury was illegal in England, and it was a sin.

But in 1571, when Shakespeare was 7 years old, the law was changed. Usury became legal. Also, it was unsavory but it was no longer considered a sin.

Englishmen, for the first time in history, could charge interest on a loan, up to 10%.

Part of the financial success of the Elizabethan era is due in part to this extraordinarily important change in the law.

As a writer, I asked myself: how do I insert all of this crucial background information in my version of Merchant of Venice

The easiest way would be to have a character explain it. But which character? 

I wanted to have a ‘Shakespeare’ character explain it, but I was committed to not writing a ‘Shakespeare’ character.



The Droeshut Portrait of Shakespeare




I continued my research, and I put off the problem. I hoped a solution would eventually present itself.

I continued to learn more about Shakespeare and his life. 

I learned that Shakespeare’s father John had been in trouble with the law, and went to court. He was accused of making loans at higher than the legal 10% rate of interest. In time, John Shakespeare would eventually bring his family to financial ruin. 

Usury. A courtroom trial. Financial ruin. 

These three elements feature prominently in Merchant.  

It seemed that it was not just a coincidence that Shakespeare was writing a play about these elements.

There was a reason why Shakespeare wrote this play, and the idea that it had personal autobiographical meaning seemed very intriguing. I continued to learn more about his life.

I learned that Shakespeare did not attend university most probably because of his father’s dramatic reversal of fortune. It has been speculated that Shakespeare would have studied law at Oxford. I read that even if Shakespeare did not study law, he must have had first-hand knowledge and experience with the Elizabethan legal system. 

Also, I learned that around the time that Shakespeare wrote Merchant, in 1596, his only son died.



Shakespeare and his family



He had three children, but only one son, named Hamnet. It must have been a very painful loss, and it was arguably the worst moment in Shakespeare’s life.

One more reason the loss was so great was because Hamnet was the only child who could carry on the Shakespeare name, and preserve the legacy that William Shakespeare was building as a playwright.

When you look at his entire life, Shakespeare’s greatest ambition was to make the Shakespeare name last. The story of how he he bought a coat-of-arms is a very telling moment in his life. He wanted to confer gentle status upon his family, and the plays and poetry he created was a means to that end.


The application for the coat-of-arms



The Shakespeare coat-of-arms



Without that legacy, there was nothing. In other words, legacy was the prize. Legacy was power, and wealth.

When Hamnet died, I have to think that Shakespeare could see clearly that one day, sooner or later, his name would die out, and perhaps never be remembered.

Unfortunately, only decades after he died his bloodline and the Shakespeare name did in fact come to an end.

In Merchant, Shylock loses his daughter, who runs off. She also takes the family jewels. She has been lured out of her house to elope with a Christian man — who in fact only wants her for her money. 

Horrified, Shylock cries out: ‘My daughter, my ducats.’ He is mourning the loss of the two things most precious to him — his daughter and his wealth.



Actor Charles Macklin as Shylock
I like to think this captures the moment he cries out



Shylock is crying because he has lost any hope of preserving his family and his name. He has lost his legacy, much like Shakespeare did with the death of Hamnet.

It was at this point that I was convinced that Shakespeare wrote Merchant for these reasons.

But I didn’t have ‘proof.’ My evidence was very circumstantial. I had to work harder.

I looked closer at the Shylock character. I read his dialogue, and I read it again over and over.

I am very good at putting myself in other people’s shoes. As a writer, this skill — this empathy — is something I have developed over many years.

I tried to imagine what it must have been like for Shakespeare as a boy to sit and watch his father’s honor disputed in a court, and the shame that Shakespeare must have felt. 

Even if Shakespeare was not in the courtroom watching his father defend himself, he would have heard all about it, and it would have been a powerfully formative moment in his early life. The pain and fear would be a wound that would never really heal, and Shakespeare most likely lived with that pain every day for the rest of his life. 

There were other men who were in and out of courtrooms in those days, men who were shady businessmen, or who were honest businessmen wrongfully accused. It was not uncommon. The Elizabethans were very litigious. 

But a trial like this could make or break the Shakespeares. It could decide John Shakespeare’s fate forever. His whole life, and the future of his family, was hanging in the balance.

If John Shakespeare won, he could hold his head up high and become an increasingly prosperous businessman.

If he lost, he would have been ruined. Without a good reputation, people might not do business with him.

It would seem that, whatever happened in the courtroom between John Shakespeare and his accuser, he lost. He may have won the case, but his reputation probably suffered a blow too fatal to recover from.







Shylock also loses his case in court. Not only has he lost his daughter and his wealth, he is forced to convert to Christianity. Everything about him is undone, his ruin is complete and total. It is a fate almost worse than death.

Reading the play became even harder to bear. The idea that the Shylock character was part John Shakespeare and part William Shakespeare was truly sad. 

It was at that moment that I felt like I was coming face to face with William Shakespeare.

It also convinced me that, with this insight into him, I might possibly write a character of William Shakespeare.

I attempted to write it. It was not easy. It was difficult to find his voice.

As a writer, I have written dozens of characters. Some are easy, others are hard. This was the hardest by far.

But I tried and I tried again.

Then it happened.

I wrote a scene between Shakespeare and the Lord Mayor of London, John ‘Rich’ Spencer.

Believe it or not, this Lord Mayor was a notorious money-lender. His wealth, in today’s money, would have been about £21 billion. Funny, isn’t it?

I had wanted Shakespeare to say something about the change in the usury laws in 1571. I wrote that dialogue.

I could hear Shakespeare as I wrote the dialogue. For the first time, I could hear him as easily as I can hear my own thoughts.



The Cobbe Portrait of Shakespeare



What did he sound like?

He was very shrewd, very smart, funny, proud, and — defiant.

Defiant.

I would think of that word frequently as I wrote, and eventually completed, my version of Merchant. When I wrote my versions of Richard III and Hamlet, that word came to me often.

What was Shakespeare’s whole life? It was a marvelous act of defiance.

It was a grand gamble, that a boy from Stratford who came from such humble beginnings could conquer the London stages and play for the richest and most powerful people in England — including the Queen than later the King.

He didn’t come from wealth. He had something even better — a burning ambition and a talent forged in a wonderful Guildhall Schoolroom in Stratford.


Shakespeare's Schoolroom in Stratford


That was the first time I met Shakespeare.

I continue to write this character, which has become the greatest artistic challenge and pleasure of my life.

I will continue to write more versions of his plays (including the forthcoming Othello) and tell the story of his life.

As great as his plays are, the story of his life is a far greater story. It is also a story that has not yet been told, and I am thrilled to share it with you.

Please visit this blog tomorrow when I will reveal how Shakespeare and Shylock mean the same thing.


Cheers,


David B. Schajer


BUY FROM Amazon





Monday, April 21, 2014

Fiasco Theater Visits The Folger Shakespeare Theatre



I went to see the Fiasco Theater’s production of Two Gentlemen of Verona at the Folger Shakespeare Theatre in Washington, D.C. yesterday.

It’s hilarious!

If you are anywhere near Washington, do yourself a favor and go see this great show!

It runs until 25 May, so you better hurry!







Fiasco Theater is based out of New York City, and has received great acclaim for their productions of Two Gentlemen of Verona, Measure for Measure, Cymbeline and Sondheim’s Into the Woods.

They have come to the Folger for the first time, and in addition to Two Gents, they’re doing a very short run of Cymbeline at the Folger from 28 May to 1 June. 

Tickets to that are almost all sold out, so you have to REALLY hurry up!

Here is a link to learn more about the show at Folger, and get tickets:

http://www.folger.edu/woSummary.cfm?woid=830


Here’s a link for more information about Fiasco:



Some of the Fiasco players


I am not a professional theatre critic, but I do want to share some thoughts about this show.

I loved it!

I have to admit that I have never seen it performed live. I had read it years ago, and re-read it more recently in order to understand how it fits into Shakespeare’s life, in regards to my Shakespeare Solved versions of the plays.

I found it entertaining to read, but watching performed by such expert players was thrilling!

I could see how badly this play could be performed if it were in the wrong hands, but this cast did a superb job of wringing as much comedy out it as possible.

The energy, the enthusiasm, and the artistic choices each actor made all added up to one of the greatest performances of Shakespeare I have ever seen. 



Emily Young as Silvia


It seems that this group of actors chose the name Fiasco because they want to make brave choices as actors and really connect with the audience. They do this with great ease, and the audience I was with was laughing all the way through.

As far as brave choices is concerned, the bravest of all is to see and engage the audience. Most productions suffer because the audience is invisible to the performers and they do nothing to include them.

Fiasco doesn’t make the audience part of the play as much as they could (or should, in my humble opinion) but they acknowledge the audience enough to make the play more fun, as it should be.



Zachary Fine as Valentine with Emily Young




It also seems like they even surprise each other on stage. When Ursula — a character who only appears once in the play — brings a picture to Silvia, the actor as Ursula rushed on stage and made the other actors crack up and break character for a moment. It is refreshing and unexpected moments like this that makes this happily unlike most any other Shakespeare I have seen.

The ensemble is very small, only 6 actors, and they never leave the stage area. It was even fun to see the actors not performing at the moment enjoy the actors who were performing. It is clear that as actors they support each other and are constantly trying to entertain themselves at the same time they are entertaining the audience.

Unlike other Shakespeare productions I have seen, there is no lead actor, there is no one star performer. It is a true ensemble. Each actor would be a star in another company of actors. They are each masters in their own right, and the quality of the production is exponentially increased by each actor’s contribution to the show.



Jessie Austrian as Julia with Noah Brody as Proteus




I can’t single out any of them as better than any other. They each have their moments to shine and they all make the most of it.

And what makes them truly remarkable is that they never seem to break a sweat. They make it look effortless and easy to dust off one of Shakespeare’s problematic plays and make it light and funny and unforgettable.

They all play an instrument or two, and there are several quite lovely musical moments in the play.

It was also one of the fastest productions I have seen, running at just over 2 hours. I didn’t even notice how fast it was until it was over.



Zachary Fine, Emily Young, Andy Grotelueschen, Paul L. Coffey and Noah Brody


What was exciting for me personally was the fact that I could better understand this play as it would have been written and performed in Shakespeare’s lifetime. Fiasco perfectly understands the screwball nature of the play, and they make this play a window into Shakespeare’s madcap Elizabethan world.

For example, Andy Grotelueschen as Launce had a very clear understanding of the kind of humor Shakespeare’s clown Will Kemp employed to make audiences laugh at The Theatre in Shoreditch circa 1595. 

Kemp was more of a stand-up comedian than an actor. I think he would stop the show for as long as he wanted as he improvised off-script. If ever there was a Shakespeare play where Kemp could hold court and take his time, and make fun of a Groundling or two, this is the play.

Also, I enjoyed seeing how Shakespeare was writing for and about his artistic patrons, the Earls of Essex and Southampton when it comes to Proteus and Valentine. 

For example, in 1593 Shakespeare's rival playwright Thomas Nashe wrote a very bawdy poem called The Choice of Valentines, which was a parody of Shakespeare's earlier and hugely popular erotic work Venus and Adonis -- which was the Fifty Shades of Grey of the period.

Nashe's poem was most probably dedicated to the Earl of Southampton, who was arguably the prettiest man in England and whose romantic escapades inspired Shakespeare to write Romeo and Juliet.



In any case, I can’t recommend this show highly enough, and you should order your tickets as soon as possible.

Cheers,

David B. Schajer


BUY FROM iTunes





Thursday, April 17, 2014

Shakespeare's Schoolroom at Stratford's Guildhall

As far as the life and work of Shakespeare is concerned, there is no greater place in the entire world than the schoolroom where he went as a boy.

This place, the Guildhall in Stratford-upon-Avon, is the place where he learned to read and write.


The schoolroom where Shakespeare was a student


It is the place where he fell in love with English, with Latin, and some little Greek.

It is the place where he met his greatest literary friend and lifelong artistic companion, Ovid, whose life and work, especially Metamorphoses, inspired Shakespeare for the rest of his life.

It is the place where Shakespeare, with his fellow students, probably performed as an actor for the very first time — in plays by Plautus for example.





It is the place where he probably saw professional actors perform for the first time in his life, as they went on tour outside London.

He would have met these actors up close, closer than most children of the town. His father, John Shakespeare was in charge of hiring these actors to perform. 

It is also just possible that some of these same actors helped Shakespeare break into the theatre scene in London when he went there around 1587.


Seen from outside



It is the place where Shakespeare fell in love with acting and writing.

It is the place where, in the earliest and most critical moments of his life, he fell in love with that immeasurably wonderful sound of an audience as people laughed, cried and applauded.

Yes, the place where Shakespeare was born is very important. Yes, the Globe Theatre in London is important.

There are several important places in the life of William Shakespeare.

But without the Guildhall in Stratford-upon-Avon he may have never traveled beyond Stratford and changed history.

It is hard to know if Shakespeare knew, sitting at his desk in his classroom, learning his alphabet on his hornbook, that he would become the greatest playwright the world would ever know.


A desk in the schoolroom



But the awesome ambition he had to write, create and entertain audiences — including Queen Elizabeth and later King James — the fires of that ambition were first lighted and stoked in that little room in Stratford.

Please watch this wonderful short video by Michael Wood (whose ‘In Search of Shakespeare documentary is a must-see) about the remarkable history of this school.


click here to watch



The school is asking for donations to renovate the schoolroom -- and make it open to the public for the first time ever!

It is the first renovation since 1891.

I don’t often ask you to donate your money to any cause — but I can hardly think of a more deserving one than this.

Just think, when the renovation is done, you can visit Stratford-upon-Avon and see the schoolroom where Shakespeare the poet and playwright was born.


Cheers,

David B. Schajer



To Donate:


BUY FROM Google Play

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Martin Freeman as Shakespeare's Richard III


Great news!

Martin Freeman will play Richard III!

He will be on stage later this year at Trafalgar Studios in London







I am thrilled that he is doing some Shakespeare!

I fully expected that he would at some point in his career.

But I didn’t expect him to do Richard III — that’s brilliant!

It is a very shrewd choice for him, since the play is very funny, and he is such a master at comedy.

I have written quite a bit about Richard III here, and the fact that I have not seen one actor fully discover the comedy in the play. Too often, the play is treated as a dark historical drama, when in fact it is more of a send-up or parody of that kind of play.

It’s meant to be played as if all of the other characters are stuck in a strait-laced drama, and Richard III is the odd man out — his character is above and beyond all of them. He violates all the rules of the play they are stuck in, and they are powerless to stop him.







In that regard, Martin Freeman is perfectly cast. He seems to specialize in playing the character who can stand inside and outside what is happening to the rest of the characters.

He is superb at expressing himself with just a look, and without words. I can think of very few actors who do it as well.

Most actors portray Richard III as a bad guy, who is charismatic. But there are more layers to him waiting to be discovered.

Laurence Olivier didn’t discover them. Nor did Ian McKellen. 

But their performances were part of a tradition of playing Richard that goes back a long way, and while there is value in that tradition, it is not the portrayal of Richard that Shakespeare intended.

The best I have seen is Mark Rylance. His Richard was pathetic and charismatic, often begging the audience for sympathy, then later acting defiantly to the audience, and all the while he was running rings around the rest of the characters on stage. He was very funny. But Mr. Rylance still didn’t exploit the character as fully as he could have.

The best Richards I have seen are the imitations, like Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, Ian Richardson in House of Cards, and Kevin Spacey in the new House of Cards.







But what makes this opportunity so great for Martin Freeman, is that he has the benefit of being on a stage. The energy of performing in front of a crowd of people is lost on screen. It is to his advantage to do it on stage. 

What is special about the Richard III character is the fun in having him build a relationship with the audience, and making them complicit in his crimes.

That complicity is the magic of the play — and the audience can be both fascinated by such an evil man, and fascinated by their fascination.

I hope that however this production of the play is staged, they make it as intimate as possible. The best stage productions are the ones that allow Richard to get close to the audience, get inside their heads, and create that magic.





If there is any actor who can discover the comedy in this role, and in the play, and create a new sort of magic with Richard III, it is Martin Freeman.

I can’t wait to see it!

Cheers,

David B. Schajer



BUY NOW from Amazon

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Benedict Cumberbatch as Shakespeare's Richard III


Thrilling news!

Benedict Cumberbatch will play Richard III!







He has agreed to be part of the next series of Hollow Crown BBC2 TV adaptations of Shakespeare. It will be televised after a two-part version of the Henry VI plays, to create a trilogy. The director is Dominic Cooke, who was the previous artistic director at the Royal Court Theatre.

Benedict Cumberbatch has been very busy lately, what with all his film work, and the recent announcement that he will play Hamlet on stage later this year in London.

I have written before about him, and really hoped that he would do some Shakespeare — and now he’s doing Hamlet and Richard III in very short order! Fantastic!

He really should do Shakespeare as often as possible, and make it a regular part of his career.

Also, I think he would be great playing the role of William Shakespeare in my Shakespeare Solved versions of the plays.





So, what would his Richard III be like?

He was great as the villain Khan in the recent Star Trek movie. I thought he did a excellent job portraying Julian Assange as neither villainous nor heroic.

But Richard is something completely different. 

Mr. Cumberbatch was quoted as saying ‘I can’t wait to work with Dominic Cooke again to bring this complex, funny and dangerous character to life.’

I find that very encouraging, because he included the word ‘funny.’ That is key. 

If Mr. Cumberbatch understands that this play has humour, then I hope that he discovers as much of it as possible.

I have not seen an actor play Richard III who fully understands the comedy in the play. Olivier knew to make Richard III charismatic but didn’t make him funny. Ian McKellen was also charismatic, but he didn’t make him funny.

Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of Hannibal Lecter was a perfect Richard III — very funny, very charismatic, and he was very good at making us like him. Ian Richardson in House of Cards, and Kevin Spacey in the new House of Cards are both excellent Richards. And the way they speak to the camera has never been done better, in my opinion.

I have written quite a bit about Richard III, and the productions I have seen. Mark Rylance’s Richard III was fantastic, and he discovered much of the humor in the play, but he didn’t go far enough and make the play as funny as it really is. 

The entire play is funny. Every character, not only Richard, is funny.

When I wrote my version of the play, I came to the conclusion that the play may have been not at all funny in an earlier version. But at some point, Shakespeare discovered a way to make it much funnier, edgier, and much more entertaining — so, he re-wrote it.







I don’t expect this new Hollow Crown Richard III to push the envelope too much. If there was anything bad to say about their excellent productions of Richard II, Henry IV parts 1 and 2, and Henry V it is that they were too traditional and cautious. I expect this new Hollow Crown to be similar.

But — there is still a great deal that Mr. Cumberbatch can do, in his performance, to make this unlike any other Richard III we have ever seen. 

And I have every confidence that he is just the actor to do it!

I can’t wait to see it!

Cheers,

David B. Schajer

BUY FROM Amazon


Monday, April 7, 2014

Happy Birthday Russell Crowe!


Happy Birthday Russell Crowe!





He has been a very busy man recently, in some great films — especially playing Superman’s father Jor-El in Man of Steel and starring in Noah

Also, for the first time in his career, he has directed a feature length film, The Water Diviner, coming out later this year.

But what about Shakespeare?

You would think that a man as talented as he would have made some Shakespeare by now.

I think I have an idea why he has not done any Shakespeare, on stage or on screen.

I have written before about the fact that he was offered the role of William Shakespeare in Shakespeare in Love. Yes, he was could have been Shakespeare opposite Gwyneth Paltrow in that film.

As much as he loved the opportunity, and the script, he turned it down!

He didn’t think it depicted the real Shakespeare. He didn’t like the idea of Shakespeare as some romantic heart-throb ‘prissy pretty boy.’

He didn’t want a fantasy about Shakespeare. He wanted the true flesh and blood Shakespeare. 

He said he, in regards to Shakespeare, that he ‘wanted to create a body of work that would last century after century.’

Obviously, he didn’t think that Shakespeare in Love would have an enduring appeal. 

He wanted something more, something different.







It appears to me that Russell Crowe is the kind of man who wants to put his mark on the world. 

Why else would he want to re-define the Superman myth? 

Why else would he want to re-imagine the story of Noah?

It would be safe to say that Russell Crowe does NOT want to make the same old Shakespeare. He wants to re-define and re-imagine Shakespeare, and make it last for a very long time. 

This may be the answer. This may be why he has not done any Shakespeare.

I think he should do some Shakespeare Solved.

It is not the same old Shakespeare. It is not a romanticized version of Shakespeare’s life and work. It is as real a story of the events of Shakespeare’s life as we may ever know — and it presents versions of the plays that decipher and unlock the meaning of the plays for the first time. 

Now we can understand who the real Hamlet was, why Richard III was the play that made Shakespeare’s career, and why Shylock is not the villain but in fact the hero of Merchant of Venice

With my forthcoming version of Othello, now we can finally understand why Shakespeare wrote the play, what it really means, and where Shakespeare got the name Othello in the first place.

Who would Russell Crowe play in these Shakespeare Solved versions?

What about arguably the most important man in Shakespeare’s life — Will Kemp?



Will Kemp, on right




Will Kemp was the greatest performer on the London stage in the 1590’s. For almost a decade he was the funniest, most crowd-pleasing and talented larger-than-life actor there was. 

I think Shakespeare had two fathers — his father John, and Will Kemp. 

John Shakespeare inspired Shakespeare and helped light the spark of creativity in the young boy’s mind. But his father’s reversal of fortune would have been a source of shame for Shakespeare his whole life.

Kemp taught Shakespeare everything else. I think it was Kemp who taught him how to entertain a crowd, which was Shakespeare’s reason for being. But Kemp and Shakespeare may have had a falling out around 1599, and Kemp left the playing company. He disappeared from history. 

It is an indication of the importance of John Shakespeare and Will Kemp that arguably Shakespeare’s most important character (at least in the 1590’s, before Hamlet, Lear, Macbeth, and Othello) was John Falstaff.

Kemp was the first actor in history to play him. It was customer-tailored to Kemp. Audiences, including the Queen herself, adored Falstaff. He made them laugh, and cry. Falstaff is the very best and worst kind of man. Falstaff was once noble, and is now less than noble.

So, it should not come as a surprise that Falstaff is based on Shakespeare’s father, John, who brought financial ruin upon his family.

What does it mean that John Shake-speare becomes John Fal-staff?

This is the kind of complex and fascinating person in Shakespeare’s life that we don’t know enough about. The story of Shakespeare and Will Kemp, not to mention the story of Shakespeare and his father John, is a story whose time has come, and should be told.







Shakespeare Solved is four versions of Shakespeare’s plays written for the screen that thoroughly re-define and re-imagine Shakespeare. 

If Russell Crowe wants to create a body of work that lasts for centuries, and change our understanding and history of Shakespeare, then this is what he is looking for.


What do you think?

If you agree with me that he should do some Shakespeare, please show your support on facebookTwitterPinterestGoogle Plus or Tumblr.

Your support will really make a difference!



And your comments are always welcome!


Cheers,

David B. Schajer

BUY NOW from Amazon