Simon Schama's Shakespeare Online

Without a doubt, Simon Schama is one of our most prodigious historians. He is currently the University Professor of Art History and History at Columbia. He is also the author of "A History of Britain" and the superb television series that accompanied his three-part history.

In 2012, Schama produced this two-part television documentary originally titled "Shakespeare and Us." Schama's thesis is that the influence of Shakespeare is so far-reaching that it would be nearly impossible to imagine a world without him. But what actually do we know about Shakespeare the writer, and what is presented in this biographical documentary series? The answer is virtually nothing.

Instead of exploring how Shakespeare came to be so well-versed in history and how he was able to depict the workings of the Elizabethan court in his plays, Schama sticks to the plays themselves, and he offers interviews with actors, playwrights, and directors of Shakespeare.

Part I is entitled "This England," and Schama describes how Shakespeare miraculously depicted the entire gamut of Ellizabethan society. The centerpiece of the program is a detailed examination of Shakespeare's history plays, Henry IV, Part 1 and Part 2. In this sequence, Shakespeare gave us "England unedited." In conversation with RSC Artistic Director Michael Boyd, Schama discusses Shakespeare's insider knowledge of the world of the court. For Boyd, Shakespeare was writing allegorically in his plays about the English court, wherein he was able "to safely talk about the present through the past." Unfortunately, Schama and his commentators never explain how Shakespeare was somehow able to escape censure and punishment, unlike other Elizbethan dramatists (Kyd, Jonson, Marston) who wrote critically of the court and suffered the consequences with imprisonment and even torture.

Part II is called "Hollow Crowns." In this segment, Schama focuses on Shakespeare's insightful understanding of kingship. Schama moves from a discussion of Henry V as a model king to those who have abused and misused power, as presented in "Hamlet," "Macbeth," and "King Lear." Without citing any source, Schama claims that Shakespeare was the official "court playwright" to the first Stuart king, James I and that late in his playwriting career, the true nature of kingship became an obsession for Shakespeare.

In one of the most intriguing sections of the "Hollow Crowns" program, Schama dissects the Essex Revolt of 1601 and suggests that a performance of "Richard II' a day before the revolt was part of the plan of Essex's followers to stir up enough discontent against the Queen and her court to ensure that Essex's coup d'état would be a success. Instead, the revolt fizzled and Essex lost his head. But how did Shakespeare avoid punishment for the writing of the incendiary "Richard II"? Michael Boyd suggests that the ambiguities of the play protected Shakespeare from censure. But once again, Boyd and Schama have not carefully studied the evidentiary record because Elizabeth herself acknowledged that she was being represented as Richard II in the play. Why the author of "Richard II" was not arrested and executed for treason is never explained in this documentary.

In these two programs, Schama addresses how Shakespeare's plays provide an insightful view of kingship. He acknowledges that Shakespeare and the Lord Chamberlain's Men would make several appearances annually at court to perform their plays. But they fail to explain how the author could acquire the insider's knowledge necessary for such detailed and highly critical views of the English monarchy.

Simon Schama who is clearly full of himself assembles a handful of actors who re-enact a couple of scenes, some philosophical mumbling, 15 minutes of hearing Simon reciting and then filling up the rest of the time with slow motion shots from a roasting pig, some people in a pub and a chain, YES, a chain! They should have done this as a home video, but not provide this to people who want to get to know Shakespeare. 50 minutes of my life I'll never ever get back.. I'm not saying this documentary should be filled with historic facts, but this seems like a total subjective project of a man who loves to hear himself talk. Better luck next time.