TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU This is one of the most difficult plays by Shakespeare. First it takes place in many very different locales from the Imperial court of Rome to some forest scenes out of Rome and other "wild" areas, not to speak of private homes, particularly that of Titus Andronicus himself. The BBC chose a constructed setting that could easily be transformed but it basically always had the same semi-circle structure which was in fact a full circle giving the possibility of entering or exiting it at different points diametrically opposed.The second difficulty is that several scenes require massive armies and massive crowds. This is of course not possible in a constructed setting. It only becomes possible in a real or realistic outdoor setting, like streets, squares, roads, open countryside, etc. So it is not a surprise that these massive crowds or armies are not shown on the stage, in fact on the screen. In other words the BBC chose to keep a rather limited space; a little bit the way it is in a theater, which is in a way surprising for television, but it is a remark that can be done for most of these productions. The third great difficulty is the tremendous number of people who are killed in a way or another on the stage itself, or maimed and killed just in the wings, parts of whose bodies are brought onto the stage for some kind of provocation against one character or other. We can think the black baby is probably a prop.But what is important is not at all such details but the very Shakespearian meaning of the play. A crime is committed at the beginning, a legal crime but a crime nevertheless, because Titus Andronicus showed no pity, compassion or empathy and he was cruel. Titus Andronicus yields to a demand from his officers to have one of the sons of the Goth Queen given to them to be sacrificed in order to atone the pain and suffering of the survivors of the war campaign as for the dead who are brought realistically on the stage in the shape of four of Titus Andronicus' sons on stretchers. [...]Titus had been cruel then and he did not demonstrate any mercy and forgiveness after the war. It might be legal, it is a human crime nevertheless. The Shakespearian treatment of the situation is typical. All protagonists will be dispatched to death except two: Titus Andronicus' brother who represents the Senate and has the power to appoint the emperor, and as such who had proposed the throne to his brother Titus Andronicus when he returned from the war. Titus refused and favored the elder son of the dead emperor. [...] The second survivor is Lucius, the eldest son of Titus Andronicus who had been banned, or had escaped on his father's order, to get into an alliance with the Goths, returning to Rome at the head of Goth armies (that sounds a lot like Fortinbras in Hamlet). A third one is spared: the grandson of Titus Andronicus, the Young Lucius, son of Lucius, Titus Andronicus' eldest son, probably because he did not come back from the war due to his young ageAnd that was the beginning of the descent. This new emperor married the Goth Queen out of spite for Titus Andronicus who had appointed him, and he liberated the prisoners, her two sons and her Moor adviser Aaron (black on the stage, why not, though Moor was more on the Jewish side at the time, especially with his name, but that is a detail.)All protagonists will be exterminated. Titus Andronicus' brother Marcus Andronicus will be the one who orders the transition once again as the tribune of the Senate and he will call Lucius to the throne. The end is then close. They have to throw Tamora's body to wild beasts and to bury Aaron, her adviser, alive but chest-deep only for him to die of starvation and thirst. The production has Young Lucius holding the open box containing the black baby at the end and the box is gently closed by his father who brings him to his grandfather's body to kiss him. This production makes the child not kiss his grandfather in spite of considerate nice words.Altogether this production is very tamed and even mild. All violent acts that take place in front of the audience are either very symbolical or realistically performed though outside the screen, like the cutting off of Titus Andronicus' hand; just the hand is off the screen though it takes Aaron two or three blows to manage the cutting, and those we see. When we know that 15 years earlier John Stubbs had his right hand chopped off with a butcher's cleaver and a mallet for the authorship of a book that displeased – not without any reason, true enough – Elizabeth I, we may find this particular act of violence still active in the memory of quite a few people. I say this because we do not seem to understand that England at that time was just getting out of some religious turmoil that meant many executions and killings and violent acts with the reformation first and the attempt of Mary I, aka Bloody Mary, to re-establish Catholicism. It was a violent time. Luckily women married early, often under 13, and had many children so that a couple could reach procreative time and perpetuate, even develop the species, at least the English branch of it. That was not a unique case in Europe, and probably the whole world.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Alain English This is easily one of Shakespeare's more exciting action-packed tragedies, working well even in the space of the confined set as shown here. Fine performances and solid direction quickly make the most of the plot. Although technically a Roman drama, it is not based on any true historical events from that period.Roman General Titus Andronicus (Trevor Peacock) returns to Rome having won victory of Tamora (Eileen Atkins), Queen of the Goths, whom he has captured. As a reward for his victory he is asked to elect the next Emperor of Rome and he chooses Saturninus (Brian Protheroe), the late Emperor's son. Saturninus takes a fancy to Titus' daughter Lavinia (Anna Calder-Marshall) but when she refuses his offer of marriage, he selects Tamora as his Queen instead. Tamora wastes no opportunity to take revenge on her former captor and bloody havoc quickly ensues...The redoubtable Trevor Peacock, a staple of these BBC adaptations, delivers a noble Titus corroded by rage and revenge. Atkins is on fine form as the scheming Tamora, although Protheroe could have made more of the sliminess in Saturninus.One notable performer here has not been given his due elsewhere. Hugh Quarshie excels as Tamora's follower Aaron, and gives a solid performance of pure evil. It's a shame they couldn't cast him as the lead in "Othello" as he would been fantastic in the part.The piece is shot on one set but it works well, the black, decaying walls suggesting a crumbling corrupt society and it is suggestive, appropriately enough, of the Roman Coliseum.Good stuff.

Hans C. Frederick As stated elsewhere,"Titus" is arguably the worst play in the Canon.The bard might have intended this as:the Elizabethan version of a slasher film;an attempt to out do Marlowe;or as a sick joke where the audience/reader would laugh along with him.It's impossible to determine his intentions.The plot is derived from an earlier ballad. Shakespeare developed and embellished various details and aspects of character.nonetheless,any production intended for the uninitiated really ought to follow the script closely and downplay the grosser aspects.Traymor's over the top production is a stylistic mishmash.Anyone unfamiliar with the story will find it impossible to follow along.Consequently,the novice should study this version prior to witnessing the 1999 messApparently intended as a stylized Elizabethan stage production of a Roman play and props,THIS is the version for the beginner.While Peacock and Atkins lack the stellar stature of Hopkins and Lange,their performances show restraint and are more believable as the text allows.(The latter,while fun,as campy,self-indulgent,and hammy.)Hardwicke and Protheroe are far superior to their counterparts in the film.I prefer Quarshie to Lennix for the following reasons:Aaron,in the film,is a grinning,one-dimensional pantomime devil or medieval vice.He's far too obviously a villain,and wouldn't be able to deceive anybody with the intelligence of a grapefruit.He's lacking virility,and not at all attractive.Quarshie,on the other hand,is much better-looking,manly,charming,and convincing a speaker and manipulator.Ask anybody who's ever dealt with a psychopath,and they'll tell you that the way these characters achieve their power is to be able to win and inspire confidence initially,before they develop their evils ploys.

sarastro7 Titus Andronicus is seldom staged and even more rarely filmed, although I understand that there were as much as three (!) U.S. film versions during 1999-2000 alone, of which I have only seen Taymor's magnificent Titus.But, I have just watched BBC's 1985 production of the play, and I found it brilliantly superb and highly moving. I am a deep appreciator of Shakespeare, and I find Titus to be one of the Bard's best plays, wanting to categorize it with Hamlet, Lear, Othello, Macbeth and the other great tragedies. Note how, in Othello, Iago refuses to speak, but Aaron does no such thing; he recounts one more horrible deed after the other, forcing the listeners to shut him up! Surely this shows us what Iago would have said, had he been inclined to speak! I can only assume that the reason this play has been so neglected by stages and film producers alike is that it is very much off the mainstream in its type of plot and action, being excessively horrific and over-dramatic, almost to the point of the ridiculous. But Shakespeare in fact can sustain this level of drama, and so can a serious production, as can be seen both here and in Taymor's surrealist 1999 masterpiece.The BBC version is in many ways a classical/traditional production, relying on the actors and the words more than the stage visuals. And these actors pull it off to perfection. The Greek garb of the chorus, and the general likeness to Greek tragedy is overwhelmingly realized, demonstrating how Shakespeare could take the dramatic stylism of the Antiquity and magnify it tenfold, entirely surpassing the original and adding nigh-infinite new layers of substance of his own.The strongest scene is shortly after Lavinia's tragedy, when the entire Andronicus family huddles together to wallow in their maddening, unbearable sorrow. For such a scene alone, this production deserves a 10 out of 10 rating. Yet, I hold off one point for a variety of reasons, chief of which is that the final scene with the cannibalistic feast is not quite grotesquely horrific enough - see Taymor's version for a better realization! Also, yes, the death of Aaron's child. It's true that it should remain alive as a symbol of hope; a symbol of innocence not necessarily having to answer for the sins of the father. Or, as a smaller, less dangerous version of its father, which is necessary and integral to human nature; something we can "acknowledge ours", as Prospero does with Caliban.Lastly, a pet peeve: Lavinia's having to carry her father's severed hand between her teeth. This was used in both of the versions I've seen, but I just don't believe that Shakespeare would subject any character, much less a woman, to something as absurd as this, even in a play like this. I simply don't think it jibes with the rest of the play. I believe with all my heart that the "teeth" bit is a corruption by hands other than Shakespeare's, coming from the non-authoritative Quarto 1. I much prefer the Folio version, which I believe (in this case) to be an authorial version, and saying that she must carry the severed hand between her arms. Just my two cents!9 out of 10.