The Taming of the Shrew

1980 "The swaggering Petruchio, eager to wive it wealthily in Padua, agrees to marry the spitting hellcat, Katherine."
7.2| 2h6m| en
Details

Baptista has two daughters: Kate and Bianca. Everyone wants to wed the fair Bianca, but nobody's much interested in problem child, Kate. Baptista declares that he won't give Bianca away in a marriage until he's found a husband for Kate, so all the suitors begin busily hunting out a madman who's willing to do it, and they find Petruchio: a man who's come to wive it wealthily in Padua. And Petruchio marries Kate with a plan to tame her, while everybody else begins scheming to win Bianca's hand.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

SteinMo What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.
Blake Rivera If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.
Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.
Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.
insomnimom This version is not my favorite because I'm an English teacher who believes that this extremely low-key version is much too subtle to entertain students. Or me.(But then again, the Zeffirelli version is so overblown and hyperactive, I don't think it's that great either. I think I'm going to have to stick with the American Conservatory Theater's commedia dell'arte performance as my favorite filmed version. I wish so much I could find a straight version of this play on film.) My first quarrel is that Simon Chandler (Lucentio) delivers his lines so quickly in the play's opening scene that he's impossible to understand. And then there's John Cleese as Petruchio burying his face in his hands as he washes and mumbling as he splashes. It's very frustrating not to be able to understand what actors are saying and those are two of the times I noted that happening in this film.I also didn't feel that the sets contributed to the film. They were spare -- although the set for the Minola's house was very beautiful -- but they were so...beige. And the costumes were so...beige. It was almost like seeing the play in sepia tones.As far as showing the play in a classroom goes, I don't like the scene where Lucentio tries to cop a feel of Bianca's breast as he "translates Latin" for her. It seemed gratuitous, considering the plodding pace of the rest of the film. I know it's very brief, but I still found it irritating. It came out of nowhere - whoa! A hand! Trying to touch a boob! And then we're back to the snoozing.All in all, this extremely Burrrrriddish version of Shrew shows how comedy has changed over the past 400 years -- in Shakespeare's day, I imagine there was a lot more joy, a bawdy romp. This version is so terribly, terribly dull, in my opinion. I don't think the performances are brilliant. I don't sense the magic.
tedg Watching Shakespeare is tricky business. Its because the material is so deep and dangerous, that it can cut and ruin lives of innocents just as it can build and weave. Part of the danger comes from not being aware of the edges, of thinking that what you see is a comedy as toothless as something from TeeVee. But part is also a matter of decisions the director makes.There are a few major traditions the director can follow. A focus on the sweep of cosmology, on the (usual) intricacies of plot. On the fabulous language, its structure and ever-more layered metaphors. Its emotional shivers, yes even the comedies. Sometimes the way chosen is to map it to some other era and its trappings to increase "relevance," as if "West Side Story" had the stuff from which one builds imagination.But the most dangerous choice of all, I believe, is when the director chooses to make the play about humans, to make it emotionally real. I mean "emotionally" here in the modern theatrical sense where screams and actorly attunement really can connect. Its probably a bad choice because when you try to make these characters modern, natural, as if you could encounter them in life, you fool yourself into thinking you understand the thing. You see familiar people, reacting in familiar ways, lifelike. But that's not how these plays are put together. There's always the majority of it just out of reach. There's always more, even if you read it slowly. That's what makes this magical. It isn't Ibsen. When the director takes those heavens away, the knife becomes dull and there is no instrument on earth as dangerous as a dull knife.Just look at the comments here on IMDb, celebrating the accessibility of this production. Yes, it is probably more comprehendible than Zeferelli's zany snappings. But that had the language, and it preserved the cadence as poetry, and thus indicated how layered were the metaphors, how nested were the rhythms, how integrated the language was with human intercourse, how dissymmetry is behind the tension the keeps love afloat.Nothing of that is here. This is a marvelous play. The staging is particularly wonderful and the characters engaging, A good play — a good production, but dangerously far from Shakespeare.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
sarastro7 The simple truth about Shakespeare's plays - especially the comedies - is that they can be delightful beyond one's wildest imagination. I consider Much Ado About Nothing to be by far one of the most pleasant comedies of Shakespeare, but upon watching The Taming of the Shrew, I come to realize that it, when well produced, can be just as wondrous. The wisdom and humor contained in a play by the Bard are nigh-infinite, if only we have the eyes to see it.Having said that, this classic BBC production may indeed be classic, but apart from John Cleese it is fairly pedestrian. The delight, for me, comes from the words rather than the stage production, and then, of course, from John Cleese. I had my doubts about him when I heard he was in a "serious" Shakespeare play, but the second I saw him my doubts evaporated. He carries this show, being easily the best thing about it, and it should be obvious to all that Shakespeare and John Cleese is a match made in heaven - a mad mating, to use a pun from the play! One is grief-stricken that Cleese did not go into Shakespeare acting as a full career; woe is we who have spent our lives lacking a comedic giant such as Cleese in the Shakespearean art form!In short: Cleese is superb, utterly and completely. The rest of the production is adequate, but Cleese absolutely steals the show.My rating: about 6-ish for the rest of the production, with two points added for Cleese's brilliant performance, coming to an 8 out of 10.
au561 Unlike Taylor, Burton, and Zefferelli, who run roughshod over Shakespere's script and chew the scenery like buffoons; Jonathon Miller's intelligent direction and John Cleese's droll performance illuminate the true depth of the play. Cleese is ever mindful of the brilliance of Katherine's intellect and seduces rather than browbeats her to be his love. While at the same time being seduced by her mind and deeply loving heart. Not a farce as it is most often produced, but a true battle of wits, where both combatants win.