Rating: 
Summary: a comedy?
Review: this is a comedy only in the sense that the play ends well - ie, noone dies, most everyone is happy. else, there's little humor in this comedy, save for the knave, lucio. like others here have pointed out, this is actually a pretty serious play that takes a pretty hard look at human weakness, particularly lust. there are some fine, impassioned speeches by claudio and his sister, who pleads for his life. worth a read. but don't expect any laughs.
Rating: 
Summary: one of his best
Review: this is one of his best, very intriging.
Rating:
Summary: One of Shakespeares best
Review: This play is very funny (Shakespeare is one of the greatest comedians of all time), but it is also a problem play--which causes problems. It is difficult to decide whether to laugh or not, or whether you like the characters or not. However, Shakespeare touches on some important issues that I find fascinating--justice/mercy, the responsibility of political leaders, and others. I recommend reading this play, laughing, and then really try to determine your own views on issues that are still pertinent today.
Rating:
Summary: Not So Entertaining, But Very Intriguing
Review: This play was never really that popular. When I first read this book, I thought it was good. (3 stars) When I had a deeper understanding of Shakespeare, I gave it a second read and realized it was excellent. It lacks the superb construction of "Much Ado About Nothing." Even though it is a comedy, it lacks the hilarious tone of "The Comedy of Errors." And at times, it seems drawn out. But this play is really worth the time. Angelo is convincing as the character who is corrupted by power and desire for sex. Isabella is memorable as the woman who has to choose between giving up her condemned brother or allowing the corrupt Angelo to use her for sex. The drunk Barnadine offers some interesting dark humour. The Duke is captivating as he disuises himself as a priest to check out the events. He also offers a memorable soliloquy in 3.2. To be sure, this is not a masterpiece like "The Comedy of Errors," "Hamlet," or "Richard III." But it is still a memorable landmark in Shakespeare's writing.
Rating: 
Summary: three stars for Shakespeare, probably more in general
Review: What?!? was a frequent question as I read this play, and not because I don't get the language. Shakespeare does a lot of really strange things here - not Midsummer Night's strange, but strange all the same. A sexy nun? A virgin politician? A seventy-year-old prostitute? The heroes are villainous, the villains are heroic, and the whole thing is a big wonderful mess. A bold move, even for Big Willie.
Rating:
Summary: Mediocre or slightly below for Shakespeare.
Review: When rating Shakespeare, I generally rate it as compared to other Shakespearean plays; otherwise, the almost unrelieved 4 and 5 star ratings would not be very informative. This book barely rates three stars as compared to other Shakespeare; compared to the general run of books in the world, it would certainly rate somewhere between four and five.The problem is that by Shakespeare's standards, it's sloppy. There are numerous places in which the language varies from folio to folio, and in various later editions, as the notes in this (the Dover Thrift Edition) make clear. And these are not just superficial alterations, but actual changes in the apparent meaning of the lines, or even attempts to insert meaning where it is almost impossible to find any in the original lines. Other than that, the story itself is interesting, better than many of Shakespeare's more famous works, and if there are no immortal lines that leap out at the reader on a par with "My kingdom for a horse" or "To be or not to be", that says more about the quality of his other works than about any lack of quality here. As with all of Shakespeare's plays, this is worth the read, although even more than with some of his others, it is imperative that the modern reader get an edition with good notes; otherwise, some of the sense is sure to be lost.
Rating:
Summary: A masterwork full of ideas and indelible characters
Review: While not one of Shakespeare's transcendent achievements, "Measure for Measure" is very much a masterwork. While easy to read and to follow, it actually has a vast number of moral complexities that challenge us to think about our own humanity, our sense of justice and charity, and the ways in which even the best among us are so easily compromised.
The title, of course, comes from the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 7:2 says: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. While the surface reading of this verse seems to be talking about judging righteousness or evil (and it is that), it goes much deeper. It is also choosing one thing over another and the necessity of harvesting what those choices unavoidably bring.
This play is inhabited by many strange characters that exhibit all sorts of self-contained contradictions. The Duke of a very decadent Vienna who decrees that extra-marital relations will be punished by death, who is uncomfortable with public adulation, who spends most of the play disguised as a Friar. He is not called the Duke of Dark Corners for nothing. Poor Claudio is arrested and sentenced to die because is beloved Juliet is about to give birth to their child. This while the bawd Pompey is arrested and let off without even being whipped. Angelo, who is certainly no angel, is put in temporary power by the Duke during his time away from court. It is Angelo who has Claudio arrested and sentenced.
Isabelle, Claudio's sister, is about to take her vows as a nun, but comes to plead for her brother. Angelo says he will spare Claudio if she will let Angelo take her chastity. She refuses, but consents to the Friar's plan to ensnare Angelo. This is says nothing about Lucio and his being on all sides of every situation in the play.
While I admire all the Arden editions, this play has a particularly fine opening essay especially when it comes to the character and qualities discussed in the play. The editor provides us insight to how our modern sensibilities will mislead us and keep us from seeing the Elizabethan issues being worked out during the play.
The Appendices offer multiple versions of the source material for this play. Some of which it is suspected that Shakespeare used or was used by those who created the materials that Shakespeare used. It is a fascinating subject, especially when one notes the differences between the sources and the shape Shakespeare finally gave the plot. It is indeed a very different play.
I think the editor, J.W. Lever, makes a great point that this should be considered a drama of ideas rather than being included in that cloudy category of "Problem Plays" that so many scholars use as a catch all for those plays that aren't completely comedies and are certainly not tragedies like Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, or Lear.
Strongly Recommended
|
