I was watching the new Bond movie, and early in the film, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Wishaw, and Rory Kinnear were all on screen together. Instinctually, I found myself thinking “Oh, too bad they’re not doing Shakespeare right now.” And then I thought, “Okay, if I had this cast at my disposal, what would I do? How would I cast it?” And, thus, the Film/Shake Challenge was born.

So, here’s my first attempt, casting Cymbeline using the cast of No Time to Die:

CYMBELINE, King of Britain: Ralph Fiennes
Cymbeline’s QUEEN: Lashana Lynch
IMOGEN, daughter to Cymbeline by his former queen: Léa Seydoux
POSTHUMUS LEONATUS, husband to Imogen: Billy Magnussen
CLOTEN, son to the present queen by a former husband: Ben Whishaw
PISANIO, Posthumus’s servant: Daniel Craig
CORNELIUS, a physician in Cymbeline’s court: Jeffrey Wright
PHILARIO, Posthumus’s host in Rome: Christof Waltz
IACHIMO, friend to Philario: Rami Malek
CAIUS LUCIUS, a Roman general: Hugh Dennis
BELARIUS, an exiled nobleman: Rory Kinnear

There’s a lot you could do with that cast, but instead, let me cast King John with the actors from Dune:

JOHN, King of England: Stellan Skarsgård
QUEEN ELEANOR, King John’s mother: Charlotte Rampling
BLANCHE of Spain, niece to King John: Zendaya
CONSTANCE, widow of Geoffrey, King John’s elder brother: Rebecca Ferguson
ARTHUR, Duke of Brittany, her son: Timothée Chalamet
KING PHILIP II of France: Javier Bardem
LOUIS THE DAUPHIN, his son: Oscar Isaac
DUKE OF AUSTRIA (also called LIMOGES): Jason Momoa
The BASTARD, PHILIP FAULCONBRIDGE, illegitimate son of King Richard I: Dave Bautista
HUBERT, supporter of King John: Stephen McKinley Henderson

Get the idea? Feel free to post your own Film/Shake combo in the comments below!

Back when we used to be able to enjoy things like bars and friends, I used to participate in a monthly event held in a bar called Drunken Shakespeare.

Sponsored by the Night Shift Theatre Company, the event invited anybody who wished to participate to come in and sign up for a slot to perform a Shakespeare piece to the crowd. I was a regular since my first attendance in June 2017.

When the pandemic hit, the event was renamed #SequesteredShakespeare and moved to Instagram. We also did a few socially distant meetings in person in Central Park when the weather was nicer.

The most recent Sequestered Shakespeare was held online this past Monday. Here is the video I put together to share with the group.

Enjoy!

Caption: Shakespeare’s Prince Hal envisions his reformation and his future as king.

From Richard III:

Today shalt thou behold a subject die
For truth, for duty, and for loyalty.

Shift around the letters, and it becomes:

O, your frothy bully Don had to jab the adults that told facts, “You’re fired!”

Donald Trump now stands the third impeached president in the history of the United States.

This is not a time for celebration. I supported impeachment because I believed the president’s abuse of power was incompatible with faithful leadership, and for the House to do any less would be a dereliction of duty. But the fact that we as a nation have fallen to the point where we have a president who required impeachment is a disgrace against all of us.

The president’s party continues to vehemently defend him, though there are exceptions. Four prominent Republican pundits published an anti-Trump op-ed in The New York Times. Christianity Today supports removal. Even The National Review has turned on him. But the majority of public-facing Republicans are still in his corner. Mitch McConnell is planning to blow off the trial, while Lindsey Graham won’t even pretend he’s going to be an impartial juror.

When I hear someone defending the president, I want to ask them if they believe the president didn’t do the things he’s accused of, or he did them but was perfectly entitled to do so. Trump was impeached on two very specific charges. He abused the power of his office to pressure Ukraine to announce an embarrassing investigation of his political opponent. He issued a blanket denial of congressional subpoenas for himself, his government branch, and all documents being requested as part of Congressional oversight. So did he not do these things? Are they okay to do? I’m not really sure what the defense is supposed to be here.

Impeachment is a big deal, if for no other reason but that it indelibly records the president’s misdeeds in the history books. But I hope history will also remember the craven Republicans who stood by him when their country needed them to have some integrity and take a stand. Some are saying that Nancy Pelosi should deny sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate. But I’d like to see them take a vote. Let each and every one of them decide what they want the first line of their obituary to be.

From Richard II:

I am disgraced, impeach’d and baffled here

Shift around the letters, and it becomes:

An addled chamber hid a spied crime gaffe.

This week, Ambassador William Taylor gave testimony that many are calling the smoking gun for proving Trump intended a quid pro quo deal with the Ukraine, making impeachment seem all but inevitable.

What makes this funny to me is that quid pro quo was never really the standard. Just asking the Ukrainian president to announce a baseless investigation in order to affect our elections should have been enough to start impeachment proceedings. It was President Trump who drew the line at quid pro quo by repeatedly denying it had happened at every opportunity, a strategy that has apparently worked for him with “no collusion.” What’s more, the evidence for quid pro quo was already clear in even the White House’s released transcript of the phone call with Zelensky.

Still, Ambassador Taylor’s testimony seems to have shifted the ground somewhat, and Republicans are in full meltdown mode. On Wednesday, a group of GOP congressmen stormed a closed-door meeting where Pentagon official Laura Cooper was testifying. Cooper had been warned by the Trump administration not to testify, but she did anyway, so a protest was staged to disrupt the hearing.

And I do mean staged. Some of the Republican congressmen who were part of the protest were actually members of the committees doing the inquiry, and so they had every right to attend the meetings they were protesting not being allowed to attend. All of the committees are made up of Democrats and Republicans, all of whom are allowed to cross-examine witnesses in the hearings.

What’s more, the protesters violated any number of rules, including those prohibiting electronic devices in the secure room where the inquiry was being held. Maybe they think that rules don’t apply to them any more. Perhaps that’s something they picked up from President Trump himself, who apparently knew about the stunt in advance.

If you’ve reached the point where you need to send in your gang to physically disrupt the investigation of your crimes, it just might be time to resign.

From Henry VI, Part One:

I cry you mercy, ’tis but quid for quo.

Shift around the letters, and it becomes:

Mob rids query to crucify you? Quit!

It’s hard to meet people these days. You may have even seen some online lists of pick-up lines, quick conversation starters for approaching women in bars.

But what if the object of your affection is a Shakespeare fan? Below you will find a list of sure-fire Shakespeare-themed pick-up lines that are guaranteed to breed love’s settled passions in her heart.

Note: This is a parody. Always treat others with respect, and never actually use any of these rude pick-up lines on a real woman in a bar*.

• Excuse me, but are you Joan of Arc? Because you are smoking hot.
• Hi, you can call me King Lear. Because I’m mad about you.
• Do I remind you of Richard III? Because I have a good hunch about us.
• Are you the Dauphin? Because thou hast turned my balls to gunstones.
• Are you Nick Bottom? Because you are the finest piece of ass I’ve ever seen.
• Right now, I feel like young Arthur from King John. Because I just fell for you.
• If I told you I was Hamlet, would you let me Ophelia?
• Are you Shylock? Because I want to give you a pound of flesh.
• You and I are like Kate and Petruchio in The Taming of the Shrew. Because at the end, I bet I can get you to come.

Good luck, and have fun!

—

*I have actually used all of these lines on a real woman in a bar.

Evidence of Donald Trump’s racism has not been particularly subtle to find for those willing to see it. One could point to moments throughout his pre-presidential life, such as renting discrimination, attacks on the Central Park Five, or his shameful participation in the birther movement. One could look to his policies that disregard the humanity of immigrants and people of color. Or, one could notice a pattern of references to minority populations that assume that they are less important and valuable than whites.

What is it, then, that distinguishes the latest set of tweets from Exhibits A through Y? Last week, the Republican president posted the following to Twitter (three consecutive tweets are concatenated here, but are otherwise unedited):

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

The difference is that up until now, the racism, though transparent enough, has all been in subtext. Republicans who didn’t subscribe to his hateful messages but still wanted to defend him out of loyalty to Team Red could at least hide behind a veneer of deniability. This is now a thing of the past. Setting aside the fact that the four Congresswomen in question are all United States citizens, and that three of them were born in the United States, telling people to go back where they came from is textbook racism. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission even cites “Go back where you came from” as an example of discriminatory language. There’s simply no debate here.

So of course, there’s a debate here, with many of the president’s apologists rushing to explain why his racist tweets aren’t racist. A handful of Republicans have denounced the comments, but not nearly enough. Others have remained conspicuously silent. And my advice for that last group is that they read themselves some Shakespeare. And while that’s usually my advice for everyone, I recommend that these quiet Republicans direct their attention to the Duke of Buckingham.

Buckingham is a character in Shakespeare’s King Richard III. He is based on a real person, but I am going to focus on the character that Shakespeare created. The play follows the journey of Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Richard starts the play fifth in line to the throne, but through a combination of a can-do attitude and a ruthless campaign of cold-blooded murder, he is able to become king. His partner in crime is the Duke of Buckingham, who is willing to support Richard’s heinous treachery in order to ingratiate himself to power.

At one point, Buckingham makes a suggestion that Richard likes, and the latter responds “My other self,” which is the highest praise a narcissist can offer. Richard continues to express appreciation for the support, and tells Buckingham “when I am king, claim thou of me/ The earldom of Hereford,” as a reward.

Richard ultimately becomes king, but it’s not enough. His late brother’s sons are still alive and could one day make a claim to the throne. He brings the issue up to Buckingham, expecting Buckingham to be the one to suggest killing them.

RICHARD
Ah, Buckingham, now do I play the touch,
To try if thou be current gold indeed:
Young Edward lives; think now what I would speak.

BUCKINGHAM
Say on, my loving lord.

RICHARD
Why, Buckingham, I say I would be king.

BUCKINGHAM
Why so you are, my thrice-renownèd lord.

RICHARD
Ha! Am I king? ’Tis so—but Edward lives.

BUCKINGHAM
True, noble prince.

Richard becomes angry that Buckingham seems to no longer be his other self. He expresses his desire to kill the princes. This is a step too far for Buckingham, but he still lacks the courage to stand up to Richard.

RICHARD
O bitter consequence
That Edward still should live “true noble prince”!
Cousin, thou wast not wont to be so dull.
Shall I be plain? I wish the bastards dead,
And I would have it suddenly performed.
What sayst thou now? Speak suddenly. Be brief.

BUCKINGHAM
Your Grace may do your pleasure.

RICHARD
Tut, tut, thou art all ice; thy kindness freezes.
Say, have I thy consent that they shall die?

BUCKINGHAM
Give me some little breath, some pause, dear lord,
Before I positively speak in this.
I will resolve you herein presently.

At this point, an observer notes “The King is angry. See, he gnaws his lip.” Richard wastes no time before finding another lackey to do his dirty work. As for Buckingham, Richard is finished with him.

RICHARD [Aside]
The deep-revolving witty Buckingham
No more shall be the neighbor to my counsels.
Hath he so long held out with me, untired,
And stops he now for breath? Well, be it so.

And that’s all it took, a moment’s hesitation. At this point, all that Buckingham did to put Richard on the throne is forgotten. Only the most recent test of loyalty counts. Richard denies Buckingham the promised and well-earned earldom of Hereford. Buckingham flees. Richard has him captured and executed. So much for him.

And there is a lesson here for those who would defend Trump over the objections of the better angels of their nature. These tweets are not going to be the end of it. It will get worse. So the question you really have to ask yourself is: how far are you willing to go? Because once you hesitate, stop for breath even once, Trump will forget everything you’ve done for him up until that point. The rest of us won’t.

Consider all of the people who are forever tainted with this dark chapter of American history. I’m not talking about people like Stephen Miller, who uses the administration to promote his own white nationalist agenda. I’m talking about people who otherwise might have had distinguished careers, enjoying some kind of public perception of integrity. I’m looking at you, Sean Spicer. I’m looking at you, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. How’s it going, Kellyanne Conway? Everything okay, Lindsey Graham? What’s the first thing you think of when I say “Kirstjen Nielsen”? How will history remember Bill Barr? Who else wants to join the list?

And, literally while I was writing this, our Republican president attacked Representative Elijah Cummings and the city of Baltimore. Are you prepared to take this train all the way to the end? If not, this might be your stop.

Over the past two weeks, we’ve been hearing increasingly disturbing reports about conditions in the detention centers along the border. On Monday, a group from Congress went to visit these camps, and they found the claims to be true. According to Mother Jones, the House representatives report the situation is dire:

The testimony from members of Congress who had the rare chance to visit three Border Patrol facilities in Texas this week has been damning: detained women instructed to drink from toilets, pervasive verbal harassment by guards, and conditions that, for many, confirmed their worst fears of the Trump administration’s cruelty at the border.

The president for his part insists that he inherited the family separation policy that led to this situation from the Obama administration. This is, for lack of a better term, a complete bald-faced lie. The Trump administration would have you believe that this is a continuation of the Obama policy and that they were overwhelmed by a sudden increase in people trying to enter illegally. But they volunteered for this job. This situation was created by a policy of his own administration called “zero tolerance.” This meant, in theory, the arrest of anyone attempting to cross the border, but in practice, it included people legally seeking asylum as well.

Under the Obama administration, illegal border crossings were treated as a misdemeanor. Arrests were reserved for those suspected of serious crimes, like trafficking, and those rare instances did involve family separations. However, these were temporary. Under Trump’s policy, the family separations range in the thousands, and because of inadequate record-keeping, the families may not be reunited. Ever.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the cruelty being inflicted on the detainees is not due to a lack of resources, but rather, a deliberate policy choice. A Trump administration lawyer actually argued in court that they weren’t legally obligated to provide soap and toothpaste to detainees. What’s important to remember is that these are children. Their parents did not commit a felony in bringing them here. And even if they had, it would still be our obligation to treat them humanely. Desperately trying to defend the president’s policy, Brian Kilmeade accidentally said the quiet part out loud when he made the case to his viewers that everything’s okay, because these are not our kids.

Notice how he also frames the current crisis as being a result of increased immigration, rather than a deliberate policy decision, while at the same time affirming that the president is trying to send a message. When Kirstjen Nielsen, then Secretary of Homeland Security, was asked last year if the family separation policy was meant as a deliberate deterrent, she was shocked and insulted, and walked away as reporters continued to ask her the question. However, according to then-Chief of Staff John Kelly, it was intended as a deterrent. Cruelty, it would seem, is the whole point.

This intentional performative cruelty has not only created a culture of viciousness among his supporters, but it has also permeated among those tasked with taking care of the detainees. Last week, ProPublica published an exposé of a secret Facebook page for current and former Border Patrol agents that revealed a mocking disdain for the detainees. The stench is noxious, but the fish rots from the head.

We can argue about whether or not our nation’s immigration policy has been strong enough, but no matter where you stand on that issue, the answer isn’t this. You can’t just say “Well, they broke the law” or “Blame the Dems” while families are being ripped apart and children languish in squalor. One hundred years from now, our children’s grandchildren will study this moment alongside the Japanese internment camps as a cautionary tale. We’re already there. Because it’s truly breathtaking that we’re committing such flagrant human rights violations so brazenly out in the open with so little public backlash.

This president likes to strut like a prizefighter, but he has a glass jaw. He will cave to public pressure, as he has done so many times before. We can’t lose our stomachs for this fight. Democrats have one chamber of Congress and the public microphone that goes along with a primary election. We are not without a voice here.

From Henry VI, Part Three:

And there it doth remain,
The saddest spectacle that e’er I view’d.

Shift around the letters, and it becomes:

Let’s eradicate the set dirt-ridden hate camp.

We have to end this.

Happy 455th Birthday to Shakespeare!

In honor of the occasion, I present… Shakespeare Memes!

The president is paying very close attention to an impending storm this week, and by that, I mean Paul Manafort’s cooperation with the Mueller investigation.

Manafort was candidate Trump’s campaign manager in the summer of 2016. If there was Russian collusion, he would likely have been in the loop. But that’s just the thing we know. This cooperation could potentially produce a long list of shady activities we wouldn’t have even known to ask about.

I won’t speculate any more about that, but if Mueller is cutting a deal, he must be getting something in return. What say you, Shakespeare?

From Henry VI, Part One:

Place barrels of pitch upon the fatal stake

Shift around the letters, and it becomes:

Paul flips: a black portent for a cheat sheet.