5 comments about My G-String Mother: At Home and Backstage with Gypsy Rose Lee.

1. What an entertaining book. I truly enjoyed "My G-String Mother: At Home and Backstage with Gypsy Rose Lee." The book is well written and full of great pictures of an era. I so enjoyed the descriptions of Gypsy's house, her wardrobe, and her choice of life-style. Further, the story provided insights of her life and relationships. The photographs of the important people in her life were excellent and certainly enhanced the book. Gypsy Rose Lee was a woman of substance, intelligence and certainly paved the way for independent women of the future.



2. I've spent hours interviewing Erik Lee Preminger about his life and his famous parents. I've read other things he's written and watched his compilation of his mother's home videos. This guy is the real deal. He had a childhood most kids couldn't survive intact and he emerged from it as a smart, honest, hardworking, funny and very kind man. He loved his mother when he was a kid, and when he was an adult, he learned to appreciate her strengths (and she had a great many!) and forgive her weaknesses (and we ALL have a lot of those).
   
   He sees Gypsy for what she was - a brilliant, clever, hilarioulsy funny, talented (even her stripteases were punctuated by comedy pieces that she wrote) often selfish, often generous, ambitious and relentlessly hardworking woman.
   
   She REALLY had the childhood from Hell and HER mother makes Gypsy seem like Mother Theresa! But she too emerged from the ashes as a never bitter woman who practically invented the phrase "Carpe Diem."
   
   She had quilting bees at her house with dozens of Hollywood superstars. She adored her beloved little Chinese Crested dogs. She hosted a popular tv talk show. She wrote a best-selling murder mystery. She was still doing USO tours and making our troops laugh when she was ill with cancer. And even that couldn't dim her indomitable spirit. Her acceptance of that terrible illness should be a lesson to us all.
   
   Until I met Erik, all I knew about Gypsy was the tiny bits portrayed in the play and movies, but after reading about her in Erik's books, listening to him talk about her, I have learned to love her dearly.
   
   Erik writes with a very clear, unpretentious style about a child's life with a famous (and infamous) woman and about his eventual understanding of what a truly remarkable woman his mother was. And listening to him talk about his relationship with his dad (when they finally got to know each other) moved me to tears. That should be the next book he writes!
   
   Buy the book. It'll surprise you.



3. Young Erik undoubtedly suffered some frustration from having a famous, tenacious, indomitable mother in the form of the glamourpuss Gypsy Rose Lee. But his portrait of her is a tender one--he does not idealize her, but he does not lambast her. It is a mature and loving representation of the bond between a mother and child in the theater business. It is also an interesting account of successful single motherhood far ahead of its time. Anyone who loves Burlesque, Vaudeville, Gypsy Rose Lee and Theater History with love this book. A fun, entertaining non-fiction read.



4. Preminger's half hearted attempts at humility don't exactly leave him coming off smelling like a rose (Gypsy or otherwise)and I think he may have watched one too many performance of AUNTIE MAME. While the chapters go by quickly enough, the reader can't help but find this dysfunctional family pretty tough to like or admire. Selfish and mean spirited characters disguised in campy, candy coating.



5. Erik Lee Preminger doesn't paint a rosy portrait of his mother, the enigmatic Gypsy Rose Lee, but it isn't a hatchet job either. Miss Lee was obviously a difficult, frugal woman, but also was warm, loving (to an extent), funny, brainy and to her public, glamorous. Preminger's recollections are alternately maddening and hilarious, but the reader finishes the book with the notion that the "Queen of Burlesque" was indeed an amazing piece of work. Why Gypsy Rose Lee isn't more of an icon today is beyond my imagination!

1 comments about The Actor's Scenebook: Scenes and Monologues From Contemporary Plays.

1. This scene and monologue book is a must for all actors. It has a broad range of materials that includes excellent audition pieces. I highly recomend this for begining actors to advanced actors. On top of a great selection of pieces, it also contains information for dealing with stage fright. I give this book four stars.

5 comments about Planet Hong Kong: Popular Cinema and the Art of Entertainment.

1. Since John Woo and Jackie Chan hit it big in North America, there have been a ton of books on the Hong Kong film industry. Most of them are either poorly written or poorly presented. Or, worst of all, only focus on the figures (Woo & Chan) that people here in North America would recognized.

   Bordwell's book is a significant improvement as he goes into great detail on the origins of the HK film industry (painstakingly documenting the rise of the Shaw brothers) and examines how it rose to prominence. This is a very well-written book that straddles the line between being an academic study and utilizing a more mainstream approach. It's a good mix that will keep you interested. I did find some of the economical stuff to be a bit on the dull side but it is few and far between.

   Best of all, Bordwell covers all the usual suspects (i.e. Woo, Chan, Wong Kar-Wai) and others as well. This is a great introduction into Hong Kong films, what makes them work and why they've become so popular world-wide.

   Bordwell is obviously a fan but he is also critical as well. This is not a fawning love letter by some slobbering fanboy but a sobering account of HK films. The man has obviously done his homework. Highly recommended!




2. Not just the best book about Hong Kong cinema but the best ever written about a popular commercial movie industry. It is a model of practicality, fresh observation, and original on-site research in an academic field dominated by received ideology and sociological condescension. Bordwell pays tribute to the highly specialized film craftsmen of Kowloon, world-class experts in delivering intense pleasure to a large audience. We hope that he plans to write many sequels. Are you ready for "Planet Bollywood"?



3. For the history of Hong Kong cinema, Stephen Teo's HONG KONG CINEMA : THE EXTRA DIMENSION can't be topped; but this impressive book is far and away the best yet to examine this vital art film from the aesthetic angle. Bordwell also covers some of the financial makeup of the Hong Kong film industry, and even devotes space to the often-ridiculed Wong Jing. His chapters on Hong Kong editing styles are not just informative, they're absolutely inspiring. This book should be required reading for every film student!



4. Bordwell's book manages to balance the enthusiasm of a fan with the sharp analysis of a trained film scholar. Of all the books on Hong Kong film in English that I've read, this is the one that I keep returning to--it's chock full of original criticism (his shot by shot breakdowns of classic HK flicks are superb), that is well written and accessible (even if you don't have a PhD in cultural studies). Planet Hong Kong has led me to at least a dozen wonderful films I might otherwise have overlooked.



5. A great book about HK film. A detailed and convincing analysis of the technical aspect of HK movies and of what makes them good. Bordwell is limited, however, by his not knowing the language and the culture. But this seems to be very common among film critics, who mostly just rely on subtitles. For European movies this may not be a problem, but for Hong Kong movies that often have such comically and memorably bad subtitles, it's a great disadvantage to the critic.

5 comments about Peter Spier's Circus (A Picture Yearling Book).

1. Although the illustrations are a little busy for my taste, the details guarantee that a child would find something new to "read" to you--time and time again.



2. Peter Spier is an excellent detailed artist who take familiar subjects and really brings them to life. The books are particularly good for the story but mainly fun to work with young children to locate things in the pictures.



3. Of the 100 children's circus books in our library, this is the best. We just had to have our own copy. It helps a child know what to expect and what to look for at the circus and to understand what goes on behind the scenes. After the show we remember more when we reread the book. The story is engaging and the pictures are delightfully detailed.



4. My kids love this book.

   It is beautifully illustrated, with very detailed drawings that draw children into the scenes. The story is enchanting for little ones and introduces them not only to the circus but also to how people work, different countries in the world and different people.

   Lots of animals, clowns, acrobats and a human cannonball will keep your little ones's attention glued to the book. One of the best loved children's books in our house.




5. This is my brothers absolute favorite book. The detail in the pictures is unbelivable. This is a must for every childs book shelf

5 comments about Cymbeline (Folger Shakespeare Library).

1. Cymbeline is one of Shakespeare's least performed and least read plays. You do not stumble on it, you work your way through Shakespeare's opus and finally get there. The historical context is the war between Britain and the Roman Empire, and the action is hot and heavy, requiring five acts and twenty-seven scenes. Perhaps it is this complexity of plot that retarded Shakespeare's character development. Fewer lines have entered our lexicon from this play than most. Two exceptions are "the tongue is sharper than the sword," and to have "a bellyful of fighting." It is an excellent tragedy, however, combining elements of King Lear and elements of Othello. In its mystic elements it also resembles The Tempest.
   
   The core of the plot is the bet between Posthumous, the king's son, and Iachimo, who wagers ten thousand ducats that he can seduce Posthumous' wife, Imogen. Posthumous, in turn, wagers a ring that Imogen has given him that Iachimo will not succeed. Initially, we amused by the idea, but upon further reflection, it is clear that the gambit cannot have a happy ending. Either the seduction is successful, breaking up the marriage, or it isn't, in which case Iachimo will certainly claim that he has secuced Imogen, simply to win the ring. In the process he sets himself the Iago-like task of converting love to hate.
   
   The play is also full of classic Shakespearean gadgetry, including a potion that causes a trance resembling death, mystical soothsayers, the intervention of gods, women disguised as men, and a historical tableau which would have been familiar to Shakespeare's audience. It is a quintessential Shakespearean play, comprising nearly all of the classical elements of tragedy. If the plot could have been pruned, and the characters given more of the dimensionality that we expect from Shakespeare, Cymbeline would stand on a higher pedestal.
   
   The Folger Shakespeare Library's annotated edition is excellent. It provides just the right notation on the page facing the text, and can be studied or ignored to suit the reader's purpose.



2. Cymbeline was a British king in Roman times ( Augustus Caesar's time).
   Devices used in the Play:
   1) a woman plays a man/ boy role ( several of his plays : As You Like it,
   Twelfth Night))
   2) a deception by a villain to lie the virtue of a Lady ( Much Ado about
   Nothing)
   3) Princes kidnapped and brought up as common men ( I don't know if he
   uses this in other plays)
   4) poison that causes a coma ( Romeo and Juliet)
   5) a Prince who is a vile fool ( used in his historical plays)
   6) a Queen who is a plotter and evil ( Macbeth)
   7) a Prince who kills another Prince and it redeemed by his hidden
   identity
   8) a Prince sentenced to hang by mistake
   9) a King who condemns his daughter wrongly ( King Lear)
   One wonders how much of this is historical fact and how much pure fiction.
   With all this scheming in the plot , it should be a very successful
   play.
   It is a total flop!
   What it comes out is seeming unreal and contrived.
   You get that happy ending feel that is so much in his comedies
   but it has a very false feeling to it.
   That's probably why Cymbeline isn't performed much.
   If he hadn't gone for all these at once it might have worked, but the
   result is that you see the playwright as ....
   If anyone wants to take the air out of a Shakespeare pedant,
   this is the play to do it with! He makes Shaw and Eugene O'neil l
   look good. He even make Rogers and Hammerstein and Gilbert and
   Sullivan look better, ha, ha...
   This play is not Shakespeare's finest hour!



3. "Cymbeline" is my favourite Shakespeare play. It's also probably his loopiest. It has three plots, managing to drag in a banishment, a murder, a wicked queen, a moment of almost sheer pornography, a full-on battle between the Romans and the British, a spunky heroine, her jealous but not-really-all-that-bad husband, some fantastic poetry and Jupiter himself descending out of heaven on an eagle to tell the husband to pull his finger out and get looking for his wife. Finally, just when your head is spinning with all the cross-purposes and dangling resolutions, Shakespeare pulls it all together with shameless neatness and everybody lives happily ever after. Except for the wicked queen, and her son, who had his head cut off in Act 4.

   "Cymbeline" is, then, completely nuts, but it manages also to be very moving. Quentin Tarantino once described his method as "placing genre characters in real-life situations" - Shakespeare pulls off the far more rewarding trick of placing realistic characters in genre situations. Kicking off with one of the most brazen bits of expository dialogue he ever created, not even bothering to give the two lords who have to explain the back story an ounce of personality, Shakespeare quickly recovers full control and races through his long, complex and deeply implausible narrative at a headlong pace. The play is outrageously theatrical, and yet intensely observed. Imogen's reaction on reading her husband's false accusation of her infidelity is a riveting mixture of hurt and anger; she goes through as much tragedy as a Juliet, yet is less inclined to buckle and snap under the pressure. When she wakes up next to a headless body that she believes to be her husband, her aria of grief is one of the finest WS ever wrote. No less impressive is her plucky determination to get on with her life, rather than follow her hubby into the grave.

   Posthumus, the hubby in question, is made of less attractive stuff, but when he comes to believe that Imogen is dead, as he ordered (this play is full of people getting things wrong and suffering for it), he rejects his earlier jealousy and starts to redeem himself a tad. There's a vicious misogyny near the heart of this play, as Shakespeare biographer Park Honan observed, kept in balance by a hatred of violence against women. The oafish prince Cloten, who lusts after Imogen, is a truly repellent piece of work, without even the intelligence of Iago or the horrified panic of Macbeth; his plan to kill Posthumus and rape Imogen before her husband's body is just about as squalid and vindictive as we expect of this louse, and when a long-lost son of the king (don't even _ask_) lops Cloten's head off, there are cheers all round.

   Shakespeare sends himself up all through "Cymbeline". I wonder if the almost ludicrously informative opening exposition scene isn't a bit of a gag on his part, but when a tired and angry Posthumus breaks into rhyming couplets, then catches himself and observes "You have put me into rhyme", we know that Shakespeare is having us on a little. Likewise, the final scene, when all is resolved, goes totally over the top in its piling-on "But-what-of-such-and-such?" and "My-Lord-I-forgot-to-mention" moments.

   Yet the moments of terror and pity are deep enough to make the jokiness feel truly earned. When Imogen is laid to rest and her adoptive brothers recite "Fear no more the heat o' the sun" over her body, it's as affecting as any moment in the canon. That she isn't actually dead, we don't find out until a few moments later, but it's still a great moment.

   Playful, confusing, enigmatic, funny and shot through with a frightening darkness, this is another top job by the Stratford boy. Well done.




4. A combination of "Romeo and Juliet," "Much Ado About Nothing," "As You Like It," and "King Lear?" Well somehow, Shakespeare made it work. Like "Romeo and Juliet" we have a protagonist (Imogen) who falls under her father's rages because she will not marry who he wants her to. Like "Much Ado About Nothing," we have a villain (Iachimo) who tries to convince a man (Posthumus) that the woman he loves is full of infidelity. Like "As You Like It," we have exiled people who praise life in the wilderness and a woman who disguises herself as a man to search for her family in the wilderness. Like "King Lear," we have a king who's rages and miscaculated judgement lead to disastorous consequences. What else is there? Only beautiful language, multiple plots, an evil queen who tries to undermind the king, an action filled war, suspense, a dream with visions of Pagan gods, and a beautiful scene of reconciliation at the end. While this is certainly one of Shakespeare's longer plays, it is well worth the time.



5. This is probably one of the most outdated and misleading of the Arden editions. Nosworthy really doesn't like the play and dismisses it as an experiment leading up to _The Tempest_. Even his editing of the text is affected by his reading of the play. Only scholars who know something about Shakespeare should venture here.

4 comments about A Panorama of American Film Noir (1941-1953).

1. In 1946, French critic Nino Frank gave the cynical, existential, expressionist, and often erotic crime thrillers that Hollywood had been producing since around 1940 a name. He called them "film noir", after "série noire", the French expression used to describe crime and detective novels. In 1955, Raymond Borde and Etienne Chaumeton, film scholars from Toulouse, France, gave "film noir" an identity. They published "A Panorama of American Film Noir", which became the basis of all film noir theory that followed. This 2002 edition is the first time the book has been published in its entirety in English.
   
   Noir theorist James Naremore has written a valuable new introduction to the book, in which is explains the reception that American film noir received in France in the post-war era, the Surrealist environment from which noir film theory emerged, and why "A Panorama of American Film Noir" was so influential.
   
   "A Panorama of American Film Noir", attempts to define "film noir", identify its sources and influences, and to document its rise and fall. The first three chapters focus on definitions and sources, from the obvious hard-boiled crime novels to the events of WWII. "The War Years and the Formation of a Style" follows the genesis of film noir from 1941-1945. "The Glory Days" explores the apogee of film noir, when films such as "Gilda", "The Big Sleep", "Sorry, Wrong Number", and a trio from Alfred Hitchcock exemplified a fully developed style, 1946-1948. "Decadence and Transformation" traces noir's shift toward realism and location shoots in the period 1949-1950. And "The Demise of a Series" discusses some of the last true film noirs of the classic era, 1951-1953, as Hollywood moved toward escapism. Two chapters, "Influences" and "French Film Noir" discuss the role of psychoanalysis and crime films in film noir, as well as noir's influence on the cinematic traditions of Italy, France, and England. In the book's final chapter, "A Balance Sheet", the authors summarize the characteristics of film noir, its sources, history, and repercussions. They also explain "A Panorama of Film Noir"'s purpose, limitations, and methodology with impressive foresight. The authors added a Postface in 1979.
   
   In the back of the book, you will find a chronology of major film noirs 1941-1954 and an alphabetical filmography that includes titles from the 1955 original publication plus those referred to in the 1979 postface. There is an index of films, books, periodicals, names and various related works of art.
   
   The prose of "A Panorama of American Film Noir" can be awkward at times. Translator Paul Hammond has chosen, correctly, to convey the meaning of the French as closely as possible, if it means sacrificing fluidity. "Influences" and " French Film Noir" are particularly disjointed. This treatise was written for academics, not the average movie-goer, and employed a new vocabulary at the time, so I don't suppose one can expect it to be eloquent. "A Panorama of American Film Noir" is noir theory's seminal work and an insightful and essential read for film noir enthusiasts.



2. After all the controversy over the constitution of film noir, it can only be edifying to read the perspective of classic-period French critics. Indeed, it was Gallic mentality that first recognized and recorded the phenomenon, and--if these writers are representative of their ethnic mainstrem--surmised that noir was born of an infusion of angst into the cinematic puritanism of the Anglo nations. While American scholars have often seen noir as a reaction to good times (as comedy is a reaction to bad), the authors site only the related relevance of World War II in its capacity to desensitize audiences to stark screen violence. Furthermore, they label only a handful of films as true noir and assess many other features--such as police and psychological dramas--as merely possessing qualities of noir. The book discusses a myriad of these movies in a colorful but easily comprehended style that avoids becoming parched with pedogogic discourse. A lengthy, up-to-1979 filmography, which also includes non-American films, has been added to the text--and is of particular interest in listing features not commonly called noir, such as cartoons and sci-fi thrillers. (I always knew Soylent Green was black!) Digression aside--for those with amour de noir, this book is de rigueur!



3. Succinctly translated into English by Paul Hammond, A Panorama of American Film Noir 1941-1953 is a remarkable and collaborative work by Raymond Borde and Etienne Chaumeton which was originally published in France in 1955. A Panorama Of American Film Noir offers unique insights into the dark surrealism and ambivalent atmosphere of Hollywood's film noir glory days. A brilliant critique of classic movies and the American culture that created them; as well as a film noir chronology and filmography enhance this masterful work which is strongly recommended for personal, professional, and academic Cinematic Studies reference collections and supplemental reading lists.



4. Though often neglected today, Borde and Chaumeton's seminal piece "A Panorama of American Film Noir" was the book that first identified film noir as a genre. This piece, which is nearly 50 years old, is a wonderful way to explore the genre of film noir from the perspective of an audience member who was experiencing the films when they were released - not in retrospect.

   This edition offers a great introudction by Noir expert and author, James Naremore as well as a chronology, filmography, and film stills. "A Panorama of American Film Noir" is a classic piece of film history.

No comments about Invitation to Public Speaking.

2 comments about Spectacle.

1. An enlighting experiences into the most miraculous community or urban places bringing places and ideas together. And it is particularly overwhelming to review this issue from the lens of an architect. A must Buy!!!



2. I didn't know what to expect when I opened up this book - but it's fair to say the whole world exploded (in a good way) before my eyes as I literally flew through the pages. Spectacle takes a look at the reasons why people gather together - sometimes in the most unwelcoming circumstances - to celebrate, to mourn, to affect change, to create.
   
   There's a beauty here that goes way beyond the amazing photographs - it's the study of the whys and hows behind the events and how the connective energies are the same regardless of ones attending a NASCAR race or the running of the bulls.
   
   I was tremendously moved by SPECTACLE.

3 comments about Dialects for the Stage.

1. Learning a dialect for the stage is a difficult thing to do, but this book and CD make it easier. There are detailed descriptions for the advanced speaker and wonderful exercises for the beginning to intermediate actor. A must for directors to keep in their libraries.



2. If you are familiar with the International Phonetic Alphabet, this is not the book for you. The "phonetic" spellings used in the book are just confusing, and seemingly pointless, as there is an extensive explanation of IPA in the back of the book, albeit with unintelligibly written symbols.

   The book is also difficult to find in combination with the two cassette tapes that go with it, and without them, the book is rather useless. The cassette tapes are where the real information lies, and the book is merely a companion with explanations of how to use the tapes and transcripts of the conversations and monologues as heard on the tapes.

   I say, save your money. Rent a video with your preferred dialect instead.




3. I found, "Dialects for the Stage" not only helpful in equiping aspiring actors and actresses with the necessary information towards a believably authenic dialect, but also the book is wonderful for the student who is interested in dialect coaching. The hardback feature makes it a excellent resource for years to come.

1 comments about King John (Folger Shakespeare Library).

1. This is the most isolated of all of Shakespeare's history plays. To be sure, "King Henry VIII" does not directly follow "Richard III." However, there is only a 35 year time span between the 2 plays, and King Henry VIII and Buckingham are both sons of characters in "Richard III." "King John" ends 182 years before its closest neighbor "King Richard II." (King John is in fact King Richard II's great, great, great, great, grandfather.) Well, onto the play. The play begins with John protecting his title in front of outside forces. While certain parties feel John's nephew Arthur is the true king, the truth of the matter is that the terms of succession had not been fully established. Richard I felt the young and impressionable Arthur would be too much of a puppet of the French King, and so Richard I named John as his heir. We then meet Phillip. In a dramatic scene, he forces a confession out of his mother. (That she had an affair with Richard I, and that Richard I is thus his father.) Onto Act 2. King John and the French King argue over who is the rightful king. Here, John comes off rather well in his defiance of those who challenge his claim to the crown. Constance (Arthur's mother) is flat out detestable in several ways. For one thing, she seems under the impression that the French King is supporting Arthur out of the kindness of his heart, when in fact any half way intelligent observer can see that the French King wants an English king who he can manipulate. Isaac Asimov says: "Phillip, (the French King, not Richard's son) after all, had upheld Arthur's cause in the first place only as far as it would serve his self interest." Well, John and the French King come to an agreement in that John's niece marries the French king's son and peace is made. As much as Richard's illegitimate son supports John, he reveals a fault. (He would rather solve problems by fighting than diplomacy. Sometimes fighting is required, but diplomacy is obviously the preferable choice if possible.) Onto Act 3. Constance maintains her unlikable and detestable behavior. She is actually upset that peace has been made. And she is far too obtuse to understand that the French King is only after what will serve him. (Unintelligence carried to the extreme is nothing short of annoying.) Well, due to complications with the church, war breaks out again. (King John did not recognize the Arch Bishop of Canterbury appointed by Rome.) John is often praised for defying the church's authority here, but it probably was not the safest move. The French King (after some hesitation) betrays John. At first, things go well for John. His mother is captured, but rescued. Arthur himself is captured, and all looks well. (In actuality, Arthur lead a siege, and John himself rescued his mother and captured Arthur.) Now things start to go bad. John's enemies calculate that John will kill Arthur and alienate his own people, and that will turn the tide in France's favor. Onto Act 4. Hubert has the orders of blinding Arthur, but Arthur pleads to the point where Hubert can not bring himself to do the deed. Soon afterwards, Arthur dies trying to escape, and this is when things start to go bad for John. (No one will believe Arthur's death was accidental. Even though it was in the play at least.) Though, we can see that John is not exactly a Richard III. Unlike Richard III, he does not delight in this. John clearly regrets it and suffers for it. More bad news comes as John's mother Eleanor dies. Though Richard's illegitimate son remains touchingly loyal to John as trouble mounts. (We may wish to note that Arthur died 12 years before the French invasion. In reality, Arthur had nothing to do with the French invasion.) What really happened was some disloyal barons made a treaty with the French King. And in all honesty, King John fought the outside invasion as well as the treason on his own front with tremendous energy and courage. History is actually starting to acknowledge that John really was not such a bad king. Onto Act 5. John swears allegiance to the church and makes England papal territory. He is often criticized for this, but Winston Churchill refers to it as 'political genius.' This actually kept things quiet for some time, and it was followed by the Magna Carta. But treason was still brewing. The French invasion starts well, but John and Richard's son hold their ground. Eventually, the English traitors get word that Lewis is planning to kill all the English traitors. (This is not exactly what happened, but it's not impossible to digest. Political gratitude is often shortlived.) John is poisoned, and we are permitted some sympathy for him. His 9 year old son Henry III is crowned, and Richard's illegitimate son prepares to defeat the French. If it's any comfort to King John, his son succeeded him, and all of England's monarchs (to this day even) are his descendants. It's an alright play, but I honestly can not place it on the same level as any of the history plays that follow.