Much Ado: Drama, Color, Harmony But . . .
580857
Finnish composer and pianist Magnus Lindberg, who studied with Rautavaara at the Sibelius Academy in Helsinki, writes in the thick, highly structured European tradition with romantic leanings, but drama is favored over lyricism and rhythm. Orchestral color and harmony are evident in these three offerings of some 20 minutes each. The album begins with his Al Largo, which is Italian slang for "out-of-sight," as the shore, but meant to be a joke, for instead of being slow, largo, the work proceeds at a moderately fast clip. With a double woodwind section, harp, and piano, the orchestral work begins with a fanfare and bass timbres. Without any grand theme, it is infused with harmonic overlays of textures. In the middle, the piano and woodwinds have a conversation. Horns and chimes and bass drum then raise the tension, but the work closes with reducing instrumentation and fades as a slow exhale. Of three seamless movements, the Second Cello Concerto, Anssi Karttunen soloist, is abstract romanticism, with a palette knife of phrases. The first section features a long cadenza-like solo at the end that leads to the cello in an emotional, technically diverse soliloquy in the second movement. Trumpet calls and cello echoes mark the final section; tension builds and concludes with dark yet harmonically beautiful tones. Era, refers to the early 20th century just before World War I when classical music burst forth in experimentation, as painters in their own graphic media. Lindberg had Sibelius, Strauss, and Scrabin in mind.  A bass and brass prelude of noir tones set the stage. Woodwind accents and swirls of strings enter, providing optimism, but the clash of moods continue until chimes and kettle drums take the work to sprightly ascending phrasing, harp arpeggios, and then a pause and a deep gong to begin the final phase. Bass drum, cymbals, pulsed chords, and brass calls conclude with an orchestral chord. These full-throated compositions seem more about process and structure rather than goal, and this listener leaves with a shrug of unfulfilled emotion. The Finnish Radio Symphony Orchestra lead by Hannu Lintu did a fine job in providing sonic color and energy. The recording is for both SACD and CD players.
1953774
Hamlet is one of Shakespheare's more complex plays, which doesn't exactly make it more enjoyable, although I recommend reading it for its famous "to be or not to be" speech. After reading a few of the bard's plays, his patterns, conceits, and crutches begin to emerge. Often he has characters comtemplating suicide or mortality like Hamlet does in the play; he usually has a dead body pile-up at the end of the play; he often favors poison as as a means to kill his characters off; there is usually a bit of court intrigue or underhanded dealing which leads to disaster, and he likes to have characters go mad.
Hamlet feigns madness in this play and after reading it four times, I still don't know why he does this. As far as I can tell, he doesn't really say. If this is a strategic move, it is a bad one, because it only makes his uncle King Claudius, who has killed Hamlet's father and married his mother, more suspicious that Hamlet knows of his committing this "murder most foul" and is upset by it. There are a lot of madness scenes in the play in which different characters try to figure out why Hamlet is upset--Is it because of his girlfriend Ophelia's feigned rejection of him? Or is it the death of his father and quick marraige of his mother to his uncle? Or does he know something about the murder of his father? I thought there were too many scenes like this which made the play overly long. Since there was no explanation for Hamlet's madness, the whole conceit of having him feign madness left me confused.
I also thought that the characters weren't very appealing in this play. Most of the time the play is focused on Hamlet and his indecisiveness about killing off King Claudius because of his lack of courage, even though he was a war hero. Much of Hamlet's brooding over the matter isn't particularly interesting and tends to slow the play down to a standstill. I suppose he was afraid of being accused of treason since Hamlet only knows about the murder of his father by way of his father's ghost--he has no evidence. Finally near the end, Claudius plots against Hamlet's life, which backfires and Hamlet gets his revenge even as he is dying.
Probably the most difficult part of the play is the middle in which Hamlet puts on a play that is very much like the reality of King Claudius killing off Hamlet's father. This is done to see whether Claudius looks or acts guilty during the play. It seems Hamlet does not totally trust his father's ghost's revelation that his father has been killed and he needs further confimation. This middle part refers the Aenied in which Pyrrhus hesitates to kill Priam, just like Hamlet hesitates to kill Claudius-get it? I had to read this passage several times to learn its significance. This middle part also contains a lot of in-jokes about the theatre business at the time which seemed self-indulgent to me.
There is also another confusing part of the play in which references to battles and a coming war are made at the beginning and a warring noble named Fortinbras shows up near the end to ascend the throne as king after Hamlet dies. I don't think these scenes were necessary.
Shakespheare writes often in a high poetic style that I'm  generally biased against--to me it comes off as stilted when compared to having characters speak in a more normal conversational manner. --Hey, but thank Providence for modern language translation of Shakespheare; I don't think I could have made it on my own without it. It's the best thing since guitar tab, bicycle training wheels, and pocket calculators! I suppose there will be those who say that you've got to read everything in the original language to really understand the text, but until I thoroughly bone up on Greek, Latin, Arabic, Old and Middle English, Russian and French, modern English is good enough for me.
Here ends my rather cheeky review of the Bard's Hamlet. I hope I'm not haunted by his ghost just for explaining why I didn't like the play that much.
4889398
"Hamlet" doesn't need any introduction -- the tortured Dane, the ghost, meditations on suicide and a climax full of death. But as well-known as the storyline is, the play itself is what deserves the attention, both for Shakespeare's shadowy plot filled with uncertainty and treachery -- and for his brilliant, immortal writing, which takes on a new dimension when read on the page.

Prince Hamlet of Denmark is understandably upset when, only a short time after his father's death, his mother Gertrude marries his uncle Claudius, who is now the new king. Who wouldn't be unhappy? But when Hamlet encounters the tormented ghost of his father ("I am thy father's spirit/Doom'd for a certain term to walk the night"), he learns that his dad was murdered by his uncle -- but he's plagued by indecision, since he's unsure if the spirit was truly his dad.

In response to this vision, Hamlet's behavior becomes more bizarre and erratic -- he dumps his girlfriend Ophelia, arranges a play that mimics real life a little too closely, and generally acts like a loon. But when an argument with his mother ends in tragedy -- and the death of one of Ophelia's loved ones -- Hamlet's fate is sealed as Claudius begins plotting to get rid of him too.

Small warning: like all Shakespeare's plays, it's best to read "Hamlet" after you've seen a good performance, because the entire thing was intended to be acted out. Otherwise, it's like reading a movie script to a movie you haven't seen -- easy to get lost, and the dramatic effects aren't easy to connect to.

But if you HAVE seen a good performance of "Hamlet," then the play will just jump off the page. The plot is a relatively simple one, but it's tangled up in all sorts of moral dilemmas, personal doubts, deteriorating personal relationships, and a creeping undercurrent of darkness. The best part is that Shakespeare leaves you with all sorts of questions that are left up in the air -- is Hamlet crazy or just faking it? Is the ghost really his dad?

And, of course, it contains some of the most intense, powerful examples of Shakespeare's work here -- vivid, nasty imagery ("In the rank sweat of an enseamed bed/Stew'd in corruption, honeying and making love/Over the nasty sty"), some bleak humor ("you're a fishmonger"), and Hamlet's immortal soliloquies. It's also one of Shakespeare's most quotable plays -- obviously you've got bits like "Alas, poor Yorick," "to be or not to be" and "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark," but there are countless other familiar phrases littered through the text.

On the page, Hamlet is basically an embittered young man who is torn between his doubts and convictions, but is still determined to fix things ("O cursed spite,/That ever I was born to set it right!"). A lot of the supporting cast are hard to follow, but there are some brilliant and enduring roles here -- the incestuous queen Gertrude, the subtle menace of Claudius, the windbag Laertes, and Ophelia, whose uncertainties spiral into madness after her ex-boyfriend kills her dad.

It's best to get a grip on this classic tragedy by watching an actual performance, but reading "Hamlet's" text is a vivid experience on its own. Brilliant, complex and intense.
4949579
In this latest Audible Original Drama, Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet is contemporized with a fresh LGBT twist on the classic play as it explores gender and sexuality.
The setting is suburban England. Miranda is the new and rather strong-minded director in charge of producing Romeo and Juliet for the local amateur dramatics society. In Shakespeares times, it was common for men to play female roles. But when Jude, a recent university drop-out in his twenties who is unapologetically sure of his sexual preference, is cast in the role of Juliet, suburbia feels uncomfortable. Judes father is a terrible bully and homophobic. Ray, who is cast as Romeo, is a middle-aged recent divorc&eacute; and a failing business owner. To keep his cardboard company from folding, he is dependent on funding from Judes father. So when life imitates art, and Ray and Jude fall in love, the proverbial . hits the fan. Violence and tragedy ensue forcing Ray and Jude to go on the run across England.
As the story develops, so do the characters. Jude and Ray discover more things about themselves and who they really are or want to be. Apart from Ray and Jude, I particularly loved Miranda, the play director, who added a lot of hilarity to the play and also has her own tragic story play out.
Beautifully written, this was a very moving, in parts suspenseful, in parts funny, story about prejudice, about attitudes towards same-sex relationships and relationships with an age difference. It contains sex, violence, and strong language.

The voice actors were outstanding, and that applies to the entire cast. Whoever cast these voice artists into their respective roles for this production did a fantastic job. Every character sounded just right and gave the play a fantastic authentic feeling. The production was brilliant, the music was fitting, and the sound effects enhanced the experience.

If you like radio plays you will love this production and you don't need to be a Shakespeare connoisseur to enjoy this adaptation. It was quite different from what I would normally listen to, but I really enjoyed it and finished it in one sitting.

Audiobook provided for review by the audiobookreviewer dot com
120606
This is a nice cultural study of a cross section of upper middle class porteo society and of the symptoms of depression--and in the case of Leticia Brdice's character--personality disorder. It's a bit uneven as a drama, but does offer some good grist for the psychotherapy technique mill as we see the psychologist working with the main male character perform a number of provocative therapeutic techniques. (I happen to think it's too heavy on the confrontation and poorly performed when using paradox, but that's my opinion).

The drama is a bit uneven, though, and so unless you're really into the cultural, linguistic and psychotherapeutic aspects of the movie, which are rich, you might be let down.
3117475
This piece is complex and exciting. It is music, theatre, and opera all going on individually at the same time. Martin Crimp has translated a simple medieval morality tale into a framework that is created and manipulated by a group of, more or less, renegade angels on the search for something lost. George Benjamin has created a score of many colors that uses the vocalists as instruments as well as vehicles for storytelling. This piece has quickly become very popular in the world of opera, and I believe it is due primarily to the layering created by the combination of story, staging and scoring. Repeated viewings will reveal new insight into the work as a whole and continue to surprise and inspire the viewer.
68373
This is a wonderful play with well-developed characters and noble values expressed. The historical backdrop for the play is the Spanish occupation of the Netherlands in the 1500's. The residents of the Low Countries lost a lot of traditional freedoms. Emperor Charles V placed a heavy yoke on the occupied territories. The Inquisition was a burdensome entity that placed confining restrictions on religious freedom. There were resultant reactionary political measures as well.

Margaret was the regent of the area appointed by the Spanish throne. The leadership of the empire was not satisfied with her efforts to control the populace. She was ousted from practical power and replaced by the ruthless military man Alva. Count Egmont was one of the stalwarts of the region. He was from the local nobility and was a reasonable ruler. He was a liberal man who won the respect of his peers and subjects through compassion and mercy.

Clara was the romantic interest of Egmont. She was completely devoted to him. She could not stand the thought of losing him and indeed committed suicide in order to be waiting for him on the other side. Ferdinand was Alva's son. He was on friendly terms with Egmont and had great respect for him. He was distraught about his fathers plans to execute Egmont to make a public example to any subjects who may be inclined to rebel.

Egmont comes across as a man who loves liberty and freedom. He was a noble man who was respected by warriors and the common folk alike. He was a martyr for the cause of the nascent nationalism of the Netherlands. Egmont had no regrets and carried himself like a man. His death inspired his people to fight for the cause of religious conscience, political autonomy, and independence.

Goethe was a man of incomparable talent and brilliance. He wrote some beautiful poetry in "Faust." He proved his versatility in "Egmont." The dialogue among characters explored the meaning and importance of religious and political freedom. He brought some clarity of definition to what it means to be noble. The language is stirring and inspirational. The writing, especially the role of Clara, may be considered a little melodramatic by some. However, I found this to be a very inspirational piece of writing. It is a masterpiece from a literary and aesthetic standpoint.
2029678
A play with a wealth of opportunities for actors to deep-dive emotionally.  So much personal history and herstory is carried onstage.  I can only imagine that if properly cast and staged this experience would draw its audience into its characters' backstories.
4451078
A man and a woman meet. They outwardly seem to despise each other (or at least find each other annoying), but we know that deep down they're in love and just need a jolt to realize it.

That's one of the more popular romance tropes -- everybody from Jane Austen to anime has used it. But the original feisty Will They Or Won't They couple was Beatrice and Benedick in William Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing" -- and while the plot supposedly revolves around an evil plot to discredit Beatrice's cousin, it's more fun to watch the two B's slinging insults and falling in love.

Spanish prince Don Pedro has defeated his evil illegitimate brother Don John, and is coming to the estate of Leonato for a visit -- along with his entourage, his disgraced brother, and his officers Benedick and Claudio. Claudio soon falls in love with Leonato's daughter Hero, but Hero's cousin Beatrice has the opposite reaction -- "there is a kind of merry war betwixt Signior Benedick and her."

Soon Hero and Claudio are happily engaged, and Don Pedro decides to matchmake Beatrice and Benedick -- and after a tidy bit of manipulation, the acid-tongued pair fall madly in love. But Don John spins up a malicious deception that tears apart the love between Claudio and Hero, creates a rift between Leonato and Don Pedro, and leaves it doubtful that anyone will live happily ever after...

"Much Ado About Nothing" is one of Shakespeare's finest comedies, mainly because it often hangs off his clever wordplay and zinger-filled dialogue ("I see, lady, the gentleman is not in your books." "No; and he were, I would burn my study"). There's even some hilarious scenes where Benedick bemoans the difficulty of writing rhyming poetry.

Technically the plot revolves around the impending wedding of Hero and Claudio, as well as Don John's attempts to derail the whole affair -- resulting on some painfully raw scenes (such as Beatrice freaking out after Hero's public disgrace), as well as some goofy ones... like any scene involving the absurd Dogberry. But Beatrice and Benedick are undeniably the centerpiece of the story, as well as the most likable characters.

Because they're so witty and prickly, Beatrice and Benedick are loads of fun -- they start off violently against getting married and content to just lob insults at each other. And even after they fall in love, Shakespeare keeps their wit intact ("Thou and I are too wise to woo peaceably"). Don Pedro is a good supporting character, a wise and kind prince who enjoys meddling in other people's romantic affairs.

The downsides: we never really get a REASON for Don John to be such a jerk. And Claudio comes across as a puffed up adolescent with a crush, especially since he deliberately humiliates Hero in public to salvage his ego... and for some reason, she doesn't hate him for the maliciousness.

"Much Ado About Nothing" is one of Shakespeare's best comedies -- a tennis match of zingers and witticisms, wrapped around a solid plot about deception and lies.
4949259
This production is a mixed bag. On balance, the performances are good to very good. Anja Harteros as Alcina is fantastic - "Ah, mio cor" gets deservedly enthusiastic applause from the audience, and she's equally effective in the other big set-pieces (E.g. "mi restano le lagrime"). Veronica Cangemi is a wonderful Morgana, with the type of clear, agile voice that is perfect for this character and this music. And that choirboy singing Oberto KILLS. Wherever they found him, I hope there are more such young singers forthcoming.

And then there's Vesselina Kasarova, whose voice is definitely an acquired taste. I have not acquired it yet. She was a great Sesto in a Salzburg production of La Clemenza di Tito and I don't remember being puzzled by her voice in that instance. But having listened to this Alcina I can see why some people love her voice, others viscerally dislike it, and still others (me included) just find it . . . intriguingly weird.

And w/r/t intriguingly weird: this is probably the best description of her acting as Ruggiero. I don't know whether this is weird directing or weird acting, but it comes off as mannered and a little kooky.

But in general, this production sounds good. And it looks good. The opener indicates that the drama is an evening of fun staged by some eighteenth-century aristocrats, and the scene is part drawing-room, part bright blue sky and sea grass. It's pretty. The lighting is nice, costumes are both attractive and make sense - nothing wrong here.

The big thing about this production, though, is that one ends up not caring all that much. Nothing appears to be at stake. The play-within-a-play conceit takes the edge off the drama, and this is not an opera that has a lot of edge to begin with. (Also: the fact that without reading the liner notes you wouldn't know that the aristocrat staging this play-within-a-play was the Duchess of Devonshire indicates that this detail is a little bit pointless.) There is no sense of urgency - the play-within-a-play concept suspends our disbelief for us, and the result is that it's not very compelling. We know that they know that Alcina's magic isn't real. Had the concept been a play within a play that got out of hand and the characters became caught up in relationships that turned all too real - a 'real' enchantment -- then it might work. But 1) then the Duchess of Devonshire racket would probably have to go: it'd have to be less specific 18th century nobles to whom this happened and 2) this would be fairly difficult to get across without some very clever staging and even cleverer acting.

So. I am glad to be able to watch a DVD of this that is easy on the ears and reasonably entertaining, but I'm still waiting for one that's really gripping.
60304
Tracy Chevalier sets her take on the story of Shakespeares Othello in the playground of an elementary school in Washington DC in 1974.  I think the book would have been a little more convincing if it had been set in a high school:  instead, all the main characters of the play are here in the sixth grade (aged 11 to 12). The action is condensed into a single day  also, I think, detracting somewhat from credibilty.  The novel sticks much more closely to the plot of Shakespeares play and so has less ingenuity and inventiveness than do the other books in the Hogarth Shakespeare series (see my Amazon reviews of Margaret Atwoods Hag-Seed and of Howard Jacobsons Shylock is My Name).  The racist element in the story is very much more prominent than it is in the play, and that, too, seems to make the new take more facile.

The new boy of the title is Osei (Othello), son of a Ghanaian diplomat, and the only black student at that school.  He and Dee (Desdemona) immediately take to each other, while all the other children think this is very odd, acutely conscious as they are of Oseis blackness; but they begin to respect him somewhat when he distinguished himself in a ball game.  Ian (Iago), the manipulative school bully whom no one likes and everyone fears, is instantly jealous of Osei, as he was of Casper (Cassio), the most popular boy in his year, who was friends with Blanca (Bianca).  Ian has a somewhat precocious sexual interest in Mimi (Emilia), Dees best friend.  Mimi feels somewhat uneasy about her friendship with Ian.  Mr Brabant (Brabantino) is the class-teacher (not Dees father, as he is in the play  the only major liberty the author takes in her story; but, like Brabantino, Mr Brabant has racist feelings, and he thoroughly disapproves when he finds Osei and Dee (known to be his teachers pet) fondly touching each other.

Ian is thinking of a way in which he can turn Osei against Dee.  And so, with slight variations, Chevalier follows the plots of Iago to the end, with a strawberry-decorated pencil-case playing the role of the strawberry-decorated handkerchief in the original.
4182555
Of the Shakespeare books I have read, Much Ado About Nothing is one of my favorites for several reasons. First of all, the notes on the bottom of each page were useful because I didn't have to take time to search for archaic words in a dictionary. When trying to read a long play, stopping to look up words every 5 minutes or so can be quite annoying. Secondly, this book had an intriguing plot. Although I do not clearly understand the motives of the cruel Don John, his plan to destroy the happiness of Claudio and Hero is quite clever. Furthermore, I found Beatrice and Benedick's relationship somewhat bizarre, it quickly transforms from hate to love with no logical reason. My favorite scenes of the play featured the characters Dogberry and Verges. I thought their constant confusion was quite amusing. Overall, I'd say reading this play is very worthwhile.
1431798
This play was a high school reading assignment lo' those many years ago, and as with some other similar assignments, I've undertaken an initiative to re-read them, and consider how the book (as well as I) might have aged in the intervening decades. If fussy memory serves me correctly, I appreciated this play the first time around, and hopefully incorporated some of its messages into my thinking.

Henrik Ibsen was the leading Norwegian playwright of the 19th century. This play was first produced in 1879. It is still one of the most popular, and performed plays in the world today. Certainly tame by today's "shock" standards, purportedly it did shock many in the audience when it was first produced, due to its scathing portrait of the staid bourgeois views of the role of women in society and marriage. In brief, not just subordinate, but rather a mere appendage to their father's, at first, beliefs and actions, which would later prepare them for the same role serving their husband. Scandinavia was, and often remains, in the forefront in terms of progressive social ideas and legislation. As one of my Swedish friends would quip: "Sweden is a moral superpower."

The two principal characters are Torvald Helmer and his wife, Nora. There are several supporting characters, including Dr. Rank, a family doctor who is ill, Mrs. Linde an old school friend of Nora's, and Nils Krogstad, a bank employee, who is also much else. Money, and the lack thereof, is the catalyst for much of the action. Just when Torvald's promotion to bank manager seems to resolve the money issue, the "sins of the past" revisit the Helmer's with a vengence.

Ibsen's portrait of Torvald is one of a man who is insufferably pompous, with very fixed ideas on propriety, and his wife's role as a helpless, not to bright, child. This is no marriage of "soul mates," as the expression has it, for marriages of more recent vintage. Torvald views Nora as a "doll," hence the title. He is also utterly selfish, viewing events only from his perspective, and not how they might have impacted his wife. The audience plays the part of the ancient Greek chorus, realizing how much Nora has actually done for Torvald, without his knowledge.  I still remember this portrait from my high school read, and the vow not to turn out the same way.

A few decades after this play was first produced, Virginia Woolf wrote her famous&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/A-Room-of-One-s-Own/dp/1614272778/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">A Room of One's Own</a>&nbsp;which had very similar themes. Ibsen though was the first, and the play's denouement, with Nora proclaiming to Torvald that she "needs a life of her own" and must determine who she really is, continues to resonate, almost a century and a half later. The play remains a 5-star read.
4064579
Wonderful period settings, excellent costumes, good acting, even some funny repartees, and all dependent upon a script whose plot does not deliver enough. The issue of women finally playing their own gender in Elizabethan theater and therefore men deprived of being in drag bores me, frankly. Interesting as a parenthesis in a broader topic but, unless one is gay, no more.  2 stars
3365358
Strindberg's "Miss Julie" is definitely on the list of classic plays that any theater lover should read.
Written at the end of the XIX century it's both revolutionary in staging techniques and representative of the class struggles of the period. But it's probably not THE play you want to read if you're new to reading drama. Terribly misogynistic and not particularly current in the emotional themes "Miss Julie" feels like more of a play designed for the study of the history of drama, then for downtime enjoyment.
3728155
Visually stunning (oh, and when Fassbender emerges from the lake, he puts Darcy to shame).

Lady Macbeth was amazing; her facial expressions conveyed more poignantly what lines and lines of dialogue would render far more clumsily.  I liked too how the director made the motivation for her overweening guilt far more complex than the play seems to suggest.  However, I didn't like the 4 witches and a baby thing -- the "weird sisters" are supposed to convey the mystery of the fates, and the fates cannot be more than three (past, present, future, and another future???). I understand that plays and movies are different animals, and I can appreciate a director's artistic choices when adapting a play, and I liked many of this director's interpretations.  But I was a bit appalled at the final battle between Macbeth and Macduff which so alters Macbeth's character/motivation that I recoiled.
1290270
Whatever one might say about whether they liked the story, in this novel we have at least two of the best drawn characters ever created in a novel:  Gina del Dongo (who is also known at various times in the novel as Countess Pietranera, Dutchess Sanseverina, and Countess Mosca) and also Count Mosca himself.

I know that most people assume this is Fabrizio Del Dongo's story, and express disappointment at how uninteresting a character he is.  But Fabrizio's story must be understood in the historical context in which the story is set.  I think that if you look at this story in that context, and if you also see that the novel is at least as much Gina's story as Fabrizio's, you'll see the novel's great strengths.

In style the novel has that peculiarly Stendhalian Italian Baroque feel, something like melodrama or opera, where the characters obey rigid social manners while the action advances from unforeseen episode to unforeseen episode.  And everything is always threatening to break out into passion, tragedy or bloodshed.  But the tragedy here for Stendhal is that, in these days of the dying Italian aristocracy, when the bourgeois is all but in the saddle, life no longer affords a great man the scope to exercise his virtues, his courage or his passions.  Wanting a military career, Fabrizio is forced to choose instead either a sterile diplomatic career or an ecclesiastic one.  He chooses the latter, becoming despite himself a sort of matinee idol as an archbishop.  Wanting to be a great lover, he ends up instead as a monk.

In depicting the 19th Century Italian court in which most of the story is set, we see that Stendhal is a master analyst of social manners and court intrigue.  That is the backdrop.  In the foreground are the characters, in particular Gina and Count Mosca - absolutely life-like and human. And somehow outside it all, looking on, is the personality of the author, with his love for a vanishing world of great passions and his dislike of the new age.  And his great sensitivity for love and romance, the arts, social manners, courage and nobility.

We are told that Stendhal dictated this book to a scribe from first to last over the course of 52 days, taking time off every evening for "une petite orgie".  Just as an old Roman would have done.

So Lieutenant Robert really was Fabrizio's father?