ThiefHott Too much of everything

Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

blanche-2 The Luther Luckett Correctional Facility is the setting for "Shakespeare Behind Bars," which is a look at prisoners performing Shakespeare in one of 66 programs this particular prison runs. SBB was founded by actor-director-producer-writer Curt Tofeland, and at the time of the filming of this documentary, the program was in its 16th year.The documentary not only takes us through the rehearsals and performance, but more importantly gives us a look at the convicts portraying the various roles. Despite the fact that they're in for things like murder, manslaughter, and child molestation, they come off as likable, troubled people using the performance experience to learn more about themselves and others. There's Sammi, the computer wizard who runs a computer program at the prison; up for parole in six months, he already has a job waiting for him; Hal, a gay man from a conservative religious family who married and ended up killing his wife; Red, who plays the female role of Miranda, a part that dovetails his own life experiences perfectly, Big G, who plays Caliban, and three men who are cast as Antonio at three different times due to problems.The production at the time of the documentary is "The Tempest," which is set on an island, very much like the prison itself.The program gives the men who embrace it some understanding of what they did to their victims and who they are themselves, self-esteem, with the knowledge that they can perform Shakespeare and learn the difficult lines, and a sense of accomplishment, as some of these men have never completed anything in their lives, and provides some catharsis for their emotions. One hopes that if they ever get out, they can bring some of the compassion and discipline with them. Will they? Hard to say.To hear each of these men describe his crime is a very emotional experience, for them and for the viewer. We're not seeing one-dimensional monsters here, but human beings who have hurt or destroyed their lives and the lives of others by making some really stupid choices, sometimes on the spur of the moment.Viewers should find this both interesting and fascinating. Even more interesting and fascinating is an update on the prisoners, found here: http://www.shakespearebehindbars.org/documentary/castupdates.htm.

Cosmoeticadotcom The thing that sticks most in the viewers' minds is that many of these prisoners are actually deeply introspecting themselves. They are not the mallgoing capitalistic zombies that populate the real world. Of course, they really need to introspect more than the unincarcerated. Yet, this introspection does not inhabit the film, itself. By that I mean that the film never really explores the effectiveness of the program, merely having an addendum that claims the program has been effective. While I understand Rogerson's aims for his film, the fact that the film displays skepticism re: the individual prisoners, yet seems to show no such skepticism toward the whole program, is one of the reasons that the claims of dimwitted liberalism have been hurled against the film.Another thing that prevents this film from engaging more deeply than its probably should is that it is a no frills documentary. The cinematography is rather pedestrian- the only shot that sticks in the mind is the film's ending, where, after the play, the cons are bodysearched, and they fade, one by one, from the film and hallway, as a prison guard locks the place up. The chronological structure and interviews with the individual prisoners, after brief introductions, are also rather predictable, as is the film's ending with a recap of what state of grace (or not) the prisoners featured are currently in (at least as of the DVD's 2006 release). On the plus side is some hauntingly appropriate music by James Wesley Stemple. Rarely has a documentary used music as effectively as a fictive film. Perhaps only Ken Burns' The Civil War surpasses the music in this film. And, it should be noted that music is present in perhaps only 10-15% of the film, so that when it is deployed, it is in moments of supreme synaesthesia.The DVD is shown in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio, and contains extra features, such as deleted scenes, more play footage, updates on the prisoners, and three audio commentaries- two with the program director, Curt Tofteland and prisoners, and one with Rogerson and Spitzmiller. The first commentary has Jerry 'Big G' Guenthner, Floyd Vaughn (a prisoner whose appearance in the film is rather brief), and Tofteland, and it is a mediocre commentary. Too much of it involves the prisoners merely marveling at doing a commentary, or pointing out old pals they've left behind, or have been left behind by. The commentary was done in 2006. Occasionally, Tofteland gets in a good observation, but dead air and too much minutia make this commentary not a prize winner. The second commentary features Hal Cobb and Leonard Ford, as well as Tofteland. It's a might better, and one gets more inside into why Ford was sent to the hole, how it was based upon false information, which led to his transfer from Luckett, but also on how the lie precipitated Ford's acceptance and admission of his pedophilia. However, while the scene of Ford's admission is praised, in fact, the viewer has no real idea whether or not the 'conversion' is genuine, despite the pleadings of Cobb and Tofteland. Yet, his case, oddly, makes a compelling argument for a third way between outright punition and rehabilitative laxity. By far, the best commentary is that of the husband and wife film duo. Yes, they drone on a bit too much of the 'truth' of this or that moment, even when it is obvious that the con is in full con mode, but they do give informative insights into scenes and the making of the whole film.I am hardly of the bleeding heart liberal persuasion, but the film does make a strong case for needed reform in out penal system, as well as better models to follow than the current parole system (the scenes of Sammie Byron's denial of parole are very affecting, and, given the glimpses we see of him in performance, it's hard to believe that he could be acting as he does to convince the viewers that he is a man of passions, when he's, at best, a barely mediocre stage actor), for it shows how the differences between prisoners and layfolk are not always those of kind, but more often those of degree. That this is also a major theme of The Tempest is, well….you know. Shakespeare Behind Bars breaks no new boundaries in its art form, and is not a particularly profound work of art, but it is a quality piece of film that has its moments. Prospero knows.

Patrick_Waggett Shakespeare Behind Bars was a strangely uplifting documentary despite its content. Convicts at Luther Luckett Correctional Complex in LaGrange, Kentucky who have raped, murdered etc… and surrounded by bad people in an obviously depressing environment find something they genuinely enjoy and can become important, popular and celebrated in acting. There are paralleled themes to 'Shawshank Redemption' with their institutionalised natures and search for forgives and redemption for their past lives. As we follow a generous, non judgemental Director, who gives up his time each year to Direct certain inmates in a chosen play by William Shakespeare (this time around, the 'Tempest', that was cleverly portrayed with the inmates who could relate to it so much with its penetrating focus on forgiveness and redemption in which they confide and relate to) we are introduced to each actor in formal interviews that are nicely paced with break up footage of them rehearsing. Each actor has their own story and tell of their regrets and reasons why they are there in emotional fashion with melancholic music over each in a traditional documentary sense. The strongest and most respected inmate (it would seem) is Sammie. The Director appears to immediately realise who the most interesting inmates were in Sammie (and later, Hal) and allows a longer, more in depth observation into the man and his personality. His presence is felt on screen and his personal revelations come as a shock to the audience, but give him such appeal in his emotional personality and a particular empathy is felt toward him. Hal is the same at the beginning of the film. He has other things that he does to pass the time that's shown as a comfortable hobby as it were in running an on site news broadcast programme. Again, through personal interviews and revelations self admitted by Hal (and nicely shot cutaways of Hal's body language, not the close-ups of his uncertain hand movement not only observed with him but others as well,) in particular his heart felt story about being unsure and scared of his true sexuality in a society that purely would not accept him as a homosexual until later on in the film where he is shown to be quite snide and rude to other inmates involved in the play as though he deems himself above all of them, in particular to Ron who already has a frustrating temperament in his acting. The relationship between all of the inmates involved in the play is shown as one of respect and unity to achieve something great for themselves. With nice (if not clichéd) motions of time passing by with titles etc… everything seems to go right in the first act, and then on the build up to the public performance, things predictably go wrong. An induction of one of the actors being transferred and his character being replaced by a younger, newer inmate gives the narrative a nice subplot into someone who promises big, but in the end disappoints all and does not live up to their expectation. One inmate in particular (Big-G) welcomes the new inmate actor (Rick) with an evident will to nurture him into their beloved practise and hopefully become a good role model. The film seems to capture each inmates passion so well with something the audience can relate to especially when Rick is put in the 'Hole' for getting new tattoos (something nicely hinted upon earlier in the film when the warden stops a random inmate in the yard and asks him when he got a tattoo that's on his arm and we learn it's a punishable offence in the facility) and Big-G's disappointment is understood deeply. A happy ending? It all looks great when they are performing successfully (even being invited to perform elsewhere) and a sense of real unity echoes around them, but in the end, the film brings everyone back down to earth that this is short lived and everything they ever had or wanted was and will always be taken away from them. It is back to prison to pay for their crimes and no matter what redemption they seek in acting these plays, they won't be free men, their proud performances and recognition is undermined by the fact that they are the lowest of the low criminals and a nice halt in the uplifting music that plays in a shot of a long corridor that coincides with the lights turning off and doors shutting is a powerful image of their oppression. The Director seemed to be aware he was watching likable people in the documentary by given additional information at the end of the film into each actors future from the end of the film about where they are and what's happening to them now.

CDubrock I saw this film in 2005 at the River's Edge Film Festival in Paducah, Kentucky. I was moved by its depth and the incredible candor of the subjects. It was at once about the Shakespeare program and about the actors, each a convicted felon. Most of the senior members of the troupe were hard-timers who had been performing in the program for years. The American public has a tendency to think of the prison population as numbers or tax liabilities or monsters. This film revealed that regardless of their past, prisoners are actually living, breathing human beings that still have real emotions and real ideas. This is not a film about prisons. This is a film about people.