Transforming Shakespeare 2: The Bard and “Argentinean Knife Fights"

The Inn At The End: Del Col and McCreery's reimagining of Shakespeare's body of work as a single, narrative epic, represents possibly the most important wrestling with the Bard in a generation.

This is the second of a three-part series of articles about Kill Shakespeare, each featuring an exclusive interview with the comic's co-creators Anthony Del Col and Conor McCreery. Read part one.

Full of bravura sequences and fantastic storytelling, the seventh issue of Kill Shakespeare stands out as one of the most imaginative in a thoroughly successful series. With the 12-issue series entering is final act, this article and the next will briefly examine some of its highlights.

This is the issue that bears the strongest comparisons with Neil Gaiman’s classic work in The Sandman, in terms of blending familiar literary characters in a fantasy world that surpasses simple pastiche and offers moments of exuberance and fascinating creativity.

By this point in Kill Shakespeare, the “rules” of this world have been established, and we have a grasp on the characters and their motivations. This is a point in the story where co-creators Anthony del Col and Conor McCreery indulge in lavish and extravagant storytelling, where the visuals push the narrative boundaries in ways that compliment the story in unusual, intriguing and exciting directions. This is a point where it feels like this comic is really something special.

With many pages framed by curtains and many panels framed in baroque picture frames, this issue focuses on a play that takes place one night while Hamlet, Juliet, and their team rest in between battles. As in Hamlet proper, this play-within-a-play draws explicit parallels to events taking place in the lives of the audience, primarily young Hamlet.

When the Dane bursts backstage to confront the players, he encounters a mystical hall of mirrors, and together with Juliet, who follows after him, they must confront their pasts. Because their stories are so well known, it's fascinating to witness Del Col and McCreery imagining alternative lives for these characters -- in Juliet’s case, we witness what takes place after the end of her famous story; Hamlet’s alternative life follows a significant point midway through his original story. In Kill Shakespeare, Hamlet is even allowed to utter, “I am fortune’s fool.”

In part two of an exclusive three-part interview, Kill Shakespeare's co-creators Anthony Del Col and Conor McCreery discuss their writing process and the response from critics, comics and Shakespearean authorities (read part one). Part three will conclude our interview and features an appreciation of issue nine, when we finally meet the elusive William Shakespeare.

PM: How do you approach a subject as massive as Shakespeare, in terms of adapting his characters and stories? Was it intimidating?

Conor McCreery: It is intimidating in its way. Obviously these are characters that are very important to a great number of people. But really there have been SO many interpretations of these characters that we feel we’re just the latest in a long line of people playing with the Bard’s creations. Now we’re doing something that is, if not unique, at least very unusual – but we still feel like a distant cousin at worst.

Anthony Del Col: We knew that we would have some critics who would object to the concept of slightly revising some of the characters but we welcome that. Anything that gets people talking about a writer who died almost 400 years ago is fantastic in our eyes.

PM: What has been the biggest surprise in adapting Shakespeare to your story? Have you had any insights into his work?

ADC: The biggest insight is discovering how many fans of Shakespeare there are in the most unlikely of places! The general perception is that most people don’t like his work because of bad high school teachers but a lot of people have connected to one of his plays or a particular character. Shakespeare was such a great writer that he made stories and told ideas that would appeal in different ways to different people.

CM: I’m always amazed at what a humanist the Bard is. The man understood human nature like few artists ever have. And even more pleasingly to me Shakespeare actually LIKES people. I find his plays always give me faith in people - even when someone is losing a tongue or an eye. (To be fair I may have set the bar particularly low for my fellow man.)

PM: What has been the most exciting/surprising/fun aspect of the project in general? What do you look forward to the most from issue to issue?

CM: My favourite part is seeing Andy’s pencils for the first time. Seeing the words come to life and seeing Andy’s mind at work is always a source of great joy for me. Except when he’s drawing little men on horses in the background – then we get into Argentinean knife fights.

ADC: My favourite part is to watch the Argentinean knife fights between Conor and Andy…

PM: What has the response been like from readers, industry people, Shakespeare authorities? Patton Oswalt provides a great cover blurb (“Kill Shakespeare is full of dark laughs, shocking alliances, bad puns and wild violence. Like the best of Shakespeare himself…”)--how did that come about?

ADC: Most people really like the series. A lot of Shakespeare authorities enjoy any take or interpretation of the Bard so they’ve gotten behind this – especially since it’s drawing in a new, younger crowd. The Folger Shakespeare Library, one of the top Shakespeare institutes in the world, had us do a talk last month and were impressed that so many new people were in the audience.

CM: Full credit to Anthony he did whatever it took to get those blurbs. I still think we have some kidnapped family members in his storage unit.

ADC: No comment.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.