by Greg Mayer
Christopher Plummer, the distinguished Canadian actor, has died. Playing many roles on stage, film, and television, he had won an Oscar, two Tonys, and two Emmys during his very long career. The New York Times‘ obituarist, while noting that most will remember him for his role in the film version of The Sound of Music, writes that he was “a Shakespearean foremost.”
Given my own, perhaps odd, combination of cultural tastes, I recall him best as General Chang, the Shakespeare-quoting chief of staff to Chancellor Gorkon of the Klingon Empire who desires peace with the Federation in Star trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The title is a phrase from Hamlet, and Gorkon, as well as Chang, is a Shakespeare-quoter. Plummer speaks lines from several of Shakespeare’s plays, including lines he has spoken on stage and screen in performances of those very plays.
Chang opposes peace, and Plummer’s final line in the film, as Federation starships breach his ship’s defenses and blow it to smithereens, is “To be, or not to be.”
If you watch the whole of the preceding clip, you’ll hear several more lines of Shakespeare from Plummer. The following are two slightly different compilations of some of Plummer’s Shakespearean lines from throughout the film, including from the preceding clip.
The second, with references:
To perhaps explain the prominence of Shakespeare in the mouths of Klingons, Gorkon (played by David Warner, himself a prominent Shakespearean) says, at 42 seconds, “You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon”; right afterwards Plummer says “To be, or not to be” in Klingon.
Alas, poor Christopher; he has come not to be.
Oh it is so sad! But to be glad, he lived a very long life.
I was astonished after I saw Knives Out – puzzling over the character – where had I seen him before? Then – A HA! The Sound Of Music! Wow!
Wasn’t aware of Star Trek! Amazing!
He was excellent in that role. I loved when he said the Shakespearean quotes were better in the original Klingon = )
Not having seen the movie, are they “Shakespearean” quotes, in that they are Shakespeare-like quotes (that is, material written to sound like Shakespeare) or are they “Shakespeare quotes”?
I’ve always been puzzled by this idea, for example, that Plummer or Olivier or Burton were “Shakespearean” actors. They were not. They were Shakespeare actors, the point being that the ian/ean suffix means that something is like something else. To say a short story indulges in “Chekhovian realism” is to say that the story is redolent of Chekhov, whereas it would be bizarre for anyone to say “Ward No. 6” is a Chekhovian story because the story IS by Chekhov. And yet when someone cites a sonnet or play written by William, people refer to it as a “Shakespearean sonnet” or “Shakespearean play.” I don’t know how this odd tic got started. It’s a tic that irritates me so much that I wrote an about it: https://lyonsnyc.medium.com/anthony-hopkins-is-not-a-shakespearean-actor-fa807fc281b4
They were quotes. The one video cites the plays and exact lines. “Shakespearean” has long had the meaning of pertaining directly to Shakespeare, as well as having the characteristics of Shakespeare.
GCM
Yes, and it has irked me forever. As I say in my essay, Anthony Hopkins isn’t a “Shakespearean actor.” He’s a “Shakespeare actor.” This tic has always annoyed me.
As for something having the characteristics of Shakespeare, yes, that’s fine. I say as much in my essay. But using “Shakespearean” to refer to a play or sonnet BY Shakespeare is incorrect. The “Moonlight” Sonata isn’t a Beethovenian piano sonata. It’s a Beethoven piano sonata. “Hamlet” isn’t a Shakespearean play. It’s a Shakespeare play.
Joyce is another English-language writer whose name is used in a manner similar to Shakespeare. “Joycean” means directly pertaining to Joyce, not just “similar to Joyce”. I couldn’t think of any examples earlier, so didn’t mention it, but now that I’m home a fine example comes to hand:
From: Woody Allen, “A Little Louder, Please” in Getting Even, Warner books, NY, 1972.
GCM
I think you’re right. The suffix is expediently exhausted; therefore, inaccurately attributed. I love Emerson and Cicero; I use the suffixes often when I attribute thoughts, ideas or philosophies of others to these two and render them Emersonian and Ciceronian…
Yes, he was one of the highlights of the movie. That line probably got a chuckle from everyone who’s watched it.
@ThyroidPlanet
‘But to be glad, he lived a very long life.’
Well said.
I’ve seen him on stage as “Macbeth.” And. He was the best Klingon ever.
Better than Worf?!!!
Better than TNG Worf, not better than DS9 Worf, but ’tis no matter, for Martok always wins.
Plummer spinning in his chair and shouting, “cry ‘Havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war,” he could easily be mistaken for Sir Patrick playing a Klingon. I imagine Sir Patrick giving almost exactly the same performance, if given the role. I mean this as nothing but a compliment of the highest order!
DS9 Wotf is and always will be, for me, better than martok but… I see you have read the same esteemed list of honorable Klingons.
Martok, for me, always seemed the purest distillation of what we had been told Klingons are: honorable and heroic; rough, yet tender because they are moved to and by emotion; battle-worn, yet never broken, tempered by the flames of combat. He takes the mantle of leader not because he believes it is his right, but because circumstance demands it of him, and he would not deny his people (and, indeed, the galaxy!) that leadership which they deserve.
In other words: Martok fuckin’ rocks.
I need to rewatch freaking DS9 again…
I absolutely adore DS9. TNG and DS9 are two of the greatest shows ever produced, but one thing about DS9 has always bugged me: it confirms the Bajoran religion in the end. Until seasons six and, especially, seven, Bajoran religion is largely depicted as faith-based (the facts that the “wormhole aliens” exist and that the Bajoran orbs have some kind of power do not necessitate that their entire religion and its writings be true). Once the pah-wraiths enter the picture and the ancient Bajoran writings are demonstrated to hold the truth of the relationship between the wormhole aliens, the orbs, the pah-wraiths, etc., the show confirms the entire Bajoran religion. I’ve always found this to be antithetical to Star Trek and its core messages.
Plus, the whole Bajoran thing takes valuable time away from the story of the Dominion War and the Cardassian resistance, and even strands Sisko on Earth for several episodes at the beginning of season seven to conduct a stultifying scavenger hunt.
I could go on about my issues with this forever. I hate it, even more because I love DS9 so very much.
My series has always been the original series and probably Voyager.
I do like how martok adopts Worf into his house.
I’m too young to enjoy the original series 🙂 I don’t mean that as an insult to those who love it, but it’s difficult to suspend my disbelief without the honeyed glasses of nostalgia. All of those buttons and lights and shoddy sets…I just can’t do it. It feels like it’s a few steps up from an Ed Wood movie (I’m sorry I said that. I’m genuinely sorry I said that).
I’ve tried many times over the years to enjoy Voyager and have watched it to completion, but it’s always felt like it takes a step back every time I think it’s finally taking a step forward. Too many things don’t make sense, the stories often feel recycled, and the characters are quite dull much of the time. That series has many good episodes, and even some excellent episodes, but I cannot rate it highly overall and do not return to it again and again as I do with TNG and DS9.
I will admit that much of my love for the original series of Star Trek comes from the motion pictures and that my three original series movies are two three and four mostly because I picture those as one long storyline.
But if you ever want quality entertainment with Klingons and Star Trek Motion Pictures watch first contact.
When Martok convinced Worf to proceed with the wedding. What a phenomenal speech. Qapla!
“But how hollow is the sound of victory without someone to share it with. Honor gives little comfort to a man alone in his home and in his heart.”
Dare I say…Shakespearean?
Qapla!
Be still my Klingon heart!
In considering the merits of TNG Worf vs. DS9 Worf, don’t forget TUC Worf (also played by Michael Dorn) who is TNG/DS9 Worf’s grandfather, and the defense attorney for Kirk and McCoy in their trial for killing Chancellor Gorkon.
GCM
He’s his own grandfather!
Still, this is irrelevant because Martok always wins 🙂
Remember Christopher Loyd as a kligon? I was surprised to see him in such a role and thought he did a great job. At the time the only kligons for comparison were from TOS, and he was a large step above any of them.
Yeah, and I can’t say I liked him in the role…
Truthfully, my all-time, favourite Klingon is MARTOK!!
I kind of like b’elanna torres….
At least one person agrees with me 🙂
That film’s also notable as one of the few in which David Warner did not play the villain.
Has anyone ever actually read even though they may not be fluid in it but Shakespearean plays written and Klingon cuz they do exist now
*fluent
Alas, poor Christopher! I knew him, Jerry; a fellow of infinite talent, of most excellent chops; he hath borne entire pageants on his back a thousand times…
A phenomenal talent. For those who know his work well, I suggest 1978’s The Silent Partner for a more obscure film in which he played a delightfully depraved villain; in fact, I recommend it to anyone, regardless of their familiarity with him.
Tonight I shall uncork a fine inebriant and watch a couple of his films, and I will be sure to include his congenially playful work in the recent Knives Out.
Knives Out was great fun, althoug I thought Daniel Craig’s Southern accent was a bit over the top.
In my view, It goes to how great that movie is, that the accent was, in the final sum, negligible. The character after all was excellent.
Everyone, don’t skip this movie because of that!
I agree that Daniel Craig was excellent in the role and the Southern accent wasn’t his idea,
I loved Craig’s Southern accent because it was so exaggerated. I’m certain Craig knew exactly what he was doing, especially considering that his heightened accent matched one of the central conceits of the movie itself, which was an exaggerated take on the mystery/thriller genre.
I’m sure you’re right but…🤓
Shades of Albert Finney as Hercule Poirot in Murder on the Orient Express, or Peter Sellers’ Clouseau, or Helga ten Dorp from Deathtrap. The brilliant detective with a heavy accent is a well-worn cliché.
Still, I can see why it might not be to everyone’s tastes 🙂
Oh, and speaking of Deathtrap, I really appreciated Johnson’s homage with the wall o’ weapons. Deathtrap is an underappreciated gem in the genre.
Yes, I greatly appreciated him in Knives Out. Many actors brought their A-games to that movie, and Plummer did not suffer in the comparison.
GCM
It was also a welcome return for Rian Johnson to smaller, more story-driven film, which is where he has done his best work, as can be seen in Brick.
Sorry, I didn’t notice your byline on the original post. I should have addressed my initial comment to you, not Jerry 🙂
I shall watch the film again tonight in honour of the great man. It’s one of my favourites.
I thought he overplayed his role in Sound of Music, but it still works. Perhaps his full “suspension of disbelief” was not fully in play. Later he called the film,
“The Sound of Mucus.”
Later, he softened. He said …
“This is sort of a fairy story brought to life. And in a world that is so horrific — we know what’s going on now, it’s inconceivable — it’s the last bastion of innocence in a very cynical time.”
In “Somewhere in Time” he played the controlling mentor of the artistic heroine, always on the watch for anyone who for whom she would sever the ties with which he bound her. The menace he brought to bear — you could feel the threat right through the screen. I always thought this film was an echo of “The Red Shoes” — Plumber would have been perfect for the bad guy role in that film.
He brought a quiet dignity to his roles in Atom Egoyan’s Ararat and Remember – poor films, especially the latter, from a once great director, but worth seeing for Plummer
Don’t miss him in Remember from 2015. He plays a concentration camp survivor suffering from dementia who attempts to hunt down a Nazi commandant. It’s a cracking film and Plummer gives a great performance.
On the trivia side, I believe that Christopher Plummer and Benedict Cumberbatch are the only two actors to play Both Sherlock Holmes AND a Star Trek villain.
The only time I saw him do Shakespeare was as Prospero in “The Tempest” in a simulcast from the Stratford festival in Canada. He was utterly marvelous.
He was great innthat Tempest!
Benedict Cumberbatch has never played a Star Trek villain. The alleged recent Trek movies are a conspiracy created by the media via fake articles, trailers, and interviews. They never really happened.
That’s what I tell myself.
This is how a true Terkkie speaks. 🙂
Don’t miss him in Remember from 2015. He plays a concentration camp survivor suffering from dementia who attempts to hunt down a Nazi commandant. It’s a cracking film and Plummer gives a great performance.
Second that! “Remember” was Atom Egoyan’s best work in years, and Plummer, who was often much better than the movies he worked in (like “Knives Out”), was absolutely riveting in that film.
Plummer was one of those actors who’s been around for as far back as I can remember and who never slowed down.
He had a great late-career run in his last decade and a half, playing (off the top of my head) J. Paul Getty in All the Money in the World and the cold-blooded senior partner of a Washington, DC, law firm putting together a shady Middle East deal in Syriana — and, in an especially gutsy, against-type, Oscar-winning performance, Ewan MacGregor’s father who comes out of the closet as a flamboyant gay man at age 75 in Beginners.
What a freakin’ career.
“Alas, poor Christopher; he has come not to be.” – J. Coyne
This reminds me of Graham Priest’s wonderful dedication to a dead friend in his book “Towards Non-Being” (Oxford UP, 2005):
“For Richard (1936-1996)—non-existent object though you may now be, your Sosein is still with us.”
Footnote:
“Sosein” is a German word meaning “being-so/-thus” or “essence”—as opposed to “Dasein”, “being-there” or “existence”; and Richard is Richard Routley, an Australian philosopher, who endorsed Alexius Meinong’s famous metaphysical “Prinzip von der Unabhängigkeit des Soseins vom Sein”/”principle of the independence of being-so from being(-there)”. (Meinong is an Austrian philosopher, so the principle was originally formulated in German.)
He was well cast as Wellington in one of my favourite films – Waterloo – though the show was well and truly stolen by Rod Steiger as the wily Bonaparte!
I adore that film! People who use the word “epic” far too often should watch the battle scenes in that film, just so they can feel shame for using such a historic and fundamental word so frivolously.
My wife and I had the fortune to see Mr. Plummer in a few productions at the Stratford Festival. His portrayals of King Lear and Prospero were terrific and are among the productions we most cherish.
We will miss him.
Typo note: The Sound of Music (missing the “of”).
I liked him in The Silent Partner most of all myself.
I loved Christopher Plummer’s play in the heist movie “Inside Man”, although he had only a small role. But the film has a great ensemble: Jodie Forster, Clive Owen, Denzel Washington, Willem Dafoe. And, of course, Christopher Plummer.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Man
I once saw Plummer play Iago in “Othello” with James Earl Jones as Othello. It was a magical performance from both. My favorite moment was Iago’s speech to Roderigo, “Put money in thy purse.” With every repetition of the phrase, Iago laughed and reached toward Roderigo’s “purse,” which was worn, as a gentleman’s would be in the 17th century, right next to his genitals. It was brilliant.