Shakespeare itp [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-09-15, 06:32 PM

Iago is just your third favorite? I love him.

Only the third, yes.

Aaron tops the list for being indecipherable. He speaks of evil for the sole purpose of breeding new mischief, he sows havoc and ill fortune, and, when given a chance to repent before being executed, instead repents for any single good deed he may have inadvertently performed. However, we see his human moments and his caring for his child, and thus can't write him off as a mere psychopath...it's an incredibly interesting character study.

Iago falls behind Edward for the simple reason that Iago is, while a sinister and untrustworthy man to the point where you can't even trust his monologues, his reason for his actions is so...well...pathetic. Aaron is incomprehensible evil, and Edward is struggling against the world and the place that he finds himself in (something that, despite his actions, you have to sort of forgive him for trying to do), but Iago is just a spiteful little man, and I just can't find the same sort of appeal in him as I do for Aaron and Edward.

My opinion, of course. :smallbiggrin:

I've also lately started to enjoy Romeo and Juliet, but only after I discovered (after reading Aristotle's Ethics) that the tragedy in the play is not the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. The only tragedy that fits the classical definition of a tragedy is the tragedy of the Montagues and the Capulets, and the story of Romeo and Juliet is simply a romance that serves as the downfall of the two families, and brings the tragedy into the light.

Thufir

2010-09-15, 06:40 PM

Iago falls behind Edward for the simple reason that Iago is, while a sinister and untrustworthy man to the point where you can't even trust his monologues, his reason for his actions is so...well...pathetic.

More than that. None of the reasons given for his actions are adequate to justify what he does to Othello, so we have to assume that either there is another reason he never mentions OR he does it... because he can. In internet parlance, for teh lulz. Because he takes joy in the tangled webs of lies he weaves so skilfully around his victims.
As duplicitous lying bastards go, he's pretty hard to beat.

Fifty-Eyed Fred

2010-09-15, 06:40 PM

Iago falls behind Edward for the simple reason that Iago is, while a sinister and untrustworthy man to the point where you can't even trust his monologues, his reason for his actions is so...well...pathetic.

Ooh, but, I love Iago. One of the things I like most about Shakespeare's presentation of him is the way in which his revenge spirals out of control - after all, he fulfils his goal within the first two Acts, but by the time he has ousted Cassio, he is compelled to utilise new seeds of evil plotting to bring down Othello as well. It's so very... interesting, to me.

As duplicitous lying bastards go, he's pretty hard to beat.
Pretty much.

Kallisti

2010-09-15, 06:41 PM

I like Iago mostly because of how well he plays everyone around him. With an actor who can pull it off, Iago can seem so very kind and caring the next, and then the mask drops and he's a villain again. I've seen several very excellent performances of Othello, and Iago has stolen the show every time.

That said, you're right, Aaron is a much deeper character, and probably the better character. I'd say he and Iago tie for my favorite--him because, as you say, he's a fascinating character, and Iago simply because he's an excellent villain. Admittedly, I might be a little biased, as in all the Shakespeare I've seen, the two best villains have been two different portrayals of Iago. One of these days I might see an amazing performance of Much Ado and decide I like Don Juan best.

RabbitHoleLost

2010-09-15, 06:41 PM

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Hamlet, and Taming of the Shrew are the only three pieces of Shakespeare I can tolerate, m'afraid.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2010-09-15, 06:43 PM

I like Iago mostly because of how well he plays everyone around him. With an actor who can pull it off, Iago can seem so very kind and caring the next, and then the mask drops and he's a villain again. I've seen several very excellent performances of Othello, and Iago has stolen the show every time.

Same. Every good Iago steals the show. That said, a truly great Iago will steal the show without you ever noticing he took it. It's an incredibly hard part to balance right, although Lear may be the hardest in Shakespeare as far as acting goes. Iago is still up there, though.

Knaight

2010-09-15, 06:44 PM

More than that. None of the reasons given for his actions are adequate to justify what he does to Othello, so we have to assume that either there is another reason he never mentions OR he does it... because he can. In internet parlance, for teh lulz. Because he takes joy in the tangled webs of lies he weaves so skilfully around his victims.
As duplicitous lying bastards go, he's pretty hard to beat.

Hey look. My preference for Othello was just justified. Though Othello himself is also very interesting, and Casio and Emilia hold interest as well.

Given that this thread attracts people who like Shakespeare, what are your opinions on Pushkin?

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-15, 06:46 PM

I swear I've been trying to figure a forum-appropriate statting of the mystical 'Beast With Two Backs'...

good luck with that :smalltongue:

CurlyKitGirl

2010-09-15, 06:48 PM

(Okay, Romeo & Juliet is okay, but As You Like It is just abysmal.)

I've also lately started to enjoy Romeo and Juliet, but only after I discovered (after reading Aristotle's Ethics) that the tragedy in the play is not the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. The only tragedy that fits the classical definition of a tragedy is the tragedy of the Montagues and the Capulets, and the story of Romeo and Juliet is simply a romance that serves as the downfall of the two families, and brings the tragedy into the light.

I, on the other hand, absolutely detest Romeo and Iuliet with a passion.
I know about the classical tragedy interpretation (hamartia, anagnorisis, peripetia and all the iazz - and I know they're in the wrong order/some are missing), but I can't bring myself to admire anything about the play aside from it's linguistic merit and Mercutio.

There are rants I made back in RB.
Maybe I'll go find.

But Romeo and Iulet is a tragedy in every shape and sense. Plus the teenagers caused all this trouble for what is basically two or three hours of thinking the other is teh sexiest, bootifullest person in the whole world.
They iust want a one-night stand.
Morons.

EDIT: And because of that I nominate Romeo as one of the most idiotic villains in a Shakespeare play.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2010-09-15, 06:48 PM

King Lear is my favourite, without doubt. I'm going to go see As You Like It 1st of october, but really it's just an excuse to get out of school and do forum innapropriate things with friends.

Fifty-Eyed Fred

2010-09-15, 06:54 PM

There are rants I made back in RB.
Maybe I'll go find.
I was part of those, IIRC. Romeo & Juliet is one of my least favourite plays of Shakespeare's (perhaps my very least favourite), just for the pure idiocy of it all, and its overuse and constant misinterpretation.

I'm going to go see As You Like It 1st of october, but really it's just an excuse to get out of school and do forum innapropriate things with friends.
:smallconfused:

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2010-09-15, 06:55 PM

this blah blah blah filler filler

Yeah, it's pretty much like that. Excluding the filler, of course.

Platinum_Mongoose

2010-09-15, 06:56 PM

I'm a Mac*bleep* fan, myself. But my favorite soliloquy is from Hamlet:

I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercise, and it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the Earth, seems to me a sterile promontory. This most excellent canopy, the air--look, you!--this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestic roof fretted with golden fire, why, it seems no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapors. What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty. In form and moving how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god. The beauty of the world, the paragon of animals. And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me.

(Typed from memory.)

Also, this is cringe-worthy fun: http://theweek.com/article/index/205066/the-week-contest-cow-play---july-23-2010

Thufir

2010-09-15, 06:59 PM

And because of that I nominate Romeo as one of the most idiotic villains in a Shakespeare play.

Being an idiot doesn't actually make him a villain. Intelligence is not actually a prerequisite for a protagonist.

So, idiot yes, villain no.
'sides, Shakespearian villains tend to have more style.

Fifty-Eyed Fred

2010-09-15, 07:02 PM

So, idiot yes, villain no.
'sides, Shakespearian villains tend to have more style.

Often they're his best characters, though in some of the tragedies the protagonist is the excellent one (King Lear, Hamlet). And of course, Richard III is a villain protagonist.

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-15, 07:02 PM

CurlyKitGirl

2010-09-15, 07:09 PM

Being an idiot doesn't actually make him a villain. Intelligence is not actually a prerequisite for a protagonist.

So, idiot yes, villain no.
'sides, Shakespearian villains tend to have more style.

He doesn't stop for even one second to consider the consequences of his actions. And he is the heir to the Montagues.

Tell you what, there aren't any real villains or heroes, and the antagonists are more sympathetic than the protagonists.
How's that?

Often they're his best characters, though in some of the tragedies the protagonist is the excellent one (King Lear, Hamlet). And of course, Richard III is a villain protagonist.

Richard III is wonderful. He's such a magnificent schemer. The only real (historical) reason he lost Bosworth was because of betrayal.
I have mixed feelings about Richard III, on the one hand: amazing play. ON the other hand, Elizabethan propaganda. I still love that play though.

Fifty-Eyed Fred

2010-09-15, 07:17 PM

Richard III is wonderful. He's such a magnificent schemer. The only real (historical) reason he lost Bosworth was because of betrayal.
I have mixed feelings about Richard III, on the one hand: amazing play. ON the other hand, Elizabethan propaganda. I still love that play though.

Oh, I know. I've done that period in some considerable depth.
It's a damned fantastic play, though, so to me the propaganda side doesn't prevent me from thoroughly enjoying it. Oh Gloucester, you magnificent villain, you.

Xyk

2010-09-15, 07:18 PM

I liked Macbeth. I am not a fan of the comedies. Or Romeo and Juliet.

snoopy13a

2010-09-15, 07:28 PM

My favorites are A Midsummer Night's Dream, Twelfth Night and Hamlet. I also like Henry IV part I and Henry V.

I guess my favorite characters are Viola, Hamlet, and as he's sort of the Chris Farley of Shakespeare, Sir John Falstaff.

Raistlin1040

2010-09-15, 07:42 PM

I really like Hamlet (for the plot) and Romeo and Juliet (for Mercutio). I also like Much Ado About Nothing, Othello, and A Midsummer Night's Dream. I absolutely hate the Taming of the Shrew, in the original Shakespeare, but I like Kiss Me, Kate, and absolutely adore 10 Things I Hate About You, so I suppose there is that.

Thufir

2010-09-15, 07:58 PM

Often they're his best characters, though in some of the tragedies the protagonist is the excellent one (King Lear, Hamlet). And of course, Richard III is a villain protagonist.

Indeed. Though King Lear and Hamlet have a few excellent characters each.

He doesn't stop for even one second to consider the consequences of his actions. And he is the heir to the Montagues.

Tell you what, there aren't any real villains or heroes, and the antagonists are more sympathetic than the protagonists.
How's that?

Better. I think a significant part of my objection to calling him a villain is it implies he did it deliberately. Which, as you just pointed out, he didn't.
Oh, that would be a fun reimagining. Turn Romeo into a real villain. Carries on his relationship with Juliet with full knowledge of the consequences, specifically to bring about said consequences.
Turn him from a useless teenager to a Magnificent Bastard with a penchant for chaos.

JoshuaZ

2010-09-15, 08:31 PM

Richard III, just because the protagonist is such an amazing, unrepentant villain. Of course, Shakespeare had to be all moralistic at the end and throw in the scene where Richard mourns that know one loves him. But aside from that one part, Richard is just amazing.

(Ok, I'm probably a bad person if I think this)

Knaight

2010-09-15, 08:43 PM

I absolutely hate the Taming of the Shrew, in the original Shakespeare, but I like Kiss Me, Kate, and absolutely adore 10 Things I Hate About You, so I suppose there is that.

Hmmm.

High five. You have taste.

CurlyKitGirl

2010-09-15, 09:35 PM

Better. I think a significant part of my objection to calling him a villain is it implies he did it deliberately. Which, as you just pointed out, he didn't.
Oh, that would be a fun reimagining. Turn Romeo into a real villain. Carries on his relationship with Juliet with full knowledge of the consequences, specifically to bring about said consequences.
Turn him from a useless teenager to a Magnificent Bastard with a penchant for chaos.

*gasp*
You could so easily do that as well! There's got to be a dialogue or monologue where Romeo's thinking about the ramifications of his actions, and you iust slip in a line or two.
"The will is strong, and the course is set true
I shall follow Iuliet and the might of
This wond'rous Verona shall fall with her"
or some such addition and you're all set.

Yeah, I'm not good at whipping up iambic pentameter worthy of Shakespeare at the best of times, let alone half three in the morning.

Thufir

2010-09-15, 09:42 PM

*gasp*
You could so easily do that as well! There's got to be a dialogue or monologue where Romeo's thinking about the ramifications of his actions, and you iust slip in a line or two.
"The will is strong, and the course is set true
I shall follow Iuliet and the might of
This wond'rous Verona shall fall with her"
or some such addition and you're all set.

Yeah, I'm not good at whipping up iambic pentameter worthy of Shakespeare at the best of times, let alone half three in the morning.

It's pretty good for half three in the morning.

The alternative reimagining would be to just have Romeo as a shameless lothario, only interested in his conquests, and entirely indifferent to the dreadful consequences. But I prefer the properly evil, chaos inducing one.

Fifty-Eyed Fred

2010-09-15, 09:45 PM

It's pretty good for half three in the morning.

The alternative reimagining would be to just have Romeo as a shameless lothario, only interested in his conquests, and entirely indifferent to the dreadful consequences. But I prefer the properly evil, chaos inducing one.

Yeah, because the other one would just be The Picture of Dorian Gray in the 16th century. :smalltongue:

Thufir

2010-09-15, 10:00 PM

Yeah, because the other one would just be The Picture of Dorian Gray in the 16th century. :smalltongue:

Only without the painting and the moralising. Also Dorian didn't bring chaos to an entire city, just a few people.

Fifty-Eyed Fred

2010-09-15, 10:02 PM

Only without the painting and the moralising. Also Dorian didn't bring chaos to an entire city, just a few people.

It's implied that huge sections of London society felt his corruption, but that's society for you. :smallamused:

Thufir

2010-09-15, 10:04 PM

It's implied that huge sections of London society felt his corruption, but that's society for you. :smallamused:

Well, yeah, but they didn't go around killing each other as a result.

Fifty-Eyed Fred

2010-09-15, 10:08 PM

Well, yeah, but they didn't go around killing each other as a result.

Ah, true. Only *Sybil Vane, Basil Hallward, the scientist, James Vane, himself* 5 people died, as opposed to the whole city.

But still, I'd rather see Romeo premeditatively bring ruin upon Verona than accomplish it in ignorance.

Drakevarg

2010-09-15, 10:08 PM

I like MacBeth, though mostly because the title character is the only role I've ever had in a Shakespeare play. :smalltongue:

I like Othello just because Iago is such an unrepentantly evil bastard, which is refreshing. Also, Laurence Fishburne.

But honestly, at the moment my favorite Shakespeare work would be Sonnet 64. Mostly just because I'm morbid like that.

Zevox

2010-09-15, 10:27 PM

I had to read some of his plays in high school and college, but honestly, none impressed me. Romeo & Juliet in particular I really didn't like - honestly, that's what people call a great, iconic love story? The tale of a couple of stupid, horny kids who mistake lust for love and commit suicide at the end?

The ones I read in college were Macbeth and Richard III, neither really impressing me. Neither as bad as Romeo & Juliet, but it was enough to convince me to avoid Shakespeare classes altogether even though I was an English Major (I read them in an honors composition class rather than a Shakespeare-specific literature course, which is why there were only two).

Zevox

Mando Knight

2010-09-15, 10:42 PM

mine are (The Scottish Play) and Hamlet because i can identify with both;
(The Scottish Play) for the fall from grace and Hamlet for the bouts of madness(real and fake)

I like (The Scottish Play), though mostly because the title character is the only role I've ever had in a Shakespeare play. :smalltongue:

I liked (The Scottish Play). I am not a fan of the comedies. Or Romeo and Juliet.
Dash it all, are ye tryin' to ruin us?

Shakespeare is much better performed as opposed to read. Think Hamlet is boring? Try watching a performance so hammed-up that they have to put a warning in the program bulletin about it not being kosher. If the actor can't make you believe Hamlet's either crazy brilliant or just plain crazy (or both!), he's doing it wrong.

Cahokia

2010-09-15, 10:54 PM

Othello, Hamlet and the Tempest are my favorites, with MacB hot on their heels. Romeo and Juliet is good, but in my opinion not the masterpiece that many of Shakespeare's works are. Shakespeare was trying for something clever--a comedy that becomes a tragedy as the play progresses, starting with the death of Mercutio--but it's just not as well-executed as the others.

Knaight

2010-09-15, 10:55 PM

I had to read some of his plays in high school and college, but honestly, none impressed me. Romeo & Juliet in particular I really didn't like - honestly, that's what people call a great, iconic love story? The tale of a couple of stupid, horny kids who mistake lust for love and commit suicide at the end?

If its taught and presented like that, then there is no reason to like it. The tragedy is in the two societies, both of which are full of theoretically responsible adults letting those two off themselves because they can't get over a petty feud. Romeo and Juliet are innocents, and basically seen as complete children, and those two children are then sacrificed for adult matters they have nothing to do with. Its not a great love story, and the aspect of the tragedy is far more relevant than the small comedy therein.

Ponderthought

2010-09-15, 11:51 PM

I dont really have a favorite, though Titus Andronicus would be it if i had to pick. It is possibly one of the grimmest things ive ever read. I do, however, love to cherry pick different lines.

Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes;
Nothing of him that doth fade,
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.

Makes my bones tingle.

Kneenibble

2010-09-16, 02:00 AM

With the exception of Titus Andronicus, which as many have mentioned is just a juggernaut of perfect horror, I vastly prefer his later works when he cracks the metre and doesn't rhyme too much. I can't stand the Tempest for this reason, the metre in verse scenes is just a plodding tedious clock. King Lear is my favourite, it's so broken, followed very closely by Henry IV and V and King John. King John's death speech is beautiful and horrible.

I subscribe to the Original Practices technique when acting Shakespeare, which uses all the so-called irregularities of spelling and punctuation in the first folio as actorly queues.

Note to Mando Knight. There is no proscription on writing Macbeth.

Fifty-Eyed Fred

2010-09-16, 07:21 AM

Note to Mando Knight. There is no proscription on writing Macbeth.

AAAH! Hot potato, orchestra stalls, Puck will make amends! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--HR7PWfp0)

Thufir

2010-09-16, 07:21 AM

Dash it all, are ye tryin' to ruin us?

By 'The Scottish Play', I assume you mean Macbeth? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--HR7PWfp0#t=1m12s)

@^: Damn you ninja! However my link is better as it goes straight to the relevant point in the video. :smalltongue:
Or at least it should. Hm.
Why is this not working?

rakkoon

2010-09-16, 07:25 AM

Midsummer Dream Night, Othelo and Mars Attacks. Alternate spellings may exist.

I got the question "Is Iago a hollow man?" at an exam. That was fun :smallbiggrin:

Fifty-Eyed Fred

2010-09-16, 07:27 AM

@^: Damn you ninja! However my link is better as it goes straight to the relevant point in the video. :smalltongue:
Or at least it should. Hm.
Why is this not working?

Hoho!
Your link is forfeit, sir, and at an end
Like our poor play. We hope it pleased you, friend.

Mars Attacks. Alternate spellings may exist.

:eek:

Thufir

2010-09-16, 07:34 AM

Hoho!
Your link is forfeit, sir, and at an end
Like our poor play. We hope it pleased you, friend.

Certainly not, you murdering rotter! Guards - arrest that man!

Lioness

2010-09-16, 07:43 AM

Hamlet and Macbeth, though I'll admit to only having read/studied those two and Othello and Romeo and Juliet.

I generally prefer his sonnets though...English classmate came up with a modern condensation of Sonnet 18

"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?"
----->
"...You're hot"

SaintRidley

2010-09-16, 08:32 AM

I do like Titus, though that is partially for the fact that it's so early you can see the beginnings of many other characters in it (I always felt like Aaron was the prototype that led to Iago). Plus, the way Lavinia and Tamora are handled can lead to very interesting discussion on the role of women in the play.

Saw a barebones production of it this summer (literally no budget - costuming was sweatpants and tank tops), and it was amazing.

Othello is good, but I like it mainly for Iago.

Mac-Scottish-Guy is one of my favourites. There's just so much there, though I do agree with Tolkien that the C-section was a total cop out.

HatedR+J. They're just too stupid for me to care about.

The Comedy of Errors performed well is so funny it's beyond words. If anyone saw the Great River Shakespeare Festival's production this summer, I'm sure you can vouch that what they did to and with that play was beautiful.

I much prefer watching plays, though. I hate reading them. The very nature of a play makes it difficult for me to form a complete picture in my mind, so I often find myself just wishing I wasn't reading it at all. Which sucks, since I do love literature and do love plays. I just can't stand reading plays (maybe this is why I only got a B instead of an A in my Shakespeare class).

Lioness

2010-09-16, 08:38 AM

As for reading versus watching...I prefer to read them aloud with a small cast of people. If I read them to myself, it just doesn't connect, and if I watch them, I don't fully 'get' everything. Reading them aloud works well for me.

Fifty-Eyed Fred

2010-09-16, 08:43 AM

Funnily enough, I can read everybody's lines out myself. I love reading aloud - but then I always was a tad theatrical. :smalltongue:

Cyrion

2010-09-16, 09:18 AM

Another vote for Twelfth Night here. I also really enjoy Hamlet, Macbeth and the Merchant of Venice. I've also got a soft spot for Pericles, though I don't really know why; it's one I saw in high school, and it's just stuck with me.

I think it was As You Like It that I found roll-on-the-floor funny up until the last act where Shakespeare brings it to a full stop and starts moralizing. One of those What Were You THINKING??? moments.

rollfrenzy

2010-09-16, 09:48 AM

Hamlet had always been my favorite, until I saw Lear played live. It was amazing. I also enjoyed Caesar.

Any Shakespeare lover anywhere near Cincinnati, OH should check out Cincyshakes.com. It is a small theater troupe that specializes in the the bard. They do other shows as well, looking forward to Dracula. They are affordable and extremely good.

The Complete works of William Shakespeare (abridged) is amazingly funny too. If you are posting on this thread you need to find it and see it.

Thufir

2010-09-16, 09:57 AM

Plays are better performed than read, but I prefer to read plays before I see them. Makes it much easier to follow the dialogue.
Also, I have much easier access to Shakespeare in book form than in theatre.

Lord Seth

2010-09-16, 10:03 AM

My favorite Shakespeare tragedy is Macbeth. My favorite Shakespeare comedy is The Comedy of Errors.

Telonius

2010-09-16, 10:06 AM

Taming of the Shrew ... but only if they get two scenes absolutely perfect.

When Kate meets Petruchio, they aren't making fun of each other, it's love at first sight (although Kate can't quite admit/believe it) and they're flirting. Way too many productions just don't understand this.

nihilism

2010-09-16, 05:59 PM

i would say macbeth and julius caesar.
for comedies midsummer nights dream is hilarious.

taming of the shrew is good

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-16, 06:07 PM

i would say macbeth and julius caesar.
for comedies midsummer nights dream is hilarious.

taming of the shrew is good

Et tu, Brute? :smallbiggrin:

Kallisti

2010-09-16, 06:25 PM

So falls Caesar. One place behind Macbeth (Hot potato, orchestra stalls, Puck will make amends) in nihilism's regard, as the case may be, but there you have it.

Dienekes

2010-09-16, 06:34 PM

I do enjoy myself some Shakespeare. Though I have to say my personal favorites are Cesear, Midsummer's Night Dream, and King Lear. Closely followed by MacBeth and Othello (well, Iago specifically).

That said there are some I disliked. I was bored through Measure for Measure for instance and Romeo and Juliet is overused garbage.

Kneenibble

2010-09-16, 08:12 PM

Et tu, Brute? :smallbiggrin:

Man, I saw an 80s BBC Julius Caesar where Caesar was played by the guy who did the Narrator from Rocky Horror Picture Show. I kept hoping he would jump on a table and tell us "Put your hands on your hips!"

He's a great actor.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2010-09-16, 08:15 PM

Man, I saw an 80s BBC Julius Caesar where Caesar was played by the guy who did the Narrator from Rocky Horror Picture Show. I kept hoping he would jump on a table and tell us "Put your hands on your hips!"

He's a great actor.

God, that must have been a horrible experience. Would either make or break the play, expecting them to break into dance...

Ponderthought

2010-09-16, 09:29 PM

Hmm, a Julius Caesar rendition of Rocky Horror might actually make that film watchable.

Dammit, Janet in iambic pentameter.

Mando Knight

2010-09-16, 11:11 PM

Romeo and Juliet is overused garbage.

It is, but it's better if you read/watch it as a tragedy, rather than as the "perfect romance" bull that Hollyweird seems to think it is.

Telonius

2010-09-17, 07:41 AM

Hmm, a Julius Caesar rendition of Rocky Horror might actually make that film watchable.

Dammit, Janet in iambic pentameter.

Hamlet would probably be a better fit. Frank as Claudius, Columbia as Gertrude, Rocky as Hamlet, Eddie as Hamlet's Father, Riff and Magenta as R&G...

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-17, 08:51 PM

It is, but it's better if you read/watch it as a tragedy, rather than as the "perfect romance" bull that Hollyweird seems to think it is.

damn you taylor swift

Knaight

2010-09-18, 03:07 PM

damn you taylor swift

To be fair, Taylor Swift grew up amidst music where basically everyone screwed that one up, its hardly her idea. One would think that musical production prevented one from being able to read act 5 if it weren't for Blue Oyster Cult, and even then if you don't know what they mean by "together in eternity", it could be interpreted as the usual true love drivel.

BlueWizard

2010-09-19, 12:36 AM

Ahhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

Too! Hard!!! Ahhhhh!!!

-pant- -pant-

I love them all... I will be back to make a better decision. :mitd:

Dienekes

2010-09-20, 09:54 PM

It is, but it's better if you read/watch it as a tragedy, rather than as the "perfect romance" bull that Hollyweird seems to think it is.

Unfortunately, for me it fails as a tragedy as well.

I'm sorry, I'm completely uninterested in the horrid problems of two noble youths who think they've fallen "in wuv" after what? A day? Or was it that one instant they happened to see each other.

I detest most love at first sight stories, and this one stands as the pinnacle of it, with annoying barely sympathetic characters and a contrived set of circumstances set up to make them kill each other.

And every single buggering class on Shakespeare makes you read it. Always.
(Though to be fair I've only taken 2 and have asked 2 other friends who have taken Shakespeare classes, so my pool of reference is only 4 classes out of I'm going to guess millions)

Knaight

2010-09-20, 09:58 PM

Unfortunately, for me it fails as a tragedy as well.

I'm sorry, I'm completely uninterested in the horrid problems of two noble youths who think they've fallen "in wuv" after what? A day? Or was it that one instant they happened to see each other.

You aren't supposed to care about them. They are delusional nutters who fall in love and die as a result, the tragedy is how this dragged down so many others, and how the adults who should have been paying attention to this stood back and let the carnage happen.

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-20, 10:02 PM

You aren't supposed to care about them. They are delusional nutters who fall in love and die as a result, the tragedy is how this dragged down so many others, and how the adults who should have been paying attention to this stood back and let the carnage happen.

exactly, i was beyond ticked when romeo let mercutio die

Thufir

2010-09-20, 10:14 PM

It is also tragic how stupid they are. And how easily all these problems could have been avoided.

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-20, 10:19 PM

Macbeth, on the other hand, is a real tragedy

Kallisti

2010-09-20, 10:58 PM

And, of course, has caused real tragedy. Hot potato, orchestra stalls, Puck will make amends!

Telonius

2010-09-21, 07:50 AM

You aren't supposed to care about them. They are delusional nutters who fall in love and die as a result, the tragedy is how this dragged down so many others, and how the adults who should have been paying attention to this stood back and let the carnage happen.

And the one guy who really did know better and was actively trying to help, ends up the worst of all.

Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, and vice sometimes by action dignified.

Knaight

2010-09-21, 08:06 AM

Dienekes

2010-09-21, 10:09 AM

He nearly pulled off his plan too, which is another tragedy. He almost managed to fix everything, had a messenger out, then got shafted by sheer, dumb, misfortune. That said, he probably shouldn't have put it into motion anyways.

Thus why I saw the end result as contrived. Also it's the problem with the entire play is that no one is even worth getting vaguely emotional about. Every character is just uninteresting from the lovers to Tybalt, to Mercutio, to said adults. What's left is a play with a body count and nothing else. No emotion to any characters leads to a poor tragedy.

Compare with Macbeth, Julius Caesar, or King Lear where the tragedy actually works to illicit some response with me. Whether I love, hate, or despise the characters.

endoperez

2010-09-21, 11:23 AM

I thought Romeo & Juliet was a dirty comedy filled with horrible, often sexual, puns...

GREGORY
That shows thee a weak slave; for the weakest goes
to the wall.
SAMPSON
True; and therefore women, being the weaker vessels,
are ever thrust to the wall: therefore I will push
Montague's men from the wall, and thrust his maids
to the wall.
GREGORY
The quarrel is between our masters and us their men.
SAMPSON
'Tis all one, I will show myself a tyrant: when I
have fought with the men, I will be cruel with the
maids, and cut off their heads.
GREGORY
The heads of the maids?
SAMPSON
Ay, the heads of the maids, or their maidenheads;
take it in what sense thou wilt.
GREGORY
They must take it in sense that feel it.
SAMPSON
Me they shall feel while I am able to stand: and
'tis known I am a pretty piece of flesh.

Or, in scene 3, the nurse recalls how young Juliet is learning to walk. (Hint: 'wit' has a second meaning...)

Nurse
For then she could stand alone; nay, by the rood,
She could have run and waddled all about;
For even the day before, she broke her brow:
And then my husband--God be with his soul!
A' was a merry man--took up the child:
'Yea,' quoth he, 'dost thou fall upon thy face?
Thou wilt fall backward when thou hast more wit;
Wilt thou not, Jule?' and, by my holidame,
The pretty wretch left crying and said 'Ay.'

I must admit, it takes a lot of work to understand these jokes. This (http://shakespeare-navigators.com/romeo/Bawdy.html) has some, but not nearly all, of them. "The chinks" are coins that make a chinking sound. In addition, to "have the chinks" is to be in that state of wheezing and gasping that comes when you are laughing so hard you need to stop, but can't.

ROMEO
What is her mother?
Nurse
Marry, bachelor,
Her mother is the lady of the house,
And a good lady, and a wise and virtuous
I nursed her daughter, that you talk'd withal;
I tell you, he that can lay hold of her
Shall have the chinks.

Not to mention that the nurse makes sure Romeo receives Juliet's "ring", when she tells him to go see her at her room. "Ring" is, of course, the woman's naughty bits, like "nothing" and "quaint". Oh my god, this must be the worst one yet...
ROMEO
I dream'd a dream to-night.
MERCUTIO
And so did I.
ROMEO
Well, what was yours?
MERCUTIO
That dreamers often lie.
ROMEO
In bed asleep, while they do dream things true.
MERCUTIO
O, then, I see Queen Mab hath been with you.
She is the fairies' midwife, and she comes
[a long-winded explanation]
This is the hag, when maids lie on their backs,
That presses them and learns them first to bear,
Making them women of good carriage:
This is she--
ROMEO
Peace, peace, Mercutio, peace!
Thou talk'st of nothing.

ROMEO
A most courteous exposition.
MERCUTIO
Nay, I am the very pink of courtesy.
ROMEO
Pink for flower.
MERCUTIO
Right.
ROMEO
Why, then is my pump well flowered.
MERCUTIO
Well said.

Courtesy = courtsy. "A pump well flowered by the pink flower of courtsy." Ahem.

Benvolio and Mercutio are mocking the nurse. Confidence vs conference; invite vs indite. A hunter might have yelled Bawd so ho! when spotting a rabbit. However, hare, bawd, ho and slate all have a single meaning (that rhymes with boar)....
Nurse
if you be he, sir, I desire some confidence with
you.
BENVOLIO
She will indite him to some supper.
MERCUTIO
A bawd, a bawd, a bawd! so ho!
ROMEO
What hast thou found?
MERCUTIO
No hare, sir; unless a hare, sir, in a lenten pie,
that is something stale and hoar ere it be spent.

Here "wit" stands for the mind, a sword and the male genitals, while goose and broad for, well...
MERCUTIO
Nay, if thy wits run the wild-goose chase, I have
done, for thou hast more of the wild-goose in one of
thy wits than, I am sure, I have in my whole five:
was I with you there for the goose?
ROMEO
Thou wast never with me for any thing when thou wast
not there for the goose.
MERCUTIO
I will bite thee by the ear for that jest.
ROMEO
Nay, good goose, bite not.
MERCUTIO
Thy wit is a very bitter sweeting; it is a most
sharp sauce.
ROMEO
And is it not well served in to a sweet goose?
MERCUTIO
O here's a wit of cheveril, that stretches from an
inch narrow to an ell broad!
ROMEO
I stretch it out for that word 'broad;' which added
to the goose, proves thee far and wide a broad goose.

I can just imagine original audiences all but rolling in the floor in fits of laughter...

Ravens_cry

2010-09-21, 11:30 AM

Yes, Shakespeare LOVED Dirty Puns. In fact, that he allowed humorous sub-plots in his tragedy was a good part of what made him distinct in his day. From what I understand, this was a pretty new idea at the time.
Personally, I like his comedies best. Growing up, we watched a lot of Shakespeare movies, and my sister and I would quote them back and forth.
My two favourites were Twelfth Night and Much Ado About Nothing, Much Ado About Nothing having delicious banter between Beatrice and Benedict.

Dienekes

2010-09-21, 11:37 AM

All of Shakespeare's plays have dirty puns. It's one of his many trademark qualities.

That said, there was a rendition of Romeo and Juliet that tried to play it as a comedy awhile back. It involved acting in Shakespearean era style with all the women parts played by men. Apparently they got the biggest guy with the deepest voice they could to play Juliet, don't remember if it became popular or anything or just something an old professor liked talking about.

Knaight

2010-09-21, 03:51 PM

Thus why I saw the end result as contrived.
It was something that could have easily happened, the priest yet another victim assuming he could will the world to his bidding.

And Shakespeare really loved sexual puns.

Asta Kask

2010-09-21, 04:01 PM

Julius Caesar. The movie with John Gielgud, James Mason and Marlon Brando. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esUMvBL3gnY)

Richard III, with Ian McKellen, set in the 30's.

VeisuItaTyhjyys

2010-09-21, 05:21 PM

Falstaff is the greatest character in literature ever ever.

SilentNight

2010-09-21, 09:52 PM

exactly, i was beyond ticked when romeo let mercutio die

My favorite character, Shakespeare was the Joss Whedon of his time.

I consider myself a decent Shakespeare fan, true some of the comedy hasn't aged well but the prose is still well, and some of the prose is just too quotable/awesome to ignore.

My favorite plays in no particular order:

Hamlet: Not a huge fan of the plot but I've been lucky enough to see a superb live performance which really made it for me. Some of Hamlet's lines are just awesome, like the "Alas poor Yorick" bit, (I don't particularly like "To be or not to be") and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern rank as one of my all time favorite literative duos.

The Tempest: I saw this rather young but I remember enjoying it, nice plot.

Romeo and Juliet: The first of only two Shakespeare plays I've actually read, I mostly put it here for Mercutio.

More though, I love the countless works, parodic and serious that Shakespeare's plays have spawned, chiefly Rosencrantz and Guildenstern the play and the Reduced Shakespeare Company.

I'm curious as to how people feel about Shakespeare set in modern times? Personally I don't take to it too keenly but the excellent production of Hamlet mentioned above was set in modern day Denmark.

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-21, 09:58 PM

My favorite character, Shakespeare was the Joss Whedon of his time.

I consider myself a decent Shakespeare fan, true some of the comedy hasn't aged well but the prose is still well, and some of the prose is just too quotable/awesome to ignore.

My favorite plays in no particular order:

Hamlet: Not a huge fan of the plot but I've been lucky enough to see a superb live performance which really made it for me. Some of Hamlet's lines are just awesome, like the "Alas poor Yorick" bit, (I don't particularly like "To be or not to be") and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern rank as one of my all time favorite literative duos.

The Tempest: I saw this rather young but I remember enjoying it, nice plot.

Romeo and Juliet: The first of only two Shakespeare plays I've actually read, I mostly put it here for Mercutio.

More though, I love the countless works, parodic and serious that Shakespeare's plays have spawned, chiefly Rosencrantz and Guildenstern the play and the Reduced Shakespeare Company.

I'm curious as to how people feel about Shakespeare set in modern times? Personally I don't take to it too keenly but the excellent production of Hamlet mentioned above was set in modern day Denmark.

somewhere in the world is a modern day version of macbeth floating around
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/Macbeth2006poster.jpg

Knaight

2010-09-22, 07:50 AM

More though, I love the countless works, parodic and serious that Shakespeare's plays have spawned, chiefly Rosencrantz and Guildenstern the play and the Reduced Shakespeare Company.

Both of these are very good, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in particular. Stoppard is a brilliant playwright, and it shows.

Thufir

2010-09-22, 08:04 AM

I'm curious as to how people feel about Shakespeare set in modern times?

KILL IT KILL IT WITH FIRE! I ARE TRADITIONALIST, HEAR ME ROAR! RARRRRH!

So, yeah, I'm not going to say it can't be good, but in general, just stick to the original setting.
Now modernisations I have no problem with. Take the basic plot, update it and tell a new, if remarkably similar, story set in modern times. That's fine. But just plucking a Shakespeare play from its setting in its entirety and transplanting it into a different period. No.

Oh, I agree, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is an excellent play. I love Stoppard.

Mordaenor

2010-09-22, 08:05 AM

Henry V is probably my favorite. I think the Histories are probably his best plays, and the "O for a muse of fire" speech goes down as one of my personal favorites.

Cyrion

2010-09-22, 08:39 AM

I'm another traditionalist. I can't really give a good reason for it, but putting Shakespere in a modern setting just doesn't work for me.

VeisuItaTyhjyys

2010-09-22, 10:16 AM

Both of these are very good, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in particular. Stoppard is a brilliant playwright, and it shows.

Oh, man, I remember the first time I read that play, my mind was just absolutely blown.

As for modernisations, it depends. As someone else was saying, the "vague" ones, with a plot alluding to or inspired by Shakespeare can be quite good, although often aren't, but really direct drag-and-drop modern remakes usually don't work, at all. Of course, there are notable exceptions, most of which seem to be when the play is directly lifted, dialogue and all, into an inapprorpriate setting in a surreal/post-modern way. The film of Richard III with Ian McKellan as the titular character is a great example.

Snares

2010-09-22, 10:28 AM

Shakespeare. :smallcool:

Started studying Hamlet in English today, which I've never studied in detail, and don't believe I've ever seen a proper performance of (barring a surprisingly well-done school performance of it a few years ago). Should be good. :smallcool: I know it's being performed somewhere in London this October, so I'll hopefully get to see it too.

My favourites are The Tempest (saw a production with Patrick Stewart as Prospero. Seriously good. :smallcool:), Othello and A Midsummer Night's Dream. Seeing the RSC stage Henry IV parts one and two followed by Henry V in succession was pretty epic (in the non-intarwebs sense of the word). Twelfth Night is also good.

I'm also fortunate enough to live in London, so I go to Shakespeare's Globe whenever I can. Amazing place to see the plays performed, and the productions are always great.

Knaight

2010-09-22, 10:28 AM

Oh, man, I remember the first time I read that play, my mind was just absolutely blown.

The only reason I wasn't was that I read Arcadia first and that took care of the mind blowing.

CynicalAvocado

2010-09-22, 08:19 PM

I'm another traditionalist. I can't really give a good reason for it, but putting Shakespere in a modern setting just doesn't work for me.

i guess it's a love-it-or-hate-it sort of thing...

AtlanteanTroll

2010-09-22, 08:53 PM

KILL IT KILL IT WITH FIRE! I ARE TRADITIONALIST, HEAR ME ROAR! RARRRRH!

So, yeah, I'm not going to say it can't be good, but in general, just stick to the original setting.
Now modernisations I have no problem with. Take the basic plot, update it and tell a new, if remarkably similar, story set in modern times. That's fine. But just plucking a Shakespeare play from its setting in its entirety and transplanting it into a different period. No.

We read Romiette and Julio in 8th Grade. And instead of the Capulets and Montagues they're African-Americans and Hispanics. It was absolute crap, but the names were hilarious.

SilentNight

2010-09-22, 09:03 PM

Shakespeare. :smallcool:

Seeing the RSC stage Henry IV parts one and two followed by Henry V in succession was pretty epic (in the non-intarwebs sense of the word).

It took me a second to realize this was the Royal Shakespeare Company, not the Reduced Shakespeare Company. :smalltongue:

And just because, the second RSC doing all of the histories as an American football game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3JFVysqgv8); performed somewhere in England I believe.

snoopy13a

2010-09-22, 10:24 PM

As for modern adaptations, I thought that the Claire Danes/Leonardo DiCaprio Romeo and Juliet wasn't bad.

A very interesting adaptation of a Shakespearian play (Henry IV part I) is My Own Private Idaho.

Thufir

2010-09-23, 08:30 AM

As for modern adaptations, I thought that the Claire Danes/Leonardo DiCaprio Romeo and Juliet wasn't bad.

KILL IT WITH FIRE.

Seriously, I hate that adaptation. Shifting the setting but leaving the dialogue makes no sense. Making them use guns renders much of the unchanged dialogue nonsensical (Yes I know they invented a brand of guns called 'Sword', that really doesn't help. It's a ridiculously contrived solution to a problem which shouldn't have been allowed to arise in the first place, still doesn't really work, and could easily be missed by the audience). It also completely screws up the meaning of "I was stabbed under your arm." Given Mercutio is one of if not the best character, mucking up his death scene is a big no-no.
I'm sure there are more issues I could come up with, but I haven't seen it for years,and I'm not sure if I ever watched it all the way through.

If you want to do a modern-day Romeo and Juliet, just do West Side Story.

Ravens_cry

2010-09-23, 08:39 AM

It can work. Many movies, like Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet and Much Ado About Nothing, are set in periods outside of Shakespeares own era. Shakespeare himself was not ashy of creative anachronisms, adding a clock to Julius Caesar.
'Romeo + Juliet' wasn't bad, though they cut more then most of dialogue.
I really want to see the Richard III with Sir Ian Macklennin in a 30's style.

Thufir

2010-09-23, 08:42 AM

Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet

For the record, I hate that one as well. Not for the setting, though (I didn't realise the setting had been changed), I just can't stand his portrayal of Hamlet (Well, based on the first few scenes anyway, since that's all I watched).

Ravens_cry

2010-09-23, 08:48 AM

For the record, I hate that one as well. Not for the setting, though (I didn't realise the setting had been changed), I just can't stand his portrayal of Hamlet (Well, based on the first few scenes anyway, since that's all I watched).
Look at the clothes. It is closer to us then to Shakespeare. There is also a train later on.

truemane

2010-09-23, 09:10 AM

I'm a big fan of modernized/updated/re-vamped Shakespeare. The man himself was, by all accounts, a sell-out of the highest degree and if he were alive today he'd be down in Hollywood making deals and doing lunch and whoring it up to whoever paid the bills.

I think that taking the story and repackaging it is: A. closer to Shakespeare's 'original vision' than any number of elderly knighted actors trouncing about on stage fretting over every semi-colon, and B. the best way to keep it new and fresh and see in new ways and from new angles. Unlike film, for example, which is a static medium and therefore ages so quickly.

I've got a pile of modernized Shakespeare. My favourites are Richard III (with Ian McKellan and Annette Benning), Julie Taymor's Titus and the Ethan Hawke Hamlet (with the soliliquoys delivered to a camera! Genius!). I didn't like Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, but that was due to what seemed to me to be a deliberate mangling of the language. Which was odd, since such care had been taken to include it. It seemed like he was desperate to alienate the traditionalists and the kids.

Also, transplanted Shakespeare can be fun as well. From Tim Blake Nelson's "O" to Kurosawa's The Bad Sleep Well , Throne of Blood and Ran (which is his greatest film in my opinion).

And I can't talk about Shakespeare without mentioning the greatest Hamlet adaptation of all time...

Strange Brew, Eh! Hoser! (http://www.adamcarolla.com/ACPBlog/wp-content/gallery/2009-10-08-dave-thomas/06_strange_brew.jpg)

SilentNight

2010-09-23, 09:13 AM

KILL IT WITH FIRE.

Seriously, I hate that adaptation. Shifting the setting but leaving the dialogue makes no sense. Making them use guns renders much of the unchanged dialogue nonsensical (Yes I know they invented a brand of guns called 'Sword', that really doesn't help. It's a ridiculously contrived solution to a problem which shouldn't have been allowed to arise in the first place, still doesn't really work, and could easily be missed by the audience). It also completely screws up the meaning of "I was stabbed under your arm." Given Mercutio is one of if not the best character, mucking up his death scene is a big no-no.
I'm sure there are more issues I could come up with, but I haven't seen it for years,and I'm not sure if I ever watched it all the way through.

If you want to do a modern-day Romeo and Juliet, just do West Side Story.

I pretty much agree, although I have to say it is one of the better portrayals of Mercurtio I've seen. But yeah, West Side Story's awesome.

Thufir

2010-09-23, 05:59 PM

Yeah, Mercutio was alright.

Look at the clothes. It is closer to us then to Shakespeare. There is also a train later on.

Because I'm clearly an expert on period clothing?
It's possible I might've noticed, if I hadn't felt like Branagh was trying to use a soliloquy as a blunt instrument.

nihilism

2010-09-23, 06:26 PM

shakespears plays (at least on stage) are not about the setting. i agree that movies should never be modernized but honestly i never think of Shakespeare plays as being set in a time period. the dialogue is static and its the dialogue that marks the setting and the play regardless of "clothing" or "weapons"

of course plays that go overboard with the whole "lets put Shakespeare on a spaceship" thing are terrible but if the costumes are just there because the actors have to wear something and they might as well do something interesting, im fine with that.

I think that setting shakespear in the time/place intended also runs into the same problem. i would say that its best with simple costumes and minimal props

Thufir

2010-09-23, 07:03 PM

Shakespeare's plays (at least on stage) are not about the setting. I agree that movies should never be modernized but honestly I never think of Shakespeare plays as being set in a time period. The dialogue is static and it's the dialogue that marks the setting and the play regardless of clothing or weapons.

Of course plays that go overboard with the whole "Let's put Shakespeare on a spaceship" thing are terrible but if the costumes are just there because the actors have to wear something and they might as well do something interesting, I'm fine with that.

I think that setting Shakespeare in the time/place intended also runs into the same problem. I would say that it's best with simple costumes and minimal props.

I'd pretty much agree. So long as the setting doesn't include elements which present problems to the plot and the dialogue, so long as it feels right, fine. If the setting is obtrusively one in which the plot no longer makes sense or the dialogue seems anachronistic, it's a problem.
Now, if you have the anachronistic dialogue problem but the plot still works, maybe you can rewrite it. But the rewritten dialogue is likely to be worse than the original, since wordsmiths of Shakespeare's calibre are in short supply.

SilentNight

2010-09-23, 08:55 PM

shakespears plays (at least on stage) are not about the setting. i agree that movies should never be modernized but honestly i never think of Shakespeare plays as being set in a time period. the dialogue is static and its the dialogue that marks the setting and the play regardless of "clothing" or "weapons"

Weapons can be a problem sometimes, like in the final scene of the Ethan Hawke Hamlet.

Spoilered on the off chance someone here hasn't seen/read/had the ending spoiled for them.

Hamlet and Laertes fence using modern-day electric equipment, all well and good for the first two touches until Laertes pulls out a gun and shoots Hamlet. Hamlet then runs straight at Laertes and they grapple, forcing Laertes to shoot himself some how. It was just a bit too ridiculous for me.

nihilism

2010-09-23, 09:39 PM

Weapons can be a problem sometimes, like in the final scene of the Ethan Hawke Hamlet.

Spoilered on the off chance someone here hasn't seen/read/had the ending spoiled for them.

Hamlet and Laertes fence using modern-day electric equipment, all well and good for the first two touches until Laertes pulls out a gun and shoots Hamlet. Hamlet then runs straight at Laertes and they grapple, forcing Laertes to shoot himself some how. It was just a bit too ridiculous for me.

yeah thats futered up. its obtrusive and ruins the feel of the play Shakespeare isn't about the action its about the emotional response to the action, this gets totally messed up when you have a load of ridiculous bollocks

minimalist all the way.

Ravens_cry

2010-09-24, 12:25 AM

You can go too minimalist, however. Now, Sir Ian Mckellen as fine an actor as has ever been knighted. But the 1979 version takes minimalism, in my view, a wee bit too far.

VeisuItaTyhjyys

2010-09-24, 01:03 AM

I'd pretty much agree. So long as the setting doesn't include elements which present problems to the plot and the dialogue, so long as it feels right, fine. If the setting is obtrusively one in which the plot no longer makes sense or the dialogue seems anachronistic, it's a problem.

Really? I feel like these are the adaptations that work the best. Or can work the best, I suppose (I agree that the '90s Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo diCaprio was trash), if done right, so that the anarchronism adds a surreal or absurd edge. Lots of Shakespeare characters, even heavily central characters, are utterly mad, and the character seemingly existing out of time can drastically increase the sense of madness.

Thufir

2010-09-24, 08:37 AM

Really? I feel like these are the adaptations that work the best. Or can work the best, I suppose (I agree that the '90s Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo diCaprio was trash), if done right, so that the anachronism adds a surreal or absurd edge. Lots of Shakespeare characters, even heavily central characters, are utterly mad, and the character seemingly existing out of time can drastically increase the sense of madness.

There is no Shakespeare play where every character is utterly mad, so for someone at least, the dialogue will feel utterly wrong. Besides, the level of madness implied by speaking Shakespearian english in modern times, for example, would seem to me to be greater than the extent of madness indicated by the scripts.
And I really don't want my Shakespearian tragedies to have an absurd edge.

truemane

2010-09-24, 08:59 AM

I find the value of transplanted Shakespeare to be that, freed from the trappings of the original place and time, the themes and characters stand out so clearly.

You take Hamlet and shove it into a modern corporate environment and suddenly the story takes on an edge and an immediacy that can get buried when they're all just 'dudes from a long time ago.'

Who knows what the noble family of some other country in the 13th century acts like or thinks like or feels like? But a perennial second-banana seizing power from his superior with the help of his loyal toady? A pampered wife taking a morally questionable low road for the sake of her own security and that of her son? A spoiled rich-kid who wants to do the right thing but can't get his act together long enough to figure out what that is? Murder? Corruption? Insanity? Cover-ups? Scandal? All of this we see in the newspapers today.

The genius of Shakespeare is that his characters are just like us. After some 300 years their humanity still rings true. Updating/changing the setting puts the man's genius in sharp focus and emphasizes (for me) what made the plays stand the test of time in the first place.

SpiderMew

2010-09-24, 09:17 AM

If anyone is intrested, I am actualy working on a production of Macbeth right now.

Im going to be playing Lennox. Also, because it was shortend, the character of Angus was cut and I was given his lines.

Also instead of scotland, its going to take place in mexico, with the drugcartells and stuff.

Here, the director put up a website, it also contains cast photos.
See if you can find me!

http://www.wix.com/nbuckley6453/macbeth

Warning, there is autoplaying music when you click the link. Dont blow your speakers, its pritty loud.

nihilism

2010-09-24, 11:03 PM

SpiderMew

2010-09-25, 06:34 AM

Today in english. was enthusiastically shown a sizable library of Shakespeare pathetically translated into modern english AND IM IN THE AP COURSE. if you can't understand it your too bloody stupid to go anywhere near Shakespeare in the first place. People should stick to tv if there going to read a ridiculous mutilated shell of the original, think they have read Shakespeare and get the idea that they are remotely literate.

raaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr (angry)

Now thats not totaly fair. Shakespeare did use words that were archaic even for his day, sometimes. Even in high end theater courses, they want you to get the "No Fear Shakespeare" version of a play, because it has the orginal text on the left and a modern translation on the right. I dont need it, but somepeople do. Just cuz they dont understand it now, dosnt mean they cant learn. Some times people need the modern text to help them get a grip on Shakespeare, but later on wont need it.

Thufir

2010-09-25, 08:26 AM

Now that's not totally fair. Shakespeare did use words that were archaic even for his day, sometimes. Even in high end theatre courses, they want you to get the "No Fear Shakespeare" version of a play, because it has the orginal text on the left and a modern translation on the right. I don't need it, but some people do. Just 'cause they don't understand it now, doesn't mean they can't learn. Sometimes people need the modern text to help them get a grip on Shakespeare, but later on won't need it.

No see, this is why every copy of any individual Shakespeare play I've ever seen has a load of notes on each page explaining the meaning of such archaic words and phrases. The 'No Fear' editions seem to do the translation by taking the most basic meaning, which naturally strips it of all the poetry and subtle word-play and generally makes it sound terrible. Also, if the meaning is obscure, well, you're studying the play, you have a teacher who (Presumably) understands it. Ask them.

SpiderMew

2010-09-25, 08:31 AM

Teachers dont want you to ask them usualy. They want you to learn on your own. Atleast the ones ive encountred lately are like that.

Thufir

2010-09-25, 10:01 AM

Then they're not doing their job right. It's right there in the name, teacher.
I mean, sure, they shouldn't have to explain everything, but if people are having trouble understanding, that is what they're there for.

Aedilred

2010-09-28, 03:03 PM

I'd find it tough to decide between King Lear and Macbeth as my favourite play- I think Lear is more accomplished and technically better, but Macbeth was the first of his plays that I really took to, and it still occupies a special place in my heart as a consequence.

I saw a fabulous performance of Lear in London about ten years ago. The theatre in question was being renovated so they were performing in an old bus garage- with the consequence they could do whatever they liked. Over the course of the play they demolished the set as Lear's mind disintegrated, and by the fifth act even the interior walls in the audience section were falling apart. The acting was excellent, too- that scene where mad Lear encounters blind Gloucester on the heath, with Edgar looking on, was utterly heartbreaking and had half the audience blubbing.

A lot of my preference comes down to the performance. I've seen pretty average performances of both Macbeth and Lear by professional companies, and great performances of some of the comedies by bunches of amateurs.

As far as characters go, though, Iago wins hands down, largely for the reasons Thufir mentioned on the first page. He ruins everyone's life in that play- including, ultimately, his own- for no apparent reason at all, other than because he feels like it, and he's brilliantly written. To be honest, I can't think of a literary villain I've come across who surpasses him.