William Shakespeare

[Igu Soni]

Guess who we don't have a thread on?

Personally have read Macbeth, Julius Caesar and The Tempest. Started Hamlet but got stalled.

The only poem of his I've read is (surprise) "All The World's A Stage".

I really like him and agree that he's brilliant, but would honestly like to know why there is so much love for him.


Also, the man's provided me with my favourite out-of-context quotation (from Macbeth):
Lay on, Macduff,
And damn'd be him that first cries, "Hold, enough!"

[Backwords]

"What, is Shakespeare there? A piece of him."

If this forum is going to degenerate into the over saturated Shakespeare market... haha :P ...

then I would like to jump to the next emanation and recommend some of the retreads : Hamlet Machine Heiner Mueller, MacbettEugene Ionescu, In a slightly different but related category Enrico IV by Pirandello.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are DeadTom Stoppard,

there are more...

[Igu Soni]

Originally Posted by Backwords

Hamlet Machine Heiner Mueller, MacbettEugene Ionescu, In a slightly different but related category Enrico IV by Pirandello.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are DeadTom Stoppard,

there are more...

I love the Stoppard play. Thanks for pointing out there's one by Ionesco/Ionescu. I really enjoy the guy, but I've only read one of his.

[miercuri]

Originally Posted by Backwords

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are DeadTom Stoppard,

I absolutely loved this, made me appreciate Hamlet even more! And I loved the film as well!

[learna]

On Sunday I saw the one-man show "Richard III", the production of Taganka Theater. It reminded that everything'd been said by ancient and classic literature once more.
Even well-known " The Monument" by Pushkin repeated the poem by Publius Ovidius Nazon.

As old as the hills .

What can I tell about Shakespeare? Only quote .

[rabbitfast]

Oh dear...can't say I'm a fan, though I have to say, the man is just too darn quotable! Perhaps if the public education system had the sense to lay off a bit and not shove his work down our throats...but I digress.

In general, I don't mind the tragedies (Hamlet, affectionately referred to as Omelette; Macbeth, playfully (?) referred to as MacBloodbath etc.) and some of the comedies (Twelfth Night, Much Ado About Nothing).

On the "can't stand them" list--Romeo and Juliet, Henry IV, I and II, A Midsummer Night's Dream...etc.

Also read: Julius Ceaser, A Winter's Tale, As You Like It, The Merchant of Venice, Othello, King Lear...

I think he's overrated. And, let's not forget, there were no copyright laws...R&J was essentially an old Italian story...Thomas Kyd, if I'm not mistaken, wrote a version of Hamlet before Billy did and really, when you think about it, you shift the names of a few Italian venues and some names...unless it's Brit history..in which case you do the same with Brit venues/names etc) and it's all essentially the same kind of thing. But then...the Bible and ancient myths have been written and rewritten to death in Western lit...so what do I know?

[Eric]

Learna, I've never heard of this Publius Ovidius Nazi, but getting back to Will, don't you think he was having a bit of a snigger when he, long before Stoppard, invented the names Rosencrantz (rosy wreath/sphincter) and Guildenstern (golden bottom/arse/behind)? I've asked this before, but never received a reply.

If we are not to fetishise Shakespeare as God's gift to literature, we should ackowledge that he requires a lot of careful reading with notes, as most of his refences, puns and jokes are totally obscure to 21st century man without a gloss.

Shakespeare nicked things from others (e.g. Holinshed) but also gave them life, with wit and plot. I hate mediocrities that plagiarise, but if you improve a story, turning naked bones into a complex epic, then you are forgiven.

[hdw]

If you're a native speaker of English, it's difficult to read, or watch a production of, a Shakespeare play with an open mind, because you've had it dinned into you life-long that he is the greatest writer who ever put quill to paper, no question, no argument. Never mind that none of us - even Eric - are sufficiently fluent in enough of the world's literary languages to make meaningful comparisons with other writers. If you don't enjoy his plays, obviously that has to be your fault.

I suspect my experience of Shakespeare is fairly typical. As a bookish teenager I was in a small minority in my class at school who enjoyed my introduction to Shakespeare, and occasional school trips to the theatre were a real treat. We've all probably seen some great Shakespeare productions on telly too in the days when they still did such things. At school, university and teacher-training-college I even acted in some Shakespeare plays myself, and that was fun, until I realised what a crap actor I was and stopped.

Nowadays, it would take the proverbial team of wild horses to get me into a theatre to watch a Shakespeare play. I'm an unashamed doublet and hose man, and I don't want to watch Chicago gangsters or Italian Fascists spouting Jacobean verse. Stuff trendy directors and their "concepts". Nor do I want to watch TV stars parachuted into the starring roles, tho' I understand that Richard Wilson of One Foot in the Grave is currently acting his socks off as Malvolio on the London stage, despite being several decades too old and having some of the best-known and most irritating mannerisms of any British actor.

"Enough! No more! 'Tis not so sweet now as it was before" (that's from memory!) - not for this jaded old amateur thesp anyway (and, yes, I was once in Twelfth Night).

Harry

[Eric]

As for the "even Eric" aspect, it does help to know the Scandinavian languages and Dutch, plus, I suppose, Latin and Greek. And even then you'd be floundering, as Shakespeare will have made certain things up as he went along.

I think, like Harry, that you should keep Shakespeare in the period costume of the day. If you want a play about gangsters or space explorers, you should write one yourself. If you're no good, then hard luck. Too many people have propped up their efforts, whether at playwriting or stage design, on things done by others. Endless derivitaves are boring.

I liked Richard Wilson best playing himself as the driver of vintagish 1950s cars round Scotland and elsewhere.

[Clarissa]

I agree with one exception. One of the most remarkable productions of Richard III was Sir Ian McKellan's film version. Infinitely better than Sir Laurence Olivier's hammy rendition. Less of a hunchback less makeup, no heavy black wig but a far greater understanding of the text transmitted to the audence.

Richard III (1995 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Igu Soni]

Originally Posted by Clarissa

I agree with one exception. One of the most remarkable productions of Richard III was Sir Ian McKellan's film version. Infinitely better than Sir Laurence Olivier's hammy rendition. Less of a hunchback less makeup, no heavy black wig but a far greater understanding of the text transmitted to the audence.

Richard III (1995 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Richard III :: rogerebert.com :: Great Movies

[Manuel76]

I don't like period costume productions as a rule, sometimes they don't make any sense for me. And I think I remember even his roman plays were staged with XVII century costumes at shakespeare's time, so I suppose it was especially important for shakespeare to relate the play's epoch to that of the audience.

Things get completely different dimensions when you can relate to characters and not to accept excuses as "this scene is cruel because at that time things were really cruel" or " Hamlet relationship with his mother can be undrstood as the mother-son relationship in a XVII century european monarchy". Things get very distanct. I like the way Brannagh made it in his film (but there were lots of other things I disliked). It's not necesary to stage them with modern costumes, but sometimes it's a good idea.

Anyway there are always more important things to stress than the year the action takes place. Is important if Lady Macbeth was a XVII century british lady or a XIIth century scottish lady? You only need to know that she and her husband are nobles in a hierarchy, their relative position to others...and so on.

I saw A midsummer night's dream this summer staged by Piccolo Teatro di Milano and Luca Ronconi and enjoyed it a lot (of course in italian...that's a pity), but I think I could never say in which time it was supposed to take place: Athens was an invented society, a symbol, nothing to do with the old greek polis.

[Igu Soni]

Originally Posted by hdw

Nowadays, it would take the proverbial team of wild horses to get me into a theatre to watch a Shakespeare play. I'm an unashamed doublet and hose man, and I don't want to watch Chicago gangsters or Italian Fascists spouting Jacobean verse.

What do you (and Eric) think of Kurosawa's Shakespeare adaptations (Throne of Blood and Ran)?

[hdw]

Originally Posted by Manuel76

.
I saw A midsummer night's dream this summer staged by Piccolo Teatro di Milano and Luca Ronconi and enjoyed it a lot (of course in italian...that's a pity), but I think I could never say in which time it was supposed to take place: Athens was an invented society, a symbol, nothing to do with the old greek polis.

I played Oberon in MND in final year at school. It's all been downhill since then. How do you follow being King of the Fairies? Incidentally, what's happened to our Titania, the Queen of the Forum?

Harry

[Eric]

I'm afraid that I've never seen either the Ian McKellan Richard III or films by Kurosawa, bar one, which I don't remember.

One can do minimalist things and have a bare stage, but I think that re-setting Shakespeare totally (e.g. ancient Japanese, gangster, sci-fi, nudist colony settings) may run the risk of having the audience concentrating on the fact that it is restaged, rather than getting to the pith of the play which is, ultimately, a play of language.

Another thorny issue is whether you should reword and revise Shakespeare, i.e. to compensate for the Bard's quasi-incomprehensible language at times for a contemporary audience. Or whether you should stick to the original words, and expect that anyone seriously interested in Shakespeare will have read the play, notes and all, before going to the theatre. Otherwise they could miss a mass of allusions, digs, jokes, etc.

These two problems of stage settings and language are major factors when theatres and filmmakers consider Shakespeare plays.

I'd like to see plays such as Macbeth, King Lear or Hamlet set in a 1960s hippyèsque, flower powerful nudist colony. I think that would be the quintessence of paring and honing: no clothes, no distractions.

[beelzebubbles]

Originally Posted by hdw

I played Oberon in MND in final year at school. It's all been downhill since then. How do you follow being King of the Fairies? Incidentally, what's happened to our Titania, the Queen of the Forum?

Harry

I played the Nurse in a college production of Romeo and Juliet. It is a ridiculously large role and I am not just talking about her dress size. It is the third largest part in the play. I thought I was going to run on stage and be funny for a few minutes. But no vast amounts of dialogue had to be memorized and I could never find Juliet to practice with as she was off shagging our Romeo. He was a bit of a lady killer and he was her first, poor dear.

Anyway, out of all this dialogue the only line that was cut was "shake quoth the dove house. Twas no need I trow to bid me trudge." Due to the perversity of my memory this is all I remember from playing the part of Juliet's Nurse.

[Eric]

I'm glad for Harry and Beelzebubbles that they plucked up the courage to act when at school, whomever the other members of the cast were shagging at the time. I was always petrified of acting and hoped desperately that the idea by the keen French master of doing some Anouilh play (in French, aaagh!) would never come to fruition. Thankfully, it didn't.

The King of the Fairies Meets Romeo is one of my favourite Shakespeare plays. You remember? Starring Kenneth Williams and Yul Brynner in the screen version?

[miercuri]

Originally Posted by Eric

don't you think he was having a bit of a snigger when he, long before Stoppard, invented the names Rosencrantz (rosy wreath/sphincter) and Guildenstern (golden bottom/arse/behind)? I've asked this before, but never received a reply.

If we are not to fetishise Shakespeare as God's gift to literature, we should ackowledge that he requires a lot of careful reading with notes, as most of his refences, puns and jokes are totally obscure to 21st century man without a gloss.

Last year I attended a lecture on Shakespeare's multilingual wordplay, delivered by Patricia Parker of Stanford University. She's written a book on this topic -> Shakespeare from the Margins: Language, Culture, Context. You might find your answers there.

[kkay]

I thought maybe Shakespeare was SO represented in the western tradition that I wouldn't see much on him here. I enjoy Shakespeare especially the tragedy, and yes, the comedy. Live is great if I prepare a bit first but I always enjoy the Kennith Branagh film productions.

Tastes change though with life experiences, and while I have found "The Taming of the Shrew" entertaining, in all its many forms, I recently watched the classic film (Liz and Richard) in a high school classroom and was appalled that we celebrate and laugh at the comedy (?) of taking a woman against her will, and "taming" her to patriarchal conventions. Maybe since I've grown up and have a daughter to guide through her childhood, I've come to my senses!

[Backwords]

Shakespeare nicked things from others (e.g. Holinshed) but also gave them life, with wit and plot. I hate mediocrities that plagiarize, but if you improve a story, turning naked bones into a complex epic, then you are forgiven. -Eric

This casts the reader in the role of a propositioned woman who, as Slavoj Zizek has it, retroactively decides (in our politically correct times) whether she has been harassed (by the plagiarizing mediocrities) or successfully seduced (by the life giver.).