GMG Classical Music Forum

The Back Room => The Diner => Topic started by: Karl Henning on July 16, 2014, 05:15:08 AM

Title: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on July 16, 2014, 05:15:08 AM
At Brian's suggestion, I picked up a copy of Contested Will.  Haven't broken into it yet (busy with the ballet).

I found that I had a $10 gift card for B&N, and found too that there is a Nook edition of Bill Bryson's bio of The Bard.  Any opinions on it?  (This call for opinion notwithstanding, I mashed the link for that e-book.  So if you hated the book, go on, give me cause for remorse!)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on July 16, 2014, 05:26:34 AM
Don't know about Bryson but Brian is right about Contested Will. 
Edmund Morris on Beethoven in that series was a good one IIRC.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on July 16, 2014, 11:00:03 AM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 16, 2014, 05:26:34 AM
Don't know about Bryson but Brian is right about Contested Will. 
Edmund Morris on Beethoven in that series was a good one IIRC.

Thanks!

I did little more than browse The Shakespeare Wars when that was on the shelf at the MFA shop.  Still not sure I want to sit down and read it . . . .
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ken B on July 16, 2014, 03:23:26 PM
The Bryson is quite good. As usual with him.
I never knew Mary Queen of Scots wrote Cymbeline!
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2014, 03:54:18 PM
I will take y'all's rec, I just snapped the 'Contested Will' title up. Maybe to save for my trip next month.   It does look interesting. :)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on July 17, 2014, 05:02:32 PM
I've made a good start on the Bryson book.

I'm right in the corner of an author who closes his first chapter with the frank, manly disclosure . . .

Quote from: Bill Bryson... this book was written not so much because the world needs another book on Shakespeare as because this series does.  The idea is a simple one:  to see how much of Shakespeare we can know, really know, from the record.

Which is one reason, of course, it's so slender.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on July 18, 2014, 09:27:51 AM
Am really enjoying the Bryson, which is essentially (1) Here is some historical context, (2) These are the actual facts we have in our possession viz. Shakespeare, and (3) Here is some of the conjecture spinning from the facts, but however attractive, it remains conjecture.

In my reading this morning, I learnt more than I ever knew before about the Spanish Armada.  (Admittedly, I had not done any particular research.)

Once I wrap this book up (which I have on my Nook™), I shall without fail crack open Contested Will.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on July 24, 2014, 05:02:52 AM
Finished the Bryson book, which completely followed through its initial promise.

I suppose I have reneged, in that I have not brough Contested Will with me to read.  Yet.

Will probably read the sample on my Kindle of The Shakespeare Wars.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on July 24, 2014, 05:25:34 AM
I liked the Bryson, too. As thoroughly fun and smart as Bill Bryson always, always is.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2014, 06:14:18 AM
Quote from: Brian on July 24, 2014, 05:25:34 AM
I liked the Bryson, too. As thoroughly fun and smart as Bill Bryson always, always is.

In theory, Contested Will should arrive in today's mail. Looking forward to its insights.  :)

8)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on July 24, 2014, 06:20:08 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2014, 06:14:18 AM
In theory, Contested Will should arrive in today's mail. Looking forward to its insights.  :)

8)

Groovy!

I have started the sample of Ron Rosenbaum's The Shakespeare Wars on my Kindle.

Quote from: Ron RosenbaumIt's always seemed to me that the work is what is most worth caring about and that Shakespearean biography, with its few indisputable facts, its suppositions, its conjectures, its maybes, does more to distort than to illuminate the work.

I have nothing against literary biography in general, but I suspect most serious literary biographers must be a bit dismayed at the fantasies spun out by Shakespearean biographers on the basis of such fragmentary evidence. Just as in the old story of the man who persists in searching for his keys under a streetlamp (even though they're not there) "because that's where the only light was," Shakespearean biography, especially the obsessive–often circular–attempts to make inferences about the work on the basis of the few known facts and anecdotes about the life, can be a distraction from the true mystery and excitement, the true source of illumination, the place the hidden keys can actually be found:  the astonishing language.  (Look how little we know about Homer and how little it matters.)

Thus most efforts to forge, fabricate or flesh out the life (as opposed to placing the work in its cultural context) have ended up doing a disservice to the work because they lead inevitably to a reductive biographical perspective on the work and use the work to "prove" suppositions about the life.

I think I shall wind up reading this, as well.  There are such powerful resonances with the foodfight which often arises over Shostakovich.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on July 27, 2014, 04:45:11 AM
I've finished with the sample of The Shakespeare Wars . . . find it of interest, but I'm not sure I want to read the lot.

OTOH, continuing in Contested Will and well content to consume the whole book.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on July 27, 2014, 11:40:46 AM
Quote from: karlhenning on July 27, 2014, 04:45:11 AM
OTOH, continuing in Contested Will and well content to consume the whole book.

If I had ever been aware of the pro-Shakespeare forgeries, I had long forgotten about them.  This is an engrossing read.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on July 27, 2014, 01:13:44 PM
Ack! A grammatical slip: "whomever it was."


Well, the odd error will slip out.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on July 28, 2014, 03:20:11 AM
More than I ever knew before about Delia Bacon!  I enjoy the humane sympathy of Shapiro's discussion of Bacon, even while one must denounce her presuppositions and methods.  (I want to go back to Bryson's book, which is a slender volume enow that he is blameless for being at all curt about Delia B.)  And now Twain is on the scene (and I think I espy a driver for Brian's pursuit of the Twain autobiography; or at least, there are delectable synergies).  Wish I didn't have to go to work, I'd just read on.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on August 06, 2014, 04:18:05 AM
Back on board with the Shapiro, started the final chapter (the case for Sh.)  It's all a rattlin' good read.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on August 07, 2014, 05:25:01 AM
This is not news, but it is (was) the fellow at Wooster with whom I studied Shakespeare:

Quote from: Jn FinnCampus, community remembers Ray McCall
Published: July 30, 2007 4:01AM

By JOHN FINN

College News Services

WOOSTER-- Ray McCall, longtime professor of English whose trademark pipe, Smith-Corona typewriter, and familiar jaunts across campus on a vintage mid-century bicycle became legendary, died Saturday. He was 78.

McCall, who came to The College of Wooster in 1958 and continued teaching through 1998, was revered by his students and admired by his colleagues. "Ray McCall was a generous, loyal and nurturing colleague," said Deborah P. Hilty, professor of English emerita at The College of Wooster. "He exemplified citizenship of the highest order, both on the campus and in the city."

Gordon Collins, professor emeritus of psychology, added that McCall was one of Wooster's great teachers because he cared more about his area of study than about campus politics or having his work published in scholarly journals. "He was the quintessential faculty member," said Collins. "He loved teaching, and wanted his students to care about learning as much as he did. He was an excellent I.S. (Independent Study) adviser because he was a real taskmaster, but at the same time he was very caring and compassionate."

Collins also described McCall as a Renaissance Man. "Ray was a serious scholar, but he had a lot of other interests," said Collins. "For example, he was an enthusiastic and very knowledgeable baseball fan. He also was a devoted poker player, and he was very widely read. There was little about which he wasn't conversant."

Laura Neill, a former student and later a colleague of McCall through Ohio Light Opera, expressed the sentiments of many when she said, "The College of Wooster is a better place following Dr. McCall's tenure here, and all who knew him are better people for having had even one conversation with him. My relationship with Dr. McCall began when I took his Shakespeare class in the '80s. I remember his typed comments on the front page of my research papers; comments that were always very helpful. My grammar improved immensely that semester."

Regarding the opera, Neill added, "Dr. McCall was dedicated to the work of the Ohio Light Opera, beginning in the early years. He always made a special effort to have all the historical write-ups for the program book turned in well ahead of time so that we could meet our publishing deadline, and he would always prepare the pre-curtain lecture schedule with efficiency. His expertise was appreciated by all of us."

McCall served the College in a variety of capacities, including two terms as chairperson of the English Department. He also directed Wooster's summer session, was acting dean of the faculty, filled numerous terms on the Teaching Staff and Tenure Committee, and was a member of the selection committee that chose Henry Copeland as President in 1977. In addition, he chaired the communication department and the theatre department. He also collaborated with Joe Fishelson and Ted Williams in helping to found the Wooster Chamber Music Series. "In each of these roles, his leadership skills were extraordinary: replete with imagination and good sense, and laced with his marvelously compelling dry wit," said Hilty.

Humor was, indeed, another of McCall's many endearing qualities. "He had a very dry and subtle sense of humor," said Collins. "You had to be on your toes around Ray or you would miss it."

McCall and Collins, along with several other faculty members, were part of the "Suicide Club," a group that would meet each week to talk about issues that affected the college, the community, the country, and the world.

In 1991, McCall received the highest honor of his distinguished career when he was named to the Virginia Myers Professorship of English in recognition of his many contributions and achievements.

Above all, McCall was passionate about Shakespeare. He spent portions of two research leaves in London studying the legendary poet and playwright and producing detailed studies of 300 Shakespearean plays. He also specialized in contemporary drama, 18th century literature, and American literature. He wrote original dramatic sketches for the St. James Strolling Players, and acted with the Arena Fair Theatre, Hampstead Drama Guild, and Stage Right Repertory Company.

Throughout his career he reviewed dramatic productions, concerts, and recitals for The Daily Record. He also had articles and reviews published in College English, Western Humanities Review Critique, and Explicator.

"As a teacher — both on The College of Wooster's faculty and as a sought-after lecturer on opera and light opera in the Wooster community — Ray demonstrated meticulous scholarship and consistently commanded the full attention of his audiences," said Hilty. "He was passionately engaged in the arts, and his frequent reviews of musical and theatre performances in The Daily Record were splendid teaching moments in themselves."

Born Nov. 19, 1928 in Erie, Pa., McCall attended high school in Meadville, Pa. He enrolled at Allegheny College and graduated in 1949. He then earned his master's degree and his Ph.D. at The University of Wisconsin, Madison.

McCall is survived by his wife, Lois, who wrote for Wooster magazine for a number of years, and three children: Susan, Sarah, and Gilbert.

"Ray McCall was modest, principled and eloquent," said Hilty. "His understanding of life and learning was informed by the 'complete and generous education' John Milton urged us to pursue and that constitutes Ray's gift to us all."
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 07, 2014, 05:59:55 AM
Quote from: karlhenning on July 27, 2014, 11:40:46 AM
If I had ever been aware of the pro-Shakespeare forgeries, I had long forgotten about them.  This is an engrossing read.

Yes it is. I began at lunch yesterday, got two chapters in. Already looking forward to lunch today!  :)

8)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on August 07, 2014, 06:38:26 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 07, 2014, 05:59:55 AM
Yes it is. I began at lunch yesterday, got two chapters in. Already looking forward to lunch today!  :)

8)
Isn't it always thrilling to find non-fiction that's written with verve, humor, and curiosity? So many academics, especially, write as if they're doing chores.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on August 07, 2014, 06:53:16 AM
And the problem is, write it like it's a chore, and it's a chore to read . . . .
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Gurn Blanston on August 07, 2014, 06:57:31 AM
Quote from: Brian on August 07, 2014, 06:38:26 AM
Isn't it always thrilling to find non-fiction that's written with verve, humor, and curiosity? So many academics, especially, write as if they're doing chores.

As many music history books as I read, I can certainly attest that!  God forbid we should try to inject any sort of enthusiasm or human interest into a recitation of the facts....  ::)

In short, yes. :)

8)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on August 07, 2014, 08:33:53 AM
Curse you, Shapiro: I am even reading your Bibliographic Essay with interest!
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on August 08, 2014, 02:12:15 AM
Cheers, Brian, that is one fabulous book.

I had to squirm a bit reading about Freud's "need" to attribute the plays to someone else . . . .
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on August 08, 2014, 03:43:17 AM
However  (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,164.msg821584.html#msg821584). . .
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on August 11, 2014, 09:48:05 AM
The missus (and mom-in-law) saw Shakespeare in Love.  Their ruling?  "If you haven't seen it, there's no reason to seek it out."
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: jochanaan on August 11, 2014, 10:00:56 AM
Quote from: karlhenning on August 11, 2014, 09:48:05 AM
The missus (and mom-in-law) saw Shakespeare in Love.  Their ruling?  "If you haven't seen it, there's no reason to seek it out."
Thanks for that.  I've heard from others that it's a masterpiece, but I defer to your judgment. :)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on August 11, 2014, 10:04:18 AM
One fun footnote is, it was an occasion (as we chatted over brunch yesterday) for me to give them a brief summary of The Authorship Controversy.  Many were the eye-rolls in Woburn that day!
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on August 11, 2014, 10:08:09 AM
Quote from: jochanaan on August 11, 2014, 10:00:56 AM
Thanks for that.  I've heard from others that it's a masterpiece, but I defer to your judgment. :)

A bit more color on their response:  so much promise (fine cast, beautiful costuming), so little follow-through.  They kept watching in a sort of miasma, hoping that the project would redeem itself.  Story surprisingly thin on the ground.

Again: I am just the messenger.  But, these are excellent artists whose judgement I hold in high esteem indeed.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ken B on August 11, 2014, 12:16:55 PM
Quote from: karlhenning on August 11, 2014, 10:08:09 AM
A bit more color on their response:  so much promise (fine cast, beautiful costuming), so little follow-through.  They kept watching in a sort of miasma, hoping that the project would redeem itself.  Story surprisingly thin on the ground.

Again: I am just the messenger.  But, these are excellent artists whose judgement I hold in high esteem indeed.
An accurate assessment. Starts splendidly. Middles tolerably well. Ends with a whimper.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on October 27, 2014, 07:17:51 PM
Bump!

From another thread:

What is your favorite Shakespeare?

For me a slightly unlikely choice: Richard III. The first play I saw in a good live performance - and, a few years later, the play I've seen in the best live performance, starring Kevin Spacey and Haydn Gwynne. Maybe it's a little personal to me, then.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 27, 2014, 07:28:26 PM
Quote from: karlhenning on August 11, 2014, 10:08:09 AM
A bit more color on their response:  so much promise (fine cast, beautiful costuming), so little follow-through.  They kept watching in a sort of miasma, hoping that the project would redeem itself.  Story surprisingly thin on the ground.

Again: I am just the messenger.  But, these are excellent artists whose judgement I hold in high esteem indeed.

Couldn't disagree more. I think it's a brilliant romantic comedy, not least for its tongue-and-cheek play with historical fact.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 27, 2014, 07:33:40 PM
Quote from: Brian on October 27, 2014, 07:17:51 PM
Bump!

From another thread:

What is your favorite Shakespeare?

For me a slightly unlikely choice: Richard III. The first play I saw in a good live performance - and, a few years later, the play I've seen in the best live performance, starring Kevin Spacey and Haydn Gwynne. Maybe it's a little personal to me, then.

My favorites:
From the tragedies: Hamlet, Othello, Lear, Antony, Coriolanus. (Macbeth has been ruined for me by so many abysmal productions that I have trouble returning to it. On the other hand despite numerous abysmal productions I still love Romeo.)

From the histories: Henry IV 1 and 2.

From the comedies: the Dream, Much Ado, As You Like It, The Tenpest above all.

As for Richard III, where did you see Spacey? I saw his R3 in Brooklyn a couple of years ago, and Mark Rylance in the part last year. Both were among the best Shakespearean performances I've seen in recent years (well, anything would be better than the Macbeths of Ethan Hawke, Patrick Stewart, and Kenneth Branagh), but I find R3 the character and play rather one-dimensional.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 27, 2014, 07:35:52 PM
Quote from: jochanaan on August 11, 2014, 10:00:56 AM
Thanks for that.  I've heard from others that it's a masterpiece, but I defer to your judgment. :)

Kindly defer to mine then. I think it is a masterpiece, ending included.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ken B on October 27, 2014, 09:40:47 PM
Quote from: Brian on October 27, 2014, 07:17:51 PM
Bump!

From another thread:

What is your favorite Shakespeare?

For me a slightly unlikely choice: Richard III. The first play I saw in a good live performance - and, a few years later, the play I've seen in the best live performance, starring Kevin Spacey and Haydn Gwynne. Maybe it's a little personal to me, then.

Othello

BUT, and it,s a big big big but, I want to direct it as a comedy.
Not that it is a comedy, it isn't, but it is structured like a comedy, with Iago as a variant on The Cunning Slave. It is filled with jokes, cruel ones. I saw a performance once which was good but had one horrible horrible flaw: Othello never turned his back on Iago. Thinking about that was the first time I saw Pseudolus and Harold Hill in Iago.  Make the audience share in Iago's fun. This is vital.
Marat/Sade is also a tragedy played as comedy, it's not as whacked as it sounds.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Cosi bel do on October 28, 2014, 02:00:37 AM
Quote from: Ken B on October 27, 2014, 09:40:47 PM
Othello

BUT, and it,s a big big big but, I want to direct it as a comedy.
Not that it is a comedy, it isn't, but it is structured like a comedy, with Iago as a variant on The Cunning Slave. It is filled with jokes, cruel ones. I saw a performance once which was good but had one horrible horrible flaw: Othello never turned his back on Iago. Thinking about that was the first time I saw Pseudolus and Harold Hill in Iago.  Make the audience share in Iago's fun. This is vital.
Marat/Sade is also a tragedy played as comedy, it's not as whacked as it sounds.

I've seen such a production last year, at the Comédie française. It was catastrophic, purely vulgar (but the translation was, to) and missing the whole complexity and ambiguity of the characters. I don't think the "play a tragedy as a comedy" trick really works easily, I mean if you want a comedy, why not play a comedy ?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Cosi bel do on October 28, 2014, 02:06:07 AM
I have been reading more Shakespeare in the past year or so, actually, but I still have to read a few "big ones" as King Lear (next on the list) or Richard III. So I'm not sure my opinion is really relevant at this point...

For the moment my favourite play would be Macbeth. It is imperfect (at least as in the state it has been transmitted to us), and it is exactly why I find it a great piece, you have to find a way to reveal its beauty, to reinvent it, and it is challenging the creativity of any director. I've seen all movies and a few productions, none were entirely satisfactory, but each one interesting even in its flaws.

My least favourite is The Tempest. I find it so weak that when reading it I can only wonder if it is really by Shakespeare... Well probably it's just me, of course.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on October 28, 2014, 03:21:50 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 27, 2014, 07:35:52 PM
Kindly defer to mine then. I think it is a masterpiece, ending included.

(* chortle *)

And why should we all think the same?

jo, you're going to have to see for yourself  8)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on October 28, 2014, 04:30:52 AM
Quote from: Cosi bel do on October 28, 2014, 02:06:07 AM
My least favourite is The Tempest. I find it so weak that when reading it I can only wonder if it is really by Shakespeare... Well probably it's just me, of course.
Yes, it is just you. An incredibly weak play is The Merry Wives of Windsor: its rewrite as the Boito/Verdi opera Falstaff is an astonishing improvement, elevating one of Shakespeare's worst to one of opera's best.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ken B on October 28, 2014, 06:08:51 AM
Quote from: Cosi bel do on October 28, 2014, 02:00:37 AM
I've seen such a production last year, at the Comédie française. It was catastrophic, purely vulgar (but the translation was, to) and missing the whole complexity and ambiguity of the characters. I don't think the "play a tragedy as a comedy" trick really works easily, I mean if you want a comedy, why not play a comedy ?

Because, as I said, I don't want a comedy and Othello is not a comedy. I want to exploit a way to make the audience feel complcit with Iago, and not just see him as unmotivated malevalence personified. I didn't say play it for laughs, but use the way it is structured. There are strong similarities to how Malvolio is manipulated in 12th Night for instance. These are part of the play too, but are routinely ignored.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Cosi bel do on October 28, 2014, 06:56:21 AM
Quote from: Ken B on October 28, 2014, 06:08:51 AM
Because, as I said, I don't want a comedy and Othello is not a comedy. I want to exploit a way to make the audience feel complcit with Iago, and not just see him as unmotivated malevalence personified. I didn't say play it for laughs, but use the way it is structured. There are strong similarities to how Malvolio is manipulated in 12th Night for instance. These are part of the play too, but are routinely ignored.

Yes, I see. The fact is the production I'm talking about was transforming Iago into a buffoon, and that really didn't work.

What you are saying is interesting. Well, representing the complexity and inner contradictions of the characters in Othello is quite the challenge. The French poet Yves Bonnefoy (who also translated several Shakespeare plays into French) wrote great things about all that, but I'm not sure it has been published in any other language.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: jochanaan on October 28, 2014, 07:01:31 AM
Quote from: karlhenning on October 28, 2014, 03:21:50 AM
(* chortle *)

And why should we all think the same?

jo, you're going to have to see for yourself  8)
Oh dear!  Another movie on my to-be-seen list that may already take me about a week of 24/7 watching!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on October 28, 2014, 07:03:21 AM
Mind you, I don't recommend it    0:)    8)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: jochanaan on October 28, 2014, 07:15:02 AM
Quote from: karlhenning on October 28, 2014, 07:03:21 AM
Mind you, I don't recommend it    0:)    8)
Oh, I don't mind. :laugh:
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on October 28, 2014, 07:42:47 AM
Here's a shocker: there is much in King Lear that I hate. In fact, half of it. The main narrative concerning Lear, Goneril, Regan,Cordelia and Kent is at most parts bloody awful. Cordelia's character which almost every critic praises at first does a decent job with couple of witty lines but after she reappears on stage, the scene where she reunites with Lear, my God that is so unbearably sentimental, tastes like diabetes. And I have really hard time understanding how every critic seems to love and adore that scene as a crowning moment of heartwarming. That scene makes Dickens's most oversentimental pages seem like masterpieces in every letter and word. Victorian critics called Dickens's Little Nell the best female character in english literature since Cordelia. Well,modern critics usually prefer Cordelia. But I most certainly prefer Nell, as bland a character as she is, with comparison with that abominable creation that is Cordelia.

Lear himself is mostly pretty uninteresting. His ridiculous overreactions are about only thing interesting about him and even then I get the feeling it is supposed to be serious yet it seems like senile old man's ranting that is so over the top that it merely amuses. Shakespeare can be interpreted in many ways, though. I may have misinterpreted him in Lear's case who knows. Kent has similar overreactions particularly toward Oswald, who granted isn't the most affable of men,but Kent still seems like an overreacting ass in most cases instead of a "oh, thou, good Kent". Goddammit, I once again reminded myself of that awful.

Goneril and Regan are considerably better written characters but that is mostly because of their connections to side plot that I like much more, the one involving Edgar, Edmund and Gloucester. That is the good half in this play. And even that half is mostly good because of one character, Edmund. Gloucester and Edgar are certainly better characters than Lear, Kent and Cordelia but lot of their actions don't make much sense.

Edmund, although embraces the cliche of "bastard bastard" is given a good reason to be bitter. For ex. in the first scene Gloucester speaks about Edmund in contempt as his bastard son while Edmund is standing right next to him. Sure it still doesn't excuse the lengths to which Edmund goes in his search for power but as it it often the case with villains, I find him the most relatable character. In the end he even tries to make amends with his last breath, although unsuccessfully.

So yeah, not biggest fan of King Lear but it has it's good parts. So from all the plays of his that I've read, this is probably the worst. Take heed, I have read hardly a one third of all his plays as much as I love him. So even in that respect my word doesn't weigh much. Not that it does anyway. And while talking about ranting old man I ironically sound much like ranting young man.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on October 28, 2014, 07:57:18 AM
My favorite plays from the bard?

Hamlet and Othello, I would count both of them as comedies as much as tragedies. Both are filled with hilarious dark humor such as Hamlet joking about that if they don't find Polonius's body soon enough they will smell him. Merchant of venice also counts as an awesome play, despite it's blatant racism but the genius of the play is that it can also be used (and has been) in defending Jews. Romeo and Juliet is good, but maybe little overrated. Macbeth is miraculous. The winter's tale, naturally, even if seacoast of Bohemia is bit ridiculous. Taming of a shrew is a problematic play in many ways but I would list it pretty high as well. Like Merchant, it can be played in defence of those that at first glance it seems to neglect. I also like much the one that has often been called Shakespeare's worst play: the two gentlemen of Verona. Okay, it is not his best play by a long shot but I like it still.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ken B on October 28, 2014, 07:59:12 AM
Quote from: Alberich on October 28, 2014, 07:42:47 AM
Here's a shocker: there is much in King Lear that I hate. In fact, half of it. The main narrative concerning Lear, Goneril, Regan,Cordelia and Kent is at most parts bloody awful. Cordelia's character which almost every critic praises at first does a decent job with couple of witty lines but after she reappears on stage, the scene where she reunites with Lear, my God that is so unbearably sentimental, tastes like diabetes. And I have really hard time understanding how every critic seems to love and adore that scene as a crowning moment of heartwarming. That scene makes Dickens's most oversentimental pages seem like masterpieces in every letter and word. Victorian critics called Dickens's Little Nell the best female character in english literature since Cordelia. Well,modern critics usually prefer Cordelia. But I most certainly prefer Nell, as bland a character as she is, with comparison with that abominable creation that is Cordelia.

Lear himself is mostly pretty uninteresting. His ridiculous overreactions are about only thing interesting about him and even then I get the feeling it is supposed to be serious yet it seems like senile old man's ranting that is so over the top that it merely amuses. Shakespeare can be interpreted in many ways, though. I may have misinterpreted him in Lear's case who knows. Kent has similar overreactions particularly toward Oswald, who granted isn't the most affable of men,but Kent still seems like an overreacting ass in most cases instead of a "oh, thou, good Kent". Goddammit, I once again reminded myself of that awful.

Goneril and Regan are considerably better written characters but that is mostly because of their connections to side plot that I like much more, the one involving Edgar, Edmund and Gloucester. That is the good half in this play. And even that half is mostly good because of one character, Edmund. Gloucester and Edgar are certainly better characters than Lear, Kent and Cordelia but lot of their actions don't make much sense.

Edmund, although embraces the cliche of "bastard bastard" is given a good reason to be bitter. For ex. in the first scene Gloucester speaks about Edmund in contempt as his bastard son while Edmund is standing right next to him. Sure it still doesn't excuse the lengths to which Edmund goes in his search for power but as it it often the case with villains, I find him the most relatable character. In the end he even tries to make amends with his last breath, although unsuccessfully.

So yeah, not biggest fan of King Lear but it has it's good parts. So from all the plays of his that I've read, this is probably the worst. Take heed, I have read hardly a one third of all his plays as much as I love him. So even in that respect my word doesn't weigh much. Not that it does anyway. And while talking about ranting old man I ironically sound much like ranting young man.
1 you are banished from polite society.
2 Welcome to the band of the banished! I soured on Lear long ago, after initially liking it. Some day we'll get together in a phone booth and discuss why Vanity Fair is unreadable.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on October 28, 2014, 08:16:25 AM
I am not sure this qualifies as agreement, but I have not read Vanity Fair . . . .
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on October 28, 2014, 05:47:21 PM
Regarding Shakespeare in Love: the ending is not so much a whimper as a cliche;  but I think everything leading up to the cliche is well worth watching.  Not a masterpiece but not a waste of time, either.

King Lear:  I thing the scene on the moor, with Lear, the Food and Edgar masked as Tom o Bedlam, are among the greatest passages in literature: three outcasts in the storm, one mad, one pretending to be mad, and the third sane but not exactly so.  I do see some justice in Alberich's strictures, but I think what we remember about Cordelia in the end is not Cordelia, but Lear's love for her in all its transformations of favoritism, unreasoned hate, and grief grounded in the knowledge that it was his own actions that led to his ruin and her death.

Hamlet: actually a failure.  Shakespeare, I think, wanted to write a revenge play (one of the most popular genres of the era), but tried to give the main characters psychological depth not usually found in that type of drama.  He did not succeed:  the characters do have psychological depth, but that depth ruins the revenge mechanism of the tragedy.

My preferences, often influenced by the sheer quality of the poetry to be found in the play
In the comedies, Love's Labor Lost and Much Ado about Nothing
In the histories,  Henry IV Part I and Henry V
In the tragedies,  Romeo and JulietAntony and Cleopatra, and Macbeth
In the romances (which sometimes are included among the comedies and sometimes seen as a separate category) A Winter's Tale and The Tempest
Most over rated play:  Hamlet, as may be inferred from my comment above
Most underrated play: Titus Andronicus, which is what happens when a genius makes his debut as director of a horror film (to refer it to modern film categories).
Greatest piece by Shakespeare that many people have never heard of, much less read: The Phoenix and the Turtle
Two best metaShakespearian films I've seen:  Theatre of Blood with Vincent Price and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead with Richard Dreyfuss
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on October 28, 2014, 05:54:21 PM
The Phoenix and the Turtle is short enough to post here.

[Turtle=turtledove]

The Phoenix and the Turtle

Let the bird of loudest lay,
On the sole Arabian tree,
Herald sad and trumpet be,
To whose sound chaste wings obey.

But thou, shrieking harbinger,
Foul pre-currer of the fiend,
Augur of the fever's end,
To this troop come thou not near.

From this session interdict
Every fowl of tyrant wing,
Save the eagle, feather'd king:
Keep the obsequy so strict.

Let the priest in surplice white,
That defunctive music can,
Be the death-divining swan,
Lest the requiem lack his right.

And thou, treble-dated crow,
That thy sable gender mak'st
With the breath thou giv'st and tak'st,
'Mongst our mourners shalt thou go.

Here the anthem doth commence:
Love and constancy is dead;
Phoenix and the turtle fled
In a mutual flame from hence.

So they lov'd, as love in twain
Had the essence but in one;
Two distincts, division none:
Number there in love was slain.

Hearts remote, yet not asunder;
Distance, and no space was seen
'Twixt the turtle and his queen;
But in them it were a wonder.

So between them love did shine,
That the turtle saw his right
Flaming in the phoenix' sight:
Either was the other's mine.

Property was thus appall'd,
That the self was not the same;
Single nature's double name
Neither two nor one was call'd.

Reason, in itself confounded,
Saw division grow together;
To themselves yet either-neither,
Simple were so well compounded

That it cried how true a twain
Seemeth this concordant one!
Love hath reason, reason none
If what parts can so remain.

Whereupon it made this threne
To the phoenix and the dove,
Co-supreme and stars of love;
As chorus to their tragic scene.

THRENOS.

Beauty, truth, and rarity.
Grace in all simplicity,
Here enclos'd in cinders lie.

Death is now the phoenix' nest;
And the turtle's loyal breast
To eternity doth rest,

Leaving no posterity:--
'Twas not their infirmity,
It was married chastity.

Truth may seem, but cannot be:
Beauty brag, but 'tis not she;
Truth and beauty buried be.

To this urn let those repair
That are either true or fair;
For these dead birds sigh a prayer.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ken B on October 28, 2014, 06:44:17 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 28, 2014, 05:47:21 PM
Regarding Shakespeare in Love: the ending is not so much a whimper as a cliche;  but I think everything leading up to the cliche is well worth watching.  Not a masterpiece but not a waste of time, either.

King Lear:  I thing the scene on the moor, with Lear, the Food and Edgar masked as Tom o Bedlam, are among the greatest passages in literature: three outcasts in the storm, one mad, one pretending to be mad, and the third sane but not exactly so.  I do see some justice in Alberich's strictures, but I think what we remember about Cordelia in the end is not Cordelia, but Lear's love for her in all its transformations of favoritism, unreasoned hate, and grief grounded in the knowledge that it was his own actions that led to his ruin and her death.

Hamlet: actually a failure.  Shakespeare, I think, wanted to write a revenge play (one of the most popular genres of the era), but tried to give the main characters psychological depth not usually found in that type of drama.  He did not succeed:  the characters do have psychological depth, but that depth ruins the revenge mechanism of the tragedy.

My preferences, often influenced by the sheer quality of the poetry to be found in the play
In the comedies, Love's Labor Lost and Much Ado about Nothing
In the histories,  Henry IV Part I and Henry V
In the tragedies,  Romeo and JulietAntony and Cleopatra, and Macbeth
In the romances (which sometimes are included among the comedies and sometimes seen as a separate category) A Winter's Tale and The Tempest
Most over rated play:  Hamlet, as may be inferred from my comment above
Most underrated play: Titus Andronicus, which is what happens when a genius makes his debut as director of a horror film (to refer it to modern film categories).
Greatest piece by Shakespeare that many people have never heard of, much less read: The Phoenix and the Turtle
Two best metaShakespearian films I've seen:  Theatre of Blood with Vincent Price and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead with Richard Dreyfuss
I do hope you've seen the complete Works of William Shakespeare ,abridged.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ken B on October 28, 2014, 06:47:18 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 28, 2014, 05:54:21 PM
The Phoenix and the Turtle is short enough to post here.

[Turtle=turtledove]

The Phoenix and the Turtle

Let the bird of loudest lay,
On the sole Arabian tree,
Herald sad and trumpet be,
To whose sound chaste wings obey.

But thou, shrieking harbinger,
Foul pre-currer of the fiend,
Augur of the fever's end,
To this troop come thou not near.

From this session interdict
Every fowl of tyrant wing,
Save the eagle, feather'd king:
Keep the obsequy so strict.

Let the priest in surplice white,
That defunctive music can,
Be the death-divining swan,
Lest the requiem lack his right.

And thou, treble-dated crow,
That thy sable gender mak'st
With the breath thou giv'st and tak'st,
'Mongst our mourners shalt thou go.

Here the anthem doth commence:
Love and constancy is dead;
Phoenix and the turtle fled
In a mutual flame from hence.

So they lov'd, as love in twain
Had the essence but in one;
Two distincts, division none:
Number there in love was slain.

Hearts remote, yet not asunder;
Distance, and no space was seen
'Twixt the turtle and his queen;
But in them it were a wonder.

So between them love did shine,
That the turtle saw his right
Flaming in the phoenix' sight:
Either was the other's mine.

Property was thus appall'd,
That the self was not the same;
Single nature's double name
Neither two nor one was call'd.

Reason, in itself confounded,
Saw division grow together;
To themselves yet either-neither,
Simple were so well compounded

That it cried how true a twain
Seemeth this concordant one!
Love hath reason, reason none
If what parts can so remain.

Whereupon it made this threne
To the phoenix and the dove,
Co-supreme and stars of love;
As chorus to their tragic scene.

THRENOS.

Beauty, truth, and rarity.
Grace in all simplicity,
Here enclos'd in cinders lie.

Death is now the phoenix' nest;
And the turtle's loyal breast
To eternity doth rest,

Leaving no posterity:--
'Twas not their infirmity,
It was married chastity.

Truth may seem, but cannot be:
Beauty brag, but 'tis not she;
Truth and beauty buried be.

To this urn let those repair
That are either true or fair;
For these dead birds sigh a prayer.


Gotta say ... I prefer Milton, Donne, Blake. Even in the right mood Pope.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on October 28, 2014, 06:52:26 PM
Quote from: Ken B on October 28, 2014, 06:44:17 PM
I do hope you've seen the complete Works of William Shakespeare ,abridged.

Unfortunately, I never had the time to do so.

Quote from: Ken B on October 28, 2014, 06:47:18 PM
Gotta say ... I prefer Milton, Donne, Blake. Even in the right mood Pope.


I said 'greatest piece by Shakespeare', not "greatest poem of all time".  I do admit I like the poem enormously, but I have a weakness for Elizabethan and Jacobean rhetoric,  which obviously is not shared by everyone.  It is in part an artifact of my major in BritLit back in college.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on October 28, 2014, 07:40:50 PM
I'm afraid I don't understand your problem with Hamlet. If it's a failure to adhere to the constraints of the 'revenge play' formula, then it's all the better for those failures, no?

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead had Richard Dreyfuss? The actors I remembered were Gary Oldman and Tim Roth. (Oh...that's the exact same movie, never mind. Had all three of 'em.) Genius work, of course!

Your comments about Titus Andronicus also apply to The Shining.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on October 28, 2014, 08:09:34 PM
Quote from: Brian on October 28, 2014, 07:40:50 PM
I'm afraid I don't understand your problem with Hamlet. If it's a failure to adhere to the constraints of the 'revenge play' formula, then it's all the better for those failures, no?


Hamlet is in 3D.  Some of the others are 3D part of the time (Claudius, Gertrude, Laertes, Ophelia) and revert to one dimensionality at other points.  The 3D characters just do not mesh with the rest, nor with the strict formula of the genre.  It is rather like finding a Faulkner character in a Danielle Steele potboiler.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Mirror Image on October 28, 2014, 08:14:15 PM
Quote from: Brian on October 28, 2014, 07:40:50 PM
I'm afraid I don't understand your problem with Hamlet. If it's a failure to adhere to the constraints of the 'revenge play' formula, then it's all the better for those failures, no?

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead had Richard Dreyfuss? The actors I remembered were Gary Oldman and Tim Roth. (Oh...that's the exact same movie, never mind. Had all three of 'em.) Genius work, of course!

Your comments about Titus Andronicus also apply to The Shining.

Speaking of Hamlet and making light of all previous comments:

http://www.youtube.com/v/bKoq6ZdRxJc
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on October 29, 2014, 05:04:37 AM
I'm enjoying the contrarian case!

In a sense I see the point of its failing, but even if so, there are some artistic failures so magnificent, they exceed many another artistic success.

(Wait a minute:  was that cheap?)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 29, 2014, 06:51:25 AM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 28, 2014, 08:09:34 PM
Hamlet is in 3D.  Some of the others are 3D part of the time (Claudius, Gertrude, Laertes, Ophelia) and revert to one dimensionality at other points.  The 3D characters just do not mesh with the rest, nor with the strict formula of the genre.  It is rather like finding a Faulkner character in a Danielle Steele potboiler.

There are any number of works of literature in which some characters are more rounded than others. If every character is treated as foreground, then there is no background. Nor do I see Shakespeare as having been obligated to obey the "strict formula" of the revenge tragedy; if that's all he did, then why has Hamlet been esteeemed (by most people, except perhaps yourself and T.S. Eliot) as one of the crowning achievements of world literature?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: North Star on October 29, 2014, 08:13:30 AM
Hamlet: Too great, or not too great?
The answer is bloody obvious, of course.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on October 29, 2014, 08:24:07 AM
Whether 'tis knobbier . . . .
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on October 29, 2014, 09:48:22 AM
Am I only one who prefers Branagh's Hamlet flick to Laurence Olivier's? It helps that Branagh actually filmed pretty much every word of the play and goes so hilariously over-the-top in his acting that it is awesome to watch every second of it. I think it is the best Shakespeare film of all time.

I actually think Treasure of Sierra Madre should have won Best Picture academy award in 1948, as fine film as Olivier's Hamlet is.

1995 Othello although has huge chunks of the text removed, Kenneth Branagh as Iago still saves a lot. Some might say he likes to overact but it's not necessarily a bad thing IMHO. If only Branagh would have directed this, he would have probably included all the dialogue... Of many famous actors in Shakespeare films I actually prefer Derek Jacobi and Kenneth Branagh to Laurence Olivier. Outrageous, I know.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on October 29, 2014, 09:51:30 AM
Quote from: Alberich on October 29, 2014, 09:48:22 AM
Am I only one who prefers Branagh's Hamlet flick to Laurence Olivier's? It helps that Branagh actually filmed pretty much every word of the play and goes so hilariously over-the-top in his acting that it is awesome to watch every second of it. I think it is the best Shakespeare film of all time.

Not exactly an answer to your question, but I love the Branagh, while I do not believe I have seen the entirety of the Olivier.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on October 29, 2014, 09:58:43 AM
I love all the Branagh Shakespeare films, but Hamlet the least - the cheesy handling of the Ghost bothers me, and of course there is the time you need to invest to watch the movie. Whereas Much Ado only has one major problem - Michael Keaton's misguided performance - and Henry V is perfection.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on October 29, 2014, 10:36:45 AM
I have no quarrel with your liking Henry V and Much Ado better even than the Hamlet   8)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 29, 2014, 12:31:17 PM
Quote from: Brian on October 29, 2014, 09:58:43 AM
I love all the Branagh Shakespeare films, but Hamlet the least - the cheesy handling of the Ghost bothers me, and of course there is the time you need to invest to watch the movie. Whereas Much Ado only has one major problem - Michael Keaton's misguided performance - and Henry V is perfection.

I wish I liked Branagh's Shakespeare more than I do; I don't know them all, but even the Much Ado (the prince is coming! the prince is coming! everybody take a bath for 20 minutes!) seems to me inadequate despite Emma Thompson's pitch-perfect performance. The one Branagh I like unreservedly is his Henry V. I suppose I prefer B's Hamlet to Olivier's, but that's not saying much. My favorite Much Ado by far is the film version from the NY Shakespeare Festival with Sam Waterston and Kathleen Widdoes, easily available at Amazon. The Joss Wheldon is also pretty good.

As for Hamlets on film, the only one I truly like is the film of Richard Burton's 1964 Broadway performance direted by Gielgud, with a superb Polonius from Hume Cronyn. The Jacobi BBC is pretty good too. If you can find the Burton for a decent price, grab it; used copies start at $85 on Amazon these days.

Other good Shakespeare on film, IMO: Orson Welles as Falstaff in Chimes at Midnight. The Zeffirelli Romeo. A superb Taming of the Shrew in commedia dell'arte style starring Mark Singer (yes, the Beastmaster). Brando and James Mason in Julius Caesar. The Peter Brooks Lear, and the filmed stage performance starring James Earl Jones.

Some good Shakespearean adaptations: Kurosawa's Throne of Blood and Ran, based on Macbeth and Lear respectively. Sherwood Hu's astonishing Prince of the Himalayas, a version of Hamlet set in Tibet, with major changes to the plot. (Download here:
http://films.myfilmblog.com/req.php?req=static.php&page=prince-of-the-himalayas)

Some good films about performing Shakespeare include Al Pacino's Looking for Richard, about casting and performing Richard III. And better still, the superb Canadian TV series Slings and Arrows, about a struggling Canadian Shakespeare festival, one 6-episode season each on Hamlet, Macbeth, and Lear. Again easily available on Amazon, with 159 out of 177 reviewers giving it 5 stars. I'd give it 6.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on October 29, 2014, 01:22:30 PM
Interesting, Larry, thanks.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on July 18, 2015, 04:12:05 AM
To mark the passing of the fine actor Roger Rees I watched the Trevor Nunn production of The Comedy Of Errors, in which he stars alongside Judi Dench and Francesca Annis. I've owned the dvd for a while but had put off watching it because I generally find the play silly or slapstick - but here they struck just the right tone and to my surprise it was a proper hoot from start to finish. Recommended.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/91NX-QOe9yL._SY300_.jpg)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on July 18, 2015, 05:31:51 AM
Thanks for the suggestion, Simon!
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 18, 2015, 05:35:48 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 29, 2014, 12:31:17 PM
I wish I liked Branagh's Shakespeare more than I do. . . .

I remember writing here some years ago that I thought Branagh's "Hamlet" was "ghastly"; that judgment was no doubt excessive, as I gave it another viewing a few weeks ago. There are some good things in it: if I had to pick one success above all, it would be Charlton Heston's Player-King. And it's good to see the whole thing uncut (even though that really means a conflation of Quarto 2 and the Folio); I was so delighted to finally hear the "boy players" sequence in II:ii that I repeated it three times.

But an uncut "Hamlet" proves problematic in performance: we know that by law, plays could not start in Shakespeare's London before 2 PM, our play could not be performed uncut in under 4 hours, and there is evidence that the usual running time of a play was 2-2.5 hours. There are also several printed editions of plays, such as Ben Jonson's very long "Bartholomew Fair," that indicate they provide a fuller text than was expected to be performed on stage. Anyone interested in the issues is welcome to consult Lukas Erne's "Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist," the most original and compelling contribution to Shakespearean scholarship I've encountered in years, but the takeaway is that a full "Hamlet" is unlikely to have been performed at the Globe any time during Shakespeare's lifetime. (Which means the standard directorial practice of cutting the longer plays has validity: the question becomes what to cut, and how to cut without damaging the action. I once saw a "Hamlet" where all references to the possibly demonic nature of the ghost were excised; determined not to be outdone in stupidity, the most recent production I saw just got rid of the Ghost completely.)

However, I digress. One thing I find particularly offensive in Branagh's film is the suggestion that Hamlet and Ophelia had sexual relations; she insists early in the play that they did not, which is no proof in itself, but there is no supporting evidence that they did other than a song Ophelia sings in her madness. Branagh's casting also has such a mix of styles, and is so obviously designed to showcase his "stars," that it becomes muddled. And the huge Blenheim Castle just gets in the way, particularly in the final duel scene, where Branagh seems to want to break every staircase in the place.

But the worst thing about the film is Branagh himself, and especially his soliloquies. He races through all the soliloquies at breakneck speed, never pausing after sentences to help shape their structures. As the soliloquies are the heart of the character, it is disturbing to hear such uninflected line-readings from a presumably trained Shakespearean actor.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 18, 2015, 05:43:42 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on July 18, 2015, 04:12:05 AM
To mark the passing of the fine actor Roger Rees I watched the Trevor Nunn production of The Comedy Of Errors, in which he stars alongside Judi Dench and Francesca Annis. I've owned the dvd for a while but had put off watching it because I generally find the play silly or slapstick - but here they struck just the right tone and to my surprise it was a proper hoot from start to finish. Recommended.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/91NX-QOe9yL._SY300_.jpg)

Despite the clunky verse, it really is such a cleverly designed piece that Harold Bloom believes it was written somewhat later than the date often assigned. (That is, it is often considered Shakespeare's first play, but it is much stronger than "The Two Gentlemen of Verona," which has the unconvincing "conversion" of Proteus near the end.) The last time I saw it, a production at Hofstra University near New York City, I think it worked exceedingly well for what it was trying to do.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on July 18, 2015, 05:59:17 PM
^I liked Richard Briers' more sinister-undertoned Polonius in the Branagh Hamlet, especially the scene with Depardieu - really dislike it when he's played more commonly as bumbling comic relief, and you can only wonder how he came to be offered such a job. But otherwise I largely agree with your assessment of the film. Its useful and perfectly watchable, but in so many ways a missed opportunity to create something at least cinematically definitive.

Have you seen Branagh's As You Like It? I need to return to it as I stopped after I got annoyed at the ninja-assassin opening. But I've been told by a variety of people that it actually proves to be very good in the end.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 18, 2015, 06:12:09 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on July 18, 2015, 05:59:17 PM
^I liked Richard Briers' more sinister-undertoned Polonius in the Branagh Hamlet, especially the scene with Depardieu - really dislike it when he's played more commonly as bumbling comic relief, and you can only wonder how he came to be offered such a job. But otherwise I largely agree with your assessment of the film. Its useful and perfectly watchable, but in so many ways a missed opportunity to create something at least cinematically definitive.

Have you seen Branagh's As You Like It? I need to return to it as I stopped after I got annoyed at the ninja-assassin opening. But I've been told by a variety of people that it actually proves to be very good in the end.

Don't know the AYLI. (Coincidentally, I saw a very nice community college production only a week ago.) Briers is indeed fine; also good in taking the same approach was Hume Cronyn in the 1964 Richard Burton production directed by Gielgud. Along the "sinister" Polonius line, some scholars have argued that the play hints he was an accomplice to Claudius in murdering Hamlet's father.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on July 19, 2015, 06:29:59 AM
Derek Jacobi does a great job in portraying Claudius. It is not an easy job to make someone who killed his brother sympathetic. But Jacobi nails it, of course helped by Shakespeare's magnificent empathizing text. In Shakespeare there are not many completely unsympathetic characters. From those plays of his I've read two possible exceptions could be "Honest" Iago from Othello and Richard III. But they are so layered characters that it's hard to tell, really. Of course, there are many more works of his unexplored by me.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 23, 2015, 11:37:11 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 18, 2015, 06:12:09 PM
Don't know the AYLI.

I got this in the mail just now and am trying to get through it. Suffice it to say Branagh seems to have lost all shame; it's 127 minutes long, about as long as the full text of the play, yet it is cut to shreds, abysmally acted, and slow, slow, slow. It's as if Branagh and his producer got together and one of them said, "Hey! I have a really stupid idea! let's put the forest of Arden in 19th-century Japan!" "Hey! that makes absolutely no sense! let's do it! these idiots will see the Branagh name, they won't know the difference, and they'll think it's just great!"

After the first hour trudging through this disaster, I still haven't the slightest idea why this was set in Japan, or why a kabuki performance is ambushed at the start by ninja warriors, other than to use a sumo who speaks nothing and just grunts to play the wrestler Charles.

ETA: My God, this is interminable. It's like walking through sludge. It's not remotely funny. It's all pretty forest pictures, birds, sheep, and a non-stop pseudo-Debussy score. After what seems like hours, I've finally reached Act Five. And the ultimate pratfall: he shows the lion attacking Orlando. Tell, don't show. I can only hope he doesn't tackle The Winter's Tale.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on July 23, 2015, 01:05:21 PM
I've heard a rumor that Criterion will soon (year or so) release Welles' Othello and Chimes at Midnight. Only a rumor, nothing confirmed.

Wow, that AYLI sounds abominable.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 23, 2015, 01:14:14 PM
Quote from: Brian on July 23, 2015, 01:05:21 PM
I've heard a rumor that Criterion will soon (year or so) release Welles' Othello and Chimes at Midnight. Only a rumor, nothing confirmed.

Wow, that AYLI sounds abominable.

I'm not a great fan of Welles's Othello (even less of his Macbeth), but Chimes was terrific. Fortunately a DVD is already available. Actually my favorite "Welles Shakespeare" is the Richard Linklater-directed "Me and Orson Welles," starring a wonderful Christian McKay as Welles and a quite good Zac Efron as "me."

I'm taking an intermission, my third, from the AYLI. Can't imagine what it must be like to sit through this in a theater. (Like books, some films you can't bear to put down, some you can't bear to take up.) In truth, the second half is better than the first, if only because it couldn't get any worse, and because more of Shakespeare is preserved. But I've seen enough beautifully acted stage versions of AYLI (best of all, Rebecca Hall, in a marvelous production directed by her famous father Sir Peter) to know it's not the play's fault.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 23, 2015, 02:07:00 PM
Well, that was a waste of a good two hours. BTW, no play would benefit more from a truly HIP Shakespeare (i.e., young boys playing the female roles) than this one, which depicts (as the Sparks Notes author gets just right) "the dizzying intermingling of homosexual and heterosexual affections that govern a man [that is, a physical boy] pretending to be a woman [Rosalind] pretending to be a man [Ganymede] pretending to be a woman [Rosalind] in the hopes of seducing a man [Orlando]," and includes lines like these:

- TOUCHSTONE (to Rosalind and Celia): Stand you both forth now: stroke your chins, and swear by your beards that I am a knave.
CELIA: By our beards, if we had them, thou art.

- And ROSALIND: If I were a woman I would kiss as many of you as had beards that pleased me.

These days, of course, one is more likely to see women playing male roles. Just last week I saw a marathon of the "Henriad" in NY where both Bolingbroke and Prince Hal were played by women, and I recently saw an all-female "Othello." But for all that I wish to see more opportunities for women in theater, there's something to be said for going back to original practice. (I have seen an all-male "Twelfth Night," but the Viola and Olivia were taking by mature actors. That's not the idea: they should be young teenage boys, preferably with high voices. Chris Colfer might still do, or a 16-year-old Justin Bieber if he could act.)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on July 23, 2015, 03:43:29 PM
I actually had another go at the Branagh AYLI, after mentioning it upthread, but, like yourself, got frustrated again and had to quit, for the moment, at the halfway mark. Mainly because Bryce Dallas Howard and Romola Garai - who elsewhere have proven fine actresses - are here made to play Rosalind and Celia as something near to a couple of high-school twits.

My theory (not backed up by any reading) is that Branagh was pressured into doing another Shakespeare when that's no longer where his interest lies, has come to resent being seen as just "the Shakespeare guy" (at least by the studios), and was determined to show he can make different sorts of pictures at the same time - so they would come to realise he might be worthy of directing, erm, Thor, say.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 23, 2015, 05:14:45 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on July 23, 2015, 03:43:29 PM
I actually had another go at the Branagh AYLI, after mentioning it upthread, but, like yourself, got frustrated again and had to quit, for the moment, at the halfway mark. Mainly because Bryce Dallas Howard and Romola Garai - who elsewhere have proven fine actresses - are here made to play Rosalind and Celia as something near to a couple of high-school twits.

Indeed, and you might say there were a number of other fine actors wasted by misdirection. Rosalind - in reality Shakespeare's sharpest and most perceptive comic woman - is as far from a twit as you can imagine. But as it happens, I saw Romola Garai in a fine revival of Tom Stoppard's "Indian Ink" a couple of years ago in New York.

To redress the balance: oddly enough, Branagh directed a very interesting and original version of Mozart's "Magic Flute" (in English, and set in WW1) that I would recommend to anyone not a Mozartean purist. But he's still doing Shakespeare at least on stage; he brought his Macbeth here two years ago and man, it was bad. (Then again, most Macbeths I've seen recently on stage - Patrick Stewart, Ethan Hawke, Branagh - have all been lousy. The best was by John Douglas Thompson, who was also excellent in Marlowe's Tamburlaine last year. Call it the curse of the Scottish Play. My theory is that the best way to do the Witches is to play them not as cackling harridans but as highly dignified prophets of doom - that's what they are, really: the equivalent of Greek oracles.)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on July 23, 2015, 05:47:02 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 23, 2015, 05:14:45 PM
But he's still doing Shakespeare at least on stage; he brought his Macbeth here two years ago and man, it was bad.

Was that the same production as the National Theatre Live performance I saw at the cinema? I thought the staging of that had many interesting elements, in their use of the converted church, using most of the long aisle space for performance with the audience on each side facing each other, and the mud packed floor that was constantly rained on. But oh boy Alex Kingston (who again is fine elsewhere) was far outside of her abilities as Lady Macbeth.

I'm looking forward to the Michael Fassbender film, which should finally be released later this year.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on July 23, 2015, 06:05:57 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 23, 2015, 02:07:00 PM
or a 16-year-old Justin Bieber if he could act.)

Appropriately, the most suitable response is a line uttered by Touchstone
There's much virtue in an if
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 23, 2015, 06:14:24 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 23, 2015, 06:05:57 PM
Appropriately, the most suitable response is a line uttered by Touchstone
There's much virtue in an if

A line, btw, left out of the Branagh film.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on July 23, 2015, 06:16:55 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 23, 2015, 06:14:24 PM
A line, btw, left out of the Branagh film.

:o
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on July 23, 2015, 06:17:14 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on July 23, 2015, 05:47:02 PM
I'm looking forward to the Michael Fassbender film, which should finally be released later this year.

I'm looking forward to it because Marion Cotillard is always mesmerizing (see: Two Days, One Night, the best acting performance of 2014) but advance word is the director simple-mindedly pursues blood and guts.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 23, 2015, 06:21:39 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on July 23, 2015, 05:47:02 PM
Was that the same production as the National Theatre Live performance I saw at the cinema? I thought the staging of that had many interesting elements, in their use of the converted church, using most of the long aisle space for performance with the audience on each side facing each other, and the mud packed floor that was constantly rained on. But oh boy Alex Kingston (who again is fine elsewhere) was far outside of her abilities as Lady Macbeth.

I might have felt better disposed towards the Branagh (when he brought it to New York, using the very long space of the Park Avenue Armory) were it not for the nonsense the audience was subjected to as part of the "fun." Not only were ticket prices outrageous, but before the performance started audience members were segregated into "clans," and were marched to their sections by "leaders" who started us off with "clan-building" shouts at the top of all our lungs, and then we found that the benches were precariously high and without seat backs. I saw one elderly man who was so afraid to mount his bench that he asked to be led out of the auditorium. From my location in one of the cheaper seats, I saw hardly anything and could hear little besides. But when I caught the affair on YouTube later on, I didn't feel I had missed much.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 23, 2015, 06:26:52 PM
Quote from: Brian on July 23, 2015, 06:17:14 PM
I'm looking forward to it because Marion Cotillard is always mesmerizing (see: Two Days, One Night, the best acting performance of 2014) but advance word is the director simple-mindedly pursues blood and guts.

Yes, I saw that one too, but am sorry I missed her doing Honegger's Joan of Arc with the NY Philharmonic. But she also had the good fortune to work with the Dardenne brothers, whose films - The Son, The Promise, The Kid with a Bike - are consistently intense and as you say mesmerizing. Just bought the Criterion BluRay of Rosetta and am looking for to it too.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on July 23, 2015, 07:13:36 PM
Quote from: Brian on July 23, 2015, 06:17:14 PM
I'm looking forward to it because Marion Cotillard is always mesmerizing (see: Two Days, One Night, the best acting performance of 2014) but advance word is the director simple-mindedly pursues blood and guts.

I'll forgive a bit of blood and guts...and I feel cautiously optimistic about the film based on the trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgH_OnrYlCk

(and the brief glimpse of the witches suggests they're done along the lines that poco was wanting)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 23, 2015, 07:29:27 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on July 23, 2015, 07:13:36 PM
I'll forgive a bit of blood and guts...and I feel cautiously optimistic about the film based on the trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgH_OnrYlCk

(and the brief glimpse of the witches suggests they're done along the lines that poco was wanting)

For blood and guts, I doubt it'll out-do Polanski.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on July 26, 2015, 07:30:18 AM
One of the flaws in Shakespeare's writing is the protagonist-centered morality. There are several other authors massively guilty of this though (Rowling, Tolkien, Dickens, Dostoyevsky, Alexandre Dumas sr., Pushkin...). For ex. in Hamlet and King Lear the protagonist acts like a massive asshole to almost every person and yet they are rarely if ever called out for their actions. Lear's ridiculous overreactions to smallest things tend to be comical. Hamlet drives Ophelia to suicide with verbally abusing her and then killing her father, mocks Laertes in Ophelia's funeral, has Rosencrantz and Guildenstern killed (who most likely had no idea about Claudius's plans to kill Hamlet)... What do all of these people have in common? No-one of them had nothing to do with Hamlet's father's murder. Almost every single character's death in the play is Hamlet's fault. Yet when he finally hits the true target at the end of the play, all his sins are absolved (or rather, they never even happened) and he is hailed as a hero. Hamlet's treatment of Gertrude I could possibly understand because depending on the interpretation it is actually plausible that she conspired with Claudius to murder Hamlet sr. Although Hamlet still didn't have much proof about it. There are several other plays of his where the heroic intended character appears to be insufferable at best and monstrous at worst.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 26, 2015, 08:12:27 AM
Quote from: Alberich on July 26, 2015, 07:30:18 AM
One of the flaws in Shakespeare's writing is the protagonist-centered morality. There are several other authors massively guilty of this though (Rowling, Tolkien, Dickens, Dostoyevsky, Alexandre Dumas sr., Pushkin...). For ex. in Hamlet and King Lear the protagonist acts like a massive asshole to almost every person and yet they are rarely if ever called out for their actions. Lear's ridiculous overreactions to smallest things tend to be comical. Hamlet drives Ophelia to suicide with verbally abusing her and then killing her father, mocks Laertes in Ophelia's funeral, has Rosencrantz and Guildenstern killed (who most likely had no idea about Claudius's plans to kill Hamlet)... What do all of these people have in common? No-one of them had nothing to do with Hamlet's father's murder. Almost every single character's death in the play is Hamlet's fault. Yet when he finally hits the true target at the end of the play, all his sins are absolved (or rather, they never even happened) and he is hailed as a hero. Hamlet's treatment of Gertrude I could possibly understand because depending on the interpretation it is actually plausible that she conspired with Claudius to murder Hamlet sr. Although Hamlet still didn't have much proof about it.

I more or less agree with all your statements about Hamlet and Lear - though I can't see any possibility that Gertrude is complicit.
But I don't know what you mean by "rarely if ever called out" or "all sins absolved." Are you saying that there is no omniscient authorial voice telling us what we ought to think about Hamlet or Lear or Othello? Surely as readers or audience members we can see the flaws in each of these characters, and our response to the play depends on how we interpret the juxtapositions of their actions, their statements, and the statements of others about them.

But the most important determinant is always the character's own actions. Hamlet himself is in many ways highly admirable (consider, for example, his genuine courtesy towards persons of lower rank and his desire to marry Ophelia - something which Polonius can't understand simply because Hamlet is a prince), but also a character with grave faults who can be judgmental, intolerant, abusive, and the direct or indirect cause of six or seven innocent deaths. And Shakespeare's characters often misjudge his other characters; for example, Claudius is hardly the debased drunkard Hamlet thinks he is; the King's own actions portray him as a highly capable and attractive ruler. Inevitably, however, we are drawn into the protagonist's point-of-view rather than his antagonist's, but that need not prevent us from recognizing the flaws in the protagonist's character.

ETA: There seems to me a problem as well with your use of the term "intended heroic character." How do you know what was intended? Sounds like you are looking for the plays to offer little morality lessons, but that is not Shakespeare's method. All you have to go on are the character's actions and statements, and if you and I are able to perceive how insufferable and even monstrous Hamlet and some of his fellows are, how do you know Shakespeare did not perceive Hamlet this way himself? Not that what Shakespeare 'intended" really matters; all that matters is what he put in the plays.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on July 26, 2015, 08:34:53 AM
Well, considering the plays have no narrator contrary to novels, it is sometimes hard to know which was the author's personal view or whether he even had one and was merely encouraging people to find their own interpretation. And don't get me wrong: I love Hamlet as a character. He is one of the best examples of Byronic heroes I can find (long before Byron was even born), the character type I have major liking towards anyway. He is very entertaining, funny, engaging, and like you said, likable, despite of his flaws. And Hamlet is indeed far from black and white morality. One of the most humane monologues in this play comes from the villain, Claudius.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vandermolen on July 26, 2015, 11:32:52 AM
Never liked the 'humour' in Shakespeare. Probably had them rolling in the aisles in 1603 but leaves me stone cold. The Paul Schofield version of King Lear saved me from disaster in 1973 when I was doing A Level English Literature at school and made me understand the play. Probably the only reason I got into university. Orwell's essay 'Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool' was another revelation to me at around the same time. Appeared as 'Prospero' a few years back in a local 'Shakespeare in the Pub' amateur dramatic production. My wife and daughter never saw my performance as they were convulsed with laughter as soon as I appeared on stage.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 26, 2015, 11:50:27 AM
Quote from: vandermolen on July 26, 2015, 11:32:52 AM
Never liked the 'humour' in Shakespeare. Probably had them rolling in the aisles in 1603 but leaves me stone cold. The Paul Schofield version of King Lear saved me from disaster in 1973 when I was doing A Level English Literature at school and made me understand the play. Probably the only reason I got into university. Orwell's essay 'Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool' was another revelation to me at around the same time. Appeared as 'Prospero' a few years back in a local 'Shakespeare in the Pub' amateur dramatic production. My wife and daughter never saw my performance as they were convulsed with laughter as soon as I appeared on stage.

A lot depends on good direction. Undoubtedly some of the wordplay is lost to us today, unless you're a scholar who knows all the allusions. But much of the physical comedy can survive if a director is found who can handle the situations.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vandermolen on July 26, 2015, 12:04:43 PM
Take on board the last two comments although Launcelot Gobbo remains a figure I can't stand in any literature.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on July 27, 2015, 12:49:35 AM
Quote from: vandermolen on July 26, 2015, 11:32:52 AM
Never liked the 'humour' in Shakespeare.

I do but amusingly, I find the humour in his tragedies often funnier. Hamlet for ex. can be played as a black comedy and it's hilarious.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on July 27, 2015, 12:52:29 AM
 (Talking about Polonius's corpse) "But if indeed you find him not within this month, you shall nose him as you go up the stairs into the lobby."

Black comedy at it's best. :D
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ken B on July 28, 2015, 07:31:15 PM
Quote from: vandermolen on July 26, 2015, 11:32:52 AM
Never liked the 'humour' in Shakespeare. Probably had them rolling in the aisles in 1603 but leaves me stone cold. The Paul Schofield version of King Lear saved me from disaster in 1973 when I was doing A Level English Literature at school and made me understand the play. Probably the only reason I got into university. Orwell's essay 'Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool' was another revelation to me at around the same time. Appeared as 'Prospero' a few years back in a local 'Shakespeare in the Pub' amateur dramatic production. My wife and daughter never saw my performance as they were convulsed with laughter as soon as I appeared on stage.

Moliere is much funnier. As is Plautus, Terence, Sheridan, Wilde, Congreve, ... Well pretty nearly everyone.

But Lear cracks me up.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 29, 2015, 06:16:10 AM
Quote from: Ken B on July 28, 2015, 07:31:15 PM
But Lear cracks me up.

I guess we all have different ideas about what's funny.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Mandryka on July 29, 2015, 06:40:57 AM
I remember seeing a Lear from The Royal Shakespeare Company in London where they played it for laughs, an audience stuffed with tourists and kids some of whom hardly spoke English, and they tittered all the way through, especially when Gloucester thinks he has survived the fall.

I think Midsummer Nights Dream is one of the funniest things ever written, I love the bit where Bottom becomes a wall with a chink in it.

Someone mentioned Molliere. He obviously knew a thing or two about comedy but I wonder how deep it is really. I saw Bourgeois Gentilhomme just a few weeks ago and I thought how Shakespearian it was, but Shakespeare would have made more of the internal comflicts, Jourdain's class conflicts. Somehow Jordain is less humane than Malvolio, for example, or Falstaff. And not enough probing questioning about class aspirations.  Maybe it was the performance, Bouffes du Nord, but it was enjoyable, as always there. I laughed out loud at Louis de Funès playing Harpagon, but there I think the character is more 2D than Shakespeare would have made him.

There's a whole genre of Shakespeare's plays which look like comedies but which are really looking at major moral problems, plays like Measure for Measure.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 29, 2015, 06:53:31 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on July 29, 2015, 06:40:57 AM
I remember seeing a Lear from The Royal Shakespeare Company in London where they played it for laughs, an audience stuffed with tourists and kids some of whom hardly spoke English, and they tittered all the way through, especially when Gloucester thinks he has survived the fall.

Yeah, that part's a scream. Actually, the RSC brought five plays to New York a few years ago and I bought seats for all; the Julius Caesar and Romeo were atrocious, the Lear and As You Like It mediocre, and only The Winter's Tale was a success. I was looking forward to this for months; turned out to be the biggest waste of my money since the last time I saw Levine conduct the Ring.

Not to be pedantic, but it's Snout rather than Bottom who plays Wall; nonetheless, I agree that the play can be very funny when staged well, and most productions I have seen have risen to the challenge. One of our local colleges, Hofstra University, did such a marvelous 6-actor 1-hour condensation of the play intended for high schools that I actually pleaded with them (in vain) to upload it to YouTube. Anyway, the Shakespearean original is such a miracle of invention that it scarcely needed operatizing; even so, Britten on the whole did rather well with it, but his leaden, "ha-ha, look at how funny I am" treatment of the play-within-a-play is by far the weakest part of an otherwise imaginative work.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: jochanaan on July 29, 2015, 08:01:10 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on July 26, 2015, 12:01:23 PM
I have no trouble laughing at the humor in the Porter scene (Macbeth).  Often the puns lose nothing over the centuries, Mercutio's "I'll be a grave man tomorrow" (R&J) - and other similar puns throughout his plays never fail to amuse me.
That one, and Dame Quickly's "'Hang hog' is Latin for bacon, I'll warrant you." ;D (The Merry Wives of Windsor)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on July 30, 2015, 02:54:06 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 29, 2015, 06:16:10 AM
I guess we all have different ideas about what's funny.

Lear's and Kent's overreactions do get a laugh out of me every once in a while... In general I like Lear the least of the "Great four tragedies". I actually like Timon of Athens (which possibly wasn't entirely from his pen) and Two gentlemen of Verona, which are often neglected. I'm bit unsure whether The Winter's tale counts as neglected, but in any case I like it very much.

Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on July 30, 2015, 03:18:39 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 29, 2015, 06:16:10 AM
I guess we all have different ideas about what's funny.

Funny you should say that . . . .
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: jochanaan on July 31, 2015, 07:25:38 AM
Quote from: karlhenning on July 30, 2015, 03:18:39 AM
Funny you should say that . . . .
Everyone thinks he's a wit.  Karl actually is. ;D
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 31, 2015, 11:52:54 AM
Quote from: jochanaan on July 31, 2015, 07:25:38 AM
Everyone thinks he's a wit.  Karl actually is. ;D

Touchstone in "As You Like It" to the simpleton William, whose girlfriend Touchstone is stealing from under his very nose:

TOUCHSTONE: Good even, gentle friend. Cover thy head, cover thy head; nay, prithee, be covered. How old are you, friend?
WILLIAM: Five and twenty, sir.
TOUCHSTONE: A ripe age. Is thy name William?
WILLIAM: William, sir.
TOUCHSTONE: A fair name. Wast born i' the forest here?
WILLIAM: Ay, sir, I thank God.
TOUCHSTONE: 'Thank God;' a good answer. Art rich?
WILLIAM: Faith, sir, so so.
TOUCHSTONE: 'So so' is good, very good, very excellent good; and yet it is not; it is but so so. Art thou wise?
WILLIAM: Ay, sir, I have a pretty wit.
TOUCHSTONE: Why, thou sayest well. I do now remember a saying, 'The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.'
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on July 31, 2015, 02:20:46 PM
One of my favorite bits of humour in Shakespeare - Harry Hotspur brings Owen Glendower down a notch in Henry IV, pt.1:

GLENDOWER
      At my nativity
The front of heaven was full of fiery shapes,
Of burning cressets, and at my birth
The frame and huge foundation of the earth
Shaked like a coward

HOTSPUR
   Why, so it would have done
At the same season if your mother's cat
Had but kittened, though yourself had never been born.

GLENDOWER
I say the earth did shake when I was born.

HOTSPUR
And I say the earth was not of my mind,
If you suppose as fearing you it shook.

GLENDOWER
The heavens were all on fire; the earth did tremble.

HOTSPUR
O, then the earth shook to see the heavens on fire,
And not in fear of your nativity.
Diseas—d nature oftentimes breaks forth
In strange eruptions; oft the teeming earth
Is with a kind of colic pinched and vexed
By the imprisoning of unruly wind
Within her womb, which, for enlargement striving,
Shakes the old beldam earth and topples down
Steeples and moss-grown towers. At your birth
Our grandam earth, having this distemperature,
In passion shook.

(done particularly well in the Hollow Crown series, I thought - along with the rest of Hotspurs bits, and in fact everything else, except maybe the Falstaff)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on July 31, 2015, 03:08:53 PM
Great stuff, that. Actually my favorite exchange in that scene comes a little later:

GLENDOWER
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

HOTSPUR
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?

Of course, Glendower's failure to appear at the Battle of Shrewsbury (whether deliberate or not) is a major factor in the rebels' defeat. My own favorite filmed versions of the Henry IV-V plays, besides Orson Welles's incomparable "Chimes" (with Gielgud as Henry IV), are the largely uncut Globe Theater productions with Roger Allam as Falstaff and Jamie Parker as Prince Hal. There's also a good older BBC set from 1960 called The Age of Kings that features a young Sean Connery as Hotspur. Agree that the Hollow Crown Falstaff is pretty lame.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on July 31, 2015, 04:58:29 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 31, 2015, 03:08:53 PM
There's also a good older BBC set from 1960 called The Age of Kings that features a young Sean Connery as Hotspur.

I've had Age Of Kings sitting at home unwatched for a while now - I'll have to try and make the time.

I knew Connery was in it, but didn't realise he was Hotspur.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on August 06, 2015, 07:47:20 PM
Has anyone read James Shapiro's 1599?

I've heard good things and have had it at home unread for far too long now, but might have to put it to the top of the pile as I've just been shown by the Faber rep the follow-up 1606:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51A4wsEee7L._SX300.jpg) (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51KiE10obkL._SX300.jpg)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on August 08, 2015, 05:20:09 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on August 06, 2015, 07:47:20 PM
Has anyone read James Shapiro's 1599?

I've heard good things and have had it at home unread for far too long now, but might have to put it to the top of the pile as I've just been shown by the Faber rep the follow-up 1606:

He's an entertaining writer, and skillfully merges history with literary criticism. To get the four plays he wants to talk about into one book, he makes the somewhat dubious argument that all were written in 1599. But this is a more interesting book than his Contested Will, which I consider a waste of time answering the silly claims of the non-Stratfordians. I have yet to see the Lear book.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ken B on August 09, 2015, 12:27:15 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 08, 2015, 05:20:09 AM
He's an entertaining writer, and skillfully merges history with literary criticism. To get the four plays he wants to talk about into one book, he makes the somewhat dubious argument that all were written in 1599. But this is a more interesting book than his Contested Will, which I consider a waste of time answering the silly claims of the non-Stratfordians. I have yet to see the Lear book.

I quite liked Contested Will, not because the non Stratfordians need answering, but because of the interesting history and obsession. Plus the robust defence of literature as art. An unpopular opinion these days.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on August 10, 2015, 03:20:36 AM
I enjoyed Contested Will, myself.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on August 10, 2015, 03:25:24 AM
Quote from: Ken B on August 09, 2015, 12:27:15 PM
I quite liked Contested Will, not because the non Stratfordians need answering, but because of the interesting history and obsession. Plus the robust defence of literature as art. An unpopular opinion these days.

Understood, and enjoyably written as Mr. Henning states. But the same ground has been covered by others elsewhere, and as you imply, to give the anti-Stratfordians that much attention is to take them more seriously than they merit, somewhat like giving so much attention to creationists, global warming deniers, anti-vaccinationists, JFK conspiracy theorists, and Donald Trump.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on August 10, 2015, 08:56:02 AM
An outtake from Richard III (not really, all right)

http://www.youtube.com/v/o5LkDNu8bVU
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ken B on August 10, 2015, 10:43:23 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 10, 2015, 03:25:24 AM
e them more seriously than they merit, somewhat like giving so much attention to creationists, global warming deniers, anti-vaccinationists, JFK conspiracy theorists, and Donald Trump.

I am a Trump-denier myself. He doesn't really exist. He cannot.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on August 23, 2015, 05:05:36 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 29, 2014, 12:31:17 PM

And better still, the superb Canadian TV series Slings and Arrows, about a struggling Canadian Shakespeare festival, one 6-episode season each on Hamlet, Macbeth, and Lear. Again easily available on Amazon, with 159 out of 177 reviewers giving it 5 stars. I'd give it 6.

Just got around to following up on this recommendation, and after the first disc (three episodes) I'm enjoying it enormously, much more than I expected to (apart from what must me the single most annoying theme tune in the history of television), so thanks for the heads-up!

Do you know if there exist any videos or dvds of the lead actor Paul Gross in an actual Shakespeare production?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ken B on August 23, 2015, 05:43:49 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on August 23, 2015, 05:05:36 PM
Just got around to following up on this recommendation, and after the first disc (three episodes) I'm enjoying it enormously, much more than I expected to (apart from what must me the single most annoying theme tune in the history of television), so thanks for the heads-up!

Do you know if there exist any videos or dvds of the lead actor Paul Gross in an actual Shakespeare production?

Huge huge plus one for Slings and Arrows.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on August 23, 2015, 06:23:15 PM
Reading  James Shapiro's 1599 now.
And for no discernible reason the memory of this came into view.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/511O2F7X4TL._SX344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Anyone else read this in their misspent youth?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on August 23, 2015, 08:00:48 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on August 23, 2015, 05:05:36 PM
Just got around to following up on this recommendation, and after the first disc (three episodes) I'm enjoying it enormously, much more than I expected to (apart from what must me the single most annoying theme tune in the history of television), so thanks for the heads-up!

Just wait until you get to the next two seasons; the theme tunes are even more annoying.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on August 24, 2015, 02:12:06 AM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 23, 2015, 06:23:15 PM
And for no discernible reason the memory of this came into view.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/511O2F7X4TL._SX344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Anyone else read this in their misspent youth?

Not that title, but two other by the same author.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on October 02, 2015, 03:50:28 PM
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41YQTWQDAFL.jpg)

Finally got around to Nicol Williamson's film of Hamlet, which I'm sure I'd heard good things about, but which thoroughly disappointed me.

I feel this adaptation might have worked better as audio-only, a talking book or a radio play because everyone spoke well (though with a wide range of undisguised accents), but with a strange lack of any change in facial expression, movement or gestures to convey emotion or emphasis. Worst of all were the Gertrude and Ophelia, though one might argue their roles were so cut as to have little chance of showing any actual character development. Anthony Hopkins seems half-amused at being allowed to just phone it in the whole way through. My favorite cut was when Polonius (once again played as a bumbler, dammit) tells Reynaldo to spread bad rumous about his son Laertes....and then nothing - no explanation.

And having the ghost as just a bright light with UFO noises was a truly bizarre and crippling misstep, and can only detract from empathising with Hamlet's mental state and grief for a real father (and Nicolson's choice of using his own voice for the ghost only reinforces this). Probably the oldest Hamlet I've yet seen, as well.

Interestingly all the way through I kept thinking how much better numerous moments were done in the Branagh version, so I may watch that again in the near future.




Also just noticed the original theatrical poster, and can't decide which is funnier: the Nosferatu pose or the "from the author of Romeo and Juliet" ad-line:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51gKsvzxQwL._SY300_.jpg)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: lisa needs braces on October 03, 2015, 06:08:26 PM
I kind of agree with linguist John McWhorter here:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-facelift-for-shakespeare-1443194924

Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on October 03, 2015, 08:42:09 PM
That guy teaches at Columbia?! He writes, and argues, like a high-school student.

I'm all for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival putting on the plays as jiggery-pokeryed into "modern" English as an exercise. An interesting discussion may come from it, and Shakespeare has certainly seen odder staging ideas. But the author of the article saying this is how all stagings should, nay must, be done? No.

The artilce also seems built upon all manner of false or unproven assumptions and straw man arguments, eg paragraph two:

"Most educated people are uncomfortable admitting that Shakespeare's language often feels more medicinal than enlightening. We have been told since childhood that Shakespeare's words are "elevated" and that our job is to reach up to them, or that his language is "poetic," or that it takes British actors to get his meaning across."

...which are in need of a liberal amount of "[who?]" and "[citation needed]".

Bridging the centuries and meeting Shakespeare in his context is part of the excitement, and "work" - if he want's to use that term, I wouldn't - that enriches much of our understanding of literature and history beyond just the needs of the present play. And besides meaning, if unclear, can usually be obtained from context, or conveyed by the actions or inflections of the actors.

That reference to British actors in the above seems telling when combined with this from a little later: "In 2015, that usage is simply opaque, and being British doesn't help matters.", and we start to see where the prejudice and complaint might really lie.

And this bit made me laugh out loud:

"To prove that the centuries were not so formidable a divide, the actor and author Ben Crystal has documented that only about 10% of the words that Shakespeare uses are incomprehensible in modern English. But that argument is easy to turn on its head. When every 10th word makes no sense—it's no accident that the word decimate started as meaning "to reduce by a 10th" and later came to mean "to destroy"—a playgoer's experience is vastly diluted."

Every tenth word is incomprehensible? No. I'm no Rhodes scholar. I haven't toiled with all the notes from the Arden editions. Yet I can follow the plays just fine. But this writer nevertheless would see me as an "elitist", stating in a manner which I would usually associate with internet trolls:

"But are we satisfied with Shakespeare's being genuinely meaningful only to an elite few unless edited to death or carefully excerpted, with most of the rest of us genuflecting in the name of "culture" and keeping our confusion to ourselves? Should we have to pore laboriously over Shakespeare on the page before seeing his work performed?"

Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 04, 2015, 04:58:56 AM
Quote from: -abe- on October 03, 2015, 06:08:26 PM
I kind of agree with linguist John McWhorter here:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-facelift-for-shakespeare-1443194924

I kind of disagree, and the always estimable SimonNZ makes the case well, and in greater detail than I care to go into myself. The truth is that much of Shakespeare's language is in fact modern English (as that term is defined by linguists) and readily comprehensible; obscure phrases like Othello's "exsufflicate and blown surmises" or Macbeth's "the multitudinous seas incarnadine" are the exceptions, not the norm. If we have to translate phrases like "Pray you, sir, undo this button" or "Oh brave new world that hath such people in it!" we're in trouble indeed. (Other than Jeb! there are perhaps no greater fools than Shakespearean directors, and I recall a Merchant of Venice in which Shylock was pondering whether to lend "three thousand dollars," the original word "ducats" being adjudged too difficult to understand as a unit of currency.)

But McWhorter loses his own argument when he tries to make the case that Shakespeare "wrote for performance." (He did, but as Lukas Erne has recently argued, he also wrote to be read, and that is why his works belong to literature and not only to theater.) In the sweep of a stage performance, where you cannot go back and look up a meaning, context does much to make up for any individual words that might get lost for a particular hearer. That's why it's probably best for students not only to read the plays but also to see a good stage production or filmed version, and perhaps even when reading to soldier on and ignore all those pesky little notes as much as possible.

The real failure of McWhorter's argument, however, is his assumption that Shakespeare will suddenly become miraculously clear if we just treat his texts as verbal puzzles to be solved. Not so: the real difficulties with Shakespeare are conceptual, in the complexities of responses we are expected to bring to his characters and situations. Even some of Shakespeare's greatest villains (Iago, Edmund, Shylock, Goneril) have aspects of their characters that command respect, and some of his most admirable people (Hamlet, Othello, Cordelia, Prospero) have severe shortcomings. That is the real challenge of Shakespeare, not some fine points of evolving language.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jo498 on October 04, 2015, 05:28:28 AM
I assume that this guy is exaggerating and even many high school students understand most of those passages (and for reading there are annotations), at least in context. For me as a non-native reader quite a bit of this is quite difficult because of the huge vocab and those shifts in meaning but I had no problems to completely understand the excerpt from Macbeth's monologue in the article. (I think I have read about 4 Shakespeare pieces in English and also watched a few both in movie adaptations and in English-language stagings)

I wonder if one part of the problem (if it really is one) might also be that a lot of even otherwise well-educated people in the english-speaking world have no or only rudimentary knowledge of foreign languages. If one is used to "decode" texts with help of context etc. one should not have trouble to understand that "clear" could mean "pure" in that passage (and not lucid or transparent).
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 04, 2015, 05:47:47 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on October 04, 2015, 05:28:28 AM
I wonder if one part of the problem (if it really is one) might also be that a lot of even otherwise well-educated people in the english-speaking world have no or only rudimentary knowledge of foreign languages. If one is used to "decode" texts with help of context etc. one should not have trouble to understand that "clear" could mean "pure" in that passage (and not lucid or transparent).

I really don't think so. Context should suffice regardless of one's knowledge of other languages. The example that springs to mind is from Edgar in his disguise as Poor Tom in Lear:
"But mice and rats and such small deer / Have been Tom's food for seven long year."

Probably most of us today won't recognize that "deer" as used in 1600 retained its wider sense of "animal" as found in the cognate German "Tier." But honestly, is the passage so hard to grasp?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jo498 on October 04, 2015, 06:09:27 AM
I wanted to make a more general point, closer to your example. I did not only or mainly mean that one should be able to identify obsolete words or meanings because one has studied Latin, French or German.

But that by studying any foreign language one usually learns to look for contexts, often to get the meaning etc. better than in one's native language. Of course, in principle, this can also be learned by studying texts of the native language but one is more often "forced" to do so with a foreign language.
(I guess I never before explicitly realized that "deer" ~ "Tier"...)

Maybe the problem is far more general: More and more people seem to take it for granted that a text should yield very easily to our attempts to understand it, so that even taking a little trouble with that process is too much, therefore they want to revise/simply older or difficult texts.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 04, 2015, 06:21:29 AM
Quote from: Jo498 on October 04, 2015, 06:09:27 AM
Maybe the problem is far more general: More and more people seem to take it for granted that a text should yield very easily to our attempts to understand it, so that even taking a little trouble with that process is too much, therefore they want to revise/simply older or difficult texts.

Absolutely. A further fallacy in McWhorter's argument is his apparent assumption that the Shakespearean texts would have been crystal-clear to all levels of society in his own day. I stand by my argument that much of his language is reasonably comprehensible to an educated and willing reader or spectator; however, it's unlikely that anyone talked even in his own time in blank verse, and much of the pleasure in hearing Shakespeare is the high degree of attentiveness one needs to follow his intricate syntax and metaphors. It's like driving a highway where there are bends and twists at every stage of the road, rather than one where you can set your mind on auto-pilot because the roads are perfectly straight.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ken B on October 04, 2015, 08:11:28 AM
Makes it a lot easier for undertrained actors and teachers.  Ever hear a trained actor like Ian McKellen recite?  Very clear. 
When I see hard to follow performances it's because they shout or rush lines.  I call it the Stratford shouting disease,  as it took over the Ontario festival for 20 years (getting better now).
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 04, 2015, 08:17:49 AM
Quote from: Ken B on October 04, 2015, 08:11:28 AM
Makes it a lot easier for undertrained actors and teachers.  Ever hear a trained actor like Ian McKellen recite?  Very clear. 
When I see hard to follow performances it's because they shout or rush lines.  I call it the Stratford shouting disease,  as it took over the Ontario festival for 20 years (getting better now).

"And that's true, too" (to quote Gloucester). I saw a "Titus Andronicus" just last week at a local theater, where the performers moved creditably and inhabited their characters, but they consistently shouted and swallowed most of their words. How can one blame audiences for not following the words if the words are not articulated?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on October 04, 2015, 05:59:04 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 04, 2015, 06:21:29 AM
Absolutely. A further fallacy in McWhorter's argument is his apparent assumption that the Shakespearean texts would have been crystal-clear to all levels of society in his own day. I stand by my argument that much of his language is reasonably comprehensible to an educated and willing reader or spectator; however, it's unlikely that anyone talked even in his own time in blank verse, and much of the pleasure in hearing Shakespeare is the high degree of attentiveness one needs to follow his intricate syntax and metaphors. It's like driving a highway where there are bends and twists at every stage of the road, rather than one where you can set your mind on auto-pilot because the roads are perfectly straight.

I don't have the passage at hand to cite details, but I recently read that Shakespeare invented more neologisms--new words-- than any other single person. Meaning that his audiences were regularly presented with words no one had ever heard before... yet Shakespeare intended them to understand his meaning.
Title: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on October 05, 2015, 02:23:47 AM
Thoroughly interesting discussion, chaps.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: North Star on October 05, 2015, 05:38:48 AM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 04, 2015, 05:59:04 PM
I don't have the passage at hand to cite details, but I recently read that Shakespeare invented more neologisms--new words-- than any other single person. Meaning that his audiences were regularly presented with words no one had ever heard before... yet Shakespeare intended them to understand his meaning.
There is no way of knowing which of these were his inventions, and which just happen to survive in his works, though. I would think he picked up phrases from the people too.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ken B on October 05, 2015, 07:07:57 AM
Quote from: karlhenning on October 05, 2015, 02:23:47 AM
Thoroughly interesting discussion, chaps.

I can definitely see watching a performance of the translation. Most people need some aid when first encountering a play. But I reject the notion that we should be able to understand anything from the past with no effort and at a first encounter or it means the work needs to be altered. Poco made this point extensively.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on October 05, 2015, 09:01:59 AM
Quote from: North Star on October 05, 2015, 05:38:48 AM
There is no way of knowing which of these were his inventions, and which just happen to survive in his works, though. I would think he picked up phrases from the people too.

Popular language and outright slang are well preserved in Elizabethan pamphlets, and to be syllabically simpler.  Author invented words tend to be ornate multiple syllables drawing on foreign languages, as if he was strutting his stuff, and not found elsewhere, whether pamphlets or other poets.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on October 05, 2015, 09:11:07 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on July 26, 2015, 08:12:27 AM
ETA: There seems to me a problem as well with your use of the term "intended heroic character." How do you know what was intended?

It is possible Shakespeare is using Horatio sarcastically in this respect but he pretty much flat out addresses the audience (and Fortinbras) in the end how Hamlet was basically the greatest guy who ever walked on earth. Hamlet is not without his good points but Horatio basically makes it sound like Hamlet was a saint in making, not often cruel and sulky antihero who is in some way responsible for deaths of almost every character in the play, whom in most cases probably didn't deserve to die. Hamlet is not the worst case of this though (at least Hamlet is interesting character), the worst offenders of this are found in Timon of Athens and King Lear. Whenever some character calls someone out of their actions, it is never directed at Lear or Timon, no matter how bad some of their actions are. Kent gently scolds Lear in the opening act but it is virtually nothing compared to how he for ex. talks to Oswald. Oswald is no saint either, but it still seems like Lear is judged less critically merely because he's the protagonist. With Timon the problem is not quite as bad because he actually doesn't act like ahole for 95 % of the play, in fact the root of his problems lies in that he is too much of a nice guy in the beginning, not so with Lear. I do like much of King Lear and Timon of Athens as plays, but man, sometimes those moral dissonances drive me nuts.

There is also the possibility that it's the high status of a certain person which causes the protagonist's actions and character almost never to be questioned.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: North Star on October 05, 2015, 09:15:36 AM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 05, 2015, 09:01:59 AM
Popular language and outright slang are well preserved in Elizabethan pamphlets, and to be syllabically simpler.  Author invented words tend to be ornate multiple syllables drawing on foreign languages, as if he was strutting his stuff, and not found elsewhere, whether pamphlets or other poets.
Like Frenchwoman.  8)

http://qi.com/infocloud/shakespeare
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 06, 2015, 03:32:32 AM
Quote from: Alberich on October 05, 2015, 09:11:07 AM
It is possible Shakespeare is using Horatio sarcastically in this respect but he pretty much flat out addresses the audience (and Fortinbras) in the end how Hamlet was basically the greatest guy who ever walked on earth. Hamlet is not without his good points but Horatio basically makes it sound like Hamlet was a saint in making, not often cruel and sulky antihero who is in some way responsible for deaths of almost every character in the play, whom in most cases probably didn't deserve to die. Hamlet is not the worst case of this though (at least Hamlet is interesting character), the worst offenders of this are found in Timon of Athens and King Lear. Whenever some character calls someone out of their actions, it is never directed at Lear or Timon, no matter how bad some of their actions are. Kent gently scolds Lear in the opening act but it is virtually nothing compared to how he for ex. talks to Oswald. Oswald is no saint either, but it still seems like Lear is judged less critically merely because he's the protagonist. With Timon the problem is not quite as bad because he actually doesn't act like ahole for 95 % of the play, in fact the root of his problems lies in that he is too much of a nice guy in the beginning, not so with Lear. I do like much of King Lear and Timon of Athens as plays, but man, sometimes those moral dissonances drive me nuts.

There is also the possibility that it's the high status of a certain person which causes the protagonist's actions and character almost never to be questioned.

I think I've answered this already and so I don't feel like getting into every point, especially since you've completely missed the essence of my argument: "Surely as readers or audience members we can see the flaws in each of these characters, and our response to the play depends on how we interpret the juxtapositions of their actions, their statements, and the statements of others about them. . . . "

But just start by considering what Horatio actually says (and let's not forget his grim rebuke to Hamlet's act of killing two innocent pawns: "So Guildenstern and Rosencrantz go to't."):

And let me speak to the yet unknowing world
How these things came about: so shall you hear
Of carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts,
Of accidental judgments, casual slaughters,
Of deaths put on by cunning and forced cause,
And, in this upshot, purposes mistook
Fall'n on the inventors' reads: all this can I
Truly deliver.

Surely some of these acts apply to Hamlet, not only to his enemies. As for the "gentle" Kent,

Let it fall rather, though the fork invade
The region of my heart: be Kent unmannerly,
When Lear is mad. What wilt thou do, old man?
Think'st thou that duty shall have dread to speak,
When power to flattery bows? To plainness honour's bound,
When majesty stoops to folly. Reverse thy doom;
And, in thy best consideration, cheque
This hideous rashness: answer my life my judgment,
Thy youngest daughter does not love thee least;
Nor are those empty-hearted whose low sound
Reverbs no hollowness.

Kill thy physician, and the fee bestow
Upon thy foul disease. Revoke thy doom;
Or, whilst I can vent clamour from my throat,
I'll tell thee thou dost evil.

Man, that's so gentle I'd hate to see what he sounds like when he's pissed off. As for no one else calling Lear's actions into question, I might as well quote the entire part of the Fool, not to mention numerous utterances from Goneril and Regan.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: jochanaan on October 06, 2015, 07:29:55 AM
Well, if we expect plays to be "easy," that leaves out many of the greatest modern playwrights: Edward Albee, Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller... 8)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on October 07, 2015, 10:57:42 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 06, 2015, 03:32:32 AM
"Surely as readers or audience members we can see the flaws in each of these characters, and our response to the play depends on how we interpret the juxtapositions of their actions, their statements, and the statements of others about them. . . . "

Fair enough.

Kent was only basically calling Lear a fool, though. If, say, Oswald, had done what Lear did, Kent would have called him scum of the earth, monster, slave, etc. Actually, he pretty much calls Oswald that even though he didn't do that (not exactly in those words but meaning is pretty much the same), before Kent actually has any proof about Oswald's less admirable qualities (IIRC).
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 09, 2015, 12:50:36 PM
Quote from: Alberich on October 07, 2015, 10:57:42 PM
Fair enough.

Kent was only basically calling Lear a fool, though. If, say, Oswald, had done what Lear did, Kent would have called him scum of the earth, monster, slave, etc. Actually, he pretty much calls Oswald that even though he didn't do that (not exactly in those words but meaning is pretty much the same), before Kent actually has any proof about Oswald's less admirable qualities (IIRC).

What you're missing is the social and political hierarchy involved. As a king, Lear would be seen to rule by divine right, and to be God's divine representative on earth. Further, Kent is not just calling Lear a fool, he's also accusing Lear of madness, rashness, and even evil. That's pretty strong stuff, and even while he knows he is putting his life at stake by objecting to a critical decision by his absolute monarch, Kent refuses to stand by when he sees Lear committing a monstrous injustice towards Cordelia:

Let it [the threatened arrow] fall rather, though the fork invade
The region of my heart: be Kent unmannerly,
When Lear is mad. What wilt thou do, old man?
Think'st thou that duty [i.e., Kent's allegiance to Lear] shall have dread to speak,
When power [Lear's] to flattery [that of Goneril and Regan] bows?

(Note also in this scene the shifts from formal to intimate use of the second person singular: a distinction still preserved in languages like French and German, but sadly lost in English. Another argument, BTW, for not "translating" or "updating" Shakespeare.)

As for Oswald, he is Goneril's servant, and takes orders from her as ruler of half the new Britain. But while the two wicked sisters see themselves now as absolute rulers and Lear an inconvenient old man, Kent maintains his life-long allegiance to his king. When in disguise he trips up and insults Oswald, the Earl of Kent is thinking as a nobleman addressing a commoner, and as putting in his place a cowardly and effeminate upstart who fails to treat the anointed king with proper respect.

The only character in the play who within the hierarchy is allowed to ridicule Lear is his "all-licensed fool," who is expected to speak truth, though always in jest – the court's professional comedian.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on October 09, 2015, 12:59:10 PM
Not Shakespearean, but fool-related: I recently read the excellent adventure novel The Long Ships, by Frans Bengtsson, which is a Viking story about a young man who gets kidnapped by marauding adventurers and goes on to have a long and profitable career "a-Viking" in Spain, France, England, Ireland, and Russia.

Of note to this discussion, there are two characters, Irish court jesters who, for political reasons, decide to abandon the court and travel the countryside entertaining travelers for their keep. Near the end of the story, one of them discovers that his "fool skills" (which include not just verbal dexterity but various physical tricks) have so captivated a Russian tribe that he agrees to become their ruler, and thus the fool becomes the king.

Fun novel.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 09, 2015, 01:08:55 PM
Quote from: Brian on October 09, 2015, 12:59:10 PM
thus the fool becomes the king.

Let's pray this does not apply to Donald Trump.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on October 09, 2015, 01:17:49 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 09, 2015, 12:50:36 PM
Another argument, BTW, for not "translating" or "updating" Shakespeare.)


Over the last couple of days I've been having a bit of fun in my imagination reworking famous scenes into "modern" English. (and concluding again: let Shakespeare be Shakespeare - the audience aren't idiots)

Which reminded me of Lord Buckley's version of Mark Antony's Funeral Oration done beatnik-hipster style:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4lZTgbjFJo

Hipsters, flipsters, and finger-poppin' daddies,
Knock me your lobes,
I came to lay Caesar out,
Not to hip you to him.
The bad jazz that a cat blows,
Wails long after he's cut out.
The groovey is often stashed with their frames,
So don't put Caesar down.
The swinging Brutus hath laid a story on you
That Caesar was hungry for power If it were so, it was a sad drag,
And sadly hath the Caesar cat answered it.
Here with a pass from Brutus and the other brass,
For Brutus is a worthy stud,
Yea, so are they all worthy studs,
Though their stallions never sleep.
I came to wail at Ceasar's wake.
He was my buddy, and he leveled with me.
Yet Brutus digs that he has eyes for power,
And Brutus is a solid cat.
It is true he hath returned with many freaks in chains
And brought them home to Rome.
Yea, the looty was booty
And hipped the treasury well.
Dost thou dig that this was Caesar's groove
For the putsch?
When the cats with the empty kicks hath copped out,
Yea, Caesar hath copped out, too,
And cried up a storm.
To be a world grabber a stiffer riff must be blown.
Without bread a stud can't even rule an anthill.
Yet Brutus was swinging for the moon.
And, yea, Brutus is a worthy stud.
And all you cats were gassed on the Lupercal
When he came on like a king freak.
Three times I lay the wig on him,
And thrice did he put it down.
Was this the move of a greedy hipster?
Yet, Brutus said he dug the lick,
And, yes, a hipper cat has never blown.
Some claim that Brutus' story was a gag.
But I dug the story was solid.
I came here to blow.
Now, stay cool while I blow.
You all dug him once
Because you were hipped that he was solid
How can you now come on so square
Now that he's tapped out of this world.
City Hall is flipped
And swung to a drunken zoo
And all of you cats are goofed to wig city.
Dig me hard.
My ticker is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And, yea, I must stay cool til it flippeth back to me.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on October 09, 2015, 06:42:43 PM
Will anyone here be seeing the National Theatre Live broadcasts to cinemas next week of the Cumberbatch Hamlet? I have to wait until mid-December to see it out my way.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 09, 2015, 07:04:24 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 09, 2015, 06:42:43 PM
Will anyone here be seeing the National Theatre Live broadcasts to cinemas next week of the Cumberbatch Hamlet? I have to wait until mid-December to see it out my way.

October 15.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on October 09, 2015, 07:23:26 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 09, 2015, 07:04:24 PM
October 15.

Ah, good. I look forward to a review. (if you're willing, of course)

Listed as two hours at my theatre - I hope that's just a misprint. A TLS review of the production (which also has some interesting things to say about the history of cutting and changing order of scenes) put it at three hours.

Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ken B on October 10, 2015, 08:00:45 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 09, 2015, 07:23:26 PM
Ah, good. I look forward to a review. (if you're willing, of course)

Listed as two hours at my theatre - I hope that's just a misprint. A TLS review of the production (which also has some interesting things to say about the history of cutting and changing order of scenes) put it at three hours.

I look forward to a review too. I am dubious about it.  Cumberbatch is flavor of the month. But I have been surprised before. 
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on October 11, 2015, 12:51:01 PM
I've been picking away at random broadcasts from Melvyn Bragg's superb "In Our Time" series - all of which are available to play on the BBC site - whenever I have a spare 45 minutes, and last night played the one giving an overview of the development of the Revenge Tragedy.

If anyone here is interested I though it was a particularly well done episode and was useful for fitting Titus Andronicus and Hamlet into the historical context of the genre, and highlighting the specific ways the later subverted or confounded it. Also whetted my appetite for reading Kyd, Middleton et al.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00l16vp
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 08:30:30 AM
This is kind of long, so deal with it. Let me start by separating the Cumberbatch (the actor) from the Cumberbotch (the production). The first of these was quite good. He's definitely an actor of great talent and he handles the soliloquies well, although I'm not ready to crown him the next Olivier or Gielgud as apparently did several members of the audience where I saw the NTLive screening, and I'd like to see what he could see in the hands of a competent director.

Some of the supporting performances were good, especially the Polonius and the Gravedigger (who doubled, not as successfully, the Ghost). The King and Queen were quite good too, and the Hamlet-Gertrude scene was one of the better acted. I've read reviews saying the King was too soft-spoken, but on screen he appeared if anything too vehement.

The Ophelia seemed to have talent, but was first seen carrying around a large camera as if to show she has a hobby; and later in her mad scene she lugs a heavy trunk down a flight of stairs (is she planning a trip?) that Gertrude later opens to reveal her camera and cache of photographs. Surely rule no. 1 in good direction ought to be that props ought to serve a purpose; if you can figure out why Ophelia was a photography buff you're a better man than I, but I'm just warming up on the Cumberbotch part of things.

The Horatio was a nerdish fellow with glasses and tattoos; he was always seen lugging around a full backpack (to prove he was a Student, in case you didn't figure that out, but couldn't they have found a room in the castle for him to stow his gear?), and given his whiny delivery one wonders why Hamlet would want him for a friend in the first place.

One of the specialties of the production is re-arranging scenes and re-assigning lines to other speakers. If you're silly enough to expect the play to begin with the first sighting of the Ghost, by which Shakespeare brilliantly suggests the atmosphere of doom and unease that sets the tone for the rest of the action, you'll find that this Hamlet starts with our hero listening to Nat King Cole on his phonograph, and saying "Who's there?" to a visitor who turns out to be Horatio. But this is at least not as bad as starting with TBONTB, as was done in the first previews.

What always gets me with Shakespearean performances is why, if we consider him the world's greatest dramatist and poet, we always have to muck him up by "improving" his dramaturgy and language. It is unlikely even in his own time that the longer plays were done in their full printed texts, but there are cuts that don't damage the action as well as ones that are just plain stupid. Here, in addition to a lot of stupid cuts (including so much of Polonius's part as to make him seem concise, though none as dumb, to my mind, as a Hamlet I saw earlier this year that completely left out the Ghost), there was a fair amount of updated language, as well as a few cases where the director seems to have added lines of her own.

None of the updates helped in the slightest. Laertes' "He may not, as unvalued persons do, / Carve for himself" became "choose for himself," since "carve" is obviously an obsolete word, and the audience can't be counted on to understand the metaphor of a nobleman who can't be expected to cut his own meat. "Look thou character" was changed to "see thou character," even though "character" is the hard word. "Would drink up eisel?" became "Would drink up poison?" So what if "eisel" means "vinegar." "Niggard of question" was changed to "sparing of question," because we can't use the N word; and the Polacks became the Polish, so as to not offend our Polish friends.

On the other hand, the Nemean lion was allowed to survive, since we all have Nemean lions in our backyards, as was "make Ossa like a wart." The word "color" was retained in "That show of such an exercise may color / Your loneliness," even though its sense of "color" as "justify" is long obsolete.

Nothing makes me cringe more in Hamlet performances than how they're going to handle the alleged feigned madness. (I say alleged, because as Samuel Johnson noted in 1765, "of the feigned madness of Hamlet there appears no adequate cause, for he does nothing which he might not have done with the reputation of sanity." Unlike the source play, where Hamlet's father was killed publicly and Hamlet needs to feign madness to protect himself, Shakespeare's Hamlet is in no danger until the play scene shows Claudius that Hamlet is on to him; even so Hamlet still has the upper hand until he kills Polonius and thus gives Claudius grounds to banish him to England. If you're still convinced that "As I perchance hereafter shall think meet / To put an antic disposition on" is proof that Hamlet intends to play the madman, then consider why Hamlet would at once want to swear his friends to secrecy and then to behave in the most suspicious manner possible by acting like a lunatic.)

In the Gielgud-Burton Hamlet of 1964, one of the best I've seen (including a masterly Polonius from Hume Cronyn), the pretended insanity was marked very lightly (as if they didn't believe it themselves), with Burton merely putting on a coat backwards in one scene and inserting a few snide laughs. But the Cumberbotch of course outdid itself with the feigned madness, having Hamlet first come onstage pretending to lead a brass band; later he is seen outside a 6-foot high replica of the castle, complete with life-size toy soldiers on either side (was he engaged in some amateur carpentry while he should have been planning his revenge?), and then in the play scene (badly misdirected by failing to make Claudius the focal point of interest), Hamlet himself plays the Poisoner – how clever! – dressed in a silly robe with "KING" written on the back, and he wears this garb through the Prayer Scene (where he stands on a balcony some 25 feet away from the king, making it rather difficult to run him through with his sword even if Hamlet had so decided) and the Closet Scene as well. Fortunately he changes during intermission (which comes quite late, with Claudius' "Do it, England" speech).

The whole affair was geared towards excess without genuine intensity. Much too much was shouted without restraint, including Hamlet's "by and by is easily said." Why the Cumberbotch wanted Cumberbatch to shout this at the top of his lungs is beyond me, but so is much else in this silly production. Just wait for the few minutes before intermission, where loud electronic music starts playing and strobe lights start encircling the set as if this were the finale of Goetterdaemmerung; and then when you sit down for Part II you'll find the whole set has crumbled into rubble. What a fun way to show how something is rotten in the state of Denmark! But give me a break. If Claudius had seen even a speck of dirt on his palace floor he would have snapped his fingers for the janitor and the whole mess would have been cleaned up in minutes. Unfortunately he could not do so for this dopey, overzealous production.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: North Star on October 16, 2015, 08:41:11 AM
Thanks. I think I will skip seeing it in the movie theatre.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 08:45:48 AM
Quote from: North Star on October 16, 2015, 08:41:11 AM
Thanks. I think I will skip seeing it in the movie theatre.

Oh, do see it. Why should I be the only one to enjoy? It would be a shame to miss the fun, and at least here at home I only had to spend $20 USD rather than £100 sterling at the Barbican, where it is apparently the hottest ticket in years. (I assure you there are quite a few reviews in the British press even more complimentary than my own.)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on October 16, 2015, 08:46:00 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 08:30:30 AM
This is kind of long, so deal with it. Let me start by separating the Cumberbatch (the actor) from the Cumberbotch (the production). The first of these was quite good. He's definitely an actor of great talent and he handles the soliloquies well, although I'm not ready to crown him the next Olivier or Gielgud as apparently did several members of the audience where I saw the NTLive screening, and I'd like to see what he could see in the hands of a competent director.

Some of the supporting performances were good, especially the Polonius and the Gravedigger (who doubled, not as successfully, the Ghost). The King and Queen were quite good too, and the Hamlet-Gertrude scene was one of the better acted. I've read reviews saying the King was too soft-spoken, but on screen he appeared if anything too vehement.

The Ophelia seemed to have talent, but was first seen carrying around a large camera as if to show she has a hobby; and later in her mad scene she lugs a heavy trunk down a flight of stairs (is she planning a trip?) that Gertrude later opens to reveal her camera and cache of photographs. Surely rule no. 1 in good direction ought to be that props ought to serve a purpose; if you can figure out why Ophelia was a photography buff you're a better man than I, but I'm just warming up on the Cumberbotch part of things.

The Horatio was a nerdish fellow with glasses and tattoos; he was always seen lugging around a full backpack (to prove he was a Student, in case you didn't figure that out, but couldn't they have found a room in the castle for him to stow his gear?), and given his whiny delivery one wonders why Hamlet would want him for a friend in the first place.

One of the specialties of the production is re-arranging scenes and re-assigning lines to other speakers. If you're silly enough to expect the play to begin with the first sighting of the Ghost, by which Shakespeare brilliantly suggests the atmosphere of doom and unease that sets the tone for the rest of the action, you'll find that this Hamlet starts with our hero listening to Nat King Cole on his phonograph, and saying "Who's there?" to a visitor who turns out to be Horatio. But this is at least not as bad as starting with TBONTB, as was done in the first previews.

What always gets me with Shakespearean performances is why, if we consider him the world's greatest dramatist and poet, we always have to muck him up by "improving" his dramaturgy and language. It is unlikely even in his own time that the longer plays were done in their full printed texts, but there are cuts that don't damage the action as well as ones that are just plain stupid. Here, in addition to a lot of stupid cuts (including so much of Polonius's part as to make him seem concise, though none as dumb, to my mind, as a Hamlet I saw earlier this year that completely left out the Ghost), there was a fair amount of updated language, as well as a few cases where the director seems to have added lines of her own.

None of the updates helped in the slightest. Laertes' "He may not, as unvalued persons do, / Carve for himself" became "choose for himself," since "carve" is obviously an obsolete word, and the audience can't be counted on to understand the metaphor of a nobleman who can't be expected to cut his own meat. "Look thou character" was changed to "see thou character," even though "character" is the hard word. "Would drink up eisel?" became "Would drink up poison?" So what if "eisel" means "vinegar." "Niggard of question" was changed to "sparing of question," because we can't use the N word; and the Polacks became the Polish, so as to not offend our Polish friends.

On the other hand, the Nemean lion was allowed to survive, since we all have Nemean lions in our backyards, as was "make Ossa like a wart." The word "color" was retained in "That show of such an exercise may color / Your loneliness," even though its sense of "color" as "justify" is long obsolete.

Nothing makes me cringe more in Hamlet performances than how they're going to handle the alleged feigned madness. (I say alleged, because as Samuel Johnson noted in 1765, "of the feigned madness of Hamlet there appears no adequate cause, for he does nothing which he might not have done with the reputation of sanity." Unlike the source play, where Hamlet's father was killed publicly and Hamlet needs to feign madness to protect himself, Shakespeare's Hamlet is in no danger until the play scene shows Claudius that Hamlet is on to him; even so Hamlet still has the upper hand until he kills Polonius and thus gives Claudius grounds to banish him to England. If you're still convinced that "As I perchance hereafter shall think meet / To put an antic disposition on" is proof that Hamlet intends to play the madman, then consider why Hamlet would at once want to swear his friends to secrecy and then to behave in the most suspicious manner possible by acting like a lunatic.)

In the Gielgud-Burton Hamlet of 1964, one of the best I've seen (including a masterly Polonius from Hume Cronyn), the pretended insanity was marked very lightly (as if they didn't believe it themselves), with Burton merely putting on a coat backwards in one scene and inserting a few snide laughs. But the Cumberbotch of course outdid itself with the feigned madness, having Hamlet first come onstage pretending to lead a brass band; later he is seen outside a 6-foot high replica of the castle, complete with life-size toy soldiers on either side (was he engaged in some amateur carpentry while he should have been planning his revenge?), and then in the play scene (badly misdirected by failing to make Claudius the focal point of interest), Hamlet himself plays the Poisoner – how clever! – dressed in a silly robe with "KING" written on the back, and he wears this garb through the Prayer Scene (where he stands on a balcony some 25 feet away from the king, making it rather difficult to run him through with his sword even if Hamlet had so decided) and the Closet Scene as well. Fortunately he changes during intermission (which comes quite late, with Claudius' "Do it, England" speech).

The whole affair was geared towards excess without genuine intensity. Much too much was shouted without restraint, including Hamlet's "by and by is easily said." Why the Cumberbotch wanted Cumberbatch to shout this at the top of his lungs is beyond me, but so is much else in this silly production. Just wait for the few minutes before intermission, where loud electronic music starts playing and strobe lights start encircling the set as if this were the finale of Goetterdaemmerung; and then when you sit down for Part II you'll find the whole set has crumbled into rubble. What a fun way to show how something is rotten in the state of Denmark! But give me a break. If Claudius had seen even a speck of dirt on his palace floor he would have snapped his fingers for the janitor and the whole mess would have been cleaned up in minutes. Unfortunately he could not do so for this dopey, overzealous production.

Most interesting, thanks!
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on October 16, 2015, 10:02:33 AM
Much thanks for this relief.

I suppose the camera for Ophelia business was meant to show she was a sensitive artsy girl who could be thought of plausibly as someone who would commit suicide after being seduced and discarded by Hamlet.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 10:44:33 AM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 16, 2015, 10:02:33 AM
Much thanks for this relief.

I suppose the camera for Ophelia business was meant to show she was a sensitive artsy girl who could be thought of plausibly as someone who would commit suicide after being seduced and discarded by Hamlet.

But there's no proof that she was seduced, and it's she who on Polonius's orders discards Hamlet.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on October 16, 2015, 10:47:53 AM
The camera thing seems to have become popular. I just watched the Blu-Ray of the David Tennant & Patrick Stewart Hamlet, where the whole castle is outfitted with NSA-style security cameras. The director's sad idea of how to exploit the cinematic medium is to exploit obviously digitally "enhanced" security camera views with corny red boxes and gigantic-type-size "Recording" messages. You know, the kind real security cameras haven't had in ages. Then, of course, Hamlet feigns madness by destroying one of the cameras.

That was another production where a legitimate actor who has somehow become an improbable sex icon for the teenage female set got saddled by a lot of curious choices. (Even Patrick Stewart shrugs like "sure, why not?" before drinking the poison.)

(p)Sfz, I'd like to hear you elaborate a little bit more on the parenthetical discussion here:

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 08:30:30 AM
Nothing makes me cringe more in Hamlet performances than how they're going to handle the alleged feigned madness. (I say alleged, because as Samuel Johnson noted in 1765, "of the feigned madness of Hamlet there appears no adequate cause, for he does nothing which he might not have done with the reputation of sanity." Unlike the source play, where Hamlet's father was killed publicly and Hamlet needs to feign madness to protect himself, Shakespeare's Hamlet is in no danger until the play scene shows Claudius that Hamlet is on to him; even so Hamlet still has the upper hand until he kills Polonius and thus gives Claudius grounds to banish him to England. If you're still convinced that "As I perchance hereafter shall think meet / To put an antic disposition on" is proof that Hamlet intends to play the madman, then consider why Hamlet would at once want to swear his friends to secrecy and then to behave in the most suspicious manner possible by acting like a lunatic.)

I'm pretty sure I understand your thesis here, but the phrasing of the last sentence leaves me a little bit confused. Hamlet is making his friends swear to keep the secret that he is really sane, no? Or do you simply mean that, the way most directors instruct Hamlets to behave, his lunacy is so ridiculous and over-the-top that any reasonable character in Elsinore would think he was faking it?

Somehow, despite years of instruction on Shakespeare and independent reading, I had never before realized that "Hamlet is in no danger until the play scene" - typical of the insight to be expected whenever you write a paragraph or more here. :)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: North Star on October 16, 2015, 10:55:50 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 08:45:48 AM
Oh, do see it. Why should I be the only one to enjoy? It would be a shame to miss the fun, and at least here at home I only had to spend $20 USD rather than £100 sterling at the Barbican, where it is apparently the hottest ticket in years. (I assure you there are quite a few reviews in the British press even more complimentary than my own.)
I would certainly like to, if it was shown during a weekend, or in my city.  :(
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on October 16, 2015, 12:03:15 PM
Actually, Hamlet would have been in danger, as the old king's son and the new king's stepson, no matter how Claudius came to the throne.  He was a logical alternative for anyone who did not like Claudius.  History is littered with the corpses of people who had the bad luck of being born too close to the throne.  English audiences would know that Henry VII and Henry VIII chopped off the heads of a few, that Lady Jane Grey was exactly such a case, and that Elizabeth, who took great care not to actually say who would succeed her, was relatively kind: she merely imprisoned and abused relatives who got married without her rathet hard to get consent.   Hamlet playing mad to make himself seem less capable of being king, thereby protecting himself from Claudius's suspicions, was a natural strategy.

Speaking of Claudius, or rather the name... Robert Graves used the same idea for I,Claudius, in which the protagonist pretends he is more stupid, weird, and overall goofy than he actually is to protect himself in a family in which almost everyone who is too close to the throne gets killed, usually by Livia directly or indirectly.  Perhaps Graves borrowed some from Shakespeare.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on October 16, 2015, 12:08:10 PM
Another observation.

I think Hamlet is a failure.   Shakespeare tried to turn the Elizabethan version of the action flick, the revenge play, into an intellectual investigation of Hamlet, and it did not work.

(Think Bergman directing a Marvel superhero movie, or Woody Allen a Fast and Furious installment.,)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on October 16, 2015, 02:11:06 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 16, 2015, 12:08:10 PM
Another observation.

I think Hamlet is a failure.   Shakespeare tried to turn the Elizabethan version of the action flick, the revenge play, into an intellectual investigation of Hamlet, and it did not work.

(Think Bergman directing a Marvel superhero movie, or Woody Allen a Fast and Furious installment.,)
It's the Inaction Movie: it's a success.

8)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: North Star on October 16, 2015, 02:13:17 PM
Hamlet a failure? I'm sure everyone wants to fail half as gloriously as Bill did with Hamlet.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Cato on October 16, 2015, 02:37:13 PM
Concerning the comment by Poco Sforzando on why directors feel they need to modernize and "improve" Shakespeare: the answer in one word is "ego."

Rather than performing the play as written too many modern producers/directors etc. are compelled to compensate for their own lack of creativity by inserting such nonsense.  My favorite example of this was a production of Der Ring where Wotan and company were depicted as a motorcycle gang a la Stanley Kramer's Marlon Brando movie The Wild One.

A subordinate answer to the question is "fear."  Unless some new twist is offered - complete with the possibility of outrage and scandal - the modern producers/etc. fear the theater will stay empty with a traditional performance.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 03:02:07 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 16, 2015, 12:08:10 PM
I think Hamlet is a failure.   Shakespeare tried to turn the Elizabethan version of the action flick, the revenge play, into an intellectual investigation of Hamlet, and it did not work.

No, this is precisely the reason for its success. Shakespeare went beyond the cliché of the action hero, and choose instead to place a highly intellectual and reflection man - but also a hot-headed and impulsive one - in a situation that required dangerous action.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 05:23:03 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 16, 2015, 12:03:15 PM
Actually, Hamlet would have been in danger, as the old king's son and the new king's stepson, no matter how Claudius came to the throne.  He was a logical alternative for anyone who did not like Claudius.  History is littered with the corpses of people who had the bad luck of being born too close to the throne.  English audiences would know that Henry VII and Henry VIII chopped off the heads of a few, that Lady Jane Grey was exactly such a case, and that Elizabeth, who took great care not to actually say who would succeed her, was relatively kind: she merely imprisoned and abused relatives who got married without her rathet hard to get consent.   Hamlet playing mad to make himself seem less capable of being king, thereby protecting himself from Claudius's suspicions, was a natural strategy.

Speaking of Claudius, or rather the name... Robert Graves used the same idea for I,Claudius, in which the protagonist pretends he is more stupid, weird, and overall goofy than he actually is to protect himself in a family in which almost everyone who is too close to the throne gets killed, usually by Livia directly or indirectly.  Perhaps Graves borrowed some from Shakespeare.

None of this can be used to support an argument about Hamlet unless it can be shown to relate to the plot and incidents of Hamlet. It does not, as I argue in my next post.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 05:37:36 PM
Quote from: Brian on October 16, 2015, 10:47:53 AM
Somehow, despite years of instruction on Shakespeare and independent reading, I had never before realized that "Hamlet is in no danger until the play scene" - typical of the insight to be expected whenever you write a paragraph or more here. :)

Trace their interactions from the start of the play through the play scene (though actually Hamlet is not truly in danger until after he kills Polonius):

Act One Scene Two. Claudius wishes to make peace with his nephew and asks him not to return to school.
QuoteCLAUDIUS. We pray you, throw to earth
This unprevailing woe, and think of us
As of a father: for let the world take note,
You are the most immediate to our throne;
And with no less nobility of love
Than that which dearest father bears his son,
Do I impart toward you. For your intent
In going back to school in Wittenberg,
It is most retrograde to our desire:
And we beseech you, bend you to remain
Here, in the cheer and comfort of our eye,
Our chiefest courtier, cousin, and our son.
GERTRUDE. Let not thy mother lose her prayers, Hamlet:
I pray thee, stay with us; go not to Wittenberg.
HAMLET. I shall in all my best obey you, madam.
CLAUDIUS. Why, 'tis a loving and a fair reply:
Be as ourself in Denmark. Madam, come;
This gentle and unforced accord of Hamlet
Sits smiling to my heart.

Act Two Scene One. Polonius, having heard Ophelia's account of Hamlet's behavior when she suddenly stops seeing him, concludes he has been driven insane by love.
QuotePOLONIUS. Come, go with me: I will go seek the king.
This is the very ecstasy of love,
Whose violent property fordoes itself
And leads the will to desperate undertakings
As oft as any passion under heaven
That does afflict our natures. I am sorry.
What, have you given him any hard words of late?
OPHELIA. No, my good lord, but, as you did command,
I did repel his fetters and denied
His access to me.
POLONIUS. That hath made him mad.

Act Two Scene Two. Claudius notes that Hamlet has been even more moody than ever lately (something true since the beginning of the play), and sends for R+G to spy on him.
QuoteCLAUDIUS. Welcome, dear Rosencrantz and Guildenstern!
Moreover that we much did long to see you,
The need we have to use you did provoke
Our hasty sending. Something have you heard
Of Hamlet's transformation; so call it,
Sith nor the exterior nor the inward man
Resembles that it was.
Polonius has an audience with the king in which he proclaims Hamlet mad out of love.
CLAUDIUS. He tells me, my dear Gertrude, he hath found
The head and source of all your son's distemper.
GERTRUDE. I doubt it is no other but the main;
His father's death, and our o'erhasty marriage.
Having the murderer's guilty conscience, Claudius seeks reassurance for his misgivings.
CLAUDIUS. How may we try it further?
POLONIUS. You know, sometimes he walks four hours together
Here in the lobby.
GERTRUDE. So he does indeed.
POLONIUS. At such a time I'll loose my daughter to him:
Be you and I behind an arras then;
Mark the encounter: if he love her not
And be not from his reason fall'n thereon,
Let me be no assistant for a state,
But keep a farm and carters.
CLAUDIUS. We will try it.

Act Three Scene One. Claudius seems momentarily reassured that Hamlet is snapping out of it because of the players.
QuoteROSENCRANTZ. Madam, it so fell out, that certain players
We o'er-raught on the way: of these we told him;
And there did seem in him a kind of joy
To hear of it: they are about the court,
And, as I think, they have already order
This night to play before him.
POLONIUS. 'Tis most true:
And he beseech'd me to entreat your majesties
To hear and see the matter.
CLAUDIUS. With all my heart; and it doth much content me
To hear him so inclined.
Good gentlemen, give him a further edge,
And drive his purpose on to these delights.

No sign so far that Hamlet is in any danger. But watch what happens after TBONTB and the confrontation with Ophelia. Now Claudius (who is neither convinced Hamlet that is mad nor in love) is starting to think something must be up - though he does not yet know what - beyond Polonius' fantasies, and therefore he is trying to find some means to get Hamlet out of the way:
QuoteCLAUDIUS. Love! his affections do not that way tend;
Nor what he spake, though it lack'd form a little,
Was not like madness. There's something in his soul,
O'er which his melancholy sits on brood;
And I do doubt the hatch and the disclose
Will be some danger: which for to prevent,
I have in quick determination
Thus set it down: he shall with speed to England,
For the demand of our neglected tribute.

There is no way of knowing what would have happened were it not for subsequent events (Shakespeare's characters don't usually take banishment lying down; consider Kent, or Bolingbroke in Richard II, or Romeo when banished to Mantua, or of course Hamlet when he battles the pirates and returns home). But next in rapid succession we have the great play scene, where Hamlet verifies the ghost's story and Claudius learns that somehow Hamlet has found him out; and then Hamlet's making the critical mistake of killing Polonius, which now gives Claudius the justification he needs for sending an insane criminal out of the country (and presumably to his death).
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 05:40:18 PM
Quote from: Brian on October 16, 2015, 10:47:53 AM
That was another production where a legitimate actor who has somehow become an improbable sex icon for the teenage female set got saddled by a lot of curious choices. (Even Patrick Stewart shrugs like "sure, why not?" before drinking the poison.)

He may shrug all he likes, but Shakespeare's Claudius says, "Oh yet defend me, friends! I am but hurt!" Not exactly the tone of someone who's giving up without a fight.

Followed by Hamlet forcing the drink down the bastard's throat:
QuoteHere, thou incestuous, murderous, damned Dane,
Drink off this potion. Is thy union here?
Follow my mother.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on October 16, 2015, 05:43:50 PM
Quote from: Brian on October 16, 2015, 10:47:53 AM
The camera thing seems to have become popular. I just watched the Blu-Ray of the David Tennant & Patrick Stewart Hamlet, where the whole castle is outfitted with NSA-style security cameras. The director's sad idea of how to exploit the cinematic medium is to exploit obviously digitally "enhanced" security camera views with corny red boxes and gigantic-type-size "Recording" messages. You know, the kind real security cameras haven't had in ages. Then, of course, Hamlet feigns madness by destroying one of the cameras.

That was another production where a legitimate actor who has somehow become an improbable sex icon for the teenage female set got saddled by a lot of curious choices. (Even Patrick Stewart shrugs like "sure, why not?" before drinking the poison.)


I liked the Tennant Hamlet more than I was expecting to (though it does have a few missteps), particularly the way they added emphasis to everything in the text about the unbridgable gulf separating royalty and mere mortals, lingering on lines that I'd only previously heard sped by. I also liked Patrick Stewart playing both Claudius and the Ghost, adding strength to all the incest talk, and making the "look on this picture and this" bit more than mere superficial appearance. Surprised that isn't done more often.


Thanks for the Cumberbotch review, poco. Most seem to agree that the set was interesting but the staging overwhelming. I've heard there was some interesting things done with slow-motion in the background and with Ophelia's death. how did you feel about those?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on October 16, 2015, 05:45:18 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 05:23:03 PM
None of this can be used to support an argument about Hamlet unless it can be shown to relate to the plot and incidents of Hamlet. It does not, as I argue in my next post.

I am pretty sure it was described as his motive in the Saxo Grammaticus verdion that was the original appearance of the story.  But Saxo ≠ Shakespeare, and I await your post with interest.

But playwright and playgoers would have certainly known of the problems which heirs and near heirs, and fear of them, caused.  Among other things, it was the main dynamic in the life and death of Mary Queen of Scots.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 05:45:45 PM
Quote from: Brian on October 16, 2015, 10:47:53 AM
I'm pretty sure I understand your thesis here, but the phrasing of the last sentence leaves me a little bit confused. Hamlet is making his friends swear to keep the secret that he is really sane, no? Or do you simply mean that, the way most directors instruct Hamlets to behave, his lunacy is so ridiculous and over-the-top that any reasonable character in Elsinore would think he was faking it?

Hamlet is making his friends swear not to reveal anything they have seen.

Quote
HAMLET
Touching this vision here,
It is an honest ghost, that let me tell you:
For your desire to know what is between us,
O'ermaster 't as you may. And now, good friends,
As you are friends, scholars and soldiers,
Give me one poor request.

HORATIO
What is't, my lord? we will.

HAMLET
Never make known what you have seen to-night.

HORATIO MARCELLUS
My lord, we will not.

HAMLET
Nay, but swear't.

HORATIO
In faith,
My lord, not I.

MARCELLUS
Nor I, my lord, in faith.

HAMLET
Upon my sword.

MARCELLUS
We have sworn, my lord, already.

HAMLET
Indeed, upon my sword, indeed.

Ghost
[Beneath] Swear.

HAMLET
Ah, ha, boy! say'st thou so? art thou there,
truepenny?
Come on--you hear this fellow in the cellarage--
Consent to swear.

HORATIO
Propose the oath, my lord.

HAMLET
Never to speak of this that you have seen,
Swear by my sword.

Ghost
[Beneath] Swear.

HAMLET
Hic et ubique? then we'll shift our ground.
Come hither, gentlemen,
And lay your hands again upon my sword:
Never to speak of this that you have heard,
Swear by my sword.

Ghost
[Beneath] Swear.

Horatio, Bernardo, and Marcellus have seen the ghost, though they have not heard its revelation to Hamlet concerning the murder, and my point is that it hardly makes sense for someone to swear others to secrecy and then decide he'll start deliberately acting in a way that causes suspicion (such as leading brass bands or building miniature castles). His goal is to keep what he knows to himself, and he reveals the entire truth only to Horatio afterwards as his most trusted friend.

Then when watching the play, both Hamlet and Horatio are convinced the ghost was an honest spirit (that is, not a "goblin damned," or "may be the devil," etc.). The need to ensure the ghost was truthful is essential to the first half of the play, and is the reason Hamlet puts on his own little play. (The possibility of spirits tempting melancholics towards their own destruction is part of Elizabethan folklore: compare Edgar telling Gloucester that "poor Tom" was really a demon: "As I stood here below, methought his eyes / Were two full moons; he had a thousand noses, / Horns whelk'd and waved like the enridged sea: / It was some fiend. . . ." )
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on October 16, 2015, 05:53:44 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 05:37:36 PM
Trace their interactions from the start of the play through the play scene (though actually Hamlet is not truly in danger until after he kills Polonius):

Act One Scene Two. Claudius wishes to make peace with his nephew and asks him not to return to school.
Act Two Scene One. Polonius, having heard Ophelia's account of Hamlet's behavior when she suddenly stops seeing him, concludes he has been driven insane by love.
Act Two Scene Two. Claudius notes that Hamlet has been even more moody than ever lately (something true since the beginning of the play), and sends for R+G to spy on him.
Act Three Scene One. Claudius seems momentarily reassured that Hamlet is snapping out of it because of the players.
No sign so far that Hamlet is in any danger. But watch what happens after TBONTB and the confrontation with Ophelia. Now Claudius (who is neither convinced Hamlet that is mad nor in love) is starting to think something must be up - though he does not yet know what - beyond Polonius' fantasies, and therefore he is trying to find some means to get Hamlet out of the way:
There is no way of knowing what would have happened were it not for subsequent events (Shakespeare's characters don't usually take banishment lying down; consider Kent, or Bolingbroke in Richard II, or Romeo when banished to Mantua, or of course Hamlet when he battles the pirates and returns home). But next in rapid succession we have the great play scene, where Hamlet verifies the ghost's story and Claudius learns that somehow Hamlet has found him out; and then Hamlet's making the critical mistake of killing Polonius, which now gives Claudius the justification he needs for sending an insane criminal out of the country (and presumably to his death).

Claudius wanting Hamlet to stay would be a classic case of keep your enemies near, and Hamlet would have a reason to stay in Denmark if he wanted the throne, either to kill Claudius and seize it or if Claudius died a sudden natural death. After all, had he not been out of the country, he would have had the best claim to the throne when his father died.

And with Claudius able to keep tabs on him, Claudius merely waits until Hamlet gives him an excuse by killing Polonius. The danger for Hamlet existed from the very first scene of the play.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 06:00:57 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 16, 2015, 05:45:18 PM
I am pretty sure it was described as his motive in the Saxo Grammaticus verdion that was the original appearance of the story.  But Saxo ≠ Shakespeare, and I await your post with interest.

But playwright and playgoers would have certainly known of the problems which heirs and near heirs, and fear of them, caused.  Among other things, it was the main dynamic in the life and death of Mary Queen of Scots.

Of course there was great anxiety over the succession, especially after the death of Elizabeth, and Shakespeare's Richard II - which is about the usurpation of the weak Richard by Henry Bolingbroke, whom he banished - caused her much concern: "I am Richard II, know ye not that?"

Prince Hamlet himself, however, shows little interest in running the kingdom, and in fact there is only one line very late in the play where he speaks of Claudius having "popped in between the election and my hopes."

There are a couple of sources for Hamlet, Saxo among them, and Belleforest another. I'm more familiar with Belleforest, but the critical point there is that in that source the Claudius character murders Hamlet's father openly, and since Hamlet fears he'll meet the same fate, he pretends madness to protect himself. (As I remember "I Claudius," a parallel situation applies.)

But in Shakespeare, the murder is secret. And that changes everything.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on October 16, 2015, 06:10:54 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 06:00:57 PM
Of course there was great anxiety over the succession, especially after the death of Elizabeth, and Shakespeare's Richard II - which is about the usurpation of the weak Richard by Henry Bolingbroke, whom he banished - caused her much concern: "I am Richard II, know ye not that?"

Prince Hamlet himself, however, shows little interest in running the kingdom, and in fact there is only one line very late in the play where he speaks of Claudius having "popped in between the election and my hopes."

There are a couple of sources for Hamlet, Saxo among them, and Belleforest another. I'm more familiar with Belleforest, but the critical point there is that in that source the Claudius character murders Hamlet's father openly, and since Hamlet fears he'll meet the same fate, he pretends madness to protect himself. (As I remember "I Claudius," a parallel situation applies.)

But in Shakespeare, the murder is secret. And that changes everything.

The secrecy of the murder is not that important.  Hamlet as main rival and potential focus of discontent would be the same even if his father died naturally and Claudius came to the throne by entirely innocent metrhods.   Claudius had good reason to want Hamlet dead even without the murder.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 06:13:23 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 16, 2015, 05:53:44 PM
Claudius wanting Hamlet to stay would be a classic case of keep your enemies near, and Hamlet would have a reason to stay in Denmark if he wanted the throne, either to kill Claudius and seize it or if Claudius died a sudden natural death. After all, had he not been out of the country, he would have had the best claim to the throne when his father died.

And with Claudius able to keep tabs on him, Claudius merely waits until Hamlet gives him an excuse by killing Polonius. The danger for Hamlet existed from the very first scene of the play.

As I said previously, Hamlet does not show the slightest interest in succeeding to the throne. His primary agitation, until he hears from the ghost, is over his mother's hasty and incestuous remarriage. Even when he learns of the murder, he never expresses any interest in becoming king himself, only in avenging his father's murder. (There is one character who does challenge Claudius' rule, and that is Laertes on his return from France.)

It might be argued in fact that Gertrude, as old Hamlet's widow, rightly inherits the crown - "the imperial jointress to this warlike state" - and that Claudius as her consort reigns equally.

But it seems to me the scenario you describe is not supported by the play.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 06:22:02 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 16, 2015, 06:10:54 PM
The secrecy of the murder is not that important.  Hamlet as main rival and potential focus of discontent would be the same even if his father died naturally and Claudius came to the throne by entirely innocent metrhods.   Claudius had good reason to want Hamlet dead even without the murder.

The secrecy of the murder is critical to the story. It is the reason the Ghost appears and enjoins Hamlet to revenge. In the play Shakespeare wrote, old Hamlet was thought to have died by a snakebite while sleeping in his orchard. No one (except possibly Polonius, who is hinted may have been an accomplice) is aware that an act of regicide took place, and if that were known, it's highly unlikely Claudius would have been elected to the throne. Further, Hamlet is not a rival to Claudius and shows no discontent over not ruling Denmark, and Claudius at least at first shows no sign of wanting Hamlet dead. I'm not going to keep arguing this, as it's abundantly clear from the text.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on October 16, 2015, 06:23:37 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 06:13:23 PM
As I said previously, Hamlet does not show the slightest interest in succeeding to the throne. His primary agitation, until he hears from the ghost, is over his mother's hasty and incestuous remarriage. Even when he learns of the murder, he never expresses any interest in becoming king himself, only in avenging his father's murder. (There is one character who does challenge Claudius' rule, and that is Laertes on his return from France.)

It might be argued in fact that Gertrude, as old Hamlet's widow, rightly inherits the crown - "the imperial jointress to this warlike state" - and that Claudius as her consort reigns equally.

But it seems to me the scenario you describe is not supported by the play.

I think it is amply supported.  And remember, even if Hamlet was not interested in the throne, everyone else would have seen him as Claudius's rival outfoxed for the throne, and therefore a danger to Claudius.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on October 16, 2015, 06:26:47 PM
It is said Sydney Smith saw two women shouting at each other from windows across the street from each other and commented, "They will never agree.  They are arguing from different premises."

I suspect that is the case here.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 06:29:38 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 16, 2015, 06:23:37 PM
I think it is amply supported.  And remember, even if Hamlet was not interested in the throne, everyone else would have seen him as Claudius's rival outfoxed for the throne, and therefore a danger to Claudius.

No one in the play mentions this in any way, or even alludes to Hamlet as a potential rival for the throne. All the subordinate characters - Voltimand, Cornelius, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern - express their allegiance to Claudius as the rightful ruler of Denmark. Hamlet's motives for wanting to kill Claudius are to revenge the death of a beloved father, pure and simple. Over and out.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 06:34:10 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 16, 2015, 05:43:50 PM
I liked the Tennant Hamlet more than I was expecting to (though it does have a few missteps), particularly the way they added emphasis to everything in the text about the unbridgable gulf separating royalty and mere mortals, lingering on lines that I'd only previously heard sped by. I also liked Patrick Stewart playing both Claudius and the Ghost, adding strength to all the incest talk, and making the "look on this picture and this" bit more than mere superficial appearance. Surprised that isn't done more often.


Thanks for the Cumberbotch review, poco. Most seem to agree that the set was interesting but the staging overwhelming. I've heard there was some interesting things done with slow-motion in the background and with Ophelia's death. how did you feel about those?

I thought the Ophelia thing was silly. She mounted the stairs as if walking into a halo (and as if she were a deliberate suicide, not an accidental drowning as the play makes clear.) Hamlet delivered his first soliloquy in a spot with some slo-mo in the background as you say; I guess that was OK, but after three more hours of Cumberbotch I didn't much care any more.

Haven't seen the Tennant. I should.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 06:40:37 PM
Quote from: Cato on October 16, 2015, 02:37:13 PM
Concerning the comment by Poco Sforzando on why directors feel they need to modernize and "improve" Shakespeare: the answer in one word is "ego."

Rather than performing the play as written too many modern producers/directors etc. are compelled to compensate for their own lack of creativity by inserting such nonsense.  My favorite example of this was a production of Der Ring where Wotan and company were depicted as a motorcycle gang a la Stanley Kramer's Marlon Brando movie The Wild One.

A subordinate answer to the question is "fear."  Unless some new twist is offered - complete with the possibility of outrage and scandal - the modern producers/etc. fear the theater will stay empty with a traditional performance.

I have always thought that the most original approach to Shakespeare would be to present his characters and situations honestly and without gimmicks, rewriting, translations, transpositions, and so forth.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on October 16, 2015, 06:45:26 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 06:29:38 PM
No one in the play mentions this in any way, or even alludes to Hamlet as a potential rival for the throne. All the subordinate characters - Voltimand, Cornelius, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern - express their allegiance to Claudius as the rightful ruler of Denmark. Hamlet's motives for wanting to kill Claudius are to revenge the death of a beloved father, pure and simple. Over and out.
No one would need to.  Everyone in the audience would have placed it in the context of how monarchial politics worked.
It is like a play about the President of the US in our day.  Even if no one mentioned the briefcase with the nuclear codes in the play, we would know it was there.

The secondary characters are another feature of 16th century politics...the guys who shift with the wind and try to make sure they are in the winning camp.  That is the whole point to Hamlet's rant about R and G: men who played the game for high stakes, and knew they might die for it.  Laertes is the one who is different: that is why Claudius must win him over.

Out and over.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 06:40:37 PM
I have always thought that the most original approach to Shakespeare would be to present his characters and situations honestly and without gimmicks, rewriting, translations, transpositions, and so forth.
In full agreement with you there.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Cato on October 16, 2015, 06:46:15 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 06:40:37 PM
I have always thought that the most original approach to Shakespeare would be to present his characters and situations honestly and without gimmicks, rewriting, translations, transpositions, and so forth.

"Why, it's so crazy, it might just work!"   $:)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on October 16, 2015, 06:56:51 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 06:40:37 PM
I have always thought that the most original approach to Shakespeare would be to present his characters and situations honestly and without gimmicks, rewriting, translations, transpositions, and so forth.

Saw a local production of Richard III earlier this year I expected to be a chore, but who took this approach and it was one of the best theatre experiences I'd had in a good long while. An empty stage apart from a checkerboard floor, one single all-purpose rectangular block the size of a bed or sofa, and photographs projected on to the back of the stage depicting a courtyard garden or a cell in the tower or field (such an obvious, simple idea, I'm surprised I haven't seen it done before)...everything else depended on the actors to keep the audience awake. Then I was stunned to realise it was going to be full text - including all the Margaret stuff I feel is at the very heart of the play but which are always the first parts cut.

A immediate, heartfelt, standing, stomping, ovation from everyone in the audience at the end.


edit: in other news: I'm off to Fassbender's Macbeth in a couple of hours
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Gurn Blanston on October 16, 2015, 07:02:09 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 06:40:37 PM
I have always thought that the most original approach to Shakespeare would be to present his characters and situations honestly and without gimmicks, rewriting, translations, transpositions, and so forth.

That's the way I feel about opera, precisely. I don't feel the groundswell of love for that, though... :-\

8)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 07:25:33 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 16, 2015, 06:56:51 PM
edit: in other news: I'm off to Fassbender's Macbeth in a couple of hours

That reaches us on December 4. Please report. Marion Cotillard as Lady M. sounds très interresant.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on October 17, 2015, 01:26:04 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 07:25:33 PM
That reaches us on December 4. Please report. Marion Cotillard as Lady M. sounds très interresant.

Well, then. Where to begin?

I already knew from the Sight and Sound review that the film was to open with the Macbeths burying their young and only child and that a great part of their unfolding motivation was to be the emotional exhaustion or emptiness they feel following this, and their childlessness would be a source of resentment against the heirs of the luckier families constantly around them. And its an idea that works well most of the time with Fassbender initially following his assigned destiny as though he no longer has any reason not to, Cotillard half distracted by the memories she's seeing in the middle distance. So far so good if they'd just left that as an undercurrent, but to make a meal of this idea the scriptwriters quickly start to play fast and loose with their source play.

For a start there's the cuts. I thought the Zeferelli Taming Of The Shrew would never be beaten for the lowest percentage of text used, but I thought wrong. And its not just the usual missing scenes, though some of those are remarkable (no knocking at the gate, no sleepwalking, no "double, double toil and trouble", no Macduff family scene with the murderers), but the hopscotching through the text in the existing scenes that its remarkable when someone actually says five or six lines in a row. All this accommodates a leisurely pace in the speech of the actors, closer to what we would now perceive as a normal talking speed, and in some ways its a relief not to hear the standard double-quick prattle, but so much time that could be given over to even this is used for battle sequences, landscape shots (admittedly beautiful), and all manner of general mood-setting.

And then there's the changes, for example: "out damn spot" is delivered, divorced from doctors etc, to the apparition of Lady Macbeth's pox-ridden child. Macduff's family are burned at the stake in front of LM, which adds to her crack-up. Malcolm discovers Macbeth with bloody daggers beside the dead Duncan and runs away to England without saying a word. And Birnam Wood doesn't move - this one caught me off guard, until I realised they were suddenly fighting in front of burning trees, and its "moving" as embers, riiiight, which means we can't have the command to cut down trees nor the shock news report.

With a lesser cast of actors this would have been a train wreck of a film, but the half-dozen principles and particularly the two leads transcend the misguided interpretation and made it for me an intriguing missed opportunity, with plenty of fine if snipped moments ("tomorrow and tomorrow" was I thought quite effective as whispered into the ear of LM as Macbeth holds her lifeless body in his arms) and to someone unfamiliar with the play and not constantly making mental comparisons and corrections it might well seem superb.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 17, 2015, 02:45:49 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 17, 2015, 01:26:04 AM
With a lesser cast of actors this would have been a train wreck of a film, but the half-dozen principles and particularly the two leads transcend the misguided interpretation and made it for me an intriguing missed opportunity, with plenty of fine if snipped moments ("tomorrow and tomorrow" was I thought quite effective as whispered into the ear of LM as Macbeth holds her lifeless body in his arms) and to someone unfamiliar with the play and not constantly making mental comparisons and corrections it might well seem superb.

At least they didn't bring in Mary Queen of Scots.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on October 17, 2015, 04:19:49 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 05:45:45 PM
Hamlet is making his friends swear not to reveal anything they have seen.

"But come;
Here, as before, never, so help you mercy,
How strange or odd soe'er I bear myself,
As I perchance hereafter shall think meet
To put an antic disposition on,
That you, at such times seeing me, never shall,
With arms encumber'd thus, or this headshake,
Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase,
As 'Well, well, we know,' or 'We could, an if we would,'
Or 'If we list to speak,' or 'There be, an if they might,'
Or such ambiguous giving out, to note
That you know aught of me: this not to do,
So grace and mercy at your most need help you, Swear."
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on October 17, 2015, 11:58:10 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 17, 2015, 02:45:49 AM
At least they didn't bring in Mary Queen of Scots.

You've seen this done?

There's actually a bit right at the end which I'm of two minds about: Fleance is shown on the battlefield picking up Macbeth's sword and running away, Malcolm is shown somehow realising that he needs to kill Fleance and leaving in seeming pursuit with his sword.

It does highlight the "yeah, what did happen to Fleance and that prophesy?" thing (usually resolved by having him turn up silently as Malcom's BFF at the end). And we no longer know the way the first audiences might have that James I was supposedly descended from Banqo.

But the film seems to be suggesting that Fleance will become a regicide of a rightful king, just like Macbeth.

(hope the rest of my review didn't put you off ultimately seeing it - just that people might appreciate being forewarned. Should have realised that being a Harvey Weinstein production...)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 17, 2015, 01:16:59 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 17, 2015, 11:58:10 AM
You've seen this done?

It was an oblique reference to Mr. Smith's idea of Shakespeare.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on October 17, 2015, 01:39:45 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 17, 2015, 01:16:59 PM
It was an oblique reference to Mr. Smith's idea of Shakespeare.

Sorry, but you've lost me...
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 17, 2015, 01:53:43 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 17, 2015, 01:39:45 PM
Sorry, but you've lost me...

Post 167. But I really don't want to reopen this can of worms. Mr. Smith has his way of seeing Shakespeare, and I have mine. (I could paraphrase Landowska on playing Bach, but that would be snide.)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on October 17, 2015, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 17, 2015, 01:53:43 PM
Post 167. But I really don't want to reopen this can of worms. Mr. Smith has his way of seeing Shakespeare, and I have mine. (I could paraphrase Landowska on playing Bach, but that would be snide.)

Erm, okay. Well, I'll be interested in your report, and those of others here, if and when they see the film.

Marion Cottilard really does well, despite the distorted play she's given to work with. I particularly admired that she did the banquet scene as commanding and unfaltingly regal, instead of the more familiar nervous laughter and embarrased looks and improvisation. And of course she's not too hard on the eye.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: lisa needs braces on October 17, 2015, 03:37:04 PM
The one Shakespeare passage I've comitted to memory...mainly due to this scene from an English film (Withnail & I):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPNA_BoCFPs
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on October 18, 2015, 12:05:08 AM
^Probably the fiercest argument I've had over a movie was with a friend discussing that scene about two decades ago. He said it proved Withnail was just as great an actor as Marwood (the "I" character) and getting a role, as Marwood had, was mere chance or politics. I argued that Withnail was a poor actor as evidenced by his lousy and unconvincing performance with the lout at the bar and here his only audience were uncritical zoo animals, whereas Marwood had to (successfully) act his way out of the very real possibility of being buggered by Uncle Monty.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: jochanaan on October 18, 2015, 04:06:34 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2015, 06:40:37 PM
I have always thought that the most original approach to Shakespeare would be to present his characters and situations honestly and without gimmicks, rewriting, translations, transpositions, and so forth.
My, my, what a radical approach!  Doing it as written! :laugh:

I have read about some opera stagings in which the instruments were period, the singers HIP, but the production was completely modernized. ::)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 29, 2015, 07:32:49 PM
Brian, have you seen these?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-bJjrVOtI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcY4I21EvOU
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on November 04, 2015, 06:21:23 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 29, 2015, 07:32:49 PM
Brian, have you seen these?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-bJjrVOtI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcY4I21EvOU
Not yet, but I will have to make time for them soon - at Rice I did see a number of Shakespeare plays put on by the dorms themselves (not even the official theatre departments), and was always impressed at how many cast members really 'got' Shakespearean diction and were able to communicate meaningfully, without rushing or doing slapsticky hand-gesture enactments of what every double-entendre means. Not everyone, of course. I think a lunk from the swim team was Caliban in The Tempest and that was kinda weird. (I was surprised when he turned up in the villain poll because in that interpretation, he was just a big dumb guy who wants to be loved.) But the leads spoke their lines naturally and well, and while I was there, the student directors never made "look at me aren't I clever" decisions about changing the setting/time/language.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 04, 2015, 11:09:18 AM
Quote from: Brian on November 04, 2015, 06:21:23 AM
without rushing or doing slapsticky hand-gesture enactments of what every double-entendre means.

Ah yes. The old (and I do mean old) point-to-my-crotch bit every time there's a sex joke.

Quote from: Brian on November 04, 2015, 06:21:23 AM
I think a lunk from the swim team was Caliban in The Tempest and that was kinda weird. (I was surprised when he turned up in the villain poll because in that interpretation, he was just a big dumb guy who wants to be loved.)

Aw. But that doesn't quite square with the Caliban of the play, does it, who attempted to rape Miranda and spends most of his time in an ineffectual plot to overthrow Prospero. But Caliban is one of the more difficult characters to know what to do with these days. Clearly Shakespeare intended him to appear deformed, even subhuman, smelling and looking like a fish at least in the eyes of the clowns, and he seems to encompass all of man's brutish earth and water instincts, in contrast to Ariel's fire and air (a bit like the Yahoos and the Houyhnhnms, or the Morlocks and the Eloy from Wells's The Time Machine). On the other hand, Caliban has the legitimate case that the island actually belongs to him, and Prospero is this European usurper who has subjugated him and forced him into slavery (though at first Prospero seems to have been very affectionate towards the young monster, and things might gone better with Caliban had he not tried to ravish Miranda). At the same time, Caliban is not purely brutish, and no character in the play shows such an innate sensitivity to the island's natural music:

QuoteBe not afeard; the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears, and sometime voices
That, if I then had waked after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again: and then, in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open and show riches
Ready to drop upon me that, when I waked,
I cried to dream again.

So what do we do with Caliban? One college production I saw just decided to make him a very handsome young man, a kind of noble savage, which may be what your young lunk tried to do. Then the last staging I saw took the more traditional approach, but portrayed Ariel as a shrieking screaming banshee. When seeing Shakespeare, one can never win.

Quote from: Brian on November 04, 2015, 06:21:23 AM
But the leads spoke their lines naturally and well, and while I was there, the student directors never made "look at me aren't I clever" decisions about changing the setting/time/language.

I tend to find these days that the less pretentious college and community theaters generally put on better Shakespeare than the so-called professional directors, whose main motivation seems to be "how can I fuck it up this time?"
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on November 04, 2015, 11:12:17 AM
If you think you need to "make it interesting," you're failing to perceive the interest inherent in the work.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on November 04, 2015, 05:53:58 PM
I actually found it a dreadful bore, but you might find the Metropolitan Opera pastiche The Enchanted Island worth one viewing, at least. It mixes in Midsummer Night's Dream into The Tempest, but uses the approach of viewing Prospero as not really such a nice guy, so  Caliban and Sycorax (alive and scheming in this version) come off rather sympathetic characters.
This link has pictures including one of Luca Pisaroni in full monster makeup.
https://robertarood.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/the-enchanted-island-going-for-baroque/
(https://robertarood.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/20120120_luca-pisaroni-as-caliban-in-the-enchanted-island_33.jpg?w=600&h=398)

If the clips intrigue, the full thing is available on DVD, but I don't really suggest an actual purchase.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on November 04, 2015, 06:17:48 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 04, 2015, 05:53:58 PM
I actually found it a dreadful bore, but you might find the Metropolitan Opera pastiche The Enchanted Island worth one viewing, at least. It mixes in Midsummer Night's Dream into The Tempest,
And what music/musicians does it mix together?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on November 04, 2015, 06:52:12 PM
Quote from: Brian on November 04, 2015, 06:17:48 PM
And what music/musicians does it mix together?

The link I included will give you a fairly good idea, although the link she used to show the music sources no longer works.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on November 12, 2015, 05:32:56 PM
Having never really finished with the subject of Hamlet:

Thanks to various teachers and theatre directors I had always taken it on unquestioning faith that Hamlet "needs" a disguise and he is putting on "an antic disposition" because it allows his suspicions to go undetected.

In a way, the conspiring of events makes Hamlet's case a lot like a 70s/80s paranoia thriller - the kind where only our hero knows the truth, and can't prove it, and it seems like everyone is out against him. Travolta in Blow Out or Hackman in The Conversation: listening to the tape obsessively, aware that nobody else has the evidence you have. The psychic burden hits both characters hard; they can't catch the King as easily as Hamlet does, and persist in uncertainty until the time comes for them to take decisive actions.

I don't think it's a spoiler that in all three cases it ends badly...

But paranoia isn't a commonly remarked-on feature of Hamlet. Maybe this idea is far off-base and nutty. But it seems reasonable to me to suggest that Hamlet's grief and his famous "hesitation" are aggravated by psychological claustrophobia after the ghost's visit.

When I google "Hamlet paranoid", many of the results suggest that he is a paranoid schizophrenic.  ::)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 12, 2015, 06:32:17 PM
Quote from: Brian on November 12, 2015, 05:32:56 PM
Thanks to various teachers and theatre directors I had always taken it on unquestioning faith that Hamlet "needs" a disguise and he is putting on "an antic disposition" because it allows his suspicions to go undetected.

When I google "Hamlet paranoid", many of the results suggest that he is a paranoid schizophrenic.  ::)

Why putting on "an antic disposition" would allow his suspicions to go undetected is beyond me. Wouldn't a radical change in his manner be exactly what would cause greater suspicion - especially when he spends 50 lines exhorting his friends to secrecy? All Hamlet is saying is that he may ("perchance") act strangely in the future, and if he does so, his friends must not behave in a way that shows they know anything about the matter. (Compare Edgar's "I heard myself proclaimed" speech in Lear, where he finds himself in real danger and chooses to disguise himself as a Bedlam beggar complete with "face grimed with filth," "presented nakedness," and "lunatic bans." Hamlet does nothing like this.)

But this is fun:

http://bestcustomessays.com/prince-of-paranoia-a-study-of-hamlet-s-personality-disorder/

QuoteHamlet's hallucinations are very clear when he sees his father's ghost in his mother's bedroom. He sees and hears his father's ghost while his mother does not: Gertrude: 'To whom to you speak this?' Hamlet: 'Do you see nothing there?' Gertrude: 'Nothing at all, yet all that is I see.' Hamlet: 'Nor did you nothing hear?' Gertrude: 'No, nothing but ourselves.' Hamlet: 'Why, look you there – look how it steals away – My father in his habits as he lived-' (3, 4, 130-136)
Never mind that the "hallucination" was also seen by Horatio, Marcellus, Bernardo, and possibly Francisco. As the Scottish play (the banquet scene with Banquo's ghost, unless you want to make Macbeth insane too), Julius Caesar, and Richard III also make clear, ghosts could make themselves visible to whomever they wish.

QuoteWith revenge in mind, Hamlet plans to fake his madness so that he may be free to pursue his father's killer.
How faking madness accomplishes this end is beyond me.

QuoteEverybody in the play, except for Horatio, believes him to be mad, and I believe he is from the beginning to the end.
KING: "Nor what he spake, though it lacked form a little, / Was not like madness." Well, gee, when the one person you're supposedly trying to convince doesn't believe you . . . .

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/hamlet/hamletsanity.html
QuoteOn this question there are four different hypotheses: (1) That Hamlet was throughout perfectly sane, but feigned insanity; (2) that Hamlet was after his interview with the Ghost more or less insane; (3) that in Hamlet insanity was latent, but was only fully developed after the Court-play; (4) that Hamlet was neither insane, nor feigned to be so.
Of course the gentleman writing this thoroughly incoherent essay doesn't even consider option 4.

http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/discuss-wether-hamlet-sane-going-insane-434551
QuoteIt seems too complicated to assume that Hamlet is sane, pretending to be insane, going insane, and actually insane. If he is insane, he cannot also be insane. And if he is insane, he cannot be sane. Hamlet cannot be sane, insane, going insane, and pretending to be insane or pretending to be going insane.
At this point the only insane ones appear to be the people writing these essays.

I submit that Hamlet was neither insane nor ever pretends to be otherwise. Hamlet is so cryptic, so lightning fast, so paradoxical and punning from the start of the play to the finish, that many are led to conclude he's feigning madness. But he sounds no different at the start of the play (i.e., before the supposed feigned madness) than he does later. You may be assured that the more Hamlet despises you ("I am glad on it. A knavish speech sleeps in a foolish ear"), the more cryptic and difficult he will become. But save for a couple of brief passages where he's obviously teasing Polonius (who is probably the author of the idea that Hamlet is crazy), everything Hamlet says makes perfect sense, though much of it may be difficult to unravel at first hearing.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 13, 2015, 09:29:04 AM
Quote from: Brian on November 12, 2015, 05:32:56 PM
In a way, the conspiring of events makes Hamlet's case a lot like a 70s/80s paranoia thriller - the kind where only our hero knows the truth, and can't prove it, and it seems like everyone is out against him. Travolta in Blow Out or Hackman in The Conversation: listening to the tape obsessively, aware that nobody else has the evidence you have. The psychic burden hits both characters hard; they can't catch the King as easily as Hamlet does, and persist in uncertainty until the time comes for them to take decisive actions.

I have always thought of Hamlet as a gigantic cat-and-mouse game, one where the roles of pursuer and pursued keep changing, and no one beyond the two principals really knows the stakes involved. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "catching the King as easily as Hamlet does"; Hamlet to my mind faces considerable difficulty in exacting the vengeance required of him – not so much because he is indecisive or oversensitive or unable to act (after all, sooner or later he is responsible for taking eight lives including his own), but because external circumstances make bringing Claudius to judgment very difficult.

One of the clichés about Hamlet is that if Hamlet killed the king right away, there would be no play. If such were the case, Shakespeare could be legitimately accused of artistic sloppiness, of just wasting 2-3 hours with filler. But as scholars like Eleanor Prosser and Bernard Grebanier have argued, Hamlet's first task is to ascertain whether the Ghost was telling the truth, and he hits on the device of presenting the play in hopes that Claudius will give himself away.

(The play provides ample support that supernatural beings might be demons in disguise attempting to lure humans into actions that might damage their immortal souls: "I'll cross it, though it blast me." "Be thou a spirit of health or goblin damn'd," "What if it tempt you toward the flood, my lord . . . . / And there assume some other horrible form, / Which might deprive your sovereignty of reason / And draw you into madness?" "The spirit that I have seen / May be the devil: and the devil hath power / To assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps / Out of my weakness and my melancholy, / As he is very potent with such spirits, / Abuses me to damn me.")

Since the play scene doesn't occur until well past the half-way point ("O good Horatio, I'll take the ghost's word for a / thousand pound"), Hamlet can hardly be accused of failing to act or hesitating, especially when the fatal next move he makes is to impulsively kill Polonius and thus give Claudius the upper hand.

Even so, when Hamlet returns to England, armed with evidence that Claudius sought his own life, and convinced that now is the time to act ("is't not perfect conscience,/ To quit him with this arm? and is't not to be damn'd, / To let this canker of our nature come / In further evil?"), the court still accuses him of treason when he finally kills Claudius, and his final act is to ensure his reputation remains unstained by preventing Horatio from following him in death.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on November 13, 2015, 10:52:39 AM
Sorry for the infelicity - by "catch the king," I meant the play and not the murder.

Hamlet faces a major problem even after the play is presented, in that, should he kill Claudius, he will find it near-impossible to explain this to his countrymen. I suppose you touch on that here:
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 13, 2015, 09:29:04 AM
the court still accuses him of treason when he finally kills Claudius, and his final act is to ensure his reputation remains unstained by preventing Horatio from following him in death.
The only real evidence of Claudius's murder is (1) the testimony of a ghost, and (2) Claudius behaving oddly after seeing a play. Horatio can testify that the ghost really did appear, although not exactly what the ghost said. The truth is, Hamlet needed a confession from Claudius - not a coded one (like leaving a theatre), but one that a witness could verify.

Maybe it's lucky for him that he was not relying on a real system of justice.  ;)

Last night I revisited scene II.1 and thought that that was a big part of why Hamlet is portrayed as "mad". For one thing, they say he's "mad." But if Hamlet is merely grieving, or sincerely quivering in anxiety/paranoia over the weight of what he's just found out, that alleviates one of the play's big mysteries. After all, it's always seemed awfully cruel to me that Hamlet would feign madness by immediately alienating/ruining his girlfriend.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on November 13, 2015, 10:54:58 AM
P.S. But what do you suppose the "antic disposition" line means?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on November 13, 2015, 10:59:21 AM
Larger excerpt from Samuel Johnson's Hamlet commentary:

IF the dramas of Shakespeare were to be characterised, each by the particular excellence which distinguishes it from the rest, we must allow to the tragedy of Hamlet the praise of variety. The incidents are so numerous, that the argument of the play would make a long tale. The scenes are interchangeably diversified with merriment and solemnity; with merriment that includes judicious and instructive observations, and solemnity, not strained by poetical violence above the natural sentiments of man. New characters appear from time to time in continual succession, exhibiting various forms of life and particular modes of conversation. The pretended madness of Hamlet causes much mirth, the mournful distraction of Ophelia fills the heart with tenderness, and every personage produces the effect intended, from the apparition that in the first act chills the blood with horror, to the fop in the last, that exposes affectation to just contempt.

The conduct is perhaps not wholly secure against objections. The action is indeed for the most part in continual progression, but there are some scenes which neither forward nor retard it. Of the feigned madness of Hamlet there appears no adequate cause, for he does nothing which he might not have done with the reputation of sanity. He plays the madman most, when he treats Ophelia with so much rudeness, which seems to be useless and wanton cruelty.

Hamlet is, through the whole play, rather an instrument than an agent. After he has, by the stratagem of the play, convicted the King, he makes no attempt to punish him, and his death is at last effected by an incident which Hamlet has no part in producing.

The catastrophe is not very happily produced; the exchange of weapons is rather an expedient of necessity, than a stroke of art. A scheme might easily have been formed, to kill Hamlet with the dagger, and Laertes with the bowl.

The poet is accused of having shewn little regard to poetical justice, and may be charged with equal neglect of poetical probability. The apparition left the regions of the dead to little purpose; the revenge which he demands is not obtained but by the death of him that was required to take it; and the gratification which would arise from the destruction of an usurper and a murderer, is abated by the untimely death of Ophelia, the young, the beautiful, the harmless, and the pious.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 14, 2015, 06:20:56 AM
Quote from: Brian on November 13, 2015, 10:54:58 AM
P.S. But what do you suppose the "antic disposition" line means?

I would answer obliquely, by starting with a character who unquestionably pretends madness. Here is Edgar in King Lear:

I heard myself proclaim'd;
And by the happy hollow of a tree
Escaped the hunt. No port is free; no place,
That guard, and most unusual vigilance,
Does not attend my taking. Whiles I may 'scape,
I will preserve myself: and am bethought
To take the basest and most poorest shape
That ever penury, in contempt of man,
Brought near to beast: my face I'll grime with filth;
Blanket my loins: elf all my hair in knots;
And with presented nakedness out-face
The winds and persecutions of the sky.
The country gives me proof and precedent
Of Bedlam beggars, who, with roaring voices,
Strike in their numb'd and mortified bare arms
Pins, wooden pricks, nails, sprigs of rosemary;
And with this horrible object, from low farms,
Poor pelting villages, sheep-cotes, and mills,
Sometime with lunatic bans, sometime with prayers,
Enforce their charity. Poor Turlygod! poor Tom!
That's something yet: Edgar I nothing am.

Bedlam by this time was already considered London's hospital for the insane, and obviously this is an extreme, carefully considered scheme by one who senses himself in danger. Here is some of Edgar's language when feigning insanity:

Bless thy five wits! Tom's a-cold,--O, do
de, do de, do de. Bless thee from whirlwinds,
star-blasting, and taking! Do poor Tom some
charity, whom the foul fiend vexes: there could I
have him now,--and there,--and there again, and there.

And here is some typical language by a character in Hamlet who goes insane:

Well, God 'ild you! They say the owl was a baker's
daughter. Lord, we know what we are, but know not
what we may be. God be at your table!

Now here is Hamlet, asking his friends not to give him away if he starts behaving strangely in the future:

Here, as before, never, so help you mercy,
How strange or odd soe'er I bear myself,
As I perchance hereafter shall think meet
To put an antic disposition on,

Unlike Edgar, who presents a carefully considered scheme, Hamlet at most says he might behave strangely or oddly. And you'd be hard put to it to find language from Hamlet that remotely resembles what we hear from Poor Tom or Ophelia. By contrast Hamlet is witty, punning, contemptuous of his enemies, intellectual, and always on point:

KING CLAUDIUS
Now, Hamlet, where's Polonius?
HAMLET
At supper.
KING CLAUDIUS
At supper! where?
HAMLET
Not where he eats, but where he is eaten: a certain
convocation of politic worms are e'en at him. Your
worm is your only emperor for diet: we fat all
creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for
maggots: your fat king and your lean beggar is but
variable service, two dishes, but to one table:
that's the end.
KING CLAUDIUS
Alas, alas!
HAMLET
A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a
king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.
KING CLAUDIUS
What dost you mean by this?
HAMLET
Nothing but to show you how a king may go a
progress through the guts of a beggar.
KING CLAUDIUS
Where is Polonius?
HAMLET
In heaven; send hither to see: if your messenger
find him not there, seek him i' the other place
yourself. But indeed, if you find him not within
this month, you shall nose him as you go up the
stairs into the lobby.

The second passage is easy enough, while the first is all about the great food chain whereby worms and maggots feed on dead human corpses of whatever rank (with a pun on the Diet of Worms that condemned Luther in 1521), and then men use the same worms as bait to catch the fish that men themselves eat, thus making it possible for a beggar to eat a king long dead. But at any performance the assholes will always start cackling as if to say, "I've got it! He's crazy! Ho-ho-ho!" (No, you don't get it. You don't get it at all.)

(Somehow MS Edge on my Windows 10 laptop doesn't seem to support the quote or other icons from the editing toolbar. Maybe I'll make this prettier on my desktop at home.)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 14, 2015, 06:40:52 AM
Quote from: Brian on November 13, 2015, 10:52:39 AM
Sorry for the infelicity - by "catch the king," I meant the play and not the murder.

Hamlet faces a major problem even after the play is presented, in that, should he kill Claudius, he will find it near-impossible to explain this to his countrymen. I suppose you touch on that here:The only real evidence of Claudius's murder is (1) the testimony of a ghost, and (2) Claudius behaving oddly after seeing a play. Horatio can testify that the ghost really did appear, although not exactly what the ghost said. The truth is, Hamlet needed a confession from Claudius - not a coded one (like leaving a theatre), but one that a witness could verify.

Maybe it's lucky for him that he was not relying on a real system of justice.  ;)

Last night I revisited scene II.1 and thought that that was a big part of why Hamlet is portrayed as "mad". For one thing, they say he's "mad." But if Hamlet is merely grieving, or sincerely quivering in anxiety/paranoia over the weight of what he's just found out, that alleviates one of the play's big mysteries. After all, it's always seemed awfully cruel to me that Hamlet would feign madness by immediately alienating/ruining his girlfriend.

I'll take up the Ophelia question later (remember, it's not that Hamlet rejects Ophelia, but that Ophelia on orders from Polonius rejects him), but concepts of justice and law were certainly known in Elizabethan England (see The Merchant of Venice). Yet on the point of "evidence," I would certainly agree that Hamlet faces a major problem in that Claudius has plotted almost the perfect crime, and has the immense royal advantage of ruling by what would be considered divine right. Compare his easy put-down of Laertes's silly effort at usurpation:

Let him go, Gertrude; do not fear our person:
There's such divinity doth hedge a king,
That treason can but peep to what it would,
Acts little of his will. 

I think that by the end when he returns from England, Hamlet has decided that come what may, whether he has proof or not, he is justified by conscience to finally enact his plan of revenge:

Does it not, think'st thee, stand me now upon--
He that hath kill'd my king and whored my mother,
Popp'd in between the election and my hopes,
Thrown out his angle for my proper life,
And with such cozenage--is't not perfect conscience,
To quit him with this arm?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on November 16, 2015, 07:38:40 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 09, 2015, 12:50:36 PM
As a king, Lear would be seen to rule by divine right, and to be God's divine representative on earth.

Great writers never believe in such nonsense although to give Bill some credit, there is evidence in some of his plays he is capable of avoiding glorifying of absolute monarchy. But often like in King Lear, I don't see that happening. In fact whatever Kent said to Oswald I would probably have said to Lear, for banishing his daughter for failing to suck up to him and it's Oswald I would have called a fool, for being a mindless yes man, which, quite frankly, I find less despicable than banishing your daughter on a whim.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on November 16, 2015, 07:43:46 AM
Timon of Athens is often compared to King Lear and while there is much in King Lear that I enjoy and in Timon that I don't like, I think Timon is more interesting play of the two. One critic said that one of the main problems in Timon lies with the fact that unlike with Lear, it's hard to feel compassion for Timon. That is exactly how I feel about Lear whereas towards Timon I felt great deal of pity.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 16, 2015, 07:55:21 AM
Quote from: Alberich on November 16, 2015, 07:38:40 AM
Great writers never believe in such nonsense although to give Bill some credit, there is evidence in some of his plays he is capable of avoiding glorifying of absolute monarchy. But often like in King Lear, I don't see that happening. In fact whatever Kent said to Oswald I would probably have said to Lear, for banishing his daughter for failing to suck up to him and Oswald I would have called a fool for being a mindless yes man which, quite frankly, I find less despicable than banishing your daughter on a whim.

What Shakespeare the man thought about such matters is unascertainable. He may well have not believed in ghosts, but he put ghosts in four of his plays. He may have not believed in fairies, but he made fairies essential to one of his most admired comedies. And when he introduced such characters, he knew the kinds of attitudes his audience would bring to them. Similarly, the doctrine of divine right was commonly understood to be in force in Shakespeare's England, as well as the France of Louis XIV. But as with so many things (like the doctrine of papal infallibility), it was not an unambiguous concept. When Charles I of England took the idea too literally, it led to his downfall and execution. And it was perfectly possible for Shakespeare to create a king with grave flaws, like Lear, both Richards, Leontes, and others. As for what "you" would have done, you aren't a character in the play and your hypothetical actions don't matter in the slightest.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on November 16, 2015, 08:05:01 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 16, 2015, 07:55:21 AM
As for what "you" would have done, you aren't a character in the play and your hypothetical actions don't matter in the slightest.

Oh but they do matter. If the actions of the characters I am supposed to feel compassion towards (and I think it is really evident that you ARE supposed to feel compassion towards Lear) don't resonate strongly enough with my moral compass, I think it is entirely reasonable for me to give some criticism about it. Btw, I like Shakespeare just fine, in case it's not clear, but even The Bard of Avon is not above criticism.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on November 16, 2015, 08:12:57 AM
Also, much of what determines whether I feel compassion towards a character, is whether the character in question is interesting. Claudius may have murdered his brother but his touching monologue in act III helps me to feel for his plight, while condemning his actions at the same time. Lear, unfortunately, I don't find that interesting.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 16, 2015, 08:15:56 AM
Quote from: Alberich on November 16, 2015, 08:05:01 AM
Oh but they do matter. If the actions of the characters I am supposed to feel compassion towards (and I think it is really evident that you ARE supposed to feel compassion towards Lear) don't resonate strongly enough with my moral compass, I think it is entirely reasonable for me to give some criticism about it. Btw, I like Shakespeare just fine, in case it's not clear, but even The Bard of Avon is not above criticism.

No, my friend. I've gone over this point with you ten times, and you still refuse to get it. There's no "supposed to feel"; there is only what you do feel. There is ample reason in the play to believe Lear's treatment of Cordelia was monstrously unjust, and also ample reason to feel compassion for him in the later stages of the play. And "you" have no idea how "you" would have behaved had "you" been a courtier in Lear's presence.





'
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on November 16, 2015, 08:22:06 AM
I do get it, I just don't agree with it.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 16, 2015, 08:22:44 AM
Quote from: Alberich on November 16, 2015, 08:12:57 AM
Also, much of what determines whether I feel compassion towards a character, is whether the character in question is interesting. Claudius may have murdered his brother but his touching monologue in act III helps me to feel for his plight, while condemning his actions at the same time. Lear, unfortunately, I don't find that interesting.

Camille Paglia has gone on record as considering "Lear" a much more simplistic play than "Antony and Cleopatra," and G. Wilson Knight, a major critic, was a big fan of "Timon." T.S. Eliot, like our friend Mr. Smith here, considered "Hamlet" a failure (to which Harold Bloom replied, if "Hamlet" is a failure, then what's a success?) but considered "Coriolanus" along with "A+C" to be "Shakespeare's most assured artistic success." I'm sure if you look hard enough you will find someone who thinks "Titus Andronicus" the best thing Shakespeare ever wrote.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 16, 2015, 08:24:54 AM
Quote from: Alberich on November 16, 2015, 08:22:06 AM
I do get it, I just don't agree with it.

Please look up the term "intentional fallacy."
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on November 16, 2015, 08:28:18 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 16, 2015, 08:22:44 AM
I'm sure if you look hard enough you will find someone who thinks "Titus Andronicus" the best thing Shakespeare ever wrote.

Indeed, in fact I know several people who think that way.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 16, 2015, 09:09:57 AM
Quote from: Brian on November 13, 2015, 10:52:39 AM
Last night I revisited scene II.1 and thought that that was a big part of why Hamlet is portrayed as "mad". For one thing, they say he's "mad." But if Hamlet is merely grieving, or sincerely quivering in anxiety/paranoia over the weight of what he's just found out, that alleviates one of the play's big mysteries. After all, it's always seemed awfully cruel to me that Hamlet would feign madness by immediately alienating/ruining his girlfriend.

Ah, the fair Ophelia. Nymph in thy orisons and all that. Though she goes mad herself (to keep her lunatic boyfriend company?), the poor thing does indeed come to believe Hamlet is mad, as do Polonius and so many critics.

One thing I learned when I was first taught Shakespeare well is to not necessarily believe what any one character says of another. Shakespeare's characters often come to erroneous conclusions about each other, and Hamlet is as unjust in his attitudes towards Claudius and others (like Ophelia and R+G) as Polonius is unjust towards Hamlet. The point is to respond to the characters as they themselves behave.

As for the girlfriend thing, as I said above, it's not that Hamlet rejects Ophelia as that Ophelia (on Polonius' orders) rejects him. Polonius specifically tells her to cut off all contact with Hamlet, and she promises to obey. Of course if you're wedded to the theory that Hamlet is insane, going insane, pretending to be insane, pretending to be going insane, or some combination of the above, you'll take the narrative where he shows up in her room as an example. I take that as having nothing to do with the ghost's revelation but rather his reaction to her sudden cutting off of all communication with him. From this, Polonius concludes he's a lunatic, but I don't see any reason to believe that old fool.

We then have the only prolonged interaction between Hamlet and Ophelia, the famous nunnery scene, which begins with Ophelia returning all the gifts Hamlet has given her. It's a complex scene, but it's just as clear that Hamlet begins by gently counselling her to enter a nunnery, as it is that he ends in a total fury from which she concludes he's mad. So why the change? Of course Ophelia is present because Polonius and Claudius are using her as a pawn to test Hamlet, but does Hamlet know this? One critic, J. Dover Wilson, decided to "restore" a "lost" stage direction (not present in any of the three surviving texts) where Hamlet "overhears" P and C deciding to overhear him. But Hamlet says nothing to confirm this, and it doesn't explain why his manner changes so abruptly mid-scene. The sensible way to stage this, IMO, is for Hamlet to become suddenly aware of others' presence in the room. Maybe Polonius makes a noise, or peeks out from his hiding place, or something like that. From there, Hamlet decides he is being used, and erupts in an explosion of anger which the innocent Ophelia totally misconstrues.

Finally, there's the question of whether Hamlet had sexual relations with Ophelia. Branagh was sure he did; however, the only snippet of support comes in a ditty Ophelia sings in her madness. But this is always the problem when a director tries to force an interpretation that is not justified by the text. I conclude that as far as Hamlet "ruining" Ophelia goes, this is a matter that remains in the background and for which there's no clear evidence one way or the other.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 16, 2015, 09:10:31 AM
Quote from: Alberich on November 16, 2015, 08:28:18 AM
Indeed, in fact I know several people who think that way.

Alas.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on November 16, 2015, 09:30:37 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 14, 2015, 06:20:56 AM
I would answer obliquely, by starting with a character who unquestionably pretends madness. Here is Edgar in King Lear:
Your answer, however oblique, is effective. Shakespearean madness was never subtle, whether real or fake (and there's both in Lear). Hamlet never approaches that kind of exaggerated language/behavior, although maybe he is teasing Polonius with something similar (very like a whale).

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 14, 2015, 06:40:52 AMClaudius has plotted almost the perfect crime,
He just didn't account for the possibility of ghosts ;)


-

Every year I finish the year out by reading one of the plays. (Last year was an inauspicious choice - Merry Wives. The Boito is better.) This discussion in general has me racing back to choose Hamlet, although I was hoping I'd get around to a re-read of Merchant...maybe the only way to go is to read 'em both over Christmas.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 16, 2015, 10:21:51 AM
Quote from: Brian on November 16, 2015, 09:30:37 AM
Your answer, however oblique, is effective. Shakespearean madness was never subtle, whether real or fake (and there's both in Lear). Hamlet never approaches that kind of exaggerated language/behavior, although maybe he is teasing Polonius with something similar (very like a whale).

"Very like a whale" comes close, but of course it's for comic ends. Hamlet does at times find it convenient to admit to madness (his apology to Laertes), but I reject any idea of any organized scheme to play the lunatic in order to protect himself from the king, gather data, or any such.

Quote from: Brian on November 16, 2015, 09:30:37 AM
Every year I finish the year out by reading one of the plays. (Last year was an inauspicious choice - Merry Wives. The Boito is better.) This discussion in general has me racing back to choose Hamlet, although I was hoping I'd get around to a re-read of Merchant...maybe the only way to go is to read 'em both over Christmas.

Yes, but at that rate you'll be 60 by the time you're done! (Many years ago when I was commuting by train to NYC, I decided I'd re-read all of Shakespeare on my trips back and forth. Took eight months, but I got through everything, even Timon of Athens.)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on November 16, 2015, 07:38:17 PM
One thing about "get thee to a nunnery":  in Elizabethan slang, nunnery seems to have meant " brothel". In which case Hamlet was not giving her friendly advice.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: lisa needs braces on November 16, 2015, 11:49:33 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 16, 2015, 07:38:17 PM
One thing about "get thee to a nunnery":  in Elizabethan slang, nunnery seems to have meant " brothel". In which case Hamlet was not giving her friendly advice.

This seems to fit in with John Mcwhorter's thesis about a lot of Shakespeare going over audience's heads:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-facelift-for-shakespeare-1443194924
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on November 17, 2015, 12:57:36 AM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 16, 2015, 07:38:17 PM
One thing about "get thee to a nunnery":  in Elizabethan slang, nunnery seems to have meant " brothel". In which case Hamlet was not giving her friendly advice.

There's nothing in the context of the scene to suggest its being used that way.

Quote from: -abe- on November 16, 2015, 11:49:33 PM
This seems to fit in with John Mcwhorter's thesis about a lot of Shakespeare going over audience's heads:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-facelift-for-shakespeare-1443194924

You've already linked to that article, and people have already given their comments on it,  and "modernizing" the language isn't going to help with supposed double meanings. Would you like the modernizer to choose "nunnery" or "brothel" there? (pretending the second was even an option)

The audience is smarter than you seem to think they are. Nobody, to pick one random example, has ever been confused about what Richard III means when he says he is "rudely stamped", even though neither word is used with a modern meaning.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 17, 2015, 03:20:45 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on November 17, 2015, 12:57:36 AM
There's nothing in the context of the scene to suggest its being used that way.

Exactly, which is why I didn't bring the point up. The issue is well-discussed here:
http://www.terrania.us/journal/2006/10/gk-chesterton-was-right.html
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/29277/theater/thought-of-the-day-whorehouse-nunneries-and-vagina-nothings

QuoteIt reminds me of the claim that "nunnery" means "whorehouse" in Shakespeare, so that when Hamlet tells Ophelia to go to the nunnery he's really telling her to become a whore. No. He isn't. The only Elizabethan references to "nunnery" meaning "whorehouse" are in a comedy where a whorehouse being referred to as a nunnery is a joke specifically because a nunnery isn't a whorehouse.

When I get a chance, I'll look up the word in the OED. (I've got the Compact Edition, bought years ago, where four standard pages are photographically reduced to a single page. It's like a miniature score.) But context of course supports the standard meaning:

QuoteGet thee to a nunnery, why woulds't thou be a breeder of sinners?

Last time I heard, there was nothing about joining a brothel that would prevent a woman from getting pregnant and breeding sinners. Hamlet's point, of course, is to counsel poor innocent confused Ophelia to renounce the world and avoid populating it with sinners like himself.

Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: North Star on November 17, 2015, 05:37:35 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 17, 2015, 03:20:45 AM
When I get a chance, I'll look up the word in the OED. (I've got the Compact Edition, bought years ago, where four standard pages are photographically reduced to a single page. It's like a miniature score.) But context of course supports the standard meaning:

Shakespeare probably would have known the slang meaning, but its meaningfulness in Hamlet is of course questionable.

http://islingtonnow.co.uk/2013/03/19/from-clerkenwell-or-not-from-clerkenwell-that-is-the-question/
http://shaksper.net/archive/2002/191-may/16317-re-queen-elizabeth-is-other-profession-sp-342659053
http://mrshakespeare.typepad.com/mrshakespeare/2007/10/gesta-grayorum.html

Quote from: OED.com1.
a. A place of residence for a community of nuns; a building or group of buildings in which nuns live as a religious community; a convent. Also fig.
...
1603   Shakespeare Hamlet iii. i. 123   Go to a Nunnery [1604 Nunry, 1623 Nunnerie] goe.
...


b. slang. A brothel. Now hist.

1593   T. Nashe Christs Teares 79 b,   [To] some one Gentleman generally acquainted, they giue..free priuiledge thenceforward in theyr Nunnery, to procure them frequentance.
1594   Gesta Grayorum (1914) 12   Lucy Negro, Abbess de Clerkenwell, holdeth the Nunnery of Clerkenwell.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 17, 2015, 06:04:37 AM
Quote from: North Star on November 17, 2015, 05:37:35 AM
Shakespeare probably would have known the slang meaning, but its meaningfulness in Hamlet is of course questionable.

http://islingtonnow.co.uk/2013/03/19/from-clerkenwell-or-not-from-clerkenwell-that-is-the-question/
http://shaksper.net/archive/2002/191-may/16317-re-queen-elizabeth-is-other-profession-sp-342659053
http://mrshakespeare.typepad.com/mrshakespeare/2007/10/gesta-grayorum.html

I think you'll find the standard definition dates back many centuries before. In any case, entries past 1603 are not relevant.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: North Star on November 17, 2015, 06:09:24 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on November 17, 2015, 06:04:37 AM
I think you'll find the standard definition dates back many centuries before. In any case, entries past 1603 are not relevant.
Well obviously. And again. I see I didn't bother  trimming the entries.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on January 02, 2016, 03:18:58 PM
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41qxcjR6fIL._SY300_.jpg)

Watched last night: Henry the Sixth, Part 1 from the BBC complete series

A problematic production of a problematic play (one that, curiously, I think it would make a better Hollywood movie, with its all too regular battle scenes and easy(er) language its spoon-feeding of historical exposition).

On the plus side are the fine performances by Bernard Hill as the Duke of York and Trevor Peacock as Talbot, as well as a surprisingly succesful casting of Peter Benson as the King - far too old for the role, but perfect for the ineffectual meekness and naievity.

On the minus side the Playschool-like painted sets, all the French acting like Keystone Cops and the sub-pantomime fight scenes. But worst of all is the usually superb Brenda Blethyn as an oikish and coarse Joan of Arc - neither director nor actress seemed at all interested in trying to square the historical Joan with the Joan of Shakespeares text (which I think is more possible than it may first appear), instead we get all the supporting character's references to Joan being a cynical amoral irreligious opportunist jarringly supported here in every way by the manner of Joan herself. That was, for me, a deal breaker.

But still... it'll be on to parts 2 and 3 over the next week. Haven't seen the Age Of Kings versions yet, hope they have more success, and it will also be interesting to see how season two of The Hollow Crown does them.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41tFISwzBTL._AC_UL320_SR234,320_.jpg) (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41xjDT544jL._AC_UL320_SR234,320_.jpg)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: zamyrabyrd on January 03, 2016, 03:43:33 AM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 16, 2015, 07:38:17 PM
One thing about "get thee to a nunnery":  in Elizabethan slang, nunnery seems to have meant " brothel". In which case Hamlet was not giving her friendly advice.

I don't know if it would make any difference in staging Hamlet, if indeed Ophelia is in the "family way":
http://www.craftyscreenwriting.com/ophelia.html

Hamlet really lays into Ophelia in III:i, ending by telling her, "To a nunnery, go!" In high school they tell you that "nunnery" was slang for a whorehouse, but it is also, more literally, an excellent place for a family to send a pregnant, unmarried noblewoman. The nuns will take care of her, and keep her out of sight, and the baby can be handed off to someone else to raise...

Why is Ophelia singing about a maid seduced by her lover? Aside from the songs of mourning, all her songs are songs of betrayed love. A few lines later, she is singing an even more pointed song:

Quoth she, "Before you tumbled me, You promis'd me to wed."
He answers: "So would I ha'done, by yonder sun, An thou hadst not come to my bed."
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on January 03, 2016, 12:34:08 PM
Anyone seen any of the Henry the Sixth dvds I mentioned or seen it live?

Anyone seen any Shakespeare in film or theatre recently?

I see that at the end of this month the'll be a one-off screening of Kenneth Branagh's Winter's Tale production, which I might be able to get to (these things frustratingly are almost always screened at times and days when I can't get away from work). Did anyone elsewhere in the world see the late November screenings?

(http://images.fandango.com/r98.9/ImageRenderer/300/0/redesign/static/img/noxsquare.jpg/109981/images/masterrepository/fandango/186835/winterstale_250x375_r1.jpg)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on January 05, 2016, 09:22:27 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 03, 2016, 12:34:08 PM
Anyone seen any of the Henry the Sixth dvds I mentioned or seen it live?

Anyone seen any Shakespeare in film or theatre recently?

I see that at the end of this month the'll be a one-off screening of Kenneth Branagh's Winter's Tale production, which I might be able to get to (these things frustratingly are almost always screened at times and days when I can't get away from work). Did anyone elsewhere in the world see the late November screenings?

I get the Winter's Tale in my area later this week, and will report back. I am expecting great things from "Exit, pursued by a bear."

My latest fiasco was a production of Midsummer Night's Dream at the Pearl Theater on New York's west side. Ben Brantley in the NY Times raved about this 6-character version, which was co-produced by the Hudson Valley Shakespeare Festival. My one previous experience with Hudson having been a disastrous Tempest, with an Ariel who sounded like a screeching harpy, I should have been wary of this effort before buying my ticket. But silly me.

It's not that reduced-cast Shakespeare can't work. Just a year before I had seen the Dream, in a 1-hour version abridged for touring the local high-schools, performed with utter charm and humor by six students from one of my local colleges. Too bad this performance was not brought to New York or at least uploaded to YouTube. And a 6-character Cymbeline mounted by the Fiasco Theatre group, whose expertise totally belied their name, was such a revelation that I saw it twice. Their Two Gentlemen of Verona was nearly as good, though it could not overcome the deficiencies of the play.

But the Pearl Theatre's Dream was a disaster from the start. There were only six performers, which meant they were doubled, tripled, and eve quadrupled on parts. Snug the Joiner was represented by two actors, which might not have been a bad idea had the rest of the production been more successful. For some reason the Demetrius was directed to perform with a Spanish accent (what, in Athens?), and some of his dialogue was even translated into Spanish, I suppose for the benefit of New Yorkers for whom the city is bilingual anyway. Groups of schoolkids had been brought to my matinee, and at intermission I heard them complaining they couldn't follow the character switches. At the end, when Puck started "If we shadows have offended," the man next to me (I swear it was not I) who had been working on crossword puzzles the entire show, said "You certainly have!" in a voice that hopefully carried through the whole theater.

Most revolting to my mind was the decision to show the "translated" Bottom shtupping Titania from behind in the second half. The elderly couple on the other side of me who left during intermission unfortunately missed this piece of directorial imagination, which finally got a lot of laughs of the ho-ho-ho, tee-hee, isn't Shakespeare funny because's he's all about sex, King Leer variety. But I detect here the deleterious influence of Jan Kott, who in "Shakespeare our Contemporary" decided that this charming and subtle comedy was in fact far darker and more sinister than any of us had realized. Putting two and two together to arrive at seven, Kott noted that asses were noted in the Renaissance for having abnormally large schlongs, and concluded on that basis (there's no evidence in the play, of course) that Bottom had sex with Titania in that enchanted bower.

It's not that I have anything about fairy queens having sex with donkeys; if that's your thing, go for it. But Shakespeare's actual joke is lighter, more subtle, and funnier. In the play Shakespeare wrote, Titania is enamored of Bottom but he does not share her interest. Instead, Bottom is interested only in hanging out with his four little fairy pals, having his back scratched, and getting his supplies of hay and honey. Balanchine got this in his choreographed version of The Dream, where Bottom completely ignores Titania's advances and shows interest only in putting his head into the bag of hay set out for him, and Balanchine was right.

I also saw a telecast of an RSC Henry V I thought pretty good. It wasn't as exciting as the Globe Theater version with Jamie Parker, but at least the language wasn't updated, the male parts were played by males and the females by females, and the play was largely uncut. In this day, that's achievement enough.

As for the BBC telecasts, I own the complete set but haven't really done much beyond dipping into them. The productions always seem so earnest and reverential. Do you know any you particularly like?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on January 05, 2016, 02:21:45 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 05, 2016, 09:22:27 AM

As for the BBC telecasts, I own the complete set but haven't really done much beyond dipping into them. The productions always seem so earnest and reverential. Do you know any you particularly like?

They do all suffer from an austerity and what was clearly a very limited budget, and have strengths and weakness within each film from actor to actor and scene to scene. But usually they all have elements that I'm pleased to have seen finally delivered clearly or uncut.

Measure For Measure I would probably rate as the most successful of all from the set that I've so far watched. Have you seen that one?



edit: I may need to put a little space between that last bit and this next bit, but... I just discovered in looking for some clips from that Measure For Measure that some people on Youtube have done a homage to the wonderful Drunk History program as Drunk Shakespeare. Its not half bad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l36PK8jCcqk
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 02:07:17 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 03, 2016, 12:34:08 PM
I see that at the end of this month the'll be a one-off screening of Kenneth Branagh's Winter's Tale production, which I might be able to get to (these things frustratingly are almost always screened at times and days when I can't get away from work). Did anyone elsewhere in the world see the late November screenings?

I saw it yesterday. The good news is that this WT was one of Branagh's better recent efforts. Perhaps since it was a staged production, he couldn't muck it up the way he did his film of AYLI, but then he introduced all kinds of extraneous nonsense into his staged Macbeth too. I was afraid we'd be in for a lot of directorial shtick when the play opened with a Christmas carol (this being the WINTER'S tale, you know), but once it got going it moved right along. If Branagh could not convince me of Leontes's sudden repentance following the supposed death of Hermione, this was a minor drawback, and production benefited greatly by the authoritative Paulina of Judi Dench.

The bear was represented by a projected bear's head, which seemed to me rather unimaginative. Some say that in Shakespeare's day he used a tame beast from the bear-baiting arenas not far from the Globe; some think he used a man in a bear's suit. I incline to the live bear theory, but perhaps the only tame bruin in London was otherwise engaged this season. The final statue scene, however, was right on point and very moving.

The biggest problem for me was the lighting, which was too dark throughout. I can see the contrast between a dark first half and a brightly lit second, but the second half here was not much sunnier than the first.

Not Branagh's fault, but the production once more showed how much we lose by not having boys in the female roles. Shakespeare usually had three boy actors; he would need one each for Pauline and Hermione, and the youngest boy most likely would have played both Mamilius and Perdita. Otherwise the rather clumsily managed death of Mamilius makes little sense, but if the same boy played both roles, then Leontes's dead son becomes reborn as his living daughter. Understandably, however, women want as many opportunities to play Shakespeare as possible, and if an adult male Leontes or Florizel were seen kissing an adolescent male Hermione or Perdita, the vice squad would be called in.

Worth seeing if you can.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on January 28, 2016, 09:07:45 AM
One of the local colleges is doing Hamlet, and I peeked at the latest rehearsal call. I fear this is not a misprint:

Friday, January 29th
7:00pm – 10:00pm Claudius, Gertrude, Polonia
8:30pm Add Hamlet

What do you people think about so-called "gender-blind" (which really means giving male roles to females) casting in Shakespeare? Is Queen Lear next? Henrietta IV? Julia Caesar?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Florestan on January 28, 2016, 09:50:52 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 28, 2016, 09:07:45 AM
What do you people think about so-called "gender-blind" (which really means giving male roles to females) casting in Shakespeare? Is Queen Lear next? Henrietta IV? Julia Caesar?

King Queer is more like it. My faves though are Hamlette, Coriolanna and Phallustaff. No, wait, actually the last is wrong.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on January 28, 2016, 09:54:58 AM
The Two Wenches of Verona
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on January 28, 2016, 05:03:41 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 28, 2016, 09:07:45 AM
One of the local colleges is doing Hamlet, and I peeked at the latest rehearsal call. I fear this is not a misprint:

Friday, January 29th
7:00pm – 10:00pm Claudius, Gertrude, Polonia
8:30pm Add Hamlet

What do you people think about so-called "gender-blind" (which really means giving male roles to females) casting in Shakespeare? Is Queen Lear next? Henrietta IV? Julia Caesar?

To be fair, Polonius is a character which can be switched to female without any real loss to the story.  Ophelia would have a garrulous interfering mother instead of a garrulous interfering father.

Horatio could likewise be changed to Horatia.  Even Laertes could be changed.

OTOH, Ophelia could not be switched to a male without making nonsense of the story...even more so Hamlet, Claudius and Gertrude.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on January 28, 2016, 05:31:19 PM
^ That's largely my feeling also, provided it was being done for some other reason than simply "shaking things up". If, say, there was a theatre group with a larger number of strong women actors than men in their troupe. Or if one strong actor had a convincing idea about how it might work without it being seen as a novelty or a distraction.

I quite liked the idea of Helen Mirren as Prospera. That film and the portrayal had its faults, but they were more the director's than Mirren's.

More interesting, though, if it must be in the casting, to have the actress convincingly play the male character as male.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: lisa needs braces on March 01, 2016, 11:19:29 PM
Not sure if I posted this earlier in the thread...but I've been listening to a recording of "Hamlet" (that appears to cut little) done by the BBC. Kenneth Branagh is the lead and it includes other familiar voices (who also appear in Branagh's Hamlet film.) I like its production values -- sound effects, moody music between the acts, well known and highly trained actors, etc. Looking for recommendations of similar productions.



Two of my favorite bits from this production. 

Hamlet's first soliloquy (Act 1 scene 2):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfDCcJSW7yQ#t=20m23s

And the "now I am alone..." soliloquy from act 2 that concludes the scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfDCcJSW7yQ#t=1h24m40s


I love the raw emotion and passion with which Branagh performs these passages.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on March 02, 2016, 07:46:59 AM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on January 28, 2016, 05:03:41 PM
To be fair, Polonius is a character which can be switched to female without any real loss to the story.  Ophelia would have a garrulous interfering mother instead of a garrulous interfering father.

Horatio could likewise be changed to Horatia.  Even Laertes could be changed.

OTOH, Ophelia could not be switched to a male without making nonsense of the story...even more so Hamlet, Claudius and Gertrude.

In honesty, the gender change made no sense at all when I saw it, as it violated the patriarchal hierarchy that would be taken for granted at the time. But even more oddly, the Hamlet was also played by a female who was attired as a male and could be taken for one were it not for her voice. So if nothing else, the "gender-blind" casting was inconsistent. Fortunately however, this was a version cut to 70 minutes for playing in secondary schools. I ordinarily don't like my Shakespeare to be hacked to bits, but with acting as dull as this, the slashed text was a blessing in disguise.

The same local college also did an As You Like It that was certainly not as I liked it. It would probably be unjust to say much more about a student production; still, the direction was incompetent and the acting not much better. It did feature a very good set that was in fact designed by a student. As You Like It was also recently broadcast by National Theatre Live from London. I'm not in the mood to get into much detail right now, but despite an odd set and lighting, it featured an attractive, charming Orlando in Joe Bannister, and a Rosalind by Rosalie Craig who was nearly perfect in the part - getting the character's liveliness, and her sometimes lively cruelty, just right.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on April 21, 2016, 12:15:31 PM
Most frequently-assigned Shakespeare plays, by course subject (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/400-years-after-shakespeares-death-hes-still-required-reading-even-for-econ-majors/)

Interesting to note how many biology and economics courses, among others, are assigning so much Shakespeare. An interesting read.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on April 23, 2016, 04:14:43 PM
This day 400 years ago, William Shakespeare died at age 52.

What have you done?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Florestan on April 24, 2016, 07:57:24 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 23, 2016, 04:14:43 PM
This day 400 years ago, William Shakespeare died at age 52.

What have you done?

Drank some wine.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on April 25, 2016, 03:17:57 PM
Quote from: Florestan on April 24, 2016, 07:57:24 AM
Drank some wine.

Well, that's something.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on April 26, 2016, 10:24:57 AM
"Sex With Shakespeare is a memoir of Jillian Keenan coming to terms with her spanking fetish, often explored and dissected through the language of Shakespeare." - AV Club review (http://www.avclub.com/review/sex-love-kink-spanking-fetish-pain-sex-shakespeare-234903)

[asin]0062378716[/asin]
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Drasko on June 17, 2016, 03:29:45 PM
(http://pannonia-entertainment.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Richard-III-One-Sheet-ENGLISH-698x1024.jpg)

http://www.almeida.co.uk/whats-on/richard-iii-in-cinemas/21-jul-2016-21-jun-2016#open-calendar

http://live.almeida.co.uk/
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on June 17, 2016, 04:01:45 PM
No sign of it out my way yet (we get these a bit later), but I'll keep an eye out - thanks for the heads-up.

Still kicking myself for not realizing there was a Globe broadcast of Measure For Measure, one of my favorite plays, that I missed because it was so poorly advertised. Has anyone seen it?

(http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/images/10256/normal)

Next one coming is a Globe Merchant of Venice with Jonathan Pryce at the start of July

(http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/images/10017/normal)

followed by a RSC Hamlet starring Paapa Essiedu at the end of July.

(http://macrobertartscentre.org/docs/095_440__quadposter_1462284144_standard.jpg)

followed by a Branagh Theatre Company Romeo and Juliet late August

(http://www.empirecinemas.co.uk/_uploads/film_images/6474_4794.jpg)


...though these will almost certainly, and frustratingly, be shown only during my work hours
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on June 17, 2016, 04:32:46 PM
While looking into the above I see for the first time that there's also a new film of Cymbeline - done Sons Of Anarchy style:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/dc/Cymbeline_(film).jpg/220px-Cymbeline_(film).jpg)

edit: I see its actually released on dvd here under the the title Anarchy (lol). Added to queue.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on June 17, 2016, 07:24:43 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on June 17, 2016, 04:01:45 PM
No sign of it out my way yet (we get these a bit later), but I'll keep an eye out - thanks for the heads-up.

Still kicking myself for not realizing there was a Globe broadcast of Measure For Measure, one of my favorite plays, that I missed because it was so poorly advertised. Has anyone seen it?

Next one coming is a Globe Merchant of Venice with Jonathan Pryce at the start of July
followed by a RSC Hamlet starring Paapa Essiedu at the end of July.
followed by a Branagh Theatre Company Romeo and Juliet late August
...though these will almost certainly, and frustratingly, be shown only during my work hours

Funny you should bring these up. I don't know when we're getting most of them in NY, except that Merchant will be played here live in July (and I had better order tickets soon). As for DVDs, I have been told by the Globe Shop that Measure for Measure, Richard II, The Merchant of Venice and King John will all be put on DVD soon, as well as the quite excellent Duchess of Malfi they did not so long ago. As one of my local movie houses gets most of these, I expect I'll be catching them there (where I also saw Branagh's quite decent Winter's Tale).

But the real Globe news is that they've just packaged about 20 of the plays as a set for about $100. Even though I had a number of them already, it was still cost-effective to get the compilation. Basically everything they've issued so far is included except the Othello, which they tell me was distributed by another manufacturer.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on June 28, 2016, 09:31:12 PM
Watched the film of Cymbeline earlier today. And it turned out to be considerably better than I was expecting. Heavily cut - now taking the prize from the Taylor/Burton Taming Of The Shrew as the most cut Shakespeare film I've seen - but done in such a way to give the essence and make near-clarity of a very complex story, though they still require a full fifteen minutes at the end for all the but-wait-there's-more revelations to wrap everything up. Everyone speaks clearly and intelligibly, even if they are cherry-picking two or four line excerpts as they hopscotch through the text. Also a lot less motorcycle-club imagery than I was expecting, despite all the Sons Of Anarchy allusions in the advertising. The only real minus was that the gender-bending of Imogen to Fidele wasn't set up well and was handled clumsily (and wouldn't have fooled anyone - though that's true of most films).

A cautious recommendation, then. Don't expect too much and though not knocked out you may well be pleasantly surprised.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on July 22, 2016, 09:26:35 AM
"Ted Cruz has reminded many of us of Marc Antony trying to thread the needle at Julius Caesar's funeral," said Bill Rauch, the artistic director of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, who compared Antony's artful twisting of the words "honorable man" to Cruz's memorable use of the phrase "vote your conscience."

"The repeating refrain 'but he is an honorable man' so devastatingly communicates the exact opposite of the words' surface meaning," Mr. Rauch said. "'Vote with your conscience,' indeed."

Numerous other theater artists recognized the same parallels. "It's Marc Antony, isn't it?" said the playwright Theresa Rebeck ("Seminar"). Of course, like others, she qualified the comparison. "I'm reluctant to compare Ted Cruz to Shakespeare; he doesn't have the vision of a Marc Antony, to my mind. Cruz is cunning, but his grab for power seems so personal."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/theater/ted-cruz-speech-rnc-shakespeare.html
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on August 30, 2016, 06:55:58 AM
I recently learned that Debussy's favorite play from Shakespeare was As You Like It, so much that he even briefly considered composing an opera about it. I have never read the play so can anyone tell me his/her opinions about this work? Is it among his finer plays?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on August 30, 2016, 07:24:09 AM
Quote from: Alberich on August 30, 2016, 06:55:58 AM
I recently learned that Debussy's favorite play from Shakespeare was As You Like It, so much that he even briefly considered composing an opera about it. I have never read the play so can anyone tell me his/her opinions about this work? Is it among his finer plays?

It most certainly is, in my opinion, and I'd place it among the Top Five comedies (along with Much Ado, the Dream, the Merchant, and 12th Night). It's a somewhat literary play at times, making much of the pastoral convention of contrasts between city and country, and some of its language is more obscure than usual even for Shakespeare. But it also has one of Shakespeare's most dynamic and compelling heroines in Rosalind, a thoroughly independent, spirited, and even feisty young woman who finds her man (the handsome if not-too-bright Orlando) and goes after him with single-minded devotion. I have no idea what Debussy would have done with it, but I suspect it wouldn't have emerged as particularly Shakespearean.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on September 18, 2016, 04:58:42 PM
Did anyone see the Almeida Theatre broadcast of Richard III with Ralph Feinnes in July - the one Drasco linked to upthread? We're getting it this coming Sunday, and as I'm on holiday for the next week it'll be one of the rare occasions when I can actually go.

(http://media.moviemanager.biz/movies/Almeida-Theatre-Live-Richard-III_32196_posterlarge.jpg)

Vanessa Redgrave as Margaret!

edit: I see there's also a RSC Cymbeline coming to parts of the world in a week's time, which we'll be getting next month:

(http://media.moviemanager.biz/movies/Rsc-Cymbeline_32211_posterlarge.jpg)

Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: NikF on September 25, 2016, 04:45:03 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on September 18, 2016, 04:58:42 PM

edit: I see there's also a RSC Cymbeline coming to parts of the world in a week's time, which we'll be getting next month:

(http://media.moviemanager.biz/movies/Rsc-Cymbeline_32211_posterlarge.jpg)

Are you going to go see it, Simon?  I have cinema tickets for it next week.
It's a play I know nothing about. Would anyone (poco?) like to offer any insight into it or point out anything I should be aware of?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on September 25, 2016, 05:47:31 PM
Quote from: NikF on September 25, 2016, 04:45:03 PM
Are you going to go see it, Simon?  I have cinema tickets for it next week.
It's a play I know nothing about. Would anyone (poco?) like to offer any insight into it or point out anything I should be aware of?

I do hope to see it when we get it four weeks from now, but its on a day I'm working and its usually hard to find someone to cover. I'll be very interested to hear what you think of it. Its not a play I know well enough to have developed strong feelings about how I like the staging or characters to be done, or to yet have favorite scenes, so I'm afraid I can't advise there. Poco doubtless knows it far better.

Saw the Feinnes Richard III yesterday, and on the whole thought it was very good, and a particularly strong cast. Feinnes wasn't a very subtle Richard, his swaying arguments were far more openly threatening than manipulatively seductive, but not so far that it was a deal-breaker. The male cast, the Clarence, the Hastings and especially the Buckingham spoke brilliantly and each presented quite distinct yet perfectly realized characterizations. The two young boys were even much better than average. The Lady Ann was maybe a bit shouty and one-paced, Vanessa Redgrave was an interesting take on Margaret, quiet and almost half-mad and clutching a toy baby (which was actually a bit distracting and should have been left out) rather than as the more familiar curse-thundering voice of doom. In addition I also especially liked the way the visitation of the ghosts was done near the end (am I mad, or is that often left out for some reason? looking back I can't remember that from a number of other productions or films?)

The stage itself was particularly interesting: the performance is bookended by modern-day exhuming of his skeleton from a dirt pit sunk into the stage, the play then takes place over a glass covering of this dig which is occasionally rolled back when someone needs to be executed into their own grave, including Richard himself at the end. Very minimal sets besides, just a few tables and lighting effects. Modern costume, but in a vaguely timeless and unobtrusive way (okay, the cell phones were a mistake).

In the chat with the director at the beginning he indicates that for him the Brexit situation makes the play particularly relevant. I'm not a native, but from where I'm sitting it seems that beyond "cynical people make a mess of things and cause division and chaos" there no obvious parallel, but I'm willing to be set straight about that.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: NikF on September 25, 2016, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on September 25, 2016, 05:47:31 PM
I do hope to see it when we get it four weeks from now, but its on a day I'm working and its usually hard to find someone to cover. I'll be very interested to hear what you think of it. Its not a play I know well enough to have developed strong feelings about how I like the staging or characters to be done, or to yet have favorite scenes, so I'm afraid I can't advise there. Poco doubtless knows it far better.

Saw the Feinnes Richard III yesterday, and on the whole thought it was very good, and a particularly strong cast. Feinnes wasn't a very subtle Richard, his swaying arguments were far more openly threatening than manipulatively seductive, but not so far that it was a deal-breaker. The male cast, the Clarence, the Hastings and especially the Buckingham spoke brilliantly and each presented quite distinct yet perfectly realized characterizations. The two young boys were even much better than average. The Lady Ann was maybe a bit shouty and one-paced, Vanessa Redgrave was an interesting take on Margaret, quiet and almost half-mad and clutching a toy baby (which was actually a bit distracting and should have been left out) rather than as the more familiar curse-thundering voice of doom. In addition I also especially liked the way the visitation of the ghosts was done near the end (am I mad, or is that often left out for some reason? looking back I can't remember that from a number of other productions or films?)

The stage itself was particularly interesting: the performance is bookended by modern-day exhuming of his skeleton from a dirt pit sunk into the stage, the play then takes place over a glass covering of this dig which is occasionally rolled back when someone needs to be executed into their own grave, including Richard himself at the end. Very minimal sets besides, just a few tables and lighting effects. Modern costume, but in a vaguely timeless and unobtrusive way (okay, the cell phones were a mistake).

In the chat with the director at the beginning he indicates that for him the Brexit situation makes the play particularly relevant. I'm not a native, but from where I'm sitting it seems that beyond "cynical people make a mess of things and cause division and chaos" there no obvious parallel, but I'm willing to be set straight about that.

I think one of the local cinemas was showing the stream of that Richard III. I can't remember now why I didn't go to see it, but from your description it doesn't seem to have been a great loss. Thanks for the detailed review though.
I hope you can arrange to see Cymbeline. As I said, I know nothing about it. I bought a copy of the play to read during a recent train journey, but I'm still wanting to try and equip myself as much as I can beforehand so I can hopefully appreciate what I'm going to see as much as possible.

e: just remembered that I've tickets for another of the live streams, this time 'The Tempest', featuring Simon Russell Beale. It's not until the first(?) week in January of next year though. You might already be aware of it, but if not (and if it suits your taste/schedule) it could be one to look out for.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: NikF on September 28, 2016, 03:07:24 PM
Early into this RSC production of Cymbeline, I found myself thinking of performances by various companies at the now absent Glasgow Mayfest or perhaps even the outer limits of the Edinburgh Fringe. That's not necessarily a bad thing though, because when a play is as wide and sprawling as this one there needs to be (amongst other things) an element of enthusiasm. And if in this case there were moments when it felt like that's all that was driving it forward, they were soon forgotten due to a number of good, spirited performances, including those by a couple of actors in their debut season.

Although I'm a relative newcomer to Shakespeare it was clear that this isn't the traditional fare and so maybe that's why I could enjoy it for what it was. However, during the interval there were clearly a number of those who being more informed donned furrowed brows as the impact of gender change to characters set in, along with the decision to portray European sophistication by including a musical number set in a disco.

Would I recommend it? It depends. I don't want to reduce any aspect of it to novelty, but there are definitely moments when the feeling of 'everything but the kitchen sink' was present. And I can imagine one or two too many liberties taken for some. But we were both glad we went to see it.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ken B on September 28, 2016, 06:38:01 PM
The one one of the "big" plays I have neither read nor seen is Henry IV. I keep getting close to reading it! but I am told that Prince Hal is a perfectly implausible character.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on September 28, 2016, 06:47:25 PM
Quote from: Ken B on September 28, 2016, 06:38:01 PM
The one one of the "big" plays I have neither read nor seen is Henry IV. I keep getting close to reading it! but I am told that Prince Hal is a perfectly implausible character.

Been some time since I read Hen.IV, but I never found Hal implausible.  He's  a young man who tries to both have his cake and eat it, too.  Plus he can't get on a stable footing with his father until it's too late.

People don't like Hal because of how rude he is to Falstaff at the end.  But that is because he knows he has to be king now.  A good actor can bring out things in that scene which Shakespeare left unsaid.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 01, 2016, 10:02:03 AM
Ken: The one one of the "big" plays I have neither read nor seen is Henry IV. I keep getting close to reading it! but I am told that Prince Hal is a perfectly implausible character.

Jeff: Been some time since I read Hen.IV, but I never found Hal implausible.  He's  a young man who tries to both have his cake and eat it, too.  Plus he can't get on a stable footing with his father until it's too late.

People don't like Hal because of how rude he is to Falstaff at the end.  But that is because he knows he has to be king now.  A good actor can bring out things in that scene which Shakespeare left unsaid.

=
There was a folklore tradition that Hal was a young wastrel who acquired maturity when he actually ascended the throne and had to take responsibility for the fate of his nation. (This, I submit, is what Donald Trump's followers would like to believe of him should disaster strike and he should actually ascend the throne; I fear they will be gravely disappointed should that be the case. After all, there are tweets about Miss Universe that have to be issued at 3 in the morning.)

But Hal makes abundantly clear from the beginning of Part I that he is putting on an act in consorting with Falstaff and his gang:

"I know you all, and will awhile uphold
The unyoked humour of your idleness:
Yet herein will I imitate the sun,
Who doth permit the base contagious clouds
To smother up his beauty from the world,
That, when he please again to be himself,
Being wanted, he may be more wonder'd at."

The play, however, also makes abundantly clear that he hugely enjoys the fat knight's company. He's a big kid; he wants to sow a few wild oats before assuming grave responsibility. Not so implausible. In fact a pretty common state of affairs among today's college kids who enjoy their share of parties and drinking before settling down to the drudgery of jobs and family. As for the banishment of Falstaff, it is inevitable and the fat knight's belief otherwise is only a symptom of Falstaff's blindness. In Henry V, the newly crowned king even goes so far as to execute one of Falstaff's followers, the red-nosed Bardolph, for robbing a French church. But there are strong hints even in the first part of Henry IV that Hal already has every intention of breaking with Falstaff once he is crowned king:

"FALSTAFF No, my good lord; banish Peto,
banish Bardolph, banish Poins: but for sweet Jack
Falstaff, kind Jack Falstaff, true Jack Falstaff,
valiant Jack Falstaff, and therefore more valiant, 1460
being, as he is, old Jack Falstaff, banish not him
thy Harry's company, banish not him thy Harry's
company: banish plump Jack, and banish all the world.

HAL. I do, I will."

So much for alleged implausibility. But Henry IV is major, major Shakespeare, easily one of his top dozen achievements with the greatest clown in all literature and other superb characterizations like Glendower and Hotspur, and to miss it just because of an imperceptive comment would be almost as much a shame as electing Donald Trump.

I highly recommend the Globe Theater DVDs starring Jamie Parker and Roger Allam.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 01, 2016, 10:36:40 AM
Quote from: NikF on September 25, 2016, 04:45:03 PM
Are you going to go see it, Simon?  I have cinema tickets for it next week.
It's a play I know nothing about. Would anyone (poco?) like to offer any insight into it or point out anything I should be aware of?

Sorry for the belated response. In my area I tend to get the Globe Theater and Branagh, the RSC not so often. Cymbeline as you no doubt sensed is (like the other late romances The Winter's Tale and Pericles) a strange and sprawling tale that always feels overlong and fell completely flat in one of the two live performances I have seen - while coming marvelously to life in a deeply cut, 6-character version by a little theater company in New York that was so good I saw it twice. Unfortunately for Actors' Equity reasons that production was never preserved, but it treated the play in a light, tongue-in-cheek manner that rather miraculously did away with all the play's longueurs and deficiencies. I think that out of those late romances (and I add the almost never performed Two Noble Kinsmen), the only total success is The Tempest, which succeeds in being beautiful, concise, strange, and in all the recent productions I've seen rather dreadfully performed. The biggest problem these days seems to be in trying to make Prospero an out-and-out villain because he owns a slave. (A pretty good version, while severely cut, can be found on YouTube from the 1960s before we all started being politically correct, and stars Maurice Evans as Prospero and Richard Burton of all people as Caliban.)

I keep trying with Shakespearean productions, and so often I am disappointed. My last was a Merchant of Venice from the Globe Theater with Jonathan Pryce as Shylock. I am convinced with this play in particular that directors when mounting it can't help asking "how can I fuck it up this time?" The politically correct crowd, unwilling to accept that Shylock is a villain who happens to be a Jew, not a Jew whose villainy can be excused away because of his Judaism, apparently can't believe that when Shylock says he is content to be converted at the end to Christianity he means just that - Judaism in Shylock's case not going very deep for a man whose real religions are vengeance and greed. In this Globe version we had Shylock's daughter Jessica at the end bawling Boruch atah Adonai (this despite her joyous eagerness earlier to become Christian in order to marry Lorenzo), and Shylock being baptized for a full five minutes of stage time to show us how badly the usurer has been treated - when in fact in Shakespeare's time the offer of conversion would be understood as a sign of generosity. None of this baptism crap is in the play of course, but why should any of that matter when it's much more fun to fuck the play up and suggest implications that have no basis whatsoever in the text?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on October 01, 2016, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 01, 2016, 10:36:40 AM
None of this baptism crap is in the play of course, but why should any of that matter when it's much more fun to fuck the play up and suggest implications that have no basis whatsoever in the text?

Well, in stage works there is always room for interpretation. And somehow I have gotten an impression of you being of the opinion that text should not necessarily be taken at face value, in our conversations about what Shakespeare may have intended. For all we know he could have secretly wanted an hour long baptism scene added with no dialogue and may have sympathized enormously with Shylock, even though he probably wouldn't have talked about his sympathies out loud in late 1500s England. Personally, while I am more on Shylock's side than Antonio's, I acknowledge that Shylock is a villain but that it is not all what his character is about, that there are mitigating factors about his actions and redeeming aspects in his character, for ex. the ring that he got from his wife and which Jessica stole, seems to have more value to Shylock in the sense that it is a memento from his wife, not because of how many ducats it may be worth. I have hard time rooting 100 % for anyone in that play, the cast is so unpleasant altogether. Shylock has his positive qualities but the reason I am on his side may also have something to do with him having most of the best lines in the work.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 01, 2016, 01:07:31 PM
Quote from: Alberich on October 01, 2016, 11:09:24 AM
Well, in stage works there is always room for interpretation. And somehow I have gotten an impression of you being of the opinion that text should not necessarily be taken at face value, in our conversations about what Shakespeare may have intended. For all we know he could have secretly wanted an hour long baptism scene added with no dialogue and may have sympathized enormously with Shylock, even though he probably wouldn't have talked about his sympathies out loud in late 1500s England. Personally, while I am more on Shylock's side than Antonio's, I acknowledge that Shylock is a villain but that it is not all what his character is about, that there are mitigating factors about his actions and redeeming aspects in his character, for ex. the ring that he got from his wife and which Jessica stole, seems to have more value to Shylock in the sense that it is a memento from his wife, not because of how many ducats it may be worth. I have hard time rooting 100 % for anyone in that play, the cast is so unpleasant altogether. Shylock has his positive qualities but the reason I am on his side may also have something to do with him having most of the best lines in the work.

Your last sentence reminds me of Blake's comment about Paradise Lost: 'The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels and God, and at liberty when of Devils and Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it'. True, the villain often gets the best lines: Iago. Edmund. Goneril. Regan. Richard III. That doesn't make them any less a villain. No doubt there are some mitigating factors to Shylock's behavior: yes, he was robbed; yes, apparently he cared for that ring and his remembrances of Leah. But let's not forget that he also sought Antonio's life, knowing full well that to exact his pound of flesh would be murder. That seems even of a different and more villainous order than Antonio's spitting at him (the details of which we never see).

As for your comment, "For all we know he could have secretly wanted an hour long baptism scene added with no dialogue and may have sympathized enormously with Shylock, even though he probably wouldn't have talked about his sympathies out loud in late 1500s England," that is made up purely from whole cloth. We don't know Shakespeare's "intentions," if by intentions we mean how he would have explained his ideas for the play, and even if he had stated those ideas they wouldn't necessarily be the last word on the subject, however interesting. But in interpreting a text, we have to remain within the boundaries of the text, and not just make up things like a baptism scene that have no basis in the text. Surely Shakespeare could have added such a scene had he thought it justified or necessary.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on October 01, 2016, 01:36:03 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 01, 2016, 01:07:31 PM
Your last sentence reminds me of Blake's comment about Paradise Lost: 'The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels and God, and at liberty when of Devils and Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it'. True, the villain often gets the best lines: Iago. Edmund. Goneril. Regan. Richard III. That doesn't make them any less a villain. No doubt there are some mitigating factors to Shylock's behavior: yes, he was robbed; yes, apparently he cared for that ring and his remembrances of Leah. But let's not forget that he also sought Antonio's life, knowing full well that to exact his pound of flesh would be murder. That seems even of a different and more villainous order than Antonio's spitting at him (the details of which we never see).

As for your comment, "For all we know he could have secretly wanted an hour long baptism scene added with no dialogue and may have sympathized enormously with Shylock, even though he probably wouldn't have talked about his sympathies out loud in late 1500s England," that is made up purely from whole cloth. We don't know Shakespeare's "intentions," if by intentions we mean how he would have explained his ideas for the play, and even if he had stated those ideas they wouldn't necessarily be the last word on the subject, however interesting. But in interpreting a text, we have to remain within the boundaries of the text, and not just make up things like a baptism scene that have no basis in the text. Surely Shakespeare could have added such a scene had he thought it justified or necessary.

I didn't mean that having the best lines lessens the villainy in any way. Also I am not sure if in this case Shylock's action could even be classified as murder since Shylock clearly does it through the law. No, doesn't make it less bad but quite frankly, I do despise Antonio more and I blame at least as much the idiots who allowed extracting a pound of flesh from a human being be legal in the first place. Maybe they were happy with extracting pounds of flesh from men as long as it wasn't a Jew who did it to a Christian. I'm perfectly fine with adding something that has no basis in the text, at least as long as it doesn't completely mutilate the play unrecognizable. From what I gather about your telling about this drawn out baptism, it doesn't sound like anything that would do that. You may think anything that doesn't "remain within the boundaries of the text" is instant no-no. I don't, and judging from many productions like that, I am not the only one. And no, considering Shakespeare lived in very anti-semitic time period, he would have in worst case lost his head or some crap if he would have made explicit his possible sympathies towards Shylock so he couldn't have done that.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ken B on October 01, 2016, 01:45:00 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 01, 2016, 01:07:31 PM
Your last sentence reminds me of Blake's comment about Paradise Lost: 'The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels and God, and at liberty when of Devils and Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it'. True, the villain often gets the best lines: Iago. Edmund. Goneril. Regan. Richard III. That doesn't make them any less a villain. No doubt there are some mitigating factors to Shylock's behavior: yes, he was robbed; yes, apparently he cared for that ring and his remembrances of Leah. But let's not forget that he also sought Antonio's life, knowing full well that to exact his pound of flesh would be murder. That seems even of a different and more villainous order than Antonio's spitting at him (the details of which we never see).

As for your comment, "For all we know he could have secretly wanted an hour long baptism scene added with no dialogue and may have sympathized enormously with Shylock, even though he probably wouldn't have talked about his sympathies out loud in late 1500s England," that is made up purely from whole cloth. We don't know Shakespeare's "intentions," if by intentions we mean how he would have explained his ideas for the play, and even if he had stated those ideas they wouldn't necessarily be the last word on the subject, however interesting. But in interpreting a text, we have to remain within the boundaries of the text, and not just make up things like a baptism scene that have no basis in the text. Surely Shakespeare could have added such a scene had he thought it justified or necessary.

+1

I too despair of most productions. Stratford for decades had what I call the "Stratford shouting disease". It's getting better, but still suffers from "we must be transgressive" disease, where being "transgressive" really means repeating the shibboleths and nostrums of your class. I usually prefer to read Shakespeare.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 01, 2016, 02:47:02 PM
Quote from: Alberich on October 01, 2016, 01:36:03 PM
I didn't mean that having the best lines lessens the villainy in any way. Also I am not sure if in this case Shylock's action could even be classified as murder since Shylock clearly does it through the law.

No, he doesn't, and the play is quite clear about that:

PORTIA
Therefore prepare thee to cut off the flesh.
Shed thou no blood, nor cut thou less nor more
But just a pound of flesh: if thou cut'st more
Or less than a just pound, be it but so much
As makes it light or heavy in the substance,
Or the division of the twentieth part
Of one poor scruple, nay, if the scale do turn
But in the estimation of a hair,
Thou diest and all thy goods are confiscate.

PORTIA
Tarry, Jew:
The law hath yet another hold on you.
It is enacted in the laws of Venice,
If it be proved against an alien [presumably Shylock as a Jew is not a Venetian citizen]
That by direct or indirect attempts
He seek the life of any citizen,
The party 'gainst the which he doth contrive
Shall seize one half his goods; the other half
Comes to the privy coffer of the state;
And the offender's life lies in the mercy
Of the duke only, 'gainst all other voice.
In which predicament, I say, thou stand'st;
For it appears, by manifest proceeding,
That indirectly and directly too
Thou hast contrived against the very life
Of the defendant; and thou hast incurr'd
The danger formerly by me rehearsed.

IOW: Unquestionably Shylock intends murder. Exactly why you despise Antonio more is beyond me, as you provide no reasons. Nor do you provide any basis for Shakespeare's alleged sympathies towards Shylock. Anti-Semitism was not in fact a highly charged matter in Elizabethan England, as the Jews had been banned from that country in 1290 and were not allowed to return until after Shakespeare's death during the Puritan Insurrection. It's nothing like the anti-Semitism found in Nazi Germany. And I submit that the manufactured baptism scene is indeed a mutilation, designed to give unknowing audiences the feeling that something like that is present in Shakespeare. It isn't.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on October 01, 2016, 03:15:59 PM
Poco: Not really arguing, just curious:

What do you think of something like the child burial scene at the start of the recent film of Macbeth, and the way its made to colour the motivations of the two leads?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 01, 2016, 04:02:38 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 01, 2016, 03:15:59 PM
Poco: Not really arguing, just curious:

What do you think of something like the child burial scene at the start of the recent film of Macbeth, and the way its made to colour the motivations of the two leads?

Haven't seen the film, but I question the relevance. Lady M says she has given suck, and later in the play we are told MacB has no children. Don't know if that means a little MacB died along the way, but I tend to think that if that were important, Shakespeare would have made more of it (rather than a fleeting reference that is glossed over so quickly as to barely register on the audience). Isn't it enough to find ambition and a desire to reign as motivation for their actions?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on October 01, 2016, 04:13:15 PM
I better warn you then that that probably wouldn't even make the top 5 of "liberties taken" in that film, though its interesting in a number of other ways, and I'd be interested in your take if and when you see it. Ordinarily I'd be suspicious of these devices, but the dead child bit at the start was I thought well handled in the context of what follows, especially as I usually find the leap to power-lust over hasty in the play (almost instantaneous in most productions), and having it appear as more hollowed-out apathy and a grief-addled morality and resentment for those with still-living children went in this instance some way to tempering that.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 01, 2016, 05:39:06 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 01, 2016, 04:13:15 PM
I better warn you then that that probably wouldn't even make the top 5 of "liberties taken" in that film, though its interesting in a number of other ways, and I'd be interested in your take if and when you see it. Ordinarily I'd be suspicious of these devices, but the dead child bit at the start was I thought well handled in the context of what follows, especially as I usually find the leap to power-lust over hasty in the play (almost instantaneous in most productions), and having it appear as more hollowed-out apathy and a grief-addled morality and resentment for those with still-living children went in this instance some way to tempering that.

I would be more impressed if the few references to children by MacB and Lady bore more relevance to that argument. As for Lady M's speech, it refers not to grief over a dead child but to her shocking claim that she would sooner commit violent infanticide than display the kind of cowardice she perceives in Macbeth at that moment:

I have given suck, and know
How tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me.
I would, while it was smiling in my face,
Have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums
And dashed the brains out, had I so sworn as you
Have done to this.

Otherwise the only allusion to children may be Macbeth's jealousy over Banquo's surviving issue, but on the whole the idea seems to me to be clutching at straws.

Part of the problem with your sense of the pacing may well be that the surviving text (which only comes down to us in the First Folio) may be a shorter acting version of what Shakespeare actually wrote. There's a very interesting (and I believe persuasive) theory by Lukas Erne that the plays were both presented in shorter acting versions of about 2.5 hours maximum, and published in longer reading editions that opened up all cuts made for performance. This might account for the shorter quartos of Hamlet, Romeo, and Henry V, as well as the brevity of Macbeth - and also for the great length of "uncut" plays like Richard III and Hamlet.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on October 01, 2016, 08:28:09 PM
Poco, you do realize you give an impression of having unbearably smug attitude in trying to force your opinions down my throat and almost implying that I am insane in thinking the way I do? This isn't the first time you've done so, either. It is useless to argue about this till the end of the world. Shylock INTENDED to carry it through the law. The instant he is told that you can only extract flesh and not blood, otherwise it is a crime, Shylock tries to back down, but then they tell him he has already committed a crime even though he thought he was doing it through the law. Until that point is mentioned, no-one suggested Shylock's action was against the law or they would not have allowed Shylock to try take Antonio's flesh in the first place. I despise Antonio more because I find him more unpleasant, though not necessarily more "evil". Considering the abuse Shylock takes in the play, I am surprised why he didn't do anything worse than trying to kill Antonio.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 02, 2016, 02:37:38 AM
Quote from: Alberich on October 01, 2016, 08:28:09 PM
Poco, you do realize you give an impression of having unbearably smug attitude in trying to force your opinions down my throat and almost implying that I am insane in thinking the way I do?

If you want to make this a personal attack rather than a discussion of the evidence, then I don't wish to answer you.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: NikF on October 10, 2016, 04:04:07 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 01, 2016, 10:36:40 AM
Sorry for the belated response. In my area I tend to get the Globe Theater and Branagh, the RSC not so often. Cymbeline as you no doubt sensed is (like the other late romances The Winter's Tale and Pericles) a strange and sprawling tale that always feels overlong and fell completely flat in one of the two live performances I have seen - while coming marvelously to life in a deeply cut, 6-character version by a little theater company in New York that was so good I saw it twice. Unfortunately for Actors' Equity reasons that production was never preserved, but it treated the play in a light, tongue-in-cheek manner that rather miraculously did away with all the play's longueurs and deficiencies. I think that out of those late romances (and I add the almost never performed Two Noble Kinsmen), the only total success is The Tempest, which succeeds in being beautiful, concise, strange, and in all the recent productions I've seen rather dreadfully performed. The biggest problem these days seems to be in trying to make Prospero an out-and-out villain because he owns a slave. (A pretty good version, while severely cut, can be found on YouTube from the 1960s before we all started being politically correct, and stars Maurice Evans as Prospero and Richard Burton of all people as Caliban.)

I keep trying with Shakespearean productions, and so often I am disappointed. My last was a Merchant of Venice from the Globe Theater with Jonathan Pryce as Shylock. I am convinced with this play in particular that directors when mounting it can't help asking "how can I fuck it up this time?" The politically correct crowd, unwilling to accept that Shylock is a villain who happens to be a Jew, not a Jew whose villainy can be excused away because of his Judaism, apparently can't believe that when Shylock says he is content to be converted at the end to Christianity he means just that - Judaism in Shylock's case not going very deep for a man whose real religions are vengeance and greed. In this Globe version we had Shylock's daughter Jessica at the end bawling Boruch atah Adonai (this despite her joyous eagerness earlier to become Christian in order to marry Lorenzo), and Shylock being baptized for a full five minutes of stage time to show us how badly the usurer has been treated - when in fact in Shakespeare's time the offer of conversion would be understood as a sign of generosity. None of this baptism crap is in the play of course, but why should any of that matter when it's much more fun to fuck the play up and suggest implications that have no basis whatsoever in the text?

No problem.
Yeah, with hindsight Cymbeline was indeed sprawling. Perhaps the interpretation by the director hid that a little from me. Or maybe it's simply down to my lack of knowledge of Shakespeare. Still, every production I see expands my frame of reference a little, which I'm sure will serve me well in the future. And on that note, thanks for your thoughts and insights. All of it is useful and interesting for me.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on October 10, 2016, 06:37:08 AM
What do you guys think of Timon of Athens? I regard it as one of Bill's hidden gems. Sure there is much of what is unfinished but it doesn't really bother me. I actually prefer it to King Lear, which it resembles in many aspects. Of course there is much in Lear too that I enjoy but I would also call it the only one of the four major tragedies that I don't unconditionally worship, unlike the other three.

IIRC, Timon was Karl Marx's favorite work by Shakespeare.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on October 13, 2016, 10:21:25 AM
Quote from: Alberich on October 10, 2016, 06:37:08 AM
What do you guys think of Timon of Athens? I regard it as one of Bill's hidden gems. Sure there is much of what is unfinished but it doesn't really bother me. I actually prefer it to King Lear, which it resembles in many aspects. Of course there is much in Lear too that I enjoy but I would also call it the only one of the four major tragedies that I don't unconditionally worship, unlike the other three.

IIRC, Timon was Karl Marx's favorite work by Shakespeare.

I have seen Timon only once and read it but a few times. Although "unfinished" is a term often applied to the play, just what that means is hard to say: it is a coherent whole, but not in my opinion a very nuanced one: basically Timon spends the first half of the play as a total altruist; then he becomes disillusioned by his "friends" and turns into a total misanthrope. During this latter half he takes refuge in a cave and is visited by several people, ranting against humankind in a manner that would make Lear look like a pussycat, but nothing actually happens in the play otherwise. It feels dramatically very static, and does not play well on stage. I would call it less an "unfinished" work than one where Shakespeare had written himself into a corner and couldn't develop a promising tragic plot.

What Marx saw in it I don't know, but apparently he was relating to it more in terms of Timon's rants about the power of money than dealing with it as a dramatic work. That said, there was one major Shakespearean critic, G. Wilson Knight, saw it as having "universal tragic significance," perhaps as an expression of man's inhumanity to man, though I don't have his essay at hand right now. For me, the problem remains that in this play I never feel (as I do with Lear, Macbeth, or Othello) what Wilson Knight himself says in a statement that Camille Paglia considers the "most brilliant thing ever said about Shakespeare's plays": "In such poetry we are aware less of any surface than of a turbulent power, a heave and swell, from deeps beyond verbal definition; and, as the thing progresses, a gathering of power, a ninth wave of passion, an increase in tempo and intensity."

I'm sure my buddy Alberich has noted his objections to King Lear before, but I don't share them; even in somewhat less than great productions (and I've seen the play easily a dozen times), I still feel its overwhelming power. But however the Big Four (H, O, KL, and MB) are customarily grouped, I would unquestionably add Antony and Cleopatra as their equal, and if I had to nominate a "hidden gem," it would have to be that rarely staged, strange, and austere political play Coriolanus – which actually is getting a production in New York this fall.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Brian on November 09, 2016, 10:44:22 AM
"Wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile;
Filths savour but themselves..."
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 09, 2016, 02:01:22 PM
Quote from: Brian on November 09, 2016, 10:44:22 AM
"Wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile;
Filths savour but themselves..."

Very apropos.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: NikF on January 11, 2017, 02:07:20 PM
I finally got to see The Tempest (albeit via live broadcast to a cinema) and it was worth the wait. While a positive fuss was made in the press about the real-time motion capture and effects provided by Intel and Imaginarium, the performance by Simon Russell Beale as Prospero still came through with depth and sensitivity. Good stuff.

https://www.rsc.org.uk/the-tempest/about-the-play (https://www.rsc.org.uk/the-tempest/about-the-play)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: kishnevi on January 14, 2017, 11:51:47 AM
(http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2017/01/Shakespeare-Insult-Kit.jpeg)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Jaakko Keskinen on June 19, 2017, 05:54:56 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 13, 2016, 10:21:25 AM
it is a coherent whole, but not in my opinion a very nuanced one: basically Timon spends the first half of the play as a total altruist; then he becomes disillusioned by his "friends" and turns into a total misanthrope.

Although that can be argued to be the whole point of the play. At least Apemantus explicitly calls Timon out for his jumping from one extremity to another:

"The middle of humanity thou never knewest, but the
extremity of both ends: when thou wast in thy gilt
and thy perfume, they mocked thee for too much
curiosity; in thy rags thou knowest none, but art
despised for the contrary."


Thus the play could be seen as a study of unpleasant consequences of extremist views in general.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on March 03, 2019, 12:35:36 AM
Just learned there's a King Lear with Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Emily Watson et al I wasn't aware of, which came out last year:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/King_Lear_%282018_film%29.jpg/250px-King_Lear_%282018_film%29.jpg)

also: there was a Shakespeare live with Roy Kinnear as Hamlet. Did anyone see either of these?

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ5NzRo-XwF_D7AWBygOvIV4TCT_8FYgN6fRRIgv--H72zoIRyt)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on April 07, 2019, 02:32:26 AM
Was worried that there wasn't going to be any Shakespeare Live at the theatres this year, but see now there is a Anthony And Cleopatra with Ralph Feinnes and Sophie Okonedo here in may and a Richard II with Simon Russell Beale in June. They seem to have screened overseas already. Anyone catch them?

(https://d32qys9a6wm9no.cloudfront.net/images/movies/poster/25/dbff42a71d49c151574586429a3665e7_500x735.jpg?t=1541639471) (https://d32qys9a6wm9no.cloudfront.net/images/movies/poster/d3/6adbbfd643b843c7b5fb6b6945ba9719_500x735.jpg?t=1547479056)

I know it shouldn't matter, but...the historical Richard II died at age 32 and introduced an era of dandyism to English fashion, so SRB is an odd casting choice.

Can't fault the casting of A&C, and am really excited.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vandermolen on April 07, 2019, 10:49:21 AM
I recently really enjoyed 'The Tempest' ( film version) with Helen Mirren as 'Prospera' and Ben Whishaw as Ariel. I found it very moving with good music etc:
(//)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on April 07, 2019, 10:52:54 AM
Quote from: vandermolen on April 07, 2019, 10:49:21 AM
I recently really enjoyed 'The Tempest' ( film version) with Helen Mirren as 'Prospera' and Ben Whishaw as Ariel. I found it very moving with good music etc:
(//)


Interesting, thanks!
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Mandryka on April 07, 2019, 10:00:37 PM
Quote from: vandermolen on April 07, 2019, 10:49:21 AM
I recently really enjoyed 'The Tempest' ( film version) with Helen Mirren as 'Prospera' and Ben Whishaw as Ariel. I found it very moving with good music etc:
(//)

There's an amazing filmed Tempest by Derek Jarman.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Mandryka on April 07, 2019, 10:01:15 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on April 07, 2019, 02:32:26 AM
Was worried that there wasn't going to be any Shakespeare Live at the theatres this year, but see now there is a Anthony And Cleopatra with Ralph Feinnes and Sophie Okonedo here in may and a Richard II with Simon Russell Beale in June. They seem to have screened overseas already. Anyone catch them?

(https://d32qys9a6wm9no.cloudfront.net/images/movies/poster/25/dbff42a71d49c151574586429a3665e7_500x735.jpg?t=1541639471) (https://d32qys9a6wm9no.cloudfront.net/images/movies/poster/d3/6adbbfd643b843c7b5fb6b6945ba9719_500x735.jpg?t=1547479056)


I know it shouldn't matter, but...the historical Richard II died at age 32 and introduced an era of dandyism to English fashion, so SRB is an odd casting choice.

Can't fault the casting of A&C, and am really excited.

Yes I saw both and enjoyed both. (I'd never read or seen Anthony and Cleopatra before, my first encounter with the play, apart from the bit in The Wastelands (or is it Four Quartets?).)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on April 07, 2019, 10:20:50 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on April 07, 2019, 10:01:15 PM
Yes I saw both and enjoyed both. (I'd never read or seen Anthony and Cleopatra before, my first encounter with the play, apart from the bit in The Wastelands (or is it Four Quartets?).)

Good to hear, thanks. Curiously Anthony and Cleopatra was the first Shakespeare I saw live, and a production of Richard II some years back was instrumental in rekindling my appetite.

Had to google the Eliot reference. Didn't think it was going to be Four Quartets, which I know and love much more than the Waste Land:

"Four plays inhabit the imagination of The Waste Land with particular presence: Antony and Cleopatra, Hamlet, Coriolanus and The Tempest. The ancient clash of empires which shapes the erotic tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra anticipates the poem's modern interweaving of European war and personal catastrophe, a parallel which the opening lines of Part 2 brings to the surface: the faltering rhythm of 'The Chair she sat in, like a burnished throne', mishears Enobarbus's great description of Cleopatra on her sumptuous royal barge (not 'Chair'), offering a depleted Cleopatra for diminished times. Much of the poem is preoccupied with suffering of a specifically female kind, and if the archetype of Cleopatra involves a downfall that is at least partly the work of her own hands, then the death and madness of Ophelia, from Hamlet, is more unmitigatedly a portrait of victimhood."
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vandermolen on April 08, 2019, 11:38:26 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 07, 2019, 10:52:54 AM
Interesting, thanks!
Well worth checking out Karl. I was initially sniffy about the idea of a female Prospero but thought that it worked brilliantly and I thought that Helen Mirren and Ben Whishaw were terrific in their respective roles.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Iota on April 08, 2019, 03:00:04 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on April 07, 2019, 10:00:37 PM
There's an amazing filmed Tempest by Derek Jarman.

Quote from: vandermolen on April 08, 2019, 11:38:26 AM
Well worth checking out Karl. I was initially sniffy about the idea of a female Prospero but thought that it worked brilliantly and I thought that Helen Mirren and Ben Whishaw were terrific in their respective roles.

Both sound very inviting. Thanks for mentioning!
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vandermolen on May 18, 2019, 01:02:07 AM
Tonight I'm going to see an open air production of 12th Night in Chilham, Kent. Looking forward to it.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Mandryka on May 18, 2019, 11:56:21 PM
Quote from: vandermolen on May 18, 2019, 01:02:07 AM
Tonight I'm going to see an open air production of 12th Night in Chilham, Kent. Looking forward to it.

Hope it doesn't rain.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vandermolen on May 19, 2019, 01:06:16 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on May 18, 2019, 11:56:21 PM
Hope it doesn't rain.
Thanks, weather was fine. We were lucky and performance was in a beautiful landscape setting.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Mandryka on May 19, 2019, 09:57:48 AM
Quote from: vandermolen on May 19, 2019, 01:06:16 AM
Thanks, weather was fine. We were lucky and performance was in a beautiful landscape setting.

When that happens it can be a fabulous thing to do. 12th nights such a hoot, with all those yellow garters or whatever it is.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vandermolen on May 19, 2019, 10:17:22 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on May 19, 2019, 09:57:48 AM
When that happens it can be a fabulous thing to do. 12th nights such a hoot, with all those yellow garters or whatever it is.
That's right. It was very well acted by the young cast who were also talented musicians and singers.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on May 20, 2019, 04:08:38 PM
Quote from: Mandryka on May 18, 2019, 11:56:21 PM
Hope it doesn't rain.

"For the rain it raineth every day.:

- the fool in Twelfth Night.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on May 26, 2019, 05:56:08 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on April 07, 2019, 02:32:26 AM

(https://d32qys9a6wm9no.cloudfront.net/images/movies/poster/25/dbff42a71d49c151574586429a3665e7_500x735.jpg?t=1541639471)

Saw this earlier today and mixed feelings at best, but still worthwhile.

Far far far too much, especially in the first half ,was given a humorous interpretation and played for laughs, which detracted tome and again from the depth of the characterization and made everything frivolous. Likewise having Enobarbus played as a drunk. The two leads shout their lines at each other (I know this is theater and they have to reach the back row, but still) which robs scenes of not only subtlety, but also romance. Shakespeare's Cleopatra is a hard role to pull off without leaving the viewer wondering what her famous lovers saw in her - it is there in the text if played carefully - and much as I often admire Sophie Okonedo, this one was warped by bad directorial decisions.

The costumes and very creative staging are justly praised.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on May 26, 2019, 11:48:52 PM
Reading John Dover-Wilson's introduction and notes for the edition of A&C I have I learn for the first time that "gypsy" is a corruption of "Egyptian".

...along with quite a bit of other information, of course.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Mandryka on February 23, 2021, 10:37:12 AM
What do you all make of this sort of thing?

https://www.youtube.com/v/EQsOnJ6kFmo&ab_channel=GavinBryarsEnsemble-Topic
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on April 16, 2022, 08:09:41 PM
Looking for something else I came across this striking poster for Measure For Measure:

(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.9283afb8aae934f743ee46e132fb50ad?rik=dvhDV04pXRkVNg&riu=http%3a%2f%2fimageweb-cdn.magnoliasoft.net%2fshakespeare%2fsupersize%2f806421.jpg&ehk=Ym1EVmEUp5n46C8ofndBCrII%2bUbOW2%2fw74yn1wvKhCs%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Rosalba on April 23, 2022, 07:27:56 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on May 26, 2019, 05:56:08 AM
Saw this earlier today and mixed feelings at best, but still worthwhile.

Far far far too much, especially in the first half ,was given a humorous interpretation and played for laughs, which detracted tome and again from the depth of the characterization and made everything frivolous. Likewise having Enobarbus played as a drunk. The two leads shout their lines at each other (I know this is theater and they have to reach the back row, but still) which robs scenes of not only subtlety, but also romance. Shakespeare's Cleopatra is a hard role to pull off without leaving the viewer wondering what her famous lovers saw in her - it is there in the text if played carefully - and much as I often admire Sophie Okonedo, this one was warped by bad directorial decisions.

The costumes and very creative staging are justly praised.

I can't imagine that a shouting Cleopatra would be in the least bit seductive! :)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on April 23, 2022, 07:25:10 PM
And yet...National Theatre Live broadcasts are among the things I've missed most over the last two years.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Rosalba on April 24, 2022, 10:32:57 AM
Yes - it's not as if there are limitless opportunities to watch Shakespeare acted. And even not-quite-right performances give pause for thought.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on July 31, 2022, 12:23:06 AM
(https://dx35vtwkllhj9.cloudfront.net/nationaltheatrelive/henry-v/images/regions/intl/share.png)

Finally...this Henry V production with Kit Harrington set to screen in 3 weeks time.

I don't care if the reviews are a little mixed (and anyway I usually come out of these or local performances weighing strengths and weaknesses).
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on December 25, 2022, 07:09:11 PM
*bump*

Found a couple of interesting douumentaries about two very different NY Shakespeare In The Park productions:

The first with Meryl Street and Raoul Julia performing Taming Of The Shrew in 1978. Some backstage banter, but long stretches of the actual performance, which is fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH9FsjtBLSI

The second about the 1982 Hamlet with a very young Diane Venora being cast androginously in the lead role. Mostly rehearsal scenes with a few bits of the actual performance. Fascinating, but based on this alone I'm unconvinced by the casting: her youth and inexperience has her making the role no more than a copy of her own personality and attitude. But, again, fascinating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J91NCqSdHXY
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on January 07, 2023, 03:25:32 PM
Looking for something else I learn that Daniel Craig has done Macbeth at least a couple of times now:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/01/0d/69/010d69ce2c182b9104487caf2c21082d.jpg) (https://stageandcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/macbeth-broadway.jpg)

Also this performance I hadn't heard about before:

(https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.eoWGbtfcpK03Q34sjq-xbgAAAA?pid=ImgDet&rs=1)


In other Shakespeare news I'll be driving/ferrying up to Wellington to see The Tempest in five weeks time:

(https://cdn.eventfinda.co.nz/uploads/events/transformed/1799020-777656-35.png)


tap.tap.tap...is this thing on?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on December 09, 2023, 11:44:07 AM
Here's a great conversation on The Bard streamed earlier today, where the panel skirts around the subject of the "contemporary" quality of Shakespeare:

Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on December 09, 2023, 02:53:08 PM
Quote from: ando on December 09, 2023, 11:44:07 AMHere's a great conversation on The Bard streamed earlier today, where the panel skirts around the subject of the "contemporary" quality of Shakespeare:


Thanks for that.

Coincidentally I was looking at a copy of the Jan Kott book just a couple of days ago thinking I really need to get to it.

(https://covers.openlibrary.org/b/id/9735099-L.jpg)


In other news: hoping to get up to Auckland in February to see Midsummer Nights Dream and Measure For Measure, which the same company are playing on alternating nights.

Only seen Measure live once before and it was a some night say questionable production that cranked the comedy up to 11, and had the disguised Duke deliver all his lines in a southern holy-roller tent-meeting voice, ending all his musings to the audience with "Can I get an amen!".

And the play ended not with a question left hanging but with Isabella saying "Ah, bugger it".
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on December 10, 2023, 08:47:14 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 09, 2023, 02:53:08 PMOnly seen Measure live once before and it was a some night say questionable production that cranked the comedy up to 11, and had the disguised Duke deliver all his lines in a southern holy-roller tent-meeting voice, ending all his musings to the audience with "Can I get an amen!".
Haha. Speaking of amen moments, I saw a production of Measure "in the park" (at NYC's Dealcourt Theater) where the actress playing Isabella asked the audience who would believe her complaint of Angelo's indecent proposal, whereupon some lady shouted, "Nobody, girl!"
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vers la flamme on December 14, 2023, 08:27:10 AM
Reading Hamlet for the first time. So far, so good.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on December 14, 2023, 09:16:24 AM
Quote from: vers la flamme on December 14, 2023, 08:27:10 AMReading Hamlet for the first time. So far, so good.
To borrow a phrase from Jeeves: I believe it has given general satisfaction, sir.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vers la flamme on December 14, 2023, 11:04:51 AM
Quote from: Karl Henning on December 14, 2023, 09:16:24 AMTo borrow a phrase from Jeeves: I believe it has given general satisfaction, sir.

Indeed it has ;D Not sure what took me so long to get around to it, as I've read and enjoyed certain other Shakespeare plays. 
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ritter on December 14, 2023, 11:36:45 AM
I've never understood what Hamlet's problem is! I just think that what the kid needs is a proper good slapping to pull himself together...  ::) 
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on December 14, 2023, 12:55:37 PM
Quote from: ritter on December 14, 2023, 11:36:45 AMI've never understood what Hamlet's problem is! I just think that what the kid needs is a proper good slapping to pull himself together...  ::) 
I may have posted this before, but the classic observation is: if Hamlet and Othello traded protagonists, there would be no play in either case. The Dane would have waited and learnt that Desdemona was innocent, and the hot- blooded Moor would not have hesitated to dispatch Claudius. 
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 14, 2023, 02:01:03 PM
Quote from: vers la flamme on December 14, 2023, 08:27:10 AMReading Hamlet for the first time. So far, so good.

Spoiler: he kills the king.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vers la flamme on December 14, 2023, 02:39:04 PM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 14, 2023, 02:01:03 PMSpoiler: he kills the king.

Bro...  >:(

Edit: Finished, and onto Othello. Prior to this, the only Shakespeare I'd read is the Henry VI trilogy + Richard III, A Comedy of Errors, and Titus Andronicus. As to why I picked these random plays to start with, I used to have a fat paperback containing his complete works, and they were presented in this order, and I stopped here. I loved them all but somehow never made it around to the more famous ones. (I did also read Romeo & Juliet for school.)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Mandryka on December 15, 2023, 08:21:30 AM
Quote from: vers la flamme on December 14, 2023, 02:39:04 PMFinished, 

What's it about then?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vers la flamme on December 15, 2023, 08:36:46 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on December 15, 2023, 08:21:30 AMWhat's it about then?

No idea, to be honest. Why did Hamlet send Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths? Was it inevitable that it all ended in such a bloodbath, or was that just the result of everyone's scheme's backfiring at once? Was the ghost the real deal or some shared hallucination? What is the meaning of Horatio's character? Pretty complex stuff, well beyond my limited intellectual scope, especially as I didn't know the meaning of every tenth word or so. But I did very much enjoy certain scenes from the play: Hamlet and the gravedigger, Hamlet's famous soliloquy musing on suicide, the play within the play, etc.

What is it about anyway? After finishing, I wonder how it ever got as popular as it did, considering its complexity and strangeness.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Mandryka on December 15, 2023, 09:12:52 AM
Hamlet changed my life. I was 17 and a maths specialist. My school insisted that even maths geeks do a couple of hours a week of Literature. The teacher we had was brilliant - I remember we read Tamburlain, The Changeling and Hamlet and he put me onto a book which I still have called Hamlet and the Philosophy of Literary Criticism by Maurice Weitz. And that was it, I was hooked. I persuaded the school to let me study maths and English instead of Maths and Physics - when I went to university I read Maths and Philosophy.

This stuff stays with you all your life. In January this year I noticed a mole which mysteriously appeared on my arm. False alarm, it was a wart, but there was a period of about a week when I diagnosed myself on google and, of course, convinced myself that I had an aggressive malignant cancer of the worst kind. Nasty painful death soon. And suddenly these words of Hamlet's went round and round in my head

. . . If it be now,
'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be
now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the
readiness is all: since no man has aught of what he
leaves, what is't to leave betimes?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vers la flamme on December 18, 2023, 07:46:50 AM
Reading King Lear now. Language-wise, it's been the most challenging so far, but parts of it were extremely funny, like Kent (in disguise) absolutely tearing into Oswald:

QuoteOswald. What dost thou know me for?
Kent. A knave, a rascal, an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking, whoreson, glass-gazing, superserviceable, finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pander, and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch; one whom I will beat into clamorous whining if thou deniest me the least syllable of thy addition.

He escalates well beyond this in the subsequent pages, and gets thrown in the stocks for it :laugh: I couldn't stop laughing when I read that scene.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Mandryka on December 18, 2023, 08:40:13 AM
Quote from: vers la flamme on December 18, 2023, 07:46:50 AMReading King Lear now. Language-wise, it's been the most challenging so far, but parts of it were extremely funny, like Kent (in disguise) absolutely tearing into Oswald:

He escalates well beyond this in the subsequent pages, and gets thrown in the stocks for it :laugh: I couldn't stop laughing when I read that scene.


There's a very good scene in the Peter Brook film with Paul Scofield when he's thrown in the stocks, because it's set in the cold -- snow everywhere. And they remove his shoes and socks.

But in looking for it I found this, which I have never seen

Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vers la flamme on December 18, 2023, 08:50:57 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on December 18, 2023, 08:40:13 AMThere's a very good scene in the Peter Brook film with Paul Scofield when he's thrown in the stocks, because it's set in the cold -- snow everywhere. And they remove his shoes and socks.

But in looking for it I found this, which I have never seen


Thanks, I shall watch this when I'm done with the play.

Recommendations for Hamlet or Othello? I was looking at the Olivier Hamlet, but it seems he makes some major cuts.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Mandryka on December 18, 2023, 08:56:11 AM
Quote from: vers la flamme on December 18, 2023, 08:50:57 AMThanks, I shall watch this when I'm done with the play.

Recommendations for Hamlet or Othello? I was looking at the Olivier Hamlet, but it seems he makes some major cuts.

For Hamlet, Peter Brook of course


 
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vers la flamme on December 18, 2023, 09:02:15 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on December 18, 2023, 08:56:11 AMFor Hamlet, Peter Brook of course


 

Thanks!
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on December 18, 2023, 09:44:23 AM
Quote from: Mandryka on December 18, 2023, 08:40:13 AMThere's a very good scene in the Peter Brook film with Paul Scofield when he's thrown in the stocks, because it's set in the cold -- snow everywhere.
I watched that one, back in the era when one might rent movies from Blockbuster.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 18, 2023, 09:48:19 AM
Cuts are not the only problem with Olivier's Hamlet. I recommend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vABGEzB7T9M
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on December 18, 2023, 09:52:16 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 18, 2023, 09:48:19 AMCuts are not the only problem with Olivier's Hamlet. I recommend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vABGEzB7T9M
Nice! I'll watch, probably after the holidays.

At the risk of repeating myself, I recommend Grigory Kozintsev's films of Hamlet and King Lear, with brilliant scores by Shostakovich.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on December 18, 2023, 10:26:18 AM
Quote from: vers la flamme on December 18, 2023, 08:50:57 AMThanks, I shall watch this when I'm done with the play.

Recommendations for Hamlet or Othello? I was looking at the Olivier Hamlet, but it seems he makes some major cuts.
Man, I wish I could but I'm beginning to think Hamlet, the part, is an impossible one, though I do find, as KH notes, Kozintsev's take the most convincing (though the film's style is in many respects a nod to Oliver's version). Everybody else acts, which is in direct opposition to the direction Shakespeare gives in the Speak the speech soliloguy given by Hamlet. I wish I had seen Jude Law's turn on the stage in London (I believe he brought it to New York for a short engagement, though don't hold me to it). Of all the popular actors of my generation Law was born to play it.

Othello? Forget it. It's about a great Iago. If you don't have that the rest is mud. However noble Othello is (wish I has seen Paul Robeson in the role) in the end he's a jealous ass. At least Olivier wasn't afraid of egg on the face though the blackface performance at the height of the black liberation movement worldwide was a miscalculated one. Popular in England but understandably induced collective eye-rolling in the more progressive parts of the universe.

Wish I had seen James Earl Jones do it. But you asked for suggestions:

Hamlet: Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990, Tom Stoppard) Iain Glen, whose brief appearance as Hamlet is about as much of the morbid Dane as I can stand.
Othello: Othello (1951, Orson Welles) Micheál MacLiammóir's Iago is my cinematic favorite.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on December 18, 2023, 10:29:36 AM
Quote from: ando on December 18, 2023, 10:16:00 AMOthello? Forget it. It's about a great Iago. If you don't have that the rest is mud.
I should revisit Welles' film. I recall liking it, its trouble production notwithstanding, and while I don't recall offhand who played Iago, it wouldn't be like Welles to handicap such a crucial role. (Micheál Mac Liammóir, I've now checked.)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on December 18, 2023, 10:31:07 AM
Quote from: ando on December 18, 2023, 10:26:18 AMMan, I wish I could but I'm beginning to think Hamlet, the part, is an impossible one, though I do find, as KH notes, Kozintsev's take the most convincing (though the film's style is in many respects a nod to Oliver's version). Everybody else acts, which is in direct opposition to the direction Shakespeare gives in the Speak the speech soliloguy given by Hamlet. I wish I had seen Jude Law's turn on the stage in London (I believe he brought it to New York for a short engagement, though don't hold me to it). Of all the popular actors of my generation Law was born to play it.

Othello? Forget it. It's about a great Iago. If you don't have that the rest is mud. However noble Othello is (wish I has seen Paul Robeson in the role) in the end he's a jealous ass. At least Olivier wasn't afraid of egg on the face though the blackface performance at the height of the black liberation movement worldwide was a miscalculated one. Popular in England but understandably induced collective eye-rolling in the more progressive parts of the universe.

Wish I had seen James Earl Jones do it. But you asked for suggestions:

Hamlet: Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990, Tom Stoppard) Iain Glen, whose brief appearance as Hamlet is about as much of the morbid Dane as I can stand.
Othello: Othello (1951, Orson Welles) Micheál MacLiammóir's Iago is my cinematic favorite.
We crossed  😇
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on December 19, 2023, 03:34:12 AM
I just saw a bit of the production with Jude Law  (https://youtu.be/n76dG-7mQ-I?si=wLoq--RQMEzQe4dN)and can't say I was impressed but I will give an honorable mention to the 2009 Gregory Doran directed RSC film with David Tennant; it's pretty well regarded as one of the best Hamlets of the new millennium. I didn't care for it at all.

If forced to sit through a film version again I have to say that the performance of the late Chris Plummer in Hamlet at Elsinore (1964) is the most entertaining. Plummer gives it his all without strain and an unusual amount of mirth. Robert Shaw is my favorite cinematic Claudius; if you have to swallow that Gertrude would sleep with the brother of her recently deceased husband Shaw makes a more than credible candidate. Curiously, the advice to the players scene is cut altogether. I suppose director, Philip Saville, felt he had a cast that didn't need it.  :P

Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: relm1 on December 19, 2023, 05:42:49 AM
Quote from: ando on December 19, 2023, 03:34:12 AMI just saw a bit of the production with Jude Law  (https://youtu.be/n76dG-7mQ-I?si=wLoq--RQMEzQe4dN)and can't say I was impressed but I will give an honorable mention to the 2009 Gregory Doran directed RSC film with David Tennant; it's pretty well regarded as one of the best Hamlets of the new millennium. I didn't care for it at all.

If forced to sit through a film version again I have to say that the performance of the late Chris Plummer in Hamlet at Elsinore (1964) is the most entertaining. Plummer gives it his all without strain and an unusual amount of mirth. Robert Shaw is my favorite cinematic Claudius; if you have to swallow that Gertrude would sleep with the brother of her recently deceased husband Shaw makes a more than credible candidate. Curiously, the advice to the players scene is cut altogether. I suppose director, Philip Saville, felt he had a cast that didn't need it.  :P



Did you see "The Northman"?  It is a proto Hamlet and was very, very good.  Curious since you seem to be an expert in various incarnations of the play if you've seen it and your thoughts.  The trailer makes it look like an action film and though it's very brutal, it was based on the Danish/Viking legend of Amleth, known as the direct inspiration for William Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on December 19, 2023, 09:48:36 AM
Quote from: relm1 on December 19, 2023, 05:42:49 AMDid you see "The Northman"?  It is a proto Hamlet and was very, very good.  Curious since you seem to be an expert in various incarnations of the play if you've seen it and your thoughts.  The trailer makes it look like an action film and though it's very brutal, it was based on the Danish/Viking legend of Amleth, known as the direct inspiration for William Shakespeare's Hamlet.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MGBKKdWS/hawkey1.jpg)
I'd heard of the film but hadn't realized that it was based on the Amleth story. Course, as soon as I read your post I looked up a streamer for a cursory glance, chiefly the intro, and was quite impressed with Ethan Hawke's entrance (don't think he'll ever have a better one in movies). Then he opened his mouth. All the initial magic was gone. Everyone else began to chime in with the same fake Icelandic-English brogue (though that term's usually reserved for native Irish and Scottish speakers). If were a silent picture think of how much better it would be! Or if they had speech bubbles instead of a spoken language soundtrack the film would immediately jump to another level artistically. It's essentially a kind of uber-violent kaleidoscopic comic book (nothing in the dialogue comes close to the language Shakespeare employed) so why not go all out? In other words, the language is obviously not up to the level of the superb visuals so 86 them altogether! I'm gonna try watching it with subtitles and the soundtrack turned off (along with some listenable death metal stuff) later on and I'll bet it'll be worth my kettle corn. Thanks!
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on December 19, 2023, 04:57:35 PM
I've heard a couple of people I respect say their preferred filmed Hamlet is the Derek Jacobi in the big BBC box.

But its one I've yet to watch.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on December 19, 2023, 06:29:10 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 19, 2023, 04:57:35 PMI've heard a couple of people I respect say their preferred filmed Hamlet is the Derek Jacobi in the big BBC box.

But its one I've yet to watch.
Jacobi's Hamlet was an inspiration to the young Branagh.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Pohjolas Daughter on December 20, 2023, 04:32:14 AM
I remember enjoying this film (actually saw in a real theater way back when) with Ethan Hawke--a modernized version.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_(2000_film)

PD
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 20, 2023, 06:14:23 AM
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on December 20, 2023, 04:32:14 AMI remember enjoying this film (actually saw in a real theater way back when) with Ethan Hawke--a modernized version.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_(2000_film)

PD

I found that one surprisingly good! Bill Murray is an excellent Polonius.

For a traditional Hamlet, I prefer Burton. I have the complete BBC Shakespeare on DVD with Jacobi et al., but since my copy is region 2 I rarely put it on.

As for James Earl Jones, I don't think his complete Othello has been preserved, but you can find his King Lear which is pretty good, with a smashing Raul Julia as Edmund. For Othello, if the blackface disturbs you stay away from Olivier, but it's still a pretty incredible performance.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on December 20, 2023, 07:03:50 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 20, 2023, 06:14:23 AMBill Murray is an excellent Polonius.
Most interesting.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Pohjolas Daughter on December 20, 2023, 08:25:54 AM

@(poco) Sforzando Thank you for the recs.  It's been quite some *time since I've watched any of his plays  :-[ , but I'd like to watch more of them.

*What often happens is that I'll stumble upon them midway through (often on PBS).  Probably post-holidays, I'll take a better look through this thread and jot down some recs and see whether or not I can get ahold of them through my library system.

As an aside, do you like the opera by Verdi of Otello?  It's one of my favorites.  :)

PD
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 20, 2023, 11:35:11 AM
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on December 20, 2023, 08:25:54 AM@(poco) Sforzando Thank you for the recs.  It's been quite some *time since I've watched any of his plays  :-[ , but I'd like to watch more of them.

*What often happens is that I'll stumble upon them midway through (often on PBS).  Probably post-holidays, I'll take a better look through this thread and jot down some recs and see whether or not I can get ahold of them through my library system.

As an aside, do you like the opera by Verdi of Otello?  It's one of my favorites.  :)

PD

Love Verdi's Otello, his Falstaff even more!
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on December 20, 2023, 02:13:02 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 19, 2023, 04:57:35 PMI've heard a couple of people I respect say their preferred filmed Hamlet is the Derek Jacobi in the big BBC box.
But its one I've yet to watch.
Jacobi's Hamlet isn't my cup of tea but the old Oxfordian's turn as Richard II in that series is my favorite on film. The entire cast is excellent, actually; one of the best among that late 70s/early 80 BBC series. Btw, Britbox (https://www.fastcompany.com/90506976/heres-where-you-can-stream-all-the-shakespeare-plays-youll-ever-need) keeps all 36 plays in their streaming rotation. I own a copy of the box set but can't always be bothered pulling them out when the mood strikes. Plus, BB keeps the original Doctor Who and a few other notable series in their library as well.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on December 20, 2023, 03:12:58 PM
Quote from: ando on December 20, 2023, 02:13:02 PMJacobi's Hamlet isn't my cup of tea but the old Oxfordian's turn as Richard II in that series is my favorite on film. The entire cast is excellent, actually; one of the best among that late 70s/early 80 BBC series. Btw, Britbox (https://www.fastcompany.com/90506976/heres-where-you-can-stream-all-the-shakespeare-plays-youll-ever-need) keeps all 36 plays in their streaming rotation. I own a copy of the box set but can't always be bothered pulling them out when the mood strikes. Plus, BB keeps the original Doctor Who and a few other notable series in their library as well.

I haven't yet watched the Richard II in the series. I'll now make it the next I do. Thanks.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on December 22, 2023, 06:37:07 PM
Having finished watching a couple versions of Henry VI Part 1 (I'm now on to a closer reading of the text) the first question which immediately comes to mind is why Shakespeare and his fellows did not write (or feel compelled to write) a part for the most powerful man in this historical drama, the figure whose decisions are obviously unassailable in this era, namely, the pope. Does the Vatican or the pope make an appearance in any of Shakespeare's plays? It's a notable absence, which at first blush seems to reflect more of the religious-political climate of Elizabethan England than mid-15th century Europe.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on December 23, 2023, 03:53:52 AM
Quote from: ando on December 22, 2023, 06:37:07 PMHaving finished watching a couple versions of Henry VI Part 1 (I'm now on to a closer reading of the text) the first question which immediately comes to mind is why Shakespeare and his fellows did not write (or feel compelled to write) a part for the most powerful man in this historical drama, the figure whose decisions are obviously unassailable in this era, namely, the pope. Does the Vatican or the pope make an appearance in any of Shakespeare's plays? It's a notable absence, which at first blush seems to reflect more of the religious-political climate of Elizabethan England than mid-15th century Europe.

Further proof that Shakespeare was a closet Catholic? That he would commit lese-majeste for a historical king but not a pope?

More seriously: if Holinshed (or the couple of others WS cribbed from) didn't bring him into the story then he'd have no idea of how to or why.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on December 23, 2023, 11:53:32 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on December 23, 2023, 03:53:52 AMMore seriously: if Holinshed (or the couple of others WS cribbed from) didn't bring him into the story then he'd have no idea of how to or why.
Would you pay a penny to hear them?  8)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on December 30, 2023, 02:50:14 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/G2QZtrrz/lilhenryvi.jpg)
Hollow Crown Season Two: Henry VI Part 1 (2016, Dominic Cooke)
Helps if you know the play. After having studied it a bit and watched the remarkably faithful early 80s BBC tv version of this first early Shakespeare History at least I can appreciate the extent to which the text is mangled. Kenneth Branagh's Henry V and, especially, Shekhar Kapur's Elizabeth, is obviously a huge influence on the filmmakers here (as it has been for countless medieval and Tudor soap opera sagas). In the event you don't know the plot it concerns the beginning of the famous Wars of the Roses as the very young King Henry VI is unable to competently rule the realm initially and later cannot prevent faction among the nobility due to poor choices and deficiencies of character. It's an interesting take on the Bard's history but because it's so truncated, we don't see enough of some of the major characters to feel for them when Shakespeare gives us the verse in pivotal scenes. We don't see Joan la Pucelle (later, of Arc), one of the play's chief antagonists, until well into the film. None of the humor in the play is in evidence. This is grim, joyless, Shakespeare. Looks pretty, though.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Pohjolas Daughter on December 31, 2023, 10:53:21 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 20, 2023, 11:35:11 AMLove Verdi's Otello, his Falstaff even more!
I must admit that I haven't ever listened to Falstaff.  I'll have to check into it.  :)

PD
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: KevinP on January 10, 2024, 02:10:23 PM
Me, putting the ham in Hamlet in my Shakespeare survey class. Top is 2019, I think. Bottom a couple months ago.

(https://scontent-ssn1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/403689541_10160265899576275_7785762284895383730_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dd5e9f&_nc_ohc=ItKSF02F8PwAX8rXL_I&_nc_ht=scontent-ssn1-1.xx&oh=00_AfDiH2KaggR6hHG041THp5Hl0eYdd-jecYzK9CHNNNkg6g&oe=65A4812C)

(https://scontent-ssn1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/404908617_10160265899631275_8901554547698808551_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dd5e9f&_nc_ohc=ffUH8mlAk7QAX-1UDtY&_nc_ht=scontent-ssn1-1.xx&oh=00_AfBxtjKz14cWztTmmXjKi5zo2OxhrCKlSAWh4DkqTq1noQ&oe=65A48A27)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on January 10, 2024, 02:44:50 PM
Quote from: KevinP on January 10, 2024, 02:10:23 PMMe, putting the ham in Hamlet in my Shakespeare survey class. Top is 2019, I think. Bottom a couple months ago.


Heh, Cool.

Are any of your lectures available to the public?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: KevinP on January 10, 2024, 04:04:31 PM
No. Given the level of Shakespeare scholarship out there, I find that thought very intimidating. My background is linguistics, but I like Shakespeare enough that I can teach it to students who are mostly still language learners.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on January 13, 2024, 03:55:39 AM
Don't think I'd put this on my wall but can't help admiring the art:

(https://i.postimg.cc/SkLBDTpP/IMG-2748.jpg)
Reddit post (https://www.reddit.com/r/shakespeare/s/A9XOzjlsF3)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vers la flamme on January 14, 2024, 08:23:59 AM
I've really been on a Shakespeare binge since early December, filling a lot of gaps by reading a bunch of his plays for the first time. I want to read more; here's what I've read so far:

Hamlet
Othello
King Lear
Macbeth
Julius Caesar
The Taming of the Shrew
A Midsummer Night's Dream
Twelfth Night
The Tempest
Romeo & Juliet (this one was a reread)

Where to from here, Shakespeareans of GMG? Can't wait to reread all those I've read, too...
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on January 14, 2024, 11:39:36 AM
Quote from: vers la flamme on January 14, 2024, 08:23:59 AMWhere to from here, Shakespeareans of GMG? Can't wait to reread all those I've read, too...
I don't get much from reading any Shakespeare text alone. For me it must be accompanied with viewings of 2 or 3 productions as well as a discussion (preferably, a group reading for context, contemporary comparisons, historical background, miscellany). Then I get a full Shakespeare experience. Otherwise they're just... words.

Since you asked for a suggestion why not segue to the history plays, what the Sweet Bard of Avon cut his theatric teeth on during the 1590s in London. The reading group I'm in is currently in the middle of reading and discussing the Henry VI trilogy, taking the winter (1 month for each part) to enjoy it. Join us (https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/22697433-henry-vi-part-2-1591) if it sounds like something you'd like. Otherwise, dive into Titus Andronicus, Henry V or Richard III to name three of the most successful of his history potboilers. And there are fine movie versions out there to supplement a reading of any (or all) of them.
🙂
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on January 14, 2024, 02:05:59 PM
Seconding the recommendation of the history plays. But I'd perhaps suggest reading the main sequence in order of events from Richard II through Henrys IV, V and VI and ending with Richard III. Endlessly fascinating and rewarding.

(And John Julius Norwich's "Shakespeare's Kings" as secondary reading, if you feel like your appetite for the subject has been whetted.)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ganondorf on January 15, 2024, 01:07:54 AM
Quote from: vers la flamme on January 14, 2024, 08:23:59 AMI've really been on a Shakespeare binge since early December, filling a lot of gaps by reading a bunch of his plays for the first time. I want to read more; here's what I've read so far:

Hamlet
Othello
King Lear
Macbeth
Julius Caesar
The Taming of the Shrew
A Midsummer Night's Dream
Twelfth Night
The Tempest
Romeo & Juliet (this one was a reread)

Where to from here, Shakespeareans of GMG? Can't wait to reread all those I've read, too...

King John. One of the most underrated Shakespeare plays.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on January 15, 2024, 01:08:50 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on January 14, 2024, 02:05:59 PMSeconding the recommendation of the history plays. But I'd perhaps suggest reading the main sequence in order of events from Richard II through Henrys IV, V and VI and ending with Richard III. Endlessly fascinating and rewarding.
Perhaps there's something to that approach. There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on the order in which they were written. For me the most rewarding part is tracing Shakespeare's development as a playwright. In the Henry VI trilogy alone you can see the improvement in language and structure from one part to the next. When you study the plays the notion that parts 2 and 3 were written before part 1, for example, seems rather absurd.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vers la flamme on January 15, 2024, 07:37:40 AM
Quote from: ando on January 14, 2024, 11:39:36 AMI don't get much from reading any Shakespeare text alone. For me it must be accompanied with viewings of 2 or 3 productions as well as a discussion (preferably, a group reading for context, contemporary comparisons, historical background, miscellany). Then I get a full Shakespeare experience. Otherwise they're just... words.

Since you asked for a suggestion why not segue to the history plays, what the Sweet Bard of Avon cut his theatric teeth on during the 1590s in London. The reading group I'm in is currently in the middle of reading and discussing the Henry VI trilogy, taking the winter (1 month for each part) to enjoy it. Join us (https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/22697433-henry-vi-part-2-1591) if it sounds like something you'd like. Otherwise, dive into Titus Andronicus, Henry V or Richard III to name three of the most successful of his history potboilers. And there are fine movie versions out there to supplement a reading of any (or all) of them.
🙂

Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means done with those I listed; I've been seeking out performances of them that I can find online, videos of people talking about them, etc. Just that my voraciousness entices me to read more, as there are still so many of his plays I have yet to read even for the first time.

Regarding the Henry VI saga and Richard III, those were some of the first Shakespeare plays I ever read, back when I had a complete edition of his works and started from the beginning; I have indeed been curious to return to them, though it seems the critics hate 'em.

Quote from: Ganondorf on January 15, 2024, 01:07:54 AMKing John. One of the most underrated Shakespeare plays.

I shall seek it out; indeed you're the first I've ever heard recommend that one to me.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on January 15, 2024, 08:44:35 AM
Quote from: vers la flamme on January 14, 2024, 08:23:59 AMI've really been on a Shakespeare binge since early December, filling a lot of gaps by reading a bunch of his plays for the first time. I want to read more; here's what I've read so far:

Hamlet
Othello
King Lear
Macbeth
Julius Caesar
The Taming of the Shrew
A Midsummer Night's Dream
Twelfth Night
The Tempest
Romeo & Juliet (this one was a reread)

Where to from here, Shakespeareans of GMG? Can't wait to reread all those I've read, too...

Antony and Cleopatra, Troilus and Cressida, and the two Henry IV plays (especially Part One).
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ganondorf on January 15, 2024, 08:48:25 AM
King John is often considered incoherent mess but kind of like in Herman Melville's Mardi it is the journey, not the destination which counts (quite fitting considering Mardi's full title is Mardi, or a voyage thither. And the poetic language of both works is absolutely gorgeous. Famously George Orwell liked King John.I also have guilty pleasure in Timon of Athens.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: vers la flamme on January 18, 2024, 02:12:45 AM
Quote from: Ganondorf on January 15, 2024, 08:48:25 AMKing John is often considered incoherent mess but kind of like in Herman Melville's Mardi it is the journey, not the destination which counts (quite fitting considering Mardi's full title is Mardi, or a voyage thither. And the poetic language of both works is absolutely gorgeous. Famously George Orwell liked King John.I also have guilty pleasure in Timon of Athens.

Why guilty re: Timon?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Ganondorf on January 19, 2024, 05:01:28 AM
Quote from: vers la flamme on January 18, 2024, 02:12:45 AMWhy guilty re: Timon?

Probably because it is often cited as one of Shakespeare's worst plays although there has been an occasional supporter or two. I however prefer it to King Lear greatly and the two plays have certain similarities.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on January 20, 2024, 09:05:41 AM
I recently came cross a talk by Emma Smith, Professor of Shakespeare Studies at the University of Oxford, who considers the biggest myths about Shakespeare. It's a fine one. The presentation begins at 3:27 (https://youtu.be/rQqXRH90YrY?list=PL438nl7nQLls3oR_oOYTdS7sLH3K8SB6S&t=207).

Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on January 22, 2024, 07:23:24 PM
Late night viewings of this one reminds me of the old 7 channel television late, late shows when they used to air. Course, you watched it as nothing else was on. Some things never change.  :P

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/20/75/8d/20758dde9e2b79ee02b0ba41f647dce8.jpg)

Romeo & Juliet (1968, Franco Zeffirelli) Streaming free on YouTube
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: DavidW on January 23, 2024, 04:57:36 AM
@ando That movie was actually in the news a year or two ago due to a lawsuit because both actors were underage in their sex scene and also pressured to do it.  It was strange for them to wait so long.

That was the version I saw in my ninth grade English class back in the day.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on January 23, 2024, 06:44:48 AM
Quote from: DavidW on January 23, 2024, 04:57:36 AM@ando That movie was actually in the news a year or two ago due to a lawsuit because both actors were underage in their sex scene and also pressured to do it.  It was strange for them to wait so long.

That was the version I saw in my ninth grade English class back in the day.

I agree it was long overdue. It seems to have come in at the back end of the Me-Too Movement. I seem to recall Olivia Hussey (Juliet) speaking on it. Disgraceful as that so-called professional behavior certainly was it doesn't detract from the glorious attraction that is Zeffirelli's version of Shakespeare's classic (for me). It's still a favorite. Like you, I grew up with it as the most famous cinematic version. The Baz Luhrman film is fun.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: DavidW on January 23, 2024, 07:03:58 AM
Quote from: ando on January 23, 2024, 06:44:48 AMI agree it was long overdue. It seems to have come in at the back end of the Me-Too Movement. I seem to recall Olivia Hussey (Juliet) speaking on it. Disgraceful as that so-called professional behavior certainly was it doesn't detract from the glorious attraction that is Zeffirelli's version of Shakespeare's classic (for me). It's still a favorite. Like you, I grew up with it as the most famous cinematic version. The Baz Luhrman film is fun.

I also liked the Baz Luhrman film... but I had not seen it since it was new!!
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on February 06, 2024, 12:59:45 AM
(http://bp1.blogger.com/_-jRcrPdV74c/SEx512-UKHI/AAAAAAAAAO8/Ral8De5f9aE/s0-d/30+richard2.jpg) (https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41JR7N0M7QL.__AC_SX300_SY300_QL70_ML2_.jpg)

Watched over the last two weeks; these two from the BBC Big Box.

First exposure to LLL in its entirety. (in fact wikipedia has the Branagh film at a record low 25% text - shouldn't be surprised as how cut it seems in the first place, and as what remains in that oddity is largely musical numbers)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on February 07, 2024, 07:23:43 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 06, 2024, 12:59:45 AM(http://bp1.blogger.com/_-jRcrPdV74c/SEx512-UKHI/AAAAAAAAAO8/Ral8De5f9aE/s0-d/30+richard2.jpg) (https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41JR7N0M7QL.__AC_SX300_SY300_QL70_ML2_.jpg)

Watched over the last two weeks; these two from the BBC Big Box.

First exposure to LLL in its entirety. (in fact wikipedia has the Branagh film at a record low 25% text - shouldn't be surprised as how cut it seems in the first place, and as what remains in that oddity is largely musical numbers)

My favorite Richard II, led by that deluded Oxfordian, plus Gielgud and the usually superlative cast makes this a must watch.  :)

With the exception of Armado's speech (https://www.folger.edu/search/?q=Folio&area=works&work=loves-labors-lost) LLL never piqued my interest. I've got the big BBC box, too. I'll get to it on some rainy day.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on February 07, 2024, 09:30:31 AM
The '75 BBC version of LLL gets a lot praise.

Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on February 07, 2024, 12:43:54 PM
Quote from: ando on February 07, 2024, 09:30:31 AMThe '75 BBC version of LLL gets a lot praise.


Martin Shaw as the king right there at the start!! I'll definitely be watching that in the near future. Thanks! And I see from imdb it also has Sinead Cusack as Rosaline.

One big thing I hadn't known about LLL before a week or two ago was that besides all the footnotes for obscure meanings etc there's also constant allusions to then-current public literary feuds and mocking of literary enemies. Digs that would only have been clear to the very first audience, and long forgotten and confusing to audiences even a year or two later. I'm lucky enough to have the Arden edition of the play (only because I'm unlucky enough to have not yet found it in my preferred edition) and I was spending quite a bit of time going down those rabbit holes in the notes.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on February 07, 2024, 04:23:01 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on February 07, 2024, 12:43:54 PMOne big thing I hadn't known about LLL before a week or two ago was that besides all the footnotes for obscure meanings etc there's also constant allusions to then-current public literary feuds and mocking of literary enemies. Digs that would only have been clear to the very first audience, and long forgotten and confusing to audiences even a year or two later. I'm lucky enough to have the Arden edition of the play (only because I'm unlucky enough to have not yet found it in my preferred edition) and I was spending quite a bit of time going down those rabbit holes in the notes.
Wow, that's actually fascinating and not surprising if you know anything about that time in the world of London theater. Thanks! I'll be sure to nab the Arden edition of Love's next time I see it.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on February 07, 2024, 04:48:30 PM
Speaking off LLL: if you're interested and desperately in need of another podcast episode/series to fill up all that unwanted free time...there was a really interesting episode of The Good, The Bard And The Ugly where they discuss a production done entirely in sign language:

Deafinitely Theatre's Love's Labour's Lost (https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ub2hvbGRzYmFyZGNpbmN5LmxpYnN5bi5jb20vcnNz/episode/NDU3ZGM5MWQtZjA2OC00NWFiLTg3ZjktNzFkZWQzMmYwODdl?sa=X&ved=0CAIQuIEEahcKEwiAv8OhvpqEAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQcA)

I really miss G,B&U, they only lasted for as long as covid had his theatre company and her university shut down or limited, and I don't begrudge them getting back to their real jobs, but they were such fun.

Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: JBS on February 07, 2024, 07:47:37 PM
One bit of LLL lore that's tangential to the play itself is the mystery of Love's Labour Won, which might be a lost sequel to LLL, a completely independent play now lost to us, or simply an alternative title for a play we have.

Wikipedia provides the small amount of evidence and the various possibilities here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love%27s_Labour%27s_Won
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on February 09, 2024, 01:51:00 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/pXWBqf67/pbbks1.jpg)
A 4K edition of Prospero's Books (https://youtu.be/sgBT6tvP5pg?si=-3XRc3sqyQbEhWeV), Peter Greenaway's cinematic translation of The Tempest, is streaming free on the Tube tomorrow at noon (12 pm, EST). It's a personal favorite; John Gielgud speaks most of the parts over one of the most bizarre panoramas of art extolling the experience of reading that I've ever seen. Not sure how long it will stay up afterward. Here's a recent BFI discussion with Greenaway (https://youtu.be/ajlg4d84oqc?si=lvsevCCp1zAAfCSq).
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on February 10, 2024, 07:21:13 AM
Quote from: ando on February 09, 2024, 01:51:00 PM(https://i.postimg.cc/pXWBqf67/pbbks1.jpg)
A 4K edition of Prospero's Books (https://youtu.be/sgBT6tvP5pg?si=-3XRc3sqyQbEhWeV), Peter Greenaway's cinematic translation of The Tempest, is streaming free on the Tube tomorrow at noon (12 pm, EST). It's a personal favorite; John Gielgud speaks most of the parts over one of the most bizarre panoramas of art extolling the experience of reading that I've ever seen. Not sure how long it will stay up afterward. Here's a recent BFI discussion with Greenaway (https://youtu.be/ajlg4d84oqc?si=lvsevCCp1zAAfCSq).
PB stream starts shortly. Nice Channel 4 featurette:

Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on February 14, 2024, 09:52:32 AM
Enjoying this album of incidental music from Mendelssohn's A Midsummer Night's Dream, featuring spoken text delivered by Dame Judi Dench; sopranos Kathleen Battle and Frederica von Stade and the Boston Symphony, conducted by the late Seiji Ozawa:

(https://i.discogs.com/aog5TQg-88pZZcvFLUWGX4PucYTu86O8xiWXWNeuJwY/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:593/w:600/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTgxNjA0/NDUtMTY0ODUyNTUw/Mi00NzUyLmpwZWc.jpeg)
(1994, DG)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on February 28, 2024, 02:02:49 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/8c20nG5K/IMG-4043.jpg)
A rather stiffly dramatized but judiciously written life of Shakespeare is this 1965 BBC account:

Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on February 29, 2024, 04:47:53 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/B64F0M6S/h51.jpg)
Henry V (1989, Kenneth Branagh)
This version of the one of the Bard's most famous history plays which borrowed a bit from Orson Welles, German Expressionism, Franco Zeffirelli and Platoon amd made even pursits forget the (until then) reference Olivier version for a spell. Not sure how long it's streaming free on tubi (https://tubitv.com/movies/303080/henry-v) but I'm watching it tonight. Below are a few clips concerning Branagh, Henry VI and his career.



Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: JBS on March 01, 2024, 04:59:29 AM
Quote from: ando on February 29, 2024, 04:47:53 PM(https://i.postimg.cc/B64F0M6S/h51.jpg)
Henry V (1989, Kenneth Branagh)
This version of the one of the Bard's most famous history plays which borrowed a bit from Orson Welles, German Expressionism, Franco Zeffirelli and Platoon amd made even pursits forget the (until then) reference Olivier version for a spell. Not sure how long it's streaming free on tubi (https://tubitv.com/movies/303080/henry-v) but I'm watching it tonight. Below are a few clips concerning Branagh, Henry VI and his career.





My memory of that film includes an overloud soundtrack that drowned out the actors at several points, including the Crispin's Day speech.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on March 01, 2024, 02:47:27 PM
Quote from: JBS on March 01, 2024, 04:59:29 AMMy memory of that film includes an overloud soundtrack that drowned out the actors at several points, including the Crispin's Day speech.
Good to hear!  8)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on March 08, 2024, 11:45:12 AM
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51Q1JbAwbLL.__AC_SX300_SY300_QL70_ML2_.jpg)

Watched last night: Ian Holm's King Lear

I had high hopes for this, and at the start it looked like it was going to be brilliant. Clever use of sparse sets and a perfect cast including Victoria Hamilton as perhaps the best Cordelia I've seen. But it all falls apart once they get "outdoors". Thay are undecided or indifferent to the question of how much this is a fit of entitles pique and how much actual madness, and Holm himself seems to want to be solidly in the former. But the real killer is that the Fool, a huge part on the page, is even more brutally cut than usual - perhaps as little as 10% remaining, just the odd rejoinders to the point where he could have been left out entirely. Pity.

edit: and another curiosity: they've chosen to cut everything any character says to themselves or to the audience. I had to go back and rewatch a couple of scenes to see if it really was total, and yes, there's not even "What shall Cordelia speak? Love and be silent".


Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on March 10, 2024, 03:23:13 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 08, 2024, 11:45:12 AM(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51Q1JbAwbLL.__AC_SX300_SY300_QL70_ML2_.jpg)

Watched last night: Ian Holm's King Lear

I had high hopes for this, and at the start it looked like it was going to be brilliant. Clever use of sparse sets and a perfect cast including Victoria Hamilton as perhaps the best Cordelia I've seen. But it all falls apart once they get "outdoors". Thay are undecided or indifferent to the question of how much this is a fit of entitles pique and how much actual madness, and Holm himself seems to want to be solidly in the former. But the real killer is that the Fool, a huge part on the page, is even more brutally cut than usual - perhaps as little as 10% remaining, just the odd rejoinders to the point where he could have been left out entirely. Pity.

edit: and another curiosity: they've chosen to cut everything any character says to themselves or to the audience. I had to go back and rewatch a couple of scenes to see if it really was total, and yes, there's not even "What shall Cordelia speak? Love and be silent".

A board room Lear, eh? I see it's on Prime Video. I'll give it a go out of curiosity. Thanks for the review.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2024, 03:40:10 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 08, 2024, 11:45:12 AM(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51Q1JbAwbLL.__AC_SX300_SY300_QL70_ML2_.jpg)

Watched last night: Ian Holm's King Lear

I had high hopes for this, and at the start it looked like it was going to be brilliant. Clever use of sparse sets and a perfect cast including Victoria Hamilton as perhaps the best Cordelia I've seen. But it all falls apart once they get "outdoors". Thay are undecided or indifferent to the question of how much this is a fit of entitles pique and how much actual madness, and Holm himself seems to want to be solidly in the former. But the real killer is that the Fool, a huge part on the page, is even more brutally cut than usual - perhaps as little as 10% remaining, just the odd rejoinders to the point where he could have been left out entirely. Pity.

edit: and another curiosity: they've chosen to cut everything any character says to themselves or to the audience. I had to go back and rewatch a couple of scenes to see if it really was total, and yes, there's not even "What shall Cordelia speak? Love and be silent".



Sorry that this should disappoint.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on March 10, 2024, 04:14:55 PM
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 10, 2024, 03:40:10 PMSorry that this should disappoint.

It has plenty to recommend it. And the critics generally like it.

I'm disappointed by the need for cutting generally, and the older I get and the more familiar with the plays the more sensitive I am to what's missing and often how important it is. But that's a personal and highly subjective thing.

It might be a bit much to ask, but I wish they'd film the full text, release a cut version theatrically, then give a menu page option on dvd etc for which version you'd like.

Have you seen that version?


edit: I should probably add that I do know that some of the play texts as we now have them might have been more of an ur-text in Shakespears day, from which he tailored according to which actors were available, or to whom the play was being performed. Even so, cutting The Fool's role by 90% seems extreme.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: Karl Henning on March 10, 2024, 05:31:49 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 10, 2024, 04:14:55 PMIt has plenty to recommend it. And the critics generally like it.

I'm disappointed by the need for cutting generally, and the older I get and the more familiar with the plays the more sensitive I am to what's missing and often how important it is. But that's a personal and highly subjective thing.

It might be a bit much to ask, but I wish they'd film the full text, release a cut version theatrically, then give a menu page option on dvd etc for which version you'd like.

Have you seen that version?


edit: I should probably add that I do know that some of the play texts as we now have them might have been more of an ur-text in Shakespears day, from which he tailored according to which actors were available, or to whom the play was being performed. Even so, cutting The Fool's role by 90% seems extreme.
No, the only English-language Lear I've seen was Paul Scofield, and long enough ago that I scarce remember it.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on March 11, 2024, 11:26:51 AM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 10, 2024, 04:14:55 PMIt has plenty to recommend it. And the I should probably add that I do know that some of the play texts as we now have them might have been more of an ur-text in Shakespears day, from which he tailored according to which actors were available, or to whom the play was being performed. Even so, cutting The Fool's role by 90% seems extreme.
Of course it is. He's something like the conscience of Lear and, if performed well, his humorous counterpart. This Holm version is sorely lacking in that department. I mean, where's the infamous Bard wit in all the grim seriousness? Tragedy can become a mere horror show without that element of the absurdist perspective which clowns often bring to the proceedings.

Bet if we had a Will Kemp performance on video tape that part would never be cut!

(https://i.postimg.cc/kXxYngTV/IMG-4533.jpg)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on March 11, 2024, 12:55:10 PM
Quote from: ando on March 11, 2024, 11:26:51 AMOf course it is. He's something like the conscience of Lear and, if performed well, his humorous counterpart. This Holm version is sorely lacking in that department. I mean, where's the infamous Bard wit in all the grim seriousness? Tragedy can become a mere horror show without that element of the absurdist perspective which clowns often bring to the proceedings.

Bet if we had a Will Kemp performance on video tape that part would never be cut!


Looks like Kemp left in 1600 and in Lear it would have been written for the more subtle Robert Armin. (its possible I've read that before now, but if so I'd long forgotten it)


I might have said it here before, but an intriguing idea I've read is that in Shakespeare's small company we can usually tell which roles were doubled by which characters never share the stage, and one such doubling could be The Fool and Cordelia.

I'd love to see a performance where Lear was being mocked and having his conscience pricked by a photo-negative vision or suggestion of his rejected daughter.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: JBS on March 11, 2024, 07:00:13 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 11, 2024, 12:55:10 PMLooks like Kemp left in 1600 and in Lear it would have been written for the more subtle Robert Armin. (its possible I've read that before now, but if so I'd long forgotten it)


I might have said it here before, but an intriguing idea I've read is that in Shakespeare's small company we can usually tell which roles were doubled by which characters never share the stage, and one such doubling could be The Fool and Cordelia.

I'd love to see a performance where Lear was being mocked and having his conscience pricked by a photo-negative vision or suggestion of his rejected daughter.

That would be an interesting idea. There's a hint of it in Lear's last words, in which he refers to Cordelia as "my poor fool".

And my poor fool is hanged. No, no, no life?
Why should a dog, a horse, a rat have life,
And thou no breath at all? Thou 'lt come no more,
Never, never, never, never, never.—
Pray you undo this button. Thank you, sir.
Do you see this? Look on her, look, her lips,
Look there, look there!


But against it is the practice of using prepubescent boys in female roles--would they have cast a boy as the Fool?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on March 12, 2024, 12:00:39 AM
Quote from: JBS on March 11, 2024, 07:00:13 PMThat would be an interesting idea. There's a hint of it in Lear's last words, in which he refers to Cordelia as "my poor fool".

And my poor fool is hanged. No, no, no life?
Why should a dog, a horse, a rat have life,
And thou no breath at all? Thou 'lt come no more,
Never, never, never, never, never.—
Pray you undo this button. Thank you, sir.
Do you see this? Look on her, look, her lips,
Look there, look there!


But against it is the practice of using prepubescent boys in female roles--would they have cast a boy as the Fool?

Interesting. I feel like I haven't seen the line performed that way, but then perhaps I just wasn't picking up on the ambiguity.

The performance of that line I most clearly remember would be in Simon Russell Beale's Lear which he deliberately played as the progression of Lewy Body Dementia. Earlier we had seen him in a confused and paranoid state bludgeon the Fool to death. When we get to that line it's played as:

"And my poor fool is...
(remembers then pushes the memory back)
...hanged"
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on March 12, 2024, 06:11:44 AM
The Cordelia/Fool doubling is frequently theorized, though there is no proof. But it makes sense, and women's parts in Shakesepare may not have been invariably played by young men or boys. Armin may have had a very youthful appearance that supports the doublng.

Doublings in Shakespeare have been well studied, most recently and convincingly (to my mind) in Brett Gamboa's "Shakespeare's Double Plays." But bludgeoning the Fool to death? Totally unconvincing and out of character for Lear. Why not leave the Fool's disappearance as an element of the play that is simply not explained?
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on March 12, 2024, 03:15:29 PM
Quote from: SimonNZ on March 11, 2024, 12:55:10 PMLooks like Kemp left in 1600 and in Lear it would have been written for the more subtle Robert Armin. (its possible I've read that before now, but if so I'd long forgotten it)
Good point, though there nothing subtle about Thersites from Troilus & Cressida, written around 1602 (probably my favorite wit next to the nurse in R&J).
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on March 12, 2024, 07:44:32 PM
Quote from: ando on March 12, 2024, 03:15:29 PMGood point, though there nothing subtle about Thersites from Troilus & Cressida, written around 1602 (probably my favorite wit next to the nurse in R&J).

It is uncertain, however, if Troilus was actually produced in Shakespeare's time. But Armin could have had a wide enough range to encompass both Thersites and Lear's fool. Following Lear, however, I don't notice many parts for a clown that would have really shown off Armin to great advantage. (The clown who brings the asp to Cleopatra is just a bit part, for example. Perhaps Armin played Autolycus in Winter's Tale, or Cloten in Cymbeline? We'll never know these things.)
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: ando on March 13, 2024, 10:21:58 AM
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 12, 2024, 07:44:32 PMIt is uncertain, however, if Troilus was actually produced in Shakespeare's time. But Armin could have had a wide enough range to encompass both Thersites and Lear's fool. Following Lear, however, I don't notice many parts for a clown that would have really shown off Armin to great advantage. (The clown who brings the asp to Cleopatra is just a bit part, for example. Perhaps Armin played Autolycus in Winter's Tale, or Cloten in Cymbeline? We'll never know these things.)
Nothing is certain. Isn't that the point of the fool? Once he's (or Cordelia, take your pick) hanged the play really is over. Many people say Lear is about old age, homelessness, insanity... the inevitable physical disintegration of the human being. But the biggest tragedy is, of course, the consequences of Lear's delusions; not only his but many of the characters in the play. It's perversely amusing that The Fool's biggest objectors are the one's who get it in the neck.
Title: Re: Shakespeare
Post by: SimonNZ on March 25, 2024, 04:20:14 PM
Finished Judi Dench's book "Shakespeare: The Man Who Pays The Rent". Actually a collection of interviews on the very many roles she's played, more theatre gossip and autobiography than lit crit, but still very thoughtful and articulate about all the plays as one might expect. Often funny. Easily recommended.