Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

William Shakespeare

2456

Posts

  • Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus Ho! Ho! Ho! Drink Coke!Registered User regular
    Funny, doing Shakespeare plays in High School was what made me love him. Maybe you had a bad theater teacher?

  • MazzyxMazzyx A Restoration through Revolution. Registered User regular
    I wish we'd been assigned the Shakespeare Made Easy versions of the plays in highschool. I had a really really hard time making it through the archaic language, so all the great comedy and wordplay just went right over my head, and I had a real hate for Shakespeare as a result.

    I had the reverse experience. The original word play and the pattern of the original speeches is what makes Shakespeare great.

    meijisig.png
  • ToxTox I kill threads Registered User regular
    Yeah I think the nuance of Shakespeare is highly relevant to the study of his work. Instead of modernizing the work, there should be a focus and study on the language of the time, so that you can better understand what's going on. That's what we had. I can remember studying Shakespearean language and culture all the way back in like 7th grade. We'd study the language independently, then study a section of a play in the context of the language. By the time we hit 11th grade and were studying Othello or MacBeth in its entirety, I remember feeling like a had a good foundational understanding of how it spoke.

    Grey Ghost wrote: »
    James Dean was the actor, Jimmy Dean was in the sausage business.

    James Deen is both an actor AND in the sausage business.
    Secret Satans! Post | Gaming Wishlist | General Wishlist
    Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • mysticjuicermysticjuicer Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Funny, doing Shakespeare plays in High School was what made me love him. Maybe you had a bad theater teacher?

    I never took theatre. We just read the plays in class and on our own, and watched film versions as well. The films usually helped, because it made it easier to guess context ("Oh, I see, that part was supposed to be funny/cruel/whatever") but I just couldn't get through the language itself. Having the jokes explained did wonders.

    mysticjuicer on
    narwhal wrote:
    Why am I Terran?
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I detest those Shakespeare Made Easy and No Fear Shakespeare things. I read the Richard III one at B&N one day and wanted to punch a baby seal.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • mysticjuicermysticjuicer Registered User regular
    Tox wrote: »
    Yeah I think the nuance of Shakespeare is highly relevant to the study of his work. Instead of modernizing the work, there should be a focus and study on the language of the time, so that you can better understand what's going on. That's what we had. I can remember studying Shakespearean language and culture all the way back in like 7th grade. We'd study the language independently, then study a section of a play in the context of the language. By the time we hit 11th grade and were studying Othello or MacBeth in its entirety, I remember feeling like a had a good foundational understanding of how it spoke.

    I don't think we had what I could call an "English class" until 9th grade. At which point we read Midsummer Night's Dream...

    I'm not saying that the plays should be studied only in extremely modern translation, I'm just saying that having an extremely modern translation handy made it much easier to access the Shakespearean language. At some point I really should see if I can find versions for Hamlet and Lear, because I'm sure I missed tons of great stuff in both of them.

    narwhal wrote:
    Why am I Terran?
  • shalmeloshalmelo sees no evil Registered User regular
    I have been a horrible person for living 40 minutes from Ashland and never seeing any selection in their Oregon Shakespeare Festival.

    Urge to kill....RISING

    Seriously, OSF is incredible. That Julius Caesar I was talking about upthread was their production last season. I've never lived closer to OSF than 45 minutes east of Portland, but I make a point of getting down there at least every other year.

    Steam ID: Shalmelo || LoL: melo2boogaloo || tweets
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Kenneth Brannagh's Henry V remains one of my favorite films full stop. If anyone who loves Shakespeare hasn't seen it, then watch it immediately.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I will say that a good teacher can make all the difference with Shakespeare. My high school English teacher was awful when we did Brit Lit (we had Brit Lit, World Lit, American Lit, and then Brit Lit again) and I couldn't stand how gushy and horrific that he was being toward the play (Romeo and Juliet).

    However, I got a copy of Julius Caesar that I read during homeroom one day, changed it completely.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Original Pronunciation

    This is an extremely cool video, even as someone who hasn't read or studied a whole lot of Shakespeare.

    BloodySloth on
  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    I detest those Shakespeare Made Easy and No Fear Shakespeare things. I read the Richard III one at B&N one day and wanted to punch a baby seal.

    I used to feel that way, but I think they have their place. I've got some limited experience teaching Shakespeare, and I've found that it's helpful for many students to just get the bare bones of the plot out of the way in order to facilitate better discussion and better work. I think about 9/10ths of the frustration with Shakespeare really is just people thinking they need to "get it" all at once, and that's an understandable impulse. Even as a grad student, I've used Sparknotes just be to certain I haven't missed some detail, buried deep, that might later be important.

    In the Renaissance, it was absolutely not assumed that the majority of the audience would be picking up on every single beat - but that was also a time of incredibly rapid change for the English language, and playwrights reveled in lingual one-upsmanship. In the audience, to have to use your imagination and piece your way through was not an unusual thing. Compared to the early 17th century, we've gotten used to a hell of a lot more stability, and so to allow and even encourage that kind of supplementary material isn't necessarily so much a concession to lazier students as it is a mercy for readers who simply aren't trained to approach language in quite the same way Shakespeare's audience was. This is to say nothing of the enormous difference between reading a play and hearing a play.

    Once you're past the business of fretting over the basic issue of plot comprehension, I think you can feel a bit freer to focus on the nuts and bolts of the language and appreciate what it attempts to do. Which in turn is a nice bit of positive reinforcement for a reader who will feel more empowered not to use the training wheels next time.

  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular

    Thanks, that was great.

  • Anubis327Anubis327 Registered User
    edited April 2012
    One of the best things about living in Nebraska is Shakespeare on the Green, a yearly event in which 2 different plays are performed in a park for about 3 weeks. They are very well done, and this year is Caesar and The Comedy of Errors. The weather doesn't always cooperate (We skipped last year because it was too damn hot to be outside, as well as the amount of chiggers and mosquitoes being ridiculous), but when you get some friends together with a picnic basket full of delicious food and some wine (Or you can order some from the production company, which helps to keep the shows free) and show up early enough to get a good spot. It's a pretty rad evening, and they have 5 or 6 showings of each play so you're bound to be able to go to one of them.

    Anubis327 on
  • mysticjuicermysticjuicer Registered User regular
    Edd wrote: »
    I detest those Shakespeare Made Easy and No Fear Shakespeare things. I read the Richard III one at B&N one day and wanted to punch a baby seal.

    I used to feel that way, but I think they have their place. I've got some limited experience teaching Shakespeare, and I've found that it's helpful for many students to just get the bare bones of the plot out of the way in order to facilitate better discussion and better work. I think about 9/10ths of the frustration with Shakespeare really is just people thinking they need to "get it" all at once, and that's an understandable impulse. Even as a grad student, I've used Sparknotes just be to certain I haven't missed some detail, buried deep, that might later be important.

    In the Renaissance, it was absolutely not assumed that the majority of the audience would be picking up on every single beat - but that was also a time of incredibly rapid change for the English language, and playwrights reveled in lingual one-upsmanship. In the audience, to have to use your imagination and piece your way through was not an unusual thing. Compared to the early 17th century, we've gotten used to a hell of a lot more stability, and so to allow and even encourage that kind of supplementary material isn't necessarily so much a concession to lazier students as it is a mercy for readers who simply aren't trained to approach language in quite the same way Shakespeare's audience was. This is to say nothing of the enormous difference between reading a play and hearing a play.

    Once you're past the business of fretting over the basic issue of plot comprehension, I think you can feel a bit freer to focus on the nuts and bolts of the language and appreciate what it attempts to do. Which in turn is a nice bit of positive reinforcement for a reader who will feel more empowered not to use the training wheels next time.

    For me, this times a million.

    narwhal wrote:
    Why am I Terran?
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Edd wrote: »
    I detest those Shakespeare Made Easy and No Fear Shakespeare things. I read the Richard III one at B&N one day and wanted to punch a baby seal.

    I used to feel that way, but I think they have their place. I've got some limited experience teaching Shakespeare, and I've found that it's helpful for many students to just get the bare bones of the plot out of the way in order to facilitate better discussion and better work. I think about 9/10ths of the frustration with Shakespeare really is just people thinking they need to "get it" all at once, and that's an understandable impulse. Even as a grad student, I've used Sparknotes just be to certain I haven't missed some detail, buried deep, that might later be important.

    In the Renaissance, it was absolutely not assumed that the majority of the audience would be picking up on every single beat - but that was also a time of incredibly rapid change for the English language, and playwrights reveled in lingual one-upsmanship. In the audience, to have to use your imagination and piece your way through was not an unusual thing. Compared to the early 17th century, we've gotten used to a hell of a lot more stability, and so to allow and even encourage that kind of supplementary material isn't necessarily so much a concession to lazier students as it is a mercy for readers who simply aren't trained to approach language in quite the same way Shakespeare's audience was. This is to say nothing of the enormous difference between reading a play and hearing a play.

    Once you're past the business of fretting over the basic issue of plot comprehension, I think you can feel a bit freer to focus on the nuts and bolts of the language and appreciate what it attempts to do. Which in turn is a nice bit of positive reinforcement for a reader who will feel more empowered not to use the training wheels next time.

    For me, this times a million.

    I mean, there's making sure people understand the play and then there's hand holding. Half the point of Shakespeare is the language, compare
    RICHARD
    Now is the winter of our discontent
    Made glorious summer by this son of York,
    And all the clouds that loured upon our house
    In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
    Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths,
    Our bruisèd arms hung up for monuments,
    Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
    Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
    Grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front;
    And now, instead of mounting barbèd steeds
    To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
    He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber
    To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.

    To
    Some Jerk wrote:
    RICHARD
    Now all of my family’s troubles have come to a glorious end, thanks to my brother, King Edward IV. All the clouds that threatened the York family have vanished and turned to sunshine. Now we wear the wreaths of victory on our heads. We’ve taken off our armor and weapons and hung them up as decorations. Instead of hearing trumpets call us to battle, we dance at parties. We get to wear easy smiles on our faces rather than the grim expressions of war. Instead of charging toward our enemies on armored horses, we dance for our ladies in their chambers, accompanied by sexy songs on the lute.

    To me, that second one is a travesty.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • mysticjuicermysticjuicer Registered User regular
    Edd wrote: »
    I detest those Shakespeare Made Easy and No Fear Shakespeare things. I read the Richard III one at B&N one day and wanted to punch a baby seal.

    I used to feel that way, but I think they have their place. I've got some limited experience teaching Shakespeare, and I've found that it's helpful for many students to just get the bare bones of the plot out of the way in order to facilitate better discussion and better work. I think about 9/10ths of the frustration with Shakespeare really is just people thinking they need to "get it" all at once, and that's an understandable impulse. Even as a grad student, I've used Sparknotes just be to certain I haven't missed some detail, buried deep, that might later be important.

    In the Renaissance, it was absolutely not assumed that the majority of the audience would be picking up on every single beat - but that was also a time of incredibly rapid change for the English language, and playwrights reveled in lingual one-upsmanship. In the audience, to have to use your imagination and piece your way through was not an unusual thing. Compared to the early 17th century, we've gotten used to a hell of a lot more stability, and so to allow and even encourage that kind of supplementary material isn't necessarily so much a concession to lazier students as it is a mercy for readers who simply aren't trained to approach language in quite the same way Shakespeare's audience was. This is to say nothing of the enormous difference between reading a play and hearing a play.

    Once you're past the business of fretting over the basic issue of plot comprehension, I think you can feel a bit freer to focus on the nuts and bolts of the language and appreciate what it attempts to do. Which in turn is a nice bit of positive reinforcement for a reader who will feel more empowered not to use the training wheels next time.

    For me, this times a million.

    I mean, there's making sure people understand the play and then there's hand holding. Half the point of Shakespeare is the language, compare
    RICHARD
    Now is the winter of our discontent
    Made glorious summer by this son of York,
    And all the clouds that loured upon our house
    In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
    Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths,
    Our bruisèd arms hung up for monuments,
    Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
    Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
    Grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front;
    And now, instead of mounting barbèd steeds
    To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
    He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber
    To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.

    To
    Some Jerk wrote:
    RICHARD
    Now all of my family’s troubles have come to a glorious end, thanks to my brother, King Edward IV. All the clouds that threatened the York family have vanished and turned to sunshine. Now we wear the wreaths of victory on our heads. We’ve taken off our armor and weapons and hung them up as decorations. Instead of hearing trumpets call us to battle, we dance at parties. We get to wear easy smiles on our faces rather than the grim expressions of war. Instead of charging toward our enemies on armored horses, we dance for our ladies in their chambers, accompanied by sexy songs on the lute.

    To me, that second one is a travesty.

    Shakespeare would be shit if it were written only in the latter style, but I enjoy and follow the former much more after reading the latter. Which was Edd's point.

    narwhal wrote:
    Why am I Terran?
  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    Edd wrote: »
    I detest those Shakespeare Made Easy and No Fear Shakespeare things. I read the Richard III one at B&N one day and wanted to punch a baby seal.

    I used to feel that way, but I think they have their place. I've got some limited experience teaching Shakespeare, and I've found that it's helpful for many students to just get the bare bones of the plot out of the way in order to facilitate better discussion and better work. I think about 9/10ths of the frustration with Shakespeare really is just people thinking they need to "get it" all at once, and that's an understandable impulse. Even as a grad student, I've used Sparknotes just be to certain I haven't missed some detail, buried deep, that might later be important.

    In the Renaissance, it was absolutely not assumed that the majority of the audience would be picking up on every single beat - but that was also a time of incredibly rapid change for the English language, and playwrights reveled in lingual one-upsmanship. In the audience, to have to use your imagination and piece your way through was not an unusual thing. Compared to the early 17th century, we've gotten used to a hell of a lot more stability, and so to allow and even encourage that kind of supplementary material isn't necessarily so much a concession to lazier students as it is a mercy for readers who simply aren't trained to approach language in quite the same way Shakespeare's audience was. This is to say nothing of the enormous difference between reading a play and hearing a play.

    Once you're past the business of fretting over the basic issue of plot comprehension, I think you can feel a bit freer to focus on the nuts and bolts of the language and appreciate what it attempts to do. Which in turn is a nice bit of positive reinforcement for a reader who will feel more empowered not to use the training wheels next time.

    For me, this times a million.

    I mean, there's making sure people understand the play and then there's hand holding. Half the point of Shakespeare is the language, compare
    RICHARD
    Now is the winter of our discontent
    Made glorious summer by this son of York,
    And all the clouds that loured upon our house
    In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
    Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths,
    Our bruisèd arms hung up for monuments,
    Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
    Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
    Grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front;
    And now, instead of mounting barbèd steeds
    To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
    He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber
    To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.

    To
    Some Jerk wrote:
    RICHARD
    Now all of my family’s troubles have come to a glorious end, thanks to my brother, King Edward IV. All the clouds that threatened the York family have vanished and turned to sunshine. Now we wear the wreaths of victory on our heads. We’ve taken off our armor and weapons and hung them up as decorations. Instead of hearing trumpets call us to battle, we dance at parties. We get to wear easy smiles on our faces rather than the grim expressions of war. Instead of charging toward our enemies on armored horses, we dance for our ladies in their chambers, accompanied by sexy songs on the lute.

    To me, that second one is a travesty.

    Oh it does suck for sure, but there you go. The thing's best function is to encourage its own obsolescence.

  • ethicalseanethicalsean Registered User regular
    Organichu wrote: »
    I wish we'd been assigned the Shakespeare Made Easy versions of the plays in highschool. I had a really really hard time making it through the archaic language, so all the great comedy and wordplay just went right over my head, and I had a real hate for Shakespeare as a result.

    *slowly loads firearm*

    wait

    you say 'had' a real hate

    My favorite part of the school year is pulling out the students who are behavior problems, who do not have the reading or language skills to even begin to follow Romeo and Juliet, and read through the passages one on one.

    Me: "Ratcatcher? What the heck catches rats?"
    Student: "...uh a cat?"
    Me: "Is there any other words you might call a cat?"
    Student: "uhh?"
    Me: "Look there, he just got in his face and called him the King of Cats"
    Student: "Oh... oooh!"
    Me: "Dude! He just got called a man-servant, what sort of filth are they allowing us to teach you, children?"
    Student: "hahaha"
    Me: "Geez, its almost as if Shakespeare was writing about that fight that got you suspended last week... four hundred years ago... how did all that silly nonsense work out in the end?"


  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Organichu wrote: »
    I wish we'd been assigned the Shakespeare Made Easy versions of the plays in highschool. I had a really really hard time making it through the archaic language, so all the great comedy and wordplay just went right over my head, and I had a real hate for Shakespeare as a result.

    *slowly loads firearm*

    wait

    you say 'had' a real hate

    My favorite part of the school year is pulling out the students who are behavior problems, who do not have the reading or language skills to even begin to follow Romeo and Juliet, and read through the passages one on one.

    Me: "Ratcatcher? What the heck catches rats?"
    Student: "...uh a cat?"
    Me: "Is there any other words you might call a cat?"
    Student: "uhh?"
    Me: "Look there, he just got in his face and called him the King of Cats"
    Student: "Oh... oooh!"
    Me: "Dude! He just got called a man-servant, what sort of filth are they allowing us to teach you, children?"
    Student: "hahaha"
    Me: "Geez, its almost as if Shakespeare was writing about that fight that got you suspended last week... four hundred years ago... how did all that silly nonsense work out in the end?"


    For this I love you.

  • WinkyWinky Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Edd wrote: »
    Edd wrote: »
    I detest those Shakespeare Made Easy and No Fear Shakespeare things. I read the Richard III one at B&N one day and wanted to punch a baby seal.

    I used to feel that way, but I think they have their place. I've got some limited experience teaching Shakespeare, and I've found that it's helpful for many students to just get the bare bones of the plot out of the way in order to facilitate better discussion and better work. I think about 9/10ths of the frustration with Shakespeare really is just people thinking they need to "get it" all at once, and that's an understandable impulse. Even as a grad student, I've used Sparknotes just be to certain I haven't missed some detail, buried deep, that might later be important.

    In the Renaissance, it was absolutely not assumed that the majority of the audience would be picking up on every single beat - but that was also a time of incredibly rapid change for the English language, and playwrights reveled in lingual one-upsmanship. In the audience, to have to use your imagination and piece your way through was not an unusual thing. Compared to the early 17th century, we've gotten used to a hell of a lot more stability, and so to allow and even encourage that kind of supplementary material isn't necessarily so much a concession to lazier students as it is a mercy for readers who simply aren't trained to approach language in quite the same way Shakespeare's audience was. This is to say nothing of the enormous difference between reading a play and hearing a play.

    Once you're past the business of fretting over the basic issue of plot comprehension, I think you can feel a bit freer to focus on the nuts and bolts of the language and appreciate what it attempts to do. Which in turn is a nice bit of positive reinforcement for a reader who will feel more empowered not to use the training wheels next time.

    For me, this times a million.

    I mean, there's making sure people understand the play and then there's hand holding. Half the point of Shakespeare is the language, compare
    RICHARD
    Now is the winter of our discontent
    Made glorious summer by this son of York,
    And all the clouds that loured upon our house
    In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
    Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths,
    Our bruisèd arms hung up for monuments,
    Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
    Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
    Grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front;
    And now, instead of mounting barbèd steeds
    To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
    He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber
    To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.

    To
    Some Jerk wrote:
    RICHARD
    Now all of my family’s troubles have come to a glorious end, thanks to my brother, King Edward IV. All the clouds that threatened the York family have vanished and turned to sunshine. Now we wear the wreaths of victory on our heads. We’ve taken off our armor and weapons and hung them up as decorations. Instead of hearing trumpets call us to battle, we dance at parties. We get to wear easy smiles on our faces rather than the grim expressions of war. Instead of charging toward our enemies on armored horses, we dance for our ladies in their chambers, accompanied by sexy songs on the lute.

    To me, that second one is a travesty.

    Oh it does suck for sure, but there you go. The thing's best function is to encourage its own obsolescence.

    Right, I mean it's not meant to "update" Shakespeare, it's meant to explain what's going on in case you get lost. I think I benefited a lot from having these when I was first reading Shakespeare; the point was that you were supposed to read what Shakespeare actually wrote and then when you hit a point where you were confused you glanced to the right and there was an explanation, and so you could go "Ah that's what that means". When you're young it's easy to get lost as to what's actually happening.

    EDIT: It's worth pointing out that when you're reading it, as opposed to watching it, you don't get the context of the actual set and actors.

    Winky on
  • MazzyxMazzyx A Restoration through Revolution. Registered User regular
    I think a lot of Shakespeare is lost when it isn't seen on stage. Reading it gets you only so far. Movies do not have that interaction of the audience and the actors. They get you only part of the story. When you see the play even in its most minimalist style presentation the feel and meaning of the words comes through much more clearly.

    meijisig.png
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    There was an excellent Canadian television series called Slings and Arrows that was all about the people involved in running a famous Shakespeare festival. It used to be on Netflix Instant but sadly seems to have been taken down. You can still get the DVDs, though. It's a must for Shakespeare devotees.

    http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Slings_Arrows/70153368?trkid=2361637

  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    I think a lot of Shakespeare is lost when it isn't seen on stage. Reading it gets you only so far. Movies do not have that interaction of the audience and the actors. They get you only part of the story. When you see the play even in its most minimalist style presentation the feel and meaning of the words comes through much more clearly.

    We were talking about this a little earlier, but what other rad performances have we seen?

    I saw more than I can clearly remember in the time I spent in England, but a highlight was certainly McKellen's Lear. That show helped me articulate what it means to do Shakespeare well for a modern audience, because McKellen can do something that many actors cannot: Make poetry sound natural, but no less beautiful for it.

    I saw Stewart do his Macbeth, and maybe it was just an off night for him, but he had this sort of halting rhythm that I suppose was meant to make the character seem pensive and natural, but it demolished the poetry. Ironically, it was almost Shatnerian.

    Edit: Also! Richard III. With puppets.

    Edd on
  • MazzyxMazzyx A Restoration through Revolution. Registered User regular
    Edd wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    I think a lot of Shakespeare is lost when it isn't seen on stage. Reading it gets you only so far. Movies do not have that interaction of the audience and the actors. They get you only part of the story. When you see the play even in its most minimalist style presentation the feel and meaning of the words comes through much more clearly.

    We were talking about this a little earlier, but what other rad performances have we seen?

    I saw more than I can clearly remember in the time I spent in England, but a highlight was certainly McKellen's Lear. That show helped me articulate what it means to do Shakespeare well for a modern audience, because McKellen can do something that many actors cannot: Make poetry sound natural, but no less beautiful for it.

    I saw Stewart do his Macbeth, and maybe it was just an off night for him, but he had this sort of halting rhythm that I suppose was meant to make the character seem pensive and natural, but it demolished the poetry. Ironically, it was almost Shatnerian.

    Edit: Also! Richard III. With puppets.

    I feel there is an energy at a theatre you don't get through film or just reading a play. They all different experiences. I have never watched a famous actor in person doing Shakespeare. It has always been local troops. And I have always found the performances much more enjoyable.

    Now this doesn't mean you don't get a lot from the movie or reading. But I think some of the confusion can be cleared up when you see it performed live just due to the back and forth an audience.

    meijisig.png
  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Edd wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    I think a lot of Shakespeare is lost when it isn't seen on stage. Reading it gets you only so far. Movies do not have that interaction of the audience and the actors. They get you only part of the story. When you see the play even in its most minimalist style presentation the feel and meaning of the words comes through much more clearly.

    We were talking about this a little earlier, but what other rad performances have we seen?

    I saw more than I can clearly remember in the time I spent in England, but a highlight was certainly McKellen's Lear. That show helped me articulate what it means to do Shakespeare well for a modern audience, because McKellen can do something that many actors cannot: Make poetry sound natural, but no less beautiful for it.

    I saw Stewart do his Macbeth, and maybe it was just an off night for him, but he had this sort of halting rhythm that I suppose was meant to make the character seem pensive and natural, but it demolished the poetry. Ironically, it was almost Shatnerian.

    Edit: Also! Richard III. With puppets.

    I feel there is an energy at a theatre you don't get through film or just reading a play. They all different experiences. I have never watched a famous actor in person doing Shakespeare. It has always been local troops. And I have always found the performances much more enjoyable.

    Now this doesn't mean you don't get a lot from the movie or reading. But I think some of the confusion can be cleared up when you see it performed live just due to the back and forth an audience.

    Oh most definitely. These plays are absolutely meant to be heard. The grammar predates modern punctuation, and so the plays were written such that much of the meaning was dependent upon the pace and inflection of the actor.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I will 100% agree that people need to hear the words. A cool thing that my senior year english teacher did was have us all read out parts in MacBeth. Come to think of it, that incident was probably what caused me to pick up my major and specialization.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • DarklyreDarklyre Registered User regular
    I never really understood Hamlet until I read the /tg/ thread this was culled from: Hamlet, with Orks.

  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Back in the '80's, the BBC did a production of every stage performance of Shakespeare. Some of the plays have Patrick Stewart and other famous people playing parts.

    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=BBC+Shakespeare

    Derek Jacobi plays a fabulous Hamlet.

    Lilnoobs on
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Darklyre wrote: »
    I never really understood Hamlet until I read the /tg/ thread this was culled from: Hamlet, with Orks.

    oh my god

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I love spotting (and reading/watching) Shakespearean influences in modern culture, whether conscious homages or not. I started a PhD about that, a long time ago, but had to quit.

    For example, if you like King Lear, try Edward Bond's Lear or The Mirror of Her Dreams by Stephen Donaldson.

    I guess the most famous is Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. The film with Gary Oldman and Tim Roth is marvellous.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Edd wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Edd wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    I think a lot of Shakespeare is lost when it isn't seen on stage. Reading it gets you only so far. Movies do not have that interaction of the audience and the actors. They get you only part of the story. When you see the play even in its most minimalist style presentation the feel and meaning of the words comes through much more clearly.

    We were talking about this a little earlier, but what other rad performances have we seen?

    I saw more than I can clearly remember in the time I spent in England, but a highlight was certainly McKellen's Lear. That show helped me articulate what it means to do Shakespeare well for a modern audience, because McKellen can do something that many actors cannot: Make poetry sound natural, but no less beautiful for it.

    I saw Stewart do his Macbeth, and maybe it was just an off night for him, but he had this sort of halting rhythm that I suppose was meant to make the character seem pensive and natural, but it demolished the poetry. Ironically, it was almost Shatnerian.

    Edit: Also! Richard III. With puppets.

    I feel there is an energy at a theatre you don't get through film or just reading a play. They all different experiences. I have never watched a famous actor in person doing Shakespeare. It has always been local troops. And I have always found the performances much more enjoyable.

    Now this doesn't mean you don't get a lot from the movie or reading. But I think some of the confusion can be cleared up when you see it performed live just due to the back and forth an audience.

    Oh most definitely. These plays are absolutely meant to be heard. The grammar predates modern punctuation, and so the plays were written such that much of the meaning was dependent upon the pace and inflection of the actor.

    I would go quite far with this: If the students have only one choice, I would rather highschool kids watch a movie (Kenneth Branagh's are all good) than just read the text. And I would watch a shitty local production of a play over reading the text too. Reading Shakespeare is on a par with reading the script of Star Wars or Alien and wondering what all the fuss is about.

    Read the poems, sure. But watch the plays, even if it's only Baz Luhrmann. It is drama, for god's sake! Watch it!

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • LibrarianThorneLibrarianThorne Registered User regular
    Edd wrote: »
    I loathe Romeo and Juliet, it honestly seems to me to be his weakest play. Caesar is by far my favorite, such epic tragedy on display and such great emotion. Midsummer Night's Dream is also fantastic, and I duly love Othello and The Tempest as well.

    What don't you like about it?

    It's the worst romance he ever wrote? Compare Romeo and Juliet to MacBeth and Lady MacBeth, to the King and Queen in Midsummer Night's Dream... It honestly reads to me more like a parody than anything else. The relationship has no real nuance, and is nothing but heavy-handed pablum. It's just plain bad, and that it's held up by so many as his greatest work boggles my mind.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Edd wrote: »
    I loathe Romeo and Juliet, it honestly seems to me to be his weakest play. Caesar is by far my favorite, such epic tragedy on display and such great emotion. Midsummer Night's Dream is also fantastic, and I duly love Othello and The Tempest as well.

    What don't you like about it?

    It's the worst romance he ever wrote? Compare Romeo and Juliet to MacBeth and Lady MacBeth, to the King and Queen in Midsummer Night's Dream... It honestly reads to me more like a parody than anything else. The relationship has no real nuance, and is nothing but heavy-handed pablum. It's just plain bad, and that it's held up by so many as his greatest work boggles my mind.

    Well, it isn't a great romance and people who act like it are silly geese.

    Think about it this way, before the play starts and right up until he sees Juliet, Romeo is trying to chat up whats her name, Rosaline, and then sees Juiliet and is smitten like a 'tarded kitten.

    They're also teenagers.

    While this might not have been what the original intent was, I think there's a reason that the plotline gets co-opted by teen angst dramas and comedies all the time.

    It's a really dark comedy when you think about it.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • LoveIsUnityLoveIsUnity Registered User regular
    I was lucky enough to take a graduate seminar with a great Early Modern scholar when I was finishing up my MA in English, and one of the things I really appreciated about the class is that the focus was on the lesser known works. He (rightfully) assumed that we'd read all of the big stuff, so we got to read and study his narrative poems, Rape of Lucrece and Venus and Adonis, and stuff like Cymbeline, Coriolanus, and Two Noble Kinsmen. It was neat to read some of the lesser known stuff, and even if some of it isn't on par with Hamlet or Lear, the man sure could write a fucking play, and often under strict rhythmic structures no less.

    Can we talk about other Early Modern dramatists in here, or is this exclusively for Shakespeare?

    sig.gif
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    I was lucky enough to take a graduate seminar with a great Early Modern scholar when I was finishing up my MA in English, and one of the things I really appreciated about the class is that the focus was on the lesser known works. He (rightfully) assumed that we'd read all of the big stuff, so we got to read and study his narrative poems, Rape of Lucrece and Venus and Adonis, and stuff like Cymbeline, Coriolanus, and Two Noble Kinsmen. It was neat to read some of the lesser known stuff, and even if some of it isn't on par with Hamlet or Lear, the man sure could write a fucking play, and often under strict rhythmic structures no less.

    Can we talk about other Early Modern dramatists in here, or is this exclusively for Shakespeare?

    well i figure we could make it for any artists who redefined how we look at the world.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • mysticjuicermysticjuicer Registered User regular
    Hachface wrote: »
    There was an excellent Canadian television series called Slings and Arrows that was all about the people involved in running a famous Shakespeare festival. It used to be on Netflix Instant but sadly seems to have been taken down. You can still get the DVDs, though. It's a must for Shakespeare devotees.

    http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Slings_Arrows/70153368?trkid=2361637

    Yesssssssssssssss!

    narwhal wrote:
    Why am I Terran?
  • LolkenLolken Registered User, __BANNED USERS, Dumbasses
    LUCIUS. Art thou not sorry for these heinous deeds?
    AARON. Ay, that I had not done a thousand more.
    Even now I curse the day- and yet, I think,
    Few come within the compass of my curse-
    Wherein I did not some notorious ill;
    As kill a man, or else devise his death;
    Ravish a maid, or plot the way to do it;
    Accuse some innocent, and forswear myself;
    Set deadly enmity between two friends;
    Make poor men's cattle break their necks;
    Set fire on barns and hay-stacks in the night,
    And bid the owners quench them with their tears.
    Oft have I digg'd up dead men from their graves,
    And set them upright at their dear friends' door
    Even when their sorrows almost was forgot,
    And on their skins, as on the bark of trees,
    Have with my knife carved in Roman letters
    'Let not your sorrow die, though I am dead.'
    Tut, I have done a thousand dreadful things
    As willingly as one would kill a fly;
    And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
    But that I cannot do ten thousand more.

    "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton.

    "Money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts lotsely" - Me.
  • shalmeloshalmelo sees no evil Registered User regular
    Lolken wrote: »
    LUCIUS. Art thou not sorry for these heinous deeds?
    AARON. Ay, that I had not done a thousand more.
    Even now I curse the day- and yet, I think,
    Few come within the compass of my curse-
    Wherein I did not some notorious ill;
    As kill a man, or else devise his death;
    Ravish a maid, or plot the way to do it;
    Accuse some innocent, and forswear myself;
    Set deadly enmity between two friends;
    Make poor men's cattle break their necks;
    Set fire on barns and hay-stacks in the night,
    And bid the owners quench them with their tears.
    Oft have I digg'd up dead men from their graves,
    And set them upright at their dear friends' door
    Even when their sorrows almost was forgot,
    And on their skins, as on the bark of trees,
    Have with my knife carved in Roman letters
    'Let not your sorrow die, though I am dead.'
    Tut, I have done a thousand dreadful things
    As willingly as one would kill a fly;
    And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
    But that I cannot do ten thousand more.

    I had a Shakespeare professor in college who directed a production of Titus Andronicus as a Tarantino-style black comedy. It was amazing, and I can never take that play seriously again.

    Steam ID: Shalmelo || LoL: melo2boogaloo || tweets
  • -SPI--SPI- Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    Kenneth Brannagh's Henry V remains one of my favorite films full stop. If anyone who loves Shakespeare hasn't seen it, then watch it immediately.
    It is so damn good.


    I think my other favourite film adaptation would actually be Akira Kurosawa's Throne of Blood, which is based on Macbeth.

    8t2qhu8l050f.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.