Is Shakespeare "as boring as bat shit "?
Sun, 9 Nov 2008, 10:00 pmstinger102 posts in thread
Is Shakespeare "as boring as bat shit "?
Sun, 9 Nov 2008, 10:00 pmWhen I was in high school and Shakespeare was compulsory, I used to love the stories (plenty of sex and violence) but hated the language. Why could he have not said the same thing in plain and simple words? And why should we Aussies have to learn about old Pommie poets anyway?
When I was at uni in the 70s, I had a small part in the scottish play. I had one long speech to remember. It was most daunting, until it was pointed out to me that it was written in iambic pentameter, so that once the actor got into the rhythm, the actual words just seemed to flow.
As I matured, I began to appreciate the whole canon more and more. I realised that Shakespeare had contibuted more to the development of the English language than any other single person (with the possible exception of Chaucer). Moreover, it was not only great literature, but if you could tap into the language, it was great theatre as well.
Nowadays, it stikes me that any theatre actor worth his or her salt has done, and yearns to do more Shakespeare, as an important aspect of their artistic development. Not only that, but the plays never seem to lose their audience appeal.
Finally, I regard myself as a devotee of Australian dramatic works and historical narratives. I value our national heritage to the point of jingoism. Having said that, I regard Shakespeare as just as much a part of our heritage as Britain's.
I therefore categorically disagree with the above proposition.
stingerSun, 9 Nov 2008, 10:00 pm
When I was in high school and Shakespeare was compulsory, I used to love the stories (plenty of sex and violence) but hated the language. Why could he have not said the same thing in plain and simple words? And why should we Aussies have to learn about old Pommie poets anyway?
When I was at uni in the 70s, I had a small part in the scottish play. I had one long speech to remember. It was most daunting, until it was pointed out to me that it was written in iambic pentameter, so that once the actor got into the rhythm, the actual words just seemed to flow.
As I matured, I began to appreciate the whole canon more and more. I realised that Shakespeare had contibuted more to the development of the English language than any other single person (with the possible exception of Chaucer). Moreover, it was not only great literature, but if you could tap into the language, it was great theatre as well.
Nowadays, it stikes me that any theatre actor worth his or her salt has done, and yearns to do more Shakespeare, as an important aspect of their artistic development. Not only that, but the plays never seem to lose their audience appeal.
Finally, I regard myself as a devotee of Australian dramatic works and historical narratives. I value our national heritage to the point of jingoism. Having said that, I regard Shakespeare as just as much a part of our heritage as Britain's.
I therefore categorically disagree with the above proposition.
Bass GuySun, 9 Nov 2008, 10:17 pm
Depends how it's done.
Shakespeare, in and of itself, is wonderful- it's a cracking good read!! But it can be performed appallingly! Dry, academic boring productions we have all sat through, but every now and again a company puts on one of the Bard's soapies, and it all rings true; it engages and makes sense... lovely!
El
"Proud and insolent youth; prepare to meet thy doom!"
Tari-XalyrSun, 9 Nov 2008, 10:47 pm
The Bard
I am a Shakespeare fan. I have been from the very beginning. Yes, the lanugage can be daunting but once you pick up speech patterns it's a nicely flowing piece of interesting literature.
Having just finished my second Shakespeare unit at uni I've had the chance to look at the academic side of his work as well as the theatrical side and have enjoyed both. One is enriched by the other, it brings much more understanding to the plays and poetry.
I did a Shakespeare unit with highschool kids - most of whom had never read a novel in their life - but they enjoyed Shakespeare. He does manage to create an ever growing appeal.
I have seen those who have had bad Shakespeare encounters and refuse to try a second time and realise how much fun and how interesting his characters can be. I think its sad. Doing part of my degree in Literature has forced me to read books I highly dislike and even if you dislike Shakespeare - like said books - you will appreciate what they have done not only to theatre but also to literature as well.
~ Tari
The Writer is a child forever listening at the keyhole of the adult world.
NaSun, 9 Nov 2008, 10:47 pm
While I do generally find
While I do generally find Shakespeare boring, what bothers me the most is that this one-time playwright overshadows every other playwright no matter how good they are. How many people have heard of Luigi Pirandello? And yet his most well-known play won him the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1924 (or was that '26?). People act as if his (Shakespeare's) plays are the be all and end all of great theatrical writing, when Sophocles and all those other Greeks are just as great, and much much older.
I think it's partly media, and partly the age old issue of theatre companies needing to make money by doing the 'safe' plays.
It's fine to recognise the bard for the contributions made to theatre, writing and literature in general; his work is worthy of it. But I think we often forget all the other writers out there, and for that, yes, I think his work is boring.
Round head foam puppet pattern at
Puppets in Melbourne
Greg RossSun, 9 Nov 2008, 11:20 pm
Worthless Old Salt
I certainly see why you would hold those views about Shakespeare Peter, but my view differs, in that I studied Latin for five years (as a lawyer of a similar age, I suspect you also may have practised the odd declension or two) and that, combined with my love of Greek mythology colours my viewpoint on our language origins and rollicking good tales.
I willingly bow to the fact that I may not be
worth my salt as an actor - I have no wish / desire / yearning to do
Shakespeare as part of my artistic development, although you are quite right in
stating the Bard is part of our heritage, it’s just that I find people such as
David Williamson, Tim Winton and Leonard Cohen (the later two not playwrights)
infinitely more interesting in terms of capturing the dilemmas of the world in
which I live, which takes nothing away from Shakespeare, or his contribution to the English language.
There is of course, no right or wrong, it's just personal choice, although I have permitted myself to smile, at some who posted after my review. I don't know if they are, however they may well be earnest lovers of Shakespeare, perhaps looking to advance their artistic development, yet one or two seemed incapable of understanding the English language, completely missing the fact that my advice to people was to go and see the play ( Laughing Matter) for the skill of the director, her cast and crew, all of whom were excellent.
It really does prove the need for a good director, when he or she may well be confronted with actors who can't understand the words written in front of them. All the Shakespeare plays in the world won't help them, but some core remedial English education may. Of course, to add a Shakespearean twist, there is the possibility that some were being deliberately obtuse
All Good Things
Greg Ross
Minister for Good Times
Walter PlingeMon, 10 Nov 2008, 09:49 am
Minister for Good Times ? When?
I think the Bible is a far superior work to any mentioned so far. I am sure there are more quotes from that source in modern English than from WS.
jmuzzMon, 10 Nov 2008, 10:16 am
Shakespeare had some good 'uns
I think you're right Stinger (yes, you read that right :)). I think the appreciation of Shakespeare is something that happens over time and with maturity. It's similar to appreciating wine.
Actually the two go well together - my girlfriend is currently holding readings of Shakespeares's plays on a Sunday afternoon - we do a read through of the play and my wine stock seems to be reducing at an alaarming rate.
But I digress, the readings are helping me appreciate the works more and indeed we have recaps to ensure we understand what is happening at given points when dullards such as myself start with the "what the hell is going on" faces. It's a lot of fun.
Melissa's intent is to do all the plays (in alphabetical order) which means that in a couple of weeks we'll be doing Coriolanus - a work of his which almost never gets a mention.
It also gives us a chance to "perform" Shakespeare in that we get to choose the voice of our character(s) and the delivery of the text. It's sure to stand us in good stead if we ever decide to audition for an actual production of one of his works.
Dismissing Shakespeare is too easy - dare I say, fashionable.
I understand that other great writers have come before and after Shakespeare and I don't believe Stinger's rebuttal was intended to dismiss those authors. From a theatrical point of view I think it's clear that the works of geezers such as Aristophanes still get a workout to this very day but the importance of Shakespeare in regard to the development of modern theatre can't be denied.
Still, you can lead the metaphorical horse to water but you can't make it drink. We may be on a losing team trying to rally others to the cause Stinger - methinks they may have too ingrained in their memories long afternoons in school trying to work out what the hell King Lear is all about.
Anyone interested in joining in on Sunday afternoon Shakespeare readings/wine quaffings, please message me and I'll pass on your details to Melissa. She's always on the lookout for participants. Hamlet looms and that's likely to be a marathon - at least a three bottle exercise.
;)
ashmanMon, 10 Nov 2008, 10:53 am
I think it's very easy to
I think it's very easy to confuse important with interesting. A lot of people who have commented so far have pointed out that they find his language and plots to be very enjoyable. I can't argue with that, each to his own as it were.
There have also been a number of comments about how important Shakespeare is to the development of theatre and language. Also valid points but hardly an argument for his works being 'interesting'. Look at it another way: the US constitution, the text of the Mabo ruling, Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, all very important texts, and all very interesting if you have a particular interest in politics, law or evolution respectively but none of which make for a fun Friday night.
At the end of the day whether something is boring or not is a personal opinion. For me, provided that I don't have to listen, I will happily go and see any of his shows. If you ask me what went on I won't have a clue, but I will tell you all about the pretty lights and sets.
crgwllmsMon, 10 Nov 2008, 01:55 pm
Superior being...but superior work?
>>I think the Bible is a far superior work to any mentioned so far. I am sure there are more quotes from that source in modern English than from WS.
William Shakespeare is popularly believed to have contributed more new phrases to common-usage English than any other source...including words he made up. Samuel Johnson's 'A Dictionary Of The English Language' - the first standard English dictionary, published in 1755 - quotes Shakespeare more than any other author. Then it all really spreads from there.
Authors, poets, composers, painters, artists of all kinds since then have been unavoidably influenced by his work. 'Modern English' has been ingrained with his influence since its development, which is why he is still regarded (rightly or wrongly) as such an important component.
Yes, the Bible is a good and obvious example of a text that has been more far-reaching, and used as an inspiration for a collosal amount of popular culture. Shakespeare himself uses it as an influence.
But when you consider WS died in 1616, having exerted considerable influence for 30 years on the development of modern English; and that the King James translation of the Bible (the first version in English) was not published until 1611....there's a good chance that any modern English quotes from the Bible we know today may have actually been influenced by Shakespeare's language!
As for being 'far superior'...I guess you are talking in a general sense, but in the context of this discussion on a theatre forum, I'd disagree. While there are some terrific characters, many memorable scenes, and the basis of a couple of catchy musicals, the scene transitions are too long and it's all too repetitive and predictable. If I had to sit through a performance of the whole Bible, I'd probably have walked out around the Book of Nehemiah.
Cheers,
Craig
~<8>-/====\---------
crgwllmsMon, 10 Nov 2008, 02:22 pm
Or...as INTERESTING as bat-shit...!
By the way, your premise assumes that bat shit is boring...some cultures throughout history would disagree:
Bat shit was recognised by ancient civilisations as a soil enhancing fertiliser, allowing cultivation and development.
The Incas punished any disturbance to guano-producing birds or bats with the death penalty.
As an ingredient in early explosives, batshit has had significant influence on history and culture.
The War of The Pacific (1879-1883) was fought over strategic rights to guano and the Bolivians attempting to tax Chilean guano-harvesters.
The US government of the 1850's passed the 'Guano Islands Act' which essentially gave them 'rights' to claim many unoccupied islands.
Bat populations and delicate cave systems are in serious threat due to ongoing harvesting of the guano.
And while people seemed quite ready to heap praise on Heath Ledger's final appearance on celluloid, I honestly thought the whole effort was another type of guano.
Cheers,
Craig
~<8>-/====\---------
Walter PlingeMon, 10 Nov 2008, 02:47 pm
Bat Guano, Col.
Wasn't he a character in "Dr Strangelove"?
-Stinger wrote.."Shakespeare had contibuted more to the development of the English language than any other single person."
I thought he was married - to Anne Hathaway!?
NaMon, 10 Nov 2008, 03:30 pm
Let's not forget
that much of the bible is based on the Torah... (well, you know, one part of it anyway)
Round head foam puppet pattern at
Puppets in Melbourne
Walter PlingeMon, 10 Nov 2008, 03:32 pm
My thoughts, mostly random.
The overall response I wanted to make was that one can easily be an amazing actor, adored by an audience and do the greatest work on stage of one's generation and never once go within 50 feet of a play by William Shakespeare. There is no requirement to "get" Shakespeare if one wishes to be an actor.
That aside, he's easily my favourite playwright because his plays offer so much to me as a director, an actor or a spectator. Hamlet in particular is to me the greatest play in the English language. It's rich, evocative, dramatic and no matter what part you get in the play Shakespeare has given you something decent to work with.
Of course many people overstate the quality of Shakespeare's plays as a whole. It's important I think to realise that several of them are pretty terrible.
Jmuzz, I agree: Coriolanus is a sensational script. I really want to stage it one of these days.
LogosMon, 10 Nov 2008, 04:22 pm
Aaah, the Bard.
Here is where I begin to bore for Australia. It is always possible though neither proved nor provable that Bill was one of the scholars that helped to produce the King James Bible. After all can you imagine academics actually producing some of the glorious poetics of the King James.
As for learning to appreciate the bard; my children had the stories of Shakespeare's plays told them as bedtime stories by my first wife. They began reading the plays by 12 or 13 and have always appreciated them although two of them no longer see much theatre. Certainly they had no issues studying Shakespeare at school.
I read them Winnie The Pooh as a bedtime story I have no idea what that says about me and my first wife.
Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au
LogosMon, 10 Nov 2008, 04:24 pm
PS
Indeed some few of the plays are indeed crap. But I actually think that applies to Hamlet so each to his own.
Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au
NaMon, 10 Nov 2008, 04:24 pm
I think it says you give
I think it says you give your kids a balanced education.
Round head foam puppet pattern at
Puppets in Melbourne
Walter PlingeMon, 10 Nov 2008, 06:51 pm
Thinking Hamlet's crap?
Thinking Hamlet's crap? That's a bold minority you sit in there, and bless you for it. : )
Out of interest, if you think Hamlet is crap (which is fine) which ones do you like?
LogosMon, 10 Nov 2008, 08:06 pm
Well.
I find the ending of Hamlet truly farcical and in addition while I do understand his inability to act against Claudius is the essential tragedy of the piece it simply irritates the hell out of me.
I love The Scottish tragedy, Much Ado About Nothing is my favourite what? It's not a comedy although it can be very funny it's not a pastoral although some of it is outdoors. I do like it though. I also like The Shrew with due deference to it's total lack of political correctness and I also really like some of the later more difficult ones The Tempest and The Winters tale come to mind.
If I'm not careful I could end up giving you a rated list of the lot. Mind you Timon of Athens is a yawn (Yes I have read it, once.) Titus Andronicus of course gives Quentin Tarantino a run for his money what with kids being turned into pies and so on.
I think I'll stop now.
Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au
jeffhansenMon, 10 Nov 2008, 10:08 pm
MacBeth
What is it with actors and their refusal to utter "Macbeth". I've never understood it, and refuse to enable the superstitions of others.
MacBeth, MacBeth, MacBeth, MacBeth, MacBeth, MacBeth.
So there!
www.meltheco.org.au
crgwllmsMon, 10 Nov 2008, 10:23 pm
Utter rubbish
Well, superstitious or not, I don't think it quite qualifies as 'uttering' if it's posted on a website, does it?
Everyone's typing away in silence here. The voices are all in our heads.
Cheers,
Craig
~<8>-/====\---------
jessmessMon, 10 Nov 2008, 10:34 pm
Be ware theatrical superstition extremists...
Last time I mentioned the scottish play someone broke there shoulder. The time before that our lighting gal broke her collarbone and part of the floor at the old mill actually collapsed...I don't believe in superstition, but I'm starting to think someone out there does--and is breaking people's limbs in an attempt to convince me...
jessmessMon, 10 Nov 2008, 10:35 pm
Why is everything suddenly in italics?
And I like the bible, but chronicles hasn't added much to literary history, lets face it.
stingerMon, 10 Nov 2008, 11:13 pm
Being a 'Maverick ' has its cost
Unless Jeff runs around this website 3 times, maybe nobody will turn up to his auditions next Saturday.
Ssstinger>>>
NaMon, 10 Nov 2008, 11:31 pm
Or it could just be that
Or it could just be that theatre is a dangerous environment anyway? And that there might be a thing called self-fulfilling prophecies?
Round head foam puppet pattern at
Puppets in Melbourne
Don AllenMon, 10 Nov 2008, 11:38 pm
Or you need to do some
Or you need to do some maintenance and develop better workplace methods.
NaMon, 10 Nov 2008, 11:45 pm
Yes, and that too Round
Yes, and that too
Round head foam puppet pattern at
Puppets in Melbourne
jeffhansenMon, 10 Nov 2008, 11:49 pm
Nah
Hehehe. Looks like I'm in trouble then.
www.meltheco.org.au
JoeMcMon, 10 Nov 2008, 11:51 pm
Tradition!
MacBe'h!
"Without our traditions, we would be just like a - like a fiddler on the roof?"
LogosTue, 11 Nov 2008, 08:25 am
Comment
Ecclesiastes is wonderful.
Back to the Scottish Tragedy. Back in the early Nineties I directed it here in Adelaide. I did not believe in the curse. Now I realise all the following could have occurred anyway but the sheer weight of coincidence just kepy on going.
1/ A trained fight instructor who is very good and very careful nearly put his own eye out with a quarterstaff. Three stiches.
2/ Our set builder put a drill through his hand and it got very badly infected.
3/ A member of our cast who had been happily married for over twenty years suddenly became the victim of domestic violence and we lost her. (Understandably)
4/ Two weeks before the show our board operator had a motor cycle accident broke his leg.
5/ We had a list of minor accidents in the stage fighting including when the Thane put his foot through the stage at a dress rehearsal.
6/ On the second to last night on his way home my third witch (male) had a motor cycle accident. (He performed both the matinee and evening performance with a sling as he had wrenched the muscles around his collar bone.)
The sheer numbers of little accidents and malfunctions on top of this lot was ridiculous.
I am not normally superstitious but that did for me.
Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au
NormaTue, 11 Nov 2008, 09:48 am
THAT play!
Does a parody of THAT play qualify for a possible run of misfortunes too I wonder???If so , maybe Harbour Theatre should take out some extra insurance!!
(See their forthcoming auditions notice)
Jeff- you're a brave man tempting fate -before your auditions too!
Zola VodTue, 11 Nov 2008, 10:47 am
SHAKESPEARE
Shakespeare is only boring as bat shit if it is directed by somebody as boring as bat shit, stars people as boring as bat shit, designed by people as boring as bat shit and reviewed by people as boring as bat shit.
Some excelent interpretations of shakespeare:
JULIE TAYMORS TITUS AND ANDRONICUS (FILM)
BELL SHAKESPEARES MACBETH (STAGE)
and there is many more. So of course shakespeares often going to be as boring as bat shit, because unfortunately
SOME PEOPLE ARE AS BORING, AS..... vanilla.....
Zola VodTue, 11 Nov 2008, 10:50 am
By the way...
And i HATE the bible, im sorry. Just another tool for oppression, judgement, murder and tyranny.
But then again... thats probably because its interpreted by people as boring as..... cabbage, lots and lots of cabbage
OBAMA ROCKS!!
LabrugTue, 11 Nov 2008, 11:55 am
Ebb and Flow
I find hypnotic harmony in Shakespeare when it is spoken well. I can listen to the dialogue and really get a sense of the imagry. When I was studying in School, it was read by bored students and equally bored teachers and Shakespeare simply doesn't work unless it is spoken with at least a little bit of passion.
I have read sections out to my daughter, who quite naturally has a love of anything to do with words and language, and she loves the rythyms and patterns in the language. She is 7. It is not age that increases appreciation as I know my father doesn't like it, and he's ... older. I think it really comes down to how it is presented, and it is not just direction or performance. The key is the way it is spoke.
Take Hamlet's speech to the players = 'Speak the speech, I pray you' and apply the concepts to all Shakespeare (infact all english) and see what happens.
Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)
Jeff Watkins
Lee SheppardTue, 11 Nov 2008, 01:28 pm
If it came to a choice
We had some English teachers that loved the "classics", so by the end of High School we'd studied quite a few of Will's works and I thoroughly enjoyed them all. I will say though, that for me, Shakespeare needs to be seen rather than read. I've understood far more when watching a play performed or film than trying to work my way through the text.
Now - if you're talking boring - for me it's the other "classics" - Bronte, Dickens etc that really get me nodding off.
Lee Sheppard
- Keeping it strictly amateur -
NaTue, 11 Nov 2008, 01:36 pm
People tend to
People tend to underestimate the need to view a play rather than read it; I think it's our English classes that do it. We spend too much time analysing the stage directions and dialogue, and not enough time understanding that a play isn't like a novel.
Round head foam puppet pattern at
Puppets in Melbourne
crgwllmsTue, 11 Nov 2008, 04:44 pm
Children: should be seen and not read
I'm not certain that I even really agree with the concept of play scripts being included in the term 'literature'. We don't read blueprints of a building and call them 'architecture'.
They are a design, not an end product, and I think that's why so many have had trouble in getting enthused by it when studying the texts in school.
Yes, a lot of Shakespeare's work is literary craftsmanship (the Sonnets and poems are the obvious example, but much shows through also in most of the plays).
But not ALL of each play is a 'cracking good read'....at least, not unless it is read ALOUD.
And then, the reading of such a text departs the world of the literary and becomes the world of the dramatic - which is usually beyond the reading skills of the average highschool reader.
(Or teacher).
Cheers,
Craig
~<8>-/====\---------
Freddie BadgeryTue, 11 Nov 2008, 10:21 pm
Shameless Plug
Is Shakespeare as boring as bat shit?
Come and see 'The Taming of the Shrew' at the Woodlake Amphitheatre in Ellenbrook (Dec 5, 6, 12, and 13) and decide for yourself!
hehehehe
freddie
the rocking jedi badger
David AshtonTue, 11 Nov 2008, 10:24 pm
In the lat 400 years the
In the lat 400 years the English language has changed literally beyond recognition, the most simple phrases are completely misunderstood and the only way to really understand it would be with a translation by someone like John Bell, who I toured several shows with.
To get the real feel of a Shakespeare play you need to do as Shakespeare did, all male casts and playing in pubs beer gardens or car parks.That would tend to de-intellectualize it a bit.
As for the bible vs Shakespeare they're all great works
of fiction.
LabrugWed, 12 Nov 2008, 09:26 am
Silly me
Reading aloud is of course what I meant.
Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)
Jeff Watkins
GarrethWed, 12 Nov 2008, 10:45 am
Here's where we think the
Here's where we think the whole Macbeth superstition came from. Being Shakespeare's shortest play and the one with arguably the most violence (except for Titus Andronicus) it was always guarenteed to draw a crowd. So when rep. companies were facing hard time financially they would do a revival of Macbeth in order to generate some income quick. However due to lack of funds the play was quite often badly rehearsed and with loads of fight scenes it really was an accident waiting to happen... and it did. So Actors being the wonderful superstitious creatures that they are and sailors (back in the day they would have also had sailors who were on leave as Crew (Which is why its called crew, rigging etc.))who were worse probably came to the conclusion due to the "infernal" utterances of the play that it was cursed by bad spirits.
Having said all this without exception every time someone has uttered macbeth in a theatre or in rehearsal the show has then been plagued by a large number of mishaps... for example Freddy Badgery and I were doing The Tempest and back stage cast members had been uttering Macbeth and low and behold that night the lights in explicably went out, I nearly fell down a large whole and there was a loose nail which jammed itself intoa cast members foot... then again we were at rechabites!!!
Anyway out of respect to my fellow actors and my predecessors(sp?) I will not utter Macbeth. Besides everyone loves a Ghost story and who are we to ruin it for them!
GarrethWed, 12 Nov 2008, 10:52 am
DID YOU SAY THE 5,6,12 and
DID YOU SAY THE 5,6,12 and 13th of December at Woodlake Amphitheatre, Ellenbrook and that I should call 0414 47 47 37 to book my tickets for this FREE performance and that I could find all the info here http://www.theatre.asn.au/production/2008/shakespeare_on_the_lake_the_taming_of_the_shrew ???
I will be there!
LogosWed, 12 Nov 2008, 10:59 am
Red Herring
Widening the topic a bit (a lot actually), this is where the modern habit of using a dramaturge to tell a writer how to rewrite his plays falls down. I have been told several times that my work is far better on the stage than on the page. if you rewrite too much led by someone who hasn't heard your work spoken you can end up rewriting the heart out of it.
I must admit to being supremely suspicious of dramaturgy, after all they have their own agenda and it may clash with the playwrights. I prefer to organise and run my own readings with experienced actors and then rewrite from that.
Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing.
www.tonymoore.id.au
Walter PlingeWed, 12 Nov 2008, 11:22 am
I've done quite a bit of
I've done quite a bit of dramaturgical work with Shakespeare's plays - it's usually a bit of a drain on the audience's energy (and soreness of their bottoms) to always produce unexpurgated 3 1/2 hour epics every time. Working out what (and who) to cut is a fairly tricky business - and I'm sure I (and everyone else who's done it) have made a lot of mistakes in the process.
jeffhansenWed, 12 Nov 2008, 12:19 pm
The last time I dared utter
The last time I dared utter Macbeth in the green room........nothing happened. In fact ther show went really well.
www.meltheco.org.au
stingerWed, 12 Nov 2008, 02:48 pm
Just answer the question please!
This MacSuperstition stuff is way off the point - unless it is to illustrate that Shakespeare in anything but boring, bat shit style or otherwise.
My favourite is Twlelfth Night (or 'What, you Will?'). Just about every character in it is hilarious, including the romantic leads. Even the sex and violence is all in fun!-)
Can somebody please put it on sometime soon? I think I'm about ready for Sir Toby!
Ssstinger>>>
LabrugWed, 12 Nov 2008, 03:17 pm
Love to
I would love to direct SS, and espec 12th Night, Much Ado, etc... Only problem I would have is wanting to be doing one or more of the roles.
Absit invidia (and DFT :nono:)
Jeff Watkins
Walter PlingeWed, 12 Nov 2008, 04:12 pm
Macbeth
I have to disagree with your example of Bells Macbeth being a great interpretation.
I thought Bells 'Macbeth' was unentertaining.
The direction was stagnant and Sean O'Shea (Macbeth) had no depth and understanding of his character. The pace was excruciatingly slow and the chemistry between Lady Macbeth and Macbeth was non-existent.
I was very disappointed at the time, as I thoroughly enjoyed Bells interpretation of 'A Midsummers Night Dream', which IS a great example of well done Shakespeare.
ashmanWed, 12 Nov 2008, 05:17 pm
Mesh just put it on
Mesh recently put it on cleverly disguised as a musical featuring the songs of Elvis... does that count?;)
Freddie BadgeryWed, 12 Nov 2008, 05:44 pm
Even More Shameless
Yes, I DID say the 5th, 6th, 12th and 13th of December at Woodlake Amphitheatre, Ellenbrook and that you should call 0414 47 47 37 to book your tickets for this FREE performance and that you can find all the info here:
http://www.theatre.asn.au/production/2008/shakespeare_on_the_lake_the_taming_of_the_shrew
I will be there too!
freddie
the rocking jedi badger