Shakespeare what are you opinions on his work?

[kel25]

I put this poll up to help settle a dispute going on in another forum. I thought it would be interesting to see what the general public thinks. Feel free to state your opinions.

[estee]

It all depends on the how the play is performed.

If you performed the plays as they are written they would be incrediably boring and tedious. Branaugh just managed to keep my interest when he made the entire four hour Hamlet. But he had top-notch actors backing him up.

There have been lots of great adaptations to film...

Richard III...Ian Mckellan's being fantastic.
Henry V...Branaugh being the definative versions IMO
Othello...several versions are good.
Lear...same
Twelfth Night with Helena Bonham Carter was actually funny.

[Jonathan Bogart]

I'm with the English Lit people who say that Shakespeare is the foundation of all modern literature. Nobody before Shakespeare used character in the way that he did, got into people's heads with such accurate psychological insight, or was able to wield the English language (still considered more or less a bastard tongue, like Spanglish or Ebonics today) with such devastating precision, force, and humor.

Plot and action count for nothing with Shakespeare (although at his peak, in Macbeth, Lear, Othello, and four or five comedies, his plots are as perfect as possible); language and character are everything.

It may be true that you haven't really experienced Shakespeare until you've seen his plays performed (and no, movies don't count; not even Sir Laurence Olivier's). But it's certainly true that you haven't really experienced Shakesepeare until you've sat down and read him. The published plays are not performance scripts; they're meant to be read as much as the sonnets. Unless you're the RSC, nobody should be producing Shakespeare plays that include everything from the page; they surely didn't when he was alive.

Forget what you learned (or failed to learn) in high school; Shakespeare is one of the most interesting, most human, most intelligent, most funny, and most alive writers ever.

Yes, you have to submit yourself to the stripping-away of the centuries, you have to read him without twenty-first-century prejudices and habits, you have to become both well-educated enough and open-hearted enough to understand what he's saying (and there's no particular reason why you should; Shakespeare by no means trumps a square meal, a snuggle with the spouse, or a paycheck) ... but once you do, there's no comparison.

[Puma]

this is funny, I'm currently attending the Skaespeare Santa Cruz summer Bard series right now, seeing King Lear tonight.

The reason I think Shakespeare is great is because I can watch one of his plays, using his words, but set in WWI or modern NY or almost any other setting and the message still resonates and is applicable. He wrote of universals, whether it be love, comedy, tragedy or power. Coriolanus is one of the most power pieces I've seen in demonstrating how nobility and honor can be destroyed. I can watch a play from ancient Greek and respect it for its accuracy to the period and the mindset of its people but only because I studied that time in history, it doesn't make itself accessible to the 'everyman', Shakespeare's work does when it is allowed to breathe and shake off the Elizabeathan costuming.

[Subotai]

People who think he's lousy - I'd like to hear what is considered good writing.

[Sir Tim Drake]

He was not of an age, but for all time.*

*I cannot actually claim credit for this quote, but I believe it anyway.

[Sigil]

His use of the english language is pretty much unrivaled in literature. He invented a wide variety of words that we still use today.
Unfortunately, I don't think his actual writing really does it justice. His characters frequently behave in ways that are just plain unealistic and his plots (most of which he stole) leave a bit to be desired. His 'histories' are also some of the most inaccurate things you'll ever encounter.
Even most admirers of his will admit that he wrote several distinctly bad plays (which tend not to get performed often).

The thing is, from actually reading some of his plays, you get the impression that he didn't intend them to last as they long as they did. Tim Drake may disagree with me, but the fact that he makes references to current events of his day, as well as his writing of The Merchant of Venice (which was mostly to cash-in on a wave of anti-semitism at the time) would imply that he wasn't writing for posterity.
His work is an important part of british culture and english literary heritage and his plays can be very good when perfomed by a strong cast but he is not the alpha-omega of english literature and his plays are not the last word in theatre.

He was and is important I'll grant you, but he is not the minor deity some would have us believe.

[berk]

He's almost all he's cracked up to be; only "almost" because, IMO, neither he nor any other human being could ever live up to some of the more hyperbolic claims of people like Harold Bloom, but that's really neither here nor there. You are missing some potentially great reading experiences if you avoid his work.

[Buzz Dixon]

Nothing but a buncha quotes strung together... :p

[Kirayoshi]

People who dislike Shakespeare probably saw some production where the actors treated the text with far too much reverence. "Fruity museum acting", I think is what Kenneth Branaugh called it.

The thing to remember about Shakespeare is that the plays he wrote weren't meant to be 'high art'. He was the Stephen King of his day, he wrote popular stories, filled with the things that his audiences wanted; blood, gore, war, sex, romance, comedy, tragedy, fantasy. When the plays are approached in that manner, and the actors allowed to breathe themselves into the role, the results can be spectacular.

He could turn a phrase like very few people ever could. He coined the phrase 'household words'(Henry V, the Agincourt speech), and so much of the dialogue he wrote became household words. His plays are period pieces, but by simply changing the setting(Baz Lurhman's Romeo and Juliet, Ian McKellan's Richard III), you'll find that the themes of his plays are as revelant now as they were four hundred years ago. No matter where or when the plays are set, Polonius will always be a blowhard, Falstaff will always be a braggart and coward, Othello will always be a hothead and Hamlet will always be obsessive to the point of destruction.

Besides, by simply reading Shakespeare, even Keanu Reeves can sound like a good actor! No mean feat!

[Roquefort Raider]

People who think he's lousy - I'd like to hear what is considered good writing.

Dragonlance and X-Men novels, my inner curmudgeon would say.

[Roquefort Raider]

Nothing but a buncha quotes strung together... :p


Harh!!! Good one.

And you know, as a foreigner who came late to the Bard's work, that's a bit what it felt like... every other page of any play I'd go "so THAT's where that phrase came from!"

[Jonathan Bogart]

And you know, as a foreigner who came late to the Bard's work, that's a bit what it felt like... every other page of any play I'd go "so THAT's where that phrase came from!"
Hell, that's what it felt like when I first encountered him in high school!

[Subotai]

Dragonlance and X-Men novels, my inner curmudgeon would say.

Hey, Margaret Weis is pretty solid.;)

[sun tzu]

I've enjoyed some of his stuff, but I do wonder at times if he might be a tad overrated. Sure, he's good, but I don't know if his quasi-legendary status is justified...

[Rabid Trekkie]

People who think he's lousy - I'd like to hear what is considered good writing.

I actually get this one. I read Henry V in highschool and last semester in college we started reading Midsummer and Hamlet. For all three I was bored out of my mind. The words used were ancient and flowery and I would have rather taken the book I had in my backpack (I was reading Prometheus Deception) and read it.

My professor realized this and had us close our books. Then she went out and rented the movies. The difference was incredible and led me to actually go and see The Tempest when a local drama company put it on here for free.

For me at least I can't stand to read it, but then again the things are plays and are meant to be seen.

[Lubichev]

As an actor and theatre manager, I have developed a long standing love/hate relationship with Shakespeare. (More love than hate mind you.) There is nothing more powerful and exciting than watching a well acted, well produced production of Shakespeare. On the other hand, there is nothing more wretched than watching bad Shakespeare. I've seen too much bad Shakespeare in the stage and on film. The Romeo and Juliet with DiCaprio and Danes was bad. SO BAD! If you want to watch actors absolutely mangle Shakespeare (except for Frian Lawrence), watch this version. Yeah, it was an interesting modern take, but mercy GOD!! The Othello with Fishburne and Branagh was a disappointment. And I've seen enough bad Shakespeare at summer festivals to last a lifetime. (Unless you are British, don't speak it in a British accent, folks!!!! And there is little to no subtext in Shakespeare. So don't try to find it.)
As for reading Shakespeare for pleasure, (And yes, I do this sometimes. I only read the Russian translations of Shakespeare until I was in my late teens, so reading the actual english text is always fascinating.) I tend to find myself re-reading Richard II. This is certainy one of the most beautifuly written of his plays. The language is so very lovely, and it is a rather tragic story.
My favorites are (in some sort of order)
King Lear
Macbeth
Richard II
Hamlet
Richard III
Henry V
Othello

Some excellent film version of these include:
King Lear with Ian Holm
King Lear with Laurence Olivier (his last film)
Macbeth with Ian MacKellen and Judi Dench (RSC stage production)
Henry V (Branagh's film)
Richard III with Olivier (absolutely wonderful)
Richard III with MacKellen (too bad Robert Downey Jr. is in it. At least he gets an arrow through the neck.)
Hamlet with Mel Gibson (it is actually really good, even with the cuts and the few liberties taken)
Othello with Anthony Hopkins and Bob Hoskins
Much Ado About Nothing with Branagh (except for the horrid Keanu Reeves parts as Don John. This actor DOES NOT understand how to deliver Shakespeare.)

[atoningunifex]

Shakespeare made a significant impact on Western literature. He is probably the most quoted, most lionized, most analyzed writer in all of history. Some people say the's the foundation of Western literature and that might very well be true.

Having said all that, I loathe Shakespeare. I have yet to read or see a Shakespeare play that didn't bore me to tears long about the middle. He wrote one of the most annoying characters in all of history (Hamlet, the ultimate emo kid) and the constant praise he receives (and the sneering condescension for those who don't contriubte to that praise) annoys me almost to tears.

[Lubichev]

It's said that as many as 1 in 10 of all words he used in his writings, he created. He certainly gave the English language a boost after the first folio edition was printed.

[Ryan Day]

Shakespeare, performed by talented actors who understand it, is awesome. When it's not - whether by bad actors or dry English teachers who insist on reading it line by line without action, reference, or intonation - is quite awful.

I always find it easier to read one of the plays after I've seen a good production. Accordingly, Henry V is one of my favourites, as I saw Branagh's film when I was a teenager and was blown a way. Of course, I also love Othello, and I've never seen a really great production of it; I can't get past actors in blackface, and Fishburne was merely okay, and blown off the screen by Branagh's Iago. I absolutely love Kurosawa's Throne of Blood, but that's a much less literal adaptation.

Reading the play, I think, is kind of like reading a blueprint to a house: It gives you the outline and the basic plan, but there's so much left to interpretation - when it's finally built, it might be a beautiful house, or it might be painted hideous colours, walls might be left unfinished, and parts of it might fall down because of inadequate materials. And it can be kind of abstract until you've got the final product as a reference point.

[Buzz Dixon]

Of course, I also love Othello, and I've never seen a really great production of it; I can't get past actors in blackface, and Fishburne was merely okay, and blown off the screen by Branagh's Iago.Try to catch Welles' version of OTHELLO the next time it plays on TCM. It's another white-guy-in-blackface thing, but look closely at the visuals of the film. Welles made it for chump change over a period of several years, using every cincematic trick in the book to hold costs down: Lots of beach scenes, dramatic low angles of actors against cloudy skies, careful framing and editing so a handful of extras looked like a mob, etc. He keeps his characters constantly in motion, knowing that if he lost a location or actor, he could pick up the scene in another location shot later and people would simply assumed the characters had walked there from the previous shot! He also had a weekend where he had his actors but the costume department failed to ship the costumes, so he wrapped everybody in towels and shot the scene in a steam bath!

[Ryan Day]

I've seen the Welles version, and while it's well made, I just can't get past the blackface. It's just so silly. I can handle old movies stylistically, I love B&W... but the blackface is too much. If you can't find a black man (or another minority, I suppose) to play Othello, at least cut out the specific race references - the play would still work as a story about jealousy.

[berk]

I've seen the Welles version, and while it's well made, I just can't get past the blackface. It's just so silly. I can handle old movies stylistically, I love B&W... but the blackface is too much. If you can't find a black man (or another minority, I suppose) to play Othello, at least cut out the specific race references - the play would still work as a story about jealousy.My preference would be to let the white guys - and the Chinese guys and whoever - play Othello, but just forget the blackface. No readon why a good black or Japanese or Samoan or whatever actor shouldn't play Hamlet or Henry V and so on as well, in my book.

And I just wanted to say that I thought Branagh's Hamlet was one of the most ill-conceived interpretations of the character I've ever seen. For some reason I 've never seen the highly-praised Henry V, though. Right now I want to read Macbeth again, because I just saw Kurosawa'a "Throne of Blood" a couple weeks ago and want to compare them.

[Jonathan Bogart]

And I just wanted to say that I thought Branagh's Hamlet was one of the most ill-conceived interpretations of the character I've ever seen.
Yeah, Branagh's terrible. Not Mel Gibson bad, but still.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Shakespeare is without a doubt the greatest writer ever in the English language, and most probably the greatest in any language to date.

[Ilash]

My take is pretty simple: While I really, really respect Shakespeare for all that he did with the English language, literature and storytelling in general, I would be lying if I said that I actually enjoy any of his stuff. His tragedies are decent enough but I really hate his comedies, personally.

[ghostrider666]

It dosent matter how its argued. Do they relate well to today's socieity. Did 1 man create all of the works, or are they the work of a group of writers. None of it matters. The Works of Bill Shakespeare are some of the greatest ever written in the English language.

[Blueferret]

Personally, I prefer his Histories more than anything else. That being said, Merchant of Venice and Othello are my all time favorites because of Iago and SHylock.

[Ryan Day]

Right now I want to read Macbeth again, because I just saw Kurosawa'a "Throne of Blood" a couple weeks ago and want to compare them.

That's one of my favourite Shakespeare adaptations, as well as one of my favourite Kurosawa films. It's also the only time I've really believed the idea that the army could look like the forest was actually walking - the visuals are fantastic.

Kurosawa really liked Shakespeare. I rented The Bad Sleep Well a month ago, which is a loose adaptation of Hamlet set in post-war corporate Japan. And I've had Ran, his King Lear, sitting on my shelf for a couple weeks now; I need to watch it soon.

[Kirayoshi]

Some excellent film version of these include:
King Lear with Ian Holm
King Lear with Laurence Olivier (his last film)
Macbeth with Ian MacKellen and Judi Dench (RSC stage production)
Henry V (Branagh's film)
Richard III with Olivier (absolutely wonderful)
Richard III with MacKellen (too bad Robert Downey Jr. is in it. At least he gets an arrow through the neck.)
Hamlet with Mel Gibson (it is actually really good, even with the cuts and the few liberties taken)
Othello with Anthony Hopkins and Bob Hoskins
Much Ado About Nothing with Branagh (except for the horrid Keanu Reeves parts as Don John. This actor DOES NOT understand how to deliver Shakespeare.)Keanu wasn't great, but at least he didn't chew scenery. More like get lost in it. Denzel Washington and Michael Keaton more than made up for his performance.

A few more I'd add:

Romeo and Juliet; either the Zefferelli version from 1967 with Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey(the definitive version), or the Baz Lurhman version with Leonardo Decaprio and Claire Danes. The Lurhman version went a little crazy with the MTV video editing, but the performances, espcially the guy who played Mercutio, Pete Postlethwaite as Friar Lawrence and John Leguizamo as Tybalt, were surprisingly good.

Kenneth Brannaugh's Hamlet. Lots of people hated it, but I loved it. It was four hours long but felt like two, the way he paced the play and brought in the politics of the time, showing how while Claudius killed his brother to take the throne and Hamlet plotted revenge, they ignored the fact that the kingdom was in jeopardy anyway. And the cameos didn't feel gratuitous(Charlton Heston as the Player King and Billy Crystal as a gravedigger especially).

Hamlet(late-90s, with Ethan Hawke as Hamlet, Kyle McClachlan as Claudius, Bill Murray as Polonius and Lance Hendrickson as Hamlet's father). Another modern-day transplant of Hamlet, this time with Claudius as the new president of the DenMark corporation after killing the former CEO. A few modern twists(Hamlet's 'To Be or Not To Be' soliloquy delivered in a Blockbuster Video, the 'play within a play' as a student film) and some of the performances were a little spotty, but on the whole it worked. And damned if Bill Murray didn't pull off the perfect Polonius! If you don't think he can do serious drama, his performance here will be a revelation!

A Midsummer Night's Dream(late-90s again). Stanley Tucci's Puck was more satyr-like than fairie, and Oberon and Titannia (Rupert Everett and Michelle Pfeiffer) played their parts with a more earthy, primal feel, which I liked.

[Buzz Dixon]

A Midsummer Night's Dream has gotten a workout in recent years, including an ultra low budget one with Robet Zdar (!) as the prince.

Currently it's serving as a plot (of sorts) for Brooke McEldowney's gorgeous eye candy in PIBGORN: http://www.comics.com/comics/pibgorn/index.html

[Roquefort Raider]

And I just wanted to say that I thought Branagh's Hamlet was one of the most ill-conceived interpretations of the character I've ever seen.
Really? I thought the "my thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth" speech was quite rousing, myself.

The time period was a bit disconcerting, but it worked for me.

I liked Branagh's Henry V as well (even if the French lose)!

Right now I want to read Macbeth again, because I just saw Kurosawa'a "Throne of Blood" a couple weeks ago and want to compare them.

Have you seen Kurosawa's "Ran" as well? Shakespeare's dramas really work in a feudal japan context.

[berk]

Kurosawa really liked Shakespeare. I rented The Bad Sleep Well a month ago, which is a loose adaptation of Hamlet set in post-war corporate Japan. And I've had Ran, his King Lear, sitting on my shelf for a couple weeks now; I need to watch it soon.didn't know about those two - thanks for the info.

[berk]

Really? I thought the "my thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth" speech was quite rousing, myself.

The time period was a bit disconcerting, but it worked for me.

I liked Branagh's Henry V as well (even if the French lose)!



Have you seen Kurosawa's "Ran" as well? Shakespeare's dramas really work in a feudal japan context.I've never rented Ran because it always looked like somethng that should be seen on the big screen. I didn't know it was a Lear adaptation.

Branagh's Hamlet wasn't badly acted, IMO; I mean, I think he was successful in doing what he set out to do; it's just that I think what he set out to do was kinda dumb - make Hamlet into an action hero.

[Buzz Dixon]

Another King Lear adaptation: 1,000 ACRES transferred the action to a farming family in the midwest.

And most people don't know it, but SNAKES ON A PLANE is actually based on Hamlet.























Okay, I made that last one up, but I do think "We gotta get these mutha-[love]in' snakes off the mutha-[love]in' plane!" ranks right up there with "To be or not to be..."

[Roquefort Raider]

Anyone remember Ahnold in "The last action hero"?

His Hamlet was so cool.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Anyone remember Ahnold in "The last action hero"?

His Hamlet was so cool.

I remember asking my Dad why we had never rented it.

[Doodle Bob]

Myself, I'm partial to Anthony Hopkins' Titus, even if (probably because) it is a bloody mess of a movie and play: both figuratively and literally.

[Doodle Bob]

I liked Branagh's Henry V as well (even if the French lose)!

I wasn't a big fan of this, mostly because it felt to me that Branagh couldn't figure out whether he was pro- or anti-war.

[berk]

Myself, I'm partial to Anthony Hopkins' Titus, even if (probably because) it is a bloody mess of a movie and play: both figuratively and literally.When I saw that movie, without ever having read it, my reaction was, "If there was ever a Shakespeare play that might actually have been written by Christopher Marlowe, this is the one." But with hindsight, I think I was wrong - Titus is so over the top, it's like someone deliberately trying to out-Marlowe Marlowe.

[JeffreyWKramer]

"If there was ever a Shakespeare play that might actually have been written by Christopher Marlowe, this is the one." But with hindsight, I think I was wrong - Titus is so over the top, it's like someone deliberately trying to out-Marlowe Marlowe.

Yup. It seems to have been Shakespeare's attempt to purge Marlowe-ism from his own writing, and either an attempt to cater to, or possibly a big flipped bird at, those theatre patrons who enjoyed Marlowe's excesses.

[ghostrider666]

Anyone remember Ahnold in "The last action hero"?

His Hamlet was so cool.


Word! :cool:

[berk]

Yup. It seems to have been Shakespeare's attempt to purge Marlowe-ism from his own writing, and either an attempt to cater to, or possibly a big flipped bird at, those theatre patrons who enjoyed Marlowe's excesses.I love Marlowe's stuff, myself, including the excesses. But he's a different kind of artist from Shakespeare.

[Kirayoshi]

Another King Lear adaptation: 1,000 ACRES transferred the action to a farming family in the midwest.
TNT did a Western version of King Lear a while back called King of Texas. Patrick Stewart played a cattle baron who divided his ranch, snubbing his youngest daughter in the process. Same story, different setting.

BBC's recent Othello movie was also damn good. Modern dialogue and setting; London police officer John Othello becomes London's first black police commissioner, prompting jealousy from his former partner Ben Jago(Christopher Eccleston, my new favorite British actor). Gripping drama all the way.

I saw a local production of Taming of the Shrew recently that had a few interesting twists. For one, toward the end when Katerina willingly placed her hand under Petruchio's foot as a sign of submission, he did the same for her(the way the actor played the role we could subtly see that Petruchio was being 'tamed' as well as Katerina). Also, the director rattled off a bit of original iambic pentameter before the play as a request for the audience:

"And now, sweet friends who paid admission's price,
Consider how you better serve your neighbor,
By shuttering up you cherished rude device
That sings unbidden and disturbs our labor."

In other words, "Please turn off your cell phones."

[Lubichev]

I wasn't a big fan of this, mostly because it felt to me that Branagh couldn't figure out whether he was pro- or anti-war.
Branagh's was more of an anti-war thing. Reaction to stuff like East Timor and the Faulklands. Olivier's Henry V was actually made as a boost for British morale and for a purpose to continure the struggle during WWII. The British Government fiananced the picture, I believe.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I love Marlowe's stuff, myself, including the excesses. But he's a different kind of artist from Shakespeare.


Other than DR. FAUSTUS, which was an adaptation, I found most of the other of Marlowe's plays that I've read rather forgettable. It's easy to see why Marlowe is rarely performed, and most of his works all-but-forgotten, today.

[JeffreyWKramer]

One of the more unusual productions of Shakespeare I've ever seen played ROMEO AND JULIET straight as written, but moved the setting from Verona to an alien planet. The night backdrops had twin moons, the sky was odd-colored, the costumes were a mix of STAR TREK and renaissance, the guards and watchmen were robots, and the Prince was never seen, instead taking the form of a booming voice and a multi-colored spotlight shining from above. They even used some combo of materials and lighting effects to make the swords glow a bit, sort of like lightsabres.

The whole production was designed to emphasize the universality and timelessness of Shakespeare's themes and stories. 'Twas very cool.

[Roquefort Raider]

The whole production was designed to emphasize the universality and timelessness of Shakespeare's themes and stories. 'Twas very cool.

I liked that aspect in Baz Luhrmann's film as well. I was surprised to see just how well it worked, in fact.

[Doodle Bob]

Branagh's was more of an anti-war thing. Reaction to stuff like East Timor and the Faulklands. Olivier's Henry V was actually made as a boost for British morale and for a purpose to continure the struggle during WWII. The British Government fiananced the picture, I believe.

The first parts of the film (the Branagh one) seemed that way to me as well. But the ending, although somewhat conciliatory with the French, just seemed a little too triumphant to me to be completely anti-war. Almost as if Branagh's attitude was: "Well, it was a bad war started in a pique and a lot of good men died needlessly. But, hey, we won!"

It's utterly fascinating to me that one man's plays can be interpreted so differently and so meaningfully by different people.

[berk]

Other than DR. FAUSTUS, which was an adaptation, I found most of the other of Marlowe's plays that I've read rather forgettable. It's easy to see why Marlowe is rarely performed, and most of his works all-but-forgotten, today.Nah, I predict Marlowe'll make a comeback in the 22nd century. That Shakespeare guy's just a flash in the pan, his 500 years of fame and acclaim will be over, soon.

[Lubichev]

It's utterly fascinating to me that one man's plays can be interpreted so differently and so meaningfully by different people.

Absolutely, Doodle. This is why Ben Johnson said that Shakespeare was "not of an age, but for all time."

Ever read Shakespreare's R & J by Joe Calarco? Utterly fascinating. Set at an exclusive boys' boarding school, where students are forbidden to read Romeo & Juliet, four students put on a secret production of the play which brings violence, betrayal, lust, love and mortality into their own lives. With 95% of Shakespeare's own words being used, Calarco brilliantly adds his own words and stage direction to subtly convey commentary on a variety of social issues.

[Ed Cunard]

Oh, I'm going to have to buy that. Thanks, Lubi.

[Ghost]

I enjoy most of his comedies, and a few of his tragedies. I recognise him as one of the greatest and most influential writers in history.

[berk]

Lubichev - have you ever staged any of Marlowe's plays? Or George Chapman's?

[Tages]

Just returned from a production of "Othello" on Lake Tahoe.

It was very, very good, even though the audience laughed at a few inappropriate moments and some bits were lightened to be played for comedy ("I have a thing for you!"). Seeing the lights dim on Othello and Desdemona's bed for the final time chills my spine.

[Ontir]

Chaucer defined English, and Shakespeare made it fashionable. He also wrote a great bunch of plays, and most likely a good chunk of the Bible. His work is still timely, relevent, and still provocative. How many writers can say that even 10 years after being shown to the world?

[Buzz Dixon]

...Shakespeare...and most likely a good chunk of the Bible....errrrr...I think not. Here's what Wikipedia has to say on the matter:Some have claimed that the playwright William Shakespeare was involved in the translation, pointing to Psalms 46 as proof, where, counting 46 words from the beginning, one comes upon the word "shake", and counting 46 words backwards from the end, one comes upon the word "spear". Additionally, Shakespeare was 46 years of age at the time of the translating. Most scholars dismiss claims of Shakespeare's involvement in translating the King James Version, and do not accept this example as evidence of his involvement. Notably, the Geneva Bible and several other earlier translations contained the same coincidence, despite several of them being published before or just shortly after Shakespeare's birth.We know who did the translation of the King James Bible (the only translation undertaken in English during Shakespeare's adult life) and Will wasn't on any of the committees. And no one on any of the committees "wrote" anything, they translated it from existing ancient manuscripts. That some of the translators may have had a greater flare for the work that others is doubtlessly true, but they didn't add or change any meanings.

Here is a famous quote (Psalm 23:4) from the King James:
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.Here is Young's Literal Translation:Also -- when I walk in a valley of death-shade, I fear no evil, for Thou [art] with me, Thy rod and Thy staff -- they comfort me.

[K'Nort]

I have a book on the writing of the King James edition -- God's Secretaries. Couple years old. Interesting stuff.

One Bible-related thing that's interesting about Shakespeare is how easy it is to mix up his quotes and the Proverbs. I can never keep straight which are which, and from what I've read, that's quite common. (And then sometimes it's Benjamin Franklin.)

In terms of specific versions, I really like McKellan's Richard III (although that Pacino one was interesting too), Ran, Moonlighting's Taming of the Shrew, West Side Story (sorry), and especially Stoppard's take on Hamlet. Surprised to not already see that here.

The Taymor/Hopkins Titus was damned powerful but I don't know whether I could recommend it, per se.

[Puma]

It was very, very good, even though the audience laughed at a few inappropriate moments

same thing happened witht he audience at King Lear last Sunday. Here comes Lear, carrying the corpse of his beloved daughter, howling in pain, and some idiots start to laugh- not even the type of nervous, uncomfortable titter laughing, full on humor laughing.

Pissants.

I'm attending a performance of Pygmalion tonight...wonder how many people know that it doesn't end "and they all lvied happily ever after"?

[K'Nort]

I'm attending a performance of Pygmalion tonight...wonder how many people know that it doesn't end "and they all lvied happily ever after"?

That one won't totally be their fault though. When it's drilled into you that a popular movie is based on a play, you usually don't also hear what did and did not get changed.

[Buzz Dixon]

That one won't totally be their fault though. When it's drilled into you that a popular movie is based on a play, you usually don't also hear what did and did not get changed.Bringing the subject back around to comics, there was an underground published back in the 1960s called THE NEW ADVENTURES OF JESUS by Foolbert Sturgeon. In one of the stories, Christ goes to see a movie based on the Gospels. The movie stars Steve Reeves (i.e., the original movie Hercules) as Jesus. At the end of the film, as the Romans are leading him away to be executed, Jesus Reeves starts swinging the cross like a giant club, saying, "Nobody's crucifying me without a fight!" He lays waste to the entire Roman legion, and the film ends with him holding the full size cross above his head with one hand while embracing Mary Magdaleine with the other and a title proclaiming him "Savior Of The World" above his head.

After the movie, the real Christ is walking out of the theater behind a couple and hears the guy say to the girl, "Y'know, the book ended differently..."

[Theophilus]

A professor of mine has suggested that even many of Shakespeare's comedies aren't as happy as some believe. There's a possible suggestion of future infidelity in "Much Ado about Nothing" that was cut out of the Branaugh film.

"The Merchant of Venice" is also often described as a tragi-comedy because not only Shylock but also Antonio is alienated by the happy marriage.

[Tages]

I've never thought that "Merchant of Venice" as being a happy play. Shylock has lost literally everything he has at the end and Antonio is obviously in love with Bassanio but forced to finance his own romantic disappointment.

It would be one of the Bard's greatest plays if they cut out the 5th Act foolishness with the rings.

[Arawn]

The problem with Shakespeare is that most people atribute First with Best. Yes he revolutionised Writing, the Star Wars movies revolutionised Movies. But I wouldn't call either the best.

Thats like saying Cave Paintings because they were the first are the greatest artistic achievement mankind ever made. Being the first doesn't make you the best, it only makes you an original.

[The Foreigner]

The problem with Shakespeare is that most people atribute First with Best. Yes he revolutionised Writing, the Star Wars movies revolutionised Movies. But I wouldn't call either the best.

Thats like saying Cave Paintings because they were the first are the greatest artistic achievement mankind ever made. Being the first doesn't make you the best, it only makes you an original.

Maybe, but the reverse is true as well. Just because Shakespeare was the first, doesn't mean he's not the best.

But:

I personally believe no one writer can ever be considered "the best", as well as no one movie, or any piece of artwork can be called the best. Nothing is perfect, and every piece of art, no matter the medium, is always striving to accomplish different things.

Having said that, I do think Shakespeares works are brilliant, and are wildly entertaining if performed well. I couldn't stand Branagh's adaption Much Ado About Nothing (I found it boring and not nearly as funny or touching as it could be), but I've played both Don John and Verges in different productions (The former which played at the famous Utah Shakespearean Festival, and the latter at a local professional theater), and I found the play screamingly funny (As did our audiences).

Different strokes, I guess; Branagh is often hailed as a Shakespeare genius when it comes to film, but I've never seen a production translated to screen as I feel it should be. Shakespeare can only work on stage, just as Watchmen or Flex Mentallo can only work in comics. Translation to another medium, although possible, would only capture the literal story-- Not the spirit of any of those works.

At least, that's how I happen to feel. There's been plenty of Shakespeare movies, and they're making a Watchmen movie, so what do I know?

Anyhoo, I'm a big Shakespeare buff and could talk about the guy all day. If you don't like him, more power to you; I think he's a wonderful writer who crafted great stories, great characters, and the greatest dialogue.

In case anyone's curious about my other Shakespeare credits, I competed at the Utah Shakespearean Festival as Silvius in As You Like It (Straight superior ratings), Autolycus in The Winter's Tale (First Place Monologue) and Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet (Best Actor).

But now I'm just bragging. :D

[Tages]

The problem with Shakespeare is that most people atribute First with Best. Yes he revolutionised Writing, the Star Wars movies revolutionised Movies. But I wouldn't call either the best.

Thats like saying Cave Paintings because they were the first are the greatest artistic achievement mankind ever made. Being the first doesn't make you the best, it only makes you an original.
Has anyone here made that allegation, or are you just making that up?

Shakespeare wasn't the best because he was the first. Shakespeare was the best because no one before or since has been able to make the English language sing as gloriously as he does. Yes, I'm using the present tense. He's that good.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Shakespeare wasn't the best because he was the first. Shakespeare was the best because no one before or since has been able to make the English language sing as gloriously as he does. Yes, I'm using the present tense. He's that good.


I agree 100% with this statement. Add in also that Shakespeare had a better understanding of human nature and human motivation than any writer who came before him, and that nobody since has really surpassed him in this regard (Dostoyevsky merely equalled him), and you've got another factor that puts Shakespeare on top of the heap, in my opinion.

[Lubichev]

Lubichev - have you ever staged any of Marlowe's plays? Or George Chapman's?
I worked on The Jew of Malta and Edward the 2nd in graduate school. I've read The Gentlemen's Usher by Chapman, but never staged anything of his.

[Doodle Bob]

Shakespeare wasn't the best because he was the first. Shakespeare was the best because no one before or since has been able to make the English language sing as gloriously as he does. Yes, I'm using the present tense. He's that good.

Testify!

I'm not really clear as to what Shakespeare was the First of...

[berk]

We know who did the translation of the King James Bible (the only translation undertaken in English during Shakespeare's adult life) and Will wasn't on any of the committees. And no one on any of the committees "wrote" anything, they translated it from existing ancient manuscripts. That some of the translators may have had a greater flare for the work that others is doubtlessly true, but they didn't add or change any meanings.I'd like to give a little respect to William Tyndale, an ealerier translator of the Bible into English, much of whose work apparently made it into the King James version, according to wiki. His sad story is summarized in his wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale). I first heard of him through Harold Bloom's introduction to Bloom's and Rosenberg's "Book of J," where he quotes one line as an example of the charm of Tyndale's translation that's been stuck in my head ever since: "For the Lord was with Joseph - and he was a lucky fellow." Wiki also credits him with the invention of such famous phrases as:
"let there be light"
"the powers that be"
"my brother's keeper"
"the salt of the earth"
"a law unto themselves"

[Arawn]

Has anyone here made that allegation, or are you just making that up?

Shakespeare wasn't the best because he was the first. Shakespeare was the best because no one before or since has been able to make the English language sing as gloriously as he does. Yes, I'm using the present tense. He's that good.

I never said people here had said it, nor did I imply people here had. However in just about every Shakespeare discussion people seem to list "Well he did it first" as one of the top 5 reasons he's "the best". I definately think he was good, arguably great, even tho I'm not a fan of old english style speach. But if you're fair, you can't deny that people put him up on a level without really ever being critical of his work.

I firmly belive that if he were a modern writer telling the same story, the number one critisism would be that theres too much down time in his plays. Most of them have rather long scenes that nothing really happens in. Yet people look back at his work and claim it's setting the mood. And these same people, complain about such pauses in modern books.

I dunno I guess I am just tired of the extended credit he gets that other authors aren't given.

[Jonathan Bogart]

I firmly belive that if he were a modern writer telling the same story, the number one critisism would be that theres too much down time in his plays. Most of them have rather long scenes that nothing really happens in. Yet people look back at his work and claim it's setting the mood. And these same people, complain about such pauses in modern books.
Try comparing them to modern plays, in which even less happens. Theater is a talky medium, dude.

One of the great fallacies of our educational system is that we throw these chunks of Great Literature at kids without giving them the context necessary to understand it, appreciate it, or enjoy it, assuming that great literature is eternal, and as long as they get the gist of the plot they'll have fulfilled their Shakespeare quota for the year.

I'd rather see many fewer people read Shakespeare than so many who think they've read him but haven't. Elitist, yeah; and of course my own criteria for understanding/appreciation/enjoyment isn't everyone's. But does the forcefeeding really make for better citizens, scholars, and human beings, or does it just instill a vague antipathy towards literature -- or a false sense of superiority towards it? I'm starting to regurgitate arguments C. S. Lewis made fifty years ago, so I'll stop.

[Arawn]

Try comparing them to modern plays, in which even less happens. Theater is a talky medium, dude.

One of the great fallacies of our educational system is that we throw these chunks of Great Literature at kids without giving them the context necessary to understand it, appreciate it, or enjoy it, assuming that great literature is eternal, and as long as they get the gist of the plot they'll have fulfilled their Shakespeare quota for the year.

I'd rather see many fewer people read Shakespeare than so many who think they've read him but haven't. Elitist, yeah; and of course my own criteria for understanding/appreciation/enjoyment isn't everyone's. But does the forcefeeding really make for better citizens, scholars, and human beings, or does it just instill a vague antipathy towards literature -- or a false sense of superiority towards it? I'm starting to regurgitate arguments C. S. Lewis made fifty years ago, so I'll stop.


I know thearters are talky, I realise you need a lot of down time. But why is it everyone but Shakespeare is subject to critisism in this area. I'm just trying to say tha there are a few scenes he could have done a better job writing. The pacing in spots could have been improved. Yet just saying that gets strange looks, or even worse down right outrage from the "learned" community.

A friend of mine that is an author summed it up best once. "Nothing you write will ever be better than 80% of your potential. Theres always something you can improve. The only real trick is disguising this fact enough to make most people happy."

[Jonathan Bogart]

But why is it everyone but Shakespeare is subject to critisism in this area.
Because it's a fairly banal criticism? Downtime is only a sin in action movies and comedies; otherwise, it's usually part of the structure.

[yeoman]

Testify!

Can we get an Amen!

I'm not really clear as to what Shakespeare was the First of...

The first of... guys... who did... stuff based on Shakespeare's plays!

Yeah! That's the ticket!

[Buzz Dixon]

Actually, Shakespeare is notoriously unoriginal with his plots. Virtually everything he wrote either came from history (even MacBeth and Hamlet have historical antecedeants, though by the time Will got through with 'em they were thoroughly fictionalized) or from the classical era (viz. Romeo and Juliet's star crossed lovers coming from Greek myth, etc.).

[Arawn]

Actually, Shakespeare is notoriously unoriginal with his plots. Virtually everything he wrote either came from history (even MacBeth and Hamlet have historical antecedeants, though by the time Will got through with 'em they were thoroughly fictionalized) or from the classical era (viz. Romeo and Juliet's star crossed lovers coming from Greek myth, etc.).

Shh you can't say that, the fanboys will get upset. :rolleyes:

[Lubichev]

Shakespeare used Plutarch's Lives as a major source. As well as Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The few plays of Shakespeare's that came from his own imagination were probably Love's Labours Lost, The Tempest, and Midsummer Nights Dream.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Shh you can't say that, the fanboys will get upset. :rolleyes:

Nobody who knows Shakespeare gets upset at that, because it's true.

Shakespeare's genius wasn't in the plots. Those generally weren't particularly original. Heck, in the histories, those are foregone conclusions - you can't very well have Cleopatra not die, or Caesar punch out his assassins and maintain rule, after all.

Shakespeare picked good stories to write about, by and large, but his plays aren't great because of the stories. They're great because of the characters and the use of language, and how these two factors work together.

[Ed Cunard]

I dunno I guess I am just tired of the extended credit he gets that other authors aren't given.

Be specific--what other authors aren't getting the credit they deserve in comparrison to Shakespeare, in your opinion?

I'd rather see many fewer people read Shakespeare than so many who think they've read him but haven't. Elitist, yeah; and of course my own criteria for understanding/appreciation/enjoyment isn't everyone's. But does the forcefeeding really make for better citizens, scholars, and human beings, or does it just instill a vague antipathy towards literature -- or a false sense of superiority towards it? I'm starting to regurgitate arguments C. S. Lewis made fifty years ago, so I'll stop.

Hmm. That's interesting. I think I could get behind that.

Nobody who knows Shakespeare gets upset at that, because it's true.

Shakespeare's genius wasn't in the plots. Those generally weren't particularly original. Heck, in the histories, those are foregone conclusions - you can't very well have Cleopatra not die, or Caesar punch out his assassins and maintain rule, after all.

Shakespeare picked good stories to write about, by and large, but his plays aren't great because of the stories. They're great because of the characters and the use of language, and how these two factors work together.

Agreed--it's all about the craft. Heck, on the very very basic reading, Hamlet isn't much more than Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy. There's also a record of a play called Hamlet that predates Shakespeare's (often referred to as Ur-Hamlet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Hamlet), if you'll forgive the Wikipedia linkage).

[Michael P]

Also, the director rattled off a bit of original iambic pentameter before the play as a request for the audience:

"And now, sweet friends who paid admission's price,
Consider how you better serve your neighbor,
By shuttering up you cherished rude device
That sings unbidden and disturbs our labor."

In other words, "Please turn off your cell phones."
That's awesome.

[Tages]

Shh you can't say that, the fanboys will get upset. :rolleyes:
Who are these fanboys? Because no one here has made the allegation that Shakespeare's plots were original.

[Jonathan Bogart]

Who are these fanboys? Because no one here has made the allegation that Shakespeare's plots were original.
What? How dare you say that the greatest writer in the English language doesn't conform to false late-twentieth-century standards of originality and genius, which are in place, both culturally and legally, largely at the behest of major entertainment corporations who don't want just anyone doing what they want with Mickey Mouse and Popeye, thereby diluting the brand, although the Beatles, with the myth that has grown up around them "writing their own songs," thereby immeasurably advancing rock & roll, helped a lot too!

Well, I never!

[amirab]

I have only read Romeo and Julient, and Hamlet. They were both good, but Hamlet was better.

[Sir Tim Drake]

Shakespeare used Plutarch's Lives as a major source. As well as Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The few plays of Shakespeare's that came from his own imagination were probably Love's Labours Lost, The Tempest, and Midsummer Nights Dream.

Even then, two of those plays were inspired by Morpheus. :)

[yeoman]

Even then, two of those plays were inspired by Morpheus. :)


Actually all but the early ones were inspired by Morpheus. Midsummer Night's Eve and The Tempest were teh payment for the rest.

Even then, IIRC, Morpheus lest it Ambigous as to whether he merely allowed him to access what was already there, or took more direct action.

My Geek-Fu is strong. :D

[Kirayoshi]

I just came back from an entertaining evening of Shakespeare. A local production company put on a show called "Shakespeare in Love", presenting key love scenes from six different plays:

Twelfth Night("If music be the food of love")
Taming of the Shrew(the first meeting between Petruchio and Katerina)
Henry V(King Henry woos the French princess)
Romeo and Juliet(the balcony, 'nuff said)
Richard III(Richard trying to woo Anne at her husband's funeral. Oh, and Richard killed her husband, so...)
Much Ado About Nothing(Beatrice begs Benedick to take down Claudio).

Very clever framing device; each scene was preceded by a swordfight between the two principle players, which helped show their emotions and motivations as well as the dialogue from the scene. Richard and Anne fought tooth and nail, while Romeo and Juliet's swordfight was more playful. Plus, in the second half, some of the scenes were re-done with men playing both parts. All solidly performed and staged.

Plus a screamingly funny moment where the narrator described the action in Henry V; "A war was fought over the thinnest of pretexts. Henry the Fifth's father started it and his son wanted to finish the job." He then raised an eyebrow, giving a facial expression that clearly stated, "Sounds familiar, doesn't it?"

[FBHthelizardmage]

I don't like shakespear, though I'm told it's because I've seen the wrong ones.

And because I'm to much of a modernist. (which I am)

[berk]

Well, well, well ... speaking of movies inspired by Shakespeare's plays, I just happpened across this (http://www.monkeypeaches.com/thebanquet.html): an upcoming Chinese movie called "The Banquet" that is supposedly based on Hamlet - quite loosely, from what I can tell, although the report does go to the lengths of indicating which characters in the movie correspond to Hamlet, Ohphelia, Polonius, etc. The stills look absoutely gorgeous.

[DrewTheXenocide]

I'm simultaneously starting both Hamlet and Henry V in school for two seperate classes, and I have to say that I am excited. My only other Shakespeare experience was reading Romeo & Juliet in Junior high, but I loved it. Maybe because I was juvenile back then, but I thoroughly enjoyed the dirty jokes and puns, which, IIRC, came mostly for Mercutio.

I wanted to read Macbeth over the summer, but I couldn't find a copy of the Folger's edition of it. Those, by the by, are a frickin' godsend. They have the actual text on the play on the right page, and facing it on the left is an explanation of everything that page referenced that one may not get. Pretty awesome.

Anyway, I can't wait for some more smut.

[DrewTheXenocide]

I just finished the third act of Hamlet, and I've gotta say that I'm totally digging it. All the crazy things that happened that's bound to blow up sometime soon, especially with the death of Polonius, Laertes is gonna be on Hamlet's ass. And I am thoroughly enjoying Hamlet's Oedipal Complex shtick. Very weird.

And metaphors galore! Some very beautiful writing going on here. Not to mention some dirty writing going on as well.

Henry V, meh. Not so much.

Although I have had my interest piqued in both Macbeth and The Taming of the Shrew. Any tips on which is the better of the two?

[Buzz Dixon]

MacBeth is the greatest sword and sorcery story ever written.

Taming of the Shrew is fun, but woefully non-p.c. for today's audiences (which means there's probably more than a little truth to it). Watch KISS ME, KATE instead.

[DrewTheXenocide]

I just finished the first act of Macbeth, and so far, Hamlet is still by far my favorite of the three that I'm reading. Although I do keep hearing a whole bunch of crazy stuff happening with Lady Macbeth, so that's my incentive to keep reading. Calling upon dark forces to give her husband some balls to fulfill his destiny isn't quite yet crazy enough.

[DrewTheXenocide]

I've thus far finished Hamlet, am on the middle of the third act of Macbeth, and I'm starting the fourth act of Henry V.

Spoilers coming!



The ending to Hamelt was pretty good, lots of things going on in a short period of time, but the one thing I didn't get was when exactly did Hamlet get wounded by the poison tipped sword. Maybe I didn't understand it correctly, but the first two points of the deul went to Hamlet, right? And then in the third clash, they switched blades, and Hamlet got Laertes again. So why is it that Hamlet's poisned too?

Also, I thoguht it was pretty silly/funny for Horatio to want to kill himself too, afterwards. Like he was thinking, "Oh, hey, everyone else is dying. I oughta try it too."

Macbeth started out slow, but as soon as Duncan is killed, it just shoots foward from there. Crazy Lady Macbeth! I literally laugehd out loud when Banquo goes, "It looks like it's going to rain" (or osmething to that effect) right before he gets attacked.

Henry V, on the other hand, is boring as all get out. Although that's probably just because the teacher teaching that class isn't doing it too well. (She reads the whole thing out loud to us sans any emotion at all. Doesn't go into metaphors.) And the supposed climax of the play was just... blah.

[Buzz Dixon]

Wow. It's hard to screw up Henry V, what with it's famous "St. Cripsin's Day" stem winder, but it sounds like your teacher is determined to do it.

[DrewTheXenocide]

I just finished Macbeth, and while it was pretty good, the final act, I thought, was somewhat lackluster. It felt a little to fast paced, what with the big battle coming and everyone prepping for war, and the very short scenes, left little impact. Even the famous poem that comes from Macbeth hearing of Lady Macbeth's death. , the whole "Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow" fell flat on me because right after, the messenger came, told Macbeth that they were coming in from the woods, and off to battle they went.

Also, maybe I missed it, but what happens to Banquo's kid? IIRC, he fled after the murderers attacked, so are we to believe that he's gonna come back to fulfill the prophecy of the witches afterwards? Or did he die, and I just missed it.

Also, when Macduff's family was attacked, (crazy Macbeth), didn't only the son die and he told his mom to run? But then when Macduff is informed of his family's death, he's told that they're all dead. Did I misread somewhere?

[Leslie Lee III]

I love reading his work. Tragedy > Hero saves the day/Hollywood ending, in my book.

[Buzz Dixon]

Dave Lapham in one of his STRAY BULLETS stories observed that a happy ending consists of knowing where to write "The End" in a story.

And Shakespeare did write a fair number of "hero saves the day" stories; it's just that the focal character in those was usually the villain. MACDUFF, SWORD OF VENGANCE would be the Hollywood version of MacBeth, f'r instance.

[rick]

Yeah, Branagh's terrible. Not Mel Gibson bad, but still.


Did we see the same movie?

Branagh's Hamlet was without a doubt one of the finest versions fo the play ever made with an amazing cast from Jacobi, Plowright and Heston all the way down to the simply brilliant performance in the title role by Branagh himself.

Angry, energetic and completly believable, Ken's filmed version is in my opinion second to none.

It is simply the greatest filmed version of a Shakespere play ever made.

[berk]

What I disliked about Branagh's Hamlet was that he seemed to be trying to force an interpretation onto the character that just didn't fit the words on the page. Specifically, I thought he tried too hard to make Hamlet into a decisive man of action once he made his decision to "take up arms," etc, and I don't think this matches well with the content of the text. Branagh would have us believe that, once Hamlet made that decision, he completely and effortlessly changed his personality into a non-contemplative extrovert who acts first and never thinks twice about his decisions. I think the text shows that he continued to be, well, Hamlet, in spite of his avowals. Or at least such was my reaction at the time; it's been years since I've read the play or watched the movie.

[Karl J. Barnes]

What I disliked about Branagh's Hamlet was that he seemed to be trying to force an interpretation onto the character that just didn't fit the words on the page. Specifically, I thought he tried too hard to make Hamlet into a decisive man of action once he made his decision to "take up arms," etc, and I don't think this matches well with the content of the text. Branagh would have us believe that, once Hamlet made that decision, he completely and effortlessly changed his personality into a non-contemplative extrovert who acts first and never thinks twice about his decisions. I think the text shows that he continued to be, well, Hamlet, in spite of his avowals. Or at least such was my reaction at the time; it's been years since I've read the play or watched the movie.

I heard of a version, where they had Hamlet basically swashbuckling during his time with 'pirates'. I can't remember the actor's name, but he played Merlin in "Excaliber".

[Sir Tim Drake]

Also, maybe I missed it, but what happens to Banquo's kid? IIRC, he fled after the murderers attacked, so are we to believe that he's gonna come back to fulfill the prophecy of the witches afterwards? Or did he die, and I just missed it.

As I understand it, it's the former. Fleance survives and ultimately becomes the ancestor of the Stuart kings of England and Scotland, hence why the witches tell Banquo, "Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none."

(More information than you perhaps wanted to know: The Stuarts-- including King James VI of Scotland, who became King James I of England around the time Macbeth was written-- were descended from the Fitzalan family. They took the name Stewart when Walter Fitzalan became the first Lord High Steward of Scotland, in the 12th century. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banquo), Holinshed's chronicles claimed that the Fitzalans were descended from Fleance. In the 19th century this claim of descent was disproved, but it would still have been believed to be true in Shakespeare's time.)

Also, when Macduff's family was attacked, (crazy Macbeth), didn't only the son die and he told his mom to run? But then when Macduff is informed of his family's death, he's told that they're all dead. Did I misread somewhere?

I assume that Macduff's wife and other children were killed off-stage, either before or after that scene. There may be other theories on this though.

[rick]

I heard of a version, where they had Hamlet basically swashbuckling during his time with 'pirates'. I can't remember the actor's name, but he played Merlin in "Excaliber".


I’d have loved to see Nicol Williamson in the part. He is one of the great under-appreciated English actors.

As for Berk’s comments on Hamlet or more specifically Branagh's Hamlet, I have to say that of course the character comes across as decisive man of action. He comes across that way, because he is a decisive man of action.

Keep in mind that after the senior Hamlet’s ghost tells Hamlet about his fathers murder everything he does for the rest of the play with the exception of his destruction of Ophelia is part of his planned revenge.

The play within a play is a trap to force Claudius into revealing himself as a murderer. The ”To be“ speech is spoken with full knowledge that both Claudius and Polonius are listening in. His revenge on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern for their betrayal is coldly calculated. In all of these things Hamlet is set on his path and determined to have revenge for his fathers murder.

Yes, he does lose it in the end finally becoming almost as unhinged as he has been portraying himself. And yes, through his anger and cruelty he leads directly to the suicide of Ophelia.

But his treatment of his mother Gertrude as a whore and a monster, are while excessively harsh, actually not that far out of line considering that less then a month after her husband died, she not only married her husbands younger brother, but also seems to be much happier with him then her first husband.

I actually have a great deal of sympathy toward Gertrude in the end, but at the same time I clearly understand why she is such a key part to Hamlets anger.

Anyway, while Hamlet does have his doubts about his abilities and his eventual goal, but he never wavers in his desire for revenge for his father’s death. And he just never moves away from it, and in the end his need for revenge kills everyone, guilty and innocent alike.

So in the end, Hamlet is a decisive man of action. It’s just that his decisive actions end up getting everyone killed and the throne in the hands of Fortinbras.

[Jonathan Bogart]

Branagh's Hamlet was without a doubt one of the finest versions fo the play ever made with an amazing cast from Jacobi, Plowright and Heston all the way down to the simply brilliant performance in the title role by Branagh himself.
The cast is amazing, certainly, but I found the star turns distracting. The directing is pedestrian, and I wasn't impressed by Branagh himself. But like Berk, it's been nearly a decade since I saw it.

I don't think it's a good idea to try to overlay a post-Method acting style onto Elizabethan roles in general. I understand that this is the only way the vast majority of a modern audience will connect with the character, but I'm pretty Brechtian about theatre: acknowledge the falseness, and focus on the ideas.

And your man-of-action reading of the play lies within a very legitimate area of debate; I incline to the paralyzed-by-indecision, proto-emo reading myself.

[rick]

The cast is amazing, certainly, but I found the star turns distracting. The directing is pedestrian, and I wasn't impressed by Branagh himself. But like Berk, it's been nearly a decade since I saw it.

I don't think it's a good idea to try to overlay a post-Method acting style onto Elizabethan roles in general. I understand that this is the only way the vast majority of a modern audience will connect with the character, but I'm pretty Brechtian about theatre: acknowledge the falseness, and focus on the ideas.

And your man-of-action reading of the play lies within a very legitimate area of debate; I incline to the paralyzed-by-indecision, proto-emo reading myself.


Okay, I admit that I could have lived without Billy Crystal, but I thought the scene with Heston and Dame Plowright was simply stunning.

I have been a fan of Charlton Heston for my entire life, so you can imagine my amazement when I discovered after all this time that the man could actually act. He was just great.

As for the direction, I have to say that I enjoy Branagh use of bright, clean colors. And his ornate but simple sets are great too. As for his direction, I do not agree that he is using Method, I think that what we see in his films is good old fashioned British acting.

The characters aren’t trying to become the role, but they are certainly doing their best to make the audience think so though.


One funny thing is that I think that Branagh’s production is actually very Brechtian in flavor. Sure the sets are huge and beautiful and yes the colors are very bright, but they actually help to point out the sets as exactly that, sets. The movie itself is a great example of the play being the thing.

In the end, what we end up with is a clean, straight forward British approach to Shakespeare coming together to make a great late 20th century production of a classic play.

Also, I know that my decisive version of Hamlet is open to debate. But actually I think that a lot of that debate is not based on what the words on paper are, but instead how different actors have chosen to present them.

Depending on how the role is acted, and without changing either a word of dialog or direction, the character can either be consumed by his doubts or instead blindly confident.

Either way Hamlets actions end up getting everyone killed, the only difference is how he feels about it.

[berk]

I'd have to read the play again to come up with a coherent response to Rick's comments, but, from memory, as a reader I never really bought any of Hamlet's declarations and avowals of forthright determination; on the other hand, neither do I see him as the proto-emo kid Jonathan mentioned. I see him as an essentially withdrawn type, more at home in the privacy of his own intellect than interacting with other people, but definitely not a wall-flower or emothionally fragile. Withdrawn, not through anxiety or an inability to function in the real world, but through a disinclination to interact with his lessers. A man of outstanding ability, he is able to give a decent imitation of a man of decision, but it is an imitation, not because he's paralysed by indecision in the sense of irresolution, but because he's so detached that he doesn't really feel much emotional involvement with his surroundings: this distance, combined with a highly developed intellect that enables him to examine things from many perspectives tends to level the emotional values attached to different possible courses of action. When he does choose , I always get the feeling that his choice is made through feelings of personal pride more than because of any emotional investment in the action itself. This is especially evident in the scene where he finds out Ophelia is dead when Laertes comes along and begins to mourn, genuinely and publicly. Hamlet, after a brief, almost perfunctory line or two about his regret for her death, then comes forward, enraged that anyone, even her own brother, should presume to grieve more for her than he does, feelings he proceeds to express in far more lines he bothered spending on his dead fiancé. He appears to be far more concerned with not being outfaced by Laertes than with Ophelia.

So Branagh's portrayal of a straighforward man of action was never going to ring true with me. Hamlet, even when active, is anything but straightforward. No matter what one might think specifically of the Oedipal implications of the entire scenario, I think it's pretty clear that the Ghost at least in part represents something about Hamlet's subconscious, and that his entire motivation is anything but simple. Revenge is there, certainly; justice, maybe; pride and ambition, I strongly suspect - and all that's just scratching the surface.

Anyway, that's how I remember feeling the last time I read the thing, which was shortly before seeing the Branagh film. It could well be that if I read it again I'd experience an entirely different reaction, but right now, this is all I have to go on.

[Mike Pothier]

Two word. Julius Caesar.

*was obsessed with that play as a teen*

[Kirayoshi]

Okay, I admit that I could have lived without Billy Crystal, but I thought the scene with Heston and Dame Plowright was simply stunning.
I actually enjoyed Crystal's gravedigger. Very coarse, a little gallows humor, and he pulled it off. The only real cameo problem I saw in that movie was Jack Lemmon as one of the guards in the first act. Methinks he was overempasizing the iambic pentameter a trifle. As for Branaugh, I thought he was dynamic, and seemed a lot younger in the role than he really was.

All I can say about Brannaugh's Hamlet was that when I saw it in a theater, I didn't glance at my watch once. Not bad.

[Buzz Dixon]

The only real cameo problem I saw in that movie was Jack Lemmon as one of the guards in the first act.Agreed. The movie came to an absolute screeching halt the moment he stepped on camera.

[scratchie]

Um, one of the greatest writers in the English language? Is that really open to debate at this point?

In other news, I hear that Beethoven guy wrote some half-decent music, too.

[Expletive Deleted]

I'm not a huge fan of reading Shakespeare, but you can't beat seeing his work performed.

Incidentally, has anyone seen "Slings & Arrows?" It's a Shakespeare-centric comedy on Movie Network/Movie Central in Canada and Sundance Channel in the US. Lots of fun.

[Dennis K]

Shakespeare was a shitty "novelist" but a brilliant "playwright".

[Karl J. Barnes]

Incidentally, has anyone seen "Slings & Arrows?" It's a Shakespeare-centric comedy on Movie Network/Movie Central in Canada and Sundance Channel in the US. Lots of fun.

I've seen bits and pieces, but haven't really taken a look. But I did come in the middle of the story and was sure what was going on....maybe in DVD form..

[DrewTheXenocide]

I currently in the midst of watching the Branagh Henry V, and lo and behold, I find that Christian Bale plays the role of "Boy." He looked kinda funny in those years.

[DrewTheXenocide]

I read Henry V again today, and it was much better than in class. It's still probably my least favorite, but it's still pretty good.

The one thing I didn't like, or even hated, was the "tavern group." That whole bunch of characters, save the Boy, pissed me off to no extent. Maybe that was their purpose, because when both Bardolph and Pistol get their just deserts I smiled in joy.

I was also a bit confused by how Henry played that whole thing with William. I get the whole posing as a commoner thing, but when the battle's over and he makes Flouellen go over with the glove, then sends the other two guys to make sure no one gets hurt, and then he comes and reveals himself to William... it just seemed too much.

[Bouncing Boy]

MacBeth is the greatest sword and sorcery story ever written.

Taming of the Shrew is fun, but woefully non-p.c. for today's audiences (which means there's probably more than a little truth to it). Watch KISS ME, KATE instead.

I'm not sure they should watch KISS ME, KATE instead, it's pretty un-PC too. Maybe they should stick to Ten Things I Hate About You.

Don't get me wrong, I love Kiss Me, Kate, but it is pretty sexist at times, possibly even more sexist than Taming of the Shrew. Ten Things I Hate About You on the other hand handled the situation with the "shrew" and the "taming" of her pretty well, and gave her a pretty good motivation for why she was so bitchy. Also it pretty much said what I've belived for years, that Kate was actually the favored daughter in the eyes of her father.

[Bouncing Boy]

With all this talk about Keneth Branaugh's Hamlet, I am reminded of an idea I had about Branaugh remaking the movie To Be Or Not To Be. For those of you not familiar with the movie, it is about an actor in Poland around the time that the Nazi's took over Poland. Before the Nazi's took over, the actor was mounting a production of Hamlet, and at every performance, when he would get to the "To Be or Not To Be" speach, a fighter pilot in the third row got up and left (he was actually leaving to carry on an affair with the actor's wife). When the invasion happens, the theatre is closed down and the fighter pilot goes to England with the rest of his squadron to regroup so they can continue fighting the Nazi's. In England he learns of a nazi spy who has information of the Polish underground and plans to give it to the Nazis. The Pilot is charged with returning to Poland and intercepting the spy and he seeks the help of the Actor and his wife.

As serious as the plot sounds, it's actually pretty funny, though it has some very serious parts. The original movie which was made before the US entered WWII, starred Jack Benny, and there was a remake that I think was either in the late 70s or early 80's starring Mel Brooks. I think Branaugh would probably ring truer in this role than either Benny or Brooks. I mean can you picture either of them pulling off a serious Hamlet?

[Zelgadis]

I think its brilliant. Hes no doubt one of the greatest play writers in history.

[Jonathan Bogart]

As serious as the plot sounds, it's actually pretty funny, though it has some very serious parts. The original movie which was made before the US entered WWII, starred Jack Benny, and there was a remake that I think was either in the late 70s or early 80's starring Mel Brooks. I think Branaugh would probably ring truer in this role than either Benny or Brooks. I mean can you picture either of them pulling off a serious Hamlet?
Dear God in Heaven. To Be or Not To Be is one of the greatest films ever made. Nobody should ever remake a Lubitsch picture; you can't improve on perfection. (The less said about the Brooks version, the better.)

Have you seen Benny in the role? Of course he doesn't pull off a serious Hamlet; he's not required to, and it would actually be out of character for him to. That's like saying that they should drop the musical numbers out of Top Hat and focus on the silly plot, with Adrien Brody in the Fred Astaire role.

[Dark Party]

I put this poll up to help settle a dispute going on in another forum. I thought it would be interesting to see what the general public thinks. Feel free to state your opinions.

I don't know how anyone can't like Shakespeare -- he's influenced everything. You can't escape him. His characters and plotlines are in every book, movie, comic book and TV show.

Personally, "MacBeth" is my favorite -- but I also like "Henry V" and "King Lear."

[Shades0077]

To finish off my minor degree in English, I'm taking a course on Shakespeare this term. Here are the plays we'll be reading.

Richard II
The Merchant of Venice
The Winter's Tale
Henry IV, Part 1
The Taming of the Shrew

I've never read any of these, so I think it's going to be a rather informative class. What are people's opinions on them? Specifically, I'm looking for which genre they all fall under. I know Taming of the Shrew is one of Shakespeare's comedies, what about the others?

[Jonathan Bogart]

I've never read any of these, so I think it's going to be a rather informative class. What are people's opinions on them? Specifically, I'm looking for which genre they all fall under. I know Taming of the Shrew is one of Shakespeare's comedies, what about the others?
Richard II and Henry IV are, as you might be able to deduce from their titles, histories. The Merchant of Venice is structured as a comedy, but evokes a more sophisticated reaction (especially these days -- as does Taming of the Shrew), and A Winter's Tale is one of the late-period plays that defies easy categorization, though if given only the three categories I'd call it a comedy.

As for my opinion, they're all first-rate Shakespeare, which means that better English literature is hard to come by.

[Sir Tim Drake]

To finish off my minor degree in English, I'm taking a course on Shakespeare this term. Here are the plays we'll be reading.

Richard II
The Merchant of Venice
The Winter's Tale
Henry IV, Part 1
The Taming of the Shrew

I've never read any of these, so I think it's going to be a rather informative class. What are people's opinions on them? Specifically, I'm looking for which genre they all fall under. I know Taming of the Shrew is one of Shakespeare's comedies, what about the others?

Richard II and Henry IV, Part 1 are history plays. The Merchant of Venice and The Winter's Tale are comedies, although apparently some people consider The Winter's Tale to be a romance.

[General Grievous]

i love hamlet, i read that badboy 3 or 4 times, love the characters.

Same with comics, sometimes i prefer reading about characters than the actual story

[i_mmmchocolate]

I had to read Romeo & Juliet, Hamlet, MacBeth, and Julius Caesar in high school. In truth, I much preferred--even now-- reading lit from later time periods.

[Shades0077]

Richard II and Henry IV are, as you might be able to deduce from their titles, histories. The Merchant of Venice is structured as a comedy, but evokes a more sophisticated reaction (especially these days -- as does Taming of the Shrew), and A Winter's Tale is one of the late-period plays that defies easy categorization, though if given only the three categories I'd call it a comedy.

As for my opinion, they're all first-rate Shakespeare, which means that better English literature is hard to come by.

Richard II and Henry IV, Part 1 are history plays. The Merchant of Venice and The Winter's Tale are comedies, although apparently some people consider The Winter's Tale to be a romance.

Sounds good. I'm glad it's a variety of stuff. Thanks guys!

[Citizen V]

People should only vote Great,since without Shakespeare there is a good chance Western..or at least British and American writing would most likely not exist in the way people see it now.

[berk]

I just read Othello for the first time a couple weeks ago. What surprised me from this one reading was that while I'd always had the impression that Iago was supposed to have been a figure of unadulterated malevolence, as I read the play I found that he was given at least two clearly stated motives for his animosity towards Othello. Not that either came close to justifying his actions, but just that the very fact that he was given any motivation at all, however twisted, went against my expectations. Of course I should have known better, since this I knew this was considered one of Shakespeare's masterpieces and none of his famous characters are anything less than well conceived, but what was even more thought-provoking was the specific nature of Iago's motivation and what it seemed to say about him and Othello, their relationship with one another and with the rest of the play (that is, not just the other characters but the scenario, the environment, the ideas & themes, the entire "world" of the story). Thoughts, anyone? I have more to say, but right now I want to get some sleep.

[Blueferret]

I just read Othello for the first time a couple weeks ago. What surprised me from this one reading was that while I'd always had the impression that Iago was supposed to have been a figure of unadulterated malevolence, as I read the play I found that he was given at least two clearly stated motives for his animosity towards Othello. Not that either came close to justifying his actions, but just that the very fact that he was given any motivation at all, however twisted, went against my expectations. Of course I should have known better, since this I knew this was considered one of Shakespeare's masterpieces and none of his famous characters are anything less than well conceived, but what was even more thought-provoking was the specific nature of Iago's motivation and what it seemed to say about him and Othello, their relationship with one another and with the rest of the play (that is, not just the other characters but the scenario, the environment, the ideas & themes, the entire "world" of the story). Thoughts, anyone? I have more to say, but right now I want to get some sleep.

Iago is very multi-dimensional as a villain. He let's the reader see a wide range of emotions from playful to petty, all the while focusing on one thing, Othello. If you haven't done so yet, read Merchant of Venice. The character of Shylock is a forerunner to Iago. He is more of a straightforward villain than Iago but enjoyable nonetheless.

[berk]

My recollection of the Merchant of Venice is pretty hazy, but I recall Shylock as having been more sympathetically presented than Iago. Maybe I'm just thinking of the famous If you stab me do I not bleed, etc, speech, though.

What I found interesting about Iago is that he seems to function not only as a figure of arbitrary evil, but as in some respects Othello's double. To fall into Jungian terminology, he works not only as a collective shadow figure, but Othelolo's personal shadow as well. He and Othello are alike in certain ways - both for example, are described as soldiers, men of action and blunt words, in contrast to urbane, sophisticated, and socially elevated characters such as Cassio.

And it's that last consideration that struck me as key to the whole play - social status and acceptance or the lack thereof underlies the entire drama, complicated by race in Othello's case, of course. That's something I hadn't known until reading the thing, and it could be a commonplace observation for all I know, but it's usually seen, at least in the popular imagination as a story of domestic jealousy - which it obviously is as well.

Anyway, Iago's two motives for targeting Othello both involve jealousy, butthey are of two differnt kinds: he's angry at Othello being given a position he covets and thinks he's merited; and he thinks Othello may have seduced his wife; so you have both a social-status, career-oriented jealousy and a domestic, sexual jealousy. But Iago provokes Othello so easily to a jealousy of his own in regards to Desdemona, that I think this has to be seen as awakening a resentment that was already there beneath the surface (lines IV, i 39-41 are a dead giveaway, I think), waiting to erupt. Tellingly, the object of Othello's suspicions is Cassio - the man who in several respects is everything he and Iago are not, but in one above all: social status. Cassio's a member of the Venetian nobiltiy and occupies a position of social acceptance and honour that neither Othello nor Iago can ever hope to achieve, howver much they are honoured for their services to the state. And that I think is the primary source of Othello's anxiety, not sexual jealousy of Desdemona. The latter exists, but I think is secobdary to Othello's repressed fears that even if she loves him, she and perhaps even more importantly the social stratum she represents, will never accept him as an equal. The opening scene sets the stage, as it were, for all this, with Othello being accused by Desdemona's father of having beguiled her through sorcery - because why else would she marry a foreigner and a Moor? And all this is thrown in Othello's face right at the start of the play, so he'd have to be nearly superhuman not to have some insecurities about his status and position and desdemona's faithfulness buried down somewhere in his subconscious. It's Iago's role to bring these to the surface, which he does of course with cruel skill.

EDIT: forgot to finish what I was going to say: so anyway, this is probably all old hat to anyone who's read Othello before, but I was a little surprised because it had always been described to me as a simple case of the evil Iago having fooled and manipulated the noble but naive Othello; which, of course he did, but I was interested to see something else happening beneath the surface.

[berk]

Here's a question for everyone: there've been some pretty well-publicised and commercially successful film versions of Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Henry V, Othello and several others; has there ever been one of MacBeth? It seems like such a natural - someone here, I thought in this thread but I couldn't find the post, called it the best sword and sorcery story ever written, and that's not far off the mark, I think. So why hasn't it been given a high-profile film treament?

[Jonathan Bogart]

Here's a question for everyone: there've been some pretty well-publicised and commercially successful film versions of Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Henry V, Othello and several others; has there ever been one of MacBeth? It seems like such a natural - someone here, I thought in this thread but I couldn't find the post, called it the best sword and sorcery story ever written, and that's not far off the mark, I think. So why hasn't it been given a high-profile film treament?
It's been tried, but every time the filmmakers insisted on referring to the movie as "Macbeth" while on set, and the shoots always ended in disaster.









Heh.

[Slam_Bradley]

Here's a question for everyone: there've been some pretty well-publicised and commercially successful film versions of Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Henry V, Othello and several others; has there ever been one of MacBeth? It seems like such a natural - someone here, I thought in this thread but I couldn't find the post, called it the best sword and sorcery story ever written, and that's not far off the mark, I think. So why hasn't it been given a high-profile film treament?


I guess it kind of depends on how you define success. Orson Welles' 1948 version is very well regarded critically now (and when released in non-English speaking countries) but it was a disaster commercially.

Roman Polanski's 1971 version is also very well regarded. Not sure how it did at the box office.

Probably the best film version is Akira Kurosawa's Kumonosu jô (Throne of Blood). The fact that there are about half a dozen better Kurosawa movies doesn't take away from the fact that it's brilliant. The man just happened to be one of the greatest directors ever.

[berk]

Yes, Throne of Blood is great, although of course not an actual staging of the play itself with Sahkespeare's words and so on. I wasn't aware of the Welles and the Polanski versions; both sound like they're worth a look. A search at imdb (which I obviously should have done before posting this question in the first place) shows a very recent Australian movie with the setting transpanted to modern-day gangsters.

[Tages]

Polanski's version is one of the most nihilistic interpretations of Shakespeare ever produced.

And it's damn good.

[Slam_Bradley]

Polanski's version is one of the most nihilistic interpretations of Shakespeare ever produced.

And it's damn good.


One of the things to keep in mind with Polanski's version is that he filmed it very shortly after Sharon Tate's murder. Her death and the grisly nature of it certainly shows in the film.

[berk]

...A search at imdb (which I obviously should have done before posting this question in the first place) shows a very recent Australian movie with the setting transpanted to modern-day gangsters.By the way, "transpanted" in this context means that they wear gangster-style pants but keep the rest of the medieval wardrobe. Or it might if it were, you know, an actual word.It's been tried, but every time the filmmakers insisted on referring to the movie as "Macbeth" while on set, and the shoots always ended in disaster.They'll have to release it as "The Scottish Film", thereby wreaking havoc by copyrighting the phrase "Scottish Film" and preventing anyone else from ever using it again no matter which Scottish movie they're talking about.Polanski's version is one of the most nihilistic interpretations of Shakespeare ever produced.

And it's damn good.Having just read it, I think this could be quite a defensible interpretation, as MacBeth does sink into a psychic state very close to nihilism near the end. The "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow" speech is as powerful an expression of the nihilist attitude as I've seen in English lit. Too bad it's become almost too famous for its own good and the power and immediacy of those words tends to be lost behind their status as (yet another) famous Shakespearean speech. I'm definitely planning to see the Polanski movie now (and the Welles, as, er, well).

[berk]

One last thing about MacBeth: the Signet ppb I read has an few excerpts from Holinshed at the back, and it's interesting to see how shakespeare altereed his source material. For one thing, in the original history/legend, MacBeth and Duncan are presented not only as polar opposites, but explicitly as the two extremes of a certain range of peronality: Duncan is considered by all to be too gentle and weak, to the point where there is disorder and lawlessness in the kingdom as the king isn't strong enough to rule properly. At the same time, MacBeth is known as a brave soldier, but considered excessively harsh and cruel. Everyone contrasts the two and concludes that if their qualities could be "averaged" between the two of them, they'd each be better men. Interestingly, this seems to occur after Macbeth has Duncan killed - for the next 10 years he rules wisely and is creditied with introducing lots of beneficial new laws and generally bringing order and security to the realm. But then his cruelty and violence reassert themselves and he becomes the villainous MacBeth of the play - and Shakespeare follows Holinshed pretty closwely for the rest of the story.

So you could almost say that after giving us a basic set-up in which Duncan and MacBeth are doubles of one another, each representing the other's personal shadow, Holinshed proceeds to give us what look to me like two alternative developments, but presented sequentially as successive narrative episodes: after killling Duncan, (1) MacBeth seems to have assimilated some of the dead man's characteristics and for 10 years rules as a balanced personality, strong but not cruel, benevolent but not weak. Then (2) he becomes more harsh and brutal than ever, as if with Duncan's murder he had completely annihilated that side of his personality and no longer has the least check upon his violent and rapacious impulses.

Anyway, it's interesting that Shakespeare left most of this out: Duncan and MacBeth aren't really contrasted and don't act as doubles in the play; the 10 year of wise rule are lost (in the interests of dramatic unity I presume) and the story follows MacBeth's steady descent into evil and nihilism from beginning to end. Mostly, as mentioned above, I think it's due to the demands of the medium Shakespeare was working in.

[Voncaster]

I think Shakespeare's work is good, but its hard for me to get into because of the antiquated writing.

[Jonathan Bogart]

I think Shakespeare's work is good, but its hard for me to get into because of the antiquated writing.
Maybe it's just me, but I think that's exactly wrong way to describe it. Anyone living today who wrote like Shakespeare would produce very antiquated writing. But Shakespeare's writing at the time was ultra-modern, advanced, slangy, and hip. This isn't to say you should feel yourself called upon to get into it; the march of time has made it increasingly difficult to do so, and everyone has plenty to do as it is. But to call it antiquated is just to turn "old" into a reproach.

[Shades0077]

Well it seems like my professor has kicked Merchant of Venice to the curb due to time constraints. But so far we've done Richard II and the first three acts of Henry IV Part One.

I liked Richard II. I'm not liking Henry IV.

The motivations in Richard II seemed more real than in Henry IV. The characters had good reasons for their actions. In Henry IV, they just all seem like they're being jerks. Maybe it will turn around in the last two acts.

[Ed Cunard]

Maybe it's just me, but I think that's exactly wrong way to describe it. Anyone living today who wrote like Shakespeare would produce very antiquated writing. But Shakespeare's writing at the time was ultra-modern, advanced, slangy, and hip. This isn't to say you should feel yourself called upon to get into it; the march of time has made it increasingly difficult to do so, and everyone has plenty to do as it is. But to call it antiquated is just to turn "old" into a reproach.

Plus, it's not that incomprehensible--it's just intimidating, I think. I did an excercize for a literacy course where I took some of the sonnets, broke them down into an alphabetical word list, and handed those out to the participants first--one of the things they noticed was how much of the language, when stripped of its poetic context, was completely familiar and understandable.

[Ryan Day]

I'll throw in another endorsement for Throne of Blood: even though it's not a direct adaptation, it perfectly captures Shakespeare's themes. Toshiro Mifune is at his glowering, rampaging best, and Isuzu Yamada makes a damn creepy "Lady Macbeth". (Although for a really nasty Japanese-Shakespearean manipulatress, you have to see Mieko Harada as Lady Kaede in Ran. That woman is evil.)

I've also got to say that this film is the only time the "forest that walks" seemed at all credible - it looks fantastic. And how many other directors are willing to fire volleys of real arrows at their star?

[Jerkmeister]

Largely over-rated.

[Roquefort Raider]

Toshiro Mifune is at his glowering, rampaging best, and Isuzu Yamada makes a damn creepy "Lady Macbeth". (Although for a really nasty Japanese-Shakespearean manipulatress, you have to see Mieko Harada as Lady Kaede in Ran. That woman is evil.)

Loved that movie.

Is that where they use this great saying:

"Man is born crying, and when he's cried enough, he dies" ?

[rick]

Okay, you've got my attention.

Largely overrated?

How so?

[Jerkmeister]

Cause he licks balls.

[Chris Nowlin]

I agree with the "too many cliches" assessment.

Though this is madness, there be method in it.

My kingdom for a horse!

To be or not to be, that is the question

Who hasn't heard these phrases millions of times growing up.

The guy should be more original!

And don't get me started on the bible...

[rick]

Cause he licks balls.

I’ll have you know that he only ever licked Burbage’s balls, and that was just as a cost cutting measure.

Now, do you have anything real to add, or are you just sort of illiterate, but pretending otherwise?

[Kirayoshi]

Here's a question that occurred to me recently;

Why are so few modern Shakespearean productions set during the periods Shakespeare set them? In recent years, we've seen:

Romeo and Juliet in present-day Florida(with guns and MTV style editing)
Hamlet in Prussian Europe, circa 19th century, and in the modern corporate world
Richard III in an alternate WWII
Much Ado About Nothing in 18th century(?) Tuscany
Midsummer Night's Dream in late 19th century(with bicycles)
Loves' Labours Lost circa '30s Hollywood(complete with Cole Porter soundtrack)
As You Like It in a European trading colony in 19th century Japan

One of the great things about Shakespeare is that his plays are timeless and can be relevant even to modern audiences, but it would be interesting to see them in their original context. Have there been any recent movies along those lines?

[Thorlief]

his writing skills are terrific. For quality and quantity I think he's quite unmatched: still have to find the same incredible dialogues somewhere else: witty, modern, incredibly deep characters with an intelligence that is quasi superhuman

[Roquefort Raider]

his writing skills are terrific. For quality and quantity I think he's quite unmatched: still have to find the same incredible dialogues somewhere else: witty, modern, incredibly deep characters with an intelligence that is quasi superhuman

That certainly comes closer to the truth than certain unsubstantiated rumors about Will's testicle-licking abilities.

[Agent Helix]

Hating Shakespeare means you should just stop reading, because you are obviously doing it wrong.

[mattx110]

Hating Shakespeare means you should just stop reading, because you are obviously doing it wrong.

well, since it's probable shakespeare was more than one bloke, it's hard to hate it all. don't like faeries and witches, there's kings and con-men. and really, a lot of the comedy stands up because it's not topical humor, but drunkedness and coincidence. and a drunken monologue is pretty fun.

maybe someone does hate shakespeare, but likes some scribe whose name is lost to time. stranger things have happened. but my appreciation level has recently gone up a whole lot since i've become more interested in theater and film. and the language isn't too bad. i'm currently working on a way to give a character pages of speach without boring everyone without drawing pretty pictures to take the edge off.

[Ed Cunard]

Here's a question that occurred to me recently;

Why are so few modern Shakespearean productions set during the periods Shakespeare set them? In recent years, we've seen:

Romeo and Juliet in present-day Florida(with guns and MTV style editing)
Hamlet in Prussian Europe, circa 19th century, and in the modern corporate world
Richard III in an alternate WWII
Much Ado About Nothing in 18th century(?) Tuscany
Midsummer Night's Dream in late 19th century(with bicycles)
Loves' Labours Lost circa '30s Hollywood(complete with Cole Porter soundtrack)
As You Like It in a European trading colony in 19th century Japan

One of the great things about Shakespeare is that his plays are timeless and can be relevant even to modern audiences, but it would be interesting to see them in their original context. Have there been any recent movies along those lines?

Mostly marketing, I think--tricking people into going to see (or to connect with in a different way) Shakespeare.

I'm curious about that LLL though, now. I may have to track that down.

[Agent Helix]

Reminds me of this. (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/unconventional_director_sets)

[jesse_custer]

If any speech should be censored for the sake of our intellectual continuity, we should start with those who dismiss the influence and sheer variety of Shakespeare's work.

[rick]

well, since it's probable shakespeare was more than one bloke, it's hard to hate it all.


I have always been highly amused at the people who say that the Bard didn't write his plays and that they were in fact either ghost written by the likes of Bacon, or were written by a bunch of different people.

The only evidence that ever seems to pop up to support these suggestions is the suggestion that either one man could not possibly be responsible for this many great plays, or worse yet that someone from the middle classes like Bill wouldn’t have the education or the brains t