|
Post by Doc Quantum on Jan 20, 2014 18:31:08 GMT -6
I've been obsessing over Shakespeare lately. This happens every few years, when I pull out my gigantic tome of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare, which my dad bought when he was at university in the 1950s/1960s, and which I now own.
There's just something about the Bard's plays that really speaks to me. I know a lot of the language is difficult, but part of the fun for me is carefully reading the plays and pulling apart its meaning. Reading Shakespeare definitely increases your vocabulary!
Of course, there's nothing like seeing Shakespeare performed, either on stage or in film. Many of the world's greatest actors have played roles in various Shakespeare plays. I recently learned that David Tennant and Patrick Stewart did a version of Hamlet in 2009 that I really want to check out sometime soon.
My wife and I are alike in most ways, but this is one of the things we differ on. She hates Shakespeare, saying it reminds her of how she was forced to study it in school. I think, if she'd had the English teachers/professors I'd had, she might have a different point of view on that. Or maybe not. I've always loved writing, and Shakespeare's plots, characterizations, and dialogue challenge me on that score. My wife doesn't write, so maybe she just hasn't found anything to identify with in the plays. She loves Harry Potter, though. If there is ever a Shakespeare play done in the style of Harry Potter, please let me know -- that would interest us both.
|
|
|
Post by mh on Jan 20, 2014 20:36:39 GMT -6
cool doc! i lived in oregon for a big chunk of my adulthood, until recently, and there's a huge ongoing shakespeare festival in a place called ashland that i visited quite a bit
www.osfashland.org/
and saw several of the plays, but not enough to say which I liked the best. i do remember really liking king lear. i read a little shakespeare briefly, a decade or so ago. maybe i'll try again, eventually. i think it just seemed like too much to take in. too all-encompassing to get into. like being a communist, or a beatles fan. were you a fan of any of the films based on shakespeare? i don't think i've liked any of them that much. i guess "a midsummer's nights dream" (with rupert Everett & allie mcbeal) was pretty good. i've always liked the idea that's incredibly bad luck to say "macbeth" in a theater. something about there being a lot of doomed macbeth productions, i think. so where do you line up in the question of the shakespeare plays authorhood? sir francis bacon, right?
www.shakespeareanauthorshiptrust.org.uk/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2014 4:51:53 GMT -6
I haven't them for a few years now, but I used to try and read, once a year, Macbeth and Comedy of errors, my two favourites.
|
|
|
Post by williscorto on Jan 22, 2014 20:44:49 GMT -6
You seen Henry V TTT? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_V_(1989_film)Great movie. Branaugh's portrayal of the King's relief at the end of the battle of Agincourt is palpable, when he realises to his surprise that he has won. Some really gory fight scenesin there, too. Knights copping it in the guts from all sides.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Quantum on Jan 23, 2014 1:34:53 GMT -6
Willis, no, I haven't seen Henry V, but I'll have to check it out. I usually like Branaugh's work. so where do you line up in the question of the shakespeare plays authorhood? sir francis bacon, right? I think Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford has a stronger case, personally. Whoever he really was, I think it's fairly evident that William Shakespeare was a pen name borrowed from a guy who lived in Stratford, whose father was illiterate, whose wife was illiterate, and whose children were illiterate. Unfortunately, I don't think the authorship question will ever be proven. Too much information is missing. (Plus, there are a lot of really silly theories out there that muddy the waters and give authorship studies a bad name -- just look up the stupid "Prince Tudor" theory.)
|
|
|
Post by mh on Jan 23, 2014 11:22:17 GMT -6
Willis, no, I haven't seen Henry V, but I'll have to check it out. I usually like Branaugh's work. so where do you line up in the question of the shakespeare plays authorhood? sir francis bacon, right? I think Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford has a stronger case, personally. Whoever he really was, I think it's fairly evident that William Shakespeare was a pen name borrowed from a guy who lived in Stratford, whose father was illiterate, whose wife was illiterate, and whose children were illiterate. Unfortunately, I don't think the authorship question will ever be proven. Too much information is missing. (Plus, there are a lot of really silly theories out there that muddy the waters and give authorship studies a bad name -- just look up the stupid "Prince Tudor" theory.) it sounds as convoluted as "who was jack the ripper" almost. i read 2 books and saw a couple of things on tv, and they all came up with a different guy. with shakespeare, I'm surprised there isn't a paper trail that would prove his identity, but they've undoubted uncovered everything possible by now. i remember hearing once that maybe a woman wrote plays
|
|
|
Post by Babu Baboon on Jan 23, 2014 14:46:12 GMT -6
I kind of liked the 1996 Romeo and Juliet movie adaption with Leonardo DiCaprio and Clare Danes. I thought doing the opening monologue as a news cast was an especially inspired touch. Plus, casting DiCaprio and Danes brought a lot of teeny boppers in who would otherwise never watch Shakespeare unless their English teacher made them.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Quantum on Jan 23, 2014 15:56:27 GMT -6
I'm open to new interpretations of Shakespeare's material. There was a very intriguing version of The Tempest that starred Helen Mirren as a female Prospero... and it worked.
Of course, she wasn't dressed like this -- it would've been way too distracting:
Can anyone say GILF? LOL.
|
|