NationStates Jolt Archive

i think romeo and juliet is one of the best love stories ever written in our time.
i love the language and the power in the lines said my the actress's and actors!!

then it became several motion pictures which came out as a big hit
one made in the 80's-90's which was based in the elizabethen period and the 2nd one which is very well known made a few years ago which was cleverly made in our time period but with the use of the original shakespearean language which gave the whole play a different view!!

i would love to hear other ppls opinions and any other discussions on other plays or musicals

let me know ur thoughts!!

i think romeo and juliet is one of the best love stories ever written in our time.

"In our time"? You are either 400 years old or a time traveller.

Anyhow, I think Romeo And Juliet is an odious piece of filth and all copies of the play should be burnt. Such twisted characters as you that describe a torrid tale of a 13 year old girl having sex as 'one of the best love stories' sicken and disgust me. Reading the work is close to reading pornography, watching the play is voyeuristic and performing it is just pandering to the basest impulses of paedophilia.

I've always felt that R&J is over-rated. As far as Shakespeare goes, I prefer Othello, Titus Andronicus, Antony & Cleopatra and King Lear.

However, I prefer modern theatre, particularly Sarah Kane, Ariel Dorfman, Clair Dowie and Philip Ridley.

I've always felt that R&J is over-rated. As far as Shakespeare goes, I prefer Othello, Titus Andronicus, Antony & Cleopatra and King Lear.

However, I prefer modern theatre, particularly Sarah Kane, Ariel Dorfman, Clair Dowie and Philip Ridley.

It was okay.

Yes i would have to agree it was good but,It was far to long..and it was kinda boring

I heard Shakespeare was anti-semetic.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Romeo and Juliet is a beutiful piece of Shakespearian writing. I hope you all will not look down on me for my inablity to spell. Furthermore, those who find this writing offencive either do not understand it or are hard-core religious people who belive anything with a refrence to sex should be banned.

I heard Shakespeare was anti-semetic.
I heard Hitler was Jewish and gay. AND that Michel Jackson is innocent. You can't always belive what you hear.

Romeo and Juliet is the story of two people who were frickin dumb.
Not JUST dumb....but outright stupid, and also in love in that puppy-dog like teeny-bopper kind of love.

What we have are are two love struck teenagers who were so overly dramatic, and totally devoid of common sense.



Both of the aforementioned Idiot's families hate the piss out of each other.
So, they cant hang together.
So, instead of running away together, and eloping....
One decides that it would be better if his family thought she was dead.
So shes takes a mickey, and out she goes.
Meanwhile
Romeo, wich is Olde English for Dumbass, thinks that his chick is dead, takes some poison, and *gurgle*, Loverboy is toast.
Then ...Dumbassina, wakes up, freaks out at what she finds, and does herself in with a dagger, if memory serves.

Fools.
Wouldnt have running off been easier?

Wouldnt have talking about the plan to fake your own death be something that a young couple should maybe talk about, before attempting?

I think that this was the whole point, to show just how stupid,and inspid, and angsty Romeo and Juliet really were.
Unfortunately, people thought that :ohhh! ITS SO SWEET..WHAT A GREAT LOVE STORY!"



Crap.

I know that I love that story... but I know that I really got to not liking Romeo and Juliet by the end, and I felt really sorry for Paris...

I mean, I loved Romeo and Juliet and when you read/see the ending, you can't help but be sad at their demise, but really... Paris loved her. He waited for her for years, and she just ran from him... killed herself. And the way I interpreted it, Paris wasn't an old man, he was a young and very eligible bachelor who loved her.
And the entire time, no one has an ounce of common sense.

Oh well. It's an incredible story, a classic too... but shockingly similar to Pyramus and Thisbe by Ovid...

I've always felt that R&J is over-rated. As far as Shakespeare goes, I prefer Othello, Titus Andronicus, Antony & Cleopatra and King Lear.

However, I prefer modern theatre, particularly Sarah Kane, Ariel Dorfman, Clair Dowie and Philip Ridley.

Wow, I've never heard anyone include Titus in their preferred Shakespear before. Very cool, Eco. :D

Oh well. It's an incredible story, a classic too... but shockingly similar to Pyramus and Thisbe by Ovid...
Who is Ovid? "Pyramus and Thisbe" is the comidic short play in a Midsummer Night's Dream, also by Shakespear. Oh, and that clown who gave a horible misinterpritation of R&J should either reread the story or stop ragging on stuff he knows NOTHING about.

I always like the story when I was little, but we just read it in English and we were talking about it when I realized something. Juliet was Romeo's rebound and Juliet was acting like a normal teenage girl. If she would have lived, she probably would have fallen for someone else a week or two later when Romeo got boring.
I love the language, but the story is kinda stupid. Don't get me wrong, I love Shakespeare, but R&J were idiots.

Furthermore, those who find this writing offencive either do not understand it or are hard-core religious people who belive anything with a refrence to sex should be banned.

13 year old girls having sex is acceptable entertainment for the family and suitable material to be taught to minors?

Reading it in the 9th grade (i'm now going to 12th), I didn't really understand it. I did not like reading it that much.

Oh, and that clown who gave a horible misinterpritation of R&J should either reread the story or stop ragging on stuff he knows NOTHING about.

I assume you were talking about my good self there.

True or false: Juliet is 13 years old?
True or false: Romeo and Juliet consumate their marriage?

Exactly how did I misinterprete the play?

Reading it in the 9th grade (i'm now going to 12th), I didn't really understand it. I did not like reading it that much.

yeah... I read it in 8th and then we had to act it out. I donno, I loved reading it. Even though the story is a bit... crazy.
As I posted earlier.

DP

I heard Shakespeare was anti-semetic.

This thought was raised due to The Merchant of Venice. All the main (Christian) characters seem to be at odds with Shylock, the Jewish money-lender. The only reason that they don't hate Jessica (his daughter) is that she converts to Christianity (what all Christians wanted all non-Christians to do).

There's also speculation that he was bi or homosexual.

OOC Southern Minister Preaching Voice: Y'all shouldn't read Shakespeare!!! It's riddled with pagancy and atheism, which'll send y'all straight to Hell. Plus it was also written by a prissy little homo.

IC: The grammatical way Shakespeare wrote his plays was brilliant; too bad some of the content wasnt.

Oh, and this reminds me of a great story: My friend decided to make up a song inspired from the character Stephano from The Tempest


The Stephano Song

Stephano!! Stephanoo!
Where did you go?
You're plotting with Trinoculo
You want to get rid of Alsonso!

Where did you go?
I need to know
Oooh, my Stephano!
Oooh, I need to know!

He also had a remix version of the song!

I assume you were talking about my good self there.

True or false: Juliet is 13 years old?
True or false: Romeo and Juliet consumate their marriage?

Exactly how did I misinterprete the play?

Well, yeah, both of those things are true, but it's important to remember that the play was written during a time period where average life expectancy was only in the 30s and women were considered to be "of marriagable age" at the onset of menstruation, so 13 was perfectly fine. Also remember that Romeo wasn't more than 15 or 16 tops himself.

I heard Shakespeare was anti-semetic.


On what basis - the characterisation of Shylock in "The Merchant of Venice"? Surely judging the playwrite on the basis of a single character that he used is as short-sighted and prejudicial as that same anti-semitism that you decry, no? Should we mark down Charles Dickens as an anti-semite on the basis of his characterisation of Fagin while we are at it?

I assume you were talking about my good self there.

True or false: Juliet is 13 years old?
True or false: Romeo and Juliet consumate their marriage?

Exactly how did I misinterprete the play?

Well, yeah, both of those things are true, but it's important to remember that the play was written during a time period where average life expectancy was only in the 30s and women were considered to be "of marriagable age" at the onset of menstruation, so 13 was perfectly fine. Also remember that Romeo wasn't more than 15 or 16 tops himself.

Indeed. Although I will note that the average thirteen year old girl during that time period may not have reached menarche yet. Juliet, having access to goodly amounts of food because of her parent's wealth, may very well have reached it, but I think the conditions under which many people lived during that time may not have been so conducive to the natural onset of reproductive abilities.

Doing a bit of good-natured trolling, BWO?

Exactly how did I misinterprete the play?

Well, yeah, both of those things are true, but it's important to remember that the play was written during a time period where average life expectancy was only in the 30s and women were considered to be "of marriagable age" at the onset of menstruation, so 13 was perfectly fine. Also remember that Romeo wasn't more than 15 or 16 tops himself.

Agreed to a certain extent, but I think you are muddling the attitudes of the age in which the play was set (~C14th IIRC) and the age in which it was writen (C16th), however my initial post was concerned with the play in its modern context, not with the social conditions that surrounded it at the time of its conception. It should also be noted that Shakespeare portrayed Juliet as several years younger than previous writers had described her. Are impressionable young people made aware of these historical facts when the play is performed or taught in schools? More interestingly, it is acceptable to update the play my performing it in modern garb and with a contemporary setting, but when this is done no alteration is made to the age of Juliet: is this not then incongruous?

Indeed. Although I will note that the average thirteen year old girl during that time period may not have reached menarche yet. Juliet, having access to goodly amounts of food because of her parent's wealth, may very well have reached it, but I think the conditions under which many people lived during that time may not have been so conducive to the natural onset of reproductive abilities.

We also see that the average age of marriage in Elizabethan England is closer to the mid-twenties, rather than the onset of puberty. Similarly, we see that amongst the wealthy and upper class members of society, both in Shakespeare's England and in the Verona of the century before that, that the average life expectancy is closer is closer to 50 than 30.

HotRodia wrote "Doing a bit of good-natured trolling, BWO?"
BWO responds "It's a fair cop, guvnor, it was me what done the blag, and stitched up The Dark Nexus like a kipper."

Exactly how did I misinterprete the play?

Well, yeah, both of those things are true, but it's important to remember that the play was written during a time period where average life expectancy was only in the 30s and women were considered to be "of marriagable age" at the onset of menstruation, so 13 was perfectly fine. Also remember that Romeo wasn't more than 15 or 16 tops himself.

Agreed to a certain extent, but I think you are muddling the attitudes of the age in which the play was set (~C14th IIRC) and the age in which it was writen (C16th), however my initial post was concerned with the play in its modern context, not with the social conditions that surrounded it at the time of its conception. It should also be noted that Shakespeare portrayed Juliet as several years younger than previous writers had described her. Are impressionable young people made aware of these historical facts when the play is performed or taught in schools? More interestingly, it is acceptable to update the play my performing it in modern garb and with a contemporary setting, but when this is done no alteration is made to the age of Juliet: is this not then incongruous?What modern interpretations are you talking about? Luhrmann's film version?

Here's the problem--any performance of R&J that adheres to the Shakespearean text is going to have to cast Juliet as that young because Juliet and her father get into a screaming match about her age when he tells her she'll be marrying the Prince. Modern retellings that veer from the script have the option of changing any number of things and of course, deleting references to age, and I imagine some have. I think Luhrmann made a compromise of sorts by casting Claire Danes, a young woman who fell into a region where she could pass for anywhere between 15 or 20 and then didn't hit the age line so hard in the abovementioned scene. His movie was aimed at the late teen, early twenties demographic, after all, and I think he was going for that in the casting of all the main players

Tales From the l33t: Romeo and Juliet (http://uninteresting.myby.co.uk/noeffort/romjul.htm)
Bear through the somewhat slow intro, this is hilarious.

dp

I sit in amazement at a few things.

Firstly is that some of you are evaluating Romeo and Juliet by today's standards of playwriting. The inclusion of Shakespeare's material into classrooms today can be used to teach several points.

1. The absurdity of "instant" love and the tragedies it can bring.
Students who emulate Romeo and Juliet because of its "love story" affect are no more informed about their decisions than people who attempt to recreate special effects moments seen in television. It is hoped that by proper education and examination of such stories that students will learn to think for themselves.
2. Understanding irony.
The fact that the readers are aware of the plans of Juliet and the Friar, while Romeo misses the message is one type. Students need to identify such things in all sorts of writing to prepare them for the real world.
3. A glimpse into the world of playwriting and entertainment in that century.
A good teacher will cover points about the world the players were in, as well as the rules of the stage the actors abided by. Family honor and status were extremely important then. Changes in society at the time were moving marriage importance away from social status and towards marriage for love.
4. Language
While I am certain the average citizen did not speak in the manner exhibited by the play, understanding Shakespeare's use of the language in this early play can help a student understand more intricate models in his later works.

This play was not an example of Shakespeare's best work, but it is a story that extends beyond that of its time. It can also be argued that Shakespeare was commenting on love, the "forbidden" actions that were prevalent in seeking love, and the affects he likely saw would become inherent in such social changes towards unions of love.

On what basis - the characterisation of Shylock in "The Merchant of Venice"? Surely judging the playwrite on the basis of a single character that he used is as short-sighted and prejudicial as that same anti-semitism that you decry, no? Should we mark down Charles Dickens as an anti-semite on the basis of his characterisation of Fagin while we are at it?

What? That isn't enough?

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

On what basis - the characterisation of Shylock in "The Merchant of Venice"?

What? That isn't enough?

Nope.

Are you going to claim that individual Jewish people cannot be avaricious, greedy, manipulative, vengeful? To do so would be to somehow limit them in their humanity, and would make you as guilty of anti-semitism as those you attack. The mere fact that this individual Jewish character has some unsavoury characteristics does not mean that Shakespeare was anti-semitic. Shall we compare Shylock to Lady Macbeth or Othello or King Claudius? None of them are paragons of virtue: does this mean that Shakespeare, as well as being anti-semitic, was a misogynist, anti-white and anti-black?


(Expecting a response from Letila shorter than his sig...)

HotRodia wrote "Doing a bit of good-natured trolling, BWO?"

BWO responds "It's a fair cop, guvnor, it was me what done the blag, and stitched up The Dark Nexus like a kipper."

Heh. I like the 'kipper' image. What is that quote a reference to?

The inclusion of Shakespeare's material into classrooms today can be used to teach several points.

1. The absurdity of "instant" love and the tragedies it can bring.

???

Excuse me, but the tragedy in Romeo & Juliet doesn't spring from the fact that they fall in love at first sight (or believe themselves to have done so) - it springs from the fact that they are the products of a society split in twain and at war with itself.

I also fail to see why 'instant' love is any more absurd than that love which comes into being over time, or why you seem to be implying that the latter type of love is without its tragedies...

Are you going to claim that individual Jewish people cannot be avaricious, greedy, manipulative, vengeful? To do so would be to somehow limit them in their humanity, and would make you as guilty of anti-semitism as those you attack. The mere fact that this individual Jewish character has some unsavoury characteristics does not mean that Shakespeare was anti-semitic. Shall we compare Shylock to Lady Macbeth or Othello or King Claudius? None of them are paragons of virtue: does this mean that Shakespeare, as well as being anti-semitic, was a misogynist, anti-white and anti-black?

Ok, good point.

(Expecting a response from Letila shorter than his sig...)

We're supposed to be on the same side. Let's not fight.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Eh, backwards was right. It's overrated, and it's really about two dumb people. Actually, I found Romeo to be the REALLY idiotic one. I mean, Juliet looks alive and EVERYTHING, and he's so busy thinking "woe is me!" he doesn't notice!

Yeah, I despise Romeo.


You want good Shakespear? Read Othello. Iago kicks MAJOR ass. One of the best villans of all time :D

(Expecting a response from Letila shorter than his sig...)

Let's not fight.



It sometimes gets to be a bit irritating snipping all this:

[size=9]-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
[url=http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html]Free your mind![/.url]
[color=red]I like big butts![/.color]
[img]http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg[/.img][/.size]
(periods added to prevent BBCode functioning)

and then finding there are only about ten words to respond to.

Romeo and Juliet were a case of "instant" love that wasnt even love by most approximations.

Lets look at the facts from the play.

Romeo starts the play in love with Rosaline.
He goes to a party, where he meets with Juliet.
They share a few MOMENTS together, and a kiss.
(that alone is unheard of in that time. A girl's virtue would have been seriously questioned)
After these brief moments, they both decide they are instantly in love with the ONE person in life who will ever be their soulmate.
They make a series of decisions on that fact, including marriage and Juliet's arrangements to fake her death.
They both die in the end.

I believe that Friar Laurence said it well in Act II Scene III:
Holy Saint Francis! what a change is here;
Is Rosaline, whom thou didst love so dear,
So soon forsaken? young men’s love then lies
Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes.

I know the story was to be about star crossed lovers, but I wonder if they were each others true love, or simply a well-faced partner for lust.

I heard Shakespeare was anti-semetic.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

he's been dead for 300(?) years. who cares? unles he ingrained it into his plays?

Wow, people actually commenting on Shakespeare here. Maybe I should have had more faith in the General forum.

Berkylvania - good to see you again, it feels like it's been a while! Titus Andronicus is wonderful, the perfect delirious revenge tragedy. Titus himself is a fascinating character, riddled with contradictions, both contemptible and haunting. Aaron, however, is for me the key to the play. His gleeful, malignant machinations are alternately horrifying and hilarious. I thought Julie Taymor did an excellent job with the film, recognising that the absurdities in the plot have to be embraced and amplified, not obscured and lessened.

Iago - I was lucky enough to play Iago a couple of years ago, though unfortunately as the second understudy. As I was in full time employment and had only four weeks to learn the part, I was, well, rubbish. It intrigues me that so many people seem to misunderstand him in really fundamental ways. There's a production of Othello currently running in the West End and I've seen two reviews refer to Iago as 'Machiavellian'. Now, either they misunderstand Machiavelli or Iago. The simplest interpretation of 'Machiavellian' would be to state that 'the end justifies the means'. How can this apply to Iago? What are his ends?

Anti-semitism - there's a strong case for this in light of The Merchant of Venice and others. However, it was a product of his times, where this kind of Jew-baiting was acceptable. The merchant is interesting and problematic, as the fate of Shylock leaves the audience very uncomfortable in the final act where Portia and Nerissa have their fun with the hapless Bassanio and Graziano. I can't help but feel that Shakespeare intended this and that his 'anti-semitism' is very much a case of shades of grey. Similarly for Aaron (a Moor) in Titus Andronicus, who, while villainous, is ultimately portrayed more sympathetically than Tamora, Demetrius and Chiron ('Revenge', 'Murder' and 'Rapine').

Text - I have a fairly simple, actor's interpretation of Shakespeare. He wrote plays. The poetry and textual interpretations (taken to the nth degree by far too many academics and, arguably, classrooms) is secondary and shouldn't stand in the way of performance.

He's not always good! Love's Labours Lost, Much Ado About Nothing (controversial...), Two Noble Kinsmen, Two Gentlemen of Verona, Henry VIII - I'm not a fan of these at all.

Finally, Branagh must never be allowed near Shakespeare again. Ever.

I saw R & J by the Royal Shakespeare Company at Stratford on Avon for my birthday...and it was beautifully done.

BUT...as always...it irritates me. No one stops to use a bit of common sense.

It is a tragedy for me because while it is ostensibly about love, there seems to be no love present.

No love between Capulets and Montagues

No love for Juliet from her parents...or nurse

No love of either J or R by Friar Lawrence (if he'd really loved them he wouldn't have gone off and suggested something as dangerous as he did)

No love between R and J themselves...just the 'must have' feeling which brings people together and from which true love MIGHT grow eventually.

Cos i believe that you cannot love someone until you know them...warts and all.

So for me there is no love in this play and that is what is so tragic.

Agreed to a certain extent, but I think you are muddling the attitudes of the age in which the play was set (~C14th IIRC) and the age in which it was writen (C16th), however my initial post was concerned with the play in its modern context, not with the social conditions that surrounded it at the time of its conception. It should also be noted that Shakespeare portrayed Juliet as several years younger than previous writers had described her. Are impressionable young people made aware of these historical facts when the play is performed or taught in schools? More interestingly, it is acceptable to update the play my performing it in modern garb and with a contemporary setting, but when this is done no alteration is made to the age of Juliet: is this not then incongruous?

I see what you're saying, BWO, and I also agree with you to a certain extent. Juliet's and Romeo's age are troublesome by modern standards and it does beg the question when you bring it into a more modern setting. Does a modernization of R&J turn a tale of pure but "star crossed" love and the conspiracy of society to poison youth into a sordid story of statutory rape and young lust and the society that rightly tries to keep them apart? A sensitive director must ask these questions, but that's true of all Shakes' plays and any modernization. Sometimes they are amazing, such as Sir Ian McKellan's Richard III, or Brannagh's musical adaptation of Love's Labours Lost (frankly, there's no way to make that play interesting anyway, so why not a music which, oddly enough, sort of works). Sometimes they're just stupid, like Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet (best thing about that horrible movie was the choir version of Prince's "When Doves Cry"). A sensitive director that truly understands their material, however, is capable of not only seeing the parallels in the story, but framing their update in a way that takes into account the sensibilities of the time.

For a more specific defence in regards to younger audiences being made aware of the facts, at least in the US, most people get their first introduction to R&J as part of either a Junior High or High School class and it's part of a unit which should, ideally, be designed to include discussion about questions just such as that. Also, while the play may put Juliet's age at 13, I have yet to see a production that actually used a 13 year old. Most Juliets, while very talented and striking, are...well, let's just say the only hope in hell they have of convincing someone they're 13 is with a lot of makeup and some distance, which is ideal for the theater. Rarely, if ever, do most people actually think about Juliet's age, instead putting her and Romeo into their own experience.

While I don't particularly like R&J and think Willie did much better with plays like MacBeth (shameless plug here, if you haven't seen the movie Scotland, P.A. and you like MacBeth, hie thee to a Blockbuster immediately and rent it.), King Lear, The Tempest and The Taming Of The Shrew, I have to admit that it tugs on my heart strings. He has managed to capture that heady first teen love; the one where, despite the odds of it happening, you are certain you have found the one person for you.

After having to read this play no less than three times in high school, I have to say I found Lurhmann's interpretation rather refreshing.

I particularly liked Mercutio. He was fun to watch.

Claire Danes was whiny and DiCaprio seemed to "pretty" to have his head crammed with all these beautiful words.

But more importantly than all of that was the effect of seeing the play performed in some manner, which most people dont get an opportunity to see. In my area of the US the theater isnt dead, but its pulse can be rather weak at times. The theaters do a good bit of business in comedies, but not nearly enough classics or tragedies.

Earlier versions of the play gone movie were too sappy, not giving a good context of the hatred and violence that does appear in the play. And by setting it into a modern context, the younger viewers were able to see how the words come off the page a bit better. Lurhmann's vision of R+J was not the best, but it is the best I have been able to see. I hope I can catch this play in a theater one day, with a good director.

Wow, people actually commenting on Shakespeare here. Maybe I should have had more faith in the General forum.

Yes you should there are always a few of us poor generalites who actually know a thing or two.

He's not always good! Love's Labours Lost, Much Ado About Nothing (controversial...), Two Noble Kinsmen, Two Gentlemen of Verona, Henry VIII - I'm not a fan of these at all.

I never particularly liked or disliked Shakespeare myself. He just seemed like an overall decent writer with some spots of brilliance, but not good enough to warrant the overwhelming attention given to him.

Finally, Branagh must never be allowed near Shakespeare again. Ever.

:lol: Did you see his version of Hamlet?

DP

TP

Wow, people actually commenting on Shakespeare here. Maybe I should have had more faith in the General forum.

Yes you should there are always a few of us poor generalites who actually know a thing or two.

Heh. Thought someone would pick up on that unwarranted slight. 'Twas a mere jest, friends.

Finally, Branagh must never be allowed near Shakespeare again. Ever.

:lol: Did you see his version of Hamlet?

Regrettably, yes. A fine example of "I am Shakespearean, hear me enunciate in an increasingly LOUD VOICE" acting at its very worst. And he always takes the role with the most lines, the insufferable bar steward. There are reasons why texts rarely make it on stage/screen without editing; he included scenes that most editors regard as 'additional passages', ie of dubious merit.

And Berkylvania - I agree, McKellen's Richard III was superb.

DP

i love all the shakespear plays but i also enjoy musicals

i haven't actually watched any of his plays but i've read quite a few and i love them

i have seen the odd musical though...has anyone seen blood brothers?...now that is an AMAZING musical!!

see it!!

Wow, people actually commenting on Shakespeare here. Maybe I should have had more faith in the General forum.

Heh, man does not live by fiery political rhetoric alone.


Berkylvania - good to see you again, it feels like it's been a while! Titus Andronicus is wonderful, the perfect delirious revenge tragedy. Titus himself is a fascinating character, riddled with contradictions, both contemptible and haunting. Aaron, however, is for me the key to the play. His gleeful, malignant machinations are alternately horrifying and hilarious. I thought Julie Taymor did an excellent job with the film, recognising that the absurdities in the plot have to be embraced and amplified, not obscured and lessened.

Heyas, Eco. It's been sort of crazy on my end, but I still owe you are TG response. :)

I agree that Titus is a great show, it's just so hard to do and sometimes it get's relegated to the problem plays like King John. Taymor (who I love) did do an amazing job with it, though, and it works much better on screen than it does in live theater for the exact reason you stated. Movies are simply a better format to capture and develop the fanciful nature .


Iago - I was lucky enough to play Iago a couple of years ago, though unfortunately as the second understudy. As I was in full time employment and had only four weeks to learn the part, I was, well, rubbish. It intrigues me that so many people seem to misunderstand him in really fundamental ways. There's a production of Othello currently running in the West End and I've seen two reviews refer to Iago as 'Machiavellian'. Now, either they misunderstand Machiavelli or Iago. The simplest interpretation of 'Machiavellian' would be to state that 'the end justifies the means'. How can this apply to Iago? What are his ends?

Iago has always been a tough nut to crack. Perhaps the Machiavellian comment stems from the fact that he isn't so much "immoral" as "amoral". He thinks nothing of lying to his wife, stealing from his friend and manipulating others not because he is evil, but because he has no conscience to begin with. However, even this isn't a deep enough analysis of him. At a very fundamental root, Iago is almost the "hurt lover". Brannagh brought this far too much to the foreground in his interpretation, implying that Iago had some sort of unrequited love for Othello. Still, there does seem to be an element of that running through his character. Even though he does all these terrible things, on some basic level he does them because he's hurt. Iago, when played well, is a terribly complex character. Too often, he's turned into a pure villain and that robs the story of a third of it's dramatic arc.


Text - I have a fairly simple, actor's interpretation of Shakespeare. He wrote plays. The poetry and textual interpretations (taken to the nth degree by far too many academics and, arguably, classrooms) is secondary and shouldn't stand in the way of performance.

Well, yes, but at the same time, a full understanding of the text and it's implications is necessary for a complete portrayal of the characters on stage.


He's not always good! Love's Labours Lost, Much Ado About Nothing (controversial...), Two Noble Kinsmen, Two Gentlemen of Verona, Henry VIII - I'm not a fan of these at all.

These, with the exception of Much Ado and the relationship between Beatrice and Benedik, are all very talky plays. Not much happens in them and so they can be quite boring in production. I thought Brannagh's adaptation of Love's Labours Lost was interesting, to say the least, and very inventive.


Finally, Branagh must never be allowed near Shakespeare again. Ever.

Gosh, didn't you even like his Henry V? And his Hamlet, while incredibly self-indulgent, is at least complete and it was nice to see the Fortinbras subplot and the excellent example of triple parallel plotting.

2 b honest...yes i did love hamlet but it was SOOO long!!!

(i don't have that much of an attention span...lol)

I hate "The Merchant of Venice" already and I've never seen it.

-----------------------------------------
"Basically, claims that the Holocaust didn't happen are as stupid as saying the Sun is made from Cheese."-English Republicans
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

[quote="Letila"]I hate "The Merchant of Venice" already and I've never seen it.

well...mayb u cud have a go at readin or watchin it...but of course it's up 2 u!! :D

Romeo & Julliet, as is often the case in Shakespeare, has main characters that are doing something destructive and stupid to the shagrin of the side characters and 'fools,' who spend the time making fun of the main characters or trying to get them to stop f'ing around.

I saw a production of Romeo &... in the park in San Jose before the Luhrman movie that was set in the same kind of quasi-era (50's gangster with some 30s flavors and modern touches). The best part was the portrail of Mercutio(sp?). In his show down with Tibilt(sp) he fought him with a banana. At the first wound it's to the banana. It really underlined how Mercutio was not taking the fued or the fight seriously, and when he was stabbed he was extra pissed. It's important to note that after his death, everyone goes off the rails. The balancing factor is dead.

Complaining about Julliet's age is silly. Of course context is discussed. Maybe your school sucked, but that's not the plays problem.

c...i agree with withed fields...by writing the play in the modern time period...it gave the play back it's 'spark' and introduced younger ppl 2 shakespeare and by using the old text...more ppl were able 2 appreciate the language used...so i'm glad he did

he should do the same with sum other plays...any suggestions?!

For the love of theater, keep Baz Luhrman away from Shakespeare. The man dropped one of the most famous lines from theatrical history just so Leo could have the final word and none of those actors had any idea what they were saying.