Zaz posted:An admission: I've never seen a live Shakespeare play. Read some of the plays in school, and some of the poetry, and seen the movie adaptations. Some theatre criticism helps, especially Kenneth Tynan's "He Who Plays the King" and his subsequent work. I take it you are not of the ilk that insists that a man of such genius could not possibly be the son of a glove-maker, and therefore was really the Earl of Oxford. I have never understood this notion, except that some people are snobs.
Rogue1-and-a-half posted:I've always put it like this; he satisfies the three prongs: namely, his story is emotionally resonant and interesting, his style is beautiful and poetic, and his icharacters are archetypal and sympathetic. Hamlet is his masterwork, I think, but I read his thirteen tragedies all in one book and couldn't find a bad one in the mix; yes, I even liked Titus Andronicus. I mean, what he sets out to do, he does; he sets out to blow our minds in Titus Andronicus, not touch our hearts or engage our intellect, but, by God, he does it.
Rogue1-and-a-half posted:I've read the thirteen tragedies, seen several films (Macbeth: Welles and Kurosawa, Hamlet: Gibson and Olivier and Branagh, Much Ado About Nothing: Branagh, Richard III: Olivier and McKellen and Pacino's docudrama). And read a smattering of the sonnets which are also pretty brilliant. Branagh, I think, does Shakespeare best, though McKellen's Richard III was amazing and Kurosawa's Throne of Blood, which I coincidentally just watched tonight for the third time, is great as well.
Rogue1-and-a-half posted:He just captures something . . . I've often said Hamlet has wisdom on just about everything in life. I definitely look forward to this thread continuing and I'll try to look the plays over; there's always so much to say about each of them. You could spend all day quoting great lines.
KissMeImARebel posted:Why Shakespeare? I guess because he's just that good. Pure and simple. Or perhaps because his characters and themes are still able to compel and hold our understanding - times have changed, but Shakespeare's characters still impact us.
KissMeImARebel posted:Personally I like the characters and the language. I've read (does quick count - could be wrong) only 13 of the plays, but of those my favorites are King Lear and both parts of Henry IV. Not really sure why - maybe I like the idea of children who don't listen to their parents, or I find stories about twisted families more understandable and interesting than political upheavals or doomed lovers. And, for some reason, Richard II holds a special place with me - perhaps because I can't decide if the scenes are funny or tragic...or both.
TheBoogieMan posted:As an aside - there is a new adaptation of Macbeth set in an Australian gang war (based on recent events) coming out soon, by the director of Romper Stomper. It looks like it'll be a very unique take on Shakespeare, sort of along the lines of Romeo + Juliet, but with more semi-automatics.
PulsarSkate posted:I, personally, have a love-hate relationship with Shakespeare and his works. I have directed (nearly) two of his plays (all of R & J and parts of Macbeth), acted in Macbeth, Much Ado About Nothing and Midsummers, seen numerous stage and screen versions and had to study his sonnets for about three years straight. I love his words, the musical quality of the prose and the beauty of the phrases he uses. The way the meter works in the plays, I found so excellent to work with, so easy to remember. It's like he dresses up the english language for a night on the town, then takes it out to McDonalds for dinner... If you get my meaning...beauty in simple things, I think. The plays work on grand and small scale, with a large cast or with a few key actors. They're stories everyone can find something familiar in and they play on the innate collection of stories we all carry around with us.
PulsarSkate posted:But that being said, the way Shakespeare's works are pushed as the greatest of all time? Drives me batty! He was one of many writers, yet he stands out? Why? I have no idea. Possibly the accessibility I and others have mentioned puts him on top. That, and studying him for so long, I feel tired just thinking of reading his stuff
PulsarSkate posted:Of my favourites, Twelfth Night tops them all. Maybe not for storyline, or for comedy (both of which I think are brilliant, but there is better) but for the dialogue - definitely. My favourite line? Well, close enough.. "Many a good hanging prevents a bad marriage." - by the Fool, of course! Great thread idea, I'm looking forward to rambling with you all
DarthIshtar posted:I think the power of shakespeare is in the realism of his characters. Sure, they speak in quotable quotes and need major therapy, but we can so often relate to them.
JediNemesis posted:On the Earl of Oxford question: there is one line of de Vere's (Oxford's) verse I have never succeeded in forgetting: "My life though lingering long is lodged in lair of loathsome ways ..." Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that is not the work of the man who gave us the section of Antony & Cleopatra quoted above. Aristo or no.
JediNemesis posted: Rogue1-and-a-half posted:I've always put it like this; he satisfies the three prongs: namely, his story is emotionally resonant and interesting, his style is beautiful and poetic, and his icharacters are archetypal and sympathetic. Hamlet is his masterwork, I think, but I read his thirteen tragedies all in one book and couldn't find a bad one in the mix; yes, I even liked Titus Andronicus. I mean, what he sets out to do, he does; he sets out to blow our minds in Titus Andronicus, not touch our hearts or engage our intellect, but, by God, he does it. I like the three-prong description; I'll remember that. On the character front, it's interesting that you say 'archetypal and sympathetic. Because, just thinking about it now, almost all of his characters are sympathetic to some degree. Even the real nutcases like Iago or Richard III tend to get the audience on their side to some degree, through soliloquy. Maybe it's just harder to detest a character into whose innermost thoughts you've just been admitted.
Jedi Nemesis posted: I've heard Andronicus described as "Shakespeare's Pulp Fiction". Accurate? I wouldn't know, I've never seen it; isn't on much. I wonder why? I should probably read it.
JediNemisis posted:It seems that Shakespeare's characters get to us all. Would anyone care to name a favourite or several? (I think my soft spot for Iago is already painfully obvious) Claudio from Much Ado is another one who stuck with me - he's got a genuine sense of chivalry which proves to be his undoing. A kind of Shakespearean example of Nice Guys Finish Last.
JediNemesis posted:TheBoogieMan posted:As an aside - there is a new adaptation of Macbeth set in an Australian gang war (based on recent events) coming out soon, by the director of Romper Stomper. It looks like it'll be a very unique take on Shakespeare, sort of along the lines of Romeo + Juliet, but with more semi-automatics. Sounds interesting. Do we have a title yet? Also, is it a straight transplant of the text to Aussie gangland, or have they kept the plot and changed the dialogue? I'm guessing the latter
Rogue1-and-a-half posted:Othello is great; humorously enough, back in the old days, all the big stars put on blackface to play him. Olivier did it, Welles did it, etc. They miss the point, which Branagh gets. Of Iago and Othello, Iago is by far the better part.
Rogue1-and-a-half posted:Beatrice and Benedick are absolutely hilarious. And, in a rare departure, I found Timon of Athens very interesting; it's low key and his dilemma is not melodramatic, but his frustration was palpable and I really got into his dilemma.
Rogue1-and-a-half posted:Forgot to mention that I saw Ethan Hawke's Hamlet which was great, the best modern times update I've ever seen. [...] It uses the updated setting to great effect, but I won't tell you how; you need to see it. Scenes like Hamlet's father, played by Sam Shepard in a long black trench coat, seen walking the halls on security monitors . . . wow, it just gives you chills. It's the only adaptation that actually had a point in adapting it. In an odd way, the film becomes about the modern dilemma, the dehumanizing nature of technology.
Jabbadabbado posted:The language of Hamlet seems to win out over even the worst possible film adaptation or live performance of the play. Even Mel Gibson's terrible Hamlet comes close to being redeemed by the magic of the text.
