Penelope wrote:

Bleached said:

with Richard as a Hitler-esque character (because, let's face it, he is dastardly enough to be seen on that level),

No, no....Shakespeare did Richard III a great diservice, current thinking is that Richard III wasn't so bad.

I didn't mean to say that the real Richard was that bad, I meant the Richard as Shakespeare wrote him, which is what drives the play. I don't look at Shakespeare's histories as being all that historical, because he was playing to the whims of the monarchs and nobles with whom he wished to garner favors. The Globe was shut down several times because of his and other playwrights' depictions of historical monarchs, and so he did his best to pander to the audience that would do him the most credit, both poor and rich alike. King Lear is a good example of this. Although Lear is a fictional character, Shakespeare suggests through the actions of that play that England should not divide its kingdom, but unite with Scotland (I believe it was), and therefore gained political favor for agreeing with the ideas of the current royals of the time. I'm not sure about the details of the politics behind it, but I know that it was politically motivated to curry favor with the royals, which I believe he did.

So when I say Richard was a monster, I mean that Shakespeare's characterization of Richard was a monster, not the factual, historical Richard. Sorry for the confusion.

Quoting Bleached:

Although Lear is a fictional character, Shakespeare suggests through the actions of that play that England should not divide its kingdom, but unite with Scotland (I believe it was), and therefore gained political favor for agreeing with the ideas of the current royals of the time. I'm not sure about the details of the politics behind it, but I know that it was politically motivated to curry favor with the royals, which I believe he did.

So when I say Richard was a monster, I mean that Shakespeare's characterization of Richard was a monster, not the factual, historical Richard. Sorry for the confusion.

Heavens, don't apologise.....but we were taught at school that Richard III murdered the little princes and more recently it seems unlikely. So I feel as though I have to defend him.....and I don't know what the poor man did to have such as I defending him!

I am laughing at the way you phrase that 'England should not divide its kingdom but unite with Scotland' Scotland was fighting us off, to keep its independence. It still is. We are in the throes of a general election here (on Thursday) and the Scottish Nationalist Party are, shall we say, brandishing their thistles?

But yes, I was taught that Shakespeare placed Hamlet in Denmark, but he was talking about our own monarchy. And he placed plays in other time zones in order to comment, safely, about the iniquities of the Government and Monarchy of the time. Much as the TV series 'Mash' was about the Korean War, but really the writers were commenting about the Vietnam war. That's how it was explained to me anyway.

Like you, I don't know enough about the politics of Shakespeare's day to comment, although unlike you, I should know more.

I like your thoughts, Penelope, and your self-reproach is amusing, but you should definitely give yourself more credit.

Penelope wrote: But I do think that too often Shakespeare is performed in Victorian costume. I did like a production of 'The Tempest' I saw recently which was performed in 'Star Trek' costumes and it really worked well, with Aerial as a computer screen image.

I will agree with you to a certain extent here. Shakespeare had his plays performed in that Elizabethan way because that's what was worn at the time. I feel like we should stop putting them in such dated costumes because I almost feel like the plays are supposed to be about the people in the audience? Not sure if I'm making sense.

But I do see what you mean about the film versions often making more sense than a theater performance. I've never experienced it (I don't think) but I do imagine it to be frustrating.

Theater productions can be amazing and new and wonderful, it just depends on who's directing and performing and all that. I've seen some wonderful theatrical productions of Shakespeare, some of them plays I didn't even like but enjoyed while watching because of the quality of the actors, and sometimes the exact opposite. Live theater is exactly that - live -and anything can happen, so there is definitely a lot of room to play with and create new dimensions for the audience to see Shakespeare's stories in. I do love films more than anyone could know, but nothing can ever replace the experience of live theater, be it Shakespeare, musicals, or any other play written specifically for the stage. Just like electronic readers will never replace paper books for me, films will never take the place of live theater, and I love them both equally for very different reasons, so I don't want you to think that theater is dead, because it most certainly is not, and I would mourn the day it died should that day ever come.

There's a Lolcat for everything!!

I've commenced the Shakespeare course this week and was thrilled--enthralled-to find out the professor is David Tolley!!! We're beginning with "MacBeth". I'll keep you posted (literally)....maybe much to your chagrin .

The Scottish Play!!

Well, 'Break a Leg'!! I don't know whether that is sour grapes or superstition!!

Do, do keep us informed. Please....

Agreed, Penelope. Keep us informed, oblivion, and don't spare any of the gory details!

Penelope, I think it's only bad superstition to say "Macbeth" in a theater, especially if you are performing it. I have no idea how that superstition came into being. I think I'll have to look that up...

in the meantime...here's a bit of fun absurdity from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Tom Stoppard's lovely existentialist play about Hamlet's traitorous friends, who are stuck in a reality they don't recognize and can't remember anything, even their own names. In this clip they are playing a game of questions, the way you would play tennis, and if you can follow it at all, it is wonderfully hysterical. I absolutely love this film, and pretty much anything else Tom Stoppard writes (but you can see my dearer love for this play because of its close relationship to Hamlet, one of my favorite Shakespeare plays).

Questions and Answers Tennis from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Sx4W2cKlU

Repetition, match point!

Interesting course! The questions today were concerned with the soliloquy in Act 1 and what the significance is of his beginning without naming what it is he plans.
We're also dealing with neologisms as the OED says this is the first recorded use of the word ‘assassination’ , so we're discussing how that might that be expressive of Macbeth’s thought processes, and how it may have affected early contemporary audiences. We're focussing on the rhythm of the language and how the language itself--in an auditory sense--gives clues to the plot and coming-up action. I am curious as to why the prof picked this play to begin with. And I am curious if Macbeth's role was played with a Scottish accent.