|
Post by Leia Skye on Aug 21, 2003 13:31:49 GMT -5
I like Richard III best out of the histories, I think, though I need to reread them now that I've figured out that yes, in point of fact, I'M RELATED TO THEM TOO! I have a whole bunch of Plantagenets back there, wouldn't you know? .................................
En.
OMG.
WE'RE RELATED!!!
I'M CONNECTED TO THE PLANTAGENETS TOO!!
I found out this summer when I was in England. And I called my dad and freaked out to him, and he casually was like, "Yeah, probably."
Ha, okay. Done with dorkiness. Anyway. I saw Richard III at the Globe with an all-female cast. IT WAS SO AMAZING. Richard was great. I believe the actress had also played King Lear in another all-women show. She was just...she carried the show. Elizabeth senior was also very good, but it was sort of the way you expected her to be played. As my teacher put it, "Nothing new or outstanding to note." And Anne was nicely played as well. Aww, and the princes! So sweet.
Then we saw the same play at Stratford, with a cast of both men and women. It was...a wreck. Total disaster, I'm talking. Richard was such a pretentious...ughhhhh. I don't even think there's a word. And whats-her-face, Grand-am, she was just a PSYCHO! And Anne was whiny...Elizabeth was dull and lifeless...I left with some of my friends and our teacher at the interval. *shakes head* I was disappointed because Richard III is my favourite history as well. Okay, so maybe I just found that out when I saw it but hey. Richard II (which I saw with an all-men cast @ the Globe) was dreadful, Henry V is overrated, and...the only other histories I've read/seen are Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra. Those are all right. But I mean, the character of Richard is so fascinating. I would love to play him, but I don't think I could handle it.
Though I definitely could compete with his ego. ;D
|
|
|
Post by En on Aug 21, 2003 14:46:45 GMT -5
LEIA!
*instigates a one-sylph mob scene*
God I missed you! *hugshugshugs* Heh, so we're relatives, so we should have a reunion. Yeah!
You saw the Richard III playing this year? Rock on! Because... I'm going to be there, 17-20 September. I just booked a bed in a youth hostel right across from the British Museum. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Leia Skye on Aug 21, 2003 14:55:29 GMT -5
You mean the one at the Globe? Yeah, it was just fantastic. Don't see Richard II there though if it's the all-men cast. The only thing that had going for it was the fact that Richard's wife was 2 feet taller than him, and it was hilarious. But other than that it was just so...uninspired.
Wee! Family Reunion! *waves Plantagenet banner*
|
|
|
Post by Valkyrie on Dec 9, 2003 2:06:31 GMT -5
Leia... oh my goodness... we saw the same productions of Richard II and Richard III (both)... Wow. How odd. I also go to see Henry V at the National Theatre and Cymbeline at The Swan... Both amazing.... Okay, still kind of in a daze about that...
|
|
|
Post by En on Dec 9, 2003 16:12:35 GMT -5
So whadja think, Valkyrie? I really dug Kathryn Hunter as RIII, though I thought she was almost... too funny. Like, you forget just how many people he has murdered when he's so impish. But on the other hand, that made the play more enjoyable to watch.
Anne was a little freaky, somehow... can't put my finger on it.
The production certainly did some interesting things with the gender words used in the play... got quite a few laughs when "men" in the story would diss each other by saying something was "womanly"....
|
|
|
Post by Valkyrie on Dec 11, 2003 0:43:41 GMT -5
I loved that production. Thought it was amazing. It made me very sad when the rest of my Shakespeare class tore it apart in class the next day. Kathryn Hunter was wonderful, in my opinion. She was entertaining and charismatic... the seduction scene blew me away. I do definitely understand what you mean about it being too comical at times, though. But I also think there were amazing moments where you could really see Richard's anger and the other characters' confusion, desperation, and the pain of betrayal. I thought the woman who played Buckingham was also fantastic, especially compared to the comepletely flat version the RSC gave us later...
|
|
|
Post by En on Dec 12, 2003 13:56:13 GMT -5
Oh, I didn't see the RSC one... that would have been interesting... but the RSC appears to be having a lot of problems Bad management sorts of things.
Yeah, Buckingham was excellent. What did you think of Clarence?
I had to laugh when the players were trying to get the crowd to shout "Long Live King Richard" and this girl next to me started yelling "Boo!" Hunter didn't miss a beat; she looked at the girl, then snapped her fingers and said "Catesby!" and pointed to the girl, and Catesby jumped off the stage and hauled her off! Have to admire people who can stay in character through anything ;D
|
|
|
Post by Valkyrie on Dec 13, 2003 22:52:34 GMT -5
lol That's awesome. Yeah, they were fantastic. I liked Clarence, I think... honestly been so long that I can't remember details of her performance... I actually really liked the girl who was Catesby, though. Takes talent to REALLY stand out in a role like that.
|
|
|
Post by En on Dec 14, 2003 12:04:10 GMT -5
Yeah, my old director used to say, "There are no small parts! Only small actors!"
In other Shakespeare news:
|
|
|
Post by potterknowitall on Jan 31, 2004 0:07:51 GMT -5
And, on a tangent only slightly relating to the current topic... I need help.
My best friend and I are turning 18 this year. For the last few years and holidays we decided that we weren't going to be getting each other anything (we're such an old married couple ), but since this year is kinda the last birthday we can spend together (uni and all), we called it off, agreed nothing store-bought, only something personal. I'm making her a scrapbook, which I hope and pray will turn out well, and I need the perfect quote to start it with. I got her onto Shakespeare a few years ago, and I really want it to be a Shakes quote to begin with... but finding good "friend" quotes of Shakes is rather hard, since everything of his usually is romantic, or... just not what I'm looking for. Suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
S.S Tigress
Slytherin Alumni
Shots in the dark from empty guns, never heard by anyone
Posts: 1,345
|
Post by S.S Tigress on Apr 18, 2004 11:46:55 GMT -5
Sorry that no one responded to that, Pkia. I hope it turned at well nonetheless?
Not to rain on everyone's parade here, but Shakespeare is completly over done. Shakespeare is the Literature equivelent to the song "My Heart Will Go On" in music. Sure it's great, and has so much meaning but gah. High schools (In New England at least) do a Shakespeare play every year in English classes. In my school it's 9th: Twelfth Night, 10th: Macbeth, 11th: Midsummer Night's Dream and 12th it really depends on what section of English you're entering.
Just thinking about it makes me bored.
Again, don't get me wrong. Will is a talented guy and sadly will never know how much impact he made on the entire universe. If I were to cast into a play of his at school I'm sure I'd appreciate the over-analyzing of every line because without it I would have no idea what I was saying and that could ruin the production. But I'm not in any of his plays and the other theatre majors in my class are becoming quickly bored as much as the dance majors.
|
|
Calantha
Gryffindor Alumni
My name is Luck, this is my song, I happened by when you were gone
Posts: 4,493
|
Post by Calantha on Apr 18, 2004 11:59:49 GMT -5
I agree, Tigress, that it can seem like Shakespeare is overdone in schools...but look at how many work he published and then look at what...the four years of high school--that's only four plays out of many.
I don't know, we normally read six-ten books per year and do a Shakespeare play as well...they try to hit things everyone would like. So perhaps that is why I feel like Shakespeare isn't really overdone in school and perhaps the reason we make so many ties to the plays is because most of us study at least one Shakespeare play in our schooling.
*shrugs* But then again, I read Shakespeare out of class, so I might be bias toward it.
|
|
|
Post by En on Apr 19, 2004 10:39:33 GMT -5
Hm. I would agree with you, Tigress, if Shakespeare were being played on the radio, or in movie theatres, or was on all the stages all the time... but having him in English class isn't about doing or overdoing.
The fact is that most of the plots of novels and plays written in English-speaking nations since around 1615 are ripped off from Shakespeare's version of stuff that he ripped off other people. Why was he so unbelievably successful at retelling? Why is everyone retelling him? Who knows? Personally, I think it's because he's got catchy phrases, he's got memorable characters, and he also had the sheer dumb luck of reaching adulthood during the English Renaissance, and of being in the right profession at the right time -- theatre was all the rage, and small-government and church men opposed it, so that just made it even more popular.
Why do we keep reading Shakespeare over and over? Because he continues to open up new ideas to us. I just reread Hamlet recently here, and I dunno if it's something to do with stuff that's been happening at TD and with my family or what, but this time I cried when Polonius died. Yeah, no kidding. I really felt for the poor old git. Usually I'm way into Horatio, and I went through a Gertrude phase (long story), but this time I felt for Polonius. And that changed the whole story for me: it was ten times more tragic, because the character I focused on this time was this well-meaning dolt who got himself run through while trying to help. It felt awful, awful the way that the news of the train bombings in Spain felt awful. And that, oddly enough, was comforting. People have known that kind of awful for at least 425 years; good, then I'm not the only one.
There's also something to be said for everyone reading at least one thing in common. I can go up to any person educated in the US and say, "hey, which Shakespeare play did you have to read in high school," and they'll know. It gives us something to talk about. If we didn't use Shakespeare, imagine the fights between the people who wanted to replace him with a nice, ethnically well-rounded set of authors, only they can't figure which ones or which works, and the ones who want to replace it with readings from the Christian Bible, and the ones who think it should be someone new vs. the ones who think it should be another classic... if Will's good, and he is, and people are consenting to the collective reading of his work, why mess with it?
|
|