Shakespeare and stuff

[Profpointy]

Absolutely, and the point you are still missing is that this was NOT the play they had advertised......

Lets take your "West End Musicals" analogy. It is a bit like going to see the Sound of Music, and finding that they have rewritten the music in the style of "We will Rock You", and borrowed the Nun's costumes form "Cats"

By your definition it is still "the Sound of Music"

What do the stage directions say the witches should be wearing?

What, in your world would be acceptable costume?

 

[classic33]

What do the stage directions say the witches should be wearing?

What, in your world would be acceptable costume?

If adverised as traditional then something more in keeping with a traditional performance and not a modern take on it.

 

[Profpointy]

If adverised as traditional then something more in keeping with a traditional performance and not a modern take on it.

yebbut what's a "traditional" performance ?

 

[classic33]

yebbut what's a "traditional" performance ?

Something more in keeping with the way it was written.

 

[Fnaar]

Calling @Fnaar. (Well, someone had to!)

Yes, Miss Goodbody is fond of Two Gentlemen of Verona. They visit every September.

 

[Profpointy]

Something more in keeping with the way it was written.

I don't recall the witches' costumes being described in the text.

Bear in mind all the women were played by boys back in the day, something Roylance has done a few times, as was a recent semi-pro Hamlet I saw, and again, back in the day they would have been wearing "modern dress" of doublet and hose or whatever. Did people complain and ask for their money back because they weren't wearing authentic dark age warrior clothes?

I do understand the "not same as the poster point" but contend it is (beyond) stupid when talking of Shakespear.

 

[Profpointy]

[QUOTE 4401847, member: 259"]Did she ever see Derek Jacobi's Pericles?[/QUOTE]

Or his Dick 2 ...

.... doesn't quite work written down

 

[classic33]

I don't recall the witches' costumes being described in the text.

Bear in mind all the women were played by boys back in the day, something Roylance has done a few times, as was a recent semi-pro Hamlet I saw, and again, back in the day they would have been wearing "modern dress" of doublet and hose or whatever. Did people complain and ask for their money back because they weren't wearing authentic dark age warrior clothes?

I do understand the "not same as the poster point" but contend it is (beyond) stupid when talking of Shakespear.

And how old were the plays, when performed in Shakespeares day?

If you go for Twelfth Night, you had a male playing the female lead, playing a male.

"The Weird Sisters themselves serve to represent the darkness and evil in Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, and in the larger context of the play itself. As the characters first shown in Macbeth and the subsequent prophesies they reveal to Macbeth, the Three Witches are probably the catalysts for all the bloodshed and craziness that occurs throughout the rest of the story, although that has been debated for years, (Fallon 2002: 163–164). The Witches are described by Shakespeare to be quite androgynous, and not definitively male or female, and not clearly human or a form supernatural creature– which only adds to their mystery and function. On the stage, the Witches are normally played by women but are represented differently and with much creative liberty, depending on the era, location, director, and version of the performance. The Witches appear to have inspired very different reactions and emotions in the history of theatre and drama, from voodoo prophetesses, upper–class royalty, to choruses of singers, (Dickinson 2005: 195–196). Yet, in the original version of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, The Bard describes his Weird Sisters (via Banquo) as, “So withered and so wild in their attire, That look not like th’ inhabitants o’ th’ Earth,” and “You should be women, And yet your beards forbid me to interpret that you are so,” (Shakespeare, I, i, 40–41, 46–48"

 

[r04DiE]

...I'm a total ignoramus, and a Palestine.

Sorry, but I'm sigging that.

 

[Lilliburlero]

Sorry, but I'm sigging that.

Talking of sigs and Shakespeare... Here`s my modern interpretation of wot that dolphin bloke said in Harry V

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

the taming of the shrew

Take your stool and whip. Some of those shrews are vicious.

 

[ufkacbln]

What do the stage directions say the witches should be wearing?

What, in your world would be acceptable costume?

The ones described in the advertising literature, photographs of the players and as for the "stage direction', it should also be as advetised

 

[jonny jeez]

Don't get it, have never got it, don't want to get it. I consider Shakespeare the same as I consider the Beatles. I can appreciate the influence it's had on culture and society, but the original work is tedious drivel.

I di t get theatre at all. The suspension of disbelief is never achieved and for me its just luvvues pretending.

But not with Shakespeare. Perhaps its the text, or the period...it must be something because its the only form of theatre I ever actually enjoy.

Still not convinced try these two.

1. Get a ticket for mid summer....etc... in the park in London. Its an outdoor event and is a very pleasant night out (take a picnic)

2 go for full on Luvvie aversion therapy and watch Henry V or much ado about nothing, by Kenneth Brannagh's renaissance film company, on Netflix (or your viewing weapon of choice) Henry V is like die hard in tights, its bloody awesome and much ado is probably Keanu reeves best performance.

Brannagh does a fab job of bringing the text to life with a modern pace and within minutes you are washed along with it all.

Watch all that and then realise the connections and plot devices used today by some of the best screenwriters, directors and film makers....tarantino, Hitchcock, Abrams they must all be massive fans of Shakespeare ...either that or their lecturer's were

 

[ufkacbln]

yebbut what's a "traditional" performance ?

Let's try "Downton Abbey"

The trailers and publicity show a traditional classic costume drama set in a stately home and in a particular period

Then when they show it, the setting is a run down council estate and the main protagonists are wearing sleeveless vests and track suits

Never mind ...it is still Downton Abbey

 

[Profpointy]

Let's try "Downton Abbey"

The trailers and publicity show a traditional classic costume drama set in a stately home and in a particular period

Then when they show it, the setting is a run down council estate and the main protagonists are wearing sleeveless vests and track suits

Never mind ...it is still Downton Abbey

clearly you just don't get Shakespear so why go in the first place?