Shakespeare and stuff

[rich p]

The one in the individual's first post... That simple

There's no polite way of putting this but you are an idiot

Are you saying that the above is a lie?
Just askin', like.

 

[jonny jeez]

Cunobelin - straight question. Did you go in intending to make a fuss / walk out in the first 5 minutes? Maybe some kind of pre-arranged protest - I don't know on artistic differences with Roylance ir whatever

If not, the you are seriously contending that you walked out because the costumes didn't matche the posters - which were somehow key to your decision to go.

You are trivialising the objection.

It clearly wasn't about costumes but the entire production value.

Sold as traditional and delivered as contemporary.

Again, this seems to have been upheld by the local trading standards office.

Why are you still asking the same question over and over.

What is it that you want to hear?

If you suspect cunobelin is lying, why not just put your money where your mouth is and say that. It would save us all a good deal of data, trawling through page after page of passive aggressive baiting.

@Cunobelin, why do you continue to answer the same questions o ly to provide opportunity for further cross examination

Its like you both actually enjoy it...are you a couple by any chance?...is there something you want to share with the rest of the group?

 

[ufkacbln]

You are trivialising the objection.

It clearly wasn't about costumes but the entire production value.

Sold as traditional and delivered as contemporary.

Again, this seems to have been upheld by the local trading standards office.

Why are you still asking the same question over and over.

What is it that you want to hear?

If you suspect cunobelin is lying, why not just put your money where your mouth is and say that. It would save us all a good deal of data, trawling through page after page of passive aggressive baiting.

@Cunobelin, why do you continue to answer the same questions o ly to provide opportunity for further cross examination

Its like you both actually enjoy it...are you a couple by any chance?...is there something you want to share with the rest of the group?

You are correct in that it is was not what some wanted to hear, hence the lies and false scenarios in an attempt to avoid the simple question about the actual issue of dishonest and misleading advertising

Note those who refused to actually reply to that question

The other benefit is that it demonstrates the standards of some posters...


Note the ones that sneak in, fail to actually contribute apart from snide remarks

Then question whether their purpose is contribution or a darker motive


Read back and look at the posts of those who have contributed, or merely made remarks

The evidence of their posts speaks volumes

 

[Flying_Monkey]

You are trivialising the objection.

I am struggling to see how the objection could be made to appear more trivial than it already was. It's the very definition of trivality, which is what makes the poster's insistence on its importance and seriousness, and his own righteousness, so amusing. And that amusement is the only reason this thread continues to run and run... no-one, apart from our very own Mr Pooter himself is taking it seriously.

 

[jonny jeez]

I am struggling to see how the objection could be made to appear more trivial than it already was. It's the very definition of trivality, which is what makes the poster's insistence on its importance and seriousness, and his own righteousness, so amusing. And that amusement is the only reason this thread continues to run and run... no-one, apart from our very own Mr Pooter himself is taking it seriously.

I don't find it an amusement.

Interesting choice of words

 

[swansonj]

....
Sold as traditional and delivered as contemporary....

That's assuming the answer to the question, though, isn't it. Is what is being advertised the costumes and other superficialities - or the play itself?

 

[ufkacbln]

I am struggling to see how the objection could be made to appear more trivial than it already was. It's the very definition of trivality, which is what makes the poster's insistence on its importance and seriousness, and his own righteousness, so amusing. And that amusement is the only reason this thread continues to run and run... no-one, apart from our very own Mr Pooter himself is taking it seriously.

Already dismissed by the failure to answer about honesty and integrity in advertising

Simple... do you believe advertising should be honest and show integrity.... in which case the Pootersim case is thoroughly disproven

Or as in most cases avoiding an answer, because they realise the argument is undermined.

 

[jonny jeez]

That's assuming the answer to the question, though, isn't it. Is what is being advertised the costumes and other superficialities - or the play itself?

Although, that also assumes that the costume and other superficialities' ...are superfluous.

It would seem, that the trading standards office felt they were not.

I don't personally agree with that but if a production literally slaughtered the play in some attempt to just be different, I might walk out myself.

I have walked out of plays before but them, as I stared really early on, my soul does not appear to be deep enough to enjoy all theatre

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Already dismissed by the failure to answer about honesty and integrity in advertising

Simple... do you believe advertising should be honest and show integrity.... in which case the Pootersim case is thoroughly disproven

Or as in most cases avoiding an answer, because they realise the argument is undermined.

Everytime you reply you just reinforce the Mr Pooter impression, and the fact that you don't realise this is starting to become slightly worrying and sad rather than amusing. But then there is an element of tragedy in all comedy...

 

[Flying_Monkey]

I don't find it an amusement.

Interesting choice of words

I have to admit my levels of amusement, even on my very occasional visits to this thread are starting to flag somewhat.

 

[theclaud]

Well quite, as jokes go it hasn't developed much

This. I was finding it hilarious for a bit, mostly from the sidelines, but I am flagging. What was that word? Stultifying. A bit like quite a lot of theatre.

Shakespeare isn't so much an author or a body of work as a cultural institution, a battleground, a signifier of other things. Claims to authenticity or universality are nonsense - these are textually elusive 400-year-old notations of performance, FFS - but it's sort of interesting which 'traditions' people like to attach themselves to. Nahum Tate's sentimental happy-ending Lear held sway for about 150 years, and white luvvies strutting around in blackface are still consumed, in some circles, without misgiving. I find portentous four-hour Nazi Hamlets in warehouses generally every bit as dull as anything involving doublet and hose, and I don't intend ever to sit through another midsummer outdoor Midsummer Night's Dream at a castle, or probably anywhere else. I thought I'd hate the Globe before I went, because I thought it would be a historical reconstruction project. In fact it has sensibly cherry-picked a couple of promising characteristics of an earlier form to invigorate a moribund one, and has probably added to the jollity of things. I've only seen a couple of things there, but I don't recall any publicity about it being the kind of stuff you are legally obliged to label as a 'serving suggestion' on packets of Bird's Eye waffles, in case some numpty thinks the fried egg is included.

I do remember Sadlers' Wells getting into trouble because a bit of flesh on a flyer made some people feel disgruntled that the dancers didn't get their knickers off, and I daresay I belong to one of only a handful companies who has been sabotaged by the Georgian Orthodox Church for man-on-man love action and banned from Worthing for the rude insistence that Macbeth is violent, but berated because we failed to produce a giant hydraulic penis when expected by the good folk of Wellingborough. I taught a core course on Shakespeare to English undergraduates in Wales for four years, which was interesting and maddening in equal measure. They were quite keen on banging on about 'tragic heroes' and suchlike. I used to ask them stuff like 'What does Caliban look like?' and 'Why does it bother you so much whether Desdemona is f**king Cassio or not?' No one mentioned googly-eyed specs, mind.

 

[ufkacbln]

Everytime you reply you just reinforce the Mr Pooter impression, and the fact that you don't realise this is starting to become slightly worrying and sad rather than amusing. But then there is an element of tragedy in all comedy...

As above, a genuine complaint cannot be a Pooterism, that is why the use is inappropriate and funny... and the tragic misunderstanding of its use.

 

[Profpointy]

You are trivialising the objection.


If you suspect cunobelin is lying, why not just put your money where your mouth is and say that. It would save us all a good deal of data, trawling through page after page of passive aggressive baiting.

?

Where did "lying" come into it. I object to Cunobelin's actions and think it's silly and was trying to challenge, forcefully, rudely even. I had no reason to particularly doubt the account.

Somehow, Cunobelin seems to think I've lied by challenging and asking questions. This makes no sense

Anyhow, as you imply, this is doubtless boring the arse of everyone else, so I'll try and only comment on the Shakespear bits henceforth

 

[srw]

This. I was finding it hilarious for a bit, mostly from the sidelines, but I am flagging. What was that word? Stultifying. A bit like quite a lot of theatre.

Shakespeare isn't so much an author or a body of work as a cultural institution, a battleground, a signifier of other things. Claims to authenticity or universality are nonsense - these are textually elusive 400-year-old notations of performance, FFS - but it's sort of interesting which 'traditions' people like to attach themselves to. Nahum Tate's sentimental happy-ending Lear held sway for about 150 years, and white luvvies strutting around in blackface are still consumed, in some circles, without misgiving. I find portentous four-hour Nazi Hamlets in warehouses generally every bit as dull as anything involving doublet and hose, and I don't intend ever to sit through another midsummer outdoor Midsummer Night's Dream at a castle, or probably anywhere else. I thought I'd hate the Globe before I went, because I thought it would be a historical reconstruction project. In fact it has sensibly cherry-picked a couple of promising characteristics of an earlier form to invigorate a moribund one, and has probably added to the jollity of things. I've only seen a couple of things there, but I don't recall any publicity about it being the kind of stuff you are legally obliged to label as a 'serving suggestion' on packets of Bird's Eye waffles, in case some numpty thinks the fried egg is included.

I do remember Sadlers' Wells getting into trouble because a bit of flesh on a flyer made some people feel disgruntled that the dancers didn't get their knickers off, and I daresay I belong to one of only a handful companies who has been sabotaged by the Georgian Orthodox Church for man-on-man love action and banned from Worthing for the rude insistence that Macbeth is violent, but berated because we failed to produce a giant hydraulic penis when expected by the good folk of Wellingborough. I taught a core course on Shakespeare to English undergraduates in Wales for four years, which was interesting and maddening in equal measure. They were quite keen on banging on about 'tragic heroes' and suchlike. I used to ask them stuff like 'What does Caliban look like?' and 'Why does it bother you so much whether Desdemona is f**king Cassio or not?' No one mentioned googly-eyed specs, mind.

Yes, but you're a (hawk, spit) EXPERT. That must instantly disqualify you from being listened to, surely?

 

[User482]

Yes, but you're a (hawk, spit) EXPERT. That must instantly disqualify you from being listened to, surely?

A "so-called expert", I think you'll find.