Shakespeare and stuff

[srw]

Soi disant even.

Bugger. Too quick for me.

(Soi-disante)

 

[ufkacbln]

Do you think that Pooter thought his own thoughts to be Pooterish or well founded?

Except of course as a fictional character he would not have such thoughts.

Attributing such to a fictional character shows further misunderstanding of the concept

The test is whether others do, Trading Standards thought the complaint in this case to be well-founded, acted upon it and forced the Globe to withdraw their advertising.

Methinks their decision carries rather more weight?

It's a bit like a motorist knocking off a cyclist, being prosecuted for dangerous driving and then a fellow motorist dismissing the prosecution and the original complaint because they feel it was frivolous.

 

[theclaud]

As it happens, I'm currently finalizing a load of print for a tour of a version of Macbeth. We tried to create an image that conveyed something of the visceral nature of the performance, subject to what @srw pointed out about the show not actually existing in any visual sense until well after print deadlines. Some of the more bloody/Fred West's basement/untimely ripp'd options we discarded as being unnecessarily graphic or unsuitably depressing, and we went for something striking but a bit less literal and not too gory. Anyway, at least one venue has made it clear that they can't display such images because people will be 'offended' by them even before they see the show. So we'll have to either come up with something more anodyne, or spend money on print that won't get displayed or distributed. Then we'll have to field the complaints because the Cunobelin tendency didn't feel it was sufficiently 'warned' about the fact that theatre isn't necessarily there to reinforce their preconceptions or endorse their worldview. I reckon there should be an Old Fart Levy on mainstream theatre tickets that goes to fund risk and innovation. The consolation in all this is that writing responses to Disgusted of Newbury is one of my favourite pastimes. I honestly can't get enough of it.

 

[srw]

So what did you write to the Bishop of Galway?

 

[theclaud]

Ha! That was before my time.

 

[swansonj]

As it happens, I'm currently finalizing a load of print for a tour of a version of Macbeth. We tried to create an image that conveyed something of the visceral nature of the performance, subject to what @srw pointed out about the show not actually existing in any visual sense until well after print deadlines. Some of the more bloody/Fred West's basement/untimely ripp'd options we discarded as being unnecessarily graphic or unsuitably depressing, and we went for something striking but a bit less literal and not too gory. Anyway, at least one venue has made it clear that they can't display such images because people will be 'offended' by them even before they see the show. So we'll have to either come up with something more anodyne, or spend money on print that won't get displayed or distributed. Then we'll have to field the complaints because the Cunobelin tendency didn't feel it was sufficiently 'warned' about the fact that theatre isn't necessarily there to reinforce their preconceptions or endorse their worldview. I reckon there should be an Old Fart Levy on mainstream theatre tickets that goes to fund risk and innovation. The consolation in all this is that writing responses to Disgusted of Newbury is one of my favourite pastimes. I honestly can't get enough of it.

original post deleted in case it made me sound like a stalker.....

 

[srw]

original post deleted in case it made me sound like a stalker.....

Didn't stop me....

Can we have a whip-round to get cuddly uncle Patrick to the last night of the tour? It's within riding distance of Llangollen.

 

[bonsaibilly]

there's me thinking "the play's the thing" I suggest you stick to west end musicals in future

If it were simply about "the play" then why would theatrical companies spend hours (and £££s) on set, costume, interpretation etc etc?

 

[bonsaibilly]

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"

Well not quite... it is more like going to see the Sound of Music and finding that it is in all respects the same except the setting and costumes have been modernised. Unless of course the Rylance Macbeth you went to see had changed to script to modern-day English as well?

By the way it wasn't clear whether you personally got a refund in the end, which I would like to know for certain as one of this thread's respondents suggested you did but your post didn't actually say that...

bb

 

[bonsaibilly]

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

Yes, I agree on this point. I personally would have enjoyed the interpretation but I too would have been left wondering why in heaven's name the publicity material made you think it would be a traditional presentation.

I probably wouldn't have written to Trading Standards though - I would more likely have shaken my head in an amusedly baffled manner, then gone for a beer.

bb

 

[bonsaibilly]

yebbut what's a "traditional" performance ?

You either know that, or you don't... it's pretty obvious what is meant by that... if you don't know what it means you probably wouldn't bother looking up Shakespear shows in the "What's On" listings in the first place.

bb

 

[classic33]

Yes, I agree on this point. I personally would have enjoyed the interpretation but I too would have been left wondering why in heaven's name the publicity material made you think it would be a traditional presentation.

I probably wouldn't have written to Trading Standards though - I would more likely have shaken my head in an amusedly baffled manner, then gone for a beer.

bb

It never made me think it was a traditional performance or a modern interpretation.

 

[bonsaibilly]

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.

Why, exactly, is it beyond stupid in the context of Shakespear to criticise publicity material that is significantly different to the thing it's publicising?

bb

 

[bonsaibilly]

It never made me think it was a traditional performance or a modern interpretation.

Sorry - I was talking to @Cunobelin on this point.

bb

 

[bonsaibilly]

As it happens, I'm currently finalizing a load of print for a tour of a version of Macbeth. We tried to create an image that conveyed something of the visceral nature of the performance, subject to what @srw pointed out about the show not actually existing in any visual sense until well after print deadlines. Some of the more bloody/Fred West's basement/untimely ripp'd options we discarded as being unnecessarily graphic or unsuitably depressing, and we went for something striking but a bit less literal and not too gory. Anyway, at least one venue has made it clear that they can't display such images because people will be 'offended' by them even before they see the show. So we'll have to either come up with something more anodyne, or spend money on print that won't get displayed or distributed. Then we'll have to field the complaints because the Cunobelin tendency didn't feel it was sufficiently 'warned' about the fact that theatre isn't necessarily there to reinforce their preconceptions or endorse their worldview. I reckon there should be an Old Fart Levy on mainstream theatre tickets that goes to fund risk and innovation. The consolation in all this is that writing responses to Disgusted of Newbury is one of my favourite pastimes. I honestly can't get enough of it.

I think there is an obvious artistic and commercial difference between clearly artsy publicity material and that which gives the distinct impression that a presentation will be of a particular style (that it subsequently isn't). For example if you *had* chosen to promote your production with stylized images of Fred West's crazed basement I wouldn't actually think I was going to watch an interpretation of the Scottish Play set in and contextualised by those events. However if you had got your players dressed up as Fred & Rose etc etc and had then created posed photographs of scenes from Macbeth, and put them on your posters, I would be both alarmed and not a member of your audience; but it would be reasonable in Trading Standards terms that those who *did* buy tickets would expect to see a presentation in line with your posters.