Shakespeare and stuff

[theclaud]

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

Obviously all but the cagiest of us are traceable to anyone who cares enough to investigate, but I post on CC in an entirely personal capacity, and none of the cobblers I write should be considered to be endorsed by my employers or colleagues...

 

[ufkacbln]

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

The refund claim was untrue, as were the fantasies built up around it

 

[swansonj]

The refund claim was untrue, as were the fantasies built up around it

"we were refused a refund" ( from your first post). That does rather imply that you sought one?

 

[swansonj]

Obviously all but the cagiest of us are traceable to anyone who cares enough to investigate, but I post on CC in an entirely personal capacity, and none of the cobblers I write should be considered to be endorsed by my employers or colleagues...

Understood. But (as you seem to shun venues in the London area) I still plan to arrange work so as to coincide with one of the Coventry performances....

 

[srw]

There's one in Eastleigh as well, isn't there? Perhaps we could send Cuno to review it for us.

 

[theclaud]

as you seem to shun venues in the London area

Not at all. They just don't often seem to want to pay fees these days. The previous incarnation of this one appeared at the SBC, and we pop up at places like Arcola from time to time.

 

[theclaud]

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.

You misunderstand me. I'm not arguing that publicity should be arbitrary or unconnected with the work. Indeed it is ideal if it conveys a 'feel' for the work without giving too much away. However a) it's not a simple matter to create imagery which functions in this way, b) it's a form of communication mediated by others, c) British audiences are demonstrably risk-averse and conservative, d) at the same time they are often prurient, e) given Cunobelin's habitual slipperiness and being familiar with the Globe's print conventions, I reckon he's overselling the supposed misrepresentation, and f) 'modern' Shakespeare which consists of Shakespeare done the same as before but with 20th-century costume and a non-realist set is by now so conventional or 'traditional' that the whole complaint is nonsense. Are we really expected to endorse a decision to force a company to withdraw a season's print because some old duffer is shocked by a dinner jacket and some unexpected googly-eyed specs, FFS?

 

[jonny jeez]

Yes, I agree on this point. I personally would have enjoyed the interpretation

How do you know, what if it was utterly crap.

Just because it has Shakespeare in the title doesn't mean we HAVE to enjoy it.

 

[bonsaibilly]

That's why I said "the interpretation" and not "the production". bb

How do you know, what if it was utterly crap.

Just because it has Shakespeare in the title doesn't mean we HAVE to enjoy it.

 

[bonsaibilly]

You misunderstand me. I'm not arguing that publicity should be arbitrary or unconnected with the work. Indeed it is ideal if it conveys a 'feel' for the work without giving too much away. However a) it's not a simple matter to create imagery which functions in this way, b) it's a form of communication mediated by others, c) British audiences are demonstrably risk-averse and conservative, d) at the same time they are often prurient, e) given Cunobelin's habitual slipperiness and being familiar with the Globe's print conventions, I reckon he's overselling the supposed misrepresentation, and f) 'modern' Shakespeare which consists of Shakespeare done the same as before but with 20th-century costume and a non-realist set is by now so conventional or 'traditional' that the whole complaint is nonsense. Are we really expected to endorse a decision to force a company to withdraw a season's print because some old duffer is shocked by a dinner jacket and some unexpected googly-eyed specs, FFS?

Okay, all I will summarise my opinion as is: assuming that the publicity material was as Cunobelin described, and the production also was as described, then I am on the side of those who would think they had been misled. Or at the very least had been subjected to an incredibly lazy and ill-conceived promotional campaign. bb

 

[srw]

Okay, all I will summarise my opinion as is: assuming that the publicity material was as Cunobelin described, and the production also was as described, then I am on the side of those who would think they had been misled. Or at the very least had been subjected to an incredibly lazy and ill-conceived promotional campaign. bb

Since Cunobelin hasn't really described the publicity material I think you're jumping to a conclusion.

I'm sure that the Globe archives will have a copy of the poster in question. Perhaps someone could go over there and take a look.

 

[Toshiba Boy]

Off to see Troilus and Cressida, outdoor performance this evening, younger stepson (20) in it. Looks like nice weather for a picnic and some culture.

 

[srw]

That would entail taking things a bit seriously.

It is deadly serious. No less an issue than truth in advertising is at stake.

 

[bonsaibilly]

Since Cunobelin hasn't really described the publicity material I think you're jumping to a conclusion.

I'm sure that the Globe archives will have a copy of the poster in question. Perhaps someone could go over there and take a look.

That's why I said "assuming" ...

 

[jonny jeez]

That's why I said "the interpretation" and not "the production". bb

Fair enough.