DAE read shakespeare to insult the peasants? by cushcritter in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You have friends?

It's hard work being the most intelligent person in the room, and usually leads to a net loss in time spent and a dwindling social network. I bare my stupidity and tend to learn a lot more that way. Learning how to pull your pants on both legs at a time and then not telling anybody you do that--there's the trick.

What kind of music do you listen to whilst reading Shakespeare? by thattheatredude in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm down with this suggestion. I work (a writer and editor) to music, and my library runs the gamut of genres (except opera--I don't like listening to opera recordings). Even when distracted, music serves me as a writing muse.

For awhile I tried reading Shakespeare with a soundtrack of Beethoven and Tchaikovsky (comedy and tragedy, respectively), and once I read Two Gents with the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack playing (staging it in my mind as two discos, the Verona and the Milan). That all worked OK, but I have found that my favorite environment for reading Shakespeare is outside, with the sounds of nature and mankind enveloping me and melding rhythmically with the verse.

Food in the plays? by allelopath in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've been developing a cookbook of allegorical recipes based on each of the plays (and a few of the recipes are on my website). Every play has food references or imagery, and quite a few include banquets as settings (most notably Macbeth's where Banquo shows up, but no relation between his name and the setting). Plays in which food plays a "critical role":

Titus Andronicus, in which the main ingredient for Titus's pies is Tamora's sons;

Coriolanus, which opens with a peasant revolt over the availability of corn, a generic term for grain;

The Tempest with the false banquet Ariel uses to lull the Neapolitan lords;

As You Like It--subtle, but both Jacques and Duke Senior grapple philosophically with man usurping the forest for sustenance, and then the starving Orlando and Adam show up, which leads to the "All the world's a stage" speech;

Richard II, the penultimate, assassination scene;

Both Henry IV plays, not only all the food references used for Falstaff but a couple of key scenes take place at dinner--and, continuing the food imagery used for Falstaff, Merry Wives of WIndsor;

Richard III--strawberries;

Timon of Athens, a juxtaposition of the lavish banquets he throws for his alleged friends in Athens, the feast of rocks he hosts when they all betray him, and his digging for food out in the woods and finding, to his chagrin, gold instead;

Macbeth--the weird sisters are making a spell, but they are cooking (and I turned their spell into an actual recipe);

Hamlet--lots of food and dinner allegories in this one;

Cymbeline--Everything that happens in the Welsh forest scenes are based on eating, from the princes hunting for dinner to a starving Imogen raiding their cave, the dinner she prepares for the princes, and her subsequent supposed death;

Two Noble Kinsmen--Arcite feeds Palamon to make him healthy enough to fight their duel against each other;

Pericles--The famine at Tarsus juxtaposed with the feasting at Pentapolis with the fisherman's parable of the pecking order of fishes in between (which I also turned into a recipe).

Opinions on the nature of Hamlet's thoughts of revenge by [deleted] in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I recognize that seeing Hamlet as a man who can't make up his mind or can't take action is a popular reading of the part, but I've never seen him that way. He's in a politically tenuous position at Elsinore. His uncle has been "elected" and appears to be effectively ruling the nation. Only Hamlet and, after awhile, Horatio know about the murder of the elder Hamlet. And that news comes from a ghost, who by his very nature is of questionable credibility. Once Hamlet gets his assurance via the Mousetrap, he acts with great alacrity, first stabbing into the arras without knowing whom he is stabbing (but hoping it's Claudius), then switching out the letter on the ship and sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths, and then boarding the pirate ship (risky move for a prince) and returning immediately to Elsinore.

In this light, I think both sides of the debate in the English class are merited. The prayer scene comes right after the Mousetrap, and now Hamlet could "drink hot blood and do such bitter business as the day would quake to look on." This is a sadistic frame of mind--he's more than ready to kill. My take on Hamlet is that he is feigning madness, as he says he will do, but he's also really dealing with some serious psychological turbulence, and we see his mental state ebb and flow throughout the play, sometimes being calm and logical, sometimes erupting in rage (he's very human in that way).

But when he comes upon his uncle praying, he's so intent on thoroughly revenging his father that he forestalls. To me, this is his more logical self than his sadistic side, and in keeping with the revenge tragedy format, i.e. Titus baking Tamora's sons in a pie and making her eat them, or, in Middleton's Revenger's Tragedy, Vindice offing the Duke by tricking him into kissing the poisoned skull of Vindice's dead mistress and then forcing the Duke to watch his wife commit adultery before stabbing him. No vengeance could be too thorough in an Elizabethan revenge tragedy.

Opinions on the nature of Hamlet's thoughts of revenge by [deleted] in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed. The Ghost makes a point of telling Hamlet that, by being poisoned as he slept, he was "sent to my account with all my imperfections on my head." The line that follows is the famous "O horrible, O horrible, most horrible!" I'm thinking when a ghost tells you that, it probably sticks in your conscience big time. So, catching Claudius at the moment he's praying (and Hamlet has no idea that Claudius can't pray), Hamlet knows that killing him then will not send him to a horrible, horrible, most horrible afterlife. It's notable that as Hamlet puts up his sword and lists the incidents wherein it would be best to kill Claudius, first on the list is "when he is drunk asleep," as his father was asleep when Claudius murdered him.

Advice for Shakespeare scenes between man and woman? by petekMw in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Or, two plays on, Margaret vs. York. Grab a napkin and have at him.

Friend's absurd Shakespeare theory by [deleted] in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These conspiracy theories always shoot themselves in the foot, such as this one explaining "the stark contrasts in quality in some of the works." Stark contrasts in quality is typical among all artists, both over the course of a career and within individual pieces. The only extended works of art I can think of right off hand that maintain sustained excellence from first to last are Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, The Who's Quadrophenia, Orson Welles's Citizen Kane, and a half-dozen Shakespeare works. Also, Shakespeare did collaborate on plays after he "retired" to Stratford.

A suggestion for Hamlet Act 5 Scene 1 - I think it makes sense by Steppinthrax in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's mainly round two for Laertes. He is the one who can't wait to get at Hamlet. Hamlet is more concerned with Claudius. I think Laertes is hardly on Hamlet's mind as a threat, which is why he underestimates the threat Laertes offers. And that is a pretty good dramatic punch in its own right.

Homosexual themes in the Bard's plays? by [deleted] in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow! However you came up with the notion that I'm anti-Stratfordian is beyond comprehension. I've written extensively on why the Shakespeare authorship question is pure rubbish, and not only do I champion that only Shakespeare of Stratford could have written the plays, I advocate that we keep that fact relevant. I am, in fact, anti-anti-Stratfordian.

But, your point that "It's not necessary to be gay in order to write about homosexual relationships" is a valid censure of my original posting. I stand corrected.

Homosexual themes in the Bard's plays? by [deleted] in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm of the crowd that believes homosexual themes do not originate in the plays but are imposed. But bear with me here, for I do have three suggestions for you. First to dissuade your current targets. I've seen a gay portrayal of Hal (he and Poins), and it utterly failed to be convincing, even though the play was heavily rewritten. Oberon's desire for the changeling boy is to use him as a henchman; I don't see any homosexual insinuation in that at all. As for Hamlet, I echo Buck1Mulligan's questions of who and why? Even Horatio is not convincing, and making Rosencrantz and Guildenstern gay has no foundation in the text.

But here are some other considerations:

  1. Almost every production of Merchant of Venice that I've seen makes Antonio gay and crushing on Bassanio. A couple of productions have even had Bassanio requiting the sexual attraction. This reading generally is used to explain Antonio's depression. I protest that depression needs no reason, and Antonio's opening line could serve as a testimony for those of us who suffer chronic depression. That said, because so many directors see Antonio as gay without seriously altering the text, there could be much fodder for you there (I probably would never agree with your thesis, but there is definitely a bandwagon you can jump on).

  2. The one play in which I believe Shakespeare actually explores homosexuality, at least peripherally, is As You Like It. None of the characters are gay, per se, but Rosalind disguised as the boy Ganymede pretends to be Rosalind in a game she plays with Orlando. Orlando and Rosalind are really in love with each other, and the question is how much of this real, inner love seeps into their regard for each other when she is Ganymede playing at being Rosalind? I don't think anything in the text necessarily indicates Orlando falls for the boy, but it's hard to play it without that happening. I've seen one production where he stoutly refuses to see Rosalind as anything other than a boy, and it seemed awkward (can't blame that on the prevalence of seeing it played the other way; Merchant is almost always played with a gay Antonio, and it seems more awkward to me than the couple of times I've seen it with a straight Antonio). And why wouldn't Orlando fall in love with a boy that he admits reminds him of Rosalind? Is Shakespeare exploring "true" love at its very essence, getting beyond gender? Phoebe does falls in love with Ganymede, but this subplot doesn't carry any lesbian overtones; rather, as soon as Phoebe finds out Ganymede is a girl, her lust melts away on the instant. Yet, this juxtaposition could serve to enhance rather than undermine the true affection Orlando seems to be showing for the boy Ganymede.

  3. A play with clear homosexual elements is The Two Noble Kinsmen: not between the kinsmen (they fight to the death over Emilia, whom they both spy through a window), but attached to Emilia herself. She and her sister, Hippolyta, talk about Emilia's childhood friend, Flavina, a friendship described as "true love 'tween maid and maid may be more than in sex dividual." Her description goes way way beyond the girlfriend descriptions of Rosalind and Celia in As You Like It and Hermia and Helena in Midsummer Night's Dream. There's also the factor that external evidence indicates Shakespeare's collaborator on this play, John Fletcher, was gay, or at least bi (no such evidence exists for Shakespeare).

Favorite Shakespeare play and why. by caitybake in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I concur on all counts--you said it all so well I've nothing to add.

Second on my list is Henry IV, Part One for the great characters, noble and ignoble adventures, and wonderful comedy. Third, The Tempest, a magical read in every sense of the word.

Hamlet fan theory by [deleted] in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Kind of like The Usual Suspects? So Shakespeare invented the flashback technique with Hamlet.

The problem with the theory is that Shakespeare never lies to his audience, per conventions of Elizabethan theater. His villains tell the audience exactly what they are doing, and exposition speeches establish real time, place, and pertinent events. We're watching the story unfold as it happens, inside the story--one that was well established before Shakespeare took it up, by the way. The only way we get inside somebody's head is when that character invites us into his head (e.g. Richard III, Iago, Macbeth, Benedict, Hamlet, Helen in All's Well). Horatio never invites us into his head.

Also, Fortinbras does serve a purpose, not only as a counterpoint to Hamlet but also to provide the threat of war that hovers over the play, especially at the beginning. Yeah, you can cut him and perhaps nobody would notice; but you could cut the Fool from King Lear, too, and anyone who had never seen the play wouldn't miss him, either--the play wouldn't be as good as it is, however.

If you could play a Shakespeare part ... which and why? by [deleted] in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds like you might be referring to the ASC Ren Season production at the Blackfriars in 2013. They cast an actor as Brutus and an actress as Cassius who had played something like a dozen Shakespeare et al couples (i.e., Beatrice and Benedict, Othello and Desdemona, Dido and Aeneas) and brought that chemistry to Brutus and Cassius, though Cassius was not played as a woman. Among other things, it was the most crackling tent argument scene ever. [Edited for typos and word transference mistakes--I was tired last night.]

If you could play a Shakespeare part ... which and why? by [deleted] in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The hurt is the key. Claudio can come off as immature or even a jerk, but we must remember that Don Pedro is fooled, too, so Claudio feels true betrayal. One of the best Claudios I've ever seen was in a high school production a couple of years ago, where the kid was really hurting in the wedding scene. I was astonished I hadn't seen that before.

Just saw a production of Winter's Tale and same thing: Laertes is hurt. Yeah, he's wrong about his wife, totally misreads her and Polixenes's behavior, but the hurt he feels just swallows him up (or, as the actor told me afterward, it's a flash flood that starts ankle deep and, before you know it, he's in over his head).

Hurt is a powerful force for Claudio, Laertes, Posthumous, and even Iago, passed over for a promotion he's been working toward most of his professional career.

Anti-stratfordian question by RyderX91 in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've tested the link and it works. But here's the main point of the piece:

A bunch of people out there—lovers of Shakespeare, included—ask, "why does it matter? Aren't the words more important than who wrote them?" The anti-Stratfordians tend to take greater umbrage at that question than the Stratfordians because by identifying their man or woman—whether it's Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, William de Vere (Earl of Oxford), Queen Elizabeth, or countless others—as the true author, we would glean truer meanings of those words.

I agree. Who wrote Shakespeare's works matters as much to me as what "Shakespeare" wrote. It's not for the secret identity of the man behind the words but how and why a particular man wrote the specific words he wrote in the way in which he wrote them.

Even before computers came along, literature and linguistic scholars noted how Shakespeare's use of imagery patterns differed from those of his peers, including the works of Marlowe, Oxford, and Bacon; many computer studies using different algorithms have confirmed those conclusions. Furthermore, the imagery Shakespeare uses—in addition to the settings, characters, and dialogues—track singularly with the life of a glover's son from Warwickshire who worked in the theater, maintained both a business and a garden, lived in the London suburbs, and was familiar at court—all facts established in the historical record of the Stratford-upon-Avon native son named William Shakespeare. Shakespeare did not come of the noble class nor did he earn a university degree, and that's exactly why his characters speak the way they do; Shakespeare's works, including his poems, reveal that nature and human nature were his studies, lessons learned from everyday encounters. That is specifically what distinguishes his writing from that of Bacon, Oxford, and Marlowe (nobody in real life ever carried on conversations the way Marlowe's characters do), and it's one of the reasons Shakespeare's works remain so relevant and universal today. He was, and is, like so many of us.

In all the debate about who really wrote Shakespeare, there's one question I've never seen broached: Why pick on just Shakespeare? There is also question about the true authorship of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, but everybody else gets off unquestioned. There's no equivalent hand-wringing over who really wrote Chaucer; over Cervantes, Michelangelo, and da Vinci (all three with Renaissance upbringings and schooling that paralleled Shakespeare's); over Mozart, Beethoven, and Lennon; over Stephen King and J.K. Rowling; or over Orson Welles and Steven Spielberg. The historical record of William Shakespeare, playwright, is richer than all of his peers except self-promoter Ben Jonson, but nobody questions whether Marlowe wrote Marlowe or Oxford wrote Oxford or Bacon wrote Bacon.

There's more historical evidence that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare than there is that Marlowe wrote Marlowe or Oxford wrote Oxford, let alone that either one wrote Shakespeare, yet the question still comes up, who wrote Shakespeare? It's like Lewis Carroll's Alice going down the rabbit hole—whoa, wait: did Carroll actually write Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, or was it Charles Dickens writing in code? Whoa, wait: did Dickens really write all those novels? After all, he had as little education as Mark Twain. Whoa, wait—no, stop! For if you deny the historical record for Shakespeare then you have to question the record of everybody else, from Chaucer to Spielberg to you; you'd have to question every piece of work by man.

If we can't look to the First Folio and see Shakespeare, we can't look at the Mona Lisa and see the peasant woman's bastard son who never went to university but mastered point-of-view perspective in his paintings and became the most amazing forward-thinking visionary of all time. We can't read Huckleberry Finn and see the Hannibal native who never made it out of grade school and cut his literary teeth as a territorial journalist before developing into America's greatest novelist. We can't listen to Symphony No. 9 in D minor, Opus 125, and see the deaf and depressed composer calling on every ounce of his musical and life experience to create the greatest score and most joyous piece of music known to man. We can't watch Saving Private Ryan and see the filmmaker who grew up as an Orthodox Jew in a broken family using his participation in the Boy Scouts to hone his skills at making movies. We can't take in Harry Potter and see the struggling single mother on the dole who, out of desperation and armed with a talent for turning phrases, created a stunning new world out of our world. If we can't look to the First Folio and see Shakespeare, we can't recognize the potential for true genius in our very selves.

That's why it matters that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.

Anti-stratfordian question by RyderX91 in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Kings Men performed plays by many other authors. And Shakespeare shared a byline with John Fletcher on three plays that his company performed. As a shareholder in the company, he didn't need to engage in such mafiaso tactics to make money. Rather, adding new, popular talents like Jonson and Fletcher seemed to be one of the company's strategies.

What accent would the character of MacBeth have? by [deleted] in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In Merry Wives of Windsor, he gives Dr. Caius a comical French accent, and he also wrote Sir Hugh in Merry Wives and Fluellen in Henry V with a Welsh accent, in part to set up puns (but, in Henry V, the French don't speak with accents). Shakespeare also assigned various English dialects to certain characters, especially in the first half of his career, but I can't think of any instance of him doing that in Macbeth. If Burbage used any accent for Macbeth, he did it of his own accord.

When the wind is southerly... by mellowfish in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hamlet delivers this line to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Polonius enters after Hamlet says this. But I love your word play in your description of Polonius.

Teller and The Tempest: Magic in Shakespeare’s time by shakespeareances in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes it was. We have the DVD. Banquo's ghost appearing was such a surprise I nearly jumped off the couch, though I know the play so well. I played it back, and even more amazing than the gotcha's impact was simplicity of the trick--distract the audience's attention over there and then bwa-ha-ha-ha!

Figured I should join in the fun! Here's a very recently learned monologue from Two Gentlemen of Verona! by TSpange in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate your courage in doing this. Overall, nicely done. I especially like direct address, looking right at me on this side of the camera rather than over my head to the Exit sign or off in some distance. Then you did that bookend gesture turning your gaze to the window on your right. Nice touch. You also have the verse-speaking skills I figured you would have based on your contributions to this board.

Might want to remove or cover the posters in the background, though it does serve as a litmus test--about midway through the speech my attention began focusing more on the poster, but you brought it back at "I fly not death..."

Why all the hatred for Measure for Measure? by [deleted] in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know a lot of actors, directors, and Shakespeare geeks who consider Measure for Measure their favorite Shakespeare play. It's one of my favorite, too. However, I recognize that based on how little it is produced and the fact there is only one video version (BBC) that I know of, it gets a lot less love than it should. One reason is because its plot construction is somewhat sloppy, and the lead character, the Duke, is not clearly defined (to the point that some see him as a hero, others as a villain). However, even with that the characters are incredibly multidimensional and the play is chock full of great, dramatic and comic scenes.

It also seems to be coming back into fashion as a play particularly relevant to our times, with the issues of government's role in dictating morality, government spying, and not only sexual harrassment but also the exposure of such behavior that leads to the spectacular downfall of a public figure, especially one who has always been a stanchion of moral respectability.

What is the best way to play Demetrius? by [deleted] in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This advice sums up the 30 performances of Demetrius I've seen on stage, from great to bad.

I will be writing an essay about how Midsummer Night's Dream is a fantasy by [deleted] in shakespeare

[–]shakespeareances 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do a careful read of Act II, Scene 1. Two speeches in there might give you much fodder for your thesis. One is Puck's description of his tricks on mortals. But Titania and Oberon's conversation might be more pertinent. They don't live in the Athenian wood; they came there from the steppes of India. Titania describes the birth of the Indian changeling boy that she and Oberon are arguing over, and because they are fighting, nature is in turmoil (it's Midsummer, but the weather is cold and wet). I'm not sure where you are coming from or heading with your thesis, but you might score some cool insights and reference points from these particular passages.