|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 14:52:38 GMT
I always think it's pointless to get aggravated when a Shakespeare production isn't to your taste - it's not like he's a rarely performed writer and this is anyone's first and last opportunity to see R&J. There are many ways to approach his work other than declaiming it in ruffs and tights. It's the reinterpretation and new approaches that have kept these works alive, not preserving them in aspic. If there had been no freshness he would have died out years ago. But the ruffs and tights productions are out there if that's what you like.
Basically what I'm saying is that if you don't like this, don't sweat it - it's one approach but all the others (including the traditional) aren't going away. If other people like this sort of thing, why do you get to tell them they can't have it - why does your subjective taste trump theirs?
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 28, 2017 14:57:55 GMT
So, dumbing down our heritage to attract people who are too stupid to engage with it in the way it was passed down to us? Yowser. I know this is all just friendly discussions, but this must win the prize for the most oversimplified and aggressively elitist comment of the day. Nothing elitist about it at all.
There are plenty of youngsters out there who are capable of being exposed to adult Shakespeare and developing a love of his works, harbour a love of them in their hearts and minds and become custodians of our heritage.
However, this is aimed at yoofs who struggle to concentrate beyond a 140 character message and think Skepta is a genius...
Big difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 14:59:16 GMT
Are you Parsley having a laugh with us...?
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 28, 2017 15:00:32 GMT
Are you Parsley having a laugh with us...? No and my views are shared by a number of prominent critics too. |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 28, 2017 15:18:31 GMT
Yowser. I know this is all just friendly discussions, but this must win the prize for the most oversimplified and aggressively elitist comment of the day. Nothing elitist about it at all.
There are plenty of youngsters out there who are capable of being exposed to adult Shakespeare and developing a love of his works, harbour a love of them in their hearts and minds and become custodians of our heritage.
However, this is aimed at yoofs who struggle to concentrate beyond a 140 character message and think Skepta is a genius...
Big difference.
On the fading hope that this isn't satire, you've said that anyone who might prefer a less traditional approach to Shakespeare than the line you've arbitrarily decided is the correct one is simply too stupid to get it. And simplified them into the kind of charicature you get in bad 90s sketch shows. I'm sure that when the first woman came on stage to act in a Shakespeare there was a chorus of critics crying out about the damage to our heritage, and arguing that the plays were being dumbed down for people too stupid to engage with them the way it was passed down them too. I'm no expert by any means, but I doubt that even the most 'traditional' theatres are that close an experience to how things were 400 years ago, and the line that each of us draws between 'too traditional' and 'not traditional enough' is blurry, wide and completely subjective. I'm not sure that this version of Romeo & Juliet is my cup of tea either but it's silly to act as though our opinions on art are somehow indisputible facts; anyone who prefers stuff we deem too trashy is dumb, and anyone who finds our likes trashy is simply pretentious. |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Apr 28, 2017 15:21:48 GMT
Are you Parsley having a laugh with us...? No and my views are shared by a number of prominent critics too. And I think that might say it all, really! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 15:23:39 GMT
No and my views are shared by a number of prominent critics too. And I think that might say it all, really! Are there really any serious critics who think there's only one way to do Shakespeare though? I seriously doubt it! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 15:28:20 GMT
So, dumbing down our heritage to attract people who are too stupid to engage with it in the way it was passed down to us? Ummmmm . . no. I would truly love for someone to explain to me why re-interpretation of a text is always hailed as 'dumbing down' when it comes to Shakespeare. I can't help but think that the man who borrowed from 100s of sources directly and clearly took on the trends and influences of his own time wouldn't, if presented with a Tardis say 'Aye well done I'd never have thought of doing it this way' and sat back and enjoyed the performance. And also if we are playing by the rules of 'as it was handed down to us' why has a woman ever been allowed to set foot on stage at The Globe then for a start? |
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 28, 2017 15:33:35 GMT
I would truly love for someone to explain to me why re-interpretation of a text is always hailed as 'dumbing down' when it comes to Shakespeare. I can't help but think that the man who borrowed from 100s of sources directly and clearly took on the trends and influences of his own time wouldn't, if presented with a Tardis say 'Aye well done I'd never have thought of doing it this way' and sat back and enjoyed the performance. And also if we are playing by the rules of 'as it was handed down to us' why has a woman ever been allowed to set foot on stage at The Globe then for a start? I would argue that the introduction of women to the stage benefitted society but littering Romeo and Juliet with, according to the reviews, cock jokes probably isn't.
Of course we should be trying to turn youngsters on to Shakespeare and of course it won't always be as the previous generation(s) would like it but surely we have the responsibility to say when changes and approaches have gone too far?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 15:34:59 GMT
This debate reminds of when I saw a brilliant Japanese version of Midsummer Night's Dream and in the Q&A afterwards one person ventured the opinion that it was an abomination because Shakespeare was ENGLISH dontcher know. He was thoroughly booed by the rest of the audience!
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 28, 2017 15:36:19 GMT
I would truly love for someone to explain to me why re-interpretation of a text is always hailed as 'dumbing down' when it comes to Shakespeare. I can't help but think that the man who borrowed from 100s of sources directly and clearly took on the trends and influences of his own time wouldn't, if presented with a Tardis say 'Aye well done I'd never have thought of doing it this way' and sat back and enjoyed the performance. And also if we are playing by the rules of 'as it was handed down to us' why has a woman ever been allowed to set foot on stage at The Globe then for a start? Exactly this. When people argue for art to be left as it was, what they really mean is for it to be left as I remember it. Until the Doctor does come to visit us, all we really have is different subjective opinions of how much change is acceptable. ...not to mention that -since the act of viewing something will alter it- if we did get to travel back in time to see Shakespeare's plays in the original time and place, our being there may well alter things anyway. (when a silly time-traveller accidentally leaves his ipod behind perhaps modern hip hop lyrics will find their way into shakespeare's texts). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 15:38:36 GMT
Another year where I will completely avoid The Globe then by the sounds of it... Why not see Daniel Kramer's new production and then share your reaction to it? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 15:39:07 GMT
This probably isn't my cup of tea and the reviews seem fairly brutal so far, but with such a divisive approach as this I wonder how helpful some of these reviews really are. What I mean is that this sort of OTT/raucous treatment of Shakespeare seems is always going to be polarising, so a one star review from someone who hates this kind of thing anyway might be more of a reflection of the reviewer than the show. Like reading a review of a heavy metal album from someone who only likes classical music. One star reviews are great, they often make me want to see something if I think the reviewer has an agenda.
So here we are. The country is hopelessly divided, anger characterises everyday discourse and many people have just about had enough and so want to f*ck over the establishment. It happened with Brexit and increasingly with nascent 'resistance' movements against a perceived elitist society, where the past is held up as golden, meaning that a younger generation's future is fast disappearing over the horizon in a haze of Mcjobs, no prospect of owning a home and with an ossified bunch of baby boomers clinging onto the power that they always had etc. (phew!)
Time to make theatre a part of that Mr Billington (and Hitchings and Cavendish et al)?
Also, has nobody ever seen a Kramer show, his Woyzeck took the play and stamped all over it until it squealed? Rice's theatre background is imbued with her experience in Poland, but everyone hates the Poles here don't they? So, you know.....
Let's do this.
At the moment, I go home, put on a Sonic Youth CD, turn it up (no neighbours close, don't worry) and let it wash over me, otherwise I might just end up screaming.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 15:40:18 GMT
I would truly love for someone to explain to me why re-interpretation of a text is always hailed as 'dumbing down' when it comes to Shakespeare. I can't help but think that the man who borrowed from 100s of sources directly and clearly took on the trends and influences of his own time wouldn't, if presented with a Tardis say 'Aye well done I'd never have thought of doing it this way' and sat back and enjoyed the performance. And also if we are playing by the rules of 'as it was handed down to us' why has a woman ever been allowed to set foot on stage at The Globe then for a start? I would argue that the introduction of women to the stage benefitted society but littering Romeo and Juliet with, according to the reviews, cock jokes probably isn't.
Of course we should be trying to turn youngsters on to Shakespeare and of course it won't always be as the previous generation(s) would like it but surely we have the responsibility to say when changes and approaches have gone too far?
Shakespeare plays are LITTERED with cock jokes - and he loved a cock-related pun on his name. Shaking his spear all over the place, he was. I'm starting to wonder if you've actually seen any Shakespeare or understood what you saw. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 15:40:37 GMT
Yowser. I know this is all just friendly discussions, but this must win the prize for the most oversimplified and aggressively elitist comment of the day. Nothing elitist about it at all.
There are plenty of youngsters out there who are capable of being exposed to adult Shakespeare and developing a love of his works, harbour a love of them in their hearts and minds and become custodians of our heritage.
However, this is aimed at yoofs who struggle to concentrate beyond a 140 character message and think Skepta is a genius...
Big difference.
I have no idea what/who Skepta is.
Am I missing out?
|
|
22 posts
|
Post by iamian on Apr 28, 2017 15:40:47 GMT
I don't think anyone is seriously saying that Shakespeare shouldn't be reinterpreted and reworked but, when you have spent years(and millions of pounds) recreating an authentic Elizabethan theatre maybe that isn't the place for radical reworking of the plays. London is not short of venues where that type of production would fit. There is the Young Vic, the Barbican, the Almeida and the West End for those kind of productions and if a new production attracts a younger audience then that will lead to them seeking out more traditional productions. The Globe was built as a traditional space and people went to a huge amount of effort and expense to give people an authentic experience.
Also, don't sneer at a younger generations music, it makes you sound like someone from the local council talking about the Sex Pistols in the 70's. I am not Skepta's audience but lyrically I think he is interesting and is speaking for a group of kids that I have no direct contact with but I'd be more interested in his take on Romeo & Juliet than this one
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 28, 2017 15:43:01 GMT
I would argue that the introduction of women to the stage benefitted society but littering Romeo and Juliet with, according to the reviews, cock jokes probably isn't.
Of course we should be trying to turn youngsters on to Shakespeare and of course it won't always be as the previous generation(s) would like it but surely we have the responsibility to say when changes and approaches have gone too far?
Shakespeare plays are LITTERED with cock jokes - and he loved a cock-related pun on his name. Shaking his spear all over the place, he was. I'm starting to wonder if you've actually seen any Shakespeare or understood what you saw. Puns are clever though... |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Apr 28, 2017 15:43:53 GMT
I would truly love for someone to explain to me why re-interpretation of a text is always hailed as 'dumbing down' when it comes to Shakespeare. I can't help but think that the man who borrowed from 100s of sources directly and clearly took on the trends and influences of his own time wouldn't, if presented with a Tardis say 'Aye well done I'd never have thought of doing it this way' and sat back and enjoyed the performance. And also if we are playing by the rules of 'as it was handed down to us' why has a woman ever been allowed to set foot on stage at The Globe then for a start? I would argue that the introduction of women to the stage benefitted society but littering Romeo and Juliet with, according to the reviews, cock jokes probably isn't.
Of course we should be trying to turn youngsters on to Shakespeare and of course it won't always be as the previous generation(s) would like it but surely we have the responsibility to say when changes and approaches have gone too far?
The problem is, I suspect, that while it's easy to say "we have the responsibility to say when changes ... have gone too far." the people going through that change aren't always best placed to make the call of whether something is 'too much' or not. After all, very few people nowadays would suggest that giving women the vote was a bad thing, but it's not as though everyone at the time thought it was a great idea for society. (I'm not trying to suggest that a more radical appraoch to Shakespeare is akin to the women's suffrage) |
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 28, 2017 15:47:17 GMT
Nothing elitist about it at all.
There are plenty of youngsters out there who are capable of being exposed to adult Shakespeare and developing a love of his works, harbour a love of them in their hearts and minds and become custodians of our heritage.
However, this is aimed at yoofs who struggle to concentrate beyond a 140 character message and think Skepta is a genius...
Big difference.
I have no idea what/who Skepta is.
Am I missing out?
If you want to hear lyrics which are misogynistic, homophobic, encourage drug taking and violence then he's your man...
We live in a World where people who will criticise anyone who dare defends the protection of heritage will also be happy to defend such "artists"...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 15:48:18 GMT
Shakespeare plays are LITTERED with cock jokes - and he loved a cock-related pun on his name. Shaking his spear all over the place, he was. I'm starting to wonder if you've actually seen any Shakespeare or understood what you saw. Puns are clever though... Often in Shakespeare they aren't, though - he does really blatant, gratuitous cock jokes aimed squarely at the lowest common denominator! Shakespeare really wasn't high art in his time; the fact that we think of it that way is the original terrible misinterpretation - what you might call 'dumbed down' versions could equally be viewed as going back to the original intention. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 15:49:23 GMT
(Am I get over-excited? I really need to finish some work before I slope off for the long weekend...)
|
|
117 posts
|
Post by edmundokeano on Apr 28, 2017 15:51:12 GMT
I don't think anyone is seriously saying that Shakespeare shouldn't be reinterpreted and reworked but, when you have spent years(and millions of pounds) recreating an authentic Elizabethan theatre maybe that isn't the place for radical reworking of the plays. London is not short of venues where that type of production would fit. There is the Young Vic, the Barbican, the Almeida and the West End for those kind of productions and if a new production attracts a younger audience then that will lead to them seeking out more traditional productions. The Globe was built as a traditional space and people went to a huge amount of effort and expense to give people an authentic experience. Also, don't sneer at a younger generations music, it makes you sound like someone from the local council talking about the Sex Pistols in the 70's. I am not Skepta's audience but lyrically I think he is interesting and is speaking for a group of kids that I have no direct contact with but I'd be more interested in his take on Romeo & Juliet than this one I am continuing my music education the older I get and have a great love for many new bands.
However "music" by Skepta and similar acts - who promote hatred of women and homosexuality - have no place in our society and rather than being encouraged should be tackled.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 15:53:15 GMT
"Do you think I mean country matters?" I mean, how obvious do you need to be? (Also see 'The Country Wife', Restoration theatre would frankly be nothing without overt references to genitalia).
"What, with my tongue in your tail?" Oo-er, very 'Carry On' Mr Petruchio.....
'Much Ado About Nothing' would surely be innocent though if it weren't for the fact that 'Nothing' was used by Elizabethans to refer to a lady's private parts.
So what was that about cock jokes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 15:53:19 GMT
Let's enjoy the Summer of Love while we have the chance, before the Return of Eternal Night in a year's time.
Edmundokeano said on page 1 that he's not going at all this year so I don't see why he's so bothered anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 15:53:22 GMT
If you want to hear lyrics which are misogynistic, homophobic, encourage drug taking and violence then he's your man... So a bit like Shakespeare then? |
|
