Squid wrote:I would actually agree that some of Shakespeare's work is overrated. Romeo and Juliet especially. However, some of the slightly less mainstream stuff is actually pretty good. Particularly the comedies, and particularly Twelfth Night.
Of course, it can be a little difficult to understand, and sometimes it can take two or three watches to really understand what is going on, but once you do, it can really be quite nice.
I don't know, Shakespeare is so famous he is inevitably considered to be one of the greatest authors, even if he isn't the personal favourite of as many people. I wouldn't mind it if people actually acknowledged that the language and some of his work is pretty dated (it is 500 years old after all), but what really annoys me is that everyone bangs on about how he's so "classic" and "timeless". Ummm, no. Whenever I read/watch Shakespeare I can barely even understand what the characters are saying half the time. That is in no way timeless.
The whole point of a play is that you shouldn't need to watch it several times to understand it (unless it's a deliberately complex and deep story, in which case it is enjoyable to do so). Plays are meant to be acted and enjoyed. I can't enjoy something if I don't even understand what the actors are saying because the language is so antiquated.
Squid wrote:Acting in Shakespeare is also particularly hard to do. The wording is horribly difficult to say naturally, and some of the stuff is so difficult to understand. But it's very interesting to play a part that has been played a thousand times and put your own unique spin on it. And being the character really lets you get into the story and understand it better.
Max Butcher wrote:People who are experienced with Shakespeare often bring an added depth and 'oomph' to their acting. This isn't suitable in performances featuring ordinary everymen, but with middle-class men/women in distinct heroic/villanous roles it really helps. Matt Smith doesn't bring that 'oomph' - but he doesn't need to because it doesn't suit his character. The reason why the 11th Doctor has a much stronger underground following than the 10th is because the 11th Doctor is basically a nerd. An idealistic, eccentric nerd who people can look up to.
True that--the Doctor is a heroic character, so I can see why it would be useful for an actor to have that sort of experience. In fact, I have tremendous respect for actors who do Shakespeare--it's painful enough for me just to read him, let alone memorizing the play and delivering the dialogue effectively.
Max Butcher wrote:If you're turned off by Shakespeare, I recommend seeing one of his plays in performance - preferably anything with Sir Ian McKellan (part of the reason why I like Macbeth and Richard III is because McKellan has played both of the title roles). Any play is pretty bland when you just read it (the works of Pinter and Beckett are almost intolerable when read like normal prose) but it is through acting that the material is bought to life. This is why, if the script is bad, its going to be very difficult to salvage anything - hence why I complain so much about bad dialogue.
I've seen several performances of Shakespeare, and my feelings are mixed at best--I have never in my life understood why he is so famous. Having said that, I do remember enjoying The Tempest (or at least understanding what it was about)--particularly since the actors managed to make the play very entertaining and there were quite a few funny scenes. My latest experience was a live-stream of Othello at my local cinema, which I was forced to watch because my English class is analysing it. I found the following three-and-a-half hours so excruciating I could actually feel myself getting older as I sat there wondering what the heck the characters were talking about. It was at that point I realized I would never truly enjoy or understand the appeal of Shakespeare. As it happened, it was a "modernized" version in which the characters were modern-day soldiers. But the modernization is ultimately pointless if the dialogue isn't at least partially updated either.
As for the play itself--I get that it has the first explicitly black protagonist in Western literature, which I suppose is important, but I find the play itself horribly contrived. I mean, look at Act III, scene 3, which is the pivotal moment of the play. Basically Iago says, "I think your wife is cheating on you Othello, because I saw Cassio talking about her in his sleep and then he started kissing me because he thought I was Desdemona"--which is just about the most implausible "proof" ever (seriously, this is worthy of cartoon logic), and Othello responds byordering him to kill Cassio and Desdemona. Just like that. I know he's a soldier, but this response is worthy of a homicidal maniac. The outcome of the play after this scene is basically dependent on a string of contrived situations and implausible coincidences. I mean, Othello could do anything--like, you know, actually ask Desdemona or Cassio--yet he totally believes everything Iago says, just like that. I know he's considered "honest", but that level of trustworthiness still stretches credulity. Especially since I get the feeling that nobody in the play except Othello and to a certain extent Cassio (and Rodrigo, but he doesn't count since he's basically an idiot) actually believe Iago is honest. (Heck, Iago's own wife doesn't trust him. Surely that's an indicator that something's wrong.)
OK, well, I've ranted enough here, so sorry if I went off on a tangent....
Retribution (3rd place in BRAWL 2015)&Smeagol make the most of being surrounded by single, educated women your own age on a regular basis in college
AquaMorph I dunno women are expensive
I think the dialogue between Hurt, Tennant and Smith was genuinely hilarious at times! As well as the throwbacks and references to previous Doctors and episodes!
I'm glad you do though.
