Having studied Shakespeare extensively, and being familiar with the majority of his body of work, I'll discuss any Shakespeare topic with you at length and in detail here. Questions? Ask em. Opinions? Spread em. Criticisms? Air em out.

...I'm gonna go with Falstaff.

is fabulous.

...and probably his best movie as well.

>...and probably his best movie as well.

It's the only Welles film that really moved me emotionally because of the story and characters. His other films moved me emotionally via his mastery and visual prowess. Then again, emotional connection to characters isn't that important to me, but when I am moved in such manner then that movie has a little more value for me.

I do think he's one of the greats though.

I've always been partial to Bottom from A Midsummer Night's Dream, as well.

And Caliban from The Tempest.

And Richard III from Richard III.











I suck at this.

Shylock is mainly interesting for the way his character has been re-interpreted. Well, the same for Caliban but in Caliban's case I don't think the re-interpretations are reaching very far at all, and really critics had just been misinterpreting him for a long time.

Iago is just cold, cold and manipulative. He has no real purpose or will besides evil. I like him (except for when Josh Hartnett plays him in 'O' I mean holy shit that was bad).

Easily the best Shakespeare villain. Or at least the coldest. Claudius is really cool too (the best part of Branagh's Hamlet was casting Jacobi as Claudius).

I like Malvolio too, but he's not really a villain as much as he is someone who tries to force a chaotic world into order.

>I like Malvolio too, but he's not really a villain as much as
>he is someone who tries to force a chaotic world into order.

He's just a pain in the ass. I don't like him at all. Iago's interesting because he has NO motivation at all. There is absolutely nothing that drives him. Once you think you know what winds him up, he contradicts it a little while later.

Malvolio, on the other hand, is a stupid herb. For one, Iago would NEVER get tricked into being put into an asylum or none of that shit. Iago would be cold RUNNIN the insane asylum, fuck sittin in it. Meanwhile, Malvolio is just a goddamn square living in a transgendered world. There's not a single thing you can tell me to convince me that Malvolio is anything besides a comedic foil. Iago is interesting, elusive, Malvolio is just a plain loser who Shakespeare never liked at all.

For what it's worth, Olivier thought so as well.

I'm waiting to see Kozintsev's "King Lear" which some consider the greatest Shakespeare film.

They both have Shostakovich scores, too.

...and it fucking RULES! Everything about it, the adaptation, the acting, the black and white, the symbolism. It can't be fucked with. I'd love to see it again.

I've never seen the "Hamlet" though.

>...and it fucking RULES! Everything about it, the
>adaptation, the acting, the black and white, the symbolism.
>It can't be fucked with. I'd love to see it again.

Damn! Big screen or DVD?

>I've never seen the "Hamlet" though.

Right now, to me, it's the best Shakespeare film I've seen yet and not just that, cracks top 20 overall probably.

My mistake above, Olivier (I think) gave props to Kozintsev's King Lear not Hamlet. So...still, it's f*in great.

Saw this earlier this week, now, this is probably the best Shakespeare film I've seen yet.

The mise-en-scene (LOL, whatever, it's an efficient umbrella term) and cinematography evokes hopelessness and tragedy like no other. Great use of the aspect ratio -- all those vast spaces.

The battle scene is an exemplary one.

Wow.

But I do have to plead ignorance on the Grigori Kozintsev version. I don't think I've ever seen it.

"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

Kozintsev's is top-notch world class cinema. Check for it, f'real!

It's like the whole time he's shouting "Mine is the best! Look at the celebrities! Look at how often the camera is on me screaming at myself! You can't beat me, nanny nanny boo boo!"

...I thought he was fucking beautiful as the Player King.

Julie Christie was a nice choice for Gertrude, I dug it.

And as far as I'm concerned, Derek Jacoby now owns the role of Claudius.


I liked watching it. I'll watch it again some day.

Plus it's nice to see an uncut version. That rarely happens even in the Theatre.

Which?

Mel Gibson a la Zeffirelli?


I think it's a pretty good take on it, in a Hamlet-as-action-hero sort of way. Which, you know, was the point.

Pretty cool cast, too.

I'm in love with the Gravedigger scene in Hamlet.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

---
2004- Okayblowhards Champion
---

---
2004- Okayblowhards Champion
---

My heart says yes, but King Lear's terrifying Calvinism says no. What does Frank Longo say?

The Tempest is a prophecy.

I think it can be proven historically that he was raised Catholic-- certainly the area in which he was raised was predominantly Catholic. However, England during the time when he was writing still had a cloud of anti-Catholicism (particularly in the aftermath of Bloody Mary and her raging lunacy), and although Elizabeth had brought religious conflict to a semblance of peace, you still couldn't just go out and be Catholic, straight up.

Since we know he was raised that way, I think it's safe to say it heavily influences his work, particularly Hamlet, Richard II, and The Tempest. And since his Catholic background influences him all the way up to his final play, I think it's safe to say he kept the ideals of Catholicism close to his heart, even if he wasn't a truly devout Catholic and he incorporated elements in his plays that might dwell outside of the realm of Catholic belief.

However, in terms of King Lear, I'd say that it's less Calvinism and more heavily influenced by the passing of Elizabeth. Shakespeare was almost certainly acquainted with Elizabeth, and I would say felt a certain fondness for her-- she was after all his most famous fan, and she was the queen during Shakespeare's entire life up to that point. There is a notable shift in Shakespeare's stylistic choices, and it's around this time that he wrote the great tragedies. He shows a certain contempt for royalty for a period while Elizabeth was dying and after her death when James took the throne. I'd say especially in King Lear, this helplessness that can certainly be interpreted as a type of Calvinism is a result of the changing of the throne and the general uncertainty in the air if England could be run as smoothly as it did under Elizabeth (note that three of the four great tragedies deal heavily with succession of kingship and the problems that come with it).

Long story short...yes, I think he was Catholic. LOL. But I doubt he was a strict Catholic, or even a Catholic who intentionally tried to put his religious beliefs into his plays, since he probably would have known better regarding the country's feelings towards Catholics at the time.

>However, in terms of King Lear, I'd say that it's less
>Calvinism and more heavily influenced by the passing of
>Elizabeth. Shakespeare was almost certainly acquainted with
>Elizabeth, and I would say felt a certain fondness for her--
>she was after all his most famous fan, and she was the queen
>during Shakespeare's entire life up to that point. There is a
>notable shift in Shakespeare's stylistic choices, and it's
>around this time that he wrote the great tragedies. He shows a
>certain contempt for royalty for a period while Elizabeth was
>dying and after her death when James took the throne. I'd say
>especially in King Lear, this helplessness that can certainly
>be interpreted as a type of Calvinism is a result of the
>changing of the throne and the general uncertainty in the air
>if England could be run as smoothly as it did under Elizabeth
>(note that three of the four great tragedies deal heavily with
>succession of kingship and the problems that come with it).

Maybe I'm sitting too far out on the "it's *always* about God" branch, but if I want (roughly) contemporary examples of apprehension over political uncertainty, I can look at Montaigne and, to a lesser degree, Don Quijote. King Lear seems like a wholly different level of fretting than those two.

What I see in Lear is terror on a slightly grander scale. I guess it's not really appropriate for me to call it Calvinism, but he walks the line between God's sovreignty and God's hiddenness in so much the same way as Calvin does in "The Institutes". It's the examples in nature - that God's will is *actively* holding the physical universe together and that his will (in Lear's pre-Christian setting at least. for Calvin that's a whole different bag of marbles) is utterly inscrutable.

But... I don't know. I know you're right about succession. But it seems sort of neurotic to apply such cosmic tragedy to something relatively benign like political succession. I realize that it was a totally different sort of event in early modern Europe than it is now, but it's all still a bit much.

You certainly arrived at the right conclusion, though. I'll score another one for the papists.

"All in the game yo, all in the game." -Omar

...I haven't read them all cuz I find a few of them tedious. I like Henry IV 1 and 2 and Henry V is kinda fun. Richard III is cool as hell, but that's as far as I've gone.

People say King John is cool, but honestly, there's 10 million other things out there I gotta read first.

Falstaff is great, and there are a few classic characters in the Henrys, but they do tend to drag more than the Richards.

My friend was in Henry IV Part 2 once. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Richard II is fantastic, and Richard III is fucking great since you get to revel in the dark side for a while.

I highly recommend to those who haven't seen them both Olivier's FANTASTIC Richard III, which I think very well could be his best Shakespeare adaptation, and Al Pacino's really great documentary Looking For Richard-- while the acting is a bit shaky, it's insanely fascinating.

>Al Pacino's really
>great documentary Looking For Richard-- while the acting is a
>bit shaky, it's insanely fascinating.

I liked this movie. Very good.

Speaking of Al Pacino and Shakespeare, have you seen Michael Radford's "The Merchant Of Venice" with Pacino as Shylock? I loved it. Pacino gives his best performance in years, probably his best in decades.

Also Lynn Collins was incredible in the role of Portia. Easily one of my most favorite performances by any actress in the last several years.

>Speaking of Al Pacino and Shakespeare, have you seen Michael
>Radford's "The Merchant Of Venice" with Pacino as Shylock? I
>loved it. Pacino gives his best performance in years,
>probably his best in decades.
>
>Also Lynn Collins was incredible in the role of Portia.
>Easily one of my most favorite performances by any actress in
>the last several years.

I don't know about decades, but he was quite good, lol.

My only problem is the revisionist history in it. I mean, yes, the anti-Semitism has to be dealt with, but in the original play, Shylock is one bad dude. He's not unlike Magneto-- yes, you have a reason for being pissed, but you gots to chill. I thought in the film they downplayed a lot of Shylock's more villainesque dialogue and played up the anti-Semitism.

Granted, that's really the only way you can do Merchant of Venice now in a PC world. But that doesn't really make it ring true for me.

>
>>Speaking of Al Pacino and Shakespeare, have you seen Michael
>>Radford's "The Merchant Of Venice" with Pacino as Shylock?
>I
>>loved it. Pacino gives his best performance in years,
>>probably his best in decades.
>>
>>Also Lynn Collins was incredible in the role of Portia.
>>Easily one of my most favorite performances by any actress
>in
>>the last several years.
>
>I don't know about decades, but he was quite good, lol.
>
>My only problem is the revisionist history in it. I mean, yes,
>the anti-Semitism has to be dealt with, but in the original
>play, Shylock is one bad dude. He's not unlike Magneto-- yes,
>you have a reason for being pissed, but you gots to chill. I
>thought in the film they downplayed a lot of Shylock's more
>villainesque dialogue and played up the anti-Semitism.
>
>Granted, that's really the only way you can do Merchant of
>Venice now in a PC world. But that doesn't really make it ring
>true for me.

I am actually going to be teaching a course in the spring on Law and literature, and the Merchant of Venice is one of the books we will be reading. I have been looking into the various interpretations of Shylock and come to the conclusion that Shakespeare has purposely left him ambiguous. Is he a villain or a victim? We know that he has a reason to be pissed, but given the conditions in which Jews were forced to live and the indignities that they had to endure, can we truly say that Shylock's stance at the end of the play is villainesque? For example, would a slave who finally had the upper hand on his master be a villain if he tried to extract a little revenge under a lawful and binding agreement? Remember, Shylock initially set the parameters of the loan, not to be unreasonable, but in an effort to extend friendship. He knew that Christians looked down upon collecting interest, so instead of lending the money subject to interest, Shylock proposes that if the debt is not repaid he will take a pound of flesh. This is said in a facetious manner, given that Shylock had no reason to believe the debt would not be paid on time. It is not until he suffers the ultimate indignity of losing his daughter and his treasures that he demands the contract be executed literally.

...the John Barton Royal Shakespeare Company's BBC version of "Playing Shakespeare".

There is one episode featuring David Suchet and Patrick Stewart showing their different interpretations of Shylock. Stewart does one scene, then Suchet does the same scene, back and forth.

It's fucking amazing, and it hits on exactly what you're talking about.

I was lucky enough to have a teacher that owned the series on VHS and let me watch them. I haven't been able to find it on my own, though. Not that I've really tried terribly hard, but it was some great stuff.

There's a book that's basically just an abridged transcript, if that floats your boat, too.

>I am actually going to be teaching a course in the spring on
>Law and literature, and the Merchant of Venice is one of the
>books we will be reading. I have been looking into the various
>interpretations of Shylock and come to the conclusion that
>Shakespeare has purposely left him ambiguous. Is he a villain
>or a victim? We know that he has a reason to be pissed, but
>given the conditions in which Jews were forced to live and the
>indignities that they had to endure, can we truly say that
>Shylock's stance at the end of the play is villainesque? For
>example, would a slave who finally had the upper hand on his
>master be a villain if he tried to extract a little revenge
>under a lawful and binding agreement? Remember, Shylock
>initially set the parameters of the loan, not to be
>unreasonable, but in an effort to extend friendship. He knew
>that Christians looked down upon collecting interest, so
>instead of lending the money subject to interest, Shylock
>proposes that if the debt is not repaid he will take a pound
>of flesh. This is said in a facetious manner, given that
>Shylock had no reason to believe the debt would not be paid on
>time. It is not until he suffers the ultimate indignity of
>losing his daughter and his treasures that he demands the
>contract be executed literally.

It's easy to say now in a day and age where Jewish people suffer far less discrimination than they did in, say, 1600 in England. But there are multiple instances in Shakespeare (not just Merchant of Venice) where a character says something vaguely or blatantly anti-Semitic. I don't think we can safely say that Shakespeare was sympathetic toward the plight of Jewish people.

I do think he wanted to point out how a Jew would end up being so cold-hearted, and give him a bit more characterization. But I don't think that he intended at all on this excusing the callousness of Shylock's actions.

>It's easy to say now in a day and age where Jewish people
>suffer far less discrimination than they did in, say, 1600 in
>England. But there are multiple instances in Shakespeare (not
>just Merchant of Venice) where a character says something
>vaguely or blatantly anti-Semitic. I don't think we can safely
>say that Shakespeare was sympathetic toward the plight of
>Jewish people.
>
>I do think he wanted to point out how a Jew would end up being
>so cold-hearted, and give him a bit more characterization. But
>I don't think that he intended at all on this excusing the
>callousness of Shylock's actions.

Shakespeare wrote a compelling play for whatever reason. Maybe even he knew that giving some sympathy to the villain just sucks the audience in that much more, because they really don't know who's going to win, but as far as how Billy really felt about Shylock, I think it's pretty clear he thought he was a vulgar Jew.

It kinda sucks as a romance, let's be real.

It's far too poetic and Petrarchian with the language for it to be strictly satirical. Yes, the youth of the characters make it funny, but then what are they satirizing? The impetuous nature of young love?

I think some of the language in Romeo and Juliet is gorgeous, and that the romance is very effective, as long as it's not played in that cliched faux-Renaissance "I am acting Shakespeare" kind of way. I think one could even go far as to say the scenes between them are very sexy.

There are certainly satiric elements, and Mercutio is a voice of satire. But he dies halfway through the play, and for a reason. The comedy, the fun, the satire...it's all gone once Mercutio dies.

So while I see where you're coming from, I'd hesitate to let your personal opinion on a romance blind you from the fact that millions and millions of people find the romance very effective, lol.

I'd say the thing that people fail to realize about Romeo and Juliet is how difficult it is to make it work on stage, not just because of how overplayed it is, but how difficult it is to balance that line between impetuous youth, teen lust, rebels in an oppressive world...there's a LOT going on that has to all be present simultaneously. It's an easy play to make into a boring production, but it's a very difficult play to make into a stimulating production.

I dunno, I think it *sucks* as a romance, and maybe that is just because I'm living in a culture that has 400 years of romance filtered through that play, but I'm not feeling it. As an attack on teen love, that's funny. That works for me.

You're also right that it's nearly impossible to overcome the cultural baggage of the play, and that productions are a chore. I don't really know where you're going with Mercutio dying, I've never really looked into his character too strongly, I just know the romance seems trivial to me. Especially for a writer who seems to have such a different outlook in his sonnets, it seems impossible that he would write a play that's so purely trite.

But you know -- maybe it is just my cultural baggage, who knows...

I thought about saying something but didn't


~~~~~

It is painful in the extreme to live with questions rather than with answers, but that is the only honorable intellectual course. (c) Norman Mailer