Bard Talk: The Shakespeare Thread

Although I think Shakespeare is genuinely a great writer (not exactly a controversial statement), I think a big reason why he's remained so popular and has international appeal is because of the breadth of genres he wrote in and in conjunction with that, the wide range of (nominal/very inaccurately portrayed) settings.

As a result, Shakespeare plays lend themselves very easily to setting updates, including ones that touch on current political and social issues, in a way that works by his contemporaries don't, even when they are also of high quality (thinking of the "city comedies" by Middleton, Jonson, and others). And I think this is also a contrast with say Moliere and Chekhov, because while they are great writers and there are actually adaptations of them set elsewhere, they intuitively seem to "require" a 16th century French/ 19th century Russia setting.

it probably also "helped" Shakespeare's popularity that because of some of his language becoming archaic, it was easy to cut out or downplay bawdy elements during the prudish Victorian Era. And conversely, kept him more popular than writers who wrote plays which were good, but more obviously bawdy. And since the Victorians were really big on spreading their culture and pushing its superiority, Shakespeare went global.

What order should the three Henry VI plays be read in? I notice in my Shakespeare collection the second one comes first, but is still numbered 2 Henry VI.

I started reading Richard II because of this Shakespeare podcast (which you should check out), and now I feel somewhat committed to the rest of the tetralogies. And then I'll watch Hollow Crown, I suppose.

Edited by Redmess on Mar 30th 2020 at 4:27:20 PM

An interesting line from King Lear (the quarto text).

"He that first lights on him holla the other."

And you thought that was just a rapper thing.

That reminds me of when my lit&grammar teacher (and my form master, aka the teacher most responsible for my class) in high school kept reminding us that it's easy to see Shakespeare as refined and culture incarnate because the time distance will mean his language is antiquated at best even in most translations^note The most acknowledged translations of Shakespeare into Hungarian are from the 1830-70ies, but do some digging and research and you will find just how unafraid he was of putting in the kind of humour for the poorer people he knew would be also sitting in the theatres watching his plays.

Edited by akanesarumara on Apr 8th 2020 at 5:18:38 PM

By the way, in reaction to the Coronavirus shutdown, The Globe Theater is streaming some free Bard plays.

Well, Shakespeare DOES deliberately use older language too. It would have sounded old-fashioned to his audience as well, but that sort of thing was appreciated as a part of theatre, in much the same vein many modern adaptations still use Shakespearean language (only that would have been Chaucers language to them).

And yes, Shakespeare is not at all afraid of low humour, especially in his comedies. And some students were absolutely shocked to learn that, too. People have a very distorted view of what kind of writer Shakespeare was these days.

I noticed that in my edition of I Henry IV (in the Wells and Taylor Oxford Edition), Falstaff, Bardolph and Peto have been renamed to their apparently originally intended names, Oldcastle, Russell and Harvey. They retain their more famous names everywhere else, though.

What should I make of this revision?

Apparently 2 Henry IV does have the revised names, and this edition is the only text that makes the change. So... that seems pointless.

Edited by Redmess on Apr 28th 2020 at 9:24:30 PM

Does anyone else make headcanons about characters who are actors performing in Shakespeare plays? I have some, with Tsukipro characters doing Julius Caesar, and Marginal #4 characters doing Twelfth Night... Shy being an incredibly sexy, hammy, Visual Kei Orsino...

Edited by lavendermintrose on Jul 1st 2021 at 4:03:04 AM

I don't get why the three witches in Macbeth are considered evil. They don't do anything, Macbeth does it all to himself.

That depends on whether you see their predictions as true predictions of the future, or as putting a curse on Mac Beth.

Also, at the time, witches were evil by default.

By the way, I love how cartoony they are in some regard, with their bubbling cauldron full of icky ingredients. Would be right at home at any Halloween party, really.

What I always find darkly funny is how Macbeth was specifically commissioned by James I/VI who famously had some thoughts on witches and the finding and suffering thereof. To be exact, it was commissioned to serve as entertainment to James and his in-laws/relations from Denmark (some point to a visit in Denmark and the unfortunate trip he and his wife had on the way back as when James' focus in witch topic started).

So, looks like I'm getting a decent dose of live Shakespeare this year -

Saw The Tempest at the start of this month, with Alex Kingston as Prospero. Not entirely modern dress, but an island strewn with debris from the modern world. Shifting it from 'father and daughter' to 'mother and daughter' seems to change the dynamic a little.

And the RSC's Cymbeline next month - which is one I've never seen and I'm curious about. Apparently a lot of productions play up the predictable familiarity of the plot and turn it into a dark fairy tale. Sounds like they might be going that way...

Edited by Mrph1 on Mar 23rd 2023 at 5:19:33 PM

Yeah, that sure changes the dynamic, when Prospero is meant to represent a very masculine, patriarchal world view.

It was much less focused on revenge - rather than Prospero seeking vengeance and then stepping away from it at the end, it emphasised the chessmaster side, with everything she did according to her plan.

(One nice touch was that she's on the ship during the initial shipwreck. Nobody sees her, because of her magic, but she's silently, calmly standing in the middle of the deck as everything descends into chaos and panic around her)

That's a great touch. And it's good they rewrote the part a little to suit the gender flip.

Gregory Doran's retiring as the Royal Shakespeare Company's artistic director, finishing with his 50th production - and one he's never directed before, Cymbeline. Ending with the last play in the first folio seems fitting.

Interesting interview with him, about Cymbeline, Shakespeare and his life and career in general, here.

I don't think I have read that one yet. I finally finished off the massive Henriad octet last year, including The Hollow Crown, and that was enough Shakespeare for that year, but maybe I'll pick that one up for this summer.

So, having now seen Doran's Cymbeline - that's a weird one. Some very dark moments followed by many, many coincidences and a finale that was almost played as farce. And lots of characters monologuing and leaning on the fourth wall.

Three very different villains - a patient schemer, a chancer who gets into trouble via insults and wagers, and a brutish fool who suddenly stops being funny when it looks as if he may actually get the chance to hurt and kill.

Some interesting staging decisions, too. The first scene opens with two city folk in the street, acting as Mr. Exposition and laying out the back story. This production opted to bring the main cast onstage for that, treating them like statues on the empty stage until they turn and change their pose when they're mentioned in the infodump.

Minimal props and set - a wicker circle to represent a cave entrance, plus beds and chests brought onstage when necessary. And a very effective set-piece of a golden Zeus/Jove descending from the heavens in story and rain. The shadow of wings moving behind him.

Jove wasn't actually credited in the cast, but the voice - not from the actor visible onstage, and presumably pre-recorded - was rather recognisable, and a "special thanks" buried in the programme small print reveals it was Patrick Stewart.

Great cast, great production. Perhaps not a great play, but twisty.

Was that an old production? Seems a bit odd to bury Stewart like that.

Brand new production, opened a week or so ago. Given it's only one scene and he's not there in person to speak the lines, I suspect it's a favour or farewell present for director Greg Doran.

It's very much Stewart doing BRIAN BLESSED!!!!!, to the point where some of us did a double-take as to the voice.

Edited by Mrph1 on Apr 30th 2023 at 10:12:17 AM

I'm making my way through Hamlet right now, and I was wondering what other people thought of the scene where Hamlet talks to Hamlet Senior's ghost. Obviously Shakepseare isn't a stranger to supernatural elements (the fairies in Midsummer Night' Dream, the Weird Sisters in Macbeth, etc) but it seems there is some controversy over whether it is actually the Ghost of Hamlet Sr, some other supernatural creature, or a full on delusion of Hamlet's. It is also interesting that Hamlet the play is IIRC otherwise entirely devoid of supernatural elements.

I've seen it handled in several ways. Whether or not Shakespeare meant to be deliberately ambiguous, modern productions have viewed it that way.

On a different note -

The upcoming Donmar (London) production of Macbeth, with David Tennant and Cush Jumbo, entirely sold out its three month run before the cast had even started rehearsing.

(I wonder if we're going to get Tennant doing Lear in a decade or two)

I have to admit, I'm pretty damn impressed he memorized the whole speech for this fantasy. Or that he read the play at all. At six years old.

There are two different Hamlet productions soon in Tokyo and I have to admit I don't really feel like seeing either of them. I saw a really great one last year, in this really small theater. Really interesting use of surreal elements that I usually am not into, but this one made it work. Ophelia was a stage magician. That sounds like a horrible gimmick, but the way they did it was wonderful. After that, I can't really get excited about a normal Hamlet, even though I love Hamlet.