Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Literature, Music, Art & Entertainment => Topic started by: Shaker on April 23, 2016, 03:18:09 PM
-
Nobody else commemorating the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death? Oh well, I may as well ... there's an embarrassment of riches when it comes to performances but Peter Brook's relentlessly grim 1971 film of King Lear, shot in a dismally Bergmanesque black and white and with a quite frankly frightening Paul Scofield in the lead, is generally acknowledged as one of the greatest performances ever. I don't know if the film in its entirety is on the Tube of You (unlike, say, Ian McKellen's 2008 version) so there are only scattered clips. Even so; this is acting at the very top of the top of its game:
https://youtu.be/7jxLfFLQE_o
A vicious Lear (Scofield looking rather like Graham Norton at present) cursing his daughter Goneril to sterility. Acting or not I wouldn't care to be on the end of this :o
https://youtu.be/YRc49mytN_Y
-
I hadn't seen that before.
My eldest is currently studying Macbeth and has watched the Polanski film. It's inconsistent, in my opinion, but where it works, it's brilliant. I was lucky enough to study Macbeth at school not for Eng Lit but for drama, which was terrific as I got a huge amount from considering the staging as well as the text itself.
Haven't been to the Globe in a very long time - they must have some cracking stuff lined up at the moment. I think there's an online festival launching today.
-
Nobody else commemorating the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death? Oh well, I may as well ... there's an embarrassment of riches when it comes to performances but Peter Brook's relentlessly grim 1971 film of King Lear, shot in a dismally Bergmanesque black and white and with a quite frankly frightening Paul Scofield in the lead, is generally acknowledged as one of the greatest performances ever. I don't know if the film in its entirety is on the Tube of You (unlike, say, Ian McKellen's 2008 version) so there are only scattered clips. Even so; this is acting at the very top of the top of its game:
https://youtu.be/7jxLfFLQE_o
A vicious Lear (Scofield looking rather like Graham Norton at present) cursing his daughter Goneril to sterility. Acting or not I wouldn't care to be on the end of this :o
https://youtu.be/YRc49mytN_Y
You can download it here :-
https://ukpirate.org/s/?q=king+lear+2008&page=0&orderby=99
-
I am a great fan of Shakespeare but for today I am celebrating with this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_of_Blood
-
Nobody else commemorating the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death?
I was trying to remember when we last celebrated/commemorated the death of someone in this way. Obviously, we celebrate the 'end' of events such as the World Wars, but usually we celebrate the birth date of someone like Shakespeare/Shakspeare/Shakspear/...
-
I was trying to remember when we last celebrated/commemorated the death of someone in this way. Obviously, we celebrate the 'end' of events such as the World Wars, but usually we celebrate the birth date of someone like Shakespeare/Shakspeare/Shakspear/...
Since the bard died on his birthday, I suppose we are also celebrating his 452nd birthday.
Apparently, Cervantes died on the same day. I haven't heard much about him ...
I did a Wikipedia search for "William Shakespeare" - I was a little discomforted that the search response produced William Shatner before William Shakespeare ...
-
I think the reason we're celebrating this anniversary is the technology we have now. Through the online festival and other technology far more people can be reached and in more interactive and innovative ways than 52 years' ago. And Shakespeare scholarship and production has moved on - black actors taking lead roles that in the past would have been unthinkable for example. It's an opportunity to celebrate Shakespeare in a fresh way and I'm loving it.
-
Nothing is left undisturbed, is it?
They mentioned on the tv that they are now having doubts as to whether all his acclaimed works are actually his.
Well, it is going to be difficult to prove otherwise 400 years later. Much ado about nothing....really! :)
-
The authorship debate has been running for years. That the man we regard as William Shakespeare didn't write the works attributed to him is a minority position, but that doesn't make it wrong and has some seriously heavy-duty scholarship behind it. Derek Jacobi is one big name who espouses this point of view.
-
I am appalled by the hypocrisy demonstrated on this board by people who inflict their Guff about the redundancy of ancient books on, the reasonable.
''Prithee, spare us from the guffings of the fat priests of antitheism''
Much ado about something Act III.
-
I am appalled by the hypocrisy demonstrated on this board by people who inflict their Guff about the redundancy of ancient books on, the reasonable.
''Prithee, spare us from the guffings of the fat priests of antitheism''
Much ado about something Act III.
Not really up to WS standards is it? In fact it's not really up to Pam Ayres standards, either.
-
Not really up to WS standards is it? In fact it's not really up to Pam Ayres standards, either.
''Prithee fuckest off''
Two Twats of Verona Act I
-
''Prithee fuckest off''
Two Twats of Verona Act I
Better - but still no William McGonagall ;)
-
I am appalled by the hypocrisy demonstrated on this board by people who inflict their Guff about the redundancy of ancient books on, the reasonable.
''Prithee, spare us from the guffings of the fat priests of antitheism''
Much ado about something Act III.
Where is the hypocrisy?
-
A heads up for anyone interested, BBC4 is re-running The Hollow Crown Richard 1 and Henry IV parts 1 and 2 over three nights around 11pm. I still recall being mesmerised by this when the Beeb first screened it a couple of years back. Quite demanding in a way but if you can find the stamina to stay with it (I'd recommend a really comfy chair and a bottle of Jack Daniels close to hand) you come away with the feeling that you've been in the company of one of the world's finest ever minds, and that is quite an honour.
-
(I'd recommend a really comfy chair and a bottle of Jack Daniels close to hand)
Personally I recommend that for anything anyway ;)
-
Since the bard died on his birthday, I suppose we are also celebrating his 452nd birthday.
Thanks for that, Harrowby. I'd forgotten that fact.
-
Nothing is left undisturbed, is it?
They mentioned on the tv that they are now having doubts as to whether all his acclaimed works are actually his.
Well, it is going to be difficult to prove otherwise 400 years later. Much ado about nothing....really! :)
That debate has been going on for 400 years, Sass. His authorship was being questioned even whilst he was alive, but has become more serious over, probably, the last 100 years.
-
Thanks for that, Harrowby. I'd forgotten that fact.
Its not a fact though is it? We know when he was baptised but not the date iof his birth.
-
Its not a fact though is it? We know when he was baptised but not the date iof his birth.
It is an accepted assumption .... if you know what I mean.
-
The authorship debate has been running for years. That the man we regard as William Shakespeare didn't write the works attributed to him is a minority position, but that doesn't make it wrong and has some seriously heavy-duty scholarship behind it. Derek Jacobi is one big name who espouses this point of view.
Derek Jacobi is an actor, not a heavy duty scholar.
Anyhow, since Shakespeare is largely defined as "the man who wrote those plays", I think the probability is that he did write the plays.
-
Derek Jacobi is an actor, not a heavy duty scholar.
Indeed, but he knows the heavy-duty scholars and bases his opinions on their scholarship. I'd expect a man who has spent so many decades on stage performing Shakespeare to be more than a text-regurgitating robot. That he knows as much as he obviously does about the minority view and takes it as seriously as he does ought to give others pause.
Anyhow, since Shakespeare is largely defined as "the man who wrote those plays", I think the probability is that he did write the plays.
That of course makes absolutely no sense whatever. You can't get from a circular non-argument such as "Shakespeare wrote Shakespearean plays" to "Therefore it's probable that William Shakespeare of Stratford 1564-1616 wrote the plays." There's a bit more to it than that. I have no dog in this fight so have no agenda to defend; I've heard some of the minority view scholars put their case however (there's a particularly good documentary whose title escapes me at the moment) and they don't strike me as a bunch of cranks saying anything especially crazy.
-
The problem with the "Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon did not write these plays" is that there is no evidence for it. This view seems mainly predicated by the view that an oick from the provinces would not have been capable of writing them - they were therefore produced by someone who wanted to hide his true identity.
I see no reason to accept that William Shakespeare, of middle-class origins and probably as well educated as anyone else at the age of 18, should not have been capable of producing the output ascribed to him.
-
Indeed, but he knows the heavy-duty scholars and bases his opinions on their scholarship. I'd expect a man who has spent so many decades on stage performing Shakespeare to be more than a text-regurgitating robot. That he knows as much as he obviously does about the minority view and takes it as seriously as he does ought to give others pause.
He subscribes to a view that is in the minority. Expectation and really don't always coincide.
I've heard some of the minority view scholars put their case however (there's a particularly good documentary whose title escapes me at the moment) and they don't strike me as a bunch of cranks saying anything especially crazy.
The consensus amongst almost all Shakespeare scholars is that he wrote the plays. All of the historical evidence says he did and there is no contemporary record of anybody disputing the authorship.
I'm not an expert but I don't see any reason to dispute the consensus view amongst the scholars.
-
He subscribes to a view that is in the minority.
Sure he does, which as already pointed out doesn't automatically make him wrong.
The consensus amongst almost all Shakespeare scholars is that he wrote the plays. All of the historical evidence says he did
The anti-Stratfordians, as they're known, disagree with this otherwise they would have no case to make, which they do.
and there is no contemporary record of anybody disputing the authorship.
This is perilously close to the 'absence of evidence' thing - and Hope in #17 disagrees with you, so you'd better take it up with him ("His authorship was being questioned even whilst he was alive").
I'm not an expert but I don't see any reason to dispute the consensus view amongst the scholars.
I'm not an expert either - nor, as you point out, is Sir Derek, nor is Mark Rylance. Still, it's easy enough to bone up on if it takes your fancy, surely? The anti-Stratfordians write books and make documentaries and give lectures and suchlike.
-
Sure he does, which as already pointed out doesn't automatically make him wrong.
No the evidence makes him very probably wrong.
The anti-Stratfordians, as they're known, disagree with this otherwise they would have no case to make
There are several contemporary references to Shakespeare that support the view that he wrote the plays. This is a matter of record. There are no contemporary references that support the view that he did not write the plays. This is also a matter of record.
Hope in #17 disagrees with you, so you'd better take it up with him ("His authorship was being questioned even whilst he was alive").
It's Hope. If I ask him for evidence, he'll just say he already presented it at some point in the past.
The anti-Stratfordians write books and make documentaries and give lectures and suchlike.
As do the Moon Hoaxers, JFK conspiracists and 911 Truthers.
-
His authorship was being questioned even whilst he was alive
Who by?
-
There was a time I was quite fascinated by the idea of a mystery author to Shakespeares's plays. There's a small industry of books and theories. So I took sometime to look at it, in conjunction with studying the plays, and nada, niente, nothing of any real weight.
As jeremyp has outlined, there is nothing contemporary that calls it into question and, substantial amounts that at the time the plays were written back him up as the author. Given the reputatition of Sir Philip Sidney, writing earlier, the whole hiding the authorship idea makes no sense.
He'd been dead over 200 years by the time the howls of incredulity began which were never built on much more than snobbery. It also doesn't even begin to take into account that plays like Two Noble Kinsman are collaborations. Nearly all the theories involve plays released after alleged authors were dead, were out the country, and are by many magnitudes more unlikely than that a glover's son educated at an excellent school had the knowledge and ability.