 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.254.157.225
In Reply to: Re: Thanks for your response, RGA! posted by Gee LP on May 31, 2005 at 00:53:24:
One cannot fathom a dumber line written by a human. How to discuss with such a person?
Follow Ups:
NT
"With the single exception of Homer, there is no eminent writer, not even Sir Walter Scott, whom I despise so entirely as Shakespeare when I measure my mind against his." GBSNow there's a quote! Slamming Shakespeare, dragging in a cut at Homer while he's at it, and putting them somewhere near the same plane as Sir Walter Scott! Very funny! How many critics would use those three names in the same sentence?!
But let's face facts: Shaw couldn't even come up with the right ending for "Pygmalion"!
But let's face facts: Shaw couldn't even come up with the right ending for "Pygmalion"!Let´s discuss that.
Why?
Well, Shaw´s play doesn´t end like "My Fair Lady" does...While in the film Liza subdues herself to Higgins, her Demiurge, the man who had created Miss Doolittle, in the original play she slams the door in his face, and the ending (as played) is somewhat left open to interpretation. And then Shaw wrote a "Sequel", where he calmly analizes the whole situation, and reaches to the conclusion that Liza will marry Freddy, that dolt who in the film sings "On the Street where you live", and what will happen thereafter...
Read the link, it´s interesting! And after that, just go to the end of Act V, and read the last lines in it...
"My Fair Lady" is Shaw´s "Pygmalion" blenderized by Lerner.
Regards
BF
I love Shaw's "Pgymalion," but when the author feels compelled to write an essay justifying why he ended the work the way he did....On a purely intellectual plane, I can understand why Liza does not come back and why she marries Freddie.
But the side of me that loves cheap sentimental claptrap gets chills when I hear: "Liza, fetch me my slippers." I suppose Shaw would get chills hearing those words too!
If I remember, this was a Greek play already, do you know who wrote it? And the differences with Shaw?
In any case merci for the above,Best Regards,
Patrick
Stupid me.
Thank you!
WEAK WEAK WEAK (well for William it's weka by most standards it's still very acomplished) -- it's no wonder so many kids hate Will the thrill. I suppose it can be taught well but I would rather discuss the idea of Romantic love in this one. We teach it in Grade 10 which I find one grade too early.The education system will insist on this play for the main reason that it covers most if not all the of the poetic devices(Macbeth I believe is the other choice teachers have)...but frankly R&J is weak compared to Twelfth Night or As You Like it or for that matter A Midsummer Night's Dream. I would much rather students grow an affinity for Shakespeare rather than merely cover some stupid governemtn exam so that they can memorize the definitions of poetic terms.
Besides these are hilarious plays -- and laughter is a great learning tool. Even the Helen Hunt filmed stage production of Twelfth Night works quite well. Indeed, the Ben Kingsley Midsummer is quite excellent -- Ben is such a terrific underrated talent.
nt
As I wrote before, Stephen Greenblatt's "Will in the World" is a good overview of thought on Shakespeare today. It shows how he was influenced by the events around him and used them or avoided them in his works in such ways that everyone...a king, a small business owner, a teenager in school...could see themselves in various works. It also shows how he works some interesting undercurrents of his personal life into various plays (the part discussing marital relations and "Macbeth" justified the book's price for me!).I love how Shakespeare incorporates the everyday ceremonies of life in his works. Weddings, funerals, dances (and until this century, duels!). Indeed, the book's central theme is that Shakespeare's work is the "Triumph of the Everyday." Deep thoughts can be presented in the most ordinary of ways.
Years ago, an instructor of mine said that playing Shakespeare is easy: "You just hop on the train and let him do all the work." That is the most astonishing thing about Shakespeare: the variety of ways that one can play what he has given us. I love Eugene O'Neill, especially the very early and very late works. But when I see "Long Day's Journey into Night", I'm going to see basically the same play I saw last time. I may see "Measure for Measure", and I'll hear the same words, but the acting choices can be very different! At the end of the play, when Claudio tells Isabella he is marrying her, she says nothing. In fact, there are 150 more lines, and this outspoken defender of chastity doesn't utter even a word. I have seen actresses glow with joy and pride, and I have seen actresses fume and stomp about, and I have seen actresses just stand still in slack-jawed shock. Those 150 lines don't change...but what Shakespeare gives the performer, and the audience, is incredible. "Infinite variety" indeed!
Look at the lines he wrote, the phrases he coined, the words he created! Phrases like "brave new world," "dogs of war," "by any other name would smell as sweet," and "Methinks the lady protests too much." The words "gloomy," "bedroom," "bump," "monumental," "battlefield," and 1700 others were first heard in his plays.
"Shakespeare is magic." Absolutely, patrickU!
Modern English (yes, with a capital "M") in the exact same sense Dante "invented" Modern Italian.
Too often, folks misunderstand "simple" for "simplistic."
Though he seldom uses "big words," the meanings in his soliloquies are subtle and beautiful as any words ever written.
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on what ONE actor or teacher says about playing any of Shakespeare's characters, especially since we have a video record of Olivier to consult...
Shaekespeare wrote his plays for the uneducated and illiterate of British society. His verse and language changed depending on who said what. At the moment the break-down escapes me and I don;t want to fig through my Norton Anthology because it's one heavy ass book :)
There are many English and theatre students who are afraid of Shakespeare. Since only "Julius Caesar" and a censored ("Peter, where's my fan?") "Romeo and Juliet" are all that is taught in most
American high schools, many students think Shakespeare is "difficult." The teacher's point in his lecture was to demonstrate that Shakespeare offered a variety of approaches and choices to the actor. But first, the actor should not be afraid of the words (I once saw a student reading "Hamlet" freeze before the big monologue and the teacher had to say, "Go ahead, Rudy!" before he continued)!BTW, I think it's wonderful we have Olivier's Shakespearan work to look at. But I also like Orson Welles' films, and I love listening to the John Barrymore recordings. I'm sure you'll agree with me that Olivier is one approach, but not the only approach, to Shakespeare.
Why did he do "To be or not to be" as a voice-over?!
...and when he howls over Cordelia´s death, despair reigns, both on stage and in your own heart!I have a wonderful album (LPs) of that, and I cherish it high...
Regards
BF
Thank God for those recordings! There are so many wonderful "aural-only" versions of great plays (BTW, if you've never heard the recording of "The Glass Menagerie" with Montgomery Clift and Julie Harris, I recommend you track it down immediately!). Whatever the decisions at the time about money that prevent us from seeing these on film or video today, at least we can hear some incredible performances!BTW, in an early draft of one of my posts, I pointed out that it was a shame that we could not compare Hamlets the way Thirties audiences in New York and London could: first Gielgud, then Leslie Howard, and finally Laurence Olivier, with the first two coming within a season or so of each other. At least recordings gives us the shadow of that kind of opportunity!
did Hamlet to a Star Wars kind of minimilist setting. Not my preference but playing Shakespeare is no easy task. I would like to have seen Ralph Fiennes's work in Richard II but alas my tastes are far higher than my bank account. So I'm stuck reading it which was never the point of Shakespeare's plays. And it SHOULD be on the stage -- all the film versions except for some of the BBC productions have all SUCKED royally. Though I never saw the Hamlets done by Brannagh or Gibson -- they'd just Hamlet it up ;) I suspect.
Correction -- I take my comment back -- I have not seen very many film production -- off hand I can think of only a few Romeo and Juliet in the 70s and a couple of Dissapointing Julius Caesar's -- so maybe there are good ones. I have not seen the Denzel Washington Emma Thompson one.
The Emma Thompson one is light and enjoyable, still has the lust for life from the original play.
I love him because of his profound view of mankind, his insight and understanding of the human soul. Our very own essence.
In the end, his humanistic reality and moral.
He is the master of the past and of the things to come.
Always copied and almost never reached.
He is timeless and hence a genius.
He is the best among the best, and yet he was like us, a brother.
I give the nuts and bolts, the craft, as my reason for loving Shakespeare's work. You point to his heart and his soul. Beautiful.
Together we have the whole.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
