I'd still like to know the theater, but I realize that may be more identifying information than you'd like to give. Anyway, the odds of us having seen the same performance are nonexistent. As a possible common point for discussion, have you seen the Kenneth Branagh Much Ado, or the Ian McKellan Richard III? The movies, that is. There's also the Jose Whedon Much Ado.
I meant to add: "Smooth" is really not the highest compliment that one can pay a production. It doesn't really tell me whether the theater was any good.
I don't know the name of the theater, but it was the Ashland Shakespeare festival, so whatever theater they have there. And no, I haven't seen the movies, there are much more interesting things to be watching.
It's his comedies that I like most. There is melodrama, but it's farcical melodrama. Shakespeare isn't like drinking a can of Coors. Nobody likes wine the first time they try it, you develop an appreciation for those kind of spirits. Shakespeare is like that.
Interesting. What year? Can you remember any unique characteristic of the performance? (For example, "The Lear that started with the line of chairs across the stage" would identify a performance for me.) Odds are high that I have seen the same performances that you saw. (Edited to add: I guess I mean "production.")
Though that said, I think of all Shakespeare's plays, the Macbeths had the most enduring marriage. I have a feeling there's an under text to Shakespeare's work, he was not in a happy marriage.
Not too long ago ago, 2014 I think. I can't remember any specific details, but I believe they used a purple spotlight a lot; but they may just do that for all their plays.
Hmm. I assume that you didn't see the whole list that you mentioned all in the same year and all in Ashland, because there's no year when they did all of those. I assume that some of them were elsewhere or elsewhen. But in any case, if you don't like Shakespeare as played by OSF (Oregon Shakespeare Festival, in Ashland) then you probably indeed do not like Shakespeare. I'd still like to know which OSF performances you saw, because for example if you disliked Dan Donohue's Hamlet, you REALLY don't like Shakespeare. (Did the Hamlet start with a red-haired Hamlet sitting alone in the chairs for a funeral?) But I'll take your word for it that you really don't like Shakespeare. You're wrong in assuming that your opinion reflects universal reality, but I'll accept that you've seen good Shakespeare.
No, didn't see all those in one year at Ashland. They only did one or two I think, but the play I did see that year is the one I remember most clearly.
I love Macbeth - but I'm actually not that crazy about Lady Macbeth. To me, it's Macbeth's conflict that's fascinating - a good character for a writer to study in order to realize that villains don't set out to be villains, etc. I agree that King Lear is annoying. Probably tied with Romeo and Juliet as my least favourite. If I were looking at a single scene or speech, I'd say the St. Crispin's Day speech is my fave. Maybe just because it's marginally less "common" than some of the other great scenes, but I definitely think of it when I'm trying to sort out character motivation and understand how people can decide do dangerous, near-impossible things - glory, fellowship, etc.
It depends on how you read them. Romeo and Juliette can be seen as true love, or about a pair of horny teens. The Tempest has issues of colonialism in it, as well as ideas about divine right. Much Ado explores several differing types of love.
I kinda feel like this should tell you something. The Tempest always felt a bit pointless, about the only good thing that came out of it were a couple of songs on The Crane Wife. But Macbeth was cool (not entirely sure how you manage to see either him or Lady M as one-dimensional, tbh), and Iago's an object lesson in how to write a manipulative bastard. Wild Bill had some skills.
I fell in love with Hamlet when I saw the Hallmark Hall of Fame production of it starring Richard Chamberlain back when I was 16. I totally identified with the MC; only, it wasn't that my stepfather had murdered my father, but that he had killed everything that was strong in my mother. No, I didn't kill the guy. But I certainly sympathized with wanting to. I memorized a lot of it for my Drama class, and lo, these many years later, could probably recite it without going back to look. I feel sorry for the OP. So much dazzling richness locked away from one so blind.
Not everyone is going to like Shakespeare, which is fine, but no amount of academic fixation or forcing kids to read something is going to keep works popular for 400 years. Just not going to happen. Using that to explain away the status of the works is just bad reasoning. They're popular and still resonate with people today because a lot of people see something in those works, and I happen to agree with them.
Not saying schools shoving Shakespeare down kid's throats cause Shakespeare's fame, far from it. Shakespeare in schools is more a result of his fame.
And how does the "cheap subway sandwich of literature" happen to garner 400 years of fame? If it's not because schools shove his work down our throats (weak claim), how is his work so pervasive and so shitty at the same time? I'm fine with you not liking Shakespeare. That's your prerogative. But you've made some pretty egregious claims here.
Why the hell did everyone adore Hitler so much? Where are all of Trump's supporters coming from? There are stupid people in the world. Majority does not always equal correct - just because Shakespeare is held in awe doesn't mean he's a great writer. I can see how to some he writes an entertaining story, the airport romance of his day, and maybe all the medieval language makes it look like genius; I've got no idea why everyone loves him so much and it's something that completely and utterly baffles me.
Nope. Again, flawed arguments. It's been 71 (not 400) years since Hitler and NO ONE thinks he is great. Also, it was mostly Germans who adored him and that was for reasons that I don't feel like getting into (you can find plenty of information on Google about that). Trump...way less than 400 years and he is a fad that will fall by the wayside after November. Please try to make a reasonable argument to my question and I'll ask it again: How did he garner 400 years of fame and prestige if he was such a terrible writer? You are entitled to your opinion and so are the MILLIONS of people who think Shakespeare was a genius. Your opinion is not law and speaking as such is making you look foolish. But, hey, if you want to continue in this fashion, be my guest. But if you want to have an actual conversation, come better prepared than comparing Shakespeare to Hitler and Trump (see how ridiculous that sounds?).
Is it really that hard to understand that people can like different things than you? I've been avoiding this thread because there's really nothing else to say than that. So you don't like Shakespeare. Okay. You're in the minority with that opinion. So what?
Calm down, love. Nobody needs to throw insults around, just voicing my opinion. Now, neither Trump nor Hitler will be adored or have been adored for any more than a very, very short period of time - but they have been admired and loved by countless. My point isn't that they, like Shakespeare, will last hundreds of years; more that they had and/or have an innumerable amount of admirers, like Shakespeare did and continued to do. I can't answer your question because that's the whole reason I made this thread, I don't know why everyone loves Shakespeare so much and I genuinely would like to know. Lots of people seem to be saying stuff like "Well, if he's stuck around for so long, he's got to have something going for him." But nobody's said what it is that makes him so bloody standout.
Well ... It actually seems like you're the one throwing around insults, considering you responded to the directly above post with this: Your OP - even down to the title - has a very adversarial tone to it. You seem unwillingly to even allow that other people do genuinely like Shakespeare, and insist that it's only because we're taught to, even when people say "hey, actually, I like these plays/characters because ..." (eg Catrin and Bayview's posts). I really, truly do not know what you wanted to accomplish with this thread. It obviously wasn't with the intent to have your question answered.
Don't mean to be insulting any people, just Shakespeare; apologies if anyone was offended. I 100% believe people genuinely adore Shakespeare, I'm not disputing that fact at all; the opposite, I said time and time again that thousands of people adore him. But I definitely don't mean to come across as gentle in my opinion that Shakespeare couldn't write. The thing is - he's nothing more than a penny dreadful with floral language. There's no reason for him to stick around any more than Laurie Halse Anderson, and I completely get that people relate with his characters and enjoy his plots, but isn't it time for the bard to die already and make way for genuinely good authors?
as an aside: @Goldenclover and the invocation of Godwin's law—hmmmm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Well, first of all, the language is part of the reason why a lot of people love him so much. He coined phrases people still use to this day because they sum up what they're trying to say so well. Even in The Tempest, which as I've said I don't rate that much, some of the speeches sing. Second, he doesn't write penny dreadfuls. Macbeth is a psychological portrait of a man in breakdown, a comment on the corruption of power, and a historical thriller. If that's penny dreadful writing, you've been reading some fucking amazing penny dreadfuls. Are there writers I like better? Sure, I'd pick Iain Banks over Shakespeare any day of the week. But that's a subjective decision, and I don't think it's really that hard to see why his work is loved so much.
