|
|
Post by Bardolator on Jun 8, 2002 19:37:12 GMT -5
So asks a humble J.C. student. I've read the four well-known tragedies, Henry IV part one, Merchant, Romeo and Juliet, Much Ado... Richard III I've seen, same with Henry V.
The topic occurs to me because there are some great plays that haven't been performed all that much. I mean, I think we've seen more of Titus in the last thirty years, or at least more 'well-known' performances than Macbeth.
A teacher I like responded this way (just to start things off): Antony and Cleopatra for tragedy, Richard II for history, As You Like It for comedy.
Feedback?
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Jun 8, 2002 21:17:15 GMT -5
Well, a difficult question. What you'll get are favorite plays that aren't highly thought of. For example, Triolus and Cressida is either a forgettable failure, or an underperformed masterpiece. I've heard both positions defended. Macbeth is a special problem. You see, there is this curse.  It is bad luck to say the word "Macbeth" in a theater. If you must refer to the play, you must call it "The Scottish Play." There are elaborate rituals for removing the curse if the play's name is uttered. Even so, there have been far more versions of Macbeth on film (counting several derivatives--one of which, Throne of Blood, may be the best of all filmed Macbeths) than Titus. Titus may be seen on stages more due to the penchant of producers to find something new. And, of course, if a producer schedules Titus, no curse will haunt his theater. |
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 8, 2002 22:20:25 GMT -5
Good question!
I agree with your teacher about Richard II. I consider it the most underappreciated tragedy. I think most of the Histories get a raw deal simply because they are histories. Richard II is a tragedy, and a particularly moving one at that. Richard is such an amazing character who goes from being a spoiled brat, to a confused and miserable wanna-be martyr. he also gets some of Shakespeare's best lines ever ("Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings"). But people think of it as a History instead, and that somehow turns people off. Honestly, I don't understand why scholars created a Histories genre, especially when the full names of these plays usually include "The Tragedy of" and "The Most Lamentable Tragedy of". This is probably 1 Henry IV and Henry V's fault, since the two of them don't end tragically, but don't end comically. Since those have always been the most popular two, we created a whole genre around it and made Richard II pay the price!
Honestly, most of Shaky's plays are amazing. You could argue that some of the main ones (Hamlet, Lear, Othello, Caesar) have a little bit more to them, but they're all (or mostly) very rich, complex, moving, and funny plays. I'd only exclude The Comedy of Errors, and though I haven't personally read it, I know some other people on this board would also exclude Love's Labour Lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ganymede on Jun 8, 2002 23:04:25 GMT -5
I guess, to answer this question, I'd have to ask "Underrated how and by whom?" I think there's a difference between pop culture attention and critical attention. And then you could compare how many times each have been produced, which seems to be the way some of us have been leaning. Personally, I agree that "As You Like It" has been underrated in the pop culture imagination (check out my discussion under "Film Productions"). Yet, in terms of criticism, it has recently become popular because of the recent upsurge of interest in gender studies. In my opinion, As You Like It is about as perfect a play for a discussion about sexuality and gender in Renaissance England as you can get. And it's a great play in general. So much fun to read and to act! I agree that the Histories have sort of gotten a bad rap. Oftentimes you say "History play", and people doze off before you even finish saying the title.  And the history plays are all so different that it is deceiving to group them all together. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Jun 9, 2002 14:30:34 GMT -5
As I recall, "History" is a category in the First Folio along with "Comedy" and "Tragedy." The histories are where Shakespeare started. The plays we call histories, the English histories, were all written during the fist half of Shakespeare's career (except for Henry VIII). They reflected the political problem posed by Elizabeth's impending death without a descendent. The specter of civil war between rival claimants was real. Some of the histories are good--Richard III, Henry IV (both), and Henry V are popular--but some seem to suffer from the fact that they were early works.
The Comedy of Errors was Shakespeare's first attempt at comedy. It's basically a re-write of a play by Plautus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bardolator on Jun 10, 2002 0:43:38 GMT -5
Regarding the criticism of LLL, I haven't read the play and frankly I haven't met anyone who likes it... but Harold Bloom had high praise for it in his book. I have friends who say don't bother, the play is too dense, not too comic and just not very fun to read.
Then again, if intellectual weightlifting is involved, perhaps it's just up Bloom's alley...
As for Ganymede's comments, perhaps my topic could've been phrased differently... like, what play doesn't get performed enough, but should be? I think As You Like It qualifies... I'm not sure why a movie hasn't been made.
|
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 10, 2002 17:28:34 GMT -5
As I recall, "History" is a category in the First Folio along with "Comedy" and "Tragedy Ah yes. Speaking before thinking again. I must learn to bite my own tongue. All the same, I think it was a poor choice to maintain that division for the reasons I stated earlier. Thanks for the reminder |
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 10, 2002 18:23:25 GMT -5
As for Ganymede's comments, perhaps my topic could've been phrased differently... like, what play doesn't get performed enough, but should be? I think As You Like It qualifies... I'm not sure why a movie hasn't been made. I guess I'd then say that I'm amazed Lear, Caesar, and MacBeth haven't been made into more films then. I wouldn't necessarily choose them as my own favorites, but they are the ones (aside from Hamlet, R&J, and Othello) that everyone seems to know and love. As for As You Like It, I could see it being made as a popular arthouse film, but I just don't think it's known widely enough to make it as a major motion picture. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Jun 10, 2002 21:47:27 GMT -5
Didn't we just see a Lear (set in antebellum Texas) on TV? I think the problem with Lear is that actors are scared of the notoriously difficult role. I don't know about JC. Norrie Epstein says that one reason why Caesar was so popular in high schools in the past was that it was the only play without any sex. I can't see Hollywood doing anything without lots of sex. Of course, the fact that the play has no sex wouldn't keep Hollywood from adding it. And Macbeth. As I mentioned above, it's a special problem. When Branagh decided to do Macbeth his funding headed south and his marriage broke up. Besides, I understand he was going to set it among the Mafiosi, and there are already two versions of Macbeth (Men of Respect and Joe Macbeth) set there. Here's an idea. By all accounts Kurosawa's Throne of Blood is the best filmed version of Macbeth. Maybe Hollywood, remembering the success they had with remakes of Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, could do a remake of Throne of Blood. That way, the dreaded "M" word need never be uttered. The Marlboro Man could ride into the sunset accompanied by Birnum Wood. |
|
The_Turtle
Denizen
Nay, faith, let not me play a woman; I have a beard coming
Posts: 52
|
Post by The_Turtle on Jun 12, 2002 1:44:42 GMT -5
I really couldn't say about the plays. However, I have to say that I think The Phoenix and the Turtle has been regretfully neglected throughout history. But then again I would, wouldn't I? |
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Jun 12, 2002 20:51:22 GMT -5
Neglected, yes! Underrated...? I recall a person (on another site) who had difficulty with the "bird of loudest lay." He didn't seem to like my explanation that phrase refered to the Phoenix. He kept asking the same question. He didn't really respond to what I said, just wanted someone else to provide a different answer. Maybe you should start a Phoenix and Turtle discussion.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ganymede on Jun 12, 2002 22:46:15 GMT -5
I don't know about JC. Norrie Epstein says that one reason why Caesar was so popular in high schools in the past was that it was the only play without any sex. I can't see Hollywood doing anything without lots of sex. Of course, the fact that the play has no sex wouldn't keep Hollywood from adding it. I think it would be fairly simple to add sex, if Hollywood really wanted it. There are some tensions between the married couples in the play that could be expanded upon. And let's not forget the homoerotic tendencies of the Romans. Although it isn't really in the actual play itself (at least not overtly), I could see someone adding some sexual tension between the manly main characters. Might be interesting... |
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Jun 12, 2002 23:09:48 GMT -5
No, it probably wouldn't difficult to find sex. Have you read Colleen McCulloch's Masters of Rome series? Currently it is five massive historical novels covering the period from the marriage of Marius to Caesar's aunt to Caesar's defeat of Pompey. It's reasonably historically accurate, though she sometimes prefers stories told by the less reliable ancient sources.
Her version has lots of sex, of course. Some homosexual sex, but the Romans didn't go in for it during Republican times. Sulla is presented as bisexual and some minor politicians as homosexual. The young Mark Antony pretends to have a homosexual affair in order to scandalize Rome and annoy his parents. One interesting tidbit is that Brutus's mother may have been Caesar's mistress. I understand that more sober history is sceptical of that story, but it does have an ancient source. And then there's the Caesar/Calpurnia/Cleopatra triangle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ganymede on Jun 13, 2002 0:23:09 GMT -5
No, I haven't read it, but I'll be sure to check it out. Adding sex isn't bad as long as it's reasonably tasteful, and historically sex has occasionally been a iniator for some world-altering events. Amazing, really, what a touch of sexual jealousy can do. No wonder Shakespeare dwells on sex in his sonnets.
|
|
Juliet
Denizen
There's many a man hath more hair than wit.
Posts: 53
|
Post by Juliet on Jun 25, 2002 0:18:32 GMT -5
Hmm, adding sex to Julius Caesar.... Definitely not a problem I'd say. Like Ganymede said, there are married couples in the play (although only two women overall) and I, personally, think that sexual tension is necessary for these two scenes. The Portia/Brutus scene and the Caesar/Calpurnia scene are both about women cajolling and trying to convince their husbands to do something, and for women in that time period, not taking advantage of sex, their one big weapon, would be pretty stupid. Aside from that, they're husband and wife, there should be some physicality! Julius Caesar chosen for high schools because of lack of sex....pitifully true, although nowadays that seems to be phasing out, for good reason. Caesar is brilliant, of course, but Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Much Ado About Nothing...they're just more *fun* and there's nothing wrong with fun! Especially when you're being introduced to Shakespeare... Underrated...well, firstly, I don't approve of Bashing Comedy of Errors. It certainly isn't Hamlet, but it isn't meant to be, it's just a silly, sex-filled romp, and for that kind of thing, quite good. We always give more weight to what is "meaningful," to the dramas and tragedies, but there isn't anything shameful about a decent comedy. In fact, comedy is just as important--to lighten people's spirits and to poke fun at humanity is no less "noble" than being "deep." So, if we're talking about scholarly respect and attention, I think the comedies are underrated. As far as performance/general notice goes... I think Measure for Measure is very underrated. It's an odd, problematic play, but it's a good one. There isn't a single good film of it (only a despicable horrible horrible horrible BBC version that no-one should be forced to watch) I'd love to see a good film made of it; with the right vision, it could lose its problematicy. Kenneth Branagh as Angelo would be grand, although I doubt that's going to happen. He'd be fabulous, though. (On that note, do we have a Measure for Measure discussion going on around here anywhere?) I guess the flip side of this question, is "Which Plays are Overrated?" I've never liked the Henry IVs, but after reading some of Part I, I begin to see how they are quite lyrical and clever, although perhaps not as easily suited to the stage. And there aren't many decent women's roles, so perhaps I am biased....Maybe the Henrys are underrated after all... Very interesting topic. I'll have to give this some more thought. ~Juliet~ |
|
It is bad luck to say the word "Macbeth" in a theater. If you must refer to the play, you must call it "The Scottish Play." There are elaborate rituals for removing the curse if the play's name is uttered. Even so, there have been far more versions of Macbeth on film (counting several derivatives--one of which, Throne of Blood, may be the best of all filmed Macbeths) than Titus. Titus may be seen on stages more due to the penchant of producers to find something new. And, of course, if a producer schedules Titus, no curse will haunt his theater.
And the history plays are all so different that it is deceiving to group them all together. 
