Skip to comments.Janet Suzman 'Mad as a Snake' Over Rylance and Shakespeare 'Myths'
Posted on 09/04/2012 12:39:06 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Janet Suzman 'mad as a snake' over Rylance and Shakespeare 'myths'
In the Winter's Tale, his Sicilia and Bohemia, have no geographical reality. (Bohemia has a desert and a Sea Coast) As usual, Shakespeare just takes that from source material, and he doesn't really care about geographical or historical accuracy.
My favorite is the clock chiming in Julius Caeser.
It’s amazing that people with this much exposure, don’t remember historical verisimilitude was not what he was going for.
More disgusting herpephobia.
What difference does that make? If the author of Shakespeare plays had been in Renaissance Italy, he would have heard clocks chiming. A sea coast in Bohemia is an "anamundism", clocks chiming in early imperial Rome is an anachronism.
"The big thing in his favour is this extraordinary visit to Italy," said Rylance last year. "You would expect a playwright who set 14 of 37 plays in Italy to have been there, and the knowledge is exact."
In Measure for Measure - which takes place in German-speaking Vienna - Shakespeare writes a play whose principal characters have Italianate names.
In A Winter's Tale characters are shipwrecked off the coast of Bohemia - which is a landlocked region of the modern-day Czech Republic.
In Two Gentlemen of Verona characters sail from landlocked Verona to landlocked Milan.
Rylance may perform these plays, but he either hasn't read them or he failed geography.
Related to anamnesis?
It’s amusing that the “intellectuals” always come up with a crazy theories to explain away people without their “education” or “breeding” out performing them.
Much Ado about Nothing
Sir Henry Neville was the "Winston Churchill" of Shakespeare's day.He wrote in a notebook references to the deposition of Richard II and notes toward directions for the coronation scene in Henry VIII - a play produced eleven years after the date of these preliminary notes. Also, there was the Northumberland Manuscript, with Nevilles's name at its head, Neville's family motto and poem beneath it, and Shakespeare's signature being practised at the foot of that document.
On what basis do you compare him to Winston Churchill?
ding ding ding
Good question. Let's compare:
Churchill: First Lord of the Admiralty. Neville: Deputy Sherriff of Berkshire.
Churchill: Prime Minister. Neville: Ambassador to France.
Churchill: prevented Mosley and other plotters from overthrowing the government. Neville: plotted with Lord Devereaux to stage a coup.
Churchill: lost in his attempt retain the Prime Ministership. Neville: lost in his attempt to become Home Secretary.
Hmmm . . . not much basis at all, apparently.
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
Thanks nickcarraway. Good thing The Bard wasn't trying to make documentaries, eh? Even his historical plays merely use some old pegs to hang new paper.
Ben Jonson eulogized William Shakespeare as “the wonder of our stage” and called him “sweet swan of Avon”. The non-Stratfordians are without exception suffering from cranial-rectal inversion.
To sum up: four years after Shakespeare’s death, he was included in a printed tribute to England’s greatest deceased poets; sometime in the first seven years after his death, a monument was erected to him in Stratford, and another poem, widely circulated in manuscript, suggested that he should have been buried in Westminster Abbey; seven years after his death, a massive edition of his plays was published along with four eulogies, the longest and most affectionate of them written by England’s poet laureate; around the same time (and possibly earlier) another manuscript eulogy was circulating; and over the next twenty years a dozen new eulogies appeared in print, including three in the second edition of his plays and three in an edition of his poems.
It’s true that the magnitude of Shakespeare’s genius was not fully recognized during and shortly after his life, but there were leading indicators. The fact that his reputation is greater 400 years after his death, than 40 years after his death shows is that genius shows in the test of time, not the fads of the day.
He was recognized as the greatest of his generation back then, but he both died young and the era of the Elizabethan / Jacobian live stage didn’t last all that long. During Victorian times Shakespeare was revived, but the scripts were doctored to remove some of the bawdiness, add then-current euphemisms, and to add stupidities like, Romeo and Juliet survived.
The 37 known surviving full plays are not all equally accessible today, for sure, but appreciation for Shakespeare really has picked up in the 20th century, and movie treatments began early in the silent era (I think the first one was a one-reel production of “King John”). In the 1970s the BBC produced all 37 plays, and a year or so ago I read somewhere (maybe here on FR, if so, probably in a topic you posted) that the BBC was preparing to do so again.
I see a live stage production of one Shakespearean play once a year, and am sometimes surprised at how things are done. A few years back I went to see “Romeo and Juliet” — easily one of the best known plays in history — and wasn’t expecting to be knocked on my ass. The only problem with the play is that inquest at the end, it reminds me of the Bob Cummings role in “Dial M for Murder”. :’)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.