Jump to content


King Lear - Nt

Simon Russel Beale/Sam Mendes

  • Please log in to reply
308 replies to this topic

#41 Epicoene

Epicoene

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1233 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:19 AM

This page is intentionally left blank.

#42 Honoured Guest

Honoured Guest

    Dis Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2519 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:52 AM

.

#43 Epicoene

Epicoene

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1233 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:23 PM

I remember Peter O'Toole saying he thought it was just fine the audience were laughing all the way through his Kensington Gore-splattered Macbeth at the Haymarket (?) about 100 years ago. Turning a negative into a positive. Well done.

#44 Backdrifter

Backdrifter

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 999 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:London
  • Interests:Moving, sleeping, eating, not being here

    Gender says 'not telling' but, clue: I own some Y chromosomes

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:59 PM

I find it absurd that people have such certainty what Shakespeare "intended" with specific lines, and to therefore go on to say a certain kind of reaction is wrong, or the result of poor acting/direction etc. For me, one of the great things about Shakespeare's work is its adaptability in how it's interpreted, presented, staged, and so on. I've seen the tragedies mined for laughs that never occurred to me might arise from them, and it's sometimes worked, not always by any stretch but anything might not work.

If a certain approach to specific lines doesn't work for someone, or an audience reaction to it is annoying, so be it, but it doesn't make it wrong.

I do however agree that not all opinions are valid. To suggest they are is itself not valid.
Turn up the signal... wipe out the noise

#45 armadillo

armadillo

    Advanced Member

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 2740 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:17 AM

 Backdrifter, on 08 December 2012 - 10:59 PM, said:

I find it absurd that people have such certainty what Shakespeare "intended" with specific lines, and to therefore go on to say a certain kind of reaction is wrong, or the result of poor acting/direction etc. For me, one of the great things about Shakespeare's work is its adaptability in how it's interpreted, presented, staged, and so on. I've seen the tragedies mined for laughs that never occurred to me might arise from them, and it's sometimes worked, not always by any stretch but anything might not work.

If a certain approach to specific lines doesn't work for someone, or an audience reaction to it is annoying, so be it, but it doesn't make it wrong.

I do however agree that not all opinions are valid. To suggest they are is itself not valid.


What Backdrifter said. I'm so glad I ignored all the naysayers on this forum ('the only reason to see Shakespeare is the language') and went to a bunch of the Globe to Globe productions where I had an opportunity to see how non-Brits interpret the Bard. Sometimes in ways that really wouldn't have gone down well with the 'I know exactly what Will intended' brigade.

#46 Epicoene

Epicoene

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1233 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 02:34 AM

 Backdrifter, on 08 December 2012 - 10:59 PM, said:

I've seen the tragedies mined for laughs that never occurred to me might arise from them,

You have missed the point of the discussion. When you say "mined" you mean the director and actors have deliberately set out to find laughs in the text and succeeded in doing do. What we are actually talking about here is people laughing where neither the director nor the actors have intended laughs to be. In fact your post supports my points rather than Armadillo's "any reaction at all is just fine even if one person laughs like a drain when Glocester is blinded because the actor doing the blinding is in a TV sitcom".

#47 Backdrifter

Backdrifter

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 999 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:London
  • Interests:Moving, sleeping, eating, not being here

    Gender says 'not telling' but, clue: I own some Y chromosomes

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:56 PM

 Epicoene, on 09 December 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

What we are actually talking about here is people laughing where neither the director nor the actors have intended laughs to be.
Even if I did miss the main point, it still doesn't matter if someone laughs at something not intended as funny, other than if it annoys you, in which case, that's irritating, but tough. All kinds of things not intended as funny get laughed at. So what? I'd kind of agree if as you said the laughter arises from nothing more than the fact the laughing person somehow "expects" the actor giving the line to be funny because of other stuff they've done.

I don't think my post did support your comments - I hope not, anyway, if it did it was unintentional.
Turn up the signal... wipe out the noise

#48 Poly

Poly

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 377 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 26 April 2013 - 02:40 PM

Has Adrian Scarborough been cast as the Fool? That would be amazing.

#49 Polly1

Polly1

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 366 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 03:34 PM

 Poly, on 26 April 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Has Adrian Scarborough been cast as the Fool? That would be amazing.
Yes it would! Just perfect casting. Hope your tip off is from a reliable source :)

#50 Pharaoh's number 2

Pharaoh's number 2

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3741 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 26 April 2013 - 03:38 PM

I'm near 100% sure it's the case. Great casting.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users