Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:59:52 PM »

agree too much is too much. but bad shakespeare is available in NYC, as ShakesPier, the Hudson River festival. Done as campy play with musical interludes on the Pier. The setting is splendid, the acting farcical. Maybe you could send your stuff to New York?!

Archive 10-7-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:59:07 PM »

Jaidn, i also believe that the submission we experience to Shakespeare has a negative result on present day theatre, but I do admit to having a soft spot for him as well. Going back to the initial question, don't you think that all our comments so far have actually implied that real life theatre is not entertaining? Think of Brecht: "if art reflects life it does so with special mirrors". Theatre can be entertaining as it can be creative and 'real'. I'm worried we're missing something important here... John

Archive 13-1-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:58:33 PM »

Well, it's not that I don't like Shakespier, I like him fine when it is a good production. Or even sometimes to read (though I did once work on the Scottish Pay, and it was bad). My point is that in the UK 25% of all plays produced in the year 2000 were by that one writer. Right now there is a bit of overkill going on, four film or TV versions of Othelo alone this month. What I would acctually like to see is the works of Shakespier being controled in the same way that the Rogers and Hammerstien body of work is. Where the estate make sure that each and every production is valid and of a good quality, and that there isn't a glut of productions at one time.

It would also be good if some of the funding here in the UK didn't go to endless fringe versions of 'Romeo…' or 'Midsumers…' but went to developing new writing, and new drama. Anyway got a bit preachy there sorry :)

Archive 13-1-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:57:49 PM »

Hey everyone...welll I just wanted to comment on this as well...I think that both types serve a very real purpose, tho I suppose alot of it depends on the audience as well, mostly I tend to be inclined to things that are of a more serious nature most of the time, but comedy definitely has its place in that too, I mean, you can't be morose and depressive ALL the time (and believe me, I know, I've tried this, it only works for so long a time), the best comedy is often rife with seriousness underlying it as well, you just have to look for it...tho gosh, Jaidn! You don't like Shakespeare! Well, maybe its just because of being an English major myself, and having his work crammed at me all the time ("You MUST like him, you have no choice"!) but come on! He did some good stuff don't you think? :)

Archive 12-1-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:57:08 PM »

Hi John, for me both types of theatre, that which confronts difficult real-life issues and that which simply provides enjoyable entertainment, are utterly essential.

For information on Sarah your best bet for now is to buy Aleks Sierz's book 'In-Yer-Face Theatre', which has a comprehensive chapter on her first 4 plays, and Heidi Stephenson's 'Rage and Reason', which has an in-depth interview with her on Blasted and Phaedra.

Don't miss Graham Saunders' book on her plays, 'Love Me Or Kill Me', coming out in March.

Archive 12-1-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:56:33 PM »

Thanks Jaidn, I definetely agree with your view, and I also enjoy comedy based theatre, but don't think liking one rules out liking the other. Has anybody else got any comments? John

Archive 11-1-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:56:03 PM »

Personaly, I don't agree with that statement either, half the time. The other half of the time I do... Watching realistic Theatre that deals with the problems of real life, is entertaining and can help people focus on the problems in there own life. Though I also enjoy comedy based theatre.

There should really be a mix of both. Though at the moment all you get is 'Cold Feet' clones or 'Lock, Stock...' Alikes. Don't get me started on Shakespier!

Archive 11-1-2002
Posted by: archive
« on: August 16, 2007, 08:55:25 PM »

Hi, I´m writing an essay on the job or function of theatre to entertain people and not rub their noses in the mess of real life. I don´t agree with this statement and wanted to use Kane, with special attention given to Blasted, to illustrate my answer. I´m struggling with finding information on her and I was wondering if any of you had any ideas or comments on the matter?

Cheers, John

Archive 11-1-2002