Cleese? oh that might be goood:nod: :D:D
Printable View
Cleese? oh that might be goood:nod: :D:D
Wow, I did not know there was a John Cleese version or a version with Rufus Sewell (who I have seen in many adaptations, especially Hardy and Elliot novels). I went to my local library and checked out the only version they have of the play - the one with Burton/Taylor, but it is far from my favorite film. I just thought it might refresh my memory on the plot and characters, since I read the play last year, or it may have been the year before. I will try to find time to re-read it as we go along.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
Question: why are there two separate threads on "Taming of the Shrew" ? This might confuse people.
I am on to Scene 1 & 2, but still very curious about this induction. It seems very dismissive on the BBC film maker's part to delete it. I can visualize all kinds of interesting and imaginative techniques. One would be the whole film made through the eyes of Chris, as the play truly is. It would begin with him narrating and setting up the scenario. They might add his commentaries through the play. At the end he might be Shakespeare himself, a grandchild of Katarina telling the tale, or oh heck, you get the picture. Can't you hear him, slurring his words, sounding a little or a lot foolish?
I will have to find the Liz and Richard version. What a duo!
Oh, yes, Virgil... I think your assumption about Chris's state of intoxication is correct. I really am beginning to like him as a vehicle into the play. Made no sense at first, but that is what digging into is all about.
You know, Red, I didn't catch on to what you meant when I first read this. Now I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
There is a different thread dedicated to the discussion of each act to make the discussion more concentrated. They are all clearly labeled so, hopefully, there won't be any confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
There is also a general thread for more general aspects and questions.
Thanks. I made this point in light of some I will be making as we progress deeper into the play. Althought the play - on its surface - appears to be about the perennial "battle of the sexes," I think there's more to it, and that the idea of "choosing" one's identity will play a crucial role. More on that later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
It is frequently done since it seeds stage difficulties. Do you keep sly on stage distaracting the audience from the Kate & Petruchio the whole time? When or how do you get him off? Do you go back to him later? Since there's no scene available for it what does one do with it? A lot of directors just eliminate it, but I think it can have a lot to add if you bookend the play with Sly somehow. There's no evidence that Shakespeare did this, but I would like to see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesta Luna
He begins speaking in verse. you can tell because of the capital letters at the beginning of his lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Make sure you follow it up with Irvin Leigh Matus' excellent book, Shakespeare: In Fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Yeah. Confirmed athiest and homosexual, spying for the English government in continental Europe is called back by the Queen and stabbed through the head by his own bodyguard. Had he lived, this may have been a Marlowe reading series instead of Shakespeare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
X
Are you allowed to extend the part of the Induction? If you can't do it verbally, I'd certainly have Sly and his 'wife' go off to bed with the others at the end (well, not actually with them if you get my meaning). However I think that's sort of implied in Act 1 Scene 1, when Sly wishes that the play was over though he praises it (presumably so he can enjoy some 'alone' time with his 'wife')