Shakespearean Winter '09

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RG57

Yes Janine I think he likes the first one better. It's an English Robin, apparantly that is partly how my mother gave me my name! And strangely when I read the opening to Richard II, I read "Brought Henry Hereford thy bold son", Hereford is the city of my birth, though born a commener of that city and not (sadly) a Noble.

---

RG57, I don't blame him. I like the first one best, too. How perfect, that he is an English Robin - Lawrence would definitely approve. I then take it you are named Robin; you don't have to say, if you wish to remain anonymous.
That is a coincidence about Hereford. Isn't the city also mentioned in a line from "My Fair Lady", the musical? Actually, I always laugh when I hear the name 'Gloucester' mentioned in the Shakespeare history plays. I live in the US, but our small town is named Gloucester. I guess, I was destined to study Shakespeare.;) Many of the streets in our town are also named after English lords, strange because my town is notoriously Irish Catholic and also was originally settled by the Dutch...so how did they come up with the English names for the streets? These are some of them - Monmouth, Sussex, Somerset, Essex, etc....very strange. I think we even have a Henry Avenue, too....that must be for one of the King Henrys...haha. Maybe someone was reading Shakespeare when the streets were named.;):lol:

Excellent, Richard II does look interesting!

Janine, you have guessed correctly yes it is Robin, I have no worries about my first name, I belong to a couple of other forums and usually use Robin in way or another. Strange, you should mention Gloucester, that is the county where my father was born, my mother in Worcestershire, so between us we cover the three counties. My favourite place on earth is the Worcester Beacon on top of the Malvern Hills, a range of hills that go across Herefordshire and Worcestershire. Whenever I see any of our place names in other countries I still get amazed, like Gloucster in your area, I don't know if you get the TV programme Morse in the States, but one episode mentioned Hereford, my eyes lit up and was surprised that they were going to go Hereford in Australia.

Where we live now a lot of the streets are named after Viking Kings and Earls, we move to Orkney 18 years ago!

I downloaded a Richard II e-text so that I do not have to lug old Riverside off the shelf. I will start reading it over the weekend, though I am unclear as to when the discussion starts.

I've read it before, but never studied it with previous instructors, nor seen a production.

I will try to join in with this read, I love R11. There are some standout speeches in it, really great quotes and beautiful language. I seem to remember a lot of imagery about gardens and nature, if I recall correctly. Hi Robin, I'm from quite near your neck of the woods, in Birmingham, (well it's the Midlands anyway, and I can get to Worcester and the Malverns quite easily :D). I've already shown Janine a clip of Birmingham, but your area is lovelier, beautiful countryside and not a big urban sprawl. I have visited Elgar's birthplace in Malvern, but I don't do hills, I'm scared of heights :lol:! Anyway, welcome, R11 is, I think, a very underrated play.

Quote by Jozanny

Quote:

---

I downloaded a Richard II e-text so that I do not have to lug old Riverside off the shelf. I will start reading it over the weekend, though I am unclear as to when the discussion starts.

I've read it before, but never studied it with previous instructors, nor seen a production.

---

That is great. I have the same problem - one heavy book. Where did you find the text? I think also, it may be available on this site. I would really love to listen to the play on CD, or MP3 file, because I read it a few years back and audio-recordings always give me a little more insight and perspective. I will see if I can find it anywhere.
Jozanny, I think we all are a bit unclear on when this discussion will begin. I had thought it would begin in January and was hoping it would also, but I don't know if that is true. Don't quote me on that. Just waiting for it to be officially announced myself.

You will enjoy the play; I actually enjoyed all the history plays very much; which surprised me at the time; but then again I do like history, and stories at least based on true events...I also love stories about the monarchs.

Quote:

---

RG57 Janine, you have guessed correctly yes it is Robin, I have no worries about my first name, I belong to a couple of other forums and usually use Robin in way or another. Strange, you should mention Gloucester, that is the county where my father was born, my mother in Worcestershire, so between us we cover the three counties. My favourite place on earth is the Worcester Beacon on top of the Malvern Hills, a range of hills that go across Herefordshire and Worcestershire. Whenever I see any of our place names in other countries I still get amazed, like Gloucster in your area, I don't know if you get the TV programme Morse in the States, but one episode mentioned Hereford, my eyes lit up and was surprised that they were going to go Hereford in Australia.

---

Robin, nice to know you. I am such a good guesser - haha -just kidding, it was a dead give-away! Yep, Gloucester and it is so oldd it where your father was born. I have often wondered about the place in England of the same name. Now Worchestershire also rings a sort of bell with me. I collect your English antique dishes - the printed ironstone transferware and other English china. You can see in my one album in my profile page. I think the word rings a bell because of Worchester fine china - I love the stuff, although I own very little of it, since it is so pricey. I actually do have a plate I suspect is handpainted and from the factory and painted by a certain artist with some prestige. The thing is I saw one so similar in the Philadelphia Art Museum and felt I might have a true treasure. The plate is stored and I must locate it. Hey, maybe I am rich and don't know it yet? haha...

I don't think we get that show here, but we might. I don't watch much TV and don't have any cable upstairs. Funny right now I am finishing up a book and the setting is western Australia. Perth and Wadoo(?) is mentioned a lot; do you know those places? I don't recall Hereford being mentioned. I also read another Lawrence book set there - "Kangaroo". I found both books to be so interesting in the descriptions of the countryside and the bush.

Quote:

---

Where we live now a lot of the streets are named after Viking Kings and Earls, we move to Orkney 18 years ago!

---

How funny. We have the English names for streets and you have the Viking names for streets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wessexgirl

I will try to join in with this read, I love R11. There are some standout speeches in it, really great quotes and beautiful language. I seem to remember a lot of imagery about gardens and nature, if I recall correctly. Hi Robin, I'm from quite near your neck of the woods, in Birmingham, (well it's the Midlands anyway, and I can get to Worcester and the Malverns quite easily :D). I've already shown Janine a clip of Birmingham, but your area is lovelier, beautiful countryside and not a big urban sprawl. I have visited Elgar's birthplace in Malvern, but I don't do hills, I'm scared of heights :lol:! Anyway, welcome, R11 is, I think, a very underrated play.

---

wessexgirl, I hope you can participate. If it is in January I will be fine but Dec is difficult with all the activities leading up to the holidays. I really want to do this play since I too think it under-rated and a fine one. I also know that there are some very great speeches from it. But my alltime favorite speech is from Henry V - starts off with "Upon the King...." when Henry wanders through his camp at night and ruminates on what it is to be a king. I get goosebumps everytime I read that one or hear it recited.

Wow, the Midlands...I have to go there someday. D.H.Lawrence was originally from the Midlands. I have to go and see his parent's grave and his birthplace, even though his bones or ashes are not really there. I saw the tombstone and it lists him, but his ashes are buried in New Mexico. Have to go to his rance there someday, too.

Robin, it is the hilly areas I would really love to see. Many of Hardy's adaptations seem to take place in those exquisite areas. I bet it is pretty where you live.

Janine, I am using the wikisource version, because I can read the entire play offline, and I don't like Gutenberg's font, and they don't always have an html edition, but feel free to follow your own preferences :)

Here is the url:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Tr...ard_the_Second

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Janine, I am using the wikisource version, because I can read the entire play offline, and I don't like Gutenberg's font, and they don't always have an html edition, but feel free to follow your own preferences :)

Here is the url:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Tr...ard_the_Second

---

Thanks, Jozanny, I like that font too and will copy this version. It will be easier on the eyes to read.

Can't help feeling this reply should be in a different thread (Where do you come from, or something like that!) - I was born in Worcester (England) and know the counties around there, Gloucester, Hereford and Warwickshire well. We were a bus ride away from the Malverns and one of our favourite days out was a trip to the Beacon - not frighteningly high, Robin, but fantastic views over the surrounding countryside. Then we moved to Coventry which was a bus ride away from Stratford, so I was able to go to the theatre for matinees. Before I was born, my mother worked in the Royal Porcelain Works in Worcester so we had quite a bit of the china in the house when I was growing up - employees could buy 'seconds' at give-away prices so we had all unpainted bone china as our everyday ware!

The reference to Hereford in My Fair Lady is the speech-training exercise - In Hertford, Hereford and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly ever happen - to help Eliza sound the haitches that she dropped in her native Cockney!

Your English street names are more likely to be county names than aristocratic names, Janine - most titles are attached to a place (Lord X of Xton) but whereas the placename has survived, often the title has fallen into disuse - there hasn't been a Duke of Monmouth since the seventeenth century, for example, since the last one tried (unsuccessfully) to seize the throne. And Viking names in Orkney - is that because Orkney was once part of a Norse kingdom?

To get back to the proper theme - I'll be glad to read Richard II in the New Year. I saw it earlier in the year as part of The Histories sequence at Stratford and I saw it many years ago there with (I think) David Warner and Ian Richardson.

[QUOTE=kasie;645795]Can't help feeling this reply should be in a different thread (Where do you come from, or something like that!) - I was born in Worcester (England) and know the counties around there, Gloucester, Hereford and Warwickshire well. We were a bus ride away from the Malverns and one of our favourite days out was a trip to the Beacon - not frighteningly high, Robin, but fantastic views over the surrounding countryside. Then we moved to Coventry which was a bus ride away from Stratford, so I was able to go to the theatre for matinees. Before I was born, my mother worked in the Royal Porcelain Works in Worcester so we had quite a bit of the china in the house when I was growing up - employees could buy 'seconds' at give-away prices so we had all unpainted bone china as our everyday ware![quote]

Hi kasie,
You need to visit RG57 and wessexgirl's profile pages - we need to form a club - the England or UK Appreciation club....seriously, we could do so in the 'social club' section...it would be quite interesting, since I am always saving photos from that region - castles, cemetaries, estates, author's birthsites, the moors, etc... all kinds of things. This information above, that you now provided, I find so interesting - thanks so much. I love to hear of these places. I like how you explained our street names (below) - that does throw a different light on the subject.

Now I must know more about the Royal Porcelain Works in Worcester...how grand to get sample or 'seconds' pieces and blanks....that is so cool. You must view my photo file of my transferware collection in my profile page. I will soon have to remove it, because I want to post more of my grand-daughter and then of Christmas. I will keep it up this week, but then it may be gone.

Quote:

---

The reference to Hereford in My Fair Lady is the speech-training exercise - In Hertford, Hereford and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly ever happen - to help Eliza sound the haitches that she dropped in her native Cockney!

---

Yep, that is exactly what I had in-mind! I always laughed at that scene - great movie, too!

Quote:

---

Your English street names are more likely to be county names than aristocratic names, Janine - most titles are attached to a place (Lord X of Xton) but whereas the placename has survived, often the title has fallen into disuse - there hasn't been a Duke of Monmouth since the seventeenth century, for example, since the last one tried (unsuccessfully) to seize the throne. And Viking names in Orkney - is that because Orkney was once part of a Norse kingdom?

---

This is so interesting to me...thanks...:)

Quote:

---

To get back to the proper theme - I'll be glad to read Richard II in the New Year. I saw it earlier in the year as part of The Histories sequence at Stratford and I saw it many years ago there with (I think) David Warner and Ian Richardson.

---

Well, as far as the proper theme is concerned, it seems we are all in a bit of 'limbo' here. I still don't know when the actual discussion thread will be started or what it will be called. I would suppose the discussion would offically start next month but I could be wrong.

Glad you will be joining the discussion. Must have been great with Ian Richardson - think I saw that advertized on Amazon. I saw some clips, from a version starring Derek Jacobi, and it looked to be quite fine. They can be viewed on Youtube...I plan to watch them again myself. Wish I owned the DVD.

Looks like my horse won (or is winning). I studied Richard II this term, actually. Why did I vote for it then? My Shakespeare class is pretty stagnant in terms of discussion, and I'm tired of talking with my professors. As in all things, I must turn to the internet...

I've seen the Derek Jacobi performance as well - it's available on Theatre in Video. Not a bad performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

Looks like my horse won (or is winning). I studied Richard II this term, actually. Why did I vote for it then? My Shakespeare class is pretty stagnant in terms of discussion, and I'm tired of talking with my professors. As in all things, I must turn to the internet...

I've seen the Derek Jacobi performance as well - it's available on Theatre in Video. Not a bad performance.

---

mayneverhave, funny you said that about your horse, because in "Richard III" the famous line is "My horse, my horse, a kingdom for my horse." - think I quoted that correctly, but I am not good at quoting so correct me if I used the wrong words...it might be 'a horse'....I just know it is the demise of Richard. I think afterwards they refer to him as a 'dog'....needless to say no one cried at his death...

I would like to buy that DVD with Jacobi. I admire his acting greatly. I have his "Hamlet" on DVD and it is quite intense and a fine performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I would like to buy that DVD with Jacobi. I admire his acting greatly. I have his "Hamlet" on DVD and it is quite intense and a fine performance.

---

Ah, you must mean his performance as Hamlet, as opposed to his role as Claudius in Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet.

He's a fine actor, fantastic speaking voice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

Ah, you must mean his performance as Hamlet, as opposed to his role as Claudius in Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet.

He's a fine actor, fantastic speaking voice.

---

Yes, Jacobi's "Hamlet" way prior to Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet; Jacobi is super young in it. I think it was done by the RSC or BBC. It is a fine production, but I prefer Branagh's production, since the sets are sparse in the Jacobi version, and dark. However, think the acting is superlative, but I do prefer one scene in Kenneth's Hamlet - the mirrored "To Be or Not to Be" speech - that is perfection. I own about 5 different Hamlet's on DVD's and tapes. I like them all, but watch the Branagh one the most. As Branagh explained this once during an interview, the film he made is merely his 'Hamlet"; everyone has a little different perception and concept of Hamlet, and that is the way it should be. I for one, embrass the 'variety' of the various productions of 'Hamlet'. They all have something great to offer. Jacobi was incredible in Branagh's 'Hamlet' as Claudius.

I wish I owned Jacobi's fine performance as 'I Claudius'. I happened to see several segments of that film on Youtube - extraordinary! I need to buy that DVD. I like Jacobi immensely. You can see him on Youtube also directing a young Ken Branagh in his first stage performance of 'Hamlet.'...those videos are so interesting - watching the process...Think they are called "Discovering Hamlet".

I remember Richard II being a surprisingly good read. It's not one usually read, but I thought it had some great moments.

When does the discussion start?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

I remember Richard II being a surprisingly good read. It's not one usually read, but I thought it had some great moments.

When does the discussion start?

---

Hey Quark, You are really making a real comeback and getting around this place today...;) You probably think I am following you.:lol:

"Richard II" is a pretty good read; even though I did vote for "Richard III"; to me that one is like a thriller.

I have been asking the same exact question and just don't know where everyone had run off to. Maybe, they already started a new thread. If so, I would have thought they would have placed a link in this voting thread. I will look around today. Hope that you can participate in this discussion. It should be a good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

You probably think I am following you.:lol:

---

There are worse people to be followed by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

"Richard II" is a pretty good read; even though I did vote for "Richard III"; to me that one is like a thriller.

---

True, but I like the idea of reading one of the lesser-read plays. It means that many of the people posting will be coming to the play for the first time, and first-impressions always make good posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I have been asking the same exact question and just don't know where everyone had run off to. Maybe, they already started a new thread.

---

I think it just fizzled uneventfully. I warned them about that play. I did. No one listened to me, though.

Well, no matter when the actual start is, I shall be getting into it this weekend.

Aside from John of Gaunt, the first couple acts are slightly boring - specifically the formal combat scene in Act 1.

Once the usurpation begins, however, things pick up, but perhaps I'll save my thoughts for the actual discussion thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

There are worse people to be followed by.

---

Well, glad you see it that way...:lol: Wait, does that mean 'I am the lesser of other evils'? :(

Quote:

---

True, but I like the idea of reading one of the lesser-read plays. It means that many of the people posting will be coming to the play for the first time, and first-impressions always make good posts.

---

Yes, but I read both and thought this one less exciting, and that normally, the group needs something exciting to hold their attention. Already mayneverhave said that "the first couple acts are boring"...this was my thoughs on first reading that play but then it does pick up. I just hope the participants in this discussion stick with it, unlike the last play we attempted. With Richard III I was fascinated from the first words. But Richard II is a good play, a fine play. We just have to stick with it.

Quote:

---

I think it just fizzled uneventfully. I warned them about that play. I did. No one listened to me, though.

---

Actually, I was comparing the two Richard plays not the MWOW with this Richard play. It did fizzle out, but we are all still saying we might revive it; I know, that is a long shot; especially since this one will begin soon....then the other will fade into oblivion perhaps.....

Being as I have not read RII, I went to the library and borrowed the audio play before getting down to serious reading. This too is on my list of 'to do's' tomorrow!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayneverhave

Aside from John of Gaunt, the first couple acts are slightly boring - specifically the formal combat scene in Act 1.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Yes, but I read both and thought this one less exciting, and that normally, the group needs something exciting to hold their attention.

---

Then I guess we'll have to make the conversation extra exciting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Then I guess we'll have to make the conversation extra exciting.

---

:lol:Yeah, really, someone better make it extra exciting or we will all fall asleep this time of year.:yawnb: It is a good play, but takes sometime to get into. I liked all the history plays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

:lol:Yeah, really, someone better make it extra exciting or we will all fall asleep this time of year.:yawnb: It is a good play, but takes sometime to get into.

---

I am a little surpised these lesser-known plays keep winning. I suppose we're all tired of the classics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

I am a little surpised these lesser-known plays keep winning. I suppose we're all tired of the classics.

---

Not me! I never tire of the classic. I could see "Hamlet" performed or read it dozens, and dozens of times. I keep always pondering and wondering, about Lord Hamlet. Same with "Richard III" and "Othello"....they are all so amazing to me, I don't care how often they were discussed in the past or present, I would discuss them, there is always something more; besides I don't even recall that they ever did discuss these plays on here; maybe someone did years back, before I joined.

Hey, Quark, I like the alteration to your avatar - perfect 'Quark' for the season. That really make me laugh, first time I realised those were fir branches around the edge....haha....very clever indeed! :lol: Leave it to you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

I am a little surpised these lesser-known plays keep winning. I suppose we're all tired of the classics.

---

Richard II is not a lesser known play. It's a great play. If it's truly lesser known, it's incredibly under rated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Richard II is not a lesser known play. It's a great play. If it's truly lesser known, it's incredibly under rated.

---

I never disputed it being a great play but I do think it may be 'under-rated' as you say.

Virgil,....so funny....I think we mentioned you name and wa la!... you appeared, just like magic.

Do you know when this play will be officially starting or when it will be announced? Not anxious, just curious. Will it start in January?
The next few weeks are impossible for me - I have all the decorating to do.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Richard II is not a lesser known play. It's a great play. If it's truly lesser known, it's incredibly under rated.

---

It might be slightly overshowed by its predecessor 1 Henry IV - which, admittedly is a superior play.

It is, however a great play.

The voting ended on 12/1, so the discussion begins in January? Scher? (Calling Scher...)

Jozy and others who ave asked. The Shakespeare discussion group was to change with every season, so that we were to do four plays per year. i think Scher made a mistake when she listed the vote ending date on Dec 1st. I thnk she meant Dec 21st. That's why she hasnt closed this vote down.

Mayneverhave - Yes both Henry IV plays are excellent and perhaps better than Richard II.

Oops was editing and posted twice by accident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Jozy and others who have asked. The Shakespeare discussion group was to change with every season, so that we were to do four plays per year. I think Scher made a mistake when she listed the vote ending date on Dec 1st. I think she meant Dec 21st. That's why she hasn't closed this vote down.

---

Oh that explains it then. Maybe she did mean the voting to end later.

Quote:

---

Mayneverhave - Yes both Henry IV plays are excellent and perhaps better than Richard II.

---

I liked all the Henry plays...maybe "Henry VI" was got a bit dull...at least, my favorites were "Henry IV" part 1 and 2.... and then "Henry V." I have a favorite speech in the last one. Personally, I think, if you read the main history plays in order, the whole story makes more sense....they are almost like sequels, don't you think?...at least from "Richard II", then the Henry's through to "Richard III" - they all lead up and involve the two houses - the Yorks and the Lancasters and the War of the Roses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

at least from "Richard II", then the Henry's through to "Richard III" - they all lead up and involve the two houses - the Yorks and the Lancasters and the War of the Roses.

---

Certainly. The dominant (and exquisite) verse of Richard II seguays nicely into the prose of Falstaff in Henry IV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I liked all the Henry plays...maybe "Henry VI" was got a bit dull...at least, my favorites were "Henry IV" part 1 and 2.... and then "Henry V." I have a favorite speech in the last one. Personally, I think, if you read the main history plays in order, the whole story makes more sense....they are almost like sequels, don't you think?...at least from "Richard II", then the Henry's through to "Richard III" - they all lead up and involve the two houses - the Yorks and the Lancasters and the War of the Roses.

---

Janine:

It has been quite some time since I've been a cable television subscriber, and I don't think I ever will be again, because after management is done renovating my unit, I am going DSL and what not and will open a Netflix account, so who needs cable if I can live off movies? Right? But when I did pay those cable fees, I was glued to Bravo, back in the 90's when they still showed a ton of foreign art films, and they used to run an old BBC production, in black and white, called The Wars of The Roses, and I believe it was an English mash of all the histories, with Ian (he did the android in the first Alien movie, I know his full name but I'm blocked...) playing Richard III, but not strictly faithful to the plays in the entire. If one wants to see Shakespeare as an abstract art mini-series though, it works.:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Richard II is not a lesser known play. It's a great play. If it's truly lesser known, it's incredibly under rated.

---

I agree :nod:. I read it for a class on "Kingship in the Renaissance", where it was taken to illustrate legitimate (?) regicide (along with Marlowe's Edward the Second).
I also remember something about an anonymous play called The First Part of Richard II, which leads up to the events of Richard II. The debate whether Shakespeare wrote that one, too, still isn't settled, if I remember correctly...

I liked Richard II a lot, it's very interesting in a psychological way. But then again, which of Willy's plays isn't..?
I would have voted for Coriolanus, though :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Janine:

It has been quite some time since I've been a cable television subscriber, and I don't think I ever will be again, because after management is done renovating my unit, I am going DSL and what not and will open a Netflix account, so who needs cable if I can live off movies? Right? But when I did pay those cable fees, I was glued to Bravo, back in the 90's when they still showed a ton of foreign art films, and they used to run an old BBC production, in black and white, called The Wars of The Roses, and I believe it was an English mash of all the histories, with Ian (he did the android in the first Alien movie, I know his full name but I'm blocked...) playing Richard III, but not strictly faithful to the plays in the entire. If one wants to see Shakespeare as an abstract art mini-series though, it works.:p

---

Jozanny, I hardly ever watch TV. I have my own TV upstairs and only watch DVD's on that one. For one, I hate commercials; they drive me insane; I have no patience with them and nowdays there are so many, that you wonder just how many minutes of the actual show you get to see. I do occasionally, watch some TV downstairs, but that is basically my mother's domain, so she is not too eager to give up her shows. I really don't miss TV. I did however, apply for the government coupon for the box one will need in January, if you don't have cable installed. Downstairs we have the basic cable; upstairs not installed. I heard with the box one can get a very clear picture; of course, you need a good set of indoor antenae and they have improved them since the old rabbit ears. This I may invest in. I admit I do like things on BBS and a few other stations. With the box, you can even get a few other stations, you could not get before. The box with the coupon may only cost about $20...so it is worth it. DSL is great. My friend got the package for computer and for TV - Fios. I have DSL for my computer but not my TV. I really like it and I have the basic plan. It is quite fast.

I loved that station Bravo! That BBC production, in black and white, called 'The Wars of The Roses', sounded pretty good. Was it Ian McKellen? Is this the film:

http://www.amazon.com/Richard-III-Ia...9197899&sr=8-1

Althought this looks updated and he is playing "Richard III"; maybe he reprised the role and they made it modern..

Well, they never are strictly faithful to the plays in the entire.

"If one wants to see Shakespeare as an abstract art mini-series though, it works"...well, most times that works for me. Everyone has a different concept of Shakespeare's plays and characters so I find the variations in productions actually fascinating. I ready accept most of them and see them as a separate art form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schokokeks

I agree :nod:. I read it for a class on "Kingship in the Renaissance", where it was taken to illustrate legitimate (?) regicide (along with Marlowe's Edward the Second).
I also remember something about an anonymous play called The First Part of Richard II, which leads up to the events of Richard II. The debate whether Shakespeare wrote that one, too, still isn't settled, if I remember correctly...

---

Hi Schokokeks, haven't seen you around lately. Interesting what you say here about the Richard play and there being a part 1; now when you said this "The debate whether Shakespeare wrote that one, too, still isn't settled" - do you mean just the first part of all of the play - Richard II included?

Quote:

---

I liked Richard II a lot, it's very interesting in a psychological way. But then again, which of Willy's plays isn't..?

---

I agree with your last line - exactly - which is not psychological and great?

Quote:

---

I would have voted for Coriolanus, though :).

---

You know, I have this desire to read that play - was it really good? I know that Kenneth Branagh played that one onstage in London, so that piqued my interest in it. It looks to be incredible and very dramatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Hi Schokokeks, haven't seen you around lately.

---

Hi Janine! Yes, I've been away for some time, but now I'm back again :).

Quote:

---

Interesting what you say here about the Richard play and there being a part 1; now when you said this "The debate whether Shakespeare wrote that one, too, still isn't settled" - do you mean just the first part of all of the play - Richard II included?

---

I meant that - while it is certain that Shakespeare wrote the whole of Richard II - it is still not clear whether he might not also be the author of another play called The First Part of Richard II, which according to wikipedia exists only as one manuscript and is anonymous.
I hope I'm making sense :D.

Quote:

---

You know, I have this desire to read [Coriolanus] - was it really good?

---

I haven't read it yet, but, being a happy student of Classics :), I'm immensly interested in Shakespeare's ancient Rome as part of the reception of antiquity in the Renaissance. I absolutely loved both Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra, but so far never got around to reading or watching Coriolanus.

Quote:

---

I know that Kenneth Branagh played that one onstage in London, so that piqued my interest in it.

---

Yes, Kenneth Branagh is such a genius! In fact, two of my favourite actors, Toby Stephens and Ralph Fiennes, also played Coriolanus.. There's got to be something about that play! ;)

I started reading Richard II last night. I'm very much enjoying it, i haven't read much Shakespeare since i left school and this play doesn't find me reaching for my dictionary as much as Hamlet. I don't know why i had never thought of reading one of his history's before, being a history student and all.

Also, i believe this was the tv show Jozanny was refering to:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060039/
god bless imdb.

Okay i finished slightly early :D i loved it though. Will have to re-read parts when we start discussing it.