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!
Printable View
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
Then I guess we'll have to make the conversation extra exciting.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 liked all the history plays.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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
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!
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 Quark
I never disputed it being a great play but I do think it may be 'under-rated' as you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.:(
It might be slightly overshowed by its predecessor 1 Henry IV - which, admittedly is a superior play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.
Oh that explains it then. Maybe she did mean the voting to end later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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:
Mayneverhave - Yes both Henry IV plays are excellent and perhaps better than Richard II.
Certainly. The dominant (and exquisite) verse of Richard II seguays nicely into the prose of Falstaff in Henry IV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Janine:Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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 :).