BS: shakespeare

Subject: RE: BS: shakespeare
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 10:43 AM

PS (to address the actual topic raised): I don't see any particular establishment-lackeyism in the above works I referred to, and am not exactly sure how that term is being defined here. As we know, Shakespeare's historical accuracy is sometimes - shall we say - a bit fanciful. But (a) he had to consider his plays in a commercial bums-on-seats (or bums-on-ground) context, which meant providing a strong dramatic line; and (b) he still had to be a bit careful of what he said, owing to the prevailing politics of the day, and also which powerful families he was in danger of offending. It concentrates the mind wonderfully.

Subject: RE: BS: shakespeare
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 10:31 AM

I like the Henry IV's and Richard II - I saw Timothy Dalton play Hal at the Roundhouse in London years ago, and also thought the Beeb's Hollow Crown series was superb (worth the price of the DVDs just for the banish-not-Falstaff scene alone). On the strength of that, I've bought, but not yet watched, the next plays in the line. Looking forward to Cumberbatch as Richard III, and also Sophie Okonedo, who's long been a fave of mine.

Wish WS had written a play about Queen Elizabeth & Mary Queen of Scots, but he wouldn't have dared, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: shakespeare
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 09:14 AM

I think they are much ado about nothing but if that is as you like it then all's well that ends well.

Subject: BS: shakespeare
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 05:02 AM

in my opinion his content of historical plays he shows himself to be an establishment lackey. however he does write beautifully. how do thers feel about his work