(no subject)

[thehefner]

I saw PERICLES at the Shakespeare Theatre free-for-all tonight and it was every bit as wonderful and moving as it was the first time I saw it last year. Dear lord, I say again, it might be the best show I've ever seen at Shakespeare Theatre. All the more amazing considering that the script itself is utterly horrible. Anybody who decries TITUS ANDRONICUS as Shakespeare's worst play has never read PERICLES or TIMON OF ATHENS. I'm still not sure if that latter can ever be done entertainingly.

I don't know if I could ever do a production of PERICLES that could even come close to matching this version. Like the movie of TITUS, I think it might be the last word. But if I ever *did* do one, I'd like to do the physicial/healer as Miracle Max from THE PRINCESS BRIDE. For god's sake, that whole scene was totally, "She's only mostly dead!"

This play was so good, I may have to drag Bloo out to see it next Sunday after my second matinee of THE DAVID DANCE.

Oh yeah, I neglected to mention... Bloo's coming down to DC this week for four days! SQUEE!

Comments

[kmousie.livejournal.com]

But if I ever *did* do one, I'd like to do the physicial/healer as Miracle Max from THE PRINCESS BRIDE. For god's sake, that whole scene was totally, "She's only mostly dead!"

That would be so awesome!

I'm glad you had a good time!

[kali921.livejournal.com]

Darling precious sugar plum, did you see the movie version of Richard III set in a 1930's fascist setting, where the title credits were done with a machine gun shooting the the shapes of the letters into a wall?

AWESOME! Ian McKellan was in it.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

But of course! It's a ton of fun, but hardly what I'd call the definitive film version of that play. (if there's one, I'd say it's Olivier's version, even if it is rather dry)

Have you seen TITUS and/or Branagh's HENRY V? Those are the only two truly perfect Shakespeare films, IMO. TITUS is pure joy.

[adaptor.livejournal.com]

Oh, score! I saw Pericles at the Stratford Shakespeare festival in Canada a few years back and it was just awesome! You could tell the script was not one you'd be eager to see another production of, but I'm glad to hear it's been done well at least twice now.

[adaptor.livejournal.com]

Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing rocks my world. That may be difinitive for me.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that has only grown on me over the years. Even Keanu's performance too. It's a whole movie of pure merry.

[tompurdue.livejournal.com]

Actually, my thought for the healer was Dr. Strangelove.

I've got a lot of ideas for this play, actually, and I'm going to propose it for the Rudes in a few years. After the sheer spectacle of this production has died down; I can't match it.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

So was the general consensus of the play a positive one? I worry that this is yet another example of something that I just ooh and ahh over and everyone else thinks was "eh, it was ok" at best.

[interdisciple.livejournal.com]

i honestly don't understand why this script gets so much flack for being "bad" -- if it were so bad, how could it work so brilliantly? i'm inclined to think it's just harder to access and tap into performance-wise, with the shakespeare theatre's production of it proving how brilliantly it can indeed be done when the right effort is made, with the talent, resources, and insight to drive it and do it as it should be done.

both plot-wise and dialogue-wise, though, i felt it was not only accessible, but clever--chock full of wordplay, as well as sincere and moving...even thought-provoking. maybe relative to his other work, pericles is considered weaker, but having been exposed to a bit of the canon, i personally think pericles is among my favorite... maybe i'm cult in that way.

the script's rhythmic dimension was incredibly well-captured, i especially felt, with parts of the play almost resembling a musical. it's probably easy to overlook, but given that's what resonates with me half the time, i wouldn't be surprised if this weighs in heavily on my assessment.

anyway. i'm sure there's a reason ppl rip it; share, if you don't mind, so that i can understand that other perspective.

(and granted, in advance, about the pirates--though brilliant in its absurdity, you must admit)

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Oh wow! Maybe there's more potential in this play than I thought if that's the case!

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

We're all just scarred from the read through that the Rudes held a year or two back. Dear god, just reading it was an utterly painful experience. But then, I'm a firm believer that Shakespeare is meant to be be seen, not read. I would never subject a class to a script without showing them a performance or a movie first.

Then again, I'm also a firm believer that no Shakespeare play is so bad that a good performance can't redeem it. Well, except maybe for Timon of Athems.

Oh, and the pirates was the only thing we actually loved about the play in the initial reading! It's random pirates!

[interdisciple.livejournal.com]

ahh, that makes sense. yeah, again, damn hard to access. i can imagine as a one-time reading it'd be a b*#$% in its unconventionality. Agreed about your point on plays--especially Shakespeare plays--being meant to be seen and not read. It's like poetry in that sense. (Try talking to any poetry prof sometime to convince them that your poem works just fine on paper and that that should be enough...ha!)

And agreed on your point of Shakespeare's plays and their capacity for redemption (save the point on Timon--never heard of, much less seen or read, the play)

And of course, LOL re: random pirates. :)

[eliyes.livejournal.com]

I have to confess that every time I see the words "Timon of Athens", I picture a meerkat in Greek robes.

[tompurdue.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed the Shakespeare Theater production, though I thought it dragged a bit in places. They went for "beautiful"; since I can't do that I'd go for more "silly". The stage direction "Enter Pirates" is so good I'm tempted to write them into every damn scene as slapstick in the background. Seriously. Though for my first production of the show I'd want to keep the surprise, and have them literally swing in on a rope, grab the girl, and swing out.

The rest of the Rudes loved it even more than I did. They never commented on the fact that acts 4 and 5 dragged a bit. I would have taken Marina in a somewhat different direction: I want her to be an intellectual marvel, fast-talking her way out of trouble. Instead we got too-sweet-to-defile, which is a valid reading but somehow kind of troubling to me.

On the play itself, my feeling is that it is a total mess. There's no record of a public performance during Shakespeare's life, and my suspicion is that he set it aside and wrote Tempest instead. There are a lot of plot elements in common between the two. Some of them also ended up in Winter's Tale.

[charisma18.livejournal.com]

Glad to hear it was such a great performance. I'm not too familiar with Pericles, though I did participate in one read through of it once. I have, however, heard of several stunning performances given over the past years in this area. The version that my friend Cam adapted for Washington Shakespeare Company actually made it into the most recent edition of the Arden.

Titus Andronicus is another much maligned show that has generated more amazing performances than any "bad show" could do. Anyone who says that's a bad show just hasn't seen it done right. Though I'll admit that when it's done wrong, it's horrible.

The thing is, a lot of Shakespeare's work doesn't look good on your first encounter with it. Or, perhaps, there's a lot of Shakespeare's plays that will suck if you treat them the same way you treat some of his others. For instance, "Titus" is NOT "Macbeth" with more gore. In Macbeth, you can get away with glorifying and stylizing the murder and the violence. In Titus, the show works best if you make it brutally real.

Interestingly enough, I have seen two fantastic productions of Titus Andronicus in my lifetime (one of which being the movie). Meanwhile, I have seen Macbeth performed no less than five times, and so far I'm 0 for 5 with it. Not a single time have I seen a production that's lived up to that script.

Makes me want to rethink my concept of "a good play" versus "a good performance." Maybe they're not such separate entities after all.

I've seen a number of plays that are so heinously bad that no director in the world could make a good performance out of it. But not a single script in the Shakespearean canon falls under that category. You just have to be able to look at it in the right way.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Y'know, I'm of that weird minority that really does not care for Macbeth. Not at all, really. I think Titus is the far more entertaining (and even, dare I say, moving play) and I look forward to seeing Shakespeare Theatre finally, FINALLY put it up this year, since Michael Kahn hates it.

"Good play" versus "good performance." It's always a question, isn't it? Amazing what an excellent performance can do for a lackluster script. Funny, I don't think I've ever seen it the other way around- great script, but lousy in the execution.

But to your last point, I still gotta say: Timon of Athens. I have yet to see that tedious piece of crap done interestingly, much less well.

Pericles is running till the 4th. See it if you can, seriously. I can't wait to take my ladyfriend to see it again.