Journal 18
When I read the first scene of act II, I unintentionally made the characters almost mono tone. In the performance, the characters were much more dynamic. The Duke of Guant and King Richards argument was much more heated that I read it to be. Also, the Duke of York had a much more dynamic tone in the film as well. Another thing that was helpful was how they staged one of Yorks lines after Guant is taken away. He says, "Be York the next that must be bankrupt so!" and I was really confused when I first read this. I thought he was actually saying that to Richard, but Richards next line doesn't deal with that at all. On the movie, York is actually saying that to someone else, while Richard is thinking on something different. He was another character that the movie did a good job portraying. He was much more child like than I had first thought. It made the play make more sense.
hmm....more confusing in modern for me
hmm...it seems that the modern had exactly the opposite reaction on me and made everything seem even more confusing then shakesphere is. i guess i prefer old school to modern. ah, no matter. to each their own
"Oh great Sandwich Maker from Bob! Life, will be a very great deal less weird without you" Old Thrashbarg
deno
Hmmm
I wasn't really talking about the era it was placed in, more of how it was performed. They still used the same lines, but I got more out of seeing the play than reading it. I think that Shakespeare's plays were intended to viewed more than they were read, because there is so much more that you can get out of them if the plays are acted out. Not only does the setting help with the mood, but actually hearing how the phrases being spoken can bring new light to the literature.
Performing...
I feel the same way in that his plays were meant to be performed. To me, reading plays can be very pointless because they are written to be performed, not read. Seeing Shakespeare's plays performed allows me to appreciate them much more simply because I understand them more. Also, interpreting his dialogue is virtually impossible at times, so seeing people speak it helps guide me in the right direction.
Jennie
but
In order to perform them, they first have to be read. Still, in the reading, we treat the text as a script, as a guide for what should be happening on the stage. The actors who put on a production will know the text and the character inside out. It never made sense to me at the time, but when I played high school football, we had to learn not only our plays, but the assignments of the players who were next to us. The same is pretty much true when putting on a play. You have to know your character inside out, as well as the other characters, so you know what they are thinking, where they are going. That takes a lot of thinking and talking and acting in ways that don't work before they do end up working. Bradley
Bradley
Agreed
Your post didn't indicate anything about the setting of the play to me, just that the ability to see the play in the medium it was intended for made it easier to understand. The words were the same, and seeing the interaction and relationships made the play make sense. You mentioned how you thought one line was directed to one actor, when it really wasn't. While I was watching the clips in class, that must have happened to me half a dozen times. Little "Oh!" moments when I suddenly understood that Mowbray was addressing the whole court, or that Richard was giving his speech for show, not to actually communicate with Bolingbroke.
Erin Kay Schulz
think about the difference
Think about how the action and words could be received differently in this way. If an actor is looking directly at someone while speaking, or merely glancing around for the feigned approval or admiration of an audience, we should take the events to be quite different. Bradley
Bradley