/lit/ - Literature

Shakespeare was a BasedGod

>>19714220
For #2 I recommend watching this lecture series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I443xXOHJYc&ab_channel=ShakespeareandPolitics

It's actually pretty interesting how much of the play was just Shakespeare trying to avoid getting lumped in with the gunpowder plotters while at the same time subtly critiquing (or at the very least examining) the underlying political forces of the day--in particular the unification of church and state as a tension between the Homeric hero and the Christian human.

I've never read a word of Shakespeare. I was thinking of just buying his complete works and reading it all chronologically one day. Is this a good idea?

>>19714976
I wrote this dumb, I obviously didn't mean to read it in one day, just buying the complete works and not reading anything else until I finish.

>>19714220
I suggest you add the reading schedule to the second post every time you make a thread, so you don't needlessly limit the amount of people who might otherwise have joined this reading group. Me for instance saw one of the earlier posts but I don't remember what to read or when the threads are going to be made. Being a good OP requires some effort on your side.

>>19714220
>To the French, as representatives of modern civilisation, Shakespeare, considered seriously, to this day is a monstrosity; and even to the Germans he has remained a subject of constantly renewed investigation, with so little [142] positive result that the most conflicting views and statements are forever cropping up again. Thus has this most bewildering of dramatists—already set down by some as an utterly irresponsible and untamed genius, without one trace of artistic culture—quite recently been credited again with the most systematic tendence of the didactic poet. Goethe, after introducing him in "Wilhelm Meister" as an "admirable writer," kept returning to the problem with increasing caution, and finally decided that here the higher tendence was to be sought, not in the poet, but in the embodied characters he brought before us in immediate action. Yet the closer these figures were inspected, the greater riddle became the artist's method: though the main plan of a piece was easy to perceive, and it was impossible to mistake the consequent development of its plot, for the most part pre-existing in the source selected, yet the marvellous "accidentiæ" in its working out, as also in the bearing of its dramatis personae, were inexplicable on any hypothesis of deliberate artistic scheming. Here we found such drastic individuality, that it often seemed like unaccountable caprice, whose sense we never really fathomed till we closed the book and saw the living drama move before our eyes; then stood before us life's own image, mirrored with resistless truth to nature, and filled us with the lofty terror of a ghostly vision. But how decipher in this magic spell the tokens of an "artwork"? Was the author of these plays a poet?

>What little we know of his life makes answer with outspoken naïvety: he was a play-actor and manager, who wrote for himself and his troop these pieces that in after days amazed and poignantly perplexed our greatest poets; pieces that for the most part would not so much as have come down to us, had the unpretending prompt-books of the Globe Theatre not been rescued from oblivion in the nick of time by the printing-press. Lope de Vega, scarcely less a wonder, wrote his pieces from one day to the next in immediate contact with his actors and the [143] stage; beside Corneille and Racine, the poets of façon, there stands the actor Molière, in whom alone production was alive; and midst his tragedy sublime stood Æschylus, the leader of its chorus.—Not to the Poet, but to the Dramatist must we look, for light upon the Drama's nature; and he stands no nearer to the poet proper than to the mime himself, from whose heart of hearts he must issue if as poet he means to "hold the mirror up to Nature."

>>19715560
>Thus undoubtedly the essence of Dramatic art, as against the Poet's method, at first seems totally irrational; it is not to be seized, without a complete reversal of the beholder's nature. In what this reversal must consist, however, should not be hard to indicate if we recall the natural process in the beginnings of all Art, as plainly shewn to us in improvisation. The poet, mapping out a plan of action for the improvising mime, would stand in much the same relation to him as the author of an operatic text to the musician; his work can claim as yet no atom of artistic value; but this it will gain in the very fullest measure if the poet makes the improvising spirit of the mime his own, and develops his plan entirely in character with that improvisation, so that the mime now enters with all his individuality into the poet's higher reason. This involves, to be sure, a complete transformation of the poetic artwork itself, of which we might form an idea if we imagined the impromptu of some great musician noted down. We have it on the authority of competent witnesses, that nothing could compare with the effect produced by Beethoven when he improvised at length upon the pianoforte to his friends; nor, even in view of the master's greatest works, need we deem excessive the lament that precisely these inventions were not fixed in writing, if we reflect that far inferior musicians, whose penwork was always stiff and stilted, have quite amazed us in their 'free fantasias' by a wholly unsuspected and often very fertile talent for invention.—At anyrate we believe we shall really expedite the solution of an extremely difficult problem, if we define the Shakespearian Drama as [144] a fixed mimetic improvisation of the highest poetic worth. For this explains at once each wondrous accidental in the bearing and discourse of characters alive to but one purpose, to be at this moment all that they are meant to seem to us to be, and to whom accordingly no word can come that lies outside this conjured nature; so that it would be positively laughable to us, upon closer consideration, if one of these figures were suddenly to pose as poet. This last is silent, and remains for us a riddle, such as Shakespeare. But his work is the only veritable Drama; and what that implies, as work of Art, is shewn by our rating its author the profoundest poet of all time.—

>>19714220
isn't it still 3 1/2 hours until the time you said you were gonna make the thread? I'm only now setting up to watch the play.

>>19715527
calm

>>19715807
yeh but I came home today at like 5 in the morning fucked up to the gills and for some reason decided that I absolutely had to put this thread up before I went to sleep.

>>19714220
I will start reading Macbeth in a day or two when I finish the book I'm currently reading. I was lucky enough to buy a complete Shakespeare collection this past Christmas. I have already read Macbeth though. It was one of three Shakespeare works we did in my school in my country and the one I liked the most precisely for the supernatural elements. It had less memorable lines than Hamlet though.

>>19715987
Why is this the reading order? I would've chosen chronological.

Why did MacBeth feel compelled to do anything, especially perform an act he felt moral qualms about, after the weird sisters had already prophesized him becoming king?

Recommend some starter Shakespeare works?

at least we can all agree that it was all the woman's fault.

>Fair is foul and fouls is fair: Hover through the fog and filthy air.
what did Winnie Shakesman mean by this? Was Macbeth the goodguy of the play?

>>19715560
>Yet the closer these figures were inspected, the greater riddle became the artist's method: though the main plan of a piece was easy to perceive, and it was impossible to mistake the consequent development of its plot, for the most part pre-existing in the source selected, yet the marvellous "accidentiæ" in its working out, as also in the bearing of its dramatis personae, were inexplicable on any hypothesis of deliberate artistic scheming.
what does this refer to? that, in Shakespeare's historical plays, he was able to reconcile historic events with the themes he wanted to explore? in what way can that be considered miraculous? and is it actually an important consideration for why Shakespeare should be considered a great playwright?

>>19714220
>tfw no Lady Macbeth gf to push me into reaching my full potential
Really enjoyed reading this/watching adaptions. Not the first Shakespeare I've read, but never read anything before this christmas. The quaint language feel more natural in a tragedy such as this I think, giving the speech more gravitas, compared to the comedies where it seem a bit ridiculous at times.Some things I thoughts after reading it:
The theme of the intangibility of time is for me one of the major themes throughout the play. There's not any bad choices being made, just a failure to have the time to find the right ones - one never has the needed information in a situation, nor the time to analyze what you have. The fast pace of the narrative enforce this. After Macbeths meeting with the witches, theres hardly time to think before Duncans visit, after the murder hardly time before he is king, after he is king hardly time before the world conspires against him. Other characters, Malcolm and McDuff for example, also alway seem to be in a rush. There is always something left unsaid: every meeting between Macbeth and Banquo ends with a "But more of this hereafter" (the last one a bit ironic), M and lady M never get the time to glory in their victory ("there would be time for such a word"), and Macbeth ofcourse ends both interviews with the sisters for more information. Time is also obviously a major theme in a certain soliloquy. The characters seem to be barely hanging on, which everyone who has had to make a difficult choice may recognize.
As a extension of this, the play was much less moralistic than I expected. It felt like a greek tragedy, in that, although independent actors, the characters never really had a choice. The murder wasn't a moral failing, but the result of a situation, once the idea of the regicide was planted. See for example Lady M's first speech, where she begs for her kindness to give way for her ambition. She isn't "evil", but as a human is forced to rise to the occasion. Although the murder is bloody and the consequences are horrible, it cannot be reprehended, for many men would do the same. What if Macbeth didn't go through with the murder? He would then be a coward, a failed potential, and would be just as cursed. The lack of time futhermore obscures what the right course of action is, if there even is a right course of action. This moral relativism (not the a perfect label for this, as it has some bad associations) is reflected in phrases such as "foul is fair..", "Hell is murky", the speech of McDuffs son, and probably much more.
Favorurite sections:
>The raven himself is hoarse..
>Was the hope drunk which made you...
>She should have died hereafter...
Favourite line:
>"Take it like a man!"
>"Aye, I will. But I must also feel it like a man."
One of the few sane lines in the play. Looking forwards to the rest of the year!

I read Macbeth years ago and didn't remember that the murder itself takes place pretty much right at the start and most of the play is devoted to Lord and Lady Macbeth continually slipping into paranoia and madness, knowing on some level that their fate is sealed yet futilely clinging to hope. I laffed heartily.

>>19714220
Finally found out why it's titled Macbeth.

>>19718011
because he made his bed and now has to lie in it?

>>19716774
because I abhor chronology

bump

>>19715987
>not chronological
Dropped

>>19714220
I forgot to read it. Is it too late to start now?

>>19722541
Nah mate it's alright you've got until Sunday

>>19716849
Pretty sure he saw becoming king as an unlikelyhood before the prophecy and as a destiny/fate mission afterwards.

Why did the weekly Shakespeare reading flop?

>>19725403
Because I hadn’t replied yet.
There, fixed.

>>19715987
>tempest at the end
saving the best for last I see

>Had I but died an hour before this
>chance, I had lived a blesséd time…
I really heard this this time through and it’s true. He still had “golden opinions” could’ve died a happy thane if only serpent wife hadn’t corrupted

>>19725516
It’s cool the first time but super boring to revisit, all the humor is fart level and it ties up like a cringe fairytale

>>19725534
I farted in your mum's mouth last night

>>19725403
I'm too busy having sex to read this nerd shit

>>19725403
Shameful scenes of unglorious emotion. Not like it wasn't doomed from the start though.

>>19725403
>OP trying to get the thread started with serious questions
>one or two wall-of-text-type replies
set the bar to high from the start. if you want to have a successful thread on /lit/ you gotta ease people into it with some pleasant tomfoolery.

>>19725403
because /lit/ really isn't a place to discuss literature, just for sophomores to shitpost between their college classes. look at the short story thread. you'd unironically have more success trying something like this on reddit than here. the last time there was any on-topic discussion was that one short story, cat person, which got all the incels riled up. this place is a cesspool and it's not worth putting any effort into threads here.

Always gets slept on, one of my favourite plays.

>>19714220
>1. If any of you here hadn't read Shakespeare before this, how did you find the language?
It flows very naturally and was very fun to read, especially when it rhymes and when he plays with words/allegories. I was expecting it to be rougher going.

>3. Wherein lies the root of Macbeth's downfall? The Witches and their prophecies, Lady Macbeth's manipulations or with Macbeth himself, and if not with Macbeth, does that change his tale from a tragedy in the classical sense into something else?
When Malcolm is in England he makes a speech about all the greed and blackness he has in his heart to equal the vices of Macbeth, but differing with him in that he has not acted on his compulsions. I take it that everyone has seeds of vice and sin within them. What seems to set Macbeth and his Lady apart is that they have no children, no family, and there's very strong recurring imagery around this theme with the bashing of the suckling infant and the piglet-eating sow. They are denied their private happiness and as such there is nothing to hold back wrath, ambition and greed. Lady Macbeth with children would not have goaded her husband to murder.

>5. And yeah just generally what did you like about it, what did you not like about it; favourite characters, acts, scenes, monologues, soliloquies, passages, even just single words, or anything else that you at all want to say about it?
The night is long that never finds the day.
Interesting to recognize quotes and phrases of speech so far removed from the original context https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKa2vgqHkA4

>>19727014
>Interesting to recognize quotes and phrases of speech so far removed from the original context https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKa2vgqHkA4
That doesn't have jackshit to do with Shakespeare though, infinite monkeys and all that.

>>19727198
>That doesn't have jackshit to do with Shakespeare though
It doesn't have anything to do with Shakespeare other than copying his quote straight, 400 years later, into a japanese rhythm game. BMS and IIDX are filled with (meaningless/context-less) references to exotic western culture, especially greek/latin mythology. Orientals love that shit. If you don't find that amusing/interesting that is perfectly fine, I do.

>>19714220
>>19715987
Why is King John and King Henry VI not included?

>>19727242
>It doesn't have anything to do with Shakespeare other than copying his quote straight
See, that's just dumb luck. Infinite number of monkeys with typewriters could stumble upon that line on an accident. And China has enough people to be near-infinite enough.

>>19727282
How can I be sure monkey fingers didn't type out this post?

>>19714220
>1. If any of you here hadn't read Shakespeare before this, how did you find the language?
I hadn't read any Shakespeare since high school almost a decade ago. To be honest some bits of it were pretty hard for me since I'm kind of just now getting back into reading (what a retarded and sad thing to say, but it's the truth). I had a bit of trouble with the Porter's speech and I thought this:
>Seyton!--I am sick at heart,
>When I behold--Seyton, I say!--This push
was referring to Satan but in a Scottish accent. That was stupid of me.
There were some other rough bits for me (don't think I get the procession with the eight kings) but re-reading would take care of most everything. I enjoyed it.

>2. Just how much was the play affected by real world events at the time? Would Shakespeare even have written if it weren't for the patronage of James I and his ancestral connection with the real world Banquo?
I don't know, Banquo got his shit pushed in and some of his last words seem to be a sip from the fount of bloody ambition Macbeth's had his fill from, and then his son flees never to be seen again. Banquo's ghost certainly puts Macbeth in his place. Would be really interested to know more about this.

>3. Wherein lies the root of Macbeth's downfall? The Witches and their prophecies, Lady Macbeth's manipulations or with Macbeth himself, and if not with Macbeth, does that change his tale from a tragedy in the classical sense into something else?
The blunder that lead to Croesus' defeat - do not start on oracle-inspired conquest until you are EXACTLY sure what they mean.
The seed of evil ambition in Macbeth was happily watered by his wife and the witches; before he meets with his wife he already is musing on killing Malcom:
>The Prince of Cumberland! that is a step
>On which I must fall down, or else o'erleap

>4. What is there to say for the supernatural elements prominent not just in Macbeth, but throughout Shakespeare's work?
It's incredibly entertaining. At least in this play there is not a single thing good to be said about the supernatural elements, they're just pure evil.

>5.
I liked the repeated bird motifs. The "goose" exchange in Act V was a funny bit of levity. The exchange between Malcom and MacDuff was "kino" as they say. I could pull lots from that to say as my favorite turns of phrase.
>What I believe I'll wail,
>What know believe, and what I can redress,
>As I shall find the time to friend, I will.

Also, what the FUCK was Ross' problem?
>MACDUFF
>How does my wife?
>ROSS
>Why, well.
>MACDUFF
>And all my children?
>ROSS
>Well too.

>>19727524
So what do you think that Macbeth would have eventually gone against Duncan/his sons anyways then, even without the witches prophecy or his wife's manipulations?

>>19727014
In a way I do feel like classics and ancient texts first come alive for a lot of people when they encounter a piece of modern culture that is personally meaningful to them pay homage in some way.

>>19728390
I think there would have been something. His first take when hearing the weird sisters is "I need to kill the king", never thought a tragedy would befall or something or future war would result in it (like his title of Cawdor). He had it in him. He had no sons or anything to hold him back or keep violent impulses in check - it's probably meaningful the only reason Lady Macbeth didn't kill Duncan was because she reminded him of family. I think his wife would have always supported bloody ambition and fed that though.
I liked (maybe not liked? but appreciated/acknowledged/found humorous) how Lady Macbeth kept insulting her man's manhood when he hesitated, and how the murderers were spurned on by "be a man bro", etc, only macduff had a pretty sensible head on his shoulders with regards to manhood.

>>19717805
very good analysis

So to those of your poorfags, are there any sites where you've been reading these? I found a cheapass dover thrift version for macbeth but i don't think I'll have such like for say, Titus Andronicus. I needed the annotations for some of the more "ye olde" type of talk

>>19729163
Don't know what you paid for the Macbeth, but you can get a dover thrift copy of Titus Andronicus for less than £3 rn. Seems fairly reasonable to me.

>>19728390
Yes, and not only that, if Macbeth hadn't done it, either Banquo or Macduff would have. One of the main themes in the play is the tension that exists between Homeric, pagan heroism and Christian virtue, particularly as it manifests in a king (see the lecture I posted at the top of this thread for details). Christian virtue is all about humility, compassion, patience, self-sacrifice. These are all traits that King Duncan possesses and in various places he is described as "saintly", "meek", "golden-blooded", trustful etc. It's played up even further in the McKellan production, where they dress him up like he's the pope. But these traits also make him a weak king. He doesn't participate in battles--unthinkable for a Homeric hero--and the play even begins with a rebellion against him, which he only quashes because of his thanes. He knows it too, as when he constantly references how much of a debt he owes to his thanes and how little his rewards compensate for their deeds. His thanes, on the other hand, are very much pagan heroes. They are described as brave, bold, strong, violent, ambitious, self-interested etc. and it is the attempt to reconcile these contrary virtues and these contrary types of men in the character of Macbeth that ultimately leads to tragedy.

And this, maybe, is the connection to our modern world, which is also divided on the question of manhood, on what it means to be a man. In meme terms, it's the same divide represented by the "Chad" and the "Virgin" archetypes, the Homeric hero and the Christian, which in turn (if only partly), is a reflection of two ways we regard divinity. On one side: finite time, and deity as that which transcends societal constraints--god as Augustus was god--and on the other: eternity, and deity as that which transcends mortality--as in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Over and over Macbeth returns to this question of manhood. "when you durst do it, then you were a man" says Lady Macbeth (who earlier wanted to "unsex herself"--literally become a man--to kill Duncan), a response to Macbeth's assertion that he "dare do all that may become man" and that "Who dares do more is none"; later Macbeth himself goads the assassins to kill Banquo with: "are you so gospelled to pray for this good man and his issue? [who has wronged you]" to which they reply: "We are men my liege". And it is this same we ourselves ask when we are wronged--is it by striking our opponent's cheek that we are become men or is it by turning our own?

>>19729163
there's at least three places online you can read them, with annotations: Sparknotes, shakespeare-online and shakespeare.mit.edu. "Shakespeare network" on youtube also has all the plays on audio (and some with video).

>>19729509
I really appreciated this post anon
>Macduff would have
Very very bold take if not a disheartening one. Maybe it's an idealistic stance but I found Macduff to be the play's hero and moral center, seeming to balance between the hero/virtue poles so i find this post sobering but also saddening.
I've been on a Greek bent lately (ok I fell for "start with the Greeks" but for literature/poetry/drama not philosophy) and have been having a hard time mulling over the virtues of the men of myths. The Iliad is of course blatant, where Achilles is monstrous in his treatment of Hector and the corpse, and with Agamemnon being a bit of a shit, and then in the homeric hymns Apollo and Demeter are cunts in the situation with the first Delphics/Demophoon, Creon becomes an overambitious tyrant in Antigone/Oedipus at Colonus, etc
What I'm saying, maybe this gets to navel-gazing, is that a Duncan that parcipates in battles seems to be the best of kings. With Malcom "testing" Macduff on the rooftop I read that as showing how despite the more bellicose tendencies that end with Macbeth's head on a sword, Macduff has a true noble nature, one worth modeling, an attempted marriage of these virtues. Some art shows Christ with a sword after all

>>19729692
I would say that the balance is manifest in Malcolm, not Macduff, for two reasons: one, the more mundane, James I was a direct descendent of Malcolm so it was a way of indirect flattery (I recommend everyone look up the gunpowder plot that occurred around the time this play was written and Shakespeare's connection to it) and the second is because of exactly that scene you mentioned, when Malcolm tests Macduff. The list of virtues he claims a king should have even contains all the contradictions between the pagan hero and a Christian saint: "as justice, verity, temperance, stableness/ Bounty, perseverance, mercy, lowliness/ Devotion, patience, courage, fortitude". A third reason might be that Macduff isn't as moral as he seems, remember that he abandons his wife and child, that in the beginning of the play he's the one that defeats Cawdor and the Norwegians (the Mckellan version explicitly says that "Bellona's bridegroom" was Macbeth, though that doesn't make any sense since Macbeth expresses surprise at hearing that Cawdor is dead later on), and that even in the end, he does not allow Macbeth to surrender, goading once again at his manhood, calling him a coward and threatening him with humiliation so he'll fight to the death. All of this is more pagan than Christian, but granted, from the play itself, Banquo is the more likely candidate and even alludes to such regicidal thoughts in one of his scenes (in "Chronicles", Banquo was actually a co-conspirator with Macbeth), but Macduff is surely a close third. Doubly so, if he was, as I assert, the winner at Cawdor, in which case he was fleeced; Macbeth got his spoils. Regardless, the moment Duncan declared Malcolm as his heir (which he probably did as a response to the rebellion, to try and prevent further rebellions), his fate was sealed, witch or no witch, prophecy or no prophecy, someone was going to kill him. It's even telling that everyone's first thought was that Malcolm was the regicide (except for Banquo--who, notice, though he has good reason to suspect Macbeth, does not say anything to anyone, making him complicit in the crime), which is, in part, a projection of their own pagan virtues. Malcolm has already been promised the crown--why kill his own aged father and damn his own soul for a few more years of kingship? Because, in the finite, pagan view, this world "Might be the be-all and the end-all here", every year, every day counts. It's only to the Christian that evil renders the world and a sinful life as "a tale signifying nothing".

Don't know if this has been posted but Teller spices it up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OU0cuGuPSk

I read Macbeth not a long time ago and... I don't know. Didn't click.

>>19714976
Not dumb, but don't read them all like that. Pick the plays you want to read individually. I recommend starting with Macbeth, and then the histories.

Bump

>>19714976
Isn't this reading schedule a good opportunity to do so? You'll get through the entire collection this year if you follow these threads (save for a few stories you can read at your own leisure).

>>19729509
>>19729692
>>19729873
Great posts. Cheers lads

post pic of a page from the rsc complete works plz. might buy it.

>>19732402

bump

>>19727256
What is your case for them to be included?

>>19734823
Since every other large play featuring the hundred years war and its aftermath are represented it seemed like a strange omission. Can you present your case as to why they are excluded?

great thread idea

>>19735099
It's my fucking reading list. If you want to read them maybe you should make your own reading list which includes the plays you want to read.

>>19735136
Alright so you are a schizo autist, gottcha.

>>19735122
is it not?

>>19735136
Hang about dickhead, what going on here? You're not me

>>19735099
Because I've read King John, it's alright but not nearly as good stuff like the Henriad and Henry VI is three parts and not that great, so no point wasting three precious places just to have that whole fuckin saga finished.

bump

bump

>>19732402
I'll sell you my secondhand copy if you're in the UK.

>>19735122
yeh

Can someone spoonfeed me how you're meant to pronounce poetic contractions?

>>19741732
Y'all'd'ain''t've 't'weren't 't'what i'd said, 'ight?

If that confounds you, y'r fucked.

>>19741762
Or rather I should say, elements of it are recognizable in native english speech. Shit I just watched the birdcage and it had the diction. We (native speakers who still hold the torch) still hear early modern english and contractions wh'er we go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hv78z9RB24

>>19741824
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjTIFkWJctY
also this.

How long does it take to read Macbeth?

>>19743042
It took me a week but I'm a slow reader. It's his shortest play.

>>19743049
shortest tragedy*

I watched half of it (that OP pic version actually) but couldn't finish. I can't understand them when they speak and plays are so fucking boring.

>>19729163
it's all public domain you triple fuckign retard.
>>19743345
i'll justify myself and say i previously read macbeth in whole so i haven't totally tapped out. i think that counts.

>>19743042
about 3 hours

Been watching The Hollow Crown on tv recently, it's pretty decent
Anyone used an ardens edition of shakespeare before?
Thinking of buying some but not sure, does it come with notes about the reception of the play and it's later critical reception?

>>19715987
Huh, this seems fun. I'll definitely try to participate.

Finished Macbeth yesterday, it was my first Shakespeare. Ngl being ESL doesn't help but I think I got through it fine, I 'm just bummed that I couldn't enjoy the prose in all it's glory due to my limited vocabulary while some of the verbs are 'cut' short and were confusing. I 'll give it a 3/5 but my limitations should be taken into account in the note so probably a 4/5. Also wathcing this kino tonight.

>>19744766
nice one

dont look. apparently there's a new macbeth adaption. you already know what they did to it.

>>19746450
is it?

Why are we starting with Macbeth?

>>19715987
I've started the Taming of the Shrew.

Then searching it on YouTube (looking for a full length play), I've found this:

https://youtu.be/144KTSQaK-k

Do Romanian women look like THAT?

>>19748067
Shortest tragedy.

bump

>>19748067
Because OP is a homosexual
>>19721527
This

>>19714976
>chronologically
Stop. Do not do this. Most of Shakespeare is garbage, especially his comedies. Just read his best works.

>>19714220
>5. And yeah just generally what did you like about it, what did you not like about it
I got hit hard by the imagery of that one scene where Macbeth is sat at a table across from Banquo. On one side, sat beside them, are all their ancestors stretching back to infinity, and on the other all their descendants, but Macbeth's side is empty. Depressing stuff.

>>19714220
Did you enjoy the new adaptation?

>>19750709
Ross was the MVP

>>19750709
>>19750717
Gonna watch it this weekend probably. Was it worth the price of admission? Was it at least as good as the McKellan version?

>>19716849
His lady and he sold their souls to make each other happy, not realizing they might have been happier otherwise.

>>19714300
I actually enjoyed this lecture quite a bit. Interesting idea, treating Macbeth, Hamlet and Othello as a distinct kind of Shakespearean tragedy that plays out the clash of Christian and Pagan values and virtues. It feels like if one reduces the reading to this level one would lose a lot of the meat of what makes them distinct from one another and what drives the characters in a mundane, human sense, though.

kurosawas adaptation of macbeth sucks. shame because hes of course a great director in general? does his adaptation of king lear fare better? considering he replaced the daughters with sons, I am already very doubtful of that

I am reading Othello as my first Shakespeare and Iago is probably the most amusing character I've ever read of

/

Taming of the Shrew thread is up chaps >>19756049

>>19750134
But then I wouldn't be able to gloat about reading all of Shakespeare.

>>19714220
I just watched Cohen's The Tragedy of Macbeth. And no, I'm not /pol/tard and I don't care actors are black. My criticism is due it being emotionless, dialogues seem to be rushed. When I think of Shakespeare, I think of long dialogues, almost sang phrases, each phrase having a pace. Here the dialogue is very blunt, in the movie script fashion, as if actors knew that scenes had to be short in order for the movie to be full length and not skipping dialogues (like the abridged version from 2015 with Fassbender).
Maybe it was intentional, it feels like a noir crime movie.
Worst than that, I don't feel Lady Macbeth at all.

>>19750709
It's horrible imo. Fassbender's Macbeth was better.

>>19753697
>kurosawas adaptation of macbeth sucks.
Thank you for your honesty, I think absolutely the same.
I have watched about a dozen Kurosawa's and this one was my least favorite so far, whoever says this id the best Macbeth adaptation either doesn't understand Shakespeare or is unfamiliar to Kurosawa's filmography.

>>19751199
So I just got back from watching it. Garbage. Doesn't hold a candle to the McKellan version. Felt like Denzel phoned in a lot of his dialogue, speeding through it like he just wanted to get it over with. Completely bereft of emotion. Added weird unnecessary tangents (Ross rescued Fleance?). Removed essential scenes (Malcolm testing Macduff). Put things out of order for no good reason. All the fancy cinematography, the lighting, the special effects, the witch, none of it actually added anything to the production, just momentary distractions from the bad acting.