/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22479548]

>mfw modern Shakespeare adaptations
This shit is truly awful. I can't believe how far every creative endeavour has fallen since we started living in a consumerist society.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZKmVSaAFkI

This isn't even a matter of interpretation. I'm not a fan of Burton's interpretation yet the aesthetic principles underlying his acting, and the talent with which he evinces them as a true heir to the Shakespearian tradition, make him effective regardless of interpretation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxV1SgCwruI

[Anonymous No.22479558]

>>22479548
Most Shakespeare performances have been bad since the plays were written.

There are good ones now and bad ones.

1964 is very modern. Ian McKellen's 1979 Macbeth is also incredible.

Do you think that we did not live in a consumerist society in 1964 or 1979?

There are still good performances now, there were many awful performances then. You are either young or retarded and thus do not yet understand the benefit of hindsight.

[Anonymous No.22479589]

>le cherry picked bad example
>le cherry picked good example
What is the purpose of this? Mark Rylance or Simon Russell Beale are alive and working right now and are arguably better stage actors than Burton ever was.

[Anonymous No.22479597]

>>22479589
I've noticed that people on this board feel ashamed to be ignorant about the good works of the past, but when it comes to the present, they have no such shame. In fact, they probably think it's virtuous to not have found anything they enjoy that is contemporary.

[Anonymous No.22479608]

>>22479558
>Do you think that we did not live in a consumerist society in 1964 or 1979?
Did I hint this in the slightest? Learn to read. I don't think at any point prior to around 1980 such awful performances as those four could be lauded. The intention with all of them is clearly to make Hamlet a 21st century man, as insignificant as they are in their own quotidian existence, rather than attempting to elevate themselves to the exalted sphere in which Hamlet, and all great art, lives. Appealing to a higher cultural standard for acting would be practically Fascistic, so lost are the aesthetic standards according to which everyone once (tried) to act and judge acting. You can attempt to say this was merely one era's taste but the complete free-for-all of what qualifies good Shakespeare acting has manifestly led to an equalising in the field. Of course most Shakespeare performances have been bad but to try to deny the quality hasn't declined even more under contemporary influences is simply disingenuous or utterly tasteless.

[Anonymous No.22479618]

>>22479608
>Did I hint this in the slightest?
Yes, by posting something that you considered good which was still created within consumerist society. Obviously you were implying that 1964 was "pre-consumerism". Now you're walking back on that since you realise it's retarded after I pointed it out

>I don't think at any point prior to around 1980 such awful performances as those four could be lauded.
Who said they could be?

> The intention with all of them is clearly to make Hamlet a 21st century man, as insignificant as they are in their own quotidian existence, rather than attempting to elevate themselves to the exalted sphere in which Hamlet, and all great art, lives. Appealing to a higher cultural standard for acting would be practically Fascistic, so lost are the aesthetic standards according to which everyone once (tried) to act and judge acting. You can attempt to say this was merely one era's taste but the complete free-for-all of what qualifies good Shakespeare acting has manifestly led to an equalising in the field. Of course most Shakespeare performances have been bad but to try to deny the quality hasn't declined even more under contemporary influences is simply disingenuous or utterly tasteless.
I don't care about this and I'm not even going to read it. If you don't like such interpretations then just support and enjoy the ones that do.

[Anonymous No.22479708]

>>22479618
You have no right to criticise my opinion of Shakespearian acting when you can't even read. I could place the beginning of 'consumerist society' in any era and still ascribe the contemporary decline in value of something to its slow, corrosive influence. No matter how ridiculous. Assuming, and then insisting (!), the most ridiculous interpretation of plausible grammar only shows a petty insecurity in one's own intelligence. It is very lowly. Especially at the initiation of a conversation merely because you probably disagree with them. And so is not taking someone on their word only so you can lord over them your imaginary victory. Do you put so little stock in your own views and arguments?

>Who said they could be?
Oh so you actually have no understanding of grammar at all. ESL?

>If you don't like such interpretations then just support and enjoy the ones that do.
Hmmmmm, it's almost as if I only enjoy older performances, which would make it logical for me to provide a justification of my taste. Your egalitarianism only takes you so far.

[Anonymous No.22479718]

>>22479708
> You have no right to criticise my opinion of Shakespearian acting when you can't even read.
I'm not even criticising your "opinion of Shakespearian acting".

>I could place the beginning of 'consumerist society' in any era and still ascribe the contemporary decline in value of something to its slow, corrosive influence.
I mean, not really without proving that consumerist society has more of an effect now than in the past.

> Assuming, and then insisting (!), the most ridiculous interpretation of plausible grammar only shows a petty insecurity in one's own intelligence.
How is it a ridiculous interpretation? It was one of the few points you made in the OP. You made no other critical point other than just saying that today it is bad. I apologise for thinking that you were actually trying to make a point.

> It is very lowly.
I don't think it's lowly to try to interpret your OP as having a point. You seem to just be getting angry that I interpreted as having one. If I misinterpreted it then just tell me what your actual point was. I'm not sure why you are acting so offended.

> Especially at the initiation of a conversation merely because you probably disagree with them. And so is not taking someone on their word only so you can lord over them your imaginary victory. Do you put so little stock in your own views and arguments?
Three sentences of pointless handwringing and pathetic self-pitying.

> Oh so you actually have no understanding of grammar at all. ESL?
Do you want to explain what made you say that I have no understanding of grammar?

> Hmmmmm, it's almost as if I only enjoy older performances
No, I think you are just ignorant of the good modern performances and haven't bothered to search them out.

As I said, you are either young or retarded, so you don't understand hindsight. When you look at past works, the people who are actually interested in art have watched the contemporary performances and reviewed which ones are good and which are bad. You receive the efforts of those past critics. You seem to not be aware of this and instead think that you are just consuming art from all time periods indiscriminately. No, you are not seeing the average Shakespeare performance from 1964.

This is really just an critics version of hindsight bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

Stop bragging about your ignorance of modern Shakespeare

[Anonymous No.22479974]

>>22479718
>I mean, not really without proving that consumerist society has more of an effect now than in the past.
The point is that I could believe it, invalidating your assumption.

>How is it a ridiculous interpretation?
You could just as easily interpreted my statement as I later specified instead of assuming I meant the most ridiculous thing.

>If I misinterpreted it then just tell me what your actual point was.
I thought I already DID.

>Three sentences of pointless handwringing and pathetic self-pitying.
They're justified criticisms of behaviour which only bring down the level of discussion to insults.

>Do you want to explain what made you say that I have no understanding of grammar?
If no one is saying they could be, yet they could after, that shows an obvious decline in popular standards. As a result of no standards (which means from the influence of higher cultural education).

Of course most Shakespeare performances have been bad. I wholeheartedly agree with this, yet I see far more mediocre, even brainless, actors thrust into the spotlight, and almost no truly great actors, in the theatre world of today than in the past. Compared with which, I see almost no higher standards of judgement in every appearance of Shakespeare's reception, from the most common theatre to the most famous. I would love for you to post your favourite contemporary performances.

[Anonymous No.22479983]

>>22479974
>The point is that I could believe it, invalidating your assumption.
>You could just as easily interpreted my statement as I later specified instead of assuming I meant the most ridiculous thing.
>I thought I already DID.

So your point is that both societies were consumerist but the later one is somehow the one that has the bad Shakespeare? Why not explain why

> They're justified criticisms of behaviour which only bring down the level of discussion to insults.
I'm not here to baby you

> If no one is saying they could be, yet they could after, that shows an obvious decline in popular standards. As a result of no standards (which means from the influence of higher cultural education).
But you have yet to prove or even argue that there is a decline in popular standards

[Anonymous No.22480099]

>>22479974
>I would love for you to post your favourite contemporary performances.
Not him, but from the last ten years
Antony Sher - King Lear. I saw McKellen in the same role around the same time, Sher mogged him
Rylance's Richard III
Pic related, the recent RSC Much Ado, the whole ensemble was *chef's kiss* which might be the best production of any play I've seen over that whole period, perfect timing and energy