I really do think that it’s good for the soul to be unironically pretentious about something. Not in a gatekeeping kind of way but in a “yes, it really is that deep and I would love to enthusiastically and passionately explain why” kind of way.
a random child asks Batman “How many times a day do you think about the Roman Empire?” for the meme and accidentally unlocks a 45 minute unskippable cutscene that only ends when Superman physically picks Batman up and flies him away from the enthralled history nerd child
oresteia, robert icke // theatre of the oppressed, augusto boal // song of achilles, madeline miller // the book thief, markus zusak // antigone, jean anouilh // revisiting mockingjay ahead of the hunger games prequel, entertainment weekly // romeo and juliet, shakespeare // h of h playbook, anne carson // war of the foxes, richard siken // the road to hell (reprise), hadestown // planet of love, richard siken // they both die at the end, adam silvera
the experience of tragedy in plays specifically because ‘maybe it will end differently this time’ feels possible. This isn’t pre-recorded. This isn’t set down in time and film. This is live, this is now, these people are real and maybe this time when they open the letter it won’t say ‘kill the messenger’. Maybe this time they get to live
The Catherine Tate, David Tennant version of Much Ado About Nothing has been taken off youtube and I don't know how to cope.
How am I supposed to sleep without those lovely idiots talking Shakespeare in the background?
My top contenders for what to do now this is gone are scream and cry so if anybody can weigh in on whether I should scream or cry or scream and cry, I would be most grateful.
This post is my first step of grief. I am in mourning now.
Saw a production of Romeo and Juliet recently where the actors never actually left the stage but sat in the shadows in the scenes they weren't in, watching the action. It made everything feel really claustrophobic and also managed to visualise the fact that every single character in the play is complicit in its tragedy precisely because they are more content to sit and watch than make an effort to change. All of them perpetuate the cycle of violence that traps the two lovers and leaves them with nowhere and no one to run to. In the Capulet's tomb, Juliet ran at her silent onlookers, desperate, pleading, looking for a way to escape. But the citizens of Verona only really understand one language and that language doesn't speak of change, it demands violence. Juliet knows what is expected of her, this young girl with a knife in her hand and death on her lips. Her chance at a life that transcends the horror of everyday brutality and the terrible tedium of misery and pain is dead on the floor at her feet and none of her family members, her friends, the people who claim to care for her, will let her out alive.
since the 1600s, people have been rewriting shakespeare and writing spinoffs in good, bad, and frankly just kind of insane ways. today, they will compete until only one is left standing!
during the poll craze i ran a lot of brackets and had fun, but ended up with a couple spare blogs i ended up having to delete, so i'm running this one off my main.
q. is this a tournament for productions or adaptations?
a. adaptations! stuff that changes dialogue or medium (beyond play -> movie) or takes a really new spin on it! west side story counts, romeo and juliet (1996) doesn't.
q. will there be a limit on contestants?
i'll cut it at 64 or 32 depending on how many submissions we get! if we get a lot of adaptations of a few plays and less of others, i won't cut any of them out, but i'll make some of them face off in round one
q. are you biased?
yes. fortinbras sweep. i've been reading 'these violent delights' too and it's pretty good. oh and can't forget haider, and requiem of the rose king is an all timer... basically, yes i really like rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead, but i have much room in my heart
q. is it most best portrayal/analysis, or best on its own merits?
a. a little of both, but mostly the latter
q. does [x thing] (that's pretty different than the original inspiration) count?
a. if it is common knowledge that it's shakespeare inspired
q. does the lion king count?
a. yea
signal boosting! if yall great bracket blogs will help out @gayest-classiclit @byronicherobracket (this one's still in qualifiers, it seems cool!) @straightplayshowdown (this one's getting going again!) @bestadaptationtournament @gayestshakespearecouples
wild to me to see posts like "wow everything in the tempest is named after shakespeare...emet you melodramatic bitch you sure loved theater". because the prospero-emet thing gets played up so hard in the english script and you can carry it so far!
like prospero is an asshole magician who, after being deposed by his brother as duke of milan, settles himself and his daughter on a remote island, enslaves the local spirits using his magic, and bitterly plots to reclaim his past glories. he rules through violence and deceit, and only survives and is reconciled when his plots reach their fruition and his brother is taken to his remote island and plots ensue and everyone decides he was totally right all along and they were huge dicks to him and they're sooooo sorry and he gets to go back and be duke again wow! and it's okay because he's like "i was only doing mean magic to get my rightful spot back and now i'm giving it up because magic is evil. :)"
the tempest is what emet wants his life to be. prospero is not a villain in the text of the tempest. he is barely treated as antagonistic by the text and framing of the play itself. all his abuses, his neglect and control of his daughter, his enslavement of caliban and ariel (local spirits/monsters/people of the island), his deception and plots against his brother, his abuse of magical powers (not awesome, from the pov of the contemporary audience), all that ultimately gets swept aside in the rightness of his return to milan and the warm feeling of the world being set to rights. prospero can't undo the years he spent on the island but they are ultimately a blip in his life before he returns to the rightful state of affairs. his abuse and enslavement of caliban, easily the worst thing he does in the play, is totally set aside when caliban goes "wow now i see how truly benevolent my master is. i love him and see the ways of christian good and i'm so, so appreciative he chose not to kill or beat me even though he totally could have and would have been in the right. he's so just and intelligent." everyone loves and forgives him and they all agree both his management of the island and his ultimate return are so good and so wise and so right.
emet comparing himself to the tempest (or being compared to it, depending on how you want to read the diegetic status of the place names) is absolute wishcasting. it is an attempt to manifest the happy ending he will never, ever get because his sins cannot and would not be forgiven in the way he wants. he wants to imagine himself as the righteous returned duke whose crimes, including the enslavement, abuse, and exploitation of those he saw as his rightful inferiors, were totally worth it, i promise. and if emet is prospero, the warrior of light is his caliban.