Tlingit Shakespeare

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by DanaC

HM, I just followed the link on your sig. The Crayon eating cartoon...That's fucking funny man.

Heh, yeah. Bob kicks ass. I've had that one for a while, though. May be time to put in a new one.

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Do you ever want to sing, "HAPPY Monk-eh to yah, HAPPY Monk-eh to yah" in the style of Stevie Wonder....?

Or is it just me?

It hadn't occurred... Perhaps it will now...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by cowhead

personally I love the double entandres and general twists of phrase, the beautiful flow of words. there in lies alot of the problem with 're-imagining' it. it lacks the lyrical quality and depth of the original, like a highschool choir covering queen... yeah it can be done.. and to some degree I think it ought to be tried to inspire and challenge the artists involved.. but should it be done in public? perhaps not. the themes presented in willies works are universal to all humanity and cultures, which is why the persevere and hopefully will continue to do so.

loves me some willie s.

That's what I thought, the unique language and word play defines Shakespeare more than the plot lines. That may be because the plot lines have been done so many ways, in so many mediums, they aren't unique to Willie's plays any more.

But then I'm told all that can change and still be Shakespeare. That's why I was trying to break down what makes Shakespeare, Shakespeare. But no help there, just nay sayers. I'm waiting for HM to tell us what the Tlingit show was like.

[DanaC]

LoL

[wolf]

Shakespeare

reimagined

[Happy Monkey]

I fully support their right to sing and dance Shakespeare, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna get off my ass.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Aw c'mon, just a short video....oh, with sound, please.

Rumor has it, you might not be able to get a ticket, so be prepared to gate crash, ok?

If it's a hit, maybe they'll tour.

[barefoot serpent]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

My brain has just folded in on itself. Our resident sexgoddess is schooling xob on Outsider art, and noone has yet mentioned the AWESOME remaking of Macbeth that is:

my brain just misfired.

Scotland, PA.

Put it on your Queue now. Do not post on this thread until you've seen the movie.

This thread is hereby clsoed to anyone who hasn't seen the movie.

Go! Shoo!
Scat!

saw it last night:

OMG... we're just underachievers making up for lost time.

... thought I was gonna die!

[Ishmael]

I'm actually an actor in Macbeth, I play Malcolm. We've had good responses, not a great review but with the Washington Post I hear a not great review is excellent.

I'm thinking there are a couple things that interest me: 1) I'm surprised and a little excited that people even care enough to offer a few passing thoughts. 2) I'm curious how people have thoughts on something they presumably won't see or haven't seen, or don't know the contexts. Is that how most of these blogs go? Opinions but without context or experience?

I can agree mostly with disappointment at Shakespeare being "reimagined" for its own sake. I hate Shakespeare in a Nazi camp or on the moon just because that's what a director wanted to do. That's why I didn't really like Ian McKellen's Richard III. But I LOVED Kurasawa's Throne of Blood. It depends on what you do with it, I suppose.

But, clearly, there are opinions on this thing without folks actually having a chance to see it for themselves. I'd love it for folks to see it and gain their own perspectives. Otherwise, what's the point of even a passing thought on the thing? The energy it takes to type on a keyboard and post a blog? To take time out of the day to read other people's thoughts on something they haven't seen? To form an opinion on something that is imagined, self-constructed? If you hate it, why not hate it for what it is, or love it for what it is.

It's been great to be a part of this play, for me, personally. Generally, the audiences have been great, and the cast has been a great group. I'm excited that we are sparking some debate, striking some cord. Thanks.

Ishmael

[Cloud]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

I'm actually an actor in Macbeth, I play Malcolm. We've had good responses, not a great review but with the Washington Post I hear a not great review is excellent.

Congratulations, and thanks for visiting here.

I'm thinking there are a couple things that interest me: 1) I'm surprised and a little excited that people even care enough to offer a few passing thoughts.

Me too. Got myself into quite a lot of trouble over it, too. Yes, real people still read Shakespeare and attend the plays, and care enough to argue passionately about it.

I'm curious how people have thoughts on something they presumably won't see or haven't seen, or don't know the contexts. Is that how most of these blogs go? Opinions but without context or experience?

Yep. That's pretty much how it is. In Real Life, too.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

I'm actually an actor in Macbeth, I play Malcolm. We've had good responses, not a great review but with the Washington Post I hear a not great review is excellent.

Congratulations, and welcome to the Cellar, Ishmael.

I'm thinking there are a couple things that interest me: 1) I'm surprised and a little excited that people even care enough to offer a few passing thoughts. 2) I'm curious how people have thoughts on something they presumably won't see or haven't seen, or don't know the contexts. Is that how most of these blogs go? Opinions but without context or experience?

I assume you've read the thread. If you have, then you should know it's not about you, your production. The announcement of your production, which I opened with, only sparked the question of reimagining Shakespeare. As you said, it's been done often with mixed results.

My question is, if you change (reimagine) the costumes and language to a different context, a different setting/era/culture, how can it still be called Shakespeare? It's a different play. Is it the plot that makes Shakespeare, Shakespeare?

Hell. I'm no theater expert by any means, but I agreed with cowhead, that the language, the dialect, the word play, were always an important part of the experience of watching one of Willie's plays.

So that brought me back to the same question? How much can you reimagine one of his plays, how much can be changed and still consider it Shakespeare? Of course to know that, you have to know what's necessary to keep.
Since you have working knowledge, (ok sorry, that was a bad pun) of the play(s), can you help me out here?

I can agree mostly with disappointment at Shakespeare being "reimagined" for its own sake. I hate Shakespeare in a Nazi camp or on the moon just because that's what a director wanted to do. That's why I didn't really like Ian McKellen's Richard III. But I LOVED Kurasawa's Throne of Blood. It depends on what you do with it, I suppose.

But, clearly, there are opinions on this thing without folks actually having a chance to see it for themselves. I'd love it for folks to see it and gain their own perspectives. Otherwise, what's the point of even a passing thought on the thing? The energy it takes to type on a keyboard and post a blog? To take time out of the day to read other people's thoughts on something they haven't seen? To form an opinion on something that is imagined, self-constructed? If you hate it, why not hate it for what it is, or love it for what it is.

This tells me you did think it was about your production, which is not the case at all.

It's been great to be a part of this play, for me, personally. Generally, the audiences have been great, and the cast has been a great group. I'm excited that we are sparking some debate, striking some cord. Thanks.

Ishmael

Glad you had fun, that's a great reward in itself. Yes, you have sparked a debate. Cloud was appalled that I could question Shakespeare in any form, but why not? You said there were some reimagined productions you didn't care for, so evidently you agree there must be some line that should not be crossed. Saying Shakespeare on the marque doesn't guarantee a good show.

A million thanks for stopping in. If I'd known, I'd of had a beer for you. I'm really hoping you'll stop back an give us the benefit of your knowledge, trying to come up with at least a rough answer to my questions. Even if you feel it's just your opinion, I'd like to hear it. Thanks again...oh, and break a leg.

PS, are they recording video, or even audio, of any of the performances? If not, please put a bug in their ear....only two days left.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Cloud

snip~
Me too. Got myself into quite a lot of trouble over it, too. ~snip

No you didn't. You scolded me and I told you to go to hell. So what? :p
Just because I'm obnoxious, doesn't mean your in trouble....at least not with me.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by barefoot serpent

saw it last night:

OMG... we're just underachievers making up for lost time.

... thought I was gonna die!

Did you see the director's interview at the end:
"We basically made this movie for stoners who just read the Cliff notes.!"

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Brianna

Dude. This is OUTSIDER ART which, even when terrible to the point of puke, is totally hip. It may even be terminally hip, coz I don't know from hip. This seems a bit like peanutbutter art---kinda dry and bullshitty and doesn't go down well without some jelly.

[It's really hard to give an appreciative look on the net.]

[Ishmael]

Bruce, you wrote that it's not about me or the production. I guess you're right, but on the other hand, I'm wondering what you assume "reimagining" means. The play is about 60 per cent translated into Tlingit, while the soliliquies and Macbeth and Lady Macbeth in their scenes together are in English. The idea being that there is a change when individuals choose to break from the group.

You see, it's not reimagined for its own sake-- the play does indeed highlight someone's fatal personal ambition. Putting others before the self is a huge value in the Tlingit culture.

I've been told by someone I respect, a poet named Robert Bringhurst, that you can dislike literature all you want, but it's like disliking food or air, if you don't use it you'll get sick. I think about this when folks try to use the old "dead white irrelevant man" argument for Shakespeare. Go ahead and dislike him, or "challenge the status quo". Your loss.

On the other hand, there are great, great poets, writers, artists, unrecognized. I'm thinking of the great oral poets of my area, in Southeast Alaska. Some are survived in texts waiting to be retranslated over and over again for each new generation, and perhaps read by those who learn the original language. I hope, as we gain more recognition, and bring out new artists, that we can bring out that side of the culture.

Thanks,
Ishmael

[bluecuracao]

Ishmael, as Bruce asked about, I hope that you'll post a video (at least a part of it), or a link of a video, of your troupe's performance. I think I speak for a lot of us that we'd love to see it.

Also, will you take this show on the road?