he even says "hysterical" unironically
So who is going to see this? (I know lareinenoire is, but there are lots of DC people on my flist.)
You should totally tell me all about it if you do. In particular whether it is as faily as the review makes it sound.
Also I am perhaps unreasonably angered by this:
At the top of the show, director Kahn has inserted material from "Thomas of Woodstock," an Elizabethan play sometimes grouped with the Shakespearean apocrypha. The interpolation is a smart ploy because it clarifies the tale's back story and establishes, more solidly than the canonical text, the king's missteps, including his catering to sycophantic councilors and his plan to turn England into his personal piggy bank.
BECAUSE THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS. WOODSTOCK IS ITS OWN PLAY. IT IS NOT PSEUDO-SHAKESPEARE. THE TWO PLAYS DO NOT HAVE A SEQUENTIAL RELATIONSHIP. THEY DO NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUES IN THE SAME WAY AT ALL. WOODSTOCK DOES NOT "CLARIFY" SHAKESPEARE EXCEPT INSOFAR AS IT ILLUSTRATES WHAT SHAKESPEARE ISN'T DOING.
I sometimes worry about myself, that the only thing that can provoke me to that level of spittle-spewing rage is Shakespearefail. It is quite possible that it's true that I only care about Shakespeare. Or something.
(Also, the bit about migraines and moodswings, &c., pissed me off not in a Shakespearefail sense but in a mental-health-fail sense. Because GAAAAAAAAAH *flail* It's not like Shakespeare!Richard doesn't have moodswings, even, it's just, IDEK. I just feel like sentences like "Bolingbroke's regular-guy aura emphasizes his rival's fascinating mental instability" just imply a whole lot of really nasty things. I do not feel like "fascinating mental instability" is a thing people should say.)
You should totally tell me all about it if you do. In particular whether it is as faily as the review makes it sound.
Also I am perhaps unreasonably angered by this:
At the top of the show, director Kahn has inserted material from "Thomas of Woodstock," an Elizabethan play sometimes grouped with the Shakespearean apocrypha. The interpolation is a smart ploy because it clarifies the tale's back story and establishes, more solidly than the canonical text, the king's missteps, including his catering to sycophantic councilors and his plan to turn England into his personal piggy bank.
BECAUSE THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS. WOODSTOCK IS ITS OWN PLAY. IT IS NOT PSEUDO-SHAKESPEARE. THE TWO PLAYS DO NOT HAVE A SEQUENTIAL RELATIONSHIP. THEY DO NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUES IN THE SAME WAY AT ALL. WOODSTOCK DOES NOT "CLARIFY" SHAKESPEARE EXCEPT INSOFAR AS IT ILLUSTRATES WHAT SHAKESPEARE ISN'T DOING.
I sometimes worry about myself, that the only thing that can provoke me to that level of spittle-spewing rage is Shakespearefail. It is quite possible that it's true that I only care about Shakespeare. Or something.
(Also, the bit about migraines and moodswings, &c., pissed me off not in a Shakespearefail sense but in a mental-health-fail sense. Because GAAAAAAAAAH *flail* It's not like Shakespeare!Richard doesn't have moodswings, even, it's just, IDEK. I just feel like sentences like "Bolingbroke's regular-guy aura emphasizes his rival's fascinating mental instability" just imply a whole lot of really nasty things. I do not feel like "fascinating mental instability" is a thing people should say.)