(Untitled)

[vremyavpered]

it's funny to be having issues with Shakespeare, and nevertheless, I do!

I've just seen Richard the III, with Kevin Spacey as the wretched king, Gemma Jones as queen Margaret, and a slew of other wonderful actors and actresses in supporting roles.

Comments

[fiona_grady]

Well, lucky you! We are planning to fly to NY to see it, but winter travel is so unpredictable on the Prairie. As for propaganda (my favorite topic), well, duh! What play/film/book/painting isn't? Especially those by royal appointment or affiliated with the Court? Never diminished my love of the Bard, or Velasquez, of Van Dyck...

[vremyavpered]

well, there is (I think) a difference between a point of view and blatant propaganda :) This is so much of the latter....

and I just corrected "text" to "plot" -- of course, I have naught but humble admiration for the text ;)

[vremyavpered]

or may be the difference between "point of view" and "blatant propaganda" is simply the awareness of how many facts were omitted or twisted :(

[fiona_grady]

Pray, do not confuse any play (or script, for that matter) with history. Too many people base their knowledge of the life of Gloriana on silly movies, or even great movies, or great plays. Too many people also get offended when a film meant to dramatize a famous book, deviates sharply from the text. These are two different genres, what works in a history book will never work on stage. The subject of propaganda is vast but let us consider one most shining example, that of the life of Christ. Do facts really matter when a powerful text, supported by powerful imagery and music, moves the masses? I rest my case.

[bagira]

I wrote about Tey's book some time ago, and received some intelligent comments, including from someone who said that possibly Tey was just as biased, except in favor, rather than against Richard, and that there was some evidence that the boy princes might indeed have died in the Tower. But I did like the book a lot, and I have always liked Richard a lot--certainly more than the slutty fat Edward or the disloyal Clarence.

Btw, George Martin bases his absolutely unlikable, but undeniably intelligent and powerful Lord Stannis Baratheon on Richard.

[vremyavpered]

they def. might have died in the tower; but i think tey was pretty successful in showing that in the question of cui prodest, richard doesn't really seem to be the logical first choice

+ in the play many other murders are heaped on Richard: the murder of Anne's first husband & her father; murder of what's his name, his brother Clarence; the poisoning of his wife Anne, in addition to killings that really did happen, and for cause: Buckingham and Rivers &Co.

a propos

[fiona_grady]

http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/movies/anonymous-by-roland-emmerich-review.html

Most specifically:
It is an Oxfordian commonplace that de Vere composed some of his history plays (“Henry V,” “Richard III”) to assert some behind-the-scenes influence over the affairs of state. “Anonymous” gives him complicated reasons for wanting to keep King James of Scotland off the English throne once Elizabeth is gone, and to sustain the Tudor line by promoting the ascendance of the Earl of Southampton (Xavier Samuel). The Earl of Southampton is a close friend of the Earl of Essex (Sam Reid), to whom de Vere is close for reasons that may shock you, or else reduce you to incredulous giggling.

“All plays are political,” Edward de Vere insists, and “Anonymous” proposes as a corollary that only political players can produce theater of real consequence

Re: a propos

[vremyavpered]

Have you seen it?
Did you like?

Re: a propos

[fiona_grady]

No, I almost never go to the movies, and would especially hate to see any flick that doubts Shakespearean authorship.

Re: a propos

[vremyavpered]

yea, that's what i would think :)
just wanted to make sure.