#english shakespeare company

[infinitelytheheartexpands]

alright henry vi: house of lancaster (english shakespeare company) let’s go

thank you @shredsandpatches

[unsightlymuse]

This video is literally every friend group ever:

And it is also the epitome of British popular culture.

[burningvelvet]

nearly halfway thru shakespeare's plays and i've been mainly saving the histories for last but recently watched david tennant's richard ii and really recommend it for fans of him (as well as hamlet, but that's more well known). he decided to play him very queerly and androgynously, and he wears this amazing long hair with flowing fabrics. there are some good monologues from the queen and others about sorrow - i suggest anyone ctrl+f the word "sorrow" and read those bits if nothing else - & there are some surprisingly progressive speeches from the king himself.

for percy shelley fans like myself, i must say that i knew shelley was fond of reciting the words "let us sit upon the ground / and tell sad stories of the death of kings," to his friends, a reference that not everyone would really get but he loved too much to care. but it wasn't until tennant spoke those words -- and i didn't even know that line was from this play, but as soon as i heard them -- that i felt their power, the same power shelley must have felt if he ever saw it live, or the power he must have sensed when he read it. i got so excited when i recognized those words. then i realized why that became one of his favorite monologues ever. its such a fiery shelleyan monologue and tennant did it real justice - for me it was the highlight.

[better-to-reign-in-hell]

Imagine saying “yas queen serve cunt” but in Shakespearean English

It’d be like “oh rejoice my Godly monarch serveth thy womanly flower”

[overusedtoothbrush]

idk what possessed me but i need to say this.

THE LEONARDO DICAPRIO VERSION OF ROMEO AND JULIET SUCKS ASS.

the dialogue being straight out of shakespeare makes no sense. almost every part of the movie isn’t terrible but the dialogue makes it un watchable for me.

however, west side story which is a romeo and juliet retelling is amazing and wonderful and i love it very much. the reason i like it more and it’s watchable for me is because of the dialogue so.

but it’s a musical meaning that ppl are less likely to watch it even though it’s a classic in its own right as well as a amazing retelling of a even more classic story.

now also there were a few rom-coms that came out in the 2000s that were shakespeare retellings and were amazing (10 things i hate about you and she’s the man). and recently anyone but you came out which is also a shakespeare retelling. these movies i think are really important because they have the same stories and plot as the original works but are way more approachable to audiences.

and since the last (large scale) “adaptation” of romeo and juliet was in the 90s we should get a new one that is similar to the 2000s rom-coms (but still with the same ending). also anyone but you was massively successful so there’s no reason to not do it.

[alsofullofflies]

Every time Richard and the Duke of Buckingham should’ve kissed in Shakespeares Richard III

Not a kiss, but in Act 1 Scene 3 where Margaret warns Buckingham to ‘Take heed of yonder dog,’ and Richard asks Bucking what she said, Buckingham replies that it is, ‘Nothing [he] respects,’ referring to Richard as his ‘gracious lord.’ Here, as he rejects Margaret’s warning which will come to fruition, he goes over to Richard and Richard places a jealous arm around his shoulders. Besties that kill together stay together… until one kills the other.

Side note: Margaret even warns that Richard will ‘split [Buckinghams] very heart with sorrow.’ Sound like a breakup? That’s cause it is.

…over a disagreement on whether to kill some kids, but nevertheless.

Act 2 Scene 2, after Buckingham convinces the assembled to let him and Richard and only a few others fetch young Edward to London (unknowingly to his death), Richard and Buckingham are left alone on the stage and share a moment. Richard calls Buckingham his ‘other self… [his] oracle, [his] prophet,’ between which he kisses him in his excited villainly.

Act 3 Scene 1, Buckingham mocks the concept of ‘Sanctuary children in order to remove the young York from the arms of his mother, definitely turning Richard on with his skilled argument.

May the end of this same scene, Richard and Buckingham are once again left alone. They now work as a firm team, and Richard offers Buckingham the earldom of Hereford once he is king. Buckingham replacing that he will ‘claim that promise at your graces hand,’ kissing said hand before kissing the man himself. Indeed, after they ‘sup,’ (take supper) together to plot some more - their favourite shared hobby.

Act 3 Scene 4, Buckingham convinced Hastings that he knows Richard much better, arguing that they ‘know each others faces… [not their] hearts.’ This is an ironic lie even when read as platonic from Buckinghams perspective. He believes it a lie - it will be revealed as the truth towards the end of the play.

Act 3 Scene 5, as they brag about their acting skills they are close and teasing, though never kiss, aware the Mayor and Catesby are just around the corner.

For a while now, they speak but are too concerned with plotting and gaining the crown for Richard to truly be intimate.

However, an interpretation of Richard as queer makes his bastardisation of ‘holy writ,’ to ‘clothe [his] naked villainly,’ all the more telling. Just like with his ‘deformity,’ he cannot live as he wishes to without prejudice, and perhaps in the case of his queerness, his skilful acting becomes all the more important.

As Buckingham convinces the citizens, he implores to Richards, ‘tender… heart and gentle, kind, effeminate remorse.’ Ironic in the face of Richards cold hearted villainly, but also hinting towards their relationship.

Crucially, and symbolically, it is not Anne, his wife’s, hand which Richard holds as he ascends to the those but canonically Buckinghams - metaphorically Buckingham was the one to help him to the throne, but equally, it shows a deeper relationship. (Here I consider Phillippe (‘Monsieur’) Duke d’Orlean and The Chevalier from Versailles - he has a wife who is aware of his proclivities, but is privileged enough that no one comments on the open secret of his relationship)

Furthermore, high on their victory, Bucking calls Richard his ‘loving Lord.’

This all changes however - Richard ‘wish[es] the bastards [The old King Edwards’ children] dead.’ And Buckingham is ‘all ice.’

His pause for ‘some little breath.’ Consigns him to his fate. Richard is fickle, and has lost interest in Buckingham just as he has with the crown. His only wish now is to continue his ‘villainly.’

The next time Buckingham tries to speak to Richard he is ignored and spoken over- dismissed like just another servant when trying to claim the previously promised earldom. He knows he will die by Richards hand at this point and runs.

When Richard sadistically petitions Elizabeth (mother of the princes in the tower he killed) for her to marry her daughter (his niece) to him, he does not speak of triumph against his adversary for the crown, Richmond, but Buckingham.

Buckingham is now a ‘petty rebel,’ and ‘dull-brained.’ Indeed, Elizabeth’s daughter will be replacing him in ‘a conquerors bed.’ He is almost petty in his revenge against Buckingham after he is told ‘no’ for the first time - attempting to make him jealous though his replacement.

Buckingham begs to speak to Richard one last time before his execution, calling him the ‘whom I most trusted.’ As Margaret predicted, Buckingham recalls, his heart is ‘split with sorrow.’

Finally, Buckinghams appears to Richard as a ghost in Richards dream, calling on Richards ‘guiltiness.’ Richard regrets his actions, despite his calls of ‘coward conscience.’ He knows that from beyond the grave, Buckingham fights on Richmond’s side, as Richard ‘falls in the hight of all his pride.’

Thank you for coming to my TED talk on why Tumblr should diversify its Shakespeare interests from just Julius Caesar one day a year <3

[nicolikesthesun]

Shakespeare for every day of the year

[goodhairbadmanners]

"I do love nothing in the world so well as you. Is that not strange?"

[violetwolfraven]

Wait wait wait remember that post about how Team Starkid/the Lang brothers are going to be comparable to Shakespeare 500 years from now and it was mostly played for laughs like yeah lol you’ll need a paragraph of footnotes to explain the zefron poster but like

I don’t think that’s actually far off from how Starkid’s place in theatre history might play out and here’s why. Just hear me out

Why is Shakespeare so popular today when he definitely wasn’t the only playwright from that era? When he’s not even the only playwright from that era from England that we have surviving works from?

Two main reasons:

1) Shakespeare’s work is (relatively) universally relatable. The characters do things that are so fundamentally human. They make jokes at their friends’ expense. They complain about being awkward in front of their crush. They have daddy issues. The plot lines of the plays aren’t too complicated. The dick jokes land whether you’re watching in 1611 or 2024, and they probably still will in 2637. Shakespeare’s works are timeless because he didn’t try to outsmart his audience. He wrote about things everyone could relate to rather than trying too hard to peacock his intellect in front of the nobility. This is not true of every playwright.

2) Shakespeare was really popular right around the time England started colonizing everything in sight. Copies of his work got shipped all around the world, translated into dozens of languages, performed probably thousands of times. Setting aside the moral implications of this, the important thing to note is that Shakespeare was about the most easily accessible English playwright during a time of rapid, intense globalization.

Meanwhile, Starkid:

1) Invests hard in meaningful, relatable character arcs instead of spectacle and expensive sets or costumes. Also, lowbrow, immature humor and dick jokes that make A Very Potter Sequel funny and enjoyable regardless of if you’ve ever seen any other Harry Potter media in your life.

2) Posts professional recordings of their musicals to YouTube FOR FREE, making their shows about the easiest, best quality musical theatre you can get pretty much anywhere in the world, regardless of if your area has an active theatre scene. Proshots from other companies are rare and usually not free. Bootlegs are all well and good, but even if the video quality is alright (and that’s a big if) the audio is usually garbage. Starkid has been posting the best quality free recordings they can afford since 2009, shortly after the birth of social media, another time of rapid, intense globalization.

In short, I’m not saying that theatre historians in 500 years won’t remember any our current Broadway faves, but I am saying that in my opinion, Team Starkid is probably going to be more accessible for the general public. If you’re a 26th century English teacher trying to teach your class about narrative structure in 21st century theatre, what are you going to show your students? A bootleg of Hadestown with blurry video and garbage audio? Or the professional recording of Twisted, parts of which they will probably even enjoy, because even long after no one remembers Disney’s Aladdin anymore, your class of 26th century 16-year-olds are still going to laugh at “No One Remembers Achmed.”

[thebeautifulbook]

THE WHOLE BOOKE OF PSALMES (London, 1639) The Company of Stationers.

Collected into English meter by Tho. Sternhold, Jo. Hopkins, W. Whittingham, and others, conferred with the Hebrew, with apt notes to sing them withall. Newly set forth, and allowed to be sung in all churches

In the collection of The Folger Shakespeare Library.

[infinitelytheheartexpands]

alright henry vi: house of york let’s get it

@shredsandpatches

[youryurigoddess]

Aziraphale’s secret investigation and overlooked Clues

Remember this frame from Good Omens S02E06? Apparently Aziraphale had been using the empty carton box brought by Jim to store things in. It became a new home to at least two out of three “Lost Quartos” — the supposedly lost Shakespeare plays briefly but hilariously mentioned in the Good Omens book — as well as a very mysterious legal document.

Thought probably half of the Good Omens analysts here, including the ever so wonderful @fuckyeahgoodomens, who managed to find some information about the deceased John Gibson from New Cumnock (1855 - 1905).

Unfortunately the most interesting thing about this early 20th century provincial postmaster was his youngest child James (1894 - 1973), a quite famous stage (West End!) and film actor immortalized on screen in The Master of Ballantrae (1962), Witch Wood (1964) and Kidnapped (1963).

After that particular discovery the fandom-wide search seemingly led nowhere and the topic died a premature death.

And I almost figured it out seven months ago.

“But Yuri, you’re so clever. How can somebody as clever as you be so stupid?”, you probably want to shout across a busy London street at this point. Well, let me tell you. Much like Aziraphale, I'm blindingly intelligent for about thirty seconds a day. I do not get to choose which seconds and they are not consecutive.

Only tonight the stars have aligned in an ineffable way.

For those of you who don’t follow this account, some time ago I’ve realized that John Gibson isn’t the only testator whose estate was being investigated by Aziraphale right before The Whickber Street Traders and Shopkeepers Association monthly meeting.

If you watch S2 finale closely enough, you should notice that Crowley not only stress cleans Aziraphale’s bookshop — he also goes through the books and papers on his desk between the last three angels leaving the bookshop and Maggie and Nina’s intervention. A seemingly permanent arrangement of the props post-shooting, visible in detail both on Radio Times tour and SFX magazine photo shoot, sheds even more light on this detail.

The close-ups published after S2 release are legible enough to refer us to a much more prominent historical figure, Josiah Wedgwood (1730 – 1795) — an English potter, entrepreneur and abolitionist. Founding the Wedgwood company in 1759, he developed improved pottery bodies by systematic experimentation, and was the leader in the industrialisation of the manufacture of European pottery.

Long story short, I transcribed the handwritten pages abandoned on Aziraphale’s desk, found out the source and the full text of what could be identified as Wedgwood’s last will and testament, took a walk to visit his Soho workshop, and proceeded to write a lengthy meta analysis about it.

I was today’s years old when I realized that there’s something else connecting those two dead British men.

The Scottish Post Office Directory of 1903 recorded John Gibson from New Cumnock as a “stationer and china dealer” (above) operating from the shop located in the town’s post office building.

Indeed, a close look at his post office shop window in the Henderson Building (below, bottom left) reveals an artful display of fine china and pottery next to postcards printed by Gibson.

There are multiple ways to connect this surprising link with possible S3 plot points, obviously, but it’s getting late, so let’s just name the two most important ones.

You’ve probably heard of the Holy Grail, maybe from Monty Python or Good Omens S01E03 1941 flashback. Depending on the version of the story, if can be a cup, a chalice, a bowl, or a saucer — but almost always a dish or a vessel connected personally, physically and metaphysically to Jesus (unless you’re partial to Wolfram von Eschenbach’s idea that the Grail was a stone, the sanctuary of the neutral angels who took neither side during Lucifer's rebellion).

A slightly more obscure dish related to the Son of God appears in the sixteenth chapter of the Book of Revelation as a vital part of His Second Coming. The Seven Bowls (or cups, or vials) of God’s Wrath are supposed to be poured out on the wicked and the followers of the Antichrist by seven angels:

Then I heard a loud voice from the temple telling the seven angels, “Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls of the wrath of God.” So the first angel went and poured out his bowl on the earth, and harmful and painful sores came upon the people who bore the mark of the beast and worshiped its image.

The second angel poured out his bowl into the sea, and it became like the blood of a corpse, and every living thing died that was in the sea.

The third angel poured out his bowl into the rivers and the springs of water, and they became blood. And I heard the angel in charge of the waters say, “Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you brought these judgments. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink. It is what they deserve!” And I heard the altar saying, “Yes, Lord God the Almighty, true and just are your judgments!”

The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was allowed to scorch people with fire. They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory.

The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in anguish and cursed the God of heaven for their pain and sores. They did not repent of their deeds.

The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, to prepare the way for the kings from the east. And I saw, coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs. For they are demonic spirits, performing signs, who go abroad to the kings of the whole world, to assemble them for battle on the great day of God the Almighty.  (“Behold, I am coming like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake, keeping his garments on, that he may not go about naked and be seen exposed!”) And they assembled them at the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.

The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and a loud voice came out of the temple, from the throne, saying, “It is done!” And there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, and a great earthquake such as there had never been since man was on the earth, so great was that earthquake. The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath. And every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found. And great hailstones, about one hundred pounds each, fell from heaven on people; and they cursed God for the plague of the hail, because the plague was so severe.

[burningvelvet]

still continuing my shakespeare journey - got halfway thru love's labour's lost 1975 but have sadly comprehended none of it so may have to restart it in another format/version.

the thing with shakespeare is that its so much better to be able to see/listen to his works since they were meant to be performed, but if you come across a lesser performance then it can really negatively tinge a piece you would have otherwise liked. conversely a superb performance can really put you on to a play you otherwise would have been lukewarm about.

and for these reasons, along with my gen z attention span, genetic adhd, & struggling sometimes with older british dialects & EME (even though i've taken classes on historical english linguistics, shakespearean studies, and renaissance literature, & have immersed myself in classic anglo lit for years, & am a native english speaker albeit an american, etc.) — my shakespeare journey has been more bumpy than expected.

but i hope it will be worth it in the end, and that by studying his work i'll improve my overall writing/reading abilities, particularly when it comes to poetry & scriptwriting, but also storytelling in general. and this, not by mere passive absorption (which i have to combat the urge toward), but by active studying, & seeking to discover what it is that has given his works their legacies in the canon, for whatever it be worth. i think tradition has its place. i believe in learning from the greats, and i agree with that quote about how one must know the rules before they can successfully break them - & would add that too many attempt to break without knowing.

i've been casually watching the famous "working shakespeare" acting workshop series wherein they assess the language. there are exercises dor actors re: script analysis, understanding the diction, etc - & i've been practicing some of that to build my grasp on language in general. some actors like samuel l jackson, toby stephens, robert sean leonard, victor garber, claire danes, blyth danner, etc. are in it - its on youtube. i'm also going to look into playing shakespeare, acting shakespeare), shakespeare in italy, and looking for richard. these are all famous films/documentaries about understanding shakespeare & his works.

it can be so overhwelming to dive into shakespeare, as i previously mentioned - but the relieving part is the wealth of information which exists to aid in the experience. i knew an actress (we did a play partly about shakespeare, lol) who had said that she found a copy of shakespeare for dummies to be really helpful, undignified title aside lmao. there are so many databases & websites & books & all freely accessible online. the sad thing is that some of the live performances are really hard to find, but that's an issue with theatre overall.

but my university's digital library (even though i graduated, i still have access) has a lot of databases including some shakespearen-centric, national theatre, & royal shakespeare theatre stuff. so if any of you are uni students or alumni i recommend you to use your lib databases to find whatever learning resources you can - you already paid for it all with your tuition money anyway!

[torchlitinthedesert]

Kenneth Tynan and the Beatles

Shout out to @mmgth for noticing Beatle mentions in the letters of Kenneth Tynan - including working with John Lennon, Paul's 1960s reputation, and glimpses of the breakup. (Alas, no George or Ringo.)

Tynan was a drama critic and later worked with Laurence Olivier at Britain's National Theatre. Philip Norman calls him "the most rigorous cultural commentator of his age": he championed working class plays in the 1950s, supported progressive art (and was widely believed to be the first person to say "fuck" on British television). So he's an interesting perspective: well connected, arty, eager for cultural change, but from an older generation, and outside the immediate rock/pop world.

The first mention is 1966, when Tynan is already working at the National Theatre.

28 September 1966

Dear Mr McCartney,

Playing 'Eleanor Rigby' last night for about the 500th time, I decided to write and tell you how terribly sad I was to hear that you had decided not to do As You Like It for us. There are four or five tracks on 'Revolver' that are as memorable as any English songs of this century - and the maddening thing is that they are all in exactly the right mood for As You like It. Apart from 'E. Rigby' I am thinking particularly of 'For No One' and 'Here, There and Everywhere'. (Incidentally, 'Tomorrow Never Knows' is the best musical evocation of L.S.D. I have ever heard).

To come to the point: won't you reconsider? John Dexter [theatre director] doesn't know I'm writing this - it's pure impulse on the part of a fan. We don't need you as a gimmick because we don't need publicity: we need you simply because you are the best composer of that kind of song in England. If Purcell were alive, we would probably ask him, but it would be a close thing. Anyway, forgive me for being a pest, but do please think it over."

Paul replied that he couldn't do the music because, hilariously, "I don't really like words by Shakespeare" - he sat waiting for a "clear light" but nothing happened. He ended, "Maybe I could write the National Theatre Stomp sometime! Or the ballad of Larry O."

It's interesting that Tynan approaches Paul individually - because they had theatre connections in common? Or did Tynan assume that John wrote the words and Paul the music, so Paul's the guy to ask for settings of Shakespeare lyrics? (Though he does correctly identify Paul songs in his letter, plus the musical setting of Tomorrow Never Knows, so he might just be asking because he's a Paul girl. He also wants Paul to know that he's cool and hip and has done acid.)

Tynan definitely is a Paul girl. On 7 November that year, he pitched possible articles (I think for Playboy). He offers articles on the War Crimes Tribunal (set up by Bertrand Russell on the US in Vietnam), an interview with Marlene Dietrich, or:

"Interview with Paul McCartney - to me, by far the most interesting of the Beatles, and certainly the musical genius of the group."

It's a reminder of how drastically Paul's reputation changed, between cultural commentators of the 1960s and post-breakup.

Tynan didn't get his Paul interview, but he worked twice with John.

On 5 February 1968, he's sorting out practical details for the National Theatre's company manager about about the stage adapation of John's book In His Own Write (which had already had a preview performance in 1967). It's a very Beatle-y affair:

Victor Spinetti and John Lennon will need the services of George Martin, the Beatles A & R man to prepare a sound tape to accompany the Lennon play. Martin did this tape as a favour for the Sunday night production, but something more elaborate will be required when the show enters the rep, and I feel he should be approached on a professional basis as Sound Consultant, or some similar title. I have written to him to find out if he is ready to help and will let you know as soon as he replies.

...John Lennon says that as far as his own contract is concerned, we should deal directly with him at NEMS rather than his publisher.

So John prefers to work within the Beatle structure: George Martin, Victor Spinetti, plus NEMS, rather than pursuing closer ties with his book publisher.

On 16 April 1968, Tynan writes to John about his ideas for a wanking sketch.

Dear John L,

Welcome back. You know that idea of yours for my erotic revue - the masturbation contest? Could you possibly be bothered to jot it down on paper? I am trying to get the whole script in written form as soon as possible.

John's reply is very John:

"you know the idea, four fellows wanking - giving each other images - descriptions - it should be ad-libbed anyway - they should even really wank which would be great..."

Oh John.

Tynan still wanted to interview Paul - and was noticing changes in Beatle dynamics. On 3 September 1968, Tynan pitched another feature on Paul, this time for the New Yorker:

In addition to pieces on theatre, I'd love to try my hand at a profile (I remember long ago we vaguely discussed Paul McCartney though John Lennon is rather more accessible)...

Accessible because Tynan had already worked with him, or because John was already flexing his PR muscles? The New Yorker was interested, because Tynan follows up on 14 October 1968:

4. A few days in the life of Paul McCartney (which we agreed should come at the end of the series of articles, because of the current overexposure of the Beatles.)

Why does he see the Beatles as "overexposed" in autumn 1968, when he hadn't in 1966? Was it the Apple launch? The JohnandYoko press campaign? The cumulative impact of a lot of Beatle news?

Tynan was still trying on 17 September 1969:

...I'd like to go on to either Mr Pinter [playwright Harold Pinter] or Paul McCartney... I incline towards McCartney who has isolated himself more and more in the past from the other Beatles and indeed from the public: he seems to have reached an impasse that might be worth exploring. On the other hand Pinter is a much closer friend and would be more accessible to intimate scrutiny."

I'm fascinated by this - that Paul's isolation was visible to those outside the Beatles circle (the letter is dated three days before the meeting of 20 September 1969, where John said he wanted a divorce).

But Tynan was right about Paul being inaccessible. On 5 January 1970:

I'm saddened to have to tell you that Paul McCartney doesn't want to be written about at the moment - at least, not by me. I gather that for some time now the Beatles have been moving more and more in separate directions. Paul went to a recording session for a new single last Sunday which was apparently the first Beatles activity in which he'd engaged for nearly nine months. He doesn't know quite where his future lies, and above all he doesn't want to be under observation while he decides.

So while Paul "doesn't want to be under observation", he's surprisingly open about the breakup - less blunt than "the Beatle thing is over", which he told Life in November 1969, but still frank.

Trying to persuade Paul to open up to "intimate scrutiny" in 1969 does suggest another reason why 1970s interviewers adored John. Tynan works for an older, more established press, but he's offering the kind of profile John would make his own - discussing his inner life and personal/artistic conflicts with cultural commentator who respects him as an artist. And Paul can't run away fast enough. As a journalist, you'd absolutely go for the guy who makes himself accessible and is eager to bare his soul, over Mr Doesn't Want To Be Written About At The Moment.