It’s funny, I feel like I’m always surprised to learn that Shakespeare had a play based on king John. Like the Henry iv- v I know instinctually, but John I never remember has a play
So King John was/ is a woman as is the cardinal. Of course the Catholic Church has always had lots of female cardinals. What's Arthur in this version ? A Red Setter? Species - blind casting -that's what we want. Why don't you try doing these plays properly instead of adapting/ re-imagining and trying to make them ' accessible' ?
Although I find your comment somewhat too harsh, I sometimes am fed up with systematic gender-crossing casting (my worst experience this summer was Helen Schlesinger as Falstaff) and present day (or futuristic) sets and costumes . Most people can see the relevance of a Shakespeare play without being explicitly told or shown.
Falstaff provides a good example of how awful this sort of stuff is. The Henry IV plays are about ( amongst other things - like the history ) the notion of 'fathering'. Effectively, Hal has two fathers - his biological father, the King - boring, tortured, guilty ( about his role in the death of Richard II), nagging, miserable - and the man, who in many ways he would like to be his father - the funny, life affirming, force of nature, hard- drinking, as he says ' Give me life' , Falstaff. So, it's about 'fathering' not 'mothering'. It makes no sense of the play for Falstaff to be played by a woman. It spoils the play. After fifty five years ( since Ian Holm as Richard III at Stratford in 1963) of going to the professional theatre - have seen scores of Shakespeare productions - I don't go anymore .....which I think is rather sad.
It’s funny, I feel like I’m always surprised to learn that Shakespeare had a play based on king John. Like the Henry iv- v I know instinctually, but John I never remember has a play
This was an excellent production. If it was filmed please release it on dvd.
wow
Book your theatre night stay at groveroadcottages.com
So King John was/ is a woman as is the cardinal. Of course the Catholic Church has always had lots of female cardinals. What's Arthur in this version ? A Red Setter? Species - blind casting -that's what we want. Why don't you try doing these plays properly instead of adapting/ re-imagining and trying to make them ' accessible' ?
Although I find your comment somewhat too harsh, I sometimes am fed up with systematic gender-crossing casting (my worst experience this summer was Helen Schlesinger as Falstaff) and present day (or futuristic) sets and costumes . Most people can see the relevance of a Shakespeare play without being explicitly told or shown.
Why don't you try yanking the panties out of your snatch?
Falstaff provides a good example of how awful this sort of stuff is. The Henry IV plays are about ( amongst other things - like the history ) the notion of 'fathering'. Effectively, Hal has two fathers - his biological father, the King - boring, tortured, guilty ( about his role in the death of Richard II), nagging, miserable - and the man, who in many ways he would like to be his father - the funny, life affirming, force of nature, hard- drinking, as he says ' Give me life' , Falstaff. So, it's about 'fathering' not 'mothering'. It makes no sense of the play for Falstaff to be played by a woman. It spoils the play. After fifty five years ( since Ian Holm as Richard III at Stratford in 1963) of going to the professional theatre - have seen scores of Shakespeare productions - I don't go anymore .....which I think is rather sad.
wow
The theatre probably doesn't.
There is absolutely no need to have a woman as the Cardinal in this production.
wow