Shakespeare in performance was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
August 12, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that by 1608,
performances of William Shakespeare's plays had become popular enough that his playing company was able to act indoors, in the
Blackfriars Theatre? |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nice article! I don't like the title 'Shakespearean performances' though; 'Shakespearean' means 'like Shakespeare', whereas this article is about performances of Shakespeare. In academic study, this subject is called "Shakespeare in Performance" (try googling it and you'll see what I mean). I think that would be better. The Drama Llama 17:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is great! Is there any way to add more recent performances? The article kind of trails off in the middle of the 1930s... Wrad 01:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I would very much like to see a section on this or one of the other wikipedia shakespeare pages that has a discussion or at least of plays which are based on shakespeare, ie rozencrantz and guildenstern are dead, goodnight desdemonona, Macbett by Ionesco. The closest thing is the list of texts with titles based on shakespeare but I think that texts which are entirely based on shakespeare derseve more mention. P.s. if this isn't the correct format for notes, I'm sorry I don't really know how to use wikipedia ( 142.150.48.148 ( talk) 05:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)),
This is an excellent beginning to a very broad topic - nice work. I think, though, that a few improvements will make it even better.
Missing information:
Sources:
Lead:
Performances during Shakespeare's lifetime:
Interregnum and Restoration:
18th century:
19th century:
20th century:
Organization:
Images:
MOS:
If you have any questions about this review, drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 22:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I've substituted the image of Betterton as Hamlet for the stage picture that was there before; my reasoning was that the picture didn't, unfortunately, illustrate the caption (the apron stage being virtually invisible). There's a great drawing by Walter Hodge of a restoration theatre, but I presume it's still in copyright (besides not being of Shakespeare specifically).
I moved the picture of Garrick as Richard III down to the c18th section, rather than Restoration. I also moved the copy from the Restoration section about him down, though its integration is a bit clumsy at the moment. If anyone can improve it, so much the better.
I've also added the delightful Cushman sisters' R&J to the c19th section; I like the way Juliet looks a bit like young Victoria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DionysosProteus ( talk • contribs) 03:38, August 29, 2007 (UTC) DionysosProteus 20:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. This paragraph appeared today:
I've added a fact tag as it seemed too rude just to delete, but there are major problems throughout this paragraph. Firstly, the 'inner stage' at the Globe is a contentious issue. Though the performance dynamic is useful, I'm not sure thrust stage inner stage is the best way to describe that relation on the Shakespearean stage. Secondly, I fear staging techniques from a century or two later are being projected back anachronistically here; the area behind the pros was very, very dark and pretty small. While some scholars think it could have been used for acting, most likely it wasn't, at least not in the genres we're talking about here. While there are correspondences, these are not the ones. Most Restoration comedies, for example, are played entirely on the apron, with many scenes indoors. The reference to the increase of spectacle is relevant to the operatic adaptations, but if they are what's meant then the continuity of staging practices evaporates. Here's a sectional plan of Drury Lane from 1674 (probably):
As you can see, the apron stage is huge, about the same depth as the area behind the pros arch; once you take into account the diminishing sightlines, the apron is the far larger space, with the two doors either side opening on to it. It would be good if we could talk in terms of actual measurements when comparing the thrust and apron. Most of the action occurred on the apron and entrances were through the doors only, I think. Rather than trying to draw parallels too closely with the architecture, I'd recommend talking in terms of neutrality / localization, and actor-audience contact. It's important to outline the different theatre architecture, definitely. Perhaps the indoor theatres are a better point of comparison? My impulse is to suggest that the differences in architecture be stressed, but the continuity of performance mode (which is what I think was being aimed for); When the casual reader reads pros arch, they think in fourth wall terms, so that needs to be narrated too. Sorry if this sounds overly negative or unclear. .. about to call it a night. DionysosProteus
A note to myself as much as a request to others: there are (at least) two major Shakespeare productions from the twentieth century missing: Peter Brook's A Midsummer Night's Dream (1968?) and Peter Stein's As You Like It. The building of Shakespeare's Globe and its unquestioned success is also a major development. Need to talk about Shakespearean theatre companies like the RSC too.
Note also: I disagree strongly with the proposal above to remove the "On Screen" section. The interrelationship between stage and screen is a major part of contemporary Shakespeare production, and the relationship between text, stage, and screen is as vital a part in our culture's shift from a literate to a "post-literate", audio-visually-centered one, as the text-stage relationship was in Shakespeare's shift from an oral to a literate culture. DionysosProteus 13:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Plays are meant to be spoken; yet the article has nothing about the sounds of Shakespeare's language. There has been a wide variety of spoken English over the last half millenium and in many parts of the world. Shakespeare lived near the beginning of the great vowel shift; so no modern English can reproduce the original pronunciation of his plays. Examples:
The doggerel in As You Like It in which "Rosalind" is rhymed with (seemingly) every possible word ending in "ind" is often played for more comedy than Shakespeare intended, by mispronouncing modern English to force the rhymes, which were not faulty in his time.
Ironically, although American English comes somewhat closer to Shakespeare's English, American productions often mistakenly assume that modern British pronunciation is more "authentic", since Shakespeare was English.
British productions often presume that Shakespeare's characters would speak in the British class accents that would be heard from modern Britons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.86.92.198 ( talk) 14:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
So, are we to believe that the only relevant 21st century staging of Shakespeare is the "Jude Law Hamlet", as it occupies 98% of the section, with detailed cast and performance history? (the remainder being a gracious mention of the Propeller company...) -- megA ( talk) 22:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)