I came here because I was thinking the concentration on Shakespeare in schools and culture and ignoring other playwrights who were considered by the people who were alive at that time to be equal to or better than Shakespeare. This would be the same as 200 years from now the public only remembers the movies of George Lucas and ignores or rarely watches a Hitchcock or Spielberg movies. So I am pleased to see that Shakespeare's contemporary playwrights also have their plays produced. This is very important. Bravo. I am also wondering if to our modern tastes Shakespeare is seen as superior but to people who lived at that time Shakespeare may have been considered sort of the way we view Michael Bey and his "Transformers" movies. Imagine that, 500 years from now what we consider the garbage movies are actually studied as masterpieces.
The Spanish Tragedy is no better or worse than the Henry VI plays or Titus Andronicus, but no other writer from the era wrote anything comparable to Shakespeare's great tragedies. (Though, it is probably fair to say that Shakespeare is more to our tastes than he was to the Elizabethan audiences. To them he was new and groundbreaking, more like the underappreciated Orson Welles than Michael Bay.)
With respect, as someone who has read a lot of drama from the period, by all of the various well-regarded contemporaries of Shakespeare (Johnson, Marlowe, Ford, Kyd, Middleton, Dekker, Fletcher etc), as interesting and vital as it was, and I have a deep love for it, none of it is CLOSE to Shakespeare. Shakespeare is another level, not only to his contemporaries but most of what has come before or since too. Ben Johnson, one of the 'other' greats of the period (possibly the single most 'popular' playwright of the age for his biting satires of city life) acknowledged himself that Shakespeare was one of the 'great ones', filed more correctly with the great poets of history like Homer or Dante, than with his contemporaries. Your film analogy doesn't work; as Apemantus commented, Shakespeare is more the Orson Welles of the time and those others who were 'as popular or more popular' than Shakespeare are the 'Michael Bays' whose work had large commercial appeal but less genuine worth and threfore less lasting legacy than Shakespeare's. In fact, the single most amazing thing about Shakespeare is that he isn't overrated. Given how he's regarded one can only go into his work assuming he must be, so I can understand the direction of your thoughts... I had similar suspicions when I started my journey with the work of the time and was all ready to trumpet forth to the world the merits of Marlowe (whose work I really do love and wish could be better known), Johnson et al... but no, it turns out Shakespeare IS that good and that's not a shame or a neglect of the other dramatists. They were the great writers of their time. Shakespeare is one of the greats of ALL time and that is the difference.
Hello, I know I'm 8 years late but maybe I can help answer this. From what we understand of the period, Shakespeare was a rather popular author, and his plays were really well received. Scholars suggest that his most popular play would have been Titus Andronicus. He had his critics in his early years, but he became a pretty big name. He wasn't the same Shakespeare as today, revered as the paramount author of the English language, but he made a good amount of money off both his plays and poetry, he was able to invest them into his own businesses (like the Globe Theatre) and make more money to afford the nicest house in Stratford. Spanish Tragedy inspired Shakespeare so much, you can find many aspects of Titus, Hamlet, and even some history plays in there. ST was just a monumental production for theatre! Other contemporaries like Christopher Marlowe also had a huge impact on future writers. I do understand where you're coming from with this analogy, and I definitely understand the desire to steer clear from Shakespeare when the curtain has finally revealed some even more excellent plays like this one. However, I don't find it all productive to compare Shakespeare or anyone back then with contemporary peoples. Theatre was so different then, it might be a great way to get young students to understand his breadth, but theres so much more nuance than calling Shakespeare Michael Bey or even Orson Welles. Our relationship to movies now is different to peoples relationship with theatre then. But, you are right; it is important to unveil that Shakespeare curtain! It's okay to recognize Shakespeare as an important writer, and we definitely should widen the range of what was considered good theatre then. I'm fine with kicking down his pedestal a bit, but there's definitely a reason why people still put on his works besides so much time in the ivory towers; he's just really good at what he does.
The meeting of Bel Imperia and Horatio is reminiscent of the meeting of Romeo and Juliet, where there is a pun on the word 'palmers', when they touch hands.
Wonderfully done! The Bel-Imperia/Horatio couplets are lovely. Excellent cinematography as well.
I came here because I was thinking the concentration on Shakespeare in schools and culture and ignoring other playwrights who were considered by the people who were alive at that time to be equal to or better than Shakespeare. This would be the same as 200 years from now the public only remembers the movies of George Lucas and ignores or rarely watches a Hitchcock or Spielberg movies. So I am pleased to see that Shakespeare's contemporary playwrights also have their plays produced. This is very important. Bravo.
I am also wondering if to our modern tastes Shakespeare is seen as superior but to people who lived at that time Shakespeare may have been considered sort of the way we view Michael Bey and his "Transformers" movies. Imagine that, 500 years from now what we consider the garbage movies are actually studied as masterpieces.
The Spanish Tragedy is no better or worse than the Henry VI plays or Titus Andronicus, but no other writer from the era wrote anything comparable to Shakespeare's great tragedies. (Though, it is probably fair to say that Shakespeare is more to our tastes than he was to the Elizabethan audiences. To them he was new and groundbreaking, more like the underappreciated Orson Welles than Michael Bay.)
With respect, as someone who has read a lot of drama from the period, by all of the various well-regarded contemporaries of Shakespeare (Johnson, Marlowe, Ford, Kyd, Middleton, Dekker, Fletcher etc), as interesting and vital as it was, and I have a deep love for it, none of it is CLOSE to Shakespeare. Shakespeare is another level, not only to his contemporaries but most of what has come before or since too. Ben Johnson, one of the 'other' greats of the period (possibly the single most 'popular' playwright of the age for his biting satires of city life) acknowledged himself that Shakespeare was one of the 'great ones', filed more correctly with the great poets of history like Homer or Dante, than with his contemporaries.
Your film analogy doesn't work; as Apemantus commented, Shakespeare is more the Orson Welles of the time and those others who were 'as popular or more popular' than Shakespeare are the 'Michael Bays' whose work had large commercial appeal but less genuine worth and threfore less lasting legacy than Shakespeare's.
In fact, the single most amazing thing about Shakespeare is that he isn't overrated. Given how he's regarded one can only go into his work assuming he must be, so I can understand the direction of your thoughts... I had similar suspicions when I started my journey with the work of the time and was all ready to trumpet forth to the world the merits of Marlowe (whose work I really do love and wish could be better known), Johnson et al... but no, it turns out Shakespeare IS that good and that's not a shame or a neglect of the other dramatists. They were the great writers of their time. Shakespeare is one of the greats of ALL time and that is the difference.
Hello, I know I'm 8 years late but maybe I can help answer this. From what we understand of the period, Shakespeare was a rather popular author, and his plays were really well received. Scholars suggest that his most popular play would have been Titus Andronicus. He had his critics in his early years, but he became a pretty big name. He wasn't the same Shakespeare as today, revered as the paramount author of the English language, but he made a good amount of money off both his plays and poetry, he was able to invest them into his own businesses (like the Globe Theatre) and make more money to afford the nicest house in Stratford.
Spanish Tragedy inspired Shakespeare so much, you can find many aspects of Titus, Hamlet, and even some history plays in there. ST was just a monumental production for theatre! Other contemporaries like Christopher Marlowe also had a huge impact on future writers.
I do understand where you're coming from with this analogy, and I definitely understand the desire to steer clear from Shakespeare when the curtain has finally revealed some even more excellent plays like this one. However, I don't find it all productive to compare Shakespeare or anyone back then with contemporary peoples. Theatre was so different then, it might be a great way to get young students to understand his breadth, but theres so much more nuance than calling Shakespeare Michael Bey or even Orson Welles. Our relationship to movies now is different to peoples relationship with theatre then.
But, you are right; it is important to unveil that Shakespeare curtain! It's okay to recognize Shakespeare as an important writer, and we definitely should widen the range of what was considered good theatre then. I'm fine with kicking down his pedestal a bit, but there's definitely a reason why people still put on his works besides so much time in the ivory towers; he's just really good at what he does.
What a demented analogy
Very Good! Please do more, I am so surprised there is not a film adaptation of this.
The meeting of Bel Imperia and Horatio is reminiscent of the meeting of Romeo and Juliet, where there is a pun on the word 'palmers', when they touch hands.
They've chosen to perform it that way - the text does not demand it.
Very good acting
Very nice Video
Did you only film this excerpt or is this part of a full production? If the latter, is it possible to order a copy of the entire film?
Is this your re-enactment or is this from a movie?