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
Why would anyone want to go to Stratford to see a Shakespeare play? There is zero evidence the man named William Shakespeare who lived in Stratford was even literate, nevermind an author, nevermind The Bard. Don't you think that if a local boy in your town became the most famous author in the world, someone in Stratford would have noticed? Or written a letter to somebody, anybody, mentioning this fact? Might his actual family have noticed and said something, anything, about it? They didn't. Stop spamming the world about Stratford please. We can just go to Disney for our fictional fairy tales mate.
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.
In my family we had a funny moment in the mid 80s when a long term houseguest did a U-turn in town to get a better look at a stunning redhead parked in a pickup truck at the train station. Turned out to be a setter. He didn't live that one down for the rest of his life.
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.
@@aclark903It's fine. Everyone should go to a play once in their lives where all the casting and direction is distorted through some kind of mental kaleidoscope. Once. The problem is the constant spamming and grotesque "political correctness" of factual incorrectness.
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
Why would anyone want to go to Stratford to see a Shakespeare play? There is zero evidence the man named William Shakespeare who lived in Stratford was even literate, nevermind an author, nevermind The Bard.
Don't you think that if a local boy in your town became the most famous author in the world, someone in Stratford would have noticed? Or written a letter to somebody, anybody, mentioning this fact? Might his actual family have noticed and said something, anything, about it? They didn't.
Stop spamming the world about Stratford please. We can just go to Disney for our fictional fairy tales mate.
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?
In my family we had a funny moment in the mid 80s when a long term houseguest did a U-turn in town to get a better look at a stunning redhead parked in a pickup truck at the train station.
Turned out to be a setter.
He didn't live that one down for the rest of his life.
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.
@@aclark903It's fine. Everyone should go to a play once in their lives where all the casting and direction is distorted through some kind of mental kaleidoscope. Once.
The problem is the constant spamming and grotesque "political correctness" of factual incorrectness.
wow