Well worth sitting through. Felt there should have been an applause at the end but I guess delivering these lectures is just bread and butter to these Harvard types.
Garber's Shakespeare lectures are excellent introductions to the plays. Her readings are informed and authoritative. Her book Shakespeare After All is the best synthesis of critical analyses and modern commentary on the plays available, as well providing her own valuable insights into each play. Every time I read a Sh play, I always reread the related Garber essay. It always add materially to the pleasure of reading the play.
Intriguingly, as Garber highlights in her lecture on Othello, his martial prowess is an entirely informed attribute. He never fights, over the entire course of the play.
This play seems like a character sketch of the archetypal warrior. Perhaps even of Ares/Mars. He serves the mother city, and his mother, but despises the weakness of the civilian. He is too monstrous to be given yet more power, though by all his deeds he deserves it. Ultimately betrayed by everyone... sounds like the plight of a soldier, historically at least.
This was recorded in November 2007. A year later, the Great Recession made this play even more relevant, with all the 1 v. 99 percent people. So Glad this play has made a comeback.
The plebians caused the Recession. Theses 47% were not satisfied with corn(fast food). The Obama voters ate their homes. Unpaid equity loans crashed Wall Street and American Insurance Group
The question of "citizen" as a dramatic unit in Coriolanus is interesting precisely in its intersection with Roman anthropology: the citizen was the basic unit of Republican identity, the only persons with legal franchise, and in general, initially those persons who could outfit themselves for military service (however haphazardly). And having read Livy, Shakespeare presumably knows this, that citizenship has a martial dimension, and positions the citizens as those who may have intimate, battlefield knowledge of Gnaeus Marcius in contradistinction, perhaps, to the Tribunes and Menenius, the other patricians and even his mother, who lacks legal franchise but remains as committed to certain ideals of Roman Manhood that a common citizen may neglect in favor of, y'know, food.
Honestly if Coriolanus just told his mom, Volumnia to stay in Antium and don't back to Rome where he and Aufidius will attack. Let his family be safe in Antium away from backstabbing Rome. Then Aufidius who wanted to defeat Rome had his mission done, wouldn't kill Coriolanus and have a great warrior at his side. The way how Augustus had Agrippa.
Honestly Volumnia sucks as a mother. She doesn't and never tries to understand why Coriolanus took the Volscians side. She only cared about HER image to the corrupted Rome. And I get why the Volscians stabbed Coriolanus to death, he was the gateway to defeating Rome and in the end he didn't do his purpose for his new adopted country.
Came here looking for a lecture that explained this play in terms of classical models of tragic drama. This obviously (and explicitly) wasn't that, and I'm not sure I agree with the various ways in which it framed the play, but it was insightful and thought-provoking nevertheless. Thanks for sharing.
The instructor could be a little more dramatic and particular in choosing selected elements of the play on which to focus. Her narrative is too long-winded in general, and meandering.
Your "Mangirl" label is too rude, but yes, the obsession of aughties academics and their proggie spawn with some supposedly super-important theory of "the body," and linking it to identity-grievance analysis/politics, never ceases to amaze. Sorry to see that Prof. Garber was among those honoring that trend. (I do like her question at 40:51, which the class fails to respond to with any depth. And her dismissal of a pat "tragic hero" formula about five minutes later.) Cc. the talks on yt by Paul Cantor, a far more serious scholar of the play, and one who gets that while gender issues in it do have importance, they are secondary to the overtly political issues, and the "politics of honor/virtue/rhetoric/honesty" issues. And don't bother with the fail-grade Ralph Fiennes film adaptation. CS
@@mygoogleemail2063 You assume there is a necessity to do so. I like a world where 2 parties have the right to be shot gun dismissive if they choose to be. That's the point. My rejections or tolerance DO NOT have to be viewed as an abundance or on the other hand, a lack of enlightenment or so called political progress. It's called dont tell me or anyone else what I must or must not accept. And at the same time it's important to remind d certain people that my lack of tolerance has nothing to do with the absence of information they feel they possess. Stupid Ego trip disguised as a simple intellectual exercise.
Well worth sitting through. Felt there should have been an applause at the end but I guess delivering these lectures is just bread and butter to these Harvard types.
And I was exhausted just listening to it.
Garber's Shakespeare lectures are excellent introductions to the plays. Her readings are informed and authoritative. Her book Shakespeare After All is the best synthesis of critical analyses and modern commentary on the plays available, as well providing her own valuable insights into each play. Every time I read a Sh play, I always reread the related Garber essay. It always add materially to the pleasure of reading the play.
I guess I am kind of randomly asking but do anybody know of a good place to watch newly released movies online ?
@Lian Asher Try FlixZone. Just google for it :)
@Houston Trent Definitely, been watching on flixzone for months myself =)
@Houston Trent thanks, I signed up and it seems to work :) I appreciate it !!
@Lian Asher Happy to help :D
civilization will be saved thanks to uploading these lectures .... THANK YOU !
I think Coriolanus is like Othello they are both hero's who can deal well with the sword more than words. Thanks for the lecture
Othello is extremely articulate though (at first anyway). Coriolanus is not.
0
Intriguingly, as Garber highlights in her lecture on Othello, his martial prowess is an entirely informed attribute. He never fights, over the entire course of the play.
These lectures are great. Thank you for posting.
Really enjoyed this discussion of a great play. So glad this is available.
This play seems like a character sketch of the archetypal warrior. Perhaps even of Ares/Mars. He serves the mother city, and his mother, but despises the weakness of the civilian. He is too monstrous to be given yet more power, though by all his deeds he deserves it. Ultimately betrayed by everyone... sounds like the plight of a soldier, historically at least.
Try the Paul Cantor lectures. He has written more than one book on the Roman plays.
re citizens --she makes the classic error of a teacher--she asks a question to which she has an answer and invites the students to guess her answer
quite good, very useful, sane, perceptive.
This was recorded in November 2007. A year later, the Great Recession made this play even more relevant, with all the 1 v. 99 percent people. So Glad this play has made a comeback.
The plebians caused the Recession.
Theses 47% were not satisfied with corn(fast food).
The Obama voters ate their homes.
Unpaid equity loans crashed Wall Street and American Insurance Group
This woman's hands put Italians to shame
Saw Paul Schofield play Corioanus --unmatched
The question of "citizen" as a dramatic unit in Coriolanus is interesting precisely in its intersection with Roman anthropology: the citizen was the basic unit of Republican identity, the only persons with legal franchise, and in general, initially those persons who could outfit themselves for military service (however haphazardly). And having read Livy, Shakespeare presumably knows this, that citizenship has a martial dimension, and positions the citizens as those who may have intimate, battlefield knowledge of Gnaeus Marcius in contradistinction, perhaps, to the Tribunes and Menenius, the other patricians and even his mother, who lacks legal franchise but remains as committed to certain ideals of Roman Manhood that a common citizen may neglect in favor of, y'know, food.
Thank you.
Shakespeare's Most Political Play
Nice class
Honestly if Coriolanus just told his mom, Volumnia to stay in Antium and don't back to Rome where he and Aufidius will attack. Let his family be safe in Antium away from backstabbing Rome. Then Aufidius who wanted to defeat Rome had his mission done, wouldn't kill Coriolanus and have a great warrior at his side. The way how Augustus had Agrippa.
Honestly Volumnia sucks as a mother. She doesn't and never tries to understand why Coriolanus took the Volscians side. She only cared about HER image to the corrupted Rome. And I get why the Volscians stabbed Coriolanus to death, he was the gateway to defeating Rome and in the end he didn't do his purpose for his new adopted country.
1:04:26 Macbeth
COUNCIL? WHAT COUNCIL?
I WOULD BE COUNCIL. YOUR VOICES? LOL
Came here looking for a lecture that explained this play in terms of classical models of tragic drama. This obviously (and explicitly) wasn't that, and I'm not sure I agree with the various ways in which it framed the play, but it was insightful and thought-provoking nevertheless. Thanks for sharing.
The atmosphere emanating from this lecture is very anti-coriolanic
Its silly to not set the play in Rome, its the surest way to miss the bards point.
And what point would that be?
The instructor could be a little more dramatic and particular in choosing selected elements of the play on which to focus. Her narrative is too long-winded in general, and meandering.
1:05:26 Bingo
9:23 Ummm no. Nice try. Can we skip running Shakespeare through this messed up political agenda Mangirl? Enough already.
Your "Mangirl" label is too rude, but yes, the obsession of aughties academics and their proggie spawn with some supposedly super-important theory of "the body," and linking it to identity-grievance analysis/politics, never ceases to amaze. Sorry to see that Prof. Garber was among those honoring that trend. (I do like her question at 40:51, which the class fails to respond to with any depth. And her dismissal of a pat "tragic hero" formula about five minutes later.) Cc. the talks on yt by Paul Cantor, a far more serious scholar of the play, and one who gets that while gender issues in it do have importance, they are secondary to the overtly political issues, and the "politics of honor/virtue/rhetoric/honesty" issues. And don't bother with the fail-grade Ralph Fiennes film adaptation. CS
@@carlscott4180 Garber is not really in that school. Read her book on the plays. She does a deep dive of close reading of the text.
I'm beginning to think wokeism is all about selling a product.
"look kids! This play is about transgenders! Take my class and we can talk about it!"
@@mygoogleemail2063 This presentation is not Wokeism.
@@mygoogleemail2063 You assume there is a necessity to do so. I like a world where 2 parties have the right to be shot gun dismissive if they choose to be. That's the point. My rejections or tolerance DO NOT have to be viewed as an abundance or on the other hand, a lack of enlightenment or so called political progress. It's called dont tell me or anyone else what I must or must not accept. And at the same time it's important to remind d certain people that my lack of tolerance has nothing to do with the absence of information they feel they possess. Stupid Ego trip disguised as a simple intellectual exercise.